IMPROVING READING
COMPREHENSION SKILLS
Hopkinsville Community College
Dr. James Selbe, President
Alissa Young, SACS Liaison
Quality Enhancement Plan
Submitted to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Commission on Colleges
On-Site Visit: October 17 – October 19, 2011
Table of Contents
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 1
II.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 2
Institutional Overview....................................................................................... 2
Mission, Vision, and Values............................................................................. 2
Broad-based Involvement in the Topic Selection ............................................ 3
III.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE TOPIC .................................................................. 5
Identification of Pilot Group.............................................................................. 9
IV.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................................... 10
Improving Reading Comprehension ................................................................ 11
Rationale for Reading Comprehension Enhancement Strategies ................... 12
Identification of Reading Comprehension Enhancement Strategies ............... 13
Embedded/Content Area Strategic Reading Instruction .................................. 13
Reading Apprenticeship Training and Faculty Development........................... 14
Enhanced Academic Support .......................................................................... 16
Culture of Reading Incentives.......................................................................... 17
V.
FOCUS OF LITERATZI ..................................................................................... 18
LITERATZI STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ONE ...................................... 18
LITERATZI STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME TWO....................................... 19
VI.
LITERATZI ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED ................................................ 20
Overview............................................................................................................ 20
Action 1: Enhancing reading comprehension strategies per academic
discipline ............................................................................................................ 21
1A: Embedded Content .................................................................................... 21
1B: “ Word of the Day” Vocabulary Building ..................................................... 21
Action 2: Literatzi Success Corner.................................................................... 21
2:
Reading Comprehension Support .............................................................. 21
2A: Supplemental Instruction............................................................................ 22
2B: Website ...................................................................................................... 22
Action 3: Faculty Development ......................................................................... 23
3A: Reading Apprenticeship Training ............................................................... 23
3B: Professional Development Workshops ...................................................... 23
3C: Reading Committee ................................................................................... 23
3D: Nelson-Denny Faculty Training.................................................................. 24
i Actions for Student Learning Outcome Number 2 ............................................. 24
1A: Common Reader Program ......................................................................... 24
1B: Reading Website ........................................................................................ 24
1C: College Newspaper.................................................................................... 25
1D: Peer Reading in the Community ................................................................ 25
1E: Vocabulary Building.................................................................................... 25
1F: Author Festival............................................................................................ 25
1G: Three Book Challenge ................................................................................ 25
VII. TIMELINE........................................................................................................ 26
VIII ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ................................................................. 36
IX.
INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY (BUDGET) ........................................................ 37
X.
RATIONALE FOR ASSESSMENT PLAN ........................................................ 38
Assessment of Literatzi Student Learning Outcomes..................................... 40
Assessment Table for Student Learning Outcomes ........................................ 41
Annual Reports ................................................................................................ 43
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX I
QEP Steering Committee Membership ................................................................... 50 APPENDIX II
QEP Reading Interest Survey Sample .................................................................... 51
APPENDIX III
Literatzi Course Discipline Reading Survey Sample ............................................... 53
APPENDIX IV
Bloom’s Taxonomy Chart ........................................................................................ 54
APPENDIX V
Rubric for Reading Comprehension ........................................................................ 55
APPENDIX VI
Faculty Workshop Rubric ........................................................................................ 57
APPENDIX VII
Course Discipline Syllabus Rubric........................................................................... 58
ii List of Tables
Table 1: HCC Community College Survey of Student Engagement ................................... 7
Table 2: HCC Student Reading Survey Results................................................................. 8
Table 3: Implementation of Associate in Applied Science Programs ................................. 33
Table 4: QEP Implementation Timeline Actions to be Implemented .................................. 34
Table 5: HCC Assessment for Student Learning Outcomes ............................................. 41
List of Figures
Figure 1: Literatzi Responsibility and Reporting Structure ................................................. 36
Figure 2: Literatzi Assessment Cycle ................................................................................. 39
iii Part I: Executive Summary
The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Literatzi focusing on reading comprehension is
Hopkinsville Community College’s new initiative to support student learning and academic
success. The plan ultimately hinges upon faculty development as faculty members assume
a critical role in students’ academic achievement. Once the QEP is implemented, faculty
members will be prepared to incorporate reading strategies within their curricula and provide
students with authentic, content area reading material that will increase reading
comprehension. The QEP will also address the need to encourage a culture of reading.
In 2009, faculty members, students, staff, administrators, board members, and community
members collaborated in the QEP topic selection process. Anecdotal evidence coupled with
Compass test scores, ACT test scores, CCSSE surveys, and research regarding the
importance that reading comprehension plays in academic success were all considered as
viable data to support the need to encourage better reading among HCC students. The
topic also coincided with the HCC mission statement and the strategic goals, both of which
emphasize the college’s commitment to excellence in teaching and learning.
The actions to be implemented as part of the QEP are fourfold. First, a select group of
faculty members will participate in Reading Apprenticeship (RA) trainings which teaches
faculty the particulars of strategic reading and how to develop reading assignments that will
stimulate students’ metacognition, which is defined as “the knowledge of how to read as well
as the ability to regulate and direct the process.” The goal is for RA trained faculty to
provide ongoing RA training sessions to other faculty as part of faculty professional
development. Teaching other faculty members how to incorporate strategic reading into their
courses will segue into the second action of the QEP, which is to transform reading
instruction so that reading is embedded into the individual disciplines. Embedded or
Content Area Strategic Reading Instruction is a well-researched and well-supported learning
initiative that has been shown to produce self-motivated readers who, in turn, become more
engaged as students. Other faculty development initiatives will include Faculty
Roundtables/Learning Communities, faculty committees that focus on reading pedagogy,
and common book readings and discussions. Third, the QEP will seek to broaden already
existing academic support centers to include Reading Comprehension tutoring. Finally,
encouraging students to engage in reading activities outside of the classroom is key to
developing a culture of reading. Activities such as reading and discussing a common book
have been shown to increase students’ interest in reading and in exchanging ideas.
The assessment plan will include data from the Nelson-Denny Reading Tests to gauge
current and future reading comprehension levels. In addition, CCSSE surveys and other
surveys developed by QEP personnel will be used to assess the reading engagement
outcome and the success of faculty development initiatives. Finally, reading comprehension
assignments from a variety of classes will be assessed by the Reading Committee against a
reading rubric that is designed and approved by an appropriate assessing body. At the end
of each academic year, a comprehensive report, based upon the combined assessment
tools, will be created to provide an in-depth examination of the QEP.
1 Part II: Introduction
A principal objective of the QEP is to provide students with a wealth of opportunities that will
help them to explore the many benefits and joys of reading. Since reading is, indeed, the
foundation on which all learning occurs, it is only natural that Hopkinsville Community
College engage students in an environment that promotes life-long learning, which could
intuitively lead to the achievement of ultimate success: a solid education. In addition, the
plan will endeavor to create a college and community wide culture that shares an
enthusiasm for reading.
The QEP will incorporate well-researched initiatives that center around classes that immerse
students in reading so as to develop their reading comprehension skills.
Institutional Overview
Hopkinsville Community College (HCC) is one of 16 two-year colleges in the Kentucky
Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). Founded in 1965 and accredited by
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), our goal is to prepare students
for successful transfer to Kentucky and nation-wide four-year colleges or for immediate
entrance into fulfilling careers. HCC awards associate degrees, diplomas, and certificates in
more than 20 areas of study, including:
• Associate of Arts/Science (AA/AS)
• Agricultural Technology
• Business Administration
• Criminal Justice
• Education
• General Occupational Technical Studies
• Human Services
• Information Technology
• Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education
• Manufacturing Industrial Technology
• Nursing
• Office-Systems Technology
HCC offers classes at two campuses and at various sites in the southern Pennyrile Region
in south central Kentucky, including Hopkinsville and Fort Campbell.
Mission
Hopkinsville Community College is an inclusive, student-centered educational institution that
provides accessible, innovative, and comprehensive learning opportunities within a
supportive community that encourages academic excellence. The college sustains strong
educational, community, military, and economic partnerships to improve quality of life in the
southern Pennyrile region and Fort Campbell. Hopkinsville Community College promotes
excellence in teaching and learning by offering:
• Degree, diploma, and certificate programs and courses that enable students to
transfer to four-year institutions, and acquire the knowledge and skills for new or
continued employment;
2 •
•
•
•
Developmental, academic and support services that promote student success;
Customized business and industry training;
Continuing education and community outreach; and
Adult education
HCC is a member of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System and is a
public two-year degree granting institution serving the South Central Region of Kentucky
including Ft. Campbell.
Vision
The Commonwealth’s premier community college, strengthening community and
challenging students to maximize their potential.
Values
• Open access balanced with excellence
• Student success
• Education and lifelong learning
• Stewardship of human, fiscal, capital and environmental resources
• Integrity
• Community engagement
• Leadership
• Personal responsibility
• Continuous improvement and responsiveness to change
• Inclusion and multiculturalism
• Partnership with the military community
Broad-based Involvement in the Topic Selection
The Hopkinsville Community College Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) team was
commissioned by Dr. James Selbe on January 16, 2009 during a meeting in his office.
Team members were Pat Riley, Aaron Pettus, and Dr. Karen Dougherty. The team received
assistance and direction from Dr. Kris Williams, then Chief Academic Officer of the college.
Dr. Williams provided several resources for team members to review, including the QEP
handbook, supplemental materials relating to the QEP process, and materials obtained
during the 2008 SACS Quality Enhancement Institute.
The committee met on February 13, 2009 with Dr. Williams to discuss the timeline for the
selection process, strategies for involving faculty in the process, and possible ways to
secure input from staff, students and the community at large. The team considered a variety
of formats, preferring a method that would ensure broad input and informed participation.
The team decided to begin work by providing the faculty with information about the QEP
process for review prior to convening a meeting during which the faculty would work in
small, facilitated groups to explore possibilities for the QEP topic. The faculty could then
reconvene as a larger group to consider the work done by the smaller groups and, ideally,
reach consensus on a preferred topic area. The committee planned to use the faculty’s
work as a springboard for discussion by staff, students and community members. The team
3 also explored the possibility of using survey instruments and a web site to solicit broader
input from these constituencies.
On March 20, 2009 a larger group convened and had facilitated small group discussions.
Again, many ideas were brought forth and were eventually collected under the heading of
“College Readiness.”
In addition, the QEP has been mentioned at the meetings of some external organizations.
The March 2011 meetings of the Pennyrile Area P-12 Council and the Christian County
Cares 2015 Education That Works Subcommittee are two examples where the opportunity
to collaborate on reading initiatives has been discussed.
On March 27, 2009, members of the selection team and Dr. Williams met with HCC staff
members to discuss the QEP process and to obtain ideas for the topic. Many areas for
improvement were identified, including reading and literacy, and were eventually merged
under the broader heading of “Improving the First-Year Experience.”
In April 2009, three online forums were established to gather input from HCC students,
faculty and staff, and the community at large. The Christian County Education Coalition, the
Christian County Public Schools, and the Chamber of Commerce were all contacted
personally and made efforts to gather input from their members. As the comments from the
online forums were evaluated, the committee concluded that many of the concerns could be
traced to inadequate literacy skills, and the general topic of “reading” became the focus.
On May 5, 2009, Pat Riley, speaking for the QEP Selection Committee, sent the following
email to Dr. Selbe:
“Dr. Selbe, Dr. Williams, and Dean Young:
After conferring with the faculty and staff of HCC and after giving students
and community members opportunity to provide input into this process,
the QEP Topic Selection Committee feels ready to present our
suggestion for the QEP topic.
We submit the following topic:
“Reading for Effectiveness, Information, and Enjoyment”
We believe this topic will cover the main concerns and ideas we have
received….
Reading—This clearly covers that idea which was the over-whelming
choice of the [online forum] participants.
College Skills—The faculty over-whelmingly wanted to focus on students
classroom skills (reading, writing, computers, math, study skills, etc.). We
feel that the “Effectiveness” component of this topic will allow faculty to
stress the importance of reading as a way to use textbooks and other
materials in the course. It will also help students be able to read
directions and class policies to be able to prepare for their course more
effectively.
4 Social Interaction—The staff over-whelmingly wanted to focus on the
college atmosphere and social aspect of college. We feel that the
“Information” component of this topic will encourage students to read their
emails, announcements, fliers, etc. that they are being expected to read.
