Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
(USC Thesis Other)
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIES TO MINIMIZE THE
ACHIEVEMENT GAP FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LATINO,
ENGLISH LEARNERS, AND SOCIO-ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS
by
Patricia James Gray
_____________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Patricia James Gray
DEDICATION
This publication is dedicated to my mother, Montez Nixon James, who is
my anchor and role model. It is also dedicated to W. David, whose support and
encouragement allowed me to return to the education profession, making this
possible.
Thank you both, for without you, this would never have materialized.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the following people:
My dissertation committee members Dr. Kathy Stowe, Dr. Denise Hexom,
and a special thanks to my Chairperson Dr. Dennis Hocevar, whose
encouragement and guidance made this a reality.
Jane Robb who would not let me quit when the demands of being a high
school principal beckoned for me to give up and to Laura Twining who was there
for encouragement and support when detours and road blocks made completing
the program in a timely manner questionable.
Nancy Devlin and Donna Smith Stewart for their “drop everything and
help” attitudes.
My group members, Joanna De la cuesta, Mary Greeson, Denise Parnell,
Richard Tapia, and Laura Twining who were the cheerleaders that I needed.
Pat Pefley who dropped everything to help when things began to fall apart.
My assistant principals Cheng Wu and Gina Ferrante who for three years
kept the school progressing when I could not be there for supervision and after-
hours activities.
My IRF, Susan Ritter, for endless editing of class papers, and last, but
certainly not least, to my staff who always responded when I shared research with
them. Thank you all for your contributions.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE..................................... 1
The School’s Description...................................................................... 2
The Problem........................................................................................11
Problem Analysis....................................................................11
Teacher Knowledge and Skills................................................ 11
Student Knowledge, Skills, Motivation, and Circumstances.. 13
Performance Gap Analysis...................................................... 14
Problem Solutions...............................................................................16
Knowledge Gap Solution ........................................................ 16
Motivational Gap Solutions .................................................... 17
Purpose, Evaluation, and Significance................................................ 19
Evaluation of Effectiveness..................................................... 21
Practical Significance.............................................................. 23
Theoretical Significance ......................................................... 24
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 25
Identified Strategies ............................................................................ 27
Checking for Understanding ............................................................... 27
Questioning.............................................................................32
Random Questioning...............................................................34
Response Cards/White Boards................................................35
Wait-Time and Pausing........................................................... 36
Other Questioning Strategies ............................................... 37
Questioning Combined With Other Behaviors ....................... 38
Effectiveness of Higher-Order Questioning............................ 38
iv
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 41
Formative Evaluation Design.............................................................. 44
The Intervention..................................................................................44
Participants and Setting.......................................................................48
Instrumentation and Procedures.......................................................... 49
Quantitative Instruments and Procedure ................................. 49
Qualitative Instruments...........................................................52
Analysis...............................................................................................53
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ............................................................................... 55
Testing for Significance......................................................................56
The Independent Groups’ Pre/Post Design............................. 56
Practical Significance.......................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.............................. 77
Summary.............................................................................................77
Qualitative Analysis............................................................................ 79
Evaluating the Teacher Training......................................................... 80
Continuing to Create Professional Learning Communities ................ 81
Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessing................. 81
The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives ..................... 84
Classroom Instruction that Improves Academic Achievement........... 86
10
th
Grade Class Size Reduction............................................. 87
Accountability..................................................................................... 88
Continue to Do a Gap Analysis............................................... 88
Conduct Book/CD Talks......................................................... 89
Peer Observations and Videotaping Teachers......................... 90
Consistently Monitor Implementation .................................... 91
SELECTED REFERENCES........................................................................... 92
APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA AYP 2006 BY DISTRICT AND
ETHNICITY ..................................................................... 97
APPENDIX B: INFORMAL OBSERVATION....................................... 101
APPENDIX C: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT............................. 102
v
APPENDIX D: McKNIGHT HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S
PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS 2006-2007..........106
APPENDIX E: CALIFORNIA STANDARDS FOR THE
TEACHING PROFESSION ........................................... 109
APPENDIX F: EXPLICIT DIRECT INSTRUCTION
COACHING RUBRIC.................................................... 112
APPENDIX G: COMMON PLANNING TIME 2006-2007.................... 115
APPENDIX H: TEACHER COMMON PLANNING TIME LOG
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON ...................................... 116
APPENDIX I: DATAWORKS QUESTIONING STRATEGIES .......... 117
APPENDIX J: McKNIGHT HIGH SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATIVE WALK-THROUGH
SCHEDULE 2006-2007 ................................................. 121
APPENDIX K: ANDY PLATT MINI-PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY .............................. 122
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. API and Adequate Yearly Progress by Ethnicity and by Year ............. 8
2. STAR Standardized Testing and Reporting Program,
McKnight High School California Standards Test:
English Language Arts—At or Above Proficient ............................... 10
3. School Demographics and NCLB Compliance................................... 45
4. School APIs and State Rankings......................................................... 46
5. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s Levels for Evaluating Training........... 47
6. Percent in Each Band by Ethnicity and by School.............................. 50
7. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Performance
Band Differences: Statistical Findings................................................ 57
8. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention Performance Band Differences:
Practical Significance.......................................................................... 58
9. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Percent Basic and Above... 60
10. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Percent Proficient
or Above.............................................................................................. 61
11. Pre Versus Post: Cassino Blaine High School CST ELA
Performance Band Differences—Statistical Findings ........................ 62
12. Pre Versus Post: Control School #1 (Cassino Blaine)
Performance Band Differences—Practical Significance .................... 64
13. Pre Versus Post: Control School #1 (Cassino Blaine) CST ELA
Percent Basic and Above .................................................................... 64
14. Pre Versus Post: Cassino Blaine CST ELA Percent Proficient
or Above.............................................................................................. 65
15. Pre Versus Post: Marion Saxon High School CST ELA
Performance Band Differences—Statistical Findings ........................ 66
vii
16. Pre Versus Post: Marion Saxon Performance Band
Differences—Practical Significance ................................................... 68
17. Pre Versus Post: Marion Saxon CST ELA Percent Basic
and Above ........................................................................................... 69
18. Pre Versus Post: Marion Saxon CST ELA Percent Proficient
or Above ............................................................................................. 70
19. API School-wide Comparisons........................................................... 71
20. API Comparisons by Ethnicity: API, Percent Proficient and
Above, and Percent Basic and Above................................................. 72
21. API Comparisons by Ethnicity: API, Percent Proficient and
Above, and Percent Basic and Above................................................. 73
22. API Comparisons by Ethnicity: API, Percent Proficient and
Above, and Percent Basic and Above................................................. 75
23. API Comparisons by Ethnicity: API, Percent Proficient and
Above, and Percent Basic and Above................................................. 76
24. The Cognitive Dimensions.................................................................. 83
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Design .................................................................................................43
2. The New Taxonomy............................................................................ 85
ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the implementation of certain
school-wide initiative teaching strategies and to determine the practical and/or
statistical impact of the multiple interventions on achievement for specific student
groups (African-Americans, Latinos, English Learners, and Socio-economically
Disadvantaged). This quasi-experimental study with two non-equivalent control
schools, Cassino Campbell High School and Marion Saxon High School, began
early in the 2004-2005 school year and culminated with the spring 2007
California Standards Tests. The main participants in this study consisted of
approximately 750 high school students in grades 9 through 12, whose Academic
Performance Index (API) and California Standards Test results were compared
with those of two non-equivalent control groups. Additionally, although the
achievement of Hispanic/Latinos, English Learners, and Socio-economically
Disadvantaged students was examined, the continued decline in African-
American (AA) achievement in the schools, district, and across the country
stimulated interest in, and a closer scrutiny of the growth trends of African-
American students.
The campus-wide daily intervention included the display of lesson steps,
warm-up activities, state standards, and homework in each classroom, checking
for understanding through the use of random questioning and whiteboard/display
cards, and across-the-curriculum focus on Bloom's levels of higher-order
x
questions. The pre/post independent groups design was used when analyzing the
change from the 2004-2005 pre-intervention CST results to the 2006-2007 post-
intervention at McKnight High School.
xi
1
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
With the recent move toward a global economy and the out-sourcing of
jobs from America to other countries, California’s effort to prepare its youth for
competition with graduates from other states has resulted in increased statewide
testing accountability measures for academic progress known as the STAR
Testing and California Standards Tests, along with the graduation requirement
known as the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE). These
measures are in place and implemented to ensure minimal student proficiency
levels and educator accountability for student academic success.
The California Standards Tests (CST) measures proficiency in core
subjects, with an emphasis on English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics.
Current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (Laws and Regulations, 2001) legislation
requires that 100% of students are Proficient or above by the year 2014.
Unfortunately, the expectation that all English Learners (EL) will be Proficient at
that time (albeit virtually impossible with current and projected immigration
trends) is a set-up for failure for principals.
The CAHSEE is an examination that measures 7
th
and 8
th
grade
Mathematics as well as 9
th
and 10
th
grade ELA proficiency of students in 10
th
grade 5 months. The test seems to have caught both parents and students alike off
balance, particularly at McKnight High School, where only 63% of 10
th
grade
students passed the CAHSEE on their first attempt. These high-stakes high
school years provide a relatively short window to prepare students for tomorrow’s
employment opportunities. Students who fail to pass the CAHSEE will not
receive a high school diploma. This reality will restrict their future employment,
educational, and financial opportunities.
The School’s Description
This inner city California school is 43% Asian, 25% Latino, 12% African-
American, 8% Samoan, 6% White, and 6% Other (ethnic groups). More than
three-fourths of the staff at McKnight High School, teaching the most culturally
diverse student population in the city of San Francisco, is White. Although it is
located in the Goldview Unified School District, McKnight attracts students from
all over the city, including four housing projects, as well as upper income
families. The percentage of students who qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch
(FRL) is 58%, down from the 2005-2006 mark of 61%, with a 33% transiency
rate (down from a 52% high in 2003). Attendance has improved from 986
students with an 85% attendance rate in 2003, 980 with an 88.7% attendance rate
in 2004, to 1,042 with an attendance rate of 92.6% for the 2006-2007 school year.
For the spring 2000 standardized test, McKnight High School had no base
Academic Performance Index (API), due to an administrative error during the
spring 1999 testing. Standardized tests in the spring of 2000 yielded an Academic
2
Performance Index (API) of 448 points for the 2000-2001 school year. In the
spring of 2001, the school dropped to 438, before improving 242 points over a
four-year period to its 686 API. During the 2005-2006 school year, the number of
students who were Proficient or above in ELA increased significantly—more than
in any comprehensive high school in the city. Areas of improvement were across
the board in ELA; however, significantly less in Mathematics.
During the first 2 years of my administration as principal of McKnight
High School, teachers were in a state of denial, discounting the credibility of data
collected from the statewide tests. The teachers’ excuses ranged from disbelief to
disinterest. In the midst of academic denial, McKnight teachers joined the class
action Williams Case (Williams v. the State of California, 2002), suing the State
of California for equitable education for McKnight High School students.
Teachers were convinced that conditions caused the underachieving statewide
scores. With school-wide initiative efforts to use data to drive instruction,
teachers were on board, acknowledging the critical need to improve student
academic performance, especially the performance of African-American and
Latino students. My role as the instructional leader was to dispel the notion that
the data were inaccurate, and that the conditions of the school building,
circumstances, and environments of the students made it impossible for the them
to score well on standardized tests.
3
The administration had a daunting task that began with depositions in the
Eli Williams Versus the State of California and continued efforts to convince
teachers that the survival of the school, its traditions, and the jobs of the already
reconstituted staff were at stake. All four frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal
2003) had to be used in order to begin the reform efforts needed to turn the school
around and make significant gains in student achievement; however, the
Structural Frame was used most to manage the organization (Bolman & Deal,
2003). The element of respect was present; however, structures had to be put in
place in order to ensure systemic progress. The administration and staff were
forced to become continual learners with specific tasks, initiatives, and actions
(Structural Frame). These initiatives will be discussed in more detail later in this
study.
In the fall semester of 2000, structures were put in place by the
administration, the School’s Leadership Team, and the School Site Council, that
provided opportunities for shared decision making in the functioning of the
school (Darling-Hammond, 2002). These changes included dividing the school
into small learning communities (SLCs) and professional learning communities
(Fullen, Rolheiser, Mascall, & Edge, 2001) with thematically focused,
interdisciplinary, and multicultural curriculum in 11
th
and 12
th
grades and grade-
level communities in 9
th
and 10
th
grades. These collaborative professional
learning communities immediately reduced teacher turnover which was
4
previously a difficulty in improving program coherence, and improved teacher
capacity. With student input, the poorly functioning Block Schedule was
abolished, and a new Modified Block Schedule was created and adopted by the
staff. The new schedule reduced the length of classes from 110 minutes to 72
minutes each, pleasing students and staff alike. These changes were the result of
good ideas from talented people working together, collegiality, and a caring staff
whose goal was instructional improvement (Fullen, Rolheiser, Mascall, & Edge,
2001).
This inner city high school is possibly the most ethnically diverse high
school in the city of San Francisco. Its population of approximately 1,078
students consisted of more than 58% Economically Disadvantaged Youth (EDY),
33% English Learners (EL), and 25% from single-family homes, with many of
those students raised by their grandparents. In addition, McKnight had 30
students who were formally in the city’s foster care system—the highest number
of students in any San Francisco Unified School District school.
The school is known nationwide for its successful implementation of the
previously mentioned small learning communities, personalized education,
teacher student relationships, and culture of collegiality and power in
interdisciplinary teaching. Results on statewide assessment have grown from 438
API to over 680; and in spite of the significant academic growth for the past four
5
consecutive years of STAR Testing, only 37% of the students are Proficient on
the CST in ELA and 23% are Proficient in Mathematics.
Additionally, 2006 data indicated that only 63% and 67% of the
sophomore students attending McKnight initially passed the ELA and
Mathematics sections, respectively, of the CAHSEE; and cumulative data showed
that only 14% of the 10
th
grade African-American students initially passed both
the CAHSEE ELA and Mathematics. Fewer than 42% passed any part or all. By
11
th
grade, 52% of the African-American students passed both sections of the test,
with 36% of the African-American students not passing any part of the test. Data
provided by the district Achievement and Assessment Office for the 2005-2006
school year indicated that McKnight’s 10
th
grade students scored from four to six
percentage points correct below the district average on the Mathematics and ELA
strand, except in Algebra 1, where the students were only two percentage points
below the district average percent correct. The weakest area in Mathematics for
10
th
graders was Measurement and Geometry: an average of 64% correct,
whereas Word Analysis in ELA was equally as dismal at an average of 68%
correct—both six points below each district average.
The 2005-2006 11
th
grade students, however, scored above the district
average by four to nine points, except in Literary Response and Analysis, Reading
Comprehension, and Probability and Statistics, where McKnight’s 11
th
graders
excelled by only one point.
6
Twenty-six percent of the students who were in their second year of high
school (they should be 10
th
grade) had 9
th
grade credits. Twenty-one percent of
those who should be in the 11
th
grade had 10
th
grade (or even lower) credits. The
School-wide Initiatives and professional development left the staff wondering
how to make a significant dent in the number of students who were not Proficient
in either English Language Arts (ELA) or Mathematics. Teacher turnover was no
longer a problem, allowing staff professional development to become systemic
and an integral part of the school culture.
In spite of the yearly increase in student performance on the statewide
assessments (STAR Test and CAHSEE) for the past four years, this inner city
high school continued to lag significantly behind the educational industry
standard (determined by the State of California) and the school district. Two
hundred and fifty of its students were challenged in reading and/or Mathematics.
This included a significant population of Special Education students, who along
with the school district’s African-American students, scored near the bottom in
the state. The district mandated remedial reading program and school designed
math-support classes still left students struggling to pass the CAHSEE time after
time, not knowing if they would be allowed to get a diploma and graduate from
high school.
7
With the numbers of students performing Far Below Basic and Below (not
Proficient or above), the API of the school was 680, significantly below the
desired California Standard of 800.
Table 1
API and Adequate Yearly Progress by Ethnicity and by Year
Ethnicity
# In 2005
Subgroup
2004
API
2005
API
2006
API
Met
2005
AYP
Met 2006
AYP
African-
American
116 461 456 543 Y N
Asian 235707776 Y Y
Filipino 132610613 Y Y
Latino 148511584 Y Y
Socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
404 536 609 Y Y
English
Learners
Y Y
School-wide 715565 628 672 Y N
The 2005-2006 ELA STAR Test determined that although 47% of
McKnight High School’s 9
th
grade students were Proficient or above, only 30%
and 34%, respectively, were Proficient or above in 10
th
and 11
th
grades.
Mathematics results were even less impressive: only 33% of 9
th
grade students,
21% of 10
th
graders, and 15% of 11
th
graders were Proficient or above.
Additional disaggregation showed that 365 of the 875 students tested were Basic
8
and Below in Science, 300 were Basic and Below in Social Studies, and a
whopping 475 (54%) were Basic and Below in Mathematics.
The organizational goal of the school was to exceed its expected API to an
API of 700 and to increase the percent of students passing the CAHSEE on their
first attempt from 58% to 64%. Further examination of student performance
showed that African-American students in the district were lagging and had a
greater achievement gap than in any other county in the state of California
(Appendix A). The organization must include a complete gap analysis that
diagnoses the human performance causes that contribute to this deficit (Clarke &
Estes, 2002), so that the African-American students’ proficiency levels can
substantially increase.
