Surveying Postsecondary
ESL Programs Statewide
TESOL 2007 Colloquium
March 22, 2007
Seattle, Washington
2-3:45 p.m.
Grand Hyatt Seattle/Leonese III Room
Presenters
Virginia Berger, Grossmont College
 Janet Eyring, CSU Fullerton
 Jan Frodesen, UC Santa Barbara
 Janet Lane, UC Davis
 Ellen Lipp, CSU Fresno

Background Information
and Need for the
Survey (Lane)
Demographic Data



Language minority students comprise 40%
of all K-12 students and an increasing
population of postsecondary students. (CDE,
2005)
Between 1994 and 2004, the total K-12
enrollment growth rate in California was
7.8%, but the Limited English Proficient
enrollment growth rate was 30%. (CDE,
2005)
Between 2001 and 2005, more than 1 in 5
foreign immigrants to the U.S. settled in
California. (Kelley, 2005, LA Times)
Changes in the Population of English
Learners

Large increase in number of students
who have received most of their
education in the U.S. but speak a
language other than English at home.


Many lack competency in college-level academic
English and have instructional needs differing
from those of native English speakers.
Many have been considered English proficient on
basis of oral skills from an early age.
Changes in the Population of English
Learners (continued)

Colleges must address needs of these
students along with needs of two
other sub-groups of ESL learners,
recently-arrived immigrants and
international students.


Have different needs but are often grouped
together in college classes.
Often enroll in classes designed for native English
speakers; challenge for instructors who don’t
have training/materials to work with them.
Large and diverse multilingual
population with multifaceted
educational needs.
The Three California Postsecondary
Systems



California Community Colleges (109 colleges)
 Any student can enroll; wide range of backgrounds and
linguistic proficiencies
 ESL has central role in mission (providing ESL
instruction considered essential and important function)
California State University (23 campuses)
 Main mission to prepare students for workforce and
especially teachers for CA schools
 Instruction for ESL/multilingual students vary by
campus, with some no ESL instruction or services
University of California (10 campuses)
 Mission includes research and providing undergrad,
grad, and professional education
 First developed ESL programs for international grad
students (before children of immigrants and refugees
reached college age in 1980s)
ICAS (Intersegmental Committee of
Academic Senates)

Established in 1980

Made up of representatives of the
Academic Senates of each segment

Designed to deal with issues of
mutual interest, including
 Transfer
 Articulation
 General education
 Educational quality and standards
Transfer and Articulation Issues




What are the experiences, needs, and
challenges of ESL students as they
transition between the three segments?
Is there appropriate articulation of
courses with CCC and transfer partners,
CSU and UC?
Are English learners progressing
successfully within and across the
segments?
Do significant differences exist in
procedures and offerings across the three
segments?
Other Questions Raised by Educators,
Administrators, and Legislators





Are colleges effectively distinguishing nonnative
English speakers who need specialized
instruction from those who do not?
Are assessment and placement procedures for
ESL learners adequate?
What programs, courses, and support services
are currently offered for ESL learners? Could
they be more effective?
How are courses staffed? Are instructors
adequately trained to teach them?
What attention is being given to the education
of English learners in courses across the
disciplines?
Formation of ESL Task Force
and Obtaining of Grant
Formation of the ESL Task Force


Initially formed to address the particular concerns of
the CCC Board of Governors—concerns shared by a
great many others beyond the CCC system.
In December 2003, ICAS (Intersegmental
Committee of Academic Senates) appointed four
members from each segment (N=12) with the
following goals:



To review academic offerings and support services for
ESL learners at the California community colleges and
four-year institutions
To identify critical issues affecting student success
To make recommendations for improving ESL students’
academic achievement across the segments
Members of the ESL Task Force

California Community Colleges





California State University





Virginia Berger, Grossmont College
Kathleen Flynn, Glendale College
John Gamber, American River College
Mark Lieu, Ohlone College
Jan Eyring, CSU Fullerton
Ellen Lipp, CSU Fresno
Karen Russikoff, CSU Pomona
(Robby Ching, CSU Sacramento)
University of California




