The first important characteristic of generation 1.5 students that needs to be
acknowledged at the onset is that their experiences and circumstances are extremely diverse and have different impacts on their academic literacy development. Their backgrounds vary, for example, from voluntarily immigrating to the U.S. following their parents’ job relocation to fleeing to this country as refugees escaping the horrors of war and refugee camps. The amount of interrupted education these students with diverse backgrounds have experienced is, of course, also wide-ranging. Furthermore, their socioeconomic backgrounds differ greatly, and, whereas a few generation 1.5 students may enjoy their family’s financial security, the vast majority of them
full time. Their parents’ education level also varies and while a minority of them may be well-
educated in their L1s and know some English prior to arriving in the U.S., most parents have no knowledge of English when they first immigrate nor do they learn the language living in enclave linguistic communities; some are also illiterate in their L1s (Blanton, 2005; Harklau, Siegal & Losey, 1999; Harklau & Siegal, 2009; Reid, 1997; Roberge, 2002, 2009; Rodby, 1999).
In addition to all of these factors, age of arrival also profoundly impacts generation 1.5 students’ language development and academic success (Frodesen, 2009; Louie, 2009; Roberge, 2002, 2009; Rumbaut, 2004; Valdés, 1992) to the point where different labels or more “refined categories” (Louie, 2009, p. 43), such as generation 1.25 and 1.75 have been suggested (e.g., Rumbaut, 2004). In an ‘age of arrival’ continuum, students moving to the U.S. as young
children, between 0-5 years old, would be members of the generation 1.75 for they are ‘closer’ to the second generation of U.S.-born kids. At the other end of this continuum are generation 1.25 members, who are adolescents between the ages of 13-17 when they immigrate and thus share more characteristics with the first generation of adult immigrants (Louie, 2009). While this subdivision of labels may seem somewhat crude and has not caught on in our field’s literature, research indicates that immigrants’ age of arrival indeed has a close relationship to how literate they are in their L1s and, therefore, is a powerful indicator of language acquisition, adaptation, and educational attainment (Friedrich, 2006).
As the discussion above indicates, generation 1.5 students, who can be abruptly
immersed in the U.S. culture and in the English language, acquire the language primarily through hearing as “they listened, took in oral language (from teachers, television, grocery clerks), and
subconsciously began to form vocabulary, grammar, and syntax rules—learning English through trial and error” (Reid, 1997, p. 18). Accordingly, they generally have very developed oral
fluency (although age of arrival plays an important role here), understand American culture well, and are familiar with the behaviors and language of their peers at school (Blanton, 2005;
Harklau, 2000; Harklau, Siegal & Losey, 1999; Roberge, 2002, 2009; Valdés, 1992). Because of the fragmented and ‘low track’ (Harklau, Siegal & Losey, 1999) formal English instruction they
have received all through secondary school in the U.S. (most schools still do not have efficient and systematic placement methods and adequate language support programs), undergraduate generation 1.5 students are generally more comfortable with everyday language and might lack study skills, including writing and reading strategies (Harklau 2000; Harklau & Siegal, 2009; Harklau, Siegal & Losey, 1999; Reid, 1997; Roberge, 2002, 2009).
Regarding their learner attitudes and acculturation, the picture is much more complex than that of international students given that generation 1.5 students must deal with identity negotiation, adaption, and assimilation inside and outside of schools from the day they arrive in the U.S. and throughout their lives (Harklau, 2000; Harklau, Siegal & Losey, 1999; Roberge, 2002, 2009). Roberge (2002) points out that contrary to the common belief that adaption is relatively easy for immigrant children, research shows that they are vulnerable to psychological difficulties that accompany leaving behind a familiar environment and taking on more family responsibilities in the new country, such as parenting younger siblings (due to the long hours many immigrant parents work trying to provide for the family) and doing ‘language brokering’ for their non-English speaking parents.
One of the most recognized psychological and cultural challenges generation 1.5 students face, especially the younger ones, is “intergenerational conflict of value” (Roberge, 2002, p.
112). Such conflict is caused by the students’ more readily assimilation of U.S. traditions and values than that of their parents, who tend to expect the children to continue to follow behaviors
and customs from their home countries. In addition to conflicts at home, generation 1.5 students often face discrimination at school not only from American classmates who see them as
‘foreigners’ but also from “U.S.-born same-ethnicity cohort” (Roberge, 2002, p 112) who may see generation 1.5 students as “fresh off the boat” (FOB) (Tamly, 2001) and from more recently arrived immigrants who may perceive these generation 1.5 students as too ‘Americanized’. Thus,
their identity formation is particularly challenging as they have to negotiate complex
multicultural identities, a process that becomes even more difficult when generation 1.5 students, who many times consider themselves as native-speakers of English (Chiang & Schimda, 1999), are treated as ‘ESL’ or international students by composition instructors in college and do not
have their ownership of English and American culture recognized (Harklau, 2000; Harklau & Siegal, 2009; Harklau, Siegal & Losey, 1999; Roberge, 2002, 2009).
Finally, as expected, generation 1.5 students have been known to reject or resent placement in ‘ESL classes’ in college and may see their errors and teachers’ correction as
evidence of their non-mainstream status (Friedrich, 2006; Holten, 2009), although Ferris (1999) points out that because of their long exposure to the U.S. educational schools system, generation 1.5 undergraduate students are often familiar with patterns and pragmatic phenomena involved in teacher-student communication, teacher written corrective feedback, and notions of revision and multiple drafts. She furthered argued that research has shown that generation 1.5 students find teacher feedback helpful and have a positive attitude towards it.