TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND …………………………….. 2
Introduction …………………………………………………………… 2
Background………………………………………………………………….2
Objectives of the Study……………………………………………………. 6
Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………… 7
Scope of the study………………………………………………………….. 8
Definition of Terms ……………………………………………………. 9
Significance of the Study …………………………………………………..10
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES ………………. 11
Eighth Grade English Language Arts: Standards and Assessment………….11
At Risk Students……………………………………………………………..15
After-school Academic Intervention…………………………………………23
Models of Academic Intervention……………………………………………26
The African-American Student……………………………………………….32
3. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH …………………………………………….40
Method of Research to be Used ……………………………………………..40
Respondents of the Study ………………………………………………..…44
Instrument to be Used ………………………………………………………..44
Validation of the Instrument ………………………………………………….45
Administration of the Instrument………………………………………………45
Statistical Treatment of Data ………………………………………………….46
List of References………………………………………………………………47
PROGRAM ON ENGLISH LAUNGUAGE ARTS TEST SCORES
FOR EIGHTH GRADE AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES
A Dissertation Proposal
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
CHAPTER 1
PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
This chapter discusses in detail the effects of an after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores for eighth grade African American males. The research will analyze and investigate the impact of the intervention program and personal perception of eight grade African American males. This shall include a discussion on the positive and negative variables related to after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores, an analysis of performance of the eight grade African American males in school in relation to education stability was also conducted. Particularly, the research will focus on examining the impact of the intervention program provided by the school administrators. In this research proposal, the background, context and theme of the study are presented. Moreover, the objectives of the study and the research statements are formulated. Here, vital concepts, questions and assumptions are stated.
Background of the Study
Over the last decade, New York State
School success is the key factor that translates to societal success, and individuals who enjoy and want to be in school are more likely to accomplish success in life and less likely to participate in problematic behaviors (Posner & Vandell, 1994). Adolescents who participate in after school programs, especially those at risk, are less likely to fail (Baker & Witt, 1996). Therefore, improving students' academic achievement is the main reason for after school programs. For instance, some research has shown that adolescents who actively participate in after school programs have had some increases in academic achievement, and attained higher test scores than those students who do not participate in after school academic or even non- academic programs (Baker & Witt, 1996; Gregory, 1996).
The dramatic changes in American Society's family structure may have had an impact on the participation in after school programs. 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 in the afternoon (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). 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). In fact, some research clearly shows that after school programs are great intervention measures necessary to combat the violent tendencies of today's youth (With & Crompton, 1997).
Many students in New York State New York State
At risk students demonstrate persistent patterns of under achievement and of social maladjustment in school. (McMillian & Reed 1994). Many educators see at risk as a disease- in fact the term at - risk is derived from medical terminology (Placier, 1996). It came from the vocabulary of epidemiologist, 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 future are in jeopardy. At risk students are usually low academic achievers who exhibit correspondingly low self-esteem (Ralph, 1989). 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)
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 as an 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.
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 skills selected and presented by the tutor (Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Dolan, wasik, Shaw, Mainzel, & Haxby, 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, Drake, & O'Donnell-Johnson, 1997; Merrill, Reiser, Merrill, & Landes, 1995), and provision of immediate, positive, and corrective feedback.
Objectives of the Study
The project primarily aims to explore impact of after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores for eight grade African America males by identifying weaknesses and inefficiencies and recommending solutions. Moreover, the study also intended to conduct a descriptive study on the eight grade African American Males. The research will specifically investigate if after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores has an impact to the eight grade African America males. Analyzing factors that affect eight grade African America males performance in school will do this.
To address this objective, the researcher will identify the current state of the eight grade African American in relation to the intervention program, since literature shows that school is having difficulties in their internal and external performance due to the impact of the said program.
This study will also examine the state of performance provided by the schools. Here, eight grade African American perceptions will be discussed. The researcher will find out if schools are addressing the needs of eight grade African American in terms of academic help. This is necessary for the further understanding as to what extent these males play significant role in designing strategies intended to improve the program in school.
Finally, and importantly, this research will provide recommendations on how to solve the problem of school progress.