Jan Frodesen, UC Santa Barbara (Chair)
Janet Lane, UC Davis
Robin Scarcella, UC Irvine
Jane Stevens, UC San Diego**
**Representative from outside the fields of ESL and Applied Linguistics
Obtaining of Grant


Applied for and received a grant,
approximately $40,000, from the CCCs
 To perform an online survey and produce
a subsequent report
 ICAS would be a partner, receiving
regular reports as well as evaluating the
final report.
The Task Force met regularly and
communicated frequently online while
working on the project.
Other Related ICAS (Intersegmental
Committee of Academic Senates)
Projects

California Pathways: The Second
Language Student in Public High
Schools, Colleges and Universities
(1996; revised 2001)



Defines ESL proficiency levels that can be used
across secondary and postsecondary segments
for curriculum development
Describes ways second language learners
acquire English, the challenges they face, and
the very different ESL populations that exist
Obtain from CATESOL website:
http://www.catesol.org/pathways.pdf
Other Related ICAS (Intersegmental
Committee of Academic Senates) Projects
(continued)

Academic Literacy: A Statement of
Competencies Expected of Students
Entering California’s Public Colleges
and Universities (Spring 2002)



Responses to questions about the academic
preparation of entering freshmen provided by
CCC, CSU, and UC faculty through a web-based
survey.
Report emphasizes need to recognize different
subgroups of second language learners and to
provide appropriate instruction based on these
differences.
Obtain from Academic Senate for CCCs website:
http://www.asccc.org/Publications/Papers/AcademicLit
eracy/main.htm
Designing, Piloting, and Revising
the Survey (Frodesen)





Initial Stages of Survey
Design
Research Objectives
Writing Survey Questions
Piloting the Survey
Final Revision
Initial Stages of Survey Design

Responding to ICAS concerns as
amended by the ESL Scoping
Committee (2002)
 ICAS Scoping Committee had
defined charge of Task Force
 Included future Task Force
members Lieu, Frodesen, Lane
and Lipp
Initial Stages of Survey Design
Deciding what is “doable” and “not doable,”
given time/funding constraints


“Doable”: Determining whether or not
students are identified as ESL learners;
how they are identified; describing types
and levels of programs and courses,
among others
“Not doable”: Evaluating programs and
courses, examining relationships
between non-credit/extension programs
and a college/ university’s ESL program;
examining ESL instruction for Teaching
Assistants in 4-year colleges and
universities, among others
Research Objectives
1.
To determine if and how students are
identified as ESL learners for tracking
progress and/or for gathering longitudinal
data.
2.
To determine how students are identified
as ESL learners for the purposes of initial
assessment selection and/or for the
purposes of appropriate placement.
3.
To identify the range of courses and
program designs available to address the
academic and vocational preparation of
ESL learners across the segments, and
the processes by which these programs
are evaluated.
Research Objectives
4.
To identify how the placement of ESL learners
into courses specifically designed for ESL
learners across the segments is affected by
matriculation practices (enforcement of
prerequisites, waiver policies, timeline for
completion, course repetition).
5.
To determine the kinds of student support
services that are specifically targeted to ESL
learners, whether prior to their enrollment or
while they are enrolled in ESL courses, and
after they have completed ESL coursework.
6.
To determine the types of data on ESL
learners that are collected and reported, and
the ways in which they are gathered, both
while the students are enrolled in ESL courses
and after they complete ESL coursework.
Writing Survey Questions





Starting with objectives: What we needed
to know about ESL learners, programs,
services
Deciding format of questions (Yes/no,
multiple choice, open-ended comments)
Committee meetings to draft revise,
discuss
E-mail listserv: commenting and revision
Checking of all questions by members of
each segment for missing or incorrect
information (e.g., ways of assessing or
placing students
Writing Survey Questions

