Review Article
Generation 1.5 and Academic Libraries: Strategies for Supporting English Learners (ELs) in Reference and Instruction
Megan Margino
Marchese
Reference and Instruction
Librarian
Farmingdale State College
Farmingdale, New York, United
States
Email: megan.marchese@farmingdale.edu
Received: 23 Aug. 2021 Accepted: 4 Nov. 2021
2021 Marchese. This is an Open
Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30023
Abstract
Background – Compared
to native English speakers, English Learners (ELs) often face additional
barriers to academic success. Though typically competent in social English,
Generation 1.5 ELs struggle with academic English at the postsecondary level
and are still considered to be in the process of learning English. As colleges
become increasingly linguistically diverse, academic librarians must adapt to
support the growing numbers of ELs in the campus community.
Objective – This paper aims
to provide academic librarians with information on the scope of English
Learners in K-12 through postsecondary education, academic challenges of
Generation 1.5 students at the postsecondary level, and strategies that
librarians can employ to support English learners in the contexts of reference
and instruction.
Methods – The author
searched journals in the disciplines of academic libraries, higher education,
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), and linguistics.
Additional resources searched include education data and statistics, research
institute publications, and English as a New Language (ENL) teaching resources.
These sources were explored in regard to the topics of EL educational
statistics, K-12 ENL programs, ENL pedagogy, ELs in postsecondary education,
Generation 1.5 students, ELs’ academic challenges and educational needs, and
academic libraries and ELs.
Results – A review of the
literature on ELs in academic libraries, particularly Generation 1.5 students,
reveals that Generation 1.5 is a population that is in need
of support at the postsecondary level. Because Generation 1.5 students
often hold strong social English skills, they may enter college without an EL
designation or specialized academic support. However, research shows that
Generation 1.5 students struggle with college-level academic English,
specifically in grammar and vocabulary. These challenges impact students’
communicative success both in college classroom and library environments.
Conclusion – Academic
librarians may adopt pedagogical strategies commonly employed in ENL classrooms
to use in reference and instruction environments. Techniques include themes
such as awareness of language use and reinforcement of content, and require
low-stakes implementation into library practice. Though librarians may be unaware
of the language learning needs of their students, such strategies have shown to
be useful for all students. Because techniques that are helpful to ELs also
typically benefit all students, these strategies are also applicable to native
English speakers.
Introduction
Despite growing numbers of English Learner (EL) students
across the United States, academic librarians are often unaware of best
practices in working with students whose native language is not English (Tran
& Aytac, 2018). Across the United States, 10.2% of
public school K-12 students are enrolled as English Learners (ELs). In most
areas of the country, the number of EL students is increasing each year
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2020), and the National Education
Association (2020) projects that 25% of K-12 students throughout the United
States will be ELs by 2025. These statistics suggest that institutions of
higher education will also be impacted by the continued growth of the language
learner population in future years.
In the K-12 environment in the United States, ELs receive
language assistance programs to help them attain English proficiency. In higher
education settings, EL support is dependent upon the characteristics of the
language learner. Outside of K-12, Bergey et al.
(2018) assert that ELs may be considered in three categories: international
students, recent immigrants, and Generation 1.5 students. The Generation 1.5
designation comprises young people who are U.S.-born children of immigrants,
individuals who immigrated to the United States as children, or those who were
raised in environments where English is not the primary language of the home
and community (Huster, 2012). While college-level
English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in the United States are often
designated for international students and recent immigrants, Generation 1.5 ELs
are not typically in language support programs at the college level. This is
because Generation 1.5 attended K-12 schools in the United States and they are
often proficient in social English. However, while Generation 1.5 students are
competent in conversational communication, they may still struggle with
academic English and can be challenged by academic tasks at the college level
(Asher et al., 2009; Bergey et al., 2018; di Gennaro,
2008; Haras et al., 2008; Harklau,
2003; Huster, 2012; Roessingh
& Douglas, 2012).
Aims
There is currently limited research on best practices for
working with Generation 1.5 ELs in academic libraries, particularly concerning
strategies for supporting Generation 1.5 through reference and instruction
practices. This paper aims to apply research conducted in the areas of K-12 EL
pedagogy and ELs in higher education to the context of academic libraries.
Specifically, this paper will explore how academic librarians in reference and
instruction settings can employ strategies that are beneficial to ELs while
simultaneously supporting all students.
Methods
The
author of this paper conducted a literature review in disciplines related to
academic libraries, higher education, Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL), and linguistics. Databases searched include EBSCOhost
Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text,
EBSCOhost Education Source, EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete, ProQuest
Education Database, ProQuest Research Library, and ERIC. The author also
searched the PRIMO Discovery Service via Farmingdale State College, Google
Scholar, and online resources published by ENL and ESL educators. Insight on
United States federal data pertaining to ELs was gathered through the U.S.
Census Bureau, research organizations such as the American Institutes for
Research, the Migration Policy Institute, and United States education
associations. Consistent terminology was used in searching across platforms
through utilizing combinations of the following search terms: English Language
Learners, English Learners, English as a New Language (ENL), English as a
Second Language (ESL), Generation 1.5, international students, academic
libraries, reference, information literacy instruction, higher education, K-12
education, pedagogy, teaching methodology, teaching strategies, teaching
techniques, and academic challenges. Backward citation searching was used to
explore major researchers in the field of Generation 1.5, the evolution of the
Generation 1.5 definition, trends in U.S.-based EL pedagogy over time,
historical legal protections for ELs in the United States, and changing EL
terminology. Forward citation searching was also used to discover the most
recent available research on these topics.
Further,
the author’s institution, Farmingdale State College, a technology college in
the State University of New York (SUNY) system, acts as an example institution
to investigate the availability of postsecondary statistics maintained on
non-native English speakers, offerings of language support programs, and
general academic support prerequisites. This institution is located on Long
Island, New York, and serves approximately 10,000 students primarily at the
undergraduate level, including 47% of students from minority populations
largely from Long Island and the New York City area (Farmingdale State College,
n.d.-a; Farmingdale State College, n.d.-b).
