Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Comparing Writing Prep of Freshman Students at UH Hilo and HAWCC, Study notes of English Philology

Insights into the writing preparation of freshman students at UH Hilo and HAWCC, highlighting the disparities between the two institutions. the results of a comprehensive assessment project that linked the English departments of both institutions to evaluate students' writing skills in ENG 100. The document also explores the demographic information of students, their writing experiences in high school, and the volume of writing in UH Hilo courses.

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 08/01/2022

hal_s95
hal_s95 🇵🇭

4.4

(620)

8.6K documents

1 / 19

Toggle sidebar

Related documents


Partial preview of the text

Download Comparing Writing Prep of Freshman Students at UH Hilo and HAWCC and more Study notes English Philology in PDF only on Docsity! 38 | P a g e Essay Two: Achieving “Core Competencies” Knowledge, Skills, Values, and Attitudes: General Education as the Backbone of the University The “assessment” movement (or what is referred to as the accountability movement) has had a tremendous impact on education, both at the secondary and tertiary levels over several decades. Peter J. Gray notes that in the last 20 years, “the central focal points of academic culture seem to be shifting away from faculty, traditional research, and instruction and moving toward students, scholarship, and learning.”90 More important is the shift towards what the Lumina Foundation calls “transformational, competence-based” education.91 In 2008, the National Governors Association called attention to the need to nationally and internationally benchmark core skills in math and language arts because the “nation’s economic success [ . . . ] depends upon closing achievement gaps to ensure that all students attain a solid foundation of knowledge and skills.”92 Such developments underpin the 2013 WASC Accreditation Handbook and Hawai‘i’s ongoing work with the Common Core State Standards and P-20. Per the above mandates, UH Hilo has been working towards a skills-based (as opposed to a purely discipline-based) approach to general education. The GE certification process is built around five (5) core “competencies” that we feel are integral to any baccalaureate degree offered by this institution: Critical Thinking, Information Literacy, Communication (both written and oral), Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning, Human Interaction and Cultural Diversity, and Collaborative and Civic Participation.93 The ALO, the incoming Chair of Assessment, and the Vice-Chancellor of Academic Affairs have agreed to a tentative schedule for the assessment core competencies that are aligned with Criteria for Review (CFR) 2.2a94: • AY 2013-2014 Written Communication • AY 2014-2015 Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning (Quantitative Reasoning) • AY 2015-2016 Information Literacy • AY 2016-2017 Oral Communication • AY 2017-2018 Multicultural Fluency (Human Interaction and Cultural Diversity) 90 Peter J. Gray, “Engaging and Supporting Faculty in the Scholarship of Assessment,” in Building a Scholarship of Assessment, ed. Trudy Banta et.al (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002), 187. 91Lumina Foundation, Lumina Degree Qualification Profile, January 2011, 3, https://www.sis.hawaii.edu/uhdad/avail.class?i=HIL&t=201410&c=13247. 92 National Governors Association, The Council of Chief State School Officers, and ACHIEVE. “Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education,” 2008, 14. 93 Please refer to: http://hilo.hawaii.edu/academics/gened/documents/HWST-MUS-175-GE-Application.pdf. 94 Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 2013 Handbook of Accreditation: Penultimate Draft – March 2013, 12. Critical Thinking is imbedded in four of the five rubrics we have developed for the core competencies listed here so it is not assessed separately. The 2009-2010 Assessment Support Committee felt that a survey as opposed to a rubric for Civic Engagement was appropriate. Now that the Applied Learning and Experience Program (ALEX) has been formally constituted, talks are underway to revisit the AAC&U’s Civic Engagement VALUE Rubric: http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/civicengagement.cfm. 39 | P a g e This essay speaks to our ongoing work at addressing the “achievement gaps” per CFR 2.10: “The institution collects and analyzes student data, disaggregated by appropriate demographic categories and areas of study. It tracks achievement, satisfaction, and the extent to which the campus climate supports student success. The institution regularly identifies the characteristics of its students; assesses their preparation, needs, and experiences; and uses the data to improve student achievement.”95 This study primarily draws from our efforts to benchmark student performance for Information Literacy and Written Communication at the freshman level while providing better bridges between secondary and post-secondary institutions given our retention and graduation rates. More importantly, this