1 / 25

Exploring the Correlates of Learning Outcomes

Exploring the Correlates of Learning Outcomes. John Anderson Todd Rogers Don Klinger University of Victoria University of Alberta Queen’s University Charles Ungerleider Barry Anderson Victor Glickman

aradia
Download Presentation

Exploring the Correlates of Learning Outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploring the Correlates of Learning Outcomes John AndersonTodd Rogers Don Klinger University of Victoria University of Alberta Queen’s University Charles UngerleiderBarry AndersonVictor Glickman University of British Columbia BC Ministry of Education Edudata Canada Funding Canadian Education Statistics Council Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council

  2. The project focus Modeling the relationships of student, school, and home characteristics to the achievement of learning outcomes in the domains of reading, writing, mathematics and science Utilizing hierarchical linear modeling & School Achievement Indicators Program Education Quality & Accountability Office program Alberta Provincial Language Arts & Mathematics Achievement Tests BC Foundational Skills Assessment program datasets

  3. Outcomes Data issues Graduate research Findings Next Steps

  4. Data issues Complexity of datasets Problem solving – age 13 Problem solving – age 16 Math content – age 13 Math content – age 16 Student achievement tests Student Questionnaires Teacher Questionnaires Principal Questionnaires

  5. Data issues Organization of assessment program School-based

  6. First, it should be noted that for both Language Arts and Mathematics, most of the variation in achievement was among students : • 77.1% in Language Arts • 75.1% in Mathematics. • class level: • 15.3% for Language Arts • 15.7% for Mathematics. • school level • 10.1% for Language Arts • 11.3% for Mathematics. • The Alberta study

  7. __________________________________________________ Test ρ _________________________________________________ SAIP Math 2001 Problem solving – age 13 0.18 Problem solving – age 16 0.15 Math content – age 13 0.19 Math content – age 16 0.15 OSSLT Reading 0.13 Writing 0.10 __________________________________________________ PISA average is 0.34 and ranges from .04 to 0.63

  8. Data issues Data integrity

  9. Data issues Missing Data SAIP Math Parental Educational Level (Items 24 a&b) 34% missing on mother 36% missing on father Parental Vocational Status (Items 25a&b) 53% missing on mother 40% missing on father

  10. Data issues Large number of variables

  11. Derived variables from Student Questionnaire Student beliefs about mathematics • Math is more difficult than other school subjects • I am not very interested in mathematics • I learn lots of new things in mathematics • Math is an important school subject • Math is important for my future studies • Many good jobs require math

  12. Derived variables from Student Questionnaire Instructional supports used by students • You & your parents work on math homework • You & your parents work on other homework • In math course we work in pairs or small groups • In math we use math books & magazines • In math we had guest speakers or experts • In math we use computers • In math we use the internet • In math we use the computer lab

  13. Derived variables from Student Questionnaire Instructional practices In math courses this year. . . • The teacher gives notes • The teacher shows us how to do problems • We participate in math projects • We are taught different ways to solve problems • The teacher assigns homework • We discuss quiz or tests • We work alone on assigned work • We work on exercises from textbook • We study the textbook • The teacher reads from the textbook • Teachers asks questions of students • Students ask teacher questions

  14. Causes of math performance Derived variables from Student Questionnaire • To do well in math you need hard work • To do well in math you need encouragement - teachers • To do well in math you need encouragement - parents • To do well in math you need good teaching

  15. Disciplinary climate Derived variables from Student Questionnaire In math courses this year. . . • There is noise or disorder in the classroom • We lose 5-10 minutes because of disruptions

  16. Graduate research CSSE 2004 Potential and Pitfalls of Secondary Data Analyses of SAIP data. Todd Rogers & Teresa Dawber, U of Alberta CSSE 2005: The COLO Project 2005 Graduate Symposium Student and school indices in SAIP questionnaires Carmen Gress & Shelley Ross, UVic Correlates of mathematics achievement: a meta-synthesis Margot English, Shelley Ross, Carmen Gress, UVic Issues and results arising from the HLM analysis of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test.Chloe Soiblelman, Jinyan Huang, Cheryl Poth, & Don Klinger, Queen’s University Factors that influence writing performanceJiawen Zhou, University of Alberta Stability of SAIP Factor Analysis: Results from school questionnaire itemsAlly Feng, University of Alberta

  17. Findings No grand general models

  18. Student level (level 1) coefficients _______________________________________________________________________ Correlate CONTENT PROBLEM 13 16 13 16 _______________________________________________________________________ Student math beliefs .36 .33 .38 .37 Instructional supports -.18 -.22 -.22 -.29 Instructional practices .03 .08 .04 .10 Causes of math -.08 0 -.06 0 Discipline climate 0 0 0 0 Gender 0 -.09 .10 0.7

  19. School level (level 2) coefficients for average school math score _______________________________________________________________________ Correlate CONTENT PROBLEM 13* 16 * 13 * 16 * _______________________________________________________________________ Limits to learning -.14 -.21 -.14 -.18 Instructional supports -.12 -.19 -.10 -.19 Causes of math 0 -.22 0 -.22 Discipline climate 0 0 0 -.17 Student math beliefs .13 0 .11 0 School climate 0 0 -.04 -.05 Parent engagement 0 .05 0 .06 Student status .07 .06 .05 0 Student achievement .05 0 .05 0 Instructional practices .09 0 0 0

  20. Findings Perhaps no grand models, but As Lindblom (1968, 1990) has pointed out time and again, the desire that models of complex social systems such as public education have an instrumental use remains an elusive dream. Models of complex social systems are likely to be, at best, enlightening – allowing incrementally expanding understandings of complex and dynamic systems such as public schools (Kennedy, 1999)

  21. The low rho suggests that • Canadian schools are relatively homogeneous • & • Most variation in achievement results lie within classrooms and between students

  22. Findings The specificity of models to grade and domain suggests that the correlates of learning outcomes have to be considered within the context of specific learning situations For example . . . . .

  23. Findings The SAIP Math models show that Student attitudes about math are related to achievement Student dependence is related to math achievement The views of school principals in regard to instructional impediments are related to average school math scores Gender tends to have a much reduced relationship to achievement when other variables are entered into the model Climate, Discipline and Parental Involvement – non-operative

  24. Next Steps Linkage with other assessment programs Work with other educational partners: Teachers Parents Ministries Communications Data collection Analysis and application

  25. COLO Correlates of Learning Outcomes The End

More Related