Literature Review
Student achievement is a broad topic on which much research has been done to identify causes of low achievement and possible strategies to remedy the situation. This review focuses on four components that affect student achievement: student engagement, teachers’ expectations, Gifted and Talented selection procedures, and development of academic vocabulary.
Student Engagement
Experts suggest that student engagement is one of the greatest factors in improving achievement. Although some educators feel that discipline is an obstacle in achievement, research demonstrates that if teachers involve students in class work, students will remain on-task. Haberman (2005) notes that effective teachers avoid discipline problems by assigning tasks which students don’t perceive as too easy or impossible. When teachers engage students, discipline problems diminish and student achievement improves. Monroe (2006) said, “When students are intellectually immersed in the academic tasks at hand … they are clearly more likely to become productive citizens” (p.106). To further strengthen student learning, grouping low ability students with high ability students in cooperative learning activities at least once a week benefits students at all levels (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001).
Cangelosi (2000) states that “the more work [teachers] put into [their] preparation before class, the less [they] will need to do to maintain a smooth operation” (p.100). Studies show that teachers who plan engaging and relevant tasks encourage students to cooperate, engage in the learning, and deviate less into off-task behavior. Hord (2009) recommends that principals encourage teachers to plan learning that is interactive, engaging, and focused on student needs and curriculum.
Teachers’ Expectations
The research is uniform in demonstrating a positive correlation between teachers’ expectation and student performance. Research suggests that teachers behave differently with students based on their expectations of them (Gill, 1999). Teachers who perceive students as inherently deficient hold lower expectations for student performance, lower their teaching standards, exert less effort, and water-down their lessons (Warren, 2002).
In classrooms with lowered expectations, students are given very little independence, few challenging assignments, and little interaction with peers. Students may also be seated further away from the teacher, praised less often for success, criticized more frequently for failure, called on less frequently, and provided with briefer, less accurate feedback (Gill, 1999). Conversely, in classrooms where teachers have high expectations, students are offered challenging learning opportunities, greater freedom of choice and independence, and opportunities to work collaboratively with classmates (Rubie-Davies et al., 2006).
The impact of teacher expectations varies with respect to student race. While the achievement of White students is more likely to be influenced by parent expectations, that of Black students is strongly correlated to teacher expectations (Ferguson, 2003). Interestingly, even when the teacher rates her relationship with students as negative, Black children are more likely to rate the relationship positively (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Tyler and Boelter attribute this to Black students’ desire to become closer to teachers, who students use as a resource to successfully navigate the school world.
Selection of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs
Nationwide, minority students are underrepresented in Gifted and Talented (GT) programs. After being nominated by a teacher or parent, students must successfully complete a series of screening activities to qualify for GT programming. Since this process may rely on a single nomination, certain students will never have the opportunity to participate in the selection process. As Oakland & Rossen (2005) mention, “the nomination process has a significant impact on disproportionate representation” (p. 58). Those students not nominated are not considered by the GT committee and thus are ineligible for GT programming. The biases of an individual teacher have the potential to determine a student’s admission into the program in the absence of checks and balances. Bigelow (1993) argues that some teachers believe that “poor, minority children cannot possibly be gifted” (p. 13). Such a mindset eliminates students from GT program consideration as it leaves them without an advocate.
Minority students encounter a variety of challenges while seeking GT placement. As Vanderslice (1998) notes, students often lack the academic schema needed to perform well on the required assessments. According to Ford (1998), “minority students are likely to be placed in low-ability groups and non-college preparatory tracks, decreasing the likelihood that these students will be identified as gifted”(p. 8). Further, Whiting’s (2009) data show that the overall mean achievement scores for Black male students are below those of other groups in the basic subject areas. If minority students are placed into lower tracks and special education courses, it automatically eliminates the students from the possibility for GT identification.
Academic Vocabulary
One of the difficulties struggling readers have with content-specific texts is their unfamiliarity with academic vocabulary (Harmon & Hedrick, 2005). The less time students spend reading in the content areas, the more underdeveloped their skills with these types of texts (Brozo & Sutton Flynt, 2008). Both English Language Learners and native English speakers may become “word callers,” students who read text rather easily but do not deeply understand the meanings of the words they are reading. Not surprisingly, word calling may mislead teachers into believing that fluid word reading is equivalent to comprehension (Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Faller, 2010). Implementing a solid academic vocabulary program across the curriculum is beneficial to all students regardless of their reading and language abilities. Based on their research, Baumann and Graves (2010) define academic vocabulary as:
a domain-specific academic vocabulary or the content-specific words used in disciplines like biology, geometry, civics, and geography; and
general academic vocabulary or the broad, all-purpose terms that appear across content areas but that may vary in meaning because of the disciplinary itself (p. 6).
Domain-specific academic vocabulary provides students with the academic background knowledge they will need to interpret content in their academic courses (Baumann & Graves, 2010). Despite its low-frequency and content-specific words and phrases, domain-specific academic vocabulary provides students with words and concepts that strengthen their content. In contrast, general academic vocabulary provides a scaffold between the disciplines. Student achievement is positively impacted when the understanding and implementation of academic vocabulary is supported across the curricula.
Data link academic vocabulary to improved student achievement. Dunn, Bonner, and Huskee (as cited in Sutton-Flynt & Brozo, 2008) discovered that students who received direct and meaningful vocabulary instruction increased reading comprehension scores by as much as 30 percentile points. Effective academic vocabulary systems in all core subjects provide the critical word knowledge foundation students need to comprehend and analyze content from a variety of texts.
