of literacy medium (print, computer), (4) role of online literacy practice, and (5) possible ... Korean pedagogy in my second year, he was always a good listener.
IMMIGRANT STUDENTS’ OUT-OF-SCHOOL LITERACY PRACTICES: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF KOREAN STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By Youngjoo Yi, M.TESL. * * * * *
The Ohio State University 2005
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by:
Professor Alan Hirvela, Adviser Professor George Newell
_____________________________
Professor Chan Park
Adviser College of Education
Copyright by Youngjoo Yi 2005 All rights reserved
ABSTRACT
Academic literacy has attracted the interest of many researchers: The emphasis on academic literacy, while understandable, has led second language (L2) literacy researchers and teachers to overlook other types of literacy practices that L2 students engage in beyond the classroom. Given the potential significance of out-of-school literacy, this study examines the nature of the out-of-school literacy practices of adolescent immigrant students, also known as 1.5 generation students. Within a social view of literacy, I conducted ethnographic multiple case studies of five Korean high school students in a midwestern city in the United States. Over a six-month period, I collected multiple sources of data including interviews, out-of-school literacy activity checklists, observations, fieldnotes, formal/informal conversations (online, offline), writing samples, and reading materials. I also served as a tutor for them so as to provide reciprocity. I employed inductive analysis of the data by focusing on participants’ engagement with literacy activities in terms of (1) amount, frequency, and purposes of their literacy engagement, (2) uses/choice of language (Korean, English), (3) uses/choice of literacy medium (print, computer), (4) role of online literacy practice, and (5) possible relationships between academic and out-of-school literacy practices. Findings revealed that when the participants were out of school, they constructed their own ecology of literacy by making unique investments in a variety of literacy ii
activities for diverse purposes in different languages (Korean, English) across different literacy contexts (print, online). One of the major findings is that the participants engaged extensively in online literacy activities. Through online literacy practices, they sought for and/or created their own shelter as well as ways of expressing themselves, at the same time forming a sense of solidarity with other students who shared a similar situation. Given the changing nature of literacy in online (interactive online and public reading and writing, blurred reading/writing), we may need to reconceptualize the notion of out-ofschool literacy so that it can portray the nature of daily literacy activities Generation 1.5 students engage. This research has expanded the continuum of literacy research by highlighting an important but unexamined area, out-of-school literacy, and by emphasizing an unexplored population, Generation 1.5 students.
iii
부모님께 바칩니다.
I dedicate my dissertation to my parents, 이 상 언, 이 길 선.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are numerous people who helped me become who I am. Even though I am not able to name every person to whom I owe much, I will try to take full advantage of this space to express my greatest gratitude to those who have accompanied me at significant and interesting moments in my academic journey. As one of my research participants, June (pseudonym) once told me, “Words cannot express everything. They are not perfect, ” my acknowledgements here may not be able to completely and accurately describe my sincere and deep appreciation, respect, gratitude, and love toward people. However, I am writing in a hope that they can feel how much I appreciate what they have done for, to, and with me. I owe much to those who made this dissertation research possible. First, I am most indebted and extremely grateful for the time, interest, attention, and encouragement of the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Hirvela, Dr. Newell, and Dr. Park. Every one of them has contributed in unique ways to finishing this research and generating new knowledge of out-of-school literacy practices. My academic advisor Dr. Alan Hirvela (余亞倫) can be considered my academic father. He helped shape and construct who I am while being involved with every step of my doctoral study. During the first several years in my doctoral study, especially when I was thinking about transferring to another school in my first quarter and when I considered pursuing Korean pedagogy in my second year, he was always a good listener and great supporter. Even after the general examination, he was willing to take me as his advisee so that I could pursue second language literacy. Dr. Hirvela, I owe the greatest to you, especially when developing and conducting my dissertation research. Literally, you were available whenever I needed you. At one point, I coined a term, “24/7 open-door policy” to describe you as an available, approachable, and accessible advisor. Your door was always open from 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. Even when I showed up in your office around 8:30 in the morning without any advanced notice or appointment, you still welcomed me and provided thoughtful advice. Our long and constant conversations in your office and at Brenen’s during my dissertation research contributed to the construction of every piece of the study: providing insightful comments, making suggestions, and reading my dissertation. Overall, you provided a wonderful balance of freedom and guidance. You definitely knew when and how to encourage and press me to do more thinking and v
writing. Your assistant, support, and involvement made me become a whole person in and outside of academia. Dr. Newell and Dr. Park, my dissertation committee members, generously shared their wisdom and provided encouragement all along the way. For the first three years of my doctoral study, Dr. Park (박찬응 교수님) was my supervisor when I taught Korean at Ohio State. While working with her, I started learning how to become humble in academia. Further, during my dissertation research, she, as my dissertation committee, provided critical insights on Korean Americans and their multiple languages and literacies learning. Even at my oral defense in June 10, 2005, she shared her knowledge and expertise in the issues of Korean American community and energized our scholarly discussion. 박교수님, 늘 부족한 저를 칭찬해 주시고, 따뜻하게 감싸 주시고, 그러나 때론 따끔한 충고로 저를 바른 길로 인도 해 주신데 대해서 진심으로 감사드립니다. I was fortune to learn from Dr. Newell since the autumn quarter in 2002. I was able to further my interest in and knowledge about issues of literacy and identity through indepth discussion with him and guidance from him. Dr. Newell, I am especially grateful for you helping me see myself as a scholar. I vividly remember our several marathon conversations, especially when I had full of doubt about myself as a researcher. At the very first time talking with you regarding my future work, you told me that you could see that I had “research inclination” and could “fit into academia”. Your comment meant the world to me. Your consistent support allowed me to find what I truly wanted to do. In addition, your intellectual challenge, especially questions before and during my oral defense, greatly taught me how to stretch myself intellectually and see the issues from local and global perspectives. All the questions you raised are still lingering in my mind. There are numerous professors whose roles were important in my academic journey. I cannot list all their names, but I should express very special thank-you to at least two professors beyond my dissertation committee: Dr. Christian J. Faltis at Arizona State and Dr. Paul Kei Matsuda at University of New Hampshire. Chris, I truly and deeply appreciate your academic support and guidance as well as personal friendship since my graduate work at Arizona State in 1996. I will never forget what you told me in a cab in Montreal for the 2005 AERA conference: “I believe in you, Youngjoo.” You have been my mentor for the past ten years and will be forever. I also believe that it is good Karma that I will start my assistant professorship in ESL/Bilingual education in secondary education in the University of Alabama exactly where you started yours twenty years ago.
vi
Paul, I also thank you so much for everything. I still don’t know where all my courage came from when I first spoke to you after your presentation at Ohio TESOL conference in 2000. You were always willing to answer all my questions and very considerate to invite me to the dinner with several professors in town so as for me to practice campus visits. It really worked!!!. I put your news article, “My credo as an NNES professional” in front of my desk throughout my doctoral study and believe that it’s time I should respond to your article. ありがとうございます. Were it not for five Korean high school students, this dissertation research would not have been possible. Many thanks go to each of them in the order of introducing them in the case studies chapter. (1) Soohee (네 진짜 같은 가짜 이름이다ㅋㅋㅋ.) 소희야, 고맙다+>_.< yuk! yah honors english sucks sooo bad! Tuesday, May 06, 2003 Tues..nothing excited happened today..school was boring as usual..tiring n got a lotta hw today once again~ i feel like i just wanna give up..on everything but i cant..can i? … Week countdown - 2 more days till fri... this is how much i hate school... Wednesday, May 07, 2003 Weds..this week is going so damn sllllooowww..anyone feel that way?! not tooo much hw today compared to the last 3 days but its still alot.. yet im procrastinating again.. today @ school it was so boring.... Thursday, May 08, 2003 well...i only have to read liek 150 pgs for english.. mythology is useless n boring shit that should be burned!
243
Sunday, May 11, 2003 *OnLy about 3 n half weeks of school left!* THANK GOD!! -this yr the worst yr ever.............. Monday, May 12, 2003 Monday again...siiggghhh...boring but it wasnt too bad considering that it is a monday.. finished all mah hw xept to read..god the odyssey is like impossibly boring*rating for the book - shoot urself in the head its so boring* plus i have to read the mythology too..my teacher is so fricken retarded - he even said he cant stand the books!! 18 more days of hell/school left (not counting the exam week) counting the exam week - 23...18 just sounds better..^^ Tuesday, June 03, 2003 EXAM CRAMMIN WEEK.. KILL ME NOW... ㅠㅠ
This particular phase of her 9th grade school year clearly was especially tough for Elizabeth. Generally, she wrote song lyrics, poems, quotes, and her thoughts on many issues, but the most recursive theme was “how much she hates school.” This particular theme was quite unexpected because Elizabeth was an academically successful, wellmannered, and shy student who was maintaining a 3.5 GPA and participating in many clubs. Some of her harsh comments on her Honors English class, its reading, and the teacher showed aspects of her which I was not able to see at all throughout the entire study, but of course her circumstances in life had changed somewhat since the 9th grade, as discussed earlier.
244
While reading her Xanga weblog, I wondered whether she really hated school or whether she simply said or thought that she did not like school. Also, it was interesting to see how she relied on out-of-school writing, and in English, to portray how much she did not like school. In terms of the chronology of the study, at this point I was a first time reader of an online diary, and through this experience I was completely hooked on reading the online diaries of the research participants. I thoroughly enjoyed reading Elizabeth’s Xanga and her 23 friends’ Xanga weblogs that were linked to hers. I also started wondering why Elizabeth kept her diary in such a public space, especially when she expressed herself so openly. In an interview, I asked Elizabeth why many “people” were likely to keep an online diary, instead of asking her why “she” did. Elizabeth gave me the following possible reasons for people keeping online diaries: Maybe they want some people to understand why they act the way they act or maybe it’s to make them feel better. Maybe just open out things…Maybe, you feel better about yourself, maybe it could be for attention. It could be for just simply because you were bored and you want to share what happened that day or something. (Interview 2, 10/30/2003).
