The Influence of Learner-centered Pedagogy on the Achievement of Students in Title I Elementary Schools

Dissertation

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

By

ROY A. EBANKS

Prescott Valley, Arizona

January 2010

i i

Copyright 2010

Roy A. Ebanks

i i i

APPROVAL PAGE

The Influence of Learner-centered Pedagogy on the Achievement of Students in Title I Elementary Schools

by

Roy A. Ebanks

Approved by:

Donna Graham Ph.D. _______________________________________________ ________________

Chair: Date

Member: Paul Moon Ph.D. _________________________________

Member: Debra Bockrath Ph.D. _________________________________

Certified by:

_______________________________________________ ________________ School Dean: Dennis Lessard Ph.D. Date

iv

ABSTRACT

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 guides school policies on teaching and

assessment and promotes school interventions that focus on learner-centered pedagogy.

Despite this emphasis on learner-centered pedagogy, significant numbers of Title I

elementary students in Florida achieved below state standards from 2006 to 2009. This

study used a causal-comparative (ex post facto) research design to examine the influence

of learner-centered pedagogy on student achievement in Title I schools in Florida.

Purposeful non-probability convenience sampling was used to select participants. Two

20-item Likert-type questionnaires were used to collect data about the participants‟

experiences with learner-centered pedagogy. Five hundred student-questionnaires and 65

teacher-questionnaires were sent to grade three to five students and teachers in four Title

I South Florida elementary schools. Four hundred and thirty students (183 boys and 247

girls) and 38 teachers (13 males and 25 females) responded to the surveys. Analysis of

Variances and Least Square Linear Regression were used to determine the relationships

between variables. The findings indicated that participants‟ associations with learner-

centered pedagogy were ineffective in the effort to raise student achievement. The study

indicated that inappropriate matching of learner-centered pedagogy to student interest

might be among the causes of this ineffectiveness. The author recommends that school

districts consider providing pedagogy management workshops for teachers. Teachers

could also seek learner-centered pedagogy education from colleges. The Parent Teacher

Association can be utilized to improve parent awareness of learner-centered pedagogy. It

is recommended that consideration be given to students‟ intellectual maturity in other

studies. Moreover, this study could be repeated after the NCLB Act is reauthorized in

v

order to explore the learning environment the revised act will create. Finally, the study

could be replicated with an emphasis on examining socioeconomic status (SES), or in

another geographical location utilizing participants from middle schools.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The assistance I have received to complete this dissertation was outstanding. I am

grateful for the support, and would like to express appreciation to several people. I owe

my deepest gratitude to my Dissertation chair, Dr. Donna Graham, whose encouragement

and guidance throughout the project enabled me to develop an understanding of the

study.

Thanks also to the teachers and students, who participated in this research study.

However, the Principals from the participating schools deserve special thanks for

showing an interest in the project. I appreciated the enthusiasm and cooperative spirit of

everyone. It was an inspiration to work with such motivated groups.

In addition, I offer sincere thanks to the other members of the dissertation

committee: Dr. Debra Bockrath and Dr. Paul Moon, who provided invaluable guidance.

Their contribution indicated a deep understanding of research and their talents helped to

deepen my appreciation for the manuscript.

A special thanks to my understanding wife Delveen, who stood by me throughout

this period. She assisted with patience and understanding through this dissertation. You

are inspirational!

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 Background ....................................................................................................................2 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................4

Purpose ...........................................................................................................................6 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................7

Research Questions ........................................................................................................9 Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................11 Nature of the Study………..……………………………………….…………............12

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................13 Definitions....................................................................................................................14

Summary ......................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................16

Influence of Learning Theory ......................................................................................16 Effects on Delivery Methods .......................................................................................18

Impact on the Learning Environment ..........................................................................26 Federal Regulations......................................................................................................31 Teacher Training and Experience ................................................................................34

Teacher Age and Gender Influence .............................................................................37 Summary ......................................................................................................................39

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................……….42 Research Method and Design .......................................................................................44

Participants....................................................................................................................46 Materials/Instruments....................................................................................................47

Operational Definition of Variables..............................................................................49 Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ...................................................................50 Methodical Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ...........................................55

Ethical Assurances ........................................................................................................60 Summary .......................................................................................................................60

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS..................................................................................................63 Results…. .....................................................................................................................64

Evaluation of Findings .................................................................................................75 Summary ......................................................................................................................78

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS......80 Implications.................................................................................................................84

Recommendations .......................................................................................................90 Conclusions .................................................................................................................92

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................94

vii i

APPENDIXES: ...............................................................................................................101

APPENDIX A: Student Survey ...............................................................................101 APPENDIX B: Teacher Survey ...............................................................................104

APPENDIX C: Student Assent Form ......................................................................109 APPENDIX D: Parent Consent Letter .....................................................................111 APPENDIX E: Letter to Principal ...........................................................................113

APPENDIX F: Teacher Consent Letter ...................................................................115 APPENDIX G: IRB Northcentral University ..........................................................117

APPENDIX H: IRB Broward County School Board ..............................................118

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Histogram of Learner-Centered Task effectiveness ............................................66

Figure 2 Normal probability plot of the Teacher-Student Relationship ............................67 Figure 3 Scatter plot of Learner-centered effectiveness ....................................................69

Figure 4 Scatter plot of Learner-centered instruction .......................................................72

Figure 5 Scatter plot of Learner-centered effectiveness ....................................................75

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Concerns about education and achievement escalated in the early 1950s

(Saunders, 2008). Getting detailed information on learner-centered pedagogy connections

with student achievement remains indispensable to educators. Schools need this

knowledge to support staff development, instructional management, and staff selection.

Educators embrace learner-centered pedagogy because it encourages collaborative

learning and student achievement (Au, 2009; Eguawa, Andrews, Moralez, & Holguin-

Dotson, 2009).

Elementary school teaching methods include learner-centered pedagogy. No

study existed about the effects of the learner-centered model on student achievement in

Title I schools. Learner-centered pedagogy forms the focus of this research study.

Sufficient documentation exists on pedagogy and achievement association. Research

about the effects of learner-centered pedagogy on Title I students achievement helps

interest groups to track changes in education. The findings of this study allow educators

to enhance teaching, training, and management techniques to support student

achievement.

Instructional management, supervision, and training influence academic

achievement. Success with pedagogy depends on teacher competence and student

participation. Learner-centered pedagogy promotes student participation, resulting in

increased achievement (Gonzalez & Nelson, 2005). A combination of instructional

technology, classroom arrangements, and teaching techniques induces participation. The

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 promotes individualized and small-group instruction.

Challenges to student achievement include inadequate teachers‟ training, students‟

2

diversity, and eagerness to learn (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Mawhinney, 2007; White-

Clarke, 2005).

This chapter highlights student-focused instructional arrangements. It includes

research about student achievement and its connections to learner-centered instructions.

The constructivist‟s theoretical background of this research emphasizes the importance of

student engagement and collaboration. Other sections of this chapter feature research

about the effects of technology, teacher gender, age, and learner-centered pedagogy

experience on achievement. The chapter also includes the purpose, participants, and

methods.

Background

Evaluating committees penalize schools for not meeting the Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) criteria of the NCLB (Costello, 2008). Policy makers authorized

spending and training guidelines to improve learner-centered instructions, but students

continue to perform poorly. Many educators agree that learner-centered pedagogy

improves student performance but remain unsure about the extent of the improvements

(Gonzales & Nelson, 2005). Researchers like Doherty and Hibbert (2007) explored the

impact of learner-centered instruction on student achievement in two key studies and

provided findings significant to this study.

Culturally diverse student populations need student-focused instructional

strategies (White-Clarke, 2005). Teachers use student-focused instructions to support

ethnic diversity, cognitive differences, and socialization. While the NCLB of 2001

mandated that educators address differences in ability, Nykiel-Hibbert (2004) suggested

that over-focusing on teacher accountability reduces the educator‟s motivation to target

3

individualized needs. Educators address student diversity through adaptive techniques

and self-paced learning (Ysseldyke, Betts, Thill, & Hannigan, 2004). Lerner-focused

pedagogy encourages students‟ responsibility for learning.

Learner-centered pedagogy raises student achievement, promote democratic

classrooms, complex thinking, joint production, and meet student communication goals

(Cummins, 2007). This pedagogy supports the social and intellectual attributes of

students with low socioeconomic status (SES). Taylor (2005) indicated that students from

higher economic backgrounds performed better on standardized tests than students from

low SES backgrounds. Title I services give benefits to students from environments not

supportive of learner-centered pedagogy (Ysseldyke et al., 2004). Low SES students

often enter schools with exceptional shortfalls in social and cognitive skills (Fram,

Miller-Cribbs, & Horn, 2007); conditions learner-centered instructions address

(Cornelius-White, 2007).

Constructivism influences elementary classroom instructions. Andrew (2007)

pointed out that constructivist adoption causes shifts from long lecturing, drills, and rote

learning to interacting and building knowledge. Teachers merge constructivist-based

pedagogy into instructions to support learner-centeredness (Valli & Buese, 2007).

Richards, Brown, and Forde (2007) recommended that teachers use pedagogy to find the

needs of students and promote academic achievement in a learner-centered context.

Teachers need guidelines to transition to constructivist teaching styles (Andrew, 2007).

Little research addressed the concerns about gender-type effects on pedagogy.

Martin and Marsh (2005) explored teacher gender and its impact on student achievement

and found students‟ concern about the quality of teacher instructions exceeded that of

4

gender. Costello (2008) suggested that teachers pay attention to student gender because

males and females possess different learning interest. Sawchuck (2006) believed teacher

gender affects student achievement. Gender stereotyping increases instructional

unfairness and group advantages. Chudgar and Sankar (2008) found an insignificant

connection between teacher gender and student achievement. Teachers matched to

student gender realized no significant differences in student achievement.

Educators agree that engagement promotes student achievement. Downer, Rimm-

Kaufman, and Pianta (2007) suggested that children enjoy doing small-group problem-

solving assignments. Students used requisite cognitive stimulations, social, and motor

skills to meet small group goals. Teachers support Title 1 students' learning means to

improve social and academic skills (Sunderman, 2006). The NCLB encourages teachers

to use engaging methods to improve Title I student achievement (Jones, 2007).

Legislative guidelines encourage teachers to deliver instructions to meet students‟

needs. Educators expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the learner-centered

approach the law supports. Research indicated learner-centered pedagogy raises

achievement but identified legislative control, cultural diversity, philosophy adoption,

gender bias, and learner-centered pedagogy management as interferences. Academic

improvement depends on pedagogical knowledge and instructional delivery skills.

Problem Statement

Teachers need research evidence to understand how learner-centered pedagogy

affects achievement and to use as a guide to improve practices in Title I schools. This

research has found no study about the effectiveness of learner-centered pedagogy on Title

I student achievement. Further, little research information exists about the effect of

5

teachers‟ age, gender, learner-centered pedagogy management, and students‟ learner-

centered experience on achievement in Title I schools.

Doherty and Hilberg (2007) pointed out that learner-centered pedagogy promoted

student achievement. The five standards for effective pedagogy did not raise student

academic achievement or help student diversity (Doherty & Hilberg, 2008). In other

research, Nykiel-Herbert (2004) found that learner-centered pedagogy raised student

achievement. Reynolds (2007) and Carbo (2008) linked learner-centered instructional

methods to student achievement.

Federal laws protect teachers from age discrimination, but teacher age continues

to cause concerns. Interest groups indicated dissatisfaction with teacher performance in

the age groups below 25 years and above 50 years old. Evers, Tomic, and Brouwers

(2004) suggested that the inability to cope with disruptive student behavior, and not

teacher age, reduces performance competence. Inadequate behavior management skills

challenge the inexperienced teacher‟s ability to organize and keep a learner-centered

class. Hoerr (2007) believed identical philosophies shape the teaching styles of teachers

with the same age.

Since the NCLB of 2001, researchers focused on the mandate‟s effects on

classroom instructions. According to Au (2007) and Valli and Buese (2007), the NCLB

high-stakes testing and instruction guidelines discourage widespread uses of learner-

centered pedagogy. Schools develop methods to improve student achievement based on

the NCLB domains (Ysseldyke et al., 2004); these delivery methods satisfy the Act if

teacher arrangements meet student academic needs (Sunderman, 2006). Pedagogy

6

research findings guide the teacher's instructional choice.

Purpose

This study used a causal-comparative (ex post facto) research design to examine

the influence of learner-centered pedagogy on student achievement in Title I schools.

This study examined several areas: (a) Educators‟ and students „opinions, and

involvement in learner-centered instructions and achievement; (b) explored conditions

that promote effective learner-centered instructions; and (d) developed a model to

increase an understanding about the effects of learner-centered instructions on

achievement.

This study provides extra understanding about learner-centered pedagogy used

with Title I students. Research supports the learner-centered strategies Title I schools

used to promote achievement. Sixty-five grade 3-5 teachers and 430 grade 3-5 students

from four Title I South Florida elementary schools participated in the study. Participants

were selected through convenience sampling. A power analysis was used to determine

that from the student population of 1,150 students, 425 would give an appropriate sample

size with a confidence level of 95% and a 3.74 sampling error. The calculation indicated

that 65 of the 68 eligible teachers would give a suitable sample size with a confidence

level of 95% and a sampling error of 2.57. A causal-comparative (ex post facto) design

was used to get the outcome. The design is quantitative and quasi-experimental since

data were generated for comparative analysis and the participants were not randomly

assigned. Its ex post facto characteristic allows data to be generated from the participants‟

experience in familiar surroundings.

7

Theoretical Framework

In this study, the constructivist theory, research-based instructional practices and

management inspired the framework for studying the influence of learner-centered

pedagogy on student achievement. The constructivist theory asserts that learners receive

knowledge through self-direction and connection with their environment (Kumar, 2006).

Self-directed learning decreases the student dependency on teachers though teachers

supervise the instructions. The standard features of learner-centered pedagogy include

collaborative learning, connecting new information to previous knowledge, higher-order

thinking, and conversations in teacher-directed small groups (Froyd, 2007).

Learner-centered pedagogy encourages democratic learning attitudes. The

teacher-centered approach elevates the teacher as the sole provider and evaluator of

instructional tasks. Learner-centered pedagogy exposes students to democratic learning

arrangements. In a learner-centered environment, students work in small groups, choose a

variety of tasks, share work, and learn social and leadership skills. Teachers help students

to set and check learning goals.

Constructivist pedagogy training supports teacher competence and student

success. Some colleges give pre-service teachers a positive constructivist model

(Andrew, 2007). Constructivist training helps teachers to organize learner-centered

classrooms (Franklin, 2007). Constructivist instructional methods encourage higher-order

thinking, stimulate learning environments, and create multiple solutions for a single

problem.

According to Kumar (2006) and Colburn (2007), Dewey and Piaget contributed

to the constructivist theory development. The theory purports the notion that student

8

participation in learning raises enthusiasm and achievement. This participation includes

opportunities to manipulate concrete objects. Researchers like Bush (2006) and Kumar

(2006) support the value of constructivist-based instruction because it connects students‟

world with learning pursuits in the classroom. Students find cognitive meanings from

experience with objects.

Computer technology emphasizes the learner-centered principle of

constructivism. Computers stimulate the student‟s desire to learn through enjoyment.

Most computers support interactive learning with clear sounds and vivid graphics. Many

researchers endorsed the computer as a constructivist learning-tool. Overhead projectors,

radios, televisions, and videocassette recorders still support learner-centered

environments (Bruce, 1998). Small groups used overhead projectors and other

traditionally teacher-dominant technology to present reports. This lessens teacher

dominance and encourages technology-based instructions. Clear procedures support

technology infusion in the regular classroom. Group activity management in computer-

aided instruction discourages time-wasting (Hsie & Sun, 2006).

The student-focused features of constructivism guide culturally diverse learning

groups in cooperative learning communities (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008). Learning

communities build trust among students and teachers, and offer opportunities for students

to collaborate. An organized learning community allows students to discover talents,

improve communication skills, and learn at their own pace. Teachers address diversity

and increase students‟ responsibility for sharing and learning in supportive environments

(Ross, Bondy, Gallingane & Hambacher, 2008). Students used self-willed efforts to

9

complete independent tasks. Successful participatory and self-directed learning depend

on students‟ physical skills, cognitive abilities, and ethnicity.

Teacher accountability is critical in building learner-centered relations. The

NCLB upholds teacher accountability as essential to support student success (Sunderman,

2006). The accountability plan directs teachers and administrators to deliver instructions

through creative, participatory, and challenging arrangements. Learner-centered

instruction is a nontraditional method teachers use to motivate learners. Guidelines of the

NCLB hold teachers responsible for instructional management and set standards to raise

students‟ performance. The NCLB recommends individualized instruction designed to

improve student learning (Cummins, 2007). Learner-centered instruction influence

planning that meets student ability, interest, and academic needs. Sunderman (2006)

recommended that teachers use constructivist instruction model to motivate student

learning.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) protects the disabled

student rights to receive learner-centered instruction. The NCLB and IDEA advocate

individualized learner-centered instructions using adaptive tools to teach physically

disabled students. Teachers assess and classify physically disabled students for

instructions aligned to the IDEA rules. The NCLB and IDEA support student-friendly,

technology-rich and interactive learning environments.

Research Questions

The following four research questions with their variables guided the

investigation.

10

1. What is the degree of association between learner-centered instruction and

academic achievement?

a. Criterion Variable: Academic Achievement as defined by Teacher Survey:

Question 18-composite score 1-4

b. Predictor Variable: Learner Centered Instruction as defined by Student

Survey: Question 13

Statistics: Least squares regression

Sample Size: 64

2. Is there a difference in learner-centered strategy used in the classroom (Teacher

version: Question 18, composite score) and interactive student participation

strategy (Teacher Survey question 11)?

a. Dependent Variable: Academic Achievement as defined by Teacher

Survey: Question 18-composite score 1-4

b. Independent Variable: Interactive Student Participation (Think-pair-share.,

Paired Team Learning, Learning centers, and Peer Tutoring)

c. Statistics: 1 x 4 ANOVA

d. Sample Size: 180 (45 per Group)

3. Is there a difference in learner-centered methods (Teacher version: Question 18,

composite score) in their classroom between Gender Type (male female)?

a. Dependent Variable: Academic Achievement as defined by Teacher

Survey: Question 18-composite score 1-4

b. Independent Variable: Gender (male female)

c. Statistics: 1 x 2 ANOVA

11

d. Sample Size: 128 (64 per group)

4. Is there a relationship between learner-centered strategy used in the classroom

(Teacher version: Question 18, composite score) and age of teacher?

a. Criterion Variable: Academic Achievement as defined by Teacher Survey:

Question 18-composite score 1-4

b. Predictor Variable: Age of Teacher

c. Statistics: Least squares regression

d. Sample Size: 64

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1:

H10: There is no significant difference in association between student participative

activities and Learner-Centered effectiveness in the classroom.

