Parents' Motivation for One-Parent, One-Language Bilingual Education

Florida State University
Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2018
Understanding Parents' Motivation in a

One-Parent, One Language Approach to
Bilingual Education
Angel Rios
Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
UNDERSTANDING PARENTS’ MOTIVATION IN A ONE-PARENT, ONE LANGUAGE
APPROACH TO BILINGUAL EDUCATION
By
ANGEL RIOS
A Dissertation submitted to the

School of Teacher Education
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2018
Angel Rios defended this dissertation on November 15, 2018.
The members of the supervisory committee were:
Sherry A. Southerland
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation
George L. Boggs
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation
Brenda Cappuccio
University Representative
Mostafa Papi
Committee Member
Elizabeth Jakubowski
Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university
requirements.
ii
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Christina and my children, Ethan, Lucas, Elían, Nora,
and Julian Angel. The decision to pursue this goal was made with the intention of giving you a
better life. You guys were my inspiration and my motivation. On my worst days, I came home
and your hugs, craziness, and love made it all go away. I love you all with every ounce of
strength in my body. My biggest and greatest accomplishment is not this doctorate, it is you, my
family. You are God’s most unbelievable blessing and gift to me. You are my life.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first and foremost like to thank God for the strength He has always given me.
This dissertation was not done in my own strength, but in His. I would also like to thank my
advisors, Dr. Sherry Southerland and Dr. George Boggs. You two know my story and my
struggle better than anyone. This dissertation would not have been a reality without your
guidance, support, motivation, encouragement, patience, and understanding. Thank you for
giving up so many weekends for me and for helping me see the light at the end of the tunnel
when I couldn’t see it for myself.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Brenda Cappuccio, Dr. Elizabeth
Jakubowski, and Dr. Mostafa Papi. Your advice and feedback guided me through this process,
but your patience and care got me to the end. Thank you for being understanding of my trying to
balance my academic, professional, and personal life. A special thanks to the College of
Education and STE for you financial support at the start of my studies, which helped me get to
where I am today.
Dr. Patrick Kennell, there are no words to describe what an unbelievably amazing boss
and friend you are. You went out of your way time and time again to accommodate my academic
and professional duties. You gave me advice when I needed it, but most importantly, you
listened. I wouldn’t be where I am today without your support.
The most important thank you goes out to my family. Baby, absolutely no one has seen
my struggle to accomplish this dissertation like you have. You have been a shoulder to cry on at
my weakest points and my biggest cheerleader at my strongest. You repeatedly took on the role
of a single parent so that I could spend countless nights studying. This degree is ours, baby. You
have earned it just as much as I have. Thank you for believing in me when I didn’t believe in
myself. Thank you for always helping to bring my focus back to God, to you, and to the kids. I
love you, baby. Mami, it all started with you. You were my first teacher and my first motivator.
You encouraged me to reach my goals and taught me never to settle for anything but the best.
Today, you are seeing your own dreams come true through us. We made a deal, and we did it! Te
amo, mami. Papi, thank you for being an example of what a father and a teacher should be. I am
happy that you get to see me reach this goal. Thank you for your unconditional love and never-
ending support. Te amo. Tony, you’re next! I am proud of us! I am so glad that we get to see our
dreams come true. Thank you for being there through this journey! Mom, Dad, and Mellie, I
cannot even imagine this journey without your support. Your prayers, words of encouragement,
financial help, and help with the kids made this possible. You model godly lives, patience, love,
care, and forgiveness. You had no idea what a ride this would be when you accepted me into
your family, but I am so glad you did! Thank you for everything you do for my family. Love
you!
DJ, my lestie, my brother, my best friend. I know for a fact that this dissertation would
not have been possible without you. I thank God every day for placing you in my life. We are
lucky to have something that most people won’t experience in a lifetime. You have literally filled
every area of need that has come up during this process. Through sickness, hospitals, and times
of wanting to give up, you were there. But most importantly, you were there to celebrate the
iv
victories. You kept your promise, you literally dragged my loud Puerto Rican [self] across the
finish line! A million thanks would never be enough. Love you, lestie!
To Abdullah. Abood, you may have left your country and your family, but you came into
our lives and became a part of ours. I know you may not feel like you did much, but in the last
months of writing my dissertation you gave up your time to sit with me and support me. You
were by my side when I was struggling, you brought me food so that I could keep studying, and
your words encouraged me to finish. Thank you for just being there and seeing the fighter in me
when I couldn’t see it for myself. A7bk Glbi!
Finally, to my CIES family. You put up with the highs and lows of this process. You
encouraged me and motivated me in the lows, and you celebrated with me in the highs. I am
blessed to work at a place that feels like a second home and a second family! To the rest of my
extended family and friends near and far, thank you. There are so many who played a role in this
process. Shajea, you were there on Day 1! I will never forget the fact that you sat in that study
room with me for hours while I began writing my dissertation. Nawaf, you know the special
place you hold in my heart. Your craziness made a difference on the days I was feeling down.
Thank you for taking the time to listen and talk things out with me. Rossy and Dianita, my
unsung heroes. There are no words to thank you for the role you played in this process. Those
who helped me study, those who helped with the kids, those who just sat with me to support me,
those who sent notes and messages of encouragement, and those who helped by praying for me.
Your care meant so much. Thank you for loving me and my family enough to do this. From the
bottom of my heart, thank you!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................1
Statement of the Research Problem ....................................................................................2
Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................3
Purpose and Research Questions ........................................................................................5
CHAPTER TWO – LITTERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................8
One Parent One Language ..................................................................................................8
Bilingual Education Research .............................................................................................9
Research on Parental Involvement in Bilingual Education .............................................. 11
Parents’ Navigation of Available Social Stimuli .............................................................. 12
Motivation in Bilingual Education.................................................................................... 16
The L2 Motivational Self System ..................................................................................... 17
Synthesis of Literature Review ......................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 23
Research Question ............................................................................................................ 23
Research Design................................................................................................................ 23
Case Description ............................................................................................................... 25
Children’s Exposure to Language ..................................................................................... 26
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 29
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 32
Ensuring Rigor in the Research ........................................................................................ 36
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 37
CHAPTER FOUR – FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 40
Introduction of the Case .................................................................................................... 40
Problem Addressed ........................................................................................................... 48
Finding #1 – Multiple Selves and the L2 Parent............................................................... 48
Finding #2 – The Influence of Context ............................................................................. 55
Finding #3 – OPOL and the L2 Motivational Self System ............................................... 58
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 59
CHAPTER FIVE – DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ..................................................................... 61
The Problem Addressed .................................................................................................... 61
Main Findings of the Research ......................................................................................... 63
Implications....................................................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX A – IRB APPROVAL LETTER AND CONSENT FORM ..................................... 79
APPENDIX B – INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ............................................................................... 83
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 86
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................ 91
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Linguistic Contexts of Bilingual Education.................................................................... 12
Table 2. Weekly Routine Schedule and Language Use ................................................................ 27
Table 3. Sample Interview Questions by L2MSS Component ..................................................... 31
Table 4. Sample Parent Responses Coded by Component of the L2MSS.................................... 33
vii
ABSTRACT
Bilingualism is gaining popularity as an educational choice among families in the United
States due to perceived advantages. One of the many approaches that parents employ to reach
this goal is the One Parent One Language or OPOL approach. This approach draws upon the
frequent interactions and strong relationships often occurring within a household where each
parent speaks a different language to the child at all times. Dörnyei's (2009) L2 Motivational Self
System has a long history in research literature as a way of making sense of language learners’
motivation. This study re-situates that framework’s motivational focus from the language learner
to the parents-turned-language-educators, whose complex choices, social stressors, and
pedagogical activities call for systematic inquiry. This case study employed naturalistic
observations and semi-structured interviews of an English-Spanish speaking OPOL household in
order to explore the utility of Dörnyei's (2009) L2 Motivational Self System to examine parents’
Ideal L2 Self, Ought to L2 Self, and perceptions of their child’s L2 Learning Experience.
Findings suggested that the L2 Motivational Self System provides a means of viewing a family’s
linguistic plane as shared, even though an approach like OPOL divides it. Secondly, the
complex settings in which I describe L2 selves called for attention to yet other selves shaping
one child’s learning environment. Lastly, findings confirmed the important role that support from
the community plays in an OPOL household. These findings imply that it is important to provide
parents attempting to implement the OPOL approach with positive supports for motivation, with
means of assessing their child’s L2 language development, and with people or resources that can
mediate their perceptions of their “student”. Additionally, the findings more deeply implied that
it is important for the L1 parent to know how to support the L2 language development, and thus
the L2 parent.
viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Bilingualism has been found to promote educational development through the learning
of subject disciplines at school, develops literacy skills, and has positive effects on linguistic
development (Benson, 2002; Cummins, 2001). Additionally, it bridges the gap between the
school culture and the home culture, while raising student identity consciousness and self-
esteem (Benson, 2002). Parents lacking strong external support via schooling and community
may take upon themselves the responsibility for bilingual education. One approach, known as
One Parent One Language (OPOL), leverages family relationships to systemize language
learning for young children. This research examines parents’ motivations informing language
instructional choices, in recognition of the importance of parents as language teachers under
certain circumstances.
Background of the Problem
As education in the United States continues to change over the years, it has had to adapt
to drastic demographic changes, in part brought on because of immigration (Koebler, 2011). A
result of these demographic changes include population mobility which itself has led to
linguistic, religious, racial, and cultural diversity within the classrooms. In response, English-as-
a-second-language (ESL) programs which understandably tend to privilege English learning.
This emphasis on English as the majority language comes at the expense of holistic linguistic
development, which has been shown to offer numerous benefits to individuals, communities,
and countries (Grinberg and Saavedra, 2000; Cummins, 2001).
Though bilingual education can be supported in many ways, families who lack easy
access to robust educational programs supporting bilingualism may develop their own
1
support systems for cultivating bilingualism in the home. Parents’ who lack the kind of
support that has established long-term, self-sustaining bilingual communities face a difficult
task because the children won’t have sufficient exposure to the second language and could
fail to maintain it (Harding-Esch and Riley, 2003). Leveraging family relationships to achieve
bilingualism is very difficult, requiring considerable motivation and resilience on the part of
parents, children, and siblings.
Statement of the Research Problem
The One Parent One Language, or OPOL approach, supports childhood bilingualism
while leveraging intimate family relationships for bilingual language formation. OPOL is not
merely a language instructional technique or format. It seeks to manipulate the crucial dynamic
in language development of acquisition and instruction (Döpke, 1992). OPOL is predicated on
the belief that languages cannot be ‘taught’ easily, yet children readily acquire them when their
exposure is immersive and sustained such that children see themselves as long-term members of
linguistically distinct communities (Döpke, 1992). OPOL frames each adult caregiver as a
sufficient source of immersion to achieve a language-acquiring environment, versus a larger
teaching environment, per se. Research supports this view for the most part, framing everyday
activity and relationships as effective drivers of language acquisition.
Since the term One Parent One Language was coined, much research has been
conducted to show that there are complex factors that affect childhood bilingualism, as well as
positive cognitive effects that can result from it (Doyle et al., 1978; Harding-Esch and Riley,
2003; Javier, 2007). However, one main problem with the OPOL approach is that although it
exposes the children to the language from a young age, the motivation for both the children and
2
the parents to continue this process can be very difficult to maintain (Döpke, 1992). The
children may lose the desire to learn the language as they grow older because, as they begin to
understand that the people around them do not use the second language, they can become
embarrassed to use it as well. Likewise, parents may lose motivation to continue the process of
teaching their children a second language due to the difficulties that come with being the only
parent who speaks the second language. Therefore, while preserving bilingualism in families
may be highly desirable for a number of reasons, developing bilingualism is fraught with
challenges, especially in the areas of the approach chosen and the motivation to continue it.
Theoretical Framework
The present study endeavors to explore the utility of the L2 Motivational Self System
for interpreting parents’ experiences using the OPOL approach to language development. In
other words, it moves from using this theory to understand the motivations of the learner to
using it as a lens to explore the parents’ Ideal Self, Ought to Self, and perceptions of their
child’s Learning Experience. The L2 Motivational Self System has been used to interpret
second language learning experiences in bilingual children because language learning is deeply
connected to identity and depends to a large extent on the motivational dynamics that the child
experiences. Dörnyei (2009) explains that “for some language learners the initial motivation to
learn a language does not come from internally or externally generated self-images but rather
from successful engagement with the actual language learning process” (p. 29). The L2
Motivational Self System centers on the way human psychology experiences motivation
through three main components: the Ideal L2 Self, the Ought to L2 Self, and the L2 Learning
Experience. This motivational self system is important in understanding bilingual education in
the home as the present study shifts its focus from the learner to the parents as language
3
teachers, in order to look at parents’ motivation in the One Parent One Language approach and
the L2 Motivational Self System.
The Parent and the Ideal L2 Self
The Ideal L2 Self of the parent and the Ought to L2 Self of the parent are similar in that
they are related to the eventual reaching of a goal; however, they are very different when it
comes to motivation. The Ideal Self deals with hopes and aspirations that parents may have for
their child, which in turn can lead to advancements and growth (Higgins, 1998). It represents
attributes or wishes that a parent would like their children to have. The original application of
the Ideal L2 Self might draw attention, for instance, to a person’s personal fascination with
successfully conducting business in another language, or an individual’s desire to watch a
French-language television show. Applying this Ideal L2 Self to the parental source of second
language immersion might, by contrast, place emphasis on parents’ motivation for a child to be
able to experience childhood in a way that mirrors their own, including songs, games, and food.
The essential feature of the Ideal Self in both frameworks is motivation informed by internal
desires. Yet these Ideal Self motivations coexist with motivations oriented externally as well.
These Ought to Self motivations orient outwardly.
The Parent and the Ought to L2 Self
The Ought to L2 Self tries to avert the negative outcomes associated with not living up to
someone else’s expectations (Higgins, 1998). The Ought to L2 Self is closely related to peer
group norms and other normative pressures, such as ethnic community expectations. When
applied to a parent, it could help identify externally-motivated goals in the form of linguistic
achievement that a parent believes would meet others’ expectations and avoid negative outcomes
(Dörnyei, 2009). This could be a representation of someone else’s duties, obligations, or moral
4
responsibilities, which is part of their motivational self but based on a different aspect of their
motivations (Higgins, 1987). Higgins (1987) points out that both the Ideal and the Ought to
selves can derive from either the individual’s views or someone else’s views. This means that the
Ought to Self might represent attributes that another person would like the individual to possess.
In the case of a bilingual parent for example, they may decide to teach their children the second
language in part because it’s what their family thinks they should do.
The Parent and the L2 Learning Experience
The third component of the L2 Motivational Self System is the L2 Learning Experience.
This component focuses on the immediate learning environment and experience with learning
the language (Dörnyei, 2009). Examples include the impact of the teacher, the curriculum,
family, and peers on the language learning experience. When the individuals in question are
parents who want to teach their children an L2, it bears asking if their motivation lies on
potentially overlapping external factors, such as an educational system ill-suited to the family’s
needs, internalized motives, and meeting external expectations. Understanding parents'
motivational factors will help future research bridge a gap that remains largely unexplored in the
field of L2 motivation, which is research on parents’ motivation in the One Parent One
Language approach built around understanding their sources of motivation in terms of multiple
selves. Additionally, understanding the changing dynamics of language instructional motivation
among parents may point to support systems that can be created and adapted to meet parents’
needs as they engage in this difficult process.
Purpose and Research Questions
This study aimed to explore the utility of the L2 Motivational Self System for
interpreting parents’ experiences using the One Parent One Language approach to early
5
childhood bilingual education. Researching parental motivation using the L2 Motivational Self
System as a theoretical framework may offer insight into new strategies for supporting or
counseling parents as they consider teaching their children a second language. The L2
Motivational Self System has been studied and researched in different contexts to further our
understanding of its impact on language acquisition. However, though studies on parent
motivation and perceptions have been conducted, none have analyzed the utility of the L2
Motivational Self System for interpreting parents’ experiences in a One Parent One Language
household. Therefore, the present study sought to explore the utility of this theoretical
framework in examining the parents’ Ideal Self, Ought to Self, and perceptions of their child’s
Learning Experience.
Consequently, the current study took place in a household employing the OPOL
approach. The father speaks English to the children, while the mother speaks Spanish. However,
they speak English to each other. Actions and interactions of the parents and the children were
analyzed through observations, and interviews with the parents were conducted to examine their
motivation for employing this approach and strategies to help their children acquire and use the
L2. To accomplish this, the following research question drove this research: How useful is the
L2 Motivational Self System theoretical construct for interpreting parents’ experiences using the
OPOL approach to language development? In order to explore the utility of the L2MS System
for interpreting parent motivation, I examined their Ideal Selves, Ought to Selves, and their
perception of their child’s Learning Experience.
As can be seen in the research question, each of the principles of this theoretical
framework was examined within the context of the participants’ household. These components
were L2-specific facets of one’s motivation to learn, or in this case, teach the language. The
6
particular context and setting of this study provided more specific detail in understanding how
motivation develops within parents who are involved in teaching their children a second
language through the One Parent One Language approach.
7
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
One parent one language (OPOL) is a specific approach to bilingual education.
However, the complexities surrounding bilingual education in general also affect this approach
and vice versa. In the following chapter I look at insights and questions raised by investigations
of bilingual instruction through the OPOL approach. In the course of doing so, important
factors, such as parental motivation emerge, and I will explore them to inform the discussion of
the role that motivational selves play in language education. As will be discussed, specifically at
issue here is the crucial role and influence that parents have through their motivation to engage
in bilingual education.
One Parent One Language
Originally coined by Maurice Grammont (1902) in his book titled Observations Sur le
Langage des Enfants (Observations on Children’s Language), this approach was later used, put
into practice, and made famous by French linguist Jules Ronjat (1913). Grammont (1902)
reasoned that by strictly separating the two languages from the beginning the child would
subsequently learn both languages easily without confusion or language mixing. Ronjat (1913)
took this idea and recorded and transcribed his son Louis’ language development until he was
almost five years old. He concluded that, until a child can functionally separate the two
languages, each parent should maintain exclusive use of one language in all interactions with the
child (Ronjat, 1913). This would later be supported by research findings, which showed that the
need to change languages voluntarily to meet the communicative demands of each parent creates
a consciousness in the child’s mind of the role language plays in the formation of the cognitive
world (Bain and Yu, 1980).
8
Bilingual Education Research
Parents’ roles within the OPOL approach are crucial. Children are acquiring language
mainly from them; therefore, consistency in the use of their respective languages is the most
important factor of this approach according to Bain and Yu (1980). In any family using two
languages, one of the biggest challenges for the children is that they receive a relatively small
amount of input in each language. When compared to a monolingual child who is hearing the
same words again and again, the bilingual child “has a harder time separating the stream of
sound into meaningful chunks of language…because they will hear the same words being
repeated less frequently” (Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson, 1999, p. 44). On the other
hand, the OPOL approach facilitates an easier transition through the stages of language
development for the child because it requires the child to associate each language with each
parent. This helps the child realize that each object has two names. Though at first, they may not
think about this in terms of language, they will think about it in terms of what their father calls
the object and what their mother calls it. In other words, the child associates the words of each
language with the appropriate parent. As a result, when children grow older, they begin to realize
that there are two separate and different language systems at work. This is the beginning of their
development of metalinguistic awareness, which is a considerable advantage that comes from
using the OPOL approach (Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson, 1999).
Metalinguistic awareness refers to the child’s knowledge and realization that they are
working with two systems of language. As Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson (1999)
explain:
Around the age of 2-3, many children who have been brought up with the one person-
one language method will have achieved a level of metalinguistic awareness, i.e. they
9
are able to talk about their languages and say things like ‘Mummy says “dress”, daddy
says “klanning” (Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson, 1999, p. 45)
Metalinguistic awareness is beneficial because it leads to improved cognition. The child at this
stage is aware that there are two language systems and will try to keep the acquisition of new
words balanced. This means that when they learn a new word in one language, they will
immediately try to learn the corresponding word in the second language (Cunningham-
Andersson and Andersson, 1999).
Metalinguistic awareness was a key factor in the present study for choosing a child
participant who was four years old because at this age the participant has developed a certain
level of awareness of the fact that she is working with two languages. However, she was not
able to just translate from one language to another without attaching that specific language to
the respective parent. If someone holds up an object and asks the child what they call that
object in Spanish for example, the child may not understand or answer appropriately. If the
person holds up the object and asks the child, “What does daddy call this?” the child will give
the Spanish term for the object due to the association of the language with one specific parent.
As the child advances in age however, they will be able to translate from one language to
another (Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson, 1999).
Several case studies conducted on families using OPOL show that within the approach
itself, there are factors that result in successful bilingualism. These factors are the parents’
consistent adherence to the appropriate language and the insistence that the child respects the
OPOL approach (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Döpke, 1992). Additional studies add that parents
who are successful in raising their children to be bilinguals through the OPOL approach are
those who have a close network of second language speakers, as it provides the children with
10
greater exposure to the language (Clyne, 1970; Döpke, 1998; Lyon, 1996). These factors make
two particular strands of research especially relevant to this study of parental motivation: Firstly,
research having to do with parental involvement in bilingual education, and secondly, parents’
navigation of available social networks and available social stimuli relevant to language
development.
Research on Parental Involvement in Bilingual Education
Research on parental involvement in bilingual education extends to more than just the
parents’ desire to teach their children a second language. In fact, parental involvement has been
encouraged in bilingual education since the establishment of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968
(Nieto, 2001). This act explicitly recognized the relationship between parent participation and
program effectiveness in bilingual education, and its main goal was to establish closer
cooperation between the home and the school (Nieto, 2001). Moreover, by giving preference to
programs that contained coursework in parent involvement, this act and several court cases that
followed determined that parents being involved in the educational process of their children was
a necessary and key component of bilingual education.
Though the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 marked the beginning of the legal and
policy dimensions of parental involvement in language education, parents who wanted to be a
part of their children’s bilingual education found that there were statutory, institutional, and
policy issues, which mediated their motivation and behavior. With support from the educational
system lessening, parents with the desire to raise bilingual children chose certain educational
contexts or approaches to achieve this goal. Table 1 outlines the six most common contexts
parents use for bilingual language development, including the OPOL approach.
11
Table 1: Linguistic Contexts of Bilingual Education
Parents who have different native languages,
but both speak the same non-dominant
Non-Dominant Home Language language at home (Fantini, 1985).
Parents share the same native language, but the
Non-Dominant Home Language community’s dominant language is different
without Community Support (Oksaar, 1983).
Parents speak different native languages at
home and the community’s dominant language
Double Non-Dominant Home is different from either of theirs (Hoffman,
Language without Community Support 1985).
Parents share the same native language of the
community, but one chooses to always speak to
the child in a language that is not his/her own