If so, then students will be more aware of events, services, and deadlines
on campus which will hopefully make them better students.
The “Enjoyment” component is placed there to help remind students (and others)
that a great deal of enjoyment can be gained from reading beyond what is
needed/required for educational issues. It is the hope that many of our creative
employees will be able to use books and other reading materials that students would
enjoy reading as a way to open the door to scholarly worlds they might not visit
otherwise.
Based on the feedback we have received from various sources, we feel that this
topic will be embraced by the HCC employees and be effective for the students and
community.”
During the ensuing months, various constituencies within the college community have been
involved with the QEP and kept apprised of the progress. It was also discussed at the
October 21, 2010 HCC Foundation meeting, as well as at several Hopkinsville Community
College Board of Directors meetings in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The HCC faculty voted to
endorse the topic at the October 29, 2010 meeting. It has been included on the agenda at
all faculty meetings since early in the spring 2010 semester.
III. Identification of the Topic
“The possession of excellent reading skills as evidenced on conventional
reading tests is not a guarantee that a student knows how to read long
assignments meaningfully.” W.G. Perry (qtd. in Simpson).
As stated in the Broad-based Involvement in the Topic Selection, community, faculty, and
staff members participated in the QEP topic selection process, and, eventually, a wide
consensus grew in support of improving reading comprehension. In addition, national, state,
and local data support initial perceptions that deficient reading skills are a major barrier to
student success. ProLiteracy America (www.proliteracy.org) estimates that in the U.S., 30
million people over age 16 (which is 14% of the country’s adult population) don’t read well
enough to understand a newspaper story written at the eighth-grade level or fill out a job
application. The United States ranks fifth in adult literacy skills when compared to other
industrialized nations.
There is also a clear connection between literacy rates and poverty. The National Institute
for Literacy estimates that 43% of adults with very low literacy skills live in poverty. About
70% of adult welfare recipients exhibit lower-level literacy skills on the National Assessment
of the Adult Literacy (NAAL).
According to the U.S. Census report released in December 2008, the three counties most
served by Hopkinsville Community College (Christian, Todd, and Trigg Counties),
experience poverty levels that exceed the national average. Christian County has a 19%
5 poverty rate, Todd County—18.7%, and Trigg County—17%. Statewide, 17% live in
poverty; nationally, the percentage drops to 13%.
According to the HCC “Factbook 2010,” on average, 50% of HCC students are over the age
of 25. Many of these students have been out of school for a long time and are trying to
break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy. The other half of our students coming directly from
area high schools often exhibit poor literacy skills even after having graduated from high
school. A KCTCS breakdown of ACT-reading scores from fall 2010 shows that Hopkinsville
ranks tenth out of 16 districts for first-time freshmen who took the ACT as high school
juniors, scoring a mean of 18.8. The state’s mean score was 19.7 and the nation’s mean
was 21.3.
Students who score below 20 in reading on the ACT must take the COMPASS placement
test to determine if reading remediation is necessary. According to the HCC Institutional
Effectiveness Office, on average, 49% of first-time HCC freshmen test into developmental
reading courses. Even when students are remediated in reading, they often still struggle.
According to Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS) data, only 56%
of HCC students who have passed the final developmental reading course, RDG 30, end up
passing their first social or behavior science course within three semesters. In addition to
this, many students who are not placed in developmental reading classes, and come to
HCC with the necessary ACT scores or pass the COMPASS reading portion still have
trouble with college-level work once they start taking advanced program or degree classes.
This is reflected in HCC’s overall retention rate of 47.6% (“Degree-Seeking Retention” grid,
2006 to 2009, Fall to Fall retention of credential-seeking, full and part-time students—
Institutional Effectiveness Office).
In order to gain the students’ perspective on attitudes toward reading, the HCC QEP Team
conducted a Student Reading Survey in the spring of 2010 in which 518 students
participated. The results mirror ACT/COMPASS results in many ways. Almost 52% of the
students surveyed admitted they liked reading only on a limited basis or not at all. Sixtyseven percent of respondents admitted to spending five or fewer hours a week reading
class-related materials.
The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) instruments from both
2009 and 2007 reveal student perceptions of reading as it relates to academic and personal
success. In most of the categories HCC students were weaker than students from other
KCTCS colleges. The CCSSE Survey will be administered two times during the QEP
initiative in order to gain an overview of the HCC Community College Culture of Reading
attainment.
6 Table 1
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
Comparison of HCC scores to KY Consortium Average Scores
2009 In your experience at this college,
during the current school year,
about how often have you done
each of the following?
Key: 1=never, 2=sometimes,
3=often, 4=very often
4e—Come to class without
completing readings or assignments
4n—Discussed ideas from your
readings or classes with instructors
outside of class
During the current school year,
how much has your coursework
at this college emphasized the
following mental activities?
Key: 1=very little, 2=some,
3=quite a bit, 4=very much
5b—Analyzing the basic elements of
an idea, experience, or theory
5c—Synthesizing and organizing
ideas, information, or experiences in
new ways
5d—Making judgments about the
value or soundness of information,
arguments, or methods
5e—Applying theories or concepts
to practical problems or in new
situations
5f—Using information you have read
or heard to perform a new skill
During the current school year,
about how much reading and
writing have you done at this
college?
Key: 1=very little, 2=some,
3=quite a bit, 4=very much
6a—Number of assigned textbooks,
manuals, books, or book-length
packs of course readings
6b—Number of books read on your
own (not assigned) for personal
enjoyment or academic enrichment
2007 HCC
Consortium
HCC
Consortium
1.74
1.76
1.74
1.79
1.58
1.72
1.62
1.74
2.82
2.82
2.77
2.83
2.64
2.70
2.69
2.71
2.51
2.53
2.46
2.56
2.59
2.63
2.55
2.62
2.66
2.78
2.59
2.76
2.88
2.79
2.78
2.84
2.00
2.06
2.06
1.98
7 About how many hours do you
spend in a typical 7-day week
doing each of the following?
Key: 0= none, 1= 1 to 5 hours, 2=
6 to 10 hours, 3= 11 to 20 hours,
4= 21 to 30 hours, 5= More than
30 hours
10a—Preparing for class (studying,
reading, writing, rehearsing, doing
homework or other activities related
to your program)
1.99
1.95
2.02
1.87
Table 2
HCC Student Reading Survey Results (selected responses)
Do you like to read:
Answer Options
Not at All
On a Limited Basis
Love it
Response %
5.6%
45.9%
48.4%
answered question
skipped question
Response
Count
29
237
250
516
2
How much time do you spend reading your textbooks and/or supplementary
assignments per week:
Response
Answer Options
Response %
Count
0-2 hrs.
29.1%
149
3-5 hrs.
38.1%
195
6-7 hrs.
14.3%
73
More than 7 hrs.
18.6%
95
answered question
512
skipped question
6
8 Identification of Pilot Group
One student cohort that experiences reading challenges is the Nurse-Pending group.
Nurse-Pending students are those students who have declared their pursuance of becoming
a nurse and are preparing to enter the nursing program by taking the courses required for
entrance into the nursing program. In addition, the large group of nursing hopefuls, the
Nurse-Pending students, (averaging 900 students per year) spend a few semesters taking
various nursing prerequisites and eventually take the Pre-Admission Examination (PAX),
experience challenges in the first prerequisite course, BIO 137 (Human Anatomy and
Physiology I).
HCC’s Associate in Applied Science degree in Nursing is the largest two-year technical
program at the institution whose graduates, for the past two years, can boast a 100% pass
rate as first-time test-takers of the National Council Licensure Exam ( NCLEX) examination;
however, the Nursing Division, which admits an average of 40 full-time nursing students per
semester, has experienced poor retention (50%) over the past few years. According to the
HCC Institutional Effectiveness Office, only 72% of students pass BIO 137. Between fall
2008 and fall 2010, out of 811 students who took BIO 137, only 645 went on to take BIO
139. The pool of Nurse-Pending students drops dramatically after taking this first
prerequisite. Thus, it has been surmised that one of the reasons for the poor retention rate
and lack of academic achievement for students could be equated with their poor reading
comprehension skills.
Dr. Leslie West-Sands, Chair of the Department of Nursing at Jackson State Community
College in Jackson, Tennessee, served as Hopkinsville Community College’s external
reviewer for the Associate in Applied Science Nursing Program. She reviewed the nursing
program in November 2008. Dr. Sands confirmed the notion that reading practices be
added to nursing classes so as to assist students with achieving higher levels of
comprehension of otherwise difficult information. She wrote in her summary report that, “A
limited number of comprehension-level objectives or questions (that reflect essential, key
principles or points) could be assigned for all students to complete prior to class as a
proactive approach to exam preparation.” Dr. West-Sands’ ideas directly coincide with the
intention and pending actions of the QEP.
Admittance into the nursing program at HCC is very competitive and is based primarily on
the PAX score. The PAX is a standardized test that evaluates students in three categories:
Verbal, Math, and Science. A review of PAX verbal scores from the past three testing
periods reveals a great need for reading enhancement within the Nurse-Pending cohort. In
the fall 2009 PAX results, of the students who scored below a 70 composite score (a score
that usually is not considered for admission to the program), 92% failed the verbal category
by answering fewer than 40 out of 60 questions correctly. Students from the spring 2010
faired much worse with 98% answering fewer than 40 out of 60 questions correctly. In the
fall 2010, 60% answered fewer than 40 out of 60 of the verbal questions correctly. Clearly,
Nurse-Pending students who score below 70 composite, exhibit difficulty on the verbal
portion of the PAX, which is likely related to reading ability.
Considering this research, along with the strong desire of those involved in the initial, broadbased, QEP selection process, the HCC QEP will focus initially on reading improvement for
academic achievement and personal advancement among the cohort of Nurse-Pending
students. Improving reading in such a manner will likely improve the success of Nurse9 Pending students across all disciplines. All those involved in the original QEP selection
process clearly expressed that improving reading comprehension is important to all areas of
the college; therefore, the best practices and successful activities gleaned from the
implementation of the QEP with the Nurse-Pending cohort will then be applied to other
areas of the college curriculum.
Part IV: Best Practices Literature Review
“Not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers.” Harry S. Truman
“Literacy is not a luxury; it is a right and a responsibility. If our world is to meet the
challenges of the twenty-first century we must harness the energy and creativity of all our
citizens.” President Bill Clinton spoke those words on International Literacy Day in
September of 1994. According to one study of welfare recipients without high school
diplomas, when recipients increase their basic skills, they tend to make substantial
improvements in employment, earnings and self-sufficiency. In a study of mothers receiving
welfare, each additional year of schooling led to approximately a 7% wage increase
(U.S.Adult Literacy Programs, Making a Difference. ProLiteracy America). ProLiteracy
America estimates that:
•
In the U.S., 30 million people over age 16 — 14 percent of the country’s adult
population — don’t read well enough to understand a newspaper story written at the
eighth grade level or fill out a job application.
•
The United States ranks fifth on adult literacy skills when compared to other
industrialized nations.
•
Adult low literacy can be connected to almost every socio-economic issue in the
United States:
o
More than 60 percent of all state and federal corrections inmates can barely
read and write.
o
Low health literacy costs between $106 billion and $238 billion each year in
the U.S. — 7 to 17 percent of all annual personal health care spending.
o
Low literacy’s effects cost the U.S. $225 billion or more each year in nonproductivity in the workforce, crime, and loss of tax revenue due to
unemployment.
Sadly, many Americans continue to lack the literacy skills necessary for academic and
lifelong success. As a result, the Hopkinsville Community College Quality Enhancement
Plan committee identified reading comprehension as the focus for its Quality Enhancement
Plan (QEP). The QEP team was assembled and began researching certain elements of
reading comprehension to include:
•
•
•
Barriers to Reading Comprehension
Best Practices for Teaching Reading Comprehension
Best Practices for Assessing Reading Comprehension
10 Improving Reading Comprehension and the Hopkinsville Community College Mission
Statement:
The QEP committee examined several variables related to barriers in reading
comprehension among the Hopkinsville Community College student body. The more
compelling barriers to reading comprehension are socioeconomic in nature. The RAND
Study Group (2002) explains that:
The capabilities and dispositions the reader brings to the task of reading, his
or her engagement in and responses to given texts, and the quality of the
outcomes produced by the act of reading for some purpose are, themselves,
shaped by cultural and subcultural influences, socioeconomic status, home
and family background, peer influences, classroom culture, and instructional
history.
