Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Dr. Michelle Annette Cloud, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair

1,593 views

Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair for Dr. Michelle Annette Cloud, PhD Program in Educational Leadership, PVAMU, Member of the Texas A&M University System.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Dr. Michelle Annette Cloud, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair

  1. 1. <ul><li>  PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY </li></ul><ul><li>THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>FACTORS IMPACTING STUDENT SUCCESS IN GRADES 6-8 DURING </li></ul><ul><li>SCHOOL OF CHOICE TRANSITION AT TWO MIDDLE SCHOOLS </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>MICHELLE ANNETTE CLOUD </li></ul><ul><li>Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. William Allan Kritsonis </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. David Herrington </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. Wanda Johnson </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. Lucian Yates, III </li></ul><ul><li>Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for </li></ul><ul><li>DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>March 2009 </li></ul>
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Educating the 21 st Century student often entails numerous and somewhat overwhelming challenges. </li></ul><ul><li>An ever-increasing number of students enter school with deficits stemming from socio-economic to socio-linguistic barriers. </li></ul><ul><li>At far too many campuses, resources, parental support, and community support are limited. </li></ul><ul><li>Nevertheless, schools cannot evade their responsibility towards properly educating children. </li></ul><ul><li>Schools must be able to meet the challenge of educating all students in a manner and environment that allows them to reach their full potential. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Background of the Problem <ul><li>One component of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is adequate yearly progress, or AYP. </li></ul><ul><li>Any Title I school designated in need of improvement (based on the AYP rating) must offer all students attending that school the opportunity to attend a school in the district that has successfully met its AYP goals (Texas Education Agency, 2008). </li></ul>
  4. 4.   Statement of the Problem <ul><li>In response to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, administrators, counselors, teachers, students and parents are now strongly considering the benefits and disadvantages of transferring students to a selected school of choice. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Purpose of the Study <ul><li>The purpose of the study was three-fold: </li></ul><ul><li>The study assessed the academic impact on transfer students. </li></ul><ul><li>The study assessed the social impact on transfer students. </li></ul><ul><li>The study explored the perception of counselors on the academic and social impact of transfer students. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Significance of the Study <ul><li>The significance of the study was to ensure that children across the country receive the maximum benefit from the legislation prescribed in the NCLB. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Quantitative Research Questions <ul><li>Quantitative research questions answered were as follows: </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences in the 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 6? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8? </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>Are there differences in the 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 6? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8? </li></ul>Quantitative Research Questions (continued)
  9. 9. <ul><li>Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Mathematics grade point averages and 2006/2007 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Reading grade point averages and 2006/2007 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Mathematics grade point averages and 2006/2007 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Reading grade point averages and 2006/2007 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8? </li></ul>Quantitative Research Questions (continued)
  10. 10. Null Hypotheses <ul><li>H 01 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 6. </li></ul><ul><li>H 02 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul><ul><li>H 03 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>H 04 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 6. </li></ul><ul><li>H 05 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul><ul><li>H 06 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul>Null Hypotheses (continued)
  12. 12. <ul><li>H 07 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Mathematics grade point averages and 2006/2007 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul><ul><li>H 08 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Reading grade point averages and 2006/2007 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul><ul><li>H 09 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Mathematics grade point averages and 2006/2007 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul><ul><li>H 10 : There are no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Reading grade point averages and 2006/2007 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul>Null Hypotheses (continued)
  13. 13. Qualitative Research Question <ul><li>Which factors in the school of choice schools do counselors perceive are the most helpful in assisting transfer students in grades 6-8? </li></ul>
  14. 14. Conceptual Framework Students often learn a great deal simply by observing other people Teachers and parents must model appropriate behaviors and take care that they do not model inappropriate behaviors Students must believe that they are capable of accomplishing school tasks Describing the consequences of behavior can effectively increase the appropriate behaviors and decrease in appropriate ones Factors Impacting Student Success During “School of Choice” Transition Teachers should help students set realistic expectations for their academic accomplishments Modeling provides an alternative to shaping for teaching new behaviors Teachers should expose students to a variety of other models Self-regulation techniques provide an effective method for improving student behavior Diagrammatic format of Ormrod’s (1999) findings developed from Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
  15. 15. Description of Research Methods <ul><li>Research Methods: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mixed-Methods Study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Triangulation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Quantitative Data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive Statistics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Independent t-tests (compare means) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Qualitative Data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Research Design <ul><li>Quantitative Data </li></ul><ul><li>2005/2006 and 2006/2007 Mathematics and Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6 th grade - 2006/2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7 th and 8 th grade – 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mathematics and Reading grade point averages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>7 th and 8 th grade 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>Quantitative Data </li></ul><ul><li>Independent variable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>School Choice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>transfer students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>non-transfer students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Dependent variables </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mathematics and Reading TAKS scores </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mathematics and Reading grade point averages </li></ul></ul>Research Design (continued)
  18. 18. <ul><li>Quantitative Data </li></ul><ul><li>Descriptive Statistics included the following information about the sample population: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gender </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grade Level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Race </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Socio-economic Status </li></ul></ul>Research Design (continued)
  19. 19. <ul><li>Quantitative Data </li></ul><ul><li>T-tests for independent means were calculated to determine if differences existed with: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the Mathematics and Reading TAKS scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grades 6-8 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the Mathematics and Reading grade point averages (G.P.A.) between transfer and non-transfer students in grades 7-8 </li></ul></ul>Research Design (continued)
  20. 20. <ul><li>Qualitative Data </li></ul><ul><li>Interview questions were aligned with Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. </li></ul><ul><li>Counselor participants </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Structured </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Semistructured Interviews </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interview Questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Feeling questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sensory questions </li></ul></ul>Research Design (continued)
  21. 21. <ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul><ul><li>6th – 8th grade students from one large school district in Texas </li></ul><ul><li>Criterion Sampling – Transfer students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>School A = 100 transfer students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>School B = 68 transfer students. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total number of transfer students = 168 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Stratified random sampling – Non-transfer students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The number of non-transfer students were equal to the number of cases of transfer students and were similar in certain demographics. </li></ul></ul>Population and Sample
  22. 22. <ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul><ul><li>Counselors that had the opportunity to observe and interact directly with transfer students. </li></ul><ul><li>Criterion Case </li></ul><ul><li>Four Participants </li></ul><ul><li>Texas Certified </li></ul>Population and Sample
  23. 23. Extant data from the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 Mathematics and Reading TAKS Test were used to determine if differences existed between the 2005/2006 Mathematics and Reading TAKS scores and the 2006/2007 Mathematics and Reading TAKS scores of transfer students and non-transfer students in grades 6-8. Instrumentation
  24. 24. <ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul><ul><li>The researcher piloted the structured and semistructured interview questions to determine if the interview questions were clearly worded with a panel of experts. </li></ul>Instrumentation – Pilot Study
  25. 25. <ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul><ul><li>Descriptive statistics were included demographic information about the transfer and non-transfer students. </li></ul><ul><li>Demographic information included </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gender </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grade Level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Race </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Socio-economic Status </li></ul></ul>Data Analysis
  26. 26. <ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul><ul><li>T-tests for independent means were used to compare means </li></ul><ul><li>The researcher applied the standard alpha level: 0.05. </li></ul><ul><li>If P < 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected </li></ul>Data Analysis (continued)
  27. 27. Data Analysis (continued) <ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Counselor participant responses were aligned with Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory factors. </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. <ul><li>Peer debriefing and triangulation were used to support the statistical data gathered from the quantitative and the qualitative portions of the study. </li></ul>Data Analysis (continued)
  29. 29. <ul><li>Descriptive Statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Gender Transfer Non-transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Female 52.4% 57.1% </li></ul><ul><li>Male 47.6% 42.9% </li></ul>Quantitative Findings
  30. 30. <ul><li>Descriptive Statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Grade Level Transfer Non-transfer </li></ul><ul><li>6 66.7% 67.3% </li></ul><ul><li>7 16.1% 16.1% </li></ul><ul><li>8 17.3% 16.8% </li></ul>Quantitative Findings (continued)
  31. 31. <ul><li>Descriptive Statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Race Transfer Non-transfer </li></ul><ul><li>African-American 42.2% 42.2% </li></ul><ul><li>Caucasian 3.0% 3.0% </li></ul><ul><li>Hispanic 39.9% 39.9% </li></ul><ul><li>Other 14.9% 14.9% </li></ul>Qualitative Findings (continued)
  32. 32. <ul><li>Descriptive Statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Socioeconomic Status Transfer Non-transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Eco. Disadv. 54.8% 54.8% </li></ul><ul><li>Not Eco. Disadv. 45.2% 45.2% </li></ul>Qualitative Findings (continued)
  33. 33. Quantitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>RQ1 - Are there differences in the 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 6? </li></ul><ul><li>6 th grade Mathematics TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 62.65 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.05 (2-tailed significance) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reject the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 6. </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. Quantitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>RQ 2 - Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7? </li></ul><ul><li>7 th grade Mathematics TAKS 2005/2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 213.60 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.00 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reject the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7 th grade Mathematics TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 59.69 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.31 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul>
