Clickers in Basic Reading/Writing Class

For the past couple semesters, I've used clickers aka Student Response Systems in my basic reading and writing classes.  Clickers "are touted as giving both students and faculty quick feedback about 'mastery of content.'" (1)  I can attest to this.

For example, using  a setup as illustrated in the image to the right,  I can determine if students can identify the main idea/topic sentence in a paragraph.  I have done this by having students read a paragraph from a text, handout, or a screen projection such as in the image below (I have an LCD projector mounted in the classroom I teach in).  Then, I ask students to identify the main idea in the paragraph by clicking.

Very quickly, I can see how the class at large was able to identify the main idea.  If the majority do not, then I'll invest time in explaining the hows and whys of pinpointing the main idea in the particular paragraph we were looking at and for all paragraphs. I can also assess which students are having trouble with a skill or concept and assist them as needed.

Miller (2009) did a study of basic writers using clickers. Full-text of the article:   Basic Writers Using Clickers: A Case Study

Exit criteria from reading and writing remediation at community college

What practices are used to determine student readiness to advance in or exit from remediation at community colleges in the U.S?

These are the criteria at Leeward Community College where I teach:

Reading--

• Appropriate placement test score (LCC uses the Compass test).  Also, students can retake the Compass test after 60 days have elapsed from the initial administration of the test.  However, once a student has earned a grade in a reading class at LCC, he or she cannot take the Compass test again.
• Passing (defined as receiving a grade of C or better) a developmental reading course, in the case of our college English 21.  It should be noted that at LCC, there are three levels of pre-college (i.e. developmental) reading:  Eng 8, Eng 18, and Eng 21.  (click on the links to see approved core outlines for each course).
• Approval from the Language Arts Division.  Note: reading faculty are given the approval authority to allow students to advance to a specific reading level course.  For example, I, based on evidence I have (e.g. course work, test scores, reading portfolio) can approve the promotion of a student from Eng 8 to Eng 21.

Writing--

• Appropriate placement test score (LCC uses the Compass test).  It should be noted that students can challenge a writing placement test score by providing a sample of their writing, written in a lab setting at our college's Learning Resource Center.  Also, students can retake the Compass test after 60 days have elapsed from the initial administration of the test.  However, once a student has earned a grade in a writing class at LCC, he or she cannot take the Compass test again.
  
• Passing (defined as receiving a grade of C or better) the highest level developmental reading course, in the case of our college, English 22.  It should be noted that at LCC, there are three levels of pre-college (i.e. developmental) writing:  Eng 8, Eng 19, and Eng 22.  (click on the links to see approved core outlines for each course).
  
• Approval from the Language Arts Division.  Note: writing faculty are given the approval authority to allow students to advance to a specific writing level course.  For example, I, based on evidence I have (e.g. course work, test scores, writing portfolio) can approve the promotion of a student from Eng 8 to Eng 22. 

Comments are welcome regarding exit criteria at other community colleges in the U.S.

Five Instructional Goals for Struggling College Basic Readers

Read an article today titled "Effective Reading Instruction for Struggling Readers: The Role of Direct/Explicit Teaching" (Rupley et al 2009) that mentioned the five instructional goals for reading acquisition:

1. Phonemic awareness
2. Phonics
3. Fluency
4. Vocabulary
5. Comprehension

I will admit that I instruct students in my community college basic writing classes in goals 3 through 5 but not much (if at all) in the first two.  My first impression is that phonemic awareness and phonics instruction are for elementary educators.  But there is evidence that phonemic awareness and phonics instruction are being taught to college basic readers.  One of the things I gleaned from the latter article, is that "assessments that test word recognition, phonics, and fluency are equally as important as those that assess comprehension and vocabulary."

I'll be looking for such an assessment.  Comments are welcome from anyone who knows of assessments for word recognitionk, phonics, and fluency.

Responding to Student Writing--What role do you play?

In a 1989 article, “Response Styles and Ways of Knowing” Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research, Chris M. Anson identified three kinds of responders to student writing:

• Dualistic responders  are often guided by a clear-cut concept of right and wrong, focus mostly on surface features, and assume the tone of critical judges or evaluators. 
• Relativistic responders provide feedback almost exclusively to the ideas expressed in the writing, often ignoring significant linguistic and rhetorical aspects.
• Reflective responders attend to both ideas and stylistic devices while attempting to offer options for revision without being controlling.

While I hope to be a reflective responder, in practice I often resort to the dualistic response role.   I can say that at times I embrace the relativistic role and ignore (or attempt to ignore) surface features in student writing. 

Comments?

Nelson-Denny as a pre- and post test for a Basic Reading Class

For the past several semesters, I, along with reading faculty colleagues at Leeward Community College, have been using the Nelson-Denny as a pre- (Form G) and post-test (Form H)  for the students enrolled in remedial and developmental reading courses. Some include the Nelson-Denny as part of the course grade, with points given to students who have demonstrated improvement from pre- to post-test.

What I have been doing is giving full credit (100%) on the post-test for students who score at the 8.5 grade level or higher.  For those who test out at a lower grade level, they earn a lower percentage. For my classes (Eng 8 --Basic Reading and Writing), the Nelson-Denny (Form H) is worth 5% of the final grade for the class.

