Packing Slip 
item |
Learn to Coach & Coach to Learn |
contact |
Debra Glasper (Scottsdale Community College) debra.glasper@sccmail.maricopa.edu |
credits |
Gene Fazio |
college(s) |
Mesa Community College Scottsdale Community College |
discipline(s) |
College Success Strategies and English |
summary |
Learning Grant partnered with a MCC literacy program blending the use of student success strategies with enhancement of writing skills. Personalized tutoring & a methodology of coaching literacy, sought to reinforce success strategies, improve literacy & increase tutors trained in the methodology. |
details |
The grant project was intended to; reinforce student's application of college success strategies, and improve reading and writing literacy, as well as, develop a cadre of student tutors trained in the methodology of "coaching literacy," developed by MCC English instructor, Gene Fazio, to create a self-sustaining system of personalized tutoring. The initial target population, for this tutor development, was student athletes who were academically under-prepared to successfully complete college level curriculum. The project would then continue the development of student tutors through enrollment in CPD282AA, Volunteerism for Counseling & Development (CPD), which would credit the tutors with Service Learning experience as they tutored students enrolled in CPD195AB, Special Topics, where college success strategies would be developed and reinforced. Enrollment recruitment for CPD195AB would again target academically under-prepared students. Additional goals of the grant were; to revise the writing models and assignments of the MCC coaching literacy program so that their focus was on student success strategies, provide opportunities for students to engage in self-reflection on their personal application of these strategies, while simultaneously strengthening literacy skills, and to connect SCC student tutors with Professor Fazio's Literacy 2010 project. ------------------------------------------------------------ How did the project improve, advance, or enhance student learning? Please provide specific examples. ------------------------------------------------------------ Students participating in the project showed a number of improvements in their writing including increases in length of words per sentence (WPS), total word count per writing assignment (WC), and increases in the reading grade level (RGL) of their writing as rated by the Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level score which is based upon a formula of (.39 x ASL) + (11.8 x ASW)- 15.59 where: ASL =average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences) and ASW = average of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by the number of words). A grade of 8.0 for example means that an eight grader can understand the document. The aim for most standard documents is a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0. Expectations for college level reading/writing would be substantially higher. The Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level Score and other readability statistics are accessible from the Tools > Options menu of MS Word. Some examples of the increases on pre-post writing assignments follow: Single sentence comparisons: Pre – WPS = 6, RGL = .5 Vs Post - WPS = 12, RGL = 4.8 Pre – WPS = 8, RGL = .8 Vs Post - WPS = 13, RGL = 4.0 Pre – WPS = 9, RGL = 3.6 Vs Post - WPS = 15, RGL = 9.9 Pre – WPS =10, RGL = 3.6 Vs Post - WPS = 18, RGL = 7.8 Pre – WPS =13, RGL = 3.0 Vs Post - WPS = 19, RGL = 6.1 Pre – WPS =17, RGL = 6.3 Vs Post - WPS = 19, RGL = 9.2 Short Essay Comparison: Pre - WC=72, WPS=10.2, RGL=3.1 VS Post - WC=175, WPS=18.5, RGL=9.4 Students also reported increased willingness and comfort to write. Following the "coaching literacy" curriculum, students repetitively completed simple practices modeled by writing frameworks, written examples and personal tutors. Students were able to better understand and create longer and more complex sentences and to self-evaluate what was “missing” in their writing as compared to these models. The repetitive and individually coached practices enabled students to enhance the creativity of their writing by including mental images created by: describing physical and character traits, and emotional and physical sensations of people, places and things; describing “how” actions were occurring and describing when and where actions were taking place. Students were guided to “see” the functions of parts of speech. Students were also guided to see how thoughts are structured and organized in written models and to practice structuring and organizing their own thought in writing assignments that targeted their personal interest areas, such as sports, and college success strategies such as the benefits of studying regularly and managing their time effectively. ------------------------------------------------------------ How did you evaluate your project's success? What did it tell you? ------------------------------------------------------------ My evaluation of the project’s success is based upon the following variables: A) achievement of resources, B) use of Funding, C) project coordination, D) project collaborations and E) student outcomes. My overall evaluation of this project is that it was unsuccessful, however, the increases in the writing levels of participants, especially for under prepared students, demonstrate the strength of the “coaching literacy” program and tell me to remain committed to utilizing this methodology to intervene with the needs and situations of under-prepared students as described in the application for this grant. Looking at the specific variables identified for evaluation results are as follows: A) Achievement of resources - Unsuccessful Initial funding - Unsuccessful MCCCD could not, as determined by policy, provide requested dollars to fund payment for student tuition to enroll in CPD282AA or 195AB or to tutor other students. Outside funding - Unsuccessful Anticipated additional funding from the Pulliam Foundation was not received which again prevented