Common Content, Individual Learning Plans, & Common Mindset by tim farquer

COMMON CONTENT, INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT LEARNING PLANS, AND COMMON MINDSET: META-ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH

A Dissertation by TIM FARQUER

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Western Illinois University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Major Subject: Educational Leadership

ABSTRACT

Common Content, Individualized Student Learning Plans, and Common Mindset: MetaAnalysis of Research

(MAY 2011)

The Race to the Top Initiative, Common Core State Standards, and Next Generation Assessments are forcing educational professionals to deeply examine the way children are educated in the United States. Some call for Common Content to equal the playing field, others argue advances in technology now give us the ability to administer Individualized Learning Plans, and other experts point to a shift toward Common Mindset with regards to intelligence theory and stereotype threats as a means of providing each student an equal opportunity to grow. This study analyzed a collection of research providing a clarified view for the needed direction of public school reform in the United States.

DEDICATION

This research could not have been completed without the love and support of my wife Nadine. She has provided the strength, stability, and nurturing necessary for me to push through the many hours needed for completion. In addition, my three children, Ben, Olivia, and Cade, have been slightly neglected by their father during the completion of this research. It is time we will never get back, but time I hope will be impactful on educational reform. I will do my best to eventually make this up to them all. I also am extremely grateful to the family of educators who have helped to shape the evolution of my perspective. First and foremost my mother Sharon, who is a recently retired elementary school teacher, my father Terry who spent many years coaching young men, my aunt Sharon who spent her career teaching Special Education, and my Uncle Sam who retired after many years as a public school educator as well. In addition, I am extremely grateful to the many dedicated professionals I have had the pleasure to work and share ideas with throughout my life as a student and educator. It is the combined passion of these individuals that have made me the person that I am today. For that, I am truly grateful.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Acknowledge the individuals who specifically assisted me during the dissertation process. (ADD TEXT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................................... 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER I ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Background of the Problem....................................................................................................................... 11 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................................... 14 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................... 15 Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................................. 15 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 16 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Researcher Bias ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 17 Definition of Terms...................................................................................................................................... 17 Organization of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER II .................................................................................................................................................... 20 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................................................... 20 Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 28 CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................................................... 28 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................ 29 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................... 29 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................................................. 30 Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 30 Research Design ........................................................................................................................................ 31 Researcher Bias...................................................................................................................................... 31 Subjects of Study .................................................................................................................................... 31

Instrumentation........................................................................................................................................ 31 Validity .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Reliability ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Procedures................................................................................................................................................... 32 Data Collection and Recording ................................................................................................................. 33 Analysis of Data .......................................................................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................................................................... 34 ANALYSIS OF DATA: MINUTES, NEWS ARTICLES, PHOTO ARTIFACTS....................................... 34 Collection of Data and Artifacts ................................................................................................................ 34 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................................................... 35 ANALYSIS OF DATA ..................................................................................................................................... 35 INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................ 35 Research Question 1.................................................................................................................................. 35 Research Question 2.................................................................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER VI ................................................................................................................................................... 36 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 36 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 ADD TEXT ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 37 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 52

LIST OF TABLES

ADD TEXT

LIST OF FIGURES

ADD TEXT

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

“Thirty seven percent of America's schools today are not meeting their annual targets mandated by No Child Left Behind” (Obama, 2011). In an effort to improve the achievement levels within US schools, President Obama‟s White House, as well as the Department of Education led by Secretary Arne Duncan, launched the Race To The Top initiative. The program has awarded, and continues to award, significant funding toward states who agree to specific educational reforms set forth by the Department of Education. One condition of applying for Race To The Top funding was the adoption of a statewide common curriculum. In response to this condition, 44 states and the District of Columbia (representing 86% of our nation‟s students) adopted the Common Core State Standards as the backbone of their public school curriculum (Alliance For Excellent Education, 2010). In addition, the federal government has awarded millions of dollars toward the construction of next generation assessment systems to measure student achievement levels within the Common Core State Standard framework. The US Department of Education states… “the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund is an unprecedented federal investment in (education) reform. The program includes $4 billion for statewide reform grants and $350 million to support states working together to improve the quality of their assessments…” (US Dept of Education, 2010).

