Joy Vigil-Effective Interventions and Academic Support Action Research

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS FOR JUNIOR HIGH STUDENTS 1

Effective Interventions and Academic Support for Junior High Students Action Research

Joy E. Vigil

University of Colorado, Denver

Fall 2013


Table of ContentsIntroduction and Problem StatementPurpose and Intended AudienceResearch QuestionsContext of StudyLiterature Review

Literature Review QuestionsLiterature Search ProceduresLiterature Review FindingsQuality of LiteratureGap in LiteratureSummary of Literature Review

MethodsSite Selection and SamplingEthical ProceduresData Collection MethodsData Analysis MethodsScheduleChecks for Rigor

FindingsAcademic Support TrendsR.O.A.R. TrendsComparison of Research to the Literature ReviewLimitations

Implications of PracticeImpact (Negative and Positive)

Summary of ResearchReferencesAppendices


Introduction and Problem Statement

Currently I am a Junior High and High School teacher in a suburban charter school in Colorado. I have taught for five years and am a lead team member of the Junior High staff. Additionally, after a lot of staff turnover in the previous school year, it has been up to the lead team members and administration to retain the cultural traditions of the school as well as promote the various forms of programs available to the students.

As students transition from the different educational expectations in elementary to Junior High, many students struggle with keeping up on all of their work. Students now have eight different teachers, transitioning from class to class, as well as being in 90-minute block class periods. Currently we have two forms of interventions to support the academic needs of 7th and 8th grade students. One intervention is called R.O.A.R., which stands for Reinforcement of Academic Responsibility, and the other is called Academic Support. They both essentially provide the same support. R.O.A.R. occurs after school with limited participation and is optional. Academic Support occurs during school and is required for students with D’s and F’s with high participation. So I conducted research to find out which intervention fits the needs of the Junior High students best?

Purpose and Intended Audience

Allocating and distributing time appropriately within the teaching profession is challenging and essential to being a successful teacher. Therefore to fully establish if a particular program is effective, this researcher wanted to observe student behavior and participation in both R.O.A.R. and Academic Support. In doing so, it would allow the lead team and administration to determine where teachers’ time would best be used for the betterment of the students’ academic success.

This information was shared with our Parent-lead Board of Directors which would thereby make the research public for parents and students who were interested. The Board meetings are public and their notes are posted on our school website.

Additionally, the information was shared with the students and instructor of the INTE 6720 Action Research class at the University of Colorado, Denver.

Research Questions

By observing students’ participation in both R.O.A.R. and Academic Support, the lead team and administration of the Junior High program could better understand how the intervention programs were affecting the achievement of students. Using data to observe trends in student achievement is an important step to identifying possible causes of failures, successes, and areas of effectiveness.

To determine which program best supports students’ needs along with the most efficient use of teachers’ time, the questions this researcher delved into include:

● To what extent are the current academic interventions offered at The Academy effective for the student population?


○ Is providing Academic Support an effective intervention for 7th and 8th grade students? By observing grade point averages of students attending Academic Support, I checked for improvement of students’ grades. I checked if grades improved for students who are mandated to attend. How did students feel about being assigned Academic Support? Did it encourage them to not have a D or F? Did missing out on lunch with their friends and advisory (called Pride Time) recess also ensure they had passing grades?

○ Is providing optional R.O.A.R. an effective intervention for seventh and eighth grade students? Similarly to Academic Support, the effectiveness of R.O.A.R. was tracked by observing grade point averages and surveying teachers, parents, and students.

○ Do parents find one form of intervention better than the other? It is important to understand the potential “buy-in” of parents because they can potentially influence the students’ participation and opinion of the interventions. Both take a considerable amount of effort and manpower to run each week, so it is vital to determine if they were both appropriate forms of interventions. Also, if there was little buy-in from parents (who provided the students with a ride from R.O.A.R.), it may not be highly attended.

In the end, I changed the research questions and excluded the eighth graders. This was due to the among of data available from just one grade. There were also some complications in obtaining Grade Point Averages which will be discussed later.

Context of Study

The research was conducted in a charter school that has two facilities housing Pre-K through 12th

grade. This school is a part of a local school district and will have been open for 20 years at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. The charter school has a high involvement of parents with a parent board coordinating with the administrators and executive director to make decisions for the school. Within the district, the student population sits at 56.88% White, 33.16% Hispanic, 5.15% Asian, 2.32% African-American, 0.68% Native American, 0.15% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 1.65% two or more ethnicities. Within the charter school, the student population is 71% White, 25% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 1% African-American, 0% Native American, 0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 1% two or more ethnicities. The school is a commuter school with no bus service available to families. There is a 16% of students who are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program.

During the 2012-2013 school year, Academic Support was implemented as a form of in-school intervention for all students in 7th and 8th grade who have a D or an F in any given class. Each week, teachers would assign a student Academic Support on Tuesday. Then on Wednesday, the student’s Pride Time (homeroom) teacher would give him/her a pass to Academic Support for Thursday. The pass listed the class and the assignment(s) that the student must work on. The student then had the opportunity to get the missing assignments turned in up to the point of Academic Support on Thursday. If he/she is unable to turn in all of the assignments, he/she would bring lunch to the classroom to work on the missing assignments. On Thursdays, we also had recess during Pride Time. The students assigned to Academic Support missed out on both lunch in the cafeteria and recess.