These comments indicate that online diary writers, with a clear sense of audience, are likely to expect their writing to be read. Thus, they sometimes ask for attention from the audience. They may be willing to express their personal feelings and thoughts in a public space while enjoying a sense of community. In addition, the act of writing itself may help the writers feel better. It may also be that their online diary writing is influenced to some extent by how much they enjoy reading such writing. Given what has been seen of Elizabeth’s Xanga weblog writing, it is easy to imagine how captivating the reading of that material must have been for the 23 friends who had access to her postings. Whether 245
consciously or unconsciously, this joy in reading others’ online diaries may have helped motivate their own online, out-of-school writing in the expectation that these others would derive the same pleasure from that reading that they did. Hence, the online diary writing may have been especially amenable to connecting the acts of out-of-school writing and reading. It was also quite interesting to see that Elizabeth utilized a different form of diary writing (paper, online diary) for different purposes and in different moods. Elizabeth made an interesting comment on the distinction between these diaries: an online diary was public, and a print-based diary was private. For her, a print-based diary had an especially important function: “That’s like a private property of mine. No one else reads it. I hope not. [laugh].” (Interview 2, 10/30/2003) That is, a print-based dairy was more private, personal, and secretive and contained what may have been the most intense outof-school writing since there was no need to consider audience reactions. Meanwhile, an online diary was public and open. More importantly, these two forms of a diary (print, online) were connected to each other while having slightly different characteristics and purposes. Elizabeth stated, I guess they [print and online diaries] connect. Since it is like based on what happened that day, they connect, but I think on Cyworld [online], I’m explaining what happened, on my like the one diary [print] that I keep, I explain, like expressing my feelings on what happened like how do I feel about that and stuff. (Interview 2, 10/30/2003)
Print-based diary writing seemed, then, to pursue more individual purposes, such as helping her sort through her own issues, whereas online diary writing seemed to be aimed at both informing and maintaining the online community. 246
In addition to the distinction between print-based and online diaries, Elizabeth intentionally distinguished between her two online dairies (Korean Cyworld, English Xanga) as follows: Xanga was something that has just different fun. And recently, I haven’t gone in Xanga like lately. I’ve gone more on Cyworld because more people I talk to use Cyworld. It’s easier to update like pictures and stuff… Xanga is completely owned by like English people like Americans, and Cyworld is like Koreans and I don’t know. It’s just more fun. (Interview 2, 10/30/2003).
Both were recommended by friends, and some of the differences were actually what caused her to maintain both of them. That is, each served certain needs of hers. Cyworld is a mini-homepage provided by a Korean company. As soon as people sign in, they are automatically provided with a template that already includes several sub-sections, such as self-introduction, diary, publication, photo, a guest book, and a bookmark. It is very easy for a novice computer user to create and maintain this mini-homepage. This ease and convenience of maintaining Cyworld was one of the reasons for Elizabeth to use it more frequently as time went on. In contrast, Xanga is a free weblog service sponsored by an American company. As in Cyworld, after signing in, people are given a free template, but it does not have subsections like in Cyworld, and it is more text-oriented than picture or sound-oriented. Elizabeth used to have Xanga only (see, Appendix G), but then, her Korean friends insisted that she have Cyworld (Appendix D). She once maintained both pretty actively, but used Cyworld more frequently during the period of this study. Interestingly, after data collection ended, I found that Elizabeth engaged in Xanga more frequently. Each had a different audience and thus allowed for different experiences of out-of-school writing. 247
When Elizabeth interacted with more Koreans socially, she tended to write more in Cyworld; however, she purposefully maintained her Xanga because it targeted a wider range of audience, including both Korean-American and American friends. Even though Elizabeth took advantage of the characteristics of online diary writing (i.e., publicity and openness), she often became an invisible reader and writer in an online context. This was probably due mainly to her private and quiet personality, but it is also possible that she had a particular liking for reading over writing, at least in online circumstances. For instance, she wrote a reflection on a group tour she joined with the intention of posting it to the Korean cyber community, Welcome To Buckeye City, but ended up not doing so because another member posted his reflections on the same trip before she had a chance to do so. Her reflection was written, but not seen by anybody. In addition, when several Korean peers and she engaged in serious online chatting, she did not type anything, but focused on reading, which made her friends think that she ‘got on the submarine’ or ‘hibernated’ (common phrases for online chatters who log on in an instant messaging mode, but do not participate in an online conversation). However, Elizabeth actively engaged in online chatting by reading and thinking. Since she could not type as fast as her Korean peers, she simply read the conversations. For all these reasons, Elizabeth chose to become an invisible reader while chatting online. This habit echoes her characteristic of wanting to be a “watcher, witnesser, and follower” (Interview 4, 11/13/2003). Clearly, engaging in out-of-school literacy was important to her, but it was also important to do so on the terms she preferred. Even though Elizabeth lamented the fact that her out-of-school reading had faded away (in our first online chat), she in fact still engaged extensively in voluntary reading, 248
as just demonstrated. Furthermore, she still approached out-of-school literacy to some extent as a functional reader and writer. For instance, she was the only participant that regularly read a print-based English newspaper; this was mainly to look for volunteer work and to learn what was happening in her local area. She also read teenage and fashion magazines in both languages to find useful hair and clothing ideas for Homecoming and Sweetheart parties. Another functional and voluntary reader/writer activity occurred when she read all the nutritional information about food that she consumed, and collected this information from different cereal boxes to compare nutritional value, calories, and serving sizes. She re-read the collected information and religiously kept a diet journal in a mixture of English and Korean. Generally, interests common among adolescent female students (e.g., make up, fashion, dieting, and health) led her to read and write in both of the languages in her life. Similarly, Elizabeth enjoyed making a to-do-list for herself and her mother by using both English and Korean. For instance, her mother orally listed what she needed to get while shopping, and Elizabeth recorded this information for her. Elizabeth also helped her mother, treasurer of her Korean church, with inputting data and making charts in Korean for monthly meetings. As a language broker at her house, Elizabeth helped both of her parents to deal with administrative work that required English, from simple to sophisticated usages. For instance, Elizabeth wrote thank-you cards and read information in English for them. She also wrote a letter to appeal to her school district on behalf of her father so that he could call a superintendent and read the letter over the phone. Another type of an interesting literacy activity that she did not recognize or count as literacy was her note-exchanging. In fact, early in the study, Elizabeth and other research 249
participants (i.e., Soohee, June) often mentioned their note-exchanging, but I was initially reluctant to ask them to show me the notes. Instead, I prompted them to talk about this activity. Elizabeth explained that she actively exchanged notes and letters in both English and Korean with her friends. She expressed what has happened to her on a particular day and how she felt about it on a piece of notebook paper, mostly during class time, and gave it to her close female friends at school. She had kept a ‘treasure’ box of such notes since 6th grade. She said, “it [note-exchanging] is really meaningful because it’s a symbolism of our friendship. And it’s like a big important part of my life…it’s just one of the little joys at school life” (Interview 5, 11/20/03). Toward the end of the data collection period, Elizabeth showed me all the notes in the treasure box (upon my request), whereas June told me that she needed the permission of the note writers in order to show them to me. After hearing about the note-exchanging and reading some of the notes that Elizabeth received, I sensed that by exchanging notes and letters, Elizabeth had established and maintained friendship bonds and a form of sisterhood. What was particularly interesting about this domain of out-of-school writing (and reading) was that it occurred in the medium of traditional print-based literacy, and that, given its purpose of building close connections among the female participants, it had an aura of importance not as easy to attach to the online activity. Another point worth noting here is that, when looking closely at all of the examples of Elizabeth’s literacy activities, the connectedness of her reading/writing practices is evident. Interestingly, Elizabeth, too, had a sense of this:
250
In order to write well, you have to read, people say all the time. People at school, home, and teachers, and media. Like all the authors, they have their views on favorite authors so it’s not like they are trying to imitate their favorite authors, but they still take ideas from them. That’s what makes them better authors. (Interview 13, 3/1/2004)
This view was reflected when Elizabeth engaged in literacy activities, both in and out of school, and for practical, personal or pleasurable purposes. For instance, whenever she read English literary texts for school, she tended to write her thoughts in a reflective journal, called spark notes, so as to enhance her comprehension of the texts. Also, Elizabeth copied down what she considered good quotes on flash cards while reading short stories or poems, and she then placed them in her diary for future reference. When she was bored, she often read her own writing as well, especially her diary. Such activities reflected her perception of reading and writing: “without reading, I don’t think you can improve your writing….Without reading information, you probably have not as much things to write about” (Interview 12, 2/13/2004). Often times, she indicated her reading after/before writing by drawing an arrow mark in her literacy checklists. As such, Elizabeth’s reading activities were tightly linked with her writing activities. Summary In brief, Elizabeth’s out-of-school literacy practices had been directly and indirectly influenced by many possible factors (e.g., language proficiency, social groups, use of the Internet). Elizabeth, as an equally balanced bilingual, seemed to benefit from the widest range of reading in both languages because of her comfort level with both languages, and her flexibility in switching between them has helped enrich her engagement in reading. The change of her social group to Korean peers made her engage more in Korean literacy activities and events (e.g., a Korean Bible study, Cyworld mini-homepage, note251
exchanging with Korean peers, and reading Korean poems and lyrics) out of school. Even though Elizabeth felt that her out-of-school reading decreased, she still engaged in English literacy activities for functional purposes at home; additionally, her online literacy practice increased. In particular, advances of technology allowed her to experience new types of literacy activities (e.g., online diary, participating in online communities) That is, her previous literacy activities (e.g., print-based, English literacy) had continued while she embraced more online, Korean literacy activities and events outside of school. In doing so, she expanded her repertoire of literacy and also became a more flexible reader and writer across two languages and various genres.