Consulting with Director of Social Science
Survey Center at UCSB

Applied for and received Human Subjects
exemption from UCSB Office of Research

Creating separate sections for different
segments
Examples: Two different sets of questions for
Identification of ESL learners (CCC, CSU/UC); three
different sets for Assessment and Placement

Multiple drafts produced prior to piloting
Piloting the Survey




ESL, English, Writing Program faculty
contacted from each of the three
segments (N=7)
Selected based on several variables:
college size; type of program (or lack
of any ESL program); willingness to
assist the Task Force
Completed a paper version of the
survey (sent and returned by e-mail
attachment)
Respondents wrote comments, length
of time it took to complete, noted
any problems
Revising the Survey




ESLTF responded to pilot survey data
(phone, e-mail contacts)
Revised for clarity, category
confusion (e.g., writing vs.
reading/writing classes)
SSSC developed internet version,
which ESLTF further revised
Resulting survey: 87 questions
(Not all questions answered by all respondents)
QUESTION BREAK
Conducting the Survey
and Analyzing Results
(Lipp)
While the Task Force was writing the survey, the group
selected Paolo Gardinali of the Social Science Survey
Center (UCSB) to provide the following support:




putting the survey on line
making the survey password
protected
developing crosstabulation displays
of the quantitative data
compiling responses to the openended questions
Trial Run of the On-Line
Questionnaire
One carefully selected ESL faculty member
completed the entire survey and indicated
there were no problems.
Identifying Possible Survey
Respondents
Using personal and professional TESL networks,
Task Force members identified a key ESL faculty
member on each of the CCC, CSU, and UC
campuses; these people were contacted by email
and were requested to complete the survey.
They were advised the survey would take
approximately 30 minutes.
Identifying Possible Survey
Respondents (continued)
When Task Force members did not know of a
key ESL faculty member on a campus, they
contacted related departments to request the
name of a person qualified to respond to the
survey.
These people were contacted by email and
invited to complete the survey.
Time Line


The first requests to complete
the survey were sent out in the
spring.
The second requests to complete
the survey were sent out during
the summer.
The CCC Survey Respondents
Of the 109 CCCs, representatives
from 61 (56%) completed the
survey:
 24 from small colleges
 20 from average-sized colleges
 17 from large colleges
The CSU Survey Respondents
Of the 23 CSU campuses, 12
responded:
 2 rural campuses
 5 urban campuses
 5 mixed (difficult to categorize)
The UC Survey Respondents
All eight of the UC campuses with
ESL programs were asked to
complete the survey and all eight
of the campuses responded.
 There were no ESL programs at UC
Merced and at UC San Francisco;
those two campuses were not
asked to complete the survey.

Our social science research
consultant indicated that our
response rate was good.
Response Rate
Some Task Force members wondered why
our response rate wasn’t higher.
Was the questionnaire too long?
Were there too many open ended questions?
Did we have enough resources in our budget
to systematically follow up when someone
did not respond to the survey?
Reading the Compiled Data
Tables (crosstabulations) of the
quantitative data.
Lists of responses to open-ended
questions.
Making Decisions about the
Compiled Data





To prepare to write up our results,
we did the following:
Selected tables that showed
important findings.
Combined information from several
tables into one to make our findings
clearer.
Identified trends in the open-ended
response.
Noticed some gaps in the data.
Information on Survey
Respondents (Lane)
Survey Questions Designed to Gather
Respondent Information



What is your job position?
How long have you been at this
position (please state
years/months)?
What is your degree/professional
preparation (e.g., B.A. English +
TESL Certificate, M.A. English,
Ph.D. Applied Linguistics)?
Positions Held by Respondents at Their
Institutions

Professors: 21%

Lecturers or instructors: 20%



Joint appointments as professor/instructor
and administrator: 33%
Administrative positions (no teaching):
26%
Teaching at least a part of the respondent’s
position: 82 %
Numbers are approximate.
Additional Respondent Information
Respondents’ Length of Time at Job Position




