Addressing Reading Deficiencies at UH Hilo
INTRODUCTION
Lexile tests over the past two years reflect an increasing problem with student capacity to engage gradeappropriate texts.
Figure 1
Lexile scores and grade equivalencies
Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade
1
2
3
4
5
100‐
300‐
500‐
600‐
700‐
299
499
599
699
799
Figure 2
UHH Lexile scores
Semester
Total Number
of Students
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
249
189
221
187
Number of
Students
Reading in
the 1200s
65 (26%)
35 (18%)
45 (20%)
39 (20%)
Figure 3
Lexile scores for textbooks in UHH courses
Course
ENG 100
PSY 100
ENG 205
BUS 111
CHEM 124
ANTH 100
ACCT 201
PHIL 100
POLS 101
SOC 100
HIST 151
Grade
6
800‐
849
Grade
7
850‐
899
Number of
Students
Reading
Below 1200
55 (22%)
57 (30%)
93 (42%)
105 (56%)
Grade
8
900‐
999
Grade
9
1000‐
1024
Number of
Students
Reading
Below 1000
21 (8%)
22 (11%)
27 (12%)
69 (36%)
Grade
10
1025‐
1049
Grade
11-CCR
1050‐
1300
Highest
Score
Lowest
Score
1600 (8)
1600 (11)
1600 (2)
1600 (3)
810
660
880
732
Lexile score
850
850
1150
1230
1230
1270
1320
1330
1340
1430
1440
Given that up to 50% of students in our ENG 100(T) courses are reading at levels below the textbooks
utilized in most UHH freshmen level courses, this grant seeks to incorporate strategic reading instruction
into the current curriculum.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Boylan, Bonham, and White (2002) note that “practically all” American colleges and universities
provide services in an area known as “remediation” with a wide range of services that have existed for
some time(p. 87). Merisotis and Phipps (2000) state that more than three-quarters of higher education
institutions were enrolling first-year students in at least one reading, writing, or mathematical
remediation course, with percentages being over 90% for two-year and minority serving schools (p. 69).
That being said, one of the biggest areas of concern to emerge is the problem of adult literacy:
Few would argue, it seems to us, that there can be too many functionally literate
people, whether they are college graduates or not. As a society, we have little choice
about providing remediation in higher education, with the goal of increasing functional
literacy. (Merisotis and Phipps, 2000, p. 79)
“Fixing” the problem has not been without disagreement. Some researchers (e.g. Atkinson,
Zhang, Zeller, and Phillips, 2014) have studied the efficacy of what is called the “orthographic” approach,
which focuses on learning prefixes and suffixes, vocabulary drills, and word sort based on function (e.g.
noun, adjective, etc.). The majority of scholars appear more inclined towards a discipline-specific
approach due to evidence that “reading comprehension . . . become[s] more specialized” as students
progress through various levels (Biancarosa, 2012, p. 24). However, “reading” successfully at this level is
predicated on a subject’s ability to understand the different ways knowledge is produced in the
disciplines. In other words, “young people need to have access to the ways that conventions [emphasis
added] of disciplinary knowledge production and communication can be routinely or more explicitly
challenged and reshaped” (Moje, 2008, p. 103).
Regardless of the actual methodology employed, researchers do agree that best practice is
imbedded instruction, meaning that the teaching of reading (remedial and otherwise) should take place
alongside regular instruction. For the purpose of addressing this issue within ENG 100(T)—which reflects
a large number of students reading below 11th/12th grade and high DWF rates– this proposal seeks to
provide professional development for ENG 100(T) instructors and Kilohana writing tutors so that reading
becomes an integrated part of freshman composition.
PROPOSAL
The English Department would like to invite Professor Caroline Naguwa, the Chair of English at
HAWCC and the campus Reading Across the Disciplines Coordinator, to run a two day training
symposium in January of 2016 on developing instruction and assignments that incorporate reading
strategies. The cost of the Symposium will include costs of the books for all attending instructors and
attendance for lecturers (who are not normally required to attend such events due to limitations in their
per-credit contracts) and tutors. Payment for attendance will be contingent upon the submission of
actual lesson plans or assignments that are integrated into coursework over the course of the Spring
term. Tutors will likewise be required to attend 5 selected sessions of ENG 102, which is HAWCC’s
college-level reading course; payment for tutors will be contingent upon submission of self-reflective
essays that incorporate what they learn with their methods for tutoring ENG 100(T) students.
BUDGET
Total cost of the Symposium and related activities:
Honorarium for Professor Naguwa:
$500
Books ($265.95 per participant x 10 instructors)
Tutors will have access to a reference set at Kilohana
$2,659.50




College Reading and Study Skills,
McWhorter, 12e, Pearson, 978-0-205-21302-3
(HCC ENG 102 text) $94.83
Engaging Ideas, Bean, 2e, Jossey-Bass,
978-0-470-53290-4, $38.77
Reading Rhetorically: A Reader for Writers,
Bean, Chappell & Gillam, 4th, Pearson,
978-0321846624, $44.29
Writing Analytically, Rosenwasser & Stephen,
Cengage, 7e, 978-1-285-43650-0, $88.07
Lecturer remuneration
(16 hours x $75/4 hour increments X4)
$1200.00
Tutor remuneration (21 hours x $11.25/hour x 5)
$1,181.25
Lunch for attendees for two days ($15/person x 2 x 15) $450
TOTAL
$6,440.75
References
Atkinson, T. S., Zhang, G., Phillips, S. F., & Zeller, N. (2014). Using word study instruction with
developmental college students. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(4), 433-448.
doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12015
Biancarosa, G. (2012). Adolescent Literacy: More Than Remediation. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 2227. EBSCO: http://cletus.uhh.hawaii.edu:2240/ehost/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=220554c3-00b34bf5-b78eea694d457850%40sessionmgr112&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=7
3183258&db=a9h
Boylan, H.R., Bonham B.S., & White, S. R. (2002). Developmental and Remedial Education in
Postsecondary Education. New Directions for Higher Education, 108, 87-101.
DOI: 10.1002/he.10806
Caverly, D., Nicholson, S.A., & Radcliffe, R. (2004). The Effectiveness of Strategic Reading Instruction for
College Developmental Readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35(1), 25-49.
DOI:10.1080/10790195.2004.10850166
Merisotis, J. P. & Phipps, R.A., (2000). Remedial Education in Colleges and Universities: What's Really
Going On? Review of Higher Education, 24 (1), 67-85.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the Disciplines in Secondary Literacy Teaching and Learning: A Call for
Change. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107. EBSCO:
http://cletus.uhh.hawaii.edu:2240/ehost/detail/detail?vid=16&sid=220554c3-00b3-4bf5-b78eea694d457850%40sessionmgr112&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a
9h&AN=34775906
Stahl, N. A. (2006). Strategic Reading and Learning, Theory to Practice: An Interview with
Michele Simpson and Sherrie Nist. Journal Of Developmental Education, 29(3), 20-27. EBSCO:
http://cletus.uhh.hawaii.edu:2240/ehost/detail/detail?vid=23&sid=220554c3-00b3-4bf5-b78eea694d457850%40sessionmgr112&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a
9h&AN=20182433