Arthur L. Petterway, PhD Proposal Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member

1,585 views

Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Committe for Arthur L. Petterway, PhD Program in Educational Leadership, PVAMU, Member of the Texas A&M University System.

Published in: Education
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Glitter Graphics



    Hello, hope everything is oky by the grace of GOD im fine.its attractive yr profile ,i wanna talk to u,have a little time for me.my yahoo id is:
    gift_willian@yahoo.com
    gift_willian@yahoo.com

    thank,s Gift
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,585
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Accountability . Schools that fail to meet state-defined Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward their defined goals for two years are identified as needing improvement . Moreover, schools that have not met AYP after four years are subject to restructuring or reconstitution. Testing. States must develop and administer annual tests that define the proficiency that all students are expected to reach in Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science. Teacher Quality. States are required to develop a plan by the end of 2005-2006 to ensure that every teacher is “highly qualified” to teach in his or her core area. Scientifically-Based Research. The NCLB Act requires that all educational decisions be informed by scientifically-based research as defined in legislation.
  • Purpose and Support for NCLB Schools must develop high-quality yearly student assessments Student progress must be reported annually in terms of percentage of students scoring “proficient” or higher Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) must include high school graduation rate (Abedi, 2004) Purpose and Support for NCLB (cont.) AYP to be reported for schools, district, state AYP to be reported for subgroups Low Socio-Economic Status Major racial and ethnic groups Students with disabilities LEP (Limited English Proficiency) students (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002) Changes and Updates Minimum subgroup size Participation Averaging English Language Learners Extra time for students with disabilities (CEP, 2005)
  • Definition of English Language Learners (ELLs) and LEP Limited English Proficient = students who lack sufficient English skills to participate in a regular education English-speaking classroom English Language Learners = a positive way to refer to LEP students (Rivera & Stansfield, 1998) Identifying Districts for Improvement Amendments approved for 13 states in 2005 In 2004, 18 states made this change Grade span approach accepted in California 2004 (Davis and Sack, 2005 Annual Measurable Objectives Eleven states changed annual score targets in 2005 Four states changed annual score targets in 2004 (Olson, 2005)
  • Arthur L. Petterway, PhD Proposal Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member