5 years or less: 34%
6 to 10 years: 22%
11 – 15 years: 23%
16 or more years: 21%
Professional Degrees Held by Respondents

72% had at least a Master’s degree



38% an M.A. in TESL
8% TESL certificate with M.A. in another field
27% held a Ph.D. degree
Numbers are approximate.
Profiles of Individual Colleges
and Campuses
Profiles of Individual Campuses





Narrative descriptions of 7 individual
colleges/ campuses (500 words or less)
A portrait of the services for ESL and
multilingual students at each location
Characteristics and variety of students
served
Information on faculty (full-time vs. parttime)
A more holistic illustration of the diversity of
programs and learners than provided by
discrete categories in survey findings.
Writing the Campus Profiles

Profiles written by members of the
Task Force either


About their own campus or college
After obtaining information from a
key person familiar with ESL at the
college or campus of interest
Campus profiles from the CCC system


Yuba College, Marysville (northern California, rural
area)
 5,500 students; 375 (mostly immigrants/residents) in
ESL courses
 3 full-time ESL instructors and 8 adjunct faculty
 Majority of students Hispanic (67%) followed by Hmong
and East Indian.
American River College, Sacramento (northern
California, urban area)
 32,000 students; 3050 served in ESL (64% immigrants
over the age of 30)
 14 full time ESL faculty, 21 adjunct; 10 - 15
instructional assistants and tutors
 Majority of students (70%) Russian and Ukranian.
Campus profiles from the CCC system
(continued)


Grossmont College, San Diego (southern California,
urban area)
 18,000 students; 1,000 in ESL program (50%
international/50% residents/immigrants)
 4 full-time ESL instructors and 25 adjunct faculty
 Immigrants/residents largely Hispanic and Middle
Eastern; internationals are largely Asian, with
Japanese the largest group.
North Orange School of Continuing Ed (southern
California, urban area)
Noncredit segment of this CC district; Primary focus of students
is survival English, English to help find a job or improve current
job status



65,000 students; 11,000 served by ESL program (3
campuses)
3 full-time ESL faculty out of 130 total ESL faculty
members
75% from Spanish-speaking households; second
largest group is Korean
Campus profiles: CSU and UC systems



California State Polytechnic at Pomona
(20,000)
Southern California; no ESL program but
has parallel track of writing courses in
English for Multilingual Speakers Program
California State University Fresno (20,000)
Central California; offers courses and
services for ESL and multilingual students
through the Linguistics Department
University of California, Davis (30,000)
Northern California; offers courses and
services for ESL and multilingual students
through Linguistics Department
Campus profiles: CSU and UC systems
For all:
 Students are combination of recent
immigrant, Gen 1.5, and
international
 ESL courses also serve as training
ground for grad students in TESL/SLA
 Separate intensive English for nonmatriculated students may exist
Value of the Campus Profiles



Give a holistic picture of a few
representative campuses
Reveal a wide range of course offerings,
many different student populations, and
significant differences in how programs
are staffed and administered
Give readers a sense of the variety of
challenges faced by campuses in
assessing students and in designing and
administering ESL programs and
courses
Collaboratively Writing
the Report
(Berger)
Timeline for Writing Report





Oct. 05 Meeting – Planned structure
of report; assigned writing teams
Nov. 05 -1st drafts written and
reviewed
Dec. 05 and Jan. 06 – New drafts;
additions of appendices, glossary,
profiles.
Feb. 06 – Feedback from Exec.
Comm. of Academic Senate and
ICAS
March 06– Report submitted and
executive summary written
Report content and organization








Executive Summary
Introduction
The Survey
Survey findings and
recommendations
Conclusions and recommendations
References
Glossary
Appendices
Writing teams




Teams of three – one from each
segment
One section of the survey per team
Team communicated via email and
conference calls
Members submitted their sections to
team leader for compilation and
submission to committee chair
Guidelines for each section




