DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 392 488 JC 960 151

TITLE Project SYNERGY: Software Support for UnderpreparedStudents. Year Four Report.

INSTITUTION Miami-Dade Community Coll., FL. Div. of Educational

Technologies.

PUB DATE May 95

NOTE 171p.; For the Year Three report, see JC 960 150; forthe Year Two report, see ED 345 804.

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Collected Works

General (020)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC07 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Community Colleges; *Computer Assisted Instruction;Computer Oriented Programs; *Computer Software;*Computer Software Reviews; *Computer Uses inEducation; Educational Media; *EducationalTechnology; High Risk Students; *Partnerships inEducation; Reading Instruction; Two Year Colleges;Two Year College Students

IDENTIFIERS IBM Corporation; Miami Dade Community College FL;*Project SYNERGY

ABSTRACTWith funds from the International Business Machines

(IBM) Corporation, Project SYNERGY was launched in January 1990 to

address the problem of students deficient in basic skills entering

colleges. Project SYNERGY I focused on i.eviewing and compiling a list

of useful instructional software for basic skills remediation;

Project SYNERGY II focused on software implementation; and Project

SYNERGY III developed an integrated, adaptive, computerizedmanagement system. Twenty-two institutions in the United States and

Canada, led by Miami-Dade Community College (MDCC), participated in

reviewing and implementing computer software for community collegestudents. The first section of this fourth year progress reportsummarizes the software review and development process as of April 1,

1995, indicating that 663 reviews of 364 different software packages

had been conducted. Part 2 presents observations, syntheses, and case

studies concerning software implementation in Project SYNERGY overthe last 5 years, while part 3 describes the Project SYNERGY

Integrator (PSI), an adaptive management system for software used in

the project. Part 4 discusses a 7-year project begun in August 1994

to implement the SYNERGY model in Florida's community colleges,

describing the goals and implementation plan. Finally, part 5

describes the need to provide universal access to instruction,

specifically for students with disabilities. Appendixes include acumulative directory of project participants, a list of softwareattributas and learning objectives, a list of software publishers andreviewed software packages, applications software descriptions, a job

description for a software implementation director, a World Wide Web

address. (TGI)

**************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

oooo

()

a Project

wool

PA

Software Support for Underprepared Students

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

K. Anandam

1111111 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

A

2

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffce of Educatronal Research and 1111proVernent

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFCRMATIONXCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

El Minor changes hai.e been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The use in this document of registered trade names,trademarks, etc. without special acknowledgments does notimply that such names, as defined by relevant laws, may beregarded as unprotected and, thus, free for general use.

This document was produced by M. Carmen Ojeda, MarjorieGross, and Maria C. Benincasa, and cover design was doneby Lee Kline, Miami-Dade Community College.

Copyright 1995 D Miami-Dade Community College

Project SYNERGYSoftware Support

forUnderprepared Students

Year Four ReportMay 1995

JOMiami-DadeCOMMUNITY COLLEGE

Division of Educational Technologies11011 S.W. 104 Street

Miami, FL 33176(305) 237-2551

Miami-DadeCOMMUNITY COLLEGE

Miami-Dade Community CollegeDistrict Board of Trustees

Martin Fine, ChairmanNewell J. Daughtrey, Vice ChairmanLouis Wolfson III, Maria Elena Prio

Barbara A. Ibarra, Christina L. Mendoza, Walter T. RichardsonRobert H. McCabe, President, Miami-Dade Community College District

Miami-Dade Community College is an equal access/equal opportunity affirmative action institution and

does not discriminate because of veteran, marital or handicap status or on the basis of age, sex, race,

national origin or religion.

Dedication

7This report, reflecting the collective work of manyfaculty, staff and administrators over the last fiveyears, is dedicated to Dr. Robert H. McCabe,District President of Miami-Dade CommunityCollege, for his vision, mission and passion inaddressing the national issue of underprepared,college students. He believes that appropriate

institutional support for multi-institutional collaboration, with direct participation of

practitioners who are closest to the issue, will result in a viable and valuable solution.

Project SYNERGY is a testimony to his belief. Dr. McCabe has announced plans to retire

from Miami-Dade Community College in 1995 after thirty years of service to the

College, the last fifteen years as President.

t(303

AcknowledgmentsWe gratefully acknowledge the contributions of individuals and institutions to Project SYNERGY. In

particular...

The International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation for its awards for Project SYNERGY I and II.

The U.S. Department of Education (Title III) for its award for Project SYNERGY III.

The Florida Department of Education for its award for Project SYNERGY IV.

The League for Innovation in the Community College for nurturing inter-institutional collaboration.

The publishers who have provided their software for review.

The publishers who have made (or are making) their software compatible with Project SYNERGY

Integrator.

The staff of IKE (IBM Kiosk for Education) for continuing to post the Project SYNERGY reviews on

their electronic database.

The faculty reviewers, question writers, and administrators of participating institutions and of the five

campuses of Miami-Dade Community College.

The faculty and administrators who have contributed to the Year Four Report.

The faculty and administrators of numerous institutions who have believed in Project SYNERGY and

have encouraged us to move forward.

The six campuses (Bakersfield College, CA; Kirkwood Community College, IA; Miami-Dade

Community College, FL; Montgomery County Community College, PA; Richland College, TX;

University of Tennessee at Martin, TN) which will be serving as the training centers for Project

SYNERGY.

The staff of Educational Technologies at M-DCC for their team effort to make it all happen for Project

SYNERGY particularly, Lome Kotler for organizing and editing this Year Four Report and Victor

Nwankwo for coordinating its software implementation reports.

Dr. Jon Alexiou, Vice President for Education, and the five Campus Presidents: J. Terence Kelly, North;

William M. Stokes, Kendall; Eduardo J. Padron, Wolfson; Tessa M. Pollack, Medical Center; Roy G.

Phillips, Homestead, for their support and encouragement.

Dr. Maxwell King, President, Brevard Community College, for spearheading Project SYNERGY IV and

Mr. Bill Odom, consultant for coordinating that effort.

Miami-Dade Community Colleges Board of Trustees for its commitment to and support for Project

SYNERGY.

iv7

Kama la AnandamProject Director

Table of ContentsIntroduction (Kama la Anandam) 1

Part One: Faculty Development in Evaluating & Creating Curriculum (Lome Kotler) 3

Software Review 3

Mastery Testing 5

Reading (Don Meagher) 6

Writing (Melinda Prague) 7

Mathematics (Norma Agras) 7

Software Development 8

Part Two: Faculty Development in Implementing Software with Students 9

The Challenge of Evaluating Student Outcomes (Victor Nwankwo) 10

"The Students Themselves...": An Interview (Elaine Ludovici) 13

The SYNERGY Environment at North Campus (Gina Cortes-Suarez) 17

Observations about Course Outcomes... (Marlene Cueto) 19

Project SYNERGY Lab Management at North Campus (Lonnie Pollard) 21

Wolfson Campus SYNERGY Center: Then and Now (Joyce Crawford) 23

Starting Up a SYNERGY Center at Kendall Campus (Rose Anne Roche) 24

The SYNERGY Center at Homestead Campus (Carol Dietrick) 26

MDCC Faculty Case Studies 27

ENC 0020 in the SYNERGY Center

Stephanie Packer (North Campus) 2.8

Sandra Castillo (Wolfson Campus) 33

Wendu fo Ward (Wolfson Campus) 35

Judith Schurger (Homestead Campus) 38

ENC 1130 in the SYNERGY Center

Abraham Oseroff (Kendall Campus) 44

Marjorie Sussman (Wolfson Campus) 46

Maria Villar (Wolfson Campus) 48

REA 0002 in the SYNERGY Center

Bob Ashcraft (North Campus) 52

Edward Yeatts (North Campus) 53

1

Azalee Glenn (Kendall Campus) 58

Fred Wolven (Homestead Campus) 60

ENS Courses in the SYNERGY Center

Sharla Jones (Kendall Campus) 65

Elizabeth Wiegandt (Kendall Campus) 68

MAT 0024 in the SYNERGY Center

Ian Cobham (Homestead Campus) 72

The University of Tennessee at Martin SYNERGY Center (Polly Glover) 77

Gwen Shelton (Reading) 79

lenna Wright (Writing) 79

Sharon Robertson (Study Skills) 80

Brenda Lackey (Mathematics) 80

Richland College SYNERGY Center (Lolita Gilkes) 85

Katherine Gonnet (Reading) 85

Joe Mosley (Writing) 88

Indian River Community College (Florida) 90

Okaloosa-Walton Community College (Florida) 91

Part Three: Project SYNERGY Integrator 93

Part Four: Project SYNERGY IV The Florida Model 104

Part Five: The Challenge of Universal Access (Paul Edwards) 107

Conclusion: The Challenge of Institutionalizing Technology (Kama la Anandam) 109

AppendicesAppendix A: Cumulative Directory of Project Participants 113

Appendix B: Software Attributes and I..arning Objectives 126

Appendix C: Publishers and Reviewed Software Packages 137

Appendix D: Applications Software Descriptions 154

Appendix E: Job Descriptions for Software Implementation Director and SoftwareImplementation Assistant 159

Appendix F: World Wide Web 161

vi9

introduction

Kama la Anandam

Project SYNERGY DirectorMiami-Dade Community College

Many a time I've said that Project SYNERGY isthe right project at the right time for the rightreason with the right players who knew at leastsome of the right answers. It is the right projectbecause it is conceived and carried out as acollaborative endeavor; it is for the right reasonbecause it focuses on a national issueunderprepared college students; and it is withthe right players because it involves the facultywho teach the underprepared college students.We chose synergy as the name for our projectsince we believed that the whole is bigger thanthe sum of the parts. As Stephen R. Covey (TheSeven Habits of Highly Effective People) has said,"valuing . . . differences is the essence ofsynergy"; thus, we have endeavored to look at acomprehensive solution and not a consensus,solution. The former allows a variety of ways tocombine human and technological resources,while the latter would restrict such differences.

When we embarked on Project SYNERGY in1990, we recognized that a longtime naggingproblem would require our concerted effortover a long period of time. Five years later, wecan say that we see the light at the end of thetunnel. Each one of the 500* faculty from thirty-two institutions who participated in the projecthas helped the project move forward. Thesection on faculty development throughsoftware review /development and questionwriting reflects the silent contribution of thefaculty located across the country. The hundredor so institutions which have closely followedour progress every step of the way haveencouraged us to maintain the momentum.

IBM, the Federal Government, and the FloridaState Government have sustained our effortsthrough their respective grants.

We recognized early on that technology has adefinite role to play in a comprehensive solutionto address the issue of underprepared collegestudents; but rather than focus on technologyalone, the primary question we chose for ourefforts is: "What combination of human andtechnological resources yields the best resultsand for which students?" A secondary questionmore recently added to our efforts is: "Howshould we intertwine faculty members'personal criteria for their success with theirstudents' and the institution's criteria forstudents' success as measured by their grades?"I am grateful to Elaine Ludovici for articulatingthis question in her interview. The section onsoftware implementation represents our morerecent efrorts toward outcome evaluation at theUniversity of Tennessee at Martin, RichlandCollege, and several colleges in Florida,including Miami-Dade Community College.The signal m?ssage emerging from these effortsis to use formative evaluation as an instrumentfor change and maintain faculty members'internal frame of reference as the focus forreplications of the evaluation studies.

A major contribution of Project SYNERGY is toset in motion a paradigm shift for botheducators and software publishers. In thisparadigm shift, we have stressed the need foreducators to change their focus from instructionto learning and to become more sensitive about

1

the need for accountability; we have alsostressed the need for software publishers toshift their focus from maragement software tolearning software and to expand their efforts togo beyond drill-and-practice software. The toolthat allows and facilitates this paradigm shift totake root is Project SYNERGY Integrator (PSI),an adaptive instructional/learning managementsystem for LAN's (Local Area Networks)developed by Miami-Dade Community College.While separating the management functionfrom instruction/learning, we have included anentirely open architecture in PSI and haveprovided the publishers (commercial and non-commercial) with the requirements to interfacewith PSI. Approximately 400 faculty haveprovided their input for the design of PSIrelative to the interface with faculty (PSICommand Module-PCM) and with students(PSI Access Module-PAM). The section on

Project SYNERGY Integrator describes PSI andgives the timeline for its release. We are gratefulto the following institutions for their willingnessto serve as PSI Training Centers: BakersfieldCommunity College, CA; Richland College, TX;University of Tennessee at Martin, TN;Kirkwood Community College, I A;

Montgomery Community College, PA; andMiami-Dade Community College (NorthCampus), FL.

Although we have concentrated on programsfor underprepared college students (reading,writing, mathematics, ESL, study skills/criticalthinking), PSI can be adapted for otherdisciplines as well. We invite interested parties,institutions, organizations, and softwarepublishers to undertake PSI adaptation forother disciplines and commit ourselves to helpthem in the process.

Part One: Faculty Development inEvaluating & Creating Curriculum

Lorne Kotler

Project SYNERGYFaculty Participation CoordinatorMiami-Dade Community College

Since the inception of Project SYNERGY in 1990,

faculty participants have been directly involvedin reviewing instructional software in reading,writing, mathematics, ESL, and study

skills/critical thinking; producing masteryquestions to test students' competency in the500+ learning objectives in reading, writing, andmathematics; and more recently, designing

illustrative instructional modules in mathe-

matics and whole language. Together theseactivities have contributed enormously to thecontent side of Project SYNERGY's efforts tohelp underprepared college students improve.The activities have also had the increasingly

tangible benefit of promoting faculty

development, thereby expanding teachers'capabilities for using technological resources in

student remediation.

Software Review

As we have reported before, the process of

reviewing instructional (and some diagnostictesting) software in Project SYNERGY has beenhighly systematic, with an emphasis on locating

packages that are currently implemented in an

educational setting. Each on-line softwarereview collects information about hardwarerequirements, learning objectives (see Appendix

B) covered satisfactorily, instructional modes,

and operational reliability and format (seesoftware attributes in Appendix B); it also

solicits open-ended commentary and insights.While the emphasis in this process has been onthe judgment of faculty as content experts,student input has been encouraged wheneverpossible. For the software that is becoming

3

4

compatible with Project SYNERGY Integrator(PSI), we will be able to collect effectivenessdata that show PSI users which lessons areworking in which ways with which studentsand that inform publishers of areas wheremodifications would be appropriate.

As of April 1, 1995, there were a total of 663reviews of 364 software packages in ProjectSYNERGY'S database. Let it be noted rightaway that none of these packages are claimed tobe ideal; rather, they are said to have someuseful applications and some satisfactorilyimplemented learning objectives and softwareattributes. As such, they have provided us witha starting base of instructional modules forunderprepared students, and they will enable

Theresa O'ConnellSoftware ReviewsDatabase Manager

(up totableslonger

us to guide publisherstoward the areaswhere further instruc-tional development isneeded.

In previous reports, weincluded tables thatsynthesized the ProjectSYNERGY softwarereviewers' evaluationsof individual packages

three reviews per package). Because thehave become voluminous, we are noincluding them. We urge readers to

consult either Project SYNERGY SoftwareSelector (PS3) or the IBM Kiosk for Education(IKE) for a cumulative listing of reviewinformation. See Appendix C for a list ofpublishers and their software titles we havereviewed .

PS (Project SYNERGYSoftware Selector)Ps3 is a software program that helps facultymatch up their individualized instructionalneeds with titles of IBM and IBM-comptiblebasic-skills software packa7,es reviewc,c1 inProject SYNERGY. The latest version of PS3includes titles of nearly 350 software packagesin reading, writing, mathematics, ESL, andstudy skills/critical thinking. PS3 is updatedannually.

Using the faculty-developed Project SYNERGYlearning objectives for each discipline, as well asthe software attributes common to alldisciplines, PS3 searches the database todetermine which software titles match theobjectives and attributei selected by the user(see Appendix B for a complete list of objectivesand attributes). With a series of pulldownmenus, the user first sets the criteria for PS3 touse to search the database.

Under User Preference, the user specifies thefol low i ng criteria:

0 Discipline - Reading, Writing, Mathematics,ESL, Study Skills/Critical Thinking.

4

Level of Content Matching - Whole Program,Topics/Subtopics, Individual Objectives.

Computer Environment - Networked, Stand-alone, Either.

Instructional Mode Drill Sz Practice,Tutorial, Simulation, Game, Comprehensiveor Partial Tool.

Minimum Acceptable Objectives ScorePercentage score for objectives"Implemented Satisfactorily."

Minimum Acceptable Attributes ScorePercentage score for objectives"Implemented Satisfactorily."

Under Topics and Objectives, the userspedfies which topics/subtopics or individualobjectives PS3 should search for in selectingsoftware titles. Under Attributes, the userspecifies the weight on a scale of 0-10 togive to each of the software attributes. The usermay also choose to use the default weights,which represent the average of all facultyreviewers who responded that groups ofattributes "Should Be Present."

After the search criteria have been specified, theuser may instruct PS3 to search the database.PS3 will then display a list, ranked bypercentage score for the objectives implementedsatisfactorily, of the software titles that meet theuser's criteria. PS3 can also search the titles inthe database for a match on one or morekeywords. The user may elect to see thecomplete review information for any softwaretitle by clicking on it. That information willinclude the following:

Software: Title, Author, Version, OperatingEnvironment.

Publisher: Name, Address, TelephoneNumbe v(s).

Rroiewer(s) (up to three): Name, Address.

Objectives: For each objective, the number ofreviewers who said the objective is"Implemented Satisfactorily" and thenumber who said it is not.

13

Attributes: For each attribute, the number ofreviewers who said the attribute "ActuallyIs Present" and the number who said it isnot.

PS3 can print the list of matched software, thecomplete review information on any selectedsoftware title, and a complete list of informationon the software publishers.

Miami-Dade Community College now marketsPS3 on a national scale. For information or abrochure, call or write to:

Miami-Dade Community CollegeProduct Development & Distribution

11011 SW 104 St. Miami, FL 33176-3393

(305) 237-2158 Fax: (305) 237-2928

IKE (IBM Kiosk forEducation)Developed and operated by the University ofWashington and funded by IBM, IKE is

accessible via WWW (World Wide Web) andgopher. You can investigate IKE at one of thefollowing addresses:

via www to:http: / / ike.engr.washington.edu / ike.html

via gopher to:ike.engr.washington.edu

You can reach the IKE office by e-mail atike@ike.engr.washington.edu or by telephone

(8:00 am - 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time) at (206)543-5604.

Once you have access to IKE and wish to viewthe Project SYNERGY software reviews, selectHigher Ed software at IKE's main menu. Thenclick on Higher Ed software reviews. Thereviews for all disciplines will appearalphabetically in a single list. Click on any titleto browse the review information, which willinclude title; discipline; review date; number ofreviews (up to three); for each review, a briefsummary of content, date of the review,reviewer name and address, and a briefcommentary; for all the reviews, a synthesis oftopics and objectives covered satisfactorily,instructional modes used, software attributesimplemented satisfactorily, hardware required,and publisher or distributor.

Grassroots ResponseAs we have noted before, faculty believe thatreviewing instructional software for ProjectSYNERGY has been significant in theirprofessional development for several reasons:they have learned to evaluate software (and, bydirect inference, teaching and learning withtechnology) more systematically; theyunderstand better the potentials for usingsoftware with their students; and their staturewithin the institution as developmentaleducators has been enhanced.

Mastery Testing

Faculty teams in reading, writing, and mathe-matics have been writing questions for ProjectSYNERGY Testbank and reviewing them forquality and validity. Additionally, the readingfaculty have been selecting and creating readingpassages upon which some comprehensionque5tions are based, while the writing facultyhave been developing writing topics in place ofcreating questions for learning objectives thatdo not lend themselves to multiple-choicetesting. At the start of this activity in 1992, the

5

14

project team prepared and distributed anextensive set of guidelines and samplequestions for question writers/reviewers tofollow.

Three Discipline Coordinators at Miami-Dade(for reading, Don Meagher; for writing,Melinda Prague; for mathematics, NormaAgras) have been responsible for helpingfaculty authors to reserve objectives for whichto write questions, sending the completed items

out to other question Writers for review, andultimately accepting (or rejecting) the questionsfor Project SYNERGY Testbank. I have beenresponsible for getting the questions and itemsentered into BANQUE, the computerizedtestbank system that will generate mastery testsunder PSI.

As of April 1, 1995, we are two-thirds of theway toward having a minimum of ten questionsper objective (for a total across the tl-ree disci-plines of more than 5,000 items). Questions areclassified in the Testbank according to Diffi-culty Level (low college prep, high college prep,college level) and Thinking Skill (factual, com-prehension, application). To manage the processof reserving, writing, reviewing (twice, if neces-sary), and accepting items, Ed Eisel of the

Don Meagher

project team developeda special computerizedtracking program forthe Discipline Coordi-nators to use in theiroffices; entering of theitems into the actualTestbank is done at theproject team's office.Question reliability willbe verified in theProject SYNERGY Training Centers.

Here are some observations made by theDiscipline Coordinators about the process ofwriting and reviewing questions for the PSITestbank. Their comments highlight facultydevelopment.

Syma WymanTestbank

Database Manager

Reading

Over the last two years, I have enjoyed communicating with a number ofcolleagues from around the country and working with them on the writing oftestbank questions for reading. I have appreciated the time and effort manypeople have put into organizing their expertise into questions that they feeladequately address some of the reading skills important for students tomaster. Each writer seems to have certain reading skills that he or she feels aspecial affinity for and wants to formulate into questions some likevocabulary and word recognition, some like the comprehension skills involvedin identifying main points and organizational patterns, while a few prefer thecritical-thinking skills involved in analysis and interpretation of passages. Ithas been a pleasure working with these writers.

Personally, I have learned a great deal about question writing and about writing in general from myinvolvement with this project. Writing questions for students involves such attention to word choice,clarity of expression, organization, and appearance that I have been forced not only to scrutinize thequestions and passages written by the many writers who have participated in this project, but also tocarefully consider these elements in my own written communication. I think I have become much moreaware of the importance of clarity and precision in my writing to (he question writers and the ProjectSYNERGY staff, as well as to my own students in the course materials and syllabi I prepare for themeach semester.

Thus, the writing, evaluating, and editing of questions and answer choices that this project has requiredand the contacts I have had with colleagues from around the country have been valuable experiences forme, both professionally and personally.

Melinda Prague

WritingAs a coordinator of question writing for Project SYNERGY, it has been myresponsibility to assist faculty in reserving objectives for which to writequestions. Those questions are then sent to faculty for review and ultimatelyaccepted for inclusion in the Project SYNERGY Testbank.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of working as a coordinator has been myinteraction with faculty as close as the North Campus of MDCC to as far away

as Bakersfield College in California. It has been exciting to work with faculty

who are contributing to making Project SYNERGY a success. We share acommon belief that our students will benefit from the integration of teaching

and technology that Project SYNERGY provides.

I have been impressed by the quality and diversity of questions I have received. As the project continues

and we get closer to our goal of ten questions per objective, I feel certain that it will be faculty and

students who will benefit from Project SYNERGY, which promises to provide the best of technology

while keeping that all-important human touch.

Ma t he rn a tics

.

Norma Agras

Recently looking through the list of mathematics objectives, I noticed that as Isought more questions for one of the writers, it became increasingly difficult to

find questions from that writer's "wish list." This, of course, meant one thing:

our Project SYNERGY Testbank was nearing its completion. I accepted this fact

with mixed emotions.

I have been the Discipline Coordinator for the mathematics portion of the

Testbank since its onset. Initially, I expressed a great deal of skepticism aboutthe very purpose of the project. Was technology really the answer to dealingwith our enormous problem of teching underprepared students? I was unsure.

Nevertheless, after several meetrogs with Lorne Kotler and the othercoordinators, my job was underway.

Writing guidelines was my first major task. Once those were completed and sent to the writers, the

coordinating began. It was slow at first. I was often communicating with my writers On the telephone or

by mail, inquiring about their progress, clarifying some objectives, and so on. Questions came trickling

in. I logged them, read them, sometimes edited them, and sent them to reviewers. As time went on,

some writers became more and more proficient at their task. The quality of the questions, in my opinion,

imp roved .

The greatest joy for me has been the opportunity to work with so many different people from such a

variety of places and institutions. I feel as if I have become personally acquainted with these people.

They tell me about their families, their students, their vacations, their frustrations. It is as if I have made

twenty new friends all around the USA. On a more professional level, I have seen, by the process of

writing, revising, and reviewing others' questions, a great deal of improvement in the ability of some of

the writers to interpret objectives and write questions.

Although I am, on the one hand, happy that my work on SYNERGY is almost over, freeing up a great

number of hours for me and thereby enabling me to work on several other projects, I will miss theconversations with the writers, the midnight calls to Lorne Kotler, the frantic messages to Ed Eisel, who

wrote and helped us all maintain our computerized tracking program. I trust that, after so much time

7

IC

and dedication to the task, the Testbank will be something of which Miami-Dade will be very proud andwhich will be instrumental in helping faculty at institutions all over the United States to assessweaknesses and measure progress of developmental students, thereby enabling these institutions toprovide a more student-centered education for our neediest students.

Software DevelopmentAs faculty have reviewed and implementedinstructional software packages, they havebecome keenly aware of what is available anduseful and, throughout the process, have alsoexpressed their dissatisfactions with certaincontent (and gaps therein) and prevalent modesof presentation. While the Project SYNERGYdatabase of software modules has given us ahealthy start toward helping underpreparedstudents, it is neither ideal nor complete.In our dialogues with software publishers andour efforts to articulate what we believe aresome sound pedagogical principles, we havefocused on such issues as the following:

Role of immediate versus delayed feedbackto the student.Use of multiple examples and modes ofpresentation.Provision for learner control of contexts andlevels.

Emphasis on interactive (manipulative)processes.

Inclusion of adaptive sequencing.Attention to the relevance of what we learn.Reliance on self-correcting techniques forthe student.Presentation of a variety of ways to solve aproblem.

Attempting to address these issues, we haveassembled two teams at Miami-Dade to designand develop illustrative PSI-compatible mod-ules one in mathematics and one in wholelanguage.

The mathematics group is focusing its moduleon the learning objective factoring trinomials,with an emphasis on conceptually explainingwhy the objective is being covered and onproviding for easy access to previous and /orrelated topics, user-friendly access to special

math keys, increasing levels of difficulty to"push" the student to think critically, studentinteraction at every phase, access to a scientificcalculator and on-screen scratch pad, guidedhelp, step-by-step answer checking, and avariety of instructional modes to account fordifferent learning styles.The faculty designers are joel Rappaport(Leader, North Campus), Diane Martelly(Homestead Campus), and Alice Wong (NorthCampus). Faculty critique person is Pat Leitch(Medical Center Campus). Instructional designassistance is being provided by Gail Piziali(Director, Center for Teaching Sr Learning);programming, by Al Gonzales (Chemistry SrEarth Science, North Campus).

The whole-language group is focusing on aholistic approach to language instruction andlearning by integrating listening, speaking,reading, and writing. Aiming to have thestudent distinguish the general from thespecific, the abstract from the concrete, themodule will prompt the student to produce oneunified, coherent paragraph with a stated mainidea and relevant support. The module willemphasize the processes that are crucial to theproduction of a piece of writing, be presented inthe context of real-life situations, and beadaptive to promote student interaction.

The faculty designers include me (Leader),Barbara Sussman (College Prep, Medical CenterCampus), Denton Tulloch (Basic Commu-nication Studies, North Campus), and ElizabethWiegandt (International Students Program,Kendall Campus). Faculty critique person isFred Wolyen (English Core, Homestead Cam-pus). Instructional design and programmingassistance will be forthcoming.

Both teams hope to be able to beta test theirmodules this coming Fall Term 1995.

8

Part Two: Faculty Development inImplementing Software with Students

In this section we present observations, syntheses, and case studies concerning softwareimplementation in Project SYNERGY over the last five years.

In "The Challenge of Evaluating Student Outcomes: The SYNERGY Experience at MDCC," VictorNwankwo, Software Implementation Coordinator, highlights factors that facilitate and debilitate theinstitutionalizing of technology. Several MDCC North Campus SYNERGY proponents then talkabout their individual experiences: Elaine Ludovici, in an interview with Kama!a Anandam,discusses her professional evolution through several years as an implementor of software withwriting students; Gina Cortes-Suarez, Associate Dean of Communications, presents her

administrative viewpoint about the campus SYNERGY environment; Marlene Cueto discusses thecourse outcomes of her writing students; and Lonnie Pollard shares his observations aboutSYNERGY lab management. As Associate Dean of the Communications Division at MDCC'sWolfson Campus, Joyce Crawford discusses the progress of Project SYNERGY softwareimplementation from a combined administrative/faculty perspective. Rose Anne Roche describesher experiences in starting up a SYNERGY Center on Kendall Campus. Carol Dietrick shares herthoughts as Lab Manager of the SYNERGY Center on Homestead Campus. The MDCC faculty casestudies, organized by course, follow for all the campuses that have participated. The courses includePreparatory Writing 2 (ENC (X)02), Introduction to English Composition (ENC 1130), College Preparatory

Reading 2 (REA (XX)2), English for Non-Native Speakers (ENS 1443, ENS 1423), and College Preparatory

4lgebra (MAT 0024).

Featured also in this section are progress reports by the University of Tennessee at Martin andRichland College in Dallas on SYNERGY Center activities at their campuses. Finally, we presentoutlines by two community colleges in Florida Indian River and Okaloosa-Walton of theirsoftware-implementation strategies currently underway; we expect to have full papers for our nextProject SYNERGY report.

We once again salute all the Project SYNERGY faculty and administrators who, by their persistence,have demonstrated their capability to harness technology's potentials to help their students. Theyhave recognized that it takes research and replication to bring their students' outcomes as learnerscloser to their expectations for them with the help of technology.

9

IS

The Challenge of Evaluating Student Outcomes:The SYNERGY Experience at MDCC

Victor NwankwoProject SYNERGYSoftware Implementation CoordinatorMiami-Dade Community College

Under the auspices of Project SYNERGY andwith grants from 113M and Title III, a SYNERGYCenter has been established at each of the fivecampuses of Miami-Dade Community Collegeand one each at Bakersfield Community Collegein California, Richland College in Texas, and theUniversity of Tennessee at Martin. Each hasenjoyed varying degrees of success and hasencountered different kinds of problems. Theearliest SYNERGY Center was established in1990 at MDCC's North Campus and the mostrecent one in 1995 at MDCC's Medical CenterCampus. While the hardware/softwareconfigurations have been different at eachlocation, one common thread runs across all theSYNERGY Centers, and that is the evaluation ofstudent c utcomes.

As we examine the end-of-term grades ofstudents using SYNERGY Centers andtraditional labs across semesters and across twoMDCC campuses, North and Wolfson, and aswe work and talk with faculty who use theCenters, Kama la Anandam, Project SYNERGYDirector, and I find that certain characteristicsseem to consistently facilitate or debilitate theinstitutionalizing of technology. We presentthem as follows:

It does take time for an innovation to takeroot in an institutional environment andbecome integrated into its operations.

Faculty need an appreciable amount of time(preferably as release time) and assistanceto understand the instructional softwareand how to integrate it with theircurriculum. Reviewing software is safe andstraightforward; implementing it isintimidating and complex, and there is atendency to fall back into the comfort zoneof the past. What facilitates the implementa-tion is the availability of (1) the SYNERGYCenter for the faculty to explore thesoftware along with their colleagues, (2) aSoftware Implementation Assistant in theCenter to support the faculty, and (3) someuseful quality software. Although thisarrangement could cut into the availabilityof the Center for students' use, it seems tofacilitate faculty involvement.

To complement the above arrangement isthe need to connect computers in facultyoffices to the SYNERGY Center fileserver sothat faculty can explore the software fromtheir own offices.

Since it takes more than one replication torefine the way the SYNERGY Center will beused and provide adequate instructions tostudents, the results of initial studies mayturn out negative.

Evaluation of student performance tends tobe static when the same method ofevaluation is used repeatedly without

10 19

addressing or incorporating what is learnedfrom the new environment and specificallyfrom the software.

It is the students' enthusiasm andmotivation that win the faculty over to staywith the implementation. This processimplies that the faculty get more involvedthe second time around than the first time.Results of some studies bear out this

implication.

Initially, the teacher-controlled classroomstyle is carried over to the SYNERGYCenter, but as faculty progress throughseveral semesters, they seem to let go of theclassroom style and let the students use thesoftware and progress at their own rates.

Selecting and using one piece of softwaretends to be the initial choice of faculty.However, as faculty include more softwareto meet the varied needs of students, thestudent outcomes tend to be better.

The extent of help available as faculty usethe software with their students makes adifference. When they bring their classes tothe Center, they need help. lf, for instance, astudent's screen freezes or the printer doesnot work, on-site assistance is critical.Where it is not available, faculty tend not touse the software.

The more complex the software (as opposedto straightforward drill-and-practice), thelonger it takes for the faculty to understandit fully and use it appropriately. As onefaculty member put it, "Teaching a sectionof the same course as an overload requiresless effort on the part of faculty comparedto exploring new software and integrating itwith their curriculum." This additionaleffort deters faculty involvement.

Whenever possible, it is better to get theauthor or publisher of the software toprovide an in-depth demonstration of itsintricacies and capabilities so that they arenot overlooked by faculty.

Evaluation of student outcomes is

perceived by some faculty as demanding,unnecessary, and in some instances,dictating the curriculum. Working withthose who are willing to overcome theseperceptions and helping them seeevaluation as an instrument for change is awise course.More positive outcomes are usually realizedwhen research design and implementationare faculty driven and oriented.

Financial support for upgradinghardware /software and buying newsoftware is critical to the continued use ofthe Center.More discernible and consistent outcomesemerge from quiet corners of a campuswhere the faculty explore how to improvethe learning environment for their students.

Attempting to improve students' retentionand success rates at the same time hasyielded unexpected results. In some studies,it was observed that when retention rateswere better for the experimental groupsthan for the control groups, the reverse wastrue for success rates.Term boundaries have a debilitating effecton the students who can progress faster andon those who need more time than a termto complete a course successfully.

It is not easy to sustain the experimental-control group design since faculty may notbe assigned two sections of the samecourse, may choose to use the SYNERGY

Center for all their sections, or may teachdifferent courses from one semester toanother.Faculty seem to have varying criteria forassigning a "U" (or "Unsatisfactory") grade.Some prefer not to use it at all.

By their choice, over time, faculty use theSYNERGY Center more for ENC 0020 andREA 0002 than for other courses. From aninstitutional perspective, the use of

11

SYNERGY Centers by faculty, whether theyengaged in evaluation studies or not, seemsto have yielded better results for ENC 0020than for REA 0002 in terms of retention andsuccess. However, when the results forREA 0002 are examined for those facultywho engaged in evaluation studies, theirresults are positive.There seems to be a difference in students'performance between Fall and Winter termsat North Campus.

As faculty continue to use the SYNERGYCenters, they become concerned aboutdifferentiating the students who can benefitbest from technology-aided instruction.Some are considering "locus of control" asthe measure to use to make the differentia-tion. Concurrently, there is an increasingrecognition of the need to diagnosestudents' difficulties and prescribe anindividualized program for each student.

For descriptions of software packages used by Miami-Dade Community College facultyin their case studies, see Appendix D of this report.

12 21

"The Students Themselves...": An Interview

Elaine Ludovici has taught writing courses at Miami-DadeCommunity College, North Campus, for the past 20 years.She served as Coordinator of the Basic CommunicationStudies Writing Lab for 15 years and currently teaches in theEnglish Department. She holds a B.A. and an M.A. in English(Clarion University, 1972 and 1974 respectively) and hascompleted some post-graduate classes in EducationAdministration at the University of Miami

As a long-time advocate of the SYNERGY Center and as a teacher of both coliege-prep and freshmancomposition, Elaine Ludovki shared her thoughts in an interview with Karnak Anandam inFebruary-1995.

Kama la Anandam: Elaine, I know that you havebeen using the SYNERGY Center since Januaryof 1991. That makes it more than four years.You have been consistent and persistent inusing the Center. Could you tell us what yourmotivation has been?

Elaine Ludovici: Simply stated, I liked what washappening in my classroom. Learning becamestudent centered; the students became moreactive. The energy in the electronic classroomwas . . . is stimulating! Students work collabora-tively on the hardware and the softwareon their compositions in progress, on theproofing and editing process (not necessarily inthht order, of course). In addition, I am able towork more closely with students while theywrite, while they study, while they take notes,and even while they are taking an exam.

However, my biggest motivation is the studentsthemselves. Every semester, in both the classassessments which I administer throughout theterm and in the Student FeedbackQuestionnaires administered through theTeaching/Learning Center, students oftenrequest that we spend more time writing oncomputers. My ENC 1091 students frequentlyclaim that CSR is one of their favoritecomponents of the course because, as onestudent reported, "it was able to address somegrammar skills that the teacher was not able tocover in the classroom." And another student

commented, "CSR explains in more detail theskills we are covering in class." (See AppendixD for Descriptions of Software Applications.)

Kamala: Do you conduct your class there? Orsend them to the lab? Or do both?

Elaine: All of the above, Kamala. All of myclasses are scheduled to meet twice a week, oneday in the regular classroom and one day in theelectronic classroom.

In ENC 1130, which is primarily a writing class,I have tried everything. I've had studentscompose on the word processor; I'veexperimented with Realtime Writer, and I'veintegrated grammar modules into thecurriculum. Today, I have been using the labprimarily to supplement classroom instructionin that course. After I introduce them to thesoftware, students spend some class timeworking on the CSR tutorials, but invariably,they will have to do most of the work on theirown time.

In ENC 1091, which is primarily grammar,approximately one-fifth of their grade dependson how many tutorials they've completed onCSR. Although some class time is allotted forCSR, students spend anywhere from ten totwenty hours outside of class time in the lab.

In my 1091 night class, we meet in the lab at thebeginning of the period and then walk over tothe regular classroom. And that's when we

have the best follow,. up, because they'veworked on a tutorial, and I've been able toobserve firsthand their trouble with certainquestions. So I suggest they copy the questionfor class discussion, and we're able to address itin the classroom. By spending time with mystudents in the lab, I've also been able to singleout individuals who are having learningdi fficul ties.

Kamala: By being present in the lab with yourstudents, are you saying that you were able toobserve their study habits?

Elaine: Exactly, and it is wonderful! Often I findthat students are not aware of their own studybehaviors they are not aware that their lowscores may be a direct result of their notreading the whole paragraph, not looking at thewhole picture. When I point this out to them,their whole attitude seems to change.

Kamala: That kind of faculty interventionresulting from observation is not documentedwell and is, for the most part, overlooked. Isthat what you are saying?

Elaine: Yes. And I guess I want to remind somepeople that computers can never take the placeof a warm body. I've never been one to plugstudents into a machine and leave them. Ifanything, working in the SYNERGY Center hashelped bring me closer to my students.

Kamala: I gather from your observation that theSYNERGY Center has impacted you as ateacher? Is this true?

Elaine: Oh yes, definitely. I see my students inthe learning process more. And I can makedifferent kinds of observations, not just aboutEnglish, but about the way they approach aspecific task. I, then, become more of a guide.

Kamala: Could you go back to when you gotstarted? How did you feel then? How do youfeel about your use of the SYNERGY Centernow? Remember, we talked about an internalframe of reference for using technology. Canyou share your feeling with us in the context ofyour own perspective?

14

Elaine: Well, I remember in the first semester ofmy research, I sent students to the lab andcontinued teaching the course with little if anychanges in my curriculum. As far as I wasconcerned, the students would have tocomplete their CSR modules on their own time!But something happened to me by the end ofthe semester. During our regular class time,students began to ask questions about whatthey were working on in the lab. When I wascovering how to punctuate restrictive andnonrestrictive clauses, a student asked, "Is thatthe same as essential and non-essentialelements?" the terminology used in CSR.Eventually, students began stopping by myoffice more frequently, some to discussproblems, but many to tell me they had scored100% on their last test. Their enthusiasm wascontagious and, for the first time, I wassincerely hooked and determined to share intheir experience. I wanted to teach in the lab.

Kamala: At the beginning you were in the BasicCommunication Studies Department and taughtENC 0020. Then you switched departments;now you're teaching higher-level Englishcourses, like ENC 1090 and 1130. What are yourobservations in terms of the appropriateness ofthe SYNERGY Center for these differentcourses?

Elaine: It's interesting because even though thecourses are different, the students have similarneeds. They need to be challenged. They needto be actively involved in the learning process.ENC 1130 is a transition course between ENC0020 and ENC 1101. In fact, ENC 0020 studentsare required to complete ENC 1130 prior toenrolling in ENC 1101. ENC 1091 was designedfor students preparing for the grammar portionof the state CLAST exam, but many studentswho have failed ENC 1130 or ENC 1101 flock tothis course. For the CLAST-preparationstudents, I have aligned the tutorials with theCLAST competencies. This is where CSR seemsmost appropriate because after they finish thecourse, they will not be writing an essay toassess their skills. They'll be taking a test muchlike the tests they've completed on CSR. The

23

bottom line is that while the software availablein the SYNERGY Center is not the answer to allof their needs, it is certainly a beginning.

Kama la: How does their performance measureup? There must be some way to evaluatestudent outcomes besides their feelings ofsatisfaction. Is there some benchmark you keepto know their performance is improving?

Elaine: I guess you have most of the statisticson that, but I believe you'll find higher passingrates at the upper levels. In ENC 1130, I givethem a diagnostic essay on the first day of class,and at the end of the term, they have adepartment exam a 60 minute, in-class essayscored holistically by two other readers.

In ENC 1091, students are assessed in a varietyof ways. They are pre- and post-tested on CSR.They are given quizzes and tests covering theirtextbook assignments. To ensure skill transfer,both sentence-combining exercises and journalwriting are evaluated.

Kama la: You don't always observe positiveresults in terms of students' dropout andsuccess rates. We have found that to be true inENC 0020. I really haven't looked at your datafor ENC 1091 and ENC 1130. How does thisaffect you as a teacher?

Elaine: I suppose the answer to that depends onhow one defines "positive results." If a studentdid not master all the skills necessary to moveon to the next level, but did master some ofthem, then certainly that's positive, isn't it?Perhaps all that some students need is a littlemore time. Sometimes I feel our students arecaught up in an inflexible time system; itdoesn't allow them to work at their own pace.

Rather than getting discouraged at the end ofthe day, or at the end of a particular term, Iremember the discerning words of one of myown college professors: "If I've touched onestudent, I've done my job." So if my offeringthis kind of eclectic approach to the learningprocess has helped one student, I've done myjob!

Kama la: You are saying that there are two sidesto success. One is tangible, such as grades and

dropouts, and the other is the intangibles, suchas helping students become better learners.

Elaine: Yes, but in addition, I am saying thatthere are a lot more variables involved. Gradesand test scores do not necessarily reflect astudent's true ability. In our Englishcomposition courses, including ENC 0020 andENC 1130, students are required to write afour- to five-paragraph essay in sixty minutes.At least this was the case during the time of myresearch. Would the results have been the sameif the students had not been timed? Would thequality of their final drafts have been the same?Not all students perform well under timedconditions. Similarly, there are other variablesto consider when analyzing the dropout rate.For one thing, not all students drop a coursebecause of a hard teacher or because the work istoo difficult. Many, particularly in our inner-city environment, drop out because of personalpressures. Seldom does research acknowledgeor follow up on this.

Kama la: If that is success, and I accept it, howcan we make known that we don't look atgrades alone? How could we make a case sothat there is more to success than just thegrades?

Elaine: That's a good question for which I haveno answer, except to say that this is somethingfaculty need to address, the qualitative side ofassessment.

Kama la: But the reality is, we do have semestersand we do have grades. We probably need tospend some time as a group to discuss what, infact, should be the criteria for success, thequalitative and quantitative aspects ofassessment and how to measure them, and howto present them. Do you agree?

Elaine: In the portfolio ?rocess for facultyadvancement, faculty have to demonstrate thattheir students have learned. Pre- and post-testing, therefore, seems to be a logical place tostart. Is it, however, the sole measurement? Ithink not, and I think at Miami-Dade, at least, afaculty committee could address this issue aspart of the teaching/learning process.

Kama la: Let me see, What else would I like toask you at this time? I know you have greataspirations as a teacher to help your students:what is your perception of technology andresearch in fulfilling your aspirations? Do theyhelp you? Do they hinder you? Do they doboth? And when do they do each?

Elaine: Technology has enhanced personalizedinstruction. It has helped me to individualize, towork one-on-one. It has helped me in creatinglesson plans and activities that are meaningfulto the students. In that respect, it has helped tokeep me focused and organized. It has helpedme to give more control to my students, to givethem more responsibility in daily activities. Myclassroom is much more student-centered.

At the same time, technology and research havenot been without problems. Both create morework: training and experimenting with newhardware and software; planning lessons usingnew technology such as the LCD screen;planning lessons on Realtime Writer (usingdifferent features on Realtime, such as theteacher window, meant more work and moretime); creating new activities for the software;re-creating old activities to better fit theelectronic environment.

Another adjustment is the coordination with thelab staff. Once I get my teaching assignmentfrom my department, I must coordinate myassignment with the lab staff; prepare a labsyllabus each term for the lab manager and relyon the lab staff to see that my request isprogrammed properly; meet with the labmanagers and tutors to discuss course goals,expectations, role definitions, etc.; coordinatelab policies and procedures with my own; in theevent of an absence, make sure a substitute canhandle it for me; revise course outlines eachterm based on research outcomes; if a classdoesn't make, coordinate a new class or have an"extra" preparation teach one section withcomputers and one without.

With so many problems, so many adjustments,why do I continue? What the research doesn'tshow is the freshness in the classroom, thechange in atmosphere. Before students

appeared bored; they would stare at me or theboard, but few would even take notes. Nowstudents are more active and more inquisitive.As they read through software, they are notafraid to challenge its correctness. As theycompose, they question the order of theirpresentations and revise.

Kamala: And, of course, it's more frustratingwith technology, when something goes wrong.I'm sure that has happened to you.

Elaine: Oh, yes, because when it does happen,you realize that you are not in complete controlover your domain. Sometimes the technologymay be fine, but because of a communicationproblem between the teacher and the lab staff,your lesson plan is not ready. I suppose that'swhen you're truly challenged as a teacher and aleader because you must carry on you can'tjust cancel class. (Anybody who relies ontechnology that much probably shouldn't beusing it!)

Kamala: In general, let's try to change the focusfrom the SYNERGY Center, per se, and yourcurriculum, and think about the largerenvironment, the departmental environment,the institutional environment. What kinds ofthings in these environments help you, supportyou, when you attempt to use technology?

Elaine: Without the support from theadministration, from the department level tothe associate dean and above, I don't think Iwould have continued my work in theSYNERGY Center. From the very outset of myresearch, they were very encouraging. I wasgiven some time to get familiar with thesoftware and design my research; then duringmy research, I was given the technical support Ineeded. I was always reminded particularlyby the original SYNERGY staff that I was incharge. That is, I could make any changes that Ifelt were necessary to meet my students' needs.After all, it was, indeed, my class, andultimately my design. Hence, the formativeevaluation was flexible my students alwayscame first.

I also appreciated having the technical supportwhile I was teaching. The staff was so quiet,

almost invisible, but when I needed them, theywere right there, taking care of any technicaldifficulties. I think Victor [Nwankwo] andElizabeth [Sotolongol spoiled me. They were atough act to follow.

As more and more faculty begin to teach in theelectronic classroom, there seems to be a greaterneed and appreciation for administrativesupport. Without more hardware and software,without more lab personnel, and without moreprep time for faculty, it will be almostimpossible to meet the growing needs of bothstudents and faculty.

Kama la: One final question: if you were givenyour choices, what would be your top priorityto make things better :or you?

Elaine: For one, released time for training sothat I can get more familiar with some of the

software and revise some lesson plans to betterfit the electronic environment. Second, morecomputers so that more faculty could teach inthe electronic classroom. Right now We arerunning into schedule problems. The demand isgreater than the supply.

Kama la: Project yourself into the future, if youwill, and tell us what you envision.

Elaine: I really am far from being a computer"techie," but I would love to be given theopportunity to work with multimedia and toexperiment with teaching ENC 1101, forexample, from my home. Then, from theirhomes, or from a school computer, all of mystudents could log on at the same time.