    1. 1. A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Impact of High Stakes Testing on English Language Learners in Major Urban High Schools in Texas A Dissertation Proposal by Arthur L. Petterway William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Committee Member
    2. 2. Proposal Defense Format <ul><li>I. Purpose of Study </li></ul><ul><li>Research Questions(4) </li></ul><ul><li>Hypotheses(2) </li></ul><ul><li>III. Significance of the Study </li></ul><ul><li>IV. Review of Literature </li></ul><ul><li>V. Research Design </li></ul>
    3. 3. Purpose of the Study <ul><li>The purpose of the study is two-fold: </li></ul><ul><li>Determine whether there is a significant relationship between the ratio of ESL students taking the TAKS test, relative proportion of the school’s faculty who are certified to teach English as a first language and the Grade 10 TAKS in Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics. </li></ul>
    4. 4. Purpose of the Study <ul><li>2 . Explore what certified ESL teachers, non – certified ESL teachers who teach ELLs, campus administrators, and district ESL personnel view as the impact that high stakes standardized assessments have on ELLs, ELL curriculum and instruction. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Research Questions(1): <ul><li>What is the effect of high stakes standardized assessments and their impact on ELLs’ motivation, state of mind or behavior / view of the test? </li></ul>
    6. 6. Research Questions(2): <ul><li>What is the influence of teacher certification status on high stakes standardized assessments on ELLs? </li></ul>
    7. 7. Research Questions(3): <ul><li>What is the impact of high stakes standardized assessments on ELLs? </li></ul>
    8. 8. Research Questions(4): <ul><li>Is there a relationship between TAKS performance in Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics of 10th Graders and designation of ESL or non-ESL, type of teacher (certified or non-certified to teach ESL) and % of students who do not speak English as a first language ? </li></ul>
    9. 9. Hypotheses(1): <ul><li>Ho1: There is no statistically significant relationship between the ratio of ESL students taking the TAKS test, relative proportion of the school’s faculty who are certified to teach ESL students and the % of students who do not speak English as a first language and the school’s performance in the Grade 10 TAKS test in English/Language Arts. </li></ul>
    10. 10. Hypotheses(2): <ul><li>Ho2: There is no statistically significant relationship between the of ratio of ESL students taking the TAKS test, relative proportion of the school’s faculty who are certified to teach ESL students and the % of students who do not speak English as a first language and the school’s performance in the Grade 10 TAKS test in Mathematics. </li></ul>
    11. 11. Significance of the Study: <ul><li>Expected outcome of the study will be to provide additional data for standardized assessment writers in regards to biases and to school districts in developing assessments that truly measure learning without the nullifying effects of linguistic and cultural biases. </li></ul>
    12. 12. Significance of the Study <ul><li>It will also help to enhance the reliability of standardized assessments as a tool to determine accountability for student performance of English language learners. </li></ul>
    13. 13. Review of Literature <ul><li>No Child Left Behind (NCLB) </li></ul><ul><li>Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) </li></ul><ul><li>Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students </li></ul><ul><li>High Stakes/Statewide Testing </li></ul>
    14. 14. Review of Literature <ul><li>No Child Left Behind (NCLB) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Historical Note </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Description of the Key Factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expectations for Parents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Response to NCLB </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Review of Literature <ul><li>No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Historical Note: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In 2003, the Center of Educational Policy clarified why accountability was not a part of ESEA in 1965: </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Review of Literature <ul><ul><li>“ At that time the federal role in education was marginal, most state education agencies had very limited authority and capabilities, and local people were extremely wary that more federal aid would bring federal control”(p.iv). </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Review of Literature <ul><li>No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) </li></ul><ul><li>-Description of the Key Factors (Rosenbusch, 2005)(4): </li></ul><ul><li> 1. Accountability </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2. Testing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Teacher Quality </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4. Scientifically-Based Research </li></ul></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Review of Literature <ul><li>Accountability to Parents </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Beginning in 2005, grades 3 – 8 must be tested in Math and English </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By the end of SY 2005 – 2006, teachers must be “highly qualified” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of students achieving state standards must increase each year until reaching 100% at the end of 12 years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schools must notify parents if their child’s school is targeted for improvement </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Review of Literature <ul><li>Expectations for Parents (cont.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If a school targeted for improvement fails after two years, parents may choose to transfer their child to another school or enroll in free tutoring. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Source: collegeboard.com </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Review of Literature <ul><li>Response to NCLB </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Controversy (Rosenbusch, 2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Majority of Americans believe in local control of schools (Rose & Gallup, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many believe Math and English testing not sufficient to give accurate picture of the school (Rose & Gallup, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Could result in narrowing of the curriculum and “sorting of students” (Marshak, 2003, p.229) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NEA says focus on punishment is an obstacle (National Education Association, n.d.) </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Review of Literature <ul><li>Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Purpose and Support to NCLB </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Changes and Updates </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Review of Literature <ul><li>Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Definition of English Language Learners (ELLs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Issues and Other Considerations of LEP </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Review of Literature <ul><li>High Stakes/Statewide Testing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Principles of Testing Programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accountability in Testing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effects of High Stakes Testing on Student Motivation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other Considerations of Assessment on Testing </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. Review of Literature <ul><li>Identification of ELLs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Home Language Survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proficiency tests (Abedi, 2004b) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment instruments may not be sufficient </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leads to inconsistency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Zehler, Hopstock, Fleischman & Greniuk, 1994) </li></ul></ul>
    25. 25. Review of Literature <ul><li>Strategies to improve LEP instruction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve classification methods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve monitoring </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve teacher quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Include redesignated LEP students as part of the LEP subgroup </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Abedi, 2003) </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. Review of Literature <ul><li>High Stakes Statewide Testing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>States required to administer Reading and Math tests annually in grades 3 – 8 and during one year in high school starting in 2005 – 2006 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>States must meet AYP goals (Abrams & Madaus, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of testing to change pedagogical priorities has a long history (Madaus & O’Dwyer, 1999 ) </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Principles of Testing Programs
    28. 28. Review of Literature <ul><li>Principle 1 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The power of tests is a perceptual phenomenon </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All parties must believe the results are important (Airasian, 1988) </li></ul></ul>
    29. 29. Review of Literature <ul><li>Principle 2 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The more a quantitative social indicator is used for social decision making, the more likely it will be to distort and corrupt the social process it is intended to monitor (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Haladyna, Nolen & Haas, 1991; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey & Stecher, 2000; Linn, 1998) </li></ul></ul>
    30. 30. Review of Literature <ul><li>Principle 3 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If important decisions are based on test results, then teachers will teach to the test. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Jones et al., 1999; Madaus, 1991; Madaus, 1991; McMillan, Myran & Workman, 1999; Pedulla et al., 2003; Stecher, Barron, Chun & Ross, 2000) </li></ul></ul>
    31. 31. Review of Literature <ul><li>Principle 4 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In every setting where high-stakes tests operate, the exam content eventually defines the curriculum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Herman and Golan, n.d.; Hoffman, Assaf, & Paris, 2001; Jones et al., 1999; Pedula et al., 2003) </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. Review of Literature <ul><li>Principle 5 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers pay attention to the form of the questions of high-stakes tests and adjust their instruction accordingly. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Taylor, Shepard, Kinner & Rosenthal, 2003; Kortz, Barron, Mitchell, & Keith, 1996a) </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Review of Literature <ul><li>Principle 6 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>When test results are the arbiter of future education or life choices, society treats test results as the major goal of schooling. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Holmes, 1911, p.128; Edwards, 2003) </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Review of Literature <ul><li>Principle 7 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A high-stakes test transfers control over the curriculum to the agency that sets or controls the exam. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Myers, 2003) </li></ul></ul>
    35. 35. Review of Literature <ul><li>Accountability in Testing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cut-off scores are arbitrary (Horn, Ramos, Blumer & Madaus, 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Test scores are fallible (Rhoades & Madaus, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No test can be truly comprehensive (Harlow & Jones, 2003) </li></ul></ul>
    36. 36. Review of Literature <ul><li>Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Student Motivation and Learning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence shows that such tests actually decrease student motivation and increase the number of students who leave school early. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Arein & Berliner, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attaching high stakes to tests apparently obstructs students’ paths to becoming lifelong, self-directed learners and alienates students. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Sheldon & Biddle, 1998 ) </li></ul></ul>
    37. 37. Review of Literature <ul><li>Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Student Motivation and Learning (cont.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Many researchers hold high-stakes testing at least partly to blame for climbing dropout rates. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Rothstein, 2002; Jacob, 2001; FairTest & Massachusetts CARE, 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More teenagers are exiting school early to earn a General Educational Development (GED) credential </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Murnane, Willett, & Tyler, 2000) </li></ul></ul>
    38. 38. Review of Literature <ul><li>Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Student Motivation and Learning (cont.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May increase drop-out rate when promotion to next grade hinges on passing state exams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Goldschmidt & Wang, 1999) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Results in a high percentage of minority and low socio-economic background students being retained (McNeil, 2000; Haney, 2000, 2001; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffey & Stecher, 2000; Yardley, 2000; Fisher, 2000) </li></ul></ul>
    39. 39. Review of Literature <ul><li>Other Considerations of Assessment and Testing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can affect the number of students, especially black and Hispanic students, who are classified as Special Education (Thurlow, Neilson, Tellucksingh,& Ysseldyke, 2000; Haney, 2000; D’Emilio, 2003, June; Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, & Stepherson, 2003) </li></ul></ul>
    40. 40. Review of Literature <ul><li>Other Considerations of Assessment and Testing (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can negatively affect teacher and student morale (Anderson, 2004; Flores & Clark, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can decrease student motivation (Lane & Stone, 2002) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May increase drop-out rate for English Language Learners ( Hood, 2003; Anderson, 2004; Barro & Kolstad, 1987; Kaufman, alt & Chapman, 2001) </li></ul></ul>
    41. 41. Review of Literature <ul><li>Other Considerations of Assessment and Testing (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May contribute to teacher burnout (Hinde, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vitally connected to socio-cultural, economic and psychological issues (solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can change the way in which teachers and students interact (Cheng, 1999) </li></ul></ul>
    42. 42. Review of Literature <ul><li>Other Considerations of Assessment and Testing (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires administrators, teachers and students to be motivated and invested in demonstrating achievement in order to be successful (Lane and Stone, 2002) </li></ul></ul>
    43. 43. Research Design <ul><li>Research Methodology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive Comparative Research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Triangulation (open-ended questionnaire, focus groups, and interviews) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explanatory Design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Correlational Research </li></ul></ul>
    44. 44. A Mixed Methods Analysis of Impact of High Stakes Testing on English Language Learners in Major Urban High Schools in Texas Q U A N T I T A T I V E Q U A L I T A T I V E Explanatory Design Predictors % ELLs passing % Non-ELLs passing % Non- Certified passing Views/ Opinions Administrators Teachers District Personnel Dependent Variable Grade 10 TAKS Reading/ ELA & Math Impact of Statewide Testing On ELLs Student Performance ESL Curriculum And Instruction Multiple Regression
    45. 45. Research Design <ul><li>Correlational Research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Independent Variables: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1. The ratio of ESL students taking the TAKS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> test </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. The relative proportion of the school’s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> faculty who are certified to teach ELL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3. The percentage of students who do not </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>speak English as a first language </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dependent Variable: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10 th grade Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics TAKS scores </li></ul></ul>
    46. 46. Research Design <ul><li>Subjects of the Study </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative: </li></ul><ul><li>All major high schools in selected major urban school districts in Texas </li></ul>
    47. 47. Research Design <ul><li>Subjects of the Study </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative: </li></ul><ul><li>Per School Total </li></ul><ul><li>ESL Teachers 3 30 </li></ul><ul><li>Non-Certified ESL 3 30 </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Principals 1 10 </li></ul><ul><li>Assistant Principals 2 20 </li></ul><ul><li>District ESL Personnel 8 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Total 98 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    48. 48. Research Design <ul><li>Pilot Study - Qualitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 HISD schools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Three basic considerations: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administer pre-test under conditions comparable to those anticipated in the final study. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analyze results to assess the effectiveness of the trial questionnaire. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Make additions, deletions, and/or modifications to the questionnaire. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Isaac and Michael, 1995) </li></ul></ul>
    49. 49. Research Design <ul><li>Instrumentation </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative: </li></ul><ul><li>The records section of TEA </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative: </li></ul><ul><li>Open-ended questionnaire www.apetterway.speedsurvey.com </li></ul><ul><li>Focus groups </li></ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul>
    50. 50. Research Design <ul><li>Reliability and Validity – Qualitative </li></ul><ul><li>The triangulation method will involve (1) the analysis of the quantitative data, (2) collation of data from the on-line questionnaire, and (3) interviews/focus groups. </li></ul>
    51. 51. Research Design <ul><li>Data Analysis – Quantitative </li></ul><ul><li>Descriptive and Comparative Statistics will be used to calculate the means and standard deviations between the variables. </li></ul>
    52. 52. Research Design <ul><li>Data Analysis – Quantitative </li></ul><ul><li>Correlational Research </li></ul><ul><li>Two separate multiple regressions will be computed: </li></ul><ul><li>y=a+b 1 x 1 +b 2 x 2 +b 3 x 3 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reading/English Language Arts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mathematics </li></ul></ul>
    53. 53. Research Design <ul><li>Data Analysis – Quantitative </li></ul><ul><li>Correlational Research </li></ul><ul><li>SPSS computations: </li></ul><ul><li>1. A Pearson r correlation coefficient will be calculated </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple R and R squared </li></ul><ul><li>Degree of freedom, the F-value, and the level of significance </li></ul><ul><li>Regression formula for predictability </li></ul>
    54. 54. Research Design <ul><li>Data Analysis – Qualitative </li></ul><ul><li>The information gathered from the qualitative portion will be organized under different categories in a frequency table. Percentages will be calculated and listed in descending order. </li></ul>
    55. 55. A Mixed Methods Analysis of Impact of High Stakes Testing on English Language Learners in Major Urban High Schools in Texas Q U A N T I T A T I V E Q U A L I T A T I V E Explanatory Design Predictors % ELLs passing % Non-ELLs passing % Non- Certified passing Views/ Opinions Administrators Teachers District Personnel Dependent Variable Grade 10 TAKS Reading/ ELA & Math Impact of Statewide Testing On ELLs Student Performance ESL Curriculum And Instruction Multiple Regression

    ×