  35. 35. Quantitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>RQ 3 - Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8? </li></ul><ul><li>8 th grade Mathematics TAKS 2005/2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = -45.77 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.39 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8 th grade Mathematics TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = -26.04 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.60 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was no statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul>
  36. 36. <ul><li>RQ4 - Are there differences in the 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 6? </li></ul><ul><li>6 th grade Mathematics TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 67.95 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.03 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reject the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 6. </li></ul></ul> Quantitative Findings (continued)
  37. 37. <ul><li>RQ5 - Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7? </li></ul><ul><li>7 th grade Reading TAKS 2005/2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 200.53 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.01 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reject the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7 th grade Reading TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 150.42 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.01 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reject the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul>Quantitative Findings (continued)
  38. 38. <ul><li>RQ6 - Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores and 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8? </li></ul><ul><li>8 th grade Reading TAKS 2005/2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 42.87 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.45 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8 th grade Reading TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = -86.39 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.14 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul></ul> Quantitative Findings (continued)
  39. 39. <ul><li>RQ7 - Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Mathematics grade point averages and 2006/2007 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7? </li></ul><ul><li>7 th grade Mathematics Grade Point Averages 2005/2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 8.00 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.02 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reject the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7 th grade Mathematics Grade Point Averages 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 3.22 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.10 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul>Quantitative Findings (continued)
  40. 40. <ul><li>RQ8 - Are there differences in the 2005/2206 Reading grade point averages and 2006/2007 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7? </li></ul><ul><li>7 th grade Reading TAKS 2005/2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 4.40 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.06 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7 th grade Reading TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = 2.44 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.20 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 7 . </li></ul></ul>Quantitative Findings (continued)
  41. 41. <ul><li>RQ9 - Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Mathematics grade point averages and 2006/2007 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8? </li></ul><ul><li>8 th grade Reading TAKS 2005/2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = -0.89 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.60 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8 th grade Reading TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = -2.55 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.30 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Mathematics grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul></ul>Quantitative Findings (continued)
  42. 42. <ul><li>RQ10 - Are there differences in the 2005/2006 Reading grade point averages and 2006/2007 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8? </li></ul><ul><li>8 th grade Reading TAKS 2005/2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = -3.66 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.07 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2005/2006 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8 th grade Reading TAKS 2006/2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mean Difference = -0.95 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P = 0.58 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P < 0.05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept the null hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was not a statistically significant difference in the scores on the 2006/2007 Reading grade point averages between transfer and non-transfer students in grade 8. </li></ul></ul>Quantitative Findings (continued)
  43. 43. Qualitative Findings <ul><li>RQ11 - Which factors in the school of choice schools do counselors perceive are the most helpful in assisting transfer students in grades 6-8? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Factor A - Students often learn a great deal simply by observing other people. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ . . . teachers modeled appropriate study habits” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ the use of organizers/agendas” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>closely “monitor(ing) assignments” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>assigning “checkpoints” to students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>tips on how to “take notes . . . study, divide up time to study” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ When . . . (teachers) realized students needed extra they let them come in before school” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Teachers would usually pair up students” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ All students (were) expected to follow the ‘Well-Managed Classroom.’&quot;  </li></ul></ul></ul>
  44. 44. Qualitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>Factor B - Describing the consequences of behavior can effectively increase the appropriate behaviors and decrease inappropriate ones. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>teachers would provide an overview of “beginning of the year guidelines” to establish behavior expectations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors . . . emphasized that guidelines for transfer students “did not vary from other students.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors . . . mentioned, “Teachers would try to contact parents and outline behavior expectations” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Teachers paired students up with other students” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors explained, “With smaller classes, teachers had better classroom management and more time to address individual needs.” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  45. 45. Qualitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>Factor C - Modeling provides an alternative to shaping for teaching new behaviors. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors stated, “Other students would be used as examples” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>teachers “used the school-wide reward system” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ We paired students up with Student Ambassadors to help them out and answer questions” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>teachers used principles in the “Well-Managed Classroom” program to model appropriate behavior </li></ul></ul></ul>
  46. 46. Qualitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>Factor D - Teachers and parents must model appropriate behaviors and take care that they do not model inappropriate behaviors. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ The parents wanted more for their students so the kids wanted more . . . The kids worked hard.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors said that interactions were “very similar.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ . . . if parents did not follow through, students often did not follow through . . .” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors expressed, “. . . when students were forced to transfer by parents, they ‘did into buy into it.’” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  47. 47. Qualitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>Factor E - Teachers should expose students to a variety of other models. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors said, “using appropriate tone” and “speaking to students appropriate(ly)” were strategies used to model appropriate behavior. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors revealed . . . , “Teachers would treat students with respect and students would reciprocate that back. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>When students communicated respectfully, teachers would respond in kind.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors referenced district-wide social skills program, “. . . we have the Well-Managed Classroom, kind of like Boys Town . . .” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  48. 48. Qualitative Findings (continued) <ul><ul><li>Factor F - Students must believe that they are capable of accomplishing school tasks. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ They [transfer students] had the perception that they could do whatever was asked of them.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors said, “Students expressed that they believed they were capable of accomplishing school tasks through the work they submitted . . . Also, through communication with students and family members.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors expressed, “We found things that they were strong in and used that to encourage them and bring them back around, in some cases they were artistic, athletic . . . to give them self esteem and motivate them.” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  49. 49. Qualitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>Factor G - Teachers should help students set realistic expectations for their academic accomplishments. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors explained, “Holding all students to the same standards regardless of the background and ethnicity.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors shared, “The bar was raised high for everyone.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors shared, “Teachers stated what they expected before the assignment was ever done . . .” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  50. 50. Qualitative Findings (continued) <ul><li>Factor H - Self-regulation techniques provide an effective method for improving student behavior. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors said, “Self-regulation had a major impact on the choices students made.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>One counselor expressed self-regulation varied depending on the student. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors stated “. . . if they [transfer students] had some type of disability . . . this had an impact on behavior and academics.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counselors also expressed, “Until you get past behavior you can’t even think about academics” and “Those [transfer students] who came to us with major discipline problems continued on the same route.” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  51. 51. Literature and Findings <ul><li>Mobility is associated with lower student achievement (Fowler-Finn, 2001). </li></ul><ul><li>An achievement gap exists between schools with a high mobility rate and those that are more stable (Kerbow, 1996). </li></ul><ul><li>Classroom instruction in schools with higher mobility rates is more likely to be review oriented and have slower instructional pacing from month to month and grade to grade (Kerbow, 1996). </li></ul>
  52. 52. Literature and Findings <ul><li>High school students who change schools are at least twice as likely not to graduate-research indicated that only 60 percent will graduate (Rumberger, Larson, Ream & Palardy, 1999). </li></ul><ul><li>In all income categories, highly mobile students are more likely to be retained a grade than children who do not change schools (Fowler-Finn, 2001). </li></ul><ul><li>Grade point averages are in part subjective due to dependence of the educator responsible for assigning the grade to make some judgments based on individual thinking (Stake, 2002). </li></ul>
  53. 53. Literature and Findings <ul><li>A study revealed that student grades in core classes did not coincide with their results on the state standardized test given at the end of the core courses (Vogell, 2009). </li></ul><ul><li>“ People can learn by observing the behaviors of others . . . Reinforcement plays a role in learning . . . Cognitive processes play a role in learning” (Kretchmar, 2008, p. 1). </li></ul><ul><li>“ When new behavior is acquired through observation alone, the learning appears to be cognitive” (Crain, 2000, p. 194). </li></ul>
  54. 54. Conclusions <ul><li>This study concludes : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>school choice made a difference in students’ standardized test scores if </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a) the student transitioned only once, and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>b) the school employed Albert Bandura Social Learning Theory factors. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students who transitioned twice - once from elementary into a low-performing intermediate school and then a second time into a high-performing intermediate school - showed no statistically significant change in standardized test scores. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was no appreciable difference in student grade point averages, likely due to the subjective nature of individual teacher grading practices. </li></ul></ul>
  55. 55. Recommendations <ul><li>The following practical suggestions for applying the findings regarding factors impacting student success in grades 6-8 during school of choice transition at two middle schools on the findings are as follows: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Findings from this study should be shared with legislators faced with current implications of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Principals should share these findings with parents faced with the option of selecting a school of choice. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Educational leadership training programs should implement material covering the implications of public schools failing to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) into their preparatory programs. </li></ul></ul>
  56. 56. Recommendations <ul><ul><li>Teacher training programs should implement material covering the implications of failing to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) into their preparatory programs. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Findings from this study should be shared with surrounding schools and districts faced with determining which campuses would best serve as a designated school of choice. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Models for implementing more strategies related to Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory should be included in Educational Preparation Programs both Teaching and Administrative. </li></ul></ul>
  57. 57. Recommendations for Further Study <ul><li>This study focused on factors impacting student success in grades 6-8 during school of choice transition at two middle schools. The following recommendations for further research are as follows: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted where counselors are surveyed and interviewed to examine factors impacting student success in grades 6-8 for students who elect to remain at their home campus during school of choice transition. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted where principals are surveyed and interviewed to determine their perceptions of factors impacting student success in grades 6-8 during school of choice transition. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted where parents are surveyed and interviewed to determine their perceptions of factors impacting student success in grades 6-8 during school of choice transition. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted where teachers are surveyed and interviewed to determine their perceptions of factors impacting student success in grades 6-8 during school of choice transition. </li></ul></ul>
  58. 58. Recommendations for Further Study <ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted where students are surveyed and interviewed to determine their perceptions of factors impacting student success in grades 6-8 during school of choice transition. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted to explore how the success rate of students from specific races is impacted during school of choice transition. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted analyzing factors impacting student success between transfer students at two different schools of choice. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted with a different instrument that addresses the differences in the respondent’s mind between what should be present for factors impacting student success in grades 6-8 during school of choice transition and what actually is occurring on the respondent’s campus. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted that includes both elementary and high schools. This study only included middle schools. </li></ul></ul>
  59. 59. Recommendations for Further Study <ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted looking specifically at instructional practices at school of choice campuses. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted looking specifically at interventions at school of choice campuses. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted looking specifically at the impact of transportation school of choice campuses. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A study could be conducted looking at high school students transitioning to a school of choice. </li></ul></ul>
  60. 60. References Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 , 117-148. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall . Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fowler-Finn, T. (2001). Student stability vs. mobility. School Administrator , 58 (7), 36-40. Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Isaac, S. & Michael, W. (1997). Handbook in Research and Evaluation for Education and the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.) San Diego, CA: EdiTs/Educational and Industrial Testing Services. Kerbow, D. (1996). Patterns of urban student mobility and local school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk , 1 (2). Kretchmar, J. (2008). Social Learning Theory . (pp. 1-1). Great Neck Publishing. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from the Research Starters - Education database. Ormrod , J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Public Agenda, 1999).
  61. 61. References <ul><li>Rumberger, R., Larson, K., Ream, R., & Palardy, G. (1999). The educational consequences of mobility for California students and schools (PACE Policy Brief). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Available online: http://pace.berkeley.edu/pace_mobility.html </li></ul><ul><li>Sirkin, R. (2006). Statistics for the social sciences. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 45 </li></ul><ul><li>Stake, R. (2002, August). Teachers conceptualizing student achievement. Teachers & Teaching , 8 (3/4), 303-312. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from the doi:10.1080/135406002100000459  </li></ul><ul><li>Texas Education Agency (2008). Retrieved June 14, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/data.html </li></ul><ul><li>United States Government Accountability Office. (2004). No child left behind act: Education needs to provide additional technical assistance and conduct Implementation studies for school choice provision. (Highlights of GAO-05-7, a report to the Secretary of Education). </li></ul><ul><li>Vogell, H. (2009, February 8). Cover story: Are schools inflating grades? Marks from teachers, test scores vary widely: 'A' student can get 'F' on state's standardized tests.  The Atlanta Journal – Constitution, p. A.1.  Retrieved March 1, 2009, from the Accounting & Tax Newspapers database. (Document ID: 1640585541). </li></ul>
  62. 62. <ul><li>Thank You </li></ul>

×