The ELA disaggregated data by ethnicity indicated that only 13.2% of the
African-American students who attended McKnight High School were Proficient
or above in English Language Arts. Although dismal, this included an increase
over the past four years. Data showed that only 3 of the 17 African-American
seniors had a 3.0 GPA or better.
9
Table 2
STAR Standardized Testing and Reporting Program, McKnight High School
California Standards Test: English Language Arts—At or Above Proficient
Ethnicity 2002 2003 2004 2005 DIFF
African-
American
2.6% 4.1% 7.8% 5.5% -2.3
Caucasian 19.2% 20.0% 36.4% 44.2% 7.8
Filipino 9.0% 14.3% 16.8% 14.0% -2.8
Latino 5.2% 5.4% 10.9% 18.9% 8.0
Other non-
White
5.0% 4.4% 13.1% 26.3% 13.2
Other White 23.5% 18.8% 37.1% 43.3% 6.2
The graduation rate for African-American students in 2006 was 85%, the
dropout rate was 5%, and the attendance rate of African-American students who
attended at least 91% to 100% of the time was 23% (fewer than one-fourth).
Although the overall attendance rate for the school was 93.3%, the African-
American students were not attending and they were not achieving. Further study
indicated that the district’s African-American General Education students had the
lowest percent of students Proficient or above in Mathematics, with the exception
of students with disabilities in Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Los Angeles,
and Fresno. The percent of the district’s African-American students at or above
Proficient in Language Arts was higher than Oakland’s English Learners, Pacific
Islanders, and Latino students. It was also higher than Fresno’s and Los Angeles’
English Learners, and students with disabilities from San Diego, Long Beach, San
10
Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Fresno (Appendix A)
(Adequate Yearly Progress Report, 2006). These statistics indicated that we had
failed to educate the African-American students of our city.
The Problem
The previous data indicated that there was a profound problem: African-
American students at McKnight High School were failing to achieve and meet
proficiency levels as measured on the CAHSEE and CST.
Problem Analysis
That achievement gap that existed mirrors the gap across the United States
of America. No one, including respected, renowned educators of all ethnicities,
had identified any single cause of the achievement gap for African-American
students; however, at McKnight High School, administrative and staff
conversations and study of data indicated that there appeared to be several
contributing factors:
Teacher Knowledge and Skills
By high school, students’ learning styles have been developed and may
not coincide with the teaching styles of their teachers. Teachers teach the way
they were taught in high school and (primarily) college. At McKnight High
11
School, a majority of the teachers had taught for only three or fewer years. They
were young and inexperienced, in need of strategies for teaching both academic
standards and behavior modification for proper classroom management. They
appeared unable to establish and maintain effective teacher and student
relationships, “the keystone that allows other aspects to work well” (Marzano,
2003, p. 91) in the classroom. It can be very difficult for teachers to carry out
aspects of classroom management, being emotionally involved, and taking the
inappropriate actions of students personally. Teacher education programs do not
provide enough information and experiences to allow for successful initial years,
especially at an inner city, low-performing school. Veteran teachers have usually
cataloged years of lesson plans and are resistant to professional development that
necessitates change in their practice. As a result, teacher burnout is prevalent and
academic success for all students suffers, especially those who are already
struggling to achieve.
Additionally, 77% of the teachers were White and only 4.9% of the
students mirrored the same ethnic group. As a result, there was a gap in cultural
sensitivity and an understanding of the value of education in the same culture.
Additionally, teachers did not have the instructional strategies accessible that had
proven to be effective. Some teachers lacked the willingness to explore other
methods of teaching to engage the students to a level of academic success that
12
would keep them coming to school in spite of the environmental circumstances in
their communities.
Student Knowledge, Skills, Motivation,
and Circumstances
With elementary teachers linking appropriate behavior of African-
American students to satisfactory grades, many students who may have had
satisfactory conduct in elementary and middle school arrive in high school with
minimal and low skills, primarily because they did not disturb the class. In 2007,
33% of McKnight’s 9
th
graders were socially promoted because they were 15
years old or 14 years old with four or more Fs. Student reading and Mathematics
levels upon entering high school were not at state-identified proficiency levels.
Significant numbers of students lived in high-crime low-socioeconomic areas.
The adult’s education level (in most homes) was, at most, high school or less, and
there were limited role-models and limited support where the students lived.
Prior to the STAR Tests and CAHSEE, graduates loitered on street
corners, becoming candidates for running, brokering, or selling drugs, without the
equivalent knowledge of an 8
th
grade education. There was little or no
accountability for districts, principals, teachers, or students. Many disruptive
students were given passing grades to stay away from the class and then allowed
to graduate illiterate and unable to learn what they did not understand.
13
Well-meaning, liberal San Franciscans have indicated that Black and
Brown students cannot pass the CAHSEE; however, students can, and will, rise to
expectations. Students who have successfully completed grades K through 9.5
years were not expected to make 350 on the examination. Poor attendance,
behavior issues, and the effects of generational poverty (which effected 58% of
McKnight’s students) contributed to the lack of academic achievement.
Without timely, corrective, useful feedback from instruction and/or
assessments, the students had been unable to make gains needed for significant
progress. Many tasks appeared too challenging, unmanageable, and inherently
not engaging or relevant (Marzano, 2003). Students had rubrics that provided
criteria for success that were clear and concise, all of which accommodated
student learning; however, students were not getting the feedback that they
needed quickly enough so that they would not reinforce bad habits and incorrect
concepts.
Performance Gap Analysis
Improving teacher performance is key to minimizing the achievement gap
for African-American children. Specific improvements in teaching the California
Standards to African-American children will decrease student and teacher
performance gaps. Effective strategies must be identified and implemented so
14
that students can understand concepts and become engaged so they will
subsequently learn what they need for academic success.
Many teachers arrive at lower-achieving schools with no prior knowledge
of specific strategies that support lower-achieving students. It can be difficult for
inexperienced teachers to understand the inherent challenges that students face
due to lack of stability and structure in their lives. Many of these children have
had little or no success academically, and have, therefore, low self-efficacy.
Large numbers of the students were transient, living from house to house
with relatives in unstable environments. A majority of teachers had no such
experiences and found it difficult to construct strategies that provided effective
instruction for student success. While the knowledge gap, as experienced by the
teachers, can be largely a function of the learner, research shows that teachers can
be taught strategies that help to bridge their knowledge gap and significantly
improve student performance—the ultimate result.
According to Clark and Estes (2002), the need for teachers to master
strategies that provide successful experiences for both teacher and students can be
a regulating factor in improving motivation. Teachers must have to buy-in to the
belief that the strategies will work. With the buy-in, they will choose to make a
concerted cognitive effort to consistently use the identified strategies (Clark &
Estes, 2002) supplied by the DataWorks Professional Development team
(workshop held at our school).
15
Problem Solutions
Knowledge Gap Solution
Teachers received additional professional development on the use of the
Loraine Monroe Black Board Configuration (BBC) (Monroe, 1997) and
professional development from DataWorks on the implementation of questioning
strategies. Following the professional development, teachers were asked to
remember the BBC format, understand its purpose, apply the concepts, evaluate
its effectiveness, and create new and more effective BBCs to ensure Standards
Based Instruction (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Subsequently the teachers
received corrective feedback and, as indicated earlier, administrators used the
BBC rubric during weekly BBC checks (Appendix B). These checks measured
correct teacher use of the strategy. The rotation of all administrators and all
classrooms and teachers was predetermined so that each administrator had the
opportunity to evaluate all teachers. Following each observation, the teachers
were given an NCR copy of the feedback with a rubric score and comments for
teacher efficacy. Teachers and administrators met, allowing reflection of the level
of development and use of the strategy. Any resistance to using the strategy was
addressed at that time (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Two professional development (PD) sessions were presented to the staff
by DataWorks Educational Consultants. Both sessions emphasized checking for
16
understanding, random questioning, and the use of the TAPPLE protocol of
teaching (Teach, Ask a Question, Pause, Pick a Non-Volunteer, Listen, and
Evaluate). Following the second session, teachers felt that the repetition was
unnecessary and did not add value to their ability to implement the strategies;
therefore, subsequent professional development for the staff (on the DataWorks
strategies) was led by the school’s administrators, the School’s Leadership Team
(SLT) members, and McKnight High School teachers.
Motivational Gap Solutions
As stated earlier, each year of the past four years, the teachers became less
resistant and more willing to try innovative interventions to increase student
achievement. Teachers truly believed that they were capable of reaching our
organizational goal. According to Omroad (2006), “people are most likely to be
intrinsically motivated to do something when they have high self-efficacy” (p.
391). The organizational gap was real and if not closed, could adversely affect
the school’s stability as the teachers knew it, subsequently promoting a real-world
problem for them personally (Merrill, 2002). There did not appear to be a lack of
motivation to attempt new strategies. However, in the event that the teachers
were not self-regulated, an effort was made to increase motivation, which should
also increase the probability of success of the mission. The school culture was
one of collegiality, trust, and one of confidence that we could accomplish our
17
organizational goal. In addition to the district’s goal to close the achievement gap
(manifested at McKnight High School by the low API), the staff made closing the
achievement gap for the students a priority.
In an attempt to maintain teacher motivation, we did the following:
1. Provided continuing professional development for teachers and
administrators to improve self-efficacy, increase their sense of competency, and
reduce anxiety (Appendix C). Teachers were motivated by the belief that they
could succeed in improving student performance. They were less anxious about
their effectiveness and their ability to use the strategies when they had had the
opportunity to master the instructional tools (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Administrators should be confident in their ability to coach teachers in using the
strategies.
2. Ensured teacher success, manifested by student success. As a
result, teachers placed a greater value upon the strategies (internal factors) Clark
& Estes, 2002).
3. Required teachers to use the random (pick a non-volunteer)
questioning strategies, whiteboards, and Bloom’s (1956) levels of questioning in
the BBC Lesson Steps (Appendix C) in the Principal’s Expectations (Appendix
D) supported by the California Standards for the Teaching Profession 4.3 and 4.4
(Appendix E).
18
4. Provided cognitive coaching of the teachers, by the department
chairs, using a DataWorks check sheet (Appendix F) to monitor consistent use of
the strategies.
5. Provided time for the faculty to collaborate during the weekly
teacher common planning time, in department meetings, in small learning
community meetings, and in the school-wide initiative meetings (Appendix G)
which developed group trust in each others’ skills (Bandura, 1997). A log was
kept to document the meetings for accountability and follow-up (Appendix H).
6. Provided release time for teachers to observe their colleagues in
action, using the strategies when delivering lessons. According to Omroad
(2006), this promotes an “observational learning effect in which the observer will
acquire the new behavior after watching someone else do it” (p. 336).
Purpose, Evaluation, and Significance
The purpose of the study was to determine if using specific teaching
strategies in every classroom can be significantly effective in improving the
academic achievement of African-Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, English
Learners, and Socio-economically Disadvantaged students at McKnight High
School. The following strategies traditionally considered by high school teachers
as effective in elementary classrooms, were used as the teachers checked for
understanding while teaching:
19
• Bloom’s (1956) six levels of Higher Order Thinking Questioning
• Random questioning strategies
• Use of whiteboards in questioning
• Following the DataWorks’ TAPPLE protocol
These four strategies were the focus of the school’s school-wide initiatives
and a solution to minimizing the gap for the underachieving students at the school
by increasing their abilities to think critically and at higher levels. This required
them to be more attentive and more actively engaged in the teaching and learning
process. By using the whiteboard and random questioning, teachers were able to
determine the proficiency of students by their immediate demonstration of
proficiency, acquisition, or confusion from the lesson for the day.
The school administration and SLT developed a six-month
timeline/schedule for infusing Bloom’s(1956) six levels of Higher Order Thinking
Questioning Taxonomy (ordered from Creative Teaching Products), and the
questioning strategies into instructional practices. It was a proposed six-month
plan that was studied, reviewed, edited, and/or revised by the SLT to meet the
needs of the students, staff, and requirements for a good action plan (Jackson &
Davis, 2000). It was hoped that this plan, if implemented, would, through both
summative and formative assessments developed or identified by the SLT, prove
to be even more effective than the school was in 2006 in minimizing the
20
opportunity gap for African-American, Latino, English Learners, and Socio-
economically Disadvantaged students.
Evaluation of Effectiveness
Assessment and accountability by monitoring and evaluating was critical
to the successful implementation of the process. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s
(2006) Four Level Model for assessing progress and results was used. The four
levels of evaluation were: (a) reaction, (b) learning, (c) behavior, and (d) results,
respectively. The evaluation process within this study included all four phases.
Level 1: Reaction:
1. Following the professional development, baseline data was collected
through an initial close-ended survey given to teachers (Appendix I). It would
determine attitudes, the perceived value of using Bloom’s (1956) Higher Order
Questioning Strategies in the lessons and in the BBC, DataWorks’ TAPPLE
protocol, and the random questioning strategies, along with the expectations of
success immediately following the initial professional development. Anecdotal
data was also collected following the professional development given by the
administration and SLT.
2. During each teacher/administrator post-observation conference, teachers
were encouraged to comment on their perception of the value of the BBC and use
21
of DataWorks Questioning Strategies during the “Lesson Steps” part of its use
(Appendix C).
Level 2: Learning Data:
1. Teachers were surveyed to check for progress towards intermediate
goals and use of the strategies (Appendix I), completing the four levels of the
Productivity Pyramid (Smith, 1994).
2. Teachers were videotaped using the strategies to check for progress and
provide professional development.
Level 3: Classroom Behavior: Collected the Wednesday Teacher
Common Planning Logs from each department or SLT (Appendix H).
Level 4: Results Data: Quarterly department benchmark standards-based
tests were administered to students to determine the impact of the strategies
during the implementation of the program. This, too, assisted in determining if
the program continued to be effective through the year (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The improvement in the number of students who were at or above
Proficient on the CST portion of the STAR Test in the spring of 2007, was used to
measure the overall impact (bottom line) of the strategies used to meet the
organizational goal. Therefore, the summative final evaluation was the 2007
California STAR Test. The results of this case study was tentatively known in
early August 2007, following the STAR Test results, which were forwarded to the
district for distribution to the schools. Although the state had not indicated the
22
minimum number of points by which the school must increase on the 2007 test,
five years of history has shown the growth target to be between 9 to 18 points.
Therefore, the aggressive goal of a 50-point improvement would more than
exceed the state requirement. When the district’s Research, Planning, and
Assessment Office distributed the data from the state, the staff was able to
determine if the strategies chosen to increase the API accomplished the goal.
A non-equivalent control group design was used to compare CST ELA
and Mathematics results of the African-American students at McKnight High
School with the same results of African-American students at the other high
schools in San Francisco (with one exception of a school whose students were not
randomly selected by lottery) to determine if there was a significant difference in
the academic performance of the African-American students at McKnight High
School on whom selected strategies were used.
Practical Significance
McKnight High School reflected the diversity of San Francisco and the
State of California. Its high Socio-economically Disadvantaged students and
growing EL populations, as well as its achievement gap for African-American
students, provided a nationwide reflection of students who must become
Proficient as a result of NCLB (Laws and Regulations, 2001) legislation and
because educators had the moral obligation to help them. With current
23
immigration statistics increasing exponentially, and with the increase in numbers
of children in poverty, it was imperative that strategies could be identified to
specifically address the knowledge gaps that existed for these children; identified
strategies helped to improve other interventions. The academic performance of
these groups of students was a fraction of their contemporaries. These students
represented a small number of students in acceptable CST bands of Proficient or
above. Additionally, reports showed that these groups of students were only
prepared for remedial courses at community colleges and SAT scores are well
below most university requirements. If these particular strategies worked, Latino,
EL, Socio-economically Disadvantaged, and African-American students would
not only improve their CST scores and academic achievement, but teachers would
have a mechanism for improving students’ critical thinking skills.
Theoretical Significance
This study validated Zmuda’s (2004) concept of continuous improvement
by the local design of an intervention. The implementation of the school-wide
initiatives at McKnight High School was unique to the school and certainly local
in nature. The study showed the influence of Marzano’s (2003) Three Levels of
Factors on the school’s total plan of action, and it showed the use of Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) Four Levels of Evaluating Training Programs on
Training the staff on implementing the strategies.
24
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The achievement gap for African-Americans, Latinos, English Learners,
and Socio-economically Disadvantaged students continues to grow in California
and the United States of America. Educators search and research available
literature for studies that reveal the silver bullet, if it exists, to minimize that gap
and ultimately eliminate it. Until teaching strategies can be found that can cure
the greatest malady in education, educators will continue to do what they can to
shrink the gap.
Many factors contribute to the existing achievement gap. The three
dimensions that significantly contribute to that gap are: (a) poverty, race, and the
quality of teaching; (b) multiple contexts such as out-side school and in-school
factors; and (c) time, as students matriculate for the years through 12
th
grade
(Bennett, Bridgall, Cauce, Everson, Gordon, & Lee, C., et al., 2004). However,
teachers can affect what happens during the instructional time at school by
maximizing its use while students are at school.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (Mc Rel) researchers
identified categories of instruction that prove to be highly effective in increasing
student performance (Hill & Flynn, 2006); (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock,
2001). When teachers use these categories of strategies, there is a high
25
probability of increasing student learning and affecting achievement. The
identified categories are: (a) identifying similarities and differences, (b)
summarizing and note taking, (c) reinforcing effort and providing recognition, (d)
homework and practice, (e) nonlinguistic representations, (f) cooperative learning,
(g) setting objectives and providing feedback, (h) generating and testing
hypotheses, and (i) questions cues, and advanced organizers. The research shows
that based on comparisons that were independent, the effect sizes of these
categories range from .59 to 1.61. The percents gained ranged from 22% to 45%,
and yet there is not a direct variation existing between the effect size and the
Standard Deviation of each. In fact, the category with the 8
th
lowest effect size
(generating and testing hypotheses) had the highest Standard Deviation of the
nine categories.
