Immigrant Students' Out-Of-School Literacy

Home , After School (group), WTBC

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

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

Youngjoo Yi

2005

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-of- school 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.

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 in- depth 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.

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+>_<+. Thank you so much =ㅅ= for sharing very personal and private stories of your life with a total stranger, Youngjoo ^^. 특히, 소희 부모님께도 감사 드립니다. 소희 어머님, 막 새 아파트로 첨으로 이사가서 집 정리가 안 된 그런 날에도 김치에 김에 밥 챙겨 주시던 날, 눈물을 감출 수가 없었습니다. 늘 진심으로 따뜻하게 가족처럼 대해주신 어머님. 제가 논문 데이타를 거두면서 힘들어 하던 날에 큰 힘이 되신거 모르실 겁니다. 1 년간 소식이 없다가도 불쑥 다시 나타나 집을 방문한 그 날마져도 웃으시면서 맞이 해 주신데 대해서 진심으로 감사 드립니다. (2) June (네 가짜 이름, 맘에 안 들어도 할수 없다-0-;;;) Thanx, 너구리-0-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are definitely somebody in my study!!!. 너의 그 철학같은 말이며, 글들 정말 많이 즐겼다. 뒤늦게 만나서 내 연구에 들어 오게 된 걸, 난 因緣이라고 믿는다. 어머님, 늘 제 연구부터 물어 주시고, 격려해주신데 대해서 늘 감사하게 생각드립니다. (3) 와럽, Mike ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ, Ohio Rising Star. 상준이도 고맙다. 덕분에 computer games 도 배우고, Hip Hop 이 뭔지도 알게 되고. 또 Linkin Park, Brown Eyed Soul 도 배우고, 많이 배웠다. Btw, 네 Cyworld, “To Be a Cool Man(??)” caused me a trouble in my oral defense ㅠ.ㅠ and cracked us up. (4) Yoon. 고맙다, 용갈이. 우리도 미운정(情) & 고운정 (情) 많이 들었지? 너 s/n 처럼, heaven helps those who help themselves. (5) Elizabeth, 세연 천사도 고맙네 ^^;;. Again, thanx 4 sharing ur life. Esp. when i showed up 1 yr after duh data collection and asked 4 more of ur writing samples & skul folders (용관이 ESL folder, 자연이 Regular Eng writing folder, 소희’s creative writing ‘personal book’ and honors Eng’s final project), none of u really made any face.

In addition to these students, I tremendously learned about high school students in ESL resources class where I worked for a year, from Ms. Joan Cryst, Mr. Tim Hayes, Mrs. Toshie Smith, Ms. Danielle Dehmani, and Mr. Jack Popoviche.

vii

My long journey would not have been exciting and fun without the companionship of my friends and colleagues in and outside of Ohio State. I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my colleagues, Dr. Hyunsook Yoon and Dr. Hyungmi Joo. I will not forget our never-ending academic and personal conversations and several conference trips. Sorry that we kinda planned, but haven’t really had a writing trip. We will surely do in the future. I also had several wonderful friends who had to struggle while reading/editing my papers: Debbie Shen, Sandra Kaus, Michael Ritchie, and Dr. Eunsook Shim. Also, I appreciate Debbie (謝謝)and Sandra’s unchanging friendship and their prayers for me. My old friend from Arizona State, Eunsook and I spent so many nights to reinforce our determination and promise to finish our dissertation this quarter (Spring 2005) over the phone. It turned out one of the greatest energy to move me forward to completing my dissertation in a consistent and timely manner.

I was lucky to get to know several good friends at the conferences and the writing center, especially in the process of my juggling with dissertation writing and job searching: Dr. Dana Oswald, Dr. Haivon Huang, and Dr. Xiaoye You. Thank you (謝謝)for your practical tips for job search and finishing a dissertation, strong support, and very positive encouragement. I’m so glad that we all become professors now. I also wish to thank my friends for cheering me up and having faith on me: Akiko, Debbie & Dennis, my brother Jinkyu, Jeongsoo unni, JS, my host family Doug and Mary Hanson, Sandra, and Melissa. My special thanks goes to my dearest 후배, Hana Kang. She shared lots of her personal experiences as a generation 1.5 student living in the United States. She was my personal emotional support, computer technician, and even a cameraman in my graduation ceremony. She sometimes shouted at me, “you can do it”, especially when I became discouraged, depressed, and lost confidence. 謝謝.

Lastly, I would like to give a big BOW to my parents. 마지막으로 부모님께 감사드립니다. 지난 7 년간의 미국 생활을 즐기면서 공부 할수 있도록 물심양면으로 도와주셔서 고맙습니다. 늘 할수 있다고 끊임없이 격려해 주시고, 작은 것에 감사하며, 늘 겸손하라고 가르쳐 주신 부모님이 계시기에 오늘날의 제가 있다고 믿습니다. 당신들의 큰 사랑과 믿음이 제가 이 길고 힘든 과정을 웃으면서 맞이 할수 있게 했습니다.

Without all these people and more, I would neither be here nor become who I am now.

viii

VITA

February 2, 1973 ...... … Born – Daegu, Korea

1995...... B.A., History Education (Minor, English Education) Kyungpook National University, Korea

1995 – 1996 ...... English Teacher, YoungHae Middle School, Korea

1998 ...... MTESL (Master of Teaching English as a Second Language) Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

1998 –2000 ...... English Teacher, YoungChun Middle School, Korea

2000-2003 ………………………………….. Graduate Teaching Assistant Korean Language and Literature Program The Ohio State University

2004-present ………………………………... ESL Classroom Bilingual Aide Dublin Scioto High School, Ohio

2004- present ……………………………….. Graduate Research Assistant Second/Foreign Language Education The Ohio State University

PUBLICATION

1. Yi, Y. (2005) Asian adolescents’ in and out-of-school encounters with English and Korean literacy. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 57-77.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Education

Area of Specialization: Second/Foreign Language Education

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)

Minor Fields: Second Language Literacy

Research Methods

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapters Page Abstract ………………………….……………………………….……………...... ii Dedication ………………………….……………………………….…………………. iv Acknowledgments………………………….……………………………….………….. v Vita………………………….……………………………….……………...... ix List of Tables………………………….…………………………….……………...... xiv List of Figures ………………………….……………………………….……………... xv Chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………….……………………………….….… 1 Problem Statement…..…………………….……………………………….….…. 4 Objectives of the Study ………………………...………………………………. 12 Research Questions…………………….……………………………….….……. 13 Significance of the Study………………………………………...... 13 Definitions of Key Terms……………………………………………………….. 15 Assumptions of the Study ……………………..…………………………….….. 16 Limitations of the Study ……..…………………………………………………... 16 Organization and Overview of Chapters ……….……..…………………………. 18

Chapter 2: The Review of the Literature…………………….………………………… 19 Introduction …………………….……………………………….….……………. 19 A Social View of Literacy ………………………..…………………………….... 20 Multiple Literacies …………………….……………………………….…...21 Uses and Purposes of Literacy ………..…………………………………….22 Summary ……………………..…………………….……………………… 24 Literacy Practices Outside of School ……………………………………………. 25 Overview…………………………………………………………………… 25 Why Out-of-school Literacy? ……………………………………………... 26 A Blurred Distinction between Academic and Out-of-school Literacy Practices…………………………………….…………………….………… 27 Studies on Out-of-school Literacy Practices in L1………………….………29 Studies on Out-of-school Literacy Practices in L2………………….………34 Summary………………….…………………………….…………………...38

Theoretical and Research Perspectives of L2 Literacy………………….……… 40 Overview………………….…………………………….…………………. 40 Unique Characteristics of Language and Literacy Learning: Immigrant students………………….…………………………….……………………. 40 Literacy Transfer: From L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1 Literacy ……….…...42 Technology and Literacy: A Current and Future Issues of Recent Immigrants………………….…………………………….…………………44 Online versus Print Literacy………………….……………………… 45 Literacy Practices on the Internet: WWW, CMC, Emails……………47 Summary …..…………………….……………………………….…. 50 Summary……………………...……………………………………………..50

Chapter 3: Research Methods, Participants, and Relationships ……….….…………….52 Overview……………………………………...... 52 The Rationale for an Ethnographic Multiple Case Study Approach……………... 53 Research Contexts and Participants ……………………………………………....56 Data Collection and Procedures ……….……..…………………………………...60 Overview………………….…………………………….………………...…60 Data Collection………………….…………………………….……………. 61 Sources of Data ………………………..……………………………...... 62 Data Analysis: Finding Themes and Patterns …………………………….……... 69 Blurring Ethics and Validity ………..…………………………………………...72 Triangulations: Multiple Data Sources and Methods………………….…… 72 Member/Participants Checks.……………………………………………..... 72 Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………... 74 Summary………………….…………………………….………………………...75

Chapter 4: Results and Issues which Emerged from Out-of-school Literacy Checklists 76 Introduction………………….…………………………….…………………….. 76 The Research Participants: Korean Generation 1.5 High School Students …...... 77 Issues Arising from the Out-of-school Literacy Checklist………………….…… 82 Format of the Checklist………………….…………………………….…… 82 Value of the Out-of-school Checklist Data………………….………………84 Findings from Out-of-school Literacy Checklist ………………………………….87 What and How Often They Read and Wrote………………………………..92 Online vs Print Literacy Practices………………….………………………. 94 The Use and Choice of a Language for Literacy Practices………………….103 Unique Characteristics of Literacy Practices………………….…………….107 Summary of the Checklist Findings………………….……………………………111

xii

Chapter 5: Case Studies: Tales of Immigrant Adolescents’ Out-of-school Literacy Practices ………………………………….…………………………….………………. 113 Introduction ……………….……………………………….….…………………..113 Soohee: A Tale of a Newly Arrived Immigrant Girl ...... 117 June: A True Lover of Reading and Writing………………….………………….. 141 Mike: A Tale of an Online Reader, Writer, and Reporter………………….….. 195 Yoon: A Tale of a Situational and Reluctant Reader ………………….…………..217 Elizabeth: A Tale of a Connected Reader/Writer……………….………………... 236

Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion ..…………………….…………………………. 253 Introduction …………………………………………..………………….………. 253 Discussion ………………………………………………………………………...254 Pedagogical Implications …………………………...………………….…………278 Limitations of the Study ……………….…………………………….…………... 283 Suggestions and Recommendations for Future Research………………….…….. 284 Closing Remarks………………….…………………………….…………………286 Appendices APPENDIX A………………….…………………………….………………………… 290 OUT-OF-SCHOOL LITERACY ACTIVITY CHECKLIST.…………………….290 APPENDIX B………………….…………………………….………………………….291 JUNE’S POEM: PAINS OF GROWING UP………………….……………….... 291 APPENDIX C………………….…………………………….…………………………. 292 MIKE’S CYWORLD MINI-HOMEPAGE……………….…………….………..292 APPENDIX D………………….…………………………….………………….………293 ELIZABETH’S CYWORLD MINI-HOMEPAGE...………….…..…………..… 293 APPENDIX E………………….…………………………….………………………… 294 JUNE’S CYWORLD MINI-HOMEPAGE……….……………………………... 294 APPENDIX F………………….…………………………….…………………………. 295 YOON’S CYWORLD MINI-HOMEPAGE ………………….………………… 295 APPENDIX G………………….…………………………….………………………….296 ELIZABETH’S XANGA WEBLOG……………………………………………..296

List of References ………………….…………………………….…………………… 297

xiii

LISTS OF TABLES

Table Page Table 3.1: Background Information of Research Participants……………………….. 59 Table 3.2: Methods and Sources of Data Collection…………………………………. 64 Table 4.1: Type and Frequency of Reading Activities………………………………. 88-89 Table 4.2: Type and Frequency of Writing Activities………………………………... 91

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page Figure 4.1: Soohee’s Literacy Checklist Recorded in Week 7……………………….... 85 Figure 5.1: Soohee’s December Planner……………………………………………… 127 Figure 5.2: A Message in the MSN Instant Messenger………………………………... 144 Figure 5.3: My MSN Contact List……………………………………………………... 174 Figure 5.4: The Front Page Of Welcome To Buckeye City…………………...………... 181 Figure 5.5: A Picture that June took to Capture Her Daily Literacy Practices………… 188 Figure 5.6. A Picture that June took to Capture Her Daily Literacy Practices………… 189

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The nature of literacy is complex. Literacy can take place in diverse contexts for

different purposes in different ways. Also, it can have different meanings and values depending on varying social, cultural, and historical contexts. In addition, literacy activities are individual and social in that some uses and functions of literacy are more

“local and personal” (e.g. personal journal, memos) (Kintgen, Kroll, & Rose, 1988, p. xvii), whereas others are more public and social (e.g., posters, news articles). Sometimes, this complexity of literacy is not recognized, and even the significance of literacy can be taken for granted because these individual and social literacy practices are so deeply embedded in people’s everyday lives.

Furthermore, the notion of literacy has evolved. Previously, literacy was seen as basically encoding (writing) and decoding (reading) skills, but more recently, literacy

scholars have expanded the traditional notion of literacy as reading and writing by

focusing on doing, talking, and thinking about reading and writing (Heath, 1983; Street,

2000) and “ways of knowing particular content, language, and practices” (Johns, 1997, p.

2). As conceptualizations of literacy become more complex, there is a growing need to investigate it in its many dimensions and from multiple perspectives within diverse social, cultural, and historical contexts.

Over the past two decades, literacy researchers (e.g., Gallego & Hollingsworth, 2000,

Levine, 1986; McKay, 1993) have argued for the plurality of literacies, creating a new term, multiple literacies. Kern (1995) roughly defines multiple literacies as “dynamic, socially and historically embedded practices of producing, using, and interpreting texts for variable purposes” (p. 62). That is, people develop literacy “through multiple experiences, in multiple contexts, with multiple text genres (both oral and written), for multiple purposes” (Kern, 1995, p. 67). Nowadays, this conception of multiple literacies seems to be more compelling than ever before because of ongoing demographic changes and technological developments. For instance, an ever-increasing population in American schools speaks more than two languages, and English may well not be the language spoken or read/written in a student’s home environment. Since the 1965 Immigration Act, which “allowed permanent residents and U.S. citizens to sponsor the immigrant process of family members abroad” (Rubinstein-Avila, 2001, p. 3) and an open-admission policy in many U.S. colleges, an unprecedented number of second language (L2) students have been allowed to enter American schools. Given their varying degrees of bilingualism, this

L2 population tends to deal with multiple sets of literacy in their first (L1) and second language (L2). In addition, new technology, in particular computer technology, has created new types of literacy activities (e.g., emailing, online chatting, Internet surfing, etc.) likely to play a role in students’ lives. For instance, today’s students engage in both print and online literacy activities, as opposed to students 30 years ago who dealt with 2

print literacy activities only. It is likely that students nowadays will experience a variety of literacies in their lives, such as academic versus out-of-school literacy, L1 versus L2 literacy, and print versus online literacy. Thus, literacy researchers and teachers should regard literacy as “a multiple rather than a unitary construct” (Hull & Schultz, 2002, p. 20) and consider a variety of “configurations or a plurality of literacies" of students (p. 14).

This complex and multiple nature of literacy becomes a more thorny issue with regards to second language (L2) literacy. L2 literacy is complicated by numerous variables that directly and indirectly influence L2 literacy, such as the relationship between L1 and L2 proficiency, the influence of L1 literacy on L2 literacy activities, differences between students’ formal schooling in L1 and L2, the impact of L1 based learning styles and strategies on L2 learning, and so forth. These intertwined variables make L2 literacy especially complex and unique when compared to L1 literacy. These challenges have encouraged L2 researchers, teachers, and administrators to investigate the acquisition of L2 literacy. More practically, to assist L2 students’ successful academic achievement in American schools, L2 researchers and teachers have conducted research on L2 reading, writing, and reading/writing connections, particularly at the university level. These L2 literacy studies have provided both theoretical and pedagogical insights about L2 students and their acquisition of academic literacy; however, the focus of these studies has been on academic literacy development inside school. As a result, diverse types of literacy practices other than school-based activities (i.e., out-of-school literacy) have been overlooked in L2 literacy studies, and yet these other activities presumably contribute to students’ overall experiences of literacy and may impact on the development of school literacy skills. 3

Problem Statement

As soon as L2 students come to American schools, they are expected to learn

American academic literacy practices because literacy is a key element in academic

achievement. In the context of American schools, literacy is a powerful learning tool and

a significant component of many school subjects (Harklau, 1999; Laak, 1994). At the

same time, it is “an artifact of the broader school culture” (O’Brien, 1998, p. 28). In other

words, reading and writing competence is vital to success at school and to being a

member of any educational discourse community (Eskey, 1993; Ferris & Hedgcock,

1998). Such importance of academic literacy naturally has led L2 researchers and

teachers to focus on issues concerning L2 students’ acquisition of academic literacy. In a

similar vein, a great number of L2 academic literacy studies have been replicated with

different age, ethnic, and linguistic groups in a variety of educational contexts.

Consequently, L2 academic literacy research has increased our understanding of the

acquisition of L2 literacy. However, the research has been confined to literacy practices

that take place within classrooms. This focus, while understandable, has prevented L2

researchers and teachers from carefully exploring other types of literacy practices that L2

students engage in beyond class time and place (e.g., reading comics, keeping a journal,

emailing, online chatting). This suggests, too, that the value of L2 students’ literacy

activities outside school may be underappreciated by teachers, researchers, parents, and

perhaps students themselves. Because the potential significance of out-of-school literacy practices has not been seriously considered, little is known about what, how, and why L2 students read and write once they are out of school, and what they gain from these

activities. As such, it is important to explore L2 students’ out-of-school literacy practices

in order to gain a more comprehensive picture of these students as practitioners of

literacy.

Fortunately, some recent pioneering literacy scholars (Heath, 1983; Schultz, 2002;

Scribner & Cole, 1981; Street, 1984) have begun to recognize the limits of discussions of

academic literacy practices and have shifted their focus toward diverse literacy practices

in a variety of contexts (e.g., home, community), particularly in contexts other than

school. One of the most renowned pioneering researchers, Heath (1980, 1982, 1983), has

emphasized the different uses and functions of literacy within diverse social and cultural

contexts and found that students from different cultural and social backgrounds bring

different skills, values, and knowledge of literacy into their classroom practices. More recently, some studies have shown that students enjoy literacy activities outside school

even if they do not engage in significant academic literacy activities (e.g. Barton &

Hamilton, 1998; Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanic, 2000; Knobel, 1999). Of special interest is

Schultz’s study (2002), which found that in the out-of-school contexts, high school

seniors considered least likely to engage in literacy voluntarily –those at risk for teenage

pregnancy or gang involvement- participated in various literacy activities, particularly in

“more formal or essayist writing” (e.g., writing poems, journals, plays) rather than

“everyday literacy” or “unofficial notes” (p. 358).

While most of these out-of-school literacy studies have been conducted within native

English speaking communities, similar results also have been found in the studies of L2 students’ out-of-school literacy practices. For instance, Skilton-Sylvester (2002) found that a Cambodian immigrant student, Nan, voluntarily engaged in rich and meaningful 5

out-of-school writing activities in spite of her weak academic literacy skills. In general, the findings from studies of out-of-school literacy suggest that researchers should further investigate “the complexity of local, everyday, community practices or literacies outside school settings” (Hull & Schultz, 2002, p. 23). By doing so, literacy researchers and teachers may be able to better understand “possibilities for students within school settings" (Shultz, 2002, p. 360) as well as students’ difficulties with academic literacy inside the classroom (McMillon, 2001); additionally, researchers and teachers can obtain a more thorough understanding of students’ literacy lives as a whole.

Although the examination of out-of-school literacy practices has been recognized as a significant line of research, relatively few researchers have attempted this type of study in both the L1 and L2 contexts. Within major journals on literacy studies (i.e., Reading

Research Quarterly, Journal of Literacy Research, Journal of Research in the Teaching of English, Written Communication), very few published studies have actually dealt with issues related to students’ out-of-school literacy practices (e.g., Leseman & de Jong, 1998;

McCarthey, 1997; Noll, 1998; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Serpell, 1997; Taylor, 1995). And, these studies have primarily focused either on family literacy practices or on classroom literacy activities. Thus, students’ out-of-school literacy practices, especially those generated by students themselves, have not been a primary focus of investigation.

In a similar vein, out-of-school literacy activity in the area of L2 literacy has been under-researched as well. According to Walters (1992), "we are only beginning to learn about the nature of literacy across monolingual English-speaking communities in this culture, and our knowledge of the functions and uses of literacy in non-English-speaking or bilingual communities is even scantier” (pp. 14-15). As a new line of research, out-of- 6

school literacy studies have been predominantly conducted within monolingual English speaking communities; thus, L2 students’ out-of-school literacy practices have not been highlighted. Among the past studies appearing in major L2 journals (e.g. TESOL

Quarterly, TESOL Journal, Journal of Second Language Writing, Modern Language

Journal, Foreign Language Annals) in the past ten years, few have looked at L2 students’ out-of-school literacy practices. However, special attention to out-of-school literacy from the perspective of L2 literacy is needed because L2 students’ out-of-school literacy practices have unique characteristics which may differ from L1 students’ practices. L2 students’ out-of-school literacy practices tend to have special and significant functions and uses because L2 students are “language learners of English” (Goen, Porter, Swanson,

& VanDommelen, 2003, p. 139), and they are likely to have their L1 literacy to some extent. Thus, they may use these activities for language acquisition purposes. For instance, one significant but under-researched L2 group, the adolescent immigrant group, often encounters difficulty while attempting to maintain L1 literacy skills and simultaneously acquire L2 literacy. For this particular L2 group, out-of-school literacy practices may play a vital role in improving overall English proficiency and maintaining their L1 literacy. In fact, Rubinstein-Avila (2001) found that for Latino adolescent immigrants in her study, ‘practicing English’ was one of the three most significant purposes for students’ engagement with either school or out-of-school literacy practices.

In general, L2 students participate in out-of-school literacy activities for fun as well as for learning English, whereas monolingual English speaking students in previous studies have not intended to engage in out-of-school literacy activities to improve English per se.

Therefore, L2 students’ out-of-school literacy practices should be carefully investigated from the perspective of increasing our understanding of the acquisition of both language

and literacy skills in the L2.

In spite of the potential significance of L2 students’ out-of-school literacy, previous

out-of-school literacy studies, regardless of whether they are L1 or L2 studies, have failed

to generate a comprehensive picture of literacy practices outside school in one way or

another. The majority of the out-of-school literacy studies have not investigated such

important variables as (1) what language (L1 or L2) is used for reading, (2) what language (L1 or L2) is used for writing, (3) how the language is used, and (4) what kind of literacy medium (print-based or computer-based) is used and how. Also, previous studies tended to look at either reading or writing, but it is important to consider both reading and writing, given the vital connections between the two skills. Lastly, a global view of out-of-school literacy practices can be obtained only by looking at a variety of literacy practices involving diverse literacy media. Previously, out-of-school literacy studies have, by default, considered only print literacy practices that occur with a pencil and paper. That is, few have considered out-of-school literacy activities using a computer partly because the use of computer technology in literacy activities is a very recent phenomenon. In the current era of high technology, we cannot ignore students’ apparent tendency to engage in online literacy activities, such as the prevalent use of e-mails and

Internet services, both in school and at home. A number of studies have already demonstrated that online literacy activities can constitute a greater portion of

out-of-school literacy practices for L2 students (Lam, 2000). Thus, we cannot fully understand or explain the out-of-school literacy of L2 students without discussing their online literacy activities.

In this dissertation, I focus on the activities of individuals in order to explore and describe the nature of out-of-school literacy experiences in the everyday lives of “special groups and subcultures” (Heath, 1981, p. 44). I look at a unique language group, adolescent immigrants, for several significant reasons. Few in the NCTE (National

Council of Teaching English) or TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other

Languages) professional communities have examined this particular population and their literacy development. Roberge (2003) notes, pointedly, that TESOL scholars have tended to emphasize “foreign-visa students”, and composition scholars have tended to emphasize

“academically under-prepared non-traditional U.S.-born minority students” rather than immigrant students (p. 124), who are commonly defined as those who have voluntarily or involuntarily immigrated to a new country (e.g., the U.S.) for educational, economical, or political purposes. This suggests that immigrant students have been relatively ignored in research and practice. In general, immigrant students are familiar with U.S. culture and schooling and are likely to be fluent in spoken English, unlike international ESL students, but they are still learners of English and need to improve their English literacy skills.

Despite their likely difficulties with and exceptional needs for the acquisition of L1 and

L2 literacy, adolescent immigrants tend to be lumped together with either ESL students or mainstream native English speakers. Their unique educational needs do not seem to be met in school settings. And yet, adolescent immigrant students are often recognized as one of the most complex groups in terms of literacy acquisition because development or 9

maintenance of L1 literacy is vital to acquiring L2 literacy, and vice versa (Cummins,

1979), while opportunities to maintain or develop both literacies are not easy to come by.

Among the many diverse adolescent immigrant groups, Korean American adolescent

immigrants were the focus of this study. Recently, adolescent immigrants in the U.S. are

often called “Generation 1.5”. This English term, “Generation 1.5” or “1.5ers” (Il-Chom-

O-Se in Korean) originated from the Korean American immigrant community in order to

differentiate this particular population from the first generation (their parents) and the second generation (their U.S. born offspring). This term reflects a sense of in- betweenness, such as straddling the two generations, languages, litearcies, and cultures of

Generation 1.5, as well as the difficult positioning between childhood and adulthood.

Based on my working experiences with a range of Korean students in the U. S. (i.e.,

Korean international students, immigrant students, U.S. born students, Korean adopted children), I have learned that Korean immigrant students tend to experience some struggles in terms of linguistic, rhetorical, cultural issues and identity formation. The majority of Korean adolescent immigrant students are “English language learners”

(ELLs) (McKay & Wong, 2000, p. ix) who speak Korean at home and are in the process of learning English. They seem to be fluent English speakers, but some students are likely to be incompetent English readers and make both ESL types of errors (e.g., articles, prepositions) and basic writer types of errors (e.g., forms, styles of writing) in their writing. Sometimes, quite a few students do not know the meaning of an easy word for either language. In addition, immigrant students may experience in “calculating and manipulating just how far they want to go in pushing a particular identity for themselves”

(Leki, 2000, p. 105) and encounter difficulty in identifying themselves as Korean, as 10

American, or as Korean American. Within diverse language learning situations, Korean immigrant students’ literacy activities in English and Korean may connect their desire to become more fluent and competent in English and Korean.

Another reason for selecting Korean adolescents was related to the fact that one of the primary foci in this study was the role of online literacy activities in out-of-school literacy practices. Among recent U.S. immigrant countries (e.g., countries from Asia and

Latin America), Korea has the highest “Internet usage rate in East Asia, outpacing Japan,

China and Taiwan” (Korea Now, 2003, p. 28). According to a report from the

International Technology Union (2003), Korea is “the world’s fifth largest Internet market,” and it has “the third highest Internet penetration in the world and ranks top in

Asia” as of the end of 2002 (p. 1). In education, “every primary and secondary school in

Korea has access to the Internet…Today over 96 percent of all schools have their own web pages, every teacher has their own PC, and 93 percent of Koreans between the ages of 7-19 use the Internet” (p. 39). Since the late 1990s, every elementary school student is required to take ICT (Information and Communication Technology) courses for one hour per week. Middle schools and high schools provide three hours and two hours of optional

ICT training a week, respectively. Overall, Korean students tend to be equipped with a high degree of computer literacy. Given this high level of computer familiarity and activities, Korean adolescent immigrants are possibly more familiar with and exposed to the Internet than any other ethnic immigrants in the U.S.

Lastly, Korean immigrants are one of the largest and fastest growing linguistically and culturally homogeneous immigrant school-age populations (Hahn, 1995).

Interestingly, a recent survey also shows that recent Korean immigrants migrated to the 11

U.S. more for educational purposes than some other ethnic immigrant groups and earlier

Korean immigrants (Shin, 1998). This particular recent immigrant population tends to emphasize the value of education, causing Korean immigrant students to engage in literacy practices in response to family pressure and parental support. These Korean

students may voluntarily engage in diverse and sufficient literacy activities as well. In

this regard, Korean adolescent immigrants could provide especially rich data about the

nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices.

In summary, the recognition of the significance of diverse literacy practices other

than academic literacy has resulted in a need to investigate out-of-school literacy

practices that L2 students participate in. In particular, examining different domains of

literacy practices (e.g. online literacy, print literacy) with different languages (L1, L2)

could reveal the complexity of literacy practices that immigrant students engage in

outside school. Therefore, utilizing a qualitative case study methodology, I conducted this

study to understand the nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices

from a global perspective encompassing diverse literacy activities and possible

connections among them.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study were: (1) to create a portrait of out-of-school literacy

activities of immigrant students, (2) to examine how different domains of literacy

practices (online, print literacy) have evolved in out-of-school literacy environments, (3)

to investigate similarities and differences of out-of-school literacy practices among 1.5

generation students, and (4) to provide insights into academic literacy acquisition by

examining possible relationships between academic and out-of-school literacy practices. 12

Research Questions

This study addressed one general research question: “What is the nature of

immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices?” More specifically, this study

investigated the following 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?

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?

Significance of the study

This research attempted to uncover “many seen but unnoticed acts of reading and

writing” of immigrant students outside school (Hyland, 2002, p. 202). The most

significant contribution of this study is to provide a thick description of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy activities, thereby offering richer and fuller accounts of

the nature of students’ literacy practices outside school. Another contribution of this 13

study is to provide insights into the relationship between academic and out-of-school

literacy practices, which may then shed light on a possible and desirable link between in-

and out-of-school literacy activities. Bridging the two literacy practices may make it possible to connect “literacy learning for school and literacy learning for lives” (Gallego

& Hollingsworth, 2000, p. 1). In addition, linking the two areas of literacy practice may enable us to find ways in which out of school literacy experiences can affect access to and engagement with academic literacy practices. In a more practical sense, if we are able to establish complementary relationships between academic and out of school literacy, then we would be able to generate “a respectful division of labor” (Hull & Schult, 2002, p.

3).

Furthermore, this study is significant because it offers an in-depth understanding of immigrant students and their literacy practices, and thus expands the current knowledge of immigrant students and their language learning. Already, one in every six American secondary school students speaks a language other than English at home (Waggoner,

1999). In light of the significance and growth of this population in America, understanding immigrant students’ language learning is essential to helping them to succeed at school and equipping teachers to assist in that process.

More specifically, this study may help those who work with immigrants in a range of settings. First, classroom teachers, regardless of whether they are mainstream, ESL or bilingual teachers, can obtain a sense of what literacy activities their immigrant students engage in beyond the classroom. With this knowledge, they may be able to connect their students’ out-of-school activities with classroom activities, and thus enhance students’ literacy development. Next, immigrant parents may learn more about what kinds of 14

literacy activities their children experience and thus find ways to support and guide their children’s literacy practices outside school. Lastly, curriculum designers, materials developers, and educational technologists can integrate more voluntary out-of-school literacy materials and activities into in-school literacy materials and activities. In conclusion, a rich description of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices can provide us with insights into the nature of out-of-school literacy practices, which in turn will help in bridging in and out-of-school literacy practices.

Definitions of Key Terms

It is essential to discuss and define key terms and concepts that are central to the study because this provides a sense of how they were used in this research. This section defines a few key terms that were used throughout this study.

(1) Literacy: definitions, functions, and roles of literacy are likely to change

depending on specific contexts where literacy activities take place, but in this

study, literacy is defined as an engagement in the process of comprehending

written texts and writing.

(2) Academic literacy: activities of reading and writing for school purposes.

(3) Out-of-school literacy: activities of reading and writing texts that are not directly

related to school assignments, often occurring for fun or companionship (e.g.,

reading novels, keeping a journal, emailing, Internet surfing, etc.), but also for

practical purposes.

(4) Online literacy: activities of interpreting and producing texts (reading and writing)

with a computer.

(5) Literacy activities: any reading and writing action that participants engage in. 15

(6) Literacy events: in a similar vein to Heath (1983), any situation in which

participants engage in reading, writing, talking about reading and writing, and

further being surrounded by literacy activities.

(7) Literacy practices: “meaning the customary, habitual ways in which people read

and write in their everyday lives” as (Rodby, 1992, p. 27).

(8) Korean American generation 1.5: individuals who are permanent residents of

America from Korea, who were born in Korea or who were born in the U.S. but

raised in Korea, came to the U.S. as school-age children or adolescents, and have

lived in the U.S. for the primary part of their adolescence.

Assumptions of the Study

Several assumptions guided this study. They were:

(1) Participants can identify and discuss their literacy activities that take place in and

outside school.

(2) Participants can reflect upon their previous experiences with L1 and L2 literacy.

(3) Participants engage, to some extent, in literacy activities outside school.

(4) Literacy is important for immigrant students, and they are more inclined to look to

out of school literacy activities.

Limitations of the Study

According to Hull and Schlutz (2002), a number of literacy researchers have raised a

provocative concern: there is “a blurring of the lines separating literate practices in and

out of school” (p. 26). There seems to be a blurred boundary between academic and out-

of-school literacy activities because school-like literacy practices take place outside school, and non-school-like literacy activities take place inside school. For instance, 16

outside school, students may read or write on their own in order to help build literacy skills; inside school, students may use free time to write in a diary or journal, compose poems or love letters, and so forth. Moreover, some academic literacy activities share the characteristics of personal and pleasurable literacy activities out of school. In this sense, the dichotomy between in- and out-of-school literacy seemed inappropriate or even impossible in literacy studies. However, this study was limited to examining any voluntary, non-school related work regardless of a physical location where the activities took place. Thus, out of school literacy activities were clearly distinguished from academic literacy activities. This was partly because it was believed that maintaining this clear distinction between the two domains of literacy enables better study of them.

In terms of a method, it was impossible to observe every literacy activity that participants engage in outside school, but my intimate relationships with participants through tutoring helped me portray participants’ literacy activities in rich detail. Further, this study examined only several cases of individual immigrant students, and I did not attempt to generalize the results from several cases to a whole immigrant group. Lastly, this study emphasizes out-of-school literacy activities, and it does not necessarily suggest clear pedagogical implications regarding how to build a bridge between school literacy and out-of-school literacy activities; however, the knowledge of the relationships between the two literacy activities can provide a glimpse into ways of connecting in- and out-of-school literacy activities.

Organization and Overview of Chapters

This dissertation consists of six chapters. This first chapter broadly signals the parameters of this research by identifying problems and gaps and defining several crucial concepts and terms. In the following chapter (Chapter 2), I review the pertinent literature that encompasses the theories and research related to out-of-school literacy practices.

Chapter 3 then examines ethnographic multiple case studies as a methodological approach and discusses the specific methods and techniques employed to collect, analyze, and interpret the data for this study. Also, I elaborate on my role as a researcher and tutor as well as my relationships with the participants. Next, Chapter 4 discusses findings and issues which emerged, particularly from out-of-school literacy checklists research participants updated over a six-month period. The brief discussion of major findings in

Chapter 4 enables us to develop some sense of the complexity, uniqueness, and richness of these literacy practices that are further examined and described in Chapter 5, the case studies chapter. Chapter 5 recounts the tales of five research participants (Soohee, June,

Mike, Yoon, and Elizabeth) and their encounters with literacy in out-of-school settings.

This chapter is devoted to creating individual portraits and rich accounts of each of these adolescent immigrant students and his or her out-of-school literacy practices. Finally, In

Chapter 6, I discuss the findings in this study while situating my research within the

larger field of literacy studies. In the end, I suggest pedagogical implications and future

research possibilities for both classroom and out-of-school literacy practices.

CHAPTER 2

THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

In seeking to provide a global picture of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy activities, this research explores and discusses the nature of immigrant students’ literacy practices outside of school. In order to demonstrate how and where this study connects to the previous work in the field of literacy, I review a number of studies that have investigated a variety of theoretical and practical perspectives of literacy. In the first section, I address basic issues on literacy from a social view of literacy. Then, the second section focuses on studies of out-of-school literacy practices. Lastly, I discuss a number of significant issues occurring with immigrant students and their literacy learning, especially literacy transfer and technology and literacy. This review serves a contextual framework of reference for my investigation of the literacy practices of immigrant adolescent students. More specifically, this section is an important foundation for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data.

A Social View of Literacy

The two most commonly accepted views of literacy are literacy as skills and literacy as a social practice. Within the view of literacy as skills, literacy is defined as a set of encoding and decoding skills. Literacy is autonomous, cognitive, and individual skills and abilities. In this sense, academic literacy is seen as “a school-taught and classroom- learned collection of skills” (Cook-Gumperz, 1986, p. 2). This view of literacy as skills has been the most conventional and widely accepted in general; however, challenging this cognitive and psychological view of literacy, ethnographic literacy researchers have viewed literacy as a social practice. According to the social view of literacy, literacy is a social, cultural, and historical context-bound set of life-long practices in which each individual’s needs vary with time and place (Street, 1993). Pioneers of the social view,

Scribner and Cole (1981), addressed a shift from a psychological to a social paradigm in terms of understanding literacy and conducting literacy studies. This shift is explicitly articulated in the following oft-cited quote:

instead of focusing exclusively on the technology of a writing system and its reputed consequences...we approach literacy as a set of socially organized practices which make use of a symbol of system and a technology for producing and disseminating it. Literacy is not simply knowing how to read and write a particular script but applying this knowledge for specific purposes in specific contexts of use. The nature of these practices, including, of course, their technical aspects, will determine the kinds of skills ("consequences") associated with literacy (Scribner & Cole, 1981, p. 236).

As a leading voice of criticism of the skills model, Street (1984, 1995) offers a helpful comparison between two views of literacy, what he calls “autonomous” versus

“an ideological model of literacy.” In the autonomous model of literacy, literacy can be reduced to sets of skills that can be broken apart into isolated components. Such skills are

seen as neutral technology that can be detached from social and cultural contexts. This

model assumes that these literacy skills can be measured by tests, and that the results

accurately reflect students’ cognitive skills in literacy. The greatest problem of this view

is that it suggests literacy can be defined separately from the social, political, and

ideological contexts, and that literacy consists of isolable and separate sub-skills (Street,

1984). In contrast, in the ideological model, he attempts “to understand literacy in terms of concrete social practices and to theorize it in terms of the ideologies in which different literacies are embedded” (Street, 1984, p. 95). Since literacy is the product of socially and culturally embedded practices (Cook-Gumperz, 1986; McKay, 1993; Street, 1984), scholars holding this view have emphasized “the historical, economic, political, and

socio-cultural context in which the learner operates” (McKay, 1993, p. 8). In addition, it

is important to look into how literacy is used and valued in social settings (McKay, 1993).

This dissertation research is grounded within this social view of literacy and examines

Korean adolescent students’ literacy practices within social and cultural contexts.

Multiple Litearcies

Within a social view of literacy, one compelling notion is “literacy is always

multiple: there are many literacies” (Gee, 1990, p. xvii). Given that literacy operates

within a changing and diverse society, a number of literacy scholars have suggested the

notion of “plurality of literacy” (McKay, 1993; O’Brien, 1998, p. iv), especially since the

work of Heath (1983) and Street (1984). To capture multiple social and cultural

constructions of literacy in practice, multiple literacies seem to be an apt term and

necessary concept.

This notion of multiple literacies has become especially important for a quickly

growing population of speakers of several languages. Globally, more and more people in

the world are exposed to more than one language, and they may speak more than one language in their daily lives (Barton, 1994). Locally, American educators and researchers have worked with multiple nationalities and cultures. Clearly, more and more people engage in “multiple sets of literacy practices” in their daily lives (Kern, 2000, p. 75).

Those who experience multiple languages and literacies tend to take “multiple paths” to the acquisition of different languages and are equipped with different degrees of expertise in these languages and literacies (Martin-Jones & Jones, 2000, p. 7).

In addition, multiple literacies must be a very important and demanding notion in the current technological era. The development of computer technology has produced a new literacy context and varying types of literacy activities (e.g., emailing, instant-messaging,

Net-surfing). According to McKay (1995), “different contexts demand a different type of literacy expertise" (p. 421). Put simply, people do not read a magazine on the Internet the same way as a print-based magazine. Thus, a conception of multiple literacies is important for current and future individuals who experience multiple languages and literacies across multiple literacy contexts. A thorough understanding of multiple sets of literacies may help teachers enable their students to make a smooth transition to meet various demands for different uses and purposes of literacy in their day-to-day lives.

Uses and Purposes of Literacy

In trying to understand the nature of literacy, a number of literacy researchers have paid attention to actual uses, purposes, and functions of literacy within social contexts. It is of key importance to understand “contexts, purposes, and processes” of literacy in 22

examining literacy (Mikulecky, 1990, p. 26). Heath (1980) also argues that “ways of

asking clarification of the USES of written materials are often far more important in daily

out-of-school life than are questions about the content [original emphasis].” (p. 446)

Heath (1980) came up with seven types of uses of literacy in her work, The functions and

uses of literacy:

(1) Instrumental (literacy provides practical information), (2) social-interactional (literacy provides information pertinent to social relationships), (3) news-related (literacy provides information about third parties or distant events), (4) memory- supportive (literacy serves as a memory aid), (5) substitutes for oral messages, (6) provision of permanent record (literacy is used for legal records), and (7) confirmation (literacy provides support for attitudes or ideas) (pp. 128-129).

This set of diverse literacy uses demonstrates that literacy is used for diverse purposes in

a broad social context, not within a limited setting (e.g., school).

Several L1 and L2 literacy researchers examined the uses and purposes of literacy in different settings. According to Wallace (1986), literacy is needed for “survival, learning, citizenship, maintaining personal relationships, and personal pleasure” (p. 8). Similarly,

Klassen (1991) identifies the uses of literacy within the home; literacy is used for paperwork, correspondence, school work, religion, and leisure. Mikulecky (1990) lists five primary purposes for adults to read in order of importance: “to keep up with what is going on, for relaxation and out-of-school enjoyment, to find out how to get something done, to study for out-of-school and occupational advancement, and to discuss with friends what has been read” (p. 28). One important commonality among all these studies

(Klassen, 1991; Mikulecky, 1990; Wallace, 1986) is that literacy is used for leisure or pleasure. Pleasurable reading (e.g., reading for fun) is one distinctive characteristic separating out-of-school literacy from academic literacy. Students “pick up and put down

a book or a story at will” (Resnick, 2000, p. 38). According to Resnick (2000), personal goals of pleasurable literacy activities range from “escape and imagining oneself in more satisfying conditions (as in reading romance stories; see Radway, 1984), to stimulating and resolving curiosity (as in reading mysteries), to penetrating cultures and life situations to which one does not have personal access” (p. 37). This notion of pleasurable literacy seems to concur with the notion of self-initiated, self-motivated, self-sustained, or non-directed literacy.

Whereas all these uses and purposes of literacy described above were examined in

English-monolingual settings, Weinstein-Shr (1993) and Rubinstein-Avila (2001) examined the uses of and purposes for literacy for immigrant bilingual families in the

United States (Hmong families in Weinstein-Shr’s work; Mexican families in Rubinstein-

Avila’s work). For an immigrant population, literacy seemed to serve similar purposes as reported in other L1 literacy studies, but literacy played additional important roles in negotiating a new identity within a new society, resisting marginalization (Rubinstein-

Avila, 2001), and mediating between different cultural groups (Weinstein-Shr, 1993).

