Best Practices for Community Colleges and US-LM Students - Part One

Kibler, Amanda K., George C. Bunch, and Ann K. Endris.  “Community College Practices for U.S-Educated Language-Minority Students: A Resource-Oriented Framework.”  Bilingual Research Journal 34.2 (2011): 201-222.

Brief  Summary

In this article, Kibler et al. call for community colleges to rethink the way they work with US-educated linguistic minority students—moving from a deficit model to a resource approach that builds on the language and literacy knowledge students already have and focuses on integration versus separation, “creating the kinds of opportunities that students need to further expand their academic language and literacy repertoires, acknowledging that these repertoires are developed in the authentic contexts in which they are used” (205).  They outline four areas that colleges need to address in order to create a “resource-oriented” framework:

• Supporting academic transitions into community colleges.
• Integrating language and academic content.
• Providing accelerated access to college-level, mainstream academic curriculum.
• Promoting informed student decision-making.
• (206)

Kibler et al. discuss the principles behind addressing each of these areas from a “resource” perspective and give examples of innovative ways community colleges could and do attempt to tackle these issues in order to more effectively meet the needs of US LM students. 

Response

There are a lot of interesting ideas in this brief article and I found myself both feeling proud of the ways that my institution (College of Lake County) has already begun to take a “resource” approach as well as excited by the challenges we face in continuing to work towards more fully embracing these principles.  Here are just some of the reactions I had after reading this.

What’s in a name?

This is one of several works I have read  where the researchers have purposely moved away from the Generation 1.5 label—citing both its fuzzy nature and its tendency to be used to focus on what students lack and not what they bring to the table.  Kibler et al. use the term US-educated language minority students (or US-LM students) to refer to “students who were raised in homes in which languages other than English were dominant, who have done at least some of their K-12 schooling in the U.S, and whose English at the community college level is considered by faculty, staff, or assessment measures to be inadequate for mainstream academic work” (203).  Interestingly, other texts I have read simply focus on the first two criteria for LM students but don’t necessarily limit the label to students who have been determined not college ready.  Still, this is the population that Kibler et al are interested in—those who are typically placed in ESL or development English courses.

Academic Literacy Practices and the Importance of Context

One of the most powerful ideas I took away from this article was something that I already believe in—the need to situate both language and literacy instruction into larger academic contexts. Every time I get a sample developmental English textbook that promises to move students from “paragraph to essay” or I hear about a developmental English class at another institution that focuses solely on creating grammatically correct sentences, I feel my blood pressure begin to rise. I’m a whole language girl but that doesn’t mean I ignore the parts; it means that, to me, the parts make more sense in relation to the whole.

Similarly, Kibler et al argue that this separation of language from content is especially problematic for US-LM students because it keeps them from developing the skills they really need and slows down their academic progress; instead, Kibler et al. cite studies that argue that “providing precollegiate or collegiate courses that integrate language development with academic content offers students authentic opportunities for language development” (210).  This research suggests that community colleges need to look at how well their ESL and developmental English sequences actually give students practice in the language and literacy skills they need to pursue their academic and career goals.  The research also suggests that community colleges should look for ways to get US-LM students into credit-bearing academic coursework as soon as possible.  Kibler et al. describe a number of ways that colleges can do this—from developing content-based language courses to creating linked courses (connecting an ESL or developmental English course with a required content course) to experimenting with various models of acceleration (moving US-LM through preparatory coursework more quickly).

Considering the mandates to both “integrate language and academic content” and “provide access to credit-bearing mainstream academic curriculum,” College of Lake County does pretty well.  Our developmental English sequence, two courses that combine reading, writing, and academic literacy, as well as our ELI courses, do not teach skills in isolation but instead focus on giving students lots of experience with authentic academic reading and writing practices.  We offer a number of linked courses and the English department is currently experimenting with several acceleration models.  In addition, there has been a move to open up certain college-credit courses to students in English 109, the upper level developmental English course, based on the idea that they can be successful in these courses while continuing to develop as academic readers and writers.

Insider Knowledge

Kibler et al claim, “Students in general, and language minority students in particular, are in need of high quality information as they transition into community colleges, and attempt to navigate their education through these institutions” (214).  This insider knowledge, about everything from specific college policies to more general academic expectations, is something that many community college students lack—for a number of reasons.  However, Kibler et al. suggest a range of ways that community colleges can meet these needs—through bridge programs, learning communities, campus support centers, and improved advising services.  

At College of Lake County, we’ve been talking a lot about “wrap around” services and how we can integrate them more effectively into a number of our student success initiatives—whether it’s our summer bridge program (now being expanded into a “fall bridge”) or our developmental English courses.  We have advisers, academic coaches, and a whole “Succeed at CLC” program.  However, we’re still working on ways to help all students gain the knowledge they need to successfully navigate (a very apt verb) the culture and practices of higher education.

Need for More Innovation and Research

This article ends with a call both for colleges to develop new practices for meeting the needs of US-LM students and for research into these new practices—especially research that includes the voices of the students themselves.  These are both areas that I think the College of Lake County needs to tackle (and I suspect I will be doing some of the tackling!).