This document summarizes research on the Self-directed Enrichment Model for Reading (SEM-R), an enrichment-based reading program designed to increase reading achievement, enjoyment, and self-regulation. The study involved over 2500 students across multiple years. Results found that the SEM-R treatment improved reading comprehension and fluency compared to controls, with small effect sizes. However, later years found no significant differences between groups. While SEM-R classrooms showed more choice, complex tasks, and student involvement, this did not translate to increases in measured self-regulated learning strategies compared to controls. Limitations included reliability issues with observation and self-report measures as well as potential lack of treatment fidelity.

1. Self-regulation and Learning:Gifted Pedagogy, Classroom Environments, and Students Angela M. Housand University of North Carolina, Wilmington Presentation at the University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL

2. angelahousand.com

3. 5619 Standardized Comprehension

4. 12,635 Oral Reading Fluency

5. 10,223 Likert Scale

6. When Gifted Pedagogy… …Meets Regular Classrooms

7. Gifted education is the petri dish for general education programs. (Gallagher)

8. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented www.gifted.uconn.edu

9. SchoolwideEnrichmentModelReading

10. The Enrichment Triad Model Type II Group Training Activities Type I General Exploratory Activities Type III Individual & Small Group Investigations of Real Problems Regular Classroom Environment in General (Renzulli, 1977)

11. SEM-R An enrichment-based reading program Designed to increase: Reading achievement for all students Enjoyment of reading Self-regulation in reading

12. Components of the SEM-R Framework Increasing degree of student selection (Joyful Reading – p. 9)

13. Design Experimental Cluster-randomized assignment to groups Pre/Post measures used

14. Sample: Year 1 Two Title I Schools Grades 3-6 J = 14 n= 229 ntreatment = 110 ncontrol = 112 *Implemented as an after school program

15. Methodology:Pre/Post Measures

16. Results: ANCOVA Post intervention reading comprehension Statistically significant difference among treatment levels Small to moderate effect size (F(1, 120) = 7.08; p= .009; 2 = .06) No interaction effects

17. Results: ANCOVA Post intervention reading fluency Statistically significant difference among treatment levels Small effect size (F(1, 118) = 6.51; p= .012; 2 = .052) No interaction effects

18. Results: HLM Used pre-assessments as covariates Pre-fluency for fluency Pre-comprehension for comprehension Students in the SEM-R treatment group scored statistically significantly higher than those on the control group in reading fluency

19. Sample: Year 2 Two Schools – Suburban and Urban Grades 3-5 J = 31 n= 558 ntreatment = 313 ncontrol = 245 *Implemented as partial replacement of regular basal reading program

20. Methodology:Pre/Post Measures

21. Results: ANCOVA Post intervention reading comprehension Statistically significant difference among treatment levels Small effect size (F(1, 550) = 5.31; p= .022; 2 = .01) Difference largely explained by the urban school

22. Results: ANCOVA Post intervention readingfluency Statistically significant difference among treatment levels Small effect size (F(1, 541) = 5.32; p= .021; 2 = .001) Difference largely explained by the urban school

23. Results: HLM Used pre-assessments as covariates Pre-fluency for fluency Pre-comprehension for comprehension Students in the SEM-R treatment group scored statistically significantly higher than those on the control group in reading fluency

24. Sample: Year 3 Five Schools – Suburban and Urban Grades 3-5 J = 47 n= 1057 ntreatment = 608 ncontrol = 449 *Implemented as partial replacement of regular basal reading program

25. Results No statistically significant differences found between treatment and control SEM-R replaced one hour of regular reading instruction without negative impact Regression to the mean?

26. Self-Regulation and SEM-R Choice in activities Opportunity for help seeking Student participation in evaluation Complex tasks Choice of book Individualized conferences Student participation in assessment Phase III activities

27. Quantitative Procedures Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

28. Sample Year 4 Grades 2-5(n= 1252; J = 71)Demographics: Percentages by School

29. Methodology: Pre-Measures

32. Methodology: Post Measures

34. Methodology: Post Measures

35. Methodology: Missing Data Attrition (n = 115) Pattern of missingness assessed in NORM Remaining missingness: MAR 10 imputed data sets using NORM “Average” set used for HLM (NORM, Schafer, 1999; HLM6, Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheoun, Congdon, & Toit,2004)

36. 240 Observations Conducted Range = 1 to 8 per classroom Over the course of 1 Academic Year Methodology: Observations

38. Research Question 1 What are the effects of individual factors on individual self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use?

39. Results: Random Effects Significant between class variation remained to be explained: (00 = .040, 269 = 162.17, p .001) Intra-class correlation: 7% of variance between class 93% of variance within class

40. Results: Random Coefficients Female not significant predictor Pre-Achievement (20 = .045, t69 = 1.95, p = .054) Teacher Observations of SRL Strategy Use (30 = .055, t1247 = 2.75, p = .007) Pre-SRL Strategy Use (40 = .665, t69 = 24.53, p .001)

41. Results: Random Coefficients Within class variability reduced by 44.1% Between class variability reduced by 67.5% Significant between class variation remained to be explained: (00 = .011, 269 = 110.53, p = .001)

42. Results: Contextual Grade (i.e. being in grade 2,4,or 5) not a significant predictor of SRL strategy use 7.7% of the between class variability is explained by grade. 16.7 % of the effect of pre-achievement is explained by grade. None of the effect of pre-SRL strategy use is explained by grade.