H1a: There is a significant difference in association between student participative

activities and Learner-Centered effectiveness in the classroom.

H20: There is no relationship between effectiveness of learner-centered instruction and

promotion of interactive student participation strategy.

H2a: There is a significant relationship between effectiveness of learner-centered

instruction and promotion of interactive student participation strategy.

Hypothesis 3

H30: There is no relationship between learner-centered effectiveness and gender of the

teacher.

H3a: There is a significant relationship between learner-centered effectiveness and gender

of the teacher.

12

Hypothesis 4

H40: There is no significant relationship between learner-centered effectiveness and age

of teacher.

H4a: There is a significant relationship between learner-centered effectiveness and age of

teacher.

Nature of the Study

A causal comparative (ex post facto), quantitative design was found suitable for

this research study. This design explained an educational phenomenon and observed

natural differences between the dependent and independent variables through the cause-

and-effect relationships (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2004). It was necessary to use a quantitative

design to compare the measures of the variables.

This comparative approach examined differences between groups (teachers and

students) and the effects of the differences on the dependent variable: academic

achievement. The five variables were academic achievement, learner-centered

instruction, interactive student participation, teacher gender, and teacher age. The

connectedness of these variables in the research indicated the cause-and effect-

relationship.

The quantitative feature of the design allowed hypothesis testing, data collecting

and statistical analyses. Two self-developed, validated 20-item survey instruments were

used to compare the teacher and student relationships with learner-centered instructions.

The computer-based instruments helped with response entry, retrieval, and analysis. The

sample populations were selected through the convenience sampling method. All the data

13

analyses were completed using SPSS 17.0 for Windows.

Significance of the Study

Learner-centered instructions influence Title I elementary students achievement.

The finding of this research is helpful to guide instructions in Title I schools. Educators

and researchers describe learner-centered pedagogy as a tool to improve students‟

performance. This study was concerned about teachers‟ using this tool to help students at

Title I schools. Title I schools support students, academic and social needs through

adaptive instructions, student-centered approach, and extra instruction. The findings of

this research encourage teachers and administrators to review the use of learner-centered

pedagogy to enhance student performance. The study indicated that teachers‟ inconsistent

use of learner-centered pedagogy, age, and gender hindered student achievement. This

outcome reemphasized the value of teachers understanding learner-centered pedagogy.

This study indicated that learner-centered instruction in this setting had no

significant effect on student achievement. The field of study now has another research

outcome to compare to similar research. The outcome provides a platform for new

investigations into instructional deliveries in Title I schools. The study encourages school

districts and curriculum trainers to develop workshops, seminars, mentoring programs,

administrative supervision, and teacher evaluation plans to meet Title 1 students‟ needs.

Instruction in Title I schools is important to administrators of Title I services. The

findings should persuade teachers to review learner-centered pedagogy use with Title I

students.

14

Definitions

Constructivism: This theory projects the belief that learners build their own

understanding of the world. A cognitive connection express the learner‟s main idea and

knowledge develop through experiences (Bush, 2006).

Learner-centered instruction: A highly interactive instruction (between students

and a teacher, or student and classmates) in a nurturing classroom environment where the

teacher serves as mentor and advisor (Wai, 2007).

Student achievement: Student achievement is performance measurement

educators gather through testing (Researcher‟s definition).

Title I: A Federal government program designed to help disadvantaged and low-

performing students (Title I Schools, 2007).

Summary

Learner-centered pedagogy affects students‟ performance in a certain learning

framework. Such findings inspire this investigation to verify the pedagogy effects on the

achievement of Title I students. Several researchers highlighted learner-centered

instruction as central to student success. Doherty and Hilbert (2007, 2008) investigated

the impact on student achievement and found learner-centered pedagogy affected student

achievement in one case and no impact in another. None of the research studies targeted a

single learning group. Other research suggested that learner-centered instruction is

efficacious to improve student performance (White-Clarke, 2005).

The connection of constructivism to learner-centered instructions inspired the

framework of the study. Bush (2006) and Kumar (2006) suggested that students gained

personal experience with concrete objects, generate independent thought, and solve

15

problems through the constructivist approach. The teacher creates and promotes learner-

centered environments through groupings, classroom arrangements, technology infusion,

and student interest. The teacher organizes learning based on the goals and experience of

the learners.

Laws inherent in the NCLB and IDEA support the efforts of teachers to offer

need-based instructions to students. Penalties for noncompliance discourage careless

instructional management. The laws consider the divisions of physical and learning

disabilities. Accountability standards guide the teacher's effort to raise student

achievement. Title I students receive learner-centered instructions, but the effects of such

approaches have not been documented with empirical support. Performance evaluation,

learning group management, and proper instructional delivery strategies support skill

remediation.

Some interest groups indicated concerns about conflicts with teachers‟ age,

gender, and their performance. Teacher age and gender preferences support social

developments. Chudgar and Sunkar (2008) found teacher gender and age did not affect

student achievement, but a preference exists for teachers to match student gender. Student

engagement, self-directed activities, and culturally sensitive learning arrangements affect

student performance more than age or gender.

16

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This study examined the connection between learner-centered pedagogy and

student achievement in Title I schools. This review explores the contributions of teacher

roles, legislature, technology, and student diversity to the phenomenon. A large percent

of economically disadvantaged k-12 students and free or reduced-priced lunch recipients

decide the Title I designation for k-12 schools. The extra funding from the US Federal

Government provides instructional support materials, staff training, and support staff.

The current chapter provides a comprehensive review of the literature on learner-

centered pedagogy and student achievement. The first section provides a literature review

of learning theories and their influence on learner-centered instruction. The second

section reviews the influence of learner-centered pedagogy on instructional delivery. The

third section reviews the effects of learner-centered instruction on the learning

environment. The fourth section reviews federal rules, and the final section examines

research related to teacher training, gender, age and experience.

Influence of Learning Theories

Educators use constructivism as a guide to adopt learner-centered pedagogy, and

create student-centered classrooms (Froyd, 2007). Constructivism contends that students

create mental images from manipulating objects, and then draw cognitive conclusions

about their observation. Proponents of this theory argued that increased learning

enthusiasm increased in learner-focused setting. The correct application of any theory to

a real-world situation reveals its efficacy. Students benefit when teachers consider and

apply a learning theory to meet differences in learner styles (Baker & Dwyer, 2005).

Teachers encourage achievement by promoting democracy, independence, and

17

collaborative learning styles. According to Brostrom and Lassen (2006), “Learning style

shows how learners assimilate and remember difficult materials, while learning strategies

describe the way students choose to do a learning task”(p. 179). Constructivism

encourages teachers to adapt instruction to support learner needs.

Constructivism supports learner-centered pedagogy more than the behaviorist

and cognitive theories. The behaviorist and cognitive theories suggest that students need

to connect with their learning in a personal way but constructivism stresses

comprehensive learner-connectedness. Prince and Felder (2007) suggested that exploring,

manipulating, and asking complex questions improve student cache of new information.

Hsieh and Sun (2007) argued that aligning a strategy with the constructivist view include

learner interactions. The student‟s experience assists their effort to form new knowledge

through discovery learning.

Prince and Felder‟s (2007) research associated the inductive methods of

discovery, inquiry, and problem-based learning with constructivist view of learner-

centeredness. In constructivist learning environments, student process and discover

knowledge. The study focused on student achievement in middle schools and beyond, but

the findings have implications for learning groups in elementary grades. Prince and

Felder (2006) recommended that teachers should cut traditional lecturing and expand

students‟ cognitive ability through inductive learning methods. Like Cornelius-White

(2007), Prince and Felder (2006) agreed that shifting the responsibility for learning from

teachers to students provides experiences not attainable through deductive methods.

Teacher-student collaboration, discovery learning, and group instructions form the

core characteristics of the constructivist theory. The effectiveness of each feature depends

18

on students and teacher collaboration. Students learn from each other and contribute to

research. The pedagogy encourages group and individual goal setting and achieveme nt

recognition. Learner-centered pedagogy improves dull learning through engaging,

collaborative, interesting, and challenging instructions.

Effects on Instructional Delivery

The learning context of instruction exposes effective teaching strategies. Nykiel-

Hibbert (2004) lists some of the learner-centered strategies including individualized

instruction, cooperative grouping, and programmed instruction adapted to needs.

Students' ability and needs influence the teacher‟s learner-centered strategy choice.

Advanced students show less teacher dependency at independent task than

underachieving students do. Many educators recommend using individualized instruction

with low-performing students to improve performance. Individualized and group

instructions become teacher-centered when the teacher excludes students from

investigating and providing information. In learner-centered instruction, the teacher and

students work together, set learning goals, select tasks to meet these goals, and review

learning outcomes (Richards, Pouri, Golez, Canges, & Murphy, 2007).

Learner-centered pedagogy contains features that support needs, interest,

experience, and ability. Small group instructions supervised by experienced teachers

support student-focus goals (Prince & Felder, 2006). Small group instructions help the

teacher‟s effort to complete diversified instructions. It is easier to teach a small group of

students that a large class. Teacher-centered instructions include whole-class instruction,

teacher-directed small group instruction, and teacher demonstrations. A short session of

whole-class instructions allows teachers to clarify directions and rules.

19

Visuals promote achievement, allow students to manipulate objects and draw

conclusions related to an investigation (Baker & Dwyer, 2005). Teachers promote

learner-centered pedagogy by encouraging students to manipulate visuals, share

observations, and form opinions (Mawhinney & Sagan, 2007). The senses support the

cognitive roles, and lead students to discover knowledge through tactile investigations.

Prince and Fedler (2006) declared that students find meaning in touching and expressing

the discovery of their physical world. Concrete materials stimulate the student senses,

promote connected learning, and increase the recall of ideas (Snow, 2005). Object

manipulation increases the visual opinions of students.

Two different studies on the effectiveness of pedagogy on student achievement

produced different findings. Doherty and Hilberg (2007) reported that learner-centered

pedagogy is effective in producing increased achievement. In a later study, Doherty and

Hilberg (2008) pointed out that learner-centered instruction has little impact on student

achievement. These two studies used pedagogical standards as their dependent variable,

and standardized tests as the independent variable. The same investigators completed

both studies but at different times with different participants. The purpose of both

investigations was to find out the effectiveness of pedagogy standards on raising student

achievement.

Doherty and Hillberg (2007) found that teachers‟ use of the standards of effective

pedagogy predicted student performance on year-end standardized tests. Doherty and

Hilberg‟s (2008) found that the effectiveness of the five standards of pedagogy on student

achievement-yielded negative results. Doherty and Hilberg (2008) reported inadequate

evidence to support the claim that standards of pedagogy were efficacious enough to

20

support achievement. Doherty and Hillberg (2007) suggested that learner-centered

pedagogy affected student achievement. The findings suggested that although

achievement gains and classroom organization contributed to raising student

achievement, the teacher also played a critical role.

Doherty and Hilberg (2007) used the five standards for effective pedagogy to

guide their study. The standards promote learning through joint productivity, reading

across the curriculum, connecting new experiences to prior knowledge, promoting

complex thinking through engagement, and stressing goal-directed communication

through small group. Doherty and Hilberg (2007) identified a close connection between

teachers‟ styles, classroom designs, and student achievement.

Doherty and Hilbert (2007) supported the premise that teachers will use the

standards for effective pedagogy to predict achievement reliability. Students achieve

higher when teachers use the standards in independent centers. Doherty and Hilberg

(2007) further stated that teachers‟ use of the standards increased student achievement on

tests of understanding, language, reading, and vocabulary. The researchers pointed out

that using the standards for effective pedagogy without adequate instructional

adjustments may not yield positive results.

Collaborating, social interaction, negotiating, and openly communicating explain

the influence of the sociocultural theory in the design of Doherty and Hilberg‟s (2007)

research. Students of similar demographic features bond together for social as well as

academic groups (Ohl & Cates, 2006). While students worked collaboratively in groups

to meet academic goals, both teacher-centered and student-centered learning prevailed in

the same classroom environment. Similar conclusions from both researchers suggested

21

that learning depends strongly on conversations between teacher and student. The

conclusions stay consistent with the result of the statistical analyses.

In Doherty and Hilberg‟s (2007) study, the researchers conducted pretests and

posttests to gather data relevant to theories about a series of high school Latin English

language learners. This sample is acceptable, but using a larger sample with broader

nationality spreads allows for better generalizations of the outcome. Though the

researchers did not disclose how the population played a part in the limitations or how the

design choice influenced the delimitation, the study provided a significant contribution to

this area research. The academic characteristics of Latino students were incompatible

with those of many other ethnic groups. The characteristics proved inadequate to make a

generalized opinion about other learners. The clear data collection methods allowed for

research replication. The research conclusion provided areas for researchers to conduct

further study.

Doherty and Hilberg (2008) used cognitive and critical theory and practical

observations to influence the design of their second study: a combination of three studies.

The researchers used the same two hypotheses in this comparative study and stated them

in ways to make testing easy. The approach to this study allowed for a comparative study

on student performance. The researchers used various external and class-based tests to

produce data for comparison. Like Doherty and Hilberg (2007), the study‟s main

participants were Latino students. While Doherty and Hilberg (2007) used a randomized

design, Doherty and Hilberg (2008) used a quasi-experimental design. Doherty and

Hilberg (2008) used 53 teachers and 622 low-income grades 1-12 Latino students.

Doherty and Hilberg (2007) used 165 students and 31 elementary school teachers in a

22

rural school. Teacher experience ranged from 1-19 years. Participants from more than

one minority groups in a study can improve the reliability of the findings. Using a single

dominant ethnic group as subjects can skew the measure of variables such as culture,

language, and SES status.

Using various tests to measure the performance outcome, provides a better

reliability and validity index, but Doherty and Hillberg (2007) used fewer measuring

instruments. The researchers pointed out limitations such as low reliability of the

instruments used to assess the strategies, limited sampling, and limited observations in

Doherty & Hilberg‟s study (2007). In Doherty and Hilberg‟s study (2008), the

investigators considered student mobility, economic, and language competence as

limitations. Doherty and Hibberg‟s study (2008) expanded the 2007 investigation. Unlike

Doherty and Hilberg (2007), Doherty & Hilberg (2008) used a triangulation, which

helped to increase the reliability of the findings. In conclusion, Doherty and Hilberg‟s

study (2007) showed little evidence that the proposed effectiveness of pedagogy standard

raised student achievement appreciably. The findings in Doherty and Hilberg‟s study

(2008) indicated the standards of pedagogy did not help to increase the reading skills of

English language learners. The variations in findings between the studies indicated

differences in learning outcomes depend on learning arrangements and participants.

Students benefit from the technology used to support learner-centered

instructions. Some educators overestimate the value of computer-based instruction, and

others highlight the capacity of the method to support student creativity and

independence (Passerini, 2007). Computer technology encourages learner‟s interest

through interactive and entertaining experiences (Hsieh & Sun, 2007). A well-structured

23

learner-centered instruction reduces student dependency on the teacher for information.

Learner-centered technology fosters cooperative group learning in and across schools.

Computer technology improves at-risk students‟ achievement through instruction

integration (Kalanpur & Kirmani, 2005). Computer-based instruction allows students to

build knowledge through constructivist-based multimedia. This media appeals to the

learner‟s cognitive and affective domains (Passerini, 2007). The computer provides

instant responses, motivates the learner, and grabs attention. Using clear rules during

computer instructions encourage self-directed learning and reduce distractions to

purposeful learning (Passerni, 2007). Unsupervised computer instructions encourage

distractions. Teacher supervision supports student interest and motivation. Without

consistent supervision, students divert to contents unrelated to their work. Computer

allows for instant evaluation and review of responses. Students retrieve and store

information faster in text and graphics (McGrail, 2007). The teacher‟s role remains

critical, even in self-directed instruction.

Classrooms need physical and electronic storage space to help computer

integration. McGrail (2007) found that inadequate physical space interferes with a

teacher‟s ability to interact with students and integrate computer technology correctly in

instruction. McGrail (2007) explained the value of space in this definition “pedagogy is

the ways in which an instructor designs the materials and social space the students and

teacher occupy as they carry out a curriculum”(p. 59). McGrail (2007) indicated that for

computers to be beneficial to students in a learner-centered environment the teacher

creates adequate space for using computers and spreading out the computer peripherals.

24

Access to school-based servers eliminates the need for storing applications on single

desktop or laptops.

Computer instructions align with the constructivist view support the learner‟s

cognitive independence. Students increase their confidence and ability through

collaborative explorations. McGrail (2007) found that unsatisfactory planning, outdated

computer technology, and unsupervised classmates distract students from their

assignments. The benefits of training in computer-aided instruction increase teacher

willingness to use the computer to promote learner-centered instructions. Training in

classroom technology allows teachers to integrate instructions, record, retrieve and

review student progress.

According to Hsieh and Sun (2006), using a multiuser-platform to support

computer simulation in real time satisfies the constructivist- learning platform and

benefits student achievement. The educational Multiple User Domain (MUD) adapted

from computer games, preserves the fun and cooperative spirit in learning. It uses role-

playing as an essential tool to share knowledge across the computer-based platform. Fun

with technology helps student enthusiasm and performance. Reconstructing the learning

platform without eliminating the fun attracts learners. This study encourages teachers to

use learner-centered technology to support instruction. MUD fosters cooperation,

challenges the cognitive domain, and encourages student creativity.

