common content, individual learning plans, & common mindset
Post on 24-Mar-2016
220 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
COMMON CONTENT, INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT LEARNING PLANS, AND COMMON MINDSET: META-ANALYSIS OF
RESEARCH
A Dissertation
by
TIM FARQUER
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Western Illinois University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Major Subject: Educational Leadership
Copyright by
TIM FARQUER
May 2011
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Common Content, Individualized Student Learning Plans, and Common Mindset: Meta-
Analysis of Research
(MAY 2011)
The Race to the Top Initiative, Common Core State Standards, and Next Generation
Assessments are forcing educational professionals to deeply examine the way children
are educated in the United States. Some call for Common Content to equal the playing
field, others argue advances in technology now give us the ability to administer
Individualized Learning Plans, and other experts point to a shift toward Common
Mindset with regards to intelligence theory and stereotype threats as a means of
providing each student an equal opportunity to grow. This study analyzed a collection of
research providing a clarified view for the needed direction of public school reform in the
United States.
DEDICATION
This research could not have been completed without the love and support of my
wife Nadine. She has provided the strength, stability, and nurturing necessary for me to
push through the many hours needed for completion. In addition, my three children,
Ben, Olivia, and Cade, have been slightly neglected by their father during the
completion of this research. It is time we will never get back, but time I hope will be
impactful on educational reform. I will do my best to eventually make this up to them all.
I also am extremely grateful to the family of educators who have helped to shape
the evolution of my perspective. First and foremost my mother Sharon, who is a recently
retired elementary school teacher, my father Terry who spent many years coaching
young men, my aunt Sharon who spent her career teaching Special Education, and my
Uncle Sam who retired after many years as a public school educator as well. In
addition, I am extremely grateful to the many dedicated professionals I have had the
pleasure to work and share ideas with throughout my life as a student and educator. It is
the combined passion of these individuals that have made me the person that I am
today. For that, I am truly grateful.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Acknowledge the individuals who specifically assisted me during the dissertation
process. (ADD TEXT)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... 6
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................................. 8
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER I ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Background of the Problem ....................................................................................................................... 11
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................................... 14
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................... 15
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................................. 15
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 16
Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Researcher Bias ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Definition of Terms...................................................................................................................................... 17
Organization of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER II .................................................................................................................................................... 20
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................................................... 20
Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................................................... 28
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................ 29
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................... 29
Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................................................. 30
Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 30
Research Design ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Researcher Bias...................................................................................................................................... 31
Subjects of Study .................................................................................................................................... 31
Instrumentation........................................................................................................................................ 31
Validity .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Reliability ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
Procedures ................................................................................................................................................... 32
Data Collection and Recording ................................................................................................................. 33
Analysis of Data .......................................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................................................................... 34
ANALYSIS OF DATA: MINUTES, NEWS ARTICLES, PHOTO ARTIFACTS....................................... 34
Collection of Data and Artifacts ................................................................................................................ 34
Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................................................... 35
ANALYSIS OF DATA ..................................................................................................................................... 35
INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................ 35
Research Question 1.................................................................................................................................. 35
Research Question 2.................................................................................................................................. 35
CHAPTER VI ................................................................................................................................................... 36
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 36
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 36
ADD TEXT ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 37
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 52
LIST OF TABLES
ADD TEXT
LIST OF FIGURES
ADD TEXT
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
“Thirty seven percent of America's schools today are not meeting their annual
targets mandated by No Child Left Behind” (Obama, 2011). In an effort to improve the
achievement levels within US schools, President Obama‟s White House, as well as the
Department of Education led by Secretary Arne Duncan, launched the Race To The
Top initiative. The program has awarded, and continues to award, significant funding
toward states who agree to specific educational reforms set forth by the Department of
Education.
One condition of applying for Race To The Top funding was the adoption of a
statewide common curriculum. In response to this condition, 44 states and the District of
Columbia (representing 86% of our nation‟s students) adopted the Common Core State
Standards as the backbone of their public school curriculum (Alliance For Excellent
Education, 2010). In addition, the federal government has awarded millions of dollars
toward the construction of next generation assessment systems to measure student
achievement levels within the Common Core State Standard framework. The US
Department of Education states…
“the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund is an unprecedented federal
investment in (education) reform. The program includes $4 billion for
statewide reform grants and $350 million to support states working
together to improve the quality of their assessments…” (US Dept of
Education, 2010).