252
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Introduction This study is about the out-of-school literacy experiences of five Korean adolescent immigrant students, also known as 1.5 generation students. The study not only uncovered “many seen but unnoticed acts of reading and writing” of these immigrant students outside school (Hyland, 2002, p. 202), but also revealed the kinds of investments they made to enrich their literate lives. To understand the nature of their out-of-school literacy practices, I have explored these practices from several perspectives, such as distinguishing characteristics of each participant, their types of and purposes for literacy engagement, and the languages and mediums used for various out-of-school literacy activities. In this chapter, I discuss these perspectives while weaving together the major findings reported in the previous chapters. The overarching research question of this study was, “what is the nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices?” More specifically, this study investigated the following more narrowly constructed research questions: 1. To what extent do immigrant students engage in out-of-school literacy activities? 2. What kinds of out-of-school literacy activities do they engage in? 253
3. What are the purposes of these out-of-school literacy activities? 4. What is their preferred language, L1 or L2, for out-of-school literacy activities? What motivates their choice of one language over the other? 5. What medium (e.g., print, online) do they use for their out-of-school literacy activities? What motivates their choice of one medium over the other? 6. What role do online literacy activities play in their out-of-school literacy practices? 7. Are their out-of-school literacy practices oriented more toward reading or writing? 8. Are there any relationships between their academic and out-of-school literacy practices? If any relationships exist, what is the nature of those relationships? In the first part of this chapter, I discuss my findings as they relate to the research questions, with some overlap between the questions, while considering how the findings from this research converge with, clarify or contradict past findings within the field of first and second language literacy studies. In the latter part, I suggest pedagogical implications and avenues for future research arising from the study. Discussion Even though the five research participants in this study engaged in several common literacy activities, each adolescent student created his or her own literate life outside of school. Each had developed different preferences for and attitudes toward different kinds of literacy activities and formed different notions and foundations of literacy. In addition, each individual made a distinct choice of language (Korean, English) and medium (print, online) for their out-of-school literacy activities. Thus, in order to understand the uniqueness and complexity of their literacy practices, it is necessary to consider multiple
254
aspects of their engagements with literacy (i.e., kinds, amount, and motivations for outof-school literacy activities, choice/use of language and medium, as well as relationships between academic and out-of-school literacy). The range of their literacy engagement varied because each individual made her or his own investment in out-of-school literacy while engaging in many similar and some different kinds of literacy activities. Common activities among most if not all of the participants were diary-writing, light reading (song lyrics, comics) related to popular culture, and online communication (emailing, online chatting). However, each participant also put her or his own stamp on literacy activity relative to her or his personality or interests. For instance, Soohee enjoyed academically oriented texts, Internet novels, daily horoscopes, and vigorously kept a diary; June devoured online materials and composed poems; Mike purposefully and selectively read postings related to his hobbies (music, sports, dance); Yoon was drawn to video gaming and online chatting; and Elizabeth extensively read informational texts about fashion, make-up, fitness, and dieting. The kinds of literacy activities found in this study were somewhat different from what was found in previous out-of-school literacy studies (Heath, 1983; Moll and Diaz 1987; Noll, 1995; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). For example, Moll and Diaz (1987) reported that for Mexican students in San Diego, most of their writing at home was functional and practical. In contrast, Schultz (2002) found that her three focal participants (high school seniors) engaged in “more formal or essayist writing” outside of school (p. 358). Unlike these studies, the five Korean adolescent students in my study produced
255
narrative, creative, and expository texts as well as more casual scribbling through private and public writing. They read from recreational, religious, informational, functional, and educational texts. The study uncovered two significant characteristics of their literacy practices that broaden our understanding of out-of-school literacy as it is enacted in the 21st century. First, the participants engaged in “teenage”-specific, “ELL”-specific, and “Korean”specific reading and writing (e.g., comics about hiphop music, lyrics of the hiphop group Linkin Park’s songs, subtitles of British movies, Korea-related news articles). Second, these students’ out-of-school reading and writing occurred mainly in an online environment (e.g., instant messages, web postings, emails, online diaries), which was not seen even as recently as two decades ago. These two salient characteristics indicate that the types of literacy activities and the boundaries of their literacy practices were likely to be influenced by the participants’ linguistic, cultural, historical, and technological backgrounds. Thus, their literacy practices need to be understood within social, cultural, and historical contexts. These significant features of their out-of-school literacy activities will be discussed in more detail shortly. How much did these Korean adolescent students read and write outside school? Due in part to their extensive engagement with online literacy practices, the time spent on reading and writing seems to be longer than that reported in several previous L1 reading studies (e.g., Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Taylor, Frye, & Maruyama, 1990). According to Anderson et al. (1988), most 155 fifth-grade American students did “little or no book reading” (p.285); more specifically, fifty percent of them spent less than 13
256
minutes of reading per day. A similar finding was reported in Taylor et al. (1990), who found that 195 American students in grades 5 and 6 averaged 15 minutes of reading per day at home. In terms of writing, Moll and Diaz (1987) reported that 27 Mexican students in San Diego did not do much writing. One caution here is that these studies were conducted before 1990 and examined print-based reading and writing only; not surprisingly, then, the average of 15 minutes of reading per day did not include any kind of online reading. The rapid development and growth of the Internet has surely altered adolescent students’ opportunities for out-ofschool literacy engagement, and thus, it might be somewhat difficult to discuss the findings in my study in relation to these previous studies. For instance, the checklist data reported in Chapter Four clearly show that not only did the participants devote more than 15 minutes per day to voluntary reading and writing outside of school, but much of this was attributed to their extensive involvement with online literacy. That is, once the students went online to read, post, or chat, they were likely to spend at least 30 minutes per session. Furthermore, this online activity blended writing and reading, since the participants not only composed postings but almost immediately read responses to what they wrote. In addition, this was more public reading and writing than that reported in the pre-90s studies. That is, much of their reading and writing, being online, involved an audience, in contrast to the individual and private reading and writing reported in older studies.
257
In fact, online chatting, a form, again, of both reading and writing, almost always lasted longer than 30 minutes, according to the checklist data. However, the participants did not necessarily chat non-stop for this length of time, since they were likely to multitask (online chatting, surfing the Net, doing homework). They were, though, reading or writing via a computer for the most part, and this is where the research is marked distinctly as a study located in the 21st century. Interestingly, the three girls in this study reported that they spent more time in reading online than when they were younger, and online reading replaced print-based reading to varying degrees. Still, while the amount of their online reading increased considerably, these students reported that their overall amount of reading decreased. However, this finding must be treated with caution, as detailed tracking of their activities indicates that the students engaged in significant amounts of reading and writing—more, that is, than the participants apparently recognized. Because their first, and therefore formative, reading experiences were with print-based texts, it is likely that their notion of reading was still limited to a print-based type of reading, resulting in a devaluing of online reading even though they clearly performed a good deal of it. Perhaps this orientation led them to tell me that they did not read (or write) much outside of school, even though their daily out-of-school activities included a considerable amount of online involvement. What were the purposes or motivations for the participants’ out-of-school literacy practices? These Korean adolescent students did “shape reading and writing to their own purposes, often in inventive ways" (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 341). Various reasons caused the students to become interested and disinterested in engaging in literacy 258
activities. Previous studies on the reasons guiding adolescent students’ literacy engagement echo the findings in my study. For instance, Alvermann, Young, Green, and Wisenbaker (1999) examined 22 American adolescent readers (from 7th to 9th graders) in after-school book clubs. The two most compelling reasons for their reading were because they wanted to and for their own pleasure/enjoyment. Similarly, Rubinstein-Avila (2001) found that Latino immigrant students in grades 8 and 9 engaged in a variety of literacy practices to manage their lives. In particular, the most popular purposes were “entertainment”, “seeking information”, and “practicing English.” In my study, the first and foremost reason for the participants’ out-of-school literacy activities was “personal enjoyment.” Generally, when the participants—even the reluctant reader Yoon--encountered “interesting texts” with a personal attachment (e.g., texts about their hobbies) or that were culturally relevant (e.g., news about Korea), they quite enjoyed reading. Writing also was an enjoyable activity of choice for some of the students (e.g., Soohee’s diary writing, June’s poetry writing, and Mike’s online postings). Each had a genuine and abiding interest in different kinds of reading or writing activity. Another meaningful motivation for reading was to “learn.” The students looked for some non-school-based knowledge, what Soohee-called “wisdom of living”, from reading outside of school. For instance, June was willing to learn from authors while reading books. For a more functional purpose, the participants also read to “find out or learn information” (e.g., college information, video strategy book). Next, the students engaged in literacy activities in order to “get occupied.” To my surprise, boredom often led them to engage in reading (e.g., Elizabeth visited an online community to read others’ postings; Soohee picked up a book when she was not able to 259
fall asleep). Camitta (1993) found that adolescent high school students in Philadelphia engaged in writing when they were bored. Writing was something to do to “fill up” their time. In my study, “reading” took place for a similar reason, and it is likely that at least some of the participants’ online chatting, or writing, was motivated by a desire to relieve their boredom in addition to wanting to communicate with their peers. Fourth, given that the participants were English Language Learners (ELLs) as well as young people with a native language (Korean) not dominant in their school settings, it is not surprising that they used literacy activities to some extent to enhance their language skills. With respect to Korean, online chatting and other online activities allowed them to maintain their native language literacy skills, though this was never identified by them as a conscious reason for choosing Korean as the language of online communication. Because Korean literacy played no roles of practical importance in their lives as it would have had they still been in Korea, out-of-school use of the language for personal purposes was the only avenue by which they could retain the ability to read and write their first language. As for English, Soohee showed the strongest desire to improve her overall English proficiency, and her out-of-school reading practices were school-like and intended to improve her English and perform well in classes. In other words, her out-ofschool reading was instrumentally motivated far more than it was designed to bring pleasure. Notably, except for Soohee, none of the participants intentionally engaged in reading and writing in English for such instrumental purposes. This was perhaps partly due to the fact that everybody received good grades at school (at least 3.5 GPA) and did not want or feel a need to use voluntary literacy activities to improve their academic literacy or 260
overall English proficiency. They may have felt that their school-related reading and writing tasks provided them sufficient opportunities to develop their English. Then, too, the other participants had been in the United States a longer period of time than Soohee when the study began, thus making it more important for Soohee to develop her English language proficiency for school purposes, including by out-of-school means. Another functional purpose that motivated some out-of school literacy activity unique to the immigrant experience was that of playing the roles of a literacy broker or technology broker at home. This applied to Soohee, Elizabeth, and Mike. That is, they used what Moll and Greenberg (1990) call their “funds of knowledge” (i.e., English literacy and computer literacy) to help their parents (typing a resume, emailing relatives in Korea, writing a petition letter to a superintendent). While these were not self-initiated out-of-school literacy activities, the participants were motivated by a desire to help their parents. Beyond all these recreational, educational, and functional purposes for reading and writing engagement, other sources of motivation likely to encourage the participants to engage in out-of-school writing/reading included: to express themselves, to communicate, to establish/maintain social relationships with people around them, to maintain a community, and to make sense of life. For instance, Soohee’s diary writing, June’s poetry writing, Elizabeth’s note-exchanging, Yoon’s online chatting, and Mike’s posting in online communities were all ways to express their emotions and feelings and to communicate with people surrounding them. In particular, Soohee’s diary writing and June’s poetry writing were rather serious and philosophical kinds of writing. By performing these kinds of writing, they aimed to make sense of their lives (immigrant life, 261