The federal government has made a tremendous investment and has one round of Race to the Top grants left to award. The states who receive the last round of funding, and the conditions to which they agree, will begin to narrow the focus of the direction the White House and Department of Education steer the nation‟s schools. As Frederick Hess has noted, “it‟s those plans that are bold about rethinking systems and schooling that deserve to win (Race to the Top funding)…of course, not all bold plans are smart plans.” The question this meta-analysis of research is looking to answer is, what constitutes a bold smart plan? To answer the question, this paper will delve closer to the classroom to study changes within schools that will directly affect student achievement. When we get to the instructional level, the questioning becomes: Do the bold smart plans establish common content? Do the bold smart plans promote individualized student learning plans? Do the bold smart plans contain common social-psychological interventions? The meta-analysis of research that follows will provide valuable insight into the passionate debate educational reformers and professionals are currently engaged.

Background of the Problem

Currently, forty four states and the District of Columbia (representing 86% of our nation‟s students) have adopted the Common Core State Standards as the backbone of their public school curriculum (Alliance For Excellent Education, 2010). States like Illinois are promoting these standards as “fewer, clearer, higher” than the previous

standards adopted by the State Board of Education. But, the American Federation of Teachers (and its‟ 1.5 million members), via The Albert Shanker Institute, has issued a “Call for Common Content” in the form of a manifesto. The abbreviated text of the manifesto is as follows: “We therefore applaud the goals of the recently released Common Core State Standards, already adopted in most states, which articulate a much clearer vision of what students should learn and be able to do as they progress through school. For our nation, this represents a major advance toward declaring that "equal educational opportunity" is a top priority — not empty rhetoric.

To be clear, by "curriculum" we mean a coherent, sequential set of guidelines in the core academic disciplines, specifying the content knowledge and skills that all students are expected to learn, over time, in a thoughtful progression across the grades. We do not mean performance standards, textbook offerings, daily lesson plans, or rigid pedagogical prescriptions.

We also caution that attaining the goals provided by these standards requires a clear road map in the form of rich, common curriculum content, along with resources to support successfully teaching all students to mastery. Shared curriculum in the core academic subjects would give shape and substance to the standards, and provide

common ground for the creation of coherent, high-quality instructional supports — especially texts and other materials, assessments, and teacher training.

To accomplish this, our nation must finally answer questions it has avoided for generations: What is it, precisely, that we expect all educated citizens to have learned? What explicit knowledge, skills, and understanding of content will help define the day-to-day work of teaching and learning?” (The Albert Shanker Institute, 2011)

The publishing of the manifesto has accelerated and impassioned the debate with “educational reform experts” across varying ideologies weighing in. The manifesto directly led to a sharp “volleying” in the blogosphere with the folks at Core Knowledge, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Cato Institute, and former Gates Foundation education chief Tom Vander Ark all weighing in. So as the United States looks to establish a strong curriculum in an effort to prepare students for the 21st century global workforce, do they need to establish common content, promote individualized student learning plans, or adopt bold smart plans containing common social-psychological interventions?

Context of the Study The PARCC and SMARTER consortiums have both received sizeable grants to develop next-generation large scale assessments tied directly to the Common Core State Standards. In addition to constructing the assessments, both groups will be

establishing digital libraries of teacher resources to assist students in preparation for their respective formative and summative assessments. The philosophy, or balancing thereof, represented within these materials will have a shape US education for years to come.

Statement of the Problem

The passage of No Child Left Behind increased the level of accountability demanded of our public schools. With the U. S. Department of Education projecting the number of “failing” schools across the nation to be above 80% by the end of 2011 (Duncan, 2011), schools across the nation are scrambling for a better way to help children learn. States are changing laws, unions are being challenged, and new large-scale assessments are under construction, but teachers everywhere are asking the same question now as they were asking in 2002 when NCLB was passed. If what I am teaching is not working, what should I teach? All evidence points to the need for educational reform within the United States, but three main philosophies (combined with hybrids of all three) claim to hold the answer to our nation‟s problem. Should schools adopt Core Knowledge/Common Content, develop individual learning plans for each student, adopt common social-psychological interventions, or adapt some combination of the three?

Research Questions

1. Does research support the adoption of common content within the framework of the Common Core State Standards? 2. Does research support the development of individualized education plans for each individual learner within a school? 3. Can schools dramatically increase student learning simply by adopting common social-psychological interventions?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to organize the formal research in an effort to clarify the specifics of curricular adoption in alignment with the Common Core State Standards. The intensity of the debate is increasing exponentially leaving many teachers, administrators, and schools wondering which way to turn. Many other institutions are just laying back, avoiding change all together in an effort to only change once. This study is designed to give local educators research in an effort to assist them in making curricular decisions and innovations based upon the latest research available.

