Nicole & Karyn – intro selves, positions, and that we’re representing four of us…
Karyn – the purpose of our talk
Karyn: The data reported in this presentation is detailed in a forthcoming article cited here. In the time that we have with you, we will focus on two aspects of the article: 1) the outline of the center-based model for internationalization we have at George Mason University, including the center structure, programs offered, and key curricular innovations, specifically those tied to writing; and within this context, we will explain 2) one research project through which we sought to answer the question “How do ACCESS students’ perceptions of their academic, linguistic, and cultural experiences compare with ACCESS-affiliated faculty perspectives on teaching multilingual students across the ACCESS-included disciplines?” This presentation (and this article) focus on data that address writing instruction, including surveys, interviews, and analyses of samples of student writing and faculty feedback.
Nicole – brief overview of CISA, the center
Karyn – This concordance chart is used here to help explain the ACCESS student language requirements for admission and successful completion of the program. (Explain chart)
Nicole -- Program structure and courses – Students earn 28 credits in a structured program which uses research-informed approaches to transition international students. Structured program outcomes: Increased linguistic skill = to entrance requirements, develop strong self-efficacy and acculturate to western educational culture, perform at a satisfactory level academically.
Nicole – We are going to go back and talk about the ACCESS curriculum, but first here is some enrollment data to clarify the size of the program and the growth projects for the program.
Karyn: The team
Karyn – Innovative approach to language supported internationalization #1: curriculum mapping and building for 121/122
Nicole: The team
Nicole: Innovative approach to language-supported internationalization: curriculum mapping and building #2
Karyn: The team
Nicole: Innovative approach to language-supported internationalization: curriculum mapping and building #3
Karyn: So, considering the curriculum building process and the integrated language instruction, what we have effectively done is to build language pedagogy into courses, using CBI for EAP. WAC, English, Comm, and History were each involved in the process from the very beginning, offering them the opportunity to learn about the process/approach to language learning/teaching. (Note: for those outside of composition/WAC, this experience was actually their first real pedagogical training of any kind.)
Karyn/Nicole? – Further, during years 2 and 3 of the ACCESS program, those foundational faculty have become course coordinators, now helping to introduce/mentor new faculty as well as revise the initial curriculum as needed. Finally, all faculty who teach with CISA, whether they teach language-supported courses like those mentioned here or not, receive a wide range of faculty development opportunities (including a 2 day orientation, meetings with course coordinators, faculty observation and feedback processes, and brown bag lunch series). Through each of these initiatives, faculty across the curriculum are trained to work with L2 writers. And on that note, we’d like to turn to the research project that we conducted and some findings relevant to WAC, L2 Writing/Writers, and Internationalization.
Karyn – **for handout** For a list of additional ways WAC/CISA/ENG/AL work together to support a vision of an “ESL ready” model for campus internationalization, refer to your handout.
Nicole – and now we would like to move on to the research project…
Karyn – To address our central, driving question (#1), we conducted two concurrent studies, one focused on ACCESS students’ perceptions of their own academic, linguistic, and cultural experiences and one focused on ACCESS-affiliated faculty perspectives on teaching multilingual students across the ACCESS-included disciplines. The goal of the longitudinal research was to gather data to inform program revision and to provide writing-related fields with some thoughts regarding the broader question, #2.
Karyn – here are the participants (briefly)Participants for the student - focused study included 18 undergraduate students enrolled in the pilot year of the CISA ACCESS program at George Mason University, 91% of whom were classified as international students by the university. Of these,70% were male, 59% hailed from a Gulf nation, and 70% spoke Arabic as a first language.Forty-eight percent had attended the ELI prior to matriculation into the ACCESS program. Thirty-five percent were interested in studying business, 25% engineering, and 10% global studies. The remaining participants were undeclared majors by the end of the ACCESS year. Faculty participants included seven faculty members teaching courses in which ACCESS students were enrolled (i.e. courses were either ACCESS -exclusive, sheltered courses or open, lecture - style classes in which the ACCESS students were integrated among other enrolled freshmen). Faculty came from a range of academic disciplines, including history, communications, anthropology, higher education, English, and ESL. Three of the seven participants were English Department and ESL faculty; the remaining four faculty had no prior formal training in teaching multilingual writers. Each of the participating faculty members had elected to teach in the ACCESS program, which included faculty orientation and training on teaching L2 writers provided through CISA. Further, each of the participating faculty members had some form of prior cross-cultural experience (e.g. living/traveling overseas, studying abroad in college, participating in the Fulbright program in another country, etc.).