teenage life). Likewise, reading the postings of others in their community provided input into the same issues they were facing and enhanced their chances of gaining understanding of those issues. The sharing of their writing in order to solidify friendships with their peers and/or to create a community with others like themselves, that is, other 1.5 generation young people, was one of the more noteworthy aspects of this study. The Welcome to Buckeye City website, for example, was designed specifically for communication among people in their situation in life: young people straddling two cultures and two languages. Writing and reading via that website brought a much-needed sense of solidarity. Interestingly, though, sometimes the participants pursued this literacy activity out of a sense of responsibility or peer pressure. That is, a kind of necessity was attached to maintaining membership within these groups, since their relationships with other (i.e., non-Korean) groups appeared to be minimal. These findings reveal that these 1.5 generation students developed their own ways to cope with the complex emotions and experiences of adolescence and immigrant life through writing (e.g., diaries, poems, letters, and online chatting) and the reading of that writing, i.e., a kind of public discourse. Out-of-school writing played a vital role in serving these diverse purposes, though how writing was manifested among the participants varied and, as suggested earlier, could perhaps best be captured by being placed along a continuum of out-of-school literacy activity. For example, a 1.5 Generation student like June might well represent one end of that continuum, the end where reading and writing are more “expressive” in nature (e.g., her poetry) as opposed to highly “practically” oriented activity, e.g., Soohee’s reading (the other end of such a 262
continuum, represented by students who use voluntary reading and writing for pragmatic reasons such as improving their English or strengthening their academic performance). While examining purposes or motivations for the participants’ literacy practices, I simultaneously looked into possible roadblocks that discouraged them from engaging in out-of-school literacy activities. One of their most frequent explanations for not engaging in these activities more often was that they were too “busy.” Once the students entered secondary school, they became more occupied with schoolwork and focused on reading and writing for such purposes as college preparation (e.g., SAT). In terms of their English literacy practices, “English literacy proficiency” turned out to be one of the most important factors that led them away from reading (and writing) voluntarily in English. In the interviews, the participants often referred to reading and writing in English as “troublesome.” Although none actually used the word “anxiety” in reference to English literacy practices, it was clear that they did experience some anxiety when reading and writing in English because of the unfamiliar content (a cultural variable as well as one related to language proficiency), difficult vocabulary, and the length of the texts. According to Saito et al. (1999), “unfamiliar scripts, writing systems, and unfamiliar cultural material” are common causes of anxiety during foreign language reading (pp. 202-203). Thus, when the participants in my study experienced difficulties or anxiety while reading a book in English, they were likely to stop reading unless they had a particularly strong motivation to finish the text. Lack of availability of reading materials, especially Korean print texts, was another (and very practical) reason for students not to engage in much out-of-school reading. This brings to mind a finding from Chall’s (1983) study, which found that the accessibility of 263
books was an most important influence on reading development. Due to the limited amount of Korean print materials they had access to, the Korean adolescent students in this study circulated among their peers whatever Korean novels, comic books, or magazines they could find. Such limited accessibility to print-based texts became a primary reason for limiting their engagement with Korean print-based reading. It also became a reason to go online to read Korean texts, as the participants often did, for example, to obtain news about Korea. In addition, it led to their reading of each other’s Korean language writing in the form of their postings to their online communities. Between their already noted sharing of print-based Korean language texts and their own writing in the form of online diaries and instant messaging, the participants became important enablers of out-of-school reading. Regarding writing, several participants gave a very surprising reason for not engaging in more of it outside school. In a study by Mahiri and Sablo (1996), two focal African American high school students tended to express themselves more immediately through writing so as not to keep “their perceptions and pain bottled up for years” (p. 175). However, this finding was only partially true for the participants in my study. As I noted earlier, these Korean adolescent students were likely to express their immediate, often-changing feelings through different kinds of writing (e.g., instant messaging, changing their screen names in instant messenger, keeping online or paper diaries, composing poems, scribbling here and there, and exchanging notes). However, at the same time, June, Mike, and Elizabeth firmly pointed out that they did not reveal their truly personal or private emotions through ‘public’ writing or any other means. They maintained a degree of privacy while expressing themselves through writing and told me 264
in interviews that they did not want to leave any trace of their emotions in writing. Instead, they preferred to talk about them with their friends, if necessary. Therefore, they intentionally chose not to write at all because they were afraid that someone would find and read their writing. This particular reason was quite opposite to some significant reasons that often motivate out-of-school writing, such as for self-expression or sensemaking, as discussed earlier in this chapter. On the other hand, by participating as writers (and readers) in online sites like Welcome to Buckeye City, they negotiated (sometimes unintentionally and indirectly) some of the complexities and emotions of life as 1.5 Generation students. It is likely that during adolescence, these students experienced various emotions, but they had learned how to tactically distinguish what to express and what not to express in a written mode, and had decided how much they would reveal their emotions, as well as what kind of language and medium (English or Korean/print or online) they would employ. As Camitta noted, “for adolescents, writing, thinking, talking, and feeling are interconnected activities, multiple channels and levels of discourse upon a topic” (1993, p. 243). One noteworthy interconnection for these participants was their use of talk: face to face conversations (conventional talk) and online talk in the form of instant messaging and other online postings (written form of talk that operates in a kind of conversational mode). To summarize, the five Korean 1.5 Generation students in this study engaged in a somewhat wide range of out-of-school literacy practices for various purposes, rather than in one literacy activity for one purpose. They were more likely to pursue a certain activity for multiple purposes simultaneously, particularly in their online interaction. Similarly, several possible roadblocks discouraged them from reading or writing. Given these 265
complex circumstances, it is easy to see why the participants found it difficult to articulate what they meant by descriptors such as “interesting” and “boring” when they were asked to explain reasons for (not) engaging in reading and writing. Their motivations for reading or writing were multiple in nature and often overlapped, which indicates the complex nature of their out-of-school literacy practices. Given that these participants were bilingual adolescent students who traveled across online and offline spaces on a daily basis, it seems clear that their use of various languages and mediums for out-of-school literacy activities not only shaped, but also complicated, the nature of their literacy lives. In order to unpack this complexity and develop an overall understanding of their literacy practices, I will discuss their use/choice of “language” for literacy practices first. Then, I will move to the issue of “medium” of expression in a further attempt to address the study’s research questions. In general, Korean texts were more popular than English ones for the participants’ pleasurable reading; however, it is important to note that, rather than the language of a specific text, prior experience with reading was a more critical factor in shaping their overall reading practices. In other words, previous reading practices in one language sometimes impacted on reading activities in another language. For instance, Soohee, a huge fan of the Harry Potter novels (in Korean), enthusiastically purchased an English version of one of them to read for pleasure. Although she had difficulties with new English vocabulary, she excitedly told me that reading the English version was as much fun as reading a Korean version. Here her L1 reading experience influenced her L2 reading activity. In contrast, Elizabeth first enjoyed English poetry, quotes, and lyrics, but she later came to prefer such genres in Korean, especially as she began interacting more 266
with Korean friends. Her literacy experiences and preferences transferred across languages. In addition, the participants enjoyed certain genres and books, regardless of language, when they were interested in the content itself. Yoon, in fact, insisted that he could enjoy reading in English (e.g., two short stories); Mike would rather read about soccer in English than read political articles in Korean. This may suggest that even though the students generally preferred Korean texts for pleasurable reading, their literacy experiences during adolescence were not rigidly defined, or restricted, by language. They would proceed in the language direction as dictated by the content of what they were reading and would not feel that they could or should only read and write in one language when they were out of school and free to construct their own ecology of literacy. Language choice/use became a more complex issue for writing, as the students switched between the languages more flexibly and quickly and mixed them quite often. Most important, the choice of language for writing was determined by whom students wrote to and who they thought their possible audience was, especially when they engaged in ‘response-provoking’ types of writing, such as emails, online chatting, noteexchanging, and web-postings. For instance, when Elizabeth updated two online diaries, she used English in her Xanga weblog and Korean in her Cyworld mini-homepage because she was targeting different kinds of readers (different groups of her friends). This suggests that these biliterate students were likely to develop a better sense of audience while engaging in writing outside of school. As noted earlier, the participants chose Korean for out-of-school writing more often than English for several reasons. First, they chose Korean because they felt they could 267
express themselves more easily and comfortably in that language, which was, in effect, their heritage language. In particular, for the three students taking ESL classes, Soohee, Yoon, and June, the Korean language was clearly more powerful than English for expressing their feelings and emotions. For instance, the poet June composed poems only in Korean because she could express herself more fully and richly in Korean than in English. Second, and as noted briefly earlier, the research participants sometimes intentionally chose Korean in an attempt to maintain their heritage language and culture. A clear example was given by the most recent immigrant, Soohee. She expressed her strong desire to continue to use Korean for diary-writing. In a similar vein, the participants wanted to maintain the heritage language as a symbol of who they were, that is, as a marker of identity. According to Warschauer (2000), “through choices of language and dialect, people constantly make and remake who they are” (p. 155). In my study, even the two most fluent English speakers, Mike and Elizabeth, expressed the importance of Korean to them. Elizabeth often made errors when writing in Korean, but she noted that “Korean was like something that I was born with.” The Korean language was a fundamental part of her identity, as it was for the other participants as well. In fact, several previous studies have revealed similar findings. Durgunoglu and Verhoeven (1998) found that bilingual ethnic minority groups used their heritage language for communication within the group, in turn deepening their own “ethnic roots” (p. xi). In Cho, Cho, and Tse’s study (1997), the authors specifically asked why 24 Korean-American students attempted to maintain their heritage language (i.e., Korean). The study’s findings indicate that the students pursued Korean because they wanted to 268
communicate with their families and community, felt Korean was a part of their heritage and identity, and saw future career benefits related to native language maintenance. The Korean adolescent students in my study did not identify any economic benefits of becoming or remaining bilingual, but they recognized that engaging in literacy activities in Korean was one way to exercise their Korean Pride (KP). This clearly illustrates that their Korean literacy practices within an English-speaking environment interacted or overlapped with the process of the formation of their identities. Finally, the participants took advantage of the Korean language as a “secret code.” In Moje’s study (2000), “gansta adolescents” used their own symbols and language to signify “identification and membership”(p. 651). My study similarly found that the research participants were likely to solidify their social relationships, especially friendships, by using a secret code, Korean. For instance, the female participants, who often circulated notes at school, deliberately chose Korean so that nobody (either teachers or American friends) could understand the text if the notes were intercepted. In a related function, the Korean language enabled the students to establish what I call a “border mechanism” among peers. For example, in the Welcome To Buckeye City website, while all the members in the community were Korean-English biliterates, almost all the webpostings were written in Korean. The Korean language seemed to play an important role in determining membership among diverse types of Korean students. As the online community members decided to use Korean, they excluded U.S.–born Korean students who neither read nor wrote the language. Even though the participants chose one primary language for their voluntary writing, they often mixed languages. Most typical was the maintenance of a Korean structure with 269
many English words. When students did not know equivalent Korean words or when English words were commonly known, they often opted to use English words within Korean sentences. One interesting aspect of this mixing of the two codes (Korean, English) which should be addressed in terms of writing (and, indirectly, reading) is the role played by the computer. When the participants wrote on a piece of paper, they were likely to use the English form of words. However, when they typed on the computer, to avoid switching between language fonts, they often typed English words in Korean in the form of transliterations, that is, as they were pronounced. Here, the medium, computer, was likely to influence their choice of language. The most fascinating example of mixing the languages is the participants’ screen names in MSN instant messenger. For instance, I never saw any of Yoon’s screen names written in only one language. Yoon often needed several languages (English, Korean, and Chinese) and signs (emoticons) in order to accurately represent who he was and to fully express himself. Anecdotally speaking, this phenomenon of employing several languages for identity purposes seems to be common to many adolescent 1.5 Generation students, who use multiple languages on a daily basis. It is probable that for the participants in this study, one language was not enough to express who they were in a more complete and comprehensive way. Perhaps, too, they might have felt more attached to some words and notions in one language and to other ones in another language. Another possibility might be that they used one language over the other simply because they only knew how to express certain points or information in one language. Here it is important to remember that these students were still language learners, in both Korean and English, and their code-switching may have represented a kind of interlanguage for them as they negotiated 270
their way through two languages and two literacy worlds. This suggests that it is important to consider a continuum comprising multiple literacies when we try to understand their literacy practices and/or growth. That is, we need to widen the literacy lens to examine multiple literacies and/or need a new notion of literacy for this particular population who live double lives within two languages, literacies, and cultures. In addition to using two primary languages, the participants enriched their out-ofschool literacy practices by using two mediums (print, computer). According to Bruce (1997), in his study “our concepts of literacy were inextricable from the literacy technologies we created” (p. 882). In particular, computer technology (the Internet) has influenced or shaped the nature of students’ literacy practices and development. Two decades ago, literacy scholars (Graff, 1987; Robinson & Versluis, 1985) argued that electronic literacy would not replace dominant print-based literacy. They suggested that, instead of the death of print-based literacy, print-based and online literacy should be “mutually complementary rather than mutually exclusive” (Robinson & Versluis, 1985, p. 40). This notion of co-existent or “mutually complementary” print/online literacy was supported by the findings in my study, in that the students experienced and appreciated their co-involvement with the two different kinds of literacy. In fact, several literacy activities took place across online and offline spaces, and the participants shifted back and forth between the two environments for the same types of literacy activities. Prominent activities in both contexts (print, online) were reading/copying song lyrics, writing daily planners, and keeping a diary. Put simply, the convenience and accessibility of the medium (print, computer) may have affected the participants’ movement back and 271
forth between them, though in terms of diary writing (paper diary, online diary), the students seemed to draw a clear distinction between the two forms of diary. An online diary had the appeal of open and public writing (and reading), while the print-based diary offered privacy and secrecy. In particular, cyber space was seen as a place to record aspects of their lives and share their stories, including portions of secrets, in public. As was shown in Chapter Five, the students had developed a clear sense of audience and purpose for writing, and their choice/use of diary writing was likely to be determined by different audience and purposes at a particular time. Another notable point is that their decision to conduct diary writing in two modalities-print and online- is an especially interesting indicator of the importance of writing outside of school. By moving among modalities and languages rather than utilizing just one modality and one language, these participants were attaching considerable significance to writing. While technologically oriented, the students also enjoyed and saw the value of printbased reading and writing activities. With respect to reading, several participants attached a special meaning to reading actual, i.e, print, books. Robinson and Versluis (1985) pointed out a meaningful place for print-based reading in relation to online reading as follows: “If our only access to books was electronic, there would be a distinct threat to that unique part of the experience which the reading of conventional books alone can offer” (p. 40). The findings in my study echo their statement. For instance, June, the heaviest Internet user in this study, distinguished between print-based novel reading and reading Internet novels on screen, and to some extent she engaged in both. Perhaps, for June, paper book reading was more likely “psychologically suitable or stylistically adaptable” in some situations or with some texts (Robinson & Versluis, 1985, p. 40). As 272
an example, the participants tended to pick up paper books for bed-time reading, or, in Yoon’s case, bathroom reading. While the students attached a special meaning to print-based literacy (event if they were generally not inclined to engage in it), they made great use of online literacy outside of school. Their online literacy seemed to play several significant roles in their out-ofschool literacy practices. First, the online literacy environment (the Internet) provided the participants with a variety of written texts in both languages, especially expository texts because “most of the text on the Internet is expository” (Schmar-Dobler, 2003, p. 81). It appeared that they benefited from online reading in terms of acquiring English literacy skills, as well as continuing to develop the Korean reading (and writing) skills that played a minimal functional role in their daily lives. Indeed, thanks to the availability of extensive Korean online texts, the students and their parents might not feel as much frustration about limited resources in and exposure to the heritage language as, say, the Mexican parents had in Schecter and Bayley’s study (1997). Second, online literacy practices enabled the participants to interact and communicate with people, especially with locally connected friends (particularly 1.5 Generation friends) and their families in Korea. In my study, June, Elizabeth and Mike stressed the importance of the “communication aspect of computers,” just as a young boy mentioned in a study by Smith and Wilhelm (2004, p. 457). Yoon once spent 12 straight hours chatting online during a summer vacation while looking for an open conversation with his peers. These experiences suggest that online literacy activities play a vital role in allowing adolescents to share their feelings and issues with someone else by means of prompt written, and public (as opposed to private, print-based), communication. For 273
instance, the online literacy environment provided them with a cyber playground where they could continue to talk, and thus they saw social as well as instrumental functions for writing and reading. This also suggests that they may have regarded online composing as a form of talk rather than writing per se and thus were unlikely to recognize their online writing activity as a form of writing. The communication aspect of online engagement leads to another significant area of online literacy practice: creating a community in cyberspace. For instance, when the students left a note in their peers’ weblogs or mini-homepages, they were likely to form an invisible community among visitors to those websites. On the one hand, their online literacy practices were physically solitary and individual literacy activities taking place in their own room; on the other hand, by choosing the medium of the computer and the online environment, they simultaneously participated in both individual and collective literacy activities in cyberspace. What is especially noteworthy here is that through such community-based online activities, these adolescent students were likely to construct individual and group identities, to develop a sense of membership, and to solidify social relationships within a community. This is aligned with the argument that literacy practices are ways “to signify identity and maintain relationships according to the norms of a community” (Oates, 2001, p. 214). For instance, June developed an identity as a poet and Mike developed an identity as a reporter in their online community, Welcome To Buckeye City. As discussed thus far, online literacy practices provided the students with many opportunities to grow as literate and social beings. Equally important, the students maintained links with their Korean heritage and strengthened their Korean identities through online literacy practice. 274
As such, online literacy played important roles in their literacy practice in general; further, it is likely that their online literacy practices played a slightly different role from printbased literacy activities and met certain needs of adolescent students that print-based literacy practice could not. Finally, it is important to briefly mention the participants’ own views of their online literacy practices. While online literacy activities played diverse and significant roles in their daily lives, their views of online literacy engagement contrasted with this importance. For example, they often used an “addiction” metaphor to describe their online literacy practices. They also projected a mildly negative connotation of their online literacy activities (especially online chatting) by saying that their activities were not a “big deal” or “something that was not quite important.” In their minds, there seemed to exist “prestigious” kinds of literacy (Skilton-Sylvester, 2002), or “real” or “good” literacy (Norton & Vanderheyden, 2004), and they did not see themselves as practicing these types. The participants apparently believed that their online literacy practices had “little educational value” of the type normally associated with print-based English academic literacy practices (Norton & Vanderheyden, 2004, p. 218). However, literacy scholars and teachers who believe in the value of students’ experience with multiple literacies (Alvermann, Moon, & Hadagood, 1999; Barton, 2001; Dyson, 2003; Gee, 2000; Heath & McLaughlin, 1994; Street, 2001) would likely argue that online literacy activities play a significant role in helping students grow as literate beings living in the 21st century. In alignment with that belief, the results of this study suggest that there is a need to reconceptualize what is meant by educational, meaningful, or good out-
275
of-school literacy activities for students, especially those who used several languages and mediums to make sense of their lives. The discussion thus far has looked at the research questions and findings relative only to the participants’ out-of-school literacy practices. Another research question asked whether there were possible relationships between the participants’ academic and out-ofschool literacy. Recent literacy studies have reported that students perceive distinctive characteristics between the two different types of literacy practices: school-based and out-of-school literacy. For instance, research participants in Myers’ study (1992) indicated a difference between literacy for school and for personal purposes. More specifically, O’Brien (1998) found that adolescent students viewed school-based literacy as boring, challenging, irrelevant, and less meaningful, whereas they viewed out-ofschool literacy as more fun, enjoyable, useful, and engaging. In addition, Mihari & Sablo (1996), Knobel (1999), Schultz (2002), Skilton-Sylvester (2002), and Rubinstein-Avila (2004) found that their adolescent research participants were motivated to engage in outof-school literacy but not school-based literacy. However, such a dichotomous distinction between academic and out-of-school literacy practices does not appear to be supported by the findings of this study. For the Korean adolescents in my study, the equation that academic literacy is boring, and out-ofschool literacy is fun, was not quite accurate. In fact, all the research participants acknowledged that some aspects or parts of school-based literacy activities were quite interesting and engaging. For instance, Soohee enjoyed reading aloud from the textbooks for her ESL class; June loved free writing in her ESL class; Mike voluntarily solved Korean SAT questions for fun; Yoon maintained that he enjoyed two stories that he read 276
during ten-minute reading time in his ESL resource class; and Elizabeth enjoyed reading an assigned text about immigrant girls for her English class. Furthermore, other examples suggest that out-of-school literacy practice was not completely different or separate from school literacy practice. For instance, some schoollike literacy practices took place outside school, and some non-academic literacy activities took place inside school. For example, outside school, Soohee read Readers’ Choice voluntarily in order to build English reading strategies; inside school, Elizabeth wrote notes to her friends in her class. Indeed, note writing for non-academic purposes was a common activity for some of the participants, as discussed earlier. In addition, all the participants engaged in school and out-of-school literacy activities simultaneously while online, such as discussing homework assignments. In fact, they quite enjoyed coinvolvement of academic and out-of-school literacy activities. These examples suggest that a blurred boundary between in-school and out-of-school literacy activities may exist. This finding will support a kind of dialogue that has been carried out in the scholarly literature, where some literacy researchers (Hannon, 2000; Hull & Schlutz, 2002; Mlynarczyk, 1991) have experienced difficulty in drawing boundaries among different kinds of literacies. For instance, Mlynarczyk (1991) faced a challenge in distinguishing ‘academic’ from ‘personal’ literacy in terms of actual literacy practice. Some researchers (e.g., Hull & Schultz, 2002) have further argued that we should look into possible (meaningful) connections between academic and non-academic literacy practices. All the examples and findings seem to suggest that rather than looking at the two from a completely different perspective, researchers can take a view that “one can support or supplement the other” (Schultz & Fecho, 2000, p. 60). The results of this study suggest 277
that it will be healthy for researchers to understand that the two are complementary and reciprocal. This point leads into the discussion of pedagogical implications arising from the study in the next section of the chapter. Pedagogical Implications The findings in this study suggest several pedagogical implications for people who work with, and for, language learners - immigrant English Language Learners in particular. The major findings in this study suggest that we should broaden our notions of literacy, embracing both academic and other kinds of literacy practices. We as language educators, researchers, and parents should “educate ourselves” to learn that diverse types of literacies co-exit; we should acknowledge the value of diverse kinds of literacies (i.e., out-of-school literacy in this study) other than English academic literacy. Within this spirit, students can think positively about engaging in their out-of-school literacy activities, instead of projecting themselves as a kind of “addict” hooked to unsanctioned literacy. Also, they can feel good about enriching their literacy experience and growing up as social and literate beings. Likewise, teachers can develop a more inclusive view of literacy that accounts for the benefits accruing from students’ out-of-school reading and writing. This can include making efforts to learn more about the kinds of out-of-school literacy their students pursue as well as the mediums in which they engage in such activities. A number of recent literacy studies have argued for the legitimacy of other kinds of literacy practices (e.g., out-of-school literacies in Schultz (2002); vernacular literacies in Camitta (1993); indigenous literacies in Hornberger (1996); local literacies in Barton & 278
Hamilton (1998); everyday literacies (Knobel, 1999); and multiliteracies in New London Group (1996)) Along this line, an in-depth understanding and sincere acceptance of the value of out-of-school literacy practices should be the first step in considering pedagogical implications. Beyond acknowledging various literacy practices other than academic literacy, teachers should not only learn about, but take advantage of, the literacy practices and knowledge that students bring from their out-of-school literacy activities to their schoolbased literacy experiences. In other words, teachers can increase their efforts to understand students’ “funds of knowledge” (Moll, Velez-Ibanez, & Greenberg, 1989; Moll & Greenberg, 1990), especially multiple kinds of funds of knowledge (e.g., linguistic, cultural and technological knowledge). Knowing more about students’ out-ofschool literacy practices may inform teachers’ decisions about school-based literacy practices and thus enrich students’ overall experience of literacy acquisition. Academic literacy acquisition may well be enhanced if teachers can find and establish a connecting point between academic and out-of-school literacy activities and involvement. In this study, some important direct or indirect connections between in and out-ofschool literacy were revealed or suggested. For instance, a highly motivated ELL like Soohee voluntarily engaged in academically-oriented and linked reading/writing activities beyond the classroom; a heavy Internet user, June, was familiar with various genres of online reading, while predominantly in Korean and occasionally in English, which may help her deal with narrative and informational texts in English for school; Mike read about Linkin Park and album reviews about their music; a reluctant reader, Yoon, picked up English comic books to read in the library; and Elizabeth read English 279
newspapers, magazines, and cook books. As Norton & Vanderheyden (2004) found, such reading, i.e., light reading, could be viewed as a trigger to engage in reading in English. As a growing body of evidence (Dupuy, Tse, & Cook, 1996; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Flahive & Bailey, 1993; Krashen, 1993) suggests, students’ voluntary and pleasurable reading may influence their literacy experiences and habits in general and the development of their literacy skills. What this study suggests is that ESL and subject matter teachers can/should develop explicit ways to support students’ out-of-school literacy practices and integrate them into the classroom. For instance, the participants were already familiar with and good at dealing with online texts, especially multi-modal texts. If future studies reveal similar findings, teachers across the curriculum can engage students with classroom activities or assignments using multi-modal texts which draw upon their prior exposure/instruction in their native language. In relation to that, it may be useful for students to receive explicit instruction or guidance about what and how they can engage in online out-of-school literacy practices in English (e.g., teachers can discuss how to find particular websites that are useful for learning English, such as the internationally known and respected “Dave’s ESL Café,” and teachers can encourage them to create their own English homepages or online communities). In this study, the participants did not visit English websites as much as they visited Korean ones. All the participants, except Elizabeth, learned how to use a computer (i.e., word processing) and the Internet in Korea through formal instruction or by playing with the Internet, and thus, Korean online literacy skills and strategies were something that these students brought from Korea. However, as ELLs, none had any 280
instruction regarding English online (literacy) practices, and so it is perhaps not surprising that the participants were likely to linger in Korean websites. Ideally (in terms of the development of their literacy skills), the longer they stay in the United States, the more likely it is that they will engage in online literacy practice in English and can transfer online literacy skills learned in Korean to English online literacy practice. Another pedagogical implication could be that teachers and parents can encourage and facilitate group-oriented online activities for classroom instruction. In this study, the participants reported their fascination with group-oriented and interactive literacy activities. A primary example was their participation in online communities (e.g., Welcome To Buckeye City), often called “online cafés” in Korea. It is not clear whether their preference for group-oriented activities was attributed to their Korean cultural background (more group-oriented than individualistic) or to one important common characteristic of teenagers: seeking a strong sense of belonging. That the participants enjoyed a shared experience with their teenage peers and were likely to form a shared identity as a member within a social group is of great importance. Teachers and even parents can facilitate both individual and collective literacy practices at the school level as well as at the community level (local Sunday schools or churches). ESL teachers could, for example, encourage their ESL students to communicate online with their classmates outside class and assist them in setting up an online community similar to Welcome to Buckeye City. Here it is worth remembering that the participants in this study embraced public forms of out-of-school writing and reading. This, indeed, is one of the study’s major contributions: that, in the age of the Internet, as the early 21st century is sometimes called, adolescent students like those in this study may be much more comfortable with 281
or interested in engaging in the kinds of public writing and reading found in online communities than in the more private out-of school literacy activities of the past. Teachers can build on this public versus private distinction in encouraging out-of-school literacy activity. The acquisition of English literacy is important, but heritage language literacy maintenance should also be emphasized. Researchers have constantly argued for the effect and significance of reading in the mother tongue (Dupuy, Tse, & Cook, 1996; Hudelson, 1987; Norton & Vanderheyden, 2004). In this study, students’ literacy engagement in Korean was not a threat to their improvement in English literacy, but instead may have created a vital foundation for their literacy development in general (including Korean, English, as well as a foreign language). In practice, it is difficult to integrate literacy activities in the mother tongue into the classroom, but it is always possible for teachers to encourage their students to engage in any type of literacy activity in their native language in various contexts. Given this point, the students’ involvement with online communities is likely to play an important role in maintaining or continuing to develop Korean language and literacy. Together with L1 literacy support, teachers and parents can encourage students to develop “intercultural literacy, the ability to consciously and effectively move back and forth among as well as in and out of the discourse communities they belong to or will belong to” (Guerra, 1997, p. 258). Teachers can endeavor to provide room for intercultural literacy and create opportunities for the students to construct and share their
282
own narratives and interweave their diverse literacy experiences across learning contexts so that they can become effective users of more than one language and multicultural thinkers. Limitations of the Study It was difficult to observe every and all literacy activities that the participants engaged in outside school, and thus, I originally planned to have an intensive observation period during winter breaks from school. However, as the study progressed, I sensed that the research participants and their parents might not like me to visit their homes to observe students during Christmas break. Thus, I neither interviewed nor observed them for two weeks during winter vacation. Because they were on break, the participants may well have engaged in a good deal of out-of-school literacy, especially online varieties, with so much free time at their disposal. However, I was able to glean, after the winter break, some sense of what kinds of literacy activities the participants had pursued. Further, this study examined only several cases of 1.5 Generation students, and I was not able to attempt to generalize the results from several cases to the entire immigrant population, Korean or all immigrants combined. In addition, in terms of selecting participants, I attempted to find Korean students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and with different degrees of academic achievement, but in reality, it was difficult to encourage academically underperforming students and/or families from working or lower socio-economical class to participate in the study. Thus, all the participants in this study were quite academically successful
283
students at school (Yoon had the lowest GPA, 3.45, among the research participants), and they were likely to come from the middle class. Thus, the study’s results are skewed to some extent. Lastly, this study emphasized out-of-school literacy activities and did not examine participants’ academic literacy practices per se. Thus, the study did not directly investigate ways to build a bridge between school literacy and out-of-school literacy activities; however, the knowledge of the relationships between the two literacy activities gathered in this study can provide a glimpse into ways of connecting in- and out-ofschool literacy activities. Suggestions and Recommendations for Future Research Given the findings and limitations of this study, I propose several specific directions for further research. First, I noticed that types of literacy activities seemed to be different depending on gender. Future research on the role of gender in students’ choices of and extent of involvement in specific literacy practices within different mediums would likely make valuable contributions to our understanding of out-of-school literacy and its relationship with school literacy among English Language Learners. Second, online literacy activities represented a great portion of the students’ out-ofschool literacy practices and must have been deeply embedded in their literacy lives, a finding that merits further investigation in future studies of students like these. In particular, it would be interesting to explore adolescent students’ multi- modal literacy practices in relation to popular culture, given the importance that such domains as music, movies, and fashion play in the lives of adolescents.
284
From a methodological point of view, online literacy practices turned out, unexpectedly, to play a significant role in conducting this research. For instance, online chatting was very important for me as a researcher and an adult to establish a rapport with my adolescent participants. Visiting homepages and their online communities gave me in-depth understanding of the participants and their lives in cyber space. Despite all these merits, I might have easily and unintentionally invaded their privacy in cyberspace. This raises interesting and important questions, practical as well as ethical, about conducting research in online circumstances. Fourth, given a notable characteristic, their in-between-ness, of the generation 1.5 students, it is important to examine how language and literacy learning interact with their identity construction, especially a “transnational identity” for immigrant students living “double lives,” as Mike described his situation. Lastly, this study did not directly examine students’ English academic literacy, but I would like to see more studies that investigate adolescent ELLs’ academic literacy practices and growth from a multi-faceted and developmental point of view. While I have been working as a bilingual aide in the high school where some of the research participants attend, and have in some cases maintained contact with participants, it is clear to me that their literacy experiences and growth have not stopped, even though my data collection ended. In particular, I have observed participants facing challenges as well as improvement in terms of academic literacy at school. For instance, after the study ended, June (a 10th grader at the time when I am finishing this dissertation, June 2005) exited ESL and is taking a regular English class; Soohee (10th grader) also exited ESL, took a creative writing class for a semester, and is taking an Honors’ English. While both 285
June and Soohee manage regular English classes (e.g., receiving decent grades), they still come to the ESL resource class to gain extra help from ESL teachers. The most fluent English speaker, Elizabeth (11th grader), is doing well in a regular English class, but has difficulty with SAT preparation. She even is planning to visit Korea during summer 2005 in order to attend a private institute for SAT preparation. A struggling ELL, Yoon (12th grader), has been taking the same level of ESL (advanced ESL) class for three years and is afraid of being placed again in ESL at college. Both Yoon and Mike, as seniors, are about to enter college. These examples clearly suggest that it is necessary to conduct a longitudinal study of ELLs’ academic literacy experiences and/or growth in relation to their out-of-school literacy experiences. In particular, an investigation of both process and product of their writing is necessary to better understand the teaching and learning associated with ELLs in light of the fact that writing is included in statewide standardized testing, and in a new form of the SAT starting from Spring 2005. Therefore, I believe that an in-depth understanding of their academic literacy practices, along with their out-ofschool literacy experiences will be valuable, especially from a longitudinal perspective. Closing Remarks This study has expanded the “continuum of literacy research” in several significant ways, especially as regards Generation 1.5 students. First, the study has broadened the range of literacy by highlighting an important but unexamined area, the so-called out-ofschool literacy. Second, this research has enlarged the understanding of how multiple languages and literacies (L1, L2) play a role in students’ literacy lives by investigating their literacy activities in both languages as well as their language preference for out-ofschool reading and writing. Third, this study looked at multiple sites for literacy 286
activities: both on- and off-line. Previously, literacy studies were likely to examine printbased literacy activities and events; however, acknowledging the development of computer technology, this study included both print-based and computer-based literacy practices. Overall, today’s students experience a variety of literacies in their lives, such as academic vs out-of-school literacy, L1 vs L2 literacy, and print vs online literacy. While considering these complex and multiple characteristics of literacy, this research has expanded the continuum of literacy research. Several significant findings about online literacy practices merit special attention because these findings suggest new notions of literacy, especially for 1.5 Generation students living in the 21st century. In terms of reading, online reading seems to be more interactive and involve more diverse kinds of reading, including reading that is more publicly oriented in the case of online communities. Previously, students engaged in print-based reading (novels, comics, magazines, newspapers) in the form of a more individual and solitary act; however, the participants in my study went online to read someone else’ writing (online diaries, web postings, online chatting, emails), which was likely more engaging and attractive to them because it represented the thoughts and feelings of their peers. Besides identifying a newer construct of out-of school reading, this finding draws attention to the idea that research participants nowadays might not think of such engagement as reading compared to their traditional notion of reading (print-based essay reading). This serves as a cautionary note about how to conduct future research into out-of-school literacy, especially studies utilizing a methodology like the literacy checklists used in this study.
287
With respect to writing, the participants’ out-of-school writing might, like reading, have evolved from personal to public due in part to their extensive engagement with online writing. Despite maintaining a limit on disclosure with respect to deeply personal feelings and thoughts, the participants tended to engage in traditionally personal and private types of writing in public in an online context. Thus, the study has contributed the idea that a distinction between private and public writing seems to be blurred in an online literacy environment. At the same time, in online circumstances like instant messaging writing is reading and is talk-oriented, in that participants instantly exchange and read each other’s writing in the same ways in which face to face conversations take place. In other words, in online conditions writers become readers as well, whereas in traditional print circumstances their writing might be locked away in a journal or diary, with no reciprocity (and hence no reading) involved as is the case with online communication. With, say, instant messages flashing back and forth between participants, the line between writing and reading is blurred. Therefore, given the changing nature of reading and writing online, we may need a new notion of out-of school literacy. This study has contributed some findings and insights that could be applied to this new notion. Finally, it is important to note that such interactive online and public reading and public writing may be particularly appealing to a unique population, the Generation 1.5 students. Lam’s (2000) study of Almon, a San Francisco-based immigrant student from Hong Kong who eventually found a comfort zone in English literacy via his creation of a website about a Japanese pop music star, has also illustrated this appeal. As noted in Chapter One, Generation 1.5 students are likely to straddle two languages, literacies, cultures, and generations. As such, they may encounter some difficulty positioning 288
themselves with respect to their identity. For the Korean adolescent students in this study, developing a sense of belonging and answering the question “who am I” were significant issues and concerns, and thus they were likely to seek special attention from others, particularly those experiencing the same conditions. Through online literacy practices, they sought for and/or created their own shelter as well as ways of expressing themselves, at the same time forming a sense of solidarity with other students who shared a similar situation. What this study has contributed is insight into how out-of-school literacy activities enabled and supported these processes. Given this unique population’s involvement with literacy as revealed in this study, it is time to reconceptualize the notion of out-of-school literacy so that it can portray the nature and the kinds of daily literacy activities Generation 1.5 students like these engage.
289
APPENDIX A OUT-OF-SCHOOL LITERACY ACTIVITY CHECKLIST READING 읽기
무 엇 을 , 얼 마 나 , 언 제 읽 었 나 요 ? [제 목 / 15 min??/ 새 벽 ? 오 후 , 밥 먹 고 ? 자 기 전 ?? ]
Comics (제 목 ?) Newspaper(어 떤 기 사 ?)
P/C? K/E? P/C? K/E?
Magazines (제 목 ?) Poems, 가 사 Novels, 책 편 지 , 쪽 지 (누 가 ??) Bible Email (누 가 보 냈 죠 ?/내 용 ? ) Websites (어 느 사 이 트 ?)
P/C? K/E?
기 타 (설 명 서 , /게 임 /TV application, 영 화 , 읽기가 포함된것만
WRITING 쓰 기
P/C? K/E? K/E? P/C?
K/E?
일기쓰기
무엇을, 얼마나 , 언제 썼나요? [제 목 / 15 min??/ 낮 ? 주 말 ? 자 기 전 ?? ] P/C ? K/E ?
Novel or Poem 쓰 기 Scheduling 짜 기
P/C ? K/E ?
편지, 쪽지, 카드 쓰기 이 메 일 쓰 기 (email)
Website (posting 하 기 , 코멘트 단것들 포함) Instant messages (채 팅 누 구 랑 , 무 엇 에 대해 서 )
P/C ? K/E ? K/E ? K/E ? K/E ?
기타등등 쓰기가 포함된것
290
APPENDIX B JUNE’S POEM: PAINS OF GROWING UP
“성장통” (11.17.03) 그저 사춘기 때, 한 순간 성장통일 뿐입니다. 키가 자랄 때 뼈가 마디마디 아프듯 마음이 자랄 때 가슴이 구석구석 아플 뿐입니다. 어른이 된다는 건, 눈을 감아도 부서져 들어오는 햇살에, 까닭 없이 마음마저 부서지는 그런 걸까요. 어른이 된다는 건, 눈을 감아도 그려지는 그대 얼굴에, 까닭 없이 눈물부터 흘러오는 그런 걸까요. 어른이 된다는 건, 귀를 막아도 들려오는 내 마음에, 까닭 없이 바닥까지 떨어지는 그런 걸까요. 그저 사춘기 때, 한 순간 성장통일 뿐입니다. 뼈가 자라듯 마음도 자랐으면 좋겠습니다. 겉만 자라는 성장통이 아닌, 마음까지 자라는 성장통이었으면 좋겠습니다.
291
APPENDIX C MIKE’S CYWORLD MINI-HOMEPAGE
292
APPENDIX D ELIZABETH’S CYWORLD MINI-HOMEPAGE
293
APPENDIX E JUNE’S CYWORLD MINI-HOMEPAGE
294
APPENDIX F YOON’S CYWORLD MINI-HOMEPAGE
295
APPENDIX G ELIZABETH’S XANGA WEBLOG
296
REFERENCES Alvermann, D. E., Moon, J., & Hadagood, M. C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Neward, DE: International Reading Association. Alvermann, D. E., Young, J. P., Green, C., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1999). Adolescents' perceptions and negotiations of literacy practices in after-school read and talk clubs. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 221-264. Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(2), 189-208. Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285303. Athanases, S. Z., & Heath, S. B. (1995). Ethnography in the study of the teaching and learning of English. Research in the Teaching English, 29(3), 263-287. Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London: Routledge. Barton, D. (2001). Literacy in everyday contexts. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 23-38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Beach, R., & Lundell, D. (1998). Early adolescents' use of computer-mediated communication in writing and reading. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 93-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bicknell, J. (1999). Promoting writing and computer literacy skills through studentauthored web pages. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 20-26. 297
Blake, R. J. (1998). The role of technology in second language learning. In H. Byrenes (Ed.), Learning foreign/second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship. (pp. 209-237). NY: The Modern Language Association of America. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bolter, J. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of visual literacy. In D. Reinking, M.C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. . (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspective on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-356. Bruce, B. C. (1997). Current issues and future directions, Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 875-884). New York : Macmillan Library Reference. Camitta, M. (1993). Vernacular writing: Varieties of literacy among Philadelphia high school students. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 228-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(1), 37-60. Carson, J. G., & Kuehn, P. (1992). Evidence of transfer and loss in developing second language writers. Language Learning, 42(2), 157-182. Cazden, C., Hymes, D., & Johns, V. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. NY: Teachers College Press. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapelle, C. A., & Duff, P. A. (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 157-178. Cho, G., Cho, K., & Tse, L. (1997). Why ethnic minorities want to develop their heritage language: The case of Korean-Americans. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 106-112.
298
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1997). Narrative inquiry. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 81-86). Pergamon, Cambridge. Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (1986). The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251. . (1981b). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education. (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: California State Department of Education. Davidson, C., & Tomic, A. (1994). Removing computer phobia from the writing classroom. ELT Journal, 48(3), 205-231. Deyhl, D., & Swisher, K. (1997). Research in American Indian and Alaska Native Indian education: From assimilation to self-determination. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in Education (vol. 22) (pp.113-194). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Dong, Y. R. (1999). The need to understand ESL students' native language writing experiences. Teaching English in the Two Year College, March, 277-285. Dupuy, B., Tse, L., & Cook, T. (1996). Bringing books into the classroom: First steps in turning college-level ESL students into readers. TESOL Journal, 5(4), 10-15. Durgunoglu, A., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.). (1998). Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures. NY: Teachers College Press. Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 211-228. Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1996). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eskey, D. E. (1993). Reading and writing as both cognitive process and social behavior. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 221-233). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. 299
Faigley, L. (1999). Beyond imagination: The Internet and global digital literacy. In G. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Passions, pedagogies, and 21st century technologies (pp. 129-139). Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. Farr, M. (1994). En Los Dos Idiomas: Literacy practices among Chicano Mexicanos. In B. Moss (Ed.), Literacy across communities (pp. 9-47). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Finders, M. J. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. New York: Teachers College Press. Flahive, D. E., & Bailey, N. H. (1993). Exploring reading/writing relationships in adult second language learners. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 128-140). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Fleming, D. M. (2000). The second migration: A qualitative study of immigrant students negotiating an ESL class at a traditional secondary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Oakland. Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 109-125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frodesen, J. (2003). At what price success?: An academic writing development of a generation 1.5 latecomer. The CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 191-206. Gallego, M. A., & Hollingsworth, S. (Eds.). (2000). What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard. NY: Teachers College University. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press. . (2000). The New Literacy Studies: From 'socially situated' to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180-196). NY: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York : Basic Books Basic Books.