study follows the use of qualitative and quantitative assessment to enhance “Collaboration with local K-12 institutions, especially the high schools, [which] is essential for the effectiveness of both sectors.”96 Part I: Benchmarking Freshman Attitude in ENG 10097 As part of a long-standing effort to develop a profile of students (both freshmen and incoming transfers from HAWCC), the Chair of the Assessment Support Committee initiated a project that linked the English departments of both institutions to run the first comprehensive, indirect assessment of students in ENG 100 (Freshman Composition). The qualitative surveys featured six key open-ended questions: (1) What was your experience in terms of writing in high school? (2) What did writing allow you to learn? (3) How did writing help you to think? (4) In your opinion, what was the purpose of writing in any of your High School classes? (5) What are your goals for writing in college or after college? and (6) If you are not a first-time freshman, briefly discuss your experience in writing in college. Fall 2010 involved reading and categorizing responses: 152 from HAWCC and 124 from UH Hilo. The surveys that were collected from all sections of ENG 100 classes – at both UH Hilo and HAWCC – provided us with surprising results. The following tables demonstrate a disparity in the perception of writing instruction between UH Hilo and HAWCC responders. While the surveys indicate that many UH Hilo students have had some exposure to writing, HAWCC students are either “turned off” to writing or have had little writing during their high school years. Fully 39% of HAWCC ENG 100 students reported that their high school work was meaningless and/or had little to no benefit whereas another 23% expressed only having learned mechanics (including grammar). The following constitutes a sampling of HAWCC responses that were assigned to Category H: Meaningless Work or Work for Grade Only: 95 Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 2013 Handbook of Accreditation: Penultimate Draft – March 2013, 14. 96 Louis S. Albert, “Presidents and Chief Academic Officers of Community Colleges,” in Field Guide to Academic Leadership: A Publication of the National Academy for Academic Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002), 418. 97 Please note that the ensuing section on indirect surveys administered in ENG 100 classes in AY 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were part of a larger study undertaken first for the WASC ALA and then for the P-20. The survey results along with detailed analysis for AY 2010-2011 can be found on the Assessment Support Committee website at: http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/congress/documents/UHHSurveyResultsforAY2010-2011.pdf; the survey for AY 2011- 2012 can be found at http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/congress/documents/UHHSurveyResultsforAY2011-2012.pdf. 42 | P a g e • Writing has been somewhat redundant. • College writing put heavy restraints on my writing, forcing me to think in the way they wanted me to think, and write that they wanted to hear. It made me lose passion for writing in general. • If I was [sic] to use one word to describe my writing in college it would be “forced.” I have never failed any paper and usually I do just fine grade wise, but I rarely enjoy the process any more. What with required classes like Comm 100 and statistics, I wish I had required classes that pertained to my major. • The research papers are horrible. Long nights of Wikipedia. That 20 out of 52 (38%) acknowledged problems in seeing anything valuable in their college writing suggests a secondary problem exists at UH Hilo. Already under pressure to help students traverse the high school/college writing gap, ENG 100 at UH Hilo is undermined by the lack of required writing in other courses taken concurrently with and following Freshman Composition. Some of the difficulties arise from the lack of consistent expectations at UH Hilo. For example, the Assessment Support Committee in AY 2009-2010 noted irregular (outdated) and incorrect citation formatting as well as contradictory policies among faculty regarding Wikipedia. Furthermore, the absence of formal writing according to these surveys must be seen in light of the larger National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) taken in 2009. Per the mean and frequency report: 84% (192 of 228 first year respondents) reported doing no writing of more than 20 pages; 60% reported doing 1-4 papers of 5-19 pages in length while another 20% indicated no papers between 5-19 pages in length; whereas 41% reported doing 1-4 papers of less than 5 pages in length and 35% doing 11-20 papers of this shorter requirement.99 The amount of writing being reported by UH Hilo students is less than what their peers at other colleges report, although the effect sizes are small. Statistically speaking, freshmen do not significantly differ from the NSSE average in the number of large term papers (> 20 pages) they write although they write significantly fewer large term papers in comparison to our selected peer