Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Negotiating multiple investments in languages and identities : the language socialization of Generation… Kim, Jean 2008

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2009_spring_kim_jean.pdf [ 2.62MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0066800.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0066800-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066800-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066800-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0066800-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0066800-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0066800-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

  NEGOTIATING MULTIPLE INVESTMENTS IN LANGUAGES AND IDENTITIES: THE LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION OF GENERATION 1.5 KOREAN-CANADIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS   by   JEAN KIM   B.A., Korea University, 1999 M.A., The University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2001    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY   in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES   (Language and Literacy Education)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   November 2008   © Jean Kim, 2008  ii Abstract The increasing number of immigrants in North America has made Generation 1.5 students--foreign-born children who immigrated to their host country with their first- generation immigrant parents (Rumbaut & Ima, 1988)--a significant population in Canadian and American schools (Fix & Passel, 2003; Gunderson, 2007). Of these students, many enter universities while still in the process of learning English as a second language (ESL). This often presents them with unique educational needs and challenges, which sometimes results in a “deficiency-oriented” view of Generation 1.5 university students (Harklau, 2000). However, much of the immigrant education research has thus far been limited to K-12 students, and the applied linguistics literature on Generation 1.5 university students has mostly examined their experiences within college and university ESL, writing, or composition program settings in the U.S. Therefore, this study addresses the gap in the literature through a qualitative multiple case study exploring the language socialization of seven Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students. Triangulated data were collected over ten months through individual and group interviews with students and three English course instructors, questionnaires, students’ personal writings, and field notes. Drawing on the perspectives of language socialization (Duff & Hornberger, 2008) and language and identity (Norton, 2000), this study examined the contextual factors involved in the students’ language socialization processes and further investigated how these factors affected the students’ investments in languages and identities, as manifested in their everyday practices. The findings suggest that 1) in an ever-changing globalized world, the characteristics, including the educational goals and needs, of today’s Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian students were considerably different from those of their predecessors; 2) through the complex interplay between their past, present, and future “imagined” experiences, the students were socialized into various beliefs and ideologies about language learning and use, often necessitating negotiations of investments in their identities and in their first, second, and sometimes third languages; and 3) given the diverse backgrounds and linguistic goals of these students, Generation 1.5 language  iii learners should be seen from a “bi/multilingual and bicultural abilities” perspective rather than from a “deficiency-oriented” perspective. The study concludes with implications for policy, research, and pedagogy.   iv Table of Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents........................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures................................................................................................................. x Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................xi Dedication......................................................................................................................xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose of Study ................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Questions.......................................................................................... 6 1.3 Significance of the Study ................................................................................. 6 1.4 Organization of the Dissertation....................................................................... 7 Chapter 2 GENERATION 1.5 COMMUNITIES, SECOND LANGUAGE  SOCIALIZATION, AND IDENTITY........................................................ 9 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Definition of Generation 1.5 .......................................................................... 10 2.3 Korean-American Creation of Generation 1.5 ................................................ 13 2.3.1 Korean Immigration to North America................................................... 13 Canada ............................................................................................... 13 The United States ............................................................................... 15 2.3.2 Characteristics of the Post-1960s Korean Immigrants in North America. 15 Downward Mobility: Self Employment in Small Businesses .............. 15 The Pivotal Role of Korean Christian Churches ................................. 16 Emphasis on Educational Achievement .............................................. 17 Leadership of the First Generation...................................................... 18 2.3.3 The Generation 1.5 Phenomenon............................................................ 19 Adolescent Korean Immigration......................................................... 20 Parents’ Socioeconomic Background and Children’s Functional  Bilingualism and Biculturalism .......................................................... 21 The Centripetal and Centrifugal Nature of the Korean-American  Community ........................................................................................ 21 The Adhesive Adaptation Mode of the First Generation ..................... 22 2.4 Generation 1.5 Research ................................................................................ 22 2.4.1 Identity and Generation 1.5 .................................................................... 22  v Generation 1.5 Korean Immigrants’ Identity Changes across  Time and Place................................................................................... 26 2.4.2 Generation 1.5 and Language Learning .................................................. 28 Generation 1.5 in Higher Education.................................................... 28 Not All ESL Students are Created Equal ............................................ 28 Efforts for Improvement..................................................................... 30 2.4.3 The Gap in the Literature ....................................................................... 31 2.5 Language Socialization.................................................................................. 32 2.5.1 Second Language Socialization and Generation 1.5 Language Learners . 34 2.6 Language and Identity ................................................................................... 35 2.7 Summary ....................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................. 39 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 39 3.2 Qualitative Case Study Research.................................................................... 39 3.3 Research Context ........................................................................................... 42 3.4 Participants.................................................................................................... 43 3.4.1 Recruitment ........................................................................................... 43 3.4.2 Profile of Participants............................................................................. 44 3.5 Data Collection.............................................................................................. 45 3.5.1 Background Questionnaire ..................................................................... 45 3.5.2 Individual Interviews ............................................................................. 46 3.5.3 Group Interviews with Students ............................................................. 46 3.5.4 Interviews with First-Year English Course Instructors............................ 47 3.5.5 Field Notes............................................................................................. 48 3.5.6 Researcher’s Reflection Journal ............................................................. 48 3.5.7 Email, Web Messenger Exchanges, and Personal Meetings.................... 49 3.5.8 Students’ Personal Writings ................................................................... 49 3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 51 3.7 Trustworthiness and Ethical Considerations................................................... 53 3.7.1 Triangulation and Member Checks......................................................... 53 3.7.2 Other Strategies for Demonstrating Trustworthiness............................... 55 3.7.3 Generalizability...................................................................................... 55 3.7.4 Ethical Concerns and Researcher-Participant Relationship ..................... 56 3.8 Summary ....................................................................................................... 59 Chapter 4 LEARNING TO NEGOTIATE MULTIPLE INVESTMENTS:  YELLINA AND SHEILA ........................................................................ 61 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 61 4.2 Students’ Backgrounds .................................................................................. 61 4.2.1 Yellina ................................................................................................... 62 4.2.2 Sheila..................................................................................................... 63  vi 4.3 Life in Secondary School............................................................................... 64 4.3.1 Yellina ................................................................................................... 64 Korean Peer Influences on Social, Linguistic, and Academic Choices 64 Fierce Competition among Korean Students and their Parents ............ 67 4.3.2 Sheila..................................................................................................... 70 A Struggle to Belong.......................................................................... 70 Change of Academic Path: From English to Science .......................... 74 4.4 Life in University........................................................................................... 76 4.4.1 Continued Influence of Korean Peers ..................................................... 77 Yellina: “They all said I was crazy” ................................................... 77 Sheila: “They asked me why I was trying so hard” ............................. 80 4.4.2 New and Continued Dilemmas............................................................... 82 Yellina: A New View towards Learning English ................................ 83 Sheila: “I feel like I need to prove myself” ......................................... 86 4.4.3 Negotiating Change................................................................................ 89 Yellina: A More Proactive Approach to Improving English................ 89 Sheila: Finding Alternative Opportunities to Use English ................... 91 4.5 Summary and Discussion............................................................................... 92 Chapter 5 NEITHER A “FOB” NOR A “BANANA”: HANNAH, JOON,  AND MIKE............................................................................................ 100 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 100 5.2 Students’ Backgrounds ................................................................................ 101 5.2.1 Hannah ................................................................................................ 101 5.2.2 Joon ..................................................................................................... 101 5.2.3 Mike .................................................................................................... 102 5.3 Detachment from “FOBs”............................................................................ 103 5.3.1 “FOBs” in High School........................................................................ 103 Hannah: “I wanted to completely shed my Korean identity”............. 103 Joon: “I felt out of place” ................................................................. 106 5.3.2 “FOBs” in University........................................................................... 108 Mike: “We were the FOBs”.............................................................. 108 Hannah and Joon: “Stop the Minoritizing” ....................................... 112 5.4 Rejecting the “Banana” Label ...................................................................... 115 5.4.1 Hannah ................................................................................................ 116 5.4.2 Joon ..................................................................................................... 119 5.4.3 Mike .................................................................................................... 121 5.5 Summary and Discussion............................................................................. 122 Chapter 6 REACHING THEIR GOALS THROUGH ENGLISH:  GILBERT AND YURI........................................................................... 135 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 135  vii 6.2 Students’ Backgrounds ................................................................................ 135 6.2.1 Yuri ..................................................................................................... 135 6.2.2 Gilbert ................................................................................................. 136 6.3 Goals in Secondary School .......................................................................... 137 6.3.1 Yuri ..................................................................................................... 137 Improving English by Being Noticed................................................ 137 Giving Back to Her Parents .............................................................. 139 6.3.2 Gilbert ................................................................................................. 141 Academic Scholarship...................................................................... 141 Fulfilling a Son’s Duties................................................................... 143 6.4 Goals in University ...................................................................................... 146 6.4.1 Yuri ..................................................................................................... 146 Preparing to Become a Teacher ........................................................ 146 Living a Good Christian Life............................................................ 148 6.4.2 Gilbert ................................................................................................. 150 Training to Become a Medical Professional...................................... 150 Being a Patriotic Korean .................................................................. 153 6.5 Discussion and Summary............................................................................. 156 Chapter 7 BECOMING A “PIONEER” GENERATION:  A CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS................................................................ 164 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 164 7.2 Being a Non-Native Speaker........................................................................ 165 7.2.1 High School ......................................................................................... 165 7.2.2 University ............................................................................................ 166 Dreadful Memories of First-Year English Courses ........................... 168 7.3 Broader Contextual Factors Influencing Students’ Experiences.................... 172 7.3.1 English Speaking Canada..................................................................... 173 7.3.2 Multicultural Canada and Vancouver ................................................... 173 7.3.3 Transnationalism and Trends in Return Migration................................ 176 7.3.4 The Status of English in Korea and the World...................................... 177 7.3.5 Constructing Views of Korea through Internet Sources ........................ 178 7.4 “We are Not a Lost Generation” .................................................................. 180 7.5 “We are a Pioneer Generation” .................................................................... 182 7.6 Describing Generation 1.5 in their Own Words............................................ 183 7.7 Discussion and Summary............................................................................. 185 Chapter 8 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS................................................. 194 8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 194 8.2 Summary of Findings................................................................................... 194 8.3 Contributions to Theory............................................................................... 197 8.3.1 Language Socialization ........................................................................ 197  viii 8.3.2 Language and Identity.......................................................................... 200 8.3.3 Studies on Generation 1.5 Students in Applied Linguistics................... 202 8.4 Implications................................................................................................. 203 8.4.1 Policy................................................................................................... 203 8.4.2 Pedagogy ............................................................................................. 206 Examining Assumptions and Expectations of NNS Students ............ 206 Reexamining Constructs of Current Day Generation 1.5  Language Learners........................................................................... 210 8.5 Limitations of the Study............................................................................... 212 8.6 Directions for Further Research ................................................................... 213 8.7 Concluding Remarks.................................................................................... 215 References .................................................................................................................. 217 Appendix A Recruitment Notices ............................................................................... 239 Appendix B Background Questionnaires.................................................................... 243 Appendix C Consent Forms ....................................................................................... 251 Appendix D Interview Questions................................................................................ 260 Appendix E Transcription Conventions...................................................................... 263 Appendix F List of Acronyms.................................................................................... 264 Appendix G Research Approval Notice...................................................................... 265   ix List of Tables Table 3.1   General Profile of the Students .................................................................... 45 Table 3.2   Methods and Sources of Data....................................................................... 50 Table 5.1   Reasons for Detachment from "FOBs” and Rejection of “Banana” Label... 123    x List of Figures Figure 4.1    Yellina’s Investments in Languages and Identities..................................... 98 Figure 4.2    Sheila’s Investments in Languages and Identities ...................................... 99 Figure 5.1    Hannah’s Investments in Languages and Identities .................................. 133 Figure 5.2    Joon’s Investments in Languages and Identities....................................... 133 Figure 5.3    Mike’s Investments in Languages and Identities ...................................... 134 Figure 6.1    Yuri’s Investments in Languages and Identities ....................................... 162 Figure 6.2    Gilbert’s Investments in Languages and Identities ................................... 163 Figure 7.1    Contextual Factors Influencing Students’ Experiences............................. 193   xi Acknowledgements As I look back on my academic journey, I am overwhelmed with gratitude and appreciation for numerous individuals without whom I would not be where I am today. I would like to acknowledge these wonderful individuals whose support, encouragement, and dedication made this dissertation possible.  First, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the students who participated in this study. Thank you for granting me the privilege to enter your lives and for sharing with me your invaluable insights and experiences as Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian youth. Your genuine interest and support for my research inspired me to push forward during times of frustration and uncertainty. 이 연구를 통해 여러분을 알게 된 것을 영 광으로 생각합니다. 진심으로 고맙습니다. I would also like to thank the three instructors who participated in this research, whose insights contributed greatly towards better understanding some of the crucial issues discussed in this dissertation.  I am most indebted to the members of my research committee, who have provided me with great support, guidance, and mentorship throughout each step of my doctoral studies. In particular, I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Patricia Duff, whose patience, expertise, and intellectual wisdom have helped me realize my goal. Dr. Duff, you are truly an inspirational scholar and human being, and as I now embark on the next step of my academic journey, you will no doubt be the role model that I will dare seek to emulate. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Drs. Bonny Norton and Margaret Early for their faith in my work, thoughtful expert advice, and continuous encouragement. A colleague once said to me that I had a “Golden Committee,” and I could not agree with him more. It has been a true honor and privilege to have worked with the members of my committee, and I thank each of them from the bottom of my heart. I am also thankful to my external examiner, Dr. Sarah Shin, university examiners Drs. Victoria Purcell-Gates and Ross King, and chair Dr. Steven Taubeneck for their time in reading this dissertation and for offering their perceptive comments and suggestions.  My appreciation is also extended to the faculty, staff, and colleagues within the Department of Language and Literacy Education, particularly to Dr. Geoff Williams, Dr. Steven Talmy, and Anne Eastham, for their support and help at various stages of my doctoral studies. I also wish to acknowledge individuals from my earlier academic career who encouraged and inspired me to pursue my path as an academic in the field of second language education. These include Drs. Duk-Ki Kim, Myung-Hye Huh, and Do-Seon Eur at Korea University and Drs. Graham Crookes, Richard Day, James Dean Brown, and the late Dr. Craig Chaudron at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Special thanks goes out to Kenton Harsch, my former boss and now dear friend and colleague from the English Language Institute at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, whom I believe exemplifies the kind of ELT professional one should aspire to be.  xii I am also most grateful to my friends and colleagues at UBC and elsewhere, in particular Dr. Joe Greenholtz, Ena Lee, Diane Potts, Sandra Zappa-Hollman, Martin Guardado, Jeremie Seror, Won Kim, Ling He, Lei Hong, and Bill McMichael. Thank you so much, everyone; I could not have made it this far without your undying support and friendship. I wish to say a special ‘고맙습니다’ to my dear friend Mi-Young Kim, who came to the rescue whenever I was in need of any kind of help. 미영언니, 언니의 존재만으로도 얼 마나 큰 힘이 됐는지 모르실 거에요. 진심으로 감사합니다. Additionally, to all my dear friends at St. John’s College, especially Mariel Lavieri, Muhannad Al-Darbi, Daniel Olmos, and Mathabo Tsepa, thank you for being my family away from home for the last five years. Particularly to my dearest friend Sayra Cristancho; what a great joy and honor it has been to have shared my Ph.D. journey with you. Muchas gracias! To my ‘gals’ Julie Kim and Young-Kyong Kim; thanks for always being there for me and for reminding me that there is a life outside of school. To my best friend, SNK, thank you for helping me maintain my sanity through it all, holding my hand and walking patiently with me to reach that light at the end of the tunnel. “Elephant shoe.”  To my family, my gratitude is beyond words. My parents have always believed in me and have given me unconditional love and support throughout this entire journey. 한없이 부 족한 딸을 언제나 최고로 생각해 주시고 격려해 주신 부모님께 진심으로 감사 드립 니다. I also want to thank my wonderful sisters Jiyeon and Nayeon and my brother-in- law Sungvin for their endless support and encouragement. A big hug goes out to my adorable nephew Sunwoo, who made me laugh when I needed it most. And finally, I want to thank my loving grandmother, who has always been and will continue to be the biggest inspiration of my life. Although she passed away mid-way through my doctoral studies, I know her spirit has been my guardian angel through it all and that she is looking down on me right now with immense pride and joy. 가슴 사무치게 그리운 외할머니, 고맙습니다. 그리고 영원히 사랑합니다.  Lastly, I gratefully acknowledge the University Graduate Fellowship, the St. John’s College Itoko Muraoka Fellowship, and the St. John’s College George Shen Fellowship, which have significantly supported my doctoral studies for three years. I also wish to thank the financial support provided by the following: Joseph Katz Memorial Scholarship, The Korean Honor Scholarship, the Vancouver Korean-Canadian Scholarship, and other various travel awards provided by the Faculty of Education and the Department of Language and Literacy Education.  xiii  In loving memory of my grandmother, Lee Bok-Hee  이 논문을 나의 사랑하는 외할머니 이복희 여사의 영전에 바칩니다.      1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose of Study The increasing number of immigrants in North America has changed the demographics of its schools. In Canada, there has been a steady increase in the number of child immigrants since the 1990s, and recent census data reveal that 21% of the 1.1 million who immigrated between 2001 and 2006 were school-aged children 14 and under (Statistics Canada, 2006a).1 As a result, those who speak ESL make up 20-50% of the student body in secondary schools across major urban cities, including Calgary, Toronto, and Vancouver (Watt & Roessingh, 2001). In the province of British Columbia alone, students whose primary home language is not English increased from 15.4% in 1995 to 20.7% in 2005. In Vancouver, as of June, 2005, 55.5% of its elementary schools’ populations and 47% of its secondary schools’ populations were ESL speakers (Gunderson, 2007). A similar situation exists in the United States, which now has the largest number of children and adolescent immigrants in its history: 10.5 million--that is, one in five students in Grades K-12--are children of immigrants. And of these students, one quarter is foreign born (Fix & Passel, 2003).2 Over the last four decades, there has been a significant amount of research on issues pertaining to the post-1960s immigrants in North America. From the early 1970s to the mid-1980s, studies focused exclusively on the economic and psychological adjustment of the first generation (Danico, 2004). Since the late 1980s social scientists  1 According to Statistics Canada 1986 and 1991, school aged children made up 14% and 15% of the total immigrant population during 1980-1986 and 1986-1991, respectively. Of the 1.8 million who immigrated to Canada in the 1990s, 17% were school-aged children (Statistics Canada, 2001). This steady increase in the number of school-aged immigrants may be attributable to many families’ desires to provide a better educational environment for their children. This is also the case for most Korean immigrant families, as will be discussed in Chapter 2 as well as in Chapters 4 to 6, where I will introduce the individual participants of the study. 2 These numbers are based on the 2000 U.S. census data. The next census will be conducted in 2010, which may show different numbers.  2 have expanded their areas of immigrant research to include the children of post-1965 immigrants, namely the second generation. In particular, from the mid-1990s, the availability of census data has allowed for a growing number of systematic, empirical studies on the second generation, although such studies have primarily focused on children below the post-secondary educational level and their issues with ethnic and sociocultural identity (e.g., Jo, 2002; Min &Hong, 2002; Portes & MacLeod, 1999; Rumbaut, 2000). However, despite this vast body of work on the post-1960s immigrants, the research literature has long neglected a particular group of immigrants, namely those foreign-born children who immigrated to their host country with their first generation- immigrant parents who have come to be known as Generation 1.5 students (Rumbaut & Ima, 1988). Although the Generation 1.5 population has been in existence since the first generation of post-1960s immigrants, it has been only in the last decade or so that they started gaining recognition and acknowledgement as a salient and distinct group (Danico, 2004). Regardless, until relatively recently, most research on immigrant education, including Generation 1.5 students, has been limited to K-12 students (Crisostomo & Dee, 2001), and issues pertaining to immigrant students have not received much consideration within the higher education research literature (Roberge, 2001). Since about a decade ago, the changing demographics of North American schools mentioned above has focused attention on Generation 1.5 students in higher education within the applied linguistics literature due to the significant growth in the number of students who graduate from North American high schools and enter post-secondary institutions while still in the process of learning English as their second language (Harklau, Siegal, & Losey 1999).3 However, despite the gradual increase in references to Generation 1.5 learners in the applied linguistics literature, in reality, they are often underrepresented and misconstrued or simply homogenized with members of the second generation, or in ESL contexts, with international students. And as Talmy (2005) notes, when they are recognized as a distinct  3 However, as Harklau et al. (1999) note, because most universities do not possess formal records of students’ native languages, the exact number of ESL students at post-secondary institutions is unclear.  3 group, they are often perceived as a problematic group who are caught in between two cultural and linguistic worlds. Within the still-growing applied linguistics literature on Generation 1.5 students, much of the published work has looked at this population within the U.S academic context (e.g., Blumenthal, 2002; Chiang & Schmida, 1999; Harklau, 2000; Harklau, Losey & Siegal, 1999; Leki, 1999; Miele, 2003; Roberge, 2001; Schwartz , 2004; Singhal, 2004; Stegemoller, 2004; Talmy, 2005, 2008; Oudenhoven, 2006; Yi, 2005). In Canada, although several important studies (e.g., Duff, 2001; Early, 1989; Gunderson, 2007; Roessingh & Kover, 2002; Toohey, 1992, 2005; Toohey & Derwing, 2006; Toohey & Gajdamaschok, 2005) have looked at ESL immigrant students’ educational experiences, there is still a lack of research that specifically examines Generation 1.5 university students within Canadian higher education contexts.4 Elson (1992) asserts that due to exams that pre-screen students’ English proficiency levels, post-secondary institutions often assume that students have already acquired an adequate level of English prior to admission and believe that such language proficiency tests will relieve them of “the responsibilities to provide the language development framework that is the right of the students” (p. 111). Statistics Canada’s (2006b) “Youth in Transition Survey” seems to also support this view.5 On one of the multiple choice items, students were asked to indicate possible factors that might interfere with their future educational goals. Possible choices included financial situation, health, and lack of interest, among others, but linguistic difficulties (in either English or French--the two official languages of Canada) were not among these selections. This seems to reflect the belief that language proficiency is not a variable that may affect a student’s academic achievement. In addition, the increasing focus on internationalization of many Canadian universities seems to convey a lack of interest in the immigrant student  4 Some of these studies looked at both 1.5 and second generation immigrants and did not specifically use the term Generation 1.5 to describe the foreign-born immigrant students in their research. 5 The Youth in Transition Survey (YITS) was developed by the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Statistics Canada to examine the educational, training, and work experiences of Canadian youth (Statistics Canada, 2006b).  4 population. In a published report by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2001), recruiting international students was stated as a means for economical benefits as well as to bring “an international perspective and more diversity to the classroom” (p. 3). While the internationalization of campuses is indeed likely to bring such features, post-secondary institutions should also acknowledge the heterogeneity of their own domestic students, including immigrant students, who also bring experiences that could make valuable contributions to the diversity of their institutions. Results from Statistics Canada’s 2000 “Youth in Transition Survey” indicated that immigrant teenagers were more eager to receive higher education than their non- immigrant peers (Kopun, 2006). In addition to such findings, when considering the number of immigrant ESL students who are already a significant part of Canadian secondary schools (Watt & Roessingh, 2001; Gunderson, 2007), and when considering that this number will only continue to increase in the future (Friesen, 2006), it is crucial to recognize that these students will also become an important part of the student body within post-secondary institutions. It is also necessary to note that among these students, many are likely to still be in the process of acquiring linguistic skills in English. This is because although basic communicative competence can generally be acquired in 2-3 years, it can take up to seven or more years before ESL learners can catch up with their native speaker (NS) peers in terms of academic language proficiency (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1981). Thus, to assume that immigrant university students are no longer faced with challenges related to English could place them in a sink or swim situation (Kiang, 1993). In this respect, institutions need to take on the ethical and educational responsibility to first acknowledge the presence of immigrant ESL students in their classrooms and to make efforts to closely examine the students’ experiences, needs, and goals in order to assist them in meeting their educational objectives. Such efforts are not only in the students’ and the institutions’ best interests but also in the best interests of society as a whole. In light of the above discussions, this study examines the language learning experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students in Vancouver,  5 Canada. I have chosen Korean-Canadian students for several reasons. First, Koreans are one of the most rapidly growing immigrant groups in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2006a) and are the fourth largest non-European immigrant group in Vancouver. Moreover, 35% of Koreans who immigrated between 1996 and 2000 were in the 5-19 age group (Statistics Canada, 2006a), which indicates that Generation 1.5 youth are a significant part of the overall Korean immigrant population in Canada. Moreover, Korean immigrant youth are likely to be a considerable part of the student body at Canadian universities when considering that children’s educational achievement (especially attending a good university) is the number one reason for Korean families to immigrate to North America (Moon, 2003; Yoon, 2001). Second, I have chosen Korean students as they are part of a racial minority group that has received relatively little attention within the higher education community compared to other ethnic minority students. Suzuki (1994) asserts that due to the “model minority” stereotype, Asian immigrant students have been believed to have few, if any, educational needs in higher education.6 He further notes that “to even suggest that serious problems exist for Asian Americans in higher education may seem to border on the absurd to many people, especially educators” (p. 259). Yet such perceptions have only perpetuated the essentialized view of all Asian immigrant students and have resulted in a lack of effort to examine their educational needs within higher education. Finally, I was motivated to conduct research on Generation 1.5 Korean- Canadian students based on my personal background and experiences. As a Korean international student in Canada (who studied in North American primary and secondary schools for some years), I was interested in and committed to understanding the educational experiences of Korean-Canadian youth.7  6 The “model minority” stereotype emerged in the 1960s in the United States, which depicted Asian- Americans as hardworking overachievers who excelled in math and sciences (Zhou and Lee, 2004). It was in stark contrast to the “yellow peril” view of Asian-Americans that was prevalent prior to the 1960s, during which Asians were seen as “clannish, unassimilable aliens . . . cultures backward, corrupt, or simply negligible” (p. 10). 7 A detailed discussion of my researcher-participant relationship is included in Chapter 3.  6 1.2 Research Questions This study examines the academic, linguistic, and sociocultural experiences of a group of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students. In particular, it explores how the students were influenced by various socializing agents within their local and global contexts to form beliefs, ideologies, and goals towards learning and use of their first, second, and sometimes their third languages (L1, L2, L3). The study also investigates the extent to which an examination of the experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students can contribute to new understandings of Generation 1.5 language learners. The following questions have guided the study: 1) What are the contextual factors that shape the language socialization (LS) processes and outcomes of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students? 2) How do such contextual factors influence the students’ investments in their identities and language learning and use, and how are these investments manifested in their everyday lived experiences? 3) To what extent do the perspectives and experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean- Canadian university students help to refine and extend current conceptions of Generation 1.5 language learners? 