Recently, scholars have suggested that “second-language writers” are made up of two distinct groups: Generation 1.5 (long-term U.S.-resident language learners) and more traditional L2 students (e.g., international or recently arrived immigrants). To investigate that claim, this study compares the first-year composition writing of Generation 1.5 students to the writing of their classmates to determine whether textual markers distinguish demographically identified groups. Results indicate no significant textual differences between Generation 1.5 and L1 (English as a first language) students but do indicate significant differences between Generation 1.5 and L2 students, suggesting that Generation 1.5 writers (broadly defined) may not be second-language writers.
BachmanL. F.PalmerA. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approach to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
3.
ChenowethN. A.HayesJ. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98.
4.
ConnertyM. (2009). Variation in academic writing among Generation 1.5 learners, native English-speaking learners and ESL learners: The discoursal self of G1.5 student writers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham). Retrieved from http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/274/
5.
CrossleyS. A.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119-135.
6.
di GennaroK. (2009). Investigating differences in the writing performance of international and Generation 1.5 students. Language Testing, 26, 533-559.
7.
DoolanS. M. (2011a). A comparison of Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 tertiary student writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Arizona.
8.
DoolanS. M. (2011b). A language-related comparison of Generation 1.5 and L1 student writing. CA-TESOL Journal, 22, 87-112.
9.
DoolanS.MillerD. (2012). Generation 1.5 written error patterns: A comparative study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 1-22.
10.
FerrisD. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
11.
FoinA. T.LangeE. J. (2007). Generation 1.5 writers’ success in correcting errors marked on an out-of-class paper. CATESOL Journal, 19, 146-163.
12.
FrodesenJ. (2009). The academic writing development of a Generation 1.5 “latecomer.” In RobergeM.SiegalM.HarklauL. (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp. 91-104). New York: Routledge.
13.
FrodesenJ.StarnaN. (1999). Distinguishing incipient and functional bilingual writers: Assessment and instructional insights gained through second-language writing profiles. In HarklauL.KayM.SiegalM. (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 61-80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
GoldschmidtM. M.OuseyD. L. (2011). Teaching developmental immigrant students in undergraduate programs. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
15.
GrabeW.KaplanR. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Pearson.
16.
GrantL.GintherA. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123-145.
17.
HarklauL.LoseyK. M.SiegalM. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
HinkelE. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
JohnsonR. A.WichernD. W. (2007). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
20.
KannoY.HarklauL. (2012). Linguistic minority students go to college: Preparation, access, and persistence. New York: Routledge.
21.
KernR. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
KrollB.ReidJ. (1994). Guidelines for designing writing prompts: Clarifications, caveats, and cautions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 231-255.
23.
LekiI.CummingA.SilvaT. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.
24.
LeviE. I. (2004). A study of linguistic and rhetorical features in the writing of non-English language background graduates of U.S. schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania).
25.
MatsudaP. K. (2008). International and U.S. resident ESL writers cannot be taught in the same class. In ReidJ. (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp. 159-176). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
MikesellL. (2007). Differences between Generation 1.5 and English as a second language writers: A corpus-based comparison of past participle use in academic writing. CATESOL Journal, 19, 7-29.
27.
MuchiskyD.TangrenN. (1999). Immigrant student performance in an academic intensive English program. In HarklauL.LoseyK.SiegalM. (Eds,), Generation 1.5 meets college composition (pp. 211-234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
PattheyG.Thomas-SpiegelJ.DillonP. (2009). Educational pathways of Generation 1.5 students in community college writing courses. In RobergeM.SiegalM.HarklauL. (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp. 135-149). New York: Routledge.
30.
PolioC. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
31.
ReidJ. M. (2005). “Ear learners” and error in US college writing. In BruthiauxP.AtkinsonD.EggingtonW. G.GrabeW.RamanathanV. (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics (pp. 117-130). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
32.
RobergeM. M. (2002). California’s Generation 1.5 immigrants: What experiences, characteristics, and needs do they bring to our English classes?CATESOL Journal, 14, 107-129.
33.
RobergeM.SiegalM.HarklauL. (2009). Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. New York: Routledge.
34.
RumbautR. G. (2004). Ages, life stages, and generational cohorts: Decomposing the immigrant first and second generations in the United States. International Migration Review, 38, 1160-1205.
35.
RumbautR. G.ImaK. (1988). The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A comparative study. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. (ERIC Document No. 299372)
36.
SchwartzG. G. (2006). Vietnamese students in mainstream composition: An ethnographic study of academic identities in Generation 1.5 students who cross over (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.
37.
SilvaT. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677.
38.
SlagerW. (1956). The foreign student and the immigrant: Their different problems as students of English. Language Learning, 3, 24-29.
39.
ValdezG. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
WeigleS. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 194-209.
41.
WitteS. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9, 237-308.
42.
Wolfe-QuinteroK.InagakiS.KimH. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i.
