![]() |
|
.. | ||
![]() |
||||
|
Center for Teaching and LearningFocused Inquiry Groups (FIGs) - Title IIIJumpstart - Assessment of Student's Reading Practices In Chabot's Developmental English ClassesAnalysis of MARSI results
|
Pre | Post | Change | |
Global | 3.18 | 3.68 | <.50 |
Problem Solving | 3.92 | 3.96 | <.04 |
Support | 2.94 | 3.71 | <.77 |
Average increase <.44
At the beginning of the semester, students self-assessed in the “high” range in
only the problem-solving category. By the end of the semester, they assessed in
the “high” range in all 3 areas of reading. The largest gains were in the
“Support” strategies category, with a gain of .77. This gain is significant in
that the “support” category proves to be the lowest at the start of the
semester. This trend has been observed across sections and across disciplines,
when the MARSI was administered in sections participating in the Reading
Apprenticeship Faculty Inquiry Group. Students indicate less frequent use of
these support strategies and, it’s important to note, these are the strategies
requiring “extra effort” on the part of the student. Therefore, such gains in
student use in support strategies is quite an accomplishment.
For each strategy type, the items for which students indicated most gains, these
items correlate to the strategies emphasized in class.
Items of greatest increase in each category:
<.80 Global: Question #23 “I critically analyze and evaluate the information
presented in the text”
<.74 Global: Question #3 “I think about what I know to help me understand what I
read”
<.70 Global: Question #7 “I think about whether the content of the text fits my
reading purpose”
<.73 Global: Question #1 “I have purpose in mind when I read”
<.46 Problem: Question #18 “I stop from time to time and think about what I’m
reading”
<1.40 Support: Question #12 “I underline and circle information in the text to
help me remember it”
<1.07 Support: Question #2 “I take notes while reading to help me understand
what I read”
<.93 Support: Question #6 “I summarize what I read to reflect on important
information in the text”
Items of least gain OR reflecting a lower number than the 1st assessment –
“Red-flag” items
<.27 Global Question #14 “I decide what to read closely and what to ignore”
<.34 Global Question #25 “I check my understanding when I come across
conflicting information”
>.20 Problem Question #8 “I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand
what I’m reading”
<.14 Problem Question #11 “I try to get back on track when I lose concentration”
>.07 Problem Question #27 “When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my
understanding”
<.60 Support Question #9 “I discuss what I read with others to check my
understanding”
<.47 Support Question #24 “I go back and forth in the text to find relationships
among ideas in it.
Item # 14 was particularly important for our 2nd class text, which was filled
with long explications that were demonstrating an abstract point, but could be
identified as an example and skipped over. Students, at first, were getting too
caught up in the detail of these explications and we practiced taking quick
notes of what’s being described without taking the time to analyze the text.
Likewise, item #24 is something we practiced throughout the semester not only
within texts, but between texts. The 3 texts were chosen, in part, in how they
respond to each other. In fact, the last 2 texts reference similar data on IQ
tests and students were prompted to connect these ideas.
The decrease in the “problem-solving” items needs to be understood within the
context that students still identify their usage as “high” for each of these
items. However, it’s disconcerting that the items which respond to students
reading on their own (often the 1st read) are, by in large, not showing gains.
This may be a “truer” response at the end of the semester. It certainly responds
to my observations of students’ middling efforts in tackling the texts on their
own, outside of class time.
Reading Survey – comparing Jumpstart 102 to English 101B
Throughout the semester, I was evaluating student engagement with their texts
and their performance on assignments – reading quizzes, homework completion, and
essays. For the 102 class, I was particularly concerned about the inconsistency
in student performance. Despite efforts to encourage student engagement with
their texts, the 102 students often came to class unprepared, having not
completed the course reading assigned for that day. Often, students were
conducting their 1st read in class. While students participated in whole class
and small group discussions on the text, the end result of coming to class
unprepared required taking additional class time for students to skim the book.
Likewise, those who were unprepared could participate in the discussion, but
their understanding of the text proved to be very superficial, resulting in
lower performances on written indicators. As an instructor, one of my major
concerns was that the books chosen were just too hard for the students to engage
in on their own. However, when I performed a CERA assessment, students, in fact,
were able to piece apart the most relevant information, even on a 1st read.
Nevertheless, at the end of the course, I wanted to see how students ranked our
texts and how they ranked their engagement with these texts outside of class
time. I then compared these results to my 101B class, to see the differences in
two classes, both set to advance into English 1A.
Background on the texts chosen. For each class, students read 3 texts. However,
the amount and type of reading differed.
102 – Students read on average a total of 600+ pages over the course of the
semester.
101B – Students read on average a total of 900+ pages over the course of the
semester.
For the 102, students were assigned fewer pages of text to read for 2 reasons:
1) This is a combined course of 101A/B; therefore, students are having to
progress in their skills faster than in the slower two semester sequence.
