tulsa community college achieving the dream · 2015-01-06 · reading focus group data...
Post on 11-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Tulsa Community College – Achieving the Dream
Reading Focus Group Data Report
April 2009
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
This document reports the analysis of student focus group qualitative data collected to examine
the reasons TCC students have difficulty succeeding in developmental reading courses.
Achieving the Dream (AtD) is a multiyear national effort to help community college students
succeed. This effort focuses on student groups that traditionally have faced significant barriers to
success, including students of color and low-income students. TCC is working to increase the
percentage of students who accomplish the following five goals:
successfully complete the courses students take;
advance from remedial to credit-bearing courses;
enroll in and successfully complete gatekeeper courses;
enroll from one semester to the next;
earn degrees and/or certificates.
TCC has targeted three primary areas for study and improvement.
(2007-08) Persistence
(2008-09) Developmental reading
(2009-10) Developmental mathematics
Each target area will go through a FOUR-STEP PROCESS for making data-informed decisions.
STEP 1 – What’s Wrong?
Quantitative data provided by Planning and Institutional Research identifies areas of
weakness.
STEP 2 -- Why Is the Problem Happening?
Focus groups are conducted with both faculty and students to gather qualitative data that
address the barriers/challenges faculty and students encounter in this target area. In
addition, the groups capture the knowledge and actions faculty, staff and students utilized
to overcome these challenges/barriers.
STEP 3 – Design, Build, and Implement Intervention(s)
Data-informed decisions are made by faculty and staff.
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 2
STEP 4 – Evaluate and Assess the Impact of the Intervention(s)
By assessing interventions, we assess formatively and summatively the progress toward
increasing persistence and improving success. Interventions are modified based on
assessment findings.
As a part of Step 1, quantitative data were collected from 5,334 first-time freshmen in the cohort
enrolled 2004-2006.
68% of Reading I and II students successfully completed Reading I or II in their
first year.
Success is defined as earning a grade of ―C‖ or better.
Step 2 required investigating ‗why‘ some students were having difficulty succeeding in
developmental reading courses. TCC Achieving the Dream conducted student focus groups to
discover the challenges and barriers students faced while taking developmental reading.
METHODOLOGY
Focus groups for developmental reading students were conducted during October and November
2008. A total of 36 focus groups, disaggregating into 16 Reading I and 20 Reading II focus
groups, were led by 9 trained facilitators from TCC‘s Achieving the Dream Data Team. All
campuses completed at least eight focus groups with the exception of West Campus, which held
seven focus groups, comprising100% of Reading I and II classes at that campus. All focus
groups were held during class time with all enrolled students in selected classes having the
opportunity to participate. One eight-week class was included in the data set. All other sections
were 16-week classes. Twenty-six day and ten evening classes were selected. Thirteen groups
were conducted with classes taught by full-time faculty, and twenty-three groups were conducted
with classes taught by part-time faculty.
Data collected in each focus group included barriers (or challenges) to success in completing
Reading I or Reading II, as identified by developmental reading students. In addition, students
related for each barrier the knowledge, actions, changes and what currently works at TCC.
After Data Team facilitators transcribed their focus group data into spreadsheets, a
comprehensive developmental reading spreadsheet was created with 444 barrier items. To begin
the process of analyzing the data, a modified Q-sort was conducted on all barrier items by each
data team member. Each barrier item was classified into a broader barrier type. From the results
of this Q-sort, the barrier items were sorted into either reading barriers or persistence barriers.
The reading barrier items were analyzed first to provide reading faculty results from which to
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 3
develop interventions for their developmental reading courses. After further analysis of the
reading barrier items, each barrier item was sorted into larger barrier types and finally into
common barrier subtypes.
DATA
As a result of these focus groups, 444 barriers to Reading I and II were identified. Of these, 180
(41%) barrier items were specifically related to Reading I and II classes, and 264 (59%) were
related to persistence. Barrier items specifically related to reading classes were categorized by
type and then subtype.
For the 180 Barrier Items, twelve Barrier Types with corresponding Subtypes were identified.
The table below lists the twelve Barrier Types and their frequency counts. A corresponding pie
chart listing the percentages found for each Barrier Type has also been given.
