Developmental composition courses serve a sizable and growing number of Generation 1.5 students, or long-term U.S. resident language learners, and it is believed that language challenges may be part of Generation 1.5 writers’ difficulty in controlling the academic register. The current study investigates possible similarities and differences between Generation 1.5 students (n = 149) and two other student groups: mainstream first language (L1) writers (n = 203) and more traditional second language (L2) writers (n = 55), thus determining the extent to which language-use variables distinguish Generation 1.5 texts from those of their classmates. Results indicate significant differences between Generation 1.5 and L2 students on holistic writing quality, word errors, word class errors, verb errors, total identified errors, and spoken features of language. Generation 1.5 and L1 texts significantly differed on academic features of language. Implications are presented, suggesting that developmental Generation 1.5 writing may be more similar to L1 writing than has been previously reported.
AllisonH. (2009). High school academic literacy instruction and the transition to college writing. In RobergeM.SiegalM.HarklauL. (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp. 75-90). New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
BiberD. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BiberD.ConradS.ReppenR. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
5.
BiberD.VasquezC. (2008). Writing and speaking. In BazermanC. (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 535-548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Celce-MurciaM. (2002). On the use of selected grammatical features in academic writing. In SchleppegrellM. J.ColombiM. C. (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages (pp. 143-158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
ChenowethN. A.HayesJ. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98.
8.
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1.5 learners, native English-speaking learners and ESL learners: The discoursal self of G1.5 student writers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Retrieved from http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/274/
9.
ConnorU. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 68-87.
10.
CrossleyS. A.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119-135.
11.
CrusanD. (2010). Assessment in the second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
12.
CummingA.KantorR.BabaK.EouanzouiK.ErdosyK.JamesM. (Eds.). (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for the new TOEFL (Monograph Series No. 30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13.
di GennaroK. (2009). Investigating differences in the writing performance of international and Generation 1.5 students. Language Testing, 26, 533-559.
14.
di GennaroK. (2013). How different are they? A comparison of Generation 1.5 and international L2 learners’ writing ability. Assessing Writing, 18, 154-172.
15.
DoolanS. M. (2011a). A language-related comparison of Generation 1.5 and L1 student writing. CA-TESOL Journal, 22, 87-112.
16.
DoolanS. M. (2011b). A comparison of Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 tertiary student writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Arizona.
17.
DoolanS. (2013). Generation 1.5 writing compared to L1 and L2 writing in first-year composition. Written Communication, 30, 135-163.
18.
DoolanS.MillerD. (2012). Generation 1.5 written error patterns: A comparative study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 1-22.
19.
Educational Testing Service. (2004). Test of written English guide. Princeton, NJ: Author.
20.
FerrisD. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414-420.
21.
FerrisD. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
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.
23.
FraseL.FalettiJ.GintherA.GrantL. (1999). Computer analysis of the TOEFL test of written English (TOEFL Research Report No. 64). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
24.
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, NY: Routledge.
25.
FrodesenJ.StarnaN. (1999). Distinguishing incipient and functional bilingual writers: Assessment and instructional insights gained through second-language writing profiles. In HarklauL.LoseyK. M.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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Goen-SalterS.PorterP.SwansonD.VandommelenD. (2002). Working with Generation 1.5 students and their teachers: ESL meets composition. CA-TESOL Journal, 14, 131-171.
27.
Goen-SalterS.PorterP.VandommelenD. (2009). Working with Generation 1.5: Pedagogical principles and practices. In RobergeM.SiegalM.HarklauL. (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp. 235-259). New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S.LouwerseM. M.CaiZ. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
29.
GrantL.GintherA. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123-145.
30.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
HinkelE. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
HomburgT. J. (1984). Holistic evaluation of ESL compositions: Can it be validated objectively?TESOL Quarterly, 18, 87-107.
33.
JarvisS.GrantL.BikowskiD.FerrisD. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 377-403.
34.
JohnsonR. A.WichernD. W. (2007). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
35.
KrollB.ReidJ. (1994). Guidelines for designing writing prompts: Clarifications, caveats, and cautions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 231-255.
36.
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, Philadelphia.
37.
LundsfordA. A.LundsfordK. J. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communiciation, 59, 781-806.
38.
MatsudaP. K. (2003). Basic writing and second language writers: Toward an inclusive definition. Journal of Basic Writing, 22, 67-89.
39.
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.
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.
42.
MuchinskyD.TangrenN. (1999). Immigrant student performance in an academic intensive English program. In HarklauL.LoseyK. M.SiegalM. (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 211-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
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, NY: Routledge.
44.
PolioC. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
45.
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.
46.
ReppenR. (1994). Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
47.
RobergeM.LoseyK.WaldM.FerrisD. (2009, October). Re-examining Generation 1.5. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing, Phoenix, AZ.
48.
RobergeM.SiegalM.HarklauL. (2009). Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
RodbyJ. (1999). Contingent literacy: The social construction of writing for nonnative English-speaking college freshman. In HarklauL.LoseyK. M.SiegalM. (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 45-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
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.
51.
RumbautR. G.ImaK. (1988). The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A comparative study (Final report to the Office of Resettlement). San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED299372)
52.
ShawP.LiuE. T. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing?Applied Linguistics, 19, 225-254.
53.
SmithM. (2011). Accountability & continuous improvement in remedial education: Getting past go project. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
54.
Wolfe-QuinteroK.InagakiS.KimH. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
