Generation 1.5: Do the Kids in the Middle Get the Short End of the Stick?

-An interview with Mark Roberge, co-editor of Generation 1.5 in College Composition

This year’s annual CATESOL conference in Pasadena in mid-April hosted two workshops centered on generation 1.5, those students, who, in many cases, have been living in the U.S. since an early age, are not necessarily fluent in their “home” language, yet don’t exhibit English skills commonly thought to be acquired during that length of time in the U.S. The first workshop entitled “Generation 1.5 Students in the Composition Classroom: The high School and College/University Connection,”  had six panelists, and the second, “Working with Generation 1.5 Immigrant ESL Students,” was hosted by Mark Roberge, associate professor of English at San Francisco State University and co-editor of the book Generation 1.5 in College Composition.  While the subject of generation 1.5 students is not brand-new, it is generating significant interest as well as possible and practical solutions.

Who are they?  “When I use the term generation 1.5, I think of students who are somewhat like our monolingual English speaking students, in that they learned English naturalistically, by listening and speaking, but they are also like our ESL students in that they’re still developing their academic English,” said Roberge in a recent interview. “Some are students with complex migratory backgrounds who move back and forth, say, between Mexico and the US, and thus have bits of education in both countries. Or they live in bilingual enclaves in large cities, such as San Francisco or Los Angeles and it’s hard to say which language is their ‘home language’ and which language is their ‘other language.’”

Distinct differences.  At a CATEOL workshop three years ago in San Francisco, noted educators Janet Lane and Ellen Lange gave a workshop on correcting student writing errors. One of the exercises given the attendees was to distinguish who wrote three separate paragraphs: a student in the U.S. for a short time; one here for a long time; and one who was an international student. Below are excerpts from each paragraph with highlighted words that give the clues. Explanations follow.

#1 comes from an essay written by a student in the U.S. for a short time. A student here longer, familiar with idiomatic expressions, and even television (!), would not make the errors in bold face.

#2 is writing from what we would call our “classic” generation 1.5 student. The language uses formal and informal register—note “give away” as an example of informality, but also includes verb errors, and others, that native speakers would not make.

#3 was written by an international student. There are verb tense errors similar to those of the generation 1.5 students, but there are idiomatic errors that a gen 1.5-er would not likely make; nor would the generation 1.5 student omit articles.

What happens?  What often happens to these students, continued Roberge, is that they may be in ESL classes for a year or two and prematurely mainstreamed before they’re ready. Some educators called this “English submersion,” as opposed to “English immersion” because they students are left to fend for themselves. Often, generation 1.5 students are aural learners. From hanging around the neighborhood and the school yard, those students born outside the U.S. (or even born in the U.S.), but living within a closed ethnic community pick up colloquial language and American culture, but are not exposed to reading and writing—or speaking—in English at home.

What about school, you might ask. According to Roberge, students in inner city schools speak their home language to each other, whether when talking with friends or working in groups in class. Roberge states in his own article “A Teacher’s Perspective on Generation 1.5,” in his book, that “…assessment tools can mistake minimal oral fluency for English proficiency,” meaning that a teacher may think that because a child can exhibit an oral understanding of identifying numbers and following instructions like opening a textbook, that he or she has the ability to read a textbook. “Especially in middle school,” he said, “the fact that the students can participate in a class discussion doesn’t mean that they’re ready to NOT get help anymore.” In a remedial high school English class a lot of the language input is going to be passive: a teacher may show a movie, read a story aloud and spend time disciplining the students. “[The students] develop compensatory strategies; they learn by talking to their friends,” he said. When it comes to writing, mistakes that come from oral language such as using “could of” for “could have” are common (see sidebar “Distinct Differences”).  

Interestingly, this generation 1.5 phenomenon is not limited to the U.S. Shortly after receiving his Ph.D in education from the University of California at Berkeley, Roberge lived in Munich, Germany, where he did volunteer work with Turkish immigrants, a population he was familiar with, having also lived and worked in Istanbul. “The kids there had the same problems that kids here have. They’re reading and writing in German and speaking in Turkish. But, they’d be lost in Turkey! The culture is different, the schooling is different,” he said.

Teachings Tips.  Mark Roberge suggests giving students lots of ways to show their skills:

• online discussions
• small group discussions in class
• whole class discussions
• work at the board

What can we do?  One of the first things, said Roberge, is to recognize who these students are. For instance, a typical ESL writing assignment comparing holidays and events in the student’s home country with the U.S. is probably not going to work with generation 1.5 kids. The U.S. is their country! “Chopping the population in two -- native speakers and ESL -- is not a good idea,” Roberge said. “Rather, [we must] develop teaching strategies that are effective with a diverse groups of students with diverse language proficiencies.

Roberge discussed a new way of thinking about teaching—universal design. The metaphor comes from architecture and means to design something so that people of all abilities can access it. With universal design, said Roberge, “students with different needs, language proficiencies, different strengths, and different weaknesses can all learn together.” Noted author and professor Dana Ferris of University of California at Davis is coming out with a new book in June from University of Michigan Press entitled Teaching College Writing to Diverse Student Populations. “The book,” said Ferris in an email,
“… is intended to be an accessible and highly practical book for pre-service and in-service ESL writing teachers and hopefully also have crossover potential for pre-service and in-service mainstream composition instructors and administrators. Especially in California, ALL writing instructors need to be prepared for ‘diverse student populations’!”

Because language and identity issues are so salient for “generation 1.5” students, Roberge likes to give assignments—reading and writing—that are about California (where he teaches) and focus on how people find their identities through the spheres of life they actually experience. “They write about gangs or surfing or working at Kinko’s,” he said. Other options can be getting students to read for pleasure, giving grammar explanations without using metalanguage and having true collaborative learning whereby newly-arrived international students, say, from Japan, who are trained in the metalanguage of English grammar are teamed up with generation 1.5 students, schooled in the idioms and slang of American culture. One of the most exciting things with generation 1.5,” said Roberge “is that it pushes us to create pedagogy that’s more flexible and pertains more to students’ needs.”