Despite the increasing emphasis on the language and literacy practices of immigrant communities, our understanding of Asian immigrants’ everyday experiences in their workplaces remains limited. This study examines the language and literacy practices of two Korean adult immigrants within their professional environment—a family-owned dry cleaning business. Drawing on the concept of Literacy as Social Practice, this study explores their lived experiences. Research was conducted using an ethnographic approach, incorporating participant observations, interviews, and field notes. The collected data was analyzed using an inductive method, facilitating a deeper understanding of the family's evolving social practices and the crucial role their workplace plays in the context of immigrant families. Findings suggest that the family refined their professional skills and essential English proficiency through self-initiated learning, utilizing available resources. The workplace emerged as a significant platform for the family's immigrant experience, markedly shaping their language and literacy practices. This research provides insight into the underrepresented population's literacy practices and spaces, contributing valuable understanding to the field of adult literacy.
BartonD. (2012). Ethnographic approaches to literacy research. In ChapelleC. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–7). Wiley-Blackwell.
2.
BartonD.HamiltonM. (2000). Literacy practices. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvaničR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). Routledge.
CampanoG.GhisoM. P. (2011). Immigrant students as cosmopolitan intellectuals. In WolfS.CoatesP.EncisoP.JenkinsC. (Eds.), Handbook on research on children’s and young adult literature (pp. 164–176). Routledge.
5.
CastletonG. (2002). Workplace literacy as a contested site of educational activity. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,45(7), 556–566.
6.
ChaoX.ManteroM. (2014). Church-based ESL adult programs: Social mediators for empowering “family literacy ecology of communities.”Journal of Literacy Research, 46(1), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X14524588
7.
ChoiY.KimY. S.PekelnickyD. D.KimH. J. (2013). Preservation and modification of culture in family socialization: Development of parenting measures for Korean immigrant families. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0028772
8.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.Sage.
9.
CunA.McVeeM. B.VasquezC. (2019). “I need child care!”: Using funds of knowledge, addressing challenges, and developing literacies with a classroom community of adult ESL learners. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice,68(1), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336919870287
10.
Dunbar-OrtizR. (2014). An indigenous peoples’ history of the United States (Vol. 3). Beacon Press.
11.
Florio-Ruane S., & McVee, M. (2000). Ethnographic approaches to literacy research. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 153–162). Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
GeeJ. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
13.
GonzálezN.MollL. C.AmantiC. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
HanedaM. (2006). Becoming literate in a second language: Connecting home, community, and school literacy practices. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4504_7
15.
HarklauL. (2001). From high school to college: Student perspectives on literacy practices. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(1), 33–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960109548102
16.
JungJ. K. (2019). Developing transnational repertoires: Adolescents’ language and literacy practices in a digitally mediated network (AAI27548608) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. Scholarly Commons. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI27548608/
17.
JungJ. K. (2022). Creating a liminal writing class for multilingual adolescent writers. In LesleyM.SaldanaR.SmitJ.JungJ. K. (Eds.), Liminal spaces of writing: Useful writing for adolescents and adults (pp. 103–114). Lexington Books.
LeeC. C.FalterM. M.SchoonoverN. R. (2021). Encountering the affective in Latino immigrant youth narratives. Reading Research Quarterly,56(2), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.316
20.
LeeS. J. (2015). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth.Teachers College Press.
21.
LeeS. J.HongJ. J. (2020). Model minorities and perpetual foreigners: Stereotypes of Asian Americans. In NadlerJ. T.VoylesE. C. (Eds.), Stereotypes: The incidence and impacts of bias (pp. 165–174). Praeger.
22.
LewisC.EncisoP. E.MojeE. B. (Eds.). (2020). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power.Routledge.
23.
LiG. (2019). Resource diversity in Asian immigrants and refugees: Implications for language arts instruction. Language Arts,96(6), 370–383. https://doi.org/10.58680/la201930171
24.
MarottaC. (2021). Regulated and nonregulated writing: A qualitative study of university custodians’ workplace literacy practices. Research in the Teaching of English,55(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte202131187
25.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook.Sage.
26.
MuseusS. D. (2013). Asian Americans and pacific islanders: A national portrait of growth, diversity, and inequality. In MuseusS. D.MarambaD. C.TeranishiR. T. (Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and their implications for higher education (pp. 11–41). Stylus.
27.
National Research Council. (2012). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research.National Academies Press.
28.
NewtonJ.KusmierczykE. (2011). Teaching second languages for the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000080
29.
PakH. R. (2003). When MT is L2: The Korean church school as a context for cultural identity. In HornbergerN. H. (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for education policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 269–290). Multilingual Matters Ltd.
30.
PerryK. H. (2007). Sharing stories, linking lives: Literacy practices among Sudanese refugees. In Purcell-GatesV. (Ed.), Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, literacy, social practice, and power (pp. 57–84). Erlbaum.
31.
PerryK. H. (2012). What is literacy? A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50–71.
32.
PettittN. (2018). Refugee women in the United States writing themselves into new community spaces. In CrandallJ.BaileyK. (Eds.), Global perspectives on language education policies (pp. 56–69). Routledge.
33.
PoonO.SquireD.KodamaC.ByrdA.ChanJ.ManzanoL.FurrS.BishundatD. (2016). A critical review of the model minority myth in selected literature on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education. Review of Educational Research,86(2), 469–502. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315612205
34.
Purcell-GatesV. (Ed.). (2020). Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, literacy, social practice, and power.Routledge.
RunciemanA. J. (2018). The identity of the professional interpreter.Springer.
37.
RymesB. (2014). Communicative repertoire. In StreetB.LeungC. (Eds.), Routledge companion to English language studies (pp. 287–301). Routledge.
38.
SchwabE. R. (2019). Writing together: Reclaiming dialogue journals as a mutually humanizing teaching practice. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice,68(1), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336919869025
39.
ShinS. Y. (2010). The functions of code-switching in a Korean Sunday school. Heritage Language Journal, 7(1), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.7.1.5
40.
SkerrettA.OmogunL. (2020). When racial, transnational, and immigrant identities, literacies, and languages meet: Black youth of Caribbean origin speak. Teachers College Record, 122(13), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012201302
41.
SolórzanoD. G.YossoT. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
42.
StewartM. A. (2014a). Social networking, workplace, and entertainment literacies: The out-of-school literate lives of newcomer adolescent immigrants. Literacy Research and Instruction,53(4), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.931495
43.
StewartM. A. (2014b). Social networking, workplace, and entertainment literacies: The out-of-school literate lives of newcomer Latina/o adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.80
44.
StreetB. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. Longman.
45.
StreetB. V. (2001). The new literacy studies. In CushmanE.KintgenG. R.KrollB. M.RoseM. (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 430–442). St. Martin’s Press.
46.
StreetB. V. (2016). Learning to read from a social practice view: Ethnography, schooling and adult learning. Prospects, 46(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-017-9411-z
47.
WilliamsJ. C.NunesD.TankehL. (2022). COVID-19 racism and the perpetual foreigner narrative: The impacts on Asian American students. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1–18.
48.
ZhaoS.FlewittR. (2020). Young Chinese immigrant children’s language and literacy practices on social media: A translanguaging perspective. Language and Education,34(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1656738
49.
ZhouM.KimS. (2006). Community forces, social capital, and educational achievement: The case of supplementary education in the Chinese and Korean immigrant communities. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.1.u08t548554882477
