HEIS News

Volume 23:1 (February 2004)

by User Not Found | 10/20/2011
In This Issue...

Letter From the Chair
Students' Writing Skills Objectively Assessed: A TESOL 2003 Presentation
Writing Tasks for the Next Generation TOEFL: Review of a TESOL 2003 Presentation by Guinn Roberts and Daniel Tumposky
TESOL 2004 Preview: HEIS Academic Session on Assessment
TESOL 2004 Preview: HEIS Strand on Writing
TESOL 2004 Preview: HEIS Events
Thanks to Proposal Readers
HEIS Steering Committee, 2003-2004
Perspectives on Community College ESL Call for Contributors
About This Member Community


Letter From the Chair

Deborah Crusan, HEIS Steering Committee Chair, 2003-2004, deborahcrusan@wright.edu

Greetings from Ohio, where the temperature hovers at 0° Fahrenheit and spring seems very far away. However, in several weeks, spring will have arrived and we will once again have the chance to reconnect with friends from around the world at the annual TESOL convention. Preparations began 3 months ago with proposal submission for TESOL's 38th annual convention--Soaring Far, Catching Dreams--in Long Beach, California, in the United States, March 30-April 3. The ESL in Higher Education Interest Section (HEIS) received nearly 250 proposals for presentations, colloquia, and workshops--one of the highest numbers in the organization.

From those submissions, our proposal readers culled what looks to be a tremendous, high-quality contribution to the TESOL program. HEIS will host approximately 75 regular presentations, colloquia, and workshops. In addition, it will have eight Discussion Groups and a Strand (see Frank Noji's piece under TESOL 2004 Preview) on the topic of writing. Finally, many TESOL members will offer poster sessions or demonstrations. There's something for everyone, regardless of area of interest in higher education.

According to HEIS' governing rules, the interest section's (IS's) goal is to provide for the association of all those interested in ESL in higher education, advancing effective instruction, promoting professional standards and practice, influencing and supporting policies of TESOL and other associations, determining need in the field and initiating projects to meet such needs, and considering all other matters relevant to ESL in higher education.

It is interesting to see how our IS carries this goal forward. Clearly, we certainly provide for the association of those interested in ESL in higher education through our newsletter and the official HEIS Web site. However, the most salient illustration comes in the form of the various presentations sponsored by our IS, which in turn advance effective instruction. Countless new and adapted teaching ideas are made available in each presentation, and new and ongoing research projects are delineated, furthering the theoretical background of session attendees. In this way as well as in others, we promote professional standards and practice. Further, through leadership meetings we work to influence and support (and sometimes change) policy.

However, it is in the area of determining needs in the field and initiating special projects to meet those needs that I believe we need to work more diligently. Each year, TESOL makes funds available to successful grant writers who have projects they would like to showcase at the convention. These projects generally take the form of special gatherings hosted by one or more ISs. The gatherings function as avenues for exploration of special topics or such concepts as furthering technological knowledge or learning more about standards in K-12 and how those standards might affect our higher education programs.

In order for HEIS to become more involved in these special opportunities, our membership needs to pull together and brainstorm. One way in which this can be accomplished is through greater attendance at both the open business meeting on Wednesday, March 31, 5-7 pm, and the TESOL 2005 planning meeting on Saturday, April 3, 4-5.

In closing, let me say that my year as chair has been enjoyable. I have benefited from meeting and communicating with many colleagues during this time and thank the entire membership for the support, generosity, and collegiality offered to me while serving as your chair. I hope to see many of you in Long Beach.

Sincerely,

Deborah Crusan
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA


Students' Writing Skills Objectively Assessed: A TESOL 2003 Presentation

By Jóna E. Hammer, hammer@duq.edu, and Jeanette Clement, clement@duq.edu

ESL programs have various inconsistencies when it comes to assessment of student writing, with the result that students pass writing courses but remain unprepared to meet the writing requirements of academic courses or even the requirements of the next ESL level. The effects of these inconsistencies can be reduced, first by setting clear course objectives and then by giving level-specific writing tests indicating, regardless of course grades, whether students have acquired the targeted skills (and, incidentally, whether the instructor has focused on the course objectives).

