FIN Commons

 

Summary

East Los Angeles College’s English department is searching for sound strategies to accelerate student progress and minimize the time students spend in layers of on-ramp remedial courses. A team of reading instructors will conduct an in-depth analysis into a developmental reading course four levels below transfer. Their inquiry plan includes analysis of diagnostic data for individual students, videotaped class sessions, lesson plans, classroom assessment results, pass/fail distributions, student reading logs, and such curriculum variables as use of stories vs. textbook reading samples, voluntary or assigned reading, and tutor-supported vs. self-contained classrooms. Their central question: How can reading progress be accelerated in ways that are both efficient and cost-effective?

Team Leader:
Dr. John C. Rude / Associate Dean of Resource Development
323-267-3724 Fax: 323-260-8197
Rudejc@elac.edu

Team Members:

• Rhonda Wiley / Reading
• Gannon Daniels / English
• Gia Barilari / Reading
• Nathan Warner / ESL
• Marina Rodriguez / Reading
• Sharon Allerson

 

Plans for Data Collection and Analysis

 

A.            Zoom-Lens Inquiry: Focusing on Students

 

1)      What data will you gather and analyze on individual students? (e.g. student work, self-reflections, interviews, videotaped think-alouds or problem-solving)

 

In Spring term 2009 we will focus on two Reading 20 classes-the very lowest rung on the developmental “ladder,” roughly 4 levels before Freshman English.  In a “discovery” process, we’re collecting various kinds of data:  two standardized pre-and-post reading tests (to determine grade-level reading ability), a WestED student reading survey (to determine reading behaviors and backgrounds), unit tests from the textbook used in both classes, student journals, video of a key lesson, and video of student interviews.

 

2)      How do you imagine this data will help you understand the problem/issue you’re investigating? In other words, how does the data connect to and inform the overall focus of your inquiry?

 

Reading is a complex internal process that engages intellectual capacities in different ways.  We can measure progress in some dimensions-but they may not be the most important measures, especially at the “semi-literate” stage of Reading 20 students (4^th to 8^th grade reading skill).  What factors caused them to arrive, as adults, with an impoverished vocabulary, little exposure to literature, and few opportunities or stimuli for reading?  We may have “hunches” and assumptions about low-level readers, but we must begin our inquiry by asking the students to tell us what has impeded their progress, and then reality-test these assumptions and findings with more refined questions.

 

 

3)      When and how will you collect this data? (e.g. Which classes will you target? Where will you conduct interviews or think-alouds?)

 

We will target two Reading 20 classes because only three sections are being taught by team members in the current term-involving only two teachers.  The classes are large (40-50 students each, with a broad range of abilities).  Collecting information across numerous variables from individual students will enable us to focus our inquiry, before examining a greater number of classes, or looking at reading dynamics in other courses.  We will conduct and videotape interviews during breaks (or after) each class; students’ work and academic schedules preclude any other arrangement.

 

4)      When will you analyze this data? (e.g. mid-semester team retreat, after lesson-study session, at the end of the semester; )

 

We have not scheduled a mid-semester retreat, but will wait until the end of Spring term (June 8, 2009) after pre- and post data have been collected.  Because the task of assembling data may take several weeks, we will be unable to meet and analyze our data until just before the FIN summer retreat (June 26-28).

 

5.) How will you analyze the data? (e.g. analyzing student work with a rubric or analytic frame like Polya’s method for problem-solving or Perry’s scheme for student development; analyzing themes in student self-reflections according to their performance in the class – how did the responses of students who did not pass compare/contrast with students who performed well?)

 

Questions about reading instruction from the original proposal offer a framework for analysis:  “Will the most effective method prove to be repetitive assignments, or increasing the amount of time reading?  Will the best teaching approaches include de-construction of reading tasks, and increased awareness of meta-cognitive processes (building enthusiasm, promoting inquiry, developing discipline)?  Does the cultural relevance of assigned texts matter?  Can students be organized into groups that provide feedback and model effective reading?  Does the scaffolding built into the current course outline help or hinder learning?”  At this point, we are deliberately avoiding a quasi-experimental approach which contrasts “subject” students with “non-subject” students.  We need to tease out the variables to focus on our central question: How can reading progress be accelerated in ways that are both efficient and cost-effective? Part of our inquiry focuses on effective practices at other institutions; from this, we expect a suitable research model to emerge.   

