IEPIS Newsletter - Volume 22 Number 1 (Plain Text Version)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In this issue: |
Articles REIMAGING READING: CREATING A SUCCESSFUL IEP READING LAB
As instructors know, identifying weaknesses and problems in courses is quite easy, but finding solutions to those challenges is problematic. When revising the curriculum for Mississippi State University’s English as a Second Language Center, which is MSU’s IEP, the Center’s administrative coordinators looked for ways to overcome some of the recognized problem areas. In general, the coordinators found the reading courses did not always fulfill the needs of the students, and the coordinators worked on creative solutions to meet those areas of concern. As part of the curriculum update, MSU’s ESL Center prioritized the need for more authentic, focused reading in its program, and it implemented unique, multilevel reading labs as part of its 8-week, eight level curriculum.
READING CURRICULUM EVALUATION When discussing the reading courses, the teachers were concerned with a variety of areas, many of which the IEP had previously tried to revamp. In particular, the most obvious concerns were the following:
These were problems that had been addressed many times, and through the years, the ESL Center tried numerous approaches to encourage reading and to integrate authentic materials, including using novels, articles, essays, and student-selected materials. However, the Center had little success with these approaches. Once again, the IEP was concerned about how to address these issues. As part of the curriculum evaluation and revision process, the coordinators refocused their efforts to meet the following reading goals:
GENERAL READING LAB CONCEPT Through a series of coordinator meetings, the ESL Center developed a plan for self-paced reading labs to establish more authentic, focused reading time. The coordinators decided that labs meeting independently from the reading classes would help address some of the goals identified, especially if the students were able to read at their own pace. Although the coordinators wanted the process to be independent and intrinsically motivated, their past experience brought concerns about students who dismissed the importance of the reading lab. As a result, the IEP assigned the reading lab as a graded component; although reading labs would meet outside of the reading class time, students would receive scores during the lab that would be factored into the overall reading class grade. Because MSU’s ESL Center has eight levels, the coordinators wanted separate reading lab materials and requirements for each level to match the level’s designated objectives, but they also wanted the same general guidelines for all eight levels. Through the brainstorming process, the coordinators established the following general guidelines for the reading lab concept:
READING LAB SCHEDULE Once the general concept was established, a scheduling change was one of the main areas of adjustment. To address the fiscal concerns about adding classroom time and instructors to the schedule, the IEP made a change in its reading class schedules. In the past, the ESL Center’s reading classes met 1 hour each day, 5 days a week. So that the labs could be integrated without straining personnel resources, the reading classes and lab were scheduled so that some lab hours would replace class hours in most levels and would be overseen by teachers who would otherwise have been teaching reading classes. Thus, the previous 5 hours of reading class was adapted to include lab time. The new schedule is shown below: Reading Class Hours Reading Lab Hours
As a result, Levels 3 to 8 now have a lab hour replace a typical class hour. One class hour in Levels 3 and 4 was replaced with one lab hour, and Levels 5 to 8 now have 2 hours shifted from class hours to lab hours. Because the coordinators decided that the 5 hours of class time was important to the Level 1 and 2 students, the IEP decided to keep the 5 hours of class time and add 2 hours to the schedule to accommodate labs. Thus, the Levels 1 and 2 students received 7 hours of reading-based instruction and practice weekly. FINAL READING LAB GRADES To ensure students took the labs seriously and benefitted from the replacement of class time with lab time, the IEP’s coordinators factored the reading lab’s grade into the reading class grade. The percentage of the grade would depend on the student’s level and was based on the other percentages of the coursework and goals of the class. These percentages are placed on the syllabus for each reading course. For instance, a Level 1 student’s reading lab grade is 30 percent of the overall reading grade, while a Level 3 student’s reading lab is only 20 percent of the overall grade. In general, the teachers have found that the reading lab grade is an accurate indicator of a student’s skills. READING LAB PROCESS After several meetings, the IEP’s coordinators selected the following process for the reading lab. During a reading lab, the student receives a level-appropriate reading. For instance, a Level 1 student receives a less challenging reading of about one paragraph with easy vocabulary, whereas a Level 8 student receives a relatively lengthy article with challenging vocabulary. Also, within each level, the readings and quizzes become progressively more difficult to continually challenge the student. Once the student receives a reading, he or she must keep the reading a minimum of 10 minutes, but most students, especially higher-level ones, keep the readings much longer. After a student has completed the reading, the student returns the reading to the teacher and receives a quiz to judge comprehension. If the student makes an 80 or above on the quiz, the student will then move to the next level of difficulty within his or her level. However, if a student makes below an 80, the students must correct the quiz before attempting another reading at the same level of difficulty.
