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
/
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
(USC Thesis Other)
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF A STANDARDS-BASED
INTERVENTION ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
by
Virginia Nancy Yee
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 2007
Copyright 2007 Virginia Nancy Yee
ii
DEDICATION
For their infinite love, support and encouragement during this journey,
I dedicate this study to my family: my husband, Jim, my sister Helen,
and my parents, James and Nancy.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The realization that this journey has come to an end only solidifies the
understanding that the next journey is about to begin. This expedition could not have
been accomplished without a foundation of support. It is this foundational group of
people that I would like to give thanks.
First and foremost, I thank my family. The unwavering love, support and
encouragement that my family provided, enabled me to focus on completing this
study when all I wanted to do was procrastinate. I thank my husband Jim, my sister
Helen, and my parents James and Nancy.
To the members of the dissertation committee, I thank you for your
commitment in seeing me through this process. As the chairperson of the committee,
Dr. Dennis Hocevar, your leadership, support and guidance throughout this process
were invaluable. To Dr. Bill Bewley and Dr. Rich Brown, thank you for committing
your time and energy to making this study meaningful.
To the members of the ELL dissertation cohort, I thank you for your support
and friendship. Thank you for the many laughs and words of encouragement. I am
honored to have been a member of this group.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my dear friends, La Kecia
and Sean. La Kecia, I could not have completed this study without your friendship
and assistance with the study site. Sean, it is because of you that we have embarked
on this journey. Thank you for lighting the fire.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ............................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 41
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS .............................................................................. 60
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY ............................................................................ 79
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................... 96
v
LIST OF TABLES
1. Centennial Elementary School Ethnic Student Population ............. 3
2. Selection Criteria for Experimental and Two
Control Groups (2004-05 School Year) ............................................. 43
3. Mean Statistics by Grade Level ..................................................... 61
4. Mann-Whitney U Test Results by Grade Level ............................. 62
5. Effect Size Estimates ...................................................................... 63
6. Performance Categories by Grade Level ........................................ 64
7. Proficiency Rates (Proficient and Advanced Levels)
by Grade Level Under NCLB ............................................................. 66
8. Total Sample Proficiency Rates (Proficient and
Advanced Levels) ............................................................................... 67
9. Proficiency Rates (Basic, Proficient and Advanced Levels)
by Grade Level (Non-NCLB) ............................................................ 68
10. Total Sample Proficiency Rates (Basic, Proficient and
Advanced Levels) ............................................................................... 69
11. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ............................................... 71
12. Second Grade Means – Descriptive Statistics .............................. 72
13. Second Grade ANOVA Table – Tests of
Between-Subjects Effects ................................................................... 72
14. Third Grade Means – Descriptive Statistics ................................. 73
15. Third Grade ANOVA Table – Tests of
Between-Subjects Effects ................................................................... 74
16. Fourth Grade Means – Descriptive Statistics ............................... 75
17. Fourth Grade ANOVA Table – Tests of
Between-Subjects Effects ................................................................... 75
vi
List of Tables Contd.
18. Fifth Grade Means – Descriptive Statistics ................................ 76
19. Fifth Grade ANOVA Table – Tests of
Between-Subjects Effects ................................................................. 77
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Total Student Enrollment vs. ELL Student Enrollment ............................ 5
2. Percentage of CST Proficient vs. Less than Proficient
ELL’s at Centennial Elementary School ....................................................... 6
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of a standards based
intervention, Accelerated Reader (AR), on the academic achievement of ELL
students on the English-Language Arts California Standards Test. A nonequivalent
control groups design with one dependent outcome and two matched control groups
was used. This design consisted of an experimental group and two control groups
that were not randomly assigned. The AR treatment was administered only to the
experimental group and pre to post intervention comparisons were limited to the
experimental school.
Participants in this study consisted of the total student population of 952
students at an elementary school. Out of this population, 563 are considered ELL
students. The intervention, Accelerated Reader, began in the fall of the school year
and continued until the end of the same school year. The primary student outcome,
English-Language Arts California Standards Test performance, was measured in
April. Performance level data were coded on a 0-4 scale and the analysis was
limited to grades 2-5.
Qualitative findings reflect that the intervention was implemented in a
uniform manner, thereby producing implementation fidelity. Teachers and
administrators unanimously expressed an increased level of reading comprehension
by students as a result of using the intervention.
ix
In the experimental school, improvement in test performance from the year
prior to the intervention to the year following the intervention was uniformly positive
at all grade levels with gains ranging from .13 to .20 of a proficiency band and .17 in
the four combined grade levels. Effect sizes were small, ranging from .12 to .17.
Statistically, the findings were not significant, but given the positive results in each
grade level, the intervention was judged to be practically significant.
Quantitative findings regarding the comparison of the experimental school in
conjunction with the two matched control schools resulted in inconsistent results.
Statistically significant differences were not found for grades two through four. Fifth
grade differences were statistically significant and further analysis of the means
indicated that school growth from pre to post intervention in the experimental school
was greatest in the experimental school.
1
CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM
Problem Description
The secret is out of the bag! The education of America’s students is in need
of reform. Public Law 107 – 110, also known as, The No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB) is an explicit example and acknowledgement of this fact at the federal
level. With the amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, every student that attends public school is ensured “a fair, equal and significant
opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency
on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic
assessments” (Public Law 107-110, p. 1439). Not only does this declaration entitle
all students access to a quality education, NCLB reaches beyond access by
emphasizing “improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged” (Public
Law 107-110, p. 1439). Included in the category of the disadvantaged are “limited
English proficient children” (Public Law 107-110, p. 1440), also known as, English
language learners (ELL).
At the state level, in California, given the diversity of the state’s population,
the academic achievement of English language learners (ELL) plays a large role in
the attainment of academic proficiency. In the 2004-2005 school year, ELL students
comprised one quarter of the state’s student enrollment. One in four students is
simultaneously attempting to learn English and to learn academic content. In the
Pioneer Unified School District (PUSD), the largest school district in California and
2
second in the nation, the ELL student population is even more significant. Out of the
741,367 students enrolled in the 2004-2005 school year, 43% were designated ELL
students. Almost half of the student population is learning on a daily basis from the
perspective of not having English as a first language. Given these statistics, it is not
surprising to learn that the Academic Performance Index (API) of this school district,
at 649 is below that of the statewide target of 800.
Given the apparent gap in academic achievement, NCLB asserts the use of
standards based education as the focal point in aligning instruction to a set of
“common expectations” that can be measured for academic progress (Public Law
107-110, p. 1440). Lachat (2004) summarizes Taylor’s (1994) core concepts of
standards based instruction as:
assumptions: that educators can define standards for what is most important
for students to know and be able to do in today’s society; that most students
will be able to achieve the standards; that student performance may differ in
demonstrating proficiency but will still reflect the defined standards; and that
standards will allow for fair and consistent assessment of diverse student
performances. (p. 3)
With the foundation of educational reform centered on standards based
education, students and teachers will have common and transparent goals to reach.
Accompanied by these shared academic goals, reform must also encompass
resources such as facilities, personnel, technology and other assistance to improve
the academic achievement of ELL students (Lachat, 2004).
Role of Researcher
As a central office administrator in the PUSD, my hope is that there is the
ability to close the achievement gap of ELL students within the district through
3
standards based education. By focusing on a typical elementary school in the PUSD,
the purpose of this study is to examine the impact (positive, negative or neutral) of a
standards based intervention, Accelerated Reader, on the academic achievement of
ELL students in English-Language Arts at Centennial Elementary School.
Contextual Background of Study
Centennial Elementary School is located in the city of Gardena. Bordering
areas around the school include Lawndale, Hawthorne and Compton. It is a K – 5,
year-round, three-track school with an enrollment of approximately 952 students.
The ethnic breakdown of the school is as follows:
Table 1:
Centennial Elementary School Ethnic Student Population
Ethnicities: Percentages:
African American 16.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4%
Asian 1.3%
Filipino 1.4%
Hispanic or Latino 78.5%
Pacific Islander 0.8%
White (Not Hispanic) 1.1%
TOTAL 100.0%
Out of the 952 students Centennial Elementary School services, 563 (over
59%) are considered ELL students. Approximately seven percent of the ELL
4
population was redesignated in the 2004-2005 school year. Ninety nine percent of
the school’s student population participates in free or reduced-price lunch. The
number of students categorized as socio-economically disadvantaged is considered
significant at this school.
Centennial Elementary School has 50 certificated teachers and three
certificated administrators. The entire staff is considered “highly qualified” under
the NCLB requirement in California by being fully credentialed and/or having the
requisite proof of subject matter knowledge in their teaching field.
Teaching and/or certificated experience of the staff ranges from 20
certificated staff members with five or less years of teaching to 33 certificated staff
members with six or more years of teaching. Stability of teaching staff is also
significant. During the 2004-2005 school year, only 4 out of the 53 certificated staff
members at Centennial Elementary School were new staff members. Additional
certificated staff members include a Categorical Funds Coordinator, a Math Coach,
two Literacy Coaches, and a Pupil Services Counselor. Itinerant certificated
personnel include a nurse, a psychologist, a speech therapist, an adapted physical
education teacher, and a music teacher. Classified staff includes 18
paraprofessionals, 11 office staff, 6 supervision aides, 3 psychomotor aides, 1
cafeteria manager, 3 cafeteria workers, 1 plant manager, and 2 custodians.
Just as the district score is below the state’s API target of 800, the average
elementary school’s API score will also fall below the state’s target API score.
Centennial Elementary School is no exception. With a student enrollment of 952
5
students, over 59% are designated ELL students. Centennial Elementary School has
an API score of 660 points for the 2005 API base. The school had a negative (-1)
point growth from the 2004-05 school year with a 2004 API base of 661 points.
Figure 1:
Total Student Enrollment vs. ELL Student Enrollment
6,322,182
1,591,525
741,367
315,467
952
563
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
State - CA PUSD Centennial ES
Total Student
Enrollment
ELL Student
Enrollment
Although Centennial Elementary School’s API score is above the district’s
API score, proficiency levels for the school’s California Standards Test Scores
(CST) on the English-Language Arts are still reflective of an achievement gap. The
breakdown of categories listed for the CST consists of “far below basic, below basic,
basic, proficient, and advanced.” Of the ELL students tested on the English-
Language Arts CST in the 2004-2005 school year, 86% of the students are below the
proficient level, meaning that ELL students fall in the categories of far below basic,
below basic, and basic. Additionally, on the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT), 64% of the ELL students tested are below the “Early
Advanced” proficiency level. The breakdown of categories listed for the CELDT
consists of “beginning, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, and
6
advanced.” Again, this reflects that the majority of ELL students tested does not
attain mastery in the area of English language development. This lack of proficiency
is indicative of the continuing achievement gap. Furthermore, with the school’s lack
of ability in meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the 2004-2005 school
year, continued decline in ELL student achievement is expected.
In an elementary school where the majority student population is categorized
as ELL students, Centennial Elementary School must improve the academic
achievement and proficiency levels of these students in order to increase the school’s
API score toward California’s target goal of 800. With an API rank of 2, this
number defines the school as scoring within the second lowest decile of all
elementary schools in the state. This ranking is reflective of the requirement to
improve academic achievement based on meeting California’s API criteria. The goal
of education is to ensure that all students are brought to the level of proficiency as
stipulated in the requirements of NCLB.
Figure 2:
Percentage of CST Proficient vs. Less than Proficient ELL’s at Centennial Elementary School
0
20
40
60
80
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
% ELL Proficient +
% ELL < Proficient
7
Problem Analysis / Interpretation
Research Framework
Based on the CST and CELDT data, it is apparent that the achievement gap
between ELL students and the level of proficiency is significant in affecting the
overall achievement of a school. Ultimately, in order to attain the goal of all students
meeting the level of proficiency, in this study, focusing on the subgroup of ELL
students in the subject area of English-Language Arts is a valid beginning towards
that goal.
Lachat (2004) has made it clear that the way to provide a high quality
education for all students is to ensure that controllable structures are in place that can
alter and improve the environment in which students learn. Marzano (2003) has
provided a viable framework utilizing research covering over 35 years that identifies
particular attributes schools can monitor, alter, and improve upon to begin this
process.
The lack of student achievement in English-Language Arts exhibited at
Centennial Elementary School is readily apparent. The performance gap identified
in the percentage of ELL students performing below the proficiency level on the
CST in English-Language Arts and below the early-advanced level on the CELDT
requires change in the practices and procedures of what are currently occurring at
this school. This provides a foundational baseline from which Centennial
Elementary School must begin their work.
8
Clark and Estes (2002) state, “Effective performance improvement must start
with clearly understood work goals” (pp. 21-22). With this performance gap at the
forefront, the goal must be to bring ELL students to the level of proficient and early-
advanced at the minimum. The three categories the researcher utilizes in framing
this study are based upon Marzano’s (2003) school-level factors, teacher-level
factors, and student-level factors.
School-Level Factors
In recognition of the school’s responsibility in providing improvement of
academic achievement, sources of the problem identified must be within the scope of
control of the school. The first category contributing to the problem of low academic
achievement of ELL students in English-Language Arts encompasses school-level
factors.
Pioneer Unified School District has been utilizing the Open Court Reading
(OCR) program district-wide at the elementary level since the 2000-2001 school
year. Open Court Reading is a systematic reading instruction program that is
grounded in the basics of phonemic awareness. This program is structured and
explicit in scaffolding lessons that build upon each subsequent lesson including
vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.
Emphasis on curriculum and instruction in the area of English-Language Arts
at Centennial Elementary School is continual. As an elementary school, Centennial
utilizes OCR as their English-Language Arts program. Additionally, the focus on
ensuring ample time for English-Language Arts is reflective of the school’s daily
9
instructional schedule. School begins at 7:50a.m. where the first instructional
section of the day begins with English Language Development from 8:00 – 8:30a.m.
Next, from 8:30a.m. – 12:00p.m. reveals school-wide English-Language Arts and
mathematics blocks that are equal in time (one hour and forty-five minutes per
subject), where half of the school engages in English-Language Arts first and then
mathematics and the other half of the school engages in mathematics first and then
English-Language Arts. This configuration maximizes the school’s resources of two
literacy coaches and one mathematics coach to classroom teachers, in being able to
support the maximum number of classrooms and students during the corresponding
content area time, thereby making available for students, Marzano’s (2003) concept
of the “opportunity to learn” (p. 22). Opportunity to learn takes place in three
phases. First, the “intended curriculum” outlined by the state, district and school
must be the focus of instruction. Second, “intended curriculum” becomes
“implemented curriculum” when it is delivered to students by teachers. Last, the
“implemented curriculum” becomes “attained curriculum” once learned by students
(Marzano, 2003, p. 23).
Although Centennial Elementary School schedules time and allocates its
resources to maximize student achievement, the school is lacking in its inability to
utilize a distinct schedule of specific content standards that are absolutely vital for
instruction versus the reality that teachers are still conditioned with a need to “get
through the text.” Even though OCR is extremely prescriptive, teachers are intent on
covering as much of the text as possible, rather than focusing on skills mastery.