The federal government has made a tremendous investment and has one round
of Race to the Top grants left to award. The states who receive the last round of
funding, and the conditions to which they agree, will begin to narrow the focus of the
direction the White House and Department of Education steer the nation‟s schools. As
Frederick Hess has noted, “it‟s those plans that are bold about rethinking systems and
schooling that deserve to win (Race to the Top funding)…of course, not all bold plans
are smart plans.” The question this meta-analysis of research is looking to answer is,
what constitutes a bold smart plan?
To answer the question, this paper will delve closer to the classroom to study
changes within schools that will directly affect student achievement. When we get to the
instructional level, the questioning becomes:
Do the bold smart plans establish common content?
Do the bold smart plans promote individualized student learning plans?
Do the bold smart plans contain common social-psychological interventions?
The meta-analysis of research that follows will provide valuable insight into the
passionate debate educational reformers and professionals are currently engaged.
Background of the Problem
Currently, forty four states and the District of Columbia (representing 86% of our
nation‟s students) have adopted the Common Core State Standards as the backbone of
their public school curriculum (Alliance For Excellent Education, 2010). States like
Illinois are promoting these standards as “fewer, clearer, higher” than the previous
standards adopted by the State Board of Education. But, the American Federation of
Teachers (and its‟ 1.5 million members), via The Albert Shanker Institute, has issued a
“Call for Common Content” in the form of a manifesto. The abbreviated text of the
manifesto is as follows:
“We therefore applaud the goals of the recently released Common
Core State Standards, already adopted in most states, which articulate
a much clearer vision of what students should learn and be able to do
as they progress through school. For our nation, this represents a
major advance toward declaring that "equal educational opportunity" is
a top priority — not empty rhetoric.
To be clear, by "curriculum" we mean a coherent, sequential set of
guidelines in the core academic disciplines, specifying the content
knowledge and skills that all students are expected to learn, over time,
in a thoughtful progression across the grades. We do not mean
performance standards, textbook offerings, daily lesson plans, or rigid
pedagogical prescriptions.
We also caution that attaining the goals provided by these standards
requires a clear road map in the form of rich, common curriculum
content, along with resources to support successfully teaching all
students to mastery. Shared curriculum in the core academic subjects
would give shape and substance to the standards, and provide
common ground for the creation of coherent, high-quality instructional
supports — especially texts and other materials, assessments, and
teacher training.
To accomplish this, our nation must finally answer questions it has
avoided for generations: What is it, precisely, that we expect all
educated citizens to have learned? What explicit knowledge, skills, and
understanding of content will help define the day-to-day work of
teaching and learning?” (The Albert Shanker Institute, 2011)
The publishing of the manifesto has accelerated and impassioned the debate
with “educational reform experts” across varying ideologies weighing in. The manifesto
directly led to a sharp “volleying” in the blogosphere with the folks at Core Knowledge,
the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Cato Institute, and former Gates Foundation
education chief Tom Vander Ark all weighing in.
So as the United States looks to establish a strong curriculum in an effort to
prepare students for the 21st century global workforce, do they need to establish
common content, promote individualized student learning plans, or adopt bold smart
plans containing common social-psychological interventions?
Context of the Study
The PARCC and SMARTER consortiums have both received sizeable grants to
develop next-generation large scale assessments tied directly to the Common Core
State Standards. In addition to constructing the assessments, both groups will be
establishing digital libraries of teacher resources to assist students in preparation for
their respective formative and summative assessments. The philosophy, or balancing
thereof, represented within these materials will have a shape US education for years to
come.
Statement of the Problem
The passage of No Child Left Behind increased the level of accountability
demanded of our public schools. With the U. S. Department of Education projecting the
number of “failing” schools across the nation to be above 80% by the end of 2011
(Duncan, 2011), schools across the nation are scrambling for a better way to help
children learn.
States are changing laws, unions are being challenged, and new large-scale
assessments are under construction, but teachers everywhere are asking the same
question now as they were asking in 2002 when NCLB was passed. If what I am
teaching is not working, what should I teach? All evidence points to the need for
educational reform within the United States, but three main philosophies (combined with
hybrids of all three) claim to hold the answer to our nation‟s problem. Should schools
adopt Core Knowledge/Common Content, develop individual learning plans for each
student, adopt common social-psychological interventions, or adapt some combination
of the three?
Research Questions
1. Does research support the adoption of common content within the framework of
the Common Core State Standards?
2. Does research support the development of individualized education plans for
each individual learner within a school?
3. Can schools dramatically increase student learning simply by adopting common
social-psychological interventions?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to organize the formal research in an effort to clarify
the specifics of curricular adoption in alignment with the Common Core State
Standards. The intensity of the debate is increasing exponentially leaving many
teachers, administrators, and schools wondering which way to turn. Many other
institutions are just laying back, avoiding change all together in an effort to only change
once. This study is designed to give local educators research in an effort to assist them
in making curricular decisions and innovations based upon the latest research available.