The program Reinforcement of Academic Responsibility, also known as R.O.A.R., was implemented during the 2007-2008 school year. The intention of the Tuesday after-school study hall was to have all of the Junior High teachers in a localized spot to help students with their schoolwork. Students could come on a voluntary basis and were encouraged to attend by all teachers. If a student had an after school practice, coaches knew that students may have had to attend R.O.A.R. in order to be eligible to play that week. Students may not play in their sport if they have two or more F’s in a class. However, not many students took advantage of the R.O.A.R. program possibly because they did not have a ride after school.

It was important to understand how students approached academic interventions both at this school as well as at other schools. So, aside from observing and surveying the seventh graders of the charter school, I needed to conduct a literature review for a solid research base.

Literature Review

By completing a literature review, I was able to find evidence of educators using intervention programs to encourage positive academic achievement. I would have to, “check a variety of studies because single studies often provide inadequate evidence upon which to make judgments” (Stringer, p. 121). I would also seek to define how educators determine if an academic program should be maintained based on its effectiveness among students.

Literature Review Questions

How do educators deem an academic intervention program successful and effective?

What forms of interventions have shown academic success among Junior High students?

What role do parents play in supporting an intervention program?

Literature Search Procedures

During my research, I used the Auraria Library using the Database List. From the Database List, I selected the Education Subject. From there, I chose the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Database. From there, I used the keywords: interventions and Junior High School, as well as academic achievement to find articles on my subject. I also kept my research dated from the year 2008 to the present year, 2013.

From that search, I found articles from the School Community Journal, the Child Youth Care Forum, the Psychology in Schools Journal, the Research in Education Journal, the European Journal of Psychology of Education, the Journal Of Educational Research, and Behavior Analyst Today.

Literature Review Findings

During Junior High, students undergo some of the most drastic changes physically, emotionally, and academically. “The junior high school age is oftentimes viewed as a transition time from childhood to adulthood, yet many junior high school students are increasingly finding themselves disconnected from the world around them” (Nelson, McMahan, and Torres, 2012, p. 142). This transitional period is crucial to a student’s future outlook on education, and by providing a positive community that fosters encouraging participation in a school’s community, Nelson,


McMahan, and Torres (2012) concluded that focusing solely on academics depletes a student’s desire to achieve in an academic setting. “The issues of high-stakes testing becoming the sole focus of school was also echoed amongst other auxiliary school personnel: ‘While the push for academics is important, it is also very important for our students to like coming to school, feeling connected and balanced in school, and motivated to achieve success in more ways than just a test’” (Nelson, McMahan, and Torres, 2012, p. 138). Furthermore, by involving other outside community members in the school’s community and spirit, students begin to see value in being a civically-minded member of society. Community involvement is a continual trend within the literature found in this study. As Sullivan, Long, and Kucera (2011) describe with respect to School Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), “Effective implementation of SWPBIS relies on guidance from a leadership team comprising of the school community who develop and implement relevant policies and practices, train staff, and provide ongoing support and leadership for implementation effort throughout the school. Along with administrators, general and special educators, support staff, and parents, school psychologists are often key members of this team” (Sullivan, Long, and Kucera, 2011, p. 973). Additional factors such as staff buy-in and staff commitment to consistent practices also contribute to successful interventions within a junior high school. These things all require a supportive community to encourage positive change within the school. When students feel supported, they have a considerably larger likelihood of going to school and staying in school which increases academic achievement and lowers discipline issues. In the French study by Regner, Loose, and Dumas (2009), students were observed to determine if academic monitoring versus academic support by both teachers and parents influenced their achievement. The study measured academic achievement through several factors: perceptions of parent and teacher academic involvement, perceived competence, academic grades, and achievement goals. Academic monitoring is defined in this study as controlling student academic behaviors such as whether they do homework, and supervising if a student is doing his/her best. Academic support is defined as encouraging, helping, and supporting a student’s academic behaviors and outcomes. The adult would help with homework, support the student in his/her academic decisions, and supporting them in their academic difficulties (Regner, Loose, and Dumas, 2009, p. 264). As McNeal (2012) found, there is little evidence to support a negative reactive hypothesis in parental involvement for student achievement, meaning that if a student is struggling with school, their parents will become more involved in their academic monitoring. Parent involvement in a student’s academic support and monitoring shows positive academic achievement.