Overall, immigrant English Language Learners (ELLs) are likely to engage in multiple literacies for unique purposes, unlike monolingual English-speakers. Learning more about the uses and purposes of their literacy practice enables us to understand the nature of their literacy practices.

Summary

In this section, I have reviewed basic issues related to literacy and literacy studies, such as a social view of literacy, a notion of multiple literacies, and uses and purposes of literacy. Clearly, it is important to take into account various contexts (social, historical, 24

and cultural contexts) where literacy takes place in order to explore literacy, regardless of whether it is L1 or L2 literacy. In the next section, I focus particularly on out-of-school literacy practices in L1 and L2.

Literacy Practices Outside of School

Overview

Literacy is woven throughout people’s lives from schooling to everyday learning and work. However, “successful schooling is largely measured in terms of abilities at literacy, and levels of literacy in different countries are often measure in terms of the number of years of schooling children have received. In many ways learning to read and write is seen as the point of education” (Barton, 1994, p. 176). Thus, many literacy scholars have primarily highlighted academic literacy practices; this knowledge base of academic literacy contributes to studies on literacy in general, but provides a partial understanding of the nature of students’ literacy practices.

A few leading scholars have begun to recognize and acknowledge the importance of literacy outside of school, for instance, literacy practices at home, in the community, and in after-school programs. Barton (1994) points out the advantages of investigating out-of- school literacy, in saying that “everyday literacy gives a richer view of literacy which demands a new definition of literacy, a new way of thinking about what is involved in reading and writing”(p. 5). In this spirit, this section attempts to synthesize theoretical and research perspectives on students’ literacy practices beyond the classroom. This section is organized into three subsections. I begin by articulating the significance of understanding out-of-school literacy practices. Then, I will acknowledge a blurred

distinction between academic and out-of-school literacy practices. Finally, I will discuss

studies on out-of-school literacy in L1 and in L2.

Why Out-of-school Literacy?

In education, researchers and educators started to search for the sources of students’

poor academic achievement and literacy development while questioning whether it is due

to the lack of literacy practices or possible differences of literacy practices at home and

school. This question has led to great attention being paid to students’ literacy practices outside school. As a result, a number of literacy researchers (Cazden et al.,1972; Resnick,

2000; Wells, 1986) have found that many students’ literacy practices (e.g., literacy tasks) at home are quite different from their literacy practices at school. This finding has encouraged more studies to explore and understand mismatches or incongruities between school and out-of-school literacy practices, which has led to highlighting studies on out- of-school literacy practices.

Another reason for paying attention to out-of-school literacy practices is that students’ literacy practices in the classroom are still part of their literacy practices.

Schools are "too isolated from everyday ways of using the written word to serve as the only source of literacy competence in society" (Martin-Jones & Bhatt, 1998, p. 37). A classroom is “only one of several forces affecting individual literacy" (McKay, 1993, p. xiii). In addition, students actively engage a wide range of “individual and collective literacy practices” in other domains beyond school in their daily lives (Martin-Jones, &

Bhatt, 1998, p. 37). Thus, it is necessary to look at students’ diverse literacy practices in

order to obtain a global view of their literacy practices as a whole.

Recently, a growing body of research has investigated individual literacy activities that flourish in their daily lives. For instance, adults engage in writing as part of their daily lives (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Barton & Ivanic, 1991). Adolescents engage in literacy activities outside of school (Camitta, 1993; Finders, 1997; Mahiri & Sablo, 1996).

In addition, more recent studies, with a broadened notion of text, have looked at Internet- related literacy activities (Knobel, 1999; Lankshear, 1997). As such, the value of out-of- school literacy practice has been recognized, and more and more out-of-school literacy studies have appeared in the literature.

A Blurred Distinction between Academic and Out-of-School Literacy Practices

Out-of-school literacy is often regarded as an antonym of, or different from, in- school or academic literacy in terms of literacy activities, uses, and purposes of literacy

(Farr, 1994; Gregory, 1994; Mikulecky, 1990). Extreme anecdotal evidence dichotomizes

“reading in school, which they often view as boring and irrelevant, and reading outside of school, which they often view as useful and enjoyable" (O'Brien, 1998, p. 29). In addition, school literacy activities are seen as important but boring, and out-of-school activities are seen as “frivolous, remedial, or incidental” but fun (Hull & Schlutz, 2002, p. 3).

However, recently, a provocative concern has been raised about the dichotomous view of academic versus out-of-school literacy practices. According to Hannon (2000),

“boundaries between different literacies may not be as easy to draw in practice as they are in theory" (p. 35). This statement is true for a blurred boundary between academic and out-of-school literacy. This blurred distinction has been already mentioned in several ethnographic literacy studies. For instance, Barton (1994) found in his Literacy in the

Community research project in England that it was not easy to separate literacy practices 27

into three literacy domains (i.e., school, home, and work) because sometimes school, home, and work literacies all mingle together. Similarly, Street and Street (1991) started their project with an assumption about a clear distinction between school and community literacy practices; however, when they recognized the extent of similarities among the literacy practices in school, home, and community, their dichotomy turned out to be quite unhelpful. Also, in exploring the differences between academic and personal literacy,

Mlynarczyk (1991) claims that a clear-cut distinction between the two “may not hold up” when it comes to examining actual literacy practices (p. 17). For instance, school assignments that are completed mostly outside school include “characteristics of academic writing” as well as “elements of personal writing” (Mlynarczyk, 1991, p. 18).

Mlynarczyk goes on to argue that the dichotomy is too simplistic to explore a variety of literacy practices in diverse settings. As can be seen, it is not easy to distinguish academic from out-of-school literacy practices because of an overlap between the two. Upon examining out-of-school literacy practices, it is important to be aware that there is a blurred distinction between the two literacy practices (Hull & Schultz, 2002).

The possible existence of the blurry area between the two literacy practices provides significant theoretical and pedagogical insights; first, we may be able to bridge academic and out-of-school literacy practices by examining the overlap and the possible relationships between the two. In relation to this bridging issue, quite a few literacy scholars who have emphasized the potential of out-of-school literacy have raised some questions: “Will the understanding of out-of-school literacy help us rethink about literacy teaching and learning in the classroom context? If so, how?” (Hull & Schultz, 2002) and

“How can out-of-school learning supplement and support the work of school?” (Schultz 28

& Fecho, 2000). We may come up with answers to these questions by envisioning a range of possible relationships between the two literacy practices. More specifically, linking the two literacy practices may enable us to find ways in which out-of-school literacy experiences can affect access to academic literacy practices. Additionally, if academic and out-of-school literacy practices establish a complementary relationship by bridging the two literacy practices, we may be able to have “a respectful division of labor” (Hull & Schluts, 2002, p. 3). Also, if we make schools “a place where writing develops in tandem with other writing experiences beyond the research of the classroom bell” (Schultz & Fecho, 2000, p. 60), students may be able to achieve more complete and diverse literacy practices by experiencing both academic and out-of-school literacy activities. To reiterate, the knowledge of out-of-school literacy practices is valuable as on its own, but when it comes to linking it to an understanding of academic literacy practices, its contribution to the literacy field may be greater.

Studies On Out-of-school Literacy Practices in L1

Although the voices of youth are largely absent from the literacy literature, several recent qualitative studies have looked at adolescents’ out-of-school literacy practices across different ethnic groups (Finders, 1997; Mahiri & Sablo, 1996; McCarthey, 1997;

Moje, 2000; Noll, 1998; Schultz; 2002).

Mahiri and Sablo (1996) discussed and analyzed voluntary writing of two African

American students in an urban high school, with a special emphasis on motivations, functions, genres, and themes of their writing. First, they found that these two students

(Troy, Keisha) perceived academic writing activities as irrelevant and inauthentic literacy experiences, and saw a huge gap between their voluntary writing and school writing. The 29

irrelevance of school literacy work to their real life prevented them from engaging in

school-based literacy activities. However, they voluntarily produced extensive writing

outside school. In particular, writing played an important role as “refuge or relief from the problems and pain of their realities” (p. 174). Equally important, writing practices provided them with “a sense of personal status as well as personal satisfaction” (p. 174), which is vital to the process of identity construction. Mahiri and Sablo thus warned that a simple inclusion of “culturally relevant topics or issues” is still partial and temporary, and thus, teachers should make efforts to “gain insights into the nature of their students’ out- of-school literate behaviors and literacy skills” (p. 178). Further, they raised a practical question: whether it is realistic to encourage classroom teachers to incorporate out-of- school types of literacy practices into their class activities. This is an unsolved question in this research, but worth answering in the future.

Schultz’s (2002) recent study is worth mentioning because her study is one of few studies that encompass both in- and out-of-school literacy practices with an attempt to describe the relationships between the two. She found that more than half of the students that she interviewed engaged in writing outside school. For instance, the students

primarily wrote poems, letters, and journals, and occasionally wrote plays, fiction and

non-fiction prose (p. 358). Interestingly, the adolescent students in her study were not

willing to share their writing with their peers as were the American Indian adolescent students in Noll (1998)’s study.

From three focal high school seniors, Schultz found that writing provided a unique and important meaning for each of the participants. For instance, to a pregnant student,

Ellen, writing was a private practice to explore her personal issues and make sense of her 30

life in the moment. Next, writing helped Luis (born into a Mexican gang) to take a critical stand in describing harsh society and racism that he encountered in his daily life. Finally, writing played a role as a bridge between home and school literacy practices to Denise

(African American female athlete). Despite her resistance to her identity as a writer, her teacher encouraged Denise to participate in academic literacy activity and allowed her to use her out-of-school writing for school assignments. Extending her longitudinal study,

Schultz followed these three participants after their graduation from high school. One striking finding was that none of them continued to write in such a constant manner after graduating from high school. The reasons for this phenomenon are still debatable, but it seems to indicate that writing played a special role during adolescence.

Similar to Schultz’s study, Camitta (1993) focused particularly on the roles and meanings of writing activities (i.e., out-of-school, non-directed writing) in adolescent students’ lives. In a longitudinal study of the vernacular writing practices of high school students in Philadelphia, Camitta found that writing played a vital role in expressing themselves and building and maintaining relationships in their social lives.

Interestingly, adolescent students in these studies (i.e., Camitta, 1993; Mahiri &

Sablo, 1996; Schultz, 2002) wrote about a variety of topics and themes. For instance, in

Camitta’s (1993) study, the students wrote about three significant common topics that reflected their African American youth culture: “music, sports, and fashions.” In contrast,

Mahiri and Sablo (1996) found that Keisha and Troy, African American prolific writers, were interested in addressing more political issues such as drugs, abortion, racism, poverty, and violence. In Schultz’s (1996) earlier study, four urban high school females spoke and wrote about their present tough life as well as their near future. For instance, 31

some reflected on the present, and others imagined or planned intended careers and their

future through writing. As such, adolescent students’ writing topics varied from personal

to social. At a pedagogical level, by considering topics that interest students, teachers may be able to mitigate the discontinuity between their students’ real lives and their lives in school.

While all these studies (Camitta, 1993; Mahiri & Sablo, 1996; Schultz, 2002) have examined African American adolescents, Noll (1995a, 1998, 2000) has been devoted to looking at American Indian young adolescents. Noll (1998) portrayed two American

Indian students’ (7th grader Daniel, 8th grader Zonnie) uses of literacy as well as functions

or roles that literacy served for them. Notably, their notion of literacy practices was very broad in that they embraced literacy experiences that were influenced by art, dance, and

music that reflected upon several cultures in which they participated, such as American

Indian culture, school culture, adolescent culture, and mainstream pop culture. Similar to

other studies (e.g., Lam, 2000; Mahiri & Sablo, 1996; Schultz, 2002; Skilton-Sylvester,

2002), literacy played a vital role in exploring their sense of identity (i.e., American

Indian identity), expressing their feelings and ideas, and examining social and critical

issues (e.g., prejudice, racism, discrimination). In addition, their multiple literacies were

supported in out-of-school environments (i.e., home, Indian community). This study

provided important pedagogical implications, particularly for students from different

linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Noll asked for teachers’ keen awareness of their

students’ previous and current learning experiences both in and outside school. She

encouraged teachers to understand their students and develop a “culturally responsive

curriculum” based on their learning about students’ “funds of knowledge (Moll & 32

Greenberg, 1990)” or “culturally specific information” (Deyhle & Swisher, 1997)” (Noll,

1998, p. 230).

All the studies discussed so far have been conducted in American education settings, but there are a few studies that investigated out-of-school literacy in other countries. In her ethnographic multiple case studies in Australia, Knobel (1999) examined relationships between formal learning and students' everyday lives and looked for effective relationships between them. She found that her four adolescents participants engaged in diverse and creative uses of language while each had different purposes for their involvement in literacy. Knobel discovered that participants’ lives outside school seemed more meaningful and purposeful for them than their lives inside school. For instance, Nicholas used language and literacy to maintain a good relationship with his male friends and keep a healthy membership within his social group. To Jacque, literacy practices were meaningful as a devout member of Jehovah’s witnesses. Two female students, Layla and Hannah, used literacy to criticize and parody popular culture.

Particularly, Hannah used literacy to engage in Drama Group performances. Clearly, outside of school, these young students exhibited no apparent language deficits or disinterest. One interesting twist in this study was that technology, particularly online literacy practices out-of-school, appeared throughout the study. Knobel noted that online literacy practice was not an expected theme at the very beginning of the study; however, online literacy activities turned out to play a vital role in these adolescent students’ literacy lives as the research progressed. This issue of literacy and technology will be elaborated in detail in the next section on literacy and technology.

Unlike these qualitative out-of-school literacy studies conducted in English-speaking

communities, Gibbons, Lascar, and Morales (1998) conducted quantitative research to

investigate relationships between the frequency of use of various home literacy practices

(such as newspaper reading, consultation of encyclopedias, and the discussion of serious

topics demanding complex registers) and the development of literacy, as measured by

tests of academic register, grammar and vocabulary, and basic literacy (spelling and

accents). They found a statistically significant relationship between home literacy

practices and the development of academic literacy. They also revealed that literacy

practices that would not normally be regarded as valuable as school literacy practices can play a significant role in the development of academic literacy. Thus, this result suggests that both “serious” school-based reading and “light reading” (e.g., magazines, comics) can play a critical role in enriching literacy experience and developing literacy.

Taken together, a few literacy scholars, over the past decade, have focused on adolescent students’ out-of-school literacy practices. The majority of these studies have looked at writing activities and found a gap between academic and out-of-school literacy practices. Further, there are a few studies that examined the relationships between the two literacy practices and bridging the two. However, we still need to understand out-of- school literacy practices with regard to more diverse populations (L1, L2 students), literacy activities (reading, writing), and literacy medium (print, online).

Studies on Out-of-school Literacy Practices in L2

In the bilingual context, Martin-Jones and Bhatt (1998) strongly argue for a need to turn literacy researchers and teachers’ gaze beyond the boundaries of schools to build a fuller understanding of the “scope of bilingual learners’ involvement with literacy” (p. 34

37). Fortunately, a few very recent studies have examined L2 students’ literacy practices in diverse setting. In this section, I emphasize out-of-school literacy studies in L2.

Some literacy scholars have focused particularly on immigrants’ out-of-school literacy practices. Both Hardman (1998) and Skilton-Sylvester (1997, 2002) examined

Cambodian immigrant families living in Philadelphia. Whereas Hardman focused on adults’ literacy practices, Skilton-Sylvester examined young female children. In her recent study, Skilton-Sylvester (2002) focused purposefully on one female student, named Nan, because of her dramatic differences between school and out-of-school literacy practices. Nan engaged voluntarily in rich and meaningful out-of-school writing activities while she failed with academic literacy. Findings in this study have echoed some results from L1 out-of-school literacy studies. First, Nan performed several diverse genres of writing. She primarily wrote about her difficult realities and occasionally wrote

about other common topics (seemingly mundane and fantasy topics). Second, her orality

as a form of story-telling and performance was her strength, and her orality and literacy

were tightly connected in her literacy practices. Furthermore, Nan’s engagement with

writing had been intertwined with her identity construction, like the adolescent students

in Schultz’s (2002) and Camitta’s (1993) studies. In particular, Nan’s writing reflected

her ambivalence about being Cambodian and being American. The issue of writing

practices and identity construction has emerged in recent literacy studies and is worth

examining, especially with respect to bilingual and multilingual students.

Another interesting study investigated the online literacy practices of an immigrant

student. Lam (2000) examined a Chinese immigrant teenager, named Almon, especially

his L2 (English) literacy practice and textual identity. Almon corresponded with a 35

transnational group of peers on the Internet. Through this correspondence, Almon formed his textual identity as well as developed L2 (English) literacy and increased L2 literacy

uses. His unique out-of-school literacy practices, such as online chatting, emailing, and

creating and maintaining his homepage, helped him with “visible improvement” of

English literacy (p. 467). In addition, Almon could acquire “the global English of

adolescent pop culture” rather than allegedly standard English by interacting with peers

over the world on the Internet (p. 475). His acquisition of this type of English literacy

seems to be relevant, useful, and appropriate for the Internet users in the 21st century.

Perhaps, Almon’s improvement of English proficiency through the Internet involvement

may provide some insights on the potential for maintaining or improving immigrant

students’ first language and L1 literacy through online literacy practices.

Although the number of students who engage in online literacy activities has

gradually increased, online literacy activities within certain student populations do not

appear to be as popular as print literacy activities. For example, in looking at both in and

out-of-school literacy practices, Rubinstein-Avila’s dissertation study (2001) found that

Latino immigrant students engaged in a variety of literacy activities in and outside school,

but they did not engage in email correspondence as often as other literacy activities (e.g.,

writing stories, reading/writing poems, graffiti newspapers).

This study revealed several interesting findings. From quantitative data, Rubinstein-

Avila found that mother’s education and self-assessed L2 skills have impacted students’

overall literacy engagement in terms of range and frequency. From qualitative data, she

identified three primary purposes for literacy engagement: (1) entertainment, (2) seeking

information, and (3) practicing English. Entertainment and seeking information are quire 36

common purposes for literacy engagement in general, but ‘practicing English’ seems to

be an ELL-specific purpose. This suggests that for those who are in the process of learning L2 (English), literacy activities in- and outside school may be aimed at

improving English. In other words, their voluntary literacy activities outside school may

play a crucial role in improving their overall English proficiency or literacy. Lastly, this study revealed that the immigrant teenagers engaged in L1 (Spanish) literacy activities, such as reading the Bible as well as reading and writing letters to their relatives. This indicates that these immigrant students engaged in different kinds of literacy activities in a different language (L1 or L2) for different purposes, suggesting that the choice of language (e.g., English or Spanish) for out-of-school literacy activities is an important issue to understand in defining the nature of literacy practices, particularly for immigrant students.

Lastly, in terms of research methods, quite a few out-of-school literacy studies have employed an ethnographic approach including participant observations, semi-structure

interviews, the collection of artifacts, field-notes and self-reflexive research journals. As a leading voice in this type of research, Heath cited Szwed (1981) in saying that

“participation and observation in the lives of social groups can provide a more comprehensive picture of the uses of literacy and its component skills" (Heath, 1980, p.

127). That is, an ethnographic approach enables researchers to develop richer and fuller accounts of how reading and writing are put to use by people in a variety of settings (e.g., schools, homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces). At the same time, many out-of-school literacy studies have employed case studies. In particular, multiple cases can provide

variations and similarities across diverse cases, and thus, ethnographic case studies are appropriate for investigating the nature of literacy practices in diverse settings.

Summary

The L1 and L2 out-of-school literacy studies addressed so far seem to tell us several important things. First, those who do not engage actively in school literacy activities may voluntarily participate in a variety of literacy activities beyond the classroom. Students, regardless of whether they are L1 or L2 learners, have their own ways of adapting with multiple literacies. For instance, some simply enjoy reading or seeking information.

Others write to escape from the present or imagine their future. Sometimes, students are eager to practice English by engaging in literacy practices. When adolescents involve varying literacy activities outside, they are likely to experience discontinuities between literacy practices in and outside school (Resnick, 2000). This simple fact has encouraged teachers to pay more attention to understanding students’ literacy practices beyond the classroom and to find “explicit ways to demonstrate their support for the values, beliefs, and practices in which their students are engaged in their lives outside of school”

(Fleming, 2000, p. 191). In addition, teachers should “take a proactive position to connect classroom practices with children's literacy experiences outside school" (Li, 2002, p. ii) and recruit “out-of-school means of children’s talking and thinking as a way into school- based and academic literacies” (Gallego & Hollingsworth, 2000, p. 9). In this way, we can make help ensure that non-school literacy experiences impact the development of academic literacy practices.

In this section, I mainly introduced previous studies concerning out-of-school literacy practices in monolingual and bilingual contexts. Studies on L2 students’ out-of- 38

school literacy are still in the very beginning stage of L2 literacy studies. Thus, it is important to conduct this type of literacy research in the field of L2 literacy. In the next section, I will discuss issues concerning research and practices of L2 literacy.

Theoretical and Research Perspectives of L2 Literacy

Overview

In the two preceding sections, I discussed various issues of literacy, particularly out- of-school literacy practices. In this section, I will focus more on theoretical and research perspectives of ELLs and their literacy acquisition (i.e., literacy transfer, literacy and technology). Before discussing these theoretical and research perspectives of L2 literacy,

I will begin with an overview of unique characteristics of immigrant ELLs and their language and literacy learning, given that the research participants in this dissertation study are immigrant adolescent ELLs in the United States. Next, I will address the issue of literacy transfer: how two languages and literacies (L1, L2) interact between each other in the process of developing L2 and maintaining/losing L1. Lastly, I will discuss a relatively new issue, literacy and technology, given that widespread use of computers has seemingly influenced the development and uses of L2 literacy. All these theoretical issues (i.e., literacy transfer, literacy and technology) are manifested in immigrants’ experiences in acquiring L2 literacy and maintaining L1 literacy.

Unique Characteristics of Language and Literacy Learning: Immigrant Students

Recently, great attention has been paid to adolescent immigrant students, also known as 1.5 generation students because this group has become more visible in American education contexts. In recognition of the diversity within this population, Roberge (2003) provides a broad and flexible definition of 1.5 generation, includeing all the following subgroups (Roberge, 2003, p. 109):

(1) “in-migrants” from U.S. territories such as Puerto Rich (Zentela, 2000); (2) so-

called “parachute kids” who come to live with relatives in the U.S. and attend school

here (Zhou, 1998); (3) children of transnational families who experience multiple

back-and-forth migrations between their home country and the U.S.; (4) U.S.-born

children of immigrants in linguistic enclave communities (Portes & Manning, 1986);

and (5) immigrants who are speakers of “Other Englishes” (Nero, 1997).

Generally, 1.5 generation students have opportunities to develop academic literacy in

L1 and L2, but sometimes their unique experiences in learning two languages and

literacies make them straddle two languages, literacies, cultures, and even identities.

Surprisingly, some adolescent immigrant students may not be able to pinpoint their native

language because of the mixed use of two languages (Goen et al, 2003). These adolescent

immigrant students are in the process of learning English while attempting to maintain or

continue to improve their first language. Furthermore, these immigrant students face

double challenges in that they need academic literacy skills to achieve academic success

and should learn “general English” (Raimes, 1991, p. 420) to pursue a career and establish their lives in the United States (Ferris & Hedgecock, 1993; Raimes, 1991). As

Frodesen (2003) argues, this population should be considered on a continuum rather than

be treated as one homogeneous group. Thus, this dissertation study examined possible

differences of literacy practices among Generation 1.5 students (i.e., Korean adolescent

immigrants).

Beyond these general challenges 1.5ers face, Asian generation 1.5 students often face

another type of pressure or prejudice, given that they are perceived as a model minority in

American society. This model minority discourse emerged in the 1960s in the United 41

States, extolling the success of Asian Americans and Asians. They are characterized as

“hardworking, disciplined, and academically inclined,” and the result of the model

minority discourse is an immense emphasis on academic achievement in Asian

immigrant families (McKay & Wong, 1996, p. 586). Asian adolescent immigrants are

likely to feel pressured to meet such expectations.

This pressure for Asian immigrants is well manifested in Korean immigrant groups.

According to Sung Il Kim (1989), the most significant reason for recent Korean

immigration is to seek educational opportunities for their children as well as for the male

head of the households (cited in Shin, 1998). In addition, a survey of Korean American

immigrants shows that “English acquisition is ranked as the highest priority” (Shin, 1998, p. 69). It seems obvious that recent Korean immigrant families have valued education; thus, school-age Korean American immigrants may feel pressured to achieve academic success from their home, school, and even from the Korean community. This atmosphere may lead adolescent immigrant students to engage more literacy practices (L1, L2) outside school. For instance, they may experience education-related literacy activities throughout their daily lives. In addition, upon developing L2 literacy, immigrant students may attempt to maintain L1 literacy. These issues that are likely to occur to immigrant

ELLs will be further discussed in the following section.

Literacy Transfer: From L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1 Literacy

Since any second language speaker already has their first language, whether it is

well-developed or not, their L2 literacy development must be influenced to some extent

by their L1 literacy in either a positive or negative way. Many L2 literacy studies have

looked at L1 and L2 literacy transfer, either from L1 to L2 or from L2 to L1; Cummins 42

(1981) formulated two hypotheses (interdependence hypothesis, threshold hypothesis) to better explain this phenomenon. The interdependence hypothesis proposes that “the level of L2 competence which a bilingual child attains is partially a function of the type of competence the child has developed in L1 at the same time when intensive exposure to

L2 begins” (p. 233). According to the threshold hypotheis, unless bilingual children or

ELLs achieve a certain level of L2 proficiency, their L1 literacy abilities or strategies are less likely to transfer to L2 literacy.

Considerable evidence in support of the interdependence hypothesis has been found over the past several decades. For instance, Cummins (1981) and Thomas and Collier’s studies (1997) demonstrate that ESL students with strong L1 literacy abilities and strategies have a much better chance to learn the L2 faster than those who are not equipped with strong L1 literacy. Put simply, immigrant students who have strong L1 literacy resources tend to better develop their L2 literacy. However, for immigrant students who lack L1 literacy, "transfer to English reading/writing skills from the home language is not likely" (Goen et al, 2003, p. 138).

More recent studies (Friedlander, 1990; Hudelson, 1987; Kobayahi & Rinnert, 1992;

Lanauze & Snow, 1989; Verhoeven, 1994) have examined the interdependence hypothesis from the diverse aspects of literacy. For instance, concepts or skills that are developed in L1 can be relatively easily transferred to L2 literacy. Similarly, transfer of reading habits or experiences has also been found (Dupuy, Tse, & Cook, 1996; Flahive &

Bailey, 1993; Krashen, 1993). For instance, those who enjoy pleasure reading in L1 tend to enjoy reading in L2.

Many L2 writing studies have found evidence of positive transfer between L1 and L2,

in terms of writing abilities, skills, processes, and behaviors (Edelsky, 1982; Jones &

Tetroe, 1987; Raimes, 1985, 1987; Uzawa, 1996; Zamel, 1983). In a similar vein, some

L2 writing scholars (Carson, 1992; Dong, 1999) have also found that L1 literacy learning

strategies and literacy experiences help in enhancing the acquisition of L2 literacy skills

in general. Dong (1999) suggests that L2 writing instructors should be aware of and

attentive to L2 students’ L1 literacy strategies and L1 literacy learning experiences in

order to create effective L2 writing instruction.

In summary, it may be assumed that immigrant students are likely to transfer their L1

literacy abilities, strategies and behaviors to L2 literacy practices; sometimes, their L2 literacy can be transferred to L1 literacy. However, this transfer may not occur automatically, but rather occur only under desirable circumstances. L2 literacy researchers and teachers have searched for the optimal conditions necessary to enhance positive literacy transfer. To generation 1.5ers, literacy transfer may take place in quite a complex manner. If Generation 1.5 students may not continue to improve or maintain their L1 literacy once they come to the United States and acquire L2 literacy, they may lose their L1 literacy abilities, as Carson and Kuehn (1992) have shown. If this is the case, they cannot benefit from using L1 for writing in L2, as seen in Kobayashi and Rinnert’s

(1992) study.

Technology and Literacy: A Current and Future Issue of Recent Immigrants

“Literacy alone is no longer our business. Literacy and technology are. Or so they must become” (Selfe, 1999, p. 3). Today’s students are much more technologically oriented than students were in the past. For instance, students 15 years ago read a paper- 44

back novel, whereas students today read paperback novels as well as Internet novels.

Further, individuals who were considered as literate with a pen-and-paper may not meet the literacy demands of the current technology era (McKay, 1995). However, many literacy studies have still underlined “long-standing assumptions and perspectives that have arisen from print-based literacy” (Labbo & Reinking, 1999, p. 479). That is, literacy has traditionally referred to print literacy only. Recently, literacy scholars have raised critical questions, “what kind of L2 literacy do the students acquire through the computer medium? What happens when the acquisition of L2 print literacy becomes L2 electronic literacy?”(Kramsch et al, 2000, p. 79). These questions call for further studies to investigate the role of the computer in acquiring new literacy (L2) and the evolution of different domains of literacy (online literacy, print literacy) within L2 literacy practices.

According to Hirvela (2004), the computer has become perhaps the primary contact point for learning English among ESL/EFL/immigrant students. Given the significant role of the computer in language learning, this section emphasizes research studies on technology and literacy. I start by briefly comparing characteristics of print literacy with those of online literacy to better understand the nature of online literacy. Then, I review studies on literacy practices on the Internet.

Online versus print literacy. Today, these online literacy activities occur with and/or are substituted for print literacy activities. It would be useful to understand how the two literacy domains (online, print) of literacy practice have evolved and how these two literacy practices interact by comparing primary characteristics of online literacy with those of print literacy.

Print literacy differs from online literacy in several significant ways. In terms of

reading, the first obvious difference between print and online literacy is a shift from

reading the page to reading on screen (Warschauer, 2000). Because print-based and

electronic texts have genuinely different characteristics, readers are asked to employ different reading processes and strategies for effective reading. Electronic texts are highly

“interactive and malleable” (Karchmer, 2001, p. 448) because those texts are controlled by both a creator and a reader. A reader can move back and forth by clicking linked sites.

A reader can adjust “the size, shape and scale of screen-print, altering its typography, its readability, its illumination” (Lankshear & Knobel, 1997, p. 152). Electronic texts, especially texts on the Web, can be linked to other texts (hypertexts) and multi-media

(hypermedia). As such, not all the useful and necessary reading strategies for

conventional print texts are effective for reading electronic texts (e.g., hypertexts), and

further, some conventional reading strategies may be “even dysfunctional in reading a

hypertext" (Kamil & Lane, 1999, p. 333).

Similarly, some changes in writing have occurred and will continue to occur (Bolter,

2001, Faigley, 1997; Warschauer, 2000). New types of writing texts, genres, skills, and

strategies have been required for online literacy practices. With a computer, people can

delete, move, paste, and revise the texts very easily. In addition, while writing on-screen, writers read their own work as "an audience member" (Davidson & Tomic, 1994, p. 207).

Thus, the gap between readers and writers is narrowing, and acts of reading and writing

“mix and blur” (Langer, 1987, p. 4). In Beach and Lundell (1998) and Trenchs’ (1996)

studies, the participants engaged actively in reading others’ email messages to respond to

the received emails. Their writing activities interacted highly with their reading. In 46

summary, the development of computer technology, especially the Internet, may have

dramatically changed reading and writing (Bolter, 1998); however, literacy scholars have

predicted that "it is likely that several versions of literacy, based both in printed and

digital environments, will coexist for the near future" (Kamil & Lane, 1999, p. 339). This

suggests that it will be worth examining the role of both literacy media and the evolution

of the two domains (i.e., print, online) of literacy practices.

Literacy practices on the Internet: WWW, CMC,E-mail. The advent of word-

processing has changed the reading/writing processes, strategies, and behaviors as well as

writers’ attitudes towards writing. Further changes have also appeared since the

development of the Internet, particularly, widespread use of the World Wide Web

(WWW) and email. Today’s students type a school paper, email their friends, chat online, design and maintain their homepages, and enjoy electronic games and sometimes do these all at the same time. To help understand the nature of these online literacy practices,

I primarily address the issues regarding the World Wide Web (WWW), Computer-

mediated communication (CMC), and emails. In particular, the focus of the discussion

will be on key characteristics of each online literacy activity as well as the effects of these

online literacy activities on the acquisition of academic literacy.

The World-Wide Web (Web) is a subset of the Internet and is widely used in the

current era. The Web is one of the “places that broadly encompass hypertexts and

hypermedia” (Bicknell, 1999, p. 21). Hypertexts in the Web provide readers the

“possibility, during the reading process, to proceed through the text in the order best

suited to her lines of thought” (Hult et al., 1990, p. 189). Along with hypertexts,

hypermedia (a combination of hypertext and multimedia) is the most challenging feature 47

to the traditional notion of literacy (i.e, print literacy) (Bolter, 1998). Reading and writing on the Web involve different ways of engaging in literacy activities, and L2 learners may be more challenged while experiencing online literacy in L2.

As an attempt to understand the impact of WWW texts on English as a Foreign

Language (EFL) literacy learning, Liou (1997) conducted research regarding the use of the Web for L2 literacy acquisition. Based on a survey, interviews, and ethnographic observations, Liou (1997) found that EFL college students considered the Web as an important tool to practice English, seek information, and become aware of global issues.

In fact, more than 50 % of the world’s online texts are written in English (Warschauer,

2002, p. 455). L2 students are likely to practice English while using the Web. In the study,

74 % of the students reported that they would like to continue to use the Web in the future. The result suggests that EFL learners see a necessity for reading or writing in

English on the Web. Nowadays, both native and non-native English speakers (NNES) are more likely to experience reading English texts on the Internet. Equally important, the development of Internet services has created new means to communicate outside of school (Nelson, 1999). As such, the Web provides “authentic documents” that interest students (Walz, 2001, p. 486) has become a vital medium of communication and chaning information (Warschauer, 2002), and an important educational tool (Kamil & Lane,

1998). Further, the Web can play a role as a “landscape” where our “own particular cultural values and literacy practices can be expressed, extended and enriched” (Hawisher

& Selfe, 2000, p. 10).

There are a few studies that have examined motivations and purposes for creating home pages or personal Web pages. In Sugimoto and Levin’s (2000) study on Japanese 48

and American students, a primary reason for creating homepages was self-expression.

Even Japanese students, who are often considered as less “assertive or less good at expressing themselves” than Americans, were eager to express themselves on the Internet

(p. 148). Similarly, Almon, an ESL high school senior, (Lam, 2000) found it easier to express what he wanted to say by writing rather than by speaking in front of others. He developed his “newly discovered ability” to express himself by communicating in

English with his Internet peers, which offered him a “qualitatively different relationship to English” (p. 468). To him, the Internet opened up a new vision of communicating and ways to negotiate a self and to improve L2 literacy.

Almon is an example of an ESL student who has improved his English by taking advantage of computer-mediated communication (CMC). CMC is likely to provide an interactive learning environment, enhance writing competence, foster writers’ empowerment, develop a sense of audience and purpose for writing, and promote students’ motivation and interests (Li, 2000). There are two kinds of CMC: synchronous and asynchronous CMC. Synchronous CMC occurs in real-time, e.g., online chatting whereas asynchronous CMC is a delayed discussion, e.g., emails, listservs, and hyperlinked webpages. Some data seem to support claims that “both synchronous and asynchronous exchanges, in first- and second-language student populations, encourage interaction and help improve the quality of written and spoken discourse” (Sotillio, 2000, p. 84)

Among a variety of types of CMC activities, email is the most widely used form because of its communicative nature as well as quick, convenient, locally and globally accessible characteristics. Although a primary literacy mode of email is writing, email 49

demands a wider set of abilities of reading, writing, and communicating via interrelated

networks across the world (Hannon, 2000). The structure of e-mail texts is “qualitatively different from that of formal writing” and resembles oral language (Blake, 1998, p. 225).

Knobel, Lankshear, Honan, and Crawford (1998) synthesized evidence from research projects regarding the role or use of email in enhancing L2 language learning and teaching. They argue that advocates of email use for L2 learning tend to emphasize

“attitudes and feelings over downright competence in language use” (Knobel, Lankshear,

Honan, & Crawford, 1998, p. 47). However, “email by itself, though powerful as a means of communication, does not necessarily improve writing skills” (Knobel et al, 1998, p.

41).

Summary. With a widespread use of the Internet, “invisible or hidden” literacy practices have emerged in cyberspace (Sugimoto & Levin, 2000, p. 152). Today’s students have been experiencing a variety of literacy activities beyond the classroom.

Particularly for immigrant students, out-of-school literacy practices are likely to have special meaning because they may be able to improve new language and literacy (L2) as well as maintain their L1 literacy. While adolescent immigrant students juggle two languages, literacies, and cultures in their daily lives, they may experience the interaction between the two literacies and between reading and writing. Thus, literacy transfer and literacy activities performed with a computer are key issues to scrutinize in examining the nature of immigrants’ literacy practices.

Summary

The review of the literature has presented an overview of the significant theories, research, and concepts that are vital to understanding the nature of immigrant students’ 50

out-of-school literacy practices. In the first section, I reviewed the underlying discussions

of the social view of literacy, an expanded notion of literacy (multiple literacies), and

uses of and purposes for literacy. In the second section, I pointed out blurred distinction

between out of school and academic literacy practices, thereby envisioning a possible

linking between the two. Then, I reviewed literacy studies on adolescent students’ out of

school literacy practices in L1 and L2. In the last section, I addressed theoretical and

research perspectives of L2 literacy, particularly, issues that are often manifested in immigrants’ literacy learning, such as L1-L2 literacy transfer, and literacy practices with a computer. Through the review of the literature, it is apparent that the nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices is complex. In order to obtain a more complete picture of adolescent immigrants’ out-of-school literacy practices, this study

needed to develop a comprehensive methodology. The following chapter describes

specific methods and techniques employed in this study.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS, PARTICIPANTS, AND RELATIONSHIPS

Overview

To investigate adolescent immigrant students’ literacy practices outside school, I

employed an ethnographic multiple case study approach. In this case study, I tried to

answer an overarching question, “What is the nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school

literacy practices?” To answer this question, I created specific research questions to use as the guiding principles for data collection. They were:

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?

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 (i.e., 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?

Given these primary guiding research questions, as well as the purposes of the study, a case study approach represents an especially appropriate means of obtaining data. Thus, in the following section, I begin with a discussion of the rationale for employing an ethnographic multiple case study approach. Then, I provide a description of research contexts and participants. That is followed by data collection methods and procedures as well as sources of data. Within this discussion, I delineate how I implemented research method tools and techniques. Next, I present how I analyzed the data. Finally, I address issues of validity and trustworthiness related to my investigations and interpretations.

Related to this, I discuss ethical considerations in working with adolescent immigrant students, in playing multiple roles as a tutor, researcher, and an “elder sister” and in maintaining reciprocal relationships between the researcher and the participants in this study.

The Rationale for an Ethnographic Multiple Case Study Approach

A primary purpose of the study was to create a portrait of immigrant students’ out- of-school literacy practices based on an in-depth understanding of the nature of their out- of-school literacy activities. To achieve this goal, I focused on the individual level of literacy practices in this study and situated myself methodologically within a qualitative case approach. According to Graff (1986), literacy studies have shifted their focus from

“quantitative studies of large populations to smaller-scale ethnographic studies of specific groups and subgroups” (p. 40). Many scholars in literacy research have adopted a qualitative approach because they have come to recognize the need for “much sharper 53

contextual grounding in clearly delineated localities” (Graff, 1986, as cited in Klassen,

1991, p. 40). By employing a qualitative research method, I could describe at close range a variety of immigrant students’ literacy activities and events embedded within their everyday lives. A quantitative methodology would not provide this kind of direct access to essential data and to the literacy experiences of the participants I was interested in; instead, it would provide only a partial and somewhat superficial response to the questions motivating this research. More specifically, several reasons influenced my desire to employ a qualitative case study approach.

A brief discussion of the primary characteristics of a qualitative case study illuminates the suitability of a case study methodology for this research. According to

Merriam (1998, pp. 29-31), qualitative case studies include three key features: They are

(1) particularistic, (2) thickly descriptive (Geertz, 1973, p. 10), and (3) heuristic. First, a case study draws attention to a “particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon”

(Merriam, 1998, p. 29). Additionally, researchers of case studies seek both “what is common and what is particular about the case, but the end result regularly portrays something of the uncommon” (Stake, 2000, p. 438). Second, a case study produces “rich thick descriptions of the phenomenon under study” (Merriam, 1998, p. 30). Third, “case studies illuminate the reader’s understanding of the phenomenon under study…Insights into how things get to be the way they are can be expected to result from case studies”

(Stake, 1981, p. 47, as cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 30). Research which fulfills these conditions is likely to succeed in creating the revealing portrait of participants’ out-of- school literacy practices intended in this study.

Furthermore, I preferred multiple cases over a single case out of a “desire to

understand complex social phenomena” (Yin, 1989, p. 14) as well as to achieve the scope

that my study provides in maximizing variations. In fact, a single-case study is

appropriate “when the case represents (a) a critical test of existing theory, (b) a rare or

unique circumstance, or (c) a representative or typical case or when the case serves, (d) a revelatory or (e) longitudinal purpose” (Yin, 2003, pp. 45-46). However, this study did not attempt to test an existing theory and/or describe a rare circumstance for a longitudinal period. This study was, rather, a descriptive and interpretive study that

looked into participants’ day-to-day literacy activities. In addition, an important aim of

this study was to compare and contrast each participant’s out-of-school literacy practices so as to highlight important features of out-of-school literacy activity. Multiple cases were thus more appropriate than a singe case study for this research. According to

Merriam (1998), “the more cases included in a study, and the greater the variation across the cases, the more compelling an interpretation is likely to be” (p. 40). Examining multiple cases enhances the “precision, the validity, and the stability of the findings”

(Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 29). Put simply, results from multiple case studies add confidence and depth to findings and allow for greater contributions to the topic being investigated.

Lastly, this study employed an ethnographic approach. An ethnographic approach is particularly appropriate for examining actual activities, events, and uses of literacy because it can offer a thick description (rich documentation) of what happens, and this description can eventually lead to valuable “insight into cultural patterns” (Athanases &

Heath, 1995, p. 263). In this regard, this approach enabled me to more thoroughly portray 55

immigrant students’ literacy activities. I employed various ethnographic tools and techniques for collecting and interpreting data (Merriam, 1998) and for producing thickly recorded data (Geertz, 1993) in the same way that Knobel’s (1997) and Skilton-

Sylvester’s (1997) dissertation studies utilized an ethnographic approach to examine students’ everyday literacy practices. More specifically, I used triangulation (e.g., interviews, observations, journals, audio-taping) and provided a thick description by engaging the participants on a weekly basis over a six-month period. In sum, within a qualitative and modified ethnographic paradigm, I strived to adhere to a rigorous methodology, following “prescribed procedures for systematic data collection, analysis informed by all of the data, member and informant checks, and an openness to emerging theories and interpretations never before considered” (Purcell-Gates, 2000, p. 216).

Before detailing my research methods, I need to introduce the research contexts and five research participants in this study.