Significance of the Study

This study will be utilized to help districts make curricular decisions that will directly affect the students of their schools. It will provide unbiased options based upon historical and the latest educational research. The information shared will be utilized to shape dialogue at the local level leading to informed decisions with regards to curricular reforms within US public schools.

Assumptions

The researcher assumes that innovations in education are inevitable and that the 4.35 billion dollars invested by the federal government will result in significant educational reforms across the United States.

Researcher Bias

This meta-analysis of research was shaped by the perspective of the researcher and his reaction to findings as they were discovered. The presence of researcher bias exists no more and no less than in any similar meta-analysis of research.

Limitations

There are limitations to any research, and this study was no exception. Limitations in the study include access to government files and research, inability to personally interview experts whose perspectives were utilized, and complete data on effectiveness of methods analyzed due to the non-existence of large scale implementation.

Definition of Terms

Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress is a measurement defined by The No Child Left Behind Act that allows the United States Department of Education to determine how public schools are performing with regards to large scale standardized testing. AFT AFT is an acronym which represents the American Federation of Teachers. The American Federation of Teachers is one of the 2 substantial teacher unions in the United States. Common Content Common Content refers to the knowledge that each student should be able to display by the end of their secondary educational program. Common Mindset

Common Mindset refers to the sharing of a philosophical foundation of learning that hinges upon the belief that intelligence is malleable and can be improved through effort. Next Generation Assessments These are large scale assessment systems currently under construction which utilize current and emerging technologies in an effort to better determine what people know and have learned. PARCC Consortium PARCC is an acronym for the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career. The consortium is a group of 25 states working cooperatively to build next generation assessments in English and Math. Personalized Education Plans A personalized education plan is a learning progression designed and implemented as a type of “playlist” allowing teachers and institutions to approach an individual student‟s zone of proximal learning. Race to the Top Race to the Top is a United States federal initiative that has awarded over 4 billion dollars to schools who agree to reforms as outlines by the US Department of Education. SMARTER Consortium The SMARTER balanced consortium is a collection of 29 states working to develop an assessment fitting the requirements of the Race To The Top initiative that

will measure college and career readiness in K-12 students across membership schools. Social-Psychological Interventions Social-Psychological Interventions are educational how peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x;s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors

Organization of the Study

Chapter One of the study examined the philosophical question United States education officials are wrestling with as consortiums race to build and implement assessments and teacher resources in correlation with the Common Core State Standards currently adopted by 44 states. This Chapter provides background into the problem of whether the United States should adopt common content, construct individual education plans, employ common social-psychological interventions within our schools, or engage in a balance of the three. Chapter Two reviews the literature with regards to the aforementioned curricular options. It examines historical data that has shaped education for years and also peers into the latest available brain and behavioral research.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This literature review focused on the three research questions previously posed. The first section analyzes the research in support of adoption of common content within US public schools. The second section analyzes studies calling for individualized education plans for each learner within a school as the solution to stagnant achievement within schools. The third section of the literature review examines research in support of adoption of common social-psychological interventions to bolster student achievement. Adopting Common Content Heidi Hayes Jacobs stated earlier this spring that “what‟s stirring everything up here is the word „common‟. It suggests everything the same, when people know that curriculum has to be responsive. But we can think of „common‟ as more like a town common, a place where we all meet” (Gewertz, 2011). As stated in the Shanker Institute manifesto, “by „curriculum‟ we mean a coherent, sequential set of guidelines in the core academic disciplines, specifying the content knowledge and skills that all students are expected to learn, over time, in a thoughtful progression across the grades. We do not mean performance standards, textbook offerings, daily lesson plans, or rigid pedagogical prescriptions” (The Albert Shanker Institute, 2011). What the Shanker Institute, Core Knowledge, and the signers of the manifesto are arguing for is a prescription of a “macro curriculm” to guide districts

