THE RELATIONSHIP OF HERITAGE LANGUAGE/CULTURE EDUCATION WITH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: A STUDY OF THE 1.5 AND 2ND GENERATION OF KOREAN AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS by JUYOUNG CHUNG A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2012 ii DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Juyoung Chung Title: The Relationship of Heritage Language/Culture Education with Academic Achievement: A Study of the 1.5 and 2nd Generation of Korean American High School Students This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership by: Kathleen Scalise Chairperson Akihito Kamata Member Keith Hollenbeck Member Edward M. Olivos Outside Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research & Innovation/Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded March 2012 iii © 2012 JUYOUNG CHUNG iv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Juyoung Chung Doctor of Philosophy Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership March 2012 Title: The Relationship of Heritage Language/Culture Education with Academic Achievement: A Study of the 1.5 and 2nd Generation of Korean American High School Students This study examines the relationship between heritage language/culture education and academic achievements of some 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American high school students in Eugene, Springfield, Beaverton, and Portland, Oregon. Previous literature suggests that ethnic culture/heritage language acquisition and academic achievements are related. Through combining self-completion questionnaires, quantitative surveys and in- depth, qualitative case studies, this study seeks to answer the following main research question: Is there a relationship in the sample group between exposure to Korean language/cultural education and academic achievement for 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American students? The findings of this study could inform on aspects of U.S. multilingual and cultural education policies for school systems, providing some suggestions for vitalizing foreign language and culture education and expanding language immersion programs. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Juyoung Chung GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership, 2012, University of Oregon Master of Arts, Administration and Education, 2005, University of Oregon Bachelor of Fine Arts, Multimedia and Education, 2002, University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, Social Work, 1985, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Asian American Studies; Racial and Ethnic Identity Development; Multicultural and Multilanguage Education Studies; Social Segregation and Interracial intimacy; Race and Ethnic Relations Studies; and Immigrant Adaptation PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Assistant Professor, The Graduate School of Education, Pyeongtaek University, Pyeongtaek, Korea, August 2011-Present Education Program and Design Developer, Center for Educational Technology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, January 2003-August 2011 Program Director, Korean Culture and Language School, Portland, Oregon, September 2002-June 2011 Web Master, AAD Program, School of Architecture & Allied Arts, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, March 2004-June 2004 Senior Director, Education Research & Development Center, Seoul, Korea, March 1997-September 1998 vi Program Director, Korea Family Research Center, Seoul, Korea, September 1987-February 1997 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: David Moursund Scholarship, College of Education, University of Oregon, 2007 GTF, Arts Arts & Administration Program, University of Oregon, 2003-2004 Kerns/McClung Scholarships, University of Oregon, 2003- 2004 Kenneth S. Ghent Scholarships, University of Oregon, 2001-2002 Pressman Family Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2001-2002 Maude Kerns Art Center Volunteer Award, Maude Kerns Art Center, 2004 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who have contributed to the completion of this manuscript. I wish to express sincere appreciation to my advisor Dr. Kathleen Scalise. She skillfully mentored and guided my research. She is not only my advisor, but is also my mentor. Without her insight, extraordinary patience, and tempered advice I would not have come so far nor been able to imagine how many new possibilities there are. In addition, special thanks are due to David Lim, Senior Advisor, Holt International Children’s Services, whose familiarity with the needs and ideas of the Korean American community was helpful during the early programming phase of this undertaking. I am grateful for my committee, Dr. Akihito Kamata, Dr. Keith Hollenbeck, and Dr. Edward M. Olivos, for their genuine enthusiasm and interest in this topic. I also thank the pastors of Korean churches, principals of Korean heritage language and culture schools, and directors of Korean community centers, and Korean American students and their parents who participated in my research project. I also would like to give my special thanks to Katy Bogart and Jasmine Park who have always had unfailing help for my research project. Lastly, I wish to express deep and heartfelt thanks to my daughter, Adeline Chaewon, for her love, patience, and understanding during my study. viii Dedicated to my mom and dad ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 Background of the Study ....................................................................................... 2 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................... 7 Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................... 9 Research Questions................................................................................................ 11 Definitions and Interpretations .............................................................................. 12 Heritage Language ........................................................................................... 12 Culture .............................................................................................................. 14 Ethnic Identity.................................................................................................. 15 Acculturation and Heritage Language/Culture ...................................................... 19 Acculturation Process and Adaptation............................................................. 19 Segmented Assimilation .................................................................................. 21 Acculturation and Heritage Language/Culture ................................................ 22 The Effects of Heritage Language/Culture on Ethnic Identity Formation ...... 24 Cultural Influence on Academic Achievement...................................................... 29 The Cultural Context of Education .................................................................. 29 High Academic Achievement and Asian Cultural Values............................... 30 Korean American Student and Academic Performance ........................................ 33 Academic Achievement and Korean Value..................................................... 33 Korean Language/Culture Education and Academic Achievement ................ 37 Identifying the Research Questions and Hypothesis ............................................. 39 x Chapter Page II. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 40 Introduction............................................................................................................ 40 Study Design.......................................................................................................... 42 Quantitative Phase ................................................................................................. 44 Qualitative Phase ................................................................................................... 44 Pilot Study for Both Survey Heritage Language/ Culture Inventory and In-depth Interview ................................................................................................................ 46 Heritage Language/ Culture Inventory Refinement......................................... 48 Interview Protocol Refinement ........................................................................ 56 Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................. 57 Participants....................................................................................................... 57 Quantitative Data Analysis .............................................................................. 58 Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................ 59 Controls for Threats to Validity............................................................................. 60 III. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 61 Sample and Response Rates................................................................................... 61 Descriptive Data..................................................................................................... 62 Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 67 Factor Analysis for Student Data..................................................................... 67 Factor Analysis for Parent Data....................................................................... 70 Item Response Model ...................................................................................... 72 Research Question 1 .............................................................................................. 88 xi Chapter Page Model Assumption........................................................................................... 89 Result of Overall Regression ........................................................................... 94 Correlation Studies for Research Questions 2 and 3 ............................................. 96 Qualitative Analysis of Respondents in the Open-ended Survey .......................... 100 In-depth Interview.................................................................................................. 111 Case Selection.................................................................................................. 111 Analysis of Respondents in the Interview ....................................................... 114 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................. 131 Introduction............................................................................................................ 131 Summary of the Study ........................................................................................... 131 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 132 Discussions ............................................................................................................ 137 Results as They Relate to the Research Questions .......................................... 138 Conclusions and Implications for Future Research ............................................... 152 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 156 A. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS ............................................................ 156 B. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS ............................................................... 166 C. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS (KOREAN)........................................... 174 D. IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS............................. 180 E. IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PARENTS................................ 183 F. STUDENT KOREAN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION/USE PATTERN ITEMS............................................................................................................... 185 xii Chapter Page G. STUDENT SCHOOL PERFORMANCE AND FUTURE PLAN ITEMS.............................................................................................................. 186 H. STUDENT ETHNIC IDENTITY/PRACTICE OF KOREAN CULTURE ITEMS.............................................................................................................. 187 I. PARENT ETHNIC IDENTITY/PRACTICE OF KOREAN CULTURE ITEMS.............................................................................................................. 188 REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................ 189 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1. Conceptual Model............................................................................................... 10 1.2. My Illustration of Tse’s 4-stage ethnic Identity Development Model............... 26 2.1. Visual Model for Mixed-methods Sequential Explanatory Design Procedures........................................................................................................... 43 3.1. Scree Plot for Student Survey Data Factor Analysis Extraction Stage............... 69 3.2. Scree Plot for Parent Survey Data Factor Analysis Extraction Stage................. 71 3.3. Item Fit Display for Student Korean Language Acquisition and Use Pattern.... 73 3.4. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) Distribution.......................................... 74 3.5. Empirically Estimated Wright Map for Student Korean Language Acquisition and Use Pattern ................................................................................................... 76 3.6. Graphic Wright Map for Student Korean Language Acquisition and Use Pattern ................................................................................................................. 77 3.7. Item Fit Display for Student School Performance and Future Plan.................... 78 3.8. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) Distribution.......................................... 78 3.9. Graphic Wright Map for Student School Performance and Future Plan ............ 79 3.10. Empirically Estimated Wright Map for Student School Performance and Future Plan .......................................................................................................... 80 3.11. Item Fit Display for Student Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture .......... 82 3.12. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) Distribution.......................................... 82 3.13. Empirically Estimated Wright Map for Student Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture.................................................................................................... 84 3.14. Graphic Wright Map for Student Korean Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture................................................................................................................. 85 xiv Figure Page 3.15. Item Fit Display for Parent Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture ........... 85 3.16. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) Distribution.......................................... 86 3.17. Empirically Estimated Wright Map for Parent Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture.................................................................................................... 87 3.18. Graphic Wright Map for Parent Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture ..... 88 3.19. Histogram of Residual ........................................................................................ 90 3.20. Histogram of Student School Performance/Future Plan..................................... 90 3.21. Histogram of Student Korean Language Acquisition/Use Pattern ..................... 91 3.22. Histogram of Student Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture ..................... 91 3.23. Scatterplots of Residual ...................................................................................... 92 3.24. Normal Q-Q Plots of Displays Indices for the Student School Performance ..... 92 3.25. Normal Q-Q Plots of Displays Indices for the Student Korean Language Acquisition/Use Pattern ...................................................................................... 93 3.26. Normal Q-Q Plots of Displays Indices for the Student Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture ............................................................................................... 93 xv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1. Definitions............................................................................................................. 18 2.1. Configuration for Examining this Study............................................................... 41 2.2. Items for Student Ethnic Identity ......................................................................... 49 2.3. Items for Student Heritage Language Acquisition ............................................... 52 2.4. Items for Student Practice of Korean Culture ...................................................... 53 2.5. Items for Student Academic Achievement and Future Plan ................................ 55 3.1. Demographic Statistics for Students .................................................................... 63 3.2. Demographic Statistics for Parents ...................................................................... 65 3.3. Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample............................................................. 89 3.4. Overall Results for Regression Model Predicting Student School Performance/ Future Plans .......................................................................................................... 95 3.5. Regression Coefficients for Model Predicting Student School Performance/ Future Plans .......................................................................................................... 95 3.6. Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample............................................................. 96 3.7. Correlations Among Variables ............................................................................ 97 3.8. Overall Results for Regression Model Predicting Student School Performance/Future Plans.................................................................................... 99 3.9. Regression Coefficients for Model Predicting Student School Performance/ Future Plans ......................................................................................................... 99 3.10. Student Responses to Open-Ended Question for Student Ethnic Identity.......... 101 3.11. Parent Responses to Open-Ended Question for Parent Ethnic Identity.............. 103 3.12. Student Responses to Open-Ended Question for Student Perception of Korean Culture................................................................................................................. 104 xvi Table Page 3.13. Student Responses to Open-Ended Question for Student Perception of Comparison of Preference between Korean and American Culture................... 106 3.14. Student Responses to Question for Feeling about Cultural Conflict with Parent .................................................................................................................. 107 3.15. Student Responses to Open-Ended Questions for Student Perception of their Future Plan .......................................................................................................... 108 3.16. Parents Responses to Open-Ended Questions for Parents’ Perception of Children’s Future Plan ........................................................................................ 109 3.17. Student Responses to Open-Ended Questions for Academic Index ................... 110 3.18. Descriptive for Participants Group ..................................................................... 114 3.19. Brief Profiles of Students Selected for Case Study Analysis ............................. 115 3.20. Brief Profiles of Parents Selected for Case Study Analysis ............................... 115 3.21. Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Student Ethnic Identity......... 117 3.22. Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Student Korean Culture Acquisition.......................................................................................................... 119 3.23. Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Student Korean Language Acquisition.......................................................................................................... 121 3.24. Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Student Academic Achievement/Future Plan.................................................................................... 123 3.25. Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Parent Ethnic Identity........... 125 3.26. Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Parent Language Use Pattern ................................................................................................................. 128 3.27. Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Parents’ Perception of Their Children’s Academic Achievement/Future Plan ................................................ 129     1   CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As the American school system grows increasingly diverse, heritage language status and attitudes toward heritage culture have been associated in some studies with achievement and success in school. This is especially true for Asian cultures.   Several Asian American scholars’ studies show that Asian-American students who have greater interest in their ethnic culture and language have better academic achievement than their counterparts (Lee, 2002). Moreover, Korean students typify the connection between ethnic culture, language, and academic achievement.  You (2005) found that 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean high school students who achieved higher academic achievement levels also attended Korean language and culture school, and spoke Korean at home. Here, the 1.5 generation is defined as those who were born and partially raised in Korea but came to the America before school age. Second (2nd) generation of Korean American students are defined as those who were born in the United States. According to Lee’s study (2002), Korean American students who valued the acculturation process (while not fully assimilating by adapting to the mainstream culture but preserving their heritage language and culture) had superior academic achievement levels compared to those students who were most interested in the assimilation process and who more completely adopted the values and life styles of the dominant culture. Interestingly, few research studies have been conducted exploring the relationship between academic achievement and ethnic cultural and language influences of this type (Lee, 1996).     2   Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between Korean heritage language/culture education and academic achievement in the 1.5 and 2nd generation of Korean American high school students. Many 1.5 generation immigrants identify with both their heritage culture and American culture. They may develop an intercultural identity through a process of acculturation, in which they both understand and incorporate aspects of the American culture into their own lives. The 2nd generation began their social life and formal education in the United States and more of them may accept American culture as their own culture. Background of the Study Some recent studies claim that bilingualism and biculturalism have a positive effect on the academic achievement of immigrant students (You, 2005; Lee, 2002). According to this perspective, immigrant students who are fluent bilinguals can use their native language ability to maintain beneficial aspects of their ethnic cultural values. Bilingual students have better access to the ethnic and cultural capital of their parents than do their monolingual counterparts (Bankston & Zhou, 1998). Research has also shown that heritage language maintenance is associated with positive outcomes for immigrant students, and students who studied their heritage language and culture have been reported to achieve significantly higher levels of academic achievement (Lee, 2002; Portes & Schauffler, 1995) as well as greater educational and occupational aspirations (Suarez, 2007), higher self-esteem (Phinney et al., 2000), and a strong cultural identity and strong parent-child communication (Lee, 2002; Rumbaut, 2000).     3   For Asian American students, some studies have documented that they have higher achievement scores, lower dropout rates, and higher college entrance rates than other students (Hsia & Peng, 1998; Lee, 2002; Portes & Schauffler, 1995), as well as higher percentages of high school and college graduates (Sue & Ozaki, 1990). According to College Board SAT data from the year 2007, Asian Americans achieved the highest scores among all ethnic groups on the mathematical portion of the SAT. Asian Americans also earned the highest average composite SAT reading and math scores (College Board, 2007). Moreover, Asian Americans earned the highest average ACT composite score (ACT, Inc., 2007). Immigrant children are keenly aware of their reception and the way they are received plays a critical role in their adaptation (De Vos, 1980). Ethnic minority students face many social and structural risks and challenges in the United States (Lee, 1996), and a stronger identification with an ethnic minority identity has been related to perceiving more ethnic group barriers and discrimination and having a higher awareness of group stigma and stereotypes (Crocker, & Major, 1989). Because of this, some have suggested that a stronger ethnic group identity necessarily places youth at risk for decreased academic engagement (Rosenbloom, & Way, 2004). However, there is more support from emerging theory and research that a strong, positive sense of racial identity relates to more positive achievement values and may help adolescents maintain positive academic motivation and engagement when they perceive group barriers or have negative race-related experiences (Lee, 2005).     4   Like other minority students, Korean American students also face many challenges, but their academic achievement is often attributed to Korean cultural values, such as hard work, respect for teachers, and living up to parental expectations (Lee, 2005). In this sense, Korean American students may face perceptions from others that are positive or neutral rather than negative in U.S. schools, and therefore offer support for continuing strong affiliations to heritage practices such as language learning and cultural participation. Even many Asian American students with disadvantaged backgrounds have been found to have high academic achievement in school (Caplan, Choy, & Whitmore, 1992). Overall in educational research, the literature on socioeconomic status (SES) and academic achievement outcomes has shown that SES often is an important factor in children’s academic achievement and this influence has been well studied (Haveman & Wolfe, 1995; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997). Even though SES is probably the most widely used contextual variable in education research, less well understood for Korean American students is the relationship of academic achievement to ethnic heritage language proficiency and culture understanding when SES is controlled, or when students of similar family economic status and access to resources are compared. This has been explored for this sample group in this study, see the Results section. Looking more broadly, researchers have speculated as to why Asian American students often perform better academically than other minority groups. Studies have shown that Asians do not have higher intelligence than other ethnic groups (Stevenson et. al., 1993). The hypothesis of a relationship between heritage language and cultural     5   education for Asian American students and academic achievement has drawn attention from educators. A variety of theories suggest why such a relationship may exist. Two to be taken up here can be summarized as: (a) heritage language/culture education contributes to ethnic identity formation, which in turn instills a stronger sense of cultural values, including for Asian Americans a strong emphasis on education; and (b) studying a heritage language helps students develop and strengthen skills that are academically beneficial, such as creativity and cognitive flexibility. Exploring the first hypothesis, heritage language and cultural development can be an important part of identity formation and can help one retain a strong sense of belonging to one’s own ethnic group (Cho, Cho & Tse, 1997). Min and Kim (2002) pointed out that Asian American children increasingly accepted their heritage ethnic and racial identities, showed more interest in their ethnic culture and became more confident about themselves and took pride in their ethnic and racial background. Multiple studies have shown that Asian American students exhibiting interest in their ethnic cultural identity have better academic achievement than students who are not interested in their cultural identity (Lee, 2002; Bankston & Zhou, 1995; Dolson, 1985; García-Vázquez, Vázquez, López, & Ward, 1997; Hao & Bonstead Bruns, 1998; Rumberger & Larson, 1998). In turn, as one increasingly identifies with an ethnic group, the cultural values held by that group gain significance. A major Asian American value is the importance of education, according to many scholars (Caplan, Choy, & Whitmore, 1992; Marx & Kim,     6   1999); thus Asian Americans often are more successful in school in part because their culture emphasizes the value of education. Those who have developed their heritage language skills and who have more information on which to base ethnic and cultural identity may have greater understanding and knowledge of cultural values, ethics and manners (Cho, 2000). Furthermore, superior levels of achievement in mathematics and science by Korean, Chinese, and Japanese children have been consistently reported in cross-national studies (Comber & Keeves, 1973; Stevenson et al., 1993; Stevenson, Lee, & Sigler, 1986). In America, the often superior educational and occupational achievements of Asians have been documented (Vernon, 1982). This superiority has led to the widely accepted concept of Asians being a high-performing model minority. Identity formation that involves striving to meet this model leads to intellectual, academic, and socioeconomic achievements. In other words, as students embrace their ethnic identity, the Asian model minority becomes a self-fulfilling identity role. According to the second hypothesis, studying a heritage language helps students develop and strengthen skills that are academically beneficial, such as creativity and cognitive flexibility. Many studies emphasizing academic success as an instrumental motivation show that students learning their heritage languages are likely to have cognitive flexibility, creativity or divergent thought, which in turn could lead to greater academic achievement (Hakuta, 1986; Lambert, 1977). This is because learning more than one language through which to view the world leads to the understanding that language is arbitrary and ambiguous; this flexibility teaches students to consider or even     7   create alternate solutions rather than assuming there can only be one correct answer. According to Cho’s (2000) survey, Korean American students with greater interest in their language and cultural identity showed better academic achievement than those who were uninterested because they had greater motivation for diversified learning experiences and interests. This hypothesis centered on accepting and supporting the children’s language and culture, while allowing them the opportunity to experience diversity in thinking and practice. In general, heritage language and cultural development can be an important part of identity formation and can help one retain a strong sense of identity and belonging to one’s own ethnic group (Cho, Cho & Tse, 1997). Min and Kim (2002) pointed out that Asian-American children increasingly accepted their heritage ethnic and racial identities, showing more interest in their ethnic culture and becoming more confident about themselves and taking pride in their ethnic and racial background. According to Zhou and Bankston’s (1998) study, Korean children who speak, read and write Korean also study English and reach higher levels of performance in other subjects in general in comparison to those who have not retained their native language. Statement of the Problem Multiculturalists assert that heritage language learning motivation is intrinsically different from the motivation for foreign or second language acquisition (Chinen & Tucker, 2005). The core of the argument is that students’ interest in heritage languages is driven by their cultural awareness. Student desire for understanding of who they are leads     8   to a greater effort to learn their own cultures and heritage languages. They also have more access to native language speakers, and immersive language opportunities. As such, the high levels of heritage language proficiency may result from students’ situated cognition and their intrinsic values and cultural awareness. In the United States, a country built by immigrants, the failure to acknowledge the impact of culture could hinder efforts to educate all students to their maximum potential. Knowledge of heritage language and a child’s culture acquisition can play an important role in personal, social, and academic achievement (Cho, 2000). Consideration of the benefits of maintaining a heritage language and culture implies a need for a greater effort to further understand the occurrence of language and culture maintenance and shift among minority groups. A limited number of in-depth studies have focused on the relationship between the 1.5/2nd generation of Korean American students’ academic achievement and degree of both Korean language and Korean culture acquisition (Cho, Cho & Tse, 1997; Bankston & Zhou, 1995; Rumberger & Larson, 1998). It is important to consider both language and culture education; while language may be a gateway to a culture, it is possible to learn a language in isolation from its corresponding cultural values. Measuring the students’ culture acquisition as well allows for a more accurate representation of how connected a student has become to Korean culture. In turn, this leads to a more accurate assessment of the relationship between Korean American academic achievement and Korean heritage education.     9   Conceptual Framework A conceptual framework is described as a set of broad ideas and principles taken from relevant fields of enquiry and used to structure a subsequent presentation (Reichel & Ramy, 1987). An articulated conceptual framework has potential usefulness as a tool to scaffold research and to assist a researcher to make meaning of subsequent findings. In prior work, I conducted a pilot survey and in-depth interviews on the relationship between heritage language/culture and academic achievement for Korean American high school students. This work provided me with a foundation for my conceptual framework because I could draw on it to help devise a common language, guiding principles and points of reference. The analysis of the personal narratives and survey data from my study revealed several ways in which ethnic identity and heritage language/culture influenced academic achievement for the Korean American adolescents. Figure 1.1 shows the conceptual model for this relationship, and presents an initial hypothesis for this study regarding how various elements are related. This model examines the relationship between heritage language/culture education and students’ academic achievement. This model includes measures of level of heritage language/culture acquisition, language use pattern, education aspiration, and parents' and students' ethnic identity. As described in the Chapter II, measures of heritage language include reading, writing, speaking, and listening Korean, as well as respondents’ perception, practice, and attitude toward Korean culture measure culture acquisition status. Parent and student self- perceptions of ethnic identity are also explored, using both survey data and in-depth     10   qualitative case studies, and student achievement in school is examined using respondents’ self-reported grade point average as measure of academic achievement. More information is provided in Chapter II. Latent variable: theoretical construct Measured variables: observed Aggregate data Represents hypothesized two-way relationship to be investigated Figure 1.1. Conceptual model Students' ethnic identity-construct I Parents' ethnic identity-construct I - parents Level of Korean language acquisition -construct 2 Language use pattern -construct 2 ------• ',,• A t. Self-report of student ethnic identity (SE!) --~-~ ~--- -~------1"--:1, --- - - i>A2. Parent ethnic identity (PEI , Heritage language acquisition (HL) as indicator of student ethnic identi ty Practice of Korean culture (PKC) as indicator of student ethnic identity Attitude/ perceptions/ practice of Korean culture-constmct 3 D, Academic performance and educational plans for future (Al) -Construct 4     11   Research Questions As described in the purpose of the study, this study explored the role that heritage language/culture education played in helping the 1.5 and 2nd generation of Korean American high school students develop a strong academic achievement and ethnic identity formation, which in turn instilled a stronger sense of cultural values. One-point-five and 2nd generation of the Korean American high school students in Oregon were used to investigate whether Korean heritage language and culture education influenced their academic achievement. Exploring the hypothesis assumes that heritage language and cultural development are an important part of ethnic identity formation and can help one retain strong Korean cultural values, which emphasizes the value of education. In examining the relationship between heritage culture and language acquisition degree and the 1.5 and 2nd generation of Korean American students’ academic achievement, three research questions were answered: 1. Is there a relationship between 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American students' Korean language/cultural education acquisition and their level of academic achievement? 2. Does an exploration of student level of heritage language acquisition in this sample group establish any links with student views of cultural self-identity? 3. Can any relationship be identified between the parents’ level of cultural identity and their children’s level of cultural identity, within this study?     