Skip to Content | Contact Us | Search our Library | Home

Rider 82 Curriculum
2007 Pilot Report Findings

---

Methods

During the months of June through November 2007, five programs piloted the Rider 82 industry-related curricula. A total of seven teachers and approximately 80 students participated in this pilot. Table 1 shows the breakdown of teachers and the average number of students participating at each pilot site. Three teachers at the Mt. Pleasant site piloted different lesson components of the curriculum. One teacher piloted the ESL and employability components, while another one piloted the math components, and a third teacher piloted the technology components.

The teachers piloting the curriculum were selected by their program administrators for a variety of reasons. Several of these reasons included:

• Having the ability to try new things
• Having a positive attitude
• Being available to teach at a specific time
• Having taught ESL, vocational, and/or workplace curriculum in the past
• Having conducted professional development trainings
• Being bilingual (English and Spanish)
• Having a positive past job performance

After agreeing to pilot the curricula, teachers from the McAllen, Houston, El Paso, and Seguin pilot sites participated in a one-day professional development workshop facilitated by Barbara Baird and Ann Savino where they covered the different curriculum materials that would be used throughout the pilot. These materials included:

• Industry-related ESL for Sales and Service Teacher Lesson Plans
• Industry-related ESL for Health Care Teacher Lesson Plans
• Industry-related ESL for Manufacturing Teacher Lesson Plans
• Industry-related ESL for Sales and Service Student Workbooks
• Industry-related ESL for Health Care Student Workbooks
• Industry-related ESL for Manufacturing Student Workbooks
• Teacher Manual for Industry-related ESL for Sales and Service, Health Care, or Manufacturing
• Orientation Package Industry-related ESL for Sales and Service
• Orientation Package Industry-related ESL for Health Care
• Orientation Package Industry-related ESL for Manufacturing

The facilitators also discussed the different evaluation instruments that would be used to collect data during the pilot. These evaluation instruments included:

• Teacher lesson evaluation (Appendix A)
• Teacher overall evaluation (Appendix B)
• Teacher conference call interview questions (Appendix C)
• Teacher exit interview questions (Appendix D)
• Administrator exit interview questions (Appendix E)
• Student lesson evaluation (Appendix F)
• Student exit interview questions (Appendix G)

All the teachers (n=4) and administrators (n=5) who attended the trainings strongly agreed that the training materials used were of excellent quality, the workshop was well organized, and the objectives were clear. The teachers and administrators also strongly agreed that the facilitators had in-depth knowledge of the topic and that they created a positive learning environment. Comments about the training material included:

• Excellent visual materials; excellent quality of paper; excellent colored highlights.

• Can hardly wait to try out material.

Comments about the facilitators included:

• Both ladies have extensive experience.

• The facilitators answered all the questions I had.

• Very knowledgeable

When asked what additional information was needed to prepare to pilot the curriculum or assist teachers with piloting”, most of the participants stated that they needed more time to become familiar with the materials, “some time to read the manuals and student book”.

When asked what obstacles the teachers might encounter while piloting the curriculum, they stated that the lessons might be written at too high of a level for their students and the curriculum might take longer than 50 hours to teach each module.

Instead of a one-day professional development workshop, one of the teachers from the Mt. Pleasant pilot site participated in conference calls separately with Barbara Baird and Ann Savino to review the Sales and Service curriculum materials.

The length of time it took the sites to pilot the curricula varied greatly. Most sites began their pilot in June 2007, while the Mt. Pleasant site began its pilot in September 2007. The start dates of each pilot were:

• Seguin (Manufacturing curriculum): June 12
• El Paso (Healthcare curriculum): June 17
• Houston (Sales and Service curriculum): June 17
• McAllen (Healthcare curriculum): June 18
• Mt. Pleasant (Sales and Service): September 18

Three of the sites completed the pilot by August 2007, while two pilots completed the pilot in November. The end dates of each pilot were:

• Seguin (Manufacturing curriculum): July 31
• El Paso (Healthcare curriculum): August 05
• Houston (Sales and Service curriculum): August 15
• McAllen (Healthcare curriculum): November 27
• Mt. Pleasant (Sales and Service): November 28

Only one of the pilot sites had partnered with an employer. The Houston site had partnered with HEB and Family Dollar store. The administrator stated that their program’s relationship with the employers had been strengthened by the Sales and Service curriculum.

