Students, faculty, and staff in ESL and ELIP noted that personal and background characteristics can both help or hinder student success in college programs. First, family and work responsibilities were thought to generally hinder student college success: faculty indicated that absences are relatively common among students who have children and are single mothers. Faculty also shared that every semester they lose at least one student because of “personal needs or concerns.” Students in ELIP describe the challenges associated with having to balance their ELIP responsibilities with work and family. Consistently, students who shared that they balanced these responsibilities noted being “tired” as a result. This affected how much out-of class time they could devote to their program responsibilities as well as their energy levels in-class. A young male student who helps his uncle with his business describes this experience in the following way: “I work after I get off here. When I get home I am so tired. I fall asleep reading. Trying to work and do the program is hard." Similarly, an older student who works as a pizza maker describes his experience as follows:
Work is not easy for me. I work from 6 to 12 or 1. Then I sleep for 5 or 6 hours. Then wake up at 6… I wake up crazy because I have to go to school. Sometimes in class I fall asleep. It is not easy… [I] try to do many things [i.e. homework] on weekends… when I don’t have work.
The latter quote illustrates how students do their best to use time off to catch up on their out-of class program responsibilities. It also illustrates that when in class, performance may also be affected by the sleepiness and fatigue that comes as a result of balancing multiple
responsibilities. Interestingly, students in the traditional ESL sequence did not speak about balancing school, work, and family responsibilities—this is possibly a result of the lower in-class time commitment required.
Participants also shed light on the influence of prior educational experience on college success. In particular, they described differences arising among those who were educated in
United States compared to those who were educated in foreign schools. First, faculty note that students themselves have said that the rigor of an education acquired in a foreign high school is higher than that acquired in New York City. In particular, one faculty shares that students feel that “foreign schools were much stricter…they were pushed much more than the students who go to high school here, especially [in] math and science.” Faculty members share that many of their U.S. educated students may be immigrants coming to the U.S. when they were in ninth or tenth grade—so “they are coming with not just ESL problems, but literacy problems too” – noting they generally do not read or write well. The experience of a recent New York City public high school graduate in ELIP provides a window into why this might be when he says: “[in ELIP] we do a lot of reading. In my high school, we read no books. Here we read all the time.” This finding
suggests that that English language learners coming from U.S. high schools are not being prepared for the academic and linguistic demands of college. This has been well documented by the literature on linguistic minorities in secondary education (Callahan, 2005; Callahan, et. al, 2009; Gándara & Contreras, 2008; Gándara & Rumberger, 2009; Nuñez & Sparks, 2012).
Finally, faculty and staff also noted that age might influence students’ college success. Particularly, faculty members feel that older students are more “driven,” “serious,” and “mature.” For these students, they say, what usually gets in the way is their need work or the feeling that they are too old for school. Younger students, on the other hand, tend to be more immature and still in the “high school mentality.” These younger students may not always “take school
seriously.” One ESL faculty noted that younger students “don’t understand college yet. It takes them a little while… [for them] it’s a social scene.” These quotes provide insight into how age might play a role on college student success—age can either help or hinder. For older students, the effect can potentially be mixed—while they are thought to be more “driven,” “serious,” and
“mature” they are also more likely to be affected by increased constraints on their time, for example by needing to balance work with school. Finally, while faculty perceived that younger students may not yet fully understand how to be a college student—quantitative findings indicate that over the longer term younger students may possess certain characteristics (possibly fewer restrictions on time) that enable them to close the gap in college credits and drop out at lower rates than their peers who began in the traditional ESL.
Limitations
The qualitative phase of this study contains certain limitations, including those common to qualitative research methodology and others that are inherent in the research design. Careful though and consideration was given to ways in which these limitations could be minimized.
The most prominent limitation inherent in the research design lies in the fact that that the data collected relied heavily on retrospection. First, qualitative data is being collected in 2012 to help explain quantitative results from cohorts of students who participated in the programs between 2001 and 2005. It is possible that there existed both internal and external conditions that impacted outcomes during this time period that a staff member, faculty, or student in 2012 would not be able to reflect upon. For those participating in 2001, for example, it is possible that the attacks of September 11 impacted the programming, curriculum, or the degree to which students could engage. In 2001, LUCCS also implemented a series of policies that affected enrollment at its two and four-year colleges. Namely, its 11 senior colleges were no longer going to offer remediation—meaning that all students who did not place into college level English or math needed to first fulfill remedial requirements at a LUCCS community college. While there were concerns that this change would affect racial/ethnic minorities and non-native English speakers,
it is not likely that this policy change directly affected students placing into the lowest levels of remediation or ESL. Nevertheless, it is possible that the campus may have changed in ways that we cannot observe due to the presence of a group of students who may otherwise have entered a LUCCS four-year college.
