Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

Findings and Discussion

Possible Selection Effects

Limitations of the Study

Concluions

Notes

References

Kellie Rolstad

Arizona State University

| Return to top |
 
 

While two-way immersion programs have been shown to be very effective for both language majority and language minority students, their effectiveness with students who speak a home language other than those used in the classroom has not been established. Since the inclusion of such third language students in two-way immersion programs is rare, little is known about whether the effects might be positive or negative. However, a Korean/English two-way immersion program implemented in Los Angeles which includes several speakers of Spanish and Tagalog presented a rare research opportunity. Among several possible areas of concern regarding the effects of two-way immersion on third language students, differences in ethnic identification might be anticipated. This exploratory study provides and discusses indicators of positive program outcomes which relate to academic achievement, language development and ethnic identity, focusing on ethnic identification with students' own group and with others. Data were collected from students in two other programs, English mainstream and Spanish bilingual, for comparison with same school peers. It was found that the third language students fared quite well in academic and language development, as well as in ethnic identification, with some interesting differences. Based on these findings, it is tentatively suggested that two-way immersion may provide a better educational alternative than submersion for third language students for whom a bilingual program is not available.

Introduction

| Return to top |

        An underlying premise of developmental bilingual education is that the psychosocial, linguistic, and academic benefits of long-term primary language (L1) instruction make it an excellent educational option for language minority children, students who speak a language other than that of the national majority¹ (Brisk, 1998; Faltis & Hudelson, 1998; Wong Fillmore & Valadez, 1988). Indeed, numerous studies have shown that L1 instruction can provide greater benefits for language minority children than submersion in a socially dominant language where these children are subjected to instruction through the unfamiliar language of the majority culture (Greene, 1998; Ramirez, Yuen & Ramey, 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997; Willig, 1985). Recently, Thomas and Collier (1997) conducted a longitudinal study of a variety of instructional methods for language minority children and found that the strongest program for language minority students is two-way immersion, a special form of developmental bilingual education in which language minority children receive L1 instruction together with language majority children who receive immersion in the minority language.

        The success of two-way immersion for language minority students is generally attributed to the first language support they receive in school, although this support entails far more than the sheer linguistic experiences of the students. Typically, the language, culture, and self-esteem of language minority students are under constant threat in schools and in the larger society, as these students are pressured to assimilate. In two-way immersion, a deep respect for the target (minority) language and its speakers is fostered which leads to increased self-esteem and ethnic pride among language minority students and improved intercultural relations between the two groups of students. Thus, language minority students receive not only linguistic support, but also cultural, psychological and social support in their academic development. At the same time, language majority students are immersed in a foreign language which they gradually and easily acquire, as the value of their first language and ethnic identity is never questioned.

        It has been established that immersion in a foreign language is successful with language majority students (for example, French immersion of English speakers in Canada), and submersion in the majority language has been found to be largely unsuccessful with language minority students (for example, English submersion of Spanish speakers in the U.S.) (Cummins, 1979; Greene, 1998; Willig, 1985). The question remains, however, as to the appropriateness of immersion for students who are native speakers of neither the majority language nor the target immersion language, such as Russian Jewish immigrant children to the U.S. who begin kindergarten in Hebrew schools. Very little evidence for or against third language immersion can be found in the research literature.

        Genesee (1988:179) warns that while immersion has been found to be beneficial for language majority students, the suitability of immersion for language minority students remains "an open question, subject to empirical investigation." Further, he has cautioned that, in the context of French immersion in Canada,

        Several researchers have pointed out that in addition to the standard assessments of linguistic and academic effects, a program's social and psychological effects on language minority children must be assessed (Brisk, 1998; Cazabon, Lambert & Hall, 1993; Cummins, 1991; Lindholm, 1990; McKay, 1988; Valadez & Gregoire, 1990). How children come to perceive themselves and their ethnicity in relation to other ethnic groups should be taken into account, since effects on ethnic identification, often neglected by evaluators, can provide a fuller and more meaningful description of the overall effect of a program on its participants. The research questions posed in this study are the following:

1. Do language minority children immersed in a third language view other ethnic groups more or less favorably than their own?
2. How does their ethnic identification compare with that of their linguistic and cultural peers at the same school who receive first language support, and with those who receive English-only instruction?

Literature Review

| Return to top |
 
 

Ethnic Identification

        The study of ethnicity is complicated by the interplay of genetic and cultural transmission. In some cases, ethnic labels are attributable by a person's appearance, but ethnicity is more than a set of physical features. Ethnicity also represents a constellation of shared values, language, history and experiences that interact with genetic attributes to influence each person's sense of identity. The difficulty in teasing apart these very different aspects of ethnic identity is reflected in the research literature, where the distinction between genetic inheritance and cultural influences is largely unaddressed, and neither will I attempt to deal with it in this study. However, a brief review of the literature on ethnic identity and its effects on children in schools may provide helpful insights regarding the research as posed above.

