Intensive ESL As I See It Practiced

I suspect that “intensive” ESL is often assumed to mean “immersion” ESL. We generally take “intensive” to mean “concentrated,” with the result that an intensive ESL program would be denser than the usual program. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. As far as I can tell, “intensive” is used to mean “faster” than normal.

Here is an example to explain what I mean. On my campus, our core courses total 48-hours of class time, the same as a 3-hour credit class. Thus, in the Fall semester, for example, a student make take one 48-hour Communications class, attending two hours a day, two days a week, for 24 class periods.

The “intensive” schedule, on the other hand, is offered on our other campuses. On this schedule, students still attend class for 2 hours/day, but 4 days a week. This means that the student covers the same amount of material in half the time. That also allows the college to offer two sets of classes in a semester, one at the beginning of the semester, and the other at midterm. Thus, a student may take one 48-hour course from September to October, and the next 48-hour course from October to December. That is, the savvy student, who wants “to learn perfect English as fast as possible,” as most students (in their idealistic enthusiasm) report is able to cover twice as much material at four times the pace of a college class.

Is there a problem with that? I see one, and so do student who return to my campus after having taken such classes. In covering the same material in half the time, students have half the time to study and practice outside of class—and for many students, it is difficult to find much time for study and practice as it is. Thus, students are confronted with material at an accelerated rate while they have not yet digested the material they have already covered.

On ESL Testing

The community college where I work has five campuses, and on each campus, the ESL programs, under Continuing Education, developed independently. As a result of their independent development, the placement process, levels, and coursework—though comparable—were unique to each campus. Recently, the college has instituted a computer placement test for new students across the entire district. Doubtless, the primary intention behind this move was to iron out the differences between the programs, to make data accessible from one campus to another, and to enable students to travel between campuses with as little confusion as possible. In these respects, the decision was a success.

However, the test itself is of dubious value. There is no writing or speaking section, which prevents students’ composition or even orthographic skills, not to mention conversational skills, from being evaluated at all. Without conversation with a trained advisor, speaking/listening are not considered at all.

In addition, many of our students (among whom are a large number of refugees) are not able to use computers. Some of them have no familiarity with computers at all; some have no familiarity with the western alphabet; and other have no literacy skills in any language. And since the instructions for taking the test are in English, students face yet another obstacle. Most of us do not test well when the conditions make us nervous.

In addition to a computer placement test for new students, at least one campus is requiring a computer final exam. In addition to the obvious limitations of such as a test of authentic communication skills, I have been told that instructors feel a pressure to teach to the test.

It seems to me that our schools and colleges have yet to understand the nature of language acquisition, in particular of ESL. And until we understand the nature of the teaching and learning peculiar to this area, we will not be able to test effectively. All we can do is speak out when we see that what we are doing is not working, or worse—hen we see that it is actually undermining what we understand to be our mission: helping people use English effectively for their daily needs.