Research Contexts and Participants

In this section, I provide a brief sketch of who the participants were, how they were selected, and where the research took place. In order to gain a better understanding of out-of-school literacy practices and natural access to Korean immigrant students, I decided to locate case study participants through out-of-school contexts, in particular

Korean churches, Korean Sunday Schools, Korean community organizations, the local public library, and various personal networks in a midwestern city in the United States.

Throughout these communities, I distributed fliers, written in Korean and English, that asked for voluntary research participants as well as asked people to refer me to some

Korean 1.5 generation immigrant students who were recognized as prolific readers or

writers.

In case study research, “nothing is more important than making a proper selection of

cases….Choice would be to examine that case from which we feel we can learn the most.

That may mean taking the one most accessible, the one we can spend the most time with”

(Stake, 2000, p. 446). Keeping Stake’s comment in mind, I designed participant selection criteria necessary to obtain the maximal different cases among the participants, that is to maximize a range of language and literacy practices so that my research focused on the particulars rather than typicalities throughout multiple case studies. The selection criteria were as follows: gender, duration of stay in America, social economic levels of the family, self-rated L1 and L2 proficiency, language spoken at home, ESL experiences in the U.S., uses of the Internet, and mostly importantly, parents’ agreement. To select suitable research participants, I distributed survey questionnaires to Korean students that I met in various places as well as students who voluntarily contacted me after reading the fliers.

The survey questionnaire focused on students’ engagement with literacy activities outside

school, language background, and the use of a computer given these selection criteria. To

increase the return rate, I sent out the survey questionnaire via email, which made the

survey more accessible to the students who often used the Internet.

I intentionally employed a purposeful sampling approach, intending to “document

unique or diverse variations that have emerged in adapting to different conditions and to

identify important common patterns that cut across variation” (Patton, 1990. p. 182).

Thus, initially, four high school immigrant students (1Soohee, Yoon, Mike, Elizabeth) were purposefully selected from the survey based on “maximum variation sampling”

(Patton, 1990, p. 182), and another research participant (June) joined the study at the early stage of the data collection. The following table (Table 3.1) provides background information about the research participants.

1 All the names are pseudonyms. 58

) th , F)

th in 9 Spanish (10 Elizabeth 4 and ½ yrs (Honors Eng Regular English ) , M) th

Spanish 3 ½ yrs+ U.S. born American Literature ( 4 yrs early life Mike (11 Creative Writing Writing Creative

, M) ESL th Japanese 2 and ½ yrs Yoon (11 Advanced

F) ESL th,

& S. born) Upper Japanese (U. June (9 intermediate intermediate 10 months + 5 yrs early life Advanced of Research Participants F) th ,

& ESL Upper Lower 4 months intermediate intermediate intermediate intermediate Soohee (9 study taken Foreign at school at school Pseudonym, English class grade, gender the U. S. at Language taken beginning of the Length of stay in Information Table 3.1: Background

All the participants had in common that they were considered generation 1.5 students.

Some (Soohee, Yoon, Elizabeth) were all born in Korea and immigrated to the United

States; others (June, Mike) were born in the United States, had lived in the U. S. for

several years in their early lives, but were raised in Korea and returned to the U.S. as

middle school students. Overall, all the students had spent a significant portion of their adolescence in the U.S.

Data Collection and Procedures

Overview

In this study, I gathered the data from multiple sources. The two primary data sources were semi-structured weekly interviews and out-of-school literacy activity checklists (Appendix A) that participants updated. I met with each participant weekly for

2 hours (30-minute interviews and 90 minute-tutorials). The interviews were conducted based on their literacy checklists, which were updated weekly. I not only had formal and informal conversations with the participants, their parents, teachers, siblings, and peers, but also I observed the participants in a variety of settings (homes, churches, school, library, and via online chatting). Relevant documents and artifacts were collected as well

(i.e., participants’ literacy autobiographies, samples of students’ writing and reading).

Before, during, and after the data collection, I kept field-notes. As such, I collected the data from multiple sources, triangulating for more accurate investigations and interpretation in light of the significance of using multiple sources. In the next few sections, I describe the ways in which I collected the data, analyzed and interpreted them, and arrived at conclusions based upon them.

Data Collection

Data collection started from the very moment that I first met with the participants.

The data collection ranged over approximately six months. Although the study focused on literacy practices outside of school, I considered the participants’ academic schedules because their out-of-school literacy activities might change according to their school

schedules. Thus, I planned to gather the data during participants’ academic semester as well as school vacations, but it was difficult to continue to have interviews and tutorials during Christmas break partly because some were out of town, and others had their fathers visit from Korea and tried to have more family time. Thus, I did not meet with them for two weeks at the end of December 2003, but they still recorded their out-of- school literacy checklists.

With the participants’ and their parents’ agreement to participate in my study, I had

90-minute tutorial and 30-minute interview sessions once a week at each participant’s home, except with Soohee. At the early stage of the study, Soohee and I went to the local library nearby her home. In fact, many Korean immigrant students tend to have tutors who help them with their academic work, and thus, it seemed desirable and natural for me to tutor the participants. More specifically, home tutoring each participant enabled me to accomplish several goals in this study. First, I was able to get to know the participants and their family members in the contexts of their homes and establish a rapport with them.

Second, I was able to observe the participants’ home environments for literacy practices and ask the participants about their literacy activities and events that were related to both in-school and out-of-school work in a more natural way. Third, I was able to learn about the difficulties, challenges, and problems related to issues of literacy practices in Korean 61

and English throughout the tutorial sessions. Most important, I helped them with their

English, Korean, and/or any subject that the participants wanted to work on so that my participants could benefit from the tutorials. In addition, although I finished my data collection in March, 2004, I continued to tutor them until the end of the academic year

(June, 2004). In short, situating myself as a tutor within the research allowed me to develop strong relationships with them and to gain their trust as well as to learn substantially about how the participants used their two literacies, while also serving their needs as students.

During the first half phase of the study, I learned about the participants’ out-of- school literacy activities and events while paying attention to their use of languages

(Korean, English) and medium (print, computer). In addition, I tried to learn how the participants spent their free time in and outside their homes and carefully observed their home environments in terms of literacy practices. I also had informal conversations with the participants’ families. As the study progressed, I concentrated on recursive themes and patterns of literacy practices that had occurred until that point. I sought to clarify, confirm, or elaborate on issues raised previously (Seidman, 1998). Overall, I was able to observe and record the participants’ literacy activities and events that I found potentially significant in obtaining a global picture of their out-of-school literacy practices.

Sources of Data

One of a case study’s strengths is its ability “to deal with a full variety of evidence— documents, artifacts, interview, and observations” (Yin, 1984, pp. 19-20). This study collected diverse data from as wide a range of sites and contexts as possible: home, church, library, and bookstores. Multiple sources of data were as follows: semi-structured 62

interviews, out-of-school literacy activity checklists, observations, informal conversations, field notes, participant literacy autobiographies, literacy-related photographs that they

took, and artifact collections of texts produced by the participants. These different

sources of information enabled me to gather detailed and complex data about my

participants and their literacy practices. In addition, various data collection methods were

used to minimize my bias as a tutor and researcher and to strengthen the validity of the

findings. The following sub-sections detail the sources of data for this study. The table

below (Table 3.2) offers a brief sketch of the methods and sources of data collection.

Methods Sources of data collection Semi-structured Participants interviews Teachers of participants (audio-taped) Parents of participants Weekly tutorials Helping participants with their homework, SAT preparation Participant and Classroom settings: ESL classes, ESL resource classroom non-participant Settings outside of school: Social time at the church, observations the local library, bookstores, birthday parties Formal and Participants (emails, online chatting with me) informal Participants’ peers and siblings (online chatting, face-to-face conversations conversations) (face to face, Parents of the participants (face-to-face conversation only) online chatting) Checklists Daily literacy activities outside of school Collections of During and after tutorials and interviews Fieldnotes Classroom settings in school Settings outside of school: social gatherings, libraries, Formal & informal conversations Informal online chatting with the participants and their peers Collection of Participants’ literacy autobiographies artifacts Participants’ literacy pictures that they took to capture their meaningful literacy activities Participants’ reading materials Participants’ writing samples

Table 3.2: Methods and Sources of Data Collection

Weekly Interviews. I conducted semi-structured interviews with each participant before or after each weekly tutorial session. The interviews was carried out in Korean, in

English, or bilingually, depending on the participants’ preferences. Each interview lasted

approximately 20 to 30 minutes. All the interviews were audio-taped under participants’

agreement. The semi-structured interview questions were framed with the idea of

discovering the nature of participants’ out-of-school literacy practices. That is, I looked at

(1) amount, frequency, and purposes of their out-of-school literacy activities, (2) genres

of texts of reading and writing, (2) uses/choice of languages for these activities, (3)

uses/choice of literacy medium, (4) engagement with the Internet, (5) tendencies with

respect to engaging with reading and writing, and (6) attitude towards academic and out-

of-school literacy activities. Therefore, at the beginning of the interview, we reviewed

participant’s weekly-literacy-activity-checklist. Also, salient characteristics that appeared

on the checklist were highlighted in the interviews. Equally important, I asked some

follow-up questions in the next interviews or via online chatting

Participant’ literacy activity checklist. I created the literacy activity checklist based

on the initial survey questionnaire and revised it based on participants’ feedback at the

early stage of the study. The checklist provided basic information including what those

activities were, to what extent the participants engaged in literacy activities, what

language(s) (Korean, English) they used, in what literacy medium (print or computer)

they engaged, where and why they did, what they did, and with whom they participated if

others were involved. The participants updated the checklist weekly, which might take

ten to twenty minutes per week, and I asked basic questions of their weekly literacy

activities based on the checklist in the interviews. 65

Participants’ literacy autobiographies. Once I established a rapport with the research participants, I asked them to share their literacy autobiographies (about three to five pages) with me. They were provided a one page guideline about how to write a literacy autobiography. They were asked to describe their previous literacy experiences within multiple contexts, i.e., they composed literacy narratives exploring their reading and writing experiences in Korean and English. These narrative accounts emphasized critical moments and events as well as significant and influential persons with respect to improving English and Korean literacy in both countries. In doing so, I obtained insight into their literacy practices and tendencies and the place of literacy in their lives.

In fact, the participants wrote the literacy autobiography during Christmas break, which was the mid-stage of the study. They had already talked about their literacy lives to some extent before they wrote this autobiography, and thus, their literacy biographies covered many of our conversations in interviews and helped me confirm certain themes and patterns of their previous literacy practices which appeared in the interviews.

Participant and non-participant observations. Observation played a key role in employing an ethnographic method. I observed each participant’s engagement in a range of literacy practices in out-of-school contexts. First, as a tutor for the participants, I conducted participant observations throughout the tutorial sessions. During tutorial sessions, I primarily paid attention to the participants’ academic literacy practices (e.g. school assignments) taking place at home and asked them about their academic literacy activities and events at school. As much as possible, I sought to observe participants’ engagement with voluntary literacy activities, events, and materials at home during tutorial sessions and in any social gatherings. I observed home environments to seek 66

evidence of literacy throughout weekly home visits. My presence in any event was

always determined by both the participants and other people present.

Field notes. I kept field notes to document observations, descriptions, and feelings

before, during, and after interviews, tutorials, and my observations. Sometimes, field

notes were recorded before interviews and tutorials sessions, especially regarding what I

would focus on during that specific interview and what I should be more careful about

throughout the session. More importantly, fieldnotes were recorded during and after

contacts with the participants. During those occasions, I took field notes by hand, and then, immediately after the interviews, I typed the fieldnotes in my computer in more detail based on my field-notes taken during tutorials and interviews as well as based on memory, as Emerson et al (1995) suggest: to write “field-notes as soon and as fully as possible after events of interest have occurred” (p. 14).

The field notes included basic descriptions of research contexts, the participants, environments in which literacy activities and events took place, uses of different languages (both Korean and English) and literacies, and a variety of literacy artifacts. In addition, the descriptions included more details of participants’ engagement with diverse types of literacy texts and genres as well as their interaction with print and computer generated texts. Equally important, I also wrote my hunches and feelings during observations as well as anecdotal or personal comments and analytic comments on observed events. These notes included surprising and significant comments, stories, and incidents, as well as personal reflections on my role as a tutor and researcher. The field notes were regularly reread and analyzed according to recursive and emerging themes. I

was able to revisit the field notes over and over again while I collected, analyzed, and

interpreted the data.

Formal and informal communication. I engaged in informal conversations with the research participants, especially in online contexts (e.g., emails, online chatting). I often emailed them and chatted online in order to ask about significant events (e.g., language and literacy events) that occurred over the period of the data collection. I prompted the participants to email me back about self-selected literacy events and their reflections on them. In this way, they might be able to “become an ‘ethnographer of literacy, documenting why, when, where, and how’ they read and write” (Barton, 1994, p. 211), and I was able to keep track of literacy activities and events that they perceived as important. By using emails and online chatting, they could easily and quickly share their literacy experiences with me. In particular, online chatting was an important form of an

informal conversation, which provided rich data on their daily lives that were directly or

indirectly related to literacy practices.

In addition to the research participants, I also engaged in informal and formal

conversations with participants’ family members to gain a better understanding of the

literacy experiences that each participant had prior to this study. Also, I asked

participants’ parents about their support of participant’s literacy activities at home and

their efforts to create a literacy-rich home environment. When working as a volunteer

bilingual aide in an ESL resource class where three participants (i.e., Soohee, June,

Yoon) took, I talked to their ESL teachers about these three students and their literacy

practices in the ESL class. In addition, I sometimes met with the participatns’ peers at

the local library or via online chatting, which helped me learn more about participants’ social activities.

Artifact collection. To the extent that the participants were willing to share with me, I collected texts produced by them, such as their school homework, academic and personal writing, personal homepages, and emails. In addition to their writing samples, I examined their reading materials as well. To understand possible relationships, if any, between academic and out-of-school literacy practices, I examined samples of literacy provided or produced at school (e.g., English textbooks, worksheets used in class) and at home. After the data collection ended, I asked the students to take photographs that could capture their literacy activities or events that they considered significant. In this way, I was able to learn what kinds of literacy activities were personally meaningful to them. June, Mike, and Elizabeth took these literacy pictures with their digital cameras and posted them in my Cyworld mini-homepage (which was created after I found four research participants maintained their own Cyworlds); Yoon took pictures with his regular camera; and Soohee was given a disposal camera to use for this purpose.

As can be seen so far, this study encompassed multiple sources of data and followed systematic data collection procedures. In the following section, I discuss how I dealt with the data with respect to analysis, interpretation, and display.

Data Analysis: Finding Themes and Patterns

The essence of data analysis is to “transform data into terms that are pertinent to potential readers”(Wolcott, 1994, p. 4). In this study, data analysis was intended to unravel the nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy so that this study could create a thick description of their out-of-school literacy practices. In the process of data 69

analysis, I systematically arranged and explored the interview transcripts, field-notes, and

other materials, and then I broke the data into manageable units, synthesized them,

searched for patterns and themes, discovered what was significant and finally decided

what story I would tell to others and how (Bogdan & Biklen, 1988). More specifically, 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) and (3) uses/choice of

literacy medium (print, computer), (4) uses/role of the Internet, (5) tendencies while

engaging in reading and writing, and (6) possible relationships between academic and

out-of-school literacy practices.

In qualitative research, data collection and data analysis processes are highly

intertwined, and thus, data analysis occurred simultaneously with data collection. At the

end of each day, I transcribed interview tapes and wrote out the field-notes. For instance,

shortly after each interview, I transcribed the interviews verbatim. I listened to the audio-

tapes at least once before transcribing and several times during transcbing. This listening

was the beginning of my data analysis, and the analysis continued with multiple readings

of transcripts of the interviews. The transcripts were merged with the field notes for

analysis. I continuously reviewed the transcripts, field notes, and in doing so, I came up

with expanded or revised questions as well as documented recursive patterns and themes

emerging from the data. I followed the procedures of data analysis described in Emerson

et al. (1996): (1) reading field-notes as a data set, (2) asking questions of field-notes, (3)

open coding, (4) writing initial memos, (5) selecting themes, (6) focused coding, (7) integrative memos, and (8) reflections. During these procedures, I adopted ten strategies 70

from Wolcott (1994): “highlight your findings, display your findings, follow and report

‘systematic’ fieldwork procedures, flesh out whatever analytic framework guided the data

collection, identify patterned regularities in the data, compare with another case, evaluate

(i.e., compare with a standard), contextualize in a broader analytical framework, critique

the research process, propose a redesign for the study” (pp. 29-36).

I coded the transcripts and field notes by phrases, paragraphs, and whole sections

while using multi-colored pens or post-its. As patterns and themes began to emerge from

the data, I continued to sift through the data. I analyzed and discussed each case because

each participant may “represent a different thematic finding”(Chapelle & Duff, 2003, p.

166). I traced the unique characteristics of each participant’s out-of-school literacy,

including previous experiences with two languages and literacies as well as the evolution

of different literacy domains (print and computer). At the same time, I emphasized

commonalities that ran across the cases. In doing so, I was able to sort through the data in

meaningful ways and look for similarities and differences between out-of-school literacy

practices among the participants.

While looking at these themes from the data, I was open and sensitive to possible

emerging themes and patterns throughout the data collection and analysis. I modified early codes as more field-notes and transcripts were analyzed because initial codes or categories were continuously “enhanced, expanded, subdivided, and enriched throughout the course of the research until, in the end, a much more elaborated system of organizing, arranging, and eventually, coding data has emerged from the data that can be applied to the entire data set” (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999, p. 151). Throughout the process of arriving at an in-depth understanding of the nature of the participants’ out-of-school 71

literacy practices, I sharpened my awareness of my role as a tutor and researcher and my

relationships with the participants.

Blurring Ethics and Validity

Validity is a vital issue in research in that “validity is a boundary line for what is

acceptable and what is not acceptable in research. Validity is, in short, power, the power

to determine the demarcation between science and not-science” (Lather, 2001, p. 3). This

study employed several key techniques to establish validity and trustworthiness of data:

triangulation, member-checks (in progress and terminal), self-reflexive researcher journal,

persistent observations, and audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Triangulation: Multiple Data Sources and Methods

Adding “multiple data sources, methods, and theoretical schemes” into the research

is one of the most critical ways of establishing data trustworthiness (Lather, 1986, p. 67).

As elaborated in the previous section, this study employed a variety of data sources and

methods for data collection. Triangulation enabled me to conduct more suitable analysis

and arrive at more credible conclusions (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, p. 198).

Marshall and Rossman (1995) point out one of the most important meanings of

triangulation: “designing a study in which multiple cases, multiple informants, or more

than one data gathering method are used can greatly strengthen the study’s usefulness for

other settings” (p. 144). Triangulation was conducted in this study within that spirit.

Member/Participant Checks

Since the primary purpose of the study was to create a portrait of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices, I had to be very careful with the issue of “how

to present the information that best captures the social setting yet will not compromise or 72

harm any members in the study” (Janesick, 2000, p. 385). Considering this ethical issue

of representation, I used participant member checks, which were very informal during

interview sessions, to establish validity for this study. In each interview session, I tended to confirm what they meant and how I interpreted points from the previous interview.

Sometimes, they elaborated in order to make me understand what they said, and other times, they corrected my understanding and interpretation of what they meant. Then, I paid attention to participants’ reactions to my analysis and interpretations. Member-check

was embedded in each interview session. A similar type of member checking was

possible through online chatting. While taking fieldnotes or transcribing interviews or

writing a memo, I sometimes went online to talk to the participants. Often, the

participants were available online, and we could talk briefly. In the last interview session,

I brought a brief summary of what I had found from the interviews and shared it with

each participant. Some made comments, elaborated on certain points, or corrected my

interpretations. In the process of conducting member-checks, I kept in mind that I should

respect the participants’ voices.

Self-reflexivity and other techniques for validity and trustworthiness. I engaged in

systematic self-reflexivity by documenting how my assumptions and biases affected the

data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Another element necessary to establish

validity and trustworthiness is audit trail. I maintained a clear audit trail that documented

“the processes of data collection, analysis, and interpretation” (Widen, Mayer-Smith, &

Moon, 1998, p. 131). In other words, the audit-trail fully described my data selection

procedures, detailed the criteria used for including and

excluding data, and delineated the limitations of the data (ibid., p. 132) so that it could provide “clear evidence and paint convincing pictures for the reader, rich in detail and context” (ibid., p. 130).

Ethical Considerations

The researcher’s ethical responsibility was manifested in many different ways. In this study, I played very important multiple roles as a tutor, researcher, counselor, and an elder sister. Balancing these multiple roles was not easy throughout the study; however, I had carefully examined my own practices and these roles in a reflective way. My tutor role was very important because it allowed me to give something back to my participants and to learn about their academic literacy practices. My researcher role was equally important in order to conduct the research and advance existing knowledge of literacy practices. My role as a counselor or an elder sister was important to establish a strong rapport and to gain knowledge of what was going on to their lives. In addition, the participants were very open in terms of sharing their personal issues with me in our tutorials and interview sessions as well as via online chatting. At times, I feared that I was too deeply invited into their personal lives.

While wearing several hats, I was very attentive to maintaining reciprocal relationships with my participants. Lastly, privacy and confidentiality of the participants was always taken into account. I was well aware that “qualitative researchers are guests in the private spaces of the world” (Stake, 2000, p. 447), and my presence and observations could potentially be very intrusive with respect to their personal lives or violate their privacy. Thus, my presence in this study was fully negotiated with my

participants. To ensure full confidentiality, the names of participants and settings in this

study were changed to pseudonyms.

Summary

This chapter outlined the process by which I conducted multiple case studies of

immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices. I have described in detail the

rationale for employing an ethnographic multiple case study approach and introduced the

research settings and participants. There has also been discussion of how data was gathered systematically from multiple sources throughout the study. Importantly, during the period of data collection, data analysis occurred simultaneously so as to reveal the nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices. I have elaborated the foci of the data analysis: types of out-of-school literacy activities, uses and purposes of different languages and literacies (Korean, English), uses and purposes of different literacy mediums (print, computer), the role of online literacy, any relationships between out-of-school and in-school literacy practices, and whether out-of-school literacy practices are oriented toward reading and/or writing. Next, I present results and issues which emerged from out-of-school literacy checklists (Chapter 4) and provide participants’ portraits in the case studies chapter (Chapter 5). Finally, I discuss findings and provide suggestions and recommendations in the last chapter (Chapter 6).

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND ISSUES WHICH EMERGED FROM OUT-OF-SCHOOL

LITERACY CHECKLISTS

Introduction

This chapter provides one way of looking at five adolescent immigrant students’ literacy practices outside of school. The chapter discusses findings and issues which emerged, particularly from their out-of-school literacy checklists recorded over a period of six months. The out-of-school literacy checklist (Appendix A) provided basic self- reported information regarding types and frequency of the participants’ literacy activities, as well as their use and choice of a language (Korean, English) and medium (print, computer). This information helps answer a primary research question: “What is the nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices?” A review of the findings

from the literacy checklists yields an overall picture of these adolescent immigrant

students’ out-of-school literacy practices. Equally important, this brief discussion of

major findings enables us to develop some sense of the complexity, uniqueness, and

richness of these literacy practices that will be further examined and described in Chapter

Five, the case studies chapter.

This chapter starts with a brief introduction of the five research participants: Soohee,

June, Mike, Yoon, and Elizabeth. Then, in the second section, I elaborate on issues arising from the use of out-of-school literacy checklists before presenting findings which emerged from the checklists. This second section deals with two major issues: (1) the checklist format, and how it evolved, and (2) the value as well as problems associated with the checklists. It is especially worth noting the value of out-of-school literacy checklist data. Also, a brief discussion of the limitations of using checklists alerts us to the need to interpret the checklist data with caution and illustrates the importance of the triangulation of data in Chapter Five, where I analyze information from multiple data sources, including interviews, observations, informal conversations, and artifacts. In the final section, where I discuss key findings from participants’ literacy checklists, the focus is on the following four topics: (1) types and frequency of literacy engagement, (2) print vs online literacy practices, (3) use/choice of a language for literacy activities, and (4) salient characteristics of literacy practice which emerged from the checklist data. This final section responds partially, but directly, to the research question: “What is the nature of immigrant students’ out-of-school literacy practices?”

The Research Participants: Korean Generation 1.5 High School Students

The five research participants in this study were Korean adolescent students in

American high schools. They all knew one another from school or the local Korean church they attended. In this study, they were identified as Korean Generation 1.5 students, that is, permanent residents of America who came to the U.S. from Korea as school-age children or adolescents, and had lived in the U.S. for the primary part of their adolescence. Within the 1.5 generation category, their status in America differed. Three 77

students (Soohee, Yoon, Elizabeth) were born in Korea and immigrated to the United

States, whereas two (June, Mike) were U.S.-born-but-raised-in-Korea students who came

back to America while in middle school. Generally, Generation 1.5 students are neither

like mainstream American students nor international English as a second language

students, in that they are English language learners who will reside permanently in

America, but who retain ties to the Korean language and culture through family and other

connections. Thus, their unique characteristics as language users and learners may

influence the way they engage literacy in and out of school. It is the nature of such

engagement that is the central focus of the study.

Soohee: Soohee was a 9 th grade female student in a suburban high school. When I

first met her at her Korean church, she had immigrated to America only four months

previously. She was an active English language learner and high academic achiever who received a perfect grade point average of 4.0 in her first semester in an American high

school. In her journey to adjust to her new school life, she could not find much free time

or any real motivation for pleasurable reading outside of school. However, she began

reading Korean Internet novels for fun by the time she felt quite comfortable with the

nuances of American schooling, which was toward the end of this study. As for writing,

Soohee was an extensive record keeper and diary writer who kept three different kinds of

planners and a diary. As a single child spending much time alone at home, Soohee

became obsessed with diary writing, which provided her with a space where she could

open her whole heart to express herself.

Soohee showed the greatest interest in and curiosity about this research among the

five participants. For instance, in the middle of an interview, she once asked me, “질문을 78

어떻게 만드는건지? 진짜 매번 올때마다 질문이 있으신데, 그 질문들은 어디서 catch 를

했는지.” (“How do you come up with interview questions? You bring new questions each

time. Where did you catch all the questions?”) (Interview, 12/5/2003) Further, Soohee

seemed to take great pleasure in sharing details about her life, as well as her language and

literacy experiences with me. She even shared a part of her personal writing (i.e., diary,

planners) with me. She also updated the literacy checklists in great detail in order to

provide me with as much information as possible. Soohee and I established a strong

rapport via email correspondence, online chatting, telephone conversations, and face-to-

face interviews. Her cooperative attitude toward and deep interest in this study were

critical, in that when she thought that my interpretations or understanding seemed to be

lacking or inaccurate, she immediately corrected me and provided new or further

explanations. After the data collection period was over, she kept in touch with me to ask

about the progress of my research.

June: June, an outgoing 9th grader, was born in America and lived here until she was

five. Her family moved to Korea, and June had formal schooling in Korea from grades

one to eight. While in grade eight, June returned to America with her mother for her educational purposes. With respect to the other four research participants’ literacy activities (Soohee, Yoon, Mike, Elizabeth), I found that June was a key literacy broker who provided them with rich reading materials (e.g., her own poems, notes, web postings, and online chatting) and encouraged them to engage in any form of writing. June was well-known as a poet among her peers, especially in a local Korean teenagers’ online community called Welcome To Buckeye City. The other research participants often

enjoyed her poems and commented on them. In this online community, June was self- 79

identified as a staff member and played an important role as facilitator while investing

much time in searching for and reading materials to post to the rest of the community.

Her involvement with this community indicated that June constantly engaged in reading

and writing in cyber space.

Mike: Mike was a junior, a trans-national teenager who was born in America, but

raised in Korea until he returned to the USA while in middle school. While traveling back

and forth between Korea and America, Mike developed a strong sense of an Asian

American identity, unlike the other research participants, who still saw themselves

strictly as Korean. Among his Korean peers, Mike’s nickname was an Ohio rising star,

which indicated his popularity in his circle of friends. Mike was a top ten student, hip-

hop dancer, clarinet player, and an athlete who played volleyball and soccer on school

teams. Equally important, he was known as a good English speaker.

The center of Mike’s out-of-school life was the computer. Mikeplanned to major in computer science at college, and thus, he had keen interest in “computer stuff.” As soon as he got home from school, he immediately went to his computer and engaged in multi- tasking. He logged on to instant messaging (i.e., MSN), checked emails, played music, and searched for and read articles that attracted his attention. Often times, he did his homework sitting before his computer while responding to sporadic instant messages from online buddies. It was at his computer that his school and non-school literacy activities took place at the same time.

Yoon: Yoon was an 11th grade male student who hated and struggled with English

the most among the participants in this study. Despite his difficulties with English, he

maintained a 3.45 grade point average in high school. For Yoon, a top priority was 80

friendship, and he was part of a clique of five Korean male students. They interacted

somewhat exclusively with one another at school, at a Korean church, and at the local

public library as well as in cyber space (e.g., via online chatting). While socializing with these friends, Yoon was exposed to some forms of literacy activities, such as playing computer video games, sharing comic books, studying at the library, and going to a

Korean Karaoke place together. And yet, he did not see them as literacy activities at all and identified himself as a complete non-reader and non-writer. Yoon ended his literacy

autobiography by stressing that he was well aware of the importance of reading, but did

not want to be forced to read because he did not like to read.

Elizabeth: Elizabeth was the most fluent English speaker, reader, and writer in this

study. Her family immigrated to America when she was in grade four. When she joined

this study as a 10th grader, she had slightly more formal schooling in America than in

Korea. Elizabeth felt equally comfortable with both English and Korean and could not

pinpoint what her dominant language was. Compared with the other participants,

Elizabeth had experienced the most diverse English literacy activities and events;

additionally, her English literacy experiences influenced her Korean literacy practices.

Elizabeth was the only participant who lived with all her immediate family members.

The rest of the participants (except Soohee, whose father moved to America during this

study) lived with either their mother or extended relatives when their fathers worked in

Korea. By living with both parents, Elizabeth received more parental discipline than the

other research participants. For instance, her sister and she were restricted to a computer

day when each could access the Internet every second day. Also, Elizabeth was

constantly encouraged by her parents to read so as to improve her reading, writing, and academics in general.

Issues Arising from the Out-Of-School Literacy Checklist

From a sampling point of view, each participant in the study was unique and thus enriched the study’s data gathering possibilities. Each had developed a different way of being literate in their daily lives. Likewise, each showed a varying degree of interest and participation in this research and responded to the out-of-school literacy checklists in a different manner. This section discusses several issues revolving around out-of-school literacy checklists instead of immediately presenting findings from the checklists. I first explain the checklist format and the way the participants and I collaboratively revised and updated the checklist. Then, I elaborate on the value and limitations of literacy checklists.

The discussion in this section enables us to understand the nature of literacy checklist data and, in turn, helps us better understand the major findings arising from the participants’ out-of-school literacy checklists.

Format of the Checklist

The out-of-school literacy checklist was originally developed based on items in the recruiting survey questionnaire that I created. In the survey, I listed 17 kinds of reading materials and 10 forms of writing that high school students possibly engaged, and then, I asked for three additional types of information (medium, language, and length of engagement) for each kind of activity. Then, the out-of-school literacy checklist was revised at the beginning stage of the study. I first created a weekly checklist in which the research participants were asked to record cumulative information for each literacy activity; however, in the second week of the study, I ran into several concerns about the 82

checklist format. First, the cumulative information was quite limited. For instance, the research participants simply wrote, ‘novel, Korean, English, 120 minutes’, indicating that they read novels in English and Korean for 120 minutes a week. This accumulated weekly information presented neither the frequency of novel reading nor the duration of each period of reading. I needed more specific information about each activity in order to fulfill the aims of the study.

Second, I found that there were some literacy activities that they never engaged in.

Thus, I asked them to revise the checklist as they wished in our interview sessions. Some participants deleted then-existing types of activities or added new types of activities, while others grouped several types of literacy activities as one. Of great interest was that their perceptions of literacy practice were reflected in the process of revising the checklist.

Especially, when they crossed out some activities or grouped several activities into one, they exclaimed in suspicion and surprise, “Who does read a play?”, “Who does write this?”, “Does anybody really write a short story or poem? Oh, well somebody may do.”

The students expressed surprise when seeing some literacy activities that they thought nobody possibly engaged in. All these rhetorical questions resonated with the pervasive sentiment that the research participants did not see themselves or others as readers or writers.

Another unexpected issue with the first version of the checklist was that several research participants did not know the meaning of some English words for literacy activities, such as snail mail, instant messaging, and a play. Thus, along with my explanation of these words, I immediately added translated Korean words for these literacy activities. Eventually, a finalized literacy checklist (Appendix A) was created 83

based on the research participants’ feedback, and this was used until the end of the study.

The participants felt comfortable with the format of the revised checklist and with updating it as requested. More importantly, I was better able to collect invaluable data on their literacy practices, thereby indirectly gaining access to their daily literate lives.

Value of the Out-Of-School Checklist Data

Perhaps the greatest value of the out-of-school literacy checklist data was that they provided both quantitative and qualitative information on the students’ literacy practices out of school and thus helped generate a more comprehensive portrait of their lives as writers and readers. More specifically, the checklist dealt with four key areas: (1) types of reading/writing activities, (2) length of their engagement with the activities, (3) language that they used for the activities, either Korean (K) or English (E), and (4) which medium that they used, either computer (C) or paper/pencil (P). For instance, when Yoon recorded

‘Comic, 20 minutes, K, P’, I could picture that Yoon was reading a print-based Korean comic book for 20 minutes. A more thorough understanding of the checklist and the type of data it provided can be gleaned from looking at one of Soohee’s checklists:

Figure 4.1: Soohee’s Literacy Checklist Recorded in Week 7

In addition to the four main areas already described, the checklists occasionally

reported additional information from the participants. For instance, Soohee treated the

literacy checklist as her own diary by detailing her literacy activities and daily events.

The figure above is a representative example of her meticulously reported checklists. On her own initiative, Soohee wrote down the place where the activities took place (e.g. in resource class, church), with whom she interacted (e.g., relatives, friends in Korea or

America), when and why she read (e.g., “새벽에 잠이 안와서 -_- ” (“I could not fall

asleep at night”)), and what texts were about (e.g., “얼짱 신드롬” (“Good-looking

syndrome”)). June recorded her reflections of or comments on the web news that she read

(e.g., “기억에 남는 기사: 가정폭력, 아내가 남편 때려 숨지게 한 기사, 말세다 !.” (“News

that I remember: family violence, a wife beat her husband to death. What a crazy

world!”)). Interestingly, some participants (i.e., Soohee, Yoon) wrote about their pastimes

(e.g., watching Korean soap operas, going to concerts) in the checklist because they

wanted me to know that they were too busy to read or write.

In summary, the out-of-school literacy checklists told me what kinds of reading and

writing the students engaged in and to what extent they engaged in it, as well as what

language and medium they used for these literacy activities. Further, voluntary

information they partially provided showed when, where, why, and how they read and

wrote, as well as the nature of their daily activities, events, and even the social boundaries

of their peers. By combining all of this information, I came to learn more about their

actual involvement with literacy activities and events, as well as their perceptions of literacy practices.

Notwithstanding the value of such checklist data, the literacy checklists had

limitations as well. Most notably, the research participants sometimes forgot to record

some of their literacy activities. For example, the checklist data showed that when two of the research participants engaged in the same literacy activity, one recorded it, but the other did not. It is likely that one of these participants forgot to record such activities.

Thus, it is clear that literacy checklist data cannot represent 100% of their actual literacy engagement; however, they allowed me to learn broadly about their literacy practices without invading their privacy. Checklist data also provided initial emerging themes, and thus helped me identify what should be more thoroughly examined in other domains of the study. The next section presents tables showing the results arising from the literacy checklists, followed by discussion of the results.

Findings from Out-Of-School Literacy Checklists

This section begins by presenting two tables regarding type and frequency of literacy activities. Table 1 demonstrates to what extent each research participant engaged in certain types of reading activities in what language, and Table 2 demonstrates the same type of information in terms of their writing activities.

)

(F, 10

Elizabeth Email (EK18) (K46) Note/letter/card (K34, EK8, E2) Magazine (K7, E14) Website (K15, K4) *Separate peace (E11) Poem (K8) Online community * Spark notes (E8) * Spark notes Narrative essays (K3, E4) Bible (K7) Fiction (K, 5) (E5) * Short stories Bookstore (E3) Direction (E2) Ddriver’s edu (E2) Comics (E2) Newspaper/ads (E16) Lyrics (K10, E2) Dictionary (E 11) )

) th

(M , 11 Yoon Magazine (E9, K1, J2) * Novel (E10) Lyrics (K9) Bible (K7) Fiction (K7) Comics (E5) Essay (K1) Schedule (E1) Harry potter Email (K1) Websites (K40, KE1

) th

(M, 11 Mike Form (E9) *Scarlet letter (E7) Magazine (E6) Video strategies (E6) Non-fiction (K6) *Cliffnote (K5) Bible (K5) Fliers (E5) CD Jacket (K2) Schedule (E2) *Novels in class (E2) *Frontier man (E2) Church brochure(K14) Church brochure(K14) Letter/note/card (K5, KE 3, E5) Poem (K9) *Lyrics (K521, E18) Websites (KE 124) Web news (K48, E4) Comics (K21) Emails (K11, E18) ities (Continued) ities

) th,

(F, 9

June Poem (K3) Comics (K4) Picture-note (K2) Magazine (K1) (E2), Movie subtitle Bible (K10) Lyrics, song lists (K7) Diary reading (K1) Jello direction (E1) Manual (E1) Direction (E1) (E1) Phone bill Letter/note/cards (K14, E3) Web-news (K16) Online communities (K111) Non-fiction (K6) Non-fiction (K6) Website (E7) Email (K49) Internet novel (K4) Internet novel

) th

(F, 9 Soohee *Web info (K15, E2) E2) *Web info (K15, Internet novel (K17) Internet novel Mystery novel (K4) Mystery novel Harry potter (E4) Letters (notes) (K3, E1) Korean novel (K2) Non- fiction (K2) Korean reference (K2) Friends’ Essays (K1, E1) Play (E1) Magazine (E1) Reader’s choice (E1) Driver’s edu (E1) *Prince and pauper (E5) *Prince and pauper *Newspaper (E2) Comics (K2, K2) and Frequency of Reading Activ Table 4.1: Type Email (K4, E20) Bible (K2, E7) Bible (K2, E7) *The Odyssey (E9) *Web news (K6, E3)

ecipe (E1) R * Play (E2) * Spanish recipe (E2) (K1) Skin info Cereal boxes (E1) Subtitle (E1)

in both online and print-based environments.

SAT (K1) (K1) Thoughts Survey (E1) College seminar (E1) Instruction (E1) Subtitle (E1) Old sayings (K1) r reading activities K = Korean, E English.

academic reading activities. indicates literacy activities which occurred activities which occurred literacy indicates (1) 2004 New year resolution 2004 (K1) Vitamin table (E1) Menu (E1) Frame quote (E1) Movie summary (E1) Lucky man (1) (E1) booklet Tang-Soo-Do * The Odyssey indicates online literacy activities. indicates online literacy activities. Underlined and in italics K and E indicate the language that they used fo Underlined The asterisk (*) indicates

Table 4.1: Continued Table 4.1: Continued *The Hound of the *The Hound Baskervilles (E1) Manual (E1) Math reference (K1) Chinese characters (K1) upgrade English 200% (K1) 89

In Table 1, reading activities are listed from top to bottom according to rate of

frequency. Numbers in parentheses indicate the frequency of their reading engagement in

Korean (recorded as K), English (recorded as E), or the mixture of Korean and English

(recorded as KE). For instance, ‘Email (K4, E20)’ in Soohee’s reading section indicates that she read four Korean emails and 20 English emails. Moreover, I underlined online reading activities to distinguish them from print-based activities. The asterisk (*) indicates the research participants’ academic reading activities that were reported in the

literacy checklists. Below is Table 2 that follows the same format as the Table 1, but

deals with each participant’s writing activities.

)

. (F, 10

Elizabeth Recipes (E3) Letter/note/cards Letter/note/cards (K15, EK4, E1) Email (K13, E3) Diary (K12, EK 3) Instant Messages Instant (K78) Schedule (K8, KE47, E11) Online com(K24) *Website (E24) Church (K 5)

based environments ) - th

(M , 11

Yoon Card (K1) Diary (K1) Instant Messages Instant (K86) Schedule (E14) Websites (K8) Email (K2)

)

(M, 11

Mike Instant Messages Instant (KE, 121) Online com (K106) Diary (KE18) Form (E8), Picture notes (K2) Resume type (K2) Cd list (K2, E1) Poem (K1) Schedule (E15) Schedule (E15) K3) (KE5, Card/letter Email (KE6, E1) r reading activities K = Korean, E English. vities which occurred in both online and print

) th,

(F, 9

June academic reading activities. indicates literacy acti ncy of Writing Activities Online com (K84) Cards, letter, notes (K12) Diary (K10) Picture (K3) Poem (K5) Website (K1) New year resolution (K1) List (K1) Instant Messages Instant (K103) Email (K47)

) th

indicates online literacy activities. indicates online literacy activities. (F, 9

Soohee The asterisk (*) indicates K and E indicate the language that they used fo Underlined and in italics Underlined Korean reference (K1) (K44, E34) Instant Messages Instant Email (K21, E4) Schedule (K61, KE 5) Diary (K59, E2) Letter/note/cards Letter/note/cards (K8, E2) Web posting (K4) and Freque Table 4.2: Type 91

Given that all the research participants were Korean-English bilingual and bi-literate students who took advantage of computer technology, it is not surprising that what stood out most was their literacy engagement with two languages and the computer, though print texts also played a meaningful role. That is, one of the major findings in this study is that these adolescent immigrant students engaged in reading and writing in both

Korean and English across two literacy environments (print, online) on a daily basis. The first part of this section examines this finding within three domains: (1) types and frequency of literacy activities, (2) print vs online literacy practices, and (3) the use/choice of language for literacy activities. In the second part, I present several unique characteristics of the students’ literacy practices with regard to some patterns of their literacy activities and their perceptions of their literacy practices.

What and How Often They Read and Wrote

Each participant engaged in different types of reading and writing activities, and with different frequencies, as clearly seen in Table 4.1 and Table 4. 2. Overall, the research participants frequently read web information, emails, Internet novels, web news, newspapers, the Bible, comics, magazines, short stories, letters, notes, cards, song lyrics, and poems. Occasionally, they read video game strategy books, new year resolutions, movie reviews, TV/movie subtitles, forms, CD jackets, romantic quotes, cereal boxes, recipes, variety show program pamphlets, Tang-Soo-Do booklets, a driver’s education book, college information, friends’ essays, cell-phone bills, fliers, directions, manuals, schedules, and surveys. As for writing, they engaged in a variety of types: online chatting, web postings, emails, diary, letters, notes, cards, and schedules. They sometimes copied

down song lyrics, poems, and quotes as well. As such, the research participants read

recreational, religious, informational, functional, and educational texts; additionally, they

did private and public writing.

The lists of literacy activities in the tables show clearly that the participants engaged

in a wider range of reading than writing activities. In other words, they experienced more

diverse types of reading, and relatively fewer and more limited types of writing.

