Transforming the ESL Sequence: A Report from the First Year

Everyone needs a device (or share)Open internet (Wifi: marriot conference success13OR 4G fine)Socrative student m.socrative.comYOU ARE A STUDENT

room code 246978

Transforming the ESL Sequence: A Report from the First Year

Why the Change?

External Pressures

Budget Cuts

Financial Aid Cuts and Restrictions

District-Wide ESL Faculty Retreat March 2011

The New Peralta ESL Curriculum

Combined Reading and Writing

Change from 6 levels to 4:old new

(6) advanced5

high intermediate4

3 intermediate2

high beginning1

Change from 4 to 3 Skill Areas

High Beginning

IntermediateHigh

IntermediateAdvanced

Grammar(4 Units) 284A/B 215A/B 216A/B 217A/B

Listening & Speaking(4 Units) 283A/B 232A/B 233A/B 50A/B

Reading & Writing (6 Units) 285A/B 222A/B 223A/B 52A/B

The Strands

• 6 skill strands in addition to language objectives run through all main courses at all levels

Critical Thinking

Information Literacy: Computer Skills/Research

Intercultural Communication and U.S. Culture

Sentence Level Accuracy

Comprehension (Reading/Listening) and Production (Writing/Speaking)

4-8 level A/B system for flexible acceleration

Visualization #1 of the A/B plan: Accordion


HIGH BEG A

INT A

HIGH INT A

ADV A

HIGH BEG B

INT B

HIGH INT B

ADV B

STUDENT ADVANCING

FAST


HIGH BEG A

INT A

HIGH INT A

ADV A

HIGH BEG B

INT B

HIGH INT B

ADV B

STUDENT ADVANCING

SLOWER


HIGH BEG A

INT A

HIGH INT A

ADV A

HIGH BEG B

INT B

HIGH INT B

ADV B

STUDENT ADJUSTING

TO PROGRESS

Visualization #2 of the A/B plan: Stairs

ADV B

ADV A

HIGH INT B

HIGH INT A

INT B

INT A

HIGH BEG B

HIGH BEG A

STUDENT ADVANCING

FASTER


ADV B

ADV A

HIGH INT B

HIGH INT A

INT B

INT A

HIGH BEG B

HIGH BEG A

STUDENT ADVANCING

SLOWER


STUDENT ADJUSTING

TO PROGRESS

ADV B

ADV A

HIGH INT B

HIGH INT A

INT B

INT A

HIGH BEG B

HIGH BEG A

Other features of A/B system:

• All students initially test into an A level• B levels are only for those who have passed A

and are not ready for the next A level• Students taking A and B of a level are in class

together and are only identified on the roster• Attempt to alternate, not repeat instructors/

materials if possible

I worked hard and even got a C+, but

I can’t really perform all of the

SLOs.

Wow! That was too hard! I got

a D or an F.

Got it! Ready to move ahead!

Example: 3 students toward the end of High Intermediate A

Advanced A

High Intermediate B

High Intermediate A

June/August 2011: mapped out levels and strands

August 2011-February 2012:

• wrote 24 new course outlines, entered in Curricunet, and passed them through all relevant committees

Fall 2012

Report from the 1st Year: Data

• The new curriculum was implemented at all Peralta Colleges in Fall 2012

• All ESL students started out in an A course at one of four levels:

• High-Beginning• Intermediate• High-Intermediate• Advanced

• All students participated in a common assessment used to determine placement for Spring 2013

Questions

• How many students accelerated at each level?• How many students progressed to the B

course?• When students accelerated, how did they do?

None B course of same level

A Course of next levelACCELERATED

A course 2 levels SUPERACCELERATED

High-Beginning285A students (229 total)

38% 25% 36% 1%

Intermediate222A students (200 total)

36% 22.5% 41.5% 0%

High-Intermediate223A(215 total)

38.6% 22.8% 38.6% 0%

Advanced52A(171 total)

57.3% 17.5% 25.1% 0%

Laney College Fall 2012 R/W Students R/W Courses Taken Spring 2013

How did the students who accelerated in Spring 2013 do?