Significance of the Study
This study will be utilized to help districts make curricular decisions that will
directly affect the students of their schools. It will provide unbiased options based upon
historical and the latest educational research. The information shared will be utilized to
shape dialogue at the local level leading to informed decisions with regards to curricular
reforms within US public schools.
Assumptions
The researcher assumes that innovations in education are inevitable and that the
4.35 billion dollars invested by the federal government will result in significant
educational reforms across the United States.
Researcher Bias
This meta-analysis of research was shaped by the perspective of the researcher
and his reaction to findings as they were discovered. The presence of researcher bias
exists no more and no less than in any similar meta-analysis of research.
Limitations
There are limitations to any research, and this study was no exception.
Limitations in the study include access to government files and research, inability to
personally interview experts whose perspectives were utilized, and complete data on
effectiveness of methods analyzed due to the non-existence of large scale
implementation.
Definition of Terms
Adequate Yearly Progress
Adequate Yearly Progress is a measurement defined by The No Child Left
Behind Act that allows the United States Department of Education to determine how
public schools are performing with regards to large scale standardized testing.
AFT
AFT is an acronym which represents the American Federation of Teachers. The
American Federation of Teachers is one of the 2 substantial teacher unions in the
United States.
Common Content
Common Content refers to the knowledge that each student should be able to
display by the end of their secondary educational program.
Common Mindset
Common Mindset refers to the sharing of a philosophical foundation of learning
that hinges upon the belief that intelligence is malleable and can be improved through
effort.
Next Generation Assessments
These are large scale assessment systems currently under construction which
utilize current and emerging technologies in an effort to better determine what people
know and have learned.
PARCC Consortium
PARCC is an acronym for the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for
College and Career. The consortium is a group of 25 states working cooperatively to
build next generation assessments in English and Math.
Personalized Education Plans
A personalized education plan is a learning progression designed and
implemented as a type of “playlist” allowing teachers and institutions to approach an
individual student‟s zone of proximal learning.
Race to the Top
Race to the Top is a United States federal initiative that has awarded over 4
billion dollars to schools who agree to reforms as outlines by the US Department of
Education.
SMARTER Consortium
The SMARTER balanced consortium is a collection of 29 states working to
develop an assessment fitting the requirements of the Race To The Top initiative that
will measure college and career readiness in K-12 students across membership
schools.
Social-Psychological Interventions
Social-Psychological Interventions are educational how people‟s thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors
Organization of the Study
Chapter One of the study examined the philosophical question United States
education officials are wrestling with as consortiums race to build and implement
assessments and teacher resources in correlation with the Common Core State
Standards currently adopted by 44 states. This Chapter provides background into the
problem of whether the United States should adopt common content, construct
individual education plans, employ common social-psychological interventions within
our schools, or engage in a balance of the three.
Chapter Two reviews the literature with regards to the aforementioned curricular
options. It examines historical data that has shaped education for years and also peers
into the latest available brain and behavioral research.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This literature review focused on the three research questions previously posed.
The first section analyzes the research in support of adoption of common content within
US public schools. The second section analyzes studies calling for individualized
education plans for each learner within a school as the solution to stagnant
achievement within schools. The third section of the literature review examines research
in support of adoption of common social-psychological interventions to bolster student
achievement.
Adopting Common Content
Heidi Hayes Jacobs stated earlier this spring that “what‟s stirring
everything up here is the word „common‟. It suggests everything the same, when
people know that curriculum has to be responsive. But we can think of „common‟
as more like a town common, a place where we all meet” (Gewertz, 2011). As
stated in the Shanker Institute manifesto, “by „curriculum‟ we mean a coherent,
sequential set of guidelines in the core academic disciplines, specifying the
content knowledge and skills that all students are expected to learn, over time, in
a thoughtful progression across the grades. We do not mean performance
standards, textbook offerings, daily lesson plans, or rigid pedagogical
prescriptions” (The Albert Shanker Institute, 2011).
What the Shanker Institute, Core Knowledge, and the signers of the
manifesto are arguing for is a prescription of a “macro curriculm” to guide districts
and teachers while leaving the “micro curriculum” to be decided in the responsive
manner to which Heidi Hayes Jacobs refers.
Construction integration theory suggests that a reader‟s background
knowledge plays a crucial role in text comprehension (Kaakinen, Hyona, and
Keenan, 2003). This is the basis behind the belief of established Common
Content knowledge as the core for successful educational reform in US schools.
