Increase In Student Achievement Research Articles

The SLP's Role in Increasing Student Achievement: Looking Beyond the Field of Speech-Language Pathology

The SLP's Role in Increasing Student Achievement: Looking Beyond the Field of Speech-Language Pathology

Student Diversity, Choice and School Improvement

Student Diversity, Choice and School Improvement. Charles V. Willie, Ralph Edwards, and Michael J. Alves. Wesport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 2002. pp. 174. $17.95 (paper). A number of recent research findings report that are becoming increasingly segregated by economic and racial status despite historical precedent of school desegregation. In time when America's are moving towards resegregation, Student Diversity, Choice and School Improvement is timely book that focuses on importance of diversifying schools. The authors present fresh look at how to promote equality and achievement in education and offer road map to reforming America's public schools. Willie, Edwards, and Alves's approach to make all schools of is grounded and practical. The authors emphasize that student diversity, choice, and school improvement are interconnected components for successful school reform. According to authors, at root of school reform is Controlled Choice-a comprehensive [approach that] prevents resegregation even when school districts experience substantial demographic changes (8). Further, a basic assumption [of Controlled Choice] is that every child and every child's group should have access to all educational opportunities that community offers, and that no child's group should be educationally disadvantaged because of personal or situational circumstances (21). Writing clearly and persuasively, authors challenge educational practices that provide simplistic solutions to complex issue of appropriating fair educational opportunity for all students to succeed. Drawing from authors' research studies, they share their experiences in working with school districts in several states (i.e., Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington) on creating equitable student assignment plans. In ensuing chapters, they provide an in-depth analysis on how two states implement Controlled Choice and resulting outcomes. As experts in this area their conclusions are valuable for examining and improving conditions of large numbers of high-poverty and low-achieving students and schools. The volume is organized into three sections with references at end of each chapter that well document their review of literature. Part One: Public School, Choice and Educational Outcomes In first section, authors provide an overview of school movement, describe several specific school plans, and assess problems associated with these plans. The synthesis is framed around topics discussed most often in choice literature: equity, access, parental choices, zoning, and diversity. To expand discourse of educational reform, Willie and colleagues offer comprehensive plan, namely Controlled Choice, that differs from other plans. They provide evidence on effectiveness of Controlled Choice and draw conclusions based on an analysis of their evidence. Also in this section, authors present past practices and contemporary strategies in designing student attendance zones. Two divergent examples worth mentioning are Lee County and Cambridge School Districts. To tackle rapid growth in its student population, Lee County School District implemented Controlled Choice by creating well-balanced student bodies of diverse student assignments. After implementing student assignment plans, there was an increase in student achievement in Lee County. Consequently, the Lee County experience...has important implications for other school districts in Florida and elsewhere that may wish to do so (45). The second example is Cambridge School District's adoption of Controlled Choice to promote student choice, student body diversity, and school improvement. However, as Willie and colleagues point out: Over years, student bodies in several Cambridge drifted into racial and socioeconomic imbalance (48). …

Trust the Process: Increasing Student Achievement via Professional Development and Process Accountability

Student achievement has received much attention in the discourse of standards and accountablility. This article describes specific instructional innovations to guide professional development activities implemented at one West Coast high school. Preliminary results are discussed.

IMPACT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEACHING/LEARNING CYCLE ON TEACHER DECISION-MAKING AND EMERGENT READERS

No topic is on the minds of the general public, federal and state legislatures, parents, and educators more than the issue of establishing and maintaining school programs that are consistent in their ability to produce competent readers. Teachers, administrators, and teacher preparation programs are admonished to change programs, resources, monitoring procedures - whatever it takes to bring about this reformation of student reading achievement. Topics under investigation include effective models, methods, and strategies of instruction; essential teacher knowledge; teacher decision-making; and professional development of in-service and pre-service teachers. From this body of research the terms "balanced literacy" and "engaged literacy" have emerged. These terms are defined as emphasizing instruction on identified student need and including skills development as well as experience in a variety of texts. The teaching/learning cycle, a model for evaluating student reading behaviors and planning focused instruction, providesa foundation for the development of essential teacher knowledge and skills. As teachers articulate their understanding of the reading process, the characteristics of the learner, and the supports and challenges offered in text and teaching approaches, their practice is changed to make it more congruent with these stated beliefs. When teacher instructional practice is aligned with clear understandings and beliefs, student achievement increases. This study explored how knowledge and use of the teaching/learning cycle in beginning reading instruction impacts teacher decision-making and student achievement. While investigating teachers' knowledge and use of the teaching/learning cycle, two research questions focused on how student learning was affected and the impact of the changes on student/teacher interactions.

Can State Accountability Systems Drive Improvements in School Performance for Children of Color and Children from Low-Income Homes?

States and school districts throughout the nation have developed or are developing accountability systems to spur improvement in student achievement. Researchers, policy makers, and practitioners have both praised and criticized accountability systems, particularly concerning their impact on children of color and children from low-income homes. Do accountability systems harm the education of children of color and children from low-income homes, or do these systems drive educational improvements for these students? Few state accountability systems have been in place long enough to help answer this question; however, the Texas public school accountability system has been in place for several years, providing a useful case for analyzing the impact of accountability systems on student achievement. Additionally, Texas is a useful case for study because of the wealth of disaggregated student achievement data available through the state education agency. If the accountability system in Texas were driving improvements in student performance (particularly for children of color and children from low-income homes), one would expect to see substantial increases in student achievement over time on multiple measures of student performance, including the state's Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). One would expect to see increases for children of color and children who meet low-income criteria. Furthermore, one would expect to see those increases result in a narrowing of the achievement gap when their performance is compared with that of White students and students with typical family incomes. One would expect the improvements to be a fair reflection of the performance of all students without the omission or exclusion of significant populations of students. Furthermore, one would hope that the results would represent real improvements in student achievement, as opposed to artificial indicators of success. Finally, if the accountability system were to be considered at lea

Rejoinder: Misunderstanding the Problem of Out-of-Field Teaching

<i>Rejoinder</i>: Misunderstanding the Problem of Out-of-Field Teaching

School attendance problems: using the TQM tools to identify root causes

Deming’s quality managment principles (TQM) are widely used as a school restructuring vehicle and produce increases in student achievement and self‐esteem and increased teacher morale and self‐confidence. Application of Deming’s principles and the TQM problem‐solving tools and techniques can be used to solve noninstructional problems of schooling. These areas, which create unnecessary costs to the school and community, include vandalism, school dropouts and student absenteeism. This case study presents a model for principals to apply to provide quality outcomes, at reduced cost, in noninstructional areas. Using teachers, parents, community members, and applying the problem‐solving tools and techniques of TQM to identify root problem causes, principals can identify realistic solutions which yield positive results and reduce costs in academic and nonacademic areas.

Student Discipline Methods and Resources Used by Indiana Secondary School Administrators

Secondary school administrators must be on the lookout for effective practices that decrease student discipline problems and increase student achievement. In many cases, general problems such as low self-esteem, low grades, and high dropout rates can be traced to haphazard or weak educational and discipline practices.

Reflections on “a View from across the Grand Canyon” (by Richardson and Anders) and the Compatibility of Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Richardson and Anders are only partly correct in their assertion that differences in perspective and philosophy between education researchers such as themselves and many of the special education researchers who wrote for this issue correspond to differences between special education teachers and general education teachers. Although such differences may be typical, they reflect just one level of a deeper division concerning both educational reform and educational research that has existed for most of the century within the entire field of education. Special education research has typically followed an empiricist tradition, tending to focus on measurement (e.g., Thorndike, Bloom, Deno) and theories of learning and teaching rooted in the study of observable behaviors (e.g., Gagne, Becker, Gage, Brophy, Rosenshine). This tradition has always maintained that delineating specific aspects of human behavior that engender quantifiable indicators of learning is the major goal of educational research. Within this tradition it is further maintained that rigorous research of this type can lead to generalizable, replicable teaching procedures that will produce widespread and predictable increases in student achievement. In special education, researchers with this orientation have begun to build an empirical knowledge base of effective instructional practices founded on experimental studies that demonstrate the quantitative impact of welldefined and observable teaching procedures and strategies. Most of the researchers in this special issue and many members of the special education research community espouse this tradition. This tradition and its goals are reflected, for example, in Greenwood's article where he delineates specific empirical findings associated with accelerated learning and argues for increased use of these procedures and strategies. The other tradition is more difficult to label, but is characterized by calls for radical reform of teaching (Ashton, 1996) and by a subjectivist, qualitative approach to research methods and knowledge generation. Various theorists such as Freud in the 1930s (and again, via the neo-Freudians in the 1960s), Piaget and, most recently, Vygotsky have helped inform this school of thought. To many, Dewey most forcefully articulated this viewpoint. By and large, researchers and scholars from this tradition write in a more passionate and

Increasing Student Achievement

Urban school reform is only effective to the degree to which change occurs in the classroom. Oak Park Schools implemented the Sixteen-step Strategic Planning Process designed to improve school performance and increase student achievement. This paper presents a case study of how the school district used feedback on student achievement patterns to frame a process of reflection and subsequent action to improve performance. The qualitative analysis of grouped data organized in relation to district standards is one of the unique aspects of this approach. The article describes achieved results and concludes with recommendations for others interested in adopting the process.

