THE EFFECTS OF AN AFTER-SCHOOL ACADEMIC INTERVENTION PROGRAM ON ENGLISH LAUNGUAGE ARTS TEST SCORES FOR EIGHT GRADE AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES
Chapter Two
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University/Sarasota
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
By
Andre Lescot Williams
Argosy University/Sarasota
January 2004
Dissertation Committee Approval:
Larry Gay Reagan, Ed. D Chair date
Stan Imulse Ed.D, Member date
Background
Over the last decade or so, New York State
Over [LGR7] the last fifty years, American society has experienced dramatic changes in the family structure. Two parents working outside the home has become the standard rather than the exception, and as a result of this change in the American family structure children are often left unsupervised for many hours after school, resulting in little or no adult supervision (Baker & Witt, 1996). Many of these students utilize this time to become engaged in negative activities such as drugs and alcohol abuse, gang-related activities, unprotected sex, and delinquent behaviors (Carnegie Corporation of New York,1992). According to the report, many after school programs have traditionally been an encouraging influence on the lives of youths in America
The above results are due to the fact that the after school time is a time of great concern for parents, teachers and students alike. According to a 1999 report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the greatest number of violent crimes committed by juveniles ages 10 to 17 are committed after 3:00 p.m..(OJJDP, 1999).[mb8] On the other side of the spectrum, after school programs have previously been extremely positive on children who attend them (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1992).[mb9] In fact, some research clearly shows that after school programs are great intervention measures necessary to combat the violent tendencies [LGR10] of today's youth (With & Crompton, 1997).[mb11] It is common sense: if children are occupied doing positive activities, they have less time to engage in negative ones. In addition, they have time to connect in learning activities, which ultimately strengthens their academic and social development [LGR12] (O'Brian & Rollefsone).[mb13]
The American educational system is at a critical point in time in the educational process; no child can be left behind. With numerous state and federal mandated directives, educators are being held accountable for the success of the students they must educate. Instructional programs are becoming more and more centralized and more and more subjects are added to the instructional day, leaving less time availability for the core reading and mathematics instructions. Adding time to the instructional day is one of the many methods various schools and school districts have used to curb the dwindling time in the school day. After school programs are important avenues for raising state standards. The focus on raising standards reflects a national trend, for which New York State
All key educational and political groups have shown support for the educational requirements adopted by the New York State Department of Education and upheld by the State Board of Regents. This is due to the fact that there is a performance gap between current levels of achievement and what is required under the new standards. (New York State Education Department, 2000)[mb14] . This gap is evident in almost every school district, and it is even more severe in urban and poorer school districts. With the implementation of standards, academic failure becomes visible. The need to ensure that the children in all schools have the support necessary to help them meet the new standards is then heightened.
In July 1999, the New York State Board of Regents adopted regulations to align policies relating to standards, assessment, and the requirements for graduation. The department required school districts to provide academic intervention services to students who are scoring below the state designated performance level on state assessments. They also insisted that students who are deemed at risk of not achieving the state learning standards receive academic intervention services provided to them. Additionally, school districts are required to adopt a written procedure for identifying students in grades K to Twelve where state assessments do not exist. In response to this mandate, schools such as Middle School 232 in the South Bronx section of New York City
Eighth Grade English Language Arts Curriculum, Standards and Assessment
Many students in New York State New York State
The New York State Department of Education has recognized that students in the state are diverse in their learning styles. A number of students in the state have learning disabilities, are educationally disadvantaged, and/or have limited English proficiency, as well as other educational deficits. The standards, however, apply to all students regardless of their experiential background, capabilities, developmental and learning differences, interests, or ambitions. A New York State Middle School
The principles of assessment for English language arts rest on the belief that the ultimate purpose of assessment is to improve instruction in the classroom where all children can learn. Assessment is curriculum inquiry—the process of examining the learning that is taking place in a classroom and a school. Children in all New York State schools are expected to write, listen and speak at set acceptable levels by the time they reach the middle school terminal grade eighth (NYSED 94) and they are assessed to ensure that schools and school districts are in compliance with the set standard.
Assessment calls for a better match between schools and student achievement; it calls for curricula that is challenging and compelling, with clearly defined goals and high academic standards. The purpose of assessment in the middle grade is to develop a coherent vision for the middle school curriculum. It assists schools and school districts in shaping and implementing their local philosophy and creates a vision for curriculum, instruction, and assessment in English language arts (New York State Education Department, 2000).[mb17] Assessments also prepare students for a rapidly changing world. As children become adults, their success will depend in large measure on their ability to read and write proficiently, and use language in critical and complex ways.
As [LGR18] an educational leader in a middle school, I know how essential writing is to engagement in learning. It is expected that as an educational leader my communication with staff and community be error free. A grammar mistake can end up in the local daily newspaper or even the New York Times. Without an appropriate command of the English Language, the death of your career is inevitable. Whether we like it or not, people judge our intelligence levels according to how well we read, write and talk. The [LGR19] above belief is demonstrated by Theodore Sizers' reminder in Horace's Compromise that writing and talk are essential to engagement in learning. Likewise, The New York State Department of Education goals call for the skillful use of language in diverse contexts (New York State Education Department, 2000). The case for English language arts in the school curriculum and society as a whole is confirmed.
The English Language arts curriculum for the grade eight expects children to articulate well, understand reading and writing concepts, and know what the English language arts standards are for eighth graders. They are judged on key concepts and competencies related to established standards. The eighth-grade exam determines a lot. It determines if an 8th grader goes on to an exceptional or mediocre high school. The data from the exam also determines if a school stays open as a school or if it must close its doors. The exam is high stakes. More importantly, the exam is used to determine the knowledge, skills, and understandings that eighth graders have acquired habitually and demonstrate over time as a consequence of instructional experiences (NYSED 94).
In the final analysis, English language arts education is about the study and use of language and literature. Language is more than a school subject, more than a form of grammar and rules. Success in school and in life is determined in large part by competence in language. A significant means for developing students' abilities to use their minds well, language is central to learning for all students and in all disciplines. Thinking creatively, making informed and reasoned judgments, producing and inventing, critiquing and analyzing are all facilitated through the use of language. In fact, "Skillful use of language may be the single most important means of realizing the overarching goal of education to develop informed, thinking citizens" (National Council of Teachers of English, 1989). [mb20]
The assumption about language is consistent with views in the professional literature and those currently guiding the national and international efforts to develop goals and standards. These efforts are guided by a vision of the communicative arts in which the nature of language and learning informs the teaching of reading, writing, listening, and speaking in the classroom. In the final analysis, the English language arts curriculum determines more than a passing grade; it can determine how successful a child becomes in life. English language arts standards represent a clearer focus on what learners should learn and what the learning should look like in practice.(Source?)