The more background knowledge a reader has, the more they will be able to
comprehend sequentially increasing background knowledge as content
progresses. This philosophy is supported by the zone-of-learnability hypothesis
which states that “integration of text content with prior knowledge, and thus
learning from text, will be optimal when the match between a reader‟s prior
knowledge of the topic and the content of the text are in an intermediate „zone‟”
(Wolfe and Mienko, 2007).
The most widely recognized leader of the “Common Content” movement is
retired University of Virginia professor E.D. Hirsch. Mr. Hirsch has written much
on the topic and is the founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation. The Core
Knowledge Foundation has established a “Core Knowledge Sequence” behind
the “simple and powerful idea” that knowledge builds upon knowledge. The
organization advertizes their curriculum as “coherent, cumulative, and content-
specific in order the help children establish strong foundations of knowledge,
grade by grade (The Core Knowledge Foundation, 2011).
A major foundation for the core content philosophy promoted by Mr. Hirsch and
Core Knowledge is research led by Tom Sticht with the US Navy. In this study, the
research team designed two separate Navy assessments for personnel to complete.
One with language and content specific to the Navy, the other assessment was more of
a general reading exam. The results of their research generated a readability formula
that determined how much general reading ability was needed for a person to
comprehend 70% of chosen Navy reading material. The research indicated that a
person with low Navy content knowledge needed an eleventh grade reading level to
comprehend at the 70% rate whereas a “knowledgeable person” needed only a 6th
grade reading level to comprehend at the same rate (Pondiscio, 2011).
In support of the common content approach, Mr. Hirsch also refers to “The
Matthew Effect”. Which references Matthew, Chapter 29, verse 25:
“For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have
abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that
which he hath.”
Mr. Hirsch adapts this to the classroom by stating “those who already have enough
knowledge and vocabulary to understand what the teacher or textbook is saying will
gain more knowledge and vocabulary, while those who lack these pre-requisites of
comprehension will fall ever further behind” (Hirsch, 2011).
However, “the meaning-construction process produces a mental
representation that may reflect multiple levels of text understanding. One
commonly accepted set of distrinctions among levels is that adopted by Van Dijk
and Kintsch (1983) and elaborated on by Kintsch (1988). They distinguished
among the surface code, the textbase, and the situation model. The surface code
reflects features of the surface text. The textbase captures the meaning relations
among elements within a sentence and across sentences in the text. The
relations among elements within a sentence and across sentences in the text.
The relations among elements are directly cued by the text and reflect very
minimal impact of prior knowledge.
Adopting Individualized Education Plans for Each Learner
Proponents of individualized education plans do not necessarily argue against
the need for the adoption of common content, they merely claim the focus should be on
the individual student and their freedom to progress within content, concepts,
processes, and skills. They are more precisely against aged or level benchmarking of
this material according to the same grouping by age model we have grown accustom to
within the modern school system.
Tom Vander Ark and supporters of individual education plans do not argue the
work of Sticht, Hirsch, and others, they instead stand firmly behind break-throughs in
technology and research that show it “quite possible to string together a customized
series of learning experiences that are both engaging and standards-based” (Vander
Ark, 2011). For example, institutional concepts such as the “School of One” in New York
City, use learning algorithms such as RPROP to compute local learning scheme and
generate “playlists” specific for the zone of proximity of each individual learner
(Riedmiller & Braun, 1993).
This “School of One” model uses the algorithm generated “playlists” to determine
the material to which the individual will be exposed to daily. In addition, the model
utilizes “Multiple Instructional Modalities” such as teacher led instruction, one on one
tutoring, independent learning, and virtual tutors as a means to vary and differentiate
the presentation of material (Medina, 2009). It is a methodology that according to NYC
Chancellor of Schools Joel I. Klein, “looks at the way children learn, pacing them at their
own pace, all of it tied to the mastery of content and skill and achievement (Medina,
2009).
With the national push to ensure more students leave the public school system
ready for college and career, proponents of individualized education plans for each
learner point to the fact that we all live and work within networks of people that vary in
age. The philosophy of age specific grouping in and of itself contradicts a commitment
to college and career preparedness.
The main difficulty in securing buy-in for this new modality of learning is the fact
that it not only just emerging, but to implement it on a large scale we must efficiently
utilize technology that is new and unproven. This is very difficult for traditional educators
and educational researchers to grasp. Large-scale innovations in education are
inherently slow moving and evolutionary in nature whereas teachers are being asked to
implement these changes, relatively speaking, overnight.
Mr. Vander Ark goes on to argue, “customized learning will be facilitated by
comprehensive learning platforms surrounded by application and service ecosystems.
