Order 1244865: Comprehensive Instructional Program

NCLB mandated that students take tests in reading and math achievement in each grade three through eight and once more in high school between grades ten through twelve (Lee & Reeves, 2012; Meyers, 2012; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Wieczorek, 2017). NCLB also mandated tests in other subjects such as science, but the main substance of the law was reading and mathematics testing (Lee & Reeves, 2012; Meyers, 2012; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Wieczorek, 2017).

School districts took up the challenge of creating an educational process that would meet NCLB standards by raising the student achievement levels in subjects such as reading and mathematics. One school district in southwestern Virginia, an economically disadvantaged county in that state, created a program that demonstrated student achievement gains (Hurt, 2015). This program transformed into the Comprehensive Instructional Program (CIP), adopted by 27 school divisions within all eight regions of the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) as of the 2017-2018 academic year (Hurt, 2017). Although the costs to implement the program were minimal, the regions that completely implemented CIP since 2015 have shown the greatest student achievement gains as measured by the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) requirements for each grade level from grades three through eight (Hurt, 2017). Comment by Author: How did it DEMONSTRATE gains? Comment by Author: You have to be clear when you talk about CIP. Sometimes it sounds like you are meaning it is an organization of teachers instead of a program Comment by Author: This seems like it should be later. You talk about implementation, then 2017, then back to implementation in 2015

Due to decreasing test scores and potentially unaccredited schools, in the 2015-2016 school year, public schools in 19 of the 132 divisions in the State of Virginia public school system began implementation of the CIP, designed to both standardize student instruction and improve student achievement (Comprehensive Instructional Program [CIP], 2016). The program development consisted of a consortium of teachers and administrators from across the state to provide the resources, lesson plans, and assessments needed to implement the CIP (CIP, 2016). The CIP included materials for grades three through eight and for reading, math, science, and history, though not all regions fully implemented the entire CIP. A benchmark study after one year of broad-scale implementation in regions across the state found that there were strong correlations (0.67 or higher) between achieving all the pre-defined benchmarks in the CIP and student achievement scores in the annual SOL tests (CIP, 2016). Five principles formed the basis of the CIP, including expectations and standards for academic excellence with no excuses; communications of those expectations and standards to all stakeholders and ensure buy-in by all stakeholders; creation of a practical course of action designed specifically to achieve the academic goals; constant measurements and review of data to ensure ongoing progress and course adjustments defined where needed; and a focus on improving the people involved, especially the teachers, so they could provide the best instruction possible (Hurt, 2015). Comment by Author: This is also something you could investigate, but you have to be specific.

Proponents of CIP credited the implementation of CIP in this region for the improvement in Region Seven achievement scores (CIP, 2018). Region Seven advances in math, reading, writing, history, and science exceeded all other regions in the state in aggregate scores and the region advanced more than any other region in Virginia (Hurt, 2017). In addition, the regional results addressed the region as a whole, which included the 15 counties and 4 cities of Region Seven (Virginia Department of Education [VDOE], 2018). While that success was notable, on a district basis rather than the overall Region Seven, no statistical study has yet confirmed whether the district’s CIP implementation could be associated with student improvement, or whether the improvements were statistical outliers or due to unspecified other causes. Thus, conducting such a statistical study was vital in order to understand if CIP implementation may have generated the changes in student achievement scores in the district under study or whether other factors may have led to the district student achievement improvements.

While the region overall demonstrated excellent progress as a whole, it was equally important to understand how individual grade levels, schools, and subjects, particularly in the fundamental skills of math and reading, performed under CIP. This was essential to the CIP philosophy of consistently monitoring progress and making appropriate changes to address any deficiencies identified (Hurt, 2015). Understanding specifically what elements worked and what elements were less effective may ultimately help both Region Seven and other regions in the state improve student achievement. Comment by Author: Goes in significance

The goal of this project was to define the efficacy of the CIP in improving student achievement in reading and mathematics. Although Hurt (2017) ascribed credit for student achievement improvements to the implementation of CIP in those regions that have implemented the program, there existed a lack of statistical studies to confirm the relationship. This study included data from two years prior to CIP implementation to three years after CIP implementation in both reading and math achievement scores for all students and all schools in grades three through eight of the Region Seven school district. The differences in student achievement improvements post-CIP implementation compared to pre-CIP implementation determined the statistical significance associated with CIP implementation and could identify specific schools within the district that require assistance in proper CIP implementation. In addition, the analysis in this study included grade-level comparisons to address the issue of whether CIP was more successful in some grades than others. Thus, this analysis identified areas where the CIP implementation needs improvement in specific grade levels. Comment by Author: Not part of the problem Comment by Author: Not in the problem

This study provided data that described the impact of the CIP program on a Virginia school division by comparing pre-CIP student achievement from the two years prior to CIP implementation and student achievement in the three years post-CIP implementation. The focus of the study was on grades three through eight for all schools in this district in reading and math scores. Reading and math are tests that all students in all grades take each year, while students do not take tests in other subjects such as science and history every year. In addition, reading and math are fundamental skills that affect achievement in many other subjects. Comment by Author: End this with one statement – the purpose of this study was…

The researcher developed the following questions to guide this study:

Research question 1. What differences, if any, existed in student achievement scores in reading in grades three through eight as measured by the Virginia Standards of Learning testing program between pre-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation and post-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation in the Region Seven school district under study? Comment by Author: This doesn’t tell me that you are studying anything besides just looking at existing numbers. Look at the components of the theoretical framework. Can you study those with this? Can you look at the factors / principles of CIP and study those?

Research question 2. What differences, if any, existed in student achievement scores in math in grades three through eight as measured by the Virginia Standards of Learning testing program comparing pre-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation and post-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation in the Region Seven school district under study?

Research question 3. What differences, if any, existed among primary, middle, and combined schools in student achievement scores in reading and math in grades three through eight as measured by the Virginia Standards of Learning testing program comparing pre-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation and post-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation in the Region Seven school district under study?

In the context of elementary education, the learner’s acquisition of knowledge included both content and incentive, which operated in an integrated manner. Illeris (2015) posited that all learning took place in all three of the learning legs. The Illeris social learning theory also supposed that learning could be either an addition to the learner’s existing knowledge or a reconstruction of existing knowledge to reorganize knowledge and generate new understanding. The variations in individual students’ prior knowledge and their methods of accommodating and adapting knowledge into new forms provided an explanation for why different students had different preferred learning styles (Illeris, 2015).

Figure 1. Illeris learning triangle showing three dimensions of learning (Illeris, 2015). Comment by Author: Not formatted correctly for a Figure per APA Comment by Author: If this is something that YOU didn’t create, you have to have permission from the author to use it. Do you have that?

Illeris’s social theory of learning also addressed the issue of learning barriers, which appeared as a lack of understanding of the information presented, or an adaptation of the information in a distorted or inaccurate manner, as well as any resistance the learner possessed to the knowledge presented due to knowledge that is antithetical to the learner’s beliefs or that is unwanted for any reason (Illeris, 2015). The critical aspect of this theory that provided the framework for the study was that the theory exposed the differences between the content teachers presented as opposed to the content the students learned. The competency measures of the Virginia SOL addressed the information that students absorbed, while the CIP defined the knowledge that the teachers taught. Potential discrepancies between knowledge taught and knowledge learned described the fundamental dichotomy that described student achievement issues. Comment by Author: One LONG sentence Comment by Author: As opposed to or in relation to?

This social theory of learning served as the basis of this study since the CIP implemented in the district incorporated the theory’s interactions between learner and environment. In particular, the CIP concept was one of linking student incentive and interest into the content of the class and emphasizing the interaction between the student and the material presented. In addition, the Illeris (2015) social theory of learning addressed the issue of learning barriers, which was a significant issue in the district under study. Region Seven as a whole was an economically disadvantaged region, and the district studied in this region was not an exception. Comment by Author: Significant is a stats word; choose another word unless you have NUMBERS to prove this

Illeris (2015) also noted that learning barriers included mislearning, learning defense, and learning resistance. Mislearning occurred when the students lacked concentration, misunderstood the information presented, the communication between student and instructor was lacking, or prior incorrect learning interfered with the learning process. Illeris (2015) described learning defense as learning that lacked incentive and included rejected or distorted learning due to incentive issues. Learning resistance included learning that was contrary to the student’s values, preferences, or other issues. These learning barriers also corresponded to issues that the CIP program explicitly addressed in defining how teachers presented information to the students and the types of barriers to student success that existed. The study probed the learning achievement of students in the study district both before and after the CIP implementation. Because CIP related so strongly to the Illeris social learning theory, the study was also an investigation of the relevance of Illeris’s theory in the context of middle school student achievement.

Region Seven consisted of fifteen counties, four cities, and nineteen school districts, thus the achievement of the region as a whole may not reflect explicitly on the achievement of individual school districts within the region. An exploration of the student achievement improvement in the district in this study determined the link between student achievement and CIP implementation. Also, while most school districts that have implemented CIP have done so on a piecemeal basis, one school or one grade or even one teacher at time, in the school district under study all grades and all schools implemented CIP simultaneously in a single academic year. Thus, this specific district offered an opportunity to determine whether CIP had a statistically significant impact on student achievement with a study that could clearly define student achievement before and after the CIP implementation. This study included data from two years prior to CIP implementation to three years after CIP implementation in both reading and math achievement scores for all students and all schools in grades three through eight of one Region Seven school district in Virginia. Comment by Author: So what? Why does this matter? WHY is THIS study important and what can it do for others?

In this study, the researcher provided stakeholders in this district with the information needed to understand the progress in student achievement. These data helped the researcher to identify grade levels and subjects that may require changes to the CIP implementation in order to improve student achievement scores further. These data provided the researcher direction to assist all stakeholders to implement any necessary improvements to the educational process in order to improve student achievement scores. Comment by Author: I’m concerned. You are basically saying that this program is working. So what’s the need for the study if you know it is working?

The significance of this project thus lies in defining the efficacy of the CIP in improving student achievement in reading and mathematics. Although Hurt (2015) ascribed credit for student achievement improvements to the implementation of CIP, there existed a lack of statistical studies to confirm that relationship. This study closed that gap by providing statistical analysis of the student achievement data to identify the relationship between CIP and student achievement improvement in one school district in Region Seven. Comment by Author: A study can’t do that Comment by Author: What specifically was it about CIP that made the difference? You can look at the teacher level if you want. You just have to figure out what you are actually going to research.

Comprehensive Instructional Program (CIP). One school district in Virginia originally developed this curriculum program for Virginia public schools. After implementation of CIP in the developing district resulted in improved student achievement test scores, many other school districts across the state adopted CIP into their curricula. The CIP provided teachers with lesson plans, classroom activities, and assessments, all closely aligned with Virginia SOL and with the goal of improving student achievement on the annual SOL examinations (Comprehensive Instructional Program [CIP], 2018). Comment by Author: Need citation for this

Reading achievement. As used in this study, reading achievement referred to changes in the student’s score on the annual Virginia SOL reading test for that student’s grade level. Students received a score from 0 - 600 on the test (one test each year in grades three-eight), with 400 representing minimal proficiency and 500 or more representing advanced proficiency (VDOE, 2018).

Standards of learning (SOL). The Virginia Department of Education (2018) defines a core curriculum for students in each grade level for public schools in the state. At the end of each academic year, students take an SOL achievement tests on the core subjects. While some grade levels include tests on other subjects in the core curriculum such as history or science, reading and math appear in the annual SOL tests for all grades (grades three-eight). These tests provide the math achievement and reading achievement measures used in this study to measure student achievement and learning (VDOE, 2018). Comment by Author: This is not the way you’ve written this until now. Be consistent.

7

Student achievement served as the basis for Virginia school accreditation (VDOE, 2018). Literature existed that described studies that attempted to identify interventions that improved student achievement outcomes. In the literature review, the researcher summarized the relevant studies within themes applicable to the research questions. The topics of this literature review concentrated around the issue of how other researchers attempted to access and improve educational achievement in students in public schools and the factors that affected student achievement with a focus on students in elementary and middle school (i.e., excluding high school and college or university-level research), With the current study’s focus on student achievement in reading and mathematics for children in grades three through eight, those concepts provided guidance in delving into studies to identify relevant literature. In particular, the district under study in this project was located in Region Seven, where more than half the students were economically disadvantaged (Virginia Department of Education, 2016a). While the study did not directly measure the effect of economic issues on student achievement, other researchers identified economics as an important issue correlated with lower student achievement (Morrissey & Vinopal, 2018). Comment by Author: Literature can’t describe studies Comment by Author: If you aren’t using this, then it is irrelevant in your entire review

The researcher conducted this review by consulting peer-reviewed journals using online academic databases. Search terms included student achievement, reading achievement, math achievement, school leadership, teachers and student achievement, communication in schools including administration to school board, administration to community and parents, and administration to teachers, and teacher professional development. These terms identified literature relevant to this study. In addition, the literature reviewed information on the CIP as implemented in Virginia and on the Virginia Department of Education SOL testing program. Several themes provided background and insight into the study such as academic achievement in both reading and math in elementary schools, teacher professional development, and student achievement. The review included the theme of teacher professional development because professional development of teachers and how to implement CIP effectively was an important issue in the success of CIP. Thus, understanding how professional development may affect student achievement was an important aspect of this literature review. Comment by Author: Terms can’t identify anything Comment by Author: Literature can’t review anything Comment by Author: If you aren’t studying professional development, though, there’s no need to review it here.