Inconsistent Grading

Instructor inconsistencies in rating student papers is a problem familiar to writing instructors and program administrators (in ESL and in college composition programs). Student papers are usually graded according to abstract criteria open to subjective interpretation; some instructors may award As for papers rated by others as Cs or Ds. In a learning environment without concretely defined objectives or standards, instructors may identify an A-B paper as one with insight, good ideas, or the old standby: "I know an A paper when I see one." Well-known rating scales, such as the Test of Written English (TWE) or "official" guidelines by composition programs, are still highly abstract and therefore open to wide interpretation by instructors and students alike.

In addition to the inconsistent evaluation of papers, many other factors (e.g., participation, effort, not to mention every instructor's awareness that a D will lead to much more bother than a C would!) influence the grades students receive in writing courses. Instructors' are sometimes tempted to give a better grade than a paper actually deserves because of factors such as a student putting a lot of effort into revising a paper several times. Peripheral elements clamor for the instructor's consideration as well--a student might have very good attendance, always turn in homework on time, and score well on exercises. In the end, the student passes the course although his/her writing skills are inadequate for the next stage of her studies. In short, the course grade is an unreliable indicator of a student's actual writing skills.

Developing Consistent Grading Practices

We, the authors of this article, are also planners of a university ESL writing program. Before the consistency of writing assessments in our program could be improved, we had to clarify specific objectives, as concretely as possible, for each writing course. We had to make decisions about when to introduce certain grammar or sentence structures and when to teach the use and documentation of sources. For each writing level, we had to state objectives (i.e., students completing this courses should be able to ...). Once the curriculum objectives had been instituted, we created an across-the-board assessment system in the form of two tests taken by all students during the semester at the end of each term.

The first test calls for an essay on a miniature case study and invites the writer to form an opinion and support it. The same test is used at every ESL level. Two instructors (neither of whom are a student's course instructor) rate the essay on a scale (partly inspired by the official TWE rating scale) to determine the level of grammar/sentence mastery, fluency, and focus. (This test is also used as an intake diagnostic. Every semester, there are workshops for writing instructors in which student papers are collectively rated in order to synchronize the subjective elements of writing assessments.)

The second test is level- and objective-specific and is administered at the intermediate and advanced levels. It asks students to read a passage and use it to perform a series of academic tasks (e.g., quote, paraphrase, identify thesis, document) appropriate to the objectives at a particular ESL level. This test is rated by the curriculum planners only.

The ratings for the two tests are then calculated as a letter grade (the writer's profile) that constitutes 25% of a student's final grade for the course. The essay test is weighted more heavily in the profile, because grammar/sentence skills are considered the primary ESL teaching objectives.

This test combination has now been used in our university's ESL program for 3 years. The results show the following benefits:

  • Students with low writing skills are now more likely to receive a failing grade and repeat the course (to their own benefit, although they do not always see it that way!) or receive additional instruction by other means instead of receiving passing grades and being sent on to new writing situations in which their skills are even less adequate.
  • Instructors, anticipating the tests, now adhere much more closely to curricular directives issuing from the program planners. The addition of the tests to the firming up of objectives and standards has resulted in better focused course instruction.

Of course, it is impossible to concretely define all the abstract (and therefore subjective) elements of writing assessment. However, setting concrete objectives, when possible, and testing accordingly can go a long way toward better synchronization of teaching and testing. Overall, the creation of this particular in-house testing system for writing has improved the quality of an important component of our ESL program.

Jóna E. Hammer is associate director and Jeanette Clement is curriculum coordinator, both in the ESL program at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the United States.


Writing Tasks for the Next Generation TOEFL: Review of a TESOL 2003 Presentation by Guinn Roberts and Daniel Tumposky

By Ishbel Galloway, ishbel_galloway@sfu.ca

As an examiner and trainer for the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), I have been following the progress of the new Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) with some interest. I don't know if Educational Testing Service (ETS) has a fair number of Star Trek fans, but the new test is referred to as the Next Generation TOEFL. It has a launch date of September 2005, when it will be offered worldwide and will assess all four skills. However, the final format of the writing component is still under discussion.

