Integrating Language,Literacy, and Academic Development: Alternatives to Traditional English as a Second Language and Remedial English for Language Minority Students in Community Colleges

This article argues for the importance of integrating a focus on language, literacy, and academic development for United States-educated language minority (US-LM) students, sometimes called Generation 1.5. It describes four initiatives at community colleges in California that aim to do so. US-LM students have completed some K–12 schooling in the United States, but their English is considered by community college faculty, staff, or assessment measures to be inadequate for college-level instruction. Although enacting effective language and literacy support for Generation 1.5 has centered on debates about whether these students belong in English as a Second Language (ESL) or remedial English courses, how they can best be identified and tested, or whether they should be taught in separate classes, we argue that more fundamental shifts are needed. Instead of conceiving of students’ language and literacy development solely in terms of progress through ESL or remedial English sequences, educators designing support for US-LM students must also consider larger contexts of students’ academic progress, promoting students’ development of language and literacy for success in academic and professional settings as well as progress toward completing credits required for associate degrees, certificates, and transfer to four-year institutions.     

The determinants of progress to the doctoral degree

The time doctoral students expect to take to complete their degree is investigated in a model which stresses the effects of economic factors. The model also accounts for the interdependency among such variables as employment hours, study hours, household income, and part-time study. We find that field of study, amount of borrowing, household income, and study hours have direct effects on expected time to degree. Indirect effects also occur from employment hours and the amount of fellowship, scholarship, or grant aid. When the sample is separated into foreign and U.S. students, we find that U.S. students underestimate their time to degree. Also, household incomes are higher for U.S. students and increase the time to degree, while the opposite is true for foreign students. Teaching assistantships increase the time to degree for foreign students while research assistantships reduce it.