The RAND Study Group defines capabilities as “fluency in word recognition, oral language
ability, and domain knowledge. Dispositions include “reader’s motivation, goals, and
purposes.” (p. 19-20)
The National Institute for Literacy estimates that 43% of adults with very low literacy skills
live in poverty. About 70% of adult welfare recipients exhibit lower level literacy skill on the
National Assessment of the Adult Literacy (NAAL). About 47% of adult welfare recipients
have not graduated from high school. Individuals ages 25-34 who dropped out of high
school are more than three times as likely to receive public assistance as high school
graduates who did not go on to college. Hence, the cycle of poverty and low-literacy
functioning is well documented.
According to the U.S. Census report released in December 2008, the three counties most
served by Hopkinsville Community College (Christian, Todd, and Trigg Counties),
experience poverty levels that exceed the national average. Christian County experiences a
19% poverty rate, Todd County experiences 18.7, and Trigg County 17%. Statewide, 17%
live in poverty; nationally, the percentage drops to 13%. The Hopkinsville Community
College mission statement seeks to decrease these rates:
Hopkinsville Community College is an inclusive, student-centered educational
institution that provides accessible, innovative, and comprehensive learning
opportunities within a supportive community that encourages academic
excellence. The college sustains strong educational, community, military, and
economic partnerships to improve quality of life in the southern Pennyrile
region and Fort Campbell.
Fulfilling that mission begins with helping to pull people out of poverty by providing students
with a solid educational foundation. Studies show that reading is the foundation of
intelligence and skilled readers perform better academically, professionally and personally.
The National Institute For Literacy (2005) concludes:
Reading opens many doors – to employment, training, higher education, and
lifelong learning. Adults who do not read well face serious barriers as they
attempt to earn a living wage, to support their children’s learning, and to fully
participate in civic and community life. They are unable to gain access to a
11 wealth of print information that readers take for granted, and they miss out on
the joy of reading for pleasure.
Even more compelling is that the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PISA)
concluded that “finding ways to engage students in reading may be one of the most effective
ways to leverage social change and that being a more enthusiastic and frequent reader was
more of an advantage, on its own, than having well-educated parents in good jobs.”
Therefore, in order for Hopkinsville Community College to fulfill its mission, improving
reading comprehension among its student population is an essential building block to both
breaking the cycle of poverty and improving quality of life.
One of the largest areas of interest for entering Hopkinsville Community College (HCC)
students is a career in the Nursing profession. However, according to recent findings, the
Nursing program at HCC experiences nearly a 50% attrition rate. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that one of the main obstacles that prevent many students from being admitted
into or successfully completing the Nursing Program is a deficiency in reading
comprehension.
Dr. Leslie West-Sands observed during her review of the nursing program that “Students
lack the ability to separate ‘“must know’” from ‘“nice to know’” material in their reading and a
content-specific guide may help them process the material as they prepare for class.” If
faculty can assist students with conquering this vitally important educational barrier, the
dream of academic success will become a reality. As a result, after careful consultation with
the Hopkinsville Community College faculty, staff and students, the QEP Committee has
chosen to embrace Reading Comprehension as the focus of the QEP.
Rationale for Reading Comprehension Enhancement Strategies:
The RAND Reading Study Group reports:
We define reading comprehension as the process of simultaneously
extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with
written language. We use the words extracting and constructing to emphasize
both the importance and the insufficiency of the text as a determinant of
reading comprehension. Comprehension entails three elements: the reader
who is doing the comprehending, the text that is to be comprehended, the
activity in which comprehension is a part. In considering the reader, we
include all the capacities, abilities, knowledge, and experiences that a person
brings to the act of reading. Text is broadly construed to include any printed
text or electronic text. In considering activity, we include the purposes,
processes, and consequences associated with the act of reading.
Few would dispute the strong connection between reading comprehension and student
success. The Carnegie Council (2010) recently stated that the capacity for high literacy
attainment has not kept up with the increasing demand of the global knowledge economy,
leaving many unprepared for college, work, and citizenship. However, improving reading
skills is, indeed, possible, even in adult learners. Since faculty assume the responsibility of
sharing knowledge with students, part of that “sharing” requires reading assignments, and
understanding that most knowledge derived from a subject is done, by and large through the
reading process. Considering that a large portion of Hopkinsville Community College
12 students are adult learners and that many of those same students are deficient readers, the
college as a whole is faced with a unique and challenging opportunity.
In 2003, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that lecture-based instruction rarely
benefits students since there is very little opportunity to “integrate and apply knowledge.”
However, many educators do not need to conduct external research to come to the same
conclusion, for they can witness this deficiency in their own classrooms.
Identification of Reading Comprehension Enhancement Strategies
As a result, the QEP Committee’s learning outcome is twofold: one to help faculty create
stimulating classrooms where integration and application of knowledge and skills prevail;
and two, to help students become better learners by becoming better readers.
The QEP Committee has identified strategies that would improve students’ reading
comprehension skills. These include, but are not limited to the following:
• Embedded/content area strategic reading instruction
• Reading apprenticeship training and faculty development
• Enhanced academic support to include improving reading comprehension
• Culture of reading incentives
1. Embedded/Content Area Strategic Reading Instruction
Reading specialists note that although strategic reading is profoundly important in all
academic reading situations, methods of strategic reading vary depending on the reading
task. Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) conclude that strategic readers use a finite set of
cognitive and metacognitive processes including prediction, imaging, interpretation,
comprehension monitoring, and summarization. Alexander and Jetton (2000) concurred,
arguing that strategic, academic reading is procedural, purposeful, effortful, willful, essential,
and facilitative. Simpson and Nist (2000) conclude that for college students, specific
cognitive and metacognitive processes have been validated by research (e.g., question
generation, text summarization, student-generated elaborations, and organizing strategies
like mapping). However, as McWhorter (2006) explains, applying a broad-based strategic
reading protocol across the disciplines falls short because each discipline likely requires
different thought processing skills.
By recognizing the thought patterns that are unique to individual disciplines, professors can
develop reading assignments in their classes that allow students to be aware of and apply
the type of strategic reading approach that would best suit their particular discipline. Since
content-area learning includes both discipline-specific and broader-based skills, it is a key
component to teaching students how to apply knowledge and become independent learners.
Pressley and McCormick (1995) point out that professors have somewhat of a moral
imperative to adopt educational strategies that will facilitate independent learning. The end
result, then, would be a system that teaches students myriad thinking and learning skills, the
hallmarks of a well-educated individual.
As strategic readers also learn to become self-motivated so that they “learn how to learn.”
Smith and Morris (2011) refer to this skill as metacognition, which is the “knowledge of how
to read as well as the ability to regulate and direct the process.”
13 Embedded strategic reading instruction, then, involves reading strategies that are geared
toward specific content courses and are taught in conjunction with authentic texts. Few
debate the fact that teaching strategic reading “requires quality instruction and a substantial
amount of time for learning” (Caverly, Nicholson, and Radcliffe, 2004). Hattie, Biggs, and
Purdie (1996) note that strategic reading instruction that occurs “within a specific context or
domain helps to develop conditional knowledge.” In other words, instructors could explain
the metacognitive skills that are specific to the reading assignment or even demonstrate
how they themselves actually think while reading. Guided reading practices from authentic
texts ensure that students will employ the type of reading comprehension skills that they
need to perform throughout their academic career. Smith and Morris (2011) highlight a few
common thinking strategies to use while reading:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Predict
Picture
Relate
Monitor ongoing comprehension
Correct gaps in comprehension
Annotate
Strategic reading directly influences students’ social and cognitive development in that the
more students become aware of how they think and how they read, the more automatic
reading comprehension becomes.
A multi-faceted approach to strategic instruction that would further benefit social and
cognitive development should include increasing motivation through identifying students’
goals and interests; developing interventions within real-world context; supporting students
by demonstrating the positive social aspects of learning and reading; integrating technology,
tutoring, and specialized instruction (Levin and Koski, 1998). With appropriate help,
students can often perform tasks that they are incapable of completing on their own. Hogan
and Pressley (1997) suggest the use of “scaffolding,” where the instructor continually
adjusts the level of his or her help in response to students’ level of performance to enhance
student learning, as an effective form of teaching. Scaffolding not only produces immediate
results, but it also instills the skills necessary for independent problem solving in the future.
Helping students become cognizant of their reading process through strategic reading
practices will also enable them to become independent readers who can experiment with
reading strategies and identify the strategies that are most beneficial for them.
2. Reading Apprenticeship Training and Faculty Development
Faculty members are vitally important to students’ academic pursuits and the role that
faculty plays continues to evolve. Educators often reinvent their teaching styles to
accommodate the many learning styles that appear in their classrooms. As new research
continues to emerge about best practices in teaching and learning, and as classrooms are
becoming more and more diverse in terms of learning styles, cultural differences, and
academic competency, faculty members can rely upon a wealth of information that will help
them to assume these new roles. Levine (2003) points out the potentially powerful role that
faculty members assume:
Teachers are in an excellent position to observe, interpret, and celebrate all
kinds of minds on a daily basis. Newly acquired knowledge emanating from
neuroscientific and education research can empower educators to observe
14 and understand students' minds. Most of the phenomena that determine a
student's individual strengths, shortcomings, and preferred ways of learning
and producing cannot be found on any test that a clinician gives. Classroom
teachers enjoy exclusive screenings if they pay attention and know what to
look for.
Community college students typically enter college under unique circumstances. Many
students are entering college for the first time while others are entering in the hopes of
becoming retrained for a sustainable career. Both sets of students bring with them a
reading and learning curve that often inhibits their understanding of academic and/or
technical reading assignments. Educators and students alike find some discomfort in
addressing the issue of reading comprehension at the college level due to the social stigma
associated with having to learn to read as an adult. Recently, the Strategic Literacy Initiative
at WestEd, a nonprofit research and service agency, has developed Reading
Apprenticeship (RA) training programs that seek to help “teachers support students to
become motivated, strategic, and critical readers.”
After careful research on the concept of Reading Apprenticeship training, the QEP
Committee has endorsed this initiative as part of the faculty development portion of the
QEP. The overall goal of RA is to help students become better readers by teaching them to
examine closely their own reading strategies and those of their mentors and peers. In
addition, students develop an awareness of skills they are currently using and they learn to
develop new reading skills that are specific to the content-area. Small-groups and full-class
discussions are centered around engaging reading material and students also have an
opportunity to reflect upon the thinking processes being used while reading.
Faculty who become trained in the RA framework will learn to integrate four dimensions of
classroom life in subject area teaching through conversations about the thinking processes
that students and teachers use as they read. The “What Works Clearinghouse Intervention
Report” (2010) defines the four dimensions of Reading Apprenticeship training:
1. Social: This dimension uses students’ interests in social interaction to
provide a learning environment that reflects the diverse perspectives and
resources of each individual. It involves creating a safe, collaborative
environment in which to discuss academic texts.
2. Personal: This dimension draws on skills used by students in out-of-school
settings, students’ interest in deepening their awareness of the thinking
processes used while reading, students’ identities as readers, and their
purposes and goals for reading.
3. Cognitive: This dimension involves developing readers’ mental processes,
including the specific comprehension and problem-solving strategies that can
be applied to academic texts.
4. Knowledge-Building: This dimension includes identifying and expanding the
knowledge readers bring to a text, including knowledge about word
construction, vocabulary, text-structure, genre, language and content.
Michele Benjamin Lesmeister (2010), a basic studies faculty member at Renton Technical
College, recently wrote an article for Techniques, an online publication of the Association for
Career and Technical Education where she described her experiences using RA in her
classroom. Under the sub-heading of the section in the article reads, “Why Does RA Fit
Community and Technical College Students’ Needs So Well” and Lesmeister replies:
15 •
•
•
•
•
•
Students remark about their reading improvement; their assessment is
supported by text data.
Student persistence and investment in the RA classroom are excellent.
Students are reading for longer periods of time daily, and are reading more
difficult texts.
Students are relying on RA to support their comprehension routines.
Students are much more willing to take intellectual risks in a classroom alive
with participation and inquiry.
Reading is now a social and collaborative effort in my class.