At Risk Students
At risk students demonstrate persistent patterns of under achievement and of social maladjustment in school (McMillian & Reed 1994)[mb21] . Many educators see at risk as a disease; in fact the term at-risk is derived from medical terminology (Placier, 1996).[mb22] It came from the vocabulary of epidemiologists, who make associations between the incidence of a condition and characteristics of those afflicted by it. At risk seems to identify groups of children who are facing academic, social, or personal problems so severe or traumatic that their futures are in jeopardy. At risk students are usually low academic achievers who exhibit correspondingly low self-esteem (Ralph, 1989).[mb23] It is estimated that within a school system, the at risk student only receives seven out of ten months of instruction. By the end of high school, a typical at risk student is four years behind in academic achievement (Rumberger, 1983).[mb24]
In America Clark (1998)[mb26] found that individuals who are educationally at risk come primarily from socially, racially, and economically disadvantage groups, victims of the broader social, racial, and educational discrimination. These individuals are usually low academic achievers who exhibit correspondingly low self-esteem (Ralph, 1998). At risk students are broadly concentrated among minority groups, single parent households, and the educationally disadvantage (Levin, 1989; Weaver & Sutherland, 1993).
In a study that analyzed at risk students who considered dropping out of school but persisted, students were asked to identify the reason why they considered dropping out of school. They mentioned alcohol problems, drug abuse, legal issues, pregnancy, and lack of friends as factors that contributed to their consideration to drop out of school (Wehlage & Rutter 1986).[mb27] The study also found that interaction both inside and outside the classroom with a school official or students in the school helped to persuade them to stay in school. In fact, 28% cited a teacher, 10% a coach, 15% a counselor, and 10% the principal as playing a significant role in their decision to stay in school (Downing, LoVette & Emerson, 1994).
[mb28] Children from disruptive and disorganized environments with little authority figures or guidance are also at risk for academic failure. These children are likely to clash with the school routine and are likely to challenge school authority, resulting in suspension and discipline measures that keep them out of school. As a result, they often fall behind in class work, become dropouts and can become a social burden to society. Most of the students who fall into the at risk category are African-American males (Fordham and Ogbu, 1986; Morris & Jackson, 1986).[mb29] Failure to address the above concerns is a great danger to our culture and society.
Current trends in the academic performance of African-American adolescents are an area of concern among educators. Recent studies suggest that African-American adolescents are at heightened risk for remedial instruction, school suspension, course failure, and school drop-out (Ford & Harris, 1996; Lisella & Serwatka, 1996; Oakes, 1985; Shaw & Braden, 1990).[mb30] Factors identified as contributing to limited academic performance among these youths include academic tracking, limited teacher support, cultural mistrust, and misidentification with the academic culture of school (Finn, 1989; Oakes, 1985; Steele, 1992; Terrell, Terrell, & Miller, 1993).[mb31] Lacking in the assessment of school achievement among African-American adolescents is an understanding of how these youths cognitively envision themselves in the future and how appraisals of their personal future may shape academic performance.
Historically, data has shown that African-American students have displayed lower levels of academic achievement than those of other students (Garibaldi, 1988; Mannan; Charleston and Saghafi, 1986; Levine and Eubanks, 1986; Ford, 1993). [mb32] The discrepancies are even greater for African-American males (Garibaldi, 1988). The discrepancies in academic achievement found between African-American males have been attributed to various factors, including differences in the academic resources available to African-American children in the school systems they attend, differences in cultural norms and differences in expectations (Hernstein & Murray, 1994; Steinberg; Dornbush & Brown, 1992; Morris & Jackson, 1996). [mb33]
Low levels of achievement attained by African-American males may be the result of differences in the perceived value of academic achievement for African-American males (Fordham and Ogbu, 1986; Morris & Jackson, 1986).[mb34] African-American males do not see the connection between education and success in their community[LGR35] . A basketball player or rapper is often associated with success for African-American males. Even college educated African-American males that are displayed in popular culture are basketball players or football players. In a study comparing the experiences of African-American and white students during their transition to junior high school, researchers found that African-American males liked school less as they got older, their grades dropped, they were more likely to experience behavior problems, and their parents were less likely to approve of their friends (Simmons et al., 1991). The students themselves experienced increased stress concerning their academic future.
Research on the psychosocial adjustment and academic achievement of African-American adolescents offers strong support for the usefulness of an ecological approach. Economic conditions, the nature of the neighborhood, family and extended family relationships, and the school environment all influence a child's academic motivation and achievement. For example, the stresses of poverty have a variety of effects on African-American families (McLloyd,1990), impacting parental warmth, psychological availability, and control, all of which influence the well-being and academic achievement of children (Jenkins, 1989). Poverty also has a direct impact on the health and nutrition of adolescents, affecting school attendance, energy level, and concentration (National Commission on Children, 1993)
Peer groups are also influential. Several studies have suggested that, in contrast to other minorities, African-Americans are less likely to receive support from other African-Americans for academic excellence [LGR36] (Steinberg et al., 1992). Some have suggested that, for the African-American population, home and school cultures are incompatible. The communal values of African-Americans and the individualistic values of the school (with its emphasis on competition and individual achievement) may be in conflict (Fordham, 1988). Is this still true today? You need a later source that supports this statement.
The family is an important factor in academic development and achievement [LGR37] serving as a basis for children's success and their first teacher. The above statement applies for all children. The family matters when it comes to educational values. Many African-American parents place great emphasis on educational attainment, hard work, and good moral values. Peters (1985) noted that African-American parents named a good education as the primary strategy their children could employ to succeed in a racist society. In fact, in a study conducted by Clark (1983), African-American high school seniors who were high achievers were found to be from homes where parents were warm and nurturing, set clear limits on behavior, strongly encouraged academic achievement, and carefully monitored their children's activities inside and outside the home. The parents exhibited optimism and faith in their children's ability to do well. They frequently communicated with the school, their children's older siblings, and members of the community about academic preparation and progress. In contrast, the parents of low-achieving seniors were overwhelmed by stress, felt they had little control, and exhibited signs of depression. There was also a spirit of defeat in their homes. Family influence on school achievement becomes weaker during middle school and high school as compared with the elementary school years (Slaughter & Epps, 1987). Parents remain most influential regarding children's long-term educational plans; however, as a child becomes older and more individualistic, peers have more influence on their day-to-day behaviors. Research also showed that students who receive both parental and peer academic support are more likely to have academic success (Steinberg et al., 1992).
African-American students may have difficulty in finding peers who encourage the pursuit of academics. Steinberg et al. (1992) found that many high-performing African-American students avoided contact with other African-Americans and chose instead to spend time with those from other ethnic groups. They apparently experienced a conflict between wanting to be popular with their same-ethnicity peers and the desire to perform well in school.
Fordham (1988) found that African-American students who are committed to school success devise unique strategies to cope with negative peer pressure. One of these is the "race less persona"; some students minimize contact with other African-Americans and for the most part adopt so-called "white" values. Kunjufu (1988) found that some high-achieving African-Americans become class clowns in order to conceal their academic abilities. Clark (1991) identified other students who live dual lives—adopting the norms and values of the white majority culture to achieve success in school, but embracing African-American cultural norms outside of school in order to attain social acceptance. Kennedy (1995) found different patterns of peer popularity for African-American males and females; females' popularity correlated with academic success, while males' popularity correlated with athletic success. In contrast to the research of Fordham and Ogbu (1986), Kennedy found a small but positive correlation between grades and popularity among African-American students.
Dornbusch [LGR38] et al. (1991) found that community traits have impacted families and children. Unfortunately, most African-Americans families live in communities with many social ills. In a 1996 study of the effect of community structure on the behavior of adolescents, the likelihood of conduct problems was found to be higher in under resourced neighborhoods (Simons et al., 1996). In these neighborhoods, parents had little control over their environment and adolescents showed increased involvement with troublesome, deviant peers. Further, the psychological well being of male adolescents was lower in more under-resourced communities.
Delinquent behavior by African-American male adolescents is of special concern to society due to their overrepresentation in juvenile detention centers and adult prisons, morbidity and mortality statistics, and reports of academic underachievement (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2000; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000; National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS], 2000; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999).[mb39] In 1997, African-American adolescents represented about 15% of the total U.S.
After-school Academic Intervention
Increasingly, students with academic skill and strategy deficits are choosing to attend school (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992; Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992). Unfortunately, many of these students experience difficulty due to an enormous gap between the academic and social skills they possess and the academic and social demands of the academic environment (Bigaj, Shaw, Cullen, McGuire, & Yost, 1995; Dunn, 1995; Mellard & Hazel, 1992; White, 1992). One-to-one after-school academic intervention is the support service most often provided to these students. However, the effectiveness of after-school academic intervention is controversial. Some see after-school academic intervention as supportive of student learning. Others see after-school academic intervention as ineffective, inefficient, and even harmful. Still others report that after-school academic intervention works under certain conditions but not under other conditions or with specific populations of students.
The consequences of the gap between the expectations placed on students and the skill and knowledge levels possessed by most at-risk students are not encouraging. These students are more likely to fail their courses, and they graduate at lower rates than other students (Bursuck, Rose, Cowen, & Yahaya, 1989; Vogel & Adelman, 1992). As a result, they tend to have lower wage-earning potential and subsequently lower overall quality-of-life experiences (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Murry, Goldstein, & Edger, 1997; Patton & Polloway, 1992). Thus, while the door to academe is open for increasing numbers of under-prepared students, many of these students leave academe without the benefits associated with a degree and the skills necessary for future success.
In the search to meet the needs of under-prepared students, one-to-one after-school academic intervention has become the service most often provided (Bigaj et al., 1995; House & Wohlt, 1990; Keim, McWhirter, & Bernstein, 1996; Mohr, 1991; Vogel, Hruby, & Adelman, 1993). Whether or not after-school academic intervention is an accepted intervention remains somewhat controversial. On the one hand, it has been recognized by some (Graesser, Bowers, & Hacker, 1997; Lepper, Drake, & O'Donnell-Johnson, 1997; Merrill, Reiser, Merrill, & Landes, 1995) as an extremely effective instructional model. It has even been referred to as the "gold standard" for effective instruction (Lepper et al. 1997). Conversely, it has been described as ineffective at best (Maxwell, 1990) and unethical (Carlson, 1985) and harmful at worst (Ceprano, 1995). Between these two extremes are researchers who find after-school academic intervention to be of mixed efficacy; that is, they report that after-school academic intervention works sometimes under certain conditions (Graesser et al.; House & Wohlt) but that it does not work under other conditions or with specific populations of students (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Fuchs, Fuchs, Bentz, Phillips, & Hamlett, 1994).
For a variety of complex individual, instructional, and societal reasons, some children and adolescents experience difficulty attaining the academic and social competencies required for successful participation in school and society. As a result, they face the possibility of being undereducated, underemployed, and under prepared to participate successfully in the 21st century (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Mack & Wiltrout, 1998; Murry, Goldstein, & Edgar, 1997; Sitlington & Frank, 1990). Sizer (1996) feared that society's failure to address the needs of these children dooms many of them to join the ranks of teenagers "who mindlessly wander around the malls and live shamelessly off other people" (p. 146).
In response to this serious challenge, parents, educators, and policymakers are searching for ways to increase the academic and social competence of students. Increasingly, these groups and the popular press are advocating after-school academic intervention programs in which skilled teachers, paraeducators[LGR42] , or other adults provide one-to-one support as one way to reduce the gap between what students are expected to know and to be able to do in the 21st century and what they actually know and are able to do (Adler, 1998; Farr, 1998; Kaufmann & Adema, 1998; Pressley & McCormick, 1995; Tollefson, 1997).
Nevertheless, assuming that all after-school programs will result in the development of skilled and independent learners may be overly optimistic. Indeed, some forms of after-school academic intervention may be more harmful than helpful. For example, Carlson (1985) suggested that subject-matter after-school academic intervention for special education students by special education teachers may be unethical because students rarely acquire the skills necessary to become independent thinkers and learners through such after-school academic intervention. In fact, some such students demonstrate little skill growth and become dependent on their tutors for success (Ceprano, 1995; Keim, McWhirter, & Bernstein, 1996). Other researchers have reported mixed results. Some report that after-school academic intervention works sometimes and under certain conditions (Lepper, Drake, & O'Donnell Johnson, 1997; Merrill, Reiser, Merrill, & Landes, 1995). Others have reported that one-to-one after-school academic intervention has been an extremely effective intervention (Graesser, Bowers, & Hacker, 1997). In short, the beliefs about efficacy of after-school academic intervention are mixed.
