Klevens – Jumpstart 102 Final Reflections
End of Semester Data
MARSI – Pre and Post
In all three categories – Global, Problem-Solving, and Support – students showed
improvement.
Pre
Global 3.18
Prob. 3.92
Sup. 2.94
Post
3.68
3.96
3.71
Change
<.50
<.04
<.77
Average increase <.44
At the beginning of the semester, students self-assessed in the “high” range in only the
problem-solving category. By the end of the semester, they assessed in the “high” range in
all 3 areas of reading. The largest gains were in the “Support” strategies category, with a
gain of .77. This gain is significant in that the “support” category proves to be the lowest at
the start of the semester. This trend has been observed across sections and across
disciplines, when the MARSI was administered in sections participating in the Reading
Apprenticeship Faculty Inquiry Group. Students indicate less frequent use of these support
strategies and, it’s important to note, these are the strategies requiring “extra effort” on the
part of the student. Therefore, such gains in student use in support strategies is quite an
accomplishment.
For each strategy type, the items for which students indicated most gains, these items
correlate to the strategies emphasized in class.
Items of greatest increase in each category:
<.80 Global: Question #23 “I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in
the text”
<.74 Global: Question #3 “I think about what I know to help me understand what I read”
<.70 Global: Question #7 “I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading
purpose”
<.73 Global: Question #1 “I have purpose in mind when I read”
<.46 Problem: Question #18 “I stop from time to time and think about what I’m reading”
<1.40 Support: Question #12 “I underline and circle information in the text to help me
remember it”
<1.07 Support: Question #2 “I take notes while reading to help me understand what I
read”
<.93 Support: Question #6 “I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in
the text”
Items of least gain OR reflecting a lower number than the 1st assessment – “Red-flag” items
<.27 Global Question #14 “I decide what to read closely and what to ignore”
<.34 Global Question #25 “I check my understanding when I come across conflicting
information”
>.20 Problem Question #8 “I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I’m
reading”
<.14 Problem Question #11 “I try to get back on track when I lose concentration”
>.07 Problem Question #27 “When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my
understanding”
<.60 Support Question #9 “I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding”
<.47 Support Question #24 “I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among
ideas in it.
Item # 14 was particularly important for our 2nd class text, which was filled with long
explications that were demonstrating an abstract point, but could be identified as an
example and skipped over. Students, at first, were getting too caught up in the detail of
these explications and we practiced taking quick notes of what’s being described without
taking the time to analyze the text.
Likewise, item #24 is something we practiced throughout the semester not only within
texts, but between texts. The 3 texts were chosen, in part, in how they respond to each
other. In fact, the last 2 texts reference similar data on IQ tests and students were
prompted to connect these ideas.
The decrease in the “problem-solving” items needs to be understood within the context
that students still identify their usage as “high” for each of these items. However, it’s
disconcerting that the items which respond to students reading on their own (often the 1st
read) are, by in large, not showing gains. This may be a “truer” response at the end of the
semester. It certainly responds to my observations of students’ middling efforts in tackling
the texts on their own, outside of class time.
Reading Survey – comparing Jumpstart 102 to English 101B
Throughout the semester, I was evaluating student engagement with their texts and their
performance on assignments – reading quizzes, homework completion, and essays. For the
102 class, I was particularly concerned about the inconsistency in student performance.
Despite efforts to encourage student engagement with their texts, the 102 students often
came to class unprepared, having not completed the course reading assigned for that day.
Often, students were conducting their 1st read in class. While students participated in
whole class and small group discussions on the text, the end result of coming to class
unprepared required taking additional class time for students to skim the book. Likewise,
those who were unprepared could participate in the discussion, but their understanding of
the text proved to be very superficial, resulting in lower performances on written
indicators. As an instructor, one of my major concerns was that the books chosen were just
too hard for the students to engage in on their own. However, when I performed a CERA
assessment, students, in fact, were able to piece apart the most relevant information, even
on a 1st read. Nevertheless, at the end of the course, I wanted to see how students ranked
our texts and how they ranked their engagement with these texts outside of class time. I
then compared these results to my 101B class, to see the differences in two classes, both
set to advance into English 1A.
Background on the texts chosen. For each class, students read 3 texts. However, the
amount and type of reading differed.
102 – Students read on average a total of 600+ pages over the course of the semester.
101B – Students read on average a total of 900+ pages over the course of the semester.
For the 102, students were assigned fewer pages of text to read for 2 reasons: 1) This is a
combined course of 101A/B; therefore, students are having to progress in their skills faster
than in the slower two semester sequence. Students are not expected to have had a
semester of skill-building under their belts. 2) These texts were by in-large expository and
not narrative based. Students tend to have a harder time understanding expository writing
if it is not embedded in some type of story-line.
Rationale for Text Sequencing for 102 and 101B
102 – The texts moved from Surviving Justice, to Everything Bad is Good for You, to Outliers.