In addition to students feeling supported by the community, if they feel successful, research suggests that they will achieve well academically even if their perceived success is manufactured. In Mori and Uchida’s (2009) study on contrived success affecting self-efficacy among Junior High School students, there is a correlation drawn between how good a student feels about their academic success with their actual academic success. Interestingly enough, this feeling seems to increase achievement as measured by test scores with no other encouragement other than giving the student potential hope in his/her capabilities. That being said, Johnson and Street (2012) show how a student’s full understanding of achievement (or lack there of) help generate self-aware, self-advocating students who process their shortcomings through data analysis. The Morningside Academy practices continual assessment on a daily basis (micro), standardized testing (meta), and summative end of the unit/term basis (macro) (Johnson and Street, 2012). When students know exactly where they are achieving based on the standards and


skills evaluation, they can understand whether they need more direct instruction, more practice, and/or further day-to-day application of the concepts. This better equips them for knowing what to study and even how to study. Their success is not manufactured as in Mori and Uchida’s (2009) study. Students (and their teachers, of course) know exactly how they succeeded.

While academic success is influenced by a variety of factors, motivation plays a huge role in a student’s achievement. Reiss (2009) developed a School Motivation Profile (RSMP) Assessment for 13 of the 16 Life Motives. Three of the Life Motives were deleted to avoid controversies of asking adolescents about romance (sex), saving (money), and eating. By determining the motivational factors among Junior High and High School students through the RMP, the team established six reasons for low performance among students. The six reasons for low performance in school were: “fear of failure (high need for acceptance), incuriosity (low need for cognition), lack of ambition (low need for power), spontaneity (low need for order), lack of responsibility (low need for honor), and combativeness (high need for vengeance)” (Reiss, 2009, p. 221). When motivational factors are determined (or lack thereof), an intervention plan can be established to promote student academic achievement.

Quality of Literature

In order to be fully reliable, I would like to see further studies conducted on Mori and Uchida’s (2009) self-efficacy research. Although their findings appear to be sound, they also appear basic at best. They conducted their study using a graphics-based test which helped targeted students feel positive about their manufactured achievement. Adding an additional data collection point such as a Likert scale of success would be helpful. Their original findings appear to be more common sense than proof that self-efficacy increases student achievement.

Although the study of students’ perceptions of parent and teacher academic involvement is an important area to research, I would examine if the results of Regner, Loose, and Dumas’ French study (2009) can be applied to students’ situations in the United States. I am unfamiliar with the academic expectations of a French public school as compared to those in the United States.

By contrast, Reiss’ study (2009) on Life Motives among students has been developed as a continuation and improvement on research that has been conducted since the 1920’s. Reiss was able to key on psychological indicators to prove on a quantitative scale when a student is motivated to succeed in school. Within this study, I would like to see a sampling of questions used in the RSMP survey given to students. Furthermore, I would like to see the additional research on what types of interventions work best for the six areas of low motivation among students.

Within the Sullivan, Long, and Kucera (2011) article, a detailed self-critique of possible limitations gives this research strong reliability. They were able to point-out areas that may have influenced the quantitative data presented in the study. This critical evaluation of possible limitations really help the reader understand how to interpret their findings.

By using both a control population with similar demographics and their school population of interest, Nelson, McMahan, and Torres (2012) are able to compare their original results with another population to verify data, highlight outliers in their study, and understand if their findings were supported by findings from a similar school.


The level of research and detail that has gone into the Morningside Academy’s success is tremendous (Johnson and Street, 2012). They have triangulated their data to determine students’ success along with step-by-step evaluation of each process of learning. Their original drive and mission is to help students who have not been success in traditional school settings because of a variety of factors, but that does not hold them back in finding academic success. This in-depth evaluation of the learning process is something that all schools should consider in order to enhance teaching methods. As a private school, their model must be successful in order to remain open as a school, and by keeping a constant vigilant eye on student data, they have an advantage to place students where they need to be to be successful.

As McNeal (2012) researched the influence of parental involvement on a student’s academic success, the study did not look at older student’s achievements. There are plenty of indicators and correlations between elementary student’s academic success and parent involvement, but the involvement seems to taper off as a student gets older. It is hard to say if McNeal’s research thoroughly researches this facet.

Gap in Literature

Overall, it was difficult to find literature on the efficacy of after-school tutoring programs. Initially I suppose this is because often teachers help students more on a one-on-one basis after school rather than tracking involvement and improvement of students in after-school programs with all teachers working in one space such as during R.O.A.R (a large scale evaluation). It was essential to see how our mandatory intervention program (Academic Support) during school compares with the effectiveness of the optional after-school tutoring program (R.O.A.R.). Additionally, determining which school population is being served by these said programs helps make the efficacy clearer. These are school-specific questions that are being answered by the research, but they could have an impact on other schools’ decisions on intervention programs.

Additionally, it was important to study if possible parental involvement in and support of the academic programs either help or hinder student achievement. Having this data for an older selection of students is currently missing from the current available literature.

Summary of Literature Review

I was thoroughly satisfied with the variety of research available on how students are motivated by different factors to achieve well in school. The literature also helped determine the definition of student achievement and effectiveness of a program. Another aspect that was studied even further was be parental involvement and support in the intervention programs. Through this literature review, I have seen the importance of looking at this in more detail than I originally anticipated.

Methods

Site Selection and Sampling

To determine the overall efficacy of the two intervention support programs, observations were made on the number of students participating in both programs; as well as surveys were given to students, parents, teachers, and the Junior High principal. Additionally, data was collected on students’ grade achievements (percentages of passing grades versus D’s and F’s).