12   Definitions and Interpretations Heritage Language The term heritage language refers to the language that immigrants spoke in their home country, or the language that one’s parents spoke in their home country. It tends to be closely related to ethnicity. The bulk of scholarship on heritage language concerns immigrants whose second language is English and whose first or heritage language is that of their original or “home” country, and their children. Valdés offered community language, native language, and mother tongue as synonyms for heritage language, and native speakers, quasi-native speakers, residual speakers, bilingual speakers, and home- background speakers as synonyms for heritage language learners/speakers (1997). Such a wealth of terms is appropriate as it suggests a multiplicity of experiences: there is a great range of viewpoint regarding language and skill level among heritage language learners/speakers. There is no single widely accepted definition of a heritage language learner/speaker. Wiley (2001) attributed this to confusion about “whether it is the affiliation with an ethnolinguistic group or the proficiency in the language that is more salient in determining who a heritage language learner is" (p. 30). Van Deusen-Scholl (2003) captured this diversity in her definition of “a heterogeneous group ranging from fluent native speakers to non-speakers who may be generations removed, but who may feel culturally connected to a language” (p. 221). According to Van Deusen-Scholl, only those speakers who were exposed to the language and culture in the home are truly     13   heritage learners; those who look to recapture a distant ethnic heritage by studying its language are instead “learners with a heritage motivation” (p. 222). The term heritage language can sometimes be used to signify languages other than the dominant language in a given social context. In the United States, English is the de facto dominant language; thus, languages other than English are often thought of and referred to as foreign languages. However, many people who live in the United States have cultural connections to and know languages other than English. These languages are not foreign to particular individuals or communities; instead, they are familiar in a variety of ways. The term heritage language can be used to describe any of these connections between a language and a person, a family, or a community. Heritage language is an important symbol of ethnic identity and ethnic identity is closely related to a heritage language, according to scholars, (Baker, 2001; Cho, 2000), and they describe heritage language as one of the cultural attributes that has the strongest effect of maintaining solidarity in an ethnic group. According to Giles et. al. (1977), “in- group speech can serve as a symbol of ethnic identity” (p. 319).   Furthermore, language is a fundamental source of ethnic identity since it is often established at a very early age, primarily within the context of the family. Korean American students may learn Korean heritage language to connect to or reconnect to their heritage, as well as to define their ethnic and cultural identity (Cho, Cho, & Tse, 1997; He, 2006; Hinton, 1999; Kondo-Brown, 2003; Lee, 2002). These heritage learners may have socio-psychological needs that are different from those who are learning Korean as a foreign language (Cho, Cho, & Tse, 1997; Kondo-Brown, 2003;     14   Lee, 2002, 2005b; Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001; Valdés, 1997; Wiley, 2001). As Korean is increasingly learned by individuals with little or no direct access to daily interactions in the language, the definition of Korean heritage language learner must be sufficiently broad to include a variety of life circumstances, histories, and language learning motivations. Based on the definitions proposed by Valdés (2001) and Van Deusen-Scholl (2003), Korean heritage language learners are defined here as those who have an ethnolinguistic affiliation to the Korean heritage, but may have a broad range of proficiency from high to just beginning to learn Korean oral or literacy skills. Culture Gunew (1994) presented two definitions of the term culture. One is the sociological or anthropological definition, which defines culture as “every aspect of life.” (p. 2). It is an inclusive notion of the various elements of everyday life. He proposes that one definition of culture was “the informing spirit of a whole way of life, which is manifest over the whole range of social activities but is most evident in specifically cultural activities.” (p. 11). In this definition, culture is constructed in much the same way as ethnic boundaries were built: by the actions of individuals and groups and their interactions with the larger society. Ethnic boundaries function to determine identity options, membership composition and size, and form of ethnic organization (Bauman, 2000). Ethnic culture provides the content and meaning of ethnicity. Ethnic culture makes ethnic boundaries real and tangible by providing a history, ideology, symbols and system     15   of meaning. It is through the construction of culture that ethnic groups interpret and reinterpret the past and the present (Nagel, 1994). Phinney (2000) elaborated on the importance of culture to better understand the implications of ethnic group membership. She argued that it is necessary to unpack the many variables of ethnicity. A common assumption about the meaning of ethnicity focuses on the cultural characteristics of a particular group, however consensus is not complete that culture is definitely one of the variables associated with ethnicity (Phinney, 2003). So while it is not always the case, some norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors often can be typical of an ethnic group, originating from a common culture of the same or similar ethnic enclaves transmitted across generations. Ethnic Identity Definitions of ethnic identity vary according to the underlying theory embraced by researchers intent on resolving its conceptual meanings. There is no sole widely agreed upon definition of ethnic identity, however ethnic identity is a concept that has been examined in a number of fields including psychology, education, and sociology. Lima and Lima (1998) defined ethnic identity as “the symbolic, significant structuring of social relations which defined the appurtenance to group, granting access to collective symbolic codes and assigning participation in the web of relations of a given community” (p. 323). They posited that a sense of this identity serves to locate a person in the groups to which they belong, ethnic group among them.     16   Cheung (1993) defined ethnic identification as "the psychological attachment to an ethnic group or heritage" (p. 1216), thus centering the construct in the domain of self- perception. Saharso (1989) extended the definition to include social processes that involve one's choice of friends, selection of a future partner, perception of their life- chances, and the reactions of others in one's social environment. Both the Chung and Saharso definitions involved boundaries where one makes a distinction between self and other. Saharso's definition extended the others boundary to include an attribution component. An individual may strongly identify psychologically with an ethnic group. However, the strength and authenticity of the identity may be contingent on the acceptance and acknowledgment of in-group and out-group members, and identifiable attributes of each from the individual’s perspective. Phinney (1990) notes that there are "widely discrepant definitions and measures of ethnic identity, which makes generalizations and comparisons across studies difficult and ambiguous" (p. 500). Currently, a widely used definition of the construct in psychology developed by Phinney (2003) maintained that “ethnic identity is a dynamic, multidimensional construct that refers to one’s identity, or sense of self as a member of an ethnic group” (p. 63). From her perspective, one claims an identity within the context of a subgroup that claims some degree of common ancestry and shares at least some aspects of a similar culture, race, religion, language, kinship, or place of origin. She stated that “ethnic identity is not a fixed categorization, but rather is a fluid and dynamic understanding of self and ethnic background. Ethnic identity is constructed and modified     17   as individuals become aware of their ethnicity, within the large (sociocultural) setting” (p. 63). Another strand of research takes a dynamic perspective of ethnic identity and is based in part on Erickson’s (1960) ego identity formation theory and Marcia’s (1980) subsequent adaptation. Erickson asserts that identity formation is a process rather than a static entity and that this process is influenced by the interaction between psychological and social factors. Identity formation is a result of a process of selective assimilations of childhood identifications and their incorporation in a new configuration. Marcia (1980) adapted Erickson’s conceptual framework to describe the formation of ethnic identity in minority individuals. Marcia described four identity statuses: (a) diffusion, (b) foreclosure, (c) moratorium, and (d) achievement. Diffusion describes someone who has not explored or committed to an identity and whose values and beliefs are derived from others, such as family or society. Foreclosure refers to a high level of commitment with little or no exploration. Moratorium is intense exploration working toward commitment. Finally, identity achievement is commitment reached after a period of exploration. Drawing on a variety of these perspectives, several studies view ethnic identity as a psychological state that can be correlated or used to predict factors such as academic achievement, and self-esteem (Gilbert, 1987; Caetano, 1987). Some of these will be explored in subsequent sections of this dissertation. Table 1.1 provides definitions of relation with ethnic identity that will be used in the succeeding discussion.     18   Table 1.1 Definitions Definitions Drawn from Author Ego identity formation theory: Identity formation is a result of a process of selective assimilations of childhood identifications and their incorporation in a new configuration. Erickson, 1960 Ethnic Identity: Marcia adapted Erickson’s conceptual framework to describe the formation of ethnic identity in minority individuals. Marcia described four identity statuses: diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement. Diffusion describes someone who has not explored or committed to an identity and whose values and beliefs are derived from others, such as family or society. Foreclosure refers to a high level of commitment with little or no exploration. Moratorium is intense exploration working toward commitment. Identity achievement is commitment reached after a period of exploration. Marcia, 1980 Acculturation: The process of acculturation results in direct lifestyle changes at the individual or group level and can be seen as developed in three directions: contact, conflict, and adaptation Padilla, 1980 Acculturation: Schumann describes acculturation as the social and psychological integration of second language learners with the target language group. Within his acculturation model, Schumann points out that social adaptation is an integration strategy that involves second language learners’ adjustment to the lifestyles and values of the target language group while maintaining their own lifestyle and values for intragroup use. Schumann, 1986 Ethnic Identity: Phinney maintains that ethnic identity is a dynamic, multidimensional construct that refers to one’s identity, or sense of self as a member of an ethnic group. Phinney, 1990 Ethnic Identity Formation: Tse proposed a four-stage model of ethnic identity development focusing on attitudes toward the heritage and majority languages. The four stages in Tse’s model included unawareness, ethnic ambivalence/evasion, ethnic emergence, and ethnic identity incorporation. Tse’s model is specifically based on HL/culture. Tse, 2000     19   Acculturation and Heritage Language/Culture Acculturation Process and Adaptation Studies conducted on acculturation have focused on defining, conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring acculturation (Graves, 1967; Olmedo, 1980; Padilla, 1980). While many definitions have been given for acculturation, Redfield, Lenton and Herskovits’ (1936) definition has become commonly used among researchers: Acculturation is the process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between cultural groups and their individual members. Acculturation is a process that occurs as the result of first hand contact between autonomous groups leading to changes in the original cultures of either or both of the cultures. In essence, acculturation is a way to describe the adaptation process of diverse individuals to the dominant culture. Padilla (1980) presented three directions as the process of acculturation: (a) contact, (b) conflict, and (c) adaptation. Padilla’s phases recognized the importance of multicultural societies, minority individuals and groups, and the fact that individuals have a choice in the matter of how far they are willing to go in the acculturation process. This model also was an advance because it specified important culture-related information that changes with intergroup contact and what aspects of culture might be more resistant to change with intercultural contact. The process of acculturation results in direct lifestyle changes at the individual or group level and can be seen as developed in three directions: contact, conflict, and adaptation (Padilla, 1980). Contact occurs when two or more autonomous cultural groups     20   interact (Mena, Padilla, & Maldonado, 1987). Conflict may occur as a result of a group or individual resisting the dominance of another group and is directly related to the level of adaptation created by the groups in conflict (Berry, 1980). Conflict results when two opposing belief systems come together, eliciting a struggle of power between two groups. Adaptation itself is described as potentially taking three forms: (a) adjustment, (b) reaction and, (c) withdrawal. In adjustment, the cultural behaviors of the minority group become similar to those of the dominant group in order to reduce conflict (Berry, 1980). These changes could include language, values, customs, and self-identification with the dominant group. In the form of reaction, the minority group may experience aggression and disagreement regarding the dominant group’s view of culture. Reactions may include forming political groups or organizations to promote the minority group’s culture. In withdrawal, adaptation takes the form of the ethnic group member withdrawing from the dominant group. This occurs in such situations as segregation and the building of communities isolated from the dominant culture. Acculturation at the individual level, referred to as psychological acculturation by Graves (1967), refers to such changes as these in attitudes, behaviors, beliefs and values in individuals. For many years some researchers have contended that to be successful in the United States, one must be assimilated to the European-American culture and that maintaining one’s culture impedes the process and subsequent success (Hofstede, 2001; Brown, 2006). Matute-Bianchi (1986) has argued that assimilation improves academic outcomes. However, research conducted by Gibson (1988) pointed to the value of the more complex view of acculturation for mainstream success. In her ethnographic study     21   on Sikh immigrant students and their families, Gibson concluded that accommodation and acculturation without assimilation supports academic success. According to Gibson, the strategy of accommodation and acculturation without assimilation involves conforming to certain rules of the dominant society and making certain cultural adaptations while preserving the group’s cultural identity. Min and Kim (2002) found that Asian-American children increasingly accept their ethnic and racial identities, showing more interest in their ethnic culture and becoming more confident about themselves and gaining pride in their ethnic and racial background. That these children simultaneously display a good understanding of mainstream cultural values (Cho, 2000) supports Gibson’s (1988) claim that acculturation may facilitate academic success, as Asian-American students often are high performers academically as discussed previously. Segmented Assimilation In 1993 Portes and Zhou proposed the Theory of Segmented Assimilation, or TSA, stating that the classic assimilation model fails to account for several important factors. According to the TSA framework, immigrants do not fall cleanly into categories such as those who assimilate versus those who acculturate. Instead, structural barriers to upward mobility may affect assimilation. Portes and Zhou propose a three-prong model: (a) immigrants and their children who are at an advantage in terms of human capital follow the classic assimilation model; while (b) those at a disadvantage, such as racialization or poverty, reject assimilation in favor of opposing the host culture via such oppositional activities as gang membership (Brown, 2006); and (c) some immigrants and     22   their children will practice a selective retention of ethnicity. Brown (2006) describes the latter model as the path that may be taken by more advantaged immigrant groups, where immigrants will “embrace traditional home-country attitudes and use them to inspire their children to achieve” (p. 21). Fernandez-Kelly and Portes (2008) ascribe this path to Asian immigrants such as Koreans, stating “the special ability of those groups to support the educational achievement of their offspring derives to a significant extent also from the contents of their culture, which entails values and beliefs that are particularly conducive to school performance” (p. 123). Aspects of such social adaptation further elucidates the concept of selective retention of cultural values, more fully described when this paper discuss Schumann’s (1986) notion of social adaptation, when a group uses an integrative strategy to negotiate between two cultures. Acculturation and Heritage Language/Culture Language has been found to be highly related to acculturation (Keefe & Padila, 1987). Tse (2000) remarked that many ethnic minorities regret not having learned their heritage language and believe that proficiency in their language would help them gain access to their own ethnic group. Fluently speaking the language of one’s heritage culture not only allows individuals to participate in their cultural communities more fully, but the speaker can also use the heritage language to indicate identification with their cultural group (Oh & Fuligni, 2007). For cultural groups who hold knowledge of a heritage language as a core     23   value, language shift can lead to a loss of ethnic identity, cultural fragmentation and nonauthentic expressions of ethnicity (Smolicz, 1992, p.291). The relationship between language and culture is important in determining the degree of acculturation. The Tong (1996) study revealed the importance of strong Chinese culture identification in students’ successful adaptation to a second language and culture. The primary focus of Tong’s study was to analyze the relationships between the levels of heritage language and second language literacy, and the social adaptation of Chinese immigrant students as they explore the first steps in becoming part of U.S. society. What is important to note for this study is the language choice made by the group which reflects how and who they want to be identified with; this in turn demonstrates for the present study how the strength of the social networks enabled the group to resist linguistic and social pressure to acculturate to the larger society. The majority of respondents Tong’s study wanted to use both languages and participate in both cultures. Schumann (1986) describes acculturation as the social and psychological integration of second language learners with the target language group. Within his acculturation model, Schumann points out that social adaptation is an integration strategy that involves second language learners’ adjustment to the lifestyles and values of the target language group while maintaining their own lifestyle and values for intragroup use. This phenomenon explores Schumann’s (1986) notion of social adaptation, when a group uses an integrative strategy to negotiate between two cultures. The group accepts to varying degrees the lifestyle and values of American society, but maintains its own lifestyle and values for intragroup use. Close association with their heritage culture and     24   language was helpful because it encouraged a sense of security that provided some respondents with the confidence to explore the main culture. Both Schumann and Tong’s studies show that maintaining heritage language and culture is important to ethnic minority children in terms of helping them have a positive ethnic identity. Min and Kim (2002) also found that heritage language development positively affects interactions and social relationships with heritage language speakers. Those who developed their heritage had a strong ethnic identity, further enhancing their interactions with heritage language speakers. The Shibata (2000) study results suggested that when children identify positively with their own ethnic group and language, they are more likely to develop positive attitudes toward other ethnic groups, and that language is an important factor in the preservation of group integrity and group identity. The Effects of Heritage Language/Culture on Ethnic Identity Formation One relationship that can be explored in language/cultural research is that of ethnic identity formation and the degree to which it develops associated with adoption of heritage language and cultural practices. In examining association of identity with language and cultural attributes, Tse (2000) proposed a four-stage model of ethnic identity development focusing on attitudes toward the heritage and majority languages (see Figure 1.2.). The four stages in Tse’s model included (a) unawareness, (b) ethnic ambivalence/evasion, (c) ethnic emergence, and (d) ethnic identity incorporation. Tse discussed the model in relation to development of heritage languages and included     25   comprehensible input and club or group membership as important factors in heritage language development. Utilizing various qualitative studies, Tse considered the possibility of heritage language acquisition during each stage of ethnic identity development. She found that during the first stage — unawareness — comprehensible input would be sufficient for a learner to acquire the heritage language, since the learner’s unawareness about being part of an ethnic group makes membership in a group a non-issue. In the second stage, ethnic ambivalence/evasion, Tse stated that a person might receive the comprehensible input, but would probably not achieve membership in an ethnic group necessary to acquire the heritage language. During the third stage, ethnic emergence, the potential heritage language learner is likely to become more interested in his or her ethnic language and culture. Therefore, if comprehensible input is available, then it is likely that heritage language acquisition can occur at this stage. Finally, in the fourth stage, ethnic identity incorporation, Tse maintained that a strong determining factor of heritage language development was the value placed by the ethnic minority group on proficiency in the heritage language. Tse’s ethnic identity development model is based on the experiences of racial minority subgroups, focusing on attitude toward the heritage and majority languages. Heritage language plays a key role in establishing an individual’s membership in a culture as well as shaping their identity. Negotiating an identity often means going back to one’s roots, reclaiming heritage membership, and relearning the language (Berry,     26   Figure 1.2. My illustration of Tse’s 4-stage ethnic identity development model 1980). The maintenance of the heritage language by immigrant children helps them to be more socialized with their ethnic group; peers easily adopt them, and the preservation of Stage 4: Ethnic Identity Incorporation • Joining the ethnic minority American group • A strong determining factor of heritage language development was the value placed by the ethnjc minority group on proficiency in the heritage language. t Stage 3: Ethnic Emergence • Experiment with alternate group as.~ociations, and many look to the ethnic homeland group for acceptance. • Becoming more interested in Heritage Language Stage 2: Ethnic Ambivalence/Evasion •Little or no interest in their ethnic heritage • Distance themselve.~ from their own group and adopt the norms and behaviors of the dominant group Stage 1: Ethnic Unawareness •Unaware of their minority status because of limited contact with other ethnic group.~ •Comprehensible input would be sufficient for a learner to acqufre the heritage language,     27   their ethnic tongue fosters a sense of solidarity among children who can speak together (Min & Kim, 2002). More broadly, Verkuyten and de Wolf’s (2002) study describes how second generation individuals with Chinese heritage living in the Netherlands account for their ethnic identity. Participants presented knowledge of a Chinese language as a central marker of ethnic identity. Language was viewed as so central that “in one group it was argued that you are a ‘fake’… Chinese when you do not speak and understand the Chinese language.” (p. 386). Language can carry symbolic or instrumental meanings. Those who continue to use a language for its symbolic meaning might speak of its heritage related to spiritual traditions and beliefs, their roots or the language of forefathers (Chumak-Horbatsch, 1990). The Oh and Fuligni (2007) study revealed that immigrant-background adolescents’ ability to communicate in their heritage language can also have important consequences for their ethnic identity. Indeed, maintaining the individual’s sense of ethnic identity is a strong argument for the maintenance of heritage languages. In the literature about language shift, which is the process when a speech community transfers or replaces their language, many researchers and educators argue for a strong link between language, ethnocultural identity, and group membership (Fishman, 1991; de Vries, 1990; Schmid, 2002). In this view, heritage languages are linked with particular cultures both because they are lexically the most appropriate to express culturally embedded concepts that may have developed in tandem with the languages and vocabularies (Fishman, 1991) and because the languages are symbols or markers of ethnicity (de Vries, 1990).     28   De Vries (1990) has argued that the maintenance of a heritage language is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the maintenance of ethnicity, while language shift is an indicator of weakening ethnic identity. Further, he argues that change in language behavior can allow a person to pass from one ethnic group to another, or to end up without an ethnic identity (de Vries, 1990). In this view, the presence of a heritage language is necessary for an authentic ethnic identity. Heritage language can contribute positively to the identity development of children in immigrant families. Specifically regarding the Korean language, Cho (2000) used a questionnaire and in-depth interviews to examine the perspectives of Korean Americans with regard to heritage language development. The results suggested that heritage language played an essential role in the interactions and relationships of heritage language speakers with second-generation Korean Americans. Competence in heritage language had a positive effect both on relationships with other heritage language speakers and on the development of a strong ethnic identity: “Those who had strong heritage language competence and a strong sense of who they were, were strongly connected to their ethnic group, and had greater understanding and knowledge of cultural values, ethics and manners.” (p. 338). Heritage language competency also helped the respondents understand their own ethnicity and to participate fully in cultural activities. Conversely, those with weaker heritage language competence tended to avoid contact with other Koreans and to participate less in cultural activities, often reporting feelings of isolation and exclusion from members of their own cultural group.     29   Cultural Influence on Academic Achievement The Cultural Context of Education Cultural values play an important role in the education of Asian immigrant students (Reglin & Adams, 1990; Sue & Okazaki, 1990). Kao (1995) found that immigration status of children and parents accounts for much more of the variation in educational outcomes among Asian students than other minority or white students. Asian Americans, Chinese and Koreans especially and to a certain extent Filipinos and Vietnamese, have distinct cultural values, such as conformity to a high emphasis on learning which are deeply rooted in the Confucian culture (Park, 1997). The Confucian cultural values emphasize obedience, dependence on the family, formality in interpersonal relationships, and restraint in expressing emotion. These core values, which embrace the principles of Confucianism, are harmony, duty, honor, respect, education and allegiance to the family (Suzuki, 1980). Education, valued more than material wealth and success, is the pillar of the Confucian culture and begins at home. Schneider and Lee (1990) also found that the cultural components that benefit East Asian children’s school performances include their cultural tradition that places a high value on education for self-improvement, self-esteem, and family honor. Sue and Kitano (1973) have also found that many social scientists attribute the educational success of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans to cultural values that promote upward mobility in the United States—values that emphasize hard work, family cohesion, patience, and thrift. However, many Asian values such as emphasis on the collective rather than on the individual, hierarchical role structures rather than egalitarian     30   relationships, and respect for authority are not fully consistent with white, middle-class values (Hirschman & Wong, 1981). In the case of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans, Suzuki (1980) took issue with a cultural interpretation of their success. Although acknowledging that respect for education is a cultural value among these three groups, he also advanced the proposition that Asian Americans came to pursue education because of their status as a minority group. The cultural argument emphasizes the effects of an ethnic group’s traits, qualities, characteristics, or behavioral patterns with which the group is either inherent ethnic group possess identifiable characteristics, that encompass cultural values, practices, and types of social network (Fukuyama, 1993). According to this view, the cultural inventory that facilitates success includes high achievement value and orientation, perseverance, future orientation, and ability to postpone immediate gratification for later rewards. High Academic Achievement and Asian Cultural Values As described in the introduction to this dissertation, some studies have shown that Asian American students on average have higher achievement scores, lower dropout rates, and higher college entrance rates than other students (Hsia & Peng, 1998), as well as higher percentages of high school and college graduates (Sue & Ozaki, 1990). As previously discussed in the Culture Context of Education section, Asian cultural values seem to contribute tremendously to high academic achievement. In this section several Asian cultural elements that contribute to the academic success of students will be discussed in more detail.     31   One of the major elements that contribute academic success is high parental expectations and involvement in the education of children. Korean, Japanese, and Chinese children often are raised in an environment that prioritizes academic achievement (Pang, 1990; Suzuki, 1980). Accomplishments are usually acknowledged in the form of parental encouragement to do even better and strive for higher levels of achievement (Reglin & Adams, 1990). Asian immigrant parents are less likely to speak to school experiences, partly because they may communicate the importance of education in more abstract terms than their more acculturated counterparts and partly because the value of education and the high levels of academic achievement parents expect from their children are assumed. According to Caplan, Choy, and Whitmore (1992), Asian immigrant households are more likely to have rules about grades and homework, which makes children aware that scholastic responsibilities assume primacy over other activities. Rumberger, Ghatak, Poulus, and Dornbusch (1990) identified that parents influence academic achievement by transmitting the appropriate values, aspirations, and motives needed to succeed in school, and parents who communicate with their children and promote responsible behavior in their children also influence student achievement. More generally, Bowen (1978) supports Rumberger, Ghatak, Poulus, and Dornbusch (1990) when he states, "an abundance of evidence based on major national studies with huge samples indicates a very strong and positive relationship between the education of parents and the measured intelligence, academic achievement, and extracurricular participation of children in school or college" (Bowen, 1978, p. 197).     32   The research of Mark & Kim (1999) is largely concerned with the effect of culture on defining achievement and achievement motivation amongst Asian Americans, especially Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese students. They found that cultural values become a more important determinant of achievement than more widely reported factors of higher educational and occupational family levels. McClelland (1971) and his colleagues (McClelland & Winter, 1969) extended the idea that was created by Weber (1930). They argued that a significant aspect of a given achievement situation is the pattern of norms that guide family behavior and child-rearing practices, in particular, establishing the child’s early learning experiences. This is because culture is in part composed of habits, such as learned tendencies to react, acquired by each individual through her/his life experience after birth (Bauman, 2000; Smith, 2000; Hofstede, 2001). Another cultural element that contributes to academic success is student self- motivation toward learning. Asian students have significantly different learning styles from Anglo students due to cultural differences in family socialization (Mark & Kim, 1999), which for many Asian students tends to be highly competitive. This may be because they tend to be strongly encouraged by their parents to achieve academic excellence, which often means striving to be the best in class (Park, 1997). For them, hard work is the rule, not the exception (Schneider & Lee, 1990). Sue & Okazaki (1990) found one major factor explaining why Asian parents have a zeal for education: they consider it a means of social and economic upward mobility. Portes and Educating (1999) found that second generation students are no different from those of native parentage in being heavily influenced by their ethnic     33   culture. In addition, however, their national background plays a significant independent role. Lockheed, Fuller and Nyirango (1989) also found that there is strong evidence that the ethnic culture background of the students' family contributes significantly to both educational attainment and achievement. Korean American Student and Academic Performance Academic Achievement and Korean Value As previously discussed in the High Academic Achievement and Asian Cultural Value section, like other Asian country’s Confucian cultural value, the value of education is an important cultural element in Korean society, because it is primarily based on Confucianism (Hurh, 1998). The Confucian ethical code, which is the essence of Korean culture, holds that the first loyalty is to the family, even above allegiance to country and religion (Hurh, 1998). The family represents a religious, economic, political, and social unit (Hong & Min, 1999). As a result, there is among all family members a strong bond, which is focused on maintenance and perpetuation of the family as a strong unit under any and all circumstances (Pang, 1990). Academic achievement and upward mobility are thus not viewed by Korean parents as personal matters but as their children's obligation for the maintenance of the family. Korean parents view their children as an investment, something which is related to their own honor, pride, and happiness. Failure of their children is difficult to accept because it would be their own failure. Failure to meet parental expectation for academic achievement is, sometimes, considered a legitimate reason for punishment, even harsh     34   punishment (Morrow & McBride, 1988). Poor grades, therefore, are viewed as culturally unacceptable behavior. Parents would do whatever they deem effective to avoid failure (Hong & Min, 1999). The ends certainly justify the means; whatever they do is considered as being good for the child. Whatever parents tell children to do is, traditionally, nonnegotiable, and it is the children's obligation to follow their parents' directions. Overt arguments seldom happen in Korean American families simply because the egalitarian relationship which provides the basis for family discussion in most American families seldom exists between traditional Korean-American parents and children. Implied in the classic Confucian Model of Filial Piety is one word: obedient. Parents' domination is looked upon as protection and love (Ho, 1994). Korean parents believe that authoritative parenting is the most effective style in raising healthy children. Authoritative parenting affects effort, which in turn affects school achievement (Steinberg, 1989). Korean American parents may not be involved substantially in school activities at many school sites, but this should not be interpreted to mean that Korean American parents do not care about their children's education. Culturally, they are simply accustomed to granting the responsibility for education to teachers and view all educational issues, be it curriculum or discipline, as the province of school administrators and teachers (Hong & Min, 1999). Parents are supportive of learning and may provide their child with greater learning opportunities, assistance, and pressure for learning (Schneider & Lee, 1990).     