1.3 Significance of the Study Most of the applied linguistics research pertaining to Generation 1.5 university students has examined these students’ experiences within college/university ESL, composition, or academic writing programs. While this study also looks at students’ experiences in their university English courses, it goes beyond this setting and explores other micro- and macro-level contextual factors that affect students’ language learning and use in their L1, L2, and sometimes L3. Therefore, this study yields a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of the students’ experiences situated within contemporary Canada and the world. As a result, it is hoped that this study will contribute to a reconceptualization of today’s Generation 1.5 language learners whose experiences may differ substantially from those of previous generations of immigrants in North  7 America. The study also aims to provide important implications for educators and policy makers to help Generation 1.5 students meet their educational goals and needs. Furthermore, by tracing the students’ trajectories since their arrival in Canada, this study examines the interplay between the various contextual factors within their past, present, and (imagined) future, which contributes to a broader understanding of the complexities involved in LS processes. Finally, by addressing the gap in the Generation 1.5 student-related literature (particularly in higher education) in the Canadian context, this study seeks to make significant contributions to the applied linguistics literature on Generation 1.5 language learners. That is, the study aims to identify aspects of students’ experiences that are unique to the Canadian context, as well as to Korean-Canadian youth, and to also examine findings that are shared with those of U.S-based studies, thereby expanding our overall understanding of today’s Generation 1.5 immigrant students’ educational experiences, needs, and possibilities. 1.4 Organization of the Dissertation This dissertation consists of eight chapters. Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides a review of Generation 1.5-related studies drawing from the fields of applied linguistics, sociology, and migration and ethnic studies. In particular, because this research focuses on the experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean immigrant youth in Canada, the chapter presents a broad and in-depth overview of some of the most salient characteristics and issues pertaining to this group within the North American context. Moreover, it identifies the gap in the Generation 1.5-related applied linguistics literature that warrants further investigation. Finally, the chapter provides a brief overview of LS and language and identity (and related literature), two perspectives that have guided my dissertation research. Chapter 3 describes the qualitative multiple-case study methodology, which was the selected method of inquiry for this dissertation research. The chapter also discusses the research setting, participants, data collection and analysis procedures, trustworthiness of the study, and other ethical considerations. In the three chapters that follow, the cases of the seven student participants are introduced and discussed in depth. Based on similar  8 themes that emerged among the seven individual cases, two or three of the students’ cases were combined in each of the analytic chapters, 4, 5, and 6. Chapter 4 introduces Yellina and Sheila’s cases through an in-depth analysis of their interview data and other relevant data sources. It examines the ways in which these two women have been socialized into various beliefs and ideologies towards English language learning and use and heritage language maintenance in the contexts of their past, present, and (imagined) future. It also looks at the women’s negotiation of investments (Norton, 2000) in languages and identities and how these investments were manifested in their everyday practices. The chapter also identifies similarities between as well as the uniqueness of the individual cases. Chapter 5 investigates the cases of Hannah, Joon, and Mike. Following the same format as Chapter 4, this chapter discusses some of the major socializing agents that were involved in the students’ LS processes and particularly focuses on the theme of positioning as it related to the students’ experiences. In Chapter 6, the cases of Yuri and Gilbert are introduced. As in the previous two chapters, the data are analyzed to identify the contextual factors that came into play within the students’ LS processes. In particular, this chapter is organized around the theme of ‘goals’ and how these goals resulted in the students’ constant negotiations of their investments in multiple identities as well as in their L1, L2, and sometimes their L3. Chapter 7 synthesizes the findings from all seven of the individual cases and identifies the major themes that emerged through a cross-case analysis. This chapter also identifies the broader and more global contextual factors that influenced the students’ socialization processes and looks at the ways in which the seven participants themselves described today’s Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian youth. Chapter 8 summarizes the findings of the research and discusses the theoretical contribution of this study. It also presents implications for policy and pedagogy, and limitations of the study. The chapter ends with suggested directions for future research on Generation 1.5 language learners.  9 Chapter 2 GENERATION 1.5 COMMUNITIES, SECOND LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION, AND IDENTITY 2.1 Introduction This chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part of this chapter, I will examine some of the defining characteristics of Generation 1.5 learners/populations in relation to their sociocultural, linguistic, and academic experiences. Through this process, I seek to historicize this generation by discovering the socio-political and economic contexts within which they emerged as well as how they are situated in the context of present day and future society. In particular, as my dissertation research examines the experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian students, in this chapter, I will provide an overview of some of the defining characteristics of Generation 1.5 Korean immigrants in North America as well as some of the relevant research pertaining to this group. However, in doing so, I do not claim that such characteristics are limited only to the Korean immigrant community nor do I wish to suggest an essentialized view of all Korean immigrants in North America. There are likely to be differences among the various Generation 1.5 populations depending on the groups’ L1, ethnicities, and other external factors, including social, political, and economic conditions, and place of settlement, among others. Even among Korean immigrants, different contextual factors will result in a broad range of experiences for different Generation 1.5 students. Regardless, findings from studies pertaining to Generation 1.5 Korean immigrants may have implications for other non-Korean Generation 1.5 immigrant groups with regard to their sociocultural and academic experiences and may help identify areas that require further research. Additionally, in suggesting the areas for further investigation regarding Generation 1.5 students, I identify gaps in the applied linguistics literature and call for more studies that understand Generation 1.5 language learners’ issues in relation to both the immediate and broader contextual factors in which their experiences are embedded.  10 In the second part of this chapter, I introduce the perspectives of language socialization (LS) and language and identity, two approaches that have guided my study towards understanding Generation 1.5 language learners’ issues from a holistic and socially situated viewpoint. I provide examples of recent prominent works that have elaborated or adopted such perspectives, and discuss how they have directed my own dissertation research. 2.2 Definition of Generation 1.5 Although many scholars have made reference to Generation 1.5 students over the years, there is a lack of consensus about whom exactly this population is comprised of. The term Generation 1.5 was first used in the Korean-American community to describe immigrants who arrived as children (Danico, 2004; Roberge, 2002). Ilchŏmo-se, which literally means Generation 1.5 in Korean, is commonly used in the Korean and Korean- American media as well as in print and on-line publications, and has spread to other Korean immigrant communities, including those in Canada and Australia. A more thorough discussion of the Korean immigrant communities’ notions of Generation 1.5 will take place in a later section of this chapter. In the educational research context, Rumbaut and Ima (1988) first used this term to describe the challenges faced by Southeast Asian refugee youth in adapting to their new culture in the U.S. Their description of Generation 1.5 is as follows: ‘1.5’ generation [. . .] are neither part of the ‘first’ generation of their parents, the responsible adults who were formed in the homeland, who made the fateful decision to leave it and to flee as refugees to an uncertain exile in the United States, and who are thus defined by the consequences of that decision and by the need to justify it; nor are these youths part of the ‘second’ generation of children who are born in the U.S., and for whom the ‘homeland’ mainly exists as a representation consisting of parental memories and memorabilia, even though their ethnicity may remain well defined (p. 22). There are especially mixed views among researchers regarding the exact age at time of immigration that would qualify one as a Generation 1.5. In 1990, Portes and  11 Rumbaut used the term one and a half generation to refer to foreign-born youth who immigrated to the U.S. before the age of twelve. They refer to this group as one and a half because they possess traits of both the first and second generation and are often caught between two worlds. However, they do not provide an explanation for why twelve is the maximum age to be included in the group. Following Portes and Rumbaut, Chiang- Hom (2004) also defines Generation 1.5 as those who arrived during their primary school years, while those who arrived after puberty are considered the first generation. Zhou (2004), on the other hand, notes that although Generation 1.5 includes those who immigrated to the U.S. prior to adolescence, this group is sometimes categorized together with the new second generation (U.S.-born children of the first generation) based on similar linguistic, sociocultural and developmental experiences. Some scholars, including Vigil, Yun, and Cheng (2004) and Lay (2004), do not differentiate between those who arrived prior to or after adolescence, and all those who immigrated before or during secondary school are given the generic label of “immigrant youth.”  In contrast, Gans (2000) goes as far as dividing foreign-born youth into three groups: Generation 1.25, Generation 1.5, and Generation 1.75, although such distinctions are rather uncommon in the literature.8 There are also various working definitions of who makes up this population in the Korean-American studies literature. For example, according to Hurh (1993), Generation 1.5 immigrants are “bilingual and bicultural . . . who immigrated. . . in early or middle adolescence, generally between the ages of eleven and sixteen” (p.19). This age range is based on the ability of the person to have acquired proficiency in the English language as well as familiarity with American culture. At the same time, they have acquired and have the ability to maintain their level of Korean language proficiency as well as their memories of Korean culture. Danico (2004) defines Generation 1.5 Korean-American immigrants as those who were born in Korea and immigrated to the U.S. with their  8 Gans (2000) refers to Generation 1.5 as those who immigrate as youngsters and who receive some or most of their education in the U.S. However, he does not provide the exact age of immigration that would categorize these youngsters into Generation 1.25, 1.5, and 1.75, respectively.  12 families before the age of 13, have memories of Korea, and are consciously bicultural. They are fluent in English and conversational Korean, can inter-mingle Korean, Korean- American and local ethnic expressions, and have an appreciation of Korean culture.9 She does not limit the minimum age of immigration but does choose 13 as the maximum age to define this generation since those who immigrated prior to their preteens can “pass” as native born as a result of their non-accented English speech, and can switch between their generational boundaries. That is, the Generation 1.5 individual can “fit in” relatively well in different situations by presenting themselves as first, second, 1.5 generation or as Korean, Korean-American, or local. In this respect, because teen immigrants are less likely to be taken as native born, she excludes them from the Generation 1.5 category. She also argues that the 1.5 generation is clearly different from the second generation since the second generation includes American-born people who speak English as their dominant language and cannot relate to the immigrant experience. On the other hand, Park (1999) places more emphasis on the bicultural/multicultural aspect of the group rather than on their linguistic dimension. She defines Generation 1.5 as those who immigrated as minors (including infants, children, and adolescents) as well as those born in the host country “who practice aspects of biculturalism and multiculturalism” (p. 158). Some researchers simply assume the experiences of the second and 1.5 generation to be the same, and their working definition of Generation 1.5 includes those who immigrated to North America before the age of fourteen (e.g., Lee, 2003).10 For the purpose of my own dissertation research, I have broadly defined this population as immigrant youth who arrived in their host country during their primary or secondary school years. Roberge (2002) argues that a broader and more flexible definition of Generation 1.5 students is needed due to the increasingly diverse nature of language minority communities and the blurred boundaries between such communities. Like Roberge, I do not wish to box Generation 1.5 students within rigid boundaries,  9 In Danico’s (2004) study, “local” culture refers to local Hawaiian culture. 10 This is especially true of second-generation students who grow up speaking their parents’ L1 and not English, especially in ethnolinguistic enclaves.  13 especially considering the hybrid nature of many of their lives. More importantly, however, rather than adapting a clear-cut definition of these students, I seek to give voice to the students who participated in my study, allowing them a chance to describe in their own words 1) who Generation 1.5 immigrants are (in particular, Generation 1.5 Korean- Canadians); 2) what contextual factors led them to such definitions; and 3) what they feel are the salient characteristics of this population. 2.3 Korean-American Creation of Generation 1.5 2.3.1 Korean Immigration to North America In order to understand the historical contexts in which the concept of Generation 1.5 emerged within Korean communities, it is important to understand the history of Korean immigration to North America. Therefore, I will first provide a brief historical overview of Korean immigration to Canada and the United States. Then, I will discuss some of the salient characteristics of post-1960s Korean immigrants in North America.11 Canada Largely due to the short history of Korean immigration to Canada, few studies have investigated the experiences of Korean-Canadians.12 The history of Korean- Canadian immigration can be divided into three waves. The “pioneer” generation, who arrived between 1965 and 1975, was mostly white collar professionals consisting of doctors, nurses, engineers, and academics (including graduate students). The second wave of Korean immigrants was either relatives or families of the first wave of immigrants or independent white/blue collar workers, who first arrived between 1975 and  11 I mark the 1960s as an important turning point as it was during this time that immigration policies excluding Asian immigrants from entering the U.S and Canada were abolished. As a result, it was since the mid 1960s that there has been a drastic increase of Asian immigrants to North America, including Koreans (Min, 1995; Song, 1997). 12 Korean-Canadian diplomatic relations began during the Korean War when Canadian troops were deployed as part of the UN Command. It is believed that the first group of Korean immigrants entered Canada in the 1950s, mainly comprised of war brides and orphans as well as government sponsored orphans. They were listed as “other Asians” prior to 1965, and from the general Canadian public’s perception, Korean identity has been for a long time synonymous with Chinese identity. The Korean- Canadian community was not established until the removal of Canada’s color-conscious immigrant policies in the 1960s (Song, 1997).  14 1985. The final and current wave is characterized as investment Koreans, who began arriving around 1985 and continue to immigrate up to the present. This group of t’ujain (which means investors in Korean) generally operates various businesses, and often spends relatively equal amounts of time in both Korea and Canada.13 Thus, they are often referred to as “astronaut immigrants” by the first two waves of immigrants (Song, 1997).14 According to Statistics Canada (2006a), there currently are about 100,000 Korean immigrants in Canada, the majority of them residing in Toronto or Vancouver.15 More than half of this population have arrived since 1996 and over 35,000 arrived between 2001 and 2006. Today, Koreans are the sixth largest non-European ethnic group in Canada and the fourth largest in Vancouver. It is anticipated that the number of Korean immigrants in Canada will continue to grow as Canada has become the number one destination for Korean emigrants since the late 1990s (Yoon, 2001).16 In addition to its  13 Here, it is important to note that although this group is often referred to as investors, their primary reason for immigration is not limited to economic investment. As will be discussed in a later section of this chapter as well as in Chapters 4-6, educational investment for their children is also one of the most important reasons for immigration for many Korean families. 14 This notion of astronaut immigrants will be explored further in a later discussion of kirŏgi (wild geese) families. 15 Although 100,000 may not be a large number in comparison to the over one million Chinese immigrants in Canada, it is important to note that the number of Korean immigrants has almost doubled since the 1996 census. Since 1999, Canada has been the leading country to which Koreans emigrated, and in 2000 over 60% of all Korean emigrants left for Canada (Yoon, 2001). In 2003, Hyundai Home Shopping, a leading Korean home-shopping channel, sold almost 80 million dollars worth of their “Canada immigration package” in two days. As part of this package, Hyundai included services that would help speed the immigration application process and also help customers to secure jobs in Canada. This package was later criticized for having several flaws, yet until April, 2008, it was recorded as the highest selling item in Korean home-shopping history. 16 There are various explanations for the popularity of Canada as a destination for Korean emigrants. For instance, Han &  Ibbott (2004) claim that the depreciation of the Canadian dollar has resulted in Koreans choosing Canada over the United States, which had been the leading destination for Koreans for over 35 years. Park (2006) explains that relatively less complex immigration procedures, a developed educational and social welfare system as well as the overall high quality of life are some of the reasons Koreans are drawn to Canada. The increased “English language boom” in Korea has also attracted Koreans to other English-speaking countries (like Australia and New Zealand), yet Park claims that Canada is better known among Koreans as a multicultural nation. Thus, many Koreans assume that they will face less racism in Canada compared to other English-speaking immigrant host countries. In addition to these reasons, Kim (2008) suggests that Canada has become an attractive destination for Korean families who are seeking cleaner environments for their children.  15 short history of immigration, Korean immigrants in Canada are also relatively young in age. In 2001, 41% of all Korean-Canadians were 25 or younger. This could be explained by the fact that the majority of Korean immigrants arrived under the independent or business categories and as families, typically consisting of middle-aged parents and their adolescent children. Consequently, 35% of the newly arrived Korean immigrants between 1996 and 2000 were in the 5-19 age group (Statistics Canada, 2006a). The United States The year 2003 marked the centennial year of Korean immigration to the U.S. For the last 100 years, there have been three significant waves of Korean immigrants. The third wave, which began with the Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965, constitutes the majority of Koreans presently residing in the U.S.17 Today, there are over one million Koreans living in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003), although since 1988, there has been a trend of return migration to Korea, especially among the first generation, mostly due to their inability to adjust to life in America, increased quality of life available in Korea, and homesickness (Hurh, 1998; Yoon, 2001).18 2.3.2 Characteristics of the Post-1960s Korean Immigrants in North America Downward Mobility: Self Employment in Small Businesses Most of the new Korean immigrants since 1965 are from urban, middle class families and backgrounds. They were highly educated in Korea, yet due to low job transferability and lack of English proficiency, many experienced downward occupational mobility upon immigration to the U.S. In response to this occupational  17 The first wave started in 1903 when 121 Koreans, 80% of whom were poor, illiterate, Christian bachelors in their 20s and 30s, landed in Hawaii to work in sugar plantations. The second wave of Korean immigrants resulted from the Korean War in 1950, and from 1951 to 1964, most Korean immigrants were the wives of soldiers who fought in the Korean War. An additional 6,300 war orphans were adopted by American families and another 5,000 students also arrived during that time although not much is known about these two groups (Hurh, 1998). 18 Throughout this dissertation, I use the term first generation to refer to those who immigrated to their host country as adults, namely, the parents of the 1.5 and second generation groups.  16 barrier, Koreans have chosen self-employment, making them the highest, in numerical terms, self-employed group of all Asian immigrants in the U.S. (Hurh, 1998). Like the situation in the U.S., the educational and professional credentials of Korean immigrants are often not recognized in the Canadian job market. Thus, despite the fact that among the top ten immigrant groups, Koreans (age 25 and up) have the highest level of education at the time of arrival in Canada (B.C. Stats, 2001), they have limited access to employment opportunities in their original areas of training (Yoon, 2001). Consequently, although most recent immigrants were admitted under the class of entrepreneurs (since 1999, Koreans were the largest group of entrepreneur immigrants in British Columbia), the biggest occupational category of Korean immigrants in Canada is retail and/or small business. Such occupational barriers, lack of language proficiency, and ethnic enclosure may have prevented Korean immigrants, especially the first generation adult immigrants, from assimilating into the larger society.19 Hence, downward mobility is often perceived as one of the most significant sacrifices made by the parents for the sake of their children’s future and a factor which motivates many 1.5 and second- generation Korean youths to excel in their academic and professional careers (Choi, Cranley, & Nichols, 2001).20 The Pivotal Role of Korean Christian Churches The foundations of the Korean-American and Canadian community were built around Korean Christian churches, and they still remain the core of both the religious and sociocultural activities of Korean immigrants. In fact, two thirds of all Korean-Americans are affiliated with a Korean Christian church (Hurh & Kim, 1990, Min, 2000). The Korean church is a place for ethnic solidarity, especially for the first generation. It is also  19 Although the situation has been gradually improving, compared to other immigrant groups, a significantly higher proportion of Koreans (62.3% compared to 50% of overall immigrants between 1996 and 2000) immigrated without any knowledge of the English language. (B.C Stats, 2001) In addition, Min (1995) asserts that compared with other ethnic immigrant groups, rather than branching out, Korean first- generation immigrants tended to remain relatively more separate from the host culture. 20 This phenomenon of downward mobility is not uncommon among many other immigrant groups where immigrant parents are unable to find jobs with the same amount of prestige that they had in their home countries (Iredale, Guo & Rozario, 2003; Louie, 2004).  17 a place where they teach Korean culture and language to their children. This is reflected in the fact that more Korean families with one or more school-aged children attend Korean churches than those without children, in order to provide their children with Korean language and cultural education (Hurh, 1998). The church is also significant to the first generation because this is where their pre-immigrant status and educational backgrounds are recognized and validated. Thus, they are granted a status that they cannot obtain in mainstream society (Song, 1997). However, it is interesting to note that although they still attend church regularly, because many 1.5 and second-generation young adults cannot relate to this need for status and are often dissatisfied with the gender roles of their parents, over 80% of them have left their immigrant parents’ ethnic churches and have gravitated to other churches or ethnic campus ministries (Kim, 2004). Emphasis on Educational Achievement Like many other immigrants from Asia and elsewhere, the most important reason for Koreans’ immigration to the U.S. and Canada is for the education of their children (Hurh, 1998; Moon, 2003; Yoon, 2001).21 This heavy emphasis on education originates from the long history of Confucian teachings in Korea which stress learning as the best way to obtain wisdom and virtue, and the historical legacy of obtaining social mobility through education that is deeply rooted in Korean society. Thus, it is not uncommon for Korean parents to give up a stable life in Korea and emigrate in order to provide better educational opportunities for their children, even if it entails undergoing downward occupational mobility as a result (Kim, 1993). Korean parents view good education as the most secure means to success and often decide where to live (both in Korea and abroad) based mainly on the quality of public schools in the neighborhood, and many send their children to private after-school programs (Min, 1996; Lee & Zhou, 2004). Accordingly, Koreans show the highest rate of residence in suburban neighborhoods among all ethnic minority groups in the U.S. (Hurh, 1998).  21 This emphasis on education can also be found among other ethnic groups and has been discussed in various studies that have looked at the experiences of Vietnamese, Chinese, and Hmong-American immigrants (e.g., Kibria, 1993; Lee, 2004; Louie, 2004).  18 This passion for education has resulted in the high achievement of many Korean- American youth in academics, and they are labeled, along with other Asian-American groups, “model minority” youth (Min, 1995; Silwany, 2007). Many Asian-American youth focus their studies on medicine, business, law, or engineering based on their emphasis on social prestige and economic rewards (Gordon, 2000; Louie, 2004; Pai 1993). Korean youth are no exception, and as Ok and Baek (2000) and Park (2005) assert, most Korean parents desire their children to become doctors, engineers, lawyers or entrepreneurs. However, it is also worth noting here that their concentration on science and technical areas may be attributed to the fact that access to non-academic success is limited because “academic achievement is one of the few routes to social mobility open to Asians in American culture. . . For most Asian youngsters, who see most non- academic pathways to success blocked off, they have ‘no choice’ but to apply themselves in school” (Steinberg, 1996, p. 46). Included in the notion of children’s education is the opportunity for the children to acquire a certain level of English proficiency. Many parents feel that in this era of globalization, their children cannot obtain a competitive level of English proficiency through the Korean educational system (which places too much emphasis on the university entrance exam), and thus decide to emigrate to English-speaking countries. A new type of immigrant group is emerging from this obsession with the English language, where only some members of the family, usually the mother and the children, emigrate while the father stays in Korea and supports his emigrant family financially, creating the kirŏgi family (wild geese family) syndrome (Yoon, 2001). Leadership of the First Generation Unlike many immigrant communities whose leadership is now in the hands of the second or third generation, the leadership of the Korean immigrant community in North America still remains largely in the hands of the first generation (Hurh, 1998). As briefly mentioned above in my discussion of Korean ethnic churches, the first generation is often able to obtain an executive, authoritative, and high-status position, at least within the Korean immigrant community, through voluntary participation in leadership positions.  19 This partially compensates for their downward occupational adjustment, and they feel a sense of honor and pride through financial contributions and the demonstration of leadership skills (Song, 1997).22 In addition, as representatives of their communities, they establish relations with Korean government officials, and thus gain official recognition at public events. On the other hand, the new investment immigrants, who have not experienced as much professional or economic marginalization as the first and second wave of immigrants, are not as motivated to participate in Korean immigrant society. In addition, the children of immigrants do not necessarily face the same obstacles in terms of career opportunities, having been educated within the North American system. Thus, their sense of status may not be limited to the boundaries of the Korean ethnic community. Nonetheless, as a result of the first generation’s central role, the overall Korean-North American immigrant community has a very strong ethnic identity and possesses a strong desire to preserve the Korean language and culture (Min & Kim, 1999; Lee, 2004; Yoon, 1995). 2.3.3 The Generation 1.5 Phenomenon The vast majority of the over one million Korean-Americans live in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and New York City, and accordingly, the term ilchomose (literally meaning Generation 1.5 in Korean) was first used within the Korean-American communities in Los Angeles and New York in the 1970s and was popularized by first- generation Korean community leaders (Hurh, 1998; Park, 1999; Danico, 2004).23 It was in the early 1980s that the editor of the Korea Times (English Edition), K.W. Lee, first wrote about the Generation 1.5 Korean-Americans and described them as a “transitional  22 According to Song (1997), first-generation Korean immigrants, especially those from the first and second wave of immigration to Canada, have accumulated capital as small business operators. Thus, they have substituted wealth as the more significant indicator of social status compared to the traditional symbol of status indicated by one’s profession. 23 Within the Korean context, the concept of Generation 1.5 became more commonly known to native Koreans after a Korean drama, titled Ilchomo (One point Five) aired on one of Korea’s most popular television channels in 1995. The main characters of the drama were Generation 1.5 Korean-American youth, who were depicted as heavily lacking in their knowledge of Korean language and culture.  20 cultural phenomenon before the numerical dominance of the second generation” (Park, 1999, p. 140) within the Korean-American community. Hurh’s (1993) article is the only published work to date that provides an explanation of the context in which this generation emerged. He offers four factors which created the Generation 1.5 phenomenon: 1) the large proportion of adolescent Korean immigrants; 2) functional bilingualism and biculturalism which were facilitated through the parents’ high socioeconomic background; 3) the centripetal as well as centrifugal nature of the Korean-American community; and 4) the first generation’s adhesive mode of adaptation, which implies that regardless of their length of residence in the U.S and their rates of acculturation, the first-generation immigrants are still very attached to their ethnic culture and society. Here, I would like to note that the above four factors are certainly not limited only to the Korean-American community. However, the concept of Generation 1.5 is relatively more well-known and commonly used within Korean immigrant communities even compared to other Asian-American immigrant communities (Park, 1999). For instance, Japanese immigrants are referred to simply as issei, nissei, and sansei (first, second, and third generation, where the second and third generations are those born in their immigrant host countries), while Chinese and South Asian groups often refer to them as the knee- high generation (Danico, 2004). Adolescent Korean Immigration The proportion of adolescent (people under the age of 20) Korean-American immigrants had continuously been the highest among all Asian-American immigrant groups in the US from the early 1970s to the mid 1980s, averaging around 37.9%. Almost 15% of them were between the ages of 10 and 19, which again is a relatively higher proportion than other Asian immigrant groups like Japanese, Chinese, or Filipinos. Thus, considering this large number of adolescent immigrants during the 1970s up to the mid- 1980s, it is not surprising that the term Generation 1.5 was first coined in the early 1980s (Hurh, 1993).  21 Parents’ Socioeconomic Background and Children’s Functional Bilingualism and Biculturalism According to Hurh (1993), the attainment of functional bilingualism and biculturalism involves four socialization or acculturation dimensions for Korean- Americans. These include the enculturation of Korean language and cultural values, which mostly takes place in Korea prior to emigration and the acquisition of English and American values, which are mostly experienced after their immigration to the U.S. Hurh claims that the process of successful socialization of these dimensions is highly dependent on a variety of variables, among which the parents’ socio-economic backgrounds play a significant role. This is true in the case of Korean immigrants who immigrated to the U.S. since the 1970s, as most of them came from relatively high socioeconomic backgrounds and continue to be one of the most highly educated immigrant groups in the U.S. (Hurh, 1998).24 The Centripetal and Centrifugal Nature of the Korean-American Community Korean immigrants, the second generation in particular, are scattered in middle class neighborhoods in the suburbs within the major metropolitan areas (the first generation especially look for areas with a good reputation for public schools). Hurh (1993) refers to this as a centrifugal development, where the second generation has left the immigrant enclaves, both physically and psychologically.25 On the other hand, the first generation is more centripetal, meaning regional immigrant enclaves or “Korea towns” remain a “sociocultural microcosm” (Hurh, 1993, p. 22), where first-generation Koreans share “support, recognition, and a reason for being” (p. 22) and a center for  24 There are significant differences among the first, second and third wave of immigrants. The first and second wave of immigrants did not have high socioeconomic or educational backgrounds and generally did not immigrate with their adolescent children (Hurh, 1998). 25 Hurh claims that this centrifugal development has already been experienced by the Japanese and Chinese immigrant communities, who have a longer immigration history in the U.S.  22 ethnic businesses and sociocultural activities.26 Hence, despite their residence in the suburbs, the first generation still seeks a sense of ethnic community in “Korea town.” The Adhesive Adaptation Mode of the First Generation First-generation Korean immigrants show a strong sense of ethnic attachment, regardless of their length of residence in the U.S. Ryu (1991) suggests that first- generation Koreans believe that unless you die and are buried in a land, you cannot claim that land as home, for home is where your ancestors are buried. Hurh (1993) claims that it is based on this mindset that first-generation immigrants take on the adhesive model of acculturation, where “certain aspects of the new culture and social relations with members of the host society are appended to the immigrants’ traditional culture and social networks, without significantly replacing or modifying them” (Hurh, 1998, p. 165). Therefore, the Generation 1.5 person’s ability to develop and maintain bilingualism and biculturalism was a byproduct of the above adhesive and centripetal adaptation tendencies of the first-generation parents as they expected their Generation 1.5 children to be “linguistic and cultural brokers while remaining loyal to family and ethnic community” (Park, 1999, p. 140). Furthermore, based on their bilingualism and biculturalism, they also expected Generation 1.5 youth to be bridge-builders between the first and second generation.27 2.4 Generation 1.5 Research 2.4.1 Identity and Generation 1.5 Early works on the Generation 1.5 population have often depicted them as a group caught between two worlds. When sociologists Rumbaut and Ima (1988) first coined the term Generation 1.5, it was used to describe the population of Southeast Asian refugee youths they studied in San Diego. They stated:  26 “Korea towns” in major metropolitan cities in the U.S. are now mainly occupied by the Latino immigrant communities (Min, 1996). 27 Kim, Brenner, Liang, & Asay (2003) also report on the bicultural and bilingual characteristics of Generation 1.5 Asian-American university students, who served as cultural brokers for their families.  23 They are those young people who were born in their countries of origin but formed in the U.S. (that is, they are completing their education in the U.S. during the key formative periods of adolescence and early adulthood) . . . They are in many ways marginal to both the new and old worlds, for while they straddle both worlds they are in some profound sense fully part of neither of them (p. 22). For the most part, this image of Generation 1.5 continues till today and Generation 1.5 youth are believed to be a group not fully belonging to either world, hence suffering from an identity crisis (Ryu, 1991). Oudenhoven (2006) suggests that while in the process of “creating new lives, learning new skills, and forging new identities . . . they are often caught between two cultures, two languages, and two identities” (p. 318). Thus, as Talmy (2005) asserts, more often than not, the Generation 1.5 population’s range of identity has been simply confined to two worlds, where they are struggling between two cultures and two languages “with their feet at once in two worlds and in neither” (p. 54). Early Korean-American literature often echoed the above view. For instance, Ryu (1991) characterizes this group as marginalized and claims that “the 1.5 generation can be forever lost, and most of them are lost” (p. 51). As a result of their sense of alienation, they withdraw from social involvement, and in extreme cases, join Korean-American gangs.28 Ryu claims that most Korean-American gangs are indeed made up of Generation 1.5 immigrants because that is where they find a sense of structure, validation, and belonging. The Du-San on-line encyclopedia (one of the best known on-line encyclopedias in Korea) also provides the following essentialized view of Generation 1.5 immigrants (original text in Korean):  28 Lee (2004) investigates the experiences of Hmong-American youth and argues that there is also a strong stereotype that simply confines Hmong immigrant youth to either model minorities or delinquents.  In addition to the model minority/ delinquent dichotomy, Asian-American youth are sometimes stigmatized as either “Fresh off the Boat” (FOB) or a “banana”  The term “FOB” often refers to Asian immigrants who are not yet assimilated to the American way of life (Eble, 1996). On the other hand, “banana” often refers to Asian immigrants who have assimilated to North American ways of life in terms of language, behaviors and values (Kao, 1997). More detailed discussions of these concepts will follow in Chapter 5.  24 This term refers to those Korean immigrant youth in the U.S who are neither the first nor second generation. They exist between the first and second generation and agonize over the question of ‘Who am I?’ Because they immigrated during their adolescent or pre-teen years, they understand both American and Korean cultures and languages. However, this term refers to a ‘wandering generation’ because although they are U.S. citizens they still perceive themselves as Korean; hence, they are unable to adapt to either American or Korean culture. The first generation is busy making a living. The second generation was born and raised in the U.S. and thus identify themselves as American. Therefore, they rarely experience crises as a result of cultural conflicts or linguistic difficulties. On the other hand, Generation 1.5 youths are caught in between two cultures and languages, not knowing what to do (TuSan Encyclopedia, 2006; my translation).29 Hurh (1993), coming from a sociological viewpoint, claims that there are two types of Generation 1.5: 1) a successful cosmopolitan type who has creativity, leadership, a strong sense of Korean-American ethnicity, and is actively involved in both ethnic and mainstream American society and 2) the negative marginalized type who is reserved, socially isolated, exhibits inferiority complexes and hypersensitivity. Although Hurh does not necessarily argue that Generation 1.5 immigrants are caught in between two worlds, he nonetheless provides an extreme, ‘either/or’ perspective of the group. More recently, however, scholars have argued against the essentialization of immigrant youths’ identities, including that of Generation 1.5, claiming that one’s sense of identity is dynamic with multiple dimensions affected by social environments, sociopolitical interests and transnational experiences (e.g., Jo, 2002; Kibria, 2000; Lee, 2001; Lien, Conway, and Wong, 2003; Park, 2001; Roberge, 2002; Talmy, 2005). Some have adapted the notions of hybrid identities or third space (e.g., Bhabha,1990; Kramsch,  29 While interviewing the participants in my study, I asked them to read and provide their thoughts about this description of Generation 1.5 immigrants (I provided both the original Korean text and my own translated English version). I will discuss the students’ reactions to this passage in Chapter 7.  25 2000; Park, 2005; Zentella, 1997) to describe the identities immigrant youths create which go beyond simplified ethnic labels such as Korean, Puerto Rican, or Chinese. Park (1999) investigates the sociocultural, political, and economic contexts in which the identities and definitions of Generation 1.5 Korean-Americans are created. Based on ethnographic interviews with 117 Korean-Americans in their twenties or early thirties, Park suggests that the identities of Generation 1.5 Korean-Americans are fluid and constantly changing. For instance, many of her interviewees claimed to have adopted American, Asian-American, and Korean-American identities at different points in their lives. In this process, they often “demystify images and identities of Korea and the U.S.” (p. 158) and develop a more complex understanding of each country. Thus, Park argues that biculturalism and multiculturalism are the most significant criteria in defining the Generation 1.5 group. For this reason Park claims that even U.S.-born Korean-Americans whose demographic characteristics define them to be second generation could also be seen as culturally Generation 1.5, based on their affiliation with Korean culture and the Korean-American community. He further suggests that the changing structure of the global political economy, the rising economic status of Korea, the post-civil-rights racial structure in the U.S., and the image of Asian-Americans as the “model minority” establish the contexts in which Generation 1.5 Korean-Americans form their own construct of self and community. Danico (2004) also argues that Generation 1.5 immigrants are not caught between two worlds, but rather have the option to identify with and flow between generations and switch their ethnic identities. In her investigation of Generation 1.5 Korean youth in Hawaii, her participants first acquired negative stereotypes of Korean “FOB” immigrants; thus, this shame led them to desire to pass as second-generation Korean-Americans or as “local” Hawaiians. However, through meeting other Generation 1.5 peers, they discovered shared experiences and positive Generation 1.5 identities, found an appreciation for the uniqueness of their group, and tried to create more positive images of the Korean-American community. Although Danico’s work deserves much credit as one of the very few empirical studies examining Generation 1.5 Korean youth, the fact that  26 her participants were investigated within the contexts of Hawaii--a state where the majority of the population are Asians--must be taken into account when considering the positive ethnic identities her participants were able to create. In today’s racialized world, the experiences of Generation 1.5 immigrant youth (Koreans in particular) in Canada or the continental U.S. could be quite different from those in the context of Hawaii.30 Generation 1.5 Korean Immigrants’ Identity Changes across Time and Place The notion of Generation 1.5 was created in the 1980s when the socio-historical contexts of both North America and Korea were clearly different from those of today. Not only were Korean immigrants smaller in number, but their status as an immigrant group or as Asian-Americans was also not as high as it is now. Likewise, post-1965 immigrants differed from the first and second wave of immigrants, whose sense of national identity was quite strong due to the loss of their homeland during Japan’s colonization of Korea or the division of Korea during the Korean War (Cho, 2003). At present, a larger number of Koreans and Asians in North America are generally being recognized as successful immigrants (although this notion of “model minority” is also being problematized). Korea has also emerged as a key player in Asia- Pacific politics and economics. Furthermore, today’s advanced digital technology, means of transportation, and the internet enable immigrants to visit, communicate, and stay in touch with their native homelands far better than they could two decades ago. Many Korean immigrant youth listen to Korean pop music, watch Korean movies and dramas, and search Korean websites. Thus, in a context where it has become much easier to maintain closer ties with the native land, today’s Korean immigrant youth may have a stronger ethnic attachment, and the process of “North Americanization” can be much slower than for not only the first and second waves of Korean immigrants but also the for immigrants of the 1970s and 1980s. Consequently, Hurh (1998) suggests that these  30 For example, in her 2004 study of immigrant Chinese youth (those who immigrated during their adolescent years) in the U.S., Chiang-Hom discovers that her participants did not feel that they had the option to become either Chinese or American. Thus, they were assertive about maintaining their Chinese identity because they either felt that they would never be true Americans based on their race or chose not to identify as Americans because they did not want to lose their distinct identity by being “less Asian.”  27 immigrants are capable of going back “home” anytime. Hence, it is within this global structure that the present day Generation 1.5 Korean youth construct and develop a sense of self and community, and the context in which they create and negotiate their identities may not limited to the immediate physical location they reside in. How Generation 1.5 Korean youth will construct their identities in the future will again depend on the historical framework at that particular time. As images of Asians have developed from the “yellow peril” to the “model minority,” the image of future Asian-North Americans may evolve yet again. The notion of what it means to be Korean may also gradually differ as the socioeconomic contexts of Korea are transformed. Korea is now slowly emerging as a target of immigration for many workers from Southeast Asia.31 In this respect, although certainly not in the immediate future, the gradual increase of immigrant workers may change the current notion of “Koreanness” and what it means to be a true “Korean.” As Fischer (1986) claims, “ethnicity is not something that is simply passed on from generation to generation, taught and learned; it is something dynamic” (p. 195). In this sense, the notion of ethnic identity cannot be simplified or understood within an ahistoric context. Rather, it is continuously being negotiated by individuals within the socio-political, economic, historical context in which they are situated.32 It is this dynamic and complex view of identity that has guided my own study;  31 To date, such immigrant workers face much discrimination and are not granted many of the legal rights of native Koreans, and most Koreans do not view them as legitimate members of Korean society. However, Koreans can no longer deny the existence of these immigrants in their land and the important role they play in the small businesses of the Korean economy. Many of these workers have either married native Koreans or are raising children in Korea, who are attending Korean public schools. Non-governmental organizations in Korea have been battling for the humane and equal treatment of these immigrant workers that will grant them rightful membership in Korean society. Lim (2002) argues that whether Koreans like it or not, Korea has already become a land of immigration. 32 Chun (2004), for instance, examines the dramatic shift in ethnic identity among Chinese-Americans in the 1930s and 1950s. In the former period, many Chinese-Americans chose to return to China due to the racial discrimination they experienced in the U.S. However, during the 1950s, when China turned communist, many Chinese-Americans severed all ties to their homeland and assertively adopted American ideals and an American identity. Thus, Chun argues that this shift in ethnic identity was a result of the social, economical, and political context and constraints experienced by Chinese-American immigrants at that time.  28 thus, I will address the multifaceted nature of Generation 1.5 youths’ identities through the analyses of the data from my own participants. 2.4.2 Generation 1.5 and Language Learning Generation 1.5 in Higher Education The term Generation 1.5 is a relatively new concept in the field of applied linguistics. Issues pertaining to the language education of immigrant students are certainly not new in the field. However, as previously mentioned, most research on immigrant language education has been limited to K-12 students, and research on ESL students, in higher education in particular, has centered almost exclusively on international students (Bosher & Rowekamp, 1992; Crisostomo & Dee 2001; Harklau et al., 1999). Hence, the majority of the literature on ESL students in higher education assumes that international students are “the normative population of ESL classrooms . . . students with limited exposure to U.S. society or the English language” (Harklau et al., 1999, p.2). However, Generation 1.5 students’ language learning experiences and needs may be considerably different from those of international students who are often equipped with relatively more socio-economic and intellectual capital (Roberge, 2001). Not All ESL Students are Created Equal The above perception of ESL students has been reflected in institutional practices, and until about a decade ago, the characteristics and needs of Generation 1.5 students were either unknown or met with complete indifference by many universities and colleges who chose to ignore the pressing concerns of this population of students (Elson, 1992). Gray, Rolph, and Melamid (1996) argue that many institutions have chosen not to distinguish among entering students based on their linguistic backgrounds, which Harklau et al. (1999) further criticize as a result of “institutional reluctance to take on the issue of linguistic diversity” (p. 6). When colleges and universities could no longer ignore the presence of immigrant linguistic minority students on their campuses, ESL classes started being offered to these students. However, these students were often (and still often continue to be) put into classes designed for international students, and the majority of institutions offered ESL  29 classes as non-credit bearing courses that were prerequisites to regular first-year composition classes (Williams, 1995). This assumed homogeneity of ESL students is reflected in pedagogical practices, where Generation 1.5 students categorized as ‘ESL’ students, are constantly positioned as outsiders by ESL class instructors who frequently ask students to write “immigrant narratives” or about “your country” (Harklau, 2000, p. 55).33 In her groundbreaking study on immigrant students’ transition from secondary school to college, Harklau (2000) argues that the trouble with placing Generation 1.5 students in ESL classes is not necessarily in the teaching of academic literacy skills; for, as revealed through Harklau’s participants, many Generation 1.5 students are generally aware that there is always room for more improvement in their English language skills. Rather, resentment towards placement in college ESL classes is ignited when writing programs presume that all their students need cultural orientation, including those Generation 1.5 students who have already experienced North American culture during secondary school. Thus, despite their familiarity with North American culture, Generation 1.5 students are often perceived as cultural novices who need to be introduced to not only the norms of college but also to the norms of acceptable behavior in North American society in general. Although such teachings may be welcomed by international or newly arrived immigrant students, this is often not the case with Generation 1.5 students. In fact, such practices are often insulting to many Generation 1.5 students who had striven to escape the “FOB” stigma frequently attached to ESL students during their high school years (Blanton, 1999; Talmy, 2005). In her study of Latino Generation 1.5 college students, Oudenhoven (2006) states that Generation 1.5 students would rather be enrolled in remedial English classes with native-speaker (NS) students than be placed in ESL classes with international, non-native-speaker (NNS) students. By labeling a person as an ESL learner, there is an underlying assumption that despite the comfortable coexistence of two languages in a person’s life, their primary  33 This is not to imply that ESL classes for international students do not take the students’ various levels and needs into account.  30 affiliation must be with their heritage language, and thus, they will never have ownership of the English language. If one expresses primary affiliation with English, their linguistic and cultural loyalties are questioned. As a result of stereotypes of ESL learners, Chiang and Schmida (1999) argue that many immigrant students view themselves as incapable of ever achieving the fluency of a native speaker. In the case of Asian-American students, they are expected to excel in math and science and are excused when they do not perform well in other subjects that require extensive writing. This leads back to the “model minority” stereotype discussed earlier and how this image of the “science whiz” Asian student can limit the spaces within which these students can develop their academic and professional potential. Efforts for Improvement From the mid to late 1990s onwards, there has been growing recognition and concern about the distinct characteristics of Generation 1.5 students and about how preexisting pedagogical and educational structures and policies, especially those of college ESL and composition/writing programs, did not cater to the needs of these students (Blumenthal, 2002; Duff, 2001; Harklau et al, 1999; Miele, 2003; Roberge, 2001; Oudenhoven, 2006). For example, in his 2001 study of a university writing program’s responses to the increase in immigrant students, Roberge argues that a writing program’s practices could assume a gate-keeping function for Generation 1.5 students acquiring academic literacy by confining them to “a kind of remedial or ‘ESL ghetto’” (p. 378). On the other hand, Miele’s (2003) study reveals a more successful case of a community college’s cross-over program which provided Generation 1.5 students with meaningful, college-level reading and writing classes supplemented by grammar instruction based on data from analyses of the students’ errors. There continues to be research on improving placement practices and curriculum development of college writing programs for Generation 1.5 students (e.g., Schwartz , 2004; Singhal, 2004; Stegemoller, 2004), and supporting these students in writing across the curriculum has also gained increasing interest (e.g., Wolfe-Quintero & Segade, 1999).  31 2.4.3 The Gap in the Literature As discussed above, there has been a growing number of studies examining issues pertaining to Generation 1.5 immigrants over the last decade. However, the majority of these studies fall within the scope of sociology and ethnic studies, and there is still a lack of applied linguistics research that investigates Generation 1.5 students’ experiences, especially within the context of higher education. Furthermore, of those limited studies that examine Generation 1.5 university students’ experiences, most are within the context of academic writing or composition classes at the community college level in the United States (e.g., Burnside, 2006; Crosby, 2007; Nye, 2006; Wurr, 2004). Although such studies offer much insight about placement and instructional practices with regard to Generation 1.5 students, there is also a need to investigate the broader historical, sociocultural, and political contextual factors within which the students’ lived experiences take place. This linking of the ‘micro’ with the ‘macro’ will yield a more in- depth and broader understanding of the students’ language learning experiences. Furthermore, a more holistic understanding of the students’ experiences may allow for the reevaluation of the current notion of Generation 1.5, which is viewed as problematic by some due to its “notably deficit-oriented connotations” (Talmy, 2005, p. 46). Harklau (2003) also argues that all too often, the notion of Generation 1.5 is associated with students in need of some kind of linguistic and cultural remediation. Additionally, Roberge (2002) asserts that referring to a group as 1.5 is problematic because it implies that “these students are somewhere between first and second generation immigrants when, in fact, they may have experiences, characteristics, and educational needs which differ markedly from both of these groups” (p. 108). Thus, with such concerns in mind, I am guided by a holistic and poststructural (Morgan, 2007) perspective towards language learning in examining the experiences of Generation 1.5 students participating in my study. That is, from an epistemological position that believes in the existence of multiple realities that are socially constructed, the purpose of my research is not to discover one ultimate truth that is already out there but rather to co- construct meanings of reality(ies) with those who live it.  32 In the next section, I introduce language socialization theory and the notion of language and identity which are the theoretical perspectives that have informed my research. 2.5 Language Socialization LS concerns the socialization of newcomers through and into the use of language (Schiefflin & Ochs, 1986). Rooted in anthropology, linguistics, sociology, psychology, and education, LS theory emerged out of concerns about perceiving language acquisition from an exclusively cognitive and linguistic point of view (Garrett, 2008; Ochs & Schiefflin, 2008). That is, LS is grounded in the belief that language acquisition cannot be separated from the acquisition of sociocultural knowledge, thereby emphasizing the need to examine “the relationship among language, culture, and society” (Garrett, 2008, p. 190). In this respect, LS theory takes on a more holistic sociocultural approach where the learner is socialized into and through language “not only in the immediate/local discourse context but also in the context of historically and culturally grounded social beliefs, values, and expectations, that is, in socioculturally recognized and organized practices associated with membership in a social group” (Shi, 2006, p. 1). Thus, emphasis is placed on examining contextual factors surrounding one’s language learning both at the micro and macro level. Early works on LS mainly examined the socialization processes through which young children acquired their first language. The first generation of LS researchers produced pioneering studies on child first language socialization in various contexts around the world, including the United States, Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands (Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin, 1990; Watson-Gegeo, 1992). By combining methods typical of psycholinguistic and anthropology research, these studies employed longitudinal, ethnographic approaches to examine the mundane, everyday activities between children and their caregivers. They illustrated how in the process of engaging in everyday interactions with their caregivers, children acquired the different types of languages that are socially and pragmatically appropriate for varying contexts, thereby enabling them to become socioculturally competent members of society.  33 Thus, they demonstrated how language socialization is far more than the mere acquisition of linguistic structures, and these groundbreaking works continue to inspire LS-related studies. However, as Duff (2003) suggests, traditional LS research has perhaps implied a somewhat passive role on the part of the novice/newcomer who undergoes a linear, albeit bi-directional process of socialization by experts or more capable members of society who have “sufficient good will and expertise… to assist, mentor, and accommodate them into the target culture and its practices” (p. 315). Hence, it is assumed that newcomers will internalize new social and linguistic practices through the willing help and facilitation of “old-timer” (experienced) interlocutors. Yet, the early understandings of LS were based on studies within relatively monolingual and homogeneous communities and have thus been problematized somewhat in bilingual or multilingual research settings, which are more reflective of emerging communities in a globalizing world. Therefore, over the years, the spectrum of LS research has broadened from its original examination of first language acquisition among young children to include a wider population of adolescents and adults in bilingual and/or multilingual settings where one is situated in a context of two or more languages and cultures (see Duff & Hornberger, 2008). For example, researchers (e.g., de la Piedra & Romo, 2003; Guadardo, 2008; Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, & Alvarez, 2001; Pease-Alvarez, 2003; Schecter & Bayley, 2002) have investigated language socialization practices within immigrant families in the U.S and Canada. Others have examined language socialization in vocational settings (e.g., Duff, Wong & Early 2000; Li, 2000; McAll, 2003; Roy, 2003; see also Duff, 2008b for a review of current LS research within the vocational setting). Elsewhere, studies have also looked at language socialization within various educational settings (e.g., Duff, 1995, 2001, 2003; He, 2003; Talmy, 2005, 2008), and more recently, with the increasing trend of internationalization within higher education, much attention has been paid to the academic literacy socialization of international students in universities (e.g., Kobayashi, 2003; Morita, 2000, 2002; Morita & Kobayashi, 2008; Séror, 2008; Zappa, 2007).  34 Consequently, through these various works, new developments have been made in depicting the dynamic and multidirectional nature of interactions through which newcomers, along with expert old-timers, co-construct socialization processes, identities, and linguistic practices and ideologies. Throughout these processes, newcomers may sometimes face gate-keeping practices and unequal power relations that hinder their entry into their target communities (Norton, 2000). Additionally, they may also choose to assert their agency to “evaluate and contest target cultural values and beliefs, struggle to broaden their individual agendas, and actively negotiate and reestablish their multiple identities, ideologies, and social networks” (Shi, 2006, p. 9, also see Garrett & Baquendano-Lopez, 2002). And whatever complexities may emerge within the LS process, they are rooted in and influenced by the equally complex nature of sociocultural, historical, and political contexts. 2.5.1 Second Language Socialization and Generation 1.5 Language Learners Among recent LS research, a growing number of studies have addressed the linguistic socialization of immigrant youth within educational settings, although not all of them have explicitly labeled their participants as being Generation 1.5. For instance, Harklau’s (2003) study looks at the socialization practices within a secondary school in the U.S., which created a representation of adolescent immigrants as motivated, hardworking youths but who nonetheless remained as “cultural others” and who were cognitively and linguistically deficient. Duff (2001, 2002, 2004) examines Asian ESL students’ experiences in a secondary school social studies classroom in Canada through which she reveals the difficulties these students underwent far beyond English language skills. For example, students were faced with the challenges of lacking knowledge of contemporary North American pop culture and current affairs and needed to interact with local peers who were not as accommodating or sensitive to their linguistic challenges as their teachers or fellow ESL students. Pon, Goldstein, and Schecter’s (2003) work sheds light on Chinese-Canadian high school students’ classroom experiences where they were often caught in a linguistic double-bind. That is, they were caught between loyalties  35 towards fellow Chinese peers (who discouraged the use of English) and the need to increase English use in order to obtain high grades. Talmy (2005, 2008) explicitly identifies his focal population as Generation 1.5. Through a critical ethnography, he examines Generation 1.5 high school students in Hawaii and the cultural production of ESL in everyday classroom practices. His study is significant in its attempt to situate the students’ experiences in relation to broader contextual factors, including, for example, the political context of Hawaii, past and present institutional structures, and program policies. 2.6 Language and Identity Within the field of language education, the language and identity approach asserts that “language constructs and is constructed by identities” (Liang, 2006 p. 145), and numerous studies have offered various perspectives on the relationship between language and identity. As Duff (2008b) notes, the concept of identity has also been an important part of LS research. For instance, Duff and Uchida’s (1997) study of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers at a postsecondary institution in Japan highlights the teachers’ complex sociocultural identities and how they are manifested in their teaching practices. In her investigation of Japanese graduate students at a Canadian university, Morita (2002) suggests that negotiating their identities was a key element for the students to be recognized as legitimate and competent members of their academic communities. Elsewhere, Schecter and Bayley (1997, 2002) and Guardado (2008) look at the language socialization practices of Hispanic families in North America and how these practices related to the creation and/or maintenance of cultural identity. In addition to adopting LS perspectives in my investigation of the experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students, I am also guided by Norton’s (2000) concept of language and identity, where she defines identity as “how people understand their relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how people understand their possibilities for the future” (p. 5). The notion of investment plays an important role in Norton’s approach to language and identity. She argues that traditional notions of motivation are inadequate for grasping the  36 complicated relationship between power, identity, and language learning because motivation alone does not capture how the learners’ relationship to the target language has been socially and historically constructed. Furthermore, drawing on Bourdieu’s (1977) notion of cultural capital, she argues that if learners invest in a second language, they do so with the understanding that they will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources, which will in turn increase the value of their cultural capital (Norton, 2000, p. 17). In this respect, Norton asserts that an individual’s investment in a target language is in line with their investment in social identity, which constantly changes over time and space. Thus, in her own investigation of immigrant women’s L2 experiences in Canada, she explains that the women’s acts of speaking up or remaining silent in different contexts were reflections of their varying investments in English and their own social identities. McKay and Wong (1996) employ Norton Peirce’s (1995) notion of investment in their examination of Chinese immigrant teens’ L2 learning experiences at a secondary school in the U.S. The authors highlight the students’ varying investments in English and how they negotiate their multiple and sometimes contradictory identities in order to exercise their agency within the multiple discourses and counterdiscourses in which they are situated. Liang (2006) also incorporates Norton’s notion of investment to partially explain the code-switching dilemmas faced by Chinese immigrant high school students in the U.S. Liang argues that the students had multiple investments in their L1 and L2, and both in their Chinese-speaking and English-speaking communities, which were reflected in the students’ code-switching practices.34 Within the language and identity framework, I also draw on the notion of imagined communities. First coined by Anderson (1991) and further theorized by Wenger (1998), imagined communities refer to “a group of people, not immediately tangible and accessible, with whom we connect through the power of imagination” (Kanno & Norton,  34 In addition to the notion of investment, Liang also draws on Halliday’s (1985, 1994) functional theory to explain the findings of her data.  37 2003, p. 241). That is, through imagination, people are able to relate to those beyond their immediate social networks. Recently, this notion of imagined communities has been adapted in relation to language and identity by several applied linguistics scholars (e.g., Blackledge, 2003; Dagenais, 2003; Kanno, 2003; Norton, 2001; Pavlenko, 2003; Pavlenko & Norton, 2007; Silberstein, 2003). These studies see imagined communities as part of creating an imagined identity, which could influence the learners’ investments in their target language as well as the educational practices that they are engaged in. For example, Kanno’s (2003) study looks at the imagined communities that four different schools in Japan envisioned for their students and how such visions were applied and reflected in the schools’ educational policies and practices. Pavlenko’s (2003) research demonstrates how, through notions of multicompetence and contemporary theories on bilingualism, a group of EFL pre-service and in-service teachers in a MATESOL program were able to adapt an identity as competent L2 users rather than as failed non- native speakers (NNS). Additionally, Dagenais’ (2003) research examines how Asian immigrant parents sending their children to a French immersion school in Canada imagine a future identity for their children as members of not only their immediate Canadian communities but also those of transnational and multilingual communities. However, as Pavlenko and Norton (2007) note, members of the learners’ target language community may sometimes hinder or limit the learners’ access to their imagined community. Norton’s (2001) study provides an example of this hindrance, where an ESL teacher discouraged an immigrant learner (Katrina) from taking computer classes due to her poor English skills, thereby positioning her as an illegitimate member of Katrina’s imagined professional community. Therefore, guided by the notion of investment within the language and identity approach, in examining my participants’ various academic, sociocultural and linguistic experiences, I consider how the students invest in their L1, L2, and sometimes their L3 to negotiate their multiple identities within their varying networks and communities of their past, present and imagined futures. Additionally, I attempt to understand the students’ complex LS processes, including the pressures, tensions, and sometimes conflicting  38 desires/needs that are reflected in their micro, everyday experiences and language practices, while also situating and comprehending such experiences within a broader, macro-level sociocultural, historical and political context The studies discussed in the sections above have not only guided and inspired my dissertation research but have also helped determine areas that still require further investigation. As demonstrated above, there is a growing number of LS and language and identity studies examining immigrants’ language learning experiences in the North American context. In Canada alone, scholars have looked into such issues within various settings of home, work, and school. However, to date, there has been no published work pertaining to the language learning experiences of Generation 1.5 youth in the Canadian university context. Hence, my dissertation research seeks to address this gap by examining the various experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students. Guided by LS perspectives and the language and identity approach, I seek to understand the everyday sociocultural, linguistic and academic experiences of my participants within the contexts of their immediate individual communities (past, present, and imagined future) as well as within the broader contexts of Canadian and Korean society. 2.7 Summary In this chapter, I have provided an overview of some of the defining characteristics of Generation 1.5, in particular those within Korean-North American communities. I have also briefly introduced the LS theory and the notion of language and identity, which served as the theoretical perspectives that guided my dissertation research. I have reviewed various studies pertaining to Generation 1.5 immigrants’ issues and have addressed gaps in the literature that require further investigation. A discussion of my research questions and methodology will follow in Chapter 3.  39 Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction As indicated in Chapter 1, the research questions guiding my study were: 1) What are the contextual factors that shape the language socialization processes and outcomes of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students?; 2) How do such contextual factors influence the students’ investments in their identities and language learning and use, and how are these investments manifested in their everyday lived experiences?; and 3) To what extent do the perspectives and experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students help to refine and extend current conceptions of Generation 1.5 language learners? In this chapter, I will provide a discussion of qualitative case study research, which was the methodology I employed to address my research questions. I will then provide details of the research context, participant access and a general profile of the participants. This will be followed by descriptions of the data collection and data analysis process. Finally, I will address issues of the trustworthiness of the study and ethical considerations. 3.2 Qualitative Case Study Research As discussed in the previous chapter, my study was guided by the perspectives of LS and language and identity, which place emphasis on examining both the micro- and macro-level contextual factors surrounding one’s experiences with language.35 In particular, the study sought to uncover the participants’ accounts of both micro and macro factors influencing their language development and use, sociocultural and academic  35 As Baquedano-Lopez & Kattan (2008) note, the term LS is used broadly by scholars “as a theoretical and methodological paradigm [or] as a theme of study” (p. 161, italics added). The former approach has traditionally taken on a qualitative ethnographic studies approach, often involving “extended observations, interviews, triangulation, and (other) document analysis” (Duff, 2008a, p. 34). It is the latter approach to LS (theme of study) that I have adopted for my own investigation, and thus I have employed various sources of data in order to yield an in-depth understanding of the language socialization experiences of Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students. The data gathered from these sources have also been triangulated in order to enhance the trustworthiness of the study.  40 choices, and related identities. Therefore, with the purpose of investigating the contextual factors that shaped the students’ experiences, I have employed a qualitative multiple case study approach for my study (Duff, 2008a; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1994; Yin, 2003). Over the last few decades, qualitative case study research has gained increasing visibility and credibility as a valid form of inquiry in social science research. Such developments have also been witnessed in educational research, including the increased popularity of qualitative case studies in second language acquisition and applied linguistics research (Duff, 2008a). Among these studies, some works have served as models for my own research. For example, Harklau’s (2000) three year longitudinal case study traces the changing representation of ESL student identities in different institutional settings and how this, in turn, influences the students’ own self-perception and academic learning. Others (e.g., Duff, 2001; McKay & Wong, 1996; Norton, 2000) also employed qualitative case studies to illuminate various important contextual factors that impacted individuals’ (particularly immigrants’) language learning experiences. Such studies have produced rich contextual information and insights into, for example, the individual learner’s personal struggles, resistance, agency, and negotiation of identities and how these all related to the bigger context in which they were experienced--all crucial issues that other forms of inquiry may not have been able to address. In undertaking my study, I drew on the definitions of a few noted scholars who describe case study as an “empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context” (Yin, 2003, p. 13), through the intense and holistic description and analysis of the phenomenon through time and space (Merriam, 1988; Snow & Anderson, 1991). My study follows the experiences of seven Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students, where each student represented a case. I performed an individual case analysis of each student as well as a cross-case analysis of all seven of the students. As Yin (2003) and Merriam (1998) suggest, multiple case studies have the potential to produce convincing evidence with increased trustworthiness of the data.  41 As noted in Chapter 2, many educators and academics have espoused relatively simplistic or essentialized views of Generation 1.5 youth. As a result, Generation 1.5 students are often categorized under the labels of “good” or “bad” (or “model minorities” or “delinquents”) without a deeper understanding of the contextual factors that affect their language learning experiences. In this respect, I believe qualitative case study research allows for an in-depth examination in understanding the students’ own perspectives of their language learning and use as well as their own identity shapings and negotiations. There have been a number of large scale surveys on Generation 1.5 and second-generation Korean-American immigrants, exploring issues of self-perceived ethnic identity and choice of language (e.g., Ok & Baek, 2000; Yoon, 1997; Yoon, 2001). However, although such studies are valuable in that they provide a sense of how many immigrants think in a certain way, the quantitative nature of the studies make it difficult to comprehend why and how they had reached such perceptions. Other studies like Kibria (2000) and Park (1999) examine identity formation of Korean youth based on interview data, but again, the choice to prioritize quantity over quality strips away most contextual information about the individual participants. In this respect, the latter part of the definition of a case study that I described earlier--namely, the intense and holistic description and analysis of the phenomenon through time and space--afforded me the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of a smaller group of students, delving into not only the current individual and general contexts in which these Generation 1.5 students’ lives were situated, but also their histories and future possibilities. In addition, the longitudinal aspect of this case study research allowed “the observation of the same real-life units of analysis across a specific period of time” (Snow & Anderson, 1991, p. 161), which has enabled me to trace the students’ trajectories over time and space.36 In addition, although closed studies are also a form of qualitative case study research, for the purpose of my own inquiry, I have employed a more flexible case  36 As Duff (2008a) cautions, this is not to imply that all case study research is longitudinal or that all longitudinal studies are automatically case studies. For the purpose of my own particular investigation, I have chosen to undertake an in-depth, longitudinal study of my research participants with the goal of discovering developments/changes in their language ideologies, use, learning, and related identities.  