Improving School Improvement

PREFACEIn opening this volume, you might be thinking:Is another book on school improvement really needed?Clearly our answer is yes. Our analyses of prevailing school improvement legislation, planning, and literature indicates fundamental deficiencies, especially with respect to enhancing equity of opportunity and closing the achievement gap.Here is what our work uniquely brings to policy and planning tables:(1) An expanded framework for school improvement – We highlight that moving from a two- to a three-component policy and practice framework is essential for closing the opportunity and achievement gaps. (That is, expanding from focusing primarily on instruction and management/government concerns by establishing a third primary component to improve how schools address barriers to learning and teaching.)(2) An emphasis on integrating a deep understanding of motivation – We underscore that concerns about engagement, management of behavior, school climate, equity of opportunity, and student outcomes require an up-to-date grasp of motivation and especially intrinsic motivation.(3) Clarification of the nature and scope of personalized teaching – We define personalization as the process of matching learner motivation and capabilities and stress that it is the learner's perception that determines whether the match is a good one.(4) A reframing of remediation and special education – We formulate these processes as personalized special assistance that is applied in and out of classrooms and practiced in a sequential and hierarchical manner.(5) A prototype for transforming student and learning supports – We provide a framework for a unified, comprehensive, and equitable system designed to address barriers to learning and teaching and re-engage disconnected students and families.(6) A reworking of the leadership structure for whole school improvement --We outline how the operational infrastructure can and must be realigned in keeping with a three component school improvement framework.(7) A systemic approach to enhancing school-community collaboration – We delineate a leadership role for schools in outreaching to communities in order to work on shared concerns through a formal collaborative operational infrastructure that enables weaving together resources to advance the work.(8) An expanded framework for school accountability – We reframe school accountability to ensure a balanced approach that accounts for a shift to a three component school improvement policy.(9) Guidance for substantive, scalable, and sustainable systemic changes –We frame mechanisms and discuss lessons learned related to facilitating fundamental systemic changes and replicating and sustaining them across a district.The frameworks and practices presented are based on our many years of work in schools and from efforts to enhance school-community collaboration. We incorporate insights from various theories and the large body of relevant research and from lessons learned and shared by many school leaders and staff who strive everyday to do their best for children.Our emphasis on new directions in no way is meant to demean current efforts. We know that the demands placed on those working in schools go well beyond what anyone should be asked to do. Given the current working conditions in many schools, our intent is to help make the hard work generate better results. To this end, we highlight new directions and systemic pathways for improving school outcomes.Some of what we propose is difficult to accomplish. Hopefully, the fact that there are schools, districts, and state agencies already trailblazing the way will engender a sense of hope and encouragement to those committed to innovation.It will be obvious that our work owes much to many. We are especially grateful to those who are pioneering major systemic changes across the country. These leaders and so many in the field have generously offered their insights and wisdom. And, of course, we are indebted to hundreds of scholars whose research and writing is a shared treasure. As always, we take this opportunity to thank Perry Nelson and the host of graduate and undergraduate students at UCLA who contribute so much to our work each day, and to the many young people and their families who continue to teach us all.Respectfully submitted for your consideration,Howard Adelman & Linda Taylo

Female Students’ Academic Engagement and Achievement in Science and Engineering: Exploring the Influence of Gender Grouping in Small Group Work in Design-Based Learning Contexts in High School Biology

In the past 30 years, although much effort has been made to narrow the gender gap in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), females are still largely underrepresented in some important STEM fields, such as physics and engineering (NSF, 2007). To deal with this situation, people from different sectors have long reached a common understanding: Educators must improve school girls’ interest, participation and engagement in STEM subjects (e.g., Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2013). In the K-12 classroom, small group work has been shown to promote an equitable environment for girls’ learning in science and have a positive impact on their persistence in STEM disciplines (e.g., Davis & Rosser, 1996). Further research shows that same-gender grouping enhances girls’ engagement and achievement in STEM fields (e.g., Riordan, 1990). However, little research has been done in design-based science (DBS), a pedagogy that allows students to learn science through engineering design, which is considered as important as inquiry-based learning (NGSS, 2013). This study was an effort to make contributions in this aspect. In two DBS tasks in high school biology, this study arranged various small group gender compositions: from 33% to 100% female. In these contexts, this study explored (1) How gender composition influenced girls’ and boys’ engagement; (2) how student engagement influenced their achievement, and (3) how group gender composition influenced girls’ and boys’ achievement in engineering practices and biology content. Results show that higher group female percent led to higher engagement levels and engineering practice achievement of girls. However, group cohesion and positive group interaction were indispensable as they were needed for girls (and boys, in certain cases) to develop senses of relatedness and collective efficacy, which were necessary for their engagement and learning. Also, results show that group gender composition wasn’t only directly correlated with girls’ achievement, but also indirectly correlated with this variable through the mediation of the girls’ behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement, respectively. Based on these findings, implications for classroom teaching and future research are provided

The Prototype of ACCDR Model: M-Learning Multimedia Development Design Model Stem-Based for the Online Science Learning

Online learning is learning carried out without face-to-face but supports the development of virtual academic mobility. It can be integrated with multimedia either in e-learning or m-learning. M-learning is a learning paradigm that takes advantage of developments in wireless and mobile technology. It is flexible, independent, and accessible anywhere and anytime. Integration of science and technology in multimedia m-learning becomes more comprehensive when combined with the principles of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. STEM-based multimedia m-learning is developed using a specific development design model. The multimedia m-learning development design model is a structured framework or reference for developing multimedia m-learning. Some of the existing m-learning multimedia development design models do not fully cover the criteria for a suitable model for developing STEM-based multimedia m-learning. One solution that can be given is to develop a new model concept using the F2-O1-S1-A2 type model development procedure through literature studies. The instrument consisted of the model development matrices. Afterward, a STEM-based multimedia m-learning development design model for science learning consisted of five syntaxes, namely: analysis, concepting, design, development, and review. The ACDDR model is a linear diagrammatic-narrative procedural model which is then shortened to the ACDDR model and presented in a prototype form. The ACDDR prototype model is expected to be able to be used for the development of STEM-based multimedia m-learning in the 21st century learning

Learning, Arts, and the Brain: The Dana Consortium Report on Arts and Cognition

Reports findings from multiple neuroscientific studies on the impact of arts training on the enhancement of other cognitive capacities, such as reading acquisition, sequence learning, geometrical reasoning, and memory

Monitoring What Matters About Context and Instruction in Science Education: A NAEP Data Analysis Report

This report explores background variables in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to examine key context and instructional factors behind science learning for eighth grade students. Science education is examined from five perspectives: student engagement in science, science teachers' credentials and professional development, availability and use of science resources, approaches to science instruction, and methods and uses of science assessment