Great Books Shared Inquiry Results

2,062 views
2,002 views

Published on

Great Books Shared Inquiry increased student achievement on standardized texts in the Washington, D.C., Public Schools and at CS 134 in the Bronx, New York.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,062
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
506
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Two studies were conducted over a two-year period: The DCPS/Great Books Foundation Model Schools Project began in 2002. Thirty five teachers and 770 students in grades 3, 4, and 5 represented research (JGB) and four control schools. Objectives were to improve students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking and writing skills as measured on the SAT9 (Stanford Achievement Test). In 2002, a Great Books Comprehensive School Reform project began at PS134 in Bronx, NY. Objectives were to minimize the number of students at Level 1 (low performing) and to maximize the number of students at Levels 3 and 4 (meeting or exceeding standards) as measured on the ELA (English Language Arts) test administered by New York State.
  • The six SAT9 (Stanford Achievement Test) writing skill categories were incorporated in the project. The skills appear on the SAT9 writing rubric, which was used to rate three writing samples collected throughout the year: the baseline sample in October, the midline sample in January, and the last sample in April. The project emphasized the first three skills as designated by the asterisks).
  • The research and control schools were carefully selected to reflect similar demographics, including the percent of students receiving free lunch, ethnic and geographic spread, etc.
  • Both the JGB research and control groups started out about the same based on the scoring of the first writing sample. (Writing samples were scored by trained teachers after school.)
  • Scores comparing the first to the last writing sample show significant improvement by the JGB research group not only in the first three writing skills, but in all six.
  • The average percent of improvement in writing skills was greater in the earlier grades.
  • One of the objectives of the study was to determine if the inclusion of the JGB program in the school curriculum translated into improved performance on standardized tests such as the SAT9.
  • As a result of integrating JGB into the research schools’ curricula, lower performing students showed significant gains in SAT9 improvement.
  • When comparing the same students’ 2003 and 2004 SAT9 reading scores, 82% of the 3rd graders in the JGB group improved, compared to the control group’s 18%. In 4th grade, 54% of the JGB group improved, compared to 46% in the control group and in 5th grade, 49% improved compared to 51% in the control group. NOTE: DC administrators were eager to discover why the fifth graders in the control group scored at about the same as the 5th graders in the JGB group. One reason, according to the administrators, could be teacher quality.
  • When comparing the same students’ 2003 and 2004 SAT9 math scores, 82% of the3rd graders in the JGB group improved, compared to 18% in the control group. In 4th grade, 56% of the JGB group improved, compared to 43% of the control group and in 5th grade, 47% improved, compared to 52% in the control group. NOTE: DC administrators were again eager to discover why the fifth graders in the control group scored at about the same as the 5th graders in the JGB group. One reason, according to the administrators, could be teacher quality. While JGB does not teach math skills, teachers in participating schools connected the increase in students’ critical thinking skills and attention span, that resulted from using JGB, to improvement in math.
  • In 2003, students in the JGB research and control groups began at approximately the same levels. In 2004, the average improvement in reading by the research group was 55% and 64% in math—compared to the control group’s average improvement of 46% in reading and 56% in math. The added improvement by the JGB group is significant.
  • The study conducted in Bronx, NY at PS134 began in 2002.
  • PS134 wrote JGB into its Comprehensive School Reform grant as an integral part of the school’s curriculum. In addition to the purchase of materials for teachers and students, the grant provided funds for professional development. The professional development component— a two-day shared inquiry leader workshop and 50 on-site days— impacted the effect JGB had improving student achievement on the (ELA). PS134’s demographics are similar to those of the DC research and control groups. (Note particularly that 92% of the students are eligible for free lunch.) Objectives were to minimize the number of students at Level 1 (low performing) and to maximize the number of students at Levels 3 and 4 (meeting or exceeding standards) as measured on the ELA.
  • There are (4) four levels of student performance based on the ELA test. Level 1 is lowest performing, Level 2 the next lowest, and Level 3 meets standards and Level 4 exceeds standards.
  • Pre-JGB, a high proportion of PS134 students were at Level 1 (not meeting standards.
  • Pre-JGB, less than a quarter of PS134 students scored at Levels 3 and 4 (met or exceeded standards).
  • After using JGB in 2003 and 2004, PS134 made significant improvement at Levels 1, 3 and 4. In 2002, only 1% of New York City’s 630 elementary schools had a higher percentage of children at Level 1. In 2003 and 2004, the percentage changed dramatically—17% and 15% respectively performed worse than PS134 at Level 1. In contrast, PS134 dramatically improved its Level 3 and 4 scores—moving from the bottom 6% up to 21% and 28% respectively.
  • Pre-JGB, PS134 ranked 236th in improvement out of the district’s 630 elementary schools. In 2002-2003, the school ranked 4th in improvement, putting it in the top 1% of New York Department Of Education schools..
  • PS134 students also showed major improvement in mathematics during the same time period. Level 1 scores declined substantially, as Levels 3 and 4 moved to the 37th percentile in 2004. While JGB does not teach math skills, PS134 administrators attribute the improvement in math performance to students’ improved critical thinking skills and attention span as a result of using JGB.
  • Pre-JGB, of the 630 elementary schools, PS134 ranked 95th in improvement in math. In 2003-2004, it ranked 48th.
  • JGB provides five major benefits for students.
  • JGB also provides five major benefits for teachers.
  • JGB provides four major benefits to the school and/or district.
  • Visit the Great Books Foundation web site for additional information or call 800/222-5870 to speak with a sales representative.
  • Great Books Shared Inquiry Results