Generally, the participants reported 11 to 25 different kinds of reading activities, and 6 to

11 kinds of writing activities. Even, June, despite her reputation as a poet, engaged in

more than twenty kinds of reading activities, but less than ten kinds of writing activities.

This tendency toward a wider range of reading and a more focused range of writing

can be attributed partly to the fact that the participants reported many one time only activities for reading (e.g., Jello directions, a friend’s essay, a CD jacket, a survey, a

pamphlet, and a recipe). In contrast, many of their reported writing activities took place

in a relatively repetitive manner, and very few writing activities occurred only once

throughout the study. Another reason for the wider range of reading activities was that

the participants included their academic, or school-based, reading activities in the out-of-

school literacy checklists, especially reading short stories for English classes (i.e., ESL,

regular English). Interestingly, the participants reported many academic reading activities

(e.g., Twelve Angry Men, its cliff-note, and The Odyssey), but only one academic writing

activity (i.e., Mike’s chemistry homework on the website called chemthink.com). It is

probable that the research participants felt less difference between school-based and

voluntary out-of-school reading activities, whereas they tended to distinguish school-

based writing from out-of-school writing activities. In terms of interpreting the tendency 93

toward a wider range of reading and a narrower range of writing activities, we should be careful to understand that this tendency does not necessarily mean that their reading was more active than writing with regard to frequency or duration of literacy engagement.

Online vs Print Literacy Practices

The participants’ most frequent literacy activities took place online (underlined in the table); however, they also engaged in diverse types of print-based literacy activities, albeit with relatively less frequency. For some types of literacy activities (in italics and underlined in the table), they engaged both online and print environments. The convenience and accessibility of the medium (print, computer) may have affected the participants’ movement back and forth between them, but the checklists do not reveal specific motivations for shifting from one to another. This will be examined more thoroughly in the following chapters via other data sources.

According to the checklist data, the most popular online literacy activities were instant messaging, participating in online communities (including visiting homepages, i.e., reading and writing web-postings), and email correspondence. The most visible online literacy activity was instant messaging, often called just chatting among Korean students.

The participants all engaged in instant messaging at least once every two days, usually for two to three hours per day. Even Yoon, who was the most reluctant reader and writer in this study, engaged in instant messaging 86 times throughout the study. Topics for instant messaging were difficult to identify for two reasons. First, I as an adult and researcher was only partially accepted into their private online chatting. Second, whenever I asked about what they generally ‘talked’ about for hours, the participants simply stated, “nothing much” or “nothing special.” Fortunately, one of the most 94

cooperative research participants, Mike, thoroughly reported the topics of his online chatting: school activities (homework, variety show, report card, homecoming party), teenage issues (love triangle, role as son, rebel without a cause, conflicts with friends), and his favorite pastime activities (sports, music, movies).

During this online activity, they read and wrote postings on a variety of websites, including mini-homepages and weblogs of their friends and themselves, as well as online communities that they joined. All the participants except the newcomer, Soohee, maintained their own Korean mini-homepages provided by a Cyworld site or English weblogs provided by a Xanga site. The participants simply called their mini-homepages

Cyworld and weblogs Xanga. These two differ in several ways. Cyworld is one of the most popular mini-homepage sites among Korean adolescents and adults (e.g., many movie stars and politicians maintain their own in order to communicate with their fans).

In Cyworld, the research participants primarily used Korean. Cyworld includes many sub-sections, such as self-introduction, diary, publication, photo, a guest book, and a bookmark. Mike (Appendix C) and Elizabeth (Appendix D) had maintained their own

Cyworlds for some time; June (Appendix E) created hers during this study; and Yoon

(Appendix F) created his right after the data collection period ended. These research participants decorated their Cyworlds with poems, profound phrases, cute and funny pictures, video clips, and their own dairies. Equally often, they visited their friends’

Cyworlds that were often linked from their bookmarks. While surfing Cyworlds, the participants extensively read, wrote, and communicated, especially in the diary, guest book, and photos sections.

In contrast, Xanga is a weblog that supports an English font only, not foreign language fonts, and thus, the research participants had to use English only. During this research, June and Yoon did not update their Xangas as much as they used to. Elizabeth, the most fluent English speaker, kept her weblog there (Appendix G), but her engagement in Xanga was not as active as in Cyworld. Mike kept only Cyworld, but did not update it at the early stage of data collection. However, he re-activated his Cyworld from mid December by posting his diary. The newcomer Soohee was interested in neither

Xanga nor Cyworld.

While the research participants engaged in mini-homepages and weblogs, they also read and wrote in various online communities that they had joined, e.g., family, peer, and hobby groups. At the early stage of the data collection, I located one online community, called Welcome To Buckeye City (WTBC,) where all the participants were members. Mike explained, “Welcome To Buckeye City is a place for Korean teenagers who live in buckeye city. We know each other. It’s just a place that we can just hang out with friends.

We can talk about any thing like what happened today, or write a poem, write a story and upload pictures in it.” (Interview, 11/2/2003) Mike and June, who could be labeled as heavy Internet users, were webmasters and facilitators in this community. That is, they both actively engaged in this teenage online community by reading others’ postings, responding to them, and sharing their own writing there. Mike reported in the checklists that he wrote web-postings (i.e., WTBC and other online communities) 106 times over the research period of six months. June, who joined this research shortly after the other participants, wrote web-postings to several online communities (e.g., WTBC,

Family Café) a total of 84 times. Given the fact that the research participants often forgot

to record their activities, it is quite possible that their actual involvement might have been greater than was reported in the checklists.

These two most popular online literacy activities (instant messaging, participating in

an online community) reveal a very interesting point. The research participants interacted

with their friends and relatives in Korea and with people that they had never met via the

World Wide Web. However, their primary interaction in the online environment was with

the same people they spent time with at school and in the community. That is, they were

all locally connected friends. Thus, their online literacy practice was an extension of the

social interaction which occurred at school and church. In other words, their social

interaction continued by means of written language (e.g., emails, online chatting),

symbols (e.g., emoticons), visuals (e.g., photos), and multimedia (e.g., songs, video clips)

in cyber space. This indicates that the online literacy environment provided them with a

cyber playground where they could continue to talk, and thus that 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. Further, it is probable that their online literacy practices played a slightly different role from print- based literacy activities and met certain needs of adolescent students that print-based literacy practice could not.

Several literacy activities (underlined and in italics) 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, keeping a diary, and writing daily planners. 97

Reading and copying song lyrics was a literacy activity which occurred among all of

these adolescent students. They read print-based song lyrics or searched for particular

lyrics on the Internet and read them on screen while listening to music. In addition, some

copied down or pasted a portion of their favorite lyrics here and there: in notebooks, in

notes to their friends, and on their mini-homepages. Mike often used portions of lyrics as

his screen names in instant messaging.

As noted earlier, the students engaged extensively in Korean literacy activities, and so all the participants mainly enjoyed Korean songs and lyrics. In fact, Soohee and Yoon seemed to listen to Korean pop music only, whereas Mike and Elizabeth (the most fluent

English speakers in this study) often enjoyed American pop songs and lyrics as well. For instance, Elizabeth put the whole set of lyrics of Runaway, sung by Linkin Park

(alternative metal quintet) in her Xanga weblog. Mike, another fan of Linkin Park, made a ten-minute presentation about Linkin Park in his creative writing class. He searched for information about this band online, played one of his favorite songs by them (i.e., From

The Inside), recited the lyrics, and received an extra point for his interpretation and critique of the lyrics. Linkin Park was particularly popular among the research participants (i.e., Elizabeth, Mike, June), mainly because one of the group members was a

3rd generation Korean American, named Mr. Hahn. When I first found the lyrics,

Runaway on Elizabeth’s Xanga, I simply assumed that Runaway was either a poem or song lyrics written by someone named Linkin Park, whose last name was Park since Park is a common Korean family name. When I asked Elizabeth about Linkin Park, we had a miscommunication for a while until I figured out that Park was a place, not a last name.

When Elizabeth explained that Linkin Park is a metal music band, she immediately stated 98

with excitement and pride, “Oh, there is a Korean member in there”. This Korean

member, Mr. Hahn, attracted these Korean immigrant students’ attention. This example

illustrates the participants’ desire to maintain links with their Korean heritage and

strengthen their identities as Koreans.

In addition to literacy activities related to song lyrics, some of the participants,

especially Mike, read or wrote reviews of new songs and CDs in several online music

communities. All these literacy activities and events related to music could be regarded as

part of universal youth culture, but as for Korean youths, reading lyrics was attached to

another popular Korean social activity, called Karaoke. For these Korean adolescent

students, Karaoke was a special social event that often took place as part of their birthday

parties. Thus, reading, copying, and memorizing lyrics were important activities within

the circle of Korean youths in their community.

Another significant activity which occurred in both contexts was diary writing. It

was one of the literacy activities that every participant engaged in. To my surprise, three

of the five students (Soohee, June, Elizabeth) kept two forms of a diary. All of these female students kept both print-based and online diaries, and Elizabeth kept an English

(Xanga) and Korean (Cyworld) version of both her online diary and her print-based diary.

She deliberately chose English for Xanga considering monolingual English speaking audience, and chose Korean for her Cyworld and print-based diary. Similarly, Soohee used English in her computer-based diary, but strictly used Korean in her print-based diary. Unlike Elizabeth and Soohee, June always used Korean in any form of her diary.

The literacy checklist data did not provide a clear explanation for the motivation behind their selection of diary types, but it seems likely that an online diary had the appeal of 99

open and public writing, 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. Depending on different situations, moods,

or purposes, the girls would choose one form over the other at a particular time. In

contrast, the boys kept only one form: Yoon wrote in only a print-based diary in Korean,

whereas Mike wrote in only an online diary in Korean.

The decision by three of the participants 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 language rather than utilizing just one

modality and one language, these participants were attaching considerable significance to

writing.

Along with diary writing, another form of record-keeping occurring in both environments was scheduling and planner writing. Each participant showed different purposes for and attitudes toward planner writing. Soohee and Elizabeth were in the habit of writing down to-do-lists. It was a sort of voluntary act that they quite enjoyed.

However, Elizabeth was the only one who often typed her schedules at the computer. By using both languages, she took fullest advantage of both languages and mediums to record information. Elizabeth seemed to randomly choose a language for this activity; sometimes she used only one language, either Korean or English for planner writing, but more often, she used a mixture of the two.

As for Soohee, scheduling and planner writing was a frequent activity as well. She primarily used Korean, but the longer she stayed in the United States, the more English words she inserted for such writing activities. Her checklist data hinted at a possible link 100

between her diary writing and planner writing. In the mid-stage of the study, I noticed

that her diary writing seemed to coincide with planner writing. When I asked about this

pattern in an interview, she explained that she never engaged in diary writing without

planner writing. That is, her planner writing played a role as a pre-writing activity for

diary writing.

In contrast to Elizabeth and Soohee, the other participants engaged in planner writing

more for functional purposes and in a less voluntary manner. Yoon simply carried out

planner writing as a class assignment in his individualized reading class. Mike recorded significant and exciting school information, such as no school, late start, and test schedules. Since both Yoon and Mike recorded school-related information in their planners, they primarily wrote in English. Interestingly, Mike did not recognize his planner writing as one of his out-of-school writing activities for a while. Then, when he was filling out the literacy checklist while sitting at his computer, he happened to see his planner beside his computer. At that moment, it struck him that planner writing was also one of his writing activities, and he started including planner writing on his checklist.

Diary writing and planner writing were self-directed activities that occurred in two literacy environments; by contrast, note-exchanging regards two-way interactions between readers and writers. This writing activity is influenced by who their audience is and their relationship with the reader. In this study, note-exchanging took place only among the female participants, who collected all the notes and letters and re-read them occasionally. Soohee and Elizabeth were once active note-writers, especially when they exchanged notes with two female Korean ESL class friends, Ayon and Naree, who were the key persons circulating and exchanging notes at school. Generally, notes between 101

Korean friends were written in Korean, and English words were inserted and exchanged inside school, especially during class time, lunch time, ESL resource time, or even during an examination period. After the two Korean friends, Ayon and Naree, left for Korea,

Elizabeth and Soohee engaged in less note-exchanging.

Such informal reading and writing played quite a significant role for the newcomer,

Soohee. She attempted to write notes in English to practice English writing with her ESL friends and Korean-American friends. In addition, by primarily addressing school issues in the notes, Soohee was likely to use them as a tool to learn about American schooling.

It also helped her establish friendships in a new environment. Interestingly, her note- writing drastically decreased after her first semester in an American school, partly because she felt comfortable with school life and had made several good friends.

As I have discussed so far, these high school students pursued adolescent issues and interests through reading and writing in two literacy environments (online, print).

It appears to have been important for these adolescents to have their own literacy space

(physical or cyber) where they could express themselves. However, the checklist data alone cannot provide conclusive evidence as to whether the participants felt more familiar with or preferred one medium, print or online, over the other for these literacy activities.

Understanding their choice and use of one medium in particular circumstances may reveal important facets of their voluntary, or out-of-school, literacy practices. Particularly, for adolescent immigrant students living in a high technological society, literacy practices become complicated when the choice and use of a medium (print, online) are intertwined with the issue of choice and use of language (e.g., L1, L2, L3) for literacy activities. This was the case for the research participants in this study, as will be discussed in more detail 102

in later chapters, as well as in the next subsection of this chapter. The literacy checklists

provide useful data about the kinds of choices the participants made, but they do not

reveal what motivated those choices, or what that motivation reveals about the nature and

importance of the activities that grew out of those literacy decisions. The checklist data do suggest, though, that there is value in identifying and unpacking the choices which govern students’ literacy lives outside school.

The Use and Choice of a Language for Literacy Practices

The research participants in this study had considerable experience with several languages and literacies. All were Korean-English bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural to varying degrees. All but Elizabeth had learned many Chinese characters (from 100 up to

1000) when they were upper elementary and middle school students in Korea. Since coming to the United States, June and Yoon had studied Japanese, and Mike and

Elizabeth had studied Spanish in high school. The newcomer, Soohee, was planning to take Spanish I the next year. In foreign language classes, these students felt comfortable with and confident in learning other languages (Japanese, Spanish), without feeling deficient or less capable of learning a language compared with their native English- speaking American classmates. Especially, Yoon, June, and many other Korean ESL students in their Japanese classes seemed to believe that they were in a better position than American friends in terms of learning Japanese. In addition, they maintained that their Japanese instructor, a Caucasian male teacher, was especially nice to Korean students because he had adopted a Korean child. These Korean students in Japanese classes felt a strong sense of belonging and motivation toward pursuing their third language within such a warm learning atmosphere. As such, all the adolescent immigrant 103

students in this study were multilingual and multiliterate, interested in languages, and

comfortable with using several different languages in their daily lives. This also meant that they faced constant choices over which language to use for these literacy activities.

Mike once described his life as double lives in an interview, and it may have been the case for all of the participants. They lived Korean lives at home and in the community, mainly spoke Korean, whereas they lived American lives at school, primarily speaking

English. For their out-of-school literacy activities, Korean was predominantly used. The tables in the previous section shows that many literacy activities took place in Korean; the main exceptions were academically related. For instance, when they exchanged cards, notes, and letters with their Korean friends at school and church, the tendency was to write in Korean, with only a few exceptions. That is, if they had a choice to make, they chose Korean as a means of communicating with Korean-English bilinguals. When they emailed their friends and relatives in Korea, they had no choice but to use Korean. In general, by using the Korean language, the participants reached a wide ranging audience from their Korean ESL friends in America to Korean friends in Korea. They also relied on Korean in maintaining their mini-homepages so that their friends in Korea and

America could read and learn messages. While they were English language learners who needed English for school purposes, they felt more comfortable with Korean during informal reading and writing activities. That Korean was their language of choice in such voluntary activities, puts the roles of language affiliation among Korean 1.5 generation writers in an interesting light. The relationship between language affiliation, cultural identity, and voluntary literacy activity is an important one in understanding the literacy

104

lives of 1.5 generation students, and the literacy checklist data offer some valuable insight into that relationship.

However, these research participants encountered English literacy as well. In some cases, they did not have a real choice of a language for literacy activities, since they lived in an English-speaking environment. That is, many reading materials were available only in English, e.g., TV/movie subtitles, the directions for making Jello, driver’s education materials, variety show booklets, poems, and short stories. Similarly, they had to use

English for writing (e.g., filling out forms and surveys, and maintaining other written communication with English monolingual audiences). It is probable that some of these

English literacy activities were pleasurable and voluntary; however, others were for practical purposes only. Looking more closely at the tables in the previous section, we can see that English reading activities were more for educational and recreational purposes (e.g., short novels, magazines); however, English writing activities were more for functional purposes (e.g., scheduling, forms). Overall, English was rarely used for pleasurable writing activities.

Mixing of the two languages (Korean, English) occurred mainly using voluntary writing activities that involved interacting with Korean English bilinguals. Several fascinating examples appeared among their writing samples. For instance, a short letter on the back of homecoming pictures illustrated their use of two languages. For these participants, exchanging homecoming pictures was an important activity. For example, in

Mike’s letter to Yoon, he followed the format of an English letter, which is different from that of a Korean letter, but wrote primarily in Korean with a few English words (e.g., greetings, closing). One possible reason for this kind of code mixing could be that Mike 105

was more familiar with various forms and genres of English writing (e.g., letter, narrative,

expository, and argumentative writing) because he returned to America while in grade six.

However, he still felt comfortable with Korean for informal writing; additionally, his

readers were Korean dominant bilingual friends. Thus, it was understandable that Mike

used an English form of letter and Korean words on the short letter on the back of homecoming pictures.

Another example of mixing of languages was their use of screen names in online

chatting. Their screen names were full of different kinds of letters. For instance, the

longest “screen name” that I found in this study was as follows:

[BrownEyedDevil] 북천하늘이 맑다커늘. Brown Eyed Girl 이 나를 정말 사랑했을까. My Everything 인 나의 Candy.이렇게 아름다운 날들 Brown City 에서 술과 Blue Day 을 즐긴다. 바보 같이 어디를 Go 하며 시계를 보고, 전화해 주길 빈다. (Mike’s Screen Name, 10/21/2003-10/25/2003)

[BrownEyedDevil] Even though the sky is crystal clear, did the Brown Eyed Girl truly love me? My everything is my Candy. I enjoy drinks and blue days in Brown city for these beautiful days. Where do you go, you fool? Watching the clock, I wish you to call me. (Mike’s Screen Name, 10/21/2003-10/25/2003)

Mike created this screen name by combining “ten” Korean song titles, as underlined,

from his favorite Korean music group, The Brown Eyed Soul. It is true that the sentences

do not quite make sense, but he said that it was fun to create such a screen name.

Interestingly, these ten songs are all Korean songs, but five of the song titles are English

since this Korean music group consists of Korean American members, and their song

titles and lyrics include many English words. In another example, Yoon, a reluctant

reader and writer, used four different types of letters for his screen names: Korean,

English, Chinese, and emoticons: “곰나들이 ‘봄이다!!’ [容寬] = [惡能] ♪天生友情♪ [六惡人]

106

= B.G.P.” (“Bear outings, “Spring has come!!” [Yoon] = [evil ability] ♪ 1000-year friendship ♪ [six evil men] = B.G.P”) (Yoon’s Screen Name, 2/4/2004).

These examples illustrate their mixing of languages, a practice that occurred across all the participants and could be explained in several possible ways. Perhaps these multilingual students needed several different languages in order to express themselves in a more complete and comprehensive way. That is, they might have felt more attached to some words and notions in one language and to others 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 their way through two languages and two literacy worlds. The literacy checklists do not explain why the code-switching occurred, but they help reveal its richness.

Unique Characteristics of Literacy Practices

As briefly noted with respect to the value of literacy checklist data, such data can reveal patterns of the participants’ literacy practices and provide a glimpse at their perceptions of literacy practice. This section looks at the characteristics of the participants’ literacy practices that emerged from literacy checklists. First, repetitive reading took place among several participants. For instance, Mike read the same comics

(i.e., Hiphop, Shoot) over and over again. Particularly, he read his favorite parts repeatedly, drew some hiphop moves on a piece of paper, and actually practiced them in front of a mirror. June re-read her own poems, old letters, cards, and notes that she 107

received. In an interview, June also seemed to brag about her habit of reading the same

book repeatedly. She noted an example of reading her favorite book, a Korean version of

My Orange Tree, at least ten to thirteen times. This repetitive reading habit was also

applied to academic reading. For instance, Soohee and June read the same stories (i.e.,

The Prince and the Pauper, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Odyssey) for ESL classes

at least three to five times so as to prepare for their quizzes and tests. According to their

checklists, Soohee engaged in repetitive reading only for academic purposes, whereas

Mike did so only for out-of-school pleasure reading. In contrast, June read the same book

repetitively regardless of whether it was for school or for fun. Overall, each engaged in

repetitive reading for different purposes in a slightly different manner.

This repetitive reading habit is better understood when related to an interesting characteristic of their literacy practice. That is, the participants’ reading was quite limited with respect to source of topics and content. Although they sometimes welcomed new topics for reading, they mainly read within the boundary of their primary interests. For

instance, Soohee read Internet novels mostly about Korean teenagers’ school lives; June

read online news articles on Korean social issues; Elizabeth read recipes and fashion and

make-up magazines; Yoon read car magazines only; Mike exclusively read about music,

sports, entertainment, and computers. They all pursued their personal interests by

consistently reading on a select list of topics.

Another interesting characteristic of their literacy practice reflected in the literacy

checklists was their engagement with connected reading and writing activities. For

instance, the three girls reported that they often re-read their own writing. June read her

own poems and diary, and so did Soohee. Interestingly, Elizabeth even drew an arrow 108

between her reading and writing activities on the checklists in order to indicate that she read after writing or wrote after reading. By the same token, reading and writing activities were tightly connected in the online literacy context. That is, reading web-postings and responding to them, online chatting, and email correspondence all require both reading and writing. In spite of their involvement with such linked activities, the participants often did not recognize the nature of the connectedness of their reading and writing, and so they recorded these connected activities under either reading or writing activities.

So far I have discussed some notable characteristics of the participants’ literacy practices, especially some patterns of these practices. The checklist data reflected their notions, knowledge, and perceptions of literacy and literacy practices. First, each individual had a different definition or notion of out-of-school literacy practice, though

interestingly, all the participants included their school-based literacy activities in the out-

of-school literacy checklists. As the asterisks (*) in the tables indicate, some participants

included quite a few academic reading activities, while others rarely included them. Also,

all academic literacy activities reported except one were reading activities. Possibly,

academic reading rather than writing was more closely associated with out-of-school

literacy practice since it may well have occurred outside school. The participants appear

to have confused or blurred the distinction between in- and out-of-school literacy

practices, and it may be that such overlaps between school and out-of-school literacy

activities are inevitable, especially in terms of reading. As noted earlier, even though the

activities involved school-based materials and tasks, the participants often performed the

activities outside school.

109

Second, some participants had different knowledge or notions of types of literacy

activities. Some recorded one literacy activity under two different literacy categories. For instance, both Soohee and Elizabeth listed a Korean book, called Papepopo Memories, as both a novel and a comic because this short story book includes comic strips here and there. Also, being a great fan of Internet novels, Soohee started recording Internet novel reading in the ‘etc’ section, instead of ‘novels’ after she read a debate over whether

Internet novels should be treated equally with print-based novels. Soohee agreed with the idea that Internet novels should not be treated as true novels because they lack a significant characteristic (i.e., rich written descriptions) required for novels. Soohee went on to argue that Internet novels used emoticons extensively and failed to provide rich written descriptions of emotions and situations. This particular example suggests that

Soohee critically examined her ideas of novels while expanding her repertoire of novels, from first and foremost print-based novel reading to Internet novel reading. She at first treated Internet novels as an online version of print-based novels; however, the more she engaged in Internet novels and read articles about them, the more she started considering differences between the two forms of novels.

Lastly, one notable phenomenon appearing in the checklists was that the longer the participants were involved in the study, the more diverse were the kinds of reading and writing activities they reported. The participants might have been more aware of their activities, and thus, they included many single-occurring activities, for instance, reading a

Catholic church weekly brochure, a ski resort form to fill out, and a CD jacket. Yoon’s regular reading activity, bathroom reading, is a perfect example of explaining this phenomenon. Yoon did not report his reading of magazines and Korean novels in the 110

bathroom until fairly late in the study because it never occurred to him that this was his

reading activity. Similarly, the participants had widened their notions and definitions of

reading and writing so that they even included their library visits and bookstore browsing on the checklists.

In this section, I drew attention to the notable characteristics of the research participants’ self-reported literacy practices (e.g., repetitive reading, reading/writing connected activities). The out-of-school literacy checklists offer a broad view of some patterns of the participants’ literacy practices and their perceptions of literacy practice.

This knowledge itself is significant in understanding the nature of their literacy practice.

More importantly, it points out issues that should be further explored through an in-depth investigation based on multiple data sources, as well occur in later chapters.

Summary of the Checklist Findings

The out-of-school literacy checklists covering six months of activity provided an overall, though partial, portrait of the five adolescent immigrant students’ literacy practices. Several major findings emerged from the checklists. First, these research participants engaged in a wide variety of reading and writing activities outside of school.

Second, they took advantage of both print and online literacy environments; however, they relied mainly on online literacy practices and invested a great deal of their free time in such activities. Third, they switched between or mixed Korean and English during their literacy activities, depending on the different purposes and contexts at hands. In addition to these commonalities, the uniqueness of each participant’s practice is worth noting. For instance, each preferred different types of reading and writing activities, and to different degrees. Further, their choice of language and medium varied across the 111

research participants, depending on the peer groups that they interacted with. These

choices that they made revealed the complicated nature of the literacy practices of

adolescent bilingual students.

Finally, checklist data are not sufficient to fully investigate the complex nature of

their out-of-school literacy engagement. For instance, June was known as a poet among

her peers, but in reality, she reported writing poetry only three to four times over five months, even though she actively shared her poems composed before and during the study. Thus, checklist information alone did not reveal much about her status as a poet, or her writerly identity outside of school. Without multiple sources of data, there was no way to see that June played a role as a poet and a major literacy broker in cyber space.

Therefore, in the following chapter, I create a more detailed portrait of each individual’s

literacy practices based on multiple sources of data: weekly interviews, information

conversations, literacy autobiography, survey questionnaires, and artifacts. The portraits

can further answer important questions, such as not only how the adolescent bilingual

students engaged and disengaged with varieties of literacy activity, but also how these

activities were embedded in their daily lives. In doing so, we will be better able to

understand different ways of being literate beyond the school environment and in

circumstances where the students have more than one language and one medium of

engagement available.

112

CHAPTER 5

CASE STUDIES: TALES OF IMMIGRANT ADOLESCENTS’

OUT-OF-SCHOOL LITERACY PRACTICES

Introduction

This chapter recounts the tales of five research participants (Soohee, June, Mike,

Yoon, and Elizabeth) and their encounters with literacy in out-of-school settings. This

chapter is devoted to creating individual portraits and rich accounts of each of these

immigrant adolescent students and his or her out-of-school literacy practices. Drawing on multiple sources of data, I describe particulars of their literacy activities and events within a variety of settings. Looking at how they constructed a wide range of individual and collective literacy practices provides valuable insights into an understanding of the nature of their lives as literate beings beyond the realm of the classroom.

In Chapter three, I discussed the study’s research methods. To review briefly, all the research participants described in this chapter were friends from school or church in a

mid-western suburban city in the United State where this research was situated. They

were all considered Korean Generation 1.5 students; that is, these students were

permanent residents of the United States, came to the U. S. as school-age children or

113

adolescents, and had lived in the U.S. for the primary part of their adolescence. Within

the same 1.5 generation category, the research participants were selected based on

maximum variation sampling so that this research could explore both similarities and

differences within the participants’ literacy practices. Over the period of data collection

(October 2003 to March 2004), I provided them with tutorials, conducted weekly interviews, and gathered data in numerous other ways: out-of-school literacy checklists,

literacy artifacts (reading texts, writing samples), observations, fieldnotes, a questionnaire,

and literacy autobiographies. Throughout the process of data collection, I sought to

understand the nature of the participants’ literacy practices outside of school, especially by investigating their use/choice of language and medium, as well as considering their

motivations for literacy engagement, the roles played by their online literacy practices,

and possible relationships between their out-of-school and academic literacy practice

experiences. The following five case studies integrate descriptions, perceptions, and

interpretations of the research participants’ literacy practices. In this way, we will see

how their out-of-school literacy activities were embedded in their everyday lives.

Consistent with the qualitative research practice of naturalistic inquiry, the case studies

are presented in a chronologically oriented narrative style intended to allow the stories to

unfold as I experienced them as the researcher/participant.

This chapter starts with the tale of a newly arrived immigrant girl, Soohee, by

discussing her literacy practices while she adjusted to American schooling and life. Next,

I introduce another 9th grader girl, June, the poet who was a true lover of reading and writing. Her tale focuses particularly on various unique literacy activities and events that did not occur with the other research participants. Given June’s extensive online literacy 114

practice together with Mike in online communities, I then introduce an “Ohio rising star,”

Mike. His case study stresses his online literacy practices, especially his roles as reader,

writer, and reporter in cyber space. The next case study is about Yoon, an 11th grade male

student who was the only research participant that called me to join this research. Yoon’s

case study provides a more critical perspective that allows us to acknowledge the actual

literacy practice of a struggling and reluctant reader. The last tale deals with the most

fluent English speaker, Elizabeth, especially her connected reading/writing activities for

both academic and leisurely or recreational purposes.

Each portrait emphasizes salient characteristics and details that capture the most

common features and patterns of the participant’s out-of-school literacy practices. Thus,

each story is told in different ways that best suit the needs of each portrait. In this way the

chapter is designed to meet one of the fundamental requirements of qualitative research,

which is to allow the voice of research participants to emerge in ways which most closely

align with how they behaved and represented themselves during the research process.

Also, because qualitative data analysis emphasizes the importance of identifying themes

or patterns which emerge while the analysis unfolds, the discussion of each of the five

participants is framed by a descriptive phrase which characterizes the most notable aspect

of the participants’ approach to out of school literacy activity. For example, June is

labeled “The Poet” in recognition of the ways in which poetry writing was manifested in

her out of school writing. It should be noted, though, that these descriptors are not meant to suggest that other themes or characteristics of their out of school reading and writing

did not emerge or were of no importance. It was felt, though, that using a particular

descriptor or metaphor would add meaning and focus to the discussion of the participants. 115

(See Alvermann, 2002; Connelly & Clandinin, 1997; Richardson, 1995, 2000 for

discussions of the points raised above with respect to qualitative data analysis and writing.)

Another preliminary point which must be discussed is my own presence in this chapter and in the lives of the participants during the data collection period and afterwards. As noted earlier, I was not a distant or removed observer of the participants’ literacy activities. For one thing, I was, as previously discussed, serving as a tutor for them so as to provide the reciprocity that is seen as an important component of qualitative research. Also, as the study progressed, personal relationships between myself and the participants naturally developed given the amount of time we spent together through the interviews, tutorial sessions, and other research activities that constituted the study. To some extent I became a kind of “elder sister” to the participants, and in this capacity was sometimes asked by them to engage in such actions as providing rides to social events and carrying on personal conversations (face-to-face, telephone, and online). While they always knew me as the researcher, they sometimes wanted me to play other roles, e.g.,

driver, confidant, etc. I was, then, a deeply involved participant observer, and for that

reason must allow my own involvement in the study to unfold in the descriptions of the case study participants. How I interacted with them, especially in the process of

collecting the kinds of data the study sought, is a part of the stories which this chapter presents. While it is what the five participants said and did that was of paramount importance in the study, I have once again attempted to follow the conventions of qualitative research writing, which call for open acknowledgement of the researcher’s participation in the study and the subjectivity that such participation entails. 116

Soohee: A Tale of a Newly Arrived Immigrant Girl

Soohee, a 15-year-old female 9th grader, had been an immigrant to the United States for just four months when I first met her at her church. Her family moved to the U.S. for educational opportunities for their only child, Soohee, who had been academically very successful back in Korea. In fact, her out-of-school literacy checklists reflected such immigration purposes as well as her characteristics as a motivated student. Most of her out-of-school literacy practices recorded in the checklists, as discussed in the previous chapter, were closely related to her academics; she intentionally picked up English books and exchanged notes or letters with other ESL friends in English so as to practice English literacy. In addition, the checklist data show that as a newly arrived immigrant, she vigorously engaged in diary writing and record keeping (diaries, planners, calendars). Her habit of extensive record-keeping as well as her great interest in this research led her to voluntarily provide much information about her literacy practices and share her personal life through checklists updated in great detail, a literacy autobiography, informal and formal conversations, and artifacts. The story of Soohee here is the product of our collaborative efforts: her revelations about her life, her feedback on and corrections of my interpretations of her literate life, and my representation of her and her life.

When I first met Soohee at her local Korean church in a mid-western suburban city, it was her first semester at an American school. When I contacted the pastor at Soohee’s church, he was nice enough to invite me to his church to recruit research participants on

Sunday, September 28, 2003. As a non-Christian, I always found a church environment to be too solemn and serious, but I felt less anxious when I met two of my former students from Korean classes I had taught locally for several years. As soon as the service 117

was over, the church members moved to a huge dining hall. Jay, one of my former students, and I approached the youth group lunch table and asked who the high school immigrant students were among them. I found that almost all the youth group members were U. S.-born Koreans, and Soohee was the only immigrant student at that time. I briefly explained my research to her and then handed her a flier about my study. Soohee also asked several questions about the research, especially what exactly she should do as a participant. After a brief explanation, I talked to her mother at another lunch table concerning my study and handed her a flier, too. Her mother emphasized that Soohee was very “new” to this country and was in the “top 1%” of students in her Korean middle school. Since I had to leave for another church to recruit more research participants, we could not have a long conversation, but we exchanged our phone numbers to further discuss Soohee’s participation in this research. Overall, I sensed that both Soohee and her mother were very positive about my research. I was particularly excited because I had not found a relatively recent immigrant research participant until that day, and I believed that

Soohee’s story could reveal important information about a newly arrived immigrant student’s experiences and attitudes and her out-of-school literacy practices.

Before the first interview, I sent her several emails and an attachment file containing a survey regarding her literacy practices. When I opened up her survey file after she returned it to me, I was a bit surprised by her high level of computer competence, especially her word-processing skills. She had circled some answers and highlighted others with colors, which indicated that she was already good at using a computer.

Soohee and I exchanged four emails in Korean before the first interview, and finally decided to have an interview and tutorial on every Friday after school, beginning around 118

2:30 p.m. Soohee was different from the other research participants in that she preferred

Fridays, whereas the other research participants did not want to do any school-like

activities (i.e., an interview and tutorial) on Friday afternoons. For her, Friday was the only day on which she took some rest, and she seemed to treat her participation in this research as something informal, that is, carrying on a nice conversation with someone in

Korean. Perhaps, for this reason, Soohee and I ended up not having many formal tutorial

sessions; instead, we spent most of our time talking about her literacy practices and

general issues surrounding her life.

For the first interview, I thought that it would be nice to show her my apartment in

the hope that it might help her understand what kind person I was, especially my

personality and my dissertation, and help establish a workable rapport between us. After

we had arranged the first interview via email, I went to her school to pick her up on a

Friday afternoon for the first interview (10/24/2003). Arriving fifteen minutes early

allowed me to look around the school. I was thrilled to walk into the school building

because that was my first trip to her school. As soon as the bell rang at 2:28, students

were pouring out of the building and rushing into school buses. In front of the school bus

Soohee had told me to look for her, I spotted her walking toward me with another Asian

girl. I said hi to both girls and took Soohee to my car. Since our first meeting at her

church had been so brief, it was a bit awkward to converse with her at first, but on our

way to my apartment, we soon talked comfortably about her school life. Soohee started

talking about her best friend, whom I had just met: “Her English name is Diana.” I was

stunned for a moment because Diana was one of my potential research participants, and

119

we had chatted online several times, including the night before; however, neither of us recognized each other in the off-line reality.

Soohee’s first year at an American school cannot be fully understood without addressing her relationship with Diana, who was the same age as Soohee. Diana was one of the trans-national students who travel frequently between Korea and America and was very fluent in both Korean and English. Soohee attempted to practice her English with

Diana, but Soohee told me that it was too condescending to ask Diana to speak in English with her. But Soohee kept trying to speak in English to her and inserted more and more

English phrases in notes and letters that they exchanged and via online chatting. These early attempts of Soohee’s to bring English into her personal life offer some insight into what she was like when the study began.

By the time I met Soohee for the first interview, I had developed my own strategy for explaining my study to adolescent students, including Soohee. I briefly introduced myself as a graduate student, researcher, and a former middle school English teacher in Korea. I always stressed that since I did not attend an American high school, I did not know much about it, and any comments and explanations about it from the participants would be appreciated. In this way, I attempted to establish a reciprocal relationship with her by giving her free tutorials and learning from her about an American school and her life. I then explained the focus of my study with the simple description, what high school students read and write outside of school. In fact, I had learned from other students that they did not know what a “dissertation” was. From that moment on, I developed a way to effectively convey what I was attempting to do and why. I used the term, “a book”, rather than “a dissertation”, and showed the research participants two dissertations (one was 120

relatively thick and the other, thin). Then, I explained to them that I was trying to write a book based on their stories so that many people working with Korean immigrant students could benefit from my book. Several students asked whether what I was writing was fiction or non-fiction. Thanks to all these questions, when I introduced my research to

Soohee, I was able to explain to her that my plan was to write a true story about her, and

I sensed that she understood very well what she and I were going to try to do together.

Soohee and I seemed to enjoy our first long conversation. That two-hour

conversation taught me a lot about her, especially her immigrant background, previous

experiences with language learning, and her attitude toward Korea. Of particular

importance was the fact that Soohee had been brought to America solely for educational

purposes. Her parents intended to return to Korea once she had completed her education

and found a job in the United States. Through this information, particularly the sacrifices

Soohee’s parents were making to ensure her success, I understood that Soohee’s family

laid a great deal of stress on her education, which in turn made her emphasize academic

achievement.

Soohee was eager to improve her English and had thought a lot about what she

should have done in the past and what she should do in the future. For instance, she told

me her analysis of the optimal age for coming to America to acquire English well and

maintain Korean language proficiency. According to her, it was Grade 6, and thus, she

lamented that she did not immigrate to the United States earlier because she believed that

if she had come to the U. S. at a younger period, like Grade 6, she could have learned

English more easily and quickly. Whenever this should-have-come-earlier sentiment

occurred in our conversations, I reminded her that she would appreciate and benefit from 121

her strong foundation in Korean language and literacy, and that it was not too late to

acquire English as a high school student.

Even though Soohee stated that she missed her friends and relatives in Korea, she

harshly commented on Korean politics and the Korean educational system. After the first

interview ended, and the tape-recorder was turned off, she said that a key reason that she

could not learn English well in Korea was because there were not many English teachers

who were able to speak English well. Further, she noted that what she learned in English

classes in Korea was not “helpful” for her to adjust to American schooling. Her

frustration over having difficulties with English at an American school despite her several

years of formal learning of English in Korea was understandable. Until she immigrated to

the United States, she attended middle school from Monday to Saturday and attended a

private after-school institute, called a “hak-won,” for 20-hour-per-week lessons (Korean

Language Arts, English, Math, Social studies, Science). In that culture, she had

developed a great work ethic and study habits and had been a top student in her class;

however, she seemed to be completely exhausted by the heavy demands caused by this

combination of public and private schooling in Korea.

In fact, her literacy autobiography (1/2/2004) particularly reflected on her prior and

current-then experiences of learning Korean and English. Since the participants were asked to write literacy autobiographies after seven to eight interviews, the literacy autographies played a role in confirming the data collected in prior interviews, but did not provide much new information. In Soohee’s autobiography, I found one interesting fact that Soohee had never mentioned throughout the entire period of study: her English name,

“Julie.” Below is an excerpt from her literacy autobiography: 122

학원에 가서 가장 처음으로 한 것은 이름을 정하는 것이었다. 칠판에 이름을 죽 적어놓고 한가지씩 고르는 건데 내 이름은 Julie 였다. 내가 그 학원을 다니는 동안은 계속 그 이름을 썼었다. 그래서 친구들도 그렇게 불러서 대부분 서로의 한국이름은 몰랐다. 난 내 이름을 아주 좋아했다. (Soohee’s literacy autobiography)

The first thing I did at the private English institute was to select an English name. Many English names were written on the blackboard, and I picked one. My name was Julie. I was called Julie while I attended that institute, my friends called me Julie, and so we didn’t know our Korean names. I really liked my name, Julie. (Soohee’s literacy autobiography) [italic added]

This was very interesting to me because Soohee as a first grader loved her English

name, Julie, even while living in Korea; however, as a high school student living in the

United States, she showed quite strong resistance to having an English name and kept her

Korean name. This made me think about learning a new language, identity, and naming,

concepts that are worth examining in future studies.

On the day after our first interview, around 6:50 p.m. on Saturday, Soohee sent me

an MSN instant message and said “안녕하세요” (“Hello”). I asked her how she felt about

the first interview. She used two English words, “comfortable, interesting -_-a [an

emoticon of smile] ” (Instant message, 10/25/2003). Then, she immediately asked, “근데,

뭐라고 부르는게 적당할까요?” (“By the way, how should I address you?”) It was a brief,

critical moment in which I had to identify my role and what kind of relationship we

should create. I promptly typed a word, “언니” (“elder sister”). Even though I told her that I preferred to be a sister figure, I knew that I was a teacher, researcher, and adult figure rather than an elder sister at that point.

This brief example of online chatting brings up several important points in terms of the research itself. First, I greatly benefited from employing instant messaging and email correspondence with the participants. It was through these mediums, for example, that I 123

was able to establish a strong rapport with Soohee and obtain valuable information that did not emerge in interviews. Over a period of six months, Soohee emailed me 24 times, and we chatted online ten times, in addition to our 20 interview sessions. This helped me understand Soohee as a whole person rather than merely a research participant who read and wrote outside of school. Equally importantly, there were times when she felt much more comfortable with online chatting rather than face-to-face conversations before a tape-recorder. Second, I felt that it was important for her to establish her relationship with me from the very beginning of the study, and online communication played a vital role in this process. It also helped me acknowledge my multiple roles as a researcher, tutor, sister, and counselor (roles that I tried to move between as circumstances dictated so that both of us could benefit from working together).

The second interview (10/31/2003) was as memorable as the first one because it allowed Soohee to show me around her school. This tour led me to talk with her ESL teachers, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Cryst, and Mrs. Smith. Eventually, I was invited as a volunteer classroom bilingual aide to Soohee’s ESL resource class (a credit-bearing study hall class for ESL students). This invitation to her class was quite unexpected, and classroom observations were unplanned in my research, but I could not miss such a wonderful opportunity to observe and work with Soohee at her school. At her suggestion, I came to school every Friday for the 6th and 7th periods (when her ESL resource course met) and then interviewed her after school. In fact, four of the research participants in this study

(Soohee, June , Yoon, Elizabeth) attended this particular high school, and three of them

(Soohee, June, Yoon) took ESL classes. Thus, my participation as a volunteer in the ESL resource classes on Fridays became a great asset to my research. In particular, the three 124

ESL teachers provided me with great insights into understanding three of the research participants (Soohee, June, Yoon) with regards to their ESL class and the improvement of their overall English proficiency. They generously shared with me the annual ESL proficiency test results as well as students’ writing samples. Often times, the teachers told me interesting stories about the students and their backgrounds, stories which I could not possibly have known otherwise. Thanks to Soohee’s tour, then, I easily entered her school and became a part of an ESL team at that particular high school.

