1 / 52

Ann Palmer, M.A., M. Ed. Professor, Developmental Reading Richard Griffiths, PhD.

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.

marsha
Download Presentation

Ann Palmer, M.A., M. Ed. Professor, Developmental Reading Richard Griffiths, PhD.

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Contents I. Reading-writing connection II. Reading-writing-serving connection III. Service-learning IV. Service-learning and retention V. Works cited • Resources VII. Conclusions

  3. 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)

  4. 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)

  5. 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)

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

  8. 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)

  9. 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 )

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. 0 III. Service - learning (con’t) 2. performing service and/or doing research on organizations that need volunteers

  13. III. Service-learning (con’t) 3) analyzing the experience using a final project such as an essay or presentation

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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?”

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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.

  25. 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%)

  26. 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%)

  27. 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%)

  28. 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%)

  29. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  41. 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/

  42. 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

  43. 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.

  44. 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

  45. 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

  46. 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

  47. 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/

  48. 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

  49. VII. Conclusions • Most students learn best by doing! • Students with learning disabilities need the multisensory reinforcement.

  50. VII. Conclusions (con’t) • According to this research, students benefit academically from integrated reading, writing and service - learning.

More Related