One question that may come to mind is Why grade level 8.5?  What I can say is that in doing a search for the appropriate exit level for students in Eng 8, I found nothing conclusive.  However, what I did find is that at least one instructor at another CC in the University of Hawaii system is using the Nelson-Denny score (grade level 10.5) as part of the exit criteria for his course, and this course (Eng 21) is two  levels above Eng 8 (with Eng 18 being the course in between).  So I surmised that 8.5 would be an appropriate grade level for exit from Eng 8, and 9.5 would be appropriate for Eng 18, and 10.5 for Eng 21.

Any comments?  Suggestions?

Student Writing Samples

What is acceptable college-level writing? 

The faculty at Middlesex Community College (Mass.) provide a variety of samples of student writing to provide some context for its students.  Community college students, some who may have been out of school for a number of years, are curious about the expectations for writing as they enter a college environment.  MCC provides links to writing samples from students at a variety of academic levels in college as well as samples from high school, middle school, and elementary school students.

The skinny on ReadingPlus

For my basic reading classes at Leeward Community College, I've had students using ReadingPlus, an online program touted as "a comprehensive evidence based software solution for reading assessment and improvement that develops foundational fluency and increases reading rate and comprehension for students of all ages and skill levels. It is the result of over 70 years of research and development in the area of reading improvement technology." 1

Students in my Eng 8 (Basic Reading and Writing) class were assigned to complete three reading plus Guided Reading lessons per week for twelve weeks (36 total lessons).   Guided Reading is touted to foster"development of basic visual and perceptual processes resulting in ease and comfort, increased reading rates and improved comprehension."   Each guided reading is based on a topic chosen by the student from a portfolio of topics.  Then the student reads an article which might be presented in small chunks, bigger chunks, or as a whole.  Then, the student is presented with 20 multiple-choice questions that pertain to the article.  A typical quided reading lesson took students about 27 minutes to complete.  So if students were to complete the required 36 lessons (only 4 of 35 students did so), then they would need about 16 hours to complete this work or about an hour and twenty minutes per week (for 12 weeks).

Here are some stats from this past semester (Spring 2010--16 weeks).  On average, the 35 students from two sections of Eng 8  averaged

• 13.2 lessons completed
• 6.09 total hours to complete lessons
• 62% on the 20 comprehension questions for each reading
• 1 word per minute gain in reading rate

Of concern to me is the final item.  Only 1 word per minute gain in rate?  That obviously is not good, so I'm going to have to investigate this.


At the end of the semester, students were given a survey so that they could assess usefulnes of ReadingPlus.  Here are the results (only one of my sections was polled.  N = 12.).  Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the following statements with possible response being Strongly Disagree (=1), Disagree (=2), Unsure (=3),  Agree (=4),  Strongly Agree (=5).  The average core for each item is indicated in parentheses.

1. ReadingPlus has helped me become a better reader.  (3.42)
2. I understand more of what I read since I have been working with ReadingPlus. (3.5)
3. ReadingPlus has helped me expand my vocabulary. (3.42)
4. Reading is easier for me now that I have been working with ReadingPlus. (3.25)
5. I am a faster reader tan I was before working with ReadingPlus. (3.42)
6. ReadingPlus activities have been a valuable use of my time. (3.08)
7. The skills I have gained through ReadingPlus have helped my in my classes. (3.42)
8. I would recommend ReadingPlus to other students. (3.33)

I have committed to using ReadingPlus again in the coming semester (Fall 2010), but I have to address issues of student buy-in to the program.  Perhaps I will make the completion of a certain number of lessons a requirement for a certain grade.  That is, to earn an A, a student must complete 36 lessons (in addition to completing other requirements of the class).  To earn a B, a student must complete 32 lessons.  We'll see.

Comments and questions are welcome.

The Real World

Found an article titled "Writing Across the Community:  Changing Writing Realities in a University-Run Summer Writing Program for High School Youth" in the Basic Writing Ejournal about a summer writing program at Temple University aimed at helping high school students improve their writing skills and also bridge the gap between high school and college for these students.

This was interesting to me because I have been teaching writing in a summer program (Upward Bound) for the past fifteen years.  This summer will be my sixteenth.

Though there have been challenges I've faced by working with high school students in Upward Bound, never has it been like the trials faced by the writer of the article and her colleagues.

One of the points made is that  "MFA students needed more preparation for what they were going to face, and ... their graduate focus on writing as an art may have left them ...shocked at realities of teaching."

Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Basic Writing

This second edition of the Bibliography is a good resource for teachers of basic writing classes. This edition delves into basic writing's past and present so that readers can "better understand the questions and issues that will shape the field in the years to come."

The book also says that "For those looking for a citation, a resource, or an article, the second edition of this volume is certainly enormously useful, but it is also useful as a collective summary of the conversations about basic writing that have taken place and the narratives that have been constructed over the last thirty years. In addition, Karen S. Uehling's "The Conference on Basic Writing, 1980-2005" (000-0000) provides historical context to these conversations and narratives, tracing how the CBW has grown and adapted to changes in the field. In this sense, the second edition of the Bibliography captures the threads that these conversations have followed, and perhaps it can give basic writing teachers insights into the field's next thirty years."


While compiling two editions of The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Basic Writing, we reflected frequently on questions about what basic writing is, who basic writers are, how teachers should work with students in basic writing courses, and what the future of basic writing holds-some of the field's most compelling issues.

Purchase a copy of the book at Amazon.