Course taking patterns of latino ESL students mobility and mainstreaming in urban community colleges in the united states

Course-Taking Patterns of Latino ESL
Students: Mobility and Mainstreaming in
Urban Community Colleges in the United
States
ARIA RAZFAR
University of Illinois
Chicago, Illinois, United States

JENNY SIMON
El Camino Community College
Torrance, California, United States

In most Western countries where English is the medium of instruction,
there is a substantial gap in student success between immigrant English
as a second language (ESL) students and non-ESL students. In the
United States, this situation has been observed in particular with Latino
ESL students. This article describes a longitudinal study of two cohorts
of Latino ESL students and compares the success of students who
mainstreamed into college-level content courses and those who did not.
More specifically, drawing on quantitative transcript analysis and focus
group discussions, this study examines several factors impacting the
mobility of Latino ESL students in a large urban community college
district in the United States. The qualitative analysis focused on several
themes including challenges to navigating the curriculum, the
significant role of ESL in providing opportunities to use English, and
the supportive role of instructors. The quantitative analysis focused on
mainstreaming, enrollment patterns, and success measures, including
grade point average (GPA) and course-completion ratio. The findings
suggest that students who mainstream earlier or concurrently enroll in
content level courses are more successful in terms of course completion
and GPA. Implications of the study are discussed in relation to

placement, instruction, and further areas of research. Although the
ESL programs and the linguistic-minority population of this study are
located in the United States, the issues raised and lessons learned can
enrich the broader international conversation surrounding language
minority education.
doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.268060
Co-Authors listed in alphabetical order.

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 45, No. 4, December 2011

595


he American community college serves as an important entry point
for millions of students who would otherwise not have had the
chance to go to college. This is the case even more so for groups that
have not traditionally attended college, including minority groups such
as African-Americans, Latinos, immigrants, and working-class students.
The modern American community college is characterized by its low
tuition, open enrollment, and multifaceted mission, including
preparation for transfer to a university, vocational training, and basic
skills instruction (Cohen & Brawer, 2003).
The state of California contains the most institutions of higher
education of any state in the United States, including the most
community colleges, currently with 110 of these institutions. The study
described here draws on transcript and demographic data from one of
the largest urban, Latino districts in the state. Given the importance of
the community college for Latino immigrant students, this study sought
to understand the role of credit English as a second language (ESL) in
the retention, persistence, and success of Latino immigrant students.

The focus on credit ESL (that is, courses for which students receive
academic credit), rather than non-credit ESL, stems from prevailing
patterns of transfer to the university system. Noncredit ESL programs,
although extremely important in providing survival skills in American
society, are not specifically designed to provide students with the tools
necessary to succeed academically in regular higher education programs.
Given the dearth of research on Latino ESL course-taking patterns in
community college credit ESL programs, the research described in this
article was an exploratory, descriptive, and longitudinal study of two
cohorts of Latino ESL students using student transcripts obtained
directly from the district; in addition, focus group discussions of selfselected participants were conducted to further enrich the findings. This
article examines the broader historical context for Latino ESL
educational trajectories, reviews factors impacting Latino ESL success,
including the critical role of English language proficiency, provides
quantitative analysis of transcript data and qualitative analysis of focus
group discussions, and concludes with a discussion of implications for
placement, instruction, and further research. The questions guiding this
study are the following:

T

1.
2.

3.

596

How do the Latino ESL students begin their educational trajectory?
Do the Latino ESL students succeed in their goals? How do they meet

these goals (i.e., what enrollment patterns are evident)? What factors
affect students’ progress?
How do these enrollment patterns affect the students’ level of success?

TESOL QUARTERLY


HISTORICAL CONTEXT: LATINOS AND THE
EDUCATIONAL PIPELINE
The California postsecondary system, otherwise known as the
California Master Plan for Higher Education, is a three-tier system —
University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and
community colleges—and is amongst the most robust and coherent
systems of higher education in the world intended to provide equal
access to all.1 The UC serves as the primary research institution for the
state and selects the top eighth of the graduating high-school seniors,
and the CSU selects the top third, whereas the community colleges are
open access for any student who can benefit from them. In other words,
the community colleges operate as open admissions institutions. Latinos
are the fastest growing demographic represented in the precollege (i.e.,
grades K–12) setting, constituted nearly 50% of the K–12 enrollment in
2005, and are projected to surpass that mark in the next decade
(California Department of Finance, 2000). However, they are significantly underrepresented at all levels of higher education (Ornelas &
Solorzano, 2004). With most Latinos concentrated in the community
college (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2007), it is
important to examine how this group of students proceeds and advances
through the community college as it relates to the transfer function of
the community colleges, because these colleges serve as the principal
gateway to success in higher education at both the undergraduate and
postgraduate levels. Although a large percentage of students aspire to

´ lvarez, & Solo´rzano,
transfer, only a handful actually does (Rivas, Pe´rez, A
2007). According to California Postsecondary Education Commission
(CPEC) data (2004), only 7 out of 100 first-time Latino college students
transfer to either a CSU (6) or a UC (1). Although every stage of the
pipeline (i.e., the way students proceed through the curriculum) is
critical to examining questions of success and achievement, and the
factors impacting persistence are multiple and complex, the focus of this
analysis is on where most Latino students begin their higher education:
at the community college.

THE FIRST STOP IN THE COLLEGE PIPELINE: THE ROLE
OF CREDIT ESL AT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
As the first stop in the pipeline, which for only a minority of students
ends with graduation from a university, community college credit ESL
courses play the unenviable role of gatekeeper to the rest of the
1

See University of California Office of the President (2009) for more information on the
California Master Plan for higher education.

COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

597


curriculum. It is assumed that English language learners need the skills
and knowledge attained in credit ESL courses in order to succeed in the
rest of the curriculum and overcome all the hurdles in the pipeline.
Thus, students take these courses to prepare for regular college courses.

After credit ESL, students must pass English 101 (or first year
composition), college-level math, as well as other lower-division content
courses in order to prepare for the next hurdle: transferring to a
university. Thus, credit ESL plays a major role in leading students toward
success in college. Given the importance of these courses, there is a
tremendous need to better understand the role of credit ESL in
preparing students for success in higher education and beyond
(Crandall & Sheppard, 2004; Kuo, 2000). This issue is particularly
problematic because of the diversity of students who enroll in ESL
courses. ESL may play differing roles in a student’s educational
trajectory, depending on the educational background of the student
who enrolls in the course. If a student’s educational background
includes graduation from high school and even some college, then ESL
operates primarily as a foreign language course—the student may have
reading and writing skills in his or her own language but just need help
with carrying these skills over to English; however, if a student’s
educational background does not include graduation from high school
(if he or she is an adult), or the student’s education was interrupted to
immigrate to the United States (generation 1.5), then ESL might play
the dual role of a foreign language course and a developmental course—
not only strengthening the student’s English, but also his or her
academic skills, mostly in the areas of reading and writing (Ignash, 1996;
Mellissinos, 1993). Thus, ESL instructors have the particularly difficult
job of figuring out how to meet the needs of all their students, when
students of such diverse backgrounds may be contained in one class.
This goes against the common assumption that ESL students are a
monolithic population; instead, ESL students are a large, hugely diverse
population in terms of educational background and economic and
social status, among other factors (Echevarria, Short, & Vogt, 2004;
Gerardi, 1996).