43. Results: Contextual Pre-achievement no longer significant predictor of SRL strategy use.

48. Results: Variance Explained 44.9% of between class variance is explained by individual factors and teacher observations of SRL strategy use. No variance between classrooms was explained by treatment.

49. Follow-up Question After controlling for individual factors, how much between class variance in SRL strategy use is explained by the SEM-R treatment condition? Were there treatment by school interaction effects?

50. Results After controlling for individual factors, no effect from treatment. Treatment did not significantly influence effects on SRL strategy use from level 1 predictors. There were no school effects. There were no school by treatment interaction effects.

53. Broad application of pedagogy?

54. More influence from teacher style and expertise?

55. Implementation integrity?

56. Length of implementation?

58. Instrumentation?

59. Self-report and teacher report measures?Growth not apparent?

60. Research Question 3 Are there differences between SEM-R treatment and control classrooms on observable environmental characteristics that support self-regulated learning strategy use?

61. Results: Caution Time as a covariate Wilkes Lambda used for MANOVA tests Inter-Rater reliability (r = .70) on observations scale was not sufficient Results become suggestions for future research rather than valid findings Use Caution!

62. Results: Environment All Differences Favored Treatment Conditions Average of 4 dimensions of Environmental Influence(F(1, 212) = 29.40; p .001; 2 = .122) Choice in Activities (F(1, 212) = 129.55; p .001; 2 = .379) Complex Tasks (F(1, 212) = 16.18; p .001; 2 = .071) Participation in Assessments (F(1, 212) = 19.13; p .001; 2 = .083)

63. Results: Observed Behaviors All Differences Favored Treatment Conditions Average of 4 dimensions of Observed Behaviors (F(1, 212) = 14.99; p .001; 2 = .066) Students are Engaged (F(1, 212) = 33.82; p .001; 2 = .138) Students have autonomy (F(1, 212) = 23.57; p .001; 2 = .100)

64. Results: No Difference Environmental Help Seeking Observed Student Behaviors Solicit Information Seek Help

66. Limitations: Instrumentation DV based on self-report Reliability of self-report scales based on use with older students Oral administration of the scales Lack of commensurate measures Lack of inter-rater reliability on observation scale

67. Limitations: Treatment Fidelity Teachers reverting to former classroom practices Whole class novel studies Test Preparation High Stakes Testing Test-Taking Strategies vs. Reading Comprehension Strategies SEM-R Skipped

68. 255 Teachers

69. 959 Classroom Observations

70. 7010 Students

71. When the Classroom Environment Influences Student Performance

72. SEM-R Classroom Increasing enjoyment through interest and choice Increasing focus in reading gradually over time Student self-monitoring using reading logs

73. SEM-R Classroom Ongoing formative assessment Enabling responsiveness to student needs Embedded summative assessments Student participation in assessment

74. Components of the SEM-R Framework Increasing degree of student selection (Joyful Reading – p. 9)

75. SEM-R – Phase 2 Students will . . . Enjoy reading books of their own selection Read appropriately challenging books (1 to 1.5 above their current reading level) Develop self-regulation skills to enable them to read appropriately challenging books for at least 25-35 minutes each day Have individualized reading instruction that is tailored to each student’s needs Participate in self-monitoring and self-assessment

76. I have seen gains in their fluency, comprehension, as well as word skills. It is truly amazing.

77. The one on one five minute conferences are the best way for me to monitor each child’s unique learning needs, and be able to use strategies individually for each student that benefits them the most.

78. I know my students as readers and learners better than I ever have before.

85. Classroom SRL: High vs. Low Purpose for reading (engaging) Materials to support metacognitive awareness Explicit instruction and modeling of strategies Self-regulatory and comprehension

86. Classroom SRL: High vs. Low Organization of classroom Clear set of expectations Behavioral and performance Participation in assessment

87. “From the standpoint of the child…he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning at school. That is the isolation of the school - its isolation from life.” John Dewey

88. The Program Elementary – 5th Grade Enrichment pull-out program Environmental science focus Coastal region Nearby lake and stream

90. 6 female

91. 4 male

92. Identified

93. 7 formal district procedures

94. 3 teacher recommendation

95. Ethnic Diversity

96. 6 European-white

97. 2 Latino

101. Connection to Norway Gifted students Advanced contact and planning between instructors Surrounded by similar water bodies Different climate

102. The Researcher 27 visits February through June Exploratory study looking for emerging themes Non-participatory Non-instructional

103. Major Finding #1 Difficulty accessing technology Insufficient access to the internet Too few computers in classroom Inadequate computer hardware and software iPhone used to circumvent school firewall

104. Inadequate technology may have contributed to the failure of effectively creating a dynamic learning community with students’ in Norway.

105. Major Finding #2 Self-advocacy and Self-promotion Certain students emerged as leaders Lead to distractions Impacted access to technology and tools Impacted opportunities to contribute Impacted group assignment

106. Major Finding #3 Differentiated Instruction Instruction varied by learning style, process, and product Almost no whole group instruction Student groups were self-selected Increased student engagement when products and processes were authentic

108. Administer Poverty Simulations

109. Assess influence on attitudes of in-service and pre-service teachers

110. Mission of the Watson School of Education is to prepare quality teachers

112. Future Research:Underlying Constructs Can SRL be studied without controlling for motivation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, metacognitive awareness, etc. ? Other underlying constructs?

113. Questions?

114. Thank You!

115. Special thanks to theSearch Committee! Dr. Judy Giesen, Chair Dr. Sara Childers Dr. Jamie Satcher Dr. Annie Smith Dr. Sara Tomek Dr. Elizabeth Wilson