WRITING OUTSIDE THE LINES: A DISCUSSION OF LTELL AND GENERATION 1.5 WRITERS

Amy Lindquist & Rachel WillardWalden University Writing Center

INTRODUCTIONS

Rachel WillardCoordinator of Student

Communications

Amy LindquistCoordinator of

International and Multilingual Student

Writing Support

OBJECTIVESTo better understand current research about LTELLs and Gen

1.5 students the writing and instructional needs of

these students how district policies and programming

can affect their achievement in writing

AGENDA Definitions Discussion of

current research and issues

Small-group discussions

Wrap-upBy dhester

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS (LTELLS) have attended school in the United States for

7 years or more, and continue to require language support services in school

are orally bilingual for social purposes have limited academic oral or literacy

skills in English and their native language are more likely than their peers to

experience educational failure (Menken et al., 2012, p. 122-123)

GENERATION 1.5 STUDENTS either immigrated as school-aged kids or

were born in the U.S. may also be transnational children (move

back and forth) speak a language other than English at home

have been in the U.S. educational system for

more than 4 years (Doolan, 2013) only become LTELLs if they continue to need

language support or are labeled ELL after 7 years (Menken et al., 2012)

OTHER GROUPS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS Newly arrived with adequate schooling Newly arrived with limited/interrupted

formal schooling (aka “students with interrupted formal education” [SIFE])

(Olsen & Jaramillo; Freeman et al., as cited in Menken et al., 2012)

LITERATURE RE: LTELL WRITERS Categorization and identity

Implicit labeling as deficient Lack of appropriate programming

Needs vary from new arrivals Academic literacy Subtractive schooling

Literacy development in L1 is not encouraged

Transition from high school to college

LITERATURE RE: GEN 1.5 WRITERS Comparisons between L1, L2, and Gen

1.5 writing (e.g. di Gennaro, 2013; Doolan, 2013)PlacementCommon types of errors

Placement/Guided self-placement Identity

Identity (I)

Writing and

Language

Instruction (LI)

Program/

district policies

(PP)

IDENTITY The term LTELL “positions students as

deficient” (Flores et al., 2015, p. 114). Other labels may put students in a group

within which they do not self identify

Because of high-stakes testing, students are often “told” that to be a monolingual English speaker is somehow better than having various levels and areas of proficiency in two or more languages.

PP

PROGRAMMING/POLICIES Students often experience inconsistent

programming, “compounding the already difficult task of learning languages for academic use” (Menken et al., 2012, p. 128)

Subtractive schooling Value placed on literacy in English but not L1

LI

I

LANGUAGE NEEDS Academic literacy Academic

vocabulary Register/rhetoric Critical literacy

(ability to question, discuss, evaluate what they have read)

By jeltovski

WRITING AND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION Creating “remedial

courses” is a way that institutions may be let off the hook for implementing curriculum revisions and faculty training that would meet the needs of a wider demographic of students. (Benesch, 2008)

IPP

By quicksandala

WRITING AND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION Ferris et al. (2011) found that in the

region where they conducted their study, most college composition instructors had little to no training on working with L2 writers.Focus on sentence-level errors rather than

global issuesFocus on only global issues, ignoring

sentence-level issuesUnaware of L2 writer needs

CCCC STATEMENT ON SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING AND WRITERS

“Any writing course, including basic writing, first-year composition, advanced writing, and professional writing, as well as any writing-intensive course that enrolls any second language writers should be taught by an instructor who is able to identify and is prepared to address the linguistic and cultural needs of second language writers” (para. 11).

PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS Consistency

Clear, coherent plans for progressing through districts/programs (Menken et al.)

Opportunities to develop L1 literacy skills (Menken et al.)

Distinct support for new arrivals, LTELLs (Menken et al.)

PD opportunities for all teachers who work with second language writers (CCCC, Ferris et al.)

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION Identity: What practical changes can you

make in your own school or classroom to better address students’ individual educational backgrounds, strengths, and weaknesses, while affirming their cultural and linguistic identities?

Policies: How can we promote consistent programming? How might we use research-based evidence to our advantage?

Writing and Language Instruction: Where do you see a need for LTELL/Gen 1.5 support in your school? In what academic areas?

Benesch, S. (2008). “Generation 1.5” and its discourses of partiality: A critical analysis. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 7(3-4), 294-311. doi: 10.1080/15348450802237954

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2009). CCCC statement on second language writing and writers. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting

di Gennaro, K. (2013). How different are they? A comparison of Generation 1.5 and international L2 learners’ writing ability. Assessing Writing, 18(2), 154-172. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2013.01.003

Doolan, S. M. (2013). Generation 1.5 writing compared to L1 and L2 writing in first-year composition. Written Communication, 30(2), 135-163. doi: 10.1177/0741088313480823

Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H. S., & Stine, M. E. A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207-234. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.247706

Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking holistically in a climate of partiality: Identities of students labeled long-term English language learners. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14(2), 113-132. doi: 10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787

Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on “long-term English language learners”: Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International Multilingual Research Journal, 6(2), 121-142. doi: 10.1080/19313152.2012.665822