The
research process began by exploring journal articles on general strategies for
supporting English Language Learners in academic libraries. Through the review
process, the term Generation 1.5 revealed itself to be both relevant to the
diverse composition of the author’s institution and in need of further
consideration in regard to academic libraries. At the time of this writing,
journal articles that focused on Generation 1.5 students in academic libraries
were primarily targeted toward students’ perceptions of libraries and their
library space usage. A review of the literature revealed a lack of resources
with a specific focus on methodology for supporting Generation 1.5 ELs in
academic library reference and instruction contexts. The author’s background
holding a Master of Arts in TESOL and serving as a Reference and Instruction
Librarian lent itself to search a range of resources including journals,
reports, and educator-based online publications in the fields of academic
libraries, TESOL, linguistics, higher education, K-12 education, and United
States education data.
Resources
included as references in this paper provided information in one or more of the
following areas: Generation 1.5 students and academic libraries; academic
librarian EL-based pedagogy; Generation 1.5 students in higher education; the
history of ELs in United States K-12 education; Generation 1.5 students’
academic and linguistic challenges; ELs’ transition experiences from high
school to college; EL pedagogical strategies that can be applied in academic
library contexts; and United States EL statistics.
Resources
that were examined in the literature review process, but were ultimately
excluded from this article include the following categories: research on
international students in higher education that does not pertain to Generation
1.5 ELs; United States K-12 teaching pedagogy that is not applicable for
academic libraries; technical linguistics research that is not suitable for
academic library audiences; EL-based research that does not provide practical
teaching applications; and New York-specific EL statistics. Searching the
literature through the above methods resulted in the emergence of several
themes presented in this paper which are organized to
highlight the importance of language learner identification in United States
K-12 education, Generation 1.5 students’ academic challenges, and EL-based
pedagogy that is applicable to academic libraries.
Results
A review of the literature resulted in the emergence of
several major themes surrounding the identification of ELs in K-12 education
compared to that of postsecondary education, and the academic support
differences typically received at each level. Through exploring ELs’ academic
needs, it is evident that Generation 1.5 students are an underserved population
that is often challenged by academic language at the college level, despite
their appearance of social language proficiency. These academic challenges
include all forms of academic communication, such as grammar and vocabulary,
which impact students’ success in the college classroom and also extends to
library usage.
Identifying English Learners in K-12 education
In the K-12 environment, United States schools are
federally mandated to provide ELs with equal access to the curriculum through
linguistic and academic support (Nunez et al., 2016). While this support is a
federal requirement in the United States, individual states and school
districts have the autonomy to (1) establish the processes for identifying ELs
who need linguistic support, (2) manage the level of support provided over
time, and (3) determine when students no longer need support (Nunez et al.,
2016). For example, in New York State, support for ELs and multilingual
learners include programs such as (1) English as a New Language (ENL), where
instruction is primarily in English using specific ENL instructional
strategies, and, (2) Bilingual Education (BE), which provides instruction in
both English and students’ native language to varying degrees (New York State
Education Department, n.d.). In the United States, many schools use
standardized test scores on English language proficiency tests to decide
whether a student needs linguistic support and should be classified as an EL.
The EL students who score at grade level on standardized academic assessments
may meet state criteria to lose their EL classification and change their status
to Reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) (Nunez et al., 2016). This
reclassification means that EL students lose access to specialized language
support services (Sugarman, 2018). In theory, the reclassification signifies
that students who were formerly considered ELs are no longer in need of
language and academic support. However, Nunez et al. (2016) argue that while
these reclassified students would theoretically no longer need English support,
in reality, many RFEP students “are not truly ‘fluent English proficient’ nor
sufficiently academically prepared to be self-sufficient in the mainstream
classroom” (p. 58). Achieving a predetermined academic threshold sufficient to
exit a K-12 ENL program is not necessarily indicative of full English
proficiency; students who were formerly classified as ELs might not be at
comparable language and academic levels compared to their non-EL peers. This
notion indicates that United States ELs, including ELs who have achieved
grade-level test scores, are at risk for being underprepared to succeed in
mainstream K-12 classes, and subsequently in college.
Identifying English Learners in Postsecondary Education
Research shows that ELs in the United States are often
underprepared in regard to college readiness and ELs’ postsecondary outcomes
are lower than those of native English speakers (Kanno
& Cromley, 2015; Nunez et al., 2016; Roessingh & Douglas, 2012). While Kanno
and Cromley (2015) found that 45% of native English
speakers attend four-year colleges, only 35% of English-proficient EL students
and 19% of all ELs advance to four-year colleges following graduation. It is
more common for ELs to attend community college, though ELs’ degree completion
rates are lower than those of community college students in general (Nunez et
al., 2016). In terms of six-year college degree completion, one in eight ELs
completed a college degree in this time frame compared with one in three non-EL
students (Bergey et al., 2018). However, data on the
transition of ELs from high school to postsecondary education in the United
States is limited.
Because students’ EL status is not a permanent label, the
fluidity of this group lends difficulty to tracking a cohort of language learners
over time (Sugarman, 2018). In the United States, there is no long-term
coordination between identifying ELs in K-12 schools and later at the college
level. Longitudinal data is needed to assess long-term language skills;
however, federal data sets have limited data on language (Nunez et al., 2016).
EL status is often measured in different ways according to different
jurisdictions and other data pose challenges in generalizing outside of
specific geographic areas (Nunez et al., 2016). This lack of coordinated
longitudinal data between ELs in high school and college results in difficulty
identifying and assessing EL students who were formerly in a K-12 ENL program,
as their EL or RFEP status no longer exists at the postsecondary level (Nunez
et al., 2016).
While institutions of higher education usually collect
demographic data such as race, ethnicity, and first-generation college student
status, they typically do not systematically collect data about language
background and progress toward language proficiency (Bergey
et al., 2018). For example, the SUNY System asks applicants “is English your
native language?” However, because this was not a required question on the
application, the data on this topic is incomplete. For example, of the Fall
2020 applicants at Farmingdale State College, 66% left this question blank
(Farmingdale State College Office of Institutional Research, personal
communication March 22, 2021).