10
Keeping in mind guidelines set forth by Marzano (2003), students need to have a
clear expectation of what is to be learned, while also being able to have ample time
to learn it. Thus, the first school-level factor causing difficulty in ELL academic
achievement is a lack of focus on a “guaranteed and viable curriculum” (Marzano,
2003, p. 15).
Taking into consideration that OCR is a prescriptive phonics-based program,
when teachers are attempting to “power-through” the textbook, it is imperative that
they take the time to identify the specific English-Language Arts standards that are
being addressed by each lesson. Without the goal of mastering explicit standards,
there is not a clear expectation that students understand what the instructional goal is
for each lesson.
The second school-level factor affecting ELL academic achievement is
unclear expectations. According to Marzano (2003), the necessity of setting goals
becomes explicit in rallying around common expectations. These expectations once
defined, unite teachers, administrators and students in the accountability of academic
achievement. Not only is it essential to provide clear expectations, the expectations
must also be challenging, thereby exerting “pressure to achieve” based on high
expectations (Marzano, 2003, p. 35). Furthermore, in order to gauge whether goals
and expectations are met, feedback is a necessary component of monitoring success.
In line with Marzano’s (2003) setting of goals, to influence academic achievement of
students, feedback must include two characteristics; first, feedback must be given in
11
a timely manner, and second it must be “specific to the content being learned” (p.
38).
The last school-level factor that contributes to low ELL academic
achievement is the climate of collegiality and professionalism versus a climate of
congeniality. It is important to clarify that it is probable to have a climate of
congeniality where faculty and staff get along well, while simultaneously academic
progress is not achieved. Marzano (2003) defines collegiality as genuine exchanges
that are about the work that is done at a school site. Additionally, he defines
professionalism as teachers’ perceptions on their own efficacy in making “change” at
their school sites (Marzano, 2003, p. 62). Furthermore, Clark and Estes (2002)
define organizational culture as “the most important ‘work process’ in all
organizations because it dictates how we work together to get our job done” (p. 107).
At Centennial Elementary School, the faculty and staff are not at the level where
everyone is performing with collegiality and professionalism; rather portions of the
staff exist within a climate of congeniality. Their interactions have not met the level
of professional exchanges; instead many teachers maintain the mindset that their
classrooms are individual entities and do not affect the whole, rather than a part of
the whole which makes up the school.
Teacher-Level Factors
Marzano (2003) refers to a study by Ferguson and Womack (1993) where
teachers who took instructional pedagogical courses on how to teach significantly
impacted their teaching performance in the classroom rather than taking subject-
12
matter curriculum courses alone. This finding is significant given that a school
district’s highest financial expenditure is in salaries of employees. It is clear that
“improving human [teacher] performance is the highest leverage activity available to
a company [school]” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 4)
The first teacher-level factor that affects ELL academic achievement in
English-Language Arts is “instructional strategies” (Marzano, 2003, p. 71). Again,
when considering that OCR is a prescriptive phonics-based program, identification
of specific reading weaknesses that may not be transparent in decoding and word
recognition may be manifested in a lack of comprehension. Buly and Valencia
(2003) conducted a study in a semi-urban school district in Washington state,
investigating specific skills students utilized in reading. Based on their study, with
the emphasis on phonics instruction, weaknesses may include “problems with other
reading abilities such as vocabulary, fluency, or comprehension strategies” (p. 7).
When using a program such as OCR, with an emphasis on decoding, the
identification of an ELL student as a “word caller” is a high probability (Buly &
Valencia, 2003, p. 16). This is significant since more than 60% of automatic word
callers are identified as ELL students (Buly & Valencia, 2003).
Additionally, the structure of instruction for OCR is primarily whole-group.
Buly and Valencia (2003) identify several categories of reading problems that
students may encounter, such as “automatic word callers, struggling word callers,
word stumblers, slow and steady comprehenders, slow word callers, and disabled
readers” (pp. 16-20). With whole-group instruction, this leaves a deficit of
13
instructional time and strategies to address students according to specific difficulties
in English-Language Arts.
Another teacher-level factor affecting ELL academic achievement is an
insufficiency in “classroom curriculum design” (Marzano, 2003, p. 71). By utilizing
a program such as OCR, Centennial Elementary School has implemented the
“intended curriculum” to meet the goal of the “attained curriculum” (Marzano, 2003,
p. 25). This reading series has taken well-known research-based strategies and
organized them for teacher use to ensure student achievement in reading. The
strength of this program is attributed to built-in tools of assessment that are suitably
provided at each unit interval. This line of thought is congruent to Marzano’s (2003)
three categories of research-based strategies, “(1) those used at regular intervals in a
unit; (2) those focusing on input experiences; and (3) those dealing with reviewing,
practicing, and applying content” (p. 85).
Although OCR is the district’s tool of choice for teaching reading, it has
begun to show gaps in the reading progress of Centennial Elementary School’s
students. Because of the extremely structured nature of the program, OCR does not
allow students and teachers to deviate from the “lock-step” process of moving
through the textbook. In this manner, students do not have the benefit of engaging in
“input regarding a unit’s content” which Marzano (2003) has indicated is essential to
student learning (p. 85). There is no additional classroom curriculum design to
facilitate instruction when a student’s particular academic deficiency is not addressed
in the OCR textbook. Moreover, curriculum that is designed for an entire grade level
14
more than likely fails to address and abandons difficulties that ELL’s encounter in
English language development.
Student-Level Factors
Historically, student background such as socio-economic status and level of
parent education has been viewed as characteristics that impact student achievement.
Often, these traits are viewed as a negative influence upon academic progress. On
the contrary, Marzano (2003) believes that home environment that has traditionally
been viewed as negative can be altered “by school-based interventions” (p. 123).
One factor having a significant affect on ELL academic achievement at
Centennial Elementary School is the continual fallback excuse that ELL students will
undoubtedly progress at a rate behind non-ELL students due to their home
environment, i.e. parents who do not speak English, low parent education level, low
income, etc. Yet, without a structured program that can be utilized to inform parents
and the home, Centennial Elementary School has yet to tap into undiscovered
territory that can assist in ELL academic achievement.
A second factor in the problem of ELL academic achievement is lack of
motivation. Clearly, common sense dictates that if students are not motivated to
learn, than learning will not occur. If any learning does occur, the likelihood of
mastery will certainly not be achieved in any long-term fashion, unless students
happen to be interested in the particular topic studied.
Additionally, culture plays a role in the academic development of ELL
students. Since “cultural orientations and prior knowledge of English language
15
learners” are not the same as the culture experienced at school, this creates an
inherent shortcoming, especially in the area of motivation, for ELL students and their
academic achievement (Lachat, 2004, p. 31). By not having a structured plan,
besides the use of the OCR program, Centennial Elementary School reveals a
deficiency in providing culturally connecting and cognitively stimulating
motivational events when it comes to instruction in English-Language Arts.
The existence of NCLB requires that all students, including English language
learners, must meet the minimum standard of proficiency. By defining the issues
which contribute to the problem of low academic achievement of ELL students, a
remedy must be sought to combat and mitigate the current trend.
Problem Solution
The pursuit of minimum proficiency, as defined by NCLB, leading to
academic achievement for ELL students is a continual process. As with any plan of
action for improvement, the driving force of all the components within that plan
must lead to the ultimate accomplishment of the goal or objective. With the
responsibility of being accountable for student academic achievement, Centennial
Elementary School is utilizing Accelerated Reader (AR), a standards based reading
program, as an intervention to raise the level of academic achievement, specifically
the ELL student population.
Accelerated Reader provides a supplemental program in English-Language
Arts to motivate students to read books of their own choice that are identified at the
individual student’s reading level. Once the student has finished his/her chosen
16
book, a computer quiz is completed utilizing AR software to ascertain various
aspects of literacy, such as reading development, vocabulary and comprehension.
Results of the computer assessment provide data to ascertain students’ reading levels
and assist in guiding supplemental classroom instruction outside of the mandated
English-Language Arts curriculum of OCR.
By taking part in AR, individual students and classrooms are rewarded by
their level of participation. Students are awarded privileges such as lunch with the
principal or selected administrator if a certain level of books and AR quizzes are
completed along with increasing skill mastery. On a larger scale, classrooms
participating in AR compete against other classrooms in order to earn a trophy
representing the school’s mascot. The trophy rotates and is displayed by the
classroom that reads and completes more AR quizzes than the last classroom on a
monthly basis.
By implementing AR as an intervention, Centennial Elementary School
anticipates that current areas of improvement affecting school-level factors such as
mastery of clear and explicit standards, and immediate feedback will be addressed
via data derived from AR’s computer assessments. Furthermore, teacher-level
factors in individualizing instructional strategies and engaging student input to the
curriculum could unite based upon the student’s initiation to use AR.
Based on research compiled regarding readability formulas, Renaissance
Learning, Inc. (2001), publisher of Accelerated Reader, has provided findings that
support the theory that students have the greatest level of improvement in reading if
17
they practice reading at the level where it is challenging to the student, but not
frustrating. Additionally, the level of reading should not be too easy. This concept
is one of the factors that Centennial Elementary School has based their decision to
utilize AR as an intervention to stimulate ELL students to increase reading, thereby
improving students’ reading skills, which would ultimately reflect in the academic
achievement of English-Language Arts as measured by the CST.
Accelerated Reader also addresses student-level factors by extending
curricular structure from the school to the home by providing opportunities to invite
students during their off-track time to continue utilizing AR’s computer quizzes
when students have completed reading books by making an appointment to complete
a quiz. This defies the excuse that home environment negatively impacts ELL
students’ academic achievement by creating the school-home connection.
To further support the use of AR as an intervention at Centennial Elementary
School, Husman, Brem, and Duggan (2005) conducted a quasi-experimental
longitudinal study examining the effects of AR in an urban, Title I elementary
school. Their findings indicate on the standardized test, the Stanford Achievement
Test, Ninth Edition (SAT-9), that students at the school using AR had a significant
increase in achievement scores while, the non-AR school did not have a statistically
significant change in their achievement scores.
By utilizing AR as an English-Language Arts intervention, Centennial
Elementary School anticipates a favorable impact in addressing the areas of
improvement previously outlined by the researcher utilizing Marzano’s (2003)
18
concept of controlling school-level factors, teacher-level factors, and student-level
factors.
Design and Importance
Design
In undertaking this evaluation study, the researcher will utilize a mixed
methods approach to data collection to ascertain both formative evaluation and
summative evaluation. The following section outlines the specific resources in
deriving information for this evaluation study.
Sources of data procured for the purpose of formative evaluation range from
informal interviews with school staff and administrators, site observations, and
document analysis, both at the district level and school site level. In order to glean
“information-rich” data, the researcher will pursue purposeful sampling within the
boundaries of the experimental school. Typical case sampling will be utilized in
garnering information regarding operational and implementation information
regarding AR. Additional sources of data used to employ triangulation of data
include unobtrusive interviews, semi-structured interviews, observations, document
analysis, and Standardized Testing and Reporting Results (STAR).
Summative evaluation results will be measured utilizing proficiency rates of
students on the English-Language Arts CST in an interrupted time series design with
control groups, from school years 2002-2003 through 2005-2006, with the
experimental school at Centennial Elementary School compared with two control
schools, Bay Avenue Elementary School and Parliament Elementary School. The
19
selection of the two control group schools were centered around similarities of: 1)
API scores, 2) grade levels schools contained, 3) geographic location of school, 4)
school must be located within the same school district, 5) percentage of students in
schools that participate in the free or reduced price lunch program, and 6) percentage
of students categorized in schools as English language learners.
Since the 2005-2006 school year is the first complete school year of
implementation with AR, time boundaries of one full school year will be measured.
Also, boundaries of this evaluation study are limited to schools (both experimental
and control) located within the Pioneer Unified School District. Further explicit
boundaries of this evaluation study are the 952 students who attend Centennial
Elementary School, where 563 of the students are categorized as English language
learners, and ninety-nine percent of the student population participates in the free or
reduced price lunch program.
Research Questions
The focus of this evaluation study is to discover the depth of impact that AR
has in the academic achievement of ELL students at Centennial Elementary School.
The overarching research question used to guide the summative discovery process is:
• Does a standards based English-Language Arts intervention, such as
Accelerated Reader, have an effect on the academic achievement of
English language learners as measured by California Standards Test
Scores?
20
Stemming from the overarching summative research question are more
detailed research questions that create the basis of the researcher’s formative
evaluation. These formative research questions will be utilized in learning about
implementation operations and behaviors within the control of the school (school-
level factors, teacher-level factors and student-level factors) affecting the English-
Language Arts intervention, such as:
1) How is Accelerated Reader implemented at Centennial Elementary
School, and
2) How is Accelerated Reader working at Centennial Elementary School?
Based on the discovery process in this evaluation study, utilizing both summative
and formative evaluation, the researcher strives to provide increased understanding
and efficacy of the intervention AR, in addressing the academic achievement in
English-Language Arts of English language learners at Centennial Elementary
School.
Limitations and Delimitations
It is important to acknowledge that the findings of this study are limited to
the environment of Centennial Elementary School. Given the limited scope of this
study, causation cannot be proven. This study serves as an additional academic
resource in determining whether Accelerated Reader has made an impact in the
academic achievement of students, specifically ELL students, at Centennial
Elementary School.
21
Importance of the Study
Given the increasing diversity of California’s population, the makeup of a
typical classroom undoubtedly consists of students who do not have English as their
first or primary language. The state of California will reach a point when it will
become a “majority minority” state, meaning that there will not be one ethnic group
that makes up more than fifty percent of the state’s population (Cain, Citrin & Wong,
2000). Due to these demographic transformations, Lachat (2004) has clearly stated
that educators can no longer question “whether it is feasible to provide a high quality
education for students who vary widely” (p. 7). Rather, the question becomes, “how
to reform curriculum and instruction and improve teachers’ abilities to respond to
diversity so that high quality learning becomes the norm for all students” (Lachat,
2004, p. 7).
The federal passage of NCLB in 2001 and the state passage of the Public
School Accountability Act of 1999 are reflective of the pursuit of reform in
education. With one quarter of California’s student enrollment comprised of ELL
students, addressing the academic needs of ELL students is critical in meeting the
goals of these legislative reforms.
In PUSD, the percentage of ELL students comprises 43% of the entire
district’s student population. Almost half of the district’s students are attempting to
achieve English mastery at the same time as attempting to achieve content mastery at
their respective grade levels. By studying a typical elementary school within the
22
PUSD, the researcher seeks increased understanding in addressing the needs of ELL
students in the subject area of English-Language Arts.
The importance of studying English-Language Arts reflects the doorway
which leads to learning in all other curricular areas. Without the ability to read and
comprehend, learning is halted. This is not a concept unique only to PUSD; in fact it
is important to any school addressing the objectives covered by the NCLB
legislation. Thus, consideration of diversity in instruction must become the norm of
teaching for all students. The foundation of a quality education that used to be
offered only to those who were considered the “the best and the brightest” must now
be the foundation for all students, in all classrooms, in all schools.
23
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the extant literature
pertaining to English language learners who are held accountable to the proficiency
standards required by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The areas outlined in
achieving this objective include five perspectives.