Current TOEFL Writing Test Prototype

At the 2002 TESOL convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, in the United States, Robert Kantor and Jeanne Malloy of ETS presented the then-current model for the new, integrated reading-writing test. Students were to be presented with a 600-700-word academic text, along with a prompt requiring an appropriate 175-200-word written response. The sample texts they showed--some from freshman textbooks--were quite complex, and the prompts called for a variety of subskills, including selecting relevant information, paraphrasing, synthesizing, and summarizing. I remember thinking what a quantum leap this represented compared with the Test of Written English (TWE). So, at the 2003 convention, as I listened to Guinn Roberts and Daniel Tumposky backtrack on this model and acknowledge that it had been too ambitious, I was not surprised.

In fact, Roberts admitted, in pilot test comparisons with the TWE, writing scores for this new prototype fell by a full point, which made the test developers realize that the format was too challenging. ETS is currently experimenting with a number of different formats, but they have decided that, like IELTS, the new TOEFL will have two writing tasks to complete within 1 hour. Of these two tasks, one will be a stand-alone, independent writing task and the other will be based on some yet-to-be-determined integrated prompt.

Independent Writing Task. The independent writing task will be similar to the existing TWE. Candidates will have 30 minutes to write an argument based on their own experience and knowledge. The ability to clearly express and support an opinion is integral to this task. Now, I have always been surprised by the range of topics in the TWE, or at least in the 100 practice topics on the ETS Web site. Some are quite personal--more typical of ESL writing than academic writing--and others seem much more demanding in terms of topic development and critical thinking. So I will be interested to see if the new TOEFL's topic range is narrowed.

Integrated Writing Task. For the integrated writing task, TOEFL is piloting three different formats, all of them considerably more challenging than the independent writing task. Unlike the first task, the presenters explained, this second task would require no personal opinions but students would have to demonstrate an ability to respond appropriately to a prompt based on either aural or written input.

The first prototype of the integrated writing task would require the candidate to write, within a fixed time limit, a response to a 250-300-word academic reading passage. Candidates would take notes as they read, then the passage would be removed, and they would use their notes to write a response to the prompt. The example shown at TESOL's 2003 convention was essentially a summary writing task, which seems to me to be a very useful type of task. Recognizing hierarchy in ideas and being able to summarize from memory are key academic skills that nonnative-speaking (NNS) students struggle with. More important, however, is the fact that these are the kinds of skills students cannot fake. A major criticism of the current TOEFL is that familiarity with the test and repeated test-taking allows students to improve their test score when there is little change in their linguistic competence.

In the second integrated task prototype that developers are experimenting with, the stimulus is aural. Candidates would listen to a short academic lecture segment (2 minutes), take notes while they listened, and then have 10 minutes to respond with a one-paragraph summary to a prompt asking for the lecture's main points. This, too, seems a very legitimate type of task for assessing the student's linguistic readiness for credit study in English.

The third prototype of the integrated writing task seems to me to require skill levels considerably beyond the other two. In this model, the stimulus would be both written and aural. Candidates would read a 200-250-word academic text and then listen to a short lecture extract on a related topic. However, this time the requirement is much more sophisticated. In addition to summarizing what has been read or heard, the candidate must be capable of understanding the relationship between the two texts--do they support or contradict one another? While the sample prompt provides a clue ("Summarize the main points made in the lecture, being careful to explain the ways in which they cast doubt on points made in the reading"), this remains a very demanding task. This kind of integration of sources is something that NNS students struggle with beyond their freshman year, and I think it is unlikely that the new TOEFL will adopt this model.

In fact, I predict pilot testing of this last prototype will produce a two-point drop compared with the TWE. However, the first two integrated task prototypes, in addition to being authentic, seem more feasible. Although both would be challenging, they would also give university administrators a much more accurate gauge than the current TOEFL of a candidate's readiness for academic study in English.