Learning platforms will replace today‟s learning management systems (LMS) that run
flat and sequential courseware. Like iPhone and Android, these platforms will unleash
investment and innovation. Next generation platforms will include digital content libraries
and tagging schemes. Recommendation engines (like an iTunes Genius for learning)
based on a full motivational profile will queue a sequence of the best learning
experiences possible. A Facebook-like social layer will support collaborative learning
and will include a rich array of applications for learners and teachers. Giant data
warehouses will capture keystroke data and will support powerful analytical tools.
Platforms will be supported by vendors providing aligned services including student
tutoring, staff development, school improvement, and new school development.”
With the pace of innovation moving exponentially, it is difficult for most to
envision what our world will look like in five years. Proponents of individualized learning
plans make the case that if we recognize the world will be significantly different five
years from now, the absolute worst thing we can do is avoid significant systematic
change.
Adopting Common Social-Psychological Interventions
Educational reformers more adamantly in favor of Social-Psychological
Interventions seek to ensure teachers adopt a common mind set with regards to student
interactions and learning. This core of this approach is supported by the now-famous
Pygmalion study which showed that school and teacher capacities did not need
improved, only teachers‟ expectations (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). The Common
Interventions called for revolve around the acceptance and promotion of a four part
philosophical foundation:
1. Intelligence is improved through hard work and effort.
2. Poor academic performance at a new school is normal at first. This does
not indicate a lack of student ability.
3. Each person contains diverse positive aspects.
4. Each person goes through periods of self-doubt, wondering if they are
valued or belong.
The roots of this approach lay in research conducted pertaining to interventions
introduced in hospitals around the world several years ago. The intervention required
hospital personnel to complete a one-page checklist of tasks which included simple
items such as introducing themselves to one another. The implementation of these
simple procedures within a common core mindset reduced deaths by 47% (Gawande,
2009).
Translating the spirit of the hospital check list to a public school begins with a
precise understanding of the subjective school experience of the student. Interventions
revolving around this mindset may seems small to the teacher or researcher, but to the
student who now realizes that intelligence is malleable, it changes their entire
experience from that point forward. Research on the “saying-is-believing” effect shows
advocating a persuasive message for a receptive audience as a very lasting learning
methodology (Aronson, 1999).
Supporters of the common social-psychological mind set lay root in how
students‟ implicit theories of intelligence shape their interpretation of their education and
learning (Dweck, 2006). The philosophy promotes that schools can adopt whatever
“common content” they want and set up “individual learning plans” to carry them out, but
schools themselves do not add value to learning unless they are buildings full of people
who have adopted the simple four part philosophical foundation of the common social-
psychological mindset.
Carol Dweck and many of her colleagues have devoted much research into
studying the residual effects of mindset interventions in schools. Wilson and Linville
(1982) showed how students were able to accept minor setbacks when a teacher
intervened and showed them that it is a commonality for young people entering a new
school. Students were also studied for performance based upon their theories of
intelligence. Those who believed intelligence to be fixed and unchangeable attributed
academic setbacks to lack of ability and had a tendency to withdraw effort (Molden &
Dweck, 2006).
In one classic study, Mueller and Dweck (1998) gave varying feedback to 5th
grade students after completing difficult problems of logic. Upon completion the groups
were praised. One group was given intelligence praise (“You are so smart”), one was
given effort praise (“You must have worked really hard”), and the other was given
neutral praise (“That‟s a high score”). All groups were then given a set of extremely
difficult problems and then a third set of problems similar in difficulty to the first set.
The results were outstanding. The children who received the intelligence praise
solve 30% fewer of the last set when compared to the first (similar degree of difficulty)
and also asked for only easy problems from that point forward. Those who received
neutral praise did no better no worse, however students receiving effort praise not only
did better but asked for more challenging problems in the future.
Summary of Literature Review
The research points to the need for a balance of the three models in order to
ensure success is achieved by students and schools of varying types, sizes, and
backgrounds. Literature points to a need for common content to incorporate the
“Matthew Effect”, the utilization of innovative technology to continually deliver that
content within a student‟s zone of proximity,while simultaneously heading the results of
the Pygmalion study and adopting a common mindset ensuring our students remain
motivated by high expectations and the malleable nature of intelligence.
The literature indicates that a fragmented or compartmentalized approach to
educational reform within the United States would prove ineffective and result in an
inability to optimize student growth within the school setting. Only by hybridizing the
three philosophies will the nation observe significant student gains in public schools.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This was a study conducted through meta-analysis of research from the varying
points of view represented. Research questions were addressed via blog and published
papers as well as peer reviewed research. Each ideology received equal attention by
the researcher in an attempt to display the unbiased approach set forth and draw
conclusions based upon substantial evidence and research.