institutions. Students apparently write significantly fewer medium sized papers (5-19 pages) than NSSE overall and one of their peer groups and fewer small papers (< 5 pages). Again the effect sizes are small. By the time they are seniors, UH Hilo students are writing significantly more large term papers, medium sized and small papers than at least one of their peer groups and for large and medium sized papers more than NSSE’s average.100 Nevertheless, while Seniors are doing better than our peers, the number of assigned papers being reported in upper division courses suggest we are not upholding the rigor of Writing Intensive or “WI,” which requires a minimum of 16-typed pages of text.101 While page length is not a direct indicator of learning, these figures coincide with a possible need to strengthen writing in the curriculum. Future assessment should thus look to the Writing Intensive (or “WI”) program and in General Education, which now requires the inclusion of a “rigorous written or 99 Refer to numbers 3c, 3d, and 3e in the “FREQBACK” tab for the 2009 Means Report under Item Mean Score Report, UH Hilo Institutional Research Office, http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/iro/student_natsurvey.php. The table on the following page is from this report. 100 Refer to numbers 3c, 3d, and 3e in the “Final” tab for the 2009 Means Report. 101 See “Faculty WI Application Form Guidelines,” http://hilo.hawaii.edu/academics/wi/facapp.php. 43 | P a g e quantitative assignment that assess the student learning outcomes. The assignments should total at minimum the equivalent of five double-spaced, typed pages [ . . . ].”102 3 Reading and Writing* During the current school year, about how much reading and writing have you done? 1=None, 2=1-4, 3=5-10, 4=11-20, 5=More than 20 UH Hilo Far West Public Select Peers II NSSE 2009 M ean M ean Sig Effect Size M ean Sig Effect Size M ean Sig Effect Size C Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more F Y 1.25 1.28 -.04 1.41 ** -.20 1.30 -.06 S R 1.79 1.66 * .15 1.70 .10 1.65 ** .18 D Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages F Y 2.05 2.28 *** -.28 2.13 -.10 2.28 *** -.28 S R 2.66 2.60 .06 2.48 ** .18 2.55 .11 E Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages F Y 2.83 3.06 *** -.23 2.93 -.10 3.05 ** -.21 S R 3.09 3.02 .06 2.82 *** .24 3.00 .08 Similar results appear in the Spring 2011 survey data, though there was a reduced pool of respondents of only 62. Subsequent comparisons of survey results for AY 2010-2011 and AY 2011-2012 revealed the trend of students perceiving writing as a meaningless activity or expressing a real lack of effective writing preparation in high school (Category H) increasing for UH Hilo students over time.103 In fact, Category H for Question 1 for both semesters in AY 2011-2012 became one of the most frequent responses. 102 The Writing Intensive Program requirement and program goals can be found at: http://hilo.hawaii.edu/academics/wi/; the General Education Certification Form can be under “Faculty Resources” at the bottom of the General Education website: http://hilo.hawaii.edu/academics/gened/#FacultyResources. 103 The comparative study of Fall 2010 HWCC and UHH students can be found on pages 2-5 in the Assessment Support Committee Chair’s Report to the Faculty Congress, 6 May, 2011: http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/congress/documents/FinalReportAssessmentSupportCommAY2010-2011.pdf. A more detailed compilation of responses, including an analysis of other questions in the survey for AY 2010-2011, can be found at http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/congress/documents/UHHSurveyResultsforAY2010-2011.pdf; AY 2011-2012 can be found at http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/congress/documents/UHHSurveyResultsforAY2011-2012.pdf. FIGURE 11. Sampling from the 2009 NSSE Means Comparisons Report 44 | P a g e 32 39 18 0 16 16 12 34 3 11 9 A. Volume of Writing B. Writing different forms/styles/genres of essays C. Learned Mechanics D. Learning/discussion of topics E. Reading skills, literary appreciation F. Prep for college G. Self expression H. Meaningless work, work for grade I. Feedback, Guidance K. Self-assessment L. Other 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Question 1: What was your experience in terms of writing in high school? (UH Hilo Fall 2011) Question 1: What was your experience in terms of writing in High School? Unlike the Fall 2010 students surveyed, the Fall 2011 cohort identified A (Volume of writing), B (Writing different forms/styles/genres of essays) and H (Meaningless work) as equally common aspects of their high school curriculum. A sampling of answers is given for each category below: A. Volume of writing, practiced writing (a lot), writing to write/improve • In high school they require taking English every year, so over time I did quite a bit of writing. Surprisingly though I did not write too many essays. If I did I felt I had a lot of time, especially by having like rough drafts due or certain due dates for different things. I feel like college [sic] you don’t have the same