statement of copyright release to argosy university

Statement of Copyright Release to Argosy University

I hereby grant to Argosy University and its agents the non-exclusive license to make copies of my Dissertation/CRP at will and to archive and make accessible my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my Dissertation/CRP. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of the Dissertation/CRP. My final Dissertation/CRP will be submitted to Argosy University electronically and archived by the Library as I request: ___ Worldwide Immediate Publication Access.

___ Publication Release embargo of one (1) year.

___ I elect not to publish my dissertation.

______________________________________ _______________________ Signature Date

ABSTRACT

This research explored the impact of AVID curriculum on students’ (N > 300) achievement in

reading, writing, and mathematics. Three years of state assessment data were used to compare

the achievement level attained by tenth grade AVID students versus their non-AVID classmates.

Statistical analyses of differences in developmental scale scores attained annually, in each

subject, by the two student groups, were aligned with prior studies regarding the positive impact

of AVID on schoolwide student performance (i.e., scores, pass rates). Implications addressed

pertinence of fidelity and consistency, especially for successful schoolwide implementation. The

findings of this study are anticipated to be useful for systemic determination about AVID

implementation and ways to monitor future effect. Additional research recommendations

offered.

EFFECTS OF THE AVID CURRICULUM ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

A Doctoral Dissertation Research

Submitted to the

Faculty of Argosy University Online

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

By

Jeffrey Scott Spiro, Sr.

April, 2013


A Doctoral Dissertation Research

Submitted to the




Doctor of Education

By


April, 2013

Dissertation Committee Approval:

April 2013


Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research

Submitted to the




Doctor of Education

By


April, 2013

Narjis Hyder, Ed.D., Chair

Gerry Bedore, Ph.D., Member

Department: College of Education

v

ABSTRACT

This research study explored the effects of high school implementation of AVID

curriculum, specifically assessing the impact on achievement among tenth grade students

enrolled in the AVID elective class since the start of their ninth grade school year. Three

years of achievement data from the state assessments in reading, writing, and

mathematics were used to compare the achievement level attained by tenth grade AVID

students versus their non-AVID classmates. Quantitative analyses were used to

statistically assess the differences in developmental scale scores attained annually, in

each subject, by the two student groups. The findings from this research were aligned

with prior studies regarding the positive impact of AVID on schoolwide student

performance. Implications for practice addressed implementation fidelity and

consistency, especially targeting successful schoolwide implementation.

Recommendations for future research included targeting other short and long-term

indicators of student achievement, replication as longitudinal research, tracking

trajectories of achievement, and sustainability of AVID students’ success within

advanced academic programming. The findings of this study are anticipated to be useful

to the study site and other schools in the same system.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following individuals for their invaluable support and

guidance throughout this journey--planning, implementing, and completion-- of the

dissertation. To Dr. Narjis Hyder, my committee chair, you have been an advocate for

me throughout the entire process; your feedback was specific and high quality. Thank

you for helping me to be successful. To Dr. Gerry Bedore, my committee member; you

are a busy professional – I am thankful for your time and expertise.

To Michelle, my editor, your time, commitment, and expertise will always be

appreciated. Thank you for providing guidance and insight through each chapter of my

dissertation. To my “study buddy,” you are one of the smartest people I know. Thank

you for always being there; I appreciate you letting me talk through my thoughts over and

over again, as well as reading and rereading every chapter. It has been a long journey

and I am glad you were there to share it.

Gratitude is extended to Dr. Judi Hughes for being a support for me from the first

day of my first class.

To the staff and students at the research site who live the mission of “increasing

achievement and improving instruction” through the vision of being “a world class high

school.” The faculty is some of the most dedicated and caring staff with the best interests

of the students in mind. To the students, you are all scholars. I am proud of you!

Daman Essert and Bob Kuhn, thank you for your assistance with statistical

analysis.

To my brother, Rich, my role model in life: You inspire me each and every day.

Your coaching, guidance, and insight helps me be a better leader. Thank you. I love you.

vii

DEDICATION

The entire body of work is dedicated to my wife and family.

Laura, thank you for being patient throughout this process; I know it has not been

easy. There were countless hours, days, weeks, months, and years dedicated to this work

and you never swayed in your support. Thank you. I love you for being so supportive and

understanding. You are my strong silent support in all endeavors in my life.

Jeffrey and Jessica – I hope that my accomplishment inspires you to reach for

your goals. It is through hard work and dedication that your dreams can come true. No

one and no obstacle can stand in the way of your dreams. Dance like no one is watching,

sing like no one is listening, and live each day like it is your last. I am proud of you and I

love you.

Alina, Ariana, and Dillon – Each of you are living the life you want. Continue to

live life with no regrets. My hope is that I have played a small role in your endeavors. I

love you guys.

God, thank you for giving me the tenacity, drive, and determination to excel. It is

through your grace that I am able to experience the great fruits in life. Through you I can

“TCB”!

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ v

TABLE OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM ................................................................................... 1

Problem Background .......................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3

Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................................. 4

Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................. 6

Limitations .....................................................................................................................6

Delimitations ..................................................................................................................7

Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 8

Importance of the Study .................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................... 12

Proposed Schoolwide Intervention Programs ................................................................... 13

Kagan’s Cooperative Learning ....................................................................................13

GEAR UP.....................................................................................................................14

Marzano’ Instructional Strategies ................................................................................15

Jensen’s Brain-based research .....................................................................................16

Upward Bound .............................................................................................................16

Project GRAD ..............................................................................................................17

The Selected Schoolwide Intervention ............................................................................. 18

History of AVID ..........................................................................................................18

Program Components...................................................................................................19

Student Selection for AVID Elective Class .................................................................19

AVID Elective Class ....................................................................................................20

AVID Teacher and Coordinator ...................................................................................22

Program Evaluation and Certification .........................................................................23

AVID Site Team ................................................................................................................24

Prior AVID Research ........................................................................................................ 26

Schoolwide AVID Impact................................................................................................. 31

Teacher Leadership ......................................................................................................31

School Climate and Culture .........................................................................................32

Staff Satisfaction ..........................................................................................................34

Summary of Literature Reviewed ..................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 39

Restatement of the Study Purpose ...............................................................................39

Research Question and Hypotheses .............................................................................39

Research Design................................................................................................................ 40

Community Description ...............................................................................................40

ix

Selection of Participants ..............................................................................................41

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................41

Assumptions and Limitations ......................................................................................42

Procedures ..........................................................................................................................43

Data Processing and Analysis ............................................................................................45

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 48


Overview of Analyses ..................................................................................................48

Comparison of Students’ Reading Achievement .............................................................. 49

Comparison of Students’ Mathematics Achievement....................................................... 53

Comparison of Students’ Writing Achievement ............................................................... 57

Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 61

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 65

Summary: Discussion of Findings .................................................................................... 65


Review of Methodologies ............................................................................................66

Compilation of Data Trends.........................................................................................67

Possible Influential Conditions ....................................................................................70

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 75

Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 79

Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 80

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 82

APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 87

Subject-specific Developmental Scale Scores ............................................................ 87

x

TABLE OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. ANOVA Output 2010 Tenth Grade FCAT Reading .......................................... 50

Table 2. ANOVA Output for 2011 Tenth Grade FCAT Reading..................................... 51

Table 3. ANOVA Output for 2012 Tenth Grade FCAT Reading..................................... 52

Table 4. ANOVA Output 2010 Tenth Grade FCAT Math ............................................... 54

Table 5. ANOVA Output for 2011 Tenth Grade FCAT Math ......................................... 55

Table 6. ANOVA Output for 2012 Tenth Grade Geometry EOCT .................................. 56

Table 7. ANOVA Output for 2010 Tenth Grade FCAT Writing ..................................... 58

Table 8. ANOVA for 2011 Tenth Grade FCAT Writing .................................................. 59

Table 9. ANOVA Output for 2012 Tenth Grade FCAT Writing ..................................... 60

Table 10. Summary Table of Mean Scores for AVID and Non-AVID Students ............. 61

Table 11. Summary Table for p-Value, Significance, and Determination ....................... 62

Table 12. Summary Table for Pass and Fail Percentages ................................................. 63

Table 13. Summary Table for Pass Rate Decline ............................................................. 67

Table 14. Summary Table for Research Site Demographics ............................................ 74

Table 15. Summary Table for Impact of the AVID Elective Course ............................... 75

1

CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM

Educational research provides educators with information about methods to use to

engage students in the learning process through differentiated instruction. However, not

all educators implement these effective strategies and tools that enable classroom

instructors and their schools to meet the needs of the various learners. Not providing

instruction that reaches and facilitates opportunities for learning success for all learners,

fails to satisfy the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and subsequent

legislation of Race to the Top (RTT).

Problem Background

One of the ongoing problems being addressed in secondary education is the

inadequate preparation of students in the academic middle for college readiness and

increased achievement. Students in the academic middle are middle grade students (i.e.,

B/C) who are recognized as having the potential to take college prep classes but may lack

the academic or social support necessary for success in these more rigorous courses

(AVID, 2011b). These students have not been push or learned to challenge themselves to

work at the level of their highest potentials. Educators may refer to these students as at-

risk due to the demographic indicators (e.g., ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc.).

However, the culture of the study site upholds the belief that, given sufficient support,

these learners have the potential to attain or exceed the achievement levels of their peers

by maximizing their own potentials. This potential can be accomplished through their

own, individual determination.

Educational research informs educators how to engage all students in the learning

process; still, many educators fail to implement these strategies. As a result, students in

2

the academic middle have been surpassed by their peers. According to Marzano

(2009), high yield strategies are “Classroom techniques that have research supporting

their utility at enhancing student achievement” (p. 30). Harrison and Killion (2007)

stated, “Understanding content standards, how various components of the curriculum link

together, and how to use the curriculum in planning instruction and assessment is

essential to ensuring consistent curriculum implementation throughout a school” (p. 74).

Therefore, students in the academic middle could benefit from the successful

implementation of high-yield teaching strategies, which are linked to a curriculum.

Educational focus and techniques have changed. As a result of NCLB legislation,

educators across the United States have been teaching students targeting increased

accountability for the provision of a quality education (U.S. Department of Education,

2001). The increased concern for accountability has resulted in a laser-like focus on

increasing student achievement. Marzano (2009) stated, “Across the country there seems

to be a great deal of discussion about high-yield strategies-[specifically] classroom

techniques that have research supporting their utility at enhancing student achievement”

(p. 30).

Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) is a curricular program

designed to provide students in the academic middle with effective learning strategies to

prepare for college readiness as well as successful performance while in high school. At

the proposed research site, there has been AVID training for the staff throughout the last

four years as a strategy to address the student achievement and success problem.

However, the research site is unaware of the effects of the AVID curriculum on student

achievement. This concern involves whether the students in the AVID elective class for

3

two school years (i.e., freshman and sophomore years), are benefitting in their

achievement as evidenced on the state standardized assessment administered during their

sophomore year. Evidence-based impact and effectiveness of the AVID program has

been documented by other schools throughout the nation (e.g., Texas school; Watt,

Powell, Mendiola, & Cossio, 2006).

Many factors may have contributed to this absence of any official documentation

of the program impact and effectiveness at the study site. The possible contributors

include (a) lack of time for data processing, (b) a high rate of AVID elective and general

staff turnover, and (c) inconsistent implementation of the AVID curriculum in the

elective classes and other strategies schoolwide. The implemented schoolwide AVID

strategies are (a) Cornell notes, (b) mark the text, (c) chart the text, (d) graphic

organizers, (e) Socratic seminars, (f) philosophical chairs, (g) learning logs, (h)

interactive notebooks, (i) agendas, and (j) binders (AVID, 2009).