Learner-centered instruction incorporated with the educational Multi User

Domain improves classroom technology. Transferring the student “game playing skills”

to the classroom increases the eagerness to participate. Students will take part for the fun

while completing productive learning. The gaming world uses the Multi User Platform

25

for competitive and collaborative games. Hsieh and Sun (2006) suggested that similar

software with classroom emphasis helped instruction. Fun associated with learning helps

retention and connects students to their world.

Providing scripted instruction with scores of textbooks decrease the learning

interest of the student. Complementing texts with art, music, computer technology, and

group research injects interest and improves achievement. Cornelius-White (2007)

suggested that learner-centered pedagogy lessens the instances of teacher directed

instructions and increases student involvement in their own learning. Historically, the

teacher dominates knowledge delivery and promotes student-dependency for knowledge

(Prince & Fedler, 2006). This elevates the teacher as the sole authority and hinders the

student‟s intellectually growth.

Student-focused instructions help to support learning styles and meet student

academic goals. Olson (2006) asserted satisfying student learning-styles is

counterproductive. It is important to meet the student goal through encouragement.

Teaching from concrete to abstract helps clarify difficult concepts. Prince and Felder

(2006), Olson (2006) agreed that a learner‟s efforts determine the extent of success.

Using recent research, Olson (2006) argued there is no empirical evidence to support the

claim that teaching to meet student preferred learning style increases achievement but

rather to the contrary. This idea is reasonable because student participation helped

performance outcome. Adapting instructional environments to support learning generate

more success than teaching to match student learning-styles.

Pair tutoring provides academic benefits to students (Musti-Rao & Cartledge,

2007). Pair tutoring puts the participants in direct control of their learning. It gives

26

students the chance to use their sharpest skills to meet academic goals. Efficient peer

tutoring depends on student training and experience. Training and practice build student

confidence to lead, share, and cooperate with a partner. Small-group instruction helps

students to suppress their fears and share knowledge with confidence. Peer tutoring

develops leadership ability, social skills, and self-awareness.

Impact on the Learning Environment

A close link exists between classroom organizations and student engagement.

Research shows that children in grade three classrooms are likely to engage in small

groups for basic skill instruction than in other types of instructional methods (Downer et

al., 2007). Third grade students responded to the demands of instruction and responded

better to the preferred teacher methods. The quality of student performance depends on

the quality of engagement. Research suggested that schools adapt space for pedagogy to

support students learning goals (Rockwell, 2007). Classrooms need movement space for

the arts, quiet corners, and space to isolate instructional groups.

Student behavior in engagement supports the theoretical framework of Downer et

al., research (2007). The student analyzes information within a context. Since the

environment plays significant roles in a child‟s response to instructions, collaborative

learning strengthens this response (Snow, 2005). Downer et al., (2007) sampled 955

children in 88 third-grade classrooms over a four-year period to support this conclusion.

Fifty-two teachers took part in this study. The ethnic balance of students and teachers

were suitable and gave the research a stronger reliability index. The researchers collected

data and conducted a six-hour observation in each classroom. The sample was acceptable

for this study and made the finding suitable for generalization.

27

The limitations of the study highlight the inability to spend more time watching

students in major tasks than on basic skills. The study did not give students enough

instruction to encourage analyses and inferences. Downer et al., (2007) believed the

research focused on increasing student achievement, and the findings met the mandates

of the NCLB. Teachers need to challenge student thinking to help increase performance.

The observational techniques will help researchers to reproduce the study. The findings

are useful to the outcome of this study.

Richards et al., (2007) agreed that reducing student dependency on the teacher

provides academic benefits. Excessive dependence on the teacher to supply new

knowledge decreases creativity and the ability to think. Personal experience with

instructions strengthens students‟ capacity to remember, explain, and apply knowledge to

new events. Knowledge students discovered through experience raise learning eagerness

and increase achievement. Teachers point students to the source of knowledge in their

learning environment. Students follow teachers‟ directions to retrieve, record, review, and

explain the information.

Doherty and Hilberg (2007) described the teacher as a helper and not a dispenser

of knowledge. The study indicated that students learn better in contexts where teachers

find the student strengths and use them to promote achievement (Richard et al., 2007).

Teacher responses to cultural diversity fulfill the responsibility to promote equity,

fairness, and inclusion. Musti-Rao and Cartledge (2007) suggested that teachers connect

instruction to student's culture, ethnicity, and personal experience. The teacher reduces

cultural backgrounds and language conflicts to encourage new learning.

28

The strength of student and teacher relationships influences learner-centered

classrooms. Jones (2007) asserted that teachers play the main role in promoting academic

achievement in students. Students emulate teachers and build confidence through

relationships. Relying on the teacher create problems for students with decreased

confidence in a teacher‟s character. The teacher‟s role includes building a personal

relationship based on trust and empathy (Mawhinney & Sagan, 2007). Students benefit

from the teacher‟s social and emotional support. The parties build relations on principles

governing teacher and student classroom behaviors.

Appropriate relationships with students build acceptance. Teachers need to gauge

association with students to avoid questionable attachments and hindrances to learning.

Mawhinney and Sagan (2007) insisted that teacher closeness to students does not lessen

their autonomy to think, discover, and achieve. The teacher‟s association with the

students influences the tone of the learning environment and student success. Academic

growth depends on teacher care, student work, security, and acceptance. Learner-centered

instruction relies on the student-teacher relationship developed to meet academic goals.

Knowing students‟ needs helps teachers organize learner-centered instructions.

Mawhiney and Sagan (2007), and Ysseldyke et al., (2004) asserted that teachers use

knowledge about students to set learning goals. Since background knowledge and

demographic information influence the teacher‟s plan for instruction, it is important to

know the students strengths and weaknesses. Although Olson (2006) asserted adapting

instructions to suit each student might be a waste of time, Mawhiney and Sagan (2007)

believed it important for teachers to develop the skill. Deubel (2008) suggested that

adapting instructions allows the teacher to give students instructions. Need-based

29

instructions to satisfy student interest develop from the teacher‟s expectation for students.

Honesty, respect, and fairness mold teacher and student relations and benefit student

learning (Mahiney & Sagan, 2007).

Understanding teaching and learning influence teacher pedagogy (Nykiel-

Herbert, 2004). Teachers learn about student learning preferences through observation

and select pedagogy based on student preferences. Diagnosing students learning strengths

and weaknesses benefits the teacher and student. Teachers use the diagnosis to align

instructions to student needs. Students use their senses as the conduit to assimilate

knowledge and benefit from the best sensory technique-to-style combination. A variety of

tasks increases learning opportunities to use tactile, visual, and aural responses.

Educational psychology influences learner-centered instruction and supports the

humanistic and constructivist framework (Cornelius-White, 2007). The frame of the

constructivist model supports the essence of this proposed study. Cornelius-White (2007)

hypothesized that learner-centered teacher and student relations are efficacious to create a

positive student outcome. Using meta-analysis, Cornelius-White (2007) examined 119

studies covering grades K-12. The research sought to discuss three questions:

1. What is the degree of association between person-centered teacher variables

and student outcomes?

2. What is the degree of the association between positive teacher-student

relationships and positive student outcomes?

3. What is the degree association between sub models of person-centered

education and student outcomes

30

The research limitations include using the meta-analysis approach. The meta-

analysis provided broad perspectives of the study outcomes. The study needed a method

to get information about teacher-group meetings. The study population was large, yet

small samples were used to measure the variables. Using an international population to

complete a large study does not necessarily produce reliable conclusions. In this case, the

result showed that learner-centered teacher variables connected to positive student

outcomes hold strong implications for instructional management and this study.

The research findings indicated that learner-centered teacher variables have an

above average finding- level association with positive student outcomes (Cornelius-

White, 2007). In addition, the effect of person-centered teaching on cognitive student

outcomes offered logical results. School dropout data were available but did not receive

enough attention. Further research can focus on school dropout since it played a

significant role in the research outcome. Person-centered education increases learner

participation (Cornelius-White, 2007).

In Cornelius-White‟s study (2007), the learner-centered approach focused more

on student differences critical to positive outcomes. The findings associated person-

centered learning with an increase in participation, satisfaction, and eagerness to learn.

Hsieh and Sun (2007) agreed with the notion that encouragement influences learner

participation. This result has important implications for educators who embrace teacher-

centered pedagogy. Part of the plan to increase student achievement includes evaluating

progress and planning for their instruction. Teachers use learner-centered strategies with

different learners but find them especially useful with at-risk students.

31

Jones (2007) argued for providing culturally responsive instructions to students

because it creates instructional equity and improves achievement. Learner-centered

instruction strategies support the demand for culturally responsive education. A

familiarity with background information, likenesses in illustrations, idioms, and

conversations, increases student confidence to learn. Jones (2007) believed the teacher

efforts to care, communicate, and teach, supports of student‟s need. Richard et al., (2007)

agreed that to develop a teacher-learner relation, the teacher considers the culture of the

student. Students benefit from interactive, positive, and cooperative instructional styles

that blend with their culture (Musti-Rao & Cartledge, 2007).

Federal Regulations

The federal government provides support to students with low achievement at

Title I schools. The US legislature passed the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 to

promote satisfactory academic performance (Odland, 2007). Reauthorizing this Act with

a new title provides guidelines to improve student performance. The No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 emphasizes teacher and school accountability to student

performance. According to Oldon (2007), the general intent of NCLB is good, but the

goals may be overambitious. Schools and districts cannot ignore federally mandated

policies to provide equitable education and raise student performance.

Educators follow federal laws but point out shortcomings in some of these

regulations. Au (2007) argued that to stress standardized test scores as the main

determinants of academic success undermines the teacher‟s efforts use cooperative group

learning and nontraditional assessments to develop student creativity. Teachers use

innovations to support learner-centered environment while working to make sure students

32

perform satisfactorily on standardized tests. Odland (2007) suggested that teaching to test

reduces flexibility for teachers and interferes with instructional styles. Teacher desire to

create challenging learner-centered instruction decreased in a test-frenzied environment.

Standardized testing reduces teacher innovations and autonomy. A part of the teacher‟s

duty includes preparing students to sit standardized tests. Penalties for not meeting AYP

de-motivate teachers and administrators of Title I schools (Hardman & Dawson, 2008).

Title I federal aid support instructions and social needs of students. Odland

(2007) indicated Title I programs offer valuable support for the most vulnerable learners.

Students get extra support in reading, mathematics, and science (Ysseldyke et al., 2004).

Many teachers agree with the support but question the achievement of poorly organized

supplemental educational services (Sunderman, 2006). Title I extra learning support

benefits students, especially when it focuses on remediation aligned with classroom

curriculum (Sunderman, 2006).

Downer et al. (2007), and Milne and Plourde (2006) stressed that a stimulating

classroom environment and student readiness raise student achievement. Schools give

students from disadvantaged homes learning readiness skill not gained from home.

Disadvantaged students receive less learning readiness support than their wealthier

counterparts (Milne & Plourde, 2006). Researchers found a close link between low

performance and students attending schools with mainly minority population. The

qualitative approach was used to examine the roles of the primary guardians. In this

study, Milne and Plourde (2006) used only six second-grade students for the sample. This

sample is inadequate to make broad research conclusions.

33

Parents need financial help to access educational materials and extracurricular

activities for their children. This lessens the student‟s chance to improve language skills

and gain experiential knowledge. This coincides with Nykiel-Hibbert‟s (2004) idea that

background knowledge gained outside the school is important to complement learner-

centered instruction. According to Jones (2007), the NCLB legislation includes parent

involvement as a critical contributor to raise overall student achievement.

Students with disabilities form part of the inclusive national education plan.

NCLB and IDEA requires students with disabilities to receive fair education. Teachers

adapt instructions to meet the disabled student needs. Teaching disabled students in

regular classrooms pose significant instructional challenges (Hardman & Dawson, 2008).

Students received inclusion based on the severity of their disability. The different

categories of disability help teacher to give the best instructional arrangements in

compliance with the laws.

Teachers in the self-contained classroom follow a general curriculum for all

students. The teachers make instructional arrangements comply with curriculum

standards. Students with disabilities need a skill-based instructional approach. Hardman

and Dawson (2008) asserted that skill-based instruction is incompatible with the

constructivist philosophy and the NCLB. Hardman and Dawson (2008) further exposed

the inadequate preparation of schools to provide computer adaptive test to disabled

students.

The physical and mental differences in students with a disability generate debates

about self-regulated learning. Physically disabled students are more teacher-dependent,

so they need rigorous instructions and teacher interventions. Learner-centered education

34

strengthens independence, intrinsic motivation, and knowledge construction. Since

students with a disability take up much teacher time, Hardman and Dawson (2008)

believed a well-organized learner-centered environment allows teacher enough time to

attend to students with a disability.

Teacher Training and Experience

In a study to find out how the constructivist approach affects teacher training,

Andrew (2007) found that many future teachers receive training in the constructivist

approach. Though the findings show teachers supporting variations in teaching methods,

their confidence in the constructivist approach remains similar. The teacher‟s personal

and social knowledge construction of constructivism influenced the framework of this

quantitative study. In personal knowledge constructivism, students build new knowledge.

Social knowledge constructivism encourages students to interact during a learning

experience (Andrew, 2007). An understanding of the constructivist model increases a

teacher's knowledge about the learner-centered approach. If teachers see positive models

of constructivism in their college instruction, their experience convinces them to use

constructivist-based pedagogy in their classroom.

The four research participants taught mathematics to pre-service elementary

teachers at a state supported University, with an enrollment of 10,000 undergraduate

students. A case study design was used to complete 10 to 20-minute pre-observations and

interviews. The research answered two questions: (a) what instructional method did

instructors use in a pre-service mathematics course for elementary teachers? And (b) how

consistent are those instructional methods with the constructivist theory of learning?

35

The researchers watched the participants working with cooperative groups,

questioning techniques, and hands-on tasks, to identify the instructional methods. The

researcher analyzed the case of each participant separately. The result shows the

participants hold a strong inclination to the constructivist teaching methods.

Triangulation was used to increase the reliability of the data. In addition, the investigator

crosschecked the participants' response to the interviews and observation field notes

collected by the researcher. The research discussed only a few limitations to this study.

The sample of students from a small liberal arts college may be inadequate for this study,

so using participants from several teachers‟ college or education departments of liberal

arts colleges might improve data reliability. The teacher trainees majoring in science and

mathematics provided observations valuable to this study. Andrew (2007) provided an

important conclusion about pedagogy effectiveness for this study.

Schools need quality teachers to slow the teacher shortage and improve student

performance (Vang, 2005). The instructional needs of students decide the professional

development of the teacher. Fullan (2007) believed the term “professional learning”

explains the duties of the teacher to students better than professional development since

teachers should always be learning. The learning environment contains enough materials

to support self-awareness and self-directed learning, but teachers lack the knowledge in

pedagogy suitable to direct students (Bostrom & Lassen, 2006).

Professional workshops, college credit courses, and other training arrangements

allow teachers to improve instructional skills. Allowing teachers to work with inadequate

acceptable training poses a threat to teacher quality (Torff & Fuso, 2007). A section of

the NCLB mandate calls for qualified teachers to teach classes in public school. Teachers

36

do most of these qualifying studies after their first college training. Fullan (2007)

suggested that a teacher could watch experienced teacher at as part of their professional

learning. Teachers need intensive, well organized, and goal oriented training (Danielson,

2007).

Teacher efficiency is tantamount to raising student achievement. Teacher

inefficiency results from lack of experience, inappropriate training, and incorrect teaching

assignments. Increased inefficiencies complicate a teacher‟s effort to gain competence.

Torff and Fuco (2007) supported the idea that inefficient teaching happens because of

insufficient pedagogical knowledge. Hiring standards ensure certifications matches

teacher assignment. Teacher‟s effort to improve basic content knowledge promotes

competence. It is important to gain competence to meet instructional demands (Fullan,

2007). Training in instructional technology equips teachers to work with students in

learner-centered settings (McGrail, 2007).

White-Clarke (2005) suggested that inadequately trained teachers impede

students‟ efforts to learn. Training shapes the teacher‟s philosophy and confidence.

Teacher success could increase with learner-centered pedagogy training. This training

encourages learning community building, and student and teacher associations.

Inappropriate relations with students compromise efforts to teach. The inability to

organize self-directed learning, and to create evaluation plans, signal deficient

instructional management skills.

Inexperienced and untrained teachers spend less time organizing and dispensing

curriculum to satisfy students‟ learning needs (White-Clarke, 2005). The experienced

teacher skills include adjusting instruction to student‟s needs, grouping students

37

according to ability, and diversifying evaluation. Understanding student culture and

gaining the suitable pedagogical skills to teach them increase student performance

(Cartledge & Kourea, 2008).

A misunderstanding of student culture leads to misinterpreting efforts, interest,

and goals. Students need to see the relationships between their learning, origin, and basic

existence. Cultural influence on instructional planning improves the cultural awareness

between teachers and students. Cultural awareness improves student self-worth, increases

tolerance knowledge diversity and respect for ethnic differences

Teacher Age and Gender Influence on Performance

Researchers indicated an interest in teacher gender and age effects on student

performance. Sideridis, Antoniou, and Padeliadu (2008) completed a study on students

with learning disabilities and found teacher age, and gender biases. Sideridis et al., (2008)

answered the question: Besides gender, does teacher age and experience serve as a

significant predictor of student rating? Although the researchers used student participants

from the Greek public school, the Greeks defined Learning Disability the same way the

US Department of Education used it in The United States. Professional guidelines allow

teachers in both countries to judge student disabilities before recommending them for

further testing.

The research method was suitable for the study, though a few adjustments would

yield a different result. The researchers did not randomly divide students and teachers in

the study. In the study, the students received testing for learning disabilities from experts

before the researchers rated them. This researcher accepted the limitation because they

wanted to conduct an outcome comparison with the teachers‟ rating. Sideridis et al.,

38

(2008) research could have achieved a different outcome if apart from teacher age,

gender and experience; they had also evaluated teacher instructional styles. Age, gender,

and experience go together, but other causes influence the teacher's pedagogy choice.

Demographic variables are important to study students from groups. This allows other

researchers to reproduce the study with different demographic influence and show how

different socio-economic arrangements influence learning arrangements.

