Publication Date

Spring 2023

Document Type


Degree Name

Master of Arts in English (MA)



Committee Chair

Dr. Charlene Summers

Committee Member

Dr. Hanan Saadi

Committee Member

Dr.Teresa Scott

Committee Member

Dr. Monica Munoz


The following research focuses on an underrepresented and understudied population in academia, Generation 1.5. Generation 1.5 encompasses a group of individuals who neither fit the categories of first-generation nor second-generation students and often feel caught between two cultures, the American culture and their family’s native culture (Serventy and Allen 1; Goldschmidt and Miller 11). These individuals are neither fully proficient in their L1 or L2 and consequently, share characteristics of L1 and traditional L2 writers (Singhal 2; Ferris 311). This research study examines how university Generation 1.5 students notice and understand direct Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on treatable and untreatable errors as measured per their responses in Reflection Essays. The researcher of the present study found that Generation 1.5 students struggled to demonstrate noticing and understanding of treatable and untreatable writing errors despite receiving direct WCF. The researcher of the present study hypothesizes that this occurrence can be linked to their lower proficiency in reading and Academic English. However, the students were more likely to demonstrate noticing and understanding of untreatable writing errors rather than treatable writing errors. The researcher of the present study theorizes that the students' lack of noticing and understanding of treatable writing errors can be attributed to their lack of formal grammar training due to not being placed in specialized ESL classes in their K-12 education. Based on the findings, the researcher suggests that writing instructors that serve this population should consider administering their feedback by means of audio rather than writing due to their higher proficiency in listening. Lastly, the researcher of the present study adamantly argues for a more inclusive definition of Generation 1.5 as some of the most commonly accepted definitions place a criterion based on birthplace. Leaving provisions pertaining to birthplace would be detrimental as it would exclude individuals such as the ones represented in this study even though they demonstrate key characteristics of Generation 1.5 students such as being ear learners. Overall, the researcher of the present study argues for more research to be conducted pertaining to Generation 1.5 and the processing of WCF.