Introduce section of survey and
explain why these questions were
asked
Include tables with exact data
Integrate some representative
comments; list others at end for
possible inclusion later
Summarize major findings and
make recommendations at end
Feedback Process



Completed drafts were assigned to
different teams as well as to
committee chair for comments
Used editing feature in Word
Drafts presented to Intersegmental
and Executive Committees of
Academic Senate
Editing Sample

Matriculation processes vary by level and
are sometimes stipulated by the
Chancellor’s office. Matriculation
processes are actually stipulated in Title 5
regulations for the community colleges.
Are there matriculation guidelines for CSU
and UC Yes, there are UC guidelines
,though not specifically for ESL students
but for satisfying Subject A/ELWR–
situation of ESL S’s varies because some
are in ESL classes and some are in
mainstream comp from the jump.We can
discuss this further at meeting?
Issues or Discussion Points




What overall themes can we find
from the data?
Should we address each of the
survey questions?
How much data and what specific
data should be included?
How can we effectively include the
comments?
Issues or Discussion Points





How should data be presented?
Writing style – more prose or more
data?
Who is our audience?
Who needs to approve the report?
Do we need an Executive
Summary? Should we have
different ones for different
audiences?
Lessons Learned





Allow enough time and avoid
holiday breaks
Get as much feedback as possible
Respect everyone’s opinions;
communicate often and in detail
Make the assignments very clear
Have a chair with lots of experience
on similar projects who can pull
together the final document with
great skill.
Disseminating Results
(Eyring)
Reports at Official Meetings



Progress Report on survey design
for CSU TESOL Group Meeting at
State CATESOL Conference, 2005
Presentations at regional and state
CATESOL Conferences by members
of ICAS Committee, 2006
Presentation on survey design and
results at this TESOL conference,
2007
Academic Senate Meetings

California Community Colleges

California State University

University of California
Statement by the Intersegmental
Committee of Academic Senates (p. 1
of ICAS ESL Task Force Report)
“The Intersegmental Committee of
Academic Senates joins the authors
of the report in the fervent hope
that this report will be widely read
and shared, and that the issues
covered and raised will engender
further discussion and action to
bring academic success to ESL
learners in California’s public
colleges and universities.”
ESL Students in California Public
Higher Education: ICAS ESL Task
Force Report (Spring 2006)


CCC Academic Senate website
www.asccc.org
(Enter “ESL Students” in Publications
search slot)
ERIC Database
http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ED493798
QUESTION BREAK
California Survey Results

Identification and Assessment of
ESL Learners

ESL Courses and Programs

Student Support Services
Identification and
Assessment of
ESL Learners
(Eyring)
Most Common Means of ESL
Identification



CCC – self-identification in a check-box on
an application or through a selection of a
placement test; this information is
combined with results on placement tests
CSU – self-identification when students
take the English Placement Test (EPT); only
a few campuses make use of selfidentification data
UC – “E” designation for learners who
exhibit ESL characteristics on the UC
Systemwide Analytical Writing Placement
Exam (AWPE); on most UC campuses
essays will be reread and student
biographical data considered for placement
purposes
Progress Tracking of Freshmen
ESL Students
Progress not
tracked
Progress
completing ESL
courses tracked
Progress
completing other
writing requirements tracked
CCC
CSU
UC
38.3% 41.7% 12.5%
56.7%
* 62.5%
5.0%
* 25.0%
*These questions were not asked of the CSU
Assessment and Placement Issues in
the Community College System

Fewer than 40% collect writing samples

Lack of funds for research to validate tests

Students may mistakenly select the wrong
test because of no guidance from
counselors

Some students may knowingly select the
wrong test to avoid ESL stigma

About 25% of campuses do not provide a
separate ESL instrument for ESL learners
Challenging ESL Placements
and Prerequisites at the
Community Colleges