The study assumed that teacher age did not contribute much to student

identification rating (Sideridis et al., 2008). This study disagrees with the popular lay-

public‟s view. Age does not undermine performance or guarantee skill proficiency.

Training contributes to effective identification and organization of student

instruction. Teacher maturity influences learning achievement through supportive

environment. Instructional management depends on teacher qualifications, experience,

training and competences.

Martin and Marsh (2005) provided a broader study on the impact of teacher

gender on student performance. The result of the study overrides the popular notion that

female teachers show biases toward girls and male teachers toward boys. “In terms of

academic motivation and engagement, girls do not perform any better with female

teachers than boys with male teachers in instructional arrangements” (Martin & Marsh,

2005, p. 322). Boys and girl felt comfortable with matching teacher gender in class. This

social comfort did not guarantee academic improvement.

Martin and Marsh (2008) used quantitative approach to complement qualitative

data findings to make a decisive conclusion. They focused on special age groups in an

Australian high school. The research used a standardized rating scale that measured

39

student motivation and engagement to capture students‟ feelings about participation.

Sideridis et al., (2008) supported the position that boys perform favorably with male

teachers and girls do the same with female teachers. The eagerness to work remained the

same for boys and girls when taught by teachers with matching genders.

An understanding about the effects of gender and age on student attitude to work

is important promote academic success. Both research provided valuable insights on how

teacher age and gender influence physical, cognitive and psychomotor engagements. The

outcome can guide administrators‟ and the teacher‟s philosophies about age and gender

influence achievement, and increase public understanding about teacher gender

preferences.

Summary

Teachers chose to use learner-centered pedagogy based on several conditions.

Several researchers explored the possible benefits of learner-centered instruction, and

suggested ways to use them (Cornelius-White, 2007; Jones, 2007; Richard et al., 2007).

Such adoptions depend on the teacher‟s philosophy about instruction and learning styles.

Teachers use learning styles to support achievement. According to Cartledge and Kourea

(2008), training prepares teachers to provide suitable instruction, analyze learner needs,

and inspire learner success. Teachers and students benefit from professional staff

development designed to improve instructional deliveries. A teacher's increased

knowledge about instructional strategies effectiveness support learner-success.

Favorable classroom instructions depend on adherence to national and state

policies (Sunderman, 2006). Dissatisfactions with regulations lead teachers to argue

about national testing policies. Educators blame policies promoting statewide-

40

standardized tests for decrease teacher autonomy and motivation. State policies guide the

creating of learning environments to supports student needs, experience, ability, and

interests. Teachers, administrators, district, and parents unite to provide student with

state-protected learning. Sutherland (2006) advised that when arranging instruction for at-

risk students, the design should be high quality research-based with the capacity to

increase student achievement. Applying research-pedagogy to improve student

performance requires compliance with school and state rules.

Teachers organize instructions, configure classrooms, decide group formats, and

supervise instructions (Downer et al., 2007). A positive learning atmosphere encourages

teacher creativity and fosters students‟ success. Nekovei and Ermis (2006) and Parsley

and Corcoran (2003) suggested that flexibility in teaching methods and adequate learning

support help to improve student achievement. High-quality classrooms embrace the

student‟s needs, encourage personal connections, and promote autonomy while providing

children with learning opportunities (Ysseldyke et al. 2004). This classroom environment

is important to support learner-centered instruction.

The review highlighted the value of learner-centered pedagogies. Although

research findings suggested that learner-centered pedagogy raise student academic

achievement, the teacher‟s contribution remains crucial to the successful outcome.

Learner-centered pedagogy realized success through judicious management of the

method. Although teachers organize the instructions, students need precondition

behaviors such as cooperative attitudes, intrinsic motivation, and background knowledge

to make student-centered teaching successful (Baker & Dwyer, 2005). Student brings

learning readiness, cultural norms, and social needs to the learning environment.

41

The literature review provided a historical perspective of learner-centered

instruction and its impact on student achievement in various learning settings. Its design

showed the connection between learner-centered pedagogy and student achievement. The

research study concluded that student and teacher experiences with that learner-centered

pedagogy either influence or hinder student achievement (Cummins, 2007). This study

examines the variables influencing the teachers‟ pedagogical experience and student

achievement.

42

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD

This study examined the effect of learner-centered pedagogy on student

achievement in Title I schools. It used a causal-comparative (ex post facto) research

method to get this result. Grades 3-5 Students and teachers from four Title I Broward

elementary schools, South Florida, comprised the study. The study presented each

research question with its associated null and alternative hypothesis. Following the

research questions are three components (i.e., Criterion and Predictor variables, Type of

Statistics and Sample size) that describe the variables, how the research questions are

statistically analyzed, and the right sample size. Although these components are briefly

introduced in this section, they are described in detail later in this chapter. The following

four research questions guided this study.

1. What is the degree of association between learner-centered instruction and

academic achievement?

a. Criterion Variable: Academic Achievement as defined by Teacher Survey:

Question 18-composite score 1-4

b. Predictor Variable: Learner Centered Instruction as defined by Student

Survey: question 13

c. Statistics: Least squares regression

d. Sample Size: 64

Hypothesis 1:

H10: There is no significant difference in association between students participative

activities and Learner-Centered effectiveness in the classroom.

43

H1a: There is a significant difference in association between student participative

activities and Learner-Centered effectiveness in the classroom.

2. Is there a difference in learner-centered strategy used in the classroom (Teacher

version: Question 18, composite score) and interactive student participation

strategy (Teacher Survey question 11)?

a. Dependent Variable: Academic Achievement as defined by Teacher

Survey: Question 18-composite score 1-4

b. Independent Variable: Interactive Student Participation (Think-pair-share.,

Paired Team Learning, Learning centers, and Peer Tutoring)

c. Statistics: 1 x 4 ANOVA

d. Sample Size: 180 (45 per Group)

Hypothesis 2

H20: There is no relationship between effectiveness of learner-centered instruction

and promotion of interactive student participation strategy

H2a: There is a significant relationship between effectiveness of learner-centered

instruction and promotion of interactive student participation strategy.

3. Is there a difference in learner-centered methods (Teacher version: Question 18,

composite score) in their classroom between Gender Type (male, female)?

a. Dependent Variable: Academic Achievement as defined by Teacher

Survey: Question 18-composite score 1-4

b. Independent Variable: Gender (male female)

c. Statistics: 1 x 2 ANOVA

d. Sample Size: 128 (64 per group)

44

Hypothesis 3

H30: There is no relationship between learner-centered effectiveness and gender of the

teacher.

H3a: There is a significant relationship between learner-centered effectiveness and gender

of the teacher

4. Is there a relationship between learner-centered strategy used in the classroom

(Teacher version: Question 18, composite score) and age of teacher?

a. Criterion Variable: Academic Achievement as defined by Teacher Survey:

Question 18-composite score 1-4

b. Predictor Variable: Age of Teacher

c. Statistics: Least squares regression

d. Sample Size: 64

Hypothesis 4

H40: There is no significant relationship between learner-centered effectiveness and age

of teacher.

H4a: There is a significant relationship between learner-centered effectiveness and age of

teacher.

Research Methods and Design

The methodological approach for this study was a quasi-experimental,

quantitative, causal comparative research design. Creswell (2003) asserted that

researchers view quantitative research as confirmatory and deductive. The

philosophical rationale behind quantitative research stemmed from a positivist

perspective. Auguste Comte declared his positivist view in the middle of the nineteenth

45

century (Giddens, 1974). Positivism argued that empirical data determine reality gained

from the senses, instead of interpreted from metaphysical constructs not measurable by

researchers (Ex, the existence of unnatural beings). The deduction for quantitative

research assumes that reality exists, fixed, and measurable (Creswell, 2003). Within the

positivist model, this study assumes that information gathered through our senses (i.e.,

touch, smell, hearing, taste, and sight) identify facts people can measure and quantify.

A quantitative causal-comparative method was used to answer the questions in

this research study. Two statistical techniques: One-way Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) was used to conduct statistical measurements. According to Johnson and

Onwuegbuzie (2004), “the main characteristics of traditional quantitative research focus

on: deduction, confirmation, theory, hypothesis testing, explanation, prediction,

standardized data collection, and statistical analysis” (p. 18).

The basic design of a causal comparative study was used to find a difference

between groups as a function of the identified dependent variable. Since the research

design did not provide full control over the variables of interest (i.e., participants or

groups were not randomly assigned), the study was suggestive (i.e., quasi) instead of

rigorously causative. In addition, ex post facto refers to (in the context of this research

study) the assumption that participants‟ attitudes were already formed. No attempt was

made in the study to influence the participants' attitudes.

A causal comparative (ex post facto research) was determined appropriate for the

research project. It enabled the study to collect data individual fitting a specific

demographic and view. Many participants (e.g., greater than 50) were required to make

sure the sample represented differences and commonalities as reflected by the power

46

analysis. An experimental design, first set forward by Mill (1874), allows the researcher

to see differences in participants‟ performance and infer (if any) quasi-causal differences.

This research approach enables a single researcher with limited resources the ability to

collect and analyze data from a sample within a short time. Data were collected within

days, and analyzed within weeks. This is unlike data collecting with other methods.

Participants

Participants in the study came from four Title I neighborhood community schools,

and were mainly African-American with a few Hispanics and Caucasians. The four

schools have a disproportionate ethnic mix of Black, Hispanic, Caucasian, Multiracial,

American Indian /Alaskan and Asian students. The four schools had eligible

populations totaling 1,150 students and 68 teachers. The sampling methodology used was

a purposeful, non-probability, convenient sample.

A power analysis determined that from the student population of 1,150 students,

425 would give an appropriate sample size with a confidence level of 95% and a 3.74

sampling error. The calculation for the teacher participants indicated that 65 of the 68

eligible teachers would give a suitable sample size with a confidence level of 95% and a

sampling error of 2.57. The study received 430 student-responses (183 boys and 247

girls) from the 500 sent out. Thirty-eight (13 males and 15 females) of the 65 teacher-

participants completed the surveys. The students in the sample consisted primarily of low

to average academic performers. The teachers kept growth plans containing anecdotes on

the outcome of interventions used with students.

Each school organized academic support programs with full Title I aid to

improve substandard performance. Economic and academically challenged students

47

comprised the larger population of these Title I schools students receive free or reduced-

priced meals and additional academic help in core subjects. The support comes from

Supplemental Educational Services, school-based coaches, and other state-funded groups

like the 21st Century Learning Community Center. The sites were chosen because of

proximity and similarities in student populations.

Research partnership between the teachers, schools, and parents helped with the

participants‟ recruitment. Teachers and principals participated in the data collection with

permission from the school district. The participating schools volunteered to ensure

parents permit students to participate, and encourage students to make a choice about

participating. Participants received communications through the schools district

electronic and physical delivery services. The purposes of the research and participants

expectations were explained to the principals.

Materials/Instruments

The participants in this research study completed separate original researcher-

designed survey instruments. Consideration of the maturity and relevant research guided

the survey construction. The questionnaires contained distinct sections for both groups

and built based on the Likert-type scaling schemes. The questionnaire headings remained

the same for each group, but the question format changed to match the age and

experiences of the groups. The research used the two separate survey instruments for

students (see Appendix A) and teachers (see Appendix B). Both instruments measured

the participants experience with learner-centered pedagogy. The instruments addressed

the research questions in writing suitable to each group. The investigator created

the survey instruments following a guide for designing survey (Alreck & Settle, 2004).

48

Since a careful search of the literature provided no convenience survey

instruments to measure the variables in this study accurately, the study used original

instruments to satisfy this investigation. Two different instruments were used to solicit

participants' opinions on similar ideas. Each survey instrument contained 20 key

questions, some of which had several parts. Each school provided guidance and security

for the surveys completed on site.

The original surveys addressed the four research questions. On completing the

instruments, a set of subject matter experts reviewed the surveys. The reviewers checked

the questions for clarity and directedness to minimize the occurrences of

misinterpretations. The validity of the questions could be eroded if participants

misinterpreted the questions. Some student and teacher questions were reconstructed after

experts reviewed and addressed ambiguities. Distribution and completion posed potential

threats to validity. The validity of the teacher survey was improved because teachers

received the survey through the school intranet network. They opened the survey with

user identifications and passwords. Students completed the survey at computer class, but

rigorous teacher supervision eliminated response sharing. The supervising computer lab

teachers were permitted to help students understand the survey directions.

Non-participating teachers and students from a neighboring school completed the

instruments in two pilot tests to improve the survey reliability. The results of the reviews

were useful for rebuilding incorrect questions. Irrelevant, vague, partial or difficult

questions were adjusted to ensure user-friendliness and relevance.

49

Operational Definition of variables

Academic achievement variable: This was the only dependent variable used in

this research study. Teacher-survey item number 18 measured it. The participants marked

the degree of success each of these method has on raising test scores: Discovery

Learning, Project-centered Learning, Problem Solving, and Cooperative Learning. A 5-

point Likert-type scale used for each questions ranged between Ineffective to Very

Effective and coded 1through 5, where 1 was the lowest and 5 was the highest score.

Learner-centered instruction variable: This was one of the four independent

variables used in the research study. This was measured by student survey question 8.

The participants marked how often they participated in Field trips, Role Plays, Panel

Discussions, and Debates. The possible responses ranged in ordinal from Never to Often

and coded 1, 2 and 3 where 1 was the lowest and 3, the highest. A composite score from

four response associated with the question was used to measure the variable.

Interactive student participation variable: This was one of the independent

variables used in the research study. Question 8 asked students: “Indicate how often you

participate in the following activities: Field Trip, Role Playing, Panel discussion, and

Debate” (see Appendix A). Response options available to students were Never,

Sometimes and Always Responses were coded 1, 2 and 3 with 1 the lowest and 3 the

highest. Multiple regressions were used to assess question 8 and to determine if

a significant relationship existed between the variables.

Teacher gender variable: This was one of the independent variable used in the

research study. Question 18 in the teacher survey was correlated with Question 5: The

response showed the gender of the teacher and measured the frequency with which each

50

learner-centered activity was used with students. Responses to the question: “What is

your gender?” were tabulated and coded where 1 = male and 2 = female. The Gender

Type (male female) and Age Group (18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50 and above) ranged from

least experienced to most experienced.

Teacher Age Variable: This was one of four independent variables used in this

research study. Survey question numbers 6 and 18 respectively measured it. The

parameters using question 18 were measured on a 5 point scale where 1 “Not Effective”

and 4 being “Very Effective.

Collecting, Processing, and Analysis

Inferential statistics were used to draw conclusions from the sample population

tested. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to code and

tabulate scores collected from the survey and provided summarized values. This included

the central tendency, variance, and standard deviation. In addition, demographic data

were processed using frequency statistics. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Pearson

product-moment correlation analyses were used to detect the amount of shared variance

and strength of relationship between the variables.

Several factors were considered when calculating the proposed sample size for

this study. These factors include the intended power of the study, the effect size of the

phenomena under study, and the level of significance to be used in rejecting the null

hypotheses (alpha). The power of the study is the probability of correctly rejecting a false

null hypothesis. As a matter of the convention, the power level that would be sufficient to

reject a false null hypothesis is .80 (Keuhl, 2000). The next item considered was the size

of the expected effect. This describes the strength of the relationship between the

51

independent and dependent variables in the study (Cohen, 1988). The effect size of the

study can be small, medium, and large. Cohen (1988) characterized the effect sizes: small

d = .10, medium d = .25 and large d = .40. In operation, Cohen's d shows the difference

between two means divided by a standard deviation for the data (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, &

Buchner, 2007):

The sample size by convention this is set at .05 for most research in the behavioral

sciences field. The significance level of a statistical hypothesis test is a fixed probability

of wrongly rejecting the null hypothesis (H0), if it is true (Keuhl, 2000). When alpha is

set at .05, the probability of making a Type 1 error is 5%. Research experts consider five

percent acceptable when conducting causal-comparative research, as with this research

study.

A formal power analysis was performed to determine statistically the number of

participants needed to conduct the study. To measure a priori sample size, power was set

at.80 and the expected effect size was set at .30. By convention, an effect size of .30 is

considered medium while .10 is small. A medium r was chosen over a small one, to

achieve the minimum sample size for this research study.

For research questions 1 and 4, the sample size necessary to determine a statistical

difference is 64 participants where α = .05. This means there is an 80% probability that

64 participants will be enough to find a statistical relationship (effect size of f=.30)

between variables where α=.05. For questions 2 and 3, the sample size necessary to

determine a statistical difference is 180 and 128 participants where α = .05. (Faul,

Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).

52

Data from the surveys allowed for comparing or correlating student factors with

experiences of learner-centered instructions. Survey responses were coded and loaded

into SPSS 17.0 statistical software prior to running the analyses. Two statistical strategies

were used to investigate the research questions. Least Squares Linear Regression was

used to analyze Research Question 1 and 4. Research Question 2 and 3 used Analysis of

Variance.

Least Squares Regression was used to find out if a relationship existed between

the predictor variable and criterion variable. A simple linear least-squares regression

analysis is comprised of a criterion variable and a predictor variable. It was used to

measure a linear relationship between two variables of interest. The equation of interest

was written in the following manner:

Where y was the criterion variable, x was the predictor variable and was the

random error component. 0 and 1 were, respectively, the y-intercept (the value of y

when x is zero) and the slope of the line that was estimated as a quantitative relationship

between the two variables.

Measures of the validity of a linear regression were the R-square value measuring

the goodness-of-fit of the estimated line (or relationship) and the standard error or the

estimated standard deviation of the error-term. A small standard error indicated there was

a strong relationship of the dependent variable on the predictor variable. R-square

indicated the line fits the scatter-plot of the graph of the criterion versus the predictor

variable fairly well. The R-square varied from 0 to 1, where 1 showed the estimated line

crosses all points on the scatter-plot of the graph of the criterion versus the predictor

variable.

53

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was also calculated as

another measure of the direction and strength of a relationship, to provide further validity.