• This curriculum is much more comprehensive than job readiness so it really helped that relationship. Family Dollar wants to hire these students because of what they have learned from the curriculum. HEB is willing to have students intern with them and hopefully that internship will turn into a job.

The four other pilot sites were hoping to partner with employers in the near future.

To recruit students, programs advertised the industry-related curriculum by different means. These included: 1) handing out promotional fliers, 2) speaking to students in classes, and 3) word of mouth. Of the five pilot sites, only one site (Mt. Pleasant) did not create a new class for this curriculum. The Mt. Pleasant pilot site incorporated the curriculum into an existing Even Start program.

Before the students could begin the curriculum, they all attended a student orientation where the expectations of the pilot course were discussed. After participating in the orientation, the students signed an agreement form stating they would attend all of the classes. Most of the teachers felt that this student orientation was very helpful for the students.

• The student orientation went really well. It gave a clear picture of what was going to be in the program. It really helped with retention. We want them to commit.

• It [orientation] was helpful for the students to refocus because they always want to know if this will cause them not to get their GED or slow down the process. We would tell them no, it’s just a different way that they would be learning the same skills.

Only one of the teachers mentioned that the orientation material was written at too high a level for her students to understand.

• I spent a lot of time translating the material or explaining it. It needs to be written at a lower level.

The teachers had several suggestions for the student orientation. These suggestions included:

• There should be more emphasis on the American culture during the orientation so the students have a better frame of reference
• Have the students read the agreement aloud
• Have the students write “letter by letter” the agreement
• Stress that English needs to be practiced outside the classroom

---

Data Collection

The research question guiding this pilot was: By using the industry-related curricula, can students in NRS levels 2 and 3 learn English and obtain background knowledge about certain industry clusters?

During the pilot, teachers completed lesson evaluations after they taught each lesson. This evaluation dealt with each of the components that had been taught during the lesson. The teachers also participated in a conference call with the TCALL research staff every time they completed 50 hours of classroom instruction. These conference calls lasted about 30 minutes and were conducted individually with each pilot site. At the conclusion of the pilot, the teachers completed an overall evaluation where they ranked their overall experience piloting the curriculum. They also participated in an exit interview with the TCALL research staff at the end of their pilot. These interviews usually lasted one hour and were conducted individually with each pilot site.

During the pilot, the students completed evaluations each time they concluded a lesson. This evaluation asked the students what they had learned from the lesson. At the conclusion of the pilot, several students volunteered to participate in an exit interview with the TCALL research staff. These exit interviews with students usually involved three to seven students, lasted one hour, and were conducted individually with each pilot site. If the students were uncomfortable speaking English, each site had a translator present during the interviews to assist the students with answering the questions.

During the pilot, the program administrators, who were usually the teachers’ supervisors, were asked to participate in an exit interview with the TCALL research staff at the end of their site’s pilot. These interviews usually lasted 20 minutes and were conducted individually with each pilot site. There were no interviews with employers.

---

Assumptions and limitations

For the purpose of this study, several assumptions were made:

• The teachers were aware of the how well the students in their classes were responding to the curriculum;
• The teachers were able to determine the validity of the curriculum they were piloting;
• The teachers were familiar with research methods and would be able to complete the evaluation forms;
• The technology available at the pilot sites (computers, computer software packages, computer operating systems) was the same as that mentioned in the curriculum; and
• The students would be familiar with technology.

The major limitation of this study was that the findings could not be generalized past the individuals interviewed or surveyed. An assumption using qualitative research methods is that research studies cannot be replicated, so generalizations cannot be made. Another limitation is that no comparisons between the pilot sites could be generated. Several reasons that comparisons between pilot sites could not be made include:

• Unclear pilot completion criteria: The teachers did not know if the conclusion of the pilot was at 200 hours of classroom instruction or when they had completed all lesson components of all of the modules. Most of the teachers stopped piloting the project when they had completed 200 hours of instruction.
• Unclear explanation of instruction time: The teachers did not know if instruction time only included time teaching the curriculum, or could include in addition to the curriculum time listening to guest speakers, job fairs, going to job sites, etc… Most of the teachers included these additions to the curriculum as part of their instruction time.
• Unclear explanation of pilot evaluation instruments. Several of the teachers were unsure when to complete and submit the lesson evaluations and when to have their students complete the student evaluation forms.

---

Table of Contents | Next | Previous