1 / 27

Non-credit ESL Student Transitions to Credit at CCSF

Non-credit ESL Student Transitions to Credit at CCSF. City College of San Francisco Sharon Seymour sseymour@ccsf.edu CATESOL State Conference April, 2008. “Pathways and Outcomes Tracking ESL Student Performance”.

paulagriffin
Download Presentation

Non-credit ESL Student Transitions to Credit at CCSF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Non-credit ESL Student Transitions to Credit at CCSF City College of San Francisco Sharon Seymour sseymour@ccsf.edu CATESOL State Conference April, 2008

  2. “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

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

  4. 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

  5. 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%

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

  8. 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

  9. Non-credit Level Advancement Advancement measured by advancing a level (CCSF ESLN 1 to CCSF ESLN 2) Promotion decisions primarily made at end of semester ESLN classes are 175 hours (10 hrs/wk for 17/5 wks) Students generally not promoted in summer

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. Level Advancement Students needed to not only enroll in more semesters but also attend enough hours in a semester to advance Percentage and number of students at lower levels who advanced was greater than at higher levels -lower levels more willing and able

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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%

  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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

More Related