Motivations of Refugee-Background Adults in Enrolling in English Language Classes in the United States

Abstract

This study examines the motivations of refugee-background adults in participating in English language classes in the United States. Five focus group discussions were held with refugee-background adults with no or very limited English proficiency who were enrolled in an English language program in an urban area in the Northeastern region of the United States. The study participants had been resettled in the United States for between 10 months and 4 years at the time of study and were of different nationalities, including Somalia, Yemen, Myanmar, Cuba, and Sudan. While agencies and organizations funding and running these English programs have generally focused on job readiness English language skills in their curriculums, this study found that refugees had a wide range of motivations for learning English. In addition to better paying jobs, refugees were also interested in learning English to better navigate the health care system and safeguard their privacy, become self-reliant and avoid the humiliation of public assistance, enable self-advocacy in various settings, pass the United States citizenship test, and to provide English language support for family and neighbors. Based on these findings, the study recommends that these language programs intensify collaborative learning activities that invite and incorporate the experiences, perspectives, and expectations of refugee participants in the design, execution, and assessment of these programs.

Keywords

refugees learning motivations ESOL collaborative learning adult learners

“Programs offering English classes to non-English speakers similarly tend to emphasize the benefits of speaking and writing in English in the United States labor market.”

Introduction and Purpose of Study

Many communities in the United States with large populations of immigrants and refugees have, to varying degrees, programs that offer English classes for adult non-English speakers. Such programs are run by a wide range of entities, including refugee resettlement agencies, schools, colleges, and local government agencies. The programs are funded by private donations, foundations, higher education institutions, and government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. The programs are either stand-alone, or part of a broader set of support services or training offered to immigrants and refugees.

The rationale for offering English classes center primarily on increased employment opportunities that come with the ability to speak English in the United States (Phillimore, 2011; Wrigley et al., 2009). While this rationale is well articulated, and statistical data offered to demonstrate increased employment of immigrants and refugees who can speak English (Wrigley et al., 2009), other motivations for and benefits tied to the ability to speak English are less researched and discussed in the academic literature. Moreover, perspectives from immigrants and refugees on their motivations for and the benefits of learning English are not well researched as well.

If English language programs for refugees are to be successful and meaningful to participants, it is imperative that institutions involved seek and incorporate perspectives and lived experiences of learners in the development and operations of these programs. This study therefore sought to investigate the motivations for adult refugee-background individuals to enroll and participate in a English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program in an urban area in the northeastern region of the United States. Specifically, this study sought to answer the question: what do adult refugees state as their motivations for taking English language classes? Five focus groups of refugee-background individuals from different national origins were convened to discuss their motivations for enrolling and participating in the ESOL program. Based on the analysis of the focus group discussions, this study provides recommendations on how to incorporate learners’ perspectives in English language programs, including the development of curriculums and teaching strategies that better align with refugees’ experiences, motivations, and expectations.

Literature Review

Studies of the motivations for learning a second language have been framed largely on Robert Gardner’s socio-educational model. Gardner (2000) posited that motivation for learning a second language is influenced by practical or utilitarian needs for that language by the learner, which he labeled instrumental motivation. Learners may also be driven by what he labeled integrative motivation, which is the desire to identify with and integrate in the community of speakers of the second language. Of the two types of motivation, Gardner (2000) claimed that instrumental motivation exerts greater influence than integrative motivation, stating that “it is clear the effects of Instrumental Motivation are greater than those for Integrative Motivation” (p. 20). Studies of second language acquisition have more or less supported Gardner’s claim. In a study of English language learners in South Korea, Kim and Pae (2019) concluded that “learners of English tend to show pragmatic or extrinsic motivation, rather than intrinsic motivation” (p. 3). Similarly, in a study of adult international English language learners in the United States, Weger (2013) found that these learners were largely driven to learn English by the practical interests derived from knowing the language (see also Noel, 2001; Taie & Afshari, 2015). One commonly cited practical interest in learning a second language, and especially English in the context of the United States, is to obtain employment. Indeed, adult literacy programs in the United States are focused on securing skills believed to be necessary for acquiring employment (Fernandez et al., 2017).