3-pronged approach to program revision, including: faculty development, materials development and curriculum alignmentFaculty expectations for student writing (including an explanation of why/how those expectations are determined by the discipline, the department, or the individual instructor) should be made more transparent to students. All ACCESS faculty should focus on transfer of learning beyond the course, generating opportunities for students to consider where/how/why to apply what they are learning beyond the course of instructionPre-semester training extended to include workshop on approaches to feedback on student writing, including CWF (Ferris, 2009)
“While we fully agree with Matsuda (2009), we note that, even among those WAC, L2 Writing, and ESL/Applied Linguistics faculty most keen to collaboratively construct an ESL-ready program, developing such a comprehensive WAC platform takes time, incentive, and funding. The questions are many (e.g., should collaboration take place at the committee or program level and in what form?), the task is particularly difficult (i.e., preparing faculty across the disciplines to confidently incorporate more meaningful writing in their classes and comfortably assume a more linguistically-complex set of students), and the incentive for ESL-ifying WAC may not be obvious to many or even most. Further, one must question the sustainability of collaborative efforts, given faculty/administrator turnover and institutional support (or lack thereof) for the ongoing maintenance, revision, and/or expansion of faculty development trainings, campus outreach, collaborative research projects, resource-development, etc. Still, the goal seems worth the challenge given the potential for making a positive impact across campus. But how and where to get started?”
Anna – background information and rationale for three-pronged approach As the program grows, sustainability becomes the main priority. CISA has prioritized the following three program aspects, which will we briefly describe. Curriculum alignment, faculty training and materials development are happening concurrently and recursively– if we start with curriculum alignment for example, that process, which we will describe shortly, results in the development of course and program materials, which are then used to inform faculty training. If we take a look at faculty training first, which happens at the beginning of each semester, that experience results in faculty from across the program working together on curriculum alignment, which then by extension highlights the emerging need for specialized course and program materials. Because of the complexity of this process, CISA has designated course-coordinators to represent the student and faculty needs in each course and to help streamline the process.
Nicole – talk about the general project of integrating 5 scales/rubrics (e.g. academic cross-course alignment and student development). In other words, why even do this?
Anna – in addition to the rubrics Nicole just discussed, we are, of course, also incorporating the Gen-Ed and department goals into the course design. What you see here are examples from the ENGH course since I am the course coordinator representing the ENGH faculty. Not only are the core ACCESS courses aligning the courses with these five rubrics/scales, but the course coordinators are also working together to scaffold instruction among the courses and encourage transfer. This is mostly happening by way of a final capstone project, which I will discuss shortly.
1. Internationalization, WAC, and L2 Writers:Program Agendas and Curricular Innovation Karyn Mallett, Anna Habib, Ghania Zgheib, Nicole Sealey March 23, 2013 | TESOL Presentation | Dallas, TX Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
2. AbstractIn this presentation, data and implications derivedfrom a mixed-method longitudinal researchproject on undergraduate L2 writers are presentedin order to substantiate the claim that small, high-profile programs can provide institutional spaceand incentive to build a WAC-like, ESL-readycurriculum to support a growing body oflinguistically-diverse L2 writers. Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
3. K. Mallett & Zgheib, G. (To appear). Campus Internationalization: ACenter-based Model for ESL-ready Programs. In M. Cox & T. Zawacki(eds.) WAC and Second Language Writers: Research towardsLinguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices. DigitalBook Series, WAC Clearinghouse. Urbana, NCTE.CAMPUSINTERNATIONALIZATION:A CENTER-BASED MODEL FORESL-READY PROGRAMS Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
4. Figure 2. Ten year Overall International Enrollment at Mason Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
5. Center for International Student Access(CISA)ACCESS BRIDGEProvisionally admitted Provisionally admitted freshman graduate studentsMostly general education EAP courses + graduate courses + language support - courses – (18-21 credits) 28 creditsComprehensive first-year Introduction to graduate study experience and professionalizationIncludes language, advising, Includes language, advising, and acculturation to US and acculturation to US education system education system Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
