Rationale for the Methodology

The study of heritage learners of less-commonly-taught languages (LCTLs) in the U.S. is an emerging field, one that draws on the larger body of research on language learners in general and heritage learners in particular and seeks to contribute to theories of heritage language acquisition. As this field grows, there are many ways forward methodologically that can address major questions regarding the learners themselves, their teachers, their learning processes, effective pedagogy that meets their particular needs, and larger implications. The methodology of this study draws from and speaks to three major areas of research that are relevant to this context and population and the research questions above: the study of motivation in heritage language learners and their non-heritage learner peers, the study of

language learning as an identity construction process, and sociocultural approaches to the study of literacy and biliteracy.

3.2.1 Methods in the study of HL motivation. The body of research on HLs of Spanish in particular offers a wide range of methodological approaches and findings (Portes & Hao, 1998, 2002; Schecter & Bayley, 1997; Valdés, 2005), from surveys to ethnographic approaches. Meanwhile, the results of large-scale surveys of HLLs in the U.S. are beginning to appear (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). Much of the published research on learners of LCTLs has been preoccupied with issues of motivation, often relying on survey methods (Husseinali, 2006; Kondo-Brown, 2005; Lee, 2005; Montrul, 2010; Noels, 2005). The concern with motivation is in fact well-motivated; these studies have shown that HLLs and non-HLLs not only differ in predictable ways in regard to their prior proficiency and current

associations with heritage language communities, but they also differ considerably in their motivations for learning the target language. These studies have largely drawn on quantitative survey methods to gather data regarding the language backgrounds of learners and the motivating factors that they see as relevant to their study of the language and to compare these motivations among heritage and non-heritage learners. Drawing on the approaches these researchers have taken to addressing motivation, the data collection process in this study included surveys focusing on language background, language use, and language learning motivations in the students and their parents. At the time when these surveys were conducted,

Mawaarith administrators and teachers had compiled very little demographic data or data on the

intentions of parents and students. While the surveys provided important initial groundwork for this study and supported later decision-making in the process of data collection, survey methods could not provide the rich description of beliefs, practices, context that qualitative methods could in the analysis of language learning investment.

3.2.2 Methods in the study of identity and investment. Data on the motivation of LCTL learners that compares HLLs and non-HLLs can serve to inform pedagogical and programmatic decisions and offer insights into ways that teachers can sustain student effort in these languages. However, these studies evidence many of the limitations of motivation research that Norton (2000) highlights in her discussion of investment in language learning. Noels (2005) determined, within the framework of predominant theories of motivation (Dörnyei, 2003; Noels et al., 2003), that heritage learners were influenced by identified regulation more than their non-HLLs. However, this study, like others, relies on individual students’ ratings of motivating factors at a single moment, without consideration of the contextual factors that might impact a learner’s commitment, progress, and growth over time.

Investigating language learner investment, rather than or in addition to language learner motivation, suggests far different choices in regard to data collection methods. In order to develop a contextualized understanding of the desire and effort to learn a language as an identity construction process, as Norton and others have done (Blackledge et al., 2008; Block, 2007; McKay & Wong, 1996; Norton, 2000; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004b; Pomerantz, 2008), the researcher needs to engage with the complexities of the individual learner’s perceptions of the language, relationship to the language and other users, and ongoing experience with the language. Ethnographic methods have provided the means of gathering data relevant to study of identity construction and its relationship to the language learning process in HLLs and their peers. In the emerging tradition of social constructivist research on language learning and identity, this study relies on ethnographic methods including relatively unstructured interviews with various stakeholders, classroom observations over a period of relatively lengthy engagement, field notes, thematic coding through iterative analysis, and connection to the larger social

and political context (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; Heath & Street, 2008; Lazaraton, 2003; Purcell- Gates, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

3.2.3 Methods in the study of literacy as a set of sociocultural practices. Likewise,

ethnographic methods are powerful tools in the study of literacy and the sociocultural context in which it operates and develops (Barton, 1994; Heath & Street, 2008; Hornberger, 2007; Street, 2000). In

comparison with other approaches to literacy, including cognitively-oriented research,

[Ethnographies] offer hitherto unknown maps and perspectives on literacy learning and

development, without which teachers and researchers would be operating more or less blindly, in the dark, as they plan for and implement instructional strategies that ‘should’ work according to other research paradigms. (Purcell-Gates, 2006, p. 92)

The study of literacy in this context is inseparable from the study of heritage language learning and learner identity, as the findings of this study show. Understanding the relationships between HLLs’ and non-HLLs’ language and literacy development and their identity construction and investment necessitates a sociocultural approach to literacy practices rather than decontextualized measures of proficiency. Measures of Arabic language and literacy proficiency at the beginning and end of the school year would provide some sense of the language knowledge that learners have gained and would be an appropriate component of a mixed methods study of language and literacy (Calfee & Sperling, 2010). However, as Purcell-Gates implies, exploratory research like this study is needed before measures of proficiency appropriate to young learners of Arabic can be developed and put to use for the purpose of developing instructional strategies10_{. Studies that connect language learning, identity, and literacy among}

