University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Functional illiteracy: high stakes learning in the community college environment

(USC Thesis Other)

Functional illiteracy: high stakes learning in the community college environment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FUNCTIONAL ILLITERACY:
HIGH STAKES LEARNING IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ENVIRONMENT

by

Zeanissia A. Moore

A dissertation submitted to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2021

Copyright 2021 Zeanissia A. Moore

ii

Dedication
To the memory of my mother, Patricia Joyce Moore, who taught me to never vie for attention
from those who do not share your vision. I tried to import this knowledge to my two children
Kamil and Kalim Moore in hopes they continue to set goals and strive for excellence in all they
do. My gratitude extends to the women (Mary Morrison and Roberta Hunt Barnette) who
stepped in as maternal guides to provide me with unwavering support and guidance. To Lisa K.
Williams, thank you for your complete devotion in support of my life’s endeavors. To my Sista
friends Elena and Yemani (HTPU) for your kind words of encouragement. To all my family
members who never doubted my dream to reach my educational goals.

iii

Acknowledgements
Dr. Min, please note my most profound appreciation for your commitment to seeing me
through this phase of my life. I do not have the word to express my gratitude. To my committee
members Dr. Datta and Dr. Lowe, for their guidance and support. Thank you for setting the bar
for excellence by supporting me and my work through guided fruition. I am most appreciative of
each of my professors who challenged my thoughts and taught me to think differently about the
challenges encompassed in organizational change. Because of each of you, I can now identify the
challenges of being a change agent. I have learned to think critically, and when deemed
necessary, I now have the tools to think outside of the proverbial box. Finally “Weekend
Writes,” for the support I received, I am grateful to have had a safe space to write and to ask
questions.
My gratitude extends to the members of Cohort 11; I believe that many of us have
become lifelong friends. I am grateful to have worked with a beautiful group of people from
diverse backgrounds and voices of change. As change agents, I am forever indebted to each of
you as you shared your narratives while we endured the challenges faced in pursuit of our
degrees. And to my cohort Trojan Sista friends Alyson Daichendt, Moriah Norman, Perla
Hernandez, and Petra Gomez.
My final appreciation is to my family, extended family members, and close friends who
shared words of encouragement. I do not have the words to express how appreciative I am for
your positive praises of support while I pursued this degree. Even when I wanted to give up, I
remained steadfast because I did not want to let you down. This dissertation, dedicated to all
those who came before me. And to the ones who are determined to walk in my footsteps. I am
because we are, and we are because I am. Fight On!

iv

Table of Contents

Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.....................................................................1
Importance of the Evaluation ...............................................................................................2
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................3
Organizational Goal .............................................................................................................4
Related Literature Review ...................................................................................................5
The Fundamental Accountability for Literacy Development ..............................................5
Community College Sects of Accountability ..........................................................6
Bureaucratic Accountability ....................................................................................7
CCC Provider Accountability ..................................................................................7
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................8
Stakeholder Group of Focus ................................................................................................9
Stakeholder Performance Goals .........................................................................................11
Purpose of Evaluation Project ............................................................................................12
Methodological Approach and Rationale ..........................................................................12
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................13
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................13

Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................15
Adult Low Literacy and Educational Implications ............................................................15
Functional Illiteracy and Employment...................................................................16
Functional Illiteracy and Healthcare ......................................................................17
Functional Illiteracy and Education .......................................................................18
Functional Illiteracy and Biased Information ........................................................18
Underprepared Student Influences .........................................................................19
Equity .....................................................................................................................19
Benchmarking ........................................................................................................20
Peer Institutions .....................................................................................................21
California Student Success Scorecard ...................................................................21
Implications............................................................................................................23
State of Literacy Knowledge and Skills.................................................................24
Influences Impacting Sustainable Development of Literacy
Knowledge .....................................................................................24
Reading Plus Literacy Support ..............................................................................25
Knowledge .........................................................................................................................25
Factual Knowledge Influence ................................................................................25
Procedural Knowledge Influence ...........................................................................26
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence .....................................................................27
Motivation ..........................................................................................................................28

v

CGU Expectancy-Value.........................................................................................29
CCCSG Goal Orientation Theory ..........................................................................30
Organization .......................................................................................................................32
Cultural Models and Settings Affecting Organizational Change ..........................32
Importance of the Evaluation .............................................................................................34
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework ........................................................................34
Conceptual Framework Description ..................................................................................36

Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................40
Methodological Approach .................................................................................................40
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................42
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale................................................................42
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .......................................43
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................44
Explanation for Choices .........................................................................................45
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ..............................................................45
Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................46
Interview Procedures .............................................................................................47
Document Analysis ................................................................................................48
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................49
Ethics..................................................................................................................................51

Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................52
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................53
Survey ....................................................................................................................53
Interviews ...............................................................................................................54
Knowledge Results and Findings.......................................................................................56
Factual Knowledge Results and Findings ..............................................................56
Procedural Knowledge Results and Findings ........................................................60
Metacognitive Knowledge Results and Findings ..................................................65
Motivation Results and Findings .......................................................................................67
Students Benefit from Predictable Learning Environments ..................................70
Student Expectancy Value Results and Findings...................................................71
Organizational Influences Results and Findings................................................................75
CCC Identified and Implemented Result-Oriented Literacy Remediation
Program ......................................................................................................75
CCC Must Provide Access to Supplemental Learning Programs to Advance
Student Functional Literacy .......................................................................79
Reading Professors Created Relationships of Trust with Students ........................80
Ensure an Atmosphere of Organizational Respect that Garnered Trust
from Participating Stakeholder ..................................................................84
Reading Professors Built Rapport in Their Initial Interaction with New
Students ......................................................................................................87
Reading Professors Engendered Student Trust in the Environment ......................89
Document Analysis: Reading Comprehension Growth .....................................................91
Synthesis ............................................................................................................................94

vi

Study Scope and Delimitations ..........................................................................................96
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................97

Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations ...............................................................................98
Knowledge Recommendations ..........................................................................................98
Developing Literacy Knowledge and Skill to Support Student
Achievement ............................................................................................100
Knowledge of Procedures and Guidelines to Access Program
Features ....................................................................................................101
Students Applied Accrued Knowledge and Strategies to Support
Reading Comprehension ..........................................................................102
Motivation Recommendations .........................................................................................103
Improving Student Connection Between Improved Literacy
Knowledge and the Successful Completion of College
Coursework ..............................................................................................104
Helping Students Set Measurable Learning Goals ..............................................106
Organizational Recommendations ...................................................................................107
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..............................................................113
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ................................................113
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ..............................................................114
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................................115
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................................118
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................122
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................................123
Data Analysis and Reporting ...............................................................................124
Summary ..............................................................................................................124
Study Scope and Delimitations ........................................................................................124
Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................125
Future Research ...............................................................................................................126
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................129

References ....................................................................................................................................128

Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview and Anticipated Transcript Protocol ..................................136
Appendix B: Student KMO Survey .............................................................................................139
Appendix C: Reading Plus Skill Focus for Development ...........................................................141

vii

List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission and Organizational Performance Goal ......................................11
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments ............................................................28
Table 3: Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments .............................................................32
Table 4: Student Interview Participant Demographics ..................................................................55
Table 5: Reading Professor Interview Participants ........................................................................56
Table 6: Validation of Student Environmental Trust .....................................................................86
Table 7: CCC Semester RP Report ................................................................................................93
Table 8: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ...........................................99
Table 9: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .........................................104
Table 10: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations .................................108
Table 11: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ......................114
Table 12: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .............................116
Table 13: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..........................................................117
Table 14: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ......................................121
Table 15: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .....................................................122
Table B1: KMO Influences ..........................................................................................................139
Table C1: RP Development Support Areas .................................................................................141

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Reading Plus Adaptive Instructional Model (adapted from RP Model) ........................10
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework for Functional Illiteracy: High Stakes Learning ......................39
Figure 3: Student Reading Preference Scale ..................................................................................57
Figure 4: Responses to “Prior to Reading Plus (RP), I did not understand what I read
on my own.” ...........................................................................................................58
Figure 5: Text Recall Difficulty .....................................................................................................59
Figure 6: Participant Computer Skill Growth ................................................................................61
Figure 7: Student Improved Computer Skills from Reading Plus Program Use ...........................62
Figure 8: Students Applied Learned RP Conceptual Skills to Other Academic Courses ..............65
Figure 9: Text Pattern Recognition ................................................................................................66
Figure 10: Reading is a Valuable Skill to Master ..........................................................................68
Figure 11: Academic Reading Value .............................................................................................72
Figure 12: Career Field Literacy Value .........................................................................................73
Figure 13: Reading is a Valuable Skill to Master ..........................................................................74
Figure 14: RP Expected Literacy Knowledge Gains Based on Current Reading
Proficient Levels ....................................................................................................92

ix

Abstract
Students enroll each year into post-secondary education institutions underprepared to meet
college reading demands. This lack of knowledge places students at a disadvantage as they
attempt to prepare for both college and career success. The purpose of this evaluation study was
to ascertain the usefulness of the Reading Plus Program (RP) Adaptive Reading Literacy
program to address functional illiteracy in the community college system. Using the Clark and
Estes Gap Analysis Framework (2008), the study explored the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences impacting accomplishment of the stakeholder goals. The study findings
identified the need for Reading professors to provide literacy skill support as the students
advanced through the Reading Plus program. The RP computer program is designed to provide
need-based instruction to students. In addition, the program allows educators to monitor student
progress, and provide strategic skill support. The student and educator interviews underscored
the need to set strategic learning goals to guide students through the learning process. The data-
based instruction provided in connection to RP created opportunities for educators to engage
knowledge lack through small group instruction. The study identified the importance of creating
an academic environment that responds to the diverse needs of students. The students noted
improved reading comprehension skills as a direct result of using RP. The students also reported
an improved ability to recall textual details and apply learnings to other academic
courses. Finally, students conceded to the value of RP as each individual can monitor the
progression of skill and knowledge growth.

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
This study addresses the problem of adult functional illiteracy's impact on community
college students’ ability to successfully matriculate post-secondary systems of education.
Vagvölgyi et al. (2016) defined functional illiteracy as the "incapability to understand complex
texts despite adequate schooling, age, language skills, elementary reading skills, and IQ" (p.1).
Evidence highlights that functional illiterate (FI) adults represent 44% of those living in
impoverished communities (National Institute of Literacy, 2018). Also, the U.S. Department of
Education (2019) noted that over 43 million adults are unable to complete daily tasks that
involve reading and writing. Wendt (2013) reported that literacy's cognitive demands are far
beyond the elementary skills of reading and writing procured as a youth. The evidence shows
that this problem is critical to address because functionally illiteracy, also referred to as low
literacy, sustains the cycle of poverty, impacting workforce readiness, health outcomes, and
family literacy (Preece, 2013). The Program for International Assessment Adult Competencies
further (PIAAC, 2019) defined literacy as the capability to comprehend and analyze a written
text to engage in society at large.
FI is a problem that affects the high school graduates for whom community college is
their only hope to reach the goal of self-sufficiency. California state assessment reading results
identified low reading skills that did not meet state standards for college reading proficiency
(caaspp.cde.ca.gov, 2018). The connection demonstrates that it is essential to address reading
remediation upon enrolling into the community college system. The California Community
College Chancellor's Office (2019) reported that over 75% of the students are unprepared to meet
the demands for college success. To compound the issue, California State Legislation AB 705
dictates that all students must pass college-level English and Math in a one-year time frame upon

2

taking their first transferable English or math course (CCCCO, 2018). While the law's intended
purpose is to reduce and ultimately remove remedial coursework, the mandate disproportionately
affects traditionally marginalized students whose educational background left them inadequately
prepared to matriculate post-secondary institutions of education with success.
The problem for community college students is that literacy competencies extend beyond
the ability to recognize and pronounce the words on a page (Macuruso & Shankweiler, 2016).
The engagement of reading literacy requires higher-order thinking skills, a function of critical
thought, as well as the ability to articulate one's understanding of the material read (Krathwohl,
2002). Literacy is the foundation for which structures of vocabulary knowledge, also critical to
support content analysis. According to PIAAC, the literacy assessment component for the
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) contextualizes literacy as the ability to
understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to achieve one's
goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential (OECD, 2016).
Importance of the Evaluation
It is necessary to assess the organization's performance in correlation to the performance
goal of 90% of entering students being prepared to take and pass transferable college-level
courses by the beginning of year two in college. If the college is not compliant with the AB705
mandate, students are at risk of a series of consequences, including obtaining authorization to
repeat the course per Commission on State Mandates, Title 5, and in some cases, students may
end up taking a transferable English course at another college institution (CCCCO, 2020).
Although students have the option to retake the class after the initial failure, the hardship
engaged with the next steps may affect factors involving student persistence. It is apparent that if

3

stakeholders fail to meet their goals, they will not be eligible to continue their education at a
four-year college.
In other cases, vocational study programs require that students also pass college English
for associate degree procurement. On the other hand, if the college fails to provide the needed
support for student success, the CCC will then be at risk for losing funding for both AB705 and
guided pathways funding, both of which supplement college and student financial aid
opportunities (CCCCO, 2020). However, about the areas of penalty, evidence shows that literacy
support is vital to student achievement in community college. Equally important is that evidence
does reveal a direct link between literacy competence and writing achievement. Heen (2015)
found the interconnected relationship between the ability to read and the impact on student
writing. For that reason, an evaluation of the organization's performance would enable
stakeholders to acquire formative data that can be used to assess the effectiveness of the Reading
Plus (RP), an adaptive literacy program. And to reassess statewide decisions that directly
influence the remediation of student literacy skills.
Organizational Context and Mission
California City College (CCC), a pseudonym, is among the one-hundred and fifteen
community college institutions faced with the changes administered by California State Bill AB
705. The challenges presented by this law will affect many colleges serving low demographic
student populations. To illustrate, CCC serves a community where the household income
reported is approximately $35,000 less than the reported statewide median income of $71,000 for
2018 (census.gov, 2019). A review of 2016-17 CCC data for a six-year student cohort of 17,755
enrolled students’ racial demographic structure was as follows: (a) Hispanic/Latino 65.2%; (b)
African American 12.3%; (c) White 13.1%; (d) Asian 3.7%; (d) Two or More Races 2.8%; (e)

4

Filipino 1.3%; (f) Unknown Ethnicity 0.3% and (g) America Native/Alaska 0.2%. Statistics
identified the overall completion rate of 33.7% for this college’s underprepared student
population. California City College’s (CCC) mission is to utilize innovative educational
approaches to empower students with the tools and strategies to meet college and career
aspirations.
Organizational Goal
CCC's performance goal is to support 90% of entering students to be prepared to take and
pass a transferable college English course by the beginning of year two in college. To meet the
overall organizational goal, CCC's students shall have access to a positive campus culture that
enables success in all disciplines and improves degree and certificate completion rates under the
guidance of current curriculum standards. As a part of the California Community College
Chancellor's Office, which governs the State of California Community Colleges System, CCC
must further align organizational goals with those identified by the state. The mandated
administrative changes in curriculum included the amended authorization of California
Assembly Bill 705. The Irwin-Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012 requires all
community college students to pass transferable English and Math within one year of taking the
initial courses (A.B.705, 2017. Secretary of State, CA). The goal is to eliminate barriers to
completion rates by removing all levels of remedial coursework.
The California state-mandated goal is to increase student equity, leading to a higher
college completion rate among those from traditionally marginalized and representatives from
diverse socioeconomic communities of color, for CCC to meet its goals related to successful
matriculation. The Reading Plus Program is a need-based program designed to identify current

5

skill levels and provide support by aligning with the literacy skills needed to prepare for college-
level reading and writing.
Related Literature Review
The purpose of this related literature is to evaluate California City College's effectiveness in
meeting its organization's goal of 90% of the low-literate students acquiring the skills and
knowledge to pass a transferable college English upon completion of the Reading Plus Program.
For further explanation, this analysis will focus on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals. While a complete
performance evaluation would focus on all organizational stakeholders, for practical purposes,
students are identified as the subject of this analysis, as the program's success depends on student
engagement with the Reading Plus Program.
The Fundamental Accountability for Literacy Development
Conley (2008) identified finite factors for college success, citing reading comprehension
as a fundamental need for different areas of cognitive development. Furthermore, strategic
reading supports strategic cognitive development for argument analysis, vocabulary
development, and critical terminology prescribed across all content areas. In summary, the
identified challenge of passing college-level English, supported by crucial strategic reading
coursework that is essential to student success.
It is important to evaluate the organization's performance concerning the performance
goal of college-level English competence for two reasons. First, students are underprepared for
workforce demands. As recognized by Gewertz (2018), career fields are fleshed with individuals
with poor literacy and communication skills. Second, to pursue post-secondary educational
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher. However, in either case, literacy is the compounding

6

component of student success. The use of the Reading Plus reading program supports student
literacy knowledge by focusing on individualized instruction for literacy competence. Overall,
the evidence shows that the efficacy of the RP program will aid in the proficiency of literacy.
Also, research further pinpointed reading comprehension and skills improved upwards of three
or more grade levels in the 18-week semester. Through the use of the RP program, the
organization offers the positionality to support the skills and knowledge necessary for lifelong
learning and overall community engagement.
The practice of holding institutions of education accountable for their overall
performance and student learning outcomes has transformed how the vocation of teaching is now
a function viewed as a practice of business (Tambiasca. 2019). Accountability within the
business construct, organizations of education, is considered accountable for the levels of
services provided to students. Also, the manner in which they are delivered by the educational
provider, in this case, immediate faculty of content, and finally, the department relies on student
performance to acquire financial support from both federal and state governments (Kirby &
Stetcher, 2004). However, Firestone & Shipps (2005) reported that there is no direct correlation
between student performance and accountability measures.
Community College Sects of Accountability
Higher education institutions depend on federal and public funding, and accountability in
the community college is at risk of losing financial support tied to overall student outcomes
(Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). For this paper's purpose, the Kirby & Stecher (2004) Standard-
Based Accountability Model will serve as a guideline for interpreting levels of accountability in
education. Specifically, the archetypes of bureaucratic accountability and professional

7

accountability will serve as the focus of analysis throughout this section of the related literature
review.
Bureaucratic Accountability
At CCC, the department deans are responsible at the administrative level to ensure that
state and federal mandated compliance for student performance is in place? (Firestone & Shipps,
2005). Also, the dean has the responsibility of supporting providers (teaching faculty) with the
process of setting goals and providing compensation for those who have met articulated
standards (Firestone & Shipps, 2005). Finally, bureaucratic accountability monitors provider
progress and perseverance to create an outcome and ensure equity in practice to benefit all
students.
CCC Provider Accountability
The CCC is an instrument for ensuring the meeting of student academic needs (Burke,
2004). Mostly, within the constraints of provider accountability are learning experiences that
provide not only equity but also create an environment that encourages student and professor
relationships (Lee, 2012). It is necessary for the provider to engage in the meaningful learning
experience to meet the goal of competent literacy acquisition to meet the demands for desired
career choice (Lee, 2012 ). Although a goal of this AB705 is to prevent over remediation, there is
evidence that students are entering this college extremely below grade level. For example,
assessment results determine that students' reading skills reflect the fourth-grade level
competency. Finally, the challenge is to create a responsive curriculum that enables learning
growth while not demeaning the student's character. This change must occur between the
bureaucratic and provider levels of accountability.

8

Finally, in keeping with one of the main themes of accountability, college is a business
with obligations not only to the students as consumers but also to the agents that ensure that
federal and state compliance and equity are achieved. Community colleges in the changing times
must provide public and governmental satisfaction as the sourcing of budgets are dependent on
the success of student performance. However, it is equally important that students are engaged
in meaningful learning as their futures depend on successful learning and the attainment of
meaningful careers.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
At CCC, the stakeholders include the Reading Department chair, faculty, and students.
However, as stakeholders, students are most directly affected as they contribute and benefit from
the achievement of the organizational goal. Secondly, faculty members are secondary
stakeholders because they are responsible for implementing a curriculum that produces
knowledge growth and relative mastery of identified literacy needs. Finally, the department
chair holds the responsibility of providing adequate training and resources needed to safeguard
the equity of student learning experiences. Also, the overall department meets student learning
outcomes as a part of college and state budgetary standards.
CCC is part of one of the most impoverished counties in California. CCC was established
in 1929 and had one of the oldest community colleges in California. CCC serves as a regular
feeder school for ten surrounding high schools from surrounding school districts. The two-year
college is primarily known for its’ high emphasis on vocational occupations. At last reporting in
2016, the college employed 176 tenured and tenure track faculty and 385 adjunct faculty
members. Furthermore, student enrollment at the end of 2018 was at 19,290, representing full-
time and part-time status.

9

Stakeholder Group of Focus
Customarily, a thorough analysis would involve the consideration of each stakeholder
group identified; the focus of this analysis is the student group. For one thing, students are most
at risk of being identified as functionally illiterate and are likely to fail in terms of educational
persistence. Second, students' immediate academic success depends on successfully passing
college-level English and Math. Subsequently, it is essential to note that as of 2019,
approximately 65% of students that attend CCC graduated from high schools from surrounding
school districts (SBCCD, 2020). Also, the California state standards identified that nearly 80% of
high school eleventh graders did not meet Literacy Test Strand competencies.
Critical to this point (if you are starting a new paragraph, you should use something to tie
this back to the paragraph above) is the student's previous learning experience that if the student
has received his or her education from one of the feeder high school districts, some students are
underprepared for the rigor of college. More importantly, given the state of California
standardized testing results, it is then fortuitous that students did not receive adequate education
to prepare them for college-level reading and correlative academic writing standards (Cohen,
2009). According to California state assessments, the results identified that approximately 88%
of the students either had not met or had almost English Language Arts/Literacy state
competencies in the eleventh grade (Smarter Balanced Assessment Test Results for the State of
California, 2018). With this stated, it is necessary to focus on students to proactively identify
learning gaps and analyze if current strategies in place are successful in supporting student
literacy needs. Stakeholders are required to provide proof of eligible coursework and GPA
learned in high school. In this case, the recommendation is for students to enroll in a reading
class. The reading classes require students to assess to determine their placement at the needed

10

level. In some cases, students may test from a range of fourth to eighth grade in relation to
content reading knowledge.
Figure 1 illustrates a synopsis of the RP literacy development from skill placement to
strategic remedial assignment track. The students are also required to disclose personal interests
to deliver a more meaningful learning experience. Figure 1 shows the process to determine the
instructional process from student assessment to modified instruction to identify pupil the
placement point, assigned instructional practice, and guided measures for educator support. The
process acknowledges that students learning, although guided by the instrumentation of RP,
educator support is necessary to the advancement of literacy knowledge.

