Parents who choose a dual language program bring into the program, through their children, the family’s hopes and dreams for the future. They also bring their cultural background and influences from their education and socioeconomic levels.  Whatever the reason for choosing the DL program, two groups of children with very different backgrounds, are learning together in the same classroom.

     I would like to investigate and describe what these parents want for their children. I want to see how the parents believe that a DL program will help them edge closer to their dreams for their children.  Since the two groups come from very different backgrounds, I would like to see if there emerge any cultural patterns in the discussion of dreams and hopes for their children.  

     When some parents believe that the program is not meeting their children’ needs, they make their opinions known to the teacher in an effort to change what is happening in the classroom.  The teachers try to accommodate the parents by making changes in the way they teach or in the materials they use.  These modifications in instructional practice can change the program outcome for either or both groups of children.  As a second part of this question, I would like to see what the two groups of parents do when they feel that the program is not meeting their expectations or might jeopardize their child’s academic success. I would like to examine what I perceive as a cycle of reaction-action-reaction between the parents and the teacher/program/school.  

     This information about parental hopes and dreams can help DL administrators align the program goals with the expectations of the parents or at least, better articulate the expectations for this kind of bilingual program. If parental goals and program expectations do not mesh, then the administrators can use this information to clearly orient the parents and prospective parents to the program or to suggest alternative programs that better serve the parents’ goals.  Also, once the perceived cycle of action/reaction is better understood, teachers in the DL program can formalize a system for all and not just for a few who exert pressure for instructional change.

     By contextualizing the two groups who request this specific bilingual program, we can begin to understand the hopes and dreams for their children and their expectations of the program. This understanding can help to better address their needs.  We can also use this information to formalize an equitable system for affecting change when the expectations are not being met.  Working with two different cultural groups is not always smooth, but with a more thorough understanding of the families’ hopes and dreams for their children, schools can address their needs and concerns more knowledgeably.
 
 

     To me, the two questions above boil down the essence of validity.  At every step of the research process, I have to be aware of validity issues so that when I reach the conclusions I can feel confident that I have gotten it right. I will try to acknowledge and deal with validity threats from the beginning of the literature review through to the writing of the project.

     I think that my concept of validity is a combination of Wolcott’s and Maxwell’s. To me they go together nicely. One aims to get it right and the other aims not to get it wrong. Wolcott talks about being involved in the setting and not separating his personal and professional view.  That seems a bit extreme to me, especially after knowing the extent of his involvement. (But, I digress.) Wolcott mentions recording first impressions and using them as a baseline. I like that idea as a way to gauge how my impressions change as I gather more knowledge from observation and reflection.  So far, after four years of observing the dual language program, my ideas have changed considerably as I understand more about that specific program and about bilingual instruction in general. 

     My topic has to do with dual language programs and the two language/ethnic groups who select the dual language program for their children.  When starting my research to investigate what has been written about DL programs, I feel that I should cast a wide net.  According to Jim Crawford, in 2003 most dual language programs were found in schools with a high economic group that benefits from the DL program and a low economic group that the program is designed to serve.  If I go by this information, I would limit my background information to only that formula. So instead, I think that I should investigate dual language programs not found in those demographics. For example, I would look into the Oyster Elementary program and Arlington dual language programs, as well as Texas, Arizona and California border programs.  A broader knowledge base might bring up issues that I hadn’t thought of because they are not obvious in the school program I’m studying.
  

How can I be wrong and what can I do to acknowledge it or guard against it? 
 

      How can I consider validity while designing the study?  In planning the interviews, I have to be careful not to ask questions in a biased way. I can have others check the questions/field-try the questions/make sure the questions are open-ended enough so that the participant can answer freely.  I can design a core of questions that dig at what I want to know and ask the same questions to everyone. I should be aware of whether the questions are guiding the data or the data guiding the questions. 

     Can I find negative evidence or negative cases?  I’m sure this will come up as I am interviewing parents from two seemingly different groups.  Instead of looking for the differences from the beginning, I will try to ask the same questions to everyone and consider all the families rather than discard those who offer differing information.  I will have to remain open to all cases (families) and not disregard any ‘case’ until I have looked at all the data.  It would be very easy to find stereotypical families of the two groups.  I must consciously make the effort to include everyone until my categories are set and I decide what to focus on. Then the other cases or the ‘outliers’ will be mentioned as part of the data but not necessarily as part of the two case studies—the two groups of language speakers.  We’ll see. At this point, I’m not sure what I will find.

    If I write profiles or case studies of the families, do the families agree with what I have written?  Here, definitely ‘member checks’ will help.  Each section will be read by a selected person or group of people who supplied the information, to make sure that I have characterized the group properly.  Since it will be a composite of information from a group, I want to make sure that what I wrote is a description of the group as a whole rather than just of a set of verbally active parents.

     Are the participants giving me the information that they believe I want to hear? This could be a real validity threat. With the Spanish-speaking parents, I would try to overcome this threat by asking another person, the family liaison (a Mexican woman who deals mostly with the Hispanic parents) to sit in with me during the interviews.  Having her with me will: 1) be a check on my Spanish when asking the questions to make sure that I phrase them in a way that the parents can understand and respond to; 2) also help me to verify the translation to make sure that I understood the meaning implied in the answers as well as the words.

     When writing up the research, I have to be clear about whether I am explaining, describing or interpreting.  I think that all of these enter at some time in looking at the research.  For example in interviews, what am I looking for? A description of what parents want for their children. The danger I see here is that I have to balance description with analysis.  I think that my tendency is to interpret what I hear through my own cultural filters. When dealing with another ethnic group, I have to be very careful not to interpret when I should describe.

     When explaining the living situations of the two groups of families, it would be easy to offer explanations that boarder on interpretations. My researcher bias on where the Hispanic families come from and what their life was like before coming to this country, has to be checked by others to make sure that my bias doesn’t enter into the description.  Since I have lived in Central America and Mexico, I understand the living situation that the families have come from.  As part of my job in Mexico, I had to interview families who wanted to come to the US and therefore I know the economic situation they have left behind.  

     My background helps me gain entry into both groups. For one group, I speak the language and therefore I can communicate with the Spanish-speakers. In many cases, I know their children and have been their translator for the past 4 years for parent/teacher conferences. For the English-speaking group, I am ‘one of them’ as a resident of the neighborhood and have been active in the parent/teacher group composed mostly of Caucasian mothers.  I am known by both groups but am not seen as part of either.

     In general my main bias is the topic itself. I started studying the DL program because I thought it was poorly run.  Then my ideas evolved to finding out more about it. I did this by studying the teachers who taught in the program. I have also studied the evolution of the program and how it started and how it has evolved over the past 4 years.  Now I am studying the families who send their children to the program.  Am I still circling the wagons on a program I feel is poorly run?  No, but I think that my original attitude forms the baseline from where I started. Now, I think that this study will provide valuable insight into the two groups of people represented in this dual language program.  

      In the end, I am aiming for a descriptive account of why two diverse groups of families support the same program. My hope is that other schools in similar demographic areas will look at the study and question whether my findings could inform their decisions. I aim to get it right by being aware of and considering, at every step of the way, how I could be wrong.