All parents received the participation consent form and surveys via email for both parents and students via our school newsletter, which was the official form of communication for the school (Appendix A). It was posted on the school’s website for easy access.

No students were targeted for recruitment. The R.O.A.R. Program was totally voluntary after school on Tuesdays. The students who attended Academic Support had a D or F in a class and were assigned to attend by the teachers. This program was required regardless of the research being conducted. The students attended during lunch and homeroom for the week they were assigned. They could avoid being assigned to this mandatory study hall by getting their missing assignments turned in between Wednesday, when they are assigned, and Thursday when it occurred.

During this study, I worked with students in seventh and eighth grade at the charter school. I collected their data regarding participation in the intervention programs on a weekly basis. Additionally, I surveyed the students by posting the Google Doc survey online via the school website (Appendix B). I sent out a separate Google Doc survey online via email and the school website for parents to give feedback on the two programs offered (Appendix C). I collected data from teachers by seeing who assigned mandatory attendance for students to Academic Support (Appendix G) as well as offered a survey to the teachers via a Google Doc (Appendix D). I monitored the R.O.A.R. attendance list (Appendix H) to see who came each week and what subject they were working on. Although I collected data from and surveyed the eighth graders, I did not evaluate this data. I worked closely with the Junior High principal of the school to get feedback on the research being conducted. Everyone who participated in the research was sought out intentionally for feedback. I was surprised that no teachers responded to the survey offered despite multiple attempts for feedback.

Ethical Procedures

To ensure ethical procedures were being followed, a written consent document was issued out to all Junior High students and parents indicating that they could refuse to participate, withdraw from the study at any time, data regarding the study was to be shared with them, there was no sharing of specific information (including name and grades) within the study, and all private information was kept secured so that no one else may view it (Stringer, 2014, p. 89).

To ensure credibility, I examined data that was already collected by the institution (including grades and intervention program attendance). Moreover, to enhance credibility, using a survey in addition to the institutional data collected is a third source of information to provide Stringer’s, “Triangulation” concept (p. 93). This study could be replicated in any school setting based on the information provided to ensure dependability. There is a trail of data collected, instrument used to, “confirm the veracity of the study, providing another means for ensuring that the research is trustworthy” (p. 94).

Data Collection Methods

Research Question Data Collection Method(s) Participant(s)1. Is providing Academic Support an effective intervention for 7th grade

Document grades of students the week they are assigned to Academic Support (Friday-Wednesday).

-Researcher, JH teachers, JH students, JH administrator


students? Document grades of students after they attend Academic Support (Thursday).Document number of students with failing grades (weekly).Document number of students attending Academic Support and for which course (weekly).Survey participants to determine effectiveness of the program.

2. Is providing optional R.O.A.R. an effective intervention for 7th grade students?

Document number of students attending R.O.A.R. and for which course.Document number of students with failing grades who attended R.O.A.R. versus students with passing grades.Survey participants to determine effectiveness of the program.

-Researcher, JH students, JH teachers

3. Do parents find one form of intervention better than the other?

Survey parents (online) to determine the effectiveness of each program.

-Researcher, JH student parents

R.O.A.R. Attendance Students used a Google Doc Spreadsheet to sign into R.O.A.R. each week (Appendix H).

Academic Support Teachers used a collaborative Google Doc Spreadsheet to assign students to Academic Support each week (Appendix G). Students were signed up whenever they had a failing grade and/or missing assignments. Attendance was also tracked on this document.

Grade Reports Student grades were exported from the database (Infinite Campus) into Excel files weekly. I then calculated the grades manually to find each student’s grade point average.

Grade Comparisons All data was then compiled into the final document (Appendix I).

Opinions of Stakeholders Student Survey (Appendix B)Parent Survey (Appendix C)Teacher Survey (Appendix D)


Data Analysis Methods

To analyze my research questions, I gathered both qualitative and quantitative data from Junior High students, their parents, teachers who participated in both academic programs, as well as the Junior High principal. This information was collected through a series of surveys (Appendix B and C).

Qualitative data reviewed was how students felt about each program, how students felt when they were mandated to attend Academic Support, what prompted students to attend R.O.A.R., and how much more likely a student was to attend R.O.A.R. versus Academic Support.

Quantitative data reviewed was the number of students who attended both programs each week, repeated student attendance (week-to-week), students assigned to Academic Support by multiple teachers, grade fluctuation, and classes that students are in need of additional support (Appendix G).

Initially, I wanted to sample both seventh and eighth grade data for this action research; however there were several obstacles in collecting data that prevented me from collecting that much information. As a result, I only processed data from the seventh graders leaving out the eighth graders from my study. Our school database, Infinite Campus, was not able to provide grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on a weekly basis. Each week, teachers posted progress grades but the students’ GPAs were not calculated due to an unknown error in our gradebook set-up. Therefore, I had a list of all of the 157 seventh graders’ grades for each week in a spreadsheet (Appendix D). I sorted the list by grades and created a separate column with the number of points assigned for each grade (A=4 points, B=3 points, C=2 points, D=1 points, and F=0 points). Then I resorted the worksheet by each student. I found the sum of each student's’ grade points along with another column adding the number of classes each student attended. I then divided the sum of grade points by the number of classes they took. Another complication to the collection of data stemmed from the fact that the number of classes fluctuated for each student This difference in classes was caused due to a number of reasons.