Figure 1
Reading Plus Adaptive Instructional Model (adapted from RP Model)

Assessment
Measures
Efficiency
Comprehension
Motivation

Teacher-
Directed
Instruction
Formative
Assessments
Active
Adaptation to
Support
Student
Knowledge
Growth

Adaptive Instruction
Lessons Adjusts as
Needed to Refine Mastery
of Literacy Skills and
Knowledge

Personalized
Practice
Personalized
Silent Reading
Scaffolding

11

Stakeholder Performance Goals

Table 1
Organization Mission and Organizational Performance Goal
Organizational mission
California City College’s (CCC) mission is to utilize innovative educational approaches to
empower students with the tools and strategies to meet college and career aspirations.
Organizational performance goal
The Organizational Performance Goal is that upon the completion of remedial reading
coursework, 90% of entering students are prepared to take and pass college English by the
beginning of year two in college.
CCC organizational
goal
Summer/Fall 2020
CCC Reading faculty
goal
Fall/Spring 2020-
2021
CCC Reading
Department Chair
goal
Fall/Spring 2020-
2021
CCC student goal
Summer/Fall 2021
The department will
implement the
Reading Plus
Program to increase
student literacy skills
and knowledge.
The faculty will
create a supportive
learning environment
to ensure cognitive
growth and
transferability of
metacognitive-based
literacy knowledge.
The department chair
will ensure faculty
access to up-to-date
resources and support
regarding the
Reading Plus
program use.

Historically
marginalized students
reading below the
college level will
complete two
semesters of the
reading remediation
using the RPP to
achieve functional
literacy.

12

Purpose of Evaluation Project
The following questions guide the evaluation of this study:
1. What are the knowledge influences needed to support student success with the Reading
Plus Program?
2. What are the motivation influences needed to support student success with the Reading
Plus Program?
3. What are the organizational influences that support student achievement of performance
goals?
The purpose of this study was to evaluate student engagement with the Reading Plus (RP)
Adaptive Literacy Intervention for Reading Proficiency to meet student learning goals. The study
will begin by generating a list of possible or assumed interfering influences that systematically
focuses on actual or validated interfering influences (Marsh, 2012). While a complete gap
analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the focus of this analysis is on
students with existing literacy levels at or below the fourth-grade level who meet the criteria of
functionally illiterate, besides being first-time college students.
Methodological Approach and Rationale
Due to the sociological dynamics of learning, the mixed approach entails an inductive
approach to data discovery. Expressively, the exploratory sequential mixed method design
permits the researcher to begin with an inquiry of qualitative data and later with quantitative data
to supplement the narrative of the analytical findings. For example, it is the goal to identify the
students' prior relationship with schooling. A qualitative inquiry will permit data response that
cannot be quantified but sets the ground for initial analysis and emerging themes about student
personal education experience. On the other hand, quantitative data will serve to identify specific

13

gaps in skills and detailed account knowledge needs deserving of immediate response to
intervention measures.
Definitions of Terms
Functional Illiterate
A functional illiterate is a student whose level of ability to read and write is below that
needed to do the ordinary tasks required to participate in various realms of society.
Low Literacy
Low literacy indicates a student with reading skills limited to that of letter or word
recognition skills and does not fully comprehend the meaning of the text.
Remedial Coursework
Remedial coursework is academic coursework designed to provide supplemental
education to support knowledge engagement in the post-secondary educational setting.
Underprepared Students
Underprepared students are students that have limited knowledge and skills to engage
fully in post-secondary academic settings.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters to ensure that each level of inquiry is
thoroughly reviewed for analysis and addressed. The first chapter begins with a foundational
synopsis and terminology associated with remedial literacy education and community college
students. Also, the organization's goals, mission, and stakeholders represented, and only the
student, stakeholders of focus, will deeply be explored to understand the dynamics of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational relationships impacting goal achievement. In Chapter Two, the
literature will explore the correlational factors that impact functional literacy, including the

14

community college experience for functionally illiterate adults. Next, Chapter Three identifies
the stakeholders of focus, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four presents analyzed data
along with rich detail of research findings. Finally, Chapter Five makes available recommended
practices based on data and literature suggestions. This chapter also provides an endorsement for
implementation, evaluation, and guide for educators to employ best practices for literacy
instruction.

15

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review will examine the root causes and gaps of efficacy in implementing
the Reading Plus Program (RPP) in community colleges. The review will begin with extensive
research on the state of functional illiteracy affecting the population of adults entering college
post-high school. This review also provides an overview of determinant factors impeding reading
development before leaving the secondary educational system. This review will employ a
comprehensive discussion of the attributes employed by the RPP to support adult literacy
intervention. This section on current research examined how RPP structural design targets adult
literacy gaps for remediation. Subsequently, to the general review of literature, this
comprehensive analysis concerning Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework (2008) will serve
to explicate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence on community college
student's ability to respond to reading intervention measures.
Adult Low Literacy and Educational Implications
At the root of college and career preparedness is the ability to employ critical thinking
skills necessary to be a contributing member of society. The overall purpose of compulsory
education is to prepare students for the challenges of at the very least career attainment.
However, the reality is that students are leaving high school less than prepared to meet both
college and entry-level career demands. Furthermore, the current workforce calls for education to
extend beyond the ownership of a high school diploma (Clark and Martell, 2014). In addition,
the recent implementation of California AB 705 not only limits access to remedial coursework
but also requires the passage of college-level English and Math in a one-year time frame seems
to ignore the plight of underprepared students entering community colleges across the state. Yet,
despite the action to eliminate remedial courses, empirical data suggests a more conscientious

16

approach to remediation should be considered to support learning gaps (Gordanier, Hauk, &
Sankaran, 2019). Therefore, the key aspects being discussed are the historical implications of
remediation aligned with student effectiveness. In addition, the alignment of the reading plus
program curriculum to that of current student needs. For example, an evaluation of how marked
components of the program respectively address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
aspects in relation to closing educational gaps (Clark & Estes, 2006).
Functional Illiteracy and Employment
Functionally illiterate (FI) adults are underprepared to meet and perform more skilled
workplace demands. According to Miller, McCardle, and Hernandez (2010), today's workers
must possess critical thinking skills and demonstrate workplace guidelines and training materials.
The researchers further explained that the lack of a literacy skill set serves as a barrier to access
excellent job opportunities and earn higher wages (Miller et al., 2010). Weiner (2011) supported
this point when the researcher maintained that workers must be able to assess work-related
situations and solve problems accordingly.
To continue, Weiner (2011) proclaimed that due to the everchanging literacy needs of the
work environment, low literate employees do not possess the comprehension skills to address the
complexities of work-related tasks from reading manuals about workplace protocols explaining
job correctly to factor to include a basic understanding of workplace literature that identify
employer expectation to company rules and regulations. This fundamental lack of knowledge
puts employees at risk of losing their jobs as there is a secure link between low literacy
knowledge and income.
The National Literacy Trust (2011) showed that functionally illiterate adults are limited
to low-skilled jobs, underemployed, and more likely to be unemployed. This research further

17

specified the correlation between FI adults' lack of employment and recipients of state welfare
benefits (National Literacy Trust, 2011). More specifically, functionally illiterate adults may be
bound to a life of governmental dependency as a means of financial support (Ingwu et al., 2012).
Functional illiteracy sharply restricts the opportunities available in the workplace and can further
impact one's ability to attain sustainable employment.
Functional Illiteracy and Healthcare
Functionally illiterate adults are more susceptible to mental and physical health-related
problems. Branch (2011) established that FI adults might face a variety of mental and physical
health problems due to their non-engagement with healthcare systems. Furthermore, Branch
(2011) identified functionally illiterate patients who fail to manage chronic illness as they tend to
underestimate the severity of the issue. In other words, the researcher concluded that low literacy
skills are predictive of one’s ability to seek medical help.
Similarly, Fincham (2013) indicated that because of low literacy, FI adults face unique
challenges that an otherwise literate adult would not encounter. For example, Fincham (2013)
stressed that medication guides, written at the tenth and eleventh-grade level, are above the
remedial student reading levels, not to mention their ability to comprehend and follow a
physician's instructions. Fincham even suggested that health illiteracy can lead to adverse
effects, such as death. Easton, Entwistle, and Williams (2010) explained that a patient's low
literacy contributed to FI adults' ability to comprehend a physician's health regimen. Perhaps
more important, patients were unaware of available resources. As previously stated, failure to
provide informed communication and solicit support may lead to unavoidable complications to
the patients’ health. (Easton et al., 2010). Functional illiteracy extends beyond the individual; it
also has a profound effect on educational outcomes for members of the family.

18

Functional Illiteracy and Education
Functionally illiterate parents have a direct impact on their children's academic success.
Brogan and Adams (2014) revealed that out of one hundred parents, fourteen were functionally
illiterate. These parents do not possess the knowledge or skills to support emergent literacy
needs, such as access to books, parent discussions about text, and participation in school culture.
Consequently, 40% of children from FI homes enter elementary school far behind their peers and
are susceptible to lifelong challenges that include a failure to complete compulsory education
(Brogan & Adams, 2014). Furthermore, according to Bracken and Fischel (2008), this functional
illiteracy model replicates a pattern of illiteracy and generational poverty that relegates FI
families to a low socioeconomic status.
These researchers studied the extent of low-income effects on childhood development
and literacy knowledge. They found that parents' lack of education and a weak home literacy
environment shaped the children's literacy development (Bracken & Fischel, 2008). Likewise,
Laughlin-Presnal and Bierman (2017) suggested that parents may be unaware that early
childhood experiences begin in the home. For example, the simple act of reading with a child
can enhance word recognition and develop critical thinking skills. It is critical to address the
literacy needs of children; parent engagement is vital.
Functional Illiteracy and Biased Information
Literacy is core to the understanding of and participation in civic engagement. Through
literacy, people amass the opportunity to make decisions based on critical thinking that directly
affect their communities and society at large (Jones, 2017). Low literacy is, furthermore,
influenced by biased information reported by various media outlets (Jones, 2017). This leads to
the inability to decipher fact from fiction; critical literacy skills empower individuals to decipher

19

political information that directly impacts participatory citizenship (Stein-Smith, 2017). The
researcher further emphasizes the need to adequately decode media and information literacy
across the public mediums designed to positively or negatively influence individual thinking
(Stein-Smith, 2017). As functional illiteracy influences every aspect of one's life, the inability to
understand public information impacts all areas of one's life, including the ability to make
reasonable decisions based on critical thought about the political policies that directly affect
one’s life.
Underprepared Student Influences
This section of scholarly research considers the assumed influences that impact the
underprepared and diverse student body at California City College (CCC). The students of color
represent approximately 65% of the entire population (CCCSG). According to California College
Scorecard, over 70% are unprepared to meet post-secondary academic rigor. By these numbers,
it is safe to assume that many of the students are unprepared and are unfamiliar with institutional
processes like choosing classes, financial aid, or accessing supportive academic resources.
Considering the organizational make-up of the student body, the underlying need for students to
recover necessary educational skills is an influential factor that CCC is facing. To complicate
matters is the state legislation that requires the reduction of remedial coursework in the
community college setting. Although, as a public educational institution of learning, CCC is to
implement required curriculum change while considering its diverse student body.
Equity
Defining equity in higher education calls for a recognition of core oppositions that
present unilateral barriers for historically marginalized persons in pursuit of higher education
(Dowd & Bensimon, 2014). Researchers further identified an equitable institution of learning

20

shall engage in authentic discourse around student diversity. Also, accessing the disaggregated
data ensures the knowledge of equity in education provided by the California Community
College Success Scorecard (CSSC) (CCCCO, 2019). The scorecard falls in line with data
markers complimentary of the Academic Equity Scorecard (Bensimon et al., 2003). The analysis
for this report is through the lens of educational equity; the discernment of students' needs shall
support community college success (Castro, 2015). Despite the strategic intervention, the
correlation between low income and students of color failed to diminish educational gaps
(Rodrick et al., 2009). However, the comparative performance standards data and correlative
peer institutes. The goal of the evidence team is to highlight essential performance markers for
success to include aspirational intent in support of California Community College across affected
domains of accountability. Also, this includes not only the students but also practitioners and
higher bureaucratic organizational levels.
Benchmarking
Benchmarking allows organizations the ability to evaluate statistical performance values
focused on unprepared students and language arts remediation. The goal is to identify
characterized successes resulting from reading and language arts intervention leading to
performance improvements in comparison to community colleges facing the same institutional
challenges. The process benchmarking process is the decided method analysis for the project
(Dowd, 2005).
The process benchmarking engages the process of comparative analysis of available data
across many factors. Such factors include student college readiness, student unique education
population, ethnic/racial demographic to include financial status. The information further
identifies cohort success and failure regarding degree attainment or four-year college transfer

21

rates, specifically about the identified demographic cohort. Subsequently, for this performance
benchmark analysis, three peer institutions will be the focus of a comparative data review. The
evaluative goal is to identify data supporting reading remediation as a primary indicator for
students classified as unprepared, language arts, and ESL to support community college success.
Peer Institutions
The benchmark process California City College, Ocean City College, and Inland Dessert
College were considered peers for this benchmark analysis. Accordingly, the isolation of peers
marking an exact match is nearly or if not impossible (Dowd, 2005). The statistical comparison
had to reside upon aligned areas of likeness to support the validity of performance factors. The
institutions for this project shared two characteristics 1) The California Community College
Chancellor's Office, 2019, have identified schools as being in the same group, and 2)
Institutional peers each continue to maintain an active Reading Department. These factors
contribute to the identification of California City College and its peer organizations, Ocean City
College and Inland Desert College, for the comparative benchmark analysis. In the same way,
each organization commonly shares within statistical variation; students are unprepared for
college students, including the need for Math, English, and ESL remediations; and finally,
racial/ethnic demographics of which all three peer institutions predominately serve
Latino/Hispanic students. Despite the representative convergence amongst the peer
organizations, and each serving a high Latino student population; however, Inland Community
College is the California Community College aspirational peer.
California Student Success Scorecard
Beard (2004) asserted that the Balanced Scorecard is critical to addressing the
encumbering data management task in higher education. Further, the balance offered an efficient

22

way to identify and address performance measures in higher education. Equally important is the
inclusion of equity measures of diversity (Bensimon, 2004). The establishment of the California
Student Success Scorecard (CSSS) was necessary to address the multiplying factors inherent to
the state's diverse population. The analysis team intends to observe and collect data from the
California Student Success Scorecard for this peer benchmark analysis. To better understand the
CSSS framework, a pyramid structure aligns with the overall framework's hierarchical needs.
CCCCS framework is recognized for having a level of accountability coupled with a
transparent design (CCCCS, 2019). The quantifying design creates a system of accessible data
for population review (Bensimon et al., 2003). The previously mentioned pyramid type
schematic classes, each of the pyramid levels accordingly. In descending order report types, the
top of the pyramid identifies the state's colleges, which includes participation rates, annual
transfers, and scorecard data. Scorecard using single demographic metric analysis for Math
English, as well as completion metrics for degree/transfer and student persistence related to
student achievement. The third level report is Data Mart, marked by all scoreboard data and
outcomes by college success rate. The lowest level is titled Data on Demand offering access to
download unit records (CCCCS, 2019). Finally, the CSSS data collection framework identified
accumulated data markers including age, gender, race in addition to remediation, including age,
gender, and race.
The CCCS frame meets the standard for supporting the equity gap recognition as a
necessary component for analysis (Bensimon et al., 2005). The structured presentation of data
afforded by CCCS made it particularly effortless for the team to review data identifying student
persistence rates as they relate to unprepared, remedial in English, and ESL student
classifications. The analysis team will garner the related metric data for student completion of

23

transfer-level success. For this process, the team will look at the demographic setting for each
identified student of concern.
The first issue of concern is that recent graduates of high school students are not prepared
to engage in the academic rigor of college-level reading and writing (Rodriguez et al., 2018).
Melvin (2009) reported that in addition to low scores on state standardized tests as a critical
preparedness indicator, the researcher also noted the disconnect between high school curriculum
might not align with the rigor of college coursework. Nevertheless, students entering college are
bound to remediation as an opportunity to fill knowledge gaps. They are thereby assigning the
charge to the community college system.
While noting that students from historically marginalized groups are typically
underprepared for college, the CCCSE (2016) identified the advent of remedial education to
support this specific student population. Thus, the focus then became to close the achievement
gap for the primarily marginalized student population, and college leadership created a more
effective means for remediation (CCCSE, 2016). There has been a constant struggle for
traditionally marginalized students to complete college-related goals (CCCSE, 2026). However,
timely and effective remediation supports college completion.
Implications
The California Student Success Scorecard identifies robust markers for remediation. It
was the intent to create a scorecard that would highlight the equity gaps in education. Although
performance benchmarking, in relationship to the community college setting, institutional
settings to succinctly identify essential factors affecting organizational performance and data
noted has identified some factors affecting students are beyond the community college setting
(CCCCES). However, Bensimon et al. (2003) reported that more Latino students are completing

24

their education in the California UC system. Subsequently, success is the result of having strong
remedial support, which enables progress. To summarize, benchmarking allows the organization
to ascertain constructed knowledge regarding the overall functionality of their organization, as
the process is further validated when conducting comparisons to organizational peers.
State of Literacy Knowledge and Skills
For students to meet the performance goals, knowledge influences are to be identified,
targeted, and remediation ensued to support CCCSG performance goal attainment. To determine
a practical solution, Clark and Estes (2008) outlined a series of procedural guidelines to identify
knowledge gaps influencing student performance and further preventing academic successes.
Additionally, the researchers noted that attaining literacy competencies depends on stakeholder
knowledge, ability, and desire to do the work. Rueda (2011) pointed out that defined goal
alignment marks clear identification of how one's ability serves to contribute to expected
performance outcomes. Specifically, CCCSG is personally responsible for full participation in
their learning and tasks accomplished by their merit (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Influences Impacting Sustainable Development of Literacy Knowledge
To address student performance gaps, CCC's Reading Department adopted Reading Plus
(RP), a remedial reading program designed to address and support reading comprehension and
vocabulary skills. RP, honing the role of job aid and training, encompasses the variance of
knowledge influences in support of reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge (Estes &
Clark, 2008). However, to effectively track student achievement, knowledge types specific to the
organization are to be aligned with performance goals. Krathwohl (2002) evaluated the
dimensional structure of knowledge to include factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. In effect, the RP manages to address each knowledge domain in its

25

comprehensive approach to reading remediation. However, the knowledge influencers to be
addressed in this paper are procedural, factual, and metacognitive.
Reading Plus Literacy Support
A remedial program software was adopted to support students with the skills and knowledge
needed to improve reading comprehension skills. In question is the overall effectiveness of the
Reading Plus software program design and its’ ability to remediate knowledge factors that are
explicitly aligned with individual student needs. Overall, RP includes built-in accountability
measures, including motivation, reading comprehension, and vocabulary to support college
reading mastery. While the RPP motivates learners by acknowledging successful skill
accomplishment, student weaknesses identified for remediation include strategic skill support to
alleviate learning difficulty. Noting that RP offers a plausible solution to stakeholder remediation
and the computer program is conceptually designed to address the procedural, factual, and
metacognitive knowledge that influences student learning gaps.
Knowledge
Factual Knowledge Influence
The baseline assessment benchmarks current knowledge by engaging CCCSG in the
process of long-term memory recall as they work through the program (Krathwohl, 2002).
Bloom's taxonomy revision briefly outlined factual knowledge breadth to include content-
specific vocabulary and terms, including the methodology for application (Krathwohl, 2002).
The reading remediation process not only requires CCCSG to recognize and define a broad scope
of vocabulary words and their meaning but use the reading process to recognize further textual
patterns to support the comprehension of text. For example, cause and effect or compare as well
as contrast compositions of text. Students respond to associated terminology but further the

26

application of skills necessary to support reading comprehension. The RP benchmark results
provide students factual knowledge about their grade level knowledge and subsequent placement
in the program. Estes & Clark (2006). Exerting this knowledge avoids student confusion as they
are aware and able to confront skill and knowledge needs.
Procedural Knowledge Influence
Riddle-Johnson and Schneider (2015) reported that procedural knowledge is the
replication of a specific set of steps necessary to accomplish a specific task. The use of
procedural knowledge is fundamental to the RP program engagement, as students must learn a
series of steps to access program features. Krathwohl (2002) defined tenets of procedural
knowledge to include system navigation; visual cue prompts for specific program actions, and
the ability to access automated program features as needed. Students support upon initial access
to program features and to continue with skill development in and outside of the classroom.
Next, students will follow an ordered series of actions to input assigned login credentials and
create a password to gain access to the RP program activities. Subsequently, procedural
knowledge is needed to use the reading program. Students must learn to follow select prompts
that will allow students to gain access to specific types of literacy content. For example, the
reading process has a series of procedures that one must engage in during each guided reading
passage. Students must read the passage before clicking on the next screen for question
responses. Likewise, the vocabulary flashes each word allowing students to choose the meaning
of the word and clicking individual responses. To briefly illustrate, vocabulary words flash in
two-second intervals, and the student must identify the word and its meaning. The sequential
student performance promotes automaticity, consistent with procedural mastery of skilled
reading (Paulson, 2014). In addition to procedural knowledge, students are assessed to determine

27

their current grade level reading knowledge, which informs student ability and knowledge
awareness.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence
The final knowledge influence addressed for analysis is metacognitive. Metacognitive
knowledge requires students to be mindful of their thought processes (Krathwohl, 2002). In
common with procedural knowledge, students need to assess the knowledge via thinking about
the text as appropriate reading strategies and the use of metacognition to address contextual
meaning. Reading requires the learner to think and make connections by linking the current
schema with current information to form new knowledge. Pool (2019) also asserts that students
lack the strategic skill set to identify textual markers during and after reading the material. The
researcher further evaluated student reading performance by acknowledging that the reader likely
inundated with tasks limited to word recognition leads to preventing students from understanding
the textual messages conveyed by the author.
Reading as a process requires the use of specific strategies that encourage reading
comprehension. However, most reading comprehension strategies do not follow a procedural
methodology. In opposition to rote learning practices, reading for comprehension places the
demand on students to connect to text on a cognitive level. Levonier (2018) confirmed that
metacognitive awareness is necessary to support inferential cues related to background
knowledge to supplement new thoughts. The relationship between reading and thinking is
fundamental to guiding reading through a piece of text. CCCSG needs to employ metacognitive
practices to support reading comprehension and to meet performance goals. Table 2 explores the
knowledge influences explored in this study.