        Knight, Garza and Bernal (1998) argue that ethnic identity represents the cultural influences on the self-concept of the individual. Harter (1983) includes ethnic identity as one dimension of self-concept; for her, a child's ethnic identity must be secure in order for him or her to experience a positive self-concept. Fishman (1991) has suggested that a secure identity may be fundamentally necessary for accepting, and hence learning, other languages and cultures. When the home, the school and the society present children with conflicting ethnic values, any changes children undergo in ethnic identification correspondingly affect their self-esteem. Secada & Lightfoot (1993:51) assert that

        Lambert & Tucker (1972) showed that the kindergarten L2 immersion of language majority children promotes identification with the target linguistic/ethnic group, a result that occurred against the stated desires of the monolingual English parents, who claimed to want their children to acquire the French language without becoming "too French" in the process. This additive experience for language majority children contrasts with the negative experience common for language minority children undergoing submersion in the majority language. Beebe and Giles (1984) suggest that when students perceive language learning as a betrayal of their own language and culture, they are not likely to attain L2 proficiency, nor proficiency in the new culture. It remains to be determined to what extent third language children might come to identify with not only the minority immersion language and culture, but the mainstream language and culture as well, since their own language and culture are not explicitly addressed in the curriculum.

        The substantial amount of research that has been conducted in the area of ethnic identity is extremely valuable to our consideration of the potential effects of two-way immersion on third language children. However, these studies have addressed the problems faced by language minority children who are subjected to the majority language in school, or the issues involved with the immersion of language majority children in a minority language. The unique aspect of the current study is that it addresses the effects of education in a second minority language. The difference lies in the higher social status and dominance of the majority language, compared to the lower social status and subordination of the minority languages in general. An additional area of research necessary for consideration of the impact of the current study, the acquisition of a third language and its psychological and social effects on language minority children, is discussed below.

Third Language Acquisition

        Reports on trilingual programs, and on contexts where third language children are incidentally involved in bilingual programs, are rare in this country. In describing the language situation of Vietnamese Americans, Chung (1988) mentions two cases of incidental inclusion of third language children in bilingual programs. One is the case of a newly-arrived Vietnamese student's placement in a Spanish bilingual program. The other is that of Vietnamese children being bussed to a school where they were placed in a Filipino bilingual program. Chung attributes the placement of the Vietnamese children in a Filipino program to the school's misidentification of the children's ethnicity, which is certainly possible. However, it would be valuable to know the outcome of these children's educational experiences; unfortunately, little information on cases such as these is currently available.

        In countries like Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg which have three or more official languages, various trilingual education programs can be found, some of which involve language minority, often immigrant, students. Turkish students in Holland are educated roughly 30% of the time in Turkish (in a pull-out program) and 70% of the time in Dutch (with Dutch children) from kindergarten through second grade, after which they are taught in Dutch 90%, and in French 10% of the time. A further complication is experienced by Moroccan children in Holland, who are presently not provided with L1 support beyond that of parent volunteer aides in the classroom. They receive some literacy instruction in standard Arabic, but most of the children speak a Moroccan Arabic variety which differs greatly from standard Arabic (Leman, 1993).

        Luxembourg is also currently facing the situation of incorporating immigrant children into its trilingual educational programs. The traditional system calls for instruction in Luxembourger, followed by instruction in German as a second language, which then gradually replaces Luxembourger as the medium of instruction. In second grade, French is introduced as a subject, and continues to be taught as a subject through secondary school. In some secondary schools, French then replaces German as the medium of instruction. This traditional system is being affected by the already large and growing population of immigrant children enrolling in public schools. Immigrant children are thus being taught Luxembourger with "mitigated results" (Lebrun & Baetens-Beardsmore, 1993) but limited to a one-year program, after which they are expected to participate in mainstream Luxembourger language classrooms.

       Another example of children learning four languages at school is provided by the European School Model, a network of private schools located in six different countries. These schools aim

        Several bilingual education researchers in Europe report that the European School Model is producing bilingual and multilingual students with high levels of interethnic tolerance (Baetens-Beardsmore, 1993; Leman, 1993). One of the most relevant and interesting aspects of this European model for the present study is its emphasis on second and third language acquisition in the company of native-speaking peers, such that all students experience similar feelings of weakness in learning a language in the presence of some of their native-speaking peers, and feelings of confidence in serving as a language model for others. Housen and Baetens-Beardsmore (1987) report that this common experience helps the students to bond together, and that it is quite common for students to have as their best friends members of other ethnic and linguistic groups.

        Holobow, Genesee and Lambert (1991) have warned that positive results for ethnic minority children in immersion programs cannot be generalized to provide support for the inclusion of language minority children in immersion programs. Very rarely can accounts of third language immersion be found in the literature, and these typically are brief, anecdotal references to children's third language experiences which are assumed to have been negative in outcome (Chung, 1988). However, it has not been determined whether or to what extent immersion in a third language may enhance or harm the ethnic identification of language minority children. In order to explore this topic, I will next discuss the inclusion of third language children in a two-way immersion program in the context of the present study. 