BARRIER TYPES
Total
Number Campus
MC NEC SEC WC
Insufficient reading skill 25 8 10 6 1
Negative Attitudes 24 4 2 8 10
Amount/scheduling of work 21 7 7 6 1
Reading Lab work 20 9 7 3 1
Level/intensity of class work 19 4 0 11 4
Instructor/instructor policy
concerned
15 2 4 6 3
Study habits/skills 13 5 3 2 3
Computers 11 2 4 2 3
Readings/textbook 9 2 3 4 0
Attention/focus 9 1 1 4 3
Format/scheduling of class
period
8 4 2 0 2
Placement in courses 6 2 0 3 1
TOTAL 180
items
50 43 55 32
TABLE 1. Barrier Types with corresponding frequency counts for 180 Reading Barrier Items.
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 4
Placement in courses3%
Attention/Focus5%
Format/Scheduling of class period
5%
Readings/Textbook
5%
Computers6%
Study habits/ Skills7%
Instructor/ Instructor policy concerns
8%
Reading Lab work11%
Level/Intensity of class work11%
Amount/ Scheduling of work12%
Negative Attitudes13%
Insufficient reading skills14%
Developmental Reading Barrier Types
CHART 1: Barrier Types with corresponding percentages for 180 Reading Barrier Items
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 5
Reading Barriers by Frequency: Fall 2008
I. Insufficient reading skills (25 barriers)
A. Reading with purpose (9 barriers)
1. Skimming and looking at the pictures instead of reading everything
2. Chapter 5: Locating the Main Idea
3. Comprehension (knowing what you are reading)
4. Understanding what you have read (not doing passive reading)
5. Challenge with reading comprehension
6. Challenge with reading, knowing how to read, ability to read.
7. Problem with summarizing what I just read
8. Challenge with comprehension.
9. Challenge with reading comprehension
B. Other reading techniques (8 barriers)
1. Maintaining what I read; remembering
2. Not being taught to read in high school; rusty when entering college
3. Challenging with writing (problem: giving more details, examples)
4. Problem with speed of reading
5. Problem with taking notes on each chapter
6. Challenge with not watching movie instead of reading book
7. Challenge with not learning Reading II information to apply to other
classes (Comp I)
8. Not having time to do required assignments; therefore, students don't
come to class
C. Identifying/using vocabulary (6 barriers)
1. Vocabulary when reading articles and understanding them
2. Challenge with vocabulary
3. Challenge with amount of vocabulary
4. Challenge with understanding where words go in the sentence/paragraph
5. Challenge with vocabulary, not having enough
6. Challenge with memorizing vocabulary words
D. Reading aloud (2 barriers)
1. Requirement to read aloud in a group (feel not smart)
2. Challenge with reading aloud in class
II. Negative attitudes (24 barriers)
A. Disliking the reading class (10 barriers)
1. Doing work on the computer
2. Attendance-not necessary if you already know what you're going to do
3. Poor attitude towards class
4. Staying motivated
5. Challenge with attending class
6. Challenge with missing class
7. Challenge with getting in the mood to learn
8. Challenge with staying motivated in Reading II
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 6
9. Laziness especially in doing homework
10. Challenge coming to class
B. Zero-level course attitudes (7 barriers)
1. Not a credit course
2. Challenge of taking zero level course
3. Being in class is a "downer"; Reading I is a "zero" level; all that work still
adds up to "nothing"
