Lindsay Naggie

Interim Director, Learning Communities
Professor & Former Chair, English Language Learning Department
Co-leader, AANAPISI ELL Design Team
Bunker Hill Community College

ABSTRACT

In this multimedia publication, video excerpts from the faculty, staff and administrators who participated in round table discussions about the five-year reform of an English Language program at a large, urban institution are woven together to examine the critical question of how and at what point did the faculty and staff redefine community and common goals. Participants also discussed the challenges and opportunities the ESL (now ELL) Department faced in revising the program. The excerpts are grouped into three categories, and a written synopsis by the project author, Lindsay Naggie, is provided to draw out the connections. Shawna Shapiro, author of one of the reform’s guiding texts, “Stuck in the Remedial Rut” provides additional commentary.

Author’s note:
The participants who appear in these videos are a representative sample of the 35 individuals on the ELL Reform Team and of the many other supporters across the institution and the views expressed are solely their own. In this piece, participants will refer to the program and students using both the terms ESL (English as a Second Language) and ELL (English Language Learning).

FOREWORD BY DR. SHAWNA SHAPIRO

When I wrote the article “Stuck in the Remedial Rut,” I was trying to make meaning out of a messy situation. I had struggled for years to understand what was preventing curricular change in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program that I knew well and cared deeply about. I had assumed that if we could just get enough faculty and administrators to agree on the problems with the existing curriculum, we would be well on our way toward a more student-centered, academically relevant model.  So I set about documenting students’ dissatisfaction with the curriculum and identifying possible directions for reform. When first I presented these findings to my EAP colleagues, I encountered a lack of enthusiasm that I naively read as intransigence. Over time, however, I realized that something more was going on: The program was so institutionally marginalized that its faculty thought they had no control over their own curriculum. They were “stuck” in a remediation role, which prioritized institutional expediency over the needs, goals, and assets of students.  Once I understood that these were identity issues—not instructional ones—I wanted to tell the story, in the hopes that it might provide insight to someone, somewhere, who was also hoping to enact curricular change.

I would have never anticipated receiving an invitation to contribute to a project about how that article had helped to catalyze curricular change at another institution. Learning about what Lindsay Naggie, Jeff Ellenbird, and their colleagues have done at Bunker Hill has been—and I mean this non-hyperbolically—one of the greatest delights of my career. They took this idea of institutional identity shift and asset-based approaches and ran with it. I am so inspired by what they have done, and by their commitment to reflecting deeply on how they did it.Thank you so much for including me in this project—it has meant so much to me!

Video introduction: Clip 1 00-03:03

Recognizing the Need for Change and Change-agents

Captured in these first three clips, participants reflected on their first encounter with “Stuck in the Remedial Rut” and discussed one assertion by Shapiro that captured experiences at the institution. They were asked to elaborate on individual roles, perceptions of ESL faculty and ESL students as well as the mindset regarding language acquisition at the institution at large.

Clip 2
00:00-6:15

In this first clip, ELL faculty and support staff discussed the limitations of decontextualized learning. When language skills are emphasized, the default tendency is to focus on what students are not doing instead of what they are doing. The result of this is a gatekeeping model that fosters resentment in faculty, students and staff. One factor of the gatekeeping was a narrow scope of assessment that had been employed both in initial placement and movement within and between academic departments.

The next video begins with a commentary on confronting the mentality that reinforced inequitable ideology and institutional structures.

Clip 3
00:00-09:00

In the excerpt above, English Department faculty emphasized that professional development opportunities between the ELL and English Departments began a sustained conversation that - when focused on student work - allowed asset-based voices to emerge in the discussion. These sustained conversations allowed faculty to understand that our previously held expectations of one another and of each other’s curriculum contributed to assumptions that ultimately negatively impacted students.  Due to these collaborations, funded by the Asian American Native American Pacific Islander (AANAPISI) grant, there was a body of work which emerged from those professional development opportunities, and the result of that work is visible in the student success data that emerged during this time period.(see Ellenbird, Naggie, Puente & Shute, this issue, for more on this data and collaboration).  One outcome is not just the ELL Department revising their outcomes and assessments to be holistic, but also the English Department doing the same as a result of their collaboration with ELL.

