TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS OF THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY. Erica Nicole Pollock

Transcription

1 TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS OF THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY A thsis prsntd to th facult of th Wstrn Carolina Univrsit in partial fulfillmnt of th rquirmnts for th dgr of Spcialist in School Pscholog. B Erica Nicol Pollock Chair: Dr. Candac Boan-Lnzo Associat Profssor of Pscholog Committ Mmbrs: Dr. Erin Mrs, Pscholog Dr. Lori Unruh, Pscholog April 2015

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would lik to thank m committ chair, committ mmbrs, and cohort for thir assistanc and ncouragmnt. In particular, I would lik to thank Dr. Candac Boan-Lnzo for nudging m to alwas do bttr, b bttr, and look dpr for bttr undrstanding. I also xtnd sincr thanks to th following popl, without whom this thsis would not hav bn possibl: Tammi Nowack, Kati Tamagno, and Julinn Dsrosirs. Lastl, I offr m warmst rgards and thanks to m mothr for hr continud support. ii

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tabls... vi Abstract... vii Introduction... 1 Litratur Rviw... 3 A Mthod for Examining th Rsarch on Acadmic Achivmnt... 3 Contributions from th Tachr... 4 Tachr-Studnt Rlationships... 5 Profssional Dvlopmnt... 5 Expctations... 5 Tachr Training Programs... 6 Tachr Subjct Mattr Knowldg... 6 Qualit of Taching... 7 Not Labling Studnts... 7 Tachr Clarit... 7 Summar of Tachr Contributions... 7 Contributions from th Curriculum... 8 Mathmatics Programs... 8 Writing Programs... 8 Rading Programs... 9 Scinc Programs, Social Skills Programs, Tactil Stumulation Programs and Pla Programs Drama/Arts Programs, Carr Education Programs, Intgratd Curricula Programs, Prcptual Motor Programs, and Valus and Moral Education Programs Spcific Curriculum Programs Summar of Curriculum Contributions Contributions from th Taching Approachs Stratgis Emphasizing Larning Intntions Stratgis Emphasizing Succss Critria Stratgis Emphasizing Fdback Stratgis Emphasizing Studnt Prspctivs in Larning Stratgis Emphasizing Studnt Mta-cognitiv and Slf-rgulatd Larning Implmntations Emphasizing Taching Stratgis Implmntations Emphasizing School-wid Taching Stratgis Implmntations Using Tchnolog Implmntations Using Out of School Larning Summar of Taching Approachs Contributions Contributions from th Child Background Information Attituds and Dispositions Phsical Influncs Prschool Exprincs Summar of Child Contributions iii

4 Contributions of th Hom Socioconomic Status Wlfar Policis Famil Structur Hom Environmnt Summar of Hom Contributions Contributions from th School Attributs of th School School Compositional Effcts Ladrship Classroom Compositional Effcts School Curriculum Effcts Classroom Influncs Summar of School Contributions Statmnt of Purpos Mthods Participants Matrials Dmographic Information Prcptions of Influnc Prcptions of Rankings Procdur Rsults Contributions of th Tachr Contributions of th Curriculum Contributions of th Taching Approachs Contributions of th Child Contributions of th Hom Contributions of th School Catgoris of Contributions Discussion Contributions from th Tachr Contributions from th Curriculum Contributions from th Taching Approachs Contributions from th Child Contributions from th Hom Contributions from th School Catgoris Rankd as th Top 2 with Rgard to Influnc on Studnt Achivmnt Catgoris Rankd as th Bottom 2 with Rgard to Influnc on Studnt Achivmnt Practical Implications Limitations Dirction For Futur Rsarch Rfrncs Appndix A Appndix B iv

5 Appndix C Appndix D Appndix E Appndix F Appndix G v

6 LIST OF TABLES Tabl 1: Hatti s Ovrall Findings Tabl 2: Contributions from th Tachr Within th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 3: Contributions from th Tachr Blow th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 4: Contributions from th Curriculum Within th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 5: Contributions from th Curriculum Blow th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 6: Contributions from th Taching Approachs Within th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 7: Contributions from th Taching Approachs Blow th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 8: Contributions from th Child Within th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 9: Contributions from th Child Blow th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 10: Contributions from th Hom Within th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 11: Contributions from th Hom Blow th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 12: Contributions from th School Within th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 13: Contributions from th School Blow th Zon of Dsird Effcts Tabl 14: Rankings of th Catgoris of Contributions vi

7 ABSTRACT TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS OF THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY Erica Nicol Pollock Wstrn Caroling Univrsit (April 2015) Dirctor: Dr. Candac Boan-Lnzo A substantial amount of rsarch analzing studnt acadmic achivmnt has bn conductd throughout th ars. Hatti (2009) snthsizd ovr 800 mta-analss rlatd to achivmnt. H organizd this information into six broad groups that ma influnc studnt achivmnt: Contributions of th Tachr, Contributions of th Curriculum, Contributions of th Taching Approachs, Contributions of th Child, Contributions of th Hom, and Contributions of th School. Whil this knowldg is significant, thr is no indication that this vidnc is bing usd in th schools and classrooms. Hatti xprssd concrns about th gap btwn scintific vidnc and practic in th schools. Th ovrarching purpos of conducting this rsarch was to gathr information about what tachrs prciv to b th factors that influnc studnt achivmnt. Tachrs hav a significant opportunit to influnc studnt achivmnt. Thus, it is important for thir prcptions to align with rsarch findings. Whn tachrs prcptions align with th rsarch findings, studnts ma b ducatd in th most ffctiv mannr possibl. For this stud, participants wr solicitd from school districts that wr willing to participat in a wb-basd surv to masur prcptions of factors that influnc studnt acadmic achivmnt. Participants in this stud includd tachrs working with lmntar vii