Given the relative newness of the Reading Apprenticeship framework, limited research is
available, but the research that is available is promising. The “What Works Clearinghouse”
(WWC), an affiliate of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences
evaluates research on practices and interventions to let the education community know what
is likely to work. According to a study by Kemple et. al., the WWC reports that “for the
comprehension domain, [the study] showed statistically significant positive effects of
Reading Apprenticeship.”
In addition, Patti Rasberry Smith (2009) who authored The Effects of Reading
Apprenticeship on Junior College Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and Comprehension
of Academic Texts found that “implementing Reading Apprenticeship strategies in a first
year composition course does significantly impact CERA (Curriculum Embedded Reading
Assessment) metacognitive awareness and comprehension scores.”
Since research shows that faculty members make a tremendous impact on the success of
their students, faculty development in the area of a Reading Apprenticeship program would
certainly be an asset to students and faculty at Hopkinsville Community College. Many
colleges have begun to embrace learning communities where faculty share ideas related to
pedagogy, best-practices, curriculum review, and other issues related to the disciplines. As
faculty members become trained in the Reading Apprenticeship approach, the goal of the
QEP would be for faculty to share their knowledge by way of learning communities, teacher
consultation programs, and professional development workshops.
3. Enhanced Academic Support to include improving Reading Comprehension
Learning Assistance Centers (LACs) remain critical on college campuses, especially where
developmental education is concerned. Many students access tutoring in areas such as
writing and math, but recently, reading comprehension has been added to the menu of
academic support offerings. Boylan (2011) suggests that LACs can help “underprepared
students prepare, prepared students advance and advanced students excel” (Adapted from
the National Association of Developmental Education motto in What Works, Boylan, p. 3,
2002). Considering the numerous academic demands, coupled with various academic
challenges that many community college students face, LACs appear to be a promising
solution.
According to Enright (1997), “The LAC is directed to helping students become successful
learners while assuming modes of instruction will remain relatively constant.” Enright
explains that LACs often incorporate technology, collaborative learning, workshops, and
content tutoring, which is consistent with the LAC model that is already in place at HCC.
Finally, Enright points out that the “sense of place created by LACs, which enables students
to learn with greater ease and self-confidence, is fundamental to the success of the LACs.”
16 Dolores Perin (2004) cited a study of fifteen community colleges across the United States
that showed a marked improvement in student success by virtue of creating LACs that
featured computer assisted instruction, tutoring, supplemental instruction, learning
workshops, and self-paced instructional exercises. Kerstiens (1997) notes that the primary
role of the LAC is to “enable educational success by improving learning outcomes of
students at all levels.” Silverman and Cassazza (2000) concur by stating, “LACs create a
learner-centered environment for students that allows them to find their place on campus, a
component long acknowledged as having a significant effect on one’s learning outcomes.”
Given the student-centered nature of HCC, enhancing the LAC to include reading
comprehension would be a positive addition.
4.
Culture of Reading Incentives
“Literature awakens, enlarges, enhances and refines our humanity in a way
that almost nothing else can.” Dana Gioia, Chair, National Endowment for the
Arts
“Reading has declined among every group of adult Americans: every age
group, educational group, income group, region and race. Every age group,
educational group, income group, region and race–although Asian reading is
flat (the single number of several thousand in this report that is actually
directionally positive). In some cases the declines have been precipitous.
This has been going on for 20 years, but the trends are getting worse, and
the worst declines are among younger American adults. In the last 20 years,
younger American adults have gone from being the people in our society who
read the most to the people who read the least. Reading proficiency has
fallen among all Americans, and it has fallen the worst among adults aged 18
to 24, 25 to 34. It has fallen the worst among men, and, indeed, if you look at
our study and other studies, only about one-third of adult males are doing
what we call “literary reading.”…Franz Kafka once said that the book is the
axe by which we break open the frozen seas within us. That metaphor is very
true. We tend, by our very nature, to be encased in our own egos. What
literature does–nowhere more powerfully than in fiction (the novel and the
short story) – is put us in the inner lives of other people in the dailyness of
their psychological, social, economic and imaginative existence. This makes
us feel, more intensely probably than anything else, the reality of other points
of view, of other lives. That is obviously in jeopardy if we now have a society
in which the majority of adults are no longer reading.”
The information above reveals a startling problem that we face as both educators and as
Americans. Few would dispute the benefits of reading; however, that hasn’t been enough to
quell the rapid decline in reading. It is speculated that the digital age has precipitated much
of the decline, but being aware of the causes is not enough. Reinvigorating reading on a
community level is a first step in returning reading to its rightful place. An editorial in the
Johns-Hopkins newsletter states, “Reading is important to any society. It creates a more
analytical population that is willing to engage in meaningful discourse. When individuals can
critically analyze society and culture, people as a whole benefit. As fewer people become
engaged with literature, this integral part of our culture becomes lost to all but a handful of
people. Essentially two cultures develop: one that reads and the one that does not.”
As part of the QEP at Hopkinsville Community College, initiatives will be developed that will
encourage campus and community-wide participation in reading. The QEP will include a
17 “Common Reader Program”, a reading website open to students and to the community that
will feature meaningful reading material on a variety of topics ranging from science, popular
culture, arts, practical living, and politics. An Author Festival, Word of the Day, and Peer
Reading in the Community are examples of activities in the QEP that will enhance the
experience of reading at the college and in the community.
Part V: Focus of the report
Hopkinsville Community College is committed to excellence in teaching and learning.
Student learning and success remain the motivating factor behind the QEP, and enhancing
reading comprehension is an essential building block to achieving success inside and
outside of the classroom.
The proposed QEP coincides with the following Hopkinsville Community College Strategic
Goals: 1. Advance excellence and innovation in teaching, learning, and service; 2. Increase
student access, transfer, and success. The objective of the QEP pilot with nurse-pending
students is to first initiate embedded content reading comprehension strategies in
anticipation of significant measurable improvement in reading comprehension within this
population. The end result will be better prepared students who will realize more success
after being admitted into the nursing program. Secondly, the intent is to test strategies
leading to improvement in the culture of reading by implementing reading incentives
throughout the campus and within the community. These two objectives in combination
accomplish two important academic achievements: to create better students and to create a
better community.
Student Learning Outcomes
Student Learning Outcome #1: Nurse-pending students will be able to comprehend and
apply concepts presented in college-level reading.
Student Learning Outcome #1 Defined:
A. Nurse-pending students are those students who are preparing to enter the nursing
program by taking the courses required for entrance into the nursing program.
B. Reading comprehension is defined by the RAND Reading Study Group (2002) as “the
process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and
involvement with written language.” (p.11)
Measures for Reading Comprehension
The strategies that have been researched to best assist adult learners will be implemented
and as a result, the following skill set (Bloom’s Taxonomy as referenced in Appendix IV) will
be measured and when reading, students will be able to:
• Evaluate
• Synthesize
• Analyze
• Apply
• Comprehend
• Acquire Knowledge
18 Measurable Goals for Student Learning Outcome #1:
•
•
10% of students who are enrolled in classes taught by faculty trained in reading
apprenticeship techniques will demonstrate a reading level that is one grade level
higher than their previous reading level as measured by the Nelson-Denny reading
test.
60% of students who are enrolled in a Reading Apprenticeship facilitated class will
score “proficient” on the Curriculum Embedded Reading Assessment (CERA) rubric.
Student Learning Outcome #2: Hopkinsville Community College students will
demonstrate an increase in participation in reading as a result of college and community
activities implemented by the QEP.
Student Learning Outcome #2 Defined: The QEP seeks to build a culture of reading
through the implementation of reading-centered activities in which students and community
members can participate.
Measurable Goals for Student Learning Outcome #2:
•
•
•
Student responses will show improvement by 10% over baseline data for questions
that pertain to reading on the CCSSE 2013 and 2016 surveys.
By fall 2014, 60% of all students participating in QEP reading comprehension
strategies progression will agree with statements about their improvement in reading
comprehension on the QEP student survey.
By fall 2014, 30% of students who have progressed through the QEP reading
comprehension strategies will have participated in reading-centered activities.
19 Part VI. Literatzi Actions to be Implemented
In November 2010, the QEP Team asked faculty, staff, and students to serve on the QEP
Naming Committee. Six individuals accepted the call and were commissioned to conduct a
QEP Name contest and a QEP Logo contest. In January 2011, the team announced the
contests to faculty, staff, and students, calling first for QEP Name entries. After the winning
name, Literatzi, was chosen, the team solicited entries for the QEP Logo to match the name,
choosing the phrase: Get Caught Reading a Book. Overall, the team collected over 300
entries for both contests, giving both awards to HCC students.
The QEP Naming Committee stated they chose the name Literatzi because it would incite
questions pertaining to its meaning, and it was “catchy.” The student who submitted
Literatzi stated that she combined the words literature and paparazzi to convey her
conception of reading comprehension: literacy, literature, and fun. The student winner of
the logo contest stated that the name, Literatzi, depicted reading as exciting anywhere at
any time.
Overview
The Literatzi: Get Caught Reading a Book strategies will accomplish its goals through the
following four actions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Enhance reading comprehension strategies per academic discipline: To
introduce and expose students to the importance of reading comprehension in their
academic and personal success. These reading comprehension strategies will be
implemented through several actions enhancing discipline curriculum and support
services.
Create Literatzi Success Corner: To assist students with self-directed learning
strategies by extending reading comprehension strategies through workshops.
These workshops will encourage students to understand behavioral changes
needed for academic success, develop critical thinking skills for their discipline
coursework, develop textbook reading strategies, and the development of
independent responsibility toward learning. Additionally, the creation of the Literatzi
Website will be available for further self-directed learning strategies to sustain the
QEP initiative by means of downloadable resources and links to improved reading
comprehension strategies.
Enhance Faculty and Staff Development: To prepare faculty and staff for the
multi-faceted needs of students within the college, instructors, both full-time and
adjunct, will attend faculty development workshops on the learning strategies and
skills needed to implement Literatzi reading comprehension strategies within their
respective academic disciplines.
Develop a Culture of Reading: In order to increase the importance and value of
reading in a culture, the creation of opportunities outside the classroom will be
emphasized. Students will be encouraged to become involved with activities
centered around college-wide and community reading activities which will support
and sustain the QEP reading initiative.
20 Student Learning Outcome #1: Nurse-pending students will be able to comprehend and
apply concepts presented in college-level reading. The actions that will accompany Student
Learning Outcome #1 include:
1) Enhancing reading comprehension strategies per academic discipline
2) Developing Literatzi Success Corner
3) Implementing Faculty Development Workshops
Actions for Student Learning Outcome #1 Defined:
The Literatzi subcommittee believes the implementation of a college-wide reading
comprehension enhancement plan is through a yearly progression of twelve Associate in
Applied Science Programs. Additionally, two Foundations of Learning courses will also
progress through the reading comprehension strategies. This population of students are
identified as students entering college for the first time or returning to college after having
several years lapse between educational pursuits. The Literatzi course discipline
progression will provide essential skills needed for their academic success. The description
of the strategies are detailed as follows.
Action 1: Enhancing reading comprehension strategies per academic discipline
1) Implementation of embedded content area strategies:
1A: Embedded Content
Beginning in fall 2012, Hopkinsville Community College will begin with a pilot of embedded
reading comprehension strategies in the following introductory-level nurse-pending courses:
PSY 223, Developmental Psychology, and BIO 137, Human Anatomy and Physiology I.
The reading comprehension instructional strategies will be implemented in sections taught
by faculty who have completed the professional development sessions associated with the
reading apprenticeship program (see Action 3 Faculty Development below). The workshops
are designed to help faculty understand reading comprehension strategies and learn how to
use these techniques within discipline-specific courses.
1B: “Word of the Day” Vocabulary Building
A “Word of the Day” program will begin in fall 2013. Faculty members throughout the
college and within the Literatzi course progression will be encouraged to select a word
applicable to their specific discipline and incorporate it into that day’s activities.
Action 2: Literatzi Success Corner
2) Reading Comprehension Support:
Student Support services will be available in the fall of 2013 to all students attending
Hopkinsville Community College. However, for the Literatzi discipline progression, students
participating in the assessment phase will be identified as those specifically referred by HCC
discipline-specific faculty members for additional assistance. These services include, but
are not limited to, student-oriented reading workshops to include available tutoring, website
exercises, and downloadable instructional units.