Kama la: On that positive note, let us end thisinterview. Thank you for your time.

The SYNERGY Environment at North Campus

Gina Cortes-Suarez is Associate Dean of the Division ofCommunications at Miami-Dade Community College, NorthCampus. She has been with Miami-Dade for 17 years. Shehas a B.A. in Elementary Education and an MS. inMulticultural Education/Linguistics from the University ofMiami.

in The Beginning

"The SYNERGY Center at North Campus wasestablished in June 1990. At the time, thecampus was looking for a setting where facultycould experiment and use technology in waysthat would enhance the instructional program.The original plan was to make this amultidisciplinary effort under the auspices ofthe campus' Center for Teaching and Learning.Several faculty members in our division becamevery involved in the review of software,experimentation, teaching, and researchactivities in the SYNERGY project. I think theirenthusiasm was driven partly by the fact that it

was our first opportunity to use computers inthe classroom in a formal way.

It became quite evident after the second yearthat almost every faculty member involved withthe SYNERGY Center was from our division.Therefore, the campus administration decidedthat the lab would be placed under mysupervision. After one semester we realizedthat this was not the best way to manage thelab. It was obvious that it needed to be placedwithin an academic department. Thus, it wasadded to the lab program within the BasicCommunication Studies Department, reportingdirectly to the department chairperson. This, inmy opinion, was a sound decision since it

allowed the SYNERGY Center to become anintegral part of the instructional program forunderprepared students.

In this regard, the department chairperson atthe time, Dr. Michaela Segall, became a keyperson. She played a major role in the beginningphases of the lab's implementation. She wasmost instrumental in creating an environmentwhich both encouraged and sought facultypartdpation in all curricular decisions whichinvolved the lab and its effect on the classroom.The department created an advisory committeeto the SYNERGY Center. This advisory bodyworks closely with the Lab Manager, LonniePollard. It continues to be an important aspectof the labs' operation as it involves itself withthe lab's hardware, software, and other issuesrelevant to the teaching/learning process. TheLab Manager is a member of the advisorycommittee.

An AdministrativePerspectiveThe management and implementation of theSYNERGY Center requires a great deal ofcoordination and support. The lab is not simplyan appendix to the department; it is integral tothe total program. To support the department'smission of teaching underprepared students,the lab engages in ongoing classroom research.One aspect of this research is conducted byfaculty and the other more informal research iscarried out by the lab staff. The tutorial staff inthe lab is another important factor that adds toits success. Tutors assigned to the lab arespecifically trained for the role. They must havegood knowledge of the software in the lab aswell as have the skills necessary to tutorstudents in reading and writing.

The SYNERGY Center has made a majorcontribution in the delivery of the requireddouble-contact hours in college-prep courses.This lab now plays an important role inproviding instruction to students outside of thetraditional classroom. Students utilize theservices provided by the lab through facultyreferrals and /or by attending during open lab

hours. We also have a number of faculty whoteach in the lab; this group has grown steadilyas more and more faculty are familiarized withthe technology and software. It also continuesto be a testing ground for new software andcomputer-assisted instructional strategies.

During the summer of 1994 the BasicCommunication Studies Department faced amajor challenge. That challenge was to come upwith a more cost-effective way to deliver thesame program without compromising itsquality. With theleadership of MelvinSmith, the presentdepartment chair-person, and a talentedcommittee of facultycomprised of SusanOrlin, DonaldMeagher, and MarleneCueto, a design wascreated that allowed for maximum use of theparaprofessional staff and labs. In this newinstructional delivery design, the SYNERGYCenter became a central theme and focus for thedepartment's computer-assisted instruction.The lab continues to have a dual role. It is usedas an open lab, as well as a classroom by facultywho elect to teach in the lab.

Melvin Smith

The FutureIn retrospect, I believe that several factors havecontributed to the SYNERGY Center's evolutionfrom a departmental add-on to an incorporatedpart of the classroom experience. These havebeen faculty involvement in the process, an on-going review of resources, open lines ofcommunication, and finally a tremendousamount of support. We continue to search forlottter ways to implement the programs, seeknew ideas, and of course, the never-endingneed for additional resources keeps us at aconstant vigil.

Our plans for the future include the expansionof the existing facility. This would allow us toincrease the number of workstations anddiversify the use of the space in order toaccommodate more classes. We will continue to

18

27

review our software and hardware needs. Weare seriously considering the addition of severalmultimedia stations and a multiplatformenvironment. With the beginning of the FallTerm of 1995, we will be involved in the

piloting of Project SYNERGY Integrator (PSI)

and have been selected to serve as a beta site forits implementation. We are looking forward tothe new challenges and innovation that thisparticipation will bring to our faculty and staff.

Observations about Course Outcomes forMy College-Prep Writing Students

Marlene Cueto has taught in Basic Communication Studi,Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus, as anadjunct since 1988 and fulltime since 1992. She has a B.A. in

English from Florida International University and an MS. in

Education from Nova University.

It is difficult to analyze or try to find reasons forvariations of course outcomes in terms ofgrades and the holistically scored departmentexam. Some of the contributing factors are theway I use the "U" (or "Unsatisfactory") grade,my changes in course requirements throughoutthe years and the many variables I can't controlor even begin to explain. However, I have madeseveral observations. First, I have spent aconsiderable amount of time revising the labassignments, the directions, the time allotted foreach and so on. How I present the task, the time

give for completing it and the assistance I offermake a huge difference in whether or notstudents will complete an assignment and howwell they perform. Obviously, I have mademistakes, and I am now making changes andimproving in those areas which have caused thedifficulties for the students, the staff and me.

Second, I have noticed that when I spend timein the lab with my students during my officehours, their attendance is high; studentscomplete their assignments and are morepositive toward the lab. During the six-weeksummer term I have fewer sections, so I am ableto allot the time; perhaps because of myincreased time in the lab, as well as the fact that

I allow students more flexibility and time forthe assignments, the performance of the six-week sections has been quite successful. DuringSummer Term 1992, 75 percent of the studentswho took the department exam passed and 70percent passed the course with an "S" (or"Satisfactory") grade; during Summer Term

1993, 94 percent of the students who took thedepartment exam passed and 59 percent passedthe course with an "S" grade.

Third, some of the course outcomes (grades) aremisleading because I have not droppedstudents but instead assigned a "U" grade tono-shows, students who stop attending orstudents who do not complete all the courserequirements for a "P" (or "Progress") or "S" asindicated in the course syllabus. For instance,during the Winter Term 1993 (92-2), the resultsof the five sections I taught were above thedepartment average. The section using theSYNERGY Center (sequence #36160) had thehighest course passing rate and the highestdepartment-exam passing rate. This section hadboth high- and low-level students. Furthermore,of the "U" grades assigned to the section usingcomputers, two were no-shows and one was astudent who stopped attending. Therefore, only

one student of those remaining truly received a"U" grade. It is important, however, for me tonote that all sections during the 92-2 termscored considerably high on the departmentexam.

In Fall Term 1993 (93-1), all sections wereassigned to the SYNERGY Center. Of the five

sections, two fell below the department averagepassing rate of 57 percent for that semester.Although the success rate appears low due tothe final grades, it is a little misleading. Forinstance, sequence #211(X) had only sixteenstudents remaining in the course. Of thesesixteen, 62 percent passed the course. Of thefour "U" grades, one was a no-show and two

Table IGrade Distribution for ENC 0020

Term Sequence Group N S P U W Other92-1 21085 S(C) 26 . 35% 35% 19% . 12%

92-2 36160 S(C/L) 22 73% 5% 18% 5%

36185 S(C/0) 21 67% 24% 10%

36140 T 23 65% 26% 9%

36155 T 26 58% 27% 8% 8%

36195 T 21 57% 29% 10% 5%

93-1 21175-

S(L).

20 35% 50% 15%21150 S(L) 22 46% .18% 18% 18%.

21125 S(L) 23 52% 30% 13% 4%21100 S(L) 21 48% 24% 19% 9%

21060 5(1.) 20 70%. 20% 10%

93-2 36710 S(L) 25 44% 36% 16% 4%

36185 S(L) 27 440/ 30% 15% 11%

36190 S(L) 26 46% 12% 23% 19

36205 S(L) 23 26% 30% 390/0 4

36245 S(L) 18 28% 22% 44% 6%

S=SYNERGY Group T.Traditional Group

assigned to students who stopped attending.Another example is sequence #21150. Of thefour "U" grades, one was a no-show and threewere assigned to students who stopped attend-ing. Only fourteen students remained by theend of the term. Of these fourteen, 71 percentpassed the course. However, sequence #21175had the lowest passing rate for that semester35 percent. Looking at the students' records forthat term and comparing sequence #21175 andsequence #21060, which had a passing rate of 70percent, I noticed only a few subtle differences.Sequence #21175 had five students who wereattempting college prep for a second or thirdtime; a few were ESL or learning disabled, yetmost completed their work and had satisfactoryattendance. On the other hand, sequence #21060

C=Class L=Scheduled Lab 0=Open were

had mostly first-time college-prep studentswhose skills were much stronger at thebeginning of the term. Only two students wereattempting college prep a second or third time,a few students were recommended to ENC1101, and there were no withdrawals. It ispossible that the students' success skill level atthe beginning of the term plays a role in thestudents' outcome (final grade) during thatterm. However, further research in this areawould be necessary before drawing anyconcl usions.

Two of the five sections during Winter Term1994 (93-2) fell below the department exampassing rate of 57.5 percent. All five sectionswere scheduled in the SYNERGY Center.

However, once again the results are misleading.In sequence #36190, three of the six "U" gradesbelonged to students who had stoppedattending. Two of the eight "U" grades insequence #36245 were also for students whohad stopped attending. Two of the four "U"grades in sequence #36185 were for no-shows.Finally, of the nine "U" grades assigned tosequence #36205, one was for a no-show andthree were for students who stopped attending.A little less than half of the students in all fivesections were attempting college prep for asecond or third time.

It appears that regardless of the lab setting, thetime of day, the tutors, or the teacher, certainsections simply perform better than others do. Ireally believe that more emphasis needs to beplaced on the type of assignments, thedirections, the time allotted and the flexibilityoffered to students in terms of the tools forlearning. In offering all choices to all students,we may discover that technically inclinedstudents may perform significantly better usingthe computer, while students who learn betterusing a traditional method will benefit greatlyfrom that approach.

Project SYNERGY Lab Managementat North Campus

Lonnie Pollard has been Director of the Basic

Communication Studies Computer Learning Center,Miami-Dade Community C. liege, North Campus, sinceAugust 1993. He has a unique combination of extensiveexperience with data communications, computer operatingsystems, software, and hardware; work as an adjunctinstructor; and independent study in the humanities. He

holds an A.S. in Electronics Technology and an A.A. inComputer Science from Miami-Dade and a B.S. in ComputerInformation Systems from Barry University, Miami, Florida.

The Basic Communication Studies (BCS)

Computer Learning Center (a Project SYNERGYLab) unites humans with technology such thatthe total effect on students is greater than thesum of the individual effects. The humanelement is crucial to the lab's success, and this iswhere we concentrate much of our efforts.Because many students are fearful of thetechnology, we go to great lengths to put themat ease. The orientation gives us our firstopportunity to make the students feel that thelab is an inviting and nonthreatening place todevelop their communication skills. I plan theorientations keeping in mind that we don'texpect the students to know anything aboutcomputers. We walk them through the stepsand work with them as much as is needed. We

21

t

want the students to concentrate on developingtheir reading/writing skills, not on worryingabout their computer literacy. We continuouslystrive to structure the technology around thestudents instead of the students around thetechnology. The network is only one of manyelements of the lab as a whole.

We are in relentless pursuit of integratingcomputers into the educational process. Likehammers and power saws, computers aremerely tools, albeit enormously valuable tools.They can enhance the educational process, butcan no more replace people than did thetextbook. Their potential to aid automation isenormous, but it would be a mistake to divorcepeople from this automation. People are very

30

important to us; many people have contributedto the development of our lab and I cannotpossibly give due thanks in so short a space.

Though I am indebted to all instructors in BCS,there are four that I am especially indebted tofor their assistance and advice in sculpting thislearning environment. They are Marlene Cueto,Karan Barnes, Don Meagher, and Susan Orlin.The support of these instructors has beenessential to our growth. They've helped me givebirth to what now seems more a living entitythan a mere lab. I am also thankful to beworking alongside the BCS support staff. Ofspecial mention is the invaluable assistance ofMargarita Sastre, who has been in full supportof us from the very beginning.

Getting the level of performance that I want hasmeant my having to assemble the best staffpossible. I seek driven and energetic individualswho care about their work and are able to workwell with others. I expect a lot from my staff,and they never stop delivering.

Daniel Ramos is ournetwork specialist, andhis knowledge ofNovell Netware isphenomenal for aperson of his youth.Though our equipmentis antiquated, he works

Daniel Ramos his magic on themachines and makes

the most of them. It seems that not a day goesby that he doesn't find a way to make someoperation easier for the students, find a way tocut costs, find a way to make things moreefficient, or find a way to improve networkperformance. He has been invaluable in thedevelopment of our present networkenvironment.

In the evenings, I need aperson who combineshuman relation skills,management skills,technical ability, andthe ability to maintaingrace while under pres-sure. Paul Blanchard is

Paul Blanchard

22

that person, and he is the evening monitor. Ileave for the evening knowing that the lab is ingood hands.

I pride myself on the tutors that I have obtainedsince coming to BCS. They are central to thedevelopment of a learning environment thatfacilitates the interface of students totechnology. Our target is the ultimate learningenvironment, and it is only with tutors such asthe ones we have that we will realize that end.The tutors have excellent knowledge of thereading/writing skills and have been trained towork in harmony with the network for a trulysynergistic effect. These tutors have includedChristina Santiago, Arlene Rudder, BernardeeWarburton, Marsha Warburton, Clause! Renoit,Peter Smith, Mohammad Awan, and KairyWalker. I could not think of our lab as a"Learning Center" without tutors of theircaliber.

Running a center such as ours involves a rangeof demands that is multifaceted. Not only mustwe manage the center, much like any traditionaltutoring center, but we must also handle a widerange of additional demands. We must managethe network, including installing andmaintaining all network components, and wemust administer the network operating system.We have a limited number of workstations, andit is crucial that we keep all of them operating,so we repair all hardware failures ourselves,thus significantly reducing downtime. (Werepair most stations within an hour.) We installand maintain all software, including resolvingsoftware conflicts. We optimize thenet-work/hardware/software to squeeze peakperformance out of what equipment we'. dohave. We not only must innovate, but must doso under tight financial constraints. We mustprotect the network from virus invasion. Eachsemester we must create all classes within theclassroom-management software, add allstudents into the network, enter the studentsinto each of their classes, enter the students intoeach of the tutorial programs, and enter in theneeded modules for each student. We have hadto become highly knowledgeable not only aboutthe module-management software for each ofthe programs, but also about the programs

31

themselves, so that we can pick modules thatare appropriate to the needs of individualstudents. The tutors have had to learn how towork as a supplement to the tutorial programs,and how to assist while remaining unobtrusive.

There seem to be as many approaches toteaching as there are teachers, so we customizearound all instructors as well as we can. Wemust remain flexible and work with thestudents according to the needs of eachinstructor. We must gather information andfeedback from the instructors so that we areable to work in synch with them and findimproved ways of serving our support function.We produce forms and handouts that help thestudents operate the programs and that help theinstructors understand what programs andmodules are available.

Technical expertise should reside within thelabs; by having technical expertise we are betterable to put the students at ease with thetechnology and keep them focused ondeveloping their skills. Students feel more atease having technical people standing by at alltimes to rescue them from trouble. It is notuncommon to have to use utility programs tosave a student's files, or to have to save a

student's present file to the network (such aswhen a floppy drive stops functioning), andthen to copy the student's file to his or her diskat another station. Bailing students out ofdifficulties is just a normal part of day-to-dayoperations. Sometimes the network crashesduring a class or lab session, and we moveimmediately to putting it back in operation.

Although my extensive technical background,experience in education, and other relatedexperience have all served me well in mycapacity as director, not having completemastery of the writing and grammar skills is theAchilles heel I struggle ceaselessly to overcome.Once I have full knowledge of the subject, I willfeel fully equipped to lead the center to a wholenew level. Writing new software tutorials willbe one key item and one of the biggest needs forour future. I am pleased with our past results,and I look forward to the future and what wecan make of it.

I close by thanking Gina Cortes-Suarez, MelvinSmith, and Michaela Segall for the support thatthey have given us. I also thankKama la Anandam, Victor Nwankwo, andLorne Kotler for the support that they havegiveri us from Project SYNERGY.

Wolfson Campus SYNERGY Center:Then and Now

Joyce Crawford is Associate Dean of the School ofCommunication at Miami-Dade Community College,Wolfson Campus. She has been with Miami-Dade for 17years. She has a B.A. in English Education from FloridaAtlantic University and MS. degrees in English

Communication and Reading, both from FloridaInternational University. She also has an Ed.D. in Curriculum& Instruction from the University of Florida.

From the ',Try beginning, I felt that having aSYNERGY Center would be the start of a dreamcome true. Since using the Center, I havewitnessed individual student accomplishmentsof mastering course objectives and have seenthose students move forward with their owndreams. However, we have not been able to

amass an overwhelming record of studentsuccess and teacher endorsement, primarilybecause of lack of confidence in the software.

To many teachers, the available softwareprograms seemed to turn into giant labyrinthswhich trapped students with no exit. Of course,

the students became frustrated and so did theteachers. In fact, the disappointments were sogreat that instead of embracing technology,many of the teachers and students appeared tobe backing away from using computer-assistedinstruction.

Operationally, we made some mistakes. Weassumed that our instructors would haveenough time to complete all of their re-sponsibilities, including teach a full load andlearn new software. We didn't budget for a full-time technician, and the instructors felt helplesswithout the technicians to handle the equip-ment.

We didn't budget for backup equipment. If thecomputer, printer, or cable were not opera-tional, we simply lost the use of the equipmentfor too long a period of time waiting for re-placement or repair. Of course, that was valu-able instructioial time that we lost.

If an instructor became frustrated with thesoftware or equipment, the teacher simplyturned off the computers and went back tousing traditional tools. That meant that we hada class period with the computers down thatsomeone else or other students could havebenefited from. We should have had a systemthat would have allowed a teacher and her classto move out of the computer room andsomeone else to move in. But due to roomconstraints and scheduling problems, weweren't able to do that.

I think we were unrealistic in expecting that theteachers would be able to balance all their otherresponsibilities, take the time necessary to learnnew software and the nuances of the machineryand feel comfortable enough to use thetechnology as an instructional delivery tool.Nonetheless, we did have some pioneeringteachers, including me, who worked throughthe software dearth, authored material and justwatched their students' confidence andprogress soar.As we are planning and reorganizing for thefuture, I believe any computer-assistedinstruction would be better utilized by allowingthe students to schedule themselves into theCenter, independent of classroom instructors.We envision a computer courtyard withSYNERGY incorporated into that courtyard. Infact, we have even dreamed of having thatcourtyard open twenty-four hours a day, sevendays a week. This way a student could come in,log in, and go right to work. I believe thatwould allow a better utilization of computers,better use of the student's time, and a teacherwouldn't be tied into the Center, if he or shewere not going to use the computers. We're alsorecommending released time for instructors tolearn new software and become morecomfortable with the computers.I continue to dream of computer-assistedinstruction, but now those dreams have hit thehighway and include multimedia, Internet,interactive video and everything elsetechnology has to offer.

Starting Up a SYNERGY Centerat Kendall Campus

Rose Anne Roche has been with Educational Technologiesfor most of her 21 years at Miami-Dade Community College.She has worked extemavely with faculty and administratorsthroughout the college in the development, programming,and implementation of a anety of PC and mainframe CMIprogram,, such as Camelot and RSVP. She is currently theSoftware Implementation Coordinator for the KendallCampus SYNERGY Center. She has a Master's Degree inEducation from Barry University, Miami, Florida.

In the Fall Term 1994 (August December) Ihad the opportunity to discover what it takes toget an electronic classroom up and running.This came about with my involvement in

24

_al

establishing the Kendall Campus SYNERGYCenter. My experience was sometimesfrustrating but in the end very rewarding.

3

In the summer of 1994, when I began this newassignment and I walked into Room 6359,Kendall Campus, the server and workstationswere on-line, but there was still an array ofcables, software packages, and diskettesscattered about the room. A viable learningenvironment was definitely not in place!

Working with the network specialist and mymentor, Victor Nwankwo, I helped get thecables in place and test the server, workstations,and software. When it came to cleaning,scrubbing, throwing out the trash, and dealingwith the problems of rain coming in thewindow onto the computers, I was the expert.Once the space had some semblance of aclassroom, I started reviewing the software andputting together some condensed informationabout each program for the faculty. I expectedthem to come rushing through the door, full ofenthusiasm and eager to look at all the softwarepackages. Unfortunately, I had only a fewcustomers.

In spite of the disappointment, Victor and I

continued with our endeavors to get the centerin order, anticipating the arrival of the firstclass. We set up the student database in ICLAS

(IBM Classroom Administrative System). Wedownloaded the student records from themainframe and transferred them to thenetwork; this is a timesaving task (the result is,accurate student recordkeeping). We preparedstudent guidelines for the center and aninstruction sheet for each software program. Wedeveloped faculty handouts of softwaredescriptions and organized schedules forclasses. Although these materials were seldomgiven any attention until the students andfaculty became comfortable with their newenvironment, these printed aids are necessary, I

believe, for organization and accountability.

Fortunately, when the first class arrived, thecenter finally had an atmosphere for learning.The room was spacious, with large windowsfacing in two directions. It was an impressivesight with the gray carpet, the maroon

comfortable-looking chairs, and the newcomputers that sat on sparkling white tables.

The first class was given a brief orientation, andclass. However, that was not the situation inmany classes that followed where the facultyhad no experience with the software ortechnology. Some arrived with their studentson the recommendation of a colleague. Oftenthey had no prior knowledge about the contentof the software. Fortunately, we were able tointervene until the faculty became more at ease.We gave them as muchsupport as possible. Wewanted them to feelcomfortable and we didnot want themthreatened with hard-ware breakdowns, soft-ware that is full of bugs,and uncertain proce-dures. Ideally, as elec-tronic classroom spe-cialists, we would liketo have been resident faculty members who hadhardware, software, and reading, writing, andmath expertise; and who could be present in thecenter twelve hours a day, leap from highbuildings, and be faster than the speed of light.Unfortunately, the budget does not pay salariesfor those kinds of skills.

Cookie LlamasSYNERGY Center

Lab Assistant

I have had some perks with this job. One is theexperience of working with ESOL (English as aSecond or Other Language) students who havenever touched a computer. At first the mouse isnot at all friendly toward them, but it isamazing how quickly they have adapted to thecomputer and that silly device called a "mouse."So many of them would come to the open labsessions and work on their projects with thevarious software packages. I sensed the positivereinforcement they received from the computeractivities that gave them pride and

accomplishment in the work. The mostpersonally rewarding experience was that all ofthe faculty wanted to return with their studentsto the SYNERGY Center the next semester.

The SYNERGY Center at Homestead Campus

Carol Dietrick has been with Miami-Dade CommunityCollege since 1986. She worked as supervisor of DisabledStudent Services Learning Center (North Campus) until 1990,when she moved to the Homestead campus and coordinatedthe development of the Learning Support Center. Shereceived her B.S. in Physical Education from Coker College,Hartsville, South Carolina, in 1964, and has completedgraduate courses in Specific Learning Disabilities. She hasdeveloped a keen interest in the use of multimedia as aresource for providing academic support to underpreparedcollege students.

The Homestead Campus SYNERGY Center ishoused in the Learning Support Center and is afully integrated piece of the HomesteadCampus network. This state-of-the art lab offersthe latest technical equipment, programmedlearning tools, and tutorial support for reading,writing, and math classes. Designed to meet theneeds of a diverse group of students, thiscomprehensive lab's primary function is to

provide basic-skills remediation to college-prepstudents through the use of diagnostic andprescriptive learning materials. We maintain thehuman touch through the use of tutors whoclarify concepts and teach learning strategieswhich help students to become more

independent and self-directed.

The lab management team interacts with facultyand students On an on-going basis. Homesteadfaculty members evaluate software andmaterials and make recommendations for thelab, which has a comprehensive selection ofSYNERGY software, as well as the campus'standard audio, video, and interactive laserdisk programs.

Faculty members re-view and make revi-sions to the lab syllabuseach term. Students'folders are available tofaculty throughout theterm, and printouts oflab attendance are Nathaniel Mellerson

placed in faculty mail-boxes each week.

Assistant Lab Manager

Our students are not intimidated by the use oftechnology because they are required to takeOST 1700, a facilitated course that teachescomputer survival skills, word-processingskills, and how to use CD-ROMS and laserdisks. We encountered few problems setting upthe lab because it was easy integratingSYNERGY software and hardware into theexisting network. It is essential, however, thatSYNERGY labs have adequate support staff.Without support, software and hardwareproblems can become overwhelming. Setting upand managing a lab requires individuals withtechnical and educational training, a philosophythat all students can learn, and a commitment topractice this philosophy.

26

35

M-DCC Faculty Case Studieswith SYNERGY Center Students

A teacher helps astudent away from the

computer.

MAIM

1

A student works on awriting project.

tisk&a_

Students collaborate in the SYNERGY Center.

ENC 0020 in the SYNERGY Center

North Campus

Stephanie Packer has taught at Miami-Dade CommunityCollege, North Campus, since January 1994. She also hastaught at the University of Miami and Dade County PublicSchools. She received her B.A. from Florida InternationalUniversity in 1977 and M.A. and Ph.D. in English from theUniversity of Miami in 1982 and 1985 respectively.

The Setting

About the StudentsUnderprepared writing students at Miami-Dade are identified at registration by MAPS(Multiple Assessment Placement Services) orthe CPT (Computerized Placement Test) andthen placed in one of two levels ofdevelopmental composition. They must exit theupper level of these non-credit courses in orderto proceed to elective and core English classes.To exit, students must pass a holistically scoreddepartmental essay exam and meet a 20- to 35-hour lab requirement (as well as otherrequirements set by the instructor). They havethree semesters to exit the program.

Our students possess a wide range of skills,even within one course level. They range from areturning student with a solid secondarybackground who just needs a refresher to arecent completer of the ESL program to astudent who has graduated with a specialdiploma. And each such thumbnail sketch, ofcourse, includes a universe of furtherpossibilities.

Many of our students must also take readingand math College Prep courses before they canproceed with their core courses, and too manyget discouraged before they reach their full

potential. Thus any environment ormethodology which could improve retentionamong these at-risk students seemedworthwhile to investigate.

About the Software

The spring and summer before the study beganin Fall Term 1994, I spent several hours a weekreviewing some of the software available in therecently expanded SYNERGY Center. I'm afraidgreed got the best of me at the electronicsmorgasbord. In my zeal to provide copiousdrill-and-practice material on the skills whichare problem areas for our students, I assigneddrill-and-practice modules from CSR andPLATO for the first three weeks. Then, as weprepared for the first essay assignment, wemoved in the lab to Writer's Prologue, a content-generating program with writing prompts toencourage the expansion of details andexamples. Students emerged from the Writer'sPrologue session (on the essay mode ofExplaining) with a very rough draft, which theythen refined the following week on NortonTEXTRA, an easy-to-use word processor. Wehad three more Writer's Prologue sessions(Description, Narration, Argument) followed byword-processing sessions the next week tomove the material they had generated on tocompletion. These more content-based lessonswere interspersed with grammar drill-and-

practice units from Skills Bank and GUIDES. Ialso made individual prescriptions on PLATOin the two weeks before the departmental exam.The last session of the term was a networked"dialogue" using Realtime Writer, when the classheld an electronic discussion immediatelyfollowing the final exam.

In my anxiety to ensure that students hadplentiful resources, I probably engaged in

overkill. However, many of our studentsapproach a lesson like a road race, in which hewho finishes first wins. I had visions ofstudents' running out of material and resistingcorrecting their work because "we've alreadydone this!" Although I wouldn't assign so manydifferent kinds of drill-and-practice softwareagain, at least the students weren't bored, idle,or resistant to additional practice on theirproblem areas. They may, however, havereached a greater degree of comfort using onlyone type of drill-and-practice software, if anyone program offered sufficient multipleexercises on typical problem areas.

The DesignTwo ENC 0(120 classes, the higher level ofdevelopmental writing, were randomly selectedfor this study. The experimental group attendedtheir weekly lab session in the SYNERGYCenter, while the control group attended in theconventional College Prep Writing Lab (CPWL).The experimental class met twice weekly in theafternoon, while the control class met weeklyFriday mornings. Each class followed the samecourse syllabus. Each class was pre-tested usinga diagnostic writing sample holistically scoredby me and another full-time faculty member.Students were post-tested by the departmentalfinal examination, holistically scored by at leasttwo faculty.

Demographically, the experimental group was24% Haitian, 14% African American, 9%English-speaking Caribbean, 38% Hispanic, 14%non-Hispanic white. The control group was 20%Haitian, 20% African American, 30% English-speaking Caribbean, 30% Hispanic, 0% non-Hispanic white. The mean CPT score was 57.0

29

for the experimental group and 60.8 for thecontrol.

Since my previous experience had been thatstudents are predisposed to enjoy the electronicmedium (even to the telling phrase "playingwith the computer"), and since I was excitedabout the possibilities for instruction, I expectedgreat enthusiasm about SYNERGY Centerattendance. Complaints are sometimes heardfrom students that the CPWL is "just a studyhall" or "I could do this at home," so I believedthat the experimental group would demonstratebetter attendance, motivation, attitude, andretention. I had several hypotheses: (1) labattendance would be better in the SYNERGYCenter than in the CPWL; (2) greater consumersatisfaction and sense of ownership would beachieved in the more seIf-directed SYNERGYCenter; (3) thus, there would be higherretention in the experimental group; and (4) thisretention might be reflected in ultimately betterperformance as measured in final-gradedistribution.

While I didn't necessarily expect any significantdifference in final-exam or final-gradedistribution, since no research I had looked atshowed such a difference, I still wanted tomonitor the results for any unexpected insights.I was also interested in determining if anycorrelation could be seen between 1:ib

attendance and final-exam outcome in eithergroup.

I attended the electronic lab sessions with theexperimental class, but I was unable to do sowith the control group because of a schedulingconflict. So there was a bit of a prejudice builtin. I adjusted for this, however, by dropping inon the last ten minutes of the control group'slab sessions, and even this support I thinkbalanced things somewhat and encourageda ttend a nce.

Monitoring the StudyI kept records of both groups' lab and classattendance, test scores, writing assignments,and retention rates. We went over the controlgroup's lab assignments at some length in class

(fortunately, the class met the next day, so thelab assignments and any questions arising fromthem were still fresh in the students' minds). Imonitored the students' progress firsthand inthe electronic lab. There I was able to conferwith students about their writing and alsoobserve if anyone was having keyboardproblems, becoming overwhelmed or confused,or progressing smoothly. In general, thestudents seemed to adapt well to the SYNERGYCmter.

Some problems did arise with the SYNERGYCenter that the CPWL, in operation longer andwithout software challenges, was not prone to.Sometimes limitations in computer resourcescaused bottlenecks, and students had to waitwhile memory was managed or software wasloaded. My lack of familiarity with certainaspects of the lab made some sessions less thanideal; for example, I wasn't aware that the extramemory that programs like Writer's Prologuerequire can wreak havoc on the rest of the lab.Fortunately, we were aided by an excellent labstaff who efficiently worked through any first-time snafus that arose. Once students did get ontask, they seemed to enjoy the instantaneousfeedback offered by CSR, PLATO, and thevarious skills modules. Although I was veryenthusiastic about the possibilities of Writer'sPrologue, the students were in general cautious,perhaps because that program is working onhigher-order skills and thus cannot provide thesame kind of feedback. Although I liked Writer'sPrologue because it isn't just another drill-and-practice package, I would be leery of using it inthe current lab until a new version comes outthat uses less memory. Our Lab Managerinforms me that he has spoken with thecompany, voicing our concerns, and a newversion will be available some time in the nearfuture.

Halfway through the course, I learned thatsome of the students in the experimental groupwere making appointments with the tutors inthe CPWL to go over their papers with them. Iapplauded their initiative, but that sort of cross-pollination hadn't been built into the study. Ihad thought in terms of all-electronic or all-

conventional, but the students taught me animportant lesson. "Congratulations, you scored100%" flashed on a screen is just not the sameas a human being going over your paper line byline. On the other hand, not even the mostpatient instructor or tutor will have time toexplain sentence fragments fifty times; thecomputer, though, has all the time in the cyber-world. This experience made me realize thatthere is no good reason why students shouldn'thave the best of both worlds. Thus, during thecourse of the study, I moved toward a desirefor fusion and complementarity in using ourhuman and electronic resources. Neitherresource has the complete answer.Perhaps because of my too-varied assignmentlist, the experimental group also reported beingconfused or insecure about which assignmentthey were supposed to be completing whichweek. Even though I was in the lab with themand offered reassurance, they seemed tobecome uncomfortable when a classmate at thenext workstation was working on a completelydifferent assignment from theirs. Individualizedinstruction is one of the great possibilities of theelectronic classroom, I think, so in the nextreplication of this study, I will make a point ofexplaining up front to the experimental groupthat their neighbor may not be completing thesame assignment or working at the same paceas they are, and that as long as they are makingprogress, this shouldn't be a concern.The control group, directed to the conventionalCPWL, was given a list of skills assignmentsbased on the lab handouts and on specificgrammar chapters in their course text. Theywere assigned an excellent tutor who workedwith them all semester. Because there were nointerfering technical problems, the controlgroup's time on task may actually have beengreater, though I have no explicit way tomeasure this, and is in any case a symptom ofthe newness of our electronic lab. Prescribingfor individual problem areas was somewhatsimpler in the conventional lab, as no softwarehad to be loaded, but rather all that was neededwas a simple notation 11, Fragments, forJavier" and I could rest assured that 11would indeed be available for Javier. When I

dropped into the lab during the last ten minutesof sessions, I observed the students busilyengaged in completing their assignments andconferring with Eileen, their tutor.

This class of fifteen regularly attending studentshad a positive response to the CPWL, perhapsbecause of its small size and rapport with onetutor. Other classes, in noisier settings, have notbeen so positive, to say the least. The classcould also discuss any questions arising fromthe lab assignments in our class session the nextday, while this wasn't possible (nor should itreally have been necessary) for the electronicmodules. With the exception of two weekswhen students were working on individualprescriptions, the control group was generallyworking as a class on the same assignment. Thisalso seemed to reassure them. They didn'tperhaps feel the sense of isolation that can be

the flip side of electronic autonomy, particularlyfor non-networked assignments.

OutcomesAs Table I indicates, my hypothesis thatattendance would be better in the electronic labthan in the conventional lab was not validatedhere. This is a very fluid number, and I think itwill be interesting to compare this result withnext semester's when the lab and I both havemore experience with each other.Table II shows that although the experimentalgroup tested marginally higher on thediagnostics, the mean CPT score for the classwas 3.8 points lower. This will be interesting tomonitor in future studies.Tables III and IV show the performance of thestudents in both experimental and controlgroups.

Table ILab Attendance, mean hours, of 18.5 Required

Groups Lab Attendance Hours

SYNERGY Lab N=15 ExperimentalControl

13.0016.50College Prep Writing Lab N=22

Table IIPre-Test Diagnostic Writing Sample

Student Score 2 4 6 7-8

Experimental N=19 100%

Control N=13 95% 5%

Table IIIPost-Test - Departmental Final Essay Exam

Student Score 7-8

Experimental N=19 32% 63% 5%

Control N=13 23% 69%,

8%

Table IVFinal Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Ixperunental Group (N=22) 59% 18% 9% 14%

Control Group (N,20) 45% 15% 30% 10%

Retenti)nRetention was computed by comparing graderoll', from the third week of classes, minus no-shows, to the number of students taking thefinal exam. The experimental group had 90%and the control group had 86%. There is somedifference in retention, with the experimentalgroup demonstrating 4% greater retention.

hile I cannot attribute this exclusively to theuse of the electronic lab, it is a promising figure

hich will hopefully increase as we learn moreabout what motivates students now.

I he shght gain in retention may also speak tothe consumer-satisfaction issue. In thisparticular study, both groups were respondingto positive situations. Both groups seemed welldisposed to their labs, but in different ways, socomparing the two becomes a question more ofcomparing different positives than ofontrastmg a positive and a negative .

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Labs

CPWI. Students commented on strengths asfollows:

A tutor will sit with you and go over yourpa per.

I like working with the same tutor all thetime, someone who knows me.

On the handouts, I can ask questions if I

don't get something.

I c an make appointments on Saturday.

he following are the weaknesses of the CPWL

tic 'meti me' I ouldn't get in during openlab

It's !lois\ during open lab.

SYNERGY Center. Students perceived thefollowing as strengths of the electronic lab:

I can use different software.

I can make appointments.

Realtime Writer was fun (we should do itmore).

I can take the same modul: as many timesas I need to.

The tutors helped me with the computer.

The following were considered weaknesses ofthe electronic lab:

I had to wait while software was loaded.

When I went on my own, I was confusedabout the assignment.

Instructor's ImprovementAs an instructor, I would do the followingdifferently:

Simplify the assignment list.

If one brand of drill-and-practice softwarehas sufficient levels and modules, stick tothat as much as possible.

Carefully explain my instructions and needsto the lab staff.

Check with the lab staff the day before tosee if any problems have arisen.

Before using Realtime Writer, remind theclass about appropriate ianguage andaccountability.

Rememluer that responding to an article orpiece of writing works better than an openconversation.

Think more in terms of merging our humanand electronic resources.

32

41

Something as mundane as a comfortabletable and chairs for tutor conferences in theelectronic lab might maximize use of bothour excellent tutors and the promisingsoftware.

Significance of the StudyIn conclusion, the SYNERGY Center has greatpotential, but in spite of the greater possible,students do not seem satisfied to interactsimply with computers alone. They

want the full spectrum as they acquire and testnew knowledge. As we work out the interfering

, technobugs and administrative problems, theelectronic environment offers us the chance toimprove and finally revolutionize thedelivery of instruction. 0 brave new world,indeed, that has such wonders in it. But we cansee it won't be enough to summon theelectronic genie alone. We'll need to build acomprehensive supporting environment whereelectronic instruction is one of the choices thatmake sense in students' lives now.

Wolfson Campus

Sandra M. Castillo is an Associate Professor of LanguageArts at Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus.She has been with the Wolfson Campus CommunicationsDepartment for 7 years. She received her B.A. and M.A. inEnglish from Florida State University in 1985 and 1987respectively.

The SettingIn my first study (reported in ProjectSYNERGY's Year Three Report) I used theSYNERGY Center with my ENC 1130 studentsrather than with the ENC 0020 students.

, discovered that when classos meet three times aweek, for only fifty minutes, students do nothave enough time to complete a writingassignment within a class period, especiallywhen they are required to use computers. Thus,I consider that a class which meets twice a weekfor one hour and fifteen minutes has anadvantage. It seemed appropriate to use one ofthese classes as an experiment to see howstudents would perform in working withcomputers given this time advantage.

About The Course

For this s'Idy, I taught ENC (X)20, a basicwriting course in the College Prep section of theCommunications Department. In ENC 0020

33

students generally spend half of the semesterreviewing grammar skills and the other halfwriting developed paragraphs.During Fall Term 1994 (August-December), Itaught two sections of ENC 0020, one withcomputers (the experimental group) and onewithout computers (the control group). My"regular" ENC 0020 class, the control group,met Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from10:00 to 10:50 a.m. while the experimentalgroup met twice a week, Tuesdays andThursdays, from 9:25 to 10:40 a.m. Althoughmy computer-assisted ENC 0020 had a timeadvantage, I believe the computers themselveswere partly responsible for the final-examresults, which I will be discussing here. Thus,again, this supports my main premise andconcern, the time factor.

About The StudentsOur grammar midterm exam helps us todetermine who is ready for the final exam,

4,

which consists of a -ten- to twelve-sentenceparagraph with a topic sentence, supportingdetails and a concluding line. There arestudents who actually pass the midtermgrammar test with the mandatory 80%, but failto receive the necessary passing score on theirfinal exam, making them ineligible to go on tothe next level (ENC 1130). In part, this is due tothe fact that students can actually learn thegrammatical principles of sentence construc-tions and verb forms but often are unable toapply these grammar rules because they haveEnglish as a Second Language difficulties. Forthose students, passing ENC 0020 is more thana sixteen-week class; it is a struggle withlanguage, a struggle with culture. Thesestudents have a much more difficult time notonly passing the class on their first attempt, butwriting a paravraph under any time constraints.This is especially true if the class is only fiftyminutes long. For these reasons, I must take thetime factor into account.

Having said that, I'd like to add that I believethat the ENC 0020 SYNERGY class(experimental group), which met on Tuesdaysand Thursdays, had a time advantage, for thoseclasses are actually one hour and fifteenminutes long. The time factor aside, I believethe computers, which seemed to motivate mystudents, contributed to the fmal-exam results.First this happened, I believe, because thecomputer, the typed words, placed on the bluesaeen and later printed, helped give studentssomething that the actual writing does notobjectivity. There is something amazing aboutbeing able to see your words, your thoughts,mechanically reproduced and processed. Thisalone, I believe, gives students the confidencethat helps them do well. Using Microsoft Worksin the classroom, then, is and was a way ofhelping students to pass their final exam.

Monitoring the StudyStudents used CSR and Practical Grammar inthis course. The grammar software (and this hasbeen my contention all along) is not asdeveloped as it needs to be. This, I believe, is

one of the main problems with the SYNERGYclass; the grammar software does not meet theneeds of our students. This is what demandsthe utmost attention. It is imperative that thegrammar software include units that can helpstudents actually improve their skills. Inparticular, I am referring to the fact that thegrammar software is limited to the basics. Ourstudents need to have access to software thatincludes fragments, run-ons, phrases, as well asESL units on prepositions, diction, and usage.We are simply not equipped to deal with theneeds of our students if the grammar softwaredoes not include areas that are crucial to theirbeing able to express themselves in standardEnglish. Though we can implement newstrategies and materials that we, as teachers,have, the students will not get all the benefits ofthis technology unless it is geared to meetingtheir needs. Additionally, it would also be aplus if the software that students used in the labportion of the course were different than thesoftware for the classroom; this way, wewouldn't overlap or kid ourselves about howwell our students are doing.

OutcomesThe performance measure of the class is thepercentage of students in each of the gradingcategories: Satisfactory (S), Progress (P), orUnsatisfactory (U) and Withdrawal (W). Thelarger the percentage of students in the highercategories (such as S) the better the performanceof the class. Another factor that is significant inany class performance is the completion rate.Usually, the higher the completion rate, thebetter since more students are retained and thismight mean that some of the students whostayed throughout the course might haveacquired the necessary skills even if they failedthe class.

Although my control group was a very goodclass, in terms of the grade averages and thegeneral student participation, my experimentalgroup had better results. The departmentalexam (the final exam) is used as an exit criterionto determine if students are actually prepared

for introduction to composition or ENC 1130.As for the results, more students from thecomputer-assisted ENC 0020 SYNERGY classactually passed the final exam and went on toENC 1130, Introduction to Composition. Table Ishows the final-grade distribution for bothgroups. All the students in the experimental

group had either a satisfactory grade orprogress. It is also interesting to note that nostudents withdrew from both classes, but thecontrol group had students (8%) who had

unsatisfactory grades. These are generallystudents who failed to complete requiredassignments.

Table IFinal Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Experimental (N49) 58% 42%

Control (N=24) 54% 38%8%

RecommendationsI enjoy teaching computer-assisted SYNERGY

classes. I would, however, like to see thefollowing changes, for I feel that the studentscould greatly benefit from a few additions andimplementations.

Find more software that is compatible withour objectives.

Involve more faculty members in softwaredevelopment and implementation. This willhelp to ensure that both their teaching stylesand maybe students' learning styles couldbecome a focal point in softwaredevelopment with faculty-selected objec-tives for their classes.

Maintain on-going faculty training in theeffective use of computers and software for

teaching.

Wendy Jo Ward has been teaching developmental writingfull-time at Miami-Dade, Wolfson Campus, for a year and a

half. She holds a B.A in English and an M.Ei. in English

Education from the University of Florida in 1991 and 1993

respectively.

The SettingAbout the CourseENC (X)20 is a developmental class that

provides students with a foundation in

grammar, usage, mechanics, and paragraphstructure. Although the four credits for thiscourse do not count toward graduation,students must take this class before taking ENC1130 and core English classes if they have

scored between 21 and 30 on the MAPS orbetween 48 and 77 on the CPT or if they passedENC 0002 with a satisfactory grade. Along withthe regular classroom sessions, students attendthe Multi-Skills Lab for additional work with alab instructor.

About the StudentsLike many Miami-Dade students, the studentsin ENC 0020 have several challenges to face.

Many come from other countries and speakEnglish as a second or third language.Moreover, they must often work full-time andtake care of children while earning a collegedegree. Teachers must try to motivate thesestudents while giving them the foundation theyneed in basic skills.

About the Software

The students used the CSR modules in the labwith their lab instructor and used MicrosoftWorks for writing with me. The CSR coursedrills the students in the grammar skillscovered in class, skills which the students aretested on for the midterm and final grammarexams and which the students are expected toapply to their writing by the completion of thecOurse. See pages Appendix D for further soft-ware descriptions.

I liked using the Microsoft Works program withthe students because they could revise papersquickly. Often students see rewriting as a chore,but the students in the computer-assistedclassroom did not mind making correctionswhen they knew they could just insert wordsand punctuation marks or delete them and thenget a neat new draft in just a few minutes.

My Expectations

When I gave my students a diagnostic grammartest, both the experimental and the controlgroups received the same average score of 64%.This told me that, in general, the students wereat the same level. However, my experimentalgroup had only thirteen students in it while thecontrol group had twenty-five. The smallerclass size, I felt, might affect the outcome since Iwould be able to spend more time in class witheach student individually.

Monitoring the StudyMy experimental and control groups had thesame number of students drop the class and notshow up for their exit writing exam.

In the control group, four students eitherdropped the class or were dropped from theclass. One student dropped to join the military,one student never came to class at all, and twodid not inform me why they dropped the classwithin the first half of the semester. Despitereceiving 88% on her midterm grammar exam,one student disappeared shortly after themidterm without contacting me. If she hadstayed in the course until the end of thesemester, I feel she would have passed the classbased on her grammar scores and writingperformance in class.

In the experimental group, four students alsodropped or were dropped. One student nevercame to class at all, two informed me aboutconflicts with their work and school schedules,and one stopped coming in the beginning of thesemester and did not give a reason for hisnonattendance. As with the control group, onestudent did not take either the final grammar orthe essay exam, even though he received a scoreof 84% on the midterm grammar exam andeven though he probably would have passedthe final writing exam. However, unlike thestudent in the control group who stoppedcoming to class after the midterm, this studentcontacted me and told me that he had to spendmore time with his family due to a crisis.

OutcomesIn this class, students must first take a grammarmidterm and final exam covering fragments,run-ons, capital letters, pronouns, end marks,subject-verb agreement, standard English verbs,and irregular verbs and receive at least 80% onboth tests to be eligible to take the final writingexam. In ENC 0020, this writing test consists ofa ten- to twelve-sentence paragraph holisticallyscored by two readers on a scale from one tofour based on criteria set by the department. Topass the class, students must receive at least afive out of eight on this writing exam, or at leasta two from one reader and a three fromanother. See pages 49-50 for a description of thefaculty rating scale.

If one were to look just at the final-grade results(as seen in Table I below), it would seem as if

the control group of twenty-five studentsperformed better than the experimental groupof thirteen students. After all, ark of thestudents in the control group passed the classwith an "5" (or "Satisfactory"), but only 54% ofthe students in th:_, experimental group receivedan "S." However, the results of the grammarand essay exams (shown in Table II and Table

III) indicate that the students in theexperimental class who -actually stayed in theclass until the end and took the examsperformed better than the students in thecontrol group.

In the control group, twenty-two students tookthe grammar midterm. The scores ranged from80% to 92%, with the average score being 85%.

