No impacts represent the null hypothesis, and the most frequent scenario we see in these large impact studies. It means S&P is just as good as other instruction.
Condelli_attendance_Leslla 2011
1.
Attendance and Learning Gains for LESLLA Students<br />Larry Condelli<br />American Institutes for <br />Research, USA<br />LESLLA <br />Seventh Annual Symposium<br />Minneapolis, MN<br />September 29, 2011<br />1<br />
2.
Overview of Presentation<br />Deconstructing the meaning of attendance<br />Attendance measures used<br />Study designs<br />Findings<br />Discussion<br />2<br />
3.
Why Study Attendance?<br />Why is it important?<br />More attendance = more instruction = more learning?<br />Mixed research evidence <br />No or small relationship<br />Why?<br />Ineffective instruction?<br />Poor research design?<br />Other factors affect attendance and learning?<br />3<br />
4.
Deconstructing Attendance<br />What does attendance reflect?<br />Motivation<br />Time <br />Attention and engagement<br />Instruction (dosage model)<br />Do all affect learning? Which are <br /> more important?<br />4<br />
5.
Research Questions<br />How many hours do LESLLA students attend class?<br />Does amount of attendance affect student outcomes (test scores)?<br />What other measures of attendance affect outcomes?<br />5<br />
6.
Measuring Attendance<br />Four measures to reflect components:<br />Total hours of instruction attended <br />Intensity of instruction- average hours per week attended<br />Total weeks of instruction attended<br />Rate of Instruction-proportion of hour attended out of all possible hours<br />Note: Attendance measures (except rate) are constrained by class schedule<br />That is, you only can attend as much as the class is scheduled<br />6<br />
7.
Attendance Measures: Examples<br />A student attends a class that meets 9 hours/week for 18 weeks. She misses one full<br />week of class and 3 additional <br />days (misses 18 hours total):<br />Total Hours: 144 <br />Intensity: 8.5 (144/17)<br />Total weeks: 17<br />Rate: 0.89 (144/162)<br />7<br />
8.
Meaning of Attendance Measures<br />Total Hours: Total time exposed to instruction, unadjusted for class schedule or time (mostly instruction)<br />Intensity: concentrated attendance –dosage of instruction<br />Total weeks: Mostly time, does not directly measure amount of instruction, but may include motivation<br />Rate: Not affected by class schedule, most directly reflects motivation<br />8<br />
9.
Research Studies: Secondary Data Analysis<br />Study 1: What Works Study (Condelli, Wrigley & Cronen, 2003)<br />495 LESLLA students from 38 classes , 13 sites, seven USA states<br />Study 2: Impact of a Reading Intervention on Low-Literate Students (Condelli, Cronen & Bos, 2010) <br />1,344 low-literate (not all LESLLA) students from 33 classes, 10 sites, four USA states <br />9<br />
10.
Study 1: Design<br />Correlational study, followed two cohorts of LESLLA students for one year<br />Measures of basic literacy, reading comprehension and oral language<br />Assessed at start of instruction, 3 and 9 months later<br />Used latent growth model analysis<br />Student age, L1, years of schooling, teacher variables and English literacy (pretest scores) held constant<br />Addressed all three research questions, using all four attendance measures<br />10<br />
11.
Study 1: Descriptive Findings(N=495)<br />11<br />
12.
Study 1: Analytic Findings <br />Attendance Measures<br />Total Hours: No effect on test measures<br />Intensity: No effect on test measures<br />Total weeks: No effect on test measures<br />Rate: Significant relationship for reading comprehension and oral language<br />Reading comprehension (Woodcock Johnson) and oral Language (BEST Oral)<br />Small growth in skills over nine months with higher rate of attendance<br />Independent of amount of instruction – motivation measure<br />12<br />
13.
Study 1: Oral BEST and Attendance Hours (NS)<br />13<br />
14.
Study 1: Oral BEST and Rate of Attendance (p=.02)<br />14<br />
15.
Study 2: Design<br />Experimental study of a literacy intervention for low literates, random assignment<br />Measures of basic literacy, comprehension (same as study 1), vocabulary, listening and oral expression<br />Assessed at start and 12 weeks later<br />Multiple regression analysis<br />Student demographics, teacher variables, L1, years of schooling and English literacy (pretest scores) held constant<br />15<br />
16.
Study 2: Descriptive Findings<br />Data collection constrained by research design–stopped after 12 weeks<br />Mean total hours: 75.2<br />Rate of attendance: 0.61<br />Other attendance measures could not be studied due to insufficient variation<br />16<br />
17.
Study 2: Attendance and Test Measures<br />17<br />
18.
Study 2: Attendance and Test Scores<br />Instruction and outcomes correlated<br />Instruction appears to have an effect on learning<br />Relationship is weak<br />Larger effect on reading outcomes<br />May mean literacy gains more sensitive to gain, may be testing artifact<br />18<br />
19.
Summary and Conclusions<br />Attendance hours had no (Study 1) or little (Study 2) relationship to learning, as measured by standardized tests.<br />Attendance rate was related to oral language and reading comprehension, regardless of amount of attendance<br />Attendance rate may reflect motivation<br />Motivation seems to trump instruction<br />19<br />
20.
Discussion of Implications<br />Attendance hours relate to instruction, but very weakly. Why?<br />Is it because of research design or insenstive tests, or is this a real effect? <br />Is attendance worth studying in this way?<br />Does the weak relationship imply other means of delivering instruction (e.g., online courses) may be better<br />Are there better ways to look a the effects of participation?<br />For example, longitudinal persistence studies<br />20<br />
Clipping is a handy way to collect and organize the most important slides from a presentation. You can keep your great finds in clipboards organized around topics.
Be the first to comment