First of all, not all teachers had access to using Infinite Campus due to their paperwork being held up by the school district’s central office. If the teacher was hired later in the summer, they were not given access to add grades to the grade book until even as late as the first week of October. Secondly, if a teacher forgot to post progress grades for that week, the students were not given a grade for that class. Finally, students were not given a grade for special education courses such as Resource. The number of classes can not be universally calculated (8 classes for each student) but rather had to be individually calculated.

Once the GPAs were calculated, for each week, I labeled whether the grade GPA went up, down, or stayed the same from the previous time a grade was calculated. For example, I took the average of their trimester GPAs from sixth grade and compared them to the GPAs from 9/13/13. I color coded the GPA green if it went up, red if it went down, and black if the GPA didn’t change. I labeled the proceeding columns with a +1 if the GPA went up, with a -1 if the GPA went down and a +1 if the GPA stayed the same. This allowed me to find the trends of GPAs on a weekly basis (Appendix K, Table 1). I could also calculated the overall +/- GPA improvements (Appendix K, Table 2).

Next, I documented whether a student attended R.O.A.R. for each week with a +1 column.


Similarly, I documented if a student was assigned Academic Support and either turned in their missing assignments before Thursday’s mandatory intervention session or attended the session itself. These categories of students both received a +1 in a different column because if they were prompted to get their missing assignments in before Thursday’s Academic Support session, then being assigned the session was effective. It forced the students to turn in missing work and/or gave them the time to complete the assignments during the session. I highlighted the names of students who attended at least one form of intervention a light pink color. This allowed me to create a final column calculating the number of students, out of the entire seventh grade, who attended some form of intervention.

Specific data and grade comparisons could then be made for students who attended R.O.A.R. and Academic Support (Appendix K, Tables 3-6).

Qualitative data was collected in the form of surveys to the stakeholders of this study including students, parents, and teachers. The information was distributed through a Google Form and the responses were compiled in a Google Spreadsheet. The responses were counted in a similar fashion as the GPA data finding the sums of certain responses, averaging the opinions given on likert scales, and reading for any types of trends.

Schedule

September 13th Grade sampling collected

September 17th ROAR sampling collected

September 19th Academic Support sampling collected


September 24th ROAR sampling collected

September 26th Academic Support sampling collected


October 1st ROAR sampling collected

October 3rd Academic Support sampling collected

October 4th Grade sampling collected

October 8th ROAR sampling collectedDraft Literature Review

October 10th Academic Support sampling collected


October 12th Final Literature Review

October 15th ROAR sampling collected


October 17th Academic Support sampling collected


October 21st Parent and Student surveys distributed online

October 31st Parent and student surveys collected.

November 5th Draft Research Findings

November 9th Final Research Findings

November 21st Presentation on Report

December 3rd Draft Final Action Research Report

December 7th Final Action Research Report

Checks for Rigor

By including a variety of perspectives and evaluative tools for all stakeholders in this research, the findings of this research was credible (Stringer, 2014, p. 92-93). Students were observed with data being collected from a triangulated method (surveying students, teachers, and parents on the topic. Participants were also be debriefed and data shared with all immediate stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, and administration) as well as with the Parent Board and school community.

Finding ways to provide interventions is a common issue among educators (especially with mandated programs such as Response to Interventions). Although the programs run in this particular charter school were specific, teacher-created interventions, it is plausible that other educators would find this research transferable to programs in place at their educational institutions (Stringer, p. 94).

The findings of this study are outlined along with specific means of data collection, procedures, and systematic research processes conducted to ensure dependability (Stringer, p. 94).

The artifacts collected during this action research are available to the public to verify confirmability (Stringer, p. 94).

Findings

Among the 157 seventh graders, 57.3% of the students attended one or more session of an intervention; either the mandatory Academic Support or elective R.O.A.R. (Appendix H). There were 101 Academic Support passes written between 9/13/13 and 10/18/13, which includes duplicate student attendance week by week. On the other hand, there were 68 R.O.A.R. attendees between the same span of time also including duplicate students from week to week. Through informal discussion, it was hypothesized by Junior High teachers and the Junior High Principal that the GPA for students who are assigned Academic Support would be lower compared to


those who attend R.O.A.R. willingly. In this study, that hypothesis was found to be true with the average GPA of R.O.A.R. students at 3.70 compared to Academic Support students at 2.97. Students who attended both programs averaged a slightly higher GPA of 3.10 than Academic Support students (Appendix H, Table 7).

Overall, students averaged a 3.38 GPA over the span of this study. One week showed a substantial outlier. There was a tremendous dip in grades the week of 10/4/13. When looking at the grades, I observed that a core subject teacher was not posting grades prior to the this week due to not having access to the grade book. When the teacher did post grades, many students were failing just that class. The cohort was able to recover pretty quickly and went back to their typical GPAs the following week. As time passed, teachers became more consistent with posting grades with fewer gaps in grades being posted.

When a student’s GPA went up, I assigned a +1 as well as a +1 for students who maintained their GPA for the week. If a student’s GPA went down, I assigned a -1 point. In general, the student body saw a +152 increase in GPA performance. These numbers are indicative of the entire cohort population including students who did not attend any form of intervention.

Academic Support Trends

Students who were mandated to attend Academic Support due to a D and/or F in any given class saw an increase in GPAs after attending. Of the 100 students, 52 of them saw an increase in GPAs. This number includes repeating students from one week to the next. Only 3 of 100 students’ GPAs stayed the same while 45 students saw a decrease in GPA post-Academic Support. There were more students who participated in the Academic Support program than R.O.A.R.

R.O.A.R. Trends

Students who attended the option R.O.A.R. sessions also saw an increase in GPAs after attending. Of the 68 students, 41 of them saw an increase in GPAs. This number also includes repeating students from one week to the next. There were 12 of 68 students whose GPA stayed the same while 15 students saw a decrease in GPA post-R.O.A.R.


Table 8. GPA movement after attending an intervention session.

Among the 27 students who took the survey, 18 of them had attended R.O.A.R. and the majority of them, 17, said they attended as needed. Nearly all of them said they liked the option of having R.O.A.R. available if needed with 24 responses. Having other activities and responsibilities after school seems to be the major reasons students do not attend with 16 responses.

Both programs had a positive effect on GPAs because the number of GPAs that went up outnumbered the GPAs that went down. R.O.A.R. had a higher impact of GPA betterment than Academic Support. However, as mentioned earlier (Appendix K, Table 7), the GPAs of R.O.A.R. participants is on average much higher than Academic Support attendees. This data helps me to classify the types of students that are participating in each program. Students are only assigned to attend Academic Support if they have a D or an F; therefore they will have a lower GPA due to any low grades already. Students who only attended R.O.A.R. do so with the support of their parents as it meets after school. These students tend to do better with their classwork strictly based on GPA. Clearly, these two forms of intervention serve two different populations within the school.

Comparison of Research to the Literature Review

Finding similar themes in effective interventions among Junior High students and the literature reviewed was challenging; however the most consistent theme in both arenas was motivation. In Mori and Uchida’s (2009) study on contrived success affecting self-efficacy among Junior High School students, there is a correlation drawn between how good a student feels about their academic success with their actual academic success. The students observed in this study also showed they continued to succeed in their academics when they felt invited to do well. Since


students who attended the optional intervention, R.O.A.R, had better initial GPAs, they showed motivation to succeed and used the forms of additional support provided to continue their success. On the other hand, students who attended Academic Support were required to attend and had the lowest GPAs in students observed. It would be interesting to give these students the same motivational survey as conducted by Reiss (2009). He developed a School Motivation Profile (RSMP) Assessment for 13 of the 16 Life Motives. I would like to see if the students who attend Academic Support regular share the same motivational struggles as in Reiss’ study: “fear of failure (high need for acceptance), incuriosity (low need for cognition), lack of ambition (low need for power), spontaneity (low need for order), lack of responsibility (low need for honor), and combativeness (high need for vengeance)” (Reiss, 2009, p. 221).

Another area of interest would be in parental involvement. Parents were offered the opportunity to respond to a survey regarding both programs. Only three of the eleven parents who participated in the survey had seventh grade students. The overall opinion of the parents of both programs was positive with gratitude that both programs existed for their students. One parent stated, “I think it is nice to have a time when the kids can get more help if needed, especially for seventh graders.” Buy-in of the two intervention programs among these surveyed parents was high; however there were very few participants to offer a thorough overarching opinion. The students who struggle with academics did not necessarily have parental involvement in the survey, so as research suggests, when parental involvement is high both in a student’s academic support and monitoring shows positive academic achievement (McNeal, 2012).

Limitations

As with any form of research being conducted, there are limitations to the study. Initially, there is the source of error possibility in grade point average (GPA) calculation. The school’s student database and grade book system, Infinite Campus, was not able to produce a weekly GPA for each student. It would only provide grades for each course. Most students have an eight class schedule with the standard A-F grading system for each class. However, some students who require additional support through an IEP, 504, or other Special Education class may not have an eight period schedule. So there was no standard way of calculating GPAs; it was done manually with the help of spreadsheet software. For the end of the quarter grades, students (with the help of their teachers) calculated their own GPAs during Pride Time (Appendix I). I went back and double checked each student’s GPA in my own Pride Time and found mathematical errors by the students. To avoid such an issue, having an automated program to handle GPA calculation would be ideal.

Another form of limitation during this study was ensuring that all students were tracked accurately. These academic interventions can be a little hectic at times, and it is impossible to ensure that all students signed in (attendance) during each session. Students are learning how to use things such as cloud-based documents that allow multiple people to work at once. So, it was necessary to check and make sure that no one’s names were deleted while another student signed in on another computer. If they were not signed in, it was not documented that they attended the intervention session and their GPA was not monitored for improvement.