21 2A: Supplemental Instruction
Beginning in fall 2013, the HCC Writing Center services will be expanded to include
assistance with reading comprehension for students. Faculty from the embedded content
courses will identify the students who need supplemental instruction and refer them to the
Center. Trained faculty will be available to provide additional coaching for students who are
experiencing problems resulting from reading deficiencies. Student success strategies will
include and address behavioral modification activities toward reading, such as, effective
textbook reading, note-taking techniques, etc.
2B: Website
In fall 2012, the Literatzi initiative director in collaboration with a website development team
will begin the development of an online teaching website for faculty and students. Its
purpose and mission will be to serve as a repository for resources, tools, pertinent articles,
links to other websites, and other types of materials that will facilitate improvement in
reading comprehension and vocabulary. It will function as a clearinghouse from which all
information on reading comprehension can be disseminated. It will be used to enhance the
prescribed curriculum and provide a framework for meeting student outcomes and
addressing faculty training needs.
22 Action 3: Faculty Development
3) Faculty Development
As part of the overall plan to implement the Student Learning Outcomes, faculty
development strategies have been identified to include Reading Apprenticeship training
through WestEd, a national, nonpartisan, non-profit research, development, and service
agency that works with educational and other communities to promote excellence, achieve
equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. In addition, during the fall of
2013, faculty development will include professional development workshops that focus on
strategic reading strategies, a reading committee, faculty teaching and learning
communities, a collaborative website for faculty that contains reading resources, trained
personnel who can administer and grade the Nelson/Denny reading test, and a common
book program. The following activities will describe the implementation strategies
associated with the faculty development initiatives.
3A: Reading Apprenticeship Training:
A cohort of faculty members, one from each discipline, will be selected to attend a Reading
Apprenticeship (RA) training that meets the needs of community college faculty and
students. The content of the training is appropriate for all areas and levels of community
college curricula: developmental education, transfer-level courses, and career and technical
education.
3B: Professional Development Workshops
Faculty who have completed the RA training will lead professional development workshops
to assist other faculty with incorporating strategic and content area reading activities into
their curricula. RA trained faculty will plan multiple short-term training sessions that focus on
a specific area regarding reading comprehension and discipline-specific reading strategies
will be introduced.
3C: Reading Committee:
In order to remain current about reading trends and pedagogy and to maintain an open
dialogue with faculty and staff about the QEP, a cohort of faculty, staff, and students will be
assigned to the Reading Committee that will continually examine literature related to reading
comprehension. The committee will be responsible for disseminating information to the
college community through the website, faculty development workshops, and studentoriented functions. The Reading Committee will also sponsor the following:
Faculty Teaching and Learning Communities: The Reading Committee members
will facilitate teaching and learning communities that will allow faculty to share ideas,
reading topics, and personal experiences with reading instruction. These
communities will meet once a month. At the end of the year, the Reading Committee
will compile the information gleaned from the teaching and learning communities to
assess the strength of the Literatzi. This information will then be disseminated
through the faculty website.
Faculty Website: The faculty website will be maintained by committee members
and will contain information about instructional strategies, tools, articles, and links to
instructional strategy modules. The website will allow faculty to access information
regarding ways to enhance courses to include more reading instruction, thus
increasing student learning. Initially, it will provide information about the quality
23 enhancement plan, different strategies for achieving student success in reading
comprehension, and articles on best practices in this field. Phase two will expand
the website to include instructional exercises that can be accessed by all students,
but particularly by those referred to the site by discipline and/or reading faculty.
3D: Nelson-Denny Trained Faculty:
The Nelson-Denny is a test that is recognized as a national norm to gain reading
measurements from elementary through college, and it will be used at the beginning of each
spring academic term through the Literatzi course discipline progression to gather data
about the reading comprehension level of each student participating in the reading initiative.
The test will measure students’ reading proficiency level, vocabulary level, and reading rate.
A cohort of faculty and/or staff will be trained to administer and score the Nelson-Denny
Reading Test.
Student Learning Outcome #2: Hopkinsville Community College students will
demonstrate an increase in participation in reading as a result of college and community
activities implemented by the QEP. The actions that will accompany Student Learning
Outcome #2 are designed to encourage a culture of reading. They include:
1) Creating a Common Reader Program
2) Creating a reading website
3) Incorporating the college newspaper in reading activities
4) Peer-reading in the community
5) Building a better Vocabulary
6) Creating a Hopkinsville Community College Author Festival
Actions For Student Learning Outcome #2 Defined:
1A: Common Reader Program
During the academic year 2013-2014, a college-wide program will be initiated to encourage
students, staff, and faculty to read a common book. A committee will be formed to consider
nominations from the constituent groups and will select the book for the year at the
beginning of the fall term. Multiple venues and times will be offered to encourage broad
participation. A list of potential topics for discussion will be generated and will be linked to
the college’s student learning outcomes which encourage thinking critically and learning
independently. Facilitators of the groups should encourage participants to relate their life
experiences to the book and to consider possibilities for further reading based on the
discussion.
1B: Reading Website
The website established to support the Quality Enhancement Plan will be used to enhance
students’ experiences of reading in a variety of formats. Because many students prefer to
read online materials, the site will feature a “Site of the Day” to highlight the breadth of
materials available on the internet. The menu will appeal to a wide variety of interests,
including arts, popular culture, science, politics, and practical living. Site nominations will be
solicited from faculty, staff, and students. The information technology department will be
instrumental in reviewing recommended sites and providing a “one click” access point from
the QEP site.
24 1C: College Newspaper
Hopkinsville Community College’s student publication, News and Views, will be a featured
instrument to enhance student reading, helping students to broaden their participation in the
life of the college as they become more aware of events and issues at HCC. Incentives,
such as hidden symbols or information that can be exchanged for a reward, will be
developed to encourage wider readership.
1D: Peer Reading in the Community
The college will use its existing affiliations with Partners in Education (PIE) and the Christian
County Library and Literacy Council (CCLLC) to encourage student participation in the
literary life of the community. CCLLC sponsors Community Reader Day, and allows
students to serve as role models in elementary classrooms. HCC’s relationship with
Christian County Middle School offers opportunities for students to serve as tutors in reading
and to model the importance of reading in academics and work-related settings.
Additionally, the Christian County Education Coalition (CCEC) and the Pennyrile Area P-16
Council are also invited to become involved in reading events as both organizations remain
committed to the proliferation of the HCC reading initiative.
1E: Vocabulary Building
HCC will begin a “Word of the Day” program to enhance student vocabulary. The day’s
word will be announced via email and on the QEP website. Faculty will encourage the use
of the word of the day in classroom discussion and assignments. Students will have an
opportunity, physically or electronically, to submit their experiences using the word of the
day, with incentives for participation.
1F: Hopkinsville Community College Author Festival
HCC will institute a celebration of local authors and authors with ties to the community. The
authors will be available for discussion groups, classroom presentations, and signings of
their work. An effort will be made to secure authors of fiction and poetry as well as
journalists in both print and electronic media.
1G: Three Book Challenge
The Three Book Challenge encourages emergent and less confident readers to develop
reading habits through choosing, reading and expressing their views about books. Students
will be invited to select and read three books during an academic year. They will also be
expected to record their thoughts and impressions in a journal. Incentives will be offered
throughout the year and certificates will be awarded to those who successfully complete the
program.
25 Part VII. Timeline
In November 2010, the QEP Team asked faculty, staff, and students to serve on the QEP
Naming Committee. Six individuals accepted the call and were commissioned to conduct a
QEP Name contest and a QEP Logo contest. In January 2011, the team announced the
contests to faculty, staff, and students, calling first for QEP Name entries. After the winning
name, Literatzi, was chosen, the team solicited entries for the QEP Logo to match the name,
choosing the phrase: Get Caught Reading a Book. Overall, the team collected over 300
entries for both contests, giving both awards to HCC students. The QEP Naming Committee stated they chose the name Literatzi because it would incite
questions pertaining to its meaning, and it was “catchy.” The student who submitted
Literatzi stated that she combined the words literature and paparazzi to convey her
conception of reading comprehension: literacy, literature, and fun. The student winner of
the logo contest stated that the name, Literatzi, depicted reading as exciting anywhere at
any time.
One year prior to the on-site visit of the SACS On-Site Review Team, the committee
focused on several areas and finalized the specifics relating to the Literatzi plan. Key
actions and strategies accomplished included the following: a) established the
administrative structure for Literatzi; b) developed an assessment model to measure and
support the reading comprehension initiative; c) finalized a budget for the QEP initiative; d)
hired the Director to implement the initiative; e) recruited faculty to participate in the pilot of
the initiative and assist in the development of a baseline of measurement; f) created a five
year timeline for the initiative; g) completed Director training; h) wrote and submitted the
QEP proposal; i) wrote and received a three-pronged grant proposal specifically targeting
developmental reading students that will:
•
•
•
Assess students who have tested into developmental reading to gauge more
specifically where their reading level is and to better understand what strategies
could be employed to assist them.
Provide reading apprenticeship training and professional development sessions for
developmental reading faculty to equip them with the skills and knowledge to better
instruct students.
Broaden the student support services area to include tutoring services in reading.
The following timeline outlines the most significant employments of actions to be
accomplished with the Literatzi initiative.
Academic Year 2011 – 2012
Summer 2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
Send QEP Director to Reading Apprenticeship training
Acquire Nelson-Denny training
Select faculty for pilot of Literatzi initiative
Begin development of Literatzi faculty website
Begin development of Literatzi student website
Implement communication plan for Literatzi plan
26 Fall 2011
•
•
•
Host SACS On-Site Review Team visit
Create faculty development for the pilot faculty
Implement College Readiness Grant proposal
Spring 2012
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Select faculty for Reading Committee
Meet with faculty of pilot courses
Select faculty to attend Reading Apprenticeship training - summer 2012
Collect student reading assignments for evaluation
Meet with Institutional Effectiveness department to finalize criteria and framework for
measurements
Choose Foundations of Learning instructors to attend Reading Apprenticeship
training
Choose Adult Education and Academic Foundations instructors to attend Reading
Apprenticeship training
Collect reading assignments for evaluation
Academic Year 2012- 2013 (Year 1)
The pilot of embedded reading content strategies will begin during 2012-2013. Trained
faulty members will engage students in strategic reading methods in the selected
disciplines.
Fall 2012
The following tasks will be completed:
• Pilot faculty will be trained to implement embedded reading strategies in two
courses:
o Psychology 223
o Biology 137
• QEP Director will teach one Developmental Reading course to implement newly
learned reading strategies from summer Reading Apprenticeship training
Spring 2013
•
•
Pilot faculty will implement Literatzi reading strategies
QEP Director will teach one Developmental Reading course to implement newly
learned reading strategies from summer 2013 Reading Apprenticeship training
Summer 2013
•
•
•
•
•
Assess results from Nelson-Denny Reading Test of PY 223 and BIO 137 courses
Assess results from Student Reading Survey of PY 223 and BIO 137 courses
Assess results from Faculty Inquiry Survey of PY 223 and BIO 137 courses
Identify and implement any necessary changes determined from assessment results
from PY 223 and BIO 137 courses
Orientate newly hired faculty and staff on the QEP initiative
27 •
Attend WestEd Reading Apprenticeship training
o Business Administration instructor
o Criminal Justice instructor
o QEP Director
28 Academic Year 2013 – 2014 (Year 2)
The piloted students and faculty from the first year of embedded reading content strategies
will continue as the next discipline training group commences. Trained faculty members will
continue to engage students in strategic reading methods in their selected disciplines.
Additionally, the launch of the Literatzi actions will begin.
Full implementation of the QEP initiative Literatzi.
Fall 2013
•
•
•
Launch Literatzi Success Corner (Common Reader Program, reading website, etc.)
Initiate second Literatzi interdisciplinary training
o Business Administration instructors
o Criminal Justice instructors
o Begin supplemental workshops for students
QEP Director will teach one Developmental Reading course to implement newly
learned reading strategies from summer 2013 Reading Apprenticeship training
Spring 2014
• Business Administration instructors and Criminal Justice instructors will implement
Literatzi reading comprehension strategies.