42 study design, which scholars have noted as one of the strengths of interpretive research (Duff, 2008a).37 In particular, the semi-structured (Snow & Anderson, 1991) nature of the interviews gave participants the chance to speak of issues and experiences that were significant to them rather than being solely dictated by predetermined interview questions selected in advance by the researcher and unresponsive to participants’ answers and unique experiences. Thus, this aspect of qualitative case studies was very significant for my work as giving voice to the students was one of the most important goals of my research. 3.3 Research Context The study took place at Pacific Canadian University (PCU), a large public university in Vancouver, Canada. PCU is an internationally renowned institution, ranked among the top 40 universities in the world since 2003. In order to be admitted to PCU’s undergraduate program, all students (both domestic and international) must meet both English language and high school academic requirements.38 In addition to the general requirements, each program has specific course requirements that the student should meet prior to enrolling at PCU. Upon admission, all undergraduate students at PCU must enroll in the first-year English program regardless of their area of study. Most faculties require six credits of first-year English courses (usually recommended to be completed during their first two years at PCU), although some require only three credits.39  37 Again, this it not to imply that flexibility was chosen at the expense of a systematic, planned inquiry. 38 Students must demonstrate competency in English by meeting one of eight requirements set out by PCU. My research participants had met one of the following three requirements: 1) Complete three or more consecutive years of full-time education in English within Canada immediately prior to attending PCU; 2) Achieve a grade of 70% or better on the provincial examination portion of B.C. English 12 or English Literature 12 or the equivalent; 3) Successfully complete six credits of post-secondary first-year English studies that are eligible for transfer credit to PCU. To be eligible, the course must be taken at a recognized university in an English-speaking country. 39 In order to be eligible to take first-year English courses at PCU, students must either pass the Language Proficiency Index (LPI) exam or receive an exemption from the LPI by meeting minimum grade requirements on Grade 12 level English (e.g., 80% for B.C high school graduates admitted prior to 2008) or on other recognized exams. The purpose of the LPI is to provide post-secondary institutions and professional organizations in British Columbia with an individual’s proficiency level in Canadian English. The test consists of four parts: identifying sentence structure errors; identifying language use errors;  43 PCU is located in the city of Vancouver, where nearly 40% of the population is foreign-born, second to Toronto (Statistics Canada, 2006a). Since 2001, most of the immigrant population in Vancouver has come from Asia and the Middle East. Koreans are the fourth largest non-European immigrant community in Vancouver. There are numerous Korean churches, businesses, and organizations throughout Vancouver. 3.4 Participants 3.4.1 Recruitment Upon receiving approval from the Behavioral Research Ethics Committee at the University of British Columbia, I began recruiting participants by posting a call for volunteer participants on PCU’s Korean Student Association website and the Vancouver Korean-Canadian Scholarship Foundation’s student email list (see Appendix A).40 Postings were written in both English and Korean. In the postings, I provided general information about my research, the criteria I was seeking in potential participants, time commitment required of them, and the type of compensation they would receive for their participation in my study.41 My criteria for participant recruitment included: 1) students pursuing undergraduate studies at PCU; 2) students of Korean background who had immigrated to Canada during their K-12 years; 3) students who were willing and able to meet with me once or twice a month for individual interviews (and one group interview each term) between September 2005 and April 2006.42 Those students interested in   summarizing short passages; and writing an argumentative essay ([PCU] Applied Research and Evaluation Services, 2008). 40 In the recruitment form, students were informed that participation in the research would involve bi- monthly interviews which would take approximately 16-20 hours of their time between September 2005 and April 2006. However, when the actual data collection began, due to schedule conflicts, we had monthly interviews from September 2005 to June 2007. Only students whose schedules permitted were asked to meet with me after April 2006. 41 I provided a $30 PCU bookstore gift certificate for each participant. 42 As will be discussed in a later section of this chapter, although all participants were invited to take part in the group interview, I emphasized that they were encouraged to do so only if their schedules allowed it and if they were comfortable sharing their ideas with other participants in a group setting.  44 participating were asked to contact me via email through which I answered any questions or concerns they had regarding their potential participation. All of the participants were recruited through the postings with the exception of Joon, who voluntarily contacted me after learning of my research through his friend, Gilbert, who was also a participant in my study. 3.4.2 Profile of Participants Four female and three male students took part in my research. They were in their second to fourth years of studies at PCU in various disciplines. One of the participants immigrated to Canada during elementary school while the rest of the six arrived during their secondary school years. With the exception of Joon, who was born in Germany, all of the participants were born in Korea. Table 3.1 provides an overview of the participants’ general profiles. Chapters 4-6 will provide in-depth descriptions of each of the participants and groups of participants, as indicated in the left hand column of the table. In Chapter 4, I will examine the experiences of Yellina and Sheila, two women who have been most attached to and influenced by their Korean peers in their process of LS. Chapter 5 will introduce Hannah, Joon, and Mike, three students whose linguistic, academic, and social choices revolved around not being an “FOB” or a “banana.” In Chapter 6, I will discuss the experiences of Gilbert and Yuri, students whose experiences were heavily influenced by their future academic and professional goals as well as their strong sense of familial duty.  45 Table 3.1 General Profile of the Students Ch.  Name43 Gender Age Age at time of immigration City of immigration Family Background PCU Major Yellina F 20 15 Vancouver Parents, one younger brother English 4 Sheila F 19 15 Calgary Parents, one older sister Biochemistry/ Microbiology & Immunology Hannah F 21 11 Vancouver Parents, one younger brother Commerce Joon M 20 12 Vancouver Parents, one older sister General Sciences 5 Mike M 21 17 Calgary Parents, one younger brother Commerce Gilbert M 20 16 Vancouver Parents, one older sister Pharmacy 6 Yuri F 21 14 Vancouver Parents, one younger brother Math  3.5 Data Collection 3.5.1 Background Questionnaire Prior to the first interview, I asked the students to fill out a brief questionnaire in order to obtain a general sense of their personal backgrounds (see Appendix B). In addition to serving as a basis for some of the questions for the first interview, having some familiarity with the students’ backgrounds prior to meeting them helped in creating better rapport upon meeting them in person. Some of the questionnaire items included basic demographic information, family background, language(s) spoken at home and with  43 All names are pseudonyms selected by the students themselves.  46 friends, self-assessed English and Korean language skills, academic experiences at PCU, and involvement in extracurricular activities. Students received a Korean and English version of the questionnaire and had the option to choose one of the versions and to complete it in either English, Korean or both. The questionnaires were exchanged via email. 3.5.2 Individual Interviews 44 Between September 2005 and June 2006, I conducted individual interviews with the students. Depending on each student’s availability, I met with them about five to eight times for approximately 50-60 minute interviews. During our first interview, I asked each individual student which language they would prefer to converse in, and depending on their choice, I spoke to them in Korean, English or a mixture of both. Students also answered questions in the language of their choice. All interviews were digitally audio- recorded and transcribed (either fully or in point form) prior to the next interview with each student. I translated all interviews conducted in Korean into English during the transcription process. Based on the transcriptions, if deemed necessary, I sent students follow-up emails about areas that needed further clarification or elaboration, and I also sent some new questions that I hoped they would try to think about before our next meeting. During our subsequent interviews, I began each meeting with a brief summary of some of the issues we had discussed during our last meeting which allowed both of us to “refresh our memories” before moving on. Interviews took place on the PCU campus, either in empty classrooms or library seminar rooms. All interviews were semi-structured, and questions stemmed from topics discussed in previous interviews, my own field notes, and stories or personal writings that students voluntarily brought to our meetings. 3.5.3 Group Interviews with Students In addition to individual interviews, I also conducted group interviews with some of the students twice during the data collection period. As Wilkinson (2004) affirms, the  44 Appendix C provides sample questions from interviews with individual students, student groups, and English class instructors.  47 dynamics of group interaction in group interviews can often encourage interviewees to speak of issues that they may be reluctant to share in an individual interview. Moreover, members of the group may be able to build on each other’s responses, producing more elaborated answers, which Stewart and Shamdasani (1990) refer to as the “synergistic effect” (p. 16). In the case of my participants, although all of them were invited to join the interviews, I emphasized that they were in no way obliged to do so and that they should only take part if they felt comfortable speaking within a group setting and if their schedules permitted time for a meeting. Four of the seven students took part in the group interviews, which took place in October 2005 and January 2006. Although not all of the seven students took part, findings from these interviews generated topics that were later also discussed with students who were not at the group meetings. Each group interview lasted about 70 minutes and were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed. Students spoke in Korean, English, or a mixture of both. 3.5.4 Interviews with First-Year English Course Instructors45 At the outset of my data collection, it was not my intention to interview any course instructors as the students’ areas of study were quite diverse, and none of the students was taking any courses together. However, throughout the interview process, one of the most salient themes that emerged was the difficult and frustrating experiences most of the students had had during their first-year English courses at PCU, especially English 110 (Approaches to Literature) and English 112 (Strategies for University Writing). Furthermore, most of the students felt that it was their NNS status that led to such challenging experiences and assumed the situation would be different for NS students. Therefore, I felt it was important to seek the perspectives of those who taught these courses in order to better understand how students in general performed in their class(es). Thus, in February 2006, I contacted five individuals (both main instructors and teaching assistants) who were either teaching one of the first-year English courses at that  45 I interviewed individuals who were teaching these classes as either the main instructor or as teaching assistants. Thus, my use of the word instructor here (and in later discussions in Chapters 7 and 8) includes both main instructors and teaching assistants (TAs).  48 time or who had taught a course in the previous academic year. These instructors were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling, where one instructor with whom I had a personal acquaintance introduced me to his colleagues. Of those five individuals that I contacted, three (one main instructor and two teaching assistants) agreed to be interviewed as a group. However, due to schedule conflicts, I was able to interview only two of them (Daniel and Michelle) together in person and one (Sarah) through email.46 At the time of the interview, Michelle had been a TA for English 110 for three terms, while Daniel had been a TA for it once during the previous academic year. Sarah was teaching English 112 as the main instructor for the second time.47 The interview with Daniel and Michelle were approximately 50 minutes long and were audio-recorded and transcribed. 3.5.5 Field Notes During and after interviews, I kept notes of ideas and themes that emerged, which was particularly useful when it came to “serendipitous” findings that surfaced with a particular student that I wanted to discuss with other students as well. In addition, immediately upon transcribing each interview, I organized major themes that were derived and made note of areas that required further clarification or elaboration. 3.5.6 Researcher’s Reflection Journal During the data collection process, I kept written notes of my experiences as a researcher, including some of the concerns I had regarding my own biases or my relationship with the participants. I also sought feedback from colleagues regarding various aspects of my work. For instance, some colleagues helped review my choice of interview questions and offered insights into the interpretation of my data. I also documented any ideas that developed throughout the entire research process. Often these  46 Names of instructors are also pseudonyms but were selected by the researcher. 47 Although Daniel and Michelle were working as teaching assistants for the literature courses, they (and not the main instructors) were the ones with direct contact with the students through their discussion sessions, and they were also solely responsible for assessing the students’ works. Sarah, who was teaching the academic writing course, was also in direct contact with her students and did not have TAs for her course.  49 ideas were spontaneous and occurred randomly, such as during a bus ride or while reading Korean blogs. Thus, keeping a written record of my thoughts during that time allowed me to go back to those ideas later on and helped in the overall organization of my ideas. 3.5.7 Email, Web Messenger Exchanges, and Personal Meetings In some cases, follow-up interviews were conducted through email or Web Messenger, where I asked students to clarify or elaborate on certain topics we had discussed during our meetings. These exchanges were often brief and very casual in nature. Because I had formed a very close, trusting relationship with the students, my correspondence with some students developed beyond that of researcher and participant. Thus, in some cases, the students initiated contact with me, often through Web Messenger, and we would “chat” about a variety of topics. Some students expressed perceiving me as an older sister figure or mentor and asked to personally meet them to offer advice and guidance. During these informal chats and meetings, I discovered new and valuable information about the students that had not been discussed during our official interviews, which added to the richness of the overall data. In particular, through meetings and correspondence that occurred after the official data collection period, I was able to “observe” even further some changes and developments in the students’ thoughts over time. Therefore, with the students’ permission, some of this correspondence was saved or documented, and it served as an additional valuable source of information to my overall data collection. 3.5.8 Students’ Personal Writings Although I did not officially request or seek students’ writing samples as part of my data collection (either personal or academic) a few of the students voluntarily shared some of their personal writings (e.g., journal entries, personal narratives, published work in the newspaper) with me either by bringing them to our interviews or by emailing their work to me. These writings, which described their struggles as immigrant youth and their personal thoughts on being Generation 1.5 persons in the Canadian context, were invaluable sources of data as they allowed me to trace the personal journeys of these  50 students since immigrating to Canada. However, except for one of Yellina’s writings that was published in the local Korean newspaper, due to the very personal nature of the writings, I did not keep copies of any of them. Regardless, they were a very significant part of the overall dialogue that I shared with the students, and they helped create a deeper level of understanding, especially when discussing their past experiences in high school. Table 3.2 summarizes the methods of data collection and sources of data (and the purpose of the data sources) for this study.  Table 3.2 Methods and Sources of Data Methods of Data Collection Sources of Data Collection Purpose of Data Source Students (individual) - Understanding students’ own perceptions of their experiences. Students (group) - Potentially building on each other’s responses, producing more elaborated answers Semi-structured Interviews English Course Instructors - Gaining better understanding of PCU students’ performances in English courses Informal Correspondence Students (emails, web messenger, personal meetings) -Follow-up and clarifications of interview discussions  - Following students experiences after the “official” data collection period Researcher’s Field notes & Reflection Journal - During and after interviews  - During and after correspondences (Emails, Web Messenger, Personal meetings) - Organization of  researcher’s ideas  - Identifying areas that require follow-up and clarification  - Documenting researcher’s own reflections and possible biases  51 Methods of Data Collection Sources of Data Collection Purpose of Data Source Background Questionnaire (prior to interview) - Factual information of students  - Creating faster rapport with students based on some familiarity with their backgrounds Other Written Documents Students’ past personal writings - Better understanding of students’ past experiences as expressed in their own words at that particular time  3.6 Data Analysis My analysis of the data was iterative in that it began with, and continued throughout, the entire data collection process (Duff, 2008a; Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Merriam, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994). However, during the initial stages of data collection, my analysis focused more on listening to interview recordings in order to identify areas that needed to be further explored in subsequent interviews. Upon finishing an interview with the students, I made sure to listen to the audio-recordings again within the next couple of days so as to review them while they were still fresh in my mind. Not all interviews were fully transcribed immediately, but their contents were all summarized in paragraph or point form, and I made note of questions that needed revision and/or expansion, as well as students’ answers that required further clarification and/or elaboration. I asked students to provide clarification/elaboration either through email or Web Messenger prior to the next interview, or in some cases, we went over them at the beginning of our next meeting. Towards the end of the official data collection period, the analyses became more detailed and in depth (and sometimes more complicated). In addition to the theoretical framework outlined in Chapter 2, several published works on social science research, qualitative case study research in particular, (Creswell, 1997; Duff, 2008a; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Merriam, 1988, 1998; Stake, 1995; Walker, 1983; Yin, 2003) as well as recent  52 doctoral dissertations (Guardado, 2008; Kobayashi, 2004; Morita, 2002; Zappa, 2007) provided invaluable guidance in helping me decide which procedures I would (and would not) choose in organizing and analyzing my own data, within and across cases. I read individual interview transcripts multiple times together with other available sources of data (e.g., field notes, group interview transcripts, instructors’ interview transcripts). Using hard copies of the data and utilizing multi-coloured pens, I identified and coded the salient themes that emerged among most (if not all) of the students. These themes were selected as tentative major categories that would be discussed in the cross- case analysis of the dissertation. I then reviewed each individual student’s data several times separately and searched for characteristics and contextual factors that made each student’s case unique and different from those of the other six students. In particular, because I was following the trajectories of the students’ experiences since their arrival in Canada, I organized each student’s data under the categories of past, present, and imagined future. Within each category, I identified and coded patterns and themes that related to each of the three research questions guiding the study. For example, in organizing one of the students’ data, I identified information related to her language choices (Korean and/or English) in different contexts (past, present, and imagined future) of her everyday life (Research Question #2). With this information, I reexamined the data sources in order to trace the contextual factors behind her language choices, which I separated into two categories: micro-level factors and macro-level factors (Research Question #1). This reexamination helped refine and expand the answers to Research Question #2 found earlier and also generated tentative answers to Research Question #3. During the process of individualizing each case, I also looked for similarities among the students that would allow me to group them together in the actual writing of the dissertation. This additionally enabled me to locate more in-depth information that could be added to the tentative themes that had emerged during the initial and brief cross- case analysis performed earlier, which in turn further expanded the answers to Research Question #3.  Thus, my data analysis was a constant process of going back and forth between the individual cases and the whole, which Tesch refers to as the hermeneutic  53 spiral (1990). I found Tesch’s notion of decontextualization and recontextualization key elements in synthesizing my data into one whole study while still maintaining and honoring the rich contextual information found in each individual case. That is, through decontextualization, I sought to discover themes that emerged across cases (and in pairs or small groups). But through detailed within-case analysis, I sought to recontextualize the themes and examine how they were manifested within the uniqueness of each individual case. 3.7 Trustworthiness and Ethical Considerations This study utilized several key approaches in order to enhance its credibility and trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These include triangulation, member-checks, researcher self-reflexivity, sharing analyses with colleagues, and extensive data collection over ten months. 3.7.1 Triangulation and Member Checks Employing multiple data sources, methods, and theoretical lenses is one of the most essential ways in enhancing the trustworthiness of the data (Duff, 2008a; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). As discussed in an earlier section, I employed multiple sources and methods as part of my data collection. Findings derived from these different sources and methods were triangulated with one another, within and across cases, sometimes corroborating and other times disconfirming initial interpretations. For instance, in their individual interviews, most students said they had experienced much frustration and many difficulties in their first-year English courses. This was also one of the biggest challenges that students voiced during the group interviews. Additionally, most of the students assumed that they had probably received the lowest grades in their classes because of their NNS status and accepted this as their fate. At this point, in order to achieve more dependable observations, I felt it was necessary to interview English class instructors at PCU, whose perspectives were, in fact, different from those of the students. In this respect, the comparison of these three data sources provided valuable insights into the students’ ideas about their NNS status, as well as their notions about the ownership of language. In some cases, triangulation allowed the students and me to trace the  54 development of their ideas over time. For example, with one of the participants, we were able to witness how her thoughts about her ethnic identity had fluctuated and developed over the years by reviewing her personal writings from high school in combination with interview transcripts during the official data collection period, as well as documented Web Messenger exchanges that occurred after our final official interview. Admittedly, not all sources or methods (e.g., instructor interviews and students’ personal writings) were planned from the outset of the study. However, being able to alter or add to the data collection method and sources during the study--the kind of flexibility that Eisenhardt (1989) refers to as “controlled opportunism” (p. 539)--is one of the merits of case studies, which allows the researcher to gain more insight and a deeper understanding of the case, as has been the situation with my own research. Duff (2008a) explains that member checking can “ensure the authenticity or credibility of interpretations, or shed new light on the analyses . . .and is therefore another form of triangulation or verification of perspectives and interpretations” (p. 171). One of the goals of my study was to learn about Generation 1.5 students’ language socialization experiences spoken in the students’ own voices. In this respect, it was crucial for me not to monopolize the interpretations of the data or to simply allow the data to speak for itself. Thus, I tried to continuously foster dialogue between the students and me so as to share ownership of the entire interview process as well as the final product. At the beginning of each interview, I offered a summary of my understanding of our previous interview. Upon listening to my summary, the students would either corroborate my views or clarify or correct any misunderstandings. In cases where I had to translate Korean interviews into English (especially when I was agonizing over choosing the right equivalent English word), I showed them samples of my translations and made sure they agreed with the word choices I had made. Email messages and Web Messengers exchanges were also useful in member checking. I often exchanged brief messages with the students to confirm an interpretation of a comment they had made during an interview, to ask for additional information, or to help select the right English words for their Korean answers. This invitation for input from the students was a vital component of my research process,  55 and I believe it was this active participation on the part of students that initially created good rapport between us and also resulted in the unexpected and voluntary sharing of their writings with me (which, as I mentioned earlier, were excellent additional sources of data for my research). 3.7.2 Other Strategies for Demonstrating Trustworthiness During my data collection period, I was enrolled in two graduate-level courses on qualitative interviewing and case study research. Elements of these classes were also beneficial in adding to the trustworthiness of my study. That is, much of the coursework for these classes required me to continuously reflect on, reexamine, and put into writing various issues related to my research, from my views of myself as a researcher and the relationships I had with my interviewees, to the ontological and epistemological position of my work. These classes also afforded me many formal and informal opportunities to share my preliminary analyses and findings with my classmates and instructors. Some of these were documented systematically while I made informal notes of others. However, all of these records were included as part of the researcher journal I mentioned earlier. 3.7.3 Generalizability Very often, at the conclusion of a case study, one is questioned about the extent to which the detailed descriptions of a particular phenomenon can be generalized to other contexts. There have been different responses to this concern on the part of qualitative researchers, but many seem to agree that statistical generalization (Yin, 2003), as often seen in quantitative studies, is not the goal of qualitative inquiries (Davis, 1995; Donmoyer, 1990; Duff, 2008a; Schofield, 2007; Stake, 1995). This is also the case with the findings of my study as I do not claim that the findings from seven Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian students can be generalized to the larger population of Generation 1.5 university students. In fact, that would defeat the purpose of providing rich contextualization of each individual student’s case. Rather, I seek to increase the transferability of the findings to populations in different contexts. Stake (1995) argues for naturalistic generalization, meaning that through the application of tacit knowledge, individuals are capable of generalizing the findings of one study to another similar  56 situation. Guba and Lincoln (1981) suggest that generalizabilty be replaced with the concept of fittingness, which stresses the degree to which the researched situation matches other sites of potential research. In a similar vein, Davis (1995) claims that the generalizability of working hypotheses depends on the degree of similarity between two contexts. The key element to all of the above arguments is providing extensive information about the case and the context in which it was studied, which I accomplish through thick descriptions of each individual student and the contextual factors in which he/she was situated. In addition, I believe analytic generalizations (Duff, 2008a; Yin, 1989) can be made from my study, where case studies are “generalizable to theoretical propositions” (Yin, 2003, p. 76). Thus, the aim of my study is to generalize findings to theory, although the detailed findings of the research may not be applicable to other research populations. 3.7.4 Ethical Concerns and Researcher-Participant Relationship At different stages of the study, I made efforts to ensure that I was meeting my ethical responsibilities as a researcher. Before any of the students agreed to take part in my study (see Appendix D for consent forms), I made sure to explain the purpose of my research, how I hoped they would participate, and how and where the findings would be reported. I encouraged students to ask questions about any aspects of my work and their participation that they needed clarification on and to express any other concerns they might have had. I also emphasized that they were in no way obliged to take part in my study, and if for any reason they wished to stop participating, they were free to do so at any time without any negative consequences. All of this information was clearly stated in the consent form that they signed prior to the first interview. In addition, all of the students (and instructors) remained anonymous through the use of pseudonyms and any information that they requested remain “off the record” was not included in this dissertation. Another area that I paid particular attention to was the relationship between me and the students. Throughout my interactions with the students, they called me ŏnni or nuna (older sister) and shared very personal and emotional stories with me like being  57 teased in high school, recent arguments with their boyfriends, and conflicts with parents and siblings. Outside the official interview setting, students initiated contact with me in order to ask for reference letters or to seek advice on various topics ranging from how to prepare for graduate school to career opportunities in Korea. Thus, I often became the students’ older sister, counselor or confidante. I was happy that I was able to build strong rapport with the students, which allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of each individual student’s experiences. At the end of the data collection period, all of the students expressed regret that the interviews had come to an end because they had not only enjoyed sharing their experiences with me but also enjoyed discovering or reexamining their own perceptions and identities along the way. However, despite such positive feedback, I made the conscious effort throughout the data collection process not to perceive everything the students shared as potential data. Admittedly, I was fascinated by all the students’ stories, and especially during informal meetings, the researcher in me was tempted to take out my digital recorder so as not to miss a single word the students said. Thus, the boundaries between my role as a researcher and my role as an older sister/counselor/confidante were sometimes blurred. In this respect, I had to be extra cautious of these indistinct boundaries so as to find a sound balance between seeking potentially valuable data and respecting the students’ privacy and right to confidentiality. Thus, any information obtained outside our official data collection setting were included as part of the research data only with the students’ verbal consent. Over the years, there have been debates about the potential advantages and disadvantages of researcher-participant symmetry in terms of gender, age, race, and socio-economic status. Denzin (1997), for example, claims that shared lived experience and member status allow the researcher to identify underlying nuances or meanings of the interviewees. Seidman (1991), on the other hand, suggests that it is important for the researcher to maintain a certain distance so as to “explore, not to share assumptions” (p. 77). He notes that issues such as race, class, and gender are related to the notion of power with regard to “who controls the direction of the interview, who controls the results, and who benefits” (p. 76). In this respect, I strove to be aware of potential biases and  58 assumptions that I brought to the research as someone who shared the same sociocultural and linguistic background as the students. In terms of academics, I have also experienced high school in Vancouver, Canada and have been educated in English in a number of countries since a very young age. Although it is difficult to know with absolute certainty how truly comfortable the students felt in our interactions, during our final interview I asked each student whether they felt my being an older female Korean affected our collaborations in any way. All of the students responded that my being Korean made it convenient in that they did not feel that they had to explain every little aspect of Korean culture. They also felt that our age gap made them feel more comfortable to open up to me. Female students in particular said it was easier to share their thoughts because we were the same gender. However, despite our seemingly apparent commonalities (and the convenient and positive aspects that resulted from them) I would also like to point out that there were also various areas in which the students and I differed. For instance, my extensive overseas education (prior to my graduate studies) was a result of my father’s occupation, which required my family to move from one country to another every few years. Thus, my official status while living abroad has always been international student, not immigrant. Furthermore, my education in English took place in both English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. Additionally, although English is also my second language, I have never actually taken ESL classes, unlike most of my participants. Moreover, my experiences in high school in Vancouver took place in the mid 1990s, a period prior to the increased wave of Korean immigrants, and I returned to Korea for university. Therefore, although it is true that there were many areas in which the students and I had a shared understanding of the issues at hand, there were also many aspects of their experiences (e.g., as immigrants and students in ESL classes) that I was unable to relate to. In this respect, as Vincent and Warren (2001) assert, identities are multilayered and continuously being renegotiated over time, thus the researcher can be an insider in certain aspects as the interviewee, but an outsider with regard to other issues, which was also the case in my study.  59 Regardless, I acknowledge that my own biases and subjectivities may have affected various aspects of the study. For example, prior to the study, I had the assumption that as visible minorities, Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students would all aspire to work within mainstream Canadian society, and that this would be their main motivation to improve their English skills. Although this idea was reexamined as I began analyzing the data, still, I acknowledge that it may have affected the initial formation of my interview questions. Similarly, other biases may have influenced the interpretation of the data and the selection and organization of findings reported in this dissertation. However, as mentioned earlier, I strove to create a collaborative relationship with the participants, where they were invited and encouraged to offer their own thoughts on my interpretation of the data so as to ensure an accurate portrayal of their experiences. Also, the reflection journal that I had kept (particularly the entries written while taking the two, previously mentioned graduate-level courses) was very helpful with my self-reflections as a researcher. 3.8 Summary In this chapter, I described the process through which I conducted multiple qualitative case studies on the language socialization experiences of seven Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university students in Vancouver, Canada. Guided by the theoretical perspectives of LS and language and identity and the research questions and goals of the study, I have described why I believed multiple qualitative case studies were the appropriate approach for my research. I have also discussed my research setting and general profile of participants. In addition, I discussed issues of trustworthiness, other ethical considerations, and my relationship with the participants. To strengthen the trustworthiness of my study, I employed multiple data methods and sources which were triangulated during the data analysis. I also performed member checks and sought feedback from colleagues regarding various aspects of my data collection and analysis. As is often the case with qualitative case study research, my analysis of the data occurred in parallel with the data collection. The following four chapters will report on the actual findings of the data. As earlier mentioned, Chapters 4 to 6 will examine in depth two or  60 three individual cases together. Chapter 7 will then provide a cross-case analysis of all the cases.  61 Chapter 4 LEARNING TO NEGOTIATE MULTIPLE INVESTMENTS: YELLINA AND SHEILA 4.1 Introduction In this chapter, I examine the linguistic, academic, and sociocultural experiences of Yellina and Sheila. I have paired these two students together in this chapter because they both began their lives in Canada with the dream of becoming English professors one day. However, while one student is still pursuing that dream, the other has completely abandoned it. Thus, in this chapter, I highlight the local and global contextual factors and language socialization processes that have influenced the students’ experiences and perceptions of learning and using English. I examine their trajectories from high school to university as well as their goals and desires for the future. In this process, I identify areas where both students display similarities while also drawing attention to the uniqueness of their individual situations. I conclude the chapter with a summary and discussion of the two cases. 