Non-Native Parents native language (Döpke, 1992).
Parents are bilingual, and sectors of the
community may also be bilingual, so parents
code-switch and mix languages with the child
Mixed Languages (Romaine, 1999).
Parents who have different native languages
but the language of one of the parents is the
dominant language of the community, and the
parents each speak their own language to the
child from birth (De Houwer, 1990; Döpke,
1992; Leopold, 1948; Romaine, 1999; Ronjat,
One Parent One Language 1913; Taeschner, 1983).
Parents’ Navigation of Available Social Stimuli
Much research on parent involvement in bilingual education in general has been
conducted over the years (Paradowski, Bator, & Michalowska, 2016). Most of this research has
centered around the benefits (Benz, 2015; Lee, Shetgiri, Barina, Tillitski, & Flores, 2015) and
perceived effectiveness of bilingual upbringing strategies (Mosty, Lefever, & Ragnarsdottir,
2013; Vaynman, 2013), as well as the methods of communication adopted by families where the
parents speak two different languages in order to teach their children the second language (Law
et al., 2015; Paradowski, Bator, & Michalowska, 2016). Taken together, these studies suggest
that some of the benefits of bilingualism perceived by parents included better career
12
opportunities, enhanced job prospects, intellectual benefits, the ability to connect to two different
language communities, and the preservation of culture and native language (Benz, 2015; Lee,
Shetgiri, Barina, Tillitski, & Flores, 2015). Additionally, research suggests options of methods or
approaches that are more commonly and more successfully implemented, which led to the choice
of the One Parent One Language approach for the present study. The popularity of the OPOL
method and the tendency for Spanish to be treated as a nondominant, and even stigmatized,
language raises important questions about the tensions surrounding the contextualization of
OPOL in a highly segregated city (Mellander & Florida, 2006).
Other research was designed to analyze parents’ perspectives towards strategies for
raising bilingual children and how they facilitated language development in the home. Data
collected from one study by Mosty, Lefever, & Ragnarsdottir’s (2013) indicate that
communication in the second language was seen as important for learning said language, and
parents made conscious decisions as to why and how the second language was used. This study
did not focus on motivation directly, but instead treated motivation as the parents’ decision to
raise a bilingual child, which portrayed motivation as fixed and not dynamic. Results from
another study by Vaynman (2013) showed that a variety of strategies were used by parents,
including the active use of verbalization, reading, cartoons, and homework. Additionally, parents
in these studies expressed the importance of traveling and visiting family in their home countries
because they believed it would help build their children’s identity with the second language and
culture (Mosty, Lefever, & Ragnarsdottir, 2013; Vaynman, 2013). These findings suggest that
the parental use of a language is not enough to engender language acquisition. That is to say, the
findings reinforce the notion that L2 support from the community forms an important part of the
13
process of learning a language. Moreover, these studies do not take into account how dynamic
aspects of parents’ motivation can impact the child’s language acquisition.
Research has also looked at the ideologies of language planning by parents raising their
children bilingually (Kirsch, 2012). These studies were conducted in communities where parents
have no support for the second language and where monolingual discourse prevails (Kirsch,
2012). Through a mixed methods approach that included surveys, observations, and interviews,
researchers concluded that families and parents play an indispensable role in their children’s
language acquisition (Law et al., 2015). In some studies, for example, mothers did not only aim
at developing active bilingualism in their children, but also recognized their crucial role in
ensuring exposure to the second language (Kirsch, 2012). Similar to the present study, Derks
(2017) aimed to analyze to what extent the motivation of the parents in bilingual households
affected the second language acquisition of their children. Results showed that the children in
these families all had high levels of proficiency in their majority language but had various levels
of proficiency in their second language. Furthermore, results also suggested that the differences
in the level of proficiency in the second language mostly correlated with the level of motivation
the parent showed. However, of all of the approaches used by parents within this study, Derks
(2017) concluded that the One Parent One Language approach appears to be the most effective
approach to teach children their L2.
Though numerous families face difficulties, such as language adherence in maintaining
their children’s second language in English-dominant societies (Law et al., 2015), results from
several studies suggest that the most frequently implemented method is still the OPOL approach,
and that parents have a positive opinion about its usefulness (Paradwoski and Bator, 2016). On
one hand, adherence to the OPOL regimen is relevant in terms of language learning outcomes,
14
on the other hand, parents like the OPOL approach even though they struggle to implement it
consistently. As a result, the most common way for parents to navigate this lack of social stimuli
is to supplement their approach to bilingual education with movies, tv, music, and internet.
Others try to implement different methods, such as both parents speaking the majority language
to the child for the first few years of life and then trying to implement the OPOL approach to
introduce the second language. However, early implementation through OPOL has major
practical advantages, as “older children are not likely to appreciate being spoken to in a language
they do not understand; they will have to be ‘taught’ the language first” (Cunningham-
Andersson and Andersson, 1999, p. 34).
In the case of the OPOL approach, it has been established that “until a child achieves a
functional separation of the two languages, each parent should maintain exclusive use of one
language in all dialogues with that child” (Bain and Yu, 1980, p. 305). Moreover, it is important
to bear in mind that language learning involves more than learning a communication code.
Instead, it involves expansion and adaptation of the self, one’s identity (Dörnyei, 2009). At issue
here is not just enveloping the motivation of the children but understanding that the motivation
of the parents as language educators directly impacts the children’s language acquisition,
primarily through exposure. Therefore, in the present study it can be argued that the L2
Motivational Self System offers a rich description of motivation among parents that answers to
the challenges that come with OPOL. Additionally, though motivation is often treated as a fixed
factor in decisions to raise a bilingual child, the present study treated it as an in-process feature
of language education.
15
Motivation in Bilingual Education
Motivation, as an area of study, originated in the field of cognitive psychology (Ushioda
and Dörnyei, 2012). However, over time, motivation began being studied in the field of language
acquisition, and its role within the process of acquiring a language started becoming more
evident. Research looking at attitudes and motivation in second language learning can be dated
back to 1955 when, in his research, William Lambert (1955) conducted a study on bilingual
dominance and development of bilingualism. Based on his findings, he concluded that
motivation was responsible for two students’ high level of competence in their second language.
As studies in this field continued, motivation was later defined as willingness to become part of
the language community (Gardner and Lambert, 1959). In other words, a second language
learner gradually adopts different aspects of the target language’s cultural group. Becoming part
of the language community, in turn, motivates them to continue learning the language. Similarly
to Gardner's Socio-Educational Model of Second Language Acquisition, which supposes that an
individual may also learn the second language to become more like the members of said society
(Gardner, 2001), a parent’s decision to teach their child a second language can come as a direct
result of their own desires for their children. To illustrate, a study by Pearson (2008) found that
parents’ motivation for teaching their children a second language was to secure their children’s
benefits of contact with their extended family and with their community. That is to say, it may be
the parents’ wish for their children to be able to communicate with the members of that society
and of their family because of the value these interactions have for them and for their children as
a representation of them. Therefore, it is important to look at this and other desires as part of
what motivates parents as language educators to teach their children a second language.
16
As research into motivation progressed, there has been a greater awareness of the role
that context plays in human behavior. Gardner and Smythe’s (1975) findings on second
language acquisition contexts looked at the relationship between the individual and context as a
linear, causal process. In other words, it was believed that there were unidirectional effects of
context on the individual’s motivation. However, recent research has shown that context doesn’t
just shape, cause, and affect motivation; the opposite is also true. The individual’s actions and
motivation may be shaped by context, but they also contribute to the further shaping of said
context (Dörnyei and Ryan, 2015). Known as the person-in-context perspective, Dörnyei and
Ryan (2015) proposed that in order to truly understand motivation in the field of second
language, one must also look at who is learning, with whom, where, when, and why. This
proposition led to the birth of the theory of possible selves, which would eventually become the
foundation for the L2 Motivational Self System.
The L2 Motivational Self System
In bilingualism, theorists have become interested in how the individual differences in
personality translate into behavioral characteristics. In other words, they are more interested in
the active or dynamic nature of the self system, which represents the person’s identity and how
they see themselves (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009). Whereas at one point they looked at the self
system as something of a static nature, they are now thinking of it as something that controls and
mediates ongoing behavior (Dörnyei, 2009). That is to say, the self system is active and capable
of change, because it can interpret experiences, which have motivational consequences. As a
result of said consequences, it adjusts and adapts to its environment (Dörnyei and Ushioda,
2009). In the case of parents as language educators, the self system is seen as dynamic because it
goes beyond the initial decision to raise a bilingual child. The experiences of the parents impact
17
their motivation to teach the language and causes them to change and adapt their approach.
Markus and Nurius (1986) proposed the theory of possible selves, which describes how the self
regulates behavior by setting goals and meeting expectations. This research formed a key
function in establishing the importance of possible selves within the development of the L2
Motivational Self System.
Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System was born due to a reconceptualization of
L2 motivation and the theory of possible selves. This system draws on the previously-mentioned
self theories from the field of mainstream psychology (Higgins, 1987; Markus and Nurius,
1986), while mainly being rooted in L2 motivation research from the field of second language
acquisition. The L2 Motivational Self System asserts that when individuals have a clear vision
of who they want to become – Ideal L2 Self – and who they feel they need to become – Ought to
L2 Self – combined with positive L2 Learning Experiences, their motivation is substantially
enhanced (Dörnyei, 2009). In other words, like Markus and Nurius’ (1986) possible self theory,
the L2 Motivational Self System is a theory, which suggests that motivation increases when the
individuals are guided by future self-images (i.e. Ought to Selves) and try to reduce the
discrepancy between their actual self and their future self (i.e. Self-Discrepancy Theory;
Higgins, 1987).
This theoretical construct is made up of three constituents or components: the Ideal L2
Self, the Ought to L2 Self and the L2 Learning Experience. The Ideal L2 Self represents the
image of what the individual wants to become in the future and deals with more intrinsic
motives that a person may have to learn the L2. On the other hand, the Ought to L2 Self is
composed of the attributes individuals believe they should have to meet others’ expectations
and avoid negative outcomes (Dörnyei, 2009). This component represents the image the
18
individual feels needs to be achieved due to a sense of obligation to normative pressure from
sources such as parents, teachers, friends, or society. That is to say, the motives found in this
component are focused on satisfying external norms.
Dörnyei (2009) includes the individuals’ attitude toward the immediate learning context
as the third component that sustains motivation. This third component is known as the L2
Learning Experience, and it looks at the immediate learning environment and experience, such
as the impact of the teacher, curriculum, peers, and family. Dörnyei (2009) explains that “for
some language learners the initial motivation to learn a language does not come from internally
or externally generated self-images but rather from successful engagement with the actual
language learning process” (p. 29). In other words, the ideal self and ought to self, along with a
positive learning environment, function as future self-guides that direct and guide the
individuals. As a result, the alignment of these components enhances the motivation of the
individuals.
Studies on the L2 Motivational Self System
Since its inception, studies on the L2 Motivational Self System have looked at several
factors, such as anxiety (Papi, 2010; Peng, 2015) and contexts, such as simultaneous L2 learning
(Henry, 2010) that may have an impact on motivation. While looking at this theoretical
framework and anxiety for example, Papi (2010) found that while the Ideal L2 Self and the L2
Learning Experience decreased students’ English anxiety, the Ought to L2 Self significantly
made them more anxious. As research continued to progress, researchers continued to focus on
L2 learners as they further analyzed this theoretical framework. One particular study (Yang and
Kim, 2011) looked at the L2MSS and students’ perceptual learning styles. This study found that
a learner’s perceptual learning style (i.e. visual, auditory, and kinesthetic) was significantly
19
correlated with their Ideal L2 Self. Another study (Azarnoosh and Birjandi, 2012) sought to
enrich our understanding of the attitudinal and motivational basis of foreign language learning
by looking at gender differences within the L2 Motivational Self System. Results showed that
there were no significant differences between genders in terms of attitudes towards learning
English. However, females gained a higher mean on Ideal L2 Self and intended effort while
males had a higher mean on Ought to L2 Self for these same categories. In addition to gender
differences, studies of this theoretical construct have also focused on specific language groups.
One particular study by Moskovsky et. al (2016) looked at Saudi EFL learners and found that
the components of the L2MSS were a good predictor of the learners’ intended learning efforts.
However, the study also established that in this learner population these components were not
consistently correlated with L2 achievement.
The advantages of bilingualism and the lack of support from the educational system are
the driving force behind parents trying to find approaches to teach their children a second
language. Of all the contexts of bilingual language acquisition, several case studies conducted
on families using OPOL show that within the approach itself, there are factors that result in
successful bilingualism. These factors are the parents’ consistent adherence to the appropriate
language and the insistence that the child respects the OPOL principle (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004;
Döpke, 1992). Additional studies add that parents who are successful in raising their children to
be bilinguals through the OPOL approach are those who have a close network of minority
language speakers, as it provides the children with greater exposure to the language (Clyne,
1970; Döpke, 1998; Lyon, 1996). Research literature establishes OPOL as one of the most
effective approaches to bilingual language education, as well as one of the more commonly and
20
successfully implemented, which led to the choice of the One Parent One Language approach
for the present study.
Studies on the OPOL approach and bilingual education research have looked at the
importance of community support (Clyne, 1970), the cognitive consequences of raising
bilingual children (Bain and Yu, 1980), as well as families who implement this approach
(Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). However, the application of the present study will allow for the
understanding of how useful the L2 Motivational Self System theoretical construct is for
interpreting parents’ experiences using the One Parent One Language approach.
Synthesis of Literature Review
The preceding literature review has reviewed research on contexts of bilingual language
instruction (Deuchar and Quay, 1998; Romaine, 1999), the One Parent One Language approach
(De Hower, 1990; Döpke, 1992; Grammont, 1902; Leopold, 1948; Romaine, 1999; Ronjat,
1913; Taeschner, 1983), questions and challenges it raises (Harding-Esch and Riley, 2003; Yip
and Matthews, 2007), and how they relate to bilingual acquisition and instruction. It also looked
at motivation (Dörnyei, 2009; Dörnyei and Ryan, 2015; Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Ushioda
and Dörnyei, 2012), language acquisition, the L2 Motivational Self System (Dörnyei, 2009),
and the focus of research on the motivation of children as language learners.
When looking at parents’ motivation in the field of second language acquisition,
research has looked at strategies used by parents (Mosty, Lefever, & Ragnarsdottir, 2013;
Vaynman, 2013) and the perceived benefits that motivate parents to foster bilingualism in the
home (Benz, 2015; Lee, Shetgiri, Barina, Tillitski, & Flores, 2015). Lastly, this chapter looked
at the role that motivation plays on parents who decide to raise their children as bilinguals
21
through the OPOL approach. Therefore, the following chapter will reiterate the purpose of this
qualitative case study, as well as detail the methodology used.
22
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This qualitative research effort was designed to explore the utility of the L2
Motivational Self System for interpreting parents’ experiences using the One Parent One
Language approach to bilingual education. Within this chapter, the discussion of the
characteristics of qualitative research and case study approach is followed by a description of
the linguistic, cultural, and background information of the participants studied. Also provided is
a detailed overview of the data collection and analysis process, which is followed by procedures
for establishing trustworthiness of the data, in addition to the possible limitations within this
study.
Research Question
Research for this study was guided by the following research question: How useful is the
for interpreting parent motivation, I examined their Ideal L2 Selves, Ought to L2 Selves, and
their perception of their child’s L2 Learning Experience.
Research Design
Qualitative Research
As previously mentioned, preserving bilingualism in families may in many cases be
highly desirable, yet developing bilingualism is fraught with challenges, such as the choice of the
OPOL approach and the motivation to continue it. Because this study aimed to explore the utility
of the L2 Motivational Self System theoretical framework for interpreting the experiences of
parents employing the OPOL approach to bilingual education, a qualitative design combining
23
observation and ethnographic techniques was used. The study began with an initial interview of
the participants. This interview sought to establish their background, demographics, daily family
schedule, and other important information. The initial interview was followed by video
observations of the family’s interactions during normal settings, such as dinner or play time.
These video observations were conducted to analyze how the family implemented the use of the
OPOL approach as the L2 Learning Experience, which is the third component of the L2
Motivational Self System. Lastly, a semi-structured interview was conducted with each of the
parents individually to further examine their motivation and personal views for teaching their
children a second language according to the first and second components of the theoretical
framework known as the Ideal L2 Self and the Ought to L2 Self.
Merriam & Tisdell (2015) states that answering specific analytical questions through
observation of people’s everyday activities requires specialized data collection and analysis.
Because this research style sought to make sense of the phenomena that occur in everyday
activities, interviewing, observing, and analyzing were key components used in this research
(Catalno and Creswell, 2013; Merriam and Tisdell (2015). The present study examined the
parents’ decision and motivation to teach their children two languages by examining intrinsic
factors, such as the benefits they foresee their children having as a result of bilingualism, and
extrinsic factors, such as the expectations of family members for their children to be bilinguals.
Though observations may give insight to the L2 Learning Experience, “qualitative researchers
are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their
worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015, p. 5).
In the case of the present study, I was not trying to understand optimal conditions for bilingual
24
learning, but rather the elements of the parents’ experience and perceptions that may be of
significance to other parents, researchers, and educators.
Qualitative research is inductive in nature, which means that it is aimed at building theory
from detailed investigations and studies (Friedman, 2012). This study sought to build the theory
of parental motivation based on recognition of similarities within the L2 Motivational Self
System between language learner motivation and the motivation of parents to develop
bilingualism in their children. To analyze a phenomenon related to a specific group of people or
occurrence, a qualitative case study approach is normally used because it “affords researchers
opportunities to explore or describe a phenomenon in context using a variety of data sources”
(Baxter and Jack, 2008, p. 544). In other words, a variety of inputs is needed to have certainty
that the specific research questions are being answered through observation of relatively normal
activities. In turn, this allows for multiple facets of the phenomenon to be revealed, analyzed,
and understood (Baxter and Jack, 2008). This provides the study a great deal of trustworthiness
because it results in great carefully-collected data, which can speak to really important questions
while looking at information that makes a difference and ignoring differences that don’t matter.
Case Description
Participants
The participants included members of a bilingual family employing the OPOL approach
to raise their children as English-Spanish bilinguals. The family was of middle-class
socioeconomic status and lived in a mid-size city located in a southeastern region of the United
States. This nuclear family was made up of two parents and their two daughters. The father was a
native English speaker from the United States, and the mother was a native Spanish speaker from
Colombia. The father worked full-time as a Physical Education teacher, while the mother was the
25
primary caretaker of the children and the home. The elder daughter was four years old and the
younger was born during the time of data collection. The children were too young to attend
school; however, the elder daughter attended Sunday Bible School once a week for a couple of
hours. Working with a child who was four years old was important due to the role that
metalinguistic awareness plays in improved cognition. The child at this age is aware that there
are two language systems and will try to keep the acquisition of new words balanced
(Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson, 1999). This means that since the parents were using the
OPOL approach, when she learns a new word in one language, she will try to learn the
corresponding word in the second language. The use of the OPOL approach was implemented by
more than just the immediate family. The father’s family only spoke English to the children,
while the mother’s family only used Spanish at all times.
Children’s Exposure to Language
In this case study, the first language of the family was English, and the second language
was Spanish. This was due to the family living in the United States and in a community where
the predominant language being spoken was English, and where television, movies, and music
were all in English. Additionally, the parents in this case study also communicated with each
other in English at all times, even in front of the child. Table 2 provides a sample weekly
schedule of the routines for the family in this study. Though this weekly schedule may show that
the children are with their mother for an average of approximately 90.5 hours per week, and with
their father for an average of approximately 53 hours per week, it is important to note that this is
not a direct reflection of language exposure. This is because the hours of either language
exposure overlapped with those of the other. For example, during some of the time the children
were alone with the mother, they would watch TV, movies, or listen to music in English.
26
Table 2: Weekly Routine Schedule and Language Use
Mondays
6:30am – 4:30pm 10 hours with the mother. Spanish
4:30pm – 8:30pm 4 hours with both parents. English & Spanish
Tuesdays
6:30am – 8:30am 2 hours with the mother. Spanish
8:30am – 11:00am 2.5 hours of English Bible School. English
5:00pm – 6:30pm 1.5 hours with the father only. English
Wednesdays
6:30am – 8:30am 2 hours with the mother. Spanish
8:30am – 11:00am 2.5 hours of English Bible School. English
5:00pm – 7:30pm 2.5 hours with both parents. English
7:30pm – 8:30pm 1 hour of English Children’s Church. English
8:30pm – 9:30pm 1 hour with both parents. English & Spanish
Thursdays
Fridays
Saturdays
6:30am – 8:30pm 14 hours with both parents. English & Spanish
Sundays
6:30am – 11:30am 5 hours with both parents. English & Spanish
11:30am – 12:30pm 1 hour of English Children’s Church. English
The average normal exposure to Spanish came mainly from the mother, but she
supplemented it by allowing the child to interact with her extended family in Colombia via
FaceTime or Skype once or twice a week. Additionally, the mother incorporated the use of
Spanish movies, educational shows, music, books, and educational toys into the children’s daily
routine in an effort to further support her goal of bilingual education. The average normal
27
exposure to English on the other hand, came mainly from the father and from being with both
parents on the weekends. Like the mother, the father’s family also interacted with the children on
a regular basis through a combination of FaceTime calls or in person since they lived relatively
close. The children also received exposure to the English language from weekly Bible school and
children’s church. This was a result of the family living in a country where the community’s
majority language was also the father’s native language. Figure 3.1 illustrates the bilingual
pattern of the family in this case study.
FATHER English
English
CHILDREN
English
English
Spanish
MOTHER Spanish
Figure 3.1: The family’s bilingual pattern
In addition to the average normal exposure the children received in each language, the
extended family also used their respective first languages when interacting with the children. The
father’s extended family consisted of his parents, brother, sister, brother-in-law, sister-in-law,
nieces, and nephews, whose first language was English and who did not speak Spanish. Most of
the father’s extended family lived in the same state, and they visited on a regular basis. The
mother’s family, on the other hand, lived in Colombia and could not visit often. As a result, her
family, which consisted of her parents and brother, relied on FaceTime calls and visits once a
28
year. Given these patterns, overall, the child in the study had a much more extensive exposure to
the L1 than the L2. Some of this emphasis was due to the nature of the monolingual community
in which the family lived, and part of this was due to the father’s monolingualism. Given this,
almost all second language exposure for the child came from the efforts provided by the mother.
Data Collection
Procedures
The goal of the data collected for this study was to provide insight on the utility of the
L2 Motivational Self System in interpreting parents’ experiences using the OPOL approach.
Therefore, to both collect and analyze the data, I used a qualitative approach that incorporated
the use of observations and interviews. Specifically, this study began with a preliminary
interview, followed by a series of video-recorded observations, and it ended with a semi-
structured interview.
Preliminary Interview
First, a preliminary interview was conducted with both parents to gain information
about them and their child as participants of this study. Information obtained included
demographics, languages spoken, education, occupation, and family history. The questions also
helped gain information on the family’s routines, interactions in each language, amount of
exposure to each language, percentage of media used in each language, and materials available
in the home. Additionally, the parents were asked questions about their implementation of the
OPOL approach with their child as it was the nature of this study to their perceptions of their
child’s learning experience. Once this preliminary interview was conducted, the parents read,
discussed, and signed the informed consent forms for themselves and their child. Lastly,
instructions and recording equipment were given to the family to begin the video observations.
29
Observations
Video observations of the parents interacting with their child were recorded over the
course of six weeks. Participants were given the right to disallow the use of any video recording
they did not feel comfortable with. During the course of six weeks, one week had no recordings
and one week’s video was disallowed by the participants. As a result, four observations were
collected, which took place at the family’s home and were focused on normal everyday
activities, such as eating dinner or having play time. The number of observations of the family
sufficed, because said observations were conducted in order to understand their use of the OPOL
approach and the context in which they are raising a bilingual child. Additionally, they provided
a clearer picture of the family dynamics, interactions, language exposure, and language use.
Semi-Structured Interviews
The parents were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews that lasted about 45
minutes. (See Appendix B for the interview protocol.) In this interview, they were asked about
their opinions on their child’s bilingualism, their thoughts on the OPOL approach, the role that
family and community played in their decision to raise a bilingual child, and their hopes and
aspirations for their child’s bilingual development. Each parent was interviewed separately, and
the questions were designed to glean information on their motivation. More specifically,
research and literature on the L2 Motivational Self System (Mercer, 2011; Taguchi, Magid, &
Papi, 2009) allowed me to tailor the interview guide and questions to target the usefulness of the
theoretical framework in examining its three components in the parents. Table 3 provides some
sample questions used during the semi-structured interviews divided by each of the components
of the L2 Motivational Self System they aimed to examine.
30
Table 3: Sample Interview Questions by L2MSS Component
Ideal Self Ought to Self Learning Environment