The Commonwealth of Virginia established Standards of Learning (SOL) for all public schools in the state. According to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) these standards established “minimum expectations for what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade or course in English, mathematics, science, history/social science and other subjects” (VDOE, 2018). SOL achievement tests measured student achievement in each subject to determine learning and achievement. The VDOE used classroom teachers to develop the test and to confirm that they were both accurate and fair. In addition, classroom teachers assisted the state Board of Education to determine appropriate proficiency standards. Comment by Author: Need page number for direct quote

The SOLs for each subject and each grade level were available for reference on the VDOE SOL website (VDOE, 2018). The blueprints for each SOL assessment included the category of learning, the standards of learning for that grade, and the number of passage-based test items (i.e., questions) about each standard of learning. As one example, the 2016-2017 grade four reading blueprint specified three learning skills: using word analysis strategies and word reference materials; demonstrating comprehension of fictional texts; and demonstrating comprehension of nonfiction texts (VDOE, 2018). Each of those learning categories referenced specific, mandated SOL as defined in the state’s learning standards. The number of items (questions) in the computer adaptive test form for word analysis strategies was five, for comprehension of fiction was 12, and for comprehension of nonfiction was 1l (VDOE, 2018). Similarly, for the 2017 grade four math SOL test, the learning skills included number and number sense (9 questions); computation and estimation (9 questions); measurement and geometry (9 questions); and probability, statistics, patterns, functions, and algebra (8 questions) (VDOE, 2018).

Students took SOL tests in reading and mathematics using a computer adaptive test delivery platform. The VDOE used this platform because it customized the test based on how the student responded to test questions. Students who took reading and math tests in grades three through eight took the test in this computer adaptive platform (VDOE, 2018). All students in grades three through eight taking the math test took computer-adaptive versions of the test starting in the 2016-2017 academic year. Prior to that, students in grades three, six, seven, and eight took the computer adaptive version of the math test in the 2015-2016 academic year (VDOE, 2018). According to the VDOE, the use of computer adaptive testing both increased the engagement students had with the testing process and reduced security risks in the state-mandated testing system (VDOE, 2018).

In reading tests, the SOL test was a passage-based reading computer adaptive test. In comparison with a traditional paper-and-pencil test, the VDOE (2018) noted that some differences existed between the two test forms. In the computer-adaptive test, students answered different numbers of questions and read different numbers of passages than in a paper-based test, but all students at a given grade level read the same number of passages and answered the same number of test items. The specific passages and questions about the passages differed from student to student based on their responses to prior questions (VDOE, 2018). Students could not skip questions in the computer-based test as they could in a paper-based exam, but they had as much time as needed to complete the entire test, though they had to complete the test in a single test day (VDOE, 2018). In addition, while students could back up and revisit questions on the passage they were currently working on, they could not back up and revisit questions or passages answered before the current passage (VDOE, 2018). The computer adaptive test began with medium-difficulty passages, then transitioned to either more- or less-difficult passages depending on how well the student responded to the first passage. Individual questions asked about each passage also varied in difficulty (VDOE, 2018).

The mathematics computer adaptive testing system related more to the traditional paper-and-pencil tests (VDOE, 2018). While the number of test items on a particular grade level test differed from the number on a paper-and-pencil test, all students at each grade level answered the same total number of questions, and the computer customized the specific test items for each student based on their responses to prior questions (VDOE, 2018). As with the reading SOL tests, the math test had no time limits, but instructors asked students to complete the test within a single test day (VDOE, 2018). The mathematics test format required students to complete each question before moving on to the next question. The student could not skip questions or answer them out of order, as was possible in a paper-and-pencil test. Once the student answered a question, the student could not backtrack to a previously answered question (VDOE, 2018).

The CIP in Virginia consisted of a consortium of public schools in Virginia that provided annual detailed lesson plans for teachers to use in all subjects tested as part of the Virginia SOL testing program (CIP, 2018). These materials included information on classroom activities, lesson plans, and assessments of student progress that teachers could use. YouTube videos were available for teachers under the TeacherTube educational channel online to assist teachers in transitioning to the CIP curriculum (CIP Materials, 2018). A panel of teachers who demonstrated success in the classroom by the high scores their students achieved on the Virginia SOL tests created the materials for the CIP. The subjects included in the elementary and middle school CIP programs were reading (grades three through eight), math (grades three through eight), science (fifth and eighth grades), history (sixth and seventh grades) and algebra (eighth grade). Comment by Author: You have to word these the same way; be consistent

Implementation of CIP in a school or district included training teachers and school administrators in the proper use of CIP instructional resources, implementation of the benchmarks defined by CIP, and use of CIP data and assessments throughout the academic year to improve student outcomes (CIP, 2018). Each region in Virginia that implemented CIP used a prescriptive approach that avoided insisting on identical instruction in all schools. This design allowed local teachers and administrators to adapt the CIP concepts to the needs of their students (CIP, 2018).

CIP provided overall achievement test comparisons yearly that determined how well CIP benchmarks and assessments aligned with the Virginia SOL achievement tests (CIP, 2018). Results from Region Seven between 2016 and 2017 showed a 0.38% improvement in reading achievement (from 81.58% to 81.96%) and a 0.34% improvement in math achievement (from 82.84% to 83.18%), the greatest improvement of any district that fully implemented CIP in the 2015-2016 school year in each of those subjects.

The goal of CIP was to help with continual improvement in teaching methods and materials to positively impact student achievement. To determine the effectiveness of CIP, each year, the CIP panel compared student achievement scores on the CIP assessments to the SOL scores students took to determine how well the material presented in the CIP matched the SOL (CIP, 2018). In the most recent results for 2018, the CIP correlated with the SOL for reading with Pearson’s correlations of between 0.732 (grade three) to 0.779 (grade eight). Similar correlations for math ranged from 0.773 (grade four) to 0.863 (grade six) (CIP, 2018). Comparing these results to the previous year (2017), the correlations dropped for one grade in reading (grade eight, dropping from 0.799 in 2017 to 0.779 in 2018) and for one grade in math (grade four, dropping from 0.795 in 2017 to 0.773 in 2018). All other correlations improved in 2018 over 2017 by between 0.73% (reading, grade five) to 20.01% (math, grade six).

While the measures of CIP improvement for student achievement were entirely positive for Region Seven, that was less true for some other districts. The CIP website provided facts for changes in student achievement scores between 2016 and 2017 SOL testing dates (CIP, 2018). In particular, while all regions that fully implemented CIP in 2015-2016 school year saw reading achievement improvements, in math, only Region 7 saw improved achievement between 2016 and 2017 SOL testing. All other regions that fully implemented CIP—as well as all regions that only partially implemented CIP—saw math achievement decline by amounts ranging from –0.45% to –1.25%. This data provided the researcher the implication that other regions did not appropriately implement CIP or CIP as a program was less successful in improving math achievement scores than proponents claimed. Comment by Author: You usually write this as Seven

The instructional activities, materials, and assessments made available to teachers was both extensive and available to teachers throughout the state via the online TeacherTube channel. For example, to help students understand irony, a short video from the movie Frozen illustrated an act of true love when Anna saved Elsa (CIP Materials, 2018). Other videos explained math topics ranging from elementary arithmetic problems through advanced algebra (CIP Materials, 2018). The TeacherTube channel provided teachers with instructional materials including videos, audios, documents, specific playlists, and other instructional material designed for CIP use (CIP Materials, 2018). Comment by Author: You can’t assume your reader knows what this is. You have to provide some reference for it.

Bowman-Perrott and Lewis (2008) identified a number of factors that contributed to low reading achievement, particularly for African American and low-income students. Some of the factors Bowman-Perrott and Lewis (2008) identified included students moving frequently from district to district, lack of participation in early childhood programs, and the prevalence of underprepared, underqualified teachers for schools in poor urban and rural districts. Bowman-Perrott and Lewis (2008) compared standardized reading achievement scores for 4,135 African American students in grade three through grade 10 in an urban midwestern school district with a total student population of more than 30,000 students; African American students constituted just over 20.5% of the total student population. The Bowman-Perrott and Lewis (2008) study targeted students identified as disabled and African American students based on those two groups identified as at-risk. Elementary grade interventions focused on increasing the reading performance of students lagging behind grade level and increasing the number of advanced readers from the at-risk groups. Teachers received specialized literacy instruction training. Teachers also implemented a positive behavior support (PBS) system to improve student discipline, a program that focused on three key principles: be responsible, be courteous, and be safe (Bowman-Perrott & Lewis, 2008). Bowman-Perrott and Lewis (2008) compared reading achievement for African American students to that of other ethnic groups and compared disciplinary referrals for African American students relative to other ethnic groups. Bowman-Perrott and Lewis (2008) found that African American students performed below all other ethnic groups other than Hispanic students in each of grades three through ten. In addition, African American students received more discipline referrals and received harsher penalties than other ethnic groups (Bowman-Perrott & Lewis, 2008). Based on these results, Bowman-Perrott and Lewis (2008) concluded that both Hispanic and African American students were at-risk students. Bowman-Perrot and Lewis (2008) also concluded that students in these at-risk groups required early and effective reading interventions as soon as teachers identified potential difficulties for these students. Comment by Author: This is an interesting section; however, if you aren’t going to account for any of these factors in your study, this is irrelevant. To be honest, I think you are going to have to account for some of them to make this a viable study. Your RQ only as about what the difference was. That’s just looking at numbers and not accounting for why that may be. You may need additional research questions where you examine these factors in relation to the difference in scores. Comment by Author: Are you looking at any of these factors? If not, this is not important.

Moon and Hofferth (2016) similarly studied factors that contributed to reading achievement in immigrant children. In particular, Moon and Hofferth (2016) probed the contribution that parental involvement had for both boys and girls in reading and math achievement in grades kindergarten through grade five. The researchers considered both the parental efforts and the child’s own independent efforts and reading behaviors. The data Moon and Hofferth (2016) used came from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). The study cohort included 21,260 kindergarten children nationwide in 1998 through the cohort completing grade eight in 2007. Moon and Hofferth (2016) sampled the cohort’s data for fall kindergarten, spring grade one, spring grade three, and spring grade five, restricting the sample to 2,613 children from immigrant families. Moon and Hofferth (2016) used reading and mathematics achievement scores administered as part of ECLS-K, parent-driven involvement in nine activities (e.g.,i.e., telling stories to the child, interaction with the child during play, helping with arts and crafts, doing puzzles or games with the child), and child-effort as measured by parent’s assessment of the frequency of the child reading outside of school. Moon and Hofferth (2016) considered the family socioeconomic status and the family structure including the number of siblings, and used the mother’s country of origin as the determiner of the ethnic status of the child. Overall, Moon and Hofferth (2016) found that boys benefitted more than girls did from parental involvement. Girls showed no improvement in achievement scores based on parental involvement. Both boys and girls showed significant reading achievement improvement with more reading activity at home in early grades (grade three or lower). Only boys benefitted from improvements in math achievement scores for grades three and five. Higher socioeconomic status had a greater impact on girls’ reading and mathematics achievement scores for grades one through three than it had for boys (Moon & Hofferth, 2016). Moon and Hofferth (2016) found that a two-parent family positively affected boys’ achievement scores, but was less important for girls.

Hoy et al. (2006) conducted a similar study on student achievement and identified three factors that directly influenced student achievement beyond individual innate capacity and socioeconomic status: collective teacher efficacy, faculty trust in clients (i.e., parents and students), and an academic emphasis on student achievement, no matter what socioeconomic status of the student. Hoy et al. (2006) termed the combination of these three factors academic optimism. The researchers concluded that the three factors had reciprocal causal relationships among the factors that affected student achievement. In Hoy et al.’s (2006) framework, those three factors, combined with socioeconomic status, previous student achievement success, and the degree of urbanicity (i.e., population density, a measure from state statistical data) provided a model of student achievement. Of these urbanicity was the least meaningful, with greater population density associated with lower student achievement (Hoy et al., 2006). Overall, Hoy et al. (2006) found that their tri-fold construct of academic optimism was second only to prior student achievement in its impact on predictions of student achievement.

Bevel and Mitchell (2012) tested Hoy et al.’s (2006) academic optimism as a factor in grade five reading achievement across 29 Alabama elementary schools using the School Academic Optimism Scale and the Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale, the Faculty Trust in Students and Parents Scale, and the Academic Emphasis Scale. These latter three instruments had previously measured reliability ranging from 0.83 to 0.94. After measuring the three components of academic optimism, Bevel and Mitchell (2012) found that the components created academic optimism as a second-order construct and that academic optimism in turn correlated strongly (r=0.78, p<0.001) with reading achievement. These results indicated that Hoy et al.’s (2006) academic optimism construct was predictive of reading achievement and that it accounted for about 18% of the variance in student reading achievement scores. One limitation of Bevel and Mitchell’s (2012) study (2012) was that it was a correlational study that lacked a way of identifying how to change the academic optimism within a school; thus, it lacked explicit guidance on improving student achievement.

Harlaar et al. (2011) conducted a twin study of 10- to 11 year-old twins to study whether an association existed between reading achievement and independent (i.e., non-school-based) reading. The goal of the study was to determine if programs that challenged elementary school children to read 1,000,000 words (or similar reading challenges) as a way of developing good reading habits had a scientific basis or simply was intuitive guesses. Using 436 pairs of 10 year-old identical, same-sex twins, the researchers combined genetic marker measurements with reading performance measures (the Word Identification and Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test), and family and child reports of how often each child read at home for pleasure using a 5-point Likert scale (1=almost never; 5=more than 3 times a day). The child participants filled out the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ), with each twin filling out the survey independently in separate rooms. The MRQ included a measure of participants’ self-efficacy as well as the participants’ willingness to take on challenging material. Harlaar et al. (2011) conducted a follow-up set of measures at age 11. Harlaar et al. (2011) found that 10 year-olds’ reading achievement accounted for about 8% of the variance in independent reading at age 11. Independent reading at age 10 did not predict reading achievement at age 11. Harlaar et al. (2011) found that individual reading achievement and independent reading were both heritable (i.e., associated with genetics) to a significant degree. When the researchers extended the study to include non-identical twins (dizygotic twins), the correlation between twin’s behaviors was no stronger than it would have been for randomly paired children. Key limitations of this study were that it relied on parent and child reports of independent reading, and that it had no measurement of the types or difficulties of the books the twins read for pleasure.

Passage of the NCLB act also encouraged parental involvement in the schools (Park et al., 2017). Park et al. (2017) tested the effect of parental involvement in the schools using information from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, a nationwide study of student academic and behavioral development following one cohort of students from Kindergarten through grade five in public schools. Park et al. (2017) measured parental participation in schools at the level of support for general school improvements, support for the parents’ own children, and social networking among parents. Of these factors, schools with a high degree of parental involvement in general school support and improvements and parental networking had students with higher national testing scores on both reading and math and were more likely to have good learning environments (Park et al., 2017). Park et al. (2017) found that differences did exist based on socioeconomic factors. Park et al. (2017) found in lower socioeconomic status schools, the greater impact occurred from parents aggregately supporting their own children’s schools and networking, while higher socioeconomic status schools experienced greater impact from more general public school support and parental networking. Once again, Park et al. (2017) was a correlational study that lacked a means of changing the factors identified as affecting student achievement.

Bakosh et al. (2016) reported results from a study of audio-guided mindful awareness training as an intervention to improve student grades at the elementary school level, including improving math and reading grades. The Bakosh et al. (2016) study was quasi-experimental, using a 10-minute-per-day automated mindfulness training program, to determine if student grades improved compared to a similar control group. The student participants were in third grade at two schools (Bakosh et al, 2006). Ninety-three students in four third grade classrooms, with two classes from each of two schools, participated in the intervention group, and 98 students in four other third grade classrooms from the same schools, constituted the control group (Bakosh et al, 2006). Across 8 weeks, the intervention group listened each day to a 10-minute mindfulness training recordings, from 35 different recordings and the content of the recordings focused on stress reduction, instruction on how to sit, why to practice mindfulness, and what the mindfulness practice could help (Bakosh et al, 2006). The mindfulness awareness program included teaching awareness of senses, thoughts, and emotions, as well as providing breathing, relaxation, and silence in the recordings. Bakosh et al. (2016) measured student grades at the end of the 8-week quarter, daily measures of overall (not individual) classroom behavior, and the impact the program had on the classroom operation. Bakosh et al. (2016) found that the daily mindfulness training was a significant predictor of improved classroom grades in science and reading, as well as producing noticeably improved classroom behavior. Bakosh et al. (2016) also noted that the intervention was explicitly teacher-independent, using only pre-recorded and provided mindfulness training recordings. Although Bakosh et al. (2016) found that student grades did improve in the intervention group compared to the control group, the effect of the 8 week program on grades was modest, leaving unknown whether a longer or more intensive mindfulness training would produce greater achievement improvements. Comment by Author: Is this something you are studying? Did the schools use this technique? If not, it is not applicable to your study. Comment by Author: I’m not going to read the rest of this section until you address this. Reviewing literature that will be useful to YOUR study is what is important. While these techniques sound interesting, if they don’t relate to your specific study, they don’t belong here. What does research say about techniques used based off the programs you are studying?

Lee et al. (2017) reported on an intervention study using an after-school EdVenture program aimed at underserved, ethnic minority, and low-income students in northern California. The study included 28 elementary children in grades one through six, with 75% female, and 79% ethnic Latino, 7% African American, 7% Russian/Ukrainian, and 7% Pakistani or Indian. The measures Lee et al. (2017) used in the study was a 15 question The Me and My World Survey, a measure of the students’ developmental assets, rated on a five point Likert scale. Lee et al. (2017) also included students’ school progress reports, which included proficiency assessments on language arts, reading, writing, math, science/health, history/social studies, homework, classroom, and quality of work. These proficiency reports used a four-point Likert scale: below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced (Lee et al., 2017). Teachers also rated student’s homework completion, classwork completion, and quality of work on a poor-good-excellent scale (Lee et al., 2017). Lee et al. (2017) reported that the EdVenture after-school program demonstrated significant improvement in students’ beliefs in their self-efficacy. The EdVenture program was not a significant predictor of student reading achievement (Lee et al., 2017). Lee et al. (2017) speculated that teacher expectations and perceptions have a stronger influence on student reading achievement.

Independent reading is important; Fisher and Frey (2018) identified several evidence-based interventions that encouraged elementary students to read outside the classroom. Fisher and Frey (2018) first identified four factors that encouraged students to read more: greater access to books outside the classroom; giving students greater choice of what they read; encouraging classroom discussion of texts read; and talks by peers and trusted adults about books students might enjoy. Fisher and Frey (2018) then created a Reading Volume Program (RVP) incorporating those four factors, and arranged for six elementary schools to test the program. The six schools had more than 450 students each in grades kindergarten through grade six. At least 50% of the students in each school qualified for reduced- or free-lunch programs. More than 36% of the 3846 students in the schools were new learners of English, 10.5% had identified learning disabilities, and 2,384 were Latino. Odd-numbered grades (i.e., grades one, three, and five) participated in the RVP intervention, while even-numbered grades (i.e., grades two, four, and six) did not. All but nine of the 53 teachers in the odd-numbered grades chose to participate in the RVP program (Fisher & Frey, 2018). The RVP program lasted 12 weeks, beginning three weeks into the school year. After the 12-week program, teachers provided specific data points that demonstrated the effect of the program on the students (Fisher & Frey, 2018): Comment by Author: So here – if the standards talk about independent reading—which they probably do—find that standard, state it, and then talk about how independent reading is a factor. See how it relates?

· Teachers reported that students checked out 9% more books from the school library than the same students had done the previous year;

· Teachers reported 4% higher benchmark writing scores compared to other schools in the district;

· Teachers reported 2% higher fluency rates compared to the students’ previous reading records or with other schools in the same district; and

· Teachers reported more students and more parents anecdotally claiming students reading more books.

Fisher and Frey (2018) also noted that when the teachers in the even-numbered grades heard of the successes the odd-grade students achieved, the teachers in grades two, four, and six started implementing similar strategies in the classroom. Fisher and Frey (2018) reported that one teacher of an even-numbered grade threatened to go to the union representative if denied access to the RVP program training and additional books for students in her classroom. Fisher and Frey (2018) had specific classroom recommendations, but noted in particular that deep reading of classroom text did not sacrifice broad reading out of the classroom, nor could broad reading sacrifice deep classroom text reading; both were important.

Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) investigated three different reading instruction approaches to determine the effect on low-achieving and normally-achieving readers in elementary school (specifically, grades one through six). The reading instruction approaches Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) investigated were phonic/synthetic, whole language/global, and eclectic approaches. The phonics approach was a bottom-up process focused on learning sounds represented by letters and letter combinations (Faust & Kandelshine-Waldman, 2011). Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) described the whole language/global approach as a top-down process that emphasized extracting meaning of words from context. The eclectic method incorporated both types of approaches, teaching both bottom-up processes while also focusing on textual extraction based on context (Faust & Kandelshine-Waldman, 2011). The goal of the study was to determine if low-achieving readers who tend to rely on top-down processes to recognize words, would achieve better reading comprehension if taught using the whole-language approach (Faust & Kandelshine-Waldman, 2011). Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) conducted two key experiments using 1,505 grade one to grade six students in four elementary schools. Of these students, 451 received phonics-based reading instruction, 492 received whole language/global reading instruction, and 562 received eclectic instruction, with the instructional approach varying by the school (Faust & Kandelshine-Waldman, 2011). The instrument used was a skill-appropriate text the participant read at normal reading speed, while circling every instance of a particular letter (Faust & Kandelshine-Waldman, 2011). After reading, the students answered three comprehension questions with no text provided to confirm their understanding of the story (Faust & Kandelshine-Waldman, 2011). Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) found the instructional approach did not affect the number of correct comprehension questions the participants answered. The participants’ teachers assessed reading ability based on a six-point Likert scale (1=poor; 6=excellent) (Faust & Kandelshine-Waldman, 2011). Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) classified participants who scored in the range from 1 to 3 as low-achieving, a classification assigned to 21% of the participants. Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) identified differences in performance on the measuring tasks among the three reading instruction approaches, but did not find support for the hypothesis that the whole language/global reading instruction approach would narrow the gap for low-achieving readers. With that said, Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) found the whole language/global approach resulted in overall higher omissions from all readers taught with that approach across all word types, implying that while such an approach might not facilitate top-down approaches that were related to reading proficiency.

Kirnan, Siminerio and Wong (2016) investigated the impact of therapy dogs on student reading achievement. In this mixed methods study, Kirnan et al. (2016) analyzed reading test scores of 169 student in grades kindergarten through grade four. The therapy dogs visited intervention classrooms at least once a week for about an hour for the duration of the school year (Kirnan et al., 2016). During this visit, students read to the dog in groups of four to six students, based on student reading level (Kirnan et al. 2016). The classes also included a writing component where fourth grade students created a newspaper with dog-themed stories (Kirnan et al., 2016). Grade two, three and five students kept written journals they could illustrate (Kirnan et al., 2016). Kindergarten and grade one students had dogs more fully incorporated into the language arts curriculum, with reading, writing, and vocabulary games with dog themes (Kirnan et al., 2016). Students with severe allergies participated remotely via iPad; students afraid of dogs began at the periphery of the reading groups, but by the end of the program these students fully participated in the program, reading to, petting, and working with the dog (Kirnan et al. 2016). In addition to reading achievement scores for participants from standard achievement tests, Kirnan et al. (2016) conducted semi-structured interviews of both the dog owners and the teachers to note observations about the sessions with the students. Kirnan et al. (2016) found that reading skills only varied at a statistically significant level for kindergarten students. Implementation of the program was school-wide, but the total number of students participating at each grade level caused difficulty in establishing statistical significance (Kirnan et al., 2016). Kirnan et al. (2016) hypothesized that the incorporation of the dog in the broader language arts programs in kindergarten and grade one resulted in a stronger effect than in later grades. The qualitative data Kirnan et al. (2016) collected indicated increased confidence, greater self-esteem, and increased interest in reading by the students. These observations included ones from teachers who initially expressed great skepticism toward the program, but who later also observed the self-esteem, confidence, and reading interest improvements (Kirman et al., 2016)

Mokhtari et al. (2009) reported on a suburban school in the Midwest that used standardized test data to direct the creation of a professional development program for teachers intended to improve reading instruction in the school. According to Mokhtari et al., (2009) the program included explicit goals of increasing reading performance of all students in one Midwestern elementary school. After the program implementation, approximately 90% or more students in Kindergarten through grade five tested as either proficient or advanced in the state reading achievement tests (Mokhtari et al., 2009). This constituted an improvement of 5% to 27%, depending on grade level, from fall testing to spring testing after implementation of the reading achievement program (Mokhtari et al., 2009). All but one grade had 92% to 96% of the students achieving proficient or advanced proficient levels, and the single outlier (second grade) had 88% achieving that level of reading success (Mokhtari et al., 2009). Mokhtari et al.(2009) noted three elements to this successful program: employing reading professionals and teachers credentialed in their area of expertise; establishing a professional learning community that focused on improving student achievement in reading; and establishing programs that supported the student, the teachers, and overall school performance. The study was an interventional study with pre-/post-test results that identified specific strategies that the program used to improve student reading achievement (Mokhtari et al., 2009). According to Mokhtari et al. (2009) limitations to the study were that it involved only a single elementary school with 638 students (Kindergarten through grade five) and a culturally homogeneous population (96.8 percent Caucasian, and 7.8 percent economically disadvantaged to participate in the free lunch program). Mokhtari et al. (2009) also had only two years of project implementation to report.

Another example of all-school commitment to improving literacy in elementary students came from Fisher and Frey (2007), who reported on a literacy program in a heavily Hispanic urban school in San Diego, California. The school location was in the highest crime-rate area of that city. According to Fisher and Frey (2007), the school implemented a school-wide, all-grades focus on improving student literacy that created a coordinated educational program across all teachers and all grades. When compared to other schools in the city in nearby areas, this school generated higher academic performance than the other schools, raising the academic achievement rating generated from California achievement testing from a score of 455 to one of 746 over a six-year period from 1999 through 2005 and increasing the percentage of students labeled proficient or advanced on the state tests from approximately 10-15% to approximately 36% in that period (Fisher & Frey, 2007). Fisher and Frey (2007) noted that the program centered on foundational principles: learning was a social activity; conversations were important to learning; integrating reading, writing, and oral instruction was essential; and learning required a gradual increase in the responsibilities of the student. As with Mokhtari et al. (2009), Fisher and Frey (2007) was a single-school intervention study that used a pre-/post-test approach to determine the effect of the intervention. Also as with Mokhtari et al. (2009), Fisher and Frey (2007) had no control group, although the San Diego study did cover the years from 1999 through 2005, rather than only two years as with Mokhtari et al. (2009). Comment by Author: So did the schools in your study have this commitment? If so, that’s great and you can describe that in Ch III. If not, I’m not sure this is relevant.

Overall, the above sampling of studies provided a mixed degree of guidance in determining how best to improve elementary student reading and math achievement. Bevel and Mitchell (2012) focused on academic optimism and Park et al. (2017) focused on parental involvement and provided insight on large-scale factors that influenced student achievement, but offered little direct guidance on how to improve student reading and math performance. Moon and Hofferth (2016) identified significant gender differences in the effect of parental involvement in reading achievement in immigrant elementary students. Harlaar et al.’s (2011) study of identical twins identified a significant genetic component in reading achievement and in independent (non-school) reading. In contrast, Mokhtari et al. (2009) and Fisher and Frey (2007) reported on actual interventions that effectively improved student achievement. Each of these studies involved only a single school with a highly homogeneous student population, and neither study involved a school with significant socioeconomic variations among the students and their families (Fisher & Frey, 2007; Mokhtari et al., 2009). Mokhtari et al.’s (2009) study included fewer economically disadvantaged students, while Fisher and Frey (2007) had almost exclusively minority and economically disadvantaged students. Nevertheless, the similarity between these two studies was that they each used whole-school programs that committed all grades and all teachers and staff to the concept of improving student achievement. Bakosh et al. (2016) tested simple mindfulness training as a method of improving student reading achievement and found that an eight-week training program improved student grades in both science and reading as well as improved classroom behavior. Lee et al.’s (2017) study on an after-school tutoring program found that it had little impact on reading achievement, though students did improve in self-confidence and self-efficacy. Fisher and Frey’s (2018) study created a practical RVP designed to increase students’ independent reading outside of school. After twelve weeks the RVP program resulted in significantly improved student independent reading, interest in reading, and greater student fluency. Faust and Kandelshine-Waldman (2011) found that low-achieving readers did not respond better to whole language instruction as opposed to either phonics or eclectic instructional approaches. Kirnan et al.’s (2016) mixed methods study found that the use of reading therapy dogs generated reading achievement improvements of uncertain statistical significance due to small sample sizes, but the qualitative aspect of the study found that students exhibited greater self-confidence, greater self-esteem, and increased interest in reading after regularly reading to dogs for an academic year. Comment by Author: You were only talking about reading

Studying the literature on reading achievement as a whole, Petscher’s (2010) meta-analysis of the literature on reading achievement had the goal of determining whether student attitudes toward reading affected reading achievement scores. Petscher (2010) found that parental and family attitudes toward reading strongly influenced children’s achievement and that out-of-school reading was a strong predictor of reading achievement growth. Petscher (2010) also noted that when parents had reduced assessments of their children’s capability, the children’s self-concept lowered significantly. Similarly, reinforcement from teachers of positive attitudes and the presence of many print sources for reading in the classroom were also important to reading achievement (Petscher, 2010). The results from Bevel and Mitchell (2012) and Park (2017) exemplified those conclusions. In addition, the interventions implemented in both Mokhtari et al. (2009) and Fisher and Frey (2007) addressed the factors such as teacher reinforcement, positive attitudes, and positive reinforcement. Research by Ehm, Lindberg and Hasselhorn (2013) identified relationships between children’s self-concepts of academic capability and noted that those self-concepts began to surface in early elementary children, a conclusion that supported Petscher’s (2010) conclusion that self-concept influenced reading achievement. Ehm et al. (2013) found that reading and writing self-concepts were stable across grades one through three, but math self-concept and reading self-concept had a negative relationship by grade three (i.e., a high reading self-concept tended to be associated with a low math self-concept and vice versa).

Burns et al. (2015) noted that achievement in math in elementary school was an important predictor of overall school achievement in middle school and high school, and that math competency had multiple dimensions. Researchers indicated that factors including the specific math teacher, student gender, parental attitudes and their math anxiety levels, and student self-efficacy in math all had correlations to student math achievement in elementary school levels (Crosnoe et al., 2010; Gottfried & Graves, 2014; Soni & Kumari, 2015; Weidinger, Steinmayr & Spinath, 2018). Researchers also reported results on various interventions to improve math scores. Burns et al. (2015) found that individually tailored interventions based on student deficiencies was important to improve math achievement scores, while Carr, Taasoobshirazi, Stroud and Royer (2011) tested computer-based computational fluency instruction interventions. Other studies reported on a variety of classroom interventions to improve math scores (Heatly, Bachman & Votruba-Drzal, 2015; Ing et al., 2015). This section begins with individual information about the studies that identified factors affecting math achievement, followed by information about those studies that tested various interventions to improve math achievement scores. Comment by Author: This is extremely important – but are YOU going to examine these factors? As I mentioned in the reading section, I think you are going to have to so you can answer the So What? question – why is this important Comment by Author: Put the actor first to make this active

Xu and Jang (2017) investigated the effect of student math self-efficacy and non-school use of technology-related activities (i.e., Internet usage, video games, television viewing) on grade six students’ math achievement scores. Xu and Jang (2017) conducted the study in Ontario, Canada with a sample of 26,767 English monolingual grade six students who took Ontario’s standard Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) math achievement test in 2013. As part of this test, students also filled in a background questionnaire detailing their use of technology outside of school and their math self-efficacy (Xu & Jang, 2017). Six questions in the background questionnaire addressed student math self-efficacy (i.e., questions such as How much do you agree with the statement, ‘I like math’; How much do you agree with the statement, ‘I am good at math’; etc.). In addition, six background technology usage questions asked about the number of hours per day spent watching television, using the Internet, and playing video games before and after school (Xu & Jang, 2017). Xu and Jang (2017) found similar results to prior studies in that greater use of technology was associated with lower student math achievement, but the researchers also found that when the students had positive math self-efficacy there was a positive mediating effect on math achievement (Xu & Jang, 2017). Comment by Author: You aren’t looking at this at all. Comment by Author: When skimming through this section, I see many items that aren’t going to be looked at in your study. You can’t talk about them if you aren’t examining them

Crosnoe et al. (2010) conducted a longitudinal study that investigated the effects of different instructional styles for students with low, medium, and high math aptitude to determine what style would most improve student achievement. The teaching styles included focusing on basic math skills, providing students with higher-level inference-based training, and providing socioeconomic support for the students (Crosnoe et al., 2010). According to Crosnoe et al. (2010), inference-based training focused on word problems in which students had to infer solutions or expectations about the situation based on the information they had about the situation. Crosnoe et al. (2010) found children at all levels of math skills responded most positively to inference-based instruction techniques and students with the least math skills initially received inference-based training, and closed the gap in math skills. Crosnoe et al. (2010) noted an exception occurred if there was a conflict in the relationship between student and teacher. In that event, Crosnoe et al. (2010) found no narrowing of the gap between least skilled and most skilled students. Crosnoe et al. (2010) thus concluded that the math teacher’s relationship with the students combined with specific instructional styles was most effective at raising elementary students’ math achievement.

In comparing math achievement in girls and boys, Gottfried and Graves (2014) noted that researchers targeted gender-preferenced classrooms (i.e., concentrating more of one gender), and found improved student outcomes. The researchers found that classrooms with more girls tended to improve outcomes for all students, but those results varied by grade level, with more girls in classrooms associated with better student achievement in early elementary grades, but the effect diminished by grade three (Gottfried & Graves, 2014). To determine the validity of such results, Gottfried and Graves (2014) investigated the effect of having more or fewer girls than boys on student achievement with a specific focus on subject-by-subject results rather than more general measures of student achievement. While Gottfried and Graves’s (2014) results confirmed more girls is better for student achievement for most subjects, for math in particular Gottfried and Graves (2014) found that gender segregation improved student performance for both boys and girls. While differences arose as soon as grade one, Gottfried and Graves (2014) found that having a higher percentage of girls in the classroom tended to result in greater student achievement in most subjects for both boys and girls. Specifically for math, Gottfried and Graves (2014) found that girls performed better when there were 30% or fewer boys in the classroom, and grade three girls performed better in math when placed in an all-girls classroom while boys’ performance showed no difference in performance whether girls were in the classroom or not.

Weidinger, Steinmayr and Spinath (2018) studied changes in self-belief of competence in elementary school children in Germany between grade two (ending at approximately age 8) and grade four (ending at approximately age 10). The Weidinger et al. (2018) study goal was to understand how changes in children’s beliefs in their abilities linked to their achievement in math using standardized tests for that measure and student math grades. Weidinger et al. (2018) found that children tended to become more negative in their beliefs of their own competency between grades two and four. Because negative or lower belief in competency was often associated with lower levels of effort on the part of the student, Weidinger et al. (2018) suggested that maintaining math competency beliefs starting in very early grades were crucial to increasing math competency in later grades. A prior study by Weidinger, Steinmayr and Spinath (2017) found that receiving low grades in math was not necessarily associated with a decrease in student motivation to succeed. In this earlier study, Weidinger et al. (2017) noted the particular importance of teachers being sensitive to children’s beliefs in their own abilities as a way of sustaining achievement, particularly in grades two through four.

Soni and Kumari (2015) found that math anxiety in parents tended to be a precursor of their children experiencing math anxiety. Similarly, the attitudes parents held toward math also presaged the attitudes their children displayed toward math (Soni & Kumari, 2015). Ramirez et al. (2013) found that even students in grades one and two in a large urban school district experienced math anxiety. Ramirez et al. (2013) found that children were strongly reliant on working memory solution strategies (i.e., memorizing specific solution methods) for problem-solving experienced difficulty when they also had math anxiety. Ramirez et al. (2013) urged an early focus on identifying elementary students with math anxiety and treating it early because students with strong working memories would have greater potential for success in math. Another study by Hirvonen et al. (2012) studied math performance in elementary students between kindergarten and grade four. Hirvonen et al. (2012) measured task avoidance behavior in the students as rated by their teachers and compared that to the students’ growth in math performance. Hirvonen et al. (2012) found that as task avoidance behavior increased, growth in math performance also decreased.

The above studies provided important clues as to the causes and solutions to lower math achievement in elementary students. One theme that emerged from these studies in math achievement was the importance of the teachers’ instructional styles and the relationships between teachers and their students. Poor student-teacher relationships resulted in lower academic achievement, but Crosnoe et al. (2010) also found that students with the poorest math skills benefitted from using an inferential teaching approach. This was in line with Ramirez et al. (2013) who noted that even students with substantial levels of math anxiety benefitted from learning to use non-memorization-based math solution processes and relied on more inferencing and analysis approaches. Gottfried and Graves (2014) noted that the gender balance of the math classroom effected math achievement, with an all-girls classroom being best for both boys and girls starting in grade three. Weidinger et al. (2018) found a critical period in students’ self-efficacy with respect to math occurred in the period from grade two through grade four, while Soni and Kumari (2015) noted that parents frequently transmitted their own math anxiety to their children, negatively affecting their children’s math achievement. This evidence supported the inferences that math instruction, even in very early elementary grades, requires sensitivity to the children’s beliefs and attitudes, careful attention to the gender balance in the classroom, attention to how teachers present math as a subject (i.e., not in a rote style), and the quality of the relationships between teachers and students.

Burns et al. (2015) conducted small-scale interventions based on measured deficiencies in early elementary school students. The researchers tested student participants for three skill clusters: fluency with whole numbers, grasping basic arithmetic operations (i.e., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division), and logical problem solving (Burn et al., 2015). Burns et al. (2015) designed interventions to address identified deficiencies and created a conceptual intervention and a procedural intervention designed to address those deficiencies and tailored for the students. The specifics of the interventions used varied based on the needs of the student. Conceptual interventions followed a model-lead-test format in which the tutor demonstrated the solution process, and then supported the student until the student could solve the problems independently (Burns et al., 2015). Procedural interventions used incremental rehearsals in which tutors read math facts (such as “2 + 3 = ?”) identified as unknown to that student. The tutor read the fact to the student, gave the student the correct answer orally, then asked the student to repeat the answer. After the repetitive practice, students answered a set of nine questions, with four previously known facts and five previously unknown facts. When the student got all nine questions correct, the tutor removed one known fact, added a new unknown fact and repeated the rehearsal of the facts (Burns et al., 2015). Burns et al. (2015) provided an example of the success achievable using individually tailored interventions, with each of the participating children demonstrating achievement gains when using as few as four intervention sessions. Comment by Author: See comments in the reading section. If you aren’t saying the schools in the study used these interventions, it is unnecessary to talk about them.

Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) probed the use of manipulative objects to teach elementary math and its relationship to math achievement and math learning. In this study, the manipulative objects included any of a variety of objects students could handle, including geometric shapes, base-ten blocks, and pattern blocks. Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) measured math achievement using the ECLS, a longitudinal study of students who were in kindergarten in 1998-1999 school year and followed that cohort through grade eight. Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) used data from a baseline kindergarten measurement (1999), grade one spring (2000), grade three spring (2002), and grade five spring measurements (2004). The study included 10,673 students, of which 57.6% were Caucasians, 16% African American, 18.8% Hispanic, 2.8% Asian, and the remainder either from no identified race or other ethnicities (Uribe-Flórez & Wilkins, 2016). To measure student math learning (as opposed to achievement test scores), Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) used item response theory techniques to represent the math knowledge each student had at the various grade levels. The independent variable in this study was the use of manipulative objects in the classroom, which Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) measured by asking teachers how often grade-appropriate manipulative objects appeared as part of the classroom training on a class group basis for kindergarten and grade one, and on an individual basis for grades three and five. Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) found that the use of manipulative objects decreased in later grades, and that the use of the manipulative objects had no correlation to student achievement scores in math. Despite the lack of impact on student achievement scores in math, Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) found a significant association between math learning and the use of manipulative objects in class, more specifically, students who used manipulative objects between two and eight times a month learned at a faster rate than those who rarely or never used manipulatives. In addition, Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) found that those students who used manipulative objects nearly every day learned math faster than those who used the objects only once or twice a week.

Researchers also tested different types of math instruction in different grade levels, based on the presumption that a child’s growing maturity might alter the most effective instructional style. Heatly, Bachman and Votruba-Drzal (2015) investigated how various instructional modes affected growth in math achievement at grade levels from kindergarten to grade five. Heatly et al. (2015) compared conceptual instruction (i.e., focused on problem-solving and reasoning skills) and procedural instruction (i.e., focused on specific calculation processes such as counting, addition, subtraction, and chalkboard activities). The researchers found that teachers of kindergarten who spent more time on procedural instruction had students who achieved greater gains in math test scores, while teachers of grade five students who spent more time on conceptual instruction saw their students gain more in math achievement scores (Heatly et al., 2015). Ing, M., Webb, N., Franke, M., Turrou, A., Wong, J., Shin, N., and Fernandez, C. (2015) conducted a study that investigated teacher instructional style in effective math instruction in elementary school. The researchers noted specific teacher practices and linked them to student participation and student achievement (Ing et al., 2015). Ing et al. (2015) considered whether student participation in class activities was a mediating factor in how teacher practices affected student achievement. The researchers measured student participation by observing the degree and completeness of students explaining a problem-solving solution and by how students engaged with other students about math problems (Ing et al., 2015). They also measured teacher instructional style by how often teachers persuaded students to share their thinking processes about a problem, and by how frequently teachers encouraged students to engage with other students in class discussions (Ing et al., 2015). Ing et al. (2015) found that student participation predicted student achievement in a positive relationship. Ing et al. (2015) found that greater teacher support for student participation was a positive predictor of student math achievement, but had only an indirect predictor of student achievement, while teacher encouragement increased student participation, which was the direct predictor of student math achievement.

Carr, Taasoobshirazi, Stroud and Royer (2011) identified student deficiencies and created a computer-based tutoring program designed to address those deficiencies and improve standardized test scores in elementary students. Carr et al. (2011) identified computational fluency (i.e., the speed with which students could perform computational tasks, specifically single-digit and double-digit arithmetic problems) as important in overall student achievement scores on standardized tests. Carr et al. (2011) related such fluency to the generation of a sense of numbers that would enable students to solve more complex math problems. Carr et al. (2011) noted that as soon as grade two, children displayed differences in problem solving strategies according to gender, with girls more likely to use finger-counting strategies, while boys used more cognitive approaches to deconstruct a problem for faster computation. Carr et al. (2011) tested a variety of computer-based instructional programs and found those that combined teaching computational fluency and cognitive strategies produced greater math achievement than programs focused on only one approach. Furthermore, Carr et al. (2011) found that the use of such a combined instructional approach eliminated any gender gap in math achievement for the grade two children.

While Burns’ et al. (2015) interventions generated student gains in math achievement, the requirement for individualized assessment and tailoring of instruction to address identified deficiencies made those results less practical for a school-based math instructional program. Heatly et al. (2015) found success in teaching students math concepts rather than rote procedures to improving student success in math. Student class participation was a factor in improved student math success (Ing et al., 2015). A computer-based tutorial potentially identified student deficiencies and focused on addressing those in further instruction (Carr et al., 2011).

Xu and Jang’s (2017) study on the use of technology outside of school and math achievement in grade six students found a negative association between technology usage and math achievement unless the students had a greater sense of math self-efficacy. Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2016) studied the effect of using manipulative math objects in the classroom as part of instructional approaches. These researchers found that the more frequently students used manipulative objects, the faster they learned math concepts, though that did not translate into an effect on math achievement test scores.

The factors that affected math achievement in elementary students ranged from teacher relationships to psychological issues. Addressing issues of teacher-student relationships, attention to teaching concepts and inferencing rather than memorization of solution steps, and separating girls from boys for math instruction beginning in grade three all showed potential for improving math achievement scores.

Professional development in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era involved two main concerns, time and relevance (Bautista & Wong, 2017; Eros, 2013; Glover et al., 2016; Kopcha, 2012; Robinson et al., 2014; Smith & Kovacs, 2011). Scholars analyzed NCLB and related policies for emphasizing standardized testing, accountability, and higher pass rates over the provision of a well-rounded education (Addison & McGee, 2015; Appel & Kronberger, 2012; Benjamin & Pashler, 2015; Lee & Reeves, 2012; Myers, 2012; Reich, 2014). Other scholars suggested a mixed impact of NCLB on professional development (Akiba & Liang, 2016). The available evidence addressed five important questions: (1) How prevalent was professional development? (2) To what extent did NCLB alter the participation rates and annual per capita hours of professional development? (3) Was post-NCLB professional development aligned with the actual content components of NCLB-based testing, which are mathematics and reading? (4) Was NCLB likely to reduce the effectiveness of professional development, or was the effectiveness of professional development tied to other factors? (5) To what extent was professional development positively associated with student success (Akiba & Liang, 2016)?

Shaha, Glassett and Ellsworth (2015) found that the reading performance of students whose teachers experienced two to three years of professional development in reading was 5.58% higher than the reading performance of students whose teachers had no professional development experience in reading. The researchers compared matched pairs of students, thus controlling for the possible effects of race, gender, and socioeconomic status on the results (Shaha et al., 2015). Shaha et al. (2015) also found that the students of teachers with 6-7 years of professional development in reading performed 12.77% better than students whose teachers had no professional development experience in reading. In mathematics, students of teachers with six to seven years of professional development experience performed 12.14% better than students whose teachers had no professional development experience in mathematics. Shaha et al. (2015) concluded the duration of teachers’ exposure to professional development positively correlated with students’ academic performance, after controlling for other variables that could also explain improved student performance.

Clark, Helfrich and Hatch (2017) investigated the possibility that inadequate teacher training in literacy instruction might play a role in poor student performance with the goal of determining if changes to teacher preparation programs might improve student achievement. Clark et al. (2017) compared 87 pre-service elementary education teachers from two different teacher preparation programs. Program A required five reading methods courses, while Program B required only two such courses. Program A included courses in phonics and the structure of language, children’s literature and storytelling, emergent literacy and reading, methods of teaching reading grades 1-3, and observing young children for reading strategies and skills. Program B required only two courses, Classroom Reading Instruction (Tier 1) and Assessment and Instruction for the Struggling Read (Tier 2). Clark et al. (2017) used the Literacy Information Knowledge Scale—Written Survey (LIKS-WS) to determine the participants’ knowledge and understanding of concepts required for reading instruction. Of the participants in the two programs, those in the two-course Program B had significantly higher LIKS-WS scores than those who took the five-course Program A, comparing both overall scores and all subscales of the LIKS-WS. These subscales included phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. Clark et al. (2017) hypothesized that the difference might be due to the specific content of the Program A courses, which did not indicate intensive instruction on the concepts measured by the LIKS-WS.

LeSage (2012) investigated the effect of elementary teacher preparation in math on student success in math. Using a test of prospective elementary teacher understanding of basic math concepts such as decimals and a qualitative study design, LeSage (2012) found that increasing teacher understanding of math concepts increased the teachers’ self-efficacy and changed the teachers’ approaches to math instruction. LeSage (2012) concluded that teacher training programs should establish minimum standards of math competency in elementary teacher program applicants, including at least four secondary math courses or a full year of math instruction at the collegiate level for applicants to elementary education programs.

Smith and Kovacs’s (2011) case study provided data pertaining to participation in professional development. Participation in five kinds of professional development—standards/curriculum, test preparation, reading, writing, and math—increased in the post-NCLB era (Smith & Kovac, 2011). Participation in seven other kinds of professional development—foreign language, civics/government, arts, geography, social studies/history, physical education, and science declined in the post-NCLB era (Smith & Kovacs, 2011). The highest level of professional development participation was 81.3%, for test preparation strategies; the next-highest professional development participation level was 79.4%, for reading (Smith & Kovacs, 2011). These data suggested that professional development tracked the testing-oriented priorities of NCLB, with one important exception: Smith and Kovacs (2011) found that fewer than half of the teachers were in mathematics-based professional development. Smith and Kovacs (2011) also noted that the findings of the study held constant for teachers in both low and high poverty schools and with teachers of all experience levels. Smith and Kovacs (2011) concluded that NCLB exerted substantial negative pressure on teachers. The researchers triangulated their quantitative findings through an analysis of answers to an open-ended question about what teachers would like to change about their jobs. Nearly a third of all responses to this question identified testing or NCLB as aspects of teaching that teachers would change (Smith & Kovacs, 2011). Akiba and Liang’s (2016) data for mathematics-based professional development resembled the data collected by Smith and Kovacs (2011). Considered collectively, the findings from Akiba and Liang (2016) as well as from Smith and Kovacs (2011) suggested that enrollment in professional development programs in mathematics, one of the two basic skills tested in NCLB-based tests, lagged professional development programs in reading.

L’Allier, Elish-Piper and Bean (2010) consolidated results from a number of prior studies to generate guidelines for proper coaching of elementary teachers on literacy instruction. The goal of this synthesis was to establish evidence-based guiding principles for school systems considering establishing a literacy coaching program for elementary teachers (L’Allier et al., 2010). In this context, the term literacy coaching referred to a program that helped elementary classroom teachers improve classroom instruction via embedded professional development (L’Allier et al., 2010). Typical elements of literacy coaching included large-group presentations, small teacher-study groups, and team meetings by grade level, as well as offering in-class observation and support for individual teachers (L’Allier et al., 2010). L’Allier et al.’s (2010) study synthesis summarized seven key principles for successful literacy coaching: (1) using coaches with specialized experience and knowledge of teaching literacy; (2) having coaches spend significant time working directly with individual teachers (i.e., co-teaching, observing, modeling, leading book study groups, etc.); (3) building a strong collaborative relationship between teachers and coaches; (4) focusing coaching on core activities in order to improve student reading achievement; (5) using coaching plans that are planned but also flexible enough to take advantage of unexpected classroom and out-of-classroom opportunities; (6) having literacy coaches be literacy leaders in the school, which includes setting school goals in literacy, developing teachers to achieve those goals, and redesigning the school organization to enable achievement of the goals; and (7) expecting that coaching processes will evolve over time rather than being an instant correction as the coach gained experience with that school.

Given the various critiques of NCLB in the literature (Coburn, Hill & Spillane, 2016; Conley, Smith, Collinson, & Palazuelos, 2016; Croft, Roberts & Stenhouse, 2015; DeMatthews, 2015; Grissom et al., 2014, Jacobs, Burns & Yendol-Hoppey, 2015; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Rock, Spooner, Nagro, Vasquez, Dunn, Leko, & Jones, 2016; Smith & Desimone, 2003), an open question existed about whether professional development was an effective way to improve teacher performance. Garet et al. (2001) found that for teachers actively involved in professional development programs, changes in teaching practice as a result of professional development participation most likely occurred if (a) teachers felt that they received enhanced knowledge and skills through that professional development, (b) if teachers perceived professional development programs as coherent, and (c) as a function of extended exposure to professional development. Desimone, Smith and Phillips (2007) suggested that standardized tests and NCLB created a motivation for added participation in professional development programs, while Smith and Kovacs (2011) found that professional development programs grew in the aftermath of NCLB. Shaha et al. (2015) found the length of exposure to professional development was positively associated with student performance. Based on these studies, the following chain of relationships appeared to be likely: NCLB increased several kinds of professional development, both in terms of participation rates and hours per year, and longer exposure to professional development generated both improved student performance and increased teacher satisfaction with professional development itself.

Professional jobs rewarded self-direction (Vann, 1996). Vann (1996) shared that in order for teaching to gain the status it desired as a career, the educational system needed to treat teachers as professionals by valuing their judgement, initiative, and self-direction. Routine jobs value conformity and obedience while innovative individuals sought professional jobs that were complex (Vann, 1996).

Educational practices rooted in the Industrial Age relied heavily upon recall of factual knowledge (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015). Criticism of the educational system in America existed throughout the early years of the 21st Century due to the generation of citizens not being able to be innovative thinkers who could apply key knowledge to solving the complex problems of the future (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015). When teachers, who were adult learners, saw that their employers valued continued education, they were likely to continue to grow and develop self-direction (Vann, 1996). Teacher professional development was most useful when it was relevant and meaningful to the participant (Merrian, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M., 2007).

Teachers with high levels of self-direction were more likely to produce students who were more self-directing adults (Vann, 1996). Vann (1996) stated that a more self-directing workforce stimulated growth and enthusiasm and parents shaped their children through what is valued and reinforced in the household (Vann, 1996). Educational models of the early 21st Century leaned more toward rewarding compliance which left education working more within the concrete operational stage rather than self-direction (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015).

Da Vinci Science High School in California adopted a curriculum project that was more in line with the principles of andragogy in an attempt to increase student success and preparation for the future (Sparks, 2014). At this school, Sparks (2014) stated the approach to curriculum was contradictory to the elements of prescribed curriculum planning. Students had a voice in setting their own learning goals as opposed to working toward mandated skill sets (Sparks, 2014). This methodology placed the focus on self-directed learning as opposed to external achievement mandates (Sparks, 2014). Learning should be practical, applicable, and relevant to the learner (Merriam et al., 2007).

Teacher autonomy had benefits, but it would have been careless to afforded teachers absolute autonomy (Sparks & Malkus, 2015). Pressures levied by state and federal mandates to increase student achievement in a uniform manner caused administrators the need to find an appropriate balance among autonomy, self-direction, and uniform expectations (Sparks & Malkus, 2015). Teachers needed the ability to tailor instruction to the individual student while aligning with state and federal expectations for student success and standardization (Sparks & Malkus, 2015).

This literature review covered aspects of student achievement in elementary reading and math from several perspectives. The results from this review indicated that a number of factors influenced student achievement. Community and family factors such as poverty directly affected student achievement, with neighborhood and community-level poverty having greater impact than individual family poverty. In reading achievement, factors such as teacher efficacy, trust in parents and students, and a strong school academic emphasis on student achievement were powerful indicators of success in reading achievement growth. In addition, a twin study found that reading achievement had a significant genetic factor. Other factors found in the literature that positively influenced student reading achievement included strong parental support for the school, parental expectations and confidence in their students, and effective teacher development programs. Innovative instructional programs such as a Fisher and Frey’s (2018) RVP program to increase student independent reading, and Kirnan et al.’s (2016) use of therapy dogs for reading achievement were also successes.

The researchers found math anxiety present as early as kindergarten and derived at least in part from parental math anxiety and parental attitudes toward the subject. Specific instructional styles contributed to greater math achievement, with the appropriate instructional style varying by grade level, but an emphasis on inferencing and problem-solving skills were more effective than rote or memorized solution procedures. Class gender distribution played a part in math achievement, as well. Girls did better in math classes consisting only of girls beginning in grade three, though in other subjects, having mixed genders (but weighted toward more girls) was the best mix for both boys and girls. Student self-efficacy and self-confidence were important in math achievement. When students had high levels of math self-efficacy, evidence indicated that such self-efficacy mediated the negative effects of out-of-school technology use. In addition, evidence showed that the regular use of manipulative objects as part of math instruction in elementary grades improved the rate of student math learning, but had no significant effect on student math achievement scores.

Teacher attitudes and beliefs about the NCLB standardized testing mandates impacted student achievement, as did the degree to which students perceived the teacher as maintaining an orderly classroom, and choosing an appropriate instructional style. Teacher participation in professional development programs positively associated with increased student test scores. The lack of understanding of math concepts in elementary education program trainees contributed to inadequate math achievement scores for students taught by such teachers. One recommendation was to increase the required math training of prospective elementary teachers in elementary education programs to ensure that elementary teachers had a good grasp of the foundations of math.

Comprehensive instructional programs offered a novel approach to teacher preparation (Hurt, 2015). By having all of the resources necessary for sound instruction, teachers had more time available for whole-group instruction, small-group instruction and remediation (Hurt, 2015). Hurt (2015 stated all assessments were aligned to state standards and purposed instruction.

Although comprehensive instructional programs offered the possibility to increase student achievement, strict mandates to follow these programs exactly adversely effected student achievement (Sparks, 2014; Katz & Shahar, 2015). Teacher autonomy, self-efficacy, and self-direction linked to increased student achievement (Sparks, 2014; Katz & Shahar, 2015). The key to the success of comprehensive instructional programs centered in the leadership approach applied (Hurt, 2015). Hurt (2015) stated the components of the comprehensive instructional program consisted of ingredients, not a completed dish. The teacher had the autonomy of presentation and preparation (Hurt, 2015). Engaged students and motivated teachers lead to substantial student achievement growth (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015). Educators, schools, and students were judged primarily on high-stakes test results that are linked to accountability mandates (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015). Dutiful preparation for these assessments and strategic planning can lead to increased student achievement (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015).

Policies aimed at reforming education actually stifled student learning and dishearten teachers (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015). Leading experts felt reform measures in the form of accountability structures actually did harm (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015). Wagner and Dintersmith (2015) shared that mandates led to standardized tests that only prepared individuals for routine tasks. Employers needed problem-solvers, yet the educational system stifled the creativity needed for this essential skill (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015). While comprehensive instructional programming increased student achievement on high-stakes tests, its long-term use linked to the inclusion of project-based learning (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015).

Comprehensive instructional programming offered an innovative approach to increase student achievement, but the use of such a program must include a support structure and balance (Hurt, 2015). There was a need to guard teacher autonomy and efficacy (Sparks, 2014; Katz & Shahar, 2015). It was essential that data gathered from formative assessments aligned with the comprehensive curriculum determine future instruction (Bancroft, 2010). The inclusion of instruction that promoted collaboration and innovation was essential (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015).

This literature review provided both sustenance and nonsupport for the beliefs of the CIP process. Areas existed that may or may not directly relate to student achievement in the current study with the target school district.

This chapter described the methodology used to explore the three Research Questions presented earlier: Research question 1: What differences existed in student achievement scores in reading in grades three through eight as measured by the Virginia Standards of Learning testing program between pre-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation and post-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation in the Region Seven school district under study? Research question 2: What differences existed in student achievement scores in math in grades three through eight as measured by the Virginia Standards of Learning testing program comparing pre-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation and post-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation in the Region Seven school district under study? Research question 3: What differences existed among primary, middle, and combined schools in student achievement scores in reading and math in grades three through eight as measured by the Virginia Standards of Learning testing program comparing pre-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation and post-Comprehensive Instructional Program implementation in the Region Seven school district under study? The first section of the chapter described an overview of the research design, followed by a section that explained the population of the study and the sampling method used in the conduct of the study. Next, a section described the exact procedure used to collect data, followed by a section that explained the analytical methods used on the study findings. The final three sections described the reliability and validity of the measures used in this study, the limitations and delimitations of the study, and the assumptions and biases the researcher made in the development of this study. Comment by Author: I didn’t review Ch III until the other things are addressed

This study was a retrospective, causal-comparative quantitative study that compared the SOL test scores in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 in a single school district in Region 7 of Virginia’s public school system over the course of five academic years, beginning in the 2013-2014 academic school year and concluding in the 2017-2018 academic school year. The first two academic school years occurred before the district implemented the CIP program and the final three school years, beginning in the 2015-2016 academic school year, were post-implementation of the CIP program.

The decision to use a quantitative study rather than a qualitative study arose from the need to understand how the implementation of CIP affected the reading and math achievement scores on the annual SOL assessments required by the state of Virginia. Creswell (2014) noted that such experimental and causal-comparative designs were most appropriate using a quantitative study design. In particular, the research questions for this study asked about numerical relationships to determine the presence or absence of statistically significant relationships among various measures. Creswell (2014) noted that qualitative study designs were more appropriate for research questions that investigated the lives of individuals (narrative studies), those that asked about the life experiences of individuals experiencing a specific phenomenon (phenomenological studies), or that sought to identify key variables to create a potential theory about a situation (grounded theory), those that explored the ethnology of a connected group (ethnological studies), or that explored a specific case in extreme detail (case studies). None of those approaches addressed the research questions posed in this study.

The choice of a causal-comparative study design derived from the researcher’s access to student achievement test scores from both before and after the district implemented CIP across grades 3 through 8 and all schools in a single academic school year. In this study, the intervention was the implementation of CIP as the teaching paradigm. Schenker and Rumrill (2004) noted that causal-comparative studies generally involved two pre-existing groups in which the researcher cannot manipulate the variables of interest. The defining characteristics of the causal-comparative study were that the independent variables were categorical in nature, were not experimentally manipulatable, and generally the categorical variables were demographic variables, such as comparing men vs. women in some measure (Schenker & Rumrill, 2004). The current study met those conditions. An experimental approach involved the researcher’s ability to randomly assign individual participants to different groups, such as a control group and an intervention group. In this case, all participants experienced the same intervention and the only comparison possible was between pre-intervention and post-intervention achievement test scores. This lack of a control group and the researcher’s inability to assign participants randomly to groups with or without the CIP intervention turned the study from an experimental study to a causal-comparative one. The lack of a control group and randomized group assignments meant that causal-comparative studies have limited ability to determine causality (Schenker & Rumrill, 2004). The primary conclusion available in this type of study was that the two groups (pre-CIP intervention and post-CIP intervention) had different achievement test outcomes, but cannot conclusively prove that the CIP intervention caused those differing outcomes (Schenker & Rumrill, 2004).

The researcher considered other quantitative approaches as well as the quasi-experimental approach chosen. A descriptive study only described the characteristics of the study population without providing information that addressed the research questions of interest. A correlational study typically used a cross-sectional design in which all data collection occurred at essentially the same time. Such studies had no ability to demonstrate causality, only that a correlational relationship existed between the factors measured.

The population of this study consisted of all students in the district under study who took the reading and math SOL achievement tests for grades 3 through 8 during the school years from 2013-2014 through 2017-2018. The sample selected from this study was identical to the population, since the researcher included all student reading and math achievement test scores from this population for the five academic years noted.

The researcher extracted data for this study from a publicly available database of SOL achievement test results. This database assigned random ID numbers to students to protect their identities, thus blinding the researcher to individual students’ scores. Data extracted from this database included:

· Demographic information including race, gender, grade, economically disadvantaged, English language learner, migrant, homeless, or special needs with a disability;

· Grade level, in this case grades 3 through 8, extracted individually

· Subjects, in this case reading and math

· The school year (one of 2013-2014 through 2017-2018)

· School and district

Once collected, the researcher relocated the data into a spreadsheet and formatted the data into a format appropriate for statistical analysis.

According to Schenker and Rumrill (2004), researchers conducting causal-comparative studies most appropriately used the same or similar statistical analysis techniques as do researchers conducting experimental studies, including t-tests and analysis of variance methods. These tests required caution in causal-comparative studies when multiple independent variables were a part of the study design because multiple independent variables were not statistically independent values. In the case of this study, the independent variables included the grade level, the school, the academic year, and whether the district implemented CIP during each academic year, with the years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 not having CIP implementations in any grade level or school, and the three later academic years ending in 2017-2018 having CIP implemented at all grade level and schools.

For the current study, the researcher used t-tests to determine if the two populations of students, those measured pre-intervention and those measured post-intervention, were statistically different (Urdan, 2010). For example, t-tests determined whether 5th grade students in the 2014-2015 academic year, pre-CIP intervention, were statistically different from 5th grade students in the 2015-2016 academic year after the CIP intervention. The researcher used the t-test for 2-group comparisons in the analysis of the data collected. For three-group comparisons across multiple academic years, or across multiple schools or multiple grades, the researcher used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine statistical differences. ANOVA tests determined the spread of collections of group means and how that spread compared to expected variations if there were no true differences between the groups (Urdan, 2010). A significance, p, of 0.05 or smaller determined statistical significance of the results.

The researcher used an open-source statistical analysis software package, JASP, version 0.9.0.1, to conduct the statistical study of the data.

In a causal-comparative study, it was essential to establish external validity because internal validity of the research design was challenging to determine (Schenker & Rumrill, 2004). External validity relied on the degree to which the test sample was representative of the overall population. For this study, the test sample was identical to the overall population of students in grades 3 through 8 over the years of the study period. Thus, there was no question that the results of the analysis in this study were representative of the student population in this district over that time period.

Reliability and validity of the measures used in this study provided another means of determining the reliability of the results of the study. The measures for student achievement in this study derived from the achievement test scores from the Virginia SOL. In the context of the SOL achievement test program, reliability referred to a high correspondence between the achievement test score and the student’s proficiency in the subject tested. Thus, a highly reliable score implied test/re-test consistency.

In addition, validity was a measure of four key elements: did the test content cover items from the Virginia SOL without including extraneous content; did the test measure the knowledge expected based on how the student answered the questions; were the test questions consistent internally and across ethnic groups (a statistical measure using coefficient alpha measures); and was the test results consistent with other measures such as student grades. The most recent technical report on the Virginia SOL (VDOE, 2016) stated that the “direct relationship of the SOL curriculum framework with the SOL test blueprint and the SOL assessments lended support to the content validity of the SOL assessment” (p. 38). Further validity assessments of the test measuring desired curriculum proficiency came from the same report: “the items on the Virginia SOL assessments are measuring the content standards and not measuring other, unintended constructs or disadvantaging particular student subgroups” (VDOE, 2016, p. 40).

Reliability for the 2014-2015 SOL tests, as reported in VDOE (2016), in reading achievement registered Cronbach’s Alpha measures ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 depending on grade level. Reliability for grade six math achievement (the only reliability score reported) registered a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.93. Reading achievement reliability between gender did not have Cronbach’s Alpha measures that differed by more than 0.01. For example, grade three female test results showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.90 while males had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.91. VDOE (2016) reported a similar 0.01 difference between male and female Cronbach’s Alpha in grade six math scores. For the two largest ethnic groups, African American and White, differences in the reading Cronbach’s Alpha varied between 0.00 and 0.02 for all grade levels. No difference in Cronbach’s Alpha occurred between these two ethnic groups for grade six math scores. Based on these data, the SOL achievement tests were highly reliable measures.

Based on the reliability and validity data provided by the VDOE, the researcher concluded that the SOL achievement tests were both appropriate measures of student proficiency and reliable across genders, ethnic groups, and grade levels.

Limitations referred to possible weaknesses the researcher had no control over and thus could not remove. For the current study, a key weakness was the lack of ability to measure the changes on students as they progressed from grade level to grade level across the five academic years of the study duration. Some students moved out of the district; some students moved into the district; other students stayed in the district but moved from school to school. The researcher lacked any way to measure the number or impact of those student variations. This limitation forced an assumption that the overall impact of such student movements was negligible compared to the overall effect from the main variables. Thus, the researcher assumed that any changes in specific cohort membership from year to year had no significant effect on the overall student achievement scores for individual grades and schools. This assumption could be false if a significant number of students who were remarkably above grade level or remarkably below grade level either entered or left the population during the five-year study period. There was no way to determine if this was the case since the researcher received data blinded with respect to student identity.

The key delimitations of this study derived from the choice of limits on the district venue for this study and the limits placed on the achievement tests and grade levels included. In order to be as inclusive as possible, the researcher chose to include the six grade levels (grade three through grade eight) in primary, middle, and combined schools with state-mandated SOL reading and math achievement tests for all students. In addition, the choice of district reflected the fact that this district and only this district implemented CIP across all schools and all grade levels in a single school year, the 2015-2016 academic school year. Such a clear pre-intervention and post-intervention process provided less complex evidence to address the research questions under consideration. Finally, the choice to include reading and math as the two subjects investigated addressed two fundamental skill sets that students require for success in both their upper level grades and in life in general.

One assumption in this study was that the Virginia SOL assessments in reading and mathematics were valid and reliable measures of student achievement. The researcher assumed that schools administered these assessments in a uniform manner aligned with protocols set forth in the School Test Coordinator’s Manual.

Another assumption in this study was that insignificantly few students in the various study cohorts changed schools during the course of this study period. The researcher assumed that any changes in specific cohort membership from year to year had no significant effect on the overall student achievement scores for individual grades and schools. This assumption could be false if a significant number of students who were remarkably above grade level or remarkably below grade level either entered or left the population during the five-year study period. There was no way to determine if this was the case since the researcher received data blinded with respect to student identity.

A final assumption was that the SOL tests were approximately of equivalent difficulty each year. The VDOE asserted that SOL tests while different every year, were also statistically consistent from year to year in terms of difficulty (VDOE, 2018). Extensive statistical analysis of the SOL tests, available from VDOE (2018) provides support for this assumption, but is not conclusive proof that the tests from year to year were equivalent.

87

In this chapter, the candidate gives a summary of what he or she actually found as a result of the research, reporting the objective data—not opinions. The candidate writes Chapter IV after completion of the study. The candidate writes all sections of this chapter in past tense. The headings for Chapter IV are uniform; the candidate must address each of these headings, without changing or adding extra headings.

The candidate summarizes the actual results of the research through an organization of the data associated with the findings. The candidate may be able to accomplish this through tables and figures, particularly if the study is quantitative. The candidate should analyze and filter the data for the research questions using procedures consistent with the narrative in the Theoretical Framework. While data are presented in this section, the research questions are answered in the following.

In this section of Chapter IV, the candidate addresses each research question included in Chapter I by describing the data that apply to each question and interpreting the findings relative to that question. If the candidate includes tables, or to present relevant data for a particular research question, the candidate should position that table or figure in the section that exists for that research question. The candidate should not include conclusions in Chapter IV but merely report findings. The discussion for each research question begins with a restatement of the question (exactly as in Chapter I) in the context of a level-3 heading as the following example illustrates.

Research question 1. Restate research question 1. (Make sure the text matches the text for Research Question 1 in Chapter I.) Then report the findings for this research question by explaining, in paragraph form, the results that are specific to this research question.

Research question 2. Restate research question 2. (Make sure the text matches the text for Research Question 2 in Chapter I.) Then report the findings for this research question by explaining, in paragraph form, the results that are specific to this research question.

Repeat the process and format for each of the study’s research questions. In this chapter, the candidate can make effective use of tables and figures to present an enhanced picture of a large amount of data. Tables generally represent numerical or quantitative data, while figures are charts, graphs, or pictorial representations of data. Candidates should only use tables and figures if these tables or figures actually enhance or supplement the text. Reasons to include tables, charts, or graphs include exposing patterns or relationships; comparing or contrasting different sets of data; or presenting only the data upon which the candidate bases the conclusions in Chapter V.

The candidate must mention each respective table and figure in the text of the dissertation (see Table X), and this text reference must be on the same page as the respective table or figure. (Notation should appear before the table or figure—not after.) In the narrative that accompanies the table or figure, the candidate should only highlight key items of the table or figure—not reiterate or repeat the statistics of the tables or figures in the text. Repeating information evident in the table or figure is repetitive and distracting to the reader. Just as a picture is worth a thousand words, the table or figure should supplement the text in the same manner as a picture.

In the last section of Chapter IV, the candidate presents a concise summary of the main points of the chapter, including a discussion of the results based on the research questions. The candidate may report any inconsistencies in the results here; however, the candidate should not use specific statistics or data in this section, as this is a summation of the results. Candidates should avoid stating conclusions and generalizations from the data in this section. All conclusions belong in the first section of Chapter V.

In the fifth and final chapter, the candidate makes generalizations and recommendations and discusses implications for future research. The candidate has become the expert in the field and is ready to make generalizations (perhaps, even bold statements) which the candidate could not make in Chapter I. The candidate has new information based on the thorough theoretical and empirical research of the literature and insights the candidate has discovered during experimentation and collection of data. The headings for Chapter V are uniform; the candidate must address each of these headings without changing or adding extra headings.

The emphasis of the first section of Chapter V is not the summary of the study but rather the conclusions, the generalizations that the candidate can now make based on the review of the literature and the findings obtained within the study. The candidate should be able to make some basic statements (conclusions) that are substantiated by the research without reiterating findings from Chapter IV.

Conclusions should communicate understandings that the researcher (and others) did not know prior to obtaining and examining the findings of the study. Conclusions should be cohesive; that is, none should refute another, and the candidate must base each on data (findings) generated during the study.

Having thoroughly discussed the findings of the study in Chapter IV, the candidate should not refer to this particular study, per se, in Chapter V. This may be a difficult task for the candidate because the researcher must write the conclusions considering what the researcher has just learned but generalize those findings to other populations. Thus, while constructing the conclusions for Chapter V, the candidate must remember to make these generalizations applicable to many populations—not just to the current population. Candidates must avoid referring to their population sample, their participants, their school districts, or any specific findings from their data in Chapter V.

Chapter V is the expansion chapter—the So what? chapter. The end result is while thinking about this study, the candidate will expand to other populations the significance of this study to and for others—without repeating specific data. The BIG question: Can the candidate now substantiate the claims made in Chapter I in the Significance of the Study section? What knowledge does this study expand to general populations? The candidate should examine each section of Chapter I and ensure each has been addressed.

In this section, the researcher advises future researchers of possible problem areas and, considering limitations, presents possible future research opportunities. The researcher should answer the following questions in the Implications section:

1. What questions or situations did the candidate not address in this study due to limitations or delimitations of the research but could be foci for future studies, unencumbered by similar limitations?

2. What are the possibilities for this topic if the researcher used a larger sample size or several school districts?

3. What are the implications for this topic if studied in a different region?

4. What significance does future research in this area hold?

Implications for research (no long term studies to see if it does what it should) and practice (what do we do now) – different level headings

The results of this research may generate new questions, but the candidate should avoid making broad generalizations or suggesting new and unsupported claims not substantiated from the study. Based on new insights the candidate developed during the research, the candidate (in the Implications section) describes a new context within which other researchers could examine the topic to advance the knowledge base that surrounds the topic.

The candidate finishes the dissertation with the reference list, which contains all sources cited in the text of the dissertation. If the candidate has included appendices, these follow the references with lettered half-title pages.

In this section, candidates present findings that they did not expect or that did not answer research questions. Recommendations are specific, concrete suggestions (actionable items) for future consideration regarding the topic. While conducting this study, the candidate may conceptualize new ideas, develop different methods for dealing with the topic, create a training program for improvement, or generate new funding sources. In this section, the candidate recommends the development of these tangible actions or products to others. The candidate does not recommend future research in this section. Those suggestions are reserved for the Implications (for future research) section.