and teachers while leaving the “micro curriculum” to be decided in the responsive manner to which Heidi Hayes Jacobs refers. Construction integration theory suggests that a reader‟s background knowledge plays a crucial role in text comprehension (Kaakinen, Hyona, and Keenan, 2003). This is the basis behind the belief of established Common Content knowledge as the core for successful educational reform in US schools. The more background knowledge a reader has, the more they will be able to comprehend sequentially increasing background knowledge as content progresses. This philosophy is supported by the zone-of-learnability hypothesis which states that “integration of text content with prior knowledge, and thus learning from text, will be optimal when the match between a reader‟s prior knowledge of the topic and the content of the text are in an intermediate „zone‟” (Wolfe and Mienko, 2007). The most widely recognized leader of the “Common Content” movement is retired University of Virginia professor E.D. Hirsch. Mr. Hirsch has written much on the topic and is the founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation. The Core Knowledge Foundation has established a “Core Knowledge Sequence” behind the “simple and powerful idea” that knowledge builds upon knowledge. The organization advertizes their curriculum as “coherent, cumulative, and contentspecific in order the help children establish strong foundations of knowledge, grade by grade (The Core Knowledge Foundation, 2011).

A major foundation for the core content philosophy promoted by Mr. Hirsch and Core Knowledge is research led by Tom Sticht with the US Navy. In this study, the

research team designed two separate Navy assessments for personnel to complete. One with language and content specific to the Navy, the other assessment was more of a general reading exam. The results of their research generated a readability formula that determined how much general reading ability was needed for a person to comprehend 70% of chosen Navy reading material. The research indicated that a person with low Navy content knowledge needed an eleventh grade reading level to comprehend at the 70% rate whereas a “knowledgeable person” needed only a 6th grade reading level to comprehend at the same rate (Pondiscio, 2011). In support of the common content approach, Mr. Hirsch also refers to “The Matthew Effect”. Which references Matthew, Chapter 29, verse 25: “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” Mr. Hirsch adapts this to the classroom by stating “those who already have enough knowledge and vocabulary to understand what the teacher or textbook is saying will gain more knowledge and vocabulary, while those who lack these pre-requisites of comprehension will fall ever further behind” (Hirsch, 2011). However, “the meaning-construction process produces a mental representation that may reflect multiple levels of text understanding. One commonly accepted set of distrinctions among levels is that adopted by Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) and elaborated on by Kintsch (1988). They distinguished among the surface code, the textbase, and the situation model. The surface code reflects features of the surface text. The textbase captures the meaning relations

among elements within a sentence and across sentences in the text. The relations among elements within a sentence and across sentences in the text. The relations among elements are directly cued by the text and reflect very minimal impact of prior knowledge.

Adopting Individualized Education Plans for Each Learner Proponents of individualized education plans do not necessarily argue against the need for the adoption of common content, they merely claim the focus should be on the individual student and their freedom to progress within content, concepts, processes, and skills. They are more precisely against aged or level benchmarking of this material according to the same grouping by age model we have grown accustom to within the modern school system. Tom Vander Ark and supporters of individual education plans do not argue the work of Sticht, Hirsch, and others, they instead stand firmly behind break-throughs in technology and research that show it “quite possible to string together a customized series of learning experiences that are both engaging and standards-based” (Vander Ark, 2011). For example, institutional concepts such as the “School of One” in New York City, use learning algorithms such as RPROP to compute local learning scheme and generate “playlists” specific for the zone of proximity of each individual learner (Riedmiller & Braun, 1993). This “School of One” model uses the algorithm generated “playlists” to determine the material to which the individual will be exposed to daily. In addition, the model

utilizes “Multiple Instructional Modalities” such as teacher led instruction, one on one tutoring, independent learning, and virtual tutors as a means to vary and differentiate the presentation of material (Medina, 2009). It is a methodology that according to NYC Chancellor of Schools Joel I. Klein, “looks at the way children learn, pacing them at their own pace, all of it tied to the mastery of content and skill and achievement (Medina, 2009). With the national push to ensure more students leave the public school system ready for college and career, proponents of individualized education plans for each learner point to the fact that we all live and work within networks of people that vary in age. The philosophy of age specific grouping in and of itself contradicts a commitment to college and career preparedness. The main difficulty in securing buy-in for this new modality of learning is the fact that it not only just emerging, but to implement it on a large scale we must efficiently utilize technology that is new and unproven. This is very difficult for traditional educators and educational researchers to grasp. Large-scale innovations in education are inherently slow moving and evolutionary in nature whereas teachers are being asked to implement these changes, relatively speaking, overnight. Mr. Vander Ark goes on to argue, “customized learning will be facilitated by comprehensive learning platforms surrounded by application and service ecosystems. Learning platforms will replace today‟s learning management systems (LMS) that run flat and sequential courseware. Like iPhone and Android, these platforms will unleash investment and innovation. Next generation platforms will include digital content libraries and tagging schemes. Recommendation engines (like an iTunes Genius for learning)