Correlation refers to the departure of two variables from independence. The Pearson

product-moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC) was obtained by computing a sample

of n measurements on x and y as follows:

Where:

n was the sample size

ΣΧ and ΣΥ specify the sums of the Χ and Υ scores respectively

ΣΧ2 and ΣΥ2 specify the sums of the squared Χ and Υ scores respectively

ΣΧΥ specifies the sums of the products of the pairs of scores

Although there are several different ways to calculate PPMCC, the equation

avoided accumulating a rounding error that occurs with formulas using means. The

PPMCC detects the linear relationship between X and Y variable or the relationship that

can be described by a straight line.

The r coefficient provided two important pieces of information: a) direction of the

relationship between the two variables, and b) the strength of that relationship. When the

direction of the relationship is positive, X and Y vary in the same direction while a

negative coefficient indicates that X and Y vary in opposite directions.

Cohen (1988) characterized the strength of the relationship expressed by r in the

following example:

Characterizations of Pearson r

Small: .10 to .19

54

Medium: .30 to .49

Large: .50 to 1.0

As the coefficient increases from 0 to 1 or from 0 to -1 the greater the strength expressed.

The strength of the relationship can also be described by squaring r (R2) and is referred to

as the coefficient of determination. When squared, the coefficient of determination

represents the proportion of Y variability accounted for by X.

Analysis of Variance was developed to allow investigators to examine differences

between groups. ANOVA was first introduced by the statistician and geneticist R. A.

Fisher in the 1920s and 1930s (Lindman, 1974), and is sometimes referred to as Fisher‟s

ANOVA. ANOVA uses the equation: F = Between Mean Squares ÷ Within Mean

Squares

The AONVA equation is the sum of squared differences between groups divided

by the sum of squared differences within groups. The basic calculation assesses the

variation in scores found between groups and divides that by the variation in scores found

within groups. The resulting ratio (designated by F) is a measure of the strength of

independence. F is always positive and always greater than 0. Eta squared is also a

measure of the strength of independence and is calculated using the following equation:

Eta squared = Sum of squares between groups ÷ Total sum of squares

Eta squared is also referred to as an effect size and can be interpreted as the amount of

variance that contributes to post test score differences. The two measures of validity, F

and Eta squared, were used to find out if mean scores differ between levels of the

independent variable (control group, test group) after controlling for pre-test differences.

55

The analytic procedure was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) software program, Student Version 17.0. This data analysis included

descriptive statistics, means, standard deviation, and frequency where applicable. In

addition, histograms are presented in Chapter 4 as well as z-scores and Normal Q-Q plots

to support assumptions of normality if necessary. Further, supporting figures are

displayed in instances where a main effect of condition is found. For this analysis alpha

was set at p = .05 provided assumptions of normality were met. Where assumptions were

violated, the next steps were determined, and these details are provided in the subsequent

chapter.

Methodical Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

The research used a quantitative causal-comparative design. This design allowed

for easy collection of data from a large group, facilitated easy upload, and analysis. The

assumption made were that (a) the survey participants would make honest responses to

the surveys; (b) the sample sizes would be representative of the population; (c) the survey

instruments were valid enough to get information about the effects of learner-centered

pedagogy on student achievement; (d) the respondents would clearly understand the

survey questions; (e) there would be precision in all the survey data produced (f) the

result would offer information to develop and direct instruction for Title I schools; and

(g) the research would encourage further studies on the topic.

The population under study was students and teachers. This population

sample was drawn from educators and students from specific schools in Florida. The

sample population indicated a willingness to participate in the study. The sampling

method used was a purposeful, non-probability, convenient sample. Merriam (1998)

56

asserts there are two basic types of sampling, probability and non-probability. Probability

sampling is described as a method a researcher set up to obtain a random sample that

statistically reflects the population being studied. In contrast, Honigmann, 1982, p. 84

described non-probability as solving logical problems such as, “discovering what occurs,

the implications of occurrences, and the relationships linking the occurrences.” Non-

probability does not guarantee generalization.

Several different types of purposeful sampling exist including typical, unique,

maximum variation, convenience, snowball, chain and network. Convenience sampling

was used in this study as it encompasses the persons readily available and willing to take

part in the study. Specifically, Merriam (1998, p. 63) suggested that researchers use this

sampling method when “time, money, location, availability of sites or respondents” are

restricted or constrained. Convenience sampling is regularly used in exploratory research

to collect data representing the population being studied. This method is often used

during preliminary research efforts, to achieve an overall estimate of results, without

incurring the cost or time needed to take a random sample (StatPac, 2007). Biases and

prejudices occurred while collecting data in the familiar environments, but the

interferences were subdued to get reliable data. These obstructions were anticipated since

they are common effects of convenience sampling.

This sampling method enables research investigations within a certain period and

conditions promoting data collecting. Convenience sampling sacrifices generalizability

and may not provide enough representation of the target population. This means that

those selected for the study may only partially represent the population being

investigated. Replication may be required to justify such research results (Keppel &

57

Zedeck, 2001). Despite its deficiencies, convenience sampling is the best method of

getting a sample population when time and conditions restrict random sampling

(Neuman, 2003). Convenience sampling enables the researcher to find an estimate of the

truth when getting the truth (that is by random sampling) is conditionally prohibitive.

Convenience sampling does have an impact on research reliability and validity.

Reliability relates to the extent to which an investigation, test, or any measuring method

gives the same results on repeated trials. The study reliability may be marginalized

because a pure random sample was not obtained. Results gained from this study may not

be replicated using a convenience or random sample from the same population.

Similarly, study validity may be degraded, as well. Conceptually, validity is

concerned with how successful the study is at measuring what needs to be measured.

Although results from the study may be valid, for the sample population selected, it may

not necessarily be valid for the entire population. This study attempted to determine

determine relationships between characteristics of effective instructions and outcomes in

particular schools. This study adhered to the acceptable methods in behavioral science

research. It successfully measured its intended variables, and it produced outcomes that

can be generalized to other schools around the country.

This section discussed only three of the many different types of validity. The

types of validly that specifically affect this study are Internal Validity, External Validity,

and Reliability. Internal validity indicates the confidence level used to express how the

change in the dependent variable was produced entirely by the independent variable and

not by the extraneous ones (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Eight empirically identified

conditions can threaten confidence in a study. These threats to internal validity include

58

history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, and statistical regression, selection,

experimental mortality, and subject interaction.

Though all threats may be relevant, two potential threats threatened this study.

These two threats involve selection and testing. A selection threat suggests that

participants may not be functionally equivalent at the time of testing. In this study, efforts

to mitigate this threat have been addressed by gathering a sufficient sample size sufficient

and using a proper statistical method. A testing threat entails testing participants at

different times or under different circumstances. This study design tested all participants

within a short time frame, which helped to decrease the number of extraneous factors

affecting the responses.

External validity is the extent to which the study can be generalized to the greater

population. Generally, studies that use randomization to select participants from the study

population have more external validity than those that do not. The convenience sampling

of teachers without self-contained classrooms used to sample the study population may

weaken external validity. This strategy was used because random sampling of the study

population is outside the scope of this study. Thus, results may not necessarily reflect

population attitudes. Where convenience sampling was used, the test was repeated to

compare results.

Reliability analysis of the two surveys (i.e., Teacher and Student) has been

completed with 30 subjects selected in a pilot study, to assess the instrument reliability

The Cronbach‟s alpha measure of reliability was used showed values greater than

.70; Researchers consider these values reliable. This statistical test was repeated after data

collection and reported in the Findings section of this study.

59

Various limitations clearly restrict the conclusions drawn from this research. The

inherent limitations were affirmed during the study. The purpose of the research was to

find out the relationship between learner-centered instruction and achievement of

students in Title I schools. One of the main limitations is there was no specific research

found in this area on Title I students. A causal-comparative (ex post facto) research

design was used to rely on the assumption that participants' convictions were already

formed, to collect data from a large sample within a specific demographic profile.

Constraints in resources necessitate collecting data from a conveniently located group.

The researcher had no control over the variable of interest in the participant because

they were selected through a purposeful non-probability sample, instead of random

assignment. The sample design does not guarantee generalization of findings to other

population. The student participants came from high mobility communities. They

attended several different schools and acquired different learning experiences. The wide

differences between student and teacher experience with learner-centered instruction

affected the variables.

The delimitations to this study include (a) selection of only four Title I schools to

participate in the study; (b) the study did not separate students by their learning labels:

English Language Learners (ELS), Exceptional Student Education (ESE), Learners

without specific services; (c) the study relied on busy teachers and parents to encourage

student participation. Selecting more than four schools could have possibly increased

opportunities to get more teacher and student participation. A strong reliance on teachers

to provide data, and parents to encourage students to participate, could have affected the

outcome if the participants showed no interest in the study.

60

Ethical Assurances

Since the methods for this research identify adults and children as participants, the

researcher adhered to all ethical guidelines governing human subjects in

research. IRB approval was received respectively from both the University and District

Research Department prior to collecting the data (See appendices F and G). The names of

students, teachers, and schools were not released in the research. The names of the

participants were not needed on the questionnaire, and they were informed about subject

anonymity. Specific data on schools will only be released to the school district. The

investigator conducted the research without disturbing the traditional learning atmosphere

of the schools. Each survey response collected was assigned a numeric code. The data

collected on line were transferred to SPSS statistics 17.0 and the data later encrypted, and

transferred from a personal computer hard drive to a compact disc. For further protection,

the disc is password protected and available only to authorized people.

Teachers signed an informed consent to indicate an agreement to participate.

Parents also signed consent to demonstrate a desire for students to participate. Students

also signed an assent to indicate a willingness to participate (See Appendices C to F for

these consent forms). All paper-based forms have been electronically transferred and

stored in a private safe. These records will be destroyed when the dissertation is

completed. The use of codes, encryptions, and secure storage ensured the participants

privacy was at minimal risk.

Summary

The causal-comparative method was used in this study based on the assumption

that reality exists, and it is fixed and measurable (Creswell, 2003). Since a comparison of

61

two distinct groups was done, analysis of variances and regressions were required. The

ANOVA was used to assess the difference between the participants variable scores

(Weiss, 2005). Unlike an experimental design, the casual comparative design allowed

quantitative data to be collected from participants about familiar experiences.

To find the effects of learner-centered pedagogy on Title I students, the study

focused on the deliverers and recipients of instructions. The two different original

surveys were developed to capture the experience with learner-centered instructions of

both groups. This facilitated data comparisons on experience, opinion and demographics,

and analysis to find the impact on student achievement. A group of teachers, who

understood survey building and did not participate in this survey, reviewed the

instruments for structural consistency, validity and reliability. Along with this, the two

pilot studies helped to improve the instruments. Using the questionnaires allowed

quantitative data collection through a non-intimidating method.

The study incurred some limitations while trying to control cost, increase

participants accessibility, and work within a restricted timeframe. A causal-comparative

approach was used to achieve this purpose since it requires quantifiable data generated

from the operating variables (Gall et al., 2004). Having no control over the variables and

creating no new attitudes did not affect the research since the data collected were genuine

were genuine. In addition, the purposeful sampling proved effective despite its inherent

limitations.

Though convenience sampling can modify data reliability and validity, it does not

significantly degrade the research quality in every situation (Neuman, 2003). The

probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis was considered, and the power and the size

62

of the phenomenon were contemplated when calculating the sample size for the study. It

was also crucial to choose an appropriate sample size for the research study. Despite

ethnic differences in participants, participants coexist in similar learning environments.

Within the Title I domain, most of the students receive nutritional and additional

academic support. Students at schools with the Title I designation get help to improve

their socio-economic conditions. Many experienced teachers help students improve

reading and mathematics skills through supplemental education providers.

Throughout the study, care was taken to note all ethical guidelines. Students,

parents, and teachers had the option not to participate. Numbers and other codes were

used to identify participants‟ responses instead of names. Only the school administrators

had access to the participants‟ responses before giving them to the researcher who

analyzed, secured, and protected the information.

63

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

The study was designed to add to existing research in the field of education. This

causal-comparative research study was done to find the learner-centered pedagogy effects

on student achievement in Title I elementary schools. This chapter contains a brief

overview of the research purpose, participants, questions, analysis and results of the

hypotheses, and statistics resulted from testing the variables.

Employing a convenience sampling method, 500 students and 65 teachers (565

participants) were invited to complete two separate Internet based surveys. Results of the

survey reveal that 38 (59%) of the teacher participated in the study. Of this group, 22

(58%) had a Bachelors Degree, and 16 (42%) had a Masters Degree. From the same

group of participating teachers, 20 (53%) had 0 to 5 years of experience, 7(18%) had six

to10 years experience, 2 (5%) had 11 to 15 years experience, and nine (24%) had 16

years experience and over.

The constructions of the self-developed surveys were guided by the research of

Alreck and Settle (2004). These surveys were designed to satisfy the four questions in the

research study by determining the levels of influence the variables have on student

performance. The results in this research study indicated the participation of students

(n=430) and teachers (n=38).

Responses to the question: “What is your Age group?” were tabulated and coded

where 1 = 18-29, 2 = 30-39, 3 = 40-49, and 4 = 50 and above. The teacher Age Group

participants: 18-29 had two males and seven females; 30-39 had four males and eight

females, 40-49 had 2 males and 5 females; and 50 and older had six male and four

females.

64

Prior to analyzing the four hypotheses, data hygiene and data screening were

undertaken to ensure the variables of interest met appropriate statistical assumptions.

Thus, the following analyses followed a similar analytic strategy in that the dependent

variables were first evaluated for normality, linearity, and homogeneity. Subsequently,

Pearson product-moment correlation and ANOVA analyses were run to determine if any

relationships existed between variables. A pattern of non-significant results emerged

from the analysis causing a reexamination of the data. A review showed the data were

properly coded and the item distribution made logical sense.

Often non-significant finding increases one's confidence that the null hypothesis

is false. When results are not statistically significant, it means that the results are

consistent with the null hypothesis (Intuitive Biostatistics, n.d). This does not mean that

the null hypothesis is true. The study may have been underpowered causing the non-

significant effect.

Results

The research questions and the hypotheses were considered to determine the data

analysis method for this research study. Question 1 dealt with the first concern: What is

the degree of association between learner-centered instruction and academic

achievement? Question 1 used two hypotheses:

H10: There is no significant difference in association between student participative

activities and Learner-Centered effectiveness in the classroom.

H1a: There is a significant difference in association between student participative

activities and Learner-Centered effectiveness in the classroom.

65

The construct, Learner Centered Effectiveness in the classroom, was assessed by

with the aggregate response from the four sub-questions associated with question 8. The

teacher survey question asked, “Describe the extent of effectiveness you think each of the

following has on raising test scores?” Discovery Learning, Project Centered Learning,

Problem Solving, and Cooperative Learning. A 5-point Likert-type scale for each

question ranged between Ineffective to Very Effective, and coded one through five. The

range of scores derived from analyzing the final composite score was between 11.0 and

20.00. The range scores for Discovery Learning 19.00, Project-centered Learning18.00,

Problem Solving 11.00, and Cooperative Learning 20.00.

A multiple regression was used to determine if a significant relationship existed

between the variables in question 8. Before H10 was analyzed, basic parametric

assumptions were assessed. The assumption of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity

were evaluated for the criterion variable (Learner-centered Effectiveness) and predictor

variable. Two graphical devices were used to check visually the aforementioned

assumptions. Specifically, the Standardized Learner Centered Effectiveness Composite

frequency histogram was created to give visual evidence of normality (see Figure 1). The

normalized histogram indicates some kurtosis (kurtosis = 2.50, SD = .75, z = 3.33, p <

.01), and negative skewness (skewness = -1.19, SD = .38, z = 3.09, p < .01). A Shapiro-

Wilk test of normality was run to further test if these deviations from normality are

significant. Test results showed the construct was not normally distributed: Shapiro-Wilk

(38 = .89. p=.01.

66

Figure 1. Histogram of learner-centered task effectiveness

The expected normal probability plot was also produced to give further validation

of normality for the Learner-centered Effectiveness Composite variable. A normal

probability plot (Normal Q-Q Plot) compares the expected normal value with the

actual normal value. Figure 2 shows a representation of the expected values by the

diagonal from lower left to the upper right. The points snaking along this line represent

the observed value. When the observed values remain relatively close to the expected

values, normality is assumed. However, as depicted, the observed values deviate from the

diagonal.

Given the preponderance of the evidence provided, normality of the criterion

variable cannot be affirmed. The normalized histogram presented in Figure 1 suggests a

slight negative skew reflected in the Q-Q plot. The Shapiro-Wilk test indicates that

the distribution is not normally distributed.

67

Figure 2. Normal probability plot of the Teacher-Student Relationship

Multivariate and Univariate Outliers

Data were tested for multivariate/univariate outliers and missing data.

Multivariate outliers were tested using Mahalanobis distance. Values exceeding the

critical value of 18.67, suggest that a participant may not belong to the general

sample. Univariate outliers were tested by converting scores to z-scores to check for

values that may exceed z = 3.29, p < .01. No outliers were detected, and no missing

data were found in the data set. Thus, for H10, 38 responses from participants were

entered into the multiple regression model (n = 38).

Review of Assumptions for H1

Parametric assumptions of the data were assessed and not in conformance. The

normalized histogram indicated skewness and kurtosis. The Q-Q, individual skewness,

kurtosis tests, and Shapiro-Wilk‟s test confirmed the findings. Different strategies may be

considered depending on the outcome of the analysis, to improve non-normality. If the

relationship between variables is close to significant or is significant, transformation of

68

the offending variable using a log10 function is warranted. Increasing the sensitivity of

alpha may reduce the likelihood of committing a Type 1 error. The data showed an

unreasonable representative sample of the population. The study may have been

underpowered causing the non-significant effect.

Multiple Regression Analysis of HI

Using SPSS 17.0 ANALYZE/REGRESSION, no significant correlation between

Learner Centered Effectiveness composite scores and Student Participative scores was

found: R2 = .03, F (1, 36) = 0.25, p = .90.

The scatter plot presented in Figure 3 reflects a non-significant relationship

between the criterion variable and predictor variable. Thus, although the plot suggests

that as learner-centered effectiveness increases, student participation in learner-centered

activities decreases, the relationship is not significant to reject the null. Transformation of

the dependent variable was undertaken because the relationship between variables was

weak. A data transformation was conducted using the logarithmic log10) method, but it

did not affect the outcome or interpretation.

