Dissertation Defense

EFFECTS OF SCAFFOLDING HIGHER ORDER THINKING QUESTIONS ON READER SELF-EFFICACY AND CRITICAL

THINKING OF SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS

Jason L. McKinnonWestern Connecticut State University

March 31, 20121

Dissertation CommitteePrimary Advisor

Frank LaBanca, EdD

Secondary AdvisorsMarcia A.B. Delcourt, PhD

Jennifer Mitchell, EdD

ReaderMichael Hibbard, PhD

2

Rationale

1. The promotion of higher order thinking (HOT) questions in the classroom is inconsistent.

2. Teachers spend considerable time preparing students for standardized tests in grades 3-12.

3. Clear scaffolding steps are not readily available for classroom teachers.

4. Link between self-efficacy and higher order thinking is not evident in the literature.

5. Common Core State Standards encourage higher order thinking.

3

Statement of the Problem

4

Potential Benefits of the Study

5

Reader Self-Efficacy and Critical Thinking

Definition of Key TermsCritical Thinking is defined as a process of purposeful, self-

regulatory judgment.

Bloom’s Taxonomy (revised) provides a way to organize thinking skills into six levels, from the most basic to the higher order levels.

Higher order thinking is a systematic way of using the mind to confirm existing information using various degrees of abstraction.

6

Definition of Key TermsScaffolding is defined as a course of action that enables a child

or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts.

Self-Efficacy is defined as a person’s belief in their ability to acquire new information or complete a task or activity to a prescribed level of performance.

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) describes a relationship where a learner can acquire greater independence, skills and knowledge with skilled help.

7

Review of LiteratureThe learning principles underpinning this research can be drawn

from the following theoretical constructs:

• Sociocultural Theory– Vygotsky (1978) Social interactions play a significant role in a

child’s development.

• Social Cognitive Theory – Bandura (1986) One’s social cognition frames behavior

within an interactive context of personal thoughts and beliefs regarding one’s own ability or performance.

8

Review of Literature• Zone of Proximal Development: Vygotsky (1978,

1986)

9

Learning Zone

Review of Literature (scaffolding)

10

Researchers Sample Size

Study Findings

Liang (2011) n = 85 middle school students

Impact of the Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE) on student learning in reading.

Scaffolding student responses to short stories produced a significant result compared to a traditional basal program.(p < .01)

Oliveira (2009) n = 15 Teachers were offered training on a typology of questions framework exploring the degree of student-centeredness of teacher’s oral questions.

Student-centered questions were found to establish longer student responses and promote higher levels of thinking as measured by Bloom’s taxonomy.

Review of Literature (self-efficacy)

• Bandura defines self-efficacy as a person’s judgments of his or her ability to perform a task (1996).

• Self-efficacy exerts its influence through four major processes: cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective processes (Bandura, 1993).

11

Researchers Sample Size Study Findings

Barkley (2006) n = 400 middle school students

Students with high self-efficacy scores predicted reading comprehension achievement on the Stanford Achievement Test.

Results indicated that when grades six, seven and eight grade students demonstrated efficacy beliefs, there was a positive correlation to reading achievement. (p < .01)

Review of Literature (HOT & CT)

12

Researchers Sample Size Study Findings

Moseley, et al. (2005)

Review of 35 theoretical frameworks and taxonomies.

Thinking Skills Frameworks for Use in Education and Training.

Bloom’s revised taxonomy was identified as one of three frameworks to be of greater value in promoting higher level thinking.

Miri, David, & Uri (2007)

n = 177 high school students

Purposeful teaching for the promotion of higher order thinking skills: A case for critical thinking.

Students who received instruction that fostered higher order thinking skills improved critical thinking in science.(p < .01)

Research Question 1Is there a statistically significant difference in the critical thinking

skills of students who have participated in an instructional

scaffolding intervention focused on higher-order thinking

questions and those who have not?

13

Research Question 2Is there a statistically significant difference in students’ self-

perceptions of themselves as readers who have participated in

an instructional scaffolding intervention focused on higher-order

thinking questions and those who have not?