For compliance with NCLB mandates and the benefit of learners at the study site,

it is pertinent to document specific assessment of the impact of the high-yield strategies

included in the AVID curriculum for the involved students. This research study will

address the problem by studying the effects of the AVID curriculum on student

achievement. When successfully implemented, such high-yield teaching strategies have

been consistently documented as worthwhile for all students.

Purpose of the Study

The vision of the researcher’s organization is to “Be a world class high school”

(L. Senior High School [LSrHS], 2012, “About L. Senior High School,” para. 1). To

accomplish this goal, the mission of the organization is to “Increase achievement and

4

improve teaching” (LSrHS, 2012, “About,” para. 1). As the leader of the organization,

the researcher recognizes the site’s goal to accomplish the vision by implementing

organizational strategies that support the desired outcome. Therefore, the specific

purpose of this research study will be to explore the effects on student achievement from

using the AVID curriculum at the research site. Of specific interest is the impact of the

high-yield teaching strategies incorporated in the AVID curriculum for the elective

course. Towards this end, the research study will examine the effect on student

achievement among the students who have been enrolled in the AVID elective class.

These students have been taught to use the aforementioned array of AVID learning

strategies in all classes, including their AVID elective course. The AVID student is in

the same courses with their non-AVID peers, completing the same assignments and

lessons, including the state assessment. The distinction is that the AVID student has the

elective course wherein they learn the strategies that they must apply in all other classes.

These strategies, when coupled with the support of the AVID elective class, are expected

to enable the learner to maintain or exceed the achievement levels of their peers.

Evidence of the impact of these strategies is anticipated to be recognizable in the

students’ achievement on the state standardized assessments. This study will examine the

nature and the extent of the effect of the use of the AVID program in the selected Florida

high school.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The study plans and methodology are driven by the parameters of the guiding

research question. Developing this proposal, several potential research questions were

considered. The first concept proposed exploration of the impact high school teachers

5

who utilize AVID strategies have on schoolwide student performance as measured by the

state annual assessment. This was discarded to eliminate the potential inconsistencies

introduced by the variable of teachers’ impact. Further, the researcher opted to focus on

a single grade level (i.e., sophomores) because there were no state-standardized

assessments used with upperclassmen to serve as benchmark data. Another considered

option was the exploration of differences in student achievement comparing teachers who

implement the AVID strategies versus teachers who do not. An important shift in focus

was recognized. Instead, of teachers’ success, the researcher proposes to focus this study

on the success of teaching and learning using the AVID strategies. To explore this, the

researcher contemplated comparing the class ranking of AVID and non-AVID students.

Recognizing the potential bias or skewedness of class ranking data, caused by the grade

point averages of students taking advanced coursework, the researcher returned

consideration to the standardized assessments. Thus, the following research question was

selected for the proposed study:

Research question. How does student achievement, measured by the sophomore

year scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in reading, writing,

and math, compare for students enrolled in the AVID elective course versus non-AVID

students?

Because the study proposes the use of the students’ standardized assessment data,

the following paired hypotheses were developed to align with the statistical assessment of

these quantitative data. Specifically, this study will enable the researcher to make a

determination regarding the assertions that:

6

Null hypothesis. There is not a statistically significant positive effect on student

achievement, as measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in

reading, writing, and math, when comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the

selected study site.

Alternative hypothesis. There is a statistically significant positive effect on

student achievement, as measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment

Test in reading, writing, and math, when comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the

selected study site.

Limitations and Delimitations

The limitations and delimitations of any research study are the potential

influences on the research outcomes that may influence the generalizability of the

findings. Specifically, the limitations are factors that are beyond the researcher’s control.

The delimitations are parameters established by the researcher to focus the study and

enhance the reliability of the outcomes.

Limitations

The primary limitation of the study is the effects of teacher mobility. As

previously noted, there is a high turnover rate at the study site. Further, the training to

implement AVID strategies occurs, annually, but only during the summer. Therefore,

teachers who leave or are hired after the AVID training can influence the data. This is

especially concerning if the mobility number is very large, involving the AVID elective

teachers, or concentrated in any particular content area. Another limitation to the study is

the research site’s student mobility. Currently, the student mobility rate at the research

site is 29.8% (L County School District, 2012). As a result, several conditions were

7

established to address inclusion or exclusion of the student in the data set. The research

study will use archival data from the first three years of AVID use at the study site; this

traverses the implementation and sustainability phase, which may impact the reliability of

the findings. Finally, teachers may employ other high-yield teaching strategies such as

Kagan, in addition to AVID. Kagan is a schoolwide program designed to incorporate

cooperative learning strategies (Kagan & Kagan, 2012).

Delimitations

This study will be conducted drawing data from one high school in a multi-school

district. The selected study site was the first to adopt and implement AVID; the

researcher was the advocate initiating these practices. For these reasons, the researcher

has opted to conduct a longitudinal and purely quantitative study to minimize potential

for any bias. To address the high student turnover rates, only those students who were

enrolled during the research study timeline and participated in the tenth grade FCAT will

be included in the data analysis. Further, for inclusion, the student must be involved in

AVID throughout both their Freshman and Sophomore years. Any student who

transferred into the study site and joined the AVID program elective course during the

ninth or tenth grade, would be excluded from this study. The high teacher turnover rates

cannot be directly addressed. However, the study establishes exclusive focus on the use

of the high-yield teaching strategies incorporated in the AVID curriculum. The

researcher has chosen to focus on only AVID strategies/curriculum for the research study

due to the opportunity to train the entire staff consistently. In addition, the AVID elective

course provides the opportunity to teach the students to apply these as effective learning

and studying strategies. This shifts the focus to the effectiveness of the students’ ability

8

to apply these strategies for learning success. Finally, as noted previously, another

delimitation of the research is measuring the students’ learning success based on their

developmental scale scores on the state-standardized assessment during the tenth grade.

This ensures the students have been enrolled in the AVID elective course for two years

and had the opportunity to apply the learned strategies within their other content courses.

Therefore, this final delimitation focuses on the effect of AVID curriculum on the high-

stakes test outcomes used to measure student achievement at the selected study site.

Definition of Terms

Advancement via Individual Determination. The AVID program

Is a college readiness system for elementary through higher education that is

designed to increase schoolwide learning and performance. The AVID College

Readiness System (ACRS) accelerates student learning, uses research based

methods of effective instruction, provides meaningful and motivational

professional development, and acts as a catalyst for systemic reform and change.

(AVID, 2011, “What is AVID?,” para. 1)

AVID curriculum and learning strategies. The AVID program curriculum

incorporates several specific teaching and learning strategies intended to enhance

students’ organization to advance their learning outcomes. Some of these research-

proven effective approaches are unique to AVID, while others are more generally

familiar to education. The strategies implemented at the study site include:

Agenda books. A technique used to assist students with developing organization

using a calendar and project list.

Binders. The binders are an organized three-ringed collection of academic

essentials for each learner. The binder includes classwork, Cornell notes, learning logs,

interactive notebook, agenda book, and a pouch of required tools (e.g., highlighters,

9

pens, pencils, etc.), all divided with tabs for each specific class (AVID, Teacher

Resources, 2011).

Chart the text. “An active reading strategy that assists students with making

connections between content and the author’s intention” (AVID Weekly, n.d.a, “Charting

the Text,” para. 1).

Cornell note-taking system. An organized system for taking notes originated by

Cornell University Professor Walter Pauk. The process involves documenting

lecture/lesson content concepts by “writing questions, reciting, reflecting, and reviewing”

(AVID Weekly, n.d.b, “Cornell Notes,” para. 1).

Interactive notebooks. A technique used to assist students with creative and

independent thinking, implementing their individual thoughts and learning processes

(AVID, Teacher Resources, 2011).

Learning logs. A technique to assist students with focusing on what they are

learning in their classes by writing their thoughts, reactions, and responses to class

lectures, videos, or discussions (AVID, Teacher Resources, 2011).

Mark the text. “An active reading strategy that asks students to identify

information in the text that is relevant to the reading purpose. This strategy has three

distinct marks: numbering paragraphs, underlining, and circling” (AVID Weekly, n.d.c,

“Marking the Text,” para.1).

Philosophical chairs. “A critical thinking technique that allows students to

verbally ponder and logically write their ideas,” while actively engaging them in learning

through movement (AVID Weekly, n.d.d, “Philosophical Chairs,” para. 1).

10

Socratic seminars. According to Socratic Seminars International (2006), this

teaching strategy, “teaches students to recognize the differences between dialogue and

debate and to strive to increase the qualities of dialogue and reduce the qualities of

debate” (“Dialogue and Debate,” para. 4).

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT).

Assessment test administered to students which contains two basic components,

criterion reference test (CRT) easing selected benchmarks from the Sunshine

State Standards in mathematics, reading, science, and writing and norm-

referenced test (NRT) in reading comprehension and mathematics problem

solving measuring individual student performance against national norms

(Florida Department of Education [FLDOE], 2007, p. 13).

FCAT developmental scale scores. “A type of scale score used to determine a

student’s annual progress from grade to grade” (FL DOE, 2007, p. C-1).

Importance of the Study

The legislation of NCLB fostered an increased sense of urgency among public

schools seeking to identify and initiate ways to proficiently educate all students (United

States Department of Education [USDOE], 2001). Emerging from this has been

increases in concern about schools’ ability to attain mandated student achievement

objectives. To address the mandates, schools are required to assess their own academic

programs to determine whether adequate intervention is being provided for all students,

including those with a history of achievement below proficiency standards.

This study is focused on the impact of AVID, an academic intervention program

providing rigorous courses with strategic academic support for at-risk students. This

study is a foundational research for the study site The findings of the proposed research

study are anticipated to document whether the components of AVID used at the study site

are effectively supplementing the learning needs of the local students. Further, the

11

findings will indicate whether the AVID curriculum provides research-based best

practices effective for use with all students, while targeting achievement gains for

students in the academic middle, who are pursuing postsecondary educational

opportunities. The body of research is anticipated to add to current research pertaining to

effective use of differentiated teaching and learning strategies included in the AVID

program curriculum. This study will specifically measure the nature and amount of the

impact on students’ achievement as evidenced by their scores on the state’s standardized

assessments for tenth grade reading, writing, and mathematics.

The research site is the first official AVID high school in its district. Therefore,

the results from the research study can be used as documentation for the determination

whether AVID should be implemented at additional schools within the same or similar

districts. The research findings are pertinent because the individual schools and their

district invest fiscal and other resources for implementation and maintenance of the

AVID program. The financial commitments include (a) annual registration fees to be an

official AVID school, (b) curriculum guides for the AVID elective class and core content

areas, and (c) annual training for school and district staff at the summer institute.

Summarily, the findings from the proposed research study can be used by the

general education community as an indicator of the effectiveness of the adopted

intervention program. This includes the effectiveness of the specific AVID teaching

strategies, which can be used with all learners and not limited to those enrolled in the

AVID elective class. The results of the proposed research study will contribute to the

current body of research regarding the level of effectiveness of the AVID program

components.

12

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Educators are charged with the responsibility of providing a quality education to

all students. This includes preparing students to be successful on district and state

assessments. As a result, educational institutions must research and implement strategies

or programs that will enable their teachers to meet the needs of their individual school

population. Nelson (2009) concluded that, “as the world changes, the methods we use to

teach our young people must also change and adapt, and the only way this can be done is

through vigilant education-focused research” (p. 3).

Numerous intervention programs were explored within the review of literature.