 

6)       What questions/concerns do you have about this element of your Inquiry? How can your Inquiry Coach support you in this phase of your Inquiry?

 

So far, we have coalesced around the logistics of testing and videotaping: i.e. which tests to use, which interview questions to ask, when and where to videotape, how to solicit student views, etc.  We need to develop a more coherent rationale for our inquiry, and could use coaching on the research paradigm.

 

 

B.      Mid-Range Shots: Focusing on the Classroom

 

1)      Please name ONE specific lesson in a particular course that will give you a good vantage point for observing student learning relevant to your Inquiry.

 

“Finding the Main Idea” – a lesson taught about one-third through the 16-week term.  Components of the lesson include distinguishing between main topics and sub-topics, understanding the general-to-specific continuum, and locating specific summary sentences that express the main idea.

 

2)      How do you imagine the Lesson Study will help you understand the problem/issue you’re investigating about students and their learning? In other words, how does it connect to and inform the overall focus of your inquiry?

 

Progress in reading is seldom continuous; it is a series of ascents and descents which integrate the reader’s experience with text on a page.  Students gradually acquire analytical habits that allow them to see “big picture” patterns, then assemble details beneath a broad concept.  They must repeat this skill at various levels of text (paragraph, section, chapter, story) and retain a sequence of “main ideas” in their memories in order to comprehend the author’s primary point.  Introducing the “main idea” as a habit or skill can liberate students from textual constraints, and allows them to concentrate on meaning and critical thought.  Understanding Main Ideas is a crucial step in acquiring academic literacy.

 

3)      When and how will your team conduct this Lesson Study? Please detail the timeframes and participants for the three parts of the Lesson Study process (collaboratively planning the lesson, teaching/observing the lesson, and debriefing/analyzing videotapes & student work from the lesson).

 

Two members of the team collaboratively developed a lesson plan for Main Ideas, and all five shared and discussed the lesson matrix.  Two team members have consented to be observed on video during the presentation (which may take 2-3 hour-long sessions).  All team members will view and comment on the lesson, then debrief the analysis as a group. 

 

4)      What kinds of things will the observers be looking/listening for during the lesson? What artifacts of student learning and student experience will the team collect during the lesson? Will you videotape any portion of this process (pre-planning, lesson, debrief)?

 

Student understanding will be measured in pre-and-post administration of a textbook “mastery test” that asks students to identify Main Ideas of several paragraphs.  A sample of students will also be interviewed (and recorded) to present their views on the lesson. Finally, we will compare lesson-specific scores with individual progress in comprehension (standardized test), reading behaviors (survey) and course outcomes (final grades). 

 

5) What questions/concerns do you have about this element of your Inquiry? How can your Inquiry Coach support you in this phase of your Inquiry?

 

At the moment we’re absorbed with logistics of test selection, scheduling videotaping sessions, selecting students for interviews, etc.  We don’t know whether both classes will be taught in roughly the same way, with similar content and outcomes.  Two classes is a too-small sample for drawing general conclusions; therefore, we need a specific rubric or theory to decide what the significance of similarities or differences might be.

 

C.            Wide-Angle Lens: Focusing on Larger Trends in Institutional Data

 

1)      What data from your Institutional Research Office will you integrate into your Inquiry? For example, will you look at patterns of student success, defined as grades of CR, A,B C? Retention rates (completion of semester without withdrawl)? Persistence from one semester to the next, or from one course to the next in a sequence? Comparisons of student outcomes disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age? Data from surveys on student engagement? For a sample Inquiry using this kind of data, go to http://facultyinquiry.net and look for the category “Using Institutional Research,” then see the Learning Community Impact study posted there.)

 

We will request longitudinal data from our IR office addressing all the above variables (grades, demographics, retention and persistence) covering ALL sections of Reading 20 over the past 4 full-length semesters.  (Winter and Summer terms are compressed into 5 weeks, offered in a format not relevant for analysis of accelerated progress.)  This provides baseline data for the more intensive analysis of two Reading 20 sections during the current term.