Programs offering English classes to non-English speakers similarly tend to emphasize the benefits of speaking and writing in English in the United States labor market. As employment and economic self-sufficiency for refugees is a cornerstone of refugee resettlement policy in the United States, a lot of emphasis is placed in securing employment for adult refugees as soon as possible after their arrival in the United States. For example, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a department in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responsible for providing funding and support services to organizations resettling refugees in the United States, has a number of programs that support early employment of refugees. One such program is the Wilson–Fish program, which provides cash and medical assistance to “increase refugee prospects for early employment and self-sufficiency” (ORR, 2019, para. 2). Another ORR program is the Matching Grant program. This program provides funding to organizations to provide refugee clients with several services including training skills that are likely to enhance their employment opportunities, such as English language (ORR, n.d., paras. 4–5). ORR (n.d.) states that an intent of the Matching Grant program is to enable “refugees to become financially independent in four to six months after arriving in the U.S. without accessing cash assistance program” (para. 1).

One barrier to immediate employment often cited by resettlement stakeholders, and reflected in the literature, is the lack of or limited proficiency in the English language by most of the refugees resettling in the United States. A study by Wrigley et al. (2009) revealed that immigrants and refugees with limited English proficiency face higher unemployment rates “even after adjusting for education and work experience” (p. 5; see also Martinez & Wang, 2005; Wrigley et al., 2003). Phillimore (2011) states that “The ability to communicate effectively in English is seen as the key priority in facilitating integration, while a lack of English language is seen as one of the major barriers to refugee employment.” (p. 317). Phillimore adds that “Employers citing poor spoken and written English as key reasons for their decision not to employ refugees.” (p. 319).

The majority of refugees resettling in the United States come from countries where English is not a primary language, hence many refugees will learn English as a new language. For example, in the fiscal year 2018 (October 2017 to September 2018), the top three countries of origin of refugees resettling in the United States were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, and Ukraine (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2019). Data from the U.S. Department of State show that the top native languages spoken by refugees resettling in the United States in the last 10 years are Arabic, Nepali, Somali, Sgaw Karen, Spanish, Kiswahili, Chaldean, Burmese, Armenian, and Kinyarwanda (Refugee Processing Center, 2019).

To provide opportunities for adult refugees to learn English, resettlement agencies and other institutions have developed English as a second language (ESL) programs in many resettlement cities across the United States. Funded by both government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), as well as individual private donations, these programs offer English language instructions based on structured and unstructured curriculums and taught by instructors who may or may not be ESL-qualified (Perry, 2013; Perry & Hart, 2012).

An important driver of these ESL programs is the requirement by the United States federal government that individuals receiving various forms of public financial assistance be engaged in employment or income generating activities, or job training. Job training is broadly construed to include taking classes toward a high school diploma, or taking English classes for non-English speakers, both of which are seen as important credentials and skills for obtaining employment in the United States.

These federal requirements are broadly adopted, with some variation, by states. The law requires that work-eligible Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, work for at least 30 hours per week (reduced to 20 hours per week for single parents with children under 6 years of age). The primary focus of the work is referred in these programs as “core” activities, which is employment (paid or unpaid), but the work can also include noncore activities, such as education or training, including English language classes. Of the 30 hours per week of work, at least 20 hours must be in “core” activities (Hahn et al., 2012, 2017).

Core work activities can be completed at public or not-for-profit organizations, with the primary aim of developing skills that improve employment opportunities for those receiving public assistance. This work requirement is generally known as the work experience program or WEP (Holzer, 2002) and was often referenced by participants in this study.

While WEP and ESOL programs are driven and justified by the need to develop work and language skills for employment, such a focus has resulted in less attention being paid to other instrumental motivations refugee-background adults may have for learning English. As Heather Weger (2013) has stated, motivations for learning a second or foreign language are contextual, and in this study, I will show that while refugees did discuss the importance of learning English to secure desired employment, they also placed emphasis on other motivations for learning English. Hence, while this study reflects the centrality of instrumental or extrinsic motivations for learning English by resettled refugees in the United States, it goes further by exploring the multiplicities of these motivations. This study therefore contributes an important dimension to our understanding of motivations for learning ESL, by showing how refugees go beyond the focus of employment, to emphasize the social values of learning English.