Laney CollegeHigh-Beg. Students who accelerated to Intermediate

(Success rate in Intermediate Fall 2012= 83.16%)

Intermediate Students who accelerated to High-Intermediate

(Success rate in High-Intermediate Fall 2012 = 79.07%)

Total Graded Success Success Rate81 62 76.54%

Total Graded Success Success Rate

78 63 80.77%


Laney CollegeHigh-Int. Students who accelerated to Advanced

(Success rate in Advanced Fall 2012= 77.84%)

Berkeley City CollegeHigh-Int. Students who accelerated to Advanced

(Success rate in Advanced Fall 2012 = 83.6%)



21 15 71.43%


Laney CollegeAdvanced Students who accelerated to English 1A

(Success rate in English 1A Fall 2012= 62.16%)

Berkeley City CollegeAdvanced Students who accelerated to English 1A

(Success rate in English 1A Fall 2012 = 64.05%)



12 11 91.67%

So, how many students accelerated?

• At all levels, more students accelerated than did not

• More students accelerated at the first three levels than did at the highest level

• A significant number of students did not continue in the sequence in Spring 2013 (averaging around 37% for the first three levels and increasing to 57% one level below transfer)

When students accelerated, how did they do?

• The success rates for students who accelerated into the the A course of the next level in Spring 2013 for the three levels below English 1A (transfer) are pretty consistent with the success rates for those courses in Fall 2012 at both colleges

• The success rates of the students who accelerated from Advanced A to English 1A were exactly 28 percentage points higher at both colleges than the respective success rates in English 1A for Fall 2012

BCC Portfolio Assessment Results

• All Reading & Comp classes• Pieces scored together:– Short (3-5pp) research paper using “Academically

Acceptable Sources,” including databases– 2 hour in-class essay: summary/response to a

short, college-level essay or excerpt• “Dead Week” Scoring sessions with extensive

norming

First Portfolio Assessment Results

The Old ESL Program Writing Focus by Level

Writing 3:• paragraphs• short essays

Writing 4:• essays in different rhetorical modes

Writing 5:• summary/response• quoting/paraphrasing

Writing 6:• persuasive essays• research paper

English 1A:• College-level persuasive essays

• One 10-page research paper

% of students scoring Acceptable-Excellent on the English/ESL Common Portfolio Assessment Spring 11 vs. Spring 13

top level of ESL (1-below transfer) spring 11 vs. spring 13

What were the outcomes of integrating reading & writing?

• 88% faculty said integrating r/w increased intellectual rigor to a moderate degree or more

• 61% positive 17% neutral and 12% negative experience overall new curriculum

Student perception:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Do you feel that reading and writing are integrated (= connected) in the Reading/Writing class you are

taking now?

Series1

Instructor perception

88% faculty said integrating r/w increased intellectual rigor to a moderate degree or more

“Allows for more interesting and meaningful assignments that engage students better and more opportunities for recycling target skills.”

• Language learning is a spiral, not a pyramid• Contextualization and acceleration

go hand-in-hand

How Did Faculty Respondto the District-Wide Redesign?

• Most satisfied; some: just too much work• most: students benefit greatly from being

allowed to progress at their own speed; some: students learn less well when they are being “pushed” to accelerate

Positive Outcomes: Professional Development/Collaboration

• PD in-house• PD well attended • 70% of faculty say quality of PD has increased a

moderate amount or more• Collaboration among faculty has increased: 79% say

“a great deal or a lot” “I learn from my colleagues and students benefit from multiple teachers’ experience in collaborative assignments”Being held to standards and collaborating “has made me a better teacher”

Positive Outcomes in the classroom

• Faculty say they are more excited about and stimulated by teaching now

• Integrating skills is a more realistic college experience

Challenges: time and $

• Extensive collaboration is difficult for part-time faculty-they are not compensated

• A feeling among some faculty that non-academic and lower level students are being left behind

• Faculty stressed from trying to improve on multiple fronts

• Impression that we are cramming more into a shorter period of time.

• Frustration with lack of automatic alignment between textbooks and course outlines

Challenges for evaluation• A disconnect between faculty impressions of

students and what students report about their experiences

• Confounding factors: budget cuts, other acceleration initiatives, Adult School closing

• Confusion/miscommunication about terms, goals

Remaining Questions

• Are we serving both academic and non-academic students? Is there a true distinction?

• Student goals can change: who knows what students will decide to do given the chance?

• How do we better support faculty as they make changes in pedagogy and honor those who feel they have always been doing a “good job”?

Documents

Transforming the ESL Sequence: A Report from the First Year