 

2)      How do you imagine this data will help you understand the problem/issue you’re investigating? In other words, how does the data connect to and inform the overall focus of your inquiry?

 

Grades are relatively easy to analyze, because Reading 20 is offered as a Credit/No-Credit (Pass/Fail) course.  Variations in the percent of No-Credit scores among teachers might be of interest, although we won’t have time to correlate this data with differences in teaching styles.  We want to know the subsequent decisions of No-Credit students-do they repeat Reading 20?  Do they circumvent pre-requisites and advance to the next level?  Do they disappear from college rolls, or do they stay in school, avoiding English courses?  Ethnicity and gender are also relevant at East LA, as well as language background (native English, native Spanish, native Chinese).  Somehow, data should inform us whether our curriculum is part of the problem: i.e. too many levels, not enough integration between reading and writing, or more robust reading interventions at earlier (lower) reading levels.

 

3)      What questions/concerns do you have about this element of your Inquiry? How can your Inquiry Coach support you in this phase of your Inquiry?

 

To be honest, we want to postpone the macro-level questions until we have a grip on the student and classroom variables.  Some data-gathering is essential, but we may have to defer analysis until later in the summer.  Is this wise?

 

D.            Video Footage

We are asking each team to collect at least 10 hours of video footage in the Spring semester.

 

1)      Beyond plans detailed above, please describe any additional footage you intend to gather.

 

No plans yet, but some ideas are likely to emerge.  We’re also open to suggestions.

 

2)      How will this footage inform the central questions of your Inquiry?

 

Three “streams” of video footage will help us understand the dynamics of reading progress:  long and varied clips of classroom instruction, interviews with students, and interviews with instructors.  We feel sure we will discover counter-intuitive information, challenging our assumptions about all three groups.  We don’t know whether “clues” about how to accelerate reading will emerge from this large body of evidence.  A fourth focus of our videotaping might include visits to other colleges, to gain an understanding of their effective practices in reading instruction.  The “storyline” for this evidence-gathering is likely to become clearer when we edit the footage.

 

3)      What questions/concerns do you have about this element of your Inquiry? Is there any support you’d like from the FIN Leadership Team in this area?

 

We look forward to more resources and receiving instructions for video editing.

 

E.            Inclusion of Student Voices

 

As noted during the Kick-Off Convening, an additional $1,000 will be made available to each team to support making student voices a central part of each Inquiry. We encourage you to be creative and draw upon students as co-inquirers who can provide expertise in helping you understand the problem/issue you are investigating. Please describe how you plan to include student voices in your Inquiry (e.g. hiring students to capture video footage, interview other students, review data from your inquiry and tell you what they see).

 

Our efforts to hire student cameramen have been unsuccessful.  One of our team members recruited three upper-level students who had completed Reading 20 to serve as tutors.  They have not been deployed yet, due to lack of clarity about the tutoring situation in each class.   We will use instructors for camerawork, and we’ll work as a team to complete the editing.  The bulk of “student voice” data will come from the 8-10 students we’re planning to interview.  Later in the project, it’s possible that several students may be identified who will help the project, both as workers and informants.

 

Timeline/Calendar

So that we can visualize how the work will proceed over the next several months, please give a timeline for when the above components will occur. It can be in either calendar or outline format.

 

Milestones in East LA College Inquiry (Spring, 2009):

 

Feb. 12 –             Team planning meeting

Feb. 17-24            Pre-Tests: DRP, RFU and student surveys

Mar. 11-16            Begin videotaping of Main Idea lessons

Mar. 19            Videographers meet, fine-tune interview process

Mar 23-28            Distribute prompts for metacognitive writing

Apr. 13            Complete videotaping & first student interviews

Apr. 14            Collect college data on all Reading 20 classes

Apr. 16            Team meeting – review of progress to date

May 4-22            Second round of student interviews

June 1-10            Compile raw footage & story-board for video editing

June 1-7            Post-Tests: DRP, RFU

June 8-10            Compile, analyze data from pre- and post-tests

June 10            Half-day retreat: analyze data, write video story-line

June 11-25            Prepare Final-Cut of video, burn DVDs

June 26-28            FIN conference