These days, ESL is starting to be recognized for its special role in
serving such a diverse population of students and is considered a special
type of developmental program. In the past, ESL has been included with
foreign language courses (Ignash, 1994; Mellissinos, 1993); however,
ESL has slowly come to be recognized for the very large role it plays not
only in teaching English, but also in improving the academic skills of
immigrant students. For example, California’s Basic Skills Initiative
(Center for Student Success and the RP Group, 2007), a new initiative to
inform California community colleges of best practices in teaching and
provide support and funding for community colleges to adopt these best
598

TESOL QUARTERLY


practices on their campuses, includes ESL under basic skills, with this
caveat:
The inclusion of English as a Second Language in this definition recognizes
that all ESL is not, by definition, subsumed under basic skills. To the extent
that a student is unable to succeed in college-level coursework due to inability
to speak, read, write or comprehend English, ESL skills may be considered as
foundation skills in accordance with the definition. (p. 4 and see footnote 2)

Thus, this perspective acknowledges that whether ESL is a ‘‘basic skill’’
depends on the ability and background of individual students. This
report goes on to recognize the dual role of ESL, in that instructors not
only ‘‘[assist] in English language acquisition’’ but also ‘‘[teach] basic
literacy skills’’ (p. 47). Other authors have also recognized the role of
ESL in teaching students how to effectively navigate the academic
environment (Gerardi, 1996; Kuo, 2000), thus adding an additional

layer to the complexity of ESL instruction. It stands to reason, then, that
ESL students with weak educational backgrounds, as many Latino
students have, will struggle more than those with stronger educational
backgrounds.2 Thus, as most community college programs are set up
now, student success in ESL is necessary for success in other parts of the
curriculum.

MAIN FACTORS IMPACTING SUCCESS OF LATINO
STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE PIPELINE
Researchers have discussed many factors impacting Latino student
success in higher education, including: immigration status, poverty,
work, first-generation college status, and lack of academic preparation.
Of particular relevance to the arguments being made in this article are
the issues of language background, curricular tracking, types of courses
taken, and the kinds of learning opportunities that exist in the
classrooms (although not specifically addressed by the analysis in this
article). One study concerned with these issues, the Transfer, Retention
in Urban Community Colleges study (Hagedorn, 2006) surveyed over
2,400 Latino community college students across a large urban district
and provides a useful framework for understanding the broader context
2

For the purpose of this article, we define weak and strong educational backgrounds in
relation to those measures related to achievement in schools or standardized testing either
in the United States or abroad. Thus, ESL students with strong academic backgrounds and
preparation have a demonstrated record of achievement (e.g., already have a diploma,
Bachelors, or graduate degree in their native language). In contrast, weak students have
minimal record of achievement in formal schooling, usually place in the lower tier of
standardized measures, and may have a history of dropping out or never attending school.

COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

599


of Latino course-taking behavior. That study, although not focusing
specifically on Latinos starting their education in credit ESL as this study
did, drew their sample from the same population. It found that whereas
Latinos had the same aspirations for academic success as other groups, they
were less likely to have taken college Algebra, trigonometry, precalculus,
physics, or chemistry in high school or while in college; in addition, they
were less likely to enroll in college level English courses. Thus, the
traditional gatekeeper courses of Math and English, which are the best
predictors of persistence and transfer, need to be examined closely in
relation to the curriculum objectives and student course-taking practices.
In examining this issue in relation to the questions posed by this
study, the most salient factors impacting persistence and retention
through the education pipeline are the following: non-English speaking
background, (i.e., Spanish; Datnow, Borman, Stringfield, Overman, &
Castellano, 2003; Ovando & McLaren, 2000; Post, 1990); curricular
tracking (Oakes & Guiton, 1995; Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001;Yonezawa,
Wells, & Serna, 2002); academic English language proficiency (Razfar,
2003; Rendon & Hope, 1996); the types of courses that Latinos take
(remedial versus college prep; vocational versus academic; Oliva, 1999);
and, finally, the type of pedagogy and learning opportunities available in
those courses (Gutie´rrez, 2002; Losey, 1995). These studies show that the
plight of Latinos in the educational pipeline has been well documented.
According to Ga´ndara & Contreras (2009):
Latinos for the most part are now stalled at the level of high school
completion, with dropout rates remaining very high across generations. Only

one in ten Latinos has a college degree, compared to more than one in four
white Americans and more than one in three Asians. (p. 5)

Research has shown that Latinos are in the lowest quartile of academic
achievement in reading and math. This gap clearly puts Latinos in a
vulnerable position as they pursue higher education and precludes them
from entering the top-tier four-year institutions. Although most start
their higher education pursuits in the community college, the overwhelming majority never transfers, and many Latino students find
themselves increasingly segregated from others, in part due to limited
English use (Fry, 2008; Fry & Gonza´lez, 2008).
It is important to note that deficit views (negative views of bilingualism,
ethnic minorities, etc.) and a history of marginalization within schools in
general have seriously impacted Latino success across the pipeline.
Although all these factors are deeply interdependent and difficult to
isolate, for ESL planners, language proficiency, especially the ability to
participate in academic discourse, is the most salient domain (Razfar,
2003). From a curricular point of view, this is represented in practical
600

TESOL QUARTERLY


terms by enrollment and success in early college level English courses
(such as the mandatory first year composition course), which serve as a
prerequisite for almost all other academic coursework. However, given
the importance of language in all fields, ESL programs are not only
preparing students for transfer level English, per se, but for all content
areas that are dependent on academic language proficiency. Thus,
language skills cannot be reduced to literary and grammatical functions
but should be viewed holistically as the primary meaning making tool

that gives students access to higher-order learning opportunities
(Darder, Torres, & Gutie´rrez, 1997; Garcı´a, 2001; Ovando & McLaren,
2000; Valencia, 2002; Valverde, 2007).
As previously stated, this research was guided by three major
questions. In addition to these questions, there are more specific
subquestions related to the data listed below:
1.