Then by the end of the semester, twentystudents stayed in the class and took the final

grammar exam. Interestingly, there was a wider

range of scores, from 76% to 94%, yet theaverage score remained 85%. Since the studentwho made 76% was not eligible to take the final

writing exam and others stopped attending orwithdrew, nineteen students took the finalwriting exam. Of those students, 79% or fifteenof the nineteen students passed the test with afive or higher.

In the experimental group, nine students tookthe midterm grammar exam. Most studentsscored higher than the students in the controlgroup. The lowest score was 80%, the highestwas 98%, and the average score was 88%. Forthe eight students who took the final grammarexam, the scores ranged from 80% to 100%,with the average score being 91%. Finally, forthe writing exam, all but one student who tookthe test received a score of five or higher. Thus,88% of the students taking the final writingexam passed.

Table IFinal Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

ExperimentalGroup(N=13)

54% 15% 31%

Control Group (N=25) 60% 20% 4% 16%

Table IIGrammar Exam Scores

Group Average DiagnosticScore

Average MidtermScore

Average FinalScore

Experimental Group (N.12) 64% (N=9) 88% (N=8) 91%

Control Group (N=24) 64% (N=22) 85% (N=20) 85%

Table IIIFinal Writing Exam

Group Scored 5 or Higher

Experimental Group(N=8) 88%

Control Group (N=19)79%

37

4 6

In ENC 0020, students receive U, P. or S grades.The student in the control group who left theclass shortly after the midterm withoutcontacting me received an "Unsatisfactory"grade because even when she attended class,she did not turn in most of her homeworkassignments. The student in the experimentalgroup who did not take the final grammar orwriting exams but who contacted me received a"Progress" grade because, when he came toclass, he participated and turned in all but onehomework assignment. Finally, the student inthe control group who did not pass her finalgrammar exam along with the students whodid not receive at least a five out of eight ontheir final writing exams received a "Progress"grade and must repeat the class. The studentswho first scored at least an 80% on the grammarmidterm and final exam and then at least a fiveout of eight on the final writing exam received a"Satisfactory" grade, making them eligible totake ENC 1130, the next English class.

RecommendationsThere are benefits to using computers to assistCollege Prep students. The students told methat they saw the computers as an extraresource and learning tool to complementclassroom instruction and the textbook. I alsoobserved that they started their writing faster.They did not write line by line and look forerrors as they wrote. Instead, they got theirthoughts down, printed their papers, and thenrevised them. In other words, they seemed tosee revision as part of the writing process anddid not mind making changes to their writingbeyond correcting grammar and usage errors.

Perhaps the next step is to discover whether thestudents' attitudes about writing change fromthe beginning to the end of the semester. Ifunderprepared students can leave ENC 0020with a more positive attitude toward writingthan they came in with, then using thecomputers should be encouraged and morestudents should be able to use computers fortheir writing assignments.

Homestead CampusJudith Schurger was among the founding faculty at theMiami-Dade Homestead Campus when it opened in Augustof 1990. She presently teaches both college-preparatory andcollege-equivalent reading and writing courses, in additionto serving as a principle facilitator in developing andcoordinating the campus college-preparatory program. Shereceived both a B.A. (1980) in English, with emphasis inLinguistics, and a M.S. in TESOL (1983) from FloridaInternational University, where she was on the faculty of theEnglish Language Institute from 1983-1987. She is a recentrecipient of an NEH rninigrant to develop multimediainstructional modules designed to support reading andwriting across the disciplines.

The SettingGiven that remedial/developmental writingstudents (1) need as many opportunities aspossible to communicate in writing; (2) oftendread having to communicate in writing; (3)need and want immediate feedback andresponse to their writing; and (4) as potentialcollege students and/or employees /ers, need to

38

be computer literate, I decided to try acomputer-assisted approach in one of mycollege-preparatory writing classes in hopesthat using this approach would, in part, addressthese issues.

Essentially, I felt that using the computer as asystem for group interaction and learningwould provide more opportunities for writtencommunication and create an environment in

47

which communication was meaningful anddirect, and response, either from the instructoror peers, was immediate.

Besides the interactive aspect, using thecomputer as word processor would givestudents a chance to develop necessarycomputer skills, which they could immediatelybenefit from since many of these students werealready in the workplace and since a goodpercentage might not articulate into the college-equivalent program. Additionally, "writing" oncomputer would give a more "professional"look to student papers; I hoped that their pridein their work would be positively affected and,subsequently, their motivation, not only toimprove the presentation of their work but alsoto improve the quality. Often, the work turnedin by my remedial students was sloppilywritten on rag-tag, wrinkled paper. This beliedthe problems many of these students had: lowself-esteem from years of failure, which led to alack of price and motivation. In addition, manystudents were not aware of college/professionalstandards/expectations.

Additionally, I had always hoped to make theclassroom more student centered but frequentlyfound it difficult, especially with my remedialstudents, who saw learning as outer/teacherdirected and passive rather than inner/selfdirected and active. Making students aware oftheir responsibility and control in the learningprocess, I felt, was essential. I suspected thatretention would be positively affected as aresult.

The computer-assisted classroom promised tobe a quantum leap forward in meeting theseacademic, behavioral, and affective objectives.

About the CourseTwo sections of ENC 0020, the second of twocollege-preparatory writing classes, were usedin this study. The basic objective of this courseis that the student produce a well-developed,well-organized paragraph (about 150 words)with a well-focused/limited main idea

(explicitly stated in a topic sentence); withrelevant major points developed by specific,

detailed minor support; and with well-constructed sentences.

This course also has a lab component, i.e.,students are expected to complete labassignments designed to support the GPU(grammar, punctuation, usage) objectives at thelevel of recognition and limited production. A

variety of modalities software, video andaudio cassettes, worksheets is used. Thenumber of hours per week or semester is notspecified; each student is required to put in thenumber of hours necessary for him/her tosatisfactorily (80% mastery) complete theassignments. In order to move into the nextcourse, ENC 1130, students must (1) completeall lab assignments; (2) pass the final, timed in-house writing exam by demonstrating GPU andparagraph-development skills; and (3) attain anoverall course grade of 75%>.

About the Students

Enrollment in the college-prep writing classes istypically lower and attrition higher during theWinter Term, when this study was undertaken(January-April 1994).

The control group began with nineteenstudents. In terms of retention, thirteen studentsremained by semester's end. Of the sixwithdrawing, one (who, in previous semesters,had a history of irregular attendance andwithdrawal) left about a quarter of the waythrough the semester; one withdrew halfwaythrough the semester because of a new job andfamily problems; and four left because theyfound the course more demanding (especially interms of time needed for assignments, etc.) thanthey had anticipated two about a quarter ofthe way through the semester and two justbefore the official college-prep drop date. Theexperimental group began with sixteen students(officially seventeen, but one was a no-show).As for retention, nine students remained at theend of the semester. Of the seven studentswithdrawing, four were advised to enroll in theESL program; since our campus does not have aprogram and it was a burden for these studentsto travel to the Kendall Campus to attend ESL

39

46

classes, they continued in the course buteventually withdrew. Of the others, one studentwas involved in a serious car accident so had towithdraw. Also, two students left because ofthe unexpected workload in the class; one ofthese stayed until the official drop date because,even through he knew he was not keeping up,he admitted learning a lot and enjoying thecomputer-assisted class periods!

Given the above, it would seem that retention inthe experimental group was better, althoughtrue statistical significance cannot bedetermined.

The DesignThe lab component for both the control andexperimental groups was undifferentiated. Labassignments are typically drawn from a varietyof computer software, including selected CSRmodules, instructional videos and audio tapes,and worksheets. Classroom instruction focuseson integrating the GPU competencies reinforcedin the lab into the writing process. Thedifference for this study lay in the use ofRea ltime Writer (RTW), Word Perfect, andWriter's Helper with the experimental group,both in class sessions and for homeworkassignments.

Over the course of the semester, theexperimental group met in the computer lab atotal of twelve times.

This study compares (mostly qualitatively) thetwo groups in terms of progress over thesemester, exit proficiency, retention andchanges in student perceptions about writing.

Monitoring the StudyThe control and experimental classes had thesame lab, text, journal, and other writingassignments. The differences between the twosections lay in the use of RTW for the peer-interview project and some textbook groupexercises, and in the use of Word Peifect for four

40

writing assignments and two proofreadingexercises in the experimental class.

In the control group, I used my usual methodfor the above. The classmate interview was oraland the paragraph of introduction, based on theinterview, was orally presented. Textbookexercises, for example in writing topic sentencesor narrowing topics, were done at home or inthe classroom and then discussed in groups. Forpractice in proofreading and editing, studentwritings from past semesters were introducedfirst; groups of three students worked togetherto make improvements on a piece of writing. Iwould collect the final product from each groupand put their edited drafts on an overheadtransparency. The next class period, I woulddisplay them on the overhead projector, and, asa class, discuss the edited version produced byeach group. After three of these sessions, I

would have the students move into peerevaluating of their own writings.

In the experimental group, RTW was used forthe classmate interview. However, as in thecontrol group, the paragraph of introductionwas orally presented. Textbook exercises suchas evaluating topic sentences and outliningparagraphs were also done on RTW in groupsof three or four on the same channel. Theproofreading exercises using sample studentwritings from past semesters were done on theword processor. The writings were loaded ontothe hard drive; students brought the texts up,made revisions, copied onto their disks, andthen printed out a hard copy, which I copiedand distributed for class discussion. The latterprocess of pointing out, copying, anddistributing was also done for peer evaluationsof their own writings.

outcomesStudent progress during the semester wasqualitatively measured in three areas: (I )

thoroughness in exploring topics (prewriting) ;(2) promptness in meeting assignmentdeadlines; and (3) neatness in presenting work.It is assumed that the above also provide ameasure of overall motivation.

In terms of thoroughness, I found that studentsin the control group focused more onprewriting activities, such as clustering,freewriting, jotting, than did the experimentalgroup. The experimental group were notlimited to using the computer for these

brainstorming activities; however, their

prewriting efforts both on paper and oncomputer were not as extensive as in the controlgroup.

As for meeting deadlines, the experimentalgroup were more likely to get work in on time,even when they had the extra task of getting toa computer on campus to do their assignments(most did not have computers at home). Anexception to this was in meeting the deadlinefor the student interview project. Studentsusually begin the interviews in class butcontinue them outside of class, either in personor over the phone. Those in the experimentalgroup often had difficulty finding a mutuallyconvenient time to meet in the Learning Centerto continue their work. In addition, studentscomplained that they would makeappointments with their partners only to be"stood up." In these cases, I gave students theoption of completing the interviews by phone.

Of course, the overall presentation of

assignments improved significantly in theexperimental group. This improvement wasmeasured not only in appearance (no morecrumpled, rag-tag papers) but also in format.

Unlike students in the control group (andstudents in my classes generally), these students

always included the necessary information inthe required heading, put papers showing workat various stages of writing in the requiredorder, and even included artistic embellish-ments or drawings. Not only was this improvedpresentation helpful for me (no more puzzlingover poor handwriting or wondering whichassignment I had in hand or which section ofwhich class it was from) but students seemedmuch more eager when it came time toexchanging papers for peer evaluation. I couldonly attribute this positive attitude toward aprocess students usually dread to the prideinspired by professionally presented work.Students commented on how "beautiful" theirfinished products looked and were eager tohave an "audience."As for retention, approximately 24% of thestudents (four students out of a total ofseventeen) in the experimental group shouldhave moved to the ESL program as opposed tonone in the control group. Of course, given suchsmall enrollment numbers, the withdrawalpercentages shown in Table I may be

misleading. Only two students in theexperimental group dropped because of theworkload and time commitment demanded forthe class as compared to four in the controlgroup. This is interesting in light of the moredemanding time schedule for those in theexperimental group, since they had to get tocampus more often to prepare assignments.However, as mentioned previously, consideringsuch a small sample, statistical significancecannot be determined.

Table 1Final Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Experimental (N=17) 35% 12% 6% 47%

Control (N=19) 11% 42% 16% 31%

Final grade distribution is a bit more revealing.A grade of "U" in this course usually reflects asituation in which a student has had irregularattendance over the semester, has failed tocomplete major assignments, and has not

41

attempted to contact me or seek my help aftermy attempts to encourage these. Only onegrade of "U" was given in the experimentalgroup as contrasted to four in the controlgroup. The percentage of "S" grades is not as

revealing. Aside from the problem of smallclass sizes, several students in my control groupwho were progressing well either dropped orgot grades of "P". These students could notmeet the demands of school because of seriouspersonal problems and heavy outsideresponsi bi I i ties.

Two surveys were done over the course of thesemester to assess student perceptions of thewriting process and of themselves as writers.The first survey the second week of class askedstudents, guided by specific questions andexamples, to discuss their writing process. Theresults were similar to those in previoussemesters: many stated that they started onassigned papers well in advance of the duedate; worked in a "(quiet), clean, well-lightedplace"; wrote multiple drafts...! Often, studentsrated "spelling" as their major weakness. Thetop rated strength was "creativity": they hadgreat imaginations and could come up with"interesting stories." Most hated writing.

The second survey was taken at semester's end.This survey sought to ascertain (1) howstudents, having completed the course, nowperceived their strengths and weaLiesses; (2)what students would change about the class ifthey were designing it; (3) what they ,2njoyed,(4) found most important, and (5) found mostinteresting about the class. Th2re was a

noticeable difference between the responses ofthe two groups. Students in the control groupfocused more on the process of writing; theymentioned the importance of prewriting tothoroughly develop and focus a topic. Mostcomplained about the workload. Comments onperceived strengths and weaknesses hadchanged. Being able to create interesting storiesgave way to being able to develop a topic inmore depth, more detail. Students in theexperimental group tended to pay moreattention to form/final product than to process:proofreading, writing strong topic sentences,organizing information within a paragraph.Most in the experimental group pointed toincreased computer skills. All said that theyenjoyed the computer-assisted classes. Again,

surprisingly, only one student complainedabout the workload.

Findings and Insights(1) Administrators and faculty must understandthat the transition from the traditional,instructor-centered writing classroom to thenon-traditional, student-centered computer-assisted classroom is no easy task.

(a) The process is extremely time intensive.Previewing software and programs beingconsidered for use can be very time consuming. Inaddition, with little or no experience withcomputer-assisted teaching, previewing may dolittle to reveal just how effective aprogram/software will be or what the problemsmight be in the actual classroom setting with astudent or groups of students. Trial and error,albeit frustrating, is often the only way.

(b) Instructors must be prepared to be flexible indesigiing syllabi or classroom activities since theymay often find themselves having to adjust lessonplans because of unforeseen problems with thecomputers or with the programs/software.

(c) Unlike choosing textbooks, the computerprograms an instructor uses may depend on (i)what has already been purchased by the collegeand/or (ii) budget. Also, the instructor will findthat the number of programs desiped to do whatthe instructor wants is extremely limited.

(d) Instructors and lab support staff should besure to provide clear, detailed written instructionsfor the students on how to use a particularprogram or software. Even given this, much timeis often spent in students' learning how toeffectively use a program. When more than oneprogram is involved, this can be a major timecommitment given a one-semester period.

(2) Realtime Writer, although it provides a murk-needed medium for group communicationthrough writing, has several drawbacks.

(a) Students need to have assigned channels. Ifthey don't, the work they do, if done in more thanone session, is difficult to find. This is a problembecause group membership is constantlychanging.

42

51

(b) If students are assigned out-of-class work,the teacher station has to be brought up everytime. This becomes a problem in a computer labwhere many students and activities are going on atthe same time.

(c) Sometimes there are problems in printing ifthe teacher station is not loaded correctly.

(d) Student work or other documents cannot bescanned or imported easily into the teacnerwindow for testing or other exercises. Anydocument must be retyped directly into theprogram.

(e) It is difficult for students to learn how to"converse" in writing. The conversational visualcues are missing: this situation can be effective forlearning but it can also be confusing anddisruptive to the flow of thoughts.

(3) Writer's Helper may be inappropriate for lower-level writing students.

(a) In the prewriting section (which is all that Iused in my study) topics are explored in moredetail than can be managed at this level ofwriting/thinking ability.

(b) At the lower writing levels, this program isnot user friendly; instructors must plan on activelyguiding students through the activities andexplicitly tying together the various prewritingstrategies. In my case, I had planned on doingsample topics using this program in class by

43

projecting the screen with an LCD. However, weencountered technical problems and I was forcedto give the students an overview of the programand then run from computer to computer to guideindividual students as they worked.

Students completed activities outside of class, buteven with the help of the computer, the movefrom prewriting to outlining was more difficult forthem than for those in my traditionally taughtclass.

(4) Word processing in general is a valuable toolfor students at this level. WordPetfect 5.1 provedmanageable for the students. An ideal programwould allow the instructor to look in on astudent as he/she is composing; to take over astudent's keyboard; to speak (orally) to astudent or group of students; to send astudent's work or a piece of writing to allstudents or a specific group of students; and toactually make written comment on a piece ofstudent writing on computer (in the samefashion as when making comments on,underlining, or otherwise giving feedback ontraditional pen-and-paper compositions).Various programs in conjunction with a word-processing program can facilitate some of theabove; however, as would be expected, no oneprogram can do all. Trying to find a creativesolution to the above wish list should be one ofthe goals of future studies.

52

ENC 1130 in the SYNERGY Center

Kendall Campus

Abraham Oseroff teaches ENC 1130 in the College PrepDepartment at Miami-Dade Community College, KendallCampus, where he has been teaching English since 1966. Hehelped start the developmen`.al writing program in 1972, andhas been working in it since. He has held his compositionclasses in computer labs continuously since the 1980s. Dr.Oseroff received his B.A. from the University ofPennsylvania, his M.A. from the University of Maryland, andhis Ed.D. from Florida Atlantic University.

The Setting

The control group met in a traditionalclassroom twice a week; the experimentalgroup met in a classroom for one session aweek and in the SYNERGY Center for onesession a week.

About the Course

ENC 1130 (college composition) students learnthat an essay must make one main point (unity);be in some order (time, place, or importance);provide support for generalizations (stories,facts, quotations); and have standard sentenceskills (grammar, spelling, punctuation,subordination).

Rationale for the Study

Word processing allows easier editing (fixingand moving text) than writing on paper.Writing using electronic word processingreinforces the concept of writing as a process, ascreative rather than perfunctory, and aspotentially collaborative as well as individual.Students appreciate close attention to theirwriting by an instructor. Coached while writingparts of an essay rather than after completing it,students avoid pitfalls and wasted effort.Ongoing coaching allows students to learn

44

"during the. game" rather than just before orafter the event.

About the Students

Beginning ENC 1130 students think of writingas largely superfluous in a television/telephoneage. Most equate narration with expositionfor example, writing their autobiography whenasked to write an essay about themselves. Also,they lack understanding of the need to supportopinions persuasively and the effort required todo so. They seem awed to learn that writinginvolves revision. They believe that an opinioncan be supported with a generalization. "Mymother is always there" or "My mother isalways helping everybody" seems to themreasonable and sufficient proof that theirmother is a caring person, despite lack ofdocumentation. While most of the studentsknow how to type, few have written essays on acompu ter.

About the Software

Please see Appendix D for a description ofWordPerfect 6.0 for Windows.

The DesignClasses meeting Tuesdays/Thursdays wereused in the study, with one section of ENC 1130

53

serving as the control group and the otherserving as the experimental group. The controlgroup received my usual* methods ofinstruction, including the use of lecture, classdiscussions, chalkboard, overhead trans-parency, textbook assignments, mark-up ofstudent essays, and small-group work. Theexperimental group received the usual methodsof instruction in one class period a week and inthe other class period worked in the SYNERGYCenter on computers, either writing essays ordoing instructor-generated assignments onunity, order, and support.

Monitoring the StudyIn the classroom, students wrote independentlyunless required to cooperate; in contrast, in theSYNERGY Center, students wrote coop-eratively, spontaneously helping each otherwith computer and writing problems unlessrequired to work independently. Withcomputer screens highly visible, they naturallyglanced left and right to see how fellowstudents were progressing and sharedcomments about the assignments. Considerablymore one-to-one conferencing during writingsessions was done in the computer lab than inthe classroom, due to the ease of revising oncomputers.

OutcomesAs can be seen from Table I below, final gradeswete better in the experimental group than inthe control group. Students adjusted readily toworking in the SYNERGY Center, even thosewith little typing skill or no computerexperience, thanks in part to the presence of a

lab assistant working throughout each classperiod on problems or questions associatedwith the technology. Only rarely did students inthe lab choose to write on paper instead of thecompu ter.

Students who arrived early before class in theSYNERGY Center began immediately to workon their computers, whereas in the classroom,students who arrived early tended just to waitfor the start of class.

Students' Comments on the SYNERGYCenter

"The first time at the lab I didn't even workon the first essay. I didn't feel toocomfortable there. I met one of myclassmates named Deirdre and found outthat she was as lost in the class as I was. Igot the hang of writing essays by calling Dr.Oseroff every time I was in doubt. As I gotthe hang of it, I would call him less eachtime. I have learned how to like writingessays. Now I tend to write more letters tomy girlfriend in Boston. I like the fact thatwe can do revisions and fix the essay.''

"In the SYNERGY Center, our writing lab,our classes would meet almost once a week.We would do different assignments on thecomputer with our own saved disk. Theprimary purpose in the writing lab was towrite essays. Dr. Oseroff gave us directionswritten in the computer on what to writeand how it was to be set up. After writing afew essays, along with lectures and classparticipations, I understood what an essaygenerally was and what he expected fromus."

Table IFinal Grade Distribution

Group A B C D F Withdrawal

Experimental (N=23) 17% 22%" 26% 13% 4% 18%

Control (N=25) 12% 16% 20% 12% 16% 24%

45 5 L.

RecommendationsResults are far from conclus that studentslearn to write better on computers than onpaper. My impression, however, is thatstudents who have the experience of a writingcoach helping them revise as they write oncomputers get a better sense of the writingprocess than students who just turn incompleted papers to receive marginalcomments some days later for future revisions.As a teacher, I feel that recommendingcomposing strategies to a writer using acomputer is a far more reasonable intrusionthan doing so to one using paper and correctionfluid. Also, I find reading essays on a computerscreen or from a laser printer much easier thanreading handwritten essays.

ME111Mi

Students take longer to get started on writingassignments in the SYNERGY Center than inthe classroom. Rather than simply pulling Out apiece of paper and starting to write on it, in theCenter they must access the network andsoftware, and retrieve a file from the network.My recommendation is that ENC 1130 classesbe much longer than fifty or even seventy-fiveminutes perhaps several hours and thatthey meet daily rather than only two or threetimes a week, to allow for computerfamiliarization and to provide opportunity forstudents to concentrate on completing adocumented, revised essay at one sitting. In mynext study, I have elected to compare classesmeeting in the SYNERGY Center seventy-fiveminutes a week with classes meeting there ahundred minutes a week.

Wolfson Campus

Marjorie Sussman is an Associate Professor at Miami-DadeCommunity College, Wolfson Campus. She has been with theWolfson Campus Communications Department for 8 years.She received her B.S. in Elementary Education from theUniversity of Vermont in 1967 and her M.S. in GenericSpecial Education from Framingham State Collegein 1985.

The SettingAbout the Course

ENC 1130, Introduction to EnglishComposition, is the highest-level remedialwriting course offered at Miami-DadeCommunity College. The course objectivesfocus vim writing a standard three- to four-paragraph essay that is sufficiently developedand free of most mechanical errors. Studentsmay test into this course or pass theprerequisite course, ENC (X)20.

During the first week of classes all students takea diagnostic grammar test and a diagnostic

essay sample to assure proper placement. Theexit exam is a ninety-minute, three- to four-paragraph essay administered throughcontrolled testing conditions. This exam isgraded holistically by the English Department.Students must receive at least a 5 (out of apossible 8) to be eligible to pass the course. Theactual final grade (A,B,C,D,F) is based onwriting assignments, grammar quizzes andclass participation.

About the Students

A total of seventeen students were originallyregistered for this course. Of these, 75% were

4655

non-native speakers of English who exhibited ahigh degree of second-language syntaxproblems and mechanical errors. Two studentsdropped by the third week of class and onewithdrew after midterm. Two studentswithdrew one week before finals. All thestudents who remained in the class and took thefinal passed the class (see Table I below).

Monitoring the StudyThe class met three times a week in theSYNERGY Center. I employed a variety ofteaching methods, which included the text, peerassessment, lectures and computerizedinstruction. (See Appendix D for a descriptionof individual software programs.)

Through the use of Educational TestingService's GUIDES, a diagnostic software, I wasquickly able to get a "feel" for individualstrengths and weaknesses as well as classstrengths and weaknesses. I then used thisinformation to modify my syllabus for thesemester refocusing my teaching strategies tomeet the individual needs of this particulargroup of students.About two to three times a month, I dividedstudents into skill groups, working with onegroup (i.e., those students with deficiencies inwriting thesis statements) while the rest of thestudents worked on GUIDES individually. Asthe semester progressed, and the studentscompleted more of the diagnostic testing, I

found I was able to refine my grouping,constantly regrouping as the need arose.The students were also exposed to the CSR

grammar program, but they seemed to feel itwas below their ability level; as 95"1,

consistently scored 100% on each pre-test, I

tend to agree. The students did not work on thisprogram willingly.

At the beginning of the semester all studentschose to write their weekly essay On thecomputer using Microsoft Works, but by mid-term only three students were still using theword processor. The others found their lack oftyping proficiency a detriment and chose tohandwrite their essays.

47

Initially, I felt overwhelmed by the technology.With limited access to personnel who hadcomputer expertise, I felt frustrated when theprinter wouldn't work and /or the actualprograms caused problems. I found myselflimiting my classes' access to the computer.Students also appeared frustrated when thecomputer would not "do" what they wanted itto do. They had difficulty following directionsfor computer use, and I constantly had tomonitor students individually to make surethey were using the program correctly. I felt asthough class time for the first half of thesemester was wasted as I tried to deal withhardware problems. Eight weeks into thesemester we received direct help in thecomputer room a part-time assistant. Eventhough he was only available once a week, hispresence freed me to deal with teachingresponsibilities, as I now had someone to dealwith computer glitches. As I began to feel morecomfortable, I began to increase computerusage.

OutcomesTable I shows the Final Grade Distribution.

RecommendationsThe SYNERGY Center is a great concept which,I believe, requires further study so that it canbecome an effective tool to aid our students intheir acquisition of knowledge. I believe that themain reason for the negative feeling towardcomputer-assisted instruction was the lack ofsufficient programs, sufficient support andtyping proficiency on the students' part. Aseach of these issues is addressed and corrected,teaching in the comput?r-assisted classroomwill be greatly enhanced.The following are my recommendations for thethis SYNERGY project:

1. The students need typing skills, either as aprerequisite or by having a keyboardingprogram available for their use.

2. I would like to have an aide in the computerroom at all times to help deal with thehardware problems.

5C

3. I would like to see classes available Tuesdayand Thursday and ric,t Monday, Wednesday,and Friday. The longer class period (1.25

hours versus 50 minutes) would allow formore in-depth work on the computerprograms.

Table I

Final Grade DistributionGroup A B C D F Withdrawal

Experimental Group (N=78) 17% 50% 6% 28%

Miria C. Villar has been a faculty member at Miami-DadeCommunity College for 2 years. She received a B. A. inFren:h (1988) from the University of Florida, Gainesville, andan M. A. in Language and Foreign Studies (1993) from theA nerican University, Washington, DC. She also holds a11( ense in graduate translation from French to English, acertificate in Russian Studies, and a certificate in FrenchCivilization and Language from the Universite de Paris, LaSorbonne.

The SettingTwo sections of ENC 1130 participated in thestudy. One section, the experimental group, hadtheir classes in the SYNERGY Center,completed the entire GUIDES program andused Microsoft Works for their writingassignments. The GUIDES program wassupplemented by the CSR writing modules thatadds grammar support. The students alternatedwith College Writing Skills With Reading JohnLangan's module also available in textbookform.

The other section, the control group, met in aregular classroom without computers. Usualclassroom teaching techniques were used tocover the same objectives. The only differencebetween the two sections was the use ofcomputers by the experimental group. Thesame standards and policies were used ingrading and assigning the final grades tostudents in both sections.

About the Course

The basic objective is for the students to be ableto write a three- to four-paragraph essay on agiven topic with relatively few errors in

grammar, syntax and format. The topics chosenfor the exams are taken from a bank of themesencompassing all styles of essays. .The formscovered at this level are example, process, causeand effect, comparison and contrast, definition,narration and argumentation and persuasion.

The selections assigned in Langan's text, as wellas copies of stories from other sources, are read,discussed and written on. The readingcomponent of this class contributes to thecourse objectives; each reading selection iswritten in a definiVve essay style.

The DesignStudents in both experimental and controlgroups were required to take approximatelyeight quizzes administered in class andtabulated by Testbanking and ElectronicServices, They were also required to take twodepartmental exams: a midterm and a final.Students' performance in both groups would bebased on their scores on these exams.

The programs currently available, GUIDES andCSR, were being used as a complement to myregular classroom instruction. The computer-aided instruction was used once a week by the

48 57

experimental group; regular classroominstruction was used in the remaining twomeetings. Therefore, the total number of CAIhours for the sixteen-week semester wasbetween twelve and thirteen. The control groupmet three times a week in the regularclassroom, where normal classroom instructionwas used. The objective of the study was todetermine if the combination of computer-aidedinstruction with regular classroom instructionwould better assist the students in developingtheir writing process. Student performance onall the exams in both groups was to bemonitored. Perhaps, if the percentages differedgreatly for both groups favoring the computer-aided approach, I might try a class conductedsolely with computer programs.

Monitoring the StudyI monitored progress for both groups. Studentsenrolled in the experimental group had no priorknowledge that they were registering for acourse in which the use of computers was anintegral part; therefore, incorporating Microsoft

Works for their word processing was rathercumbersome. Out of a class of twenty-fourstudents, only three could adequately type and

use the keyboard in the time allotted for in-classwriting assignments. Class time was fiftyminutes. However, editing and revising essayswas much easier for this group since they didnot have to rewrite an entire paper. The control..;,roup adjusted much better to the fifty-minutewriting requirement since they did not wasteany time learning how to type or work with thecomputer.

About the SoftwareSee Appendix D for a description of individualsoftware packages.

OutcomesIn addition to the estAblished curriculum, I also

worked through an office on campus entitledTestbanking and Electronic Services, whichstored all the data for my classes. This officerenders a service I deem invaluable, not only tomy traditional classes, but specifically to my

49

SYNERGY class. All of my students' scoreswere stored and evaluated for me through thesystem.

At this point, I should discuss the method usedin grading students' written material. Thismethod is called holistic scoring, which is usedat the middle and end of each semester for themidterm and final exams. Below is theoperational description of the four-point ratingscale which conveys the general, overallimpressions a reader has of the essays he or shereads.

Score 1: Writer includes very little, if any,specific and relevant supporting detail but,instead, uses generalizations for support. Thesisstatement and organization are vague and/orweak. Underdeveloped, ineffective paragraphsdo not support the thesis. Sentences lackvariety, usually consisting of a series of subject-verbs and, occasionally, complement con-structions. Transitions and coherence devicesare not discernible. Syntactical, mechanical andusage errors occur frequently.

Score 2: Writer employs an adequate amount ofspecific detail relating to the subject. Thesisstatement and organization are unambiguous.Paragraphs generally follow the organizationalplan, and they are usually sufficiently unifiedand developed. Sentence variety is minimal andconstructions lack sophistication. Some transi-tions are used and parts are related to eachother in a fairly orderly manner. Some errorsoccur in syntax, mechanics and usage. Score 3:Writer pre.sents a considerable quantity ofrelevant and specific detail in support of thesubject. The thesis statement expresses thewriter's purpose. Reasonably well-developed,unified paragraphs document the thesis. Avariety of sentence patterns occurs, andsentence constructions indicate that the writerhas facility in the use of language. Effectivetransitions are accompanied by sentencesconstructed with orderly relationship betweenword groups. Syntactical, mechanical and usageerrors are minor.

Score 4: Writer uses an abundance of specific,relevant details including concrete examplesthat clearly support generalizations. Thesis

r0 C./

statement effectively reflects the writer'spurpose. Body paragraphs carefully follow theorganizational plan stated in the introductionand are fully developed and tightly controlled.A wide variety of sentence constructions isused. Appropriate transitional words andphrases and effective coherence techniquesmake the prose distinctive. Virtually no errorsin syntax, mechanics and usage occur.All students in both groups had their midtermand final exams read by at least one of thefaculty members of the School ofCommunications who have been through theholistic scoring workshops and training. Ascore of one through four was given by eachgrader. This process is done through codes sothat the second reader is not influenced by thefirst reader's score. A student may receive acombined score as low as 2 or as high as 8. Thepassing score for the exam is a combined scoreof 5. Passing the departmental exam is theminimum requirement for all writing levels.This does not, however, mean the student willpass the course, for there are otherrequirements which include completing twelvewriting assignments, passing ten quizzes,completing a class project and participating inclass discussions. For this reason, if oneevaluates the final scores of both theexperimental and control groups, there mayseem to be discrepancies between the scoresand the final grades.Evaluation takes place at various points in thecourse. First, when students enter the class, theyare administered a diagnostic examinationwhich consists of a grammar test and a writtencomponent. Neither exam, however, is used toaverage a student's grade. They are justindicators to the student, but most importantlyto the faculty, so that they may know at which

level a particular student and /or class stands.Therefore, the syllabus of a class may bechanged by the instructor after reviewing thediagnostic results of the students. The facultymay opt to start reviewing first the areas wherestudents seem to have more trouble. Thus, aclass may end up on a different path from theactual lesson plans for the semester. This isusually done to accommodate the needs of thestudents and to make the class scheduleflexible. This is what I do, and this is the basicrationale behind diagnostic testing.Another evaluation is comprised of a series ofquizzes and tests administered during theregular twelve- to sixteen-week course andpertaining to material taught and learned inclass. Individual instructors may vary in thispractice. Evaluation consists also of twodepartmental examinations which take place atmidpoint and at the end of each semester. It isrequired that ENC (XX)2 and ENC 0020 studentsreceive a minimum of 80% on the midtermexams. If they do not, they are given a grade of"I" (or "progress") which means they mustretake the course at a later time. ENC 1130 isnot given such an exam, but is given a writtenexam to determine the status and weaknesses ofstudents at midpoint. All levels, once havingadequately passed midpoint evaluations, aregiven a final exam which is holistically scored.If a student does not pass the final examination,he/she automatically must retake the course;the student cannot pass the class. Thus,discrepancies may arise since there may beinstances when the student has been doingsatisfactory work during the semester and failsthe final. This student, unfortunately, will begiven a grade of "D".Table I shows the final grade distribution forboth groups.

Table IFinal Grade Distribution

Group A B C D F Withdrawal

Experimental N=24 21% 21% 33% 4% 21%

Control N=26 8% 38% 23% 19% 12%

50

59

RecommendationsI want to give the students a choice aboutwhether they use the computer to compose andto write. It is challenging to get all the studentsto finish their entire writing assignment andprint it out within the fifty-minute class period.I feel that we need more time in the SYNERGYCenter to allow the students enough time tocompletely finish an assignment. I havestructured my next study close to the design ofthe present one, so it will be interesting to knowif the result will be about the same.

A final observation to make here is that thescores averaged and recorded under the

testbanking service do not include scores

received for writing assignments. Communica-tions have begun, however, to devise a way of

incorporating the holistic-scoring method usedby the department into the testbanking

computer; therefore, the averages will includewriting assignments and not solely grammarquizzes.

REA 0002 in the SYNERGY Center

North CampusBob Ashcraft has taught reading in the BasicCommunication Studies Department at Miami-DadeCommunity College, North Campus, for 5 years. He taughtextensively in secondary schools in Miami, Florida, andWalhalla, South Carolina, as well as being posted for 3 yearsto a boarding school in East Africa (Kenya). He has a B.A. inhistory from Oberlin College in Ohio and an M.A. inTeaching (history) from the University of Massachusetts(Amherst).

The first opportunity to use the SYNERGYCenter knocked at my door when theSYNERGY staff wanted GUIDES (the diagnostictest of ETS) to be evaluated. As I pondered theinvitation, I realized that I had never used acomputer or taken a computer course. I alsorealized that I did not want to remain totallyignorant of computers and their possibilities.After much debate within myself, I agreed toparticipate. To my surprise, I discovered thatcomputers are not scary, and this discovery ismostly due to the assistance I received fromLonnie Pollard, who manages the NorthCampus SYNERGY Center, and Danny Ramos,his assistant.

The SettingAfter my initial exposure to the SYNERGYCenter, I began to consider its use for mystudents. I generally teach the second-levelreading course (REA 0002) offered by the BasicCommunication Studies Department. Thiscourse emphasizes literal comprehension skills(main idea, vocabulary in context, patterns oforganizing action, and the like) along with thecritical skills (inferences, fact and opinion,purpose and tone, and the like). About 60 to70% percent of my students speak English astheir second language, Spanish and Creolebeing their first. The median age approachestwenty-five years. By attending two class

meetings per week in addtion to lab time,students labor to raise their reading level to atleast a 10.5 grade level.

The DesignMy goal was to use the SYNERGY Center inorder to provide individualized attention andfeedback to my students. As I began to explorethe Center's software, I recognized more clearlythan before my own inadequacies inunderstanding individualized learningprograms and the intricacies of the software.Therefore, I added CSR next and PLATO later.At the beginning, I did not require students tocomplete a certain number of modules, nor didI keep close watch on what the students did andhow they were progressing.

Over the four semesters that I've used theSYNERGY Center, I have come to require thestudents to spend a minimum of twenty hoursin the SYNERGY Center, to discipline myself toread the software reports on students' progress,and to refer to these reports in class. I have alsoincluded students' participation in theSYNERGY Center in my c_,mputation of theircourse grades. I am pleased to note that thestudents using the SYNERGY Center haveperformed better than those using thetraditional lab. The traditional lab employsstudent tutors and an array of reading bookletsto reinforce classroom instruction and iron out

52

61

any confusion in the major skill areas. Somestudents prefer this type of lab to the SYNERGY

Center because of the greater interactionbetween tutors and students.

Due to financial restrictions at the college,however, as well as the need to provide accessto the SYNERGY Center to more students, wecan require students to spend only ten hours inthe lab. This change has required me to rethink

my plan for students' use of the SYNERGYCenter. Instead of looking at time spent in theSYNERGY Center, I am currently (Winter Term1995) making certain assignments that thestudents have to complete.Step one requires all to complete three of thefive sections of the GUIDES Diagnostic Reading

Test (Understanding Text, Words in Context,Prefixes-Suffixes). In class, I emphasize thatthey are not to work on the Follow-Up section

at this time. Based on the results of theUnderstanding Text section, students work in

the lab on skills that need improvement. This isstep two. Students from my 8 a.m. class use thetraditional lab during their free time under theguidance of one or two paraprofessionals. My

7 p.m. students work in the SYNERGY Centerduring open lab hours on assigned modulesfrom the 1100 and 1300 series of the CSRprogram. Step three requires all students toreturn to the SYNERGY Center during the finallab week to complete a middle-level readingselection from the Follow-Up section of

Understanding Text (GUIDES).

Follow lipI will compare the end-of term results withthose of the beginning of the term. I hope toreport the results in the next report of Project

SYNERGY.

Edward H. Yeatts is an alumnus of Lynchburg College B.A.),

William and Mary, the University of Virginia (M.Ed.), Pacific

States University, and Brunel University, London (Ed.O.). He

taught in the public schools of Virginia and New York for 25

years and at U.Va. for 8 years. He has published in numerow,professional tournals. His WW II book, Cheersfrom the Camps

will be released in 1996.

The SettingAbout the CourseREA 0002 is a college-prep reading classdesigned to ele%'ate students' reading abilities toa 10.6 grade level or higher. The acquisition ofskills (main idea, supporting details, vocabularyin context, etc.) is emphasized using the text,Ten Steps to Improving Reading Skills, by JohnLangan, supplemented with newspapers,magazines, poetry selections, and either a three-

act play or a novel.

About the StudentsEighty-one multicultural students (thirty-onemales and fifty females) enrolled in threesections. The ages ranged between seventeen

53

and fifty-six with the majority of the students intheir early to mid-twenties.

The DesignThree sections of REA 0002 were selected toparticipate in the study. One section (twenty-seven students), designated ExperimentalGroup A, received a minimum of one hour andfifteen minutes of computer-assisted instructioneach week in the SYNERGY Center using acombination of GUIDES and PLATO modules.

Another section (twenty-nine students),designated Experimental Group B, received aminimum of one hour and fifteen minutes ofcomputer-assisted instruction each week in theSYNERGY Center using a combination ofGUIDES and CSR modules. The third section(twenty-five students), designated as the

Control Group, received a minimum of onehour and fifteen minutes of tutor-led small-group activities in the traditional Reading Lab.All three sections received identical classroominstruction delivered by the same professorfollowing the same syllabus.

Student selection for the three groups waschance of registration dictated by studentpreference of day and time. ExperimentalGroup A met on Fridays, 9-11:50 a.m., forclassroom instruction and met in the lab onMondays, from 8-9:15 a.m. Experimental GroupB met on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 5:30-6:50p.m. They attended lab at the same time onWednesdays. The Control Group met onTuesdays and Thursdays, 3:05-4:20 p.m., withlab sessions scheduled for the same time onWednesdays.

The objective of the research design was todetermine which, if any, of the three methods oflab instruction was more effective as a deliverysystem to supplement classroom instructionand meet individual needs (increased readingability). The major instrument of measure wasthe departmental exam. The fifty-item objectiveexam tests students' mastery of reading

competencies set for REA 0002. At thebeginning of the term Form B of thedepartmental exam was administered to allstudents. As a post-test, students completedForm A of the departmental exam. The tvvoforms of the test are as equal as it is humanlypossible to make two exams equal withoutbeing identical.

GUIDES Reading and Study Skills Program, acomputer-based system of assessment andinstruction in language arts for college studentsin remedial and/or developmental courses,consists of five diagnostic units andcorresponding follow-up units: UnderstandingText, Textbook Reference Skills, Memory,Words in Context, and Prefixes and Suffixes.The materials selected from the PLATOcurriculum (whose lessons are sequentiallydesigned to reinforce skills previously learned)and from CSR Basic Skills (which provides apre-test, reference to the next module or atutorial that guides the student through a

number of practice exercises, and a post-test)are shown below in Tables I and II. Thesemodules were completed as time allowed afterGUIDES work was done.

Table IPLATO Modules

Modules Description Modules Description

hrlg Vocabulary: Meaning from Context hr2f Comparison & Contrast

hrla Identifying Main Idea I hr2g Cause and Effect

hr2a Identifying Main Idea II hr3h Illustration /Example

hrlc Locating Supporting Details hr3e Tone

hr2e Chronological / Logical Order hrlf Inferring the Answer

54

Table II

CSR Level Three Modules

Modules Description

R0812 Identifying a Literal Idea in a Paragraph

R0819 Determining the Implied Main Idea in a Paragraph

R0813 Finding Details in a Paragraph

R0814 Determining the Order of Events in a Paragraph

R0815 Identifying Literal Cause and Effect in a Paragraph

R0820 Identifying Implied Cause and Effect in a Paragraph

R0821 Iden ifying Conclusion and Generalizations for Paragraphs

R0826 Reading Tables, Schedules, and Bar Graphs

Traditional lab topics for the Control groupincluded the following: Vocabulary in Context,

Main Idea, Supporting Details, Transitions,

Patterns of Organization, Fact and Opinion,

Inferences, Purpose and Tone, Propaganda, and

Argument.

Monitoring the StudyI attended all lab sessions in the SYNERGY

Center with both experimental groups. I

assisted students upon request and offered

encouraging comments. Many students

expressed appreciation for my attendance and

support.

I randomly visited the control group in the

traditional lab (every second or third session)

and checked their folders of completed

activities on a weekly basis when they were not

in attendance.

During the semester, I collected data (printouts)

from the SYNERGY Center weekly;

55

consequently, I was constantly aware of what

the students were doing and how well.

I made every effort to make certain that

classroom instruction was comparable, yetallow for individual needs. Since a big part of

student progress in REA 0002 i5 measured by a

portfolio of student writings based on readings

from the text, vocabulary acquisition, and abook report, I allowed equal class time for the

three gro,...es to work on their portfolios,

including time to discuss the novel or pl."

had read with classmates who hadsame title.

Students were encouraged to discuss their lab

experiences and ask questions.

A brief mid-semester anonymous survey

(teacher-made) provided students the

opportunity to evaluate the course and their

progress, to make suggestions and

recommendations, and to react to their lab

experiences.

REA 0002 Date

Student Course and Self-Evaluation

Directions: Please complete the following statements with serious responses.

1. I could further improve my reading skills if I....

2. My teacher needs to explain

3. I wish my teacher would....

4. The class would be more interesting if....

5. My teacher is....

6. Before the end of the semester I must....

7. In Lab I enjoy....

8. Lab work is....

OutcomesThe primary goal in conducting this evaluationwas to present identical classroom instructionto three sections of REA 0002 with varying labrequirements in order to detect if students inthe electronic lab or students in the traditionallab made significantly greater progress.

Variables such as age, sex, time of day, andlength of time in college were not considered(however, a greater number of students in thecontrol group were first-semester students). Acomparison of the final-grade distribution in thetwo experimental groups and the control groupappears in Table III.

Table IIIFinal Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Experimental A (1\1=27) 56% 33% 11%

Experimental B (N=29) 59% 28% 3% 10%

Control (1\1,25) 48% 200,, 8% 24%

Overall the experimental groups (fifty-sixstudents) registered higher percentages of"Satisfactory" and "Progress" grades and asmaller percentage of "Withdrawals."

The number of lab hours completed and thenumber of learning activities completed by bothexperimental groups and the control groupwere so nearly identical that further comparisonwas not lustified. Pre-test scores for the control

56

group were significantly higher than for eitherexperimental group; however, post-test scoresfor the three groups were comparable. ClearlyTable IV reveals that students in the twoexperimental groups made greater gains duringthe semester, but post-test scores reveal nosignificant differences. Table V charts thecomparison of passing grade scores betweenentry and exit for the three groups

65

Table IVPre-test and Post-test Scores

Experimental A (N=24)

IPretest 18% 50%

f32%

Post-test 18% 73% 9%

Experimental B (N=26),

Pretest 10% 55% 35%

Post-test 20% 70% 10%

Control (N=l9)Pretest 33% 40% 27%

Post-test 7% 13% 66% 7% 7%

Table VComparison of Passing Grade Scores Between Entry and Exit

Group Pre-Passing Post-Passing Gain

Experimental A (N=27) 18% 91% 73%

Experimental B (N=29)10% 90% 80%

Control (N=25) 33% 86% 53%

Portfolio grade distribution is presented in The distribution of grades on the required fifty-

Table VI. These subjective grades are item objective test on the play or novel read by

comparable and do not reveal significant students in the three groups is presented in

differences. Table VII.

Table VIPortfolio Grade Distribution

Group A B C D F

Experimental A (N=24) 21% 63% 8% 8%

Experimental B (N=26) 31% 38% 31%

Control (N=19) 31% 31% 27% 11%

Table VIIDistribution of Grades on Novel Test

Group A B C D F

Experimental A (N=24) 21% 29% 4% 29% 17%

Experimental B (N=26) 25% 50% 10% 10% 5%

Control (N=19) 20% 20% 27% 13% 20%

5766

The "D" and "F" grades on the novel readoutside of class probably indicate that studentsonly partially completed the assignment (acursory reading of the fiction versus an in-depth study).

A consideration/comparison of the studentsurvey completed at mid-semester reveals agreat deal about student attitudes. Ninety-eightpercent of the students in Experimental GroupsA and B completed item seven (In Lab I

Enjoy ...) with a response that named"computer." Of the students in the controlgroup, 80% did not complete the item. A totalof 56% of the students in the control groupcompleted item eight (Lab work is . . . ) with theterms "boring" or "a waste of time," while only4% of the students who attended the SYNERGYCenter (the experimental groups) responded ina similar manner. The overall value of thesurvey, I believe, is not so much what thestudents said but the fact that they felt they hada voice in the educational process, that someonecared about how they felt and was willing tolisten to their comments.

