Student Achievement Factors

Full text

2012
South Dakota State
University
College of Education and
Human Sciences
Department of Teaching,
Learning and Leadership
Katherine Bertolini,
Andrew Stremmel,
Jill Thorngren
[STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
FACTORS]
Abstract: Effective practices for education are essential to insure public investment in our schools
provides the maximum yield for our students, communities, states, and nation. The challenge has
been defining and measuring terms such as effective, proficient, and sufficient when we examine
instructional practice, student outcomes and funding equity. This position paper summarizes research
findings on teaching practices, teacher training, parental involvement and other factors in relation to
how each impacts student achievement. Results of this literature review reveal complex and
interrelated factors that impact student achievement. Recommendations for whole child instruction
are made based on extensive literature that support the assets of a bio-ecological model of education.
(Contains 1 diagram)

Student Achievement Factors
Student achievement is impacted on numerous levels including students’ personal factors, their
interactions with others such as parents, teachers, and administrators, and lastly the larger systems that
surround the student e.g. school districts, neighborhoods, local economy, political policy, and
multicultural relations. Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model illustrates a holistic view of the “whole
child” in the full context of their world. The model contains four levels from the most personal to the
externalized elements of a person’s life experiences.
Bronfenbrenner’s Bio-ecological Model (1979)
The factors within a student that have an impact on how they learn can be identified. Creating
policy (at every level of schools from building to federal levels) to improve learning outcomes is
necessary to shape expectations. Extensive research is proving the efficacy of instruction for the whole
child. This approach to education requires an awareness of the complexities of human learning and
development. Learner centered instruction is designed to include four general areas: cognitive and
metacognitive, motivational and affective, developmental and social, and individual differences
(Cornelius-White & Harbaugh, 2010). Learner centered instruction extends the traditional knowledge
transfer model to be more inclusive of the student’s full life experiences. A paradigm shift from
students’ deficits to students’ strengths and assets is a foundational requirement of learner centered
instruction (Cornelius-White & Harbaugh, 2010). When any factor is examined, practitioners must
recognize the student’s individual proficiency in any one of the factors can cover a wide range from
profound deficits to mastery.
The next section of this paper examines student achievement factors that exist within each level
of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model. The factors that impact each level are explained and
supported by elements that have been shown to positively impact child learning and development.
Climate/culture
(Macrosystem)
Larger
Community
(Exosystem)
Interactive
Experiences
(mesosystem)
Student
Personal
(microsystem)

Student Achievement Factors
Researchers who have advanced the field in that particular area are noted for reference and future
study.
Micro System Factors
The micro-system factors are comprised of traits within the student as well as their direct
interactions with others such as teachers and other students. Factors that have been found to have a
significant impact on student learning and engagement in school are presented.
 Student Resiliency- the capacity to be self-righting despite adverse circumstances. When
protective factors are present, the effects of adversity are mediated which encourages healthy
development in 50 – 80 percent of a high risk population. These buffers appear to transcend
history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic boundaries. (Benard, 2004)
o Unconditionally supportive adult (Benard, 2004; Downey, 2008; Luthar, Cicchetti, &
Becker, 2000; Werner & Smith, 1992)
o Opportunities for mastery, self-efficacy and recognition (Bandura, 1977; Benard, 2004)
 Individual student abilities-cognitive and metacognitive factors affect the student’s ability to
learn, and more importantly to critically understand how to best understand and process
information.
o Critical thinking opportunities (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001)
o Connection of learning to student context (past, present and future)
o Selection of options for how learning can occur with some autonomy (Tomlinson, 2001)
 Health and attendance-motivational, physical, and affective factors
o Real world learning with a purpose that always answers, “Why do I have to do this?”
(Roberson, 2011)
o Authentic inquiry and assessment (Cornelius-White & Harbaugh, 2010)
o Health and nutrition promotion as a primary prevention (Durlak, 2000)
 Developmental differences- readiness for skills development
o Redefining achievement by assessing differently. Summative assessments to measure
learning goals, models and criteria are shared in advance, assess before the instruction
begins, offer choices for mastery, provide feedback, teach students to critically develop
their own learning goals and measure their own progress, allow new evidence of
learning to replace the old samples (Blankstein, 2010)
o Diagnostic, formative and summative assessments (Blankstein, 2010)
o Cooperative learning (Marzano et al., 2001; Slavin, 1991)
o Differential Instruction for students (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006)
o Students tutoring other students and contributing to the community (Benard, 2004)
o Adjustment of school calendar to reduce summer learning losses
 Social and Moral Development is embedded in the culture of the family and community. Schools
also develop a social and moral culture.
o Social Justice Focus in Schools(Freire, 1968; hooks, 1994)
o Integration of social and moral development into curriculum as well as vision, mission,