It is also possible that ELIP and traditional ESL programming may have changed over time. While the program descriptions and course offerings, as evidenced by the interviews and college catalogs, have generally remained consistent over time, one must keep this limitation in mind. To help lessen this potential limitation, I was fortunate to speak with faculty members who had been involved with the program since its inception. In ELIP, the faculty member who had been with the program for 17 years noted that most changes to the program have been related to its increasing size and the students served (more Asian students); the core of the curriculum, a content-based approach with experiences in the field, has remained the consistent over time. For traditional ESL, I spoke with the department chair that helped found the traditional ESL program almost 40 years ago. She noted that over time, one of the major trends has been that students have come in knowing much more English than before—she hypothesized this could possibly be due to increased exposure to English in their communities and their home countries via television and the internet.
The small sample size represents another limitation of the study. The restricted sample size limits the possibility of generalizing this study to other groups and other programs. Relatedly, the data was only collected at one of the six LUCCS community colleges. It is
possible that student, staff, and faculty perceptions as they related to the research questions might have been different had the data been collected at one of the other colleges. One of the clearest differences may arise from the fact that the selected site held ELIP at an offsite location, while
the other colleges held ELIP on the college campus. Similarly, the ESL and developmental reading sequences also vary by campus and in some campuses, the ESL writing feeds into college English, while in others it does not. Therefore, findings from this qualitative work be most transferrable to campuses where developmental reading and ESL writing are offered as separate sequences and where ESL writing feeds into college English.
Further, remembering that the human factor is both a weakness and strength of qualitative data collection and analysis, I recognize that there is also a subjective aspect to the assertions made regarding the meaning of the data. To address this concern and to strengthen the credibility and reliability of the research, I triangulated methods (quantitative and qualitative) and sources (student, faculty, staff, documents), and discussed findings with colleagues.
Finally, as was noted in Finding 3, it is also important to keep in mind that it is possible that the students participating in the focus group are among the most motivated individuals and thus may not be representative of the traditional ESL or ELIP students. However, the
perceptions of these students are extremely helpful, nonetheless. Much can be learned from the perceptions of motivated students—as what helps and hinders their academic progress can potentially help illuminate ways to help others. For instance, findings suggest the role of professors is an important factor influencing student success; those who do not persist may be the group most affected by negative experiences with professors—this finding would imply that more attention needs to be devoted to ensure that faculty are patient and aware of the needs of ELL students.
Discussion
This chapter presented findings from a qualitative exploration of how ELLs seeking postsecondary education at a Large Urban Community College acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities they need to be successful in college programs. Keeping in mind the limitations discussed, these findings provide only suggestive evidence of how the ESL pathways may influence college success.
In summary, qualitative findings confirm that the primary method for identifying students for participation in ELIP and the traditional ESL sequence is their performance on their writing placement exam. This finding was highly significant because it provides additional support for the quantitative sample restrictions made in Phase 1 of this study. Findings also suggest that null impacts on college English enrollment and performance could be partially explained by the finding suggesting that both ESL pathways at the participating college provide students a similar instructional experience. Particularly, this qualitative inquiry found that both pathways use parallel approaches to teaching academic English language and literacy skills: both use a thematic/content based approach and emphasize the teaching of reading, writing and grammar concurrently.
Findings also suggest that negative impacts on college credit completion may be due to the programs’ respective college enrollment experience. First, the inability to access college course while enrolled in ELIP provide an explanation for why ELIP students experience consistent and significant negative impacts in their accumulation of college credits. Upon reaching the two top levels of traditional ESL, students in the sequence have access to a limited array of college courses. Faculty, staff, and students in the traditional ESL sequence all spoke of the benefits of taking advantage of these offerings: they challenge students, make them more
confident in their English skills and helps students develop their listening skills. Second, the structure leading to college English at several LUCCS community colleges works to effectively make the road to college level longer for students placing into the lowest levels of traditional ESL—some colleges require that students failing the reading exam also complete an entirely separate remedial reading sequence; additionally, lengthy ESL sequences can be made even longer if they do not feed into college level English.