Research Design

| Return to top |
 
 

        Two-way immersion programs are becoming increasingly popular in the United States when the acquisition of two languages by both English speakers and language minority students is the educational goal. The inclusion of language minority and language majority students in approximately equal numbers leads to increased positive outcomes, greater than those that are generally achieved by teaching these two groups of children separately, due to the availability of peer language models (Lindholm, 1990). In large urban areas, where there are plenty of representatives of various language groups, two-way immersion programs can be found which are highly successful (Cazabon, Lambert & Hall, 1993; Lindholm, 1990). However, in some inner-city areas, especially where there are large numbers of recent immigrants, there may happen to be fewer language majority speakers. Hence, a two-way immersion program might be difficult to implement if too few language majority children are available to participate, since in most two-way immersion programs children are drawn from one of the two target language groups. It is not known whether the incorporation of third language speakers into the two-way immersion program would benefit or disadvantage them, and the undertaking of such an experiment would likely be discouraged, considering the lack of available data on potential outcomes.

        Yet an experiment probing the question of whether immersion can benefit ethnic minority group members who do not speak English as a first language might be undertaken in a context where too few native English speakers are available to participate in a two-way program that administrators are anxious to maintain. This context would present an excellent opportunity to study the effects of immersion in a second, non-dominant language on language minority children, an opportunity to discover whether third language immersion is likely to constitute an enriching or a detrimental educational experience. The present study, part of a larger research project documenting the effects of third language immersion on self-concept, ethnic identification, academic and linguistic proficiency (Rolstad, 1998) examines just such a context, where third language children have been incorporated into a Korean/English bilingual immersion program, and presents the results of an assessment of ethnic identification among the third language children.

        In Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) Koreatown area, the Korean/English Bilingual Immersion Project (KEBIP) was designed to help Korean speaking children learn English, while at the same time helping non-Korean speakers to learn Korean. The model is 90/10, meaning that 90% of instruction in kindergarten is through the minority language, Korean in this case, and 10% of instruction is through English. In first grade the proportion of minority language instruction drops to 80%, in second grade it drops to 70%, and so on, with English instruction increasing in proportion until the fifth grade when the ratio is 50/50. In two-way models, the desired student ratio is half minority language speakers and half English speakers. Thus the Korean speaking kindergarteners easily comprehend 90% of instruction and begin learning English 10% of the time, while the English speakers experience Korean immersion 90% of the time and easily comprehend 10% of instruction.

        The unique feature of this two-way project lies in the fact that most of its English speaking participants do not speak English as their primary language. Hence, while half of the kindergarten class speaks Korean at home and develops Korean at school while learning English, the other half speaks Spanish or Tagalog at home while learning Korean and developing English at school. For this reason, the latter students are referred to as third language children.

        At Tujunga Elementary², the urban school that is the primary site of the KEBIP program, 79.6% of the students are from low-income families, and 79.76% of the students are classified as limited in English proficiency (LEP) (Campbell, 1994:3). The Koreatown area is heavily Latino (approximately 62%), consisting of mostly recent immigrants from Mexico and Central America, and Korean³ (approximately 30%), primarily recent immigrants from Korea, with another 3% other Asian and Pacific Islander (mostly Filipino) immigrants (Campbell, 1994:3). These numbers suggest that relatively few monolingual English speakers reside there, which is why few monolingual English speakers are available to enroll in KEBIP.

        The attrition rate at Tujunga was 20.08% during the 1996-1997 school year, and that is the typical attrition rate every year, according to school administrators. This attrition rate is due to the high number of recent immigrants, who tend to stay only briefly in the area before finding jobs and homes elsewhere. After a period of five years, it would be expected that approximately 66% of any given group of children would have left the school. The attrition rate of students in the KEBIP program who started the program five years ago is 67.8% for non-Korean students and 53.2% for Korean students, numbers which closely reflect the overall school attrition rate.

        The first cohort of non-Korean KEBIP participants, who started KEBIP in kindergarten and stayed in the program through the fifth grade, originally included 14 children. Due to natural attrition, only five of those 14 were still enrolled in the program when this study was concluded, during their fifth grade year. The second cohort, enrolled in the fourth grade at the conclusion of this study, consisted of four children remaining out of the original 14 enrolled, due partly to natural attrition, and partly to the transfer of two children early in their kindergarten year. The KEBIP program offered no Spanish or Tagalog instructional support, so children who were not fully proficient in English were presumably left to rely on the immersion experience (e.g., teachers' instructional techniques, peer support) for clarification. The two children who were transferred were taken out of the KEBIP program because their parents were afraid that their low proficiency in English would negatively affect their progress. One of the children, a Filipino speaker, was placed in the English mainstream program. The other, a Spanish speaker, was first placed in the Spanish bilingual program, but was later moved to the English mainstream program after it was decided by the school that the child was "not functional in Spanish or English."

        The students selected for comparison were ethnically-matched, as closely as possible, to the subject population, and drawn from two other classrooms at Tujunga. The first classroom contained fourth and fifth graders in the Spanish bilingual program, and the second classroom contained fourth and fifth graders in the English mainstream program. Twenty-one students enrolled in the Spanish bilingual program were studied. All students were speakers of Spanish as their primary language, similar to four of the KEBIP students. Five of the English mainstream program students were speakers of Spanish, five were speakers of Tagalog, and eight were speakers of Korean as their primary language; all of these students were tested for comparison with KEBIP students. In that classroom were also speakers of other languages, who were not compared with the KEBIP students. There were no Tagalog bilingual programs offered at the school, so no Tagalog bilingual program students were available for comparison.

