Tulsa Community College Achieving the Dream · 2015-01-06 · Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 2 STEP 4 – Evaluate and Assess the Impact of the Intervention(s) By assessing

Tulsa Community College – Achieving the Dream

Reading Focus Group Data Report

April 2009

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

This document reports the analysis of student focus group qualitative data collected to examine

the reasons TCC students have difficulty succeeding in developmental reading courses.

Achieving the Dream (AtD) is a multiyear national effort to help community college students

succeed. This effort focuses on student groups that traditionally have faced significant barriers to

success, including students of color and low-income students. TCC is working to increase the

percentage of students who accomplish the following five goals:

successfully complete the courses students take;

advance from remedial to credit-bearing courses;

enroll in and successfully complete gatekeeper courses;

enroll from one semester to the next;

earn degrees and/or certificates.

TCC has targeted three primary areas for study and improvement.

(2007-08) Persistence

(2008-09) Developmental reading

(2009-10) Developmental mathematics

Each target area will go through a FOUR-STEP PROCESS for making data-informed decisions.

STEP 1 – What’s Wrong?

Quantitative data provided by Planning and Institutional Research identifies areas of

weakness.

STEP 2 -- Why Is the Problem Happening?

Focus groups are conducted with both faculty and students to gather qualitative data that

address the barriers/challenges faculty and students encounter in this target area. In

addition, the groups capture the knowledge and actions faculty, staff and students utilized

to overcome these challenges/barriers.

STEP 3 – Design, Build, and Implement Intervention(s)

Data-informed decisions are made by faculty and staff.

Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 2

STEP 4 – Evaluate and Assess the Impact of the Intervention(s)

By assessing interventions, we assess formatively and summatively the progress toward

increasing persistence and improving success. Interventions are modified based on

assessment findings.

As a part of Step 1, quantitative data were collected from 5,334 first-time freshmen in the cohort

enrolled 2004-2006.

68% of Reading I and II students successfully completed Reading I or II in their

first year.

Success is defined as earning a grade of ―C‖ or better.

Step 2 required investigating ‗why‘ some students were having difficulty succeeding in

developmental reading courses. TCC Achieving the Dream conducted student focus groups to

discover the challenges and barriers students faced while taking developmental reading.

METHODOLOGY

Focus groups for developmental reading students were conducted during October and November

2008. A total of 36 focus groups, disaggregating into 16 Reading I and 20 Reading II focus

groups, were led by 9 trained facilitators from TCC‘s Achieving the Dream Data Team. All

campuses completed at least eight focus groups with the exception of West Campus, which held

seven focus groups, comprising100% of Reading I and II classes at that campus. All focus

groups were held during class time with all enrolled students in selected classes having the

opportunity to participate. One eight-week class was included in the data set. All other sections

were 16-week classes. Twenty-six day and ten evening classes were selected. Thirteen groups

were conducted with classes taught by full-time faculty, and twenty-three groups were conducted

with classes taught by part-time faculty.

Data collected in each focus group included barriers (or challenges) to success in completing

Reading I or Reading II, as identified by developmental reading students. In addition, students

related for each barrier the knowledge, actions, changes and what currently works at TCC.

After Data Team facilitators transcribed their focus group data into spreadsheets, a

comprehensive developmental reading spreadsheet was created with 444 barrier items. To begin

the process of analyzing the data, a modified Q-sort was conducted on all barrier items by each

data team member. Each barrier item was classified into a broader barrier type. From the results

of this Q-sort, the barrier items were sorted into either reading barriers or persistence barriers.

The reading barrier items were analyzed first to provide reading faculty results from which to


develop interventions for their developmental reading courses. After further analysis of the

reading barrier items, each barrier item was sorted into larger barrier types and finally into

common barrier subtypes.

DATA

As a result of these focus groups, 444 barriers to Reading I and II were identified. Of these, 180

(41%) barrier items were specifically related to Reading I and II classes, and 264 (59%) were

related to persistence. Barrier items specifically related to reading classes were categorized by

type and then subtype.