As I got to know Soohee better, I found that she was a very well-organized, self- disciplined student and followed her scheduled routine everyday. For instance, as soon as she got home from school around 3 o’clock, she always tried to finish her homework first.

She spent an average of one to two hours finishing her assignments. What she especially enjoyed about this part of her day, as she told me several times, was the act of writing out her daily schedule and plans. When she sat at her desk, this was her first act, one she performed in a mix of Korean and English. A typical schedule would look something like this: 3:00-4:00 (intro to physics assignment), 4:00 (TV news recording), 4:00-4:30

(break), 4:30-5:00 (flute practice), 5:00-5:30 (walking), and so forth. The TV news recording referred to a Korean TV news program (from an international channel on cable) she recorded for her uncle. Most of her voluntary reading and writing started after she completed her daily assignments; this was mostly from just after dinner until she went to bed (7:30 to 10:00 p.m.). It should be noted, though, that the writing of the daily schedule was itself a kind of voluntary, out of school literacy practice, albeit a simple one.

It was during this 7:30 to 10:00 p.m. period that two of Soohee’s most notable characteristics from a literacy perspective appeared: she was an extensive record-keeper 125

and enthusiastic diary writer. Almost every night before going to bed, she performed her

own ritual of writing: recording events in her daily life, expressing her thoughts and

feelings, and writing down self-encouragement comments. Unlike the other research

participants in this study, she kept four different spaces for such private and public

writing: a monthly calendar on her desk, a school planner, a private planner, and her

print-based diary. Even though calendar writing and planner writing overlapped to some

extent, she had a separate space for each document. All of these writing activities took

place during a routine she followed carefully; she always started with either her calendar

or planner as a pre-writing activity, and then immersed herself in private diary writing.

For all of these activities, she primarily used Korean, but as the study progressed, she

included more and more English words. The figure below displays a month’s worth of

her planner; it also illustrates her engagement with planner writing, as revealed in both the amount and the nature of the details recorded.

126

Figure 5.1: Soohee’s December Planner

127

This sample was recorded during her sixth month after moving to the United States.

She wrote about a variety of issues here, including her ESL friends and teachers,

homework, boring weekend, Korean food, an interim report card, 200th day since

immigration, The Odyssey, being at the top of her ESL class, getting an ‘A’ in Art,

shopping, movies, catching a cold, and expressing wishes for a Happy New Year.

Interestingly, she often noted our meetings, along with positive comments on her

participation in this research.

As it turned out, there was often much more depth in this planner writing than the

seemingly simple pieces of information recorded might suggest. Indeed, some of her

phrases and sentences were tough and disheartening enough to make me cry when I read

an extensive sampling of this writing. During her winter break (winter 2003), Soohee lent

me all of her planners and a calendar so that I could photocopy them. On the night that I

read them carefully, I could understand how hard (though exciting) it had been for her to

move to a new country, separated by thousands of miles from her relatives and friends,

and adjust to a completely different life. Notably, she counted every single day since she

arrived in America and wrote down the number (e.g., 200th day since arriving in the U.S.) in several different places. Another interesting finding was that she identified each day with the phrase “a certain day” to capture her feelings, experiences, or events that day.

There were so many different types of days identified in her calendar, e.g., a regretful day,

a determined day, a bad feeling day, a don’t-want-to-live day, a Dad-left-day, a getting-

comfortable day, a bewildered day, and so forth. What is significant is that Soohee partly

expressed her personal emotions in a kind of public space, her planners/calendar, and did

so through writing. 128

This daily planner/calendar writing was important for Soohee because it allowed her

to keep a record of her life and prepared her to engage in a more extensive type of

voluntary, out of school writing activity, diary writing, which will be discussed shortly.

The planner example above is also worth noting in terms of its code switching between

Korean and English and the types of words and information recorded in English: “Anna

is going to move to New Jersey,” “last day of school,” “project,” “resource,” “interim,”

“hahaha,” and so on. Soohee could have used Korean but chose English. This suggests an

increasing desire to make English a part of her life outside of school and shows how

English had roles to play in her out of school literacy activity.

Equally interestingly, she extensively used “emoticons”, a shortened form of the term

emotion icons. They were created to convey a range of emotions in a faceless electronic

environment. Soohee employed many Korean emoticons (e.g., *>_<*, ㅠㅇ ㅠ, ㅎㅎㅎ, -

ㅁ-a, = o =) in her planners, calendar, and even out-of-school literacy checklists. What was particularly interesting was that she pervasively used Korean emoticons created for

online communication in the print-based, offline context. In other words, she was

comfortable blending environments for writing. I learned later that using emoticons is a

common practice among young people in Korea, even to the problematic extent of many

students including them in school essays. This custom may have been what inspired

Soohee to use emoticons and to code switch between languages. In fact, her planners and

calendar were full of a mixture of different signs and symbols in different languages

(Korean, English, Chinese, and emoticons).

In addition to her planner/calendar writing, for Soohee, diary writing was a

significant feature of her out-of-school literacy practices. Soohee named her diary ‘You, 129

U, 유, 有,’ (the same sound, but different meanings and spellings) after being inspired by

Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl. Hence, she wrote as if she conversed with U, e.g. by saying “Hello, U. how are you today?” Soohee once told me that she found that she came to speak less Korean because she spent a great deal of time by herself. As a result, she engaged in diary writing in Korean much more than ever before. As the study progressed, it became clear why Soohee did not think of her diary writing as a writing practice, but rather as talking. For her, this kind of out-of-school writing was more like a dialogue, and so it took on the characteristics of conversation.

U was Soohee’s best friend, and she talked with it about anything at any moment.

Even though she usually wrote in the diary right before going to bed, when she felt a particular need to talk to (or with) U, she woke up early in the morning and engaged in diary writing before catching her school bus. Soohee relied on this form of out-of-school activity to make sense of her life, as revealed in the following quote:

근데, 저는 주로 기쁠때도 쓰고, 슬플때도 쓰고, 피곤할때도 쓰고, 기분 나쁠 때도 쓰고..기분에 상관없이 그냥. 오늘은 내가 이랬다..그냥 그렇게 써요.….그냥 마음을 터 놓는 다고나 할까? 일기장에. 그러니까. 마음을 스스로 한테 털어 놓는거죠… 일기를 하면서 대개 많은 걸 생각해요. 혼자 있는 조용한 시간에일기를 쓰죠… [주된 내용은] 주로 생활이죠. 그냥. 그리고 내가. 가끔은 내가 어떤 꿈을 꾸고 있는 지에 대해서도 써요….가까운 미래에 대한 계획 같은것도, 거기에 대해서 쓰죠. 좋은거 같아요.일기 쓰는게. (Interview 2, 10/31/2003)

Well, I keep a diary when I feel happy, when I feel sad, when I feel tired, or when I feel bad. Regardless of the mood of the day, I just keep a diary about what I did and how I did that day…. It’s like opening my whole heart to the diary. In other words, it’s like opening my heart to myself….While writing a diary, I ponder about so many things. I tend to keep a diary when I am in a solitary and quiet moment.… Life is the central issue to write about. I often write about my dreams…. Also, I write about near future goals and how I pursue them. I really think it’s good to keep a diary. (Interview 2, 10/31/2003)

Soohee did not mind sharing her diary with me, but I was hesitant to read it. I was not sure if this closer look at a participant’s personal life crossed the boundaries of the 130

study. Instead, I asked her to show me what it looked like. Her diary was the size of a

college notebook size, and a picture of a rabbit was on the front cover. It was a gift from

one of her friends in Korea. When we both flipped through the pages, I found that it was written almost completely in pencil. Soohee added that she liked to write with a pencil. In terms of length, sometimes she wrote a full page, and other times she wrote a half page.

This depended on the importance or depth of the issues that she wanted to write about and amount of free time she had available.

In fact, Soohee once hated the requirement of keeping a diary. This was while it was a homework assignment during her six years of elementary school in Korea, and thus, she immediately quit diary writing when it was no longer a school assignment in middle school. However, she began voluntary diary writing after arriving in America so as to keep a detailed record of her early immigrant life, particularly her struggles to adjust to life in an American school (despite her perfect grade point average), so that she could remember her hardship in the future. Through this diary writing, Soohee displayed a strong determination to maintain her Korean writing ability: “I want to um...learning

English very many times in many times, but sometimes, I like Korean letters. I want to keep my Korean.” (Interview 1, 10/24/2003) Indeed, Soohee considered the diary as the only place where she could maintain the written form of her heritage language.

Her efforts to maintain her Korean literacy with U enabled her to create a new space and tool for another kind of diary writing. On one occasion, Soohee had a strong urge and need to express how much she was embarrassed by her father’s rude behavior at church.

She intentionally chose a secret code, English, to complain about her father, but did not

want to use English in U, which for her was a sanctuary for Korean language use. Thus, 131

she decided to record some of her feelings in English via computer. Since her father

could neither read in English nor use a computer, Soohee believed that using English and

computer technology was a completely safe way to talk about him. This shift to

incorporating a new language (English) and medium (computer) into her diary writing allowed her to express more personal and secrecy emotions and to expand her diary writing practice. Further, Soohee was likely to gain power over her parents while taking advantage of her knowledge of a language and technology which was unavailable to them.

At the same time, it expanded the repertoire of her out-of-school literacy practices.

Clearly, through diary writing, Soohee had developed her own way to cope with her new experiences in a new land and the complex emotions of adolescence. This was one of the

most important manifestations of out-of-school literacy for her, that is, making use of

out-of-school writing to try to interpret and make sense of the events taking place in her

life.

In addition to her out-of-school writing, Soohee engaged in out-of-school reading, especially academically-oriented reading. Her high degree of motivation for succeeding at school and improving her English seemed to compell her to adapt school-like literacy

practices outside of school. For instance, she intentionally picked up English books related to school subjects (i.e. ESL, modern world history) when she was outside school.

At one point, for example, she picked up American Greats, a book that portrayed historically significant Americans, in order to gain a better understanding of American history. She also read local newspapers, surfed news websites (e.g., CNN), and watched the news on television because she wanted to receive good grades on her current events quizzes in her modern world history course. 132

Furthermore, in an attempt to improve her overall English proficiency and reading

skills, Soohee read ESL textbook-like supplementary books from her bookshelf. For

instance, when she was bored on one Friday night, she started reading a book on English

reading strategies, called Readers’ Choice, that her cousin chose for her to practice her

reading in English. She also read, in Korean, a how-to-improve-English type of book

entitled Upgrading your English 200%. Soohee’s book selection at the public library

further demonstrated a direct link between academic and out-of-school, voluntary reading

practice. For example, when she read a Sherlock Homes mystery novel, The Hound of the

Baskervilles, in her ESL class, she went to the local public library and checked out a mystery novel written by the same author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In class, they learned about the author and his other works, which encouraged her to voluntarily pick up one of those books.

Soohee’s out-of-school reading habits seemed to be aimed mainly at serving academically-oriented reading purposes. For instance, as a huge fan of Korean translations of the Harry Potter novels, she pursued Harry Potter and the Order of the

Phoenix as if she was doing her English homework. She sat at her desk, instead of lying

on her bed or sitting on a couch, and turned on her electronic dictionary to look up

unfamiliar words, especially adverbs with an –ly ending, while reading the book.

Furthermore, while engaging in school-based reading activities at home, Soohee

developed a habit of reading aloud to practice her English pronunciation. She read aloud

from English books such as The Odyssey, The Prince and the Pauper, and Harry Potter,

while she did not read aloud from Korean books. As such, Soohee’s out-of-school

reading practices were school-like and intended to improve her English and perform well 133

in classes. In other words, her out-of-school reading was instrumentally motivated far

more than it was designed to bring pleasure.

I became more convinced of her tendency toward school-like reading when she

shared her views of reading and learning. For Soohee, reading was important for learning,

especially for school learning, and she did not seem to have a clearcut notion of leisure reading. In an interview, she said, “책을 읽으면서 얻는게 많잖아요. 책에는, 생각하자면,

모든게 다 들어있는거죠….어렸을때 같으면 책 읽으면 단어 같은 것도 좀 알고, 책 읽는

속도도 좀 빨라지고, 읽으면 뭐랄까 공부 하는 틀도 잡히고.” (Interview 15, 2/12/2004)

(“From reading, we gain a lot. So to speak, everything is in books….For instance, when

young children read books, they can expand vocabulary and get to read more quickly. By

reading a lot, students become more self-disciplined for school learning.”) This comment

shows that she conceptualized reading as a foundation for learning and academic success

rather than for any kind of entertainment.

In the same interview, Soohee articulated her opinions about school and out-of-

school literacy practices and reiterated her learning-centered view reading and writing as

follows:

Out-of-school 은 좀 자기가 원하고 즐기기 위한 거고, 학교는의무감에 눌려서 하지만, 학교 에서 하는거라 재미 없고, 학교 밖에서 하는거라고 재밌는거 같진 않아요. 그게 단거 같아요. 학교 읽기 쓰기랑 학교 밖에서의 읽기쓰기가 있으면, 학교 읽기 쓰기를 먼저 하구요, 학교 밖에서 읽고 쓰기는 좀 하고 싶을때. 아. 좀 지금 시간이 남네 책 좀 한번 볼까? 뭐 그런 식으로. [학교 읽고 쓰기는] 아. 하기 싫어 이러면서도, 해야지 해야지 하면서 하는거죠. 학교에 점수를 받아야 되잖아요. 그러니까, 그 평생을 좌우하는 거를 치면 out-of- school literacy 가 더 중요하겠지만 학교에서가 아니고, 학교 이외에 knowledge 라고 할까 그런거 있잖아요. 사회전반적인 지식 이런거에는 out-of-school literacy 가 더 그렇지만,지금 학생이고. 지금 내가 만드는 점수가 대학교에 갈때 영향을 미치잖아요. 그러니까, 중요하죠. 학교에서 읽는 거를 많이 focus 를 맞추고 있고, 그러니까, 학교에서 쓰는 거는 academic 쪽으로 그렇구요, 학교 밖에서 배우는건 삶을 사는 지혜라고나 할까요. (Interview 15, 2/12/2004)

134

Out-of-school literacy practice is something that I want to do and something for fun, whereas school literacy practice is done out of pressure, but it is not necessarily true that all school literacy practices are boring, and out-of-school literacy practices are fun. That’s pretty much all I can think of. But between the two, I do school reading and writing first. As for out of school literacy practice, I do it when I feel like doing it, like ‘oh, I have some spare time. Why don’t I read a book?’ something like that. As for school reading ad writing, I do it even though I say, ‘oh, I don’t want to do it, but I should do it. I should do it’ because I have to get a good grade at school. So, when you think about influencing your life or your life-long learning, out-of-school literacy must be more important, in other words, you know, there is some out-of-school knowledge that is not obtained at school. So, out-of- school literacy must be more important for getting general knowledge about society, however, I now am a student and all the grades that I get will influence when I apply for college. That’s why school literacy practice is very important and that’s why I focus on school reading. In general, school literacy practice is for academics, and all I learn outside of school is like for wisdom of life. (Interview 15, 2/12/2004)

Furthermore, Soohee was aware that her school-oriented approach to out-of-school literacy practices was intended to enrich her life as well as enhance her prospects for academic success. This is not to say that she never read or wrote outside school for pleasure or entertainment, but for the most part these activities were achievement driven, especially where English was concerned. Indeed, for Soohee, “[읽고 쓰기는] 자기가 영어

공부하는데는 꼭 필수한 필요로 하는거죠.꼭 읽고 쓰기가 영어 공부를 위해서하는거는

아니지만, 지금 얘기하자면, 두가지 토끼를 잡는거죠. 읽고 쓰기에 대한.. 영어를 배우고,

내 삶의 지식을 배우고.” (“English reading and writing practices are absolutely necessary to learn English. They are not solely for improving English, as for now, [English] literacy practices are intended to kill two birds with one stone. Through English literacy practices,

I can improve my overall English proficiency and gain knowledge of life.”) (Interview 7,

12/5/2003).

Soohee’s out-of-school writing and reading activities that I have portrayed so far were all print-based and did not change much after she moved out of her aunt’s home

(where she lived when she arrived in America) and settled into a new house with her 135

parents. However, after she purchased her own computer and lived with her parents only, her literacy practices, especially her literacy environment, changed considerably. In

particular, she came to play two new and important roles outside school: as a language

broker and a technology broker. With her parents, for example, Soohee had to deal with

many practical, real world issues as the only family member who could speak English

fluently enough to communicate with the outside world, e.g., ordering a new phone line,

arranging for the installation of cable TV and high speed Internet, and shopping for many

necessities, including a computer. She engaged, then, in new types of out-of-school

literacy activities revolving around the functional purposes of her family. An important

outcome of this change in living circumstances was her shift from an emphasis on print-

based literacy to online literacy.

As it turned out, her online literacy practices could take place at any time. Previously, when she shared her uncle’s computer at her aunt’s home, Soohee had to limit her computer use because her aunt had complained to Soohee’s mother that she did not study but instead played with a computer. Thus, she shifted to using the computer for schoolwork during weekdays, and restricted her out-of-school computer writing to chatting online with her friends in Korea on Saturday mornings (Sunday night in Korea).

With the whole family at home on Sundays, Soohee did not use the computer. However,

when she later had her own computer at the new house with her parents, her computer

access expanded considerably, and she engaged in more diverse kinds of computer-based

activities, such as watching Harry Potter DVDs, listening to music, reading Internet

novels, consulting daily horoscopes, and reading news articles about Korea, as well as

keeping a diary. 136

She also engaged in instant messaging with her ESL friends at school (mostly Asian students) to improve her written English skills. She used two different instant messengers, named Buddy-Buddy and MSN, and managed different contact lists. Buddy-buddy, which

I had never heard of until then, was a popular instant messenger service among Korean teenagers in Korea, and most of her Korean friends used it. In contrast, a MSN messenger service was used more often by her friends in America. Soohee logged in on Buddy- buddy first, and when nobody was online, she moved to MSN messenger. When she joined this study, Soohee was a greater user of MSN than Buddy-buddy.

One interesting occasion illustrates how she took advantage of instant messaging in her daily life, and how academic and social purposes sometimes crossed in the online environment. Soohee became closer to her two Taiwanese ESL classmates, Lo-Shen and

Lo-Yen (Lo-Shen’s older brother), after she moved into the same apartment complex they lived in. One night, she chatted online with both of them while they were all sitting in front of their own personal computers in the same room. Lo-Shen first asked Soohee to provide some feedback on his final paper, a five paragraph essay, for their ESL class while chatting online. They transferred the files of their essays to each other and shared some feedback on the essays via instant messaging.

When she began to feel more comfortable with school, around her second semester, and thus felt less of a need to use out-of-school literacy activity to enhance academic learning, Soohee started reading Korean Internet novels (generally about once a week).

Her Internet novel reading was an important part of her life, as revealed by the fact that she often talked about specific Internet novels and novelists in our interviews. For instance, a famous Internet novel was later published as a paperback book and then 137

turned into a movie. The author, a popular Internet novelist, was accepted by the Korean

Language and Literature Department at a highly regarded university in Korea despite her

low college entrance examination scores because of her contribution to developing the

genre of the Korean Internet novel. For Soohee, eager to keep up with Korean youth

culture, this became a significant event, just as it did for young people in Korea. At the same time, it exemplifies her use of out-of-school literacy to maintain ties with her home

culture and language. It also shows how, unlike with print reading, she read online for pleasurable purposes rather than instrumental ones.

Another revealing example of online literacy engagement, and one that illustrates a very different way in which her out-of-school online reading was enacted, took place

with her family members when she played the role of a technology broker. Her family kept in touch with their friends and relatives in Korea via email, and Soohee served as

their technology broker in this process. For instance, Soohee typed and emailed the letters

that her mother wrote to their relatives in Korea. As another important example, when her

father, who was interested in Korean politics, asked Soohee to go online to find news articles regarding a Korean president’s impeachment, she visited two of the largest

Korean broadcast companies’ websites and watched the Korean news with her father.

Some discussion of the news followed as well. While engaging in this event, she happened to read more online articles regarding Korean political and social issues. Here

(as with the typing of her mother’s email messages) online, out-of-school activity allowed Soohee to maintain or continue to develop her heritage language and literacy skills.

138

Summary

Overall, Soohee’s immigrant circumstances and experiences had influenced her

literacy practices in and outside of school. Since her mother worked two part-time jobs

and her father stayed in Korea, Soohee, an only child, spent much her out of school time

alone. She could not participate in after-school or extra-curricular activities because she

had no transportation. Her only non-school-related social activity was to attend church on

Sundays, but she did not feel a sense of belonging in her church youth group, which was organized by U.S. born Korean-American adolescents. Perhaps, that was why she so much enjoyed talking with me on Friday afternoons and shared a great deal of her life with me.

Under the circumstance of such a limited social life, it may not be surprising that

Soohee pursued diary writing vigorously, and in this way opened her heart to her best friend, U, and thus to herself. What is worth noting is that this form of out-of-school literacy meant so much to her, as did her strong determination to maintain her heritage language, which led her to keep her diary in Korean.

Whereas her out-of-school writing consisted mainly of personal reflections in Korean and served highly personal purposes, her out-of-school reading was more academically oriented and took place in English. As a newly arrived immigrant student, Soohee was expected and motivated to acquire English language and literacy skills as quickly as possible. Yearning to improve her English, Soohee purposefully engaged in out-of-school reading that was essentially school-based reading and achievement driven.

What makes Soohee’s case especially interesting, then, is her divergent purposes for out-of-school reading and writing. Also worth noting is the fact that she read and wrote 139

regularly outside school, though in the case of reading the boundaries between school and out-of-school activity blurred. The different motivations guiding her out-school reading and writing are also noteworthy.

140

June: A True Lover of Reading and Writing

June: Who is it? 2YJ: Youngjoo [Researcher] YJ: A stalker sister that Terry talked about. June: ㅋㅋㅋㅋ [laugh] I have a friend, named Yungjoo June: I was gonna call you “Yungjooㅡㅡ?" ㅋㅋㅋ [laugh] YJ: I just read what you wrote YJ: in the online community YJ: very touching June: ㅋㅋ [laugh] June: which oneㅡㅡ? YJ: everything YJ: particularly recent ones June: Oh. YJ: by the way, when I was looking for students who read and wrote for my study YJ: why didn’t you show any interest? June: -0-? June: students who read and write? YJ: someone like you, who is a prolific, excellent writer YJ: you know. YJ: as you know, i was looking for my research participants June: ...what’s that ㅡㅡ?;;; YJ: asking students to answer the survey questionnaire June: I answered the survey questionnaire YJ: Yes... YJ: before that.... June: Yes YJ: as you know, I was looking for students YJ: to examine students who do read and write a lot.. YJ: you might not listen carefully when I was talking to students June: ...well...-0-;;; was I there?, maybe not YJ: Maybe. Since I didn’t have your email address YJ: I could not contact you ealier... June: I write a lot, but June: I don’t read much. June: ㅋㅋㅋ [online chatting continued]

YJ: I really have to go to bed. June: ㅎㅎ [laugh] June: good night. YJ: see you later YJ: I will look forward to reading more of your writing June: ㅎㅎ

2 YJ is a researcher, Youngjoo Yi. 141

June: Thanks you so much -0- June: by the way -0- June: how did you know which one was mine? YJ: oh. YJ: your name.. June: I don’t post my work with my real name, but a nick name- YJ: Yeah, I know. … I figured it out. June: ㅋㅋㅋ How did you get to know my nickname? ㅎㅎㅎ [online chatting continued]

I began this section of Chapter Five with a sample of my online exchanges with the

research participant named June because online chatting was a significant means by

which she engaged in out-of-school literacy, as will be seen shortly, and because it

proved to be an important research tool in this particular case. That is, it was through

online chatting that I explained the study, asked for and received her agreement to

participate in this research, talked about her past and current literacy lives, asked follow- up interview type questions, made social arrangements that helped sustain the study, and shared her very personal stories about topics like heartbreak. Furthermore, since our online chatting produced so much unexpectedly rich data—far more than with the other research participants—and also raised some important issues related to conducting qualitative research with adolescent students, I decided to tell June’s story rather differently than I have the other research tales in this chapter. It seemed especially worthwhile to portray June principally through a chronological approach based on the order of my interactions with her (though conversations that were of little value to the interests of this study are omitted; as such, there are gaps in the chronology). Conducting research with her was a particularly powerful and compelling experience, and the chronology will help readers see June as she gradually appeared to me as the researcher.

However, where they enrich the narrative and allow readers to gain a sense of what this 142

case seemed to reveal, significant and meaningful themes that emerged throughout the

study (based on multiple sources of data beyond the online chatting) are inserted and developed.

June did not actually join the study until the 4th week of the data collection period.

During the 4th week of the study, two of my research participants, Mike and Elizabeth,

mentioned their reading of June’s poems in a local teenage online community called

Welcome To Buckeye City (WTBC). I remember asking Mike whether he read June’s

own poems or someone else’ poems that June simply posted. He read “real” poems that

June composed. Since both Mike and Elizabeth mentioned the online community that

they visited daily, I visited it to try to understand what they read and wrote in the online

space and thus gain a more comprehensive sense of their out-of-school literacy activity.

Among several subsections in WTBC, the Philosophy section was Elizabeth’s favorite.

To understand Elizabeth and postings that she enjoyed, I carefully read the postings in

Philosophy. I was surprised to find that three to four postings among ten on each page

were June’s. When I discovered this, it was about 11:30 pm on Friday, November 14,

2003, and I could not wait to talk to June. Since it was Friday night, many students in my

MSN instant messenger contact list were online, and I immediately sent an instant

message to Elizabeth to obtain June’s MSN address. As I expected, June had an MSN

account, and I added her to my contact list. Then, the MSN messenger system sent June

a message as follows:

143

[ㅅ ŀ㉣よ][[email protected]] has added you to his/her contact list. Do you want to: Allow this person to see when you are online and contact you Block this person from seeing when you are online and contacting you

Remember, you can make yourself appear offline temporarily to everybody at any time. Add this person to my contact list. OK Cancel

Figure 5.2: A Message in the MSN Instant Messenger

I assumed that June clicked “allow-this person” and “add-this person” boxes without

knowing who [ㅅ ŀ㉣よ][[email protected]] was. That was why our first online chatting shown at the beginning of this section of Chapter Five began by June asking

“Who is it?” That conversation was my very first online chatting experience with June,

and three days later she agreed to participate in this study. (The online chatting was

carried out in Korean, but the above was translated into English.)

Prior to the first online chatting with June

I first saw June on my second visit to her Catholic church (9/28/2003) when I was

recruiting research participants. I vividly remember that her Korean pronunciation

sounded a bit awkward when I asked her how long she had been here in the United States.

She was born and had lived in the United States until she was five. She then moved to

Korea and stayed there until she returned to America while she was in the 8th grade. We

did not talk much on that occasion, partly because I sensed that she had no interest in

either me or my research. So, I moved to other high school students to talk about my

study.

144

After several days, the research participant Yoon informed me that many Korean

students gathered to study and socialize in a local public library. I drove up to the library

to see what and how they did it (10/2/2003). As I slowly drove into the parking lot, I saw

Terry (a U.S.-born-but-raised-in-Korea boy) and June walking out of the library. By that

time, many Korean students in a particular local high school knew me because they met

with me in a variety of places (church, library, online). That day, Terry half-jokingly told

me, “Nu-na (Big sister), you are scary. How did you know we were here? You are like a

stalker.” I knew what he really meant by his remarks, but my witty response made all of us just laugh: “You know what? I am psychic.” His comment made me think about my

strategy of recruiting research participants, especially the ways in which I approached high school students. Perhaps, my showing up in many places created the impression that

I not only followed them everywhere, but I also invaded their private space. Further,

Terry’s comment, especially the word stalker, reminded me what adolescent students are

like, something I used to know a lot about as a middle school teacher in Korea.

June completed the questionnaire for me that day, but I learned later that she felt

forced to do it, and thus, she did not provide important and personal information, e.g., her

phone number and her most often used email address.

My third encounter with June was not pleasant (10/31/2003). When Soohee showed

me around the school during our second interview, we ran into June and Elizabeth in the

school building. June abruptly asked me to give her a ride home without asking whether I

had time or not. I felt that she was rude, and I told her quite directly that I was busy with

Soohee. But, I was smiling. Most importantly, despite my frequent appearances before

145

her and my explanations about my study, June did not know what I was trying to do, as the sample of online chatting earlier demonstrated.

Online chatting [1] Friday 11:30 p.m.-Saturday 3:30 a.m., 11/14/2003-11/15/2003

During that first online exchange, June and I established quite a good relationship, and I learned a great deal about her. For example, she told me early in the conversation that “I write a lot, but I don’t read much.” Thus, she revealed her identity as a writer, but not a reader, and she became excited when I asked about her poems and poetry writing.

After several minutes of online chatting, when I was about to leave (i.e., “I really have to go to bed”), June asked a critical question, “how did you know which one (posting) was mine?” Whenever June posted her writing, she used her nickname, a “raccoon”. In the

Philosophy section in WTBC, she identified herself as a “생각하는 너구리” (“thinking

raccoon”), influenced by the notion of Augste Rodin’s “The thinker.” She was curious as

to how I came to know the thinking raccoon was her. While surfing many postings,

especially reading replies to her poems, I had noticed that June’s nickname was raccoon.

At any rate, thanks to her question, June and I chatted online for another two hours

until 2:00 a.m. on Saturday morning. We had approximately 400 turns: she typed 444

times, and I did 384 times. In fact, our conversation continued after we invited another

research participant, Elizabeth, into our conversation; the three of us then chatted from

2:00 a.m. to 3:30 a.m. June and I had another 400 turns: she typed 421 times, and I did

485. Elizabeth, a shy girl, typed only 262 times. We could have continued chatting online

because Alex, an initial creator of WTBC, logged in around 3:30 a.m., and June was

about to introduce me to him. But, I had to wake up at 7 a.m. to get ready to attend

Shirley Brice Heath’s talk at the Ohio TESOL conference on the same day. Thus, I had to 146

balance my field work (online chatting) and professional development (conference), and I postponed talking to Alex until a later time.

This four-hour intensive online chatting session that took place late at night became an important foundation to establish a rapport with June before the official formal interviews started. A clear example was that she voluntarily sent me a computer file of her poems (‘June.doc’) via MSN instant messenger. The following message appeared while I was chatting online with her. It was unexpected, and I had never used this function until that time:

퓨리 맨~ 도통 볼수가 없네 맨~ ㅋㅋㅋ 살았어? [화룬] 나 사는 이유, 언제나 너의 웃는 얼굴 때문인거야... (screen name: Fury man ~ I can’t see you, man. ㅋㅋㅋ Are you alive? [Wharoon] reason for living, because of your smiley face...) would like to send you the file "자연.doc (June.doc)" (100 Kb). Transfer time is less than 1 minute with a 28.8 modem. Do you want to Accept (Alt+T) or Decline (Alt+D) the invitation?

As soon as I received the file, I opened it up and read her poems. In fact, this online chatting produced the richest information in terms of her poetry writing. On the next day,

I briefly summarized our conversation in my fieldnotes. I bullet pointed seemingly important points and inserted her quotes, but below are the main points, excluding her direct quotes:

1.1. I was about to leave after talking w/ her, but her question “how did you know raccoon was me?” kept us talking more and more. 1.2. She seemed to enjoy talking about her writing. 1.3. She was not sure what I was doing in terms of recruiting RP (research participants) and conducting a dissertation study. 1.4. She identifies herself as a writer, not a reader. 1.5. Started writing such poems since 7th, and became productive since 8th 1.6. no formal instruction hobby 1.7. English poem –hard to 운율 맞추기 (establish a rhythm) 1.8. modest attitude 1.9. serious, smart, witty –a thinking raccoon like “the thinker” 1.10. diary = poetry writing 1.11. poetry writing process 147

1.17. private nature ?? 1.18. clear sense [knowledge] of her poems 1.19. “I don’t keep a diary often” 1.20. Cyworld, Xanga – she had IDs, but didn’t work on it. she engaged in two cyber communities (WTBC, one with her friends) 1.21. Anybody can be a POET. encourage others to compose poems 1.22. Reader response theory 1.23. why to write? -- Poem writing is just like keeping a journal like Elizabeth/Soohee the way Soohee reflected her past while re-reading her diary 1.24. It takes only 3-5 or 10-15 minutes, totally free writing/ quick writing 1.25. Very spontaneous and sporadic process 1.26. reading in English- troublesome 1.27. she did a thorough selection process in order to post her poems. What are the selection criteria???? 1.28. interaction with peers—has she tried to edit, revise her poem ? 1.29. no title for her poems. 1.30. WTBC for “self-expression,” “sharing feelings”

Based on this online chatting and other interview data, I found that among June’s diverse writing activities, poetry-writing probably represents her the most because this practice provided her with a new label or identity as a writer. June was well known as a

“poet” among her friends in several online communities. To June, composing poetry was the equivalent of diary writing, and she kept two different computer files for her poems:

‘일기 (Diary)’ and ‘By 자연 (By June)’. The sources of the primary themes and settings of her poems varied:

글을 쓰는 소재는 일상생활의 어디서나 가져온다. 노래 가사를 듣고 생각이 나는 것에서 소재를 얻기도 하고, 다른 사람의 글을 읽고 거기서 또 다른 나만의 생각이 떠올랐을 때 글을 적기도 한다. 그리고 나의 경험이나 느낌만으로 글을 적기도 한다.

I get the ideas for my poems from anywhere in my daily life. I sometimes get the idea from some thoughts drawn from song lyrics. I sometimes write down my thoughts from reading others’ writing. I also write down my experiences or feelings as well.

148

Her poems depicted fascinating fictional and real life stories and also addressed various

philosophical issues. Among many of her poems, some posted in WTBC are as follows:

“삶의 이유 (Reason for living), ” 사랑함의 이유 (Reason for loving), ” “기억 (Remembrance),” “너의 행복 (Your happiness),” “그대 뒤에서 (Behind your back),” “친구에게 (Dear friends),” “이별(Being apart),” “잘했어요 (You did a good job), ” “조금씩, 천천히 그러나 진심으로 (Gradually, slowly, but truly),” “다시 (Again),” “씩씩하게 (Valiantly),” “안부 (Good wishes),” “희망 (Hope),” “마음열기 (Opening heart),” “지나간 겨울이 아무리 추웠어도, 더 이상 춥지 않은거야.(Even though last winter was so cold, this winter won’t be cold any more),” “익숙해지기 (Getting used to),” “아직은 (Not yet),” “미안해요 (I’m truly sorry).”

These titles of her poems show that her poetry dealt with various issues rather than one theme, and they suggest that for June, happiness, relationships, being mature, and missing someone in the past were important issues. June had a strong preference for poems written by people around her and did not care for poems by famous poets commonly discussed at school. She maintained a similar boundary for her own poems by saying “that’s not for school; those kinds of things are like for fun and for teenagers”

(Interview 1, 11/18/2003), which indicates that June kept a clear distinction between in- school and out-of-school activities.

When she wrote poems, she worked in complete silence in order to concentrate.

Once an exciting idea occurred to her, she sat in front of her laptop computer and just

typed. All of this writing was in Korean, and it rarely took more than 15 minutes to finish

a poem. Before posting a poem to one of the cyber communities, June tended to select among two or three poems after skimming through all her poems. She then asked her friends to pick the final one for posting. After posting her poem, she paid attention to others’ feedback on her work. Interestingly, June had never attempted to compose a poem in her second language (English) because she did not think that she could express herself

149

in English as freely and fully as she could in Korean. However, she was positive about

trying to compose a poem in English in the future when she felt her English literacy skills

matched her Korean skills.

This poetry writing had evolved throughout June’s life. As an elementary school

student in Korea, June won poetry-writing contests at school, and thus, poetry writing

was initially a school literacy activity for her. As she grew older, she developed, without

formal instruction, the powerful out-of-school practice of expressing herself through

poetry writing. In addition to being a poet herself, June often encouraged her close

friends to engage in poetry writing; some have actually composed a poem and shared it

with members of the cyber community.

Online chatting [2], Monday, 7:00 p.m., 11/17/2003

After our first online chat, I was fascinated by June and her writing practices. A few

days later, I emailed my advisor to ask what I should do with June. Until that point, I did

not know that I could include one more research participant after data collection started,

but he encouraged me to examine her literacy practices. I learned that coping with an

unexpected and emergent opportunity was part of the beauty of qualitative research. Later

that day, I went online to contact June. She was online, as I expected. I immediately asked her whether she was interested in joining my research. Her immediate response, like Soohee’s, was “what do I have to do?” We discussed the details a little, including when I could meet her mother (a visiting professor from Korea) and receive her consent for June’s participation, and I sought confirmation of June’s willingness to stay with the research until March, 2004.

150

After talking about June’s research participation, we continued sharing her poetry writing experiences. On this particular day, to my surprise, June had composed three poems between after she got home from school (3:00 p.m.) and before our online chatting

(7:00 p.m.). She voluntarily sent them all to me via instant messenger: “씩씩하게”

(“Valiantly”), “희망”(“Hope”), and “성장통” (“Pains of growing up”). She went on to say that “Valiantly” was composed for Elizabeth, who had a crush on a guy at that time, while “Pains of growing up” was composed to describe adolescents’ feelings and emotions. In fact, “Pains of growing up” (Appendix B) was one of her favoriate poems:

“으음. 나는 저거 맘에 드는데 어때요?” (“Hum. I really like that. What do you think?”).

Interview [1] Tuesday, 3:00 -5:30 p.m., 11/18/2003

I picked up June and her Korean-American friend, Lori (whom I met at her Bible study previously), at school around 2:30 p.m. I happened to overhear their conversation on our way to June’s home. Lori spoke quite good Korean given that she was born in the

United States and had never been to Korea. Later, I found that Lori’s mother was a writer who possessed many Korean books, and June often went to Lori’s to read them.

June’s mother was expecting us at home. I was a bit worried because I did not know what she, as a professor, might think about my study and June’s participation. My concern turned out to be unfounded. June’s mother was different from other research participants’ mothers in that she asked about my research and its progress rather than my tutorials with June. Our first conversation was about the research, especially a qualitative study, a type of research that she was not familiar with as a professor in the quantitatively oriented field of food science. Then, she asked me whether June was in a category of research participants that I was looking for. From an informal conversation with her 151

mother, I learned quite a lot about June’s characteristics, early childhood background,

talent for language, and so on.

June was born in America and lived here until she was five while her parents pursued

their Ph.D. degrees. Upon completion of their degrees, her family moved to Korea.

According to her mother, June was equally bilingual at five, but once her family moved

to Korea, her parents stressed her learning Korean, and June received only minimal

instruction in English (i.e. English classes at school only). While in grade 8, June

returned to America with her mother. June decided to stay alone for educational purposes after her mother returned to Korea in February, 2004. June would become a kind of

parachute kid, that is, one defined as a student who lives with a distant relative in order to

attend school in America (see, Roberge, 2002).

After talking with her mother for a while, June and I moved into her room. As soon

as we entered the room, she turned on her computer and showed me two computer files

of her poems: “by June” and “by diary” Then, she showed me the online community,

Welcome To Buckeye City, that I was already familiar with. While briefly surfing the

community, she noted, “철학 게시판에 가야지, 언니가 원하는거 제일 많이 있어요.”

(“You should check out the Philosophy section. That includes the most what you wanted

to know.”) I was quite surprised because June seemed to have her own sense of what I was looking for. Up to that point, the 4th week of my data collection, none of the research

participants had said anything like that. Then, I asked follow-up questions based on her

questionnaire responses in terms of her reading and writing practices and her use of the

computer.

152

Online chatting [3] Wednesday night, 11/19/2003

One day after the first interview, I received a call from June’s mother. She asked me

whether I would be able to live with June after she returned to Korea (from late February until June, when June would move to Boston). It was a completely unexpected request, and I had to think about it from both ethical and practical perspectives. In many qualitative studies, especially ethnographic studies, researchers enter a culture and a

context where research participants live, and for me, this request of June’s mother could

provide me with a special opportunity to obtain rich data while living with a research

participant. However, I found myself resistant to this opportunity because I had no

confidence in my ability to perform the dual roles of both a legal guardian and a

researcher. I eventually decided not to live with her.

Until that time, I assumed, but did not know, that the research participants talked

about my research and their participation in online and offline (mostly at school) contexts.

While interviewing another research participant, Yoon, a day later, he asked me rather

unpleasantly whether I would be able to handle the pre-existing four research participants

and a new one, June. Within 24 hours (between the interview with June on Tuesday and

Yoon on Wednesday), Yoon had learned that June had joined the study. June informed

me via online chatting that she told every research participant (except Soohee) that she also was in. Thus, June seemed to be proud of joining this research and liked feeling a sense of solidarity with the other research participants, who were all her peers. Another

example of this occurred when June introduced me to Alex (the initial creator of WTBC)

at Elizabeth’s birthday party (11/27/2003) and declared, “I’ve helped her research the

153

most.” This demonstrated how June felt about her role in this research: she was “helping”

my research, and she was the “greatest” help among the five research participants.

Interview [2] Tuesday, 3:15-4:30 p.m., 11/25/2003

As soon as we entered June’s room in her home, she started talking about her out-of-

school literacy checklists. She mentioned, before I was ready to tape record her

comments, four points that she had found. First, while working on the literacy checklist

for the previous week, she tried some reading and writing that she had not done for a

while. For instance, she said that she picked up her print-based diary, read what she had

written previously, and then wrote two more entries. Second, she told me that she

realized that “아. 내가 참 불규칙하게 쓰는구나” (“Well, I write very irregularly and

sporadically.”) Third, she found that she never engaged in certain types of reading and

writing. Then, she added that “이상하게 어릴때는 대개 책 읽는거 좋아했는데…” (“when young, I really loved to read, but…”) (Fieldnotes, 11/25/2003) What was interesting here was that June was not interested only in recording the appropriate checklist information; instead, she was very reflective about her reading and writing practices. Perhaps, recording information about her out-of-school literacy activities enabled her to become more reflective and aware of what she did and did not do. Moreover, she added that she raised questions of “when, where, for whom, how, what, and why do I write?” She found clear answers for all, except the “why” question. Thus, she asked Elizabeth via online chatting, “why do I write?”, and Elizabeth simply answered “that’s your hobby.” I did not miss this moment, and followed up by asking her a “why not” question. Then, I prompted her to think about the relationship between ‘for whom’ and ‘why’ questions. She said that

154

an answer for “for whom” (she wrote) was clear, but not for “why”. I decided to put this question aside for a while in the hope that she would find an answer to it during the study.