Methodology of the Study: Grounded Theory and Focus Groups

This study, in its design, data collection, and analysis, takes the grounded theory approach. Grounded theory seeks to build analytical frameworks from participants’ views, privileging their voices (Age, 2011; Sheridan & Storch, 2009). As Wilkin (2010) further states, “Grounded theory assumes multiplicity of meanings, allows for flexible approaches in understanding behavior and perceptions rather than the singular approaches that are common with studies driven by existing theories” (p. 37).

The focus group method, used in this study, enables the gathering of multiple perspectives that are central in studies based on grounded theory. The focus group is highly useful for collecting qualitative data. One of the benefits of this method is the opportunity for interaction among the participants, enabling them to consider each other’s perspectives in addressing issues central to a study. While eliciting diversity of perspectives is an important goal of focus groups, it is also important that members of a focus group have a common experiential background that draws them into the study (Gaizauskaite, 2012; Sagoe, 2012).

Five focus group discussions were held in January 2015. All participants were of refugee-background and were enrolled in English classes offered by a not-for-profit organization offering ESOL, case management, and other services to refugee-background individuals in an urban area in the Northeastern region of the United States. With the exception of one participant who had been in the United States for 10 months, all the participants had been resettled in the United States for between 1 and 4 years. Their participation in the ESOL program was between 3 weeks and 6 months at the time of study. Since all the participants in the study were still in the early stages of learning English, the focus group discussions were held in the participants’ primary languages through interpreters.

Each of the five focus groups comprised participants with the same primary language. The five language groups were Somali, Spanish, Arabic, Swahili, and Karen. Language interpreters were available in each of the focus group discussions. The sizes of the focus groups varied, between 5 and 12 participants. Researchers have recommended as few as four participants per focus group to as many as twelve (Gaizauskaite, 2012; Sagoe, 2012). The focus group of Somali speakers was the largest, comprising 12 participants. The Karen, Spanish, and Swahili focus groups each had seven speakers, while the Arabic group had five participants.

Two discussion questions related to motivations for enrolling in the English language classes were posed to the focus groups: (a) why are you taking the ESOL classes? and (b) what do you expect to learn or achieve by taking these classes? All the discussions were audio recorded and later transcribed. Nvivo, a qualitative data analysis software, was used to isolate and code key themes from each focus group.

Findings and Discussion

Several key themes emerged from the analysis of the focus group discussions. While learning English for purposes of obtaining and retaining employment was expressed as a reason for enrolling in the English classes, the focus group discussions also revealed a wide range of reasons for enrolling and taking these classes. In the analysis, the expected benefits for learning English were coded and grouped into six broad, interconnected themes. Knowledge of English afforded (a) dignity and privacy, (b) independence and self-reliance, (c) ability for self-advocacy, (d) support for family community members, and (e) ability to secure citizenship and livelihoods. The analysis also revealed that (f) prior experience with the benefits of learning a foreign language was an important reason for participating in the ESOL program, as many of the study participants were multilingual, having lived in one or more countries for several years before permanently resettling in the United States.

Dignity and Privacy

Across all focus groups, participants expressed concern about their dignity and privacy whenever they used language interpreters when seeking various services. One common concern was using interpreters during visits to health care providers. While many facilities that provide health care to refugees offer language interpretation services, in person or by phone, many participants in the research expressed misgiving about translators knowing about their health issues. As one participant put it, “when you go to the doctor, you explain your issue, nobody else has to know.” Even though refugee patients are informed that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) laws protect their health information, they were still wary about having interpreters knowing their medical conditions. HIPAA, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the health information of patients by outlawing the unauthorized release of patient information by entities that are involved in patient care, including health care providers and health insurance companies (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013). Language interpreters, in their work with health care providers, are bound by the HIPAA laws.

A critical issue revealed in this study is that while refugees may accept the support of interpreters in accessing medical care, they do not necessarily see the interpreters as part of their health care team, and therefore have concerns about the latter’s access to their medical information. This may arise from the fact that interpreters may be brought to the medical appointments from outside the health facility, and in other cases, the interpretation is done remotely via phone by an interpreter not known to the refugee patient. In addition, as one participant stated, some of the translators were members of their refugee communities, and hence known to those in their social circles, including families and neighbor. The prospect of these translators even inadvertently sharing their medical information was a major concern for some participants in the study.

