Nicole-Program structure and courses – Students earn a minimum of 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.
Each year after the pilot year, we have made program revisions intended to strengthen the student outcomes in preparation for growth. For example, year one [present data] and year two [present data]. Types of revisions which have been made include revising the curriculum for maximum educational and economic efficiency, streamlining assessment and evaluation for communicating outcomes and successes to a wider audience. Adjusting organizational structure to accommodate expanded human capital and resources strategically.
Our projected enrollments, while modest, require considerable foresight and consideration to maintain and manage expectations and engender confidence of stakeholders beyond obvious revenue goal achievement.
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.
This is a high stakes endeavor for everyone involved: students must meet these goals to continue to matriculate, ELI faculty needed clarity on what learning outcomes students were trying to achieve, and content faculty needed clear awareness of how to scaffold assignments in a way that both steadily increased student’s linguistic skillset without compromising course content. As we started thinking about how to streamline the program outcomes and mitigate faculty pedagogical expectations, we recognized that we needed to speak to two issues: (1) academic learning outcomes, (2) linguistic expectations, and (3) student development outcomes. In order to do this, we embarked on a challenging initiative to do academic cross-course alignment and curriculum mapping for all of core courses. Traditional content mapping entails marking the intercepts between learning outcomes and assessment tools (e.g., exams, papers, projects). But we needed to do one level more: (3) map these outcomes to linguistic goals that students were trying to achieve. Generally speaking, the project of integrating 5 scales/rubrics is not easy; we are utilizing the AAC&U Rubrics to help us to benchmark general expectations of student skills which are implicitly stated in the Gen Ed goals, internal learning outcomes such as our Students as Scholars, in addition to CEFR global linguistic skill sets.
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.
Nicole—The first step in this process is to train the faculty. We invite them at the start of the term to provide a program orientation, language expectations, in addition to cultural contexts and educational pedagogical approaches. We’ll discuss each of these in detail on the next few sample slides.
Nicole – We orient the faculty to the context, framework, and goals on which the program is built, creating a common language, set of goals, and vision for the work we are embarking on. Best practice—is the focus of everything that we do. Such an administration and structure format opens and closes the orientation program. We provide a comprehensive handbook and introduce them to all the resources we have available to support them and the ACCESS students.
Anna/Nicole – we orient the faculty to the CEFR proficiency scale, show prior cohorts’ progress according to the scale, provide samples (oral and written) of students’ produced speech at various entrance and exit points on the scale, and then talk about ways to approach corrective feedback as non-language-experts teaching content courses. As you can see from this real slide faculty get to see the power of using CBI to increase student’s linguistic skills.
Anna—We also give faculty background on the cultural and educational differences that our students are brining with them to help contextualize both their students’ strengths and richness as well as some of the classroom management or communication challenges they may face as a result. At the end of our second pilot year though, we have learned that it is most productive to focus our sustainability efforts on the transfer of learning across courses. We have a little time to build a lot of skills, so we want to harness the power of several courses and focus on the depth rather than the breadth of instruction. This focus on transfer is reinforced both at the curricular level through materials and assignment development and at programmatic level through student development initiatives.
Anna – The third prong in our sustainability initiative is our materials development, which emerges from our faculty training and curriculum alignment initiatives. As a result of the other two prongs and of student feedback, we have identified Program-wide, Cross-Course, and Cross-section materials that would facilitate course-alignment and transfer of learning. For example, students have expressed confusion across courses because of the diverse terminology faculty choose to describe the same objective, so the course-coordinators are creating a glossary of terms used in their courses so that faculty across the curriculum are aware of the terminology being used in other courses and can then help students navigate those differences. Another example of materials development is a coded-error feedback chart that course-coordinator are encouraging their faculty to use when they provide language feedback. This system helps reinforce the language instruction and approach happening in the ENGH course and by extension helps students recognize that language learning should be happening in all of their courses and that faculty across the curriculum (the ACCESS curriculum) are all supporting their language proficiency goals. Finally, a third example, is the capstone project which will be a year-long project that students will be working on in each course. The final capstone will be evaluated by a review board consisting of faculty from across the curriculum, language specialists, program administrators, peers and a representative from the Office of Scholarship, Creative Activities and Research. The evaluation rurbric will synthesize all of the skills learned in each of their courses and the outcomes from the five rubrics/scales we described in the beginning of our presentation. Additionally, materials are being developed with an awareness of the students’ diverse language proficiency levels and evolving needs.