Online chatting [6] Wednesday afternoon, 11/26/2003

After two interview sessions with June, I thought I could do something more with her and came up with the idea of keeping a literacy journal. During a previous online chatting session [5], I had asked her whether she might be interested in keeping a literacy journal, which was not a planned data gathering device in the study. Her immediate response was “뭐 쓰는거야 나쁘지 않지만, 어려울거 같은데 ㅋㅋ” (“Well, it’s not a bad

idea to keep a journal, but I think it difficult ☺.”) She was positive, but did not

understand what she should write about and did not see a difference between this and the

out-of-school literacy checklist. In fact, I was not clear myself as to what could and

should be recorded in the literacy journal. I created a one-page set of directions on how to

keep a literacy journal based on the help of my advisor, and emailed it to her on that

Wednesday afternoon of online chatting session 6. I then sent her an instant message to

confirm whether had she received the directions. In addition, I gave her a chance to ask

any questions she had regarding the literacy journal.

June seemed to be interested in keeping the literacy journal, but it turned out that she

did not do so, even though I provided her with a notebook for this purpose. However, our

discussions of the literacy journal provided more opportunities to talk about out-of-school

literacy and may have provided June with more ideas as to the kinds of details she could

report to me during the study.

155

Online chatting [7] Thursday, 11/27/2003

November 27 was another research participant, Elizabeth’s, 16th birthday, and I logged in to ask June about the surprise party. Since I was curious about how June would respond to my use of English, I used English for the first time: “Hey, what time are you going to Elizabeth’s party?” I was very surprised that June responded to me in English without hesitation. More surprisingly, she used online English. Below are some sentences that illustrate how she used online English:

don kno-_- depends on.. maybe Hyung goo knos lol night? dats gonna be fine man? men? watever-_-; r u coming? wat time? wat time is da dinner? and everybody likes to u should-_-!! don kno either, just y don u come first both choices r hard now. aren they? then i think u should sing happy bday w/ us lol nop i guess i will leave at 5 cuz i gotta go there early, i think its really cute actually i didn, ma mom did lol haha-_- c ya

Until moving to the United States, June had never experienced chatting online in

English, and at that point it had been only eight months since she was exposed to online

chatting in English. She used many emoticons, avoided apostrophes and capitalization,

and spelled words as they sounded (e.g., u, r, cuz, c ya, don kno, wat). Interestingly,

though, she followed the formal rule of adding ‘s’ after a third person singular verb, the

omission of which is a common mistake among Korean English language learners (e.g., 156

depends, likes). She later told me that she had picked up online English via online chatting with other friends. I found it intriguing that even the most fluent English

speakers, Mike and Elizabeth, did not use online English as much as June did. It could

have been because of her personality or because June was the heaviest Internet user

among the participants.

Online chatting [8] Saturday 10:30 p.m., 11/29/2003

I had learned from another research participant, Yoon, that June’s birthday was coming. Thus, I sent her an instant message about when and where the party was to be held. In this online chatting, I learned that “karaoke” was extremely popular among her and her peers. “Do you want to join Karaoke? Karaoke is a “필수코스” (a required

course),”said June. June and the other research participants enjoyed reading lyrics,

copying down some of them on a piece of paper, cutting and pasting them on their mini-

homepages, and singing songs. While hardly a major form of out-of-school literacy,

Karaoke was, in fact, a form of reading and writing activity: reading the lyrics and

writing down those that were considered meaningful. Or, more accurately, Karaoke was a

contact point with out-of-school literacy.

Interview [3] Tuesday, 3:30-5:30 p.m., 12/2/2004

In the 3rd interview, June talked extensively about her reading practices outside of

school, especially her reading habits and preferences. As the only child of two professors,

June spent much time in reading at home alone. June had developed the habit of reading, and her love for reading had grown as this habit took root. In particular, June proudly noted that she was a “fast reader”. For instance, she said that she had finished a 200-page

157

Korean novel, Nine-year-old child’s life, within an hour. Interestingly, that was her fourth

time reading the same book within a year:

YJ: 9 살 인생은 다 읽었다고 그러지 않았니? June: 읽었죠. 근데, 전 또 갑자기 내키면 또 읽고 그래요. 1 시간도 안 걸렸어요. 제가 말씀 드렸잖아요. Fast reader 라고 YJ: 또 읽고 또 읽는 이유는뭔데? June: 어느날 읽고 싶으면 읽는거죠. 저는 그냥 모든 책이 그렇듯이 읽을 때 마다 느낌이 다르잖아요. 읽을때 마다, 깨닿는것도 틀리고 느낌도 틀리고. (Interview 3, 12/2/2003)

YJ: Didn’t you say that you have read the book, Nine-year-old child’s life before? June: Yes, I have, but I tend to reread a book, especially when I feel like reading. It took less than an hour to finish the book. I told you I’m a fast reader. YJ: Then, what made you read the same book over and over again? June: I just read when I suddenly feel like reading. As with all readings, each time I read a book, I feel differently. Each time I read the same book again, I always learn something new from each reading, and feelings for the book are different as well. (Interview 3, 12/2/2003) [italic added]

This voluntary repetitive reading practice of hers suggests that June was a true book

lover and a positive reader who was willing to learn from reading (much like Soohee,

though perhaps with greater passion toward reading than Soohee displayed). This

attachment to out-of-school reading was often confirmed during the study. For example,

June constantly picked up one book after another when they were available. She displayed an especially strong tendency toward Korean reading materials, despite their limited availability. As she explained, “I don’t know… cause suddenly, I feel like reading

[something in Korean.]” (Interview 1, 11/18/2004) When she felt a sudden urge to read

Korean books or missed the Korean language, she picked up any Korean book available at home, including books that her parents read. Indeed, during this study, she read the most print-based Korean books among all of the research participants, e.g., 아홉살 인생

(Nine-year-old Child’s Life), 가시고기 (Boned Fish), 등대지기 (Lighthouse Man),

158

서울대보다 하버드를 겨냥하라 (Shooting For Harvard, Not For Seoul National

University), 성공하는 10 대들의 7 가지 습관 (The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective Teens),

나무처럼 자라는 집 (A House Like A Growing Tree), and 지혜 (Wisdom)).

In terms of out-of-school reading practice, June was actually in a dilemma between

Korean and English reading. According to her, “읽는 건 좋아하는데, 영어책은 귀찮아서

안 읽는거고, 한국어책은 없어서 못 읽고” (“I like reading, but I don’t read English books because it’s troublesome, and I can’t read Korean books because there aren’t many available.”) (Interview 3, 12/2/2004) In other words, preferred materials (Korean texts) were not accessible, and accessible materials (English texts) were not preferred. It was obvious that, as regards voluntary pleasurable reading, June did not tend to pick up

English books. Almost all the English reading activities she reported in the literacy checklists took place for functional and informational purposes (e.g., movie subtitles, directions, and manuals). June articulated why she did not pick up English books even though she was an avid reader and a good English learner:

June: [영어책은] 아.,..머리 아프잖아요. 귀찮잖아요. 그냥. YJ: 한국어책을 그만큼 빨리 빨리 못 읽어서 그런가? June: 그것도 그렇고.. 제가 원래 앉은 자리에서 책을 쫙 읽어 버리고 그담에 또 신경 안 쓰다가 또 읽고 싶을때 읽는데, 쫙 읽어 버리고 그러는데, 정기적으로 하루에 그렇게 얼마씩 읽는게 아니거든요. 미국책은 똑 같은 시간에 요 만큼 밖에 못 읽잖아요. 그럼, 또 내비도요. 그리고서, 또 전 습관대로 신경 안 쓰고 내버둬요. 그리고 그 담에는 볼라고 하면 재미없잖아요. 그것도 그렇고. 아무리 자동적으로 한다고 해도 머리 속에서 다 translation 해야되는거 아니예요. 귀찮죠. (Interview 3, 12/2/2003)

June: Reading in English gives me a headache. It’s just troublesome to read English books. YJ: Isn’t that because you can’t read as fast as you read Korean books? June: That could be true, plus, I tend to finish one book at one sitting and don’t care about it for a while, then, whenever I feel like reading, I pick up the book again. I don’t read a certain portion of the book regularly. That’s not me. As for English books, I can read only a small portion at one sitting. Then, I just put the book away for a while and pick it up again. It’s not interesting to get back to a book after staying away from it for a while. Another reason is no matter what and how fast I can translate, I have to translate all the English reading into Korean anyway. It’s troublesome. (Interview 3, 12/2/2003) 159

June’s fast reading habit, which had developed through Korean reading, did not

directly apply to and serve her English reading well. She read at a slow place when

engaging English texts, and this left her frustrated and often caused her to lose interest in

the books she started reading. In addition, her reduced familiarity with and competence in

English reading that caused her to read slowly discouraged her from practicing the

repetitive reading that she enjoyed with many Korean texts. What was interesting here

was that June, unlike Soohee, did not see reading as a means of building

the knowledge of English that would facilitate the development of reading ability

necessary for fluent and successful reading. Reading in English was, for her, merely an activity, not a means of learning.

Online chatting [9] Tuesday, 9:30-9:45 p. m., 12/2/2003

As soon as I finished the 3rd interview with June at 6:00 p.m. that day, I went home

and typed fieldnotes based on my memory and my scribbling during the interview and

tutorial. Throughout the study, I did my best to record fieldnotes right after the interview

and to finish transcribing the interview within 24 hours after it took place, or at least

before the next interview occurred. Sometimes, I listened to the tape first and transcribed

it, and other times, I started transcribing after taking a fieldnote. When I listened to

interview tapes or read transcripts, I invariably came up with follow-up questions and

found that I could have asked more critical or proper questions on the spot. My remedy to

this problem was to frequently pose follow-up questions during online chatting sessions,

as I did in online chatting session 9.

When I approached June via MSN messenger, I was reluctant to ask these follow-up

questions because our initial arrangement was to have a weekly interview for 30 minutes, 160

and the interviews were meant to be the site for the posing of research-related questions. I did not want to invade the privacy of her online life in order to create space for my research purposes. Thus, I mostly started by asking how her day was. Then, I decided whether I would ask follow-up questions online or wait until the next interview session.

On the day of this particular online session, I mainly wanted to know why she had removed two letters from her father that had been kept on the wall beside her desk. I noticed their absence during the interview, but did not know what had happened.

Whenever I went to June’s room, I looked closely for any changes, any traces of reading materials (e.g., a new book, newspapers, magazines, brochures) and writing activity, and any other items of interest around her desk. The two letters from her father had disappeared, and June said, “um... i didn’t mean anything-_- // [// indicating one turn in an online chat] just it looked kinda messy // so i put them in a folder.” Since her father lived alone in Korea, he often sent her instant messages and emails. They chatted online at least once every week. This was, in fact, one of her more important out-of-school literacy activities. In addition to revealing another form in which her out-of-school writing took place (written exchanges with parents), this activity is a further illustration of the degree to which online literacy played a role in her out-of-school literacy life.

In addition to asking a simple follow-up question during this online chatting, I

encouraged her, at the end of the chatting, to pay more attention to her encounters with

English literacy. She replied: “-0- well okai // haha will try.” As noted earlier, June

considered reading in English troublesome, and I had not found much evidence of her

reading in English outside of school. In fact, at this stage of the study, I felt frustrated at

the fact that June and some other research participants primarily engaged in reading and 161

writing in Korean, and they neither picked up English print materials nor produced

writing in English to the degree I expected given the fact that they were 1.5 generation

students and thus living in circumstances where English would presumably play an

important role in their futures. Thus, I happened to tell June, “I hope we can focus more

on English literacy encounters” in the interview on that day (Interview 3, 12/2/03).

June answered sharply, “So, do I need to read more English for this???” Here June

made me realize that I was forcing my research participant to try to produce something

that I wanted to see more of. This incident taught me the important lesson that I should

try my best to understand whatever took place around the participants’ literacy activities

and simply present what I saw as accurately as possible. From that moment on, then, I

did not feel frustrated by the fact that June did not read in English, because that was part

of the nature of her out-of-school literacy activity.

Online chatting [10] Wednesday night, 12/3/2003

June was a member in her church choir and practiced once a week for a Christmas

mass performance. While chatting online about the church choir, I kept asking questions

about sheet music (e.g., in what kinds of languages it was written), thinking that this

could constitute another form of out-of-school reading. June immediately asked me

“그것도 보게요? ㅋㅋ” (“Do you want to examine it for the research, too? ☺ ”), which

made me very surprised. I was interested in any type of material that she read and wrote,

and I was struck by how she had become aware of this. This kind of give and take

between the research participants and me, where they displayed an awareness of the research itself, became an interesting sidelight of the research process for me in the sense

162

that it suggested the study was having the unintended side effect of expanding their

notions of reading and writing.

Observation at June’s birthday party [1] Saturday evening, 12/06/2003

I had learned about plans for a party to celebrate June’s birthday through online chatting with her the night before. My birthday gift for her was an English novel. I sensed that June did not really like it, and I never asked whether she had read it, fearing that she probably had not. I had already learned, as noted earlier, that she was not inclined to read books in English outside school, but I hoped that receiving a book (in English) as a birthday present might stimulate some interest in reading it (here the English teacher in me could not help intervening in the course of the study). I learned later from Yoon that

June and her friends would appreciate clothing rather than books as a present. To me, it was an interesting comparison, book vs. clothing. To my disappointment, literacy came in second.

Interview [4] Thursday, 3:00-5:00 p.m., 12/11/2004

As soon as I arrived at her home, June bragged about her second interim report card.

She had received all As. Her mother mentioned that June’s father in Korea was also very happy about this. Even though June was a very responsible and academically oriented student, I did not know that receiving all As would make her that happy. Another interesting piece of news was that June would move into Elizabeth’s (another research participant) house because June’s mother (a visiting scholar from Korea) was going to return to Korea.

This 4th interview proved to be a very important one in terms of learning about

June’s connection to and construction of the notion out-of-school writing. In particular, 163

much was learned about the importance of having a purpose for her out-of-school

writing. June had stopped maintaining her English weblog, called Xanga. She explained

about her Xanga, “애들이 거기다가 일기를 쓰는거잖아. 나는 뭐 했다 뭐 했다. 근데,

그거는 제가 흥미를 잊어 버린 이유가 저 혼자 떠드는거니까, 도무지 재미가 없어요.”

(“Xanga is a kind a diary that teenagers keep, like writing about what I did today.

However, I completely lost interest in it because I just talked to myself. It was just so

boring.”) Without an active audience to motivate her, she lost an important, driving

sense of purpose for writing, in contrast to her interest in sharing her poems online in

WTBC. There she knew she had an audience, and so she put great care into deciding

which poems to share with her online audience. With so little interest displayed in her

English weblog, she had completely lost a sense of purpose for writing in Xanga.

The importance of having, and maintaining, a clear purpose for out-of-school writing was revealed in another way in this interview, though it was hinted at earlier in the study.

This was in the 1st and 2nd interviews, when she talked about her experience of writing a

short story in Korean based on her reading of an English novel. June was inspired by a

book entitled Express the World that was the first English novel she had purchased. She

had been motivated to do so by a notice in the bookstore stating that this was a

recommended book for teenagers. The book dealt with homosexuality, friendship, and

love between two female teenagers. After reading it, June started to write a story along

similar lines, but gave up after writing several chapters on her computer. As she

explained: “저는 뭔가 좀.. 뭔가 말을 하고 싶었거든요. 그게 그 글로 통해서 말을 한다는

것이 진짜 쉬운게 아니더라구요. 시 만큼 이렇게 쓰면 될 줄 알았는데, 쓰다가 정말

때려치웠어요.” (“I wanted to voice something. It was extremely difficult to voice 164

something through writing. I thought it would be as easy as poetry writing, but it was not,

so I just gave it up.”) (Interview 1, 11/18/2003) More specifically, “정말 내가 계속

줄줄이 쓰다 보니까요, 도대체 내가 이게 뭘 얘기 할라고 쓰고 있는 거지? 그런걸 못

찾겠는거예요. 그걸 잊어 버려가지고, 제가 ‘아 의미없어’ 그러면서 그만 둔거 같아요.”

(“While writing, I asked myself what I was trying to tell in this story. I couldn’t find the

answer. I think I lost the cause of expressing my voice through this writing, and thought

‘oh, this is meaningless’. Then, I gave it up.”) (Interview 2, 11/25/2003)

This experience suggested some interesting points about June’s engagement with

out-of-school writing. First was her attempt to convey the well-intended message that

people should embrace others from different backgrounds. That she turned to writing to

share such a mature theme was an indicator of the esteem she accorded writing itself.

That is, her immediate wish after being touched by the book she had read was to express

something in writing (as opposed to, say, verbally discussing the book with her friends).

But the first motivation was the desire to write, not to tell a particular story. This became

clear when June corrected me during the interview: “그걸 [뭔가를 말] 하고 싶어서 쓴게

아니고, 글을 쓰자 했는데, 그걸 쓰자 한거죠.” (“It was not that I started writing in order to

send my message to people, but that I simply wanted to write something. So, I decided to write about that story.”) (Interview 2, 11/25/2003) Thus, her motivation for engaging in

this writing activity was her strong urge to write. The theme she chose to explore came

second. This reveals her deep and abiding interest in writing itself and helps explain my

labeling of her at the beginning of this section of the chapter as a “true lover of reading

and writing.” It might be said that June had a passion for out-of-school writing.

165

It was also interesting to learn of June’s willingness to attempt a new genre of writing. June explained her experience of writing, “머리 속에는 뭐가 있는데, 그게 막 인제

이거 정리 하다보면, 새로운게 나오고, 또 막 detail 하게 막 하는게 쉬운게 아니더라구요.

그냥.. [laugh] 한 번 쯤은 써 보고 싶었어요.” (“There were some thoughts and ideas in my mind, but while organizing these thoughts, I came up with new ideas. And, it was not easy at all to write them in great detail. Just..., I just wanted to compose a story at least once.”)

As it turned out, this new genre, the short story, proved too difficult for her; she was more comfortable with poetry. She found with the short story that the more she wrote, the more she lost her sense of purpose for writing. Writing without a clear and specific purpose could not sustain her as a writer. As a result, June finally quit writing the story and deleted that computer file. As with her Xanga weblog, she abandoned out-of school writing when the purpose for writing sagged or disappeared.

Interview [5] Thursday, 3:00-5:00 p.m. , 12/18/2004

I had picked up a teenage newspaper from the local public library for June. That particular issue included many poems that were composed by students, and thus, I handed it to June in the hope that she would try to compose a poem in English. The interview began by flipping through this newspaper, and June immediately noticed from the titles of poems (e.g., OtHeR) that these were all written by teens. As a reader, she seemed to engage those English poems to a certain extent, but I do not know whether June ever tried to compose an English poem. To ensure that I was not, as a researcher, imposing a literacy agenda upon her, I refrained from asking whether she had attempted to write such poetry. That is, I did not want to appear to be trying to force a writing activity upon her, a 166

point I was sensitive towards in light of what I reported earlier about sometimes acting as an English teacher rather than a researcher. This was a difficult line to walk, since I was also serving as an English tutor for the participants in exchange for their involvement in the study. The English teacher part of me felt motivated to share with June the newspaper containing the teen poems, but the researcher in me felt a line had to be drawn so as not to contaminate the results by directing participants toward a certain type of literacy activity.

Literacy autobiography via email at 3:38 p.m., 12/30/2003

June emailed me an attachment containing her literacy autobiography on December

30, 2003. In the previous interview, we had quickly reviewed the directions for how to write a literacy autobiography and what she could include in it. In the email, she said that it was difficult to write it, and she did not have a chance to revise or edit it at all. She addressed many issues that we had already talked about in previous interviews. In this sense, her literacy autobiography played an important role in confirming the data. Equally importantly, by reading her literacy autobiography, I was able to get to know that she was a strong Korean writer, in terms of organization and choice of vocabulary.

One interesting and surprising piece of information that I found regarded her adjustment to Korean life after being born in the United States and having lived here for five years of her earlier life:

한국에서 처음 유치원에 다니기 시작했을 때, 내가 우리나라에서 자주 쓰이는 외래어를 발음할 때 자연스럽게 영어발음을 사용해서 다른 아이들에게 ‘미국인’이라는 놀림을 많이 받았다. 어릴 때는 그것이 너무 싫어서 한국어를 빠르게 배우면서 영어를 금세 잊어버렸다. When I first attended kindergarten in Korea, I pronounced many Korean English-loanwords as they were pronounced in English, and so many of my friends made fun of me by calling me “American.” I really hated it and so I tried my best to learn Korean and forgot English as quickly as possible. (June’s literacy autobiography)

167

This was one of the reasons that June was not interested in developing her English literacy in Korea. As June’s mother told me in our informal conversation, June’s parents also did not force her to study English much. Instead, they encouraged her to learn

Korean as quickly as possible. When June returned to the United States as an 8th grader, she complained to her mother that her parents should have forced her to develop English literacy. In this study, I had a chance to learn about Korean immigrant students’ adjustment to American schools and their literacy practices, but only June’s autobiography enabled me to think about her adjustment to Korean society. Thus, this example illuminates a new perspective for understanding trans-national students in that they may change their attitudes toward different languages, literacies, and their identities while adjusting to a new environment.

Interview [6] Friday 4:00 p.m. -6:00 p.m. , 1/9/2005

This had been final exam week, so I gave all the research participants a letter and a bag of chocolate to cheer them up for the examinations. This was also an excellent time for me to talk about what we had been doing and how much I appreciated their participation and learned from them. In fact, my letter to June prompted her to share much of her writing outside of school. As I was leaving her after the interview, she grabbed me and told me that she had something to show me. She went on to say that she knew that there was something that she wanted to share with me, but could not think about what it was during the interview; it had just occurred to her when I was about to leave. That was her “2004 New Year Resolutions.” In fact, I had already read her posting of 2004 New Year Resolutions in the WTBC site and mentioned this in my letter to her. I found it interesting and creative that June distinguished “이건 꼭 하자” (“Let’s 168

surely do this”) from “이건 꼭 했으면 좋겠다” (“Wish this happened this year”). As she

explained, “그러니까, ‘이건 꼭 하자’는 내가 노력해서 할수 있는거 잖아요. ‘이건 꼭

했으면좋겠다’는 그건, 내가 노력해서 안 되는것 도 있잖아요. 다른 영향을 받아서…”

(“‘Let’s surely do this’ are things that I can achieve by my efforts, but ‘wish this

happened this year’ are things that even though I made efforts, I cannot achieve because

of some other influence.”) In the first category, she listed 24 items that could be

achieved by her own will, whereas in the second category, she listed 8 items that could

be accomplished by someone else (e.g., her parents or friends), not by herself. What she

wanted to show me was her print version of the new year resolutions. I was struck by the

fact that she had a print version and that she wanted me to see this writing, even though I

had already read her resolutions.

Even more interesting was the composing process she had followed in recording these resolutions. She had originally written down all of these 32 items on three pieces of paper using thick markers (red, black, and blue color) and put them on the wall. (This was what she gave me at the end of our interview.) It then occurred to her that it would be nice to share these with her online peers in WTBC. However, before sharing them publicly in the community, June edited her resolutions while typing them. Thus, what I read in the online community was quite different from what she originally composed. The version posted online was in some ways more elaborate and employed a reader-friendly, conversational type of form. Further, she did not include three of the original print version items that were directly related to her academics (“I will try to get an A in history,” “I will start studying SAT,” and “I will be a walking vocabulary dictionary”).

Perhaps, she did not want to reveal her academic-orientation to her peers. Interestingly, 169

she added that “그리고 너무 맘에 들어서 자기 문서에 보관 할거예요.” (“Since I really

like these resolutions, I will save them in my computer”), unlike the fact that she deleted

all the computer files of school essays.

This example of her composing process demonstrates that June engaged in editing

during her voluntary writing activities. In addition, her composing process continued even when her writing environment shifted from print to online and when her purpose

changed—in this case, from the original private writing of resolutions to the public

sharing of them. Here we once again see how seriously June approached out-of-school

writing.

I also learned during this interview that during the Christmas break, June had started

using her mini-homepage, called Cyworld: “제 한국에 있는 친구들이 사이월드 쓰라고

그러고, 애들이 많이 쓰길래, 나도 하나 만들어 볼까 하고 만들었죠.” (“My friends in

Korea asked me to use a Cyworld. Plus, since so many friends use it, I just wanted to

have my own, too.”) Her creation and use of a mini-homepage was influenced by her social group. When June returned to America this time, she mainly interacted with U.S.- born Korean friends at her Korean church. Because many of these friends could not read

and write in Korean, June had to update her daily life in English on her Xanga weblog, in

spite of some trouble with writing in English. However, as soon as June moved to another

Korean church after some conflicts with her friends in the previous church, her social

group had changed to strictly Korean ESL friends, that is, Korean students with a

background similar to hers. June immediately stopped updating her Xanga site and

created a new Korean mini-homepage, Cyworld, so that her Korean friends in both Korea

and America could read about her life. In this way, Cyworld served as an online diary. 170

Even though Cyworld could support both English and Korean language texts, June

primarily used Korean: English words were used only when absolutely necessary. By

creating her Cyworld mini-homepage, June initiated a new kind of a literacy activity, that

is, keeping an online diary. She also shifted her attention to a new audience for her

writing. As such, the change of her social groups directly and indirectly influenced her

out-of-school literacy practice.

Interview [7] Friday, 12:30 -2:30 p.m., 1/16/2004

As always, I looked around her room to find new reading material. I spotted a book,

entitled 서울대보다 하버드를 겨냥하라 (Shooting for Harvard, not for Seoul National

University). She stressed that “대개 맘에 안들어요.” (“I abhorred that book.”) Despite

the very limited amount of Korean print texts available to her, June was very selective

and critical in choosing texts to read, and thus, she was resistant to reading this book. As noted earlier, it was her habit to pick up any books in Korean that she saw, but that did not mean she read them all. In our interview, I encouraged June to explain about this book and her opinions about the author’s perspectives on education in Korea and

America.

June recalled that “첨에요 대개 싫었어요. 제가 이걸 딱 보자 마자, 식탁에 있는 걸

보자 마자. 커버를 보자 마자 대개 맘에 안 들었거든요. ‘서울대보다 하버드를 겨냥하라’

이말 대개 싫었어요.” (“I hated it since I first saw it on the dinner table. I especially hated

the cover. The phrase, “Shooting for Harvard, not for Seoul National University” was

really troubling.”) One day her mother brought the book home, spent two days reading it,

and then left it in June’s room. June ignored the book for several days and put it back in

171

her mother’s room without mentioning anything. Then, her mother put the book in June’s

room again. After the book made a few trips between rooms, June finally flipped through

it and read one chapter which her mother had bookmarked for June to read. June noted

that the bookmarked chapter on American manners was not that bad, but overall she

perceived the author as a Korean mother, living the American dream, who irrationally

criticized Korean education and blindly complimented American education. This is how

she described the book:

사람이 이렇게 딱 생각하는데 대개 마음에 안 들어요, 자기가 말하는 그 방법이 최선인것 처럼, 그렇게 쓰고 있어요. 글을 쓰는 방식도 굉장히 맘에 안 들고, 사람이 워낙에 글 쓰는 사람이 아니니까, 그걸 못 해요. 글쓰기를 굉장히 못 해요. 한국 교육을 비판하고 하고 있어요. 한국에 잘못된 점을 대개 많이 꼬집으면서, 그 반면에 미국은 이렇다하고 얘기를 하고 있어요. 이 사람이 대개 글을 못 쓰는데..그러니까, 뭘 말하는지 모르겠어요. 결국에는 미국이 좋다이거예요. 이 사람이 생각하는 방식이랑, 주관 같은것게.. 굉장히 맘에 안 들어요. 그리고 글도 잘 못 썼고. (Interview 7, 1/16/2004)

I really don’t like the idea of the author. She wrote as if her way was the best. Also, I don’t like the way she wrote. Since the author is not a professional writer, she is very poor at writing. She criticizes Korean education. She talked a lot about bad aspects of Korean education in comparison to American education. She poorly wrote it…. Anyway, I don’t know what she is talking about. Put simply, all she said was America is the best something like that. I just hated her way of thinking and her opinions, and she was not writing well, either. (Interview 7, 1/16/2004)

In fact, June’s hatred of the book caused her not to record this reading activity in the

checklist; also, she aggressively asked me not to ask any more questions about this book.

What this situation revealed in terms of her out-of-school reading activity was that June

critically evaluated a text from her point of view and selected a book to read in a discriminating manner.

Online chatting [16] Friday night, 1/23/2003

For all of the research participants except the recently arrived Soohee, a “sweetheart party” on Valentines day had been a popular topic of discussion. When I visited Yoon

172

and Elizabeth for our interviews, they showed me a suit and a dress, respectively. Mike, who attended another high school, had been waiting for someone to ask him out. June was invited by Andrew (who nearly became a participant in this study), and her friends changed their screen name on the MSN to “June’s wedding plan” to celebrate the occasion and have fun with it. Thus, I was well informed about the party, and the participants and I made a joke about my observing any possible literacy activities at the party. My screen name was “available for sweetheart” during that time.

As explained in the previous chapter, screen names for MSN instant messaging reflected major personal and social issues of the participants; at the same time, creating and changing screen names was one of the more entertaining and common literacy activities that they engaged in. In fact, they changed names almost daily. Often times, the research participants and I sent an instant message when we found a new screen name to ask about what it meant and what had happened to inspire it. This particular online chatting with June started with an attempt to find out what was meant by “June’s wedding plan.” During the study, I had developed the skill of creating eye-catching screen names for myself so that (1) I could better understand this type of literacy activity,

(2) my screen names could attract the research participants to speak to me first, and (3) screen names were always good topics to break the ice. If an MSN instant messenger provided a “contact zone” between the research participants and me, screen names were a critical “key” to entering the zone. Below is my MSN instant messenger contact list, and the texts were all screen names.

173

Figure 5.3: My MSN Contact List

174

After talking about June’s sweetheart party, we changed the topic to her school life, and I purposefully switched the language from Korean to English. June swiftly followed me into “talking” in English. I learned again that June felt very comfortable with code- switching online, perhaps more comfortable than in an off-line environment. This particular online chatting made me feel as if we were talking rather than reading/writing and represents an important dimension of out-of-school literacy: the blurring of types or modalities of communication in which “writing” and “talking” overlap, and reading is centered on conversational texts that are written versions of speaking. Below is June’s expression of her anger at her history exam:

kno wat? i got 4.122 GPA for 9 weeks, but crap-_-; after exam, it became 3.850 holy cow-0-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! before the exam, it was my first time to get an A- grade in history!!!!!!!! isn it really crappy??????????????? i got D- for history exam killing me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! u kno- that makes sense. cuz my history sucks just as u kno crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! don kno!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! C- [the same sound as a Korean curse word] overall grade is A- finally. dats y i got 3.850 GPA overall [That’s why I got 3.85 GPA overall] fu..-0-... history [four letter word]

As can be seen, June was very expressive in online chatting. Given that June had

chatted online in English for less than a year, I was amazed that she had developed her use of the language, especially slang, exclamation marks, and emoticons in English. I was

also struck by how this form of out-of-school composing engaged her as a writer.

175

Online chatting [18] Sunday, 1/25/2004

June informed me of her NO SCHOOL situation (this was how high school students

often wrote down school holidays in their school planners) on Monday. I already knew of

it because all the screen names of the students on my contact list had changed into “NO

SCHOOL” or “snow day”—an interesting extension of out-of-school writing in which

the participants enjoyed playing with language by using it to signal important or

interesting information. June paid every bit as much attention to students’ screen names

as I did, and she asked me whether I had seen Alex’s screen name and asked me to

compare his and June’s. She was excited to see that both Alex and her had the same

screen name.

Interview [8] Monday, 1:30-3:00 p.m., 1/26/2004 [Snow Day]

Since I did not have many new questions to ask June during this interview, I brought

along some seemingly minor questions that I read in various studies. For instance, I asked

her, “Do you have a preferred pen and/or a paper to write with?” She went to her pencil

case and showed me her colored pens. What I learned was that June copied down or

composed philosophical phrases on a thin pen-length piece of paper and coiled the paper

on her pen. Each colored pen had a different phrase written on it. She went on to say that

“대개 좋아하는걸 써, 감은게 대개 많았는데… 쓰다 보다가 보면 가끔 이렇게 읽어 봐져요.

계속 두고 두고 계속 읽어요.” (“I used to have many pens coiled with wonderful phrases

that I really loved…While using the pens, I often happened to read them. I do read the phrases over and over again.”) June read the phrase and pondered it whenever she used the pen. This particular literacy practice was created by herself when she was in middle school in Korea. Since then, she had employed this practice in Korean only. The 176

apparently simple question I had posed brought out a particularly interesting dimension

of June’s out-of-school writing. What this example illustrates is how June linked copying,

reading, and thinking, as well as how closely and deeply literacy activities were

embedded in her daily life. While there was very little actual writing involved in creating

these thin strips of words, a world of composing was revealed in such activity.

I was intrigued by this practice of June’s, and so that week I coiled my highlighters

for coding with phrases, such as “academic”, “out-of-school”, “online”, “print”,

“Korean”, and “English” in order to feel what it would be like to use writing instruments

like those.

Interview [9] Tuesday afternoon, 2/3/2004

This interview mainly dealt with her new online community, called Family Café, and

her recent work in the WTBC site. As explained earlier, June’s favorite online

community, Welcome To Buckeye City (WTBC), served as a kind of shelter for Korean teenagers in the city where this study was situated: “a place to relax, share feelings, and

express themselves” (“안식처, 감정공유, 자기 표현.”) Among several sections, the

Philosophy section was created by June in order to distinguish it from the 1000 People

and 10,000 Stories section. The Philosophy section was intended to share the members’

own writing, mostly creative writing, whereas the 1000 People and 10,000 Stories

section was meant to share any types of informational, recreational, and educational texts

from other websites. June became known as a poet as a result of sharing her poems in the

Philosophy section. In fact, when she created another online community, Family Café,

where her immediate family and other relatives in Korea shared information about their

daily lives and their thoughts, June created a Philosophy section there as well. Through 177

this family café, June’s mother could read her poems for the first time and asked June to print out her favorite poems of June’s: 성장통 (Pains of growing up) and 현실의

한가운데 (In the center of the reality). By sharing her poems in those two Korean cyber communities, June had developed a strong emotional attachment to these communities partly because they had given her an opportunity to freely share her poems in public for the first time. At the same time, this activity solidified her relationship with writing and strengthened her identity as a writer. In other words, these communities played a central role in June’s out-of-school writing activity.

Although June and members in WTBC did not participate in other sections as actively as they did in the 1000 People and 10,000 Stories and the Philosophy sections, they engaged in various types of reading and writing activities and events across several sections, such as Self-Introduction, Relay Novels, Good Sayings Collection, Event Room,

Relaxation, Hot Clips, and Photos. June particularly liked the Relay Novels and Event

Room sections. In the Relay Novels section, members enjoyed participating in creating a relay novel in which each member of the community contributed a portion, and they responded to the novel. The relay novel genre is particularly popular among online users in Korea. For instance, one famous online community of Internet novels (including relay novels) called Humor Land had 1,765,965 members (3.8 % of the entire population of

South Korea) as of December 2004. WTBC members borrowed the relay novel genre and format from Korean websites and created a story situated in their local context. For the first relay novel, “Untitled” consisting of ten sections, June contributed several sections and composed a poem that captured the story; another participant, Mike, chose background music for several scenes. In the Event Room, the initial creator, Captain Alex, 178

initiated a “Relay Compliments activity” which was similar to a popular Korean TV show. In this thread, the Captain wrote about one member in terms of how they met and how great a person s/he was. The member who was complimented then wrote about

another member in a similar form. In both the Relay Novel and Event Room sections, the

members borrowed certain characteristics and features of literacy activities that were

popular among Korean youths living in Korea and adapted them to WTBC in their own

way.

June, as a staff member of WTBC, played a critical role in maintaining this website.

The initial creator of this community, Alex, who was a generation 1.5 college student in

her Catholic church, invited several members of this community to help run it, and June

and Mike agreed to become staff members playing the role of ‘webmaster’. Generally,

Alex, often called The Captain, and the staff members (June, Mike) monitored and

controlled postings and took care of the community. When a newcomer signed on to join

the community, the Captain decided whether to approve the membership of the person,

and thus, when I signed it in, I received a verification email from Alex, simply asking

who I was. He already knew me as a tutor for June and Mike, not as a researcher, and he

approved of my membership. While the captain controlled the membership, staff

members controlled postings. For instance, when they thought that inappropriate content

or topics were posted, they could access the postings to delete them, but since all the

members knew one another, this kind of an occasion never occurred.

June, as a staff member, participated in this community more actively than any of its

other members. For instance, every season, June created a new front page for this website.

179

At this particular point in time, The Captain, Alex and the staff members discussed via online chatting a primary theme for the front page for the spring season.

이번에 concept 을 조용하고 아늑하고 차분한걸 하기로 했어요.…차분한걸 찾다 보니까 어린왕자를 보고서 마음에 든거요….배경을 찾았는데, 안에 뭐딱히 넣을 생각을 해 보니까, 그렇게 하면 [어린 왕자 텍스트 넣기] 좋을것같아서.. 근데, 그렇게 냅 둘 순 없잖아요. 아무것도 없이 그림만 딱 그렇게 두기 뭐 하잖아요. ..어린왕자를 쳐서. 야후간 ..딱히 구할라고 그랬는건 아닌데, 어쩌다 전문을 먼저 찾았어요. 그래서, 딴데 찾아 가기가 귀찮았어요. 그래서 슬슬 다시 읽어 보다가, scroll down 한거죠. (Interview 9, 2/3/04)

We agreed that the spring front page should convey the concept of calm and tranquility. Looking for an image of tranquility, I ran into a picture of a little princeand liked it. After finding the background, I thought about the text that could match with the image. I thought it would be nice to include some excerpts from the book, The Little Prince… You know, I just couldn’t leave the background without any text. It could be really odd to put the background picture only. So, I searched for “the Little Prince” at Yahoo. I didn’t really mean to find the whole text, but I happened to find the whole text of a Korean version. I thought it troublesome to search it again, and so I just started reading the whole text while scrolling down the screen. (Interview 9, 2/3/04)

Since June had read The Little Prince over ten times, she knew where her favorite phrases were located within it. While skimming the text on screen for about an hour, June cut and pasted her favorite phrases. Then, she organized them and created the front page of the community website. Below is the front page of WTBC that June created:

180

Figure 5.4: The Front Page of Welcome To Buckeye City

181

Of great interest was that for June, a picture or an image should always be presented with a text. This is another illustration of the importance she accorded to writing. Initially, she wanted to create a front page by combining a cute image and a poem. But, because of a technological problem with the image that she found, June chose the image of a little prince instead, which automatically reminded her of the text of the book, The Little

Prince. June tended to take advantage of multi-modals for her online literacy activities,

by including texts, images, and sounds. In fact, her definition of reading echoed such

online literacy activities. When June was asked to define reading, she included even

visual texts such as those containing paintings, noting in particular books in the library

and paintings in museums. For the same reason, she always added long explanations

(texts) of pictures when uploading the pictures in her Cyworld home page and in WTBC,

which will be seen later (i.e., Figure 5.5 and 5.6). All these examples suggest that for

June, who was already extensively exposed to multi-media in cyber space, out-of-school

literacy was not limited to texts, but rather was comprehensive and inclusive in nature.

We also see here, once again, the extreme importance of electronic literacy in June’s out-

of-school composing activity. Indeed, June engaged almost exclusively in screen-based

(i.e., electronic) writing—an interesting contrast to Soohee’s print-based planner writing

that played such a role in her out-of-school writing.

Interview [11] Monday afternoon, 3/1/2004

This was the first interview since June moved into Elizabeth’s house (2/14/2004).

The previous attempt at an interview (interview #10) had been shortchanged by various

factors—June being busy making the move to Elizabeth’s home, her mother’s return to

Korea, schoolwork demands, a bad cold—and several attempts at online chatting had 182

likewise been short and unproductive in nature. This interview centered more on her

views of literacy and attitudes toward her literacy practices rather than on her literacy

practices per se. June was shockingly reflective on her reading and writing practices and

displayed very clear opinions about them. I was stunned at June’s comment that her truly personal and private emotions and feelings had never been expressed through writing, but had been kept in her mind. According to her, if she expressed her thoughts or feelings through writing, it meant that she had a hope or expectation that someone else who would read her writing could understand her. Thus, if she had issues that she did not want to share with anybody in the world, or did not expect them to be properly understood by another person, she would not reveal them in any manner (talking, writing). This remark put her online writing practices already discussed—sharing of her poetry on the WTBC site, postings to her Cyworld homepage, etc.—in a rather different light, just as it did her commitment to out-of-school writing itself. While it was still clear that she valued out-of- school writing, there were limits to her connections to such writing. Her convictions about writing were perhaps tied to the vicissitudes of adolescence, that is, the adolescent’s need for approval and understanding while coping with the changes in life that adolescence brings. What was also interesting about this revelation was how it confirmed what was seen earlier about how audience factors impacted on June’s out-of- school writing and her sense of purpose while (and for) writing. It appeared, once again, that how she perceived an audience’s likely reaction to her writing determined whether and how she wrote while out of school. Notable in this context was the fact that she kept a computer file of her writing locked with a password. For June, then, there was another

183

world of out-of-school writing, an entirely private and personal world, that she was unwilling to share.

When asked about out-of-school and school-based literacy practices, June made several significant points of comparison. Initially, she expressed strong resistance to school literacy as a whole, but it is important here to note that she disliked several aspects of schooling, and this generally negative attitude toward school may have shaded her feelings about school-based literacy. For example, she found it extremely boring to follow a fixed schedule everyday, experienced difficulty in waking up early in the morning, and hated to be forced to read and write what she did not like at school.

Moreover, since everything that she produced for school was “graded”, it was not easy for her to feel comfortable with reading and writing for school. She then emphasized that difficulty or discomfort with school literacy practices was not a matter of a language, i.e.,

English, but a matter of pressure. However, she believed that “배우는건 즐거운것 같아요”

(“learning is always joyful”) including some of what constituted school work.

In relation to the joy and significance of learning, June stressed the importance of reading, especially out-of-school reading, as follows:

책이 제 사고 방식에, reading 이 제 사고 방식에 영향을 많이 끼쳤다는 건 알겠어요. 저는 그런데, 물론 사람이 제 생각에는 사람이 상상을 하고 사고 방식이 바뀌고 하는데 영향을 많이 끼치는 거는 ‘사람’이라고 생각을 하거든요. 책이라는게 사람이 자기를 표현한 거잖아. 소설이 됐던, non-fiction 이 됐던, 그냥 뭐든간에 사람이 자기를 표현하는 일 이잖아요. 사람이 그걸 읽고, 모르는 사람이지만 그 작가라는 사람이랑 contact 를 하는 거잖아요….그냥 , 그 작가가 would like to try to say 하는걸, 그걸 자기가 어떤 방향으로 이해를 해서, 그걸 자기한테 어떻게 딱 맞추냐. (Interview 11, 3/1/2004)

184

I know that a book, I mean “reading” has greatly influenced my way of thinking. However, I believe that people could be the greatest influence of people and their ways of thinking. Books are something that people express themselves, regardless whether they were non- fiction or fiction. Whatever kind of a book it is, that is an author’s self-expression. People read a book and “contact” a person like an author of the book even though they don’t know the author in person.…Well, you understand something that the author would like to say and apply it to your situation. (Interview 11, 3/1/2004)

She believed that out-of-school literacy practices, not school-based literacy practices,

greatly influenced people’s personality and ways of thinking; additionally, when changing their ways of thinking, people were likely to grow. This affirmation of the importance of out-of-school, or voluntary, reading reinforced the view of June as a “true lover of reading,” in that she revealed a deep connection to, and even reverence for, reading because of its power to bring meaning, and therefore joy, to the act of learning.