69

Figure 3. Scatter plot of Learner-Centered effectiveness

Research question 2 concentrated on the second concern of the study: Is there a

difference in learner-centered strategy used in the classroom and interactive student

participation strategy? Question two used two hypotheses:

H20: There is no connection between effectiveness of learner-centered instruction and

promotion of interactive student participation strategy.

H2a: There is a significant correlation between effectiveness of learner-centered

instruction and promotion of interactive student participation strategy. The construct,

Interactive Student Participation, was assessed by teacher survey questions 11 and 18

(sub questions 1-4), and student survey question eight (sub questions 1-4). The range of

scores for Field Trip 241, Role Playing 300, Panel Discussion 281, and Debate 229.

Accordingly, in the multiple regression model, Learner-centered pedagogy

Effectiveness served as the criterion variable, and student participative activities as the

independent variable, as defined by Student Survey (Question 8: sub questions 1-4).

Question 8 asked students: “Indicate how often you participate in the following activities:

Field Trip, Role Playing, Panel discussion, and Debate” (see Appendix A). Response

options available to students were Never, Sometimes, and Always. Responses were

coded 1, 2, and 3, where 1 is the lowest and 3 the highest.

A Learner Centered composite score from the survey serves as the dependent

variable for H20. This overall score is based on four questions from the survey about the

effectiveness of learner-centered instruction. The parameters were measured on a 5-point

scale where 1 “Not Effective” and 4 being “Very Effective.” Promoting interactive

participation is the predictor variable. Responses to the statement: “Please select the

70

strategy (ies) you use to promote interactive student participation” were tabulated by

adding several responses selected by the participants.

Before the H20 was analyzed, and basic parametric assumptions were assessed.

The degree of normality was not represented here because it was previously assessed for

the dependent variable. Normality was not affirmed because of the preponderance of

evidence. That is, after examining the Normalized Frequency Histogram, Normal

Probability Plot, Shapiro-Wilk‟s test, and a logarithmic (log10) nonparametric test were

undertaken, knowing the assumption of normality was violated.

A test for univariate outliers was conducted and none was found to exist within

the distribution. Moreover, no missing data were found; thus, for H20, responses from

participants were entered into the ANOVA model; n= 38. Using SPSS 17.0, a

regression was run and no significant correlation was found between Learner-centered

Effectiveness composite scores and several learner-centered strategies used in the

classroom: R2=-.03, F (1, 36) =.69, p=.41. The scatter plot presented in Figure 4 reflects

a non-significant relationship between the criterion variable and predictor variable.

Although the plot suggests that as learner-centered effectiveness increases, the number

and types of learner centered activities decreases, the relationship is not significant, and

the null hypothesis was not rejected.

Transformation of the dependent variable was undertaken since the relationship

between variables was weak. Data transformation was attempted using the logarithmic

function. The data points were replaced with the transformed value, to get the data to

meet the assumption of the statistical reference. The relationship between the variables

71

was weak, and did not affect the outcome or interpretation.

Figure 4. Scatter plot of learner-centered instruction

Research question 3 concentrated on the third concern of the study: Is there a

difference in learner-centered methods in their classroom between Gender Type (male

female)? Question 2 used the hypotheses below:

H30: There is no connection between learner-centered effectiveness and gender of the

teacher.

H3a: There is a significant correlation between learner-centered effectiveness and gender

of the teacher

ANOVA Variables

The effectiveness of learner-centered instruction, as defined by the degree to

which teachers feel learner-centered instruction improves student achievement, serves as

the dependent variable. Gender (male female) serves as the independent variable. A One-

way Analysis of Variance was used to test question efficacy.

A Learner Centered composite score from the survey serves as the dependent

variable for H30. This overall score is based on four survey questions concerning the

72

effectiveness of learner-centered instruction. The parameters were measured on a 5 point

scale where 1 “Not Effective” and 4 being “Very Effective.” The independent variable

for the question is Gender (male female). Responses to the question: “What is your

gender?” were tabulated and coded where 1 = male and 2 = female. The teacher scores

indicated a range of 7-16 for the females: Field Trip 16, Role Playing 17, Panel

Discussion 7, and Debate 11. The scores for the males ranged from 2-7: Field Trip 4,

Role Playing 7, Panel Discussion 7, and Debate 2. The scores for the student participants

were Field Trip 241, Role Playing 300, Panel Discussion 281, and Debate 229.

Before the H30 was analyzed, basic parametric assumptions were assessed.

However, for the dependent variable, degree of normality was previously assessed in

Hypothesis 1and, as such, not represented here.

Test of Homogeneity of Variance

Levene‟s test was run to examine the assumption of homogeneity and variance.

Homogeneity of variance was evaluated to determine if distributions were equal across

the two levels of the independent variable (i.e., male female). There were 13 males and

23 females tested. Results from Levene‟s test found that the distributions were equal

across the two groups, F (1, 36) = .35, p = .56. These results suggest that the two

distributions are equally distributed.

Normality was not affirmed because of the preponderance of evidence. After

examining the Normalized Frequency Histogram, Normal Probability Plot, and Shapiro-

Wilk‟s test, the distribution was assumed not to meet parametric assumptions. A test

for univariate outliers was conducted, and none was found to exist within the

distribution. Moreover, no missing data were found; thus, for H20, responses from

73

participants were entered into the ANOVA model; n= 38.

ANOVA Analysis of H1A

Using SPSS 17.0 GENERAL LINEAR MODEL UNIVARIATE, no significant

difference in Learner Centered scores were found between male and female participants;

F(1, 36) = .43, eta-squared = .01, p < .52 (see Figure 5 for details).

Hypothesis 3 (H30): There is no connection between learner-centered

effectiveness (Teacher version: Question 18, composite score) and age of teacher.

Research question 4 concentrated on the fourth concern of the study: Is there a

relationship between learner-centered strategy used in the classroom and age of teacher?

Question 2 used the hypotheses below:

H40: There is no significant correlation between learner-centered effectiveness and age of

teacher.

H4a: There is a significant correlation between learner-centered effectiveness and age of

teacher.

The effectiveness of learner-centered instruction, the degree to which teachers

feel learner centered instruction improves student achievement, served as the dependent

variable. Age Group (18-29, 30-39, 40-49, and 50 and above) served as the predictor

variable. The efficacy of the question was tested with test a least squares regression

algorithm.

A Learner Centered composite score from the survey serves as the dependent

variable for H40. This final score was derived from four survey questions about the

effectiveness of learner-centered instruction. The parameters were measured on a 5

point scale where 1 “Not Effective” and 4 being “Very Effective.” The independent

74

predictor variable for the question is Age Group. Responses to the question: “What is

your Age group?” were tabulated and coded where 1 = 18-29, 2 = 30-39, 3 = 40-49, and 4

= 50 and above.

Before the H40 was analyzed, basic parametric assumptions were assessed. The

dependent variable and degree of normality was previously assessed in hypothesis 1, and

was represented here.

Test of Homoscedasticity

A a bivariate scatter plot was used to examine the assumption of

homoscedasticity, and to determine if variability in scores for one continuous variable is

roughly the same as all values of another continuous variable. These results suggest that

the variability of the two variables is usually the same.

Normality was not affirmed because of the preponderance of evidence. After

examining the Normalized Frequency Histogram, Normal Probability Plot, and

bivariate scatter plot, the distribution was assumed not to meet parametric assumptions.

A for univariate outliers was conducted, and none was found to exist within the

distribution. Moreover, no missing data were found; thus, for H20, responses from

participants were entered into the ANOVA model; n = 38.

Regression Analysis of H1a

Using SPSS, 17.0 ANALYZE/REGRESSION, no significant correlation between

Learner Centered Effectiveness composite scores and Age Group was found: R2 = 0.3, F

(1, 36) = .11, p = .92. The scatter plot presented in Figure 5 reflects a non-significant

relationship between the criterion variable and predictor variable. Thus, although the plot

suggest that as learner-centered effectiveness increases, Age Group slightly decreases,

75

the relationship is not significant to reject the null hypothesis. Transformation of the

dependent variable was undertaken. The result did not affect the outcome or

interpretation, since the relationship between the variables was weak.

Figure 5 Scatter plot of Learner Centered effectiveness

Evaluation of Findings

The findings of this research study suggested learner-centered pedagogy showed

no significant impact on student achievement. Learner-centered pedagogy effectiveness

and student achievement were not strongly correlated. No significant relationship was

found between the teachers‟ learner-centered pedagogy and student achievement. Results

connected to pedagogy impact on student achievement are found in Figures 1 and 2. The

analysis of variance showed that when teachers increased the use of learner-centered

pedagogy, student participation decreased. This indicated that a difference existed in the

type of pedagogy teachers selected when compared with the learner-centered-pedagogy

76

familiar to the students. The pedagogy teachers delivered did not address students

learning needs.

Students benefit from instructions aligned to meet interest and learning needs

(Baker & Dwyer, 2005; Gonzalez & Nelson, 2005). This study indicated students

received instructions through learner-centered arrangements, but the effectiveness on

student performance was weak. Instructions that are not aligned with the culture and

experience of the students discourage participation and hinder student achievement

(Jones, 2007). Results showed that there was significant correlation between learner-

centered effectiveness and student participation. The analysis of variance indicated that

no significant correlation was found between learner-centered effectiveness scores and

the student participative scores, R2 = .03, F (1, 36) = 0.25, p < .90. This means the

effectiveness of the learner-centered pedagogy students participated in was low. Learner-

centered instruction encourages a high level of student independence (White, 2007). If

student autonomy and self-directed instructions are reduced in a learner-centered

environment, the effectiveness of the strategy will also be reduced. Teachers with

inadequate training in learner-centered pedagogy lack the skills to organize students for

effective learning in a learner-centered environment (Hall, 2007).

Learner-centered pedagogy evolved from the constructivist theory. Figures 3 and

4 indicated there is not a significant relationship between the participative activities

students chose and those the teachers used. Appropriate management of learner-centered

pedagogy encourages interactivity, autonomy, leadership development and enthusiasm

Student motivation increases when teachers adapt instructions to match the learning

styles (Baker & Dwyer, 2005). As the instructional manager, the teacher organizes the

77

learner-centered conditions to be interactive, student friendly, and goal oriented. Students

set goals according to the result of performance evaluation while teachers organize

learner-centered instructions to meet learning goals. Students construct knowledge,

observe and record ideas, and share experience from interactions they have with peers

and models. The constructivist characteristics of learner-centered are realized through

structured learning arrangements. Teacher-student collaboration, discovery learning,

and group strategies are important to develop learner-centered effectiveness.

The findings of this research study are similar to those of Doherty and Hilberg

(2008) research on the effect of learner-centered pedagogy on student achievement.

Doherty‟s findings indicated that there were insufficient evidences to support the

claim that the five standards of pedagogy were useful to support achievement. The five

pedagogy standard : learning through shared productivity, highlight reading across the

curriculum, connect new experiences to advance knowledge, develop complex thinking

through engagement, and goal-directed communication through small group were

inherent in the participative learner-centered activities measured in this study. Doherty

and Hilberg (2008) used a quasi-experimental design similar to this study but in contrast

used triangulation.

Four hypotheses were used to examine the relationship between effectiveness

effectiveness of learner-centered instruction and student participative activities,

promotion of interactive student participation strategy, Gender Type (male female) and

Age Group (18-29, 30-39, 40-49, and 50 and above). The range of scores derived from

analyzing the final composite score was between 11.0 and 20.00. The range scores for

Discovery Learning 19, Project-centered Learning18, Problem Solving 11, and

78

Cooperative Learning 20. Results from the three regression tests and one ANOVA test

found no significant impact on student performance. Despite existing evidence that

learner-centered pedagogy promote student academic performance (Doherty & Hilberg,

2007); the results of this study do not support this assertion. This result in no way

nullifies the findings since it was conducted with different subjects under different

conditions.

Learner-centered instructions that match student needs also increase student

achievement (Carbo, 2008; Nykiel-Herbert, 2004). Student achievement may not be

affected if the arrangements face challenges as in Doherty and Hilberg (2008) study.

Several reasons learner-centered classes had no significant impact on student

performance in this study include differences in student and teacher experiences with

learner-centered pedagogy, student mobility, and teacher education. Similar to Doherty

and Hilberg (2008), the size of the sample was adequate to yield statistically significant

results, so the null hypotheses were not rejected.

Summary

After an SPSS was used to summarize data values, an ANOVA was

conducted on the variables to determine the strength of relationships. An analysis of

Hypothesis 1 indicated significant deviation from normality as indicated on the histogram

in Figure 1. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was run to confirm the findings along

with the test for multivariate and univariate outliers. The result suggested that the

relationship between student participative activities and learner-centered effectiveness is

weak, and the connection is not significant.

Hypotheses 2 underwent similar analysis as hypothesis 1 and showed no

79

significant correlation between criterion and predictor variables. The scatter plots in

Figures 3 and 4 show a non-significant relationship. The scatter plot in Fig 4 suggests that

as learner-centered pedagogy effectiveness increases, the number of types of learner-

centered activities decreases, but this relationship was not strong enough to create a

significant relationship between both.

The ANOVA Descriptive Model (Fig3) displays the effectiveness of learner-

centered pedagogy when delivered by teachers of different gender. Various analyses

including Regression and Test of Homoscedasticity did not show a significant

relationship between the criterion and predictor variables. The gender of the teacher does

not affect how Title 1 students gain through learner-centered pedagogy.

Like teacher gender, teacher age showed no significant impact on learner-

centered pedagogy effectiveness. Even though the scatter plot (Fig. 5) suggests that as

learner-centered pedagogy effectiveness increases, the teacher age slightly decreases,

the relationship is not significant. The relationship between the variables is weak thereby

allowing the acceptance of the null hypothesis.

80

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter includes an overview of the problem statement, purpose, method,

limitations, ethical dimensions, recommendations, and conclusions. Research suggested

that learner-centered pedagogy is effective at improving student performance (Doherty &

Hilberg, 2008; Hsieh & Sun, 2007). Other studies suggested that the effectiveness of

learner-centered pedagogy depends on the teachers training, experience, and instructional

management skills (Baker & Dwyer 2005; Kalanpur & Kirmani, 2005; Musti-Rao &

Cartledge, 2007). The effectiveness of learner-centered pedagogy depends on structured

leaning arrangements.

Little research evidence exists about the effects of learner-centered pedagogy on

student achievement in Title I schools. There is no specific study showing a relationship

between the role of teachers and the effectiveness of learner-centered pedagogy. The

purpose of this study was to examine (a) educators‟ opinions, and participation in learner-

centered instructions and achievement; (b) look at students‟ opinions and involvement in

instructions; (c) explore conditions that promote the effectiveness of learner-centered

instructions; and (d) give a framework for understanding how learner-centered

instructions promote or hinder academic achievement.

This causal-comparative quantitative study focused on students and teachers from

four South Florida Title I Elementary schools. Teacher and student surveys were used to

capture quantitative data about each group‟s experience and knowledge about Learner-

centered Pedagogy. A purposeful, non-probability, convenience sampling method was

used to gain a response rate of 90 % and 58 % from the two groups of participants. The

unavailability of specific research on the subject with Title I students is one limitation.

81

This provides no research base from which to draw and learn. A causal-comparative

quantitative research design was used to rely on the assumption that data would be

collected from a large sample with specific demographics and pre-existing ideas.

Constraints in resources necessitate collecting data from a conveniently located

group. The researcher had no control over the variable of interest in the participants

because they were selected through a purposeful non-probability sample, rather than

assigned randomly. The sample design does not guarantee generalization of findings to

other populations. Biases and prejudices occurred while collecting data because of

familiarity with the participants‟ environments, but the interferences were subdued to get

reliable data. The result of the study could be difficult to generalize to other schools in

the country. Suitable representative samples were used to increase the generalizing

capacity of the findings. Other limitations could include, the participants misinterpreting

a survey item and sharing responses.

Visual inspections of the data plots, Q-Q plots, skew, and kurtosis indicated the

measurements of the variables violated the assumption of normality. The non-normality

occurred because of the weak relationship between the variables reflected by the presence

of the outliers. Since the non-normality was not caused by missing data or other data

entry error, no significant data change occurred during logarithmic (base10) data

transformations. The data results provided a reasonable understanding of the relationships

between the variables.

An external cause that may have affected the variables was the subject-student‟s

experience with learner-centered instruction. Teachers and students new to Title I schools

may have different experiences with learner-centered instructions. This is an important

82

limitation to consider because the research outcome hinges on the teacher and student

relationships with learner-centered instructions. Students often move from schools with

insufficient experience with leaner-centered strategies to Title I environments where

teachers focused on individualized learning. This could have occurred because the

socioeconomic situation predisposes the students to frequent mobility.

Finally, the student participants used in the study came from high-mobility

communities. Amidst the frequent relocating, some students attended several different

schools and acquired different learning experience. Student experience with learner-

centered pedagogy may have influenced the outcome of this study. Educators use

instructional methods based on their selection and needs of the students. An inconsistent

exposure to different methods not properly matched to students needs would challenge

students‟ flexibility to adapt and respond. Meanwhile, students within a secure learning

environment would find it easier to adjust socially and show clearer understanding of

the predominant instructional methods.

All ethical principles concerning research with human subjects were observed.

This allowed the participants to assert their rights to participate, not participate,

or quit after starting. The study protects the participants‟ identity through coding,

electronic authoring with passwords, and secured storage. Participants volunteered in the

study only after understanding the requirements and use of the study.

The outcome of this study may instigate a further consideration of this issue.

There have been mixed-results before on a similar topic in research studies (Doherty &

Hilberg, 2007; Doherty & Hilberg, 2008; Olson, 2006; Downer, et al., 2007). Research

83

studies could be developed to compare the findings. The findings could also be analyzed

to identify elements inhibiting or supporting academic achievement.

Learner-centered pedagogy influences student achievement with varied

instructional arrangements based on the unique needs of each student. This form of

pedagogy provides teachers an opportunity to focus on students and meet their learning

needs through learner-centered instructions. Such individualized learning arrangements

impact student performance in different ways. When a teacher delivers instructions

through learner-centered pedagogy, the method increases students‟ participative activities

and cognitive focus.