READING LAB GRADING SYSTEM AND REQUIREMENT As students work their way through the readings in the 8-week lab, only those quizzes with an 80 or above are counted as “complete” toward the overall reading lab grade. The 80 is due to the fact that all quizzes have either 5 or 10 questions. The ESL Center’s coordinators liked the fact that an 80 would be a challenge to achieve, and they also felt the 80 was easy for the reading lab teachers to calculate. The coordinators wanted a consistent score for all levels, and when deciding between a 60 or an 80 being a completion, they decided that the 80 would be a better goal for the student. On the basis of the lab schedule, the chosen materials, and the quizzes, the IEP determined reading lab goals for each level. The reading lab goals are purposefully made to be challenging, as a 100 is for students who reach the completion number. Article Completion Goal
As previously noted, these grades are then calculated as part of the overall reading class grade. For example, if a Level 1 student completes only14 readings out of 20, the student will have a 70 factored into the lab portion of the reading class grade. Most students did not reach the goal number to make 100 percent in the reading lab. Those students who achieved the goal were extremely strong readers. In other words, a student who was making a C in the reading class (not including the reading lab score) usually ended a session with a C in the reading lab portion of the grade. Thus, the lab scores appear to be in line with the other reading assignments.
READING LAB RULES So that reading labs would proceed smoothly and efficiently, a set of reading lab rules was established. Students could easily understand expectations, and teachers could manage the students fairly and consistently. Some of these rules include the following:
READING LAB LEVEL MATERIALS When collecting readings, the ESL Center’s coordinators knew that cheating would be a strong possibility, so they wanted to provide many readings at the same level within each reading lab, thus ensuring that students would have no way to predict which readings they would receive. For instance, the Level 1 reading lab began with a Reading 1A, Reading 1B, and Reading 1C. This way, the students would randomly receive different readings. If a student received 1A and passed the quiz, the student would then move to Reading 2A, 2B, or 2C. The coordinators did not want all students reading the same materials at the same time. Since the initial creation, the coordinators have constantly added more readings to each level, and they will continue to grow the base of articles. Likewise, two quizzes were made for each reading to keep academic misconduct to a minimum. The coordinators have found that it is difficult for students to cheat, as the system is random. For example, even if two Level 1 students received Reading 1A, the students would randomly be assigned to complete Quiz 1 or Quiz 2. To keep the reading labs organized, a plastic file container was established for each level. The container holds the readings, the quizzes, and a three-ring binder with the lab rosters and the answer keys. The container has folders for each category to facilitate easy organization. Each reading lab instructor is responsible for maintaining his or her box and for making copies of the materials. Moreover, because each box’s organization is identical, a substitute can easily fill in during a reading lab teacher’s absence.