28

Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments
Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence
assessment
Students need to know their
current competency level.
Declarative (Factual) Student's results from the
Reading Plus program will
identify content-specific
weaknesses in reading
comprehension and vocabulary
knowledge.
Students need to know how to
engage in specific procedures
to access RP reading passages,
questions, benchmark
assessments, vocabulary, and
embedded program support.
Procedural Reading Plus uses a scaffolding
approach to Reading and
Vocabulary development.
Students must follow
procedural commands to access
each level of skill support.
Students need to be aware of
their thinking to access prior
knowledge and use reflective
thinking practices to support
reading comprehension.
Metacognitive Students will use reflective
strategies and make inferences
to respond to reading
comprehension questions.

Motivation
Skills and knowledge are neutralizing factors for goal achievement in the absence of
motivation. Subsequently, while knowledge and skill support process achievement, motivation,
on the other hand, is the incentive that initiates and sustains the persistence necessary to meet
while engaged in performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). To better understand, motivation in
learning occurs on two levels, intrinsic and extrinsic. First, intrinsic motivation instigates an
internal initiation aligned with finding value in learning for the sake of learning (Shin, Wang, &
Lee, 2018).

29

On the other hand, Schraw and Leman (2001) maintained that extrinsic occur on the
dimension of receiving an external reward for participation. In this model of understanding,
levels of interest are dependent upon the desired outcomes. CCCSGs imply that the organization
is accountable for addressing the motivational behaviors that are functionally consistent with
student needs. Clark and Estes (2008) identified three unwavering factors affecting motivational
performance while in goal pursuit. The first includes the desire to do the work necessary to meet
the goal, task commitment until goal attainment, and recognize the cognitive efforts necessary to
meet related challenges. CCCSG’s motivational influencers to be addressed are expectancy-
value and goal orientation.
CGU Expectancy-Value
The expectancy-value motivational construct encapsulates the predisposition for positive
emotional gains in task performance. To elaborate, CCCSG's are most likely to engage in
learning activities that enhance both confidence in completing and worth the investment of time
beyond academic course requirements (Meyer et al., 2019). Another essential point is that
Bandura (2006) attributes this motivational adjunct to that of self-efficacy, thereby noting that
reading-skill acquisition is necessary to reach identified performance goals (Bandura, 2006).
Eccles (2006) identified two levels of inquiry, each challenging the student's ability and
capability in correlation to task accomplishment. This self-questioning seeks to define the
parameters of commitment students invest in the learning process. The inquiry process is further
defined in social cognitive theory as self-efficacy in one's choice to further his or her education
(Bandura, 2006). The problems associated with adapting to a new learning environment are
severe for students to take a chance and enter a new learning situation. While not all life-

30

enhancing ventures are difficult to pursue, the task of learning vacillates between the
demonstration of success and failure.
Furthermore, the research identified self-efficacy theory to expectancy-value, evoking
autonomy, and self-determination while engaged in goal performance-oriented behaviors (Shin
et al., 2018). The need for performance goal achievement is for students to see themselves as
capable actors in learning. Students who are more likely to value their natural strengths will
evolve and use different strategies to support their efforts (Mayer, 2011). Mayer (2011)
explained that the value of taking on a sense of personal responsibility adds to motivational
factors that fuel higher levels of success in pursuit of reading skill mastery. Based on the
theoretical ideas, examine the expectancy-value value, goal orientation is foundational to this as
a corollary to performance achievement.
CCCSG Goal Orientation Theory
CCCSGs need to set clear goals, learning goals leading to successful fulfillment.
According to Rueda (2011), Goal Orientation Theory calls for the use of CCSGs to create a
systematic design for identifying and clarifying the process to attain performance measures.
Additionally, the researcher stated that identified goals should incur a scaffolded approach with
increased levels of difficulty to assure skill mastery. Yough and Alderman (2006) pointed out the
two levels of goal orientation: each performance and mastery level attainment. Subsequently,
performance goals adhere to the ideology of extrinsic design. For example, the desire to be
recognized for excellent performance is the motivating factor. Mastery-level goal attainment
operates as an intrinsic motivator. For instance, the learner wants to learn for the sake of
learning as knowledge and skill development. Equally important, Demetriou and Schmitz-

31

Sciborski (2011) observed that goal-setting behaviors improve student retention due to the
engaged persistence to meet identified performance goals.
Overall, performance goal achievement relies on students' ability to use new skills to do
the task. The real question is, are students motivated to extend efforts to fulfill assigned tasks?
The inquiry process is further defined in social cognitive theory as self-efficacy in one's choice to
further his or her education (Bandura, 2006). Also, students need to apply skill transferability
across required college coursework. The task of learning vacillates between the demonstration of
success and failure. However, with the application of knowledge, skill, and student perseverance,
student success is possible. By utilizing supporting remediation resources and instilling
motivation cues for success, CCSG will meet its performance goal. Table 3 reviews the
motivation influences explored in this study.

32

Table 3
Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments
Assumed motivation
influences
Motivational influence assessment
Expectancy-Value:
Students need to
identify reading as a
prerequisite for
college and career
goal attainment.
Student Survey-Likert Scale
• I am eager to complete academic tasks.
• Reading is a valuable skill to master.
• I am comfortable with my ability to understand what I have read.
• I find it difficult to remember what I have read.
• I can recall text details after reading.
• I can prioritize both work and college-related demands.
• I believe that attending college is necessary to reach my career
goals.
Goal Orientation:
Students need to set
goals that are clear,
systematic, and
attainable learning
goals.
Students will create a personal education plan for naming their
educational and career goals and their known pathways leading to
achievement. Secondly, rate each step noting the ability to achieve
each by the ranking level of comfortability with knowledge growth.
1. Identify one academic and one career goal (known).
2. I have found and set future goals.
3. I have chosen a career path and understand related academic
requirements.
4. Reading is the core factor in reaching set goals.

Organization
Cultural Models and Settings Affecting Organizational Change
According to Rueda (2011), organizational culture consists of interwoven dynamics that,
at a glance, are considered independent of one another. For example, organizational issues are
relatively unseen, whereas those issues involving people are readily observable and diagnosed
concerning cultural identities. Rueda further explained that at every level, cultural understanding
is understood further by the relational processes and the result of engagement with worldly
factors impacting individualized perspectives and judgments. Equally important is that within

33

this theoretical design is the essence of how people are integral to that of organizational culture.
Schein and Schein (2017) concluded that organizations in the design must acknowledge the
cultural identities as a part of the structural design. Although the complexity of this task will
come with challenges, the recognition and use of inclusive practices are set to produce an
amenable organizational structure of cultural identity.
CCC faces this very same conundrum, and although the value of diversity is to
acknowledge, the focus must shift to that of trust and value. While noting prior educational
experiences, it is that at one point during their academic trajectory to college, their current
academic standing is the result of a failure beyond the scope of this review. However, CCC, as
an institution of learning, is thereby tasked with serving their unprepared students with the
knowledge and skills necessary to meet the collegiate demands. Noting student prior academic
experiences, CCC must seek to build trustworthiness amongst the student population (Webb,
2018) pointed out that in the presence of trust, students are more committed in terms of persistent
outcomes as they feel that they can rely on the organization to provide for their academic needs.
The authors further purported that trust is integral to a student's belief that he or she can meet
determined goals as they value organizational support in goal achievement.
While notions related to student trust tend to garner responsibility and willingness to
engage in educational pursuits actively, the organization must employ the use of learning
programs to enable academic success. The identified student demographic may continue to face
learning challenges if not allowed to engage in learning experiences that strategically focus on
the individualized development of academic knowledge gaps. Therefore, CCC needs to provide
access to a developmental program that focuses on enabling students to gain the benefits of
primary education instruction on time. Clark and Estes (2008) that instructional goals should be

34

identified and implemented to gain the most benefit from students. The knowledge gained from
this process is foundational to incorporating learned skills as students matriculated through their
educational journey. By addressing the preceding cultural models, the organization will, in turn,
inspire student commitment to the achievement of each organizational mission and performance
goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Importance of the Evaluation
This problem is critical to address because FI requires a multidimensional approach to
meet the learning needs of at-risk adults. The solution to eradicating functional illiteracy is
multilayered and specific (Rearden et al., 2012). To explain, literacy at the adult level is different
from that of young children. It must meet them where they are and be relevant to their lives right
now. Researchers further noted that parent education and income levels have a mutual impact on
their children's academic success in terms of providing motivation and guidance to realize
educational aspirations (Rearden et al., 2012). Furthermore, Preece (2013) connected poverty,
adult education, and its effect on shaping adult learners' learning processes. Post-secondary
education can also elicit motivational practices that recognize and acknowledge the students'
cultural identity (Preece, 2013). Finally, by providing access to culturally responsible literacy
development, individuals are poised to successfully break the cycle of poverty and set a new
pattern of being for the generations to come (Preece, 2013).
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
The pathway to institutional change has most leaders in a qualm of chaotic indecision.
Recognizing the challenges faced by organizations, Clark and Estes (2008) developed a
procedural action plan to answer the call of the business community. However, the adaptability
of the Clark and Estes plan has made it a staple for organizations beyond the business setting.

35

The framework's analytics calls for the identification of gaps by clarifying organization and
stakeholder performance goals. Upon the revelation of gaps, the framework shifts its focus to the
stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational correlational influences affecting
performance gaps. Foundational to this is the knowledge influencers, which occur in the
following four dimensions: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl,
2002).
Additionally, knowledge awareness provides the evaluative construct for which
stakeholders as the basis for the consideration of potential problems addressed to meet
performance goals. Equally important are the constructs relating to motivation. Like knowledge,
motivation influences also occur in dimensions, for instance, Expectancy-Value Theory of
Achievement Motivation. While noting the requisite for motivation, as identified by Clark &
Estes (2008), stakeholders are willing to commit and persist in the process of goal achievement.
Similarly, Rueda (2011) proposed the cultural aspect of motivation as an influence fostered
through the built-in social context and that consideration not only for motivation but also for
organizational change.
The consideration of Clark & Estes's (2008) gap analysis framework will be addressed
below concerning student's knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to meet their
reading remediation goals and the passing of college-level English by Spring 2021. The analysis
begins with the first section, a discussion of assumed influences on the stakeholder performance
goal in the context of knowledge and skills. To be followed by a reflective deliberation of
stakeholder perceived engagement of motivation to conclude with an examination of
organizational influences and the impact on stakeholder goal achievement. Hence, each of the

36

noted influencers, knowledge, motivation, and organization, further examined through the
discussion in Chapter Three.
Conceptual Framework Description
The framework identifies the specific knowledge influencers required to support student
success with the RP program. The first layer of knowledge influence identified for this study is
factual knowledge; the students need to know their current reading grade level equivalency.
Rueda (2008) identified that factual knowledge is pertinent to know where to begin when
attempting to solve a problem. A precursor to procedural knowledge allows students to
understand how to access and utilize the computer software program (Clark & Estes 2008). As a
precursor to procedural knowledge allows students to understand how to access and utilize the
computer program (Clark & Estes 2008). Moreover, students need to engage a metacognitive
skill approach by self-evaluation of reading topics of their choosing. Eibensteiner (2012)
emphasized the importance of the explicit teaching of procedural knowledge. The main point is
that student knowledge lack will negatively impact student performance outcomes. The
researcher further identified the need to provide clear direction in providing instruction involving
procedural knowledge. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) acknowledged that choosing a theoretical
lens to frame this study provides a better understanding of the influences faced by stakeholders.
So, it is critical to provide students with the knowledge to support program engagement with the
RP program. This researcher has observed that when students lack an understanding of how the
reading program works, there is a bit of frustration with the program that can be effectively
remedied by teaching students how to access program features.
In addition to knowledge, influencers are those that involve motivation. Student
motivation provides the underlying factor that influences performance achievement (Rueda,

37

2011). In line with organizational cultural influences, the following two motivation influencers
are also designated for student stakeholders. The first is Expectancy Value- students need to
ascertain whether they find the ability to read as a necessity for college, career, and overall
success in life. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) maintained that people must adhere to the notion of
perpetual gain. For example, there should be some type of reward for their investment in task
accomplishment. Expectancy value serves to motivate students as they accomplish RP tasks as
verification of knowledge growth.
In correlation to Expectancy Value, Goal Orientation Theory serves to motivate students
while in pursuit of performance achievement equally (Rueda, 2011). The RP program
acknowledges students by setting structured goals for each grade level gained while engaged in
the learning process. This acknowledgment helps to satisfy both identified areas of motivation.
However, beyond the RP, students are better able to connect their success to broader goals of
achievement coupled with the ability to meet the challenges of comprehension of college content
coursework. To further complicate matters for reading remedial students, state legislation
required the reduction of remedial coursework in the community college setting. This set of
circumstances has led the researcher to a selective pathway that further leads to a better
understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impede
successful remedial outcomes.
California City College (CCC) needs to consider the combined organizational gaps
instrumental in promoting student success with remedial coursework. Schein (2017) noted the
triadic analytical relationship between artifacts, espoused beliefs, and complex nature
assumptions. While Clark and Estes (2008) further examined the conceptual influences affecting
organizational change in relationship to organizational cultural influences. The conceptual

38

framework represents the iterative procedural approach to identify knowledge, motivation, and
organization influencers assumed to support stakeholder performance achievement is in the
conceptual framework designed to reflect CCC performance engagement (Maxwell, 2013). The
research identified biased self-reflection, acknowledgment of counter or misinformation,
consulting with peers to debrief one's findings, and then a more formal consultant such as a
knowledgeable auditor to ensure the accuracy of the research. With the acknowledgment of
potentials, this researcher concludes that mixed methods, individually the sequential mixed
method research design, will illuminate the gaps experienced by students and the organization
allowing for the achievement of remedial learning goals. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual
framework, highlighting the organizational, knowledge, and motivational factors supporting the
identification of stakeholder influences. The elements of the conceptual framework are as
follows. The gold gear represents CCC's cultural models and settings. The green gear identifies
the student stakeholders and the knowledge and motivational influences affecting student
performance goals. The blue gear identifies the goal for the organization and the prospective
achievement dates.

39

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework for Functional Illiteracy: High Stakes Learning

40

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this project was to evaluate California City College's effectiveness in
meeting stated organizational goals. The research was to conduct a gap analysis that addressed
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of low-literate students in the
completion of the Reading Plus remedial intervention program. A proposed list of assumed
causes was proposed and evaluated for this study. This chapter garners a description of the
validation process. Although addressed was the consideration for all stakeholder groups,
functionally illiterate students were the principal stakeholders of this evaluation to identify core
influences. For further explanation, this analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals. The organization's
success depends on the students' engagement with the Reading Plus Program. The following
questions guided this evaluation study:
1. What are the knowledge influences that support student success with the Reading Plus
Program?
2. What are the motivational influences that support student achievement of performance
goals?
3. What are the organizational influences that support student achievement of performance
goals?
Methodological Approach
The sociological dynamics of learning are identified through the use of a mixed approach
entails an inductive approach to data discovery. Expressively, the exploratory sequential mixed
method design permits the researcher to begin with an inquiry of qualitative data and later with
quantitative data to supplement the narrative of the analytical findings. For example, it is the

41

goal to identify the students' prior relationship with schooling. A qualitative inquiry will permit
data response that cannot be quantified but sets the ground for initial analysis and emerging
themes about student personal education experience. On the other hand, quantitative data will
serve to identify specific gaps in skills and detailed account knowledge needs deserving of
immediate response to intervention measures.
To further elaborate, the use of mixed-method research supports each the
qualitative and quantitative student knowledge and motivation in literacy skill development. The
RP program produces quantitative data based on gained literacy skills. It further produces a
comparable model that outlines students' strengths as well as a marker that indicates progress.
Also, there is a reward embedded reward system that acknowledges student progress of
knowledge gains. The rewards act as a system of motivational engagement for student progress.
Additionally, the qualitative data perspectives contribute to understanding a student's sense of
well-being and how he or she views prior experiences with compulsory learning measures. The
researcher, in alignment with mixed methodological guidelines, comprises a robustly written
detailed rendering of that experience to add to the quantified data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Notwithstanding, the use of mixed research methodology, like others, has the potential
for flaws, which may put findings at risk. For example, the subjective nature of qualitative data
findings may affect the lens through which the interpretation of gathered information. However,
to avoid said interpretation occurrences, Creswell & Creswell (2018) suggested a review of the
literature to support current findings to preserve the validity of data findings, a process referred
to as the triangulation of data sources. Additionally, to involve participants as a source of
checking for the accuracy of themes identified from the research data. Furthermore, Creswell
and Creswell (2018) presuppose biased self-reflection, acknowledgment of counter or

42

misinformation, consulting with peers to debrief one's findings, and then a more formal
consultant such as a knowledgeable auditor to ensure the accuracy of the research. With the
acknowledgment of potentials, this researcher concludes that mixed methods, the graphic
sequential mixed method design, will help illuminate the gaps experienced by students and the
organization allowing for the achievement of remedial learning goals.
Participating Stakeholders
CCC must reconsider its’ combined organizational effectiveness. CCC should further
identify the strategies instrumental for student success with remedial coursework. For this task,
the abstract design illustrated by Schein (2017) identified the purposeful dos and don'ts affiliated
with organizational change. The researcher provided an understanding of how understanding
culture is integral to change processes. Schein (2017) further discussed the triadic analytical
relationship between artifacts, espoused beliefs, and assumptions' complex nature. Schein
proposed that the significance of cultural relations be clearly defined by a triadic structure.
Bolman and Deal (2017) proposed the symbolic frame that engages perception of purpose within
the organization from the four levels to support organization redesign. Clark and Estes (2008)
further examined the conceptual influences affecting organizational change. The following
review of the literature will identify assumed organizational gaps in correlation to the
achievement of goals.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1
Students must have completed no fewer than one class or are currently enrolled in a
remedial reading course.

43

Criterion 2
Students need to be on a directed course of study or intend to transfer to a four-year
institution of learning.
Criterion 3
Students have a self-identified educational gap or previous learning experiences or are
designated as unprepared for college per reading assessment placement.
The rationale for this survey is to understand better student knowledge and motivation
toward reading skill development. The goal is to identify students that have employed the use of
the Reading Plus Program. It is using the program that students can better share their
perspectives about the overall effectiveness of the Reading Plus as it relates to the overall value
of the program. The use of open-ended questions allows a student to share a value perspective in
terms of long-term use of literacy as it pertains to educational and career goals.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
According to the California Community College website, approximately 70% of the
students entering CCC require literacy instruction. In efforts to focus on research parameters, the
identification of low-literate students will meet this need. The population whose assessment
results show the designated reading skill is at the fourth-grade level and below eleventh grade,
also determined by student records and the initial reading Plus assessment. To further reduce
the sample, students shall have taken a reading course with Reading Plus as the designated
intervention program (Fink, 2013).
Additionally, nonrandom research analysis will use a purposeful approach to identify
students that have taken one reading class with RPP. To further identify the representative
population sample, the probability of generalization avails itself through student selection

44

(Maxwell, 2013). Accordingly, six students were selected from historically marginalized
backgrounds and have been identified as functionally illiterate. Based on the criterion identified
for unprepared college students, the students further identified with reading skills at or above the
fourth-grade level will have also be directed to take a remedial reading course.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Criterion 1
Students would have completed the initial survey and met previously identified
recruitment criteria. The initial process will set the foundation for an individual discussion about
responses to the survey.
Criterion 2
Students that have taken and have achieved functional literacy as a result of the Reading
Plus program.
Criterion 3
Reading professors with three or more years of instructional experience teaching reading
remediation and who have used the Reading Plus program as a part of their curriculum shall be
invited to participate in the study.
The qualitative interviews will provide an opportunity for students to share overall
concerns and goal expectations. This process further allows the researcher to identify any
remaining barriers from previous learning experiences. Creswell and Creswell (2018) described
the central theme of narrative use as revealing common themes ascribed to both the researcher
and interview. Another essential point is that the use of interviews allows for a personal
connection between the subject and the researcher. Johnson and Christensen (2015) described the
interview process as providing the interviewee with the opportunity to share thoughts and

45

emotional breakthroughs with the researcher. The interview process creates a valued and
trusting relationship with the researcher by filling in the gaps beyond that of quantitative
measurement.
In addition to students, educators can offer the best approach to supplementing needed
student skill knowledge and a metacognitive approach to support literacy development.
Supporting metacognitive practices during learning instigates student awareness about his or her
thinking (Sims, 2018). Sims (2018) pointed out that the use of reflective practices is
complementary to student self-regulation, enabling students to manage their learning experiences
better. Jimenez-Taracido et al. (2019) emphasized the need for students to be proactive in their
approach to learning as they inhabit regulatory behaviors to make decisions about individual
learning needs. The reading instructor must provide support to guide awareness.
Explanation for Choices
The identified data collection methods amass a deeper understanding of the knowledge
and motivational influences that influence the unprepared student achievement. The combined
use of surveys and personal interviews each offer the plausibility to better understand the
student's perspective beyond the initial engagement. Surveys allow the students to share
previous academic experiences, including challenges faced before college. Interviews allow
students to share their concerns about academic barriers to degree completion genuinely.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
To better understand the underpinnings that affect successful community college
outcomes, it is essential to consider the students’ perceptions of the challenges that impact their
overall educational journey. The use of a quality research study will enable the identification of
the motivational challenges and skills faced by students' unique CCC institutional environment.