based on a full motivational profile will queue a sequence of the best learning experiences possible. A Facebook-like social layer will support collaborative learning and will include a rich array of applications for learners and teachers. Giant data warehouses will capture keystroke data and will support powerful analytical tools. Platforms will be supported by vendors providing aligned services including student tutoring, staff development, school improvement, and new school development.â&#x20AC;? With the pace of innovation moving exponentially, it is difficult for most to envision what our world will look like in five years. Proponents of individualized learning plans make the case that if we recognize the world will be significantly different five years from now, the absolute worst thing we can do is avoid significant systematic change.

Adopting Common Social-Psychological Interventions Educational reformers more adamantly in favor of Social-Psychological Interventions seek to ensure teachers adopt a common mind set with regards to student interactions and learning. This core of this approach is supported by the now-famous Pygmalion study which showed that school and teacher capacities did not need improved, only teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x; expectations (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). The Common Interventions called for revolve around the acceptance and promotion of a four part philosophical foundation: 1. Intelligence is improved through hard work and effort.

2. Poor academic performance at a new school is normal at first. This does not indicate a lack of student ability. 3. Each person contains diverse positive aspects. 4. Each person goes through periods of self-doubt, wondering if they are valued or belong. The roots of this approach lay in research conducted pertaining to interventions introduced in hospitals around the world several years ago. The intervention required hospital personnel to complete a one-page checklist of tasks which included simple items such as introducing themselves to one another. The implementation of these simple procedures within a common core mindset reduced deaths by 47% (Gawande, 2009). Translating the spirit of the hospital check list to a public school begins with a precise understanding of the subjective school experience of the student. Interventions revolving around this mindset may seems small to the teacher or researcher, but to the student who now realizes that intelligence is malleable, it changes their entire experience from that point forward. Research on the “saying-is-believing” effect shows advocating a persuasive message for a receptive audience as a very lasting learning methodology (Aronson, 1999). Supporters of the common social-psychological mind set lay root in how students‟ implicit theories of intelligence shape their interpretation of their education and learning (Dweck, 2006). The philosophy promotes that schools can adopt whatever “common content” they want and set up “individual learning plans” to carry them out, but

schools themselves do not add value to learning unless they are buildings full of people who have adopted the simple four part philosophical foundation of the common socialpsychological mindset. Carol Dweck and many of her colleagues have devoted much research into studying the residual effects of mindset interventions in schools. Wilson and Linville (1982) showed how students were able to accept minor setbacks when a teacher intervened and showed them that it is a commonality for young people entering a new school. Students were also studied for performance based upon their theories of intelligence. Those who believed intelligence to be fixed and unchangeable attributed academic setbacks to lack of ability and had a tendency to withdraw effort (Molden & Dweck, 2006). In one classic study, Mueller and Dweck (1998) gave varying feedback to 5th grade students after completing difficult problems of logic. Upon completion the groups were praised. One group was given intelligence praise (“You are so smart”), one was given effort praise (“You must have worked really hard”), and the other was given neutral praise (“That‟s a high score”). All groups were then given a set of extremely difficult problems and then a third set of problems similar in difficulty to the first set. The results were outstanding. The children who received the intelligence praise solve 30% fewer of the last set when compared to the first (similar degree of difficulty) and also asked for only easy problems from that point forward. Those who received neutral praise did no better no worse, however students receiving effort praise not only did better but asked for more challenging problems in the future.

Summary of Literature Review

The research points to the need for a balance of the three models in order to ensure success is achieved by students and schools of varying types, sizes, and backgrounds. Literature points to a need for common content to incorporate the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Matthew Effectâ&#x20AC;?, the utilization of innovative technology to continually deliver that content within a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x;s zone of proximity,while simultaneously heading the results of the Pygmalion study and adopting a common mindset ensuring our students remain motivated by high expectations and the malleable nature of intelligence. The literature indicates that a fragmented or compartmentalized approach to educational reform within the United States would prove ineffective and result in an inability to optimize student growth within the school setting. Only by hybridizing the three philosophies will the nation observe significant student gains in public schools.