4.2 Students’ Backgrounds Of all my seven participants, the two students in this chapter, Yellina and Sheila, took on the most proactive roles in participating in my research. For example, they brought in notes of ideas and thoughts they had since the last time we had met for an interview. They also shared stories of recent experiences (either through email, Web Messenger, or face-to-face meetings) that made them reflect on what they had previously said in one of our meetings. Without my even asking, they voluntarily shared some of their very personal writings which reflected some of their past struggles as immigrant students. In addition, they were both eager to co-analyze their data with me, and I found their ideas to be very insightful and helpful to my data analysis. In addition to the sisterly bond we had created, I also felt we had formed partnerships of mutual respect between us throughout the interview process.  62 4.2.1 Yellina48 Yellina was originally from Seoul, Korea and immigrated to Vancouver, Canada in 1999 with her parents and younger brother. At that time, her father ran a small business in Korea and her mother worked as a dance teacher at a junior high school. When her father’s business failed, her parents decided to start a new life in Canada, which was also seen as a good opportunity for the children’s education. Yellina described both her and her brother’s academic achievements in Koreas as “above average but not outstanding” (Yellina, I#1, January 19, 2006, K-original) and that her parents did not decide to immigrate to Canada because they felt the children could not make it to a good university in Korea (which is sometimes the case for some Korean families).49 Yellina was in Grade 9 at the time of immigration and confessed that initially, she was resistant to moving to another country. She possessed a romanticized image of university life in Korea which she had created based on Korean dramas and movies. Hence, when her parents decided to move to Canada, she felt that she was being forced to alter her future plans. Upon arrival in Vancouver, Yellina’s parents ran a small restaurant business for about a year but found it too challenging for various reasons. Thus, her father decided to restart a business in Korea and became a gireogi father (Yoon, 2001); going back and forth between Korea and Canada for about six years while the rest of the family remained in Vancouver. When her younger brother entered PCU in 2005, her parents believed both Yellina and her brother were now mature enough to take care of themselves. Therefore, her parents began a process of reverse migration (Hurh, 1998; Yoon, 2001), and in early 2007, returned to Korea for good. At the time of the interview, Yellina and her brother were living together  48 Due to Yellina’s personal circumstances, “official” data collection with her only began in January 2006 and continued through June 2006. We met for bi-monthly interviews and continued to keep in touch even after the end of our final official interview. Through email messages, Web Messenger chat, or face-to-face informal meetings, Yellina updated me on her life and also shared insights about being a Generation 1.5 student. The information in this thesis obtained after the completion of the “official” data collection period has been included with Yellina’s permission. Interviews with Yellina were conducted in both Korean and English. Comments in Korean have been translated into English by me. 49 K-original indicates that the original quote was in Korean. Transcription conventions are included in Appendix E.  63 in Vancouver. She had always spoken Korean at home with her family and continued to do so with her brother. In Korea, she learned EFL at her junior high school, and she also received some private tutoring for English grammar and reading comprehension lessons.50 At the time of the interview, she considered herself quite “fluent” in English, and “felt no burden talking with other Canadians or going to a government office to translate for [her] mom” (Yellina I#1, January 19, 2006, K-original).51 4.2.2 Sheila52 Sheila and her family (parents and older sister) immigrated to Calgary, Canada in 2000 when she was 15 years old. The decision to immigrate was mostly her mother’s idea. Sheila’s mother was unhappy with her husband’s hectic and stressful lifestyle connected with his job in Korea. Furthermore, unlike some parents who choose to immigrate because of their children’s poor academic performance in Korean schools, Sheila’s mother felt that Sheila, who was the top student in her junior high at the time of immigration, would have an even more successful future if she received quality education within the Canadian system. Sheila was very happy and excited about their move to Canada as she was not looking forward to living the much pressured life of a Korean high school student. Her sister (who was three years older than Sheila), on the other hand, was not happy because she had planned to attend university in Korea. Her father was also hesitant to leave the professional and financial stability he had in Korea as a scientific researcher in order to start a new life in Canada. However, the family finally decided to move to Canada together and chose Calgary as their destination because the parents felt that the children would acquire English faster in a city like Calgary. This would be  50 In Korea, it is very common for students to receive either private tutoring or attend privately owned after- school supplementary schools. 51 It was difficult to form an impression of Yellina’s level of English proficiency as she used Korean during most of our interviews. She was very articulate in both spoken and written Korean. 52 Interviews with Sheila were conducted in both English and Korean. Korean quotes included in this chapter were translated into English by me. Sheila seemed to be quite fluent in both Korean and English, and she often code-switched between the two languages during our interviews.  64 because there were fewer Koreans in Calgary compared to in other cities like Toronto or Vancouver, which were very popular destinations among Korean immigrants at that time. Sheila’s parents started a small business in Calgary, but the family moved to Vancouver when Sheila was admitted to PCU in 2004. Her sister, who was attending a university in Calgary, also transferred to PCU. At the time of the interview, Sheila’s parents ran a small motel on Vancouver Island, and Sheila lived in Vancouver with her older sister. Almost every weekend, she traveled four hours to visit her parents and to help out with the family business. Sheila and her family only communicated with each other in Korean. Her parents spoke enough English to run their business, but when it came to matters requiring more complicated English, they relied on Sheila and her sister for help. Sheila’s sister was a fourth-year commerce student at PCU and was determined to return to Korea upon graduation. Their parents were also planning to return to Korea one day once both Sheila and her sister had settled down professionally. Because he had a relatively more successful career in Korea, her father was particularly eager to return to his native land. 4.3 Life in Secondary School Both Yellina and Sheila arrived in Canada in Grade 9. Yellina settled quite well into her new school setting, befriending Korean peers who had a strong influence on her throughout her entire high school years. Sheila, however, struggled to belong at first and longed for Korean friends. Yet when the opportunity for these friendships arose at one point, she chose not to socialize with other Korean peers for the sake of her linguistic and academic goals. At the end of high school, Yellina’s dream of studying English literature in university lived on while Sheila’s future plans changed drastically. In the following sections, I will provide a detailed account of each of their experiences. 4.3.1 Yellina Korean Peer Influences on Social, Linguistic, and Academic Choices Upon immigrating to Canada, Yellina enrolled in Grade 9 at a secondary school in Vancouver. Her school was quite diverse in terms of students’ ethnic backgrounds and included a large Korean student population. In her grade alone, there were about 20-30  65 Korean students, and many of them were recent immigrants like herself. When Yellina transferred to her first Canadian school, she immediately made Korean friends and continued to form friendships with mainly Korean students throughout her entire high school life. Her initial unhappiness towards immigrating to Canada made her unmotivated to put in the effort to make “Canadian” friends, thus she distanced herself from local, White Anglo-Canadian peers from the start.53 She expressed feeling relatively more comfortable with other Asian peers, including Japanese and Chinese students, but the depth of communication and friendship was unlike that which she shared with her Korean friends. Socializing with Korean peers enabled her to maintain a peer culture similar to that of Korean high school students as their main areas of interest included contemporary Korean pop culture, including dramas, movies and celebrity gossip. Yellina also continued to maintain contact with her friends in Korea through email and Web Messenger. One of the most essential factors in being a member of the Korean peer group was to speak only in Korean when they were amongst themselves. Yellina, herself, had very strong views about Koreans speaking English with each other and felt that those who avoided using Korean only did so in order to distance themselves from Korean students: I have this thing about Koreans speaking English with each other. From the beginning, I hated Koreans who spoke English to other Koreans if I knew they spoke Korean fluently. In high school, there were these two different groups. One group hung out with only non-Koreans and avoided Koreans completely and the other group hung out with both non-Koreans and Koreans. My friends and I were always speaking badly about the first group. It was obvious they were using English because they didn’t want to be close to Koreans. (Yellina, I#1, January 19, 2006, K-original) Thus, speaking English among her peer group suggested a lack of allegiance to other Koreans and was perceived almost as an act of betrayal to one’s Koreannness. When I asked her if she ever felt that her decision to socialize with this group might have affected her English skills, Yellina agreed that it might have. Nonetheless, during our first  53 The notion of “Canadian”=White Anglo-Canadian was a prevalent theme among all of the participants and will be further discussed in Chapter 7.  66 few interviews, she expressed no regrets about the choices she had made in high school and said that if she had to do it all over again, she would have probably made the same choices. That is, at that time, the relationship with her peers had been too important to her for her to have agonized over whether or not it would affect her English proficiency. Yet by the time of our final official interview in June 2006, Yellina’s views had changed drastically, and she expressed regret about some of the choices she had made in high school. She attributed this sense of regret to the various experiences she had throughout university, which, in turn resulted in considerable changes in her perceptions of life in Canada and her lifestyle and behaviors. However, throughout our correspondence after our final official interview, I yet again observed her returning to the original views she conveyed in 2005. Yellina described herself as having a “fluctuation of emotions” (Yellina, personal Web correspondence, May 12, 2008, K-original) with regard to where she belonged--an attribute she believed was unique to Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian youth.54 In addition to language choices, Korean peers also influenced each other’s academic choices, especially with regard to attending university. According to Yellina, Korean universities were a topic frequently discussed among her peers, and several of her friends returned to Korea after graduating from high school to attend university: Just about five years before I came, there weren’t that many Koreans in Vancouver. But I think from around the late 1990s, there was this rush of Korean immigrants. So when I arrived here, there were a lot of Koreans in high school, and we were able to have this Korean culture maintained among our group. We would talk about Korean culture and Korean universities, so I think it became natural for us to talk about going back to Korea for university. So there was almost like a trend to go back to Korea at that time. (Yellina, I#6, March 24, 2006, K-original) As mentioned earlier, Yellina already possessed a romanticized image of Korean university life, thus talking to her peers about it only reinforced her desire to return to Korea. With her peers’ strong encouragement, in Grade 12, she searched for information  54 A more detailed discussion of Generation 1.5 immigrant youths’ sense of belonging will follow in Chapter 7 where I perform a cross-case analysis of all the participants.  67 on Korean university entrance exams for overseas Koreans and was prepared to return to Korea upon graduation. However, her father was very much against this idea, especially when she was admitted to PCU. Hence, Yellina stated that had it not been for her father’s strong opposition, she would have most definitely returned to Korea for university. Fierce Competition among Korean Students and their Parents When Yellina first transferred to her new high school in Vancouver, she was enrolled in ESL classes for one year during Grade 9.55 As mentioned earlier, her high school’s student body was made up of students from diverse ethnic backgrounds, including newly arrived immigrant students like Yellina. As a result, her ESL classes were comprised of immigrant students from various countries. During our discussions of her life in high school, her desire to escape from ESL classes was one of the topics Yellina most frequently brought up. However, her motivation to leave ESL was not necessarily based on an aspiration to enroll in regular classes or a desire to improve her English as soon as possible. Rather, she was mostly driven by the intense level of competition among Korean students in the ESL classes.56 As soon as she began her Canadian high school studies, she would hear rumors about which Korean student moved on to regular classes while other students were still stuck in level one. There were also cases of broken friendships because one friend moved up a level faster than the other: There was so much competition among Korean students. It was an embarrassment  55 In Canada, although the implementation of the programs varies with each school district as well as with individual schools, there are four most common types of ESL support offered in public schools. They include: 1) full-time, self-contained programs; 2) withdrawal or pullout classes (i.e., while taking mainstream classes, small groups of students meet with specialists teachers for ESL support several times a week) ; 3) transitional programs (i.e., students study grade-level content but with language adaptations) ; and 4) mainstreaming (Ashworth, 2001). The type of ESL support necessary for each student is determined by the school’s ESL specialists and/or other teachers and counselors (B.C. Ministry ESL Policy Framework, 1999) Students (whether NSs or NNSs) are unable to remain enrolled in high school beyond the age of 19, and Watt and Roessingh (1994) explain that many ESL students are pushed out of school regardless of their need for further ESL support and time in mainstream classes. 56 Most of the Korean students in the class, including Yellina, learned English as a formal subject in junior high in Korea. It is uncertain whether the other students also received private tutoring in Korea, although as mentioned earlier, this is very common for most Korean students.  68 to stay in ESL especially if you had been here for a few years, and I saw people who eventually couldn’t graduate after being in ESL for a few years. So I felt so much pressure to leave ESL and go on to regular classes. I’ve been in Canada for six years, and I don’t think I’ve ever studied as hard as when I was in ESL. I would study so hard even on the smallest quizzes. I felt like I had to get 100% on all of them so that I can stand out from the crowd and move on to the next level. (Yellina, I#3, February 3, 2006, K-original) In addition, she was also eager to break free from her ESL student status because of the stigma attached to the label of ESL student within the Korean immigrant community. Over the years, many studies have cautioned against the deficiency label often associated with ESL classes (e.g., Salzberg, 1998; Séror, 2002; Talmy, 2005; Toohey, 1992; Zamel, 1995) and the negative impact this has on the ESL students (e.g., Cummins, 1996; Gunderson, 2000). Such views were also confirmed in Yellina’s case as she detested the fact that she was taking ESL classes: I hated the fact that I had to read the books that were K level or elementary school level. Basically, I hated the fact that I was an ESL student. I wanted to be a "REGULAR student" so badly. To describe it in extreme terms, within the Korean community, the word “ESL student” sounded like a handicapped student or something like that. (Yellina, Email Correspondence, May 31, 2008, E-original)57 Here, it is worth noting that despite the large presence of other non-Korean students in the ESL classes, when it came to competition as well as escaping the “ESL student” label, the Korean students only paid attention to each other.58 She explained that there may have been a stigma attached to ESL students within her school in general, but non-Korean students’ views were not as important to Yellina or to her Korean peers and their parents. As Yellina stated, all the Koreans were “making such a big deal out of it” (Yellina, I#3, February 3, 2006, E-original) and the anxiety spread rapidly. As a result, students were extremely sensitive and emotional about each other’s progress. In Yellina’s case, after much hard work, she was able to move on to regular classes after just one year.  57 E-original indicates the original quote was in English. 58 Based on Yellina’s memory, there were about four or five Korean students within a class of 15 to 20, where more than half of the students were Chinese.  69 This was an accomplishment she was very proud of.59 However, she was aware that some Korean peers were jealous of her achievement and spoke badly about her behind her back. This type of rivalry among Korean students still continued even after moving on to regular classes (e.g., with grades and awards), yet it was the most fierce among students in ESL classes. In addition to this severe competition among the Korean students, Yellina explained that there was also very strong competition among the parents, especially the mothers, who had sacrificed so much--including their own lives and careers in Korea--to see to their children’s education in Canada, and this was an additional burden for her and her peers. When Yellina’s family arrived in Vancouver, her mother brought home information about how other Korean parents’ children performed in school even before Yellina began her studies at her new Canadian school. In part because her family lived in a kind of Korean enclave community, all the Koreans in the neighborhood knew one another, and unsurprisingly, news spread rapidly. Her parents were very also anxious for her and her brother to leave ESL and tried to provide an environment at home that would help their children improve their English skills. For instance, because they feared Korean videos would delay their children’s English language development, her parents limited Korean video rentals to about once every two months. However, Yellina reported that she never felt pressured by her parents themselves, but it was rather her parents’ friends or other adult acquaintances who urged her to get out of ESL as soon as possible. Even when she showed interest in attending university in Korea, it was not just her father but also his friends who were the most against the idea. According to Yellina, when someone is accepted to PCU, the Korean community recognizes it as a significant accomplishment as PCU is a symbol of elitism among local Korean parents. Consequently, attending university in Korea was perceived to be only for those who could not make the grades required in high school for acceptance into a Canadian university. Interestingly, this phenomenon is quite different from the situation  59 Yellina also received private ESL tutoring from a Korean university student for about six months upon arriving in Canada.  70 of immigrants of the early 1990s, where parents usually chose to leave Korea precisely because the children did not have the grades to enter universities in Korea (Park, 2006). During Yellina’s Grade 12 year, there were rumors among Korean parents that the competition to be accepted to PCU that year was going to be particularly fierce. There was no real certainty as to why this was the case nor did anyone know the source of the information or its degree of accuracy. But most parents and their children believed it nonetheless and were very nervous and anxious. Thus, when Yellina was accepted to PCU, her father convinced her to attend the school. 4.3.2 Sheila A Struggle to Belong Unlike Yellina, who described having faced no particular challenges adjusting to her new life in Canada, Sheila did not have very fond memories of her first year in her new country. In fact, she often cried when we discussed about this time period of her life during our interviews. This is quite ironic when considering how it was Yellina who initially resented immigrating to Canada whereas Sheila was excited about the move. However, despite her hardships, it was specifically this time of her life that she was most eager to talk about with me, and during several of our interviews, she would bring new stories that she had remembered about her life in high school that she wanted to share with me that day. She also brought in journal entries that she had written during that time, which described the struggles she was experiencing. She conceded that she now liked talking about that time in her life because she was proud of having overcome all the difficulties she had once faced. Sheila began Grade 9 upon immigrating to Calgary, Canada. She enrolled in a school that was predominantly White Anglo-Canadian and where there was no formal ESL instruction offered to NNS students. Therefore, from day one, she began taking regular classes with NS students and did not receive formal help with her English. Although this was very difficult for her at first, she believed that this was the time during which her English improved the most.  71 However, with regard to her social life, Sheila described her life in junior high as a very lonely and stressful time. There were very few visible minority students in her school, and the only other Korean girl in her grade never tried to befriend her. Thus, unlike her life in Korea, Sheila had no close friends in her new school in Calgary and felt that a wall existed between her and her NS classmates from the very beginning. This distance that Sheila felt from her NS “Canadian” peers mirrored Yellina’s views mentioned earlier and also echo the sentiments of the Korean-American immigrant high school students in Seo’s (2007) study. However, in Yellina’s case, she never made the effort to make “Canadian” friends because of her unhappiness towards immigrating to Canada. On the other hand, Sheila explained that she initially did want to make local Canadian friends, but her own lack of confidence in her English prevented her from doing so. She also added that she never felt that anyone was discriminating against her because of her race or language skills, implying that the lack of access to her “Canadian” peer group was based solely on her own shortcomings. Chiang-Hom’s (2004) study of foreign-born Asian-American youth demonstrates how homeland cultures--usually maintained through technology--were an important part of the youths’ ways of coping with the unwelcoming reception from their “American” peers. Such was the case of Sheila, who continued to visit Korean websites almost every day to keep up with the current happenings in her native land. She also relied on her Korean friends back home for comfort and support, and she communicated with them often through email and Web Messenger. This distance that she felt with her local NS peers continued throughout high school, and even at the time of our interview, Sheila still felt intimidated to make White Anglo-Canadian friends: I lacked confidence in my English and thought I was different from other students, so I just closed myself up. I also didn’t have anything to say when they were talking about celebrity gossip, partying, putting makeup on and so on. So, I was the one that closed the door first from them. I could’ve tried to create a good relationship with them, but I couldn’t. I often regretted that in high school and cried about it. But I had only myself to blame. It wasn’t them. I was embarrassed to approach them. It was me who did it, and since then I continue to feel intimidated when I’m interacting with White people. It’s almost like I feel they might give me a signal that my English isn’t good enough.  72 (Sheila, I#5, February 7, 2006, K-original). In Grade 10, Sheila began her life as a high school student at a different school in the city. This new school was known to have many ESL immigrant students and also had the largest Korean student population within the district. Although there was an ESL program offered at the school, the school ESL teachers who evaluated her English exempted her from the class. When she began the new school year, Sheila was excited to finally have the chance to make some Korean friends and to escape the lonely social life she experienced in junior high school. Kanno and Applebaum (1995) reported similar findings in their study of three Japanese high school ESL students in Canada who chose to socialize with students from the same ethnic origin when they felt that access to Caucasian NS peer groups would be challenging. Throughout Grade 10, she only socialized with Korean students; participating in after-school activities with them and keeping up with Korean pop culture, which was the main topic of interest among her Korean peers at that time. Like Yellina, Sheila also spoke Korean with these friends almost all the time. However, while Yellina was strongly against using English among Korean peers, Sheila struggled with this issue. By Grade 11, Sheila began to notice that her English skills had not improved at all since she started socializing exclusively with Koreans. This became a growing concern for her as she felt she needed to improve her English skills if she wanted to be accepted into university. Therefore, in order to increase her level of English use, she began mixing Korean and English when conversing with her friends. However, this was received with disapproving looks from her friends because there was an unspoken agreement among them that only Korean would be used within the group. If someone spoke English, they were viewed as somehow trying to show off. As a result, Sheila fought an internal battle within herself, trying to reach a balance between her desire to maintain friendships with her Korean peers and her own sense of anxiety about not using enough English: I would think to myself that I was just stuck in the middle of nowhere. I mean, I wasn’t achieving anything. It’s not so much that I felt I had to hang out with non- Koreans because I wasn’t trying to make White friends or anything like that. But  73 when I was hanging out with Korean friends, I still felt that it wasn’t the way things were supposed to be. They were always speaking Korean, always talking about Korean culture and stuff. I felt so anxious when I was with them because I desperately wanted to use English. What’s more is that I started seeing some friends skipping classes and being rude to the ESL teacher, and I realized they didn’t have the same kind of academic goal as I did. I was sure I wanted to go to university, but they didn’t have the same kind of ambition. (Sheila, I#1, September 28, 2005, K-original) As a result, Sheila started distancing herself from her Korean peers for the remainder of her high school life. Her first step in doing so was to select her locker in a new area where there were more Chinese and Indian students. She started to decrease the amount of time socializing with the Korean group and spent more time with her new friends. She explained that she felt comfortable with her Chinese and Indian friends because they all shared an Asian background, thus she never felt uncomfortable or intimidated to talk to them. At the same time, she was relieved to be able to increase her use of English with them and no longer felt anxious about using too much Korean. She suggested that this might have been seen as an act of betrayal in the eyes of some Korean peers, yet she had no regrets about her choice, since at that time her determination to improve her English as well as to enter university seemed more important than being affiliated with the Korean group. In this respect, Sheila’s priorities, or investments (Norton, 2000) in high school were very different from Yellina’s. As is the case with most high school students, finding a peer group with whom they could relate was an important investment for both Sheila and Yellina. However, in Yellina’s case, her primary investment remained in maintaining her Korean culture and identity with her Korean peers. This is not to say that she was not invested in improving her English skills, but so long as it was enough for her to “escape” ESL classes, she was satisfied. On the other hand, Sheila struggled with conflicting investments and identities, trying to balance her loyalty to her Korean friends while aiming for her goal to improve her English and enter university. When a balance was deemed unfeasible, she chose a different English-speaking peer group who seemed more compatible with her goals, even if it meant that she would not be able to create the same  74 depth of friendship that she had with her Korean peers. Therefore, unlike Yellina, Sheila minimized her investment in friendship and placed more emphasis on her linguistic and academic goals. Change of Academic Path: From English to Science As mentioned earlier, Sheila was the top student in her junior high school in Korea. Although she was an overall A+ student, her favorite subject was English, and she received a perfect score on all her English exams throughout junior high. She explained that she “fell in love with English” (Sheila I#2, October 19, 2005, E-original) at an early age and begged her mother to let her tag along with her sister when she went to receive private tutoring to study English. Upon entering junior high, her love of English grew significantly, and she made up her mind to become a professor of English literature. In fact, had it not been for the family’s choice to immigrate to Canada, she was planning to attend a foreign language high school in Korea.60 However, Sheila was even happier that she would be moving to Canada, a place where she would be able to make NS friends and more greatly improve her English skills, facilitating her goal to become an English professor. Yet soon after beginning her studies in Canada, she realized that her dreams of becoming an English professor were “all an illusion” (Sheila, I#2, October 19, 2005, K- original). Because there were no formal ESL classes she could take in her new junior high, she enrolled in regular classes right away. Thus, she experienced much difficulty in many of her classes, particularly in English and social studies classes, where she could hardly participate in any of the class discussions. Sheila’s experiences echo the findings of Duff’s (2001) study of immigrant ESL learners in a Canadian high school who similarly struggled with these classes in particular due to their lack of knowledge of  60 Foreign language high schools are private schools in Korea which were created with the purpose of specializing in foreign language education. In order to be accepted, most schools require that the students be in the top 10% of their junior high schools and that they pass a very competitive entrance exam. Most students graduating from these schools are accepted into the highest ranked universities in Korea, and more recently, these schools also started offering special classes for student preparing for Ivy League universities in the U.S. Therefore, these schools are considered to be some of the most “elite” and most expensive high schools in Korea.  75 contemporary Canadian culture and current affairs. Thus, the self-assurance she once had in Korea regarding her English skills quickly disappeared, and this loss of confidence led her to believe that she was no longer capable of pursuing a career in English literature. When asked why she lost her confidence in English so quickly despite the love she had for it in Korea, she explained that the sense of intimidation by and lack of interaction with her NS peers led her to assume that she could not achieve a high level of English proficiency. Another reason why she believed NS-like English skills were beyond her reach was because as one of the very few minority students in her school and the only minority family in her neighborhood, she constantly felt like a foreigner in Calgary: Very soon after I immigrated to Canada, I started to just assume that I couldn’t be good in English. So, I just pushed it aside from my priority. It’s funny because normally, if I knew I wasn’t good at something, I would try really hard to be better at it. But with English, I kind of gave up. So shortly after coming to Canada, I decided that I wanted to be good at something other than English, and that’s why I studied math and science much harder. (Sheila, I#2, October 19, 2005, E-original) Sheila’s comments are similar to the findings in Chiang and Schmida’s (1999) study, where immigrant students viewed themselves as incapable of ever achieving the fluency of a native speaker because they were “not supposed to be good anyway” (p. 93). However, although her dream to major in English would not be realized, Sheila quickly focused her time and energy on other subjects that she could excel in like math and science. Despite her lack of confidence in spoken English, she felt knowledgeable enough in these subjects to be very active in these classes, like leading class discussions and tutoring other students. Her hard work became worthwhile because she was recognized by her peers and teachers as one of the most outstanding students in math and science subjects. When she graduated from high school, she was awarded the top honor in math in her graduating class. Having excelled greatly in math and science, Sheila decided to major in the sciences at PCU. Regarding this choice, she commented that she was uncertain whether she truly had a talent in the sciences; yet she chose the field because she was confident  76 she could succeed in it and because her lack of English skills would not be a disadvantage: I chose a field that would not require a lot of English. So naturally, I came to the sciences. I could never enjoy subjects like social studies when I was in high school because of the stress from English. I couldn’t even wonder whether they could be fun. So in the same vein, I could never even wonder if I could major in something like philosophy or sociology. (Sheila, I#3, November 23, 2005, K-original) 4.4 Life in University In the Fall of 2004, Yellina began her studies at PCU as a General Arts major Even though she was somewhat disappointed that her dreams to begin university life in Korea were not fulfilled, she was happy to pursue her higher education at PCU because she knew that her parents had immense pride in her becoming a PCU student. She decided she could fulfill her Korean university fantasy one day as an exchange student, perhaps during her second or third year at university. Before enrolling at PCU, Yellina was particularly excited at the possibility of becoming an English literature major someday--a dream that she had since Grade 10. In fact, it was her English teacher in high school who strongly encouraged her to major in English literature in university. Her teacher believed that Yellina’s first language, Korean, would serve as an advantage when doing creative writing and that her expressions would become more unique as a result of her bilingual skills. Thus, Yellina began her university life with much hope about her future career. However, over the next few years, she would experience several ups and downs related to this dream. Sheila also began her studies at PCU in Fall 2004 as a Biochemistry major. Prior to moving to Vancouver with her family, she had heard rumors about the large Korean population at PCU and was afraid she might become part of the Korean university student culture if she began socializing with other Koreans.61 She was aware of how students in  61The exact number of Korean students at PCU is unavailable as PCU does not keep statistics on ethnocultural backgrounds of its students. However, it should also be noted that the Korean student population at PCU is not only made up of immigrant students like Sheila. Each year, many exchange students from various universities in Korea study at PCU. For instance, from 2001, Korea University has been sending up to one hundred exchange students to PCU each year. In addition, PCU’s Center for  77 Korea neglected their studies during their first year of university, thus, in order to avoid this, she chose not to approach any Koreans during her first year and concentrated on her academic life. With the exception of English courses, Sheila did not experience any difficulties with regard to her studies at PCU.62 She continued to receive excellent marks in all her classes and in the Spring term of 2006, she changed her major to immunology. She hoped to attend graduate school upon completing her degree, and ultimately, pursue a career as a veterinarian in the future. 4.4.1 Continued Influence of Korean Peers Yellina: “They all said I was crazy” As mentioned earlier, Yellina’s high school experiences were heavily influenced by her Korean peers. In addition, much of the information she gained was from Korean adults (mostly mothers--although much of the information was often closer to closer to rumor than fact). However, upon becoming a university student, parents or adult figures no longer had such a significant effect on her or her peers’ lives. Instead, Yellina was under the influence of a new type of group: namely, her sŏnbaes or upper classmen at PCU.63 Even prior to starting her studies at university, some sŏnbae students at PCU warned her that on average, only about 20% of the Korean students are able to successfully graduate; thus, Yellina began her university life with much anxiety and worry. Upon enrolling at PCU, Yellina soon joined the Korean Student Association out   Intercultural Communication and English Language Institute (both located on PCU’s campus) also attract many students from Korea each year. 62 Sheila took the LPI exam twice (failing the first time) during her first term at PCU and was able to take English courses starting her second term. The difficulty with first-year English courses was a salient theme among most of the participants and will be discussed more in depth in Chapter 7. 63 In Korea, a person usually uses the term sŏnbae to address someone who is more experienced and often older than him/herself within the community they both belong to. Such communities include, but are not limited to, schools, companies, military, sports teams, religious groups, clubs, and hometowns. Hubae is the opposite of sŏnbae and refers to a less-experienced and oftentimes younger member of a community. For Korean university students, the sŏnbae-hubae relationship is very important because sŏnbaes often play an important role in building personal networks and support systems for the hubaes, thereby facilitating the hubaes’ routes to professional success.  