Anna– I’ll return to the first slide about the sustainability process briefly, now that we’ve given more background on each of the three prongs, to highlight one cross-section of this ongoing process. In an effort to encourage the transfer of learning across courses, as the ENGH course coordinator, I am working very closely with the Research Methods and American Cultures (another of their core courses) instructor to scaffold our three courses and align them with the SaS rubric/scale. That then feeds into the training of our faculty (teaching the other sections) and results in the development of specific materials to facilitate the process. This not only helps the new faculty learn about the expectations and goals of the program, but also reinforces program standards as the program grows.
Nicole – Engaging in this endeavor is far from rosy; we have had many challenges in trying to establish the needs to get us to this place.It has been essential for us to work collaboratively across divisions and disciplines (example of initial mapping). Most importantly, with the rapid growth of the program and the challenge of bringing in new faculty who need to be trained quickly; the varying levels of language proficiency and educational backgrounds = all materials need to be differentiated and pre-novice v. competent on the SaS scale.
Nicole – a tentative timeline for project draft completion and revision going forward. Outcomes so far…
CAA 2012 Sustaining the Quality of ACCESS
Sustaining the Quality of ACCESS:A Three-Pronged Approach to Faculty and Curriculum Development 2012 CAA Global Education Conference Towson University, Towson, MD June 29, 2012 Anna Habib, English-CISA Nicole Sealey, CISA Karyn Mallett, ELI Where Innovation Is Tradition
ACCESS Program: Highlights Established Fall 2010 “In-House” pathway program to increase international student enrollments Makes use of a language-supported, Content-based instruction model Students admitted as “other” freshman with lower English proficiency scores (88 68) One year full year of academic study Where Innovation Is Tradition
AbstractAs we move from the initial phase of launching university programs forinternational students into the expansion phase, best practices and proceduresfocused on faculty and curriculum development become integral to thesustainability of such initiatives. Now having completed the second year ofthe undergraduate international student program, ACCESS, George Mason’sCenter for International Student Access has prioritized three program aspects:faculty training, materials development, and curriculum alignment. In thissession, presenters will provide an overview of program structure and a modelfor implementing this three-pronged approach to constructing acomprehensive and sustainable foundation in anticipation of future programgrowth. Building on inter-institutional interest in this endeavor, presenterswill share both the highlights and challenges of this process. Where Innovation Is Tradition
ACCESS Program StructureCurricular Co-curricular Enhanced English Composition (6) Advising Public Speaking + Language Support (4) World History + Language Support (4) Peer Support American Cultures (3) Tutoring Introduction to Research Methods (3) Mathematics (3-4) Living Learning Community Freshman Seminar (2) Co-curricular & Major Course(s) (2-4) Grammar of Academic Writing (as Extracurricular Activities needed) (3) Service-Learning Outcomes Self-Efficacy/ Linguistic Skill Academic Performance Acculturation Where Innovation Is Tradition
Program Revisions Course re-sequencing Pilot Year • 21 students from 8 nations Streamlining assessment and • Average Student: program evaluation • Male (76%) • Saudi Arabian (61%) Expanding human capital • Attended Mason ELI (76%) Increasing structure & resources • Retention to Sophomore Year: 71% Communications to internal & • Expected Retention to Junior Year: 50% external stakeholders Flexible reorganization to prepare Year Two for expansion: • 57 students from 14 nations • Infrastructure • Average Student: • Male (78%) • Student Affairs • Saudi Arabian (42%) • Attended Mason ELI • Academic Affairs (49%) • Expected Retention to • Administration Sophomore Year: 85%* • Comparable to general Freshmen retention rate Where Innovation Is Tradition