35   Korean American parents have a strong desire for their children to attend the best school and have the best opportunity to achieve a higher education, therefore, they provide their children with important structural and educational resources. Lew (2006) found that many educational goal oriented Korean American parents actively intervene in their children’s schooling and make typical strategies to improve their children’s academic achievement. These strategies are using their kinship and co-ethnic networks at church, work, and communities to reinforce the values of education, bilingual skills, and ethnic ties; using co-ethnic networks to gain important schooling information necessary for navigating the public school system; and developing parents’ networks to share and exchange information for best college admission and preparation for school tests. Additionally, many Korean American parents believe that public education is not enough for their children to achieve their high education expectations, so send their child to after-school programs in order to support their children academically and prepare them for college. The supplementary and after-school learning opportunity do more than help students get better grades. It also helps students to build a good self- esteem and gives children more confidence in their academic achievement. This Korean American parents’ after-school program for their children support Gordon’s (2001) definition. Gordon defined supplementary education as formal and informal learning and developmental enrichment opportunities provided for students outside of school. Parents of high-achieving students understand and emphasize academic achievement by supplementing their children’s education. Indeed, parents, scholars, and educators know     36   that schools alone cannot enable or ensure high academic achievement (Gordon, 2001; Wilkerson, 1985). Kim’s survey (2002) found high Korean American parent involvement for their child’s education. Kim surveyed 209 Korean American 12-14 year-olds and their parents. Kim states that a “high level of parental involvement and its positive effects on educational achievement are deeply embedded in the structure of Korean society” (p. 530). The results showed that a majority of the parents expected their children to go on to higher education such as college or graduate school (p. 533). Kim’s study showed that “parental expectation was closely related to children’s educational achievement” (p. 537). She concludes that “Korean tradition’s emphasis of the great importance of education creates high parental expectations that often lead to children’s high educational achievement” (p. 538). Korean American parents believe that the child should not receive rewards for behaviors they are expected to demonstrate, including good grades. Accomplishments are usually acknowledged in the form of parental encouragement to do even better and strive for higher levels of achievement (Reglin & Adams, 1990). This home environment and educational activities pass on the traditional cultural values from parents to children and at the same time help children to excel and to be resilient (Park, 1977). These results are naturally manifested in Korean American students’ performance in school. Min and Kim (2002) note the general emphasis that Korean American parents place on their children’s education in their exploration of the motivations underlying Korean immigration to the United States. In fact, in one national survey as early as 1987,     37   90 percent of parents expected four years of college or higher education for their children (Chun, 1995). Koreans perceive education as the most important form of empowerment for social mobility. Strong cultural traditions and institutional patterns all direct children’s attention toward schools that are structured around notions of academic excellence in Korea. In addition, the strong parental involvement nature of Korean culture, in which academic success is equated with upholding the family honor, is seen as facilitating conditions for educational success (Cho, 2000). Despite the stress placed on educational achievement, parents experience a particularly difficult time obtaining higher education in Korea because only a small number of candidates are admitted to colleges and universities due to the strict quotas that are instituted by the Ministry of Education (Min & Kim, 2002). In such an environment of limited educational opportunities, the allure of American educational institutions may provide a strong pull for parents with the resources to send their children to the United States without having to emigrate from Korea themselves. Korean Language/Culture Education and Academic Achievement As discussed in Background of the Study, You’s research (2005) revealed that 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American students with higher academic achievement often were participants in Korean language/culture education programs and members of households where Korean was spoken as the main language. Lee (2002) found also that Korean American students who had higher interest in developing bilingualism and     38   biculturalism enjoyed higher academic achievement than those who were less interested in their cultural heritage. Such studies help support the link between heritage language skills and academic achievement being explored in this study. However, Lee (2002) pointed out that there is growing evidence to suggest that not all Korean American students who participates Korean language/culture education programs are doing well in school. He reports intra- group and individual differences in academic achievement within Korean American students. It is important to note that Lee’s findings not only invalidated the deeply rooted stereotype that Korean Americans belong to a group that adheres to common cultural values and practices but also that personal interest in bilingualism and biculturalism is related to academic achievement. This suggests exposure to heritage language/culture alone may not be sufficient to effect high academic achievement. Korean American children who learn their heritage language and culture can have better communication with their parents and may better accept Korean culture values. That is why many Korean American parents send their child to a Korean language and culture school. Most Korean language and culture school programs not only involve teaching or helping with a student’s Korean language and culture, but also teach Korean history to help students develop their Korean cultural identity. Korean American parents’ involvement in their children’s education is one major aspect of Korean culture. Parents apply their cultural values to their children’s education and this strong parental involvement improves their children’s education. Korean parents believe that parents push their children for high educational achievement as essential to     39   achieving success in the adult word of work and life. This confirms that a stronger connection to Korean heritage leads to stronger academic performance. Identifying the Research Questions and Hypothesis To return to the research questions of this study, these are three-fold (see prior section) regarding the relationship between heritage culture and language acquisition degree and the 1.5 and 2nd generation of Korean American students’ academic achievement. Questions include exploring student heritage language acquisition and their cultural identity, and examining relationships between student academic achievement and their heritage language/culture background. The hypothesis is those Korean American 1.5 and 2nd generation students who indicate they are more identified with their heritage language and culture will show higher academic achievement than those who are less identified, and that there is likely to be a relationship between parental and child identification, The literature survey here helps establish what some of these links may be and was used to inform the survey and interview methodology, which will be taken up next.       40   CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY Introduction This study employs a mixed-methods approach resembling the sequential explanatory design outlined by Creswell (2003). Using the mixed-methods approach means this study collects, analyzes, and integrates both quantitative and qualitative data for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the research problem (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003; Creswell 2005). Much of the prior research in this area of cultural and academic studies has relied mostly upon questionnaire techniques and grade analysis, and provided little in-depth qualitative exploration of the perspectives of individual students and parents to accompany the questionnaire data. Therefore, this study explores the relationship between Korean American students’ academic achievement and both Korean heritage language proficiency and culture acquisition by combining analysis of self-completion questionnaires, quantitative surveys and in-depth, qualitative case studies. The configuration for examining this study is summarized in Table 2.1. The three research questions include exploring student heritage language acquisition and their cultural identity, and examining relationships between student academic achievement and their heritage language/culture background, as described in Chapter I. Participants for this study are Korean American high school students who are 1.5 and second generation Korean immigrants living in Oregon. Correlational analysis and regression was used for quantitative data analysis and coding and thematic analysis was     41   used for qualitative data. More information on the sample, instrument and analysis technique used for this study are provided as the sections are presented.   Table 2.1 Configuration for Examining this Study Research Questions Sample Methodology Instrument Analysis Technique (1) Is there a relationship between 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American students' Korean language/cultural education acquisition and their level of academic achievement? 200-250 students from Oregon 4 students from the sample Survey design followed by bivariate linear regression Semi- structured In- depth interview Piloted questionnaire - Ethnic Identity (EI)/ Heritage language (HL)/Practice of Korean culture (PKC) and Academic Index (AI) subscale used Regression   Coding and thematic analysis (2) Does an exploration of student level of heritage language acquisition in this sample group establish any links with student views of cultural self- identity? 200-250 students from Oregon 4 students from the sample Survey design followed by Pearson Correlation Semi- structured In- depth interview Piloted questionnaire- PKC and HL subscale used     Correlation al studies   Coding and thematic analysis   (3) Can any relationship be identified between the parents’ level of cultural identity and their children’s level of cultural identity, within this study? 200-250 students from Oregon/ 4 parents /4 students from the sample Survey design followed by Pearson Correlation   Semi- structured In- depth interview Piloted questionnaire- parents’ PKC and students’ PKC subscale used     Correlation al studies   Coding and thematic analysis     42   Study Design A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two distinct phases (quantitative followed by qualitative) (Creswell et al., 2003) was used in this study. As shown Figure 2.1, the data were collected and analyzed sequentially in two stages. The first stage used here was a survey to collect primarily quantitative data (numbers and patterns) to identify factors contributing to the relationship between heritage language/culture education and students’ academic achievement. The second stage used in-depth individual interviews to collect qualitative (text) data to explore those results in more depth. The quantitative data and its subsequent analysis is intended to primarily provide a general understanding of the research problem while the qualitative data and its analysis refines and explains those statistical results by exploring participants’ views in more depth (Rossman and Wilson, 1985; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Creswell, 2003). The two stages are connected by the intermediate stage (Hanson et al., 2005) in the study when the results of the data analysis in the quantitative phase inform the data collection in the qualitative phase (Creswell et al., 2003). In this stage, I selected the participants for the qualitative case studies from those who responded to the survey in the quantitative phase based on their numeric scores. Another connecting point of the two stages was the integration of the results from the quantitative and qualitative phases during the interpretation of the outcomes of the entire study. In the sequential explanatory design used here, quantitative data collection comes first in the sequence and is used here to shape patterns for the bulk of the mixed-method     43   data collection process (Creswell et al., 2003), including informing the qualitative interview protocol in a pilot stage (see pilot section). Figure 2.1. Visual model for mixed-methods sequential explanatory design procedures Phase Q1..wn titative Ua ta CollL'lCtion Qu-antitati ve Ua ta Analysis Connecting Q uant1ta twc aad Qmd i t.i ti H~ Quah t11ti vc Oat.a Coll1..'>ction Q uahtali ,•c U:1ta Analys1s Proe1?da rc ~ _uesr.ioooajrc- u rvey Data screc-ofrt g (~ R grcssioo ~ Purpos ively sc-lect ing 8 pe.:r:fo tpan ts from thos1'. who comple te s1Jn ·ey Codi vidual in~dc-pr.'.."l interview Follow-up in terview Coding aod ch em atic ana lysis Cross-tbernacfo anal;·sis lotcgracions aod cxplaoacion of ,h e _uaotitad ve and (!.Ualttati ve r sul ts Product ~ umeric dar._a Descripch•e sr.ausdcs, linc<1rity, oomHtJity Factor analysis ltc-m Response .Mod e I ing to gc-nerat~ student cstim ate Case (o= ) Tc-x:r. dar.a (irr teTYi w tr:ms rip r.s) Visual model o f multiple Codes and the-mes Similar and differcm themes and ce.tcgoric-s Dis<:ussions Crnplicatioos Future rc-sc-arcb     44   Quantitative Phase The purpose of the quantitative stage, described in study design section, is to focus primarily on examining and revealing the potential predictive power of selected variables (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003; Creswell, 2005) on the Korean American high school students’ academic performance and ethnic identity. The core survey items were four-point Likert scales. These along with some open-ended questions allowed respondents to describe their thoughts on Korean identity, experiences in American culture and other elements of interest. See Appendix A, B, and C for both student and parents questionnaire. These instruments were piloted in advance of use in the study here, see the Pilot section upcoming for a description of the instrument development process. Qualitative Phase The individual in-depth interviews undertaken in this project allowed participants to describe their own attitudes and beliefs in greater depth, and to emphasize or minimize aspects of their cultural identity and heritage language acquisition as they deemed appropriate to express to the interviewer. For the qualitative phase, I used a multiple case study design, in which each case was a parent/student dyad, or pair, who had each previously responded to the questionnaire described above. The multiple case study design in this case uses data collection from different sources (Yin, 2003) to help explain and interpret the statistical results obtained in the quantitative stage, and the open-ended questionnaire questions. In this study, the researcher selected eight participants from those who completed the     45   survey, using purposive techniques, resulting in four dyads cases for interviews. The four sets of participants were sampled from the available dyads from the survey results on this purposive basis: (a) both parent and student exhibit high ethnic identity and interest in Korean culture, (b) high ethnic identity/interest parent and low ethnic identity/interest student, (c) low ethnic identity/interest parent and high ethnic identity/interest student, and (d) both parent and student describe themselves as having low ethnic identity/interest. After identifying the dyads falling into these four categories, four sets of participants were selected. Thus the eight purposive participants for interviews consisted of four pairs of parents and students, selected to explore the spectrum of results to shed interpretive light on the relationship between ethnic identity/interest and school performance. To provide the richness and the depth of the case description (Stake, 1995; Creswell, 1998), I used multiple sources for collecting the data: (a) in-depth semi- structured face-to-face interviews with eight participants; (b) researcher’s reflective notes on each participant’s persistence recorded immediately after the interview; and (c) academic transcripts and students’ files to validate the information obtained during the interviews and to get additional details related to the cases provided by each participants. The researcher audio-taped and transcribed verbatim each interview (Creswell, 2005) and conducted a thematic analysis of the text data using qualitative software for data storage, coding, and theme development.     46   Pilot Study for Both Survey Heritage Language/Culture Inventory and In-depth Interview The pilot work was done as, first, a course project in the University of Oregon Survey and Questionnaire Design and Analysis course in Spring 2008 to develop the questionnaire, followed by, secondly, interviewing of students and parents in the University of Oregon In-depth Interview course in Spring 2008 to develop the interview protocol. The original pilot survey instrument was developed to measure four dementions: (a) the degree and affiliation of ethnic identity, (b) heritage language acquisition level/ language use patterns, (c) attitudes/perceptions/practices of Korean culture, and (d) academic performance and educational plans for future. As identified in the literature described in Chapter 1, heritage language and culture can be an important part of a child’s identity formation and can help build a strong sense of belonging to one’s own ethnic group. Therefore I decided upon the areas of ethnic identity, heritage language acquisition and practice of Korean culture to provide a variety of lenses through which student heritage affiliation might be viewed, along with collection of academic achievement information through the achievement index. For the pilot investigation, I administered the survey to Korean American high school students who are 1.5 and second generation Korean immigrants. Participants in this pilot administration of the survey were 30 Korean American students, 14 male and 16 female. The students ranged in age from 13 to 18 years (M=16.12, SD= 1.24). Respondents’ grade levels were between 8th and 12th. A single survey instrument     47   consisted of 68 questions (60: close-ended, 8: open- ended) designed using a paper-pencil format. It was administered with individual facilitation, no time limit, and standardization through the instructions. I selected both nominal and ordinal measurement scales for the survey scales. A unidimensional Rasch model analysis was applied to generate student estimates, which indicated at least reasonable reliability (MLE Person separation reliability = .94; EAP/PV reliability = .85) for the overall measure. The anticipated dimensional structure was subsequently explored in more depth when a larger sample became available, and this will be discussed later in the Chapter III Results sections. The pilot in-depth interview protocol was developed to measure the four elements of (a) ethnic identity, (b) heritage language, (c) practice of Korean culture, and (d) academic achievement, aligned with the pilot survey instrument. For the pilot investigation, I administered the semi-structured, in-depth interviews, which were used to determine the experiences and perceptions of these participants (Patton, 1987) to Korean American high school students who were 1.5 and second generation Korean immigrants. Participants were two 1.5 and two 2nd generation Korean American high school students who live in the Eugene and Springfield, Oregon. Four interviews were conducted using audio recording with brief notes during the interviews. Interviews were transcribed and were coded. Following the assignment of codes, grouping of the codes took place into a “smaller number of sets, themes, or constructs” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69). Then, the summary statements from the data collection and analysis were developed for the final stage of the data analysis process in the qualitative pilot.     48   Heritage Language/Culture Inventory Refinement Following the pilot stage, results from the questionnaire and the interview data indicated some questions that could be eliminated to shorten the instrument, others that needed to be refined for clarity, and some questions that needed to be added. Following these revisions, the questionnaire was named the Heritage Language/Culture Inventory and the following subscales of the instrument were refined and named: 1.  The degree and affiliation of ethnic identity (Ethnic Identify, or EI), 2. Heritage language acquisition level/ language use patterns (Heritage Language, or HL), 3.  Attitudes/perceptions/practices of Korean culture (Practice of Korean Culture, or PKC), 4. Academic performance and educational plans for future (Academic Index, AI).     The abbreviated names will be used to refer to the components of the questionnaire throughout upcoming sections. The subscales are defined here in more detail: Subscale of Ethnic Identity (EI). For the first subscale of Ethnic Identity, hereafter called EI, I adapted the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA) (Suinn, Rikard-Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987), modified and piloted (Kong, 2008) to match Korean language and cultural context for the Korean population described here. The 21 items of the EI were used to address the participant’s degree of ethnic identity. The EI subscale was a compilation of subsets of a broad range of characteristics     49   describing self-identity and ethnic pride and a selection of distinctive characteristics. EI consists of five multiple choice, 12 items with 4-point Liker scales (1= strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), four open-ended questions to describe the Korean culture, and such aspects as how important ethnic identity is to them. One item asked respondents how they would identify themselves (1= Korean, 2 = American, 3 = Korean-American, and 4 = other). Lower scores for EI indicate lower heritage affiliated ethnic identity and higher scores indicated stronger ethnic identity affiliation. Table 2.2 provides items used in the EI index. Table 2.2 Items for Student Ethnic Identity (EI) Items Q. 2.1-2.3 Self-identity for student/parent. Q. 2.4 I am a member of organizations or social groups that are mostly composed of Korean. Q. 2.5 I have a clear sense of being Korean and what it means to me. Q. 2.6 I think a lot about how my life will be affected by being Korean. Q. 2.7 I am happy that I am a member of the Korean ethnic group. Q. 2.8 I often spend time with people from ethnic groups other than Korean. Q. 2.9 I have a strong sense of belonging to the Korean ethnic group. Q. 2.10 I understand very well what being Korean means to me in terms of how I relate to Korean and non-Korean people. Q. 2.11 I am very proud of the Korean ethnic group and its accomplishments.     50   Table 2.2 (continued) Items Q. 2.12 I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic groups. Q. 2.13 I feel a strong attachment towards the Korean ethnic group. Q. 2.14 I enjoy being around people from ethnic groups other than Korean. Q. 2.15 I feel good about the Korean cultural or Korean ethnic background. Q. 2.16 There are many different ways in which people think of themselves. Which ONE of the following best describes how you view yourself? (identifiers provided) Q. 2.17 I would like other people to regard me as Korean, American, Korean- American, and Other Q. 2.18 How important is this identity to you, and how do you identify yourself? (For example, Korean, American, Korean-American etc.) Q. 2.19 How would you best describe Korean culture? Q. 2.20 What do you prefer about the American way of doing things? [Note: to be based on student’s own perception of ways of doing, no definition provided.] Q. 2.21 How do you feel when you have difficulty communicating with your parent(s), when your way of doing things is different from that of your parent(s)? Subscale of Heritage Language (HL). For the second subscale of heritage language, hereafter called HL, items were modified and piloted (Kong, 2008) from the existing Korean American Acculturation Scale (KAAS, Lee, 2003). Items were generated for an initial list for the Korean immigrant student HL (see Table 2.3) in the following     51   two ways: (a) by reviewing the literature on the heritage language development process, and (b) by conducting a pilot study. The HL subscale was identified consisting of 16 items 4-point Likert scales (1=strongly disagree to 4= strongly agree), about how much students read, write, speak, and listen to their heritage language and one multiple choice question about motivation for studying Korean language. A low score would indicate less acquisition of HL as compared to a higher score that would indicate higher levels of acquisition of HL. Subscale of Practice of Korean Culture (PKC). For the third subscale of Practice of Korean Culture, hereafter called PKC, items were also modified and piloted (Kong, 2008) to match Korean language and cultural context for the Korean population from the existing Korean American Acculturation Scale (KAAS, Lee, 2003). These items were generated for an initial list for the PKC by reviewing the literature on the acculturation process and by conducting a pilot study. PKC items focused on one’s perceptions and understanding of personal cultural values, or beliefs as they impact one’s perceptions and interactions with Korean immigrants. The PKC scale included 17 items on a 4-point Liker scale (1= strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree) including addressing degree of participation in Korean cultural practice, preference for Korean ways of doing things, familiarity with Korean current issues and needs for learning Korean culture and history (see Table 2.4). A low score would indicates less acquisition of PKC degree as compared to a higher score that would indicate a higher degree of acquisition of PKC.     52   Table 2.3 Items for Student Heritage Language Acquisition (HL) Items Q. 3.1 I can read Korean newspapers and fiction stories. Q. 3.2 I can read Korean textbooks that are appropriate to my grade level. Q. 3.3 I can read Korean popular magazines. Q. 3.4 I can write academic reports of several subjects in Korean. Q. 3.5 I can write short essays and journal. Q. 3.6 I can write short personal letters. Q. 3.7 I seldom make grammatical errors when writing the above mentioned writings. Q. 3.8 I can understand my relatives' conversations with other adults in Korean. Q. 3.9 I can understand Korean TV shows, videos, and movies. Q. 3.10 I can speak politely in Korean when conversing with adults whom I am not familiar. Q. 3.11 I can summarize and explain in Korean the content of lessons learned in my American school. Q. 3.12 I can handle complex situations in Korean. Q. 3.13 I do not make grammatical errors when I converse in Korean. Q. 3.14 I can correctly understand and use the Korean popular words or phrases that teenagers are using in Korean. Q. 3.15 What do you think about yourself in terms of the language you use? Q. 3.16 What is your biggest reason for studying Korean language?     53   Table 2.4 Items for Student Practice of Korean Culture (PKC) Items Q. 4.1 I like to participate in Korean cultural practices, such as special food, music, or customs. Q. 4.2 I enjoy eating Korean food every day. Q. 4.3 My family plays Korean traditional games, wears traditional clothing, and eats traditional meals when we celebrate traditional holidays in the U.S. Q. 4.4 I participate regularly in Korean-related cultural events/ activities, including religious functions. Q. 4.5 I prefer Korean ways of doing things. Q. 4.6 My family prefers Korean ways of doing things. Q. 4.7 I often get in trouble because my ways of doing things are different from that of my parents. Q. 4.8 I know Korean history well. Q. 4.9 I am familiar with the current issues in Korea. Q. 4.10 I think I need to learn Korean history. Q. 4.11 I like to watch Korean TV shows, videos, and movies. Q. 4.12 I am interested in current issues in Korea. Q. 4.13 I think I must pay obedience to my parents. Q. 4.14 I believe I must pay reverence to my parents. Q. 4.15 I believe I should pay reverence to seniors. Q. 4.16 I believe I should pay reverence to teacher. Q. 4.17 Why do you take part in Korean cultural activities?     54   Subscale of Student Academic Achievement (AI). The fourth area addressed by the questionnaire was student academic achievement, hereafter called AI. It is intended to be a dependent variable based on the hypothesis described in Chapter I. AI was modified and piloted (Kong, 2008) to match Korean language and cultural context for the Korean population from the existing Domain-Specific Self-Concept Scale (D-SSC, Lee, 2003). This scale was considered in development of the AI outcome characteristics to be considered in Chapter 3 because D_SSC was to reflect aspects of academic self-concept in Korean American students. AI items were generated by reviewing the literature on the ethnic identity formation process and by conducting the pilot study as well. Korean American students were asked to respond to items consisting of 11 items on a 4-point Liker scales and 10 open-ended questions asking about their academic performance, satisfaction with their school performance, importance of academic achievement, degree of participating in school activities, and future plans for college and occupation (see Table 2.5). Academic achievement itself was measured through the survey primarily by self- reported grade point average. Student GPA was scored on a 4 point scale with As worth 4 points, Bs worth 3 points, Cs worth 3 points, Ds worth 1 point and F’s worth 0 points. Any other grades including a pass, no pass, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, incomplete were not included. Self-reported SAT or ACT scores were also collected when possible, see Chapter III. In addition, the numbers of AP (Advanced Placement), IB (International Baccalaureate), and honors courses were collected to indicate students’ school performance in this way.     55   Table 2.5 Items for Student Academic Achievement and Future Plan (AI) Items Q. 5.1 I believe I am an excellent student in terms of academic performance. Q. 5.2 I am satisfied with the school performance that I have done up to now. Q. 5.3 I believe my parents are satisfied with my school performance that I have done up to now. Q. 5.4 I spend much time studying or doing school homework during the typical weekday. Q. 5.5 I finish school homework before due date. Q. 5.6 I believe academic achievement is important for my future. Q. 5.7 What is the highest level of education that you would like to achieve? Q. 5.8 Realistically speaking, what is the highest level of education that you think you will get? Q. 5.9 What is the highest level of the education that your parents want you to get? Q. 5.10 If you plan to attend college, what college you would like to attend? Q. 5.11 If you do not plan to go to college, what is the main reason why you do not plan to go? Q. 5.12 What job would you like to have as an adult? Q. 5.13 And realistically speaking, how do you see your chances of getting this job? Q. 5.14 I participate in school activities as a leader. Q. 5.15 How would you describe your friends for their future plans? Q. 5.16 How many AP courses have you taken so far and how many are you taking currently? Q. 5.17 How many Honor courses have you taken so far and how many are you taking currently?     56   Table 2.5 (continued) Items Q. 5.18 Are you completing or taking an IB program? Q. 5.19 What is your GPA currently? Q. 5.20 If you took the SAT or ACT, would you please share your score? Q. 5.21 If you took the PSAT, would you please share score? Interview Protocol Refinement Both student and parent interview protocols, which were previously piloted, were designed based on the content drawn from the quantitative survey to capture meaningful patterns of four subscales (EI, HL, PKC, and AI), as described above. The interview protocol, shown in Appendix B1 and B2, was also adjusted based on results of the pilot. Qualitative data for this project were collected from both open-ended survey responses and the in-depth interviews conducted through a thematic analysis of the text data, as described in the Pilot section. This analysis took place at two levels: (a) within each case and across the cases, using constant comparative method for coding data and (b) theme development (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The purpose of the case study as described in the study design section was in this research to explore and elaborate on the results from the quantitative stage of the study (Creswell et al., 2003). In this way, multiple case studies were intended to provide a clearer understanding on the relationship between heritage language/culture education and students' academic achievement.     57   Data Collection and Analysis Participants The subjects for this study were 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American high school students and parents who live in Eugene/Springfield, Beaverton, and Portland, Oregon, see Chapter 3 Results for characteristics of the study sample. As described in the literature synthesis and clarified here with age-related particulars for this study, the criterion of 1.5 generation was defined for this study as Korean American students who immigrated to the United States either before school age or before the age of five. The second generation was defined as those who were born in the United States and continued here. As such, all students in the sample will be considered as having begun their formal education at Kindergarten age in the U.S. The participants were recruited primarily through Korean language classes and Korean churches. A sampling design incorporating student and parent data was used for this study. The step of sampling involved Korean American churches, Korean language and culture schools, and Korean American community centers in Oregon from which student and parent data were collected. Korean American churches, Korean language and culture schools, and Korean American community centers were first contactd for permission to access students and parents. The youth pastors of each church, principals of each Korean language and culture school, and directors of each community center were informed about the research study. I explained the purpose of the study to students and their parents and requested their participation. Note that this may introduced some restriction of range on the cultural identification variable, but these contacts in the Korean     58   community also were specifically requested to recommend others of Korean heritage who might be contacted, such as public school mates or families outside of the language and church contexts. This snowball sampling design was intended to lead to a more extensive network of sampling. Aspects of such sampling characteristics are more fully described in the Results chapter. Regarding language, the questionnaires described above were developed in both English and Korean language (see Appendix C) for participants and their parents because some of respondents might not show complete fluency in English. This way respondents could more fully understand each question and provide answers with accuracy, in the language of their preference. Quantitative Data Analysis Descriptive Statistics and Graphics. Descriptive statistics and graphics were collected from both parents and students to get participants’ characteristic information. Frequency counts helped analyze the survey demographic information. Level of education, age, economic status, length of residency in United States, birth of place, gender, level of Korean or English spoken at home are included. Frequencies and mean comparisons between groups for each variable were generated and examined. Factor Analysis and Item Response Model. Data from the surveys was extracted and inspected through exploratory factor analysis to examine the empirical justification of each construct by exploring how items loaded on the relevant factor and whether any     59   items inversely related to the specific factor to which they were intended to belong. Further analysis using item response modeling examined item fit characteristics and aspects of instrument reliability, and was used to calibrate the items using a Rasch model from which student estimates in the subscales of EI, HL, PKC, and AI was investigated. Regression. Regression allows the researcher to investigate hypotheses about whether a group of variables can explain an outcome variable and estimate the unique relationship between each predictor and the outcome. In this way, regression analysis was applied to investigate the relationships between students groups for HL and EI and student AI variables. Regression analysis was used to help identify the predictive power of the selected subscales as related to the research questions described in Chapter I. Qualitative Data Analysis Open-ended Survey Response. For the open-ended survey response, students completed self-reflective responses to 11 questions about ethnic identity, perception of Korean culture, and school performance (APPENDIX A). These were analyzed for meaningful patterns for EI, PKC, and AI areas. Data displays were created, and frequency and levels of responses presented to code patterns identified. These data from the students’ voices used to consider how the work produced triangulates or does not triangulate well with quantitative survey analysis findings as described above, as well as to provide descriptive content.     60   In-depth Interview Response. For both student and parent responses to the in- depth interviews, I transcribed verbatim each interview (Creswell, 2005). A thematic analysis of the text data was then conducted using qualitative software for data storage, coding, and theme development. Aligned with the pilot survey instrument data,  the  four themes of EI, PKC, HL, and AI were investigated with purposively sampled participants’ responses, as presented in the refined Heritage Language/Culture Inventory section. During processing of data analyses, I created and used within-case displays, in the form of matrices, to present the trends in the data reduction and to display results of the qualitative findings.   Controls for Threats to Validity To help control for threats due to limited responses and the ability to provide what may be considered by the respondent to be appropriate answers from the self-completion questionnaire survey, this study adopted mixed-methods sequential explanatory design methods. For increased validity and reliability in this study, several experts and peers paneled the instrument and items. Data were analyzed for internal consistency of responses as well as completing criterion-related comparisons with the qualitative data to be collected.     