• QEP Director will teach one Foundations of Learning course to implement newly
learned reading strategies from summer 2013 Reading Apprenticeship training
Summer 2014
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assess results from Nelson-Denny Reading Test from Business Administration and
Criminal Justice students
Assess results from Student Reading Survey from Business Administration and
Criminal Justice students
Assess results from Faculty Inquiry Survey from Business Administration and
Criminal Justice students
Identify and implement any necessary changes determined from assessment results
Orientate newly hired faculty and staff on the QEP initiative
Attend WestEd Reading Apprenticeship training
o Information Technology instructor
o Office Systems Technology instructor or General Occupational/Technical
Studies instructor
o QEP Director
Academic Year 2014 – 2015 (Year 3)
The primary focus of this academic year is the continued inclusion of newly trained faculty in
other disciplines and engaging additional students in strategic reading methods. In addition,
ongoing assessment to gauge success of the initiative will be monitored. Other
accomplishments will include further Reading Apprenticeship training.
29 Fall 2014
•
•
•
Launch Literatzi Culture of Reading (Community and College-wide reading initiatives
explored)
Initiate third Literatzi interdisciplinary training
o Information Technology instructors
o Office Systems Technology instructor
o General Occupational/Technical Studies instructor
o Collect reading assignments for evaluation from above disciplines
QEP Director will teach one Developmental Reading course to implement newly
learned reading strategies from summer 2014 Reading Apprenticeship Training
Spring 2015
•
•
•
Information Technology instructors, Office Systems Technology instructors, and
General Occupational/Technical Studies instructors will implement Literatzi reading
comprehension strategies.
Collect reading assignments for evaluation from above disciplines
QEP Director will teach Foundations of Learning course to implement newly learned
reading strategies from summer 2014 Reading Apprenticeship training
Summer 2015
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assess results from Nelson-Denny Reading Test from Information Technology/Office
Systems Technology, and General Occupation/Technical Studies students
Assess results from Student Reading Survey from Information Technology/Office
Systems Technology, and General Occupation/Technical Studies students
Assess results from Faculty Inquiry Survey from Information Technology/Office
Systems Technology, and General Occupation/Technical Studies students
Identify and implement any necessary changes from determined assessment results
Orientate newly hired faculty and staff on the QEP initiative
Attend WestEd Reading Apprenticeship training
o Education instructor
o Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education or Human Services instructor
o QEP Director
Academic Year 2015 – 2016 (Year 4)
After three years of the Literatzi reading initiative, the emphasis will be on assessment
modifications that have occurred. Additionally, progression of disciplines into the strategic
reading framework will continue.
Fall 2015
•
•
Launch Literatzi Faculty Teaching and Learning Communities (faculty to share
ideas, reading topics, and experiences with reading instruction.)
Initiate fourth Literatzi interdisciplinary training
o Education instructors
o Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education instructors
30 •
o Human Services instructors
o Collect reading assignments for evaluation from above disciplines
QEP Director will teach one Developmental Reading course to implement newly
learned reading strategies from summer 2015 Reading Apprenticeship training
Spring 2016
•
•
Education instructors, Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education instructors, and
Human Services instructors will implement Literatzi reading comprehension
strategies.
QEP Director will teach one Foundations of Learning course to implement newly
learned reading strategies from summer 2015 Reading Apprenticeship training
Summer 2016
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assess results from Nelson-Denny Reading Test from Education, Interdisciplinary
Early Childhood Education, and Human Services students
Assess results from Student Reading Survey from Education, Interdisciplinary Early
Childhood Education, and Human Services students
Assess results from Faculty Inquiry Survey from Education, Interdisciplinary Early
Childhood Education, and Human Services students
Identify and implement any necessary changes from determined assessment results
Orientate newly hired faculty and staff on the QEP initiative
Attend WestEd Reading Apprenticeship training
o General Education instructors
o Manufacturing Industrial Technology instructors and Agricultural Technology
instructors
o QEP Director
Academic Year 2016 – 2017 (Year 5)
Review progress of the Literatzi initiative with the Lead Evaluator in order to prepare the five
year impact report. Additionally, the actions from the previous years will continue.
Fall 2016
•
•
Initiate fifth Literatzi interdisciplinary training
o General Education instructors
o Manufacturing Industrial Technology instructors
o Agricultural Technology instructors
o Collect reading assignments for evaluation
QEP Director will teach one Developmental Reading course to implement newly
learned reading strategies from summer 2016 Reading Apprenticeship training
Spring 2017
•
•
Continue Literatzi discipline progression with General Education instructors,
Manufacturing Industrial Technology instructors, and Agricultural Technology
instructors. They will implement Literatzi reading comprehension strategies.
Conduct on-campus review by the External Evaluator
31 •
Collect assessment results and conduct a comprehensive evaluation of Literatzi
reading comprehension strategies from all academic disciplines that have
progressed through the Literatzi initiative. This will be done in preparation for the five
year impact report.
Summer 2017
•
Complete draft of 5-year impact report
32 Table 3
Associate in Applied Science Programs
Implementation of Associate in Applied Science Programs*
Academic Year 2012 - 2013
Academic Year 2013 - 2014
Academic Year 2014 - 2015
Pilot
Psychology 223 instructors
Biology 137 instructors
Business Administration instructors
Criminal Justice instructors
Information Technology instructors
Office Systems Technology instructors
General Occupational instructors
Technical Studies instructors
Academic Year 2015 – 2016
Education instructors
Interdisciplinary Early Childhood
Education
Human Services instructors
Academic Year 2016 - 2017
General Education/Transfer instructors
Manufacturing Industrial Technology
instructors
Agricultural Technology instructors
*Designates the year Literatzi will be implemented into each program.
33 Table 4
QEP Implementation Timeline
Actions to be Implemented
Establish Administrative Structure
Administer Nelson-Denny Baseline
Nelson-Denny Pre -test
Nelson-Denny Post-test
Finalize Budget
Marketing QEP
Hire QEP Director
Writing and Submission of QEP
Launch Activities for Literatzi
Faculty Development
First Faculty Reading Strategies
Training
First Faculty Reading Strategies
Implemented
Second Faculty Literatzi Strategies
Training
Second Faculty Literatzi Strategies
Implemented
Third Faculty Literatzi Strategies
Training
Third Faculty Literatzi Strategies
Implemented
Fourth Faculty Literatzi Strategies
Training
Fourth Faculty Literatzi Strategies
Implemented
Summer Reading Apprenticeship
Training
Workshop Developments
Reading Committee Development
Website
Nelson-Denny Training
Literatzi Success Corner
Reading Workshops
Website
Supplemental Instruction
Reading Enhancement Activities
Community Reader/Peer Reading
Preon
site
FY
2012 –
2013
FY
2013 –
2014
FY
2014 –
2015
FY
2015 2016
FY
2016 2017
FA
FA
FA
FA
FA
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
34 Common Reader
Reading website
Word of the Day/Vocabulary Building
Author Festival
Assessment
Faculty workshops
Nelson-Denny Standardized Test
Student Survey
Faculty Inquiry
CCSSE Data
Faculty inquiries
Evaluation of QEP Assessment Plan
QEP Progress Report Publication
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
35 Part VIII. Organizational Structure
Figure 1
HCC Quality Enhancement Plan Responsibility and Reporting Structure
Chief of
Academic Affairs
QEP Director
QEP Steering
Committee
QEP SubCommittee
Institutional
Effectiveness
Office
Reading
Committee
36 Part IX. Institutional Budget
QEP 5-Year Budget
20102011
SLO 1
Embedded Content
Peer Tutors
Supplemental Instruction (1/2-time)
$10,000
$21,000
SLO2
Common Reader Program
Reading Website
College Newspaper
Peer Reading in Community
Vocabulary Building
Author Festival
Three Book Challenge
Faculty Outcome/PD
Reading Apprenticeship Training
PD Workshops
Reading Committee Resources
PD Travel
Faculty Stipends
Faculty Website
$5,060
Assessment Instruments
Administrative Costs
QEP Director (10-month salary &
benefits)
Administrative Assistant (1/2-time)
Marketing
TOTALS
20112012
$5,060
20122013
20132014
20142015
20152016
$10,000
$21,630
$10,000
$22,280
$10,000
$22,950
$10,000
$23,640
$6,000
$6,500
$7,000
$7,000
$600
$600
$600
$600
$600
$1,000
$600
$1,000
$600
$1,000
$600
$1,000
$600
$1,000
$600
$500
$6,500
$500
$7,000
$500
$7,000
$500
$8,000
$500
$2,000
$18,000
$2,000
$18,000
$2,000
$18,000
$2,000
$18,000
$2,000
$18,000
$2,500
$500
$500
$500
$500
$50,000
$51,500
$53,000
$54,500
$56,000
$5,000
$19,000
$1,000
$19,500
$1,000
$20,000
$1,000
$20,500
$300
$111,200
$138,830
$142,480
$145,650
$148,640
37 Part X: Assessment Plan
Rationale for Assessment Plan
The goal of the assessment plan is to measure student success and to measure the
success of Literatzi itself. The assessment will be administered, structured, and analyzed on
both full service locations; the Fort Campbell campus consists of eight week courses, and
the Hopkinsville campus consists primarily of sixteen week courses. The two campuses
have several different characteristics which will lend themselves to propagate a successful
reading comprehension plan for all students. The strategies to be implemented will be
based on the assessment results. The assessment plan will provide information that will
guide decisions regarding what changes, if any, need to occur with the Literatzi initiative in
order to successfully execute the plan in the coming years.
The assessment plan for Literatzi will include standardized tests to provide quantitative data
(formative assessment) and internal measures to assess student attitudes and abilities in
order to provide qualitative data (summative assessments).
The Literatzi Assessment Plan provides several components of measurements. The
summative assessments will take place in the form of questionnaires, inquiries, tests, and
surveys in order to enhance the formative engagement activities. The use of standardized
tests will be used to gain internal success rates through the means of their evaluation. The
Literatzi Assessment Plan seeks to gain knowledge to answer the following questions:
o Are the improved reading comprehension strategies working to assist
students?
o Are faculty finding their instructional strategies have been enhanced through
the plan?
o Has the community become aware of the importance of reading?
o Which areas of the Literatzi plan need to be adjusted and modified?
Benchmarks for standardized tests will be put in place after the preliminary year’s testing
and used to establish a baseline. The combination of the aforementioned assessment
strategies will allow for early determination as to which Literatzi strategies are immediately
effective and which will need to be revised.
A plan to evaluate reading comprehension will be instituted by using Curriculum Embedded
Reading Assessments. This assessment will be utilized by a cohort of faculty at the end of
each academic year, and will also be implemented as an internal measure.
The annual assessment cycle begins with a learning plan and will culminate with revisions
for improvement. Figure 2 displays the Literatzi assessment cycle. The timeline for the
assessment cycle will elucidate as follows. Upon the completion of each spring term, and
on each campus, the QEP director will compile all assessment results created by the QEP
director. During the summer and prior to the beginning of the fall academic term of each
year, the QEP director will submit the detailed revisions and suggestions for the next
academic year. These assessments will be submitted to the Institutional Effectiveness
Office for review. The reviewed and revised assessment plan will be implemented each fall
semester and assessments will commence throughout the academic year.
38 All aspects of the QEP will be assessed and reviewed in accordance with the Hopkinsville
Community College annual assessment report process. This focus is to include the
academic programs and department unit-specific outcomes. The faculty of each academic
discipline will be responsible for their course level outcomes utilizing the assessment
process.
Figure 2
Literatzi Assessment Cycle
Literatzi Reading Comprehension Strategies Modify Assessment Plan Review and Interpret Assessment Results Implement Assessment Plan Conduct Assessments Moreover, the Hopkinsville Community College Reading Committee will review all course
and discipline assessment plans, reports, and suggestions. The Institutional Effectiveness
Office will assist in the interpretation of the results. Currently, the assessments will be
limited to the course delivery method of face-to-face instruction on both campuses. Each
year all assessment plans, results, as well as changes will be entered into the Hopkinsville
Community College Collaborative Server.
Specifically, each year the QEP Director and Reading Committee will meet with the faculty
of each discipline to analyze the results of the assessment and determine the best course of
action. The decision will be made to either discontinue an intervention strategy as the
criterion has been met, or indicate changes to assist in improving results. When the
improvement strategy is identified, the development of implementation strategies will be
reviewed and submitted. The QEP Director and Institutional Effectiveness Office will
combine interpretation, assessment strategy, measurement tool, and particular course or
discipline modified plan implementation strategy. As the implementation plan is executed,
the process for assessment will proceed as highlighted above. In order to maintain the
desired outcomes set forth in the Literatzi plan, continuous improvements, forecasting, and
assessment will occur through the cyclical nature of the plan.