The next excerpt begins with a discussion by ELL full-time and adjunct faculty and support staff on the intentionally designed Ell Level 3 English College Composition (College Writing 1) co-taught cluster (see Akai-Dennis, Grehan, Paul & Valdez, this issue, to learn more about the ELL-ENG Learning Community).  Then, the discussion turns to how ELL learning communities – a successful model that was developed within the department a long time ago - are not enough on their own to make a difference for the whole ELL population. Similar to the previous clip, the discussion returns to the influence of newer faculty across the college who have high standards yet are able to adapt their curriculum to meet the needs of a diverse body of learners and the opportunity to connect with those faculty members at professional development opportunities.  One strategy of the reform was to connect seasoned faculty with newcomers from ELL, English and a variety of disciplines.

Clip 4
00:00-4:26

Changing the institution from within

In the previous section, you heard participants reflect and highlight opportunities where collaboration helped move the needle forward. These next three videos will go beyond challenges internal to a department and focus more on the inner workings of a large institution and outside influences.  Those influences include the field of TESOL and other environmental factors related to existing practices in higher education.

Clip 5
00:00-06:20

Reflective teaching and learning is a hallmark of any educator or educational institution with high standards. But often, especially in a time of change, more questions are raised than answers found. This was often the case for the faculty and staff involved in the reform. The participants were questioning not only themselves and their role, but also how other forces at work contributed to student experience.  As seen in the previous clip, that willingness to critically examine all aspects of student experience from intake to graduation led to deep conversations and deeper partnerships.

Clip 6
00:00-5:36

In the section you just heard, the role of data collection and its role in changing the mindset is referenced. During each year of the reform, the department tracked student success numbers in the integrated courses that were piloted. We also held student, faculty, and staff focus groups to gauge perceptions. The ELL Reform Team used that feedback to adapt practices during subsequent semesters.  At one point in the reform, two programs were running simultaneously - the stand-alone skills-based courses as well as the integrated 6 credit courses. In monitoring student success and retention rates, it soon became clear that students preferred the integrated model over the separate skills based courses. Students clamored to enroll in the new 6 credit integrated skills, theme-based clusters like In the Pursuit of Happiness and International Voices. In an anonymous survey, when asked to compare the integrated course with embedded support services to previous ESL coursework, a student stated “I feel like I’m in a real college course”. Some sections filled so quickly that we did not even have the chance to advertise them before they were at capacity.

While the ELL Reform Team was raising questions of intent, equity and access, questions about the reform itself and perceptions of language learning were raised across the institution. In the next segment, you will hear an overview by administrators and grant leaders of the beliefs that would need to be addressed in order for a new identity to be able to emerge. This segment also acknowledges how leadership and support on various levels allowed faculty to focus on the most challenging aspects that involved their expertise and how the leaders and administrators' efforts were often concentrated behind the scenes to remove obstacles and confront resistance.

Clip 7
00:00-10:17

In the previous clip, you heard the emphasis on the faculty-led efforts to provide expertise and galvanize the reform. However, support was needed at all levels.  Garnering that support to embrace this change is not easy, but it is necessary. Allowing the change to happen from the bottom up with top-down support is not the story most institutions are able to tell.

Internalizing change

The final three videos center on the individual faculty and staff perceptions of the changes taking place. The changes include the ones that they directly initiated or participated in.  A crucial piece to the reform was the realization that collective action could make a difference.  This emboldened those involved to take action, moving conversations beyond the indecisiveness of what could happen to focus on the steps to make the reform a reality.  Our stakeholders included staff from the Language Lab and Academic Innovation & Distance Education, AANAPISI success coaches and advisors, student ACE mentors, faculty from the English Department, content area faculty who employ cultural wealth practices, and administrators (see Lambert, Lim, & Ismatul-Olivia, this issue, for more about the crucial role of support services).  The first segment alludes to the drastic changes that happened with student in-take assessment. Though not discussed in detail here, in-take assessment and movement formerly existed outside of the ELL Department. The placement process is now more student-centered and continues to improve through an evolving dialog between staff and faculty. In the next clip, ELL faculty and support staff move beyond the recognition of the issues and talk about the assets within the community.