61   CHAPTER III RESULTS This chapter begins with quantitative and qualitative results from survey data collection and analysis as described in the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design (Creswell, 2003) shown in Figure 2.1 of Chapter II. Presentation continues with results of the in-depth dyad interviews described in Chapter II, for the four sets of participants purposively selected as described previously. Finally, descriptive data and displays are included to help frame and interpret the two sets of results. Sample and response rates are considered first. Sample and Response Rates As described in Chapter II, the subjects for this study were 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American high school students and parents who lived in Eugene/Springfield, Beaverton, and Portland, Oregon. The participants were recruited primarily through Korean language classes and Korean churches, with a snowball design applied such that contacts in the Korean community also were specifically requested to recommend others of Korean heritage who might be contacted, such as public school mates or families outside of the language and church contexts, to help broaden the sample characteristics. In this manner, a total of 285 Korean American students were identified who met study characteristics. Students were not identified as 1.5 or 2nd generation at this point because I had not yet contacted or received sufficient specific information about these students. They and their parents were sent a cover letter, questionnaire and a postage-paid addressed return envelope. Student responses returned were 224 for a 78.6% rate for the     62   student survey. Parent responses returned were 149 from a total parent sample of 220 giving a parent response rate of 67.7%. Student and parent paired dyad response were 68 from a total paired sample of 149 giving a paired dyad response rate of 45.6%. Although overall response rates and their adequacy for addressing research questions will vary to some extent by context, Babbie & Mouton (2001) described a response rate of 40% as adequate, 60% as good and 70% as very good, indicating the response rates as described above were from adequate to very good by this criteria. Descriptive Data The total student sample for the returned surveys consisted of 224 Korean American students (125 males, 99 females) living in the Eugene, Springfield, Beaverton, and Portland areas of Oregon. See Table 3.1 for demographic details, students ranged in age from 13 to 19 years (M =15.83, SD = 1.50). With respect to respondents’ grade level, there were 77 students (34%) in 9th, 43 students (19 %) in 10th, 32 students (14 %) in 11th, and 72 students (32 %) in 12th. Sixty percent (135 students) reported they were born in United States; and 39 % (87 students) of the students were between the ages of 1- 5 years (M = 3.26, SD = 1.57) on arrival in United States. There were also 43.3% of students who identified themselves as a Korean, 55.4% as a Korean American, and 0.9% percent as American. Seventy-five percent student responded they used both Korean and English at home, 12.1% of students used only Korean, and 12.5% used only English. Ninety-three percent of students expected to receive higher education beyond a 4-year college degree.     63   Table 3.1 Demographic Statistics for Students (N = 224) Demographic variable Frequency (%) Gender Female 99 (44.2) Male 125 (55.8) Grade 9th 77 (34.4) 10th 43 (19.2) 11th 32 (14.3) 12th 72 (32.1) Generation 2nd 135 (60.3) 1.5 87 (38.3) Age on Arrival in U.S. 1-year old 18 ( 8.0) 2-year old 13 ( 5.8) 4-year old 12 ( 5.4) 5-year old 30 (13.4) Language use at Home Korean 27 (12.1) Korean-English 169 (75.4) English Only 28 (12.5)     64   Table 3.1 (continued) Demographic variable Frequency (%) Self Identified Ethnic identity Korean 97 (43.3) Korean American 124 (55.4) American 2 ( 0.9) Final Education Level that Student want to finish Finish High school 1 ( 0.4) Finish Some College 14 ( 6.3) Finish College 47 (21 ) Finish Graduate Degree 162 (72.3) The 149 parent respondents (62 Males, 87 Females) of the student participants were on average well educated and expected their children to be well educated also. They ranged in age from 35 to 55 years. The 133 of the 149 parents held a Baccalaureate or Master’s degree (88 parents, 59%) or Ph.D., M.D. or other advanced degree (28 parents, 18.8%). Forty-four percent of the respondents speak both Korean and English with their children at home, 36 % of the respondents reported speaking some amount of English with their children at home, and 20% of parents reported speaking only English. With respect to total family income level, there were 23 parents (15.4%) earning $25,000- $49,000, 70 parents (47%) earning $50,000-$99,999, 37 parents (24.8%) earning $100,000-$199,999, 14 parents (9.4%) earning $200,000 or more, and only 1 parent responded between $5,000 and $9,999. The relationship of spouse/partner to their child     65   was most often biological father or mother (94%) and only 9% reported stepfather or stepmother. The marital status of the parents was as follow: 140 (94%) married, 9 (6%) divorced or separated, and 5 (3.4%) widowed. There were also 42.9% of parents who identified themselves as a Korean, 23.2% as a Korean American, and 0.4% percent as American. Table 3.2 provides parent demographic details. Table 3.2 Demographic Statistics for Parents (N = 149) Demographic variable Frequency (%) Gender Female 87 (58.4) Male 62 (41.6) Education High School 16 (10.7) 2-year College 17 (11.4) 4-year College 41 (27.5) Master’s Degree 47 (31.5) PhD or MD or Advanced 28 (18.8) Marital Status Married 135 (90.6) Divorced or Separated 9 ( 6.0) Widowed 5 ( 3.4) Relationship of spouse/partner to your child Biological Father/Mother 140 (94.0)     66   Table 3.2 (continued) Demographic variable Frequency (%) Step Father/Mother 9 ( 6.0) Language use at Home Korean 54 (36.2) Korean-English 65 (43.6) English Only 29 (19.5) Self Identified Ethnic identity Korean 96 (42.9) Korean American 52 (23.2) American 1 ( 0.4) Final Education Level that parents want their child to finish Finish High school 1 ( 0.4) Finish Some College 14 ( 6.3) Finish College 47 (21 ) Finish Graduate Degree 162 (72.3) Total Family Income $5,000-$9,999 1 ( 0.7) $25,000-$49,000 23 (15.4) $50,000-$74,000 21 (14.1) $75,000-$$99,999 49 (32.9) $100,000-$199,999 37 (24.8) $200,000 or more 14 ( 9.4)     67   Survey Results The data collected from both parents and students was analyzed to investigate the quality of the various scales, reliability and construct validity by factor analysis. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on each attitude instrument because factor analysis provided the empirical justification of initial scales by demonstrating that items were loaded on the relevant dimensions. The exploratory factor analysis, using the maximum likelihood estimation method with criterion of eigenvalue greater than 1.0, determined the factor solutions for the Korean ethnic identity, Korean language acquisition and use pattern, Korean culture practice, and school performance and future plan. Because the number of dimensions for parent data set was different from that of the student data set, I decided to perform factor analysis for parent data and student data separately. Factor Analysis for Student Data The factor analysis was used to determine dimensions of the degree and affiliation of ethnic identity (EI), heritage language acquisition level and use pattern (HL), practice of Korean culture (PKC), and academic performance and educational plan for future (AI) as described in Chapter II. First, all appropriate four-construct variables were included in the analysis with casewise deletion for missing data, excluding Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), and International Baccalaureate (IB)/Advanced Placement (AP) related variables. Analysis results plus substantial overlap between the ethnic and culture constructs suggested a three-factor solution. Three criteria     68   were used to determine the number of factors to rotate: the a priori hypothesis that the measure was multi-dimensional, the scree test and the interpretability of the factor solution. Consequently, three factors were rotated using an Oblimin rotation procedure because the correlations between the factors were moderate and also because it was theoretically expected that factors here would correlate with each other (Pedhazur, 1997). The rotated solution, as shown in Figure 3.1, yielded three interpretable factors, Heritage Language Acquisition Level and Use Pattern (HL), Academic Performance and Educational Plan for Future (AI), and Ethnic Identity and Practice of Korean Culture (EI/PKC). The three-factor solution explained 47.94 % of the total variance. Of this, the HL factor (23 items) accounted for 26.76% of the item variance, the AI factor (12 items) accounted for 9.27%, and the EI/PKC factor (18 items) for 11.91%. Examples of the 23 items loading on Factor HL were “ I can read books in Korean,” “Read Korean newspaper and story,” “I write personal letters in Korean, “Can write short essays and journal,” “I can handle complex situation in Korean,” “Understanding of Korean TV show, videos, and movies,” “Can understand and use teenager's Korean,” “Understanding of Korean adult conversations.” The means and standard deviations for 23 items composing the factor are presented in Appendix F. Examples of the 12 items loading on Factor AI were “ I am excellent student in terms of school performance,” “I spend much time studying or doing school homework,” “I finish school homework before due date, “I believe my parents are satisfied with my school performance,” ”I believe academic is important for my future,” “I participate in school activities as a leader,” “How do see your chances of getting job you would like to     69   get.” The means and standard deviations for items composing the factor are presented in Appendix G. Figure 3.1. Scree plot for student survey data factor analysis extraction stage Because the ethnic and culture items were highly related for this data set as described above, I retained an 18-item EI/PKC factor. Examples of the items loading on Factor EI/PKC were “I have clear sense of being Korean and what it mean to me,” “I am happy that I am a member of the Korean ethnic group,” “I have a strong sense of 18 15 ~ 12 .;; > C Q) g 0 iii G 0 - -~~D -- NNNNNmmmmm &&&&& ~~ - -~~D - -~~D - -~~D - -~~D - m Factor Number     70   belonging to the Korean group,” “I am very proud of the Korean ethnic group and its accomplishment,” “I feel a strong attachment towards the Korean group,” “ I participate in Korean cultural practices,” “I enjoy eating Korean food,” “I prefer Korean ways of doing things.” The mean and standard deviations for items composing the factor are presented in Appendix H. Factor Analysis for Parent Data To investigate dimensions of parent ethnic identity, Korean culture practice, and parent perception of their children’s academic achievement and future plan, a three-factor solution analysis was used: (a) parent ethnic identity, (b) Korean culture practice, and (c) academic achievement and future plan for the parent survey analysis. As with the student data, there was considerable overlap between Korean ethnic and culture construct. So, for the next step, a two-factor solution was imposed. Consequently, two factors were rotated using an Oblimin rotation procedure, because the correlations between the factors were moderate as stated in the student factor analysis section. The rotated solution, as shown in Figure 3.2, yielded two interpretable factors, parent perception of Ethnic Identity and Practice of Korean Culture (EI/PKC) and parent perception of their children School Performance and Future Plan (AI). The two-factor solution explained 55.03 % of the total variance. Of this, the EI/PKC factor (27 items) accounted for 43.23% of the item variance, and the AI factor (12 items) accounted for parent data 11.80%.     71   Figure 3.2. Scree plot for parent survey data factor analysis extraction stage Examples of the 27 items loading on Factor parents’ EI/PKC were “I am clear sense of being Korean and what it mean to me,” “I am happy that I am a member of the Korean ethnic group,” “I have a strong sense of belonging to the Korean group,” “I am very proud of the Korean ethnic group and its accomplishment,” ”I feel a strong attachment towards the Korean group,” “ I participate in Korean cultural practices,” “I enjoy eating Korean food,” “I prefer Korean ways of doing things,” The means and standard deviations for items composing the factor are presented in Appendix I. 18 15 12 (I) :::, 1v > g C (I) 0 iii G 0 - o->oi --.1 C10 ............ 1\)1\)1\)1\) o->oi --.1 0 -- 0,0, --.1 Factor Number     72   Item Response Model Following factor analysis to explore the dimensional structure, the items of each construct were then calibrated with sequential unidimensional item response modeling, using a partial credit model, to generate a calibrated scale for each retained construct above and to generate person estimates on the scale. Kennedy (2005) stated that the Unidimensional Partial Credit model can be used to represent responses scoring at multiple levels. She asserted that “a unidimensional construct can be represented as a continuum from having less of the ability, behavior, or attitude to having more of it, and although a particular assessment may target a narrow range on the continuum, the construct itself [can be] theoretically without bounds” (p.1). Brannick (2010) pointed out that item response modeling allows the researcher to evaluate respondent ability and to describe how well items on a test or questionnaire are performing. He also stated that this model uses the concept of an Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) to show the relationship between respondent ability and performance on an item, instead of treating ability solely as a function of a respondent’s score. Results of Item Response Modeling for HL. The 23 items of the survey for HL were calibrated with item response modeling, using a partial credit model, to generate a calibrated scale and student estimates on the scale. Overall test reliability results for the 23-question HL scale yielded a .92 Cronbach’s alpha, and showed reasonable infit mean square characteristics, see Figure 3.3, with most item estimates falling within the displayed .75-1.33 range, indicated by the vertical hashed lines on the display. For     73   Cronbach’s alpha with limited missing data, a .9 or higher value is excellent so this 23- item scale may be considered acceptable for the purpose of this study. A standard error plot for the HL estimates is shown in Figure 3.4. Figure 3.3. Item Fit display for student Korean language acquisition and use pattern (HL) The standard error of measurement (SEM) for HL ranged primarily between a low of .25 and a high of .60 on the logit scale shown here, which will be described further in the subsequent section showing calibrated displays of the scale (Wright Map). Usually, standard errors are lowest in the -3 to 3.5 range of the scale and highest at the extremes where less assessment data is available. Figure 3.4 shows the distribution of student proficiencies and related error values over the range, with lower standard errors for most Average 0 . 000 • - first row for an item second and s ubsequent wright_map (6 J. txt 0 . 126 0 .97 -0 . 4 1.00 -0 . 3 is overall item difficulty rows are the Andrich delta ij of the step parameters ~ov 18, 2011 5:46:47 PM Item Estimates Item Set : base variable: Construct 1 I nfit Mean Squares 0 .58 0 . 67 0 . 75 0 . 83 0 . 92 1 . 00 1 . 08 1 . 17 1 .25 1 . 33 1 . 42 1.5 ----·----------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ s2 4 • s2- 5 $2-10 • s3- 1 * s3- 2 s3: 3 • s3 4 ·~~ * s3 6 * s3- 7 • s0 * s3 9 * s3: 10 * s3 11 * sJ-12 * sl- 1 3 * 63- 14 • s3: 1s • s4 4 • $4- 8 • 84- 9 * s4- ll • s4: 12 • ••==•eeaasaasaaeaaeaaeeaseaeeaee:3:e:ea:seaaea:a::eseea:ea:eaa:aaea:e:a:e~:s     74   of the items at the extreme low end of the scale as compared to the extreme high end because of somewhat more measurement information at the lower end of the scale as calibrated empirically from this data set. Figure 3.4. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) distribution Generating a Wright Map offered a graphic representation of how students loaded on the questions (Figures 3.5 and 3.6). The distribution of student estimates based on the 23-item HL scale is shown graphically in the vertical histogram on the left side of the Wright Map in Figure 3.5. These estimates were used in the upcoming analytic techniques to look at the relationship of the student Korean language acquisition and use 0.90 • 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 e o.ss ~ 0.50 't) :U 0.45 .,, ; 0.40 "' 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -5 -4 SEM Graph Construct 1 (EAP) Item Set: base .. . .• • • · ... ,_~· -3 - 2 - 1 0 Proficiencies • • • • 4     75   pattern (HL) and student perception of ethnic identity and culture participation (EI/PKC) scales. Figure 3.6 is a more graphical representation of the Wright Map, with the distribution of student scores in red, and the estimates of generalized item thresholds for the 23-item HL scale shown in colored boxes on the right of the display. Results of Item Response Modeling for AI. For the AI 12 items calibrated using a partial credit model overall test reliability results for the 12-question AI scale yielded a .89 Cronbach’s alpha, and showed reasonable infit mean square characteristics, see Figure 3.7, with all item estimates falling within the displayed .75 - 1.17 range, indicated by the vertical hashed lines on the display. As described above, for Cronbach’s alpha with limited missing data, a .8 or higher value is good so this 12-item scale may be considered acceptable for the purpose of this study. The standard error of measurement (SEM) for AI ranged primarily between a low of .40 and a high of .65 on the logit scale shown here, which were described further in the subsequent section showing calibrated displays of the scale (Wright Map). Again the standard errors were lower at the left extreme than the right extreme, reflecting the density of measurement information available as can be seen in the Wright Map, where a slight ceiling is indicated by the higher placement of the student histogram x’s on the left as compared to the questionnaire difficulties to agree numbers on the right of the diagram. Figure 3.8 shows the distribution of student proficiencies and related error values over the range.     76   Figure 3.5. Empirically estimated Wright Map for student Korean language acquisition and use pattern (HL) Wrig'M. Mllp 1!,\I' ) V41'14b l c : CO."lll tl'IIC t : !St'!' ClltC>gCl'iCII Y.llp of Pl!tiwo t111tUleot.l!:tJ &!Xl n3~11t1 11'.Qdt, l po.t-t.4:1.t l!lltiniit-1!:tJ ·-·-······-·--·········--······-······-·--·········--·········· :itu-c!c r.ts 'Zh'lln tcn .. h .n T!lresl'.old.s (litccoc!cd ) ' s ' • ' ' ta. 3 X 10 . 3 u xx l , . 3 20-3 )(X..X 7 .3 21.3 xxxx XU X, 0-3 l S-3 t.3 S . 3 9.3 :,.3 :9 . 3 ?l. l xxx_xx:!! ~ · )O()(Xl()O()(X..X lCXXXXlCXXX..X XX:XXX.XX:XXX X 3 .3 4 . ) i.3 ) . t J.O. t l 1, 3 20. t ,., • - - -- -- - -- - -xxx_xx:xx.x x 16 . 2 0-2 H.3 J3 . ) l&.2 U . 2 t t . ) s.2 u .3 1s .2 u .2 t.2 6. 2 ,.2 :,.2 :,.2 ~ .2 , . 1 J0- 1 l 1. t 20- l $. t 12 .2 s . t ::6. t XXlCXXX..X X.X.XX:XXX X XU X, x,xx, u X, XXXXlCXXX..X 2.2 ( . 1 6 . t 9 . 1 l J . 2 11. l 21. l 3 .2 11. .2 u .a 1.1. 1 11. 1 23. 1 19 . l _, I. t : 7 . t ' xxxx l ) . l _, XU l l. l 22. l 2 - l )2 . l ' .' _, _, _, &11~h X rep.te11ent11 2 ~OOcl Spccltieations, ~Cll~Ul'Cl'!Cr.t ~.Oc!Cl Ptvfi~ i l!~CY 11-etin.&.ti o:i Method ~aximin t.ogit ~ 1..n imin t.ogit lnte;r•tioP )'.(!thod Ov.&6.t3tute :.-iooe11 ! ~ COIIVCl'fe:::C:C Cl'1..tCl'14 " .tight..JIIIPI 4 J . ;;x t lltUdl!ll' tll , l!.ioch rov • P.:inial C r<,d.it , .. • 6.GO • -6. 00 Kll I Students • Step 1 • Step 2 Step 3     78   Figure 3.7. Item Fit display for student school performance and future plan (AI) Figure 3.8. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) distribution Average 0 . 051 • - first row for an item second and subsequent wright_map(4) . txt 0.132 0 . 93 -0.8 0 . 97 -0.6 is overall item difficulty rows are tho Andrich delta ij of tho stop para.motors Nov 18 , 2011 4:53:30 PM Item Estimates Item Set, base variable : Construct Infit Mean Squares 0 . 58 0 . 67 0 . 75 0 . 83 0 . 92 1 . 00 1 . 08 1 .17 1 . 25 1.33 1.42 1 . 5 --------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ s5 l 85- 2 • 85- 3 • s5- 4 • 85- 5 s5- 6 sS- 7 • sS- 8 s5- 9 • s5- 10 • 85: 11 • •----•a-•e•a.a.-e_._m•-..•••aa•----•••-••••••-.s•e•aa.a-••-----•ts••••--••••a• Model Specifications : Measurement Model Proficiency Estimation Method Maximum LOgit Partial credit EAP 6 . 00 Minimum LOgit -6 . 00 Int~gration Method Monte Carlo 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 e o.ss ~ 0.50 • .,, ~ 0.45 C ~ 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 SEM Graph Construct l (EAP) Item Set: base • • • • • • ••• • • • •••• • • • • • • • • 0.00 ---~-------~-~---~-------------1 · 2.0 · l.5 · l.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Proficiencies     79   Generating a Wright Map offered a graphic representation of how students loaded on the questions (Figures 3.9 and 3.10). Figure 3.9 is a more graphical representation of the Wright Map, with the distribution of student scores in grey, and the estimates of generalized item thresholds for the 12-item AI scale shown in colored boxes on the right of the display. The distribution of student estimates based on the 12-item AI scale is shown graphically in the vertical histogram on the left side of the Wright Map in Figure 3.10. Figure 3.9. Graphic Wright Map for student school performance and future plan (AI) Results of Item Response Modeling for EI/PKC. The 18 items selected from the survey for EI/PKC were calibrated with item response modeling, using a partial credit model, to generate a calibrated scale and student estimates on the scale. Overall test reliability results for the 18-question EI/PKC scale yielded an acceptable a .87 Wright Map Construct 1 (EAP> Item Set: base 6 .. .. .. • .. .. • • • • • .. ~ • .. ·5, 0 • • • 0 • • _, • • - 1 • • • • • - 2 - 3 • • • • - 4 • -s - 6 44 30 20 10 0 .. "' .. e ;:: Proficiencies Thurstonian Thresholds at SO% I Students • Step 1 • Step 2 Step 3     80   Figure 3.10. Empirically estimated Wright Map for student school performance and future plan (AI) W:i g'M !'il).p l!,\I' ) !RT Y.i

a~e• &~ W1ri.:ibl c : CO."lll trl!Ct : Clltc,goric 11 n:131XXHIO 11'-'X!Ol po,t-t.4:1.f ·······--·········--·········--·-······-·--······-······-·--·· :itU 0.325 • •• • ••• ~ 0.300 •• .. .. ---··· ; 0.275 ...._,,,,,.. .,; 0.250 0.225 0.200 0.175 0.150 0.125 0.100 0.075 0.050 0.025 0.000 - 1.5 - 1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 PrnflripnriP< • • • • • • • 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0     83   and the estimates of generalized item thresholds for the 18-item EI/PKC scale shown in colored boxes on the right of the display. Results of Item Response Modeling for Parent EI/PKC. The 27 items selected from the survey for parents’ EI/PKC were calibrated with item response modeling, using a partial credit model, to generate a calibrated scale and parent estimates on the scale. Overall test reliability results for the 27-question parents’ EI/PKC scale yielded an adequate a.94 Cronbach’s alpha, and showed less infit mean square characteristics, see Figure 3.15, with some item estimates outside within the displayed .75-1.33 range. These values indicate less model fit than would be desirable. Most of less fitting items were on the low side, meaning these were showing less randomness and more discrimination than the model expects. They were retained for the purposes of this investigation, and an improved future effort might be to exactly match the parent and student indicators in this portion of the questionnaire, and to calibrate them together. This might allow sufficient data in the non-extreme categories, where the parents tended to show, for better model fit. However, there were sufficient fit issues here that the parent estimates on this scale should be interpreted with caution. A standard error plot for the parents’ EI/PKC estimates is shown in Figure 3.16.     84   Figure 3.13. Empirically estimated Wright Map for student ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) '4 tight.Jll'Pt SJ . t xt NOY t 8, 201: S :l0 ,46 P'.-: 1~" t;et : '=x!.11e i.·d ,;'.:!t Ko;i, u:.\l') 'lo.ti{lbl e • co:i11ti.-1;et 1 !!it'!' Clltc,gor1c11 ~..:ip ot pcr,oe c,tU'lot.c$ or:d rcspoeDc a.odc l paru.ctcr cst1Mt.C$ ·-·-·-···----·-······--·-······-···-·--·-······--·-·-···· ' ' ' ' XU xx 1. t - 3 "" x U -3 XU :CXXXX:CXXX.X I , l .L l 6 • l 2 :cxxxx:cxxx.x xn x• xx 9 -3 U -3 1-1. i Jt. i X:CXXXX:CXXX.X t S. l 16. l --- -XXXXXX:CXXXX:CXXX.X 2.l 4 . l 7.l S . l 12 . 2 l i . l llXXX:XllXX S -3 10.3 l Ll XX:CXXXX:CXXX.X I , 2 : , , 2 xxxx:cxxx.x ';I. 2 0 )()()( )( _, .J _, _, _, x:x• xx 3 .2 s. a ,.2 11).2 X.X 1. L 2 . 2 ,.2 8 . 2 t L l 12. t 13. 2 X:XllXX '1.2 10-2 lS, l l 'Ll x• xx u .1 1., . 2 X l . t X.X 6.t : c .t ll. : lS. : 2 - t -' · l (l. l , . 1 s ' t ; • l I i . t 1. , . 1 I S. t ·-·-······-·--·········--··············-·--·········--·········· eoch x rcprc,cr.ts 2 ,t.udcr.t,, .:~ch rov 1, o . 2ss 1091t, Model Speeifie~ti on11: ~co,urcr.cr.t ~.odcl • f'4rtill.l '"" , .~o f'rot1c1c:1cy Rnitutio."I ~cthoc! • K1'.Xi lT,.I" J,09lt, ~ 1r.1rmn t.ogit ! r.tc9ratior. ~.et ~.od Owi6t{lt1;.re :.,iooe11 i:11 eon~·ers1:1m:e etiteri~ ~rlght_llo:lpfS) .t ~t • -6. CO Carlo l \.l!rli .t•t in.,te11 i by pll.toiu, t:c,t,tJ !t.cii Set, buc l.'iu-Utllc , Cor.str.:ct. OUt!it -C'r.~9M.:d- K~q t ·:1ov t B, 2011 lnttt. -Wci9Mtd- K ~:;q t S : 10: 46 !'~.     85   Figure 3.14. Graphic Wright Map for student ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) Figure 3.15. Item Fit display for parent ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) Wright Map Construct 1 (EAP) Item Set: base 6~-----~~-------------------------------~ .. • • • .. .. • .. • .. • .. • .. • • • • ~ • ·5, 0 • 0 • • • • • • • _, • • • • • - 1 • • • • • • • • • • • - 2 • - 3 - 4 • - 5 - 6 54 25 0 .. "' .. ::: ::: :::: ::: ;!; ::'.! Proficiencies Thurstonian Thresholds at SO% I Students • Step 1 • Step 2 Step 3 Average 0 . 0 14 0 . 158 1. 0 1 - 0 . 7 0 . 92 - 1.2 • - f i rst row f or an itcn i s over all i t er:i di ff icul t y second and s ubsequent rows arc the Andr i ch del ta ij o f t he stco oararnctcrs wright _map ( 2 ) . txt Nov 18, 20 11 8 :0 1 :00 PM Itc:n Es t ir:lat cs Itc:n s et: base var i ablc : const ruct 1 Inf it Mean Squares 0 . 58 0 . 67 0 , 75 0 . 83 0 . 92 1. 00 1. 08 1. 17 1. 25 1. 33 1.42 1. 5 --------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ i 2 1 i 2- 2 i 2- 3 i 2- 4 12- s •> i 2- 6 i 2- 7 12- 8 < * i2~ Q u-10 i 2- 12 i 3- l i 3- 2 i 3- 3 i 3- 4 i 3- 5 i 3- 6 i 3- 7 i 3- 8 i 3- 9 i 3- 10 i 3- ll i 3- 12 i 3- 13 13- 14 < * 13- 15 < * i3: 16 Mode l Specif i c ations : Measur ement Model Pro f i ciency Estimation Met hod Maximum Lo git Mi ni mu.,i, Lo git ! nt ~gr ~tion __ M':t hod Partial c r edit EAP 6 . 00 - 6 . 00 Monte Carl o .. .. • • • • • • • ~ ::; :!I     86   The standard error of measurement (SEM) for parents’ EI/KPC ranged primarily between a low of .25 and a high of .35 on the logit scale shown here, which was described further in the subsequent section showing calibrated displays of the scale (Wright Map). Standard errors were lowest in the middle ranges of the scale and highest where less assessment data is available near the extremes. Figure 3.16 shows the distribution of parent proficiencies and related error values over the range. Figure 3.16. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) distribution Generating a Wright Map offered a graphic representation of how parents loaded on the questions (Figures 3.17 and 3.18). The distribution of parent estimates based on the 27-item parents’ EI/PKC scale is shown graphically in the vertical histogram on the left side of the Wright Map in Figure 3.17. Figure 3.18 is a more graphical representation 0.375 0.350 0.325 0.300 0.275 0.250 ~ 0.225 ; 0.200 .. ~ 0.175 .. .,; 0.150 0.125 0.100 0.075 0.050 0.025 • SEM Graph Construct 1 (EAP) Item Set: base • •• •• • ••• ·~ . .. . ···-···· ____ ............ . • • •• • 0.000 ,._ ____________________________ ...,..., - 2.0 - 1.5 - 1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Proficiencies     87   of the Wright Map, with the distribution of parent scores in red, and the estimates of generalized item thresholds for the 27-item parents’ EI/PKC scale shown in colored boxes on the right of the display. Figure 3.17. Empirically estimated Wright Map for parent perception of ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) " l'ight.Jll'PI 2 J . t x t :-iov Le, aou t : 0l :0C ?N ! um, Set, ~,c W:i g'!lt M11p 1!,\I' ) V,uiablc: con, truct : lRT C8t"'-1oriet1 ~.ap ot pcr, oe c,t!.Nitc• 11rx! :espoe,c a.odc l pa:u.ctt!' est1Mtc• ·-·-·--·-·--·--····--·--·-·--·-·--·--·-·--·-·--·· t1tOOtmt• Th<;,1.{t1tonit1.n 'I°h.{1!:tJhol eti ,eriterh. " l'ight.Jll'PI 2 J . t x t • tAf' • 6.00 -, .co )'.Qntti <:•rlo • 2 000 C- l>Cl !ttfl '£5 t i tl:lltCll ( by l)lll'4.'l'.CtCl"I lt1!11; Stit : ~i,.e l.'11..l'Ublc: Cor.stro;.ct ~QV Le, 20 U l : 0l : (10 i"K     88   Figure 3.18. Graphic Wright Map for parent ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) Research Question 1 A multiple regression analysis using the scaled scores investigated the relationship between degree of student Korean Language Acquisition/Use Pattern (HL) Wright Map Construct 1 (EAP) Item Set: ba se 6 • .. • • .. • • • • .. • • • .. • .. • • • • • • ~ .. • • ·5, 0 • • • .. • • • 0 • • • • • _, • • • • • - 1 • • • • • • • • • • - 2 • • • • - 3 • -4 • • • -s - 6 43 30 20 10 0 ~ "' .. !':: ;:: :::: ::: ;!; ::'.! :e ::; :!I ~ ~ Proficiencies Thurstonian Thresholds at SO% I Students • Step 1 • Step 2 Step 3 Wright Map Construct 1 (EAP) Item Set: ba se 6 • • • • • ~ • • ·5, 0 • • 0 _, • - 1 • • • • - 2 -3 • • - 4 • • -s - 6 ;;: N M ;!; ~ ~ ~ 43 30 20 10 0 N N N N Proficiencies Thurstonian Thresholds at SO% I Students • Step 1 • Step 2 Step 3     89   and student Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture (EI/PKC) (independent variables) and student School Performance/Future Plan (AI) as a dependent variable. First descriptive and model assumption tests are presented. Table 3.3 shows descriptive data of case summaries for the variables to be examined in the regression analysis. Table 3.3 Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample Mean Std. Deviation N Student academic performance 1.80 1.42 224 Language level/use pattern 0.24 1.48 224 Culture/ethnic orientation 1.07 1.03 224 Model Assumption The assumption of normal distribution was evaluated by graphing histogram, and normality plots for distribution; skewness and kurtosis values; as well as Kolmogorov- Smirnov significance test. Test of normality can be seen graphically in Figure 3.19 through 3.26 Normal Q-Q Plots and Histogram. Through the histogram and q-q plot of the standardized residual, the residuals followed roughly normal distribution. Examining the scatterplots of the standardized residuals against the standardized predicted values show the Homoscedasticity assumption is not violated.     90   Figure 3.19. Histogram of residual Figure 3.20. Histogram of student school performance/future plan (AI) ij C (I) 40 30 10 ean - -4. 77E- 16 ....1..-...,::L.L-4-.L..JL.4....L...L...1...L..L..1-L..L.4-J~-1,,,,1,-- -'Std. Ow. - 0. 006 0 N - 224 ao - 25 - 20 - - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4 Regression Standardi zed Residual - - .rr\ - I/ - ' - 5' 1s (I) - -1 \ I\ u:: 10 - t 5 - 1 - I ~ ~- 0 ~ i-- - I\ - \ ' Mean - 1. 799 Std. Dev. - 1.42194 N - 224 - 2. 00 -1. 00 o.oo 1.00 2. 00 a. oo 4. oo s. oo Student academic achievement index     91   Figure 3.21. Histogram of student Korean language acquisition/use pattern (HL) Figure 3.22. Histogram of student ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) 40 ao ~ C: (D ::, c,- 20 ~ u. 10 -4.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 4. 00 Heritage language ability estimates Moan - 1.07-1 Std. Dev. - 1.02895 N - 22-1 - 1.00 o.oo 1.00 2. 00 a.oo -1.00 Ethnic identi ty/cul ture elvel     92   Figure 3.23. Scatterplots of residual Figure 3.24. Normal Q-Q plots of displays indices for the student school performance/future plan (AI) ~- 0 a- cv ::, "O 2- ·.;; (I) a: 1- "O (I) N 'o o- i;; 0 "O C - 1- .!! en 0 - 2- 0 0 -a- ' I I I I I ' -a •2 • 1 0 1 2 a Standardized Predicted Value 5 4 (I) ::, a cv > cv E 2 0 z "O 1 (I) ti (I) C. 0 ~ -1 - 2 - 2 -1 0 1 2 4 5 Ob served Value     93   Figure 3.25. Normal Q-Q plots of displays indices for the student Korean language acquisition/use pattern (HL) Figure 3.26. Normal Q-Q plots of display indices for the student ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) 4 G ::, .;; > .;; 2 E 0 z 'O G O u G Q ~ -2 4 a G ::, .;; 2 > ~ E 0 z 'O G u G Q 0 in - 1 - 2 - 2 -4 -2 0 2 4 Ob serv ed Value - 1 0 1 2 4 Observed Value     94   Result of Overall Regression Following checking the homogeneity of regression assumption, multiple regression was conducted to investigate the relationship between degree of student Korean Language Acquisition/Use Pattern (HL) and student Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture (EI/PKC) (independent variables) and student School Performance/Future Plan (AI) as a dependent variable. The regression of student school performance/future plan on student Korean language level and use pattern and student culture/ethnic orientation was statistically significant, F(2, 221) = 35.01, MSR = 1.55, p < .001, R2 = .24, as shown in Table 3.4 and 3.5. Student language level was a statistically significant predictor of student school performance, b1 = .20, SE = .08, p < .05. The regression weight associated with student Korean language acquisition and use pattern (b1) indicates that for every one unit increase in student language level, student school performance changed by 0.20 units. Examination of the squared semipartial correlation between student language level and student school performance revealed that 2.3 % of the variation of student school performance was uniquely associated for by student Korean language level and use pattern. Student culture/ethnic orientation was also a statistically significant predictor of student school performance/future plan, b2 = .45, SE = .11, p < .05. The coefficient associated with student culture/ethnic orientation (b2) indicates that for every one unit increase in student culture/ethnic orientation, student school performance changed by .45 units. Examination of the squared semipartial correlation between student culture/ethnic orientation and student school performance revealed that 5.4% of the variation of student     95   school performance was uniquely associated for by student culture/ethnic orientation. Together student Korean language level and student culture/ethnic orientation uniquely accounted for 7.7% of the variability in student school performance and future plan. Table 3.4 Overall Results for Regression Model Predicting Student School Performance/Future Plans ____________________________________________________________________________ Model Summary R R2 Adjusted R2_ 0.491 0.241 0.234 ANOVA Source SS df MS F p_ Regression 108.48 2 54.24 35.01 < .001 Residual 342.41 221 1.55 Total 450.89 223 ______________________________________________________________________ Table 3.5 Regression Coefficients for Model Predicting Student School Performance/Future Plans Variable b SE t β sr p Intercept 1.273 .137 9.319 < .05 HL .201 .078 2.579 .209 .151 < .05 EI/KPC .445 .112 3.974 .322 .233 < .05 Note. SE = standard error, sr = semipartial correlation     96   Correlation Studies for Research Questions 2 and 3 Following the results of the multiple regression for Question One, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship among the variables for Question 2 (An exploration of student level of heritage language acquisition any in this sample group establishes links with student views of cultural self-identity) and Question 3 (The relationship between the parents’ level of cultural identity and their children’s level of cultural identity). Table 3.6 shows descriptive data of case summaries for the variables examined in the correlation analysis. Table 3.7 provides the obtained correlations. There were strong correlations (r = .69, p < .01) between student Korean language level/use pattern (HL) factor (n= 224) and student ethnic identity and practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) factor (n = 224). There were also moderate to strong correlations (r = .61, p < .01) between student HL factor (n = 224) and parents EI/PKC factor (n = 149). The relationship between student EI/PKC factor and parents EI/PKC factor (n = 149) were moderate to strong correlations (r = .62, p < .01). Table 3.6 Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample M SD N Students language level/use pattern (HL) 0.24 1.48 224 Student school performance and future plan (AI) 1.80 1.42 224 Student ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) 1.07 1.03 224 Parents ethnic identity/practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) 0.55 1.10 149     97   Table 3.7 Correlations Among Variables Variables 1 2 3 4 1. Student HL 2. Student AI .43** 3. Students EI/PKC .69** .47** 4. Parents EI/PKC .61** .50** .62** Note. ** p < .01 In addition to three research questions, an additional multiple regression analysis using the scaled scores was performed to investigate the relationships of the AI, HL and EI/PKC variables when controlled for students’ total family income (independent variable) through entering this first into the model via stepwise regression. This analysis was conducted as a validity check on an alternate hypothesis that family economic status alone might fully predict relationships of HL and EI/PKC and AI described above. The regression of student school performance/future plan on students’ total family income was statistically significant, F(1, 143) = 22.11, MSR = 2.20, p < .01, R2 = .13. Student family income was a statistically significant predictor of student school performance, b = .47, SE = .10, p < .05. The regression weight associated with student family income b indicates that for every one unit increase in student family income, student school performance changed by 0.47 units. However, when I added student Korean Language Acquisition/Use Pattern (HL) and student Ethnic Identity/Practice of     98   Korean Culture (EI/PKC) variables into the regression model, then there was a 38% variance in student School Performance/Future Plan. This suggests that the 25% of the variance in student school performance associated with student Korean Language Acquisition/Use Pattern (HL) and student Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture (EI/PKC), adds potentially additional predictive value beyond the SES relationship, at least based on the single SES variable selected and within this data set F(3, 141) = 28.76, MSR = 1.60, p < .001, R2 = .38 as shown in Table 3.8. Regarding the additional validity question of how strongly the AI constructed variable reflected a reasonable factor for student achievement, additional correlation studies were run to look at the relationship of self-reported GPA directly and the AI constructed factor. There were strong correlations ((r = .63, p < .01) as expected between student School Performance/Future Plan and student current GPA (Note though I acknowledge the limitation that GPA was part of the constructed factor and therefore dependency exists; however it was deemed reasonable to report this correlational study to inform the reader on this topic.) Considering other demographics, there were also moderate correlations (r = .48, p < .01) between parent education level (n = 145) and total family income factor (n = 145), supporting the use of the single SES factor described above. Finally, the relationship between student gender (n = 224) and student School Performance/Future Plan was explored and found not to be a statistically significant relationship (r = .17, p >.05).     