strictness. (Anglo-American student – California) • I did a lot of journal writing, review and assessments, a little poetry, and a lot of essays. (Asian- American student, Public Institution – Big Island) B. Writing different forms/styles/genres of essays • I had an english [sic] class every year. I learned to write poems and essays. (Native Hawaiian student, Private Institution – Big Island) • Science Fair Essays. English Essays. (Asian American student, Private Institution – O‘ahu) • My experience in terms of writing in high school compared to college is that in high school the only thing they taught us to do is how to write a constructed response and how to cite internet sources well that what I learned from my English teacher throught [sic] my 4 years. We also FIGURE 12. UH Hilo Fall 2011 breakdown of answers to Question 1 on the Writing Survey 47 | P a g e Part II: Benchmarking Freshman Skill in ENG 100 The direct assessment portion of this project was devoted to developing a freshman benchmark for writing skills and evaluating the growth of student skill over the course of sixteen weeks in ENG 100. The project began in AY 2010-2011, when a writing competency sub-group of the Assessment Support Committee decided to assess the Senior Project (a capstone research project/internship high school seniors must complete to graduate with a Board of Education recognition diploma). However, in comparing the lists that our two largest feeder high schools shared with us, only one of Hilo High’s 37 Senior Project participants and only 11 of Waiākea’s 187 Senior Project participants eventually enrolled at UH Hilo. The majority of these students left the Island to attend Mānoa (on O‘ahu) or Mainland institutions. This indicated that the majority of “college-prep” students from these two feeder institutions chose not to attend UH Hilo. The sub-group (headed mainly by members of the UH Hilo English Department, a representative from HAWCC, and English teachers from both of the secondary institutions involved) proceeded to weigh the Senior Projects against the final ENG 100 research paper: of the eight collected (four students were unwilling to participate), one showed mixed results (a dropping of skill in Information Literacy accompanied by marginal gains in Communication) and two showed little or no improvement, suggesting a difficult passage between high school and college. Of the remaining, two exhibited some improvement while three showed substantial improvement, indicating a more successful transition. However, the Ns were too small from this limited study to make any judgment about the writing performance of entering Big Island Freshmen. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Pe rc en ta ge o f D /F /W Underperformance Rates in ENG 100 and 100T* ENG 100 ENG 100T FIGURE 14. Rates of C- or below for students in ENG 100 and 100T at UH Hilo * ENG 100T designates sections of ENG 100 for students who are identified by SAT cutoff scores as needing extra one-on- one, tutorial work in addition to regular instructions. Weekly tutoring at Kilohana: The Academic Success Center is mandatory for these sections. 48 | P a g e The failure to solicit a sizable pool of student artifacts forced the Assessment Support Committee in the following academic year to turn to papers that were collected in AY 2008-2009 when the Writing Placement Exam (henceforth referred to as WPE) was eliminated due to the implementation of pre-built schedules. While the WPE is a very different genre of writing, the high stakes that were attached to placement and the fact that no other pre-freshman artifact could be identified was sufficient justification for the Assessment Support Committee to proceed. The work of assessing 184 sets of WPE artifacts (that were matched to students’ final ENG 100 research papers) began with the P-20 Big Island Writing Summit on September 8, 2012, that brought over 60 local high school, HAWCC, and UH Hilo faculty together to discuss UH Hilo’s new GE requirements and our rubrics for Written Communication and Information Literacy. The collective body of teachers first engaged in a calibration using sample set #001; participants were later allotted time to individually read a separate set (WPE and Final ENG 100 paper). On November 29, 2012, the reconstituted Assessment Support Committee – this time made up of librarians, full-time and adjunct faculty from English, the ALO (who was also still serving as the Chair of the Assessment Support Committee), the Director of Kilohana, the Director of Assessment at the College of Pharmacy, a faculty member from Social Sciences, a representative from HAWCC, and two student alumni – met for another calibration session and reviewed the data from the symposium. The initial review noted immediate concerns that many students did not appear to be transitioning well from high school – which utilizes short, timed writing – to college-level work that is generally sustained over time and relies on outside evidence and research. All 184 sets of papers have been read for both Information Literacy and Written Communication. Scores for both analytic rubrics were then tallied into an average (mean) score for both skills. 