4. Problem with class is a waste of time (not required) low priority
5. Problem with other classes for credit are more important
6. Challenge with not taking class seriously because it's zero level
7. It is a zero level class, and why do I have to take it?
C. Disliking to read (4 barriers)
1. Not liking to read
2. Reading is boring
3. Challenge that some people do not like to read
4. Problem with not liking to read
D. Negative attitude toward taking a reading class (3 barriers)
1. Students don't think they need this class
2. Challenge with understanding why they need to take Reading II at all
3. Challenge with some students feeling Reading II doesn't help with
Composition class
III. Amount/scheduling of work (21 barriers)
A. Too much school work (11 barriers)
1. Lots of homework
2. A lot of homework
3. SRA's (time consuming; balancing with Lab)
4. Amount of work (number of tests)
5. Lots of reading at one time
6. Too much work
7. Challenge with lots of homework
8. Challenge with overload of so much work to do at once.
9. A lot of questions to answer in homework
10. Workload is too much; not enough time to complete work then students
drop out because deadlines can't be met
11. Challenge with overwhelming amount of work
B. Scheduling time for assignments (10 barriers)
1. Keeping up with a lot of assignments
2. Keeping up with the routine [of the reading course]
3. Problem with being overwhelmed
4. Challenge with being able to do homework
5. Challenge finding time to do homework
6. Challenge getting homework in on time
7. Difficulty keeping up with work
8. Problem handling Reading work load
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 7
9. Keeping up with homework demands
10. Turnaround time between assignments too short
IV. Reading Lab work (20 barriers)
A. Lab work outside class time (16 barriers)
1. Getting the 1-hour lab done each week, with other responsibilities
2. Labs
3. Reading Lab--getting the lab done weekly
4. Attendance
5. Mastery Tests (making sure you get your points; the stress of getting it
right)
6. Reading Lab closed
7. Keeping up with labs
8. Completing 2 hrs of lab (1 hour on my own time); (redundant,
inconvenient, too much)
9. Mastery Tests are duplicates for the book & computer
10. Challenge with having time for lab work
11. Problem finishing lab assignments before required time is up
12. Challenge with coming back for lab on own time after class.
13. Problem with time to do labs
14. Problem: Requiring students to even go to Lab
15. Assignments are required in both Writing I and Speed Reading that
require going to Writing Lab for 1-2 hours/wk; should be able combine
required times; can't bring children in Lab so requires daycare to do
homework; computer-based programs not helpful
16. Challenge with cost to come back to campus (to study/use Lab)
B. Lab uninteresting/waste of time (3 barriers)
1. Challenge with lab being boring & waste of time
2. Work in Lab seems like a waste of time.
3. Problem with lab and grading yourself. Pointless
C. Confusing Lab instructions (1 barrier)
1. Confused about instructions (lab, in general instructions)
V. Level/intensity of work (19 barriers)
A. Too difficult (5 barriers)
1. Not an easy class; hard to figure out what to do in the book
2. Teachers expect students to know too much
3. Work is too difficult
4. Challenge with vocabulary; too many
5. Subject too difficult - students give up
B. Too easy (9 barriers)
1. Too easy
2. Problem that curriculum is not challenging
3. Class is too easy.
4. Content not challenging; worksheets too easy; content doesn't seem to
relate to preparation of Comp I.
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 8
5. Laziness because it's time consuming and so easy
6. Challenge with vocabulary is too easy and boring
7. Difficulty with class being too easy (but still learning)
8. Challenge with busy work
9. Class makes me feel dumb; it is too easy, too much like high school.
C. Uninteresting (4 barriers)
1. Class is too boring.
2. Boring class activities same; not learning anything substantial
3. Material not capturing student's attention (doesn‘t seem relevant)
4. Class is too boring.
VI. Instructor/instructor policy concerns (15 barriers)
A. Instructor concerns (8 barriers)
1. Understanding what the teacher wants
2. Some students may not like the teacher
3. Schedule for class-not set for the semester; scheduling of too many
assignments in a short period of time
4. Doesn't talk to us like we are adults; repetition not necessary of
directions "over and over"
5. Contacting instructor outside of class for a face-to-face meeting is
difficult, especially if help is needed
6. Students who have unenthusiastic teachers are not encouraged to stay
motivated
7. Challenge with instructor being absent
8. Challenge with being able to relate with the teacher (gets off subject)
B. Policy or instructional concerns (7 barriers)
1. Maintaining a decent grade
2. Challenge with understanding how final exam works (not required to take
final)
3. Challenge not all teachers use Blackboard
4. Challenge knowing your current grade
5. Policies are a problem: make up exam, quizzes, and assignments
6. Challenge with lectures the entire class period
7. Problem with teachers not knowing how to use Blackboard. And not
knowing TCC lingo.
VII. Study habits/skills (13 barriers)
A. Managing study time for reading (11 barriers)
1. Challenge balancing Reading II study with other classes
2. Procrastination
3. Time management
4. Finding time to read (need to spend time on reading)
5. Getting behind when you miss class (hard to catch up)
6. Problem finding time to study for all the tests
7. Problem with time management (work, family-related)
8. Time management
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 9
9. Problem with getting behind schedule
10. Challenge with keeping up with the work
11. Challenge with prioritizing assignments
B. Retaining content (2 barriers)
1. Remembering the information in the assigned time
2. Challenge with retaining the information
VIII. Computers (11 barriers) (access, skills, assignments, requirements)
A. Computer skills (4 barriers)
1. Using computers (older students might not like them; some people know
how to use computers but prefer not to use them; some don't have access;
some can't afford one)
2. Not knowing how to use a computer in the Reading Lab
3. Challenge with computer skills
4. Challenge with patience in computer skills
B. No access to computer outside school (3 barriers)
1. Challenge with not having a computer at home so you have to do the work
here
2. Challenge with computer access
3. No money for a computer, and students are dependent upon school
computers, but closed after evening classes.
