Upload
bayard
View
45
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Integrating and Accelerating English and Reading for Students Testing Two Levels Below Transfer Courses. Ashley Moorshead The Community College of Aurora [email protected]. Fall 2006, 2007, 2008. Who Were Our Students?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
ASHLEY MOORSHEADTHE COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF [email protected]
Integrating and Accelerating English and Reading for Students Testing Two Levels
Below TransferCourses
Who Were Our Students?
Fall 2006, 2007, 2008Placement Level and Cut
ScoresNumber of Students % of Total Students in
Traditional 060
Transfer level: 95 or Above 7 .83%
1 level below: 72-94 91 10.81%
2 levels below: 41-71 613 72.80%
3 levels below: 40 or lower 58 6.88%
No Accuplacer Score/ACT Placement
73 8.67%
TOTAL 842
Placement levels determined by taking the average of SS + RC. All students placed two levels below transfer level in English or reading. Most students tested below in both reading and English.
Traditional Sequence
Four Distinct 15 week Courses Totaling 12 Credits
Semester 1
Semester 2
Semester 3
ENG 0603 Credits
ENG 0903 Credits
REA 0603 Credits
REA 0903 Credits
ENG 121Freshman
English
Students could complete series in 2-4 semesters.
Change 1:We Integrated Lowest Levels of English and Reading
Traditional Integrated
Semester 1ENG 0603 Credits
REA 0603 Credits
ENG/REA 060
3 Credits+
Change 2: Shortened the Length of the Semester
Semester Pacing
Year 1 Fall 2009-Spring 2010 All Courses Were 10 Weeks• Met on M/W OR T/R
Year 2 Fall 2010-Spring 2011 All Courses Were 10 Weeks• Met on M/W OR T/R
Year 3 Fall 2011-Spring 2012 Courses were 7.5 Weeks• Met MWF
Courses were 15 Weeks• Met TR
Change 3: Offered an Accelerated Option: Students Could Complete All of Dev. Ed. in One Semester
Non-PACE Option
PACE Option
ENG 060/REA 60
3 Credits
REA 903 Credits
ENG 903 Credits
ENG 121Freshman English
ENG 060/REA 60
3 Credits
REA 903 Credits
ENG 903 Credits
ENG 121Freshman English
Semester 1
Semester 1
Semester 2
Semester 2
Semester 3
Change 4: Changed our Assumptions
These were students that needed a little ‘remediation’ through a lot of classes and a long series of coursework.
The Traditional Approach
The majority of these students needed a developmental sequence with more time and less rigor because they needed to be fixed.
Messages of Marginalization
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
We Now Think of Our Old Approach….
In the…..
Treat ‘Em Like It’s Harvard…..Rethinking Dev. Ed. Instruction
• Philosophy, approaches to learning, and teaching methods
• Structure and language around our courses
• Assumptions of and orientation toward our students – Message of ‘College Material’– Students are valued members of
academic community from the moment they step on campus
– We expect them to get a college degree and we will provide the necessary support to realize this….
Re-examining our Assumptions About Students and Instruction: Focus on Transformation not
Remediation
We Recognized:
The majority of these students needed a developmental sequence with less time, more rigor, and a more thoughtful curriculum.
Most of these students needed transformative curriculum that would change their approaches to knowledge and learning. These learners needed to learn the basic principles of analysis through integrated reading and writing instruction.
Students needed to read and respond to college texts that enabled them to understand and develop the beliefs and dispositions of successful college students.
How Did We Integrate REA/ENG?
Patterns of Organization/Text Structure: Both subjects are focused on recognizing
relationships within information Both TEACH students how to process and
organize information around these patterns
i.e. Compare and Contrast Making decision to come to school Evaluating everyday purchases
How Did We Address Affective Issues In our Curriculum?
We recognized that if we didn’t change beliefs, we couldn’t change behaviors.