14

Research Question 3Is there a statistically significant difference in the frequency of

higher-order thinking questions asked by teachers and students

participating in an instructional scaffolding intervention focused

on higher-order thinking questions and those who have not?

15

Research Question 4Is there a statistically significant correlation between critical

thinking skills (Mental Focus, Learning Orientation, Creative

Problem-solving, Cognitive Inquiry and Scholarly Rigor) and

reading self-efficacy (Progress, Observational Comparison, Social

Feedback, and Physiological States)?

16

METHODOLOGY

Design of Study

17

Methodology: Description of Setting

• Suburban community of approximately 24,000 people

• Homogeneous population: 93.4 % white

• Median household income: $105,000

• Two middle schools in the same district serving approximately 1,300 students

18

Methodology: Description of Sample

• n = 286 students• Sample of convenience• Intact classroom groups of grade 6 students• Four teachers participated in this study

– 2 teachers from treatment (6 classes per teacher) – 2 teachers from comparison (6 classes per teacher)

• 8-week study

19


20

Group PopulationN

Sample n

RQ 1

Sample n

RQ 2

Sample n

RQ 3

Sample n

RQ 4

Treatment 129 121 124 129 116

Comparison 157 154 157 157 135

Total 286 275 281 286 251


21

Teacher Group Masters Degree Experience

Teacher A Treatment Yes 11-years

Teacher B Treatment Yes 20-years

Teacher C Comparison Yes 16-years

Teacher D Comparison Yes 16-years

Methodology: Study Timeline & Data Collection

22 January February March April to May June

Methodology: Treatment

Treatment teachers received training in:(a)Explicit scaffolding of strategies and steps through a scaffolding map(b)Decision making tree to determine if questions are higher order thinking questions(c)Scholarly description of questions using Bloom’s revised taxonomy (2001) (d)Unit of study that supported the development of HOT questions

23

25

Figure 6. Decision making tree to assist teachers in determine level of thinking. Adapted with permission from Critical thinking and formative assessments, by N. Moore and T. Stanley (2010).

B

Instrumentation The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) (Giancarlo, 2010)

• Instrument that measures critical thinking according to five scales:– Mental Focus, Learning Orientation, Creative Problem-

Solving, Cognitive Inquiry, and Scholarly Rigor

• 4-point Likert-type Scale • Confirmed validity and reliability • Test administered pre- and post treatment

28

Instrumentation The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) (Henk & Melnick, 1995)

• Instrument measures student perceptions of reading self-efficacy-Progress, Observational Comparison, Social Feedback, and Physiological States

• 5-point Likert-type scale• Measures four areas related to Bandura’s model of

self-efficacy• Confirmed reliability and validity • Test administered pre- and post treatment 29

Instrumentation The Classroom Practice Record (CPR)(Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin,1993)

• Observational tool designed to collect descriptive information by coding specific information and interactions

• Inter-rater agreement established at 82% • Calculation of Cohen’s Kappa = .77 (Curdy, 2009).

30

Research Design

31

Group Pretest Treatment Posttest

Treatment group (Scaffolding HOT

questions)O X O

Comparison group (Traditional instruction)

O O

Research Design

• Level of Significance:– Bonferroni correction set at p<.017 for research

questions one, two, and four (.05/3 = .017)– Research question three set at alpha level = .05

• Type of Data: – Interval-level data in the form of subscale means

(CM3 & RSPS) – Categorical level data in the form of the CPR

32

Research Design-RQ 1

Code and Value Cleaning

• Data screening

• Visual Inspection for missing

values

• Pretest descriptive statistics

Pretest and Posttest Effects

• Verification of normality

(Skewness & Kurtosis)

• Shapiro Wilkes utilized (no

significance)

• Homoscedasticity (Box’s M)

• Groups did not differ

33

Findings- RQ 1• CM3 administered upon completion of the 8-week

treatment • Subscales reflect SD ranging from 6.62 to 8.93• Means ranged from 27.92 to 34.39• MANOVA test revealed no significance differences

between the posttest means with Wilks’ Lambda = .97 F(5,269) = 1.43, p = .21

34

Research Design-RQ 2

Code and Value Cleaning

• Data screening

• Visual Inspection for missing

values

• Pretest descriptive statistics

Pretest and Posttest Effects

• Verification of normality

(Skewness & Kurtosis)