First, implications of NCLB on English language learners (ELL) will be
reviewed. Second, an analysis of the validity of utilizing standardized assessments
as a means of academic measurement for ELL students will be examined. Third, a
discussion of various factors affecting ELL reading achievement will be reviewed.
Fourth, factors that influence school site effectiveness will be shared. Lastly, a
discussion of the use of Renaissance Learning reading programs will be evaluated as
a resource to promote academic achievement as evidenced on standardized
assessments.
Implications of the No Child Left Behind Act on English Language Learners
The process of educational reform is well underway. With the federal
enactment of Public Law 107 – 110, also known as, The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001, which mandates an appropriate level of academic achievement for every
student in America’s classrooms to meet “at a minimum, proficiency on challenging
State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” (Public Law
107-110, p. 1439). To prove the level of minimum proficiency, each state has
24
chosen a standards based assessment tool to measure their students’ level of
academic performance. In California, student achievement is assessed by a student’s
performance on the California Standards Test (CST).
By using the CST each year, every school district and/or local educational
agency (LEA) must achieve the standard of proficiency set forth by the federal
government, known as adequate yearly progress (AYP). For a typical unified school
district to meet the minimum AYP in the 2004-2005 school year, the percentages of
students required to perform at the proficient level and above in the areas of English-
Language Arts and mathematics were 23.0% and 23.7%, respectively (California
Department of Education, 2005). This means that for a unified school district such
as Pioneer Unified School District (PUSD), 23% of the district’s students must
perform at or above the proficient level in English-Language Arts and 23.7% must
perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the CST for the 2004-
2005 school year to meet the district’s AYP goal.
A significant factor to note in achieving the annual AYP goal is the
requirement that 95% of the students in every “significant subgroup” must
participate in the CST (California Department of Education, 2005, p. 1). Significant
subgroups consist of a minimum of 100 students who are enrolled on the first day of
testing who are able to provide a minimum of 100 test scores (California Department
of Education, 2005). The reason this fact is significant has to do with the inclusion
of English language learners (ELL) as a subgroup participating in the CST.
25
In the 2004-2005 school year, 43% of the PUSD student enrollment was
categorized as ELL students. Nearly half of PUSD’s student population is
attempting to learn on a daily basis, both English and academic content. In the 2004-
2005 school year, Centennial Elementary School, a school within PUSD, over 59%
of the school’s population was categorized as ELL. Of the 563 ELL students
enrolled, 86% performed below the proficient level on the English-Language Arts
CST. By this measure, Centennial Elementary School did not meet the federal goal
of 23% of the ELL subgroup performing minimally at the proficiency level. There is
an apparent gap in the reality of possible achievement for ELL students on standards
based assessments, such as the CST, and the expectations that are actually obtained
with regard to this group. This gap is of critical significance when we consider that
the accountability of student achievement is driven by the use of standards based
tests to measure adequate levels of academic proficiency. Lachat (2004) reasons,
since standards based assessments are being utilized to “push toward higher levels of
learning, they drive demands that schools verify that all students, including students
who are not fully proficient in English, are achieving at acceptable levels” as
students who are fully proficient in English (p. 18).
When comparing the achievement of ELL students to their English-proficient
peers, the disparity between the two groups is akin to the proverbial attempt to
equate “apples to oranges.” The endemic complexity of attempting to understand the
academic achievement of ELL students becomes even clearer when we take into
account the fact that when comparing ELL subgroups from year to year, the “apples
26
to oranges” metaphor still holds true. One may ask how is it possible for ELL
subgroups to be markedly distinct from year to year when each subgroup consists
exclusively of ELL students.
The answer may lie in Abedi’s (2004) research which makes it quite clear
that the definition of an ELL student is not consistent throughout the nation and even
within states. According to NCLB, an ELL student is considered as:
(a) being 3 to 21 years of age, (b) enrolled or preparing to enroll in
elementary or secondary school, (c) either not born in the United States or
speaking a language other than English, and (d) owing to difficulty in
speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English, not meeting the state’s
proficient level of achievement to successfully achieve in English-only
classrooms (Abedi, 2004, p. 4).
When defining an ELL student, the consistent fact is that he/she is not able to
achieve the proficiency level, as mandated by the state, in an English-only
classroom. Therefore, by definition, an ELL student is not able to meet the level of
academic proficiency in an English-only classroom and would have difficulty
meeting the AYP criteria of NCLB. As an ELL student is unable to perform at the
level of proficiency in an English-only classroom, it is sensible to conclude that an
ELL student would have difficulty performing at the level of proficiency on the CST,
particularly on the English-Language Arts portion of the test.
Another factor that contributes to the complexity of comparing ELL
subgroups from year to year is the manner in which ELL students progress to
become redesignated as a fluent English proficient (RFEP) speaker. As ELL
students become more proficient in the English language, both socially
(conversational language) and academically, testing is provided to measure their
27
progress with the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) on an
annual basis. When an ELL student is able to achieve a level of proficiency as
evidenced by the CELDT (English language assessment) and the CST (academic
achievement assessment), an ELL student qualifies to become an RFEP. As a result,
the RFEP student is no longer considered an ELL student and is not included in the
ELL subgroup. For that reason, each progressive year of comparing ELL subgroups
is like comparing “apples to oranges” due to the constant attrition of students who
are able to become reclassified as an RFEP (a factor that is unaccounted for in the
statistics) and the constant influx of students who are performing poorly due to lack
of language ability and academic mastery via the English language. The students
who remain in the ELL subgroup are the students who do not perform at the level of
proficiency required by the NCLB criteria for academic achievement. “Members of
the LEP [ELL] subgroup, by definition, will almost always be among the low-
performing group of students and will hardly make substantial progress” (Abedi,
2004, p. 6).
Utilization of Standardized Assessments with English Language Learners
According to statistics from the California Department of Education (2007),
California’s ELL population has grown from 1,151,819 students in the 1992-93
school year to 1,591,525 in the 2004-05 school year. This reflects a growth of over
38% in the ELL population in the last twelve years. With California’s ELL
population accounting for one quarter of the state’s student population, the
requirement of accountability by NCLB’s guidelines calls into question the validity
28
of testing students who are learning to acquire English language skills while at the
same time required to progress at grade-level academically.
Given the brisk growth in ELL student population, accountability for ELL
academic achievement begs to be examined more closely when it comes to utilizing
state-wide standardized testing such as the CST’s in California. According to Butler
and Stevens (2001), in the past, the attempt to account for ELL students with
standardized testing was by not testing ELL students at all. In essence, data
reflective of ELL academic achievement was nonexistent. There simply was no
representation of how ELL students were performing (no baseline foundation) and
no representation in how they were progressing.
There have been a variety of options that educators have implemented in an
effort to include ELL students from providing tests in the students’ primary
language, testing accommodations, and also testing for English language skills to
determine whether an ELL student is able to navigate a standardized assessment in
English. Even with these options, for the most part, ELL students are expected to
participate in standardized assessments that were designed for their English-only
peers or students who are proficient in the English language, regardless of the length
of time that they have been living in the USA or whether they have achieved a
reasonable level of English language skills (Butler & Stevens, 2001).
Even with knowledge of the discrepancy of having ELL students participate
in standardized assessments, this practice continues. Both, pragmatic thinking as
well as research-based documentation support the obvious fact that there are inherent
29
discrepancies in how ELL students and non-ELL students perform on standardized
assessments. According to Abedi, Leon, and Mirocha (2005), ELL students typically
perform at a lower level than non-ELL students across all content areas.
Furthermore, studies have shown that if a content area requires superior language
skills, the gap widens between the level of performance between ELL and non-ELL
students. Abedi et al. (2005) refers to these more complex language requirements as
“language load” (p. 2). For example, the gap in performance level by ELL and non-
ELL students in mathematics computation can be minimized given the fact that
language proficiency is not critical in mathematics. Rather, a mathematics question
is asked in a numerical format which is universally understood and represented,
instead of a text based question, requiring reading ability.
In their study, Abedi et al. (2005) examined two sites, one included data from
a large public school district, grades 2 through 8 for the 1999 school population.
Data contained reading and mathematics subtests of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
(ITBS), as well as student background such as race, gender, birth date, and years
participating in a bilingual education program. The second site included data from a
state department of education, students in grades 2 through 11 who were enrolled in
a public school statewide during the 1997-98 school year. Data included results of
the Stanford Achievement Test Series, Ninth Edition (Stanford 9). Additional
background data included gender, ethnicity, free/reduced-price lunch participation,
parent education, and student ELL status.
30
Results gleaned from this study were consistent with previous studies
conducted. Overall, data from both sites revealed that the level of English language
proficiency is directly related to performance on content area standardized
assessments, there is an achievement gap between the performance of ELL students
when compare to their non-ELL student peers, and lastly, that the achievement gap
between ELL students and their non-ELL student peers widens as the requirement of
increased language proficiency (“language load”) rises (Abedi et al., 2005, p. 39).
The study by Abedi et al. (2005) provides extant documentation for this study in
determining that language proficiency plays an integral part in the academic
achievement of ELL students. Even when academic progress is apparent in ELL
students, it is logical to conclude that the progress made by ELL students is generally
at a lower level than that of non-ELL students.
Butler and Castellon-Wellington (2005) concur in their findings that ELL
students perform at a lower level in content-area subject tests than their non-ELL
peers. This supports the language load theory presented by Abedi et al. (2005).
Butler and Castellon-Wellington (2005) conducted a study with 778 third grade
students and 184 eleventh grade students who participated in standardized
assessments, both on the Stanford 9 tests and the Reading/Writing Component of the
Language Assessment Scales (LAS). Their results were consistent across the board;
regardless of the progress made in various content areas on both of the standardized
assessments, non-ELL students outperformed their ELL counterparts.
31
Butler and Castellon-Wellington (2005) further suggest that ELL students
may perform at a lower level that their non-ELL peers due to the lack of the
opportunity to learn (OTL) (p. 75). Marzano (2003) outlines the concept of OTL as
affecting student achievement when a school’s “intended curriculum” and
“implemented curriculum” does not coincide (p. 23). This is attributable to
differentiated curriculum for ELL students since they are primarily focusing on
mastering English language proficiency. Because of their dual objectives, content
area curriculum that is covered in an English-only environment may be diluted in an
environment where both ELL students and non-ELL students coexist. Furthermore,
content area curriculum may not even be covered by the time of the year that
standardized assessments are administered. Since often times ELL students are
taught academic content at a slower pace than non-ELL students (Bailey, 2005).
It is clear that the administration of standardized assessments to ELL students
as a means of measuring their academic achievement contains inherent stumbling
blocks. The utilization of an instrument that was designed for a different population
challenges the validity of its results (Butler & Stevens, 2001). Secondly, the
measurement of academic achievement in research consistently reflects that when
ELL students perform at a lower level than their non-ELL peers, areas that require
additional assistance for ELL students are not apparent when compared to the
curriculum as it is currently delivered. The results of the standardized assessment
may ultimately only measure the level of language load an ELL student can handle
versus the actual content knowledge the ELL student has mastered (Abedi et al.,
32
2005). Finally, a related factor of whether ELL students have been provided with the
opportunity to learn content knowledge must also be a focus when utilizing a
standardized assessment tool to measure academic achievement and progress
(Bailey, 2005; Butler & Castellon-Wellington, 2005; Marzano, 2003).
Reading Development Factors that Affect English Language Learners
Research into reading and literacy continually describe the process as
complex. When taking into account that an ELL student does not possess the skills of
his/her non-ELL peer, it is reasonable to conclude that for an ELL student the
process of learning how to read and become literate is more complicated (Lachat,
2004).
Buly and Valencia (2003) conducted a six-week study in the state of
Washington with 108 elementary participants who were fourth grade students from
an ethnically diverse semi-urban school district. In order to determine the areas of
poor performance, five methods of measurement of various reading and literacy
skills were administered: the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-
Revised (WJ-R), The Qualitative Reading Inventory II (QR-II), the Washington
Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-
Revised (PPVT-R), and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
(CTOPP).
For participants who performed below the fourth grade proficiency level on
the WASL overall, Buly and Valencia (2003) determined that every sub-category
measured in the study including word identification, phonemic awareness,
33
comprehension, vocabulary, rate/speed of reading, and expression also resulted in
performance below the fourth grade proficiency level. There were no high peaks in
individual skill areas indicating strengths in any of the sub-categories tested. All
participants were then placed into categories that characterized their pattern of
performance on the measurements. These categories were divided into automatic
word callers, struggling word callers, word stumblers, slow and steady
comprehenders, slow word callers, and disabled readers.
For students who are learning English as their second language, the figure of
more than 60% is categorized as automatic word callers (Buly & Valencia, 2003).
Automatic word callers are students who are able to identify words and maintain
reading fluency; however they have difficulties in meaning and comprehension. An
example used in their study, Marja who is an ELL student and was categorized as an
automatic word caller, exhibited difficulty in comprehension. She was a classic
example of how ELL students who are able to learn social language in order to
communicate on a surface level, had difficulty when it came to performing English
language skills in an academic environment (Buly & Valencia, 2003; Lachat, 2004).
Additionally, for ELL students who are categorized as word callers, when the length
of a reading passage increases, the level at which ELL students are able to identify
words, decreases (Buly & Valencia, 2003). This is consistent with the process of
achieving reading proficiency; since there is a lack of comprehension for ELL
students in reading lengthy passages, it makes it difficult for ELL students to
34
anticipate and deduce what the meaning of the text is due to the lack of contextual
clues surrounding the subject matter of the text.
On the other hand, slow word callers are students who are able to identify
words, however lack reading fluency. They exhibit slow, stunted word identification
and also struggle with meaning and comprehension, yet these students are not as
limited in comprehension as the automatic word callers (Buly & Valencia, 2003). A
factor that may contribute to better comprehension is the amount of education an
ELL student has received in his/her primary language. Citing Thomas and Collier
(2002), Lachat (2004) proposes that having learned more academic content, an ELL
student may be able to utilize skills to compare academic content in the second
language to prior knowledge that was learned in the primary language. In this
manner, although comprehension may be at a greater level, the struggle in slowness
of reading remains inhibitive. It is indicative that second language issues are a
contributor in the difficulty of ELL students achieving academically in an English-
only classroom.
Environmental Factors that Affect Academic Achievement of Students
According to Marzano (2005), the effectiveness of a school can increase or
decrease students’ academic success. In his previous work, Marzano (2003)
broadened the effect of the Coleman report (1966), in which Coleman and colleagues
derived that schools are able to control only ten percent of a student’s academic
success; this was hardly an optimistic finding. However, Marzano (2003) continued
synthesizing the ten most prominent studies and determined that schools are actually
35
able to control approximately 20 percent of a student’s academic success. Given this
figure, Marzano (2003) highlighted Rosenthal and Rubin’s (1982) work that showed
that if a school did everything that was required to contribute the full 20 percent to
students’ academic success, the school’s efforts would be able to produce a
difference of an additional 44 percent of passing students in an assessment that only
had an expectation of 50 percent of students passing the assessment. This means that
if two schools, one effective and one ineffective, were to administer a test that had an
expected passing rate of 50 percent, the effective school would be able to produce a
passing rate of 72 percent while the ineffective school would produce a passing rate
of 28 percent; thus reflecting the difference of 44 percent. What does this mean?
