Course taking patterns of latino ESL students mobility and mainstreaming in urban community colleges in the united states

Course-Taking Patterns of Latino ESL Students: Mobility and Mainstreaming in Urban Community Colleges in the United States ARIA RAZFAR University of Illinois Chicago, Illinois, United States JENNY SIMON El Camino Community College Torrance, California, United States In most Western countries where English is the medium of instruction, there is a substantial gap in student success between immigrant English as a second language (ESL) students and non-ESL students In the United States, this situation has been observed in particular with Latino ESL students This article describes a longitudinal study of two cohorts of Latino ESL students and compares the success of students who mainstreamed into college-level content courses and those who did not More specifically, drawing on quantitative transcript analysis and focus group discussions, this study examines several factors impacting the mobility of Latino ESL students in a large urban community college district in the United States The qualitative analysis focused on several themes including challenges to navigating the curriculum, the significant role of ESL in providing opportunities to use English, and the supportive role of instructors The quantitative analysis focused on mainstreaming, enrollment patterns, and success measures, including grade point average (GPA) and course-completion ratio The findings suggest that students who mainstream earlier or concurrently enroll in content level courses are more successful in terms of course completion and GPA Implications of the study are discussed in relation to placement, instruction, and further areas of research Although the ESL programs and the linguistic-minority population of this study are located in the United States, the issues raised and lessons learned can enrich the broader international conversation surrounding language minority education doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.268060 Co-Authors listed in alphabetical order TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 45, No 4, December 2011 595 he American community college serves as an important entry point for millions of students who would otherwise not have had the chance to go to college This is the case even more so for groups that have not traditionally attended college, including minority groups such as African-Americans, Latinos, immigrants, and working-class students The modern American community college is characterized by its low tuition, open enrollment, and multifaceted mission, including preparation for transfer to a university, vocational training, and basic skills instruction (Cohen & Brawer, 2003) The state of California contains the most institutions of higher education of any state in the United States, including the most community colleges, currently with 110 of these institutions The study described here draws on transcript and demographic data from one of the largest urban, Latino districts in the state Given the importance of the community college for Latino immigrant students, this study sought to understand the role of credit English as a second language (ESL) in the retention, persistence, and success of Latino immigrant students The focus on credit ESL (that is, courses for which students receive academic credit), rather than non-credit ESL, stems from prevailing patterns of transfer to the university system Noncredit ESL programs, although extremely important in providing survival skills in American society, are not specifically designed to provide students with the tools necessary to succeed academically in regular higher education programs Given the dearth of research on Latino ESL course-taking patterns in community college credit ESL programs, the research described in this article was an exploratory, descriptive, and longitudinal study of two cohorts of Latino ESL students using student transcripts obtained directly from the district; in addition, focus group discussions of selfselected participants were conducted to further enrich the findings This article examines the broader historical context for Latino ESL educational trajectories, reviews factors impacting Latino ESL success, including the critical role of English language proficiency, provides quantitative analysis of transcript data and qualitative analysis of focus group discussions, and concludes with a discussion of implications for placement, instruction, and further research The questions guiding this study are the following: T 596 How the Latino ESL students begin their educational trajectory? Do the Latino ESL students succeed in their goals? How they meet these goals (i.e., what enrollment patterns are evident)? What factors affect students’ progress? How these enrollment patterns affect the students’ level of success? TESOL QUARTERLY HISTORICAL CONTEXT: LATINOS AND THE EDUCATIONAL PIPELINE The California postsecondary system, otherwise known as the California Master Plan for Higher Education, is a three-tier system — University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and community colleges—and is amongst the most robust and coherent systems of higher education in the world intended to provide equal access to all.1 The UC serves as the primary research institution for the state and selects the top eighth of the graduating high-school seniors, and the CSU selects the top third, whereas the community colleges are open access for any student who can benefit from them In other words, the community colleges operate as open admissions institutions Latinos are the fastest growing demographic represented in the precollege (i.e., grades K–12) setting, constituted nearly 50% of the K–12 enrollment in 2005, and are projected to surpass that mark in the next decade (California Department of Finance, 2000) However, they are significantly underrepresented at all levels of higher education (Ornelas & Solorzano, 2004) With most Latinos concentrated in the community college (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2007), it is important to examine how this group of students proceeds and advances through the community college as it relates to the transfer function of the community colleges, because these colleges serve as the principal gateway to success in higher education at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels Although a large percentage of students aspire to ´ lvarez, & Solo´rzano, transfer, only a handful actually does (Rivas, Pe´rez, A 2007) According to California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) data (2004), only out of 100 first-time Latino college students transfer to either a CSU (6) or a UC (1) Although every stage of the pipeline (i.e., the way students proceed through the curriculum) is critical to examining questions of success and achievement, and the factors impacting persistence are multiple and complex, the focus of this analysis is on where most Latino students begin their higher education: at the community college THE FIRST STOP IN THE COLLEGE PIPELINE: THE ROLE OF CREDIT ESL AT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE As the first stop in the pipeline, which for only a minority of students ends with graduation from a university, community college credit ESL courses play the unenviable role of gatekeeper to the rest of the See University of California Office of the President (2009) for more information on the California Master Plan for higher education COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 597 curriculum It is assumed that English language learners need the skills and knowledge attained in credit ESL courses in order to succeed in the rest of the curriculum and overcome all the hurdles in the pipeline Thus, students take these courses to prepare for regular college courses After credit ESL, students must pass English 101 (or first year composition), college-level math, as well as other lower-division content courses in order to prepare for the next hurdle: transferring to a university Thus, credit ESL plays a major role in leading students toward success in college Given the importance of these courses, there is a tremendous need to better understand the role of