46

The qualitative research inquiry will utilize each student's interview and an analyzed document
to serve as the gateway necessary to collect qualitative data to examine students’ perceptions of
their community college learning experiences. The interview process reaps first-hand knowledge
of how students interpret the overall value of attaining a college education.
Foundationally, the use of interviews allows for students to share the perceptions of their
skill level concerning reading and computer skills and the knowledge necessary to reach the goal
of functional literacy. However, the corollary to interviews is the need to account for the data
that explains the actual status of student knowledge. Finally, interviews from Reading
Department faculty shall inform organizational leverage to better understand the nature of
supplemental skill and motivational support necessary to ensure students are successful with the
reading program.
Interview Protocol
The interview methodological approach chosen allowed for a deeper understanding of the
students' perspectives as they engage in the reading remediation process. The goal was to
understand overall knowledge about the reading process and how students perceived both its
value and usefulness as college students (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The best approach was to
engage in a semi-structured interview protocol that reduces the anxiety that employs an informal
environment. For example, the use of open-ended questions allows for the in-depth probing of
one's response via conversational means (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Merriam &
Tisdell (2016), the unstructured process allowed the research participants' willingness to share
information without the engagement of formality that may otherwise produce an air of
intimidation.

47

Patton (2013) pointed out that the interviewing process encourages a reciprocal space to
support the interviewee's desire to expand beyond the dynamics of the intended question (p.
341). The semi-structured interview supports a less formal atmosphere more open to the
reciprocal sharing of information. The interview process is to ascertain an interpretation of
reading’s value as a part of meeting student educational goals. The Reading Plus program
supports the students' ability to attain college reading and comprehension skills, but there is a
question of motivation. The interview process investigated the participants' positionality on the
motivation goals of expectancy-value and goal orientation theory.
Interview Procedures
In anticipation of transportation limitations, it was best to conduct zoom interviews at the
convenience of the interviewee. The online setting offered the advantage of time and space to
foster dialogue between the participant and the researcher. The importance of setting further
lends itself to ensure confidentiality is of the utmost priority and by maintaining the
confidentiality of conversations be treated while upholding the trustful allegiance to the
interviewee (Glesne, 2011). The use of an online internet domain, like zoom, ensures privacy in
spaces chosen by the interviewee. The room is quaint and provides access to a computer to
access student records if needed. To proceed with the anticipated conversation, the research
participant and the researcher reviewed the legal consent to participate before any questioning.
As the researcher, one is responsible for going over the parameters of consent and for further
reminding the participant that at any point during the research project, he or she may withdraw
consent and walk away if so desired. Glesne (2011) justified, as a matter of ethical behavior, that
the researcher must maintain the safe regard of the research participant, and thus the individual
has a right to change his or her mind as a matter of free will.

48

Next, it was crucial to choose a time when students have completed designated remedial
coursework. Subsequently, the most opportune time to conduct interviews was toward the end of
the spring semester, pending the completion of Reading 25 and college-level English. Interviews
provided access to personalized student experiences. The researcher recorded the interviews and
took notes while engaged in the interview process. Before the scheduled one-to-one interview, a
preliminary meeting was held via an online zoom meeting. During this time, the researcher
provided students with a short survey to identify specific knowledge of and access to academic
support at home and in school. Also, the researcher provided a digital copy of the informed
consent form for review, and students read the survey questionnaire and wrote down any
questions they had about the form in advance of the formal interview.
Further, the goal was to inform students that the researcher and the student would
collectively and personally review the consent form, and the student should write down any
concerns for the initial interview session. The primary purpose was to assure that students had a
chance to preview the consent form. Also, a short questionnaire/discussion to engage in group
knowledge about institutional awareness was reviewed, which included details about the various
organizational support, the reading specialist tutoring, and low-cost internet access offered to
students.
Document Analysis
The use of document analysis for this research project will review computerized records
of organizational task engagement with the reading program. This document analysis will serve
to inform areas of strength and weakness as they continue to master both reading comprehension
and vocabulary knowledge. The document analysis is free from student manipulation other than
the performance of the computer task assignments. According to Bowen (2009), the value of

49

document analysis is that it offers the researcher a sense of clarity of student skill development
concerning the reading process via recorded data. The document analysis is critical to provide
knowledge of the exact process of guiding the student to the attainment of critical reading
comprehension skills. Finally, the use of document analysis is meaningful to the correlational
findings of collected interview data. It further serves as a part of the triangulation process of data
to meet credibility standards (Bowen, 20019).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As a researcher, it is of the utmost priority that research participants be provided with
material that is not only comprehensible using sixth-grade level prose but also adheres to the
intended purpose of the study (Patton, 2002). Equally important, Patton (2002) emphasized that
study participants must be informed of the conditions to include the fact that study participants
maintain autonomous control of the information collected within the interview process. Further,
the researcher must inform subject matter confidentiality by the procurement of all data that will
be safely secured to ensure privacy. The use of an informed consent document outlines the
study's parameters and outlines the valid and credible nature of the project (Glesne, 2011). The
initial meeting creates the basis for all future interactions. The researcher is responsible for the
impression of predicates whether the interviewee feels secure and the atmosphere conducive to
the sharing of personal information. By providing research subjects with easily understood
questions, it acknowledges potential reading limitations by using language that is easily
understood and allows the interviewees to focus on their responses rather than being confused by
unnecessary jargon. While this is the case and seemingly subtle, the engagement of
conversational prose is enough to elicit credible and authentic responses from the respondents.

50

Researchers determined that a secure interaction is established at the onset of the
interview process. The challenges of data collection require that a diligent data collection
protocol is established and adhered to throughout the process. According to Rubin and Rubin
(2012), this process ensures that ethical standards and, as a matter of respect for the interviewee.
Since the use of personal interviews and correlational document analysis are central source
support to attain critical findings, the data garnered through the research process must be
thorough and representative of the respondents' intent.
The essential idea is that the interview questions, when carefully articulated, gather
usable data (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Another aspect considered was that the survey would
ask students to recall their earlier experiences about learning how to use the Reading Plus
program. While in this case, a question of this type is subject to erroneous recall, and as a result,
the recollection of previous experiences, compromised, are fallible to revision. One acceptable
solution to preserve the credibility of the research is to align interview questions during the data
analysis process to look for standard themes and occurrences to support overall research
findings. This strategy uses the analysis of the findings to support the initial engagement of the
Reading Plus program.
Furthermore, a brief review of documents necessary to support student learning outcomes
analysis could further support the self-reporting of initial experience because the program will
show the results of problematic engagement with the program. For example, if students admit to
misunderstanding the questions, the program documents the students' problems with certain
types of reading comprehension questions. The value of this program feature is that it explicitly
documents specific areas of difficulty for each student.

51

Depending on the aspects related to student engagement, it is a part of the process to
consult research-related literature to either confirm or discount findings. The research literature
is the center of an overall understanding of reading-related cognitive processes. Through the
research, one can ascertain the common skill-shortage faced by students in remedial classes.
More importantly, the research could point to the positive aspects of reading development
problems representative of the student stakeholder population. The correlational investigation of
qualitative data and unbound by the rigidity of the quantitative research methodology requires
multiple methods to ensure the credibility of the information resulting from the process of
inquiry.
Ethics
The overarching factor of the process confirms that the researcher is qualified to engage
in the practice of research. The International Review Board (IRB), 2019, is a collection of
information and coursework which sets the standards for research engagement of human
subjects. The IRB process increases credibility as the researcher is bound to conduct best
practices when working with research participants. The overall process requires that by the end
of the certification, the researcher is knowledgeable about research-related practices but also
understands that research participants should be made aware of this licensed certification.
Thereby, a standard for operating procedures was created by the researcher, lending accessible
guidance when confronted with challenges during the research process. Finally, IRB compliance
strictly informs that no harm will come to the participant as a result of the research process
engagement.

52

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to evaluate student engagement with the Reading Plus (RP)
Adaptive Literacy Intervention for Reading Proficiency to meet student learning goals. This
chapter concentrates on the results and findings surrounding the use of RP. The program’s
computerized evidence-based models integrate need-based instruction to address student literacy
needs. This study employed an analysis of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting student goal attainment as outlined by the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap
Analysis Model.
The following questions guided the study:
1. What are the knowledge influences that support student success with the Reading Plus
Program?
2. What are the motivational influences that support student achievement of performance
goals?
3. What are the organizational influences that support student achievement of performance
goals?
Findings were ascertained through collecting survey and interview data from study
participants. A document analysis of the CCC reading program applied outcomes were also
included in the study. This chapter includes a description of the stakeholder groups and the study
findings to answer the first two research questions regarding the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences that support or impede student attainment of functional literacy.
Chapter Five will introduce possible solutions and recommendations to closing the gaps
determined by the synthesized study data.

53

Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder focus group included students whose reading skills were below the sixth-
grade level at the time of the study. The participating stakeholders also included teachers
responsible for reading remediation instruction. The students were selected based on their
assignment to remedial reading courses. Students were also required to use the RP program as a
part of their in-class instruction. Teachers were selected based on their role as program
educators. A total of 17 participants (12 students, five teachers) participated in this study. The
student demographics were not included in the survey but were identified for interview purposes.
All participants are identified by pseudonyms in this chapter in order to adhere to privacy laws.
Tables 4 and 5 include the pseudonyms of the students and professors as well as related criteria
identified for this study.
Survey
An online survey was given to students as a means to validate the assumed influences
identified in Chapter 3. Teachers were not included in the survey portion of the study. Of the
twelve survey participants, six students agreed to the interview process. It is important to note
that all student participants were previous enrollees of reading courses taught by the researcher.
The students participated on a voluntary basis and were thereby not pressured into taking part in
the research process. Surveys included requests to participate in the interview process, and the
researcher sent out numerous requests before selecting participants who had agreed to complete
interviews. Finally, the survey closed a month after the final student interview. The survey goal
was to ascertain broad-spectrum knowledge about student beliefs surrounding their learning
experiences related to the Reading Plus adaptive literacy program.

54

The survey for this project set out to identify factors that affected student acquisition of
functional literacy, the parameters organized to align with the knowledge, student motivation,
and organizational influences essential for students to meet the stated performance goals. The
Likert Scale asked the students to report on skilled areas of reading comprehension before and
after participation in the RP program. The survey was also used to validate the influences
embedded in the conceptual framework identified in Chapter 3. The survey results are integrated
throughout the study to affirm the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps in the
Reading Plus adaptive literacy program.
Interviews
Six students volunteered to participate in the interview process after completing the
survey; these are identified below in Table 4. Additionally, interviews were conducted with five
highly qualified professors, each holding a master’s degree in reading with a minimum of five
years of experience teaching reading at the community college level. Identified in Table 5 are the
five participating reading professors, each identified by pseudonyms to protect participant
identity.

55

Table 4
Student Interview Participant Demographics
Student
pseudonyms
Racial
identity
Gender
assigned at
birth
Reading class
assessed
placement
College
English
status
Student
enrollment
status
Jenny Latinx
(DACA)
Female Below 3
rd
Passed Enrolled
Latanya African
American
Female Below 3
rd
Passed Unenrolled
Sheena Pacific
Islander
Female Below 5
th
Passed Unenrolled
James African
American
Male Below 3
rd
Passed Enrolled
Amy Latinx Female Below 5
th
Passed Unenrolled
Angelica Latinx Female Below 3
rd
Passed Unenrolled

56

Table 5
Reading Professor Interview Participants
Professor
pseudonyms
Educational background Faculty status
Prof. Ana M.Ed. Reading /Non-English
Undergrad/Native American Studies
Adjunct Faculty
Prof. Shelly M.Ed. Reading /Non- English
Undergrad (Library Sciences)
Adjunct Faculty
Prof. Nattily Ed.D., M.Ed. Reading /Non- English
Undergrad/History
Tenured Faculty Member
Prof. Shayla Ed.D., M.Ed. Reading, /Non- English
Undergrad
Adjunct Faculty
Prof. Jenna M.Ed. Reading /English Undergrad

Department Chair, Tenured
Faculty Member

Knowledge Results and Findings
In order to meet stakeholder goals, it is necessary for stakeholders to create attainable and
measurable goals that lead to success. This section reviews the study’s knowledge findings. As
Rueda (2011) pointed out, factual knowledge explicit to a learning domain is essential to achieve
learning performance goals. Therefore, student knowledge is supported when students engage in
strategic learning protocols that address the specific knowledge and skills needed for literacy
competence.
Factual Knowledge Results and Findings
Declarative, also referred to as factual knowledge, includes all facts grounded from
instructional experiences. In the academic setting, reading literacy requires an advanced
recognition of the skills that support one’s understanding of a text. The RP assessment uses the
baseline of a student’s current knowledge to ascribe a learning program focused on developing

57

the student’s reading skills. The survey presented two questions designed to assess students’
awareness of their reading comprehension skills before using the computerized reading platform.
The identified results showed that students lacked awareness of their existing reading
knowledge.
The first survey question asked, “Do you like reading?” Four of 12 students indicated that
they liked to read, another four students shared that they did not like to read, and four students
chose to skip the question. Figure 3 shows the outcomes from the initial question about the act of
reading.

Figure 3
Student Reading Preference Scale

Yes No

58

The findings of Bauer-Kealey and Mather (2019) reported that gratification of reading
improved as the result of using a supplemental computer program to provide remedial
instruction. Although some of this study’s participants would admit to finding pleasure in
reading, even the students who admitted that they did not like to read did admit that reading is
fundamental to academic and career achievement. Secondary to this finding, students reported
mixed results about basic reading comprehension skills. The participants were asked to identify
issues related to reading comprehension before using the Reading Plus program. Figure 4
indicates the student survey results.

Figure 4
Responses to “Prior to Reading Plus (RP), I did not understand what I read on my own.”

59

Figure 4 shows the identified results about students’ awareness of their preexisting
reading knowledge. The findings showed that when asked whether they were aware of their
preexisting reading knowledge, four of 12 students chose “definitely true,” two students selected
“probably true,” and one student chose “probably false.” Four students did not respond to this
query.
The students were then asked to analyze their reading strengths to recall post-reading
details before using Reading Plus. Of the eight students who responded to this item, four or 50%
of participants reported “definitely true,” two or 25% of the students supported “probably true,”
and the other student identified with not having difficulties with reading comprehension. Figure
5 illustrates a summary of students' recollection of details when they read on their own.

Figure 5
Text Recall Difficulty

60

Fundamental to the survey questions concerning known skills is to ascertain how students
perceive themselves as competent readers. At the same time, student responses were reliant on a
self-report of knowledge and skill; the reactions, likely a subject of bias, do not represent a
factual account of skill levels. One of the benefits of Reading Plus is that all students take a
placement assessment and are placed at their appropriate knowledge level to ensure applicable
literacy skills and knowledge growth.
Procedural Knowledge Results and Findings
Procedural knowledge occurs from the continual use of strategies procured during the
learning process. The findings from the survey of post-RP program engagement revealed that
eight participants strongly agreed, and four participants somewhat agreed that RP was
responsible for their improved reading comprehension skills. The survey results signified that the
RP program led to acquired reading comprehension among participants. The findings expressly
indicated the degree to which the students believed that RP contributed to their knowledge
growth. Figure 6 displays the results from student self-appraisals of their knowledge growth.

61

Figure 6
Participant Computer Skill Growth

The participant responses to the variable, “My computer skills have improved since using
the Reading Plus program,” identified an overall improvement. Using the ranging from “a lot” to
“a little,” seven students indicated that their skills had improved “a lot,” 4 students “a moderate
amount,” and one student indicated “a little” skill improvement.
Students Improved Reading Comprehension Skills and Knowledge Growth as a Result of
Strategic RP Support.
Corollary to factual knowledge, procedural knowledge is based on students’ knowledge
of how to engage primary computer functions to access the learning components of the program.
The program enables students to access the different program features. Four components on the
student dashboard organize the program features. The program dashboard monitors student
growth by displaying their current reading level and provides access to reading and vocabulary
status, which tells students their reading rate, grade reading level, and vocabulary level.

62

Figure 7 shows how students responded to their computer skills increasing as a result of
participating in the Reading Plus program.

Figure 7
Student Improved Computer Skills from Reading Plus Program Use

63

One area of procedural knowledge growth includes skills ascertained from computer use.
To navigate the RP program, students benefited from compulsory computer use to access
individual learning components. Repetitive interaction with the computer led to the growth of
applicable skills. Regarding the growth of computer procedural knowledge and using the
following variables: a) A Lot, b) A Moderate Amount, and c) A Little, seven of the 12 students
agreed that their skills had grown a lot. Another four students agreed to a moderate amount of
growth, while one student agreed to little computer skill growth.
In addition to acknowledging the growth of computer operational skills, RP furnished
scaffolded skill support that improved reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. The
students found that having access to reading material that matched their interests was a valuable
asset of the program. RP is designed to address student needs within their current knowledge
level based on their primary assessment results. Furthermore, students noted an improvement in
different skills that they could use in their college English courses. Amy shared that the RP
program
really helped me because it would make me read those little passages. That little stuff I
would read really would enhance my reading because it would keep going up and up and
up; I did appreciate all of that [in the] program.
The value-added feature of choice, which is also linked to motivation, initiates the building of
declarative knowledge. Noella shared that RP inspired her to “actually enjoy reading more than I
did before. Mainly because of the stories in Reading. Plus, it was a variety of it, instead of just
being one thing I like that is going to catch my attention.” While students admittedly benefited
from choice in reading content, James specified that he benefited from the “teaching of
comprehension, which played a vital part and still plays a vital part, not just in the reading class

64

but also in every other class.” The recognition of knowledge growth supporting reading
comprehension growth experienced while using program-supported skill transfer to be used in
other course settings. However, computer skills growth occurred and was attributed to RP
program use.
Educators Use RP Reports to Guide Need-Based Instructional Support
Reading professors acknowledged the usefulness of the Reading Plus Program, as
students with varying levels of literacy knowledge have benefited from participating in the
program to meet learning goals. Jenna, one of the reading professors interviewed, specified, "I
like using Reading Plus because it meets students where they are, and when you use a textbook,
it's kind of a one-size-fits-all.” As the department chair, Jenna articulated the limitations of the
"one size fits all" approach as failing to meet the needs of individual learners. She noted that the
benefit of using RP is that the program "meets students where they are" and enables educators to
provide need-based literacy support. Ana, another reading professor, explained:
So, for some students who are coming in, let's say, at a fifth-grade reading level and
they're supposed to be reading at an eighth-grade level where the textbook is teaching
over their heads, we're providing instructions over their head. However, Reading Plus is
designed to meet the student exactly where he or she is.
The RP program helps to identify specific student learning gaps. The educators have
access to student progress reports that highlight student reading challenges. Ana explained that
she found that when using only a textbook for her class that the book "is teaching over their
heads." This teaching over their heads often makes students frustrated with the learning process.
The broad discourse of the traditional course will make literacy growth complex and confusing
for students unaware of their exact learning needs. Ana concluded, "However, reading plus is

65

designed to meet the student exactly where he or she is." The use of RP enables the reading
professor to provide accessible reading instruction to the students.
Metacognitive Knowledge Results and Findings
Metacognitive skills demand that students think critically and then propose a solution that
logically fits the task's parameters. This supports the notion that metacognitive awareness aids in
reading skills and knowledge transfer. Aziz et al. (2019) believed that metacognitive processes
require that students extract meaning through the composition of texts. Figure 8 shows the
student’s ability to string together ideas and concepts learned in the Reading Plus program when
completing assignments or tasks.

Figure 8
Students Applied Learned RP Conceptual Skills to Other Academic Courses

66

The awareness of metacognitive skills solely represents the students' ability to transfer
literacy knowledge and skills to different learning environments. The survey questioned student
awareness of skill transfer linked to recognizing text patterns and organization. Survey findings
showed that six students strongly agreed, while three students somewhat agreed, and the
remaining three participants identified that they neither agree nor disagree with being able to
recognize organizational patterns presented in a piece of text.
Additionally, students were asked about their ability to apply learned strategies in their
college-level reading course. The survey findings confirmed that all the participants used the
skills procured while using RP to some degree. Nine of the twelve students agreed that they used
learned strategies most of the time, and three students reported using skill transfer some of the
time. Figure 9 highlights the students’ ability to recognize text patterns and organize information
learned.