The meaning of the above referenced figures signifies that schools are able to
contribute and must contribute to students’ academic success. This responsibility
plays an even more integral role in the academic success of ELL students. One of
the ways that schools must contribute to students’ academic success is through the
establishment of “concrete goals for curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices within the school” (Marzano, 2005, p. 50). The National Research Council
(2001) affirms that being clear about goals is only the first step in the process of
academic achievement. Every adult on a school campus is responsible for
contributing to students’ academic achievement and must be extremely explicit in
relaying the message of achieving that goal.
In ensuring that clear and explicit goals are conveyed, including ELL
students as part of the student body population and in those goals enables their
36
academic achievement. However, schools must be clear about the direction that they
are taking in articulating how students will accomplish these academic goals. Clark
and Estes (2002), reveal that varying beliefs and values amongst a diverse group will
give rise to varying reactions and interpretations. The assumption that improving
student achievement is a common goal can result in inconsistent actions in relaying
the message, thus requiring specificity and concreteness in conveying that goal (p.
84). According to Zmuda, Kuklis, and Kline (2004), it is again the responsibility of
all site personnel to understand the direction the school has undertaken to improve
academic achievement, and commit to the effort in order to sustain a “continuous
improvement journey” (p. 20).
Besides the explicit nature of clear and concrete goals, high expectations for
academic achievement remain at the top of the list of factors that schools can control
and contribute towards students’ academic achievement (Lachat, 2004; Marzano,
2003; Marzano 2005; Zmuda et al., 2004). In articulating high expectations,
developing lessons that maintain those high expectations is likely to create
challenging and engaging learning experiences (Lachat, 2004). According to
Marzano (2003), “high expectations for students…are a cornerstone of the school
effectiveness research” (p. 36). School effectiveness must be internalized and put
into effect with actions exemplifying the concept of high expectations. High
expectations, thus becomes one of the core beliefs of the school. Zmuda et al. (2004)
proclaim “the purpose of every school is to optimize student achievement” (p. 57). It
also requires that all members of the school community participate in this effort.
37
Ultimately, for academic achievement to occur for all students, including ELL
students, academic goals must be challenging and communicated with high
expectations directly from teachers to students (Marzano, 2003).
Impact of Using the Accelerated Reader Program on Student Achievement
With the ultimate goal of closing the achievement gap for all students,
including ELL students, increased attention has been directed towards programs that
enable schools to achieve the goals prescribed by NCLB. In an attempt to meet these
goals, particularly as they relate to reading skills, the use of Accelerated Reader (AR)
was utilized as the intervention of choice for this particular study at Centennial
Elementary School.
Accelerated Reader (AR), produced by Renaissance Learning, Inc., is a
computer-based program that promotes reading comprehension by motivating
students to read. The philosophy of the program is based on the foundational skill of
reading. By learning to read well, students will be able to achieve across all subject
areas (Renaissance Learning, Inc., 2007). By using AR in a systematic manner,
students regardless of reading ability experience increased reading skills, including
comprehension (Paul, 2003).
Paul’s (2003) study is based upon information maintained by Renaissance
Learning, Inc. The Research and Evaluation Department of Renaissance Learning,
Inc. developed a database called the Reading Practice Database (RPD). This
database is comprised of reading records by 50, 823 students in 139 schools ranging
in grade level of 1 – 12. These students read more that three million books during
38
the 2001-02 school year. Data includes their quizzes, as well as background data
such as gender and race (Paul, 2003).
Overall, this study resulted in positive growth and favorable outcomes from
using “guided independent reading (GIR)” (Paul, 2003, p. 6). The salient points of
Paul’s (2003) study that connect with this study at Centennial Elementary School
are: 1) GIR results in increased reading growth regardless of reading ability; 2)
increased time in reading practice leads to reading growth when it is “carefully
guided;” and 3) “teachers are the single most important factor in accelerating reading
growth” (Paul, 2003, p. 7).
In a previous study, Paul, Swanson, Zhang and Hehenberger (1997) provided
a foundational theory that as students become better readers, they are able to
comprehend content matter in various subjects and thereby experience classroom
instruction more effectively. With more efficient classroom instruction, the
hypotheses is supported that students are able to perform stronger on standardized
assessments.
Holmes and Brown (2003) conducted another study supporting the use of
Renaissance Learning programs, including AR, in schools. Participants included
2,287 students who were tracked over a three year period (Spring 2000 through
Spring 2002) from four elementary schools where two schools were treatment
schools and two schools were contrast schools. Treatment schools and contrast
schools were selected based on similarities of percent of free and reduced lunch
39
participation, percent of majority students (Caucasian/White), and geographic
location.
Test scores were collected from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) for the
first year observation (2000) and the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test
(GCRCT) for the subsequent two years of observation (2001-2002). Results of the
analysis of this study indicated that based on the initial year observation scores, the
treatment schools that utilized Renaissance Learning programs maintained academic
achievement, and further increased their gains in the subsequent years of
observation. The overall effect size of this study was +.55. By using an Analysis of
Covariance (ANCOVA) to “statistically equate” the observations over the three year
period, results of Holmes and Brown’s (2003) study reflect that the schools utilizing
Renaissance Learning programs outperformed the school that did not use the
programs. They concluded that the treatment schools were “highly effective in
raising the performance of these elementary students” (Holmes & Brown, 2003, p.
22).
Summary of the Literature
The accountability required by NCLB has influenced the use of standardized
assessments as the tools for measuring the academic proficiency of students’
performance. The pervasive utilization and privileging of standardized assessments
has also resulted in questioning the validity of standardized assessments, and
whether they actually measure student ability in content mastery. More specifically,
the question has been asked, do standardized assessments truly measure performance
40
of ELL students on content matter? In reality, what may have resulted is the
mismatch of utilizing standardized assessments as a measure which is more
indicative of ELL students’ abilities to handle “language load” versus actual content
mastery (Abedi et al., 2005).
Additionally, results of standardized assessments may not be able to uncover
the true deficiencies in reading and literacy ELL students experience in the
classroom. This provides further responsibility on the school to contribute the entire
20 percent of influence that can affect students’ academic success (Marzano, 2003;
Marzano, 2005).
By taking into account this responsibility, utilizing additional reading
programs, such as Accelerated Reader is an attempt to provide tools towards creating
a more effective school. In this chapter, many studies were examined to provide an
explanation for, and describe the complexities in increasing the academic
achievement of students, including ELL students. However, even with the extensive
literature available on the subject, it is apparent that a deficiency remains in the
research when it comes to assessing the academic achievement of ELL students by
utilizing standardized assessments. This study attempts to provide a supplemental
resource in the arsenal of educating ELL students to their fullest potential.
41
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Summary of Research Design
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact (positive, negative or
neutral) of a standards based intervention, Accelerated Reader (AR), on the academic
achievement of ELL students in English-Language Arts at Centennial Elementary
School. Given the practical importance of the instruction of ELL students, a mixed
methods approach was taken to glean information and data towards this study. Built
on Creswell’s (2003) definition of the mixed methods approach of “pragmatic
knowledge claims,” (p. 21) this research design best met an in-depth inquiry to the
implementation of the intervention and the effect of the intervention at Centennial
Elementary School.
It is important to acknowledge that the findings of this study are limited to
the environment of Centennial Elementary School. Given the limited scope of this
study, causation (positive, negative or neutral) cannot be proven. This study serves
as an additional academic resource in determining whether Accelerated Reader has
made an impact in the academic achievement of students, specifically ELL students,
at Centennial Elementary School.
Quantitative Evaluation Design
Utilizing the mixed methods approach to data collection, the study provided
evaluation in both summative and formative tactics. Summative research was
utilized to determine the effectiveness of the intervention by the proficiency levels of
42
the total student population in English-Language Arts at Centennial Elementary
School as measured by the California Standards Test (CST) as part of the California
Standardized Testing and Reporting Results program (STAR). The overarching
research question used to guide the summative discovery process was:
• Does a standards based English-Language Arts intervention, such as
Accelerated Reader, have an effect on the academic achievement of
English language learners as measured by California Standards Test
Scores?
The summative evaluation portion of this study incorporated a pre-post
nonequivalent control groups design with one dependent outcome and two control
groups. This design demonstrated the selection of an experimental group and two
control groups that were not randomly assigned and observed for a period of time.
The researcher measured all three groups over time. However, the treatment was
only administered to the experimental group (Creswell, 2003). The experimental
school, Centennial Elementary School, has been utilizing the standards-based
intervention, Accelerated Reader and was compared to two control group schools,
Bay Avenue Elementary School and Parliament Elementary School. Selection of the
two control group schools were based upon comparable similarities of: 1) API
scores, 2) grade levels schools contained, 3) geographic location of school, 4) school
must be located within the same school district, 5) percentage of students in schools
that participate in the free or reduced price lunch program, and 6) percentage of
students categorized in schools as English language learners, as displayed in Table 2.
43
Table 2:
Selection Criteria for Experimental and Two Control Groups (2004-05 School Year)
Name API Scores School
Type
Location % Free or
Reduced
% ELL
Centennial
(Experimental)
660
( -1 growth
from 2004)
K – 5 Gardena 99% 59%
Bay Avenue
(Control #1)
666
( +21
growth
from 2004)
K - 5 Wilmington 95% 63%
Parliament
(Control #2)
673
( 0 growth
from 2004)
K – 5 Torrance 81% 62%
*** All schools are located within the Pioneer Unified School District (PUSD).
The baseline measure utilized was the percentage of students performing at
“proficiency level” and “advanced level” on the CST in English-Language Arts.
Archival data from the California STAR program beginning with the 2002-2003
school year through the 2004-2005 school year of the percentage of students
achieving at “proficiency level or above” was utilized in establishing the base line
measurement prior to the implementation of the intervention during the 2005-2006
school year. Observations began in the pre-intervention year (2005) with the second
observation occurring one year after the treatment was implemented, post-
intervention (2006). This research design is annotated in scientific notation as
follows:
E O1 X O2
C1 O1 O2
44
C2 O1 O2
The definition of the scientific notation is as follows:
Experimental Group (Centennial El. School) Pre(2005) X Post(2006)
Control Group 1 (Bay Avenue El. School) Pre(2005) Post(2006)
Control Group 2 (Parliament El. School) Pre(2005) Post(2006)
The pre-intervention observation for the school year 2004-2005 utilized the
percentage of students performing at proficient level or above in English-Language
Arts on the CST. The Treatment (X) implemented in the experimental group at
Centennial Elementary School has been Accelerated Reader (AR). The post-
intervention observation for the 2005-2006 school year was comprised of the
percentage of students performing at proficient level or above in English-Language
Arts on the CST. The 2005-2006 CST results reflect implementation of one full year
of the intervention. Results of the CST English-Language Arts scores for the
students at Centennial Elementary School were compared with the results of the CST
English-Language Arts scores for the students at Bay Avenue Elementary School
and Parliament Elementary School.
Qualitative Evaluation Design
Formative research was utilized to determine areas of the intervention that
function positively for ELL students, as well as areas of improvement in utilizing the
standards-based intervention, AR, at Centennial Elementary School. Additionally,
formative research was utilized in obtaining data on how the program has been
implemented school-wide. Methods for gathering the data entailed conducting
45
unobtrusive interviews, semi-structured interviews, unobtrusive observations, and
document analysis. Interviews and observations were conducted with staff at the
experimental school, Centennial Elementary School. Analysis of documents
included school district guidelines, memorandums, policies, and school district
instructional manuals. “Multiple sources of information are sought and used because
no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective on the program,” thereby promoting triangulation of “data sources to
validate and cross-check findings” (Patton, 2002, 306). The basis of the formative
research was driven by the following questions utilized in the interview guide:
1) How is Accelerated Reader implemented at Centennial Elementary
School?
2) What are strengths of Accelerated Reader?
3) What are weaknesses of Accelerated Reader?
4) Does Accelerated Reader affect students’ motivation for learning?
5) Does Accelerated Reader affect teacher expectations of student
achievement?
6) Does Accelerated Reader connect cultural differences of ELL students?
7) Does Accelerated Reader address English-Language Arts curriculum that
is not addressed by Open Court Reading?
8) How do you think Accelerated Reader is working at Centennial
Elementary School?
46
Overall, the purpose of the formative evaluation was to ascertain consistency in the
structural operation and implementation of the intervention for program
improvement at Centennial Elementary School.
Intervention
At Centennial Elementary School, 86% of the ELL students tested on the
English-Language Arts CST in the 2004-2005 school year performed below the
proficient level. This statistic represents that the ELL students tested scored in the
categories of “far below basic,” “below basic,” and “basic.” Furthermore, of all the
students tested on the English-Language Arts CST in the 2004-2005 school year at
Centennial Elementary School, 76% performed below the proficient level. Again,
this statistic represents that as a whole, all students tested on the English-Language
Arts CST in the 2004-2005 school year scored in the categories of “far below basic,”
“below basic,” and “basic.” These figures represent a significant achievement gap
not only for ELL students, but for all students at this school.
In order to address the apparent achievement gap of ELL students and all
students at Centennial Elementary School, Accelerated Reader was initiated as a
supplemental English-Language Arts program, used in addition to the required
English-Language Arts program, Open Court Reading. The selection of AR
stemmed from a practical standpoint of available resources at Centennial Elementary
School. Based on the technology requirement and the availability of resources, AR
was an intervention that provided “hard” data towards meeting the goal of increasing
student skills in English-Language Arts without costing the school a significant
47
amount of additional funding. Additionally, since Centennial Elementary School did
not make the adequate yearly progress (AYP) level last school year (2004 – 2005),
the school needed to have a data-driven intervention to help them meet the AYP for
the current school year in order not to fall into program improvement (PI) status
based on the state’s No Child Left Behind guidelines.
Accelerated Reader has been utilized school-wide as a standards-based
intervention to motivate students to improve their English-Language Arts skills,
weighing heavily in the area of reading comprehension. Centennial Elementary
School began using the intervention in January 2005. As a desired result of
improved literacy through AR, the school has been striving to improve the level of
English-Language Arts proficiency as measured by the CST. By using the 2006
English-Language Arts CST scores for the ELL subgroup, this measure reflects the
results of the implementation of AR for one complete year.
Accelerated Reader is a computer software program which tracks the reading
levels of students and assists in identifying areas of strength and areas that require
remediation. Accelerated Reader is advertised as an easy process that encourages
students to “build a love for reading” in three steps. First, students read books that
are reading level appropriate chosen from the list of book choices available from AR.
Accelerated Reader’s readability formula is used in order to determine reading levels
for books. This formula is derived from sampling over 30,000 students, reading
nearly 1,000,000 books over a 5 year period. In addition to selecting a book that is at
the correct reading level, a student’s interest level is also taken into consideration.
48
Second, once students finish reading their book selections, they take a quiz
that monitors a variety of literacy skills. There are six different types of AR quizzes
that “improve instruction, increase students’ reading practice, enhance literacy skills,
and strengthen…performance on standardized tests” (Renaissance Learning, Inc.,
2006, para. 2). The six types of quizzes are:
• Reading Practice Quiz
• Textbook Series Quiz
• Recorded Voice Quiz
• Literacy Skills Quiz
• Magazine Quiz
• Vocabulary Practice Quiz (Renaissance Learning, Inc., 2006, para. 2).
Third, teachers receive immediate information feedback from the quizzes
regarding the reading, comprehension, literacy and vocabulary progress of each
student. For example, overview categories for literacy skills include initial
understanding, literary analysis, inferential comprehension, and constructing
meaning. More detailed sub-categories include describing actions or events,
recognizing plot, comparing and contrasting, and deriving word or phrase meaning
(Renaissance Learning, Inc., 2006, para. 7). Diagnostic reports provide
recommendations and techniques for reading growth. These results inform teachers
of areas where students require additional instruction.
49
Participants and Setting
Participants in this study consisted of the total student population at
Centennial Elementary School, a year-round, Kindergarten through fifth grade
elementary school. Participants consisted of 952 students (563 students who are
identified as English language learners) and participate in the school-wide
intervention program, Accelerated Reader. This study measured the impact of the
intervention program by utilizing the percentage of students achieving at “proficient”
level and “advanced” level on the English-Language Arts portion of the CST in the
STAR program. The participants were measured by their CST scores from the 2005-
2006 school year. This timeframe provided a significant benchmark since the
implementation of AR met the one year mark during the time participants engaged in
the CST of Spring 2006.
An additional group of participants comprised the staff at Centennial
Elementary School. During the study, there were 53 certificated staff members
including teachers, teachers who are in “out-of-classroom” assignments who support
the school, and administrators. These adult participants agreed to share their beliefs
regarding how AR is implemented and how AR has impacted student academic
achievement at Centennial Elementary School. Not every certificated staff member
was interviewed. Since the intent of including adult participants was to gather
information regarding implementation and effect, once data gathered from these
participants became similar and repetitive, sampling from adult participants ceased to
continue.
50
The setting in this study was Centennial Elementary School located in the
city of Gardena within the Pioneer Unified School District (PUSD). Bordering cities
around the school include Lawndale, Hawthorne and Compton. The school is a
Kindergarten through fifth grade, year-round, three-track school with an enrollment
of approximately 952 students. The majority of students are comprised of
Hispanic/Latino students (79%) and African American students (17%). Out of the
952 student at Centennial Elementary School, 563 (over 59%) were categorized as
ELL students. Approximately seven percent of the ELL population was redesignated
as fluent English proficient (RFEP) in the 2004-2005 school year, meaning they no
longer required the categorization as an English language learner and are able to
participate without additional English language development. Ninety-nine percent of
the student population participates in free or reduced-price lunch. The number of
students categorized as socio-economically disadvantaged is considered significant
at Centennial Elementary School.
Instrumentation: Achievement
In order to measure achievement, this study utilized publicly available
quantitative data collected by the California Department of Education (CDE),
specifically in the area of English-Language Arts from the 2003 administration
through the 2006 administration of the California Standards Tests (CST).
Additionally, the CST results included the ELL subgroup performing at
“proficiency” and “above” levels for the experimental school, Centennial Elementary
51
School, and the two control group schools, Bay Avenue Elementary School and
Parliament Elementary School.
Based on information provided by the CDE website from the STAR program,
the English-Language Arts portion of the CST is composed of three subparts for
grades 2 and 3, and two subparts for grades 4 through 11. In grades 4 and 7, there is
an additional subpart required called Writing Applications. The total number of
items tested on the English-Language Arts CST (excluding the Writing Applications
for grades 4 and 7) is 71 items for grades 2 and 3, 81 items for grades 4 through 10,
and 96 items for grade 11 (California Department of Education, 2006).
The CST measures student performance scores on a five level scale: far
below basic, below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced. As a general guideline, a
student performing at the proficient level “represents a high level of mastery” of
content standards, whereas a student performing at the far below basic level “means
that their test performance demonstrates little or no command of the subject”
(EdSource, 2005, p. 1).
For California, the CST represents a foundation to measure whether schools
and districts are achieving academically. The scores collected from the state’s STAR
program are used as one of many accountability elements in calculating each school
and district’s Academic Performance Index (API) rating. The API score is
represented by a number between 200 and 1000. The state’s goal for every school is
to have a minimum API score of 800. If a school has already achieved an API score
of 800, minimally, the school must work to maintain that score. If a school does not
52
have an API score of 800, the state will set a point goal that the school must achieve
from year to year until the school meets the state’s minimum API score of 800
(EdSource, 2005).
Federally, the CST also represents a foundation to measure whether schools
and districts are achieving academically. Due to the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB), every subgroup of students must meet the proficiency target set every
year by the federal government in the subjects of English and mathematics called the
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In order for a subgroup to be measured, 95% of
the students in each subgroup must be included in the testing administration at each
school. If a school does not meet the AYP target for two consecutive years, the
school will “face an escalating set of consequences – from providing tutoring
services to shutting the school down – within a process called Program
Improvement” (EdSource, 2005, p. 3). Therefore, the significance of the CST score
is a principal measure of how a school is rated, ranked, and how it is allowed to
continue to provide services to students.
Procedure: Achievement
The process in which this study measured achievement entails the
compilation of CST results of the total student population from the experimental
school and the two control schools beginning with the 2003 administration through
the 2006 administration. For comparison purposes, the percentage level of the total
student population performing at the proficient level and advanced level in the
53
subject area of English-Language Arts were reviewed between the experimental
school and the two control schools.
Instrumentation: Interviews
Another source of data collection utilized in the study was interviews.
According to Patton (2002), there are three different types of interviews, each with
their own characteristics. They are: the informal conversational interview, the
general interview guide approach, and the standardized open-ended interview. The
informal conversational interview is exactly how it sounds. This interview occurs
naturally and unstructured as in common conversation. “The persons being talked
with may not even realize they are being interviewed” (Patton, 2002, p. 342). The
general interview guide approach occurs with the researcher having a set of general
topics that act as a basic check list in guiding an interview and ensuring that all
topics have been covered during the conversation. Therefore, the researcher is able
to maintain flexibility in probing interviewees with follow up questions. The
standardized open-ended interview occurs with the researcher having a distinct list of
interview questions for the persons being interviewed. These questions are delivered
in a consistent manner to minimize differentiation from interview to interview.
For the purpose of this study, the general interview guide approach was
utilized. The selection of this approach rested on the premise that “an interview
guide is prepared to ensure that the same basic lines of inquiry are pursued with each
person interviewed” (Patton, 2002, p. 343). Further, it allowed the researcher the
54
liberty to explore and probe for added insight to a particular subject. The interview
guide consisted of the following questions:
1) How is Accelerated Reader implemented at Centennial Elementary
School?
2) What are strengths of Accelerated Reader?
3) What are weaknesses of Accelerated Reader?
4) Does Accelerated Reader affect students’ motivation for learning?
5) Does Accelerated Reader affect teacher expectations of student
achievement?
6) Does Accelerated Reader connect cultural differences of ELL students?
7) Does Accelerated Reader address English-Language Arts curriculum that
is not addressed by Open Court Reading?
8) How do you think Accelerated Reader is working at Centennial
Elementary School?
Procedure: Interviews
Patton (2002) states “we interview people to find out from them those things
we cannot directly observe” (p. 340). Since it is impossible to observe everything,
such “as feelings, thoughts, and intentions,” the researcher interviewed staff at the
experimental school, Centennial Elementary School, to ascertain their feelings and
thoughts regarding the intervention, Accelerated Reader (Patton, 2002, p. 341).
Due to circumstances of opportunity, interviews were conducted at the
experimental school, Centennial Elementary School throughout the school-day,
55
within four calendar months of the school year, November 2006 through February
2007. Interviews ranged in time from fifteen to thirty minutes. The maximum
number of interviews conducted were approximately 20 certificated staff members,
including teachers, out-of-classroom teachers, and administrators at Centennial
Elementary School. Since data gathered from interviews became redundant, not all
staff was interviewed. The researcher recorded interview information during and
after interviews, via a hand-written, note-taking method in order to maintain an
unobtrusive interview technique.
Instrumentation: Observations
A third source of data collection utilized in this study was observations.
Patton (2002) shares six advantages of utilizing observation as a form of data
collection:
1) The inquirer is able to better understand the context within which people
interact.
2) The inquirer has the ability to rely less on prior conceptualizations by
having observed firsthand experience.
3) The inquirer has the opportunity to see things that may routinely escape
awareness among the people in the setting.
4) The inquirer has the opportunity to learn things that people are unwilling
to talk about in an interview.
5) The inquirer has the opportunity to move beyond the selective
perceptions of others.
56
6) The inquirer is able to utilize personal knowledge from firsthand
experience during the formal interpretation stage of analysis (pp. 262-
264).
The focus of observations were targeted at how Accelerated Reader works in
the classroom, is implemented in the classroom, as well as consistency of
implementation throughout the various classrooms at Centennial Elementary School.
Additionally, focus of observations included teacher and student actions utilizing the
intervention. Overall, the researcher utilized observations of the intervention in a
holistic manner.
Procedure: Observations
Observations were conducted in classrooms at the experimental school,
Centennial Elementary School throughout the school-day, within four calendar
months of the school year, November 2006 through February 2007. Observations
ranged in time from thirty to forty-five minutes. The maximum numbers of
observations conducted were approximately two classrooms at every grade level,
Kindergarten through fifth grade, totaling 12 observations. During observations,
both the people (including instructional staff and students) and the classroom
environment were examined. Since data gathered from observations became
redundant, not all classrooms were observed. The researcher recorded observation
information during and after observations, via a hand-written, note-taking method in
order to maintain an unobtrusive observation technique. The researcher maintained a
non-participant role while conducting overt observations.
57
Instrumentation: Document and Materials Analysis
The final source of qualitative data collection utilized in this study was
document and materials analysis. Patton (2002) highlights the importance of
studying written documents of organizations as a way to understand the context
during the development of the text and the intent to how the text was to be used
based on the studies of Gale Miller (1997). Patton (2002) cites from Miller (1997),
“‘they [organizational texts] are socially constructed realities that warrant study in
their own right’ (p. 77)” (p. 498).
Documents and materials analyzed in this study included school district
directives via memorandums, policies, and guides. Additional documents included
training manuals and district curriculum and instruction guidelines.
Procedure: Document and Materials Analysis
Document and materials analysis occurred by reviewing documents, covering
areas of content and purpose of its development, along with the organization that
developed the document. These documents were selected based on their direct
correlation to how instruction is carried out for English language learners within the
school district. By conducting document and materials analysis, this process
endeavored to lend further understanding of qualitative data information collected
from interviews and observations within this study.
Qualitative Analysis
Considering the various approaches to collecting qualitative data in this
study, the result of creating hundreds of pages of data was quite possible. In order to
58
structure the analysis of this data, Creswell’s (2003) six step guideline was utilized.
The six steps are as follows:
1) Organize and prepare the data for analysis from interviews, fieldnotes,
and documents reviewed.
2) Develop a general sense of what the data reveals, such as universal
thoughts from participants, tone of ideas, and depth of data.
3) Begin coding data via common subject areas to “chunk” or categorize
data.
4) Organize categories developed from Step 3 into themes.
5) Define what the themes represent by outlining a description based on Step
4.
6) Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data (Creswell, 2003, pp.
191-195).
Quantitative Analysis
In a typical intervention study, quantitative analysis employs the
determination of statistical significance. Since individual student data are not
available, statistical significance was not tested. Instead, sampling error and
practical significance was measured for quantitative analysis utilizing the Mann-
Whitney U Test and effect size.
The Mann-Whitney U Test was utilized in two manners to measure sampling
error. First, it was used to measure group statistical comparisons of the experimental
and control group schools using the post-intervention performance band scores (0 –
59
4) for the 2006 English-Language Arts CST results. The performance band scores
represented by a “0” through “4,” correlate with the five performance band
categories of the CST scores of “far below basic,” “below basic,” “basic,”
“proficient,” and “advanced,” respectively. Second, the Mann-Whitney U Test
compared the performance band scores, as aforementioned, of the experimental
group. The comparison of the performance band scores for the experimental group
consisted of the pre-intervention (2005) and post-intervention scores (2006) of the
English-Language Arts CST results.
In order to measure practical significance of this study, quantitative analysis
of effect size was represented by tiered effect size displays. The tiered effect size
displays utilized performance band classifications (far below basic, below basic,
basic, proficient, and advanced) to display the size of the difference between the
experimental group and the pooled control groups and the pre-intervention (2005)
and post-intervention (2006) experimental group gains or losses.
60
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
In beginning the process of analyzing test data, the proficiency categories
listed for the California Standards Test Scores (CST) of “far below basic, below
basic, basic, proficient, and advanced” were converted to a numerical scale ranging
from “0” through “4” to match the CST proficiency categories, respectively. By
creating this conversion table, “far below basic” is represented by a value of “0,”
“below basic” is represented by a value of “1,” “basic” is represented by a value of
“2,” “proficient” is represented by a value of “3,” and “advanced” is represented by a
value of “4.” Tables 3 through 10 reflect data analysis of the experimental school,
Centennial Elementary School. Tables 11 through 19 reflect data analysis of the
experimental school, Centennial Elementary School and two control group schools,
Bay Avenue Elementary School and Parliament Elementary School.
Effects on English-Language Arts CST Performance: 2005 vs. 2006
Mean performance changes for all students tested on the English-Language
Arts CST are shown in Table 3. Second through fifth grades are listed with a pre-
intervention mean change in 2005 and a post-intervention mean change in 2006 at
Centennial Elementary School. The last column reflects the amount of change from
pre-intervention mean (2005) to post-intervention mean (2006).
61
Table 3:
Mean Statistics by Grade Level
Grade
Level
2005 2006 Difference
Second 1.67
(n = 152)
1.87
(n = 150)
+ .20
Third 1.54
(n = 174)
1.70
(n = 148)
+.16
Fourth 1.93
(n = 152)
2.06
(n = 171)
+.13
Fifth 1.64
(n = 143)
1.80
(n = 143)
+.16
Total 1.69
(n = 621)
1.86
(n = 612)
+.17
Table 3 reflects positive mean changes made in all grade levels at Centennial
Elementary School. Overall, second grade made the largest change with +.20, third
and fifth grades with the next largest changes at +.16, and fourth grade making the
smallest amount of mean change of +.13 over the one year period. Given the modest
changes in all grade levels, the intervention does not appear to be making a
significant difference in Centennial Elementary School’s academic progress. Second
grade exhibited moderate change with +.20; however the remaining grade levels are
at best making marginal changes. In confirmation, the total mean difference of all
grade levels combined, results in a +.17, which could be considered marginal in
utilizing Accelerated Reader (AR) as a means for academic progress.
Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test by grade level for are shown in Table 4.
By utilizing the Mann-Whitney U Test, data are analyzed to demonstrate statistical
62
significance of the academic progress made pre-intervention (2005) and post-
intervention (2006). The statistical significance is captured in the last row of Table 4
by the observed probability.