        KEBIP students' academic achievement was checked by means of the Stanford 9 Achievement Test Series, a commercially available, nationally-normed achievement test consisting of both multiple choice and open-ended question formats. At Tujunga, students are given the Complete Battery, comprised of subtests in reading, mathematics, language, spelling, study skills, listening, science and social science. Scores are reported with reference to national percentiles for purposes of comparison, based on spring and fall 1995 testing of 500,000 to 600,000 students. The KEBIP students were tested in May of 1997.

        KEBIP and comparison students' ethnic attitudes were tested with a Bipolar Ethnic Attitudes Survey, consisting of a 12-item semantic differential scale which asked students to judge the characteristics of a given ethnic group, with a five-point bipolar adjective scale. The characteristics assessed were adapted from Lambert and Tucker (1972) and included adjective pairs such as tall/short, nice/mean, and hard-working/lazy. Of the 12 pairs, five were distracters. (See Rolstad, 1998, for the actual text of the Bipolar Ethnic Attitudes Survey.) Each child was provided with four copies of the Survey, the first of which was completed regarding the child's own ethnicity. The three remaining copies were completed regarding other ethnicities, limited to Black, White, Latino and Korean.

        The students first completed a survey regarding attitudes toward their own ethnicity. For example, a Korean child specified his or her ethnicity as Korean, and then rated Korean people on the characteristics listed, as follows: "Korean people are tall/short," circling "1" for tall, "5" for short, or any number in between for degrees of height. After filling out the survey on their own ethnic groups, the students were surveyed on three ethnic groups besides their own, limited to Blacks, Whites, Koreans, and Latinos.

        Students were then asked to rate the bipolar adjective pairs, as a cross check to validate which of the two qualities was considered preferable. For example, one item asked, "Do you think it is better to be tall or short?" In nearly all cases, student responses agreed with respect to positive attributes. In the two cases where student responses did not align with the others, those items from those two children's responses were excluded from calculations. The responses to scale portions of the Bipolar Ethnic Attitudes Survey are presented below, with discussion of the remaining items in the Survey following, where relevant. 

Findings and Discussion

| Return to top |
 
 

        The third language KEBIP students had very high academic achievement, as shown by their scores on the Stanford 9. In order to compare their academic performance with the performance of other students across the nation, each third language KEBIP child's Stanford 9 results are presented below. As shown in Table 1, all of the children obtained rather high scores overall, with the exception of Randall and Joseph, a child who has participated in special education programs since the first grade. However, even these two students scored near or above the 50^th percentile in five of the nine areas tested.

Table 1: Stanford 9 Percentiles for Third Language KEBIP Students and for Tujunga's Corresponding Grade Levels (Tested May, 1997)
 

Student	Reading	Math	Language	Spelling	Science	Social Science	Listening	Using Information	Thinking Skills
First Cohort
George	78	79	72	54	86	72	80	81	85
Jessica	87	87	96	67	61	83	80	85	89
Consuelo	78	81	75	79	61	63	96	67	69
Joseph	25	15	15	48	81	50	54	52	34
Ramon	64	64	27	na	77	63	80	76	66
Corresponding grade level	54	64	55	56	47	50	27	52	54
Second Cohort
Randall	48	74	38	39	40	53	33	51	46
Inez	89	92	78	86	69	67	75	66	71
Laura	83	88	84	64	69	86	55	84	72
Corresponding grade level	58	81	67	78	50	58	36	61	63

In reading, three students scored above the 80^th percentile, two of them scored at the 78^th percentile, one scored at the 64^th percentile, and one scored near average at the 48^th percentile. Joseph scored significantly below the others at the 25^th percentile. The same school percentiles for the corresponding grades are 54 and 58. In language, one student scored at the 96^th percentile, and four others scored between the 72^nd and 84^th percentiles. Three students scored between the 15^th and 38^th percentiles, while the same school percentiles for the corresponding grades are 55 and 67. However, it is particularly interesting to note that so many of the third language students scored extremely high in the areas of reading and language. Their English language skills have been well-developed while in the two-way immersion program, and they have acquired some Korean as well (Bae & Bachman, in preparation).

        While the Stanford 9 was useful in showing the third language children's academic and language performance, it was more difficult to assess their levels of ethnic identification. The Bipolar Ethnic Attitudes Survey, incorporating a semantic differential, was used to explore the students' attitudes toward their own ethnicity and toward other ethnic groups. The third language KEBIP students in both cohorts included four Latino students, two Filipino students and two students who are half Filipino and half Latino.

        The findings from the semantic differential are provided in Table 2. The three ethnic groups tested were Latinos, Koreans and Filipinos, and scores are reported within each of these groups according to their educational program. For example, on a scale from 1 to 5, 5 being most favorable, Latino students in KEBIP rated their attitude toward Blacks at 3.38, the number shown in the upper left corner of the table. Their rating of Koreans was 3.46 and their rating of their own ethnic group, Latinos, was 4.04. From these data it appears that Latinos in KEBIP have rather high identification with their own ethnic group, yet their rating of Whites was higher still, an interesting finding. Their rating of Blacks was lowest, at 3.38.