Most four-year institutions require students to
demonstrate a certain level of English proficiency (Bergey
et al., 2018). Though EL students’ English skills might be at levels high
enough for college acceptance, they still may benefit from specialized EL
support at the college level. However, there is no state or federal guidance to
determine how ELs should be “assessed, monitored, and served in colleges and
universities” (Bergey et al., 2018, p. 7). There are
also no legal requirements for the academic support services that ELs’ receive
in K-12 schools to extend to postsecondary education. Institutions of higher
education make their own decisions about whether and how to identify students
who come to their institutions with limited English skills. At the
postsecondary level, EL identification is not standardized and language
learners might be identified by a number of standardized tests, such as the
Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) Reading Test, the Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL), College Board’s ACCUPLACER, the America College Testing (ACT)
COMPASS placement test, or in-house placement tests (Nunez et al., 2016). Based
on the results of test scores such as these, linguistic and academic support
may be provided to postsecondary ELs in a number of ways.
Some institutions require students to complete non-degree
English as a Second Language (ESL) courses prior to or alongside their
participation in regular academic courses (Bergey et
al., 2018). However, not all colleges and universities offer ESL courses or
programs. Schools may also offer other types of developmental courses which are
often non-credit and not applicable to a degree, but are required in order to
advance to credit-bearing courses. At Farmingdale State College, students are
required to pass English 097: Basic Writing Skills if they do not achieve a
certain score on the writing or reading sections of the SAT or ACT, or if they
do not pass an English department diagnostic exam on the first day of English
101 Composition: College Writing, a required course for all students
(Farmingdale State College Course Catalog, 2020-2021). Nunez et al. (2016) note
that four-year colleges may be moving towards integrating language with writing
instruction by recognizing the need to “take responsibility for the regular
presence of second language writers in writing classes, to understand their
characteristics, and to develop instructional and administrative practices that
are sensitive to their linguistic and cultural needs” (p. 67).
Aside from developmental courses that postsecondary
institutions might require, college students are primarily responsible for
addressing their own linguistic challenges. While K-12 schools are legally
required to provide ELs with linguistic support, there is no such requirement
at the college level and this responsibility instead shifts to the students
themselves (Nunez et al., 2016). Additionally, some ELs, particularly
Generation 1.5 ELs, might score high enough on standardized exams to determine
that they are language proficient and they are not placed in any type of
support program at the college level. However, Generation 1.5 students often
struggle to perform at the same academic level as native English speakers.
Research shows that even students who were formerly in a K-12 program and were
Reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) do not necessarily have the
English skills needed for academic success at the college level (Nunez et al.,
2016; Roessingh & Douglas, 2012).
Generation 1.5 Students
Coined by Rumbaut and Ima
(1988), the term Generation 1.5 was first used to describe children born
outside the United States who hovered between the traditional definitions of
first-generation and second-generation immigrants. This term has evolved over
time and Roberge (2002) argues for a definition of Generation 1.5 that
encompasses young people who were born in the United States in addition to
those who immigrated to the United States at a young age. Further, Huster (2012) emphasizes that the Generation 1.5
designation includes individuals who (1) immigrated to the United States as
children, (2) are U.S.-born children of immigrants, or (3) were raised in
environments where English is not the primary language of the home and
community. Many Generation 1.5 students do not identify as ESL students upon
entering postsecondary education because they are native-born, or because they
have spent a great deal of their lives in the United States and have received
much of their K-12 education in the United States (Bergey
et al., 2018; Haras et al., 2008).
Roughly one in five children in the United States lives
in a home where a language other than English is spoken (Migration Policy
Institute, n.d.). The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey reports
that 72% of public school students ages 5 to 17 who report speaking English
“less than very well” were born in the United States (Bialik et al., 2018; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2016). These students attended schools in the United States from
a young age or throughout their entire lives. Because English is not the
primary language spoken at home or in the community, Generation 1.5 ELs are
likely to have been part of linguistic support programs at some point in the
K-12 public school system (Huster, 2012). Throughout
their time in English-language schools, most ELs develop strong conversational
English skills. However, while Generation 1.5 ELs appear fully conversant in
American English and culture, they are still in the process of learning English
when they enter college and face a variety of academic English challenges
(Asher et al., 2009; di Gennaro 2008; Haras et al.,
2008; Huster, 2012). Despite their participation in
K-12 U.S. schools, many Generation 1.5 students still need support to meet the
demands of academic English required at the postsecondary level (Bergey et al., 2018).
Understanding Academic Challenges Faced by Generation 1.5
Academic English
ELs can develop communicative proficiency in social
English within two years of participating in an English-speaking school setting
(Gonzalez, 2016). In contrast, developing academic language proficiency is a
long and gradual process, sometimes taking up to ten years to master (Gonzalez,
2016; Roessingh & Douglas, 2012). Communicative
language includes everyday language needed for basic conversation that may be
accomplished with a vocabulary of up to 5,000 words. In comparison, a native
English-speaking high school graduate might have a vocabulary of about 18,000
word families (Roessingh & Douglas, 2012). Roessingh and Douglas (2012) explain that academic language
demands “abstract uses of language that require language itself to interpret
and comprehend” (p. 291). College-level reading and writing assignments often
include academic and technical language that can prove to be difficult even for
native English speakers. If Generation 1.5 students have not fully mastered
academic English, they are likely to face reading and writing challenges in
college. The discrepancy of appearing to be fluent while facing certain
academic difficulties might result in instructors’ reaction of judgment towards
students and a lack of understanding their need for extra support.
Academic Language Stigma
Generation 1.5 students may also feel embarrassed and
disappointed in their English ability, particularly for the purposes of college
writing and participating in the college classroom (Huster,
2012). Huster’s (2012) study of Generation 1.5
revealed that these students often exhibit deviations from Standard English.