Feedback from two district STAR walks-through at McKnight High
School indicated that the teachers were asking low-level questions while teaching.
The teachers were not checking for understanding while teaching which left
scores of children unaffected by their lessons. The 2005 Western Association of
Schools and Colleges’ (WASC) recommendations were the same: students were
expected to answer lower-level questions when teachers did check for
understanding by questioning them. As a result, the administrative team, through
research, found resources to help correct the problem and provided a professional
development plan to provide the teachers with the resources and skills.
26
Identified Strategies
At the time, school-wide initiatives already included strategies from three
of the nine categories: (a) summarizing and note taking—all 9
th
grade students
were enrolled in a class identified as Strategies for Success which was a class that
taught Cornell Notes as a skill needed for success in high school; (b) homework
and practice—all teachers were required to give homework to reinforce or expand
upon the lesson; and (c) setting objectives and providing feedback—the school
adopted the Loraine Monroe Black Board Configuration which requires the AIM
(California Standard/objective) for the day to be specifically used in planning,
posted, discussed, and referred to throughout the lesson (Monroe, 1997).
Therefore the STAR walks-through at the school, the WASC recommendations,
and previously unmentioned administrative walks-through pointed to strategies
from the questions, cues, and advanced organizers category which seemed
appropriate to implement.
Checking for Understanding
Although most of these dimensions were outside of the school’s sphere of
influence, the school community impacted individual gaps by focusing on
instruction during the school day and during after-school opportunities. In the
classroom, teachers focused their instruction on the course scope and sequence to
ensure that students could think, learn, comprehend, and process at high levels
27
(Fisher & Frey, 2007). Educators did this by stimulating the thought process,
checking for understanding while teaching, and giving timely corrective feedback,
as well as giving frequent assessments.
Since a teacher’s job is to support students in their understanding the
subject (Fisher & Frey, 2007) and to make sure that the students understand
information when shared; effective classroom pedagogy must include effective
instruction, effective management strategies, and the use of effective instructional
strategies (Marzano, 2007).
This study focused on the latter (effective instructional strategies) and, in
particular, the art of effectively checking for understanding while teaching by
questioning students at all of Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy Levels, the assignment
of questions (i.e., randomly) to ensure equity, and the use of response boards
when checking for understanding so that students would have a thorough and
enduring understanding of knowledge.
Why is checking for understanding an effective instructional strategy?
Fischer and Frey (2007) conclude that unless teachers check for understanding, it
is next to impossible to know if students are getting anything out of the lesson. It
can derail misconceptions, thwart naïve assumptions, and prevent students from
practicing mistakes which would reinforce the error. Learning would improve.
Yet most of the time, checking for understanding is inadequate and ineffective.
This results in missed opportunities to improve instruction, and missed
28
opportunities to provide timely corrective feedback to students throughout the
teaching and learning process. Checking for understanding is a method of re-
teaching and retelling, a way to minimize the gap between what the students know
and what they need to know; a way to check for learner progress, and a way to
lead to precise teaching (Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006). Checking for
understanding is a way to determine if things are working in the lesson, a way to
determine if differentiating instruction is needed, or if a change in direction is
required. It should be a “part of the routine of teaching” (Fullan, Hill, & Crevola,
2006, p. 12).
Exactly what is checking for understanding? Checking for understanding
is a systematic approach to formative assessment (Fisher & Frey, 2007), an
essential element of lesson design (Hunter, 1984; Marzano, 2003), and a part of
the routine of teaching. It is improving instruction by providing students with
feedback on their knowledge gain ongoing throughout the unit that is taught. It
helps students to self-monitor their understanding of the lesson (Fisher & Frey,
2007). Multiple exposures to knowledge over time are necessary for learning to
occur—to integrate new knowledge into the existing knowledge base of students
(Marzano, 2003). In fact, checking for understanding can provide repeated access
to the new knowledge.
There are several ways to check for understanding. One might use oral
language, questioning, writing, projects and performances, tests, or common
29
assessments to check for understanding (Fisher & Frey, 2007). This research
focused on levels of questions, questioning, and oral language as instructional
strategies for checking for understanding.
Questions are a great way to check for student understanding because they
can prompt and engage students in deeper thinking and not merely prompt them
to regurgitate information. In fact, the ability to question is key to the practice of
teaching; their responses should drive the next steps of instruction (Fisher & Frey,
2007). Bloom’s Taxonomy is an excellent tool for developing questions that
represent the range of knowledge that should be taught in the classroom. “[It]
provides a way of organizing questions” (Fisher & Frey, 2007, p. 45).
Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) makes certain that we ask questions that
engage students in creative and critical thinking. After the students have the
knowledge and comprehension, the students should apply the knowledge and
understanding. They should have the ability to analyze this information,
formulate new conclusions or add to it (synthesize), and that they should be able
to evaluate or make judgments about the value of what they have learned. In fact,
checking for understanding alone is insufficient unless students are taught to think
critically and at higher levels (Fisher & Frey, 2007).
Using oral language to check for understanding can be especially useful
with English Learners (Fisher & Frey, 2007; Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007; Short &
Echevarria, 2004/2005). Many African-American students who are not standard
30
English speakers who need to learn academic English could be assessed for
understanding, if the teacher could use oral language to check for understanding.
“Taken together, the communication skills of speaking and listening, is called oral
language and form a basis for thinking” (Fisher & Frey, 2007, p.16).
Unfortunately, in some classrooms, when teachers check for
understanding, EL are asked easier questions (Fisher & Frey, 2007; Guan Eng Ho,
2005; Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007). This is possibly true for African-American
students as well as students in Special Education classes. This is, in my opinion,
due to low expectations. Many are children of poverty who do not speak standard
or academic English, whose actual or perceived skill levels are low, and teachers
are more likely to spend less time on lessons that promote critical thinking (Fisher
& Frey, 2007; Stipek, 2004).
Some oral language strategies for checking for understanding include: (a)
accountable talk (staying on topic), using accurate and appropriate information for
the topic, and think about what one’s partner has to say; (b) noticing non-verbal
cues; (c) value lineups (students analyze their beliefs and then listen to the beliefs
of others); (d) retellings (inviting students to retell what they have just heard or
read), this strategy can be more effective than teacher questioning (Gambrell,
Koskinen, & Kapinus, 1991); (e) think-pair-share; (e) misconception analysis
(provides students an opportunity to discuss misunderstandings that they may
have); and (f) the whip around (the teacher randomly asks students to share
31
responses to a question) (Fisher & Frey, 2007). When retelling, these limited
English Learners can recreate the text in their own words (analyze and synthesize
information).
Questioning
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) point out that “questioning (and
cues) are at the heart of classroom practice. Questions should focus on what is
important rather than what is unusual” Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001, p.
113). Questions should be designed to help students obtain a deeper
understanding of content in order to increase students’ interest in the topic
(Alexander, et.al. 1994). According to Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001),
questions are effective learning tools, even when asked before a learning
experience, to establish a “mental set” (p. 114). They can greatly aid students in
the process of filling in missing information, a way that a classroom teacher can
help students use what they already know, and an effective strategy to use even
before the lesson begins (Hill & Flynn, 2006). Questions can establish
expectations, a way to elicit inferences about people, things, actions, events, and
state of being.
Questions are an important aspect of effective macro strategies, strategies
that, according to research results, produce positive effects and significant
percentile gains (Marzano, 2007). “The goal is for questions to provide students
32
with an opportunity to think, and the teacher with an opportunity to check for
understanding” (Marzano, 2007, p. 45). Questions, cues, and advanced organizers
are among the nine categories of instructional strategies that affect student
achievement. This category produced an effect size of 0.59, a 22 % gain, and a
Standard Deviation of 0.26. This means that everything else being equal, the
typical student who asked questions was given cues, and advanced organizers will
score 0.26 of a Standard Deviation higher than the typical student who does not
have access to that category of instructional strategies (Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock, 2001).
Developing quality questions in order to check for understanding is
essential in promoting student participation and student engagement in the process
(Fisher & Frey, 2007), as well as effective checking for understanding. These
quality questions must provide complex interactions with the knowledge to which
the students have access if learning is to take place.
Evidence of critical thinking related to questioning occurs when
questioning and debate are common in a classroom, when the teacher is often
faced with questions for which he or she has no answers, questions are answered
with explanations not simply yes or no, and questions rarely have one right
answer (with the exception of a few subjects) (Creative Teaching Products, 2004);
where teachers ask inferential questions that go beyond what is represented in a
presentation (Marzano, 2007).
33
Marzano (2007) defines engagement as students attending to the
instructional activities that are occurring in class and describes the causes of
engagement as very complex. According to Marzano (2007), keeping students
engaged is one of the most important considerations for teachers, and it is their
jobs to do so. Sometimes students have difficulty being attentive and engaged in
the lesson, and random questioning is a strategy focused on engagement and
organized around questions. Random questioning creates some anticipation that
keeps students attentive because the students are not quite sure when they will be
called upon (Marzano, 2007).
Random Questioning
Missing information tends to spark people’s interest and might stimulate
their interest in questions. They can “pose missing information that the human
mind has a hard time ignoring” (Marzano, 2007, p. 101). Marzano states that
Rosendaal (2003) indicates that although the stressful events lead to harmful
results, under the right circumstances,
mild pressure can have a positive influence on learning because mild
pressure focuses attention on the source of the pressure, the random
questions, and the uncertainty of the expectation of producing an answer.
Prolonged or intense pressure inhibits learning. (Rosendaal, 2003, p. 102)
Questioning, random or not, is certainly worth mentioning as an aspect of learning
that causes student discourse.
34
Finally, random questioning, when checking for understanding, can
provide a safeguard for gender and racial equity, as well as equity in overall
participation. Popsicle sticks, cards, or chips, with students’ names written on
them, can ensure that the teacher is checking everyone equitably for
understanding, while requiring everyone to think about the question and answer,
if the question is asked prior to the name of its recipient.
Response Cards/Whiteboards
The use of response cards (or individual whiteboards) is an effective way
to engage all students when checking for understanding (Narayan, Heward,
Gardner, Courson, & Omness, 1990; Marzano, 2007). This process can be used
to stimulate individual and group participation. Questions can be true or false,
multiple choice, or one word fill-in the-blank answers Marzano, 2007). In the
Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, Heward, Gardner, Cavanaugh, Courson,
Grossi, Barbetta, etc. (1966) suggest using response cards to increase student
participation in elementary classrooms, a possible justification for high school use
as well with response cards, allow the entire class to participate instead of a few.
The use of dry-erase boards for (student) response promotes greater
student participation and engagement in checking for understanding. These may
be held simultaneously by students when responding to a question or problem.
This strategy allows the teacher to quickly and easily determine individual student
35
responses while teaching the entire class. It allows for whole class participation
with real-time responses. It allows the teacher to quickly determine how
successful the lesson was and who needs individual assistance.
Wait-Time and Pausing
Wait-time is a highly useful instructional technique (Marzano, Pickering,
& Pollock, 2001). Wait-time should be three or more seconds, depending upon
the subgroup being taught. Hill and Flynn (2006) suggest three seconds or more
with English Learners and DataWorks suggests up to 8 seconds for students with
cognitive challenges. Both Marzano (2007) and DataWorks suggest a similar
sequence of questioning with wait-time for maximum effectiveness (Marzano,
2007). This sequence, composed of wait-time and pausing, creates a sense of
student anticipation.
Marzano (2007) suggests that in 1994, Stahl identified many kinds of
wait-time to help students to focus and be attentive: post-teacher-question wait-
time, student pause time, post-student response wait-time, teacher pause time, and
impact pause time. DataWorks has determined an effective sequence for
instruction, quite similar to that of Marzano (2007): Teach, Ask a question,
Pause, Pick a non-volunteer, Listen, Evaluate “TAPPLE.,” and repeat. This is a
sequence that uses both wait-time and mild pressure (randomly choosing a non-
volunteer). This was also recommended for increasing student engagement.
36
Previously, Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) defined that wait-time was
defined as pausing for several seconds after asking a question to give students
time to think before being called on to answer (Tobin, 1987). This is a highly
useful instructional technique. The authors add that waiting briefly before
accepting responses from students has the effect of increasing the depth of
students’ answers.
Other Questioning Strategies
Marzano (2007) suggests questioning games such as Jeopardy and Family
Fued as mechanisms for effective instruction. He describes a scenario where
students design questions to represent adequate understanding of terms or
categories. These games stimulate engagement and consequently, learning.
These games focus on the academic content and use of competition for fun. The
teacher must manage questions and response rates so that they are in the form of
missing information and they mildly pressure students.
Reciprocal teaching integrates summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and
predicting. The questions are designed to help students identify important
information (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). The questioning generation
component of reciprocal teaching is powerful (Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman;
1996). Additionally, at least five specific strategies are common subcomponents
of good macro-strategy in instruction and questioning is one of them.
37
Questioning Combined With Other Behaviors
Where teachers are focusing on questioning and wait-time while checking
for understanding, Harris and Rosenthal (1985) report correlations that indicate
the effect size of other behaviors that influence the effectiveness of the
questioning activities: gestures (.66), smiles (.61), and encouragement (.90).
Frequency of interaction (.43) is an additional aspect of language of relationship
that can influence the success of questioning activities.
Effectiveness of Higher-Order Questioning
According to Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) and Hill and Flynn
(2006), higher-level questions produce deeper learning than lower-level questions.
Additionally, they assert that the higher-level questions require students to
restructure information or apply knowledge in some way. According to Redfield
and Rousseau (1981), questions that require students to analyze information
produce more learning than questions that require simple recall or recognition of
information. The analytic questions require students not only to analyze, but also
critique the information presented.
To develop higher-order thinking skills, students must be able to answer
questions at all grade levels concerning systems analysis, problem solving,
investigating, inventing, decision making, and experimental inquiry. Students
must be able to do more than remember facts: comprehend a concept or
38
procedure by interpreting or summarizing in one’s own words; analyze the
concept, procedure, or idea by breaking it down into related parts; apply it to an
abstract idea to solve a problem; relate it to a new experience; synthesize it by
bringing together elements or compounds of knowledge to form a whole and build
relationships for new situations; and also evaluate it by making judgments about
the value of ideas or materials by using standards and criteria to support one’s
opinions and views (Creative Teaching Products, 2004).
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) also contrasted the effects of
higher-level questions as compared to lower-level ones and concluded that the
results of prominently using higher-order questions produce an overall effect of
0.7292. Inferential questions require students to elaborate and are referred to as
elaborative interrogation (Ozungor & Guthrie, 2004). Questions such as these can
greatly enhance student comprehension (Fishbein, Eckart, Lanver, Van Leeuwan,
& Langmeyer; 1990). Unfortunately, most questions that teachers ask are lower-
level questions (Davis & Tinsley, 1967; Fillippone, 1998; Mueller, 1973).
When using any of the instructional strategies, especially while checking
for understanding, teachers may need to give cues to students, probe, rephrase or
redirect the questions. These practices can help students who initially respond
incorrectly (Walsh & Sattes, 2005). A skillful teacher continuously carries on this
evaluative process as an integral part of instruction and uses the results to improve
the teaching and learning experience (Platt, Tripp, Ogden, & Fraser, 2000). With
39
skillful questioning, the teacher can determine if the entire class understands the
lesson rather than a handful of students. Checking for understanding fosters good
teaching, meta-cognition, is aligned with best practices, it deepens assessment to
more than testing, and enriches the teaching experience (Fisher & Frey, 2007).
The process becomes even more intricate when questioning (and teaching)
English Learners (and this clinician would venture to assert when questioning and
teaching African-American students). Additional sheltering techniques must be
used to augment teaching and learning. In addition to manipulatives, miniature
objects, realia, visuals, body movement, and pantomime, one must use facial
expressions (including smiling) and gestures, clear expression and articulation,
shorter simpler sentences, eye contact, high-frequency vocabulary, reduce
idiomatic expressions, use nouns over pronouns, personalize language, and
frequently use synonyms.
40
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Yearly statewide STAR Testing in California school districts provides
useful intervention data for schools in evaluating the effectiveness of strategies
used to improve student academic achievement. Schools and districts use these
data to determine if there is significant evidence that the intervention should be
continued or repeated. Effective interventions could provide fuel for improving
academic achievement for all students, and can help in minimizing or closing the
achievement gap existing for African-American students in California.
CAHSEE results indicate significant increases in students’ achievement as
measured by the 2006-2007 CAHSEE as compared to 2005-2006:
A larger percentage of district students in the Class of 2007 have passed
the California High School Exit Exam as when compared to the Class of
2006 at the same point in time last year. The cumulative CAHSEE
passing rate for the district Class of 2007 is now an estimated 89.9%
(3,703 seniors); as compared to last year at this time of 88.9% or 3,463
seniors. Students in nearly every subgroup in the class of 2007 are passing
the CAHSEE at a greater rate than their counterparts in the Class of 2006
did at the same point in time. African-American students in the Class of
2007 as of February increased their passage rate on the exam by 12.3
percentage points when compared to their counterparts in the Class of
2006 at the same point in time last year. Hispanic/Latino students showed
a gain of .9 percent, while the gain for English Learners was 0.8
percentage points. Ninety-two percent of district seniors with results
(3,463 students) have met the CAHSEE requirement for graduation by
passing both the Mathematics and the English-language arts portions of
the test. (San Francisco Unified School District , 2007, p. 1)
41
McKnight High School statistics showed similar or even greater gains. At
this point in the school year, only one general education 12
th
grade student at
McKnight had not passed the CAHSEE as compared to seven 12
th
grade students
at the same time last year. Informal conversations with students and staff indicate
that the increase in motivation to pass the exam in order to get a diploma played a
significant role in the effort that students made this year as compared to previous
years. As a result of these data, CAHSEE results were not be used to measure
growth in student achievement; instead, however, the California Standards Test
(CST), which has had fewer outside influences, was used.