Figure 9
Text Pattern Recognition

67

Metacognition requires that students use concrete details to draw meaning from the subtle
cues presented in the text. Reading plus provides students with the tools to analyze and
comprehend different types of text. For example, inferencing requires students to analyze the text
and apply existing and, in some cases, conceptual knowledge about a topic and draw reasonable
conclusions. Students must be able to utilize suggestive cues to develop both reading
comprehension and grade-level vocabulary. Students must apply metacognitive skills to
matriculate through the assigned RP exercises, an additional measure to apply the skill set to
other courses. Interviews questioned how students monitored their own learning and goal
fulfillment.
Motivation Results and Findings
The impact of early learning experiences often complicates motivation to read. Often a
divide occurs between reading for pleasure or reading for academic purposes. The latter of the
two choices has a long-term effect linking to reading to learn as an adult. Annable (2017) further
finds that the unwillingness to read for academic purposes occurs theoretically by the same
learned negativity occurring as a youth. Consequently, it is understandable that students are
aware of youthful experiences with academic reading. One survey question addressed how
participants value reading as a skill. Figure 10 validates the value the participants placed on the
development of reading skills.

68

Figure 10
Reading is a Valuable Skill to Master

The findings represented in Figure 10 confirm that students accepted reading as a
necessary conduit to academic and career success. The participants were asked, “What
influenced you to attend community college?” In response, Amy shared,
I wanted to attend to make my parents proud. They supported me, and everything that I
do they supported. My parents wanted me to do something. Because in their perspective,
college is the way to go. And you know, I respect their decision.
Fina also acknowledged:
It was more for my family. I was the first to go to college. I was the first to graduate,
aside from my brother. My brother is a year older and graduated with me the same year.

69

No one in my family went to college, and my dad was the one that pushed me to attend
college.
In each case, the students’ parents were instrumental in advising their children to go
attend college as each admitted to the value of pursuing a college degree. James, on the other
hand, acknowledged:
It was pretty much my decision to go back to school. I spoke to my mother and my
daughter. A Little encouragement from them, but everybody's going to say what and how
they feel. But that's going to boil down to the final decision in my mind to either follow
through or to just let it go. So, with the influence of others, yeah, that's the reason why I
decided to come back.
Elsy also agreed to have made a personal decision:
It was pretty much my decision to go back to school. I had an opportunity to go to school,
and I took that opportunity. And I think it was a good chance for me to go to school
because I went from high school to community college.
Asia conceded:
I wanted to for me because I wanted to get better. This is the war. I mean for my future
because we were downgrading basically for the black community. I would rather be at
the top where I know and understand how to communicate with people.
The researcher’s findings regarding student college persistence are that students are groomed to
attend college to satisfy not only familial obligations but students are also further bound by the
desire to change their economic position.

70

Students Benefit from Predictable Learning Environments
Student interviews shed light on protocols and procedures established in their reading
class. The participants shared an account of a typical day in their reading classes. James narrated
about a typical day:
We’d come in and sign in to a computer. Received assignments for that day go over the
assignment from the previous class. Any feedback from the previous class or was talked
about, including everything that we did not understand. We went over, and it was
explained to us more thoroughly.
Amy’s reflection was congruent with other participant descriptions:
First of all, we would sit down, get our reading books out, go through the lessons, and
watch videos about what we would be learning that day, and we would work on the
assignments all together, no matter what.
The students continued to share evidence of a predictable learning environment. Fina then added,
“The games gave us more understanding when we went through them; even though we got the
work in the book, my professor went through it with us.” The students noted there was a
consistent flow on which the students depended. In each case, the student knew the professor
would address their concerns. James recalled that at the beginning of class, the professor would
address “any feedback from the previous class.” Amy pointed out that "we would work on the
assignments altogether."
Lester et al. (2017) posited that student learning increased when a routine guides
instructional environments. The presence of procedures and protocols helps to support student
learning and engagement in the classroom. However, the applicability of procedural knowledge

71

extends to enhance environmental trust as students come to rely on the professor to present
information and cover coursework in a usual manner.
The RP program aligns the student interest profiles with reading lessons and embedded
motivational features. The program offers recognition for students who accomplish intermediary
reading goals. Also, active choice allows the students to choose from a comprehensive set of
texts available as a part of the individualized learning program—the access to tools and strategies
that enable students to meet their goals. According to Rueda (2011), active choice inspires
students to control their learning experiences by determining which activities they pursue.
Although the students have freedom of choice regarding content, the parameters are setting up
RP in a manner that helps students meet their reading and vocabulary proficiency goals.
Student Expectancy Value Results and Findings
Expectancy value helps students to determine the usefulness of reading as an integral part
of college success. According to Eccles and Wigfield (2020), expectancy-value theory
represents the causal belief of motivation which encourages students to invest in fundamental
attainment of a skill and knowledge growth. Figure 11 indicates student estimations of to what
extent improved literacy skills will help them do well in their academic courses.

72

Figure 11
Academic Reading Value

Survey findings affirmed that ten students strongly agreed that improved reading skills
would help them do better in other classes, and only one student somewhat agreed that
improving his or her reading skills would be beneficial in other courses. Also, the participants
validated that strong reading skills will provide access to the career field of their choice. Figure
12 indicates that participants believed that reading skills are a beneficial part of career
expectations. Ten of the twelve participants strongly agreed to the attainment of reading skills to
career expectation beliefs. The other two students stated that they somewhat agreed, whereas
one student neither agrees nor disagreed with the career-related value of reading. To clarify
student belief system, asked whether or not they believed in the value in reading improvement.
Figure 13 reports the finding from this survey question.

73

Figure 12
Career Field Literacy Value

74

Figure 13
Reading Is a Valuable Skill to Master

The findings for expectancy-value of mastering reading skills showed that out of 12
participants, eight strongly agreed that reading had value. The remaining four students affirmed
that they somewhat agreed with this finding. While the findings showed an agreement in the
overall importance of reading, the participants were asked to explain what sacrifices they were
would make to reach their goals.
With regards to sacrifice, Amy acknowledged, “Well, sacrifices, maybe just plan to spend
more time with my loved ones and just focus on myself and focus on educating myself.” Sheena
shared, “My sacrifices will be sacrificing my time, and I will sit in front of the computer and
learn.” Furthermore, Asia acknowledged that “sacrifices are important to be successful. I'm not
willing to work any job but just stick to school.” While James noted, "The biggest sacrifice to be

75

successful in class, as well as in and out of life, is the determination to strive for the goals that I
have set for myself.”
Organizational Influences Results and Findings
Organizational culture, as explained by Clark and Estes (2008), represents how an
organization operates in consideration of the population and the service provided to its
stakeholders. The issue for CCC is that the organization provides educational guidance to the
student population served by CCC. As previously noted, the demographic profiles include
professors and students from diverse cultural backgrounds. Also in consideration are student
academic experiences, including the development of reading skills. For this research project, two
assumed influences affecting the cultural model of CCC were identified. First, CCC needs to use
structured remediation programs to support student learning. The second assumed organizational
influence suggests that due to varied backgrounds of student demographics, the organization
needs to identify and implement result-oriented remediation programs to efficiently target
student skill needs.
The precise alignment of assumed organizational influences makes it necessary to review
each influence and the potential impact on student learning. Table 6 outlines each identified
influence and potential impact on stakeholder performance.
CCC Identified and Implemented Result-Oriented Literacy Remediation Program
In evaluating the Reading Plus program’s usefulness to address functional illiteracy, the
reading professors revealed the following aspects of the program’s strengths and weaknesses.
Nattily validated the efficiency of the RP program’s use:
I would look at Reading Plus reports because I would use them to factor into my SLOs,
which are my student learning outcomes, to see if the students met their benchmarks. And

76

then, I would try to ensure that Reading Plus aligns with their benchmarks. And to see if
the students reach a particular level. In my classes, I use multiple measures. Because of
the different ways of measuring if the student is grasping the content and Reading Plus, I
thought it was handy for that.
Jenna indicated:
The strengths of Reading Plus include the high interest level of the content is essential to
galvanize any emerging reader. The information is tailored to the likes of the student, and
that matters. The types of questions are also students because there is a variety of types of
questioning it yields a different type of answering the basic question basic apprehension,
all the way up to the synthesis to the analysis, the evaluation of information, all of that
matters, those higher-order thinking skills are developed when they're using reading plus.
Shelly identified:
The strengths are that it's self-paced, and I think that it takes the pressure off the students
to perform. They are competing against themselves instead of other students. It helps
them see exactly where they are with the assessments. And I like how the program
increases in difficulty as they move on. And the teacher does not have to monitor so
much. The students have to take responsibility and monitor themselves and do it
themselves.
The endorsement of RP continued as Ana disclosed:
I like Reading Plus because it encourages reading practice, reading behaviors that the
student will have to exhibit to become a better reader. And I think many times, students,
regardless of academic levels, sometimes students will come and say I do not like to
read. And that's not true; I ask them what their interests are. Okay. If you have an

77

interest, find readings that cater to those particular interests, and therefore is not about
whether or not you want to read; it is the interest connected to the reading.
Jenna affirmed:
I like using Reading Plus because it meets students where they are when you have a
textbook. It's kind of a one-size-fits-all. But because of the training that I've had. With the
reading faculty, we understand differentiating instruction. But I love reading classes
because it meets them where they are. Some people might start at level two. So many
people on a level are some people might start that level G whatever it needs them where
they are and for that. You know, I appreciate the program just because of that.
Educators highlighted the strengths of the program by pointing out the practicality of the
program’s features. Nattily pointed out, “In my classes, I use multiple measures. Because of the
different ways of measuring if the student is grasping the content, and Reading Plus, I thought,
was handy for that.” In acknowledging the usefulness of the program, Shelly offered her affinity
for Reading Plus by saying, “I like how the program increases in difficulty as they move on.”
The professor noted the advantages of using the program as it supports formative measures of
assessment. In agreement with Shayla’s observation, Jenna stated, “I like how the program
increases in difficulty as they move on,” noting the unilateral approach to learning that ensures
that remediation is addressed as needed. The instructors described how Reading Plus offers an
immediate remedy to a longstanding problem affecting marginalized student populations. The
educators also shared observed weaknesses associated with program use.
The reading professors were asked to report on the weaknesses of the RP program. The
findings, as mentioned by the reading professors, identified specific RP program weaknesses.
Shelly observed:

78

If you only use Reading Plus and you teach a three-unit class, and all you did was
Reading Plus because there's so much there. To use it just as one component of a reading
class, the program just will take more of an in-depth and longer training than what we
got.
Shayla shared:
The things that I don't like as much about it is that I wish some of the passages were
smaller, the length of the passages is problematic depending on the time you have to
work on it, and depending on how quickly you want to build a skill set, sometimes
smaller passages work just as well.
Ana noted, “When you have students with those individual levels with skills all over the place,
it would be nice to provide that class level instruction through the textbook.” Ana described the
importance of using the structure of a textbook when student knowledge overlaps a particular
subset of skills; the use of a “textbook” could support all learners sharing the same difficulties.
Nattily, in contrast, offered a different viewpoint:
I wish that there were a little bit more current reading selections from today's headlines
or, at the very least, yesterday's headlines, especially when you have a 24-hour news
cycle in this instantaneous cycle of information that we have because of the internet.
Nattily brought to light the need to provide current and relevant information "like today's
headlines or at the very least yesterday's headlines." She criticized the programs’ use of
outdated information in a time when students "have access to a 24-hour news cycle." Students
see their professors in positions of power and influence. Educators and students require that the
information provided must be both accurate and relevant. The Reading Plus program aims to
support reading comprehension and address the challenges encountered when reading non-

79

fictional prose. Educators need to ensure information accuracy and the relevant strategies to
support reading comprehension.
The organizational setting influences how CCC supports the reading professors and the
motivation of the identified student population. Professors and students alike must remain
motivated in the drive to reach organizational goals. While the Reading Department chair
unilaterally respects the professors for their knowledge and expertise in the subject matter, CCC
does not respect the Reading Department.
CCC Must Provide Access to Supplemental Learning Programs to Advance Student
Functional Literacy
The organization's provision of supplemental support beyond the traditional classroom
helps to improve student success opportunities. While setting the foundational plan for student
achievement, the Reading Plus program is only a part of the support structure. Students must
have access to computers but also substantial contact with knowledgeable tutors. According to
Nowakowski (2019), student remediation improvement occurs faster when access to computer
programs is coupled with educator support. The students responded to having used the CCC
Reading Lab for support. One student, Latanya, described ways in which she sought support
outside the classroom, such as seeking “tutoring or asking for help, like asking my teachers for
whatever I needed or letting you rethink for me to see if I was right or wrong.” James noted, “In
everything that you can think of that you need help on a core level or noncore level, whatever, of
course, is there are student aid routes and tutors for that."
Students' interview findings acknowledged the importance of having levels of support
outside the classroom. Latanya observed the immediate access to knowledge confirmation to the
correctness of her work, knowing whether she was “right or wrong” in the completion of a task.

80

James asserted the value of tutor access as a source for meeting "core and noncore levels" of
learning outside of the classroom.
To capture the findings in this section is to refer to the assumed organizational influence:
CCC provides student access to highly qualified reading professors. The evaluation revealed it is
the case that the recognition of assumed influences reveals itself at both the departmental and
organizational levels. The research further discovered that the reading chair had faced
restrictions that, due to current state-held regulation, forced staff reduction and minimized the
Reading Department to tenured faculty staff. Despite the change at the state level of guidance,
the CCC Reading Department had difficulties and was acknowledged under the guidance of the
previous dean of the department. The adjunct faculty interviewed did not have any experience
working under the new dean of the Humanities Department.
Reading Professors Created Relationships of Trust with Students
A positive learning environment requires that educators be mindful of students'
backgrounds and attempt to offsite previous learning experiences. Also, professors need to
convey their accessibility and readiness to support learning throughout the semester. While the
goal is to foster gainful learning experiences, student trust in the environment is fundamental to
transitional learning and long-term knowledge growth. Recognizing the student diversity in their
classrooms, reading educators are mindful that adult students may feel vulnerable due to the
placement in a reading course. Nattily offered insight:
My experience has been that building community is the best way to create a positive
climate for learning. We want students to be motivated, So we are all at different stages
in our skill levels, and we can always make improvements, and You know, try, and you
know I say I am here to help you grow your skills, no matter where you start.

81

The same view was shared by the department chair pronouncing that
the most important thing is the relationship; even though you are teaching to 25 students,
that student has to believe you are teaching to them and so on, and how do you build that
relationship through connecting on an individual level.
The interview evidence from educators recognizes the importance of building rapport
with their students. As explained by Wirt and Jaeger (2019), student-educator relationships are
essential as they reveal facets of student college persistence. Nattily noted the importance of
"building community" with her students. Setting the tone for the class encourages student
participation and helps to minimize related worries about taking the course. Nattily further
affirmed, "I am here to help [students] grow [their] skills, no matter where [they] start." While
the goal is to foster gainful learning experiences, student trust in the environment is fundamental
to transitional learning and long-term knowledge growth.
Interview evidence from educators illuminates the importance reading faculty place on
building rapport with their students. As explained by Wirt and Jaeger (2019), the study of
educator relationships is essential and reveals aspects that encourage college persistence. Nattily
noted the importance of "building community" with her students. She noted that setting the tone
for her class encouraged student participation and helped to minimize related worries about
taking the course. Nattily further noted that she tells her students, "I'm here to help you grow
your skills, no matter where you start." While the goal is to foster gainful learning experiences,
student trust in the environment is fundamental to transitional learning and long-term knowledge
growth.
Student responses validate the modes of inclusivity in the classroom, “Do you feel your
professor promoted an inclusive classroom environment?” The student interview responses

82

acknowledged the educator's promotion of an inclusive learning environment. Fina recalled an
incident in class with another student:
Yes, I remember one student who did not come to class for weeks and then showed up.
And basically, my professor motivated him, and he started coming to class, and we
started being friends with him and tried to help him as much as possible.
The students pointed out the existence of a non-judgmental atmosphere by embracing the
student, despite the nonattendance of earlier classes. The professor seemed to have upheld an
open-door policy as the student's desire to be a part of the class was later confirmed by his later
attendance. Fina remembered that "he just started coming to class," and his classmates further
supported him through the end of the course. The student speaks to the modeling of acceptance
demonstrated by the professor. In comparison, Asia stated, "Yes. I loved the class, to be honest."
Jenny's perspective offered a more tangible example of inclusion; she recalled what she saw the
professor do to encourage a non-judgmental atmosphere: "[the professor would] just [speak] to
the class and [ask] students if they need any help. Or if they needed to retake something." Her
recall affirmed that the students were provided with additional opportunities to improve learning
literacy content. James noted the "elevation was there, the interaction with the instructor to the
various persons outside of myself. So, it was like she became in tune with them." Finally, Delmi
pointed out the source of knowledge transfer and said, "I think about my Reading class a lot
when I am in my English class, and I know all of this stuff."
Nattily acknowledged:
My chair is very supportive of whatever I want, and I could not ask for a better
department chair. To be honest, my chair is very supportive of any workshops. You know
she never questions my expertise; you know, she lets me do what I do, and I and I like

83

that, I respect that. The same honestly with the deans that I've worked on to my personal
experiences; they let me do what I do. I like being able to have that autonomy to do what
I do, I think they're paying me for my expertise, and I like that. I am respected for that.
Nattily is a tenured professor who noted that “you know, she never questions my expertise; she
lets me do what I do, and I like that, I respect that." Noting the importance of working with
someone that knows the challenges of working with the CCC student demographic and realizes
the importance of meeting student needs requires a dynamic approach. Shayla observed:
Oh, my chair is awesome. In terms of pointing me in the right direction and providing
feedback, allowing me to, you know, use whatever I think I need to use to cultivate the
classroom environment, she's great. She's very supportive. But I think she's been
handicapped because she hasn't been supported and can only support a certain degree.
Nattily shared the same sentiments regarding the support received by the department chair: "In
terms of feedback, allowing me to know to use whatever I think I need to use to cultivate the
classroom environment, she's great. She's very supportive." However, originally flustered by the
question, Nattily went on to acknowledge later that due to describe overall department restraints:
"But I think she was only in a position to give marginally and to provide what she could provide
with the parameters that she was given." The professor identified that the department chair faced
barriers that obstructed critical decisions, which affected the performance of the Reading
Department professors.
Jenna, the Reading Department chair, provided a rationale for her stance in support of
highly qualified professors:
How do I support the staff? I give them whatever they want… the faculty, in part me, are
highly trained, specifically, and I'm very picky. I think I've been here now for this finding

84

in my third cycle of the cycles of three years (as a Reading Department chair). I think I
might have hired one person that didn't specifically have a Reading Master's Degree.
Right. But everyone is just highly trained, and I'm very picky as to who our faculty is in
my area because I want the very best for our students.
The department chair recognized the importance of choosing highly qualified
individuals: "But everyone here is highly trained, and I am very picky about our faculty in my
area because I want the very best." Jenna described the success of her hiring: "I just support
them blindly because the credentials are so strong." Jenna noted that it was important to choose
the right people for reading faculty positions and said, “You know we're all here working
together to support students." Jenna’s careful hiring approach reinforced that students would
benefit from high faculty expertise in remediating low reading literacy skills.
To capture the findings in this section is to refer to the assumed organizational influence:
CCC provides student access to highly qualified reading professors. The evaluation revealed this
is the case that the assumed influence was recognized on the department level. The research
further revealed that due to current state regulations, the reading chair was required to reduce
staff and minimize the department to tenured faculty only. Despite the change at the state level
of guidance, the CCC Reading Department difficulties were acknowledged under the guidance of
the previous department dean. The adjunct faculty have no experience working under the new
dean of humanities.
Ensure an Atmosphere of Organizational Respect that Garnered Trust from Participating
Stakeholders
At CCC, support for the Reading Department was often obstructed by the dean of the
department. While the department chair unilaterally respected the professors for their knowledge

85

and expertise in the subject matter, CCC did not give the reading faculty the same respect. The
reading professors reflected on the guidance provided by the department chair. Nattily
acknowledged, “You know she never questions my expertise; you know, she lets me do what I
do, and I like that; I respect that.” Nattily perceived the importance of working with someone
that understands trust in her capabilities as an educator.
Ana stated that “[Jenna] is very supportive of us again because she knows who we are as
individuals and as instructors. So, I think that makes a huge difference in the confidence I have
as an instructor walking into the classroom.” Shelly reflected on sentiments shared with the
department chair: “I thought she was very different. And I told her, I said, you have a very
different attitude than other chairs at other schools. You love the department, and you fight for
the department; she was positive."
The shared insights from the professor provided the background to the organizational
engagement at the departmental reading level. As the departmental chair and a reading
professor, Jenna is committed to supporting her staff. Jenna shared her positionality with staff:
I support the staff; basically, I give them whatever they want […] the faculty in part me
are highly trained faculty, specifically, and I'm very picky, you know, I, I think I've been
here now for this finding my third cycle the cycles three years [as a Reading Department
chair].
Jenna described respecting the reading professors when she stated, “Everyone is just highly
trained, and I'm very picky as to who our faculty is in my area because I want the best for our
students, and so I hire the very best.” As Reading Department chair, Jenna takes pride in
choosing the “very best” professors for the department. Also, Jenna’s validation of professional

86

integrity was validated by the Reading Department professors, a perception maintained
throughout the interviews.
To address the diverse needs of students, professors must engender amiability that
respects all students in the classroom. According to Brookfield (2015), educators must validate
the presence of students by valuing their diverse backgrounds. The act of validation helps to
assure credibility and trustworthiness in the classroom. Students need to believe that they are
respected and trusted to make plausible decisions about their education. The students
commented how they felt supported by the department. Table 6 provides student interview
comments about educator credibility.