Learning English was therefore crucial to reduce the risk of one’s health information being shared outside the medical facility, and also avoid the indignity that would come with such a violation of privacy. A participant added her perspectives on this issue, stating: “it is bad not to know English. When you have somebody translate for you, read for you, they get to know your secrets, and that is not good at all. The person who translated for you spreads your secrets.”

Independence and Self-Reliance

Tied to the desire to learn English to maintain privacy and dignity is the desire for independence and self-reliance that comes with being able to communicate in English. The ability to independently communicate in different social settings and not rely on interpreters (whether professional interpreters, relatives, or neighbors) was also a common theme that emerged in the study. As one participant stated, explaining the importance of learning English: “being independent is a good thing. Until when will be relying on others?” One man in the study also shared a life experience that he said demonstrated to him the value of speaking English, and thus not rely on interpreters:

I had a child who was sick, and almost died. We took him to the emergency room, used hand signs to indicate the child was suffering. The child was in the hospital for two days, we had to use a phone translation, it was very frustrating. But the phone translators, they are not there every time; they are only called by the providers, so we can’t have them for everyday use. Here we suffer greatly.

Gaining financial independence, which is tied to better paying jobs, was expressed as a motivation for learning English. One participant shared, humorously, “When you seek employment, they ask you to read and sign, you sign in the wrong place, declining work instead of accepting.” Another participant added, “Instead of signing ‘yes’ to accept the job, you sign ‘no’, hence declining the job that you wanted.”

Continued dependence on public assistance was discussed as humiliating and frustrating. As one participant put it,

I have gone to seek employment in many places and they ask if I know English, and I say I don’t, and they say then they can’t employ me. Then now I have to seek government assistance, but until when?

Expressing concern about continued reliance on public assistance. Many saw employment, not just as a means of financial independence, but also a way to gain dignity and avoid the humiliation and frustrations that they stated they experienced when meeting with Department of Social Services (DSS) officials about their public benefits.

Contrary to perceptions or claims that refugees exert a great economic burden due to their overreliance on public support for housing, health care, and food, studies have shown that as their length of residency increases in the United States, refugees rely less and less on public support (Evans & Fitzgerald, 2017). As Evans and Fitzgerald (2017) show in their study, refugees’ employment rates substantially increase the longer they reside in the United States, stating that “Controlling for age, gender and educational status, refugees eventually have higher labor force participation and employment rates than U.S.-born respondents of similar ages after about 10 years in the country.” (p. 6). Gaining employment was expressed as a key priority by refugees in this study, to avoid reliance on government support and assert financial independence. Learning English was seen as a way to increase employment opportunities.

Self-Advocacy

This study also reveals that refugees value the ability to communicate in English because it enables them to advocate for themselves. In the focus groups, participants made the distinction between just relaying information (as happens during medical appointments), and standing up for oneself or claiming one’s rights. Such self-advocacy, they pointed out, cannot be done through interpreters. As one participant stated, referring to workplace interactions: “it is bad not to know English. If you are at work, and they say ‘hi’, you say ‘hi’. If they insult you, you just continue with your work because you don’t know what they said.” The participant added that even if there was someone to interpret in such cases, the interpreter would be reluctant to relay such insults. If one knows English, they will understand the insult, and thus defend themselves.

In addition to the workplace, participants provided other examples where the ability to communicate in English would enable self-advocacy and defending one’s self. Two Swahili participants stated how frustrating it was for them when they went shopping at the grocery stores: “sometimes you think you are overcharged, but since you don’t speak English, you just leave. If you know English, then you can say that you have been overcharged, and they can correct it.” In a study by Mthethwa-Sommers and Kisiara (2019), refugee-background parents cited the inability to speak English as a barrier in supporting and advocating for their children who were victims of bullying in schools. These perspectives suggest that self-advocacy cannot be effectively done through translation or interpreters, and this desire to stand up for one’s self is an important motivator for learning English.