Research Questions
1. Does research support the adoption of common content within the framework of
the Common Core State Standards?
2. Does research support the development of individualized education plans for
each individual learner within a school?
3. Can schools dramatically increase student learning simply by adopting common
social-psychological interventions?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of the study began with initial conversations among
leaders in educational reform and innovations. The meta-analysis developed as each
relevant expert shared insight into historical research which assisted the shaping of their
respective viewpoint.
Research Methodology
Meta-analytic techniques were used to synthesize the findings. These techniques
required the researcher to investigate, interpret, and organize varying perspectives and
historical research in an effort to formulate a clear summary of the literature. “In general,
meta-analytic techniques are used when the results of independent studies on a
common topic are combined” (Marzano, 2011). Such is the case in this study.
Research Design
This study consisted of formal and informal statements from leading educational
reformers, researchers, and innovators. These statements/discussions were utilized to
catalyze an investigation into the source of the varying perspectives. Formal
dissertations and peer reviewed research was then utilized to generate a topical
summarization.
Researcher Bias
This meta-analysis of research was shaped by the perspective of the researcher
and his reaction to findings as they were discovered. The presence of researcher bias
exists no more and no less than in any similar meta-analysis of research.
Subjects of Study
The researchers and experts whose analysis and viewpoints were shared are
widely considered the leaders of education reform in the United States. There are many
other influential voices that were not shared, however, those included in this study are in
general more specific to the nature of the topic discussed within this research.
Instrumentation
The study began as a broad collection of topical research. Findings were then
coded and organized according to (ENTER ALGORITHM, …MARZANO BALANCED
LEADERSHIP MCREL DOCUMENT EXMAMPLE, ASSISTANCE FROM BRIDGETTE
SHENG…need her as my dissertation chair)
Validity
Continual focus was placed on the research questions throughout the study.
Content was thoroughly analyzed for validity and the study remained intimate with the
conceptual framework increasing validity in results.
Reliability
The study examined material from a variety of sources. The research examined
varied in size and scope and was collected by multiple agencies in a variety of locations
throughout the United States. Publications and perspectives utilized were that of
established professionals renown in their field for their contributions and years of active
research.
Procedures
Research was compiled from studies published and accessible on-line. In
addition, contributor perspectives were collected via accessible on-line information
residing within the public domain.
Data Collection and Recording
All data utilized within the study were cited according to their published source.
The meta-analysis nature of the research inhibited collection of data independent of that
research.
Analysis of Data
Artifacts utilized within the study were coded according to topic and supporting
detail. The information collected therein was structured to specifically answer the
research questions and conceptual framework of the study.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
ADD TEXT
Collection of Data and Artifacts
ADD TEXT
Summary
ADD TEXT
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF DATA
INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS
Introduction
ADD TEXT
Research Question 1
ADD TEXT
Research Question 2
ADD TEXT
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
ADD TEXT
REFERENCES
Alliance For Excellent Education, (2010). Common Standards. Retrieved from:
http://all4ed.org/common-standards, on April 23, 2010.
Allington, R. (2006). Critical factors in designing an effective reading intervention for
struggling readers. International Reading Association, 6(1), 127-136.
Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion, American Psychologist, 54, 875-884.
Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on
African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psycology, 38, 113-125.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw
classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.
Baker, L. (2003). The role of parents in motivating struggling readers. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 19, 87-106. doi.10.1080/1057356090143049.
Bashir, A., & Hook, P. (2009). Fluency: A key link between word identification and 213
comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 59(3), 196-
200.
Blackwell, L. A., Trzesniewski, K. H. & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Theories of intelligence and
achievement across the junior high school transition: A longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263.
Blair, T., Rupley, W., & Nichols, W. (2007). The effective teacher of reading:
Considering the “what” and “how” of instruction. Reading Teacher. 60(5), 432-438.
doi: 10.1598/RT.60.5.3.
Bohn, C., Roehrig, A., & Pressley, M. (2004). The first days of school in the classrooms
of two more effective and four less effective primary-grades teachers. The
Elementary School Journal, 104 (4).
Brownell, M. & Pajares, F. (1996). The influence of teachers‟ efficacy beliefs on
perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior
problems: A path analysis. Research Bulletin, 27 [Eric Document Reproduction
Number ED 409661].
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for
improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bryk, A.S. (2009). Support a science of performance improvement. Phi Delta Kappan,
90, 597-600.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010).
Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Carbo, M. (2008). Best practices for achieving high, rapid reading gains. Principal, 2008
(3), 58-60.