This process was undertaken to facilitate identification of the program option that would

be the most effective and academically appropriate for the research study. The

intervention programs included Kagan’s cooperative learning, Gaining Early Awareness

and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), Marzano’s instructional

strategies, Jensen’s brain-based research, Upward Bound, Project Graduation Really

Achieves Dreams (Project GRAD), and Advancement via Individual Determination

(AVID). The information gathered about each intervention program provided an

overview of the program components and methodologies intended to bolster the success

of all learners. This was a framework for the comparison of the documented objectives,

advantages, and disadvantages of the intervention programs.

Based on these insights, the review of literature shifted focus to the AVID

intervention program selected for the study site. Specifically, the available literature

addressed the instructional components, learning supports, and staffing expectations

inherent to the AVID program. Finally, this review presents a summary of prior research

13

findings regarding the effectiveness of the AVID program as used at the study site. In

this manner, the review of literature presents the theoretical and practical foundation of

the intervention program adopted to develop learners’ potential for educational success in

high school and beyond.

Proposed Schoolwide Intervention Programs

Kagan’s Cooperative Learning

Kagan is an instructional strategy developed by Dr. Spencer Kagan. The theory is

based on the research of Dr. Kagan and his colleagues (Slavin, Sharan, Kagan, Hertz-

Lazarowitz, Webb, & Schmuck, 1985). The Kagan program uses cooperative learning as

a tool to enhance student interaction and critical thinking (Kagan, 2003). Kagan (1990)

concludes, “The structural approach to cooperative learning is based on the creation,

analysis, and systematic application of structures, or content-free ways of organizing

social interaction in the classroom” (p. 1). Schools across the nation use cooperative

learning under various names. Turnaround for Children (n.d.) is a recent example of a

school using Kagan, for schoolwide academic improvement. Turnaround for Children

(n.d.) was established to support schools as part of the rebuilding process in New York,

after 9-11. Turnaround for Children uses Kagan as one of the strategies for their school

reform model.

Slavin (1988) studied the effects of cooperative learning on student achievement.

Slavin concluded that cooperative learning structures that have both group and individual

goals, resulted in increased student achievement. Conversely, Slavin asserted that

cooperative learning structures that were missing either the group or the individual goals

did not improve student achievement. The premise of Kagan is the provision of a

14

structure that educators can follow to teach any curricular content (Kagan, 2003). Kagan

is recognized as a teaching strategy for improving instruction; it is not a program for

schoolwide academic support or change.

GEAR UP

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (i.e., GEAR

UP) is a federally funded program intended to support schools that have been identified

as having substantial enrollment of students from low socioeconomic background. The

multifaceted purpose of GEAR UP is to (a) prepare students for postsecondary education,

(b) increase academic performance in high school, (c) educate families about college

admissions requirements, and (d) increase the high school graduation rate (USDOE,

2012; National Council for Community and Education Partnerships [NCCEP], 2012).

GEAR UP does not provide a specific program, strategy, or system for academic

improvement or change. Instead, GEAR UP provides money for schools that apply and

are accepted through the Federal government. Since the program began in 1998, there

have been a variety of activities funded through GEAR UP. GEAR UP funding has been

allocated for (a) professional development, (b) curriculum design, (c) curriculum

alignment, (d) remediation programs, (e) mentoring, (f) tutoring, (g) academic and career

counseling, (h) community outreach, (i) college visitations, and (j) service learning

(NCCEP, 2012). USDOE (2012) research compared student achievement outcomes from

the 2004-2005SY and 2005-2006SY. The results indicated that the percentage of

students who scored at or above grade level on the state assessments in English increased

from 36% in 2004 to 49% in 2005 (USDOE, 2012). In addition, the percentage of

students who scored at or above grade level on the state mathematics assessments had

15

increased from 32% in 2004 to 44% in 2005. GEAR UP facilitates school change for a

specifically targeted population; it is not intended to serve all students within the

organization. In addition, GEAR UP provides funds for a specific period. The challenges

securing funding causes difficulties with maintaining the program for an extended time;

hence, long-term sustainability diminishes. GEAR UP provides an opportunity for

schoolwide change. However, this is dependent upon successfully applying for and

receiving the funds, as well as ensuring that the school is monetarily self-sufficient after

the funding period is completed.

Marzano’ Instructional Strategies

Dr. Robert Marzano is an education reformer who developed instructional

strategies to assist teachers with the provision of an effective lesson. The three main

strategies Dr. Marzano uses are (a) developing individual student learning goals and

providing feedback about meeting the goals, (b) using questioning as a tool to develop

critical thinking and comprehension, and (c) using background knowledge as a spring-

board to develop understanding of subject-specific content (Dessoff, 2012). In addition,

Marzano’s structure implements a coaching tool for principals and teachers to use in

conjunction with classroom observations (Dessoff, 2012). The strategies suggested by

Marzano are intended for all students and in all classrooms. However, Dr. Marzano’s

(2009) research indicates that not all of the strategies have been proven to increase

student achievement. Marzano’s strategies are specifically structured to focus on the

methods used to teach any school’s curriculum. Marzano does not provide a curriculum

or support system to facilitate academic improvement or change.

16

Jensen’s Brain-based research

Eric Jensen uses brain-based research to develop a theory regarding how to

structure the classroom for optimal learning. Jensen outlines specific steps educators

should follow to increase the probability of learning. The steps include the integration of

periodic stretching or other movement activities with the intention of (a) increasing

oxygen flow, (b) providing a new frame of reference, (c) providing breaks to absorb new

information, (d) facilitating maturation through content breaks, (e) releasing chemicals

that are natural motivators, and (g) using specific learning strategies (Jensen, 2000).

Research conducted by Ozden and Gultekin (2008) analyzed the effects of brain-

based research involving fifth graders and a control group in science. One group was

taught using traditional science instruction, while the other group was taught using brain-

based strategies (Ozden & Gultekin, 2008). The results indicated that students’ academic

achievement in science increased with the implementation of the brain-based strategies

(Ozden & Gultekin, 2008). Jensen’s brain-based research techniques are strategies

addressing how to design classroom instruction. Many of the techniques, such as active

learning and game breaks, provided by Jensen are integrated within the Kagan

methodology. Jensen’s instructional strategies can be used with all students in any

classroom. However, this does not provide a curriculum or system for academic

improvement or schoolwide change. Jensen’s method is focused on strategies intended to

improve instruction for all learners.

Upward Bound

Upward Bound is a federally funded grant program for high schools. The federal

grant targets low-income families or first-generation college-bound students who need

17

academic support to become eligible for and enroll in postsecondary education (USDOE,

2012). Upward Bound does not provide a specific curriculum for schoolwide change.

The premise of Upward Bound is to award funds to schools and allow each school to

have the flexibility to design their own schoolwide program. This comprehensive review

of the literature revealed an array of possible activities were associated with the federally

funded program. The options include (a) tutoring, (b) ACT/SAT preparation, (c)

academic and career counseling, (d) college readiness including admissions support and

financial aid preparation, (e) mentoring, (f) work-study opportunities, and (g) cultural

enrichment (USDOE, 2012). The performance reported by the USDOE (2012) indicated

that the Upward Bound program increased postsecondary enrollment from 81.1% in

2007-2008SY to 82.8% in 2008-2009SY. The federal funding is only available to high

schools that apply and that are accepted. In addition, the intent of the program is to assist

in creating a college-bound culture for a specifically targeted student subpopulation.

Upward Bound does provide an opportunity for schoolwide change. However, the

schoolwide change is focused on specific groups of targeted students, rather than all

students.

Project GRAD

Project Graduation Really Achieves Dreams (Project GRAD) is a non-profit

organization that targets low-income school districts in certain demographic areas. The

goal of Project GRAD is to increase both the high school graduation rate and the college

enrollment rate (Project GRAD, n.d.). Project Grad was initiated to provide college

scholarships to high school students. Project GRAD has evolved into a program that

offers academic support from tutors in the areas of reading, literacy, science, and

18

classroom management. In addition to the tutors, the program facilitates change through

a locally developed community board, teacher professional development, and extended

learning time (Project GRAD, n.d.). Herlihy and Quint (2006) synthesized the findings

of four studies examining low-performing high schools that used Project GRAD. The

results indicated that Project GRAD had no impact on graduation rates and student

achievement (Herlihy & Quint, 2006). The focus for Project GRAD is dependent on the

needs of the local community. The implementation of Project GRAD is dependent upon

an agreement between the school and its district and acceptance throughout the

educational organization. Project GRAD provides a curriculum and schoolwide support

for all students.

The Selected Schoolwide Intervention

History of AVID

The AVID elective class began in 1980 at Clairemont High School (CHS) in San

Diego, California (AVID, 2011). The AVID elective class was created by Mary

Catherine Swanson, an English teacher at CHS. During desegregation, the school

demographics at Clairemont High School were changing from affluent students to those

from lower socioeconomic groups. Due to changes in the students’ needs, Swanson

developed the AVID elective class to assist students’ attainment of high academic

expectations. The initial data from the first six graduating classes at CHS indicated that

178 of the 181 AVID students successfully enrolled in postsecondary education

(Swanson, 1989).

Over time, the AVID elective class has evolved and expanded to become a

structure for schoolwide instructional strategies and change. By the end of the 2010-

19

2011SY, there were 4,700 AVID schools, that integrated at least one AVID elective

classroom (AVID, n.d.). The United States House of Representative (2005) recognized

AVID as being a mechanism to provide rigorous academics in a college-oriented culture

through student support and quality instruction (Govtrack.us, 2005).

Program Components

The core belief within AVID is that all students can be academically and socially

successful when provided with the appropriate support through targeted intervention

strategies. The mission of AVID is “To close the achievement gap by preparing all

students for college readiness and success in a global society” (AVID, 2011, “What is

AVID,” para. 1). The mission is accomplished by providing the most rigorous college

preparatory classes to all students within the school, especially those who are

underserved. AVID defines the underserved as the average student group within each

school; these students are viewed as never having been academically challenged by

enrollment in the most rigorous courses. The overall goal of AVID is for students to

successfully graduate from high school, enroll in, and complete a college program.

Student Selection for AVID Elective Class

A component of the program is the implementation of an AVID elective class.

Students must voluntarily commit to enrolling in the AVID elective class. Student

candidates for AVID can volunteer or be recommended by a staff member or

administrator (Ed.gov, 2005). Student enrollment in the AVID elective class is selected

through very specific criteria. The criteria includes the student must (a) voluntarily

participate, including expressing desire to enroll into college; (b) be the first member of

their family to attend college; (c) maintain a grade point average that is considered the

20

average or middle for the school implementing the elective class, and (d) attain moderate

state standardized test scores (AVID, n.d.). In addition, the students enrolled in the

AVID class are obligated to independently utilize the learned strategies from the elective

class within all of their other classes and their homework assignments. Within the

elective course, the student receives specific targeted support as individually needed in all

subject areas. Students who enroll in the AVID elective class make a commitment to

remain in the program throughout all four years of high school. The four-year

commitment engenders the atmosphere of a supportive social group. Gay (2000)

concluded,

The director and teachers of AVID found that achievement was much higher

when academic interventions are reinforced by an infrastructure of social

supports. These included personal caring, mutual aid and assistance, use of

cultural anchors and mediators in instruction, and creating a sense of community

among students and teachers. (p. 13)

In addition, the AVID elective course provides a venue for students to socially engage in

conversations and experiences with peers who share the belief that school success and

college-bound goals are attainable.

AVID Elective Class

The AVID elective class is specifically designed to assist students with any

academic and social needs to facilitate success in school. Students in the AVID elective

class are expected to be placed in one or more of the most rigorous college preparatory

courses available at the school. Students attend the AVID elective class daily during a

structured time. The AVID elective class is a class within the school master schedule.

