2. GOAL #1: Strengthen students’ experience in reading courses GOAL #2: Promote BCTC Literacy GOAL #3: Advance reading across curricula and campuses

3. GOAL #1: Strengthen students’ experience in reading courses Improved Instruction Professional development for reading faculty ShareFests and reading workshops – over 25 E-community National Conferences RDG 20 and RDG 30 Common Read Assessment of reading classes Nelson Denny – average improvement of reading courses has increased from Fall 2009 (1.74) to 2013 (7.27) Improved Course Offerings Course offerings – RDG 20, IRW 95 Co-requisites - RDG 30/BIO 120, HIS 109, COM 252, POL 101 RDG 185 - Created a “textbook” with sample chapters from various disciplines across campus Improved Developmental RDG advising Implemented RDG 20 advising Mandatory placement compliance has increased (Fall 2006 38% - Fall 2013 80%) Reading Tutor Compass Reading Refresher

4. GOAL #2: Promote BCTC Literacy BCTC terms and processes Terms like: SAP, hybrid, GPA, AA/AS, SGA, academic ombud Processes like: how to change a major, what to do when you have a problem with an instructor Incorporated BCTC terms in RDG 185/GEN 102/FYE 105 Part of the developmental reading advising Promotion of BCTC Literacy across campuses with PR/marketing – Are you in the know? Read for LIFE HomepageRead for LIFE Homepage

5. GOAL #3: Advance student reading across curricula and campuses. Over 145 reading-focused professional development offerings On-line professional development Reading Tutor – accumulated over 200 hours 16 reading partnerships

6. Goal #3 Reading Partnerships Electronics – Kevin Jenson Math – Ruth Simms Biology – Becky McCane Communications – Stacy Webster-Little Machine Tool Technology – Danny Roberts Carpentry – Laura Lynch Art – Chris Huestis English 101 – Kathy Swango Medical Information Technology – Tammie Disco-Boggs Biotech – Tammy Liles English 102 – Leif Rigney History – Karen Gauthier Financial Aid – Michael Birchett CIT 105 – Paul Sirimongkhon FYE 105 – Laura Williams Nursing – Evelyn Grigsby Political Science – Cindy Baker Industrial Technology – Tony Barber

7. partnership sections non-partnership sections initial enrollment 46 48 end-of- semester enrollment 40 39 # passed 30 22 average grade 2.5 1.57 still enrolled next semester 36 26 total classes passed next semester 101 75 average GPA 2.40 2.19 tuition (passed classes) $43,632 $32,400 still enrolled two semesters later 27 18 total classes passed two semesters later 76 47 average GPA 2.44 2.15 tuition (passed classes) $32,832 $20,304 Successes- Anecdotally, the value of our reading partnerships is practically legendary. Empirically, we have the following data taken from two partnerships (ENG101- Kathy Swango and Robin Haggerty; M108R- Ruth Simms and Kathi Crowe). In each, the non-reading instructor taught two sections of the same course, incorporating reading strategies into one section but not the other. At the end of the semester, 87% of students were still enrolled in the partnership sections, while 81% were enrolled in the non- partnership sections. 75% of the students in the partnership sections passed the class (ave. grade 2.5), while only 56% of the students in the non- partnership sections passed (ave. grade 1.57). The following semester, 78% of students in the partnership sections were retained with 101 classes passed (ave. GPA 2.4) while only 54% from the non-partnership sections were retained with 75 classes passed (ave.GPA 2.19). Two semesters later, 59% of students in the partnership sections were retained with 76 classes passed (ave. GPA 2.44) while 38% from non-partnership sections were retained with 47 classes passed (ave. GPA 2.15). By totaling the two semesters of classes passed, partnership students had completed 54 more classes than non-partnership students. The initial cost of these partnerships was $8700 (4 course releases). After two semesters, students from the reading partnership sections had paid $23,760 more in tuition for classes they had passed than students from the non-partnership sections. Basically, by investing in these two reading partnerships, the college made $15,060 from just two sections in one semester. Assuming similar results in future partnerships, tabulate those earnings for the next 5 years and the college has made $150,600 in tuition. (Since most partners incorporated reading strategies into multiple sections of a class, this number is likely to be much higher than estimated here.)

8. What worked?

9. Reading Partnerships RDG 20 Advising Reading Co-requisites Reading Tutoring COMPASS Reading Refresher

10. QEP Reading Coordinator Position Reading Partnerships – Two Reading Partnerships each semester RDG 20 Advising to ensure Mandatory Placement and retention – trains/supports RDG 20 advisors – Developmental Studies Co-requisite Model – Grow co-requisite offerings as part of acceleration. Professional Development – provides reading-strategy Professional Development workshops for college-wide PD events: Fall Kick-off, Changing Classroom Cultures, ShareFest (Developmental Studies faculty meeting). Reading Tutor – supports a Reading Tutor in the Tutoring Center by providing current research on best practices in reading, sharing teaching activities used in the reading courses and providing relevant reading strategies for specific disciplines ( COMPASS Reading Refresher – updates and supervises the Compass Reading Refresher for students (CRR is located in Blackboard and allows students who wish to take or to retake the COMPASS test to practice reading comprehension and vocabulary skills) Reading Liaison Committee – organizes and meets with college-wide Reading Liaisons. The goal of The Reading Liaison Committee is to maintain clear lines of communication between reading faculty and faculty from all divisions in discussions on student reading challenges and student reading needs across the college. Data Collection and Evaluation – Coordinates data collection of co-requisites and reading partnerships and evaluates data for future implementation.