99   Table 3.8 Overall Results for Regression Model Predicting Student School Performance/Future Plans ____________________________________________________________________________ Model Summary R R2 Adjusted R2_ 0.616 0.380 0.366 ANOVA Source SS df MS F p_ Regression 138.07 3 46.02 28.76 < .001 Residual 225.65 141 1.60 Total 363.72 144 ______________________________________________________________________ Table 3.9 Regression Coefficients for Model Predicting Student School Performance/Future Plans Variable b SE t β sr p Intercept -.830 .526 -1.578 > .05 Family income .359 .086 4.158 .280 .276 < .05 HL .212 .100 2.117 .206 .140 < .05 EI/KPC .489 .143 3.410 .333 .226 < .05 Note. SE = standard error, sr = semipartial correlation     100   Qualitative Analysis of Respondents in the Open-ended Survey Qualitative analysis was used to see if the more in-depth narrative results through some open-ended questions and dyad interviews can help add additional interpretive value to the studies above. Qualitative data for this study were collected in the form of both students’ and parents’ written responses in the open-ended survey questions and in-depth interviewing for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of answering the research questions. As mentioned in the Methods chapter, in the second qualitative phase, I used a multiple case study approach (Yin, 2003) to help explain why certain factors, tested in the survey data, were significant or not significant predictors of the relationship student ethnic identity and their academic achievement. Representative student and parent qualitative responses are presented so that reader can connect to the respondents’ statements. Spelling errors have been corrected to not alter the meaning of the response, however, grammatical corrections were not made. The following tables provide descriptive statements, including both student and parent perception of their ethnic identity, student knowledge of Korean culture, student perception of comparison of preference between Korean and American culture and student cultural conflict with their parents, and student self-perception of their future plan and parent perception of their child’s school performance. These responses were not transformed into scoring rubric but aspects were used to support the quantitative self- selected numeric responses and in-depth case study interpretation in the next chapter. Table 3.10 and 3.11 provide description of both students and parents who identified     101   themselves as a Korean, Korean American, or American respectively with illustrative quotes. Table 3.10 Student Responses to Open-Ended Question for Student Ethnic Identity Construct Subscale Respons es (n =165) Freq uenc y Illustrative Quote Korean 52 I think I’m Korean because my parents are Korean (case 01). Very important because it gives me something larger to be a part of …(case 17). It provides me with unique characteristics that others cannot have…(case 27). Important because it represents who I am and my ethnic background (case 42). My parents are Korean and I feel I’m belonging to family (case 93). Identity is really important because it classifies who you are (case 142). Korean American 107 It is something different from both Americans and Koreans (case 37). I identify myself as Korean American but I’m still not sure of what fully Korean means because I grew up in America (case 218). Because I have both characteristics…(case 223). Ethnic Identity Self Identity Perception/ Awareness of Identity/   (Q. 2.19) American 2 If you live in and around American culture, you should live in that culture (case 39). I feel like American more because I was born in US and speak English most time (case 106).     102   Table 3.10 (continued) Construct Subscale Responses (n =165) Freque- ncy Illustrative Quote Others 4 Not really important whether I consider myself a Korean or not. I am just myself (case 85). Don’t care. I’m multicultural person (case 97). Not that important, just because I’m Korean doesn’t mean I have to be different (case 127). Even if I want to be strictly American or Korean, there is always the other that stops me from identifying myself just one (case 146). The next set of tables presents the open-ended survey question on student Korean culture knowledge level, student preference between Korean and American culture, and how students feel when they have some conflict with their parents because of different way of doing things living in United States. These open-ended responses were important to consider triangulating with the quantitative results and to examine the relationship between the self-selected numerical responses and written responses. Table 3.12 presents the student perception of Korean culture about how well or how little they understand Korean culture. The responses illustrate that students who had very good knowledge of Korean culture were more positive toward Korean culture and tradition while students who had very little information on Korean culture were negative.     103   Table 3.11 Parent Responses to Open-Ended Question for Parent Ethnic Identity Construct Subscale Responses (n =53) Freq uenc y Illustrative Quote Korean 41 I think it is important to keep my Korean identity because I was born and lived in Korea over 30 years (case 01). It provides me with unique characteristics that others cannot have (case 27). Important because it represents who I am and my ethnic background (case 42). It’s very important as a Korean because I can’t change my ethnic identity (case 93) Korean American 7 I could feel both American and Korean because I’ve lived America for a long time (case 23). I identify myself as Korean American because my nationality is American but my ethnic identity is Korean (case 91). I have both characteristics (case 137). American 1 If you live in and around American culture, then you should adopt that culture (case 79). Ethnic Identity Self Identity/ Perceptio n/Aware ness of Identity (Q. 2.18) Others 4 Not really important whether I consider myself as a Korean or not. We are all the same as a human being (case 85) In student perception of comparison of preference between Korean and American culture, some illustrated concepts were positive for some students such as academic emphasis, respect for parents, and family honor, but for others were negative (Table     104   3.13). Table 3.14 provides some information on the potential conflict between students and their parents because of different expectations of ways of doing things based on culture. This table shows three ways of students’ responses: no conflict, difficult to deal with conflict, and finding solutions. The subsequent two tables (Table 3.15 and Table 3.16) provide students’ perception of their future plans include college and career path, and parents’ perception of their child’s future plans. Both students and parents responded that they wanted the student to continue higher education, and achieve most prestigious college and professional jobs such as medical related or lawyer. Finally, Table 3.17 provides student self-reported academic performance using measurements including current GPA, number of AP courses, taken/in-progress, enrollment in an IB program, and PSAT, and SAT scores. Table 3.12 Student Responses to Open-Ended Question for Student Perception of Korean Culture Construct Subscale Responses (n =165) Freque ncy Illustrative Quote Culture Knowledge /Describing Korean Culture (Q. 2.20) Very well/strong 141 Spiritual, beautiful, long history culture, very manner and etiquette, respectful, family oriented, and family honor (case 01) Very unique, Kimchi, strictness, discipline, and ordered (case 17) Strong family honor, bonded, caring, hard working and high achieving motivation (case 27) Delicious food, famous Korean Pop group (case 34)     105   Table 3.12 (continued) Construct Subscale Responses (n =165) Frequency Illustrative Quote Very well/strong 141 Strong family relationship, caring, hard working, high achieving motivation, respect parents and adult (case 56) Warm, nice, sharing goods with others, popular k-pop music (case 93) Traditional, precious culture, makes family proud (case 109) Strong family bonded, caring, hard working, high achieving motivation (case 219) A little 24 Some way unique, but I can’t explain it (case 94). I’ve heard Koreans emphasize too much education and very competitive but I am not sure because I don’t live in Korea (case 153). Kind of weird for me if I don’t know Korean culture, but I don’t know much about it (case 106). I had little knowledge of Korean culture so I can’t comment (case 179).     106   Table 3.13 Student Responses to Open-Ended Question for Student Perception of Comparison of Preference between Korean and American Culture Construct Subscale Responses (n =143) Freque ncy Illustrative Quote Positive Korean “Way” 94 Strong family relationship, caring, hard working, high achieving motivation (case 27) Respect parents and adults (case 56). Family honor and high achieving motivation (case 219) Negative Korean “Way” 49 Emphasis too much academic achievement (case 85). Very strict (case 127) Obedience parents so I have to follow what they want me to do (case 153). Positive American “Way” 32 Opportunity; less comparative (case 54). Americans are not judgmental and quite flexible. I like sharing idea (case 93). I like American culture because American culture is more free spiritual and individual (case 119) Culture Comparison of Preference between Korean and American Culture/ “Way of Doing things “ (Q. 2.21) Negative American “Way” 29 Violence, individualism, and less consider education and less respect teacher in school (case 56) Little emphasis on academic achievement. Too much freedom, relaxed, and flexibility (case 89) Less study and more relaxed (case 109) Too much freedom and less study (case 195) Too individualism, selfish, too much freedom, and rude (case 219)     107   Table 3.14 Student Responses to the Question for Feeling about Cultural Conflict with Parent Construct Subscale Responses (n=173) Freque ncy Illustrative Quote Culture Feeling about Cultural Conflict with Parent (2.22) No Conflict Difficult to Deal with Conflict Finding Solution 12 144 17 No conflict because I talked a lot in Korean with my parents, I guess (case 27). Don’t find any difficulties between my parents and me because we are doing both ways and communicate with both languages (case 70). We use both Korean and English (case 219). My parents are too used to live in their Korean way so they won’t change (case 85) Feel frustrated because I want to follow American way of doing things but my parents don’t (case 109) It does bother me. I grew up in America and more American way (case 121). I am quite annoyed because if you live in and around American culture, then you should live in that culture (case 115). Feel that it’s unfair because people around me have the freedom of doing things, but I’m not allowed (case 147). They won’t change their way. My mom things are way that’s normal in Korean culture, but it sometimes thought of as strange here (case 153). My family is strict like Korean way but I would prefer them to be more understood. I understand my parents and we try to find a way to compromise (case 93). I understand their point of view but wish that they could accept and incorporate the idea that I was raised in the U.S. (case 148). Hope my parents were good at English so I could communicate better (case 203).     108   Table 3.15 Student Responses to Open-Ended Questions for Student Perception of their Future Plan Construct Subscale Responses Freque ncy Illustration Ivy League/ Good 97 Harvard; Yale, Princeton, Ivy league college, and UC Berkeley; UCLA Four-year College/ Some college 76 Neighbor University, Bible college; Art and Design School; Community college first then 4-year college College (Q. 5.10) Don’t Know 15 I am just 9th grade so I haven’t thought about college seriously yet (case 51). Lack of money 12 Money if not go, but I think I can/must go community college for getting job (case 107). Better Choice 2 If I get any better job (case 127). If not to go to College, reason (Q. 5.11) No Choice 137 No exception. I should go to college (case 01). No way not going to college (case 219). Professiona l Job 95 Medical doctor, Professor, Lawyer, Dentist Job what Student Want to Pursue 58 Master chef, Architect, Veterinarian, Journalist, Programmer, Cello soloist Reflect my characteristics and abilities- teaching, journalism Major/Job (Q.5.12) Don’t Know 35 I haven’t thought about it. Strong Future Plan/Goal 172 Most good students. Gong to good college and get a good /decent job. Future Plan Friends future plan (Q.5.15) Less Future Plan/Goal 3 Don’t take it seriously; they are pathetic.     109   Table 3.16 Parents Responses to Open-Ended Questions for Parents’ Perception of their Children’s Future Plan Construct Subscale Responses Freque ncy Illustration Ivy League/ Good 89 Harvard; Yale, Princeton, Ivy league college, and UC Berkeley; UCLA College (Q. 4.9) Four-year College/ Some college 25 Neighbor University, Bible college; Art and Design School; Community college first then 4-year college Lack of money 3 Money is issue, but I will support my child to go to community college at least than he transfer to 4-year college. Better Choice 1 If there is better job or other things to do better (case 79). If not to not to go to College, reason (Q.4.10) No Choice 114 No exception. My child should go to college. No way not going to college. Professional Job 96 Medical Doctor, Dentist, Lawyer, Professor Major/Job (Q.4.11) Any Job 21 Job whatever my child want to pursue his/her dream. Future Plan Friends future plan (Q.4.15) Strong Future Plan 112 Most good students. Going to good college and get a good /decent job.     110   Table 3.17 Student Responses to Open-Ended Questions for Academic Index Variable Frequency (%) GPA Scores 2.30 - 2.98 7 ( 4.9) 3.00 - 3.50 26 (18.3) 3.60 - 3.89 26 (18.3) 3.90 - 3.98 21 (14.8) 4.00 60 (57.1) 4.10 – 4.30 2 ( 1.4) Missing 82 (36.6) Number of Taking AP Courses 1 - 4 56 (75.7) 5 - 7 16 (21.6) 8 -11 2 ( 2.8) Missing 177 (79 ) IB Program Yes 55 ( 5.4) No 30 (13.4) Not applicable 22 ( 9.8) Missing 104 (46.4) SAT Score 1100 - 1570 10 (21.3)     111   Table 3.17 (continued) Demographic variable Frequency (%) 1780 - 1990 11 (25.5) 2010 - 2170 19 (40.4) 2210 - 2350 6 (12.8) Missing 177 (79.0) PSAT Score 115 - 165 6 (20.7) 183 - 198 11 (37.9) 200 - 215 12 (41.4) Missing 195 (87.1) In-depth Interview Case Selection As is the purpose of the mixed-methods sequential designs, the quantitative and qualitative phases are connected (Hanson et al. 2005) when the results of the data analysis in the first phase, quantitative data analysis, inform the data collection for the second phase, qualitative case studies during the intermediate stage. Selecting the participants for the qualitative follow-up analysis from those who responded to the survey in the first, quantitative, phase based on their numeric scores (Creswell et al. 2003) connected the quantitative and qualitative stages. Even though case selection is essential for connecting points in the mixed-method sequential design (Hanson et al. 2005), there     112   are no single set of established guidelines for the steps to follow to select cases (Creswell et al. 2005), and this depends to some extent on the research question to be answered. Due to the exploratory nature of its qualitative phase, the typical case for each participant group was considered for this study. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the four different groups were developed to identify four representative models. Using the descriptive exploratory procedure in SPSS, I identified participants from each group with the mean scores and percentile of student culture/ethnic factor, parent culture/ethnic factor, and student school performance factor (Table 3.18). Then, for the analysis purposes, I organized student respondents into four and parent respondents into two groups. Students were grouped based on their ethnic identity, culture participation, and school performance: (a) students who had above the mean in 2 factors (high ethnic/culture high performance group); (b) students who had above the mean in ethnic identity and culture participation but below the mean in school performance (high ethnic/culture low performance group); (c) students who had below the mean in ethnic identity and culture participation but high the mean in school performance (low ethnic/culture high performance group); and (d) students who had below the mean in ethnic identity and culture participation, and the mean in school performance (low ethnic/culture low performance group). The parents were organized into two group based on their ethnic identity and Korean culture participation: (a) parents who had above the mean in ethnic identity and culture participation; and (b) parents who had below the mean in ethnic identity and culture participation. Then within each of the groups, I compared the participants with     113   demographic characteristic such as age, gender, grade, family economic status, and student generation. Using these criteria, four sets of parents and students were selected to represent each group listed in Table 3.18 as follow: (Group 1) both parent and student exhibit high ethnic identity and interest in Korean culture and student shows high in school performance/future plan, (Group 2) high ethnic identity parent and low ethnic identity student, and student shows low in school performance/future plan, (Group 3) low ethnic identity parent and high ethnic identity student, and student shows high in school performance/future plan, and (Group 4) both parent and student describe themselves as having low ethnic identity and student shows low in school performance/future plan. All four pairs agreed to participate in in-depth interview. Within each of the four groups, I compared the participants on the following demographic characteristics such as generation, grade, gender, and place of residence. Using the criteria, I identified three sets of paired participants from groups 1 and 4 and two sets of paired participants from groups 2 and 3. Finally, I used a maximal variation sampling strategy (Creswell, 2005) to select one participant per group. So from 10 sets of paired parents and students, I selected four sets of participants who displayed different dimensions on demographic characteristics.     114   Table 3.18 Descriptive for Participants Group Student Culture/Ethnic Parents Culture/Ethnic Student School Performance/ Future Plan Variable M SD N M SD N M SD N Group 1 0.82 0.35 24 0.76 0.22 24 0.78 0.29 24 Group 2 -0.27 0.78 9 0.68 0.19 9 -0.27 0.44 9 Group 3 0.55 0.34 8 0.04 0.36 8 0.82 0.41 8 Group 4 -1.27 0.90 27 -0.99 0.85 27 -1.17 0.80 27 Analysis of Respondents in the Interview Table 3.19 and 3.20 provide selected information on each narrator. Four sets of participants who live in the Eugene, Beaverton, and Portland area as described in Chapter II were included in this study: two second and two 1.5-generation Korean American students and their parents. The students and parents participated in semi-structured, in- depth interviews, which were used to determine the experiences and perceptions of these participants (Patton, 1987) in regard to their heritage language and culture, as well as their ethnic identity in which HL/culture played a role. Student school performance and their future plan (AI) were also considered. The interview questions concerned personal background, language use in the family, attitude toward the HL/culture, personal experiences using the HL outside the family, and school performance and future plans.     115   Although the main questions were used to organize the interviews, the participants were encouraged to elaborate on their thoughts as freely as possible. Table 3. 19 Brief Profiles of Students Selected for Case Study Analysis (All names used here are pseudonyms) Name Age Generation (Arrival in the U.S.) Grade Gender Cherry (G1) 17 1.5 (2-year old) 12 Female Irene (G2) 17 2 11 Female James (G3) 16 1.5 (3-year old) 11 Male Jade (G4) 14 2 9 Female Table 3.20 Brief Profiles of Parents Selected for Case Study Analysis (All names used here are pseudonyms) Name Age Education Residency Gender Total Family Income Last Year Cherry’s father (G1) 51 DMD 15 Years Male $200.000 or more Irene’s father (G2) 46 College Degree 35 Years Male $75,000-$99,999 James’s mother (G3) 43 Master’s Degree 13 Years Female $100,000- $199,999 Jade’s father (G4) 45 College Degree 29 Years Male Not very much     116   In the first stage of data analysis, interviews were transcribed and were coded. Codes are defined as “tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information complied during the study” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 56). Following the assignment of codes, the next stage of data analysis was the patterning of codes. This process required grouping of the codes into a “smaller number of sets, themes, or constructs” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69). The final stage of the data analysis process was the development of summary statements from both student and parent data collection and analysis. In Table 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, and 3.24, summary statement from in-depth interview for student was presented and Table 3.25, 3.26, and 3.27 were described summary statement from in-depth interview for parent. During processing of data analyses, I also created and used within-case displays, in the form of a matrix to identify characteristics that would reflect student level of Korean language, ethnic/culture, and school performance direction. Miles and Huberman (1994) described this process as a visual display of compressed data that presents information systematically discussed in the next discussion chapter.     117   Table 3.21 Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Student Ethnic Identity Construct   Illustrative Quote   Ethnic Identity G1 I used to be really good Korean history when I was in Korea. But now, it’s like, really hard for me, and I don’t know the history very well. I mean, I know the basics, but not… really all that I should know. I feel I am a Korean when I’m with Korean people… like, recently I went to beach with our church’s district prayer group and I felt really “Korean”. I felt like one big family… we played games and treated each other like siblings, and the other moms treat the other kids like their kids which was really nice. So yeah… I think I feel Korean most when I’m surrounded by them. I think now that I have so many Korean friends… During school I hang out with my American friends more, but outside of school, I hang out with my Korean friends a lot because of church activities and stuff.   G2 I guess I’m Korean. My parents are Korean, so I’m a part of Korean, so I’m Korean. However, I feel I am more like an American because I do not know real Korea and have been lived in here since I was born here. I don’t understand why my parents and many Korean adults told me that I have to proud of myself as a Korean, but I want be an American because I will live here and most of my friends are American. I also do not know about Korea, so I don’t really know I have to proud as a Korean.   G3 I identify myself as a Korean, like a 100% Korean even though I have been lived here longer than I lived in Korea. I learned Korean history and Korean language at Korean culture schools. It is because at school at ethnic level, Asian or Korean whatever they are not very many, so I am kinda stand out almost. It’s really important I represent my culture and because there is not big diversity at my school in different culture so it’s really important to me to represent Korean culture…     118   3.21 (continued) Construct   Illustrative Quote     G3 I really I’m proud of I’m Korean and I’m really proud my heritage. I like to be able to know Korean ways. I think it’s better than not being able to do Korean ways or something…   G4 When I say I’m a Korean, I am a Korean? Like my parents are Korean? But when they’re like, “have you lived there?” and I have not lived in Korea, but I lived in America. Sometime its kinda weird saying I’m a Korean because I look Korean, so I’m not American it’s just hard to define myself. I don’t really know who I am. But I still think I am a Korean but I live the American way. I’ve never lived in Korea, I can’t really say, I’m a true Korean, or whatever ‘cause basically I’m a Korean American with the Korean looks and Korean heritage. When I go to a Korean church, they’re just so different. Like when I go to the church and I talk to my friends there it just so different from when I go to school and talk to my American friends there. It’s just such a different feeling they just feel like I’m in different places even though I’m still in Eugene. It fells just so… so weird because the groups are so different. I consider myself as a Korean, but actually, I do not feel I am a real Korean when I talk to Korean students who just came to America.     119   Table 3.22 Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Student Korean Culture Acquisition Construct   Illustrative Quote   G1 I like it a lot. The food is good, and the culture is really different than American culture… I guess Korean culture is more… colorful. So the families all bond together, so it is a lot more people which makes it more fun. We celebrate big Korean holidays as a family… but now that we go to Korean church we just go along with whatever they are celebrating. I think kids should obey their parents, because I know some people who didn’t who kinda messed up their lives. But I think that if the parent ties down the kid to them, and has them obey everything they say then I think that’s a little too much, because it think kids should able to make their own choices and find their own way in life with the guidance of their parents. I think teachers should get respect from students. Otherwise why would there be a school in the first place, and teachers, right? And elders and seniors should automatically get respect from us kids, because they deserve it. Maybe its because I was raised by my grandparents but I strongly agree on the Korean notion that the elders should get respect from the young people. We play a bunch of Korean games that only work in Korean. It is so much fun. We play “human yut-no-ri” which is cool. I enjoy playing Korean traditional games too. Korean Culture G2 The mean of Korean culture to me is just anything that happens in Korea basically. So maybe Korean culture here is everything we do that people in Korea do. I like Korean food. Korean food is like different from American food. In Korea the food is way spicier and in Korea, people don’t eat a lot of meat and they eat more fish I think. I do know some Korean culture, but I don’t think I know all of it. I have no desire to learn Korean culture because I will continue live in America. My parents have a different viewpoint and tries to push me to learn Korean way of life, but I am not comfortable. American and Korean says you should respect the teacher, but in America I think it’s less strict than Korea. In America, you can almost act like friends as what the teacher as teacher is teaching, but in Korea, you always respect teacher no matter what.       120   Table 3.22 (continued) Construct   Illustrative Quote   G3 First of all being bilingual, it’s really beneficial a lot of things and Korea is my culture so I want to learn Korean culture more. I’ve always wanted to like after high school go to Korea for a year to learn everything about Korea. Well, not everything of course but get more fluent in the language just… I totally want to know more about all of Korea just because I know so much about America I just want to know more of who I am in the Korean culture. My family celebrates Korean Thanksgiving and Korean New Year, but not like other Koreans who live in Korea. We are used to celebrate kind of Western New Year’s day and Thanksgiving day and play Korean traditional Yut Nol-ri game. I don’t like kids have to obey without any reason, but Korean kids obey to their parents, but in America a lot of kids are very rude to their parents. I don’t want to do that. They talk back to their parents. But Korean people are very formal, so I’m not uncomfortable. But in America they are casual and I feel more comfortable, I think.   G4 I haven’t fully experience to Korean ways because I lived here whole my life. I’ve lived in American ways, but my parents live Korean way because they grew up with Korean culture and everything. So sometimes I think that they’re unfair something or strict but how they are grew up, but I grew up in American way. I like eating Korean food a lot. I also like American food too, but Korean food is healthier and yammy. I like Bulgogi. Main Korean activities, I participated in, are Korean church and Korean school and Korean church orchestra. I don’t think otherwise I do because only Korean people I know that the people go to my church. Korean people are more obedient to their parents, elders and teachers. But I prefer live like American. They are like more nice I think. I don’t think my family does not celebrate Korean traditional holidays like other Korean people who live here. They also do not give a lot of pressure to learn Korean culture and language. However, I like to play Korean traditional game “yut.” That’s fun. That’s New Year game.       121   Table 3.23 Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Student Korean Language Acquisition Construct   Illustrative Quote   Korean Heritage Language Acquisition G1 I used to be not able to speak Korean well, but when I entered high school I met a lot of Korean friends, and because I talked in Korean to them a lot, my Korean skills got better than they were compared to when I went to middle and elementary school. I can read and write, but I don’t really understand some of the hard words, and I forgot a lot of the spelling. I prefer talking in English, because I live in America, and I think its better for my education, but when my mom talks in Korean to me, then I automatically talk in Korean back to her, because its easier to understand each other and make jokes in the same language. At school… it depends who I’m hanging out with. I mean, if I’m hanging out with my American friends, I don’t really have a choice but to talk in English. And I like that, but when I’m with my Korean friends, we talk in Korean most of the time, but sometimes have English here and there.     G2 I speak Korean all right, but I have some difficulty to talk and understand Korean. I feel I understand Korean some, but I have some problem to understand when Korean adult talk to me. Like the vocabulary too sophisticated I don’t really get it. I do want to learn Korean because it is a part of my heritage, but it is not easy and I do not have time to learn.     G3 I usually understand mostly of Korean except adult talk. I can speak Korean, but I can’t write well. Well, language talk to people who speak language and when people come from Korea that are new they need someone to help them like to translate and to help them around or like college degree students who are trilingual, bilingual… help with future jobs too. I feel really good that I know Korean language, and nobody else could really help new students from Korea because there aren’t that many Korean kids at my school. So I could talk to     122   Table 3.23 (continued) Construct   Illustrative Quote   G3 them, and the person wouldn’t understand, and I would help them and make them understand and stuff, so it was cool. Korean language is just like more intelligent language than other languages. Like vocabulary ‘cause I don’t really talk to Korean adults except my parents, so it just sounds different, I guess. Ever since I was really young like four or five years old my parents watched Korean reality TV shows... dramas so I grew up watching those so I pretty much understand those. I speak with my parents Korean, but my younger sister speaks English to them most of the time except my mom speaks Korean to her, but with my dad she speak English, but I speak Korean with my dad. It’s kind of weird, but I speak English with my sister so its kinda both for me. I’m glad that I speak Korean with them ‘cause one phase in time I only spoke English with them and its kinda hard talking in Korean with them again ‘cause its awkward in a way, but I’m really glad that I am able to speak Korean. I don’t really know what Korean is because I’ve never really lived in Korea… so it’s good to know the language, and my parents tell me stuff about it sometimes. I want Korean people to stick to Korean ways too like know the language just the Korean culture. It’s kinda sad when I see Korean people and they can’t speak Korean they only know how to speak English because they can’t speak their ethnicity’s language. That’s kinda sad, so I think anybody from any ethnicity should know their heritage language. G4 I can understand some, but some really hard words can’t understand well. My Korean fluency is not well. I think it’s good to keep your native language and if I don’t speak or understand Korean then like I feel really sad because when I go to church stuff and you can’t understand everybody’s saying. I am more comfortable in English because I can speak better in English. But if my parents don’t understand what I’m saying then I speak in Korean. But I am comfortable in English.     123   Table 3.24 Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Student Academic Achievement/Future Plan Construct   Illustrative Quote   Academic Achievement/ Future plan G1 I think I should be VERY satisfied with my school performance… since I have all good grades and a 4.0 GPA, but I sometimes feel like I’m lacking something, but always don’t really know what. Like when I get a few problems wrong on a test, then I’ll get seriously depressed. It’s really weird. My SAT score is 2170, so I will try again. I need better score. Well… my mom.. kinda…. expects me to do better than everyone else… so… there’s that kinda of… and I think she’s mostly satisfied, but sometimes she gets hung up about my grades more than I do even when I have a low A+. But in general I think she’s satisfied. High education is essential to live in today’s economy and live easily… like, with less problems. Academics basically are the key to getting rich later on in life, and in today’s world, you have to go through some form of academic to reach your dream. Whatever that may be… I need good grades! And a high school diploma. And I really want to get into a GOOD college. Like, a really good one. I think that will determine my future. The colleges I’m interested in are pretty much mostly IVY league. My top five are: Princeton, Yale, Berkley, Stanford, and Williams. What I said. I know that I’m going to graduate school. God willing. All my friends want to go to college, and most of them want to attend IVY league colleges. Except for one of my best friends who think it’s “way out of our league”. But mostly we don’t really listen to her when it comes to that.     G2 My parents really want me to study all the time. However, I think they’ve lived long time in America so they’ve seen how education is not biggest thing here, so they kinda let us loose more so they are not studying, but certainly, they are like most other parents, they want us to be more educated.       124   Table 3.24 (continued) Construct   Illustrative Quote   G2 I really don’t know why many Korean adults think education is very important. I guess… I really don’t thought about why they are really education is so important…there are many areas we can do in here… For me getting Bs stuff is ok. And I’m pretty good because my parents make me not pressure but encourage me. Of course, I will go to college but for my future, I just I want to know what I want to do. I don’t know what I want to do yet, so getting good grade is important for my future, but I want to know what I want to do first. It’s kinda assume that I go at least four years college, but if I want to get something others, I may take course work at the community college. However, I want to be animal doctor because I like animals, but that means I have to study science but I really don’t like that, so I told my parents about that. G3 I made all As so far. I always try my best to get all As from elementary school. I study hard and want to be top student at my school. All my friends are not top, but we encourage each other to study hard. I like to study. I just want to go a good college. That’s just my basic plan. I want to be a dentist, so I study hard to get into a medical school. It is a long way from now, but I can achieve my goal. G4 I think I am doing ok in school. Compare to my friends. I got mainly As and Bs but many my American friends get many Bs and Cs. Studying hard is pretty important to go a good college, but I still don’t know what I want to be for my future. However, I like to have a good job. I think, I am going to college and getting a job and having a family.     125   Table 3.25 Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Parent Ethnic Identity Construct   Illustrative Quote   Ethnic Identity/ Korean Culture G1 Definitely I am a Korean. You know we can’t change our face and thoughts even though we live in America for long time. I have been living in this country total for over 25 years (10 years for studying) and never think I am an American. It is very important to identify myself as a Korean because I cannot change my ethnic identity and I am very proud of myself as a Korean. I am very proud of my motherland, Korea. I have my motherland, so I feel I can return to my homeland when I miss my friends and relatives. I am very proud of Korean culture. Korean culture is very unique and has a long history. Korean culture is very interesting and full of wonderful traditions. It is a magical place where you find both perfect peace and harmony. Korean culture rarely falls short of amazing. Korea has been inhabited for more than half a million years, and a Neolithic culture emerged around 6,000 B.C. All my children were grew up here mostly. So it is very important to know Korea because they live in multi-cultural society and need to know their ethnic background. So, I try to teach them Korean culture and language from an early age. Whenever I have a chance, I talk with my children about Korea. We are members of a local Korean church and I encourage them to participate in many activities with other Koreans. They belong to a Korean youth group at our church. I live in Eugene, Oregon. There are not many Korean people here, but we have the Korean Association of Eugene and Springfield and several churches too. They provide many activities including celebration of Korean holidays, picnic, church activities, and others. My family tries hard to attend these events so we can maintain close relationship with other Koreans and try to help each other. I attend a Korean church regularly, Korean national holiday celebrations, fellowship events, and Korean community events.     