106 Correlation analysis was conducted on the data and scatter-plots were generated to visualize the relationship between the Writing Placement Exam and the Final English 100 research paper. Scatter-plots were created for combined populations, as well as for the following disaggregated groups depending upon their exit high school: Big Island, Non-Big Island State of Hawai‘i (private and public), non-Resident (mainland), and transfers out of UH Hilo. Movements for the disaggregated groups show the same patterns as the larger aggregate population. Due to page limitation, scatter plots for these disaggregate groups are not included but can be found on our accreditation website.107 Figures 15 and 16 show the performance of all students assessed: 106 Regarding the quality of data, the following inter-rater reliability indexes were developed by randomly assigning paper sets for a second reading. For Information Literacy, the reliabilities between the two blind readers were .78 (p = .001) for the WPE papers and .62 (p = .001) for the ENG 100 papers. For Written Communication, the reliability for the ENG 100 papers was .63 (p < .001) and .04 (p = .84) for the WPE papers. There was a major discrepancy between the readers for one ENG 100 paper. When the readers’ scores for that paper were eliminated from the analyses, the reliability was .41 (p = .04). Apart from the discrepancy for that one paper, none of the other ratings were more than one point apart. 107 See Item 6—the bullets below “ENG 100 FINAL ALL STUDENTS”: http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/accreditation/2013- 2014AccredDocs.php. 49 | P a g e y = 0.3923x + 1.5802 R² = 0.1328 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 In fo rm at io n Li te ra cy Written Communication WPE Final Results - All Students Y-Values Linear (Y-Values) y = 0.6736x + 0.7306 R² = 0.5002 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 In fo rm at io n Li te ra cy Written Communication ENG 100 Final Results - All Students Y-Values Linear (Y-Values) FIGURE 15. Results of assessment for writing placement exams (AY 2008-2009) FIGURE 16. Results of assessment for final papers from ENG 100 and 100T (AY 2008-2009) 52 | P a g e 31.5%, have gone on to another school on the mainland. Unfortunately, 28.9% went on academic probation while they were enrolled at UH Hilo. What is troubling is what is missing from the data set. Of the assessed cohort from AY 2008-2009, the grade distribution in ENG 100 is as follows: A B C D/F 89 (48%) 63 (34%) 21 (11%) 11 (6%) The actual grade distribution for the entire cohort of 486 who took ENG 100 in AY 2008-2009 is as follows (with raw numbers followed by the percentage represented in our scatter-plots): A B C D/F 164 (34%) 167 (34%) 98 (20%) 57 (12%) This suggests that the regression models have not captured lower performing students. This may be from a lack of compliance from some teachers in 2008-2009 failing to submit final papers, but statements from faculty revealed that it is possible for students to exit with a C or D without submitting the final research paper if the grade is based on “cumulative” work. In light of the data and its implications, the following observations were made and actions were taken by members of the current Assessment Support Committee: Issues 1. The most pressing problem for the student representatives on the Committee (who are now student teaching at DOE institutions) is the inability of students to recognize the difference between “opinion” and “evidence,” that students believe that if someone says something in public then it qualifies as “fact.” This problem is already evident in the 9th grade; one student representative commented: “My ninth graders are completely unable to formulate their own ideas (except for a very limited amount of things) especially when they are asked to bring in outside information”; 2. One of the teachers of ENG 100 likewise noted: “Language issues remain a main problem. If the WPE shows trouble in syntax, grammar, and similar sentence-level skills, the final ENG 100 paper also has those problems, plus the added burden of unskillful synthesis of information, lack of information literacy, and ineffective communication.” This spawned a concurrent discussion among the Committee members over the possibility that deficiencies in reading skills might also be exacerbating the problem. A library member of the Committee noted: “Some students actually appear unable to understand the writing prompts in the WPE.” On a hunch, two faculty Committee members conducted reading diagnostics in two 400-level English classes; results showed that over 50% of both classes could not properly paraphrase the chosen paragraph FIGURE 18. Grade distribution of papers collected for the 2008-2009 assessment FIGURE 19. Results of assessment for writing placement exams (AY 2008-2009) 53 | P a g e (from the textbook), with many including ideas/concepts that were not embedded in the sample reading. The suspicion is that if Juniors and Seniors are exhibiting these problems, then it stands to reason that many