In the Recommendations section, the candidate reflects on what would improve policy or practice associated with the topic studied and how others could use the findings to effect that improvement. The candidate should present the ideas as recommendations and base each idea on the review of the literature and the candidate’s own study. The candidate limits the discussion to actions that the conclusions clearly support. Examples might include different policies, practices, and innovative strategies, even budgeting ideas, to explore or execute procedures related to the topic. Candidates’ recommendations should not be a list of possible research topics to expand their current topic.

Akiba, M., & Liang, G. (2016). Effects of teacher professional learning activities on student achievement growth. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 99110. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.924470

Appel, M., & Kronberger, N. (2012). Stereotypes and the achievement gap: Stereotype threat prior to test taking. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 609-635. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9200-4

Bakosh, L., Snow, R., Tobias, J., Houlihan, J., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2015). Maximizing mindful learning: Mindful awareness intervention improves elementary school students’ quarterly grades. Mindfulness, 7(1), 59-67. doi: 10.1007/s12671-015-0387-6

Bautista, A., & Wong, J. (2017). Music teachers' perceptions of the features of most and least helpful professional development. Arts Education Policy Review, 3(2), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/10632913.2017.1328379

Benjamin, A. S., & Pashler, H. (2015). The value of standardized testing a perspective from cognitive psychology. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 13-23. doi:10.1177/2372732215601116

Bevel, K. R., & Mitchell, M.R. (2012). The effects of academic optimism on elementary reading achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(6), 773-787. doi:10.1108/09578231211264685 Comment by Author: Must have one space between initials; correct throughout

Bowman-Perrott, L., & Lewis, C. (2008). An examination of reading and discipline data for elementary and secondary African American students: Implications for special education. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 73-98. doi: 10.2202/2161-2412.1036

Burns, M., Walick, C., Simonson, G., Dominguez, L., Harelstad, L., Kincaid, A., & Nelson, G. (2015). Using a conceptual understanding and procedural fluency heuristic to target math interventions with students in early elementary. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(2), 52-60. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12056

Carr, M., Taasoobshirazi, G., Stroud, R., & Royer, J. (2011). Combined fluency and cognitive strategies instruction improves mathematics achievement in early elementary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 323-333. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.04.002

Clark, S., Helfrich, S., & Hatch, L. (2017). Examining preservice teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge needed to teach reading in elementary school. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(3), 219-232. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12057

Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243-251. doi:10.3102/0013189X16651080

Comprehensive Instructional Program (CIP). (2016). Comprehensive Instructional Program benchmark assessment analysis. CIP.education. Retrieved from http://cip.education/Portals/5/Resources/CIP%202015-2016%20Benchmark-SOL%20Correlations.pdf

Comprehensive Instructional Program (CIP). (2018). Comprehensive instructional program. CIP.education. http://cip.education/

Comprehensive Instructional Program Materials (CIP Materials). (2018). TeacherTube channel. https://www.teachertube.com Comment by Author: I made the changes to here but you need to go through your references and change all places where you have 2 spaces to 1.

Conley, S., Smith, J. L., Collinson, V., & Palazuelos, A. (2016). A small step into the complexity of teacher evaluation as professional development. Professional Development in Education, 42(1), 168-170. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.923926

Croft, S. J., Roberts, M. A., & Stenhouse, V. L. (2015). The perfect storm of education reform: High-stakes testing and teacher evaluation. Social Justice, 42(1), 70-92. Retrieved from www.jsor.org/stable/24871313

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Crosnoe, R., Morrison, F., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Keating, D., Friedman, S., & Clarke-Stewart, K. (2010). Instruction, teacher–student relations, and math achievement trajectories in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 407-417. doi:10.1037/a0017762

DeMatthews, D. (2015). Making sense of social justice leadership: A case study of a principal’s experiences to create a more inclusive school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(2), 139-166. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2014.997939

Desimone, L., Smith, T. M., & Phillips, K. J. (2007). Does policy influence mathematics and science teachers' participation in professional development? Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1086-1122. Retrieved from eric.ed.gov/?redir=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tcrecord.org%2fContent.asp%3fContentId%3d12896

Ehm, J., Lindberg, S., & Hasselhorn, M. (2013). Reading, writing, and math self-concept in elementary school children: influence of dimensional comparison processes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(2), 277-294. doi:10.1007/s10212-013-0198-x

Emory, R., Caughy, M., Harris, T., & Franzini, L. (2008). Neighborhood social processes and academic achievement in elementary school. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(7), 885-898. doi:10.1002/jcop.20266

Eros, J. (2013). Second-stage music teachers’ perceptions of their professional development. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 22(2), 20-33. doi: 10.1177/1057083712548771

Faust, M., & Kandelshine-Waldman, O. (2011). The effects of different approaches to reading instruction on letter detection tasks in normally achieving and low achieving readers. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 545-566. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9219-1

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy framework: improving achievement in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 32-43. doi:10.1598/RT.61.1.4

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2018). Raise reading volume through access, choice, discussion, and book talks. The Reading Teacher, 72(1), 89-97. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1691

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. doi:10.3102/000283120038004915

Glover, T. A., Reddy, L. A., Kettler, R. J., Kurz, A., & Lekwa, A. J. (2016). Improving high-stakes decisions via formative assessment, professional development, and comprehensive educator evaluation: The school system improvement project. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1-26.

Gottfried, M., & Graves, J. (2014). Peer effects and policy: The relationship between classroom gender composition and student achievement in early elementary school. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 14(3), 937-977. doi:10.1515/bejeap-2013-0123

Grissom, J. A., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Harrington, J. R. (2014). Estimating the effects of No Child Left Behind on teachers’ work environments and job attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 417-436. doi: 10.3102/0162373714533817

Harlaar, N., Deater‐Deckard, K., Thompson, L., DeThorne, L., & Petrill, S. (2011). Associations between reading achievement and independent reading in early elementary school: A genetically informative cross‐lagged study. Child Development, 82(6), 2123-2137. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624-2011.01658.x

Heatly, M., Bachman, H., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2015). Developmental patterns in the associations between instructional practices and children's math trajectories in elementary school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 41, 46-59. doi:10/1016/.appdev.2015.06.002

Herbers, J., Cutuli, J., Supkoff, L., Heistad, D., Chan, C., Hinz, E., & Masten, A. (2012). Early reading skills and academic achievement trajectories of students facing poverty, homelessness, and high residential mobility. Educational Researcher, 41(9), 366-374. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12445320

Hirvonen, R., Tolvanen, A., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2012). The developmental dynamics of task-avoidant behavior and math performance in kindergarten and elementary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 715-723. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.014

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425-446. doi:10.3102/00028312043003425

Hurt, M. (2015). Comprehensive school improvement: An argument against traditional educational reform. CIP.education. Retrieved from http://cip.education/Portals/5/Resources/Comprehensive%20School%20Improvement.pdf

Hurt, M. (2017). Showcases for success. VSBA Special Edition Newsletter. http://www.vsba.org/images/uploads/2017ShowcasesforSuccess_WebVersion.pdf

Illeris, K. (2015). The development of a comprehensive and coherent theory of learning. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 29-40. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12103

Ing, M., Webb, N., Franke, M., Turrou, A., Wong, J., Shin, N., & Fernandez, C. (2015). Student participation in elementary mathematics classrooms: the missing link between teacher practices and student achievement?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90(3), 341-356. doi:10.1007/s10649-015-9625-z

Jacobs, J., Burns, R. W., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2015). The inequitable influence that varying accountability contexts in the United States have on teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 41(5), 849-872. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.994657

Jansen, B., Louwerse, J., Straatemeier, M., Van der Ven, S., Klinkenberg, S., & Van der Maas, H. (2013). The influence of experiencing success in math on math anxiety, perceived math competence, and math performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 190-197. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.014

Jurecska, D., Chang, K., Peterson, M., Lee-Zorn, C., Merrick, J., & Sequeira, E. (2012). The poverty puzzle: the surprising difference between wealthy and poor students for self-efficacy and academic achievement. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(4), 355-362. doi: 10.1515/IJAMH.2012.052

Katz, I., & Shahar, B. (2015). What makes a motivating teacher? Teachers’ motivation and beliefs as predicators of their autonomy-supportive style. School Psychology International, 36(6), 575-588.

Kirnan, J., Siminerio, S., & Wong, Z. (2015). The impact of a therapy dog program on children’s reading skills and attitudes toward reading. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(6), 637-651. doi: 10.1007/s10643-015-0747-9

Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109-1121. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014

L'Allier, S., Elish‐Piper, L., & Bean, R. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching? Guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 544-554. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.7.2

Ladd, H. (2012). Education and Poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(2), 203-227. doi: 10.1002/pam.21615

LeSage, A. (2012). Adapting math instruction to support prospective elementary teachers. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 9(1), 16-32. doi: 10.1108/17415651211228077

Lee, D., Dang, T., Ulibas-Pascual, J., Gordon Biddle, K., Heller de Leon, B., Elliott, D., & Gorter, J. (2017). Exploring the influence of efficacy beliefs and homework help in predicting reading achievement among underserved children in an afterschool program. The Urban Review, 49(5), 707-728. doi: 10.1007/s11256-017-0418-9

Lee, J., & Reeves, T. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources: State NAEP 1990–2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209-231. doi: 10.3102/0162373711431604

Madden, L., Beyers, J. & O’Brien, S. (2016). The importance of STEM education in the elementary grades: Learning from pre-service and novice teachers’ perspectives. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(5), http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/viewFile/15871/10324

Lincoln Memorial University Dissertation Guidelines

General Dissertation Policies and Guidelines

These dissertation guidelines have been prepared by Lincoln Memorial University to assist graduate researchers and their committee members in the preparation of the dissertation, which is the capstone experience in which a doctoral researcher proposes, carries out, writes about, and defends orally a research project, demonstrating competence in research. The LMU guidelines presented here provide uniform standards regarding style and format for the writing of the dissertation and are intended to give both doctoral researchers and faculty members of Lincoln Memorial University a set of procedures and expectations that will make the dissertation process easier, more predictable, and more successful. These guidelines should also be interpreted as the minimum requirements of the Doctor of Education Program of the Carter and Moyers School of Education at Lincoln Memorial University. Other requirements by the University are, hereby, incorporated as long as they are no less demanding than the guidelines set forth in this document.

Purposes of the Dissertation

Lincoln Memorial University requires a dissertation or record of study from all doctoral candidates. Writing a dissertation is an opportunity for the researcher to satisfy developing curiosity about an important and current research question and to demonstrate to the dissertation committee and other interested individuals the researcher’s ability to function independently as a researcher.

The dissertation should be presented in a scholarly, well-integrated, properly documented manner, which records the original work done by the researcher under the supervision of the dissertation committee. The finished work must reflect a comprehensive understanding of the pertinent and current literature and must express in clear and legible English the method, significance, and results of the researcher's research. Full documentation and appropriate tabular and graphic presentations are especially important. The length may vary according to research topic and method chosen.

Quality Assurance

The dissertation Chairperson has the primary responsibility for dissertation quality, including the assurance of academic integrity. A candidate whose written work falls below the bar of doctoral level quality and published standards will be advised to seek the assistance of an editor or other support measures. Dissertation Chair or committee members will not serve as dissertation editors.

Writing Guidelines

The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 6th ed. (2010) (referred to as APA Guide hereafter in this document) governs the format of research documents in the doctoral program. In addition to following APA format, all dissertations should be written in scholarly language and style and should be devoid of grammatical errors. Editing and proofreading are crucial in the completion of research projects and are the responsibility of the researcher. Thus, students should run multiple spelling and grammar checks on the dissertation document and consult the APA Guide concerning questions of clear and concise writing, reduction of bias, ethics, and plagiarism.

The purpose of this explanation is to help the candidate decide what information to include in the appendices. Candidates should include in the appendices any information that is pertinent to the study but does not fit easily into the text. Letters or correspondence, survey or interview instruments, pre- and post-tests, and figures or tables are examples of information suited for the appendices. These items do not need an extra heading or title, as the title appears on the half-title page; however, some items have their own heading, such as letterheads or special certificates. In those instances, candidates should leave these headings intact, in addition to the title on the half-title page.

If the study requires more than one appendix, the candidate should label these as Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C. Order the appendices in the sequence in which they appear in the text of the dissertation. In other words, candidates should not discuss Appendix D in the body of the dissertation before discussing Appendix A. If this is a problem for text discussion, the candidate should reorder the appendices or rewrite the text of the dissertation

Candidates do not need to list any tables or figures in the List of Tables or List of Figures if those tables or figures occur in the appendices. Candidates should label tables or figures in appendices with the respective appendix letter (A1 or B1).