Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Power point presentation(1)


Published on

Here is the presentation shared at the first meeting

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Power point presentation(1)

  1. 1. Proposed Model for KCC ESL Program and Developmental English Eileen Ferretti - Chair Natasha Lvovich & Gabrielle Kahn ESL Program Co-DirectorsSylviane Baumflek, Ronna J. Levy, Christine Rudisel, Developmental English Program Co-Directors
  2. 2. Rationale for Change at all Levels• Change in student demographics and learning needs• Lack of academic readiness/literacy, in particular, reading fluency• Mix of generation 1.5, recent immigrants, second dialect, and other bilingual variables• Wide-ranging discrepancies in language acquisitions and literacies – the “one room school house” phenomenon• Placement system not able to capture range of students’ abilities and educational histories• Multiple repeaters and a “culture of failure” at every level of the sequence• Faculty fatigue
  3. 3. Current Program Placement PracticesStudents with ESL designation place into one of three levels.• ESL 07--CATW 21-32, any ACT Reading score• ESL 09--CATW 33-47, ACT Reading score: 50 and below• ESL 91--CATW 33-47, ACT Reading score: 50 and aboveStudents with no ESL designation• English 91 – CATW 33-47, ACT Reading score: 50-54• English 92—CATW 48-55, ACT Reading score: 55-69• English 93 – CATW 48-55, ACT Reading score: 70+
  4. 4. Current Program Emphasis: Multiple-Draft, Reading-Based EssaysObjectives for all courses align with English 12/24• Writing portfolio: reading-based, academic essays• Departmental reading exams requiring analysis, synthesis, and vocabulary abilities• CUNY ACT Reading Exam• CATW ExamESL Students assessed for L2 fluency, academic literacy, and mechanical competenceStudents with no ESL designation assessed for reading and writing competence (combined departmental and university measures)
  5. 5. New Model Integrate at lower levels Accelerate at upper levels Reconfiguration of the learning experience based on students’ academic needs Highlight extensive reading and low stakes writing, while building toward more formal academic writing• ESL- One year/two full semesters required• English 92 – Full semester divided into two six-week modules plus optional summer/winter accelerated reading bridge• English 93 – CATW 48-55, ACT Reading score: 70-80• English 93 /English 12 plus supplemental instruction - Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) – CATW 48-55, ACT Reading score: 80+
  6. 6. New Model – Interleveled ESL ProgramSemester 1, FallIntensive Learning CommunityESL with redesigned reading-based curriculumContent Course, Speech, Integrative Language Seminar, SD, TutoringNo R grade optionSemester 2, SpringContinued Learning CommunityESL and Speech, with possibility of civic engagement componentStudents select additional content coursesCATW and ACT R administeredStudents move to next English or ESL experience based on scores
  7. 7. New Model – Developmental English Program English 92Module 1 (weeks 1-6)• Engage in extensive reading: varied genres, low-stakes writing, literacy acquisition activities with possibility of civic engagement component• Provide intense preparation for the CUNY ACT Reading ExamModule 2 (weeks 7-12)• Increase length and complexity of writing tasks moving to formal, multiple-draft essays• Provide intense preparation: CUNY ACT Reading Exam and Departmental Final exams• Integrate CATW with classroom practices• CATW and ACT R administeredModule 3 (Summer/Winter Intensive for Repeaters)• Offer intensive reading instruction and CUNY ACT Reading preparation• ACT R administered
  8. 8. New Model – Developmental English Program English 93 / 12– Accelerated Learning Project (ALP)• Place selected students (ACT Reading score 80+) into English 12 with supplemental instruction• Administer CATW at midterm and end of term – Students who pass CATW and English 12 advance to English 24 – Students who do not pass CATW at end of term take English W and get credit for English 12 upon passing the exam
  9. 9. Developing Curriculum and AssessmentESL ProgramWinter 2012— Design Practicum for participating Intensive Program facultySpring 2012—Facilitate biweekly study group to bridge theory/praxis gap in Second Language Acquisition/TESOLSummer 2012 –Week-long retreat to design linked curriculaFall 2012—Pilot and monitor new configuration in 2 ESL linksDevelopmental English Program – English 92Winter 2012 – Design Practicum for English 92 instructorsSpring 2012 – Facilitate a 2 hour weekly Practicum for English 92 instructorsFall 2012 – Pilot and monitor new configuration of English 92Developmental English Program – English 93Summer 2012 – Designing Practicum for ALP InstructorsFall 2012 – Facilitate a 2 hour weekly Practicum for ALP InstructorsFall 2012 - Pilot and monitor ALP
  10. 10. ReferencesBartholomae, David, and Anthony Petrosky. Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts: Theory And Method for a Reading and Writing Course. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1986.Braunger, Jane, and Jan Patricia Lewis. Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; Newark, DE: International Reading Association. (October 1997). ERIC. 1 July 2010.Falk-Ross, Francine C. “Toward the New Literacy: Changes in College Students’ Reading Comprehension Strategies Following Reading/Writing Projects.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 45.4 (Dec 2001/Jan2002): 278-88. EBSCOhost. 3 July 2005.Hatch, E., & Hawkins, B. (1987). Second-language acquisition: An experiential approach. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 241-283). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Jolliffe, David A. and Allison Harl. “Texts of Our Institutional Lives: Studying the ‘Reading Transition’ From High School to College: What Are Our Students Reading and Why?” College English 70.6 (2008): 599-617.Keene, Ellin Oliver and Susan Zimmerman. Mosaic of Thought, The Power of Comprehension Strategy Instruction 2nd edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2007.Ketch, Ann. “Conversation: The Comprehension Connection” The Reading Teacher. 59.1 Sept. 2005): 8-13. JSTOR. 6 May 2011.Langer, Judith A. and Elizabeth Close. “Improving Literary Understanding Through Classroom Conversation.” Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. ERIC. 1 July 2010.Office of Research and Analysis. National Endowment for the Arts. To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence. Washington DC, 2007.---. National Endowment for the Arts. Reading at risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America. Washington DC, 2002. ---. National Endowment for the Arts Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, 2008.Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491.Rosenblatt, Louise. The Reader The Text The Poem The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern IL UP, 1978.van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.