The CSTs are based upon the core academic state standards that teachers
must teach and students are expected to learn. The students’ scores are organized
into performance bands labeled Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient,
and Advanced (EdSource, 2005). The goal is for all students in the state of
California to be Proficient in subjects in which they are tested. The CSTs provide
a mechanism for the state to ensure that all schools are measured the same.
The following summative evaluation design (Figure 1) format was used
for this study:
42
O pre
a
X
b
O post
c
C 1 O post
C 2 O post
Figure 1. Design
a
Pre-test Observations: 2005 California Standards Test (CST) in English (ELA)
b
Treatment X: Teachers using Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of Higher Order
Thinking in checking for understanding and random questioning with pauses for
think-time (DataWorks TAPPLE Protocol).
c
Post-test Observations: 2007 CST in ELA.
Data was disaggregated for all significant subgroups. However, the
district was a Program Improvement (PI) District because of the consecutive
decline in African-American achievement; therefore, the growth trends of
African-American students were examined more closely.
A quasi-experimental design with two nonequivalent control groups
(Cassino Blaine High School and Marion Saxon High School), in the San
Francisco Unified School District, also were used. This design consisted of
studying one experimental group and two control groups, obtaining matching data
in 2005, administering an intervention during 2006-2007, and measuring
outcomes from the spring 2007 (Creswell, 2005).
The control groups were the students at two similar high schools in the
same district with school data for students similar to those at McKnight High
43
School. These control schools were Cassino Blaine High School and Marion
Saxon High School. The following data reveal similarities (Tables 3 and 4).
Formative Evaluation Design
Although primarily quantitative in nature, there is a qualitative component
to this study. Formative evaluative measures were used to assess the
effectiveness of teacher professional development, as well as student reactions
and behaviors, that presumably lead to the post-test observations (Level 4
Results).
The first three levels in Evaluating Training Programs by Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2006) were used for that purpose and to improve the interventions in
the future as well. Open-ended survey and/or interviews and observations were
used to determine what contributed to (a) the positive and negative reactions to
the strategies, (b) learning and implementing the strategies, and (c) the classroom
behaviors that led to these results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Table 5 identifies each level evaluated with each instrument or activity.
The Intervention
Previous school-wide initiatives at McKnight High School included the
Loraine Monroe Black Board Configuration (BBC) (Monroe, 2005) and
DataWorks’ (workshop) Explicit Direct Instruction while checking for
understanding.
44
45
Table 3
School Demographics and NCLB Compliance
School
African-
American
06
African-
American
07
EL
06
EL
07
ASIAN
06
ASIAN
07
SED
a
06
SED
a
07
Sp.
Ed
Cred.
Tchrs.
NCLB
Compl.
X:
McKnight
15% 12.1%18%TBD 36% 52% 61% 58%11.2% 95% 94.4%
C1:
Blaine
14% 14%19%TBD 38% 51%59% 54%07.7% 94%95.4%
C2:
Marion
Saxon
21% 16%22%TBD 54% 54%56% 58%12.4% 98%97.7%
a
SED = Socio-economically Disadvantaged
46
Table 4
School APIs and State Rankings
School
African-
American
05
API
African-
American
06
API
EL
05
API
EL
06
API
SED
a
05
API
SED
a
06
API
ASIAN
05
API
ASIAN
06
API
School
05
API
School
06
API
06
Rank
State
06
Rank
Similar
X:
McKnight
458 487635652609647 776 814 628 680 4 3
C1:
Blaine
581 483698669689666 793 784 701 671 4 3
C2:
Marion
Saxon
496 492673683629654 717 742 634 667 3 3
a
SED = Socio-economically Disadvantaged
47
Table 5
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s Levels for Evaluating Training
Level
Written Surveys
Interviews
Observations/
Walks-through
1: Reaction X X
2: Learning X
3: Transfer X (Participant)
X (Non-participant)
Source: Kirkparick & Kirkpatrick, 2006.
The intervention for this study included (a) posting and using the power
words that trigger each level of Bloom’s (1956) questioning, (b) using the
DataWorks TAPPLE Protocol when questioning students, (c) using random
questioning and whiteboards when checking for understanding while teaching,
and (d) infusing Bloom’s (1956) levels of questioning in the Lesson Steps of the
BBC, daily lesson plans, and whenever questioning students’ levels of
understanding. Teachers were given professional development and participated in
common planning sessions focused on developing the six levels of questions and
lesson plans that included questions. Teachers shared strategies and questions in
smaller groups, especially at grade level/subject and department meetings.
School-wide initiative meetings were used for continuing professional
development and evaluating the effectiveness of the strategies (Appendix G).
The School Leadership Team (SLT) conducted informal walks-through
the classrooms of their departments in order to determine the degree to which
teachers were implementing identified strategies. This non-evaluative activity
resulted in the identification of teachers who needed additional professional
development and to what degree. The walks-through/observations showed that
teachers had posted the power words for each level, they referred to them when
teaching and questioning the students, they made a concerted effort to make the
school-wide initiative transparent to the students in their classes, and yet they
continued to resist, or they were at least hesitant, to infuse Bloom’s levels of
questioning into the BBC Lesson Steps.
Participants and Setting
The experimental group was composed of approximately 850 students in
grades 9 through 11 at McKnight High School. The data were disaggregated by
ethnicity, socio-economic status, and by English Learners. A particular focus was
placed on 100 African-American students at McKnight High School, 95% of the
school’s African-American population. The STAR participation rate for African-
American students was the same. Control Group 1 was composed of 1,000
students at Cassino Blaine High School, with similar socio-economic students,
and English Learner populations, and African-American students enrolled at
Cassino Blaine High School consisting of approximately 130 students.
48
Control Group 2 was comprised of 500 students at Marion Saxon High
School, with similar socio-economic students, and English Learner populations,
where approximately 100 students were African-American. The primary
dependent variable was the percent of students scoring in each of the state-
identified CST bands of Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, and Far
Below Basic for each of the two pre-intervention years. These data were obtained
from the California Department of Education (CDE) via the San Francisco
Unified School District’s Research Planning, and Assessment Department. Pre-
test data are shown in Table 6.
Instrumentation and Procedures
This study was a mixed methods study that was primarily quantitative in
nature with a higher priority for its quantitative aspect.
Quantitative Instruments and Procedure
The 2007 ELA California Standards Test (CST) was used to measure
student academic achievement. Data obtained from the district Student
Information System (SIS) indicated that Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays
historically had the highest student attendance. Therefore the STAR tests were
administered in the mornings on April 24, 25, 26, May 1 and 2, 2007. On each
test day, the teachers gathered their crates in which the test coordinator placed
directions with test icons and the tests that they were to administer on that day.
49
Table 6
Percent in Each Band by Ethnicity and by School (2005)
Ethnicity
Advanced Proficient Basic
Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
McKnight
Black 1% 5%21%26% 47%
Chinese 17% 27% 30% 15% 11%
Filipino 4% 10%41%23% 22%
Japanese 29% 29% 29% 14% 0%
Korean 13% 25% 25% 25% 13%
Hispanic/
Latino 4% 15%24%27% 29%
Blaine
Black 1% 15%30%27% 28%
Chinese 11% 29% 34% 19% 7%
Filipino 6% 30%42%13% 8%
Japanese 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Korean 0% 50%25% 0% 25%
Hispanic/
Latino 3% 13%39%25% 21%
Marion
Saxon
Black 0% 10%23%33% 34%
Chinese 8% 23%36%18% 15%
Filipino 5% 25%35%28% 8%
Japanese 50% 50% 0% 0% 0%
Korean 1% 16%29%33% 21%
Hispanic/
Latino
50
Two credentialed staff members were carefully chosen for their strengths
and weaknesses to monitor and administer the tests. Close attention to student
absences was critical since the school’s average daily attendance hovered at
approximately 92.6%, well below the state required 95% participation rate.
Additionally, as indicated earlier in this study, attendance for African-American
students especially, had consistently fallen far below overall district and
McKnight attendance levels. Therefore, a school-wide student led STAR Rally
was held on Thursday, April 19, 2007, the week before testing. It included
awards for most improved on the 2006 CST ELA and Mathematics tests, for both
male and female students, by grade. Moreover, during the rally, it was announced
that incentives would be given to all students for effort, attendance, and
seriousness in taking the tests. Teachers and monitors in each class determined
the students who were eliminated from receiving the incentives. When each test
was completed, teachers submitted the names of students who did not take the
tests seriously. Those students did not receive movie passes to a local theater. A
special effort was made to include incentives for students who chronologically
should have been seniors (4
th
year students), who lacked the necessary 170 credits
to be classified as seniors. Those students were required to take the STAR tests,
and most were persuaded to take the tests as a matter of school pride and to earn
incentives. The number amounted to seven students, most of them identified as
Special Education students.
51
Poor average daily attendance required a concerted, organized effort to
administer make-up tests. On the first day of testing, more than 4% of the
students who were required to take the test were absent. After three days of
testing and two afternoons of make-up tests, 120 students had missed at least one
test. Each day approximately 40 students were able to complete the required tests
that had been missed, only to have two more days of testing to complete. At the
end of testing, 200 students had at least one test to make up. The make-up tests
were given in the school library by a team of credentialed staff during the
afternoon following the morning tests and all day on April 27, April 30, May 3, 4,
and May 7–10, 2007. A list of students who missed the morning exams was
color-coded by day and distributed to teachers, security, and administrators so that
all adults had a current list of students who needed to make up specific tests.
Qualitative Instruments
Teacher and Student Surveys (Appendix I)
Informal Walks-through Check-list (Appendix F)
Video-taping of Teachers
Timeline:
Activity Date(s)
Administrative Walks-Through January 11–May 31, 2007
STAR School Walks–Through December 6, 2006
52
Teacher Professional Development (PD) January 10, 2007
School’s Leadership Team (SLT) #1 February 13, 2007
Teacher Common Planning Time/Teacher PD February 14, 2007
STAR School Walk-Through #2 February 14, 2007
Teacher Professional Development February 14, 2007
SLT Walks-Through February 7–20, 2007
Teacher Common Planning Time/PD February 21, 2007
Teacher Professional Development March 21, 2007
Teacher Common Planning Time March 28, 2007
Teacher Common Planning Time April 25, 2007
STAR Testing April 24, 2007–May 4, 2007
Teacher Common Planning Time May 16, 2007
For a more detailed time-line, see Appendix C and Appendix G.
Analysis
SPSS was used to compare the performance bands of each of the schools.
It was also used to examine pre to post gains at McKnight High School in order to
attempt to establish the effectiveness of strategies that were implemented. The
statistical analysis determined whether experimental/control means were
statistically significant by (a) using an independent groups t-test to compare post
means of both the experimental and control groups, (b) an analysis of the practical
53
significance by computing the effect size or Cohen’s d of both the experimental
and control groups, and (c) the percentage difference was computed to indicate
the size of the difference between the experimental and control groups. All three
analyses were used to assess pre/post differences in the experimental group only.
54
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
To assess the gains of the study, the following was done: (a) an
independent groups t-test was used to compare pre/post means of the
experimental group, (b) an analysis of the practical significance was made by
computing the effect size or Cohen’s d of the experimental group, and (c) the raw
and percentage difference was computed from pre implementation to post
implementation of the strategies to indicate the practical significance of the pre to
post differences. All three analyses were used to assess post test differences
between the experimental group and the control group. To determine if the
strategies implemented were possibly effective in contributing to a statistical
difference in the performance of the identified subgroups, all data were
disaggregated by grade level, selected ethnicities, and socio-economic status in
order to minimize the achievement gap that existed between African-American
(AA), Latino/Hispanic (L/H), and Socio-economically Disadvantaged (SED)
students and their peers.
The three dependent variables studied were English Language Arts (ELA)
California Standards Test (CST): (a) performance band scores, (b) percentage of
students scoring “Basic and above,” and (c) percentage of students who scored
“Proficient and above.” The performance band scores were identified
55
accordingly: Far Below Basic (FBB) = 0, Below Basic (BB) = 1, Basic (B) = 2,
Proficient (P) = 3, and Advanced (A) =4.
Testing for Significance
The Independent Groups’ Pre/Post Design
The pre/post independent groups’ design was used when analyzing the
change from the 2004-2005 pre-intervention CST results to the 2006-2007 post-
intervention results. An independent groups t-test for equality of means was used
to determine the statistical significance of the difference in the CST ELA
performance bands at the .150 level, that is p < 0.150.
Table 7 results indicate that there was a statistically significant increase in
the CST ELA performance bands for the entire school from 2005 to 2007, since t
(1329) = .001, the observed probability “p” (row one, Table 5) equals .001, and
our groups’ preset threshold for statistical significance occurs when “p” is less
than .150.
The mean difference for the school was almost a quarter of a performance
band. Additionally, statistically significant results were found for AA and SED
students.
56
Table 7
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Performance Band Differences:
Statistical Findings
Grouping
Pre N
2005
Post N
2007
Pre M
2005
Post M
2007
Pre–Post
Mean
Difference
t –
ratio
Observed
Probability
(p)
McKnight 730 756 1.77 2.01 0.24* 3.21 .001
Grade 9 274 245 2.02 2.43 0.41* 3.58 .001
Grade 10 236 240 1.53 1.92 0.39* 3.12 .002
Grade 11 220 274 1.23 1.71 0.48* 4.43 .001
AA 110 85.854 1.17 0.31* 2.02 .044
EL 191 161 1.05 .944 -0.10 -1.03 .303
H/L 143 159 1.37 1.50 0.130.88 .378
SED 369 443 1.51 1.87 0.36*1.47 .001
Note: AA: African-American, L/ H: Latino/Hispanic, SED: Socio-economically
Disadvantaged, EL: English Learners.
* p < .150 (statistically significant)
African-American students increased almost one-third of a performance
band (.31), where t (195) = .044, where the observed probability .044 < .150 and
the lower SED subgroup increased more than one-third of a performance band
(.36), when t (810) = 1.47, and the observed probability p < .001.
Practical Significance
Cohen’s d, an index of effect size, was used to determine the practical
significance of the change; that is when Cohen’s d is greater than 0.20, the preset
criterion for effect size for practical significance, practical significance can be
57
inferred. For the change to be practically significant under the NCLB (Laws and
Regulations, 2001), the percent change must be greater than .10. Practical
significance was assessed by raw change in the pre and post means (mean
difference) effect size using Cohen’s d, and percent of change in the means.
Results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention Performance Band Differences: Practical Significance
Grouping
Pre M 2005
Pre SD
2005
Pre/Post
Mean
Change
Effect Size
(Cohen’s d)
Percent
Change
McKnight 1.77 1.29 0.24 .18 13
Grade 9 2.02 1.32 0.41 .31* 21
Grade 10 1.53 1.26 0.39 .30* 25
Grade 11 1.23 1.06 0.48 .46* 39
AA 0.86 0.97 0.31 .32* 36
EL 1.05 0.93 -0.10 -.11* -9.8
H/L 1.37 1.17 0.13 .01 -10*
SED 1.51 1.22 0.36 .29* 23
Note: AA: African-American, L/ H: Latino/Hispanic, SED: Socio-economically
Disadvantaged, EL: English Learners.
* = Effect Size > .20; % change > .10 or 10%
The change for the school as a whole was not practically significant
because Cohen’s d < .20 (row 1); however, the percent change exceeded our
group’s preset standard for practical significance. Cohen’s d for AA students was
greater than the .20 threshold for practical significance at .32, also surpassing the
58
percent improvement requirement of .10 at .32. Additionally, the AA students
surpassed the NCLB target of 22.3% for the 2006-2007 school year, striving for
the year 2014 proficiency rate of 100%. The SED group also surpassed the
thresholds for practical significance with a .29 effect size for practical
significance and 23% improvement, where 20% and 10% respectively, were the
thresholds. Additionally, the 23% change exceeded the 2006-2007 NCLB target
of 22.3% progressing towards the year 2014 100% proficiency requirement.
Table 9 shows pre/post results by using an additional index: the percent of
students who scored Basic or above on the CST. This index was used because
there are significant numbers of African-Americans, Latino, and Socio-economic
disadvantaged students who, in an urban school, have lower rates of achievement.
Since scoring Basic on the CST in ELA indicates that the students are at
least approaching state standards, examining the percentages of students who are
Basic and above gives an indicator of progress towards meeting state proficiency
standards. Using our preset standards for practical significance, the results in
Table 9 vividly illustrate the progress at McKnight High School.
59
Table 9
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Percent Basic and Above
Grouping
Pre
treatment %
(2005)
Post
treatment %
(2007)
Pre/Post
Change
Effect Size
(Cohen’s
d)
Percent
Change
McKnight 52.8 63.1 10.3 .21* 19.5*
Grade 9 62.8 75.1 12.3 .25* 19.6*
Grade 10 49.4 58 8.6 .18 17.4*
Grade 11 44.1 56.9 12.8 .26* 29.0*
AA 26.4 37.6 11.2 .26* 42.4*
EL 30.0 28.6 -1.4 -.04 -4.7
L/H 43.4 49.1 5.7 .12 13.1*
SED 48.5 58.7 10.2 .20* 21.0*
Notes: AA: African-American, L/ H: Latino/Hispanic, SED: Socio-economically
Disadvantaged students, EL: English Learners.
NCLB Significance for percent change is .10 or 10%.
Table 10 examines the progress towards meeting the NCLB (Laws and
Regulations, 2001) requirement that by 2014, 100% of all students must be
Proficient in English Language Arts (ELA). Meeting the NCLB goal could be
especially challenging for the ethnic subgroups listed. The current NCLB target
for ELA for 2006/2007 is 22.3%.
Results computed in Table 10 for McKnight High School indicate that
effect size (Cohen’s d) for the school as whole, for the L/H students, and for the
EL did not show that the changes were of practical significance.
60
Table 10
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Percent Proficient or Above
Grouping
Pre treatment
% (2005)
Post
treatment
% (2007)
Pre/Post
Change
Effect Size
(Cohen’s d)
Pre/Post
% Change
McKnight 25.4 39.4 14* .16 55.1*
Grade 9 39.4 52.2 12.8* .26* 32.5*
Grade 10 23 34.9 11.9* .28* 51.7*
Grade 11 10.5 31.8 21.3* .71* 203.0*
AA 5.5 12.9. 7.4* .33 135.0*
EL 6.3 4.3 -2 -.10 -31.7
L/H 18.9 22.6 3.7 .10 19.6*
SED 22.0 35.4 13.4* .33* 60.9*
* = Statistical Significance, when Effect Size > .20; % change > .10 or 10%, for Practical
Significance
The NCLB target for ELA for 2006/2007 is 22.3%.
Although the H/L students increase was not significant, Cohen’s d = .10
and the pre/post treatment results missed the NCLB target for Proficient and
above for 2006-2007 (22.3%) by 2.7%, H/L students did have a 19.6% increase.
The 32% drop by the EL students is consistent with data in Tables 7–9, the only
group to show no positive effect from implementing the strategies at the school.
The following four tables show the data organized for Cassino Blaine
High School, control school #1: statistical findings for Pre/Post Performance
Band differences, tests for practical significance using Cohen’s d (p> .20),
practical significance for percent change %> -.10, and progress towards the
61
NCLB target for the intervention school year (22.3%) Table 11 presents the data
for Cassino Blaine High School.
Table 11
Pre Versus Post: Cassino Blaine High School CST ELA Performance Band
Differences—Statistical Findings
Grouping
Pre N
2005
Post N
2007
Pre M
2005
Post M
2007
Post/Pre
Mean
Difference
t –
ratio
Observed
Probability
(p)
Blaine 1254 840 1.85 1.92 .07* 1.46 .137
Grade 9 382 263 1.86 2.11 .25* 2.66 .008
Grade 10 462 272 1.92 1.85 -.08 0.89 .374
Grade 11 221 272 1.23 1.71 .48* 4.43 .001
AA 199 120 1.34 1.07 -.27*-2.21 .028
EL 228 169 1.11 1.25 .14*1.56 .121
H/L 284 232 1.53 1.90 .37*3.63 .001
SED 584 463 1.78 1.94 .16*2.29 .022
* p < .150 (statistically significant).
Since p< .150 for the entire school over all [t (2094) = .137, p< .150], and
for all groups and subgroups with the exception of 10
th
grade and AA students,
Table 11 results show statistically significant gains for the 2-year period. The
interventions used at McKnight High School were not used at this school.
Unfortunately, at Cassino Blaine, results indicate that the academic achievement
of the AA students on the 2007 CST decreased significantly by more than one-
fourth of a performance band (.27), t (319) = .028, p< .15, increasing the
achievement gap that existed between AA students and their peers. The
62
performance of the same subgroup at McKnight was .31, a difference of .31
(-.27), or .58 of a performance band. English Learners at Cassino Blaine High
School increased in their CST performance band differences t (397) = 1.56, p<
.15, a significant change, whereas the EL students at McKnight fell one-tenth of a
band, a significant change. Cassino Blaine High School EL students exceeded the
EL students at McKnight by .14 (-.10) or .24, a quarter of a performance band.
Hispanic or Latino students at Cassino Blaine High School made the
greatest gains of the non-grade subgroups. Their change was more than one-third
of a performance band (.37), where t (556) = .3.63, p< .15. Their band difference
compared to McKnight High School’s H/L students was .37 (.13), or .24 greater
than McKnight.
The change for Cassino Blaine students, as a whole, was not practically
significant because Cohen’s d was less than .20 at .07 as shown in Table 12, row
1, column 5; however, the Cohen’s d for H/L students was .36, greater than the
.20, the present threshold for practical significance. It also surpassed the present
percent change requirement of .10 at .25 (indicating practical significance).
The 9
th
grade H/L, and EL subgroups showed practically significant
growth in the Basic and above performance band at 4%, whereas the school, as a
whole, did not show a practically significant gain.
Table 13 displays pre/post results by using the percent of students who
scored Basic or above on the CST at Cassino Blaine High School.
63
Table 12
Pre Versus Post: Control School #1 (Cassino Blaine) Performance Band
Differences—Practical Significance
Grouping
Pre M
2005
Pre SD
2005
Post - Pre
Mean
Change
Effect Size
(Cohen’s d)
Percent
Change
Blaine 1.85 1.12 0.07 .07 4
Grade 9 1.86 1.15 0.25 .22* 14*
Grade 10 1.92 1.07 -0.08 -.08 -4
Grade 11 1.23 1.13 0.48 -.02 -1
AA 1.34 1.07 -0.27 -.26 -21
EL 1.11 0.85 0.14 .17 13*
H/L 1.53 1.05 0.37 .36* 25*
SED 1.78 1.11 0.16 .15 9
* = Effect size > .20 (practical significance); % change > .10
Table 13
Pre Versus Post: Control School #1 (Cassino Blaine) CST ELA Percent Basic and Above
Grouping
Pre treatment
% (2005)
Post
treatment %
(2007)
Pre/Post
Change
Effect Size
(Cohn’s d)
Percent
Change
Blaine 64.3 65.1 0.8 .01 1.2
Grade 9 62.3 73.4 11.1 .17 17.8*
Grade 10 68.3 61.1 -7.2 -.12 -10.5
Grade 11 61.6 60.4 -1.2 .12 -1.9
AA 45.2 31.7-13.5-.27 -29.9
EL 34.6 427.4.15 21.4*
L/H 54.6 51.7-2.9.09 -5.4
SED 61.5 67.6 6.1 .13 9.9
Note: NCLB significance for percent change is .10 or 10%
64
Table 14 examines pre/post results using the percent of students scoring
Proficient or above the NCLB requirement. Table 12 shows that Cassino Blaine
High School EL, H/L, and SED students were on track for meeting the NCLB
goal for 2014 100% proficiency; however, the AA students were not. The 30.8%
drop in percent of students Proficient in ELA was more than troubling, requiring
strategic interventions at Cassino Blaine.
Table 14
Pre Versus Post: Cassino Blaine CST ELA Percent Proficient or Above
Grouping
Pre-
treatment
% (2005)
Post-
treatment
% (2007)
Pre/Post
Change
Effect Size
(Cohn’s d)
Pre/Post
% Change
Blaine 28.5 34.3 5.8 .12 20.4*
Grade 9 29.6 43.7 14.1 .19 47.6*
Grade 10 30 27.1 -2.9 -.00 -9.7
Grade 11 25.6 31.6 6 .71* 23.4*
AA 15.6 10.8 -4.8 .13 -30.8
EL 3.1 7.7 4.6 .27* 148.4*
L/H 15.8 23.7 7.9 .52* 50.0*
SED 25.2 34.3 9.1 .21* 36.1*
* = Statistical Significance, when Effect Size > .20; % change > .10 or 10%, for Practical
Significance.
Note: Effect size (Cohen’s d) > .20 for practical significance. The NCLB ELA
target for 2006/2007: 22.3%.
65
Tables 15-17 show data organized for Marion Saxon High School, control
school #2: statistical findings for pre/post performance and differences, tests for
practical significance using Cohen’s d (p> .20), practical significance for percent
change, % > .10, and progress towards the NCLB target for the intervention
school year (22.3%).
Table 15
Pre Versus Post: Marion Saxon High School CST ELA Performance Band
Differences—Statistical Findings
Grouping
Pre
N
2005
Post N
2007
Pre M
2005
Post
M
2007
Pre–Post
Mean
Difference
t –
ratio
Observed
Probability
Marion
Saxon
639 462 1.62 1.81 0.19* 2.61 .009
Grade 9 205 152 1.84 2.22 0.38* 2.84 .005
Grade 10 198 140 1.51 1.62 0.11 0.91 .362
Grade 11 241 170 1.52 1.61 0.09 0.78 .438
AA 164 72 1.111.19 0.08 .59 .560
EL 134 129 0.991.16 0.161.35 .178
H/L 82 74 1.441.39 -0.052.80 .780
SED 269 263 1.57 1.81 0.25*2.36 .019
* = Statistical Significance, when Effect Size > .20; % change > .10 or 10%, for Practical
Significance.
Table 15 results show statistically significant gains for the entire school
overall [t(1101) = .009, p < .15], for 9
th
grade [t(357) = .005, p< .15], and lower
66
SED [t(532) = 2.61, p< .15]. Unfortunately no progress was made in closing or
minimizing the achievement gap for three of the four subgroups: African-
American students improved .08 or 8% of a performance band; the performance
of the same group at McKnight High School was .31, a difference of .31, -.08, or
.24 of a performance band; EL students at Marion Saxon High School improved
.16 ,and H/L students failed to show significant growth on the 2007 CST, with the
H/L students decreasing by 5% of a Performance Band (.05), t(156) = .780.
Table 16 shows practical significance at Marion Saxon High School
(Cohen’s d) and percent change for practical significance. Table 16 results also
mirror the results of Table 15—only the SED group of students had an effect size
greater than .20 for practical significance; however, the EL students met or
exceeded the preset practical significant growth threshold of .10. The 9
th
grade
made significant growth, subsequently helping the school, as a whole, meet the
preset practical significance goal.
Table 17 examines pre/post results by using the percent of students who
scored Basic or above on the CST at Marion Saxon High School.
67
Table 16
Pre Versus Post: Marion Saxon Performance Band Differences—Practical
Significance
Grouping
Pre M
2005
Pre SD
2005
Pre/Post
Mean
Change
Effect Size
(Cohen’s d)
Percent
Change
Marion
Saxon
1.62 1.15 0.19 0.17 12*
Grade 9 1.84 1.19 0.38* 0.32* 21*
Grade 10 1.51 1.13 0.11 0.10 8
Grade 11 1.52 1.11 0.10 0.09 6
AA 1.11 1.02 0.08 0.10 8
EL 0.99 0.86 0.16 0.19 16*
H/L 1.44 1.03 -0.05 -.05 -3
SED 1.57 1.13 0.25* .22* 16*
* = Effect size > .20 (practical significance); % change > .10 (NCLB
significance).
The 9
th
grade and EL students showed practically significant growth in the
Basic and above performance band and the school, as a whole, did not show a
practically significant gain.
68
Table 17
Pre Versus Post: Marion Saxon CST ELA Percent Basic and Above
Grouping
Pre
treatment
% (2005)
Post
treatment
% (2007)
Pre/Post
Change
Effect Size
(Cohn’s d)
Percent
Change
Marion
Saxon
53.7 58.6 4.9 .10 9.1
Grade 9 60.4 69.1 8.7 .39* 14.4*
Grade 10 49.8 54 4.2 .10 8.4
Grade 11 51.1 52.9 1.8 .03 3.5
AA 33.1 37.5 4.4 .08 13.3*
EL 26.3 36.410.1 .22* 38.4*
L/H 46.3 45.9 -0.4 -.01 -0.9
SED 53.2 58.6 5.4 .11 10.2*
Table 18, as with McKnight and Cassino Blaine High Schools, shows the
percent of students Proficient and above. In Table 18, only the effect sizes of the
SED and EL subgroups at Marion Saxon were greater than .20 (practically
significant. Two of the four non-grade subgroups at Marion Saxon were on track
for the NCLB 2014 target of 22.3% Proficient and above, and only two of the four
met the preset 10% threshold for practical significance.
69
Table 18
Pre Versus Post: Marion Saxon CST ELA Percent Proficient or Above
Grouping
Pre
treatment %
(2005)
Post
treatment %
(2007)
Pre/Post
% Change
Effect Size
(Cohn’s d)
Pre/Post
Change
Marion
Saxon
23.3 31.9 8.6* .21 36.9
Grade 9 28 46.1 18.1 .18 64.6
Grade 10 21.9 26.6 4.7 .15 21.5
Grade 11 20.3 23.5 3.2 .08 15.8
AA 10.4 11.1 0.7 .00 6.7
EL 3 11.6 8.6* .42 286.7
L/H 17.1 14.9 -2.2 -.06 -12.9
SED 22.7 33.1 10.4* .25 45.8
* = Statistical Significance, when Effect Size > .20; % change > .10 or 10%, for Practical
Significance (NCLB significance).
Note: The NCLB Target for ELA for 2006/2007: 22.3%.
Table 19 shows that the APIs of the control schools declined by 34 and 85
points respectively, whereas the API of McKnight High School increased by 56
points over the 2-year study. Table 19 also shows that the difference in the
percents Proficient and above at Cassino Blaine and Marion Saxon were 5.8
(20%) increase and 8.6 (37%) increase respectively, over the 2-year study;
whereas the difference in the percents Proficient and above in ELA at McKnight
High School over the 2-year study was 14 (55%) increase.
70
Table 19
API School-wide Comparisons
Cassino Blaine Marion Saxon McKnight
Grouping 2005 2007 Change 2005 2007 Change 2005 2007 Change
API 701 667 -34 725 640 -85 628 684 56
Percent
Proficient
and
Above
28.5 34.3 5.8 23.3 31.9 8.6 25.4 39.4 14
Percent
Basic
and
Above
64.3 65.1 0.8 53.7 58.6 4.9 52.8 63.1 10.3
Table 20 shows that the API comparisons of the African-American
students at the Cassino Blaine and Marion Saxon High Schools declined 93 and
27 points respectively, over the 2-year period; whereas the API of the African-
American students at McKnight High School increased by 85 points over the 2-
year study.
Table 20 also shows that the difference in the percents Proficient and
above at Cassino Blaine and Marion Saxon for AA students were -4.8 (31%) and
0.7 (7%) respectively, over the 2-year study; whereas the difference in the
percents Proficient and above in ELA for AA students at McKnight High School
over the 2-year study was 7.4 (135%).
71
Table 20
API Comparisons by Ethnicity: API, Percent Proficient and Above, and Percent
Basic and Above
Cassino Blaine Marion Saxon McKnight
African
Am.
2005
2007
Change
2005
2007
Change
2005
2007
Change
API 581 488 -93 496 469 -27 458 543 85
Percent
Proficient
and
Above
15.6 10.8 -4.8 10.4 11.1 0.7 5.5 12.9 7.4
Percent
Basic
and
Above
45.2 31.7 -13.5 33.1 37.5 4.4 26.4 37.6 11.2
Table 21 shows that the API comparisons of the English Learners at the
Control Schools declined by 38 and 58 points respectively, over the 2-year period
and the API of the English Learners at the Experimental School decreased by 35
points over the 2-year study.
The EL department attributes the decrease in API and CST scores to the
large number of newcomer students who transferred to McKnight High School
both in the fall and spring semesters, who refused to put forth any effort in classes
and whose parents (when called by the bilingual parent liaison or bilingual para-
professionals) reported that they had no control over their children and that the
children were not responsive to their parenting efforts.
72
Table 21
API Comparisons by Ethnicity: API, Percent Proficient and Above, and Percent
Basic and Above
Cassino Blaine Marion Saxon McKnight
English
Learners
2005
2007
Change
2005
2007
Change
2005
2007
Change
API 698 660 -38 683 625 -58 635 600 -35
Percent
Proficient
and
Above
3.1 7.7 4.6 3 11.6 8.6 6.3 4.3 -2
Percent
Basic
and
Above
34.6 42 7.4 26.3 36.4 10.1 30.0 28.6 -1.4
The EL department attributes the decrease in API and CST scores to the
large number of newcomer students who transferred to McKnight High School
both in the fall and spring semesters, who refused to put forth any effort in classes
and whose parents (when called by the bilingual parent liaison or bilingual para-
professionals) reported that they had no control over their children and that the
children were not responsive to their parenting efforts. These students were not
only low-functioning EL students, but also SED students. Additionally, other
comprehensive high schools refused to accept Level 1 EL (non-English speaking)
students because their master schedule did not accommodate the beginners.
Therefore, five of the southeast comprehensive high schools (which include the
73
three schools in this study) received the lower functioning EL students entering
the district, subsequently resulting in lower APIs and CST scores.
Table 21 also shows that the difference in the percents Proficient and
above at Cassino Blaine and Marion Saxon for EL students were 4.6 (148%
change) and 8.6 (287% change) respectively, over the 2-year study; whereas the
difference in the percents Proficient and above in ELA for EL students at
McKnight High School declined over the 2-year study by 5.5 (84%).
Table 22 shows that the API comparisons of the H/L students at the
control schools declined by 57 points (9%)and 166 points (23%) respectively,
over the 2-year period and the API of the H/L students at McKnight High School
decreased by 7 points (1%) over the 2-year study. All three schools experienced
negative growth by the subgroup, although unacceptable, the decline at McKnight
was not as large in the control schools.