39 Assessment of Literatzi Student Learning Outcomes
Student Learning Outcomes for the Literatzi initiative and the criteria for its success are
outlined accordingly. The primary means for assessment will be through the implementation
of standardized course rubrics and the Nelson-Denny Standardized Reading Test.
The proposed assessment of reading comprehension assignments within the Literatzi
courses will be completed using a standardized course rubric, created by the QEP Director,
designed to measure discipline criteria of reading comprehension. This standardized rubric
will provide evidence of student learning within each Literatzi discipline course structure.
Appendix 5 is a sample rubric of what will be used to assess reading comprehension skills
of students within the Literatzi course structure. The proposed reading comprehension
rubric will additionally assess several of the student and faculty learning outcomes, and will
advise faculty to changes in pedagogy.
The Nelson-Denny pre-test will be given to all students in the Literatzi discipline course
structure and will be mandatory for all students providing baseline data. All students will
have the same opportunities to participate in the support services and embedded content
strategies developed to improve their reading comprehension, and ultimate academic and
life successes. The post-test will be administered at the culmination of each spring term.
Assessment data from the discipline course structure using the Nelson Denny Standardized
Reading Test will be used to group students for comparison data and analysis. Additionally,
the faculty inquiry survey will have a significant impact on the analysis of the data.
•
•
•
•
•
Group 1:
Group 2:
Group 3:
Group 4:
Group 5:
students who score elementary level reading
students who score middle school level reading
students who score high school level reading
students who score freshman level college reading
students who score above freshman level college reading
Appendices 5,6, and 7 show samples of rubrics created by the QEP Director to be
considered for use in the assessment of reading comprehension skills. The improved
reading comprehension rubric will be used to assess several of the student learning
outcomes.
Table 5 below shows an overview of the assessment plan for the Literatzi-related student
learning outcomes created by the QEP Director. The student learning outcomes criteria and
methods of assessment using the Bloom’s Taxonomy format, as well as the description of
expected results, are presented.
40 Table 5
HCC Assessment for Student Learning Outcomes
Literatzi Student Learning Outcomes
Success Outlook
A. Assessing Student Learning Outcome #1: Nurse-pending students participating in the pilot
program along with the subsequent student population of HCC will be able to comprehend and
apply concepts presented in college-level reading
A1. Students participating in the Literatzi
On the Nelson-Denny, 10% of students will
course discipline rotation will show an increase show a one-grade level improvement in
in reading comprehension.
reading comprehension
A2. Students using the reading
On the Reading Comprehension Rubric, 10%
comprehension strategy “Evaluation level”
of students will “meet” or “exceed” expectations
show ability to expand and process new
for evaluation
meaning of reading assignments.
A3. Students using the reading
On the Reading Comprehension Rubric, 10%
comprehension strategy “Synthesis level”
of students will “meet” or “exceed” expectations
show ability to reflect on concepts of reading
for synthesizing.
assignments.
A4. Students using the reading
On the Reading Comprehension Rubric, 20%
comprehension strategy “Analysis level” show
of students will “meet” or “exceed” expectations
ability to identify and explain concepts of
for analysis.
reading assignments.
A5. Students using the reading
On the Reading Comprehension Rubric, 30%
comprehension strategy “Application level”
of students will “meet” or “exceed” expectations
show ability to connect and show relationships
for application.
while interpreting reading assignments.
A6. Students using the reading
On the Reading Comprehension Rubric, 40%
comprehension strategy “Comprehension level” of students will “meet” or “exceed” expectations
show ability to summarize and predict reading
for comprehension.
assignments.
A7. Students using the reading
On the Reading Comprehension Rubric, 50%
comprehension strategy “Knowledge level”
of students will “meet” or “exceed” expectations
show an ability to read assignments.
for knowledge.
B. Assessing Student Learning Outcome #2: Hopkinsville Community College Students will
demonstrate an increase in participation in reading as a result of college and community activities
implemented by the QEP.
B1. Students participating in Supplemental
On the Nelson-Denny, 10% of students will
Support Services will show an increase in
show a one-grade level improvement in
reading comprehension.
reading comprehension.
B2. Students will note that they have
On the Literatzi Workshop Rubric, 60% of
benefited from the Literatzi Workshops for
students participating will show a
achievement changes addressed in reading
“satisfactory” or above rating.
comprehension strategies.
B3. Students will note that they have
On the Literatzi Cultural Reading Activities,
benefited from relating to the implemented
60% of students participating will score the
Literatzi Reading Enhancement activities.
criterion met as “satisfactory” or above on the
survey.
B4.. Students will note that they have
On the Literatzi Cultural Reading Activities,
benefited from the Literatzi Corner Instruction
10% of students participating will score the
services.
criterion met as “satisfactory” or above on the
survey.
41 The 10% improvement over baseline data is a reverse relationship between Bloom’s
Taxonomy reading comprehension levels and a student’s percentage of reading
comprehension competencies. In other words, it is speculated that the lower the level of
critical thinking, the higher the expectancy for improvement in reading comprehension over
time.
During the middle and the end of each academic semester, faculty will provide a copy of
student work samples and rubric scoring sheets to the QEP Director, who will matriculate
the data to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and the Reading Committee. Faculty will
use this information to evaluate each student individually to determine the level of
proficiency they are meeting and met as will the aforementioned.
The information will also provide a midterm and final assessment at the end of each spring
term of the students in the course. Faculty will then suggest improvement strategies to be
implemented for increased student learning. Improvements will be based on outcomes from
individual students and the class as a whole. The assessment plan will be given to the
Institutional Effectiveness Office for data entry.
42 Annual Reports
Each year, the QEP Director, in conjunction with the Institutional Effectiveness Office, will
synthesize the assessment data to produce annual progress reports. These reports will be
reviewed by the Hopkinsville Community College Chief of Academic Affairs Office. After
their review, the reports will be reviewed by the QEP Steering and Reading Committees and
the appropriate subcommittees for their input and recommendations for improvement. Upon
completion of all reviews, the QEP Director will plan implementation strategies into the
Literatzi reading comprehension initiative.
43 References
Adler, B. (2010). Students make time for leisure reading. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thesimmonsvoice.com/media/storage/paper829/news/21
0/10/07/Features/Students.Make.Time.For.Leisure.Reading-3942081.html.
Ahmann, S. J., & Glock, M. D. (1957) The utility of study habits and attitudes inventory in a
college reading program. Journal of Educational Research,51, 297-303.
Alvermann, D. E., Phelps, S. P., & Gillis, V. R. (2010). Content area reading and
literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Anders, P. L., & Guzzetti, B.J. (2005). Literacy instruction in the content areas. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Allington, R. L. (1977). If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get good?
Journal of Reading, 21, 57-61.
Alexander, P.A., & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and
developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds), Handbook of Reading Research, (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bishop-Clark, C., & Lynch, J. M. (1992). The mixed-age college classroom. College
Teaching, 40 (3), 114-117.
Block, C. C., & Parris, S. R. (2008). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best
practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Boylan, H. R. (2011). What Works: Research-Based Best Practices in
Developmental Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/publications/what-works (Original work published
2002).
Brozo, W. G., & Flynt, E. S. (2008). Motivating students to read in the content
classroom: Six evidence-based principles. The Reading Teacher, 62 (2),172174.
Brooks, E. (1996). Attitudes toward reading in the adult learner population. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&E
RICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED393068&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no
&accno=ED393068.
Burchfield, C. M. (2000). Compliance with required reading assignments. Teaching of
Psychology, 27 (1), 58-60.
Burgess, S.R.,& Jones, K. K. (2010). Reading and media habits of college students varying
by sex and remedial status. College Student Journal, 44, 492-5.
Carkenord, D. M. (1994). Motivating students to read journal articles. Teaching
of
44 Psychology, 21 (2), 162-164.
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy (2010). Time to Act: An agenda for
advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. Retrieved from
http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/tta_Main.pdf.
Caverly, D.G., Nicholson, S.A., & Radcliffe, R. (2004). The effectiveness of strategic reading
instruction for college developmental readers. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 35 (1), 25-26.
The Challenges of Remedial Education: Views of 3 Presidents. (2006). Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53(10), B33-B34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., & Bradley, C. (2004). The extent to which psychology
students read textbooks: A multiple class analysis of reading across the
psychology curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31 (5), 227232.
Cunningham, A. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (2001). What reading does for the mind.
Journal of Direct Instruction, 1 (2), 137-149.
Cunningham, P. (2005). If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get good? The
Reading Teacher, 59 (1), 88-90.
Di Tommaso, K. (2005). Strategies to facilitate reading comprehension in college
transition students. Research to Practice Brief, 5. Retrieved from
http://www.collegetransition.org/promisingpractices.research.readingstrategieshtml.
Elliott, J. (1985). The development of a scale for assessing the attitude of preservice
elementary education majors toward reading. American reading Forum, 5, 94-96.
Enright, G. (1997). LAC, LRC, and developmental education: An orientation for the
beginning learning center professional. In S. Mioduski and G. Enright's (eds.)
Proceedings for the 15th and 16th Annual Institutes for Learning Assistance
Professionals: 1994 and 1995. Tucson, AZ: University Learning Center,
University of Arizona.
Falk-Ross, F. C. (2002). Toward the new literacy: Changes in college students’
reading comprehension strategies following reading/writing projects. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45 (4), 278-288.
Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works.
Educational Leadership, 51 (5), 62-68.
First Book. (1992-2010) Literacy in the United States. Retrieved from
http://www.firstbook.org/site/c.lwKYJ8NVJvF/b.2637397/k.C72F/Literacy_in
_the_US. Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of college reading and study
strategy research. New York, NY: Routledge.
45 Gallik, J. D. (1999). Do they read for pleasure? Recreational reading habits of college
students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42 (6), 480-488.
Gioia, D. "On The Importance of Reading." The Commonwealth.
Retrieved from
<http://readingprograms.org/documents/on-the-importance-of-reading.pdf>.
Givens, S. M. (2010). Using affective assessment to understand our students’ identities as
readers (and non-readers). The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges, 15 (1),
5-19.
Greaney, V. (1980). Factors related to amount and type of leisure time reading. Reading
Research Quarterly, 15, 330-346.
Hattie J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student
learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66 (2), 99-136.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170605.
The importance of being literate (Editorial). (2007). The Johns Hopkins News-Letter.
Retrieved
from<http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2007/11/2/
Editorial/The-Importance.Of.Being.Literate-3123244.shtml>.
Institute of Medicine. (2003). Health professions educations: A bridge to quality. The
Retrieved from
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10681andpage=R2.
Isaac. (2000) Leisure reading helpful; possible in college? Retrieved from
http://nevergraduateblogger.blogspot.com/2009/10/leisure-reading-helpful-possiblein.html.
Kentucky State Data Center. (2007). 2007 Poverty Rates for Kentucky and Counties.
U.S.Census Bureau, Small Area Estimates Branch. Retrieved from
http://ksdc.louisville.edu/1income.htm.
Kerstiens, G. (1997). Taxonomy of learning support services. In S. Mioduski and G.
Enright's (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th and 16th Annual Institutes For Learning
Assistance Professionals: 1994 and 1995. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
Kirkland, L. (2009).Socioeconomics in reading trajectories: The
contribution of family, neighborhoods, and school contexts. Childhood
Education, 85(3), 203, doi: 1654302931.
Kniffel, L. (2009). Jumpstart survey exposes literacy gap. American
Libraries, 40(11), 20, doi: 1893067411.
Lei, S. A., Bartlett, K. A., Gorney, S. E., & Herschbach, T. R. (2010). Resistance to
reading compliance among college students: Instructors’ perspectives. College
Student Journal, 44 (2), 219-229.
46 Lesmeister, M.B. (2010). Teaching adults how to read withreading apprenticeship.
Techniques. Retrieved from
http://www.acteonline.org/tech_feb10.adults.html.
Levin, H., & Koski, W. (1998). Administrative approaches to educational productivity. In J.
Groccia and J. Miller (Ed.), Enhancing productivity: Administrative, instructional, and
technological strategies, New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Levine, M. (2003). Celebrating diverse minds. Teaching all students, 61 (2), 12-18.
Retrieved from
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/success_di/el200310_levine.html.