How do the students begin their educational trajectory?

a. What are their educational goals?
b. What is their initial ESL level?
c. What is their educational background?
2.

Do the students succeed in their goals? How do they meet these goals
(i.e., what enrollment patterns are evident)? What factors affect
students’ progress?

a. Are students enrolled long enough to succeed in their goals?
b. At what rate did students finish the credit ESL sequence?
c. For those students whose goals require courses beyond credit
ESL courses, do these students mainstream?
d. For those students whose goals require courses beyond credit
ESL courses, do they concurrently enroll in these courses while
still taking ESL or after completing ESL?
e. Did students’ initial ESL level or educational background affect
their enrollment patterns?
f. Did these students enroll in and pass freshman composition and
college-level math (i.e., the most important courses required for

transfer)?
3.

How do these enrollment patterns affect the students’ level of success?

a. Was there a difference in grade point average (GPA), coursecompletion ratio, or success in ESL courses based on students’
enrollment patterns (i.e., nonmainstreamers, concurrent mainstreamers, or linear mainstreamers)?

COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

601


METHODOLOGY: CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION
Context: The District and the Latino ESL Students
The Latino ESL students in this study were enrolled in the largest
urban community college district in the state of California, which covers
nearly half of a major California county. Drawing on Census 2000 data,
of the nearly ten million Latinos who lived in the county, nearly half
(4,729,661) lived within a 10-mile radius of the district’s community
colleges, with the total adult population (ages 18–64 years) reported to
be 2,953,365 (62%). Nearly a quarter of the adult population districtwide was reported to not speak English well or not at all (664,306, or
22.5%). The majority (about 58%) of this population was concentrated
in the downtown area served by three of the district’s community
colleges. With respect to the ESL cohorts of this study, Latinos made up
40.9% of the district population. They tended to be older than other
ethnic groups in the district, with an average age of 32 years, and also
were largely female (66.7% female; 33.3% male).

The ESL Pipeline in the District

The ESL pipeline in the district is relatively long compared to most
districts. Based on an analysis of the curriculum across the campuses of
the district, there are seven levels of ESL throughout the district (with only
two campuses of the nine offering all seven levels, most campuses offering
five or six levels, and one offering only four levels at the highest part of the
progression). The ESL programs in the district all offer a required
sequence of writing courses as well as recommended sequences of
listening or speaking courses and reading courses. Some offer optional
content-based courses as well, such as English for Business. After finishing
ESL classes, the students then have to take at least one developmental
English class before enrolling in the first college-level English course.
The ESL programs at each college in the district differ in terms of
both their numbering system as well as the prerequisite(s) that the last
classes in the ESL series satisfy. At some colleges, the last class in the
series satisfies the prerequisite for the developmental class that is one
level below transfer; at others, the last class in the series satisfies the
prerequisite for the developmental class that is two levels below transfer.
When coding the data for this study, the ESL levels were determined
based on their status as a prerequisite for these developmental classes.
This status was determined by looking at both the college catalogs and
the transcript data. Thus, for ESL students it was mandatory that they
take at least one precollegiate developmental class before enrolling in
the mainstream freshman (first year) composition course required of all
602

TESOL QUARTERLY


students. In contrast, for non-ESL students in the district, an English
placement assessment was used to determine whether they have to take

the precollegiate class before taking the freshman composition course.
Enrollment in a precollegiate course was not considered mainstreaming
for the purpose of this study.

Description of the Data and the Participants
The data used in this study were drawn from the enrollment and
demographic database maintained by the district’s office of institutional
research. Upon collaboration with the district’s institutional research
office, a student was classified as an ESL student if he or she enrolled
and received a grade or a W (withdrawal from course) in at least one
credit ESL course during his or her academic career in the district.
Students were then assigned to fall and spring cohorts based on their
first credit enrollments in either the fall or spring terms. Based on this
procedure, there were 80,923, ESL students district-wide between Fall
1992 and Spring 2004, who were assigned to either fall or spring cohorts.
Students entering in fall 1999 or fall 2000 were selected for inclusion in
this study. This group was further narrowed by selecting only the Latino
students, and only those students who had enrolled in a credit ESL class at
any time during their enrollment in the district. The data were selected in
Fall 2005, and at that point the study participants had been in the district
long enough to either complete their education or, in some other way,
stop their enrollment in the district. The reason that pre-1999 cohorts
were not selected was because of concerns that we would not be able to
find any students for our qualitative follow-up study who were also part of
the quantitative transcript study. As a follow-up to the transcript study, a
small group of students was selected to take part in focus groups.
Therefore, it was possible that some of the students who took part in the
focus groups were also a part of our transcript study, or had at least gone
through the same curriculum that we were examining in our study.

Procedures
Although the principal method used for this study is quantitative, we
have also incorporated qualitative findings as a way to raise questions for
future research and to contextualize the limitations of relying only on
transcript data. Given the ex-post facto nature of the data analysis, we
could not incorporate a more robust qualitative design (i.e., classroom
observations, interviews with more participants, etc.). Mixed-methods
approaches are based on the assumption that quantitative and
qualitative methods are compatible, and the use of both enhances
COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

603


validation of the findings. More important, a mixed-methods approach
provides nuanced detail for an understudied phenomenon, hence raising
issues for further exploration. Mixed methodologies also allow for greater
breadth of analysis and triangulation of findings using multiple sources of
data (Brannen, 2005; Creswell, 2003; Greene, Caracelli, Valerie, &
Graham, 1989; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In this study, we clearly
gave more prominence to the quantitative findings, but the qualitative
findings that emerged from focus groups allowed us to name issues for
future research. Thus, the quantitative methodology was more ‘‘dominant’’ and the qualitative findings are ‘‘less dominant,’’ leading to a
‘‘more dominant, less dominant design.’’ (Creswell, 1994, pp. 177-178).
Considering ESL students were previously invisible in the district
database, the focus group themes provide a human face to the
quantitative analysis.
Quantitative Analysis
In this section, the definitions of key variables and constructs for the
quantitative analysis are provided, followed by a description of the

qualitative methods used.
The most salient variable for the purposes of this study was
Mainstreaming. A student had mainstreamed if he or she had entered
the regular college curriculum—that is, the student had taken non-ESL
and nondevelopmental courses. These courses could be either
vocational or academic courses. Based on the tenets of content-based
instruction and content-based college ESL instruction (Kasper, 2000;
Spurling, Seymour, & Chisman, 2008), mainstreaming was disaggregated
further, based on two possible patterns of mainstreaming in relation to
non-ESL and core subject areas: linear and concurrent mainstreamers.
Thus, the following three categories were examined longitudinally:
N Linear mainstreamers: students who enrolled in a college-level
course for the first time after completing ESL courses.
N Concurrent mainstreamers: students who enrolled in a college-level
course for the first time while concurrently enrolled in an ESL course.
N Nonmainstreamer: a student who never took courses outside of ESL
or developmental tracks.
In addition to the Mainstreaming variable, the following variables
were also used in the study: Initial Educational Goal, Educational
Background, Taking and Passing of Courses by Course Type, Success
Rate, Initial ESL Level, ESL Levels Progressed, Mainstreaming, Overall
GPA, and Overall Course Completion Rate (definitions below):
N Initial Educational Goal: The goal declared by the student upon
entering the district. The categories were: career-related, certificate/
604

