This document discusses research on long-term English language learners (LTELLs) and Generation 1.5 students. It outlines key findings regarding their writing abilities and instructional needs. Research shows these students often experience inconsistent programming and subtractive schooling that does not support development of their native language literacy skills. The document also recommends that schools provide distinct and consistent support for LTELLs and new arrivals, and ensure instructors are prepared to address linguistic and cultural needs of second language writers.

1. WRITING OUTSIDE THE LINES: A
DISCUSSION OF LTELL AND
GENERATION 1.5 WRITERS
Amy Lindquist & Rachel Willard
Walden University Writing Center

2. INTRODUCTIONS
Rachel Willard
Coordinator of Student
Communications
Amy Lindquist
Coordinator of International
and Multilingual Student
Writing Support

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

4. AGENDA
 Definitions
 Discussion of
current research
and issues
 Small-group
discussions
 Wrap-up
By dhester

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

10. Identity
(I)
Writing and
Language
Instruction
(LI)
Program/
district
policies
(PP)

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