My CATESOL Conference Report, Part 1

I found I wasn’t really going to miss my 10 AM presentation after being reassured by the Super Shuttle lady behind the counter at the Sacramento Airport. I had missed my first flight out of San Diego at 6:30 on the morning of Friday, April 11, due to super long lines for the security check-in. Folks told me to blame American’s canceled flights that added to Southwest’s passenger load. My rebooked flight from San Diego had just landed shortly before 9. The Super Shuttle took about fifteen minutes to deliver me to the Convention Center in downtown Sacramento. With my luggage in tow and my presentation handouts in my backpack, I quickly went through the presenters’ check-in. I managed to be the first one to arrive at Big Sur A, my presentation room, with 20 minutes to calm my nerves.

My presentation, entitled "Ten Ways to Grow Democracy in the ESL Classroom,” went well. About 25 colleagues were in attendance. Angela Webster came to render her support. I was just glad that she was there to explain her mentor program, which I included as one of the examples for a concrete strategy. With the new 90-minute format, the session had plenty of time for interaction with and among the audience members. I played the very first episode of my “Voices of ESL” podcast series at the conclusion of my session amid much applause.

Then, I went two blocks north to look for my economical hotel, Quality Inn, only to find out that no rooms were ready, but the receptionist was kind enough to take in my bags for storage. On my way back to the Convention Center, I struck up a conversation with a fellow conference attendee and stopped at a corner café to grab a bite to go.

After hurrying into the hall where the Friday President’s Lunch Plenary had started, I picked a back seat to enjoy my sandwich and take in what was happening. The Secondary Level Essay Award was on, followed by the Adult Level Writing Contest Award. Both student winners read their own essay on what democracy meant, citing their own first-hand experiences as immigrants. Then, the outgoing CATESOL President Dan Fichtner presented the Sadae Iwataki Service Award to Margaret Teske of Mt. SAC for her services to the organization, especially in the area of overseeing CATESOL conferences. I know Margaret as I have seen her at all kinds of conferences. She and her ESL colleagues at Mt. SAC are running a very dynamic ESL Dept. there. I was very happy for her, although she seemed to be surprised by the award.

Then, Sac State Professor Emeritus Jose Montoya took the floor to deliver his plenary speech entitled “Using Art to Nurture Creativity in the Classroom.” Dubbed “one of the most influential Chicano bilingual poets in the U.S.,” Mr. Montoya was both creative and funny. For example, he quipped that the abbreviation of his Rebel Chicano Art Front, an artists’ collective, was mistaken for Royal Canadian Air Force. But his message was serious and very much in keeping with what we know as paying attention to all the seven intelligences in the classroom, in my opinion, although he emphasized the use of visual art, poetry, and song lyrics.

I next headed to the workshop called “Eliciting Analytical Responses in Timed Writing Exams” given by Robby Ching, Darlene Jantz, and Rebecca Mitchell of the Learning Skills Center of Sac State. Their talk is aptly subtitled “Developing ‘WRITE’ Students,” with the acronym representing their goals for the students: Wrestle with the issues, Read carefully, Interact with the authors, Think critically, and Express opinions.

As we all know, Generation 1.5 and other ESL students in colleges have found it hard to transition from expressive writing, where anything goes, to academic reading and writing, where personal experience alone is insufficient. At Sac State, as at many other colleges, students must demonstrate their ability to write an analytical response. Both the midterm and final exams are group-graded on a very detailed 6-point rubric, with teachers not grading their own students. If students pass the timed final writing exam, receiving at least 4 on the six-point rubric, they pass the course. If not, they can use their writing portfolio to try to pass the course.

The presenters from Sac State defined analytical responses with such characteristics:

• Show critical thinking; take an issue apart perhaps by attempting to point out the root cause; read between the lines
  
• A written presentation of a clear position on a controversial issue with thorough and logical explanation and support; an accurate understanding of explanations and arguments in a text; appropriate assessment of the author’s evidence.

The presenters found the traditional type of controversy prompts problematic because even with allowing the students to bring the reading to the final, they still misread and misquoted the reading. In other words, they still couldn’t analyze the ideas of others or integrate these ideas into their own writing. The presenters showed three student samples to prove the students’ lack of understanding of and interaction with the assigned reading.

The presenters and their colleagues at Sac State decided to try a new type of prompt in order to develop their students’ interest in the topic and the readings, to discourage over-reliance on quoted materials, and to create an opportunity for counter-argument. Luckily, the material development was easy for the Sac State colleagues because they don’t use textbooks. The new prompt included a one-side, extreme letter to the editor, offering an opportunity for the students to interact with the author more. The students were then asked to explain the letter writer’s position in their own words and discuss the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with at least two of his arguments. The students needed to support their position by providing reasons and examples from their own experience, observations, or reading. They were also to refer to at least one of the readings given to them to prepare for the exam.