credit ESL in preparing students for success in higher education and beyond (Crandall & Sheppard, 2004; Kuo, 2000) This issue is particularly problematic because of the diversity of students who enroll in ESL courses ESL may play differing roles in a student’s educational trajectory, depending on the educational background of the student who enrolls in the course If a student’s educational background includes graduation from high school and even some college, then ESL operates primarily as a foreign language course—the student may have reading and writing skills in his or her own language but just need help with carrying these skills over to English; however, if a student’s educational background does not include graduation from high school (if he or she is an adult), or the student’s education was interrupted to immigrate to the United States (generation 1.5), then ESL might play the dual role of a foreign language course and a developmental course— not only strengthening the student’s English, but also his or her academic skills, mostly in the areas of reading and writing (Ignash, 1996; Mellissinos, 1993) Thus, ESL instructors have the particularly difficult job of figuring out how to meet the needs of all their students, when students of such diverse backgrounds may be contained in one class This goes against the common assumption that ESL students are a monolithic population; instead, ESL students are a large, hugely diverse population in terms of educational background and economic and social status, among other factors (Echevarria, Short, & Vogt, 2004; Gerardi, 1996) These days, ESL is starting to be recognized for its special role in serving such a diverse population of students and is considered a special type of developmental program In the past, ESL has been included with foreign language courses (Ignash, 1994; Mellissinos, 1993); however, ESL has slowly come to be recognized for the very large role it plays not only in teaching English, but also in improving the academic skills of immigrant students For example, California’s Basic Skills Initiative (Center for Student Success and the RP Group, 2007), a new initiative to inform California community colleges of best practices in teaching and provide support and funding for community colleges to adopt these best 598 TESOL QUARTERLY practices on their campuses, includes ESL under basic skills, with this caveat: The inclusion of English as a Second Language in this definition recognizes that all ESL is not, by definition, subsumed under basic skills To the extent that a student is unable to succeed in college-level coursework due to inability to speak, read, write or comprehend English, ESL skills may be considered as foundation skills in accordance with the definition (p and see footnote 2) Thus, this perspective acknowledges that whether ESL is a ‘‘basic skill’’ depends on the ability and background of individual students This report goes on to recognize the dual role of ESL, in that instructors not only ‘‘[assist] in English language acquisition’’ but also ‘‘[teach] basic literacy skills’’ (p 47) Other authors have also recognized the role of ESL in teaching students how to effectively navigate the academic environment (Gerardi, 1996; Kuo, 2000), thus adding an additional layer to the complexity of ESL instruction It stands to reason, then, that ESL students with weak educational backgrounds, as many Latino students have, will struggle more than those with stronger educational backgrounds.2 Thus, as most community college programs are set up now, student success in ESL is necessary for success in other parts of the curriculum MAIN FACTORS IMPACTING SUCCESS OF LATINO STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE PIPELINE Researchers have discussed many factors impacting Latino student success in higher education, including: immigration status, poverty, work, first-generation college status, and lack of academic preparation Of particular relevance to the arguments being made in this article are the issues of language background, curricular tracking, types of courses taken, and the kinds of learning opportunities that exist in the classrooms (although not specifically addressed by the analysis in this article) One study concerned with these issues, the Transfer, Retention in Urban Community Colleges study (Hagedorn, 2006) surveyed over 2,400 Latino community college students across a large urban district and provides a useful framework for understanding the broader context For the purpose of this article, we define weak and strong educational backgrounds in relation to those measures related to achievement in schools or standardized testing either in the United States or abroad Thus, ESL students with strong academic backgrounds and preparation have a demonstrated record of achievement (e.g., already have a diploma, Bachelors, or graduate degree in their native language) In contrast, weak students have minimal record of achievement in formal schooling, usually place in the lower tier of standardized measures, and may have a history of dropping out or never attending school COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 599 of Latino course-taking behavior That study, although not focusing specifically on Latinos starting their education in credit ESL as this study did, drew their sample from the same population It found that whereas Latinos had the same aspirations for academic success as other groups, they were less likely to have taken college Algebra, trigonometry, precalculus, physics, or chemistry in high school or while in college; in addition, they were less likely to enroll in college level English courses Thus, the traditional gatekeeper courses of Math and English, which are the best predictors of persistence and transfer, need to be examined closely in relation to the curriculum objectives and student course-taking practices In examining this issue in relation to the questions posed by this study, the most salient factors impacting persistence and retention through the education pipeline are the following: non-English speaking background, (i.e., Spanish; Datnow, Borman, Stringfield, Overman, & Castellano, 2003; Ovando & McLaren, 2000; Post, 1990); curricular tracking (Oakes & Guiton, 1995; Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001;Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna, 2002); academic English language proficiency (Razfar, 2003; Rendon & Hope, 1996); the types of courses that Latinos take (remedial versus college prep; vocational versus academic; Oliva, 1999); and, finally, the type of pedagogy and learning opportunities available in those courses (Gutie´rrez, 2002; Losey, 1995) These studies show that the plight of Latinos in the educational pipeline has been well documented According to Ga´ndara & Contreras (2009): Latinos for the most part are now stalled at the level of high school completion, with dropout rates remaining very high across generations Only one in ten Latinos has a college degree, compared to more than one in four white Americans and more than one in three Asians (p 5) Research has shown that Latinos are in the lowest quartile of academic achievement in reading and math This gap clearly puts Latinos in a vulnerable position as they pursue higher education and precludes them from entering the top-tier four-year institutions Although most start their higher education pursuits in the community college, the overwhelming majority never transfers, and many Latino students find themselves increasingly segregated from others, in part due to limited English use (Fry, 2008; Fry & Gonza´lez, 2008) It is important to note that deficit views (negative views of bilingualism, ethnic minorities, etc.) and a history of marginalization within schools in general have seriously impacted Latino success across the pipeline Although all these factors are deeply interdependent and difficult to isolate, for ESL planners, language proficiency, especially the ability to participate in academic discourse, is the most salient domain (Razfar, 2003) From a curricular point of view, this is represented in practical 600 TESOL QUARTERLY terms by enrollment and success in early college level English courses (such as the mandatory first year composition course), which