We examine an action research initiative focusing on youths who were born and/or began formal schooling in Canada but raised in homes where the societally dominant language was not extensively spoken. Concepts of place and situation were used as heuristics to extend secondary-level students’ problem-solving abilities and literacy engagement and—using activities revolving around youths’ locations within family, school, and community ecologies—to stimulate reflection on their personal and socially situated identities. The structure of secondary schooling, including its engagement of placemaking processes, is not conducive to the promotion of pedagogies that beneficially support the learning of this student cohort.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
AultC.Jr. (2008). Achieving querencia: Integrating a sense of place with disciplined thinking. Curriculum Inquiry, 38, 605-637.
3.
BealC. R.AdamsN. M.CohenP. R. (2010). Reading proficiency and mathematics problem solving by high school English language learners. Urban Education, 45, 58-71.
4.
BoeijeH. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
5.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
ColeM.GriffinP. (1983). A socio-historical approach to re-mediation. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5(4), 69-74.
7.
ComberB. (2013). Teachers as researchers: A “fair dinkum” learning legacy. English in Australia, 48, 54-61.
8.
ComberB. (2016). Literacy, place and pedagogies of possibility. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
CorsonD. (1993). Language, minority education and gender: Linking social justice and power. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
10.
CumminsJ. (1991). The development of bilingual proficiency from home to school: A longitudinal study of Portuguese-speaking children. Journal of Education, 173, 85-98.
11.
CumminsJ. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
12.
CumminsJ. (2011). Literacy engagement: Fueling academic growth for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 65, 142-146.
13.
CumminsJ.DanesiM. (1990). Heritage languages: The development and denial of Canada’s linguistic resources. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Our Schools Our Selves/Garamond.
14.
de CastellS.LukeA. (1983). Defining “literacy” in North American schools: Social and historical conditions and consequences. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15, 373-397.
15.
FeuersteinR. (1990). The theory of structural cognitive modifiability. In PresseisenB. Z.StenbergR. J.FischerK. W.KnightC. C.FeuersteinR. (Eds.), Learning and thinking styles: Classroom interaction (pp. 68-134). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
16.
FeuersteinR.FalikL. H.FeuersteinR. S. (2015). Changing minds & brains: The legacy of Reuven Feuerstein. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
FishmanJ. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
18.
ForrestS. (2006). Three foci of an effective high school generation 1.5 literacy program. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 106-112.
19.
GarcíaO. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Skutnabb-KangasT.PhillipsonR.MohantyA. K.PandaM. (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140-158). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
GarnettB. (2012). A critical review of the Canadian empirical literature: Documenting generation 1.5’s K–16 trajectories. TESL Canada Journal, 29(6), 1-24.
22.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
GibbonsP. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247-273.
24.
GillisA.JacksonW. (2002). Research methods for nurses: Methods and interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis.
25.
GreenB. (2013). Literacy, rurality, education: A partial mapping. In GreenB.CorbettM. (Eds.), Rethinking rural literacies: Transnational perspectives (pp. 17-34). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
GuthrieJ. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 1-30.
27.
GutiérrezK. D. (1995). Unpacking academic discourse. Discourse Processes, 19, 21-37.
28.
GutiérrezK. D.Baquedano-LópezP.AlvarezH. H.ChiuM. M. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory Into Practice, 38, 87-93.
29.
GutiérrezK. D.Baquedano-LópezP.TejedaC. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 286-303.
30.
HedegaardM. (1998). Situated learning and cognition: Theoretical learning and cognition. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 114-126.
31.
HullG. A.KatzM. L. (2006). Crafting an agentive self: Case studies of digital storytelling. Research in the Teaching of English, 41, 1-30.
32.
IwaniecJ. (2014). Self-constructs in language learning: What is their role in self-regulation? In CsizérK.MagidM. (Eds.), The impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 189-205). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
33.
KemmisS.McTaggartR. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In DenzinN. K.LincolnS. Y. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559-604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
KozulinA.PresseisenB. (1995). Mediated learning experience and psychological tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s perspectives in a study of student learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 267-275.