Student Engagement
Experts suggest that student engagement is one of the greatest factors in improving achievement. Although some educators feel that discipline is an obstacle in achievement, research demonstrates that if teachers involve students in class work, students will remain on-task. Haberman (2005) notes that effective teachers avoid discipline problems by assigning tasks which students don’t perceive as too easy or impossible. When teachers engage students, discipline problems diminish and student achievement improves. Monroe (2006) said, “When students are intellectually immersed in the academic tasks at hand … they are clearly more likely to become productive citizens” (p.106). To further strengthen student learning, grouping low ability students with high ability students in cooperative learning activities at least once a week benefits students at all levels (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001).
Cangelosi (2000) states that “the more work [teachers] put into [their] preparation before class, the less [they] will need to do to maintain a smooth operation” (p.100). Studies show that teachers who plan engaging and relevant tasks encourage students to cooperate, engage in the learning, and deviate less into off-task behavior. Hord (2009) recommends that principals encourage teachers to plan learning that is interactive, engaging, and focused on student needs and curriculum.
Teachers’ Expectations
The research is uniform in demonstrating a positive correlation between teachers’ expectation and student performance. Research suggests that teachers behave differently with students based on their expectations of them (Gill, 1999). Teachers who perceive students as inherently deficient hold lower expectations for student performance, lower their teaching standards, exert less effort, and water-down their lessons (Warren, 2002).
In classrooms with lowered expectations, students are given very little independence, few challenging assignments, and little interaction with peers. Students may also be seated further away from the teacher, praised less often for success, criticized more frequently for failure, called on less frequently, and provided with briefer, less accurate feedback (Gill, 1999). Conversely, in classrooms where teachers have high expectations, students are offered challenging learning opportunities, greater freedom of choice and independence, and opportunities to work collaboratively with classmates (Rubie-Davies et al., 2006).
The impact of teacher expectations varies with respect to student race. While the achievement of White students is more likely to be influenced by parent expectations, that of Black students is strongly correlated to teacher expectations (Ferguson, 2003). Interestingly, even when the teacher rates her relationship with students as negative, Black children are more likely to rate the relationship positively (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Tyler and Boelter attribute this to Black students’ desire to become closer to teachers, who students use as a resource to successfully navigate the school world.
Selection of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs
Nationwide, minority students are underrepresented in Gifted and Talented (GT) programs. After being nominated by a teacher or parent, students must successfully complete a series of screening activities to qualify for GT programming. Since this process may rely on a single nomination, certain students will never have the opportunity to participate in the selection process. As Oakland & Rossen (2005) mention, “the nomination process has a significant impact on disproportionate representation” (p. 58). Those students not nominated are not considered by the GT committee and thus are ineligible for GT programming. The biases of an individual teacher have the potential to determine a student’s admission into the program in the absence of checks and balances. Bigelow (1993) argues that some teachers believe that “poor, minority children cannot possibly be gifted” (p. 13). Such a mindset eliminates students from GT program consideration as it leaves them without an advocate.
Minority students encounter a variety of challenges while seeking GT placement. As Vanderslice (1998) notes, students often lack the academic schema needed to perform well on the required assessments. According to Ford (1998), “minority students are likely to be placed in low-ability groups and non-college preparatory tracks, decreasing the likelihood that these students will be identified as gifted”(p. 8). Further, Whiting’s (2009) data show that the overall mean achievement scores for Black male students are below those of other groups in the basic subject areas. If minority students are placed into lower tracks and special education courses, it automatically eliminates the students from the possibility for GT identification.
Academic Vocabulary
One of the difficulties struggling readers have with content-specific texts is their unfamiliarity with academic vocabulary (Harmon & Hedrick, 2005). The less time students spend reading in the content areas, the more underdeveloped their skills with these types of texts (Brozo & Sutton Flynt, 2008). Both English Language Learners and native English speakers may become “word callers,” students who read text rather easily but do not deeply understand the meanings of the words they are reading. Not surprisingly, word calling may mislead teachers into believing that fluid word reading is equivalent to comprehension (Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Faller, 2010). Implementing a solid academic vocabulary program across the curriculum is beneficial to all students regardless of their reading and language abilities. Based on their research, Baumann and Graves (2010) define academic vocabulary as:
a domain-specific academic vocabulary or the content-specific words used in disciplines like biology, geometry, civics, and geography; and
general academic vocabulary or the broad, all-purpose terms that appear across content areas but that may vary in meaning because of the disciplinary itself (p. 6).
Domain-specific academic vocabulary provides students with the academic background knowledge they will need to interpret content in their academic courses (Baumann & Graves, 2010). Despite its low-frequency and content-specific words and phrases, domain-specific academic vocabulary provides students with words and concepts that strengthen their content. In contrast, general academic vocabulary provides a scaffold between the disciplines. Student achievement is positively impacted when the understanding and implementation of academic vocabulary is supported across the curricula.
Data link academic vocabulary to improved student achievement. Dunn, Bonner, and Huskee (as cited in Sutton-Flynt & Brozo, 2008) discovered that students who received direct and meaningful vocabulary instruction increased reading comprehension scores by as much as 30 percentile points. Effective academic vocabulary systems in all core subjects provide the critical word knowledge foundation students need to comprehend and analyze content from a variety of texts.