Table 4:
Mann-Whitney U Test Results by Grade Level
2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
Mean Rank 2005 144.59 153.95 156.85 138.67
Mean Rank 2006 158.50 170.38 166.58 148.33
Z Test +1.423 +1.648 +.963 +1.034
Observed
Probability
.155 .099 .336 .301
Based on the Mann-Whitney U Test, there does not appear to be a statistical
significance in the changes made in every grade level on the English-Language Arts
CST at Centennial Elementary School. With the observed probability being greater
than .05 at every grade level, it could be interpreted that the intervention did not
influence the positive changes made post-intervention (2006) at Centennial
Elementary School on the English-Language Arts portion of the CST.
Effect size estimates for the mean changes by grade level on the English-
Language Arts CST are shown in Table 5. Effect size was calculated by dividing the
difference from pre-intervention (2005) to post-intervention (2006) by the observed
standard deviation of the pre-intervention (2005) English-Language Arts CST
classification.
63
Table 5:
Effect Size Estimates
2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
Gain +.20 +.16 +.13 +.16
2005 SD 1.184 1.051 1.102 .990
Effect Size +.168 +.152 +.117 +.161
*** The effect size estimate was +.155 for the total sample.
Table 5 shows that the effect size at every grade level at Centennial
Elementary School was small (less than +.20). As discussed earlier, these small
effect sizes may be attributed to sampling error.
Effects on English-Language Arts CST Performance Rates: 2005 vs. 2006
The performance categories for the English-Language Arts CST are reflected
in Table 6. Both pre-intervention (2005) and post-intervention (2006) performance
percentages are listed, as well as the percentage of change from pre-intervention to
post-intervention. The last column of Table 6 reflects the number of students tested
per grade level at Centennial Elementary School, along with the change in student
numbers from pre-intervention (2005) to post-intervention (2006) by grade level.
(Table 6, see following page):
64
Table 6:
Performance Categories by Grade Level
Grade FBB BB B P A N
2
nd
2005 19.7% 27.0% 25.0% 23.0% 5.3% 152
2
nd
2006 16.7% 20.0% 31.3% 24.0% 8.0% 150
Difference –
2
nd
Grade
-3.0% -7.0% +6.3% +1.0% +2.7% -2
students
3
rd
2005 17.2% 32.8% 32.8% 13.2% 4.0% 174
3
rd
2006 18.2% 16.9% 45.3% 16.2% 3.4% 148
Difference –
3
rd
Grade
+1.0% -15.9% +12.5% +3.0% -0.6% -26
students
4
th
2005 12.5% 19.1% 38.2% 23.0% 7.2% 152
4
th
2006 14.0% 19.3% 28.1% 23.4% 15.2% 171
Difference –
4
th
Grade
+1.5% +0.2% -10.1% +0.4% +8.0% +19
students
5
th
2005 16.8% 22.4% 42.0% 18.2% 0.7% 143
5
th
2006 16.1% 20.3% 39.2% 16.8% 7.7% 143
Difference –
5
th
Grade
-0.7% -2.1% -2.8% -1.4% +7.0% same
Total 2005 16.6% 25.6% 34.3% 19.2% 4.3% 621
Total 2006 16.2% 19.1% 35.6% 20.3% 8.8% 612
Difference –
Total
-0.4% -6.5% +1.3% +1.1% +4.5% - 9
students
The first two rows of Table 6 show second grade performance categories.
Second grade produced reductions in the “far below basic” category with a -3.0%
65
and “below basic” category with a -7.0%. Changes in performance category
percentages were in the basic and above performance categories of “basic,”
“proficient” and “advanced” with +6.3%, +1.0% and +2.7%, respectively.
Third grade did not have the consistency of moving students positively “to
the right” on Table 6 as second grade. However, it is significant to point out that
third grade reduced the “below basic” performance category post-intervention (2006)
by -15.9% and increased the “basic” performance category post-intervention (2006)
by +12.5%. Additionally, there was a +3.0% increase in the “proficient” category
post-intervention (2006).
Table 6 shows that fourth grade at Centennial Elementary School increased
the “far below basic” and “below basic” performance categories marginally. Yet, the
decrease in the “basic” performance category with -10.1% and the increase in the
“advanced” performance category with +8.0% are noteworthy.
Fifth grade demonstrated decreased changes in all performance categories,
except for the “advanced” performance category. Differences in percentages
decreased in “far below basic,” “below basic,” “basic” and “proficient.” The
“advanced” performance category demonstrated the only considerable increase of
change in post-intervention (2006) fifth grade students with +7.0%.
Overall, the performance categories reflect that the students at Centennial
Elementary School made changes in a positive direction. The last row in Table 6
indicates that the total student population decreased in performance category
percentages for the “far below basic” and “below basic” categories with -0.4% and
66
-6.5%, respectively. Additionally, the total student population made increased
changes in the performance categories of “basic,” “proficient” and “advanced” with
percentages of +1.3%, +1.1% and +4.5%, respectively. The basic premise of Table 6
demonstrates that Centennial Elementary School made positive changes and moved
their total student population “up” into the categories of higher academic
achievement. The school reduced the below proficient levels of “far below basic”
and “below basic” while increasing their “basic,” “proficient” and “advanced”
groups of students, thereby moving more students closer to performance as required
by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) standards.
In Table 7, the performance categories reflect groupings inclusive of the
“proficient” and “advanced” levels for each grade level at Centennial Elementary
School. According to NCLB, students who are considered meeting the guidelines of
proficiency, achieve at the “proficient” and “advanced” levels on the CST.
Table 7:
Proficiency Rates (Proficient and Advanced Levels) by Grade Level Under
NCLB
2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
Proficiency Rates
2005
28.3%
(n = 152)
17.2%
(n = 174)
30.2%
(n = 152)
18.9%
(n = 143)
Proficiency Rates
2006
32%
(n = 150)
19.6%
(n = 148)
38.6%
(n = 171)
24.5%
(n = 143)
+3.7% +2.4% +8.4% +5.6%
Fisher Exact p .531 .665 .129 .315
67
According to the Fisher Exact probability, the values shown for each grade
level’s percentage of proficiency is not statistically significant. This interpretation of
data analysis reflects that the positive change in proficiency rates at Centennial
Elementary School based on the use of AR as an intervention did not measure as
being statistically significant. Although statistical significance is not present,
practical significance is demonstrated in the fact that proficiency rates at all grade
levels of Centennial Elementary School increased post-intervention (2006).
Table 8 reflects the percentages of all students at Centennial Elementary
School not performing at proficiency level and all students who are performing at
proficiency level both pre-intervention and post-intervention. The last row of Table
8 displays the difference of percentages in proficiency groups pre-intervention
(2005) and post-intervention (2006).
Table 8:
Total Sample Proficiency Rates (Proficient and Advanced Levels)
Proficiency Fisher Exact
0 1
2005 76.5%
(n = 475)
23.5%
(n = 146)
2006 70.9%
(n = 434)
29.1%
(n = 178)
Total
-5.6% +5.6% p=.028
Since the value of the Fisher Exact probability here in Table 8 does show
statistical significance, the increase in students performing at proficiency cannot be
68
attributed to sampling error. Additionally, practical significance is again illustrated
in the increase of students performing at the level of proficiency according to NCLB
standards. The post-intervention (2006) proficiency percentage increased by +5.6%.
This percentage reflects an increase of 32 students who are now considered
proficient at Centennial Elementary School.
Effects on English-Language Arts CST Basic and Above Rates: 2005 vs. 2006
Under current NCLB guidelines, the level of proficiency is categorized as
performing at “proficient” level or “advanced” level. However, the question must be
raised “How would student achievement be viewed if the level of proficiency
included students performing in the performance categories of “basic,” “proficient”
and “advanced?” A viable resource in analyzing student achievement includes the
rate at which students “move up” into the proficiency category of “basic” from
“below basic.” In Table 9 and Table 10, data reflect the proficiency rates inclusive
of “basic,” “proficient” and “advanced” levels for each grade level at Centennial
Elementary School.
Table 9:
Proficiency Rates (Basic, Proficient and Advanced Levels) by Grade Level
(Non-NCLB)
2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
Basic & Above
Rates 2005
53.3%
(n=152)
50.0%
(n=174)
68.4%
(n=152)
60.9%
(n=143)
Basic & Above
Rates 2006
63.3%
(n=150)
64.9%
(n=148)
66.7%
(n=171)
63.7%
(n=143)
+10.0%
+14.9% -1.7% +2.8%
69
Table 9 (Contd.)
Fisher Exact p .081 .009 .812 .715
Although proficiency does not include the category of “basic,” data in Table
9 reflects positive change in all grade levels, excluding fourth grade at Centennial
Elementary School. Considering that fourth grade experienced a slight decline of
-1.7%, both second and third grades experienced at least a +10.0% change and fifth
grade experienced a +2.8% change from pre-intervention (2005) to post-intervention
(2006).
Table 10:
Total Sample Proficiency Rates (Basic, Proficient and Advanced Levels)
“Basic” of Higher Fisher Exact
0 1
2005 42.2%
(n = 262)
57.8%
(n = 359)
2006 35.3%
(n = 216)
64.7%
(n = 396)
Total -6.9% +6.9% p=.014
By adjusting the level of proficiency to include the “basic” level category, the
Fisher Exact probability reflects statistical significance and thus the improvement
can be attributed to the use of the intervention, AR, in the academic growth at
Centennial Elementary School. Moreover, the majority of students would be
considered performing at the level of proficiency if NCLB guidelines were to include
70
the “basic” level category, rather than the majority of students considered performing
under the proficiency level, as currently exhibited with NCLB.
As noted previously, under current NCLB guidelines, students considered
proficient are those achieving at the “proficient” and “advanced” performance
categories. Should NCLB be modified to also include the performance category of
“basic,” the practical significance of double-digit positive changes in both second
and third grade, +10.0% and +14.9%, respectively, would denote a significant
increase in moving students closer to proficiency at Centennial Elementary School.
Effects on English-Language Arts CST Performance: Experimental Group vs.
Two Control Groups
The following factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) analyzes data
reflective of the statistical main effects and interactions between the experimental
school, Centennial Elementary School (School 1), and the two control group schools,
Bay Avenue Elementary School (School 2) and Parliament Elementary School
(School 3), the four grade levels and the two years (Table 11). The results for the
three interactions that involved grade either were significant or close to significant.
This suggests a follow-up analysis for each grade level is warranted.
(Table 11, see following page):
71
Table 11:
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Perform
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Partial
Eta
Squared
Corrected Model 136.241(b) 23 5.924 4.751 .000 .025
Intercept 12729.842 1 12729.842 10209.216 .000 .706
Grade 45.135 3 15.045 12.066 .000 .008
Year 14.766 1 14.766 11.842 .001 .003
School 16.871 2 8.435 6.765 .001 .003
Grade * Year 19.073 3 6.358 5.099 .002 .004
Grade * School 13.520 6 2.253 1.807 .094 .003
Year * School 5.637 2 2.818 2.260 .104 .001
Grade * Year * School 14.002 6 2.334 1.872 .082 .003
Error 5309.288 4258 1.247
Total 18383.000 4282
Corrected Total 5445.529 4281
a Computed using alpha = .05
b R Squared = .025 (Adjusted R Squared = .020)
Experimental vs. Control Group Schools - Second Grade Findings
In Table 13, the means of all three schools, experimental school and two
control group schools experienced positive change from pre-intervention (2005) to
post-intervention (2006), F (1, 1076) = 11.37, p = .001. Centennial Elementary
School and Bay Avenue Elementary School had marginal improvements of +.20
changes in their means, while Parliament Elementary School experienced a positive
one-third change in performance band (+.32). Based on the conversion of the
performance categories of “far below basic,” “below basic,” “basic,” “proficient”
and “advanced” to a numeric value of “0,” “1,” “2,” “3” and “4,” respectively,
Parliament Elementary School (C school 3) made a positive change in their mean
from a 1.75 (high below basic) performance category to a 2.07 (basic) performance
category.
72
Table 12:
Second Grade Means – Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Perform
Year School Mean
Std.
Deviation N
2005 1 1.67 1.184 152
2 1.60 1.144 241
3 1.75 1.127 173
Total 1.66 1.149 566
2006 1 1.87 1.191 150
2 1.80 1.083 197
3 2.07 1.108 169
Total 1.91 1.127 516
Total 1 1.77 1.189 302
2 1.69 1.120 438
3 1.91 1.127 342
Total 1.78 1.145 1082
Table 13:
Second Grade ANOVA Table – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Perform
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 24.889(b) 5 4.978 3.850 .002
Intercept 3381.315 1 3381.315 2614.997 .000
Year 14.699 1 14.699 11.368 .001
School 8.614 2 4.307 3.331 .036
Year * School .783 2 .391 .303 .739
Error 1391.319 1076 1.293
Total 4841.000 1082
Corrected Total 1416.208 1081
a Computed using alpha = .05
b R Squared = .018 (Adjusted R Squared = .013)
Experimental vs. Control Group Schools - Third Grade Findings
In Table 15, the means of all three schools, experimental school and two
control group schools experienced positive change from pre-intervention (2005) to
post-intervention (2006), F (1, 1078) = 13.74, p = .001. Centennial Elementary
School and Bay Avenue Elementary School again had marginal improvements of
73
+.16 and +.13 changes in their means, respectively. Parliament Elementary School
experienced nearly a one-half change in performance band (+.43). Despite the
change in the means of all three schools, the performance category outcome remains
in the middle to high “below basic” performance level. Table 15 indicates the year-
by-school statistical interaction is not statistically significant as exhibited by the
observed probability (p = .120).
Table 14:
Third Grade Means – Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Perform
Year School Mean
Std.
Deviation N
2005 1 1.54 1.051 174
2 1.40 .960 204
3 1.46 1.079 176
Total 1.46 1.027 554
2006 1 1.70 1.054 148
2 1.53 1.084 230
3 1.89 1.058 152
Total 1.68 1.077 530
Total 1 1.61 1.054 322
2 1.47 1.029 434
3 1.66 1.089 328
Total 1.57 1.057 1084
(Table 15, see following page):
74
Table 15:
Third Grade ANOVA Table – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Perform
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 26.054(b) 5 5.211 4.746 .000
Intercept 2665.199 1 2665.199 2427.376 .000
Year 15.091 1 15.091 13.745 .000
School 8.721 2 4.360 3.971 .019
Year * School 4.657 2 2.329 2.121 .120
Error 1183.617 1078 1.098
Total 3882.000 1084
Corrected Total
1209.672 1083
a Computed using alpha = .05
b R Squared = .022 (Adjusted R Squared = .017)
Experimental vs. Control Group Schools - Fourth Grade Findings
In Table 16, the means of all three schools, experimental school and two
control group schools experienced positive change from pre-intervention (2005) to
post-intervention (2006). Centennial Elementary School and Bay Avenue
Elementary School both experienced marginal improvements of +.13 changes in
their means. Parliament Elementary School experienced an extremely small mean
change of +.03. With positive changes in the means of all three schools, Centennial
Elementary School (E school 1) made changes from the performance category in the
high “below basic” proficiency level to the “basic” proficiency level. Although all
three schools experienced positive academic change, when taking in consideration
the main effect of the year and year-by-school interaction, Table 17 indicates the
differences were not statistically significant (p = .184) and (p = .777), respectively.
75
Table 16:
Fourth Grade Means – Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Perform
Year School Mean
Std.
Deviation N
2005 1 1.93 1.102 152
2 1.75 1.141 220
3 1.78 1.142 158
Total 1.81 1.131 530
2006 1 2.06 1.266 171
2 1.88 1.100 189
3 1.81 1.185 166
Total 1.92 1.185 526
Total 1 2.00 1.191 323
2 1.81 1.123 409
3 1.80 1.163 324
Total 1.87 1.159 1056
Table 17:
Fourth Grade ANOVA Table – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Perform
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 12.067(b) 5 2.413 1.804 .109
Intercept 3639.358 1 3639.358 2720.118 .000
Year 2.365 1 2.365 1.768 .184
School 8.287 2 4.143 3.097 .046
Year * School .674 2 .337 .252 .777
Error 1404.839 1050 1.338
Total 5092.000 1056
Corrected Total 1416.905 1055
a Computed using alpha = .05
b R Squared = .009 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)
Experimental vs. Control Group Schools - Fifth Grade Findings
In analyzing the means of the experimental and two control group schools,
second through fourth grades all experienced positive mean changes. However, fifth
grade findings are not consistent. In Table 18, only Centennial Elementary School
76
(E school 1) made a positive mean change of +.16. Bay Avenue Elementary School
(C school 2) and Parliament Elementary School (C school 3) both experienced
negative changes of -.39 and -.06, respectively. This divergence in change indicates
that there may be other factors present in the lack of academic change in this grade
level. Although Centennial Elementary School moved positively, the school remains
in the “below basic” performance level, as do the two control group schools, as well.
Table 19 indicates that the year-by-school statistical interaction is certainly
statistically significant, F (2, 1054) = 5.42, p = .005.
Table 18:
Fifth Grade Means – Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Perform
Year School Mean
Std.
Deviation N
2005 1 1.64 .990 143
2 1.87 1.074 240
3 1.87 1.201 177
Total 1.81 1.099 560
2006 1 1.80 1.136 143
2 1.48 1.163 215
3 1.81 1.154 142
Total 1.67 1.162 500
Total 1 1.72 1.066 286
2 1.69 1.132 455
3 1.84 1.179 319
Total 1.74 1.130 1060
(Table 19, See following page):
77
Table 19:
Fifth Grade ANOVA Table – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Perform
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 23.660(b) 5 4.732 3.751 .002
Intercept 3084.661 1 3084.661 2445.430 .000
Year 2.245 1 2.245 1.780 .182
School 5.189 2 2.594 2.057 .128
Year * School 13.666 2 6.833 5.417 .005
Error 1329.514 1054 1.261
Total 4568.000 1060
Corrected Total 1353.174 1059
a Computed using alpha = .05
b R Squared = .017 (Adjusted R Squared = .013)
Effects on English Language Learners Subgroup on Academic Performance
Index
Given the positive changes made by the total student population at Centennial
Elementary School, it is reasonable to consider the English Language Learner (ELL)
subgroup within the total school population also made positive changes. This
concept is consistent with the data presented in this chapter. Since the ELL
population accounts for over 59% (563 students) of the total school population, given
the increase in mean changes across all grade levels at Centennial Elementary
School, the ELL population would have been required to achieve proportionate
positive changes on the English-Language Arts CST in order for the entire school
population to acquire the increase in API points the school experienced post-
intervention (2006).
In confirmation, the ELL subgroup scored an Academic Performance Index
(API) of 688 points in the post-intervention year (2006) (California Department of
78
Education, 2006). This reflects a +33 points gain from the baseline of 655 points in
the pre-intervention year (2005). The ELL subgroup reflects congruency in the
positive academic change made by the total school population at Centennial
Elementary School.
Additional evidence supporting the change in achievement of the ELL
subgroup is as follows. As previously stated in the introduction, of the ELL students
tested on the English-Language Arts CST in the 2004-2005 school year at Centennial
Elementary School, 86% of the ELL students performed below the proficient level
on the English-Language Arts CST. Subsequently, the post-intervention (2006)
observation of the ELL subgroup yielded a seven percent (7%) increase of students
performing at the proficient level on the English-Language Arts CST, thereby
reducing the 86% below proficient rate to 79% for the 2005-06 school year. Again,
the increase in the percentage of ELL students performing at the level of proficiency
provides practical significance in the use of the intervention, Accelerated Reader.
79
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
The previous chapters in this study have provided the rationale and roadmap
as to the researcher’s intent for the evaluation of a standards based intervention,
Accelerated Reader (AR) and its impact at Centennial Elementary School. The
following chapter concludes this study by elaborating on the implications of the
quantitative findings, interweaving conclusions drawn from the qualitative data
gathered in this study, providing recommendations for the site studied, the state
department of education, and further study.
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact (positive, negative or
neutral) of a standards based intervention, AR, on the academic achievement of ELL
students in English-Language Arts at Centennial Elementary School. Specifically,
the percentage of change in performance bands of the California Standards Test
(CST) from pre-intervention (2005) to post-intervention (2006) were analyzed by
grade level for all students in the experimental school, Centennial Elementary
School. Also, the main effects and interactions between the experimental school,
Centennial Elementary School (School 1), and the two control group school, Bay
Avenue Elementary School (School 2) and Parliament Elementary School (School
3), the four grade levels and the two years were analyzed.
80
Participants in this study consisted of the student population (952 students) at
Centennial Elementary School, a year-round, Kindergarten through fifth grade
elementary school. Approximately 563 students are identified as English language
learners (ELL) and participated in the school-wide intervention program, AR.
An additional group of participants comprised the staff at Centennial
Elementary School. During the study, there were 53 certificated staff members
including teachers and administrators. These adult participants agreed to share their
beliefs regarding how AR was implemented and how AR has impacted student
academic achievement at Centennial Elementary School. Not every certificated staff
member was interviewed. Since the intent of including adult participants was to
gather information regarding implementation and effect, once data gathered from
these participants became similar and repetitive, sampling from adult participants
ceased to continue. Results of qualitative data gathered are shared in the findings
sections concerning the experimental school, Centennial Elementary School, as well
as the findings sections regarding the interactions between Centennial Elementary
School, and the two control group schools, Bay Avenue Elementary School and
Parliament Elementary School. In total, seventeen (17) interviews and seven (7)
observations were conducted at Centennial Elementary School. Document and
materials analysis consisted of District memorandums, reference guides, and
curriculum and instruction guidelines. The qualitative data collected supports this
study in determining the fidelity of the intervention’s implementation and effect and
contributes to the implications of this study.
81
Summary of Findings – Centennial Elementary School
The following section provides evidence in answering the overarching
research question that guided this study: Does a standards based English-Language
Arts intervention, such as Accelerated Reader, have an effect on the academic
achievement of English language learners as measured by California Standards Test
Scores? Overall, the depth of impact that AR had in the academic achievement of all
students at Centennial Elementary School was positive. Given the increase in the
Academic Performance Index (API) scores of the entire school from 660 points, pre-
intervention (2005), to 691 points, post-intervention (2006), on the surface, the
intervention provided a positive outcome in its use at Centennial Elementary School.
When reviewing the findings by grade level for the experimental school,
Centennial Elementary School, positive changes were made at all grade levels,
second through fifth (Table 3). Given the modest changes in the means, although
they are not substantial in size, the increases are apparent across the entire school and
can be attributed in part to the reason Centennial Elementary School achieved its
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and API.
Based on second grade findings, the second grade had the largest mean
change of +.20. Although this number is not large, it reflects a consistent positive
change in moving second graders toward the performance categories of “proficient”
and “advanced.” Percentages of students decreased at the “far below basic” and
“below basic” performance bands.
82
Third grade findings demonstrated an overall mean change of +.16.
Although the change is smaller, it is significant to note that the percentage of
students performing at the “below basic” level decreased by -15.9% and increased at
the “basic” level by +12.5% and at the “proficient” level by +3.0%. This indicates
that third graders are moving towards higher levels of proficiency.
Findings at the fourth grade level were variable. While there was an overall
mean change of +.13, the performance category bands reflect a more significant
development in proficiency. Fourth graders experienced changes in the “far below
basic,” “below basic” and “proficient” levels. However, it is significant to note the
decrease in the “below” performance category of -10.1% and the significant increase
in the “advanced” performance category of +8.0%.
At the fifth grade level, the overall mean change reflected a +.16 growth.
Even though, the mean change is identical to the mean change for second grade, the
performance categories reflect very different results. Fifth graders consistently
decreased the percentages in the “far below basic,” “below basic,” “basic” and
“proficient” levels by -0.7%, -2.1%, -2.8%, and -1.4%, respectively. It is significant
to note that the percentage increased at the “advanced” performance category was
+7.0%. This result reflects that all fifth graders performed at a level of increasing
proficiency.
In support of the positive changes made at the experimental school,
Centennial Elementary School, Table 6 reflects that overall, the school made positive
changes across all performance bands. The total student population (last row in
83
Table 6) decreased in performance category percentages for the “far below basic”
and “below basic” categories with -0.4% and -6.5%, respectively. Additionally, the
total student population made positive changes in the performance category
percentages for the “basic,” “proficient” and “advanced” categories with +1.3%,
+1.1% and +4.5%, respectively. The basic premise of Table 6 demonstrates that
Centennial Elementary School made positive change and moved their total student
population “up” into the categories of higher academic achievement. Centennial
Elementary School lowered the below proficient levels of “far below basic” and
“below basic” while increasing their “basic,” “proficient” and “advanced” groups of
students, thereby moving more students closer to performance as required by No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) standards.
In conjunction with the above discussed quantitative findings, it is extremely
significant to note the qualitative findings. These findings provided data in
answering the formative research questions:
1) How is Accelerated Reader implemented at Centennial Elementary
School, and
2) How is Accelerated Reader working at Centennial Elementary School?
Out of the seventeen (17) interviews and seven (7) observations, teachers and
administrators interviewed revealed in unanimous agreement the manner in which
AR was implemented. The uniformity in how the intervention was utilized school-
wide was identical in every interview and observation, thereby providing total
saturation in the interview and observation processes.
84
Accelerated Reader (AR) is used by teachers as a supplemental English-
Language Arts activity during the Independent Workshop Time (IWT). When
students have completed the required assignments of the Open Court Reading (OCR)
program, students can select an activity off of the “may-do” list, which includes the
option of AR.
When students utilize AR, once they have completed reading an AR book,
they can complete a computer-based quiz that evaluates their level of comprehension
as well as other various reading skills, such as vocabulary, grammar, literacy, etc.
Each classroom is equipped with a minimum of four (4) computers that can be used
to complete quizzes. One teacher interviewed expressed, “if you hear the printer,
you know they’re [students] working [on an AR quiz].” Students and classrooms are
then rewarded with prizes based on the number of points earned from completing AR
quizzes.
Additional qualitative findings at the experimental school found that fourth
and fifth grade teachers perceived that by using AR, student reading comprehension
increased “discussion levels in other subject areas.” A fifth grade teacher also
expressed, “I think AR has increased comprehension, not just in Language Arts, but
in all other areas. I see growth across-the-board.” Teachers and administrators
unanimously expressed that they had noted the increased level of comprehension that
students gleaned from using AR.
Weaknesses expressed by staff generally related to a lack of available
selection of books that were on AR’s reading list that were not supplied at their
85
particular site. Also, there seemed to be a lack of clarity in how points were awarded
based on book selection, especially at the lower grades. Overall, staff members had
positive perceptions of the program and desired to have additional monies spent for
purchasing additional book selections on the AR book list.
Staff members all agreed that AR was a “motivating” intervention that
worked in conjunction with the OCR program, the District-wide English-Language
Arts program. A fifth-grade teacher used the expression that AR “piggy-backed” on
the effects of OCR. More than one teacher stated that the reason Centennial
Elementary School had achieved the AYP and API requirement for the 2005-06
school year was greatly due to the use of AR which created “an enhanced
community of readers.”
Summary of Findings – Centennial Elementary School, Bay Avenue Elementary
School and Parliament Elementary School
In reviewing the findings of the study, the interactions and effects of the
experimental school, Centennial Elementary School, must be discussed in
combination with the two control schools, Bay Avenue Elementary School and
Parliament Elementary School. Based on the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), the
results for the three interactions that involved grade in Table 11: “Grade,” “Grade *
Year” and “Grade * Year * School,” were significant or close to significant as
evidenced by the observed probabilities of p = .001, p = .002 and p = .082,
respectively. This implies the significance of grade level was a factor in each
school’s findings.
86
The interactions and effects for grades two through four reflect positive
change in the mean performance categories of all schools, Centennial Elementary
School (E school 1), Bay Avenue Elementary School (C school 2) and Parliament
Elementary School (C school 3). In both second and third grades, Centennial
Elementary School and Bay Avenue Elementary School showed positive changes
ranging from +.13 - +.20, whereas Parliament Elementary School reflected more
significant positive changes ranging from +.32 - +.33. However, in the fourth grade,
Centennial Elementary School and Bay Avenue Elementary School had larger
changes of +.13 for both schools compared to Parliament Elementary School who
made a mean change of +.03. In fifth grade, the experimental school, Centennial
Elementary School, was the only school to have made a positive change of +.16,
whereas, Bay Avenue Elementary School and Parliament Elementary School had
negative changes in mean scores of -.39 and -.06, respectively.
Implications
As the study progressed, interesting changes in achievement emerged across
all grade levels at the experimental school, Centennial Elementary School. While
second grade had the largest mean change, this grade level did not have the greatest
increase in percentages in the performance categories of “proficient” and
“advanced.” Based on teacher interviews and observations, although overall
perceptions of the intervention were positive, the implication of underlying teacher
resistance in the complexity of how points are calculated did arise. Teacher
87
frustration, no matter how hidden, can be extrapolated by students whose interactions
occur on a daily basis.
In the third grade, the observed probability of p = .099 was closer to
significant, although not statistically significant, teachers observed that when using
the intervention, groups of students would gather together and choose the same book
and develop enriched discussions of the plot, character, and background of the book.
As a by-product, Marzano’s (2003) concepts of unclear expectations and the
requirement of explicit and immediate feedback were inherently solved by the
students themselves. Students, in essence, formed book-clubs around a common
book selection and provided interaction and immediate feedback with their self
generated discussions.
In the fourth and fifth grades, the “advanced” performance category was
significantly increased by +8.0% and +7.0%, respectively. It is clear to the
researcher, based on teacher interviews and observations, that the teachers at the
fourth and fifth grade levels linked the curriculum concept of reading comprehension
across all subject areas, not only in English-Language Arts, thereby advocating the
ability that Marzano’s (2003) teacher-level factors do “have a profound influence on
student achievement” (p. 75). The fourth and fifth grade teachers actively cultivated
the instructional skill of reading comprehension during English-Language Arts and
then connected the same instructional skill when teaching other subjects areas, such
as science and social studies. By expanding students’ abilities for reading
comprehension, this skill allowed students to maximize the opportunity to learn the
88
school’s intended curriculum as it is being delivered by teachers (Bailey, 2005;
Butler & Castellon-Wellington, 2005; Marzano, 2003). Students with increased
reading comprehension may allow teachers to cover content material at a pace that
was expected by the time standardized testing arrived. Schmoker and Marzano
(1999) dictate that “success…is contingent upon clear, commonly defined goals” (p.
