Everyone needs a device (or share)

Open internet (Wifi: marriot conference success13 OR 4G fine) Socrative student m.socrative.com YOU 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 (6) 5 4 3 2 new advanced high intermediate intermediate high beginning

Change from 4 to 3 Skill Areas

High Beginning Intermediate High Intermediate Advanced

Grammar (4 Units)
Listening & Speaking (4 Units) Reading & Writing (6 Units)

284A/B

215A/B

216A/B

217A/B

283A/B

232A/B

233A/B

50A/B

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

Visualization #1 of the A/B plan: Accordion

INT A
HIGH BEG B HIGH INT A

ADV A
HIGH INT B

HIGH BEG A

INT B

ADV B

STUDENT ADVANCING FAST

Visualization #1 of the A/B plan: Accordion

INT A
HIGH BEG B HIGH INT A

ADV A
HIGH INT B

HIGH BEG A

INT B

ADV B

STUDENT ADVANCING SLOWER

Visualization #1 of the A/B plan: Accordion

INT A
HIGH BEG B HIGH INT A

ADV A
HIGH INT B

HIGH BEG A

INT B

ADV B

STUDENT ADJUSTING TO PROGRESS

Visualization #2 of the A/B plan: Stairs

STUDENT ADVANCING FASTER

ADV B

ADV A

HIGH INT B
HIGH INT A

INT B
INT A

HIGH BEG B
HIGH BEG A

Visualization #2 of the A/B plan: Stairs

ADV B
ADV A STUDENT ADVANCING SLOWER

HIGH INT B
HIGH INT A

INT B
INT A

HIGH BEG B
HIGH BEG A

Visualization #2 of the A/B plan: Stairs

ADV B
STUDENT ADJUSTING TO PROGRESS 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

Example: 3 students toward the end of High Intermediate A

Got it! Ready to move ahead!
I worked hard and even got a C+, but I cant really perform all of the SLOs.

Advanced A

High Intermediate B

Wow! That was too hard! I got a D or an F.

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?

Laney College Fall 2012 R/W Students R/W Courses Taken Spring 2013 None B course of same level A Course of next level A course 2 levels

High38% Beginning 285A students (229 total) Intermediate 36% 222A students (200 total)

25%

1%

22.5%

0%

HighIntermediate 223A (215 total)

Advanced 52A (171 total)

38.6%

22.8%

0%

57.3%

17.5%

25.1%

0%

How did the students who accelerated in Spring 2013 do?

Laney College
High-Beg. Students who accelerated to Intermediate
Total Graded 81 Success 62 Success Rate 76.54%

(Success rate in Intermediate Fall 2012= 83.16%)

Intermediate Students who accelerated to High-Intermediate

Total Graded 78 Success 63 Success Rate 80.77%

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

How did the students who accelerated in Spring 2013 do?

Laney College
High-Int. Students who accelerated to Advanced
Total Graded 71 Success 63 Success Rate 88.73%

(Success rate in Advanced Fall 2012= 77.84%)

Berkeley City College

High-Int. Students who accelerated to Advanced
Total Graded Success Success Rate

21

15

71.43%

(Success rate in Advanced Fall 2012 = 83.6%)

How did the students who accelerated in Spring 2013 do?

Laney College
Advanced Students who accelerated to English 1A
Total Graded 29 Success 26 Success Rate 89.66%

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

Berkeley City College

Advanced Students who accelerated to English 1A
Total Graded Success Success Rate

12

11

91.67%

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

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

% 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:
Do you feel that reading and writing are integrated (= connected) in the Reading/Writing class you are taking now?
70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

No. We mostly study reading, not writing. No. We mostly study writing, not reading. We study both reading and writing but they are not connected. Reading and writing are somewhat connected. Yes, reading and writing are very connected.

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 Respond to 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?