126   Table 3.25 (continued) Construct   Illustrative Quote   G1 I think it is very important to get Korean people together and form close relationships. G2 I am a Korean. I was born and lived in Korea over 15 years. It is important to keep my Korean identity and be proud of myself as a Korean. I am very proud of my country. Korean culture has been built over 4,000 years, so it is hard to describe. However, Korean culture is very rich and contains many traditions. Korean people love music, dance, arts, and old tradition. I try to attend as many activities as I can. I feel it is very important to attend Korean community events to maintain our culture and tradition. I attend a Korean church every Sunday, Korean national holiday celebrations, golf games and other events. I belong to one Korean church and we do help each other when people need help, especially our church helps many students and new immigrants from Korea to settle down to a new life in the Eugene area. I think it is very important that my children need to know Korea. I ask my children to go to Korean culture and language school, but they don’t like to study Korean culture and language. My wife and I try hard to educate our children about our country’s history and culture when we celebrate Korean traditional holidays, but they do not show strong interest in Korea. G3 It is not important to identify my race as a Korean or Korean- American. Sometime, I feel I am an American because I have US citizenship. Anyway, I live in America and try to be more American rather than keep myself as a Korean. I have a family, business, friends here and I think my children will live here. I also do not have any plans to return to Korea.     127   Table 3.25 (continued) Construct   Illustrative Quote   G3 It is hard for me to describe what Korean culture is. Um…. I know Korea has long history of culture. I think Confucianism influenced Korean culture. But now Korean culture has been modified with Western culture in some ways. So it is somewhat difficult to explain what Korean culture is.   I usually do not attend Korean community activities. However, my children enjoy attending Korean community activities and have made many Korean American and Korean friends. I thought my children were not interested in Korea, but I found that they like to learn about Korea. I think to some degree it is important they learn Korea because their race is Korean. I think they got much information about Korea from their friends and Korean church youth activities.   We do celebrate American holidays. I am not much interested in news or issues of Korean society. I pay more attention to the issues of American society. G4 I am an Asian American because I have lived here a long time and want to be in the majority in this society. I don’t want be a typical Korean. My goal is to adjust to the American way of life, so I try to forget the Korean lifestyle because if I keep the Korean way of life, I don’t think I can be the majority in America. So I identify myself Asian American, but the other way I like to identify myself is as an American. I think Korean culture is more strict and firm than Western culture. But Korean culture is more deep and rich than Western and American culture in many areas. I usually do not participate in any Korean community events because I do not have any interest. I want to participate in more American community activities, so I can learn more and adjust to the American way of life style.     128   Table 3.26 Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Parent Language Use Pattern Construct   Illustrative Quote   Language G1 I think I do pretty well at speaking, writing, and reading English. I finished my college and graduate school degrees here. Korean language is my mother tongue, so I do pretty well. We use both English and Korean, but I usually speak in Korean, so my children can continue to maintain their Korean language. We usually talk to my children Korean language. However, I use English if they do not understand very well. I think we need to use a language in which we can communicate very well. At home I prefer to speak my native language, Korean, but I use English at work.     G2 I have no problems speaking, reading and writing English. My wife and I speak Korean, but my children prefer to use English. However, we try to speak Korean language to our children. This is only way I can force my children to practice Korean language.   G3 I speak, read, and write English well to maintain daily life and do my business. Korean language is my mother tongue. My children speak both English and Korean, so I think we should use the language, which makes for better communication.   G4 I do better understanding and reading English, but I have some problems to speak English because English is my second language. So, I prefer to use English most of the time outside because it is only way I can improve my English. I have no problems to speak, write and read Korean. I do speak Korean home because it is easy for me. But my daughter prefers to speak English. So sometimes we have communication problems.     129   Table 3.27 Summary Statement from In-depth Interview for Parents’ Perception of Their Children’s Academic Achievement/Future Plan Construct   Illustrative Quote   School Involvement/ Academic Achievement G1 My wife and I are both pretty much involved in my daughter’s school activities. We both feel that it is important to be involved in school activities. We are a member of the PTA and try hard to attend all parent meetings and do volunteer work for school and student activities. My wife and I expect my daughter to do her best in school performance. My wife checks and helps with her homework. We both pay a lot of attention about her our grades and expect high grades. We have a chance we talk about her future career plan and then discuss about her goals for her life. We usually try to write down her plan for what she wants to do and talk about what school she wants to go. I am very satisfied. Cherry has made excellent grades and does many extracurricular activities. I want her to go to graduate school, but I will respect her decision whether she wants to finish undergraduate or graduate school. My daughter takes 3 AP courses now and took 2 AP courses already. My daughter did not take the IB program. She wants to take more AP courses rather than IB program. She took PSAT (197) and SAT (2170). My daughter makes A+.   G2 My wife tries to attend PTA meetings as much as she can, but I am pretty busy with my job, so I do not attend very often. My wife and I expect my daughter to do her best school performance, but she is more like social life with American friends. My wife tries to check and help with my daughter’s homework. My wife and I ask our daughter about her school life often. But she usually said that she has no problems. We discussed with our daughter when she was a junior. She already decided her major and university. My wife and I support her decision. I expect my daughter to finish college. I think my daughter takes care of all her homework by herself.     130   Table 3.27 (continued) Construct   Illustrative Quote   I think my daughter did not take any AP courses so far. She does not pay a lot her grades. I am not satisfied her grades. I think my daughter’s average grade is B-. My daughter took SAT last time, but she did not want to tell me her score. I feel she did not make good score. She told me that she would take it again. G3 I am very busy with my business, so I do not attend any my son’s school activities often. I expect my son to make good school performance. I think he takes care of his grades and homework very well. I think my husband is willing to help with my son’s homework, but my son does not want his help. My son is doing very well at his school and he can take care of himself very well. My son already decided his major and college. I will support his decision. My husband tries to help him, but my son usually does homework by himself. I encourage my son to finish his college degree. After that, he might have to decide whether he wants to pursue advanced degree or not.   My son takes 3AP courses right now and took 2 AP courses already. He also enrolled IB program. He made 4.0 last time. My son did not the SAT yet, but he plans to take SAT soon. He took PSAT and made high score (205).   G4 My wife and I attend school activities whenever we have the chance. I want my daughter to make good grades. But I think she struggles to keep good grade. We do have many conflicts and arguments with our daughter and try to push her, but her grades do not improve. She told me sometimes not to worry about her grades.   I told her she should finish a 4-year college, but she wants to go community college to learn some skills. One time I pushed her to discuss her future plans, but she does not want to talk about her future educational plan. She never shows me her grades. She wants to go community college, so she plans not to take SAT or PSAT.       131   CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Introduction In this chapter the results from both the quantitative and qualitative phases were combined to reveal the major findings of the study, and the subsequent implications were discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations of the study, some conclusions that might be drawn from the findings, and suggestions for future research. Summary of the Study For the initial, quantitative stage of this study, 224 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American high school students ranging in age from 9-12th grade completed a paper-pencil survey. Similarly, 149 of the students’ parents completed a complementary survey, the results of which enabled a comparison between student and parent perceptions, specifically in regard to ethnic/cultural identity and school performance/future plans. The second, qualitative stage of the study consisted of in-depth interviews with four student participants and four of their parents. These participants were selected to represent all possible pairings of student and parent ethnic/cultural identity levels (e.g., high/high, high/low, etc), in order to more fully explore what ramifications these variables may have on student academic achievement and future plans. As the literature review in Chapter I discussed, Asian-American children often perform above their peers academically, and in turn, their academic achievements appear to carry them beyond secondary education and enable them to gain entry into college and     132   higher education in larger numbers (Zhou, 1998). Much of the literature on this phenomenon posits that Asian Americans are more successful in school because their respective cultures emphasize the value of education (Caplan, Choy, & Whitmore, 1991). The initial questionnaire was extensive and designed to capture a snapshot of the major factors at play in the relationship between heritage language/culture education, ethnic/cultural identity, and academic achievement for 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American high school students. Upon review, several constructs were isolated using results from factor analysis followed by calibration with item response models. Student responses yielded three major constructs: (a) Korean Language Acquisition and Use Pattern (HL), (b) Student School Performance and Future Plan (AI), and (c) Student Perception of Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture (EI/PKC). Parent responses yielded two interpretable constructs: (a) Parents Perception of Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture (EI/PKC) and (b) Parent Perception of their Children School Performance and Future Plan (AI). The results of the initial survey were coded in response to each of these constructs, yielding results that were discussed as they relate to each Research Question, below. The qualitative results of the in-depth personal interviews illustrate these common themes. Limitations The results of this study should be considered in light of a few limitations. First, this study sampled participants based on convenience through contacts with Korean-     133   focused churches and institutions, rather than randomly from the Korean American population. Data were collected from participants who were accessible and cooperative. Because participants attending the Korean American churches or Korean language culture education schools have more contacts with their ethnic group, this might result in higher scores in Korean orientation and/or Korean language index than one would find with Koreans who do not attend a Korean church or Korean culture education school. The generalizability of these results is limited to Korean Americans attending these churches or schools who responded to this study. Because the student survey was completed at the respective churches or schools, the students may have crossed their attitudes towards education at the church or school with their education at their public or private schools. A second issue was a limitation in sample size. This study selected 224 samples from Oregon. However, the majority of Korean American students residing in the United States live in the Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Atlanta and other large metropolitan areas, where there are more significant populations of Korean American students who may or may not be in contact with Korean communities, cultural organizations, and ethnic Koreans. This may lead to different results in the relationship between Korean culture/ language education and academic achievement. A third issue in this study’s findings included that they were based on cross- sectional data, without an intervention or other treatment, or other method of more fully understanding causality in the relationships. Thus correlations can be reported but not causal directionality. For example, although it might be surmised that Korean American     134   student’s heritage language proficiency and culture knowledge help support scholastic success, it is also possible that academic gains may have motivated Korean American students to continue learning more about Korean heritage language and culture. Alternately, both Korean heritage language proficiency/culture knowledge and academic achievement may have been influenced in this data set by other variables, such as selective effects of socio-economic status, parental education or factors of verbal intelligence or working memory that could be influenced selectivity for this sample. While the qualitative dyads described here do offer some small scale descriptive data about what caused students to participate more and less in heritage language and culture, and to strive and achieve more and less in their studies, the sample sizes were small and were intended to provide some interpretive information on the sample itself but were not intended to be widely generalizable to the larger population. Future studies could use longitudinal data or larger and more representative studies to help clarify the direction of the relationships between heritage language/culture education and academic achievement. The fourth limitation to be reported here acknowledges that the results reported here specifically for parents may have been somewhat influenced by my decision to include items in the parent measurement of Perception of Ethnic and Culture Orientation (EI/PKC) that were a little less fitting to the assumptions of the PKC model. As described in Chapter III, these items 15, 16, and 17, addressed obeying parents and respect for parents and elders. Because these issues constitute a significant aspect of Korean culture, I chose to retain them though a little less fitting to the assumptions. In addition, some items in the Parent Perception of Ethnic and Culture Orientation (EI/PKC) showed less     135   than ideal model fit. In this case, the outfit items were essential to gauging perception of Korean culture. A more complex model with an additional item discrimination parameter could help better model these items, or a larger data set by combining student and parent items in this area following alignment might improve model fit. Furthermore regarding modeling of the data, reports in this study describe a two-stage process of analysis, in which student proficiency estimates were generated and then were entered into the regression analysis. This neglects to address the error variance structure associated with the student and parent estimates. Alternatively, a one-stage process of latent regression could have been undertaken, in which both proficiency estimates and regression covariates are generated in a single analysis, Latent regression extends item response theory models to include a 2-level latent variable model in which covariates can serve as predictors of the conditional distribution of ability, in a single stage. Such models could be employed for future work, to analyze results more completely in accordance with the structure of the data. The fifth limitation is the complexity of schools. As one example of this limitation, this study selected samples of students who attend high schools that offer both AP and IB classes or only AP classes in Oregon. Because of the complexity of schools, all students who participated in this study did not have the same opportunity of access to advanced school programs, yet enrollment in such courses was included in the academic indicator variable. While AI was shown to be highly correlated with grade point average generally across the sample, small fluctuations in the index could have taken place due to the schools variability in this indicator.     136   Limitations of the interviewing and throughout of the self-report techniques also should be noted when interpreting the results. As with other forms of self reporting, detail and/or thoroughness of the accounts may diminished with time, and the accounts may also have been screened through subsequent reflections, however unconscious or unintentional. In addition, self-report data may have resulted in “over-rater or under rater bias” (Dasgupta, 1989, p 32), because some people might not honestly or accurately answered the question. However, in-depth interviews tend to increase the opportunity to explore the data collected. I conducted face-to-face in-depth interviews only with a small number of the students and parents. Four Korean American students and four their parents cases might not provide a statistically representative sample, so this is a limitation. But they do present a vivid picture of the relationship of Korean American students for their heritage language acquisition and ethnic culture education with their academic achievement in the United States. Lastly, my examination may suffer from researcher expectancy bias for two reasons: (a) I am a member of the ethnic group that I conducted research on and (b) I am a Korean parent with a child attending American schools. Not only is this sometimes termed as the “problem of over identification” (Dasgupta, 1989, p 31), but Glesne and Peshkin (1992) referred to this as doing research in “your own backyard–within your own institution or agency, or among friends and colleagues” (p 21). While definite advantages of interpretability and access may be obtained from such research, over-identification may also be introduced, and so is reported here as a potential limitation to the findings.     137   Discussions As discussed in Chapter II, this study utilized a mixed-methods model patterned after Creswell’s sequential explanatory design (2003). The strengths of a mixed-methods approach, namely the opportunity to triangulate quantitative data with in-depth qualitative results, make this model particularly well suited to explore the experience of Korean American students. As mentioned previously, earlier research into the intersection of cultural and academic studies has been largely quantitative, with a collective focus. The extant relevant data relies heavily upon the usage of questionnaire techniques and grade-analysis without additional support with more information on the students and parents, such as through in-depth interviews, thus perhaps providing less attention to individual experiences and perspectives that has been attempted here. The results of the qualitative phase of this study indicated that the estimates of the survey were well reflected in the individuals identified in the four patterns sampled for the in-depth interview. The multiple method approach offered the ability to provide a portrayal of the experience of the individual Korean American student in the process of navigating culture, family, and education. Responses revealed a range of attitudes regarding both Korean and American culture, from extremely positive to quite negative. Ultimately a significant majority of both student and parent participants proved to strongly self-identify as Korean; a similar majority expected academic excellence and strongly structured future goals from themselves or their children. The following discussion considered the results as they related to each of the research questions in turn.     138   Results as They Relate to the Research Questions Research Question #1 Is there a correlation between 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American students’ Korean language/cultural education acquisition and their level of academic achievement/future plans? The study examined the relationship between student school performance/future plan on student Korean language level and use pattern and student culture/ethnic orientation. The results of the study indicate a statistically significant relationship between the students’ Korean language/culture acquisition and their school performance and future plans, with a meaningful effect estimate that can be interpreted as every one unit increase in student language level being associated with a student school performance increase of 0.20 units in the scale of the IRT Wright Map shown. Student culture/ethnic orientation was also a statistically significant predictor of student school performance/future plan, b2 = .445, SE = .112, p < .05. The effect estimate showed that for every one unit increase in student culture/ethnic orientation, student school performance increased by 0.45 units on the Wright Map. A construct examined in factor analysis of the initial results (self-selected survey items and open-ended questions), student ethnic identity, revealed that a significant majority – over 95% -- of the student participants (n = 224) self-identified as Korean (n = 97) or Korean-American (n = 124), with only two participants identifying as American. Case 42 self-identified as Korean, explaining that the label “represents who I am and my ethnic background.” Furthermore, another construct, Student Perception of Korean Culture, showed that a significant majority of the student participants (n = 141) displayed     139   a strong knowledge of Korean culture, corresponding with a positive view of Korean cultural values. Case 109 called Korean culture “traditional” and “precious.” Given this data, the subsequent results can be interpreted as those of a population composed mainly of high-achieving students with strong ethnic/cultural identity. This interpretation is immediately helpful in considering the results of another construct, student Perception of Future Plans. Here results reveal that nearly all of the students intend to pursue at least some level of higher education, with a majority (n = 97) aiming to attend an Ivy League or other top college such as UCLA. In correlation with these numbers, 95 students intend to pursue a career in a professional field, such as law or medicine. Moreover, comparing qualitative results from the in-depth personal interviews is revealing. In particular, considering the responses of the high/high and low/low student/parent cultural identity pairs reaffirms the findings of the quantitative data. The parent from the high/high pairing, Cherry’s father, states that he and his wife “both feel that it is important to be involved in school activities” and “both pay a lot of attention about our children’s grades and expect high grades.” Furthermore, he describes how “Whenever we have a chance, we talk about their future career plan and then discuss about their goals for their lives. We usually try to write down each child’s plan for what they want to do and talk about what school they want to go to.” In turn, his daughter Cherry states that:     140   “Academics basically are the key… my mom expects me to do better than everyone else and go to really top college. And also I really want to get into a GOOD college. Like, a really good one. I think that will determine my future.” Cherry’s parents, who strongly identify with their Korean culture, encouraged their daughter to explore her heritage language/culture through various avenues. Significantly, both parents and student have high expectations for Cherry’s academic achievement and future plans. Statements from the low/low student/parent cultural identity pair stand in contrast to these results. Jade’s father displays a hands-off attitude to his daughter’s education and future, stating that “She does not want to talk about her future educational plan.” Jade herself finds her academic performance acceptable because she outperforms her American friends: “I think I do pretty well in school. Compared to my friends, well, I get mainly As and Bs, but they get many Bs and Cs.” Though Jade is a comparatively high achiever than her friends, she does not display the motivation and future-oriented outlook Cherry applies to her education. Irene, from the low student cultural identity/high parent cultural identity pair, states unequivocally “I have no desire to learn Korean culture because I will continue to live in America. My parents have a different view point and tries to push me to learn Korean way of life, but I am not comfortable.” Irene does acknowledge the significance of Korean language acquisition, saying that “I do want to learn Korean because it is part of my heritage, but it is not easy and I do not have time to learn.” Here Irene displays a     141   similar lack of motivation to Jade. Interestingly, Irene’s half-hearted opinions on Korean culture/language acquisition are mirrored in her academic performance and future plans: “I really don’t know why many Korean adults think education is very important... For me getting Bs stuff is ok… Of course, I will go to college but for my future, I just I want to know what I want to do. I don’t know what I want to yet.” Irene acknowledges that “getting good grade is important for my future,” but displays a lack of commitment similar to her attitude regarding Korean culture/language acquisition. James, exhibiting high cultural identity while his mother displays low cultural identity, expresses enthusiasm for pursuing Korean culture and language acquisition: “First of all being bilingual, it’s really beneficial a lot of things and Korea is my culture so I want to learn Korean culture more… I totally want to know more about all of Korea just because I know so much about America I just want to know more of who I am in the Korean culture.” James exhibits similarly high aspirations in regards to his academic performance and future plans: “I made many As so far. I always try my best to get all As from elementary school. I study hard and want to be top student at my school… I just want to go to a good college. That’s just my basic plan. I want to be a dentist, so I study hard to get into a medical school.” Like Cherry, James brings a similar commitment and motivation to his education as he does to learning Korean culture and language.     142   Ultimately, reviewing the common themes recurring throughout the results across multiple constructs shows that there is a strong correlation between 1.5 and 2nd generation Korean American students’ Korean language/cultural education acquisition and their level of academic achievement/future plans. However, as shown in the follow-up studies on SES and parental education, this conclusion may be strongly confounded, or confounded to some extent, with the high parental incomes and strong educational backgrounds in the parents in the study. As I stated in Chapter III, it should also be noted that the regression of student School Performance/Future Plan on students’ total family income was statistically significant, F(1, 143) = 22.11, MSR = 2.20, p < .001, R2 = .13. Student family income was a statistically significant predictor of student school performance, b = .47, SE = .10, p < .05. There were also moderate correlations (r = .48, p < .01) between parent education level (n = 145) and total family income factor (n = 145). Research Question #2 Does an exploration of student level of heritage language acquisition in this sample group establish any links with student views of cultural self-identity? As mentioned in the discussion of Research Question #1, language level contributes to culture/ethnic orientation. This hypothesis, presented in the literature review, surmises that heritage language/culture education strengthens ethnic identity formation and in turn instills a stronger sense of cultural values. This relationship is supported by the results of this study. The quantitative result of this study revealed that there was strong correlation between student Korean language level/use pattern factor     143   (HL) and student ethnic identity and practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) (r = .69, p < .01). Responses to open-ended questions on the initial questionnaire elucidate this relationship. Comments on the strengths of Korean culture converged around themes of family, etiquette, aesthetics, tradition, and expectations. Case 56 mentioned “strong family relationship, caring, hard working, high achieving motivation, respect parents and adult.” Conversely, students who had lower levels of Korean culture/language acquisition displayed more negative views of Korean culture; Case 153, for example, labeled it “too competitive.” Student responses to the open-ended questions of the initial survey phase of this study explored the students’ perception of comparison and preference between Korean and American culture. A majority of students (n = 94) reported a positive view of Korean culture and a preference for the Korean way of doing things. These respondents mentioned the merits of Korean cultural value; common themes were family, respect, honor, and hard work. Case 219 cited “family honor and high achieving motivation” as favorable aspects of Korean culture. Conversely, some students criticized the American way of doing things (n = 29), describing the culture as violent, and having too little emphasis on education and manners. Case 219 pointed to American culture as “too individualism, selfish, too much freedom.” Again, these results can be supplemented by the findings of the in-depth interviews of the second, qualitative phase of the study. The high/high cultural identity student/parent representatives displayed a significant valuing of heritage language     144   acquisition, reiterating the conclusion that heritage language acquisition facilitates cultural identity building. The parent, Cherry’s father, explained that in the home, “We use both English and Korean, but I usually speak in Korean, so my children can continue to maintain their heritage language.” Cherry agreed and went on to describe how “When I entered high school I met a lot Korean friends, and because I talked in Korean to them a lot, my Korean skills got better than they were compared to when I went to middle school and elementary school.” This anecdote further supports the close correlation between heritage language acquisition and cultural identity development, suggesting that as Cherry’s use of the Korean language increased due to her social circle, her identity as Korean strengthened as well. On the other hand, the low/low cultural identity student/parent pairing displayed a lesser regard for the maintenance of the heritage language. The parent in question, Jade’s father, states that he personally prefers “to use English most of the time because it is the only way I can improve my English.” Furthermore, he describes how “sometimes, my daughter does not understand Korean, so I try to speak English” with her. Jade herself illustrates the barrier a lack of heritage language skill can present to accessing cultural experiences and values, saying “I think it’s good to keep your native language and if I don’t know Korean then like I feel really sad because when I go to church and you can’t understand everybody’s saying.”     145   These statements portray a home where little emphasis is given to maintaining or improving heritage language. The fact that Jade consequently struggles to access Korean cultural experiences, and presents with low cultural identity, reinforces the theory of a relationship between heritage language acquisition level and cultural self-identity. Irene presents with low cultural identity; though she acknowledges there is some significance in learning Korean language/culture, she is ambivalent about pursuing it. She is similarly ambivalent when describing her comfort level with the Korean language: “I speak Korean all right, but I have some difficulty to talk and understand Korean… I feel I understand Korean some, but I have some problem to understand when Korean adult talk to me. Like the vocabulary too sophisticated I don’t really get it.” The communication breakdown that Irene describes as a result of her struggles with Korean language may be a significant barrier to her receiving positive cultural messages from the Korean-speaking adults around her. James, who exhibits a high cultural identity and enthusiasm for Korean culture, displays a similar enthusiasm for Korean language: “I feel really good that I know Korean language, and nobody else could really help new students from Korea because there aren’t that many Korean kids at my school. So I could talk to them… and the person wouldn’t understand, and I would help them and make them understand and stuff, so it was cool.” Here James is describing the inverse of Irene’s experience with conversation in Korean: because of his higher level of Korean language acquisition, James is able to engage and     146   interact with his Korean peers on a significant level. This unique experience may allow for transmission of Korean cultural values in a way that cannot be replicated in a classroom or conversation with parents. Ultimately, the results of the study supported Cho’s assertion that knowing one’s heritage language facilitates understanding of one’s ethnic culture, allowing freer participation in cultural events or activities (2000). Research Question #3 Can any relationship be identified between the parents’ level of cultural identity and their children’s level of cultural identity, within this study? Most of the parents surveyed in the initial phase of data collection self-identified as Korean or Korean-American (96 and 52 respectively, where n = 149). Only one parent identified himself/herself as an American. The data also revealed a moderate to strong correlation between student ethnic identity and practice of Korean culture (EI/PKC) factor and parent EI/PKC factor (r = .62, p < .01). Significantly, in the open-ended responses to questions regarding student ethnic/cultural identity, many students who self- identified as “Korean” agreed with Case 01, who stated “I think I’m Korean because my parents are Korean.” Here the in-depth exploration of personal experiences allowed by the second, qualitative phase of this study are invaluable for illuminating the intersection of student and parent cultural identity and student academic achievement. Cherry, a 1.5 generation 12th grade female, was selected along with her father to represent a high student cultural identity/high parent cultural identity coupling. She states that, “Korean parents need to     147   know everything the kid got wrong and stuff, so the kids kinda feel like they need to get 100% on everything.” This anecdote illustrates the impact parent cultural identity might have on student academic achievement; Cherry’s interview overall further details the relationship between parent cultural identity and student cultural identity. Cherry’s father’s strong self-identification with Korean culture comes through clearly in his interview. He describes Korean culture as “unique… interesting… wonderful traditions… magical…” and “rarely falls short of amazing.” He also states that he thinks “it is very important to get Korean people together and form close relationships.” He details how he brings these relationships into his family’s life: “I live in Eugene, Oregon. There are not many Korean people here, but we have the Korean Association of Eugene and Springfield and several churches too. They provide many activities including celebration of Korean holidays, picnic, church activities, and others. My family tries hard to attend these events so we can maintain close relationship with other Koreans and try to help each other.” This suggests that the emphasis Cherry’s father places on connections with Korean people and culture directly affects Cherry’s ethnic/cultural self-identity, contributing to her positive Korean cultural identity. Cherry describes how “I feel Korean when I’m with Korean people… like, recently I went to beach with our church’s district prayer group and I felt really ‘Korean.’ I felt like one big family… we played games and treated each other like siblings, and the other moms treat the other kids like their kids which were really nice. So yeah… I think I feel Korean most when I’m surround by them.”     148   This anecdote shows how her father, whose strong cultural identity leads him to “encourage [his children] to participate in many activities with other Koreans,” has allowed Cherry opportunities to experience Korean culture and connect with other Koreans, strengthening her self-identification with Korean culture. Conversely, Jade’s father exhibits low self-identification with Korean culture. This strongly affects his actions; for example, he states: “I usually do not participate in any Korean community events because I do not have any interest… I want to participate in more American community activities, so I can learn more and adjust to the American way of life style.” He explains, “I try to forget the Korean lifestyle.” As with Cherry, Jade’s father’s attitude toward Korean culture and the degree to which he distances himself from it may influence Jade’s own cultural identity. Furthermore, this distancing means that Jade is not provided with the same encouragement or opportunities as Cherry to connect with Korean culture and people, although it may bring Jade into more contact with the broader American society. The qualitative results from the remaining two student-parent pairs are equally illuminating. Irene, who exhibits low cultural identity while her father demonstrates high cultural identity, admits that “I guess I’m Korean. My parents are Korean, so I’m a part of Korean, so I’m Korean.” Irene’s father states, “It is important to keep my Korean identity and be proud of myself as a Korean. I am very proud of my country.” Irene’s parents report considering Korean culture/language education very important for their children, but her father admits “they do not show strong interest in Korea.”     