The AVID elective teacher uses strategies learned to implement WICOR and engage

students in learning. These teaching and learning strategies include (a) Cornell notes, (b)

21

mark the text, (c) chart the text, (d) Socratic seminars, (e) philosophical chairs, (f)

learning logs, (g) interactive notebooks, and (h) binders.

In addition to the focus on WICOR (i.e., writing, inquiry, collaboration,

organization, reading), college tutors are recruited to work with AVID students weekly

(AVID, n.d.). The college tutors are an instrumental component of the AVID curriculum.

The premise of the tutoring is to facilitate inquiry-based learning through a self-reflective

process. The college tutor assists in the AVID elective classroom on a specific day of the

week. The college tutors are selected to provide assistance with work from the students’

core academic classes. The college tutor works with small groups of AVID students.

The college tutor does not provide the answers to questions or tell the students how to get

the answers. Rather, the college tutor guides the students through a series of questions

until the students understand the concept or problem being addressed. Through targeted

tutoring, AVID students receive additional support when taking the most rigorous college

preparatory coursework. An extension of the AVID elective curriculum is the focus on

college readiness. Students in the AVID elective class research various colleges,

complete and submit a college application, and take the college entrance exams (i.e.,

ACT, SAT).

Ed.gov (2005) identified the AVID elective class as helping students by

developing “A strong sense of perseverance, overcoming barriers or language and

socioeconomic status to achieve their goals” (p. 1). The road to meet this standard is

through the AVID curriculum. A typical AVID elective classroom procedure is to

implement the AVID curriculum on Mondays and Wednesdays, Tuesdays and Thursdays

22

are reserved for college tutors, and Fridays are structured for guest speakers, college field

trips, or college-focused activities.

AVID Teacher and Coordinator

Similar to the AVID student, the AVID elective teacher volunteers to be the

instructor; the position requires extra time and effort, including required attendance at the

annual AVID Summer Institute. The Summer Institute provides professional

development addressing the specific instructional strategies. In addition to the elective

teacher, there is an AVID Coordinator who facilitates the required paperwork, recruits

college tutors for the AVID elective class, and supports the schoolwide academic

curriculum. The AVID Coordinator may be the elective teacher.

The schoolwide curriculum is called WICOR, which is an acronym for “writing,

inquiry, collaboration, organization, and reading” (AVID, n.d., “Overview,” para. 2).

The AVID elective teacher implements WICOR through the curriculum and creates a

classroom, which emphasizes a college-readiness culture. This review of the literature

emphasizes the importance of the AVID elective teacher, who is considered the

instructional leader and mentor for the program and the enrolled students (Watt, Huerta,

& Cossio, 2004).

Based on prior research, school administrators are advised to be cautious when

selecting the staff who will serve as elective teachers or members of the AVID Site

Team. Watt, Mills, and Huerta (2010) conducted a quantitative research study of the

attributes administrators considered when selecting AVID elective teachers. The survey

included only principals and assistant principals in middle or high school with an active

AVID program (Watt, Mills, & Huerta, 2010). School leaders from 36 states and 3

23

countries identified the top three attributes pertinent in the elective teacher. Specifically

identified were the belief that the individual should (a) be an excellent classroom

educator, (b) maintain positive relationships with students, and (c) uphold consistently

high academic expectations (Watt, Mills, & Huerta, 2010).

Program Evaluation and Certification

The AVID program is available to all schools interested in implementing the core

beliefs. The core beliefs are defined through the AVID 11 Essentials. Before a school

can become a certified AVID site they must complete and submit an Initial Self-Study

(ISS) (AVID, 2012). The purpose of the ISS is to assess the current implementation of

practices aligned with the AVID 11 Essentials. The school develops an action plan to

meet the AVID 11 Essentials. Toward the end of the school year, a Certified Self-Study

(CSS) is submitted (AVID, 2012). The CSS provides documentation indicating how each

of the AVID 11 Essentials is implemented. In addition, the current level of

implementation is indicated. The scale used to report the level of implementation

includes the ratings of (a) not AVID, (b) meets standards, (c) routine use, and (d)

institutionalized. The ISS is considered to be the benchmark data, while the CSS is a

measurement of progress towards successfully implementing each of the 11 Essentials.

The ISS and CSS rubric is measured against each of the AVID 11 Essentials. The

AVID 11 Essentials include:

1. AVID Student selection focusing on the academic middle,

2. voluntary participation,

3. provide the AVID elective class during the regular school day,

24

4. AVID students are required to be enrolled in the most rigorous college

preparatory classes,

5. implement writing in the curriculum,

6. implement inquiry in the curriculum,

7. implement collaboration in the curriculum,

8. recruit and provide college tutors,

9. collect data and submit to the AVID Center,

10. school leadership will fund the program costs, and

11. an AVID Site Team will be developed to support participation in the college

preparatory courses (Guthrie & Guthrie, 2002).

The AVID 11 Essentials guide schools through implementation of the curriculum and

learning strategies, with a focus on fidelity. Fidelity to AVID involves principal, AVID

elective teacher, AVID Site Team, and implementation of the learning strategies in the

AVID Elective course. Fidelity also includes the AVID student using the strategies

consistently in all classes and home assignments. The ultimate goal is for all students to

implement these strategies schoolwide.

AVID Site Team

AVID is an elective course, but it is also a schoolwide program for academic

improvement and change. Therefore, active involvement of school personnel is an

essential component. A key feature of the AVID program is the creation and

implementation of the AVID Site Team. The AVID Site Team consists of teachers from

within the school. Membership on the AVID Site Team must be voluntary (Watt et al.,

2004). Typically, the AVID Site Team members include the AVID elective teacher(s),

25

AVID Coordinator, guidance counselor, various teachers, and a school administrator.

The AVID Site Team meets on a regular basis. Roles of the AVID Site Team include (a)

selection of the AVID elective students, (b) ensuring rigorous college level coursework is

offered, (c) providing school-based professional development in WICOR, (d)

implementing WICOR in all classes, and (e) collecting data for the ISS and CSS. The

role of the AVID Site Team is to ensure a systematic approach to college readiness

within the school, while developing school-based leaders for academic change. The

AVID Site Team is founded on the philosophy of shared leadership.

Today's effective principal constructs a shared vision with members of the school

community, convenes the conversations, insists on a student learning focus,

evokes and supports leadership in others, models and participates in collaborative

practices, helps pose the questions, and facilitates dialogue that addresses the

confounding issues of practice. (Lambert, 2002, p. 40)

Fullan (2001) concludes there are a variety of factors that influence change, which

lead to shared leadership. The factors identified by Fullan (2001) include (a) clear vision,

(b) knowledge of the change process, (c) developing relationships within the

organization, (d) transparent leadership, (e) candor, and (f) connecting the vision and

mission to ensure all stakeholders understand and invest in the program. The school

administration is instrumental in creating an environment and structure for shared

leadership.

The development of shared leadership provides an opportunity to empower all

stakeholders to support and encourage change. Kouzes and Posner (2010) identify five

indicators of leadership, which include (a) positive modeling from the top down, (b)

creating a shared vision, (c) challenging the status quo, (d) empowering other

stakeholders, and (e) passion. Ulrich, Smallwood, and Sweetman (2008) identified

indicators such as empowering stakeholders and creating a shared vision as the means for

26

developing effective leadership. The commonality within the research from Fullan

(2001), Kouzas and Posner (2010), and Ulrich et al. (2008) is the belief that empowering

others will help to bring the vision and mission into action. Leadership research

highlights the importance of the school administration for the creation of site-based

shared leadership. Shared leadership is essential when developing an active and effective

AVID Site Team. AVID is not a top-down initiative, it is about developing a culture for

systemic change and long-term sustainability. Swanson (1995) concluded that the

principal’s active and unwavering support of the AVID Site Team was crucial for the

development of schoolwide AVID support (Swanson, 1995). This involvement is

essential because the core values, beliefs, and strategies, permeate all facets of the school.

As a result, leadership impacts the success of AVID within the organization. Sinek

(2009) concluded,

Great leaders are able to inspire people to act. Those who are able to inspire give

people a sense of purpose or belonging that has little to do with external incentive

or benefit to be gained. Those who truly lead are able to create a following of

people who act not because they were swayed but because they were inspired. (p.

6)

Prior AVID Research

McKeena (2011) conducted an extensive review of literature about schoolwide

change using the AVID program. McKeena conducted a qualitative study in a high

school. McKeena’s study investigated how students’ enrollment in the AVID program

influenced their behavior, achievement, and postsecondary education. McKeena

interviewed twelfth grade AVID students and conducted classroom observations. The

research by McKeena supports AVID as an effective system of change within a school

that will positively influence students’ personal motivation toward academics and

enrollment in postsecondary education.

27

Essential for enrollment in the AVID elective class is participation in one or more

of the most rigorous courses provided within the school. Examples of rigorous courses

included College Board Advancement Placement, International Baccalaureate, Advanced

International Certificate of Examinations, college dual-enrollment, or honors-level

courses. Klopfenstein and Thomas (2009) studied the use College Board Advanced

Placement courses as a predictor of success in college. The results of the analysis

indicated that there was no direct correlation between enrolling in a high school College

Board Advanced Placement course and success in college (Klopfenstein & Thomas,

2009). However, the analysis did determine that involvement in AVID, combined with

high school College Board Advanced Placement classes, did correlate with college

success. Klopfenstein and Thomas concluded the college success was associated with the

AVID curriculum, because it teaches students the skills to be successful. Watt, Powell,

Mendiola, and Cossio (2006) also studied College Board Advanced Placement test results

and graduation rates over a four-year period at ten schools. Watt et al. asserted, “AVID

provides a structure and mechanism to focus attention of the school on enrollment of

students in advanced course work leading to college matriculation” (p. 71). Therefore,

they concluded, AVID positively influenced the academics throughout the entire school,

not just the targeted academic middle students. Additionally, the research from Watt et

al. indicated that students enrolled in the AVID program experienced higher graduation

rates. Further, the graduation rates in non-AVID schools and their district declined (Watt

et al., 2006). The research from Watt et al. highlighted high school completion as one of

the benefits for students enrolled in the AVID program. Similar to McKeena (2011), the

research from Klopfenstein and Thomas (2009) and Watt et al. supported the notion that

28

the AVID curriculum effectively assisted students with their individual determination to

become academically successful and enroll in postsecondary education.

This review of the literature provided the opportunity to explore the impact of

AVID compared to GEAR UP and Upward Bound, as schoolwide intervention programs.

Several prior studies compared the effectiveness of the programs. Watt, Huerta, and

Lozano (2007) conducted a mixed-methods study comparing the AVID and GEAR UP

programming. The research addressed the effective preparation of underrepresented

student populations for postsecondary education. Watt et al.’s study used surveys and

focus groups with 142 tenth graders attending two high schools that offered both

programs. Watt et al. concluded that the AVID program was more successful increasing

students’ involvement in advanced coursework and preparing them for college.

Cunningham, Redmond, and Meriotis (2003) compared 17 intervention programs,

included in the study were AVID, GEAR UP, and Upward Bound. AVID was the only

one of these three programs to show a positive correlation between the relationship

between the learner and the teacher and academic success outcomes (Cunningham et al.,

2003). Therefore, when comparing AVID, GEAR UP, and Upward Bound, AVID was

the only program Cunningham et al. found to indicate continual academic success.

Martinez and Klopott (2006) reviewed numerous high school reform programs by

comparing the college-going behaviors of the students. Specifically, Martinez and

Klopott compared the outcomes of America’s Choice, AVID, Coalition of Essential

Schools, First Things First, GE Foundation College Bound, High Schools That Work,

Small Learning Communities, and Talent Development High Schools. Martinez and

Klopott asserted

29

Because AVID proactively seeks to raise achievement and increase college

preparedness for students at risk, it deliberately addresses the predictors of

college-going behavior and uses college entrance and completion as measures of

its success, making it unique among the reform models examined in this study. (p.