An increase in participation and cognitive focus contribute to student

achievement (Cornelius-White, 2007). Effective use of learner-centered instructional

strategies highlights the importance of instructional groups based on features that

match students‟ ability and interest. Individualized and group instructions arrangements

help to enhance performance of underachieving students. Teachers used individualized

instructions to remediate instructions. Learner-centered pedagogy allows teachers to

individualize instructions based on the student‟s learning goals.

A review of the literature (Doherty & Hilberg, 2006; Musti-Rao & Cartledge,

2007; Prince & Felder; Richard et al., 2007; Ysseldyke et al., 2004) showed that learner-

centered pedagogy improves academic performance when teachers students‟

cultural, socioeconomic and cognitive needs influence teaching plans and methods.

Learner-centered-instruction favors the constructivist approach. It encourages students to

learn through experiences with technology and other teaching strategies. Researchers

have so far overlooked a detailed analysis of learner-centered strategies effectiveness

84

within Title I schools. The Title I sub-group is worth investigating because it has students

with sub-standard social, financial and academic acquisitions. Learner-centered pedagogy

suits underachieving students because of its capacity to remediate and maintain

individualized academic progress.

Implications

Learner-centered pedagogy contains instructional elements that can improve

student academic achievement. Research studies have provided evidences of student

success with learner-centered pedagogy. No specific research studies exist to show how

learner-centered pedagogy affects the academic achievement of students at Title I

schools. Four key questions provided the basis for this study. These questions were

answered through a causal-comparative (ex post facto) research design. The study relied

upon a sample of Title I teachers and students in grades 3-5 from four schools in an urban

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida school district.

This study provided insight into the role of learner-centered instruction within the

Title I population by exploring student and teacher experiences through the causal-

comparative- method. The data revealed that differences between teacher and student

experiences resulted in no significant impact on student performance. The findings show

that teachers using learner-centered pedagogy did not justify its use or synchronize the

method with student interest. The technique was used inconsistently and was not

specifically tied to student characteristics. The data analysis did not show an inverse

conclusion for two of the hypotheses but provided comparative relationship results that

contributed to the significant outcome of the study.

85

Student Participative Activities and Learner-Centered Effectiveness

RQ 1: What is the degree of association between learner-centered instruction and

academic achievement?

H10: There is no significant difference in association between students participative

activities and Learner-Centered effectiveness in the classroom.

H1a: There is a significant difference in association between student participative

activities and Learner-Centered effectiveness in the classroom.

The analysis found no significant relationship between student participative

activities and learner-centered effectiveness in raising student performance. A multiple

regression was used to determine whether there was a relationship between student

participative activities and effectiveness, and no significant correlation was found.

An ANOVA was used to test the effectiveness of Gender Type, and its impact on

student performance. No significant difference was found in learner-centered scores

between male and female teachers. Using the same analytical guidelines above, the

findings show there was no significant relationship between the effectiveness of learner-

centered strategies and the Age Group of the teacher. Although the plot in Figure 3

suggests that as learner-centered effectiveness increases, Age group slightly decreases,

this relationship is not statistically significant to reject the null hypothesis.

Various limitations naturally constrain the conclusions drawn from this research.

The inherent limitations discussed in Chapter 1 were affirmed during the study. The

ability to generalize the results of the study is limited because a convenience sample from

a single county was utilized. Further, the study focused on responses about personal

86

experience and restricted to students the Title I program, and the exclusive focus on the

Title I program ignores other indirect instructional service providers that might exert

influence on the respondent‟s experience. Students in Title I schools receive instructional

interventions in small group and individualized setting from reading, math,

and science coaches respectively based on needs. Federally supported Supplemental

Educational Services also offer free tutoring in learner-centered settings to students at the

low-performing Title I schools. Students automatically qualify to receive these services,

but after parents sign the required consent forms. Title I schools provide government

supported after-school learning programs.

From this study, a number of conclusions and implications can be drawn about

the impact of learner-centered instructions on the achievement of students who attend

Title I schools. Title I teachers used learner-centered instructions in their classroom, but

the use did not result in a significant increase in student performance. Instead, the

statistical analysis showed important comparative relationships with significant

implications. In the study, teacher age and gender did not affect teacher use of learner-

centered pedagogy, and student motivation to increase participation. Instead, the results

may indicate deficiencies in instructional management.

Student Participation Activities and Learner-Centered Effectiveness

RQ 2: Is there a difference in learner-centered use in the classroom between interactive

student participation strategies?

H20: There is no connection between the effectiveness of learner-centered instruction and

promotion of interactive student participation strategy

87

H2a: There is a significant correlation between effectiveness of learner-centered

instruction and promotion of interactive student participation strategy.

The absence of a significant finding in the relationship between student

participative activities and learner-centered effectiveness suggested the learner-centered

strategies teachers used did not promote student involvement, or increase achievement.

Meanwhile teachers with a commitment to non-constructivist approaches continue to

use teacher-dominant strategies as pointed out by Andrew (2007). Learner-centered

instructional features such as democratic classrooms, learning through collaborative

productions, promoting complex thinking and instructions, make positive impacts on

student performance (Cummins, 2007). In this case, there are no findings affirm the

outcome. This suggests the features to promote student participation were absent from the

learner-centered instructions.

Effective teachers recognize cultural differences, promote collaboration,

independent research, higher order thinking, and open discussion. Teachers use strategies

that give learners direct control of their learning to achieve learner-centered success

through participation (Musti-Rao & Cartledge, 2007). Inadequate learner-centered

training and training misuse achieve the same ineffectiveness. Appropriate training and

practice improve the art of learner-centered instruction delivery. Active student

participation decides the learner-centeredness of the pedagogy.

This result is important because it indicates an incongruity between the learner-

centered experience of the teachers and the instructions of students. Curriculum

supervisors and district trainers may use this learner-centered ineffectiveness result to

influence training plans, and to ensure its successful implementation. To use learner-

88

centered pedagogy effectively with students the arrangements require student-

focused and goal oriented procedures.

Furthermore, these findings contradict the earlier findings of Doherty and Hilberg

(2007) which suggested that learner-centered pedagogy is effective in increasing student

achievement. However, these findings support Doherty and Hilberg (2008) which found

that the standard features of learner-centered pedagogy alone were inadequate to raise

student achievement. The researchers asserted that the role of the teacher is essential to

raise student achievement.

Effectiveness of Learner-Centered Instruction and Promotion of Student Participation

RQ 3: Is there a difference in learner-centered methods in the classroom between Gender

Type?

H30: There is no connection between learner-centered effectiveness and gender of the

teacher.

H3a: There is a significant correlation between learner-centered effectiveness and gender

of the teacher.

The relationship between participation activities and learner-centered

effectiveness, and the relationship between the variables linking learner-centered

instruction and promotion of student participation were not close. Thus, the null

hypothesis was affirmed by the teacher‟s lack of sustained learner-centered use in the

classroom. Integrating technology through clear guidelines and procedures (Kalanpur &

Kirmani, 2005), peer tutoring and discovery learning (Musti-Rao & Carteledge, 2007)

promote effective student participation. Teachers who conduct learner-centered classes

without emphasizing student involvement reduce the effectiveness of the strategies.

89

The weak relationship identified by the analysis, implied that some teachers often

have insufficient knowledge about how to use learner-centered instructions to encourage

student involvement. Meanwhile other teachers who have knowledge about learner-

centered instruction do not use it enough to promote student participative learning.

Franklin. Franklin (2007) and Cartledge & Kourea (2008) asserted that teachers with

competence to manage student-focused learning communities, increase students success,

but incompetent teachers discourage student involvement in learner-centered instructions.

White-Clarke (2005) suggested that incompetent and inexperienced teachers dispensed

the curriculum incorrectly. These results may be an example of that phenomenon.

The Influence of Gender and Age on Learner-Centered Effectiveness

RQ 4: Is there a relationship between learner-centered use in the classroom and age of the

teacher?

H40: There is no significant correlation between learner-centered effectiveness and age of

teacher.

H4a: There is a significant correlation between learner-centered effectiveness and age of

teacher.

Neither gender nor age affected on the learner-centered effectiveness. Such

information can be useful to hiring committees, administrators, and parents. It is

unnecessary for teacher, students or administrators to show preference for teacher gender

because it does not influence student achievement. Chadgar and Sankar (2008) found that

the gender of the teacher does not affect student achievement. While male and female

teachers manage their class differently, they do not necessarily affect student

achievement in any distinct way. This study affirms the assertion of Evers et al., (2004)

90

that the ability of the teacher to cope with unpleasant behaviors and diminished

enthusiasm, cause deficient performance and not age.

Recommendations

Several recommendations for future research in this area can be suggested. There

are two recommendations that might be considered as a natural extension to this study.

Each contains contain reasons to pursue further research in this area. This study could be

repeated in the next five years, to capture the changes in a reauthorized NCLB, Title I,

and educational standards. The other recommendation is the study could be replicated

with an emphasis on examining socioeconomic status (SES), or another geographical

location with participants from the middle school.

This study provides insight into the theories connected to learner-centered

instruction, and contain reasons for further inquiry into practices with learning

populations generally, but Title I populations specifically. Beyond research, the

application of this study also shows potential for improving practice in elementary

education and Title I– funded programs. The last section of the study provides

recommendations for improving practice based on the results of the research.

Elementary teachers can find learner-centered instructional strategies

constructive, particularly for those who teach low performing and socio-economic

disadvantaged students. Teachers with training in learner-centered techniques should use

them consistently and with the strategy standards as a guide. Getting the right classroom

configurations to carry out learner-centered instruction is critical to the teacher's success.

Teachers should develop a democratic classroom to encourage involvement, and explore

variety of learner-centered strategies.

91

Independent research, discovery learning, and small group activities encourage

learner-centered participation. Teachers with inadequate training in learner-centered

pedagogy should get the necessary training from educational institutions provide such

training. Those with training but continue to rely on teacher-centered strategies with their

students should consider using the training to increase student interest in learning.

Teachers with limited learner-centered training need to try staff development training.

Educators who use learner-centered instruction appropriately when it is needed offer

students opportunities to explore learning.

School administrators need to make sure instructions meet students‟ educational

needs through learner-focused strategies and arrangements. There is a need to develop

learner-centered instruction by arranging in-house staff development, securing related

technology, arranging staff mentoring, and monitoring staff delivery styles. This research

indicates that learner-centered instruction is effective to increase student performance if

teachers organize and manage the strategies. Teachers need training, practice, and

supervision to establish learner-centered communities in the classroom. The experience

of the teacher by itself does not guarantee creating such an environment. An

administrator's job includes encouraging teachers to use research-based instruction to

increase student achievement.

Most parents have already experienced the value of one-on-one instruction with

their children, and so educating the parents about learner-centered instruction in an

important but perhaps easier task. Through the Parent Teachers Association, parents can

support the efforts of teachers to build learner-centered communities in the classroom. At

PTA meetings, parents can better understand the structure of classes and instructions and

92

encourage their students to use self-motivation, cooperative behavior, leadership skills

and inquiry approaches to improve their performance. Further, parents can ask their state

representative to continue supporting legislation that supports smaller class sizes; a

modification that would encourage more teachers to organize learner-centered

classrooms.

Although the school district connected to this research provides publications and

education in learner-centered instruction, teaching delivered through this method has not

adequately affected students‟ performance. The school district can increase staff training

and establish an awareness campaign to inform teachers and parents about the research

findings on student-focused instruction. The District can re-evaluate its technology

support to Title I schools to include technology that support instruction.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that learner-centered instructions will not

improve student achievement if the instructions are not sustained, focused on the

characteristics of the strategies, managed by learner-centered trained teachers, and

promoted by administrators. Teachers use learner-centered strategies successful when

they become a part of their teaching repertoire. Regular use of learner-centered strategies

develops the teacher‟s learner-centered management skills. Students benefit from self-

motivated and teacher-supervised instructions. The teacher identifies student-focused

method to match the student learning needs, and plan lessons to meet them. Within such

arrangements, the students learn from each other, through discoveries, and the teacher,

making learning permanent and meaningful.

93

Even though many teachers in the study used learner-centered instruction,

the use was inconsistent and a focused on the characteristics of the strategies was

minimal. Learner-centered strategies need teachers to focus on students‟ needs. The

teacher also uses a variety of group strategies and inquiry teaching methods. Pair

teaching, interest groups, discovery learning, field trips, experiments, and computer-

based instructions are among some of the strategies teachers used. Students learn to

manage their learning while teachers conduct periodic performance conferences. The

result of this research suggests that while these strategies were used, the teachers may not

have managed them to meet sufficiently the needs of the students.

The findings of this research point out two groups of teachers. The first group

had some training in student centered-pedagogy but did not use it appropriately. The

other group had no training or did not use any of its training to affect student achievement

through learner-centered instruction. Regardless of the group, the findings suggest

teachers need adequate training and strengthening of learner-centered pedagogy to deliver

them effectively. Even though teachers receive this initial training in college, they can

hone their skills through continued staff development and inter-collegial training and

coaching. Teachers with learner-centered training will help to promote the strategy at

their workplace, and within the school district. Inconsistent and inappropriate use of

learner-centered instruction prevents an increase in student achievement. The strategy is

important to learning outcomes, so the investment of time, effort, and money required to

implement it can safely be considered as resources well spent.

94

REFERENCES

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Andrew, L. (2007, Winter). Comparison of teacher educators' instructional methods with the constructivists ideal. The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 157-185.

Aseltine, J. M. (2006). Supervision for learning: A performance-based approach to

teacher development and school improvement. VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Au, K. K. (2009, May/June). Isn‟t culturally responsive instruction just good teaching? Social Education, 73(4), 179.

Au, W. (2007, June/July). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-268.

Baker, R. M., & Dwyer, F. (2005). Effect of instructional strategies and individual

differences: A meta-analysis assessment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 69-84.

Boghossian, P. (2006, December). Behaviorism, constructivism, and socratic pedagogy. Educational Psychology and Theory, 38(6), 713.

Boström, L., & Lassen, L. M. (2006). Unraveling learning, learning styles, learning strategies and meta-cognition. Education & Training, 48(2/3), 178-190.

Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006, Winter).

Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 41(2), 169-186.

Bruce, B. (Oct, 1998) Mixing old technologies with new. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 42 (2) 136-140.

Bush, G. (2006, December). Learning about learning: From theories to trends. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 14-19.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs

for research on teaching In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008, Spring). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with an at-risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children,

74(3), 351-371.

95

Carbo, M. (2008, March). Best practices for achieving high, rapid reading gains. The Education Digest, 73(7), 57-60.

Chudqur, A., & Sankar, V. (2008, October). The relationship between teacher gender and

student achievement: Evidence from five Indian states. Compare, 38(5), 627. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition).

Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colburn, A. (2007, November). Constructivism and conceptual change, part II. The Science Teacher, 74(8), 14.

Cornelius-White, J. (2007, March). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 13-142.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. New York: Sage.

Cummins, J. (2007, December). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction

for low-income students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564-573.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Deubel, P. (2008). Math methodology: Instruction [Online]. Computing Technology for Math Excellence. Retrieved April, 2008, from://www4me.net/

math_methodology.htm.

Doherty, R. W., & Hilberg, R. S. (2007, September/October). Standards for effective pedagogy, classroom organization, English proficiency, and student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 24- 34

Doherty, R. W., & Hilberg, R. S. (2008, March/April). Efficacy of five standards in

raising student achievement: Findings from three studies. The Journal of Educational Researcher, 101(4), 195-208.

Downer, J. T., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2007, September). How do classroom conditions and children's risk for school problems contribute to

children's behavioral engagement in learning? The School Psychology Review, 36(3), 413-432.

Egawa, K. A., Andrews, L., Moralez, S., & Holguin-Dotson, A. (2009, May). Good talk about good teaching. Voices From the Middle, 16(4), 9-16.

96

Evers, W. J., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2004, May). Burn out among teachers: Students' and teachers‟ perceptions compared. School Psychology

International, 25(2), 131.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Fram, M. S., Miller-Cribbs, J. E., & Horn, L. V. (2007, October). Poverty, race, and the

context of achievement: Examining educational experiences of children in the US south. Social Work, 52(4), 309-320.

Franklin, C. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers use of computers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 267-294.

Froyd, J. E. (2007, August). Evidence for the efficacy of student-active learning Pedagogies [Research Report]. Retrieved May, 2008, from Texas A & M

University Web site: http://cte.tamu.edu/programs/flc.php.

Fullan, M. (2007, Summer). Change the terms for teacher training. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 35-38.

Gardener, D. (2007, March). Confronting the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(3), 542-547.

Giddens, A. (1974). Positivism and Sociology. London, UK: Heinemann.

Gonzales, A. H., & Nelson, L. M. (2005, January). Learner-centered instruction promotes student success. T.H.E Journal, 32(6), 10-13.

Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008, Winter). The impact of federal public policy on

curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general

classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5-11.

Hall, L. (2007, Summer). Mentoring teachers toward excellence: Supporting and developing highly qualified teachers. Childhood Education, 83(4), 246-248.

Harmin, M. (2006). Inspiring active learning: A complete handbook for today's teacher. VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Hoerr, T. R. (2007, October). Supervising generation x. Education Leadership, 65(2), 85.

Honigmann, B. (1982). Handbook of social and cultural anthropology. Chicago, IL:

Rand McNally.

97

Hsieh, C.-H., & Sun, C.-T. (2006). MUD for learning: Classification and instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(3), 289-302.

Intuitive biostatistics: Interpreting nonsignificant p values. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.graphpad.com/www/book/interpret.htm Jehlen, A. (2009, January/February). Is NCLB Working? NEA Today, 27(4), 30-31.

Jones, S. J. (2007). Culturally responsive instruction. Leadership, 37(2), 14-17.

Keppel, G, & Zedeck, S. (2001). Data analysis for research designs: Analysis

of variance and multiple regression correlation approaches. New York:

Prentice Hall.

Kuehl, R.O. (2000). Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

Kumar, M. (2006, Summer). Organizing curriculum based upon constructivism: What to teach and what not to. Journal of Thought, 41(2), 81-95.

Kumar, M. (2006, Winter). Constructivists epistemology in action. Journal of Educational Thought, 40(3), 246-262.