Table 22 also shows that the difference in the percents Proficient and
above at Cassino Blaine and Marion Saxon for H/L students were 7.9 (a 50%
increase) and -2.2 (a 13% drop) respectively, over the 2-year study; whereas the
difference in the percents Proficient and above in ELA for H/L students at
McKnight High School over the 2-year study was 3.7 (a 20% increase).
74
Table 22
API Comparisons by Ethnicity: API, Percent Proficient and Above, and Percent
Basic and Above
Cassino Blaine Marion Saxon McKnight
H/L
2005
2007
Change
2005
2007
Change
2005
2007
Change
API 629 572 -57 712 546 -166 584 577 -7
Percent
Proficient
and
Above
15.8 23.7 7.9 17.1 14.9 -2.2 18.9 22.6 3.7
Percent
Basic
and
Above
54.6 51.7 -2.9 46.3 45.9 0.4 43.4 49.1 5.7
The API comparisons in Table 23 of the SED students at the control
schools indicated a decrease of 11 and 69 points respectively; whereas the API of
the SED students at the experimental school increased by 42 points over the 2-
year study.
Table 23 also shows the percent Proficient of the SED subgroup at the
control schools changed by 9.1 (36%) and 10.4 (46%) respectively, whereas
McKnight increased 13.5 (61%). Changes in Basic and above were dramatically
different for McKnight High School and the two schools in that Cassino Blaine’s
change was 10%, Marion Saxon’s change was 12%, and McKnight’s change was
10.2.
75
Table 23
API Comparisons by Ethnicity: API, Percent Proficient and Above, and Percent
Basic and Above
Cassino Blaine Marion Saxon McKnight
SED
Students
2005
2007
Change
2005
2007
Change
2005
2007
Change
API 689 678 -11 712 643 -69 609 651 42
Percent
Proficient
and
Above
25.2 34.3 9.1 22.7 33.1 10.4 22.0 35.4 13.5
Percent
Basic
and
Above
61.5 67.6 6.1 52.2 58.6 6.4 48.5 58.7 10.2
Table 23 also shows the percent Proficient of the SED subgroup at the
control schools changed by 9.1 (36%) and 10.4 (46%) respectively, whereas
McKnight increased 13.5 (61%). Changes in Basic and above were dramatically
different for McKnight High School and the two schools in that Cassino Blaine’s
change was 10%, Marion Saxon’s change was 12%, and McKnight’s change was
10.2.
76
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
As educators search for strategies to minimize or eliminate the
achievement gaps that exist between identified economically disadvantaged
subgroups of students as compared to their advantaged peers, very little should be
overlooked. Doing nothing different is not an option; therefore, the implications
for future practice in our efforts to determine solutions to eliminate or minimize
the gap must continue with a sense of urgency.
Summary
Results in Chapter 4 show that McKnight High School made significant
gains school-wide, in all grades, and in two of the disadvantaged subgroups
studied. In fact, given the negligible drop in the H/L API and the positive
changes in all groups with the exception of EL students at the school, it seems
reasonable to be cautiously optimistic in concluding that with all other variables at
the school remaining relatively constant, the implementation of the strategies did
improve academic achievement of the students.
The following McKnight High School gains occurred in the 2-year study as
compared to the control schools:
77
• McKnight’s school API increased 56 points; the two control schools
declined 34 and 85 points, respectively.
• The API of AA students increased 85 points; the two control schools
declined 93 and 27 points, respectively.
• The API of socioeconomically disadvantaged students increased by 42
points at McKnight; percents for both control groups declined 11 and 69
points, respectively.
• The percent of McKnight High School students Proficient and above
increased by 14%; the control schools increased by 5.8 and 8.6,
respectively.
• The percent of AA students Proficient and above increased by 7.4 at
McKnight; percents for the control schools decreased 4.8 and increased
0.7, respectively.
• The percent of H/L students Proficient and above increased by 3.7; the
control schools changed by 7.9 and -2.2 respectively.
• The percent of Socio-economically Disadvantaged students scoring
Proficient and above increased by 13.5 at McKnight; the control schools
increased by 9.1 and 10.4 respectively.
Careful examination of the data reveals that with the exception of the English
Learners, the increase in academic achievement as measured by the API and by
percent Proficient and above is noteworthy.
78
Qualitative Analysis
Generally speaking, the early qualitative findings did not reflect the
positive results in Chapter 4. Initial interviews and surveys with teachers
indicated a lack of buy-in as to the effectiveness of modifying their teaching
styles to include elementary strategies such as using popsicle sticks, chips, or
cards to ensure randomization of questioning. Additionally, in an effort to build
capacity for leadership, teacher leaders who were visiting their peers’ classrooms
to offer support were uncomfortable observing other teachers, and teacher support
waned. Administrative oversight was almost nonexistent except in periodic
formal evaluations, where teachers could use the strategies at that time only and
informal observations by only one assistant principal.
Fortunately, when preliminary data were formulated, interpreted, and
shared with staff, meeting or surpassing the NCLB significance and meeting the
NCLB proficiency targets for 2006-2007 seemed to trigger a pride in the teachers
who had been using the selected strategies and more interest in using the
strategies emerged from many of the skeptics. Previous efforts to implement
other school-wide initiatives showed initial similar resistance to changing teacher
practice, necessitating years of support and accountability before the practices
were adopted.
79
Evaluating the Teacher Training
Teachers’ reactions to the “Principal’s Professional Expectations” (see
Appendix D for results) that they implement new teaching strategies were
overwhelmingly less than positive. They complained that they had too little time
to make lesson plans that included Bloom’s (1956) higher order questions.
Teachers said that the request for accountability (documentation) was too time
consuming, and without proper training they were right. The percent of teachers
implementing the strategies fell from approximately 85% to less than half,
because the administration failed to consistently assess the results of their
training. Ensuring a positive reaction to the implementation of the strategies,
providing sufficient learning to use them while teaching, and ensuring competent
acquisition of the processes necessary for delivery of them (behavior), could have
produced different results.
The four platforms necessary for providing the delivery of a successful
training program: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006) were missing from the implementation of the strategies which
could account for the lack of complete teacher participation. According to Clark
and Estes (2002), employees need demonstrations, guided practice, and feedback
in order to perfect a new procedure. A back-end prospective leads me to believe
that the teachers did not receive sufficient demonstrations and guided practice to
become proficient in using the strategies. Although teacher responses to the
80
initial surveys (Appendix I) were not positive, the administration pushed forward
with the plan, using a sense of urgency as a rationale. Insufficient planning
preceded the teacher training prior to adding the strategies to the school-wide
initiatives and Principal’s Expectations (Appendix D). Unfortunately, this made
teachers accountable before they were competent to use the strategies. Future
practices by the administration will include the four platforms used to evaluate a
successful training program so that we may train the teachers to do a better job of
teaching the strategies.
Continuing to Create Professional Learning Communities
Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessing
Future professional practice must continue to include the latest research
and uses of Bloom’s work (1956). Feedback from multiple district observations
and outside unbiased professionals indicated that McKnight High School teachers
have continued to ask lower-level questions, as most of the questions that teachers
ask are lower in structure (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).
The administration and staff believe that to analyze student (others)
progress in learning, there are four questions to be considered (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001): (a) the learning question, (b) the instruction question, (c) the
assessment question, and (d) the alignment question. For the purposes of
checking for understanding, the staff focused on the assessment question;
81
however, if the assessments are not aligned to the objectives and instruction, they
will be invalid. Their relationship is symbiotic in nature. According to an article
in the Journal of Curriculum and Supervision (Harpaz, 2005), effective learning
is basically a function of the alignment of teaching styles and content to the
learner’s learning style and intelligences—when instructional methods and
content are adapted to their individual learning styles and profile of intelligences
(Sternberg, 1997). Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) two dimensional taxonomy
table can serve as a graphic organizer to facilitate, at least at the surface level,
comparisons of objectives with assessments, objectives with instruction, and
instruction with assessments. The graphic organizer in Table 22 will assist
teachers in developing factual, knowledge, procedural, conceptual, and meta-
cognitive questions along the hierarchy levels. Although relatively shallow
comparisons are made, the framework has carefully defined terms and
organization that provide precision across all three comparisons.
When notations for objectives, for instruction, and for assessment appear
in alignment, effective teaching can occur. Teachers must align the objectives,
instruction, and assessments for most students to learn, especially the students of
this study. Professional development for accomplishing this can occur during
regular teacher common planning time for content areas.
82
Table 24
The Cognitive Dimensions
The
Knowledge
Dimension
1.
Remember
2.
Understand
3.
Apply
4.
Analyze
5.
Evaluate
6.
Create
A.
Factual
Knowledge
Activities
Activities
Activities
B.
Conceptual
Knowledge
Objective
1
Activities
Activities
Objective
3
Activities
C.
Procedural
Knowledge
Activities
for
Objective
4
Objective
4
D.
Meta-
cognitive
Knowledge
Objective 2
More specifically, the focus at McKnight High School will continue to be
assessment centered on gathering information about student learning while
learning is taking place, so that changes in “in-flight” instruction may occur to
maximize the quality and quantity of learning (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p.
101). Teachers attempted to integrate the assessment into the instruction for the
purpose of formative assessment (which is to improve student learning while
instruction occurs).
More professional development and practice in The New (Bloom’s
revisited and revised) Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) will allow for a
83
more distributed assessment permitting the teacher to examine the questioning
process more broadly than by using the six single original cognitive dimensions
alone, as defined initially by Bloom in 1913 (the dimensions that the school-wide
initiatives used). The new taxonomy will allow the teacher to consider the
process as it relates to the lesson’s objective within four broader knowledge
dimensions: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge,
and meta-cognitive knowledge. The six cognitive processes can be used in each
of the knowledge dimensions, a fact that was not explicit when using the Creative
Teaching Products charts that were used to promote Bloom’s higher order
thinking skills in the 2-year study at McKnight High School.
The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
In a continuing effort to make the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy more
current, in the future, the school will study Marzano and Kendall’s (2007) revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy. The authors believe that three domains of knowledge are the
focus of the new taxonomy: information, mental procedures, and psychomotor
procedures. When comparing the three taxonomies, Bloom (1956), Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) as well as Marzano and Kendall (2007) place the information
domain at the low end of the hierarchy and generalizations and principles are
higher levels of information. Marzano and Kendall’s (2007) work is three
84
dimensional with information, mental, and psychomotor procedures spanning all
six levels. The design of the new taxonomy is depicted in Figure 2.
Levels of Processing
Figure 2. The New Taxonomy
Source: Marzano & Kendall, 2007, p. 13.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
m
o
t
o
r
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
M
e
n
t
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
Level 6:
Self-System
Level 5:
Meta-cognitive System
Level 4:
Knowledge Utilization (Cognitive System)
Level 3:
Analysis (Cognitive System)
Level 2:
Comprehension (Cognitive System)
Level 1:
Retrieval
Domains of
Knowledge
(Cognitive System)
85
Classroom Instruction that Improves
Academic Achievement
The school will continue to have an effective Black Board Configuration
(BBC) (Appendix B) in every classroom where the AIM (or student friendly
phrased California Standard) is a partial answer to making the learning question
transparent to students, staff, parents, and administration alike. The components
of the BBC provide consistency in the organization of instruction in the school:
the “Do Now” of the BBC prepares everyone in every classroom for the day’s
lesson as soon as the bell rings: the immediate quiet 3 to 5 minutes, individual
pen to paper beginning of the class sets the tone for learning throughout the
school; the AIM allows students to know what they will be able to learn during
that particular class period; the Lesson Steps provide an outline for progressing
through a learning hierarchy and homework provides reinforcement of the day’s
lesson and says that it was important and should be reinforced.
Clearly, questions alone will not improve the academic achievement of the
African-Americans (AA), English Learners (EL), Hispanic or Latino (H/L), and
children living in poverty, categorized as socio-economically disadvantaged
students. Good teaching must occur within the classroom.
Of the nine research-based strategies that appear in a plethora of books,
questions is only one part of one of the strategies: questions, clues, and advanced
organizers (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). In order to help the students
86
analyze and critique information, teachers, too, must have analytic skills. They
must be able to (a) analyze errors in reasoning, (b) determine if the reasoning is
misleading, and (c) determine if the answer could be corrected or improved.
Additionally, teachers must be able to construct support by determining an
argument to support a claim, and they must be able to identify some limitations of
this argument or what the underlying assumptions might be. They must be able to
analyze perspectives by determining why someone might consider the question or
answer as good, bad, or neutral, and provide the reason behind the perspective, or
alternative perspectives and reasoning behind them.
Many educators have these analytic skills but teaching them to students
can be daunting. As a result, the administration of the school will provide
teachers with professional development on analytic questioning so that they will
elevate the thinking capacity of the students. This can be designed by other
teacher leaders who have shown the ability to analyze and teach students to
analyze and critique information.
10
th
Grade Class Size Reduction
With the success of state imposed 9
th
grade Mathematics and English
class-size reduction, the staff would like to expand the concept to the 10
th
grade.
Although Brewer (Brewer, Krop, Gill, & Reichardt; 1999) suggest that class size
reduction is not cost effective and may have little or no effect on improving
87
academic achievement. However, the staff at McKnight High School feels
differently. Yearly prioritizing the needs and wants of the staff continues to
indicate that more effective teaching and learning can occur with smaller classes
in the 10
th
grade. This strategy, reducing the size of their classes from 35 to 30,
according to the staff, minimizes the number of conflicting personalities of
sophomores. According to the teachers, they will be able to give the sophomores
more individual attention making the transition from the 9
th
grade classes that are
state mandated at 20:1 much easier. Recent statewide budget cuts to education
may make this impossible. McKnight has a projected cut of more than $300,000.
The task of accomplishing smaller classes will be magical considering the fact
that most of the money is currently in personnel.
Accountability
Continue to Do a Gap Analysis
In order to affect real change, we must continue to align our expectations
for teachers to implement the strategies with professional development,
assessments of their implementation, and surveys of what they need and consider
causes of the gaps in their performance. Only then can we identify appropriate
solutions—by diagnosing the human causes so that we can give teachers the
proper support (Clark & Estes, 2002).
88
Conduct Book/CD Talks
Periodically teachers had been given books or CDs as gifts from the
school’s administration. Previously, the teachers were given a CD of Good to
Great for the Social Sector (Collins, 2006). As a winter break gift, teachers were
given Checking for Understanding by Fisher and Frey (2007). Previously there
had been no follow-up conversations about the books or CDs. Currently we have
teacher “Book Talks” at the beginning of each faculty meeting. Faculty meetings
begin with a teacher summarizing a book that they are reading or that they have
read. Beginning Wednesday, February 27, 2008, the School-wide Initiatives’
agenda included a book-talk on the seven chapters of Checking for Understanding
by Fisher and Frey (2007). Each of the department members and the seven
department chairs were assigned a chapter to read and discuss with their
department members. The separate departments reconvened and shared what they
had read with the other staff members. This session lasted approximately 75
minutes.
It was hoped this professional development session would convince the
staff of the value of the book as a resource. Ensuring that the staff read a book
(which was a gift) was suggested by a teacher who commuted an hour each way
to work and decided to spend that time with the book. He found Checking for
Understanding enlightening, helpful, and interesting. The concept was not
foreign, because previously we had had book talks at faculty meetings. The
89
school ordered Classroom Instruction that Works by Marzano, Pickering, and
Pollock (2001), so that during March and April’s School-wide Initiatives
professional development, we would follow a similar protocol (with teacher input
from the previous professional development) as we read the second book. It was
hoped that teachers, other than the department chairs, would volunteer to lead the
talks. I confessed to the staff my ulterior motives for giving them books as
presents. They simply chuckled.
Peer Observations and Videotaping Teachers
Teachers were professionally developed in analyzing and collecting data
from video tapes of colleagues teaching (Appendix K). Teachers got very
nervous when the administrative team and I visited classrooms. Therefore, after
encouragement from Andy Platt and his workshops with McKnight staff, teachers
agreed with, and accepted, the concept of videotaping teachers for gathering data
for critique and support.
It was decided to use the School Leadership Team (SLT) members to do
so and coordinate peer observations and coaching. Five department chairs had
been videotaping the strategies implemented in the study in order to build trust
and a willingness to be critiqued. During the second 75 minutes of the February
27
th
School-wide Initiatives Wednesday meeting, teachers met again in their
departments to view the videotapes and to discuss the teaching strategies, and ask
90
non-judgmental questions about the department chair’s practice. Subsequently,
the Visual and Performing Arts pathway agreed to videotape willing/volunteer
teachers for the teachers to view, collect data, and ask non-judgmental questions
during the second 75 minutes of the meetings in March and April. These critique
sessions began by departments and ultimately ended in larger or smaller
communities of the school. We evaluated the process and determined its future.
Consistently Monitor Implementation
We continued, but with more frequency, administrative and School
Leadership Team walks-through classrooms with feedback provided. The
administrative rotation schedule (Appendix J), the BBC rubric (Appendix B), and
the quick Explicit Direct Instruction check lists (Appendix F) provided quick and
easy feedback and response.
Additionally, we will collect and disaggregate the data from this year’s
California Standards Tests and STAR API data as well as data from the upcoming
2008-2009 school year for a 3-year study of the effectiveness. With better teacher
implementation, support, and monitoring more faith in the research results may
occur. We will continue employing strategies to close or reduce the achievement
gap for the students at McKnight High School, because doing nothing different is
not an option.
91
SELECTED REFERENCES
Alexander, P.A., Kulikowich, J.M., & Schulze, S.K. (1994). How subject-matter
knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research
Journal, 31 (2), 313-337.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). The taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman & Co.
