Non-credit ESL Student Transitions to Credit at CCSF

City College of San Francisco

Sharon Seymour

sseymour@ccsf.eduCATESOL State Conference

April, 2008

“Pathways and OutcomesTracking ESL Student Performance”

• A Longitudinal Study of English As a Second Language Service at City College of San Francisco, 1998-2006

By Steven Spurling, Sharon Seymour, Forrest P. Chisman

Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy, January 7, 2008

http://www.caalusa.org

Components of Study• Enrollment Patterns• Persistence• Learning Gains• Transition to Credit• Success of Non-credit ESL Students in Credit• Stop-Outs• Variables affecting Success

ESL Enrollment at CCSF• ESL is the largest Department at CCSF

• 34% of all enrollment from 1998-2006 • 58% of non-credit enrollment• 10% of credit enrollment

• Non-credit ESL Enrollment• 25,361 in 2006

• Credit ESL Enrollment• 3,981 in 2006

Non-credit Program 1998-2006• General ESL (ESLN): 67% of

enrollment• 10 levels: Literacy to Low Advanced Level

9 • Focus ESL (ESLF): 19% of enrollment• Vocational ESL: increased by 170%• Citizenship: decreased by 36%

Description of Cohort Studied• All ESL students who first enrolled in

noncredit or credit ESL in 1998, 1999, 2000• 38,095 in non-credit ESL• 6,666 in credit ESL

• Studied progress of cohort over 7 years • Studied only non-credit students first enrolled

in ESLN and/or ESLF (focus ESL)

Non-credit Cohort Characteristics New students, not all students Only those enrolled for 8 or more hours

in non-credit ESL 39% Hispanic, 35% Asian 52% 30 years old or more 67% first enrolled in Literacy or

Beginning Low (CCSF 1 and 2)

Persistence of Non-credit ESL Students in Cohort 21 terms of enrollment in 7 years

possible (fall, spring, short summer term)

38% enrolled for only one term 68% enrolled for one to three terms 15% enrolled for seven or more terms

Non-credit Level Advancement

Advancement measured by advancing a level

(CCSF ESLN 1 to CCSF ESLN 2)

Promotion decisions primarily made at end of semesterESLN classes are 175 hours

(10 hrs/wk for 17/5 wks)

Students generally not promoted in summer

Level Advancement of Non-credit ESL Students in Cohort 56% students did not advance even one level Of 44% who advanced:

39% advanced one level 26% advanced two levels

Students who first enrolled at lower levels more likely to advance

Low rates of persistence a major reason level advancement was limited

Level Advancement of Non-credit ESL Students in Cohort Of the 44% who advanced

39% advanced one level 26% advanced two levels

Students who first enrolled at lower levels more likely to advance

Low rates of persistence a major reason level advancement was limited

Students who advanced more levels received more hours of instruction

Level Advancement of Cohort It took students about 108 hours to advance a

level (Asians 152 hrs., Hispanics 86 hrs.) Students who first enrolled at higher levels

required fewer hours to advance The students who didn’t advance were primarily

those who attended few class hours. Half of the students who did not advance attended

fewer than 50 hours Another 30% attended 150 or fewer hours

95% of the 44% of students who advanced received 50 or more hours of instruction

Level AdvancementStudents needed to not only enroll in more semesters but also attend enough hours in a semester to advancePercentage and number of students at lower levels who advanced was greater than at higher levels

-lower levels more willing and able

Transitions to Credit of Non-credit Cohort 8% of non-credit ESL students transitioned to

some kind of credit during 7 years studied Transfer, degree applicable, non-degree

applicable Of those who transitioned

88% took academic transfer courses 74% took credit ESL courses

Transitions to Credit• Credit ESL was a pathway to academic

transfer courses • Only a small number of those who took

academic transfer courses did not enroll in credit ESL

• Many students co-enrolled in credit ESL and transfer courses, some enrolled in transfer courses prior to or after taking credit ESL

Who transitioned?• Last Level of enrollment in non-credit ESL

was the strongest predictor of whether students would make the transition

• The higher the last level of enrollment the more likely the transition, regardless of the first level of enrollment in non-credit

• 23% of students with Intermediate last level transitioned

• 3% of students with Literacy, Level 1-3 last level transitioned

Who transitioned? The more non-credit levels completed the

more likely students were to transition Less strongly related than last level of non-credit

enrollment Majority of students who transitioned

completed multiple levels Transition to credit positively related to hours

of attendance in non-credit but increase in transition rates for each 100 hours

of attendance was modest

Who transitioned? Asians transitioned to credit at a higher rate

than Hispanics (16% compared to 5%) Students age 16-19 transitioned at the

highest rate (17%). Transition rates about the same for other age groups (8%-11%) but declined to 3% for students who were 50 or older

Success of Non-credit Origin Students in Credit 45% of credit ESL students in cohort had

previously enrolled in non-credit ESL. Transition students were as successful in

both credit ESL and academic credit courses as were credit origin ESL students in terms of GPA and credit hours passed

Transition students placed at lower levels in credit ESL than did credit origin ESL students but took same number of levels of credit ESL as credit origin students

Success of Non-credit Origin Students in Credit Success of most transition students in credit

courses did not vary significantly depending on number of non-credit ESL levels taken or last non-credit level taken Probably because most transitioned from

Intermediate Levels However, transition students whose last non-

credit level was Intermediate High (CCSF Level 7 or 8) succeeded in credit courses at slightly higher rates

Success of Non-credit Origin Students in Credit 25% of transition ESL students attained a

degree or certificate The same rate as credit origin ESL students Three times the rate of general new credit student

population ESL students, both credit-origin and

transition, attained nearly a third of the certificates and half of the degrees awarded to students who first enrolled in 1998, 1999, 2000.

Transfer of ESL Students to Four Year Educational

Institutions

All Credit ESL 23%Credit origin ESL 25%Noncredit origin ESL 16%All New Credit 23%

Matriculation Services increase Transitions Matriculation services studied:

Placement testing Counseling Orientation

Receipt of matriculation services is Associated with number of hours of non-credit

ESL and persistence, but relationship is not strong Strongly related to transition to credit

Enhancements Increasing Transitions• Enhancements studied:

• Enrollment in ESLF courses• Enrollment in Accelerated ESL courses• Enrollment in other non-credit courses

• 14% of students in cohort took advantage of one or more enhancement

• Most selected only one option• Most popular option was ESLF (33%)• 27% enrolled in other non-credit• 2% enrolled in Accelerated courses

Effects of Program Enhancements Students who began at higher levels more

likely to take advantage of all enhancements Students who took advantage of

enhancements Enrolled in ESL for significantly more terms than

cohort Advanced more ESL levels

Enhancements strongly related to transitions 81% of of students who transitioned took

advantage of one or more enhancement

Effects of Program Enhancements Enhancements had a cumulative effect

Students who selected two or more options persisted longer, took more levels of ESL and were far more likely to transition

Students who selected all three options out-performed those who selected two

Could not determine if educational experiences provided by these options created these effects or whether students who chose them were highly motivated and would have performed a higher levels anyway

What might be done? Structure programs to maximize opportunities

for students to advance in proficiency level Try management enrollment to encourage

persistence and attendance Try fast-track programs Provide matriculation services and other

student services to encourage success Target students most likely to succeed Create culture of success that expects high

level of achievement and transitions