Law, W. K. (2007, Fall). Frontiers for learner-centered IS education. Journal of

Information Systems Education, 18(3), 313-320. Retrieved March, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Martin, A., & Marsh, M. (2005, November). Motivating boys and motivating girls: Does teacher gender really make a difference? Australian Journal of Education,

49(3), 320. Mawhinney, T. S., & Sagan, L. L. (2007, February). The power of personal relationship.

Phi Delta Kappan, 88(6), 460-465.

McGrail, E. (2007). Laptop technology and pedagogy in the English Language arts classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 59-85.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mill, J. S. (1874). A System of Logic. Rational and Inductive, New York, Chapter VII of

Observation and Experiment & Chapter VIII of the Four Methods of Experimental

Inquiry, 272-291.

98

Milnes, A., & Plourde, L. A. (2006, September). Factors of low-SES household: What aids academic achievement? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 183-

193.

Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London, GBR: Sage.

Musti-Rao, S., & Cartledge, G. (2007, October). Delivering what urban readers need. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 56-61. Retrieved March, 2007, from FirstSearch

database. Nekovei, D. L., & Ermis, S. A. (2006, September). Creating classrooms that promote rich

vocabularies for at-risk learners. YC Young Children, 61(5), 90-95.

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods (5th edition.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nykiel-Herbert, B. (2004, September). Mis-constructing knowledge: The case of learner- centered pedagogy in South Africa. Prospects, 34(3), 250-263.

Odland, J. (2006/2007, Winter). NCLB: Time to reevaluate its effectiveness. Childhood Education, 83(2), 98-100.

Ohl. T., & Cates, W. (2006). The nature of groups: Implications of learning design.

Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(1), 71-90 Olson, J. K. (2006, October). The myth of catering to learning styles. Science and

Children, 44(2), 56-57.

Parsley, K., & Corcoran, C. A. (2003, Winter). The classroom teacher's role in preventing school failure. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 39(5), 84-87.

Passerini, J. (2007). Performance and behavioral outcomes in technology supported learning: The role of interactive multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia

and Hypermedia, 16(2), 183-211. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006, April). Inductive teaching and learning methods:

Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138.

Reynolds, P. R. (2007, Fall). The "pedagogy of the oppressed": The necessity of dealing with problems in students' life. Educational Horizons, 86(1), 53-60.

Richards, C., Pavri, S., Golez, F., Canges, R., & Murphy, J. (2007,Fall). Response to

intervention: Building the capacity of teachers to serve students with learning difficulties. Teacher Education, 16(2), 55-65.

99

Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2007, January/February). Addressing

diversity in schools: culturally responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-69.

Rockwell, S. (2007, Fall). Working smarter, not harder: Reaching the tough to teach.

Kappa Delta Phi Record, 44(1), 8-12.

Ross, D. D., Bondy, E., Galligane, C., & Hambacher, E. (2008, Spring). Promoting academic engagement through insistence: Being a warm demander. Childhood Education, 84(3), 142-147.

Sanders, A. (2008, October). Leftbehind: Low income students under the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB). Journal of Law and Education, 37(4), 589-596. Saunders, M., & Brown, R. B. (2007). Dealing with statistics: What you need to know.

Buckingham, GBR: Open University Press.

Sawchuk, S. (2006, September 1). Teacher gender may affect student achievement. Education Daily, 39(158), 1.

Snow, D. R. (2005). Classroom strategies for helping at-risk students. VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Sideridis, G. D., Antoniou, F., & Padeliadu, S. (2008, Fall). Teacher biases in the identification of learning disabilities: An application of the logistic

multilevel model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(4).

StatPac (2007). Sampling methods. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from: http://www.statpac.com/surveys/sampling.htm.

Sunderman, G. L. (2006, October). Do supplemental educational services increase opportunities for minority students? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 117-122.

Taylor, J. A. (2005, Summer). Poverty and student achievement. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 53-56.

Title I schools. (2007). Retrieved January 5, 2008, from Broward Public School Web

site: http://www.broward.k12.fl.us/titleone/titleone/Download%20Forms/ SchoolsFY07/8-14AssgndSchls06-07.pdf.

Torff, B., & Fuso, E. (2007, January/February). Teachers who know their stuff- but can't teach it. Principal, 86(3), 61-62.

100

Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007, September). The changing roles of teachers in the era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3),

519-559.

Vang, C. T. (2005, Summer). Minority students are far from academic success and still at risk in public schools. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 9-16.

Weiss, D. J. (2005). Analysis of variance and functional measurement: A practical guide. NC, USA: Oxford University Press.

White, J. C. (2007, March). Learner-centered teacher-student relation is effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-141.

White-Clarke, R. (2005, April). Training Teachers to succeed in a multicultural

classroom. The Education Digest, 70(8), 23-28. Ysseldyke, J., Betts, J., Thill, T., & Hannigan

, E. (2004, Summer). Use of an instructional management system to improve mathematics skills for students in Title 1

programs. Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 10-14.

101

APPENDIX A STUDENT SURVEY

The Influence of Learner-centered Pedagogy on the Achievement of Students in Title I

Elementary Schools A. Demographics

Direction: Circle the letter of the response you choose.

1. Which school do you attend?

A. Bennett B. Oriole C. Rock Island D. Westwood Heights

2. How long have you been attending this school?

A. Less than 1 year B. 1-2 years C. 3-4 years D.5-6 years E. 7 years & above

3. Do you have access to a computer at home?

A. Yes B. No

4. How do you get to school each day?

A. walk B. bus C. car D. other

5. What is your gender?

A. male B. female

6. What is your age?

A. 8 B. 9 C. 10 D. 11 & older

7. What is your racial/ethnic background?

A. Asian

B. Black not Hispanic

C. Hispanic

D. Multi-racial

E. White not Hispanic

F. Other

102

B. Classroom Instructions

Direction: Please check only one box at the end of each statement to show how often these things happen.

8. Indicate how often you participate in the following activities

Sometimes Always Never

Field Trip…………………………………………………………

Role Playing………………………………………………………

Panel Discussion………………………………………………….

Debate……………………………………………………………..

9. Indicate how often the teacher does each of the following

Allows me to complete independent practice work Always Sometimes Never

Allows me to complete independent practice work………… Discusses my achievement with me……………………………

Allows me to lead a small group………………………………. Helps me to set my own learning goals……………………….

Gives me research project………………………………………

10. The teacher gives me chances to solve problems

in groups.

11. The teacher allows my classmates to help me……………

12. The teacher plans with us what we are going to learn…….

13. The teacher uses my ideas in class discussions…………..

14. My teacher encourages me to think for myself…………..

Indicate how much you agree with each statement

Agree Unsure Disagree 15. I get better grades when I work by myself……………….

16. It is appropriate to ask the teacher the purpose

of a lesson.

103

Agree Unsure Disagree

17. I get better grades when I work in small groups………….

18. It is appropriate to ask a teacher to explain a task

you do not understand…………………………………… 19. Group activities teach me cooperation……………………

20. Field trips provide learning that is important to me ………

104

APPENDIX B

TEACHER SURVEY

The Influence of Learner-centered Pedagogy on the Achievement of Students in Title I Elementary Schools

Demographics

Put a check beside your response

1. Your institution

Bennett Oriole Rock Island Westwood Heights

2. Your highest level of academic training

Bachelors Masters Doctorate

3. The current grade you teach?

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grades 3-5

4. The number of years as a teacher

0-5 6-10 11-15 16 and above

5. What is your gender?

Male Female

6. What is your current age?

18-29 30-39 40-49 50 or older

7. Your ethnicity

Asian

Black not Hispanic

Hispanic

Multi-racial

White not Hispanic

Other ________________

105

8. Describe the extent to which you are familiar with learner-centered pedagogy.

Unfamiliar Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very Unfamiliar familiar Familiar

9. Please indicate your level of agreement about how each of the following

instructional description relates to you:

Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Disagree Agree

Coach

Sole deliverer of instruction

Facilitator

Sole controller of classroom

Moderator

Sole evaluator of achievement

Group leader

10. How often do you use learner-centered instructional strategies?

Daily Weekly Monthly Once a term Never

11. Select the strategy (ies) you use to promote interactive student participation.

Think-pair-share

Paired Team Learning

Learning centers

Peer Tutoring

12. Describe your preference for each learner-centered strategy:

Dislike it Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Like it dislike it like it

One-on-one instruction

Peer group tutoring

Learning activity center

Field trip

Role playing

106

13. Describe the extent to which you agree that learner-centered strategies promote

each of the following skills:

Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree

Disagree Agree Critical thinking

Independent inquiry

Problem solving

Active group participation

14. Please rate how important each of the following helps you to use learner centered-

instruction.

Unimportant Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Unimportant Important Important Room size

Class size

Computer technology

Training

Student learning levels

15. How satisfied are you with the emphasis your school place on learner-centered-

instruction?

Dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat Satisfied

Very Satisfied

16. When was the last time you received training in learner-centered instruction?

Last year

Last term

Last month

c Last week

Other ______________

107

17. Please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the following.

Dissatisfied Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied Availability of learner-centered

instruction training.

Administrative support for teacher efforts to use learner centered instructions.

School wide emphasis on

using research-based instructional strategies.

Learner-centered assessments

18. Describe the extent of effectiveness you think each of the following has on raising

test scores:

Ineffective Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very Ineffective effective Effective Discovery learning

Project-centered learning

Problem solving

Cooperative learning

19. Indicate the frequency with which you use the following with underachieving

students:

Daily Weekly Monthly Once a term Never

In house field trip

Mini-lecture

Independent study

Panel discussion

Debate

Performance conference

Student academic goal setting

108

20. Indicate the area(s) in learner-centered instruction you would like to see offered as

staff development training:

Adapting written materials

Managing cooperative learning

Teacher-student instruction planning

Evaluating learner progress

Time management

Other ________________

109

APPENDIX C

STUDENT ASSENT

Student‟s Name____________________________________

School____________________________________________

RESEARCH STUDY ON LEARNING METHODS

You will remember taking home a permission slip home a few days ago for your

parents to sign. If your parents had signed that form, you need to sign also to show your

agreement.

This researcher is interested in the different ways your teachers deliver

instructions to increase your learning. Many students like you will be asked to participate

in this study to find out about learning methods and how they help them learn.

If you agree to do this, you will be asked to share your opinion and experience on

the way your teachers taught you and help you to learn better.

This is not a test like you normally have in class. You will not be graded on the

information you give and your school grade will not be affected. All you have to do is

remember your learning experiences and give your honest response to the survey

questions.

Your teachers, other students and your parents will not know the information you

put on your survey sheet. Your answers will be only between us and my university.

Remember you don‟t have to participate if you don‟t want to. Even if your parents

have signed this form and you feel you don‟t want to participate, you don‟t have to

participate. Just let me know that you don‟t want to participate. This will be okay and no

one besides me will know about it.

110

If you have any questions you can call 954-755-9191.

Again, your participation will not affect your grade even if you decide not to

participate in this study. If you agree to do this, please sign this paper and return it in the

self-addressed, pre-stamped envelope at the front office of your school.

This study on learning methods has been explained to me and my questions about

it have been answered. My signature below shows my agreement to participate.

_________________________________

Student‟s Signature Date

111

APPENDIX D

PARENT CONSENT FORM Dear Parent:

You are being asked to give permission for your child to take part in a research

study. Taking part in a research is voluntary. Please take time to make your decision, and

discuss it with family and friends.

You are invited to allow your child to participate in a research study being

conducted for a dissertation at Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona. Several third

to fifth grade students in your child's school and other Title I schools are asked to

participate. There is no trick in this study. We only want to know how your child feels

about the way learning takes place in class.

Your child will be asked to complete a computerized survey with 25 questions.

This session last approximately 10 minutes. The information in this study is confidential

and all steps will be taken to protect your child's identity. Your child's name will not be

associated with any information that will be released about the research results. The

transcript with your child‟s response will be handled carefully and destroyed after the

study is completed.

Your child will not be paid to participate in this research. There may be no direct

benefit from this study. The result of this study, however, will benefit many elementary

students in the future.

There is no risk to your child for doing this study since the study is simply about

the different ways students learn in their class. If you believe any of the questions will

affect the way your child feels about his or her teacher, you may instruct him or her to

112

leave out questions if he or she does not want to answer them. In addition, you have the

right to withdraw your child from the study at any time without penalty.

The researcher will be happy to answer any question you have about this study.

Please direct your questions or comments to Roy Ebanks, Westwood Heights Elementary

School, and telephone: 754-323-7900 or at home: 954-755-9191.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parent Statement (cut off and return in enclosed envelop)

The research study described above has been explained to you. You voluntarily

agree to allow your child to take part in this research study. You have had the chance to

ask questions. You understand that the person listed above will answer any future

questions you have about the study or about your child's rights as a participant.

Signatures

Name of Child

_________________________ _________________

Signature of Parent or Legal Guardian Date

_________________

Signature of Researcher Date

_________________________ 04-23-2009

113

APPENDIX E

Letter to Principal

Dear principal,

I am a doctoral candidate of the Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona and

a teacher and Fourth grade Team Leader at Westwood Heights Elementary school.

Kindly allow some of your fulltime teachers and students to take part in a research study

about how learner-centered pedagogies influence the academic achievement of students

who attend Title I schools. The final report of this study forms part of my dissertation

study.

The researcher will conduct no experiment or do no observing in any of your

classrooms but will only meet with your teacher after school to introduce the research

study. Teachers and students will otherwise complete their questionnaires on line at an

appropriate time. Participating in this research study is voluntary and no one will receive

any incentives. However, the results will produce education interest that may eventually

benefit teachers who use learner-centered pedagogies.

This research will start in September 2009 and will take about three months to

complete. However, the investigator will spend only a few hours at your institution.

During this time, the researcher will meet with the teachers who consent to participate,

introduce the project, and encourage student participation. On completing the

investigation, you and your staff will receive the result of the findings.

Questionnaire delivery, response, and follow-up information will go through the

school physical and electronic mails. Parents who receive consent letters must complete

and return them along with the student assent forms to their respective school. All the

114

necessary communications between the investigator to students, teachers and parents with

follow relevant research ethics and comply with the IRB standards for research with

human subjects.

For further information please e-mail or telephone the investigator- Roy Ebanks;

roy. ebanks@browardschools.com, roy.ebanks@att.net, 954-755-9191, 754-323-7900.

Academic advisor: Elaine Hardin- ehardin@ncu.edu; 888-227-2877 extension 8162.

Research advisor- Donna Graham; dgraham@ncu.edu; 610-888-0167. The institutional

review board- irb.ncu.edu.

Thank you in advance for cooperating with my research study request.

Sincerely yours,

Roy A. Ebanks

Investigator

115

APPENDIX F

TEACHER CONSENT FORM

The Influence of Learner-centered Pedagogy on the Achievement of Students in Title I Elementary Schools

You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted for a

dissertation at Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona. The purpose of this study is

to examine the impact (if any) of learner-centered pedagogy on the academic

performance of elementary students who attend Title I schools. It focuses on how

teachers use learner-centered pedagogies to manage instructions and how their choice of

pedagogies affects the total academic performance of their students. There is no

deception in this study. We are interested in your opinions and reflections about your

teaching.

You will be asked to complete a 25-question electronic or hard copy survey

questionnaire during the first phase. This session will last approximately 10 minutes.

During this stage, you will be asked to mention your willingness to participate in the

second stage. Although there are no known risks in this study, some of the information is

personally sensitive and includes question about the way you manage instructions and

this could be distressing to some teachers. You may withdraw at any time, and you may

choose not to answer any question you feel uncomfortable to answer.

There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this research. No incentives

are offered. The results will have scientific interest that may eventually have benefits to

teachers who use learner-centered pedagogies.

116

The data collected in this study are confidential. All data are coded such that your

name is not associated with them. In addition, the coded data are made available only to

the researcher and persons associated with this project. You have the right to withdraw

from the study at any time without penalty. You may omit questions on the questionnaire

if you do not want to answer them.

The researcher will be happy to answer any question that may arise about this

study. If you have any questions about this study, you can contact Roy Ebanks by e-mail:

roy.browardschools.com; roy.ebanks@att.net or by telephone 954-755-9191. The Chair

of the IRB, Northcentral University, 1000E University Drive, Prescott Valley, AZ 86314

or irb@ncu.edu. This research report will be submitted as a final report for my

dissertation study at Northcentral University. My Learner Advisor is Elain Hardin who

can be reached by e-mail: ehardin@ncu.edu or by telephone: 888-327-2877 – ext. 8162.

My Mentor for this study is Dr. Donna Graham. She can be contacted by e-mail:

dgraham@ncu.edu and telephone 610-888-0167.

You have read the above description of the research on learner-centered

pedagogies and academic performance study and understand the conditions of your

participation. Your signature shows that you agree to participate in the study. Kindly e-

mail you‟re agreement to participate after which a hard copy of your agreement will be

picked up.

Participant's Name: __________________Researcher's Signature: ________________

Participant's Signature: _______________ Date: 04-23-2009

117

APPENDIX G

IRB APPROVAL NCU

Roy Ebanks <roy.ebanks@att.net> on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM -

0400 wrote:

----- Forwarded Message ----

From: Sherri Alamillo <salamillo@ncu.edu> To: Donna Graham <dgraham@ncu.edu> Cc: roy.ebanks@att.net

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:22:02 PM Subject: Ebanks_R 2009 IRB Approved

March 10, 2009

Reference: Roy A. Ebanks IRB: 2009-02-19-033

Dear Dr. Donna Graham, Dissertation Chair:

On March 9, 2009, Northcentral University approved Roy‟s research project entitled, The Influence of Learner-centered Pedagogy on the Achievement of Students in Title 1

Elementary Schools. IRB approval extends for a period of one year and will expire on March 8, 2010.

Please inform the NCU IRB when the project is completed.

Should the project require an extension, an application for an extension must be submitted within three months of the IRB expiration date.

In the interim, if there are any changes in the research protocol described in the proposal,

a written change request describing the proposed changes must be submitted for approval.

Sincerely,

IRB Committee Chair Northcentral University

118

APPENDIX H

IRB APPROVAL BROWARD SCHOOL BOARD