Download
1 / 52

Ann Palmer, M.A., M. Ed. Professor, Developmental Reading Richard Griffiths, PhD. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 96 Views
  • Uploaded on

0. Reading-Writing-Serving Connection College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) Conference, November 6-9, 2013. Ann Palmer, M.A., M. Ed. Professor, Developmental Reading Richard Griffiths, PhD. Coordinator, Institutional Studies Austin Community College, Austin, TX. Contents.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Ann Palmer, M.A., M. Ed. Professor, Developmental Reading Richard Griffiths, PhD.' - marsha


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

0

Reading-Writing-Serving ConnectionCollege Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) Conference, November 6-9, 2013

Ann Palmer, M.A., M. Ed.

Professor, Developmental Reading

Richard Griffiths, PhD.

Coordinator, Institutional Studies

Austin Community College, Austin, TX


Contents
Contents

I. Reading-writing connection

II. Reading-writing-serving connection

III. Service-learning

IV. Service-learning and retention

V. Works cited

  • Resources

    VII. Conclusions


I reading writing connection
I. Reading-writing connection

  • Required by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)

    • Integrated Reading and Writing (IRW)

    • Comprehensive professional development program—Jan.-Dec. 2013 -2014

    • All upper/highest level offerings—spring 2015 (Dr. Morales-Vale, Director, Developmental Ed/Adult Basic Ed, Texas)


I reading writing connection1
I. Reading-writing connection

  • Research suggesting that integrated reading/writing courses are more efficient, for example:

    - Writing practices enhance students’ reading. (Graham S. & Herbert M. 2010)

    - Rates of retention, persistence and success are higher for students who took the IRW courses than for those who took the unpaired courses.

    (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, 2002)


I reading writing connection2
I. Reading-writing connection

  • Research suggesting the need for a specific process for implementing IRW

    - Geon-Salter suggests following a 6 - step progress (activation schema, annotation, rhetorical reading, self-reflection, rhetorical writing, mining the text) to make IRW successful.

    (Geon-Salter S., 2012)


I reading writing connection3
I. Reading-writing connection

  • Research suggests the need for specific guidelines to implement IRW.

    - Shanahan gives four guidelines:

    • Clearly specified outcomes

    • Instruction in both reading and writing

    • Connections between different disciplines

    • Extensive practice in both reading and writing (Shanahan, 1997)


Ii reading writing serving connection
II. Reading-writing- serving connection

  • Service learning can keep students engaged in school and on track to graduation. (Zaff and Lerner, 2010)

  • Benefits of service learning programs appear to outweigh the liabilities.

    (Perkins-Gough, 2009)


Ii reading writing serving connection1
II. Reading-writing- serving connection

  • Community-based participatory educational experiences can contribute to students’ academic performance and persistence.

  • Positive correlations between service-learning and students’ intention to reenroll.

    (Campus Compact, 2008)


Ii reading writing serving connection2
II. Reading-writing- serving connection

  • Service-learning…promotes deep. integrative learning and personal development among both first-year students and seniors.

    (Gonyea et al., 2008)

  • Student engagement during the first year yields powerful benefits for historically underserved students.

    (Kuh et al, 2007 )


Iii service learning learning to serve serving to learn
III. Service - learning“Learning to serve, serving to learn.”

“Service-learning incorporates community work into the curriculum, giving students real-world learning experiences that enhance their academic learning while providing a tangible benefit for the community.”

(Campus Compact, 2013)


Iii service learning con t
III. Service - learning (con’t)

Three basic components:

1. preparing

-setting objectives for skills to be learned or issues to consider

-planning projects so they contribute to learning as volunteering takes place


Iii service learning con t1

0

III. Service - learning (con’t)

2. performing service and/or doing research on organizations that need volunteers


Iii service learning con t2
III. Service-learning (con’t)

3) analyzing the experience using a final project such as an essay or presentation


Iii service learning con t3
III. Service-Learning (con’t)

Sample S-L Project

  • This service learning project is worth 15% of the student’s grade and involves the 5 parts.

    • Part 1 Learn about service learning at the ACC service - learning website.

    • Part 2 Learn about service learning opportunities on campus on the Student Life website and off-campus on the KUT and Volunteer Match websites.


Iii service learning con t4
III. Service Learning (con’t)

Sample S-L Project

Part 3 Decide on your project. There are four different opportunities for service.