Closely related to the controversy concerning the effectiveness of after-school academic intervention is the disagreement about the efficacy of after-school academic intervention in before- and after-school programs. Unfortunately, much of the literature on after-school academic intervention programs is descriptive in nature (Hancock, 1994; Hock et al., 1998; Kaufman & Adema, 1998; Kirk, 1997; Pressley & McCormick, 1995). In studies in which data are reported, control conditions often were not used (Farr, 1998; Tollefson, 1997). In other studies, researchers reported student performance gains that were minimal or nonexistent (Tucker et al., 1995). For example, Farr (1998) found that the grades of students tutored in physical science classes showed no significant change after students received after-school academic intervention in an after-school program. That is, there was no significant difference between grades earned on science assignments before after-school academic intervention and those earned after after-school academic intervention. In summary, the literature on both the efficacy of after-school academic intervention and the efficacy of before- and after-school tutoring programs is inconclusive.
Models of Academic Intervention
In large measure, the contradictory and mixed reviews regarding the effectiveness of after-school academic intervention as an instructional intervention stem from two problems. First, there is the problem of operational definition. Some researchers describe after-school academic intervention as the ideal teaching situation because after-school academic intervention involves one-to-one instruction in content and [LGR43] skills selected and presented by the tutor (Slavin et al., 1991). They claim that one-to-one after-school academic intervention presents an excellent opportunity for highly skilled teachers to teach skills, strategies, and content knowledge to a single student. Central to after-school academic intervention is the fact that the tutor can respond to the individual skill, strategy, and content knowledge needs of a student without the challenge of having to teach 29 other students at the same time. Researchers also claim that the opportunity presented by one-to-one after-school academic intervention can optimize the impact of a variety of validated instructional practices and techniques like direct instruction (McArthur, Stasz, & Zmuidzinas, 1990), tutor modeling of thinking and problem-solving behaviors (Hock, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1995), scaffolding of support as students practice skills and strategies (Lepper et al., 1997; Merrill et al., 1995), and provision of immediate, positive, and corrective feedback.
Thus, some researchers present after-school academic intervention as a form of instruction in which tutors analyze the assignment in terms of learner skills needed to complete the assignment; analyze the student's current level of skill and strategy knowledge; instruct the student through explanation, modeling, and guided practice in relevant skills, strategies and content knowledge that the student can use to complete similar tasks in the future; provide sustained corrective feedback (Kea, 1987); and provide immediate support for current assignments to keep the student academically "afloat" while the student develops proficiency as an independent learner. Interventions in which the major features and dominant nature of the after-school academic intervention activities are aligned with these five elements hereafter will be referred to as "instructional after-school academic intervention." The label "after-school academic intervention" has also been used to describe educational practices that are quite different from the instructional after-school academic intervention model described above. Carlson (1985) described an after-school academic intervention model that can be labeled as "assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention." In assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention, a tutor meets with either a small group of two to six students or individual students who have difficulty independently completing their course assignments.
The major goal of assignment-assistance tutors is to help each student with whatever assignments or tasks the student brings to the after-school academic intervention sessions. Thus, assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention is generally a model in which tutors provide small-group or one-to-one homework assistance; react to the demands of the general curriculum and review content with the student; provide brief feedback on student performance; and make little or no systematic attempt to teach skills and learning strategies relevant to the homework assignment at hand and generalizable to similar assignments in the future. Interventions reviewed here in which the major features and dominant nature of the after-school academic intervention activities are aligned with these four elements will be referred to as "assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention."
One factor that contributes to the controversy regarding the effectiveness of after-school academic intervention relates to the lack of a clear distinction between instructional after-school academic intervention and assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention and the failure of researchers and authors to recognize that distinction as they write about after-school academic intervention. Determination of the primary focus of the after-school academic intervention interaction will be used to determine classification, recognizing that after-school academic intervention models may have some common elements and crossover. (Source?)
The second problem in determining the effectiveness of after-school academic intervention is related to major differences in targeted student outcomes. In the instructional after-school academic intervention model, tutors expect that students will acquire new knowledge, become proficient in not-yet-mastered skills, and learn new skills and strategies (Hock et al., 1995; Madden, Slavin, Karweit, Dolan, & Wasik, 1993; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Hodge, 1995). Thus, the intended outcome of one-to-one instructional after-school academic intervention is the development of skilled and independent learners. In contrast, the assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention model focuses on the task at hand. That is, tutors provide short-term help with homework and focus on helping the student survive in his or her classes (Carlson, 1985). This difference in focus "muddies the waters" when determining the efficacy of the after-school academic intervention models under study. For example, if meeting the short-term goals of completing homework or earning passing grades on tests is a valued outcome, then assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention that produces these outcomes may be considered effective. However, if the valued outcomes of after-school academic intervention are learner independence, good information processing, and learning how to learn, the after-school academic intervention provided under the assignment-assistance model that does not produce these outcomes would be considered ineffective.
The sometimes-contradictory results related to tutoring and after-school tutoring programs may stem from several problems. First, there is the problem of defining the after-school academic intervention model. Some researchers describe after-school academic intervention as the ideal teaching situation because it involves one-to-one instruction in content and skills selected and presented by the tutor (Bloom, 1984; Slavin et al., 1991). They claim that one-to-one after-school academic intervention presents an excellent opportunity for a highly skilled teacher to teach skills, strategies, and content knowledge to a single student (Wasik & Slavin, 1990). They also claim that the opportunity presented by one-to-one after-school academic intervention can optimize the impact of a variety of validated instructional practices and techniques, such as direct instruction (McArthur, Stasz, & Zmuidzinas, 1990), tutor modeling of thinking and problem-solving behaviors (Hock, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1995), scaffolding of support as students practice skills and strategies (Lepper et al., 1997; Merrill et al., 1995; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Hodge, 1995; Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, & O'Connor, 1997), and provision of immediate, positive, and corrective feedback (Merrill et al., 1995). After-school academic intervention in which the dominant nature of the after-school academic intervention activities is aligned with the practices described previously and that primarily targets instruction in literacy skills has been referred to as "instructional after-school academic intervention" (Hock, 1998).
The label after-school academic intervention has also been used to describe educational practices that are quite different from the instructional after-school academic intervention model described previously. Carlson (1985), for example, described an after-school academic intervention model that can be labeled assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention. In assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention, a tutor meets with either an individual or a small group of two to six students who have difficulty independently completing their course assignments. The major goal of assignment-assistance tutors is to help each student with the assignments or tasks the student brings to the after-school academic intervention sessions. Thus, assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention is generally a model in which a tutor provides small-group or one-to-one homework assistance.
Another after-school academic intervention model combines elements of both instructional and assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention. In this model, called strategic after-school academic intervention, strategies for learning how to learn and perform are taught to students while they receive help with class assignments (Hock et al., 1995). That is, strategic tutors combine the elements of assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention (i.e., help with pressing homework demands) with elements of instructional after-school academic intervention. For example, if a student has to complete a number of math homework problems and prepare for math quizzes and tests, the tutor can quickly guide the student to use the MATH strategy (Hock, 1998). The MATH strategy is a problem-solving strategy that includes the following steps: mapping out or determining what needs to be solved; analyzing the problem by comparing with sample problems in the textbook; taking action to solve the problem; and having a look back to check the answer. The tutor models the steps of the strategy and provides guidance as the student applies the strategy to his or her homework problems. Finally, the tutor cues the student to use the strategy during upcoming math quizzes and tests. In this fashion, tutors not only teach a strategy that helps students successfully complete class assignments, but, more importantly, teach students a strategy that the students can use independently whenever they encounter similar assignments. Thus, one factor that may contribute to the controversy regarding the effectiveness of after-school academic intervention might relate to a previous lack of clear distinction among instructional after-school academic intervention, assignment-assistance after-school academic intervention, and strategic after-school academic intervention and the failure of researchers and authors to recognize that distinction as they write about and investigate the effects of after-school academic intervention.
The African-American Student
The educational system sought to explain the academic achievement of indigent students in the United States America (Anderson
Banks (1993) reports that this pluralistic mode of thought, promoted by the cultural difference theory, is once again being overshadowed by the deprivation paradigm. The introduction and frequent use of the label "at-risk" support evidence of this position. At-risk describes children who are different in many ways. In addition, like cultural deprivation, its definition is imprecise. Discussions of "culture" and "learning styles" are essential to understanding how African-American children learn. Shade (1989) elaborates on Madhere's (1989) definition of culture by defining it as "a group's preferred way of perceiving, judging, and organizing the ideas, situations and events they encounter in their daily lives" (p. 9). She further explains that cultures may maintain specific religious orientation, language, or style of communication and may have preferences for expressive methods of their perceptions of the world. Guidelines used by individuals to select information to which they attend and to interpret given information are also determined by culture. It is only natural to assume that culture would affect how children learn.
Research proponents in the area of individual differences are now looking at the manner in which children learn (Castaneda & Gray, 1974; Cohen, 1969; Shade, 1993). Learning style, as defined by the National Task Force of Learning Style and Brain Behavior (cited in Bennett, 1990) defines the construct as a consistent pattern of behavior and performance by which an individual approaches educational experiences. It is the composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment. It is formed in a deep structure of neural organization and personality which molds and [LGR44] is molded by human development and the cultural experiences of home, school, and society (p. 94). There is an existing, albeit not wholly understood relationship between learning styles and culture (Bennett, 1986; Castaneda & Gray, 1974; Hernandez, 1989). The concept of culture envelopes the values, customs, beliefs, communication patterns, and aesthetic standards which have been passed from one generation to the next (Parillo, 1990). These particular dimensions serve as a cohesive cultural force, which, in turn, help to define the behavior of a society (Parillo, 1990). Anderson
It has been suggested that African-American learning styles have been influenced by cultural customs transposed from specific communities in Africa . Both the African-American church and family have been highly influential in perpetuating these learning styles (Anderson, 1988; Hale-Benson, 1986). Willis (1989) reviewed Africentric psychology literature in relation to African-American children and compiled African- American learning styles into social/affective, harmonious, expressive creativity, and nonverbal characteristics (p. 54). Other reports on the learning style of African-American children discuss its cognitive dimension. Cognitive styles suggest the manner in which children perceive and process information (Hernandez, 1989; Woolfolk, 1993). Madhere (1989) proposes that preferential treatment given to the differences between the African- American and White intellects has negatively influenced information in the areas of learning styles and cognition because of its traditionally uni-dimensional focus. In his criticism, Madhere contends that models of intelligence are likely to focus only on small areas of cognitive performance, to the exclusion of areas of significance to ethnic minority cultures. He also states that models of intelligence do not focus on the abilities of persons to perform diverse tasks, preferring to highlight insignificant, uni-dimensional individual tasks. Lastly, Madhere questions the popular notion that there is a single concept of intelligence, one which is narrow in scope and hierarchically determines an individual's rank. This position is supported by Axelson (1993) who asserts that the purpose of IQ is to "measure the degree of middle-class cultural assimilation" (p. 213).
Cognitive styles are generally described using the terms field-independence and field-dependence. The perceptual research of Witkin and his associates in the 1950s and 1960s (Castaneda & Gray, 1974; Witkin & Goodenough, 1981) initiated research on these constructs. Castaneda and Gray (1974) have proposed that the term "field-sensitive" be substituted for "field-dependence" in order to counteract possible negative connotations. The field-sensitive mode is characterized by the inability of the individual to separate parts from the whole, while field-dependence is characterized by an ability to perceive items as separate from the background (Bennett, 1986; Castaneda & Gray, 1974). Several studies have pointed to field-sensitive tendencies in African-American students and field-independent tendencies in children of the majority culture (Bennett, 1986; Cataneda & Gray, 1974; Shade, 1982).
Field-sensitive students tend to be global in their views, excel at verbal tasks, react better to academic material that is relational, and perform in accordance with an authority figure's indications of confidence or doubt in their abilities (Anderson, 1988; Castaneda and Gray, 1974; Hernandez, 1989). Field-independent students tend to view parts of a whole, excel in analytic tasks, are more receptive to material that is inanimate and impersonal, and tend to be self-directed (Anderson, 1988; Castaneda & Gray, 1974). No relationship has been found between the field sensitivity-independent constructs and intelligence (Banks, 1988; Bennett, 1986; Cohen, 1969). However, Woolfolk (1993) states that children tend to become more reflective as they grow older, which appears to have a positive impact on school-age children for such tasks as improved reading performance. Cohen (1969) asserts that schools are extremely analytic (field-independent) and that those students who are analytic in theft approach[mb45] to information processing have an advantage over students who tend to be relational (field-sensitive) in their approach to learning. Though these cognitive constructs do not imply a hierarchical relationship, the field-independent style appears to be more influential in the United States (Anderson
Conflicts often arise when the African-American student is required to perform in a manner or in an arena that is not facilitative to his or her style of learning. The tendency for schools to ignore the field-sensitive cognitive style sometimes engenders the negative mislabeling of the African-American student as incompetent, lazy, or unwilling to learn. This may be exemplified by the faulty use of standardized testing and assessment, which may not accurately depict the abilities of African-American children. The conventional problem-solving methods used in this process negate generalized concepts. Discrepancies such as these culminate in the erroneous underestimation of African-American student capabilities by teachers. In essence, the educational institution tends to blame the child in these situations, rather than focusing on the "knowledge, skills, and abilities that the children possess" and building upon these strengths (Means & Knapp, 1991, p. 286). Translated into the classroom, the African-American student may find his or her views in direct conflict with those of the school (Anderson, 1988; Bennett, 1990). The Western worldview, to which the American school system subscribes, emphasizes individualism, control, rigidity, limited affective expression, dichotomous thinking, task orientation, and superiority (Anderson, 1988; Hilliard, 1976; Sue & Sue, 1990).
Moreover, teachers should be provided with information on and encouraged to explore cultures different from their own. Of course, it is impossible to know everything about every culture; however, the importance of seeking basic cultural information can be fostered in teacher-training programs and through in-service training. In addition to being knowledgeable about multicultural populations, teachers should be aware of personal beliefs and biases concerning those who are different from themselves. These biases can affect the interactions between the teacher and students. African-American learners have, and continue to experience, disastrous outcomes in school settings (Boykin, 2001; Hale, 2001). Inequitable school practices include limiting access to general education and advanced academic classes. African-American students are disproportionately relegated to special education (Harry & Anderson, 1994) and remedial education classes (Gay, 2000). Conversely, these children are often excluded from advanced placement and gifted classes (Patton & Baytops, 1995). Although it has been emphasized that African- American students are being enrolled in and assigned to general education classrooms, their presence in those classes provides little assurance of educational equity. African- American students are often subjected to low expectations concerning their academic capabilities by school personnel and frequently are "tracked" into low-ability groups (Oakes, 1994). In addition to experiencing negative academic outcomes, they encounter poor social and behavioral experiences in schools. Put another way, African-Americans, especially boys, are suspended and expelled more often than any other group (Harry & Anderson, 1994).
According to Harry and Anderson (1994), African-American students receive exclusionary forms of discipline at two to three times the percentage of the general school-age population. Clearly, the intersection of these students' ethnicity and gender places them at extreme risk of being excluded either temporarily or permanently from school settings. Multiple suspensions, in and of themselves, activate vicious cycles of lowered expectations concerning African-American students and foster the belief that remediation is needed. As a result, they fall further behind their peers (Townsend, 2000). Moreover, African-American youth also leave school before graduation at an alarming rate (Whaley & Smyer, 1998). Whether they drop out or are pushed out, the end result is the same. Large numbers of these youth leave school unprepared for either higher education or the workplace. It also appears that students who leave school early increase their chances of being incarcerated, as up to 80% of the prison population has dropped out of school (Whaley & Smyer, 1998[LGR46] ).
List of References
Adler, J. (1998, March 30). The tutor age. Newsweek, pp. 47-50.
Anderson, J.A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 2-9.
Axelson, J.A. (1993). Counseling and development in a multicultural society (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove , CA
Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceived self-efficacy. Stanford , CA : Stanford University
Banks, J.A. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In L. Darling-Hammond Washington , DC
Bennett, C.I. (1986). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice. Boston
Bigaj, S. J., Shaw, S. F., Cullen, J. P., McGuire, J. M., & Yost, D. S. (1995). Services for students with learning disabilities at two- and four-year institutions: Are they different? Community College Review, 23, 17-33.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the national longitudinal transition study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the national longitudinal transition study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.
Bowman, P. J., & Howard, C. (1985). Race-related socialization, motivation, and academic achievement: A study of Black youth in three-generation families. Journal of the American Academy
Boykin, A. W. (2001). The challenges of cultural socialization in the schooling of African American elementary school children: Exposing the hidden curriculum, In W. H. Watkins, J. H. Lewis, & V. Chou (Eds.), Race and education: The roles of history and society in educating African American students (pp. 190-199). Needham Heights , MA
Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. E, & McGuire, J. M. (1992). Promoting access, accommodation, and independence for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 417-429.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
Brookover, W. B., Erickson, E. L., & Joiner, L. M. (1967). Self-concept of ability and school achievement, III. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Brophy, J. (1991). I know I can do this, but where's my motivation? American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 371-377.
Bursuck, W., Rose, E., Cowen, S., & Yahaya, M. A. (1989). Nationwide survey of postsecondary education services for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 56, 236-245.
Carlson, S. A. (1985). The ethical appropriateness of subject-matter tutoring for learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 310-314.
Castaneda, A., & Gray, T. (1974). Bicognitive processes in multicultural education. Education Leadership, 32, 203-207.
Cauce, A. M., Felner, R. D., & Primavera J. (1982). Social support in high-risk adolescents: Structural components and adaptive impact. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 417-428.
Ceprano, M. A. (1995). Strategies and practices of individuals who tutor adult illiterates voluntarily. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(1), 56-64.
Clark, M. L. (1983). Family life and social achievement: Why poor Black children succeed or fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clark, M. L. (1991). Social identity, peer relations, and academic competence of African-American adolescents. Education and Urban Society, 24, 41-52.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-248.
Cohen, R.A. (1969)., Conceptual styles, culture conflict, and nonverbal tests of intelligence. American Anthropologist, 71, 826-828.
Cotterell, J. L. (1992). School size as a factor in adolescents' adjustment to the transition to secondary school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 28--45.
Davis, J. E., & Jordan, W. J. (1994). The effects of school context, structure, and experiences on African American males in middle and high school. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 570-587.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., & Steinberg, L. (1991). Community influences on the relation of family statuses to adolescent school performance: Differences between African Americans and non-Hispanic Whites. American Journal of Education, 99, 543-567.
Dunn, C. (1995). A comparison of three groups of academically at-risk college students. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 270-279.
Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Midgley, C. (1991). What are we doing to early adolescents? The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of Education, 89, 521-542.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on adolescents' experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.
Elias, M. J., Gara, M., & Ubriaco, M. (1985). Sources of stress and support in children's transition to middle school: An empirical analysis. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14, 112-118.
Farr, M. (1998). Nikerson High School physical science after-school tutoring program. Journal of Critical Inquiry Into Curriculum and Instruction, 1(1), 41-47.
Ford, D. Y. (1993). Black students' achievement orientation as a function of perceived family achievement orientation and demographic variables. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 47-66.
Fordham, S. (1988). Racelessness as a factor in Black students' school success: Pragmatic strategy or Pyrrhic victory? Harvard Educational Review, 58, 54-84.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the "burden of 'acting white.'" The Urban Review, 18, 176--206.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Bentz, J., Phillips, N. B., & Hamlett, C. L. (1994). The nature of student interactions during peer tutoring with and without prior training and experience. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 75-103.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gifford, V. D., & Dean, M. M. (1990). Differences in extracurricular activity participation, achievement, and attitudes toward school between ninth-grade students attending junior high school and those attending senior high school. Adolescence, 25, 799-802.
Graesser, A. C., Bowers, C., & Hacker, D. J. (1997). An anatomy of naturalistic tutoring. In K, Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 145-183). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Greenberger, E., & O'Neil, R. (1991). Characteristics of father's and mother's jobs: Implications for parenting and children's social development. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Gregory, L. W. (1995). The "turnaround" process: Factors influencing the school success of urban youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 136--154.
Hale, J. E. (200l). Learning while black: Creating educational excellence for African American children. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hale-Benson, J.E. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture and learning styles (rev. ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hancock, L. (1994, December 19). A Sylvan invasion. Newsweek, 52-53.
Harry, B., & Anderson, M. G. (1994). The disproportionate placement of African American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 602-619.
Hernandez, H. (1989). Multicultural education: A teacher's guide to content and process. Columbus: Merrill.
Hernandez, H. (1989). Multicultural education: A teacher's guide to content and process. Columbus: Merrill.
Hock, M. F., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1998). Closing the gap to success in secondary schools: A model for cognitive apprenticeship. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Advances in teaching and learning (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Houck, C. K., Asselin, S. B., Troutman, G. C., & Arrington, J. M. (1992). Students with learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 678-684.
House, J. D., & Wohlt, V. (1990). The effects of tutoring program participation on the performance of academically underprepared college freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 31,365-370.
Jayakody, R., Chatters, L. M., & Taylor, R. I. (1993). Family support to single and married African American mothers: The provision of financial, emotional, and child care assistance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 261-276.
Jenkins, L. E. (1989). The Black family and academic achievement. In G. V. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds.), Black students: Psychosocial issues and academic achievement (pp. 138-152). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kaufman, T. U., & Adema, J. L. (1998). The learning support center: A systems approach to special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 163-183.
Kea, C. D. (1987). An analysis of critical teaching behaviors employed by teachers of students with mild handicaps. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Keim, J., McWhirter, J. J., & Bernstein, B. L. (1996). Academic success and university accommodation for learning disabilities: Is there a relationship? Journal of College Student Development, 37, 502-509.
Kennedy, E. (1995). Correlates of perceived popularity among peers: A study of race and gender differences among middle school students. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 186-195.
Kirk, R. H. (1997). Inner-city partnerships. Clearing House, 70(3), 116.
Kohn, M. (1977). Class and conformity (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kunjufu, J. (1988). To be popular or smart: The Black peer group. Chicago: African-American Images.
Legters, N., & McDill, E. L. (1994). Rising to the challenge: Emerging strategies for educating youth at risk. In R. J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk (pp. 23-47). New York: Teachers College Press.
Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O'Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108-144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O'Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108-144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Levine, A., & Nidiffer, J. (1996). Beating the odds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mack, M., & Wiltrout, D. (1998). Standards-based educational reform: A strategy to improve educational outcomes for all learners. Alliance, 3(1), 1-7.
Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools. American Research Journal, 30, 123-148.
Madhere, S. (1989). Models of intelligence and the African American intellect. Journal of Negro Education, 58, 189-202.
Marshall, S. (1995). Ethnic socialization of African American children: Implications for parenting, identity development, and academic achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 377-396.
Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N., Hiraga, Y., & Grove, K. (1994). An ecological model of externalizing behaviors in African-American adolescents: No family is an island. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 639-655.
Maton, K. I., Teti, D. M., Corns, K. M., Vieira-Baker, C. C., Lavine, J. R., Gouze, K. R., & Keating, D. P. (1996). Cultural specificity of support sources, correlates and contexts: Three studies of African-American and Caucasian youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 551-587.
Maxwell, M. (1990). Does tutoring help? Review of Research in Developmental Education, 7(4).
McAdoo, H. P. (1982). Stress-absorbing systems in Black families. Family Relations, 31, 479-488.
McArthur, D., Stasz, S., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 197-244.
McLloyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311-346.
Means, B., & Knapp, M.S. (1991). Cognitive approaches to teaching advanced skills to educationally disadvantaged students. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 282-289.
Mellard, D. F., & Hazel, J. S. (1992). Social competencies as pathway to successful life transitions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 251-265.
Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Merrill, S. K., & Landes, S. (1995). Tutoring: Guided learning by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 315-372.
Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Merrill, S. K., & Landes, S. (1995). Tutoring: Guided learning by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 315-372.
Mickelson, R. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox among Black adolescents. Sociology of Education, 63, 44-61.
Mohr, E. (1991). A study of peer tutor training programs: A league report (Report No. JC10305). Overland Park, KS: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 777)
Mortenson, T. G. (1993). Postsecondary education opportunity: The Mortenson report on public policy analysis of opportunity for postsecondary education, 1992-93. Iowa City: Postsecondary Education Opportunity.
Mortenson, T. G., & Wu, A. (1990). High school graduation and college participation of young adults by family income backgrounds, 1970 to 1989. Iowa City: American College Testing Program.
Murry, C., Goldstein, D. E., & Edgar, E. (1997). The employment and engagement status of high school graduates with learning disabilities through the first decade after graduation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 151-160.
Murry, C., Goldstein, D. E., & Edger, E. (1997). The employment and engagement status of high school graduates with learning disabilities through the first decade after graduation. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(3), 151-160.
National Commission on Children. (1993). Just the facts: A summary of recent information on America's children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Parillo, V.N. (1990). Strangers to these shores (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Patton, J. M., & Baytops, J. L. (1995). Identifying and transforming the potential of young, gifted African Americans: A clarion call for action. In B. A. Ford, F. E. Obiakor, & J. M. Patton (Eds.), Effective education of African American exceptional learners: New perspectives (pp. 27- 66). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Patton, J. R., & Polloway, E. A. (1992). Learning disabilities: The challenges of adulthood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 410-415, 447.