TESOL QUARTERLY


N

N

N

N
N
N
N
N

Associate of Arts (AA), transfer, basic skills/General Equivalency
Diploma (GED), personal development, and unknown/undecided
(see Table 1).
Educational Background: The highest level of education the student
completed upon entering the district. We examined the following
levels: did not complete high school; graduated from high school;
additional education past high school.
Taking of Courses (by course type): Whether a student took a course of
a particular type. The course types were: college-level English (freshman English), ESL, transfer-level math, science, social science, and
vocational. This variable is dichotomous: Either the student took a
course of that type or did not.
Passing of Courses (by course type): Whether a student passed a course
of a particular type (course types are listed above). This variable is
dichotomous and determined by whether a student had passed one
course of that type. This calculation was only performed for students
who had actually taken that course type. In our analysis, this variable
was used only for college-level English, because a student could have
taken college-level English several times and passed it once. For other
course types, the next variable was used. It is a more accurate way of
determining success in courses, because it takes into account the fact

that a student might have taken many courses of that type.
Success Rate (by course type): The number of times a student passed
courses of a certain type divided by the number of times a student
took courses of a certain type.
Initial ESL Level: The first ESL level that a student enrolled in.
ESL progress: The number of levels that a student progressed in
ESL, not including the first level. So, if a student took and passed a
level, but did not go to the next level, ESL progress equaled zero.
Overall GPA: total number of grade points divided by the total
number of units completed.
Overall Course Completion Ratio: Total number of units completed
divided by the total number of units attempted. Units attempted is
defined by having earned either a W (withdraw) or a grade in the
course.

All variables were calculated based on a student’s cumulative
academic record. This method allowed for longitudinal analysis of
Latino ESL educational trajectories, which few studies have conducted.
Some studies have examined the course-taking behavior of ESL and
developmental students in the community college (e.g., Illich, Hagen, &
McCallister, 2004; Weissman, Bulakowski, & Jumisko, 1997; Weissman,
Silk, & Bulakowski, 1997). However, many of these studies were limited
to course-taking patterns within a single semester. Although they are
COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

605


valuable in providing a snapshot of student goals and course-taking
behaviors, longitudinal studies can help improve understanding of goal

attainment over time. Longitudinal studies have added value, in that
they track the same students over several semesters, rather than different
students in different semesters.
Drawing on Kirk (1995), it was determined that independent sample ttests were most appropriate for comparing the two groups in the study;
furthermore, because it was decided to further break down mainstreamers
into concurrent mainstreamers (n 5 628) and linear mainstreamers (n 5 75) and
to conduct multiple comparisons, Bonferroni corrections were applied in
order to make adjustments to the Type I error rate. In addition, analysis of
variance (ANOVA) analysis was conducted to further validate the results.
Because the difference in the variance was not significant, there was no ill
effect due to the difference in the sample size of each group.
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
Focus groups discussions were conducted with students who had
primarily enrolled at the largest community college within the district.
Given our focus on Latino students, this college also had the largest
percentage of Latino students (over 65%). The ESL coordinator and
instructors were asked to solicit volunteers to participate in semistructured, focus-group discussions about ESL and broader community
college issues. Based on the number of volunteers, three focus group
sessions were conducted with up to five participants in each. These
sessions took place in reserved library study rooms on the campus where
the students were enrolled. They were an hour long, audio-recorded,
and conducted by the authors of this article. These sessions were
semistructured with guiding questions (see Appendix A) designed to
provide rich narratives about course taking, persistence, and success in
the community college. Although we had guiding questions, the sessions
were purposefully open-ended and designed to optimize the collection
of narratives. Of the 10 participants, 3 were Latinos (all 3 were female)
and 7 were Asian (6 females, 1 male). The three female participants
Maria, Rosa, and Lupe (pseudonyms) were the first generation of
college students in their respective families. Maria and Rosa were both

18 years old and immigrated to the United States while in middle school.
Lupe was a middle-aged adult who immigrated at the age of 18 years with
two adult children and decided to attend college after her children had
grown up. She completed high school in her native country of Mexico.
In conducting and later analyzing the focus group transcripts, a
grounded, qualitative approach was used. With the use of the constant
comparative method (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the
focus group transcripts were analyzed and coded for the purpose of
developing emergent themes relevant to the study’s focus on Latino ESL
606

TESOL QUARTERLY


course-taking practices. The goal was to further elucidate the results on
Latino ESL educational trajectories with students who had actually
participated in the ESL pipeline at one of the community colleges in the
study. The selection of students for the focus groups came entirely from the
mainstream group, because they were the more accessible population.
There were many institutional and logistical constraints to tracking down
nonmainstreamers. Despite the constraints, efforts were made to contact
nonmainstreamers through e-mail and telephone calls; however, these
efforts were unsuccessful. Drawing on NVivo 8.0 qualitative software
(produced by QSR International www.qsrinternational.com), we calculated
the length of the narratives (lines and word counts) and determined a
percentage in relation to the total amount of focus group text. Both
quantitative and qualitative results are discussed in the next section.

RESULTS
Quantitative Findings: Transcript Analysis

Drawing on the student demographic data and enrollment records,
the first set of the quantitative findings corresponds to the first research
question: How do Latino ESL students begin their educational trajectory? Data
include initial educational goal (Table 1), educational background
(Table 2), and initial ESL level (Table 3). The second set of the
quantitative findings responds to these related research questions: Do the
students succeed in their goals, how do they meet their goals, and what are the
factors that impede their progress? Data include length of enrollment in the
district (Table 4), rate of completion of ESL course sequence (described
in the text), mainstreaming categories (Table 5), mainstreaming
categories by initial educational goal (Table 6), enrollment patterns by
mainstreaming category (Table 7), and enrollment in and passing of
freshman composition and college-level math (described in the text).
TABLE 1
Educational Goals of Latino ESL Students
Educational goal
Transfer (BA)
AA degree/Certificate
Career-related
Basic skills/GED
Personal development
Unknown/NA/undecided
Total

Number of students

Percent

123
101

492
473
86
204
1,479

8.3
6.8
33.3
32.0
5.8
13.8
100.0

Note. ESL 5 English as a second language; BA 5 Bachelor of Arts; AA 5 Associate of Arts; GED
5 General Education Diploma; NA 5 not available.

COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

607


TABLE 2
Educational Background of Latino ESL Students (n 5 1,420)
Educational background

Frequency

Not a high school graduate
High school graduate

Additional education past
high school
Total

Percent

513
850
57

36.1
59.9
4.0

1,420

100.0

Finally, the third set of the quantitative findings answers the third
research question: How do these enrollment patterns affect students’ level of
success? This section examines academic success as measured by GPA,
course completion ratio, and ESL success rate (Table 8).
Initial Educational Goals, Background, and ESL Level
Starting with the first research question, asking how students begin
their educational trajectory, their self-reported educational goal upon
entry is examined. Upon entry into the community college, students are
asked to complete a questionnaire whereby they state their educational
goal in terms of the following categories: 1) transfer to a bachelor’s
granting institution, 2) completion of an AA degree or certificate, 3)
career-related, 4) basic skills or high-school equivalency diploma (GED),

5) personal development, or 6) undecided. Based on the data, the vast
majority of the Latino ESL students who started in fall 1999 and 2000
indicated initial educational goals that were either vocational, basic
skills, or related to personal development (more than 70%). Hence, very
few indicated that they planned to transfer to a 4-year university (8.3%)
or pursue an AA degree/certificate3 (6.8%; Table 1).

TABLE 3
Initial ESL Level of Latino ESL Students
ESL level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Total

3

608

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Frequency

Percent

164
196
218
415
262
150
74
1,479

11.1
13.3
14.7
28.1
17.7
10.1
5.0
100.0

AA degree is equivalent to 2 years of college credit. A Certificate refers to the completion
of a vocational program.

TESOL QUARTERLY


TABLE 4

Number of Semesters Enrolled (n 5 1,479)
Number of semesters

Number of students

Percent

577
342
173
172
65
54
96
1,479

39.0
23.1
11.7
11.7
4.4
3.7
5.3
100.0

1
2
3
4–5
6–7

8–9
10+
Total

The two most commonly selected options—career-related and basic
skills/GED—constitute nearly 67% of the total, suggesting that most of
these students had a fundamentally practical orientation or outlook on
their college level study.
In terms of educational background, the highest level of education of
most of the students was a high school diploma (59.9%), and very few
(4.0%) had completed any formal education beyond high school
(Table 2).
In terms of initial ESL level, most students started in the intermediate
levels 3, 4, or 5 (60.5%), and few students started off at either the highest
or the lowest levels, as shown in Table 3.
Student Success: Persistence and Mainstreaming
The second research question examined the relationship between the
students’ initial stated goals and actual outcomes in terms of length of
enrollment, persistence, and mainstreaming. The majority of the
students were enrolled in the district for no more than two semesters
(62.1%; Table 4). After three semesters, almost three-fourths of the
students had stopped enrolling, and by five semesters, over 85% had
stopped. It is possible that many could have achieved their stated goals
within this amount of time. However, in most cases, it takes much longer
than 2 years to complete a certificate, degree, or any significant
TABLE 5
Mainstreaming Categories
Mainstreaming category
I. Nonmainstreamer
II. Mainstreamers

Linear mainstreamer
Concurrent mainstreamer
Total (I + II)

N

Percent

Percent of subcategories

851
628
75
553
1,479

57.5
42.5
(5.1)
(37.4)
100.0

100.0
11.9
88.1

COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

609

TABEL 6
Mainstreaming Categories by Initial Educational Goal
Educational
goal
Transfer
Certificate/
AA
Careerrelated
Basic skills/
GED
Personal
development
Unknown/
undecided
Overall total

Nonmainstreamers

Mainstreamers

Total

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

50
59

40.7
58.4

73
42

59.3
41.5

Number
123
101

Percent
100.0
100.0

251

51.0

241

49.0

492

100.0

320

67.7

153

32.4

473

100.0

56

65.1

30

34.9

86

100.0

115

56.4

89

43.6

204

100.0

851

57.5

628

42.5

1,479

100.0

educational goal. Although very few stated the 2-year degree, certificate,
or transfer as their educational goal (n 5 224, 15.1%), in this respect,
many students did not achieve their goals.
In terms of persistence in the ESL program, the majority of students
(62.5%) did not advance one level beyond where they started. Even if
students who started at the highest levels, from which it is not possible to
progress within the ESL program, are excluded, the proportion of
students not progressing was between 55% and 60%. In other words,
ESL success was limited. If Latino ESL students are dropping out after

only one or two semesters of ESL, and after one or two semesters in
general, then the likelihood of retention and persistence overall is
greatly reduced. Furthermore, the lower the initial level of the student,
the less likely the student was to make it through the whole ESL series.
In terms of the mainstreaming patterns that were exhibited, most
students (57.5%) in the sample were nonmainstreamers (n 5 851), with
mainstreamers consisting of 42.5% (n 5 628; see Table 5). As previously
stated, the mainstreamers were divided into two trajectories: concurrent
mainstreamers, who constituted 88.1% of all mainstreamers (i.e., 37.4%
of the entire sample), and linear mainstreamers, who were 11.9% of
mainstreamers (i.e., 5.1% of the entire sample). These results indicate that
most students did not mainstream. Conceivably, students who declared their
educational goal to be career-related, basic skills, personal development, or
unknown/undecided (84.9% of the sample), could have met their goals by
taking only ESL classes. However, as we see later, large numbers of students
whose goals could only be attained by taking courses outside of ESL (i.e.,
transfer and certificate/AA students) were also not mainstreaming.
In investigating the educational trajectories of students with various
educational goals, a cross-tabulation of initial educational goal by
610