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This was a study conducted through meta-analysis of research from the varying points of view represented. Research questions were addressed via blog and published papers as well as peer reviewed research. Each ideology received equal attention by the researcher in an attempt to display the unbiased approach set forth and draw conclusions based upon substantial evidence and research.

Research Questions

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of the study began with initial conversations among leaders in educational reform and innovations. The meta-analysis developed as each relevant expert shared insight into historical research which assisted the shaping of their respective viewpoint.

Research Methodology

Meta-analytic techniques were used to synthesize the findings. These techniques required the researcher to investigate, interpret, and organize varying perspectives and historical research in an effort to formulate a clear summary of the literature. â&#x20AC;&#x153;In general, meta-analytic techniques are used when the results of independent studies on a common topic are combinedâ&#x20AC;? (Marzano, 2011). Such is the case in this study.

Research Design

This study consisted of formal and informal statements from leading educational reformers, researchers, and innovators. These statements/discussions were utilized to catalyze an investigation into the source of the varying perspectives. Formal dissertations and peer reviewed research was then utilized to generate a topical summarization. Researcher Bias This meta-analysis of research was shaped by the perspective of the researcher and his reaction to findings as they were discovered. The presence of researcher bias exists no more and no less than in any similar meta-analysis of research. Subjects of Study The researchers and experts whose analysis and viewpoints were shared are widely considered the leaders of education reform in the United States. There are many other influential voices that were not shared, however, those included in this study are in general more specific to the nature of the topic discussed within this research. Instrumentation The study began as a broad collection of topical research. Findings were then coded and organized according to (ENTER ALGORITHM, â&#x20AC;ŚMARZANO BALANCED

LEADERSHIP MCREL DOCUMENT EXMAMPLE, ASSISTANCE FROM BRIDGETTE SHENG…need her as my dissertation chair)

Validity Continual focus was placed on the research questions throughout the study. Content was thoroughly analyzed for validity and the study remained intimate with the conceptual framework increasing validity in results.

Reliability The study examined material from a variety of sources. The research examined varied in size and scope and was collected by multiple agencies in a variety of locations throughout the United States. Publications and perspectives utilized were that of established professionals renown in their field for their contributions and years of active research.

Procedures Research was compiled from studies published and accessible on-line. In addition, contributor perspectives were collected via accessible on-line information residing within the public domain.

Data Collection and Recording All data utilized within the study were cited according to their published source. The meta-analysis nature of the research inhibited collection of data independent of that research.

Analysis of Data Artifacts utilized within the study were coded according to topic and supporting detail. The information collected therein was structured to specifically answer the research questions and conceptual framework of the study.

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction

ADD TEXT

Collection of Data and Artifacts

ADD TEXT

Summary

ADD TEXT

CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF DATA INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS Introduction

ADD TEXT

Research Question 1

ADD TEXT

Research Question 2

ADD TEXT

CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction

ADD TEXT

REFERENCES

Alliance For Excellent Education, (2010). Common Standards. Retrieved from: http://all4ed.org/common-standards, on April 23, 2010.

Allington, R. (2006). Critical factors in designing an effective reading intervention for struggling readers. International Reading Association, 6(1), 127-136.

Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion, American Psychologist, 54, 875-884.

Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psycology, 38, 113-125.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.

Baker, L. (2003). The role of parents in motivating struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 87-106. doi.10.1080/1057356090143049.

Bashir, A., & Hook, P. (2009). Fluency: A key link between word identification and 213 comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 59(3), 196200.

Blackwell, L. A., Trzesniewski, K. H. & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Theories of intelligence and achievement across the junior high school transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263.

Blair, T., Rupley, W., & Nichols, W. (2007). The effective teacher of reading: Considering the “what” and “how” of instruction. Reading Teacher. 60(5), 432-438. doi: 10.1598/RT.60.5.3.

Bohn, C., Roehrig, A., & Pressley, M. (2004). The first days of school in the classrooms of two more effective and four less effective primary-grades teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (4).

Brownell, M. & Pajares, F. (1996). The influence of teachers‟ efficacy beliefs on perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems: A path analysis. Research Bulletin, 27 [Eric Document Reproduction Number ED 409661].