ObservationsOf the experimental students in Groups A andB, 84% made outstanding progress in REA (0()2,as compared to 68% of the students in thecontrol group. This comparison reveals, at leastto this instructor, that participation in the

SYNERGY Center is a valuable instructionalservice which should be maintained andexpanded. I predict that under the revisedsystem of lab services recently instituted atMDCC-North students choose the lab theywish to attend and select their Own schedulesa large majority of students will opt to completetheir lab requirements in the electronic lab.

GUIDES is a good program for college-prepreading students when supplemented by eitherCSR or PLATO. Both CSR and PLATO areessentially electronic workbooks that providepractice of skills. I did not prefer one to theother prior to the study, and I found noevidence during the semester that using one ismore advantageous to the teacher or studentthan using the other.

Our 1990's students are expected to function onthe crest of the "Third Wave" thetechnological society. I believe that in the BasicCommunications Studies Department we canbest assist them to prepare for an uncertainfuture with greater access to computers withmore comprehensive software which will surelybe available in the next few years. In fact, I amfirmly convinced that every classroom shouldbe stocked with computers so that each studentcan work for at least fifty percent of class timeon computer-assisted reading, which would nodoubt greatly improve reading skills andstimulate a lifelong interest in reading.

Kendall CampusAzalee W. Glenn, Professor of Reading, has been teachingfull-time at Miami-Dade Community College, KendallCampus, for the past 26 years. She has taught bothdevelopmental and college-level reading courses. Shereceived her.B.A. in Education from Benedict College,Columbia, South Carolina, and her M.A in Reading fromAtlanta University, Atlanta, Georgia

The SettingFrom the beginning of the Fall Term 1994(August-December), students enrolled in two

58

classes of REA (1002 were given instruction inthe Basic Comprehension Unit. This unit is oneof four units taught in REA 0002. I wasconfident that through the mastery of this unit

0 7

they .ould be equipped to handle selectedr.eading passages with relative ease.

Rationale for the StudyAfter working with both classes forapproximately one month, I selected one of theclasses to be used as the experimental readingclass for Project SYNERGY. The other class wasselected as the control group. I chose the twoclasses based on the similarities of theirschedules, meeting times of Monday,Wednesday and Friday, and the meeting periodof only two hours apart.

Of the two sequences, empirical evidenceseemed to indicate that the control group wasmore serious and more energetic in going abouttheir class activities. They were also diligent incompleting their homework assignments.

Since the experimental group appeared topresent more of a challenge to me, I decidedthat an innovative approach would be beneficialfor them. When I discussed the possibility ofusing the computer as an alternative readingapproach, the experimental group reacted withdoubt and stated that they would not feelcomfortable using a computer for classroomassignments. Many of these students said thatthis would be a first-time experience of using acomputer. However, the class ultimately agreedto try the experiment. The students' fear ofdifficulty in using the computer nevermaterialized. They did not have any problemswith the mechanics of using the computer.

Both groups, the control and the experimental,were required to attend the College PrepReading Lab. In this setting, they spent three tofour hours per week working on labassignments. These lab assignments weredesigned to coincide with their classroomobjectives.

About the SoftwareThe Quantum Reading Series: Level I, developedby EDL, was chosen as the beginning softwareprogram. This series was designed to buildvocabulary and reading fluency by using high-interest stories. Every week the experimentalgroup spent their Wednesday class period in

59

the SYNERGY Center; the control groupattended their class periods on Monday,Wednesday, and Friday as usual. The controlgroup was given supplementary material tocomplete in class. This material was carefullyselected to serve as reinforcement of aparticular reading skill, whereas theexperimental group read stories and answeredquestions that tested comprehension andvocabulary skills in general during theSYNERGY Center period. Meanwhile, most ofthe experimental students completed Level Jand proceeded to Level K. A few of thestudents even progressed to Level L.

As a personal experiment, I selected twostudents to switch from Quantum to theLearning Plus software program developed byEducational Testing Services. This switchoccurred after two weeks of using Quantum.These two students were selected because Iwanted to find out if the nature and scope ofQuantum compared favorably with LearningPlus and to determine if this program would bebeneficial for an entire class.

Learning Plus tended to be more timeconsuming than Quantum. Additionally,Learning Plus contained many screens andwindows that demanded more attention in

following directions than Quantum. Bothstudents enjoyed using Learning Plus eventhough one student stated that she would notrecommend the program to be used by the classbecause of the time factor. Incidentally, both ofthese students passed the reading course. For amore detailed description of these programs,see Appendix D.

Monitoring the StudyThe Project SYNERGY students revealed thatusing the computer to read served as amotivational factor. Periodically, as a furthercomprehension check, I asked them to write areaction to a story of their choice. This allowedthe students to identify with the story byreacting to a particular character or event in it.

The experimental group felt privileged thattheir class had been picked for the software

66

implementation project. Some students evenrevealed that they had noticed increasedinterest in reading since becoming a part of thisSYNERGY project.

OutcomesIn reviewing the performance of both classes, itappears that there was no significant differenceinsofar as the success and progress outcomesare concerned. Table I below shows theperformance of students in both experimentaland control groups. In order for students toreceive the "S" grade they must pass an exitexam as well as complete classroomassignments. Of the students receiving "S"grades, the control group re.ceived 36% and theexperimental group received 22%. There was nosignificant difference in attrition between thetwo groups.As the semester began to draw to a close, Inoticed that the experimental group started to

exhibit several of the positive study habits that Iobserved at the beginning of the semester fromthe control group. The experimental groupexpressed their appreciation to me for theopportunity of being involved in ProjectSYNERGY.

For Winter Term 1995 (January-April), I

selected two REA 0001 classes for a similarcomparative study. Having become morefamiliar with the SYNERGY environment andthe software, I made some changes both in boththe number of times the students would use theSYNERGY Center and in the software. Thestudents would be exposed to other softwarethat was not available for the REA 0002students. It will be interesting to report whatimpact these changes have on attrition, successrate, participation and attendance for theexperimental group.

Table I

Final Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Experimental (N=27) 22% 48% 11% 19%

Control (N=25) 36% 40% 12% 12%

Homestead Cam

Fred Wolven has been a faculty member at Miami-DadeCommunity College for 11 of his 35 years in education andhas some 16 years of work in community colleges inMichigan. He has served tn leadership roles indevelopmental programs, developing curriculum, and hasreviewed software and written testbank questions for ProjectSYNERGY.

The Setting

Students in development studies REA 0002either test directly into the course or pass into itfrom REA OM with varying skill proficienciesand deficiencies. [hese REA 0002 students enter

60

US

classroom instruction simultaneously, and theyare also scheduled into the Learning Skills Labactivities commencing the first week of thesemester.

Although students advance at varying paceswith varying levels of improvement, they are all

69

expected to complete lab work, whichcomplements their classroom instruction, withnearly the same speed. We know this is

unrealistic even for students who may spendadditional time in lab activities beyond the basicrequirements. Change in this situation wasmade in the first phase of this experimentbecause in the normal classroom, instruction isimpeded, student progress is hindered andlimited, and frustration is a continuing

condition for students, lab tutors, and the classinstructor.

The DesignDuring the first term of this experiment wediscovered that students in the experimentalgroup showed a marked increase in success,and there was a significant decrease in studentwithdrawals from prior terms (see Table I).

Table IFinal Grade Distribution vs. Prior Terms

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Experimental Group (N=24) 46% 17% 29% 8%

Prior Terms (N=279) 20% 40% 10% 30%

In the experimental group the drop/withdrawrate was reduced from prior terms of nearly30% to 8%, while the success rate of studentsachieving satisfactory advancement during theterm increased from 20% in prior terms to 46%

in this group.

As reported earlier, having determined thesethings, Ms. Carol Dietrick, the SYNERGYCenter Manager, and I pre-selected for the first-term experiment the Level 3 CSR modules (a setcovering word meanings, main ideas, details,order, et al.), and having found that too basic alevel, in the second term of the experiment weswitched to Level 4 modules. Also we used theCSR diagnostic tests to prescribe the modulework students would need.

Implicit in the experimental group set-up washaving the class begin the term in theSYNERGY Center to continue efforts to assiststudents in remediating their seriousdeficiencies prior to their moving into a moretraditional classroom situa don. During thisearly work, the professor joined the lab

personnel in assisting students as theyprogressed through the programs. A bank offive computers (networked with those in theSYNERGY Center) were installed in theprofessor's classroom adjacent to the lab; thisprovided not only additional stations but the

61

opportunity for continuing use by students oncethey completed the CSR module work andentered the more traditional classroom portionof the term.

As the experimental students completed CSRactivity, they entered a very individualizedprogram progressing at their own pacethroughout the remaining two-thirds of theterm. This was then followed by a moreuniform traditional classroom concentration ontext content.

The control group, as in the first term of thisresearch, continued to use the SkillsLab/SYNERGY Center and CSR modules onlyas necessary (upon referral) throughout theterm, but essentially they completed a moretraditional class with the lab work as asupplement. Both groups did vocabulary skillbuilding on a continuing basis throughout theterm; this work was student-directed and lab-focused.

In the second term, the goals for theexperimental group were evaluated todetermine if the dropout rate would continue tobe reduced, the course completion rate to beincreased, the failure rate to remain under 10%,and the success rate (progress made and /orsatisfactory achievement earned) to continue at

76

or above 65%. Further, the Nelson-Denny wasselected and used as the course exit test (forboth groups) to provide a more valid grade-level achievement measurement.

OutcomesIn the second term of the experiment studentscontinued to enter both the experimental andthe control groups based on their collegeentrance placement scores, but we found thatthe text-related diagnostic test of each groupadministered at the start of the term wasinadequate. In all future terms in both groups,the Nelson-Denny test will be used as both apre-test (diagnostic) and post-test (exit) toascertain more reliable reading level. Further, asindicated above, with the experimental group,students took the CSR Level 4 diagnostic teststo determine number of modules to be worked.We have found that nearly all students need tocomplete all modules in each of the CSRprogram areas no matter what the diagnostic

results indicate. This is so because most of theCSR diagnostic tests are too brief to cover all ofthe basic skill areas and probable deficiencies.

Further, based on work the experimental groupstudents did with CSR Level 4 modules,wefound that this level contained an inadequateamount of activity for what most studentsrequired. Therefore, in the next term students inthis group will be assigned CSR Level 5modules, depending upon the degree ofdifficulty they experienced while completingthe Level 4 work and also their needs asdetermined throughout the remainder of theterm.

Included in the second-term study was anexamination of the amount of time studentsspent on task (CSR modules) and percentagecompletion of modules in relation to testing.Please see Figure 1: Number of CSR ModulesPassed and Final Grade and Table II: Percentage ofAssigned CSR Modules through CSR's DiagnosticTests.

Table IIPercentage of Assigned CSR Modules through CSR's Diagnostic Tests

% Completion Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

80-100 40% 23% 13%

70-79 10%

0-60 7% 7%

It can be deduced from Figure 1 and Table IIthat those students who completed 80 to 100%of the modules prescribed by CSR'smanagement system performed better. Whilefurther consideration needs to be given todetermining how to effectively assist thestudents who complete their prescriptions, itseems that the amount of time the student spentin CSR activity did not influence how theyperformed either in CSR or in the course. ButTable II shows that 40% of the students who

62

completed at least 80 to 100% of the modulesprescribed, regardless of the amount of time ittook them, earned satisfactory grades. Figure 1shows the number of CSR modules passed andthe final grade for students in the experimentalgroup. We need to determine how to monitorboth the amount of time students utilize and theexact lab activity they are engaged in to seekfurther correlations between need, activity,effort, and result.

71

Satsfactory

Progres

Unsatisfactory

Withdrew

Figure 1: CSR Modules Passed and Final Grade

From the first term's study we recognized theneed to redouble our efforts to meet the needsof the weaker students (in the experimentalgroup) while also realizing that some of thesestudents needed a consecutive term of study inorder to achieve basic competency in the

course.

A couple of observations are in order. Not onlydid the experimental group (thirty-twostudents) and control group (thirty students)contain nearly the same number of students (inthe first term of the study the experimentalgroup had twenty-four while the control grouphad only fifteen), but there did not seem to beas wide a difference in deficiencies between theexperimental and control groups (there was a10% greater number of students in theexperimental group with weaker backgroundsin the first term).

Further, unlike the first-term study in whichboth groups registered nearly identical successrates (63% and 67%) and withdrawal rates (8%

and 7%), in the second term, there weredifferences between the experimental and

control groups both in success and withdrawal

percentages (see Tables IV and V). The

experimental group enjoyed a 78% success rate(progress made or satisfactory grade obtained)

with only a 6% withdrawal. On the other hand,the control group had a 70% success rate and a3% withdrawal (see Table IV). Also, between

the first and second terms (in the experimentalgroup), there was a more marked improvementin lowering the unsatisfactory rate from 29% to13%, and the retention improved slightly with

the withdrawal rate dropping from 8% to 6%.

Table IIIFinal Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal Incomplete

Experimental (N=32) 44% 34% 13% 6% 3%

Control (N=30) 47% 23% 20% 10% 0°/0

63

It is also interesting to note that, just as therehas been both an increase in the percentage ofstudents (in the experimental group) achievingsuccess and a corresponding decrease in thenumber of student withdrawals from priorterms (before the first term of this experiment)to the first term, and from the first to the secondterm, there has also been an increase andimprovement in the control group from the firstto the second term (see Table IV). It should benoted, though, as Tables III and IV indicate, that

there is an increase in the numbers of studentsmaking progress rather than earning thesatisfactory grade this second term, over thefirst, in both groups. This is due in part to ourusing the Nelson-Denny as an exit test. Werealize that while we have reduced theunsatisfactory ("U") percentage to 29% in thefirst term, and then to 13% in this second term,our goal of reducing that to 10% remains thetarget for the third-term experimental group(Table III).

Table rvFinal Grade Distribution: Experimental Groups

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal Incomplete

Experimental (N=32) 94-1 44% 34% 13% 6% 3%

Experimental (N=24) 93-2 46% 17% 29% 8% 0%

Table VFinal Grade Distribution: Control Groups

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Control (N=30) 94-1 47% 23% 20% 10%

Control (N=15) 93-2 60% 7% 27% 7%

ObservationsBased on continuing feedback from students,we find that their interest in using the

SYNERGY Center and materials is a factor in

their staying in class whatever their final course

evaluation may be. The improved retentionrates reflect this.

Also true seems to be the point that startingtheir term in the electronic classroom with theremediation work, the experimental group didachieve higher success rates and lower dropout

rates than the control group.

Having improved Skills Lab/SYNERGY Center

support activities and the clasi.00m drill

64

exercises and tutoring assistance available

throughout the term, we are able to focus more

effectively on aiding those students tending to

not attain either a "P" or an "S" evaluation

within one term. These concentrations areespecially significant for the high number of

adult learners enrolled in developmental

studies.

We continue to be an excited part of thelearning innovations which the electronic

classroom provides in a rapidly changing andadvancing technological era with its

improvement of education and delivery of thesame.

'7 3

ENS Courses in the SYNERGY Center

Kendall CampusSharla Jones is a professor of English as a Second Languageat Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus. She

has been with the Kendall International Students Programfor 8 years. She received her B.A. in Spanish at SpelmanCollege, Atlanta, Georgia, in 1978; M.A in Sp.anish atMiddlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont, in 1979; M.A. inInternational Affairs, California State University,

Sacramento, California, in 1987; and M.S. in TESOL(Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), FloridaInternotional University, Miami, Florida, in 1990.

The Setting

About the Course

ENS 1241L is a Writing Lab course for Non-Native English Speakers in the InternationalStudents Program. The course providesadditional support and practice for ENS 1241Writing, a co-requisite. ENS 1241L is the third-level course of a six-level program. Students areplaced in this course depending on theirMichigan Test Score or having previouslypassed beginning Level 2 Writing. Each levellasts sixteen weeks. However, accelerated andintensive courses are offered so that studentscan complete the courses in eight weeks.

About the Students

The twenty-one students enrolled in this coursepossessed a wide range of educationalbackgrounds from high school to graduatelevel. Except for one Vietnamese, all the otherstudents in this course came from a primarilyHispanic background. Their ages ranged fromeighteen to fifty years.

The Design

During the Summer Term of 1993, I taught aLevel 3 course, ENS 1241L Writing Lab, for theInternational Students Program. The class met

65

Monday through Thursday for six weeks. Thecourse was instructed using regular classroommethodology (teacher/student activities, books,handouts, overhead projector, blackboard,homework, tests and written assignments). Inaddition, we used the ESL computer lab once aweek and the Center for Teaching and Learninglab only once during the entire term to enhanceclassroom instruction.

From daily observations, I noticed that in theENS 1241L summer session, the studentssometimes had difficulty comprehendingrequired material within a regular classroomsetting and the course seemed tedious. On theother hand, the students seemed enthusiasticabout learning on the days we used thecomputer lab. The students performed well ontests after having studied the required materialsufficiently, and feedback was given within aday or two. This discussion prompted me toseek ways of incorporating more technology inthe classroom. I began to ponder if the level ofinterest that most of these students showed onthe days that we used computers could beretained if we were to use computers moreoften, and how this shift would affect theirattitude and performance in other areas wherecomputers may not be used.

Thus, for the Fall Term of 1994 (August-December), I wanted to study the effect of usingcomputers to complement classroom instruction

74

for my students in the ENS 1241L Writing Labcourse, the same course I had taught during thesummer. The students of this course would beused as my experimental group to determine ifthey developed better writing skills, improvedcomprehension of subject matter, and enjoyedthe learning experience of a computerizedclassroom environment using appropriatecomputer applications. The course met Mondaythrough Thursday for eight weeks.

I spent several hours in the SYNERGY Centerreviewing appropriate software and materialsfor ENS Level 3 reading and writing skills. Ifound out that it is important to align thesoftware to what one does in class; this processwas interesting because in so doing, I was ableto review almost all the software in the Centerthat pertains to reading and writing. I felt thatafter such an experience, I could easily structurean outline for another course using what I hadreviewed.

My students started with EDL's Learning 100On-Line. Most of the students wasted no time ingetting used to this software. Although thesoftware can diagnose and prescribe activitiesfor the students, I elected to create activities formy students that I felt were useful and tieddirectly into what I needed to cover in class.After completing all the activities in EDL, wethen moved to One Step at a Time, an in-houseprogram that is also textbook based. Thestudents enjoyed working with this software,since it relates directly to their textbook.

Toward the end of the term we moved toPractical Grammar Series, then to Mark-up andWord Perfect. Students wrote all theirassignments using Word Perfect. They learnedhow to use a word processor, how to write andedit their work easily. For each software,students were allowed to repeat the activities asmany times as they wanted and they could usethe SYNERGY Center outside their class time.For a description of each software, seeAppendix D.

Monitoring the StudyThe management system of EDL's Learning 100On-Line provided a useful report of students'performance, time on task and progress. Inaddition to getting immediate feedback fromthe software, I was there to provide additionalhelp and to handle any problems.

At the end of the semester, I had the studentsevaluate the SYNERGY Center, the assistance,and the software programs based on a ratingsystem of excellent, good, fair, and poor. Mostof the responses indicated that the SYNERGYCenter and the assistance were good. Mostrated the software excellent. All the studentssaid they enjoyed learning by using thecomputer; they enjoyed working individuallyand at their own pace. They were satisfied thatthey got immediate results from their exercises.

Table IStudent Feedback about Computer Knowledge and Software Packages

Excellent Good Fair Poor.

I. How do you rate your computer knowledge? 89% 6% 6%

2. How would you rate the following programs in the SYNERGY Center?

EDL Learning 100 61% 39%

STEPS (Adjectives) 67% 22% 6% 6%

Mark-up 39% 50% 11%

Practical Grammar 56% 39% 6%

66

I was concerned about how these studentswould react to the software and to the use of

computers for instruction. This led me toinclude a question about how they would ratetheir computer knowledge at the end of theterm. It is interesting to note that 88% of thestudents rated their knowledge of computers asgood, and only 12% rated this knowledge as fair

or poor. All the students surveyedrespondedwith a "yes" to the question, "Wouldyou recommend the continued use of

computers in this course?" I also asked them to

rate how they felt about each of the softwarepackages used, whether it helped them in the

course. Table I shows their responses. Selectedstudents' comments about what they liked ordisliked about the course and their suggestionson how to improve the course are also shown.

OutcomesTwenty-one students were originally enrolled inthe course. All students completed the course.All but four students passed the course. Eventhose who failed felt they gained a lot from thecourse and most of them participated andshowed interest in working with the computer.Table II shows the performance of the entireclass.From my own observations, the course wassuccessful notwithstanding a few obstacles andfrustrations. I observed that the students in thecourse benefited from learning requiredmaterial in a computerized classroom setting.They performed well on tests, and feedbackwas given immediately. They were able toreview and repeat exercises until they fullycomprehended assignments. Most importantly,the students seemed enthusiastic aboutlearning.

Table IIFinal Grade Distribution

Group A B C D F Withdrawal

Experimental Group (N=21) 24% 43% 14% 19%

Student CommentsI liked all the programs, because I learnedmany things about grammar and writing. Ialso learned how to work with computers. I

think the course is good. All the programswere very good.

I like to learn with the computer becauseyou learn in a different way.

I like to work with computers, because it'ssomething that calls your attention. For me,it is perfect, different, and I know that I amlearning. The computers give me theopportunities to do the exercises again, andas many times as I need to learn. Keepworking with the computers.

The programs in the SYNERGY Centerhelped me a lot, to clarify manythings,especially in punctuation. I would like moretime in the lab.

I think it is the best way to study. I think itis important to open the lab for more hours,all day for extra practice.

I think the computer system is a very goodteaching method to learn English.

I think this is an excellent course. I learned alot and am glad to have been in this class.

In my own opinion, this class was fun andhelpful in understanding many kinds ofgrammar skills. The computer lab is themost interesting for me.

As is evident from their comments andrecommendations, there is a need to incorporatemore use of computers in our curriculum. Mostof the students enjoyed working with thecomputer and some went beyond the amount oftime required of them. Some even demandedmore work and asked for additional resourcesto help them. It will be ideal to reach that point

67G

when the students can be made moreresponsible for their learning. It seems that theuse of technology is indirectly impacting ornudging our students in this direction withoutmuch effort from the faculty.

RecommendationsThe experimental program was definitelyworthwhile. However, incorporating computer-ized instruction into the curriculum has beenquite a task. I recommend that one class periodbe given to practicing computer and word-processing functions (saving, naming, openingand closing files) before students engage inwriting papers.

The computer-generated reports fromassignments helped me keep the students ontask. The reports were also printable for thestudents and the instructor. The students feltmotivated and challenged to perform well inorder to get high scores. They worked on theirwriting, editing, or tutorial assignments for theentire class period and were reluctant to leavewhen the class finished. Conferring withstudents on revision of papers was easier andmore effective on the computer.A few studentsexperienced difficulty and were frustratedbecause they did not have any basic typing(keyboarding) skills. Typing programs shouldbe available for those students whose ability tofunction is restricted by a lack of typing skills.

Activities using the computer took more timethan the same activities in the regular classroom

since students worked at their own pace. Theextra time needed to complete assignments ontM computer needs to be considered when onede5igns a course to teach in an electronicclassroom.

Handouts of the instructions for each programwere available for the students. They wereshort, precise, and clearly written on color-coded paper, so that students could easily referto them while using a program.

The physical layout of the SYNERGY Center ispoorly designed to use as an electronicclassroom. The setup is perfect for anindependent lab. However, to use the Center toconduct a class and incorporate computerassignments is somewhat difficult.

With any technical equipment come technicalproblems. An instructor needs patience toaccommodate problems when they arise.

The technical people who manage theSYNERGY Center are familiar with theproblems and are always available to help. Theywork closely with instructors in designing andimplementing programs used by the faculty inthe SYNERGY Center.

Overall, I believe the results of this experimentsupport the use of computerized learning toolsin the classroom. The ability to control theirpace of study is an invaluable tool for studentslearning and comprehending another language.

Elizabeth C. Wiegandt has been a faculty member at Miami-Dade Community College for five years. She received her B.A. in Education and an MS. in Applied Linguistics fromQueens College, City University of New York, New York.She is currently the newsletter editor and has recently beenelected Vice President of TESOL (Teachers of English toSpeakers of Other Languages). She is also an advisor for theUNUM society, an International Student Organization atMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus.

The SettingWhen I previously taught ENS 1443 /1423Advanced Reading/Writing (Level 6) duringFall Term 1993 (August - December) and WinterTerm 1994 (January - April), regular classroommethodology was employed (teacher/student

WI/

activities, books, blackboard, overheadprojector, handouts, etc.). In addition, the ESLcomputer lab was used by some students tocomplete their assignments.

I noticed that the students in these classes oftenencountered difficulties understanding the

68 r+4

concepts, and the activities that followed werenot enough to reinforce the learning. In

addition, the course seemed tedious andstudents were not focused. This prompted meto start exploring and incorporating othermethods of teaching, especially with

technology.

About the CourseThe Advanced Reading/Writing class is a six-credit course which prepares our ESL studentsfor ENC 1101, a college requirement. Whilemost of our students come to this class fromprevious levels within our program, a few testright into Level 6 by their Michigan Test scores.

About the StudentsThe thirteen ESL students enrolled in this classcame with a variety of skills and a range ofknowledge, purposes and functions, all ofwhich aid in the writing process. Except for aBulgarian student (fluent in Spanish andRussian), all others were Hispanics.

The DesignFor the Fall Term 1994, I wanted to study theeffects of using computers on the studentsenrolled in the ENS 1443 writing course whowould be using the SYNERGY Center. I wantedto compare the amount of progress thesestadents would make in the areas of spelling,vocabulary and writing with that made by thesame class that I had taught previously. Thiscomparison would assist me in assessing theoverall impact of combining my teaching with acomputerized learning environment. This classwould be used as a benchmark in exploring thepossibilities in this area. How would studentsreact to my software selection, and what impactwould this have in the students' overallperformance, motivation and learning? Thefindings in this study would be used tostructure a more formal study for the WinterTerm 1994.

I also set up ten students from the ENS 1341writing course (Level 4) in the SYNERGYCenter to further enhance their reading and

69

writing. This group was experiencing difficultywith grammar and mechanics. They had beenasked to register for my ENS 1441 writing labcourse (Level 5) and had agreed to continue onwith me to the ENS 1443 writing coirrse (Level6) the last in the series. These students gotinvolved with the EDL Learning 100 readingprogram, and they showed tremendousimprovement in their comprehension and theirwriting ability. I intend to track theperformance of these students throughsubsequent courses.

The Fall Term 1994 class was taught using amodified version of the Whole LanguageApproach, where writing is seen not only as amode of self-expression, but also as an aid tothought and reflection. This is accomplishedthrough the use of journals, where theinstructor engages the students in writtencommunication, allowing them the opportunityto recall experiences and reflect on learning.(Documenting their thoughts demonstrates howwriting can support thinking and learning.) Inaddition, students were exposed to readingliterature. Armed with a diagnostic writingsample, I took the students to the SYNERGYCenter, where they were asked to type whatthey had just written.

These students had little or no knowledge ofcomputers, but most could type. The first weekof class was used to introduce them to thebasics of WordPerfect 6.0. Disks were given andthey were taught how to save. (Later, fonts,spacing, size, and style were added.) Thiswould meet one of the requirements of thecourse, namely to type all their work. Theytook it upon themselves to begin theirbrainstorming and drafts On the computershortly after. As the students discovereddifferent skills, other commands were added totheir knowledge bank. On the student feedbackform given to this class, it was noted that moststudents were intimidated by the lab when theyfirst encountered it but later felt that theirwriting had improved drastically.

In addition to word processing, Mark-tip wasused to further reinforce grammar mechanics.

7S

Paragraphs were also edited by using thisprogram.

Monitoring the StudySpelling. Studies have shown that there is adirect relationship between writing andspelling. Because I felt that students wereburdened with more serious problems whenwriting, I wanted their work to be free ofspelling errors. They were taught how to checktheir spelling by using the Speller. The resultswere consistent throughout the term. All(except one student where a learning disabilitycaused him invariably to use the wronghomonym) were successful.

Vocabulany. Since this class read classics, theywere required to keep a list of vocabulary temsin their double-entry journals and use aminimum of two new words in their writing.While reading their books, they had to copy aparagraph and paraphrase the sentences. Usinga thesaurus gave them an understanding of theoriginal word in the sentence that they founddifficult to understand. The class was taughthow to use the thesaurus in WordPerfect andbegan to use it freely. I noticed that they becamemore confident in communication skills andspoke with greater authority. (The instructionson the prompts used in WordPerfect were almostas challenging as the new words themselves!)

OutcomesStudents were assessed holistically. All thelanguage skills were viewed as integralcomponents of a whole rather than in isolation.As noted above, the students became bettercommunicators as their vocabulary increased.This, I believe, was due to the success theyencountered when writing their assignments,using the various tools available and savingthese essays for later editing. They wereenthusiastic about going to the lab. Theirwriting became more cohesive and unified, inpart due to the immediate feedback Mark-Upoffers (which they alluded to on numerousoccasions) by using different colors to highlightcorrected structures and thereby aiding inretention of various grammar forms, and byactually allowing them to read what they wroteclearly without worrying about spelling.Table I below compares the performance of thestudents in the experimental group with theperformance of those in the same class in twoprior terms. For comparative analysis anduniformity, the latter groups have been termedcontrol groups. However, it should bementioned that the withdrawal grade includesthose students who were administrativelydropped (they never made it to class) and thosewho may have been dropped by the teacher to alower-level course for lack of required skills forthe course. As can be seen in the table, students'performance was relatively the same for thetwo Fall Terms and the Winter Term, with theexperimental group showing improvement inboth withdrawal rate and success rate.

Table IFinal Grade Distrilmtion

Group A B C j D F Withdrawal

Experimental (94-1) N=15 20% 20% 27% 27% 7%

Control 1 (93-1) I\1=24 21 13% 17% 33% 17

Control II (93-2) N=11 18% 18% 55% 9% _04,

For the Winter Term 1993, the students hadbetter success rate, with no studentswithdrawing. From past experience, WinterTerm students seems to exhibit higherwithdrawal rate and I have purposely includedthis term to better track the performance of thestudents. Thus, it will be interesting to see if the

current Winter Term (1995) will show similarresults with that of 93-2.

RecommendationsThe SYNERGY Center encourages collaborativelearning, social interaction, and creativity. It

offers students the opportunity to improve their

problem-solving skills, while allowing theteacher to become a true facilitator. Becauseintensive reading stimulates interest andprovides students with language patterns, theelectronic classroom was a natural complementto our advanced reading/writing class. One ofthe strengths that computers have is theirability to measure and record almostimmediately; they free us from tedious recordkeeping. Another is their ability to presentrelevant language directly, as evidenced by thestudents' search for all possible occurrences of agiven word or combination of structures in aline or more of context from which it is possibleto deduce meanings or induce rules of properusage.

71

While my students flourished academically,they were hampered by their lack of typingskills. I would also recommend that computertraining by knowledgeable personnel beavailable for the first week or two of classes. Inaddition, faculty training should be on-goingand time for practice, planning, and reviewingsoftware programs that exemplify principles ofgood instructional design and the best practicesfor promoting second-language learning shouldbe incorporated into the program. Consideringthe opportunities afforded by existing andemerging technology, we have failed to exploitits potential. Collaborative research is requiredby faculty to establish other effective ways ofguiding our students through this web oftechnology.

so

MAT 0024 in the SYNERGY Center

Homestead CampusIan Cobham is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics atMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus. Hehas taught at Miami-Dade Community College for nineyears, four part-time and five full time. He also taughtvarious levels of math at the University of Miami and FloridaInternational University. He received his B.S. and M.S. inmathematics from the University of Miami in 1984 and 1987respectively. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate inEducational Research at the University of Miami.

The Setting

This study set out to determine whether or notthe use of the SYNERGY Center as a teachingaide in MAT 0024 (College Prep Algebra) wouldproduce a positive effect in the performance ofstudents. The use of the SYNERGY Center hererefers to the use of computer-assistedinstruction, particularly the CSR math software.

The Design

Two classes of MAT 0024 taught by theresearcher (Ian Cobham) were used in theWinter Term 199? (January-April) at theHomestead Campus. Both classes were offeredduring the day (one on Mondays andWednesdays, 12:00-1:15 p.m. and the other onTuesdays and Thursdays, 10:35-11:50 a.m.).Because day and evening students differ in ageand other factors, including motivation, it wasdecided to select classes with similar factorsthat affect their performance. One class (controlgroup) was taught using traditional classroomtechniques without the SYNERGY Center. Thesecond class (experimental group) was alsotaught using traditional classroom techniques,but the students were required to go to theSYNERGY Center, where they used a particularsoftware (CSR Level V) to obtain additionalhelp on certain topics.

A pre-test was given to both groups. This pre-test was a departmental final examination forMAT 0024. It was given on the first day of classto both groups, and the groups were told it wasa placement examination. Anyone who didextremely well would have been placed in thehigher-level course (MAT 1033). No one scoredhigh enough to be moved to MAT 1033. Thetwo groups were taught as outlined above anda post-test was given at the end of the semester.The post-test was another departmental finalexamination for MAT 0024.

Results

As expected, both groups improved on thepost-test; i.e., the mean on the post-test washigher than the mean on the pre-test for bothgroups (see Table I). This meant there wasnothing fundamentally wrong with the teachingmethod of the instructor or the departmentalfinal examination. The means for the post-testfor the control group and experimental groupwere compared. The mean for the experimentalgroup was higher than the mean for the controlgroup (see Table I). Thus, it might be concludedthat the use of the SYNERGY Center as an aidemay be beneficial to the teaching process.Further statistical analysis would have to becarried out before any definitive conclusionscould be reached. It was also possible that thestudents in the experimental group had a better

math background than those in the controlgroup.To determine if math background might be thereason, a comparison of students with likeability in the control group was made withsimilar students in the experimental group.Students were judged to have the same abilityby their performance on the pre-test. The

analysis was done by comparing the means ofthose students (see Tat le II). Thus, if the meanfor the control group was higher than the meanfor the experimental group, then it could meanthat the use of the SYNERGY Center as an aidemight not have been beneficial in the teachingprocess. Again, more statistical tests wouldneed to be performed.

Table IMeans 1 Differences

Classes Pre-Test Post-Test Difference

Control Group 17 65 48

Experimental Group 21 79 58

Table IIMeans on Post-Test Based on Ability

Ability Score on Pre-Test Control Group Experimental Group

1 0 9 46 (4) 78 (3)

2 10 19 86 (3) 77 (6)

3 20 -29 84 (2) 88 (1)

4 30 - 39 - (0) 80 (3)

5 40 + 57 (1) 81 (2)

* The numbers in parentheses are the number of students in each group.

Table IIIFinal Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactr:ry Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Experimental Group (N=21) 58% 14% 4% 2%

Control Group (N=15) 40% 20% 13% 27%

Overall, the means on the post-test, based onthe ability level, were higher for theexperimental group than for the control group.However, a T-test showed no significantdifference in the means at .05 and .10 levels ofsignificance for both groups. The final gradedistribution is shown in Table III for both

73

groups. Because of the sample size, it was feltthat a replication of the study would be neededbefore more generalized statements could bemade. This study provided importantindicators which needed further investigation indetermining the benefits of student involvementwith the SYNERGY Center.

61`

Replication Study

The Setting

Fhe findings in the first study prompted areplication study with attention to how muchwork the students accomplished in CSR. Wouldthe amount of work done in CSR relate tostudents' success? Thus, in this follow-upstudy, it was decided to investigate furtherhow many modules students would completeby the end of the term and how thisperformance might relate to their final grade. Inthe first study, evening classes had beenexcluded because students in these classesusually differ in age and other factors, includingmotivation. For this replication study, anevening class was included to find out if theiroutcome would be different from the otherclasses.

The Design

I hree classes of MAT 0024, again taught by theresearcher (Ian Cobham), were used in the FallTerm 1994 (August-December) at theHomestead Campus. One class was offeredduring the day (Mondays and Wednesdays,12:(V-1:15 p.m. [Control Group I] and the othertwo on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 10:35-11:50a.m. [experimental group] and 6:45-8:00 p.m.(Control Group IQ). These classes were selectedk-cause they were the ones taught by thinstructor during that semester. As was done inthe prior study, two classes [Control Groups Iand II] were taught using traditional classroomtechniques without the use of the SYNERGYCen er. Me third class (experimental group)was taught using traditional classroomtechniques, and the students were required togo to the SYNERGY Center and completecertain assignments by a particular date, usingthe CSR Level V software. Only the students inthe experimental group were allowed to use theSYNERGY Center. As in the previous study, apretest and a post-test were given to all thegroups.

ResultsAs expected, all three groups improved on thepost-test; i.e., the means on the post-test werehigher than the means on the pre-test (see TableIV).

The means for the post-test for Control Group 1,Control Group II, and the experimental groupwere compared. The pre-test means wereslightly higher for the experimental group(14.93) than they were for Control Group I(14.00) and Control Group II (13.56), but thepost-test means were much higher foi ControlGroup II (77.88) and Control Group I (75.76)than for the experimental group (see Table IV).In fact, the mean for Control Group I was aboutfive percentage points higher, while ControlGroup II was about seven percentage pointshigher. This outcome conflicted with the resultof the previous study. Thus, one might betempted to conclude that the use of theSYNERGY Center as an aide was not beneficialto the teaching process. Further tests, however,would need to be carried out.

It was also possible that the students in ControiGroups I and II had a better math Iwkgroundthan those in the experimental gioup. Todetermine if that were the reason, a comparisonof students with like ability in Control Group Iand Control Group II was made with similarstudents in the experimental group. Thisanalysis was done by comparing the means ofthose students, as was done in the first study(see Table V). Students were judged to have thesame ability by their performance on the pre-test. If the means for Control I and 11 Groupswere higher than the means for theexperimental group, then it might mean that theuse of the SYNERGY Center as an aide may nothave been beneficial in the teaching process.

On comparing the means of Control Groups Iand II based on ability level, it can be seen thatthe means are higher for Control Group I forevery ability level. On two of the four levels, the

7483

differences seem to be significant. WhenControl Group II and the experimental groupare compared, it appears as though ControlGroup II performed significantly higher at twoof the four levels. Also, it appears as though theexperimental group performs significantlyhigher only at one level (level 3) and barelyoutperforms Control Group II at another level(level 4). Overall, the means on the post-test,based on the ability level, were higher forControl Groups I and II than for those inexperi mental group.

However, when an ANOVA (Analysis ofVariance) was performed, there were nosignificant differences among the groups. It was

learned from the first study that some studentsdo not actually complete all assigned work. Thequestion, then, arises, "How does one measurehow much the students in the experimentalgroup accomplished in their use of CSR duringregular SYNERGY Center visits?" Thesestudents were given thirty-three modules in setsthat relate to each of the exams. It was decidedto check how much each of the studentsaccomplished. Those students who completedmore modules seemed to also perform better.Table VII shows the number of CSR modulescompleted and students' grades. In looking atthis information, it seems that there may be abeneficial effect from using the SYNERGYCenter for students who complete theprescribed modules in CSR.

Table WMeans I Differences for Classes A, B, and C

Group Pre-Test Post-Test Difference

Control Group I 13.56 75.76 62.20

Control Group 11 14.00 77.88 63.88

Experimental Group 14.93 70.76 55.83

Table VMeans on Post-Test Based on Ability

Ability Score on Pre-Test ControlGroup I

ControlGroup II

ExperimentalGroup

0 9 66.89 (18) 74.11 (9) 59.42 (12)

2 10 19 85.29 (7) 80.56 (9) 71.50 (8)

3 20 -29 85.50 (2) 79.20 (5) 85.40 (5)

4 30 - 39 89.00 (2) 81.00 (1) 85.00 (4)

5 40+ 5 40 (0)

* The numbers in parentheses represent the number of students in each group.

75

84

Table VIFinal Grade Distribution

Group Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal

Control Group I (N=36) 80% 11% 6% 3%

Control Group II (N=31) 61% 13% 16% 3%

Experimental Group (N=41) 46% 22% 15% 17%

Table VIIRange of CSR Modules Completed by Grade

Range of Modules/Grades Satisfactory Progress Unsatisfactory Withdrawal_

50 - 10 4 5 2

11 20 3 3

21 33 11 - -

Out of the forty-one students registered in theexperimental group, only thirty-three wereregistered in CSR. The performance of thisgroup is shown in Table VII. Among the eightstudents not registered, one student earned asatisfactory grade, another student earned aprogress grade, four students had unsatisfac-tory grades, and two students withdrew fromthe course.

ConclusionThe goal of the first study was to establishwhether the use of CSR in the SYNERGY Centerwas beneficial to students. The scope of thesecond study examined how students' per-formance correlated with their accomplish

ments on CSR. The results show that studentsshould be encouraged to complete moremodules in CSR as this seems to contributepositively to their success. A closer look mustbe taken at how much was accomplished inCSR as shown in Table VII. The results in bothstudies show that there are no significantdifferences between the means for both theexperimental and control groups. This indicatesthat there was no advantage observed ofSYNERGY over traditional methods. It was alsoobserved that students who used the SYNERGYCenter had a hard time completing the mo.-,ulesassigned to them in both studies. In the nextstudy, a strategy needs be devised that wouldfacilitate the completion of all modulesassigned.

76

85

Project SYNERGY Training Center Report:The University of Tennessee at Martin*

Polly Clover, Project SYNERGY Software ImplementationDesigner and Coordinator of the Student Learning Center atThe University of Tennessee at Martin, has substantialexperience in working with faculty to develop and conductresearch in teaching and learning. She successfully directedthe development of the Student Learning Center under aTitle III grant at the University of Tennessee. She received herB.A. in English from the Union University, Jackson,Tennessee, in 1962, and her Ed.D. in Higher Administrationin 1987 from Peabody College, Vanderbilt University,

Nashville, Tennessee.

"SYNERGY is a window of opportunity: it's nota door yet because we can't fit everyonethrough. The kids who find computersinteresting and realize there is great potential fitthrough the window. Those who don't see thepossibilities can't find the lock to open thewindow," wrote our lab manager in March1994, when we had been in our SYNERGYclassroom about two and a half months. At TheUniversity of Tennessee at Martin, teachers andstudents have raised windows of opportunity,although there were times when the windowseemed stuck; we have learned a great dealabout starting a networked computerclassroom, and we can see clearly through thewindow of possibility.

In December 1993, we began planning in earnestfor teaching classes in January 1994. On aprimarily undergraduate campus of 5,5(X)

students, we realized that we had a special roleto play. We could chronicle our experience, in

order to answer the questions: What difficultiesdo we face and how do we solve thetn? How does theteacher's role change? Do students behave

differently? We set out with the intention to stayin touch with our feelings and to pay attentionto our students' feelings as well. We agreed thatthere was no way to go wrong in our new

computer classroom so long as we were usingthe technology! We might feel that we could notdo everything at once, but that would be okay;we don't do everything possible with a textbookeither. We would probably worry aboutwhether we are doing things right, but we donot yet know what is right; we have the chanceto discover what works for us. In addition todoing the best job we could in the classroom,we resolved to record our experience. We willreport on the objective records of studentsuccess and failure in the next SYNERGYreport. The subjective record of our experiences,as we began thinking about process, aboutaccessing our own experience and discoveringthe best ways to learn from that experience, ispresented here.

ProblemsSpace and Furnishings. Finding a room for theSYNERGY Center was difficult because existingclasses used all the available classrooms, butwhen a program moved into new quarters ViceChancellors Frank Black (Academic Affairs) andPhil Dane (Financial Affairs) identified a room.An empty classroom is just that; ours did nothave even a waste basket!

* For a copy of the full report, write to Polly Glover, Student Learning Center, The University of Tennessee at Martin,

Martin, TN 38238.

77 86

We had budgeted nothing for furniture, only forcabling and equipment. Computer CenterDirector, Otha Britton, identified some tableswhich became available when anothercomputer facility was refurbished. Through thegenerosity of several units we obtained apodium, television-vcr cart, overhead projector,desk, and file cabinet. With budgeted funds wewere able to purchase a television and vcr, awall-mounted screen and Presenter Plussoftware, and to provide the expected printerribbons, paper, and desk supplies.

Time. The best schedules go awry. We hadplanned to begin learning to use IBM's DESKIabduring the summer of 1993, but the computersarrived in November. Because we were meetinga full schedule of classes in the room, wewaiteduntil December to install them. Teachers hadonly one formal training session beforebeginning a full schedule of computer-assistedclasses in January. We identified a student aslab manager in December; a junior secondary-education math major who worked at theComputer Center, she learned to install thesoftware, operate DESKIab, initiate eachteacher's class roll, set up class menus, andbecome acquainted with the individualprograms at the beginning of the term, beforeteachers began assigning lab activities. Theteachers prepared to enter the SYNERGYclassroom on January 11, 1994, with hardly anyexperience on the software in DESKIab. Ourclasses would meet in the room most of the day,and Laura Polk, our lab manager, would stafftwenty hours of lab time.

Funding. Our SYNERGY grant budget,originally planned to extend through spring1994, provided for travel to software reviewers'meetings and to the League for Innovation'sConference on Technology; for payment tofaculty members for reviewing software andwriting test questions; for supplemental pay fordeveloping the courses of study for reading,writing, mathematics, and developmental studyskills courses; for supplemental equipment; andfor a lab manager at student work-study rates.The Student Learning Center, under whichProject SYNERGY operates at UTM, included in

its 1994-95 budget request funds for continuingthe project. We especially needed software, fornone of the DESKIab software wouldsupplement our first developmental mathcourse, which is equivalent to high schoolAlgebra '1.

Whatever the problems, we began with therealization that our students must arrive in eachcourse at the same end-point as those intraditional sections. No matter how anxious wewere, we realized the importance of creating acasual, comfortable working atmosphere for ourstudents.

The TeachersSince beginning classes in our SYNERGYclassroom in January 1994, we have pilotedsixteen sections of Reading 111, three English080 sections, two study skills sections, and oneMath 070 section. A group of graduateassistants in the School of Education TracyCampbell, Regina Henson, Michelle Perry,Allen Pounds, Shauna Smith, and Shirley Smith

supervised by Reading Center CoordinatorGwen Shelton, developed a course of studywhich integrated the computer softwareavailable in DESKIab. with the traditionalReading 111 course materials. A veteran ofcomputer-assisted instruction, Jenna Wright,brought to the English 080 project her sevenyears of experience in computer-assistedEnglish 111-112 classes and her knowledge ofsoftware gained from reviewing both Englishand English as a Second Language software; shehad helped to author the traditional English 080syllabus and those experiences gave her a goodidea of what she wanted to do in the newcourse. Sharon Robertson had developed thestudy skills course as a letter-grade, creditcourse; she was also reviewing study skillssoftware and she adapted her course for thecomputer classroom. Brenda Lackey hadparticipated in Project SYNERGY Integrator(PSI) planning sessions and brought experiencegained in setting up an IBM laboratory forteaching high school mathematics; she spentpart of spring term 1994 identifying workable

software because the materials supplied with remarks made by the teachers at the League for

DESKIab did not meet our Mathematics 070, Innovation Conference on Technolgy in

Algebra 1, needs. Following are excerpts from Houston in November 1994.

The Reading Center is unique among the developmental courses becausethe classes are taught by five graduate teachers working on master'sdegrees, with each student teaching three classes. I teach three classes andsupervise their work. As coordinator of the reading program, I considermyself a cheerleader for the new teachers. Teacher training is ongoing, asgraduate students are hired, take nine graduate hours per semester, teachtwo to three Reading 111 classes per semester, and leave four terms later.

Gwen Sh eltonThe first semester in the SYNERGY classroom was also unique. Teachershad expected our experience to follow the Software Implementation Model

(SIM) that was developed at Miami-Dade and it did, but the time was compressed. The SIM

developed by Kama la Anandam suggests that the first and second stages of software implementation

are an awareness of existing software followed by an analysis of the software. Miami-Dade suggested a

semester in which the electronic classroom was open only to faculty; because of delays in computer

installation, our faculty were forced to experience the analysis stage just prior to entering the classroom

each day. The third stage is accommodation, where faculty members use the software without changing

what they do in the classroom. I noticed that at the first part of the semester the reading teachers were

having to teach as they had in the traditional classroom, with only supplemental use of the computers as

a reinforcement tool. But by the end of the semester they began to move into the fourth stage ofassimilation, which occurs when the faculty begin to change the textbook and what is discussed in class

and to think of incorporating individualized instruction for the students. Now we can see on the horizon

the fifth stage of the SIM called adoption. In that stage technology will become woven into the very fabric

of our teaching and learning.