Support for Family and Community Members

Across all five focus groups, participants expressed the desire to learn English so they could provide assistance to family members and fellow refugees who had not learned the language. A particular interest the parents had in learning English was to assist their children with school assignments or homework. It is important to reiterate here that refugees do provide a lot of social, emotional, and material support for each other, and often in ways that may not be obvious to or acknowledged by those outside the refugee communities.

In her study of Somali refugees in the Dadaab refugee camps in northern Kenya, Cindy Horst (2008) showed how refugees in the camps received substantial financial assistance from relatives in different parts of the world, which enabled them to survive the poor conditions in the camps. The popular perception and narratives are that refugees are solely reliant on governments and NGOs for material support, but Horst demonstrates most clearly that the support from these institutions is highly inadequate, and refugees would not be able to survive conditions in the Dadaab camps without the support of relatives outside the camps. Similarly, refugee participants in this study saw English language skills, not just as means for personal advancement but as a community asset that could be drawn upon by family members and neighbors. Study participants shared instances where they were accompanied by English-speaking refugee-background neighbors to grocery stores and the public market, and stated that these experiences motivated them to learn English so they could offer similar support in the future.

Securing Citizenship and Livelihoods

Refugees who have been legal permanent residents (LPRs) of the United States for at least 5 years are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. In addition to the residency requirement, applicants for citizenship have to demonstrate knowledge of the English language and U.S. civic history, by taking and passing a test administered by the federal immigration services. A few of the participants in the focus groups, who were close to or at the five-year LPR mark, stated that they were taking English classes to prepare for the citizenship test. While legal permanent residency allows holders to indefinitely reside and work in the United States, citizenship affords additional benefits such as voting rights. For LPRs receiving supplemental security income (SSI), which is a federal program providing financial support to those aged 65 years and above with limited income or wealth and with disabilities, they cannot claim SSI past 7 years of residency in the United States unless they become citizens (Social Security Administration, 2020). Past studies have estimated that thousands of refugees have lost SSI benefits due to this citizenship requirement (Neuberger, 2007; Ruffing, 2010). Refugees receiving SSI therefore need to acquire citizenship to continue receiving this benefit for a longer duration.

Learning English was also expressed as an avenue for building one’s professional identity. In addition to the desire to not be dependent on DSS as discussed above, participants also expressed the importance of learning English so they could build careers, and not just acquire jobs. A male Somali participant stated that prior to resettling in the United States, he had worked in the fishing industry but was now interested in training for a career in construction, carpentry, and demolition. Learning English was necessary to achieve his goal, and eventually “become someone.”

Knowledge of the Value of Learning the Dominant Language in One’s Country of Residence

The United States is a third-country resettlement destination, which means that refugees resettled here have fled from their countries of origin to a country of first asylum, before gaining permanent resettlement in the United States. In many cases, refugees have moved through multiple countries before resettling in the United States. Through temporary (albeit long-term) residence in other countries prior to resettling in the United States, refugees have acquired the primary languages of those countries.

Somali participants in the study, for instance, emphasized their multilingual background, and appreciation of the value of learning English. Some of the languages they spoke include Somali, Arabic, Swahili, Russian, and Urdu, stemming from living in Somalia, Yemen, Kenya, Russia, and Pakistan, prior to resettling in the United States. The participants stated that their displacement experiences have taught them the value of learning the dominant languages of their countries of residence and were clearly expecting that they would need to learn English upon resettling in the United States. This finding shows that it should not be assumed by providers of ESOL and other stakeholders that refugees need to be taught the value of learning English. Lack of participation in ESOL programs may not be lack of awareness of the value of learning English but rather a result of personal and structural barriers that refugees face.

Recommendations for Practice

Given that refugee-background adults have multiple motivations for learning English, ESOL programs that use the collaborative learning approach can elicit and incorporate these motivations in curriculum design and classroom activities. Collaborative learning, a teaching and learning approach where “groups construct knowledge by creating a culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings” (Barkley et al., 2014, p. 9), can be an opportunity for reciprocal peer teaching and sharing of life experiences. Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are offered for ESOL programs.