8 through high school studnts. Thr was vn distribution of th participants who tach ach grad lvl, with most participants having obtaind ithr a Bachlor s Dgr or a Mastr s Dgr. Th majorit of th participants wr fmal, vtran tachrs that provid rgular ducation srvics in traditional public schools. Th sampl had a disproportionat numbr of participants in rural communitis, with onl a handful of nationall crtifid tachrs. Th onlin surv providr, Qualtrics, was usd to crat a surv for this rsarch. Th Tachrs Prcptions of th Factors that Influnc Studnt Achivmnt Surv (s Appndix G) is a surv that was dsignd to gaug tachrs prspctivs rgarding th factors that influnc studnt acadmic achivmnt. Th surv first providd participants with an ovrviw of th surv qustions, information about informd consnt, and whom to contact if th had an qustions about th surv rsults. Th surv gathrd information on dmographics, prcptions of th influnc of ach factor within th six broad catgoris, and rankings of most important to last important factor within ach group. Th information gathrd through this stud suggsts that tachrs ma not b awar of th currnt rsarch findings rgarding th factors that ma impact studnt acadmic achivmnt. Rsults of this stud suggstd that tachrs tnd to valuat most factors to impact studnt achivmnt in a positiv dirction. viii

9 INTRODUCTION Acadmic achivmnt is th xtnt to which a studnt achivs stablishd ducational goals. It is most commonl masurd b standardizd tsts, curriculum basd assssmnts, and grad point avrag (Prozzi, Rain, & Wahlquist, 2003; Romn, 2003). In ducational rsarch, acadmic achivmnt is oftn xamind with rgard to rading, writing, and math skills. Acadmic achivmnt is important bcaus it impacts th functioning of individuals, communitis and socit as a whol. Rsarch has dmonstratd positiv corrlations btwn acadmic achivmnt and incom (Baum & Ma, 2007; Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013), halth (Cutlr & Llras-Mun, 2007; Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013), lif xpctanc (Cutlr & Llras-Mun, 2007; Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013), suprior dcision-making (Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013), civic participation (voting, voluntr work, charitabl giving) (Baum & Ma, 2007; Smith & Holcomb, 2011; Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013), tax rvnu (Smith & Holcomb, 2011; Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013), and th qualit of lif of offspring ((Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013). Ngativ corrlations hav bn stablishd btwn acadmic achivmnt and unmplomnt rats (Baum & Ma, 2007; Rosngrn, 2013; Smith & Holcomb, 2011; Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013), povrt (Smith & Holcomb, 2011), smoking (Baum & Ma, 2007; Smith & Holcomb, 2011), obsit (Smith & Holcomb, 2011), and incarcration rats (Smith & Holcomb, 2011; Th NHHEAF Ntwork Organizations, 2013). Substantial rsarch has bn conductd on th factors that impact acadmic achivmnt (.g., Blatchford, Basstt, & Brown, 2011; Clark, Glason, Tuttl, Silvrbrg, & Mathmatica, 2011; Dk, Dragost, Bogn, Gill, & National Cntr for Education Evaluation and Rgional 1

10 Assistanc, 2012; Epps, 2010; Hllr, National Cntr for Education Evaluation and,rgional Assistanc, & Rgional Educational, 2012; Hmari, t al., 2013; Huang, 2013; Kulo & Bodzin, 2013; Mrritt t al., 2011; Nicotra, Mndiburo, & Brnds, 2010). Ths factors ar important bcaus th provid us with information that can b usd to improv schools. Hatti (2009) rviwd ovr 800 mta-analss rlatd to acadmic achivmnt, and was abl to catgoriz th factors that hav bn studid into th following groups: (1) Contributions from th Tachr, (2) Contributions from th Curriculum, (3) Contributions from Taching Approachs, (4) Contributions from th Child, (5) Contributions from th Hom, and (6) Contributions from th School. As a rsult of his comprhnsiv approach to valuating th xtant litratur, w hav a bttr undrstanding of what actuall impacts studnt larning. Howvr, w do not hav a clar pictur of whthr tachrs rcogniz th importanc of ths factors as th rlat to studnt achivmnt. Th purpos of this stud is to xamin tachrs prcptions of how important ach variabl idntifid b Hatti is with rgard to studnt achivmnt outcoms. 2

11 LITERATURE REVIEW Ovr 800 mta-analss hav xamind factors that impact acadmic achivmnt (Hatti, 2009). Hatti groupd th factors that wr idntifid in prvious rsarch into th six aformntiond catgoris. H also took stps to snthsiz th data collctd in th mtaanalss to mak it mor comprhnsibl and accssibl for ducators. On of his goals was to dcras th gap btwn findings in rsarch and practics in schools. Whil his book was publishd 4 ars ago, w still do not hav a sns of what tachrs prciv to b th most important factors influncing studnt achivmnt. Th subsqunt rviw of th litratur will (1) discuss Hatti s mthodolog for snthsizing and valuating th magnitud of factors that influnc acadmic achivmnt, (2) xamin Hatti s rsults with rgard to ach of th six catgoris, in th ordr of dclining ffct siz, and (3) xplor th scant rsarch on tachrs prcptions with rgard to th importanc of variabls within ach of th six catgoris. A Mthod for Examining th Rsarch on Acadmic Achivmnt Hatti (2009) took svral stps to snthsiz th data collctd in th 800 mta-analss in practical and intlligibl mannr. On of th first stps was to simplif ffct siz into a mor asil undrstood masur. Hatti did this b using th common languag ffct (CLE) siz indicator. Th common languag ffct siz indicator was cratd b McGraw and Wong (1992) as an altrnativ wa of considring an ffct siz (as citd in Hatti, 2009), in which th probabilit that a scor sampld from on distribution will b gratr than a scor sampld from som othr distribution, (p. 8). Hatti uss th xampl of th avrag hight of mn and womn. Whn chosn at random, th hight of on mal and th hight of on fmal, th ffct siz is Cohn s d = 2.0. This convrts into a common languag stimat (CLE) of 92%, which 3

12 mans that in 92 % of th drawings of random pairs, th mal will hav a gratr hight than th fmal. In rfrnc to th factors to b discussd rlatd to studnt acadmic achivmnt, this would man that th CLE is th rat at which th factor influncs acadmic achivmnt. Hatti uss th xampl of homwork and acadmic achivmnt. Homwork has a CLE of 21%. This mans that in 21 out of 100 tims, introducing homwork into schools will mak a positiv diffrnc, or 21% of th studnts will gain in achivmnt compard to thos not having homwork (p. 8). Th nxt stp Hatti (2009) took was to crat a hing-point or bnchmark for comparing ach ffct siz or CLE. This hing point acts an indicator of th ral-world diffrncs, bcaus th ffct sizs in ducation studis tnd to b positiv and giv th apparanc that vrthing that w do in classrooms works. Prvious ducational rsarch has dmonstratd that small ffct sizs (d = 0.0 to 0.15) can b attributd to simpl maturation of th studnts (Cahan & Davis, 1987 as citd in Hatti, 2009). Hatti idntifis small ffct sizs (d=0.15 and lowr) to b ducationall harmful sinc th indicat no achivmnt bond that of intllctual maturation (without an schooling). Furthr, small to mdium ffct sizs (d=0.20 to 0.40) ar what tachrs tpicall achiv in an acadmic ar. Hatti idntifid a mdium to larg ffct siz (d=0.40 or gratr) as th hing-point for a variabl to hav had an abov avrag impact on acadmic achivmnt. H rfrs to ffct sizs at or abov th hing point as th zon of dsird ffcts. Both th common languag stimat (CLE) and hing-point will b usd throughout th discussion of th litratur. Th nxt sctions will xamin th impact of factors within six catgoris on acadmic achivmnt and rsarch on tachrs prcptions of th importanc of factors within ach catgor. Contributions from th Tachr 4