6. ACCESS Student Language Goals Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
7. ACCESS Program StructureCurricular Co-curricular• Enhanced English Composition • Advising (6)• Public Speaking + Language • Peer Support Support (4)• World History + Language • Tutoring Support • Living Learning• American Cultures (4) Community• Introduction to Research Methods (3) • Co-curricular &• Mathematics (3-4) Extracurricular Activities• Freshman Seminar (2)• Major Course(s) (2-4) • Service-Learning• English Grammar (as needed) (3) Outcomes Self-Efficacy/ Linguistic Skill Academic Performance Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible Acculturation
8. ACCESS Enrollment Data Year Projected Actual Enrollment Enrollment Headcount Headcount2010-2011 20 222011-2012 60 572012-2013 ---- 90 802013-2014 100 125 ----2014-2015 120 150 ---- Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
14. “ESL-ready” Curriculum Building Process HIST 125/PROV 104AAC&U HIST ??? LangGen Ed 125 Program Course CEFR Goals B2 Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
15. “ESL-ready” (Matsuda, P.K., 2001)“In order to provide adequate writing instruction for all students, including second-language writers, all WAC programs must become "ESL ready"; that is, everyone involved in WAC initiatives--including WAC administrators, writing consultants and writing fellows as well as faculty across the disciplines who use writing in their courses--needs to recognize the presence of second- language writers, to understand their characteristics and needs, and to prepare themselves for the challenge of addressing the needs of those students. To practice WAC, then, is to practice ESL. Yet, ultimately, second-language writers are not the only ones who benefit from the efforts to develop more inclusive WAC programs. Such efforts can, in the long run, contribute to the further democratization of U.S. higher education for all kinds of students.” Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
17. WAC, L2 Writing, and ESL/Applied Linguistics specialistscollaborationTask CISA Director & Staff ELI/CISA WAC Director English Composition Assistant Director for Language Program Director & Development & ELI Language English Faculty Teaching Support Course Faculty CISA CoursesProviding students with a wide variety of co-curricular, extra-curricular, and complementary programming, includingACCESS-specific student and faculty orientations, PeerLearning Partners, academic advisors, cultural excursions,Living Learning Community activities, etc. Development of new content-based English for AcademicPurposes (EAP) curricula/materials to support two generaleducation courses (PROV 104 to support World History andPROV 103 to support Public Speaking) specifically forACCESS students. Development and revisions of co-taught, stretched, andenhanced English 121-122 specifically for ACCESS students. Hiring, staffing, and observations of all ACCESS faculty.* Conducting training sessions for CISA faculty across thedisciplines on approaches to written feedback on multilingualwriters’ work. Assessing and reporting on language proficiency (initial,midyear, and exit) for all enrolled ACCESS students. CISA Faculty Committees to determine and revise program-wide academic and language policies as well as majorcurricular and programmatic changes (e.g., CurriculumCommittee, Language Acquisition Committee, Advisory Committee, etc.). Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
18. Faculty and Student Perceptions of Writing ExpectationsTHE RESEARCH PROJECT Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
19. Research Questions1) How do ACCESS students’ perceptions of their academic, linguistic, and cultural experiences compare with ACCESS- affiliated faculty perspectives on teaching multilingual students across the ACCESS-included disciplines?” a) Are the writing-support structures and resources that we had collaboratively put in place perceived by both participant groups as helpful? Why or why not? a) Is teaching in the ACCESS program pedagogically challenging and/or rewarding for faculty? Why or why not? If yes, in what ways?2) How does a language supported approach to internationalization open doors for participating faculty and L2 writers that WAC institutionalized practices may have inadvertently closed in the past? Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
20. ParticipantsStudents Faculty18 undergraduate 7 faculty members91% international classification 1 History, 1 Communication, 170% male Anthropology, 1 Higher59% Gulf region Education, 1 English, 2 TESOL/AL70% spoke Arabic as L1 4/7 no prior formal pedagogical48% former IEP students training35% interested in business, 25% Each elected to teach in ACCESS in engineering, 10% in global 6/7 had prior overseas living studies; remainder undeclared experience Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
21. Data CollectedData Collection Number of Frequency of Participants data collectionStudent interviews 18 3Faculty interviews 4 1Student surveys 22 14Faculty surveys 7 14Classroom observations 5 4Samples of student writing 21 3Samples of faculty feedback on student writing 21 3Student focus groups 21 3Student entrance, mid-year, and exit language 21 3proficiency tests Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
