1 / 15

Striving to Link Teacher and Student Outcomes: Results from an Analysis of Whole-school Interventions

Striving to Link Teacher and Student Outcomes: Results from an Analysis of Whole-school Interventions. Kelly Feighan, Elena Kirtcheva, and Eric Kucharik Research for Better Schools, Philadelphia, PA American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting, November 12, 2009 in Orlando, Florida.

adonia
Download Presentation

Striving to Link Teacher and Student Outcomes: Results from an Analysis of Whole-school Interventions

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. Striving to Link Teacher and Student Outcomes: Results from an Analysis of Whole-school Interventions Kelly Feighan, Elena Kirtcheva, and Eric Kucharik Research for Better Schools, Philadelphia, PA American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting, November 12, 2009 in Orlando, Florida

  2. Study Purpose • Investigate which variables best explain student reading outcomes following teacher professional development • Explore the contextual reasons that help explain why no intervention “impact” was detected • Inform educational policy and improve rigor of educational research

  3. Project Background • Federal Striving Readers program aimed at improving pedagogy and student achievement • Schools were matched in pairs and then randomly assigned to the treatment or control condition • Professional Development: four-semester course, onsite literacy coaching, leadership seminar, and curricular material • Developer’s hypothesis: integrating literacy strategies in content areas will yield student gains

  4. Factors Affecting Student Learning • Student-level: SES, socio-demographic variables, family background, early development (Barton & Coley, 2009) • Teacher/classroom-level: expectations, preparation, experience, class size (Cohen, McCabe, Mitchelli, and Pickeral, 2009) • School-level: school climate - safety, student- adult and peer relationships, curriculum rigor (Cohen, McCabe, Mitchelli, and Pickeral, 2009)

  5. Study Participants • 30 ELA teachers taught at eight schools • 16 taught at intervention schools • 14 taught at comparison schools • 2,114 students linked to these teachers • state assessment reading scores (N = 2,064) • ITBS scale reading scores (N = 1741)

  6. Methodology • Quantitative data sources: • RBS teacher survey • School district school climate survey • Department of Education teacher HQT statistics and student discipline data • Students’ scores on state assessment and ITBS

  7. Methodology • Qualitative data sources: • Observations • 56 classrooms (Year 1) • 48 classrooms (fall of Year 2) • 10 paired observations (spring of Year 2) • Interviews • 8 principals and 19 school improvement team members in Years 1 and 2 • Focus groups: seven groups with 62 teachers

  8. Research Hypotheses • Exposure to professional development participants will yield gains in reading achievement • Including contextual variables in impact analysis will increase explanatory power of results

  9. Quantitative Analysis • Used Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to predict student performance based on student-, teacher-, and school-level characteristics • Fully unconditional model represents how variation in an outcome measure is allocated across the three different levels

  10. Variables Included in the HLM

  11. Outcome Variables: Reading Scores

  12. Student-Level Variation • Across multiple model specifications, the only predictors with statistical significance were the student’s • Pre-test score • Gender • ELL status • Modeling teacher-level factors produced no significant results

  13. Classroom Observation Results • No baseline differences in levels of engagement & cognitive demand, or in instructional strategies • Cognitive demand level of lessons was low in Year 2, irrespective of research condition • Intervention teachers tended to use more literacy strategies than comparison teachers in Year 2 • 38.5% of intervention teachers used multiple literacy strategies vs 18.2% of comparison teachers

  14. Why We May Not Find Impact • Low cognitive demand of lessons • Counterfactual situations may “water down” the treatment’s effect • Low implementation fidelity • Limitations in outcomes measures (just say measurement error)

  15. Implications for Further Research • Better understanding of • the relationship between a school-level intervention and its potential to affect student achievement • Correlates of student achievement • Why an intervention that did not show impact may nevertheless be of value

More Related