First, programs should set up student learning outcomes that incorporate expectations and experiences of learners. As this study demonstrates, adult refugee-background English learners come to these programs with a range of motivations for learning English, and incorporating these motivations and expectations in designing student learning outcomes might improve participation in the program and language acquisition. A near singular focus on teaching English for employment purposes limits the opportunity to appropriately support those motivated to learn English for nonemployment reasons as discussed above. In addition, there are likely adult students for whom employment possibilities are not immediate or even feasible in the future, for example, the elderly, those with disabilities (receiving SSI) that prevent employment, and for whom the ability to speak and write in English enables communication in other forums besides the workplace.

Second, in developing teaching methods, programs should elicit from the learners their experiences learning foreign languages prior to enrollment in the English classes. What helped them to learn the foreign languages that they currently speak? What approaches did they find unhelpful? Several participants in this study spoke multiple languages acquired through temporary settlement in other countries prior to arriving in the United States. Many members of the Somali focus group spoke multiple languages, including Arabic, Swahili, Russian, Urdu, and German, acquired during their stay in Yemen, Kenya, Russia, Pakistan, and Germany, prior to resettlement in the United States. Insights from such learners can help teachers craft lessons and activities that build on and honor the foreign language experiences of these learners.

Third, programs should provide opportunities in class for students to share their experiences using their English speaking, reading, and writing skills outside the classroom. For teachers, such opportunities provide contexts for building the curriculum based on the lived realities of the students, as well as an informal assessment of learning focused on these realities rather than just in-class tests and exams. For students, sharing provides an opportunity to learn from each other.

Adopting these strategies can facilitate a more meaningful learning process for adult refugee English learners, and teachers should elicit input and feedback from students often. In their study, Fritz and Alsabek (2010, p. 105) suggested conducting a weekly evaluation survey of students, while Gilmartin (2008, p. 102) recommended developing negotiated contracts between teachers and students on course contents. Teachers can find their own creative ways of getting input from students, and working with such input to develop curriculums and strategies that facilitate more effective learning of English by adult refugees.

Conclusions

The value of learning the dominant language of their country of resettlement is important for refugees and other immigrants. For refugees resettling in the United States, learning English is a primary component of resettlement programs offered and supported by different levels of government, as well as by NGOs. The U.S. federal and state agencies that support and fund refugee resettlement programs place a lot of emphasis on employment and eventual financial independence as a primary expected outcome for refugees supported by these programs, including adult English language classes. However, as this study has shown, adult refugees have many goals and expected learning outcomes for learning English, in addition to demonstrating language competency for purposes of employment.

Understanding these varied goals and expected learning outcomes for learning English can enable teachers and program overseers to design curriculum and teaching strategies that better align with these goals and expected outcomes. Importantly as well, taking into consideration these goals and expected outcomes may provide greater motivation for adult refugees to enroll, participate in, and complete English language programs.

Working with refugees and incorporating their viewpoints and experiences in program design and implementation is not just critical for English language programs but other areas of support for refugees, for example, health care and programs for youth. When we evaluate these programs, it is also imperative that we take into account refugee perspectives and experiences as well.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Otieno Kisiara

Author Biography

Otieno Kisiara, PhD, professor of anthropology, a Certified Health Education Specialist (CHES), and public health instructor. Teaching and research interests include forced migration and refugee resettlement, migrant and refugee health, global health, and health education and promotion.

References

Age

(2011). Grounded theory methodology: Positivism, hermeneutics, and pragmatism. The Qualitative Report, 16(6), 1599–1615. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-6/age.pdf

Barkley

E. F.

Major

C. H.

Cross

K. P.

(2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Evans

W. N.

Fitzgerald

(2017). The economic and social outcomes of refugees in the United States: Evidence from the ACS (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 23498). https://www.nber.org/papers/w23498.pdf

Fernandez

Peyton

J. K.

Schaetzel

(2017). A survey of writing instruction in adult ESL programs: Are teaching practices meeting adult learner needs? Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 6(2). https://lincs.ed.gov/professional-development/resource-collections/profile-1083

Fritz

Alsabek

(2010). Improving student persistence at the Genesis center. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 4, 104–108.

Gaizauskaite

(2012). The use of the focus group method in social work research. Socialinis Darbas, 11(1), 19–30.

Gardner

R. C.

(2000). Correlation, causation, motivation and second language acquisition. Canadian Psychology, 41(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086854

Gilmartin

(2008). Language training for adult refugees: The Integrate Ireland Experience. The Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education, 97, 110.