C. Knowing how to complete assignments online (2 barriers)
1. Challenge of doing work online compared to bringing in on paper (finding
things online)
2. Difficulty with using computer; problem with Townsend Press
D. Blackboard issues (2 barriers)
1. Problem with Blackboard being required (no communication of
homework being posted [on Blackboard])
2. Difficulty with computer issues (slow home computer)
IX. Attention/focus (9 barriers)
A. Maintaining focus in class (4 barriers)
1. Challenge with staying focused
2. Problem with staying focused
3. Challenge with paying attention in class
4. Challenge with paying attention in night class
B. Learning disabilities (3 barriers)
1. Challenge with learning disabilities
2. Problem with dyslexia
3. Challenge with dyslexia
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 10
C. Distractions in class (2 barriers)
1. Classmates are distracting in class
2. Problem with students talking a lot in class, not about reading
X. Readings/textbook (9 barriers)
A. Reading materials (7 barriers)
1. Don't get to read what you like to read
2. Book is boring! Reading selections are dull, boring.
3. Problem that reading assignments are boring/not interesting
4. Obstacle with book is too simple.
5. Problem with reading boring books
6. Reading book (The Firm) was boring.
7. Problem motivating myself to read especially if the book is not interesting
B. Miscellaneous textbook issues (2 barriers)
1. Reading the books that will prepare you in the class
2. Problem that some stories are too long
XI. Format/scheduling of class period (8 barriers)
A. Problems with 8-week format (4 barriers)
1. 8-week format; jammed information; pressure of accelerated classes
2. In 8-week class, only touch on main topics
3. The 8-week class meeting time is three hours long—boring
4. The 8-week class is hard for the subject of reading
5. Problem adjusting to longer class periods
6. Challenge with being in class for 3 hours straight
7. Difficulty with not enough breaks in a one night per week class
8. Challenge with class being one night per week
XII. Placement in courses (6 barriers)
A. Placement (6 barriers)
1. Students moving at different paces
2. Some might not be ready for Reading II, if they didn't take Reading I
3. Placement tests are not reflective of student's ability
4. Challenge with placement test
5. CPT placement test is boring, long, and tedious.
6. Challenge with the placement test
DATA ANALYSIS
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 11
The focus group data were analyzed by:
(I) Campus;
(II) Reading I versus Reading II;
(III) Day versus evening time; and
(IV) Full-time faculty versus part-time faculty.
OVERALL FINDINGS
Overall, the Barrier Types including Insufficient reading skills, Negative attitudes, Amount/Scheduling of
work, Reading Lab work, and Instructor/Instructor policy concerns were the Barrier Types of greatest
frequency. Lab work outside class time, a Subtype of Reading Lab work, was the Barrier Subtype with
the highest frequency. No significant differences at the 95% confidence level occurred between Reading
I and II classes, day and evening classes, or classes taught by full-time or part-time classes.
As a note, ―significance‖ is a statistical term used to describe how sure one is that a difference or
relationship exists. Significant relationships can be strong or weak. Significant differences can
be large or small. Robustness of statistics depends on several factors including design, method,
and sample size. In this analysis, no statistically significant differences between comparison
groups were evidenced at the 95% confidence level.
In most comparisons conducted for this analysis, frequency and percent occurrences are similar
and evidence face validity. In a few cases, both frequency and percent occurrence appear
disparate; however, no comparison resulted in a statistically significant difference. For these
latter comparisons, further research is called for in subsequent analysis.
I. Analysis by Campus
The following Barrier Types were mentioned on all four campuses:
Insufficient reading skills (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 25 times.)
Negative Attitudes (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 24 times.)
Amount/Scheduling of work (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 21 times.)
Reading Lab work (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 20 times.)
Instructor/Instructor policy concerns (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 15
times.)
Study habits/skills (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 13 times.)
Computers (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 11 times.)