10 _{Currently oral language proficiency measures are available for young learners, though they can be expensive to}

use. A number of questions specific to Arabic need to be considered prior to the further development of standard- ized language and literacy measures for young learners, including: What language should be measured, MSA or dialect? Should this differ based on oral or written modality? If we attempt to measure proficiency in a spoken dia- lect, which one? What standards of proficiency should be followed, those of FL learners or native speakers in Ara- bic-dominant countries? General questions regarding literacy assessment include: Should we measure phonological

heritage learners of less-commonly-taught languages frequently rely on ethnographic data sources including interviews with learners and community members, observations of classes and community events, literacy diaries, examples of student writing, and other artifacts (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Cruickshank, 2004; Sarroub, 2002; Yi & Hirvela, 2009).

3.2.4 Methods of the current study. The current study represents an “interplay” of qualitative and quantitative methods for the purpose of developing grounded theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Though there are a number of practical and conceptual difficulties involved in combining these approaches, Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggest that such methodological eclecticism and pragmatism are warranted in order to meet the emergent demands of an exploratory qualitative study. The underlying epistemology of the qualitative and quantitative methods is the same, in that both are used from a constructivist perspective to develop a detailed description and verstehen (understanding) of the learners in this particular context (Willis, 2007).

This study therefore follows a trajectory from an overview of the population and patterns within it based on survey and observation data to a discussion of identity construction and investment in particular cases of learners from different language backgrounds. As an ethnographic study supported by survey data11_{, this study draws on the following principal data sources:}

 Surveys of students and parents conducted early in the 2009-2010 school year and another survey of students at the end of that year, focusing on language use, language learning experience, motivations for studying MSA at Mawaarith, and attitudes toward language study.

 Interviews with focal participants including children and parents in five families, chosen and recruited primarily based on their responses to these questionnaires. These focus on

awareness, morphological awareness, lexical knowledge, comprehension, explicit knowledge of grammar, etc.? Should we measure receptive language, productive language, or both? Will the measures have ecological validity in this context and in other contexts, and will they have positive washback for the learners and teachers? How will the results of these assessments be used, and will their uses be appropriate to their design?

11 _{There is some controversy about the difference between conducting and writing a true ethnography and conduct-}

ing a study that uses ethnographic methods. Despite Scollon’s (1995) concern about “the miniaturization of the concept of culture,” contexts as small as a single classroom have become acceptable sites for ethnographic studies.

language learning history, beliefs and attitudes regarding Arabic language and literacy, perceptions and experience of the language learning process at Mawaarith Academy, and actual interactions with Arabic text. Also, interviews with four teachers (three Arabic teachers and one humanities teacher), all recorded with a digital audio recorder.

 Classroom observations in the six middle school Arabic classes, visiting two classes per week throughout the school year, recorded in the form of field notes;

 Documents, including materials describing the school, the language program, and its foreign language model; materials used in the teaching of Arabic at this school; and student-produced materials.

These methods will be described in further depth below. Although diaries of language learning and literacy practices as used in Norton (2000) and Cruickshank (2004) would likely have made an important contribution to this study, they were not explicitly requested in this study. Nevertheless, one mother chose to keep a diary of activities and decisions regarding language learning over the course of several months. This diary was used to guide and inform interviews with this mother.

The analysis of this data, then, was aimed at developing grounded theory situated in this specific learning context. This approach involves identifying and coding emergent themes in early stages of analysis, adjusting those themes as the analysis continues, and seeking connections among those themes that answer the research questions and remain consistent with the full body of data (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). It should also take into account the intersections of this data and theory with the larger discourses that may impact the learning of Arabic in this sociohistorical moment (Heath & Street, 2008; Purcell-Gates, 2006). Analysis began with a broad foundation of descriptive statistics provided by quantitative analysis of the initial survey data. Following that, I used a process of iterative analysis and constant comparison to closely map the content of the qualitative data; to identify major themes in the interviews, observations, documents, and researcher reflections; and to connect this data with the quantitative data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Each stage of the data collection and analysis, which will be described below, has informed the next and contributed to the identification of emergent themes.

This analysis was greatly facilitated by the use of Atlas.ti 6.2 (Muhr, 2011), a software program for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis.

The following section describes the school that provides the unifying context for this study. Then, I provide an overview of the school population and explain the sampling decisions that led to the selection of focal participants and their families. Next, I describe the data collection procedures and provide rationale for my approach in each area. Finally, I discuss the process of data analysis, which includes both quantitative and qualitative analysis but aims for a holistic picture of the language program and the learners who come together in it and delves most deeply into the experiences of the focal families.