Differences in persistence and drop out as well as differences for subgroups are found to be partially explained by the activities and interactions that are fostered by a high intensity program. First, the sole experience of participating and being successful in an intensive program is in itself indicative of a students’ ability to balance school and outside responsibilities—giving ELIP students a possible advantage once they do transition into college coursework. Also, having higher amounts of contact hours enables faculty to more fully cover the material in class; it allows faculty to provide tutoring, feedback, and other support during the class time; and also facilitates the incorporation of activities like class fieldtrips to expose students to the opportunity to create knowledge in spaces outside of the classroom. Additionally, ELIP faculty and students also spoke highly of their ability to establish relationships at an academic and personal level.
Further, differences in college credits accrued by older versus younger students may be partly explained by differences in opportunity cost higher between these groups. For older students, the negative impact on college credits earned is significant after three and five years, while for younger students this gap fades after five years. The greater restrictions in older students’ time effectively make the cost of learning English higher. In particular, older students’ in this study tended to have more time constraints due to competing family and work obligations which in turn may lead to the accumulation of fewer college credits if they also enroll in college
on a part-time basis. Younger students on the other, hand may be faced with fewer constraints on their time enabling them to progress through college quicker than their older peers. Likewise, younger students and by definition generation 1.5 students, are more likely to have had prior exposure to English while in high school (although it may not have been the best quality) their enrollment in ELIP provided them with a second chance at acquiring the academic language and literacy skills needed to be successful in college.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This purpose of this study was to analyze quantitative administrative data and use qualitative data to examine how ELLs seeking postsecondary education acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities they need to be successful in college programs. It did so by exploring the role of two ESL pathways at a Large Urban Community College System (LUCCS): (1) the English Language Immersion Program and (2) the traditional ESL sequence. It is expected that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations emerging from this study will contribute to an improved understanding of the college outcomes and experiences of ELLs. This final chapter provides a discussion of the major findings and conclusions drawn from the research and ends by providing recommendations for research and practice.
Overview of Main Findings
Chapter 4 presented findings from the first phase of the explanatory mixed methods design: a quantitative analysis that addressed a gap in the literature on the effect of academic ESL pathways on college outcomes. In this first phase, I addressed student self-selection into ESL pathways by exploiting a rich longitudinal administrative dataset and by employing a propensity score matching approach. Specifically, for students placing into the lowest levels of ESL, I examined the effect of participating in the English Language Immersion Program versus participating in the traditional ESL sequence on college English enrollment and performance, credit accumulation, and college progression and degree outcomes. Due the high level of
diversity among the sample, this study also explored impact heterogeneity by gender, race/ethnicity, age, and immigrant generational status.
Chapter 5 presented findings from the second, qualitative phase of the explanatory mixed methods design. This phase of the study was conducted as a follow up to the quantitative results to help explain the quantitative results. One of the six LUCCS community colleges was selected for participation in the qualitative phase. At the college, interviews with ELIP and traditional ESL faculty and staff as well as focus groups interviews with current and former ELIP and ESL students were conducted to better understand student’s motivation for engagement in ELIP and the traditional ESL sequence. The interviews also explored how the ELIP and traditional ESL sequence components—such as the program design, structure, and curriculum—might influence program impact. Student focus group interviews with former program participants also provided information relating to their perceptions of how their respective ESL pathway influenced their preparedness for college programs. Faculty, staff, and students also reflected on how other factors help or hinder success in college.
The first major finding of this study is that there is no evidence that participation in ELIP versus traditional ESL leads to significant impacts on college English course-taking and
performance. The only exception was for male ELIP participants: after five years, male students who participated in ELIP versus traditional ESL were 6 percentage points more likely to take college English. Qualitative findings suggest that null impacts may be a result of the existence of important similarities in the skills taught and the approach used to help students acquire the skills needed for success in college courses. Findings also suggest that males may have experienced improved outcomes by participating in ELIP if the program functioned as a space that facilitated the development of more meaningful relationships with faculty and peers—this may have
happened for example, if this situation helped male students become more engaged with their education by seeking and receiving supplemental support or if they received assistance in coping with non-academic issues which may have otherwise negatively influenced their outcomes. The latter finding is especially important given that males are typically underrepresented in higher education. A conclusion that can be drawn from these findings is that both ESL pathways at LUCCS provide students with similar opportunities to acquire the skills needed to be successful in college English. In addition, ELIP may be providing males with enhanced opportunities to acquire both academic and non-academic skills that further support their college success.
The second major finding was that for the full sample and across most subgroups, students who participate in ELIP versus traditional ESL earn significantly fewer equated credits over three and five years. These findings suggest participation in ELIP instead of traditional ESL is contributing to students spending less time on remedial coursework. A major conclusion from