In making these comments, June stood apart from the study’s other participants, who

never expressed any clearly developed thoughts about why out-of-school literacy was

important, how it impacted them, why or why not they, like June, engaged in voluntary

writing and reading, and why they resisted school literacy practices. June appeared to

read and write more than the others did; additionally, she seemed to reflect on her own

reading and writing much more than the others.

Interview [12] Monday afternoon, 3/15/2004

This interview began on a promising note when June pointed out that there was a

difference between print-based and online reading, but then did not or could not articulate

the difference. In fact, she was quite tired during this interview, and it was clear that she

was not inclined to elaborate much on points raised. However, I realized that her

comment about the print-online difference could be important for this study, and thus, I

quickly decided to postpone talking about this issue until the next interview. 185

Then, I asked her whether she could provide any English writing sample, including

her English essays for school. To my surprise, she had only one computer file of such

writing available: the file of her “hero essay” for her ESL class. She told me that she

tended to delete the files of her essays for school immediately after submitting the

homework to her teachers because, since she kept a hard copy of the papers, it was

unnecessary to maintain the files as well; all they would do is to occupy hardware space

on her computer. Thus, even though she had written several essays for different classes, she kept only one file at that time. Here she reinforced attitudes seen earlier with respect to her dislike of school-based literacy. Had such writing meant a lot to her, she likely would have been more inclined to keep multiple writing files.

In contrast, she created and organized a folder and sub-folders for her pictures taken with her digital camera. Those pictures were among her most important personal belongings, and she was excited to show them to me during the interview, despite her obvious sleepiness. In addition, she kept two files for her poems, named “By 자연” (“By

Ja-yeon: her Korean name”) and “일기” (“Diary”). June created a file “By 자연 (Ja-

yeon)” after June came to the United States and saved all her poems. As her poems

accumulated, she created a new file, “Diary.” These two files are the most important files

of hers. Interesting to note here is that the names of the files indicate several important

points. June showed a strong sense of authorship of her writing. She named the file “By

자연 (Ja-yeon)” as she inserted the same phrase at the end of every poem of hers. In

addition, to June, composing poetry was the equivalent of diary writing. Both also

illustrate how much June cared about her writing outside of school.

186

Online chatting [24] Sunday, 11:30 p.m., 3/21/2004

June and I had engaged in less and less online chatting as the study neared completion, and this was our last official online chat. To help bring closure to the data gathering process, I asked her to take pictures that could capture her out-of-school literacy activities that she considered important. She did so, but the picture files were too large to transfer via email, and thus, I created my own Cyworld mini-homepage and asked June to upload those pictures into it. In order to do so, she needed my password.

When I told her the password, “literacy”, her immediate (and interesting) reaction was:

“it’s really boring.”

For this literacy picture project aspect of the study, June, Mike, and Elizabeth were asked to upload pictures taken with their own digital cameras into my Cyworld site, whereas Yoon was given film for this camera, and Soohee was given a disposal camera by me. I believed that it would be interesting to see what kinds of literacy activities were considered important and thus captured by them. Until they finished taking these pictures,

I kept my screen name as “[봄방학] 사진 찍자!!!” ([Spring Break] Let’s take pictures!!!”).

After the official data collection period ended (March, 2004), June uploaded pictures, with her comments, that captured her important out-of-school literacy activities into my

Cyworld mini-homepage (4/24/2004). Among the 20 pictures she sent, the two pictures below provided insight into her daily literacy practices that had never been discussed during the data collection period.

187

내방 벽에 붙어 있는… 무언가-_-; Something hanging on the wall in my room 맨날 봐서 외려 무심코 지나치고, Even though I look at it everyday, 잊어버리고 살지만, I often overlook it. This phrase is often forgotten in my life; 그래도 정말 좋은 글귀이다. however, this is a very good saying.

Figure 5.5: A Picture that June took to Capture Her Daily Literacy Practices

188

우리 엄마가 준것. 내 책상위에 있는데, 힘들때마다 봐주면 좋다^0^

This is what my mother gave to me. It’s on my desk, and it’s always nice to read it whenever I feel depressed and challenged.

Figure 5.6: A Picture that June took to Capture Her Daily Literacy Practices

189

The first picture (figure 5.5) was of a poster that immediately caught my attention

during my first visit to June’s room. During the data collection period, we had not

discussed the poster, but I had always liked the phrase it displayed. Interestingly, this

picture was the first one that June took to capture her daily literacy life. The next picture,

(figure 5.6), was of a picture frame that I had completely missed during the study. Both

pictures suggest that June was exposed to texts (literacy) in her daily life, and that some

of them provided her with a powerful written message that helped her engage in learning and thinking in her life.

The last interview [13] Monday 3:30-5:30 p.m., 3/22/2004

As described so far, June participated extensively in her online literacy practice (e.g., instant messaging, online community participation, and maintaining a mini-homepage).

In this final interview, she put this activity into an interesting and perhaps surprising perspective. For example, she defined this activity in purely functional terms, as nothing

but communication, rather than seeing it as meaningful engagement with literacy:

저는 computer 로 [읽고 쓰기를] enjoy 하는 거는 아닌것 같아요. Communication 의 문제지. [communication 을 즐기는거지] 저도 그냥 만약에 messenger 에 아무도 없다고 그러죠, 그러면 그냥 컴퓨터 켜 놓고 딴데 가서 딴거 해요. (Interview 13, 3/22/2004)

I don’t think that a computer necessarily made reading and writing more enjoyable. Communication is something that I enjoy while using a computer. If none of my friends log on to the MSN messenger, I just leave the computer on and do something else. (Interview 13, 3/22/2004)

Being a heavy Internet user, June liked the idea of online communication while

utilizing the Internet as a functional tool to communicate with people who lived close and

far away. A computer or the Internet itself did not necessarily make her enjoy reading or

190

writing more, partly because June was already a reader and writer. Thus, a different medium (print, computer) was unlikely to influence her joy at reading and writing.

While June stressed the value of the Internet for communication, she also appreciated

the role and value of print-based reading. For example, June tended to come back to

print-based books when reading for pleasure or relaxation. Even though she did not

articulate clear differences between the two different types of reading, she placed some

special meaning or joy in print-based book reading as follows:

책 읽는 건 확실히 print 가 좋아요. 몰라요. 약간 더 책을 읽는 듯한 기분이 든다. 근데 저는요 두개를 비교한다기 보다, 두개가 따로, 서로 다른 종류의 reading 으로 보이는데요. 그냥 책을 읽는거는 진짜 이렇게 뭔가 이렇게 좀 책을 읽는것 같이 좀 이렇게.. 뭐랄까, 예술품을 읽는다고 할까. 뭐라 그래야되지. 왜요. 그림을 보면 원작을 이렇게 보는거하고 그냥 컴퓨터..책자 같은데서 smaller 하게 해서 보는 것이 다르듯이, 뭐 그렇다기 보담은 글의 예술성으로만 따지자면. 그것도 좀 이상하네 그러니까요, 책으로 읽는거랑 컴퓨터로 읽는거랑 달라요. 만약에 가치가 있는 거라면 책으로 소장을 하겠죠. (Interview 13, 3/22/2004)

As for reading, I definitely like print materials. I don’t know, I just feel more like I am reading when I read print materials. By the way, rather than comparing computer-based and print-based reading, I think that these are two different kinds of reading. With regard to reading a (print-based) book, it is just like real reading, what can I say, like reading arts. What can I say. You know, we feel different when you look at an original piece of art with your own eyes and when you look at the smaller version of the art on screen. Well, that’s not quite true. hum.. When we look at the quality of the work, this doesn’t make sense.. Hum, anyway, it’s different between book reading and reading on screen. If the book is really worth possessing, I would rather keep a paper version rather than a computer file. (Interview 13, 3/22/2004)

As can be seen, June was not able to fully articulate differences in reading print and screen-based texts; however, she knew that she treated them as “different types of reading,” and she had a clear preference for print-based materials. In the previous interview (12), she stated that “세상이 갈수록 삭막해져서” (“the world is getting dreary and bleak”) partly because of the advance of technology, and the likelihood that people were less likely to engage in reading print materials. This comment, as well as the

191

selection above from interview 13, was both very surprising and quite interesting coming from a technologically-oriented student like June, who spent so much time writing (and thus reading) online. June maintained that there were certain feelings that she enjoyed only through print-based reading; additionally, “a book is a book, and the Internet is the

Internet.”

For June, print-based reading was her first and foremost experience of reading, and for her the value of print-based reading was still special and distinctive from online reading. These feelings and habits with respect to print-based reading had probably been formed throughout her entire life. For example, her preference for print-based reading might have been related to her recollections (and happy memories) of compulsive reading when she was young and did not use the Internet. Moreover, June was, as she saw it, more likely to use the Internet for functional purposes rather than for pleasurable reading per se. Thus, reading on screen might not be as pleasurable and comfortable as print- based reading. In this sense, print-based reading was treated as a more genuine and original type of reading than reading on screen, an extremely interesting finding of this section of the study. Contrary to what may have been expected early in this case study, she assigned different values for different types of reading: online literacy was for communication, and print-based reading was for recreational purposes.

Additionally, she wondered how her literacy practices had evolved with the development of computer technology. As she was growing up and computer technology was developing (along with her computer literacy skills), she tried new types of electronic literacy activities (e.g., writing poems in the computer, keeping an online diary). She did not know whether these new literacy activities were aligned with natural 192

stages in her development or because she came to use the Internet more and more. It is

likely that multiple factors (adolescence, the heavy Internet use) had influenced her to

create new literacy practices and build upon pre-existing activities from childhood that

were print-based.

Summary

June was a book lover and prolific writer in terms of out-of-school literacy activity.

In this study, she was described by many different names: an avid reader, fast reader, repetitive reader, compulsive Korean reader, reluctant English reader, poet, and staff member in online communities. She was also a kind of literacy broker who not only provided her peers with her poems and reflections, but also encouraged them to engage in more reading and writing. It was true that June’s literacy practices were rich in a sense, but she preferred to limit her reading and writing to Korean based on her strong Korean literacy. Her overall English proficiency was, at the time of the study, higher than

Soohee’s and Yoon’s; however, she expressed strong opposition to academic literacy practices and resistance to reading in English. It is likely that some characteristics of academic and/or English literacy practice discouraged her from engaging in reading and writing in English outside of school. However, this may also have been a natural occurrence in light of her status as a 1.5 Generation student whose strongest social ties were to the Korean community in the form of her church, her friendships, and her online communities. Under these circumstances, she had little reason to engage in English language out-of-school reading and writing. What is perhaps most striking about June with respect to the purposes of this study is that out-of-school literacy clearly meant a great deal to her. She engaged extensively in such activity, particularly as a writer, and 193

she had developed strong, though not necessarily clearly articulated or thought out, ideas

about writing and reading. If there is a continuum for out-of-school literacy activity, 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

more practically oriented (the other end of such a continuum, where students who use

voluntary reading and writing for pragmatic reasons such as improving their English or

strengthening their academic performance). June is also especially notable because of the distinctions she drew between print and screen-based reading and her preference for the

former while spending so much time performing the latter, and because of the ways in

which purpose for writing influenced her out-of-school writing activity. Indeed, her

relationship with out-of-school writing was rather complex, as we saw in the ways in

which audience factors impacted on both what she wrote and whether she wrote.

194

Mike: A Tale of an Online Reader, Writer, and Reporter

Mike was an 11th grader, a trans-national teenager (U.S.-born-but-raised-in-Korea and the U.S.). His interests and expertise in music, sports, dance, and the computer gave him popularity among his friends at school and in his Korean church community. His out-of-school literacy checklists were filled with popular culture related literacy activities, e.g., reading news articles on soccer/volleyball match, reviewing new CDs, posting full- motion videos about music concerts, creating screen names with song titles, and reading

Linkin Park’s song lyrics. His checklist data showed, as mentioned in the previous chapter, that his out-of-school literacy activities were the most faithfully devoted, but limited to his hobbies and interests, among the participants in this study. The portrait here provides a rich account of his passion for and pursuit of diverse literacy activities that

were meaningful to this Korean-American teenager. One thing to note here is that since

the participants were asked to write literacy autobiographies after seven to eight interviews, the literacy autography played a role in confirming the data collected in prior

interviews, but did not provide much new information.

Mike was another of the high school students that I met in the local Korean Catholic

church. When I first visited Mike’s church on a Sunday, I obtained the email addresses of high school students there. I then sent them recruiting questionnaires via email on the

following Friday morning (9/23/2003). When I sent the survey emails to these high

school students, I created another email recruiting flier to target high school students

(unlike a previous flier, which was aimed at a general audience). The title and main idea

of the email flier was, “Do you want to be in my story?” I briefly explained that I was

going to write a “book” (dissertation) and needed “main characters” for the story 195

(research participants in this study); additionally, I listed many out-of-school literacy activities that typically surround us in our daily lives. I do not know whether it was because of the medium (email survey) or the teenager-friendly flier, but this email survey

was quite successful: many of the students replied to my email. This technology also

allowed me to find out whether the email recipients had checked my email, and if so, at

what time they did. Mike was the student who checked my survey email most promptly

on that Friday afternoon (9/26/03) and returned the completed survey at the requested

time (10/1/03). However, he initially showed disinterest in this research and treated his

participation in the study as troublesome. In his third email (10/3/2003), he became very

honest with his attitude toward this research, as shown below:

Title: 근데요..

설문하면은 얘기 되는거 아니었나요? 전 그것만 하면 되는줄 알았는데.. 누나가 쓰는책 어떻게 하면 도와주는건지 아직 잘 모르겠네요. 성당에 있는애들중에도 저랑 비슷한 life 를 살아온 애들이 많아서 제 얘기가 특별히 나을지 잘 모르겠네요..저도 핫메일 있거든요? [email protected] 사실 전에는 귀찮아서 메신저로 말거실까바 한메일로 드렸는데 오늘보니까 또 재미있을거 같기도 하네요.^^;; 제가 도와드릴수 있는거면 도와드리도록 노력할게요.(Email, 10/3/2003)

Title: By the way…

Weren’t you asking for us to answer the survey? I thought that was it…I still don’t know how I can help you write a book, but… Since there are many kids who live a similar life with me, I don’t know my story might be better. In fact, I have a hotmail address, I didn’t give you this address last time. Instead I gave you another email address (hanmail.net) because I was afraid that you would send me an instant message through hotmail MSN instant messenger. But, I thought about this research today, and it seems interesting. ^^;; If there is anything that I can help, I will try my best to help you out. (Mike’s Email to me, 10/3/2003)

3 This is not his real email address. 196

Then, several days later, Mike sent me his 4th email to say “please, make sure to

include me into your study because I need your help with English essay writing practice

and SAT preparation” (Mike’s 4th Email, 10/7/2003). Mike and I thus had four email

exchanges between our first and second meetings at his church. On our second meeting at the church, we arranged a schedule for weekly interviews, and he introduced me to his mother. Before the first official interview with Mike, I had already obtained a lot of basic information about him via several online chatting sessions, a telephone conversation, his questionnaire, and informal conversations with his mother.

Before I started interviewing Mike, several characteristics of his caught my attention with respect to this study. First, Mike’s attitude towards writing was distinctive from the others research participants. In the survey, Mike not only ranked writing as the most enjoyable English language skill, but also answered that he “slightly agreed” that he enjoyed writing for pleasure in Korean as well as in English.

Another attractive characteristic of his was that he was a transnational teenager. For me, this particular population was very new. Typically, Korean transnational teenagers were born and had lived in the United States in their early lives, and then they moved to

Korea with their family. Later, when they became either middle school or high school students, they returned to the United States with or without their parents. I found that in

Mike’s church, more than half of the high school students were transnational teenagers, including June. As Mike’s email above shows, Mike did not see himself as distinctive or different from many of his peers because they all shared a similar situation. When I first met Mike, an 11th grader, he had already lived in the United States for seven and a half

years, combining four years in his early life and three and a half years in adolescence. 197

When Mike was a 7th grader, he had to unwillingly follow his elder brother and mother to

come to the United States because his brother, a high school student at that time, wanted to attend school in the United States. Mike soon became thankful for the many opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities that he enjoyed in the U. S.

In an interview, Mike described his life as consisting of “double lives.” We talked about his school magazine, named Wildcat, and its cover story, Double Lives: Smart Kids

Go Bad. The story dealt with high school students who lived two different lives, being a top ten student at school, while drinking and clubbing outside of school. This theme of the story made him think about his double lives. “그거요 생각해보면요, 약간 나도 그럼

double lives 인가, 학교에서는 미국애들하고 지내고, 나가서는 한국애들하고 지내고 그렇죠.

뭐. 여기 온 사람들은 다 그렇게 살잖아요.” (“Come to think of it, my life is like double

lives. At school, I hang around with American friends, and outside of school, I hang around with Korean friends. Oh well, all the people [Koreans] here live such double

lives.”) (Interview 9, 1/10/2004) When I asked him how he saw his double lives, he said

that he did not attach any negative connotations to them. Throughout the study, I noticed

that Mike had a strong sense of “Korean” Pride and a positive identity as an Asian

“American”. In school, Mike was a self-motivated top ten student and was popular as a

dancer and athlete. Outside of school, he was connected to Korean friends, culture, and

the local Korean community, and he engaged in Korean literacy. This indicates that

Mike seemed to have constructed a positive image of himself while living these double

lives and had created a hyphenated Korean-American identity that he was comfortable

with.

198

Another appealing characteristic of his was that he tended to use a different language,

especially for reading and writing activities for different purposes:

[for] writing now, there are so much Chinese words in Korean that I don’t know. And they use it for their writing. As [for] a real document or a formal paper. I feel more comfortable with writing in English though. [In terms of reading], depending on what kinds what type it is. If it’s just like informal, it’s so much easier for me to just read in Korean. If it’s formal, it’s about the same. Newspaper, cause they use a lot of hard words in both of them in English and in Korean [laugh]. So it’s kinda the same [laugh]. (Interview 1, 10/25/2003) [italic added]

The degree of formality of a text or a task in reading and writing as well as the

vocabulary involved seemed to govern his preference of a language to use. Here he was

quite different from the other participants in the study, who did not show this degree of

variability in their literacy activities. Notably, English was his dominant language for

formal writing. For instance, when I asked the research participants to write a literacy

autobiography in a language that they felt comfortable with, only Mike and Elizabeth

chose English over Korean, while the rest of the participants wrote in Korean. However, his preference for English did not apply to his informal writing activities. In other words,

Mike tended to choose Korean over English in his informal and more personal writing activities, such as diary writing and web-posting. It is probable that Mike had learned

formal types of writing primarily in American schools (middle school and high school)

and practiced them more in English. Thus, certain genres of writing were too challenging

for him to write in Korean. Mike’s use/choice of the two languages took place across two

different literacy environments (print, online), which hints at the complex nature of his

literacy practices.

As revealed in the literacy checklist data in the previous chapter, the center of Mike’s

out-of-school life was the computer. This might be the reason that he read my recruiting 199

email and replied to it most promptly. When I explained how to record information in the

literacy checklist in the first interview, he immediately said that he would leave the

checklist beside his computer in order to make daily entries in it. One time, after an

interview in his living room, he took me to his room to show me how he used his

computer, and did so with considerable excitement for about one and a half hours.

Generally, he engaged in a variety of meaningful activities with his computer in his room,

e. g., typing essays, searching for information, looking up words (Korean, English,

Spanish) in the Yahoo dictionary, participating in many online cafes (communities),

chatting online with peers and his parents, playing video games, reading comics, Internet

novels, and news articles, searching for video clips of concerts, break dancing, and sporting events, and buying music CDs.

Among all these online literacy activities, he was actively involved in taking care of

the already discussed online community, Welcome To Buckeye City (WTBC). In the first

interview with Mike (10/25/03), I asked about his English class at school (i.e., creative

writing class). He was particularly asked to explain different genres of writing that he had

tried, as well as his in-class writing activities, and the different types of assignments he

was given. When he explained one of the class activities, he called it “alternate writing.” I

shared my own experience in using a similar writing activity, “relay writing” in a Korean

as a foreign language class that I taught. In my class, one student started a text by

contributing one sentence, and then the next student provided a follow-up sentence in

relation to the previous sentence. In the end, all of the students had contributed to

creating a story. When I explained this activity that required both reading and writing

skills, Mike introduced to me a “relay novel” (in which each member of the WTBC 200

contributed a portion) that he enjoyed reading in the WTBC. This was the first time that I

had heard about the WTBC. I was both surprised by and thrilled to learn of this out-of-

school online community because of what it could potentially reveal about the

participants’ out-of-school literacy activity. That Mike and others participated in the

reading and writing of relay novels was an especially exciting discovery in terms of how

this extended the notion of what out-of-school literacy can entail. It was also an important revelation with respect to illustrating the unique role that online literacy can play in

students’ lives, since the chance of them writing and reading, in traditional print format,

relay novels seemed remote at best. Thus, the discovery of both an online community like

WTBC and the construction of relay novels was a major one in the context of the

purposes of the study.

In the next interview, Mike described the Buckey City with passion as follows.

YJ: If someone who has never been to the website [WTBC] asks you about the website, how would you introduce it to a new comer? M: It’s just a place where people like teenagers, Korean teenagers who live in buckeye area like we know each other, a place we just can talk about anything like what happened today or write a poem, write a story and upload pictures in it. It’s just a place that we can just hang out with friends and we can talk about. There is a page [section] you can you don’t have to put your name, you can just put ‘anonymous’ and you can say whatever you want in there. If you got a problem, you can say it. People will reply…. I think it’s just cool to write something and they reply to you. It’s like fun….I think it’s just a place you can relax and have fun.… you don’t have to worry about anything. Just it’s not a website where you have to get stressed or something. (Interview 2, 11/2/2003) [italics added]

His description of WTBC with excitement demonstrates his positive attitude toward

literacy engagement in the community. In fact, Elizabeth’s description of WTBC was

quite an interesting comparison with Mike’s. Elizabeth discussed the meaning of this

community to her, as shown below:

201

It’s like a really good place to go, when you don’t have much things to do. It’s just like I mean I sit on a computer and I’m excited to go to buckeye city to see what other people have been writing. And it’s just interesting and it’s just something to do and something keeps you going socially and like getting you occupied at the same time. [It’s] interesting like read funny comics and see others’. I guess it’s another way to being close to like getting close to the people that you don’t know. You get to see the personality and you get to see how they like it stuff. (Elizabeth’s interview 4, 11/13/2003) [italic added]

Notably, Mike stressed writing activities in the Buckeye City as “cool” and “fun”, whereas Elizabeth saw reading as “exciting” and “interesting.” Mike emphasized the importance of WTBC as an emotionally and psychologically comfortable and safe place, whereas Elizabeth stressed the value of WTBC as a socially active place. Their positive attitudes about their voluntary, out-of-school literacy practice in WTBC can be critical to forming their notions and foundation of literacy in life.

When I asked Mike about how he felt about participating in this study—after about one month into the study, he excitedly told me that he felt great about being in the study and enjoyed answering my questions about WTBC. He went on to say that for him and his peers, WTBC was simply an online playground designed for fun, and he had never met anyone, particularly an adult like me, who paid great attention to their online community. From that point on, he loved sharing news about WTBC with me.

In WTBC, Mike functioned as a reporter. Together with June, Mike was a staff member, like a webmaster, in this community and felt a strong sense of responsibility in this role as well as joy at providing useful information and exciting news to the members.

While I surfed this community, I found that Mike tended to write more in the 1,000

People and 10,000 Stories section, whereas, as already discussed, June tended to write more in the Philosophy section. In fact, I learned later from June that the 1,000 People and 10,000 Stories section originally served for both informational and creative

202

(members’ own writing) types of texts. But June suggested to the members that they should create a new section that could facilitate the sharing of their own personal and

creative writing. That was how the Philosophy section was initially created, and unlike

other sections, this section was set up not to reveal who contributed a posting and when a person posted their writing, so that writers would feel more encouraged to share their

work. Instead, they could use any nickname or pseudonym there, and only the month in

which they posted appeared.

In the 1000 people and 10000 stories section, I read many of Mike’s postings. He

regularly posted articles related to Korea, such as Korean holidays, current political or

social issues, and Korean music and movies. Mike also reported about events that

occurred to the members of the community, such as his own clarinet concert performance,

Elizabeth’s birthday party, Terry’s National Honor Society induction, the cancellation of

his trip to Pittsburgh, his choir practice at church, and so forth. In addition to all these

text-based postings, he uploaded pictures and video clips of events like incredible soccer

shots and music concerts. Equally importantly, Mike did not forget responding to others’

postings and comments. While I regularly read these postings, not only did I learn of

what kinds of texts that Mike and his peers produced and were provided, but also I

obtained a great deal of news and became aware of issues that surrounded him and his

friends.

I, as an invisible online participant observant, had regularly checked out this

community and read almost all the postings; however, during the data collection period, I

had never posted anything, even not a single reply to postings, for several significant

reasons. First, I was very careful not to intrude into such a special space for teenagers. All 203

the research participants knew that I had become a member of WTBC and read many

postings there; however, I was not sure whether they would have liked me to actively

participate in this community. On one occasion, June nearly shouted at me while saying

that I should not tell her mother of this community, even though she was very close to her

mother. When I told June that I wanted to share her poems posted in WTBC with her

mother, she made an important argument that once members in the community noticed

that any “adult” visited there, members would not be as open as they could be. Given

such a reaction, I decided that it was best to be an invisible reader.

Second, I generally used school computers to visit this community. Since they did

not provide a foreign language font, the only language that I could use for posting was

English. I did not know how the members would react to an English posting. I had found during the study that English was only used occasionally, and that the primary language was Korean. In fact, Korean was seemingly the official language, the accepted code in this community, a fact that in itself was interesting and important in terms of the aims of the study. Believing that there might be an unwritten “Korean-only” rule, I had no confidence about posting English language messages, especially as an adult member in the community.

From my visits to WTBC and interviews with Mike, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that he and many of the community members followed a certain code of ethics during their WTBC activity. For example, Mike had developed and put into practice a clear sense of plagiarism as it applied to an online environment, even though he never mentioned the word, plagiarism:

204

When you go around Internet websites, other websites, like there are a lot of people put like “this is from other sources.” It kinda became natural to put. If you got something from other sources, like ‘퍼옴’ (being dug out of), ‘어디서 퍼 왔다’ (dug out of somewhere). Just put that on. Cause it’s not from your work, it’s somebody other’s. Some others’ or like I got some review, like album review from other sources, obviously, I didn’t write it that good, so I just put ‘this is from other sources.’… If you are used to the Internet and other websites, everybody do that. Cause everybody else does it, too. Everybody else put “it’s from other sources”… If some websites, they want you if you are gonna put in other website, they want you to put website’s name, URL www. (Interview 3, 11/8/2003)

Mike had formed the intriguing habit of distinguishing his own writing from others’ and of giving crediting to others’ work by putting one Korean word, 퍼옴 [“being dug out of”] beside the title of the articles and/or adding the source at the end of a web article. In fact, I did not know this Korean word, 퍼옴 [“being dug out of”] until Mike explained it to me in detail. As he noted above, he believed that it became natural to adopt the courtesy of adding the source once people became accustomed to using the Internet.

However, not all of the research participants were sensitive to this issue. For instance, another research participant, Yoon simply copied from web articles while writing a research paper for a class. He made the excuse that plagiarism would be a common practice for ESL students like him because they had difficulties with summarizing or paraphrasing English articles in their own words. Yoon insisted that his teachers would not care much about whether he copied from others’ work; their only concern would be whether he successfully completed assignments that required online searches.

In the online literacy environment, then, Mike, unlike Yoon, was a sensible and sensitive reader, writer, and reporter who had promoted and disseminated a notion of ownership or copyright of written work. Mike told me that such a practice also had been taught in English classes since he was in middle school. It was interesting to see that he

205

had shifted to his out-of-school literacy activities a perspective acquired through in- school literacy learning.

In addition to Mike’s engagement with online communities like WTBC, online chatting played a significant role in his socializing in cyberspace. When I realized that all of the research participants except Soohee engaged extensively in online chatting (e.g., two to three hours per day), I realized that none of them told me clearly or directly the topics or themes of their extensive online chatting. Thus, I asked Mike, who kept a record of relatively detailed information about his online chatting, whether he could save all his online chatting for one week. Mike immediately asked me whether he should save every single online chatting, since he chatted “with at least ten” people a day. Given the privacy issues involved and trouble involved in saving all of his online chatting, I decided that I could not ask him to save them all. Instead, I asked him to record the issues addressed through online chatting; additionally, I chatted online with the research participants more often to understand the nature of this activity.

By chatting online, Mike felt connected with people he cared about (e.g., his friends, family). During weekdays, his interaction with Koreans was quite limited because he was the one of only two Korean students at his school, and his mother stayed in the United

States only a few months per year. His brother, a college student, was busy with his schoolwork. Mike socialized in person with his Korean friends only once a week (on

Sundays) at church. Therefore, online chatting was the best way for him to cauth up with news and issues surrounding his friends and family. Mike told me in an embarrassed tone that he could not live without online chatting because, while chatting online, he did not feel lonely; however, once he logged off, he felt empty and lonely. Perhaps this was why 206

he sent me instant messages very often during and after the data collection period. In fact,

he was the research participant with whom I chatted online most frequently.

Mike’s use of out-of-school literacy through the mediums of online chatting and participation in an online community like WTBC to achieve or maintain connections with others adds another dimension to the purposes served by out-of-school literacy in the age of the Internet. While he could have achieved the same ends through telephone conversations or exchanging traditional print-based letters or notes with his friends and relatives, Mike chose electronic literacy as the domain in which he attempted to break through the isolation he felt as a 1.5 generation student during most days of the week.

Reading and writing electronically in out-of-school settings was more than a recreational activity for Mike, as may perhaps be the case for other 1.5 generation or transnational students like himself.

Another interesting aspect of his online chatting is the fact that, as he engaged in this activity, Mike often completed his school assignments at the same time. For instance, when he was typing his final project, a short mystery story, for his creative writing class,

he received help from another research participant, Elizabeth, in creating a title for his

story. Mike did not intend to ask for help for the title, but while typing the story,

Elizabeth sent him an instant message to ask what he was doing. He responded that he was doing homework. Then, they continued talking about his story, and Mike received help from Elizabeth, as described below:

M: I asked if what the title would be good for this. She [Elizabeth] was like “truth of something.” I like the first part, “truth.” I told her a basic story line. I told her it’s about people get killed. So.. YJ: So she gave you ‘truth of…’ M: And I like that first part. I was like.. How was ‘truth of sweetest night’ since the hotel name is ‘sweetest night.’ That’s cool. (Interview 6, 11/26/2003) 207

In addition to assigning such an important role for online chatting, Mike articulated

the beauty of online chatting as follows:

[Online] Chatting becomes so popular. We got so used to it, so we just get online and talk. And we talk about something about love or something. It feels better like to just read it not like talking. Typing and reading what they say, it feels more comfortable with me. I don’t have to worry about how my voice goes or anything. Cause before you say anything, before you type, you have to think about it, what you gonna say. If you are on the phone, Just you say something coming out of your mouth and you can’t pull it back. Sometimes, I type it and erase it a whole thing. …. Well, if you are in a serious conversation, it comes really quick anyway. When you type it and wait for 5 seconds and the answer pops up. So I don’t think it’s difficult [to have a serious conversation via online chatting]. (Interview 3, 11/8/2003) [italic added]

Interestingly, Mike considered online chatting both written and oral communication. He also notes the value of reading in this kind of communication and how it enriches the dialogue in ways that would not occur in face-to-face exchanges. In other words, the literate characteristics of online chatting appealed to Mike: writing, reading, typing, and editing, i.e., what could in more general terms be described as composing. Mike valued the opportunities to think (while reading and writing) and to edit.

Through these preferences he once again signaled the importance that online activity held in his out-of-school literacy activity and revealed how serious this out-of-school activity could be for him. While these forms of out-of-school writing and reading clearly were also pleasurable in nature for him, he was a serious, highly engaged practitioner of out- of-school literacy.

Since online literacy was Mike’s primary domain of out-of-school literacy activity, it was stories and examples of his online literacy engagements that I encountered most often while collecting the ‘Mike data’. And, as already seen to a certain extent, for Mike

208

there was often an interesting blending of leisurely and educational purposes at hand in this activity. In the next few paragraphs I describe several revealing examples of such activity. Here it must be remembered that was a highly successful, top ten in his class kind of student. Thus, beyond school homework, Mike, as a self-motivated academic achiever, voluntarily engaged in academically oriented out-of-school literacy activities.

For instance, he often visited a website called Collegeboard

(http://www.collegeboard.com) to solve the ‘SAT question of the day’. This website played a very interesting role within his routine of surfing the Internet. Mike described this routine as follows. First, he tended to check out Korean websites. When he could not find anything especially interesting to read or to write about, he then moved to English websites. The Collegeboard site was, for him, a transitional place in the movement from

Korean to English websites. In other words, after enjoying Korean web articles, Mike switched his attention to SAT preparation. While spending a few minutes in the

Collegeboard website, he switched his language mode from Korean to English and engaged in English reading and writing. A reason why Mike “stopped by” the

Collegeboard website and made the shift from Korean to English language websites was not clearly stated, but it was interesting to note that he began his surfing routine by visiting recreational websites in Korean and moved to academically-oriented websites in

English. It seems likely that within a continuum of voluntary online literacy practice,

Mike moved from more enjoyable and comfortable voluntary reading (Korean, recreational) to less voluntary but more ‘important’ reading (English, academic).

Another instance of his online, out-of-school literacy activity of an academic nature not only caught me by surprise, but also made me think about his view of himself as an 209

English language learner. I found from his literacy checklist that he solved questions in an English section of the 2003 College Entrance Examination in Korea. Unlike American

SATs, this Korean College Exam was administered by the Korean Ministry of Education and took place only once a year, in November. It was designed for every student who planned to apply to Korean colleges. Several days after the examination, the questions were made available on several websites. While surfing the Internet, Mike ran into news articles about the Korean College Entrance Exam and the exam questions. Among several sections in the Korean exam (e.g., Korean Language Arts, Math, Social studies, Science,

English, and 2nd Foreign Language), he solved the questions only in the English section.

In an interview, he showed some relief in discovering that his English was good enough to answer all the questions correctly. Since Mike regularly kept in touch with his old friends in Korea who had taken the 2003 College Entrance Exam, it was understandable that he might have wondered how well he could have performed in that entrance examination. However, it was interesting to me that he did not care about or pay attention to questions in the Korean Language Arts section or want to measure his Korean proficiency. Instead, he was interested only in English questions and concerned about his

English proficiency. Mike might have assumed that the questions in the Korean

Language Arts section were too difficult for him to solve. He once described high school

Korean Language Arts as “crazy”. Then, too, he might have felt that there was no point in attempting to solve the Korean questions based on his discontinued learning of Korean

Language Arts. On the contrary, perhaps, he felt that he already owned the Korean language, and thus, there was no need to test it.

210

As described so far, Mike engaged extensively in online literacy activities in both

Korean and English outside of school. His good command of Korean and English seemed

to allow him to enjoy the flexibility of switching between English and Korean literacy

activities. Thus, when he showed some anxiety about reading in English, as described

below, I was quite surprised:

M: 영어로 읽으면, 약간 시작을 하기가 좀 약간 두렵다고 하나. YJ: 왜? M: 모르겠어요. 그냥 약간 영어로 하면은, 모르는 단어도 나오고, 그러면, 또 찾아 보고 싶기도 하고, 또 모르는 단어 그냥 넘기기도 싫고, 그냥 그러면은, 한 페이지 읽는데 좀 오래 걸리잖아요. 한국말로 읽으면, 그냥 이렇게 보고 이렇게 가면 되는데. YJ: Does it mean that you don’t or you won’t or you just can’t do pleasure reading in English? M: Ah, I don’t and I can’t. It’s like in between I don’t and I can’t. [italic added] (Interview 4, 11/14/2003). [italic added]

M: Speaking of reading in English, I’m just a bit afraid of starting to read. YJ: Why? M: I don’t know. When I read an English book, I come across unknown words and then, I wanted to look up the words in the dictionary and hated to skip them. And then, it took too much time to read just one page if I look them up in the dictionary. However, if I read Korean books, I can read so quickly and easily. YJ: Does it mean that you don’t or you won’t or you just can’t do pleasure reading in English? M: Ah, I don’t and I can’t. It’s like in between I don’t and I can’t. [italic added] (Interview 4, 11/14/2003). [italic added]

Significantly, for Mike, reading English texts was too troublesome, especially for

pleasurable reading. For this reason, his bed-time reading took place only with Korean

books. His last statement, “It’s like in between. I don’t and can’t [do pleasurable reading

in English]” clearly captures how he perceived reading in English. As Mike pointed out,

his lack of vocabulary was one of the important reasons why he was hesitant to pick up

English books (in much the same way that June avoided reading voluntarily in English).

Mike did not like to skip the unknown words and was constantly concerned about them

while reading. In other words, he was very much a bottom-up reader of English, and his 211

lack of vocabulary and relatively slow pace of English reading were likely to discourage

him from engaging in pleasurable reading in English.

There were, however, exceptions to this situation, with respect to both English and

Korean, as he revealed in a later interview (interview 7). In fact, Mike justified his

limited kinds of reading (hobby-related reading only) by describing his selection of

reading materials as follows:

If it’s article about soccer in English, I read it all the way. Every single line, I read it. If it’s like political stuff in Korean, I don’t read it. I read every single line that interests me. (Interview 7, 12/4/2003)

Mike claimed that it was natural that he should selectively choose and carefully read

the texts that attracted his attention. His example of reading soccer articles in English and

ignoring articles on politics in Korean indicates that as for pleasure reading, the language

(either Korean or English) was not the most crucial factor in selecting out-of-school reading materials: the content of the text was the key issue for him. However, his comments suggest that there was in fact a complicated interplay between content and language in his selection of texts and the language in which to read them.

Mike’s perception of reading and the evolution of his view of literacy, in fact, were critical to interpreting his comments on reading practices. The following dialogue demonstrates the evolution of his perceptions of reading throughout the study.

M: Before I did this checklist, I thought that reading and writing are just like formal. Anything like essays, or reading of textbooks or whatever novel, reading a novel. But those checklist, there is tons of them. Like even like [online] chatting is still writing. Reading comics are still reading. Reading online, I didn’t consider it as reading. I didn’t consider if there was like a story, even it was just like a novel. YJ: 예로, 너의 결혼식(For example, Your Wedding (Internet novel)?) M: Yeah, even if that was a novel, I wouldn’t think of it as really reading before I did it [recording the checklist.] (Interview 7, 12/4/2003) [italic added]

212

In Mike’s mind, reading was likely to be formal, print-based, and school-related.

Thus, his online reading about his hobbies (i.e., music, sports, movies, and video games),

was unlikely to be recognized or treated as reading partly because of the kinds of reading

(recreational, informal texts) and/or the medium (online) that he used for reading, despite

the fact that, between reading postings for online chatting and in WTBC and Internet materials, he was reading regularly in out-of-school contexts. That was the reason why, at

the beginning of the study, he identified himself as a non-reader in spite of his extensive

online reading: “I’m not a reading person” (Interview 2, 11/2/2003). When he noted that

“It’s like in between. I don’t and can’t [do pleasurable reading in English]” (Interview 4,

11/14/2003), he probably did not consider his online reading. The more he participated in

this study, the wider a definition of reading he had developed, especially by including his

out-of-school pleasure reading (e.g., reading online).

As I have discussed so far, Mike was a fluent and sensible Internet user; additionally,

he had expanded his view of literacy practices, especially reading. However, it was

striking that it was print-based material that he considered a true or “real” form of literacy,

as revealed when Mike distinguished electronic Christmas cards (e-cards) from paper

ones:

[Indicating the checklist] 이건 다 e-card 구요, 이건 “진짜” 카드요. E-cards 가 얼마나 멋있는데요..쉽잖아요. …재밌는것들도 있잖아요. 얼마나 멋있는데요. 나갈수도 없었구요. 그러고, 손..제가 handwriting 이 별로 좋은 편이 아니기때문에 [e-card 로 보냈어요] (Interview 12, 1/10/2004)

[Indicating his checklist] These were all electronic-cards. That is a real card. You know how cool these electronic cards are. It’s easy to use. It’s interesting as well. Plus, I didn’t have a ride to go get Christmas cards. And because my handwriting isn’t good, [I sent out e- cards.] (Interview 12, 1/10/2004) [italic added]

213

The “real” card he referred to above was a paper-based Christmas card, one he had

sent to a very special adult, his Godfather. While he found the electronic cards “cool” and

“interesting,” and in fact all of the rest of his Christmas cards were in electronic form, he

seemed to attach special meaning and value to print-based material, which he apparently associated with adults and more formal purposes, whereas e-cards were for teenagers,

who were more technologically oriented. Furthermore, there was convenience attached to the e-cards, in that he could simply access or create them through his computer rather than having to travel somewhere to buy print-based cards. That print-based material held a certain reverence to this constant reader and writer of electronic texts was an interesting

revelation of the unique power or status of print literacy in the age of the Internet.

Mike’s way of treating print-based literacy as ‘real’ seemed to echo his apparent

trivializing of online literacy activities and/or out-of-school literacy practice. From our

weekly interviews, I felt that the more Mike updated his literacy checklists, the more he

became cognizant that all of his online literacy activities (e.g., emailing, online chatting)

should be considered as literacy activities. However, he had not changed his previous

practice of placing a higher priority on academic literacy practices and less priority on

out-of-school or online literacy practice. The following conversation between Mike and

me provides a glimpse of his frustration with his expanded notion of literacy practices:

M: Now I think of everything I read on anywhere on TV or a computer and even comics is still reading. 근데요, 그러면 약간 별로 안 좋은 점이 있으면, [by the way, there is something not good] before I did this [literacy checklist], if I have to read something, I have to read a novel, or I have to read something, it’s like really formal or whatever. Now, I’m gonna read comics. YJ: Right. M: It’s still reading YJ: 안 좋은 점은? [What’s something not good?] M: I don’t really spend much time for formal stuff that I need to read or I just spent time with 214

something like chatting. [Online] Chatting is still writing and reading. So, I’m like “oh, that’s still reading and writing.” I don’t have to do something else. Cards or comics, it’s not really educational. Or website posting, it’s not really educational. Directions and games. YJ: Maybe M: Now, I consider those as reading and so I’m going away from educational. (Interview 8, 12/13/2003). [italic added]

This short dialogue that was carried out in the mid stage of the data collection period illuminated several important issues. First, Mike eventually recognized that he had widened his view of reading by embracing his out-of-school literacy practice and by being more aware of his reading activities. Second, even though Mike felt positive about expanding the definition of literacy, he felt frustrated because his out-of-school reading activities that he enjoyed (reading comics, online chatting, web-posting) were not

“educational”. At issue for Mike was that since he did not see those pleasurable reading materials as educational, he believed that his involvement with out-of-school literacy made him drift away from educational and academic literacy practices. On the one hand, then, Mike came to widen his definition of literacy by including a variety of his daily literacy activities, but, on the other, retained his view of academic materials and practices as important and out-of-school activities as enjoyable but not important. Thus, he did not seem to expand the boundary of literacy activities that were considered important, even though some of what he did outside of school could easily be classified as important, such as his work with the Collegeboard website. Ironically, then, his wider view of reading made him feel that he engaged in many un-educational, insignificant literacy activities on a daily basis.