#3 - What maintains your #3 - What affects your #2 - How and why did you
motivation to foster motivation to foster decide on the One Parent One
bilingualism? bilingualism? Language approach?
#4 - What are your #4 - What are your thoughts #5 - What learning activities
thoughts on bilingualism on bilingualism in general? do you do with your child to
in general? foster bilingualism?
#11 - How important is #13 - How do your families #7 - Is there anything you wish
her learning English for feel about you teaching your there had been or would be
you? Why? child 2 languages? more of? (i.e. resources, travel,
interactions, language
exposure, other bilingual
children, etc.)
#12 - How important is #14 - Did your friends, #16 - How does living in the
her learning Spanish for family, or people around U.S. affect her English vs.
you? Why? you influence your decision Spanish learning?
to foster bilingualism in
your child?
30 - How important is it #15 - Do they and/or your #17 - Have you had any
for you that your child current environment specific or key experiences or
have successful influence the way you teach encounters which you feel
interactions with family, your child English and were influential for your
friends, or people around Spanish? How? child’s Spanish learning?
you in Spanish?
#30 - How important is it #34 - In general, what factors
for you that your child have are necessary for successful
successful interactions with language teaching at home?
family, friends, or people
around you in Spanish?
#36 - Do you feel that you
have support from the
education system in the U.S. to
foster your child’s
bilingualism? Why or why
not?
The semi-structured interviews allowed the parents to interpret and enact their
representation of their own experiences (Clandinin, 2006). In other words, parents were able to
interpret their own actions, as this is a key characteristic of qualitative research (Merriam and
31
Tisdell, 2015). Moreover, these semi-structured interviews allowed me to ask additional follow-
up questions, in order to elicit more details from the parents when needed. The interviews were
recorded, but I also took notes, which facilitated the process of asking follow-up questions.
Lastly, a third-party professional company was hired to transcribe the data. Transcription is
defined by Friedman (2012) as the process of converting spoken data into transcripts or written
documents. This technique was employed in the present study to analyze each recording used as
part of the investigation and prepare the data for the analysis of the motivational components of
interest. I reviewed the transcriptions several times to check them for accuracy.
Data Analysis
Observations
The first step in analyzing the data was to watch the videos of the observations recorded
by the family. Because the Learning Experience is an important theoretical principle of the L2
Motivational Self System, these observations were used to get a glimpse of the family’s
learning environment and contextualize the parents’ perception of this environment. Each of the
video observations was transcribed, and the transcriptions checked for accuracy. Data collected
from these observations were used to provide a description and examples of interactions that
took place in this learning environment. In other words, the video observations showed how the
parents interacted with the child. These observations generated data I used to interpret parents’
perceptions of their daughter’s situated and lived learning opportunities, and to look at how
enthusiastic or excited the parents felt when their child produced the second language, as well
as how frustrated or discouraged they felt if the child didn’t produce. In particular, these
insights were used to inform further interview development of interview follow-up questions.
32
Semi-Structured Interviews
The semi-structured interviews were used to explore the utility of the L2 Motivational
Self System in examining the parents’ ideal selves, ought to selves, and perceptions of their
child’s learning experience. To do this, I examined their ideal selves, ought to selves, and
perception of the child’s learning environment, as well as external factors and individuals, in
order to interpret each parent’s motivation to foster bilingualism in their child.
In order to efficiently and effectively analyze the data from the semi-structured
interviews, I used NVivo 10 Qualitative Data Analysis Software. This software allowed me to
upload, arrange, and analyze my data on one platform. Once the interview transcripts were
uploaded, I used NVivo to code my data by creating three nodes, one for each of the components
of the L2 Motivational Self System. The initial three nodes were titled Ideal Self, Ought to Self,
and Learning Environment. I then began to read the transcripts several times while listening to
the audio recordings of the interviews. While reading and listening, I allowed the participants’
attitudes to serve as clues used as indexical markers of which statements needed further analysis.
That is to say, the participants’ happy or unhappy expressions as they spoke caused me to focus
on those specific statements to determine which selves, ideal or ought to, produced them
according to my framework. Once the statements were narrowed down, I analyzed each against
the descriptors, definitions, and examples of each of the selves provided by the literature.
Therefore, statements coded as ideal self are those that reflect attributes and wishes that a parent
wishes their child to have. These are internal desires, hopes, and aspirations for their child’s
advancement and growth. On the other hand, the mother’s statement that her family is ‘negative’
and ‘adamant’ about her teaching the child Spanish for example, aligns with the description of
the ought to self as wanting to avert negative outcomes associated with not living up to someone
33
else’s expectations. Additionally, this statement shows that in part, teaching the child the L2 is an
externally motivated goal of linguistic achievement fueled by the extended family. Table 4
provides samples of the answers participants gave, coded by the initial nodes of the data analysis.
Table 4: Sample Parent Responses Coded by Component of the L2MSS
Ideal Self 1. “People who speak two languages are not just IQ smart, but
Father just smarter in general.”
2. “Bilinguals have a lot more opportunities presented to them.”
Ought to Self 1. “I feel bad that I don’t communicate with my in-laws so it’s
like, I better get my children to talk to them. Just because, the
aspect of taking their daughter it’s like holy cow if their
grandkids don’t talk to them I’d look as the gringo.”
2. “It’s just hard because I’m not saying that I’m bringing down
the house, but I am because if I spoke both Spanish and
English I could talk to my wife so she’s hearing it from both of
us.”
Learning 1. “I’d say the aspect of English, that’s all she deals with.”
Environment 2. “She listens to mainly everything in English.”
Ideal Self 1. “What encourages me is to know that someday she’ll be able
Mother to speak both languages. That she’ll be able to communicate
with my parents. That if she wants to go to Colombia and
study, she can. That she’ll have a future encourages me.”
2. “English will get her anywhere, but Spanish will be the open
door to many opportunities.”
Ought to Self 1. “He is gone more, and I am the one faced to society with her.
And our society, they speak English, they don’t speak Spanish.
So, our environment, which is sad, but our environment is
affecting it big time.”
2. (Speaking about her family) “Oh they are so negative,
especially with Spanish. ‘Are you speaking Spanish to her?’
Oh my, they are very adamant.”
Learning 1. “She watches Christian videos in Spanish. Every night or
Environment every other night I read the Bible in Spanish. Reading to her,
music. It has helped her to understand.”
2. “Living in the United States is not affecting her English, it’s
helping her English. I feel she even said the other day a
sentence that I would never say. Like it was a native sentence.”
As I continued analyzing the data however, I began to notice that the L2 Motivational
Self System did not account for motivational factors related to the alternate language. I began to
34
consider an expansion of the multiple selves theory to include these additional manifestations.
Comments by the mother such as, “What encourages me is to know that someday she’ll be able
to speak both languages. That she’ll be able to communicate with my parents.” pointed to a
motivation to use Spanish. On the other hand, comments such as “English will get her anywhere”
pointed to a motivation to use English. This led to the restructuring of the nodes into Ideal L1
Self, Ought to L1 Self, Ideal L2 Self, Ought to L2 Self, and Learning Environment. Once the
new nodes were entered into NVivo, I began to code the data once again. While doing this, I
noticed that the role of the context represented by the community where the family lived was
evident throughout much of the interview answers from both parents. Therefore, I decided to
divide the Learning Environment node into two new nodes: Influence of Context on L1 and
Influence of Context on L2. This function of Nvivo helped me further analyze the data by
accessing only specific nodes when needed. Coding the data using these nodes allowed me to
determine the utility of the L2 Motivational Self System for interpreting parents’ experiences in
the OPOL household. Upon completing this initial coding and analysis, I immersed myself in the
data for another round of coding using the inductive analysis approach. Lastly, the software
allowed me to keep a research journal, also known as memoing, which further helped with the
process of data analysis.
Memoing
Memoing (Birks, Chapman, & Francis, 2009) helped me select the information to
include in the findings and discussion section of my study by serving as a way to add notes to
the data and categorize them as needed. This technique allowed me to keep a running account
that described how I made sense of the data. While filtering through the interview questions and
responses, NVivo allowed me to time and date stamp memos in my research journal, which
35
helped me reflect on the data and think analytically of what information should be assigned to
each node. However, memoing also taught me that though I may have had pre-existing nodes
based on the L2 Motivational Self System (i.e. Ideal L2 Self, Ought to L2 Self, and Learning
Experience), there’s always a possibility of finding new themes and patterns.
Ensuring Rigor in the Research
Guba’s (1982) model of trustworthiness for qualitative research and Shenton’s (2004)
strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research were used to ensure the rigor of
the present study. These models provide certain components, which make certain that a study
can be found to be trustworthy and sound by a reader engaging with it. The following section
outlines the presence and implementation of the components of credibility, transferability, and
confirmability within the present study.
Credibility
A qualitative study is credible when it presents accurate descriptions and interpretations
of human experiences for the reader (Guba, 1982; Krefting, 1991). That is to say, the researcher
must represent the multiple realities that participants may reveal during a study as effectively as
possible. In second language acquisition, many qualitative researchers operate within established
research approaches that contain a generally agreed upon methodology. These approaches are
case study, ethnography, and conversation analysis (Friedman, 2012). In order to further
establish the credibility of the present study, components from each of these approaches were
employed. Additionally, data sources were triangulated through the use of the preliminary
interview, observations, and the semi-structured interviews to develop a rigorous study while
maintaining its credibility. Lastly, I member-checked with participants via email to ensure that
my understanding and interpretations of their responses were accurate.
36
Transferability
A research study is said to meet the component of transferability when its findings can be
employed by a reader to make sense in another context (Shenton, 2004). That is to say, when the
results and conclusions of the study can be applied and used by the reader in other situations and
settings, then the study is deemed to have strong transferability. In this study transferability was
sought by the provision of thick descriptions, including details about the context and evidence on
which knowledge claims were made, so the reader can determine the utility of the research
study’s findings. Indeed, I included as much descriptive data of the case study as possible to
allow the possibility of transferability into the above-mentioned settings, participants, and
institutions.
Confirmability
Lastly, research is said to have confirmability when applicability and truth value are
established for reader (Shenton, 2004). Through the use of member-checking, I confirmed with
the participants that the inferences made from the data collected were appropriate. I also
explained the possibility of biases and subjectivity contained in this study due to its nature of
researcher as the research instrument.
Limitations
Although understanding the methodology of this research is important, it is also vital to
know in what ways the study was limited. Due to the nature of this qualitative research, a case
study approach was necessary. Though effective for the goal of the present research, the tight
focus of this study limited the generalizability of any conclusions based on just one family’s
experience. This imposed a limitation on the significance of the conclusions reached through
this study in that these parents aren’t representative of all English-Spanish bilingual households.
37
However, it could be argued that aspects of parenting and bilingual education may trump those
limitations and that there is a lot that can be learned from them.
Furthermore, some of the approaches towards achieving childhood bilingualism, such as
the One Parent One Language approach, can also have limitations of their own. For instance, in
addition to the fact that the vast majority of studies of the OPOL approach are not longitudinal,
many parents using this approach agree that though the rules can be easy to understand, they are
not necessarily easy to follow. That is to say, a parent who is bilingual may have difficulty only
using one language with the child at all times. Döpke (1998) touched on some of the critiques
that the OPOL approach has endured due to the nature of its observations. Particularly she
speaks of the potential biases that exist in the majority of the documented studies of the method
due to the fact that the studies are performed by linguists who are observing their own children.
It is important to note however, that these limitations can open up doors for future research
possibilities, which will be discussed at a later chapter.
Researcher as Research Instrument
In addition to the selected tools used to collect data and the limitations of the study, it is
important to mention the researcher, myself, as a tool in this process. I was responsible for the
design of the study, the collection of data from the participants, and the interpretation of the data
leading to the results. There are some who see having the researcher as research instrument as a
threat to the trustworthiness of the study (Poggenpoel and Myburgh, 2003). However,
Darawsheh (2014) states that reflexivity adds more rigor to the study and makes the research
stronger. In this specific case, my experience as an L2 learner, an L2 teacher, and as a parent in
an OPOL household, permitted me to bring my influences into this research via the research
questions asked, protocol used, and data analysis. Nevertheless, exposing these influences future
38
researchers to understand the context of this study, the researcher, and the approach used to data
analysis.
Assumptions
While it is not possible to eliminate the intrusion of biases and assumptions in qualitative
research, noting the researcher’s influence on the research process is important in order to
control them (Corbin, Strauss, & Strauss, 1994). As previously stated, because I am a teacher
and a parent who is implementing the OPOL approach with my own children, I brought my own
set of assumptions and biases into my study. I believed that it would be difficult for the mother
to adhere to only speaking Spanish to her daughter, because they were living in a country and
community that predominantly used English. I also believed that it would be difficult to carry
out the OPOL approach because it has been my experience that, as the parent who speaks the
second language, you may feel isolated from your family when you see your children engaging
with the other parent in their dominant language. I believed that these perceptions could impede
a parent’s motivation to foster bilingualism. It is important for me to acknowledge my biases and
assumptions in order to ensure that they were appropriately countered in the study design and
data analysis—in an effort to ensure that the data were appropriately represented. However, the
findings and discussion sections in the following chapters provide an interpretation of factors
that influenced the parents’ motivation to foster bilingualism.
39
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to expand our understanding of motivation in the field of
second language acquisition (SLA) by interpreting parents’ experiences and perceptions of
teaching their child two languages in a One Parent One Language household. To accomplish
this, in this study I expanded the L2 Motivational Self System theoretical framework
(Dörnyei, 2009) by moving from focusing on the learner to focusing on the parent as the
language teacher. This makes this research particularly important when considering the crucial
role that parents have in their children’s education and language development. Furthermore, it
contributes elaboration of motivational dynamics at the heart of this intensive and risky
language learning approach. Therefore, the study focused on one main research question:
How useful is the L2 Motivational Self System theoretical construct for interpreting parents’
experiences using the OPOL approach to language development? To further investigate this
theoretical framework, I examined their Ideal Selves, Ought to Selves, and their perception of
their child’s Learning Experience. As identified in Chapter 3, a combination of interviews and
observations formed the basis of the study, while the three components of the theoretical
framework guided the data coding and analysis.
Introduction of the Case
The participants within this case study consisted of parents raising a bilingual daughter
through the implementation of the One Parent One Language approach. The family was of
middle socioeconomic status and lived in a mid-size city located in the southeastern region of the
United States. This nuclear family was made up of two parents and their two daughters. The
elder daughter who was four years old, was the target of the OPOL approach documented in this
40
research, and the younger was born during the time of data collection. The father was a
monolingual native English speaker from the United States, and the mother was a bilingual
native Spanish speaker from Colombia. Prior to this study, the father worked full-time as an
English teacher with international students in Jordan, and the mother was a language consultant
and director of the same English program where the father worked in Jordan. As a result of their
experience working abroad, both parents were aware of the advantages of bilingualism and were
motivated by these advantages when deciding to raise their child to be bilingual.
At the time of the study, the father was a Physical Education teacher in a local school,
while the mother was the primary caretaker of the children and the home. Due to his job, the
father was at work for the majority of the day but came home to eat dinner and spend time with
the family most evenings. During the observations done for this case study, his interactions with
the child targeted for the OPOL approach consisted mainly of natural conversation in English
without the use of supplementary resources, such as toys, books, or videos. On the weekends the
family spent time together and went to church on a regular basis. Additionally, the parents
stated that they like to go to the park, mom went to yoga class from time to time, and at times
they visited with friends and had dinner together. The father expressed being happy that their
child is bilingual and wanting her to use the language at church with their pastor who was a
Spanish speaker, “Our pastor speaks to her in Spanish occasionally. And it's funny because
she'll know exactly what he's saying, but she'll always reply in English to him”.
The mother was a “stay-at-home mom”, and her weeks consisted of spending time with
the child at home, going out to buy groceries, running errands for the household on a regular
basis, and having FaceTime calls with her family back home in Colombia. From the
observations conducted for this case study, the mother’s interactions with her oldest child
41
consisted of coloring together, playing board games, playing with educational toys that taught
colors, numbers, and letters in Spanish, watching television shows in Spanish, listening to
Spanish music, reading children’s books in Spanish, and going out to buy groceries. It is from
these outings that the mother and child were exposed to and interacted with the community in
which they lived.
Though the mother expressed her belief in the power of one-on-one language
instruction for a child to become bilingual, she also expressed that being out in the community
and dealing with a predominantly monolingual society produced tension, which caused her not
to use the second language in public. This concern stemmed from the context in which this
family lived. They lived in a medium size city in north of Florida. The primary language spoken
in this city was English, and it was not common to hear other languages spoken on a regular
basis throughout the city. In the specific case of this family, they only had one or two friends
who spoke Spanish, as well as the pastor of their church who also spoke Spanish. Though the
church services were conducted in English, the parents stated that the pastor tried to speak to
their child in Spanish whenever possible. However, they also stated that the child did not
respond in Spanish and that all other interactions at church were in English. Therefore, it was
evident that the city in which they lived did not lend itself to providing exposure to the second
language for the daughter. To provide a description of the interactions of the parents in an
OPOL house, the following is an introduction of the participants’ language interactions based on
the observations obtained during data collection.
Observations
Observations for this case study were conducted over the course of six weeks and were
video-recorded for documentation. As previously stated, participants were given the right to