serve as a prerequisite for almost all other academic coursework However, given the importance of language in all fields, ESL programs are not only preparing students for transfer level English, per se, but for all content areas that are dependent on academic language proficiency Thus, language skills cannot be reduced to literary and grammatical functions but should be viewed holistically as the primary meaning making tool that gives students access to higher-order learning opportunities (Darder, Torres, & Gutie´rrez, 1997; Garcı´a, 2001; Ovando & McLaren, 2000; Valencia, 2002; Valverde, 2007) As previously stated, this research was guided by three major questions In addition to these questions, there are more specific subquestions related to the data listed below: How the students begin their educational trajectory? a What are their educational goals? b What is their initial ESL level? c What is their educational background? Do the students succeed in their goals? How they meet these goals (i.e., what enrollment patterns are evident)? What factors affect students’ progress? a Are students enrolled long enough to succeed in their goals? b At what rate did students finish the credit ESL sequence? c For those students whose goals require courses beyond credit ESL courses, these students mainstream? d For those students whose goals require courses beyond credit ESL courses, they concurrently enroll in these courses while still taking ESL or after completing ESL? e Did students’ initial ESL level or educational background affect their enrollment patterns? f Did these students enroll in and pass freshman composition and college-level math (i.e., the most important courses required for transfer)? How these enrollment patterns affect the students’ level of success? a Was there a difference in grade point average (GPA), coursecompletion ratio, or success in ESL courses based on students’ enrollment patterns (i.e., nonmainstreamers, concurrent mainstreamers, or linear mainstreamers)? COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 601 METHODOLOGY: CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION Context: The District and the Latino ESL Students The Latino ESL students in this study were enrolled in the largest urban community college district in the state of California, which covers nearly half of a major California county Drawing on Census 2000 data, of the nearly ten million Latinos who lived in the county, nearly half (4,729,661) lived within a 10-mile radius of the district’s community colleges, with the total adult population (ages 18–64 years) reported to be 2,953,365 (62%) Nearly a quarter of the adult population districtwide was reported to not speak English well or not at all (664,306, or 22.5%) The majority (about 58%) of this population was concentrated in the downtown area served by three of the district’s community colleges With respect to the ESL cohorts of this study, Latinos made up 40.9% of the district population They tended to be older than other ethnic groups in the district, with an average age of 32 years, and also were largely female (66.7% female; 33.3% male) The ESL Pipeline in the District The ESL pipeline in the district is relatively long compared to most districts Based on an analysis of the curriculum across the campuses of the district, there are seven levels of ESL throughout the district (with only two campuses of the nine offering all seven levels, most campuses offering five or six levels, and one offering only four levels at the highest part of the progression) The ESL programs in the district all offer a required sequence of writing courses as well as recommended sequences of listening or speaking courses and reading courses Some offer optional content-based courses as well, such as English for Business After finishing ESL classes, the students then have to take at least one developmental English class before enrolling in the first college-level English course The ESL programs at each college in the district differ in terms of both their numbering system as well as the prerequisite(s) that the last classes in the ESL series satisfy At some colleges, the last class in the series satisfies the prerequisite for the developmental class that is one level below transfer; at others, the last class in the series satisfies the prerequisite for the developmental class that is two levels below transfer When coding the data for this study, the ESL levels were determined based on their status as a prerequisite for these developmental classes This status was determined by looking at both the college catalogs and the transcript data Thus, for ESL students it was mandatory that they take at least one precollegiate developmental class before enrolling in the mainstream freshman (first year) composition course required of all 602 TESOL QUARTERLY students In contrast, for non-ESL students in the district, an English placement assessment was used to determine whether they have to take the precollegiate class before taking the freshman composition course Enrollment in a precollegiate course was not considered mainstreaming for the purpose of this study Description of the Data and the Participants The data used in this study were drawn from the enrollment and demographic database maintained by the district’s office of institutional research Upon collaboration with the district’s institutional research office, a student was classified as an ESL student if he or she enrolled and received a grade or a W (withdrawal from course) in at least one credit ESL course during his or her academic career in the district Students were then assigned to fall and spring cohorts based on their first credit enrollments in either the fall or spring terms Based on this procedure, there were 80,923, ESL students district-wide between Fall 1992 and Spring 2004, who were assigned to either fall or spring cohorts Students entering in fall 1999 or fall 2000 were selected for inclusion in this study This group was further narrowed by selecting only the Latino students, and only those students who had enrolled in a credit ESL class at any time during their enrollment in the district The data were selected in Fall 2005, and at that point the study participants had been in the district long enough to either complete their education or, in some other way, stop their enrollment in the district The reason that pre-1999 cohorts were not selected was because of concerns that we would not be able to find any students for our qualitative follow-up study who were also part of the quantitative transcript study As a follow-up to the transcript study, a small group of students was selected to take part in focus groups Therefore, it was possible that some of the students who took part in the focus groups were also a part of our transcript study, or had at least gone through the same curriculum that we were examining in our study Procedures Although the principal method used for this study is quantitative, we have also incorporated qualitative findings as a way to raise questions for future research and to contextualize the limitations of relying only on transcript data Given the ex-post facto nature of the data analysis, we could not incorporate a more robust qualitative design (i.e., classroom observations, interviews with more participants, etc.) Mixed-methods approaches are based on the assumption that quantitative and qualitative methods are compatible, and the use of both enhances COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 603 validation of the findings More important, a mixed-methods approach provides nuanced detail for an understudied phenomenon, hence raising issues for further exploration Mixed methodologies also allow for greater breadth of analysis and triangulation of findings using multiple sources of data (Brannen, 2005; Creswell, 2003; Greene, Caracelli, Valerie, & Graham, 1989; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) In this study, we clearly gave more prominence to the quantitative findings, but the qualitative findings that emerged from focus groups allowed us to name issues for future research Thus, the quantitative methodology was more ‘‘dominant’’ and the qualitative findings are ‘‘less dominant,’’ leading to a ‘‘more dominant, less dominant design.’’ (Creswell, 1994, pp 177-178) Considering ESL students were previously invisible in the district database, the focus group themes provide a human face to the quantitative analysis Quantitative Analysis In this section, the definitions of key variables and constructs for the quantitative analysis are provided, followed by a description of the qualitative methods used The most salient variable for the purposes of this study was Mainstreaming A student had mainstreamed if he or she had entered the regular college curriculum—that is, the student had taken non-ESL and nondevelopmental courses These courses could be either vocational or academic courses Based on the tenets of content-based instruction and content-based college ESL instruction (Kasper, 2000; Spurling, Seymour, & Chisman, 2008), mainstreaming was disaggregated further, based on two possible patterns of mainstreaming in relation to non-ESL and core subject areas: linear and concurrent mainstreamers Thus, the following three categories were examined longitudinally: N Linear mainstreamers: students who enrolled in a college-level course for the first time after completing ESL courses N Concurrent mainstreamers: students who enrolled in a college-level course for the first time while concurrently enrolled in an ESL course N Nonmainstreamer: a student who never took courses outside of ESL or developmental tracks In addition to the Mainstreaming variable, the following variables were also used in the study: Initial Educational Goal, Educational Background, Taking and Passing of Courses by Course Type, Success Rate, Initial ESL Level, ESL Levels Progressed, Mainstreaming, Overall GPA, and Overall Course Completion Rate (definitions below): N Initial Educational Goal: The goal declared by the student upon entering the district The categories were: career-related, certificate/ 604 TESOL QUARTERLY seem predictable because the nonmainstreamers included both students who just dropped out for various reasons, as well as those who may have completed many ESL courses and attained some goal but just never took a course outside of ESL Thus, the first group may have dragged down some of these averages Qualitative Findings: Focus Groups Given this article’s focus on Latino ESL students, the qualitative findings presented here represent their responses during focus group discussions that also included non-Latino ESL students The focus groups were conducted to shed light on the quantitative findings on why students followed the course-taking patterns that they did The following table provides an overview of the major themes that emerged from the analysis using NVivo software The length of the narratives was calculated (lines and word counts), and a percentage was determined in relation to the total amount of focus group text (see Table 9) In this section major themes emerging from these findings are presented Challenges and Barriers Based on the analysis of the transcripts, the Latino ESL participants emphasized two major themes throughout the discussions: (1) the central role of ESL courses in providing ample opportunities to practice English, because there were limited opportunities to use English outside TABLE Success Measures by Mainstreaming Category Nonmainstreamer Mainstreamer (Total) Linear mainstreamer Concurrent mainstreamer Overall average n Overall GPAa GPA in mainstream classes Course completion ratiob Percent ESL success ratec (%) 851 628 75 553 2.63 2.83 2.87 2.83 — 2.89 2.84 2.90 0.55 0.74 0.78 0.73 51.0 70.8 77.8 69.9 2.76 2.89 0.63 59.4 a Note Using independent sample t-tests and applying Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons, the results were significant at p , 0.001 (see Appendix B for more details) In addition, we confirmed the results using one-way ANOVA; significant differences in overall GPA between mainstreamers and nonmainstreamers; no significant differences between linear and concurrent mainstreamers (see Appendix C, Table C2) bUsing the same method stated in footnote a, significant difference in course completion ratio between mainstreamers and nonmainstreamers; no significant difference between linear and concurrent mainstreamers c Using the same method stated in footnote a, significant difference in ESL success rate between mainstreamers and nonmainstreamers; no significant difference between linear and concurrent mainstreamers COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 613 TABLE Qualitative Coding Scheme and Findings Code/theme Vocational goal Discrete ESL Outside school Limited English opportunities Navigating curriculum Shame Tracking Caring instructors Percent Transcripts Definition Any reference to career-related or vocational goals Participants discuss ESL as something separate from ultimate goal Participants discuss obligations outside of school like work and child care Participants discuss limited opportunities to speak English outside of class and the need to take advantage in class Participants discuss problems related to navigating the curriculum Participants express shame about English ability Participants discuss being separated from mainstream students Participants refer to caring instructors 30 13 11 31 of school and in the community, and (2) the positive role of ESL instructors in providing emotional and academic support Given the prevalence of Spanish in the immediate area surrounding the college and the state overall, the first theme was not surprising and is an important consideration when discussing the role of ESL for Latino students Although the idea of being separated from mainstream students (tracking) was noticeable in the focus group discussions (11%), much of this discussion centered around Maria’s experience of being tracked in high school rather than the community college As she reflected upon her K–12 experience, she discussed the separation based on ethnic, racial, and linguistic lines: We’re separated At that school, we’re separated Latin people, Black people I was with all the Latin people, and we all speak Spanish There were three tracks A, B and C A, it was for White people B, it was for the Black people, and, and\C, it was for Latin people Although the literature has certainly documented academic tracking practices targeting Latinos in many educational settings, this was not the major concern of the Latino students participating in these focus group sessions, and the data presented in this article does not allow for any broader conclusions Nevertheless, linguistic segregation clearly is a factor in limiting opportunities for cross-cultural interaction and, of course, English use The focus groups helped provide additional insight about some of the challenges encountered by the students, such as: navigating the curriculum, obligations outside of school, and a negative outlook toward 614 TESOL QUARTERLY their own English ability For example, Rosa was an 18-year-old Latina female student whose goal was to eventually become a doctor but was first studying to be a nurse She described her experience in trying to enroll in a science course while enrolled in the most advanced ‘‘level 7’’ ESL course: Rosa: I was going to take [Introductory] Biology and I registered, but when I was there, the teacher told me that [I] cannot take Biology if I haven’t take[n] chemistry So then, I went to register for chemistry, but that class was all full, so I end[ed] up taking just two classes Not because I wanted to, but I couldn’t register for more classes While her plan was to start taking required science courses towards her nursing degree, her knowledge about prerequisites and course patterns was lacking; therefore, she resigned herself to taking a much smaller load than originally intended This problem could be a common one amongst these students, and if a student encounters similar barriers semester after semester based on their lack of knowledge, then this could significantly hinder them in the completion of their declared educational goal This could account for the high numbers of nonmainstreamers in groups whose goals could only be accomplished by mainstreaming and for the low average number of semesters enrolled Obligations outside of school were another factor impacting Latino ESL course-taking behavior One of the focus group respondents, Lupe, was a middle-aged Latina woman with adult children, who was enrolled only in ESL courses during the semester in which she was interviewed; however, she wanted to enroll in child development courses after finishing the ESL series: For me, I going to finish my ESL because I would like to study child development to [learn about] children because I had two children and when they [grew] up for me [it] was difficult because I didn’t know how to [anything] with them when they [were] angry, or they [didn’t] take any responsibility Later on Lupe explained that she had tried to take three classes the previous semester, but had had a difficult time because of her work responsibilities: Lupe: The last semester, I had three classes, but it was too much for me because I work, and with my husband, I need to the duties in the house, and then work It was a lot for me And my counselor told me, ‘‘take only two classes this semester.’’ Yeah Jenny: So, how many hours you work every week? Lupe: Oh, thirty five COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 615 An additional barrier to the college-level curriculum was a lack of knowledge about how to navigate through the curriculum (as described above in the case of Rosa who tried to take a biology course only to find out that she had to take chemistry before taking biology) In addition to lack of knowledge about the prerequisites, placement of students into the right courses also seemed to be a factor Rosa described her experience in a math course that was too difficult for her: Last semester, I took [General] Psychology, [Life-Span Psychology], and math [Intermediate Algebra], which I didn’t pass, but not because I don’t speak English very well, but because it was hard I don’t know how I it was math [Trigonometry], I think that that’s a a high that’s a high class I don’t know why I had a good score, because I didn’t take math since like two years So, I forgot everything, so I didn’t pass that class As indicated, she had taken the math placement test and received a score that was high enough to place her in a math class that she ultimately could not pass This point is significant in light of what we have argued in terms of the positive effects on persistence, retention, and success when Latino ESL students are concurrently enrolled in content-based courses These placement issues are also significant when we consider that most Latino ESL students are first-time college attendees According to Maria, the course that she takes after the next course in the series seems to depend on whether she gets an A or a B in that next course: Researcher: Yeah, so, next semester, you’ll take [Advanced ESL], right? Maria: [Advanced ESL] Researcher: Then, what are you going to take after [Advanced ESL]? Maria: After is English [Dev English], if you get a B, and [Basic Composition] if you get an A Upon examining the course sequences from the course schedule and college catalogue, there does seem to be some flexibility as to what course(s) a student may enroll in after the most advanced ESL class However, this seems to introduce a lot of ambiguity into an already overwhelming system Thus, the path to mainstreaming is complicated by lack of clarity in the curricular pipeline, a hurdle that is accentuated for immigrants and firstgeneration college students unfamiliar with the system Critical Care: Affective Support in ESL Classrooms Finally, the findings from the focus group discussions illustrated the critical role ESL courses and instructors play in providing a supportive, affective environment, especially for those who expressed a lack of confidence in their own English ability One Latina said, 616 TESOL QUARTERLY When I’m talking with this [ESL] group, I’m not afraid But, when I talk with somebody at work, I am afraid because I think they are going to laugh at my pronunciation Maria expressed frustration when she was at the supermarket: At the supermarket, sometimes you try to speak in English, and the person don’t say, ‘‘I don’t understand,’’ but he calls to somebody And one time, I say, ‘‘please can you listen me because I need help.’’ And he listened me, but no not all the people try to that They try to call somebody to speak Spanish Given the prevalence of Spanish in the community, the ESL classroom is one of the few contexts for Latino ESL students to exclusively use English and receive the kind of assistance they want and need to improve their English skills For some of the participants, oral fluency was much more of a concern than writing, as reflected in this comment by Lupe: My problem is when I have to talk because when I have to write, I write very well I usually get A’s in my essays, and when I read, I read fast But, when I talk, then I have problems, and sometimes, people laugh at me, and that breaks my self-esteem Given that oral fluency depends on an individual’s willingness to take social risks, the ESL classroom provides a critical venue for developing communicative competence in English When asked if it was other students who laugh, she responded, No, right here, not Because I’m in my English [Advanced ESL] class, and they are the same, they don’t speak English very well But, usually, like, at streets, like if I’m in the market, like but not at school, not at school The respondents found their ESL teachers to be very effective, especially in terms of helping them become better writers, as Maria notes: Before I mixed everything around (laughter) the teacher teach us to talk a topic, a title, and then, think about the topic, and put everything in order, and then put in order, and then writing about your thinking It’s easy for me Overall, the participants found their ESL teachers to be extremely helpful, patient, and caring Although these focus groups consisted of successful mainstreamers, this analysis helps illuminate both some of the factors that contributed to their success and some of the relevant challenges they encountered as Latino ESL students navigating the community college curriculum COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 617 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The data revealed the following: (1) Few Latino ESL students’ goals were to transfer or earn a degree Most Latino ESL students’ goals were career related or basic skills/GED (2) Of the small number declaring a goal of transfer, about 60% mainstreamed, but most of these never took a transfer-level English or math course Most, however, took vocational courses Only 40% of the certificate/AA students mainstreamed Thus, it stands to reason that most did not accomplish their initially stated goals, and further, that most students followed a vocational track (3) The majority of Latino ESL students were nonmainstreamers (57.5%) who were enrolled significantly fewer semesters (1.71 on average) than their mainstreaming counterparts (4.97 on average) Of the mainstreaming group, most followed a concurrent mainstreaming pattern (enrolling in college-level courses while still enrolled in ESL); very few (only 5.1% of the sample) followed a linear mainstreaming pattern (completing ESL before enrolling in other courses) No significant differences were found in the success rates (GPA, course completion ratio, ESL success rate) between concurrent and linear mainstreamers The focus groups revealed some additional information that points to additional areas of research, including: (1) What ESL students in general and Latino ESL students in particular experience in community college ESL classrooms? What factors contribute to their success? What factors hinder their success? (2) What certain educational practices communicate to certain groups? What unintended messages educators send to minority groups? (3) What ESL students in general and Latino ESL students in particular experience outside the classroom? What barriers they face and how can these barriers be addressed in the classroom? This study of Latino ESL students contributes to the broader discussions of ESL curriculum, placement, and instruction Latino ESL and many non-Latino students encounter many challenges as they navigate the K–12 and higher education pipelines The challenges to educational success for immigrant students are not unique to the United States; they are