Table 2: Attitudes of Latino, Korean and Filipino 4^th and 5^th Grade Students Toward Own Ethnicity and Others' Ethnicities by Program
 

Attitudes Toward ·	Latino Students			Filipino Students		Korean Students
	KEBIP	English Mainstream	Spanish BLE	KEBIP	English Mainstream	KEBIP	English Mainstream
Blacks	3.38 (3)	3.25 (4)	3.48 (19)	4.57 (2)	3.31 (5)	3.11 (36)	3.63 (5)
Filipinos	not available	not available	not available	4.64 (2)	3.89 (5)	not available	not available
Koreans	3.46 (4)	3.43 (4)	3.63 (20)	4.50 (2)	3.43 (4)	3.82 (46)	4.23 (8)
Latinos	4.04 (4)	3.26 (5)	4.20 (21)	4.43 (1)	not available	3.31 (36)	3.67 (6)
Whites	4.39 (4)	3.39 (4)	not available	4.36 (2)	3.89 (5)	3.62 (46)	4.21 (6)

Number in parentheses is n of students surveyed.
 

        The Filipino KEBIP students rated their own ethnicity, Filipino, quite highly at 4.64. They rated Blacks next highest, followed by Koreans, Latinos, and Whites, each only slightly lower than the previous category; even Whites, who were rated lowest, received a rating of just under 4.4.

        The two students who are half Filipino and half Latino are brother and sister, and referred to themselves as "Fil-Mex,." (These students' results are not included in Table 2, as there is no comparison group.) While the brother maintained the Fil-Mex label for the Survey, the sister identified her ethnicity as Filipino for this task (although in other contexts she also called herself Fil-Mex). The brother rated Fil-Mex people at 4, followed by White people at 3.9, and Korean people at just over 3. The sister rated her Filipino ethnicity at 5, and gave the same 5 point rating to Korean people. This was followed by her rating of Latinos at just over 4.1, of Whites at 3.5, and of Blacks at 2.

        To summarize, then, the averaged data collected from the third language KEBIP students show that they rated their own ethnicities at 4.64, while rating other ethnic groups slightly lower; they rated Blacks and Koreans at 3.98, and Whites at 4.38. Overall, the third language students appear to identify well with their own ethnic groups, and view other ethnic groups favorably as well.

        The second research question involved comparisons between the third language students in KEBIP and their peers in other programs. It was found that Latinos in the English mainstream class rated their own ethnicity at 3.26, lower than their ratings of both Whites (3.39) and Koreans (3.43), and nearly equal to their rating of Blacks (3.25). Interestingly, the Latinos in the English mainstream class also rated their own ethnicity almost a full point lower than the Latinos in the Spanish bilingual program and .78 lower than the Latinos in the KEBIP program. This finding suggests that, among Latinos, ethnic identification was strongest for children in the program that supported their primary language, and was next strongest for children in the two-way program. It would be interesting if a similar comparison could be made with the Filipino children, but unfortunately the school provided no bilingual program for Filipinos. The Filipinos in the English mainstream program rated their own ethnicity at 3.89, which is .75 lower than the Filipino KEBIP students' own group rating of 4.64. The English mainstream Filipino students' own group rating was equal to their rating of Whites, with Koreans receiving the next highest rating (3.43), followed by Blacks (3.31).

        There were no "Fil-Mex" students available for comparison with the KEBIP students; however, it is interesting to note the responses of other children of mixed ethnicity who are in the English mainstream program. One child was Chinese and Latina, according to her parents, but when she was asked to identify her ethnicity, she said that she was Chinese and American. She was asked to fill out surveys rating her attitudes toward Chinese people, and toward Blacks, Koreans, and Whites. She rated Chinese people at just under 3.0, while she rated Whites at over 3.8. It was interesting that many of the children tested for this study seemed to equate American with White, and it may be that this child was identifying herself with Whites in this task. If so, it may be that the White category more accurately reflects her attitudes toward her own ethnicity. This child rated Koreans only slightly below Whites, and Blacks slightly below Chinese.

        Another child was Indonesian and White, according to his teacher, but identified his ethnicity as "Indonesian and American." His rating of people who are Indonesian and American was 4.0, but was exceeded by his rating of Whites, at 4.7. Again, it is possible that he equated American with White, as many children seemed to do, and this response may reflect his self-identification with Whites, separately from his self-identification with people who are "Indonesian and American," especially since he is half White. He rated Blacks at 3.3 and Koreans at 3.7.

        The third English mainstream child of mixed ethnicity was Latina and White. She rated Hispanics at 3.3, and Whites at 4.0. Her rating of Blacks was 3.6, while her rating of Koreans was 2.5.