18)

It was determined that there were common effective practices among the reform

endeavors. Successfully influencing college-going behaviors were programs with (a)

rigorous courses available to all students, (b) a structured and supportive environment, (c)

focus on developing both academics and social skills, and (d) an established continuum

with higher education programs (Martinez & Klopott, 2006). Similar to the research by

McKeena (2011), other studies identified AVID as an effective high school-based

program that created a college-going culture while providing strong academic support for

high school and postsecondary success (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009; Martinez &

Klopott, 2006; Watt et al., 2007).

AVID is designed to influence the academic culture of the entire school. Varee

(2008) conducted a longitudinal qualitative study of the impact of the AVID program on

the culture of a low-performing, low socioeconomic high school. The results indicated a

seven-year trend on student performance as measured by the state’s annual assessment.

Moreover, the results highlighted that the AVID program positively influenced the

schoolwide academics with increased number of students enrolling in advanced

coursework and postsecondary educational institutions. The research conducted by

Varee (2008) was aligned with the aforementioned studies (e.g., Klopfenstein & Thomas,

2009; Martinez & Klopott, 2006; McKeena, 2011; Watt et al., 2007) concluding that

AVID improves academic performance and enrollment in postsecondary education.

The exploration of prior research supports the premise that the AVID program

increases academic achievement and enrollment in postsecondary education by creating a

30

college-going culture that supports individual determination. AVID provides an

opportunity for the students to be empowered to attain their highest achievement

potentials. Educators who work within the AVID schools are provided targeted training

and support for the implementation of the most rigorous curricular programming that will

be meaningful for students who are identified as at-risk within the high-level academic

program (Nelson, 2007). Ford (2010) used quantitative research to identify instructional

practices that impact student achievement schoolwide to reduce the high school

achievement gap. The research study consisted of eight cohorts; four cohorts were AVID

students and four were non-AVID students (Ford, 2010). The results indicated that the

AVID program promoted achievement schoolwide but did not impact the achievement

gap (Ford, 2010). However, the research conducted by Ford (2010) supported prior

findings and was aligned with contemporary conclusions asserting that AVID positively

impacts schoolwide student achievement, not only the targeted population.

Additional quantitative research conducted by Rorie (2007) supports AVID as a

system to improve student achievement. Rorie’s study was conducted at four high

schools comparing the academic performance of AVID and non-AVID graduates. The

research compared achievement in reading, writing, math, successful completion of all

high school courses, and grade point average (GPA) (Rorie, 2007). The results of the

quantitative study indicated that AVID students performed better than non-AVID

students in overall coursework and GPA (Rorie, 2007). These gains were attributed to

the AVID students’ enrollment in advanced classes (Rorie, 2007). The assertion that

AVID students outperformed non-AVID students was an ongoing theme within the

literature reviewed. Prior research indicated that the ways AVID supports academics,

31

graduation rates, advanced coursework, and school culture are pertinent aspects of the

program success.

Schoolwide AVID Impact

Teacher Leadership

Understanding that AVID impacts the school culture and schoolwide academic

success, it seemed pertinent to consider the ways AVID impacted the teachers within the

school. Huerta, Watt, and Alkan’s 2008 quantitative research examined how AVID

impacted teachers. Specifically, Huerta et al. studied the influence of the AVID

professional development for curriculum on the AVID teachers’ leadership and

willingness to implement AVID WICOR strategies. The study involved a survey of

3,104 AVID teachers (Huerta et al., 2008). The results led to the conclusion that AVID

professional development impacts teacher leadership based on the number of sessions

attended (Huerta et al., 2008). The AVID elective teachers who attended the AVID

Summer Institute had a higher correlation with teacher leadership and ability to

implement AVID WICOR strategies (Huerta et al., 2008). The research of Huerta et al.

(2008) supported the notion that AVID is a system that positively influences the

provision of quality instruction. Further, the advance of quality instruction, ultimately,

improves student achievement (Huerta et al., 2008).

This research study supported numerous prior works examining the interrelated

advance of both instruction and achievement. The 2004 work of Watt et al. was a mixed-

method study on comprehensive school reform that compared the use of AVID as a

vehicle for change at four schools. All four schools were from the same district and

served students with similar demographics (Watt et al., 2004). The results led to the

32

conclusion that the leadership within the school had a direct impact on the success or

failure of the successful implementation of change efforts (Watt et al., 2004). All of the

literature reviewed highlighted that teacher leadership was impacted by effective

professional development, which led to quality instruction (Huerta et al., 2008; Watt,

Huerta, & Mills, 2010; Watt, Mills, & Huerta, 2010).

Guthrie and Guthrie (2002) conducted a study of the AVID 11 Essentials as used

in eight California high schools. Guthrie and Guthrie concluded that all of the research

sites implemented the AVID program with fidelity. However, Guthrie and Guthrie

recommended the addition of professional development to the AVID 11 Essentials.

Specifically, Guthrie and Guthrie added, “teachers participate in ongoing, high quality

staff development” (p. 9). Their research findings indicated the importance of

professional development for maintaining and enhancing AVID schoolwide (Guthrie &

Guthrie, 2002). For AVID to be effective, it was asserted that the 11 Essentials and

professional development were equally pertinent to facilitate upholding the fidelity of the

program (Guthrie & Guthrie, 2002).

School Climate and Culture

The impact to the school climate and culture were beneficial outcomes of

schoolwide AVID implementation. Watt, Huerta, and Mills (2010) conducted a

qualitative research study examining the effect of school climate as it relates to the

duration and fidelity of implementation of AVID within the organization. During the

AVID Summer Institute, surveys were distributed to the 3,100 educators in attendance.

More than 70% of the educators (i.e., 2,231) completed the survey addressing school

climate and culture. Using a Likert scale, teachers ranked various attributes of their

33

current school climate and culture. Watt, Huerta, and Mills, found that the length of time

an AVID program was established at a school did not directly influence its culture or

climate. However, the certification level (CSS) did have a direct impact on school

climate and culture (Watt, Huerta, & Mills, 2010). Schools designated at the highest

ranking on the AVID CSS, national demonstration status, consistently upheld high

expectations for staff and students (Watt, Huerta, & Mills, 2010). In addition, the survey

measured the teachers’ perceptions of AVID’s influence on climate and culture. The

survey established that, in general, teachers perceived AVID as having a moderate impact

on schoolwide climate and culture (Watt, Huerta, & Mills, 2010). However, the specific

sub-groups of new teachers and AVID Coordinators rated the impact at the highest level

(Watt, Huerta, & Mills, 2010). The same teachers asserted that the climate fostered by

AVID had a high impact on collaboration among colleagues (Watt, Huerta, & Mills,

2010). This research study supported the belief that the AVID Site Team facilitates

collaboration. This finding was aligned with prior conclusions from Huerta et al. (2008),

which indicted the number of years the teachers attended the Summer Institute impacted

their teacher leadership. The presence or lack of teacher leadership, can impact the

climate and culture of the school (Huerta et al., 2008).

As previously indicated, the comparative study by Cunningham et al. (2003)

concluded the teacher-student relationship was a strong contributing factor for AVID

being an effective intervention program. The relationships between the teachers and

students are an important component of the AVID curriculum (Cunningham et al., 2003).

Students who enroll in the AVID program are expected to remain in the program through

high school graduation. Watt, Johnston, Huerta, Mendiola, and Alkan (2008) conducted

34

a mixed-method research study exploring the indicators that impact retention in the

AVID program through twelfth grade. Four AVID schools in Texas and four AVID

schools in California were studied because these states have the most experienced AVID

programs, based on longevity (Watt et al., 2008). The research used student, staff, and

administrative surveys and focus groups. From the findings the researchers concluded,

that the AVID teacher had the greatest impact on students’ retention in the AVID

program (Watt et al., 2008). In addition, the AVID strategies and classroom rapport

among peers were also critical to the successful retention of students in the AVID

program (Watt et al., 2008). Factors such as student scheduling and individual student’s

personal motivation, directly influenced their ability to remain in the AVID program

(Watt et al., 2008). McKeena (2011), as well as Klopfenstein and Thomas (2009), also

concluded that individual determination was a contributing factor for the AVID program

being successful. Building Engineering and Science Talent (BEST, 2004) concluded

AVID students who remained in the program matriculated to college at higher rates than

students who failed to remain in the AVID program. Similar to McKeena (2007), other

research studies highlighted the impact of AVID on student achievement and quality

instruction (e.g., BEST, 2004; Ford, 2010; Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009; Martinez &

Klopott, 2006; Rorie, 2007; Varee, 2008; Watt et al., 2007; Watt et al., 2008). The

research from Watt et al. (2008) supports selecting the right AVID teacher to influence a

school’s leadership, culture, quality instruction, and positive student achievement.

Staff Satisfaction

35

In addition to the correct selection of the AVID teacher, the curriculum is

expected to be implemented with fidelity. Pitch, Marchand, Hoffman, and Lewis (2006)

conducted a mixed-method study on the effectiveness of the AVID program in Clark

County, Nevada. Pitch et al.’s two-year study focused on staff satisfaction and

effectiveness for the students. Using a Likert scale survey, 172 teachers were surveyed

about their satisfaction with the AVID curriculum. In addition, Pitch et al.’s study

tracked the enrollment of AVID and non-AVID students in the College Board Advanced

Placement courses and the AVID elective class. Pitch et al. concluded that the AVID

students enrolled in more advanced coursework when compared to their non-AVID peers.

Further, the number of students enrolling in the AVID program increased across all grade

levels (Pitch et al., 2006). All of the staff members (i.e., 100%) who completed the

Likert survey indicated that they believed the effects of the AVID curriculum were

positive (Pitch et al., 2006). In addition, Pitch et al. documented schoolwide results about

the impact of the AVID program. The research focused on interrelationship of the

variables of advanced coursework, the AVID elective teacher, AVID curriculum, and

overall staff satisfaction with the program. The results supported the use of AVID as a

schoolwide vehicle for academic intervention and change (Pitch et al., 2006).

Summary of Literature Reviewed

Throughout the literature review, four primary themes emerged. The themes were

the belief in the importance of (a) academic improvement, evident in grades, GPA,

graduation rate; (b) college-going culture, evident in enrollment in advanced coursework

and postsecondary education; (c) individual determination, evident in students’ attitudes

and behaviors; and (d) teacher and school leadership. Prior research indicated AVID was

36

an effective vehicle to improve academics schoolwide (e.g., Ford, 2010; Klopfenstein &

Thomas, 2009; Martinez & Klopott, 2006; McKeena, 2011; Rorie, 2007; Varee, 2008;

Watt et al., 2006; Watt et al., 2007). In addition to positive effects on academics, AVID

fosters a schoolwide college bound culture and increased enrollment in postsecondary

education (e.g., Klopfenstein &Thomas, 2009; Martinez & Klopott, 2006; McKeena,

2011; Varee, 2008; Watt et al., 2007). It is through the AVID curriculum that students

develop their own individual determination to work towards academic success and

postsecondary enrollment (e.g., Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009; McKeena, 2011). The

impact of AVID schoolwide is closely tied to teacher leadership, professional

development, the selection of the most effective AVID elective teacher, and overall staff

satisfaction (Huerta et al., 2008; Pitch et al., 2006; Watt, Mills, & Huerta, 2010). The

research of the literature indicates schoolwide impact attributable to the implementation

of AVID (BEST, 2004; Huerta et al., 2008; Watt, Huerta, & Mills, 2010; Watt, Mills, &

Huerta, 2010; Watt et al., 2008; Watt et al., 2004; Pitch et al., 2006).