Student Achievement Factors
o Creation of intergrade, interschool safety nets for students (Blankstein, 2010)
Meso-System Factors
The interactions that surround each learner directly impact student achievement. The following
variables have been specifically identified as important in bolstering student success.
 School climate as a welcoming and safe environment for learning
o Multicultural competence (Cornelius-White & Harbaugh, 2010)
o Supportive relationship building in all areas of child, parent, school system promotes
values and norm development that positively influence student achievement (Coleman,
1998)
o Protected team time, advisory time (Blankstein, 2010; Littky, 2004)
 Parent Training and Partnering
o Outreach programs to parents-authentic connections (Benard, 2004; Blankstein &
Noguera, 2010; Dessoff, 2009)
o Love & Logic™ parenting courses (Fay, 2012)
o Shared expectation setting for vision/mission/values/goals with parents
 Professional Development for Teachers (von Frank, 2008)
o Professional Learning Communities (Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011)
o Personalized and teacher Driven (Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011)
o Strengthened relationships for all stakeholders in the system (Blankstein, 2010)
 Building Leadership Capacity in teachers and administrators (Blankstein, Hargreaves, & Fink,
2010)
o Redefined educational leadership, the distribution of who leads and systems for
sustaining leadership (Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011; Hargreaves & Fink, 2010).
 Teacher Evaluation
o Mentor systems (Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011)
o Support communities of shared responsibility and learning (Blankstein, 2010; Darling-
Hammond, 2008; Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011)
o Ongoing and asset based (Danielson, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011)
o Shared decision making for professional growth (Danielson, 2007)
 Peer Culture and Achievement (Expectations within the student body collective)
o Focus groups that equally represent all student groups to meet with administration
(Blankstein, 2010)
o Collaborative, democratic expectations for the classroom (Cornelius-White & Harbaugh,
2010)
o Clear communication of Schools’ Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals for all students (how
is this made real in addition to banners and statements)(Blankstein, 2010)
Exo- and Macro- Systems Factors

Student Achievement Factors
This layer is characterized by the societal factors and systemic factors that impact student
learning. While the factors exist on a large scale, interventions can be made on the meso-system to
address the individual realities each student is experiencing. The interrelated risk factors listed below
benefit from many of the same items that are listed in the micro and meso-systems. Logic dictates that
students who experience the opposite end of the spectrum of the factors here have more beneficial
learning opportunities and experiences.
 Socioeconomic disparities between families within schools as well as disparities between
communities and states. Students in poverty neighborhoods do not perform as well as students
from more affluent neighborhoods.
o Advocacy and partnerships such as school and university alliances can meet needs
within schools
o Advocacy through national organizations such as the Children’s Defense Fund, National
Education Association and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
create opportunities for policy influence.
 Racism/Classism
o Multicultural competence for Teachers and Administrators
o Relational trust building with parents, communities and schools (Blankstein, 2010)
o Advocacy at the building level and up through all levels
 Child Abuse and Neglect
o Parent effectiveness training (PET) and Filial therapy or child parent relationship therapy
(CPRT) all were identified as effective in two meta-analysis studies (Cornelius-White &
Harbaugh, 2010)
o Literacy Programs impact long term student success. (Cornelius-White & Harbaugh,
2010)
 Unhealthy lifestyles
o Wellness based curriculum integration
A bio-ecological systems model suggests that there are many factors that influence student
achievement. Therefore, a holistic approach is needed that is focused on meeting the broad academic
and social needs of all children, promoting rich learning environments, recruiting, retaining, and
developing excellent teachers, and fostering supportive relationships across many systems.
Programming that is supported by legislation should be reflective of best known practices for fostering
student achievement factors in all of the bio-ecological model of child development.

Student Achievement Factors
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191-215.
Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Blankstein, A. M. (Ed.) (2010). Failure is not an option: 6 principles for making student success the only
option (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Blankstein, A. M., Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2010). Principle 6: Building sustainable leadership capacity.
In A. M. Blankstein (Ed.), Failure is not an option: 6 principles for making student success the only
option. (2nd ed.) (pp. 208-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Blankstein, A. M. & Noguera, P. A. (2010). Principle 5: Gaining active engagement from family and
community. In A. M. Blankstein (Ed.) Failure is not an option: 6 principles for making student
success the only option (2nd ed.) (pp. 191-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Beyond the deficit model in child and family policy. Teachers College Record,
81(1), 95-104.
Coleman, J. (1998). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press).
Cornelius-White, J. H. D. & Harbaugh, A.P. (2010). Learner-centered instruction: Building relationships
for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dessoff, A. (2009). Parental Engagement pays off. District Administration, 45(5), 16-20.
Downey, J. A. (2008). Recommendations for fostering educational resilience in the classroom.
Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 56-64.
Durlak, J. (2000). Health promotion as a strategy in primary prevention. In D. Cicchetti, J. Rappaport, I.
Sandler, & R. Weissberg (Eds.), The promotion of wellness in children and adolescents (pp. 221-
241). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League Association Press.
Fay, C. (2012). Effects of becoming a love and logic™ parent training program on parents’ perceptions of
their children’s behavior and their own parental stress. Retrieved from
http://www.loveandlogic.com/documents/Becoming%20a%20Love%20and%20Logic%20Parent
%20-%20Supporting%20Theory%20and%20Research.pdf
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bantam Books.

Student Achievement Factors
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2010). Sustainable leadership. In A. M. Blankstein (Ed.), Failure is not an
option: 6 principles for making student success the only option. (2nd ed.) (pp. 217-236).Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
Littky, D. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and
guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research based
strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Roberson, S. (2011). Defying the default culture and creating a culture of possibility. Education, 131(4),
885-904.
Supporting student success: The promise of expanded learning opportunities (NGA Center for Best
Practices Report). (2010). Retrieved from Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) at
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED517711.pdf
Tomlinson, C. A., (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction + understanding by design:
Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
vonFrank, V. (Ed.) (2008). Finding time for professional learning. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development
Council.
Werner, E. E. & Smith, R.S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.