Lindell, P. (2009). Leisure reading at Gustavius. Retrieved from
https://gustavus.edu/library/LeisureReadingatGustavus.pdf.
Maaka, M. J,. & Ward, S. M. (2000). Content area reading in community college
classrooms.Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 107-125.
Manning, G.L., & Manning, M. (1984). What models of recreational reading make a
difference. Reading World, 23, 375-380.
Marchant, G. J. (2002). Student reading of assigned articles: Will this be on the test?
Teaching of Psychology, 29, 49-51.
McClenney, K. (2009). Helping Community-College Students Succeed: a Moral Imperative.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(33), A60. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
.
McShane, S. (2005). Applying research in reading instruction for adults: First
steps for teachers. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
McWhorter, K. (2006). Study and critical thinking skills in college. (6th ed.).Boston, MA:
Longman.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Progress in International Reading
Literacy Study (PIRLS) - PIRLS 2006 Results. Retrieved from
<http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/pirls2006.asp>.
The National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Literacy Rate - How Many Are Illiterate. In
Literacy Education - Teaching Literacy. Retrieved from
<http://www.caliteracy.org/rates/>.
The National Institute for Literacy. (2008). NAAL - National Assessment of Adult Literacy. In
Literacy Education - Teaching Literacy. Retrieved from
<http://www.caliteracy.org/naal/>.
Perin, D. (2004). Remediation beyond developmental education: The use of learning
assistance centers to increase academic preparedness in community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28 (7), 559-582.
47 Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators,
researchers, and policymakers. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
ProLiteracy. (2010). ProLiteracy : Improving lives and communities through adult literacy.
Retrieved from <http://www.proliteracy.org/page.aspx?pid=345>.
Ramey, A. (1982). Assessment procedures of reading attitudes: a survey of college and
university reading clinics. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExt
Search_SearchValue_0=ED220825&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&acc.
Rose, M. (2010). Why America Needs a Smithsonian of Basic Skills. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 56(42), A23. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
.
Roueche, J., & Waiwaiole E.N. (2009). Developmental Education: An Investment We
Cannot Afford NOT To Make. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 26(16), 16.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Ryan, T. E. (2006). Motivating novice students to read their textbooks. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 33 (2), 135-140.
Sappington, J., K. K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two studies of reading compliance
among college students. Teaching of Psychology, 29 (4), 272-274.
Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches & Issues. Advances inTeaching and
Learning Series. (1997). ERIC – World’s Largest Digital Library ofEducation
Literature. Kathleen Hogan & Michael Pressley (Eds.), Brookline Books, Retrieved
from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSear
ch_SearchValue_0=ED422375&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED422
375>.
Silverman, S.L., & Casazza, M.E.. (2000). Learning and development: Making
connections to enhance teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. (ED 435
698).
Simpson, M.L. & Nist, S.L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook
reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43 (6), 528-52.
Simpson, M. L., Stahl, N. A., & Francis, M. A. (2004). Reading and learning strategies:
Recommendations for the 21st century. Journal of Developmental Education, 28
(2), 2-15, 32.
Smith, B.D., & Morris, L. (2011). Bridging the gap. Boston, MA: Longman.
48 Smith, P.R. (2009). The effects of reading apprenticeship on junior college students’
metacognitive awareness and comprehension of academic texts. Retrieved from
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/47513424/The-effects-of-reading-apprenticeship- onjunior-college-students-metacognitive-awareness-and-comprehensionofacademic-texts.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program
in reading comprehension. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1465/. Snow, C., & Moje, E.. (2010). Why is everyone talking about adolescent literacy? PhiDelta
Kappan, 91(6), 66-69, doi: 1981671471.
Solomon, P. R. (1979). The two-point system: A method for encouraging students to
read assigned material before class. Teaching of Psychology, 6 (2), 77-80.
Stern, S. (2001). Learning assistance centers. ERICDigests.Org - Providing Full-text
Access to ERIC Digests.
Retrieved <http://www.ericdigests.org/20022/centers.htm>.
Trott, B., & Elliott, J. (2009). Barriers to extracurricular reading promotion in academic
libraries. Retrieved from http://www.rusq.org/2009/09/08/barriers-to-extracurricularreading-promotion-in-academic-libraries/.
Tullock-Rhody R., & Alexander, J.E. (1980). A scale for assessing attitudes toward reading
in secondary schools. Journal of Reading, 23. 609-614.
U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. (2010). Intervention:
Reading apprenticeship overview. WWC Intervention Report. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_reading_apprenticeship_071310.pdf.
Warren-Gordon, K., & Hendricks, C. (2011). Examining criminal justice students’ attitudes
toward reading from a diverse prospective. Retrieved from
www.americanreadingforum.org/Examining_CrimJust_Student_Attitudes_Toward_R
eading_.
WestEd: Strategic Literacy Initiative. Retrieved from the WestEd website.
<http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/pj/179>.
White, H. L. (2004). Nursing instructors must also teach reading and study skills.
Reading Improvement, 41 (1), 38-50.
Williams, R. L., Skinner, C. H.,& Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Extending research on the
validity of brief reading comprehension rate and level measures to college course
success. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8 (2), 109-127.
Wood, R. (1993). Our golden road to illiteracy. National Review, 45(20), 5458. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
49 APPENDIX I QEP Steering Committee Membership Name
Cynthia Atkins
Phillip Back
Peggy Bozarth
Taylor Carlisle
Karen Dougherty
Sally Jackman
Arthur Pendleton
Academic Area
Specialization Library Science
Professor, Co-Chair HCC Board Member Professor Professor, Dept.Chair Assistant Professor Associate Professor Associate Professor
SGA Advisor QEP Director Adult Ed. Instructor Assoc. Prof/Co-Chair Nursing/Allied Health
Fine Arts and Humanities
Science
Math
Business
Denise Perdue
Suki Rechter
Amanda Sauermann
Gen Ed/Reading Specialist
Academic Foundations
Fine Arts and Humanities
Christopher Gaiser
Margaret Houchens
Clifton Martin
Mariah Mitchell
Jared Smith
Debra Mitchell
Jack Detty
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student (Slogan winner)
Student (Logo winner)
QEP Topic Selection Committee Membership Dr. Karen Dougherty
Aaron Pettus
Patrick Riley
Science
TRIO Services
Mathematics & Science
Assistant Professor Program Coordinator Professor 50 APPENDIX II 51 52 53 APPENDIX III
QEP Literatzi Course Discipline Reading Survey Sample
(Likert Format for Responses)
How many hours (credit, developmental, or dual credit) have you completed?
To which age range do you belong?
I enjoy reading?
I have purchased the textbook for my courses if they were required?
When reading assignments are required, which of the following describes your
reading experience?
I will read the entire assignment prior to the next class meeting.
I scan the title, chapter headings, and read the introductory paragraph.
I will wait until the instructor gives the specific reading assignment.
I do not find reading necessary in my courses.
When given a reading assignment, which of the following describes your experience?
I do not look forward to reading assignments.
I find it to be difficult to concentrate when reading my assignments. (daydreaming, etc.)
I fall asleep while reading my course material.
I become very frustrated because of the vocabulary used in my course material.
How do you approach the task of academic reading?
I read to get the facts.
I read to get the main idea. I do not need all of the details.
I do not need to read the material. I listen very well and can understand the material better
by simply listening.
I often read supplemental material along with the required reading.
While reading your discipline coursework, do you implement the following?
I write in the margins of my textbook.
I create notes on a separate sheet of paper of the major points I am reading.
I create an outline format when I am reading.
I create a map of the material I am reading, including the supplemental readings.
I connect my life experiences to the material I am reading.
I connect other courses I have taken, or am currently taking, to the material I am reading.
I pause and think about the material I am reading.
I visualize the material I am reading in my mind.
My reading comprehension improves when I do which of the following?
When I read the material prior to the course lecture.
When I read the material immediately after the class meeting.
When I can connect the material with my personal interest(s).
When the instructor shares current event and or personal experiences with the material.
When videos are used to connect the reading material.
When I am given ample time to read the material.
When study groups are formed in the course.
54 APPENDIX IV Bloom’s Taxonomy Chart
Source: Blooms Taxonomy definitions: Louisiana State University Center for Academic Success
55 APPENDIX V Rubric for Reading Comprehension
Criteria
Evaluation: Correct gaps in
comprehension
“Making decisions and
supporting views, requires
understanding of values”
Synthesis: Predict
“Combining information…,
requires creativity and
originality”
Analysis: Picture
“Identifying components,
determining arrangement,
logic, and semantics”
Application: Relate
“Using information to solve
problems, transferring
abstract and theoretical ideas
to practical situations,
identifying connections and
relationships, and how they
apply”
Comprehension: Monitor
ongoing comprehension
“Restating in your own words
summarizing, translating”
Knowledge: Annotate
“Able to read the material but
not able to fully understand”
Proficient
Ask questions to
expand the meaning of
the text, can articulate
the process of new
meaning from the text
(Above Freshmen level
college reading)
Reflects on text
meaning, identifies key
themes
(Freshmen level
college reading)
Key concepts to
material are identified,
creates support of
evidence to explain
concepts
(High School level
reading)
Use schema to
interpret basic concepts
of the text
(Middle School level
reading)
Developing
Ask questions,
however, unable to
support the evidence
Insufficient
Lack capacity to
expand meaning
of the text
Identifies text events
and may integrate
schema and key
themes into
interpretation
Topic identified, but not
key concepts,
demonstrates an ability
to generalize
information
Student lacks
skill to interpret
and identify key
themes
Cultivating schema to
interpret basic
concepts of the text,
can explain
connections to the text
Student lacking
schema
application,
cannot explain
connections to
the text
Able to state text
through cohesive
translation and
summarization, able to
predict and justify
learned information
from the text
(Elementary School
level reading)
Reads words with
limited understanding
and contextual
meaning
(Elementary School
level reading)
Lack of ability to
interpret and predict
information from the
text consistently
Student lacks
the competence
to effectively
interpret and
justify the text
Reads the words of the
text without
understanding
meaning, or context;
however instructor
prompting develops
knowledge of material
Student reads
the words of the
text
Student
aimlessly lists
information,
connections are
irrelevant to the
text
56 Delineation of Rubric Levels for Reading Comprehension
Evaluation Proficient Level
Synthesis Proficient Level
Analysis Proficient Level
Application Proficient Level
Comprehension/Knowledge
Proficient Level
Above Freshmen level college reading
Freshmen level college reading
High School level reading
Middle School level reading
Elementary School Level
57 Appendix VI
Literatzi Faculty Workshop Rubric
Criteria
Objective
Missing
Objectives
were not
stated,
unfocused
Adequate
Objectives
were stated but
not organized
to meet
objectives
Expertise
Speaker was
uninformed
about the
content
Material was
disorganized
and difficult to
follow
I chose not to
be involved in
the
presentation.
Speaker was
not fully aware
of content area
Presentation
Engagement
Material was
easy to follow,
yet lacked
purpose
I chose to be
involved by
following
instructions
Proficient
Objectives
were clearly
stated,
materials
support
objectives
Speaker’s
knowledge in
content area
evident
Material and
media
supported the
presentation
I chose to
participate to
find tangible
material to
contribute to
my profession
Excellent
Objectives
were met,
clearly stated,
material
supported
evidence
Speaker was
considered
expert in
content area
Material
enhanced
content
presentation
I chose to find
connections,
and practices,
and sought new
learning
formats for
improvement
As a result of your attendance at this workshop, what results can you expect from your
students as you incorporate this material into the classroom?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
58 Appendix VII
Literatzi Course Discipline Syllabus Rubric
Course: ________________________________________
Instructor: ______________________________________
Please indicate whether the syllabus used for your course addresses the following areas
and to what extent.
Your comments are also valuable. Please submit them on the back of this rubric.
Instructional
Strategies
1. Are rubrics
provided to students
for reading
assignments?
2. Do you have at
least 3 reading
assignments?
3. Are the
expectations for the
reading
assignments clearly
stated in the
syllabus?
4. Do you provide
focus questions for
the reading
assignments?
5. Does the course
itinerary allow for
discussions to
encourage
background
knowledge
expression?
6. Are reading
assignments
minimized to
chapter sections as
opposed to entire
chapter readings?
7. Do the reading
assignments
promote all levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy
reading
comprehension
Proficient
(all)
Adequate
(some)
Needs Improvement
(none)
59 strategies?
60