Hahn

Kassabian

Zedlewski

(2012, March). TANF work requirements and state strategies to fulfill them (Brief No. 05). Urban Institute. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/work_requirements_0.pdf

10.

Hahn

Levy

Pratt

Waxman

Allen

Kenney

(2017, December). Work requirements in social safety net programs: A status report of work requirements in TANF, SNAP, housing assistance, and Medicaid [Research report]. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/95566/work-requirements-in-social-safety-net-programs.pdf

11.

Holzer

H. J.

(2002, November). Can work experience programs work for welfare recipients? (Policy Brief No. 24). The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/can-work-experience-programs-work-for-welfare-recipients/

12.

Horst

(2008). A monopoly on assistance: International aid to refugee camps and the neglected role of the Somali diaspora. Afrika Spectrum, 43(1), 121–131.

13.

Kim

K. J.

Pae

(2019). Social psychological theories and sustainable second language learning: A model comparison approach. Sustainability, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010016

14.

Martinez

T. E.

Wang

(2005). Supporting English-language acquisition: Opportunities for foundations to strengthen the social and economic well-being of immigrant families [Annie E. Casey Foundation and Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees. Briefing Paper]. https://www.aecf.org/resources/supporting-english-language-acquisition/

15.

Mthethwa-Sommers

Kisiara

(2019). Refugee parents’ perceptions of bullying practices of their children in urban schools. In Onchwari

Keengwe

(Eds.), Handbook of research on engaging immigrant families and promoting academic success for English language learners (pp. 378–392). IGI Global.

16.

Neuberger

(2007). Loss of SSI aid is impoverishing thousands of refugees: Congress could prevent further hardship. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/loss-of-ssi-aid-is-impoverishing-thousands-of-refugees#_edn29

17.

Noel

(2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Dornyei

Schmidt

(Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 43–68). University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

18.

Office of Refugee Resettlement. (2019). About Wilson/Fish. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/wilson-fish/about

19.

Office of Refugee Resettlement. (n.d.). Voluntary agencies Matching Grant program. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/matching-grants

20.

Perry

(2013). Becoming qualified to teach low-literate refugees: A case study of one volunteer instructor. Community Literacy Journal, 7, 21–38.

21.

Perry

Hart

(2012). “I’m just kind of winging it”: Preparing and supporting educators of adult refugee learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2), 110–122.

22.

Phillimore

(2011). Monitoring for equality? Asylum seekers and refugees’ retention and achievement in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 317–329.

23.

Refugee Processing Center. (2019). Admissions & arrivals. https://www.wrapsnet.org/admissions-and-arrivals/

24.

Ruffing

(2010). Thousands of poor refugees face loss of SSI benefits: Lawmakers should act to preserve lifeline for vulnerable group. https://www.cbpp.org/research/thousands-of-poor-refugees-face-loss-of-ssi-benefits

25.

Sagoe

(2012). Precincts and prospects in the use of focus groups in social and behavioral science research. The Qualitative Report, 17(29), 1–16.

26.

Sheridan

Storch

(2009). Linking the intercultural and grounded theory: Methodological issues in migration research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Article 36.

27.

Social Security Administration. (2020). Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility requirements. https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-eligibility-ussi.htm

28.

Taie

Afshari

(2015). A critical review on the socio-educational model of SLA. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(3), 605–612.

29.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2019, February). US resettlement facts. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/us-refugee-resettlement-facts.html

30.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Summary of the HIPAA privacy rule. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html

31.

Weger

(2013). Examining English language learning motivation of adult international learners studying abroad in the US. RELC Journal, 44(1), 87–101.

32.

Wilkin

(2010). Workplace bullying in academe: A grounded theory study exploring how faculty cope with the experience of being bullied (Publication No. 3447190) [Doctoral dissertation]. Nova Southeastern University.

33.

Wrigley

H. S.

Chen

White

Soroui

(2009). Assessing the literacy skills of adult immigrants and adult English language learners. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 121, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.321

34.

Wrigley

H. S.

Richer

Martinson

Kubo

Strawn

(2003). The language of opportunity: Expanding employment opportunities for adults with limited English skills. Center for Law and Social Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED481481.pdf