Here is the presentation shared at the first meeting

1. Proposed Model for KCC
ESL Program
and Developmental English
Eileen Ferretti - Chair
Natasha Lvovich & Gabrielle Kahn
ESL Program Co-Directors
Sylviane Baumflek, Ronna J. Levy, Christine Rudisel,
Developmental English Program Co-Directors

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. Current Program
Placement Practices
Students 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 above
Students 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. Current Program Emphasis:
Multiple-Draft, Reading-Based Essays
Objectives 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 Exam
ESL Students assessed for L2 fluency, academic literacy, and
mechanical competence
Students with no ESL designation assessed for reading and
writing competence (combined departmental and university
measures)

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. New Model – Interleveled ESL Program
Semester 1, Fall
Intensive Learning Community
ESL with redesigned reading-based curriculum
Content Course, Speech, Integrative Language Seminar, SD, Tutoring
No R grade option
Semester 2, Spring
Continued Learning Community
ESL and Speech, with possibility of civic engagement component
Students select additional content courses
CATW and ACT R administered
Students move to next English or ESL experience based on scores

7. New Model – Developmental English Program
English 92
Module 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 Exam
Module 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 administered
Module 3 (Summer/Winter Intensive for Repeaters)
• Offer intensive reading instruction and CUNY ACT Reading preparation
• ACT R administered

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. Developing Curriculum and Assessment
ESL Program
Winter 2012— Design Practicum for participating Intensive Program faculty
Spring 2012—Facilitate biweekly study group to bridge theory/praxis gap in Second
Language Acquisition/TESOL
Summer 2012 –Week-long retreat to design linked curricula
Fall 2012—Pilot and monitor new configuration in 2 ESL links
Developmental English Program – English 92
Winter 2012 – Design Practicum for English 92 instructors
Spring 2012 – Facilitate a 2 hour weekly Practicum for English 92 instructors
Fall 2012 – Pilot and monitor new configuration of English 92
Developmental English Program – English 93
Summer 2012 – Designing Practicum for ALP Instructors
Fall 2012 – Facilitate a 2 hour weekly Practicum for ALP Instructors
Fall 2012 - Pilot and monitor ALP

10. References
Bartholomae, 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.