Clip 8
00:00-4:17

In the previous excerpt, you heard one ELL faculty member and staff member raise a number of fundamental questions such as “what are the needs of the students?” and “how can we collaborate with other departments?” This thinking demonstrates a move beyond identifying the problems, beyond feeling shame and indicating blame, and beyond deficit thinking. By removing the undue burden that comes with the mentality of having to ‘fix’ someone or something, it allows the faculty to approach their course and students with greater flexibility. This framing has influenced other departmental and curricular reform. When the ELL Department set out to rewrite the mission, vision and course outcomes we relied on the research and an asset-based line of questioning and considering the students holistically.

Clip 9
00:00-09:39

In the previous segment, ELL faculty and support staff highlight the importance of the asset-based review from the first year of the reform. The role of research and its dissemination cannot be emphasized enough. It is one thing for a faculty and staff member to recognize a difference between what they have read and what is current practice, but the readiness to make and take a leap is quite a different conversation. Those conversations built slowly over time through continuous professional development which strengthened faculty and staff communication and led to fortified collaboration. For some though, just the freedom to try out new pedagogies and practices in a supportive environment was impetus enough to take informed risks.

Clip 10
00:00-2:25

In this final excerpt, an ELL faculty member raises these points: “What do the students bring to the classroom? What do they have already?”  These are just a few of the guiding questions that reveal an asset-based mentality that we, the ELL Reform Team, hope is the prevailing attitude with which the institution now views English language learners.

AfterwOrd by Shawna Shapiro

The reflections shared here lay out many pieces of a puzzle. In the big picture, we see a program—indeed, an institution— shifting its approach to support for multilingual/ELL writers to be more integrated, collaborative, and asset-based. But what needed to be in place to make this vision a reality?  Here are some of the pieces that stand out most to me in their story:

1. The ELL Program crafted a collective narrative about where they have been and where they wanted to go.

2. Administrators in the program and beyond were willing to support and incentivize major curricular change.

3. The ELL and English faculty were committed to engaging with research, in order to expand their knowledge of best practices for curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

4. Faculty and staff across departments and entities were willing to collaborate with and learn from one another.

5. The institutional culture was nimble enough to allow for piloting of new curricular models, which could then be assessed, adapted, and scaled up.

6. There was funding and other institutional support to enable community-building and to sustain the curricular work.

I know that there are other factors I am not even aware of. And there is probably still more work to do, since a vibrant, student-centered curriculum must continue evolving along with students’ needs, goals, and interests. But the faculty and administrators involved with this project have articulated a blueprint for institutional change. They know it can be done. And that certainty—along with the infrastructures for collaboration—will sustain their work into the future.

If anyone knows the power of telling stories, it is teachers of writing and language. And the stories we tell ourselves, about our programs and institutions, are some of the most impactful. Changing that story—and then telling it to the world—takes commitment, courage, and generosity. I am so grateful to these colleagues for doing this work, and for telling us about it. There is so, so much we can learn from their story. I look forward to staying in touch—and I hope other readers will do the same!

About the author

Lindsay Naggie currently serves as the Interim Director of Learning Communities and has been a faculty member in the ELL Department at BHCC since 2008. She holds an M.A. in T.E.S.O.L. from Boston University and B.A. in English Literature and Secondary Education. She is a poet, print maker and returned Peace Corps volunteer. When not at work, she snowboards, swims, bicycles and hikes in Michigan, Idaho, Hawaii, Alaska and other far–flung, nature-dense corners of the world with her spouse and extended family/friends.

References

Shapiro, S. (2011). Stuck in the remedial rut: Confronting resistance to ESL curriculum reform. Journal of Basic Writing, 30(2), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.37514/jbw-j.2011.30.2.03