78 of the desire to make new Korean friends at university. There, she continued to meet many sŏnbaes who offered her various types of advice, ranging from which courses she would get an easy grade in to how to prepare for the LPI: Sŏnbaes would tell us that when we are writing the LPI, we shouldn’t choose a topic that would require us to write about our immigrant experiences or learning ESL. They said you don’t want to give even the slightest clue that you are an ESL student and that if you make more than five grammar mistakes, you are doomed. (Yellina, I#2, January 25, 2006, K-original) Whether or not such information was grounded on accurate facts was not the issue. As someone who was not familiar with the university culture, Yellina relied on her sŏnbaes for many of the academic choices she made during her first year. Of all the advice Yellina took from her sŏnbaes, one particular piece of advice played a crucial role in her academic path. Yellina began her university studies with the hopes of being an English literature major as noted above. Additionally, she began developing an interest in studying political science. However, shortly after enrolling at PCU, she encountered strong discouragement from her sŏnbaes, who urged her to change her mind about her major and to simply choose something that would allow her to graduate more easily: The sŏnbaes, they all said I was crazy and that I’ll never graduate if I majored in those things. They said unless I’m going to med school or business, it’s no different what I major in, so I should just do what everyone else does like Economics or Psychology. Then everyone around me, not just the sŏnbaes started trying to convince me to change my mind. So, I got really scared at that time because I thought I was making the wrong choice. So I decided to just major in Asian Studies and thought it didn’t really matter what I majored in. I just didn’t feel like I needed to study something that was considered more difficult. (Yellina, I#2, January 25, 2006, K-original) When I asked her why she thought her sŏnbaes discouraged her from pursuing her original dreams, Yellina provided a detailed and insightful answer. The following is a short excerpt from one of our interviews (I=Interviewer, Jean; Y=Yellina):  I:  Why did they discourage you? Were they referring to linguistic difficulties? Y: No, it wasn’t so much because of the individual differences in English.  79 I:  What do you mean individual differences? I:  Well, they weren’t discouraging me because they thought my English skills weren’t good enough. They were referring to all of us as a group of Generation 1.5. They said that because of the fact that English is not our first language, there were so many things we would have to give up. I:  So it’s more about how you as a group perceive your linguistic limitations? Y:  Yes, it’s something like that. Even today, there are so many things we have to give up. It’s not like there is an external policy or regulations that limit us. It’s more the self-pressure that we feel that scares us away (…) and that keeps us from doing certain things. We just get scared from the start. We also think that because we weren’t born here, we’ll have a disadvantage when we’re looking for jobs after we graduate.(…) There’s this sŏnbae I know who I think has a lot of political ambition. He said if he had been in Korea, he would have run for student president. But the thing is, because we are so pressured and burdened by it all, we have this feeling among ourselves (…) we just don’t even want to look at that direction [of pursuing our dreams]. So, for someone like me, we think to ourselves, English is not even our first language, how can we even dare study English literature? (Yellina, I#2, January 25, 2006, K-original) Thus, this fear of failure and lack of confidence, imposed on her by her sŏnbaes and accepted by Yellina herself, eventually led her to declare a major in Asian Studies. In some ways, this is similar to Sheila’s decision in high school discussed earlier, where she gave up on her dream as an English major. She instead chose to study sciences at university because she, too, accepted the view that her English would never be as good as a NS. However, in Sheila’s case, Korean peers and sŏnbaes had no influence on her choice since she chose not to socialize with Korean students from Grade 11 onwards. Also, while Sheila chose the sciences because she thought that was a field she could excel in, Yellina chose Asian Studies with the goal of becoming a professor in the future and playing a role in introducing Asian and Korean culture to Canadians. Her sense of commitment to the Korean-Canadian community was very strong, and she felt that by becoming an Asian Studies professor and disseminating knowledge about Korea, she would be able to contribute to the Korean community in her own way. However, throughout her first two years at university, Yellina became unhappy with her choice to study Asian Studies. Yet because she was surrounded by sŏnbaes and peers who held  80 fatalistic attitudes about their status and possibilities as Generation 1.5, Yellina was also hesitant to pursue her original dream. Furthermore, discouraging experiences with certain classes and instructors at university also conspired against her realization of that dream. Sheila: “They asked me why I was trying so hard” Unlike Yellina who continued to socialize almost exclusively with Korean peers upon entering PCU, Sheila avoided them until the summer of 2005, when she began socializing a lot more with her Korean classmates. Although a part of her still had reservations towards the typical Korean university student culture, she became very lonely during her first year in university and longed to form deep friendships with those she could truly connect with. Therefore, when a couple of Korean students approached her in one of her summer courses, she was delighted at the chance to meet other Koreans and to become part of a Korean peer group. In the fall of 2005, Sheila also joined the Korean Student Association at PCU, where her sister was serving as an executive member.64 Through this organization, Sheila met many new Korean peers and participated in numerous social events. She also started dating a Korean sŏnbae that she met there. However, she soon faced the same dilemma that she had during high school. That is, she was not using English enough in her daily life. Outside the classroom setting, she was always with her Korean friends with whom she spoke mainly Korean. When she tried mixing English with them, she was again faced with awkward looks and criticism, even from her own sister: I feel the pressure to use Korean all the time. Sometimes I try to just mix English and Korean but my sister tells me to stop because I look obnoxious, as if I think I’m behaving like I’m better than the others. We used to argue about this even in high school. She’d ask me why I am trying so hard to use English even when I’m with Koreans. She’d say “What the hell is wrong with you?” I know other Koreans feel the same way when I use English with them. I can see it in their faces. So, I’m always feeling anxious about this. (Sheila, I#3, November 23, 2005, K-original)  64 Over the next few years, Sheila continued to play an active role in the Korean Student Association, and during the 2007-2008 academic year, she served as the vice-president.  81 Sheila believed her sister’s lack of effort to use English was not only due to the pressure within the Korean group, but also because, unlike Sheila, her sister had plans to return to Korea upon graduating from PCU.65 Thus, for her sister, her future life plans did not require sophisticated and advanced English skills. On the other hand, Sheila did wish to reside in Canada in the long run and felt the need to increase the amount of English she used every day so as to feel more comfortable conversing with NSs in the future. Moreover, because it was Sheila’s professional goal to become a veterinarian, she agonized over whether her current linguistic choices would enable her to achieve the kind of English proficiency required to work within mainstream Canadian society with NS clients and colleagues: I think it’s a negative thing that I’m speaking Korean all the time. I know that I won’t be going back to Korea. I will be in Canada for the rest of my life and spending life with these people. So, I ask myself, what I am going to do with my life here if I’m only speaking Korean all the time. I feel like I’m just suppressing or ignoring those feelings inside and just speaking Korean. There are days when I’m watching Korean TV, and I have to stop myself because I feel so pathetic.66 (Sheila, I#5, February 7, 2006, E-original) Additionally, Sheila felt her predominant use of Korean outside of class was affecting her interactions with classmates and instructors in the courses she was taking. That is, although she experienced no difficulty understanding the course content and performing well on exams, she felt she was unable to verbally express herself clearly to her classmates and instructors. She found herself being misunderstood during class discussions or when she asked questions to course instructors after class. After a while, asking questions became such a burden on her that she made sure to practice each word she was going to say the night before she approached her instructor, or she would simply  65 Sheila’s sister did, in fact, return to Korea upon graduating from PCU and was working for a Korean company. She planned to return to Canada in 2009 for graduate studies. 66 However, it should be noted that while Sheila had no desire to leave Canada in terms of her professional career, her parents’ possible return to Korea in the future added another layer to the complexities of her experiences. This factor will be discussed more in detail in Chapter 7 in my discussion of return migration.  82 write him/her an email instead. Thus, such stressful experiences only added to Sheila’s overall frustration towards not using enough English in her daily life. However, when asked whether she considered not socializing with Koreans anymore (like the choice she had made in high school), Sheila expressed a strong reluctance to do so. She felt that her Korean peers provided her with understanding and support that was difficult to find with other ethnic groups. In particular, because she had experienced much loneliness when she first arrived in Canada as well as during the first year of university, she was even more attached to her current group of Korean friends. Although it is true that many NS students also feel very lonely in high school and during their first year of university, it seemed that in Sheila’s mind, it was precisely her NNS immigrant status that led to such feelings. Therefore, having similar experiences as immigrants, particularly as those who left Korea during secondary school, created an even stronger bond between Sheila and her friends. In fact, Sheila mentioned that a few of her friends shared the same concern as her with regard to their lack of spoken English, yet each time they discussed it, they concluded “well, what can we do…maybe next term” (Sheila, I#5, February 7, 2006, E-original). Nonetheless, there were several times when Sheila came to our interview meetings feeling extremely upset and anxious. As soon as she sat down, she asked me if it would be alright for her to just start “venting” about her frustrations towards not using English enough. On one occasion, she had just returned from a lab session and described feeling awkward conversing with her lab mate because it had been so long since she last used English. With that said, she described feeling glad that she was participating in my study as it allowed her to at least mix Korean and English with me, thereby increasing her overall use of English at least for that day. Even until our final interview in June 2006, Sheila’s dilemma continued. She hoped the situation would change the next academic year. 4.4.2 New and Continued Dilemmas Despite the amount of emotional support and comfort that Korean peers brought to Yellina and Sheila’s lives, it was apparent that the same peers also created some  83 pressures and tensions for the students with regard to their use of English and/or academic choices. Yet in Yellina’s case, it seemed she did not question her sŏnbaes’ advice very much and also accepted the limitations of her choices based on her NNS status. On the other hand, Sheila experienced much agony because even though she enjoyed the new company of her Korean peers, the same peers criticized her for trying so hard to use English. In this section, I will describe the various experiences and processes through which Yellina and Sheila had new realizations and continued dilemmas with regard to their use of English. Yellina: A New View towards Learning English In my discussion of Yellina’s life in high school, it was evident how important it was for her to escape the title of “ESL student.” Hence, she invested much time and energy into improving her English skills in order to “graduate” from ESL classes. Yellina described her academic life in high school as a time when she only studied for English. Yet as she embarked on her life as a university student, she soon realized that she was now in a position where she was studying in English: In high school, English used to be just a form of survival for me. And I was just happy to get out of ESL and then to get a good enough grade to enter PCU. But now, it’s more a tool for my academic career. I am no longer studying for English but studying in English. (Yellina, I#4, February 16, 2006, K-original) This idea was reinforced by courses she took which demanded a high level of English proficiency, especially academic writing skills, as well as background knowledge of Canadian sociopolitical and cultural matters. For example, in her first term at university, Yellina registered for an Anthropology course. On the first day of class, the professor went over the syllabus and emphasized that the course would require excellent writing skills. He also added that if students were not confident about their English, especially writing, then they should drop the course. This came as a shock to Yellina because she was already questioning her English language skills after having just taken her LPI in the summer on which she had received a 4 (which was not sufficient for her to  84 take first-year English courses at PCU). Consequently, Yellina quickly dropped the course and never reenrolled in it again. She also experienced much discouragement while taking a Political Science course on Canadian government; yet this time, it was not so much because of the level of English required to take the course. Rather, her lack of knowledge of Canadian politics and sociocultural issues left her feeling completely out of place. Again, this was similar to the experiences of the students in Duff’s (2001) study, and also echoed Sheila’s experiences in her high school social studies and English classes mentioned earlier: These people, for twenty years, they have lived in an environment where they’ve received certain governmental benefits and so on. So, even if someone has no interest in politics, if you’ve lived here since birth, you can’t help but have some knowledge about Canadian politics. So, certain things are very natural to them. I went to class without those twenty years with the desire to study the subject. And honestly, it wasn’t so much the studying that was hard. I just had nothing to say during class discussions. When people talked about politics, current affairs, hockey, I couldn’t join at all. I felt so disappointed in myself at that time. (Yellina, I#1, January 19, 2006, K-original) A point worth noting in the above comment is how Yellina blamed herself for her lack of knowledge of Canadian issues. In particular, she regretted certain choices she had made in high school including not making the effort to befriend “Canadian” peers. She was still uncertain whether she would be able to reach out to “Canadian” friends, but she knew some changes needed to be made in her life. In addition, during her first two years in university, she became more aware that she was in an educational system where she was learning North American academic norms and values. In high school, her primary focus was on learning English and taking exams, and she was also still strongly attached to everything Korean. Consequently, she was indifferent to the kind of values that she was being exposed to under the Canadian educational system. However, at university, although not overtly taught, she discovered Canada in each course she took. And as a result, slowly, but gradually, she started reevaluating her future academic and professional plans. In the Fall of 2005, Yellina took a leave of absence from school. When the previous academic year ended in April 2005, she was unhappy with her academic life  85 studying Asian Studies, and difficulties living in an on-campus dormitory left her feeling emotionally drained. She decided to take a break from everything and planned trips to Korea and New York City. Her visit in 2005 was Yellina’s second trip back to Korea. During her first trip back in 2004, Yellina was still in her fantasy world where Korea was a place she continuously longed for. She was only there for two weeks, and she returned to Canada with even bigger illusions of Korea. In the Summer of 2005, she stayed in Korea for two months, which brought about considerable changes in her views towards Korean society. During that time, Yellina worked as an intern for a publishing company. There, she witnessed the reality of fierce competition among Koreans and realized that the Korea she dreamed of was the Korea she remembered when she was 15 years old. She also became more conscious of the differences between those who were born and raised in Korea and Generation 1.5 Koreans émigrés like herself. She believed that because of North American educational influences, Generation 1.5 Koreans were more flexible in their thoughts and less dependent on their parents. She admitted to speaking ill of local Koreans with her fellow Generation 1.5 friends in Korea, and with those experiences, her illusions of Korea were shattered. In addition, her trip to Korea crushed a belief Yellina had maintained since she first immigrated to Canada in 1999. Whenever Yellina felt discouraged by her lack of English skills, she took comfort in the fact that she was still more fluent than those back in Korea. That is, because she planned to return to Korea upon graduating from university, she believed her Korean-English bilingual skills would give her the competitive edge over her Korean peers (who were born and raised in Korea). However, during her two months in Korea, she realized that her bilingual skills were no longer a major advantage for her: I used to feel a bit safe (…) I had this sense of relief knowing that I speak better English than those in Korea, but that was a time when I was just a “frog in a well.”67 There are so many people who are good at English back in Korea now, so many bilinguals, so I’m not sure I have a huge advantage.  67 “A frog in a well” is a Korean expression used to describe someone with a narrow world view.  86 (Yellina, I#5, March 2, 2006, K-original) A visit to New York during her leave of absence also broadened Yellina’s views. While in New York, Yellina met many Generation 1.5 Korean-American university students, whom she believed were different from Korean-Canadians. She saw many students who, in her eyes, maintained their Korean identity but who also actively participated in mainstream American society. More specifically, she envied their ability to maintain close ties with Korean friends while developing an advanced level of proficiency in English. In contrast to these New Yorkers, Yellina believed that Korean- Canadian youth were still too heavily influenced by Korean culture without combining that with Canadian values and ideas. She felt their English skills were also lacking compared to the Korean-Americans she met. Yellina suggested that this was the reason why so many Korean-Canadians ended up pursuing a career within the Korean community, where advanced English skills were not required. In addition, she felt that compared to New York, Vancouver as a city was too small to pursue her future possibilities. Thus, she decided to be open to the idea of living in different cities around the world as part of her future career path. Yet in order to do so, a high level of English proficiency would be required. I realized that English really is a global language. These days, everything is in English. English is leading the world in technology. If someone asked me a few years ago about officializing English in Korea, I would have said no. But now, I think it is dumb not to do it. If we do not make English an official language, then we are allowing other people to take advantage of all the things in the world that are led by English. English is something you need in this day and age. I may go back to Korea for a few years to work one day. I may go do volunteer work in Africa. Who knows? I know my heart is still close to Korea, so I may want to work on something related to Korea. But no matter what I do and where I go, I will always need English. (Yellina, I#4, February 16, 2006, K-original) Sheila: “I feel like I need to prove myself” Earlier, I described the frustration that Sheila felt about having to speak Korean all the time with her Korean peers. With the amount of Korean she was using, one of her concerns was whether she would be able to acquire the level of English proficiency needed to work within mainstream Canadian society. However, for Sheila, the more  87 crucial issue at hand was how she would be viewed in the eyes of her friends back in Korea as well as other Korean immigrants in Canada. Because Sheila was a top student in her school in Korea (and particularly excelled in English), when she immigrated to Canada, her friends expressed envy that Sheila would soon become a NS of English--an expectation that Sheila also had for herself as well. However, although five years had passed since she first arrived in Canada (at the time of our interview), Sheila did not feel that she had reached a level of English that would be deemed “acceptable” for someone who had resided in Canada for that long. Consequently, although she had once planned on visiting Korea as an exchange student, she felt too ashamed to return with her current English skills. I do want to experience Korean university culture, but I don’t want to go back to Korea yet because I don’t think my English has improved to the level that I want it to be at. I will be embarrassed to go back with this level of English. I’d be less embarrassed if I went there after having forgotten some Korean and I was trying to improve my mother tongue. My friends back home seem to think I’m a total NS because I used to be the best in junior high. So, it’s kind of funny how I don’t want to go back to Korea because of my English. It’s not right to do so yet. I feel like I need to prove myself more first. (Sheila, I#2, October 19, 2005, K-original) In addition to having to prove her English skills to her Korean friends in Korea, Sheila constantly compared her English skills with other Korean immigrant students she encountered. This tendency to compare started immediately upon arriving in Canada when she saw that the only other Korean girl in her class spoke relatively fluent English just one year after immigrating to Canada. Since then, whenever she came across a Korean immigrant student who was fluent in English she would automatically wonder how long that person had been in Canada for and would became envious of their English skills. For example, during one of our interviews, Sheila had just come from a biology class where a Korean girl gave a presentation in class. She expressed feeling inferior to the girl because of her fluency in English and began to feel frustrated again by the quality of her own English skills. Sheila was particularly concerned that she would be judged by other Koreans if her English was not good enough. She, herself, admitted to judging and feeling pity  88 towards other Koreans if their English did not reflect the level of fluency of people who claimed to have lived in Canada for a certain period of time. Moreover, because she knew she was already being criticized by some of her peers for mixing Korean and English, she felt she had to be extra cautious not to make any mistakes in English when she spoke to other Koreans: They’ll probably smirk or something if I make mistakes in English. I mean, they might think, “Why does she insist on using English when it isn’t that great to begin with?” So, when I’m using English with other Koreans, I’m always monitoring myself. And if I notice that I’ve just made a mistake, I’ll correct myself right away. In general, I feel like I have to prove myself to other Korean immigrant students, so I’m always comparing myself to them. When I meet someone who arrived around the same time as me and who is more fluent than I am, I ask myself “Why am I like this?” And that definitely motivates me to study harder and improve my English. (Sheila, I#3, November 23, 2005, E-original) This level of anxiety was further amplified if she ever met immigrant students who were fluent in both Korean and English. Although Sheila considered herself completely fluent in spoken Korean, she did not feel as confident in written academic Korean. Thus, when she saw someone who possessed strong spoken and written skills in both Korean and English, she became envious and then ashamed of her own skills and felt anxious to improve her Korean skills. Yet soon after, she scolded herself for worrying about Korean when her English was not even good enough yet. In the end, she became even more worried about her state of English and became concerned that she would be “stuck in neither that nor this and just remain at the current stage of English forever” (Sheila, I#2, October 19, 2005, K-original). Sheila admitted that she had never actually received criticism for her English skills from any of her Korean friends either in Korea or in Canada. Moreover, she was uncertain whether her friends back home did indeed have such high expectations of her or whether other Korean immigrants really did judge others based on their English skills. Nonetheless, regardless of whether they were real or imagined, the pressures Sheila felt were indeed very real, and they only escalated as she became more socially involved with her Korean friends.  89 In addition, Sheila also put more pressure on herself whenever she thought of her parents’ sacrifices. Every time we discussed her parents, Sheila cried. She was very grateful to her parents for having given up so much in Korea for the sake of their children’s education. Thus, she felt extremely guilty about not improving her English and remaining in her Korean peer group, implying that by making such choices, she was not fulfilling her duties as a daughter. She added that she wanted to be someone her parents could be proud of and that she felt very guilty when she was “just hanging out with Korean friends and not speaking English or studying” (Sheila, I#3, November 23, 2005, E-original). It is worth noting here that Sheila was a very successful student academically both in high school and at PCU, and such academic achievement is a source of pride for most parents. However, it seemed that in Sheila’s mind, she had somehow “failed” as a daughter by not using more English in her daily life and not reaching out to members of other non-Korean communities. 4.4.3 Negotiating Change As discussed above, various factors and experiences influenced the students’ views towards improving their English skills. Classes at university and experiences outside of Canada made Yellina realize the narrow view she used to have about learning English. Sheila’s internal struggle continued as she put more pressure on herself to improve her English skills. Therefore, upon reevaluating their situations, both women felt the need for changes in their lives--some changes more substantial than others--which will be discussed in the following sections. Yellina: A More Proactive Approach to Improving English Trips to Korea and New York in 2005 served as significant catalysts for change in Yellina as she returned with a new outlook on life and a completely different future plan for herself. The first step towards change involved declaring English as her major in the Summer of 2006. During our final “official” interview, Yellina appeared very excited to finally work on something that she had been truly interested in since her high school years. However, her motivation behind majoring in English was no longer simply to fulfill a long, lost dream. Now, improving her English was the fundamental reason for  90 selecting English as her academic major. She believed that by making English the center of her studies, she would be able to gain more in-depth knowledge of the English language, which would ultimately aid in developing her English skills. Hence, if learning English in high school was a tool for immediate survival, improving her English in university was somewhat like completing a prerequisite for competing in a global market. In addition to majoring in English literature, Yellina decided to take on a more proactive and aggressive attitude toward improving her English skills. For example, up until her second year of university, Yellina accepted her “fate” as a NNS and avoided classes that required a lot of academic writing.68 Yet she now decided to face her fears and to try harder, even though she still accepted that she would always be disadvantaged to a certain extent due to her NNS status. However, despite Yellina’s enthusiasm about improving her English, there was one aspect of her life that she was not willing to change. That is, she was still very attached to her Korean peers and sŏnbaes and was not ready to change her habit of speaking Korean with them. Yellina regretfully mentioned not using enough English every day and said that on some days, she spoke no English at all. Even at school, she felt she was “listening” to English in classes instead of “using” English herself. Yet Yellina stated that no matter where she ended up in life, she felt that Koreans would remain her closest friends, and her ability to connect with them came from sharing the same cultural background and language. Thus, regardless of how important it was to improve her English and to increase the amount of time she used English on a daily basis, she was not willing to sacrifice her friendships for the sake of English. In fact, Yellina was even reluctant to share with her friends her decision to declare English as her major. She was concerned about their possible reactions and disapproval and hence chose not to disclose anything until the change in major was finalized. Thus, instead of minimizing Korean usage with her friends, Yellina opted to seek alternative approaches to increasing her time using English. For instance, she decided to  68 This avoidance of classes with heavy writing requirements was also the case with most of the participants and will be discussed more in depth in Chapter 7.  91 apply for a part-time position at a local bookstore, where she would be able to have more interaction with NSs of English. She was also planning to join a club at PCU, although she was undecided about which one she was most interested in. In addition, she sought ways to improve both her Korean and English written skills by taking on Korean-English translation work. Because her trip to Korea made her realize that her English skills alone would not serve as an advantage, Yellina felt she also needed to maintain a certain level of Korean language skills in order to have more marketability if she ever returned to Korea to pursue a career.69 Sheila: Finding Alternative Opportunities to Use English Around the time of our fourth interview in January, Sheila decided something had to be done about her situation of not speaking enough English in her daily life. Like Yellina, she was still very much attached to her Korean friends and was thus unwilling to minimize her time socializing with them. Therefore, like Yellina, she chose to increase her amount of time using English by placing herself in situations where she had no choice but to interact with people in English. For instance, she took on a part-time position as a waitress at a Japanese restaurant near her home. She worked during the evening shifts, so by the time she returned home, it was close to midnight. Needless to say, it was extremely physically tiring to work long hours after a full day of studies at school. However, Sheila felt it was a worthwhile investment if it meant increasing her use of English without sacrificing her relationship with her Korean friends. Moreover, she also decided to be more aggressive and talkative during her volunteer hours at a hospital gift shop. Thus far, she had been comfortable with her position as a cashier as it had required minimal conversation with the customers. Now, she was determined to make the effort to at least exchange “small talk” with the customers so as to increase her English communication time as much as possible.  69 In fact, upon graduating from PCU in May 2008, Yellina returned to Korea to seek temporary career possibilities. She planned to work for a few years then eventually attend graduate school in Korea, where she was hoping to major in English literature with a concentration on Asian-North American diasporas.  92 Finally, Sheila also returned to a “strategy” she employed in high school. That is, she made some Chinese friends in class with whom she could communicate in English, and she made the effort to create opportunities to converse with them outside the class such as going for coffee or spending time with them during breaks. The very fact that she was conversing in English instead of Korean made her feel as if she was doing something important; hence, she tried to make the most out of the short time she did spend with her Chinese friends by talking as much as possible. Sheila admitted that she never talked to these friends about deeper and more confidential issues that she only shared with her Korean friends. However, she nonetheless wanted to practice conversing about general issues with her Chinese friends--friends who were fluent in English but with whom she did not feel intimidated like she did with her White Anglo-Canadian peers. In examining the above experiences of Sheila, it is important to consider how someone as academically successful and bilingual as Sheila--whom many would refer to as a “model minority” student--still struggled with finding opportunities to use English and feeling competent in her English skills. The simple explanation could be that Sheila as an individual had set very high standards for herself or that her shy personality kept her from socializing with NS “Canadian” peers. Although there is certainly some truth to such explanations, it also raises the question of whether our schools and society in general have a “false sense of security” (Hurh, 1993, p. 26) with regard to immigrant students who appear bilingual and bicultural, and therefore “successful,” on the surface. That is, it is critical to consider whether the students’ functional bilingualism and academic success serve as a pacifier to some extent, possibly leading to the overlooking of other issues of access, rejection, and for some ethnic populations, racism. 4.5 Summary and Discussion In this chapter, I have described Yellina and Sheila’s academic, social, and linguistic trajectories since their arrival in Canada. Both students arrived in Canada with a dream to become professors in English literature. In Yellina’s case, the dream still lives on, whereas Sheila has chosen to pursue a completely different field. It is not my intention to judge whether one choice was better than the other. Rather, I have  93 highlighted the contextual factors that have led to the different decisions made by each student. However, in doing so, I have also identified some of the commonalities between the two young women. For both women, Korean peers (in Canada and elsewhere) played an important role in their everyday lives and in many ways served as “experts” (Duff, 2003, Lave & Wenger, 1991) in their process of L2 socialization in Canada. In particular, from early on in high school, interactions with Korean peers taught Yellina and Sheila that it was unacceptable to use English among other Korean immigrant youth like themselves-- an expectation which continued throughout university. The pressure to use their L1 is similar to the findings in Goldstein (1997a) and Liang’s (2006) studies, where Chinese adolescent immigrant students in the U.S and Canada felt pressured to use their L1 with their Chinese-speaking peers because using English was considered rude and arrogant. Thus, in order not to jeopardize their friendships with their peers, the students chose to speak in their L1s despite their desires to improve their English skills. However, it is also interesting to note that in Fought (2006) and Zentella’s (1997) studies with Latin- American immigrant youth, in some cases, they deliberately code-switched between English and Spanish in order to display their bilingual identity, thereby distinguishing themselves from recently-arrived immigrants. In this respect, the fact that Yellina and Sheila were newly arrived immigrants in high school (hence not yet bilingual) could partially explain why they felt pressured to use Korean with their fellow Korean immigrant friends. However, this does not explain the continued pressure to use Korean in university because by then, the students had become quite bilingual and peer pressure is usually not an issue for most university students. Thus, this raises the question about how much English proficiency one must have in order to truly qualify as a bilingual and not be criticized as a “show-off.” It also makes one speculate whether such pressures are only found among Generation 1.5 youth or if second generation Korean immigrants might feel the same. In addition to not speaking English among other Koreans, members of the Korean community continued to influence and socialize Yellina and Sheila into various  94 ideologies regarding English language learning and their future possibilities. In Yellina’s case, in high school, the competitive nature of Korean students and their parents socialized Yellina into believing that her objective for learning English was to escape her ESL status and to “defeat” other Korean immigrant students. Korean peers and parents also influenced Yellina to believe that ESL students were somehow handicapped. In addition, the need to remain familiar with contemporary Korean pop culture (in order to socialize with Korean peers) kept Yellina from being interested in Canadian culture and current affairs--a choice which disadvantaged her later on in various classes at PCU. In university, sŏnbaes took over the role of peers and parents and guided Yellina into a world of Generation 1.5 that is limited by their own perceived disadvantages as NNSs and immigrants. However (although not as explicitly), the Koreans back in Korea and Generation 1.5 Korean-Americans that she met during her leave from PCU also caused Yellina to reevaluate her perceptions towards English as well as her future goals. That is, the encounters with other Korean youths outside of Canada made Yellina realize the importance of improving her English skills, not just because it is a language spoken in Canada, but because it is a crucial element to competing in the global market. Consequently, Yellina resisted the discouraging “Generation 1.5 boundary” set before her by her sŏnbaes at PCU and reclaimed her original intentions of studying English literature. Yet again, though her decision was no longer influenced by Korean-Canadian immigrants, her points of reference remained Korean nonetheless. Therefore, Yellina’s experiences suggest that in her case, English NSs were rarely taken into consideration as “experts” of her target language and culture nor were they necessarily her role models with regard to English to begin with. For the most part, fellow Generation 1.5 Korean- Canadians were experts to Yellina and served as mentors and advisers with regard to their academic and sociocultural choices, but most importantly, with regard to what was and what was not desirable for Korean immigrant students’ L2 learning and use. Duff (2003) asserts that traditional LS approaches have often assumed a relatively smooth LS process for newcomers who are guided by “experts who have considerable good will and patience and who helpfully accommodate newcomers to their group, their  95 culture, their community” (p. 333). She also adds that such approaches may not fully grasp the contexts of contemporary society, which tends to be “much more complicated, fluid, dynamic, competitive, multilingual and potentially unwelcoming” (p. 333). Many of Sheila’s experiences confirm Duff’s arguments. For Sheila, contrary to her expectations to make NS “Canadian” friends upon moving to Canada, she felt too intimidated to approach White Anglo-Canadian NSs in high school and had continued to feel this way ever since. This intimidation was not necessarily a result of rejection or lack of accommodation from the NS peers; rather, Sheila attributed her poor English skills as the main reason for these feelings. However, the indifference on the part of NS peers and the perceived cultural differences that Sheila felt with them also contributed to her building a wall against them. Thus, even when she opted to befriend non-Korean students for the sake of English, she automatically eliminated White Anglo-Canadian students from becoming her potential friends. It is worth noting, however, that despite the fact that she felt intimidated by White Anglo-Canadian NSs because of her perceived lack of English proficiency, she primarily judged the quality of her English based on whether it would be deemed “acceptable” by her Korean friends back home as well as by other Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadians. Hence, the level of English she aimed to obtain was not necessarily that of a NS. Rather, she felt the need to prove herself capable of speaking English at the level of someone who has resided in Canada for five years--namely an “oldtimer” (Lave & Wenger, 1991) by Generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian standards. Only then would she be able to proudly visit Korea as an exchange student and only then would she gain legitimacy to mix Korean and English with her Korean peers without the worry of being judged by them. Both women’s experiences also demonstrate the notion of continuity and discontinuity and ideological considerations, two of the three major issues in LS studies in educational research, according to Baquendano-Lopez and Kattan (2008) (see also Garrett & Baquedano-Lopez, 2002). While many of the studies in Baquendano-Lopez and Kattan’s review look at the discontinuities between the socialization practices at school and at home, Yellina and Sheila’s experiences display a discontinuity between the  96 practices encouraged within their Korean peer groups (in high school and university) and the practices required to realize their future possibilities. In addition, the differences in their socialization practices also reflected the contradicting ideologies that came into play. That is, within the boundaries of their Korean communities, be it with their peers, parents, or sŏnbaes, the women were influenced by beliefs of what it meant to be an ESL student, a Korean, a NNS, and a Generation 1.5 immigrant in Canada, and these were reflected in their linguistic choices. Yet, such ideologies conflicted with their beliefs of what it meant to be a successful university student, a global citizen, a good daughter, and a member of mainstream Canadian society and pulled them towards another direction in terms of linguistic choices and practices. I believe that in addition to the above explanations, at the center of both students’ experiences lies their negotiation of multiple and sometimes conflicting investments and identities (Norton, 2000). For Yellina, her initial resistance towards immigration to Canada and her desire to remain connected to the Korean language and culture drew her to socialize exclusively with Korean peers in high school. Hence, at that time, she was heavily invested in her personal Korean identity and group affiliation. Competition among Korean ESL classmates and their parents stimulated Yellina to work hard to “escape” her ESL status, yet she was not willing to sacrifice her friendship with her Korean friends by speaking less Korean or leaving her Korean peer group for the sake of improving her English. That is, she minimized her investment in English and learning about Canadian culture and gave priority to her investment in maintaining her Korean identity with her Korean peers. In university, her identity as a Korean remained strong, and she continued to socialize almost exclusively with Korean peers and sŏnbaes, who strongly influenced her initial acceptance of a somewhat “helpless and hopeless” Generation 1.5 identity and the academic choices she made accordingly. However, through her various experiences over the next few years Yellina’s investments in English grew and she began to take on the identity of a global citizen. As a result, she altered her future plans and decided to major in English literature--a major which was strongly discouraged by her Korean sŏnbaes. This seemed like an act of agency on Yellina’s part  97 and a sign of determination to control her own future. However, Yellina was hesitant to share her decision with her Korean friends as she was unsure of how they might react. Also, although Yellina did feel that she needed to speak more English in her everyday life, she was not willing to minimize her time with her Korean friends with whom she always spoke Korean. Instead, she chose to seek alternative ways to increase her time speaking English (e.g., through a part-time job and PCU club activities), which demonstrated how she was still trying to balance between her multiple and conflicting investments in languages and identities. Figure 4.1 summarizes Yellina’s investments in languages and identities. Sheila also had to negotiate between her multiple investments and identities, and in some ways, her trajectory could be characterized by even more dilemmas than Yellina’s. For Sheila, the very group she desired so strongly to become a member of was simultaneously the source of many of her internal struggles. That is, the loneliness she felt in the past drew her to socialize with fellow Generation 1.5 immigrant Korean friends. Yet this investment in her friendships was made at the cost of her use of and improvement in English. This competed with her investment (in high school) to enter university and later (at university), to participate in mainstream Canadian society in the future. In addition, her desire to prove herself to other Koreans (both back in Korea and in Vancouver) and her sense of duty as a daughter added even more layers to the complexity of her struggles and the pressures she imposed on herself. Yet, despite such internal battles, Sheila never gave up on her affiliation with her Korean peers and instead tried to find alternative opportunities to use English (e.g., through volunteer work and waitressing). Therefore, Sheila was constantly trying to negotiate and renegotiate her multiple investments in her identities as a member of her Korean peer group, future member of mainstream Canadian society, top student in Korea, Korean immigrant in Canada, and responsible daughter. Figure 4. 