Table 6
Validation of Student Environmental Trust
Student
participants
Student quotes
James “With the diverse people that we had in the class, we pretty much had
every nationality that you can think of. We had people that spoke regular
English, and we had a person that spoke English as a second language.
My professor was able to get through to all of them, even the ones whose
English is a second language.”

Jenny “My professor made us feel more as we relate, but we knew you wanted
to make us feel comfortable in your class.”

Amy “Like, what if we really didn't know and my professor would answer one
person's question, and she wasn't just doing it just for her or him, she
would answer it for the whole class.”
Angelica “I think just like showing us the ways and the things we could do when
we were reading…to take our time and just focus.”
Latanya “We did a presentation. I know I suck at everything in the class because
you like to boost my energy.”

87

The collected data validated the assumed influence that students acknowledge the result
of learning experiences. The combination of increased literacy skills and motivational
development is rooted in the RP program's support. Gorzelsky (2013) noted that literacy and
growth, experiential knowledge, and a learning experience that engages students holistically
fosters personal growth in addition to comprehensive skill development. Student experiences
aided in the validation that it is crucial to have access to inclusive environments that support
learning.
Reading Professors Built Rapport in Their Initial Interaction with New Students
An educator's literacy knowledge and expertise in the subject of teaching reading skills
are important. The educators all agreed on the importance of creating a positive learning
environment: Nattily shared:
[The students] connect to you, and they don't feel like they are being judged. That makes
a world of difference because of that wall. That's why we have to tear it down; I get the
problem. I have lived it. I do not read about the struggles that I live with. You know what
I mean, because we've got so many people that I can pick out all the negatives about
people that look like us, but here we are to say that's not what we do know, and our
students need to see that.
Nattily's reflection aligned personal experience with disenfranchised experiences in the
learning community. She stated, "You know what I mean because we have got so many people
that I can pick out all the negatives about people that look like us." Nattily described the
importance of connection and wished not to exacerbate the student learning experience with the
problem of feeling excluded from the learning process. The students did not want to feel

88

criticized by the person responsible for teaching a skill that many students carry a negative level
of self-consciousness.
Shelly emphasized building a trustful relationship and shared her intentions when
cultivating a positive learning culture. She took the position by establishing a context of shared
connection in the learning experience; she described how she does this: "I tell the class that we're
all learners." The professor shared the mutual concern of trust between the students and herself.
Shelly added, "So we're all at different stages in our skill levels, and we can make
improvements." Prof. Shelly described the awareness that students have a common goal and will
experience it at different paces and levels. Shayla shared further support regarding the value of
the student learning environment by sharing:
So, personally, my experience has been that building community is the best way to create
a positive climate for learning. We want students to be motivated. But if they don't know
me, if they don't trust me, I don't believe they will be motivated with them—my learnings
so, before I do anything from day one. I began to build a community. And so, for me, it
works. I love it. And so, once I build community, there's a level of buy-in the students
have within my learning space.
Shayla emphasized, “My experience has been that building community is the best way to create a
positive climate for learning." Shayla described that as an educator, she shares a position of
professional vulnerability. In this, she described prioritizing student needs: "We want students to
be motivated, but if they don't know me if they don't trust me, I don't believe they will be
motivated.” Shayla described this sacrifice as students identify a sense of inclusion as their
instructor offers up this connection to build trust in their learning community.

89

Reading Professors Engendered Student Trust in the Environment
CCC is responsible for the education of students from diverse backgrounds. Student
placement in remedial classes signals a fundamental lack of college-level skills. Also, student
placement in the class signals a sense of inadequacy for being placed in the course. Therefore,
educators must make it a point to signal a welcomed sense of inclusion for all students. The
educators agreed that it is essential to learning to remove the air of threat perceived by students
entering the course.
Nattily shared, "[The students] connect to you, they do, and they don't want to feel like
they're being judged. You know what I mean. That makes a world of difference on that wall.”
While noting the challenge of penetrating the theoretical “wall,” Nattily added that “we've got so
many people that can pick out all the negatives about people that look like us, but here we are to
say that's what we do know, and our students need to see that.” Nattily pointed to her personal
experience as a woman of color. Shelly, exerted in alignment with building a trustful
relationship, shared:
I tried to approach it where I tell the class that we are all learners. I am a lifelong learner.
You have to be open-minded to be open to learning new things. So, we are all at different
stages in our skill levels, and we can always make improvements.
Shelly described establishing a context of shared connection in the learning experience: "I tell
the class that we are all learners." Shelly further described the need to learn about students and
for students to learn about her as a professor. Shelly declared, "So we are all at different stages in
our skill levels, and we can make improvements." Shelly described her awareness that students
have a common goal and will experience levels of literacy growth at different paces. Reading
professors are trained to identify prohibitive factors that affect student literacy outcomes. To

90

support student learning, reading professors are trained to identify weaknesses and adjust tasks to
meet student needs. So, when asked to identify RP weaknesses, Shelly observed:
If you only use Reading Plus and you teach a three-unit class, and all you did was
Reading Plus because there's so much there. To use it just as one component of a reading
class, the program just will take more of an in-depth and longer training than what we
got.
Shayla shared:
The things that I don't like as much about it is that I wish some of the passages were
smaller, the length of the passages is problematic, depending on the time you have to
work on it and depending on how quickly you want to build a skill set, sometimes smaller
passages work just as well.
Ana noted, “When you have students with those individual levels with skills all over the
place, it would be nice to provide that class level instruction through the textbook.” The
professor noted the importance of using the structure of a textbook when student knowledge
overlaps a particular subset of skills; in fact, the use of a “textbook” could support all learners
sharing the same difficulties. In contrast to this view, Nattily stated:
I wish that there were a little bit more current reading selections from today's headlines
or, at the very least, yesterday's headlines, especially when you have a 24-hour news
cycle in this instantaneous cycle of information that we have because of the internet.
Nattily described the need to provide current and relevant information "like today's headlines or
at the very least yesterday's headlines." The use of outdated information in a time when students
"have access to a 24-hour news cycle." Students see their professors in positions of power and
influence. Educators and students require that the information provided must be both accurate

91

and relevant. The Reading Plus program aims to support reading comprehension and address
the challenges encountered when reading non-fictional prose. Educators need to ensure the
accuracy of the information and the relevant strategies to support reading comprehension.
This part of the project focused on the assumed organizational influences that support
student and organizational success. The achievement of learning goals depends on the interaction
between the professor and the students. The findings from the interviews with the professors
informed how the RP plus had become an instructional tool that offers a remedial solution to
reading remediation. The educator’s commitment to the students’ knowledge growth is
uncompromising as they are aware of the student population placed in reading remedial classes.
Through this lens of awareness, reading professors can provide a supportive learning
environment. The table categorizes the assumed organizational influences.
Document Analysis: Reading Comprehension Growth
The document analysis reviews the benchmark data results culminating at the end of one
semester of using the RP program. With the aid of the reading faculty, the students demonstrated
overall improvement in reading literacy and related competencies. Figure 14 shows related
student growth dependent on the lessons completed during the semester.

92

Figure 14
RP Expected Literacy Knowledge Gains Based on Current Reading Proficient Levels

Demonstrated in Figure14 are the predicted skill and knowledge growth based on the
number of lessons completed. The pyramid is based on findings identified by RP program
administrators. CCC students showed an average of 2.2-grade level growth for all students using
the program. However, the students who began at the sixth grade saw the most growth, gaining
3.1 reading grade levels, while students who entered the class at the fourth grade and below
showed 2.4-grade level improvement. Finally, students at lower levels may need more time for
remediation before making higher-level strides.

3
Well Below
Grade Level
3 or more below
grade-level
below proficiency

2
Below Grade Level
1.5-2 years below
grade level proficiency

1
At Grade Level
Students at grade level
Reinforcement of Literacy Skill and Knowledge
2.5 Level Gains
(60 Hours)
2.0 Level Gains (40
Hours)
1.0 Level Gains
(20 Hours College and
Career Readiness)

93

The information in Table 7 is a modified CCC semester report of student literacy and
knowledge gains. The report shows that students placed in reading courses with higher levels of
literacy knowledge gained marked improvement. One caveat is that the Reading Plus program
provides remediation through the 12
th
-grade level.

Table 7
CCC Semester RP Report
Professor Enrolled Assessed
student
placement
Average
reading
lessons
completed
Avg level
gains
% at/close
to grade
Prof. Ana 23 Below 6
th
Grade 77.7 2.8 13%
Prof. Shelly 27 Below 6
th
Grade 79.5 3.2 4%
Prof. Nattily 25 Below 6
th

Grade
66.4 2.4 4%
Prof. Shayla 18 Below 4
th
Grade 75.3 2.4 0%
Prof. Jenna 24 Below 8th Grade 43.5 2.4 5%

94

Synthesis
Foundational to ongoing issues that affect organizational sustainability is the alignment
of the CCC’s cultural setting to create an atmosphere conducive to organizational
change. Cultural settings provide the space in which success can be fostered (Gallimore &
Goldberg, 2001). Cultural settings are reliable in the sense that students are aware of the
consistency of the procedural atmosphere and depend on environmental existence. Germane to
the environment is the representation of leadership represented in all facets of the organization.
Eddy and Garza Mitchell (2017) identified a more expansive leadership design that
acknowledges the need for risk-taking to foster change in the community college environment.
As this idea of risk-taking applies to CCC, the organization is responsible for engaging in
remedial support that does not fall into the traditional education category. Furthermore, students
need to be provided with strategies and tools that support knowledge growth. Finally, cultural
settings are akin to having a safe environment where students no doubt support their efforts to
achieve not only personal goals but also desired measures of organizational performance.
CCC faces this very same conundrum, and the organization’s focus must shift to that of
trust and value. At some point during students’ academic trajectory to college, their current
academic standing is the result of a failure beyond the scope of this review. However, CCC, as
an institution of learning, is tasked with serving unprepared students with the knowledge and
skills necessary to meet collegiate demands. Noting students' prior academic experience, CCC
must seek to build trustworthiness amongst the student population. Carvalho and Moto (2011)
pointed out that in the presence of trust, students are more committed to attaining persistent
outcomes as they feel that they can rely on the organization to provide for their academic

95

needs. The authors further asserted that confidence is integral to student belief to meet
determined objectives as they value organizational support in goal accomplishment.
This research study evaluated the Reading Plus program and its role in supporting
students in reaching their goal of attaining functional literacy. By analyzing the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational assumed influences, the researcher was able to identify gaps that
serve as barriers to student success. Relative gaps included declarative and procedural
knowledge impediments to college-level coursework. The skills development sourced through
the RP enabled students to learn strategies that support core literacy comprehension knowledge
and skills.
The organization must employ the use of learning programs to enable academic success.
The identified student demographic may continue to face learning challenges if not allowed to
engage in learning experiences that strategically focus on the individualized development of
academic knowledge gaps. Therefore, CCC needs to provide access to a developmental program
that focuses on promptly gaining the benefits of basic education instruction. Clark and Estes
(2008) noted that instructional goals should be identified and implemented to ensure maximum
student benefit. The knowledge gained from this process is foundational to incorporating learned
skills as students matriculated through their educational journey. By addressing the preceding
cultural models, the organization will, in turn, inspire student commitment to the achievement of
each of the organizational mission and performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008)
Additionally, RP significantly improved the participating student's computer skills as
they were able to work through the attainment of vocabulary and reading comprehension
knowledge. Student motivation influences related to further improvement of the cultural setting
and models are related to organizational changes due to the student population needs despite

96

state community college regulations overseeing student regulatory push towards completing
college-level English and math without addressing student remedial needs.
The RP program enabled targeted support to identify an efficient method to remediate the
poor literacy skills needed to complete. As highly qualified and competent educators, the
reading faculty provided in-class support and monitored student progress towards literacy
knowledge. As a matter of practice, the students shall need access to an inclusive learning
environment that provides skill support and addresses self-efficacy factors through task
completion. While the need is often understated and undervalued, college-level literacy
knowledge is necessary to meet post-educational goals.
Study Scope and Delimitations
The research questions provided a foundation for the study. With the focus of the study to
identify knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps, the study scope was affected by
delimitations. The presence of unanticipated limitations had an impact on the study; specifically
limited to this study was the researcher’s capacity to do in-person recruitment for
participants. To address the study’s limits, the researcher invited participation from students that
were previously enrolled in her reading classes. The process was further impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic, which added to the limitations of the current study.
The study delimitations were influenced by the limited access to falling within the
literacy constraints of the representative stakeholder group. These students were defined by
stakeholder characteristics. The researcher used available means of email and phone requests to
encourage student participation. In efforts to preserve the integrity of the research project, the
researcher depended on participants to self-report. Therefore, the accuracy of their self-reported
responses was beyond the control of the researcher.

97

Conclusion
This project’s purpose was to evaluate the overall effectiveness of using the Reading Plus
program effectiveness to remediate functional illiteracy in community college students. This
process used a mixed-method approach to identify knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps
as sourced from the Clark & Estes (2008) methodological framework. The study’s findings
indicated that student success was supported by access to highly qualified reading
educators. Overall, the RP program provided access to need-based lessons to help improve
student literacy skills and knowledge. Furthermore, the benchmark structure allowed for the
monitoring of student progress toward individual learning goals. Therefore, RP is a practical
means to remediate functional illiteracy and thus allow students to be prepared to meet the
literacy knowledge to address collegiate-level coursework.
Another essential point is the motivational influences taking place as students work their
way through the program. In addition to motivators embedded in RP, students reported being
motivated by access to educators. This access built on student successes by using academic
reporting from professors to provide essential strategic support. This led to the relative
organizational findings for post-secondary matriculation of students entering college below
academic reading level. One finding is that the CCC continued to provide accessible literacy
remediation courses to its student population. This included providing access to highly qualified
educators to extend strategic learning opportunities. Also, the institutional representatives
monitored and tracked student progress towards learning goals, leading to final desired learning
outcomes. Despite the call for a reduction of remedial education coursework, the use of a needs-
based program like Reading Plus will reduce literacy-related frustrations that students encounter
with advanced-level reading and writing coursework.

98

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Chapter Four reviewed the assumed KMO influences considered for this study. A
qualitative research approach employing a mixed-method approach revealed an alignment of
themes to confer assumed influences concerning the study questions that guided the research
process. Chapter Five addresses the themes outlined in the previous chapter. The collected
evidence of the last chapter is the foundation for the recommendations to manage knowledge,
motivation, and organization gaps. The findings further address the continued use of the RP
program and the provision of reading professor support to maximize the reading skills and
knowledge occurring as the direct result of using need-based student learning, subsequently
supporting students reach the stated learning goal of functional literacy.
Knowledge Recommendations
The identification of knowledge and skill gaps is essential to addressing organizational
needs for reaching performance goals. Assumed knowledge needs should be specific and
validated, and validated by theoretical principles. To further elaborate, recommendations shall be
contextually aligned to address knowledge gaps that support performance goals. Table 8
summarizes the knowledge influences and recommendations.

99

Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge
influence

Validated as a
gap?
yes, high
probability or
no
(Y, HP, N)
Priority
yes, no
(Y, N)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Students need to know
their current
competency level.
(D)
HP Y Addressing
knowledge-related
deficiencies is
necessary to meet
performance goals.
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
Students need assessment
test results to identify
their reading level to
create a workable
learning plan.
Students need to know
how to use specific
procedures to access
RP reading passages,
questions, benchmark
assessments,
vocabulary, and
embedded program
support. (P)
HP Y Researchers defined
tenets of procedural
knowledge to include
system navigation;
visual cue prompts
for specific program
actions, and the
ability to access
automated program
features as needed.
(Krathwohl, 2002)
Teachers will train
students to use the
Reading Plus Program by
showing students how to
access guided program
lessons and tutorial
support.
Students need to be
aware of their
thinking to access
prior knowledge and
use reflective thinking
practices to support
reading
comprehension. (M)
HP Y The research
confirmed that
metacognition
supports inferential
cues to inform the
development of
knowledge.
(Levonier, 2018)
Educators will provide
focused lesson strategies
and model reading
strategies to support
student application of the
methods that support
reading comprehension.

100

Developing Literacy Knowledge and Skill to Support Student Achievement
This study found that based on previous school experiences, students were aware of their
reading difficulties but did not know their current reading competency level. To ascertain these
results, students took an examination that relied on their ability to recall known information.
Thus, a recommendation rooted in information processing theory was selected to close this
declarative knowledge gap. Clark and Estes (2008) pointed out that knowledge-related
deficiencies must be acknowledged and addressed to meet performance goals. In this, students
shall be aware of what the assessment revealed about their understanding rather than students
yielding to assumed beliefs about their reading skills. Thus, the program begins with an
assessment test. After the student's current knowledge is identified, a learning protocol is created
that addresses the specific knowledge and skills needed for literacy competence.
The task of remediation at the community college level is complicated at best as it serves
non-transferable skills. While noting that time and resources are limited and should be applied
effectively and efficiently, the need to address skill level remediation should be customized to
meet the learning needs of the underprepared student. Armstrong and Newman (2011) observed
that students must redefine their reading knowledge and skill to meet post-secondary literacy
demands. In this case, there is a need for specific learning strategies to support reading
comprehension and vocabulary knowledge growth. Craigo and Hart (2017) identified a barrier to
understanding the words that occupy college-level texts. For that reason, students are at a
disadvantage because comprehension relies on their ability to evaluate the reading for main ideas
or depend on previous knowledge to support knowledge growth. Remedial learning is valuable to
students who have managed to matriculate through education unaware of their learning needs.

101

Comprehension is the cornerstone of reading and the ability to strengthen their ability to make
concessions across the context of learning.
Knowledge of Procedures and Guidelines to Access Program Features
The application of procedural knowledge is needed for students to gain full access to the
RP computer-guided program. As a result, there is a need to guide students on accessing
different program features to support learning engagement. The recommendation for a
procedural knowledge intervention is relevant to address gaps in student learning. The advice
based on this principle is that during training, the instructor's modeling of guided instruction to
support novice student learners is critical to learning RP features. Demonstrated training with the
program helps avoid early onset related to student atrophy (Clark & Estes, 2008). Students must
face the nuances associated with using the RP program by participating in training and practicing
with step-by-step precision until students can work independently with the program.
The traditional school experience instructs learners to become accustomed to well-
organized classroom structures. Overall, this experience teaches students to follow the rules,
work in small groups, and raise their hands when they have something to share. A precursor to
this learning phase depends on knowledge of the regulations, theoretically known as factual
knowledge and the precursor to procedural knowledge (Kim, 2013). Zaid and Khan (2013)
explained that procedural learning supports comprehension, engages critical thinking, and
identifies solutions to complicated problems. These skills are needed as students transition from
the traditional classroom to online learning. The challenges are more surreal as students miss the
professor’s physical presence and are required to complete learning tasks online. The complexity
of reading comprehension and online learning involves navigating visual cues that may distract
the learner from intended tasks (Coiro, 2011). The use of well-defined learning programs

102

challenges students to engage their thinking as they use controlled and deliberate actions to
accomplish their tasks (Craigo and Hart, 2017). The use of computer learning programs prepares
students to change the way they learn in low-monitored settings.
Students Applied Accrued Knowledge and Strategies to Support Reading Comprehension
The cycle of learning emphasizes the connection between previous knowledge and new
information. Therefore, remedial students need to engage in opportunities to engage their
background knowledge. Levonier (2018) noted that metacognitive awareness in conjunction with
inferential cues to supplement new thoughts. For example, the engagement of reading strategies
that help students identify seemingly unrelated information that helps students make connections
to the original material is helpful to the critical thinking process. Online learning programs
encourage students to consider posed questions to identify information and analyze their findings
(Leu et al., 2015). Students need multiple opportunities to apply learning strategies as they
navigate the learning program.
Students benefit from both recall and reflection to support metacognitive learning
processes. The complex nature of reading comprehension skills requires that students access
previously learned knowledge to learn and apply new information. To accomplish the task of
knowledge integration, students must engage in self-regulation processes. Student self-regulation
in the face of e-learning procedures requires that students monitor their learning processes (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Further, this allows students to set learning goals as they matriculate through this
program, at times with little supervision. Metacognitive knowledge is critical to student success
with the Reading Plus program. Follmer and Sterling (2016) noted the implicative value of
metacognition supports self-regulatory behavior. Metacognitive skills are supported by the
practice of reflection, which allows students an opportunity to review newly learned knowledge

103

and connect it to previous knowledge. The synthesis of combined knowledge is dependent on a
student's ability to self-regulate as a participant in the learning process.
Motivation Recommendations
The required data collection for this project is incomplete; however, the assumed
motivation influences identified in Table 9 are highly probable as these influencers are each
supported by motivation theory and relevant literature review. Rueda (2011) explained that by
assessing the varying tenets of motivation, identifying pertinent factors that affect student
deportment is readily identifiable. The assumed influences to be addressed include expectancy-
value and goal orientation theory. These influencers identified are beyond those embedded in the
RP program, which uses digital rewards to recognize student achievement of learning goals.
Although necessary, the embedded motivation does not address the outside factors related to
student desire to achieve literacy competence.

104

Table 9
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
motivation influence

Validated as a
gap
yes, high
probability, no
(V, HP, N)
Priority
yes, no
(Y, N)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Students need to
understand the
connection between
improved literacy
knowledge and
completing college
course content
successfully.
(Expectancy Value)
HP Y Students are more
likely to value
that their natural
strengths will
evolve and use
different strategies
to support their
efforts (Mayer,
2011)
Students need to engage in
challenging coursework to
support literacy skills and
the value of literacy
knowledge to promote
skill transfer.
Students need to
identify measurable
learning goals.
(Goal Orientation)
HP Y Provide accurate
feedback that
stresses the process
of learning,
including the
importance of
effort, strategies,
and potential self-
control of learning.
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2009)
Guide students in setting
SMART Goals that focus
on both the RP program
and college completion.