The review of the literature identified prior research that indicated the program

was at least partially ineffective. The 2010 study conducted by Nagaoka, Roderick, and

LaForce addressed the impact of AVID on ninth grade students evident in their study

behaviors and GPA. The mixed-method study used transcripts, test scores, and student

surveys within 14 high schools between 2003 and 2008. The results of the mixed-method

research study indicated there was a direct correlation between the GPA of students

enrolled in the AVID program compared to their non-AVID peers in English, math, and

overall core classes (Nagaoka, Roderick, & LaForce, 2010). In addition, there was a

direct correlation between enrollment in AVID and the probability of students having a

37

grade of “B” or higher in English, math, and other core classes (Nagaoka et al., 2010).

Moreover, non-AVID students were absent from school more often than AVID students

(Nagaoka et al., 2010). However, non-AVID students had a higher correlation with their

study habits than AVID students (Nagaoka et al., 2010). Study habits are part of the

AVID curriculum. Study habits are the “O” in the WICOR, which stands for

organization. Additional data from the student surveys indicated that AVID students and

the AVID elective teachers were not engaging in conversations and long-range planning

for postsecondary education (Nagaoka et al., 2010).

The AVID program was selected as the intervention program for the research site.

The decision was based on the evidences of success in (a) college-going culture created

for all students, (b) use of curriculum strategies by all students, (c) specific curriculum for

the targeted population, (d) professional development for all teachers, (e) implementation

of a whole school support system (i.e., AVID Site Team), (f) tutoring provided by college

students, (g) AVID is a system for school change, not reliant on federal funds, and (h)

expectation maintained for students to enroll in the most rigorous courses available

within the school, fostering success in high school and beyond. Prior research supports

the assertion that AVID is an effective intervention program that improves teaching and

learning for all students. AVID has been recognized as a reform program offering a

systemic approach for long-term, whole school change (Swanson, 2002).

This comprehensive review of literature serves as a foundation for developing

understanding regarding the essential program components, reform objectives, and

research-proven effects of AVID use within American, public high schools. The

38

overview of the purposes and methodologies from prior research facilitate the

development of the study plans for this research outlined in Chapter Three.

39

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Restatement of the Study Purpose

The purpose of the research study is the proposed exploration of the effects of

high school implementation of the AVID curriculum. Specifically, this will encompass

the high-yield teaching strategies introduced to students within the AVID elective course

curriculum. This study will explore the impact on student achievement for the tenth

grade students who were enrolled in the AVID elective class since the start of their ninth

grade school year. Three years of student achievement data (i.e., 2007-2010) from the

state assessment tests (i.e., FCAT) in reading, writing, and mathematics will be used to

compare the achievement level of tenth grade AVID versus non-AVID students.

Research Question and Hypotheses

The following was developed to guide the proposed study:

RQ. How does student achievement, measured by the sophomore year scores on

the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in reading, writing, and math,

compare for students enrolled in the AVID elective course versus non-AVID students?

Quantitatively, this study will facilitate determination regarding the assertions that:

H0. There is not a statistically significant positive effect on student achievement,

as measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in reading,

writing, and math, when comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study

site.

HA. There is a statistically significant positive effect on student achievement, as

measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in reading, writing,

and math, when comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study site.

40

Research Design

The research design used will be a longitudinal quantitative analysis to measure

and compare the results of the FCAT in reading, writing, and math for tenth grade

students in AVID versus non-AVID students. A qualitative research study was not used

because the research study focuses on overall student achievement scores over a three-

year period. Moreover, the research study will be evaluating archival student

achievement data from an entire grade level as opposed to an individual teacher’s class or

another small student subpopulation. The purpose will be to measure the effectiveness of

the AVID curriculum on student achievement as measured by the state accountability

system.

Community Description

The research study is proposed to be conducted at a public high school in the

southeastern United States. The research site was selected because it was the first AVID

high school in the school district. There are 13 traditional public high schools in the

school district. At the time of the study, 1,640 students were enrolled in the identified

high school (LCSD, 2012). The student ethnic distribution is 25.9% African American,

25.9% Caucasian, 43.0% Hispanic, and 5.2% Other ethnicities (LCSD, 2012). The

previous school year data (i.e., 2011-2012) indicates that the mobility rate (e.g., transfers,

dropout) was 29.8%; the stability rate was 86.2% (LCSD, 2012). Participation in the free

and reduced lunch rate program was 77.0%, indicating the percentage of low

socioeconomic status (LCSD, 2012).

The identified high school, called LHS herein, provides the required traditional

high school courses as well as a variety of alternative academic programs targeting high-

41

levels of student success. The programs include AVID, College Board Advanced

Placement, dual enrollment at two local colleges, JROTC, visual arts, performing arts,

and the Cambridge Advanced International Certificate of Education (AICE) program.

Academic programs for special populations include consultative teaching, ESOL,

Intensive Academics, Life Skills, and Social Communication.

Selection of Participants

The population for the research study will include only the tenth grade students’

standardized assessment data. This is proposed as a longitudinal study, gathering test

data over a three-year period. The data collected for this research study will be the

student achievement scores on the state standardized tests for reading, writing, and

mathematics. Excluded from the sample group will be any student not attending the

study site and involved with the AVID elective class during both their ninth and tenth

grade school years. The existing state achievement data will be analyzed and compared

using two groups of tenth grade students representing each of the three years (i.e., 2010-

2012). The two groups will be (a) tenth grade AVID and (b) tenth grade non-AVID

students. The non-AVID students will be included only if they attended the study site for

both ninth and tenth grade and had no involvement with the AVID elective course.

Annually, the study site serves approximately 500 tenth graders; a maximum of 100

students are accepted to AVID annually. Since the study will include only the test scores

the data will be handled securely, and the students’ identities will remain anonymous.

Instrumentation

Specifically, the data set will encompass tenth grade AVID and non-AVID

students’ scores on the state standardized assessments in reading, writing, and

42

mathematics. The numeric description used to chart the data trend will be drawn from

the archival reports for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The

quantitative instrument used to collect the students’ achievement data is the FCAT. The

FCAT believed to be a valid and reliable measure of learning progress corresponding

with the state’s curricular plans (FLDOE, 2007). The FCAT is an intact instrument used

by the state of Florida (FLDOE, 2007). Three sets of data will be collected to investigate

the impact of the AVID curriculum on student achievement. The student performance

data will include three years (i.e., 2010-2012) of archival records from AVID and non-

AVID students on the (a) FCAT Reading, (b) FCAT Writes, and (c) FCAT Math. In

2012, the state standardized test administered to tenth grade students for mathematics was

the Geometry end-of-course test (EOCT).

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions to the research study involve the accuracy of record keeping

regarding the necessary student enrollment and student achievement data. It is assumed

that each student enrolled in the AVID program is participating in the annual elective

course as well as one or more advanced courses, as outlined in the AVID 11 Essentials.

Additionally, it is assumed that all students in the tenth grade successfully completed the

FCAT, the state’s standardized reading, writing, and math assessments.

Limitations to the research study include high levels of teacher mobility or

turnover among the general classroom educators and the AVID elective teachers, which

influences consistency of program implementation. Likewise, this may cause

insufficiencies regarding the attendance at AVID training for all staff. High student

mobility, is another concern that may influence the generalizability of the findings.

43

Finally, there may be concerns regarding the fidelity of implementation of the AVID

program, which may influence the consistency of the instruction provided.

Procedures

Consent process. The consent for this study involved (a) facility consent from the

selected school and (b) confirmation from Argosy University’s Institutional Review

Board (IRB). The study site and their district offices retain the FCAT data as part of their

official records. The quantitative test data can be retrieved anonymously for the

comparison of student achievement from AVID versus non-AVID students in the tenth

grade between 2010 and 2012. No student identifiers will be used in the data collection;

the students will not be active research participants. Therefore, neither informed parental

consent nor minor assent will be gathered from the included students or their legal

guardian(s). Locally, the collection of student achievement data will be requested in

writing through the school district’s Research and Accountability Department. At this

time, verbal approval to gather and examine the specific student data has been obtained

from the Director of Research and Accountability. Written consent for this process will

be remitted to the university IRB. The request for IRB approval will confirm the

methods and the presence of minimal and reasonable risks to humans.

Data collection. The quantitative data used to study the achievement attained by

the participants will be collected from the site/district data and records offices. A

representative of the school district’s Research and Accountability Department will be

authorized to provide the researcher with the requested FCAT data. Specifically, this will

include the 2010 through 2012 Reading, Writing, and Mathematics scores for the students

at the study site. This data is typically reported in a Microsoft Excel file, which

44

facilitates disaggregation. The data will be provided in a format that is readily processed

with standard statistical software (e.g., Excel, SPSS, PhStat), to run the descriptive and

comparative analyses. The researcher will use a password protected data storage device

to secure and store the raw data files. The data files will be destroyed after the analyses

and dissertation publication are completed.

The state standardized test data were chosen as the basis for comparison of

learning progress and achievement because it they are administered to all tenth graders in

the state. The purpose of the assessment is the measurement of students’ mastery of the

state standards associated with the core curriculum (FCAT, 2007). The assessment

measures individual achievement using a rating scale, ranging from one through five.

The rating levels represent the ranges of achievement that are below, at, or exceeding

proficiency standards. In each subject, achievement levels three through five are

considered mastery of the state standards; achievement levels one and two are considered

below state standards (FLDOE, 2007). Due to minor test modifications, the

developmental scale scores (DSS) aligned with each level and the specific cut scores

denoting passing have varied throughout the timeline of this study. A table of the Florida

standardized assessment ratings in math, reading, and writing for 2010 through 2012 are

included in the Appendix.

Instrument reliability and validity. According to the FCAT Technical Report

(2006), when analyzing the reliability and documenting standard error, “marginal

reliabilities indicate that FCAT scores have reliabilities similar to those of other

standardized and statewide tests” (p. 58). Additionally, internal consistency reliabilities

were calculated and analyzed using the Cronbach’s Alpha and Item Response Theory

45

(IRT) (FLDOE, 2007). These methods were used to estimate the reliability of test scores

from a single subject test for each student group or subpopulation (FCAT, 2007). The

state upholds stringent responsibility for developing the annual test in each content area

and maintaining its validity as a measure of knowledge gains associated with the

approved, standardized curriculum (i.e., Sunshine State Standards). Standardized CRT

and norm-referenced tests are reflective of the students’ learning progress year-to-year

and the quality of the aligned instruction of the designated standards (FLDOE, 2007).

Therefore, the FCAT can be considered reliable as a measure for student growth and

learning progress aligned with the curricular objectives and the specific use of any

school’s adopted instructional and learning methodologies.

Data Processing and Analysis

The research design process will include Creswell’s (2007) five steps to data

analysis. The steps include (a) report the number of participants, (b) report bias, (c) use

descriptive statistics, which can include the mean, standard deviations, and range of

scores, (d) report reliability checks, and (e) identify the devise used to calculate the

statistics (Creswell, 2007). In addition, the findings from the data analysis will be used to

answer the study’s aforementioned guiding research question(s) and make determinations

about the research hypotheses.

The research data will encompass three years’ of archival test scores provided by

the district offices for the selected study site (LCHS) for the tenth grade FCAT in

reading, writing, and mathematics. The data will be sorted based on the year of

administration (i.e., 2010, 2011, 2012), test content area (i.e., Read, Write, Math), as well

as the student group (i.e., AVID [A], non-AVID [nA]). Due to the aforementioned

46

variations in the annual test DSS, each subject test will be assessed annually to ensure

comparison of similarly scaled data only. Multiple phases of statistical testing will be

conducted.