At most community colleges, ESL
placements are advisory and can be
challenged by meeting with an ESL
faculty member, counselor, and/or
administrator and possibly taking an
additional writing assessment or obtaining
a waiver

82.5% indicate that students can
challenge the prerequisite for a course

No time frame is imposed within which
ESL coursework must be completed
Challenging ESL Placements
at the CSUs


Only 27.3% indicate that an additional
ESL placement test is employed in the
assessment process; sometimes this test
is only for international students
At some campuses students are placed
into courses by cut scores alone; at
others they are evaluated by readers; at
others a combination of cut score and
self-identification are used to place
students in ESL classes
Challenging ESL Placements
at the CSUs (continued)



Students have one year to remediate before being
redirected to a community college
Student placement into ESL classes varies
significantly among the campuses, from 50 to 650
GE Breadth or IGETC completion may not assure
that an ESL student has achieved academic
writing proficiency; students continue to manifest
significant second language writing problems on
the junior level writing proficiency exam (e.g.,
GWAR, JEPET, and WPA)
Challenging ESL Placements
at the UCs



62.5% ESL or Writing Program faculty reread the “E” designated examinations to
make placement decisions
Within mainstream composition programs,
students may be directed to writing courses
specifically targeted to ESL learners
Many “E” designations are for Generation
1.5 students, who have received most or all
of their education in the U.S.
Challenging ESL Placements
at the UCs (continued)



Some campuses use campusdeveloped assessments in reading,
grammar, and listening to place
students into ESL classes
Campus policies vary regarding
challenging ESL placements
Only one campus tracks incoming
CCC transfers for English language
proficiency
Recommendations
1.The California Community Colleges
and California State Universities
should consider the thoughtful
implementation of an ESL-identifier,
perhaps similar to the University of
California's "E" designation for the
purposes of helping to identify ESL
learners before classes begin and
longitudinal tracking of ESL learner
progress in each system.
Recommendations (continued)
2.Effective ESL identification, assessment,
and placement procedures at UC and CSU
campuses should be summarized so that
other campuses can easily learn about
them.
3.Each segment should provide a formal
organization of ESL Coordinators. We
need to meet and discuss identification,
assessment and placement issues along
with other matters.
Recommendations (continued)
4.To encourage students to take the
appropriate assessment exams and
courses, school and college administrators,
counselors and faculty should consider
ways to mitigate the stigma of taking ESL
courses
5.Faculty working across all segments should
re-examine ESL assessment procedures at
the community colleges to provide a better
transition for transfer students into the CSU
and UC. One way to achieve this may be by
reviewing assessment practices at CCCs so
that direct assessment with writing samples
becomes more common.
ESL Courses and
Programs (Lipp)
LIPP ESL courses & Progr - Table 3
Table 3. The Kinds Of Undergraduate
ESL Classes That Are Offered
And Percentage Of Campuses Offering
Each One
CCC
59
CSU
9
UC
8
81%
0 %
0 %
Writing
78
67
63
Reading
73
22
38
Grammar
71
33
63
Multi-skill
59
22
38
Pronunciation
58
0
13
Reading/writing
54
56
25
Speaking
27
0
25
Listening
20
0
0
Number of
respondents
Listening/speaking
Table 4. The Percentage Of Campuses Indicating
That Additional ESL Courses Are Needed
To Meet ESL Students’ Needs
CCC
63
CSU
10
UC
7
Courses currently
offered meet
students’ needs
19%
30%
43%
Additional sections
of classes offered
needed
18
10
14
Additional courses
needed
64
60
43
Number of
respondents
LIPP ESL courses & Progr - Table 4
Summary of major findings about
ESL courses and programs
Range of campuses offering ESL
courses
 Most CCC and CSU and all of the UC
campuses offer courses for ESL
learners.
 But we did not receive responses on
this question from 46% of CSU
campuses; these may be the very
campuses that do not have courses
for ESL learners.
Summary of major findings about ESL
courses and programs (continued)
Student populations served by ESL
courses
 At most UC campuses, courses for ESL
learners serve freshmen rather than upperdivision students
 At CSU campuses these courses serve both
freshmen and upper-division students.
Credit for ESL courses
 Regarding credit, at many CSU and most
UC campuses, ESL courses are credit
bearing, while at the majority of CCCs,
most ESL courses are credit bearing.
 But CCCs offer two types of credit-- degree
versus workload credit--while CSUs and
UCs offer degree credit.
Other Issues
ESL course sequencing
 A high percentage of campuses from CCC,
CSU and UC expect students to complete
a specific sequence of courses designed
for ESL learners rather than just a single
course.
Kinds of undergrad classes for ESL
learners
 Community colleges offer a wide range of
ESL courses (e.g. listening, speaking,
reading, writing, grammar) while most
CSU and UC campuses offer a narrow
range of ESL courses, primarily writing or
reading/writing or grammar.
Other Issues (continued)
Levels of instruction among ESL courses
 Community colleges offer the largest range of levels
of instruction for ESL learners in ALL skill areas.
 Only CCCs offer a range of levels of instruction in all
skill areas, including reading, listening, speaking,
grammar, and multi-skills.
 There are more levels of ESL writing courses at
CSUs and UCs and not of other language skill areas.
Need for additional ESL courses
 The majority of community college and CSU
respondents and some UC respondents report that
additional ESL courses are needed
 Many community colleges report needing additional
sections of classes already offered in order to meet
ESL learners’ needs.
 The need for additional sections of existing classes is
less pronounced at CSU and UC campuses.
Recommendations about ESL
Courses and Programs



Because not all CCCs, CSUs, and UCs offer special
courses for ESL students, each campus should be
encouraged to assess whether their students have
ESL problems pertaining to use of academic
English.
Campuses need to identify multiple ways to help
ESL students, including designing ESL programs
and courses, hiring instructors trained to teach
ESL, offering or improving ESL tutoring, offering
mini-courses that address ESL problems, and
counseling ESL students.
Second language researchers have emphasized
that it takes many years to become proficient in
academic uses of English; therefore, ESL classes
should be offered both to entering and transfer
students.
Recommendations about ESL
Courses and Programs



When ESL courses involve mainly
academic writing, class size needs to be
kept low in order for instructors to give
quality feedback to students.
Campuses should investigate the
constraints on ESL course repeatability
and length of time allowed to meet
requirements.
Because of the academic nature of higher
level ESL courses, students should be
able to earn credit that counts toward
their degree when taking these courses.
Student Support Services
(Berger)
“any of the means by which a school
or institution provides direct
assistance to students”
Orientation/Initial Advising
CCC
 no separate sessions
 special sessions for international
students but not residents
 computer orientations designed
for ESL learners
 bilingual orientation
CSUs and UCs
 conducted through international
student offices
Counseling

CCCs –

CSUs

UCs -2 campuses offer ESL counseling to
60% offer ESL counseling to
international students but fewer than half to
resident students
– over 50% offer ESL counseling to
international students; very few to resident
students
international students, one of which offers it to
resident students as well
Services for “at-risk” students




CSUs – 40%
CCCs - 33%
UCs - 25%
EOP Summer Bridge offers ESL courses
through the Learning Skills Center in an
accelerated summer program. The
program also provides tutoring, orientation,
and social activities. In recent years, the
majority of students in the program have
been Generation 1.5 long-term immigrants.
During the fall, freshmen are placed into
ESL learning communities. (CSU)
Tutoring/Learning Centers


All three segments provide
tutoring targeted for ESL
learners
Problems mentioned- lack of
training; insufficient pedagogical
and grammatical knowledge;
high turnover; insufficient
funding
Outreach to Feeder High Schools and
Transfer Services