The 1st book was mostly oral histories that followed individual narratives. However, for
each assigned reading, students also read expositional footnotes related to the justice
system. The 1st book I deemed to be the “easiest” of the three texts. I began with this text
because of its exciting topic and because students could practice new reading strategies
with an approachable/readable piece of writing. The 2nd book was entirely exposition.
There was no narrative for students to follow, only argumentation. Likewise, students
were challenged with quite a bit of difficult/technical vocabulary and having to navigate
long explications, charts, and graphs. The book I deemed to be the “most difficult” of the
three to read, but with the most relatable subject matter (i.e. popular culture). The 3rd
book was a mixture of narrative and exposition. This book required students to put
together both types of reading – following story and following argument. This book was
more “readable” than the 2nd, but more difficult in its abstract subject matter (i.e. success).
I put this book 3rd because the concepts were more sophisticated and required more
critical analysis.
101B – The texts moved from A Long Way Gone, to Enrique’s Journey, to There are No
Children Here. In my estimation, these texts were moving from “easiest” to “hardest.” The
texts’ language grew increasingly sophisticated, the arguments became more complex, the
need for background knowledge in decoding the texts was increased over time, and the
arguments moving from a direct analysis of the narrative at hand to a more generalized
argument extending beyond the particular character’s story, required students to engage in
a more sophisticated and critical analysis.
Reading Survey (these are just 2 of the questions)
102 – 14 Responses
“From your experience this semester, the readings we covered were: easy, challenging,
difficult, too difficult” (– apply a category to each book)
Surviving Justice – 8 Easy
Everything Bad -- 1 Easy
Outliers
-- 1 Easy
6 Challenging
5 Challenging
8 Challenging
0 Difficult
6 Difficult
4 Difficult
0 Too Difficult
2 Too Difficult
1 Too Difficult
“Outside of class time, I read...”
SJ – 1 Not at All 2 Some of the Time 0 Half the time 6 Most of the time
EB – 2 Not at All 2 Some of the Time 7 Half the time 2 Most of the time
OS - 1 Not at All 1 Some of the Time 6 Half the time 4 Most of the time
5 Always
1 Always
1 Always
102 Analysis of Survey
Students found the 2nd text the most difficult of the 3, with 8 rankings as “difficult or too
difficult.” The third text was also given 8 rankings for “challenging,” therefore somewhat
easier than the 2nd text. This confirms my own assessment of these tests in their order of
difficulty. Likewise, it also indicates that very few students found the texts “too difficult,”
and therefore, out of their range of competency. A question that I had was if I should
switch the order of books two and three so that the texts progress in a more linear path of
difficulty. However, they may have found the 3rd text slightly easier because they had book
2 as practice and; therefore, switching the order could produce the same result (book 2
seen as being more difficult).
The majority of students read outside of class time “half the time,” with a total of 13
responses, followed by “most of the time” with 12 responses. The “easiest” text was read
independently the most with 11 responses for “most of the time or always,” as compared
with 3 or 5 responses for the other two texts. Yet, for each book, between 2 and 4 students
indicated having read independently “Not at all” or “Some of the time.” Therefore, in spite
of ease or difficulty, students chose not to read on their own. Even with the extrinsic
motivator of daily reading quizzes, the majority of the students chose to receive No Credit
some of the time for having not completed the assigned homework reading.
101B – 17 Responses
From your experience this semester, the readings we covered were: easy, challenging,
difficult, too difficult” (– apply a category to each book)
A Long Way Gone – 10 Easy
Enrique’s Journey – 4 Easy
There Are No...
– 3 Easy
7 Challenging
11 Challenging
3 Challenging
2 Difficult
2 Difficult
8 Difficult
0 Too Difficult
0 Too Difficult
1 Too Difficult
“Outside of class time, I read...”
AG – 0 Not at All 1 Some of the Time 4 Half the time 3 Most of the time
EJ – 0 Not at All 1Some of the Time 2 Half the time 9 Most of the time
TN - 0 Not at All 3 Some of the Time 4 Half the time 3 Most of the time
9 Always
5 Always
7 Always
101B Analysis of Survey
The majority of students ranked the order of difficulty as progressing from easy 10, to
challenging 11, to difficult 8. This matches my assessment of these texts as increasing in
difficulty over the course of the semester. Only the 3rd book was ranked as being “too
difficult” and only by 1 student.
The vast majority of students read their texts outside of class “always” with a total
response of 21. The 2nd highest ranking was “most of the time,” with 15 responses. For
each book, 0 students reported reading the book independently “not at all.” I gave only a
few reading quizzes in this class because it was clear that the students were coming to class
prepared.