Students are not expected to have had a semester of skill-building under their
belts. 2) These texts were by in-large expository and not narrative based.
Students tend to have a harder time understanding expository writing if it is
not embedded in some type of story-line.
Rationale for Text Sequencing for 102 and 101B
102 – The texts moved from Surviving Justice, to Everything Bad is Good for You,
to Outliers. The 1st book was mostly oral histories that followed individual
narratives. However, for each assigned reading, students also read expositional
footnotes related to the justice system. The 1st book I deemed to be the
“easiest” of the three texts. I began with this text because of its exciting
topic and because students could practice new reading strategies with an
approachable/readable piece of writing. The 2nd book was entirely exposition.
There was no narrative for students to follow, only argumentation. Likewise,
students were challenged with quite a bit of difficult/technical vocabulary and
having to navigate long explications, charts, and graphs. The book I deemed to
be the “most difficult” of the three to read, but with the most relatable
subject matter (i.e. popular culture). The 3rd book was a mixture of narrative
and exposition. This book required students to put together both types of
reading – following story and following argument. This book was more “readable”
than the 2nd, but more difficult in its abstract subject matter (i.e. success).
I put this book 3rd because the concepts were more sophisticated and required
more critical analysis.
101B – The texts moved from A Long Way Gone, to Enrique’s Journey, to
There are
No Children Here. In my estimation, these texts were moving from “easiest” to
“hardest.” The texts’ language grew increasingly sophisticated, the arguments
became more complex, the need for background knowledge in decoding the texts was
increased over time, and the arguments moving from a direct analysis of the
narrative at hand to a more generalized argument extending beyond the particular
character’s story, required students to engage in a more sophisticated and
critical analysis.
Reading Survey (these are just 2 of the questions)
102 – 14 Responses
“From your experience this semester, the readings we covered were: easy,
challenging, difficult, too difficult” (– apply a category to each book)
Easy | Challenging | Difficult | Too Difficult | |
Surviving Justice | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Everything Bad | 1 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
Outliers | 1 | 8 | 4 | 1 |
“Outside of class time, I read...”
Not at All | Some of the Time | Half the Time | Most of the Time | Always | |
Surviving Justice | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 5 |
Everything Bad | 2 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 1 |
Outliers | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 1 |
102 Analysis of Survey
Students found the 2nd text the most difficult of the 3, with 8 rankings as
“difficult or too difficult.” The third text was also given 8 rankings for
“challenging,” therefore somewhat easier than the 2nd text. This confirms my own
assessment of these tests in their order of difficulty. Likewise, it also
indicates that very few students found the texts “too difficult,” and therefore,
out of their range of competency. A question that I had was if I should switch
the order of books two and three so that the texts progress in a more linear
path of difficulty. However, they may have found the 3rd text slightly easier
because they had book 2 as practice and; therefore, switching the order could
produce the same result (book 2 seen as being more difficult).
The majority of students read outside of class time “half the time,” with a
total of 13 responses, followed by “most of the time” with 12 responses. The
“easiest” text was read independently the most with 11 responses for “most of
the time or always,” as compared with 3 or 5 responses for the other two texts.
Yet, for each book, between 2 and 4 students indicated having read independently
“Not at all” or “Some of the time.” Therefore, in spite of ease or difficulty,
students chose not to read on their own. Even with the extrinsic motivator of
daily reading quizzes, the majority of the students chose to receive No Credit
some of the time for having not completed the assigned homework reading.
101B – 17 Responses
From your experience this semester, the readings we covered were: easy,
challenging, difficult, too difficult” (– apply a category to each book)
Easy | Challenging | Difficult | Too Difficult | |
A Long Way Gone | 10 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
Enrique's Journey | 4 | 11 | 2 | 0 |
There Are No . . . | 3 | 3 | 8 | 1 |
“Outside of class time, I read...”
Not at All | Some of the Time | Half the Time | Most of the Time | Always | |
A Long Way Gone | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 9 |
Enrique's Journey | 0 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 5 |
There Are No . . . | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 71 |
101B Analysis of Survey
The majority of students ranked the order of difficulty as progressing from easy
10, to challenging 11, to difficult 8. This matches my assessment of these texts
as increasing in difficulty over the course of the semester. Only the 3rd book
was ranked as being “too difficult” and only by 1 student.
The vast majority of students read their texts outside of class “always” with a
total response of 21. The 2nd highest ranking was “most of the time,” with 15
responses. For each book, 0 students reported reading the book independently
“not at all.” I gave only a few reading quizzes in this class because it was
clear that the students were coming to class prepared.
Comparative Analysis 102 and 101B Reading Surveys
By in large, both classes ranked their books “Challenging” – 19 times in 102 and
21 times in 101B. The other categories of ease or difficulty were indicated
fewer times. This suggests these books were perceived to be, on average, within
the students’ range of ability. Yet, while these figures equate nicely in both
classes, the degree to which students are reading independently vastly differs
on the spectrum. More students in 101B are more frequently reading on their own
“always” and more students in 102 are reading on their own only “half the time.”