Peters, M. (1985). Racial socialization of young Black children. In H. McAdoo & J. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children (pp. 159-173). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. (1995). Cognition, teaching, and assessment. New York: HarperCollins.
Qakes, J. (1994). Tracking, inequality, and the rhetoric of reform: Why schools don't change. In J. Kretovics & E. J. Nussel (Eds.), Transforming urban education (pp. 146-164). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Reyes, O., Gillock, K., & Kobus, K. (1994). A longitudinal study of school adjustment in urban, minority adolescents: Effects of a high school transition program American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 341-369.
Reynolds, A. J., & Gill, S. (1994). The role of parental perspectives in the school adjustment of inner-city Black children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 671-694.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Seidman, E., Aber, J. L., Allen, L., & French, S. E. (1996). The impact of the transition to high school on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 489-515.
Shade, B.J. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style: A variable in school success? Review of Educational Research, 52 (2), 219-244.
Shade, B.J. (1993). Cognitive strategies as determinants of school achievement. Psychology in the schools, 20, 488-493.
Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-performing students in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 387-408.
Simmons, R. G., Black, A., & Zhou, Y. (1991). African-American versus White children and the transition into junior high school. American Journal of Education, 99, 481-520.
Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1996). Parents and peer group as mediators of the effect of community structure on adolescent problem behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 145-171.
Sitlington, P. L., & Frank, A. R. (1990). Are adolescents with learning disabilities successfully crossing the bridge into adult life? Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 97-11.
Sizer, T. R. (1996). Horace's hope: What works for the American high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Slaughter, D. T., & Epps, E. G. (1987). The home environment and academic achievement of Black American children and youth: An overview. Journal of Negro Education, 56, 3-20.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., Wasik, B, A., Shaw, A., Mainzer, K. L., & Haxby, B. (1991). Neverstreaming: Prevention and early intervention as an alternative to special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 373-378.
Steinberg, K., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal on Research on Adolescence, 1, 19-36.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.
Sue, S.W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, R. D., Casten, R., Flickinger, S. M., Roberts, D., & Fulmore, C. D. (1994). Explaining the school performance of African-American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 21-44.
Taylor, R. D., Chatters, L. M., & Jackson, J. S. (1993). A profile of familial relations among three-generation Black families. Family Relations, 42, 332-341.
Thornton, M. C., Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Allen, W. R. (1990). Sociodemographic and environmental correlates of racial socialization by Black parents. Child Development, 61, 401-409.
Tollefson, J. (1997, September). Lab offers strategic help after school. Strategram, 5, 1-7, The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African American learners: Reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66, 381-391.
Tucker, C. M., Chennault, S. A., Brady, B, A,, Fraser, K. P., Gaskin, V. T., Dunn, C., & Frisby, C. (1995). A parent, community, public schools, and university involved partnership education program to examine and boost academic achievement and adaptive functioning skills of African-American students. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 174-185.
Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & O'Connor, R. E. (1997). The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 126-137.
Vogel, S. A., & Adelman, P. B. (1992). The success of college students with learning disabilities: Factors related to educational attainment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 430-441.
Vogel, S. A., Hruby, P. J., & Adelman, P. B. (1993). Educational and psychology factors in successful and unsuccessful college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(1), 35-43.
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1990, April). Preventing reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A best evidence synthesis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Whaley, A., & Smyer, D. A. (1998). Self-evaluation processes of African American youth in a high school completion program. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 317-327.
White, W. (1992). The postschool adjustment of persons with learning disabilities: Current status and future projections. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 448-456.
Willis, M.G. (1989). Learning styles of African American children: A review of the literature and interventions. The Journal of Black Psychology, 16(1), 47-65.
Witkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.
Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Submitted to
[LGR1]Put title on on line. Take out space so that it is only double spaced before Background
[LGR2]Make sure your margins on left side are 1and ½ inches and on top, right side and bottom, 1 inch. I can't tell on screen.
[mb3]Do you mean "eighth grade"?
[LGR4]Double space only throughout the dissertation. Check and remove extra spaces before paragraphs like this one
[LGR5]You need to go through your dissertation and link sentence to sentence with transitional phrases like therefore, consequently…or adverbial phrases so that the writing flows. Otherwise the sentences many times seem disjointed.
[LGR6]You need to say what these researchers say that is different. Don't just use a statement like Other research has proven. What research? What do they say? That is too broad of a statement. Be specific.
[LGR7]You need to begin this paragraph with something that connects to the paragraph before such as Another factor that may have had an effect over the last fifty years are the dramatic changes in American society's family structure.
[mb8]You need to add a Works Cited entry for this. From now on, I will note the same comment by simply saying "WC".
[mb9]WC
[LGR10]remove extra spaces in this line
[mb11]WC
[LGR12]You need a date for this reference
[mb13]WC
[mb14]WC
[mb15]WC
[mb16]WC
[mb17]WC
[LGR18]You need to remove all this as you cannot express your opinion or any of your ideas in the Review of Literature. You can only express what other researchers are saying.
[LGR19]You could rewrite this sentence and start the paragraph with Theodore Sizer (date) reminds us…and then continue.
[mb20]WC
[mb21]WC
[mb22]WC
[mb23]WC
[mb24]WC
[mb25]WC
[mb26]WC
[mb27]WC
[mb28]WC
[mb29]WC for Morris & Jackson
[mb30]WC for all but Ford
[mb31]WC for all
[mb32]WC
[mb33]WC
[mb34]WC
[LGR35]You need a source for this. If this is just your opinion, it should be removed. If not, list a source that states this about African American Males.
[LGR36]Go back and make sure that the first time you used Steinberg that you listed all authors. After you list all authors, you can use Steinberg et al.
[LGR37]Remove comma
[LGR38]List all authors if this is the first time you used Dornbusch, then you can use et.al afterwords
[mb39]WC
[mb40]WC
[mb41]WC
[LGR42]Be sure to define this term in definitions in Chapter ONe
[LGR43]Have you somewhere else listed all the authors with Slavin the first time you used the reference? If not, you need to list all authors here.
[LGR44]This is o.k. since it is a quote
[mb45]"Theft approach"???
[LGR46]You just need a concluding paragraph that brings all this together again. You might restate the purpose of your dissertation here and why it is important to study this. You can also state that the next Chapter will discuss the Methodology. You just need a closing paragraph that ties everything together for the reader.
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
No comments:
Post a Comment