Jenna Wright

Project SYNERGY offered me the opportunity to write a course of study for

my developmental writing class which would integrate the use of computersoftware into an already well-organized, structured, demanding program

a course of study that already required a minimum of fifteenparagraphs, three essays, revisions on all eighteen writings, as well as areading component and a complete review of basic writing skills. As much

as I looked forward to that opportunity for writing my own course ofstudy, I was aware that my students would have to pass a departmentaltwo-part exit exam with a C both on basic skills and on writing in order tocomplete the course successfuily. Therefore, the goal became to better meet

the needs of students in basic skills and writing by offering some different motivation, an opportunityfor some self-paced study, and an extended base of learning styles, while keeping in mind that thestudents would be judged with the same final assessment tools that the traditional classcs would use. I

found as I wrote the course of study and as I have taught the class that I had to live a real juxtapositionI had to be extremely organized but totally flexible. I became a living paradox!

We cannot draw any definite statistical conclusions from this one-semester sample; however, wecertainly can say that the course compares positively to the traditional classes, as supported by bothstatistics and the following representative student comments:

79

EC

"As far as I'm concerned, I think every class should be taught on the computer. I find it much moreinteresting than traditional English classes."

"A traditional English class comp, red to a computer English class is quite different. I remember myhigh school English teacher very well. I used to call her the 'Queen of English.' She knew all there everwas to know about the English language. Her style of teaching was interesting, but I didn't learn asmuch as I have in this computer English class."

Sharon Robertson

I have always been told, "You can do anything you set your mind to do."This is the attitude one must have in order to succeed in a project such asSYNERGY.

When I first developed the study skills course, I used the LASSI (Learningand Study Skills Inventory) as my formative and summative evaluationtool to develop the general purpose and goals based on the students' needs,the general purpose being to assist students in building better self-esteemby taking control of their time, developing realistic goals, and reachingthose goals by better study habits. I set out to help students becomeacquainted with different techniques for studying, to study differenttechniques for developing good test-taking strategies, and to develop note-taking ability.

1 further polished my plan for the course in the summer of 1993 in a curriculum and instruction course Itook as a doctoral student at Grambling State University. For the fall semester, I decided to use Co UmReading and Study Skills by McWhorter, since this book best fulfilled my plan LA instruction.Simultaneously, 1 was evaluating software for Project SYNERGY.

I chose software packages based on two guidelines: Would the piece support my instruction? Was itcheap? As I articulated the software with the textbook, I began to see an overlapping of information. Themajor point I liked about the textbook the number of exercises which allowed the students to practice

now became a problem, for I had too much material when I added the software. Also, there wereproblems with the software, especially trying to network it. I was using ten different pieces of software,not just one or two, so the probability of problems multiplied exponentially. I learned to have back-uplesson plans for my back-up plans, just in case the lab manager didn't have a program up and running.

Brenda Lackey

When I became involved in the project, it was my primary task to plan acourse for Algebra 1, using DESKIab. I found the math programs that cameon DESKIab were inadequate to be used in our course. It then became myresponsibility to recommend a software package to be put on the network tocorrespond to the topics in the Algebra 1 course. The selection process wasmade easier when I used the reviews that had been done and placed on ProjectSYNERGY Software Selector (PS).

Because of technical problems with software we used, my teaching styledid not change very much the first semester. As these technical problemshave gotten resolved, I see my role changing more to facilitator and moving

away from lecturei . I foresee myself talking less and less in the classroom. As I make changes in myteaching style, the students will take a more active role in the learning process. I think they will be morewilling to attempt a problem on the computer before they ask for help from me.

80

89

Formative EvaluationsNext after offering classes in the SYNERGYclassroom, of second greatest importance wasevaluating our experience, in both formative andsummative ways. We took time in December 1993

to learn how we could build a subjective record of

our experience. Dr. Margrethe Ahlschwede,Assistant Professor of English and Director of theWest Tennessee Writing Project, spoke to us aboutmaking notes during student interviews. Werealized that, in recording this experience, wemust become observers; we must, as she said, seethe "bigness of the details of our lives." We alsoexplored ways to use idea-generators whichfrequently appear in composition classroomsclustering (a non-linear grouping of ideas growingfrom one key word placed in the cente r. of a page)

and freewriting as ways into our experience.None of us wrote regularly, but we shared ourexperience at weekly meetings and I made notes.

One of our most important decisions was to meet

every Thursday from 12:15 to 1 p.m. in ourSYNERGY classroom. During this time, one of twoperiods all week when no classes are scheduled atthe university, we were able to solve manyproblems. Those meetings became the place to getquick, specific questions answered, with the lab

manager giving directions and everyone makingnotes. For questions demanding more detailedanswers she later left directions and answers in the

'classroom; teachers' queries received by lab time

were often answered at their next SYNERGY classperiod. The meetings provided participants withthe big picture; we heard about what each teacherwas doing in class, what had worked or failed.

Written EvaluationsOn three occasions during 1994, we freewrote for

two or three minutes on several questions: (1)What did you do today for the SYNERGY project?(2) What difficulties have you had and how didyou deal with them? (3) How do you feel aboutSYNERGY now? The first time we freewrote wasMarch 24.

In answer to the last question, one teacher notedthe excitement of learning with everyone else. As a

first-year teacher, she had been feelingapprehensive about not having experience, but "inSYNERGY everyone is on the same level so Ihave a comfort zone."

Three weeks later in April we took anothersnapshot: "What are you doing differently?" Whenone teacher wrote, "I'm trying to teach manyindividual people instec.d of a class, and I seemyself as a facilitator or trouble-shooter," heechoed a common sentiment. To another question,"What are students doing differently?" it wasobserved that the students were doing moreindividual work and less daydreaming, lots ofhands-on activities at their own pace; they were"listening more closely and taking notes duringlectures. When they had computer work, theywere very busy arid extremely focused on thetask."

On November 10, 1994, we took a third snapshot.Answers indicated by their specificity' and range ofactivity just how much the respondents hadaccomplished. As one teacher put it, "The fact thatwe have completed our first semester and almostthe second one with a sense that this is a positiveexperience and much growth for both studentsand instructors gives me a deep sense ofaccomplishment."

Summative EvaluationsStudent Surveys. Students considered theSYNERGY class more effective than traditiona Icourses in helping them learn the objectives, theywould take another course taught in theSYNERGY classroom, and they wouldrecommend SYNERGY courses to other students.Although the teachers felt less well prepared forthe computer instruction than they wanted to be,the students indicated that they believed theinstructors were knowledgeable about thecomputers and the software.

Videotaped Interviews. We complemented thepaper-and -pencil surveys wi th videotapedinterviews, in which students said that theybelieved they had received more personalattention from the SYNERGY class both fromthe teacher and from the computer than from atraditional class. We also videotaped interviews

8190

with each teacher, the lab manager, and thesecretary. Highlights included the following:

Teachers met the challenge and studentssupported them.

Teachers supported one another, all willing toshare what worked.

Cooperation is the key.

The problems are difficult but not impossible.

Software glitches cause frustration.

There is never enough time to learn as muchas we want to know about the computer.

There's embarrassment in not knowingeverything to make computers worksmoothly.

Students' BehaviorStudents behaved differently in the SYNERGYclassroom and displayed generally positiveattitudes. They showed less interest in lectures,preferring to continue working with the computerduring the lecture. Those interviewed talked abouthow seeing something on the computer makes it"hit home better than a lecture." They liked toparticipate and one said, "It makes us do thework." They thought they comprehended more,liked working at their own pace, and thought thelearning took less time than in a traditional class.Their frustrations came from not being able to typewell or fearing they would hurt the computer.

The Teacher's RoleAt the year's end, we saw the teacher's role changeto that of collaborator, and students were pushingteachers to change. Teachers were honest withtheir students, admitting they didn't knoweverything. After first term, they concluded thatthey were giving more individual attention tostudents.

The teachers would have liked a model, but theytried different approaches e.nd found what feltright for themselves. One said that, withcomputers, she never gave a lesson as plannedand she learned to "tolerate anxiety." Because they

82

did not know how long it would take the averagestudent to complete a unit, teachers sometimes didnot plan the ideal amount of work for a classperiod. Some teachers ended the first term byassigning students computer activities out of classand using class time for group activities. Becausestudents worked at such different rates, theybegan thinking of completely individualizing thecourse the next time they taught it.

Not only have the teachers learned about software,but also they have raised awareness for others.Teachers are doing presentations about software.Consciousness-raising extends also to publicschools.

ConclusionsAt the end of the first year, we learned severalvery important lessons.

First and foremost teachers need at least amonth on computers before meeting studentsin class. Not only teachers but also studentsmade this observation. And a computerclassroom needs more computers thanstudents enrolled, to allow for non-functioningcomputers. A computer on the teacher's deskisn't absolutely essential, and we startedwithout one, but we know now that theteacher's computer is very important, becauseit allows the teacher to look in on a student'swork and to send messages unobtrusively.

A lab manager is essential; a good labmanager is a gift! When Laura Polk took thejob, she immediately set about learning to useDESKIab and to make certain the computerswere ready for students. The level of hercommitment and interest matched that of theteachers, and she understood how to set upthe files and figure out how the softwareworked. Such was her ownership of theproject that when it was time for her tostudent-teach, she recruited anothersecondary-education math major to help inthe lab. She also trained work-study studentsto help teachers with elementary tasks onDESKIab. Those students provided importantassistance in the first semester, helpingteachers as needed.

91

Problems with software can drag on formonths. Some of the math software weordered months ago is still not working well,despite several calls to the software authorsand extensive efforts by the lab manager and

the Computer Center staff

Communication is essential. We must checkand double-check the lines of communicationto be sure everyone is included. E-mail canhelp, not only in sending messages, but also inmaintaining the computers at optimum level.

A quick message to the Computer Center canbring a reply that allows a student labmanager to remove a glitch in a program orretrieve a stuck disk. A short page ofdirections on how to use each program, andespecially on hov% to avoid certain problems,can help inexpe .enced teachers. The labmanager's directions about how to solve smallproblems with the software can help theteachers get through early mini-crises. We

called on the Computer Center and theAcademic Affairs office several times: bothremain interested in and responsive to ourneeds; both frequently have made special

efforts to help.

Meetings matter. When people share their

successes and their frustrations, we can't foolourselves that everything is going just fine;

some things must get fixed today! Regular

meetings help us stay connected andconstantly reinforce our sense of being a team.

There will be unexpected expenses. In ourcase, when we decided to transfer to theSYNERGY classroom the IBM computers wehad received for software reviewing, wethought there would be no expense; we forgotabout cables and multi-access units. E-mail

isn't free, either.

A wish list should always be kept ready. Atthe end of April 1994, we were able to order$3,000 of software, but we had to submit ourpurchase orders in one week.

We can't do everything at once. It took asemester to learn the instructional softwarebefore we were ready to tackle the networkiogpotential. We found one room for the

SYNERGY class, but now we know it wouldhelp to have another room for days when weplan discussion and group work.

Computers remove teachers' blinders. ln atraditional class, we can deceive ourselves intobelieving that everyone "got it," and that wecan move on to the next point. The computerprograms leave no doubt that one stuth.nt isstill on the first program in week three, andanother, on uhit four.

We must consciously work at noticing ourexperience. We will continue to give paper-and-pencil student surveys and to videotapeselected students, to videotape all of the staff,and to take periodic samplings of experienceby asking for freewriting on specific questionsduring meetings.

It is imperative to balance computer andtraditional learning activities, because we allneed some means of interacting and bonding.Students want the exchange with the teacher,not with the computer alone. It is, however,interesting to realize that students believe thatthey got more individual attention in thecomputer class!

The university community is enormouslyhelpful; we found genuine interest andsuppoi t from the UTM administration, theComputer Center, St. Philip's in San Antonio,IBM, and Miami-Dade's Project SYNERGYstaff.

People do not complain when they believesomething is valuable, even if they are havingnumerous problems. That is true for studentsand for faculty.

Gifts come from many sources unexpectedgifts of furniture and office equipment fromother offices, assistance with software from adean, equipment and instruction from thelibrary's audio-visual department, consider-able help in editing a videotape from theDepartment of Communications.

Teachers who are flexible, honest, and openmake things work. In the freewritings we didperiodically, we find the secret attitude. One

teacher wrote about problems: "I just take it instride and explain to the students that we arelearning!" Active individuals, eager to try newprocedures, willing to learn and to risk, readyto work through problems and capable ofsustaining high energy levels all made ourproject work. The secretary's response afterlisting the difficulties of finding time toprocess more salary papers, more travelpapers, more purchase orders, set up moreschedules sums up the attitude of thisgroup: "I don't see difficulties as difficultiesbut as questions, concepts, procedures to learn

84

and apply. What a great opportunity I havehad to be part of SYNERGY at UTM!"

Last, we must begin now to prepare forcoping with a greater and a different demand.With computer access from residence halls aswell as from home, students will soon want touse the SYNERGY classroom materialsoutside the classroom. That leads to questionsabout self-paced learning, credit, andcurriculum all changes far beyond ourproject. Our experience so far suggests that theSYNERGY team will be ready once again toaccept new challenges.

SYNERGY Center at Richland CollegeLolita W. Gilkes, Project SYNERGY Software

Implementation Designer, is a faculty trainer andmultimedia software developer at the Richland CollegeFaculty Support Multimedia Center. In addition to teaching

multimedia classes and workshops, she has taughtIntroduction to Computers and Database Applications and is

the author of software that is being used in theDevelopmental Reading program. She has degrees fromBoston University and the University of Texas at Dallas andis currently working on a doctorate in Applied Technology,Training and Development at the University of North Texas.

Richland College implemented ProjectSYNERGY in the fall of 1994 with students in

the Developmental Reading and Writingprograms. Most of the SYNERGY equipmenthad arrived by the beginning of the semester, sothe teachers were able to begin their study atthat time. The Developmental Reading facultyhave used computers in their program for aboutseven years, so in the research both theexperimental and control classes worked in a

computer-assisted instructional model; theindependent variable in these classes was thesoftware used by the students. TheDevelopmental Writing experimental class metexclusively in the SYNERGY lab, while thecontrol class only used the computer labsoccasionally.The reports which follow document theoutcomes of our first semester inProject SYNERGY research.

Developmental ReadingKatherine Gonnet has taught for the Dallas CountyCommunity College District, Dallas, Texas, for 26 years. Six of

those years were spent as chairman of the DevelopmentalStudies Division (now Human Academic and DevelopmentDivision) at Richland College. She has taught developmentalreading and college reading Improvement classes, as well ashonors courses which feature interdisciplinary teachingteams She has also co-authored three reading-improvementtextbooks: Comprehending College Textbooks 2e, Opening Doors,

and Ilmo to Prepare for the Tasp. She received a B.S from TexasWoman's University, an M.Ed from Southern MethodistUniversity, and an Ed.D. from the University of North Texas

The SettingTwo sections of my DR 091 course were used in

the pilot study. I offered the usual method ofinstruction for One section, and this sectionserved as the control group. The "usualmethod" of instruction consists of classroominstruction with a textbook and also computer-

assisted instruction for one class period perweek using the Word Attack Plus software.

I taught the other section with the usual methodof instruction as well. However, theexperimental section used a different reading-comprehension software program. The softwareprogram, Opening Doors, was written by

Richland college computer lab personnel tosupplement the reading-improvement textbookused in the classroom. The other reading-comprehension software program originallyplanned for use, the Level IV CSR modules, didnot arrive in time.

Past experience has taught us that computer-assisted instruction in the developmentalreading classes is quite valuable. Thus, it wasunthinkable to design a study which woulddeprive even one section of developmentalreading students the opportunity to work withthe computer. The study we designed allowedus to field-test a new reading comprehensionsoftware program and to continue our practiceof teaching all developmental reading course!:with computer-assisted instruction.

About the StudentsThe experimental group began with nineteenstudents and ended with eleven studentscompleting the course with a grade of "C" orbetter. The control group began with eighteenstudents and ended with thirteen studentscompleting the course with a grade of "C" orbetter.

Enrolled in both classes were a number ofEnglish as a Second Language students. Theexperimental group contained eleven ESLstudents: the control group contained eight ESLstudents.

Also enrolled in both classes were students whohad been diagnosed with learning disabilities.The experimental group contained three suchstudents; the control group contained twostudents, one of whom was blind. (It isinteresting to note that all the learning disabledstudents in both sections completed the coursewith a grade of "B" or better.)

The DesignFor developmental courses in the Dallas CountyCommunity College District, letter grades aregiven at the end of the semester. These gradesmay be averaged as a part of the student'sgrade-point average while at a DCCCD college,but the grades are not tf ansferable.

86

Monitoring the StudyBoth control and experimental classes were heldon Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings.Both groups attended the computer lab eachMonday as part of their regular class schedule.Each Wednesday and Friday morning, bothgroups attended classroom sessions whichinvolved collaborative learning exercises andteacher presentations of various reading skills.

We have learned that computer-assistedinstruction for developmental readingstudents is more effective if the classroomteacher is present in the computer lab to workwith the students and monitor their progress.No students are allowed to sit at the computerin frustration because they have lost their wayin the program or are not sure of the directions.

Computer lab personnel also were available toassist in introducing special procedures thathad been designed as a part of the managementsystem. They were wonderfully helpful withhardware proble ns, too. Their support iscritical to the success of computer-assistedinstruction.

No extra drop-in computer lab time wasrequired for either the control or theexperimental group, but students wereobligated to finish certain units. If they neededadditional time to do this, they wereencouraged to use the drop-in lab on their owntime. The computer lab is open seven days aweek. Students in both groups took advantageof the drop-in lab hours.

Experimental Group ComprehensionSoftwareIt was interesting that the new readingcomprehension software, Opening Doors,which was beta-tested during the semester,worked as well with the students as thesoftware used in the control group. Thereappeared to be no precipitous drop in readingimprovement as a result of using a differenttype of computer software. The new reading-comprehension software featured longerselections which required written answers. Aword-processing program, built into the new

95

software, allowed students to write their

answers. Students were also required to

preview each selection; these previews requiredshort written answers. Thus, students werereading and writing about what they had read.Multiple-choice comprehension and vocabulatyquestions which followed each long selectionwere also a feature of the new program. (Thisformat was identical to the format of thetextbook used in the class. I co-authored thetextbook, Opening Doors, which was also being

field-tested in both sections, but only theexperimental section used the Opening Doors

software.)

As students finished each selection, they wereasked to print the results. The program printed

their written responses and scored the multiple-.choice items. The program was user-friendly.

The students had little difficulty with thedirections and seemed to enjoy the word-processing feature. The program will continueto be refined, but we are quite pleased with thefield-test results. As the Opening Doors softwarecontinues to be tested and revised, we plan toadd sound so students can hear the vocabularywords, as well as access to a dictionary tosupport the reading activities.

We were disappointed that the Level IV CSRmodules did not arrive in time to be used. Thissoftware was chosen for the study because,with the Opening Doors software, there was aclose fit between the objectives in the softwaremodules and the reading curriculum objectives.Past experience has taught us that the computersoftware must fit the reading curriculum of thecourse. With this close fit, reading skills taughtin the classroom can be reinforced in the

computer lab. Time on task is critical to theimprovement of reading skills, and work in thecomputer lab allows this time.

In both groups we used a vocabularyimprovement software, Word Attack Plus. Wehave learned to require students to developvocabulary cards based on the words presentedin Word Atiack Plus. In both sections, studentsused levels 5-7, and they were required to writeeach word, its definition, and the word used ina sentence on a 3 x 5 index card. Thisinformation was taken from the Word Displaysection of Word Attack Plus. The cards from eachlevel were turned in at designated timesthroughout the semester, and a teacher-prepared test was given over a portion of thewords. The vocabulary-card requirementbenefited all students. The English as a Second

Language students found the requirementespecially helpful.

Student OutcomesAt the final assessment, eleven students out of aclass of nineteen received a letter grade of "C"or better in the experimental group. In thecontrol group, thirteen students out of a class ofeighteen received a grade of "C" or better.Students who completed the course with agrade of "C" or better were defined as

successful.

Table I below shows the number of successfuland unsuccessful students in both groups. Anunsuccessful student is one who receives agrade of "D" or "F" or withdraws from thecourse. In the experimental group, there wereeight unsuccessful students, and in the controlgroup there were five unsuccessful students.

Table IFinal Grade Distribution

Group A B C D F Withdrawal

Experimental N=19 32% 21% 5% 16% 26%

Control N=18 39% 28% 6% 10% 6% 10%

879C

In this study, the classes were not matched inreading ability, assessment scores, or ethnicity;therefore, it is difficult to draw a conclusion asto why the SYNERGY class had a lower successrate than the control class since computer-assisted instruction was utilized in both classes.

However, it is possible to draw a conclusion,based On classroom observation, that theOpening Doors software was valuable to thestudents and as effective as the comprehensionsoftware used in the control class. The OpeningDoors software was valuable for severalreasons: it featured longer passages and a

respond-in-writing component; and it followedthe format of the textbook students were using.It was user friendly. Many of the students hadnever used a computer before, and they wereable to follow the directions easily. Theyworked diligently on the program lessons witha high degree of concentration. Based on theseobservations, I recommend the softwarecontinue to be used.

The study may also indicate that a secondcomprehension software, such as Level IV CSRmodules, might be used successfully in a futurestudy as was originally planned.

Developmental Writing

joe Mosley has taught Developmental Reading at RichlandCollege for 21 years. He received his B.A. in English from theUniversity of Texas and an M.A. in English from theUniversity of Arkansas.

The Setting

At Richland College, Developmental Writing091 is a course which prepares students forEnglish 101, the first semester of freshmanEnglish. Two sections of DW 091 were used inthe pilot study. My control section met in atraditional classroom, while my experimentalsection met in the SYNERGY Lab.

About the Students

The experimental section began with seventeenstudents; four dropped the course, leaving atotal of thirteen. The control section began witheighteen students; four dropped, leaving anenrollment of fourteen.

About the Software

Both classes prepared out-of-class papers usingMicrosoft Works 3.0.

The Design

Experimental and control sections metTuesdays and Thursdays for eighty-minuteclass periods. Students were placed in theclasses based on diagnostic test scores or on therecommendation of a DW 090 instructor whosecourse they had previously completed. Studentsreceive grades of A, B, C, D, F or W, butadvance to freshman English based onrecommendations from their 091 instructors.

Both classes used The Flexible Writer, by SusannaRich, and a sentence-structure package I wrotefor my DW 091 classes. The experimental classdid not test any educational software butfocused instead on the use of networkedcomputers. Both classes prepared their out-of-class essays using Microsoft Works for Windows3.0, and I provided typed feedback to guidetheir revisions. In the experimental section,students saved their drafts to the network, and I

read the papers from my office workstation andtyped my responses. In both control andexperimental sections, peer review involvedstudents reading their papers aloud to thewhole class. However, in the experimentalsection, students also used the network toimprove the quality of peer review. They savedtheir revised drafts to the network so thatclassmates could view those drafts on theirmonitors in the SYNERGY Lab and followalong in the text as the author read it aloud.

The course grade was based on the grades onthe out-of-class essays, the best of four short in-class writings, and a summary grade reflectingclass participation, attendance, preparation forclass, and exercise grades. Students attitudestoward writing tasks and their own writingabilities were measured by a pre-course andpost-course attitudinal survey.

Monitoring the StudyI had originally hoped to try out one or moreeducational software packages in theexperimental section but did not do so, largelybecause none of the software I had previewedby that point seemed potentially useful. Aftertalking to our campus support staff, I decidedto focus on finding out what value networkedcomputers might have in a writing classroom.Because students have such difficulty reading'my handwriting, I have for several years typedmy feedback to their drafts on computer, so itseemed a natural step to use the network toreview the papers on my office computer. I wassurprised to find that opening a separatedocument for my responses to papers andtoggling back and forth between it and thestudents' papers reduced the time it took me torespond to drafts. This process probably had no

effect on improving the students' writing skills,but the saved time was welcome.

Students did voice a strong preference for thepeer reviews done via the network over thosedone through oral reading alone. Because asizable portion of both classes was made up ofstudents using English as a foreign language,conventional peer review was often madedifficult because of problems created by thewriters' accents. Of course, these could havebeen reduced by having students reproduceenough copies of each paper for all theirclassmates, but the networked computers madethis paperwork unnecessary, and the quality ofthe feedback improved noticeably after the classbegan to use them.

Student OutcomesIn the control section four students earned A's,six B's, and four F's. All four F's were earned bystudents who stopped attending the classwithout officially withdrawing. Four studentsofficially withdrew. All ten who passed thecourse were recommended for freshmanEnglish, as shown in Table I.

In the experimental section, the gradedistribution was wider: four A's, four B's, twoC's, one D, and two F's. One of the studentsearning an F stopped attending withoutofficially withdrawing. One of the two studentswho withdrew had been required to enroll inDW 091 because she failed the state-mandatedwriting exam and withdrew when the collegereceived word she had passed a re-test. Ofthose who passed the course, ten wererecommended to advance to freshman English,while were advised to repeat DW 091 sothey would have even stronger writing skillswhen they proceeded to freshman English.

Table IFinal Grade Distribution

Group C D F Withdrawal

Experimental N=17 23% 23% 12% 6% 12% 23%

Control N=18 22% 33% 22% 22%

89

Indian River Community College

BackgroundIndian River Community College is acomprehensive two-year public communitycollege providing high-quality educationalservices on the Treasure Coast of Florida. St.Lucie County is the home of IRCC's maincampus in Fort Pierce and fast-growing St.Lucie West Center in Port St. Lucie. TheChastain Center in Stuart, the Mueller Center inVero Beach, and the Dixon Hendry Center inOkeechobee are all full-service college centersoffering day, evening and weekend classes, aswell as college advisement and on-siteregistration.

About 45,(X)0 area residents of all ages andinterests attend classes at IRCC each year. An"open door admissions" policy guaranteesadmission to anyone with a high schooldiploma. IRCC offers more than 100 two-yeardegree programs. Serving all sectors cf thecommunity, the college offers over 1,000courses each semester for professional andpersonal development, continuing educationopportunities, adult basic education, GEDpreparation, and English for speakers of otherlanguages.

The SettingFundamentals of Writing (ENC 0001) teachesthe relationship of sentence structure to ideas.This course is taught through a combination oftheory, practicum and application. Studentslearn to utilize appropriate sentence structure,grammar, writing style and organization toeffectively present information.

Students taking the course have been identifiedthrough testing as developmental in the area oflanguage skills. In general, the participants inthis writing class are challenged in the processof identifying < .trategy for presenting a themein a written composition and then transferringthat strategy into well-formed sentences which

flow logically from one to another. Many ofthese students have been out of high school forten or more years, while many other studentsare in fact recent high school graduates.

The DesignThree sections of ENC 0001 (Fundamentals ofWriting) were randomly selected to be part of aone-semester pilot course of Fundamentals ofWriting with computer-assisted instruction(CAI). The computer program selected for thepilot course was the Computer-Based LearningSkills and Strategies, Learning Plus, EducationalTesting Services, Version no. 1.0, 1993.

The three sections of ENC 0001 were originallydivided into A2, eighteen students; A3, sixteenstudents; and A4, fifteen students. A2 wouldreceive CAI every time of the three one-hoursessions scheduled throughout the semester. A3would receive CAI three sessions a week, everyother week. A4 would receive traditionalclassroom instruction three sessions of one houreach, without CAI. The midterm endingnumber of students for A2 was eleven; for A3,fourteen students; and for A4, eleven students.Four students never attended in A2; twostudents never attended in A3; and threestudents never attended in A4. The averagedaily attendance for A2 was eleven; for A3,eleven; and for A4, ten. The number of studentswho had previous computer experience in A2was six; in A3, four; and in A4, the number ofstudents who had previous computerexperience did not apply.

The purpose of this pilot project was to show ameaningful difference in the retention,attendance, and grade average betweenstudents who received CAI and those who didnot.

ObservationsAfter two months of conducting this pilotproject, some advantages and some drawbacks

have been observed in administering CAI.Students who were familiar with computersfound the program user-friendly and easy tofollow. Students who received CAI improvedtheir grade average 25`), over those studentswho did not receive CAI. Students whoreceived CAI had access to a wider variety of

exercises than those who had traditionalexercises from the class book only. Studentswho received CAI got a better understanding ofwriting as a process rather than as a product.

On the other hand, those students who did nothave any training on computer usage found theprogram too complicated and the directionsunclear. The students who received CAI everyother week benefited qualitatively more thanthe other groups in a ratio of three to one, dueto the fact that they received more classroominstruction theory that they could apply in thecomputer exercises in the lab, thus giving thema deeper understanding of writing as a process.Also Learning Plus itself did not have anaccurate mode of evaluating or recommendingspecific exercising for the students who scoredlow in the Skills Profile Tests administered by

the program as ongoing tutoring.

Another disadvantage was that once thestudents took the Skills Profile Test, they couldnot return to it once they had logged out. Still

another drawback was that Learning Plus didnot adapt to the students' needs, nor did it

correct the students' mistakes.

Computer-assisted instruction is indispensablein this high-tech educational age. It is hard tofind a computer program that appeals to everysyllabus or college program. However, LearningPlus proved to be a well-designed computerprogram that helps the students learn theprocess of writing step-by-step if, and only if, itis supported by more exercises from otherprograms, and if it is used as a complement forclassroom instruction.

FutureThe effects of CAI have been sufficientlydemonstrated in Fundamentals of Writing toencourage our college to pursue CAI to increasequality of learning. Based upon the encouragingresults of the Learning Plus pilot program, wehope to continue to incorporate Learning Plusinto the ENC 0001 curriculum. In addition, theCenter for Personalized Instruction plans tooffer Learning Plus as a supplemental tool forthe college students by having this softwareprogram available in the computer lab. IRCCintends to continue its efforts with this andother software to provide quality education tocollege preparatory students.

Okaloosa-Walton Community College

BackgroundLocated in the coastal heart of NorthwestFlorida, Okaloosa-Walton Community Collegehas gained a reputation for educationalexcellence and communitv involvement in itsfirst quarter-century of service. The college'sservice district includes Okaloosa and Waltoncounties, which stretch from the Gulf of Mexicoto the Alabama state line. The college districthas a population in excess of 175,000 permanentresidents.

When its doors first opened in 1964 in a

temporary campus of vacant buildings in

Valparaiso, OWCC had a faculty of teninstructors, three support personnel and fiveadministrators for the 309 full-time and 458part-time students on hand. Now, thirty yearslater, OWCC's traditional faculty consists ofapproximately seventy-six full-time instructorsand 179 part-time instructors, as well as 234support staff and nine educational centers,serving more than 15,600 students annually.

OWCC has instructional divisions anddepartments providing a multitude of academicareas from which students may choose. Theseinclude adult studies, biological sciences,business, communications, computer science,

91

100

hospitality management, fine and performingarts, human development and continuingeducation, mathematics, health and physicaleducation, physical science, social science,teacher education, trade and industry, andpublic service.

DevelopmentalArithmeticThe purpose of the first software-implementationproject is to field-test three software programs,Skills Bank, Pre-GED and GED 2000, as the primaryinstructional resources in a preparatorymathematics course. MAT 0002A, DevelopmentalArithmetic, develops arithmetic skills for studentswhose entry-level placement scores may not meetrequirements for degree credit. This course isdesigned to reinforce knowledge of operationswith fractions, decimals, percents and sipednumbers with applications. At any point in thesemester, a student may enter the course or takean exit examination (test groups only). A score of75% or better will allow the student to exitDevelopmental Arithmetic.

The research design states the following: Atleast two sections of this course, approximatelyfiPcy students, will be taught in a computer lab inthe spring 1995 semester. Students will use thesoftware programs Skills Bank and Pre-GED forarithmetic instruction and will progress throughthese programs at their Own pace with theinstructor providing individual help. The softwareprogram GED 2000 will be used as the studentsprogress to siped numbers and other pre-algebraconcepts. The instructor will offer short classectu res a s needed .

The evaluation outlines the following:Diagnostic/pre-test assessments will headministered to all students upon enrollment inDevelopmental Arithmetic. Examinations will beadministered periodically throughout the semesterto measure the rate of progress between the testgroups and the control groups. Final examinationscores from the test groups will be compared tothose in the control groups.

92

College Prep EnglishThe purpose of the second software-implementation project is to field-test twosoftware programs, Skills Bank and Realtime Writer,as the central instructional resource in apreparatory English course. ENC 0020, CollegePreparatory English (Level II), develops writtenlanguage skills for students whose entry-levelplacement scores fall below the minimum requiredfor college-level work. Students receive instructionin sentence structure, paragraph and short-essaycomposition as well as basic grammar andpunctuation rules. At any point in the semester, astudent may take an exit examination. Aminimum score of 75% will allow that student toenroll in a college-level communications course.

The research design states the following: Atleast three sections of this course, approximatelysixty students, will be taught in a networkedcomputer lab in the spring 1995 semester. Studentswill use the Iftware program Skills Bank forgrammar instruction and will progress throughthe program at their own pace with the instructoracting as a "coach" rather than as a traditionallecturer. The software program Realtime Writer willbe used for the composition portion of the course.Most of the class periods will be conducted asworkshops, with students working through therequired grammar and writing units andconsulting with the instructor individually. Theinstructor will offer short class lectures as needed.

The evaluation outlines the following:(Diagnostic/pre-test assessments (both composi-tion and English language skills) will beadministered to all students upon enrollment inLevel II preparatory English courses. Exitexaminations will be administered periodicallythroughout the semester to measure the rate ofprogress between the test groups and the controlgroups. Final examination scores from the testgroups will be compared to those in the controlgroups.

Follow-UpThe results of these two software-implementation projects will be presented in thenext Project SYNERGY report.

101

Part Three: Project SYNERGYIntegrator (PSI)

Project SYNERGY Integrator (PSI) is anadaptive management system for Local AreaNetworks. It provides, on the one hand, asystem that has standard faculty and studentinterfaces and, on the other hand, a platform ofneutrality to accommodate multivendorsoftware without affecting the standard userinterfaces. It incorporates Project SYNERGYlearning objectives and mastery test questionsand provides installation options to includemultivendor software for assessment andinstruction. It provides linkages among diag-nostic tests, learning objectives, instructionalsoftware, and mastery tests in order for thestudent to have smooth transitions from onelearning objective to another and from onesoftware package to another. It allows thedepartments and faculty to indicate theirpreferences as to how PSI should manage theircourses and gives them a more efficient handleon how their students are progressing. Morethan 4(X) faculty and administrators at two- andfour-year institutions have been involved inspecifying the necessary features and functionsof PSI.

The major components of PSI include thefollowing:

Databases:

User Databases

Curriculum Databases

Connectivity:

PSI Access Module (PAM)

PSI Command Module (PCM)

Software Connectivity Module (SCM)

DatabasesUser Databases. The heart of PSI is the set ofuser databases it maintains and the linkages

93

among them. The student database containsinformation about each student and his/herprogress. It is configured to allow a student towork in multiple disciplines, in multiple course,:within any discipline, and across terms, and tobe treated as one person. The PCM user databasecontains information about the faculty and staffusers of the system, including user preferencesfor how PSI should manage their respectivecourses. The course database containsinformation about faculty and staff for eachcourse, a list of students enrolled, and optionalgroupings of students within a course.

Curriculum Databases. The objectives databasecontains the Project SYNERGY objectives as laidout in the software review for reading, writing,mathematics, ESL, and study skills/criticalthinking. The diagnostic database containsinformation about the various instruments usedby institutions for diagnosing specific learningdeficiencies. The project team is working withThe College Board to incorporate GUIDES(diagnostic tests) and with ACT to do the samewith COMPASS. The software database containsinformation on each instructional softwarepackage available to PSI. In particular, itcontains information about objectives coveredfrom among Project SYNERGY's complete list.The testbank database contains mastery testquestions for Project SYNERGY objectives. Theitems for the testbank have been developed byteams of faculty members from theparticipating institutions. These que4tions arebeing entered into Banque,. a Windows-basedcbmputerized testbank system owned byMiami-Dade Community College that will beused by PSI to generate mastery tests forstudents.

Linking Among Databases. Each of thedatabases maintained by PSI contains links toone or more of the other databases. These

1 0

linkages are dynamic, being created as newcomponents are added (e.g., as a student dropsa course or a faculty member modifies astudent's mastery test). The records in thestudent, PCM user, and course databases areclosely linked to each other. In addition, thestudent's Curriculum Plan is linked to objectives,instructional software, and mastery tests. Theassessment database contains links betweendiagnostic information and objectives. Thesoftware database contains links betweensoftware units or lessons and the correspondingobjectives in the objectives database. The testbankdatabase contains test questions linked toobjectives in the objectives database.

Connectivity

PSI Access Module (PAM). PSI responds tolearners through the PSI Access Module (PAM)in such a way that they feel they are at thecenter of the system when they are using it. (Seethe illustrative screens on pages 101-103.) PAMgets its instructions from the Learning Guide,which is the manager of learner activity in PSI,and it constructs Curriculum Plan(s) for eachlearner. A learner enrolled in multiple courseswill have multiple curriculum plans that will bedisplayed on his/her desktop after sign-on. TheLearning Guide creates a Curriculum Plan for astudent based on the faculty-preferences list forthat course. If a diagnostic test is included in thepreferences list, PSI will use the diagnostic testand select the objectives to be mastered fromthe objectives database; otherwise, it will usethe course objectives; having selected theobjectives, it selects a list of appropriatesoftware for instruction; and it further generatesperiodic tests from Banque to assess thelearner's mastery of objectives. The CurriculumPlan keeps up-to-date information on thelearner's progress. The learner may ask for helpat any time. The learner can send e-mailmessages to faculty/staff and receive responseson-line. The learner can request that the facultyadjust the Curriculum Plan if he/she is havingdifficulty.

In the context of PSI, the learner could beregistered in a course at college or theworkforce, referred for deficiency in some

skills, or self-selected for brushing up on skills.The benefits to the learner are (1) having anindividualized Curriculum Plan; (2) having theability to mon:tor one's own progress; (3)having greater access to the instructor; and (4)having a sense of the wholeness of his/herprogram rather than fragmentation amongcourses and software.

PSI Command Module (PCM). PSI will respondto instructors and their assistants through itsCommand Module in such a way that they feelthey are at the center of the system. (Seeillustrative screens on pages 97-100.) PSIaccomplishes this goal by obtaining facultypreferences as to how each faculty memberwishes to use the system. The options availableinclude, among others, designating a course tobe multidiscipline or not, selecting a diagnostictest, specifying the instructional software to beused or letting PSI use all available software,specifying the conditions under which PSIshould alert the faculty about students' lack ofprogress, and selecting the type of studentreports. In addition, standard networkmaintenance functions such as backup andrestore, installation of software, and adding anddeleting users are accomplished through PCM.Other maintenance functions include generatingreports, modifying the PSI databases, andupdating the questions in the computerizedtestbank.

After the students are registered in PSI, thefaculty member who so chooses can add ordelete students in his/her course; accessstudent records, either singly or in groups;access students' Curriculum Plan(s) to seeprogress; get various reports, either on-line orin print; send e-mail messages to co-workers orstudents; and create or modify CurriculumPlan(s). In particular, the instructor canintervene personally in the learning process forany of his/her students.

The benefits to the instructor are (1) flexibility;(2) systematic feedback on each learner; (3)increased facility to attend to individuallearners' needs; and (4) greater potential tofacilitate learning. Although PSI is currentlyequipped with learning objectives and

94

103

corresponding software in reading, writing,mathematics, ESL, and study skills/criticalthinking, it is a management shell which allowsfor defining similar content in other disciplines.

Software Connectivity Module (SCM). Aunique feature of PSI is the SoftwareConnectivity Module, which provides acommon connectivity mechanism to communicate

with multi-vendor software so that they can allbe managed by PSI. PSI initiates the softwarefor the student, passes data to tne software, getsdata back from the software, and maintainsbookmarks. The SCM also collects data aboutthe usefulness/effectiveness of the software inthe real world. This data will allow the projectteam to make improvements in the automatedoperation of the system to create the CurriculumPlan(s).

LearninGuide

Module

Ate...mitt

Module

Curriculum Database Module

ISoftware

Isteeva Isport We OOP Ilks k Ma Waset Dia

Filer lialatained for Bad Software

In developing PSI and promoting its adoption,we have embarked on a new direction, aparadigm shift. In this paradigm shift,educators must go beyond Mission Statementsin the catalogs and exhibit a passion foraccountability.They must (a) be accountable interms of reducing student dropout rates andincreasing students success rates; (b) orchestratethe use of human and technological resourcesto do the right things and do them well; (c) nothesitate to question the traditional practices todetermine whether or not they have a role inthis paradigm shift, and if they do, in whatform; and (d) recognize that a substantialandenduring solution to a serious, naggingproblem will require concerted andcollaborative effort.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

In this paradigm shift, software vendors mustalso evaluate their cost-prohibitive efforts tomaintain and market management andinstructional systems and consider focusing onquality leaming modules. They must shift theirfocus from a better than others" _philosophyand exclusion strategy to a "variable offeringsfor variable learners" philosophy and co-existence strategy. There is room for all. Theyalso need to think of a pricing structure thatavoids exorbitant front-end cost and allows forsustainable operating cost. PSI is intended tohelp the software vendors address thesechallenges by creating a platform of neutralityfor management and by providing an openarchitecture for their software to becomeoperational under this management system.

95104

If you are interested in producing software forProject SYNERGY Integrator, fill out the forminserted in this report and send it to the addresslisted at the bottom of the form. A PSI Timeline(Table I) and Recommended Hardware/Software for

PSI (Table II) follow. Please note that apreconference workshop on PSI is scheduled forthe next annual conference of the League forInnovation in the Community College (KansasCity, November 5-8, 1995).

Table IPSI Timeline

anuary February" March, April May fune July August September October November: DecemberBegin Alpha Begin Complete

Test: Phasel Phase I9 Eduraticnal Beta Test: Beta Test9 Tolvicle*s MDCC

Begin Complete1 Phase 11 Phase 11

9 Beta Test: Beta Test9 Trammg Begin Early6 Centers Adoptors

ProgramEnd Early Begi.i

9 Adoptors General9 Program Distributon

Table IIRecommended HardwarelSo ware for PSI

A. Filo Server23 Workstations 300 Workstations

,

CPUMemory

DiskBUSUl'S

486 DX2166 OR 486 DX 5016 megabytes2 gigabytes

32 bit high performance (EISA, MC)20 minutes for orderly shutdown

Intelligent UPS with auto-shutdownsoftware if unattended

,

Pentium 90 or better64 megabytes4-8 gigabytes

SameSame

B. Network SoftwareMIMMOMMOI=0.M.

25 Workstations 100+ WorkstationsNetware Operating System

TopologyNovell 3.12 or later

16 megabytes Token Ring or1OBASE-TNovell 3.12 or later

16 megabytes Token Ring, 10Base-T, FastEthernet, Fiber backbone

C. WorkstationsBaseline Gtowth

,

Cl'URAMVideoDiskDOS

Windows

486DX2 / 668 megabytes

640x480x256 color212 megabytes

6.0+3.10

486-DX/100 or better16 megabytes

1024x768x64k color212 megabytes

6.0+3.10

D. Lab Manager's PCCD ROM Drive

Modem4 megabyte DAT Tape Drive

oneV.34one

Baseline hardware is intended to balance pr ce and performance based on today's hardware and software market.Growth hardware takes into account addthon of new, more resource-intensive instructional software.Ul'S = Umnterruptible Power Supply MC = MtcroChannel EISA = Extended International Standards Association

96

105BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PSI Command Module (PCM)How Faculty Interact with PSI: Sample Screens

More disciplinescan be added if

this option isselected.

The CurriculumPlan will be

preserved acrossterms if this

option isselected.

These lockscan be used bythe department

chair tomaintain

uniformity forthe department.

The left boxcontains the

comprehensivelist of

objectives usedfor reviewingsoftware in

writing.

_. 11 )111)111.11111 M11111111- It .)111.111 - 1:1121Op Cons UseeS functions Mall Maintenance Windows Pages Help

073k1111EF e 11111V.Valf-MikEf;.Elz 0et A. dut lii, 1 'rt ll'It lit i TIMTag ' Basle Skills Writing N

SSC

4r-cil. . WIWISnipe

*mos is Oftilt-Disalpilata..A.!':''

op mowers r

Evils* as a SasMathwasbes

"sal" iiiwra,1.111.14,

rlossewva CP amok Swim 3 .- ,: : r slnainsogrinai a Ona lee meet Arlereent

r ismaust -' r ftweilliiifh* r Modem* Chakaoi;.1CsioneTwols: .- .1- r widi;i6ii.,,, V Nallloslione ,,i:-2. .

Minr" V .014Waisia r pm*.Sollanss ir SiosisantommasIP.. r Dienueis ig Mowastis* , .. r Foe* *orb,it: A , CP Msmsamold if flow* r flossatth1111`. . r Olismisas liaboaso .

1:=AGE=f2=310:ta.Nobbosepris Student R $

4° DIM WIM e 1 ?.....1-

AtailtelMe Pteforsocos

Qptlons Users Ettnctions11..11 i,jijiii Hut tolls)1111) i fit.11.11

Mall Maintenance Windows Pages Help

Earaisoir--2.!II I }11 hit tic

lowly Oldsedvas Ms CP. IVintina

wilding FluencyMS Merl;awing a panelind wettingersetating/Osgeniring Int onnetionOdom)rainitomwglusterig end rnappngssnilcrenSI Wang lots of questions)now; in stuahonal veiling Walestudies)waning develomenta mcdots (e.g.&Mew)eaponcing lo readings

rewviewngmooning inductweVdeductively

TING

4

liseglhassi Wing tow Thesiswince completion°dosing fikattertions. enemies)

Illuctsanont asperroxfad ocerms used

I. sisa $tarteol

reanizing/1341Fift Inlombabon(Ideas)

speterenteton with agnatennets/possibiees (is g. Newelmodes mcdes)

40 elms end rearho awoke's: to be liedin (e.g . companson/contlast. process.

)etcbah& Al lesliWili

Clashing peoniesWooing and eiepprig

Doe son CP Mane Presentees:et Order. come: Rewards Notifications

Academie Prefereoces

These are theareas in which

4 individualfaculty

members canindicate their

preferences forcourse

management.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

97loG

4

The right boxcontains theobjectives

selected fromthe left side

by faculty fora particular

course.

The Testbankconsists of all thequestions facultyhave written to

match thelearning

obiectives.

i ,antr. Ind IAndulc II Jr') I I vo 112

Qptions lbeff functions Mail letinteasnee Windows Pages Help

11;1045A rin__.

..r.,-,.=PTID. 0 Flar:14,MMurf. E115:111

rz El CI.

lia."11.81.':':. 41:42171::-..4 '''''''Ir-%'''''''' ---k

,filuittesiwirteiNgiospapiet : --..._:::, . _ , .

4/006044islimisig

..

i,

.-

iss int -.,, . .

r-13 r; ',n

1 o ,-; :

.t.--..,,..k .:. . . ., .....

-, ol,:'-,-, net',

1.1 . ,--I. _

=-:----..-,-;-:-I.r.44:,-. :: t4.0.4,:i:-'.7ti --'-';',:,=-'- ---:-.- -.

", Faiteetr"-ligt iiatadimiximetwarLevel Rocs. Mast int 4.-..' ,

' 1:::=Cr===,PtomentationOrdar,,Rowards Notticabor4. all WM/ F.1=1.12, 11.k DIAMili

t

Posiessess

Qptlons Users1 1 1 1 111111 11111 1'.11 111111 . 1111 11:11

Eunedsns Mall Maintenance

Otoir.1121EN WW2.:Windows Rages

IMO;...4

help

V. W

Aereemic Preemie's

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 98107

An accessorymay be put inthe AccessoryGroup or the

Class Group. Ifit is in the latter,

PSI will keeptrack of time on

task. Otheraccessories

such as wordprocessors andspreadsheets

may be addedto this box.

MSII.ti It III. IIOptions Users fandiene Mall Maintenance windows es

I. I. It III

.1 a-

iir AMA.. it attitielahmetatePlabsta litaliettem.;7.,,,;

r toad as:mat*Ntilitioaporilliiiiiiiii'ri 416Ailt*MI6* Wiliiiine /1,6 Ir. :19,00,001410, roStatrAtiagsava titienit' 4,.' *ma f

1. ,.

Iltiesiwthismeophoi.-

1111i iiiiktir ,i,g) 1`1,r,r1 _N:r 10111116MiiikliMilibit r.1,..t

r 14411Mi110144101.1111.10001111 Cir Illosioropiii: .,.r II *AM am*Maim antmatte 0

..: .

AVAILABLE 99 l

.0.., .1Qat Ism Users fimellons WWI Maintensscs Wia4

carrorgrart-ms3Ceamdslittlal 111.41516

SobelWool Sitiat

Reports for a class or an individualmay be requested cumulativelyor for a specific time segment.

With the latter option, a calendarappears for the dates to be specified.

...... .1.1 Lc .111. 1

W*4100 hosSIL III§ad DIM lea le. MI

is

yew NW*

MOWN 1111=1=111 I 1404111W r . 464100.41110-SITT It 6 INT *SFS SKS VT 1111 SNTOPT !II'I 4I a I a t 1 61 a '4 it'a I sr 0 fa a a 11 a 3 a 5 S-I I 4 a At I VI* W

Si MOW* 00141 r****a0 1 s*211 *Ott VIVO** 0*64 ****1111461 *SIN SIIIIMSESS

SISO Is SI 111.111111111010 as 34 sa as 01 ail se In WOO isso stI 1690salles4011! r Os4olmte-W1W 1 Shross4440111 INSS ICTIST 111 SISTWTIS

* a i at 1 St 61 **II *V*Wets* 6 s***4111* **Wolsaaas aarlatassistsusiasstasnia W so at

1 Sassavell1 SsibrusprileSMTOPT 1$

1 s1, t 111 *

so*WOW UMWso SW as

*WSW'S!! SISTWTIPS1 2 a tfat** 114345.tt* .41 46 *14 W.* ti 11 561306400610 ***WV 1010Witasalial SW W A* WO al

fisamossis I asse4siso pt! wsrs SIKSIOTISt. & 6

A. 1 AI t 'a * *11111:3141111114 1011 U 1? 14 44 144U a0 In at a3 adi W * 40 Si 40 al at SINSISSISSIis SG 11 St as as WOO

at

Tion /WWI Oswalt

Cissitaw 0/06.1506/16,16

tspormilsI Wm*

Wise*r 01002

r tamilaDss

AP Wes Pm Taft MOM ARIVINta r."1:777

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 100

6 ;)

1

PSI Access Module (PAM)How Students Interact with PSI: Sample Screens

Arthur isregistered in

two classes inPSI a writing--

course and amath course.

FMumflit . ono Windows He

'olio., riEr

13

LI 4* 10.......... Invo.Ain

Moist co

,

"r: III 0 0E440 Cabo Moos letemsemi

kre CmDesSim Kr.bood Chow

Pormod

Calle e Pre Math CO

L1112UtIckiall CHASCM44

Plan

Tools and Arsessades 13

Pellwig COMatcs

Arthur has an E-Mail messagefrom his teacher, who used an

address book organized by classsections and then selected

Arthur from a list of students inthat section.

Mel 1..1 1.11a1 er 11..11

elsod0 TosibFACULTY 142 c3

NC0020 00002 142 a0001 00003 542 CI

UMW Mk Umr Km*3333333 Hooch Seedy

1551546122126211111413344161566611466646633

Mann AndyMoth. OttoMous Cho.Mum MaxisTower IvoryWood Holly

1.711141

file Edit

itiot

4-

4-

Arthur has standardWindows icons to

personalize his desktop.

Note that one accessoryInvent is in Arthur's

class group and oneWrite is in his

accessories group.

iltAMMA1

Lew

Vim

Ts 1215713211

etIii

!widows

Weems. Meow milieu come. Click an die Objectives Stew et ram IoneSkiPs WrOimo II yam. and you soll Ow topics I maw sou m mom rothis cams Yew IA aim los the sotto... yeu can choose M.

Anadsos pm $ant so cossomicata with so sostsaM she dims a so Mice.Aeon Woe we on wool ommos. II impendsibs dim dor ths rmat.

Resmthos. Fs hese to kolo goo.

.10 I. 4111.

r sow Toro

Tdtm:El55715211

I *i.dotra I

BEST COPY AVAILARI 101

The teachercan also send a

broadcastmessage to allthe students.

0:14 I 7 Help I

Curriculum PlanPercent Completed

WritingWRITING: Limiting the Thesis

Sentence completionModeling (illustrations, examples)Open-ended options (illustrations used as idea starters)Mastery Test - Optional, 3 items per objective

WRITING: Organizing/Outlining Information (Ideas)Experimentation with original formats/possibilities (e.g..rhetorical modes modes)

Forms and graphic structures to be filled in (e.g..comparison/contrast process. etc.)

ClassifyingEstablishing prioritiesClustering and mappingMastery Test - Optional, 3 items per objective

WRITING: Composing a DraftDrafting topic sentencesDrafting thesis statementsMastery Test Optional. 3 items per objective

WRITIlyn- Az-him/inn I Init., rind rnharrancsr

Arthur hashighlighted thetopic Editing,

which causes thecorrespondingobjectives to

appear on theright and the

availablesoftware thatmeets theseobjectives toappear on thebottom left.

Arthur's CurriculumPlan is based on the

faculty member'schoices in PCM (PSICommand Module).

F-

Topic1:3WRITING. Limiting the Thesis

WRITING: Organizing/OutliningInformation (Ideas)

WRITING: Composing a DraftWRITING: Achieving Unity and

CoherenceREVISION: Evaluating theDraft

EDITING: ProofreadinI I 1111t1( Icitpc.tvicul V4111,1

Sottwort

Word Usage Unit 3Sentence Mechanics Unit 1

cancel

ObjeellvesNounsPronounsVerbsConjunctionsAdjectivesArticles (definite/indefinite)AdverbsPrepositionsSpellingPhrasesDependent clausesIndependent clauses

102BEST COPY MAIM Flii

The icons for MasteryTest, Review, andRewards show that

Arthur has completedsome work in his

Curriculum Plan. Themath professor has notchosen to use Rewards.

4.

le Oistlons WIndows Hel

wil Basic Skills Writing II . . 11, m,.. CIO'

61 %It 9 CI *ICurtetese Oblectroes Mastery Ressew Rewaide

Plan Test

laInvent

g

-7r-s. III 6 011111 Cciots Mouse Interneoced

WI a CmokDesktop Keit:cid Mance

Pesswoszl

College Prep Math GillillilTools and Accessories IME3

, 51Write Cakuletor

i seesseeesese

arteolum Objectives Mastery ReviewNo Test

2SIS NMI Potent Comoissed

, Writing%/WRITING: Limiting the Thesis

%,/ Sentence completion%,/ Modeling (illustrations, examples)%/ Open-ended options (illustrations used as idea starters)

Mastery Test Optional, 3 items par objective%/WRITING: Organizing/Outhning Information (Ideas)

./ Experimentation with original formats/possibilities (e.g.,rhetorical modes modes)

so/ Forms and graphic structures to be filled in (e.g..comparison/contrast process, etc.)

%/ Classifying,/ Establishing priorities%/Clustering and mapping

Mastery Test - Optional, 3 items per objective%/WRITING: Composing a Draft

%/Drafting topic sentences,/ Drafting thesis statements

Mastery Test - Optional. 3 items per objecliveWIUTINfl Arhiswinn Linus, vinr1 flohrreinttp

vig 4? &IP

The bar shows the percent of4 work Arthur has completed.

4

Anytime hewishes, Arthur canselect CurriculumPlan and see hisprogress (topicsand objectives

checked).

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 103112

Part Four: Project SYNERGY IV-The Florida Model

Goal Six of the State Board of CommunityColleges Master Plan challenges the colleges to"strengthen the utilization of technology tosupport contemporary standards and futureapplications in academic computing technolo-gies, administrative computing systems, andeducational telecommunications." According tothe plan, this goal can be accomplished onlywhen the colleges "expand the effective andproficient use of technology in instruction:computer-assisted and interactive, multi-medialearning resources, and library informationservices." The Master Plan further emphasizesthat colleges should "enhance and sustaincomprehensive college-prep and studentdevelopment programs for underpreparedstudents," as well as "increase the proportion ofminorities enrolled and succeeding incommunity college programs."

In attempting to use technology to become morecost-effective and -efficient, college faculty havebeen disappointed with the non-compatibility ofexisting software packages. This conditionresults in the inability of faculty to take aholistic approach in addressing the needs oftheir students. Since the cost of masteringdifferent management systems produced bydifferent publishers is quite high, colleges haveto contend with technological support for theirstudents that is less than adequate.

The Florida community colleges are in a uniqueposition to capitalize on four years of valuabledevelopmental work by Miami-Dade Commu-nity College and twenty-one other communitycolleges and universities nationwide. The StateCouncil of Presidents unanimously endorsedthe Project SYNERGY model as the desirableapproach for the twenty-eight communitycolleges in the state. With this as a backdrop,the Presidents Council Technology Task Forcedeveloped a proposal in August 1994 aimed atassisting Florida community college faculty to

implement proven technology-based processesthat will improve teaching and learning in theclassroom. The proposal was presented to theDepartment of Education for fundingconsideration and subsequently received agrant for $212,000. The project is a collaborativeeffort involving eight pilot colleges in additionto Miami-Dade and Santa Fe CommunityColleges acting as facilitators for the project. Seethe map on the next page.

Goals of the PilotProjectThe goals were set out as follows:

To add to existing Project SYNERGYsoftware reviews and mastery-test items.To create a model for faculty developmentand outcomes evaluation to implement PSI.To produce individual college andsystemwide implementation plans thatinclude activities, schedules, and resourcerequirements (costs).

Accordingly, the following were the specificactivities undertaken in this project:

Software Review Process. Each of the eightparticipating college designated at least threefaculty members to review at least threesoftware packages per faculty member. Thereviews focused on reading, writing, math, ESL,and study skills/critical thinking. The reviewcriteria and procedures developed by ProjectSYNERGY were used for this process. This is ahighly systematic process developed over afour-year period that emphasizes locatingpackages that are currently implemented ineducational settings. After the faculty identifiedthe software packages, they reserved the titleswith the Software Reviews Coordinator,thereby insuring that packages receive no morethan three reviews. Each software review

104

113

collected information about hardwarerequirements, learning objectives, instructionalmodes, and operational reliability and format.The software was evaluated according tocriteria established by faculty who teachunderprepared students. These reviews werethen checked for consistency and synthesizedfor inclusion in the Project SYNERGY databasecalled PSI.

Testbank Question Writing. Each of the eightinstitutions designated at least three facultymembers to serve on a team of question writersto write questions, check them for reliabilityand validity, and enter them into thecomputerized testbank system supported byProject SYNERGY. Questions were written inaccordance with the standards used by ProjectSYNERGY objectives for evaluating software.The teams included faculty teaching collegepreparatory reading, writing, and mathematics.The computerized testbank is then madeavailable to Project SYNERGY Integrator (PSI)to test and monitor progress of the student'smastery of learning objectives.

Software Implementation and Research. Anumber of software packages at four of the pilotcolleges were implemented by faculty on apilot-test basis to determine their effectivenessin the teaching/learning process. This researchis essential for faculty to determine the mosteffective combination of human andtechnological resources for the learningenvironment. These activities used the ProjectSYNERGY procedures and standards for theresearch.

Planning Acivities. Since it is intended thatthis pilot project be the initial phase of amultiyear project to implement ProjectSYNERGY at each of the community colleges, aplanning component was included in this pilotproject. This planning has each of the twenty-eight colleges developing an implementationplan that can be activated over the next four- toeight-year period. The co-leaders conductedtwo major training workshops for collegefaculty participants. A workshop at thebeginning of the year provided introductorytraining for the lead faculty from each college to

use to develop plans at their institutions and aworkshop at the end of the year allowed forcoordina ting the twenty-eight individualcollege plans and developing a systemwideplan. The year-end workshop is also meant toserve as a point for dissemination of the pilotproject results.

, The Implementation PlanA seven-year plan to implement ProjectSYNERGY IV: The Florida Model at eachcampus of the twenty-eight Florida communitycolleges has been submitted by the State Boardof Community Colleges to the FloridaLegislature for funding for FY 1995.

The following goals were established by theCouncil of Presidents for this plan:

Use Project SYNERGY Integrator (PSI) asthe common platform for Floridacommunity colleges to manage the learningenvironment for underprepared students.

Provide proven and tested PSI-compatiblesoftware for use in Local Area Network(LAN) learning laboratories.

Use the proven "Software ImplementationModel" as the basis for faculty-development acti vities related toimplementing PSI.

Insure continuous monitoring andevaluation of student performance incollege-preparatory courses.

Improve the quality of available softwareand develop new software throughcollaborative development projectsincluding college faculty and softwarepublishers.

Continuously upgrade and enhance PSI tomeet the expanding needs of thecommunity colleges.

Establish programs that reach back to highschool students in order to help thembecome better prepared for college-levelwork.

Establish programs that reach out toworkplace training in order to help thecommunity.

105114

Project SYNERGY IV: The Florida Model

Ats..

1 PENSACOLA JUNIOR COLLEGEPensacola, FLOKALDOSA-WALTON JUNIOR COLLEGENiceville, FL

3. GULF COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGEl'anarna City, FL

4. CHIPOLA JUNIOR COLLEGEMarianna, FL

5. TALLAHASSEE COMMUNITY COLLEGETaLlahassee, FL

6, NORTH FLORIDA JUNIOR COLLEGEMadison, FL

7. LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGELake City, FL

8. FLORIDA JUNIOR COLLEGE ATJACKSONVILLEJacksonville, FL

9. SANTA FE COMMUNITY COLLEGEGainville, FL

10. ST. JOHNS RIVER COMMUNITYCOLLEGEPalatka, FL

11. CENTRAL FLORIDA COMMUNITYCOLLEGEOcala, FL

12. DAYIDNA BEACH COMMUNITYCOLLEGEDaytona Beach, FL

13. SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGESanford, FL

14. LAKE-SUMTER COMMUNITY COLLEGELeesburg, FL

15 PASCO-HERNANDO COMMUNITYCOLLEGEDade City, FL

1h. ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGESt. Petersburg, FL

17. HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGETampa, FL

18. POLK COMMUNITY COLLEGEWinter Haven, FL

19. VALENCIA COMMUNITY COLLEGEOrlando, FL

20. BREVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGECocoa, FL

21. INDI, ON RIVER COMMUNITY COL LEGFFort Pierce FL

22. SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUNITY COLLEGEAvon Park, FL

23. MANATEE COMMUNITY COLLEGEBradenton, FL

24 EDISON COMMLTNITY COLLEGEFort Myers, FL

25. PALM BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGELake Worth, FL

26. BROW ARD COMMUNITY COLLEGEFort Lauderdale, FL

27. MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGEMiami, FL

28. FLORIDA KEYS COMMUNITY COLLEGEKey West, FL

106

115

Pilot Project Institutions

= Co-Leaders

A= Participating Institutions

Part Five: The Challenge ofUniversal Access

Paul Edwards has been coordinator of Disabled StudentServices for nine years at MDCC North Campus. He hasdeveloped and is teaching an experimental course called"Computers and the Visually Impaired." He has a B.A. inhi.,tory from the University College of the West Indies. He

has graduate diplomas in International Relations and inEducation.

While the statistics are not clear (and for

reasons that go beyond the scope of this article),students with disabilities arriving at Miami-Dade typically require more remediation thantheir nondisabled peers. Consequently, it is

essential that any system aimed at providingenriched learning opportunities for studentswho are underprepared be available to thebroad cross-section of students with disabilities.The Project SYNERGY Integrator (PSI) PlanningCommittee (PC) at Miami-Dade spentconsiderable time and effort exploring many ofthe parameters that must operate if access totechnology is to be guaranteed for thispopulation. As a member of that committee, I

wish to focus on two major areas: the first

section discusses hardware, firmware andsoftware 'considerations involved in creatingaccess; the second section provides a currentstatus report on the viability of the Windowsenvironment for people with disabilities.

Providing the Tools

In planning for the implementation of theProject SYNERGY learning platform, the PClooked at the needs of people who are disabled.Our recommendations represent an appropriateand meaningful approach to making PSI

available to most people with disabilities. Twoconsiderations deserve recognition. First, amethod had to be found to set minimumstandards for each local area network on whichthe platform will operate. Specific components

that each network should acquire include suchelements as screen-reading programs, speechsynthesizers and screen-enlarging software.Second, methods had to be found to assure thatmore expensive adaptive equipment that mightbe required for specific individual users of thesystem could be made available. The decision towarehouse this equipment at a central locationand make it available to campuses whenstudents needed it seems eminentlyappropriate. These decisions appear to meentirely acceptable.

The EnvironmentMore perplexing is the issue of the operatingsystem we have chosen. For good reasons thedecision was made to utilize the Windowsenvironment. For many disabled people thisdecision is a good one. It is far easier to teachthis environment to people who are learningdisabled, deaf or mobility impaired. Evenpeople with some vision can be enabled to usethis environment with relatively limitedadaptation. For people who are totally blind,however, the graphical user interface at theheart of the Windows operating system is onlynow becoming accessible. Last year, when thePlanning Committee wrestled with this issue,there were few, if any, viable options formaking this environment usable by people whoare blind. Currently, there is one product that ispromising that is now on the market and onescheduled for release in April 1995. More

1071ic

significantly, in December 1994, Microsoftbegan what appear to be meaningfulnegotiations with blind people to assure thatfuture releases of Windows will continue to beaccessible. It should be noted that thesenegotiations only began after three statesrefused to purchase Microsoft products.

Over the early months of 1995, products beganto be released that appear to make the graphicaluser interface accessible through speech topeople who are blind. Initial reviews of"Outspoken for Windows" by Berkeley Systemsare good, and beta reports on Window Eyesfrom G W Micro are also very promising.

Making the operating system accessible doesnot, of course, make individual software usable.The increasing prevalence of multimediasoftware which depends for its use on thedeciphering of pictures continues to be a

108

problem. It is unrealistic to expect every singlesoftware package purchased for use on theplatform to be fully compatible with the needsof all disabilities. There must, however, be anongoing commitment by anyone adopting thisplatform to assure that there is sufficientsoftware to meet each of the skills for whichremediation is made available.

Conclusion

In general, then, the Planning Committee hasdone a good job of recognizing and validatingthe need to assure that SYNERGY meets theneeds of people who are disabled. Thiscommitment must be continued, and there mustbe an ongoing effort to monitor changes inoperating system and approach to ascertain thatit will maintain its usefulness for all people withdisabilities.

117

The Challenge of Institutionalizing Technology

Kamala AnandamProject SYNERGY Director

Miami-Dade Community College

Let me begin my summary of the challenge bydefining some terms. "Technology" denotes theknowledge that a civilization has available foradapting and using its environment to fit itsneeds. "Environment" includes externalphysical conditions as well as social andcultural ones; the former influence the growthand the latter the nature of an individual orcommunity. In order to meet the challenge ofinstitutionalizing technology, we must firstarticulate our needs; second, delineate thephysical, social, and cultural conditions whichaffect our environment; and third, examine theknowledge made available to us by thecomputer with all its paraphernalia.

The primary need of an educational institutionis to remain a viable institution in order to serveits students effectively and efficiently, while asecondary need is to enhance the productivityof its employees in order to achieve its primaryneed. In delineating the conditions that affectour environment, on the growth side, there arethOse such as population trends, funding,competition, and job market. The social andcultural conditions that influence us areleadership, organization (including "mainframeczar" and "microcomputer guru" culture),policies and procedures, governance, commu-nication, support, community orientation,incentives, rewards, and last but not least,professional organizations. The culturalconditions that influence us are the traditions,customs, rituals, and mores that govern ourbehaviors and expectations. In a way, theconditions (whatever they are) areinstitutionally accepted in the unwritten laws as"sacred cows," and life goes on.

After defining our needs and identifying theconditions that affect our environment, we need

109

to examine the knowledge made available to usthrough the computer and all its relatedinventions and innovations. Some of my majorconclusions, not intended to be exhaustive ornoncontroversial, are as follows:

Employees have greater access tocomputer power and, consequently, havegreater individual power which, in turn,poses a challenge to the institutionalorganization and methods ofadministration.

Electronic communication promotes timelydissemination of information andprocessing of administrative requests, andit enhances teaching and learning throughfaculty-student, faculty-faculty, andstudent-student on-line dialogues. Thiscommunication has no institutionalboundaries.

The focus is shifting slowly but steadilyfrom teaching to learning which, in turn,poses a challenge to institutional traditionssuch as contact hours, class size, beginningand end of terms to complete a course, andmethods of delivering instruction.

Increased access to computer power athome, in the workplace, and sometimes atshopping malls and entertainment locationsis rendering time and distance irrelevant toteaching and learning. Consequently,investment in buildings and traditionalmethods of delivering instruction comesinto question.

Productivity has increased in admin-istrative operations, but ironically, almosteveryone feels that there is not sufficienttime in the day to do everything that needs

116

to be done. (How often do we hear theexpression "It should have been doneyesterday!")

Investment in computer resources forinstruction has come mainly from externalsources state and federal agencies,foundations, industries, local propertytaxes, and lottery. In most instances, thisinvestment has remained an add-on costand has not been incorporated into ouroperating budgets. With all sources offunding shrinking in size, educational insti-tutions are challenged as never before tocontain the cost of computers within theiroperating budget. This is not easy given thelabor-intensive tradition in education.

The downsizing we have been witnessing inindustries and governments will make itsway to educational institutions sooner orlater. Will the colleges prepare themselvesto be proactive rather than reactive to thiseventuality?

The impact of computers on studentperformance is not at all conclusive. Whilethere are pockets of excellence to maintainour faith, the outcomes in those cases pointto a superior teacher (not necessarily apopular one, a well-known figure, or anaward-winner), well-versed in content andpedagogy and willing to use computerassistance.

Students have been observed to spend moretime on a task, work at their own pace, andcomplete the requirements at differentpoints in time.

Having defined these terms and conditions, weare left with the question: how shall we meetthe challenge of institutionalizing technology? Iwould like to share my thoughts with you ashighlights for actions under four components ofan institutional infrastructure. My thoughtshave evolved not only through ProjectSYNERGY experience in recent years, but alsofrom my observations over the last twentyyears about the progress (sometimes lack of it)in educators' attempts to integrate teaching,

110

learning, and computing. More importantly, myobservations are still in the making.

Institutional PoliciesPlan to justify an investment in computingon the basis of achieving institutional goals,such that one can always measure if thegoals are achieved and, thus, be moreaccountable.

Create a human infrastructure that willfacilitate planning, implementation,evaluation, and communication. Thepresent hierarchical structure is notappropriate; we need more grassrootsinvolvement and timely communication,both of which call for a different kind oforganization.

Attend to the rights and responsibilities ofcitizens of the educational community(students, faculty, staff, and administrators)in the use of the technical infrastructure. Amajor issue in this regard is to undo theirrelevant aspects of the mainframe culture.Equally important is the need to addressthe issue of territorial ownership ofcomputing power. We should promoteterritorial openness.

Reconsider standards for recruitment ofnew faculty, administration, and staff.Whom would we like to hire? Should theirroles be any different from those already inplace? Will there be a window ofopportunity, to modify our traditionalpractices to be in tune with the knowledgemade available by computers?

Reevaluate our criteria for promotion,honors, and awards. This process will, nodoubt, tie to the first item above, and thetechnology aspects will be incorporated intothe overall criteria an institution uses forpromoting and honoring its employees.

Planning and BudgetingCreate a position or two to secure externalfunding on an ongoing basis to meetinstitutional priorities.

1.15

Undertake a cost-effectiveness study tominimize or avoid the "add-on" cost ofcomputing power. This study shouldensure grassroots involvement and place allcards on the table institutionalorganization, budget allocation,communication, faculty load, class size,instructional delivery methods,productivity, and so on.

Restructure the human and technicalinfrastructure based on the cost-effectiveness study. Some activities arelikely to become highly centralized, othersto become controlled at the local levels.

Use a 1:1:1:1/2 ratio in budgeting forhardware, software, personnel, andupgrading. The cost for personnel includesfaculty development, educational research,and technical support

OperationsRecognize that departmental leadership iscritical for integrating computing andcurriculum. Instead of being a midlevelmanager, the head of the departmentshould be an academic leader and promotethe integration to increase the efficiency andeffectiveness of the department. Efficiencymeans doing thiiigs right with a minimumof waste, expense, and effort; effectivenessmeans doing the right things in this case,serving our students on an individual basis.The chairperson has to be respected forhis/her knowledge of the discipline andhis/her use of computing power and theknowledge made available by it.Promote discipline-based training of facultyin the uses of computer applications. In thepast, we have offered numerous workshopsfor faculty to gain computer literacy andskills in using productivity tools such asword-processing, gradebooks, andspreadsheets. The time has come to stopoffering these kinds of workshops andspend our effort and money to identify afaculty member in each discipline to train

other faculty to examine and use variousinstructional software packages in thatdiscipline. These individuals will become anode in the restructuring of the humaninfrastructure called for by the challenge.

Promote collaborative projects amongfaculty within a department, but moreimportantly across departments, in order toenhance the relevance of what we teach ourstudents. This collaboration will alsoencourage the territorial opennessregarding technology referred to underInstitutional Policies.

Recognize and reward employeecontribution to achieve institutional goals.Let us not forget that some significantcontributions are being made and will bemade in the future in the quiet corners ofour institutions by individuals who do notcare much to be in the limelight.

Provide pedagogical and research supportto discipline coordinators and faculty. SeeAppendix E for a job description ofSoftware Implementation Director andSoftware Implementation Assistant as wehave developed them at Miami-DadeCommunity College. The former willfunction at the campus leN el assistingseveral discipline coordinators; the latterwill assist in the computer labs.

Faculty DevelopmentRealize that in integrating computerapplications, faculty are expected to becomefacilitators of learning. This is an enormousrole shift from being transmitters ofinformation. One has to become quiteknowledgeable about le,trning in order tofacilitate learning. In the facilitator role, onehas to be silent more often than not, observestudent activity, and know when tointervene. Offering graduate courses incognitive psychology combined withpractical applications will be helpful here.

Encourage faculty to become their Ownresearchers as they begin to integratecomputer applications into their

111

120

curriculum. They need to hypothesize what

benefits will accrue to them and theirstudents, then orchestrate what they will doand which kinds of computer applicationsthey will use in order to obtain the

anticipated results and evaluate the

outcomes. This orchestration will requireseveral iterations before one can see sometangible result. For that reason, faculty

should view the process as formativeevaluation and know that what is critical to

this process is their internal frames ofreference. Furthermore, according to mycolleague, Victor Nwankwo, Project

SYNERGY Software ImplementationCoordinator, research must be viewed as"an instrument of change and not a litmus

test of good teaching."

Understand that discipline-based technical

support at the departmental level is veryuseful in encouraging faculty to become

facilitators of learning because the

necessary camaraderie is in place to helpthem through the changes.

Focus more on the mainstream faculty than

On the champions because it is the formergroup who will influence the institu-

tionalization process.

Know that administrators and staff need tounderstand the faculty's role in integratingteaching and technology and learn aboutnew and different ways to support them.

By way of summary, let us note that as webegin to examine our respective institutionalinfrastructures, the integration of technologywith teaching and learning will undoubtedlyraise questions about the following:

Curriculum, competencies and assessment.

The practice of treating all courses equallyin terms of staffing and time.

The appropriateness of a group mode forinstruction as opposed to individualization.

The various combinations of human andcomputer resources that will yield the bestresults for different students.

The role of faculty in students' learning andhow to measure their contribution to thatlearning.

Addressing these issues adequately will

depend, to a large extent, on the grassrootsinvolvement of faculty, tutors, staff, counselors,and administrators; on a leader who is a goodlistener and synthesizer of various points of

view, taking the time to let the process of

human interaction and collective analysis work;

and on our viewing the challenge as a dynamic

process rather than a static end-product. In thefinal analysis, meeting the challenge will resultin transformation of our institutions.

112121

Appendix A

Project SYNERGY:Learning Environment 2000 for Underprepared College Students

Cumulative Directony of Project Participants

Kamala Anandam, Project SYNERGY DirectorMiami-Dade Community College, 11011 SW 104 Street

Miami, Florida 33176

Name College/University

Abascal, JuanAbdulla, TaysirAcebo, SandyAdams, CarolAgras, NormaAguirre, KarenAlban, HughAlexander, DorothyAlexander, GeorgeAlexander, KarleneAlexiou, JonAlsina, IsaliAnandam, KamalaAnderson, AndreaAnderson, DebraAquilan, HerbertArgo, DonArman, HalArtzt, NorbertAshcra ft, RobertAustin, SuzanneBabski, CarlBaharnonde, JoseBailey, JulaneBaker, KarenBanks, MargotBarnes, KaranBarrientos, ReneBartholf, WendellBashford, JoanneBauschek, Eve

LEGEND:Software Review: SR - Reading; MY Wnting; M - Math; St - ESL; SC - Study Skills/Critical ThinkmgQue;tion Writing: wi - Reading; QW - Writing; QM- Math; QC - Coordinator

OW - Biltrnore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); D1 - Dign Team at MDCC;t1C - Evaluation Committee at MDCC ,- Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); M - Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV), rs - Faculty

Scenario; IFW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC;'GP - Guides Pilot; IC- Institutional Coordination; - Institutional Planning for PSI atMDCC; LS - Lab Scenario; irs - Project Briefing at MDCC; pc - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,NY, March 1991); N - Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); PS - Project Staff; SD - Software Development;SI - Software Implementation; MD Software Implementation Design; SS - Student Scenario, ST - Steering Committee; SU - Survey.Response: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all ate named here).

Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictDeAnza CollegeMonroe Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusGrambling State UniversityMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictKean College of New JerseyMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictEdison Community CollegeIndian River Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusBrevard Community CollegeDelta CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusJohnson County Community CollegeOkaloosa-Walton Community CollegeKean College of New JerseyMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusFox Valley Technical College

Lglignd

FW /SUPSICBW/IC/PL/SMEC/FE/QC/QMFE/SRPL/Sl/SMPL/ICFW /SIDFE/FWSTPL/SMPS/STIC(FM)QW(FM)FWIC(FM)IC

PL /SI /SWFE (2)/FW/GP/SIPB

SI

PB

QMSM(FM)PL /SWFE/FW /SR/SUFE/SUFW /I'BIPSW

113

122A.1

Name

Becker, RuthBelcher, LindaBeller, SherylBenge, JoeBenz, CherylBercelli, CharlotteBerger, AdeleBerger, RondaBerman, LisaBethke, RozBiaggi, LeslieBibby, PatrickBilal, BrendaBird, Nei laBlitzer, BobBlum, NedraBiye, KennethBrady, LindaBratt, MarionBrodie, IreneBrooks, SallyBrosch, BarryBrown, JamesBrown, JoannBuccini, MarianneBuchanan, HarrietteBuckley-Holland, SusanBuker, AnitaBukowski, JosephBullotta, JimBunting, EllieBurke, NadineCalderon, KevinCalev, BarbaraCall, CarolCampo, LibertyCantrell, DebbieCaplan, ElaineCaptan, MarciaCardenal, MariaCardona, KellyCarroll, Jessica

Col I ege/Uni versity

Pensacola Junior CollegeKern Community College DistrictMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusHumber CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusJohnson County Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusCentral Piedmont Community CollegeIndian River Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusBrevard Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusPhoenix College (Maricopa)Moraine Valley Comm,xity CollegeMoraine Valley Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FEBrevard Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterCuyahoga Community College WestAppalachian State UniversityMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusPalm Beach Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusEdison Community CollegeDelta CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, District PSMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus FW /PBMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus FWBakersfield College (Kern)Broward Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus

Legend

SW(FM)IC

FW /SESWSUFE/SUFE/SUFW/SIDPBQRPB

FE (3) */PBBW/PL /SWQR(FM)FEQW(FM)PB

PC/SWSWBW/ICSE

SM(FM)DT/FE (2)*/FW/IP/QR /SIDSCIC/SC

BWMUFE(3)/IP/PB/PL/QVI/g/S4BW /FE (2)IC(FM)FW /SUQW(FM)PL/SWFE (2)

QWSR(FM)SU

PB

PB

BW/SI /SR

LEGEND:Software Review: Sit - Reading; SW - Writing; M - Math; SE - ESL; SC - Study Skills/Critical ThinkingQuestion Writing: :Q11 - Reading; Qw- Writing; OA- Math;AX - Coordinator

- Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); V. Design Team at MDCC; - Evaluation Committee at MDCC;FE - Faculty. Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1);114- Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV);1S - FacultyScenario; It.W - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; CP - Guides Pilot; le- Institutional Coordination; IP - Institutional Planning for PSI atMDCC; XS - Lab Scenario; PS - Project Briefing at MDCC; PC - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,NY, March 1991); Pt - Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); PS - Project Staff; SD - Software Development;%- Software Implementation; SID - Software Implementation Design; $5- Student Scenario; SI - Steering Committee; 5tJ - SurveyResponse: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

*Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

A.2 114

123

Name

Carter, Lamore J.Carter, LenaCarter, SandraCassidy, MarciaCastells, DianaCastillo, SandraChamberlain, GregChernoff, LawrenceChilde, MirandaChildress, FayeChristie, BobCinclair, CarolClark, ToniaClemente, IrisCobham, IanCohen, IreneColyer, JacquinConlin, Mary LouConnelly, BobCooner-Berger, LindaCooper, Mary JaneCooper, RaynaCortes-Suarez, GeorginaCossio, Matilde "Mattie"Crawford, JoyceCuervo, MargaritaCueto, MarleneCulver, LeeCunningham, JohnDavis, GaryDavis, LornaDearing, CarmenDeChaine, DeborahDennis, VivianDenton, PegiDesjardins, MargaretDespaigne, Jamaye ReneeDiaz, MaryDietrick, Carol E.Dominguez, NestorDorsey, DonDoucette, Don

College/University Lgggnd

Grambling State UniversityGrambling State UniversityMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusKern Community College DistrictMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusCentral Piedmont Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusDallas County Community CollegeSeattle Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusCuyahoga Community CollegeSanta Fe Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead CampusDelta CollegeUniversity of Tennessee at MartinMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead CampusDallas County Community CollegeJohnson County Community CollegeEdison Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusBroward Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusFoothill CollegeLeague for Innovation

STSW

FE/FSSISU

FE/SI/SUSIDPBPBBWFEBW /SWICFWFE/FW /Sl/SMFWFWBWPL/QW/SWFWSCPL/SRFE/PB/SIFW

BW/EC/FEVFS/IP/PB/SI/SIDFE/SUDT/FE/FW/IP/SISUFE/PB/SUBWFEPB/SUFWBW /SMBWQW(FM) /QR(FM)FE/FW/SISE(FM)EC/FW/IP/LS/SIDPBBWST

LEGEN12.Software Review: SA Reading; .Slig Writing; sto math; - ESL;SC - Study Skills/Critical Thinking

Question Writing: 0/1 - Reading; QW Writing; QM - Math; QC - Coordinator

- Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); tirt - Design Team at MDCC;IV - Evaluation Committee at MDCC;

FE Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); - Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV);10- Faculty

Scenario; PW. - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; 'GP - Guides Pilotle- Institutional Coordination;IP - Institutional Planning for PSI at

MDCC; LS Lab Scenario; P - Project Briefing at MDCC; PC - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,

NY, March 1991); P1. I'lanning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); 'PS Project Staff; iS0 Software Development;

SI - Software Implementation; SW - Software Implementation Design; SS - Student Scenario; 5 - Steering Committee; SU - Survey

Response: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

* Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

115124

A.3

Name

Doughty, IrmaDuffis-Sjogren, OsmondDunbar, DouglasDunne, JoeDyett, AdrianEdwards, PaulEdwards, RichardEisel, EdEl Rayess, SuzanneEl ledge, ElaineErickson, MichaelEscudero, KatherineEskew, ThomasEvans, ChristineEvseev, AnatoliEwell, ArciaFackrell, JerryFalcon, MariaFancher, AndrewFante, CherylFarben, JanieFaulkner, AnnFeldman, PhilipFernandez, TushneldaFerrer, MartaFitton, DianeFitzgerald, JeanneFletcher, JoyceFlowers, Patricia FordFolsom, CharlesFox, CharlesFrauman, MaxineFurlong, TomGabert, GlenGabriel, DennisGarces, LindaGarcia, IsoldeGarcia, JudithGardner, AubreyGarrett, Judy

rrido, AlexGall, SherryGerken, Donna

College/University- Legend

Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE/PBBroward Cornmunity College SE(FM)Okaloosa-Walton Community College QM(FM)St. Louis Community College SWMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus FE (2)/LS/PBMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus IPKirkwood Community College BW/QR/SC/SR/SWMiami-Dade Community College, District PSMonroe Community College SEPensacola Junior College SC(FM)Monroe Community College PL /QR /SRMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FEUniversity of Tennessee at Martin PL

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus PBCuyahoga Community College SE

Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center PB

Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE/GPMiami-Dade Community College, Medical Center PB

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus PBCentral Florida Community College IC(FM)Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE /FWMountain View College (Maricopa) BW

Bakersfield College (Kern) BW

Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center FW /QMMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE/PB/SUMonroe Community College SCPhoenix College (Maricopa) PL/SMNorthern Virginia Community College BW

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus PBPensacola Junior College SM(FM)Polk Community College IC(FM)Lane Community College SETallahassee Community College IC(FM)Johnson County Community College ICCuyahoga Community College PL /SRDelta College SEMiami-Dade Community College, District PS

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus IP/PBSouth Florida Community College IC(FM)Bakersfield College (Kern) SEIndian River Community College QW(FM)Brevard Community College SE(FM)Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE /PB/QM /SU

lac ENI2:software Review: - Reading; - Wnting; SM Math; .SE ESL; SC Study Skills/Critical ThinkingQuestion Writing: Q - Reading; QW - Writing; QM Math; QC Coordinator

SW - Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89) t - Design Team at MDCC; Evaluation Committee at MDCC;FE Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); PM Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV); n- FacultyScenario; FW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; CP - Guides Pilot; IC- Institutional Coordination; IP - Institutional Planning for PSI atMDCC, LS Lab Scenario; lyS - Project Briefing at MDCC; K Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,NY, March 1991); Pt Planning for Project SYNERGY Intewator (1991 Survey); PS - Project Staff; SI) - Software Development;SI Software Implementation; SID - Software Implementation Design; $S Student Scenario; $ T - Steering Committee; SV - SurveyResponse: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

* Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

A.4 116

Name

Gil, ArielGilkes, LolitaGilliam, IreneGist, RichardGlenn, AzaleeGlover, PollyGoldstein, AdrienneGolphin, BarbaraGomez, MariaGonnet, KatherineGonzales, AlGonzalez, IleanaGranros, FrederickGraves, FeliciaGreen, RosemaryGreenwood, ElaineGriffin, TomGroomes, MarleneGrussing, DaleGuillermina, DamasHaasch, JaneHafer, RobertHa ferling, JoyHahn, LorraineHajdukiewicz, BillHall, SheilaHanus-Zank, CatherineHarrell, Michelle R.Hartzog, GailHarvey, JeanHasenaur, TeresaHauser, PaulHa,yden, RobertaHaynes, MargotHecht, DebraHeggen, BettyHenderson, BertiIdaHernandez, ReynaldoHernandez, RosanyHightower, SueHigley-Nugent, HeidiHill-Matula, JaniceHilton, Bonnie

LEGIL\112.Software Review: 511 Reading; SW - Writing; SM - Math; te- ESL; SC Study Skills/Critical ThinkingQuestion Writing: Q11 Reading; QW - Writing; QM - Math; QC Coordinator

liW - Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); In- Design Team at MDCC, tC- Evaluation Committee at MDCC,ft - Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); ft4 - Florida Model (ProjectSYNERGY IV); .FS - Faculty

Scenario; JEW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; 01 - Guides Pilot; - Institutional Coordination; W - Institutional Planning for PSI at

MDCC; LS I 1, Scenario; - Project Briefing at MDCC; P - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,NY, March 1991); rt. Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); PS Project Staff; ST) - Software Development;SI - Software Implementation; SID Software Implementation Desip; SS - Student Scenario, ST - Steering Committee; 51,3 - Survey

Response: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

College/University

Miami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterDallas County Community CollegeTallahassee Community CollegeJohnson County Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusUniversity of Tennessee at MartinMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterDallas County Community College (Richland)Miami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusCuyahoga Community College WestMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusSeminole Community CollegeCentral Piedmont Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusFox Valley Technical CollegeBrevard Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusLake-Sumter Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusChipola Junior CollegeEdison Community CollegeIndian River Community CollegeKirkwood Community CollegeEdison Community CollegeDelta CollegeLake City Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusBroward Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusTallahassee Community CollegeFox Valley Technical CollegeMoraine Valley Community CollegeBroward Community College

Legend

SESIDQW(FM)BW

FE/FW/SIIC/PL/SID/STFE

FE (2)/PB/SIPBBW/PC /SI/SRSDSU

FESMPBIC(FM)BW /IC /STFWEC/FE (2) */IP/PBFEBWQM(FM)PS

PB

FE/FW/SlIC(FM)FW/PB/SUFE (2)IC(FM)QW(FM) /SW(FM)SM(FM)SC /SWQR(FM) /SR(FM)PL /SRIC(FM)

FE (2)/LSQR(FM)SU

QMSR(FM)PL/SMSC/SRSW(FM)

117 A.5

126

Name College/University Legend

Holloway, Alexandria Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus PBHolmes, Beverly Okaloosa-Walton Community College QW(FM)Holmgren, Libby Johnson County Community College SMHoover, Nancy Manatee Community College IC(FM)Howell, Joe Gulf Coast Community College IC(FM)Humphrey, Ken L. Monroe Community College BW

Hungar, Julie Seattle Community College IC

Irvine, Kip Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FEIrwin, Dale Indian River Community College QM(FM)

Jalloul, Janet T. Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus PB

Jenrette, Dave Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus BW /FE/GPJenrette, Mardee Miami-Dade Community College, District EC

Jensen, Betty Tallahassee Community College SC(FM)

Johnson, David Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FW /SUJohnson, Jane Bakersfield College (Kern) SR

Jonason, Pat Johnson County Community College BW /PC /SRJones, Betty Delta College BW /ICJones, Jesse Dallas County Community College, District IC

Jones, Sharla Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FW/S1Jordan, Evelyn Mimi-Dade Community College, North Campus FW

Joyce, Maria Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus PB

Jur, Barbara Macomb Community College IC

Kah, Susan Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center PB

Kahn, Sue Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus BW/FE/FW/SRKaiser, Virginia Moraine Valley Community College BW/QM/SMKalach, Fad i Miami-Dade Community College, District PS

Kaldor, Mike Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus FE*/PB

Kann, Annette Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center FW /SU

Kann, Marlene Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center FW

Kaplan, Gloria Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center PB

Kaseberg, Alice Lane Community College SMKellogg, John Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus PB

Kelly, Mary Lou Pensacola Junior College QR(FM)Kennedy, Jane Brevard Community College SC(FM)Kennedy, Jere Brevard Community College SR(FM)Kirst, Joyce Bakersfield College (Kern) QR

Kline, Jan Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center PB

Klosek, Stanley Cuyahoga Community College PL/SRKolman, Helen Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE (2)Kotler, Lorne Miami-Dade Community College, District PSKrnacik, Mildred Macomb Community College SWKrupp, Linda Brevard Community College QR(FM)Lackey, Brenda University of Tennessee at Martin PC /SI

LEGEND:Software Review: 5g- Reading; SW - Writing; SAI Math;..-SE - ESL; SC - Study Skills/Critical ThinkingQuestion Writing: QII - Reading; 020/ - Writing; QM - Math; oc - Coordinator

SW - Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); tyr - Design Team at MDCC;tC - Evaluation Committee at MDCC;FE Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); 01- Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV); PS FacultyScenario; IIW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC;i0V. Guides Pilot;IC - Institut. -mal Coordination;IP - Institutional Planning for PSI atMDCC;t5 - Lab Scenario; pik - Project Briefing at MDCC; PC - Planning Con mittee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,NY, March 1991); pt- Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey), VS - Project Staff; $1) Software Development;SI - Software Implementation; SW - Software Implementation Design; $$ Stuci mt Scenario; ST - Steering Committee; 51.3 - SurveyResponse: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

" Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

A.6

Name

Lake, RichLamadriz, RocioLamazares, IvonneLamb, BillLandsman, MaryLane, LindaLangan, TerryLawrence, BradLeather, CarolLeitch, Patrick-Leitman, CarolynLe Master, MelanieLergenmiller, ClaireLescaille, RobertLester, JohnLever, JudyLewis, SueLiang, KaiyangLipof, IreneLong, GeorgeLore, TriciaLorenz.o, BertLowery, BenLoxterman, JaneLucas, SteveLuck, PhyllisLudeke, JerryLudovici, ElaineLugo, LeonorLukenbill, JeffreyMalena, RichardMalone, MikeMarin, H.Martel ly, DianeMartin, LouiseMartin, WayneMartin-Hall, JudyMaspons, MariaMass, CoreyMatas, AdrianaMathews, SaraeMaxwell, JackMazzagatti, Cora

LECENDSoftware Review: Slit - Reading; SW Writing; SM - Math; SE ESL; SC - Study Skills/Critical Thinking

Question Writing: QM - Reading; QW - Wnting; QM Math; QC - Coordinator

Biltmore Workshop Pnor to Project SYNERGY (2/89); - Design Team at MDCC; PC - Evaluation Committee at MDCC;

FE - Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); PM - Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV); - Faculty

Scenario; FW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; GP - Guides Pilot;AC- Institutional Coordination;V - InstitutionalPlanning for PSI at

MDCC; t - Lab Scenario; PP - Project Briefing at MDCC; K - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,

NY, March 1991); Pt - Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); PS - Project Staff; so - Software Development;

SI - Software Implementation; SID - Software Implementation Design; $S - Student Scenario; ST - Steering Committee; SV - SurveyResponse: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

* Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

College/University

St. Louis Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusJohnson County Community CollegeSanta Fe Community CollegeFoothill CollegeFox Valley Technical CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterCuyahoga Community CollegeEdison Community CollegePensacola Junior CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusHumber CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusGrambling State UniversityDaytona Beach Community CollegePhoenix College (Maricopa)Broward Community CollegeBakersfield College (Kern)Miami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusPhoenix College (Maricopa)Polk Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictIndian River Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusIndian River Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Medical Center

Legend

SRSUSI/SWBWBW/PLSRBWPBSUBW/FE/PL/SMBWSC(FM)SR(FM)FESMFW/SIDFWSMPB/SIDFE/SUBWPBPCIC(FM)PL/SRQW(FM)PL/SC/SRSI

PB

IC /PBPL/SRSM(FM)PBFEVFS/FW /SDFE (2)/FW /SUPSSE(FM)SU

SU

ECSM/SUIC(FM)PB

119 12S A.7

Name

Mazzagatti, RoyMc Cool, SamuelMcCoy, WilliamMcCranie, SandraMcDaniel, WendyMcDonald, JeanMcFadden, NancyMc Fared, JohnMcKeever, BenjaminMcKitterick, TomMcLaughlin, JackieMcLean, RuthMcManus, LaurieMeagher, DonMedina, IraMedina-Cabral, MyraMeistrell, SonjaMe llan, WilliamsMese, JanMessier, WilliamMetzler, JoannMiddleton, LizMiller, DwightMiller-Moore, BarnetteMilmed, JoyceMitchell, CristiMohr, EllenMontiel, YvonneMoo, AndrewMoran, TerryMorrell, HectorMorrison, ChaplainMoser, DonMosley, JoeMuller, WilliamMurray, BerthaMyers, PeggyMyers, StevenNation, PatriciaNelson, JohnNelson, TanyaNewmeister, HillaryNichols, Katrina

College/University Legend

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE

Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE (3)/GP/QW/SI/SW /SUNorth Florida Community College IC(FM)Indian River Community College QR(FM)Miami-Dade Community College, District PSMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus PB/FE*Fox Valley Technical College SRMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus PBSinclair Community College SWMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus IC /PBCentral Piedmont Community College PL/SMHumber College ICSt. Louis Community College at Meramec BW

Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus BW/FE (2)/QC/QR/SR/SUMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus BW/SEMiami-Dade Community College, Medical Center IP/SEMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus SEHillsborough Community College IC(FM)Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center PB/SRMiami-Dade Community College, District PSBrevard Community College QW(FM)Polk Community College QM(FM)Lane Community College PL/SMIndian River Community College SC(FM)Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FWJohnson County Community College PL/SWGateway Community College (Maricopa) I3W

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FEKirkwood Community College ICMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus FWMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterSt. Louis Community CollegeDallas County Community College (Richland)Moraine Valley Community CollegeTallahassee Community CollegeIndian River Community CollegeLane Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusLane Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusBakersfield College (Kern)Delta College

FWPL/SMSIQW/SWSW(FM)SR(FM)SMFW /PB/SUSMFE /FWQWPL/SM

LEgEND:Software Revww: SR Reading; SW Writing; SM - Math;:SE - ESL;St Study Skills/Critical ThinkingQuestion Writing: QR Reading; QW - Writing; QM - Math; QC - Coordinator

RW Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); DT - Design Team at MDCC; Evaluation Committee at MDCC;FE Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); M - Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV); S - FacultyScenario; VW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC;.GP - Guides Pilot; - Institutional Coordination; IP - Institutional Planning for PSI atMDCC; Lab Scenario; ilk - Project Briefing at MDCC; Pe - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,NY, March 1991); Pt - Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); PS Project Staff; SV - Software Development;SI Software Implementation; Sit) - Software Implementation Design; SS - Student Scenario; 51 - Steering Committee; ST,/ - SurveyResponse: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

Orgamier of a Faculty Exchange Visit

A.8 120

Name College/University Legend

Niles, JenniferNovatney, JanetNwankwo, VictorGBrien, BarbaraO'Connell, Theresaa Nara, MaureenOjeda, M. CarmenOjeda, MariaOpp-Beckman, LeslieOrlin, SusanOrr, DonOseroff, AbePacker, StephaniePage, Calvin E.Paige, ChristinePaiva, JudyPalazuelos, MaryPalow, BillParis, MarkParke, DawnPartlow, LoriPatterson, BillPatthaik, SuchitraPayne, MichelePelikant, MaryannPennington, DorothyPeres, MartinPerez, ElenaPerez, GuillermoPerez, JanisJ'erez, MaritzaPerez-Capote, JuanPerreira, PatriciaPieke, MartinPierce, TomPierrt, FrantzPiga, SusanPiziali, GailPollard, BettyPollard, LonniePollock, Joannel'ool, Rodger

Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Lane Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Grambline State UniversityNorthern Virginia Community CoMiami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Miami-Dade Community College,Indian River Community CollegeFoothill CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictKirkwood Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusTallahassee Community CollegeBroward Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterHumber CollegeSouth Seattle Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusSt. Louis Community College at Forest l'arkMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusFox Valley Technical CollegeDallas County Community College District

North CampusKendall CampusDistrictDistrictDistrictWolfson CampusDistrictDistrict

North CampusNorth CampusKendall CampusNorth CampusWolfson Campus

llegeNorth CampusWolfson CampusNorth Campus LSHomestead Campus QM

FE (2)/FW /SUFWPSPSPSPB/SUPSPSSE

FE/FW/SU /SWSI

FE (2)/FW/PB/S1SI

FE POPSRBWFE /FW /QM /SMBW/FE*/FW

QW(FM)ICPSSWSUSM(FM)SM(FM)FE/SISU

SU

FE/GPEC /PBPBSCSCPB

SUSD/SIDBWFW/W/SIDBWIC/ST

LEC_ENP.Software Review. SI( Reading; SW Writing; SM - Math; SE ESL; SC Study Skills/Critical ThinkingQuestion Writing: QR Reading; QW - Writing; QM - Math:QC Coordinator

- Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); 'or - Design Team at MDCC;tt Evaluation Committee at MDCC,VE Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC in parentheses if more than 1); PM Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV); S FacultyScenario; VW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; GP Guides Pilot; 4C Institutional Coordination; IP Institutional Planning for PSI atMDCC; LS Lab Scenario; fl - Project Briefing at MDCC; PC Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting tn Palisades,NY, March 1991); pi. _ Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); PS Project Staff; SD - Software Development;Si Software Implementation; SW - Software Implementation Design; SS - Student Scenario; SI - Steering Committee; SU - SurveyResponse: 1992-93 (be,ause some were anonymous, not all are named here).