Though the meaning of their communication was usually clear, the students felt
that grammar and vocabulary errors limited their ability to fully participate
in class and stigmatized them as “nonnative, foreign – or even worse as
uneducated, or unintelligent” (Huster, 2012, p. 21). Roessingh and Douglas (2012) found that students’
self-reported level of spoken English might not reflect the level of academic
English needed for postsecondary education and these struggles might not become
evident to students until reaching college. In particular, one student in Huster’s (2012) study did not feel limited by her English
ability in high school, but began to feel “awkward and unprepared” once
attempting to participate in college classes (p. 18). This may be partially due
to ELs’ K-12 educational experiences.
ELs’ Educational Background
ELs in the United States are more likely to have attended
an under-resourced school compared to native English-speaking classmates and
are more likely to have received insufficient instructional support (Asher et
al., 2009; Bergey et al., 2018). Further, ELs are
more likely to have been tracked into low-level courses that do not prepare
them for college (Bergey et al., 2018; Haras et al., 2008; Nunez et al., 2016; Roberge, 2002). ELs
are underrepresented in high-level academic courses in middle school and high
school and Nunez et al. (2016) argue that students’ EL status in K-12 education
acts as a barrier to access to AP college preparatory courses. This “limited
access to rigorous curricula perpetuates a cycle of low achievement” (Nunez et
al., 2016, p. 65). Students placed in lower-ability courses in high school had
little experience with academic writing and were socialized into literary
practices that were different from those used in higher track courses (Harklau, 2003). Such high school tracking practices may
heighten the challenges that Generation 1.5 students experience in college, as
work that was once deemed acceptable is now held to a higher standard.
Specific Academic Struggles
Generation 1.5 students often struggle with academic
reading and writing and the overall demands of college coursework due to a host
of factors (Bergey et al., 2018). These students have
limited literacy in their first language, lack fully developed oral or written
systems of their first language, and may be at risk for losing their first
language. Unlike international students, Generation 1.5 often did not learn a
writing system in their first language (Roessingh
& Douglas, 2012). Roessingh and Douglas (2012)
compared ELs to native speakers by profiling excerpts of assigned first-year
college readings and other coursework. While EL students were found to be
academically competent and showed high math scores, their reading levels were
lower than native speakers. Though able to effectively convey their meaning
through verbal and written communication, Huster’s
(2012) research shows that Generation 1.5 students commonly use grammatical and
vocabulary errors. Because postsecondary education places a high value on
academic language proficiency, such as advanced reading ability, independent
library research, group work, and presentation skills, ELs’ difficulty in these
areas may negatively impact their success (Roessingh
& Douglas, 2012).
Grammar
Generation 1.5 ELs often deviated from Standard American
English by using irregular forms of nouns and verbs, grammatical
inconsistencies with non-count nouns, and subject-verb agreement errors,
present in both their writing and speech (Huster,
2012). The participants in Huster’s (2012) study
attended K-12 United States schools for their entire education and did not have
a distinctive pronunciation or accent. However, they did show language pattern
alterations related to English morphology (the way words are constructed, such
as roots, prefixes, and suffixes), and syntax (the arrangement of words into
phrases and sentences). Sample errors are italicized below:
Generation 1.5 ELs may show errors in grammatical
structure such as past tense, plural forms, and whether words are regular or
irregular (Harklau, 2003), e.g.: “we seeked for a
higher education” (Huster, 2012, p. 12). Another
variation example includes noncount nouns, which are nouns that cannot be
counted, e.g. “my older sister will call me… and ask me for advices” (Huster,
2012, p. 13). Further, Generation 1.5 showed difficulty in subject-verb
agreement (Harklau, 2003), e.g. “I love to help
those… families that doesn’t speak
English. It makes me happy knowing that I can be a middle man for those that needs translating” (Huster,
2012, p. 13).
Vocabulary
Huster (2012) also found that Generation 1.5 ELs were
frustrated with the limitations of their vocabulary and felt that this impacted
their ability to perform academically. Even though Generation 1.5 students have
been exposed to academic vocabulary throughout their time in United States
schools, they have not necessarily mastered that vocabulary. Huster’s (2012) study revealed that the participants
sometimes had difficulty answering questions posed by the researcher because
they did not understand a word in the question. This problematic gap in
vocabulary also occurs in classroom contexts and can significantly affect ELs’
writing and their ability to effectively participate in class. One student in Huster’s (2012) study revealed dissatisfaction with her
range of vocabulary, noting: “I frustrate often at finding the right word” (p.
15). Another student expressed the following acknowledgement:
“I don’t
feel like I have a big enough vocabulary cause I guess
just hearing other people talk with you, they use a lot of big words. Sometimes
when people speak out in classes, like other students or my peers, there’s some
times I don’t know what they mean because I’ve never heard [the words] before.
Or like I’ve heard of it, but I don’t remember the definition or what it
actually means” (Huster, 2012, p. 16).
Lack of Sufficient Support
Though Generation 1.5 students’ meaning was generally
clear in their verbal and written communication, obvious surface errors are
present and are likely to have a negative impact in postsecondary coursework.
ELs’ writing may exhibit less fluency (fewer words), less accuracy (more
errors), and less effectiveness (lower holistic scores) (di Gennaro, 2008). Bergey et al. (2018) argue that K-12 ENL programs need to
provide students with increased academic writing instruction that can be
applied to real life academic and professional contexts beyond high school.
Ideally receiving instruction that differs from the content and methods used
for international or immigrant students, Generation 1.5 would benefit from
targeted instruction that is personalized to their proficiency levels (Bergey et al., 2018). However, while scaffolding supports
are present in high school, they are absent at the college level and many
Generation 1.5 ELs are unidentified as language learners who are tackling
college-level coursework. ELs’ easily noticeable errors noted by Huster (2012) may be bothersome to college-level
instructors, particularly those who do not have background knowledge of ELs. It
is common for students to encounter teachers who lack training in how to work
with ELs and who are unaware of their specific needs, and this may negatively
impact students’ college performance (Harklau, 2003).