TESOL QUARTERLY


mainstreaming categories was performed. This cross-tabulation shows
that only eventual mainstreamers were more likely to declare transfer as
their goal (Table 6). That is, for students declaring transfer as their goal
initially, a majority eventually mainstreamed. For all other initial
educational goals, most of the students were nonmainstreamers. Not
surprisingly, a higher proportion of transfer students were mainstreamers than basic skills/GED and personal development students, because

transfer level courses were not necessary for their objectives. However,
this was not the case for certificate/AA students, because they needed to
mainstream in order to attain their goals. About half of the careerrelated students mainstreamed, and about half did not, which may
suggest that many of the students used ESL courses as the primary
means for vocational and career advancement. In summary, we cannot
say that the nature of students’ goals shaped their choice whether to
mainstream. For the certificate/AA and transfer students, then proportion of mainstreamers in these categories seems disappointing—that an
obstacle stood in the way of these students’ goal attainment. For the rest
of the categories, this result did not seem surprising or disappointing,
but rather a function of students’ more specific goals (e.g., ‘‘personal
development’’ might mean ‘‘learn to speak English better’’ or it could
mean ‘‘learn more English and learn about photography’’).
Next, the factors related to students’ enrollment patterns were examined.
First, nonmainstreamers were enrolled a significantly shorter amount of
TABLE 7
Enrollment by Mainstreaming Category (n 5 1,479)
Average number of semesters enrolleda

First ESL
levelb

Number of
semesters to
mainstreamc

Educational
background n
5 1,420d

851

628
75

1.71 (1.15)
4.97 (3.7)
6.96 (3.44)

3.35 (1.55)
4.37 (1.56)
5.81 (1.37)

1.09 (1.83)
2.01 (2.4)

1.66
1.70
1.79

553

4.70 (3.66)

4.17 (1.48)

0.96 (1.69)

1.69

1,479

3.09 (3.03)

3.79 (1.63)

1.09 (1.83)

1.68

n
I. Nonmainstreamers
II. Mainstreamers
Linear mainstreamers
Concurrent mainstreamers
Total I + II

a

Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations. Using independent sample t-tests, with
equal variances assumed, and applying Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons, the
results were significant at p , 0.001 (see Appendix B for more details). In addition, we
confirmed the results using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; see Appendix C, Table C1).
b
Using the same method stated in footnote a, no significant differences between any of the
groups in terms of first ESL level. cUsing the same method stated in footnote a, significant
differences between linear and concurrent mainstreamers. dComparing nonmainstreamers and
mainstreamers using a t-test, no significant differences were found (p 5 0.155). An ANOVA was
used to compare this variable across categories, and no significant differences were found (p 5
0.132).

COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

611


time (1.71 semesters on average) than either linear or concurrent
mainstreamers (6.96 and 4.70 semesters, respectively). Next, the results
indicate that there was no significant difference in the average initial ESL
level between any of the groups; thus, they basically started from the same
position in the ESL curriculum. Thus, initial level of ESL was not a predictor
of whether mainstreaming took place. That is, students mainstreamed
whether they were in higher levels of ESL or lower levels of ESL. As we see in
the third column of Table 7, linear mainstreamers took an additional
semester to enroll in non-ESL courses than concurrent mainstreamers. It was
also found that educational background made no significant difference as to
what mainstreaming pattern students followed, which might suggest that
taking ESL provided the support needed for students to attempt courses in
other areas. That is, after enrolling in ESL, educational background had no
effect on the educational trajectory that students followed.
A closer look at the actual courses students were taking showed that very
few students were enrolling in the traditional English and Math gatekeeper
courses. Less than 5% overall and only 7.3% of the anticipating transfer
students ever enrolled in transfer-level English composition. This finding is
critical to understanding the overall trajectory of Latino ESL students,
because college-level English is a prerequisite for transferring to a four-year
university; thus, it stands to reason that most of the students who intended
to transfer to a university would not be in a position to do so. This begs the
following questions: Does ESL provide a barrier or a pathway to attaining
certain goals (e.g., transfer)? Why are so few students, particularly those who
declared it their goal to transfer, not in the end taking the appropriate
courses to attain this goal? Similarly, low numbers of students were taking

transfer-level mathematics courses (3.5% overall and 8.9% of students
planning to transfer). In contrast, 36% of all students were taking vocational
courses, including almost half (48.8%) of self-reporting transfer students. In
addition, 44.1% of students with career-related goals and 35.6% of students
wanting to earn an AA degree or certificate were taking these courses. Thus,
regardless of declared educational goal, developing practical skills related to
employment seemed more critical across the spectrum of stated educational
goals. In particular, it seems that students who declared transfer as their
initial goal changed their educational orientation to prepare for a job.
Student Success: Achievement and Course Completion
The final research question involved an analysis of success as measured
by GPA, course completion ratios, and ESL success rate. In comparing all
mainstreamers to nonmainstreamers, mainstreamers did significantly
better in all success measures: overall GPA, course completion ratio, and
ESL success rate. However, no significant differences between concurrent
and linear mainstreamers in these measures were found (Table 8). The
differences in success between nonmainstreamers and mainstreamers
612

TESOL QUARTERLY


seem predictable because the nonmainstreamers included both students
who just dropped out for various reasons, as well as those who may have
completed many ESL courses and attained some goal but just never took a
course outside of ESL. Thus, the first group may have dragged down some
of these averages.

Qualitative Findings: Focus Groups
Given this article’s focus on Latino ESL students, the qualitative

findings presented here represent their responses during focus group
discussions that also included non-Latino ESL students. The focus
groups were conducted to shed light on the quantitative findings on why
students followed the course-taking patterns that they did. The following
table provides an overview of the major themes that emerged from the
analysis using NVivo software. The length of the narratives was calculated
(lines and word counts), and a percentage was determined in relation to
the total amount of focus group text (see Table 9). In this section major
themes emerging from these findings are presented.
Challenges and Barriers
Based on the analysis of the transcripts, the Latino ESL participants
emphasized two major themes throughout the discussions: (1) the
central role of ESL courses in providing ample opportunities to practice
English, because there were limited opportunities to use English outside
TABLE 8
Success Measures by Mainstreaming Category

Nonmainstreamer
Mainstreamer (Total)
Linear mainstreamer
Concurrent mainstreamer
Overall average

n

Overall
GPAa

GPA in mainstream classes

Course completion ratiob

Percent
ESL success
ratec (%)

851
628
75
553

2.63
2.83
2.87
2.83

—
2.89
2.84
2.90

0.55
0.74
0.78
0.73

51.0
70.8
77.8
69.9

2.76

2.89

0.63

59.4

a

Note. Using independent sample t-tests and applying Bonferroni corrections for multiple
comparisons, the results were significant at p , 0.001 (see Appendix B for more details). In
addition, we confirmed the results using one-way ANOVA; significant differences in overall GPA
between mainstreamers and nonmainstreamers; no significant differences between linear and
concurrent mainstreamers (see Appendix C, Table C2). bUsing the same method stated in
footnote a, significant difference in course completion ratio between mainstreamers and
nonmainstreamers; no significant difference between linear and concurrent mainstreamers.
c
Using the same method stated in footnote a, significant difference in ESL success rate between
mainstreamers and nonmainstreamers; no significant difference between linear and
concurrent mainstreamers.

COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

613


TABLE 9
Qualitative Coding Scheme and Findings

Code/theme
Vocational goal
Discrete ESL
Outside school
Limited English
opportunities
Navigating curriculum
Shame
Tracking
Caring instructors

Percent
Transcripts

Definition
Any reference to career-related or vocational goals.
Participants discuss ESL as something separate from
ultimate goal.
Participants discuss obligations outside of school like
work and child care.
Participants discuss limited opportunities to speak
English outside of class and the need to take
advantage in class.
Participants discuss problems related to navigating the
curriculum.
Participants express shame about English ability.
Participants discuss being separated from mainstream
students.
Participants refer to caring instructors.

3
.1
6
30
5
13
11
31

of school and in the community, and (2) the positive role of ESL
instructors in providing emotional and academic support. Given the
prevalence of Spanish in the immediate area surrounding the college and
the state overall, the first theme was not surprising and is an important
consideration when discussing the role of ESL for Latino students.
Although the idea of being separated from mainstream students
(tracking) was noticeable in the focus group discussions (11%), much of
this discussion centered around Maria’s experience of being tracked in
high school rather than the community college. As she reflected upon
her K–12 experience, she discussed the separation based on ethnic,
racial, and linguistic lines:
We’re separated . . . . At that school, we’re separated. Latin people, Black
people. I was with all the Latin people, and we all speak Spanish. There were
three tracks A, B and C. A, it was for White people. B, it was for the Black
people, and, and\C, it was for Latin people.

Although the literature has certainly documented academic tracking
practices targeting Latinos in many educational settings, this was not the
major concern of the Latino students participating in these focus group
sessions, and the data presented in this article does not allow for any

broader conclusions. Nevertheless, linguistic segregation clearly is a
factor in limiting opportunities for cross-cultural interaction and, of
course, English use.
The focus groups helped provide additional insight about some of the
challenges encountered by the students, such as: navigating the
curriculum, obligations outside of school, and a negative outlook toward
614

TESOL QUARTERLY


their own English ability. For example, Rosa was an 18-year-old Latina
female student whose goal was to eventually become a doctor but was first
studying to be a nurse. She described her experience in trying to enroll in
a science course while enrolled in the most advanced ‘‘level 7’’ ESL course:
Rosa:

I was going to take . . . [Introductory] Biology . . . and I registered,
but when I was there, the teacher told me that [I] cannot take
Biology if I . . . haven’t take[n] chemistry . . . . So then, I went to
register for chemistry, but that class was all full, so I end[ed] up
taking just two classes. Not . . . . because I wanted to, but I couldn’t
register for more classes.

While her plan was to start taking required science courses towards her
nursing degree, her knowledge about prerequisites and course patterns
was lacking; therefore, she resigned herself to taking a much smaller load
than originally intended. This problem could be a common one amongst
these students, and if a student encounters similar barriers semester after
semester based on their lack of knowledge, then this could significantly

hinder them in the completion of their declared educational goal. This
could account for the high numbers of nonmainstreamers in groups
whose goals could only be accomplished by mainstreaming and for the
low average number of semesters enrolled.
Obligations outside of school were another factor impacting Latino
ESL course-taking behavior. One of the focus group respondents, Lupe,
was a middle-aged Latina woman with adult children, who was enrolled
only in ESL courses during the semester in which she was interviewed;
however, she wanted to enroll in child development courses after
finishing the ESL series:
For me, I going to finish my ESL because I would like to study child
development to . . . [learn about] . . . children because I had two children
and. . . . when they [grew] up. . . . for me [it] was difficult because I didn’t
know how to . . . do [anything] with them when they [were] angry, or they
[didn’t] . . . take . . . any responsibility.

Later on Lupe explained that she had tried to take three classes the
previous semester, but had had a difficult time because of her work
responsibilities:
Lupe:

The last semester, I had three classes, but . . . it was too much for me
because I work, and . . . with my husband, I need to . . . do the duties
in the house, and then work. It was a lot for me. And my . . .
counselor told me, ‘‘take only two classes this semester.’’ Yeah.
Jenny: So, how many hours do you work every week?
Lupe: Oh, thirty five.
COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

615

An additional barrier to the college-level curriculum was a lack of
knowledge about how to navigate through the curriculum (as described
above in the case of Rosa who tried to take a biology course only to find
out that she had to take chemistry before taking biology). In addition to
lack of knowledge about the prerequisites, placement of students into
the right courses also seemed to be a factor. Rosa described her
experience in a math course that was too difficult for her:
Last semester, I took [General] Psychology, [Life-Span Psychology], and
math [Intermediate Algebra], which I didn’t pass, but not because I don’t
speak English very well, but because it was hard. I don’t know how I . . . it was
math [Trigonometry], I think that . . . that’s a . . . a high . . . that’s a high
class. I don’t know why I had a good score, because I didn’t take math since
like two years. So, I forgot everything, so I didn’t pass that class.

As indicated, she had taken the math placement test and received a score
that was high enough to place her in a math class that she ultimately could
not pass. This point is significant in light of what we have argued in terms
of the positive effects on persistence, retention, and success when Latino
ESL students are concurrently enrolled in content-based courses. These
placement issues are also significant when we consider that most Latino
ESL students are first-time college attendees. According to Maria, the
course that she takes after the next course in the series seems to depend
on whether she gets an A or a B in that next course:
Researcher: Yeah, so, next semester, you’ll take [Advanced ESL], right?
Maria: [Advanced ESL].
Researcher: Then, what are you going to take after [Advanced ESL]?
Maria: After is English [Dev. English], if you get a B, and [Basic
Composition] if you get an A.

Upon examining the course sequences from the course schedule and
college catalogue, there does seem to be some flexibility as to what course(s)
a student may enroll in after the most advanced ESL class. However, this
seems to introduce a lot of ambiguity into an already overwhelming system.
Thus, the path to mainstreaming is complicated by lack of clarity in the
curricular pipeline, a hurdle that is accentuated for immigrants and firstgeneration college students unfamiliar with the system.
Critical Care: Affective Support in ESL Classrooms
Finally, the findings from the focus group discussions illustrated the
critical role ESL courses and instructors play in providing a supportive,
affective environment, especially for those who expressed a lack of
confidence in their own English ability. One Latina said,
616

TESOL QUARTERLY


When I’m talking with this [ESL] group, I’m not afraid. But, when I talk with
somebody at work, I am afraid because I think they are going to laugh at my
pronunciation.