Although this research is specific to a particular charter school, the after school programs described in this research are similar to those offered at other junior highs. Therefore this information and research can be translated to other schools and programs. The findings can help


the future of this particular school’s programs and efficiency of programs. By describing the efficacy of these programs, other educators and administrators can understand what has been done and how it worked in the past among seventh and eighth graders.

Implications of Practice

As a result, the efficacy of both Academic Support and R.O.A.R. are beneficial for students of the Junior High at this charter school in Westminster, Colorado. Although attendees of R.O.A.R. showed a greater increase in GPAs, there was still an increase in GPAs among students who attended the mandated Academic Support. Both programs serve different student populations of the school and allow for an opportunity to get additional support outside of the traditional classroom setting. During a time when organization and transition is difficult, these interventions seem to have a positive outcome among the students. As a student responded, “I think that both options are great for the students. First, R.O.A.R gives you the opportunity to meet with all teachers. This is a positive. The negative is that it is after-school so difficult for those in clubs or sports. That is why Academic Support is great to have available when the after-school choice is not an option.”

These findings lead me to the conclusion that both programs should be retained while explaining to parents and students that the efficacy of R.O.A.R. seems to be higher. This suggests that because it requires parental buy-in in order for students to stay after school, parental support is another key element to a student’s overall success in school. It also suggests that student self-motivation is an important factor in academic success.

Impact (Negative and Positive)

A positive impact of this research was to find the most effective form(s) of interventions to better serve the students in their needs. We could also increase the amount of passing students (fewer D’s and F’s). Lastly, we could focus our limited resources on the most effective interventions, which may be a continuation of both programs. A negative impact of this research could have been that students feel like they were being targeted for questioning based on their grades. However, I made every effort to assure students of their anonymity, and explain that their feedback was being used to help make the study hall programs better for them and future students. Doing this research rather than another form of research may not have been beneficial and may have taken away time and energy from looking into another area of study.

Summary of Research

The overall focus of this research was to help determine which intervention programs were most effective and needed for students at the Junior High level of a charter school in Colorado. By determining which program helped students most (better grades, better study habits, self-advocacy developed), teachers and administration could determine where to use manpower most efficiently.

It is quite possible that both interventions were necessary within this particular school environment, because R.O.A.R. tends to attract “good students” while Academic Support is a mandatory program for failing students. Each provided the same assistance for different populations of students. However, with both qualitative and quantitative data collected, this outcome can be confirmed or denied. Also, it could be observed if students were more likely to


succeed in Junior High if they attend R.O.A.R. regularly as opposed to Academic Support. This coincided with the school’s Strategic Plan goal of having 80% of students achieving a 3.0 GPA this year.


References

Johnson, K., and Street, E. M. (2012). From the laboratory to the field and back again:

Morningside Academy's 32 years of improving students' academic performance.

Behavior Analyst Today, 13(1), 20-40.

McNeal, R. r. (2012). Checking in or checking out? Investigating the parent involvement

reactive hypothesis. Journal Of Educational Research,105(2), 79-89.

Mori, K., and Uchida, A. (2009). Can contrived success affect self-efficacy among junior

high school students? Research In Education, 82(1), 60-68.

Nelson, L. P., McMahan, S. K., and Torres, T. (2012). The impact of a junior high school

community intervention project: Moving beyond the testing juggernaut and into a

community of creative learners. School Community Journal, 22(1), 125-144.

Regner, I., Loose, F., and Dumas, F. (2009). Students' perceptions of parental and teacher

academic involvement: Consequences on achievement goals. European Journal Of

Psychology Of Education, 24(2), 263-277.

Reiss, S. (2009). Six motivational reasons for low school achievement. Child and Youth

Care Forum, 38(4), 219-225.

Stringer, E. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Sullivan, A. L., Long, L., and Kucera, M. (2011). A survey of school psychologists'

preparation, participation, and perceptions related to positive behavior interventions and

supports. Psychology in the Schools, 48(10), 971-985.


Appendices

A. Participation Consent Form

Dear Academy Junior High Community, I am conducting some action research on the two study hall programs offered at the Junior High level—Academic Support, which is offered during school and Reinforcement of Academic Responsibility (a.k.a. R.O.A.R.), which is offered after school. I am researching the effectiveness of each study hall program with respect to student grades. It is a requirement for one of the graduate courses in which I have enrolled at the University of Colorado, Denver. I am enrolled in this course and conducting this research so I can continue to refine my practice and provide my students with the best possible teaching. If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey that will take around 15 minutes. There are no right or wrong answers. Your individual answers to the questions will not be identified or published. You may discontinue your participation in this study at any time without penalty. Answering and completing these online questionnaires indicate your willingness to participate in this study. Findings will be reported back to the community via the school newsletter, The Wildcat Pause as well as on the school’s website. Clicking below indicates that you have read and understood the description of the study and you agree to participate.

If you have any further questions you may contact me, the Principal Investigator, via email at [email protected] or by phone at 303.289.8088 x 138 or my instructor, Jennifer VanBerschot, at [email protected].