42
disallow the use of any recordings they did not feel comfortable with. In the present case study,
participants disallowed the use of one video recording, and they had one week where no
recordings were performed. As a result, there was a total of four video observations collected for
data analysis. The first two observations consisted of both parents with their daughter during
dinner time. During these recordings I observed both parents setting the table and finally sitting
down to eat dinner with their daughter, while talking about their day. Before dinner, the family
sang a song in Spanish and then the father prayed for the food in English. Though the father
didn’t consider himself to be bilingual, he was able to sing songs in Spanish and understood
repetitive basic expressions he heard from his wife and daughter. Conversation in these
observations centered on what each person did that day. The mother asked the father in English
about his day and vice versa. The mother then asked the daughter questions about their day in
Spanish in order to elicit responses from her,
Mom: Cuéntale a daddy lo que hicimos hoy. ¿A donde fuimos? (Tell daddy what we did
today, where did we go?)
Child: Veggie Tales
Mom: ¿Fuimos a Veggie Tales? (We went to Veggie Tales?)
Child: Oh!
Mom: No. ¿A donde fuimos en el carro? (No, where did we go in the car?)
Child: A los doctores. (To the doctors.)
Mom: Hoy le hicieron un examen a mami. ¿Verdad? (They did a test on mommy, right?)
Child: Look!
Mom: Mira! (Look!)
Child: Mira! (Look!)
43
Mom: ¿Hoy le hicieron un examen a mami? (Did they do a test on mommy today?)
Child: Si (Yes)
Mom: ¿Y tu que hiciste mientras examinaban a mama? (What did you do while they
examined mommy?)
Child: Veggie Tales
Mom: ¿Y Curious George funcionó? (And did Curious George work?)
Child: No
Mom to dad: Curious George didn’t work, again!
Dad: What did you do today?
Child: I watched Veggie Tales.
Dad: What?
Child: No curious George.
Dad: No curious George?
As seen by this sample transcript, at times the daughter would not answer, at times she
would respond in English, and at times she responded in Spanish. However, her actions showed
that she understood her mother’s commands. For example, when the mother asked her in
Spanish to sit down and to stop showing the food in her mouth, the daughter did as instructed.
Whenever the daughter answered in Spanish, the answers consisted of short statements, and she
would quickly switch back to English. Each time the mother spoke to her in Spanish and she
answered in English, the mother took on the job of redirecting her by making her repeat what she
was trying to say in Spanish. As seen in the previous sample conversation, whenever the
daughter answered in Spanish, the mother would speak to the father and further explain the
events of the day that the daughter was referring to. The father would also ask their daughter
44
questions for her to explain to him what they did that day in English. In terms of language
interaction, I observed that the parents engaged in the OPOL approach as they spoke to each
other in English, the father spoke to the daughter in English, and the mother spoke to the
daughter in Spanish. The family shared some hobbies and activities, which included going for
walks around the lake, reading the Bible together at night, and having play time with any of the
educational toys and books found around the house. In terms of language production, I observed
in these first two recordings that it was much easier for the daughter to produce in English than
in Spanish. This was evident from her continuous shifting back to English and having to be
redirected to speak Spanish by the mom.
The third observation focused on mother/daughter interactions. This observation
consisted of the mother sitting down with her daughter to color. While sitting down to color, the
mother and daughter’s conversations were very simple and basic. Most of the child’s language
production consisted of saying yes, no, and repeating after mom. Conversations mostly revolved
around the names of colors and numbers. For example, the mother would ask the child which
colors she wanted or what she wanted to color. They would talk about the names of animals on
the page and the sounds they made. She would also ask the child if she liked what they were
drawing. As was the case in the previous observations, the daughter’s answers were usually very
short statements. At times she would speak English and the mother would redirect her by asking
her to repeat in Spanish or telling her what she was trying to say in Spanish. Most of the time,
the daughter would repeat her mom’s words without a problem. At one point the daughter
pointed at a picture of a dog and said “Un perro”. The mother smiled and excitedly repeated “Un
perro” while nodding in affirmation.
45
The fourth observation consisted of a FaceTime conversation between the mother, the
daughter, and her grandmother back in Colombia. As a way to supplement her daughter’s
exposure to the second language, the mother would try to FaceTime with her family back in
Colombia on an almost daily basis. From this observation, it was evident that the grandmother is
very outgoing and high energy with her granddaughter in order to keep her engaged and to elicit
conversation from her. During the phone call, the child showed her grandmother her toys, they
laughed, sang, and did body motions to the songs. At one point during the observation, the child
had a toy camel but did not know the word for camel in Spanish. She proceeded to say to her
grandmother, “un perro”, which means “a dog”. The grandmother immediately responded
saying, “un camellito, está muy bonito”, which means “A camel, it is very pretty”. Several times
during the phone call, the child would speak in English to the grandmother saying things like
“Do you want to eat it?”, and “again”. The mother would immediately redirect the child by
saying those things in Spanish and having her repeat them to her grandmother. For example, they
started talking about the mother’s visit to the doctor and the conversation went as follows:
Child: She went to the doctor.
Mom: ¿Mami fue al doctor? (Mommy went to the doctor?)
Child: Si (Yes)
Mom: ¿Y que le sacaron a mami? (And what did they take from mommy?)
Child: Sangre (Blood)
The mother then explained to the grandmother that her husband took her to the doctor to
get blood drawn. The daughter was listening to the Spanish conversation and jumped in:
Child: Mami bye bye
Mom: ¿Mami dijo bye bye? (Mommy said bye bye?)
46
Child: Y yo llorando. (And me crying.)
Grandma: ¿Por que? (Why?)
Child: Porque quiero mami. (Because I want mommy.)
Mom: Pero después la pasaste rico con daddy. ¿Verdad? (But then you had fun with
daddy, right?)
Child: No
Mom: Pero después viste a mami otra vez. ¿Verdad? (But then you saw mommy
again, right?)
Child: Si (Yes)
Mom: ¿Y cómo te pusiste? Feliz o triste? (And how did you feel? Happy or sad?)
Child: Feliz (Happy)
Child: Quiero dormir. Quiero ver abuela. (I want to sleep. I want to see grandma.)
During this phone call, the average number of Spanish statements the child produced on
her own was parallel to the number of statements she produced as a result of her mother’s
redirection or repetition. It was very clear from this particular observation that real, fun, and
meaningful conversation motivated the child to use the language more than in other scenarios,
such as just speaking with her mom.
The observations of the family were helpful in order to understand their use of the
OPOL approach and the context in which they are raising a bilingual child. Additionally, they
provided a clearer picture of the family interactions, language exposure, and language use. In
the following sections I will combine the data collected from the observations with those of the
semi-structured interviews to discuss the utility of the L2 Motivational Self System for
interpreting the parents’ experiences using the OPOL approach as they raised a bilingual child.
47
Problem Addressed
The L2 Motivational Self System has been used to interpret second language learning
experiences in bilingual children because language learning is deeply connected to identity
and depends to a large extent on the motivational dynamics that the child experiences. Dörnyei
(2009) explains that “for some language learners the initial motivation to learn a language
does not come from internally or externally generated self-images but rather from successful
engagement with the actual language learning process” (p. 29). This motivational self system
is important in understanding bilingual education in the home because these dynamics are so
consequential towards shaping and being shaped by intimate family relationships. In other
words, family interactions provide the context for the child to acquire both languages.
Therefore, this study shifts the focus of this theoretical framework to from the learner to the
parents as the language teachers, because if successful language interactions lead to language
development, the parents’ motivation will be enhanced as a result of said development.
To further explain, according to Dörnyei (2009), the L2 Motivational Self System
asserts that when individuals have a clear vision of their Ideal and Ought to selves, in
combination with a positive Learning Environment, their motivation is substantially enhanced.
In other words, when these components are in alignment, language acquisition is best
supported. However, though in typical language learners a single Ideal and Ought to Self can
be found, things are far more complex when you apply the L2 Motivational Self System to
parents of OPOL families. The following sections outline the main findings of this study.
Finding #1 – Multiple Selves and the L2 Parent
As previously stated, transcripts of the parents’ answers to the semi-structured interview
questions were analyzed with the initial nodes of Ideal Self, Ought to Self, and Learning
48
Environment. Though these nodes were useful when coding the father’s answers, as I began to
code the mother’s answers, I noticed the presence of the Ideal Self and Ought to Self in each of
the languages she spoke. This led me to go back and change the initial nodes into Ideal L1 Self,
Ought to L1 Self, Ideal L2 Self, Ought to L2 Self, and Learning Environment. Once the new
nodes were assigned, I immersed myself in the data once again and found evidence of multiple
selves in the mother as the L2 parent for each of the languages she spoke. The following
sections outline how the combination of normative pressure, external expectations, and lack of
L2 community support led the mother to have an Ideal L1 Self, Ought to L1 Self, Ideal L2 Self,
and Ought to L2 Self.
Ideal L1 Self
The mother’s Ideal L1 Self lied in the knowledge of the outcomes and advantages of
bilingualism in the future. The importance of languages was evident from the start of the semi-
structured interview as she said: “Every time I think about my daughter being bilingual, I feel
sad that she is not trilingual.” That is to say, the mother valued the advantages of knowing
another language so highly that she wished her daughter could speak more than two. She also
stated the importance of her daughter speaking English as it is the international language of the
world.
Ideal L2 Self
As with the L1, the mother’s Ideal Self in the L2 lied within the perceived advantages
that being fluent in Spanish would bring her child. When I asked about her general thoughts and
opinions on raising a bilingual Spanish-speaking child, she stated that she had always loved
languages and believed in the opportunities that they bring, such as being able to reach other
communities through their mother tongue. She was encouraged by the fact that her child will be
49
able to speak both languages someday. Particularly, she was encouraged by the fact that if her
child wanted to go study in Colombia one day, she would have that option in the future. She
wanted her child to be successful, and she indicated that it was extremely important to her that
her child speak both languages, because “English will get her anywhere, but Spanish will be the
open door to many opportunities.” That is to say, like her husband, she believed that their child
would have more possibilities of jobs, education, and traveling thanks to being bilingual. While
moving on to analyze the mother’s Ought to Self in Spanish, I was able to see that she also had
an Ought to Self in English, which was determined by outside factors that were not geared
towards Spanish.
Ought to L1 Self
The mother’s answers to the interview questions showed that she had a sense of
obligation to society when it came to the languages her daughter spoke. She stated that she felt
pressured to speak English in public so that members of the society could understand her when
she spoke to her daughter. To illustrate, when I asked what affected her motivation to foster
bilingualism, the mother’s answers differed from the father’s. While he largely focused on the
positive opportunities that being bilingual would bring their daughter, her answers mainly
focused on society and the negative ways in which it made it more difficult for her to raise a
bilingual child. She said, “My husband is gone more, and I am the one facing society with her.
And our society, they speak English, they don't speak Spanish.”
Moreover, the mother stated that living in a community where there aren’t many bilingual
adults pressured her to use English with her daughter in public so that the adults could
understand what she was saying to her:
50
Or when I have to work on her politeness and manners in front of society. Like, we go to
the grocery store, I have to tell her to say thank you. I have to teach her to say excuse me.
I have to teach her to say, ‘may I please have a cookie’ and ‘I want a sprinkle cookie’.
And I can't do that in Spanish because, one it will take longer. Two, the other person is
not going to understand it.
Therefore, unlike the parent who spoke the first language in this case study, the mother’s
answers suggested a sense of pressure to fit into the American culture and society. She even
expressed that she now understood why previous generations of immigrant parents did not teach
their kids the second language, “it's hard when you try to fit in and like now I understand why
back in the day, parents did not teach their kids Spanish because they want them to fit in.”
Interestingly, this statement from her as the L2 Parent contrasted the L1 Parent’s mindset when
he talked about the disservice his grandparents did to his father in forcing him to integrate into
American culture and lose his Polish language. As previously seen, the L1 Parent expressed not
wanting their daughter to blend in with American culture, while the mother’s response stated:
It’s very important that my child, not just only blends in but will be successful. And it's
sad, because it has to do with the school system. It has to do with, I've always thrived to
be the number one student at school. And performance, it's a big deal.
This statement showed that a large part of societal pressure to speak the L1 also came
from the school system.
During the time of data collection, the family was in the process of signing the oldest
child up for school, which resulted in added pressure on the mother and further reinforced the
Ought to Self in her L1. The mother expressed being worried that her child mixed languages at
times. To illustrate this, she used the example of a ‘black’ hot dog, which is what the child called
51
a burned hot dog. When trying to ask for this, her daughter said “salchicha blanca”, which
directly translates to white hotdog. Knowing that she was confusing the Spanish word “blanca”
for black because of the similarity in spelling and pronunciation, the parent transitioned into
English to help the child correctly ask for a burned hot dog. Research has shown that it is normal
for a child working with two language structures simultaneously to mix languages at times.
However, because her child was about to start school, the mother was afraid that the teachers
would think her child was behind and didn’t know her colors: “at school she has to know her
colors. And if she goes to school and she says, ‘Oh that's blanco’, the teacher is going to think
that she doesn't know the color.” This statement showed that the mother was interacting with the
child in English, instead of Spanish, because of the pressure from the school and the teachers to
prepare her daughter for her academic career. The data also suggested that the mother felt the
need to use the first language and break out of the OPOL approach.
Ought to L2 Self
As previously discussed, the lack of support for the L2 in the family’s community was
combined with the mother’s perception of society’s expectations. These expectations were for
the mother to speak English to the child when in public so that others could understand. In turn,
the lack of community support for the L2 combined with the perceived community expectations
to use the L1 created an Ought to Self in the L1 that caused the mother to abandon the OPOL
approach and speak English to the child when in public. On the other hand, the mother also had
an Ought to Self in the L2. The mother’s friends expected the child to speak Spanish and
expected her to speak Spanish to the child, because they knew it was the mother’s first language.
Likewise, from the mother’s answers to the semi-structured interview’s questions, it was clear
that she felt the strongest sense of obligation to raise a bilingual child from her own parents. The
52
mother made an effort to FaceTime with her family in Colombia on an almost daily basis so that
her parents could interact with her daughter and so that her daughter could have additional
exposure to the second language. She expressed that it was extremely important to her that her
daughter speak Spanish so that she could relate to her grandfather and grandmother. However,
she also stated that her parents would constantly ask if she was speaking Spanish to the child or
why the child was not responding to them in Spanish, and that they would act negatively towards
her daughter’s lack of language production. Furthermore, when I asked her to expand on how her
family felt about her teaching the child two languages, she stated: “Oh they're so negative,
especially with Spanish. They ask me, ‘Are you speaking in Spanish to her?’. They are very
adamant.” Even when I asked what maintained her motivation to foster bilingualism with her
child, her responses were linked back to her sense of obligation to her family:
That she'll be able to communicate with my parents. That if she wants to go to Colombia
and study in Colombia, she can. Also, when I hear her communicating with my parents
back home or at least understanding everything that they're saying, that encourages me.
I want her to one day be able to spend some time in Colombia and not be eaten by the
Colombian society.
Furthermore, though the Ought to L2 Self was mainly manifested in the responses of
the mother as a result of her sense of obligation to her family, there were other factors that
also influenced this mindset.
Other factors influencing the ought to L2 self. The mother was a language consultant
for many years, and each time she encountered passive bilinguals, she considered them not to be
bilingual, because in her opinion, “a bilingual person is one who can speak two languages.” This
point of view played a huge role in her perceptions of her daughter. In the interview she stated
53
that the child was able to understand both languages at the same level, but she was not able to
produce in Spanish the way that she could in English. In addition to her concern with her
daughter’s language production, she also expressed some discontent with her accent and
pronunciation. She pointed out that her daughter sounded like an American who was learning
Spanish as a second language, and even expressed her hope and desire for her accent to improve:
Language is a big deal. So, she already has an accent in Spanish. She won't say, ‘abuela’
(pronounced with a perfect Spanish accent), she says, ‘abuela’ (mimicking an American
accent). So that's something that, probably, maybe a year in Colombia will help but who
knows when that's going to happen.
This was an area of concern for her because it was clear that to her, production equals
bilingualism. As seen in her statement, she once again expressed her desire for her daughter to
be in Colombia for an extended time period. Her thoughts about learning a language showed that
she believed in the importance of experiencing its culture. She stated, “I feel like if you don't
experience the culture and the language, then you don't really learn a language.”
Finally, it is interesting to note the presence of other negative statements that hinted
at her ought to self. These were statements that expressed externally motivated goals focused
on what she felt others expect her to do. This was demonstrated through the use of verbs that
showed obligation, such as have to. While talking about her future goals for her daughter’s
language development, she sounded very negative and frustrated:
Well, I have to continue speaking Spanish to her, that's something that I have to do. I'm
get better at it where I'm pushing at least, that's the least I can do. That I will speak only
Spanish to her. Now I really want her to speak back at me.
54
Lastly, she also expressed her concern for how the OPOL approach could affect her
and her daughter’s emotional relationship negatively:
So, I've started, since you contacted us, and be like, ‘Hey, speak back to me.’ She's like,
‘I don't know. I don't know what to say.’ The words don't come to her. So, I really don't
know, I feel like I need guidance. How does this affect our relationship emotionally?
Therefore, findings suggested that there were multiple identities in one parent for each
language. Specifically, the mother in this case study as the L2 Parent had Ideal and Ought to
Selves for the L1 and the L2. Specifically, the L2 Parent’s Ought to Selves involve language
learning goals toward which they feel both obligated and conflicted. This is an important point
that shows that the application of a bilingual approach such as OPOL, is a source of insight and
vision that also brings challenges that parents, and others must navigate.
Finding #2 - The Influence of Context
As I continued to code the data, I also noticed that many of the parents’ responses centered
on their perceptions of the important role that the community played as the family’s context of
language acquisition. As a result, I decided to once again restructure the nodes and split the
Learning Environment node into two new nodes: Influence of Context on the L1 and Influence
of Context on the L2. This resulted on the final six nodes used for coding the data being Ideal L1
Self, Ought to L1 Self, Ideal L2 Self, Ought to L2 Self, Influence of Context on the L1, and
Influence of Context on the L2.
Data coding and analysis for the role of context and community support focused on the
parents’ discussions and perceptions of this problem. The Influence of Context on the L1 was a
node chosen as a result of the parents’ perceptions of how living in an English-speaking