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 12
Attention/Focus (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 9 times.)
Although not mentioned at the NEC, Level/Intensity of class work was mentioned 19 times
college-wide.
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 13
Table 1 (found earlier in the document – duplicated here) describes the specific Barrier Types
frequency counts by Campus.
BARRIER TYPES
Total
Count
Campus
MC NEC SEC WC
Amount/scheduling of work 21 7 7 6 1
Attention/focus 9 1 1 4 3
Negative attitudes 24 4 2 8 10
Computers 11 2 4 2 3
Format/scheduling of class
period 8 4 2 0 2
Instructor/instructor policy
concerned 15 2 4 6 3
Reading Lab work 20 9 7 3 1
Level/intensity of class work 19 4 0 11 4
Placement in courses 6 2 0 3 1
Insufficient reading skills 25 8 10 6 1
Readings/textbook 9 2 3 4 0
Study habits/skills 13 5 3 2 3
TOTAL 180
items 50 43 55 32
TABLE 1. Barrier Types with corresponding frequency counts for 180 Reading Barrier Items.
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 14
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 15
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 16
The following Barrier Subtypes were mentioned on each campus:
Lab work outside class time from ―Reading Lab work‖ (mentioned 16 times)
Too much school work from ―Amount/Scheduling of work‖ (mentioned 11 times)
Managing study time from ―Study habits/skills‖ (mentioned 11 times)
Other reading techniques from ―Insufficient reading skills‖ (mentioned 8 times)
Policy or Instructional Concerns from ―Instructor/Instructor policy concerns‖
(mentioned 7 times)
Although not mentioned at NEC, Motivation was mentioned 10 times college-wide, and
although not mentioned at WC, Scheduling time for assignments was mentioned 10 times
college-wide.
No individual Barrier Item was mentioned on all campuses.
BARRIER TYPES BARRIER
SUBTYPES
Total
Count
Campus
MC NEC SEC WC
Amount/ scheduling of
work
21
Too much school work 11 5 3 2 1
Scheduling time for
assignments 10 2 4 4 0
Attention/focus 9
Maintaining focus in class 2 0 1 3 4
Learning disabilities 3 0 1 2 0
Distractions in class 2 1 0 1 0
Negative attitudes 24
Disliking the reading class
(Motivation) 10 1 0 4 5
Zero-level course attitudes 7 1 0 3 3
Disliking to read 4 2 2 0 0
Negative attitude toward
taking a reading class 3 0 0 1 2
Computers 11
Knowing how to complete
assignments online 2 0 0 1 1
Computer skills 4 2 2 0 0
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 17
Blackboard Issues 2 0 1 0 1
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 18
No access to computers
outside of classroom 3 0 1 1 1
Format/scheduling of
class period
8
Problems with 8-week
format 4 4 0 0 0
Problems with 3-hour class
session 4 0 2 0 2
Instructor/ instructor
policy concerned
15
Instructor concerns 8 1 0 5 2
Policy or Instructional
concerns 7 1 4 1 1
Reading Lab work 20
Lab work outside class
time 16 9 4 2 1
Lab uninteresting/waste of
time 3 0 2 1 0
Confusing lab instructions 1 0 1 0 0
Level/intensity of class
work
19
Too hard 6 2 0 3 1
Too easy 9 2 0 4 3
Uninteresting 4 0 0 4 0
Placement in courses 6 2 0 3 1
Insufficient reading
skills
25
Reading with Purpose 9 4 2 3 0
Identifying/Using
vocabulary 6 1 5 0 0
Other reading techniques 8 2 2 3 1
Reading aloud 2 1 1 0 0
Readings/textbook 9
Reading materials 7 1 2 4 0
Misc. textbook issues 2 1 1 0 0
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 19
Study habits/skills 13
Managing study time 4 2 2 3
Retaining content 1 1 0 0
TOTAL 180 items 50 43 55 32
TABLE 2: Subtype Analysis by Campus
II. Reading I versus Reading II Analysis
All Barrier Types were mentioned in both Reading I and Reading II:
Although no statistically significant differences resulted between these two courses (using
Chi Square and a 95% confidence level), Reading I resulted in higher frequency of
Insufficient reading skills mentioned, and Reading II resulted in higher frequency of
Negative attitudes mentioned.
