A Literacy “Reality Check”: Assessing Gaps between What Is Taught and What is Needed

1. A Literacy “Reality Check”: Assessing Gaps between What Is Taught and What is Needed Kate Perkins – English Instructor and Coordinator of Transitional Communication Carolyn Petsche – Director of Learning and Transitional Education Services Highland Community College, Freeport, IL

2. National Context Calls for new reforms • Criticism of remedial courses in higher education led to a defense of remediation with calls for better course designs and clear knowledge of students’ needs and abilities (Boylan, 1999; Boylan, 2001). • Moving away from discrete-skills-based instruction (Boylan, 1999; Koski & Levin, 1998) • Called for more thorough and timely program review (Koski & Levin, 1998).

3. National Cohort Data 2017 Benchmark Data

4. Highland Literacy Context Highland Cohort Data

5. Literature Review: Call for Redesign Redesigning Developmental Writing and Reading Courses • Redesigns to developmental courses should include examination and revision of structure, curriculum, and pedagogy (Edgecombe, Jaggars, Xu & Barragan, 2014) • Developmental coursework should “adopt a cognitive-based philosophy” by providing authentic tasks and promoting transfer (Stahl, Simpson & Hayes, 1992,p. 3) • Understanding students’ beliefs and their impacts on student learning is essential (Simpson, Stahl & Francis, 2004)

6. Project’s Purpose • Decided to replicate Burrell, Tao, Simpson & Mendez-Beruetta’s (1997) Reality Check to see what was happening in HCC’s intro classes to inform structural, curricular, and pedagogical changes in transitional reading and writing

7. Guiding Questions Expectations/Requirements • What are the reading, writing, and critical thinking expectations for students to allow them to succeed in introductory courses of all disciplines at Highland? Perceptions • What are introductory course faculty’s perceptions of student preparedness in reading, writing, and critical thinking?

8. Methods • Adapted Burrell, Tao, Simpson & Mendez-Beruetta’s (1997) Reality Check Questions to own institution • SurveyMonkey survey distributed to faculty • 42 survey items • Included demographic, basic course descriptors, and open-ended responses • 39/50 respondents • Representatives of all introductory courses requiring reading and/or writing placements or pre-requisites (Excluded CTE and nursing) • Full- and part-time instructors

9. Basic Course Demographics Type of Introductory Course • Math: 13.89% • English: 11.11% • Other: 75% Predominant Delivery Methods • Lecture: 71.05% • Other: 10.53% • Lab: 7.89% • Discussion: 5.26% • Multimedia: 5.26%

10. Academic Literacy in Reading Findings • Texts • Single Textbook: 79.49% • Handouts: 71.79% • Reading expectations • Primarily to have basic understanding of concepts • Read before class: 73.68% • Hours to read/week: 1-2 hours, 25.6%; 3-4 hours, 35.9%; 5-7 hours, 23.1% • Mix of physical text and online reading • 20-40 pages per week: 51.2% • Reading/literacy expectations are rigorous • Instructors expect many hours and pages worth of work and expect quality literacy skills from introductory students • The overwhelming interpretation of students’ reading abilities is negative • Key tags: reading is key, readings are hard • Reading well is important to student success in nearly all disciplines

11. Reading: Take-Aways • Reading not explicitly taught as a skill in introductory course disciplines • Students are largely expected to know how to engage with readings before taking the class • Little time seems to be spent helping students engage with literacy techniques and requirements, which vary from discipline to discipline – far less time than helping students engage with writing • Opportunities to engage with text in class mostly tied to graded or otherwise high-stakes assessments (called on to answer questions, etc.)

12. Academic Literacy in Writing Findings • Writing • Use writing as evaluation tool: 73.68% • Assign 6 or more writing assignments per course: 48.2% • Types of predominant writing tasks: Essays, Exams, and Research • Citation expectations • Some proficiency in compiling bibliographies: 62.5% • Using quality search engines to find sources: 56.25% • Summarizing/synthesizing multiple sources: 56.25% • Reading and writing connection • Students most often asked to write about what they have read/learned in lecture • Key tags for writing requirements • Citations (25%) • Apply learning through writing (25%) • Criteria for writing assignments provided via • Assignment guidelines: 79% • Syllabus: 51% • Rubrics: 44%

13. Writing: Take-Aways • Primarily, writing is used to assess knowledge of content that has been read or learned in class; however, most instructors also expect good writing practices - strong paragraphs, essay structure, mechanics • Many instructors provide feedback on writing practices instead of disciplinary content, which may skew students’ understanding of the importance of writing as a way to communicate learned knowledge and/or analyze and synthesize information • Most writing opportunities tied to grades or high-stakes assessments

14. Academic Literacy in Critical Thinking Findings • Learning Criteria • Conceptual understanding demonstrated in writing: 86.21% • Develops introduction, paragraphs, topic sentences, citations: 28-51.42% • Studying • Test types: Long essay, 100%; Problem solving, 95.65%; Multiple Choice, 92.86% • Tests assess: Application, 30.85%; Knowledge, 28.43%; Comprehension, 20.8 % • Tests performance: Explanation, 35.5%; Analyze, 24.23%; Summarize, 19.14% • Test info comes from: Lectures, 50%; Textbook, 44.12%

15. Critical Thinking and Readiness: Take-Aways • Lots of readings, written assignments, and essay tests, but it is not clear that learning tasks target desired outcomes • Primary goals are higher order thinking: analysis, evaluation • Assignments assess lower order thinking: knowledge, application • Most critical thinking opportunities tied to grades or high-stakes assessments • Overall negative conception of student readiness and willingness to seek help to succeed

16. Implications for Teaching • Literacy expectations should be more in line with assignment and assessment types • Campus definition of literacy expectations and core outcomes/competencies • Transitional course alignment with this definition and core outcomes • Expand basic skills course outcomes to align with definition and core outcomes • Establish disciplinary practices in each department to hone broader campus literacy expectations • Center courses around critical thinking instead of template/procedural writing, reading, and test taking to ensure tasks align with higher order conceptual understanding • More cross-campus collaboration needs to be done to help students be more academically literate • Faculty collaboration • Administrative collaboration • Student services collaboration

17. Implications for Teaching • Provide low-stakes opportunities for students to develop academic literacy skills • Students need instruction and practice in disciplinary literacy skills and techniques in each course • Students benefit from opportunities to learn and demonstrate skills before being graded on them • Expand students’ knowledge of techniques for success • Explicit classroom instruction on affective/non-cognitive skills can be of benefit • Consider ways to realign perceptions of student abilities • Negative perceptions can leak into tone, affect, etc. during interactions with students

18. Project Limitations • Questions too pointed in places, not pointed enough in others • Tried to do too much with one survey • Took too long to hone and pilot survey

19. Future Plans • Revise survey to gather more specific data • Survey students to determine their expectations and beliefs about academic literacy requirements • Follow-up the faculty and student surveys with focus-group meetings

20. Acknowledgements • Literacy Survey group members • Carolyn Petsche, Misty Thruman, Sue Sauer, Chris Kuberski, and Kate Perkins • This group developed and piloted the survey and analyzed the data • Special thanks • Dr. Jodi Lampi, NIU • Dr. Lampi collaborated on interpreting and preparing the data for presentation

21. References • Armstrong, S.L, Stahl, N.A. & Kantner M.J. (2015). Investigating academic literacy expectations: A curriculum audit model. Journal of Developmental Education, 38, pp. 2-23. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1083368 • Azimi, H. (2018). ALP Faculty Workshop. PowerPoint, Freeport, IL. • Boylan, H. R. (1999). Developmental and remedial education in postsecondary education. New Directions for Higher Education, 108, pp. 87-101. DOI: 10.1002/he.10806 • Boylan, H. R. (2001). Developmental students: Why are they here and who are they?. In Farmer, V. L., et. al. (authors), Selected Models of Developmental Education Programs (pp. 5-22). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. • Burrell, K.L., Tao, L., Simpson, M.L., & Mendez-Beruetta, H. (1997). How do we know what we are preparing our students for? A reality check of one university’s academic literacy demands. Research in Teaching Developmental Education, 13, pp. 55-70.

22. References • Edgecombe, N., Jaggars, S.S., Xu, D. & Barragan, M. (2014). Accelerating the integrated instruction ofdevelopmental reading and writing at Chabot College. (CCRC Working Paper No. 71). New York, NY: Community College Research Center. • Koski, W.S. & Levin, H.M. (1998). Replacing remediation with acceleration in higher education: Preliminary report on literature review and initial interviews. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement • National Higher Education Benchmarking Institute. (2017). National Community College Benchmark Project. Overland Park, KS: National Benchmarking Institute. • Simpson, M.L., Stahl, N.A. & Francis, M.A. (2004). Reading and learning strategies: Recommendations for the twenty-first century. Journal of Developmental Education, 28, pp. 2-14 Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ718571 • Stahl, N.A., Simpson, M.L. & Hayes, C.G. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for teaching high-risk college students. Journal of Developmental Education, 16, pp. 2-11.