condelli_attendance_leslla 2011
TRANSCRIPT
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