Bennett, A., Bridgall, B., Cauce, A., Everson, H., Gordon, E., Lee, C., et al.
(2004). All students reaching the top: Strategies for closing academic
achievement gaps. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook 1: Cognitive
domain. Longman, NY: Longman Publishers.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations artistry, choice, and
leadership (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: A Wiley Imprint.
Brewer, D., Krop, C., Gill, B., Reichardt, R. (1999, Summer). Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (2) 179-192.
California Department of Education, 2006 Adequate Yearly Progress Report.
Retrieved September 19, 2007 from,
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AccntRpt2007/2007APRSchAYPReport.
Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results. Atlanta, GA: CEP
Press.
Collins, J. (2006). Good to great for the social sector. Mixed and Mastered by
Akashic Recording Studio, Bolder, CO. & Richard Romaniello.
Cooper, P. & Morreale, S. (2003). Creating competent communicators:
Activities for teaching, speaking, listening, and media literacy in K -6
classrooms. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Creative Teaching Products (2004). www.CreativeThinkingProducts.com.
92
Creswell, J. (2005). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
method approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cruncher. (2006). Cruncher–Microsoft Internet Explorer Cruncher Inc.,
Lighthouse School Products, Customized Student Information
Software for San Francisco Unified School District. Clovis, CA.
Available from www.Cruncher.com.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Learning to teach for social change. Columbia,
NY: Teacher’s College.
Davis, O.L.,& Tinsley, D. (1967). Cognitive objectives revealed by classroom
questions asked by social studies teachers and their pupils. Peabody
Journal of Education, 44, 21-26.
EdSource. (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource, Inc.
Fillippone, M. (1998). Questioning at the elementary level. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Kean University, Tom River, NJ. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 417431).
Fishbein, H.D., Eckart, T., Lanver, E., Van Leeuwan, R., & Langmeyer, D.
(1990). Learners, questions, and comprehension in a tutoring session.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 163-170.
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding. Alexander, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fullen, M., Rolheiser, C., Mascall, B., & Edge, K. (2001). Accomplishing large
scale reform: A tri-level proposition. Journal of Educational Change.
Retrieved, February 20, 2008, from http://edplan.cps.k12.il.us/goals.html.
Gambrell, L., Koskinen, P. S., & Kapinus, B.A. (1991). Retelling and the reading
comprehension of proficient and less proficient readers. Journal of
Educational Research, 84, 356-362.
Grendler, M. (2005). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. Columbus,
OH: Pearson Prentice Hall.
93
Guan Eng Ho, D. (2005). Why do teachers ask questions they ask? RELC
Journal, 36, 297-310.
Guszak, F. (1967). Teacher questioning and reading. The Reading Teacher, 21,
227-234.
Harpaz, Y. (2005, Winter). Teaching and learning in a community of thinking.
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(2), 136-157.
Harris, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy
effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 363-386.
Heward, W., Gardner, R., III, Cavanaugh, R., Courson, F., Grossi, T, & Barbetta,
P. (1996). Everyone participates in this class: Using response cards to
increase active student response. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2),
4-10.
Hill, J. & Flynn, K. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English
language learners. Alexander, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing teaching and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.),
Using what we know about teaching (pp. 169-172). Alexander, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jackson, A. & Davis, G. (2000). Turning Points 2000 Educating Adolescents for
the 20
th
Century. Teachers College Press.
Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs (3
rd
ed).
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, A Sage Publications Co.
Marzano, R., Pickering, & Pollock (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
94
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Monroe, L. (1997). Nothing’s impossible: Leadership lessons from inside and
outside the lassroom. New York: Public Affairs, Perseus Book Group.
Mueller, D. (1973). Teacher questioning practices in reading. Reading World,
12(2), 136-145.
Narayan, J., Heward, W., Gardner, R., Courson, F., & Omness, C. (1990). Using
response cards to increase student participation in an elementary
classroom. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 23, 483-490.
Laws and Regulations (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved
January 10, 2008, from
http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/laws/nclba/nclba.html.
Omrod, J. (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (4
th
ed.).
Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
Ozungor, S., & Guthrie, J. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation,
knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from
text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 437-443.
Platt, A., Tripp, C., Fraser, R., Warnock, J., Curtis, R. (2008). The skillful leader
II: Confronting conditions that undermine learning. Acton, MA:
Research for Better Teaching.
Platt, A., Tripp, C., Ogden, W., & Fraser, R. (2000). The skillful leader. Acton,
MA: Ready About Press.
Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental
research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational
Research, 51(2), 237-245.
Rosendaal, B. (2003). Systems mediating acute glucocorticoid effects on memory
consolidation and retrieval. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology
Biological Psychiatry, 27(8), 1213-1223.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to
generate questions. A review of the intervention studies. Review of
Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.
95
Rothenberg, C., & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching English language learners: A
differentiated approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
San Francisco Unified School District. (2007, April 23) Weekly Bulletin.
Short, D. & Echevarria, J. (2004/2005, December /January). Teaching skills to
support English-language learners. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 8-13.
Smith, H.W. (1994). The ten natural laws of successful time and life
management. New York: Warner Books, Inc.
Stahl, R. (1994). Using “think time” and “wait-time” skillfully in the classroom
(ERIC Digest). Bloomington, IN. ERIC Clearinghouse for Social
Studies/Social Science Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED370885).
Sternberg, R. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stipek, D. (2004). Teaching practices in kindergarten and first grade: Different
strokes for different folks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 548-
568.
Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning.
Review of Educational Research, 57, 69-95.
Walsh, J. & Sattes, B. (2005). Quality questioning: Research-based practices that
engage every learner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cowin Press.
Williams vs. the State of California. (2002). Background: The Eleizer Williams,
et al. vs. State of California. Retrieved 3/20/07 from
www.yolocounty.org/org/bos/agendas/2005/102505/24.pdf.
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E., (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a
culture of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
96
APPENDIX A
CALIFORNIA AYP 2006 BY DISTRICT AND ETHNICITY
Dist Group Met AYP Dist Group Met AYP
Oak White Yes SF Asian Yes
SF White Yes LA Asian Yes
SD White Yes Oak White Yes
LB White Yes SD Asian Yes
LA Asian Yes SD White Yes
LB Filipino Yes LB Filipino Yes
SF Asian Yes LB White Yes
LA White Yes SF White Yes
SD Asian Yes Oak Asian Yes
SD Filipino Yes LA White Yes
Sac White Yes Sac Filipino Yes
LA Filipino Yes SD Filipino Yes
LB Amer Ind Yes LA Filipino Yes
Sac Filipino Yes LB Asian Yes
Fresno White Yes Sac White Yes
LB Asian Yes Sac Asian Yes
SD Amer Ind Yes Fresno Filipino Yes
Fresno Pac Island Yes SF District Yes
Oak Asian Yes SF Eng Learner Yes
Fresno Filipino Yes Fresno Pac Island Yes
SF Filipino Yes Oak Filipino Yes
SF District Yes Fresno White Yes
SD Pac Island Yes SD Amer Ind Yes
97
Dist Group Met AYP Dist Group Met AYP
Sac Asian Yes SD Pac Island Yes
SD District Yes SF Soc Disad Yes
Oak Filipino Yes SF Filipino Yes
LB District Yes SD District Yes
SF Soc Disad Yes LB Amer Ind Yes
Sac District Yes Sac District Yes
SF Eng Learner Yes LB District Yes
LA Amer Ind Yes Sac Amer Ind Yes
LA Pac Island Yes LA Pac Island Yes
Sac Amer Ind Yes Sac Eng Learner Yes
SF Amer Ind Yes LB Pac Island Yes
LB Pac Island Yes Oak Amer Ind --
SD Black Yes LA Amer Ind Yes
Sac Pac Island Yes LB Latino Yes
Fresno Amer Ind Yes Sac Pac Island Yes
LB Black Yes SF Amer Ind Yes
LB Latino Yes Sac Soc Disad Yes
LB Soc Disad Yes LB Soc Disad Yes
Oak District Yes Fresno Asian Yes
Oak Amer Ind -- Sac Latino Yes
SD Soc Disad Yes LB Eng Learner Yes
Sac Latino Yes SD Soc Disad Yes
Sac Soc Disad Yes LA District Yes
LA District Yes Oak District Yes
Fresno District Yes SD Latino Yes
Sac Black Yes SD Black Yes
98
Dist Group Met AYP Dist Group Met AYP
SF Latino Yes SF Pac Island Yes
SD Latino Yes Fresno District Yes
Sac Eng Learner Yes Fresno Amer Ind Yes
LA Black Yes SD Eng Learner Yes
LB Eng Learner Yes LA Soc Disad Yes
LA Soc Disad Yes LB Black Yes
SF Pac Island Yes Oak Eng Learner Yes
Oak Black Yes LA Latino Yes
Oak Soc Disad Yes SF Latino Yes
Fresno Asian Yes Sac Black Yes
LA Latino Yes Oak Soc Disad Yes
Fresno Latino Yes LA Eng Learner Yes
Fresno Black Yes Fresno Soc Disad Yes
Fresno Soc Disad Yes Fresno Latino Yes
SD Eng Learner Yes Oak Latino Yes
SF Black No Fresno Eng Learner Yes
Oak Eng Learner No LA Black Yes
Oak Latino No Oak Black Yes
LA Eng Learner No Fresno Black Yes
Oak Pac Island No SD Std w Disability Yes
SD Std w Disability Yes Oak Pac Island No
LB Std w Disability No SF Std w Disability No
SF Std w Disability No SF Black No
Oak Std w Disability No Sac Std w Disability Yes
Fresno Eng Learner No LB Std w Disability Yes
Sac Std w Disability Yes Oak Std w Disability No
99
Dist Group Met AYP Dist Group Met AYP
LA Std w Disability No LA Std w Disability Yes
Fresno Std w Disability No Fresno Std w Disability Yes
100
APPENDIX B
INFORMAL OBSERVATION
Teacher’s Name: __________________________________________________
Date:______________________ Period:__________
Subject:______________________
Observer: ________________________________________________________
DO NOW: Pen-to-paper, 3-4 minutes quantifiable, related to AIM (4 points)
AIM: Specific statement of what students will learn (identifies standard),
quantifiable, achievable within class time (4 points)
LESSON STEPS: Includes review of Do Now, frontal teaching, and a review of
lesson (4 points)
HOMEWORK: Review the lesson (4 points)
Total Score:____________________/16 points__________%
See Rubric on back for points.
Commendations/Recommendations:
Check box if the following strategies are observed:
Cornell Notes Positive Environment
Vocabulary Development Checking for Understanding
Writing Strategies Higher Order Thinking Skills
Exemplary Student Work Posted
Teacher Response:
_____________________________________________________________
The Lorraine Monroe Leadership Institute LMI
Adapted by: Aileen Murphy/Patricia J. Gray - McKnight High School 12/3/04
101
APPENDIX C
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Date Agenda Item Evaluation/Comments
School Leadership Team (SLT)
discuss the value of reviewing
Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive
process within the context, and
concepts of California Content
Standards.
Went well; SLT
receptive as long as we
infuse the strategies into
what they are already
asked to do black board
configuration (BBC,
checks for
understanding, etc.)
December 7, 2006
2
nd
Period
SLT discuss resources for
improvement: Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Continue to distribute flip charts for
Bloom’s with California Content
Standards.
December 12, 2006
2
nd
Period
SLT discuss resources for
improvement: Bloom’s Cognitive
Process and other strategies; discuss
what a good-to-great lesson looks
like (see comments). What are the
specific Expected Student Learning
Results (ESLRS) if different from
WASC ESLRS?
Indicates that the teacher
has unbundled the
standards; contains steps
in Bloom’s Cognitive
Process: Sheltered
Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP)
Strategies, Bundled ELA
and Content Standards;
frequent checks for
understanding while
teaching; uses
questioning strategies;
all directly related to the
CA Standard/AIM for
that day; clearly
indicated in the BBC
Lesson Steps.
December 12, 2006 Mid-Year Celebration Ask teachers to return in
the new year with a
resolve to teach students
the way that they learn!
January 2, 2007
SLT Department chairs analyze
taxonomy lessons and determine
tool/rubric for assessing Bloom’s
implementation
Department
See comments,
December 12, 2006
102
Date Agenda Item Evaluation/Comments
January 3, 2007
January 9, 2007
SLT Department chairs analyze
taxonomy
Lessons and Assessment Tool
Staff Meeting Resources for
Improvement (RFI): Preparing for
Effort Based Instruction and
Learning
See comments,
December 12, 2006,
SLT Meeting
January 10, 2007
January 16, 2007
January 17, 2007
January 23, 2007
January 23, 2007
January 24, 2007
School-Wide Initiatives (SWI):
Instructional Reform Facilitator
(IRF) (Ritter)
SLT Department Chairs Analyze
Taxonomy Lessons
Teacher Common Planning Time
(TCPT) Subject
No SLT Meeting (Exams)
No Staff Meeting (Exams)
No TCPT (Exams)
Consider SIOP
Strategies, Bundling
ELA and Content
Standards, and checks
for understanding
January 30, 2007
January 31, 2007
February 6, 2007
SLT Dept Chairs Analyze
Taxonomy
Lessons
SLC Bundling the Standards
SLT Prepare for Staff PD on SWI:
TCPT Wednesday, 02/14/07
February 7, 2007
February 13, 2007
February 13, 2007
February 14, 2007
Departments discuss SIOP Strategies
with Chair as Facilitator
SLT Refines Tool/Rubric for
Assessing Bloom’s use when
conducting walks-through
classrooms; share with staff on
balstaff.org for input.
Staff Meeting: SLT Models Lessons
SWI: SLT Models SS, ELA, World
Language, and Art/Media Lessons;
staff discusses
Initial SLT (groups) Walks-through
to test tool
Happy Valentines Day
103
Date Agenda Item Evaluation/Comments
February 21, 2007
February 27, 2007
Subject Meetings: SIOP Strategies,
Unbundling Core Standards,
Bundling
ELA and Core Standards, and
Bloom’s.
SLT reassess procedures and tool;
begins to discuss the process and
schedule for staff assessing student
work to determine the impact of the
infused initiatives of RFI (effort
based learning) and Bloom’s
taxonomy.
SLCs meet to Bundle ELA and Core
Content Standards.
SLT complete the plan for assessing
student work with anchors and
rubric.
March 7, 2007
March 13, 2007
March 13, 2007
March 14, 2007
Departments develop lessons with
target strategies
SLT complete plan staff PD for
03/14/07
SLT discuss and plan for staff
assessing student work
SWI: IRF does RFI and SLT
Models
Math, Science, PE/Health, and
Art/Music.
See comments,
December 12, 2006
March 20, 2007 and
March 27, 2007
March 21, 2007
March 27, 2007 –
3:30 PM
SLT observes classes during first 45
minutes of the period and return to
Room 112 for debriefing - 25
minutes.
Subject Meetings: PD on targeted
strategies.
Staff to discuss support needed to
infuse strategies. Discuss plan for
assessing student work
See comments,
December 12, 2006 for
expected [teacher]
learning results.
March 28, 2007
April 10, 2007
SLC collect student work to check
for effectiveness of Bundling ELA
and Core Standards.
SLC determine schedule and venue
for assessing student work;
Departments assess program
effectiveness.
104
Date Agenda Item Evaluation/Comments
April 11, 2007
RFI and SWI: SS, ELA, World
Language, and Art/Media Teacher
Presentations; staff discusses.
April 17, 2007 and
April 24, 2007
April 18, 2007
April 24, 2007 - 3:30
PM
April 25, 2007
SLT observes classes during first 45
minutes of the period and return to
Room 112 for debriefing - 25
minutes
SWI: Writing lessons with
strategies; share plans. Assessing
student work
Subject Meetings: SIOP Strategies,
Unbundling Core Standards,
Bundling
ELA and Core Standards, and
Bloom’s
May 6, 2007
May 8, 2007
SLT observes classes during first 45
minutes of the period and return to
Room 112 for debriefing - 25
minutes
Staff to share data of changes in
student performance resulting from
strategies.
Staff Meeting
May 13, 2007
May 14, 2007
Debrief from assessing student work.
SWI: IRF does RFI and teachers
present taxonomy lessons in Math,
Science, PE/Health, and Art/Music
May 20, 2007
May 22, 2007
May 27, 2007
Next Steps: 2007 –2008 Planning;
communicate on balstaff.org
Staff Meeting - staff discusses next
steps
First Year Buccaneer Awards
105
APPENDIX D
McKNIGHT HIGH SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS
2006-2007
McKnight will continue to improve student performance by expecting
instructional and professional accountability. I have delineated below the 2006-
07 expectations. Please sign at the bottom of the page that you understand and are
in agreement.
McKnight teachers will:
1. Meet the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (See
attached).
2. Design and implement annual syllabi, scope and sequence tables,
semester outlines, weekly lesson plans, and daily BBC lesson plans
that:
• Are consistent with State Content and Performance Standards
(3.2).
• Are organized and developmental in nature (4.2).
• Incorporate the High Leverage Strategies, including the
Blackboard Configuration (BBC); Data Analysis; and
Vocabulary Development, including Roots and Prefixes (4.3,
4.4), School-wide Writing Strategies, Cornell notes 9th-11th,
recommended for 12
th
grade.
• Provide for differential instruction for GATE and students at-
risk of failing (1.2).
• Emergency subject area generic lesson plans are due to the
Assistant Principal of Curriculum and Instruction by
September 9, 2006, and updated after each use. Resubmit
updates to Patrick Devlin in the Main Office as needed.
106
• Planned substitute lesson plans must be given to Nancy Devlin,
along with attendance strips.
3. Consistently contact parents/guardians regarding student achievement
and attendance and maintain records of calls in Parent Contact Log
(6.2). A copy of the parent contact log will be collected by the
Assistant principal for pupil services at the end of each 6-week grading
period.
4. Create and maintain a safe classroom and school environment:
a. Consistently enforce school rules, including colors, head
coverings, and electronic devices (2.4).
b. Actively supervise and enforce rules of decorum at assemblies,
and school time events (2.4).
c. Implement McKnight's Three-Level Behavior Intervention
System (2.4).
d. Students must be supervised by certificated personnel and
never left alone in a classroom (6.6).
e. Sign-in daily and sign-out if off campus for lunch or any other
business (6.6).
5. Provide attendance data:
• Turn in attendance strips on time daily (6.6).
• Actively intervene on behalf of chronically absent or tardy
students by documenting communication, contacting parents,
and referring students to counselors (6.2).
• Use Parent Contact Log (6.2).
6. Consistently advise students about grading expectations and ways to
improve (5.5).
7. Measure student achievement by department, class, Cruncher, and
standardized assessments (5.2).
107
8. Implementing school-wide initiatives, strategies, and procedures.
9. Promptly attend faculty, staff development, and Wednesday teacher
common planning time meetings (6.6); appointments must be made on
other days. (Principal must be informed of emergencies.)
10. Dress professionally and model McKnight’s Dress Code (6.6).
11. Arrange for substitute and student coverage for absences, including
field trips (6.6).
12. Strictly adhere to McKnight High School Movie Policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign and return one copy to Ms. Gray and keep one copy for yourself.
I have read and understand these expectations. I will make every effort to comply
with these expectations, recognizing that they are only a part of my professional
responsibilities.
__________________ ___________________ ______________________
Print Name Sign Date
August 17, 2005
108
APPENDIX E
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS FOR THE TEACHING PROFESSION
Standard 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students In Learning
Teachers:
1.1 Connect students’ prior knowledge, life experience and interests with
classroom learning.
1.2 Use a variety of instructional strategies to respond to students’ diverse
needs.
1.3 Facilitate learning, experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and
choice.
1.4 Engage students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities
that make subject matter meaningful.
1.5 Promote self-directed, reflective learning of all students.
Standard 2: Creating and Maintaining an Effective Environment for Learning
Teachers:
2.1 Create a physical environment that engages all students.
2.2 Establish a learning environment that promotes fairness and respect.
2.3 Promote social development and group responsibility.
2.4 Establish and maintain standards for student behavior.
2.5 Plan and implement classroom procedures and routines that support
student learning.
109
Standard 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge
Teachers:
3.1 Demonstrate knowledge of subject matter.
3.2 Organize curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter
based on Content and Performance Standards and Core Curriculum.
3.3 Interrelate ideas and information within and across subject matter areas.
3.4 Develop student understanding through instructional strategies that are
appropriate to the subject.
3.5 Use materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter
accessible and engaging to students.
Standard 4: Planning,
Designing, and Delivering Learning Experiences
for All Students
Teachers:
4:1 Design long-term and individual lesson plans to foster and support student
learning.
4.2 Value students’ backgrounds, interests, languages, and developmental
needs.
4.3 Establish and articulate student learning outcomes, consistent with
Content and Performance Standards.
4.4 Sequence and use instructional time effectively.
4.5 Modify instructional plans to adjust for student needs.
110
Standard 5. Assessing Student Learning
Teachers:
5.1 Establish and communicate learning outcomes for students.
5.2 Use multiple sources of information to assess learning.
5.3 Involve and guide students in assessing their own learning.
5.4 Use results of assessment to guide instruction.
5.5 Communicate with students and families about progress.
Standard 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
Teachers:
6.1 Reflect on teaching practices.
6.2 Work with families to foster collaboration and ensure student success.
6.3 Work with communities to foster collaboration and ensure student success.
6.4 Establish professional goals and pursue growth opportunities.
6.5 Work with colleagues to improve professional practice.
6.6 Share in responsibility for implementing school expectations, priorities,
policies,
and procedures.
111
112
APPENDIX F
EXPLICIT DIRECT INSTRUCTION COACHING RUBRIC
DataWorks Educational Research: All students Successfully Taught Grade-Level Work Every day.
Grade: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Coaching date: ______________________ Name: ____________________
Content Area: O ELA O Math O History O Science O Other
Learning Objective: ______________________________________________
Not EDI EDI Steps Attempted EDI Certified
Learning Objective (LO)
O None O Does no mach IP
O On board only
O LO only stated
O Stated standard only
O LO taught
O Cognitive strategy
O No CFU
O Forwarding questioning
O Name called first
O Student opinions
O Volunteers
O Ineffective feedback
O Insufficient sampling
O Short wait time
O Students described the LO
O TAPPLE
O Active participation
Activate Prior Knowledge
(APK)
O None O Did not match LO
O Taught new concept
O Engaged few students
O Assessed only
O Effectively activated
O Pertinent subskill re-taught
O Connection to new content stated
O Cognitive strategy
O No CFU
O Forward questioning
O Name called first
O Student options
O Volunteers
O Ineffective feedback
O Insufficient sampling
O Short wait time
O Students described/executed the APK
O TAPPLE
O Activate participation
113
Not EDI EDI Steps Attempted EDI Certified
Concept Development
O Not explained paragraph
O Interrogated
O Not modeled
O Not demonstrated
O Concept explained but not elaborated
O Concept modeled ineffectively (few thought processes)
O Concept modeled ineffectively (inconsistent first-person)
O Demonstration did not further concept
O Concept explained and elaborated
O Concept modeled
O Concept reinforced by demo
O Cognitive strategy
O No CFU
O Forward questioning
O Name called first
O Student options
O Volunteers
O Ineffective feedback
O Insufficient sampling
O Short wait time
O Students described concept
O Students described thought processes
O Students described own thought processes
O TAPPLE
O Active participation
Importance
O Not explained paragraph
O Interrogated
O Not modeled
O Not demonstrated
O Importance explained but not elaborated
O Importance modeled ineffectively (few thought processes)
O Importance modeled ineffectively (inconsistent first-person)
O Demonstration did not further the importance
O Importance explained and elaborated
O Importance modeled
O Importance reinforced by demo
O Cognitive strategy
O No CFU
O Forward questioning
O Name called first
O Student options
O Volunteers
O Ineffective feedback
O Insufficient sampling
O Short wait time
O Students described importance
O Volunteers offered their own reasons
O Students described thought processes
O Students described own thought processes
O TAPPLE
O Active participation
Skill Development
O Not explained
O Interrogated
O Not modeled
O Not demonstrated
O Skill explained but not elaborated
O Skill modeled ineffectively (few thought processes)
O Skill modeled ineffectively (inconsistent first person)
O Demonstration did not further the skill
O Skill explained and developed
O Skill modeled
O Skill reinforced by demo
O Cognitive strategy
Guided Practice
O None O Students immediately worked
semi-independently
O Students not released
towards independence
O Initially performed highly structured
practice
O Slowly released students to independence
O All variations in IW practice
O No CFU
O Forward questioning
O Name called first
O Student options
O Volunteers
O Ineffective feedback
O Insufficient sampling
O Short wait time
O Students described the concept
O Students performed the skill
O Students described the importance
O Verified student success at each step
114
Not EDI EDI Steps Attempted EDI Certified
O TAPPLE
O Active participation
Closure
O None O Unsuccessful students given IW O Insufficient sampling
O Not all three aspects
of lesson
O Content verified
O Students described the concept
O Students performed the skill
O Students described the importance
Independent Practice (IP)
O Few successful O 21% - 79% successful O At least 80% successful
O Differentiated instruction
Decision Maker
O Failed to check
comprehension
O Other
O Teacher used CFU but did not make adjustments
O Teacher used predominantly low-order CFU questions
O Adjustments made due to CFU
O Lesson shortened due to CFU
O Asked many high-order questions
O Allowed students to ask clarifying questions
Not EDI: No implementation EDI steps attempted: Literal implementation Refinement
EDI Certified: Internalization Innovating on the innovation
Three recommendations:
Note: This rubric is designed to be used with DataWorks EDI-trained teachers only.
115
APPENDIX G
COMMON PLANNING TIME
2006-2007
August 29 Opening Day Debriefing
August 30 Subject/Grade Level
Meetings
September 6 SLC Meetings
September 13 Department Meetings
September 20 Teacher Early Dismissal for
Parent Meetings
September 27 School-wide Initiatives
October 4 Subject/Grade Level
Meetings
October 11 SLC Meetings
October 18 Department Meetings
October 25 School-wide Initiatives
November 1 Subject/Grade Level
Meetings
November 8 SLC Meetings
November 15 Department Meetings
November 29 School-wide Initiatives
December 6 Subject/Grade Level
Meetings
December 13 SLC Meetings
January 3 Department Meetings
January 10 School-wide Initiatives
January 17 Subject/Grade Level Meetings
January 24 Teacher Grading
January 31 SLC Meetings
February 7 Department Meetings
February 14 School-wide Initiatives
February 21 Subject/Grade Level Meetings
February 28 SLC Meetings
March 7 Department Meetings
March 14 School-wide Initiatives
March 21 Subject/Grade Level Meetings
March 28 SLC Meetings
April 11 Department Meetings
April 18 School-wide Initiatives
April 25 Subject/Grade Level Meetings
May 2 SLC Meetings
May 9 Department Meetings
May 16 School-wide Initiatives
May 23 Subject/Grade Level Meetings
May 30 SLC Meetings
APPENDIX H
TEACHER COMMON PLANNING TIME LOG
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON
Date:_____________________ Department/SLC: _______________________
Attending:
1. Agenda: (May be attached)
2. School-wide Initiatives Addressed: (Circle)
(a) BBC (b) Data Analysis (c) Writing (d) Vocabulary
(e) Organization
3. Five Least Productive Students:
Name Grade Concern Parent Contact Teacher Assigned
Meeting Results:
116
APPENDIX I
DATAWORKS QUESTIONING STRATEGIES
Survey 1
1. Did you find the DataWorks professional development provided useful
strategies?
1 2 3 4 5
2. Were you given insight into additional ways to use them?
1 2 3 4 5
3. Do you think that you will use the strategies on more occasions during
class?
1 2 3 4 5
4. Do you think that the students will learn from using the strategies?
1 2 3 4 5
5. Without the Principal’s Expectation, would you use the Questioning
Strategies in the Lesson Steps segment of the BBC?
1 2 3 4 5
6. How often do you plan to use the whiteboards?
1 2 3 4 5
7. Will you randomize questions for participation?
1 2 3 4 5
8. Will you use the whiteboard when checking for understanding?
a. During the “DO NOW?” 1 2 3 4 5
b. During the Explicit Direct Instruction? 1 2 3 4 5
c. When reviewing for a quiz or test? 1 2 3 4 5
d. Other: ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5
9. Do you think the strategies will help close the achievement gap for
English-Language Learners, African-American, and Latino?
1 2 3 4 5
117
10. To what degree do you think that your value of the strategies will
influence the students and their value of using them?
1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Name: _________(Optional) Department: ________ Date: ____________
118
Survey 2
1. Are you using the DataWorks Questioning Strategies in teaching?
1 2 3 4 5
2. Are you checking to ensure that the students have the whiteboard and pen?
1 2 3 4 5
3. Do you use the strategies on more occasions than when first trained?
1 2 3 4 5
4. If 1 is 20%, what percent of the Explicit Direct Instruction are you using
the strategies?
1 2 3 4 5
5. Are you using the Questioning Strategies in the Lesson Steps segment of
the BBC?
1 2 3 4 5
6. How often are you using the whiteboards, if “5” represents as often as you
can?
1 2 3 4 5
7. Do you randomize questions for participation?
1 2 3 4 5
8. Do you use the whiteboard when checking for understanding?
a. During the “DO NOW?” 1 2 3 4 5
b. During the Explicit Direct Instruction? 1 2 3 4 5
c. When reviewing for a quiz or test? 1 2 3 4 5
d. Other: ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5
9. Are the strategies increasing participation of English-Language Learners,
African-American, and Latino?
1 2 3 4 5
10. Are students more attentive when you use the strategies?
1 2 3 4 5
119
Comments:_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Name: _______________(Optional) Department: _______ Date: _________
120
APPENDIX J
McKNIGHT HIGH SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATIVE WALK-THROUGH SCHEDULE
2006-2007
P= Patricia Gray *
G = Orlando Grant **
C = Michaela Cheng
Please rotate weekly (G to C, C to P, P to G etc.) to observe the following rooms:
“G”: 300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 306, 309, 310, 314, 316, 317, 318, 319,
320, 321, 322, 323, 324.
“C”: 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 230, 226, 224, 221, 220, 217, 216,
21, 14, 18, 30, Gym.
“P”: 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 212, 102, 123, 127, 128,
129, 130, 140, 145, 154 .
Walk-through focus areas:
¾ BBC/CA Content Standards
¾ Instructional Strategies/Best Practices
¾ School-Wide Initiatives
¾ Classroom Management/Climate/Control
¾ Student Engagement
** Assistant Principal, Curriculum and Instruction, observe ALL classrooms
approximately three times per week.
121
APPENDIX K
ANDY PLATT MINI-PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY
From: P. Gray
Re: Andy Platt Mini-PD Opportunity
Date: January 24, 2008
***********************************************************
You have been selected to participate in a “mini” professional development
opportunity with Andy Platt on Monday, February 4
th
. The sessions will take
place during your prep period, and you will be paid a stipend to attend.
The focus of these interactive sessions will address mastery level teaching
practices. The goal is to strengthen our culture of continuous improvement
around best practices, as well as build capacity for leadership among our very
capable staff.
The Leadership Team has been working with Andy extensively over the past
couple of years. In an effort to “share the wealth” and “pass the torch” we’ve
decided to broaden the learning circle for Andy’s last visit of the year.
I’m looking forward to another dynamic session with Andy, and am excited that
you will be joining in the collaboration. I can assure you that your time with
Andy will be very worthwhile. Please let me know if you have a conflict with the
schedule below.
Thank you, in advance, for your active participation and genuine interest in
continuous professional learning opportunities!
1
st
Period
2
nd
Period
3
rd
Period
4
th
Period
5
th
Period
6
th
Period
Alcantar Concordia SLT Bello Caudy Gonzales
Bowen Cope Cossick Houston Holiday
Fagerstrom Finger Porter Joseph Keifer
Harte Prola Simpson Liu Luchev
Noll Walker Pepper
Binkowski Tenoro Costanza Dills Ramirez
Gonzalez Gen Theriault
122
McKNIGHT HIGH SCHOOL
ANDY PLATT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
February 4, 2008
• 1
st
& 2
nd
periods: the skillful teacher sessions
• 3
rd
period: the skillful team leader—slt next steps
• 4
th
period: the skillful teacher session
• Lunch (12:41 – 1:16)
• Periods 5 and 6: the skillful teacher sessions
• Administrator debriefing
1
st
Period
2
nd
Period
3
rd
Period
4
th
Period
5
th
Period
6
th
Period
8:15 - 9:17
8:15 - 9:17
10:29 –
11:34
11:39 –
12:41
1:21 – 2:23
2:28 – 3:30
Alcantar Concordia SLT Bello Caudy Gonzales
Bowen Cope Cossick Houston Holiday
Fagerstrom Finger Porter Joseph Keifer
Harte Prola Simpson Liu Luchev
Noll Walker Pepper
Binkowski Tenoro Mayer Dills Ramirez
Gonzalez Gen Wu Costanza Theriault
123
124
MCKNIGHT HIGH SCHOOL
ANDY PLATT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
FEBRUARY 4, 2008
SIGN-IN
1
st
PERIOD SIGN 2
nd
PERIOD SIGN 3
rd
PERIOD SIGN
Alcantar Concordia Binkowski
Bowen Cope Costanza
Fagerstrom Finger Dills
Harte Prola Gen
Noll Walker Gonzalez
Mayer
Binkowski Tenorio Ramirez
Gonzalez Gen Tenorio
Theriault
4
th
PERIOD SIGN 5
th
PERIOD SIGN 6
th
PERIOD SIGN
Bello Caudy Gonzales
Cossick Houston Holiday
Porter Joseph Keifer
Simpson Liu Luchev
Pepper
Mayer Dills Ramirez
Wu Costanza Theriault
ADMIN/OTHER SIGNATURE
Gray
Wu
Marion Saxon
Ferrante
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Raising student achievement at Eberman Elementary School with effective teaching strategies
PDF
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
PDF
Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades
PDF
Sustainability of a narrowed achievement gap: A case study
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district
PDF
A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement
PDF
Raising student achievement on the California Standards Test and California High School Exit Exam at the Phoenix Arts Charter School
PDF
An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school
PDF
The audacity to teach: creating access to rigor for African American and Latino high school students
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics
PDF
Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners
PDF
A case study of an outperforming elementary school closing the achievement gap
PDF
Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction
PDF
Closing academic achievement gap between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged students: an improvement study
PDF
The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study
PDF
Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gray, Patricia James
(author)
Core Title
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/02/2008
Defense Date
02/21/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement gap,OAI-PMH Harvest,strategies
Place Name
California
(states),
educational facilities: McKnight High School
(geographic subject),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Hexom, Denise (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
patricjg@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1083
Unique identifier
UC1123330
Identifier
etd-Gray-20080402 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-25202 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1083 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Gray-20080402.pdf
Dmrecord
25202
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gray, Patricia James
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
achievement gap
strategies