Students need to use
instructor and computer-
generated feedback to
support learning goals.

Improving Student Connection Between Improved Literacy Knowledge and the Successful
Completion of College Coursework
Instructors need to help students make broader connections within the literacy domain by
demonstrating how students can use learned skills across contextual domains. A recommendation
rooted in expectancy-value theory is selected to close this gap in motivation. According to Mayer
(2011), students are more likely to expect that their natural strengths will evolve and use
different strategies to support their efforts. To this point, students need to understand the

105

connection between improved literacy knowledge and the successful completion of college
coursework (Rueda, 2011). The recommendation is for the reading instructors to demonstrate
appropriate reading strategies to reinforce knowledge transfer. Students are encouraged to use
computer-generated feedback to support their learning goals. This type of feedback is in addition
to utilizing and further discussing any significant points of confusion with the instructor so that
the teacher can help students address the learning deficit. Students need to identify appropriate
strategies pertinent to a wide variety of learning domains. For example, in a math class, when the
word problem is introduced, students need to recall reading strategies to help understand the
problem. This mathematical situation calls for students to observe a familiarity with the
organizational patterns related to reading comprehension; noting the motivation and applicability
of previously learned knowledge in any college academic setting is valuable.
A skilled level of improvement has little bearing on student outcomes without student
motivation to put forth the effort to achieve desired learning goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
first implies that students believe in their ability to accomplish the tasks assigned to them. Clark
& Estes (2008) pointed out that there is a real paradox of cultural identities and how individuals
define themselves by their integrated systems of belief. It is through these expectations that
motivational drivers are not only determined but directed. Underprepared students struggle with
varied characteristics making it difficult to adjust to the demands of post-secondary education
(Melzer & Grant, 2016). Such challenges range from the autonomy of choice when making
academic decisions to the community college systems' overall navigation. The recognition of this
newfound power of choice provides students with more opportunities to build both resilience and
persistence in a new environment. This supports the motivation challenges of remedial literacy,

106

requiring students to merge pieces of knowledge, both pre and post, to fully engage with
academic texts (Clark et al., 2006).
Helping Students Set Measurable Learning Goals
Student individualized perceptions of success vary as successes are determined by the
self-regulatory behaviors that are embraced while attempting to procure learning goals (Sorec et
al., 2017). Researchers observed that goal-setting behaviors improve student retention due to the
engaged persistence to meet identified performance goals (Demetriouss & Schmitz-Sciborski,
2011). The recommendation is for the organization to use a graphic organizer to help students
create SMART goals that focus on RP program learning goals. In addition to helping students
identify learning goals, students are encouraged to revisit their goals to check their progress.
This allows students to adjust their goals as learning tasks are completed. However, students
need to continue the pursuit of challenging tasks to ensure motivational encouragement as they
move forward as learners (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The encouragement of risk-taking behavior in learning environments requires that
students are given a safe classroom environment; students need to be encouraged to work in
collaboration with their peers to learn to build upon one another’s skills and knowledge (Clark,
2005). For example, collaborative learning fosters student connections that solidify learning and
goal attainment. Students need to know that they are not alone in reaching their literacy goals.
This type of learning further solidifies the conceptual nature of literacy instruction and skills
learning that guides students in future coursework (Maier et al., 2015). Furthermore, the
interaction between student peers helps to foster feelings of belonging and commitment to
learning. For many students, connectedness is as important to their identity as the actual pursuit

107

of learning (Styron & Roberts, 2010). As this is a factor, student motivation and goal attainment
partially rely upon the experiences that are fostered in the learning environment.
Organizational Recommendations
Organizations play a vital role in recognizing the needs of students. Students must have
access to the knowledge and skills necessary to meet both academic and personal goals. The
organization needs to take a critical role in securing access to programs that will serve students in
the long run. Whether students choose to transfer to a four-year institution or pursue a vocation,
literacy attainment is vital to goal attainment. Thus, Table 10 details the noted recommendations
for CCC to meet organizational goals.

108

Table 10
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
organization
influence

Validated as a
gap
yes, high
probability,
no
(Y, HP, N)
Priority
yes, no
(Y, N)
Principle and
citation

Context-specific
recommendation
The department will
implement the
Reading Plus
Program to increase
student literacy skills
and knowledge.
HP Y Accountability is
contextually
defined
(Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004)
The department needs to
assess the student
population and align
coursework respectively.
The faculty will
create a supportive
learning
environment to
ensure cognitive
growth and
transferability of
metacognitive-based
literacy knowledge.
(Setting)
HP Y Design of incentive
structure and use of
incentives are more
important than the
types of incentives
used (Elmore, 2002)
Students need to be
personally recognized for
their skill attainment and
knowledge growth, and
needs during discussion
based on benchmark
assessment results.
The Reading
Department chair
will ensure faculty
access to up-to-date
resources and
support regarding the
Reading Plus
program use.
HP Y Effective leaders use
disaggregated data to
make informed
decisions; they track
the impact of their
decisions on equity
and access in
organizational
practice.
(Bensimon, 2005)
The Reading Department
chair needs to make sure
that educators are fully
knowledgeable about the
RP program and provide
incentives for making
notable progress with
students.
The college will
provide students
with the Reading
Plus Program to
enable the student to
meet college-level
literacy attainment.
HP Y Different types of
benchmarking
contribute data to
improve
organizational
performance.
(Bogue & Hall;
Marsch, 2012)
Reading teachers need to
track student progress by
examining scores and
providing feedback at
each benchmarked level
of the RP program.

109

The organization needs to ensure that students have access to supplemental reading
coursework to support organizational goal achievement. The organization needs to engage in
discussions about the reading program while examining student progress with the program.
Critical discussion must be held to determine the efficiency of the program and its effectiveness
to meet organization goals. School leadership is an important factor in building capacity and
student achievement (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003).
The department will implement the Reading Plus Program to increase student literacy
skills and knowledge. It is the organization's responsibility to be readily prepared to address the
students who are underprepared to read at a college level. Hentschke & Wohlstetter (2004) noted
that the notion of accountability is contextually defined. Based on the knowledge that a
population of incoming students has previously demonstrated the inability to meet state
standards, the CCC must consider this when designing a curriculum. The department needs to
assess the student population and then align coursework. Students are faced with an intellectual
conundrum, which includes believing the ability to read words is the only construct for reading.
By addressing the components of vocabulary knowledge and improving reading comprehension
skills, students can better meet the challenges of post-secondary learning.
Underdeveloped literacy skills are a distinct barrier to post-secondary success in college.
This lack of literacy knowledge notably applies to students from traditionally marginalized
backgrounds (Del-Amen, 2011). The recommendation is to stress CCC's awareness of the long-
term risks of using inefficient remedial programs that prolong a student's success in non-remedial
coursework. In simple terms, literacy knowledge is the cornerstone of all academic learning.
Willingham (2016) noted that the lack of student awareness of study strategies makes it difficult
for students to discern relevant knowledge when encountering complex texts. The ability to fully

110

comprehend text makes learning manageable and consequently makes the collegiate experience a
worthwhile investment of both time and energy.
The faculty will create a supportive learning environment to ensure cognitive growth and
transfer of metacognitive-based literacy knowledge. As a motivation tool, reading faculty should
acknowledge students for their learning of new concepts and strategies as they apply to literacy.
The recommendation is for CCC to implement a program that recognizes student
accomplishments. Elmore (2002) found that the need to design an incentive is more important
than the types of incentives used. The RP program offers digital rewards for student
accomplishments in the program. Therefore, reading faculty follow up with students by
personally congratulating students for a job well done—the recognition of student skill
attainment and knowledge growth as well as needs discussion on benchmark assessment results.
Students need to understand the importance of skill transfer and apply knowledge in different
content areas, for example, by introducing literacy skills outside of RP and teaching students to
apply learned skills to other core learning textbooks. As a result, students will become aware of
the value of learning how to apply strategic literacy skills.
CCC is the crucial connector for students wishing to reach the dynamic goal of self-
sufficiency. Cohen (2009) pointed out that community colleges foundationally serve students
who are otherwise academically or financially unprepared to navigate the avenues of post-
secondary education. For that reason, the recommendation is for CCC to implement structures
that value student participation in the learning process. According to research, it is vital to take
on a multidimensional approach when working with students whose knowledge and abilities are
individually characterized (Dunlosky et al., 2013). It is unfair to treat students as if they share the
same set of literacy skills. The RP program allows students to engage in learning that is both

111

meaningful and valuable. It further addresses the immediate learning needs of students, allowing
them to reach their full potential.
The Reading Department chair will ensure faculty access to up-to-date Reading Plus
program resources and support. The Reading Department must be clear about the program's
implementation and how the design of the program supports literacy needs. The recommendation
is to address educators through meeting and training venues to provide the opportunity to share
strategies that support student learning while using the RP program. It further provides educators
with the opportunity to share data and create needed instructional support based on benchmark
results. Effective leaders use disaggregated data to make informed decisions; they track their
decisions on equity and access in organizational practice (Bensimon, 2005). The Reading
Department chair needs to ensure that educators are fully knowledgeable about the RP program
and provide incentives for making notable progress with students.
Creating a learning environment that supports student learning creates a structure within
which students can strive by fostering the feeling that students are part of the learning
environment. The CCC can initiate the fostering of belonging; it will improve college retention
and provide a sense of engagement in the college culture (O'Keefe, n.d.). O'Keefe (n.d.) also
maintained the importance of building a connection with educational community members as a
vital component of student persistence and overall performance. Students need to feel as though
their engagement in the learning process is essential. The classroom is a space where a synergy
level is necessary to promote academic development and student growth. Davidson and Wilson
(2017) reported a positive impact on student persistence involving the relationships built in the
academic environment. Educators are central to developing these relationships as they rely on the
overall learning community built in the classroom.

112

The college will provide students with the Reading Plus program to enable them to meet
college-level literacy attainment. To effectively meet the learners' needs, students must be aware
of the progress they are making toward their learning goals. The recommendation is for
instructors to use feedback to inform support in correlation to student progress. Through the use
of feedback, instructors have this opportunity to follow up on the computer-generated data
provided by the RP program. Different benchmarking types contribute data to improve
organizational performance (Bogue & Hall; Marsh, 2012). Reading teachers need to track
student progress by examining scores and providing feedback at each benchmarked level of the
RP program. Providing feedback based on student performance allows the instructor to provide
supplemental education as needed during the learning process and further support students in the
attainment of functional literacy knowledge.
Knowledge and the ability to make critical decisions in one's life depend on how the
information is understood. The development of listening skills relies on student knowledge of
terminology used in the classroom environment. Much of the vocabulary further depends on this
knowledge and identifying the relevancy of specific terms to related content. Listening is an
active component of learning; it plays an essential role in learning (Hu, 2012). Educators need to
always be aware of task demands above student awareness and knowledge. To combat this,
providing students with the language of literacy is to bring clarity to how language is
contextualized based on the vocabulary used to meet the learning goals. Leu et al. (2015) also
demonstrated that literacy plays two competing roles in student learning: computer literacy and
that of literacy used in a social context. Educators need to be clear about words and their distinct
meanings as students move through the computer-based learning process.

113

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The strategic model for this study implementation and evaluation plan is based on the
original Kirkpatrick Four-Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This
strategic model posited that evaluation plans begin with the organizational goals, using a
stratified regression framework to highlight the recommended solutions necessary for meeting
organizational goals. The integrated implementation and evaluation plan includes the
development of solution outcomes to focus on the assessment of student knowledge gains, a
specific monitoring system that traces student knowledge growth while using the program, and a
systematic review that assesses student learning outcomes. Designing the implementation and
evaluation plan in this manner forces connections between the immediate solutions and the larger
goal and solicits proximal “buy-in” to ensure success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
CCC’s mission is to utilize innovative educational approaches to empower students with
the tools and strategies to meet college and career aspirations. The achievement of the college's
mission's organizational performance goal is to support 90% of entering students to take and pass
a transferable college English course by the beginning of year two. Therefore, students will need
to reach post-secondary collegiate reading levels to meet the organizational goal.
Foundational to this is the fact that identified stakeholders are low-literate students in
need of academic reading support. To accomplish this goal, Freshman ESL, Latino, DPS, and
African American students reading below the college level will need to complete two semesters
of the reading remediation using the RPP to achieve functional literacy. RPP is designed to
support student learning needs by addressing individual learning gaps. The evaluation of the

114

program is to ensure that student learning deficits are effectively managed as a result of using the
RPP program.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 11 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal outcomes for CCC.

Table 11
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Demonstrated
understanding of college-level
reading demands.
Students will attain the 13th
grade-level literacy skill and
knowledge.
Track the number of students who
have completed the Reading Plus
Program.
2. Increase in students who
have identified college and
career goals.
S Student-devised educational
and career plans.
Students will complete a SMART
goal template to identify stated
goals.
3. Students will be better
prepared to engage in reading
at the post-secondary content
level
Students will complete
college courses
Students will create an educational
plan to reflect the desired learning
pathway.

Internal Outcomes
1. Increase classroom
interaction with students
Create a supportive learning
environment to foster value.

Reading teachers will meet with
students to discuss learning goals.
2. Increased knowledge of
reading comprehension
skills.
Increase in student transfer or
degree attainment.
CCC knowledge will be evaluated
in a series of computerized
benchmark assessments.
3. Provide access to a
computer learning platform.
Remove unnecessary learning
barriers to degree attainment.
Reading Faculty to
evaluate student learning by
identifying specific knowledge
deficits occurring in the
computerized learning platform
and track learning results

115

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
The stakeholders of focus are the students completing the Reading Plus reading
intervention program. The first critical behavior is that students must know their current reading
level to access the personalized instructional coursework. The second critical behavior is that
students must use self-regulatory behaviors to meet weekly learning goals for program
engagement. The third critical behavior is that students must review instructional models,
strategies, and benchmark assessments to support learning transfer. The specific metrics,
methods, and timing for each outcome behavior appear in Table 12.

116

Table 12
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Students need to
understand the content
knowledge needs of
reading comprehension
to identify measurable
learning goals.
Students will create a
learning plan that is
targeted for instruction.
Utilize the RP
assessment test
to identify reading
comprehension
knowledge.
The initial assessment
will be given within
the first week of
instruction.
2. Students need to
assert regulatory
behaviors to accomplish
instructional goals.
Students need to
regulate their personal
time by setting the
guidelines for task
accomplishment.
Students will use a
planner to create a
work schedule.
Students will be
encouraged to create a
weekly schedule to
work on RP to meet
the weekly course
load.
3. Students need to use
self-reflection to support
learning transfer.
Students reflect on
study strategies and
identify applications in
other classes.
Students will keep a
journal that will
reflect knowledge and
skills learned as a
result of RP.

Students will use
alternative textbooks
for the application of
learned reading skills.

A weekly journal entry
will be required to
accumulate learned
strategies and student
learning responses.

To be reviewed by the
professor for
comments
and submitted as a
cumulative course
assignment.
4. Students need to
demonstrate knowledge
gains.
Students will be tested
on accumulated reading
strategies.
RP assessment test. Students will take a
final assessment at the
end of the term.

Required Drivers
Reading students require the instructional support of their reading professors to reinforce
reading strategies and demonstrate how to utilize strategies across content learning. Strategies
should be modeled and encouraged by demonstrating in-action use with college-level textbooks.
Students should be rewarded for their hard work and achievement of learning goals. The

117

Reading Department should further publicly recognize students for meeting organizational
goals. Table 13 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of remedial
reading students.

Table 13
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid including a glossary of areas essential
reading skills and different types of strategies that
provide comprehend RP content support.
Ongoing 1, 2
Group instruction to provide additional instruction
that requires scaffolded and strategic instructional
support.
Ongoing 1,2,3
Encouraging
Feedback and coaching from the reading professor Ongoing 1,2,3,4
Implement peer lead instructional models for
different reading modules.
Quarterly or
project-based
2,3,4
Rewarding
In-class recognition for students who accomplish
reading modules.
Quarterly or
project-based
2,3
Monitoring
The reading professor privately discusses student
RP benchmark assessment results.
Ongoing 1,3,4

118

Organizational Support
Resources and time will need to be allocated to implement the organizational change
plan. The Reading Department dean and instructors will need to allocate time to ensure that RPP
is successfully integrated into the reading curriculum. This includes assigning bi-weekly
engagement with core instructors and leaders to collaborate and assess program effectiveness.
Instructors will also be able to exchange instructional ideas that support student success.
Additionally, CCC needs to support faculty and students by providing ongoing access and
support to the Reading Department's use of the RP program. Additionally, it is critical for
students to feel as though they are a part of the community college cultural environment and be
recognized for their hard work in the Reading Program. The organization needs to recognize
student values and address the core literacy needs of students.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
Student success shall be recognized upon the completion of the Reading Plus program,
and as a result of adherence to the recommended solutions, the student will be able to achieve:
1. Know how to log in and access the RP program features. (D)
2. Follow program prompts to access learning coursework. (P)
3. Create a weekly study schedule to meet coursework deadlines. (M, P)
4. Choose program reading as a result of learning interests. (M)
5. Identify needed reading competencies to meet learning outcomes. (D, M)
6. Use the constructive feedback to identify both strengths and weaknesses in
reading. (D, M, P)
7. Advocate for self in all aspects of learning by monitoring progress. (M, P)

119

8. Recognize organizational patterns of reading to support comprehension, D)
9. Understand the value of learning reading comprehension strategies. (M)
10. Apply learning strategies in all learning applications of college coursework. (D,
M)
Program
At the synchronous level, as identified in the previous section, the achievement of the
learning goals requires the full implementation of the RP program to reach functional literacy.
The reading faculty will fully understand the benefits and advantages to be gained as a result of
using this program to support student remedial learning needs. It is further necessary for the
reading professors to explain the inherent advantages to students to support program completion.
The students need to complete a minimum of ten hours per week to reach a three-grade level
gain by the end of the semester.
At the asynchronous level, learning occurs at the commencement of the RP program.
Student learning needs will be identified and assigned for student completion. Students will take
an assessment test that will identify reading and vocabulary skill levels. The results of the
assessments will inform the necessary learning tasks that students need to complete to gain
knowledge level competency. Learning modules will be provided that offer students a choice of
various topics. It is within each reading component that students will be able to choose a reading
that increases personal interest. Students also have opportunities to reread passages before
responding to the questions. The reading comprehension component requires students to
recognize the text's organizational patterns to identify the required strategies necessary to support
comprehension. Additionally, students will be expected to identify college-level vocabulary
words, both declarative and words supported by inferential cues. Computer-generated feedback
is provided throughout the learning program.

120

A weekly check-in will set the synchronous structure for student and instructor
engagement. This provides the reading professor the opportunity to address the global needs of
students having difficulty with specific content. This allows the educator to provide the strategies
necessary for students to accomplish program tasks. During weekend check-ins, students will be
able to collaborate with peers to present strategies to the class and respond to questions posed by
both instructor and students. The professor will also individually discuss student progress with
students. Finally, acknowledging student success publicly or privately is at the professor's
discretion.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The successful implementation of the RP program is dependent on students’ ability to
manage procedural and declarative knowledge processes. Students will have to know the
necessary procedures to follow to navigate the programmatic features of the program. This
requires that students understand the importance of each contextual component as a scaffolded
need to reach functional literacy. Based on this knowledge is the value-added gain of knowing
that one is prepared to meet the reading challenges posed by higher educational institutions of
learning. Table 14 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components.

121

Table 14
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or activity(ies) Timing
Declarative knowledge “I know it.”
Students can log in to the program and access
its features.
At the beginning and during program use.
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. In the asynchronous portions, RP will respond to
reading comprehension questions.
Procedural skills “I can do it right now.”
Passages can be reviewed as needed before
moving on to the questioning stage.
Upon completion of reading the text, I can choose
to either respond to the questions or go back to
reread the text.
Demonstrate the use of reading strategies to
the peer group.
During weekly class check-in or as predetermined
by the professor.
I know how to access computer-generated
feedback.
As needed throughout the course.
Ask for appointments to discuss knowledge
needs or concerns.
As needed throughout the term.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Reading comprehension knowledge is
necessary to pass college coursework.
During and after course completion.
Reading comprehension applies to meeting
both college and career goals.
As need throughout the term
A reflective review of pre-course goals and
objective gains.
At the beginning and end of the class
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Reading professor assessment of student
application of learned reading comprehension
strategies.
Bi-weekly review of student progress
Discussion of how students are using
strategies in other classes.
During the course.
Program Knowledge Assessment At the end of the course
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Use of reading strategies to support RP
comprehension knowledge.
Upon competition of learning modules.
Apply learned concepts to complete other
college coursework.
Ongoing as needed.

122

Level 1: Reaction
To determine the feasibility of employing the RP program to remediate student literacy
needs, it is important to examine the students' ability to acclimate to the learning software
demands. Also, it is necessary as part of level 1 evaluation to ensure that students can engage the
full functionality of RP. The encouragement of self-regulatory behaviors must be engaged by
reading professors and students alike. Table 15 identifies the noted methodology and asserted
timing necessary to meet learning goals, in addition to student assessment of the overall value of
the program supporting literacy value attainment.

Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Monitor student weekly completion of 10 hours
minimum.
Ongoing during the asynchronous portion
of the program.
Monitor the completion of the online reading
comprehension modules.
Ongoing during the asynchronous portion
of the program.
Professor-student in-class interaction. At the beginning of each week.
Benchmark assessments. Mid and end of the semester
Relevance
Support student motivation and learning with the RP
program.
Every two weeks throughout the semester.
Provide applicable feedback to improve and support
knowledge.
Monitor student program data analytics
throughout the semester.
Student satisfaction
Student Survey to assess RP program experience. Upon course completion.
Have students review their pre-course assumptions
and compare learning outcomes via letter to self.
At the beginning and end of the semester.

123

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Upon the completion of the Reading Plus program, students will know their progress
made toward functional literacy as a result of asynchronous learning. The results will detail the
summation of their learning completed for the course. The RP Site report will track student
skills, knowledge, and motivational development throughout the use of the program. During the
semester, the reading professors will administer RP benchmark assessments to students to check
their progress with the program at six-week intervals. After the program, a final benchmark
assessment will confirm the students’ current grade-level reading and vocabulary knowledge, as
well as follow the strands of motivational engagement.
Student Reaction at Level 1 needs reading professors to monitor student engagement with
the RP program. The use of formative evaluations of student work will allow professors to
monitor student attitudes and the accessibility of the RP program software. At Level 2, student
progress will be monitored to ensure students are meeting weekly learning goals. The professor
will also provide students with guided learning opportunities, including reading comprehension
strategies and progress checks, thereby ensuring student needs are addressed throughout the
process.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Midway through the semester, at week seven, reading students will take a survey to
evaluate student learning experience with the RP program. The professor will lead a group
discussion with students to assess attitudes about the program as well as any issues regarding
program access and usage (Level 1) and completing the RP benchmark assessment of skill and
knowledge growth as a result of completing learning modules (Level 2). The students will

124

display increased confidence in using the program by adhering to a self-identified learning
schedule and weekly assignment completion. At this level of Level 3, evidence of self-regulation
will be observed by reading professors.
Data Analysis and Reporting
To attain functional literacy, as indicated in Level 4, students must commit to a minimum
of ten hours per week to complete learning modules. The Reading Department professors will
monitor student weekly program use. The RP dashboard identifies the student engagement with
the program and skill level growth.
Summary
To summarize, the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) served as the method to address
organizational program implementation, informing a scaffolded approach to organizational
change. By addressing the performance from an inverted leveled approach, stakeholder needs
are clearly defined at each support level. Remedial education is complicated; there is a need to
emphasize the value of knowledge, skill, and motivational needs to ensure the successful
implementation of the Reading Plus program. Additionally, the program engages students at their
initial levels of understanding.
Study Scope and Delimitations
The research questions, further bounded by the conceptual framework and study design,
provided a foundation for the study. With the focus of the study to identify knowledge,
motivation, and organization gaps, the study scope was impacted by limitations and
delimitations. While the presence of unanticipated limitations had an impact on the study, the
delimitations are conscious decisions made by the researcher. Specifically limited to this study
was the ability for the researcher to do in-person recruitment for participants; consequently, the

125

researcher invited students from previous classes to participate in the study. The process was
further impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which added to the limitations of the current
study.
The study delimitations were influenced by the limited access to students falling within
the participant criteria. These students do not necessarily represent the majority of all students,
but still yet a formidable number of incoming students from local and feeder secondary
institutions. Therefore, as identified by stakeholder characteristics, the researcher used available
means of email and telephone requests to encourage student participation.
Implications for Practice
 The implication for future practice is for community colleges that serve low-income
students to be cognizant of educational needs. While it is the goal for students to matriculate
through their formative years to leave high school with the skills that support functional literacy
skills, that is simply not the case for all students. Therefore, post-secondary coursework needs to
provide access to the skills and knowledge necessary for those students to matriculate post-
educational learning goals. To address literacy skill shortage, the institution needs to provide
access to highly qualified professors that address student learning needs using a variety of
strategies that are proven to support literacy development. The Reading Plus reading intervention
program helps to address and demystify student learning limitations. The program is need-based
and offers students an opportunity to remediate reading literacy skills in a well-organized
manner. As it stands, the California community college system has set limits on student access
to remedial courses, deeming it both ineffectual and costly. Yet, by not providing access to
developmental reading skills, the California community college system will, in effect, keep
students in need in the low-income cycle of poverty.

126

Future Research
Future research in this area of study should include the process of supporting students to
reach educational goals. At the same time, the use of remedial coursework is under scrutiny and
deemed unjustified in the community college spectrum of higher education. However, for
students rooted in marginalized communities, reading remediation should be prioritized above
other remediation dimensions. It is incorrect that all college students have developed the
necessary literacy skills to address college-related coursework (Lei et al., 2010). This
assumption may have guided the approval of the legal precedence set by AB 705, a California
law that deems remedial coursework unviable. While the law intended to avoid the unnecessary
placement of students in remedial classes, it has, unfortunately, limited access to the most
vulnerable of students, the economically depressed and historically marginalized student groups.
With this knowledge, the researcher recommends that future studies understand the unforeseen
impact involving AB705’s overreach, which limited access to remedial reading as this study had
shown when learning gaps were addressed efficiently and when a need-based literacy program
was implemented, students prospered by becoming functionally literate.
 Another essential point is the motivational influences taking place as students work their
way through the program. In addition to motivators embedded in RP, educator access was vital:
this access built upon student successes by using academic reporting to provide essential
strategic support provided by the educators. This leads to the relative organizational findings for
post-secondary matriculation for students entering college below academic reading level. One
finding is that the CCC continues to provide accessible literacy remediation courses to its student
population. This includes providing access to highly qualified educators to extend strategic
learning opportunities. Also, the institutional representatives must monitor and track student

127

progress towards learning goals leading to final desired learning outcomes. The use of a needs-
based program like Reading Plus will help to reduce literacy-related frustrations that students
encounter with advanced-level reading and writing coursework.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of public entities, including community colleges, to
address student literacy needs. The evidence showed that in environments devoted to supporting
reading literacy growth and good academic tools, functional literacy achievement is highly
probable. More study is needed to ensure the community college environment’s stability and
support of remedial reading comprehension skills, and in the best interest of historically
marginalized students, inaugural learning should include at least one semester of college reading
to support their educational and collegiate pursuit.
Conclusion

This project evaluated the use of the Reading Plus program to remediate functional
illiteracy in community college students. CCC as a learning organization is accountable for
emerging areas of expertise, leading to desired behavioral changes. Responsible for teaching
garnered tenets of knowledge, leading to desired behavioral changes. CCC is also considered a
business with obligations to the students as consumers and to federal and state compliance
entities. Community colleges daunted with procedural inconsistencies must provide public and
governmental satisfaction, as budgets are dependent on student performance success. However, it
is equally important that students are engaged in meaningful learning; indeed, their futures are
dependent on successful learning and the attainment of prosperous careers.
The study was able to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps as
sourced from the Clark & Estes (2008) mixed-method approach. Further, this study provided
gap-related insight into the functionality of the RP program to address low literacy. The results

128

showed that self-regulation in the face of e-learning procedures requires that students monitor
individual learning processes (Clark & Estes, 2008). The study’s findings indicated the support
of highly qualified reading educators is critical for student success. Overall, the RP program
provided access to need-based lessons to help improve student literacy skills and knowledge.
Furthermore, the benchmark structure allowed for the monitoring of student progress toward
individual learning goals. Therefore, RP is a practical means to remediate functional illiteracy
and allow students to meet the literacy knowledge to address collegiate-level coursework.

129

References
Bauer-Kealey, M., & Mather, N. (2019). Use of an online reading intervention to enhance the
basic reading skills of community college students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 43(9), 631-647.
Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.
Beard, D. (2009) Successful applications of the balanced scorecard in higher education.
Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), 275-282, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.5.275-282
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Measuring the state of equity in higher
education. In P. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Expanding opportunity in higher
education: Leveraging promise (pp. 143–166). State University of New York Press.
Bensimon, E., & Kezar, A. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131),
99–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.190
Bogue, G., & Hall, K. (2012). Business, political and academic perspectives on higher education
accountability policy. College and University, 87(3), 14.
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal
9(2), pp. 27-40.
Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. (2008). Family reading behavior and early literacy skills in
preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Education and Development,
19:1, 45-67
Branch, A. (2011, November 28). Can you read this? Don’t take that for granted.

130

Brogan-Adams, D. (2014). Parent education for kindergarten readiness with low income
families: A mixed methods study. (Publication No. 1417708591) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Dayton]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
California Community College Chancellor's Office. http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/Tech
ResearchInfoSys/Research/ARCC/ARCC2.aspx Ca
California Community College Chancellor’s Office (2019). Implementation Timeline.
http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu /Portals/0/GovRelations/Enacted-
Bills/ab-705-summary.pdf
California Community College Chancellor’s Office (2019). Implementation Timeline.
http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu /Portals/0/GovRelations/Enacted-
Bills/ab-705-summary.pdf
Castro, E. L. (2015). Understanding equity in community college practice. Jossey-Bass.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2016). Expectations meet reality:
The underprepared student and community colleges. (2016 CCCSE Findings).
Conley, D. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education.,
2008(144), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.321
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Compton, M., & Shim, R. (2015). The social determinants of mental health. American
Psychiatric Publishing.
Dori, Y., Mevarech, Z., & Baker, D. (2018). Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM
education learning, teaching and assessment (1st ed.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
66659-4

131

Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. University of Massachusetts, Lumina Foundation for
Education.
Easton, P., Entwistle, V., & Williams, B. (2010). Health in the 'hidden population' of people with
low literacy: A systematic review of the literature. MC Public Health, 10, 459.
Eddy, P., & Garza Mitchell, R. (2017). Preparing community college leaders to meet
tomorrow’s challenges. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary
Education, 2, 127–145. https://doaj.org/article11628b0708c0488eb2c7b36cb61c707f
Eibensteiner, J. L. (2012). Conceptual and procedural knowledge community college students
use when solving science problems. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 36(3), 169-178. doi:10.1080/10668920802134982
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed., pp. 162-183). Pearson.
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and
gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Krathwohl, D. (2002) A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lavonier, N. (2015). Evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial reading courses at community
colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(6), 1–11
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1080200

132

Lei, S. A., Rhinehart, P. J., Howard, H. A., & Cho, J. K. (2010). Strategies for improving reading
comprehension among college students. Reading Improvement, 47(1), 30–42.
Lynch, J. (2009). Print literacy engagement of parents from low-income backgrounds:
implications for adult and family literacy programs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 52(6), 509-521.
Macaruso, P., & Shankweiler, D. (2010). Expanding the simple view of reading in accounting for
reading skills in community college students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 454-471.
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and
gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
Mulvey, M. (2009). Characteristics of under-prepared students: “Who are the under-prepared"?
Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 25(2), 29-58.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42802330
Miller, B., McCardle, P., & Hernandez, R. (n.d.). Advances and Remaining Challenges in Adult
Literacy Research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(2), 101-107.
National Literacy Trust (2011). Literacy: A Route to Addressing Child Poverty? National
Literacy Trust Research Review. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED541406
OECD (2016), The Survey of Adult Skills: Reader's Companion (2
nd
ed.). OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264258075-en.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed., pp. 348-380). SAGE Publications.

133

Paulson, E. (2014). Analogical processes and college developmental reading. Journal of
Developmental Education, 37(3), 2-13. http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu
/stable/24614029
Poole, A. (2019). Reading strategies and academic success: The case of first semester
college males. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 21(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116685094
Preece, J. (2013) Adult Education and Poverty Reduction. Learning with Adults: A Reader, 309-
316. https://www.academia.edu/14646433/Adult_Education_and_Poverty_Reduction
Reading Plus: Adaptive Literacy Intervention for Reading Proficiency. (2020, April 10).
https://www.readingplus.com/
Reardon, V. R., & Shores, K. (2017). Patterns of literacy among U.S. students. Future of
Children, 22(2), 17-37.
Reutzel, D. R., Petscher, Y., & Spichtig, A. N. (2012). Exploring a guided, silent reading
intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers' achievement. Journal of
Educational Research, 105(6), 404–415.
Robinson, S. B. & Firth, L. K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Rodrick, M. & Nagaoka, J. & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for urban
high schools. The Future of Children 19(1), 185-210.
Rodriguez, O., Cuellar Mejia, M., & Johnson, H. (2018). Remedial education reforms at
California’s community colleges: Early evidence on placement and curricular reforms.
Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/remedial-
education-reforms-at-californias-community-colleges-early-evidence-on-placement-and-
curricular-reforms/

134

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships.
In Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed., pp. 85-92). SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers
College Press.
San Bernardino Community College District (2019). https://www.valleycollege.edu/student-
services/ab-705/index.php
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5
th
Ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Shin, J., Kim, M. S., Hwang, H., & Lee, B. Y. (2018). Effects of intrinsic motivation and
informative feedback in service-learning on the development of college students' life
purpose. Journal of Moral Education, 47(2), 159-174.
Sims, S. (2018). Thinking about how we think: Promoting museum literacy skills with
metacognition. Journal of Museum Education: On the Floor: Museum Teaching
Techniques in the 21st Century, 43(4), 325–333. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
full/10.1080/10598650.2018.1512821
United States Department of Education. (2019). Data point: Adult literacy in the United States.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179.pdf
Weiner, S. (2011). Information literacy and the workforce: A review. Education Libraries, 34(2),
7-14.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Wendt, J. L. (2013). Combating the crisis in adolescent literacy: Exploring literacy in the
secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 41(2), 38-48.

135

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value theory of achievement motivation
doi://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Vágvölgyi, R., Coldea, A., Dresler, T., Schrader, J., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2016). A review about
functional illiteracy: Definition, cognitive, linguistic, and numerical aspects. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 1617.

136

Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview and Anticipated Transcript Protocol
This interview protocol comprises the projected questions that will help to characterize both
student and educator experiences beyond that data analysis and further help to contextualize their
ideologies as they pursue higher educational goals (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Student Interview Questions
1. Let’s begin with who or what influenced you to attend community college? (Were there
other people who encouraged or supported their academic achievements your decision to attend
college? If so, who and in what way do they encourage and support your decision to attend
school?) (Motivation)
2. Okay, now that you are here, what are your plans for college? Also, share your exact
course of action you plan towards reaching your goal? Next, please identify any barriers that you
may anticipate while engaged in the pursuit of an educational goal? Finally, what is your plan to
stay motivated despite identified barriers? (Motivation)
3. Reflecting on your first meeting on campus with a counselor, share the process that
helped you identify and create an educational plan. More specifically, what suggestions, if any,
were given to you to help identify your educational goal. Did you choose an UC or CSU?
(Motivation)
4. What resources are available at the college to help you be successful in reaching your
identified goals? If any, how did you learn about these resources? If not, how would you go
about seeking out knowledge for such resources? (Knowledge)
5. To what extent do you feel that you bear responsibility for your learning experience here
at the college? Specifically, do you go to tutoring services or meet with your instructor when

137

you have questions? Please provide me an example of either and share your feelings about the
experience? If not, please tell me about your decision not to ask for help. (Knowledge)
6. Please walk me through a typical day in your Reading class. (Knowledge)
7. How knowledgeable does your instructor seem to be about the reading content? Can you
tell me about any strategies taught that help you better understand reading material?
(Knowledge)
8. In what ways does your instructor motivate the class in general about the class material?
(Motivation)
9. Do you feel the instructor promotes an inclusive classroom environment? Whether or
not, please share your observation of whether your classroom promotes inclusivity. Do you feel
motivated in this classroom environment? (Motivation)
10. In what ways do you feel the reading plus program will enable you to do your work? Do
you believe that this class to be an asset and necessary to support meeting your goals? Give me
an example of a situation where you might find this information valuable? (Knowledge and
Motivation)
11. Please share with me any of the sacrifices you are willing to make to be successful.
(Motivation)
12. After you have reached your goal, what added value do you believe will be the result
of this learning experience? Further, do you believe coursework will contribute to a lifelong
learning experience? Please explain. (Motivation)
Educator Interview Questions
1. What are your beliefs about how students learn? (Knowledge)
2. How do you create a positive climate for learning? (Motivation)

138

3. What are your general feelings about using the RP Program? What do you find are the
strengths of the program? What, if any, are the program weaknesses? (Knowledge)
4. What are the primary, core types of instructional strategies that you use to support
Reading Plus content? (Knowledge)
5. How do you know when your students have accomplished their reading goals?
(Knowledge)
6. How do you get feedback from my students on how well they are doing? (Motivation)
7. How do you use Reading Plus Benchmarks to improve student learning? (Knowledge)
8. How do you provide constructive feedback so that students improve on what they do over
time? (Motivation)
9. How do you customize and individualize learning for your students? (Knowledge)
10. How do you work on your teaching style in order to improve as an educator?
(Knowledge)
11. What opportunities does the college provide for educator improvement? (Organization)
12. How does your chair support staff improvement? (Organization)
13. What resources are used to provide support? (Organization
14. How do you collaborate with others to improve your knowledge of successful strategies
to be used with Reading Plus? (Knowledge and Motivation)

139

Appendix B: Student KMO Survey
Research Questions:
1. What are the students' Knowledge influences necessary to enable students to achieve
performance goals?
2. What are the students' Motivation influences necessary to enable students to achieve
performance goals?
3. What are the Organizational influences necessary for student success in goal achievement?

Table B1
Student KMO Survey Influences
Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item
(question and
response)
Potential
Analyses
Scale of
Measurement
Do you like to read?
N/A

Response: yes
or no
Percentage,
Frequency

Nominal
Prior to Reading Plus
(RP), I did not
understand what I read
on my own.

K-F

a. Very often
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Never
Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range

Ordinal
Prior to (RP) I found it
difficult to recall
details of what I read.
K-F a. Very often
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Never

Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range

Ordinal
My computer skills
have improved since
using the RP Program.
K-P
Response: yes
or no

Percentage,
Frequency

Nominal

I put together ideas or
concepts learned from
the RP program
when completing

K-MC

a. Very often
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Never
Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range

Ordinal

140

assignments or during
class discussions.

I used my reading
skills to organize
essays for my
transferable English
class.

K-F
a. Very often
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Never

Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range

Ordinal
As a result of RP, I
can identify patterns
of organization in a
piece of text.

K-MC

Response: Yes
or No
Potential
Analyses

Nominal
As a result of using
the RP, I believe my
comprehension has
improved.
K-MC a. Strongly
agree b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly
Disagree
Percentage,
Frequency

Ordinal

Reading is a valuable
skill to master.
M-E a. Very often
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Never

Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range

Ordinal

I believe that
improving my reading
skills will help me do
better in my other
classes.

M-E
a. Very often
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Never

Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range

Ordinal

I understand that
having strong
academic reading
skills will prepare me
for the career field I’m
interested in.
M-GO a. Very often
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Never

Percentage,
Frequency

Ordinal

I have set educational
goals related to my
chosen career.
M-GO
Response: yes
or no

Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Nominal
I have used reading
instructional support
services offered by the
college.
M-GO
Response: yes
or no

Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range

Nominal

K-F=Knowledge-Factual, K-MC= Knowledge-Metacognitive, K-P=Knowledge Procedural M-
GO=Goal Orientation, M-EV=Motivation-Expectancy

141

Appendix C: Reading Plus Skill Focus for Development
RP supported areas of knowledge needed for development based on student assessment results.
● Basic (for students reading between a 2nd and 5th grade level)
● Intermediate (for students reading at a 6th grade level or higher)

Table C1
Supported RP Knowledge Areas
1. Close Reading ● Identifying Explicit Details
● Drawing Conclusions
● Making Inferences
2. Main Idea and Themes ● Determining Main Idea
● Summarizing
3. Interaction of Ideas ● Predicting Outcomes
● Analyzing Setting, Plot, and Character
● Analyzing Cause and Effect
4. Use of Language ● Interpreting Word Meaning
● Interpreting Analogies
● Visualizing
5. Structure ● Text Structure
● Examining Sequence of Events
6. Point of View ● Recognizing Author’s Purpose
● Persuasive Devices
● Mood and Tone
7. Imaging Scaffolds ● Interpreting Images
8. Reasoning and Rhetoric ● Judging Validity
● Reasoning
9. Comparative Reading: ● Comparing, Contrasting, and Integrating
Classifying

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students

PDF

Transformation of business models in terrestrial TV broadcasters in South Korea

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

News media literacy among communication majors at Christian University: an evaluation study

PDF

Efficacy of non-formal education programs in educational outcomes of marginalized Filipino children: an evaluation study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Early literacy intervention

PDF

Avoidance of inpatient medical necessity denials for short-stay admissions: an evaluative study

PDF

Black premedical student retention: exploring campus support programming through the eyes of the student

PDF

Examining the use of mnemonic devices in instructional practices to improve the reading skills of third grade public school students with learning disabilities

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

Training qualified rural area teachers in Malawi using synchronous virtual learning (SVL) information and communication technologies (ICTs) platforms

PDF

An analysis of online engagement of secondary teachers at high need schools during COVID-19 shutdowns

PDF

Understand how leaders use data to measure the effectiveness of leadership development programs

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Equity-enhancing strategies for African American students in higher education

PDF

Developing a student athlete mentoring program to improve college readiness at a rural Hawaii public high school

PDF

Intelligent Learning Quotient

Asset Metadata

Creator Moore, Zeanissia A. (author)

Core Title Functional illiteracy: high stakes learning in the community college environment

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 12/09/2021

Defense Date 06/04/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adult low literacy,functional illiteracy,low literacy,low reading skills,OAI-PMH Harvest,reading remediation,underprepared students

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Min, Emmy (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Lowe, Josephine (committee member)

Creator Email moorezant@yahoo.com,zeanissm@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC18367065

Unique identifier UC18367065

Legacy Identifier etd-MooreZeani-10292

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Moore, Zeanissia A.

Type texts

Source 20211216-wayne-usctheses-batch-904-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu