Surveying Postsecondary ESL Programs Statewide

1. Surveying Postsecondary ESL Programs Statewide TESOL 2007 Colloquium March 22, 2007 Seattle, Washington 2-3:45 p.m. Grand Hyatt Seattle/Leonese III Room

2. Presenters • Virginia Berger, Grossmont College • Janet Eyring, CSU Fullerton • Jan Frodesen, UC Santa Barbara • Janet Lane, UC Davis • Ellen Lipp, CSU Fresno

3. Background Information and Need for the Survey (Lane)

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. Formation of ESL Task Force and Obtaining of Grant

12. 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

13. Members of the ESL Task Force • California Community Colleges • Virginia Berger, Grossmont College • Kathleen Flynn, Glendale College • John Gamber, American River College • Mark Lieu, Ohlone College • California State University • 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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/AcademicLiteracy/main.htm

17. Designing, Piloting, and Revising the Survey (Frodesen) • Initial Stages of Survey Design • Research Objectives • Writing Survey Questions • Piloting the Survey • Final Revision

18. 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

19. 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

20. Research Objectives • To determine if and how students are identified as ESL learners for tracking progress and/or for gathering longitudinal data. • To determine how students are identified as ESL learners for the purposes of initial assessment selection and/or for the purposes of appropriate placement. • 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.

21. Research Objectives • 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). • 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. • 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.

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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)

26. QUESTION BREAK

27. Conducting the Survey and Analyzing Results (Lipp)

28. 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 open-ended questions

29. Trial Run of the On-Line Questionnaire One carefully selected ESL faculty member completed the entire survey and indicated there were no problems.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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

34. The CSU Survey Respondents Of the 23 CSU campuses, 12 responded: • 2 rural campuses • 5 urban campuses • 5 mixed (difficult to categorize)

35. 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.

36. Our social science research consultant indicated that our response rate was good.

37. 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?

38. Reading the Compiled Data Tables (crosstabulations) of the quantitative data. Lists of responses to open-ended questions.

39. 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.

40. Information on Survey Respondents (Lane)

41. 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)?

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. Profiles of Individual Colleges and Campuses

45. 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. part-time) • A more holistic illustration of the diversity of programs and learners than provided by discrete categories in survey findings.

46. 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

47. 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.

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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 non-matriculated students may exist