Educational Psychology Third Edition Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary ...

Recommendations

Info

This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License on average, high growth. Schools D, C, and F all have low levels of proficiency but only in school D do students, on average, have low growth. Growth models have intuitive appeal to teachers as they focus on how much a student learned during the school year—not what the student knew at the start of the school year. The current research evidence suggests that teachers matter a lot—i.e. students learn much more with some teachers than others. For example, in one study low-achieving fourth grade students in Dallas, Texas were followed for three years and 90 per cent of those who had effective teachers passed the seventh grade math test whereas only 42 per cent of those with ineffective teachers passed (cited in Bracey, 2004). Unfortunately, the same study reported that low achieving students were more likely to be assigned to ineffective teachers for three years in a row than high achieving students. Some policy makers believe that teachers who are highly effective should receive rewards including higher salaries or bonuses and that a primary criterion of effectiveness is assessed by growth models, i.e. how much students learn during a year (Hershberg, 2004). However, using growth data to make decisions about teachers is controversial as there is much more statistical uncertainty when using growth measures for a small group or students (e.g. one teacher’s students) than larger groups (e.g. all fourth graders in a school district). Growth models are also used to provide information about the patterns of growth among subgroups of students that may arise from the instructional focus of the teachers. For example, it may be that highest performing students in the classroom gain the most and the lowest performing students gain the least. This suggests that the teacher is focusing on the high achieving students and giving less attention to low achieving students. In contrast, it may be the highest performing students gain the least and the low performing students grow the most suggesting the teacher focuses on the low performing students and paying little attention to the high performing students. If the teacher focuses on the students “in the middle” they may grow the most and the highest and lowest performing students grow the least. Proponents of the value-added or growth models argue that teachers can use this information to help them make informed decisions about their teaching (Hershberg, 2004). Differing state standards Under NCLB each state devises their own academic content standards, assessments, and levels of proficiency. Some researchers have suggested that the rules of NCLB have encouraged states to set low levels of proficiency so it is easier to meet AYP each year (Hoff, 2002). Stringency of state levels of proficiency can be examined by comparing state test scores to scores on a national achievement test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NCLB requires that states administer reading and math NAEP tests to a sample of fourth and eighth grade students every other year. The NAEP is designed to assess the progress of students at the state-wide or national level not individual schools or students and is widely respected as a well designed test that uses current best practices in testing. A large percentage of each test includes constructed-response questions and questions that require the use of calculators and other materials (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard). Exhibit 15 illustrates that two states, Colorado and Missouri had very different state performance standards for the fourth grade reading/language arts tests in 2003. On the state assessment 67 per cent of the students in Colorado but only 21 per cent of the students in Missouri were classified as proficient. However, on the NAEP tests 34 per cent of Colorado students and 28 per cent of Missouri students were classified as proficient (Linn 2005). These differences demonstrate that there is no common meaning in current definitions of “proficient achievement” established by the states. Style Guidelines 280 A Global Text
12. Standardized and other formal assessments Exhibit 15: Relationship between state proficiency levels and scores on NAEP (Adapted from Linn 2005) Implications for beginning teachers: Dr Mucci is the principal of a suburban fourth through sixth grade school in Ohio that continues to meet AYP. We asked her what beginning teachers should know about high stakes testing by the states. "I want beginning teachers to be familiar with the content standards in Ohio because they clearly define what all students should know and be able to do. Not only does teaching revolve around the standards, I only approve requests for materials or professional development if these are related to the standards. I want beginning teachers to understand the concept of data-based decision making. Every year I meet with all the teachers in each grade level (e.g. fourth grade) to look for trends in the previous year's test results and consider remedies based on these trends. I also meet with each teacher in the content areas that are tested and discuss every student's achievement in his or her class so we can develop an instructional plan for every student. All interventions with students are research based. Every teacher in the school is responsible for helping to implement these instructional plans, for example the music or art teachers must incorporate some reading and math into their classes. I also ask all teachers to teach test taking skills, by using similar formats to the state tests, enforcing time limits, making sure students learn to distinguish between questions that required an extended response using complete sentences versus those that only requires one or two words, and ensuring that students answer what is actually being asked. We begin this early in the school year and continue to work on these skills, so by spring, students are familiar with the format, and therefore less anxious about the state test. We do everything possible to set each student up for success." The impact of testing on classroom teachers does not just occur in Dr Mucci’s middle school. A national survey of over 4,000 teachers indicated that the majority of teachers reported that the state mandated tests were compatible with their daily instruction and were based on curriculum frameworks that all teachers should follow. The majority of teachers also reported teaching test taking skills and encouraging students to work hard and 281
Page 1 and 2:
Educational Psychology
Page 3 and 4:
This book is licensed under a Creat
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Preface Contents of the book Chapte
Page 11 and 12:
1. The changing teaching profession
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
3. Student development explicit, bu
Page 41 and 42:
3. Student development 10 135 31.0
Page 43 and 44:
3. Student development general—ab
Page 45 and 46:
3. Student development several simp
Page 47 and 48:
3. Student development The formal o
Page 49 and 50:
3. Student development Almost as so
Page 51 and 52:
3. Student development is important
Page 53 and 54:
3. Student development sometimes be
Page 55 and 56:
3. Student development believe, for
Page 57 and 58:
3. Student development morally desi
Page 59 and 60:
3. Student development rewarding ob
Page 61 and 62:
3. Student development Formal opera
Page 63 and 64:
3. Student development Petlichkoff,
Page 65 and 66:
4. Student diversity Individual sty
Page 67 and 68:
4. Student diversity completed in m
Page 69 and 70:
4. Student diversity Without accomm
Page 71 and 72:
4. Student diversity Social differe
Page 73 and 74:
4. Student diversity Gender differe
Page 75 and 76:
4. Student diversity are not that s
Page 77 and 78:
4. Student diversity year of school
Page 79 and 80:
4. Student diversity advantage: by
Page 81 and 82:
4. Student diversity Francis, N. (2
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
6. Student motivation As Barbara Fu
Page 109 and 110:
6. Student motivation by being remo
Page 111 and 112:
6. Student motivation teachers. Lin
Page 113 and 114:
6. Student motivation Suppose, for
Page 115 and 116:
6. Student motivation distractabili
Page 117 and 118:
6. Student motivation are important
Page 119 and 120:
6. Student motivation The result of
Page 121 and 122:
6. Student motivation differently f
Page 123 and 124:
6. Student motivation meet their ba
Page 125 and 126:
6. Student motivation teachers woul
Page 127 and 128:
6. Student motivation assign it a
Page 129 and 130:
6. Student motivation activities (f
Page 131 and 132:
6. Student motivation Deci, E., Koe
Page 133 and 134:
6. Student motivation Wigfield, A.,
Page 135 and 136:
7. Classroom management and the lea
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
8. The nature of classroom communic
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Synthesis: putting parts of informa
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Independent practice This book is l
Page 229 and 230: Further resources This book is lice
Page 231 and 232: This book is licensed under a Creat
Page 241 and 242: Cultural and individual differences
Page 251 and 252: Partially Proficient Score 1 Not Pr
Page 255 and 256: 1 Group was off-task This book is l
Page 269 and 270: 12. Standardized and other formal a
Page 279: 12. Standardized and other formal a
Page 315 and 316: Questions References This book is l
Page 323 and 324: References This book is licensed un
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
References This book is licensed un
Page 341 and 342:
Appendix C: The reflective practiti
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
show all

Educational Psychology Third Edition Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?