Growth and Sustainability• Moderately aggressive Year Projected Actual enrollment growth Enrollment Enrollment Headcount Headcount• Continuous 2010-2011 20 22 infrastructure 2011-2012 60 57 evaluation & 2012-2013 80 development 2013-2014 100• Managing expectations 2014-2015 120 among stakeholders Where Innovation Is Tradition
Program Sustainability:A Three-Pronged Approach Curriculum alignment Course Coordinators Faculty Materials training development Where Innovation Is Tradition
Program Sustainability: 1st ProngScales/Rubrics: • CEFR – Listening – Speaking – Reading – Writing – Grammar – Vocabulary • General Education (4 sets) and Students As Scholars (3 categories) – Discovery of Scholarship – Scholarly Inquiry • AAC&U (14 categories) – Creative Thinking – Information Literacy – Written Communication – Reading Where Innovation Is Tradition
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 Where Innovation Is Tradition
Program Sustainability: 2nd Prong Pre-semester Faculty Training Cultural / Program Language Educational Orientation Expectations Background Framework/Context Expectations Transfer of Learning Goals Policies Cross-course Infrastructure Feedback Cross-culture Guidelines Where Innovation Is Tradition
Program Orientation: Sample Training Slide CISA Core Values Section 1.2 (p. 2)1. Students are our primary focus.2. Developing English language proficiency and successful cultural adjustment to Western educational systems are major goals for our students.3. Growth during the first year of collegiate study is a critical process that sets the stage for future success.4. Having high expectations for our students will lead to high achievement.5. Respect and appreciation for all types of diversity is an integral part of our identity. Where Innovation Is Tradition
Language Expectations: Sample Training Slide Where Innovation Is Tradition
Cultural/Education Background: Sample Training Slide Where Innovation Is Tradition
Program Sustainability: 3rd Prong Glossary of shared terminology (program-wide) Pre-reading and post-reading worksheets* (differentiated, but cross-course) Peer review worksheets (cross-course) Coded Error Feedback Chart (program-wide) Capstone assignment (cross-course) Cross-section coursepacks/texts* (e.g. COMM 100) Program-wide coursepack/handbook (e.g. GAW)*Note: Designed to allow for differentiated instruction based onstudents’ evolving needs. Where Innovation Is Tradition
Example: Transfer of Learning(ENGH 121/122 – Research Methods – American Cultures) Curriculum alignment SaS (3 categories) Discovery of Scholarship Scholarly Inquiry Materials development Faculty Glossary of shared training terminology Coded Error Feedback Transfer of Learning Chart Course and Capstone assignments Assignment Design Where Innovation Is Tradition
Challenges Working collaboratively across divisions and disciplines to develop: • Clear vision for outcomes • Discipline-specific resources/leadership for new faculty • Complex curriculum-mapping to include discipline & linguistic learning outcomes Flexible multicultural pedagogy Effectively engaging future qualified faculty Where Innovation Is Tradition
Looking ForwardSelection of Course Coordinators/Curriculum Development Committee FormatSummer 2012: • Complete basic curriculum map for all courses • Complete linguistic scaffolding plan for Fall content-based courses • Establish cross-course links/assignments among fall coursesFall 2012: • Complete three-dimensional curriculum mapping project (for each course) • Complete linguistic scaffolding plan for Spring content-based courses • Establish cross-course links/assignments among spring courses • Drafting Annual Report Curriculum Content DescriptionsSpring 2012: • GE Benchmark selection • Complete YE Course reports for all classes • Assess program outcomes • Develop protocol for curriculum revisionsFall 2013: • Review program outcomes and curriculum Where Innovation Is Tradition
Thank you! Nicole Sealey To access a copy of this Director, CISA firstname.lastname@example.org presentation, please visit: Anna S. Habib Assistant Professor, English http://cisa.gmu.edu/researchEnglish Course Coordinator and New Faculty Leader, CISA email@example.com Karyn Mallett Assistant Director, English Language InstituteLanguage Resource Coordinator, CISA firstname.lastname@example.org Where Innovation Is Tradition