The aforementioned reasons illustrate why ELs, including
students who were formerly classified as EL, may benefit from specialized
strategies and pedagogical techniques known to help language learners. As
academic libraries are entities of support on college campuses, it is
beneficial for librarians to be familiar with the EL community, including
potential challenges they may face and strategies to support them in their
transition to postsecondary education.
Generation 1.5 and Academic Libraries
Because Generation 1.5 ELs are proficient in social
English, librarians might be unaware of students’ academic English skills.
Further, as this student population is largely unidentified at the college
level, academic librarians might also be unaware of the overall needs of
Generation 1.5 students. While limited research has been conducted on
Generation 1.5 students and academic libraries, Asher et al. (2009) found that
they attached greater value to the library facilities compared to
non-Generation 1.5 students. Generation 1.5 students reported that the
library’s physical space was important to them because it allows for
unstructured social learning and provides the technology they need for
coursework, even if they had the technology they needed at home (Asher et al.,
2009). However, while Generation 1.5 ELs are strong users of library spaces,
they may still face difficulties conducting library research and seeking the
help they need in libraries.
Library-Specific Challenges
While some students’ information literacy skills are
primarily developed at the K-12 level (Haras et al.,
2008), not all students are equipped with a background of familiarity and
confidence using libraries. Because ELs in the United States often attend
under-resourced K-12 schools in non-college preparatory classes, they may not
have had experience using a school library or searching databases prior to
entering college. Haras et al. (2008) emphasize the
importance of high school librarians working with classes to teach them the
research process and prepare them for what is expected in college, though
students do not always have these opportunities. For example, an information
literacy class taught at Farmingdale State College may yield student feedback
showing that some students learned how to search databases in high school while
others did not.
ELs who lack knowledge of academic libraries and the
research process may also lack the confidence needed to seek assistance from
librarians. Compared to native English-speaking students, ELs tend to have
higher library anxiety in communicating with librarians and using libraries
(Ishimura & Bartlett, 2014). Generation 1.5 was also reported to be less
confident in using electronic resources (Asher et al., 2009). While it can be
difficult for any student, even native speakers, to admit they do not know something,
ELs’ language challenges often result in a lack of confidence to advocate for
themselves in regard to the help they need to succeed. This hesitation may
preclude them from approaching the reference desk or asking a question in an
information literacy class.
As Huster’s (2012) study
showed, Generation 1.5 students can easily misunderstand a word in a
conversation. These vocabulary gaps may contribute to students’ potential
confusion during a reference interaction or during an information literacy class.
Adding to their lack of confidence, information literacy classes also often
involve vocabulary with which ELs may be unfamiliar. A major aspect of database
searching includes selecting keywords, a task that becomes increasingly
difficult as one’s vocabulary range decreases. In addition to experiencing
difficulty selecting keywords, ELs might be challenged by other
database-related language uses such as using plural forms, synonyms, and
correct spelling. Such factors can limit students’ effectiveness in searching
(Ishimura & Bartlett, 2014). Librarians’ awareness of these common
challenges that Generation 1.5 ELs face enables them to better provide support
to this student population.
Discussion
Strategies for Supporting Generation 1.5
Academic librarians have the ability to recognize and
address these challenges by understanding the needs of the EL community and
adopting EL-specific strategies into daily interactions with students.
Librarians can employ a variety of strategies both at the reference desk and in
information literacy classes to support EL students. These methods can be used
to reinforce content for students and establish rapport with students, both of
which are key to helping the EL student community. As it is generally difficult
to recognize Generation 1.5 students due to their proficient social English
skills, their possible lack of an accent, and the common loss of the EL label
at the college level, librarians might not be aware of which students are ELs.
The benefits of adopting EL-based techniques are not limited to EL students
only. Librarians’ implementation of methods that are known to help ELs,
including Generation 1.5, can also be used in support of all students. Because
ELs may not be identifiable by accent or pronunciation, the following
recommendations are not only beneficial for ELs, but are also useful for all
academic library users.
Acknowledging Anxiety
One introductory step that librarians can take to support
Generation 1.5 is acknowledging potential anxieties that students may hold
about using the library or doing research. Conteh-Morgan (2002) surveyed EL
students about their ideal learning environment. Students reported that they
wanted teachers to have “enthusiasm, patience, a warm reception, and
personalized acceptance and concern for each student” (p. 193). These
characteristics are often exhibited in a typical K-12 ENL classroom, and
students would like these qualities to be replicated in other learning contexts
as well. Actions such as offering a welcoming smile, providing students with an
introduction, and making an effort to acknowledge and
address students’ concerns can make a significant difference in ELs’ comfort
level. Librarians who frequently work with EL students reported using
techniques such as consciously showing empathy, understanding, and interest in
students’ questions and responses, in addition to using active listening
techniques (Ishimura & Bartlett, 2014). While research shows this is an
EL-based strategy, fostering a welcoming environment for students is a core
mission of libraries. Reassuring students that help is available to them is a
small step in making them feel comfortable using the library.
Language Use
It is also recommended to avoid using technical and
library-specific jargon (Ishimura & Bartlett, 2014), and to limit the use
of slang and idiomatic expressions in conversations with ELs both at the
reference desk and in information literacy classes (Conteh-Morgan, 2002). Some
examples of idioms that might be used while teaching include phrases such as
“to make sure we’re all on the same page,” “so far so good,” “cover a lot of
ground,” and “draw a blank,” etc. Refraining from these types of expressions
can help ensure that ELs, including Generation 1.5 students, understand the
content that is being communicated. It can be helpful for librarians to adjust
their speaking style when working with ELs, such as repeating or rephrasing
words to help with any gaps in vocabulary students might have (Ishimura &
Bartlett, 2014). Further, it is beneficial to pause between different groups of
ideas and to restate ideas to help learner comprehension.
It is also important to be aware of how language and
culture can intertwine. Different communication styles can result in
misunderstandings. Wang and Frank’s (2002) research on this topic showed that
some ELs were confused by the phrase “check out books” on library signage.
Focus groups revealed that the students thought that “check out” implied
“examining or searching” and they were not interested in being examined or
searched. Another group of students thought the phrase “checking out books” was
associated with paying for books. In this case, the library changed the signs
to “borrow books” (Wang & Frank, 2002). This example illustrates how easily
miscommunications can occur between non-native and native speakers.
Additional language considerations include nonverbal
communication. Different cultures have different views of facial expressions,
physical gestures, posture, eye contact, and voice pitch or volume. American
students usually use eye contact in one-to-one conversations, which typically
indicates interest and respect. Wang and Frank (2002) explain that students
from other cultures might look away in conversations which could possibly be
perceived as not paying attention. Personal space can also be different in
different cultures. One example is that Middle Eastern students tend to be
physically closer to people to whom they are speaking, indicating a sign of
interest. According to Wang and Frank (2002), Japanese students tend to
maintain some physical distance in conversations, demonstrating respect for
others. Additional examples include correct posture being related to respect by
some Chinese students and sitting with one leg crossed over the other leg
possibly being viewed as offensive by some Middle Eastern students (Wang &
Frank, 2002). Librarians’ acknowledgment that different cultural norms exist
for different library systems and services can help them understand students’
actions and foster a non-judgmental environment throughout the library
(Ishimura & Bartlett, 2014).
Implementing Language Objectives
ENL classes often incorporate language objectives as part
of the lesson. Language objectives aim to give language learners equal access
to the curriculum, even though these students may not be fully English
proficient (Himmel, 2012). Often, K-12 content area classes will have both
content objectives and language objectives for each lesson. In order to outline
new and important vocabulary, librarians can adapt the concept of establishing
language objectives in information literacy classes by outlining the academic
language that will be learned and mastered in that lesson. For example,
language objectives for an information literacy class might include explaining
vocabulary words such as abstract, plagiarism, peer-reviewed journals, and so
on. This explicit outlining of key terms can help ELs identify important
vocabulary, particularly if they struggle in this area.
Non-Linguistic Cues
Because Generation 1.5 students may have gaps in their
academic vocabulary, visuals, gestures, intonation, and other non-verbal cues
can make language and content more accessible to students (Ferlazzo,
2016). Teaching with visual representations of concepts can be very helpful for
ELs, and providing any visual example of class content is beneficial. For
example, if different types of sources are being discussed, provide images of a
peer-reviewed article compared to a magazine article; if a citation format is
being taught, display images of in-text citations or a reference list. Even
though students may have mastered social English, it can be more difficult for
ELs to absorb content in an information literacy class, which might include new
terminology and concepts. Visuals are key instructional tools in K-12 ENL
classes and can be easily incorporated into library instruction.
Graphic organizers are a type of visual scaffolding tool
that are beneficial for ELs because they help students plan and organize their
ideas. One way that graphic organizers can be used is with concepts such as
citing sources. This graphic organizer would prompt students to identify
different elements of a citation in a chart, such as author, title of source,
date, and so on. Once students identify what the different elements are, they
can use the chart to construct the citation (Tran & Aytac,
2018). Graphic organizers are widely used in K-12 ENL programs and the act of
breaking up a process into multiple steps can be very helpful for ELs.
Another type of useful graphic organizer is a KWL chart,
abbreviated from Know, Want to know, and Learned (Tran
& Aytac, 2018). The K section, what students
know, helps to activate background knowledge and make connections to the class
content. This section might prompt students to consider if they already know
something about the content that is going to be taught that day, such as
searching library databases. This step helps prepare students for what is going
to be taught. The W section, what students want to know, helps to engage them
in a new topic. In addition to encouraging students to think about the class
content, this tool also helps the instructor learn about students’ prior
knowledge. These responses could be submitted in a form at the beginning of class
for the librarian to quickly review before beginning teaching. The last section
of the KWL chart, what students learned, can be filled out at the end of class
and used as a short term assessment tool. This section
could also be completed with the class as a whole to create a master list
displaying what students learned (Tran & Aytac,
2018).
Wait Time
Providing students with enough wait time to form their
responses when posing a question in an information literacy class is another
helpful strategy for ELs. Students might be thinking and producing in two or
more languages and they need time to process the question (Ferlazzo,
2016; Huster, 2012; Roessingh
& Douglas, 2012). Instead of calling on someone immediately, allow wait
time for students to have enough time to comprehend the question, think about
their answer, and feel comfortable answering in front of a class. In addition
to seeking verbal responses from students in class, using an online polling
program such as Poll Everywhere allows students to anonymously ask and answer
questions, or share quick thoughts (Poll Everywhere, n.d.). Anonymity provides
students with the freedom to contribute and get the answers they need without
exposing themselves as not knowing something, or publicly getting an answer
wrong. This method also aids the instructor in checking students’ understanding
of class content and offers opportunities to address any uncertainties. As with
many other EL-targeted strategies, providing ample wait time during class
benefits all students, including Generation 1.5, among others.
Cooperative Learning
Similar to the concept of providing wait time,
cooperative learning, or group work, is another practice that permits students
thinking time and is a demonstrated support for ELs (Tran & Aytac, 2018). Known to provide ELs with a low-stress and
friendly learning environment, cooperative learning allows students to
brainstorm ideas with peers and try out their ideas in a low-stakes setting.
Group work also facilitates peer to peer learning, as students ask each other
questions and explain tasks and concepts to each other. Students are more
likely to ask questions and share their opinions in a small group compared to
an entire class. In addition to dividing students into groups, librarians might
also implement think-pair-share as a quick collaboration method. Following a
question, think-pair-share first prompts students to independently think or
write about a response themselves. Next, students turn to someone near them and
discuss their thoughts. Lastly, the librarian can ask a few groups to share
with the entire class. This strategy supports ELs by providing thinking time
and a low-stakes setting to test their ideas with minimal time and effort
required. Additionally, story reenactment is another collaborative strategy
that is useful for language learners. In this method, students act out stories
as part of the learning process. For example, in a lesson on plagiarism,
students can be assigned different roles, such as someone who cuts and pastes, someone
who quotes information without using quotation marks, and so on (Tran & Aytac, 2018). This strategy both helps to reinforce content
and fosters a memorable learning experience.
Modeling and Thinking Aloud
ELs benefit from seeing a step-by-step process of how to
complete a task (Ferlazzo, 2016). When explaining a
concept such as searching databases or citing sources, it is helpful to provide
granular details of each step in the process. While information literacy
classes often include searching demonstrations, it is important to describe the
actions that are being taken and the thought process behind those actions. At
the reference desk, it might sometimes be easy to forget that routine tasks
such as navigating the library website and searching databases could be
completely new to someone. Instead of providing students with the materials
they request with minimal or inconsistent explanations, using the think-aloud
technique allows researchers to understand librarians’ complete thought process
behind their searching. Though explaining each step as it is being taken might
feel redundant, sharing thinking processes is very helpful to ELs.
Additionally, providing models of finished products is particularly useful for
ELs. Rather than telling ELs what to do, it is better to show them what to do (Ferlazzo, 2016).
Creating Resources for Your Learners
Because ELs might have difficulty understanding every
word in information literacy classes or reference conversations, written
instructions can be very helpful for ELs (Tran & Aytac,
2018). Depending on the class, students might be trying to follow along on
their own computer or learning new library-related vocabulary, and it may be
difficult to remember every detail once class is over. Librarians who are experienced
in working with ELs reported utilizing prepared handouts and written
communication such as writing down key points in order to benefit their
learners (Ishimura & Bartlett, 2014). Providing written resources for ELs
allows them to have more time to process information in class because they do
not need to write down as much information (Conteh-Morgan, 2002). Including
examples of successful end-products is also significantly helpful for ELs, as
it shows them how to complete a task. Models of finished products might include
example citations, a sample paper formatted in a particular citation style, or
an annotated bibliography. In reference interactions, librarians might also
create simple written instructions on-the-fly in order to provide students with
a guide for referencing later. Further, creating an electronic handout, such as
a Google Doc, easily allows for students to access links to other resources,
such as class presentation slides, research guides, databases, or video
tutorials.
Flipped Classroom
EL students benefit from having a preview of class
content and a flipped classroom lesson is one way to allow students extra time
to absorb content prior to class (Tran & Aytac,
2018). Though this method requires advance coordination between librarians and
teaching faculty, allowing students to have multiple exposures to content can
be very helpful to ELs (Tran & Aytac, 2018).
Students can review information literacy resources prior to class, such as
videos, handouts, or research guides. With buy-in from the instructor, these
resources could be posted as an assignment through their course’s Learning
Management System (LMS) page. This allows for class time to be used to do the
harder work of assimilating those resources, such as having more hands-on time
to practice searching databases, identifying keywords, building a reference
list, etc. Depending on the language needs of the class, it could also be
helpful to provide the instructor with the library-specific vocabulary to be
covered prior to class.
Word Walls
Another strategy that addresses library-specific
vocabulary is word walls. A word wall is a location on the classroom wall, or
possibly a whiteboard, where relevant vocabulary is listed. This vocabulary
might also include an image or brief definition. Many ENL classes use word
walls to help ELs with vocabulary, and this practice could also be implemented
for information literacy classes (Tran & Aytac,
2018). While not applicable for every class, creating a word wall in the
classroom space or on a handout provides opportunities for pre-teaching and
vocabulary front-loading. Identifying vocabulary before being used in the
context of a lesson is a useful strategy when teaching language learners.
Checking for Understanding
Throughout teaching and working with students at the
reference desk, it is important to assess students’ understanding of content (Ferzallo, 2012). ELs in particular might be hesitant to ask
questions, and librarians who work with language learners noted the importance
of paying attention to students’ reactions to their explanations to see if they
were understanding (Ishimura & Bartlett, 2014). While not applicable for
all ELs, some cultures might be sensitive about “saving face,” and would not
want to “lose face” by admitting that they do not understand a concept. In
these situations, students might say they understand even when they do not, and
they also might not want their lack of understanding to negatively reflect on
the instructor as well (Wang & Frank, 2002). Because of students’ possible
hesitancy to share that they do not understand, it is recommended to
periodically check in with students throughout class. Anonymous polling can be
a helpful tool to gauge students’ understanding without requiring students to
stand out as someone who needs assistance. Because students might be hesitant
to ask questions due to embarrassment or fear of judgement, anonymity provides
the freedom to be honest. Students are also more likely to ask questions if
provided time during class to discuss individually with the instructor.
Informal Practices
Additionally, informal practices can also supplement
EL-based pedagogy in supporting Generation 1.5 students in libraries. Students’
awareness and willingness to seek assistance when needed is a significant
component of college success. Some students might face difficulty in
approaching the reference desk or asking for help, particularly if they are not
sure how to phrase a question or if they are concerned they are going to be
judged for not knowing something. Having a friendly face can go a long way in building
rapport with students (Conteh-Morgan, 2002). It is important to emphasize that
librarians aim to help students and they should not hesitate to ask questions
or seek assistance. It is also necessary for librarians to acknowledge that
students might come from all types of backgrounds. Though students’
conversational English might seemingly indicate that they are native English
speakers, it is important to remember their possible difficulties with academic
English. Students’ comfort level in seeking out help plays a significant role
in helping them succeed in college.
Conclusion
The aforementioned EL-targeted pedagogical strategies
address challenges that Generation 1.5 students may face at the postsecondary
level. Though observed to be resilient and tenacious (Roessingh
& Douglas, 2012), Generation 1.5 ELs often experience struggles that are
detrimental to college students, such as insufficient academic grammar and
vocabulary (Huster, 2012). As academic librarians are
often unaware of
students’ linguistic backgrounds, it is beneficial to avoid the assumption that
students are native speakers based on their proficiency in social English;
Generation 1.5 students still benefit from EL-based teaching techniques despite
their conversational English competency. Librarians should be aware that
students may come from a variety of educational backgrounds and ELs in
particular may lack adequate college preparation at the high school level.