CSUs –Summer Bridge; Step to College
programs ;Transfer services- 25% IS;
13% for residents
UCs –Engaging Latino Communities for
Education (ENLACE); 1 of 4 campusestransfer services
CCCs- Transfer services -19% for IS; 13%
for residents
Other Services



Financial Aid, Job Placement/Career
Services, Disabled Student Services
14% of CCCs and UCs have special
services for disabled ESL students
None of the CSUs indicated special
ESL services
Recommendations


1. Campuses should expand and
adapt advisement for all groups of
ESL learners.
2. Campuses should develop more
effective ways to disseminate
information about support services
to ESL learners, such as online
resources, handbooks, and CDs.
Recommendations



3. Campuses should consider a broad
range of service delivery methods…
4. Campuses should call on ESL
professionals as resources for
transfer…
5. Campuses should find or develop
assessment instruments to identify
learning disabilities among ESL
learners….
QUESTIONS
Conclusions (Frodesen)





Populations of ESL learners
Urgency of addressing language
develop needs
Summary of survey results
Importance of intersegmental
collaboration
Need for ongoing communication
Populations of ESL Learners



ESL learners on all campus whether
officially recognized or not
Not always readily identifiable
Populations varied with different needs
International students
Recently arrived immigrants
Long-term/American born learners
(generation 1.5)
Urgency of Addressing Language
Development Needs



Educational success of ESL learners
affects not only them but
classmates, institutions, society
Number of ESL learners in higher
education is increasing
Educational policy decision makers/
administrators need to include ESL
learners’ language needs in
institutional priorities
Summary of Survey Results
Documented Needs:
 Improved identification of ESL
learners
 Better processes for assessment
and placement
 ESL courses adequate in number,
level and breadth
 Student services to provide needed
support for success of ESL learners
Intersegmental Collaboration



TF members gained much from
interaction with peers from other
segments
Increased understanding of specific
problems of particular segments
Gained new awareness of striking
differences between segments due
in part to different missions
Ongoing Communication



Continued communication among
ESL educators essential to effective
response to ESL learners in higher
education
Task Force emphasized need for
vehicles for communication and
sharing of resources
Need for ESL professionals within
each segment to meet
Recommendations




Identification, Assessment,
Placement
ESL Courses and Programs
Student Support Services
Additional Recommendations
Identification, Assessment, Placement
1.
2.
Our public higher education systems
should work with legislators toward the
goal of developing a statewide system
for identifying ESL learners and tracking
their progress through the system
Campuses should review current
assessment and placement instruments,
and, where needed, develop more
accurate instruments and appropriate
placement procedures for ESL students
ESL Courses and Programs
1.
Campuses should provide ESL instruction
and related support services to entering
and transfer students, including
generation 1.5 students.
2.
Campuses should review the adequacy of
current ESL instruction. Issues examined
might include the following: skill areas
and number of levels, appropriate class
size, the number of course sections,
degree applicability of courses, course
repeatability, and program evaluation.
3.
Campuses should encourage ESL learners
to address their academic language needs
in an appropriate and timely manner
Student Support Services
1.
2.
3.
Campuses should coordinate and improve
support services specifically designed to meet
ESL learners' needs, keeping in mind the
different populations (international students,
immigrants both long-term and recently arrived,
generation 1.5).
ESL professionals should be called on as
resources in all areas of student support for
working with ESL students.
Campuses should improve the identification of
ESL students with learning disabilities and
develop ways to meet their special needs.
Additional Recommendations
Through intersegmental collaboration, a higher
education website should be developed for ESL
professionals from all three segments of higher
education in California with features such as:
1.
•
•
2.
Directory of CA public C/U college and university
professionals
Searchable annotated bibliography of studies,
program profiles and reports focusing on current
ESL practices and issues in higher education +
links to reports
Each system should institute a formal
organization of ESL Coordinators to develop
ways to serve ESL students more effectively.
How to Access this
Powerpoint Presentation
http://www.esl.ucsb.edu/people/frodesen.html