Clarke, L. & Whitney, E. (2009). Walking in their shoes: Using multiple perspective texts
as a bridge to critical literacy. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 530-534 doi:
10.1598/RT.62.6.7.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial
achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307-1310.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J.,Purdie-Vaugns, V., Apfel, N. & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive
processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap.
Science, 324, 400-403.
Crawford, E., & Torgesen, J. (2006). Teaching all students to read: Practices from
Reading First schools with strong intervention outcomes. Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/article22844.
Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-
income students with scientifically based reading research. Educational
researcher, 36; 564 doi: 10.3102/0013189X0731
Donohue, K.. Children's early reading: How parents' beliefs about literacy learning and
their own school experiences relate to the literacy support they provide for their
children. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, United States -- New York.
Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No.
AAT 3332505).
Duffy, G. (2003, August). Teachers who improve reading achievement: What research
says about what they do and how to develop them. Laboratory for Student
Success (LSS), 2(4).
Duncan, Arne (2011). Duncan Says 82 Percent of America‟s Schools Could “Fail” Under
NCLB This Year. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/duncan-says-82-
percent-americas-schools-could-fail-under-nclb-year
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality, Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.
Foley Dawn A., . Instructional strategies and their role in the achievement of first grade
students' literacy skills as measured by benchmark assessments. Ph.D.
dissertation, Arizona State University, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved March 5,
2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3410522).
Gambrell, L., Malloy, J., & Mazzoni, S. (2007). Evidence-based best practices for
comprehensive literacy instruction. In L. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley,
Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 11-29). New York: Guilford Press.
Garcia, J., & Cohen, G.L. (in press). Social psychology and educational intervention, In
E. Shafir (Ed.), Behavioral foundations of policy. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Gawande, Atul (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things done right, New York:
Metropolitan Books.
Gehlbach, H. (2010). The social side of school: Why teachers need social psycology.
Educational Psycology Review, 22, 349-362.
Gewertz, Catherine (2011). Curriculum Definition Raises Red Flags. Education Week;
volume 30 issue 26.
Godes, O., Hulleman, C.S., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2007). Boosting students' interest in
math with utility value: Two experimental tests. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Gomez, M., Johnson, A., & Gisladottir, K. (2007). Talking about literacy: A cultural
model of teaching and learning untangled. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
7(1), 27-48. doi: 10.1177/1468798407074832.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Development Psycology, 24, 645-662.
Greenwald, A.G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal
history. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.
Grumman, C.. (2010, July). Literacy Begins at Birth. The American Prospect, 21(6), A5-
A8. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document
ID: 2066286771).
Hall, L. (2006). Anything but lazy: New understanding about struggling readers,
teaching, and text. Reading Research Quarterly (41) (424-426).
doi.10.1598/RRQ.41.4.1
Hayes, R.. The study of literacy coaching observations and interviews with elementary
teachers. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, United States -- Georgia.
Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No.
AAT 3411024).
Hess, Frederick M. (2010). Education Reform: Stakeholder Support vs. Bold Ideas.
National Journal Education Expert Blogs;
http://education.nationaljournal.com/2010/05/education-reform-stakeholder-s.php Monday,
May 3, 2010.
Hirsch, Jr., E. D. (2011). Speech to Virginia House of Delegates. Richmond, VA.
February 15, 2011.
Hulleman, C. S., & Harachiewicz, J.M. (2009). Making education relevant: Increasing
interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410-1412.
Huggins, A.. A study of family interactions affecting school readiness for rural
preschoolers of poverty. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States --
Minnesota. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full
Text.(Publication No. AAT 3439946).
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harachiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing
Interest and Performance With a Utility Value Intervention. Journal of Educational
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0019506
Illinois State Board of Education (2011). The New Illinois Learning Standards
Incorporating the Common Core. Retrieved from:
http://www.isbe.net/common_core/default.htm
James-Burdumy, S., Deke, J., Lugo-Gil, J., Carey, N., Hershey, A., Gersten, R.,
Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., Haymond, K., and Faddis, B. (2010).
Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Intervention:
Findings From Two Student Cohorts (NCEE 2010-4016). Retrieved from:
ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104015/pdf/20104016.pdf
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies:
Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155.
Kaakinen, Johanna K., Hyona, Jukka, & Keenan, Janice M. (2003). How Prior
Knowledge, WMC, and Relevance of Information Affect Eye Fixations in Expository
Text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
volume 29, number 3, p. 447-457.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-
integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Marshall, A.. Experiences of Reading Teachers Who Help Struggling Readers in
Elementary School. Ed.D. dissertation, Walden University, United States --
Minnesota. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full
Text.(Publication No. AAT 3438880).
Marzano, Robert (2011). Tracking Student Progress and Scoring Scales. Marzano
Research Laboratory. Retrieved from:
http://www.marzanoresearch.com/research/strategy20_trackingprogress.aspx
Medina, Jennifer (2009). School of One. New York Times; July 21, 2009.
Moats, L. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of “balanced” reading 224
instruction. Thomas Fordham Foundation, Washington: DC [Eric document 449465
]
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding "meaning" in psycology: A lay theories
approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American
Psychologist,61, 192-203.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's
motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-
52.
Nisbett, R. E. (2009, February 8). Education is all in your mind. New York Times, p.
WK12 of the New York edition.
Obama, Barack (2011). President Obama Calls on Congress to Fix No Child Left
Behind Before the Start of the Next School Year. The White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, March 14, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2011/03/14/president-obama-calls-congress-fix-no-child-left-behind-start-next-schoo
Pondiscio, Robert (2011). Knowledge Compensates for Five Years of Reading Ability.
The Core Knowledge Blog; March 2, 2011. Retrieved from:
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2011/03/02/knowledge-compensates-for-five-years-of-reading-
ability/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheCoreKnowledg
eBlog+(The+Core+Knowledge+Blog)
Powers, S., Zippay, C. & Butler, B. (2006). Investigating connections between teacher
beliefs and instructional practices with struggling readers. Reading Horizons: 47, 2;
ProQuest Central, 121.
Raudenbush, S. (1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a
function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18
experiments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 85-97.
Renaissance Learning. (2008). Star reading: The world‟s most widely used computer-
adaptive reading test. Retrieved from http://www.renlearn.com/sr/overview.aspx.
Riedmiller, Martin & Braun, Heinrich (1993). A Direct Apaptive Method for Faster
Backpropagation Learning: The RPROP Algorithm. IEEE International Conference
on Neural Networks.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968a). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher
expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968b). Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged.
Scientific American, 218, 19-23.
Rydell, R. J., Shiffrin, R. M., Boucher, K. L., Van Loo, K., and Rydell, M. T. (2010).
Stereotype threat prevents perceptual learning. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science, 107, 14042-14047.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human
condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Szalavitz, M. (2009, January 14). Study: a simple surgery checklist saves lives. Time.
Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0.8599.1871759.00.html
The Albert Shanker Institute (2011). A Call For Common Content: Core Curriculum Must
Build A Bridge From Standards To Achievement. Retrieved from:
http://shankerinstitute.org/curriculum.html
The Core Knowledge Foundation (2011). Retrieved from:
http://www.coreknowledge.org/sequence
Theriot, S., & Tice, K. (2009). Teachers‟ knowledge development and change:
Untangling beliefs and practices. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 65.
Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Education, (2010). Nine States and the District of Columbia Win
Second Round Race to the Top Grants. August 24, 2010; retrieved from:
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/nine-states-and-district-columbia-win-second-round-
race-top-grants, on April 23, 2010.
Vacca, R. T. (2006). They can because they think they can. Educational Leadership.
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Vander Ark, Tom (2011). Knowing Stuff is Good; More Kids College Ready is Great.
Edreformer; Retrieved from: http://edreformer.com/2011/03/knowing-stuff-is-good-more-
kids-college-ready-is-great/
Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies for discourse comprehension. New
York: Academic.
Walton, G. M. & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82-96.
Walton, G. M. & Dweck, C. S. (2009). Solving social problems like a psychologist.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 101-102.
Walton, G. M. & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores
systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped
students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132-1139.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2010). A brief social-belonging intervention improves
academic and health outcomes among minority students. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1982). Improving the performance of college freshmen:
Attribution therapy revisted. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 367-
376.
Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of college freshmen
with attributional techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
287-293.
Wilson, T. D., & Damiani, M., & Shelton (2002). Improving the academic performance of
college students with brief attributional interventions. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving
academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 88-108).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wilson, T. D. (2006). The power of social psychological interventions. Science, 313,
1251-1252.
Wineburg, S. S. (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Educational
Researcher, 16, 28-37.
Wolfe, Michael B. and Mienko, Joseph A. (2007). Learning and memory of factual
content from narrative and expository text. British Journal of Educational
Psychology; 77, 541-564.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers‟ sense of efficacy and
beliefs About control. Journal of Ed. Psych., 82, 81-91.
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). An implicit theories intervention
changes aggressive and prosocial responses to peer exclusion and victimization
among high school students. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA.
Yeager, David S., & Walton, Gregory M.. (2010). Social-Psychological Interventions in
Education: They're Not Magic. Stanford University.
APPENDICES
ADD TEXT
top related