COLLECTING AND LEVELING READING LAB MATERIALS The actual lab hour is not very difficult in and of itself. However, the massive undertaking to collect reading materials was a challenge. Material collection for the reading labs was a collaborative effort because of the abundance of reading materials required. Everyone at the ESL Center was charged with the task of sending readings to the curriculum coordinator. The coordinators found that daily and weekly goals helped keep the articles accumulating, and the collection process remains ongoing. The Center is regularly changing articles to give a variety of readings and to avoid any possible copyright problems. When first beginning this project, the coordinators sent numerous articles each week to the curriculum coordinator, actively seeking a variety of levels and types of readings. The coordinators could submit links to articles, materials that they had previously used, or any other materials. Office assistants helped scan print materials so they could be maintained as electronic versions. Because numerous articles were submitted, organization was key. As the materials came in, the curriculum coordinator organized, formatted, and saved the materials on the IEP’s main computer server. She named each article’s file clearly and printed the materials for the teachers and coordinators to judge for level appropriateness. As articles accumulated, the coordinators established a scoring system to determine the level for each reading. A centralized folder was created for readings to be picked up, and instructors would take some of the articles to score. Instructors scored the readings on a scale of 0 to 5, with half points possible. The process included having two instructors score each reading, and if the reading had more than a .5 difference between the two scores, a third ranker would adjudicate. For example, one rater might score a reading as a 1.5, and another rater might score the same reading as a 2. The two scores are then within .5 of each other and have an average of 1.75. The reading was then placed in the appropriate level:
After scoring a test set of materials, the coordinators met to calibrate their scoring and ensure interrater reliability. To score an article, coordinators considered a variety of aspects, including vocabulary, language use, overall length, sentence structure, and subject matter. Although everyone met to check rater reliability, it was evident that the coordinators were scoring very similarly and had no difficulties in leveling the readings. The ranking system, though, gave the coordinators a clear system of judgment for level-appropriateness. Once an article was scored, the article was then distributed for the making of the quizzes.
MAKING QUIZZES Each coordinator was tasked to create all quizzes for a specific level. This system ensured fairness to the students taking the quizzes. In addition, the coordinators decided on a unified quiz format, mainly for the purpose of consistency and ease of grading. They also determined the best types of questions for each level. The differences ranged from Level 1’s simple multiple-choice and true-false questions to Level 8’s questions based mostly on opinion, context, and critical-thinking skills.
CHALLENGES Predictably, faculty members and students had some challenges adjusting when the reading labs were first introduced as part of the curriculum. Because the lab was unlike any existing component in MSU’s IEP, all participants had a learning curve, but this issue was anticipated. In about 1 year, the lab became a seamless part of the students’ and teachers’ week. Explaining the process to the students in clear and level-appropriate language was a challenge, but students learned to follow the lab instructors’ lead. For the returning students in particular, the first two 8-week sessions were the most challenging. Because the reading curriculum was more challenging and their reading skills were weak, students were easily frustrated and discouraged with their progress and ability to move forward in the lab. Students would rush through a reading, focusing on finishing it instead of comprehending it, which resulted in a quiz failure. Likewise, they would also become anxious about each reading and quiz. With time, the returning students adapted and became stronger readers. On the other hand, incoming students did not have as much trouble with the reading lab process because they viewed the lab as just another part of their day instead of as a new component to the curriculum. In fact, most students now view the reading labs as a very serious and important element of their language learning. They have a sense of pride in passing quizzes and moving forward. The instructors and administration also had a period of adjustment. From the administrative aspect, fiscal concern about the paper required was a major concern, but the IEP felt strongly that the lab benefits outweighed this concern. In addition, instructors had to learn the reading lab requirements and grading system. They had to learn lab management in terms of distributing materials, grading quizzes, and organizing records. With time, all aspects became much easier, and instructors created efficient systems.
RESPONSES Through the development and use of the labs, the IEP has helped students gain confidence in the early levels of the curriculum and move toward more critical thinking using the higher-level reading materials, both of which were main goals. The students are also not as intimidated by authentic materials. Some students have even mentioned that the reading books seem much easier than the lab because the textbooks are ESL textbooks. As a result of this curriculum change, the students are more self-assured in their language skills and are integrating more easily into the IEP, the university, and the community in regard to their reading skills. The IEP faculty consistently comments in the semester-based program feedback that reading is one of the areas where they can see the most immediate improvement in their students. Also, through various qualitative surveys, students have noted that their reading skills have improved and that the reading lab is a major reason for their stronger skills. The ESL Center has also been compiling quantitative data that will be analyzed to see the extent of the progress.
FOR THE FUTURE As part of the ongoing evolution of the reading labs, the faculty of the IEP is constantly updating the readings and changing articles. Because many articles are time-sensitive and the coordinators continue to find excellent readings, the upkeep of the labs is a routine part of each session. Also, the IEP is working toward an online format for the labs to reduce paper use and maintenance time. This online format may also provide flexibility and mobility for students in completing their reading lab requirements. Alison Stamps, astamps@aoce.msstate.edu, is the curriculum coordinator of international education for Mississippi State University’s English as a Second Language Center. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||