215

Summary

Living double lives, Mike, as a trans-national teenager, had developed a way to balance two languages, literacies, cultures, and identities. He comfortably crossed the border between Korean and English literacy lives. Mike’s key out-of-school literacy

activity comprised online literacy practices that took place in his room. This practice was

a seemingly solitary home literacy activity, but it was interactive and engaging, given the

nature of online communication, and it played a key role in connecting Mike to people

and contexts he was otherwise out of contact with most of the time. In other words, even

though Mike engaged in online literacy activities alone in his quiet room, he actively

communicated with many friends when reading and writing in both immediate response,

i.e., synchronous (e.g., online chatting), and delayed response, i.e., asynchronous (e.g.,

emails, web-posting) modes. While doing so, reading and writing were seamlessly

connected to one another, so that in his out-of-school literacy he was an engaged reader

as well as writer. While examining Mike’s online literacy activities, I wondered whether

the online environment was, for Mike, a “tool, place, or way of being” as Markham

proposed in Life Online (1998). The data in his case study seem to suggest that it was all

three of these, and perhaps in overlapping ways. I wondered, too, about the extent to

which this is the case for other 1.5 generation students, who may well face the kinds of

isolation and separation Mike experienced and was so eager to remove via his

electronically based, out-of-school literacy activities.

216

Yoon: A Tale of a Situational and Reluctant Reader

Yoon was an 11th grade male student who hated and struggled with English the most among the participants in this study. He constantly reported that he hated reading and writing throughout out-of-school literacy checklists, interviews, and his literacy autobiography. In particular, his literacy checklists showed the least amount and frequency of his engagement with literacy activities. Instead, he filled the checklists with his pastime activities (e.g., doing Karaoke), which was a significant part of his socializing with his Korean friends. Despite his resistance to literacy practices in general, Yoon engaged in some interesting literacy activities (e.g., bathroom reading, changing his screen names in an instant messenger, video gaming), which alerted me to examine his literacy activities and listen to him with a more careful and critical eye.

On my second visit to the local Korean Catholic church one Sunday (9/28/2003), I spoke to some high school students individually to see whether they would consider participating in my study. Since I had already met with the majority of the high school students on my first visit (9/21/2003) and chatted online with some of them, I tried my best to match names and faces of the students on my second visit. In addition, I was looking for new faces that I had not seen the previous week. Yoon was one of the new

faces. In fact, that was his first visit to the church. His appearance, especially his yellow

colored hair and height (tall), gave me a very strong impression of him, and his email

address, which reminded me of the movie Forrest Gump, was easy to remember. Thus,

when Yoon voluntarily called me in order to join this research that Sunday afternoon, I

could easily recall his face. From the short phone conversation, I noticed that Yoon was

interested solely in the free tutorials that I had promised to the research participants 217

during the period of data collection. Since Yoon was the only student who voluntarily

contacted me, I appreciated his call, but I faced an ethical issue. That is, Yoon

desperately asked for my help with English grammar and SAT preparation, but I was not sure whether he could be an appropriate participant for this research. Further, I did not

know whether Yoon was really willing to remain in the study throughout its planned

duration and was responsible enough to record the literacy checklist data for the six

months the study was to run. Thus, I was very careful not to give him the impression that

anybody who volunteered for this study would be automatically selected as a research

participant.

After the phone conversation with Yoon, I tried to find some justifications for

including Yoon in this research. First, I believed that Yoon’s case could be useful as an

opportunity to study a student who had already self-identified as someone who did not

like to read and write. Second, when I created the research design, especially including

free tutorials, I hoped to find immigrant students who could not afford English tutorials

so that they could benefit from participating in this research. Despite these two

justifications, I was still hesitant to include Yoon, partly because his yellowish colored

hair reminded me of typical at-risk adolescent students in Korea, and I might not be ready

to deal with this kind of a student in this research. However, his prompt email responses

and answers to the questionnaire gave me the sense that Yoon would become quite a

responsible research participant.

Before making a final decision about who would be included in the study, I decided

to visit his home to gain a better sense of Yoon and to talk to his aunt. After observing his

home and having an informal conversation with his aunt, I became more interested in 218

Yoon. Unlike the other research participants, Yoon lived with his extended family (aunt, uncle, and 8-year-old U.S.-born niece). I identified him as a “parachute kid,” (as noted earlier, defined as a student living with distant relatives in order to attend school in the

United States.) Since more and more parachute kids like Yoon are likely to enter

American schools, I thought that Yoon’s case study would provide some important insights into this particular population and their literacy practices and thus enlarge the scope and value of the research.

The first interview with Yoon made me consider two issues concerning how to conduct the kind of research I was engaged in. First, Yoon showed strong discomfort with tape recording, since he had never done that before. Second, I initially interviewed him in English since I wanted to know about his English proficiency (e.g., speaking) and to use interview data as he produced in English. Even though Yoon said that it was not a problem to be interviewed in English, after the first two interviews I found that he was not able to express himself in English as well as he could in Korean. I asked several colleagues about the appropriate language to use with bilingual interviewees and decided to interview Yoon in Korean from the third interview. While employing Korean, Yoon expressed his opinions better than he did in English, and he sometimes diverted the direction of the interviews by talking about his personal issues. In the final analysis, using

Korean allowed me deeper entry into his life and its related literacy practices.

Our weekly tutorials before or after an interview provided me with a great deal of information about Yoon’s language proficiency (Korean, English). Yoon’s special request for the focus of the tutorials was English “grammar” instruction because, he told me, he had never been provided formal instruction in English grammar. Thus, we covered 219

one chapter of his English grammar book in each tutorial, e.g., parts of speech, infinitive,

gerund, tense, conjunctions, and so forth. Yoon often asked questions without a particular

context being established for them, such as what is “being”? What is the meaning of

“getting”? When should I use “would”? When I received such questions, I often did not

know where to start and how to answer them because Yoon’s structural knowledge of the

English language was very weak and fragmented.

In addition to English grammar, Yoon had to prepare for SATs, especially the verbal

section. This opportunity to study SAT words taught me a lot about Yoon’s vocabulary

knowledge in English and Korean. The first surprising finding was that Yoon did not

know how to use a paper dictionary; instead, he was familiar with an electronic

dictionary. He often could not locate the proper meaning of many words on his own,

which caused him to read English texts with the extensive help of a dictionary. Second,

the more we studied vocabulary, the more I came to know how much Korean vocabulary

he lacked. In fact, I was surprised that he did not know the definitions of many SAT

words in either language. In other words, when he wanted to use or explain common

academic words such as subjective (주관적인), comprehensive (포괄적인), and abstract

(추상적인), neither English nor Korean definitions were helpful because the words did not exist in his combined English/Korean vocabulary. In this case, an English-Korean dictionary was useless because he could not understand the Korean definition of an

English word. Thus, he frequently had to use an English-English dictionary to understand the meaning of an English word, but it was often the case that an English definition in the

English-English dictionary was challenging for him.

220

Whenever I pointed out his lack of Korean proficiency, Yoon strongly disagreed

with me. He maintained that he could not be poor at Korean because he was a native speaker of Korean. However, a significant lack of Korean vocabulary appeared

throughout the study. It was probable that the level of his Korean vocabulary reached

about or was even below Grade 7, since his Korean formal schooling was discontinued in

Grade 8, and he did not continue to practice or study Korean. Eventually, Yoon

acknowledged some difficulties with Korean, especially just after writing his literacy

autobiography in Korean. According to him, “저 거의 3 년만에 첨이었어요.” (“This was

the first time composing in Korean for the past three years.”) (Interview 12, 1/6/2004)

Yoon reported that from the literacy autobiography writing experience, he became aware that he needed to learn more about Korean spelling, punctuation, sophisticated (Sino-

Chinese) vocabulary, and forms of essays. In fact, his literacy autobiography clearly confirmed his poor Korean literacy. Most of all, he completely missed the main point of the literacy autobiography. Instead of addressing this prior encounters with literacy, he

stressed three primary points in his autobiography; he hated studying in Korea, his

parents were strict, and he hated his ESL classes in his high school. Thus, I came to know

his Korean writing ability rather than his prior literacy experiences from his

autobiography.

As can be imagined, our tutorials were not always fun because I sometimes felt it

necessary to become quite a demanding teacher for Yoon. For instance, in view of his

vocabulary problems, he was asked to preview a grammar chapter and memorize ten to

twenty words—a large number—for each session. This put a lot of pressure on Yoon. We

both felt a sense of accomplishment through the tutorials, but simultaneously, it was true 221

that both of us often became frustrated. In particular, I struggled with my multiple roles as a researcher for interviews and a language teacher for tutorials. That is, I felt some conflicts between these two roles. For instance, when I asked him to make a vocabulary notebook, he turned his diary into one. I felt sorry that my attempt to help his school- based work caused him to eliminate an opportunity to keep a diary—an important form of out-of-school writing, especially for a reluctant reader/writer like Yoon.

Furthermore, I became judgmental and didactic when I came to know too much about Yoon from informal conversations in tutorials. For instance, he took out (or stole, in my view) a book from the library without checking it out, he harshly criticized his ESL teacher, and he once made the following example sentence: “unless I had money, I will steal a car.” I did not know how to handle all these instances, but clearly, this personal information about Yoon caused me to face some emotional struggles. However, if I had played a role as a researcher only, I would not have known him that well. More importantly, if I had not known him well, I would not have developed a strong personal attachment to Yoon, one that resulted in his revealing valuable details about his out-of- school encounters with literacy.

While I experienced such conflicts and struggles by interacting with Yoon, he and I had established a very special relationship. Notably, Yoon was the first research participant who gave me his homecoming picture. When Mike complained about writing a literacy autobiography in front of several research participants, Yoon did not agree with

him and sent me his autobiography before the deadline. Yoon even told me that he quite

enjoyed writing it. Further, he was the only research participant who sent me a Christmas card (electronic card) even though some gave me a present, but not a card. Most of all, he 222

was the only research participant who considered me a teacher, not an elder sister from beginning to end. I found later that I was the only Korean adult with whom Yoon regularly talked and opened himself to. Yoon’s aunt and uncle were nice, but they were not his real relatives; instead, they were his legal guardians. They were actually his father’s acquaintances who were paid to take care of him. As time went on and I got to know him better, I was able to understand his resistance to literacy as well as become aware of a positive aspect of his literacy practices I later discovered.

As the results of the literacy checklists showed in Chapter 4, Yoon reported the least amount of reading and writing among the participants in this study. His most common daily activities were playing video games and chatting online. Once when I was online around 5:00 a.m., I was shocked to find that Yoon had also logged on to MSN instant messenger that early in the morning. He told me that the first thing he did every morning, around 5:00 a.m., was to turn on his desktop computer next to his bed to check the weather, especially during wintertime. Before catching the school bus at 6:00, Yoon often played a computer game for five to ten minutes. As soon as he got home from school, he rushed to his computer to play computer video games. He sometimes set up a time with his friends to meet in cyber space so as to play the video games together. The two video games that he played were Starcraft and Diablo. Even though I was not a game player, when Yoon showed me how to play these games, it was becoming clear to me that video- game playing could be considered another type of literacy activity. That is, while it was true that both games did not require much reading and writing, it was necessary to read basic directions and communications in English between players. In particular, when he

223

played Diablo, he had to keep communicating in writing with the other players in order to buy and sell weapons (an important part of the game), and Yoon felt very comfortable with communicating in English for this purpose.

In addition to his video game playing, online chatting, primarily in Korean, was another key online and out-of-school writing and reading activity for Yoon (writing in creating messages and reading when receiving them). In the first interview, he told me that he used to be an [online] “chatting addict” because he routinely spent 12 hours online per day during summer vacations. Even though I was an avid online chatterer, I could not understand how he engaged in online chatting for such a long time per day. He told me that when his interlocutor logged out of the online chatting, he immediately invited another person who appeared on the contact list to chat. During the school year in which the period of data collection occurred, however, he spent ‘only’ two to three hours per day in chatting online, mostly with Korean friends from his school or church (in Korean) and with a few non-Korean ESL classmates (in English). Video-gaming and online chatting were Yoon’s most significant pastimes, and while in both cases reading and writing took place, in his view they should not be considered literacy practices.

According to Yoon, “there was no such thing like voluntary or pleasure reading and writing.” His professed resistance toward reading was partricularly pervasive throughout the study: for instance, “선천적으로 읽는게 싫어요. 싫다기 보다 귀찮죠.” (“I’m not a reader

by nature. Reading is troublesome rather than something that I hate.”) (Interview 3,

11/5/2003), “책은 죽어도 안 읽으니까요.” (“I hate reading to death.”) (Interview 17,

3/9/2004), and “원래 읽기를 싫어하기에.” (“I just don’t like to read.”) (Interview 19,

3/30/2004) Whenever Yoon showed such an attitude, it was not easy for me as a teacher 224

to accept this as it was, and thus, I sometimes stressed to him the importance of literacy.

His resistance to these efforts of mine was seen in his literacy autobiography. For instance, in the last sentence of his literacy autobiography he tried to convince me of his belief: “읽기 쓰기 모두 중요하다 하지만...꼭 싫어하는걸 억지로 시킬필요가 있는거 같진

않다.”(“It is true that reading and writing are important; however, I think it is not necessary to force people to read and write if they don’t like to do it.) (Yoon’s literacy autobiography, 12/29/2003)

Yoon’s self-identification as a non-reader or a book-hater prevented me from creating a fuller profile of his actual engagement with literacy and some of his characteristics as a reader during the early stages of data collection. In fact, I did not anticipate seeing much reading and writing from him. Instead, I was more attuned to the question of why Yoon did not read and write, because he confirmed and re-confirmed with me that it would not be a problem for him to join this study even though he did not read and write at all.

Given this context, it is interesting to see the ways in which reading and writing were enacted in his life outside school. It has already been seen that he engaged in a good deal of writing on a daily basis through his online chatting. As for reading, one of the most notable findings from Yoon was that he read regularly (15-20 minute a day) while in the bathroom. This daily reading practice was, surprisingly, not recognized by Yoon until the

6th interview. In that interview, he bragged about finishing two Korean short stories. I was pleasantly surprised because Yoon had not reported any short story reading until then, but all of a sudden, he had finished two texts that week. When I excitedly asked him

225

several questions related to those two short stories, I found that he had been reading them for a long time, but bathroom reading had never registered with him as a literacy practice:

제가 읽는걸 아예 생각을 못했나봐요. 까먹엇죠. 저희 집 화장실에 가면 대개 뭐 읽을거 많고 그래요. 해리포터도 있고 그래요. 제 방보다 책이 더 많을지도 모르죠. 그러니까, 읽는 거라고 생각을 못했나봐요. (Interview 6, 11/26/2003)

I guess, I never thought that I read in the bathroom. I just forgot about this reading. If you go see the bathroom, there are many books to read there. [A Korean version of] A Harry Potter novel is there too. Maybe the bathroom has much more books than my room. Anyway, it just never occurred to me. (Interview 6, 11/26/2003)

On the day of that interview, I stopped by his bathroom and found many texts ranging from magazines to novels. Many belonged to either Hana, his 8-year-old niece, or his aunt and uncle. Most were written in Korean. However, Yoon sometimes brought his own books to read and left them in the bathroom until he finished them. At other times, he simply picked up any book or other reading material available there. As soon as

I learned of his bathroom reading practice, I looked more closely at his actual literacy activities and listened to what he said about his literacy practices from a more critical perspective.

I found it striking that, even though he had been asked regularly and prompted to articulate his daily literacy activities in five weekly interview sessions, his 15-20 minutes per day of bathroom reading did not seem to be valued by him or even to constitute a form of literacy activity. This was likely due to his definition of reading and writing. For

Yoon, reading was defined as textbook reading, and writing was note-taking. These definitions of reading and writing were the narrowest among the research participants and left me wondering what caused him to think of reading and writing in these ways, especially with regard to out-of-school literacy. Yoon stated that “읽기란 공부하려고 226

있는것 같아요. 평소 생활을 위해선 reading 을 거의 안 하는거 같은데요, 공부하기

위해서는 reading 하는거 같아요.” (“Reading exists for school work. I don’t do reading for

daily life, but I do reading for school. ”) (Interview 3, 11/6/2003). His narrow definition

of reading, which was actually limited to academic reading, thus caused him to devalue his bathroom reading and other types of out-of-school reading. Perhaps the many years of schooling and the significance of academic achievement, particularly in the context of

Korean culture, where learning and educational success are venerated, had shaped his restricted notions of literacy and trivialized literacy activity that falls beyond his definitions.

Along with this bathroom reading, another short but regular involvement with literacy, albeit school-based rather than out of school, was ten-minute reading in his ESL resource class (a credit-bearing study hall class for ESL students). This silent reading activity was the primary print-based reading activity that Yoon recorded in the checklists.

Since another research participant, Soohee, also talked about this reading activity in interviews, I was familiar with it and surprised that Yoon constantly reported this in his literacy checklists. ESL students in this resource class were asked to start the class with a ten-minute reading period. They had the freedom to pick up any type of book that was not related to class assignments (e.g., textbooks), and on Fridays only, students were allowed to read non-book materials: magazines, newspapers, etc. After this silent reading time, students immediately summarized what they read with a few sentences in their individual reading log. Further, when the students finished one book, they were asked to

write a one-page reflection about the text. While observing and volunteering in the ESL

resource class, I found that Yoon wrote short summary sentences daily, but those were 227

relatively shorter than other ESL students.’ His ESL teachers told Yoon that he should

write longer sentences with his own words, not copy sentences out of the book.

Though Yoon was poor at writing summaries of his reading, he had quite a positive

attitude toward this reading activity: “나쁘진 않아요. 그것도 일주일지나면 50 분

읽는거구요. 어차피 읽을 시간도 없는데, 미국책” (“That [10-minute reading] is not that

bad. If ten-minute reading accumulates for a week, it will be 50-minute reading per week.

Since I have no time to read English books, it’s just OK to spare time for it.”) (Interview

3, 11/5/2003) Yoon appreciated this practice because he believed that this short period of

reading a day gave him an opportunity to read English books. And while the activity took

place in school, he attached some sense of fun or pleasure to it. That he did not treat this

reading as a school assignment is an interesting aspect of this activity, and I once asked

him about:

YJ: 그럼 지금 10 minute reading 을 하면서, 아 내가 이걸 하면 영어가 늘겠지, 그런 생각은 하나? Yoon: 아니요. 그런생각은 안하구요, 그냥 스토리를 알자. (Interview 3, 11/6/2003)

YJ: Then, while you’re doing ten-minute reading, do you think that ‘oh, ten-minute reading will help my reading in English?’ Yoon: No, I don’t see ten-minute reading that way. I just read it to know the story. (Interview 3, 11/6/2003)

Later interview data convinced me that this ten-minute reading was pleasurable for

Yoon under certain circumstances. While Yoon expressed his resistance to reading, especially reading in English, he vehemently explained his positive experiences with

English novels by noting two examples.

228

Yoon: The cay 라고 해서 내가 즐기는 내용이거나, 아니면 내가 그내용에 빠지면 그책을 읽으면서도 재밌어요. YJ: 영어로 된 거라도? Yoon: 예. 전 그 책을 들고 교회에 가서도 봤어요. 책을. 근데, 내가 첨부터 재미가 없고, 헤깔리고 하면 짜증이 나요. 그러면 그 책 자체가 피기가 싫어져요. 첨에는 좀 재미없었는데, 첨엔 좀 헤깔렸어요. 읽다 보니까, 쉽기 보다도 그때는 그냥 내용이 마음에 들어서 dictionary 좀 찾아 보면서 읽었는데, 나중에는 dictionary 안 찾아도 다 읽겠더라구요. YJ: 으… 영어로라도 pleasure reading 재밌게 읽으라면 읽을 수 있는 책들이 있다. Yoon: 그렇죠. YJ: 딱 한권의 example 로 그렇게 얘기 할수 잇나? [웃음] Yoon: 그렇죠. 요새도 또 하나. [Year of Impossible Good Byes] , 제가 마음에 드는게 생겼는데, ESL 에서 읽는거요. 한국하고 일본에 관한 거.. 일본이 한국 잡아 먹었을때, main character 중심으로 한국이 어떻게 뭘 하고 막, 게가 가족이 뭐어땠했는가. YJ: 수업 바깥에 학교나 집에 들고 와서 읽을생각은 없고? Yoon: 그건, 학교에서 10 분씩 읽는 것으로 충분한것 같아요. (Interview 5, 11/19/2003).

Yoon: The book was The Cay. If the story is really interesting, and I am very much into the story, then, I can enjoy the book. YJ: Even though it was written in English? Yoon: Yes. I brought the book to church service to read. But, if the beginning of the book is boring and complex, I feel frustrated and don’t even want to open up the book again. The Cay was neither really interesting nor easy at the beginning, but the more I read it, the more I liked the story even though the book wasn’t that easy. So, I looked up the words in the dictionary once in a while, but later on, I could read the book without looking up all the words. YJ: So… you mean there are English books that you enjoy? Yoon: Sure. YJ: Can you say that you enjoy English books after giving only one example? Yoon: There is another book that I enjoy these days [Year of Impossible Good Byes]. I found an interesting book that I read in an ESL resource class. It was about the relationship between Korea and Japan. It was when Japan occupied Korea. It showed what the main characters and their families did during that time. YJ: Don’t you want to bring the book to read outside of school? Yoon: For that book, I think it’s enough to read for 10 minutes a day in school. (Interview 5, 11/19/2003)

When I volunteered in his ESL resource class, I searched for both of the books, The

Cay and Year of Impossible Good Byes. Both were approximately 150-page long books with a small font and no pictures, and they did not look easy to Yoon. Yoon emphasized

229

several times that if the content was interesting and relevant to him, he could enjoy reading, even though it was written in English. He especially enjoyed Year of Impossible

Good Byes since it was written by a Korean author and deals with Korean history. While reading this book, Yoon felt a strong sympathy for Koreans who lived in that historical era. This familiar cultural content of Korean history enabled a reluctant reader like Yoon to enjoy reading.

In addition to this school-situated ten-minute reading, Yoon sometimes engaged in reading comics and magazines in English at the public library. During the beginning stage of the study, Yoon went to the public library almost every school day. I often gave him a ride to the library and talked to his friends there once in a while. I found that the library was the place where Yoon socialized with his Korean friends and finished his homework with their help.

Whenever Yoon needed to take a break in the library, he picked up comic books or magazines, but not any books. As he explained:

머리 식힐려고 만화책을 읽는거지, 전 다른 책을 읽으면 스트레스가 더 쌓여요. 차라리 다른 책 읽을 시간이 있으면, 차라리 머리를 더 아프게 해서라도, 머리아픈건 똑같은데, 차라리 내 숙제를 하거나 학교 공부를 하지, 왜 그 책을 읽어요. (Interview 5, 11/19/2003).

I read comics to reduce stress. If I read other English books, I feel much more stressed. If I have time for reading, I would rather spend time doing my homework or studying for school. Why do I bother to read an English book if the stress level is the same as doing school work? (Interview 5, 11/19/2003)

This short comment hints at a few interesting issues. First, Yoon prioritized school reading over pleasurable reading, thereby investing more time in school related reading than voluntarily reading materials in English. Second, he connected stress with reading in

230

English. However, Yoon did not mind reading in English, despite his abhorrence or fear of English, as seen in the fact that Yoon enjoyed comic books or magazines, even though they were written in English.

Yoon, who was an avid comic book reader in Korea, complained to me that

American comic books generally included too much text and difficult vocabulary compared with Korean comic books. But once he found a fascinating story line, he was willing to pay extra time and effort to look up words in his electronic dictionary while reading the comic books. For instance, Justice League, especially its cover, was attractive enough to catch his attention. Justice League contained all of the famous heroes and heroines of English comic books, including Super Man, Bat Man, Spider Man, and

Wonder Woman. A unique and creative story line and setting motivated this reluctant reader to continue to read.

In addition to comic books, Yoon had started reading car magazines and teenage magazines (i.e., Seventeen) in English when he saw his close friends, especially his best friend Douglas, reading them. Interestingly, then, even though some Korean short novels and poems were available in this library, Yoon preferred to read English comics and magazines. According to him, he first felt excited to find Korean books in an American library, but he immediately lost interest in them because those Korean books there were not as interesting to him as the English magazines and comics.

His ten-minute reading and comic book-reading in the library hint at some significant points. First, both exemplify his encounters with English reading. Yoon noted that he enjoyed those reading contexts despite his abhorrence of English; further, he was able to enjoy reading in English if a book interested him. Perhaps the language of the text, 231

either English or Korean, was not the most crucial factor in determining whether he could

enjoy reading and what kinds of texts he chose. Second, this somewhat joyful reading did

not take place beyond the locations already noted. In other words, Yoon never checked out comic books from the library, and similarly he did not read his ten-minute books outside of the ESL classroom. When I suggested to him that he should read those beyond the familiar reading contexts, he simply answered that a short period of reading time (e.g., ten minutes per day) would be enough for him. His motivation for these reading activities was just to enjoy them within a situated context (i.e., library, ESL resource class). Given these examples above, Yoon was perhaps not always the reluctant reader he claimed to be.

The more I interacted with Young, the more I became convinced that interesting content or an attractive topic enabled this otherwise reluctant and struggling reader to engage in reading for pleasure, including in out-of-school contexts.

While I identified Yoon as a situational and struggling reader, I discovered a few promising characteristics of his literacy practices. First, Yoon demonstrated that he was knowledgeable about and sensitive to literacy practices, including reading. For instance,

Yoon knew about authors and publishing companies for the books that he read. When he told me about several Korean books he had borrowed from June, he mentioned that those were written by the same author. In addition, once he found an interesting book, he later tried to find other books written by the same author or searched for books with a similar theme. For example, when he finished the book, Year of Impossible Good Byes, he picked up the next series written by the same author.

232

Second, although Yoon did not like to read and write, he appreciated or criticized

others’ writing. For instance, when I complimented June’s poems and poetry writing,

Yoon abruptly expressed his opinions about June’s poems:

뭐지. 선생님이 자연이 쓴 글을 좋아한다고 했나요? 전 솔직히 게가 쓴 글을 별로 안 좋아해요. 자연이거보면, 항상.. 침울한 거. .분위기를 보면요, 뭐라고 그러지.. 슬픈것도 있구요, 그리움이라는 것도 있는것 같기도 하고 항상 좋은 주제로 쓰는것 같지는 않아요. 밝은주제로 쓰는것 같진 않아요. 대체적으로 어두운 느낌. (Interview 5, 11/19/2003)

Did you say that you liked June’s poems? I honestly do not like her poems because if you look at her poems, they are always depressing, sad, and missing something. They don’t really deal with good themes. Good and positive themes were not addressed at all, almost always dark feelings. (Interview 5, 11/19/2003)

In fact, I was shocked when Yoon made this comment because Yoon and June were

very close friends. Yoon even told me that his opinion of her poems should be kept secret between him and me. This was the primary reason that Yoon did not make any comments on her poems in the online community. Yoon chose to be silent rather than post his negative opinions about June’s poems, because he believed that it would not be nice to criticize her poems as someone who could not compose and share poems like June,

especially in such a public space.

Finally, I was surprised whenever I saw his screen names (often abbreviated as “s/n”

among online chatters) for MSN online chatting. Screen names provide online chatters

with another identity. Sometimes, online screen names are quite long because they

include their cyber name and some information about the nature of the online chatter.

Yoon’s screen names were extremely creative, humorous, witty, and concise, as well as

portrayals of his thoughts, feelings, and actions of the moment. For instance, his screen

names indicated that he was taking a nap, doing homework, forcing his friend to eat more

233

carrots, acknowledging a friend’s birthday, cheering up his friends, preparing for two

quizzes the next day, lamenting that he wasted time, asking for help for a biology test,

warning other buddies not to bother him, and so forth.

When Yoon wanted to deliver this wide range of ideas through screen names, he

took advantage of four different types of letters: Korean, English, Chinese, and emoticons.

For instance, one of his interesting screen names is as follows: “곰나들이 “봄이다!!” [容寬]

= [惡能] ♪天生友情♪ [六惡人] = B.G.P.” (“Bear outings, “Spring has come!!” [Yoon] =

[evil ability] ♪ 1000-year friendship ♪ [six evil men] = B.G.P”). (Yoon’s Screen Name,

2/4/2004). By creating and changing screen names frequently and by using the mixed codes, Yoon presented who he was, what he was doing, what he wanted to do, and what he was thinking. Choosing among four language systems and numerous descriptors for himself, Yoon appeared to be a critical and selective reader and writer within his online literacy practice.

Summary

Even though Yoon could easily be labeled as a reluctant and struggling reader and writer in and outside of school, he engaged in a few reading activities on a regular basis

(e.g., ten-minute reading, bathroom reading) and wrote frequently for recreational purposes (e.g., video games, online chatting). More importantly, he enjoyed these

(mainly) voluntary literacy activities and events, even though the extent of his involvement with literacy was not as great as that of the other research participants.

Clearly, Yoon lived a richer literacy life than he projected or seemingly was aware of.

234

One of the most surprising findings of this case study was that Yoon insisted that he truly enjoyed reading English texts in certain situations or conditions, despite his expressions of dislike toward reading noted earlier. In fact, even though some of the research participants were better English readers and writers than Yoon at the time of this study, none of them described their experience in enjoying English books as strongly as

Yoon did. If a certain context or condition met his needs or interests, Yoon could become a reader. That is, when he picked up a book that was interesting and at a reasonably appropriate level of reading difficulty, he became a reader within a limited and situational context. Here it is also worth remembering his struggles with vocabulary described at the beginning of this case study. In both Korean and English, his lexical resources were limited, and inadequate vocabulary appeared to be an impediment to reading, at the least, and likely writing as well. And yet he did read and write. On the other hand, his obvious concern about his lexical constraints did not translate into a desire to use out-of-school reading to build his vocabulary, unlike Soohee, who approached out-of-school literacy as a means of building her language skills. Indeed, while Yoon apparently engaged in more voluntary or pleasurable reading and writing than he recognized or valued, his connection to out-of-school literacy was not nearly as strong as Soohee’s. There is, for instance, no evidence that Yoon wrote (outside of school) for meaning the way Soohee did in her diary. He was perhaps a more active reader and writer than he acknowledged, but he was not what could be called an involved writer and reader outside school.

235

Elizabeth: A Tale of a Connected Reader/Writer

Elizabeth was a shy and skinny 10th grader who, as seen in Chapter Four, was an active voluntary writer and reader in both print (e.g., a diary and exchanging notes at school with her girlfriends) and online environments (e.g., online diaries and participation in online communities). Her literacy autobiography demonstrated her positive attitude towards literacy as well as the opportunity to write her autobiography: “As I look upon my past to discover my small steps of learning, I have found the information to be quiet interesting. Since I am very interested in the subject of literacy in general.” The most interesting fact that I did not know until I read her autobiography was that she received much formal private instruction in Korean literacy. Below are excerpts from her literacy autobiography written in the mid stage of the data collection period.

I was in a toddler study group with other children from my age. Also, I was given a lot of small booklets and programs to practice and expand my learning abilities. Those are some of the helpers that guided me into learning how to read and write Korean….

At that preschool, although my memories are not perfectly clear, I remember it to be divided in to about six groups or classes. In those six classes, there would be subjects such as reading, writing, math, social studies, science, and music. In reading, we were given a lot of picture books and short summaries to practice how to read better and pronounce words clearer. In writing, we had words to copy from booklets into notebooks and reflect on teacher’s daily lessons. I believe, that is how I first began my step into writing and reading Korean followed by elementary stage….

In elementary, I was in a study group that I really liked. It was writing study group with kids my age called (글짓기 “composing”). It was going to a teacher’s house to learn how to write creative poems, stories, and just writing in general. [italic added]

From her literacy autobiography, I learned that Elizabeth had been encouraged by

her parents to engage in reading and writing. Perhaps, she started forming her habit and

notions of reading and writing since she was very young. Based on her prior

236

experiences with Korean literacy, she engaged actively in multiple literacies for diverse

purposes and in different manners, which will be portrayed here.

When I first talked to high school students at the local Korean Catholic church,

Elizabeth simply told me, “I have to ask my mom about it [participating in this research].” (9/21/03) I read it as a signal that she was not interested in participating in my research. She gave me the exact same answer several times through informal conversations and via online chatting. However, on my second visit to her church, she approached me and said, “Did you talk to my mom about the study? My mom is right there.” At that point, I tried to figure out what made her change her mind between my first and second visit to the church. Later, I learned that Elizabeth’s reservations were

practical in nature: she was concerned about transportation for the interviews and possible time conflicts with several extra-curricular activities (e.g., Dance club, math tutorials, Teen Institutes, Multicultural club, Golf club, Ski club). More importantly, she found that her best friends (i.e., Yoon, Mike) agreed to join my study; additionally, Mike had encouraged her to join, saying “I am going to join the study, why don’t you do that?”

In fact, before the study started, the research participants and their peers had already talked together about me and my research. At an early stage of the study, I also learned that the research participants talked about their interview sessions via online chatting.

They did not report to me what they talked about in detail, but they asked one another about how the interview went, what a tutorial was like, and what kinds of issues they discussed with me or heard about from me. However, I sensed that as time went by, they seemed to talk less about this research and their participation.

237

Before the first interview, I obtained quite interesting information about Elizabeth

from two online chats with her. She explained about her background and made several

interesting points that enabled me to create useful interview questions. Similarly, these

initial online conversations were very interesting and important in that they started shaping the relationship between us and addressed many issues. Below are excerpts from the first and second online chats with Elizabeth that preceded our first interview.

First online chatting around 3:30 p.m. on Monday, 9/22/03

(Online chatting continued) YJ: remember that you said that you liked to read and write E: yea i do (Online chatting continued) YJ: i guess you feel much comfortable .. YJ: with English .. E: yep pretty much im comfortable with both..[Korean and English] E: im comfortable with both.. YJ: 한자어 같은건?? [what about Chinese characters?] E: 한자두 마니 쓰곤해요..[I do use many Chinese characters, too]

Second online chatting on Sunday night (7:50 -8:28 p. m.) 10/19/03

(explaining about the study) YJ: so, i need four examples, very distinctive, interesting. YJ: you are one of very exciting examples. E: haha first time i was described as exciting (Online chatting continued) E: who are the rest three? E: ooh im the only girl in our church?? YJ: two girls/ two boys YJ: plus, luckily, all four parents are very SUPPORTIVE. YJ: i hope that we have good CHEMISTRY.. E: ^^ me too~ E: haha i'll tell you that you got the best personality wised guys from our church in my opinion (Online chatting continued)

238

E: but what happens if i dont have enough things to go over in 90mins[tutorials]? E: just wondernig.. YJ: no problem. YJ: don't feel pressured.. E: or if i tend to have a lot of homework that day..or days like that just wondering

As seen above, Elizabeth perceived herself as an “exception” in various ways, and in fact she was a bit different from other Korean students at her church in that Elizabeth immigrated to the USA as an elementary student (grade 4) and was immersed in a

Caucasian-predominant learning and living environment until she entered high school.

Within less than two years after her arrival in the United States, she exited her ESL class and started taking a regular English class (grade 6). Her excellent English language proficiency allowed her to take an Honors English class in grade 9, but she decided to take a regular English class in grade 10 since Honors English was too challenging for her.

One of the most interesting points about her language proficiency was that Elizabeth could not pinpoint a dominant language between her two languages, Korean and English.

She told me several times, “I can’t figure out which one is dominant. I use both sides pretty much equally as I would [unclear].” (Interview 12, 2/13/2004) However, she tended to choose English over Korean for literacy activities that required an advanced level of literacy: “in terms of in more higher vocab and wording, I think I have more advantage on English, cause in Korea, I stopped learning Korean at 4th grade, I think I’m

still at that stage where I stopped in Korea.” (Interview 2, 10/30/2003). Furthermore, she

identified herself as a native speaker of both Korean and English, and many of her

Korean ELL friends, calling her native speaker, envied her native-like command of

English. 239

Even though Elizabeth reported that she felt equally comfortable with both

languages, her Korean literacy, especially writing, was not as strong as her English literacy. For example, when I carefully examined her online diary in Cyworld, I was very surprised at her Korean grammatical errors (i.e., missing obligatory particles, inappropriate use of particles, wrong conjugation), the kinds that are often made by

English-speaking learners of Korean. In spite of these difficulties, Elizabeth seemed to apply a special meaning to the Korean language:

It’s more like whatever I write is more close to me if it’s written in Korean. It is like what I am born with. It’s like a part of me, something that I shouldn’t or I can’t forget. (Interview 2, 10/30/2003)

This comment on the Korean language indicates that Elizabeth had a strong sense of

linguistic and ethnic identity as Korean, and the fact that she maintained a Korean

language Cyworld site while not always writing well in Korean reinforces the notion that

her Korean language affiliation was a special element in her life. Given that Elizabeth felt

more connected to whatever she wrote in Korean, it was understandable that she used

Korean to express herself (e.g., keeping a diary, writing notes to friends) in her out-of-

school literacy activities.

Similarly, her change of a peer group after entering high school influenced her out-

of-school literacy activities. When interacting with predominantly American friends in

middle school, Elizabeth tended to speak, read, and write English only, whether she

wanted to or not; English was the one language they had in common. However, her life

had changed tremendously since she started interacting with Korean friends in and

outside of school after middle school. Her interaction with these Korean friends led

240

Elizabeth to use more Korean than ever, including reading and writing. For example, she

used to read many English short stories, mystery novels, romantic poems, and famous

quotes for pleasure and exchanged notes and letters in English. With the change in her

social circumstances, she started enjoying those activities in Korean. That is, her literacy

experiences and preferences transferred across languages (English to Korean), though she

had not abandoned out-of-school reading in English. In fact, as seen in the literacy

checklist data, Elizabeth read a wide range of materials for pleasure and practicality in

both languages, such as romantic quotes, poems, biographies, mystery novels, teenage

and fashion magazines, cooking recipes, daily calendars, fliers, nutritional information on

food packages, instructions for hair coloring, and even subtitles on TV. This may suggest

that her literacy experiences during adolescence were not rigidly defined, or restricted, by

language; she would proceed in the language direction dictated by the content of and

motivations for what she was reading and writing. However, in our first online chat,

Elizabeth noted her diminished interest in reading and writing:

E: i used to reallly like writing and reading but it kinda tend to fade away as years go by.. YJ: WHY? E: yes in time wise i guess YJ: then, did you read/write in middle school? E: i used to read for fun but now that im being forced to read the book that i dont mostly enjoy its ㅡ.ㅡ;; [it is sad] (Online Chatting, 10/19/2003).

Later she identified several possible reasons for her decreased interest in writing and

especially reading. As the years went by, Elizabeth had less free time because of school

work. In addition, since she socialized with Korean friends in high school, she had

241

become more socially active and wanted to participate in group activities rather than to

read by herself at home.

Similarly, she spent more time in online chatting with those friends: “As I grow up, I

get to know a computer more and more interested in.” (Interview 4, 11/6/2003)

Interestingly, she did not recognize that she was still engaging in reading and writing

while chatting online with friends or surfing the net (another activity she enjoyed). This

suggests that she maintained a print-based view of literacy, i.e., only those activities that

involve traditional print-based circumstances count as actual writing and reading. The

same activities conducted on screen in electronic circumstances somehow lost their capital as literacy activities. It is important to note, though, that the computer had

eventually become the center of her out-of-school writing and reading.

Among the variety of her online, out-of-school literacy activities, her online diary

writing struck me as the most interesting and the most revealing in terms of how she approached voluntary reading and writing. Elizabeth kept three different diaries: a print- based diary, a Cyworld Korean online diary, and a Xanga English weblog diary. In the questionnaire filled out at the beginning of the study, one of the questions in the

Computer Use section regarded personal homepages. Elizabeth wrote down both her

Xanga Weblog and Cyworld mini-homepage addresses. These online diaries enabled me to observe her online written communication with her friends and learn a great deal about her and her life. In particular, her harsh comments on her life as a 9th grader stood out.

Given her shy and gentle personality, some of the expressions she used were astonishing.

They also reveal some interesting dimensions of her knowledge of English. The excerpts

below particularly emphasize her expressions about school life, which was the key thread 242

of her online diary. I display them here as they appeared originally, without changing the font and format:

Monday, April 21, 2003

I guess today wasn't that bad considering it is monday.. only 4 more days till friday though..seriously i hate school..something to be happy about: no homework .. Yet read like 70pages by monday - (note to myself: burn the mythology book when im done) Pointless weird facts and tooo many gods n godnesses..who comes up with stuff? it remains a mystery ><

Monday, May 05, 2003 I just started working on this.. not completley done, but enjoy while its in the process..thanx~!

May 5th.. krn's [korean’s] children day^^! Yet another monday here .. wow i can just tell that this is going to be the most stressing week that im gunna

have! GREAT!! loads and loads of hws just piled on me.. tests every single day.. and endless honors english homework n tests n projects >.< 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, well- mannered, 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 out-

of-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, note-

251

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 out-

of-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-of- school 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 multi- task (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-of-

school 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 sense-

making, 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, note- exchanging, 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 web-

postings 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-of- school 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 print- based 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-of- school 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 print- based 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-of- school 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-of- school 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 out- of-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-of- school 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 school-

like 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 co-

involvement 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 school- based 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-of-

school 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-of-

school 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-of-

school 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-of- school 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-of-

school 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-of- school 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-of- school 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 print-

based 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 무엇을, 얼마나 , 언제 읽었나요? [제목/ 15 min??/ 새벽? 오후, 밥먹고? 자기 전 ?? ] Comics (제목?) P/C? K/E? Newspaper(어떤 기사?) P/C? K/E?

Magazines (제목?) P/C? K/E? Poems, 가사 Novels, 책 편지, 쪽지 (누가??) Bible Email P/C? K/E? (누가보냈죠?/내용? ) Websites (어느 사이트?) K/E?

기타 (설명서, /게임/TV P/C? K/E? application, 영화, 읽기가 포함된것만 WRITING 쓰기 무엇을, 얼마나 , 언제 썼나요? [제목/ 15 min??/ 낮 ? 주말? 자기 전 ?? ] 일기쓰기 P/C ? K/E ? Novel or Poem 쓰기 Scheduling 짜기 P/C ? K/E ?

편지, 쪽지, 카드 쓰기 P/C ? K/E ? 이메일 쓰기 (email) K/E ? Website (posting 하기, K/E ? 코멘트 단것들 포함) Instant messages (채팅 K/E ? 누구랑, 무엇에 대해서) 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, 285- 303.

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 student- authored 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 college- age, 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), 164- 180.

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. 27- 35). 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), 194- 219.

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. 220- 237). 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