BARRIER TYPES
Total
Count
Reading
I
Reading
II
Amount/scheduling of work 21 9 12
Attention/focus 9 8 1
Negative attitudes 24 7 17
Computers 11 3 8
Format/scheduling of class
period 8 2 6
Instructor/instructor policy
concerned 15 6 9
Reading Lab work 20 11 9
Level/intensity of class work 19 11 8
Placement in courses 6 4 2
Insufficient reading skills 25 15 10
Readings/textbook 9 6 3
Study habits/skills 13 5 8
TOTAL 180 87 93
TABLE 3: Breakdown of Reading I versus Reading II Analysis
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 20
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 21
The following Barrier Subtypes were mentioned in both Reading I and Reading II:
(Differences were not statistically significant)
Amount/Scheduling of work
Too much school work (mentioned 11 times)
Scheduling time for assignments (mentioned 10 times)
Attention/Focus
Maintaining Focus (mentioned 4 times)
Negative attitudes
Disliking reading (mentioned 4 times)
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 22
Zero-level course attitude (mentioned 7 times)
Motivation (mentioned 10 times)
Negative attitude towards reading classes (mentioned 3 times)
Computers
Computer skills (mentioned 4 times)
No access to computers outside of classroom (mentioned 3 times)
Format/Scheduling of class period
Problems with 8-week format (mentioned 4 times)
Problems with 3-hour class session (mentioned 4 times)
Instructor/Instructor policy concerns
Instructor concerns (mentioned 8 times)
Policy or instructional concerns (mentioned 7 times)
Reading Lab work
Lab work outside class time (mentioned 16 times)
Confusing lab instructions (mentioned 3 times)
Level/Intensity of class work
Too hard (mentioned 6 times)
Too easy (mentioned 9 times)
Uninteresting (mentioned 4 times)
Placement in courses
Placement (mentioned 6 times)
Insufficient reading skills
Reading with purpose (mentioned 9 times)
Identifying/Using Vocabulary (mentioned 6 times)
Other reading technique issues (mentioned 8 times)
Readings/textbook
Reading materials (mentioned 7 times)
Identifying/Using Vocabulary (mentioned 6 times)
Misc. reading technique issues (mentioned 8 times)
Study habits/skills
Managing study time (mentioned 11 times)
No individual Barrier Item was mentioned in both Reading I and Reading II.
III. Day and Evening Class Analysis
All Barrier Types were mentioned in both day time and evening classes.
No statistically significant differences occurred for this variable. However, students in day classes
mentioned Amount/Scheduling of work, Level/Intensity of class work, and Study habits/skills
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 23
with higher frequency. Students in evening classes mentioned Instructor/Instructor policy
concerns with higher frequency.
BARRIER TYPES
Total
Count Day Evening
Amount/scheduling of work 21 19 2
Attention/focus 9 6 3
Negative attitudes 24 18 6
Computers 11 9 2
Format/scheduling of class
period 8 5 3
Instructor/instructor policy
concerned 15 10 5
Reading Lab work 20 14 6
Level/intensity of class work 19 17 2
Placement in courses 6 4 2
Insufficient reading skills 25 19 6
Readings/textbook 9 6 3
Study habits/skills 13 12 1
TOTAL 180 139 41
TABLE 3: Breakdown of Day versus Evening Analysis
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 24
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 25
The following Barrier Subtypes were mentioned in both Day and Evening classes:
(Differences were not statistically significant).
Amount/ Scheduling of work
Too much school work (mentioned 11 times)
Attention/Focus
Learning disabilities (mentioned 3 times)
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 26
Maintaining focus (mentioned 4 times)
Negative Attitudes
Disliking reading (mentioned 4 times)
Zero-level course attitude (mentioned 7 times)
Motivation (mentioned 10 times)
Computers
Computer skills (mentioned 4 times)
No access to computers outside of classroom (mentioned 3 times)
Format/Scheduling of class period
Problems with 3-hour class session (mentioned 4 times)
Instructor/Instructor Policy Concerns
Instructor concerns (mentioned 8 times)
Policy or instructional concerns (mentioned 7 times)
Reading Lab work
Lab work outside class time (mentioned 16 times)
Lab uninteresting/waste of time (mentioned 3 times)
Level/Intensity of class work
Too hard (mentioned 6 times)
Too easy (mentioned 9 times)
Placement in courses
Placement (mentioned 6 times)
Insufficient reading Skills
Reading with purpose (mentioned 9 times)
Identifying/Using vocabulary (mentioned 6 times)
Other reading techniques (mentioned 8 times)
Readings/textbook
Reading materials (mentioned 7 times)
Misc. textbook issues (mentioned 2 times)
Study habits/skills
Managing study time (mentioned 11 times)
No individual Barrier Item was mentioned in both Day and Evening classes.
IV. Full-time versus Part-time Faculty Analysis
Most Barrier Types were mentioned in classes with both part-time and full-time faculty.
No statistically significant differences resulted. However, focus groups of full-time faculty
mentioned Amount/Scheduling of work, Reading Lab work, and Study habits/skills with
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 27
higher frequency suggesting practical significance. Further, Level/Intensity of class work
was mentioned with higher frequency by focus groups of part-time faculty.
BARRIER TYPES
Total
Count
Full-Time
Faculty
Part-Time
Faculty
Amount/scheduling of work 21 14 7
Attention/focus 9 6 3
Negative attitudes 24 5 19
Computers 11 6 5
Format/scheduling of class
period 8 4 4
Instructor/instructor policy
concerned 15 5 10
Reading Lab work 20 9 11
Level/intensity of class work 19 4 15
Placement in courses 6 4 2
Insufficient reading skills 25 19 6
Readings/textbook 9 2 7
Study habits/skills 13 8 5
TOTAL 180 66 114
TABLE 4: Breakdown of Full-Time versus Part-Time Faculty Analysis
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 28
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 29
Most Barrier Subtypes were mentioned in classes with both part-time and full-time faculty.
Although not statistically significant, students from classes taught by full-time faculty
reported Too much school work, Scheduling time for assignments, and Managing study
time with higher percent frequency than did students from classes taught by part-time
faculty.
The following Barrier Subtypes were mentioned in both Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty
classes: (Differences were not statistically significant).
Amount /Scheduling of work
Too much school work (mentioned 11 times)
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 30
Scheduling time for assignments (mentioned 10 times)
Negative attitudes
Disliking reading (mentioned 4 times)
Motivation (mentioned 10 times)
Computers
Knowing how to complete assignments online (mentioned 2 times)
Computer skills (mentioned 4 times)
Blackboard issues (mentioned 2 times)
No access to computers outside of classroom (mentioned 3 times)
Format/Scheduling of class period
Problem with 8-week format (mentioned 4 times)
Problems with 3-hour class session (mentioned 4 times)
Instructor/Instructor policy concerns
Instructor concerns (mentioned 8 times)
Policy or instructional concerns (mentioned 7 times)
Reading Lab work
Lab work outside class time (mentioned 16 times)
Lab uninteresting/waste of time (mentioned 3 times)
Level/Intensity of class work
Too hard (mentioned 6 times)
Too easy (mentioned 9 times)
Uninteresting (mentioned 4 times)
Placement in courses
Placement (mentioned 6 times)
Insufficient reading skills
Reading with purpose (mentioned 9 times)
Identifying/Using Vocabulary (mentioned 6 times)
Other reading techniques (mentioned 8 times)
Reading aloud (mentioned 2 times)
Readings/textbook
Reading materials (mentioned 7 times)
Misc. textbook issues (mentioned 2 times)
Study habits/skills
Managing study time (mentioned 11 times)
No individual Barrier Item was mentioned in both full-time and part-time faculty‘s
classes.
Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 31
NEXT STEPS
The following steps are recommended to the reading faculty.
1. Review Complete Reading Focus Group Data--2008.
Barriers to student success in Reading I and Reading II
Percentage of students estimated to be affected by barriers
Student Knowledge needed to overcome barriers
Student Action Strategies used to overcome barriers
Suggested Changes to courses
List of What Works today (definitely do not discontinue these things!)
2. Review persistence barriers from 2008 focus groups and from Reading I & II
classes.
3. Using data analysis findings, develop the intervention(s) for Reading I and
Reading II.
What changes are needed? Which changes will make the greatest positive impact?
Class interventions
Policy changes
4. Implement the intervention(s).
How and when will changes be made? How will changes be communicated?
5. Assess intervention (formatively and summatively) and adapt the intervention.
• Student feedback
• Other formative assessments
• Change in retention
• Change in college-level gateway course success
• Change in graduation rate
• Other summative assessments
Based on assessment results, how will the intervention be modified?
top related