22. Benefits & Challenges for FacultyTeaching in ACCESS Program • ACCESS faculty reportedly developed more thoughtful, reflective pedagogical practices • Composition and language faculty were more concerned with transfer of learning and student development beyond the writing/language class; other content faculty were not • Content faculty reported “relief” to have a language specialist with whom to collaborate when assessing student work and preparing curriculum/materials • Content faculty did not recognize or anticipate student confusion over course- and/or faculty-specific writing expectations • Content faculty reportedly struggled to provide feedback on student writing • Academic faculty reported an emerging sensitivity to the needs of multilingual students and L2 writers Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
23. Faculty Struggle to Provide Written Feedback• When asked about the importance of grammatical accuracy for success in their course on the week 8 survey, 66.7% of faculty said that accuracy was “very important,” 16.7% said “important” and 16.7% said “somewhat important.”• 83.3% requested additional professional development in the form of a workshop on providing effective feedback on student written work.• Though most feedback on student writing included one or mixed forms of sentence- level feedback, end comments addressed issues related to the content, organization, development, or support of ideas throughout the students’ writing.• “And so when I gave an assignment and the students wrote something, I said [to myself], “Oh, well I need to judge this for their thinking rather than how they’re writing it.” So that was a big adjustment for me and I found myself, like, getting together with grammar books and making sure I was trying to review the correct markings…and I really struggled with this idea of, you know, … that this class is about really just being thoughtful and applying what youre learning and more experiential stuff. So I didn’t want to cross their thinking by making lots of edits on their papers, but I felt like they needed that because they’re still working on Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible [accuracy].” (End of the year interview)
24. Emerging Awareness of L2 WriterNeeds“Frankly [teaching in ACCESS] was more work that I’mused to. I don’t mind that, but that’s the difficult part. Imean, I had more students turning in drafts of papers.I’ve always had a policy where students could turn indrafts, but frankly, American students turn in maybe10%. But these kids, some of these kids were turning inthree or four drafts each. I was [also] trying to put moreinto the organizational clarity of the course, and it waswork. I think it was good for me to have that, so I’m notcomplaining, but it was work.” Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
25. Benefits to ACCESS Students of aLanguage-supported Program• Students reached the program language requirements• Students reported awareness of curriculum innovation, the majoring claiming the English class as the most useful• Students felt satisfied with the ACCESS program, but requested more/longer language-support classes and more co-taught classes• Students were satisfied with their language progress, but frustrated with the pace of the progress overall• Students were completely unaware of how/why faculty had different expectations/requirements for their writing Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
27. Emerging Awareness of Self as Writer“I’m a whole different person right now …. Something changed me here. I just, I really changed here, this year. I’ve become, like, I work harder. I just think … more honestly and do things more, not just honestly, but just from the bottom-up. I write what I think is right. At home, I just write things because I have to do it. A lot of things have changed me here, but something has to do with writing.” Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
28. ImplicationsProgram Revision • 3-pronged approach to program revision, including: faculty development, materials development and curriculum and transfer of learning beyond the course • Pre-semester faculty training extended to include workshop on approaches to feedback on student writing, including CWF (Ferris, 2009) • Potential expansion to transfer populationL2 Writing - The need for ACCESS faculty to clarify writing expectations aligns with the WAC (Thaiss and Zawacki, 2006) and L2 Writing (Gentil, 2011), supporting the recommendation that faculty can and should purposefully guide students’ early awareness of differing purposes and expectations for student writing across disciplines. Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
29. Internationalization Opens Doors to Innovative Curricula & Programs for L2 Writers“In the end, by working together on these smallerprograms designed specifically for recruited multilingualstudents who generally pay high tuitions and for whomthe university is strategically invested, there is potential toestablish a well-connected team of writing experts and anESL-ready model program structure that iscomprehensive, realistic, and transferrable to othercontexts across the university. Further, the institutionalenergy that goes into developing these programs shouldopen the door to wider conversations about the languageand writing needs of multilingual students acrosscampus.” Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