For the 180 Barrier Items, twelve Barrier Types with corresponding Subtypes were identified.

The table below lists the twelve Barrier Types and their frequency counts. A corresponding pie

chart listing the percentages found for each Barrier Type has also been given.

BARRIER TYPES

Total

Number Campus

MC NEC SEC WC

Insufficient reading skill 25 8 10 6 1

Negative Attitudes 24 4 2 8 10

Amount/scheduling of work 21 7 7 6 1

Reading Lab work 20 9 7 3 1

Level/intensity of class work 19 4 0 11 4

Instructor/instructor policy

concerned

15 2 4 6 3

Study habits/skills 13 5 3 2 3

Computers 11 2 4 2 3

Readings/textbook 9 2 3 4 0

Attention/focus 9 1 1 4 3

Format/scheduling of class

period

8 4 2 0 2

Placement in courses 6 2 0 3 1

TOTAL 180

items

50 43 55 32

TABLE 1. Barrier Types with corresponding frequency counts for 180 Reading Barrier Items.


Placement in courses3%

Attention/Focus5%

Format/Scheduling of class period

5%

Readings/Textbook

5%

Computers6%

Study habits/ Skills7%

Instructor/ Instructor policy concerns

8%

Reading Lab work11%

Level/Intensity of class work11%

Amount/ Scheduling of work12%

Negative Attitudes13%

Insufficient reading skills14%

Developmental Reading Barrier Types

CHART 1: Barrier Types with corresponding percentages for 180 Reading Barrier Items


Reading Barriers by Frequency: Fall 2008

I. Insufficient reading skills (25 barriers)

A. Reading with purpose (9 barriers)

1. Skimming and looking at the pictures instead of reading everything

2. Chapter 5: Locating the Main Idea

3. Comprehension (knowing what you are reading)

4. Understanding what you have read (not doing passive reading)

5. Challenge with reading comprehension

6. Challenge with reading, knowing how to read, ability to read.

7. Problem with summarizing what I just read

8. Challenge with comprehension.

9. Challenge with reading comprehension

B. Other reading techniques (8 barriers)

1. Maintaining what I read; remembering

2. Not being taught to read in high school; rusty when entering college

3. Challenging with writing (problem: giving more details, examples)

4. Problem with speed of reading

5. Problem with taking notes on each chapter

6. Challenge with not watching movie instead of reading book

7. Challenge with not learning Reading II information to apply to other

classes (Comp I)

8. Not having time to do required assignments; therefore, students don't

come to class

C. Identifying/using vocabulary (6 barriers)

1. Vocabulary when reading articles and understanding them

2. Challenge with vocabulary

3. Challenge with amount of vocabulary

4. Challenge with understanding where words go in the sentence/paragraph

5. Challenge with vocabulary, not having enough

6. Challenge with memorizing vocabulary words

D. Reading aloud (2 barriers)

1. Requirement to read aloud in a group (feel not smart)

2. Challenge with reading aloud in class

II. Negative attitudes (24 barriers)

A. Disliking the reading class (10 barriers)

1. Doing work on the computer

2. Attendance-not necessary if you already know what you're going to do

3. Poor attitude towards class

4. Staying motivated

5. Challenge with attending class

6. Challenge with missing class

7. Challenge with getting in the mood to learn

8. Challenge with staying motivated in Reading II


9. Laziness especially in doing homework

10. Challenge coming to class

B. Zero-level course attitudes (7 barriers)

1. Not a credit course

2. Challenge of taking zero level course

3. Being in class is a "downer"; Reading I is a "zero" level; all that work still

adds up to "nothing"

4. Problem with class is a waste of time (not required) low priority

5. Problem with other classes for credit are more important

6. Challenge with not taking class seriously because it's zero level

7. It is a zero level class, and why do I have to take it?

C. Disliking to read (4 barriers)

1. Not liking to read

2. Reading is boring

3. Challenge that some people do not like to read

4. Problem with not liking to read

D. Negative attitude toward taking a reading class (3 barriers)

1. Students don't think they need this class

2. Challenge with understanding why they need to take Reading II at all

3. Challenge with some students feeling Reading II doesn't help with

Composition class

III. Amount/scheduling of work (21 barriers)

A. Too much school work (11 barriers)

1. Lots of homework

2. A lot of homework

3. SRA's (time consuming; balancing with Lab)

4. Amount of work (number of tests)

5. Lots of reading at one time

6. Too much work

7. Challenge with lots of homework

8. Challenge with overload of so much work to do at once.

9. A lot of questions to answer in homework

10. Workload is too much; not enough time to complete work then students

drop out because deadlines can't be met

11. Challenge with overwhelming amount of work

B. Scheduling time for assignments (10 barriers)

1. Keeping up with a lot of assignments

2. Keeping up with the routine [of the reading course]

3. Problem with being overwhelmed

4. Challenge with being able to do homework

5. Challenge finding time to do homework

6. Challenge getting homework in on time

7. Difficulty keeping up with work

8. Problem handling Reading work load


9. Keeping up with homework demands

10. Turnaround time between assignments too short

IV. Reading Lab work (20 barriers)

A. Lab work outside class time (16 barriers)

1. Getting the 1-hour lab done each week, with other responsibilities

2. Labs

3. Reading Lab--getting the lab done weekly

4. Attendance

5. Mastery Tests (making sure you get your points; the stress of getting it

right)

6. Reading Lab closed

7. Keeping up with labs

8. Completing 2 hrs of lab (1 hour on my own time); (redundant,

inconvenient, too much)

9. Mastery Tests are duplicates for the book & computer

10. Challenge with having time for lab work

11. Problem finishing lab assignments before required time is up

12. Challenge with coming back for lab on own time after class.

13. Problem with time to do labs

14. Problem: Requiring students to even go to Lab

15. Assignments are required in both Writing I and Speed Reading that

require going to Writing Lab for 1-2 hours/wk; should be able combine

required times; can't bring children in Lab so requires daycare to do

homework; computer-based programs not helpful

16. Challenge with cost to come back to campus (to study/use Lab)

B. Lab uninteresting/waste of time (3 barriers)

1. Challenge with lab being boring & waste of time

2. Work in Lab seems like a waste of time.

3. Problem with lab and grading yourself. Pointless

C. Confusing Lab instructions (1 barrier)

1. Confused about instructions (lab, in general instructions)

V. Level/intensity of work (19 barriers)

A. Too difficult (5 barriers)

1. Not an easy class; hard to figure out what to do in the book

2. Teachers expect students to know too much

3. Work is too difficult

4. Challenge with vocabulary; too many

5. Subject too difficult - students give up

B. Too easy (9 barriers)

1. Too easy

2. Problem that curriculum is not challenging

3. Class is too easy.

4. Content not challenging; worksheets too easy; content doesn't seem to

relate to preparation of Comp I.


5. Laziness because it's time consuming and so easy

6. Challenge with vocabulary is too easy and boring

7. Difficulty with class being too easy (but still learning)

8. Challenge with busy work

9. Class makes me feel dumb; it is too easy, too much like high school.

C. Uninteresting (4 barriers)

1. Class is too boring.

2. Boring class activities same; not learning anything substantial

3. Material not capturing student's attention (doesn‘t seem relevant)

4. Class is too boring.

VI. Instructor/instructor policy concerns (15 barriers)

A. Instructor concerns (8 barriers)

1. Understanding what the teacher wants

2. Some students may not like the teacher

3. Schedule for class-not set for the semester; scheduling of too many

assignments in a short period of time

4. Doesn't talk to us like we are adults; repetition not necessary of

directions "over and over"

5. Contacting instructor outside of class for a face-to-face meeting is

difficult, especially if help is needed

6. Students who have unenthusiastic teachers are not encouraged to stay

motivated

7. Challenge with instructor being absent

8. Challenge with being able to relate with the teacher (gets off subject)

B. Policy or instructional concerns (7 barriers)

1. Maintaining a decent grade

2. Challenge with understanding how final exam works (not required to take

final)

3. Challenge not all teachers use Blackboard

4. Challenge knowing your current grade

5. Policies are a problem: make up exam, quizzes, and assignments

6. Challenge with lectures the entire class period

7. Problem with teachers not knowing how to use Blackboard. And not

knowing TCC lingo.

VII. Study habits/skills (13 barriers)

A. Managing study time for reading (11 barriers)

1. Challenge balancing Reading II study with other classes

2. Procrastination

3. Time management

4. Finding time to read (need to spend time on reading)

5. Getting behind when you miss class (hard to catch up)

6. Problem finding time to study for all the tests

7. Problem with time management (work, family-related)

8. Time management


9. Problem with getting behind schedule

10. Challenge with keeping up with the work

11. Challenge with prioritizing assignments

B. Retaining content (2 barriers)

1. Remembering the information in the assigned time

2. Challenge with retaining the information

VIII. Computers (11 barriers) (access, skills, assignments, requirements)

A. Computer skills (4 barriers)

1. Using computers (older students might not like them; some people know

how to use computers but prefer not to use them; some don't have access;

some can't afford one)

2. Not knowing how to use a computer in the Reading Lab

3. Challenge with computer skills

4. Challenge with patience in computer skills

B. No access to computer outside school (3 barriers)

1. Challenge with not having a computer at home so you have to do the work

here

2. Challenge with computer access

3. No money for a computer, and students are dependent upon school

computers, but closed after evening classes.

C. Knowing how to complete assignments online (2 barriers)

1. Challenge of doing work online compared to bringing in on paper (finding

things online)

2. Difficulty with using computer; problem with Townsend Press

D. Blackboard issues (2 barriers)

1. Problem with Blackboard being required (no communication of

homework being posted [on Blackboard])

2. Difficulty with computer issues (slow home computer)

IX. Attention/focus (9 barriers)

A. Maintaining focus in class (4 barriers)

1. Challenge with staying focused

2. Problem with staying focused

3. Challenge with paying attention in class

4. Challenge with paying attention in night class

B. Learning disabilities (3 barriers)

1. Challenge with learning disabilities

2. Problem with dyslexia

3. Challenge with dyslexia


C. Distractions in class (2 barriers)

1. Classmates are distracting in class

2. Problem with students talking a lot in class, not about reading

X. Readings/textbook (9 barriers)

A. Reading materials (7 barriers)

1. Don't get to read what you like to read

2. Book is boring! Reading selections are dull, boring.

3. Problem that reading assignments are boring/not interesting

4. Obstacle with book is too simple.

5. Problem with reading boring books

6. Reading book (The Firm) was boring.

7. Problem motivating myself to read especially if the book is not interesting

B. Miscellaneous textbook issues (2 barriers)

1. Reading the books that will prepare you in the class

2. Problem that some stories are too long

XI. Format/scheduling of class period (8 barriers)

A. Problems with 8-week format (4 barriers)

1. 8-week format; jammed information; pressure of accelerated classes

2. In 8-week class, only touch on main topics

3. The 8-week class meeting time is three hours long—boring

4. The 8-week class is hard for the subject of reading

5. Problem adjusting to longer class periods

6. Challenge with being in class for 3 hours straight

7. Difficulty with not enough breaks in a one night per week class

8. Challenge with class being one night per week

XII. Placement in courses (6 barriers)

A. Placement (6 barriers)

1. Students moving at different paces

2. Some might not be ready for Reading II, if they didn't take Reading I

3. Placement tests are not reflective of student's ability

4. Challenge with placement test

5. CPT placement test is boring, long, and tedious.

6. Challenge with the placement test

DATA ANALYSIS


The focus group data were analyzed by:

(I) Campus;

(II) Reading I versus Reading II;

(III) Day versus evening time; and

(IV) Full-time faculty versus part-time faculty.

OVERALL FINDINGS

Overall, the Barrier Types including Insufficient reading skills, Negative attitudes, Amount/Scheduling of

work, Reading Lab work, and Instructor/Instructor policy concerns were the Barrier Types of greatest

frequency. Lab work outside class time, a Subtype of Reading Lab work, was the Barrier Subtype with

the highest frequency. No significant differences at the 95% confidence level occurred between Reading

I and II classes, day and evening classes, or classes taught by full-time or part-time classes.

As a note, ―significance‖ is a statistical term used to describe how sure one is that a difference or

relationship exists. Significant relationships can be strong or weak. Significant differences can

be large or small. Robustness of statistics depends on several factors including design, method,

and sample size. In this analysis, no statistically significant differences between comparison

groups were evidenced at the 95% confidence level.

In most comparisons conducted for this analysis, frequency and percent occurrences are similar

and evidence face validity. In a few cases, both frequency and percent occurrence appear

disparate; however, no comparison resulted in a statistically significant difference. For these

latter comparisons, further research is called for in subsequent analysis.

I. Analysis by Campus

The following Barrier Types were mentioned on all four campuses:

Insufficient reading skills (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 25 times.)

Negative Attitudes (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 24 times.)

Amount/Scheduling of work (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 21 times.)

Reading Lab work (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 20 times.)

Instructor/Instructor policy concerns (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 15

times.)

Study habits/skills (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 13 times.)

Computers (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 11 times.)


Attention/Focus (Focus groups mentioned barriers of this type 9 times.)

Although not mentioned at the NEC, Level/Intensity of class work was mentioned 19 times

college-wide.


Table 1 (found earlier in the document – duplicated here) describes the specific Barrier Types

frequency counts by Campus.

BARRIER TYPES

Total

Count

Campus

MC NEC SEC WC

Amount/scheduling of work 21 7 7 6 1

Attention/focus 9 1 1 4 3

Negative attitudes 24 4 2 8 10

Computers 11 2 4 2 3


period 8 4 2 0 2


concerned 15 2 4 6 3

Reading Lab work 20 9 7 3 1

Level/intensity of class work 19 4 0 11 4


Insufficient reading skills 25 8 10 6 1

Readings/textbook 9 2 3 4 0

Study habits/skills 13 5 3 2 3

TOTAL 180

items 50 43 55 32

TABLE 1. Barrier Types with corresponding frequency counts for 180 Reading Barrier Items.




The following Barrier Subtypes were mentioned on each campus:

Lab work outside class time from ―Reading Lab work‖ (mentioned 16 times)

Too much school work from ―Amount/Scheduling of work‖ (mentioned 11 times)

Managing study time from ―Study habits/skills‖ (mentioned 11 times)

Other reading techniques from ―Insufficient reading skills‖ (mentioned 8 times)

Policy or Instructional Concerns from ―Instructor/Instructor policy concerns‖

(mentioned 7 times)

Although not mentioned at NEC, Motivation was mentioned 10 times college-wide, and

although not mentioned at WC, Scheduling time for assignments was mentioned 10 times

college-wide.

No individual Barrier Item was mentioned on all campuses.

BARRIER TYPES BARRIER

SUBTYPES

Total

Count

Campus

MC NEC SEC WC

Amount/ scheduling of

work

21

Too much school work 11 5 3 2 1

Scheduling time for

assignments 10 2 4 4 0

Attention/focus 9

Maintaining focus in class 2 0 1 3 4

Learning disabilities 3 0 1 2 0

Distractions in class 2 1 0 1 0

Negative attitudes 24

Disliking the reading class

(Motivation) 10 1 0 4 5

Zero-level course attitudes 7 1 0 3 3

Disliking to read 4 2 2 0 0

Negative attitude toward

taking a reading class 3 0 0 1 2

Computers 11

Knowing how to complete

assignments online 2 0 0 1 1

Computer skills 4 2 2 0 0


Blackboard Issues 2 0 1 0 1


No access to computers

outside of classroom 3 0 1 1 1

Format/scheduling of

class period

8

Problems with 8-week

format 4 4 0 0 0

Problems with 3-hour class

session 4 0 2 0 2

Instructor/ instructor

policy concerned

15

Instructor concerns 8 1 0 5 2

Policy or Instructional

concerns 7 1 4 1 1

Reading Lab work 20

Lab work outside class

time 16 9 4 2 1

Lab uninteresting/waste of

time 3 0 2 1 0

Confusing lab instructions 1 0 1 0 0

Level/intensity of class

work

19

Too hard 6 2 0 3 1

Too easy 9 2 0 4 3

Uninteresting 4 0 0 4 0


Insufficient reading

skills

25

Reading with Purpose 9 4 2 3 0

Identifying/Using

vocabulary 6 1 5 0 0

Other reading techniques 8 2 2 3 1

Reading aloud 2 1 1 0 0

Readings/textbook 9

Reading materials 7 1 2 4 0

Misc. textbook issues 2 1 1 0 0


Study habits/skills 13

Managing study time 4 2 2 3

Retaining content 1 1 0 0

TOTAL 180 items 50 43 55 32

TABLE 2: Subtype Analysis by Campus

II. Reading I versus Reading II Analysis

All Barrier Types were mentioned in both Reading I and Reading II:

Although no statistically significant differences resulted between these two courses (using

Chi Square and a 95% confidence level), Reading I resulted in higher frequency of

Insufficient reading skills mentioned, and Reading II resulted in higher frequency of

Negative attitudes mentioned.

BARRIER TYPES

Total

Count

Reading

I

Reading

II

Amount/scheduling of work 21 9 12

Attention/focus 9 8 1

Negative attitudes 24 7 17

Computers 11 3 8


period 8 2 6


concerned 15 6 9

Reading Lab work 20 11 9

Level/intensity of class work 19 11 8

Placement in courses 6 4 2

Insufficient reading skills 25 15 10

Readings/textbook 9 6 3

Study habits/skills 13 5 8

TOTAL 180 87 93

TABLE 3: Breakdown of Reading I versus Reading II Analysis



The following Barrier Subtypes were mentioned in both Reading I and Reading II:

(Differences were not statistically significant)

Amount/Scheduling of work

Too much school work (mentioned 11 times)

Scheduling time for assignments (mentioned 10 times)

Attention/Focus

Maintaining Focus (mentioned 4 times)

Negative attitudes

Disliking reading (mentioned 4 times)


Zero-level course attitude (mentioned 7 times)

Motivation (mentioned 10 times)

Negative attitude towards reading classes (mentioned 3 times)

Computers

Computer skills (mentioned 4 times)

No access to computers outside of classroom (mentioned 3 times)


Problems with 8-week format (mentioned 4 times)

Problems with 3-hour class session (mentioned 4 times)

Instructor/Instructor policy concerns

Instructor concerns (mentioned 8 times)

Policy or instructional concerns (mentioned 7 times)

Reading Lab work

Lab work outside class time (mentioned 16 times)

Confusing lab instructions (mentioned 3 times)

Level/Intensity of class work

Too hard (mentioned 6 times)

Too easy (mentioned 9 times)

Uninteresting (mentioned 4 times)

Placement in courses

Placement (mentioned 6 times)

Insufficient reading skills

Reading with purpose (mentioned 9 times)

Identifying/Using Vocabulary (mentioned 6 times)

Other reading technique issues (mentioned 8 times)

Readings/textbook

Reading materials (mentioned 7 times)


Misc. reading technique issues (mentioned 8 times)

Study habits/skills

Managing study time (mentioned 11 times)

No individual Barrier Item was mentioned in both Reading I and Reading II.

III. Day and Evening Class Analysis

All Barrier Types were mentioned in both day time and evening classes.

No statistically significant differences occurred for this variable. However, students in day classes

mentioned Amount/Scheduling of work, Level/Intensity of class work, and Study habits/skills


with higher frequency. Students in evening classes mentioned Instructor/Instructor policy

concerns with higher frequency.

