3. OBJECTIVES
To 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
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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
9. LITERATURE RE: GEN 1.5 WRITERS
Comparisons between L1, L2, and Gen 1.5
writing (e.g. di Gennaro, 2013; Doolan, 2013)
Placement
Common types of errors
Placement/Guided self-placement
Identity
11. 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.
P
P
12. 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
13. LANGUAGE NEEDS
Academic literacy
Academic vocabulary
Register/rhetoric
Critical literacy (ability
to question, discuss,
evaluate what they
have read) By jeltovski
14. 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)
I
P
P
By quicksandala
15. 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 issues
Focus on only global issues, ignoring sentence-
level issues
Unaware of L2 writer needs
16. 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).
17. 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.)
18. 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?
19. 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
Editor's Notes
Give a context that this started as a discussion about register and academic preparation, etc.
We will focus not on these, but on those that are in general fluently bilingual.
Addition to point 1: Noticing the problematic use of the term, the Flores et al. (2015) wrote “We experienced cognitive dissonance when writing about the alleged language deficiencies of students who we observed using English and Spanish in fluid, creative, and innovative ways on a daily basis” (p. 115).
Addition to point 2: Flores et al. explain “The result of the intertwining of these discourses is the creation of a population that is deficient because of their failure to be monocultural and monolingual.” (p. 118).
English is the only academic language; l1 is not valuable in academics.
“when English language teachers validate institutional expectations that many entering students are underprepared, and develop additional courses and services to prepare them, institutions are let off the hook. They are absolved of the responsibility of reforming their curricula and pedagogy in fundamental ways to respond to changing demographics” (Benesh, year?, p. 303).
Teachers may be trying to do it themselves, without institutional support