30. ReferencesBevis, T. B. & Lucas, C. J. (2007). International Students in American Colleges and Universities: A History. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Cox, M. (2011, December 21). WAC: Closing doors or opening doors for second language writers? Across the Disciplines, 8(4).Retrieved August 17, 2012, from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/cox.cfmFerris, D. R. (2009). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. NY: Routledge.Gentil, G. (2011).A Biliteracy Agenda for Genre Research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 6-23Haworth, K. (April 1997). Report Urges Colleges to Inspire Students and Improve Teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education: A14.James, M. A. (2009) “Exploring Learning Transfer in L2 Writing Education.” Presentation at Symposium of Second Language Writing. Tempe, AZ. Available at http:www.public/asu.edu/~mjames6/index.html.Leki, I. (2003a). A challenge to second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated? In Barbara Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 315- 332). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 50, 699-721.Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Opening statement: Academic.writing forum: Connecting WAC and ESL? Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/forums/fall2001/Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English, 68(6), 637-51.Matsuda, P. K. & Jablonksi, J. (2000). Beyond the L2 metaphor: Towards a mutually transformative model of ESL/WAC collaboration. AcademicWriting: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Communication Across the Curriculum.Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/articles/matsuda_jablonski2000.pdfMcLeod, S., & Miraglia, E. (2001). Writing across the curriculum in a time of change. In S. H. McLeod, E. Miraglia, M. Soven, & C. Thaiss (Eds.), WAC for the new millennium: Strategies for continuing writing-across-the-curriculumprograms (pp. 1-27). Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.McLeod, S. H. (2008). The future of WAC - Plenary Address, Ninth International Writing Across the Curriculum Conference, May 2008 (Austin, Texas). Across the Disciplines,5. Retrieved August 28, 2012, from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/mcleod2008.cfmThaiss, C. & Zawacki, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Walvoord, B. E. F. (1997). In the long run: A study of faculty in three writing-across- the-curriculum programs. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.Zawacki, T. M. (2010). “Researching the local/writing the international: Developing culturally inclusive WAC Programs and Practices." Presentation at IWAC Conference: Bloomington, IN. Available at http://www.iub.edu/~wac2010/zawacki.shtml Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
31. Thank you! SLIDES AVAILABLE AT http://cisa.gmu.edu/2013/03/tesol1/ Nicole Sealey Director, CISA firstname.lastname@example.org Karyn Mallett Assistant Director, English Language Institute Assistant Director, Language Development, CISA email@example.com Anna S. Habib English Course Coordinator and New Faculty Leader, CISA firstname.lastname@example.org Ghania ZgheibCore Instructor/English, Acad Purposes Specialist, English Language Institute email@example.com Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
32. REFERENCE SLIDES Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
33. Program Sustainability: A Three-Pronged Approach Curriculum alignment Course Coordinators Faculty Materials training development Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
34. Program Sustainability: 1st ProngScales/Rubrics: • CEFR – Listening – Speaking – Reading – Writing – Grammar – Vocabulary • SaS (3 categories) – Discovery of Scholarship – Scholarly Inquiry • AAC&U (14 categories) – Creative Thinking – Information Literacy – Written Communication – Reading Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible
35. Program Sustainability: 1st Prong • General Education Learning Outcomes: Foundational Goals (4 categories) – Written Communication Goal – Oral Communication Goal – Quantitative Reasoning Goal – Information Technology Goal • Departmental Course Learning Outcomes (e.g., English 121/122) – learn about the conventions of reading and writing in the U.S. academic context – develop strategies for reading and analyzing advanced nonfiction texts in popular and scholarly – sources – learn strategies for summarizing and synthesizing arguments in secondary sources – develop strategies to help you use writing as a tool for exploring and reflecting on your own ideas – continue to develop your vocabulary, syntax, and editing skills so that your writing meets the – expectations of U.S. academic readers – practice your ENGH speaking and conversation skills – employ a range of strategies for note-taking and engaging with sources – learn strategies for drafting and revising your writing – work collaboratively to provide and receive feedback on writing – expand your understanding of your own abilities and challenges as a writer, so that you can continue to improve your writing throughout your studies Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible