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