        The last child studied for consideration of mixed ethnicity responses reported that she was Black, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish and American. Whereas other children of mixed ethnicity often focused on one of their ethnic components for this task, this child did not state whether she had focused on one ethnic group or on her particular ethnic blend. She rated people of her own ethnicity (presumably other people who are Black, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish and American) at just over 4.8, and then rated Blacks separately at 5.0. Her rating of Whites was 4.10, followed by her rating of Koreans at 3.0.

        It was difficult to determine what approach to take with children of mixed ethnic backgrounds, whether to test each part of their ethnic background separately, have them choose which ethnicity they identified with most strongly and test only that one, or try to blend the ethnicities together and test the children's identification with others of precisely that ethnic blend. Each of these possibilities was problematic, and in most cases it was left as much as possible to the individual child to choose his or her own approach. Regardless of the approach taken, it is difficult to make broad generalizations about the levels of ethnic identification of these children.

        The Latino KEBIP students rate their own ethnicity slightly lower (at 4.04) than do the Latino students in the Spanish bilingual program (at 4.20), but higher than do the Latino students in the English mainstream program (at 3.26). This finding is congruent with what one might expect in terms of the promotion of ethnic identification in the three programs, whereby the strongest identification would be expected in the program that most supports the home language (Spanish bilingual in this case). The findings from the other two programs are interesting, because the weakest identification would be expected in the program that least supports the home language; since neither KEBIP nor the English mainstream program supports the home language of the third language students, neither can be predicted to rank above the other.

        The fact that the KEBIP program students showed higher self-identification suggests the possibility that KEBIP may support the third language children in their ethnic identification in some way that the English mainstream program does not. The fact that the Filipino students in KEBIP rated their own ethnicity higher (at 4.64) than did the Filipino students in the English mainstream program (at 3.89) reinforces this interpretation. The two KEBIP students who are half Filipino and half Mexican rated their own ethnicity at 4 (George) and at 5 (Laura), and, while it is difficult to know with whom these students should be compared, their levels of ethnic identification are high. In comparison with Latino students, George scored virtually equal with the other Latinos in KEBIP; with respect to the other Filipinos in KEBIP, his score was somewhat lower, although still higher than the mean of Filipino children in the English mainstream class. Laura, on the other hand, outscored all of the children in all of the programs with her score of 5. Thus the data from these two children also support the claim that third language KEBIP students can be expected to outscore English mainstream program students in strength of ethnic identification. These findings suggest that third language immersion fosters ethnic identification among third language children.

        It is also interesting to examine the scores of Korean students in KEBIP and in the English mainstream program. In KEBIP the Korean students scored a mean of 3.82 on level of ethnic identification, lower than the Korean students in the English mainstream program, who scored 4.23. Thus the Korean KEBIP students scored lower in ethnic identification than the third language KEBIP students, as well as lower than the Korean students in the English mainstream program, a fascinating result given the emphasis on Korean language and culture in the Korean/English immersion program. Their rating of Whites was just slightly lower than their self-rating, at 4.21. Their rating of Latinos was 3.67, followed by their rating of Blacks at 3.63.

        A significant problem with the construct of ethnicity, particularly with regard to ethnic constancy, is that posed by life in a multicultural environment. For many of the children interviewed in this study, it seemed that their multicultural experiences influenced their ideas about ethnicity, blurring boundaries. It was sometimes difficult to determine whether, as children, their ideas had not yet developed sufficiently to more closely approximate those of adults, or whether, as multicultural people, they had a more differentiated, perhaps more sophisticated grasp of the meanings of ethnicity in their own lives than any mature outsider does.

        In any case, with respect to the aspects of ethnic identification assessed by means of the Bipolar Ethnic Attitudes Survey, the third language children were not found to exhibit lesser identification with their own ethnic groups than with others. In fact, the third language children's levels of ethnic identification are shown to compare favorably with those of children in other programs. The Latino KEBIP children's ethnic identification was stronger than that of the Latino children in the English mainstream class, although not as strong as that of the Spanish bilingual program students. The Filipino KEBIP students' ethnic identification was stronger than the Filipino students in the English mainstream program. However, thus far little attention has been paid to the issue of possible selection effects, such as socioeconomic status or parent levels of ethnic identification. These issues are discussed below. 

Possible Selection Effects

| Return to top |
 
 

        Due to the experimental nature of immersion and two-way immersion programs, parents have traditionally volunteered to place their children in these programs, a situation which is open to selection effects on outcomes. However, it should be noted that in the Tujunga Korean/English two-way immersion program, children were selected by school administrators for participation, apparently based entirely on informal judgments of basic proficiency in English upon entry in kindergarten. Student selection may therefore predict parental use of English at home, but this speculation was difficult to verify for practical reasons. Subsequent language testing revealed that all but one of the third language KEBIP students were fully proficient in English when they enrolled in kindergarten (25/25 on the SOLOM, functional or fluent on the Pre-LAS). One child, Randall, was evaluated as non-functional in English on the Pre-LAS, but scored 20/25 on the SOLOM, suggesting that he did have some limited proficiency in English. Very few parents seem to have refused to allow their children to participate, and with two exceptions, those whose children left the program did so for reasons unrelated to the program's effects, according to school records.

        Interviews with KEBIP and other parents revealed that KEBIP parents were quite similar to English mainstream parents in their higher English proficiency and higher educational and occupational levels, while the Spanish bilingual parents were somewhat lower in both. The reported socioeconomic status differences were not extreme, nor did the KEBIP parents report any interesting differences in ethnic attitudes or values that might have affected their children's levels of ethnic identification.

        Thus, while the third language KEBIP students may have differed from their peers in ways predicted by their being selected for the program, they did not seem to differ in any interesting way from the English mainstream students, and, in regard to factors that could be expected to contribute to their ethnic identification, they also seemed to differ very little from the Spanish bilingual students. Thus, with respect to ethnic identification, selection effects appear to be negligible. 

Limitations of the Study

| Return to top |
 
 

        As with any longitudinal study, there were inevitable data gaps, caused by the absence of a given student on a given data collection day. In addition, it would have been valuable to conduct observations of student interactions, an activity that was rendered impossible by the nature of the school's year-round track system, which effectively segregated children in different programs. Most importantly, however, the use of a semantic differential in assessing ethnic identification in the Koreatown context is in some ways problematic, particularly given the rapidly changing demographics and mixing of ethnic groups. The issue of confusing genetic traits with the cultural transmission of ethnicity was not addressed here, nor is it typically addressed in the research literature. Nevertheless, the study revealed some interesting effects on ethnic identification among students in an experimental program, presenting findings that contribute to the very limited amount of data available on the immersion of third language students. Further studies, preferably of third language immersion programs where participation is voluntary in nature, would aid tremendously in substantiating the claim that such programs can provide an enrichment form of education for third language students. 

Conclusions

| Return to top |
 
 

        This exploratory study focused on the effects of Korean/English two-way immersion on the ethnic identification of third language speakers who received no first language support from their teachers, and compared them with the effects of programs in which the third language KEBIP students would otherwise have participated. In other words, had these third language students not participated in KEBIP they would have gone into either the Spanish bilingual or the English mainstream program. The third language KEBIP children have experienced no detrimental effects in terms of their ethnic identification, academic achievement or linguistic development in comparison with language minority children in other programs, with the exception that they have not developed, or in some cases may have lost, their first language proficiency, unlike the children enrolled in the Spanish bilingual program. The third language children appear to be developing normally in terms of academics and ethnic identification, and there is no reason to expect that they will not continue to do so.

        However, it must be noted that the third language children studied here were for the most part proficient in English when they enrolled in the program. English has higher linguistic status in the U.S. than Spanish or Tagalog, conferring higher social status to those who speak it. Proficiency in the majority language may lead to an increase in sociolinguistic status, which depends on both social and linguistic factors (Rolstad, 1998). This rise in status is in turn likely to improve the chances for success of language minority children in a program that does not support their first language. It remains to be seen whether third language immersion is feasible among children who have no proficiency in the majority language, since these children are most likely to suffer from majority language submersion.

        Indeed, several questions should be addressed before we can conclude that third language immersion may be suitable for children who lack proficiency in the majority language. First, what is the difference in sociolinguistic status between language minority children who are proficient in the majority language and language minority children who are not? This question could be addressed through studies of the ethnic attitudes of these two groups by means of instruments such as the Bipolar Ethnic Attitudes Survey. Second, what are the effects of immersion in various minority languages that may be differentially dominant in communities within the larger society? In other words, it is possible that Korean speakers hold a different sociolinguistic status in Koreatown than do, say, Spanish speakers, and that this community-level difference in status may affect the immersion outcomes among students from various language minority groups.

        In order to strengthen the case for using data on ethnic identification collected by means of the Bipolar Ethnic Attitudes Survey, several studies would prove useful. A longitudinal study, following students through high school, which examines the development of self-concept in students who are enrolled in a variety of programs could provide a baseline for comparison of the effects of third language immersion. A study of the possible cross-validation of self-concept and ethnic identification assessments would also be very helpful for evaluation of student outcomes. In addition, further research in the area of ethnic identification among language minority students in bilingual and mainstream programs and research into the ethnic identification of language majority students in immersion programs would be useful for determining the differential effects of third language immersion on language minority students.

        The results of the study thus suggest that educational enrichment may be possible for third language students who have basic proficiency in the majority language, since the KEBIP third language students attained high academic achievement while suffering no apparent harm to their levels of ethnic identification. The implications of this exploratory study, while only suggestive, are therefore far-reaching, and could lead to a very different perspective on how language minority children who are not able to participate in primary language bilingual education programs can best be served. While first language instruction is optimal, as indicated in a number of studies (Greene, 1998; Willig, 1985), particularly with children who are not proficient in the majority language, instruction in any non-dominant, minority language could prove better than submersion instruction. However, further, larger-scale research is needed to verify the suitability of such programs for third language children. 

Notes

| Return to top |
 
 
 
 

¹ "Language minority" is used here to signify speakers of a language that is not the dominant language of the country, and "minority" is used in the sense of "minority of power" rather than numerical size, following Haberland (1991). [Return]
²Tujunga is not the school's true name. [Return]
³ Some of these people are Korean and some are Korean-American; the term "Korean" will be used henceforth to denote people of Korean descent, without specifying nationality, since nationality was not considered in this investigation. [Return]

References

| Return to top |
 
 
 
 

Bae, J. & Bachman, L. In preparation. Latent variable approach to listening and reading: Testing factorial invariance across two groups of children in the Korean/English two-way immersion program. University of California, Los Angeles. [Return]
 

Baetens-Beardsmore, H. 1993. The European school model. In H. Baetens-Beardsmore (ed.), European models of bilingual education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Beebe, L. & Giles, H. 1984. Speech accommodation theories: A discussion in terms of second language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46:5-32. [Return]
 

Brisk, M. E. 1998. Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Return]
 

Campbell, R. N. 1994. Korean/English Bilingual Immersion Project: Title VII developmental bilingual education evaluation report year two, 1993-1994. Federal Grant #T003C20062-93. [Return]
 

Cazabon, M., Lambert, W. E., & Hall, G. 1993. Two-way bilingual education: A progress report on the Amigos Program. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Santa Cruz, CA. [Return]
 

Chung, C. H. 1988. The language situation of Vietnamese Americans. In S. L. McKay and S.-L. C. Wong (eds.), Language diversity: Problem or resource? Cambridge: Newbury House. [Return]
 

Cummins, J. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49(2), 222-251. [Return]
 

Cummins, J. 1991. Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. In M. Minami and B. P. Kennedy (eds.), Language issues in literacy and bilingual/multicultural education. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review. [Return]
 

Faltis, C. J. & Hudelson, S. J. 1998. Bilingual education in elementary school communities: Toward understanding and caring. Needham Heights, NJ: Allyn and Bacon. [Return]
 

Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Genesee, F. 1976. The suitability of immersion programs for all children. Canadian Modern Language Review 32, 494-515. [Return]
 

Genesee, F. 1988. The Canadian second language immersion program. In C. B. Paulston (ed.), International handbook of bilingualism and bilingual education. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. [Return]
 

Greene, J. 1998. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, Public Policy Clinic of the Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin, and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University. Available at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/greene.htm [Return]
 

Haberland, H. 1991. Reflections about minority languages in the European Community. In F. Coulmas (ed.), A language policy for the European community. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [Return]
 

Harter, S. 1983. The perceived competence scale for children. University of Denver. [Return]
 

Holobow, N. E., Genesee, F., & Lambert, W. E. 1991. The effectiveness of a foreign language immersion program for children from different ethnic and social class backgrounds: Report 2. Applied Psycholinguistics 12, 179-198. [Return]
 

Housen, A. & Baetens-Beardsmore, H. 1987. Curricular and extra-curricular factors in multilingual education. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9, 83-102. [Return]
 

Knight, G. P., Bernal, M. E., Garza, C. A., & Cota, M. K. 1993. A social cognitive model of the development of ethnic identity and ethnically based behaviors. In M. E. Bernal and G. P. Knight (eds.) Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities. Albany: State University of New York Press. [Return]
 

Knight, G. P., Garza, C. A. & Bernal, M. E. 1998. The structure of ethnic identity among Mexican American children. Unpublished manuscript: Arizona State University. [Return]
 

Lambert, W. E. & Tucker, G. R. 1972. Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. [Return]
 

Leman, J. 1993. The bicultural programmes in the Dutch-language school system in Brussels. In H. Baetens-Beardsmore (ed.), European models of bilingual education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Lebrun, N. & Beatens-Beardsmore, H. 1993. Trilingual education in the Grand Ducy of Lexembourg. In H. Beatens-Beardsmore (ed.), European models of bilingual education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Lindholm, K. J. 1990. Bilingual immersion education: Criteria for program development. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, and C. M. Valadez (eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. [Return]
 

McKay, S. L. 1988. Weighing educational alternatives. In S. L. McKay & S.-L. C. Wong (eds.), Language diversity: Problem or Resource? Cambridge: Newbury House. [Return]
 

Ramirez, J.D., Yuen, S.D. & Ramey, D. R. 1991. Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual programs for language-minority children. Final Report to the U.S. Department of Education. Executive Summary and Vols. I and II. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. [Return]
 

Rolstad, K. 1998. Language minority children in a third language immersion context: Evidence for educational enrichment. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. Available at http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/linguistics/people/grads/rolstad/diss.html [Return]
 

Schlesinger, A. M. 1992. The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. [Return]
 

Secada, W. & Lightfoot, T. 1993. Symbols and the political context of bilingual education in the United States. In M. B. Arias and U. Casanova (eds.), Bilingual education: Politics, practice and research (pp. 36-64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Return]
 

Thomas, W. & Collier, V. 1997. School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse on Bilingual Education. [Return]
 

Valadez, C. M. & Gregoire, C. P. 1990. Development of a bilingual education plan. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, and C. M. Valadez (eds.) Bilingual Education: Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. [Return]
 

Willig, A. C. 1985. A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 56(3), 269-317. [Return]
 

Wong Fillmore, L. & Valadez, C. M. 1986. Teaching bilingual learners. In M. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Third edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. [Return]