55
community provided context and support for English as the L1. However, this was not the case
for Spanish as the L2. The parents’ answers highlighted the omission of context and community
support for the L2, which resulted in the Influence of Context on the L2 as the final node used to
analyze the data. These findings in part line up with what previous studies have shown, which is
that community support for the L2 is an instrumental part in the optimization of the OPOL
approach (Clyne, 1970; Döpke, 1998). Therefore, in this section I will discuss the difference in
contextual influence on the L1 and the L2.
Influence of Context on the L1
The semi-structured interview questions about bilingualism extended not just to the
parents’ feelings about raising a bilingual child, but to their perceptions of their families’ and
community’s reactions to this approach. The father saw both families as being excited about
their decision to raise a bilingual child, and he felt that he had support from the community.
Both the father and the mother stated in their responses that the child is surrounded by English
in every aspect of daily life: “I’d say in the aspect of English, outside of my wife, that’s all she
deals with.” The parents further stated that English was present in the music she listened to,
TV, church, family, and friends. Additionally, the family was in the process of matriculating
the child for school and stated that the child would also be exposed to the language there.
Though the parents were interviewed separately, it was interesting that they both
highlighted the influence that this context and community support has on the child’s L1
development. They both stated that their daughter would sometimes produce native-like
sentences in English that they had not used in the house. The father even stated that he felt that
“she’s by far further along in English than she is in Spanish. I think a little more advanced than
56
maybe some others that only speak English.” This observation suggested that the community
support for the L1 was connected to the child’s L1 language development.
Influence of Context on the L2
The answers to the interview questions showed that unlike with the L1, the parent’s
perception was that there was no community support for the L2, as the only other source of
exposure to Spanish came from the grandmother via FaceTime phone calls. As a result, the
mother relied on supplementary materials and communication with the extended family.
Additionally, the mother stated that she felt that the environment affected her motivation to
foster bilingualism in her daughter. She defined the environment as not only living in the United
States but being in a city that did not have monolingual Spanish speakers. The parents know a
couple of families who have one Spanish speaking parent, but their children don’t use Spanish
as their language of choice when interacting with their child:
Our environment, which is sad, but our environment is affecting it big time. So, we
don’t have monolingual Spanish speakers, which I feel that really pushes her to speak
Spanish. Being with bilingual kids, here in the United States or here in our society that
we moved into, they always choose English. So even if they speak Spanish, they go to
English. So that affects it a lot and discourages me.
Her comments suggested that the Spanish-learning environment was a complex cultural
world that she alone had to produce. She framed that world as vulnerable, invaded, and difficult
to defend against pervasive English that surrounded them in the larger society. This is important
to note because in the present study I looked not only at the ‘reality’ of the parents’ situation, but
at the way they perceived said reality. In other words, their motivational selves were not only tied
to, but also expressed through these statements of their perceived reality.
57
The mother also stated that she believed in “the importance of immersion, having a one-
to-one teacher-student ratio at home, and in the emotional connection and bond that comes with
learning a second language from your parents.” She saw culture as an important part of a child’s
experience in order to truly learn a language. She stated, “I feel like a language goes beyond
memorization. It goes together with the culture. So, I feel like if you don’t experience the culture
and the language, then you don’t really learn a language.” To illustrate this point, the mother
compared her child’s Spanish production while in her home country of Colombia to her
production while in the United States. She stated that the child was able to produce the language
continuously during their extended stay in her home country. There was even a clear change in
the parent’s demeanor while talking about this experience compared to talking about the normal
every day experiences of raising a bilingual child in the United States. She was visibly excited,
started smiling, and had a more positive tone to her voice while describing how her child’s
Spanish improved during this trip. While talking about raising a bilingual child in the US
however, she stated that “it’s a lot of work and it gets tiring”— This shows that she seemed to
lack energy or enthusiasm for teaching Spanish while living in a community that the parents
perceived as lacking support for the L2. To sum up, this finding suggested that perceived
community support influences parents’ motivation in a One Parent One Language household.
Finding #3 – OPOL and the L2 Motivational Self System
Upon completion of the data analysis, it was interesting to see the presence of multiple
selves in the L2 parent across languages, as well as how the combination of different factors
can affect parents’ motivation. This, along with the need to create new nodes that analyzed the
data in a deeper way, led me to look at the data once again while filtering them through the
58
definitions of the One Parent One Language approach and the L2 Motivational Self System. In
doing so, I found that the L2 Motivational Self System theoretical construct was useful for
interpreting parents’ experiences using the OPOL approach to language development, as it
helped show that the One Parent One Language approach is not just a clear division of the
family’s linguistic plane. That is to say, the OPOL approach splits the linguistic plane of the
family, while the L2 Motivational Self System reconnects it.
To further explain, the foundation of the OPOL approach states that by strictly
separating the two languages from the beginning, the child would subsequently learn both
languages easily without confusion or language mixing (Grammont, 1902). That is to say,
there has to be a clear division of languages, and each parent must adhere to their respective
language at all times. On the other hand, the L2 Motivational Self System states that enhanced
motivation is a result of the alignment of the Ideal Self, Ought to Self, and a positive Learning
Environment. Therefore, the L2 Motivational Self System reconnects the family’s linguistic
plane, because motivation, Ideal Selves, Ought to Selves, and the Learning Environment are
all dependent on each other. In other words, they can all be influenced and affected by the
other parent, the community’s support or lack thereof, and by the child’s language
development in each language.
Chapter Summary
This study looked at how useful the L2 Motivational Self System theoretical construct
was for interpreting parents’ experiences using the OPOL approach to language development.
Specifically, it sought to examine the parents’ Ideal Selves, Ought to Selves, and their perception
of their child’s Learning Experience. This research supported the notion that the Ideal Self and
the Ought to Self are similar in that they are related to the eventual reaching of a goal (Higgins,
59
1998; Dörnyei, 2009). Dörnyei (2009) stated that when the Ideal Self, Ought to Self, and
Learning Experience components are in alignment, motivation is enhanced and therefore,
language acquisition is best supported. However, findings showed that the scenario is far more
complex when you apply this theoretical framework to OPOL families. While the One Parent
One Language approach splits the linguistic plane of the family, the L2 Motivational Self System
reconnects that plane. In other words, the OPOL approach is not a neat division, because
motivation, Ideal Selves, and Ought to Selves are dependent on and influenced by each parent’s
actions, the community’s support or lack thereof, and by the child’s language development in
each language. Furthermore, findings suggested that there could be multiple conflicting selves in
one parent for each of the languages they speak, as was the case with the mother in this case
study. To illustrate, the present study suggested that the Ought to Self is the pressure of what the
Ideal Self is supposed to look like. That is to say, they are both linked, and they can both be a
result of normative pressure and external expectations, which can result in conflicting multiple
selves. Lastly, findings reinforced the importance of community support for the L2, while
introducing the L1 Parent’s need for support on how to help L2 language development, and thus
the L2 Parent.
60
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This study served to expand the language acquisition research literature on motivation by
considering what might be learned by applying the L2 Motivational Self System to interpret
parents’ experiences in a One Parent One Language household. To do this, I used the L2
Motivational Self System (Dörnyei, 2009) but focused the theory’s application from the learner
to that of the parent as the language teacher. Through this research I intended to provide insight
on the utility of this theoretical framework in gaining a better understanding of parents’
experiences with the OPOL approach in order to guide the direction for future parents, educators,
and researchers. Therefore, in this chapter I discuss the findings with this guidance in mind.
Research for this study was guided by the following research question: How useful is the
for interpreting parent motivation, I examined their Ideal Selves, Ought to Selves, and their
perception of their child’s Learning Experience. Because of the nature of this study, a qualitative
research design was employed. As identified in previous chapters, a combination of interviews
and observations guided the study, while the three components of the theoretical framework
guided the data collection and analysis. The following chapter provides a discussion of the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future research.
The Problem Addressed
In order to support the development of childhood bilingualism, the One Parent One
Language approach leverages intimate family relationships for bilingual language formation.
Since the term One Parent One Language was coined, research conducted shows that, as with all
61
approaches to bilingual education, there are both complex factors that affect it, as well as
positive cognitive effects that can result from it (Harding-Esch and Riley, 2003; Javier, 2007).
However, one main challenge of the OPOL approach is motivation. Though the approach
exposes the children to both languages from a young age, the motivation for both the children
and the parents to continue implementing this approach can be very difficult to maintain.
Preserving bilingualism in families is highly desirable for a number of reasons (Javier, 2007), yet
developing bilingualism is fraught with challenges, especially in the areas of the approach
chosen and the motivation to continue it (Harding-Esch and Riley, 2003). The call to better
understand and support parents in this particular approach to language development was the
inspiration for using the L2 Motivational Self System to analyze parents’ motivation in an in-
depth case study.
According to Dörnyei (2009), the L2 Motivational Self System asserts that when
individuals have a clear vision of their Ideal and Ought to Selves, in combination with a positive
Learning Environment, their motivation is substantially enhanced. In other words, when these
components are in alignment, language acquisition is best supported. However, though in typical
language learners a single ideal and ought to self can be found, things are far more complex
when you apply the L2 Motivational Self System to parents of OPOL families. In the following
chapter, the findings of the research are organized by how useful the L2 Motivational Self
System was for interpreting a parent’s experiences and motivation as a language teacher. The
findings are first listed, summarized, and then discussed in more detail.
62
Main Findings of the Research
Finding #1 – Multiple Selves and the L2 Parent
The Ideal Self is the component of the theoretical framework that deals with the attributes
or wishes that the parent wants the child to have (Dörnyei, 2009; Higgins, 1998). The Ought to
Self on the other hand, is defined as trying to avert the negative outcomes associated with not
living up to someone else’s expectations (Dörnyei, 2009; Higgins, 1998). Data from this research
suggested that there could be multiple selves or multiple identities in one parent for each of the
languages they speak. In the present study for example, the analysis of the mother’s answers
through the lens of the L2 Motivational Self System suggested that this was in fact the case. That
is to say, the mother had an Ideal L1 Self, Ought to L1 Self, Ideal L2 Self, and Ought to L2 Self.
During the semi-structured interview, the mother was asked about the importance of her
daughter learning English and Spanish. She stated that this was extremely important “because
English will get her anywhere, but Spanish will be the open door to many opportunities.” This
statement serves as a clear example of the conflicting selves that are present within this
participant. The statement centers around the perceived benefits that each of the languages will
bring her daughter. However, benefits are not an automatic indicator of only the Ideal Self. The
first half of that statement deals with English as the L1: “English will get her anywhere.” The
mother’s Ideal L1 Self is represented by the desire for her daughter to speak the L1, because it is
an international language. However, one could argue that the Ought to L1 Self is also present in
this statement because society expects her daughter to speak English. Therefore, the advantages
that come with that language are a result of meeting society’s expectations. The same is true for
Spanish as the L2, which the mother discussed in the second half of that statement: “…but
Spanish will open the door to many opportunities.” Here, the mother’s Ideal L2 Self is present in
63
her excitement for what her daughter will be able to do with her second language. She mentioned
that Spanish would not only allow her daughter to communicate with her extended family back
home but would also give her the option of studying in or traveling to Colombia and have the
possibility of a future there. On the other hand, her Ought to L2 Self is also present in the second
half of this statement, because it is her family who expects her daughter to speak Spanish.
Therefore, the advantage of being able to communicate with the grandparents for example, come
as a direct result of the family’s expectations.
The L2 parent’s conflicting selves are further highlighted by the presence of normative
pressure and external expectations. In the case of the L2 parent within this case study, I defined
normative pressure as the sense of obligation the mother felt to the community for using the L1
with her child while in public. As the name states, the norm is to speak English in a community
that does not provide support for Spanish as the L2. The mother’s answers to the interview
questions showed that she had a sense of obligation to society when it came to the languages her
daughter spoke. She stated that she felt pressured to speak English in public so that members of
the society could understand her when she spoke to her daughter. She said, “My husband is
gone more, and I am the one facing society with her. And our society, they speak English, they
don't speak Spanish.” She even expressed that she now understood why previous generations of
immigrant parents did not teach their kids the second language, “it's hard when you try to fit in
and like now I understand why back in the day, parents did not teach their kids Spanish because
they want them to fit in.” As with the statement I previously discussed, normative pressure
reveals the presence of conflicting selves in the mother. The Ideal L1 Self is present in seeing
English as advantageous for her daughter to succeed in an English-speaking community.
However, to abide by the OPOL approach, she is not the one who is supposed to be using the L1
64
with the child. Thus, the Ought to L1 Self is also present in how normative pressure causes her
to abandon the OPOL approach and use the L1 with her daughter when in public.
On the other hand, external expectations are defined in the current study as the
expectations from friends and family towards the L2. The mother’s friends expected the child to
speak Spanish and expected her to speak Spanish to the child, because they knew it was the
mother’s first language. Likewise, from the mother’s answers to the semi-structured interview,
it was clear that she felt the strongest sense of obligation to raise a bilingual child from her own
parents. The mother made an effort to FaceTime with her family in Colombia on an almost daily
basis so that her parents could interact with her daughter and so that her daughter could have
additional exposure to the second language. She expressed that it was extremely important to
her that her daughter speak Spanish so that she could relate to her grandfather and grandmother.
However, she also stated that her parents would constantly ask if she was speaking Spanish to
the child or why the child was not responding to them in Spanish, and that they would act
negatively towards her daughter’s lack of language production. Furthermore, when I asked her
to expand on how her family felt about her teaching the child two languages, she stated, “Oh
they're so negative, especially with Spanish. They ask me, ‘Are you speaking in Spanish to
her?’. They are very adamant.” Thus, the Ideal L2 Self is present in the mother’s desire for her
daughter to be able to relate to her grandparents by using her second language. However, the
Ought to L2 Self is also present as a result of external expectations because the advantages of
speaking Spanish come as a result of the family’s expectations.
Previous research and literature in the L2 Motivational Self System have looked at the
Ideal Self and Ought to Self in the L2. However, it was very interesting to see that when using
this theoretical framework as a lens, it is evident that for the L2 parent in an OPOL household
65
these selves are also present in the L1. Additionally, this finding further suggests that though the
definition of the Ideal Self may center around perceived advantages, said perceived advantages
of speaking a language do not automatically serve as clear indicators of the Ideal Self for that
language. It is possible for there to be advantages that result from the ought to self. To illustrate,
pleasing the grandmother by having a Spanish-speaking child is an advantage for the mother
within this case study. However, that advantage resulted from her Ought to L2 Self.
Finding #2 - The Influence of Context
The data from this study supported what previous studies have shown, which is that
community support for the L2 is an instrumental part in the optimization of the OPOL approach
(Clyne, 1970, Döpke, 1998). However, findings further indicate the role that this context can
play on the parents’ motivation. To illustrate, both of the parents’ answers to the semi-structured
interview questions demonstrated the presence of strong community support for the L1. Their
answers also stated that though they understood the importance of community support for the L2,
this context was missing from the society where they lived. As a result, both of their answers
expressed the desire for more support. Support for the L1 was present everywhere. The parents
stated that the child is exposed to English from the community, TV, church, friends, and family.
They also stated that they believe immersion, which is what their daughter was experiencing, is
the best way to learn a language. As a result, the child’s L1 language development was faster
than her L2. This was supported by the parents stating that the child would use native-like
expressions in English that they had never used with her before. The parents stated feeling
excited about her English language development when hearing her use these expressions.
Therefore, it could be said that the presence of L1 context and community support results in
increased L1 language development, which in turn enhances the motivation of the parents.
66
On the other hand, both parents stated that there was no context or community support for
the L2 in the society where they lived. They indicated that the mother was the sole source of
exposure to the L2 and that she attempted to mimic immersion by having the child speak to her
family in Colombia as often as possible through FaceTime calls. Both parents also stated that the
child’s Spanish was not developing as quickly or strongly as her English. The mom pointed out
problems with producing the language and even with having the same pronunciation as an
American learning Spanish as a second language. As a result, this finding indicates that the