149   Correspondingly Irene immediately amends her admission of belonging to a Korean identity with the following: “I don’t understand why my parents and many Korean adults told me that I have to be proud of myself as a Korean, but I want to be an American because I will live here and most of my friends are American. I also do not know about Korea, so I don’t really know I have to be proud as a Korean.” Though Irene is rebelling against the importance her mother places on Korean culture, perhaps resulting in her low cultural identity score, she still claims a Korean identity; ultimately, she says, “I’m Korean.” This suggests Irene’s father’s strong cultural identity may affect her self-identity and view of Korean culture more than that of which she is currently cognizant. On the other hand, James reports with high cultural identity while his mother exhibits low cultural identity. James states firmly: “I identify myself as a Korean, like a 100% Korean even though I have been lived here longer than I lived in Korea. I learned Korean history and Korean language at Korean culture schools . . . it’s really important to me to represent Korea and Asian culture.” His mother, on the other hand, reports that “It is not important to identify my race as a Korean or Korean-American. Sometime, I feel I am an American because I have US citizenship. Anyway, I live in America and try to be more American rather than keep myself as a Korean.”     150   Despite her low self-identification with Korean culture, James’s mother (unlike Jade’s father) is not unwilling to facilitate ways for James to connect with his Korean heritage. She expresses surprise at her children’s interest, saying, “I thought they were not interested in Korea, but I found that they like to learn about Korea” and acknowledging that “my children enjoy attending Korean community activities and have made many Korean American and Korean friends.” It is significant that Korean cultural activities and education appear to have operated as a stand-in for parental cultural identity, allowing a framework and opportunity for James to build his strong cultural identity. These narratives demonstrate that parents influence academic achievement by transmitting the appropriate values, aspirations, and motives needed to succeed in school, and parents who communicate with their children and promote responsible behavior in their children also influence student achievement (Rumberger, Ghatak, Poulus, and Dornbusch, 1990). When asked about future plans, both students and parents wanted students to continue higher education and achieve most prestigious college and professional jobs such as medical related or lawyer. The correlation here between student/parent cultural identity and future plans further underscores the connection between a strong cultural identity and students with high academic achievement and aspirations. Additionally, this study found also a significant relationship between levels of parent ethnic identity and practice Korean culture (EI/PKC) and student Korean language acquisition. High parental EI/PKC scores corresponded with high levels of student HL acquisition. An important finding was that students with higher levels of HL acquisition     151   were less likely to report cultural conflicts with their parents, which was largely explained by a greater ease of communication due to fewer language barriers. This suggests higher level of Korean language acquisition may lead to a deeper understanding of Korean culture values. The preliminary qualitative data gathered through open-ended survey questions details this relationship. When asked to describe feelings regarding cultural conflict with parents, one student (Case 27) reported “no conflict, because I talk a lot in Korean with my parents, I guess.” This suggests students with higher levels of Korean language acquisition were more able to communicate with and understand the cultural values of their parents. Considering both parent and student responses to several of the open-ended questions in conjunction is particularly revealing. Again, the student from Case 27 reported experiencing no cultural conflict with parents because of ease of communication in Korean. This same student exhibited a strong cultural identity, self-identifying as Korean and describing positive perceptions of Korean culture, mentioning “strong family honor, caring, hard-working, high achieving motivation” as important cultural values. This student’s parent (Case 27) also displayed strong identification with Korean culture, explaining that this cultural identity “provides me with unique characteristics others cannot have.” As a whole, these responses portray a strong connection between parent and student cultural/ethnic identity and student HL acquisition. Another student (Case 93) described how when cultural conflicts might arise, “I understand my parents and we find a way to compromise.” In response to questions about     152   cultural identity, this same student reported confidently that “my parents are Korean and I feel I’m belonging to family.” Again, the student’s parent (Case 93) exhibited a similarly strong cultural identity, explaining “it’s very important as a Korean because I can’t change my ethnic identity.” This student also displayed positive perceptions of Korean culture, describing it as “warm” and “nice” and mentioning “sharing goods with others, popular K-pop music” as cultural assets. Conclusions and Implications for Future Research   Such outcomes as described here support the hypothesis that cultural identity in Korean American students correlates to strong academic achievement and high aspirations for the future, although this should be interpreted cautiously due to limitations discussed. Similarly, parent ethnic/cultural identity levels are shown here to have a strong relationship with student ethnic/cultural identity levels, and in turn with academic performance and future aspirations. These results should encourage efforts to reinforce heritage language and cultural traditions in the Korean American community, and may deserve additional attention with future work, as described here. Some parents’ concern is that their child’s extracurricular activities are negatively related to academic performance. The advantage of extracurricular activities, however, may include better motivation for school (Camp, 1990) and may have a positive impact on student academic performance (Williford & Wadley, 2008). According to Camp (1990), students achieved much higher rates of retention and graduation, maintained better GPAs, and had higher good standing rates when they engaged in extracurricular     153   activities. Due to the fact that students will spend some time on extracurricular activities in addition to schoolwork, as a result, they will feel motivated, emotional well-being and more ready to take on the challenge of studying a variety of different subjects in school. National Center for Education Statistics reports have been widely used to study the relationship between student engagement and academic performance (NSSE, 2008), finding that maintenance of heritage language and culture is closely associated with academic achievement. In Lee’s study (2002), those who study or learn their Korean heritage language and culture were found to have superior academic achievement. Additionally, even though causality cannot be tested in a cross-sectional model as stated in the limitation section, a longitudinal study can determine how the Korean heritage language and culture acquisition level influence on the academic achievement of Korean American high school student for future work. Because of the repeated observation at the individual level, they have more power than cross-sectional observational studies, by virtue of being able to exclude time-invariant unobserved individual differences, and by virtue of observing the temporal order of events. Another future work might consider addressing this limitation through the use of a regression discontinuity design. A regression discontinuity design could examine a given exogenous threshold to investigate the causal effects of intervention (Cook, 2008; Lee, 2008). The comparison of observations on either side of this threshold allows for the gauging of the local treatment effect and is typically used to do so in environments where randomization is not feasible, and students need to be accorded equal opportunities to engage in what may be a beneficial treatment during a research project.     154   The results of this study make a strong case for further research, both into the question of the cultural/academic relationship as well as with a similar research model, in the future, as discussed in the next section. The potential implications of this study should prove enticing to parents, educators, and policymakers. In future work, I hope to engage in studies in Korea. Since Korea is becoming a multicultural society because of increased interracial marriage and rising numbers of immigrants, it is a significant issue in Korea currently to develop multicultural education and education for immigrant children. I plan to use my research study to develop heritage language and culture education curriculum for immigrant students and the children of interracial marriages, and to investigate outcomes of encouraging investment in heritage participation and practice. Based on the study here, the statistically significant relationship between student heritage language/culture acquisition and academic achievement suggests that if a causal link can be established, it might be appropriate that a greater priority be given to providing services for 1.5 and 2nd generation American students, either in schools or less formally outside school through community organizations. These services should go beyond the basic English as a Second Language class which is offered to all non-native English speaking students; if causal of academic success, then both schools and parents would do well to facilitate access to heritage language/culture education programs for 1.5 and 2nd generation American students. Previous research has investigated the relationship between heritage language education and academic achievement in Asian American students. What this study also     155   offers is an unprecedented qualitative look into the personal experience of Korean American students, which supplements the quantitative data to provide a fuller picture of this relationship. That the academic achievement of Asian American students may consistently benefit from a cultural background that stresses values conducive to societal success (e.g., education, excellence, hard work) is a hypothesis gradually gaining interest from parents, educators, and policymakers alike. This and many previous studies provide data to support this hypothesis, showing that students respond well to high parental expectations and may embody the positive cultural values exhibited by their parents, through the legacy of heritage culture and language.     156   APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS Background Information The following questions are about your background. Please write your name and answer the questions. 1. 1. Name (optional):___________________________________________________ 1. 2. Age: _________ yrs old. 1. 3. What grade are you in? : 7th___ 8th___ 9th___ 10th___ 11th___ 12th___ 1. 4. Gender: Male___ Female___ 1. 5. Were you born in the United State? Yes_______ No______ - If not, what age did you come to the U.S. with your parents? ______________ 1. 6. Do you have sisters and brothers? : Yes___ No___ - If yes: Are you … first born___ second born ___ third born___ other___ 1. 7. Which language do you use at home? : Korean only___ Korean and English___ English Only___ 1. 8. Have you attended Korean schools? : Yes__ No__ 1. 9. Are you a member of a Korean-culture related club? (ex. Tae Kwon-do sports club): Yes___ No___ Used to be____ 1. 10. How many times have you visited/stayed in Korea while you have been living in the U.S.? 0-1 time__ 2-3 times __ 4-5 times __ 6-7 times __8 or more times __     157   Ethnic Identity The following questions ask you about your ethnicity or your ethnic group and how you feel about it. Please place an X in one of the spaces below to indicate the extent to which the statement applies to you. 2. 1. My father is: a) Korean__ b) American__ c) Korean-American__ d) Other ___ 2. 2. My mother is: a) Korean__ b) American__ c) Korean-American__ d) Other __ 2. 3. I identify myself as: a) Korean__ b)American__ c)Korean-American__ d)Other__ 2. 4. I am a member of organizations or social groups that are mostly composed of Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 5. I have a clear sense of being Korean and what it means to me. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 6. I think a lot about how my life will be affected by being Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 7. I am happy that I am a member of the Korean ethnic group. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 8. I often spend time with people from ethnic groups other than Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 9. I have a strong sense of belonging to the Korean ethnic group. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 10. I understand very well what being Korean means to me in terms of how I relate to Korean and non-Korean people. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 11. I am very proud of the Korean ethnic group and its accomplishments. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree -     158   2. 12. I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic groups. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 13. I feel a strong attachment towards the Korean ethnic group. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 14. I enjoy being around people from ethnic groups other than Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 15. I feel good about the Korean cultural or Korean ethnic background. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 16. There are many different ways in which people think of themselves. Which ONE of the following best describes how you view yourself? Please circle ONE. a) I consider myself basically a Korean. Even though I live in America, I still identify myself as a Korean. b) I consider myself basically as an American. Even though I have a Korean background and characteristics, I identify myself as an American. c) I consider myself a Korean-American, although I always know myself as a Korean. d) I consider myself a Korean-American, although I view myself as an American first. e) I consider myself a Korean-American. I have both Korean and American characteristics and I view myself as a blend of both. 2.17. I would like other people to regard me as (please circle ONE): 1) Korean 2) American 3) Korean-American 4) Other _________________ 2.18. How important is this identity to you, and how do you identify yourself? (For example, Korean, American, Korean-American etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2.19. How would you best describe Korean culture? _____________________________________________________________________     159   _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2.20. What do you prefer about the American way of doing things? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2.21. How do you feel when you have difficulty communicating with your parent(s), when your way of doing things is different from that of your parent(s). (For example, you prefer the American way of doing things, but your Parent(s) prefer the Korean way, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Korean Language Acquisition level/Use pattern The following questions ask you about your Korean language acquisition level /use pattern. Please place an X in one of the spaces below to indicate the extent to which the statement applies to you. 3. 1. I can read Korean newspapers and fiction stories. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 2. I can read Korean textbooks that are appropriate to my grade level. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 3. I can read Korean popular magazines. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 4. I can write academic reports of several subjects in Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 5. I can write short essays and journal. -     160   Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 6. I can write short personal letters. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 7. I seldom make grammatical errors when writing the above mentioned writings. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 8. I can understand my relatives' conversations with other adults in Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 9. I can understand Korean TV shows, videos, and movies. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 10. I can speak politely in Korean when conversing with adults whom I am not familiar. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 11. I can summarize and explain in Korean the content of lessons learned in my American school. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 12. I can handle complex situations in Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 13. I do not make grammatical errors when I converse in Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 14. I can correctly understand and use the Korean popular words or phrases that teenagers are using in Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 15. What do you think about yourself in terms of the language you use? Korean speaker ____:____:____:____ English speaker 3. 16. What is your biggest reason for studying Korean language?     161   a) Because I can learn more about Korean culture and their life style if I speak Korean. b) Because I am Korean and should be able to speak the language. c) So I can better communicate with my parents. d) I can make friends with Korean-speaking people e) My parents told me to. f) I believe speaking Korean will give me an advantage when applying for jobs both Korea and United States g) Other reason Attitude/ Perceptions/Practice of Korean culture The following questions ask you about your attitude/ perceptions/practice of Korean culture. Please place an X in one of the spaces below to indicate the extent to which the statement applies to you. 4. 1. I like to participate in Korean cultural practices, such as special food, music, or customs. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 2. I enjoy eating Korean food every day. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 3. My family plays Korean traditional games, wears traditional clothing, and eats traditional meals when we celebrate traditional holidays in the U.S. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 4. I participate regularly in Korean-related cultural events/ activities, including religious functions. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 5. I prefer Korean ways of doing things. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 6. My family prefers Korean ways of doing things. -     162   Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 7. I often get in trouble because my ways of doing things are different from that of my parents. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 8. I know Korean history well. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 9. I am familiar with the current issues in Korea. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 10. I think I need to learn Korean history. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 11. I like to watch Korean TV shows, videos, and movies. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 12. I am interested in current issues in Korea. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 13. I think I must pay obedience to my parents. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 14. I believe I must pay reverence to my parents. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 15. I believe I should pay reverence to seniors. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 16. I believe I should pay reverence to teacher. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 17. Why do you take part in Korean cultural activities? (Select reason that most applies) a) Because I am Korean and Korean culture is a part of who I am.     163   b) Participating in Korean culture helps me connect with my parents. c) It helps me better understand the Korean people and their way of life d) I am interested in the Korean culture. e) My parents require me to. f) I think this will help me stand out when applying to colleges. g) Other reasons School performance/activities/ plan for future The following questions ask you about your school performance/activities/ plan for future. Please place an X in one of the spaces below to indicate the extent to which the statement applies to you. 5. 1. I believe I am an excellent student in terms of academic performance. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 5. 2. I am satisfied with the school performance that I have done up to now. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 5. 3. I believe my parents are satisfied with my school performance that I have done up to now. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 5. 4. I spend much time studying or doing school homework during the typical weekday. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 5. 5. I finish school homework before due date. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 5. 6. I believe academic achievement is important for my future. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree -     164   5. 7. What is the highest level of education that you would like to achieve? a) Less than high school b) Finish high school c) Finish some college d) Finish college e) Finish graduate degree (masters, doctor, etc.) 5. 8. Realistically speaking, what is the highest level of education that you think you will get? a) Less than high school b) Finish high school c) Finish some college d) Finish college e) Finish graduate degree (masters, doctor, etc.) 5. 9. What is the highest level of the education that your parents want you to get? a) Less than high school b) Finish high school c) Finish some college d) Finish college e) Finish graduate degree (masters, doctor, etc.) 5. 10. If you plan to attend college, what college you would like to attend? _____________________________________________________________________ 5. 11. If you do not plan to go to college, what is the main reason why you do not plan to go? ____________________________________________________________________ 5. 12. What job would you like to have as an adult? _____________________________________________________________________ 5. 13. And realistically speaking, how do you see your chances of getting this job? Very poor____:____:____:____ very good 5. 14. I participate in school activities as a leader. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____: Strongly agree 5. 15. How would you describe your friends for their future plans? (For example, dropped out of school, plan to go college, job…) _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________     165   5. 16. How many AP courses have you taken so far and how many are you taking currently? __________________________________________ 5. 17. How many Honor courses have you taken so far and how many are you taking currently? ___________________________________________ 5. 18. Are you completing or taking an IB program? Yes______ No_______ No program offered in my school_______ 5. 19. What is your GPA currently? ___________________________________________ 5. 20. If you took the SAT or ACT, would you please share your score? __________________________________________________ 5. 21. If you took the PSAT, would you please share score? __________________________________________________ Thank you very much for your time.                       166   APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS Background Information The following questions are about your background. Please write your name and answer the questions. 1.1. Name (optional):_____________________________ 1. 2. Age: a) 25-30 yrs old___ b) 31-35 yrs old___ c) 36-40 yrs old___ d) 41-45 yrs old___ e) 46-50 yrs old___ f) 51-55 yrs old___ g) 56-60 yrs old___ h) 61 yrs old and over___ 1. 3. Sex: a) Male___ b) Female___ c) Other___ Specify:_________________ 1. 4. What is the highest level of education that you completed? a) Twelfth grade or less__ b) High school graduation__ d) Two years college graduation__ e) Finished a 4 year college__ f) Master’s degree or equivalent___ g) Ph.D., M.D., or other advanced degree__ 1. 5. How long have you lived in the United States? a)Born in the U.S.__ b) 30 years or more__ c)29 years to 25 years__ d)24 years to 20 years__ e) 19 years to 15 years__ f)14 years to 10 years__ g)less than 10 years___ 1. 6. What is your marital status? a) Married___ b) Lives with a partner___ c) Divorced or separated___ d) Widowed___ e) Other____ Specify________________________ 1. 7. What is the relationship of your spouse/partner to your child? a) Biological father or mother___ b) Step-father or mother___ c) Other___ Specify:_________________ 1. 8. In what language do you speak to your child?     167   a) Korean__ b) English__ c) English and Korean__ d) Other__ Specify___________ 1. 9. Please tell me what is your present occupation? ____________________________________________________________________ 1. 10. What was the total income of your family from all sources last year? a) None__ b) Lass than $5,000__ c) $5000-$9,999__ d)$10,000-$24,999__e) $25,000- $49,999__ f) $50,000-$74,999__ g) $75,000-$99,999__ h) $100,000-$199,999 __ i) $200,000 or more___ 1. 11. How many times have you visited / stayed in Korea while you have been living in the U.S.? 0-1 time__ 2-3 times __ 4-5 times __ 6-7 times __8 or more times __ Ethnic Identity The following questions ask you about your ethnicity or your ethnic group and how you feel about it. 2. 1. I am a member of organizations or social groups that are mostly composed of Korean people. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 2. I have a clear sense of being Korean and what it means to me. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 3. I think a lot about how my life will be affected by being Korean in the U.S. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 4. I am happy that I am a member of the Korean ethnic group. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 5. I often spend time with people from ethnic groups other than Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree     168   2.6. I have a strong sense of belonging to the Korean ethnic group. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 7. I understand very well what being Korean means to me in terms of how I relate to Korean and non-Korean people. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 8. I am very proud of the Korean ethnic group and its accomplishments. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 9. I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic groups. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 10. I feel a strong attachment towards the Korean ethnic group. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 11. I enjoy being around people from ethnic groups other than Korean. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 12. I feel good about the Korean cultural or Korean ethnic background. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 2. 13. There are many different ways in which people think of themselves. Which ONE of the following best describes how you view yourself? Please circle ONE. a) I consider myself basically a Korean. Even though I live in America, I still identify myself as a Korean. b) I consider myself basically as an American. Even though I have a Korean background and characteristics, I identify myself as an American. c) I consider myself a Korean-American, although I always know myself as a Korean. d) I consider myself a Korean-American, although I view myself as an American first. e) I consider myself a Korean-American. I have both Korean and American characteristics and I view myself as a blend of both.     169   2. 14. I would like other people to regard me as (please circle ONE): a) Korean___ b) American ___c) Korean-American___ d) Other _________________ 2. 15. I identify myself as: a) Korean__ b) American__ c) Korean-American__ d) Other ____________ 2.16. How important is this identity to you? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2.17. How would you best describe the Korean culture? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2.18. What do you prefer American ways of doing things? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2.19. How do you feel when you have difficulty of communication with your child because your ways of doing things is different from that of your child (For example, you prefer Korean ways of doing things but your child prefer American ways, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Attitude/ perceptions/knowledge/practice of Korean culture The following questions ask you about your attitude/ perceptions/knowledge/practice of Korean culture. Please place an X in one of the spaces below to indicate the extent to which the statement applies to you. -     170   3. 1. I like to participate in Korean cultural practices, such as special food, music, or customs. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 2. I enjoy eating Korean food every day. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 3. My family plays Korean traditional games, wears traditional clothing, and eats traditional meals when we celebrate traditional holidays in the U.S. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 4. I participate regularly in Korean-related cultural events/ activities, including religious functions. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 5. I prefer Korean ways of doing things. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 6. My family prefers Korean ways of doing things. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 7. I am often embarrassed because my ways of doing things is different from that of my child. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 8. I am proud of my child for knowing Korean history well. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 9. I believe my child is familiar with the current issues in Korea. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 10. I think it is important for my child to learn Korean history. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 11. I like to watch Korean TV shows, videos, and movies. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree     171   3. 12. I would like my child to be raised according to the customs of my own country. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 13. I believe my child should pay obedience to the parents. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 14. I believe my child should pay reverence to the parents. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 15. I believe my child should pay reverence to seniors. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 3. 16. I believe my child should pay reverence to teacher. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree School involvement/child’s education plan The following questions ask you about your child’s school performance/activities/ child’s education plan. Please place an X in one of the spaces below to indicate the extent to which the statement applies to you. 4. 1. I believe my child is an excellent student in terms of academic performance. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 2. I expect my child to maintain a high grade average. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 3. I spend much time helping my child with his/her homework during the typical weekday. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 4. I often talk with my child about his/her experiences in school. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree -     172   4. 5. I believe academic achievement is important for his/her future. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 6. I often talk with my child about his/her educational plans for after high school. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 7. What is the highest level of education that you would like your child to achieve? a) Less than high school b) Finish high school c) Finish some college d) Finish college e) Finish graduate degree (masters, doctor, etc.) 4. 8. And realistically speaking, what is the highest level of education that you think your child will get? a) Less than high school b) Finish high school c) Finish some college d) Finish college e) Finish graduate degree (masters, doctor, etc.) 4. 9. If your child plans to attend college, what college you would like your child to attend? __________________________________________________________ 4. 10. If your child does not plan to go to college, what is the main reason why your child does not plan to go? ___________________________________________________________ 4. 11. What job would you like your child to have as an adult? ___________________________________________________________ 4. 12. And realistically speaking, how do you see your child the chances of getting this job? Very poor____:____:____:____ very good 4. 13. I often attend meetings of a parent-teacher organization at my child’s school. Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree     173   4. 14. I often act as a volunteer in my child’s school Strongly disagree ____:____:____:____ Strongly agree 4. 15. How would you describe your child’s friends for their future plans? (For example, dropped out of school, plan to go college, job…) _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 4. 16. How many AP courses has your child taken so far and how many is (s)he taking currently? 4. 17. How many Honor courses have you taken so far and how many are you taking currently? __________________________________________ 4. 18. Is your child completing or taking an IB program currently? Yes______ No_______ No program offered in my school_______ 4. 19. Please write your child’s current GPA? ________________________________________ 4. 20. If your child took the SAT or ACT, would you please share your child’s score? _____________________________________________________________________ 4. 21. If your child took the PSAT, would you please share your child’s score? _____________________________________________________________________ Thank you very much for your time.             174   APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS (KOREAN) 학부모를 위한 설문조사 인적 사항 아래 질문은 여러분의 배경에 관한 질문입니다. 이름과 질문의 해당란에 체크를 해주시면 감사하겠습니다. 1. 1. 이 름 (선택): _________________________________________ 1. 2. 년령: a) 25-30세___ b) 31-35세____ c) 36-40세___ d) 41-45세___ e) 46-50세___ f ) 51-55세___ g) 56-60세___ h) 61- 이상___ 1. 3. 성별: a) 남____ b)녀____ c)기타_____ 설명:______ 1. 4. 최종 학력? a) 12학력 또는 이하___ b) 고등학교졸업___ c) 대학 2년수료___ d) 대학 4년졸업___ e) 석사학위____ f) 박사학위 또는 동등한 학위___ 1. 5. 미국에 거주 하신지는 얼마나 되십니까? a) 미국에서 출생___ b) 10년 또는 이상___ c) 5년 또는 이상___ d) 5년이하___ 1. 6. 결혼상태: a) 결혼___ b) 동거___ c) 이혼 또는 별거___ d) 배우자사망__ e) 기타___ (설명__________________ ) 1. 7. 배우자와 아동의 관계는? a) 친부모___ b) 계모 또는 계부 ___ c) 기타____ (설명)____________ 1. 8. 가정에서 자녀와 대화를 할때 사용하는 언어는? a) 한국어___ b) 영어___ c) 영어와 한국어 ____ d) 기타 ____ (설명)_________________________ 1. 9. 현재 직업은? ___________________________________________________ 1. 10. 지난해 가족의 총수입은 얼마가 되십니까? a) 없음___ b) 5,000불 이하____ c) 5,000-9,999불___ d) 10,000- 24,999불____ e) 25,000-49,000불___ f) 50,000불-74,999불___ g) 75,000불-99,999불___ h) 100,000불-199,999불____ i) 200,000불-이상____ 1. 11. 미국에 거주하면서 한국에는 몇번 방문하셨습니까? a) 0-1번___ b) 2-3번___ c) 4-5번___ d) 6-7번___ e) 8또는이상___     175   정체성확립 아래의 질문은 정체성과 정체성확립에 대한 질문 입니다. 2. 1. 나는 한국 사람으로 구성된 조직에 회원 입니다. a) 예 ____ b) 아니요___ 2. 2. 나는 미국에서 살고 있지만 한국인인 것은 변함없고 그이유는 다음과 같다. ________________________________________________________ 2. 3. 한국인이란 이유때문에 미국에서 생활하는데 영향이 미치었다. 전혀영향이없다___:___:___:___:아주 확신한다 2. 4. 나는 한국인임을 행복하다 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:아주 행복하다 2. 5. 나는 한국사람 보다는 다른 민족배경을 가진 사람과 함께 시간을 더보낸다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 2. 6. 나는 한민족에 속함을 강하게 생각하고 있다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 2. 7. 나는 한국사람 또는 한국사람이 아닌 사람과 관계를 맺을때 한국사람의 본분을 잘 이해하고 있다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 2. 8. 나는 한국인임을 자랑스럽고 그리고 이를 성취했다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 2. 9. 나는 다른 민족배경을 가진 사람과 함께 활동을 하고 있다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 2. 10. 나는 한국인들과 강한 유대감을 갖고 있다고 느끼고 있다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 2. 11. 나는 한국사람들보다는 다른 민족배경을 가진 사람들과 함께 더 친하다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 2. 12. 나는 한국문화 또는 한국민족배경에 대하여 자랑스럽게 느끼고 있다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 2. 13. 미국속에서 자신의 민족 정체성에 대하여 여러가지로 생각할수 있습니다. 아래의 항목중 어떤것이 자신에게 가장 표현되었습니까? 하나만 선택하여 주시기 바람니다. a) 나는 한국인이라고 간주한다. 비록 미국에서 살고 있지만, 나는 한국인이라고 정체성을 갖고있다. b) 나는 실질적으로 미국인이라고 간주한다. 비록 한국인 배경과 특성을 갖고 있지만 나는 미국인으로 생각하고 있다.     176   c) 비록 한국인이라고 나 자신은 간주하고 있지만 한국께 미국인으로 간주하고있다. d) 비록 미국인이라고 생각되지만 나는 한국계 미국인이라고 간주한다. e) 나는 한국계 미국인라고 간주한다. 나는 한국인과 미국인 특성을 모두 갖고있고 두민족성을 갖고 있다고 보고있다. 2. 14. 나는 다음항목중 하나로 나를 간주하여 주기를 바란다(한항목만 표시). a)한국인___ b)미국인___c)한국계 미국인___d)기타___ 2. 15. 나는 나 자신을: a)한국인__ b)미국인__ c)한국계 미국인__d)기타__ 2. 16. 위에 선택 나자신의 정체성이 얼마나 당신에게 중요합니까? 2. 17. 한국문화를 어떻게 가장 적절하게 서술하겠습니까? 2. 18. 어떤 미국식의 생활양식을 선호하십니까? 2. 19. 사고방식이 틀린 자녀와 대화의 어려움을 느낄때 어떤 심정이십니까?(예, 당신은 한국식으로 하고싶으나 자녀는 미국적사고로 하기를 원할때). 한국문화에관한 태도인식/지식/실행 다음 질문들은 귀하의 한국문화에 대한 태도/인식/지식/실행에대한것 입니다. 행당란에 X 표를 해 주시기 바람니다. 3. 1. 나는 한국문화의 실질적인 생활을 하고 있습니다, 예를 들어 특별음식, 음악, 또는 풍습. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 2. 나는 한국음식을 매일먹습다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 3. 미국에 살면서도 저의 가족은 한국고유 명절에는 한국전통 게임도 하고, 한 복도 입고 한국 전통의 음식도 먹습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다     177   3. 4. 나는 한국에 관련된 문화행사, 활동, 그리고 종교집회에 정기적으로 참가합니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 5. 나는 한국식으로 무엇이든지 하고 싶는편입니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 6. 우리 가족은 한국식으로 모듣일을 하기를 원하는 편입니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 7. 나는 내 자녀와 다르게 행동할때 자주 당황하게된다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 8. 나는 내 자녀가 한국역사를 아는것에 자랑 스럽습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 9. 