also not unique to the Latino population In most Western countries where English is the medium of instruction, there is a substantial gap in student success between immigrant ESL and non-ESL students (Hammond, 2008; Lokan, Greenwood, & Creswell, 2001; Watt & Roessingh, 2001) Watt and Roessingh’s (1994) longitudinal study of retention and persistence of ESL students found similar trends with Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, and Punjabi speaking populations in Canada There is a similar ‘‘crisis’’ in Australia, especially with Aboriginal populations (Hammond, 1999, 2008) Although the two types of mainstreamers (concurrent versus linear) varied little by some measures, students who did mainstream into the core 618 TESOL QUARTERLY curriculum had significantly better grades and course-completion ratios and achieved their goals in fewer semesters, compared with nonmainstreamers Based on much of the ESL research on content-based instruction, learning communities, and other related work advocating integrated curriculum for second language learners, a more pronounced and significant difference with respect to success was expected between concurrent and linear mainstreamers (e.g., Spurling et al., 2008) Given the limitations of the data, it is outside the scope of this study to draw conclusions regarding curricular planning and instructional practices Nevertheless, the results confirm the importance of concurrent enrollment in both ESL and content courses, even in the absence of a systematic content-based approach within the ESL programs, especially in terms of retention and time to mainstream The vast majority of mainstreamers were indeed concurrently enrolled in ESL and non-ESL content courses (88%, n 553 versus n 75) In addition, nonmainstreamers (n 851) never enrolled in content area courses, which means they were following a course-taking pattern more analogous to linear mainstreamers (only ESL courses) before ultimately dropping out Concurrent enrollment clearly led to greater retention rates; moreover, linear mainstreamers were enrolled for longer periods of time (average of 6.96 semesters) compared to concurrent mainstreamers (average of 4.70 semesters), which leads to questions concerning the additional time taken by linear mainstreamers in ESL courses and the lack of progress in transferable credit courses In addition, when one considers the number of semesters for mainstreaming of each group, it is clear that linear mainstreamers take longer (5.81–4.17 semesters for concurrent mainstreamers, Table 7); therefore, concurrent enrollment in content courses is a factor in earlier mainstreaming and ultimately success Furthermore, these findings show language learning among this group of students to be a nonlinear process It is not necessary to learn English (i.e., complete the ESL series) before enrolling in non-ESL courses and being successful in these courses Thus, the idea of ESL as recommended—or even required—preparation for college-level courses is brought into question by this data ESL courses seem to play a more supportive rather than preparatory role for these students Although more research needs to be done to examine exactly what role ESL courses play in students’ education, this study implies that ESL instructors should assume that, for the most part, their students are enrolled in non-ESL content courses while also enrolled in ESL; in addition, ESL instructors should encourage rather than discourage this concurrent enrollment In many international contexts, ESL instruction is conducted in collaboration with content-based courses (e.g., Andrade, 2006; Gibbons, 2003) According to Davison (2006), ‘‘Over the last 20 years, most English medium schools around the world have adopted some form of partnership COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 619 or collaborative teaching to enhance the teaching of ESL students into the mainstream classroom’’ (p 455) However, in many non-U.S ESL settings (i.e., Canada, Britain, Australia), concurrent enrollment in and of itself is not sufficient to yield positive outcomes There need to be articulated goals for ESL development, communication between ESL and mainstream teachers, joint curriculum planning, and ‘‘systematic mechanisms for monitoring evaluation and feedback’’ (Davison, 2006, p 456) There is a need for ESL programs, such as the ones examined in this study, to implement a more systematic, content-based approach to ESL education; in addition, ESL courses must be intellectually challenging and engaging rather than remedial and reductive in order to increase the likelihood of success (Hammond, 2008) Overall, the results confirmed low transfer rates among Latino community college students, which are consistent with existing values As discussed earlier, the California Postsecondary Education Commission reported a 7% transfer rate for Latino community college students, and the cohorts in this study exhibited a similar trend (CPEC, 2004) Only 7.3% of students wishing to transfer took a transfer-level English course, and 8.9% took transfer-level math Thus, a very small proportion of students were transfer ready even if their stated goal was to transfer This also points to broader barriers for Latino transfer because of limited English (Fry, 2008; Fry & Gonza´lez, 2008) Thus, it is incumbent on ESL practitioners to give Latino ESL students (and ESL students in general) the tools and opportunities to be able to access these pathways to transfer (i.e., forging closer connections with faculty teaching non-ESL content courses as well as encouraging and supporting students to take such courses) Finally, these findings highlight the tension between the actual educational trajectory of Latino ESL students and their stated goals At least 15% started with a goal that definitely required them to continue beyond ESL courses (those wishing to transfer and those wishing to attain an AA degree or certificate) An additional 33% had some career-related goal, which probably means that at least a portion of those needed to take courses beyond ESL However, almost 40% were only in school for one semester, and an additional 23% were around for only two semesters; after three semesters, close to 75% of the students were gone, which is not enough time to accomplish their initially stated goals In addition, most of the students (62.5%) did not progress even one level in ESL, and 58% did not mainstream This emphasizes the importance of keeping track of students through enrollment data as well as examining current educational practices and how they affect students’ educational trajectories Between mainstreamers and nonmainstreamers, significant differences were found in the number of semesters enrolled, their overall GPA, course completion ratio, and ESL success rate Although there was no difference between linear and concurrent mainstreamers in terms of 620 TESOL QUARTERLY overall success, the overwhelming majority were concurrently enrolled in content courses Despite the disparity in the two groups, both concurrent and linear mainstreamers were ultimately more successful In general, mainstreaming was found to significantly correlate with higher success Mainstreamers had much higher averages in all of these categories, with nonmainstreamers lagging far behind Based on the transcript results, it is difficult to conclusively determine the factors that impacted nonmainstreamers’ trajectories There needs to be additional research that considers individual, social, and institutional barriers to mainstreaming The focus group data provided some insight into the nature of some of these barriers; however, these findings were limited by the lack of access to nonmainstreaming populations This was in part due to the ex-post facto nature of the research design, where ESL students were never formally identified prior to the study Their voices are critical to better understanding and improving the educational trajectories of all ESL students, including Latino ESL students There is a great need for more research of nonmainstreaming adult ESL students that tracks their practices longitudinally (e.g., Condelli, Wrigley, & Yoon, 2009; Reder, 2009) This type of work is vital toward helping ESL coordinators better understand the