We chose academic texts that addressed the most common misconceptions about success, work, practice etc. that often led to academic failure i.e.Carol Dweck’s Mindsets
Sample Integrated Assignment- Compare and Contrast
Reading Activity Section of “The Mindsets” – “The Two Mindsets,” pages 39-41.
Annotate Circle Signal Phrases Annotate key concepts and factors that make them similar and different
Chart Similarities/Differences
English Prompt Compare/Contrast: “Mindsets"-students are asked to analyze the fixed mindset versus the
growth mindset. Typically, they can choose to compare/contrast themselves to another person. They could also choose to do a self-analysis, comparing/contrasting a mindset they had earlier in life to the one they now possess.
Paper is to be 2-pages in length and in MLA format. It must contain a complete introduction,
relevant body paragraphs, and a complete conclusion.
Re-Examining our Students
Placement Level and Cut Scores
Number of Students % of Total Students in Integrated 060
Transfer level: 95 or Above4 .55%
1 level below: 72-94 101 14.05%
2 levels below: 41-71 548 76.22%
3 levels below: 40 or lower12 1.67%
No Accuplacer Score/ACT Placement
547.5%
TOTAL 719
Fall 2009, Fall 2010, Fall 2011
Placement levels determined by taking the average of SS + RC. All students placed two levels below transfer level in English or reading. Most students tested below in both reading and English.
THE DATA
Belief: Students testing 2 levels below college need more coursework to be successful in transfer courses.
Reality……. % of Successful Students in ENG 60 % of Successful Students in ENG 121 % of Successful Students compared to average ENG
121 student
How Did Students Perform in the Integrated Course Compared to Traditional Courses?
Traditional 060 Integrated 06050
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
% of Successful StudentsA/B/C
Fall 2006, 2007, 2008Fall 2009, 2010, 2011
62.86%
55.12%
3 Credits
N= 842 N=719
6 credits
How Did Students Perform in College English?
Traditional 060 Integrated 06055575961636567697173757779
Fall 2007, 2008
73.19%
6 Credits 3 Credits
68.53%
N= 143 N= 138
How Did Students Perform in College English Compared to the Average English Student?
Fall 2007 and Fall2008
Average 121 Fall 2009 and Fall
2010
Average 12160
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
68.53% 68.93%
66.95%
73.19%
Traditional 060Average 121Integrated 060
6 Credits 3 Credits
Integrated vs. Traditional Course Data
Belief: Students testing 2 levels below college need multiple semesters to be prepared for college level coursework
Reality…… % of Successful PACE students in ENG/REA 60 % of Successful PACE students in ENG 121
How do PACE Students Perform in Integrated REA/ENG 60?
Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 20110
102030405060708090
100
68.09%
52.91% 55.29%
85.71%
72.97%
87.72%
% of Students with A/B/C
CC60CC60 PACE
N=138 PACE students, 581 non-PACE students
How do PACE Students Perform in College-Level English?
Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 20110
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
73.53% 70.83%
0
33.33%* Sample Size was 3
76.74% 75%
CC60CC60/PACE
N= 74 PACE students, 92 non-PACE students
How Many PACE Students Complete College English?
Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 201105
101520253035404550
21.28%
9.88%
0
14.29%
44.59%42%
Chart Title
CC60CC60/PACE
N= 74 PACE students, 92 non-PACE students
Common Concerns about Developing an Integrated Class
But, I’m not a reading instructor; I’m not a writing instructor….. Role of Reading Professor
“Intimidation”/ “Fear” of such a new class Role of Writing Professor
“Trial by Fire” Mentoring
Is this a program that can work for any institution?
Common Concerns about Developing an Integrated Class
Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010Sections 060 15 14 13 13ENG 90 16 15 20 19REA 90 6 8 9 14Total 37 37 42 46
Job loss due to integration?
The PACE Program
ENG 060/REA 60
3 Credits
REA 903 Credits
ENG 903 Credits
ENG 121Freshman English