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bryk, A.S. (2009). Support a science of performance improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 597-600.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Carbo, M. (2008). Best practices for achieving high, rapid reading gains. Principal, 2008 (3), 58-60.

Clarke, L. & Whitney, E. (2009). Walking in their shoes: Using multiple perspective texts as a bridge to critical literacy. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 530-534 doi: 10.1598/RT.62.6.7.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307-1310.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J.,Purdie-Vaugns, V., Apfel, N. & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science, 324, 400-403.

Crawford, E., & Torgesen, J. (2006). Teaching all students to read: Practices from Reading First schools with strong intervention outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article22844.

Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for lowincome students with scientifically based reading research. Educational researcher, 36; 564 doi: 10.3102/0013189X0731

Donohue, K.. Children's early reading: How parents' beliefs about literacy learning and their own school experiences relate to the literacy support they provide for their children. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, United States -- New York. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3332505).

Duffy, G. (2003, August). Teachers who improve reading achievement: What research says about what they do and how to develop them. Laboratory for Student Success (LSS), 2(4).

Duncan, Arne (2011). Duncan Says 82 Percent of America‟s Schools Could “Fail” Under NCLB This Year. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/duncan-says-82percent-americas-schools-could-fail-under-nclb-year

Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality, Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.

Foley Dawn A., . Instructional strategies and their role in the achievement of first grade students' literacy skills as measured by benchmark assessments. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3410522).

Gambrell, L., Malloy, J., & Mazzoni, S. (2007). Evidence-based best practices for comprehensive literacy instruction. In L. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley, Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 11-29). New York: Guilford Press.

Garcia, J., & Cohen, G.L. (in press). Social psychology and educational intervention, In E. Shafir (Ed.), Behavioral foundations of policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gawande, Atul (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things done right, New York: Metropolitan Books.

Gehlbach, H. (2010). The social side of school: Why teachers need social psycology. Educational Psycology Review, 22, 349-362.

Gewertz, Catherine (2011). Curriculum Definition Raises Red Flags. Education Week; volume 30 issue 26.

Godes, O., Hulleman, C.S., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2007). Boosting students' interest in math with utility value: Two experimental tests. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Gomez, M., Johnson, A., & Gisladottir, K. (2007). Talking about literacy: A cultural model of teaching and learning untangled. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(1), 27-48. doi: 10.1177/1468798407074832.

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Development Psycology, 24, 645-662.

Greenwald, A.G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.

Grumman, C.. (2010, July). Literacy Begins at Birth. The American Prospect, 21(6), A5A8. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2066286771).

Hall, L. (2006). Anything but lazy: New understanding about struggling readers, teaching, and text. Reading Research Quarterly (41) (424-426). doi.10.1598/RRQ.41.4.1

Hayes, R.. The study of literacy coaching observations and interviews with elementary teachers. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University, United States -- Georgia. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3411024).

Hess, Frederick M. (2010). Education Reform: Stakeholder Support vs. Bold Ideas. National Journal Education Expert Blogs; http://education.nationaljournal.com/2010/05/education-reform-stakeholder-s.php Monday, May 3, 2010.

Hirsch, Jr., E. D. (2011). Speech to Virginia House of Delegates. Richmond, VA. February 15, 2011.

Hulleman, C. S., & Harachiewicz, J.M. (2009). Making education relevant: Increasing interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410-1412.

Huggins, A.. A study of family interactions affecting school readiness for rural preschoolers of poverty. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States -Minnesota. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3439946).

Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harachiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing Interest and Performance With a Utility Value Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0019506

Illinois State Board of Education (2011). The New Illinois Learning Standards Incorporating the Common Core. Retrieved from: http://www.isbe.net/common_core/default.htm

James-Burdumy, S., Deke, J., Lugo-Gil, J., Carey, N., Hershey, A., Gersten, R., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., Haymond, K., and Faddis, B. (2010). Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Intervention: Findings From Two Student Cohorts (NCEE 2010-4016). Retrieved from: ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104015/pdf/20104016.pdf

Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155.

Kaakinen, Johanna K., Hyona, Jukka, & Keenan, Janice M. (2003). How Prior Knowledge, WMC, and Relevance of Information Affect Eye Fixations in Expository Text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. volume 29, number 3, p. 447-457.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.