BARRIER TYPES

Total

Count Day Evening




Computers 11 9 2


period 8 5 3


concerned 15 10 5







TOTAL 180 139 41

TABLE 3: Breakdown of Day versus Evening Analysis



The following Barrier Subtypes were mentioned in both Day and Evening classes:

(Differences were not statistically significant).

Amount/ Scheduling of work


Attention/Focus

Learning disabilities (mentioned 3 times)


Maintaining focus (mentioned 4 times)

Negative Attitudes


Zero-level course attitude (mentioned 7 times)


Computers





Instructor/Instructor Policy Concerns



Reading Lab work


Lab uninteresting/waste of time (mentioned 3 times)






Insufficient reading Skills


Identifying/Using vocabulary (mentioned 6 times)

Other reading techniques (mentioned 8 times)

Readings/textbook


Misc. textbook issues (mentioned 2 times)

Study habits/skills


No individual Barrier Item was mentioned in both Day and Evening classes.

IV. Full-time versus Part-time Faculty Analysis

Most Barrier Types were mentioned in classes with both part-time and full-time faculty.

No statistically significant differences resulted. However, focus groups of full-time faculty

mentioned Amount/Scheduling of work, Reading Lab work, and Study habits/skills with


higher frequency suggesting practical significance. Further, Level/Intensity of class work

was mentioned with higher frequency by focus groups of part-time faculty.

BARRIER TYPES

Total

Count

Full-Time

Faculty

Part-Time

Faculty




Computers 11 6 5


period 8 4 4


concerned 15 5 10







TOTAL 180 66 114

TABLE 4: Breakdown of Full-Time versus Part-Time Faculty Analysis



Most Barrier Subtypes were mentioned in classes with both part-time and full-time faculty.

Although not statistically significant, students from classes taught by full-time faculty

reported Too much school work, Scheduling time for assignments, and Managing study

time with higher percent frequency than did students from classes taught by part-time

faculty.

The following Barrier Subtypes were mentioned in both Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty

classes: (Differences were not statistically significant).

Amount /Scheduling of work



Scheduling time for assignments (mentioned 10 times)

Negative attitudes



Computers

Knowing how to complete assignments online (mentioned 2 times)


Blackboard issues (mentioned 2 times)



Problem with 8-week format (mentioned 4 times)


Instructor/Instructor policy concerns



Reading Lab work


Lab uninteresting/waste of time (mentioned 3 times)




Uninteresting (mentioned 4 times)



Insufficient reading skills



Other reading techniques (mentioned 8 times)

Reading aloud (mentioned 2 times)

Readings/textbook


Misc. textbook issues (mentioned 2 times)

Study habits/skills


No individual Barrier Item was mentioned in both full-time and part-time faculty‘s

classes.


NEXT STEPS

The following steps are recommended to the reading faculty.

1. Review Complete Reading Focus Group Data--2008.

Barriers to student success in Reading I and Reading II

Percentage of students estimated to be affected by barriers

Student Knowledge needed to overcome barriers

Student Action Strategies used to overcome barriers

Suggested Changes to courses

List of What Works today (definitely do not discontinue these things!)

2. Review persistence barriers from 2008 focus groups and from Reading I & II

classes.

3. Using data analysis findings, develop the intervention(s) for Reading I and

Reading II.

What changes are needed? Which changes will make the greatest positive impact?

Class interventions

Policy changes

4. Implement the intervention(s).

How and when will changes be made? How will changes be communicated?

5. Assess intervention (formatively and summatively) and adapt the intervention.

• Student feedback

• Other formative assessments

• Change in retention

• Change in college-level gateway course success

• Change in graduation rate

• Other summative assessments

Based on assessment results, how will the intervention be modified?

Tulsa Community College Achieving the Dream · 2015-01-06 · Reading Focus Group Data Report--April 2009 2 STEP 4 – Evaluate and Assess the Impact of the Intervention(s) By assessing

Documents