1 / 37

Ambitious Instructional Practices in English

Ambitious Instructional Practices in English. Ali Korkmaz , Ph.D. Strategic Data Fellow Long Beach Unified School District Ahmet Uludag , Ph.D. Accord Institute for Education Research. What Do We Know?. Background. Engagement. Educational Performance. Long-term. Social Engagement.

kynan
Download Presentation

Ambitious Instructional Practices in English

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. Ambitious Instructional Practices in English Ali Korkmaz, Ph.D. Strategic Data Fellow Long Beach Unified School District AhmetUludag, Ph.D. Accord Institute for Education Research

  2. What Do We Know? Background Engagement Educational Performance Long-term Social Engagement Student characteristics Demographics Attitudes Educational background Educational Attainment Retention Academic Engagement Academic Achievement Family-School-Community, Resources Rumberger and Larson’s Framework for Studying Student Educational Performance

  3. Which of the following factor has the most impact on student achievement? • Student • Teacher • Home • Principal

  4. Student Achievement

  5. Theoretical Background • Walberg’s Educational Productivity Model (1984, 1992) • Student aptitude • ability or prior achievement • development • motivation, or self-concept • Instruction • the amount of time students engage in learning • the quality of the instructional experience • The environment factors encompass four items: • the home • the classroom social group • the peer group outside the school • use of out-of-school time

  6. Background • Marzano’s (2000) effective instructional strategies (teacher-level factors) • Instruction • Classroom management • Curriculum design • Hattie’s Visible Learning (2008) • Meta analysis of instructional practices effects on student outcomes

  7. Teachers • Clear learning intentions • Challenging success criteria • Range of learning strategies • Know when students are not progressing • Providing feedback • Visibly learns themselves

  8. Students • Understand learning intentions • Are challenged by success criteria • Develop a range of learning strategies • Know when they are not progressing • Seek feedback • Visibly teach themselves

  9. MET Project Findings • Measures of Effective Teaching Project findings (Gates Foundation Study) • Assessments • Student Surveys • Classroom Observations • Improvement-Focused Teacher Evaluation Systems

  10. Purpose of the study • What types of instructional practices are implemented in classrooms? (How do students perceive?) • What types of instructional practices are the game changers in ELA/Reading? • What practices lead to more growth among non-proficient students? • What practices lead to more growth among proficient students?

  11. Study Design Elements • Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) MAP Test • Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR) Student Survey • Longitudinal growth for reading

  12. NWEA MAP Tests A computer adaptive test tool • to measure student levels, placement and differentiate instruction to meet student needs • to guide curriculum and instructional decisions • to measure student growth over time • of accountability to see how well we have done our jobs; to measure the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction

  13. Target Growth = 5 Spring Target RIT 215 Fall RIT 210 Spring Target RIT 202 Target Growth = 10 192 Fall RIT Target Growth for two 4th Grade Students

  14. RIT scores – Growth - Targets • RIT: Rasch (Rash) Unit is a scale that shows student levels independent of grade level and age • RIT scores are used to show a student’s level normative to other students and their grade level through percentile ranks • Growth Targets: Typical growth is given for grade levels, yet each student has a separate growth target based on their initial score • Two things to look at (at the end of the year): • How many students have met their target • How many points have the students grown on average (compared to typical growth)

  15. Reading Growth from Fall to: (2011 Norm)

  16. Proficiency vs. Growth

  17. Student Survey • Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR) Surveys • More than 10 years in the field • IRT based (Rasch) survey items and constructs • It is designed mainly for school level analysis • Student survey items include: • Academic Engagement, Study Habits, Classroom Behavior, Learning Climate (Expectation, Relationships) • Subject area specific questions • School and home environment questions

  18. Ambitious Instruction When combined with a supportive environment, Ambitious Instruction has the most direct effect on student learning. Ambitious Instruction is: • well-defined with clear expectations for student success, • interactive and encourages students to build and apply knowledge, • well-paced (not measured by the survey), and • aligned across grades (not measured by the survey).

  19. Reliability for Scales

  20. Data • 846 students at 9 CA middle schools • 55% male • 50% free-reduced lunch • 11% African-American • 45% White • 44% Hispanic

  21. Data Cleaning • Survey time less than 10 minutes • MAP test time less than 10 minutes

  22. Study Design • Student Survey • Instructional practices • Study habits, motivation • Home environment • School learning environment Student Fall Reading Test Student Spring Reading Test

  23. Data Analyses • Students are grouped into 6 groups based on Fall proficiency and Fall to Spring Growth (progress in the same year) Effect-size Effect-size

  24. Which of the following has the most impact on reading growth (for NON-PROFICIENT students)? • Principal attention • Teacher personal support • Teacher personal attention(ENGLISH) • Academic press(ENGLISH)

  25. Which of the following has the most impact on reading growth (for non-proficient students)? Effect-size differences for most improving vs. most declining • Principal attention (.50) • Teacher personal support (.37) • Teacher personal attention(ENGLISH) (.34) • Academic press(ENGLISH) (.34)

  26. Which of the following has the most impact on reading growth (for PROFICIENT students)? • Principal attention • Incidence of disciplinary action • Hours reading outside school • Parental support for student learning

  27. Which of the following has the most impact on reading growth (for proficient students)? Effect-size differences for most improving vs. most declining • Principal attention (.37) • Incidence of disciplinary action (-.41) • Hours reading outside school (.48) • Parental support for student learning (.27)

  28. Summary

  29. Use of CCSR Surveys and MAP

  30. Use of CCSR Surveys and MAP

  31. Use of CCSR Surveys and MAP

  32. Use of CCSR Surveys and MAP

  33. Implications • Use of effective student surveys • Inform what is happening • Classroom level analysis • Teacher level analysis • For professional development plans • Unpacking the behaviors/actions that are aligned to effective practices (survey categories) • For policy • Teacher evaluations

  34. Limitations • Student survey • Teacher input on classroom practices (teacher survey) • No teacher observation • Student growth • High stakes, any rewards etc. involved

  35. Further Study • Classroom level analysis of the same data set • What types of practices work better at what types of classrooms? • Combine student surveys with teacher surveys

  36. Contact • Ali Korkmaz, Ph.D. akorkmaz@lbschools.net • AhmetUludag, Ph.D. auludag@accordeducation.org CERA - December 5, 2013

More Related