2 summarizes Sheila’s investments in languages and identities. Finally, the experiences of both Yellina and Sheila need to be examined within the broader sociocultural contexts in which they were situated. The changing  98 demographics of Vancouver, the role of English in Korea and the world, and technological advancements which allowed easier and more frequent contact with Korean culture were some of the key factors affecting the students’ attitudes, ideologies, and investments in English language learning and heritage language maintenance. In this respect, the process of “Canadianization” or “North Americanization” were quite slow for the two women--a factor which added another layer to the complexities of their language socialization processes.   Past Present Future Desire to escape ESL. (Competition among Korean peers and parents) Studying for English. Studying in English. Desire to enter English Department. Global competition with English speakers. English  Goal to become English professor. Resistance towards immigration to Canada.  Marketability in Korea. Korean  Desire to maintain friendship with Korean peers. Figure 4.1 Yellina’s Investments in Languages and Identities  99   Past Present Future Dream of becoming English professor. Goal to enter university. Goal to enter graduate school. Perceived expectations of peers in Korea. Desire to have English ability like “oldtimer” Generation 1.5 students. Member of mainstream Canadian professional society. English  Responsibility towards parents Contact with peers in Korea to escape loneliness in Canadian middle school. Pressure from sister. Envy towards Korean immigrant students who are fluent in English and Korean. Korean     Pressure from Korean peers Uncertain. Figure 4.2 Sheila’s Investments in Languages and Identities  100 Chapter 5 NEITHER A “FOB” NOR A “BANANA”: HANNAH, JOON, AND MIKE 5.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, I discussed the experiences of Sheila and Yellina and the contextual factors that influenced their linguistic, social, and academic choices since immigrating to Canada. In this chapter, I explore the language socialization of Hannah, Joon, and Mike. Unlike Sheila and Yellina, who were strongly attached to and heavily influenced by their fellow Generation 1.5 Korean peers (particularly those who spoke Korean all the time), the three students in this chapter made the conscious choice to disconnect themselves from such Korean-speaking peers at particular times after immigrating to Canada. As will be described throughout the chapter, their choices were not determined by a single factor, nor were their decisions made overnight. As was the case with Sheila’s and Yellina’s various life decisions, theirs were also the results of past, present, and future (imagined) contextual factors that shaped the students’ sense of identity, practical goals, and general outlook on life. Therefore, in the following sections, I will trace the three students’ language socialization processes and the contextual factors that have shaped their various experiences. First, I briefly introduce each student’s background including family information and studies at PCU. Next, I examine the students’ views towards what they referred to as “FOB” Korean peers in high school and university and their reactions to being labeled a “banana” or “banana-wanna-be.”70 In doing so, I examine the areas in which the three students displayed similarities while also highlighting their individual, unique circumstances. I conclude the chapter by providing a discussion and summary of the three students’ cases.  70 Detailed descriptions of these terms will follow in later sections of this chapter.  101 5.2 Students’ Backgrounds 5.2.1 Hannah Hannah was a 20 year old female student originally from Seoul, who immigrated to Vancouver, Canada with her family (mother and younger brother) in 1995 when she was 11 years old. Like most Korean families, Hannah’s family also moved to Canada for the sake of the children’s education. In addition, several members of Hannah’s mother’s family were already established in Edmonton, thus, her mother was even more eager to move the family to Canada. Initially, the family settled in Vancouver, where Hannah attended Grades 6 to 8. Then in the beginning of Grade 9, in order to be closer to Hannah’s aunt’s family, the family moved to Edmonton, where they lived for three years. However, Hannah’s mother was unhappy with the weather conditions in Edmonton, and at the beginning of her Grade 12 year, they made a permanent move back to Vancouver. Hannah’s father was a civil servant in Korea who visited Vancouver about three or four times a year but had plans to ultimately retire in Vancouver. Her mother, who used to be an accountant in Korea, was now a stay-at-home mom in Canada. At the time of the interview, Hannah was living with her mother and brother. At the time of the interview, she spoke mainly Korean with her parents and English with her brother, who was a year younger than her.71 Upon graduating from high school, Hannah attended a local community college in Vancouver. A year later, she transferred to PCU and enrolled as a General Arts major, with a focus on Asian Studies. At the time of our interview, she was in the second year of the Commerce program at PCU. 5.2.2 Joon Joon was a 20 year old male student, who at the time of the interview was a third year General Sciences student at PCU. Joon and his family (parents and older sister) immigrated to Vancouver, Canada in 1997 when Joon was 11 years old. Both Joon and his sister were born and raised in Germany, where his parents did their graduate studies and worked for 13 years. His family returned to Korea when Joon was 9 years old but  71 She used Korean with her brother when they first moved to Canada but started using mainly English from about two years later.  102 decided to immigrate to Canada because of the lack of career opportunities for his parents in Korea. Both Joon and his sister were quite glad when their parents chose to move to Canada because they were not very happy with the strict, conservative nature of Korean society that they experienced upon returning from Germany. They had no idea where Canada was nor what it was like, but his parents and relatives explained that it was like the United States, so they were happy to move to a place that was more “Westernized.” Shortly after immigrating to Vancouver, his mother found a job as a researcher and his father opened a small seafood export-import business. Later on, his mother quit her job and joined his father in operating the family business, which Joon described as being “not so lucrative” (Joon, I#2, November 15, 2005, E-original). None of his family members have visited Korea since immigrating to Canada mostly due to financial reasons. Joon lived with his parents and spoke mostly Korean with them. He only spoke English with his sister who lived alone. At the time of the interview, he was taking German classes at PCU to try and regain his German language skills that he had once had as a child. 5.2.3 Mike Mike was a 21-year-old, second year Commerce student at PCU. Originally from Seoul, he had been a snowboarder during high school in Korea who was training to compete for the national team. However, with concerns about Mike’s very poor academic achievement, his parents decided to immigrate to Canada when Mike was in Grade 11. Mike’s move to Canada was not his first time living overseas. Due to his father’s occupational circumstances, Mike’s family lived in New Jersey, U.S. when he was 3 to 7 years old. In 2001 (age 17), he moved to Calgary with his mother and younger brother while his father stayed in Korea to manage the family business. When Mike was admitted to PCU, the family all moved to Vancouver. His mother was a stay-at-home mom in Canada, but in the fall of 2006 (when Mike’s brother became a university student), she returned to Korea permanently. Mike spoke only Korean to both his parents and his brother. At the time of the interview, Mike was living at an undergraduate residence on PCU’s campus.  103 5.3 Detachment from “FOBs” In her study on slang used by American college students, Eble (1996) states that “FOB” often refers to Asian immigrants who are not yet assimilated to the American way of life. Recently, scholars have examined the use of this term among Korean, Southeast Asian, and Pacific Islander immigrant youth in the United States and have noted that it is often used among second generation and long-term, U.S.-educated Generation 1.5 youth to distinguish themselves from “uncool” (Talmy, 2005, p. 64), recently arrived immigrants who lacked English proficiency, mainly associated with their ethnic peer group, and who often came from lower class family backgrounds (Jeon, 2001; Reyes, 2007; Talmy, 2005). In particular, these studies found that in some cases, immigrant youth made the deliberate effort to marginalize or “other” the newly arrived immigrants so as not to be labeled “FOBs” themselves. The term “FOB” also often arose during my interviews with Hannah, Joon, and Mike, and like the findings of the above studies, the students disassociated with Korean peers as a means of distancing themselves from the “FOB” label. Hannah and Joon had formed strong views and stereotypes towards “FOBs” since their high school years. Mike, on the other hand, was not aware of the term until he entered university but had nonetheless formed critical views towards the group at PCU, especially after entering the commerce program. The following sections will describe the various contexts in which the students’ views towards “FOBs” were created, reevaluated, and reinforced. 5.3.1 “FOBs” in High School Hannah: “I wanted to completely shed my Korean identity”72 When Hannah and her family first immigrated to Vancouver, she enrolled in Grade 6 at a local elementary school. For two years, she took ESL classes along with a few regular classes, and she became very close to her Chinese ESL friends. Unlike the cases of Yellina and Sheila in Chapter 4, Hannah did not experience any fierce competition among Korean ESL students, which she believed was because of the small  72 All interviews with Hannah were conducted in English. The quotes included in this chapter are Hannah’s own words. Based on our interviews, I felt that Hannah was very fluent in spoken English.  104 Korean student population in the school as well as the very small size of ESL classes (usually no more than five students in each class). Throughout Grades 6 to 8, Hannah continued to remain close to her Chinese friends, yet she began to have feelings of wanting to become more “Canadian,” which in her mind meant spending time with White Anglo-Canadian friends. At that time, her school was predominantly made up of White Anglo-Canadian and Chinese immigrant students, and Hannah belonged to the latter group. She never felt particularly alienated or discriminated against by her White Anglo- Canadian peers, but she nonetheless felt too shy about befriending them due to her lack of English proficiency. In Grade 9, the family moved back to Edmonton to be closer to Hannah’s aunt’s family, and Hannah transferred to a local high school in her new neighborhood. Her new school was very multicultural and also had a fairly large Korean student population. Initially, Hannah started socializing with the Korean student crowd who were mainly made up of recently arrived immigrant students who were enrolled in ESL classes. Although she enjoyed the company of her new friends, she continued to have the feeling of wanting to be more “Canadian” and doing things that her “White” peers did (e.g., socializing after school, playing sports) which seemed more fun to her at the time: When I was young, I used to feel that since I was here in Canada, I should be more Canadian. So, being with Chinese friends in elementary school and then Korean friends in my new high school, I didn’t feel like I was being Canadian enough. I felt like I was still Korean but just living in Canada. (Hannah, I#1, September 25, 2005, E-original) Therefore, upon making some non-Korean friends in some of her classes, Hannah one day decided to socialize exclusively with her new group of friends: It’s interesting because my school building was shaped like a rotunda, but we had four corners where there was a different ethnic group in each corner. We had the Caucasian/Banana corner, East Indian corner, multicultural corner, and then the Asian corner. One day, I just literally moved myself to the Caucasian corner and said to my friends, “I’m just going to hang out with you guys from now on,” and I never looked back. It wasn’t a gradual change or anything, I just suddenly changed, and I did feel bad because I felt like I was ditching my Korean friends. But at that time, I really felt like I had to get rid of my Korean identity in order to become more Canadian, and that meant not hanging out with any Koreans at all.  105 (Hannah, I#1, September 25, 2005, E-original) When asked what it was about the Korean peers that made them not Canadian enough, Hannah described them as being too “FOB.” In her school, the term “FOB” was used to refer to Chinese and Korean students who recently immigrated to Canada. These students often stood out from the rest of the crowd, but usually in a negative way to the minds of other students. Like the findings in the studies mentioned earlier, the “FOBs” in Hannah’s school were also known for dressing differently from Canadian students, being “nerdy” or “geeky,” or on the other extreme end, being troublemakers (skipping classes, smoking). However, the most defining characteristic of “FOBs” was their tendency to stick to their own ethnic cliques and their predominant use of their mother tongue within those groups. As a result, “FOB” students were often perceived to be “cocky and snobby (…) so [they] would always be like a social outcast” (Hannah, I#2, October 28, 2005, E- original). Olsen (2000) asserts that to many immigrant students in the United States, becoming American means speaking English, and English becomes “the social and political marker of affiliation and belonging” (p. 198). In a similar vein, the “FOB” traits, including their lack of English use that Hannah observed in her peers, were everything she believed to be non-Canadian. Thus, she distanced herself from Korean friends completely during her high school years in Edmonton and deliberately disconnected herself from Korean culture and language as well. In addition to speaking only English at school, she also spoke English to her parents and brother at home. Her parents were worried that she would lose her Korean language skills and her brother questioned why she only had Caucasian friends. However, she simply explained that she found friends who were more fun to be with and dismissed her family’s concerns. In addition, fearing that she may not be seen as Canadian enough, she never spoke of Korean culture with her Canadian peers and even purposely complained about her parents’ traditional Korean ways so as to assert her “Canadianness” to her friends: I tried not to show any of my Korean side to my Canadian friends. I really tried to adapt to their ways of thinking and behaving, even if it made me feel uncomfortable at times. For instance, sometimes they would talk back to the  106 teachers, which in Korea is unimaginable. But my friends would say “You’re in Canada, so you don’t have to be Korean,” and I just thought they were correct. I made fun of my parents and other Asian parents for being so restrictive, and I complained about it a lot to my friends. (Hannah, I #2, October 28, 2005, E-original) Therefore, although the desire to shed off her Korean identity was originally initiated by Hannah herself, it was later on further encouraged by her “Canadian” peers to do things the Canadian way. As Gibson, Gandara, and Koyama (2004) suggest, during adolescence, peers have a strong influence on the creation and development of one’s self- perception. In the case of Hannah, the peer pressure that she felt further reinforced her detachment from the “FOB” crowd, who in Hannah’s eyes represented everything “uncool” and embarrassing. Joon: “I felt out of place”73 Like Hannah, Joon immigrated to Canada in Grade 6. Although he had only lived in Korea for two years (as mentioned earlier, he was born and raised in Germany until age 9), he was very fluent in Korean at the time of his arrival in Canada. He took ESL classes for three months in Grade 6 but was no longer required to take them upon entering middle school. By Grade 8, he began feeling more comfortable using English over Korean. And out of concern for his potential Korean language loss, his parents asked him not to speak English at home. In middle school, Joon was friends with students from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and recalled having an active social life playing sports and taking part in other extracurricular activities. At that time, he was one of the few Korean students in his school. As it is the case for many teenagers, high school was an awkward time for Joon. He entered Grade 9 determined to be one of the “cool” kids in school, yet over the years, he struggled with self-confidence issues and finding a sense of belonging among his peers. Unlike his middle school, there were a large number of Korean immigrant students in his high school as well as students from other various ethnic backgrounds. He  73 All interviews with Joon were conducted in English. The quotes included in this chapter were his own words. In my opinion, Joon was one of the most fluent English speakers among the seven participants.  107 remained very close to his friends from middle school, but many of them were not very academically oriented, which caused some conflict between him and his friends. Trying to find a group that he could belong to, Joon tried approaching some Korean students at his school, but he soon realized that their “FOB” characteristics made them too different from him. Like Hannah’s description of “FOBs,” Joon categorized “FOBs” as geeks or troublemakers who only socialized within their cliques and who were still very much attached to Korean language and culture. However, unlike Hannah who chose to dissociate herself from “FOB” friends and Korean culture because they were not Canadian enough, Joon felt he did not fit into this group because of his lack of Korean language skills and differing “Korean” values: I think the general thought process of the way most Korean youth think and their values were too different from mine. I also wasn’t able to speak very fast. You know, Korean speech is very fast and witty, and you had to be in with the modern times to have a conversation with the modern views. I guess it’s like when adults try to talk to kids and they can’t speak about the same modern topics because they use colloquial slang. I felt like I wasn’t up to date and felt out of place. (Joon, I#2, November 15, 2005, E-original) Furthermore, although he had never received any explicit criticism from his Korean peers, he felt he was being looked down upon due to his relative lack of Korean skills and knowledge of Korean culture. Consequently, he felt he was being pushed away from this group. Joon’s experience is in stark contrast to Hannah’s as well as to the findings of previous studies mentioned above (Jeon, 2001; Reyes, 2007; Talmy, 2005), where it was the more assimilated oldtimer students who mocked or rejected the seemingly less acculturated, non-English-speaking newcomers: To be honest, I have never felt like I really missed Korea and felt that I had to go back. But the kids in the Korean group were always talking about Korean things, so I felt really awkward. I tried to speak Korean with them, but it was just too weird. I was afraid that they would be too condescending and that I wouldn’t measure up. They were also critical of people who used English and said that person was trying to be too Canadian, meaning, they were trying to be too White. I was one of those who felt more comfortable speaking in English, so I didn’t feel like I was being accepted by them. (Joon, I#4, January 19, 2006, E-original)  108 In addition to feeling out of place and criticized due to his lack of Koreanness, Joon felt he could not associate with “FOBs” who were mostly from rich families and who took for granted the sacrifices the parents made for the children. He felt they were “not taking advantage of the opportunities but taking advantage of the situation” (Joon, I#2, November 15, 2005, E-original), and that he was disappointed by their lack of appreciation for the struggles of the first generation. Again, Joon’s observation of Korean “FOBs” is comparable to Jeon’s (2001) and Reyes’s (2007) studies, where Korean and Southeast Asian immigrant students associated “FOBs” with those from relatively poor immigrant families with “FOB jobs” (Reyes, 2007, p. 98). However, as mentioned in Chapter 2, such a difference could be attributed to the fact that many recent Korean immigrants to Canada have been t’ujains (investors) who came to Canada already with enough financial stability, which has often not been the case with Korean immigrants in the United States (Yoon, 2001). 5.3.2 “FOBs” in University Mike: “We were the FOBs”74 Mike attended high school in Calgary where there was a very small ethnic minority student population. In fact, he was one of the only three Korean students in his entire school; thus, the majority of his friends in high school were White Anglo- Canadians. His talent in sports, especially snowboarding, helped him to bond with his new friends, and Mike believed that although he immigrated to Canada at a relatively older age, socializing almost exclusively with NS peers in high school helped speed his acquisition of English. Furthermore, he commented that although he had lost most of his English upon returning to Korea, his experience living in New Jersey as a young child may have also helped with his pronunciation skills, which made him almost sound like a NS of English.  74 Interviews with Mike were conducted in both English and Korean. Thus, comments made in Korean were translated into English by me. Mike comfortably mixed Korean and English during our interviews and seemed quite fluent in both languages.  109 Unlike Hannah and Joon who had strong views towards “FOBs” since high school, Mike only became familiar with the term in university. Upon entering PCU, he joined the Korean Student Association, and he often socialized with the friends he met there, including going drinking after class and traveling together on weekends. It was during this time with his Korean peers that he learned of the term “FOB,” which was often used to refer to Korean exchange students at PCU or Korean university students who were in Vancouver for temporary ESL studies (not necessarily at PCU). University “FOBs” were often criticized as being cliquish, speaking only Korean amongst themselves, and attached to Korean culture despite their goals to learn English in Vancouver. This description resembled the high school “FOB” stereotypes described by Hannah and Joon. Yet, during his first year at PCU, Mike never gave much thought to the notion of “FOB” as he felt they were a group distant from his own peers and that as a successful university student, he was more Canadianized than the Korean “FOBs.” However, it was through his academic studies over the next couple of years that led him to reevaluate the notion of “FOB” and to reconsider his socialization patterns with other Korean peers. After entering PCU, Mike enrolled as a General Arts student and took many Political Science courses during the first year. In these courses, he experienced many difficulties with writing assignments not only because of his lack of academic writing skills but also because of his unfamiliarity with assignment topics. He felt that as a NNS and as someone who was not born and raised in the Canadian context, he had to put in extra effort working on his assignments in order to receive a reasonable grade. For instance, in his Canadian Government class, there were often times when he did not understand the assignment topic itself because of a lack of background information on the Canadian political system as well as on aspects of Canadian culture. Mike’s experience was similar to that of Yellina in Chapter 4 (who also took a class on Canadian government) as well the students in Duff’s (2001) study, where Asian ESL students experienced difficulties in a high school social studies classes due to their lack of knowledge of contemporary North American current affairs and culture. He particularly  110 experienced this more often during class discussions, where students talked about various topics that were very familiar to the average Canadian student: I don’t think it was just the English that was the problem because a lot of the times, I could understand what the others were saying, but I had no idea what was going on. So it’s not just English, it’s also culture. That’s the bigger problem. Like, if I don’t know who Wayne Gretsky is, then I have no clue what’s going on. (Mike, I#1, September 26, 2005, E-original) However, despite such discouraging factors, Mike worked extremely hard and received excellent grades in most of his courses. Yet, after two years in the Faculty of Arts (with a Political Science focus), he became overwhelmed and exhausted by the amount of writing required in his courses. Therefore, upon consulting with a career advisor at PCU, he transferred to the Commerce program, where he was told he would not be required to write as many extensive and creative essays compared to the Arts Faculty. In addition, he felt a degree in Commerce would provide him with more career options in the future. Indeed, Mike did have less difficulty with written assignments in the Commerce program. However, within the new program, he was faced with a different kind of challenge that he had not experienced before in other courses. That is, he became overwhelmed with the fierce level of competition among the students. Not only were the students high academic achievers, but they were also very aggressive in trying to make themselves known and to “keep on adding to their resumes” (Mike, I#2, November 6, 2005, E-original): It’s a totally different environment, not just in terms of studying, but the overall atmosphere. It’s like a dog eat dog world (…) there’s also a lot of emphasis on doing extracurricular activities. Even the professors think that’s more important because that’s what potential employers look for. So, now in Commerce, I have a different kind of stress compared to when I was in Arts. (Mike, I#3, January 12, 2006, E-original) As noted in Chapter 2, various language socialization studies have investigated newcomers’ socialization into the discourses of their new (or desired) professional communities (e.g., Duff, Wong & Early, 2000; Goldstein, 1997b; Jacobs-Huey, 2003; McCall, 1997; Sarangi and Roberts, 1999). Mertz (1996, 2007), for instance, looked at  111 how through engaging in certain types of interaction with their law professors, students were socialized into adapting a new identity and a new discourse of a law professional. Similarly, through interactions with his professors and other members of the “real world,” Mike learned that in order to survive within the Commerce program, it was more important to excel socially than academically. Presentations, debates, and portfolio analyses required much group work among the students. There were also many organized events with recruiters where students could find potential internships and other future employment opportunities. Through such social interactions, Mike became aware of the importance of “soft topic skills” (Mike, I#3, January 12, 2006, E-original): In Commerce, you have to know about current issues, sports, economics, investing, you name it. You have to know those things to survive socially. It’s not about hitting the hard topics; it’s all about the soft topics. Even though you don’t do well academically, you can become really likeable if you know the soft topics. That’s what all the professors emphasize because they’re the ones who used to work in companies and recruit employees, so they emphasize on soft topic skills. (Mike, I#3, January 12, 2006, E-original) However, Mike felt that as a person who had only lived in Canada for less than five years, it was extremely difficult for him to be familiar with “soft topics” that were of interest to mainstream Canadians. In particular, he felt that his exclusive social relationships with his Korean peers prevented him from learning more about Canadian culture. Thus, he reevaluated his involvement with the Korean Student Association and realized that the only purpose of the group was to socialize among Koreans, where most of the functions were held in Korean. He described being “sucked into the club” (Mike, I#2, November 6, 2005, E-original) because it was so much fun, but at the end of the day, he felt the club members were isolating themselves by speaking in Korean all the time, following Korean popular culture and current affairs, and forming cliques without reaching out to the larger PCU community. In other words, he felt that the Korean group he socialized with was no different from the “FOBs” that they were criticizing. He added that because “we only got together on the basis that we are all Koreans (…) it was almost like we were the FOBs” (Mike, I#2, November 6, 2005, E-original).  112 Consequently, it was during his studies within the Commerce program that he deliberately began distancing himself from his Korean peers. Although he did not completely abandon his Korean friends as Hannah did, he no longer attended the Korean Student Association events and started joining several PCU clubs to expand his circle of friends. He even started playing hockey to improve his so-called “soft topic skills.” Thus, unlike Hannah, who avoided “FOBs” to become more Canadian, and Joon, who actually felt pushed away by them, Mike chose to gradually leave the boundaries of his Korean peer group for the sake of his immediate survival in the Commerce program and for his future survival in his professional career: Ever since my Political Science days, I have felt that my being a NNS and not possessing Canadian cultural knowledge was a huge disadvantage. But I just thought that was a disadvantage in terms of studying. But I think after coming to Commerce, I truly realized that life is really competitive. If you live like the Koreans here, then it’s hard to be successful. There’s a lot of things you have to pay attention to and do, but because Koreans are within their own boundaries, you don’t really know what is going on in the outside world. I was like that too. But after coming to Commerce, I realized how the real world was living. (Mike, I#4, January 27, 2006, E-original) During our final official interview as well as in subsequent unofficial correspondences, Mike described that despite his hectic schedule, he believed he had the best time of his university life during the 2005-2006 academic year, being involved in diverse activities and making friends from various ethnic backgrounds all the while improving his English and “soft topic skills.” Hannah and Joon: “Stop the Minoritizing” At PCU, both Hannah and Joon continued to keep a distance from “FOB” Korean students, although by this time, in addition to referring to them as “FOBs,” they also often labeled such students as “Korean-Koreans.” Like Mike, Hannah also transferred to the Commerce program from the Arts Faculty and also felt the fierce competition among the Commerce students.75 Hannah echoed the importance of “soft topic skills” expressed  75 At the time of the interview, Hannah was planning to graduate with a Bachelor’s degree in Commerce, minoring in Asian studies.  113 by Mike, and when given the choice to select group members, she admitted that she avoided working with “Korean-Korean” students in classes: I felt like Korean-Korean students wouldn’t be good at group presentations or other types of group work due to cultural barriers. For instance, they wouldn’t know the similar humor to put in. (Hannah, I#4, November 22, 2005, E-original) Hannah explained that at this point in her life, she knew how silly it was to have teased the “FOBs” as being “uncool” during high school, and she regretted abandoning her friends the way she did. Regardless, she felt that within the university academic context, associating with Korean “FOB” students would put her at a disadvantage in terms of obtaining more immediate and practical goals (like getting group work done faster and more efficiently and receiving higher marks on group presentations). Socially, she continued to distance herself from “FOB” peers who only spoke Korean amongst themselves. She was certain that her detachment from these peers in university was no longer about becoming completely Canadian because her experiences at university allowed her to embrace her Korean-Canadian identity and helped her feel more comfortable in her own skin. Rather, she felt that by choosing to remain in a clique that only spoke Korean, that person was choosing to “minoritize” (Hannah, I#4, November 22, 2005, E-original) him/herself and was building a wall against other Canadians, regardless of race. In addition to the academic and social setting, Hannah also explained that she avoided speaking Korean in her work setting as a sales associate for a popular clothing store in Vancouver. She said that she never used Korean in her workplace with either her Korean-speaking colleagues or customers. Even when her customers spoke Korean, she pretended not to understand and only conversed with them in English. Like her attitude towards forming Korean cliques, she felt that by using Korean in a professional setting, she was again “minoritizing” herself from the English speaking Canadian majority. Thus, to Hannah, English was the only language one should speak in public, especially in order to look more professional.  114 In Joon’s case, he still continued to hold strong views towards Korean “FOB” students at PCU. At university, most of Joon’s closest friends were either non-Korean students or English-speaking Koreans. However, while he had felt looked down upon or even pushed away by the “FOBs” in high school, now at university, he felt the roles had been reversed. Joon believed that over the years, he had matured enough to know that he did not need a clique to define who he was as an individual. Consequently, he became more comfortable with his unique identity that had been influenced by his combined experiences in Germany, Korea, and Canada. Thus, if it was the “FOB” groups in high school that pushed him away, it was now his choice in university to reject the “FOBs.” When asked why he chose not to engage with them, Joon replied that his perception of Korean “FOBs” included people who were “flaky and shallow, flamboyant and flashy, somewhat ditsy, like what you see on Korean dramas” (Joon, I#4, January 19, 2006). Most importantly, however, he felt superior to them due to his fluent English language skills: I don’t mean to be judgmental or anything. Well, maybe it’s that I’m not trying to please everyone now, so I feel more comfortable speaking English. And in a way, I can honestly say that sometimes, I sort of pity them (…) I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t feel that I was superior. I mean, no mal-intent, but I think that there is more that I can do since I’m in an English-speaking society and I speak the language well. It’s such a big tool, right? (Joon, I#2, November 15, 2005, E-original) Joon also added that his English skills contributed to his ability to be more professional in his extracurricular activities. For instance, he explained that he was reluctant to join one of the science clubs at PCU when he noticed that many of its members were Korean students who spoke mostly Korean amongst themselves. He stated that his immediate reaction to the large number of Korean students was “Oh boy, are we going to get any work done?” (Joon, I#2, November 15, 2005, E-original), because he believed that the Korean students seemed to only be there for the sole purpose of socializing. Joon eventually did join the club and had been playing a significant role in it as an executive member. Still, he added that he was able to work much better with its English-speaking members who were more serious about the club’s objectives. He also  115 said that he was particularly inspired by one Chinese-Canadian member who was one of the leaders in the club. For Joon, this member served as a role model in terms of his leadership skills, which included being highly articulate in English and delivering excellent public speeches. Joon believed this member’s ability to speak sophisticated English added to his charisma; thus, he aspired to be like him in the future. He also explained that the fact that this member was an Asian-Canadian provided an even stronger incentive to emulate him. This is not to say that Joon no longer felt judged by Korean “FOBs” when he spoke to them in English. There were still occasions when he felt awkward and knew that he was automatically being stigmatized as a “banana” (a concept that will be discussed in the following section). Nonetheless, for the most part, Joon now felt that it was not necessary for him to accommodate them by speaking to them in Korean, especially if they were going to prejudge him based on his Korean skills. In addition, he now believed that he was doing the Koreans a favor by speaking to them in English: I know it sounds pretty smug, but my attitude now is that if you’re in Canada, you should be able to speak in English, so I’m doing you a favor by speaking to you in English. I sort of feel pity towards them and feel sorry for them. I feel like they are more close-minded, cowardly and don’t appreciate the fact that they are in an environment where they could really get a leg up on other people that don’t have such opportunities. I think they should get their heads straight. (Joon, I#1, October 26, 2005, E-original). In this respect, the English skills which Joon felt contributed to making him an outcast among Korean peers in high school now placed him in a superior position in university against the same peers. Furthermore, although Joon’s views were expressed in slightly more extreme language, his criticism towards the “FOB” groups’ cliquishness and closed-mindedness affirmed Hannah and Mike’s views regarding the need for “FOBs” to stop “minoritizing” themselves and to reach beyond the boundaries of their immediate Korean groups. 5.4 Rejecting the “Banana” Label Over the years, many scholars have cautioned against the dangers of teachers, researchers, and institutions labeling a student because by doing so, “we may be  116 imposing an ethnocentric ideology and inadvertently supporting the essentialized discourse that represents cultural groups as stable of or homogeneous entities” (Spack, 1997, p.773, also see Harklau, 2000; Leung, Harris, & Rampton, 1997; Pennycook, 2001; Talmy, 2005, 2008; Thesen, 1997). In the following sections, I continue with this discussion of labeling. However, I focus on Hannah, Joon and Mike’s perceptions of the label “banana” or “banana-wanna-be” imposed on them by their Korean peers and the ways in which they rejected such labeling. The term “banana” is often used to refer to an individual who is ethnically Asian but who has assimilated to North American ways of life in terms of language, behaviors and values. Similar labels exist in other ethnic groups such as “Oreo” and “coconut” within the Black and Hispanic communities, and they have often been negatively associated with individuals who are viewed as “acting White” by their ethnic group peers (Kao, 1997). In the cases of Hannah, Joon, and Mike, although they acknowledged having adjusted to Canadian cultural norms and speaking English more often than the so- called “Korean-Koreans,” they were uncomfortable with being stigmatized as a “banana” as they believed the term had negative connotations attached to it. 5.4.1 Hannah As discussed in an earlier section of this chapter, Hannah distanced herself from her Korean peers during the majority of her high school years. However, from around Grade 11, she started wishing she had more Korean friends when she observed Korean girls socializing together at the church she was attending in Edmonton. She was envious of how those girls seemed comfortable showing their Korean sides to each other, while she on the other hand was always trying to hide her “Koreanness” from her non-Korean friends at school. The opportunity to make new Korean friends came in the beginning of Grade 12, when her family moved back to Vancouver and she transferred to a new school. There, she was approached by second generation Korean-Canadian peers. At first, she was delighted to be with friends who spoke fluent English and who also had an understanding  117 of the Korean language and culture. However, over time, she felt that there was still a difference between her and her friends, whom she referred to as “bananas:” My Korean friends in the [X] high school, even though they were Korean, they were very “banana” Korean, very White inside. They did a lot of things I wouldn’t do, like partying and stuff like that. They were fun, but I didn’t feel like I really connected with them. But in a way, at the back of my mind, I was thinking, “I’m only here for a year, so they are my short-term friends.” (Hannah, I#2, October 28, 2005, E-original) Hannah explained that she found real friends she could connect with at her new Korean church in Vancouver. These friends were similar to Hannah in that they had also immigrated to Canada during elementary school. They spoke English, understood Korean language and culture, but were not too “White.” Thus, because they shared experiences as Generation 1.5 youth, she felt a much stronger bond with these friends compared to her second-generation friends in school. In Danico’s (2004) study of Generation 1.5 Korean teenagers in Hawaii, she found that through interactions with other Generation 1.5 youth, the Korean teenagers learned to appreciate their Korean identity, which they had been embarrassed about while growing up. Hannah’s case echoes Danico’s findings in that through the interactions with her church friends, she became more comfortable with and appreciative of her Korean identity. It was during the next couple of years at university that she became even more aware of her Korean heritage and proud of her Korean identity. She took several Asian Studies courses at the local community college and at PCU through which she gained more knowledge of Korean history and culture. She enrolled in Korean language classes at PCU and also participated in a summer exchange program at a university in Korea, where she took courses on Korean history, contemporary Korean culture, and Korean language. Hannah felt that these combined experiences helped her become more appreciative of her Korean heritage and also led to a deeper understanding of Korean values, especially those of her parents’ generation. Such experiences of Hannah are not uncommon among minority immigrant students. Park (1999) suggests that many immigrant youth experience adopting different identity “categories” as they go through their formal school years. In the case of many Korean-Americans in particular, many  118 individuals experience being “bleached back to the original color” (p.158) as they move from their younger school years to college. Therefore, Hannah felt that she had experienced several ups and downs since immigrating to Canada to reach a point in her life where she felt proud of being a Korean-Canadian who has successfully adapted to Canadian ways while embracing and appreciating her Koreannness.76 Thus, in this respect, Hannah felt offended when someone automatically labeled her as a “banana” simply because she spoke fluent English and because she had had more White Anglo-Canadian friends in high school: Some people refer to me as a “banana,” but I don’t think I am at all because I still have that Koreanness in me. Friends who were born here, they are so much more Canadianized than me, so I think they are the ones that are “bananas.” I don’t like it when people give me the vibe that I have somehow betrayed my Koreanness by having more White friends back in high school and that I should be ashamed of myself. (Hannah, I#5, January 26, 2006, E-original) In addition, Hannah defended her Koreanness by adding how she wanted to make a contribution to the Korean community in her own way. That is, although she may not be actively involved in the Korean community (like taking part in Korean cultural events), she nonetheless made the effort to create positive images of Koreans in Canada: I don’t really have that sense that I must stay connected to the Korean community, like most Koreans seem to think. But I do want to distinguish myself from Chinese people because a lot of Canadians don’t seem to know the difference between Koreans and Chinese. I want to give an impression that Koreans are not Chinese and that we are a separate people. I want to be able to show my work and do my best so that people can recognize me as a Korean. Does that make me a “banana” just because I don’t speak Korean all the time and am not involved more actively in Korean events? I don’t think so. (Hannah, I#3, November 18, 2005, E-original) As can be seen from her comment above, Hannah did not view the use of Korean as an indicator of one’s Koreanness. However, although Hannah defended her Korean identity and refused to be associated with the “banana” label in general, there was one  76 This sense of hybrid identity (Bhabha, 1990; Kramsch, 2000) was also observed in several other students and will be discussed more in detail in Chapter 7.  119 particular setting in which Hannah described feeling embarrassed about her lack of Korean skills, which was within the Bible study classes that she taught at her church. Hannah’s family was a member of a Korean Protestant church in Vancouver, and since her first year of university, Hannah taught Bible study classes to Korean children. During her first six months as a teacher, Hannah was assigned to teach classes where the medium of instruction was Korean. Yet, she described having much difficulty teaching these classes because of her unfamiliarity with certain biblical terms in Korean and explained feeling extremely ashamed and embarrassed to face her students as a result. There were times when she had to rely on the students to teach her the correct Korean words, and she felt horrible that she might be seen as a teacher who was not Korean enough in the eyes of the students due to her lack of Korean skills. Therefore, although Hannah was very proud of her fluency in English in all other aspects of her life, within the setting of the Bible study classes she taught, her English skills became almost meaningless because she was in a position where Korean language skills were valued. Thus, when the opportunity came where Hannah was able to teach English Bible study classes, she quickly requested the switch and had been teaching only English classes ever since. 5.4.2 Joon Joon also felt that he was being judged as a “banana” by other Koreans, particularly by the “FOB” groups who spoke Korean all the time and who remained in their Korean cliques. He was aware that he was attached with this label mainly because he did not speak Korean with them and did not follow contemporary Korean pop culture. However, he felt very offended by this because he believed there was a negative stigma attached to the word: You know, Koreans are so patriotic, so I think they feel that a “banana” is so weird and morally unacceptable. It’s like (…) I have this gut feeling that they think “bananas” are flaky, abandoning their Korean identity and being White- washed, not having pride in their Korean heritage. Of course language has a lot to do with it because if you can’t speak Korean, people roll their eyes and automatically assume you’re a “banana.” (Joon, I#5, February 12, 2006, E-original)  120 In addition, Joon explained that he felt particularly annoyed by the notion that not following contemporary Korean culture was somehow equated with a lack of interest in Korean culture in general. Although it was true that he was neither knowledgeable about nor interested in contemporary Korean pop culture like many of his Korean peers, he still valued and had pride for traditional Korean culture and values. Moreover, even though he might not converse in Korean all the time, Korean had the most personal meaning to him because it was the language of his “family, blood, and roots” (Joon, I#2, November 15, 2005, E-original). Joon also felt that it was wrong to question his patriotism or perceive him to be a traitor to his heritage when he was making the effort to create a positive image of Koreans. However, unlike Hannah who tried to distinguish herself as a Korean from Chinese-Canadians, Joon was motivated to fight the racial stereotypes of Asians as a more collective pan-ethnic group. For instance, in one of the group interviews in which Joon took part, all of the other students described feeling upset when someone assumed they were Chinese or assumed that Korean culture was similar to Chinese culture. During one of our subsequent email correspondences, Joon described feeling surprised that the other students had such strong views towards the issue and stated that although he agreed that it was important to distinguish oneself as a Korean, it was equally important to “create positive images of Asians so that there will be fewer negative racial stereotypes that Asians, including Koreans, have to fight through” (Joon, email correspondence, June 14, 2006, E-original). In another interview, he explained: When I’m like in Richmond and there are some White people around, and there’s not that many, I come across them and I want to make sure that they are aware that there are Asian people in Richmond who actually speak English. I try not to reinforce the negative stereotypes of Asians in Richmond. Sort of like this complex that I want to(...) to the Caucasian man that not all Asians are like that. I find that I try to be overly friendly sometimes and strike up a casual conversation, trying to show that “Hey, I’m sociable!” (Joon, I#2, November 15, 2005, E-original)  121 Therefore, while Hannah resisted the notion of Asian-sameness (Kibria, 2000) by asserting her Koreanness, Joon made the effort not to reinforce the notion of Asian- foreignness to other ethnic groups, particularly to White Anglo-Canadians. 5.4.3 Mike Mike found it odd that he was often thought of as a “banana” because he had lived in Canada for less than five years. His definition of a “banana” was “someone who doesn’t understand a lot of Korean cultural stuff like the drinking customs or junior/senior relationship (…) who doesn’t speak Korean that well either, but it’s more on how they think; it’s more White” (Mike, I#3, January 12, 2006, E-original). In this sense, he felt that it was unfair to categorize him as a “banana” because he was indeed familiar with Korean culture and customs but made the conscious choice not to “be sucked into it because once you’re in, it’s hard to get out” (Mike, I#2, November, 6, 2005, K-original). In addition to his intentional detachment from “FOB” Korean peers, he believed that he was also often misunderstood as a “banana” because there was no noticeable accent when he spoke English. In Kang and Lo’s (2004) study, Korean-American youth identified accents as a trait of one’s “fobbyness.” In this respect, Mike’s excellent English pronunciation skills seemed to have automatically eliminated him from the “FOB” category. Koreans often asked him how long he had been in Canada and were always surprised when they heard he immigrated in high school. However, although they were initially impressed by his excellent English pronunciation, he soon got the impression that they perceived him as a “banana-wanna-be” (Mike, I#3, January 12, 2006, E- original). According to Mike, a “banana-wanna-be” was somewhat different from a “banana” in that the former arrived in Canada at a relatively older age. The “banana- wanna-be” does understand Korean culture and speaks Korean well but tries very hard to suppress his/her Koreannness in order to fit in with the mainstream White Anglo- Canadian society. However, Mike completely denied that he was a “banana-wanna-be” and in reverse criticized those who attached that label to him: I am only doing what I’m doing because I think there needs to be a solid balance between being Korean and being Canadian. I know I will live here for the rest of my life, so it will be kind of stupid to just follow the Korean lifestyle. I’m just  122 doing what I have to do. It’s like, if you are playing soccer and you are bad at shooting, then you have to practice shooting. So, if you are not confident in English, you have to practice speaking English. You have to work hard to improve. I don’t envy “bananas” and I don’t want to be one. But I’m just doing what I have to do because I am being realistic. (Mike, I#4, January 27, 2006, K-original) Hence, Mike defended his choices as being wiser and more realistic and claimed that those criticizing his choices were the ones with the real problems. Having had a glimpse of the “real” world in the Commerce program, he felt that it was crucial for Koreans to make the effort to become part of mainstream society while not losing their Korean heritage. In this respect, Mike felt that his current choices were helping to build an infrastructure which would pave the way for younger Generation 1.5 Korean students (including his own younger brother who was in high school at the time of the interview). Mike’s attitude was in line with those of Hannah and Joon who wished to contribute to the Korean-Canadian and Asian-Canadian community in their own way. Furthermore, as the eldest son for whom his parents had sacrificed so much, Mike also felt a sense of duty to give back to his parents through his academic and professional success. In this respect, Mike felt that his seemingly “bananaish” choices in life were a part of his strategies to succeed professionally so as to make his parents proud. 5.5 Summary and Discussion In this chapter, I have examined the experiences of Hannah, Joon, and Mike and the circumstances that have influenced the linguistic, sociocultural, and academic choices they have made over the years. In particular, I have described the students’ choices to detach themselves from Korean “FOBs” and how such decisions were influenced by their varying contextual factors over time and space. Additionally, I have also examined the students’ rejections of the label “banana” or “banana-wanna-be,” which they were often associated with. Table 5.1 summarizes their detachment from “FOBs” and rejection of the “banana” label.  123 Table 5.1 Reasons for Detachment from "FOBs” and Rejection of “Banana” Label  Hannah Joon Mike “FOB” Traits -Cliquish. -Non-English-speaking. -Troublemakers. -Nerdy/geeky. -Snobby/cocky. -Social outcasts. -“Uncool” fashion. -Attached to Korean culture. -From privileged families /Lack of appreciation for parents’ sacrifices. Other Factors Reasons for Detachment from “FOBs” in High School -Desire to be “Canadian.” -Pressure from “Canadian” peers. “FOB”peers’ condescending attitudes towards Joon. Unaware of the term in high school. “FOB” Traits -Flaky/shallow. -Flamboyant/ ditsy. -Closed-minded.  -Non-English-speaking. -Too attached to Korean culture. -Cliquish/Not reaching out to larger PCU community. Other Factors: Reasons for Detachment from “FOBs” in University -Less beneficial for academic achievement. -FOBs “minoritizing” themselves from other Canadians. Sense of superiority and pity towards “FOBS.” Need for Canadian cultural knowledge/ Soft-topic skills.  124  Hannah Joon Mike Negative stigma attached to “Bananas.” Reasons for Rejecting the “Banana” Label -Did not view herself as “White” as 2nd gen. -Appreciated “Koreanness” & tried to create positive image of Koreans. -Valued traditional Korean culture and language. -Tried to create positive image of Asians. -Believed he was being wiser/ realistic & was creating infrastructure for future Gen.1.5.  In understanding the experiences of the three students in this chapter, the notion of positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004) is helpful.77 Although it was at different points in their lives, all of the three students in this chapter positioned “FOBs” as a group of people with whom they did not want to be associated. Furthermore, although they seemed to have peers from many ethnic backgrounds in their schools (particularly Hannah and Joon), their notion of who constituted the “FOB” population was clearly limited to the Korean student group. In Hannah’s case, relatively newly arrived Korean peers who seemed “cliquey,” “nerdy,” “geeky,” who only spoke Korean amongst themselves, or who were troublemakers were positioned as “FOBs.” Most importantly, such “FOB” peers were positioned as non-Canadian; an idea that was initially created within Hannah but further reinforced by her “Canadian” peers, who encouraged her to distance herself from Korean ways of life. Hence, for Hannah, distancing herself from “FOBs” in high school was part of her desire to be a member of the “in group” within the popularity hierarchy at her school. At university, as a result of maturity and a newly found appreciation for her Korean heritage and identity, Hannah no longer avoided “FOBs” because they were not “cool” enough. However, she nonetheless continued to distance herself from the “FOBs” who seemed less beneficial for her academic achievement and who also seemed to “minoritize” themselves from non-  77 I employ Pavlenko & Blackledge’s (2004) notion of positioning, which expands Davies & Harré’s (1990) view of positioning as a conversational phenomenon into one that also includes “all discursive practices which may position individuals in particular ways or allows individuals to position themselves” (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004, p. 20).  125 Korean communities. That is, in university, regardless of their length of residence in Canada, if she observed that an individual lacked academic literacy skills (mostly in spoken academic English), Hannah positioned that person as a “FOB.” Furthermore, she positioned members of Korean cliques as “FOBs” due to their lack of engagement with non-Korean communities and criticized them for reinforcing their minority status in society. Joon also possessed critical views towards “FOBs” from his high school years although it seemed such views were enhanced when he felt he was rejected by this group. As described earlier, Joon initially made an attempt to befriend the “FOB” group as part of a teenager’s attempt to find his own clique in high school. Yet, due to his lack of Korean skills and knowledge of Korean pop culture, he felt he was being looked down upon by members of the Korean group. That is, although the “FOB” students were often teased by local students for their attachment to their native language and culture, in the eyes of the “FOB” students, the fact that Joon lacked these very characteristics positioned him as an illegitimate member of their group. Such findings echo those of Palmer (2007), who reports on the tensions between Korean-born Korean-American (KBKA) and American-born Korean-American (ABKA) high school students based on their negative stereotypes about each other. In Palmer’s study, while ABKAs thought they needed to guide KBKAs (who were seen as too “Korean” and closed-minded) to become more American, many KBKAs actually pitied ABKAs for having lost their Korean identity and heritage. In a similar vein, the Korean “FOB” group at Joon’s high school assigned a marginalized status to Joon based on his lack of “Koreanness” (both linguistically and culturally), thereby positioning him as the inferior other. Joon admitted that at first he felt he was “not able to measure up” (Joon, I#4, January 19, 2006, E-original) to the Korean students’ standards, which seemed to indicate a reflexive positioning of himself as an inferior member within the Korean “FOB” group. However, he soon rejected this positioning and became highly critical of the “FOB” students’ linguistic and sociocultural choices. In addition to the characteristics of “FOBs” described by Hannah, Joon positioned them as spoiled children from rich Korean families.  126 In Giampapa’s (2004) study of Italian-Canadian young adults in Toronto, the participants used the term “Gino/Gina” to describe the spoiled children of wealthy Italian-Canadian families, who lacked academic and professional ambition in life. As a result, they positioned such “Gino/Ginas” as not being true reflections of Italian-Canadians. In a similar vein, Joon also positioned Korean “FOBs” as those who lacked a goal in life and who took for granted the sacrifices of first-generation Korean-Canadian immigrants. Hence, Joon positioned one as a “FOB” if he/she was different from his traditional views of Korean immigrant children who worked hard in school to show gratitude for their parents’ sacrifices. In this respect, there seemed to be conflicting notions (and as a result, different positionings of each other as the inferior other) of what it meant to be a true Korean between Joon and his Korean peers, which is similar to the findings of Jo’s (2002) study on the contested ideas of “Koreanness” among a seemingly homogeneous group of Korean heritage language learners. Such conflicting notions of Koreanness also point to the bidirectionality of socialization (Duff, 2003) between Joon and his peers. That is, while their relative newcomer status to the Canadian educational system may have situated them as the novice within school, the “FOB” students positioned Joon (the relative oldtimer and expert) as the novice with regard to his Koreanness. However, Joon resisted this positioning as a novice by his peers by drawing on his traditional views of the Korean immigrant youth, thereby positioning the “FOBs” as novices yet again. Hence, such positionings and repositionings of self and other between Joon and the “FOB” group reflect how one resists and reframes his/her roles and participation in socializing interactions (Garrett and Baquedano-Lopez, 2002). By university, Joon’s perceptions towards Korean “FOBs” became even stronger and he began to view himself more as the superior individual compared to the “FOB” Koreans, whom he pitied for their lack of English skills. In addition, he positioned Korean “FOBs” as cowards who did not take advantage of the opportunities in Canada and also as those who lacked professionalism in extracurricular settings (e.g., the science club). Therefore, to Joon, the English skills that positioned him as an outsider to the  127 “FOB” group in high school now placed him as the more open-minded, professional, and courageous person in university. Mike’s positioning of “FOBs” was quite different from Hannah’s and Joon’s in that not only was he unaware of this term until university, but initially, his image of “FOBs” was only limited to Korean international students in Vancouver. That is, unlike Hannah and Joon, his positioning of “FOBs” excluded immigrant students like himself who had experienced high school and university life in Canada. Thus, he socialized with the Korean Student Association clique at PCU--a group that possessed “FOB” characteristics based on Hannah’s and Joon’s definitions. However, through his combined and gradual experiences at university (particularly within political sciences classes and the Commerce program), he realized that his lack of Canadian cultural knowledge and “soft topic skills” positioned him and his Korean clique as the very “FOBs” they made fun of. Thus, for his immediate survival in the Commerce program as well as his future success in the real world, Mike gradually distanced himself from his Korean “FOB” friends and started being more involved in activities where his “soft topic skills” could be improved. Therefore, Mike’s positioning of “FOBs” began with including only Korean international students in Vancouver then went on to include members of Korean immigrant cliques, including himself. However, later, he no longer positioned himself as a “FOB” based on his efforts to develop his knowledge of Canadian culture and “soft topic skills,” which in Mike’s mind were characteristics that “FOBs” lacked. All three students’ intentional distance from “FOBs” resulted in being positioned as “bananas” by other Korean peers based on their relative fluency (with no noticeable accent) in English and their choices not to socialize exclusively with other Koreans. As Heller (1987) notes, ethnicity is a social construct, where language plays an essential role in being deemed worthy a member of that ethnic community. In this respect, by referring to Hannah, Joon, and Mike as “bananas”--yellow on the outside but white on the inside-- it appeared their Korean peers assigned a non-Korean ethnic identity to these students based on their lack of (knowledge and/or use) of Korean. However, all three students  128 rejected such positionings and argued that it was unfair to be stigmatized with such labels simply based on the language they spoke or the friends with whom they socialized. In addition, they positioned other Korean immigrants (mainly those second-generation Koreans who were born in Canada, those who did not understand the Korean language and/or customs, or those who thought in a “White” way) as the true “bananas,” which seemed to indicate that as a Generation 1.5 immigrant, they could not be stigmatized with such a label. Furthermore, they also asserted that contrary to the belief that they lacked an appreciation for their Korean cultural heritage, in their own unique ways, they were actually contributing to the Korean and Asian communities in Canada. Furthermore, by emphasizing that they were neither an “FOB” nor a “banana,” the students chose to position themselves in a third space, where they possessed a good balance of being Korean and Canadian at the same time. To some extent, I believe the students’ choices to resist being placed under either label are the result of their developed maturity and self-acceptance. However, in addition to such factors, I also feel that, like the decisions that were made by Yellina and Sheila in Chapter 4, the choices of the three students in this chapter were also closely related to their negotiation of various identities and investments (Norton, 2000). In Hannah’s case, her investment to appear “Canadian” and to be affiliated with “Canadian” peers led her to abandoning her Korean “FOB” peers in high school who symbolized “non-Canadianess” in Hannah’s views. Over the years, she gradually embraced her Korean identity and befriended more Korean peers, yet she was still heavily invested in maintaining the “Canadianness” that she had acquired since high school. Hence, she still kept a distance from Koreans who appeared cliquish and who only spoke Korean amongst themselves. In addition, her desire to excel in the Commerce program at university led her to avoid students who seemed relatively “FOB” when it came to group work, based on her assumption that they would not be able to contribute as much due to their lack of Canadian cultural knowledge and academic literacy skills. Furthermore, as a result of her investment to appear more professional in her work place, Hannah chose to hide her Korean identity and never spoke Korean to her Korean-speaking colleagues and  129 customers. However, her fluent English skills became irrelevant in the context of her Korean church where she was assigned to teach Korean Bible study classes to young Korean children. In that setting, her lack of Korean skills placed her at the risk of potentially being positioned as an incompetent teacher as well as someone who was not Korean enough in the eyes of the students. Yet, instead of choosing to improve her Korean skills, Hannah switched to teaching English Bible study classes as soon as the opportunity arose. Thus, even within the context of her Korean church, Hannah chose to assert her identity as a capable teacher by returning to the language that made her more professional in all other areas of her life--English. However, despite such choices, it appeared that for Hannah, focusing on her English skills was in no way an abandonment of her Korean identity. Rather, by using English (and appearing more professional in public settings), she was asserting her investment in her Korean identity. That is, by not “minoritizing” herself from mainstream Canadian society, she was in fact contributing to creating positive images of Korean-Canadians. In this respect, despite her linguistic and sociocultural choices that may lead one to assume that she was indifferent towards her Korean identity, she was in fact searching for her own ways to find a good balance between her Korean and Canadian identities. Figure 5.1 summarizes Hannah’s investments in languages and identities. Joon’s identities and investments also developed over time and space. His needs as a teenager to belong to a peer group drew him to approach Korean students in high school despite their “FOB” characteristics. However, this very group questioned Joon’s true Korean identity based on his lack of knowledge and use of the Korean language as well as knowledge of Korean pop culture. This kind of tension was similar to those reported in Chapter 4 for Sheila, who eventually gave into the pressure in order to remain within her Korean peer group. Joon, on the other hand, felt offended by his Korean peers’ behaviors and chose not to socialize with them any further. Instead, Joon chose to invest in highlighting his identity as a hard-working Korean-Canadian student who, unlike the “FOBs,” possessed strong morals as well as gratitude for his parents’ sacrifices. In university, he continued to distance himself from Korean “FOBs,” but by this time, it was  130 no longer just about distinguishing himself as a “non-FOB” Korean-Canadian. Rather, he was also invested in his identity as a successful Asian-Canadian immigrant; someone who was fluent in English, sociable, and who reached out to mainstream Canadian society. Thus, his identity was now being framed within the politics of race, where he was fighting racial stereotypes that affected Asian-Canadians, including Korean- Canadians like himself. Therefore, Joon’s investment in English served several purposes: to differentiate himself from “FOB” Koreans, to become the “traditional” successful immigrant child for his parents, and to battle the biases against Asians in Canada. In Figure 5.2, I summarize Joon’s investments in languages and identities. In Mike’s case, his identity changes and investments seem closely related to his pragmatic views towards academic and professional success. In particular, upon entering PCU (and more specifically the commerce program), Mike recognized the importance of “soft topic skills” in order to succeed in the real world, which included knowledge of Canadian culture and current affairs. Like Joon (and Sheila in Chapter 4), for Mike, it was not only important for him to succeed academically and professionally for his own personal sense of achievement but also as a way to give back to his parents who had sacrificed so much for him. In addition, he was keen on setting a good example for future generations of Korean-Canadians, including his younger brother. However, his choice to prioritize such identities (e.g., successful student within the commerce program, successful professional in the future, responsible son, and role model for his younger brother) resulted in compromising his identity as a member of his Korean peer group, who were a big part of his life during his first year of university. His decisions also often left him stigmatized with the labels of “banana” and “banana-wanna-be.” However, such consequences did not seem to have any agonizing effects on Mike. That is, unlike Sheila and Yellina in Chapter 4, who were determined to maintain their affiliation with their Korean friends regardless of other competing identities and investments, Mike’s imagined identity as a successful member in the “real world” far outweighed his desire to stay within the Korean peer group. Figure 5.2 offers a summary of Mike’s investments in languages and identities.  131 Based on the above descriptions, it is quite clear that unlike the women in Chapter 4 for whom Korean peers, sŏnbaes, and parents were important agents in their process of language socialization, for the three students in this chapter, members of the non-Korean community seemed to have played a greater role in their linguistic, academic, and sociocultural decisions. For instance, in Hannah’s case, her “Canadian” peers in high school strongly influenced her in developing the ideas of what made an individual “Canadian” in terms of his/her linguistic and sociocultural choices. Although as a university student she was no longer influenced by the same kind of peer pressure experienced as a teenager, the ideologies formed during that time seemed to continue to be a strong part of her beliefs, which influenced her linguistic, academic, and sociocultural choices in university. The “experts” (Duff, 2003) Joon chose as role models also rarely included his Korean peers during high school or university. Rather, Joon sought to emulate images of the more traditional Korean immigrant youths of the past who came from less affluent families but who worked hard to succeed. In addition, he also found inspiration in those that he believed were successful members of mainstream society, particularly other Asian-Canadians like the leader in his science club. For Mike, his Korean peers at the Korean Student Association did initially play an important role during his first year at PCU. As a result, as was the case for the women in Chapter 4, he also spoke mostly Korean and socialized with Korean peers almost exclusively during that time. However, over the next few years, Mike’s professors in the Commerce program and other successful working professionals became much more influential socializing agents in his life decisions, including his desire to improve his “soft topic skills” by learning more about Canadian culture and current affairs. Thus, I believe such varying agents in the students’ language socialization processes reflect the diverse and complex contextual factors that influence Generation 1.5 students’ experiences, cautioning one against simple representations of Generation 1.5 students as a homogeneous group. Finally, the experiences of the students in this chapter raise an ideological issue that I believe is worth examining. In their positionings of “FOBs,” the students all described them as having negative and/or embarrassing characteristics. In particular at  132 university, the “FOB” students’ perceived lack of English skills and their preference for Korean language and culture positioned them as individuals lacking in academic literacy skills with no sense of professionalism. In this respect, the ideologies that the students in this chapter were socialized into seem to be along the same continuum as those that Yellina in Chapter 4 was influenced by as well. In high school, Yellina was socialized into the belief that being an ESL student was similar to being intellectually handicapped. In university, she was surrounded by sŏnbaes who positioned Generation 1.5 students as somewhat helpless because of their NNS status.78 Although the students in this chapter never explicitly used the term ESL or NNS to describe the students they avoided working or socializing with, it is nonetheless true that they associated one’s English language limitations with being less professional and less capable of completing intellectual tasks. Therefore, I feel such perceptions of Hannah, Joon, and Mike towards the “FOB” students are not unrelated to the deficiency model often associated with ESL students in general  (Séror, 2002; Toohey, 1992; Zamel, 1995), which points to the need to reexamine the sources through which such ideologies are created and spread. In the following chapter, I will introduce the experiences of the remaining two students in my study, Yuri and Gilbert.  78 These positionings of “FOBs” and Generation 1.5 youth were in some cases also reinforced by others (e.g., university instructors), which will be discussed further in Chapters 7 and 8.  133   Past Present Future Desire to be “Canadian.” Desire to differentiate herself from “FOBS.” Desire to achieve academic goals.. Desire to appear more Professional.  English  Desire to “unminoritize” herself. Desire to create positive images of Korean-Canadians. Korean Desire to be a competent teacher and to appear “Korean enough” to her students in Bible study class Uncertain. Figure 5.1 Hannah’s Investments in Languages and Identities   Past Present Future Desire to appear more professional. English  Desire to differentiate himself from “FOBs.” Korean  Maintaining Korean roots. (conversing with parents) German Education in Germany. Taking German classes at PCU. Uncertain. Figure 5.2 Joon’s Investments in Languages and Identities   134   Past Present Future Socializing with NS peers in high school. Academic achievement at PCU. Differentiating himself from “FOBs.”                                            Developing “soft topic skills”                                          to compete in the “real world.” English