35.
LantolfJ.AppelG. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
36.
LefebvreH. (1991). The production of space. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
37.
MaguireP. (1987). Doing participatory action research: A feminist approach. Amherst: University of Massachusettts, Center for International Education.
38.
MasseyD. B. (1994). Space, place and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
39.
MasseyD. B. (2005). For space. London, England: Sage.
40.
McBrideC. (2016). Children’s literacy development: A cross-cultural perspective on learning to read and write. New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
MillsK. A.ComberB. (2013). Space, place, and power: A spatial turn in literacy research. In HallK.CreminT.ComberB.MollL. (Eds.), International handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning and culture (pp. 412-423). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
42.
MillsK. A.ComberB.KellyP. (2013). Sensing place: Embodiment, sensoriality, kinesis, and children behind the camera. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(2), 11-27.
43.
NesporJ. (2008). Education and place: A review essay. Educational Theory, 54, 475-489.
44.
PachecoM. (2010). English-language learners’ reading achievement: Dialectical relationships between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 292-317.
Pease-AlvarezL.SchecterS. R. (Eds.). (2005). Learning, teaching, and community: Contributions of situated and participatory approaches to educational innovation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
PenititoW. (2009). Place-based education: Catering for curriculum, culture and community. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 18, 5-29.
48.
PhillipsS. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In CazdenC.JohnV.HymesD. (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
RashkovskyR.RashkovskyK. (2006). Brain power enrichment: Book 1. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
51.
RobergeM. (2002). California’s 1.5 immigrants: What experiences, characteristics and needs do they bring to our English classes?CATESOL Journal, 14, 107-129.
52.
RogoffB.TurkanisC. G.BartlettL. (2001). Learning together: Children and adults in a school community. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
RohrerD.PashlerH. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39, 406-412.
54.
RowsellJ. (2012). Artifactual English. In GrenfellM.BloomeD.HardyC.PahlK.RowsellJ.StreetB. (Eds.), Language, ethnography, and education (pp. 110-131). New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
RumbautR. G.ImaK. (1988). The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A comparative study. Final report to the Office of Resettlement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 299 372). San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.
56.
SchecterS. R. (2012). The predicament of generation 1.5 English language learners: Three disjunctures and a possible way forward. Canadian Journal of Education, 35, 308-340.
57.
SchecterS. R. (2016, March). Generation 1.5 linguistic minority students: A “between” population of 21st century learners. Paper presented at symposium on critical perspectives on 21st century learning at 10th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain.
58.
SchecterS. R.BayleyR. (2002). Language as cultural practice: Mexicanos en el norte [Mexicans in the north]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59.
SchecterS. R.IppolitoJ. (2008). Parent involvement AS education: Activist research in multilingual and multicultural urban schools. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 5, 163-183.
60.
SchecterS. R.OtoideL. (2010). Through parents’ eyes: An activist visual literacy project. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 1, 43-52.
61.
SchecterS. R.SherriD. L. (2009). “Value added?” Teachers’ investments in and orientations toward parent involvement in education. Urban Education, 44, 59-87.
62.
SchmakelP. O. (2008). Early adolescents’ perspectives on motivation and achievement in academics. Urban Education, 43, 723-749.
63.
SmagorinskyP. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st-century language arts teacher?Language Arts, 90, 192-203.
64.
SojaE. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London, England: Verso.
65.
TooheyK. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
66.
van der VeerR. (1998). From concept attainment to knowledge formation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 89-94.
67.
van OersB. (1998). The fallacy of detextualization. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 135-142.
68.
VásquezC. (2007). Comments from the classroom: A case study of a generation 1.5 student in a university IEP and beyond. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 345-370.
69.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70.
VygotskyL. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71.
WertchJ. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72.
Wong FillmoreL. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346.
73.
ZimmermanD. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In AntakiC.WiddicombeS. (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87-106). London, England: Sage.
74.
ZossM.’SmagorinskyP. O.Donnell-AllenC. (2007). Mask-making as representational process: The situated composition of an identity project in a Senior English class. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 8(10), 1-40.