1. Volunteer for 10 hours on campus.

2. Volunteer for 10 hours off campus with a non - profit organization.

3. Research 10 different non-profit community organizations.

4. Prepare a presentation on serving the community.


Iii service learning con t5
III. Service Learning(con’t)

Sample S-L Project

  • Part 4

    • Read two articles about service learning found using the ACC Library online resources and write 5 questions and answers about the articles.


Iii service learning con t6
III. Service Learning(con’t)

  • Part 5

    • Students volunteering on or off campus write a 1 -2 page essay describing their experiences.

    • Students doing research write a 5-6 page essay on the non-profit organizations.

    • Students who have developed a public service announcement will give an oral presentation to the class.


Iv service learning and retention
IV. Service - Learning and Retention

  • Research conducted on service -learning in community colleges and universities shows advantages of this activity.

  • Therefore, this retention study was undertaken.


Iv service learning and retention con t
IV. Service - learning and retention (con’t)

–study question

“Does participating in service - learning encourage students to persist from the intermediate level developmental reading course to the college-credit course English 1301 at Austin Community College in one or two academic years?”


Iv service learning and retention con t1
IV. Service - learning and retention (con’t)

Students included in study

  • those who completed a developmental reading course (DEVR 0310)

  • from fall 2009 through spring 2012

  • earned a C or above in DEVR 0310

  • participated or didn’t participate in service learning


Iv service learning and retention con t2
IV. Service - learning and retention(con’t)

  • ACC has 9 campuses with students that have different demographic characteristics.

  • Service learning in a DEVR 0310 course was offered only at one campus.


Iv service learning and retention con t3
IV. Service - learning and retention(con’t)

Outcome Variables

  • Course Success and Withdrawal Rates

    • Disaggregated by Gender and Ethnicity

  • Retention (excluded summer terms)

    • Disaggregated by Gender and Ethnicity

      • Next-term

      • Second term


Iv service learning and retention con t4
IV. Service - learning and retention(con’t)

Outcome Variables

  • Completion of a college – level course (English 1301 or 1302) with a C or above

    • Time period for completion depended on the cohort’s completion of developmental reading course

    • Included all English 1301 or English 1302 courses up to and including spring 2013

    • Only the highest grade in either English 1301 or English 1302 included


Iv service learning and retention con t5
IV. Service - learning and retention(con’t)

Results

  • Course Withdrawal Rates in Developmental Reading Course

    • Rate of withdrawals reduced to zero across all six major ethnic/gender combinations for SL participants.


Iv service learning and retention con t6
IV. Service - learning and retention (con’t)

Results

  • Course Withdrawal Rates in Developmental Reading Course

    • WM SL vs. Non-SL (0.0% vs 22.3%)

    • BM SL vs Non-SL (0.0% vs 35.3%)

    • HM SL vs Non-SL (0.0% vs 22.3%)

    • WF SL vs Non-SL (0.0% vs 15.5%)

    • BF SL vs Non-SL (0.0% vs 23.1%)

    • HF SL vs Non-SL (0.0% vs 16.0%)


Iv service learning and retention con t7
IV. Service - learning and retention(con’t)

Results

  • Retention Next Term

    • Overall SL vs Non SL (79.38 vs 60.79)

      • Disaggregated Gender/Ethnicity

        • WM SL vs Non-SL (100% vs 57.6%)

        • BM SL vs Non-SL (81.8% vs46.8%)

        • HM SL vs Non-SL (83.3% vs 59.7%)

        • WF SL vs Non-SL (83.3% vs 76.4%)

        • BF SL vs Non-SL (69.7% vs 59.5%)

        • HF SL vs Non-SL (89.3% vs 63.0%)


Iv service learning and retention con t8
IV. Service - learning and retention(con’t)

Results

  • Retention Second Term

    • Overall SL vsNon SL (46.4 vs 35.8)

      • Disaggregated Gender/Ethnicity

        • WM SL vs Non-SL (100.0% vs 30.9%)

        • BM SL vs Non-SL (54.5% vs 29.5%)

        • HM SL vs Non-SL (33.3% vs 32.4%)

        • WF SL vs Non-SL (50.0% vs 44.6%)

        • BF SL vs Non-SL (45.5% vs 34.0%)

        • HF SL vs Non-SL (46.4% vs 41.3%)


Iv service learning and retention con t9
IV. Service - learning and retention(con’t)

  • Retention Second Term

    • Overall SL vs Non SL (46.4 vs 35.8)

  • English Credit Course

    • Overall SL vs Non SL (72.0% vs 62.0%)


  • Iv service learning and retention con t10
    IV. Service - learning and retention(con’t)

    Limitations & Discussion

    • Small sample size

    • Pre-selection bias

      • Possibility that differences in motivation and other factors between SL and Non-SL

      • More sophisticated methods should be used

        • propensity scoring – to match students who participated in SL with those who did not and then compare the impact of SL













    V works cited
    V. Works cited

    • Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2002). Sacramento. “A Survey Of Effective Practices In Basic Skills” ERIC. Web. 12 June 2013.

    • Campus Compact (2008).”Building Engaged Campuses.” Research Brief #1 in Building Engaged Series. http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/downloads/Retention_Research_Brief.pdf

    • Campus Compact.(2013) http://www.compact.org/about/history-mission-vision/

    • Goen-Salter, S. (Producer). (2012). TxCRLA brown bag webinar: “Integrated reading and writing” (video). Retrieved from http://thetexasnetwork.org/index.php/resource-spec/1395/


    V works cited con t
    V. Works cited (con’t)

    • Gonyea, R.M., et al (2008). High impact activities. http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/AACU_2008_high_impact_practices%20Kuh,%20Gonyea,%20Nelson%20Laird,%20Kinzie%20final.pdf.

    • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation time to act report. New York, NY: Alliance for Excellent Education, Carnegie Foundation. Retrieved from http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/WritingToRead_01.pdf

    • Kuh, G.D., e tal. (2007). Connecting the dots. http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/Connecting_the_Dots_Report.pdf


    V works cited con t1
    V. Works cited (con’t)

    • Morales-Vale, Suzanne. TSI and Developmental Education Updates. CRLA/CASP Convention. THECB Town Hall. November 8, 2012 PowerPoint.,18

    • Perkins-Gogh, Deborah. (2009). “Can Service Learning Keep Students in School?” Educational Leadership, 66(8),91-93.

    • Shanahan, T. (1997). “Reading-writing relationships, thematic units, inquiry learning.... In pursuit of effective integrated literacy instruction.” Reading Teacher, 51(1), 12-19.

    • Zaff, Jonathan and Richard Lerner. (2010)“Promote Positive Youth Development in High School.” Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 21-23.


    Vi resources
    VI. Resources

    Campus Compact

    • helps colleges and universities coordinate community engagement efforts

    • trains faculty members to integrate community work into their teaching and research,

    • encourages scholarships and other student incentives.

      Campus Compact/ 2013


    Vi resources con t
    VI. Resources (con’t)

    National Service Learning Clearinghouse

    • supports the service-learning community in higher education, kindergarten through grade twelve, community-based organizations, tribal programs, and others interested in strengthening schools and communities using service-learning.

      http://servicelearning.org


    Vi resources con t1
    VI. Resources (con’t)

    College & Research Libraries News

    • provides information on the definitions of civic engagement, projects and resource centers, campus and research centers, e-journals and blogs, statistics and assessment

      http://crln.acrl.org/content/67/1/23.full.pdf+html?sid=d3926001-cf73-42d0-b0fc-4082e672df21


    Vi resources con t2
    VI. Resources (con’t)

    • Community College National Center for Community Engagement

      provides resources to support and advance civic

      engagement initiatives in community colleges,

      sample syllabi; announcements of

      upcoming events and conferences; and links

      to related programs, projects, and organizations.

      http://mc.maricopa.edu/other/engagement/


    Vi resources con t3
    VI. Resources (con’t)

    • Service Learning Research Primer

      designed to address the need for information on how to conduct high-quality and rigorous research on service-learning. It reviews the literature base, appropriate research methodologies and measurement procedures, and available online resources.

      http://www.servicelearning.org/service-learning-research-primer/service-learning-research-primer


    Vii conclusions
    VII. Conclusions

    • Most students learn best by doing!

    • Students with learning disabilities need the multisensory reinforcement.


    Vii conclusions con t
    VII. Conclusions (con’t)

    • According to this research, students benefit academically from integrated reading, writing and service - learning.


    Vii conclusions con t1
    VII. Conclusions (con’t)

    • Specifically most students who did service learning with both reading and writing in the intermediate-level developmental reading class persisted and were successful in the first or second required college - level English course.


    Copies and thank you
    Copies and thank you!

    • If you have questions or would like a copy of this presentation, please email Ann Palmer – [email protected]

    • I would like to thank Richard Griffiths -

      [email protected] for his generous assistance in preparing the statistical analysis of the data.

    • It’s been a pleasure visiting with you!


    ad