the funding of student tuition for enrollment in CPD282AA and CPD 195AB. Internal (SCC Campus) funding - Partially successful Following internal solicitations, the project received funding from the Vice President for Student Services that could be used to pay student tutors, however approval for this funding was not received until close to the end of the Spring Semester 2004 which delayed recruitment of project participants. As a result only one student was recruited for the initial tutor training when five participants were anticipated in the grant’s plan. B) Use of funding - Unsuccessful Much of the funding was unused including: coordinator funds, which were halted early Spring Semester 2005 as it became apparent that further project activities were not feasible to attain; part-time wage funding, due to an inability to recruit reliable assistance; and tutoring funds due to a lack of project participants trained to tutor. C) Project coordination: Unsuccessful The project coordinator’s unanticipated change in work assignment to division chair, exceptional challenges during the academic year, absence of a scheduled means for instructional delivery, and a series of family crises, severely inhibited the coordinator’s available time and attention for the project’s coordination. D) Project Collaborations: Partially Successful The SCC Athletic department demonstrated support to the project in the form of repeated participation by the head football coach and one student in the five day “coaching literacy” program facilitated by MCC English instructor, Gene Fazio. Personal experience in this program powerfully demonstrated the program’s ability to positively affect literacy skills. Still additional participation by other student athletes was hampered by the timing of the initial recruitment and by the lack of funding for students to enroll in CPD classes for project participation. Two additional student athletes began the project, but neither student completed the training. Time limitations balancing coursework and team practice were among contributing factors for non-completion. The SCC English department communicated support for the project from the time of its development into a grant proposal. After recruitment of student athletes was unsuccessful, English instructors assisted in the recruitment of student participants during the Spring 2005. E) Student Outcomes: Partially Successful Lack of student participation prevented the accomplishment of original evaluation plans which involved comparisons between participants and students from control groups. Other evaluation plans involved pre post comparisons of writing assignments and as indicated above these comparisons all demonstrate increases in the writing literacy. Although some of the Spring Semester participants recruited by English instructors did not fit the projects’ profile of participants, that of academically under-prepared targets, each of them experienced increases in the Flesh-Kincaid grade level of their writing, indicating a benefit of the program to all skill levels. ------------------------------------------------------------ What is your plan to share this project with others? ------------------------------------------------------------ I will share the results of this project via a written report and a short presentation during the Fall 2005 semester with a variety of campus entities including; counseling division, athletic division, English department, division chairs, faculty senate, and student services managers. I will submit a written report to SCC administrators and also share project results with MCC English instructor Gene Fazio. ------------------------------------------------------------ What, if anything, will happen in the future with this project? ------------------------------------------------------------ I will continue to implement facets of this project that are not dependent upon external resources. I will take feasible opportunities to integrate "coaching literacy" methodologies into; course assignments of CPD classes I instruct, college success strategy interventions utilized in individual counseling sessions I conduct. I will examine the effectiveness of these integrations and share the results with others on campus. I will utilize voluntary participation of students as tutors as toturs are an essential component of this program and the reinforcement of skills through the repetition of practice as a tutor was apparent. I will examine the effectiveness of these integrations and share the results with appropriate entities of the campus in the hope of expansions of these methodologies to other instructors. ------------------------------------------------------------ What, if anything, would you do differently? ------------------------------------------------------------ As with a past less than successful grant experience, I agreed and attempted to complete this grant project without the necessary funding originally outlined and planned. This resulted in the omission of some critical elements to assist with participant recruitment and retention. In the case of this project, additional funding was anticipated from an external source which did not materialize. In future, I will not proceed with a grant project unless all required funding is initially secured. Note! As a professional courtesy to the owner of this package, if you use some aspect of this package or have some thoughts about it, please share your feedback via the comments form below. |
web links |
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/learngrant/ |
shareback |
A "Shareback" cites the places on the web that mention, reference, or use this MLX package, and "shares" that information back here (more about shareback...) Sharebacks can be generated automatically by weblog tools. |
extra |
Last modified: Jul-28-2005 Date created: Jul-24-2005 Visitor count: 2163 Dublin Core Metadata record  This package is included in the Maricopa Learning Grants special collection. |
Maricopa Learning eXchange
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/mlx/slip.php?item=1643