13 Th Contributions from th Tachr group is comprisd of charactristics of th tachr that hav bn xamind in rlation to acadmic achivmnt (Hatti, 2009). This group includs tachr-studnt rlationships, profssional dvlopmnt, xpctations, tachr training programs, tachr subjct mattr knowldg, qualit of taching, not labling studnts, and tachr clarit. (S Appndix A for d and CLE valus.) Tachr-studnt rlationships. Basd on his rviw of th mta-analss, Hatti (2009) dtrmind that th influnc of tachr-studnt rlationships on acadmic achivmnt was in th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.72; CLE = 51%). Howvr, it appars that tachrs might not b awar of importanc of thir intrprsonal rlationship with studnts as it rlats to acadmic achivmnt. Bishop, Brrman, and Richardson (2002, as citd in Hatti, 2009) and found that whil studnts, parnts, and principals idntifid studnt-tachr rlationship as having a significant impact on studnt acadmic achivmnt, tachrs did not idntif th importanc of tachr-studnt rlationships in studnt achivmnt. Profssional dvlopmnt. Hatti (2009) found that th influnc of th profssional dvlopmnt of tachrs on studnt achivmnt to b in th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.62; CLE = 44%). A rviw of th litratur stablishd that tachrs blivd that profssional dvlopmnt rlatd to prsonal and school goals would hav a significant impact on acadmic achivmnt (Scholastic & Th Bill & Mlinda Gats Foundation, 2012). Expctations. Expctations rfr to th xpctations tachrs hav rgarding studnt abilit and skills. Hatti (2009) dtrmind basd on his rviw of th mta-analss, that th influnc of tachr xpctations on studnt achivmnt was in th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.43; CLE = 31%). Studis hav shown that, of th tachrs survd, 86-96% of tachrs 5

14 thought that having high xpctations for all studnts would hav a significant positiv impact on achivmnt (Lov, 2010; Scholastic & Th Bill & Mlinda Gats Foundation, 2012). Tachr training programs. To analz th influnc of tachr training programs, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of microtaching (d = 0.88; CLE = 62%), tachr ffcts (d = 0.32; CLE = 23%), and tachr training (d = 0.11; CLE = 8%). His snthsis of th findings suggstd th microtaching, a practic whr studnt-tachrs ar vidotapd taching a small group of studnts, and thn th rcording is rviwd and discussd, influncs acadmic achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Svral studis xamining tachrs prcptions of microtaching hav indicatd that tachrs bliv microtaching is a usful tool for thir dvlopmnt as tachrs (.g., H & Yan, 2011; Kilic, 2010; McLaur, 2011; Mrglr & Tangn, 2010). Hatti (2009) found tachr ffcts, such as prsonalit charactristics, and tachr training to fall blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Tachr subjct mattr knowldg. Aftr rviwing all of th rlvant rsarch, Hatti (2009) dtrmind tachr subjct mattr knowldg was not within th zon of dsird ffcts (d= 0.09, CLE 6%). Both prominnt ducation rsarchrs (.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006) and tachrs bliv that subjct mattr knowldg is important with rgard to studnt achivmnt (Scholastic & Th Bill & Mlinda Gats Foundation, 2012). Approximatl 75% of th tachrs survd in on stud rportd that an assssmnt of th tachr s contnt-ara knowldg should contribut to th masur of thir tachr prformanc, and about 64% also statd that th assssmnt of thir contnt-ara knowldg should occur mor oftn than it currntl dos in thir school sstm (Scholastic & Th Bill & Mlinda Gats Foundation, 2012). 6

15 Qualit of taching. Th qualit of taching was dfind b Hatti (2009) as studnt prcption of th qualit of instruction. H found that th qualit of taching influncs acadmic achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.44; CLE = 31%). Not labling studnts. Not labling studnts rfrs to th dcision to not classif studnts with disabilitis. Th non-labling movmnt is basd on th position that disabld childrn pass through cognitiv dvlopmntal stags in an idntical mannr but diffr in rat and th uppr limit of dvlopmnt (Hatti, 2009, p. 125). Aftr a thorough rviw of th prvious rsarch, Hatti concludd that th influnc of not labling studnts on studnt acadmic achivmnt was in th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.61; CLE = 43%). This mans that studnts who ar not idntifid as having a disabilit and do not rciv subsqunt spcial ducation srvics hav highr achivmnt outcoms than thos that do gt classifid and rciv spcial ducation srvics. Tachr clarit. Hatti (2009) dfind tachr clarit as th tachr clarl communicating th intntions of th lssons and th notions of what succss mans for ths intntions (p. 125). H dtrmind that th influnc of tachr clarit on studnt achivmnt was in th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.75; CLE = 53%). No studis hav dirctl assssd tachrs prcptions about how microtaching, tachr ffcts, tachr training programs, tachr subjct mattr knowldg, qualit of taching (as prcivd b th studnts), not labling studnts, or tachr clarit spcificall impact studnt achivmnt. Summar of tachr contributions. Hatti (2009) idntifid th following tachr variabls to influnc studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffct: microtaching, studntqualit of taching, tachr rlationships, profssional dvlopmnt, xpctations, not labling studnts, and tachr clarit. H found tachr ffcts and tachr training to hav no significant 7

16 impact on studnt achivmnt. Fw studis hav xamind whthr tachrs prciv an of ths factors to impact studnt achivmnt. Contributions from th Curriculum Th Contributions from th Curriculum group is comprisd of charactristics of th curriculum that hav bn xamind in rlation to acadmic achivmnt (Hatti, 2009). This group includs mathmatics programs, writing programs, rading programs, scinc programs, social skills programs, tactil stimulation programs, pla programs, drama/arts programs, carr ducation programs, intgratd curriculum programs, prcptual motor programs, valus and moral ducation programs, and spcific curriculum programs. Rsarch has shown that 89% of tachrs blivd that having high qualit curriculum and curriculum that wnt bond what is tstd on standardizd tsts would hav a significant impact on acadmic achivmnt (Scholastic & Th Bill & Mlinda Gats Foundation, 2012). Tachrs also blivd that curriculum that clarl las out th scop and squnc of what should b taught would also hav a significant impact on studnt acadmic achivmnt. (S Appndix B for d and CLE valus.) Mathmatics programs. Whn analzing th mathmatics programs data, Hatti (2009) also xamind th us of calculators. Whil h found th influnc of mathmatics programs on achivmnt to b in th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.45; CLE = 32%), th sam was not vidnt for th us of calculators, which fll blow th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.27; CLE = 19%). A rviw of rlvant litratur showd that tachrs participating in th MtLif surv xprssd th blif that offring cor rading, writing, and math skills would improv acadmic achivmnt (Lov, 2010). Writing programs. Basd on his snthsis, Hatti (2009) dtrmind that writing programs influnc acadmic achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts (d = 0.44; CLE = 31%). 8

17 Rading programs. To analz th influnc of rading programs, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of vocabular programs (d = 0.67; CLE = 47%), rpatd rading (d = 0.67; CLE = 47%), phonics instruction (d = 0.60; CLE = 43%), comprhnsion programs (d = 0.58; CLE = 41%), visual-prcption (d = 0.55; CLE = 39%), scond/third chanc (d = 0.50; CLE = 35%), xposur to rading (d = 0.36; CLE = 25%), sntnc combining (d = 0.15; CLE = 10%), and whol languag (d = 0.06; CLE = 4%). Hatti (2009) found that vocabular programs, rpatd rading, phonics instruction, comprhnsion programs, visual-prcption, and scond/third chanc programs influncd studnt acadmic achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Hatti statd that, Rpatd rading consists of r-rading a short and maningful passag until satisfactor lvl of flunc is rachd (p. 135). Phonics instruction tachs studnts th alphabtic cod of lttrs and lttr sounds and how to appl this cod to rad words. Visual-prcption programs ar dsignd to tach studnt how to organiz and intrprt lttrs on a pag. Scond/third chanc programs ar programs dsign to tach studnts whos rading abilit is blow grad lvl th rading skills ndd to rach th appropriat grad lvl. Hatti s (2009) snthsis of th findings suggstd that xposur to rading, sntnc combining, and whol languag programs influnc acadmic achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Exposur to rading includs parnts rading with thir childrn, tachrs rading to thir studnts, and voluntrs rading to studnts. Hatti dfind sntnc combining as an instructional stratg that rquirs studnt s to combin on or mor sntncs into on compound, complx, or compound-complx sntnc (p. 134). Whol languag rading programs us th concpt of gathring th maning of words from th words around thm whn prsntd in a crtain contxt. Using this approach, on is abl to figur out what a word mans 9

18 basd on how it is usd in a sntnc. Hatti discovrd that most of th rsarch rlatd to sntnc combining and whol languag rading programs to b vagu and conflicting. Whil tachrs in a surv xprssd th blif that offring cor rading skills would improv acadmic achivmnt (Lov, 2010), no rsarch has xamind tachr prcptions rgarding how spcific rading programs impact studnt acadmic achivmnt. Scinc programs, social skills programs, tactil stimulation programs, and pla programs. Hatti s (2009) snthsis of th mta-analss findings suggstd that scinc programs (d = 0.40; CLE = 29%), social skills programs (d = 0.40; CLE = 27%), tactil stimulation programs (d = 0.58; CLE = 41%), and pla programs (d = 0.50; CLE = 35%) influnc acadmic achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Tactil stimulation programs us snsor nrichmnt or stimulation to ncourag dvlopmnt. Pla programs focus on allowing childrn to larn through th act of plaing. Drama/Arts programs, carr ducation programs, intgratd curricula programs, prcptual motor programs, and valus and moral ducation programs. Through his snthsis Hatti (2009) dtrmind that drama and arts programs (d = 0.35; CLE = 25%), carr ducation programs (d = 0.38; CLE = 27%), intgratd curricula programs (d = 0.39; CLE = 28%), prcptual motor programs (d = 0.08; CLE = 6%), and valus and moral ducation programs (d = 0.24; CLE = 17%) influnc acadmic achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Intgratd curricula programs focus on intgrating lssons to promot studnts making connctions across subjcts. Hatti (2009) dfind prcptual motor programs as programs that includ taching in visual and figur and ground discrimination, visual motor abilitis, visual spatial prcption, and balanc and bod awarnss, (p. 153). No studis wr availabl which xamind tachrs viw rgarding th impact of scinc programs, social skills programs, tactil 10

19 stimulation programs, pla programs, drama/arts programs, carr ducation programs, intgratd curriculum programs, prcptual motor programs, or valus and morals programs on acadmic achivmnt. Spcific curriculum programs. To analz th influnc of spcific curricula programs, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of crativit programs (d = 0.65; CLE = 47%), outdoor/advntur programs (d = 0.52; CLE = 37%), and bilingual programs (d = 0.37; CLE = 26%), and xtra-curricular programs (d = 0.17; CLE =12%). His snthsis of th findings suggstd crativit programs and outdoor/advntur programs influnc acadmic achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Crativit programs, which focus on training, practicing, and ncouragmnt to us crativ skills to fostr crativ thinking, Bilingual programs and xtra-curricular programs wr found b Hatti (2009) to influnc acadmic achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Whil significant rsarch has bn conductd on th influnc of ths spcific curriculum programs on acadmic achivmnt, no rsarch has addrssd tachrs prspctivs rgarding ths influncs on studnt achivmnt. Summar of curriculum contributions. Hatti (2009) idntifid th following curriculum variabls to influnc studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffct: vocabular programs, rpatd rading, phonics instruction, comprhnsion programs, visual-prcption programs, scond/third chanc programs, writing programs, mathmatics programs, scinc programs, social skills programs, tactil stimulation programs, pla programs, crativit programs, and outdoor/advntur programs. H found xposur to rading, sntnc combining programs, whol languag programs, drama/arts programs, valus and moral ducation programs, carr ducation programs, intgratd curricula programs, prcptual motor programs, bilingual programs, and xtra-curricular programs to hav no significant impact on studnt 11

20 achivmnt. Fw studis hav xamind whthr tachrs prciv an of ths factors to impact studnt achivmnt. Contributions from th Taching Approachs Th Contributions from th Taching Approachs group is comprisd of charactristics of mthods of taching that hav bn xamind in rlation to acadmic achivmnt (Hatti, 2009). This group includs stratgis mphasizing larning intntions, succss critria, fdback, studnt prspctivs in larning, and studnt mta-cognitiv and slf-rgulatd larning; implmntations mphasizing taching stratgis and school-wid taching stratgis; and implmntations using tchnolog and out of school larning. (S Appndix C for d and CLE valus.) Stratgis mphasizing larning intntions. Larning intntions ar th knowldg, skills, attituds, and valus that tachrs want studnts to gain with ach lsson or unit (Hatti, 2009). To analz th influnc of stratgis mphasizing larning intntions, Hatti organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of goals (d = 0.56; CLE = 40%), concpt mapping (d = 0.57; CLE = 40%), bhavioral objctivs and advanc organizrs (d = 0.41; CLE = 29%), and larning hirarchis (d = 0.19; CLE = 13%). Hatti dtrmind that goals, th stting of appropriatl challnging goals for studnts, influnc studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Hatti (2009) also concludd that concpt mapping, th dvlopmnt of graphical rprsntations of th concptual structur of th contnt to b larnt (p. 168), influncs acadmic achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Both ducational rsarchrs (.g., Aka, Kaa, & Kilic, 2012; Emmanul, 2013; Miandoab, Mostafai, & Ghadri, 2012) and tachrs agrd that concpt mapping has a positiv impact on studnt achivmnt (Malsza, 2001). 12

21 Bhavioral objctivs and advanc organizrs wr found to influnc studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts as wll. Bhavioral objctivs rfr to statmnts of abilitis that studnt should hav as a rsult of instruction. Advanc organizrs aid studnts in organizing and intrprting nw instruction b linking old information with th nw information. Datd rsarch indicatd tachrs ar undcidd in thir viw of whthr bhavioral objctivs influnc studnt achivmnt (Fr, 1973). Basd on his snthsis, Hatti (2009) concludd that larning hirarchis, larning structurs whr th first skills taught support futur larning, influnc studnt acadmic achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Rsarch addrssing tachrs prspctivs of th influnc of stting challnging goals, advanc organizrs, or larning hirarchis has t to b conductd. Stratgis mphasizing succss critria. Succss critria rlats to tachrs making it clar to studnts what critria will b usd to dtrmin th studnts succss. To analz th influnc of stratgis mphasizing succss critria, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of mastr larning (d = 0.58; CLE =41%), workd xampls (d = 0.57; CLE = 40%), and Kllr s Prsonalizd Sstm of Instruction (d = 0.53; CLE = 37%). H dtrmind that ach of ths stratgis mphasizing succss critria influncd studnt acadmic achivmnt in zon of dsird ffcts. Mastr larning is a stratg whr studnts must mastr (usuall with 80-90% accurac as th dfining critria) matrial in a givn lvl bfor th can mov on to th nxt lvl (Motamdi). With mastr larning, studnts ar providd frqunt fdback during ach lvl. Workd xampls ar a stratg whr studnts ar givn xampl problms and shown how to prform th stps ndd to rach th solution. Kllr s Prsonalizd Sstm of Instruction is a form of programmd instruction that mplos a highl 13

22 structurd, studnt-cntrd approach to cours dsign that mphasizs slf-pacing and mastr (p. 171). No rsarch has bn compltd to analz tachrs prcptions rgarding th influnc of ach of ths stratgis on studnt achivmnt. Stratgis mphasizing fdback. To analz th influnc of stratgis mphasizing fdback, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of providing formativ valuation of programs (d = 0.90; CLE = 64%), fdback (d = 0.73; CLE = 52%), qustioning (d = 0.46; CLE = 32%), frqunt tsting/ffcts of tsting (d = 0.34; CLE = 24%), taching tst taking and coaching (d = 0.22; CLE = 16%), and tachr immdiac (d = 0.16; CLE = 8%). Hatti dtrmind that th stratgis of providing formativ valuation of programs, fdback, and qustioning ach influnc studnt acadmic achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Howvr, frqunt tsting/ffcts of tsting, taching tst taking and coaching, and tachr immdiac wr ach found to influnc studnt acadmic achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Providing formativ valuation of programs consists of providing tachrs information about how wll th ar doing in achiving th larning intntions th hav st for thir studnts so that th tachrs can adapt thir taching as ndd. For Hatti s snthsis, h rfrrd to fdback as both fdback that tachrs provid to studnts and fdback that tachrs rciv from thir studnts. Qustioning rfrs to tachrs asking thir studnts qustions to lad thm in th acquisition of knowldg. Frqunt tsting and ffcts of tsting rfr to how oftn tsts ar givn to masur studnt achivmnt and th ffcts of tsting on studnt achivmnt. Taching tst taking and coaching rfrs to tst prparation activitis carrid out in ordr to improv tst scors (p.179). Tachr immdiac rfrs to th tachr s immdiac and closnss of rsponss to th studnts (p. 183). 14

23 Whil rsarch spcificall rlatd to tachrs prcptions on th influncs of providing formativ valuation of programs, fdback, qustioning, frqunt tsting/ffcts of tsting, taching tst taking and coaching, and tachr immdiac on studnt achivmnt could not b found, mor gnral rsarch has bn conductd. Tachrs participating in th Primar Sourcs 2012 surv ratd th following forms of assssmnt as vr important to absolutl ssntial in masuring studnt achivmnt: formativ, ongoing assssmnts (92%); class participation (90%); prformanc on class assignmnts (91%); final xams (44%); districtrquird tsts (30%); stat-rquird tsts (28%); and tsts from txtbooks (26%) (Scholastic & Th Bill & Mlinda Gats Foundation, 2012). Th rsults also indicatd that onl 26% of tachrs prcivd standardizd tsts to accuratl rprsnt th abilitis of thir studnts. Stratgis mphasizing studnt prspctivs in larning. To analz th influnc of stratgis mphasizing studnt prspctivs in larning, Hatti (2009) organizd th mtaanalss into th catgoris of spacd vrsus massd practic (d = 0.71; CLE = N/A), pr tutoring (d = 0.55; CLE = 39%), tim on task (d = 0.38; CLE = 27%), and mntoring (d = 0.15; CLE = 11%). Through his snthsis, Hatti (2009) dtrmind that spacd practic and pr tutoring influnc studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Spacd practic rfrs to th practic of a task that compltd at spacd intrvals rathr than in on lngth intrval. Hatti concludd that tim on task and mntoring influnc studnt achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Tim on task rfrs to th tim that a studnt is ngagd in complting a task. Mntoring is a form of tutoring involving an oldr individual providing tutoring to a oungr individual. No studis hav analzd tachrs prcption of th influnc spacd vrsus massd practic, pr tutoring, tim-on-task, or mntoring on studnt achivmnt. 15

24 Stratgis mphasizing studnt mta-cognitiv and slf-rgulatd larning. To analz th influnc of stratgis mphasizing studnt mta-cognitiv and slf-rgulatd larning, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of mta-cognitiv stratgis (d = 0.69; CLE = 49%), slf-vrbalization and slf-qustioning (d = 0.64; CLE = 45%), stud skills (d = 0.59; CLE = 41%), matching stl of larning (d = 0.41; CLE = 29%), individualizd instruction (d = 0.23; CLE = 16%), aptitud-tratmnt intractions (d = 0.19; CLE = 14%), and studnt control ovr larning (d = 0.04; CLE = 5%). Basd on his snthsis, Hatti dtrmind that mta-cognitiv stratgis, slf-vrbalization and slf-qustioning, stud skills, and matching stl of larning influnc studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Mta-cognitiv stratgis rfr to taching highr-ordr thinking stratgis. Slf-vrbalization or slf-qustioning involvs appling a stratg whr a studnt asks thmslvs qustions to rason through difficult problms (.g., What is likl to happn nxt in th stor? ) or to rmmbr important ruls for approaching tasks (.g., Did I rmmbr to put a punctuation at th nd of m sntnc? ). Stud skills stratgis programs focus on improving studnt larning using intrvntions outsid of th prscribd tachr lssons. Th stratg of matching th stl of larning involvs aligning taching practics with th dominant stl of larning for a givn subjct. Individualizd instruction, aptitud-tratmnt intractions, and studnt control ovr larning wr dtrmind to influnc studnt achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts (Hatti, 2009.) Aptitud-tratmnt intractions involvs altring th instruction basd on th tp of studnt, such as placing a child with lowr intllctual abilit into a highl structurd acadmic curriculum. Studnt control ovr larning rfrs to th amount of choic and control a studnt has ovr his or hr larning. Whil no rsarch has studid tachrs prspctivs 16

25 rgarding this influnc on studnt achivmnt, offring studnts a choic in th ducational procss has bcom a popular ida in schools to improv th motivation of studnts (Millr, 2012; Patall, Coopr, & Wnn, 2010). Studis hav not xamind tachrs viws rgarding th influnc of mta-cognitiv stratgis, stud skills, individualizd instruction, or aptitudtratmnt intractions on studnt achivmnt. Implmntations mphasizing taching stratgis. To analz th influnc of implmntations mphasizing taching stratgis, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of rciprocal taching (d = 0.74; CLE = 52%), problm-solving taching (d = 0.61; CLE = 43%), taching stratgis (d = 0.60; CLE = 42%), cooprativ vs. individualistic larning (d = 0.59; CLE = 42%), dirct instruction (d = 0.59; CLE = 41%), cooprativ vs. comptitiv larning (d = 0.54; CLE = 39%), cooprativ larning (d = 0.41; CLE = 29%), adjunct aids (d = 0.37; CLE = 26%), inductiv taching (d = 0.33; CLE = 23%), inquir-basd taching (d = 0.31; CLE = 22%), comptitiv vs. individualistic larning (d = 0.24; CLE = 17%), and problm-basd larning (d = 0.15; CLE = 11%). Basd on his snthsis, Hatti dtrmind that rciprocal taching, problm-solving taching, taching stratgis, cooprativ vs. individualistic larning, dirct instruction, cooprativ vs. comptitiv larning, and cooprativ larning ach influncd studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Rciprocal taching is an instructional mthod in which studnts ar taught to us cognitiv stratgis to promot larning (Hatti, 2009). Ths stratgis involv larning to summariz, qustion, clarif, and prdict as ou ar handling ducational matrial (Palinscar & Brown, 1984). Hatti dfind problm-solving taching as involving th act of dfining or dtrmining th caus of th problm or idntifing, prioritizing, and slcting altrnativs for a solution or using multipl prspctivs to uncovr th issus rlatd to a particular problm, 17

26 dsigning an intrvntion plan, and thn valuating th out com (p. 210). Taching stratgis ar th diffrnt mthods of taching that ar usd b tachrs. Whn discussing cooprativ vrsus individualistic larning, Hatti (2009) was comparing mthods in which studnts work togthr to complt a task with mthods in which studnts work individuall to complt a task. Hatti dfind dirct instruction as involving th tachr stting larning intntions and succss critria and making thm clar to studnts, dmonstrating th intntions and succss critria, valuating th studnts undrstanding, and ting th information togthr b rtlling it in a mannr of closur. Whn Hatti (2009) discusss cooprativ vrsus comptitiv larning, h was comparing th mthod of studnts working togthr on a task to th mthod of studnts compting against ach othr whn complting a task. Howvr, rsarch has dmonstratd that man tachrs valu cooprativ larning whil rcognizing difficultis with implmnting it in th classroom (Gillis & Bol, 2010; Sharan, 2010). Hatti (2009) found that adjunct aids, inductiv taching, inquir-basd taching, comptitiv vrsus individualistic larning, and problm-basd larning influncd studnt achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. As dfind b Eln (2006) adjunct aids ar instructional intrvntions insrtd in txtbooks in viw of supporting larnrs to procss th information (p. 17). This includs things such as figurs or tabls that ar dsignd to prsnt information in th txt in a diffrnt mannr. Inquir-basd taching involvs dvloping challnging situations in which studnts ar askd to obsrv and qustion phnomna, pos xplanations, conduct xprimnts, analz data, draw conclusion, and build modls. Comptitiv vrsus individualistic larning compars larning mthods in which studnts work on a task individuall to th mthod in which studnts work on a task individuall whil 18

27 compting with classmats (Hatti, 2009). Problm-basd larning is a taching mthod whr authntic problms ar usd to promot th acquisition of rquird knowldg and problm solving skills. No rsarch has analzd tachrs prcptions of th influnc of rciprocal taching, problm-solving taching, taching stratgis, cooprativ vs. individualistic larning, dirct instruction, cooprativ vs. comptitiv larning, cooprativ larning, adjunct aids, inductiv taching, inquir-basd taching, comptitiv vs. individualistic larning, and problmbasd larning on studnt acadmic achivmnt. Implmntations mphasizing school-wid taching stratgis. To analz th influnc of implmntations that mphasiz school-wid taching stratgis, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of comprhnsiv intrvntions for larning disabld studnts (d = 0.77; CLE = 54%), spcial collg programs (d = 0.24; CLE = 17%), comprhnsiv taching rforms (d = 0.22; CLE = 15%), and co-taching/tam taching (d = 0.19; CLE = 13%). Basd on his snthsis, Hatti dtrmind that comprhnsiv intrvntions for larning disabld studnts influncd studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Whil no studis hav spcificall assssd tachr s prcptions rgarding th influnc of ths intrvntions on studnt achivmnt, rsarch has xamind tachr dispositional variabls that prdict how th viw working with studnts with larning disabilitis (.g., Elik, Winr, & Corkum, 2010; Talmor, Ritin, & Figin 2005). Hatti (2009) concludd that spcial collg programs, comprhnsiv taching rforms, and co-taching/tam taching ach influncd studnt achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. No studis hav xamind tachrs prcptions about th influnc of ths thr factors on studnt achivmnt. Spcial collg programs rfr to collg rmdiation programs. 19

28 Comprhnsiv taching rforms ar aimd at improving taching. Co-taching/tam taching is whr two or mor tachrs working togthr to dlivr instruction. Implmntations using tchnolog. To analz th influnc of implmntations using tchnologis, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of intractiv vido mthods (d = 0.52; CLE = 36%), computr-assistd instruction (d = 0.37; CLE = 27%), simulations (d = 0.33; CLE = 23%), programmd instruction (d = 0.24; CLE = 17%), visual/audio-visual mthods (d = 0.22; CLE = 16%), and wb-basd larning (d = 0.18; CLE = 12%). Litratur indicatd 87 prcnt of tachrs blivd that having up-to-dat tchnolog that is wll intgratd into th classroom would hav a significant impact on improving acadmic achivmnt. Also in a 2012 surv, of th vtran tachrs, 88% blivd that wll-intgratd tchnolog can hav a substantial influnc on studnt acadmic achivmnt (Scholastic & Th Bill & Mlinda Gats Foundation, 2012). Tachrs participating in a surv also agrd, stating that kping pac with tchnolog and rlatd social changs would hav an impact on improving acadmic achivmnt (Lov, 2010). Hatti (2009) dtrmind that intractiv vido mthods that combin vido and computr-basd instructional tchniqus influncd studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. No rsarch has spcificall xamind th viws of tachrs rgarding th influnc of intractiv vido mthods on studnt achivmnt. Howvr, svral tachrs in addition to th stat of Idaho hav startd adding Khan Acadm vidos and YouTub vidos of thmslvs taching into thir taching stratgis du to th positiv rsults th ar sing in thir studnts (Ash, 2013; Graham & Walkr, 2013; Kronholz, 2012). Basd on his snthsis, Hatti (2009) concludd that computr-assistd instruction, simulations, programmd instruction, visual/audio-visual mthods, and wb-basd larning ach 20

29 impactd studnt achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. No studis hav xamind tachrs prcptions about th influnc of ths four factors on studnt achivmnt. Computr-assistd instruction rfrs to th us of computrs to assist in th instruction of studnts. Simulations ar rprsntations of actual scnarios and outcoms. Programmd instruction rfrs to prsnting nw subjct mattr to studnts in gradd squnc of controlld stps (p. 231, Hatti, 2009). Visual/audio-visual mthods involv using varit of visual and audio mdia as part of classroom instruction. Wb-basd larning is th us of th World Wid Wb in instruction. Implmntations using out of school larning. To analz th influnc of implmntations using out of school larning, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of homwork (d = 0.29; CLE = 21%), hom-school programs (d = 0.16; CLE = 11%), and distanc ducation (d = 0.09; CLE = 6%). H dtrmind that ach of ths influncd studnt acadmic achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Homwork has bn rportd to hav a positiv impact on studnt achivmnt (Gustafsson, 2013; Zhu & Lung, 2012) and tachrs agr with ths findings (Hong, Wan, & Png, 2011; Shahzada, t.al., 2011). Howvr, tachrs hav bn rportd to viw homwork as a simpl rward for working, not a mthod for larning (Vattrott, 2011). Hom-school programs involv th us of tchnolog to build connctions btwn th hom and school in th studnts larning. Ths programs includ th us of laptops, dsktops, and softwar usd in both th hom and school sttings. Distanc larning involvs studnts rciving instruction from th tachr via som form of mdia and th studnt complting assignmnts outsid of th standard school stting. No rsarch has discussd th prcptions of tachrs rgarding th influnc of hom-school programs or distanc larning on studnt achivmnt. 21

30 Summar of taching approachs contributions. Hatti (2009) idntifid th following taching approachs variabls to influnc studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffct: goals, concpt mapping, bhavioral objctivs and advanc organizrs, of mastr larning, workd xampls, Kllr s Prsonalizd Sstm of Instruction, providing formativ valuation of programs, fdback, qustioning, spacd vrsus massd practic, pr tutoring, mta-cognitiv stratgis, slf-vrbalization and slf-qustioning, stud skills, matching stl of larning, rciprocal taching, problm-solving taching, taching stratgis, cooprativ vs. individualistic larning, dirct instruction, cooprativ vs. comptitiv larning, cooprativ larning, comprhnsiv intrvntions for larning disabld studnts, and intractiv vido mthods. H found larning hirarchis, frqunt tsting/ffcts of tsting, taching tst taking and coaching, tachr immdiac, tim on task, mntoring, individualizd instruction, aptitudtratmnt intractions, studnt control ovr larning, adjunct aids, inductiv taching, inquirbasd taching, comptitiv vrsus individualistic larning, problm-basd larning, spcial collg programs, comprhnsiv taching rforms, co-taching/tam taching, computrassistd instruction, simulations, programmd instruction, visual/audio-visual mthods, and wbbasd larning to hav no significant impact on studnt achivmnt. Fw studis hav xamind whthr tachrs prciv an of ths factors to impact studnt achivmnt. Contributions from th Child Th Contributions from th Child group is comprisd of charactristics of th child that hav bn xamind in rlation to acadmic achivmnt (Hatti, 2009). This group includs background information, attituds and dispositions, phsical influncs, and prschool xprincs. (S Appndix D for d and CLE valus.) 22