TOEFL Academic Speaking Test

At TESOL's 2003 convention, Roberts and Tumposky also discussed the new TOEFL Academic Speaking Test (TAST), which will replace the Test for Spoken English (TSE) in 2005. (The TSE will be redesigned as a more general competency test with an increased workplace focus). They kept referring to something called interactive voice technology (IVR), which will be the medium of the new test. Eventually, somebody in the audience asked what exactly IVR was, only to find out that it was no more than the telephone! In fact, TOEFL is using Ordinate Corporation's PhonePass system (http://www.ordinate.com/). So, like the TSE, the questions and prompts are prerecorded and students have a certain time frame in which to answer. (It seems to me that this is a very stilted format, both to test oral communicative ability as well as to assess it.)

ETS is currently offering the TAST to schools (for diagnostic purposes) and students (for practice), although it will most likely remain a no-stakes test until 2005. Registration includes free test preparation. More information is available at http://www.toefl.org/tast/index.html.

Ten years of research into the academic needs of NNS students in North American universities has gone into the Next Generation TOEFL, and ETS has shown enormous generosity in sharing this work. On the ETS Web site, a huge amount of material is available for free download (http://www.toefl.org/research/rschindx.html#rrpts), which has been extremely useful in curriculum development for my English for academic purposes program.

Mari Pearlman, ETS vice president of teaching and learning, promises the Next Generation TOEFL will be "a test that provides information about a student's real-life ability to integrate English speaking, listening, writing and reading--the language skills essential to functioning successfully in higher education settings" (Educational Testing Service, 2003). Certainly, it promises to be a much better test and will provide more of a challenge to IELTS and its recent growth spurt.

References

Kantor, R. & Malloy, J. (2002, April 13). Preparing for new TOEFL reading-writing tasks. Paper presented at the annual convention of TESOL, Salt Lake City, UT.

Educational Testing Service. (2003). Next generation TOEFL to premier in September 2005. Retrieved August 8, 2003, fromhttp://www.ets.org/news/03022501.html.

Roberts, G. & Tumposky, D. (2003, March 26). Writing tasks for the next generation TOEFL. Paper presented at the annual convention of TESOL, Baltimore, MD.

Ishbel Galloway is on the faculty of the English Bridge Program at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia, in Canada.


TESOL 2004 Preview: HEIS Academic Session on Assessment

By Deborah Crusan, HEIS Steering Committee chair, 2003-2004, deborahcrusan@wright.edu

HEIS has an exciting Academic Session planned for the 2004 TESOL convention in Long Beach, California, in the United States. The session entitled "Assessing Our Students/Assessing Ourselves: Practical Suggestions for Teachers" brings together four prominent scholars: April Ginther, Liz Hamp-Lyons, Lorraine Valdez Pierce, and Sara Cushing Weigle. Through their individual presentations, these eminent assessment specialists will help teachers see themselves as assessors of language; demonstrate why teachers need to be informed about assessment's use in controlling curriculum, reaffirming that assessment is not something better left to psychometricians; and highlight the importance of a required language assessment course for TESOL pre- and inservice teachers. The session will be held Thursday, April 1, 8:30-11:15 am, in the Hyatt Regency Ballroom B. Come early for a good seat! This session is sure to be standing room only.


TESOL 2004 Preview: HEIS Strand on Writing

By Frank Noji, past HEIS chair, francis@hawaii.edu

A strand, specially highlighted in the program book, is a set of presentations relating to a similar hot topic. The HEIS strand will include 12 papers on the topic of writing. The strands are scheduled for 2-3:45 pm on each of the four days of the convention.

On Wednesday, three presenters will discuss issues surrounding writing assignments. Shelly Saltzman's presentation, "Crafting Assignments to Prevent Plagiarism," will present what instructors might do to inspire their students to avoid plagiarism. She will discuss teaching international students explicitly what plagiarism is, how many forms it can take (including word-for-word plagiarism, cut-and-paste plagiarism, and paraphrase plagiarism), and, most importantly, how to avoid it. Saltzman will share student examples of completed assignments of a sequence of activities that can drastically cut down on plagiarism.