Marshall, A.. Experiences of Reading Teachers Who Help Struggling Readers in Elementary School. Ed.D. dissertation, Walden University, United States -Minnesota. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3438880).

Marzano, Robert (2011). Tracking Student Progress and Scoring Scales. Marzano Research Laboratory. Retrieved from: http://www.marzanoresearch.com/research/strategy20_trackingprogress.aspx

Medina, Jennifer (2009). School of One. New York Times; July 21, 2009.

Moats, L. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of â&#x20AC;&#x153;balancedâ&#x20AC;? reading 224 instruction. Thomas Fordham Foundation, Washington: DC [Eric document 449465 ]

Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding "meaning" in psycology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist,61, 192-203.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 3352.

Nisbett, R. E. (2009, February 8). Education is all in your mind. New York Times, p. WK12 of the New York edition.

Obama, Barack (2011). President Obama Calls on Congress to Fix No Child Left Behind Before the Start of the Next School Year. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, March 14, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2011/03/14/president-obama-calls-congress-fix-no-child-left-behind-start-next-schoo

Pondiscio, Robert (2011). Knowledge Compensates for Five Years of Reading Ability. The Core Knowledge Blog; March 2, 2011. Retrieved from: http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2011/03/02/knowledge-compensates-for-five-years-of-readingability/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheCoreKnowledg eBlog+(The+Core+Knowledge+Blog)

Powers, S., Zippay, C. & Butler, B. (2006). Investigating connections between teacher beliefs and instructional practices with struggling readers. Reading Horizons: 47, 2; ProQuest Central, 121.

Raudenbush, S. (1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 85-97.

Renaissance Learning. (2008). Star reading: The worldâ&#x20AC;&#x;s most widely used computeradaptive reading test. Retrieved from http://www.renlearn.com/sr/overview.aspx.

Riedmiller, Martin & Braun, Heinrich (1993). A Direct Apaptive Method for Faster Backpropagation Learning: The RPROP Algorithm. IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968a). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968b). Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged. Scientific American, 218, 19-23.

Rydell, R. J., Shiffrin, R. M., Boucher, K. L., Van Loo, K., and Rydell, M. T. (2010). Stereotype threat prevents perceptual learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107, 14042-14047.

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Szalavitz, M. (2009, January 14). Study: a simple surgery checklist saves lives. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0.8599.1871759.00.html

The Albert Shanker Institute (2011). A Call For Common Content: Core Curriculum Must Build A Bridge From Standards To Achievement. Retrieved from: http://shankerinstitute.org/curriculum.html

The Core Knowledge Foundation (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.coreknowledge.org/sequence

Theriot, S., & Tice, K. (2009). Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x; knowledge development and change: Untangling beliefs and practices. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 65.

Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

U.S. Department of Education, (2010). Nine States and the District of Columbia Win Second Round Race to the Top Grants. August 24, 2010; retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/nine-states-and-district-columbia-win-second-roundrace-top-grants, on April 23, 2010.

Vacca, R. T. (2006). They can because they think they can. Educational Leadership. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Vander Ark, Tom (2011). Knowing Stuff is Good; More Kids College Ready is Great. Edreformer; Retrieved from: http://edreformer.com/2011/03/knowing-stuff-is-good-morekids-college-ready-is-great/

Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies for discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.

Walton, G. M. & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82-96.

Walton, G. M. & Dweck, C. S. (2009). Solving social problems like a psychologist. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 101-102.

Walton, G. M. & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132-1139.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2010). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes among minority students. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1982). Improving the performance of college freshmen: Attribution therapy revisted. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 367376.

Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of college freshmen with attributional techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 287-293.

Wilson, T. D., & Damiani, M., & Shelton (2002). Improving the academic performance of college students with brief attributional interventions. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 88-108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wilson, T. D. (2006). The power of social psychological interventions. Science, 313, 1251-1252.

Wineburg, S. S. (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Educational Researcher, 16, 28-37.

Wolfe, Michael B. and Mienko, Joseph A. (2007). Learning and memory of factual content from narrative and expository text. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 77, 541-564.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x; sense of efficacy and beliefs About control. Journal of Ed. Psych., 82, 81-91.

Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). An implicit theories intervention changes aggressive and prosocial responses to peer exclusion and victimization among high school students. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA.

Yeager, David S., & Walton, Gregory M.. (2010). Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They're Not Magic. Stanford University.

APPENDICES

ADD TEXT