17). With teachers being able to focus on completing the standards measured on
state-wide assessments, reflects the benefit of a standards-based curriculum.
When viewing the overall results, Centennial Elementary School experienced
positive academic achievement changes at all grade levels. Although not wholly
statistically significant, the practical significance lies in the evidence that students
are moving closer to the level of proficiency. The positive results may be attributed
to using the intervention, Accelerated Reader.
Implications for the Role of Standards-Based Education
The use of the standards-based intervention, AR, resulted in positive practical
outcomes, overall for Centennial Elementary School. Since AR assessments were
constructed with specific English-Language Arts standards in mind, students who
performed well on these assessments also exhibited achievement in the questions
measuring similar standards on the state assessments. By creating an environment
for students to practice reading comprehension and various English-Language Arts
standards, Lauer, Snow, Martin-Glenn, Van Buhler, Stoutemyer, and Snow-Renner
(2005) explain, this environment was structured to “provide a common set of clear
expectations for all students with the assumption that their implementation will result
89
in an improved system of education and higher student achievement” (p. 3). Higher
student achievement was exhibited by increased student achievement on the CST.
Ultimately, the role of the teacher played the largest part of all in increasing
student achievement in reading. If the teacher was able to connect skills across
multiple content areas, students had a tendency to respond more favorably.
“Teachers knew exactly what students needed to learn, what to teach to, where to
improve, and what to work on with colleagues” (Schmoker & Marzano, 1999, p. 18).
The responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of teachers to organize, develop and
deliver content that is developmentally appropriate and pedagogically sound to
students who, in turn listen, internalize and learn (Lauer et al., 2005). As long as
teachers and students are clear about understanding the goal and what the process
requires reaching the goal, achievement can be a likely outcome.
Site-Based Recommendations
Based on this limited study, the current model of utilizing the intervention,
Accelerated Reader, at Centennial Elementary School is on a voluntary basis by both
teachers and students. Teachers allow students to select AR from the “may do” list
when required tasks are completed. Given that AR use was voluntary, did not ensure
that all students utilized the intervention thereby the overall positive effect on the
student population was diminished, compared to use by the entire student population.
To incorporate AR within a structured timeframe would ensure that students
are provided with an allotment of time to practice reading (Paul, 2003). Supported
by research funded by Renaissance Learning, Inc., (publisher of Accelerated
90
Reader), Paul (2003) derived from the Commission on Reading’s, Becoming a
Nation of Readers, that the program supported “independent reading and
recommended schools allocated more in-school time to independent reading” (p. 16).
By guiding students explicitly on how to read, poor readers have the opportunity to
increase their skill level to become better readers. This recommendation does not
imply that independent reading is equivalent to sustained silent reading. Rather,
independent reading may be guided with explicit direct instruction by the teacher, an
aide, or by an advanced student in the classroom or higher grade level.
Another recommendation to support Centennial Elementary School in its
quest for academic improvement lies in the process of establishing measurable goals
(Marzano, 2003. As previously mentioned, several teachers stated that the use of AR
contributed to the goal of Centennial Elementary School achieving its AYP and API
requirement. Meeting the requirements of AYP and API are not indicative of the
school meeting an academic goal. The goal that should have been set as a precursor
to meeting the state’s goal could have been exhibited as:
GOAL: Centennial Elementary School will increase student reading
comprehension by five percent at each grade level, each semester.
By producing measurable goals in the classroom, both teachers and students are
allowed the opportunity to practice the skills required to meet the goal and are
responsible for achieving the goal. “Learning is enhanced when students are
presented with tasks that are similar enough for them to ascertain their sameness”
91
(Marzano, 2005, p. 112) which, in this example, reasonably leads to increased
reading comprehension achievement on the state assessments.
Additionally, the opportunity to link school to home can provide parents and
relatives a place at school where independent reading is modeled. Centennial
Elementary School currently has a “health on-the-go” program which encourages
adult participation regarding wellness issues for themselves and their children. By
incorporating adult participation through reading, the school to home/home to school
link would be further extended. As students observe adult figures from their home
life interacting within the confines of their school life, connections, both culturally
and motivationally are created. These connections aid students in overcoming
motivational factors that may inhibit academic achievement (Marzano, 2003).
The final site-based recommendation is truly foundational: this is a material
recommendation for contributions of monetary resources. Throughout the interview
process, teachers consistently referred to the lack of book selection available for
students. Additionally, technical maintenance of the school’s computers was also
near the top of the list. Because classroom computers were not consistently
maintained along with AR’s software program, “bugs” in the system made utilizing
the intervention frustrating at times for both students and teachers.
Department of Education Recommendation
Throughout the duration of this study, the intention of the researcher was to
focus on the English Language Learner (ELL) subgroup. However, given the
available data from the California Department of Education, the ELL subgroup
92
performance band information has not been provided in all categories. Currently, as
of the date of publication of this study, the only performance band information
available for the ELL subgroup on the California Department of Education website is
demonstrated by the “% Proficient and Above.” The itemization of the individual
performance bands of “far below basic,” “below basic,” “basic,” “proficient” and
“advanced” are integral measures for analysis. Considering this absence of
disaggregated data, it would further assist researchers and practitioners in the pursuit
of data-driven recommendations in improving ELL students’ academic achievement.
Recommendations for Further Study
The present study focused on an evaluation of the impact of a standards based
intervention on the academic achievement of ELL students. However, it is difficult
to truly measure the achievement of ELL students based on a standardized measure
that was designed for students who are already English proficient.
Further research is required to measure the achievement of ELL students
based on their content knowledge. Based upon the current measure of the California
English Language Development Test (CELDT) that is administered annually, this
test only measures the level at which students are progressing in the ability to listen,
speak, read and write English. The CELDT does not measure academic content area.
As previously documented in the literature review, Abedi, Leon, and Mirocha (2005)
present a study that provides evidence that current standardized assessments may
ultimately only measure the level of “language load” that an ELL student can handle
versus the actual content knowledge the ELL student has mastered (p.2).
93
Additional research is needed to determine whether the best measure of
proficiency as it is currently held under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) guidelines in
California equates to students performing at the performance category levels of
“proficient” and “advanced.” Studies are being undertaken to resolve whether the
performance category of “basic” should be included as performing at the proficient
level. Discussion has emerged which hypothesizes the number of years that an ELL
student performs at the “basic” performance category with small increases which
leads to advancing to the next performance category of “advanced.”
Furthermore, since the teacher is the school’s most controllable and important
factor in students’ academic achievement, the impact of teacher efficacy is a required
dynamic for further study (Marzano, 2003). Teachers vary in levels of efficacy and
professionalism. Their individual uniqueness in lesson delivery alone can be a factor
in impacting student success. According to Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001), a
“professional teacher” is one who exhibits as a primary and foremost characteristic
as being “competent in the classroom through the facilitation of students’ learning”
(p. 5). The measurement of teacher professionalism and competency is a field of
study that is understandably interrelated to the aspect of student performance.
By the same token, individual student and grade level characteristics are an
additional support for further study. Effects such as amount of time exposed to
curricular concepts, prior knowledge and ability to accommodate academically are
factors that contribute and shape students’ academic abilities (Lauer et al., 2005).
94
These factors are also interrelated to the aspect of how students perform in the
classroom and on standardized assessments.
Since this study was conducted within a limited scope with specific reference
to environment and sample, additional questions have emerged as a result. Further
research is desired regarding the validity of the California Standards Test as an
adequate measure of an ELL student’s academic achievement. The following
questions form the basis of the key themes that emerged as a result of this study:
• When taking into consideration the language the test is administered, would a
test in a student’s primary language be a better measure of content
knowledge?
• If a content knowledge test was administered, would non-ELL students
continue to perform at a higher level than their ELL peers?
Limitations
In light of the limitations of this study, caution is exercised in the
generalization of results. An internal limitation was exhibited in the use of a pre-post
nonequivalent control groups design. Given the results, although positive overall,
there are many extraneous factors that were not addressed that may have influenced
the outcome of the effects. One factor is the limitation of sampling variability which
hinders the true measure of the amount of change exhibited by each grade level.
Kane and Staiger (2002) state “there are many potential sources of short-term
fluctuations in student performance. Sampling variation is surely one factor” (p. 95).
For instance, the observation of a fourth grade class in the pre-intervention (2005)
95
school year is subsequently observed as the fifth grade class during the post-
intervention (2006) school year. Over the course of the school year, the sample
population may have altered by the departure of the five lowest performing students
and the addition of five high performing students, thereby resulting in an increase of
grade level performance due to the effect of sampling variability.
Additionally, the lack of end-user data currently available from the California
Department of Education provided an external limitation to this study. As previously
mentioned, a recommendation of expanding the information regarding ELL
subgroup (and other subgroups) performance bands would have further enabled data
analysis in this study.
Conclusion
This study has revealed the impact of a standards based intervention on the
academic achievement of ELL students. Given the results of the findings, the overall
impact of the intervention, Accelerated Reader, was positive. However, with these
positive findings, the conclusions do not provide answers to the efficacy of learning
by ELL students. This study presents but one additional resource to assist in moving
students closer to proficiency. As a consequence, additional research must be
pursued to improve the methods of measuring academic mastery equitably for all
students, including English language learners.
96
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abedi, J. (2004). Inclusion of students with limited English proficiency in NAEP:
Classification and measurement issues (CSE Report 629). Los Angeles, CA:
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
(CRESST), Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), Graduate School of
Education and Information Studies (GSEIS), University of California, Los
Angeles.
Abedi, J. (2004, January/February). The No Child Left Behind Act and English
language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational
Researcher 33(1), 4-14.
Abedi, J., Bailey, A., Butler, F., Castellon-Wellington, M., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J.
(2005). The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to
English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives (CSE
Report 663). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Center for the Study of
Evaluation (CSE), Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
(GSEIS), University of California, Los Angeles.
Buly, M.R. & Valencia, S. (2003, April). Meeting the needs of failing readers:
Cautions and considerations for state policy (Document O-03-1). Seattle,
WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Butler, F.A. & Stevens, R (2001). Standardized assessments of the content
knowledge of English language learners K – 12: Current trends and old
dilemmas. Language Testing 2001, 18 (4) 409-427.
Cain, B., Citrin, J., & Wong, C. (2000, July). Research brief: Ethnicity,
Neighborhoods, and California Politics. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy
Institute of California.
California Department of Education (2005). 2005 Accountability Progress Report.
Retrieved September 12, 2006, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypcriteria05.pdf.
California Department of Education (2006). School Report - API Growth and
Targets Met. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2006GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=196473360
18550.
97
California Department of Education (2006). Item and time charts for the CSTs,
CAT/6 Survey, and CAPA. Retrieved September 3, 2006, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/itemchartv4.doc.
California Department of Education (2007). English Learners by Language 1993 to
2000. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/lc/ellang93s.asp.
Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
EdSource (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource, Inc.
Holmes, C.T. & Brown, C.L. (2003, February). A controlled evaluation of a total
school improvement process, School Renaissance. Paper presented at the
National Renaissance Conference, Nashville, TN.
Husman, J., Brem, S., & Duggan, M.A. (2005). Student goal orientation and
formative assessment. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 355-359.
Kane, T.J. & Staiger, D.O. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise
school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4),
91-114.
Katzenmeyer, M. & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping
teachers develop as leaders. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Lachat, M.A. (2004). Standards-based instruction and assessment for English
language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lauer, P.A., Snow, D., Martin-Glenn, M., Van Buhler, R.J., Stoutemyer, K. & Snow-
Renner, R. (2005). The influence of standards on K – 12 teaching and student
learning: A research synthesis. Regional Educational Laboratory (Contract
#ED-01-CO-0006). McREL.
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
98
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
National Research Council (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science
Education Standards. Committee on Classroom Assessment and the National
Science Education Standards. J. Myron Atkin, Paul Black, and Janet Coffey
(Eds.). Washington DC: Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education. National Academy Press. Retrieved from
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/030906998X/html/, pp. 23-78.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Paul, T.D. (2003). Guided independent reading: An examination of the Reading
Practice Database and the scientific research supporting guided independent
reading as implemented in Reading Renaissance. Madison, WI: Renaissance
Learning, Inc. Available online:
http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/165/pdf.
Paul, T., Swanson, S., Zhang, W., & Hehenberger, L. (1997). Learning information
system effects on reading, language arts, math, science, and social studies.
Madison, WI: Institute for Academic Excellence, Inc. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 421 686).
Renaissance Learning, Inc. (2001). Using readability levels to guide students to
books. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Renaissance Learning, Inc. (2006). Accelerated Reader – Overview – Quizzes.
Retrieved April 26, 2006, from
http://www.renlearn.com/ar/overview/quizzes.htm.
Renaissance Learning, Inc. (2006). Accelerated Reader – Overview – Sample
reports. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from
http://www.renlearn.com/ar/overview/samplereports.htm.
Renaissance Learning, Inc. (2007). Accelerated Reader – Overview. Retrieved
February 22, 2007, from http://www.renlearn.com/ar/overview/default.htm.
Schmoker, M. & Marzano, R.J. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based
education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17-21.
99
United States Code (2002). Public Law 107-110, also known as the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001.
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture
of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of a standards based intervention, Accelerated Reader (AR), on the academic achievement of ELL students on the English-Language Arts California Standards Test. A nonequivalent control groups design with one dependent outcome and two matched control groups was used. This design consisted of an experimental group and two control groups that were not randomly assigned. The AR treatment was administered only to the experimental group and pre to post intervention comparisons were limited to the experimental school.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of algebra students
PDF
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
PDF
The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School
PDF
The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction
PDF
An analysis of the impact of the total educational support system direct-instruction model on the California standards test performance of English language learners at experimental elementary school
PDF
The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...
PDF
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
PDF
Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school
PDF
Comparative evaluation of English learner student achievement in inner city urban schools
PDF
The effects of culturally responsive standards based instruction on African American student achievement
PDF
California under the microscope: an evaluation of the practical effect of different approaches to accountability
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
The effect of site support teams on student achievement in seven northern California schools
PDF
What about the children left-behind? An evaluation of a reading intervention program
PDF
English language learners utilizing the accelerated reader program
Asset Metadata
Creator
Yee, Virginia Nancy
(author)
Core Title
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2007-05
Publication Date
03/27/2007
Defense Date
03/13/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,reading intervention,standards-based curriculum
Language
English
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Bewley, William (
committee member
), Brown, Richard Sherdon (
committee member
)
Creator Email
virginiy@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m326
Unique identifier
UC198096
Identifier
etd-Yee-20070327 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-323095 (legacy record id),usctheses-m326 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Yee-20070327.pdf
Dmrecord
323095
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Yee, Virginia Nancy
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
reading intervention
standards-based curriculum