condelli_attendance_leslla 2011

Attendance and Learning Gains for LESLLA Students

Larry CondelliAmerican Institutes for

Research, USA

LESLLA Seventh Annual Symposium

Minneapolis, MNSeptember 29, 2011

1

Overview of PresentationDeconstructing the meaning of

attendanceAttendance measures usedStudy designsFindingsDiscussion

2

Why Study Attendance?Why is it important?

More attendance = more instruction = more learning?

Mixed research evidence No or small relationship

Why?Ineffective instruction?Poor research design?Other factors affect attendance and

learning? 3

Deconstructing AttendanceWhat does attendance reflect?

MotivationTime Attention and engagementInstruction (dosage model)

Do all affect learning? Which are more important?

4

Research QuestionsHow many hours do LESLLA students attend

class?Does amount of attendance affect student

outcomes (test scores)?What other measures of attendance affect

outcomes?

5

Measuring AttendanceFour measures to reflect components:

Total hours of instruction attended Intensity of instruction- average hours per

week attendedTotal weeks of instruction attendedRate of Instruction-proportion of hour

attended out of all possible hoursNote: Attendance measures (except rate) are

constrained by class scheduleThat is, you only can attend as much as the

class is scheduled6

Attendance Measures: ExamplesA student attends a class that meets 9

hours/week for 18 weeks. She misses one fullweek of class and 3 additional days (misses 18 hours total):Total Hours: 144 Intensity: 8.5 (144/17)Total weeks: 17Rate: 0.89 (144/162)

7

Meaning of Attendance Measures

Total Hours: Total time exposed to instruction, unadjusted for class schedule or time (mostly instruction)

Intensity: concentrated attendance –dosage of instruction

Total weeks: Mostly time, does not directly measure amount of instruction, but may include motivation

Rate: Not affected by class schedule, most directly reflects motivation

8

Research Studies: Secondary Data AnalysisStudy 1: What Works Study (Condelli,

Wrigley & Cronen, 2003)495 LESLLA students from 38 classes , 13

sites, seven USA statesStudy 2: Impact of a Reading

Intervention on Low-Literate Students (Condelli, Cronen & Bos, 2010) 1,344 low-literate (not all LESLLA) students

from 33 classes, 10 sites, four USA states

9

Study 1: DesignCorrelational study, followed two cohorts of

LESLLA students for one yearMeasures of basic literacy, reading

comprehension and oral languageAssessed at start of instruction, 3 and 9

months laterUsed latent growth model analysisStudent age, L1, years of schooling, teacher

variables and English literacy (pretest scores) held constant

Addressed all three research questions, using all four attendance measures

10

Study 1: Descriptive Findings(N=495)

11

Mean MedianStandard Deviation

Total Hours of Attendance

128.7 106.0 94.3

Total Weeks of Attendance 16.2 16.0 8.1

Rate (hours attended/possible hours)

0.64 0.66 0.19

Intensity (hours per week) 6.9 6.3 3.3

Study 1: Analytic Findings Attendance Measures

Total Hours: No effect on test measures Intensity: No effect on test measures Total weeks: No effect on test measures Rate: Significant relationship for reading

comprehension and oral languageReading comprehension (Woodcock

Johnson) and oral Language (BEST Oral) Small growth in skills over nine months with higher rate of attendance

Independent of amount of instruction – motivation measure

12

Study 1: Oral BEST and Attendance Hours (NS)

13

Total Hours Attended BEST Pretest

BEST Post-test

Less than 50(N=157)

20 29

51 – 100(N=186)

22 33

101 – 165(N=147)

24 35

Study 1: Oral BEST and Rate of Attendance (p=.02)

14

Percent of Classes

Attended BEST Pretest Best Post-test50% or less(N=164)

22 31

51 – 75% (N=171)

23 34

More than 75% (N=155)

21 40

Study 2: DesignExperimental study of a literacy intervention

for low literates, random assignmentMeasures of basic literacy, comprehension

(same as study 1), vocabulary, listening and oral expression

Assessed at start and 12 weeks laterMultiple regression analysisStudent demographics, teacher variables, L1,

years of schooling and English literacy (pretest scores) held constant

15

Study 2: Descriptive FindingsData collection constrained by

research design–stopped after 12 weeks

Mean total hours: 75.2Rate of attendance: 0.61Other attendance measures could

not be studied due to insufficient variation

16

Study 2: Attendance and Test Measures

Outcome Regression Coefficient

P=value

WJID 0.104 0.00WJWA 0.071 0.00WJPC 0.043 0.00OWLS 0.027 0.00ROWPVT 0.028 0.00WJPVT 0.056 0.00N=1,137

17

Study 2: Attendance and Test ScoresInstruction and outcomes correlated

Instruction appears to have an effect on learning

Relationship is weakLarger effect on reading outcomes

May mean literacy gains more sensitive to gain, may be testing artifact

18

Summary and ConclusionsAttendance hours had no (Study 1) or little

(Study 2) relationship to learning, as measured by standardized tests.

Attendance rate was related to oral language and reading comprehension, regardless of amount of attendance

Attendance rate may reflect motivationMotivation seems to trump instruction

19

Discussion of ImplicationsAttendance hours relate to instruction,

but very weakly. Why?Is it because of research design or insenstive

tests, or is this a real effect? Is attendance worth studying in this way?Does the weak relationship imply other

means of delivering instruction (e.g., online courses) may be better

Are there better ways to look a the effects of participation?For example, longitudinal persistence studies

20

Thank you!Contact

lcondelli@air.org

Enjoy Minneapolis and LESLLA

21