Why? When the books are seemingly of comparable difficulty does one class read
more often and more pages than the other? Despite the fact that they have
approximately 300+ pages of more reading to complete, the 101B students are
doing their work more regularly than the 102 students. Thus, quantity of reading
is NOT a deterrent to independent reading. Perhaps reading content?
When asked “Did you like the three texts we read this semester? Be specific if
you like some more than others, or if there was one you hated etc...and why”
students responded:
102 (14 Responses)
Liked | Neutral | Disliked | |
Surviving Justice | 10 | 3 | 1 |
Everything | 6 | 6 | 2 |
Outliers | 11 | 2 | 1 |
101B (17 Responses)
Liked | Neutral | Disliked | |
A Long Way Gone | 12 | 3 | 2 |
Enrique's Journey | 8 | 8 | 1 |
There Are No . . . | 10 | 5 | 2 |
Analysis: For both classes, the majority of the students “Liked” the books.
Likewise, the middle books in both classes had more “neutral” responses than
either the 1st or 3rd books. These “neutral” books were read “Always” less
frequently, with the majority of responses being read “half the time” for 102
and “most of the time” for 101B. Therefore, a “neutral” interest does negatively
impact independent reading, but more so for 102 students than 101B students.
Why? Perhaps one explanation could be that 101B students are acclimated to
college more and have a greater tolerance for a course progression over 18
weeks. They perhaps have a greater “stick-to-it-ness” than the 102 group,
especially this “late start” cohort.
CLASS DATA COMPARISONS
English 102 | English 101B |
Enrollment - 25 | Enrollment - 29 |
Withdrew – 5 | Withdrew - 4 |
No Credit – 12 | No Credit - 11 |
Credit – 8 | Credit - 14 |
Success Rate: 40% | Success Rate: 56% |
Overall, I was very disappointed with my “success” results of my 102 Jumpstart
cohort. My “success rate” was very low; although, a few additional students
should have received “W’s” but didn’t. These were students who stopped attending
after the “W” deadline. At the end of the semester, only 14 students were
actively attending and of them, 8 received credit. That would change my success
rate to 57%, but only retaining 14 students is pretty poor. I haven’t had such
poor retention in years, and that was in an English 101A class. Whereas in the
101B, I still had 21 students actively attending, which would make the success
rate 66%, above the general average of basic skills English courses. In
conducting research into my 102, I was trying to explain the differences in
student achievement and pinpoint any roadblocks that were impeding student
progress. One of the persistent questions was whether the reading was too
difficult. Yet, this analysis of reading ability indicates that students in the
102 are generally feeling successful when they read, and to a greater extent at
the end of the course. Likewise, they indicate more competence in supporting
themselves as readers. In addition, the general attitude of my 102 cohort was
positive. Some students who knew they were not going pass the class continued to
attend and participate. Participation was high and class discussions often very
lively. They, by in large, enjoyed the class content and our focus on “False
Promises.” Likewise, I enjoyed these students tremendously. Yet, good will on
both ends was not enough to produce positive “success” results.
Success, in this instance, could possibly be measured in other ways. Students
have progressed in their reading skills and it remains to be seen how these
students persist and succeed at the college at large. Yet, the premise of
funneling students into their basic skills English early and, in particular,
into an accelerated curriculum, in order to maximize their likelihood of
succeeding, did NOT manifest in my group. This group of “late deciders” often
felt like an English 101A in that they seemed ungrounded and unmotivated to do
college-level work, if it required time spent outside of class to get it done.
It was not, in fact, a lack of skill that impeded these students. Most of these
students could do the work, but chose not to and in order to succeed on the
assignments, the work could not be done with middling effort. Likewise, as the
curriculum increased in complexity, the students who were merely “getting by” in
the 1st unit, were now drowning in the 2nd unit, and so on. In their
self-reflections, students commented that “falling behind” was making it
impossible to “catch up.” Despite countless lectures from me on the importance
of doing the work and its direct correlation to success on papers, and despite
opportunities for continual feedback on written homework assignments, and my
reading and conferencing on rough drafts of essays, too many of these 102
students failed to “show up.” They continued to come to class, but not take the
class. Nevertheless, I don’t think non-success was wasted effort for these
students. For many of the non-success students, not taking English 102 again in
this next semester could be the best thing for them. Some of these students need
to find out why they’re in college and cultivate an intrinsic motivation to come
to class and do the work. As an instructor, I also need to work on fostering
that intrinsic motivation in students because it’s clear that extrinsic
motivators will only fall short.
Case Studies:
![]() |
Copyright © 2010 Chabot College. 25555 Hesperian Blvd. Hayward, CA. 94545 | Phone: (510) 723-6600 |