Internationalization, WAC, and L2 Writers tesol vfinal

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

Abstract
In this presentation, data and implications derived
from a mixed-method longitudinal research
project on undergraduate L2 writers are presented
in order to substantiate the claim that small, high-
profile programs can provide institutional space
and incentive to build a WAC-like, ESL-ready
curriculum to support a growing body of
linguistically-diverse L2 writers.


K. Mallett & Zgheib, G. (To appear). Campus Internationalization: A
Center-based Model for ESL-ready Programs. In M. Cox & T. Zawacki
(eds.) WAC and Second Language Writers: Research towards
Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices. Digital
Book Series, WAC Clearinghouse. Urbana, NCTE.

CAMPUS
INTERNATIONALIZATION:
A CENTER-BASED MODEL FOR
ESL-READY PROGRAMS


Figure 2. Ten year Overall International Enrollment at Mason


Center for International Student Access
(CISA)
ACCESS BRIDGE
Provisionally admitted Provisionally admitted
freshman graduate students
Mostly general education EAP courses + graduate
courses + language support - courses – (18-21 credits)
28 credits
Comprehensive first-year Introduction to graduate study
experience and professionalization
Includes language, advising, Includes language, advising,
and acculturation to US and acculturation to US
education system education system


ACCESS Student Language Goals


ACCESS Program Structure
Curricular 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
Acculturation

ACCESS Enrollment Data
Year Projected Actual
Enrollment Enrollment
Headcount Headcount

2010-2011 20 22

2011-2012 60 57

2012-2013 ---- 90
80

2013-2014 100 125
----

2014-2015 120 150
----


Team: TESOL/Applied Linguistics + Composition + WAC

ENGLISH 121/122: ENHANCED
ENGLISH COMPOSITION


“ESL-ready”  Curriculum Building Process
ENGLISH 121/122

AAC&U ENGH ??? Lang
QEP-SaS 101 Program
Gen Ed Course CEFR
WAC Goals B2

Team: TESOL/Applied Linguistics + COMM

COMM 100 + PROV 103


COMM 100/PROV 103

AAC&U COMM ??? Lang
Gen Ed 100 Program
Course CEFR
Goals B2

Team: TESOL/Applied Linguistics + HIST

HIST 125+ PROV 104


HIST 125/PROV 104

AAC&U HIST ??? Lang
Gen Ed 125 Program
Course CEFR
Goals B2

“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.”


Disseminating “ESL Ready” Across
the Curriculum


WAC, L2 Writing, and ESL/Applied Linguistics specialists
collaboration
Task 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 Courses

Providing students with a wide variety of co-curricular, extra-
curricular, and complementary programming, including
ACCESS-specific student and faculty orientations, Peer
Learning Partners, academic advisors, cultural excursions,
Living Learning Community activities, etc.   
Development of new content-based English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) curricula/materials to support two general
education courses (PROV 104 to support World History and
PROV 103 to support Public Speaking) specifically for
ACCESS students. 
Development and revisions of co-taught, stretched, and
enhanced English 121-122 specifically for ACCESS students.
  
Hiring, staffing, and observations of all ACCESS faculty.*

   
Conducting training sessions for CISA faculty across the
disciplines on approaches to written feedback on multilingual
writers’ 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 major
curricular and programmatic changes (e.g., Curriculum
Committee, Language Acquisition Committee, Advisory
   
Committee, etc.). Innovative – Diverse - Entrepreneurial - Accessible

Faculty and Student Perceptions of Writing Expectations

THE RESEARCH PROJECT


Research Questions
1) 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?

Participants
Students Faculty
18 undergraduate 7 faculty members
91% international classification 1 History, 1 Communication, 1
70% male Anthropology, 1 Higher
59% Gulf region Education, 1 English, 2
TESOL/AL
70% spoke Arabic as L1 4/7 no prior formal pedagogical
48% former IEP students training
35% 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


Data Collected
Data Collection Number of Frequency of
Participants data collection
Student interviews 18 3
Faculty interviews 4 1
Student surveys 22 14
Faculty surveys 7 14
Classroom observations 5 4
Samples of student writing 21 3
Samples of faculty feedback on student writing 21 3

Student focus groups 21 3
Student entrance, mid-year, and exit language 21 3
proficiency tests


Benefits & Challenges for Faculty
Teaching 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


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 you're 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
[accuracy].” (End of the year interview)

Emerging Awareness of L2 Writer
Needs
“Frankly [teaching in ACCESS] was more work that I’m
used to. I don’t mind that, but that’s the difficult part. I
mean, I had more students turning in drafts of papers.
I’ve always had a policy where students could turn in
drafts, but frankly, American students turn in maybe
10%. But these kids, some of these kids were turning in
three or four drafts each. I was [also] trying to put more
into the organizational clarity of the course, and it was
work. I think it was good for me to have that, so I’m not
complaining, but it was work.”


Benefits to ACCESS Students of a
Language-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


2010-2012 ACCESS Proficiency
2010-2011 INCOMING ACCESS 2010-2011 OUTGOING ACCESS 2011-2012 INCOMING ACCESS
2011-2012 OUTGOING ACCESS 2012-2013 INCOMING ACCESS

30
28
26
24
22
# of students

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
A1 A1+ A2 A2+ B1 B1+ B2 B2+ C1 C2

CEFR Level

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.”


Implications
Program 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 population
L2 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

Internationalization Opens Doors to
Innovative Curricula & Programs for L2
Writers
“In the end, by working together on these smaller
programs designed specifically for recruited multilingual
students who generally pay high tuitions and for whom
the university is strategically invested, there is potential to
establish a well-connected team of writing experts and an
ESL-ready model program structure that is
comprehensive, realistic, and transferrable to other
contexts across the university. Further, the institutional
energy that goes into developing these programs should
open the door to wider conversations about the language
and writing needs of multilingual students across
campus.”


References
Bevis, 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.cfm
Ferris, 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, 6-23
Haworth, 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.pdf
McLeod, 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-curriculum
programs (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.cfm
Thaiss, 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

Thank you!

SLIDES AVAILABLE AT
http://cisa.gmu.edu/2013/03/tesol1/

Nicole Sealey
Director, CISA
nsealey@gmu.edu

Karyn Mallett
Assistant Director, English Language Institute
Assistant Director, Language Development, CISA
kmallet1@gmu.edu

Anna S. Habib
English Course Coordinator and New Faculty Leader, CISA
ahabib@gmu.edu

Ghania Zgheib
Core Instructor/English, Acad Purposes Specialist, English Language Institute
gzgheib@gmu.edu


REFERENCE SLIDES


Program Sustainability: A Three-
Pronged Approach

Curriculum
alignment

Course
Coordinators

Faculty Materials
training development


Program Sustainability: 1st Prong

Scales/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

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


Internationalization, WAC, and L2 Writers tesol vfinal

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à Internationalization, WAC, and L2 Writers tesol vfinal

Similaire à Internationalization, WAC, and L2 Writers tesol vfinal (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Internationalization, WAC, and L2 Writers tesol vfinal

Notes de l'éditeur