*Organizer of a Fa .7ulty Exchange Visit

121 130 A.9

Name

Porter, DavidPortis, TheodorePowers, FloPrague, MelindaPress, GailPrignam, JudithPutz, SandraPyles, CarolQuesada, Luis M.Radakovich, DanRaichoudary, Ram (Roy)Rakowsky, ChristineRambo, ShirleyRann, AnetteRappoport, JoelRasor, LeslieRay, BlairRead, GarbrielReed, BeatrizReeves, MaryReynolds, JeanRiccio, NormaRichter, SuzanneRiley, EdwardRiley, KathyRobertson, SharonRoche, Rose AnneRodriguez, JesusRodriguez, NinonRoemer, AnnRohr, TedRomeo, JeanRose, JohnRoss, KenRucker, JohnRueda, JavierRyan, JudeRymer, TomSak, DeborakSaleh, AbedSamet, ScottSamms, EvletteSamuels, Keith

College/University Legg_nd

Miami-Dade Community College, North CampusGrambline State UniversityIndian River Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusFoothill CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusJohnson County Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusCuyahoga Community College, WestMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusLane Community CollegePolk Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community Ccllege, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusPolk Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusSt. Johns River Community CollegePolk Community CollegeUniversity of Tennessee at MartinMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusSt. Louis Community CollegeDelta CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusBroward Community CollegeMoraine Valley Community CollegeDeAnza CollegePolk Community CollegeLane Community CollegeMonroe Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusPensacola Junior College

SUPL/SMSW(FM)IP/PB/QC /QWFE/SCFWSMPBPBSTFE/PBSWFWFWFE/FS /SD/SMICSR(FM)FW /GP/SIFE/FWFW /SWSW(FM)SUICIC(FM)QR(FM) /QW(FM)SC/SIPSPSBW

SUIC

QMPBIC(FM)IC

QMQW(FM)SMPL/SWFWPS

PBIC(FM)

LEGEND:Software Review: Sk - Reading; SW Writing; St4 - Math; St - ESL; St Study Skills/Critical ThinkingQuestion Writing: Q11 - Reading; ow- Writing;044- Math; QC - Coordinator

SW - Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); T - Design Team at MDCC; 'EC- Evaluation Committee at MDCC;- Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); ink4 Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV); fS - Faculty

Scenario;.O.W.- Faculty Workshop at MDCC;i0V.- Guides Pilot; VC- Institutional Coordination;VP - Institutional Planning for PSI atMDCC; LS - Lab Scenario; ft - Project Briefing at MDCC; - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisade.s,NY, March 1991); n - Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); .PS - Project Staff; StIl - Software Development;S% - Software Implementation; MO - Software Implementation Design;:$5 - Student Scenario; n - Steering Committee; SI) - SurveyResponse: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

*Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

A.10 122

131

Name

Sanderson, Sara LeeSastre, MargaritaSchinoff, RichardSchmelzer, JudySchomer, StevenSchuemann, CynthiaSchurger, JudithSchwartz, PearlScott, DavidSeaman, Carol -Search, SallySegall, MichaelaSenfeld, LeonoreSeth, JohannaSharpton, RobertShelton, GwenShin, AlfredShinn, DebbieShumaker, PaulSileika, AntanasSirkin, HowardSiu, GiselleSmires, CharlesSmith, Lois V.Smith, MelvinSmittle, PatSodon, James R.Sorkin, HowardSouthard, AnneSpano, CarleenSpence, LeightonSperanza, AngelaStackelberg, CoraStanley, DorothyStearns, MarthaSteer, HelenaStevens-Garcia, MariaStoyanovich, DragolyubStrickland, LarrySturm, BruceSuco, ElizabethSunico, Sharon

College/University Legend

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus DT/EC/FE (3)*/IP/PB/SCMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE (2)/FW/SUMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus FW /IC

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FW

Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center FW

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus FS/SC/SUMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus FW/SIMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE

Kern Community College District BW/IC/STEdison Community College SM(FM)

Tallahassee Community College QM(FM)

Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE*/FW/PB/SUMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE (2)

Edison Community College SE(FM)

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE/SUUniversity of Tennessee at Martin SI

Humber College PL/SMBakersfield Community College 4WCuyahoga Community College IC

Humber College SE

Broward Community College QM(FM)

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus FW/SIDFlorida Community College at Jacksonville IC(FM)

Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus PB

Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE (3)/FW/GP/IPSanta Fe Community College IC(FM)

St. Louis Community College at Florissant BW

Broward Community College QM(FM)

Okaloosa-Walton Community College SW(FM)

Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center EC /IC

Miami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus FE

Miami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus FW

Cuyahoga Community College PL/SMBakersfield College (Kern) PC /SM

Central Piedmont Community College PC/SRMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus FW

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus FE /PB

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE

St. Petersburg Community College IC(FM)

DeAnza College BW

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus FE (2)/LS

DeAnza College QW

LEGENDSoftware Review: SR - Reading; SW - Writing; SM - Math; Se _ ESL; SC - Study Skills/Critical Thinking

Question Writing: QM - Reading; QW Writing; QM - Math; Qc - Coordinator

- Biltmore Workshop l'rior to Project SYNERGY (2/g9); VT - Design Team at MDCC; - Evaluation Committee at MDCC;

FE Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); M Florida Model (I'roject SYNERGY IV); - Faculty

Scenario; PP/ - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; GP - Guides Pilot; IC- Institutional Coordination; IP - Institutional Planning for PSI at

MDCC; LS - Lab Scenario; ps - Project Briefing at MDCC; pc - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,

NY, March 1991); PL - Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); PS - l'roject Staff; $ P -Software Development;

SI Software Implementation; SID Software Implementation Design; $5 Student Scenario; .S-T - Steering Committee; SU - Survey

Response: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

123 132 A.11

Name

Susini, SheilaSussman, BarbaraSussman, MarjorieSwan, GregSymons, JimSzuck, PaulTaghi-Zoghi, KarenTag le, Tessa MartinezTalavera, ErnestTapp, WilliamTarber, JudyTaylor, CherylTebbs, DonTennant, JeffThomas, JeanThomas, LindaThomas, SharonThompson, RobertTillett, BillTixier, LindaTorrella, RafaelTorres, CarmenTrantham, WilliamTripplett, GlennTucker, WalterTulloch, DentonVeiga, Marisella L.Velilla, AngieVerdieu, LucasVerrett, JoyceVicente, JoseVicenti, WilliamVillamil, JohnVillar, Maria C.Walker, DaisyWalters, JimWalton, DonnaWalucoris, CarlWambu, JudyWard, Wendy JoWarford, LawrenceWarmke-Robitaille, Julie

College/University Legez_id

Humber CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMaricopa Community College DistrictDeAnza CollegePasco-Hernando Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusValencia Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusHumber CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusSanta Fe Community CollegeFoothill CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusLane Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, DistrictFlorida Keys Community CollegeOkaloosa-Walton Community CollegeMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Homestead CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusGrambling State UniversityMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusKean College Of New JerseyMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusMiami-Dade Community College, North CampusPhoenix College (Maricopa)Miami-Dade Community College, Medical CenterSeattle Central Community CollegeKean College of New JerseyMiami-Dade Community College, Wolfson CampusLane Community CollegeSanta Fe Community College

BWFE (2)/FS/FW /SC/SD/SUFE/FW/Sl/SR/SUICBW/QM/SMIC(FM)LS/SUPB

FE/SIIC(FM)FWSCBW/SUPL/SMBW

PSFWSMQW/SI /SU /SWPB/SIPBPSIC(FM)IC(FM)FE

FW/SDFWSE

FWICECICPB/SIDPB/SISIICFE /FW /SWPL /SR/SWPL /SRSIICSE

LEGEND:Software Review: Sit - Reading; SW Writing; SM - Math;SE - ESL; SC - Study Skills/Critical ThinkingQuestion Writing: QR - Reading; QW - Writing; QM - Math; QC - Coordinator

RW Biltmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); In - Design Team at MDCC; - Evaluation Committee at MDCC;FE - Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); FM - Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV);..E.S - FacultyScenario; FW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; GP - Guides Pilot; - Institutional Coordination; IP Institutional I'lanning for PSI atMDCC; LS - Lab Scenario; Pit - Project Briefing at MDCC; PC - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades,NY, March 1991); PL - Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey); PS Project Staff; SD - Software Development;Si Software Implementation; SW - Software Implementation Design; SS - Student Scenario; ST Steering Committee; 5 - SurveyResponse: 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

A.12 124

Name

Warren, LucilleWaterman, KayWeaver, ChrisWebb-Petschauer, JoniWeglarz, JohnWelch, GeorgeWelch, Reina K.West, CarolynWhalen, WickWhearty, JamesWhetstone, Jr., MikeWhidden, MatridWhiteneck, AliceWhiteside, DonWidmer, DianeWiegandt, ElizabethWiley, BennieWilliams, ClaudeWilliams, RogerWil lig, BarbaraWilloughby, LoisWinebrenner, LarryWinter, DeobrahWirtel, JosephWolven, FredWolverton, LyndaWong, AliceWong, LindaWoo lam, AliceWright, JennaWyers, LoriWyman, SymaYeatts, EdwardsYodpr, JonathanYoung, EleanorYoung, Nancy WilsonZabsky, HaroldZaldivar, Raquel

College/University IsgeLA

Sinclair Community College IC

Polk Community College QM(FM)Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center LS/SIDAppalachian State University SC

Kirkwood Community College PL/SMMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus BW /EC /FE / IP /PB/PL /SW

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus DT/FW/IP/SEMacomb Community College SM

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FW (2)

Foothill College PL/SWMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus FE

Edison Community College QM(FM)

Lane Community College SC

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FW

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus SU

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus SD/SE/SIMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus PB/FECentral Piedmont Community College IC

Cuyahoga Community College IC

Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center BW/FE/FW/SUMiami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FWMiami-Dade Community College, Medical Center SW

Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center BW/FE (2)/FWMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus PB

Miami-Dade Community College, Homestead Campus FE /IP/QR/QW /51 /SR /SW

Polk Community College QR(FM)Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus SD

Lane Community College BW

Pensacola Junior College QM(FM)

University of Tennessee at Martin PL/SE/SI /SWFox Valley Technical College IC

Miami-Dade Community College, District l'SMiami-Dade Community College, North Campus SI

Northern Virginia Community College BW

Sinclair Community College IC

Miami-Dade Community College, Kendall Campus FE (2)

Miami-Dade Community College, Medical Center PB

Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus SI

Software Review: SR Reading; SW - Writing; SIN Math; SE - ESL; SC Study Skills/Cntical Thinking

Question Writing: Q - Reading; QIN - Writing; QM Math; QC Coordinator

- Bdtmore Workshop Prior to Project SYNERGY (2/89); DT - Desip Team at MDCC; C Evaluation Committee at MDCC,

PE - Faculty Exchange Visit at MDCC (# in parentheses if more than 1); M - Florida Model (Project SYNERGY IV), ES - F,iculty

Scenario; PW - Faculty Workshop at MDCC; GP Guides Pilot; IC Institutional Coordination; IP Institutional Planning for PSI at

MDCC; - Lab Scenario; PS - Project Briefing at MDCC; PC - Planning Committee (attended the planning meeting in Palisades.

NY, March 1991); FL - Planning for Project SYNERGY Integrator (1991 Survey);PS - Project Staff; SD Software Development;SI Software Implementation; SID Software Implementation Desip; $S - Student Scenario;51 - Steering Committee; 51,1 Survey

Response. 1992-93 (because some were anonymous, not all are named here).

Organizer of a Faculty Exchange Visit

125 134 A.13

Appendix B

Software AttributesSoftware Content Attributes:

Accuracy (3)Information is currentThere are no factual errorsContent is free of spelling & grammatical errors

Appropriateness (5)Models and examples are not oversimplifiedContent is free of stereotypes & social biasesIt includes problem-solvMg situations of varying difficultyIt provides applications to real-life situationsIt is not obscured by jargon or technical terms

Feedback (3)Content provides explanation of correct answersIt provides alternate explanationsAlternate explanations aim to correct student understanding

Meeting Faculty Needs:

Ease of Implementation (6)Documentation is providedIt presents ways the package can be usedIt provides support materialsIt describes how to assess student performanceSoftware requires minimal teacher time to get students using

itIt frees up teacher time from tedious tasks

Adaptability (6)Software gives individual attention to students as neededIt can be customized for a group of studentsIt can be customized for a single studentIt can be used for independent studyIt can be used for peer groupsIt can be used for classroom presentations

Summary Information (6)Software maintains student usage and performance recordsIt generates summary reports that can be viewed on screenIt generates summary reports that can be printedIt generate summary reports as an ASCII text fileStudent data are stored on each student diskStudent data are stored on disk for a class of students

Meeting Student Needs:

Ease of Use (7)On-line directions are clear, concise, and completeOn-line help is clear, concise, and completeStudent manuals are providedThey are helpfulStudent workbooks are providedThey are usefulSoftware provides status missages to minimize confusion

Adaptability (4)Software adjusts content based on student responsesIt allows branching into different parts of the progamIt adapts to the first-time versus the experienced userIt adapts to a range of reading abilities

13.1 126

Testing (3)Software incorporates pre-testsIt incorporates post-testsIt allows students to leave a question unanswered & go back

to it later

Tracking (2)Software keeps students informed of progressIt provides a summary of performance & suggests what to do

next

Interactivity (7)Software actively engages the studentIt provides student feedbackIt is tied to the responses and thus is credible and supportiveIt explains errorsIt suggests corrections of errorsIt forgives extraneous errorsIt presents relevant practice exercises

Appropriateness (18)Software allows students to think and solve problemsExamples are appropriate for adult learnersAnimation and/or graphics are usedThey focus attention on important content and processThey allow coverage of advanced conceptsThey are appropriate for adult learnersSound-effects are usedThey focus attention on important content and processThey allow coverage of advanced conceptsThey are appropriate for adult learnersColor is usedIt focuses attention on important content and processIt allows coverage of advanced conceptsIt is appropriate for adult learnersVideo is usedIt focuses attention on important content and processIt allows coverage of advanced conceptsIt is appropriate for adult learners

Software Operations:

Reliability (3)Software is free of programming errorsIt runs with mininvim delaysExtraneous input does not disrupt the program

Format (7)Program maintains a bookmark for reentryProgram allows the student to magnify printVoice capability is usedThe right quantity is presentedIt is audibleInappropriate dialect is avoidedScreens are free of clutter and dense print

135

Reading Objectives

Word Learning Skills (46)Word Recognition

Phoneme-grapheme relationships (phonics):VowelsConsonantsVowel and consonant combinationsSyllabificationEmphasis (stress)Compound wordsBasic sight words:Word configurations W, S

Typical recognition lists (Dolch, Thorndike, et. al.) W, S

Dictionary SkillsOrder of entries (alphabetizing)Guide wordsParts of word entriesDiacritica! markingsSelecting an appropriate definition for a word in contextUsing dictionaries with different organizational patternsUsing the dictionary as a source of information

Context Clues for Word MeaningsDirect definition or restatement cluesPunctuation /typographical cluesExperience clues (reader's knowledge base)Example cluesSummary cluesComparison/contra.st clues

Word Elements to Define WordsPrefixes in wordsSuffixes in wordsRoots in wordsCombinations of prefixes, suffixes, & roots

New Words in Specialized Groupingsoccupational / technical %:vords W, S. P, G

Academic words from core areas W, S, P. G

Words., with multiple meanings W, S, P, G

Words with similar sounds but different spellings& meanings W, S, P, G

Correct SpellingApplying phoneme/grapheme relationshipsApplying knowledge of word partsApplying basic spelling rulesDeveloping a personalized system for spelling

improvement

Word RelationshipsAntonymsSynonymsHomonymsl'art to whole/whole to partFunctionRhymeAttributes (characteristics)SpellingMember to class/class to memberAge or sizeCause/effect

W, SW, SW, SW, SW, SW, S

S, P, GS, P, GS, P, G

5, P, GS, P, CS, P, G

W, S, P, GW, 5, P, GW, S, P, GW, S. P, G

W, SW, SW, S

W, S

W, S, PW, S, PW, S, PW, S, PW, S, PW, S, PW, S, P

W, S. P

W, S, PW, S, PW, S,

Creating simple analogiesto show relationships W, S, P

W = Word Level S = Sentence Level

Solving analogies W, S. P

Functional Reading (10)Understanding signs (enter, exit, smoking in designated

areas only, etc.)Understanding forms (college registration, etc.)Understanding simple instructions (in textbooks, tests, etc.)Understanding information found in newspapersUnderstanding information found in restaurant menusUnderstanding information found in telephone directoriesUnderstanding information found on food labelsUnderstanding information found on medicine labelsUnderstanding information found in public transportation

schedulesUnderstanding information found in training manuals

Basic Comprehension (15)Topic/Main Idea

Recognizing the stated main idea of a paragraph/passage I', G

Recognizing the unstated main idea of a paragraph/passage P, G

Formulating the main idea of a paragraph (topicsentence) or of a longer passage (thesis) P. G

DetailsIdentifying the major details of a paragraph/passageIdentifying the minor details of a paragraph/passage

Organizational PatternsSequenceCause/effectComparison/contrastDefinitionExampleFactsEnumerationClassificationProblem/solutionMixed patterns

Transitional Expressions (9)SequenceCause/effectComparison/contrastDefinitionExampleSummaryEnumerationProblem/solutionMixed patterns

Critical Comprehension (29)Author's Purpose

Writing to inform or explainWriting to persuadeWriting to elicit emotion or moodWriting to entertain

Author's BiasBias by proportion (emphasis)

P = Paragraph Level

P,

P, G

P, CI', GP, GP, GP, GP,

P,

P, GP,

S. P,

5, P, GS, P, GS. P,

S, P. GS, P.

S. P, CS, P, CS,I,,G

S. GS, I', GS, P, G

S. P, C

S, G

G = Passage Level

127

136B.2

Bias by a choice of informationBias by a word choice's denotationBias by a word choice's connotationEuphemismsStereotypingPropaganda techniques

Author's ToneIronyCynicismWit and humorSarcasmSatire

Making judgmentsDifferentiatng fact and opinionDrawing conclusionsMaking inferencesConsidering the author's qualificationsConsidering other viewpoints not expressed by

the authorExamining quantity and quality of evidenceChallenging assumptions or analogous

relationshipsAuthor's Use of Figurative Language

SimileMetaphorAllusionPersonificationHyperbole and understatementIdiomatic expressions

Textbook/Technical Reading (18)Reading to Study

Relating text passages to visual/graphic materials

Textbook previewing techniquesNote-takingOr aliningMappingSummarizing/synthesizingReading-to-study techniques (e.g., SQ3R)Locating specific information

Interpreting visual materialsChartsGraphsMapsTablesDiagrams/illustrations

Reading for TestsMultiple-choice questionsTrue/false questionsMatching questionCompletion questionsUnderstanding key words in essay questions

Reading in Content Areas (29)Mathe mat ics

Surveying the textbookApplying a reading-to-study techniqueApplying vocabulary /memory techniques

to learn symbols and formulasApplying steps in analyzing mathematical wordproblems

W Word Level

S, P, GS, P, GS, P, GS, P, GS, P, GS, P,

S, P,S, P,S, P, GS, P, GS, P, G

S, P, GS, P, GS, P, GS, P, G

S, P,S, P, G

S, P, G

S, P, GS, P, G5, P, GS, P, GS, I', GS, P, G

S, GS, P, GS, P,5, P,S, P, GS. 13, G

S. P, GS, P, G

S, P, G5, P, GS, P,S, GS, P, G

S. I', CS, P, G

S, P, G

S = Sentence Level

Applying skills for reading visual materials

Social SciencesSurveying the textbookApplying a reading-to-study techniqueApplying vocabulary/memory techniques tounderstand concepts & terminologyRecognizing frequently used organizational

patternsApplying critical comprehension skillsApplying skills for reading visual materials

SciencesSurveying the textbookApplying a reading-to-study techniqueApplying vocabulary/memory techniques to

understand symbols, formulas, concepts,and terminology

Recognizing frequently used organizationalpatterns

Applying critical comprehensi,-, skillsApplying skills for reading visual materials

Humanities and LiteratureSurveying the textbookApplying a reading-to-study techniqueApplying vocabulary/memory techniques to

understand concepts & terminologyRecognizing frequently used organizational

patternsApplying critical comprehension skillsApplying skills for reading visual materials

Vocational/Occupational/Technical StudiesSurveying the textbookApplying a reading-to-study techniqueApplying vocabulary/memory techniques to

understand concepts & terminologyRecognizing frequently used organizational

patternsApplying critical comprehension skillsApplying skills for reading visual materials

Rate & Flexibility (11)Building reading rateReading phrases rather than individual wordsSkimming techniquesScanning techniquesflexible reading ratesTechniques to overcome barners to flex. reading

Establishing a purpose for readingUsing flexible reading rates:Skimming techniquesScanning techniquesMaking decisions according to purpose:Choosing texts according to information needChoosing texts according to readability levelChoosing texts according to level of detail/

generalityChoosing texts according to author viewpoint/

bias

P = Paragraph Level

S, P,G

S, 13, G

S, P,

s, G

S, P,GS, P, GS. P, G

S, P,

S, P, G

S, P, G

S, P,

S, P,G5, P, G

S, P, GS, P, G

S, P, G

S, P, GS, P, GS, P, G

5, P,S. P,

S, P, G

S, P,

S, P, GS, P, G

P,

P, GP, GP,

P,

P, GP,

P, GG

P,G

P, G

= Passage Level

B.3 128 13 7

Writing Objectives

Prewiting (12)Building Fluency

Free writingKeeping a journalBlind writing

Generating/Organizing Information (Ideas)BrainstormingClustenng and mappingQustioning (using lists of questions)Engaging in situational writing (case studies)Examining developmental models (e.g., definition)Responding to readingsInterviewingReasoning inductively /deductivelyUsing sources (appropriate databases)

Writing (25)Limiting the Thesis

Sentence completionModeling (illustrations, examples)Open-ended options (illustrations used as idea starters)

Organizing/Outlining Information (Ideas)Experimentation with oriOnal formats/

possibilities (e.g., rhetorical modes) P,E

Forms and graphic structures to be filled in(e.g., comparison/contrast, process, etc.) P. E

Classifying P, E

Establishing prioritis P, E

Clustering and mapping P, E

Composing a DraftUsing rhetorical modes:Description P, E

Narration P, E

Ilustration P, E

Comparison /contrast P. E

Cause/effect P, E

Definition P, E

Process analysis P, E

Argument P, E

Drafting topic sentencesDrafting thesis statementsClarifying main points with supporting details P, E

Achieving Unity and CoherenceTransitions 5, F, E

Key words (repetitions, echoes) S, E

Synonyms S, E

Antonyms S, P, E

Subordination 5, P, E

Coordination S. P, E

Revision (12)Reassessir Fxpecta tions

Audience

PurposeTone

Evaluating the DraftThesis:UnityFocusOrganization:CoherenceParagraphsEvidence/illustration/detailsSentences:SyntaxVarietyCombiningDiction

Editing (25)Proofreading

Paragraphing (indenting or blocking)Capital lettersAbbreviationsHyphenationEnd punctuationinternal punctuationSpecial graphicsApostrophesSpell-checking

Improving Word, Phrase, and Clause UsageNouns singular/plural

possessive formsPronouns singular/flural

possessive formssubjective/objective case

moodvoicetenses

infinitivesparticiples

gerunds

Verk!-

ConjunctionsAdjectivesArticles (definite/indefinite)AdverbsPrepositionsSpellingPhrasesDependent clausesIndependent clauses

Improving Word RelationshipsSubject-verb agreementNoun-pronoun agreementSequence of tensesModification

S Sentence Level Paragraph Level E = Essay Level

129 B.4138

Mathematics Objectives

Base Ten Notation (8)Reading whole numbers and writing in standard notation

from zero to one trillionWriting as a standard numeral a number named by a verbal

expressionRounding a given number to the nearest ten, hundred, or

thoUsandUsing whole nirnber exponents in power notation to

represent productsUsing whole number product; to represent powers with

whole number exponentsWriting standard numerals from expanded numeralsWriting expanded numerals from standard numeralsComparing and ordering whole numbers

Basic Ops/Whole Numbers(10)Recognizing counting or natural numbersRecognizing whole numbersPerforming ihe ope7ation of addition on the set of whole

num'aersPerforming the operation of subtraction on the set of whole

numbersPerforming the operation of multiplication on the set of

whole numbersPerforming the operation of division on the set of whole

numbersEstimating sums, differences, products, and quotients of

whole numbersRecognizing number propertiesApplying rules for order of operationsFinding square roots of perfect square numbers

Prime Numbers & Factorization (4)Determining the factors of a given number of reasonable

magnitudeDetermining prime factorization of numbers of reasonable

magnitudeIdentifying any prime number less than one hundredDetermining the least common multiple using prime

factorization of two or more numbers of reasonablemagnitude

Basic Ops/Positive Fractions (19)Constructing models to represent fractionsWriting equivalent fractionsSimplifying fractionsComparing fractionsPerforming the operation of addition on the set of rational

numbers using fractional numeralsPerforming the operation of subtraction on the set of rational

numbers using fractional numeralsPerforming the operation of multiplication on the set of

rational numbers using fractional numeralsPerforming the operation of division on the set of rational

numbers using fractional numeralsConverting mixed numerals to improper frachonal numeralsConverting improper fractional numerals to mixed numeralsPerforming the operation of addition on the set of rational

numbers using mixed numerals

Performing the operation of subtraction on the set of rationalnumbers using mixed numerals

Performing the operation of multiplication on the set ofrational numbers using mixed numerals

Performing the operation of division on the set of rationalnumbers using mixed numerals

Simplifying complex fractionsEstimating sums, differences, products, and quotients of

mixed numbersRaising fractions to positive integer powersFinding square roots of perfect square fractionsApplying order of operations rules for fractional numerals

Basic Ops/ Positive Decimals (13)Constructing models to represent decimal numer.-IsComparing magnitude of decimal numbersRounding decimal numbers to an indicated placeExpressing a fractional or mixed numeral as a decimal numeralExpressing a decimal numeral as a fractional or mixed

numeralPerforming the operation of addition on the set of rational

numbers using decimal numeralsPerforming the operation of subtraction on the set of rational

numbers using decimal numeralsPerforming the operation of multiplication on the set of

rational numbers using decimal numeralsPerforming the operation of division on the set of rational

numbers using decimal numeralsSimplifying complex fractions involving decimalsCombining rational numbers in different notationsEstimating sums, differences, products, and quotients of

decimal numbersApplying order of operations rules

Ratio and Proportions (6)Constructing models of ratiosWriting ratiosIdentifying a proportionSolving a proportionIdentifying and writing rates including unit ratesSolving word problems using proportion

Percents (7)Constructing models to represent percentExpressing percent numerals as decimal numeralsExpressing decimal numerals as percent numeralsExpressing percent numerals as fractional numeralsExpressing fractional numerals as percent numeralsSolving simple percent problemsExpressing statements and questions contained in problems

involving percents as number sentences or proportionsand then solving the problems

Units of Measure (10)Recognizing appropriate units of length, weight, and

capacity in English SystemConverting within English units of length, weight, and capacityRecognizing appropriate units of length, mass, and capacity

in metric systemConverting within metric units of length, mass, and capacity

B.5 130135

Converting from English units of length, weight, and capacity tometric units of length, mass, and capacity and vice versa

Simplifying denominate numbers (e.g., 6 ft., 5 in.)Performing the operation of addition on denominate numbers,

ie., numbers representing units of measurePerforming the operation of subtraction on denominate

numbers, i.e., numbers representing units of measurePerforming the operation of multiplying a denominate

number, i.e., a number representing a unit of measure,by a rational number

Performing the operation of dividing a denominate number,ie., a number representing a unit of measure, by arational number

Basic Geometry (41)Recognizing parallel lines and their propertiesRecognizing perpendicular lines and their propertiesRecognizing angles and their propertiesRecognizing squares and their propertiesRecognizing rectangles and their propertiesRecognizing parallelograms and their propertiesRecognizing rhombuses and their propertiesRecognizing trapezoids and their propertiesRecognizing other quadrilaterals and their propertiesRecognizing triangles and their propertiesRecognizing right triangles and their propertiesRecognizing circles and their propertiesConstructing models for perimeter to derive a formula for

rectanglesConstructing models for perimeter to derive a formula for

squaresConstructing models for perimeter to derive a formula for

trianglesConstructing models for perimeter to derive a formula for

circlesConstructing models for area to derive a formula for

rectanglesConstructing models for area to derive a formula for squaresConstructing models for area to derive a formula for

trianglesConstructing models for area to derive a formula for

trapezoidsConstructing models for area to derive a formula for

rhombusesConstructing models for area to derive a formula for

parallelogramsConstructing models for area to derive a formula for circlesDistinguishing between perimeter and areaComputing perimeter of rectanglesComputing perimeter of squaresComputing perimeter of trianglesComputing perimeter of trapezoidsComputing perimeter of parallelogramsComputing perimeter of rhombusesComputing circumference of circlesComputing area of rectanglesComputing area of squaresComputing area of trianglesComputing area of trapezoidsComputing area of parallelogramsComputing area of rhombusesComputing volume of geometric figuresSolving applied problems involving perimeterSok mg applied problems involving areaSok mg applied problem, involving volumeBasic Ops/Signed Numbers (10)Roc< Igniumg integersRecognizing rational numbersConstructing model signed number,Finding the absolute value of rational numbersPerforming the operation of addition on the set of rational

numbers, including negative rational numbers

Performing the operation of subtraction on the set of rationalnumbers, including negative rational numbers

Performing the operation of multiplication on the set ofrational numbers, including negative rational numbers

Performing the operation of division on the set of rationalnumbers, including negative rational numbers

Evaluating exponential expressions of signed numbersApplying rules for order of operations on rational numbers

Real Numbers (25)Reviewing basic arithmetic with positive real numbers,

powers, rootsReviewing order of operations with positive real numbersRecognizing natural numbersRecognizing whole numbersRecognizing integersRecognizing rational numbersRecognizing irrational numbersRecognizing the symbols < and > with real numbersRecognizing absolute value of a real numberIdentifying number linePerforming arithmetic with signed numbersUsing number line for definition of signed number

arithmeticUsing rules for definition of signed number anthmeticicPresenting integer exponents of real numbersPresenting positive roots of real numbersEvaluating expressions involving several operationsEvaluating expressions involving grouping symbolsEvaluating expressions involving exponentsRecognizing commutative propertyRecognizing associative propertyRecognizing distributive propertyRecognizing additive identityRecognizing additive inverseRecognizing multiplicative identityRecognizing multiplicative inverseSet Notation (7)Recognizing set notation symbol for unionRecognizing set notation symbol for intersectionRecognizing set notation symbol for complementFinding the union of at least two setsFinding the intersection of at least two setsFinding the complement of a setDrawing Venn DiagramsSimple Linear Eq./One Variable (7)Recopizing variables, expressions, and equationsSolving linear equations by addition subtraction principle

of equalitySolving linear equations by multiplication division

principle of equalitySolving linear equations multi-stepSolving proportionsSolving word problemsSolving absolute value equationsSimple Linear Ineq./One Variable (6)Recognizing inequalitiesSolving inequalitiesRecognizing absolute value inequalitiesSolving absolute value inequalitiesGraphing solutions of inequalities on a number lineSolving word problemsInteger Exponents (9)Recognizing an integer exponent and variable basePerforming multiplication with integer exponentsPerforming division with integer exponentsSimplifying expressions containing negative integer

exponentsPerforming powers with integer exponentsRecognizing scientific notationConverting to scientific notationConverting from scientific notation

131 B.6146

Performing arithmetic operations with scientific notation

Polynomials (18)Recognizing constants, variables, terms, and coefficientsRecognizing a monomialRecognizing a binomialRecognizing a trinomialRecognizing a polynomialRecognizing the degree of a polynomialRecognizing the correct order to write a polynorralRecognizing rules for exponentsSimplifying expressions containing grouping symbolsEvaluating algebraic expressionsPerforming multiplication by a monomialPerforming multiplication by a binomialPerforming multiplication by a trinomialPerforming multiplication by a polynomial with more than

three termsRecognizing special product formsDividing a polynomial by a monomialDividing a polynomial by a binomialDividing a polynomial by a polynomial of more than two

terms

Factoring (6)Recognizing factorsFactoring by greatest common factorFactoring the differem e of squaresFactoring trinomialsFactoring the sum and difference of two cubesRecognizing a perfect square trinomial

Graphs (21)Recognizing a number line graphRecognizing the Cartesian coordinate systemRecognizing quadrantsRecognizing ordered pairsRecognizing ordered pairs by quadrantl'lotting ordered pairsRecognizing linear equations with two variablesFinding solutions to linear equations wtth two variablesGraphing a linear equation using a table of valuesRecognizing and /or determining x and y interceptsGraphing a linear equation using interceptsRecognizing the slope of a line from its equationRecognizing the slope of a line from the graph of a linear equationRecognizing the slope-intercept form of a linear equationGraphing a linear equation using the slope intercept formGraphing linear inequalities on the Cartesian coordinate systemGraphing absolute value linear equation, cm the Cartesian

coordinate systemGraphing quadratic equation'.Graphing quadratic inequalitiesGraphing systems of linear equationsGraphing systems of lmear inequalities

Solving Systems of Equations (9)Reoignizing ,,ystems ot linear equah(msChu, king solution to systems of two linear equatnin,Soli mg systems of two linear equations by graphing'-4,1%ing systems of tAii linear equations b addition,

elonmatumSolving .,v,-.tems of two linear equatu ins by substitutionStils mg applications of systems of two linear Nuations

B.7

Solving systems of two linear inequalities

Solving systems of three linear equations

Solving systems of three linear inequalities

Quadratics (9)Recognizing the zero factor property

Recognizing the standard form of a quadratic equation

Solving a quadratic equation in factored form

Solving a quadratic equation by factoring

Solving a quadratic equation by using the quadratic formula

Solving a quadratic equation by completing the square

Solving word problems involving quadratic equations

Graphing quadratic equations

Graphing quadratic inequalities

Rational Expressions (5)Multiplying and dividing rational expressions

Finding the LCD of two or more rational expressions

Adding and subtracting rational expressions

Simplifying complex fractions

Solving equations involving rational expressions

Rational Exponents & Radicals (9)Converting radicals to nth roots

Converting nth roots to radicals

Performing operations with rational exponents

Simplifying radicals

Adding and subtracting radical expressions

Multiplying and dividing radical expressions

Solving equations with radicals

Recognizing complex numbers

Simplifying expressions containing complex numbers

Geometty (7)Applying the angle complement and supplement theorems

Applying the sum of the angles of a triangle theorem

Applying theorems on congruent angles formed whenparallel Imes are crossed by a transversal

Using the theorem on the proportionality of sides of similartriangles to find the length of a side of a triangle

Using the Pythagorean theorem to find the missing length ofone side of a right triangle

hmding the perimeters and areas of squares, rectangles,parallelograms, ,i,ipezoid., triangles, circ les, and otherregions made from these ;i:omtric figures

Finding the volume of prism,, .!:linders, pyramids, ,ones,spheres, and other solids made from these threedimensional geometric figures

132

141

ESL Objectives

READINGWord Learning (26)Dictionary Skills

AlphabetizingUsing guide wordsSyllabification: stress and otherSelecting an appropriate definition for a word

m context I,A

Determining word meanings by recognizingaffixes and roots:

InflectionalDerivational (changes parts of speech) 1,A

Understanding cornpund wordsUnderstanding word entry information 1,A

Context Clues:Punctuation/typographical (e g., italics, commas) 1,A

Direct definition ( e.g , that is to say) B,I

Experience (based on the reader's experience) B,I,A

Example 13,1

SummaryComparison /contrast (e g., unhke Susan, who ts ) LA

AppositivesSynonyms and antonyms B,I,A

Figurative language and euphemisms 1,A

Relative pronouns used in definition A

Word RelationshipsSynonyms B,IA

An tonyms B,1,A

Homonyms B,I,A

Function /word forms B,I,A

Cause/effect (e.g., as a result) I,AComparison/contrast (e g., as sweet as sosar) I,A

Analtwe,; (e.g., quill ts to pen as door ts to, ) I,A

Idiomatic expressions B,I,A

Literal Comprehension (20)Sentence Level

Word order as clues to meaning B,I

Paraphrase I,A

Connectors (e.g , and or but, howeiyr) B,1

Transition Words as Clues to Meaning:Sequence/enumeration (e g., before after) 13,1

Cause/effect (o g , is a result) B,I,A

Comparison/contrast (e.g , wet al,o)

Defimhon (e g., that Is)Example (e g su Ii as) 13,1

Summary (e.g , h, cork hide)Problem/solution (i , conditional sentences) I,A

Passage LevelPreviewing/ predicting through skimmingDistinguishing topic from main idea 1,A

Distinguishing main idea from supportingdetails

Identifying types of support:L A

Example,. LA

Reasons 1,A

b beginning

Anecdotes I,A

Scanning for specific information B,I,A

Recognizing pronoun references B,1A

Critical (Interpretive) Comprehension (18)Recognizing analogies/association 1,A

Categorizing 13,E,A

Distinguishing between fact and opinion I,A

Distinguishing relevant from irrelevantinformation 1,A

Making inferences B,I,A

Drawing conclusions B,I,A

Predicting outcomes B,I,A

Recognizing the author's point of view 1,A

Recognizing biases and stereotypes I,A

Evaluating the credibility of the passage A

Determining the validity of the author's conclusion A

Determining the validity of the author A

Examining the quantity of evidenceExamining the quality of evidence A

Recognizing the author's purpose:Inform /explain I,A

Persuade LA

Entertain 1,A

Appeal to the readers emotion LA

Functional Skills (21)Study Skills

Following directionsOutlining paragraphsOutlining passagesSummarizing/synthesizingNotetakmgUsing memory & retention techniquesTest-taking:

Multiple-choice questionsTrue/false questionsMatching questionsCompletion questionsClore

Functional Reading SkillsUnderstandinr;.

signsformssimple instructionsfood and medicine labelspublic transportation schedulestelephone directoriesrestaurant menustraining manualsmapscharts /graph.,

WRITINGWords/Phrases (51)Nouns (Form & Function)

Singular/ plural (irregular nimns)Count / non-count nounsCollectis e nounsNoun phrases

.Intermediate

133 142

13,1,A

B,I

1,A

I,AI,A

B,1,A

B,1

B.8

Possessive nouns (punctuation)Gerunds

Pronouns (Form & Function)Pronoun caseDemonstrative pronounsReflexive pronounsImpersonal YouRelative pronounsExtended subjects

Verbs (Form & Function)Subject-verb agreementTo beOther linking verbsIntransitive verbsTransitive verbs and objectDitansitive verbs and object and placementSimple formProgressive (present)Progressive (past)Progressive (future)Perfect (present)Perfect (past)Perfect (future)Perfect progressive (present)Perfect progressive (past)Perfect progressive (future)Passive voiceConditional (real and unreal)SubjunctiveCausative

Verb Modals (Form & Function)Simple modal auxiliaries or expressionsCompound modals

Adjectives (Form & Function)Adjectives as modifiers (position and order)Adjective case: comparativeAdjective case: superlativeIrregular adjectivesArticlesDeterminers

Adverbial Structures (Form & Function)TypePositionOrder

Prepositions (Form & Function)Common prepositions in prepositional phrasesVerb plus prepositions (nonseparable)Verb plus prepositions (separable)Verb plus two prepositionsIdiomatic expressions

Edit ing

I,AI,A

B,1

I,AAA

B,I

I,AI,A1,A

I,AB,I,AB,I,A

I,AI,AI,A

A

AI,A

AA

1,A

1,A

AI,A

B,I,AA

B,I,AB,I,AB,I,A

13,1

B,I,AB,1

B,I,A

B,1,A

B,I,AB,I,A

I,AI,A

B,I,A

Using capitalization B,1

Using correct spelling, suffixes, prefixes B,1,A

Using conventions of Standard American English A

Sentences (41)Writing Simple Sentences

Affirmative/negative declarativ( sentencesInterrogative sentences:

Yes/no questions B,I

Informative questions (who, what when, where) B

Informative questions (winch, whom, whose, why) I

B.9

Negative questionsImperative sentencesExclamatory sentences

Writing Compound SentencesUsing and, or, butUsing all other coordinators & adverbial

connectorsUsing transitions of sequence (puntuation &

function)Using all other transition words (punctuation &

function)

Writing Complex SentencesUsing while, be-pre, because, afterUsing adverb clausesUsing adjective clausesUsing noun clausesUsing reported speechUsing embedded clausesUsing tag questionsWriting compound-complex sentences

Using Appropriate Verb Sequencing

I,A

13,1

1

1,A

A

A

A

AI,A

In compound sentences I,AIn complex sentences AIn compound-complex sentences A

Identifying Syntactical UnitsClauses I,AFragments I,ARun-on sentences I,AComma splices

Writing Comparative SentencesUsing adjectives B,I,AUsing adverbs I,AUsing nouns A

Using Sentence Variety and SophisticationInfinitives after verbs I,AGerunds after verbs I,AGerunds after prepositions I,AVerbals used as modifiers A

Proofreading and EditingCapitalization 13,1

Punctuation:Serial comma 13,1

Transition comma B,I,ACompound sentence comma 13,1

Appositive comma ACompound sentence semicolon 1.1

Spelling

Paragraphs (30)Planning and Development

Topic sentence B, I, A

Topic & controlling idea in a topic sentence B,I,ADifference between topic and titleSupport:

Major B,I,AMinor 1,A

Conclusion:Restatement of topic sentence B,I,ARestatement of major support

Using organization appropriate to purposeUsing logical organization (outlining)

134 1Ar

Writing sentences with lexical sophistication A

Using language appropriate to audience & purpose A

Rhetorical ModesWriting narrative with correct chronology B,I,A

Writing description with correct spatial sequence B,I,AWriting exposition:

Using illustrations I,A

Using examples I,A

Using definition I,A

Using comparison/contrast IAUsing classification I,A

Using cause/effect A

Using persuasion A

Using analysis A

Proofreading and EditingOrganization B,I,A

Content I,A

Audience A

Purpose A

Tone A

B=Begmning

Mechanics

Essays (13)Planning and Development

Multiparagraph composition with thesis statementDistinguishing topic sentence from thesis statementFinding & developing controlling idea of a thesisOutlining the essay

DraftingUsing necessary paratgaph style to produce an

essayWriting introductory paragraphsWriting concluding paragraphs

Proofreading and EditingUnity and coherenceContentAudiencePurposeTone

I=IntermechateMechanics

B,l,A

Study Skills/Critical Thinking Objectives

Personal Behaviors (35)

Goal SettingUnderstanding goal-settingUnderstanding commitment and perseveranceIdentifying personal goal plans (academic, financial,

occupational)Discrminatmg among competing goalsDeveloping timelines for short- and long-range goalsFinding resources needed for goal completionEvaluating goal accomplishment and modifying goalsDeveloping personal rewards for goal achievement

Values ClarificationUnderstanding value formationKnowing the characteristics of a valueUnderstanding the impact of significant others on value

formationAnalyzing life expenences (family, social, spiritual)Recognizing value indicatorsDemonstrating knowledge of the process of values

clarificationRecognizing and resolving values conflicts

Self -EvaluationUnderstanding the benefits of self-evaluationUsing personal strengths and other resources to enhance

successDeveloping self-improvement plansIdentifying additional competencies/skills needed for

goal achievementEx aluating performance/improvementUnderstanding negative personal habits

A

AAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A=Advanoki

Stress ManagementUnderstanding the need for adequate sleep, nutrition,

and exerciseUnderstanding the nature and effects of stressorsAnalyzing current stressorsComprehending appropriate and inappropriate stress-

reduction techniquesDeveloping a stress-management planEvaluating stress-management skills

Time ManagementComprehending time prioritiesDetermining the time needed for each priorityUnderstanding principles of schedulingKnowing techniques for saving timeUnderstanding time-wasters and how to correct themDeveloping and evaluating long- and short-term

schedulesPracticing time-management techniquesEstablishing priorities in a daily "to-do" list

Study Behaviors (15)Concentration/Memory

Creating the appropriate study environmentDeveloping the ability to concentrate:

Identifying external distractions/interferenceIdentifying internal distractions/interferenceApplying concentration techniquesRecognizing short-term memoryRecognizing long-term memoryIntroducing effective memory techniques/strategies

(e.g., outlining, using the peg system,chunking/clustering)

Applying appropriate memory techniques to differingtasks

135

144B.10

Textbook LearningUnderstanding textbook study methods (e.g., SQ3R, marOnal

questions)Applying textbook study techniques (e.g., surveying,

constructing topical maps, highlighting, using studyquestions & glossaries)

Reference SkillsKnowing how to use reference materials such as the

dictionary, the library, computersTest PreparationOrganizing resources such as notes, outlines, and summariesAnalyzing review procedures (e.g., specialized terms, ideas

emphasized in the text, lectures, supplementaryreadings)

Using resources for test preparation (e.g., previous tests,study guides, handouts, group study)

Developing personal study materials (e.g., two-way charts,flashcards, questions, mapping, information integratedfrom several sources)

Classroom Behaviors (26)ListeningApplying effective listening techniques:

Resisting distractions, staying focused, exhibitingalertness

Finding areas of interestJudging content, not delivery onlyDistinguishing essential from elaborative materialUnderstanding the presenter's principle of organization

Note-TakingKnowing the purposes of note-takingUnderstanding tips for note-taking (e.g., personal shorthand,

discipline-specific techniques, consistency of style, signalwords & phrases)

Understanding note-taking techniques (e.g./,topic/explanation or idea)

Applying note-taking techniquesCombining notes from a variety of sources (text, lecture,

collateral reading, worksheets, study guides)Test-TakingApplying general test-taking principles:

Preparing physically and psychologicallyPreviewing the testUnderstanding the directionsBudgeting timeHaving adequate supplies

Applying skills for objective tests:Multiple-choiceTrue/falseMatchingCompletion

Applying skills for objective tests:Short answerEssay

B.11 136

Applying techniques for improving test performance:Reviewing exams/testsDiagnosing performanceDeveloping a plan for improvementEvaluating resultsManaging test anxiety

Critical Thinking (39)Affective StrategiesFostering independent thinkingExercising fairmindedness/suspending judgmentDeveloping confidence in reasonDeveloping interpersonal skills for collaborative thinkingDeveloping intellectual perseveranceThinking precisely about thinkingBecoming aware of one's own thinking process

(metacognition) in order to monitor and direct itFundamentals of ThinkingUnderstanding the vocabulary of critical thinkingDistinguishing facts from opinionsDistinguishing facts from valuesDistinguishing relevant from irrelevant factsEvaluating evidence and alleged factsRecognizing stated assumptionsRecognizing unstated assumptionsEvaluating stated and unstated assumptionsRecognizing and evaluating causal relationshipsRecognizing and evaluating analogiesNoting significant similarities and differencesRecognizing contradictionsRecopizing implications and consequencesDistinguishing deductive and inductive reasoningIdentifying logical fallaciesMaking plausible inferences, predictions, interpretationsMaking justifiable generalizationsUnderstanding the significance of critena for evaluationEvaluating the credibility of sources of informationUnderstanding vagueness and ambiguityClarifying contextual meanmgs of words and phrasesThinking StrategiesRaising and pursuing root or significant questionsExploring issues from multiple perspectives, including one's

ownAnalyzing or evaluating argument, interpretations, beliefs,

or theoriesAnalyzing or evaluating actions or policiesUnderstanding problem-solving processesAssessing problem-solving processesUnderstanding decision-making processesAssessing decision-making processesMaking interdisciplinary connectionsUnderstanding strategies for generating new ideasApplying knowledge/insights to various context, or

different circumstances

145

Appendix C

Publishers and Reviewed Software Packages *Learning Environment 2000 for Underprepared College Students

ACT (American College Testing)2201 North Dodge StreetPost Office Box 168Iowa City, IA 52243Phone: (319) 337-1030

R124W114C082

COMP ASS: Read ingCOMPASS: WritingStudy Power

AWA Software113 Alpine PlacePost Office Box 1618Gadsden, AL 35902Phone: (205) 442-2117

M123 Algebra Without Anxiety: AnIndividualized Course

M124 Basic Mathematics: A Review Course

Academic Success PressPost Office Box 25002, #132Bradenton, FL 34206Phone: (813) 359-2819

C060 Winning at Math

Addison Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.Consumer Software Support1 Jacob WayReading, MA 01867Tollfree: (800) 552-2499Phone: (617) 944-3700

W007 Wordbench: The Tool for People WhoWrite

M100 The Math Lab: Pre-, Beginning, andIntermediate Algebra

M125 Impact: Basic MathematicsM127 Impact: Intermediate AlgebraM131 InterAct Math

MI-Write35 Franklin StreetMedford, MA 02155-3916Phone: (617) 395-4608

E027 Punctuate

American Language Academy1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 550Rockville, MD 20852Tollfree: (800) 346-3469Phone: (301) 309-1400

W097E010E031E032E033E097E098E099E100E104E115E116

Grammar Mastery 11, A,B,CVocabulary Mastery II for BusinessGrammar Mastery II: Series AGrammar Mastery II: Series 13Grammar Mastery II: Series CALA Lab SystemsVocabulary Mastery Set AVocabulary Mastery Set BVocabulary Mastery Set CSentenceMaker 11: Series ASentenceMaker 11: Series BSentenceMaker 11: Series C

Information current as of April lquF .

R-Readmg, W-Writing; M-Math, E-ESL, C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline

137 14C C.1

BLS5153 West Woodmill Drive, Suite 18Wilmington, DE 19808Tollfree: (800) 545-7766

R018 BLS Tutorsystems, Adult EducationReading 100

M011 BLS 100M TutorcourseM035 BLS Tutor Courseware-400ME008 Tutorcourse BLS 200G: Grammar 200E092 Tutorcourse BLS 300G

Brooks and Cole511 Forest Lodge RoadPacific Grove, CA 93950-5098Phone: (408) 373-0728

M031 Algebra Mentor

Brown Bag Software2105 South Bascom AvenueCampbell, CA 95121Phone: (408) 559-4545

W039 Mind Reader

Bureau of Business Practices24 Rope Ferry RoadWaterford, CT 06386Tolifree: (800) 916-8000Phone: (203) 4424365

R021 SpeedReading: The Computer Course

Business Planning Systems10 Pennsylvania AvenueRehoboth Beach, DE 19771Phone: (302) 227-4322

W023 ABC Writer Sr Scholar

C and D Computer Enterprises, Inc.720 Midwest Club ParkwayOak Brook, IL 60521Phone: (708) 653-3555

C041 The Problem Solving ToolboxC050 SOS-Strategies for Problem Solving

Cali, Inc.734 East Utah Valley Drive, Suite 1-200American Fork, UT 84003Phone: (801) 756-1011

E113 Ellis (Marketing Kit)

Career Development2501 SE Columbia Way, Suite 190Vancouver, WA 98661Tollfree: (800) 543-0998Phone: (206) 696-3529

CO10C011C012

Test Taking for School SuccessMemory Skills for School SuccessManaging Study Time for SchoolSuccess

* Information current as of April 1995R-Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then tt has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

C.2 138147

Compris1 Faneuil Hall Market PlaceBoston, MA 02109Phone: (617) 742-7235

R002 Critical Thinking IW050 Report Writing

Comptens New Media2320 Camino Vita RobleCarlsbad, CA 92009-1504Tollfree: (800) 862-2206Phone: (619) 929-2500

M098M099MI37

Algebra 1: First SemesterAlgebra: Second SemesterAlgebra Made Easy

ConduitThe University of Iowa100 Oakdale CampusIowa City, IA 52242Tollfree: (800) 365-9774Phone: (319) 3354100

R012 SEENW004 Writer's Helper Stage IIW008 SEENM008 Algebra Drill and Practice 1,11,111M010 First Year Algebra Part IM016 First Year Algebra Part II

Critical Thinking Press & SoftwarePost Office Box 448Pacific Grove, CA 93950Tollfree: (800) 458-4849Phone: (408) 375-2455

C072 Escape from the Logic SpidersC073 Thinkanalogy Puzzles: Al Grades 3-6C074 Thinkanalogy Puzzles: B1 Grades 4-7C075 Thinkanalogy Puzzles: Cl Grades 7-

CollegeC076 Mind Benders: Al Grades 2-6C077 Mind Benders: 131 Grades 6-10C078 What's My Logic: Grades 3-College

D.C. Heath and Company125 Spring StreetLexington, MA 02173Tollfree: (800) 235-3565Phone: (617) 862-6650

W026 The Computer Writing Resource Kit

DOEL Software ServicesPost Office Box 160637San Antonio, TX 78280-2837

R107 DOEL Reading Skills ProgramW088 DOEL Writing Skills ProgramC032 DOEL Reading Skills

Daedalus Group, Inc.1106 Clayton Lane 280-WAustin, TX 78723Tollfree: (800) 879-2144Phone: (512) 459-0637

W040 Invent: Daedalus Integrated WritingEnvironment (DIWE)

W049 QuickStart (Daedalus)W105 Writer's PrologueW111 Daedalus Integrated Writing

Environment Version 4.0W121 Respond: Daedalus Integrated

Writing Environment (DIWE)

* Information urront as of April 19(6R-Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thmking/Study Skills

If a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

139148

C.3

Davidson & Associates19840 Pioneer AvenueTorrance, CA 90503Tollfree: (800) 556-6141Phone: (310) 793-0600

R007 Word Attack Levels 1-9R011 Spell ItR032 Word Attack: SAT Data DiskR033 Word Attack: Roots & PrefixesR072 Speed Reader IIR082 Read 'N RollW084 Grammar GremlinsM026 Alge-Blaster Plus

Degem Systems, Ltd.6220 S. Orange Blossom Trail, Suite 316Orlando, FL 32809Tollfree: (800) 237-3838Phone: (407) 859-8525

M121 Everyday Mathematics

Duke University PressPost Office Box 90660Durham, NC 27708Phone: (919) 687-3600

W009 Prewriting

EDLPost Office Box 210726Columbia, SC 29221Tollfree: (800) 227-1606Phone: (803) 781-4040

R026 Learning 100: Reading Strategies (HA 1-20)

R027 Learning 100: Reading Strategies (EA 1-20)

R062 QuantumR086 Learning 100: Reading Strategies (AA 1-20)

R087 Learning 100: Reading Strategies (BA 1-20)

C043 Reading Strategies

Educational Activities, Inc.Post Office Box 392Freeport, NY 11520Tollfree: (800) 645-3739Phone: (516) 223-4666

R014 CORE Reading and VocabularyDevelopment

R015 Functional Literacy Using WholeLanguage (LEA I)

R045 Diascriptive Reading IIIR050 Fundamentals of ReadingR053 How to Read for Everyday LivingR079 How to Read in the Content AreasR112 Diascriptive Reading IIW025 CAW: Computer Assisted WritingM087 Applied Problem SolvingM088 Geometry AliveE034 Talk to MeE035 Quick TalkE036 ConversationsE039 Diascriptive Language Arts

DevelopmentE089 English Basics

* Information current a- of April Ng;H-Reading; W-Wnting; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thmkmg/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

CA 140 1

Educational Design, Inc.345 Hudson StreetNew York, NY 10014Tollfree: (800) 221-9372Phone: (212) 255-7900

M034 Algebra: Equation Solving SkillsE101 Mythes, Magic & Monsters

Educational Frontiers132 West 21 StreetNew York, NY 10011Tollfree: (800) 753-6488Phone: (212) 675-8567

C046 Developing Critical Thinking Skillsfor Effective Reading

Educational Testing ServicesRosedale RoadPrinceton, NJ 08541Phone: (609) 921-9000

R117 GUIDESR122 LearningPI us Read ingW113 LearningPlus WritingM129 LearningPlus MathCO21 GUIDES Reading and Study Skills

Educulture689 West Schapville RoadScales Mound, IL 61075Tollfree: (800) 553-4858Phone: (815) 777-9697

R029 Making the Grade SeriesR067 Reading and Critical Thinking SeriesW031 Practical Composition Series IVC083 Study Skills and School Success Series

Ferranti Educational Systems, Inc.3700 Electronics WayLancaster, PA 17604-3040

M073 Interactive Mathematics

FinnTrade2000 Powell Street, Suite 1200Emeryville, CA 94608Phone: (510) 547-2281

C042 Idegen++

Fox Valley Technical College1825 North Bluemound DriveAppleton, WI 54913-2277Phone: (414) 735-5683

W027 COMSKL-PC

Gessler Educational Software55 West 13thNew York, NY 10011-7958Tollfree: (800) 456-5825Phone: (212) 6274199

E046 Verbcon

Information current as of April 1(4(6R Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C.Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

141 156 C.

Glencoe PublishersPost Office Box 543Blacklick, OH 43044Tollfree: (800) 334-7344Phone: (614) 899-4409

R118 Beyond Words: Literature ReadingR120 Beyond Words: Science ReadingR121 Beyond Words: Social Studies

Reading

H & H Publishers1231 Kapp DriveClearwater, FL 34625Tollfree: (800) 366-4079Phone: (813) 442-7760

M104C(X)8

Topics in AlgebraElectronic Learning (gz StudyStrategies Inventory

H & N SoftwarePost Office Box 4067Bricktown, NJ 08723

M057 Math Practice and Problem Solver

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich200 Academic WayTroy, MO 63379Tollfree: (800) 237-2665Phone: (314) 528-1052

W003W016W019

The Writing TutorHBJ WriterThe Holt Writing Tutor

Harper Collins College Publishing10 East 53 StreetNew York, NY 10022Tollfeee: (800) 828-6000

W120 Read /Write Software IIM138 Interactive Tutorials for MathematicsC052 Read /Write Software to Accompany

McWhorter

Hartley Courseware3451 Dunckel Road, Suite 200Lansing, MI 48911Tollfree: (800) 247-1380Phone: (517) 394-8500

M021C031C033C035

Integers and Equations Parts I & IIAnalogies College BoundAnalogies AdvancedCritical Reading

Holt, Rinehart & Winston301 Commerce Street, Suite 3700Fort Worth, TX 76102Phone: (817) 334-7526

W006 The Process Writer

Houghton Mifflin1900 Batavia AvenueGeneva, IL 60134Tollfree: (800) 733-1717

W002W116W123

M093

Fine LinesExpresswaysPeer Practical English Exercises andReviewComputer Tutor for Interm. Algebra:An Applied Approach

Information current as of April "Igg;R-Readmg; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

C.6 142

151

IBMPost Office. Box 1328-WMOO NW 51 StreetBoca Raton, FL 33431Tollfree: (800) 426-3333Phone: (407) 443-2000

IdeaFisher Systems, Inc.2222 Martin Street, #110Irvine, CA 92715Tollfree: (800) 289-4332

Indiana University Learning Skills Center316 North Jordan AvenueBloomington, IN 47405Phone: (812) 855-7313

John C. Miller100 Riverside Drive, #14CNew York, NY 10024-3734Phone: (212) 877-0074

Jostens Learning Center1875 South State StreetOrem, UT 84058Tollfree: (8(X)) 678-1412Phone: (801) 224-6400

R003R004R005R111W047M009M025M053M059M065M075

C079

COO1

C002C(X)3

C004C005

C006

- C007C070

M135

R017R023R028R070R073R074W017W018M004M005M014M015M050M051

Vocabulary: Level IVReading for Meaning: Level IVReading for Information: Level IVReading for Information: Level IIPunctuation - Level IIIAlgebra I: Part IAlgebra II: Part IIBM Math Concepts Level IVMathematics Exploration Tool KitPreparing for Geometry and AlgebraGeometry Two: Proofs Sz Extensions

IdeaFisher

Test TakingTime ManagementWriting Learning LogsSummary WritingUsing Your Psychology TextbookEffectivelyUsing Your Biology TextbookEffectivelyTextbook Markingrips for College Test Taking

xySolver

Reading V: GED ObjectivesReading for Information: Level HISpelling: Level IIIReading IVScience III: GED ObjectivesSocial Studies III: GED ObjectivesPunctuation Level IVCombining Sentences Level IVMath IIIAlgebraMath Concepts Level IVMath Practice Level IVGeometry One: FoundationsIBM Personal Computer Algebra Series

* information currmt as ot April 1 tl05R Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a softwaw title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed m more than one discipline.

C.7

Jostens Learning CenterContinued

E091E094E095E096E106

Vistas: Level 3Vistas: Level 7Vistas: Level 9Vistas: Level 11Vistas: Level 5

Kapstrom, Inc.Post Office Box 1230Buda, TX 78610

W005 Writing is Thinking

Krell Software, Inc.Post Office Box 1252Lakegrove, NY 11755Tollfree: (800) 245-7355

W082 Grammar...What Big Teeth YouHave!

Leep, Inc1475 Holburne RoadMississauga, OntarioCanada L5E 21.5Phone: (905) 271-7504

R056W115

LEEP Spelling ProgramLEEP Spelling Program

Lexpertise Linguistic Software380 South State Street, Suite 202Salt Lake City, UT 84111

W075 PC Proof

Logicus, Inc.908 Niagara Falls Boulevard, Suite 292North Tonawanda, NY 14120-2060Phone: (905) 939-8652

W101 Perfect Copy

Lotus Development Corporation1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 1700Atlanta, GA 30328Tollfree: (800) 831-9679Phone: (404) 391-0011

W074 Ami Professional

MCE Lawrence Production1800 South 35 StreetPost Office Box 458Galesburg, MI 49053Toll free: (800) 421-4157Phone: (616) 665-7075

C013C014C015C016C017C018C039

Test Taking Made EasyFollowing DirectionsStudy SkillsStudy To SucceedSkills for Successful Test TakingBuilding Memory SkillsCollege Life

MECC6160 Summit Drive NorthMinneapolis, MN 55430-40()3Tollfree: (800) 685-6322Phone: (612) 569-15(X)

lniormal ion current as of April 1995R Reading; W-Writing; M Math; E-ESL, C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

R013 Oregon Trail

C.8 144

1.5 Ii

The Math Lab10893 Leaves ley PlaceCupertino, CA 95014Phone: (408) 265-5659

M(X)1

M002M (X)3

Pre-Algebra/The Math LabBeginning Algebra/The Math LabIntermediate Algebra/The Math Lab

Maxthink, Inc.2437 Durant AvenueBerkeley, CA 94707Phone: (510) 540-5508

W077 Maxthink 89

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company1221 Avenue of AmericasNew York, NY 10020Tollfree: (800) 338-3987Phone: (212) 512-2000

W041 McGraw Hill College Version ofWord Perfect

W083 Edit!M133 MathworksC051 Reading and Study Skills, Forms A&B

Meeting the Challenge, Inc.3630 Sinton Road, Suite 103Colorado Springs, CO 80907Tollfree: (800) 864-4264

C071 AbleAid

Merit Audio VisualPost Office Box 392-WNew York, NY 10024Tollfree: (800) 753-6488Phone: (212) 675-8567

W124 Diagnostic Prescriptive GrammarW125 Writing DemonsE003 Diagnostic Prescriptive GrammarE004 Writing Demons (5 8)E005 Sensible Sentence MasterE006 Synonym, Antonym and Analogy

Puzzle Series: AE013 Conversational DemonsE025 Diagnostic Prescriptive ReadingE026 ESL DemonsE030 Synonym, Antonym and Analogy

Puzzle Series: CEl 09 Reading Non-Fiction Critically,

Upper GradesCO22 Developing Critical Thinking Skills

for Effective Reading: Set 10023 Developing Critical Thinking Skills

for Effective Reading: Set 20027 Reading Critically for Upper GradesCO28 Reading Non-Fiction Critically,

Upper GradesC059 Reading Non-Fiction Critically

Mesa State CollegePost Office Box 2647Grand Junction, CO 81502Phone: (970) 248-1206

W010 Comma Sense I 1985W062 Comma Sense II

Information current as of April igctFiR Reading, W Writing, M-Math, E-ESL, C-Crthcal Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is hsted under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline

145

154C.

Microcomputer Curriculum ProjectPost Office Box 622Cedar Falls, IA 50613-3593Tollfree: (800) 552-6227

M023 Microcomputer Curriculum ProjectPre-Algebra-Vols. I & II

M027 Microcomputer Curriculum Project-Algebra I

M030 Microcomputer Curriculum ProjectAlgebra I-Vol 2

M064 Pre-AlgebraM066 Principles of MathematicsM090 Microcomputer Curriculum Project

GeometryM096 Microcomputer Curriculum Project

Algebra I-Vol 3M115 Microcomputer Curriculum Project-

Algebra II

Microlytics2 Tobey Village Office ParkPittsford, NY 14534Phone: (716) 248-9150

Milliken Publishing Co.1100 Research Blvd.St. Louis, MO 63132-0579Tollfree: (800) 643-0008Phone: (314) 991-4220

W102 The Elements of Style

R042 Comprehension Power: Level Hi-A,Lessons 1-3

R116 Comprehension Power: Levels J, K, LR126 Comprehension Connection: Level D,

E, FR130 Comprehension Connection: Level G,

H, I

National Collegiate Software6697 College StationDurham, NC 27708Phone: (919) 684-6837

W085 Bayshore Blast

Nova Development Corporation23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 2005Calabasas, CA 91302Phone: (818) 591-9600

W103 American English Writing Guide

Nova Soft232 North Freedom BoulevardProvo, UT 84601Tolliree: (800) 658-8567Phone: (801) 373-3233

E002 Culturgrams

PVA Systems7777 Fay Avenue, Suite K-312La Jolla, CA 92037Phone: (619) 456-0707

* Information current as of April 1995.R- Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

R119 FlashRead

C.10 146

155

Pacific Crest Software887 NW Grant AvenueCorvalis, OR 97330Phone: (503) 754-1067

M107 PC Solve

Parlance Software542 South YorktownTulsa, OK 74104Phone: (918) 548-4009

W076 Parlance Grammar

Performance Software, Inc.100 Shield StreetWest Hartford, CT 06110Phone: (203) 953-4040

C064 Modeling Studies Strategies

Prentice Hall PressRoute 9WEnglewood Cliffs, NJ 07632Tollfree: (800) 526-0485

W024W033W057W087

Blue Pencil Authoring SystemCollege WriterWebster's New World WriterPrewriter

Professor Weissman's Software246 Crafton AvenueStaten Island, NY 10314Phone: (718) 698-5219

M103 Professor Weissrnan's Software:Algebrax

Projected Learning Programs, Inc.Post Office Box 3008Paradise, CA 95967-3008Tollfree: (800) 248-0757

R037W042W045W048

Basic Reading Skills101 Misused WordsProteus: The Idea GeneratorPunctuation Tutor

Que Software201 West 103 StreetIndianapolis, IN 46290Tollfree: (800) 428-5331Phone: (317) 581-3500

W022 Rightwriter 3.1W117 RightWriter for Windows, Version 5 0

C038 Reading and Thinking IV

Queue, Inc.338 Commerce DriveFairfield, CT 06430Tollfree: (800) 232-2224Phone: (203) 335-0906

R009R010R020R022R025

R030

R031

R034

Lessons in Reading and Reasoning ILessons in Reading and Reasoning IIPractical VocabularyAnalogies ICollege Aptitude ReadingComprehensionADD: Adjusting Degrees of DifficultySeries 1ADD: Adjusting Degrees of DifficultySeries 2Reading & Critical Thinking: LiteralThinking Skills

" Information curront of April 190c;R Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E.ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study Skilh,If a software title is listed under a publisher mote than once, then It has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

147 C.11

15C

Queue, Inc R035 Reading & Critical Thinking:Continued Evaluative Thinking Skills

R048 Intellectual SAT VocabularyR064 Reading and Thinking IIIR065 Reading and Thinking IVR103 Reading for Enrichment: Main IdeaR105 Reading for Enrichment: Finding the

FactsR110 Intellectual PSAT/SAT Reading

ComprehensionW015 English AchievementW046 Persuasive Essay IIIW055 Writing Skills: Learning to WriteW061 Writing Skills Series: Developing

Writing SkillsW066 Super ScoopW091 Vocabulary SeriesW092 Developing Writing SkillsW099 Basic Composition Paragraphs

PackageW118 Practical SpellingM032 Success

with Algebra Series (5 of 7 disks)M036 Concepts in AlgebraM041 Success with Fraction SeriesM043 Fundamentals of MathM068 Special Topics in Mathematics SeriesM132 Math-Kal AlgebraM136 Learning Math SkillsE052 The COMPress ESL Program: AE053 The COMPress ESL I'rogram: BE054 The COMPress ESL Program: CE087 Basic Comprehensive Paragraph

PackageE093 Basic English CompositionE108 Lucky 7 Spelling GamesE117 Learning to WriteE118 Practical Composition 1: Making

Words WorkE119 Practical Composition IV: Making

Sentences WorkCO24 Life Skills Reading 1CO25 Life Skills Reading IICO26 Reading and Critical ThinkingCO29 AnalogiesC030 Lessons in Reading and ReasoningC038 Reading and Thinking IVCO80 Reading and Thinking III

Information current as of April 1995.R Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

C.12 148

References Software, Inc.330 Townsend Street, Suite 123San Francisco, CA 94107

W021 Grammatik IV

Research Design Associates, Inc.35 Crooket Hill Road, Suite 200Commack, NY 11725Tollfree: (800) 654-8715Phone: (516) 499-0053

W078 Mark-Up: A Punctuation ToolW080 TanglersW122 Sequitur: A Text Sequencing ToolE090 Sortset

SRA Thinkware Products155 North Wacker DriveChicago, IL 60606Toilfree: (800) 843-8855

M018 Computer Drill and Practice

Saunders College PublishingPublic Ledger Building620 Chestnut Street, Suite 560Philadelphia, PA 19106Tollfree: (800) 237-2665Phone: (215) 238-5500

M116 Mathcue: Fundamentals of MathM118 Mathcue: Solution FunderM120 Mathcue: Basic Algebra

Scholastic, Inc.2931 East McCartyJefferson City, MO 65101Tollfree: (800) 541-5513Phone: (314) 636-5271

W037 First DraftW093 Bank Street WriterW110 Writing Skills Bank: For Use with the

Bank Street WriterM033 Algebra Shop

Scott Foresman and Company1900 East Lake AvenueGlenview, IL 60025Tollfree: (800) 554-4411

W043 PFS: Professional Write 2.1

Simon a'r SchusterPost Office Box 21-0215Montgomery, AL 36121Tol [free: (800) 228-5937Phone: (205) 270-8989

R092 Speed Reading Tutor IV

Skills Bank Corporation15 Governor's CourtBaltimore, MD 21244Tollfree: (800) 451-5726

R()06W012W068M006M067C034

Skills Bank II 1(1) LevelSkills BankSkills Bank IIIndividual Skills Bank IISkills Bank II: MathematicsSkills Bank II: Study Skills

* Information current as of April 1995R-Reading; W- Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then It has been reviewed m more than one discipline.

149 156 C.13

Soft Warehouse, Inc.3660 Waialae Avenue, Suite 304Honolulu, HI 96816-3236Tollfree: (808) 734-5801

M037 Derive

So ftkey450 Franklin Road, #100Marietta, GA 30067Tollfree: (800) 227-5609Phone: (404) 428-0008

M017 Homework Helper Math WordProblems

Speech Communication, Inc.4630 Campus Drive, Suite 300Newport Beach, CA 92660Tollfree: (800) 797-8255Phone: (714) 671-0102

E114 Sounds American

Sunburst Communications39 Washington AvenuePleasantville, NY 10570Tollfree: (800) 628-8897

M022 King's Rule, the J. Mathematics andDiscovery

M047 Green Globs and Graphing EquationsM106 The Function Analyzer

TASLNorth Carolina State UniversityPost Office Box 8202Raleigh, NC 27695-8202Tollfree: (800) 955-8275

W094 Editor

Taylor Associates200-2 East 2nd StreetHuntington Station, NY 11746Tollfree: (800) 732-3758Phone: (516) 549-3000

E059 CLOZE PLUS E (Level 5)

E062 CLOZE PLUS H (Level 8)

E066 Reading Around Words Set G (Level 7)

E067 Reading Around Words Set H (Level 8)

E080 Comprehension Power Program SetCP-F (Level 6)

E083 Comprehension Power Program SetCP-I (Level 9)

Timeworks, Inc.444 Lake Cook RoadDeerfield, IL 60015Phone: (708) 559-1300

R049 Evelyn Wood Dynamic Reader

*Information current as of April 1995.R-Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

C.14 150

1 5S

Tom Snyder Productions80 Coolridge Hill RoadWatertown, MA 02172-2817Tollfree: (800) 342-0286Phone: (617) 926-6000

EH() Decisions, Decisions: Foreign PolicyElll Decisions, Decisions: ImmigrationE112 Group GrammarC047 Decisions, Decisions: EnvironmentC048 Decisions, Decisions: TelevisionC053 Decisions, Decisions: PrejudiceC054 Decisions, Decisions: AidC055 Decisions, Decisions: Substance AbuseC056 Decisions, Decisions: UrbanizationC058 Decisions, Decisions: Campaign TrailC062 Decisions, Decisions: Foreign Policy

Townsend PressPavilions at GreentreeMarlton, NJ 08053Phone: (609) 772-6410

R016 Ten Steps to Improving ReadingSkills

R036 Advancing Vocabulary SkillsR040 Building Vocabulary SeriesR055 Improving Vocabulary SkillsR069 Ten Steps to Building College

Reading SkillsR129 Ten Steps to Advancing College

Reading

True Basic Inc.12 Commerce AvenueWest Lebanon, NI-I 03784Tollfree: (800) 872-2742

M007 The Algebraic ProposerM019 Algebra - The Kemeny/Kurtz Math

SeriesM070 Arithmetic - Kemeny/Kurtz Math

SeriesM071 Pre-Calculus Kemeny/Kurtz Math

SeriesM084 Algebra I Part II

TusoftPost Office Box 9979Berkeley, CA 94709

M020 Expert Algebra TutorM039 Expert Tutor for Arithmetic

University Communications, Inc3895 Norht Business Center Drive, #120Tucson, AZ 85705Tonfree: (800) 876-8257Phone: (602) 888-3076

C066C067C068C069

Novanet: Study Skills Unit 3Novanet: Directions of ReasoningNovanet: Dictionary SkillsNovanet: Using Library References

VTAE1 Foundation CircleWaunakee WI 53597Phone: (608) 849-2424

M060 The Right Answer - InteractiveModumath (Basic Math)

* Information current as of April 1995.U-Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

151166

C.15

Ventura Educational Systems910 Ramona Avenue, Suite EGrover Beach, CA 93433-2154Tollfeee: (800) 336-1022Phone: (805) 473-7383

M091 Algebra ConceptsM092 Hands-On Math

W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.500 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10110Tollfree: (800) 233-4830Phone: (212) 354-5500

W032 Norton Textra 2.0

WEB Enterprizes1:c25 19th StreetBeaumont, TX 77706Phone: (409) 898-1983

C040 CASSIP

Wadsworth Publishing Company7625 Empire DriveFlorence, KY 41042Tollfree: (800) 423-0563

W011 Organize

Weaver Instructional Systems6161 28 Street S.E.Grand Rapids, MI 49546Tollfree: (800) 634-8916

R001 Speed and Strategy ReadingEfficiency System

R024 Reading Efficiency SystemR075 Supplement 1(t): Reading Efficiency

SystemW106 English Language Instructional

Systems: Grammar, UsageW107 Reading Efficiency System

West Publishing610 Opperman DriveSt. Paul, MN 551644)526Phone: (612) 687-8000

C061 Reading Enhancement &Development

Wisc-Ware1210 West Dayton StreetMadison, WI 53706Tollfree: (800) 543-3201

W060 Snowball

Writing Tools GroupOne Harbor Drive, Suite 11Sausalito, CA 94965

W096 Correct Grammar

Information current as of April 1995.R- Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

C.16 152

161

Xpercom3511 Bolivar, Apt. 310Dallas, TX 75220Phone: (214) 357-4660

W001 Thoughtline: The Intelligent Writer'sCompanion

Xpress P.S.S., Inc.10001 Meadow Brook Drive, #100Dallas, TX 75229Tollfree: (800) 613-7518

W112 Xpress Yourself: Artificial Intelligence

" Information Curren t as of April 19(6.R. Reading; W-Writing; M-Math; E-ESL; C-Critical Thinking/Study SkillsIf a software title is listed under a publisher more than once, then it has been reviewed in more than one discipline.

1531 6

C.17

Appendix D

Applications Software Descriptions

This section includes descriptions of software packages used by Miami-Dade Community Collegefaculty in their case studies presented on pages 28-76.

CSRdistributed by

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill936 Eastwind Drive

Westerville, OH 43081(614) 890-1111

CSR's Integrated Learning System (ILS)consists of curriculum software and theassociated management components. The CSRBasic Skills offerings include more than 400courses (modules) which teach individualreading, writing, and mathematics skills. Themodules are organized into five levels, Level Vrepresenting college-level skills.

Each CSR module begins with a pre-test. Ifstudents pass the pre-test, they are immediatelyreferred to the next module on the list. Ifstudents fail the pre-test, they are led into atutorial which offers an explanation of the topicand guides them through a number of step-by-step examples. The examples are followed by aseries of practice exercises in which the studentis asked to furnish correct responses. Incorrectresponses are met with helpful hints andsuggestions. Once the practice exercises havebeen completed, students are given a post-test.If they pass it, they are ushered to the nextmodule. If they fail the post-test, they are ledthrough the same tutorial a second time.Regardless of whether the student passes orfails the post-test the second time, the student ismoved to the next module. Only after all of themodules in the segment have been completed isthe student allowed to go through the failedmodule(s) a third and final time. All of thecourses are presented in color.

CSR's management components assist thefaculty in designing and deliveringpredetermined sequence of modules to theirstudents, keep track of the students tirne ontask and progress, and provide reporcs onindividual students as well as for the class.

D. I.

GUIDESdistributed by

Educational Testing ServicesPrinceton, NJ 08541

(609) 921-9(XX)

GUIDES contains two programs for Writingand Reading. Written Communication Skillsallows the students to access sixteenindependent units on ten topics, such asplanning and developing paragraphs,composition skills, and English fundamentalskills (noun, pronoun, agreement, verb usage,idiomatic usage, sentence completeness,subordinate clauses/phrases, and parallelstructures). All topics have diagnostic andfollow-up units. Reading Study Skills consists often independent units covering such topics asunderstanding text, textbook reference skills,memory, words in context, and prefixes andsuffixes. For each topic there is a diagnostic unitand a follow-up unit.

LEARNING 100distributed by

Educational Development LaboratoriesP.O. Box 210726

Columbia, SC 29221 *

(800) 227-1606

Designed for adult and ESL learners, Learning100 is organized into instructional units called"cycles." A cycle of instruction is a carefullyplanned sequence of integrated learningactivities which introduce, reinforce, and applyvocabulary and language skills, reading-comprehension skills, and writing skills. Theliteracy level covers 1.0 through 4.5, the ABEand Pre-GED levels cover 4.0 through 7.5, andthe GED level covers7.0 through 10.5.

154

.163

LEARNING PLUSdistributed by

Educational Testing Services33 S. Delaware Avenue, #202

Yardley, PA 19067(8(X)) 559-PLUS

Developed for learners who need help withbasic reading, writing, and mathematics skills,Learning Plus contains computer-baseddiagnostic tests, ongoing assessments, andindividualized instructional programs in eachcontent area. Math uses concrete models ratherthan drill and practice to build knowledge; itstresses estimation skills and uses such tools asnumber lines and bars, pattern and fractiongrids, protractors, calculators, line graphing,scatterploting, bar, circle, and pictographs.Reading teaches the principles used in thereciprocal reading approach: predicting,summarizing, clarifying, and questioning; itstresses understanding the main idea, monitorsreading comprehension, uses appropriatereading strategies, uses given information toinfer meaning, classifies ideas in a passage interms of their importance, determines flaws inan argument, and organizes information intographs, charts, or diagrams. Writing takes aprocess approach rather than teaching discreteskills; students write with an interactive writingprocessor that stresses how to prewrite, plan,draft, revise, edit, and evaluate 1. (hat has beenwritten.

MARK-UPdistributed by

Research Design Associates35 Crooked Hill Road, #2(X)

Commack, NY 11725(8(X)) 654-8715

Mark-Up comes in two forms, one for thefaculty and one for the student. The programprovides punctuation exercises for the studentsthat are fun and challenging. The student seessome text stripped of all punctuation and isexpected to add it with a trial-and-errorprocess. The program gives practice in applyingpunctuation rules and insights into whatpunctuation is used for. The program is dividedinto five levels, but the faculty can add morelevels, input new texts, and edit advice pages.

MICROSOFT WORKSdistributed by

Microsoft CorporationOne Microsoft Way

Redmond, WA 988052-6399(800) 426-94(X)

Some faculty members in writing start usingMicrosoft Works right away with their studentssince they are already familiar with word-processing programs. Students seem to adapt tothe program quite well with only a fewexceptions. During class, students write, revise,and print their essays in Microsoft Works; theirproficiency in using the software seems toimprove during the rest of the semester.However, there are times when some studentshave problems logging, writing to, or findingtheir files to continue with a particular writingassignment; nonetheless, most of them prefer touse the computer for their writing.

NORTON TEXTRA WRITERdistributed by

W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.500 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10110Tollfree: (800) 233-4830

As a word-processing program, NortonTEXTRA Write enables students to compose,type, edit, save, and print their documents.Norton also contains an on-line handbook thatoffers help in such topics as pre-writingstrategies, thesis development, essay structure,pre-writing strategies, thesis development,essay structures, organization of ideas,grammar, and punctuation.

ONE STEP AT A TIMEdistributed by

Heinle St Heinle20 Park Plaza

Boston MA 02116(617) 451-1940

One Step at a Time (Judth Garcia, MDCC) isbeing beta tested for publication. The softwarewas developed for intermediate ESOL writing

1551 6 4

112

students. It contains ten interactive tutorial-dri ll-test programs on such topics as adjectives,adverbs of frequency, controlling ideas, presentand present continuous tenses, pronouns andpossessive adjectives, and complete sentences.

PLATOdistributed by

The Roach Organization, Inc.2607 Oberlin Road, Suite 100

Raleigh, NC 27608(800) 869-2000

The PLATO curriculum is sequentially designedto reinforce skills previouly learned, yet eachlesson retains the ability to stand alone. Thismodularity allows faculty to design individualprograms according to each student's needs.

The Basic Literacy program (3 8 grade levelskills) in PLATO consists of 258 lessons inreading, 139 in writing, and 192 in mathematics.The Advanced Literacy program (9 12 gradelevel skills) consists of 82 lessons in reading, 87in writing, and 263 in mathematics.

The PLATO Curriculum Manager allows facultyto collect information on the status of students.Reports that show the progress of students, can beprinted. In addition, instructors can display all ofthe main modules or Routing Activities set up in thesystem to see what lessons are offered.

A Routing Activity is made up of a collection oflessons and tests. When students are registeredin a course, they can be assigned to a givenrouting activity. When students sign on, theywill be presented with a menu of options thatwill guide them through the lessons assigned tothem.

PRACTICAL GRAMMARdistributed by

Queue338 Commerce Dr.Fairfield, CT 06430

(203) 335-0906

Practical Grammar is a drill-and-practicesoftware that contains modules in Parts ofSpeech I & II, Sentences, Sentence Patterns,Nouns, Pronouns, Pronouns and Antecedents,Complements of Verbs, Case of Nouns andPronouns, Modifiers: Adjectives, Modifiers:Adverbs, Principal Parts of Verbs, and

l).3

Comprehensive Grammar Review. Theprogram contains a collection of activities forthe adult and ESL students who need specialinstruction in writing.

QUANTUM READING STRATEGIESdistributed by

EDLP. 0. Box 210726

Columbia, SC 29221(800) 227-1606

The Quantum Reading Series and the ReadingStrategies are reading-enrichment programsthat use high-interest stories to assist studentsin building rapid fluency in reading. Bothprograms build fluency while reinforcingvocabulary and comprehension skills. Theyinclude computerized tachistoscopic exercisesto develop perceptual accuracy by flashingwords faster or slower according to thestudent's responses, so a challenging rate can beconstantly maintained. The fluency training hasbuilt-in checks which allow students to adjustthe presentation rate within a story or from onestory to another. Literal and interpretivecomprehension checks are used to assess therecommended reading rate of the next story forthe students.

The Quantum Reading Series covers five gradelevels ranging from 10.5 through 13.5. TheReading Strategies series contains nine gradelevels spanning from 1.0 through 10.5. Eachgrade level in both software packages can berun independently with EDL's managementsystem, which keeps a record of students'activities that can be printed or displayed by thefaculty in monitoring and advising students ontheir progress.

REALTIME WRITERdistributed by

Realtime Learning Systems, Inc.2700 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008(202) 483-1510 or (800) 832-2472

Rea ltime Writer is a tool for interactive grouplearning in a computerized classroomenvironment.

156165

In its simplest use, the software controlling thecomputers divides the screen of each monitorinto two rectangular areas called windows. Astudent types a message in a private (lower)window dedicated to serving just that one student.When satisfied with the message, the studentpresses a key to send it to the public (upper)window that appears instantly on other students'screens. There, in a scrolling dialogue, it joinsmessages other students have sent.

Rather than having all students talk at once on thesame channel, during most sessions involvingmore than a handful of students, students will

typically be placed into small groups and willcommunicate within their group on a single

channel.

It is important to realize that teachers exercisedecision-making in initiating discussions, and toan extent they can control the direction of thatdiscourse. But there is also a dynamic at workwith this system which makes this classroomsetting very democratic. Functions are providedfor teacher-managed course material presentation,for recording and printing of class conversations,a.Aci for managing class rosters.

SKILLS BANKdistributed by

Skills Bank Corporation15 Governor's CourtBaltimore, MD 21244

Tolifree: (800) 84-SKILL

Skills Bank contains individ ualizedinstructional modules in several series: Reading(Vocabulary Building, Word Knowledge,

Reading Comprehension); Language

(Capitalization, Grammar and Usage,

Punctuation, Spelling); Mathematics (MathComputation, Math Concepts, Word Problems,Introduction to Geometry and Algebra);

Writing (Language Mechanics, LanguageUsage, Sentence Structure, Clear Writing and

Paragraphs); Study Skills (Using Dictionariesand Books, Using References, Using ConsumerInformation, Using Maps, Charts, and Graphs).Series include hundreds of lessons, quizzes,pretests, and posttests to develop and thenassess each student's skill level. Lessons arestructured with concept tutorials, practice andreinforcement questions, thinking-skills lessonsand reproducible worksheets and posttests.

WORD PERFECTdistributed by

Word Perfect Corporation1555 Technology WayOrm, Utah 84057-2399

(800) 451-5151

Word Perfect 6.0 for Windows is a powerfulword processor. It uses Windows commandswhere pointing and clicking the mouse executethe commands. Faculty assignments can beloaded to the fileserver and downloaded toeach student's working document. The

grammar check is useful in student essaywriting.

WRITER'S HELPER STAGE IIdistributed by

ConduitThe University of Iowa100 Oakdale Campus

Iowa City, 52252(800) 365-9774

Writer's Helper Stage II is a prewriting,writing, and revising package which workswith other word processors to teach the writingprocess. It offers nineteen prewriting andtwenty revision activities ranging from routineapproaches to writing innovative analyses. Theprewriting tools include Find, Explore, andOrganize, while revising tools includeStructure, Audience, and Checks.

157

1661) .4

Writer's Helper Stage 11 assists students infinding an appropriate topic, provides a methodof brainstorming through word-associationlists, and offers several techniques in paragraphdevelopment. The faculty are allowed to

modify, create, and update any of the lists tosuit particular topics and individual teachingstyles. Students are also allowed to export theirwriting to a word processor of their choicewhere they can continue making changes totheir essays.

WRITER'S PROWGUEdistributed by

SMP CoursewareSt. Martin's Press175 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10010(8(X)) 221-7945

As tht student drafts and revises assignmentsin Writer's Prologue, questions are providedwith expert step-by-step guidance through thedrafting and revision stages of the writingassignment. The program stimulates thinkingwhile the student masters the writing process.

D.5 158

167

Appendix E

Job DescriptionSoftware Implementation DirectorThe Software Implementation Director is required to provide technical and educational support forfaculty on all campuses to design and implement effective strategies for integrating teaching, learning,and technology and to evaluate the outcomes.

Regarding the technical aspect, the Software Implementation Director is expected to insure that theLocal Area Network (LAN) housed in each of the SYNERGY Centers is providing a conducive teachingand learning environment to faculty and students to concentrate on their task. This expectation requiresselecting the appropriate hardware and establishing the LAN, taking into consideration the needs ofdisabled students; in consultation with faculty, acquiring the appropriate software and installing it onthe LAN; implementing the necessary customization of hardware configuration and software to meetthe needs of the campuses; assisting the campuses to determine their future needs and helping them tomeet those needs; providing technical training for SYNERGY Center managers and tutors; minimizingnetwork problems, technical impediments, and interruptions in the SYNERGY Centers.Regarding the educational aspect, the Software Implementation Director is expected to offer faculty-development activities to help faculty understand the intricacies of the instructional software, determinethe appropriate ways to integrate it into the curriculum, and design research studies to evaluate theoutcomes. These activities include organized workshops as well as an on-going training program withindividual or small groups of faculty across a semester.

The Software Implementation Director is also expected to keep up with research literature on the impactof technology and teaching/learning, design ways to collect data for faculty research, conduct ananalysis of the data, provide feedback to faculty in a way to help them improve their uses of technology,and prepare research reports for dissemination.

In addition, the Software Implementation Director is expected to communicate with software publishersand negotiate with them to install their software on a pilot basis so that faculty can evaluate its qualityfor a semester or two with their students prior to making decisions to purchase the software.RequirementsA strong background in using technology for instruction, conducting faculty-development activities,installing and maintaining LANs, resolving compatibility issues with operating systems, and usingelectronic communication. A master's degree and three or four years of experience with a combinationof the technical and educational aspects of this job as described.PreferredFamiliarity with college-prep programs in general and those at Miami-Dade Community College inparticular.

Job DescriptionSoftware Implementation Assistant I

This individual will assist the collegewide Software Implementation Director in carrying out the

responsibilities associated with a SYNERGY Center. Illustrative duties include (but are not limited to)

ordering, installing, and maintaining hardware/software for the SYNERGY Centers; becoming

sufficiently familiar with PSI and the installed instructional software to assist faculty in exploring the

software; assisting in preparing materials for student and faculty orientation in the use of the SYNERGY

Center; managing the day-to-day operations of the SYNERGY Center; assisting students and faculty

when they use the SYNERGY Center; and collecting, compiling, and preparing data for analysis relative

to the evaluation studies conducted at the SYNERGY Centers.

RequirementsBachelor's degree in a computer-related curriculum and two years of experience with computer labs or

an equivalent combination of education and experience; and skills in interpersonal relations,

communications, and teamwork.

Experience in Netware and Windows and in working with underprepared college students.

E.2 1601 6

See You On The Web! )

Appendix F

World Wide WebMiami-Dade Community College is on theWorld Wide Web. Educational Technologies andProject SYNERGY have pages on MDCC's

WWW server. The picture below is the firstsection of the Educational Technologies HomePage.

Educational Technologies

Welcome to the Home Page of Educational Technologies (ET)

This is a new page on the Web. We will be modifying this page continually based on futuredevelopments.

We see this as a jumping-off point for finding out about ET. The links below can lead you toinformation about Ers purpose, goals, history, services, software, and on-going projects. Also,we provide information about whom to contact, and how, for additional information as wellas answers to your questions.

There are several ways to reach us on theWWW. Miami-Dade Community College can beaccessed at www. . mdcc . edu. There are links onthe college's home page to EducationalTechnologies and Project SYNERGY.

The URL's for accessing Miami-DadeCommunity College and EducationalTechnologies or Project SYNERGY directly are:

Miami-Dade Community College:

http://www.mdcc.edu

Educational Technologies:

http://www.mdcc.edu/edtech

Project SYNERGY:

http://www.mdcc.edu/synergy

161

170

Please feel free to call Carmen Torres (305-137-2695) if youare interested in:

Joining the Early Adopter Program for Project SYNERGYIntegra

vinintegrati

Sharing with us the results of your research efforts.

Well send you additional information .

uct faculty workshops on tedinology

BES:r c-mAYki,AuLE 162171