Maria expressed frustration when she was at the supermarket:
At the supermarket, sometimes you try to speak in English, and the person
don’t say, ‘‘I don’t understand,’’ but he calls to somebody. And one time, I say,
‘‘please can you listen me because I need help.’’ And he listened me, but no . . .
not all the people try to do that. They try to call somebody to speak Spanish.

Given the prevalence of Spanish in the community, the ESL classroom is
one of the few contexts for Latino ESL students to exclusively use
English and receive the kind of assistance they want and need to improve

their English skills. For some of the participants, oral fluency was much
more of a concern than writing, as reflected in this comment by Lupe:
My problem is when I have to talk because when I have to write, I write very
well. I usually get A’s in my essays, and when I read, I read fast. But, when I
talk, then I have problems, and sometimes, people laugh at me, and that
breaks my self-esteem.

Given that oral fluency depends on an individual’s willingness to take
social risks, the ESL classroom provides a critical venue for developing
communicative competence in English. When asked if it was other
students who laugh, she responded,
No, right here, not. Because I’m in my English [Advanced ESL] class, and
they are the same, they don’t speak English very well. But, usually, like, at
streets, like if I’m in the market, like . . . but not at school, not at school.

The respondents found their ESL teachers to be very effective, especially
in terms of helping them become better writers, as Maria notes:
Before I mixed everything around (laughter) . . . the teacher teach us to talk
a topic, a title, and then, think about the topic, and put everything in order,
and then put in order, and then writing about your thinking. It’s easy for me.

Overall, the participants found their ESL teachers to be extremely
helpful, patient, and caring. Although these focus groups consisted of
successful mainstreamers, this analysis helps illuminate both some of the
factors that contributed to their success and some of the relevant
challenges they encountered as Latino ESL students navigating the
community college curriculum.
COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

617

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The data revealed the following: (1) Few Latino ESL students’ goals
were to transfer or earn a degree. Most Latino ESL students’ goals were
career related or basic skills/GED. (2) Of the small number declaring a
goal of transfer, about 60% mainstreamed, but most of these never took
a transfer-level English or math course. Most, however, took vocational
courses. Only 40% of the certificate/AA students mainstreamed. Thus, it
stands to reason that most did not accomplish their initially stated goals,
and further, that most students followed a vocational track. (3) The
majority of Latino ESL students were nonmainstreamers (57.5%) who
were enrolled significantly fewer semesters (1.71 on average) than their
mainstreaming counterparts (4.97 on average). Of the mainstreaming
group, most followed a concurrent mainstreaming pattern (enrolling in
college-level courses while still enrolled in ESL); very few (only 5.1% of
the sample) followed a linear mainstreaming pattern (completing ESL
before enrolling in other courses). No significant differences were found
in the success rates (GPA, course completion ratio, ESL success rate)
between concurrent and linear mainstreamers.
The focus groups revealed some additional information that points to
additional areas of research, including: (1) What do ESL students in
general and Latino ESL students in particular experience in community
college ESL classrooms? What factors contribute to their success? What
factors hinder their success? (2) What do certain educational practices
communicate to certain groups? What unintended messages do educators
send to minority groups? (3) What do ESL students in general and Latino
ESL students in particular experience outside the classroom? What barriers
do they face and how can these barriers be addressed in the classroom?
This study of Latino ESL students contributes to the broader

discussions of ESL curriculum, placement, and instruction. Latino ESL
and many non-Latino students encounter many challenges as they
navigate the K–12 and higher education pipelines. The challenges to
educational success for immigrant students are not unique to the United
States; they are also not unique to the Latino population. In most
Western countries where English is the medium of instruction, there is a
substantial gap in student success between immigrant ESL and non-ESL
students (Hammond, 2008; Lokan, Greenwood, & Creswell, 2001; Watt
& Roessingh, 2001). Watt and Roessingh’s (1994) longitudinal study of
retention and persistence of ESL students found similar trends with
Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, and Punjabi speaking populations in Canada. There is a similar ‘‘crisis’’ in Australia, especially with
Aboriginal populations (Hammond, 1999, 2008).
Although the two types of mainstreamers (concurrent versus linear)
varied little by some measures, students who did mainstream into the core
618

TESOL QUARTERLY


curriculum had significantly better grades and course-completion ratios
and achieved their goals in fewer semesters, compared with nonmainstreamers. Based on much of the ESL research on content-based
instruction, learning communities, and other related work advocating
integrated curriculum for second language learners, a more pronounced
and significant difference with respect to success was expected between
concurrent and linear mainstreamers (e.g., Spurling et al., 2008).
Given the limitations of the data, it is outside the scope of this study to
draw conclusions regarding curricular planning and instructional
practices. Nevertheless, the results confirm the importance of concurrent
enrollment in both ESL and content courses, even in the absence of a
systematic content-based approach within the ESL programs, especially in

terms of retention and time to mainstream. The vast majority of
mainstreamers were indeed concurrently enrolled in ESL and non-ESL
content courses (88%, n 5 553 versus n 5 75). In addition,
nonmainstreamers (n 5 851) never enrolled in content area courses,
which means they were following a course-taking pattern more analogous
to linear mainstreamers (only ESL courses) before ultimately dropping
out. Concurrent enrollment clearly led to greater retention rates;
moreover, linear mainstreamers were enrolled for longer periods of time
(average of 6.96 semesters) compared to concurrent mainstreamers
(average of 4.70 semesters), which leads to questions concerning the
additional time taken by linear mainstreamers in ESL courses and the lack
of progress in transferable credit courses. In addition, when one considers
the number of semesters for mainstreaming of each group, it is clear that
linear mainstreamers take longer (5.81–4.17 semesters for concurrent
mainstreamers, Table 7); therefore, concurrent enrollment in content
courses is a factor in earlier mainstreaming and ultimately success.
Furthermore, these findings show language learning among this group
of students to be a nonlinear process. It is not necessary to learn English
(i.e., complete the ESL series) before enrolling in non-ESL courses and
being successful in these courses. Thus, the idea of ESL as recommended—or even required—preparation for college-level courses is
brought into question by this data. ESL courses seem to play a more
supportive rather than preparatory role for these students. Although more
research needs to be done to examine exactly what role ESL courses do
play in students’ education, this study implies that ESL instructors should
assume that, for the most part, their students are enrolled in non-ESL
content courses while also enrolled in ESL; in addition, ESL instructors
should encourage rather than discourage this concurrent enrollment.
In many international contexts, ESL instruction is conducted in
collaboration with content-based courses (e.g., Andrade, 2006; Gibbons,
2003). According to Davison (2006), ‘‘Over the last 20 years, most English

medium schools around the world have adopted some form of partnership
COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF LATINO ESL STUDENTS

619