omission of context and community support for the L2 results in slow and weak L2 language
development, when compared to the L1. This in turn, negatively affects the parents’ motivation
as it discourages them.
This finding brings into focus the importance of providing parents with ways in which to
support L2 language development and the work of the L2 parent. It is evident that in an OPOL
household, the responsibilities of the L1 Parent and the L2 Parent are not equal. The L2 Parent
has less support from the community and the L1 Parent has fewer burdens as the mainstream
language teacher. However, to optimize OPOL approach, the L1 Parent cannot just be concerned
with the L1 side of the equation. Parents understanding each other is a key component in
optimizing the use of this approach.
Finding #3 – OPOL and the L2 Motivational Self System
The last finding of this study suggested that the L2 Motivational Self System
theoretical construct was useful for interpreting parents’ experiences using the OPOL
approach to language development, as it helped show that the One Parent One Language
approach is not just a clear division of the family’s linguistic plane. That is to say, this finding
67
suggested that the OPOL approach splits the linguistic plane of the family, while the L2
Motivational Self System reconnects it.
To illustrate, the OPOL approach is founded on the rule that each parent must only use
their respective language with the child at all times. However, the approach itself doesn’t talk
about how parents can support each other or the role that motivation plays in parents being able
to adhere to that rule. On the other hand, data from the study suggested the presence of
conflicting selves in the L2 parent for each of the languages they speak. In this particular case
study, the presence of these conflicting selves caused the L2 parent to abandon the OPOL
approach and use the L1 with the child. Using the L2 Motivational Self System was useful in
finding the presence of these multiple selves and was thus useful in understanding that the OPOL
approach is more complex. Therefore, this theoretical framework can be useful in understanding
that in order to optimize the implementation of the OPOL approach, there has to be a level of
interconnectivity and not the strict separation of the linguistic plane that the name suggests.
Implications
What the L2MSS Allows Us to See
The results of this case study speak to the practice of the OPOL approach from the
vantage point of the parents as the language teachers. One is that this approach is
not simply "natural"--rather there are many interlocking parts that need attention for this to work
and for the responsibility for language development to be shared across the parents. One of such
interlocking parts is the context in which the OPOL household is situated and the openness of
that context to languages other than the L1 (Clyne, 1970; Döpke, 1998; Lyon, 1996). Another is
the need for support for L2 development.
68
L2 Support for the L1 Parent
Previous studies have highlighted the importance of community support for the L2 in the
success of the One Parent One Language approach (Clyne, 1970, Döpke, 1998). In the present
study, using the L2 Motivational Self System as a lens to understand the father’s experiences
was useful because it showed the importance of context and community support and how that
support influenced his perceptions, actions, and decisions. During the semi-structured interview,
the father expressed being excited about raising a bilingual child. He stated, “I feel that the
language will come naturally because of the surroundings and society.” In this statement, the
father was referring to the first language, as the second language was not heavily featured by the
society. Because he had the support of the community, the father did not need to supplement the
child’s exposure to the L1 with other materials. In other words, the father did not rely on books,
toys, or other resources to make meaning and help the child understand the language. On the
contrary, he would talk to his daughter at the dinner table, for example, and ask her about her
day in a way of normal conversation. This was illustrated in the previously mentioned
observation where he asked his daughter, “What did you do today?”, to which his daughter
replied, “I watched Veggie Tales.” Though part of these findings supports the importance of
community support in the success of the OPOL approach, the findings go deeper and look into
the L1 Parent’s need for support on how to help the L2 language development, and thus the L2
Parent.
In this particular case study, using the L2 Motivational Self System to examine the
father’s Ought to Self showed his sense of obligation to his wife and to her family. As
previously stated, he expressed an overall sense of excitement when asked about his general
thoughts and opinions on raising a bilingual child, because of the opportunities it would bring
69
his daughter. He also spoke about his desire for her not to blend into American culture, but to
identify with both cultures while embracing her Hispanic culture and ethnicity. However,
though he stated that bilingualism was going to open many doors for his daughter in the future
when she is older, he expressed a sense of nervousness as she is growing up. Specifically, he
stated, “I worry about what other kids might say or do if she’s in middle school for example and
doesn’t know how to say a specific word in English.” This fear supported his reasoning for not
wanting his daughter to blend in to American society, as he stated, “American culture nowadays
lacks acceptance of diversity.”
In terms of the father’s sense of obligation to his wife, his answers focused on his
perceived lack of support that he is able to provide her in teaching their child Spanish. He stated:
It's just hard just because I'm not saying I'm bringing down the house, but I am. If I spoke
both Spanish and English I could talk to my wife two days, three days out of the week in
Spanish, and then English the other days. So, they're hearing it from both of us.
He also expressed feeling frustrated when his wife spoke in English to their child from
time to time, “it's really important like sometimes my wife forgets to tell her stuff in Spanish and
I'm like ugghhh.” Therefore, it is clear to see that he expressed frustration at the inconsistent
implementation of the OPOL approach along with a desire to be able to share responsibility for
teaching Spanish as the non-dominant language. He further stated that an ideal scenario would
be if the two of them could speak Spanish to each other in order to foster bilingualism in the
home and help their child learn the L2.
Likewise, the father’s answers revealed his sense of obligation to his wife’s family.
When I asked how important it was to him that his daughter have successful interactions with
family and friends in Spanish, he gave some very interesting answers, which showed that, like
70
his wife, he experienced pressure from his in-laws to have a bilingual child. First, he felt the
need for his daughter to communicate with them in Spanish because he himself was not able to
do so. He said, “I feel bad that I don't communicate to my in-laws so it's like, I better get my
children to talk to them.” By saying he better get his children to talk to them, he demonstrated
the sense of responsibility and obligation that comes with the Ought to Self. This was further
supported by his follow-up statement in which he said, “Just because, the aspect of stealing their
daughter away from them-taking their daughter-it's like, holy cow! If their grandkids don't talk
to them, like, I'd look as the gringo.” His choice of words in answering this question didn’t
reflect an Ideal Self that is focused on reaching a goal. On the contrary, it reflected a prevention
focus, which tries to avert the negative outcomes of not living up to her family’s expectations.
Therefore, the L1 Parent needs support on how to help L2 language development, and
thus the work of the L2 Parent. It is evident that in an OPOL household, the responsibilities of
the L1 Parent and the L2 Parent are not equal. The L2 Parent has less support from the
community and the L1 Parent has fewer burdens as the mainstream language teacher. However,
for the OPOL approach to be successful the L1 Parent cannot just be concerned with the L1 side
of the equation. This parent must understand how to help the L2 Parent and L2 language
development. As it is the case in the present study, the father as the L1 Parent needs to know
how he can support his wife without being an L2 speaker. This in turn will help alleviate the
burden of the L2 Parent and reduce the inequalities in parental responsibilities within a One
Parent One Language household (Clyne, 1970; Döpke, 1998; Lyon, 1996).
The Role of Context
Parents’ motivation to employ the One Parent One Language approach relies heavily on
their perceptions of support of the community for the L2. The data suggests that the context of
71
the community in which the parents live forcefully impacts their mindsets and motivation. The
identification of these relationships can point to ways to better support the OPOL approach, as
they should inform parental decisions as to the areas in which they can live in order to receive
the needed support from the community to establish a strong foundation in both languages.
When relocation to a community supportive of bilingualism is not possible, these findings
suggest that parents should seek out community programs or multilingual programs in the
broader community. Additionally, these data speak to the need for the establishment of virtual
support groups for the parents through web-based materials and virtual communities to share
difficulties and find strategies to help overcome such difficulties, in addition to providing the L1
parent with strategies to support the L2 parent and the L2 language development.
It is important to remember that OPOL dynamics vary from family to family. For
example, in some OPOL households the L2 parent may be the one who works and is not home
with the children, both parents work, or neither parent works. While the particularities of this
case may not generalize to other families, these results may prove beneficial in further educating
parents who choose the One Parent One Language approach on how to better support language
development, to know what challenges to expect, and to give them ideas and techniques on how
to counteract said challenges.
What the L2MSS Prevents Us from Seeing
Though the L2 Motivational Self System was helpful in better understanding the
motivation of parents in a One Parent One Language Household, it is important to also note what
it does not allow us to see. The first and perhaps least important aspect that the L2MSS prevents
us from seeing is the duration of the motivation for the participants within this case study or how
to keep said motivation going. This in turn, could be a good area to explore in future research.
72
However, the main aspect that using the L2MSS does not allow us to see is whether, in this case
study, the child’s process of learning Spanish as a second language is to be considered second
language instruction or second language acquisition as per the field’s efforts to challenge
language learning in favor of language acquisition.
Instruction vs. Acquisition
In his Theory of Second Language Acquisition, Stephen Krashen (1982) defined
acquisition as requiring meaningful and natural interaction in the target language. In other words,
interaction in which the speaker is not concerned with the correct forms of their utterances, but
rather the messages they are communicating and understanding. As part of this theory, came the
concept of Comprehensible Input, which results from modified input and modified interactions
with the goal of motivating the learner to continue acquiring the language (Krashen, 1982). As
research in this field progressed, some researchers saw the role of the L1 as a negative
determinant in second language acquisition. On the other hand, others suggested the L1 led to the
use of language transfer as a learner strategy that could potentially make positive contributions to
the learners’ L2 development (Ellis, 2015).
In the area of language instruction, studies have shown that formal instruction seems to
have some positive effects on the rate and success of Second Language Acquisition (Ellis, 2015).
Said success is partly due to the type of L2 knowledge the learners have. To illustrate,
declarative knowledge is internalized language rules and memorized language chunks, while
procedural knowledge is made up of strategies used by the learner in acquisition and use of the
target language (Ellis, 2015). That is to say, a second language can be acquired or learned. The
difference is whether it is implicitly acquired through natural interactions or explicitly learned
through the teaching of formal grammar (Ellis, 2015; Krashen, 1982).
73
In the present case study, the use of the L2 Motivational Self System did not allow for a
clear determination of which of the two, learning or acquisition, takes place in a One Parent One
Language household. On one hand, the foundation of the OPOL approach itself focuses on
natural and meaningful interactions with the child in each language, which is the basis of
Krashen’s (1984) Theory of Second Language Acquisition. On the other, results from the present
study suggested that a parent might feel that there is a heavier focus on a child’s language
development and their role as instructor of the language in an OPOL household. Though neither I
nor this approach call for parents to explicitly teach grammar rules the same way instruction
takes place in a classroom, the parents within this case study were both professional language
instructors and viewed the process that comes with this approach as language instruction. This
can be seen by the specific use of the verb ‘teach’ when the mother was talking about
interactions in public with her child: “I have to teach her to say excuse me. I have to teach her to
say, may I please have a cookie.” That is to say, the parents within this case study were very
aware of the child’s progress and ability to produce in the target language, as well as their role as
the language teachers or the people in charge of facilitating language acquisition. As a result, the
child’s language development played a part in the parents’ development of their own ideal and
ought to selves.
Future Research
In this particular case study, an in-depth approach was needed to understand the dynamic
of these participants. One suggestion for future research, which would be useful in building on a
specific research finding from this work, is to further explore the connection between the parents,
the languages, and the motivational selves. This could be accomplished through the examination
of additional families who are also implementing the OPOL approach to bilingual education in
74
their households and whose family dynamics match those of the family within this case study.
This could also be done by exploring a different methodological approach, such as surveys of
larger groups.
The second suggestion for future research is to explore the theoretical foundation of this
study in a new context, location, or culture. This can be accomplished in two ways; focusing on
families with a different family dynamic and examining families in a different community. For
example, a family where the L2 parent works and the L1 parent stays at home or families living
in a community that supports the L2. It would be interesting to see how this would change the
results that suggested that the L2 parent has conflicting selves in each language.
Furthermore, results from this study brings up questions that must be answered, such as
knowing if positive support for the parents affects motivation. That is to say, does having
assessment techniques like journaling, reading a book, or keeping track of L2 production affect
parent motivation? Specifically, does it enable the L1 parent to support the L2 without being an
L2 speaker? Another question that this research brings up is how these findings can help
researchers answer to this inequality in the OPOL approach of parental responsibilities. The
combination of results from the current study with the results from these suggestions for future
research could inform parents and researchers of the best family dynamics and contexts in which
the implementation of the OPOL approach can be most successful.
Recommendations
We have learned that the study of motivation began in the field of cognitive psychology
(Ushioda and Dörnyei, 2012), and then slowly began to be studied in the field of language
acquisition. Research on parent involvement in bilingual education in general has been
conducted over the years (Paradowski, Bator, & Michalowska, 2016). Most of this research has
75
centered around the benefits and perceived effectiveness of bilingual upbringing strategies, as
well as the methods of communication adopted by families where the parents speak two different
languages in order to teach their children the second language (Law et al., 2015; Paradowski,
Bator & Michalowska, 2016). Additionally, research has also looked at the ideologies of
language planning by parents raising their children bilingually (Kirsch, 2012). These studies
were conducted in communities where parents have no support for the second language and
where monolingual discourse prevails (Kirsch, 2012). Through a mixed methods approach that
included surveys, observations, and interviews, researchers concluded that families and parents
play an indispensable role in their children’s language acquisition (Law et al., 2015).
Though numerous families face many difficulties in maintaining their children’s second
language in English-dominant societies (Law et al., 2015), results suggest that the most
frequently implemented method is the OPOL approach and that, like the results of the present
study, parents have a positive opinion about its usefulness (Paradwoski and Bator, 2016). This
research also speaks to the parents’ motivations and how those motivations were activated by the
context of their current situation. Said motivations can be affected by difficulties in the OPOL
approach when one parent is monolingual, and the family is located in a monolingual context.
Results from the current study suggested the importance of having support for the second
language from the community. These results support evidence from several case studies
conducted on families using OPOL which show that within the approach itself, there are two
main factors that result in successful bilingualism. These two factors are the parents’ consistent
adherence to the appropriate language and the insistence that the child respects the OPOL
principle (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Döpke, 1992). Additional studies add that parents who are
76
successful in raising their children to be bilinguals through the OPOL approach are those who
have a close network of minority language speakers, as it provides the children with greater
exposure to the language (Clyne, 1970; Döpke, 1998; Lyon, 1996). These two factors make two
particular strands of research especially relevant to this study of parental motivation: Firstly,
research having to do with parental involvement in bilingual education, and secondly, parents’
navigation of available social networks and available social stimuli relevant to language
development.
The L2 Motivational Self System has been studied and researched in different contexts to
further our understanding of its impact on language acquisition. However, these studies have
explored this theoretical framework amongst the subjects learning the language, while none have
focused on a parent’s motivation for teaching their children a second language or on examining
the L2 Motivational Self System within a One Parent One Language household. Moving the
focus of the L2 Motivational Self System from the learner to the parent as the language teacher is
an important contribution from the current study. It allows us to extend what we know about
motivation and language teaching because it looks at the motivation of the parents as the
language teachers. Additionally, it allows us the opportunity to educate parents on the
importance of the context and community in the success of the OPOL approach and on the
importance of language development.
All in all, the combination of results from the suggestions for future research with the
results from the current study would help researchers and parents understand the components of
the L2 Motivational Self System and how they can impact parents’ motivation to foster
bilingualism in their homes. The findings suggest that motivation isn’t enough, that we need to
create social networks for these parents to draw on in communities that are ill-suited to support
77
bilingualism. Furthermore, findings suggest that it is not enough to want to raise a bilingual child
through the OPOL approach, you need to have the resources available to accomplish it. It could
be useful to teach parents about motivation so that they can self-analyze and determine if they
are operating out of an Ideal Self or Ought to Self. It would also be helpful to teach the L1 Parent
about L2 language development and how it can best be supported. Additionally, knowing which
contexts and family dynamics work best for households employing the One Parent One
Language approach can inform parents to make the needed decisions and changes to their own
approaches to bilingual education.
78
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL LETTER AND CONSENT FORM
The Florida State University

Office of the Vice President For Research
Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Date: 11/29/2016
To: Angel Rios
Dept.: EDUCATION
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research

Understanding Parents' Motivation in Bilingual Education
The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the
research proposal referenced above has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee at its
meeting on 11/09/2016. Your project was approved by the Committee.
The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to
weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk
and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be
required.
If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent
form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be
used in recruiting research subjects.
If the project has not been completed by 11/8/2017 you must request a renewal of approval for
continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your
expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request
renewal of your approval from the Committee.
You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by
the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol
change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition,
federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any
79
unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is
reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving
human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that
the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The
Assurance Number is FWA00000168/IRB number IRB00000446.
Cc: Sherry Southerland, Advisor

HSC No. 2016.19501
80
Childhood Bilingualism Study
Consent Form
You are being asked to take part in an 8-week research study that looks at bilingualism in young
children. We are asking you to take part because you are raising your child to be bilingual
through the use of the one parent one language approach. Please read this form carefully and ask
any questions you may have before agreeing to take part in the study.
What the study is about: The purpose of this study is to learn more about how children acquire
a second language in a bilingual household using the one parent one language approach.
What we will ask you to do: If you agree to be in this study, we will audio and/or video record
1-hour sessions of your interactions with the child once or twice a week for 6 weeks. These
interactions will be natural and not altered in any way. You will interact with the child at home
as you normally would, while a camera is recording everything. Approximately 2 weeks after
the recordings are completed, we will conduct an interview with you. The interview will include
questions about your interactions and relationship with the child. The interview will take less
than 30 minutes to complete and will be conducted during week #8 of the study. With your
permission, we would also like to record the interview.
Risks and benefits: I do not anticipate any risks to you participating in this study other than
those encountered in day-to-day life. Observations will be conducted in a natural setting at home,
such as at the dinner table or during play time. It is possible that you may benefit from this study
in developing better interaction and communication methods with your child.
Compensation: There is no compensation for participating in this study.
Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private in order to
protect your welfare. Your names will be withheld, and pseudonyms will be used as a method of
assuring confidentiality. Research records and data, including video-recorded observational and
interview data, will be stored on a password protected external hard drive. This hard drive will
remain locked inside my desk drawer of my office (Hecht House 306). The key to the office
door and the key to my desk drawer will always be in my possession.
Taking part is voluntary: Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You may skip any
questions that you do not want to answer. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at
any time. Additionally, you will have the right to request any recordings you’re uncomfortable
with to be excluded from the study.
If you have questions: The researcher conducting this study is Angel Rios, a doctoral student at
Florida State University’s college of Education. Mr. Rios is currently working under the
supervision of his major advisor, Dr. Sherry Southerland. Please ask any questions you have
now. If you have questions later, you may contact Angel Rios. You may also contact Dr. Sherry
Southerland. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this
study, you may contact the FSU Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 850-644-8633 or you may
81
access their website at http://www.fsu.research.edu. You may also report your concerns or
complaints via email at jth5898@fsu.edu.
You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.
Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any
questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study.
Your Signature ___________________________________ Date ________________________
Your Name (printed) ____________________________________________________________
In addition to agreeing to participate, I also consent to having the observations and interview
recorded.
Your Signature ___________________________________ Date _________________________
Signature of person obtaining consent ______________________________
Date _____________________
Printed name of person obtaining consent ______________________________
Date _____________________
82
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
My RQ’s:
How useful is the L2 Motivational Self System theoretical construct for interpreting parents’
experiences using the OPOL approach to language development?
L2 Motivational Self System Components
• Ideal L2 Self
• Ought to L2 Self
• Learning Experience (Teaching Experience)
Opening
• Reminder that research will help us understand the dynamics of fostering bilingualism in
the home, as well as help other parents raising their children as bilinguals.
Demographic Questions
• Age?
• Place of birth?
• First language?
• Children’s ages?
• Pre-school or school?
Case-Specific Questions
The following are questions that ask you to describe your general thoughts, opinions, and
experiences with raising a bilingual child.
1. I’d like you to think back to the time when you first found out you were going to be
parents. Please tell me how and why you came to the decision of teaching your child
both English and Spanish.
2. How and why did you decide on the One Parent One Language approach?
3. What maintains your motivation to foster bilingualism and what affects it?
4. What are your thoughts on bilingualism in general? (i.e. advantages or disadvantages)
5. What learning activities do you do with your child to foster bilingualism?
6. Is there anything you found particularly helpful/inhibitory in fostering bilingualism?
83
7. Is there anything you wish there had been or would be more of? (i.e. resources, travel,
interactions, language exposure, other bilingual children, etc.)
8. How would you describe your approach to teaching her English vs. your approach to
teaching her Spanish? (i.e. Similarities and Differences)
9. In what ways does she use English in daily life? (watching movies/shows, listening to
music, contact with speakers of the language, personal needs, etc.)
10. In what ways does she use Spanish in daily life? (watching movies/shows, listening
to music, contact with speakers of the language, personal needs, etc.)
11. How important is her learning English for you? Why?
12. How important is her learning Spanish for you? Why?
13. How do your families feel about you teaching your child 2 languages?
14. Did your friends, family, or people around you influence your decision to
foster bilingualism in your child?
15. Do they and/or your current environment influence the way you teach your child English
and Spanish? How?
16. How does living in the U.S. affect her English vs. Spanish learning?
17. Have you had any specific or key experiences or encounters which you feel were
influential for your child’s Spanish learning?
18. How easy/challenging is it for her to communicate with native speakers in
each language?
19. How would you describe her current level of English and Spanish?
20. How important is it for you that she improves her Spanish?
21. How important is it for you that she improves her English?
22. What motivates you to foster bilingualism in your child?
23. How important is it for you that your child blends into the American culture and society?
24. Have your beliefs about or approach to language teaching changed since you started the
OPOL approach with your child?
25. Has the way you feel about her progress in each language changed over the years? If so,
why and in what ways?
26. In terms of her Spanish language development, what is important for you in these next
few years?
General about self as a language teacher

27. How would you describe yourself as a language teacher for your child?
28. What affects the way you feel about yourself as a language teacher for your child?
29. What characteristics do you possess that you think are useful for teaching your child
a language?
30. How important is it for you that your child have successful interactions with
family, friends, or people around you in Spanish?
84
a. What about in English?
31. How confident are you in your ability to teach a language through the OPOL approach?
a. Why? Or What affects your confidence?
b. Has this changed over the years? If so, in what ways?
General questions about language teaching

32. What are your beliefs about how to best teach a child a second language?
33. How do you feel language teaching and learning are similar or different to other subjects?
34. In general, what factors are necessary for successful language teaching at home?
35. How does language teaching at home compare to language teaching at school?
36. Do you feel that you have support from the education system in the U.S. to foster
your child’s bilingualism? Why or why not?
37. What advice would you give to any parents thinking of raising bilingual children
through the OPOL approach?
Closing
38. Is there anything I should have asked you about? Or do you want to add anything?
39. Do you have any questions for me?
85
REFERENCES
Azarnoosh, M., & Birjandi, P. (2012). Junior high school students’ L2 motivational self system:
Any gender differences. World Applied Sciences Journal, 20(4), 577-584.
Bain, B., & Yu, A. (1980). Cognitive consequences of raising children bilingually: One parent,
one language. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 34(4),
304.
Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one-

language approach (No. 7). City: Multilingual Matters.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Benson, C. (2002). Bilingual education in Africa: An exploration of encouraging

connections between language and girls' schooling. Education—A Way out of
Poverty, Volume?, 79-95.
Benz, V. (2015). Dynamics of bilingual early childhood education: Parental attitudes and
institutional realisation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://www.languageonthemove.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CORRECTED-
PhD-Thesis-Victoria-Benz-DIGITAL-COPY.pdf
Birks, M. J., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2009). Women and nursing in Malaysia:
unspoken status. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 20(1), 116-123.
Catalano, T., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Understanding the language of the occupy
movement: A cognitive linguistic analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 664-673.
Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Engaging in narrative inquiry. London: Routledge.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative

Research, 17, 273-85.
Cummins, J. (2001). HER classic reprint: Empowering minority students: A framework for
intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 649-676.
Cunningham-Andersson, U., & Andersson, S. (1999). Growing up with two languages: A

practical guide. London: Routledge.
Darawsheh, W. (2014). Reflexivity in research: Promoting rigour, reliability and validity in

qualitative research. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 21(12), 560-
568.
86
Darlington, Y., Scott, D., & Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Stories from the
field. Buckingham: Open University Press.
De Houwer, A. (1990). The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derks, E. M. (2017). Bilingual Families: Parental Motivation in Children’s Minority Language

Acquisition (Bachelor's thesis). Retrieved from
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/352501
Deuchar, M., & Quay, S. (1998). One vs. two systems in early bilingual syntax: Two versions of
the question. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 231-243.
Döpke, S. (1992). One parent one language: An interactional approach (Vol. 3). Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Döpke, S. (1998). Can the principle of ‘one person–one language’ be disregarded as

unrealistically elitist? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 41-56.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (Vol.
36). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Doyle, A., Champagne, M., & Segalowitz, N. (1978). Some issues in the assessment of
linguistic consequences of early bilingualism. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 14, 21-
30.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition 2nd Edition-Oxford Applied

Linguistics. Oxford university press.
Fantini, A. E. (1985). Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child: A Sociolinguistic Perspective

(To Age Ten). Multilingual Matters 17. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Friedman, D. (2012). Language socialization and language revitalization. The handbook of

language socialization, pp. 631-647. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. Motivation and
Second Language Acquisition, 23, 1-19.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language acquisition.

Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 13(4), 266.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
87
Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1975). Motivation and second-language acquisition.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 31(3), 218-230.
Grammont, M. (1902). Observations sur le langage des enfants. Paris: Mélanges Meillet.
Grinberg, J., & Saavedra, E. R. (2000). The constitution of bilingual/ESL education as a

disciplinary practice: Genealogical explorations. Review of Educational Research, 70(4),
419-441.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic
inquiry. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 30(4), 233-252.
Harding-Esch, E., & Riley, P. (2003). The bilingual family: A handbook for parents. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Henry, A. (2010). Contexts of possibility in simultaneous language learning: Using the L2

Motivational Self System to assess the impact of global English. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 31(2), 149-162.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,
94(3), 319.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.
Hoffmann, C. (1985). Language acquisition in two trilingual children. Journal of Multilingual &
Multicultural Development, 6(6), 479-495.
Javier, R. A. (2007). The bilingual mind: Thinking, feeling and speaking in two languages.
Switzerland: Springer Science & Business Media.
Kirsch, C. (2012). Developing children's language learner strategies at primary school.

Education 3-13, 40(4), 379-399.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon Press Inc. Print.
Koebler, J. (2011). White House calls for improved Hispanic education. US News and World
Report, 141(24), 26.
Krefting, L. (1991). The culture concept in the everyday practice of occupational and physical
therapy. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 11(4), 1-16.
Lambert, W. E. (1955). Measurement of the linguistic dominance of bilinguals.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50(2), 197.
88
Law, J., Rush, R., Peters, T. J., & Roulstone, S. (2015). The contribution of early
language development to children's emotional and behavioural functioning
at 6 years: An analysis of data from the Children in Focus sample from the
ALSPAC birth cohort. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(1),
67-75.
Lee, M., Shetgiri, R., Barina, A., Tillitski, J., & Flores, G. (2015). Raising bilingual children: A
qualitative study of parental attitudes, beliefs, and intended behaviors. Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciences, 37(4), 503-521.
Leopold, W. F. (1948). The study of child language and infant bilingualism. Word, 4(1), 1-17.
Lyon, J. (1996). Becoming bilingual: Language acquisition in a bilingual community (Vol. 11).
Bristol, PA: Multilingual matters.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954.
Mellander, C., & Florida, R. (2006). The Creative Class or Human Capital? Explaining Regional
Development in Sweden, CESIS Electronic Working Paper No 79.
Mercer, S. (2011). Towards an understanding of language learner self-concept (Vol. 12). New
York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Moskovsky, C., Assulaimani, T., Racheva, S., & Harkins, J. (2016). The L2 motivational self
system and L2 achievement: A study of Saudi EFL learners. The Modern Language
Journal, 100(3), 641-654.
Mosty, N. L., Lefever, S., & Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2013). Parents’ perspectives towards home
language and bilingual development of preschool children. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2017.1415966
Nieto, S. (2001). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Oksaar, E. (1983). Multilingualism and multiculturalism from the linguist's point of view. In
Multicultural and Multilingual Education. In Immigrant Countries: Proceedings of an
International Symposium Held at the Wenner-Gren Center, Stockholm, August 2 and 3,
1982 (Vol. 38, p. 17). Stockholm, Sweden: Pergamon.
Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A
structural equation modeling approach. System, 38(3), 467-479.
89
Paradowski, M. B., Bator, A., & Michałowska, M. (2016). Multilingual upbringing by parents of
different nationalities: Which strategies work best. Advances in Understanding
Multilingualism: A Global Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Pearson, B. Z. (2008). Raising a bilingual child. Frankfurt, Germany: Living Language.
Poggenpoel, M., & Myburgh, C. (2003). The researcher as research instrument in educational
research: a possible threat to trustworthiness? Education, 124(2).
Romaine, S. (1999). Bilingual language development. The Development of Language, 10, 251-
275.
Ronjat, J. (1913). Le développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue. Frankfurt am

Mian, Germany: Peter Lang.
Shenton, A. K. (2004, December). Operationalising the concept of “information” for research

into information behaviour. In Aslib Proceedings. 56, 367-372
Taeschner, T. (1983). The Sun is Feminine: A study of bilingual language acquisition.

Switzerland: Springer Science & Business Media.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese,
Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z Dornyei & E.
Ushioda, Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66-97). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2012). Motivation. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 396-409). New York: Routledge.
Vaynam, M. J. (2013). Raising Bilingual Children: Russian Mothers' experience in motivating

Russian language and bilingualism in their Russian-Norwegian children (Master's
thesis). Retrieved from https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/37099
Yang, J. S., & Kim, T. Y. (2011). The L2 Motivational Self-System and Perceptual Learning
Styles of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Swedish Students. English Teaching, 66(1).
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2007). The bilingual child: Early development and language contact.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
90
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Angel Ríos earned his B.A. in French, M.S. in Foreign and Second Language Education,
and his PhD in Foreign and Second Language Education from Florida State University in
Tallahassee, FL. His professional experience includes teaching Spanish and French from 2007 to
2013 at FAMU’s Developmental Research School and Rickards High School. Additionally, he
has been a faculty member at the Center for Intensive English Studies at Florida State University
from 2013 to present. Angel Rios was nominated for the Excellence in Education Award by
Governor Charlie Crist in 2008. Additional accolades received include the Teacher of Promise
Award from the Florida Foreign Language Association in 2009, the Teacher of the Year Award
from James S. Rickards High School in 2010, and the Phillip R. Fordyce Award for
Distinguished Teaching from the Center for Intensive English Studies at Florida State University
in 2015.
91

Parents' Motivation for One-Parent, One-Language Bilingual Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parents' Motivation for One-Parent, One-Language Bilingual Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Florida State University

Understanding Parents' Motivation in a

UNDERSTANDING PARENTS’ MOTIVATION IN A ONE-PARENT, ONE LANGUAGE

APPROACH TO BILINGUAL EDUCATION

A Dissertation submitted to the

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

Table 1. Linguistic Contexts of Bilingual Education.................................................................... 12

Table 2. Weekly Routine Schedule and Language Use ................................................................ 27

Table 3. Sample Interview Questions by L2MSS Component ..................................................... 31

Table 4. Sample Parent Responses Coded by Component of the L2MSS.................................... 33

Bilingualism is gaining popularity as an educational choice among families in the United

to the parents-turned-language-educators, whose complex choices, social stressors, and

observations and semi-structured interviews of an English-Spanish speaking OPOL household in

instructional choices, in recognition of the importance of parents as language teachers under

Background of the Problem

to drastic demographic changes, in part brought on because of immigration (Koebler, 2011). A

a-second-language (ESL) programs which understandably tend to privilege English learning.

and countries (Grinberg and Saavedra, 2000; Cummins, 2001).

parents, children, and siblings.

Statement of the Research Problem

in language development of acquisition and instruction (Döpke, 1992). OPOL is predicated on

sufficient source of immersion to achieve a language-acquiring environment, versus a larger

activity and relationships as effective drivers of language acquisition.

Experience. This motivational self system is important in understanding bilingual education in

the L2 Motivational Self System.

The Parent and the Ideal L2 Self

successfully conducting business in another language, or an individual’s desire to watch a

These Ought to Self motivations orient outwardly.

The Parent and the Ought to L2 Self

The Parent and the L2 Learning Experience

needs, internalized motives, and meeting external expectations. Understanding parents'

selves. Additionally, understanding the changing dynamics of language instructional motivation

needs as they engage in this difficult process.

Purpose and Research Questions

understanding of its impact on language acquisition. However, though studies on parent

perception of their child’s Learning Experience.

language through the One Parent One Language approach.

One parent one language (OPOL) is a specific approach to bilingual education.

One Parent One Language

world (Bain and Yu, 1980).

development of metalinguistic awareness, which is a considerable advantage that comes from

using the OPOL approach (Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson, 1999).

working with two systems of language. As Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson (1999)

says “klanning” (Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson, 1999, p. 45)

Andersson and Andersson, 1999).

another (Cunningham-Andersson and Andersson, 1999).

Research on Parental Involvement in Bilingual Education

a necessary and key component of bilingual education.

policy dimensions of parental involvement in language education, parents who wanted to be a

Parents’ Navigation of Available Social Stimuli

Much research on parent involvement in bilingual education in general has been

perceived effectiveness of bilingual upbringing strategies (Mosty, Lefever, & Ragnarsdottir,

OPOL in a highly segregated city (Mellander & Florida, 2006).

aspects of parents’ motivation can impact the child’s language acquisition.

approach to teach children their L2.

Though numerous families face difficulties, such as language adherence in maintaining

Andersson and Andersson, 1999, p. 34).

Motivation, as an area of study, originated in the field of cognitive psychology (Ushioda

dominance and development of bilingualism. Based on his findings, he concluded that

to Gardner's Socio-Educational Model of Second Language Acquisition, which supposes that an

foundation for the L2 Motivational Self System.

The L2 Motivational Self System

In bilingualism, theorists have become interested in how the individual differences in