Karen Russikoff's presentation, "Creating Worthy Composition Topics" will demonstrate various ways to create thoughtful, careful, and creative topics by which ESL writers find success. To create strong topics, Russikoff proposes that students and teachers need sufficient composing schema, which include recognition and understanding of instructional verbs. Russikoff will present the results of her study to support her hypothesis and will demonstrate ways to address sequence and structure of topic assignments so that students respond with appropriate organization.

Sandra Peters' presentation, "Projects and Web Publishing Foster Writing Skills" will round out the strand for Wednesday.

On Thursday, three presenters will discuss teaching strategies. John Herbert's presentation, "English Prime in L1 and L2 Writing," will demonstrate that the introduction to English Prime, Standard English without any form of the verb to be, can remedy the over-reliance on the verb to be and can compel ESL and EFL students to engage in autonomous language learning within the process of writing. Herbert will show that, by removing all forms of the verb to be from a writing assignment, students in EFL, ESL, and native-English-speaking contexts alike can refine their writing to exhibit greater effort and clearer, more elaborate descriptions of reality. He will also discuss how preventing students from using the verb to be forces them to seek out new vocabulary and forms of grammar on their own. For language learners, particularly in EFL settings, English Prime also activates the use of known vocabulary that students might otherwise leave dormant or perhaps even forget all together."

Joel Bloch will present "Blogging in the L2 Composition Classroom." He will discuss how blogs (weblogs) can be integrated into an composition course by examining assignments, their relationship to the course papers, and the students' use of blogs in their papers.

Wiesia Prominska-Hight's presentation, "Conceptualize, Visualize, Write!," will show how conceptualization, abstract thinking, and visual techniques can facilitate writing a coherent, cohesive, and concise essay. She will discuss methods of writing a concise academic essay, emphasizing idea generation, prioritizing, and sequencing of the thought development prior to writing.

The three presentations on Friday will deal with editing. Deborah van Dommelen and Patricia Porter's presentation, "Editing Guides and Strategies for Academic Writers," will demonstrate an approach that engages learners in the process of developing their own personalized systems for editing and that includes activities and strategies that have been used successfully with varied populations--international, permanent resident, bilingual, and generation 1.5 students. Porter and van Dommelen will show how learners work with their own texts to identify problems, create resources, and develop personalized systems for editing. They will show materials, activities, and samples of student writing.

Also on Friday, Kelli Loggins' presentation, "Learning to Self-Edit," will examine the effects of indirect error feedback on L2 writers' self-editing abilities. The presentation will also focus on ways that teachers can help students recognize and learn to deal with their most frequent and serious errors. Loggins will investigate both short- and long-term effects of indirect error feedback and prioritized grammar instruction on L2 student writers' accuracy rates and self-editing abilities, suggesting that certain errors (e.g., word choice, sentence structure) may be less amenable to indirect treatment. Thus, indirect error treatment may be most effective when directed at errors that are more systematic and rule-governed.

Ellen Measday and Jane Ostacher's presentation, "Empowering Students to Edit Their Writing Independently," discusses a study testing the hypothesis that students could be convinced of their own editing abilities through a gradual process of increased responsibility and accountability. Their study involves four randomly chosen upper level writing classes. The students counted the number of words and errors in their essays and calculated the percentage of errors. Based on results analyzed through a comparison of recorded data and student-written evaluations, the presenters hypothesize that the change in percentage could act as an inspiration to participants. The presentation includes study results, handouts, suggestions for application of findings, and time for discussion."

On Saturday, the presenters will focus on three different aspects of writing. Jan Frodesen's presentation, "Grammar as a Resource for L2 Writers," will discuss activities for L2 academic writing intended to increase awareness of how language structures create meaning and link ideas in texts and offer productive practice that will encourage learners to draw on their grammatical and lexical resources and to expand their existing repertoire.

Timothy Grove's presentation "Lexical Phrases in the Academic Writing Class" will highlight data collected from several semesters of an advanced ESL writing course demonstrating that an explicit focus on lexical phrases improves the quality of student writing. The results and implications of highlighting a set of lexical phrases for special attention will also be discussed.

Steven Talmy and Priscilla Faucette will present "Convention Analysis for Graduate-Level EAP Writing." They will highlight a semester-long English for academic purposes research and writing project in which graduate students investigate their own discipline-specific genres and discourse conventions. An overview of the project, selected materials, and samples of student research will be presented.

If you are teaching writing or interested in doing so, the strand is a great venue because you get three presentations in one session in the same room each day--no need to run around looking for rooms. The HEIS strand at the convention in Long Beach promises to be thought provoking and full of useful ideas to try in your classrooms.


TESOL 2004 Preview: HEIS Events

Going to TESOL 2004? If so, mark your calendars and join fellow HEIS members for these meetings and special events.

HEIS Open Business Meeting

Wednesday, March 31, 5-7 pm
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 201A
Connect with HEIS members, and share ideas for upcoming HEIS activities and events.

Interest Section Networking Reception

Wednesday, March 31, 7-8:30 pm
Renaissance Ballroom 4 & 5
This networking reception is sponsored by four interest sections--Intercultural Communication (IC); English as a Foreign Language; Refugee Concerns; Speech, Pronunciation, and Listening--and the TESOLers for Social Responsibility Caucus. All TESOL convention attendees are invited. For more information, contact Armeda Reitzel, ICIS cochair, at acr1@humboldt.edu or 707-826-3779.

Teacher Education IS Reception: Focus on Diversity

Wednesday, March 31, 7-9 pm
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 101B
TEIS will host a special gathering of teacher educators and members of caucuses and interest sections who are interested in networking on a variety of related issues in teacher education:

  • What are the trends in teacher education regarding changing demographics?
  • How do teacher education programs address the needs of nonnative-English-speaking professionals? The needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students and families?
  • How do teacher education programs address race and racism, gender, and various hierarchies and inequalities?
  • What are examples of provocative materials (e.g., books, articles, films, Web sites, activities, curricular innovations) and theoretical resources that have helped raise consciousness and support democratic participation and community and economic development?
  • What model institutional policies, programs, and practices have made a difference in addressing bigotry and hate crimes, promoting internationalism, reducing ethnic and religions tensions, and promoting peace in specific EFL/ESL teacher education programs?

For more information, contact Shelley Wong at wong.180@osu.edu.

HEIS Academic Session

Assessing Our Students/Assessing Ourselves: Practical Suggestions for Teachers
Thursday, April 1, 8:30-11:15 am
Hyatt Regency Ballroom B
Hear from four prominent scholars--April Ginther, Liz Hamp-Lyons, Lorraine Valdez Pierce, and Sara Cushing Weigle. For more information, contact Deborah Crusan, HEIS chair, at deborahcrusan@wright.edu.

HEIS Planning Meeting for TESOL 2005

Saturday, April 3, 4-7 pm
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 201A
Help HEIS plan next year's academic session and events.

For a complete listing of HEIS presentations and events, please visit the 2004 TESOL convention online Program Planner Web site at http://www2.tesol.org/tesol2004/ or stop by the HEIS booth in Long Beach.


Thanks to Proposal Readers

HEIS would like to thank the following proposal readers for volunteering for one of the most important tasks of the year. Great job!

Julie Adler
Lara J. Beninca
Diane Boothe
Meriam Brown
Jose A. Carmona
Sherrie Carroll
Jane Curtis
Kristen di Gennaro
Martha Dolly
Ishbel Galloway
Sue Lantz Goldhaber
Chris Hall
Kieran Hilu
David Kent
Mary Lynn Klingman
Ditlev S. Larsen
Nancy Lewis
Janet Maceda
Kathy McIntyre
Robyn Najar
Frank Noji
Judy Reynolds
Karen Russikoff
Sharon C. Snyder
Marilynn Spaventa
Karen Stanley
Sue Starfield
Li-Lee Tunceren
Linda Vinay
Elizabeth Holden Wagenheim
Carol Wilson-Duffy


HEIS Steering Committee, 2003-2004

Chair
Deborah Crusan
Asst. Professor, TESOL/Applied Linguistics
126V Allyn Hall
Wright State University
Dayton, OH 45435
USA
937-775-2846 (work phone)
937-324-4660 (home phone)
E-mail: deborahcrusan@wright.edu