    1. 1. Case Studies: Measuring Results of JGB Program <ul><li>Washington DC Public Schools (1) </li></ul><ul><li>PS 134 George F Bristow School, Bronx, NY (2) </li></ul>Notes: (1) Research Project: “The Junior Great Books Program: Differential Effects on Student Achievement Across Ability Levels” draft document October 2003 (2) Measurement of effects of the implementation of the JGB 2003-204
    2. 2. SAT9 Writing Skill Categories (incorporated in DCPS project) <ul><li>Ideas and development* </li></ul><ul><li>Organization, unity, and coherence* </li></ul><ul><li>Word choice* </li></ul><ul><li>Sentences and paragraphs </li></ul><ul><li>Grammar and usage </li></ul><ul><li>Writing mechanics </li></ul>
    3. 3. Research Program’s School Profiles Source: DCPS 2003 School database 0 0 2 98 0 84 Control G (3,4 & 5) 67 0 3 27 3 5 Control G (3,4 & 5) 29 1 19 43 8 8 Research H (3,4 & 5) 59 69 36 45 77 99 Free Lunch(%) 0 0 0 99 1 Control F (3,4 & 5) 0 0 9 86 5 Control E (3,4 & 5) 12 0 2 86 0 Research D (5) 13 0 1 84 2 Research C (3 & 4) 4 1 69 18 8 Research B (3,4 & 5) 0 0 18 82 0 Research A (3,4 & 5) White (%) Native (%) Hispanic (%) Black (%) Asian (%) Type School (grades Tested)
    4. 4. JGB Research and Control Groups Start Out “About the Same” (Average scores after first writing sample) Source: Individual student scores from referenced DCPS research project
    5. 5. Research Group’s Positive Change Over Control Group Highlights Improvement (First to last writing sample) Source: Individual student scores from referenced DCPS research project
    6. 6. Average Score % Improvement (Average of Six SAT9 Categories): Impact More Pronounced in Earlier Grades Source: Individual student scores from referenced DCPS research project
    7. 7. Does skill enhancement derived through the JGB program translate into improved performance on standardized tests (i.e., SAT9) ?
    8. 8. Lower Performing Students Reap Significant Gains In SAT 9 Improvement as a Result of the JGB Program Source: Individual student SAT 9 scores from referenced DCPS research project.
    9. 9. SAT9 Reading—% Students Improving (Same Child 2003–2004) Source: DCPS SAT 9 scores 2003 & 2004 for students in research and control groups 51% 46% 18% Control 49% 54% 82% Research 5 th 4 th 3 rd Group Grade Note: District wide, about 40% of the students improve year to year
    10. 10. SAT9 Mathematics—% Students Improving (Same Child 2003–2004) Source: DCPS SAT 9 scores 2003 & 2004 for students in research and control groups Note: District wide, about 40% of the students improve year to year 52% 43% 18% Control 47% 56% 82% Research 5 th 4 th 3 rd Group Grade
    11. 11. NCE (from SAT9) Research and Control Groups Start Out the Same (2003) followed by Major Improvement by Research Group (2004). Same Child 2003–2004 (from schools with over 50% eligible for free lunch) 2004 2003 48 37 44 63 Math 41 35 32 56 Read Control 50 44 41 66 Math 41 38 32 52 Read Research 54 50 57 52 5 th 56 46 64 55 Average 53 42 54 51 4th 60 47 81 63 3rd Math Read Math Read Control Research
    12. 12. New York Department of Education <ul><li>PS 134 George F. Bristow School </li></ul>
    13. 13. PS 134 George F. Bristow School <ul><li>Grades: PK–6 </li></ul><ul><li>Students: 725 </li></ul><ul><li>Ethnicity: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Black 47% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hispanic 52% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Eligible for free lunch: 92% </li></ul><ul><li>Spending per student: $12,700 </li></ul><ul><li>Location: New York City </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Region 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>District 12 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Testing: English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics </li></ul><ul><li>JGB introduced Fall 2002 </li></ul>
    14. 14. Student Levels of Performance <ul><li>Level Description </li></ul><ul><li>1 Do not meet standards </li></ul><ul><li>2 Show partial achievement of the standards </li></ul><ul><li>3 Meet learning standards </li></ul><ul><li>4 Exceed the learning standards </li></ul>Source: New York City Department of Education Bristow School 2002-2003 Report Card.
    15. 15. High Proportion of Students at Level 1 (Not Meeting Standards) (1999-2002 pre JGB) Source: New York City Department of Education data files from web site. Calculations: Chaos Group, Inc.
    16. 16. Fewer than 25% of Students at Levels 3 and 4 Meet or Exceed Standards (1999-2002 pre JGB) Source: New York City Department of Education data files from web site. Calculations: Chaos Group, Inc.
    17. 17. English Language Arts Major Improvement at Levels 1, 3, and 4 with JGB Source: New York City Department of Education data files from web site. Calculations: Chaos Group, Inc.
    18. 18. Bristow’s ELA Improvement Ranks Among Top Four Elementary Schools Between 2003–2004 Bristow 2002-2003 improvement top .5% (4 th ) Bristow 2001-2002: previously ranked 236 th
    19. 19. Mathematics Major Improvement at Levels 1, 3, and 4 with JGB Source: New York City Department of Education data files from web site. Calculations: Chaos Group, Inc.
    20. 20. Bristow’s Math Improvement Ranks Among Top Fifty Elementary Schools 2003–2004 Bristow 2003-2004 Average Improvement top 8% (48 th ) Bristow 1999-2001 Average Improvement (95 th )
    21. 21. Benefits—Students <ul><ul><li>Enhancing critical thinking skills </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scoring better on standardized tests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrating skills that carry over to other subjects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structuring a foundation for further learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing pride of accomplishment </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. <ul><li>Benefits—Teachers </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Strengthening professional development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying a basis for accountability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Building and enhancing teaching skills and strategies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exciting students about learning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improving standardized test scores </li></ul></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Benefits—School/ District <ul><ul><li>Measuring results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Student </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher accountability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Achieving measurable results in months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improving student performance across curriculum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accomplishing success under economic constraints </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. www.greatbooks.org (800) 222-5870

    ×