in Freshman Composition may have similar problems; 3. In processing (anonymizing) papers for reading, the Committee noted students from the same high schools shared the same topics on their papers despite being in different sections of ENG 100T. This suggested that freshmen may be recycling papers from their high school English classes, a suspicion confirmed when a sample ENG 100 paper used at a P-20 meeting in Honolulu in Spring of 2012 was recognized by a teacher from Kaua‘i, who identified the student and the paper as having been done as a requirement for his class despite the fact that the student’s name and title of paper had been redacted from the copy. 4. The problem of disengagement is one that the English Department will have to seriously address if progress is to be made on incentivizing students to do better writing. Given the increasingly negative perceptions accompanying students into college, we may need to ask ourselves how to make the preparation for and the actual experience of college writing more meaningful to students. Writing faculty (at both the secondary and tertiary levels) may have to reconsider the required use of the conventions set by the Modern Language Association (MLA), which is not a standard used after students move on to other college courses. Additionally, the preference for argument-driven writing by the MLA, is not appropriate in STEM or certain Social Sciences disciplines; 5. Even though students didn't consistently improve their scores from the WPE to the final ENG 100 paper, some Committee members noted the difference in writing tasks should be factored in their favor. One instructor writes: “Even if the ENG 100 research paper is at an ‘emerging’ rather than ‘competent’ level, the sample papers from my batch at least showed improvement in comprehension of what is academic writing. That is not the same as to say that any of the papers demonstrated mastery. Perhaps it is more realistic to expect students to master or at least be ‘competent’ writers of academic papers at the end of four years, rather than at the end of ENG 100? In my experience of teaching ENG 100 and 100T, most students acquire some basic, albeit fuzzy understanding of how to build up an argumentative thesis, how to do research, and how to cite sources. If these skills are not reinforced in subsequent courses, whatever was learned in ENG 100 disappears.” Actions 1. Per number 2, a reading diagnostic is underway for all sections of ENG 100. Depending upon the results, the English department will formulate plans to create curricula and/or a separate remediation ENG 100T lab for students reading 3-4 grades below college-level; 2. The above findings were reported to the English Department, which met and decided to attach higher stakes to the final assignment with the following policy – any student who does not submit the final research paper will not be eligible for a passing grade in ENG 100; 3. The reading tests will also provide us with information on how to better align instruction between high school and college writing courses. At the moment, the English Department at Kea‘au High School has indicated a willingness to help facilitate curriculum alignment. UH Hilo 54 | P a g e has submitted a grant to the P-20 for partial funding of this initiative, which is being built around collaborations with the intent of addressing student “disengagement” with writing. As an additional effort at benchmarking freshman performance in preparation for this report, the data on Written Communication from the HWST 111 papers (discussed in Essay One) were compared to the same data for final ENG 100 papers from this study: The diamond represents the average score for each set. The line in the middle of the box is the median score. The top of the box represents the third quartile and the bottom of the box represents the second quartile. The top of the vertical lines represent the top scores and the bottom of the vertical lines show the bottom scores. Calculations show slightly better demonstration of skill in ENG 100 but the range of scores in the HWST 111 data was rather limited. In any case, poor freshman writing remains an issue that UH Hilo teachers will need to address in light of the State of Hawai‘i performance results on the 2013 ACT and the percentages of exiting public schools students meeting national benchmarks for writing and reading.113 ACT Test Area Benchmark Score for College & Career Readiness Hawaii Nation English 18 56% 64% Mathematics 22 43% 44% Reading 22 37% 44% Science 23 30% 36% 113 Hawai’i Department of Education, “ACT results reinforce need for college- and career- readiness focus,” August 21, 2013, http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/MediaRoom/PressReleases/Pages/ACT-Results- Reinforce-Need-for-College-and-Career-Readiness-Focus.aspx. FIGURE 20. Comparison of performance between HWST 111 and ENG 100/100T FIGURE 21. State of Hawai‘i percentages of 11th graders meeting national benchmark standards (Spring 2013)
Docsity logo



Copyright © 2024 Ladybird Srl - Via Leonardo da Vinci 16, 10126, Torino, Italy - VAT 10816460017 - All rights reserved