나는 현재 한국에서 발생하는 이슈에 대하여 잘 알고 있다고 믿고 있다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 10. 나는 내자녀가 한국 역사를 배우는것이 중요하고 믿습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 11. 나는 한국 텔레비죤 쇼, 비디오, 그리고 영화를 줄겨 봅니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 12. 나는 내 자녀를 내 나라의 관습대로 키우고 싶습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 13. 나는 내 자녀는 부모에게 순종해야 된다고 믿습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 14. 나는 내 자녀가 부모에게 공손하게 대하여야 된다고 믿습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 15. 나는 내 자녀가 노인들을 존경하여야 된다고 믿는다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 3. 16. 나는 내자녀가 선생님을 존경하여야 된다고 믿습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 학교 참여와 자녀의 교육계획 다음의 질문은 당신의 자녀의 학교 성적/활동/학교교육계획에대한 것 입니다. 해당란에 X 표를 해주시기를 바랍니다. 4. 1. 나는 내 자녀가 우수한 학생 이라고 믿고 있습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 4. 2. 나는 내 자녀가 좋은 성적을 유지하기를 기대하고 있습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 -     178   4. 3. 나는 내 자녀의 숙제를 돕는데 많은 시간을 주중에 보내고 있습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 4. 4. 나는 내 자녀와 학교생활에 대하여 자주 이야기를 하고 있습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 4. 5. 나는 내 자녀의 장래를 위하여 학업성적이 중요하다고 믿고 있습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 4. 6. 나는 자녀와 고등학교 졸업후 장차 교육계획에 대하여 대화를 나누고 있습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 4. 7. 당신은 당신의 자녀가 어느정도의 최고의 교육을 받기를 원하고 계십니까? 아래 항목중 하나에 체크하여 주십시요. a) 고등학교 이하 ___ b) 고등학교 졸업___ c) 몇년의 대학교육___ d)대학 졸업____ e) 대학원 졸업(석사 학위, 박사학위등.) 4. 8. 실지적으로 당신의 자녀는 어느정도 최고의 학부를 할것 같습니까? a) 고등학교 이하___ b) 고등학교___ c) 어느정도의 대학교육___ d) 대학졸업___ e) 대학원 졸업(석사, 박사과정등) 4. 9. 만약 귀하의 자녀가 대학에 진학 할 경우 어느 대학에 가기를 원하십니까? 4. 10. 만약에 귀하의 자녀가 대학에 진학을 안할경우 어떤 이유에서 안가는 것입니까? 4. 11. 귀하는 자녀가 어떤 직업을 하기를 원하십니까? ____________________________________________________ 4. 12. 실제적으로 당신은 당신의 자녀가 이 직업을 가질것 으로 보고 있습니까? 전혀 낮다 :___:___:___:___:매우 높다 4. 13. 나는 자주 학부모 회의에 참가 하고 있습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 4. 14. 나는 내 자녀의 학교에 자원 봉사를 하고 있습니다. 전혀 그렇지않다:___:___:___:___:매우 그렇다 4. 15. 당신은 자녀 친구들의 앞으로 계획에 대하여 얼마나 알고 있습니까? (예를 들어서 학교를 중도에서 포기, 대학에 진학할 계획, 직장을 가질 계획 등)     179   4. 16. 지금까지 당신의 자녀는 몇개의 AP 과목을 수강했으며 현재 택하고 있는 AP 과목은 몇개입니까? _____________________________________________________________ 4. 16. 지금까지 당신의 자녀는 몇개의 Honor 과목을 수강했으며 현재 택하고 있는 Honor 과목은 몇개입니까? _____________________________________________________________ 4. 17. 당신의자녀는 현재 I. B. 프로그램을 택하고 있습니까? a) 예________ b) 아니요_______c) 학교에 I. B. 프로그램이 없습니다. 4. 18. 자녀의 지난번 GPA을 적어 주시기 바람니다. ____________________________________________________________ 4. 19. 자녀가 SAT 혹은 ACT 시험을 보았으면, 점수를 써 주시기 바랍니다. ____________________________________________________________ 4. 20. 자녀가 PSAT 시험을 보았으면, 점수를 써 주시기 바랍니다. ______________________________________________________________ 시간을 할애해 주셔서 감사를 드림니다.     180   APPENDIX D IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS Background Were you born in the United States or came to the U.S with your parents? (If so, what age?) Tell me about where you grew up and which of the place do you remember most? What grade are you in? Do both your parents work? What is the make-up of your household? What do you think your family’s economic situation now is? Heritage Language Can you write short essay in Korean? Can you read Korean storybook? If so, what level do you think you are in? Can you understand your relative’s conversations with adults in Korean/Korean friends’ conversations? How much do you understand Korean T.V. drama or show program if you watch? How much can you understand Korean popular words or phrases that teenagers are using in Korean? What do you think yourself in terms of language you use? (That is Korean speaker or English speaker) What language does your family in your home most speak? How often use? When you talk to your parents (or children), what language do you most often use? In what language do you prefer to speak most of the time? In talking with your friends at school, what language do you most use? Do you want to learn Korean? Why? What do your parents think about your learning Korean? In the future do you want to continue to learn the Korean language? and on ethnic identity (i.e., “Are you Korean or American?”; “In the 2002 World Cup, the Korean National Soccer Team was matched against the American National Soccer Team. For which team did you cheer?”; and “Do you like Korean singers more or American singers?”).     181   Cultural identity and Ethnicity/ attitude /knowledge of Korean culture What do you like to participate in Korean cultural practices, such as special food, music, or customs? How much do you enjoy eating Korean food every day? How often do you participate in Korean-related cultural events/ activities, including religious functions? How often do you cerebrate any special days connected with Korea? How often do you prefer American ways of doing things? How often do you prefer Korean ways of doing things? How often do your parents prefer American ways of doing things? If your parents punish you because your way of doing things is different from that of your parents, what would you make your feeling? What do you think about the notion that children must pay obedience their parents? How about pay reverence to senior/ teacher? What do you think that white Americans consider themselves? (Example, Superior, equal, inferior to your own group) Do you know any Korean singers? Do you know any Korean actors/ actresses? How much do you know current issues of Korean society? How well do you know Korean history? What do you prefer American ways of doing things? What do you see different way of American parents and Korean parents? When do you visit American friends’ house, what you can see the different things from your house? What situation (moment) do you think you are Korean? What do you feel when your parents want you to do Korean way that you don’t want to do? What activities related to Korean culture do you like? How do you identify yourself, that is what do you call yourself? (Examples: Asian, Hispanic…) Which of the races do you consider yourself? How important is this identity to you that is what you call yourself? (For example, Korean, American, Korean-American etc.) How would you best describe the Korean culture?     182   In general, with whom do you socialize mainly? How often do you participate in activities provided by Korean community? What type of activities do you participate? About school performance/ activities/your plans for the future Tell me about your favorite subjects, class, and teachers. How many close friends do you have in school? Do you think you are satisfied with the school performance? Do you think you are excellent student in terms of academic performance? Do you think your parents are satisfied with your school performance that you have done up to now? How much do you spend time on studying or doing school homework during the typical weekday? Do you usually finish homework done before/ by due date? What is the highest level of education that you would like to achieve? And realistically speaking, what is the highest level of education that you think you will get? What is the highest level of the education that your parents want you to get? If you plan to attend college, what college you would like to attend? What job would you like to have as an adult? Why? If you do not plan to go to college, what is the main reason why you do not plan to go? How many of these close friends have parents who came from Korea, that is who were not born in the United States? How would you describe your friends? (For example, dropped out of school, plan to go college, job…) Can you tell me a little bit about your life growing up, in school, and as a young adult? How many AP courses have you taken so far and how many are you taking currently? Are you completing an IB program? What is your GPA currently? If you took the SAT, would you please share your score? If you took the PSAT, would you please share your score?     183   APPENDIX E IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PARENTS Background How long have you lived in the United States? Was your child born in the United States or came here with you? What is the highest level of education that you completed? Do you own or rent the house where you now live? What do you think your family’s economic situation now is? Are you currently working? What is your job? How many hours per week do you work at it? Approximately how much do you earn per month in this job? Language How well do you speak/read/write/understand English? How well do you speak/read/write/understand Korean? What language does your family in your home most speak? When you talk to your children, what language do you most often use? In what language do you prefer to speak most of the time? Cultural identity and Ethnicity/ attitude /knowledge of Korean culture How do you identify yourself, that is what do you call yourself? (Examples: Asian, Hispanic…) Which of the races do you consider yourself? How important is this identity to you that is what you call yourself? How would you best describe the Korean culture? How often do you participate in activities provided by Korean community? What type of activities do you participate? How much do people from your country help each other in the United States? How important is it for you to keep in contact with other people from your country living here?     184   How proud are you of your country? (For child) How important is it for your child to know about your country? (For child) How often do you talk to your child about your country? How often do you cerebrate any special days connected with your country? What do you think that white Americans consider themselves? (Example, Superior, equal, inferior to your own group) What do you know current issues of Korean society? How well do you know Korean history? Parenting/ School involvement Do you and your spouse do any activities at your child’s school? (Belong to parent-teacher association, attending parent meeting, act as a volunteers...) Are there family rules for your child about school performance? (Maintaining a certain grade average, doing homework,..) How often do you or your spouse talk with your child about his/her experiences in school? How often do you or your spouse talk with your child about his/her educational plans for after high school? How often do you or your spouse help your child with his/her homework? How satisfied are you with the education that your child has received up to now? How far in school do you expect your child to go? Do you want your child to be raised according to the Korean customs or American customs? Would you tell me more about the reason? How many AP courses has your child taken so far and how many is she/he taking currently? Is your child completing an IB program currently? Please write your child’s current GPA? If your child took the SAT, would you please share your child’s score? If your child took the PSAT, would you please share your child’s score?     185   APPENDIX F STUDENT KOREAN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION/USE PATTERN ITEMS Student Korean language acquisition/use pattern Items, Means, and Standard Deviation of the Factor Analysis (n = 219) Student Korean language Acquisition/Use Pattern Factor Items M SD Member of Korean social group 1.69 0.97 Clear sense of being Korean 2.04 0.90 Understanding of being Korean means 2.07 0.82 Read Korean newspaper and story 1.73 1.12 Read Korean textbooks for my grade level 1.53 1.10 Can read Korean popular magazines 1.68 1.13 Can write academic reports of several subjects in Korean 1.09 1.04 Can write short essays and journal 1.41 1.10 Can write personal letter 1.62 1.07 Seldom make grammatical errors in writing 1.01 .92 Understanding of Korean adult conversations 2.22 .92 Understanding of Korean TV show, videos, and movies 2.27 .88 Can speak politely in Korean to adult 2.18 .96 Can summarize and explain English lesson in Korean 1.63 1.03 Can handle complex situation in Korean 1.46 1.05 No make grammatical error in conversation 1.26 .98 Can understanding and use teenager's Korean 1.82 1.05 What think of yourself in terms of the language use 1.30 .85 Participating regularly in Korean cultural events/activities 1.68 1.02 Know Korean history well 1.11 .99 Familiar with the current Korean issues 1.38 1.00 Like to watch Korean TV 2.11 .97 Interested in current issues in Korea 1.55 1.05     186   APPENDIX G STUDENT SCHOOL PERFORMANCE AND FUTURE PLAN ITEMS Student School Performance and Future Plan Items, Means, and Standard Deviation of the Factor Analysis (n = 184) Student School Performance and Future Plan Factor Items M SD Excellent student in academic performance 2.16 .76 Satisfied with the school performance 2.07 .82 Parents' satisfaction of their children's performance 1.84 .97 Spend much time to studying/doing homework 1.86 .91 Finish homework before due date 2.35 .86 Importance of academic achievement for my future 2.62 .71 Highest level of education to achieve 3.67 .62 Highest level of education to achieve realistically 3.55 .59 Parent's expectation of student' highest level of the Ed. 3.84 .37 Chances of getting job 2.29 .63 Participate in school as a leader 1.82 .97 Current GPA 3.79 .35     187   APPENDIX H STUDENT ETHNIC IDENTITY/PRACTICE OF KOREAN CULTURE ITEMS Student Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture Items, Means and Standard Deviation of the Factor Analysis (n = 219) Student Perception of Ethnic/Culture Orientation Factor Items M SD Student's life affected by being Korean 1.67 1.05 Happy being a member of Korean group 2.27 .85 Strong sense of belonging to the Korean 1.99 .88 Being proud of Korean ethnic group 2.22 .84 Involving in other ethnic group's activities 2.24 .88 Feeling attachment toward the Korean group 2.00 .82 Enjoying being around Korean people 2.28 .81 Feeling good about Korean culture/ethnic background 2.23 .86 Participating in Korean culture practices 1.99 .91 Enjoy eating Korean food 2.35 .85 Cerebration traditional holidays in U.S. 1.52 .99 Student's preference of Korean ways of doing things 1.41 .93 Family's preference of Korean ways of doing things 2.12 .87 Need to learn Korean history 1.88 1.03 Pay obedience to my parents 2.28 .74 Pay reverence to my parents 2.32 .74 Pay reverence to seniors 2.27 .81 Pay reverence to teacher 2.07 .90     188   APPENDIX I PARENT ETHNIC IDENTITY/PRACTICE OF KOREAN CULTURE ITEMS Parent Ethnic Identity/Practice of Korean Culture Items, Means, and Standard Deviation of the Factor Analysis (n = 145) Parent Perception of Ethnic/Culture Orientation Factor Items M SD Member of Korean social group 2.14 .87 Clear sense of being Korean 2.27 .87 Parents' life affected by being Korean 1.54 1.11 Happy being a member of Korean group 1.81 .75 Spending time with other ethnicity 1.27 .84 Strong sense of belonging to the Korean 1.92 .94 Understanding of being Korean means 2.43 .76 Being proud of Korean ethnic group 1.66 .77 Involving in other ethnic group's activities 1.21 .88 Feeling attachment toward the Korean group 1.83 .99 Feeling good about Korean culture/ethnic background 2.05 .74 Participating in Korean culture practices 2.01 .76 Enjoy eating Korean food 2.50 .71 Cerebration traditional holidays in U.S. 1.57 .85 Participating regularly in Korean cultural events/activities 1.95 1.10 Parents' preference of Korean ways of doing things 1.64 .78 Family's preference of Korean ways of doing things 1.32 .83 Embarrassed because of my child ways of doing things .91 .68 Proof of my child for knowing Korean history well 1.23 .88 My child familiar with the current Korean issues 1.15 .99 My child need to learn Korean history 2.30 .81 Like to watch Korean TV 1.92 .98 My child to be raised in Korean customs 1.59 .84 My child should pay obedience to parents 1.98 .69 My child should pay reverence to my parents 2.47 .59 My child should pay reverence to seniors 2.34 .57 My child should pay reverence to teacher 2.10 .71     189   REFERENCES CITED Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bankston, C. L., & Zhou, M. (1995). Effects of minority-language literacy on the academic achievement of Vietnamese youths in New Orleans. Sociology of Education, 68(1), 1-17. Bauman, Z. (2000). Culture as praxis. London: Sage Publications. Berry, W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.). Acculturation: Theory models and some new findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bowen, H. (1978). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Brannick, M. T. (2008). Back to basics of test construction and scoring. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 131-133. Braxton, R. (1999). Culture, family, and Chinese and Korean American student achievement: an examination of student factors that affect student outcomes. College Student Journal, 6. Brown, S. K., & Bean, F. D. (2006). Assimilation Models, Old and New: Explaining a Long-Term Process. Migration Information Source. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Camp, W. G. (1990). Participation in student activities and achievement: A covariance structural analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 3(5), 272- 278. Caplan, N., Choy, M., & Whitmore, J. (1992). Children of the boat people: A study of educational success. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Chae, M. H., & Foley, P. F. (2010). Relationship of ethnic identity, acculturation, and psychological well-being among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 466-476. Cheung, Y. W. (1993). Approaches to ethnicity: Clearing roadblocks in the study of ethnicity and substance abuse. International Journal of Addictions, 28(12), 1209- 1226.     190   Chinen, K., & Tucker, G. (2005). Heritage language development: Understanding the roles of ethnic identity and Saturday school participation. Heritage Language Journal, 3(1), 27-42. Cho, G. (2000). The role of heritage language in social interactions and relations: reflections from a language minority group. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 333- 348. Cho, G., Cho, K. S., & Tse, L. (1997). Why ethnic minorities need to develop their heritage language: The case of Korean Americans. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 106-112. Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (1987). Language use in the Ukrainian home: A Toronto sample. International Journal of Social Language, 63, 99-118. Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (1990). Language change in the Ukrainian home: From transmission to maintenance to the beginnings of loss. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 31(2), 61-75. Chun, K. (1995). The myth of Asian American success and its educational ramifications. In D. T. Nakanishi & T. Y. Nishida (Eds.). The Asian American experience (pp. 95-111). New York: Routledge. Cody, K. (2001). Texas Spanish: Language use and ethnic identity in bilingual speakers. Educational resources information center. Community introduction & history. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from http://villageprofile.com/texas/lubbock/02/topic.html College Entrance Examination Board (2007). Total Group Profile [National] Report. 2006–07. National Association for College Admission Counseling. Comber, L., & Keeves, J. (1973). Science Education in Nineteen Countries: International Studies in Evaluation (Vol. 1). (ERIC Document No. ED081639). Somerset, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.     Creswell, J. W. (2005). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (Vol. 1). London: Sage Publications     191   Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L, Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 273-296). London: Sage Publications. Crocker, J. & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608–630. Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The modern language journal, 89(4), 586-592. Dasgupta, S. S. (1989). On the Trail of an Uncertain Dream. New York, NY: AMS Press, Inc. De Vos, G. A. (1980). Ethnic adaptation and minority status. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 11(1), 101–124. de Vries, J. (1990). Language and ethnicity: Canadian aspects. In P. S. Li (Ed.). Race and ethnic relations in Canada (pp. 231-250). Toronto: Oxford University Press. Dolson, D. (1985).The effects of Spanish home language use on the scholastic performance of Hispanic pupils. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(2), 135-155. Erikson, E. (1960). Identity and life cycle. New York: W.W. Norton. Fernandez-Kelly & Portes, Alejandro (2008). Exceptional outcomes: Achievement in Education and employment among children of Immigrants. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Feuerverger, G. (1991). University students’ perceptions of heritage language learning and ethnic identity maintenance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, 660- 677. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Fong, J. C. (2003). Complementary education and culture in the global/local Chinese community. San Francisco: China Books and Periodicals.     192   Fukuyama, F. (1993). Immigrants and family values. Commentary, 95(5), 26–32. Fuligni, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: the roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development, 68(2), 351-363. García-Vázquez, E., Vázquez, L. A., López, I., & Ward, W. (1997). Language proficiency and academic success: Relationships between proficiency in two languages and achievement among Mexican-American students. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(4), 334-347. Gibson, M. S. (1988). Accommodation without assimilation: Punjabi in an American high school and community. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.). Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. Gordon, B. M. (2001). Knowledge construction, competing critical theories, and education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.). Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 184–199). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Graves, T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community. South-Western Journal of Anthropology, 23, 337-350. Gunew, S. (1994). Arts for a multicultural Australia: Redefining the culture. In S. Gunew & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Culture, difference and the arts (pp. 1-12). St. Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwin. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Hao, L., & Bonstead-Bruns, M. (1998). Parent-child differences in educational expectations and the academic achievement of immigrant and native students. Sociology of Education, 71, 175-198. Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1995). The determinants of children’s attainments: A review of methods and findings. Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 1829–1878. He, A. W. (2006). Toward an identity theory of the development of Chinese as a heritage language. Heritage Language Journal, 4(1), 1-28.     193   Hinton, L. (1999). Trading tongues: Loss of heritage languages in the United States. English Today, 60, 22-30. Hirsschman, C., & Wong, M. (1981). Trends in socioeconomic achievement among immigrant and native born Asian Americans, 1960-1976. Sociological Quarterly, 22, 495-513. Ho, D. Y. F. (1986). Chinese pattern of socialization: A critical review. In M. Bond (Ed.). The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 1-37). New York: Oxford University Press. Ho, D. (1994). Cognitive socialization in Confucian heritage cultures. In P. Greenfield & R. Cocking (Eds.). Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 323- 350). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association Publishers. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Hong, J., & Min, P. (1999). Ethnic attachment among second-generation Korean adolescent. Amerasia Journal, 25, 165-180. Hsia, J., & Peng, S. S. (1998). Academic achievement and performance. In L. C. Lee & N. W. S. Zane (Eds.). Handbook of Asian American psychology (pp. 325-358). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hurh, W. M. (1998). The Korean Americans. London: Greenwood Press. Imbens-Bailey, A. (1996). Ancestral language acquisition: Implications for aspects of ethnic identity among Armenian American children and adolescents. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(4), 422-443. Kao, G. (1995). Asian American as model minorities? A look at their academic performance. American Journal of Education, 101, 121-159. Keefe, S., & Padila, A. (1987). Chicano ethnicity. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Kennedy, C. A. (2005). Constructing Measurement Models for MRCML Estimation: A Primer for Using the BEAR Scoring Engine, Berkeley, CA: University of California, BEAR Center Kennedy, E., & Park, H.S. (1994). Home languages as a predictor of academic achievement: A comparative study of Mexican and Asian American youth. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(3), 188-194.     194   Kibria, N. (2000). Race, ethnic options, and ethnic binds: Identity negotiations of second-generation Chinese and Korean Americans. Sociological Perspectives, 43(1), 77-95. Kitano, H. (1969). Japanese Americans: The evolution of a subculture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kondo-Brown, K. (2003). Bilingual heritage students: Language contact and motivation. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 425-452). Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 563-581. Lambert, W. E. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and sociocultural consequences. In P. Hornby (Ed.). Bilingualism: Psychological, social, and educational implications (pp. 15-27). New York: Academic Press. Laroche, M., Kim, C., Hui, M. & Tomiuk, M. (1998). Test of a nonlinear relationship between linguistic acculturation and ethnic identification. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 418-433. Lee, S. (1996). Unraveling the model minority stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Lee, S. (2002). The significance of language and cultural education on secondary achievement: A survey of Chinese-American and Korean-American students. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213-224. Lee, S. (2005). Up against Whiteness: Race, school and immigrant youth. New York: Teachers College Record Lew, J. (2006). Asian Americans in class. New York: Teachers College Press. Lima, E. & Lima, M. (1998). Identity, cultural diversity, and education. In Y. Zou and E. Trueba (Eds.). Ethnic identity and power: Cultural contexts of political action in school and society. New York: Suny Press. Lockheed, M., Fuller, B., & Nyirongo, R. (1989). Family effects on students' achievement in Thailand and Malawi. Sociology of Education, 62, 239-256. Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.). Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley.     195   Mark, D. & Chih, G. (1992). A place called America. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Mark, M. & Kim, Y. (1999). Academic interests and perceived competence in American, Japanese and Korean children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(1), 32- 50. Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure among Mexican-descent and Japanese-American students in a California high school: An ethnographic analysis. American Journal of Education, 95, 233-255. McClelland, D. (1971). Motivational trends in society. New York: General Learning Press. McClelland, D. & Winter, D. (1969). Motivating economic achievement. New York: Free Press. Mena, F., Padilla, A., & Maldonado M. (1987). Acculturative stress and specific coping strategies among immigrant and later generation college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 207-225. Min. P. G. & Kim, R. (2002). Formation of ethnic and racial identities: Narratives by Asian American professional. In P. G. Min (Ed.). The second generation: Ethnic identity among Asian Americans (pp. 153-181). New York: Altamira Press Morrow, R. D., & McBride, H. J. (1988). Considerations for educators in working with Southeast Asian children and their families. U.S. Department of Education: Educational Resources Information Center. (ERIC ED299730) Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social Problems, 41(1), 152-76 National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. NCES 2007-039, September 2007. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007039 National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA). (2006). Frequently asked questions. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/ New York Times. (2008, April 27). Korean prep schools and their high SAT schools.     196   Ogbu, J., & Matute-Bianchi, M. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 73-142). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Oh, J. & Fuligni, A. (2007). The role of heritage language development in the adjustment of adolescents from immigrant backgrounds. California center for population research, University of California-Los Angeles. Oketani, H. (1997). Japanese-Canadian youths as additive bilinguals: A case study. Mosiac, 4(2), 14-18. Olmedo, E. L. (1980). Quantitative models of acculturation: an overview. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 27-45). Boulder, CO: Westview. Padilla, A. (1980). The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory models and some new findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Padilla, A., Alvarez, M., & Lindholm, K. (1986). Generational and personality factors as predictors of stress in students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 275-288. Pang, V. (1990). Asian American children: A diverse population. The Education Forum, 55(1), 49-66. Park, C. (1997). Educational and occupational aspirations of Korean youth in Los Angeles. In R. Endo, C. Park, J. Tsuchida, & A. Agbayani (Eds.). Current issues in Asian and Pacific American education. Covina, CA: Pacific Asia Press. Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76(27), 1-23. Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D. A., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Charting a new course: Heritage language education in the United States. In J. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.). Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 3-26). McHenry, IL/Washington, DC: Delta Systems/Center for Applied Linguistics. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.     197   Phinney, J. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918-927. Phinney, J. (2000). Ethnic identity. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 3) (pp. 254-259). New York: Oxford University Press. Phinney, J. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.). Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 63-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Phinney, S., Romero, I., Nava, M. Huang, D. (2000). The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 136. Phinney, J., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language, parents and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 135-153. Pigott, B., & Kabach, M. (2005). Language effects on ethnic identity in Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 37(2), 3-18. Portes, A. & Educating, D. (1999). The second generation: Determinants of academic achievement among children of immigrants in the United States. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25. Portes, A., & Schauffler, R. (1995). Language and the second generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today. International Migration Review, 28(4), 640-661. Portes, A. & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74-96. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152. Reglin, G. & Adams, D. (1990). Why Asian-American high school students have higher grade point averages and SAT scores than other high school students. The High School Journal, Feb/March, 143-149. Ritter, P & Dornbuschs. (1989). Ethnic variation in family influences on academic achievement. Paper presented at the American educational research association. San Francisco.     198   Rosenbloom, S. R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination among African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth & Society, 35(4), 420–451. Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643. Rumberger, R., & Larson, K. (1998). Toward explaining differences in educational achievement among Mexican American language-minority students. Sociology of Education, 71(1), 68-92. Rumberger, R., Ghatak, R., Poulos, G., Ritter, P., & Dornbusch, S. (1990). Family influence on dropout behavior in one California high school. Sociology of Education, 63 (October): 283-299. Saharso, S. (1989). Ethnic identity and the paradox of equality. In J. P. Van Oudenhoven & T. M. Willemsen (Eds.), Ethnic minorities: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 97-114). Berwyn, PA: Swets North America. Schmid, C. L. (2001). Educational achievement, language-minority students, and the new second generation. Sociology of Education, 74, 71-87. Schumann, J. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(5), 379-3 92. Schneider, B., Hieshina, J., Lee, S., & Plank, S. (1994). East-Asian academic success in the United States: family, school, and community explanations. In P. M. Greenfield & R. Cocking (Eds.). Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 323-350). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Schneider, B., & Lee, Y. (1990). A model for academic success: The school and home environment of East Asian students. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21, 358-377. Shibata, S. (2000). Opening a Japanese Saturday school in a small town in the United States: Community collaboration to each Japanese as a heritage language. The Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 465-474. Shibata, S. (2004). The effects of Japanese heritage language maintenance on scholastic verbal and academic achievement in English. Foreign Language Annals, 37(2), 224-231.     199   Smith, J. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1997). Consequences of living in poverty for young children’s cognitive and verbal ability and early school achievement. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor, 132–189. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Smolicz, J. (1992). Minority languages as core values of ethnic cultures: A study of maintenance and erosion of Polish, Welsh, and Chinese languages in Australia. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert & S. Kroon (Eds.). Maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp. 277-305). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stalikas, A., & Gavaki, E. (1995). The importance of ethnic identity: Self-esteem and academic achievement of second-generation Greeks in secondary school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11(1), 1–9. Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dornbusch, S. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 116-135. Steinberg, S. (1989). The ethnic myth: Race, ethnicity, and class in America. Boston: Beacon Press. Stevenson, H. W. (1992). Learning from Asian schools. Scientific American, 12(6), 70- 76. Stevenson, H.W., Lee, S. Y. & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science 231(4739), 693–99. Stevenson, H., Chen, C., & Lee, S. (1993). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children: Ten years later. Science, 259, 53-58. Suarez, D. (2002). The paradox of linguistic hegemony and the maintenance of Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(6), 512-530. Suarez, D. (2007). Second and third generation heritage language speakers: HL scholarship’s relevance to the research needs and future directions of TESOL. Heritage Language Journal, 5(1), 27-49. Sue, S. & Kitano, H. (1973). Stereotypes as a measure of success. Journal of social issues, 29, 83-98.     200   Sue, S. & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: a phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-920. Sung, B. (1987). The adjustment experience of Chinese immigrant children in New York City. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Suzuki, R. (1980). Education and the socialization of Asian Americans: A revisionist analysis of the model minority theses. In R. Endo, S. Sue, & N. Wagner (Eds.). Asian-Americans: Social and psychological perspectives (Vol. 2) (pp. 155-175). Ben Lomond, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tong, V. (1996). Home language literacy and the acculturation of recent Chinese immigrant students. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20(3/4), 523-543. Tse, L. (2000). The effects of ethnic identity formation on bilingual maintenance and development: An analysis of Asian American narratives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(3), 185-200. Tseng, V., & Fuligini, A. (2000). Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 465-476. Valdés, G. (1997). The teaching of Spanish to bilingual Spanish-speaking students: Outstanding issues and unanswered questions. In M. C. Colombi & F. X. Alarcón (Eds.), La ensenanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoria [Teaching Spanish to Spanish speakers: practice and theory] (pp. 93-101). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.). Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (2003). Toward a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2(3), 211-230.     201   Verkuyten, M., & De Wolf, A. (2002). Ethnic minority identity and group context: Self- descriptions, acculturation attitudes and group evaluations in an intra- and intergroup situation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 781–800. Vernon, P. E. (1982). The abilities and achievements of Orientals in North America. New York: Academic Press. Weber, M. 1930. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner. Wiley, T. G. (2001). On defining heritage languages and their speakers. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.). Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 29-36). McHenry, IL/Washington, DC: Delta Systems/Center for Applied Linguistics. Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 203–210. Yeung, A., Marsh, J. & Suliman, R. (2000). Can two tongues live in harmony: Analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) longitudinal data on the maintenance of home language. American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 1001-1026. You, B. (2005). Children negotiating Korean American ethnic identity through their heritage language. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 711-721. Wadley, J.Y., Williford, A.M. (2008). How Institutional Research Can Create and Synthesize Retention and Attrition Information, Association for Institutional Research Professional File. No. 108. Williams, R. (1981). Culture. Glasgow, Scotland: Fontana. Wong, M. (1995). The education of White, Chinese, Filipino, and Japanese students: A look at the high school and beyond. In D. Nakanishi & T. Nishida (Eds.). The Asian American experience. New York: Routledge. Wu, D. & Tseng, W. (1985). Introduction: The characteristics of Chinese culture. In W. Tseng & D. Wu (Eds.). Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 3-13). New York: Academic Press.