What Helps Students What Helps Students Learn?Learn?

Winston-Salem State Winston-Salem State UniversityUniversity

Edwin D. BellEdwin D. Bell

IntroductionIntroduction

Wang, Haertel, and Wahlberg, Wang, Haertel, and Wahlberg, (1993/94) conducted an analysis of (1993/94) conducted an analysis of 50 years of research on the factors 50 years of research on the factors that influence student learning.that influence student learning.

The research was supported by the The research was supported by the Temple University Center for Temple University Center for Research in Human Development Research in Human Development and Education and by the Office of and Education and by the Office of Educational Research and Educational Research and Improvement U.S. DOE.Improvement U.S. DOE.

Introduction (continued)Introduction (continued)

They utilized the ratings of 61 They utilized the ratings of 61 experts and the content analysis of experts and the content analysis of 179 book chapters and narrative 179 book chapters and narrative reviews, as well as 91 meta-analyses reviews, as well as 91 meta-analyses (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993)(Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993)

Introduction (continued)Introduction (continued)

Their analysis created 28 conceptual Their analysis created 28 conceptual categories, which they categorized categories, which they categorized into six broad influences: student into six broad influences: student aptitude, classroom instruction and aptitude, classroom instruction and climate, context, program design, climate, context, program design, school organization, state and district school organization, state and district characteristics.characteristics.

Student AptitudeStudent Aptitude

Classroom Instruction and ClimateClassroom Instruction and Climate

ContextContext

Program DesignProgram Design

School OrganizationSchool Organization

State and District CharacteristicsState and District Characteristics

Wang, et al.,1993/1994, pp. 76-77

What did they find out?What did they find out?

Student aptitude had the most influence on Student aptitude had the most influence on student learning and within that broad area student learning and within that broad area of influence the student’s metacognitive of influence the student’s metacognitive process, i.e., the capacity to plan and process, i.e., the capacity to plan and monitor their work, had the most impact on monitor their work, had the most impact on student learning (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).student learning (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).

Classroom climate and instruction had as Classroom climate and instruction had as nearly as much impact on student learning nearly as much impact on student learning as student aptitude (Wang, et al., as student aptitude (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).1993/1994).

FindingsFindings

The most influential category is this The most influential category is this broad area was classroom management. broad area was classroom management. This category includes “group alerting, This category includes “group alerting, learner accountability, and teacher ‘learner accountability, and teacher ‘withitness’. Effective classroom ’. Effective classroom management increases student management increases student engagement, decreases disruptive engagement, decreases disruptive behaviors, and makes good use of behaviors, and makes good use of instructional time” (Wang, et al. instructional time” (Wang, et al. 193/1994, p. 76)193/1994, p. 76)

Findings (continued)Findings (continued)

Their analysis indicated that classroom Their analysis indicated that classroom implementation and support, which deals implementation and support, which deals with instructional services, staff development with instructional services, staff development and the adequate training of teachers was and the adequate training of teachers was the least influential in the classroom climate the least influential in the classroom climate and instruction category (Wang, et al., and instruction category (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).1993/1994).

They argued that this weak relationship was They argued that this weak relationship was probably due to the poor implementation of probably due to the poor implementation of the variables involved, e.g., lack of time, the variables involved, e.g., lack of time, resources, or support to implement new ideas resources, or support to implement new ideas and strategies (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).and strategies (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).

ContextContext

The four out-of school influences The four out-of school influences influenced student learning almost as influenced student learning almost as much as student aptitude and much as student aptitude and classroom instruction and climate. classroom instruction and climate. The most powerful was home The most powerful was home environment/parental involvement environment/parental involvement (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).(Wang, et al., 1993/1994).

Program DesignProgram Design

The three program design categories The three program design categories had a moderate influence on student had a moderate influence on student learning (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).learning (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).

School OrganizationSchool Organization

““On average school organization On average school organization yielded moderate influence. Of its yielded moderate influence. Of its five categories five categories schoolschool cultureculture was was the most influential” (Wang, et al., the most influential” (Wang, et al., 1993/1994, p. 78) 1993/1994, p. 78)

State and District CharacteristicsState and District Characteristics

This area was the least influential on This area was the least influential on improving student learning (Wang, et improving student learning (Wang, et al., 1993/1994)al., 1993/1994)

Findings (continued)Findings (continued)

Wang, et al. (1993/1994) Wang, et al. (1993/1994) summarized the average influence of summarized the average influence of their six areas this way.their six areas this way.

(p. 79)

Conclusion and RecommendationConclusion and Recommendation

“ “ Generally, proximal variables (e.g., Generally, proximal variables (e.g., psychological, instructional, and home psychological, instructional, and home environment) exert more influence than environment) exert more influence than distal variables (e.g., demographic, policy, distal variables (e.g., demographic, policy, and organizational).” (Wang, et al., 1993, and organizational).” (Wang, et al., 1993, p. 249p. 249

““Overall our findings support renewed Overall our findings support renewed emphasis on psychological, instructional, emphasis on psychological, instructional, and contextual influences” (Wang, et al. and contextual influences” (Wang, et al. 1993/1994, p. 79)1993/1994, p. 79)

Conclusions and Conclusions and RecommendationsRecommendations

Please read Irving and Martin (1982) Please read Irving and Martin (1982) for a more detailed discussion of for a more detailed discussion of “withitness”“withitness”

ReferencesReferences

Irving, O. & Martin, J. (1982). Irving, O. & Martin, J. (1982). Withitness: The confusing variable. Withitness: The confusing variable. American Educational Research American Educational Research Journal Journal 19 19 (2), 313-319.(2), 313-319.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Wahlberg, Wahlberg, H. J. (1993/94). What H. J. (1993/94). What helps students helps students learn? learn? Educational Educational Leadership, 51Leadership, 51(4), (4), 74-79.74-79.

ReferencesReferences

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Wahlberg, Wahlberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base knowledge base for school learning for school learning Review of Review of Education Research, Education Research, 6363(3), 249-294.(3), 249-294.