• Shapiro Wilkes utilized (no

significance)

• Homoscedasticity (Box’s M)

• Groups did not differ

35

Findings- RQ 2• RSPS administered upon completion of the 8-week

treatment • Subscales reflect SD ranging from .51 to .96 • Means ranged from 3.50 to 34.50 • MANOVA test revealed no significance differences

between the posttest means with Wilks’ Lambda = .98 F(5,269) = 1.16, p = .37

36

Research Design-RQ 3• Research question 3 utilized the CPR to record

the frequency of HOT & U/R questions• Chi-squares require that certain criteria be

satisfied (Huck, 2008) • 2x4 Independent Chi-square was utilized with

a four category response variable (Huck, 2008)

37

Findings- RQ 3• The chi-square value* (x2= 940.16, df = 3, p<.05)

demonstrates that there is a significant difference between the observed (posttest) and expected (pretest) data.

• Standardized residual values above the absolute value of two were identified as major contributors to the chi-square.

• Key Finding: teachers & students in the treatment group asked significantly more HOT questions than teachers and students from comparison group.

38

* p < .01

Findings- RQ 3 (continued)

Treatment Comparison

Observed Expected a Standard Residual b Observed Expected a Standard Residual b

Teacher

HOT102 45 8.50 30 49 -2.71

Teacher U/R 26 116 -8.36 131 158 -2.15

Student

HOT81 7 27.97 10 7 1.13

Student U/R 12 19 -1.61 17 17 0.0039

Research Design-RQ 4• A correlation conducted posttest only (n =

251).• A student’s CM3 score was compared to their

RSPS score• Scatterplots were created to visually inspect

for outliers (Huck, 2008). • A bivariate two-tailed Pearson correlation was

conducted to measure the relationship.

40

Findings- RQ 4

41

Scale Name 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. Mental Focus 1

2. Creative Problem Solving .608**

3. Learning Orientation .582** .784**

4. Cognitive Integrity .578** .515** .494**

5. Scholarly Rigor .588** .809** .819** .577**

6. Progress -.078 .035 .039 .047 -.009

7. Observation Comparison .320** .569** .524** .349** .545** .063

8. Social feedback .374** .687** .546** .372** .559** -.008 .689**

9. Physiological States .744** .616** .618** .475** .616** .044 .663** .659**

*significant at .05; **significant at .01; ***significant at 0.001

Findings- RQ 4• Progress subscale from RSPS:

– When I read, I don’t have to try as hard as I used to.– I am getting better at reading.– When I read, I need less help than I used to. – Reading is easier for me than it used to be.

• Progress subscale Mean= 4.44; SD = .54 (little variability)

42

Limitations of Study

1. Quasi-experimental design2. Length of treatment 3. Study generalized to similar population4. Adherence to treatment protocols

43

Implications for future research

44

Research question

Findings Implications for future research

Relation to the literature

1

HOT question use alone did not impact student critical thinking.

Examine if HOT question use beyond a treatment period of 20-weeks could impact critical thinking skills of students.

Broadening the study across disciplines and content-specific subjects would enhance students’ abilities to apply skills (Halpern, 1998).

2

HOT question use alone did not impact reader self-efficacy.

Examine how teacher feedback concerning student question use improves student self-efficacy.

Lengthen treatment beyond 20-weeks for students to appreciate their growth (Graham & Weiner, 1996).

Implications for future research

45

Research question

Findings Implications for future research

Relation to the literature

3

-Explicit scaffolding techniques in the area of HOT questions were found to be successful to promote HOT question use.

- The use of HOT questions and Bloom’s taxonomy is one tool that a teacher can use in the classroom. A search for related tools to promote question use is needed.

-Broadening the study across disciplines and content-specific subjects would enhance students’ abilities to apply skills (Halpern, 1998).

4

-Certain dimensions of reader self-efficacy correlate with certain dimensions of critical thinking.

-Future research could be aimed at widening this relationship to include academic achievement in other core subjects.

-The lack of literature in this area prompted this exploration.

46

THANK YOU!

Dissertation Defense

Documents

Transcript of Dissertation Defense