Chair-Elect
Sue Lantz Goldhaber
Queens College
6530 Kissena Boulevard
Kiely 227
Flushing, NY 11367-1575
USA
E-mail: slgqc@aol.com

Assistant Chair
Craig Machado
ESL Program Director
Norwalk Community College
Norwalk, CT 06854
USA
203-857-7176 (work phone)
E-mail: cmachado@ncc.commnet.edu

Secretary
Laurie Berry
English Department, Beltline Campus
Midlands Technical College
P. O. Box 2408
Columbia, SC 29202
USA
803-738-7844 (work phone)
803-790-7509 (work fax)
E-mail: berryl@midlandstech.com

Members-at-Large
Diane D. Belcher
Director, ESL Composition Program
ESL Programs
Ohio State University
60 Arps Hall
1945 North High Street
Columbus, OH 43210-1172
USA
614-292-6360 (work phone)
614-292-4054 (work fax)
E-mail: belcher.1@osu.edu

Alice Savage
North Harris College
2700 W.W. Thorpe Drive, #221-F
Houston, TX 77073-3499
USA
281-618-5507 (work phone)
281-618-7165 (work fax)
E-mail: alice.o.savage@nhmccd.edu

Diane Tehrani
7120SW Taylors Ferry Road
Portland, Oregon 97223
USA
503-725-5214 (work phone)
503-982-9329 (home phone)
E-mail: tehraniesl@yahoo.com


Nominating Committee Chair, 2003-2004
Frank A. Noji
Kapi'olani Community College
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
4303 Diamond Head Road
Honolulu, HI 96816
USA
808-734-9332 (work phone)
E-mail: francis@hawaii.edu


Newsletter Editor
Margi L. Wald
College Writing Programs
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-2500
USA
510-642-3340 (work phone)
510-642-6963 (work fax)
E-mail: mwald@uclink.berkeley.edu


Perspectives on Community College ESL Call for Contributors

Perspectives on Community College ESL is a forthcoming three-volume series (to be published by TESOL), The series is designed to bring together community college ESL/EFL practitioners' perspectives from diverse settings to get a better sense of the institutional state of the discipline and where it is headed. Contributors to the series should approach issues of concern to them from a reflective, analytical, and/or best practices viewpoint. The editors are looking for people to comment on the state of community college ESL institutionally, as well as to focus on a particular program, curriculum, project, or collaboration that was especially successful and worthy of attention beyond one's immediate workplace. The range of issues--whether in curriculum, programs, administration, assessment, students, advocacy, support services, or employment practices--is substantive, complex, and largely shaped by the unique mission of the community college. For complete call information please visit http://www2.tesol.org/pdfs/pubs/cfms/perspectivescc.pdf. Call closes June 1, 2004.

Series Editor

Craig Machado, Norwalk Community College, Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
cmachado@ncc.commnet.edu

Editor, Volume 1
Programs, Curriculum, and Assessment
Marilynn Spaventa, Santa Barbara City College, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Spaventa@sbcc.edu

Editor, Volume II
Students, Mission, and Advocacy
Amy Blumenthal, Oakton Community College, Des Plaines, Illinois, USA
amyblu@oakton.edu

Editor, Volume III
Faculty, Administration, and the Working Environment
José A. Carmona, Daytona Beach Community College, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA
CarmonaJA@cs.com


About This Member Community ESL in Higher Education Interest Section (HEIS)

ESL in Higher Education advances effective instruction, promotes professional standards and practices, influences and supports policies of TESOL and other associations, determines needs, and considers all other matters relevant to ESL in colleges and universities.

HEIS Leaders, 2003-2004

Chair: Deborah J. Crusan, deborah.crusan@wright.edu
Chair-Elect: Sue Lantz Goldhaber, slgqc@aol.com
Newsletter Editor: Margi L. Wald, mwald@uclink.berkeley.edu

Web site: http://llc.msu.edu/elc/heis/
Discussion E-list: Connect with fellow HEIS members on the online discussion list, HEIS-L. Visit http://lists.tesol.org/read/?forum=heis-l if already subscribed to HEIS-L, or http://www.tesol.org/getconnected/ if you wish to subscribe.