31 Background information. To analz th influnc of background information, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of slf-rportd grads (d = 1.44; CLE = 102%), Piagtian programs (d = 1.28; CLE = 91%), prior achivmnt (d = 0.67; CLE = 48%), crativit (d = 0.35; CLE = 25%), and lack of acadmic succss. Through his snthsis Hatti dtrmind that slf-rportd grads, Piagtian programs, and prior achivmnt ach influnc studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Slf rportd grads ar studnts stimats of thir own prformanc (p. 43). Piagtian programs ar programs in which th tp of instruction is adaptd to th Piagtian stag of th studnts. Tachrs hav oftn usd a studnt s prior achivmnt to st thir xpctations for th studnt (d Bor, Boskr, van dr Wrf, 2010). A rviw of th litratur availabl showd that tachrs blivd that th could b mor ffctiv in taching a studnt whn th studnt s prior achivmnt is highr (Chong, Klassn, Huan, Wong, & Kats, 2010). Studis hav also shown that som tachrs viw studnts intllctual abilitis as fixd, whil othrs viw studnts abilitis as incrmntal. Bcaus intllctual abilit can b linkd to prior achivmnt, tachrs viws rgarding intllctual abilit can also affct thir viw of fficac rlatd to taching studnts. For xampl, tachrs who viw intllctual abilit as fixd oftn rportd lowr fficac (Danils & Shumow, 2003). Hatti (2009) concludd that crativit influncs acadmic achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. H found confounding variabls whn attmpting to analz th mta-analss rlatd to lack of acadmic succss. Hatti citd th following studis rlatd to lack of acadmic achivmnt. Whil studis lik Kaval & N (1985), McLindn (1988), and Rush (1992) showd that achivmnt was th main distinction btwn spcial ducation and non-spcial ducation, studis also showd that motional and bhavioral disabilitis can hav a ngativ 23

32 impact on achivmnt (Kaval and N, 1985; Saborni, Cullinan, Obsorn, & Brock, 2005; Conrad, 2007; Hatti, Biggs, & Purdi, 1996). Thrfor, th influnc of lack of acadmic succss on acadmic achivmnt could not b dtrmind. This ma xplain th lack of rsarch xamining tachrs prspctivs rgarding th influnc of th prvious lack of acadmic succss on studnt achivmnt. No rsarch has bn conductd analzing tachrs viw rgarding th impact of slf-rportd grads, Piagtian programs, or crativit on studnt achivmnt. Attituds and dispositions. To analz th influnc of attituds and dispositions, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of motivation (d = 0.48; CLE = 34%); concntration, prsistnc, and ngagmnt (d = 0.48; CLE = 34%); slf-concpt (d = 0.43; CLE = 30%); rducing anxit (d = 0.40; CLE = 28%); attitud to mathmatics and scinc (d = 0.36; CLE = 26%); and prsonalit influncs (d = 0.19; CLE = 14%). H dtrmind that motivation; concntration, prsistnc, and ngagmnt; slf-concpt; and rducing anxit ach influncd studnt achivmnt in th zon of dsird ffcts. Motivation rfrs to a studnt s dsir to complt assignmnts and achiv acadmic goals. Tachrs from a surv xprssd th blif that if studnts flt rsponsibl for thir own ducation, achivmnt would b improvd. Ths tachrs rportd that onl 42% of studnts sm to mbod this sns of rsponsibilit (Lov, 2010). Tachrs also hav oftn dtrmind thir xpctation for th studnts basd on th studnts prcivd motivation (d Bor, Boskr, & van dr Wrf, 2010). Educational rsarchrs ar constantl analzing wa to motivat studnts (Girmus, 2012; Fitch, 2013). Slf-concpt is th studnt s prcptions of his or hr own abilitis and attributs. Hatti found that tachrs blivd that studnts who achiv mor acadmicall hav highr slf- 24

33 concpt and that it is part of a tachr s rol to hlp th studnts to fl good about thmslvs (Hatti, 2009). Hatti concludd that attitud to mathmatics and scinc and prsonalit influncs ach influncd achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Prsonalit influncs rfr to th prsonalitis of th studnts as th impact studnt prformanc. Studis hav rvald that som tachrs blivd that prsonalit charactristics of studnts hav a significant impact on thir dvlopmnt (Danils & Shumow, 2003; d Bor, Boskr, & van dr Wrf, 2010). This dvlopmnt could corrlat to acadmic achivmnt and would thrfor impl that tachrs bliv that prsonalit charactristics hav a significant impact on acadmic achivmnt. No rsarch has analzd tachrs viws rgarding th influnc of concntration, prsistnc, ngagmnt, rducing studnt anxit, or attitud to mathmatics and scinc on studnt achivmnt Phsical influncs. To analz th influnc of phsical influncs, Hatti (2009) organizd th mta-analss into th catgoris of drug intrvntions (d = 0.33; CLE = 24%); positiv viw of thnicit (d = 0.32; CLE = 23%); xrcis and rlaxation (d = 0.28; CLE = 20%); illnss (d = 0.23; CLE = 16%); pr-trm birth wight (d = 0.54; CLE = 14%); gndr (d = 0.12; CLE = 9%); and dit intrvntions (d = 0.12; CLE = 8%). H dtrmind that ach of ths phsical influncs influncd studnt achivmnt blow th zon of dsird ffcts. Drug intrvntions rfr to th us of mdications prscribd to studnts to manag th bhavioral and attntions problms associatd with disordrs such as ADHD. Though mdication has bn shown to b ffctiv (Faraon & Buitlaar, 2010), tachrs rmain inadquatl informd about ADHD and th rol of mdication in tratmnt (Akram, Thomson, Botr, & McLart, 2009; 25