factors that impact retention and persistence of many Latino ESL students in the community colleges In summary, our recommendations are the following: N Because mainstreamers were more successful than their nonmainstreaming counterparts (and there was no statistical difference found between concurrent and linear mainstreamers), Latino ESL students should be encouraged and supported to mainstream In order to support their course taking outside of ESL, closer ties should be sought by ESL faculty with other faculty outside of ESL ESL practitioners should also examine their current curriculum with respect to how it supports students in achieving their goals N Examination of this Latino ESL course taking revealed a high incidence of vocational courses and a low incidence of traditional transfer courses (i.e., transfer-level English and transfer-level math) Although few Latino ESL students stated transfer as their initial goal, most of these were not poised to transfer because of not taking the gatekeeper courses Future research should examine the barriers for these Latino ESL students with respect to transferring to a university Future research should address what factors made these mainstreaming students so successful In addition, it should also address why nonmainstreaming students were not as successful (i.e., had lower GPAs and course completion both in and outside of ESL) In addition, this COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 621 also points to the importance for ESL programs to keep track of their students and what factors helped or hindered their progress ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank both the current and previous editors and reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript THE AUTHORS Aria Razfar is an Assistant Professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Illinois, United States His work is grounded in sociocultural and critical theories of discourse, learning, and literacy development He is the director of several U.S Department of Education and National Science Foundation funded research projects dedicated to improving learning and instruction for English learners Jenny Simon is an ESL instructor at El Camino Community College, Torrance, California, United States, and leads the college’s student learning outcomes assessment efforts She received her doctorate in education from the University of Southern California in 2006 REFERENCES Andrade, M S (2006) International students in English-speaking universities Journal of Research in International Education, 5, 131–154 doi:10.1177/ 1475240906065589 Brannen, J (2005) Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 173–184 doi:10.1080/13645570500154642 California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) (2007) California community colleges statewide enrollments Sacramento, CA: California Community Colleges California Department of Finance (2000) Estimated race/ethnic population with age and sex detail, 2000–2004 Sacramento, CA: California Department of Finance California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) (2004) Transfer pathways: Student profiles Sacramento, CA: California Postsecondary Education Commission Retrieved from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/Generate Report.asp Center for Student Success and the RP Group (2007) Basic skills as a foundation for success in California community colleges Sacramento, CA: California Community Colleges System Office Cohen , A., & Brawer, F (2003) The American community college San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Condelli, L., Wrigley, H., & Yoon, K S (2009) What works for adult literacy students of English as a second language In S Reder & J Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy: Longitudinal studies of adult education (pp 132–159) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Crandall, J., & Sheppard, K (2004) Adult ESL and the community college In CAAL Community College Series New York, NY: Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy 622 TESOL QUARTERLY Creswell, J (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Creswell, J W (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Darder, A., Torres, R., & Gutie´rrez, H (Eds) (1997) Latinos and education: A critical reader New York, NY: Routledge Datnow, A., Borman, G D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L T., & Castellano, M (2003) Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 143–170 doi:10.3102/01623737025002143 Davison, C (2006) Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How we know when we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 454–475 doi:10.2167/beb339.0 Denzin, N K., & Lincoln, Y S (2000) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Vogt, M (2004) Making content comprehensible Boston, MA: Pearson Education Fry, R (2008) The role of schools in the English language learner achievement gap Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center Fry, R., & Gonza´les, F (2008) One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic public school students Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center Ga´ndara, P., & Contreras, P (2009) The Latino educational crisis: The consequences of failed social policies Boston, MA: Harvard University Press Garcı´a, E (2001) Hispanic education in the United States: Raı´ces y alas New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield Gerardi, S (1996) The effects of English as a second language on college academic outcomes Brooklyn, NY: New York City Technical College Gibbons, P (2003) Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247–273 doi:10.2307/3588504 Glaser, B., & Strauss, A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research Chicago, IL: Aldine Greene, J., Caracelli, C., Valerie, J., & Graham, W (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274 Gutierrez, R (2002) Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language in teaching mathematics to latina/o students American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1047– 1088 doi:10.3102/000283120390041047 Hagedorn, L (2006) Traveling successfully on the community college pathway, TRUCCS: The research and findings of the transfer retention of urban community college students project (TRUCCS Project) Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Hammond, J (1999) Literacy crises and ESL education The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 22, 120–134 Hammond, J (2008) Intellectual challenge and ESL students: Implications of quality teaching initiatives Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 128– 154 Ignash, J M (1994) Compelling numbers: English as a second language New Directions for Community Colleges, 86, 49–61 doi:10.1002/cc.36819948607 Illich, P A., Hagan, C., & McCallister, L (2004) Performance in college-level courses among students concurrently enrolled in remedial courses: Policy implications Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 435–453 doi:10.1080/10668920490444463 COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 623 Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26 doi:10.3102/ 0013189X033007014 Kasper, L F (2000) Content-based college ESL instruction Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Kirk, R E (1995) Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Kuo, E W (2000) English as a second language: Program approaches at community colleges Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, University of California at Los Angeles Lokan, J., Greenwood, L., & Cresswell, J (2001) 15-Up and counting, reading, writing, Reasoning: How literate are Australia’s students? The PISA 2000 survey of students’ reading, mathematical, and scientific literacy skills Camberwell Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research Losey, K M (1995) Mexican American students and classroom interaction: An overview and critique Review of Educational Research, 65, 283–318 Mellissinos, M (1993) Stratified course offerings: How curriculum structure relates to transfer.Paper presented at the Annual Forum for the Association of Institutional Research, Chicago, IL Oakes, J., & Guiton, G (1995) Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions American Educational Research Journal, 32, 3–33 Oliva, M (1999) What universities teach: The challenges and possibilities of curricular multiculturalism Educational Researcher, 28, 28–31 Ornelas, A., & Solorzano, D (2004) Transfer conditions of Latina/o community college students: A single institution case study Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 233–248 doi:10.1080/10668920490256417 Ovando, C J., & McLaren, P (Eds.) (2000) The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students and teachers caught in the crossfire Boston, MA: McGrawHill Padilla, A M., & Gonza´lez, R (2001) Academic performance of immigrant and U.S -born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and bilingual/ English language instruction American Educational Research Journal, 38, 727–742 doi:10.3102/00028312038003727 Post, D (1990) College-going decisions by Chicanos: The politics of misinformation Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 174–187 Razfar, A (2003) Language ideologies in ELL contexts: Implications for Latinos and higher education Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2, 241–268 doi:10.1177/ 1538192703002003003 Reder, S (2009) The development of literacy and numeracy in adult life In S Reder & J Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research (pp 59–84) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Rendon, L I., & Hope, R O (1996) Educating a new majority: Transforming America’s educational system for diversity San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass ´ lvarez, C., & Solo´rzano, D (2007) An examination of Latina/o Rivas, M., Pe´rez, J., A transfer students in California’s postsecondary institutions Latino Policy & Issues Brief, 16 Retrieved from http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/press/briefs/documents/ LPIB_16.pdf Spurling, S., Seymour, S., & Chisman, F (2008) Pathways and outcomes: Tracking ESL student performance A longitudinal study of ESL service at City College of San Francisco New York, NY: Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy Retrieved from http://www.caalusa.org/pathways-outcomes/pathways-outcomesfull.pdf 624 TESOL QUARTERLY University of California Office of the President (2009) Master plan for higher education in California Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/ mp.htm Valencia, R (2002) Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.) London, England: Routledge Valverde, L (2007) Latino change agents in higher education: Shaping a system that works for all San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Watt, D., & Roessingh, H (1994) ESL dropout: The myths of educational equity Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 283–296 Watt, D., & Roessingh, H (2001) The dynamics of ESL drop-out: ‘Plus c¸a change.’ The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 203–223 doi:10.3138/cmlr.58.2.203 Weissmann, J., Bulakowski, C., & Jumisko, M K (1997) Using research to evaluate developmental education programs and policies New Directions for Community Colleges, 100, 73–81 doi:10.1002/cc.10007 Weissman, J., Silk, E., & Bulakowski, C (1997) Assessing developmental education policies Research in Higher Education, 38, 187–200 doi:10.1023/A:1024981603293 Yonezawa, S., Wells, A S., & Serna, I (2002) Choosing tracks: ‘Freedom of choice’ in detracking schools American Educational Research Journal, 39, 37–67 doi:10.3102/00028312039001037 APPENDIX A Focus Group Questions 1) 2) Have you been or are you currently an ESL student? How do/did you like your ESL classes? & FOLLOW UP: Do/Did you like your teachers? & FOLLOW UP: Do you think these ESL classes helped you? In your other classes? To get a job? In your life in the United States? 3) Tell me about when you took your ESL classes & FOLLOW UP: At what level did you start? & FOLLOW UP: Did you mostly pass your ESL classes? & FOLLOW UP: Did you finish the ESL series? & FOLLOW UP: Did you take ESL classes at the same time as other classes? # FOLLOW UP: What types of other classes did you take with your ESL classes? 4) What are your goals for college? 5) Tell me a little bit about your family background & & & FOLLOW UP: Are you married? FOLLOW UP: Do you have children? FOLLOW UP: When did you come to the United States? How old were you when you came here? # FOLLOW UP: Did you attend an American junior high or high school? COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 625 626 TESOL QUARTERLY 0.595 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.223 0.699 0.283 23.43 8.43 10.89 68.29 1.49 0.149 0.002 0.000 0.003 9.86 80.3 8.78 0.000 0.461 0.544 474 0.941 0.000 Significance 0.005 738 F a not assumed not assumed not assumed not assumed not assumed not assumed assumed assumed not assumed assumed not assumed assumed assumed not assumed Equal variance Levene’s test for equality of variances 1.88 1.73 29.24 210.38 101.48 112.75 1477 1,423.8 102.3 483.1 562 529 1,353.13 21.431 1.616 3.32 0.498 20.600 626 83.5 1,477 212.43 9.05 3.55 626 716.8 221.26 5.06 df t 0.063 0.086 0.000** 0.000** 0.109 0.001* 0.619 0.548 0.153 0.000** 0.001** 0.000** 0.000** 0.000** Significance (two-tailed) t-Test for equality of meansa Note GPA grade point average ** Significant at p , 0.001 *Significant at p , 0.01 Only one line of t-test data is included depending on the Significance value for Levine’s test If significant, then equal variances are not assumed, and if not significant, then equal variances are assumed Avg number of semesters enrolled (mainstreamers vs nonmainstreamers) Avg number of semesters enrolled (linear vs concurrent mainstreamers) First level of ESL (mainstreamers vs nonmainstreamers) First level of ESL (linear vs concurrent) Number of semesters to mainstream (linear vs concurrent) Educational background (mainstreamers vs nonmainstreamers) Educational background (linear vs concurrent) GPA (mainstreamers vs nonmainstreamers) GPA (linear vs concurrent) GPA in mainstream courses (linear vs concurrent) Course completion ratio (mainstreamers vs nonmainstreamers) Course completion ratio (linear vs concurrent) ESL success rate (mainstreamers vs nonmainstreamers) ESL success rate (linear vs concurrent) Variable APPENDIX B Independent Sample t-Tests APPENDIX C TABLE 1C ANOVA Analysis of Results From Table Number of semesters First ESL level Average number of semesters to mainstream Educational background Between groups within groupsa Sum of squares Between Groups 4,165.629 within groups Total Between groups within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Mean square F Significance 2,082.82 327.036 0.000 9,400.307 13,565.936 550.370 3,387.257 3,937.627 73.245 1,476 1,478 1,476 1,478 6.37 119.912 0.000 22.453 0.000 2,042.111 2,115.357 1.208 626 627 2.027 0.132 422.358 423.566 1,417 1,419 Within groups Total df 275.19 2.30 73.245 3.26 0.604 0.298 Note aGroups included nonmainstreamers, linear mainstreamers, and concurrent mainstreamers TABLE 2C ANOVA Analysis of Results From Table Between groups within groupsa GPA GPA non-ESL Ratio units completed/units attempted ESL success rate Sum of squares df Mean square Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups 8.098 522.566 530.664 4.720 333.656 338.376 12.738 869 871 616 618 Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total 198.898 211.637 14.599 256.978 271.577 1,476 1,478 1,476 1,478 0.135 F Significance 4.049 0.601 6.733 0.001 2.360 0.542 4.357 0.013 6.369 47.264 0.000 41.926 0.000 7.300 0.174 Note aGroups included nonmainstreamers, linear mainstreamers, concurrent mainstreamers COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 627 ... place in the lower tier of standardized measures, and may have a history of dropping out or never attending school COURSE- TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 599 of Latino course- taking behavior... CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION Context: The District and the Latino ESL Students The Latino ESL students in this study were enrolled in the largest urban community college district in the state of California,... many of these studies were limited to course- taking patterns within a single semester Although they are COURSE- TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS 605 valuable in providing a snapshot of student