Comparative Analysis 102 and 101B Reading Surveys
By in large, both classes ranked their books “Challenging” – 19 times in 102 and 21 times in
101B. The other categories of ease or difficulty were indicated fewer times. This suggests
these books were perceived to be, on average, within the students’ range of ability. Yet,
while these figures equate nicely in both classes, the degree to which students are reading
independently vastly differs on the spectrum. More students in 101B are more frequently
reading on their own “always” and more students in 102 are reading on their own only
“half the time.” Why? When the books are seemingly of comparable difficulty does one
class read more often and more pages than the other? Despite the fact that they have
approximately 300+ pages of more reading to complete, the 101B students are doing their
work more regularly than the 102 students. Thus, quantity of reading is NOT a deterrent to
independent reading. Perhaps reading content?
When asked “Did you like the three texts we read this semester? Be specific if you like
some more than others, or if there was one you hated etc...and why” students responded:
102 (14 Responses)
Surviving Justice
10 Liked
3 Neutral
1 Disliked
Everything
6 Liked
6 Neutral
2 Disliked
Outliers
11 Liked
2 Neutral
1 Disliked
101B (17 Responses)
A Long Way Gone
12 Liked
3 Neutral
2 Disliked
Enrique’s Journey
8 Liked
8 Neutral
1 Disliked
There Are No
10 Liked
5 Neutral
2 Disliked
Analysis: For both classes, the majority of the students “Liked” the books. Likewise, the
middle books in both classes had more “neutral” responses than either the 1st or 3rd books.
These “neutral” books were read “Always” less frequently, with the majority of responses
being read “half the time” for 102 and “most of the time” for 101B. Therefore, a “neutral”
interest does negatively impact independent reading, but more so for 102 students than
101B students. Why? Perhaps one explanation could be that 101B students are acclimated
to college more and have a greater tolerance for a course progression over 18 weeks. They
perhaps have a greater “stick-to-it-ness” than the 102 group, especially this “late start”
cohort.
CLASS DATA COMPARISONS
English 102 Enrollment – 25
Withdrew – 5
No Credit – 12
Credit – 8
Success Rate: 40%
English 101B Enrollment -- 29
Withdrew -- 4
No Credit -- 11
Credit -- 14
Success Rate: 56%
Overall, I was very disappointed with my “success” results of my 102 Jumpstart cohort. My
“success rate” was very low; although, a few additional students should have received “W’s”
but didn’t. These were students who stopped attending after the “W” deadline. At the end
of the semester, only 14 students were actively attending and of them, 8 received credit.
That would change my success rate to 57%, but only retaining 14 students is pretty poor. I
haven’t had such poor retention in years, and that was in an English 101A class. Whereas
in the 101B, I still had 21 students actively attending, which would make the success rate
66%, above the general average of basic skills English courses. In conducting research into
my 102, I was trying to explain the differences in student achievement and pinpoint any
roadblocks that were impeding student progress. One of the persistent questions was
whether the reading was too difficult. Yet, this analysis of reading ability indicates that
students in the 102 are generally feeling successful when they read, and to a greater extent
at the end of the course. Likewise, they indicate more competence in supporting
themselves as readers. In addition, the general attitude of my 102 cohort was positive.
Some students who knew they were not going pass the class continued to attend and
participate. Participation was high and class discussions often very lively. They, by in
large, enjoyed the class content and our focus on “False Promises.” Likewise, I enjoyed
these students tremendously. Yet, good will on both ends was not enough to produce
positive “success” results.
Success, in this instance, could possibly be measured in other ways. Students have
progressed in their reading skills and it remains to be seen how these students persist and
succeed at the college at large. Yet, the premise of funneling students into their basic skills
English early and, in particular, into an accelerated curriculum, in order to maximize their
likelihood of succeeding, did NOT manifest in my group. This group of “late deciders” often
felt like an English 101A in that they seemed ungrounded and unmotivated to do collegelevel work, if it required time spent outside of class to get it done. It was not, in fact, a lack
of skill that impeded these students. Most of these students could do the work, but chose
not to and in order to succeed on the assignments, the work could not be done with
middling effort. Likewise, as the curriculum increased in complexity, the students who
were merely “getting by” in the 1st unit, were now drowning in the 2nd unit, and so on. In
their self-reflections, students commented that “falling behind” was making it impossible to
“catch up.” Despite countless lectures from me on the importance of doing the work and its
direct correlation to success on papers, and despite opportunities for continual feedback on
written homework assignments, and my reading and conferencing on rough drafts of
essays, too many of these 102 students failed to “show up.” They continued to come to
class, but not take the class. Nevertheless, I don’t think non-success was wasted effort for
these students. For many of the non-success students, not taking English 102 again in this
next semester could be the best thing for them. Some of these students need to find out
why they’re in college and cultivate an intrinsic motivation to come to class and do the
work. As an instructor, I also need to work on fostering that intrinsic motivation in
students because it’s clear that extrinsic motivators will only fall short.