Thank you for your time, Joy E. VigilSecondary Visual Arts Teacher


B. Student Survey

C. Parent Survey

D. Teacher Survey

E. Literature Log Review

Date of Search

Database Keyword Search

Journal + Article Name

Summary

10/02/13 ERIC interventions

junior high school

School Community Journal, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1

The Impact of a Junior High School Community Intervention Project: Moving Beyond the Testing Juggernaut and Into a Community of Creative Learners

By implementing a community intervention project, this study tracked social support, responsibility among students, school climate, self efficacy, and optimism of students. The community, parents, and students were encouraged to be active participants in the school for two years. Results of this research found that when the school’s focus was solely on high-stakes test scores, student engagement and participation went down. On the other hand, when community development was encouraged, those items being tracked increased positively.


junior high school

Child Youth Care Forum (2009) 38

Six Motivational Reasons for Low School Achievement

Motivation is a huge element in student success and this research studies six reasons for low motivation among Junior High and High School students. The motivational factors include, “fear of failure (high need for acceptance), incuriosity (low need for cognition), lack of ambition (low need for power), spontaneity (low need for order), lack of responsibility (low need for honor), and combativeness (high need for vengeance)” (p. 221). With further evaluation of


these factors, appropriate interventions can be established and implemented to help students achieve academically.


junior high school

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 48(10), 2011

A Survey of School Psychologists’ Preparation, Participation, and Perceptions Related to Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

This research studies the use of a School Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) and its impact on various factors: disruptive behaviors, school climate, staff job satisfaction, and academic interventions. The study highlights the keys to an effective intervention [defining effective].

Study never official defines what SWPBIS are and expect survey participants to understand what this model is with no further explanation.

10/08/13 ERIC academic success

junior high school

Research in Education, v82 n1

Can Contrived Success Affect Self-Efficacy among Junior High School Students?

Using the fMORI technique to test students, this study determines how a Junior High student can predict their success based on their perceived ability. When a student experienced an enhanced sense of capability, they performed noticeably better than other students who did not experience this success.

10/08/13 ERIC academic success

junior high school

European Journal of Psychology of Education2009. Vol. XXIV. n'2Students' perceptions of parentaland teacher academic involvement:Consequences on

This research shows that a student’s perceived involvement of parents and teachers has a direct correlation to engagement and success in academic tasks. Whether an adult is engaged in academic support or academic monitoring, students see how the adult values education and develops this idea in his/her own


achievement goals academic career.

10/12/13 ERIC academic achievement

junior high

Journal Of Educational Research,105(2), 79-89Checking in or checking out? Investigating the parent involvement reactive hypothesis

Parental involvement (or lack thereof) directly and indirectly impacts how social class advantages (or disadvantages) pass from one generation to the next. There’s both positive and negative research indicating how parent involvement influences student achievement. Parental involvement can have a negative impact when the involvement is reactionary to the student already having problems in school.

10/12/13 ERIC academic achievement

junior high

Behavior Analyst Today, 13(1)

From the laboratory to the field and back again: Morningside Academy's 32 years of improving students' academic performance

The Morningside Academy uses a continual evaluative process while educating Elementary and Junior High students. They research best practices in education to determine which methods would be best to implement in teaching. Overall, the students embark on a three phase process of learning: instruction, practice, and application. Students are assessed in three ways: macro, meta, and mirco. Each test provides data to better understand the students’ needs for instruction. Additionally important, students are taught to self-evaluate to encourage self-awareness of needs and advocacy.

F. Grade Comparison Document

G. Academic Support Worksheet Example

H. R.O.A.R. Attendance Worksheet Example


I. GPA Calculation Worksheet

J. Data Collection

G.P.A. Criteria 7th Grade 3.0 and Above

9/13/13 125

9/20/13 118

9/27/13 116

10/4/13 91

10/11/13 113

10/18/13 113

R.O.A.R. Attendance 7th Grade

9/17/13 6

9/24/13 7

10/1/13 13

10/8/13 23

10/15/13 19

Academic Support Attendance 7th Grade

9/19/13 34

9/26/13 9

10/3/13 25

10/10/13 29

10/17/13 4

Average G.P.A.

7th Grade R.O.A.R.

7th Grade Academic


Support

Week 1 3.52 3.08

Week 2 3.58 3.11

Week 3 3.34 3.05

Week 4 3.02 2.37

Week 5 3.48 2.24

K. Tables of Findings

Table 1. Measures the GPA of seventh graders on a weekly basis starting with their overall GPA from sixth grade as a starting point.


Table 2. Measures the overall +/- of GPAs per week.

Table 3. Measures the average GPA for students who attended R.O.A.R.


Table 4. Measures the average GPA for students who attended Academic Support.

Table 5. Measures the number of GPAs that either go up, go down, or stay the same each week after attending R.O.A.R.


Table 6. Measures the number of GPAs that either go up, go down, or stay the same each week after attending Academic Support.

Table 7. Measures the average GPAs of students who attended interventions.


Table 8. GPA movement after attending an intervention session.

Joy Vigil-Effective Interventions and Academic Support Action Research

Documents

Transcript of Joy Vigil-Effective Interventions and Academic Support Action Research