Not only was the prompt style changed, but the way to prepare the students was transformed also. The teacher designed a note-taking chart to replace the article(s) that used to be allowed in the exam room. The chart was collected along with the essay at the end of the exam. It may be grounds for failing if there were no “quotes" on the chart.

To truly prepare the students, the presenters and their Sac State colleague focused on ways to

• pique the students’ interest in the topic/readings
  
• help the students better understand the information and arguments in the articles
  
• help students connect their own opinions and ideas with the opinions and ideas of others.

As a pre-reading activity, the presenters and their Sac State colleague now routinely present their students with only the titles of the four or five readings first and then ask them to determine the topic and issues, predict the authors’ position, write their initial reaction to the topic, and/or write questions that they have on the topic that they would like to see answered in the articles. The Sac State teachers also give examples and scenarios or even visual images to elicit critical response to the issue at hand.

Other concrete strategies that have seemed to work for the Sac State colleagues:

• Teach “before” and “after.” That is, before reading the articles, the students write down their opinion on the topic and state at least two reasons for this opinion. Then, after reading the article, they compare their feelings about the topic with their original opinion to see if their opinion stay the same, completely change, or somewhat change. They then write down two points from the readings that have convinced them to keep or change their original opinion.
  
• Teach annotating: The Sac State colleagues routinely teach the students to annotate an author’s thesis on the right margin of the handout and express their own opinion on the left. They even require the students to annotate the prompt on the day of the exam, which has a side benefit of preventing plagiarism.
  
• Give vocabulary practice worksheets. The Sac State teachers believe it’s very necessary for the students to have the ability to use the academic vocabulary correctly when writing about an issue. So they designed fill-in-the-blank worksheets with more than enough words and expressions provided so that the students can practice word choice and parts of speech as well.
  
• Teach classical rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos. Questions about logic, the author, and emotions help the students learn to recognize and analyze an author’s arguments.
  
• Teach how to recognize counter-arguments. A well-chosen paragraph with an author’s position, the position of people on the other side, and the author’s refutation of somebody else’s argument will do the trick.
  
• Provide an evidence identification and evaluation chart. Up to ten pieces of the author’s evidence can be highlighted and numbered in an article. For each piece, the students identify on the chart
  
  • which type of evidence it is (factual example, expert testimony, statistic, personal/ anecdotal experience, or commonly held assumption/belief)
    
  • what rhetorical appeal it serves (logos, ethos, or pathos)
    
  • where it is on a 1-10 reliability scale (1 is untrustworthy; 10 is absolute).
• Give a courtroom assignment. The teacher sets up a scenario. Half of the students are to build a case for the plaintiff, and the other half builds a case for the defendant. In addition to attorneys, each side is to have experts (e.g. psychologists, sociologies, nutritionists, doctors, advertising experts, and any other witnesses deemed necessary) who must research information that fits their roles. Those not taking specific “acting” roles are assigned to the jury, who gives a verdict based on the most compelling arguments at the close.
  
• Form a value line. This activity encourages the students to take a position on an issue and recognize varying degrees of opinions on that issue. The teacher poses a question to the class. After each student has had time to think of an answer, perhaps by putting it in writing, the teacher and a student stand at the opposite ends of the room. Each states an extreme position on the issue at opposite ends of the spectrum. The students are asked to take their place along an imaginary line between the two extreme positions. Students talk to those they are standing near to make sure they are in the correct position and can move if they aren’t. The teacher asks one person from each cluster group to state their position on the issue.
  
• Conduct a town hall meeting. The goal of this activity is to make sure that students understand the issue in the articles, see how they relate to each other, and can think critically about an issue. Students assume the roles of people in the assigned articles to present solutions to a particular problem and to offer dissenting opinions on the various solutions. The rest of the students comprise the audience. The teacher functions as the moderator, keeping time and making sure all positions and questions are heard. Role players have 10 minutes to prepare and must cite evidence from the readings and include personal examples if they apply. Audience members must take notes as they listen and ask at least one question to any of the panelists. At the end, the students debrief by discussing points that were possibly omitted or under-developed. They can then free-write about positions they agreed or disagreed with and why or solutions not mentioned in the articles or discussion.
  
• Run a speed debate. This activity encourages student debate and discussion from every student and allows the teacher to better focus on the discussion. Students sit in two rows, facing each other in pairs. The teacher asks a question for the students to discuss with the person opposite him or her for 2 to 3 minutes. Then every student shifts one desk to the left (or right). The teacher can pose the same question or a new one, and the students continue their debate or discussion with their new partner.
  

At the conclusion of this very informative session, I felt like teaching ESL 103 again. I was sure that the ideas I heard would certainly elicit that critical voice from our ESL students and train them to be the "WRITE" ones.