Because Generation 1.5 students often lose their language learner label once
entering college, it is often the case that these students no longer receive
specialized support. However, the academic library is an entity of support
itself, and librarians are equipped to employ EL-based strategies in order to
better meet students’ needs, even if they are unaware of a student’s language
proficiency. It is beneficial for librarians to be aware that Generation 1.5
students might feel stigmatized because of academic language barriers. In
libraries, these barriers may present themselves through difficulties with
keyword searching and understanding explanations at the reference desk and in
information literacy classes. Overall, it is most important for librarians to
provide students with a non-judgmental environment of support, both meeting
their research needs and allowing them to feel comfortable and confident
advocating for the help they need. While the strategies presented in this paper
are targeted toward ELs, these methods also help all students learn to
effectively conduct research and support their transition to college.
References
Asher, C., Case, E., & Zhong, Y. (2009). Serving
Generation 1.5: Academic library use and students from non–English-speaking
households. College & Research
Libraries, 70(3), 258-272. https://doi.org/10.5860/0700258
Bergey, R., Movit, M., Baird, A. S., & Faria,
A. (2018, March 5). Serving English
language learners in higher education: Unlocking the potential. American
Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Serving-English-Language-Learners-in-Higher-Education-2018.pdf
Bialik, K., Scheller, A., &
Walker, K. (2018, October 25). 6 facts
about English language learners in U.S. public schools. Pew Research
Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/25/6-facts-about-english-language-learners-in-u-s-public-schools/
Conteh-Morgan, M. (2002). Connecting the dots: Limited
English proficiency, second language learning theories, and information
literacy instruction. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(02)00282-3
di Gennaro, K. (2008). Assessment of Generation 1.5
learners for placement into college writing courses. Journal of Basic Writing, 27(1), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.37514/JBW-J.2008.27.1.04
Farmingdale State College. (2020). Course catalog 2020-2021. https://catalog.farmingdale.edu/2020-2021/catalog.pdf
Farmingdale State College. (n.d.-a). Facts and figures. https://www.farmingdale.edu/about/index.shtml
Farmingdale State College. (n.d. -b). Student demographics dashboard. https://www.farmingdale.edu/institutional-research/demos_dashboard.shtml
Ferlazzo, L. (2016,
November 3). Do’s & don’ts for
teaching English-Language Learners. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/esl-ell-tips-ferlazzo-sypnieski
Gonzalez, A. (2016, November 1). 10 assumptions to rethink about English-Language Learners.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-10-assumptions-to-rethink-about-english-language-learners/2016/11
Haras, C., Lopez, E. M.,
& Ferry, K. (2008). (Generation 1.5) Latino students and the library: A
case study. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 34(5), 425-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.06.004
Harklau, L. (2003,
October). Generation 1.5 students and
college writing. ERIC Digest. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482491.pdf
Himmel, J. (2012). Language
objectives: The key to effective content area instruction for English learners.
Colorín Colorado. https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/language-objectives-key-effective-content-area-instruction-english-learners
Huster, K. (2012). The
grammar and vocabulary challenges of Generation 1.5 Hmong college women in
academia. Hmong Studies Journal, 13(1),
1-30.
Ishimura, Y., & Bartlett, J. (2014). Are librarians
equipped to teach international students? A survey of current practices and
recommendations for training. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 40(3-4), 313-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.009
Kanno, Y., & Cromley, J. (2015). English language learners’ pathways to
four-year colleges. Teachers College
Record, 117(12), 1-44.
Migration Policy Institute. (n.d.). Children in U.S. immigrant families. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/children-immigrant-families
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020,
November). Table 204.20. English Language
Learner (ELL) students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by
state: Selected years, fall 2000 through fall 2018. Digest of Education
Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_204.20.asp
National Education Association. (2020, July). English language learners. https://www.nea.org/resource-library/english-language-learners
New York State Education Department. (n.d.). Program options for English Language
Learners/Multilingual Learners. Bilingual
Education & English as a New Language. http://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/program-options-english-language-learnersmultilingual-learners
Nunez, A. M., Rios-Aguilar, C., Kanno,
Y., & Flores, S. M. (2016). English learners and their transition to
postsecondary education. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 31, pp.
41-90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_2
Poll Everywhere. (n.d.). Poll Everywhere for universities. https://www.polleverywhere.com/university-student-response-system
Roberge, M. (2002). California’s generation 1.5
immigrants: What experiences, characteristics, and needs do they bring to our
English classes. The CATESOL Journal, 14(1),
107-129. http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CJ14_roberge.pdf
Roessingh, H., &
Douglas, S. (2012). English Language Learners’ transitional needs from high
school to university: An exploratory study. Journal
of International Migration and Integration, 13(3), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-011-0202-8
Rumbaut, R. G., & Ima,
K. (1988). The adaptation of Southeast
Asian refugee youth: A comparative study. Final report to the Office of Refugee
Resettlement. San Diego State University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED299372
Sugarman, J. (2018, May). A guide to finding and understanding English learner data.
Migration Policy Center Institute, National Center on Immigrant Integration
Policy. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/guide-finding-understanding-english-learner-data
Tran, C. Y., & Aytac, S.
(2018). Strategies for teaching information literacy to English Language
Learners. Collaborative Librarianship, 10(4),
251-266. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol10/iss4/5/
United States Census Bureau. (2016). Selected social characteristics in the United States. [Data set].
American Community Survey. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=language%20proficiency&d=ACS%205-Year%20Estimates%20Data%20Profiles&tid=ACSDP5Y2016.DP02
Wang, J., & Frank, D. G. (2002). Cross-cultural
communication: Implications for effective information services in academic
libraries. portal: Libraries and the
Academy, 2(2), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2002.0046