300
Gibbons, J., Lascar, E., & Morales, M. I. M. (1998). The role of social class and home literacy practices in literacy proficiency in a group of Chilean adolescents. In T. O'Brien (Ed.), Language and literacies: Selected papers from the annual meeting of the British association for applied linguistics (pp. 26-57). Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Goen, S., Porter, P., Swanson, D., & VanDommelen, D. (2003). Working with generation 1.5 students and their teachers: ESL meets composition. The CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 131-172. Graff, H. J. (1986). The history of literacy: Toward a third generation. Interchange, 17(2), 122-134. Gregory, E. (1994). Cultural assumptions and early years' pedagogy: The effect of the home culture on minority children's interpretation of reading in school. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 7(2), 111-124. Guerra, J. C. (1997). The place of intercultural literacy in the writing classroom. In C. Severiono, J. C. Guerra & J. E. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural setting (pp. 248-260). NY: The Modern Language Association of America. Hahn, M. M. S. (1995). Peering into language learning: A socioculutral study of collegeage, Korean bilingual writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Oakland. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge. Hannon, P. (2000). Reflecting on literacy in education. London: Routledge Falmer. Hardman, J. (1998). Literacy and bilingualim in a Cambodian community in the USA. In A. Y. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 51-81). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Harklau, L., Seigal, M., & Losey, K. (1999). Linguistically diverse students and college Writing: What is equitable and appropriate? In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U. S. - educated learners of ESL (pp. 1-16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hawisher, G., & Selfe, C. L. (Eds.). (2000). Global literacies and the world-wide web. NY: Routledge. Heath, S. B. (1980). The functions and uses of literacy. Journal of Communication, 30, 123-135. 301
Heath, S. B. (1981). Toward an ethnography of writing in American education. In M. F. Whiteman & W. S. Hall (Eds.), Writing: Variations in writing (pp. 25-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. . (1982). Potean shapes in literacy event: Ever-shifting oral and literate traditions. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 91-117). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. . (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. (1994). Learning for anything everyday. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(5), 471-489. Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.) (1996). Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom up. Berlin: Mouton. . (2000). Afterword. In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Eds.), Multilingual literacies: reading and writing different worlds. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hudelson, S. (1987). The role of native language literacy in the education of language minority children. Language Arts, 64, 827-841. Hull, G. Y., & Schultz, K. (Eds.). (2002). School’s out!: Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Hult, S., Kalaja, M., Lassila, O., & Lehtisalo, T. (1990). Hyperreader: An interactive course in reading comprehension. System, 18(2), 189-198. Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. London: Longman. Janesick, V. J. (2000) The choreography of qualitative research design. Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.) (pp. 379-399). Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, California. Jones, S., & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time (pp. 34-57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and content: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 302
Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. M. (1998). Researching the relation between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323-341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kern, R. (1995). Redefining the boundaries of foreign language literacy. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redefining the boundaries of language study (pp. 61-98). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. . (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kim, S. I. (1989). America’s Asians. The Economist, June 3, 23-26. Kintgen, E. R., Kroll, B. M., & Rose, M. (Eds.). (1988). Perspectives on literacy. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. Klassen, C. (1991). Bilingual written language use by low-education Latin-American newcomers. In D. Barton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Writing in the community (pp. 38-57). London: Sage. Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., Honan, E., & Crawford, J. (1998). The wired world of second-language education. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Talking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 53-79). London: Routledge. Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students, discourse, and social practice. New York: Peter Lang Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42(2), 183-215. . Kramsch, C., A'Ness, F., & Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning and Technology, 4(2), 78-104. Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Labbo, L. D., & Reinking, D. (1999). Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in literacy research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 478-492. Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457-482. Lanauze, M., & Snow, C. (1989). The relation between first- and second-language writing skills. Linguistics and Education, 1, 323-339. 303
Langer, J. (1987). A sociocognitive perspective on literacy. In J. Langer (Ed.), Language, literacy, and culture: Issues of society and schooling (pp. 1-20). Norwood, NJ:: Ablex. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (1997). Literacies, texts and difference in the electronic age. In C. Lankshear, J. P. Gee, M. Knobel & C. Searle (Eds.), Changing literacies (pp. 133-163). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 257-277. . (2001). Validity as an incitement to discourse: Qualitative research and the crisis of legitimation. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). (pp. 241–250). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Leki, L. (2000). Writing, literacy, and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 99-115. Leseman, P. P. M., & de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction, cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 294-318. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. London: Altamira Press. Levine, K. (1986). The social context of literacy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Li, G. (2002). Literacy outside school: Home practices of Chinese immigrant families in Canada. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Liou, H. (1997). The impact of WWW texts on EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(5), 455-478. Mahiri, J., & Sablo, S. (1996). Writing for their lives: The non-school literacy of California’s urban African American youth. Journal of Negro Education, 65(2), 164180. Markham, A. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications. 304
Martin-Jones, M., & Bhatt, A. (1988). Literacies in the lives of young Gujarati speakers in Leicester. In A. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 37-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Martin-Jones, M., & Jones, K. (2000). Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. McCarthey, S. J. (1997). Connecting home and school literacy practices in classrooms with diverse populations. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 145-182. McKay, S. L. (1993). Agendas for second language literacy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Language Education. . (1995). Literacy and literacies. In S. L. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 421-445). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. McKay, S., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 3, 577-608. . (2000) (Eds.) New Immigrants in the United States. Cambridge University Press. McMillon, G. M. T. (2001). A tale of two settings: African American students’ literacy experiences at church and at school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mikulecky, L. (1990). Literacy for what purpose? In R. L. Venezky, D. A. Wagner, & B. S. Ciliberti (Eds.), Toward defining literacy (pp. 24-34). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mlynarczky, R. W. (1991). Is there a difference between personal and academic writing? TESOL Journal, 1, 17-20. Moje, E. B. (2000). "To be part of the story": The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents. Teachers College Record, 10, 651-690.
305
Moll, L. C., & Diaz, R. (1987). Teaching writing as communication: The use of ethnographic findings in classroom practice. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 55-65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Moll, L.C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319-348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Nett, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141. Myers, J. (1992). The social contexts of school and personal literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(4), 297-333. Nelson, T. J. (1999). Using computers to teach writing in a foreign language classroom. In G. Brauer (Ed.), Writing across languages (pp. 99-115). Sternford, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Cooperation. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. Noll, E. (1995a). Constructing meaning through multiple sign systems: Literacy in the lives of Lakota and Dakota young adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. .(1998). Experiencing literacy in and out of school: Case studies of two American Indian youths. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 205-232. . (2000). Literacy and American Indian students: Meaning making through multiple sign systems. In M. A. Gallego & Hollingsworth, S. (Eds.), What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard (pp. 213-238). NY: Teachers College University. Norton, B., & Vanderheyden, K. (2004). Comic book culture and second language learners. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 201-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oates, S. F. (2001). Literacy as an everyday practice. In E. B. Moje & D. G. O'Brien (Eds.), Constructions of literacy: Studies of teaching and learning in and out of secondary schools (pp. 213-237). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
306
O'Brien, D. G. (1998). Multiple literacies in a high-school program for 'at-risk' adolescents. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives (pp. 27-49.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Olson, L. (1994). Bridges: Promising programs for immigrant children. San Francisco, CA.: California Tomorrow. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research method (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV guide: Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 406-428. Purcell-Gates, V., & Waterman, R. A. (2000). Now we read, we see, we speak: Portrait of literacy development in an adult Freirian-based class. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258. . (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37(3), 439-465. . (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430. Resnick, L. B. (2000). Literacy in school and out. In M. A. Gallego & S. Hollingsworth (Eds.), What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard (pp. 27-41). NY: Teachers College University Press. Richardson, L. (1995). Narrative and sociology. In J. V. Maanen (Ed.), Representation in ethnography (pp. 198-221). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. . (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 923-948). Thousands Oaks: CA: Sage Publications. Roberge, M. (2002). California’s generation 1.5 immigrants: What experiences, characteristics, and needs do they bring to our English classes? CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 107-129.
307
Robinson, B., & Versluis, E. B. (1985). Electronic text: A choice medium for reading? In D. Chandler & S. Marcus (Eds.), Computers and literacy (pp. 26-40). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Rodby, J. (1992). Appropriating literacy: Writing and reading in ESL. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Rubinstein-Avila, E. B. (2001). From their points of view: Literacies among Latino immigrant students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Boston. . (2004). Conversing with Miguel: An adolescent English Language Learner struggling with later literacy development. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(4), 290-301. Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 202-218. Schecter, S. R., & Bayley, R. (1997). Language socialization practices and cultural identity: Case studies of Mexican-descent families in California and Texas. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 513-541. Schmar-Dobler, E. (2004). Reading on the Internet: The link between literacy and technology. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(1), 80-85. Schultz, K. (2002). Looking across space and time: Reconceptualizing literacy learning in and out of school. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 356-390. Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society's child: Social context and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 51-62. Scribener, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences. (2nd ed.). New York : Teachers College Press Selfe, C. L. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Serpell, R. (1997). Literacy connections between school and home: How should we evaluate them? Journal of Literacy Research, 29(4), 587-616. Shin, S. J. (1998). Paibu dollar please! Bilingual Korean-American children in New York City. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 308
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (1997). Inside, outside and in-between: Identities, literacies and educational policies in the lives of Cambodian women and girls in Philadelphia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. . (2002). Literate at home but not at school: A Cambodian girl’s journey from playwright to struggle writer. In G. Hull & K. Schultz (Eds.), School’s out!: Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice (pp. 61-90). New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002). Reading don't fix no Chevys: Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. . (2004). "I just like being good at it": The importance of competence in the literate lives of young men. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(6), 454-461. Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Stake, R. (1981). Case study methodology: An epistemological advocacy. Paper presented at the 981 Minnesota Evaluation Conference, Minneapolis. . (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Street, J. C., & Street, B, V. (1991). The schooling of literacy. In D. Barton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Writing in the community (pp. 143-166). London: Sage. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. NY: Cambridge University Press. . (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. Harlow: Longman. . (2000). literacy events and literacy practices. In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Eds.), Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds (pp. 2735). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. . (2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives. London ; New York: Routledge. Suginmoto, T., & Levin, J. A. (2000). Multiple literacies and multimedia: A comparison of Japanese and American uses of the Internet. In G. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Global literacies and the world-wide web (pp. 133-153). London: Routledge.
309
Szwed, J. G. (1981). the ethnography of literacy. In M. F. Whiteman (Ed.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication (pp. 13-23). Hillsdale, NJ: Heinemann. Taylor, B. M., Frye, B. J., & Maruyama, G. M. (1990). Time spent reading and reading growth. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 351-362. Talyor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, R. L. (1995). Functional uses of reading and shared literacy activities in Icelandic homes: A monograph in family literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 194219. Ter Laak, J. (1994). Literacy acquisition and social context: Approaches, emphases and questions. In E. M. H. Assink (Ed.), Literacy acquisition and social context (pp. 220237). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness of language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Trenchs, M. (1996). Writing strategies in a second language: Three case studies of learner using electronic mail. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52(3), 464-497. Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners' processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 to L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 271-294. Venezky, R. L., Wagner, D. A., & Ciliberti, B. S. (Eds.). (1990). Toward defining literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Verhoeven, L. V. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic Interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44(3), 381-415. Waggoner, D. (1999). Who are secondary newcomer and linguistically different youth? In C. J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 13-41). New York, NY: Teachers College Press Wallace, C. (1986). Learning to read in a multicultural society: The social contexts of second language literacy. NY: Pergamon Institute of English. Walters, K. (1992). Whose culture? Whose literacy? In D. Murray (Ed.), Diversity as resource: Redefining cultural literacy (pp. pp. 3-25). Sterling, Virginia: TESOL. Walz, J. (2001). Reading hypertext: Lower-level processes. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 475-494. 310
Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535. Warschauer, M. (2000). Language, identity, and the Internet. In B. E. Kolko, L. Nakamura & G. B. Rodman (Eds.), Race in cyberspace (pp. 151- 170). New York: Routledge. . (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), 453-475. Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). Literacy and social process: A community in transition. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 272-293). NY: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (1986). The language experience of five-year-old children at home and at school. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The social construction of literacy (pp. 69-93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998) A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 130-178. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage. . (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. . (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zamel, V. (1993). Questioning in academic discourse, College ESL, 3(1), 28-39.
311