Statement of the Problem
This researcher finds the necessity for a study that specifically tackles the effects of an after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores for eighth grade African America males. Specifically, this study intends to explore the significant impact of this problem to the schools. It will present the performance of eighth grade African America
1. What are the needs of eighth grade African America
2. Are they satisfied by the present state of school/school programs?
3. Are the school programs/services efficient and reliable?
4. What are the measures being done by school administrators in addressing these needs?
5. What must be done to improve the performance of eighth grade African American males?
6. What are the factors that affect after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores for eighth grade African American males?
7. Is it important to consider the after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores? Why?
Scope of the Study
This study will only cover after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores for eight grade African America males. As there are numerous issues surrounding the school, this research will primarily examine program development and performance progress. The outcome of this study will be limited only to the data gathered from books and journals and from the primary data gathered from the result of the questionnaire survey and interview that will be conducted by the researcher. As the research was completed in a relatively short period of time other factors and variables are not considered. This might have an impact on the results of the study.
Definition of Terms
Education
Education encompasses the teaching of specific skills, and also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, good judgement and wisdom. One of the fundamental goals of education is to impart culture across the generations socialization.
Knowledge
Knowledge includes, but is not limited to, those descriptions, hypotheses, concepts, theories, principles and procedures which to a reasonable degree of certainty are either true or useful.
Paraeducators
A paraeducator is a school employee who works under the supervision of a certificated and/or licensed staff member to support and assist in providing instructional and other direct services to children, youth, and families.
School
A school is a type of educational institution. The range of institutions covered by the term varies from country to country. In the United Kingdom North America , the term school refers to any institute of education, at any level, and covers all of the following: preschool (for toddlers), kindergarten, elementary school, middle school (also called intermediate school or junior high school, depending on specific age groups and geographic region), high school, college, university, and graduate school. In the US
Significance of the Study
This study will be a significant endeavor in promoting school satisfaction awareness among students. This study will be beneficial to future leaders. By understanding the needs of the students and the benefits of quality education, these practitioners will be assured of a larger progress performance. Moreover, this research will provide recommendations on how to value students as they are taking a large part in the overall performance of the school quality education.
This study would also be of help to those market scientists who are interested in finding out the social implications of the boom and the bust phases of the school industry. Moreover, educators can gain from this study, as they find the connection between how they have designed their curriculum and what are the actual needs of the citizens. In that way, they would be able to make immediate changes, if necessary, or continued improvement of their programs, through further studies.
Finally, this study would benefit future researchers in the field of the, education, human resource management, business and the social sciences since it depicts the future of the school industry and its varying effects to many sectors of society.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Eighth Grade English Language Arts: Standards and Assessment
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, 1999). 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 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 (NYSED, 1999).
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, 1994) 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 (NYSED, 1999). 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.
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 eighth 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, 1994).
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).
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 (NYSED, 1996).
At Risk Students
At risk students demonstrate persistent patterns of under achievement and of social maladjustment in school (McMillian & Reed 1994). Many educators see at risk as a disease; in fact the term at-risk is derived from medical terminology (Placier, 1996). 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, 1998). 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).
In America
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). 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).
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). 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; Qakes, 1985; Shaw & Braden, 1990). 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). 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 (Mannan, Charleston and Saghafi, 1986). 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).
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). 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 (Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, and Dornbusch, 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).
Academic underachievement among African American youths is a social concern that has reached disturbing proportions. At all levels of schooling and at comparable levels of ability, African American students earn substantially lower grades and attain less education than non-Hispanic white students (Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992; Mickelson, 1990). In addition to placing severe limits on economic and occupational attainment, academic failure is of concern as it has been tied to a host of problematic consequences including delinquency (Sampson & Laub, 1993), psychopathology (Kurdek, 1987), and substance abuse (Engel, Nordlohne, Hurrelman, & Holler, 1987).
Though the problem of African American underachievement is one of long-standing concern, satisfactory explanations continue to elude educators and social scientists. Theoretical models of academic motivation and achievement have often failed to receive empirical support when applied to African American populations. For example, while family status variables such as parental education, socioeconomic status, and family structure are powerful correlates of achievement in majority populations, they have been less predictive of school success for African American students (Dornbusch, Ritter, & Steinberg, 1991; Gottfredson, 1981; Mickelson, 1990). Parenting practices, and parental values regarding academic achievement, have also been of limited explanatory value (Mickelson, 1990; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992; Stevenson, Chen, & Uttal, 1990). Patterns of socialization, such as authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, which have been related consistently and robustly to achievement-related outcomes in non-minority samples (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), are not as predictive of school success or failure within African American samples (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994).
Researchers have therefore begun to examine broader ecological influences, external to the child and his or her immediate family, such as the peer context and aspects of the neighborhoods in which African American children are reared. Although few in number, these efforts suggest that neighborhood and peer influences may exert a more powerful effect on academic achievement within African American communities than that of the immediate family. These influences may also be responsible within some communities for the family's diminished impact (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; Dornbusch et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1992).
The family is an important factor in academic development and achievement 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, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, and Fraleigh (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, Johnson, Beaman, Conger, and Whitback, 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). In 1997, African-American adolescents represented about 15% of the total U.S. adolescent population, but they represented 41% of juvenile delinquency cases involving detention and 52% of juvenile delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). In 1998, 47% of homicide victims in the 15-19-year-old age group were African-American males (NCHS, 2000). The high rate of violence-related mortality is consistent with self-reports of violent behavior by African-American male students. In 1999, 44% of African-American male high school students reported that they had been in a physical fight in the past 12 months and 23% reported carrying a weapon (gun, knife, or club) at least once in the past 30 days (CDC, 2000). High rates of delinquent behavior on school property also have been reported by African-American male high school students (CDC, 2000), which have adversely affected their relationships with peers and teachers, led to a disproportionately high frequency of disciplinary actions, and contributed to persistent academic underachievement (Gibbs, Brunswick, Connor, Dembo, Larson, Reed, and Solomon, 1988). For these reasons, understanding and preventing delinquent behavior among African-American male adolescents must be a priority.
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, 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 skills selected and presented by the tutor (Slavin, Karweit, Dolan, Wasik, Shaw, Mainzel, and Haxby, 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 (Deshler, Hock, and Schumaker, 1999).
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, a disproportionate number of whom are African-American. Their efforts yielded such constructs as cultural deprivation and cultural differences. The cultural deprivation theory that became pronounced in the 1960s and early 1970s stated that underachievement in the African-American community was related to a lack of proper socialization skills. It was believed that the African-American culture was deficient because many of the values, beliefs, and behaviors exhibited were dissimilar to those of the White culture. This mode of thought began to receive less attention due to the assumption that children needed to obtain middle class accoutrements if their culture was to be validated. During the 1980s, the cultural differences theory was embraced, whereby differences were not viewed as deficiencies. This theory acknowledged the role of the child's socioeconomic status (Banks, 1993). The cultural differences theory contended that the world view of African-Americans was legitimate and need not be considered relevant only in comparison to White American values (Sue & Sue, 1990; Willis, 1989). The cultural differences theory was in direct contrast to the cultural assumptions promoted by the Eurocentric educational system in America (Anderson, 1988). Due to this discrepancy, the African-American child clearly would be in the more disadvantaged learning position (Banks, 1993; 1988).
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 that molds and 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 (1988) contends that as the cultures of ethnically distinct communities vary, so do the differences in their learning styles.
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 the approach 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, 1988).
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).
This review has presented the significance of after-school programs in addressing the need for educators to raise the English language arts competency especially among eighth grade African American males. Moreover, this chapter has analyzed the impact of the intervention program on at-risk students. This dissertation will attempt to find how after-school academic intervention programs affect eighth grade African American males' English language test scores. In order to achieve this, the researcher will prepare a questionnaire and a set of guide questions for the interview that will be asked to the intended respondents. The methods that will be used for this dissertation shall be discussed in the following chapter
CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURE
This chapter discussed the research methods available for the study and the applicability of it to use. Likewise, the chapter presented how the research will be implemented and how to come up with pertinent findings.
Method of Research to be Used
The descriptive research method uses observation and surveys. In this method, it is possible that the study would be cheap and quick. It could also suggest unanticipated hypotheses. Nonetheless, it would be very hard to rule out alternative explanations and especially infer causations. Thus, this study used the descriptive approach. This descriptive type of research utilized observations in the study. To illustrate the descriptive type of research, Creswell (1994) guided the researcher when he stated: Descriptive method of research is to gather information about the present existing condition. The purpose of employing this method is to describe the nature of a situation, as it exists at the time of the study and to explore the cause/s of particular phenomena. The researcher opted to use this kind of research considering the desire of the researcher to obtain first hand data from the respondents so as to formulate rational and sound conclusions and recommendations for the study.
The research described in this document is based fundamentally on qualitative and quantities research methods. This permits a flexible and iterative approach. During data gathering the choice and design of methods are constantly modified, based on ongoing analysis. This allows investigation of important new issues and questions as they arise, and allows the investigators to drop unproductive areas of research from the original research plan.
Qualitative models are more able than traditional models to express states of incomplete knowledge about continuous mechanisms (Benjamin, 1994). Qualitative simulation guarantees to find all possible behaviors consistent with the knowledge in the model. This expressive power and coverage are important in problem solving for diagnosis, design, monitoring, and explanation.
Qualitative evaluation data usually refers to raw, descriptive information about: programs/products and the people who participate in/use them or are affected by them and; programs/products and the people who develop or use them (Paton, 1987). Three data gathering strategies typically characterize qualitative methodology: in-depth, open-ended interviews; direct observation; and written documents (including program records, personal diaries, logs, etc.).
Paton (1987) illustrated the three data gathering strategies of qualitative data as: data from interviews, observations and document reviews are organized into major themes, categories, and case examples. The most common strategy for analyzing qualitative data is constant-comparison, but there are many other techniques from which to choose.
There are a variety of ways to report the results of qualitative research/evaluation; common among them is the sense of story – which includes: attention to detail, descriptive vocabulary, direct quotes from those observed or interviewed, and thematic organization.
Qualitative methods permit the evaluator to study selected issues, cases, or events in depth and detail. Data collection is not constrained by predetermined categories of analysis, allowing for a level of depth and detail that quantitative strategies can't provide.
Qualitative methods are particularly well-suited to exploration, discovery and inductive logic. An evaluation approach is inductive to the extent that the evaluator attempts to make sense of the situation without imposing pre-existing expectations on the setting. Inductive designs begin with specific observations and build toward general patterns.
Fieldwork is the central activity of qualitative data gathering. To be in the field means to have direct, personal contact with people in their own environments. It is the researcher's desire to contextualize program or product implementation that allows him/her to capture important "results" (effects, outcomes) that standardized measures cannot.
Quantitative approaches allow for large-scale measurement of ideas, beliefs, and attitudes. But generally, the set of questions is limited -- facilitating comparison and statistical aggregation of the data. This allows for development of a generalizable set of findings. By contrast, qualitative methods typically produce a wealth of detailed data about a defined number of people and cases – data that need not fit into predetermined response choices that characterize most surveys, questionnaires, or tests.
The main advantages of quantitative research include its objectivity. Unlike many qualitative researchers, quantitative researchers try to keep a 'distance' from their subjects. They use subjects unknown to them and they make no attempt to get to know their subjects other than to collect the required data from them.
Quantitative research methods, if explained in detail are generally very easy to replicate and hence have a high reliability. The results of quantitative research tend to be very simple in that they are generally reduced to a few numerical statistics and interpreted in a few short statements.
A mix of qualitative and quantitative data gathering enriches evaluation; the open-ended comments provide a way to elaborate and contextualize statistical "facts."
This research seeks to investigate "The effects of an after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores for eihht grade African America males". This study illustrated the growth of program development/improvement in school industry. Furthermore, this study proposed an alternative plan in developing and implementing programs in school sector. Consequently, the strategy of providing effective program in school was evaluated.
The primary source of data came from a survey questionnaire and interviews that is conducted personally by the researcher. A survey questionnaire was given to the students, teachers, school administrators and other personalities related to school progress. The researcher integrated and discards replies that came from people outside US and those who are not related in school industry.
The secondary sources of data came from published articles in school development and information technology journals, articles, and books relating to the school stability with respect to the effects of an after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores for eight grade African America males. This served as the basis of the researchers' assumptions and comparative data on the result of the survey and the interviews.
For this research design, the researcher gathered data, collate published studies from different local and foreign universities and articles from social science journals; and make a content analysis of the collected documentary and verbal material. Afterwards, the researcher summarized all the information, make a conclusion based on the null hypotheses posited and provide insightful recommendations on the dealing with the development and implementation of programs in marine school industry of US.
Respondents of the Study
The general population for this study are composed of US residents who are also related to school industry such as students, teachers, school administrators and other resource person related to school industry. The researcher used at survey and has the discretion to discard the responses that may be received. The total number of respondents is the first 60 who fitted the two criteria mentioned above.
Instruments to be Used
To determine the effects of an after-school academic intervention program on English Language Arts test scores for eight grade African America males, the researcher prepared a questionnaire and a set of guide questions for the interview that is asked to the intended respondents. The respondents graded each statement in the survey-questionnaire using a Likert scale with a five-response scale wherein respondents are given five response choices. The equivalent weights for the answers are:
Range Interpretation
4.50 – 5.00 Strongly Agree
3.50 – 4.00 Agree
2.50 – 3.49 Uncertain
1.50 – 2.49 Disagree
0.00 – 1.49 Strongly Disagree
Validation of the Instrument
For validation purposes, the researcher initially submitted a sample of the set of survey questionnaires and after approval; the survey is conducted to five respondents. After the questions are answered, the researcher asked the respondents for any suggestions or any necessary corrections to ensure further improvement and validity of the instrument. The researcher again examined the content of the interview questions to find out the reliability of the instrument. The researchers excluded irrelevant questions and changed words that would be deemed difficult by the respondents, too much simpler terms.
Administration of the Instrument
The researcher excluded the five respondents who initially used for the validation of the instrument. The researcher also tallies, score and tabulate all the responses in the provided interview questions. Moreover, the interview used is a structured interview. It is consisted of a list of specific questions and the interviewer does not deviate from the list or inject any extra remarks into the interview process. The interviewer may encourage the interviewee to clarify vague statements or to further elaborate on brief comments. Otherwise, the interviewer attempts to be objective and tries not to influence the interviewer's statements. The interviewer does not share his/her own beliefs and opinions. The structured interview is mostly a "question and answer" session.
Statistical Treatment of the Data
When the entire survey questionnaire has collected, the researcher used statistics to analyse all the data.
The statistical formulae to be used in the survey questionnaire was the following:
1. Percentage – to determine the magnitude of the responses to the questionnaire.
n
% = -------- x 100 ; n – number of responses
N N – total number of respondents
2. Weighted Mean
f1x1 + f2x2 + f3x3 + f4x4 + f5x5
x = --------------------------------------------- ;
xt
where: f – weight given to each response
x – number of responses
xt – total number of responses
To evaluate the information gathered, the following analysis instruments are used: percentage analysis, mean and median analysis, chi-square, and SPSS for statistical analysis of information gathered from the questionnaire survey.
List of References
Adler, J. (1998). The tutor age. Newsweek, (March 30), 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: Brooks/Cole.
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 (Ed.), Review of Research in Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 3-49.
Benjamin K. (1994). Qualitative Reasoning: Modeling and Simulation with Incomplete Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bennett, C.I. (1986). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
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.
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 of Child Psychiatry, 24, 134-141.
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. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 190-199.
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 Press.
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.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the nonschool hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
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.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Youth risk behavior surveillance--United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 49(SS05), 1-96.
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.
Coleman, J., and Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 23, 43-77.
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.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
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.
Deshler, D. D., Hock, M. F., Schumaker, J. B. (1999). Tutoring Programs for Academically Underprepared College Students: A Review of the Literature
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29(2).
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29(2).
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.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Downing, H.; LoVette, O.; Emerson, P. (1994). An investigation of at-risk students' reasons for staying in school. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 33(2), 83-88.
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.
Ensminger, M. E., & Slusarcick, A. L. (1992). Paths to high school graduation or dropout: A longitudinal study of a first-grade cohort. Sociology of Education, 65, 95-113.
Farr, M. (1998). Nikerson High School physical science after-school tutoring program. Journal of Critical Inquiry Into Curriculum and Instruction, 1(1), 41-47.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
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.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1996). Perceptions and attitudes of Black students toward school, achievement, and other educational variables. Child Development, 67, 1141-1152.
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.
Gibbs, J. T., Brunswick, A. F., Connor, M. E., Dembo, R., Larson, T. E., Reed, R. J., & Solomon, B. (1988). Young, black, and male in America: An endangered species. Dover, MA: Auburn House.
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.
Gottfredson, D. L. (1981). Black-white differences in the educational attainment process: What have we learned? American Sociological Review, 46, 542-557.
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). A Sylvan invasion. Newsweek, (December 19), 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.
Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: The Free Press.
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. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, 1-52.
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. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 138-152.
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.
Kurdek, L. A. (1987). Gender differences in the psychological symptomatology and coping strategies of young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 395-410.
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. New York: Teachers College Press, 23-47.
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. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, 108-144.
Levin, H.M. (1989). Financing the Education of At-Risk Students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(1), 47-60.
Levine, A., & Nidiffer, J. (1996). Beating the odds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lisella, L. C., & Serwatka, T. 5. (1996). Extracurricular participation and academic achievement in minority students in urban schools. The Urban Review, 28, 63-80.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Eds.), Handbook of child psycholog. New York: Wiley, (4), 1-101.
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.
Mannan, G., Charleston, L., Saghafi, B. (1986). A comparison of the academic performance of Black and White freshman' students on an urban commuter campus. Journal of Negro Education, 55(2), 155-161.
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.
McMillan & Reed (1994). Resilient At-Risk Students: Student Views About Why They Succeed. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, (1)2, 27-33.
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.
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 Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance (Report No. NCES 2000469). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Commission on Children. (1993). Just the facts: A summary of recent information on America's children and their families. Washington, DC: National Commission on Children.
National Council of Teachers of English (1989). In New York State Department (1994). Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment: Preliminary Draft Framework. New York: NYSED.
New York State Department (1994). Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment: Preliminary Draft Framework. New York: NYSED.
New York State Education Department (1996). Learning Standards for English Language Arts" rev. ed. New York: State Education Department.
New York State Education Department (1999). New York State Board of Regents. New York: The State Aid Work Group, December.
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. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. 27-66.
Patton, J. R., & Polloway, E. A. (1992). Learning disabilities: The challenges of adulthood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 410-415, 447.
Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.)
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Peters, M. (1985). Racial socialization of young Black children. In H. McAdoo & J. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 159-173.
Placier, M. (1996). The cycle of student labels in education: The cases of "culturally deprives" and "at risk." Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 236-270.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. (1995). Cognition, teaching, and assessment. New York: HarperCollins.
Qakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
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.
Ralph, J. (1998). Improving Education For the Disadvantaged. Phi Delta Kappan. 70(5), 395-401.
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.
Rumberger, R. W. (1983). Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex, and family background. American Educational Research Journal, 20(2), 199-220
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 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.
Shaw, S. R., & Braden, J. B. (1990). Race and gender bias in the administration of corporal punishment. School Psychology Review, 19, 378-383.
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.
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston: 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.
Snyder, H. N. and Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report. New York: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Center for Juvenile Justice, September.
Steele, C. (1992). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. The Atlantic Monthly, 269, 68-78.
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.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescent from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 64, 754-770.
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.
Terrell, F., Terrell, S., & Miller, F. (1993). Level of cultural mistrust as a function of educational and occupational expectations among Black students. Adolescence, 28, 573-578.
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.
Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Dropping out: how much do schools contribute to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87( 3), 374-392.
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.
Witt, P. A., & Crompton, J. L. (1997). The protective factors framework: A key to programming for benefits and evaluating for results. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 15(3), 1-18.
Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
No comments:
Post a Comment