Return on quality: a new factor in assessing quality efforts

Argues that the quest for quality is international in scope, with many nations adopting the total quality management (TQM) principles as a way of achieving educational reform. Early indicators of TQM’s success are increases in student achievement, student self‐concept and teacher morale. However, quality programmes are not free and the concept of accountability is ever‐present in the minds of stakeholders who demand positive returns on their investments. Without a means to demonstrate successful returns on quality investments, public support and confidence in the schools may drastically decrease and TQM may be perceived as too expensive for public support. For those implementing TQM, the question is: how do I demonstrate the return on quality investments? The answer lies in measurement. This involves assessing customer need and expectations; producing quality outputs which meet or exceed customer satisfaction, and then documenting these returns by directly linking quality education outputs with the inputs of time, money, and effort.

Maintaining Parasitic Lampreys in Closed Laboratory Systems

retical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5-54. Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62. Kagan, S., Zahn, G., Widaman, K., Schwarzwald, J. & Tyrrell, G. (1985). Classroom structural bias: Impact of cooperative and competitive classroom structures on cooperative and competitive individuals and groups. In R.E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, Cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum. Lapp, D. (1977, February). Individualizing made easy for teachers. Early Years, 7, 63-77. Lapp, D. (1979, March). Beyond the redbirds, bluebirds, and yellowbirds. Reporting on Reading: Vol. 5. U.S. Office of Education. O'Donnell, M.P. & Moore, B. (1980). Eliminating common stumbling blocks to organizational change. In D. Lapp (Ed.), Making reading possible through effective classroom management (pp. 186-215). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects of achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271. Sharan, D., Kussell, P., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Bejarano, Y., Raviv, S. & Sharan, Y. (1984). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Research in desegregated schools. New York: Erlbaum. Slavin, R.E. (1980a). Using team learning. Baltimore: John Hopkins University. Slavin, R. (1980b). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-342. Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445. Slavin, R., Sharan, S., Kagen, S., HertzLazarowitz, R., Webb, C. & Schmuck, R. (Eds.) (1985). Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum. Webb, N.M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 475-484. How-TooIt

Instructional Techniques for Increasing Student Achievement

Instructional Techniques for Increasing Student Achievement

The Effects of a Student Achievement Information System on Student Learning

This paper deals with the formative evaluation of Project IMPACT. This multi-faceted computer-based information system is designed to provide educators with the kinds of data and the scope of information which will enable them to make the best possible decisions relative to instruction. The preliminary evidence is in the direction of supporting the contention that when school personnel are provided frequent systematic evaluation information on student progress, there will be an increase in student achievement.

When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?

This article reviews research on the achievement effects of cooperative learning instructional methods, in which students work in small groups to learn academic materials. Methodologically adequate field experiments of at least 2 weeks' duration in regular elementary and secondary schools indicate that among cooperative learning methods in which students study the same material together) only methods that provide group rewards based on group members' individual learning consistently increase student achievement more than control methods. Cooperative learning methods in which each group member has a unique subtask have positive achievement effects only if group rewards are provided. Group rewards and individual accountability are held to be essential to the instructional effectiveness of cooperative learning methods. Over the past 30 years there has been a considerable quantity of research concerning the effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic incentive structures on individual and group productivity. A cooperative incentive structure is one in which two or more individuals are rewarded based on their performance as a group; a competitive incentive structure indicates that two or more individuals are compared with one another, and those performing best are rewarded; and an individualistic incentive structure is one in which individuals are rewarded based on their own performance, regardless of others' performances. The research on these incentive structures has been reviewed on several occasions (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1974; Michaels, 1977; MillerHSlavin, 1977). All of these reviewers agreed that research relating different incentive structures to performance produces inconsistent findings. Some studies find that cooperative incentive

When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?

When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?