First, an independent sample t-test will be used to compare the mean, standard

deviation, and range of scores between the two student groups (i.e., A, nA) for each year

and each test. With this information, the research will consider the percentage of students

in each group that are low performing or high performing as designated by the state of

Florida. Next, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to analyze the

differences in the scores attained annually, in each subject, by the two student groups.

This measures the effect of the instructional and learning style approach (i.e., with or

without AVID) for the two student groups (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). The ANOVA

reports the details of the data including the nature, amount, and significance of the

differences in the scores within and between the student groups. The variance of the

mean test scores will be considered based on the year and subject of the test. The nature

and amount of the variance of the scores between the groups (i.e., A, nA) will be denoted

by the F-stat from the ANOVA output. In addition, statistical significance of the

variances in the students’ test scores will be determined based on the p-values from the

ANOVA output (p > 0.05; p = 0.01-0.05; p < 0.01). This will inform the researcher

whether existing differences in the scores are not statistically significant (>0.05; < 92%),

statistically significant (0.01-0.05; 95%), or highly statistically significant (< 0.01; 99%).

Finally, post hoc analyses (e.g., Tukey’s Honestly Significant Differences) may be used

to identify the specific group, year, and subject for which the test score variances are

found to be statistically significant. Summarily, this measures student growth or learning

47

progress aligned with the curricular objectives for Reading, Writing, and Mathematics

and the use of the specifically adopted instructional and learning strategies. Comparison

of the data for AVID and non-AVID students is reflective of the level of learning in the

presence or absence of the AVID strategies. Therefore, it possible for the outlined

statistical analyses to be used to assess the effectiveness of the AVID methodologies for

advancing academic achievement.

The statistical software packages from Microsoft’s Excel or SPSS will be used

for all phases of these statistical assessments. The analyses will be displayed in tables or

figures to provide a visual representation of the data (i.e., Chapter Four) and facilitate

documentation and synthesis of the findings (i.e., Chapter Five). The findings from the

longitudinal quantitative analyses will be used to draw conclusions about the study’s

guiding research questions and hypotheses, identify constructs for professional discourse,

derive professional implications, and develop recommendations for future study.

48

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS


The purpose of this research study was to explore the effects of high school

implementation of the AVID curriculum. Specifically, the effects of using the high-yield

teaching strategies introduced to students within the AVID elective course curriculum

were analyzed. The research study was designed to explore the impact of use of these

strategies on the academic achievement of the tenth grade students who were enrolled in

the AVID elective class since the start of their ninth grade school year. Three years of

student achievement data (i.e., 2010-2012), reported as developmental scale scores (DSS)

from the state assessment tests (i.e., FCAT, EOCT) in reading, writing, and mathematics,

were used to compare the achievement levels attained by tenth grade AVID versus non-

AVID students.

Overview of Analyses

Three research questions and hypotheses were developed to guide the study plan

and data analysis. The study focus required assessment of the impact of the use of AVID

strategies on high school students’ achievement, as evidenced by the learners’ tenth grade

state assessment scores in mathematics, reading, and writing. These research variables

were used to organize the content of this chapter. This report includes the descriptive

data (i.e., means, standard deviation [SD], and pass/fail percentages) and the output from

an analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the annual FCAT subject test results (i.e., DSS)

for both the AVID and non-AVID student groups between 2010 and 2012.

49

Comparison of Students’ Reading Achievement

The first research question was the foundation for the comparison of the AVID

and non-AVID students’ achievement levels in reading.

RQ1. How does student achievement, measured by the sophomore year scores on

the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in reading compare for students

enrolled in the AVID elective course versus non-AVID students?

Quantitatively, this study was anticipated to facilitate determinations regarding the

assertions that:


as measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in reading when

comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study site.

H1A. There is a statistically significant positive effect on student achievement, as

measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in reading when


The first research question with these hypotheses were used to determine whether

there was a statistically significant difference in the achievement levels attained by tenth

grade students enrolled in the AVID program compared to their peers who were not

enrolled in the AVID program. The indicator of achievement was the students’ scores on

the state assessment test, the FCAT, in the area of reading for the 2010, 2011, and 2012

school years. A one-way ANOVA test analysis was conducted using SPSS statistical

software program. The one-way ANOVA was used to compare the FCAT reading scores

of AVID and non-AVID students for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

50

Table 1

ANOVA Output 2010 Tenth Grade FCAT Reading

ANOVA

Reading DSS Score

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 66619.783 1 66619.783 0.838 0.361

Within Groups 26551005.714 334 79494.029

Total 26617625.497 335

Descriptives

Reading DSS Score

N Mean SD Std. Error 95% CI for Mean

Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 86 1961.55 235.871 25.435 1910.98 2012.12 1228 2586

Non-AVID 250 1929.28 296.038 18.723 1892.40 1966.16 1093 3008

Total 336 1937.54 281.879 15.378 1907.29 1967.79 1093 3008

Note. p = 0.05

Displayed in Table 1 are the descriptive data and the ANOVA output from the

comparison of the tenth grade AVID and non-AVID students’ 2010 FCAT reading scores

(F(1,334) = 0.838, p = 0.05). The analysis revealed AVID students’ mean score in FCAT

reading (M = 1961.55; SD = 235.871) was higher than the non-AVID student (M =

1929.28; SD = 296.038). The difference between the mean scores was +32.27. The

comparison resulted in a significance level of 0.361, which was greater than 0.05. This

was not statistically significant (< 92%). Therefore, we failed to reject the null

hypothesis; the null hypothesis was accepted.

51

Table 2

ANOVA Output for 2011 Tenth Grade FCAT Reading

ANOVA

Reading DSS Score


Between Groups 3870.184 1 3870.184 2.537 0.112

Within Groups 482030.558 316 1525.413

Total 485900.742 317

Descriptives

Reading DSS Score


Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 83 240.81 30.082 3.302 234.24 247.38 0 281

Non-AVID 235 232.86 41.747 2.723 227.50 238.23 0 288

Total 318 234.94 39.151 2.195 230.62 239.26 0 288

Note. p = 0.05



FCAT reading (F(1,316) = 2.537, p = 0.05). The analysis revealed AVID students’ mean

score in FCAT reading (M = 240.81; SD = 30.082) was higher than the non-AVID

student (M = 232.86; SD = 41.747). The difference between the mean scores was +7.95.

The comparison resulted in a significance level of 0.112, which was greater than 0.05.

This was not statistically significant (< 92%). Therefore, we failed to reject the null


52

Table 3

ANOVA Output for 2012 Tenth Grade FCAT Reading

ANOVA

Reading DSS Score


Between Groups 2763.484 1 2763.484 9.388 0.002

Within Groups 93016.846 316 294.357

Total 95780.330 317

Descriptives

Reading DSS Score


Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 90 243.02 13.895 1.465 240.11 245.93 212 281

Non-AVID 228 236.48 18.277 1.210 234.09 238.86 188 277

Total 318 238.33 17.382 0.975 236.41 240.25 188 281

Note. p = 0.05



(F(1,316) = 9.388, p = 0.05). The AVID students’ mean score in FCAT reading (M =

243.02; SD = 13.895) was higher than the non-AVID student (M = 236.48; SD = 18.277).

The difference between the mean scores was +6.54. The comparison resulted in a

significance level of 0.002, which was less than 0.01. This was highly statistically

significant (99%). Therefore, we rejected the null hypothesis; the alternative hypothesis

was accepted.

Summarily, the statistical analyses of the FCAT reading results revealed that the

AVID students had attained higher mean scores in 2010, 2011, and 2012. The

53

divergence between the mean scores decreased incrementally throughout the three testing

years. Overall, the variance between the student outcomes in both 2010 and 2011 was

not statistically significant (i.e., null hypothesis accepted), while 2012 was statistically

significant (i.e., null hypothesis rejected).

Comparison of Students’ Mathematics Achievement

The second research question was the foundation for the comparison of the AVID

and non-AVID students’ achievement levels in mathematics.


the Florida state standardized exam in math compare for students enrolled in the AVID

elective course versus non-AVID students?



as measured by the tenth grade Florida state standardized exam in math when comparing

AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study site.


measured by the tenth grade Florida state standardized exam in math when comparing

AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study site.

The second research question was used to determine whether there was a

statistically significant difference in the achievement levels attained by tenth grade

students enrolled in the AVID program compared to their peers who were not enrolled in

the AVID program. The indicator of achievement was the students’ scores on the state

assessment test in mathematics for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 school years. An FCAT in

math was administered in 2010 and 2011; while the state’s end-of-course test (EOCT) in

54

Geometry was administered in 2012. A one-way ANOVA test analysis was conducted

using SPSS statistical software program. The one-way ANOVA was used to compare the

FCAT reading scores of AVID and non-AVID students for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Table 4

ANOVA Output 2010 Tenth Grade FCAT Math

ANOVA

Math DSS Score


Between Groups 82590.855 1 82590.855 3.536 0.061

Within Groups 7778246.565 333 23358.098

Total 7860837.421 334

Descriptives

Math DSS Score


Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 86 2006.19 102.253 11.026 1984.26 2028.11 1696 2229

Non-AVID 249 1970.24 166.674 10.563 1949.44 1991.04 1068 2463

Total 335 1979.47 153.413 8.382 1962.98 1995.96 1068 2463

Note. p = 0.05


comparison of the tenth grade AVID and non-AVID students’ 2010 FCAT math scores

(F(1,333) = 3.536, p = 0.05). The analysis revealed AVID students mean score in FCAT

math (M = 2006.19; SD = 102.253) was higher than the non-AVID student (M =

1970.24; SD = 166.647). The difference between the mean scores was +35.95. The

comparison resulted in a significance level of 0.061, which was greater than 0.05. This

55

was not statistically significant (< 92%). Therefore, we failed to reject the null


Table 5

ANOVA Output for 2011 Tenth Grade FCAT Math

ANOVA

Math DSS Score


Between Groups 289.253 1 289.253 0.182 0.670

Within Groups 503303.229 316 1592.732

Total 503592.481 317

Descriptives

Math DSS Score


Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 83 244.05 40.445 4.439 235.22 252.88 0 287

Non-AVID 235 241.88 39.719 2.591 236.77 246.98 0 292

Total 318 242.44 39.857 2.235 238.05 246.84 0 292

Note. p = 0.05


comparison of the tenth grade AVID and non-AVID students’ 2011 FCAT mathematics

scores. In 2011, no statistically significant difference was found when comparing the

AVID and non-AVID tenth grade students’ scores on the FCAT math (F(1,316) = 0.182,

p = 0.05). The analysis revealed AVID students’ mean score in FCAT math (M =

244.05; SD = 40.445) was higher than the non-AVID student (M = 241.88; SD = 39.719).

The difference in the mean score was +2.17. The comparison resulted in a significance

56

level of 0.670, which was greater than 0.05. This was not statistically significant (<92%).

We failed to reject the null hypothesis; the null hypothesis was accepted.

Table 6

ANOVA Output for 2012 Tenth Grade Geometry EOCT

ANOVA

Geometry EOCT


Between Groups 459.282 1 459.282 4.696 0.031

Within Groups 24746.600 253 97.813

Total 25205.882 254

Descriptives

Geometry EOCT

N M SD Std. Error 95% CI for Mean

Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 77 45.81 8.168 0.931 43.95 47.66 20 70

Non-AVID 178 42.88 10.544 0.790 41.32 44.44 20 64

Total 255 43.76 9.962 0.624 42.54 44.99 20 70

Note. p = 0.05


comparison of the tenth grade AVID and non-AVID students’ 2012 Geometry EOCT

scores. In 2012, a statistically significant difference was found when comparing the tenth

grade AVID and non-AVID students on the Geometry EOCT (F(1,253) = 4.696, p =

0.05). However, the analysis revealed AVID students’ mean score on the Geometry

EOCT (M = 45.81; SD = 8.168) was higher than the non-AVID students (M = 42.88; SD

= 42.88). The difference between the mean scores was +2.93. The comparison resulted

in a significance level of 0.031, which was between 0.05 and 0.01. This was statistically

57

significant (95%). Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis; the alternative hypothesis

was accepted.

Summarily, based on the analysis of the FCAT and EOCT math results, it was

shown that the AVID students had higher mean scores for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Overall, 2010 and 2011 were not statistically significant (i.e., null hypothesis accepted),

while 2012 was statistically significant (i.e., null hypothesis rejected).

Comparison of Students’ Writing Achievement

The third research question was the foundation for the comparison of the AVID

and non-AVID students’ achievement levels in writing.


the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in writing compare for students

enrolled in the AVID elective course versus non-AVID students?



as measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in writing when



measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in writing when


The third research question was used to determine whether there was a

statistically significant difference in the achievement attained by tenth grade students

enrolled in the AVID program compared to their peers not enrolled in the AVID

program. Evidence of the achievement difference was sought on the state assessment

58

test, FCAT, in the area of writing for 2010, 2011, and 2012 school years. A one-way

ANOVA test analysis was conducted using SPSS statistical software program. The one-

way ANOVA was used to compare the FCAT writing scores of AVID and non-AVID

students for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Table 7

ANOVA Output for 2010 Tenth Grade FCAT Writing

ANOVA

Writing Ach Level


Between Groups 4.401 1 4.401 5.432 0.020

Within Groups 272.241 336 0.810

Total 276.642 337

Descriptives

Writing Ach Level


Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 86 4.16 0.749 0.081 4.00 4.32 3 6

Non-AVID 252 3.90 0.946 0.060 3.78 4.02 0 6

Total 338 3.97 0.906 0.049 3.87 4.06 0 6

Note. p = 0.05


comparison of the tenth grade AVID and non-AVID students’ 2010 FCAT writing

scores. In 2010, a statistically significant difference was found when comparing AVID

and non-AVID tenth grade students in FCAT writing (F(1,336) = 5.432, p = 0.05). The

analysis revealed AVID students’ mean score in FCAT writing (M = 4.16; SD = 0.749)

was higher than the non-AVID student (M = 3.90; SD = 0.946). The difference between

59

the mean scores was +0.26. The comparison resulted in a significance level of 0.020,

which was between 0.05 and 0.01. This was statistically significant (95%). Therefore,

we rejected the null hypothesis; the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

Table 8

ANOVA for 2011 Tenth Grade FCAT Writing

ANOVA

Writing Ach Level


Between Groups 5.863 1 5.863 8.657 0.004

Within Groups 210.635 311 0.677

Total 216.498 312

Descriptives

Writing Ach Level


Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 83 4.04 0.723 0.079 3.88 4.19 2 6

Non-AVID 230 3.73 0.856 0.056 3.61 3.84 1 6

Total 313 3.81 0.833 0.047 3.72 3.90 1 6

Note. p = 0.05




and non-AVID tenth grade students in FCAT writing (F(1,311) = 5.863; p = 0.05). The


was higher than the non-AVID student (M = 3.73; SD = 0.856). The difference between

the mean scores was +0.31. The comparison resulted in a significance level of 0.004,

60

which was less than 0.01. This was highly statistically significant (99%). The data

shown was sufficient to reject null hypothesis; the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

Table 9

ANOVA Output for 2012 Tenth Grade FCAT Writing

ANOVA

Writing Ach Level


Between Groups 4.337 1 4.337 9.534 0.002

Within Groups 144.663 318 0.455

Total 149.000 319

Descriptives

Writing Ach Level


Min Max Lower Upper

AVID 90 3.31 0.697 0.074 3.17 3.46 2 6

Non-AVID 230 3.05 0.665 0.044 2.97 3.14 1 5

Total 320 3.13 0.683 0.038 3.05 3.20 1 6

Note. p = 0.05




and non-AVID tenth grade students in FCAT writing (F(1,318) = 9.534, p = 0.05). The


was higher than the non-AVID student (M = 3.05; SD = 0.665). The difference in the

mean score was +0.26. The comparison resulted in a significance level of 0.002, which

61

was less than 0.01. This was highly statistically significant (99%). The data shown was

sufficient to reject null hypothesis; the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

Summarily, this analysis of the FCAT writing results revealed that the AVID

students had a higher mean score for 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, the variance

fluctuated during the three testing years. The determination was that the variance in 2010

was statistically significant (95%) and in both 2011 and 2012 were highly statistically

significant (99%). This provided sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis; the

alternative hypothesis was accepted.

Summary of Findings

The data from the state standardized testing between 2010 and 2012 were

analyzed herein based on disaggregation of the data aligned with the students’ enrollment

in the AVID elective course. The student groups were those enrolled in AVID and those

who were not enrolled in AVID (i.e., Non-AVID). A summary of the data and

determinations ensues.

Table 10

Summary Table of Mean Scores for AVID and Non-AVID Students

FCAT Test AVID Mean Non-AVID Mean Variance

2010 Reading 1961.55 1929.28 +32.27

2011 Reading 240.81 232.86 +7.95

2012 Reading 243.02 236.48 +6.54

2010 Math 2006.19 1970.24 +35.95

2011 Math 244.05 241.88 +2.17

2012 Math 45.81 42.88 +2.93

2010 Writing 4.16 3.90 +0.26

2011 Writing 4.04 3.73 +0.31

2012 Writing 3.31 3.05 +0.26

62

Displayed in Table 10 are the annual mean scores for each test, from each of the

student groups in 2010 through 2012. The analysis of the data indicated that the tenth

grade AVID students had a consistently higher mean score in all three state assessment

tests (i.e., reading, math, writing) when compared to the scores of tenth grade non-AVID

students in 2010, 2011, and 2012. The variance declined annually in Reading. The

variance fluctuated in Writing. The variance in math dropped substantially on the FCAT

between 2009 and 2010, but rose marginally when using the Geometry EOCT in 2012.

The significance of these variances was reported in Table 11.

Table 11

Summary Table for p-Value, Significance, and Determination

FCAT Test p-Value Sig. Determination

2010 Reading 0.361 <92% Not significant Null Accepted

2011 Reading 0.112 <92% Not significant Null Accepted

2012 Reading 0.002 99% Highly significant Null Rejected

2010 Math 0.061 <92% Not significant Null Accepted

2011 Math 0.670 <92% Not significant Null Accepted

2012 Math 0.031 95% Significant Null Rejected

2010 Writing 0.020 95% Significant Null Rejected

2011 Writing 0.004 99% Highly significant Null Rejected

2012 Writing 0.002 99% Highly significant Null Rejected

Note. 2012 Math was the Geometry EOCT

Displayed in Table 11 was the summary of the statistical significance and the

determination for the hypotheses. Despite numerically high variances, the differences in

the students’ achievement levels observed in the 2010 math and 2010 reading scores were

not statistically significant. The differences between the AVID and Non-AVID students’

2010 and 2011 FCAT math and FCAT reading scores were not statistically significant in

2010 and 2011, but the variances were statistically significant in 2012. FCAT writing

63

assessment results were statistically significant all three years (i.e., 2010-2012). All three

state assessments (i.e., reading, math, and writing) were statistically significant when

analyzing the 2012 results.

Table 12

Summary Table for Pass and Fail Percentages

AVID NonAVID

Pass Fail Pass Fail

Test N % N % N % N %

Read

2010 49 57.0% 37 43.0% 134 53.6% 116 46.4%

2011 38 45.8% 45 54.2% 91 38.7% 144 61.3%

2012 40 44.4% 50 55.5% 84 36.8% 144 63.2%

Math

2010 77 89.5% 9 10.5% 198 79.5% 51 20.5%

2011 63 75.9% 20 24.1% 145 61.7% 90 38.3%

2012* 47 61.0% 30 39.1% 89 49.7% 90 50.3%

Write

2010 86 100.0% 0 0.0% 241 97.2% 7 2.8%

2011 81 97.6% 2 2.4% 213 92.6% 17 7.4%

2012 83 92.2% 7 7.8% 190 82.3% 41 17.7%

Note. 2012 Math was the Geometry EOCT

An analysis of Table 12 data indicated the AVID students had higher overall pass

rates on all three of the state assessments during each year tested. Simultaneously, the

Non-AVID students had a higher overall failure rates on all three state assessments

during each year tested. While the variances showed decreasing margins between the

AVID and Non-AVID students’ scores, there were persistent decreases in the pass rates

throughout the timeline in all three subjects.

Discussion of these findings is documented in Chapter Five. Specifically

presented for professional consideration is discussion of specific points of interest

associated with AVID versus Non-AVID students’ achievement and the noted subject-

specific trends in scores and pass rates. These topics are examined to synthesize the

64

research findings, answer the study’s guiding research questions, and draw conclusions

about the hypotheses. Additionally, implications for practice and recommendations for

future research are discussed.

65

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary: Discussion of Findings

This chapter serves as both summary and synthesis of the research process and the

findings. The trends within these data when considered alongside prior research exposed

constructs relevant for professional discourse. Finally, drawn from the research

conclusions were considerations for practice and future research.


The purpose of this research study was exploration of the effects of high school

implementation of the AVID curriculum. Specifically, the effects of using the high-yield

teaching strategies introduced to students within the AVID elective course curriculum

were analyzed. This research study was designed to explore the impact of the use of

these strategies on the academic achievement of the tenth grade students who were

enrolled in the AVID elective class since the start of their ninth grade school year. By the

time standardized assessments were administered during the students’ sophomore school

year, AVID learners were expected to apply the strategies taught in the elective course to

all of their course assignments and assessments. This research was a foundational

evaluation of AVID program effect during the implementation phase at the study site.

Therefore, the research study explored the effects of these strategies (e.g. WICOR)

compared to their peers on the same assessment standards. Three years of student

achievement data (i.e., 2010-2012), reported as developmental scale scores (DSS) from

the state assessment tests (i.e., FCAT, EOCT) in reading, writing, and mathematics, were

used to compare the achievement levels attained by tenth grade AVID versus their non-

AVID peers.

66

Review of Methodologies

The research data encompassed three years of archival test scores provided by the

district offices for the selected study site. The data were from the Florida standardized

assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics for tenth grade students. The archival

report included, specifically, FCAT data and the state’s end-of-course test for Geometry

used only in 2012. The data were sorted based on the year of administration (i.e., 2010,

2011, 2012), test content area (i.e., Read, Write, Math), as well as the student group (i.e.,

AVID [A], non-AVID [nA]). Due to the aforementioned variations in the annual tests’

DSS, each subject test was assessed annually to ensure comparison of similarly scaled

data only. Multiple phases of statistical testing were conducted.

The ANOVA was used to analyze the differences in the scores attained annually

in each subject by the two student groups. The ANOVA measured the effect of the

instructional and learning style approach (i.e., with or without AVID) for the two student

groups (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). The ANOVA reported the details of the data

including the nature, amount, and significance of the differences in the scores within and

between the student groups. The variance between the mean test scores was considered

based on the year and subject of the test. The nature and amount of the variance of the

scores between the groups (i.e., A, nA) was denoted by the F-stat from the ANOVA

output. In addition, the level of the statistical significance of the variances between the

students’ test scores was determined based on the p-values from the ANOVA output (p >

0.05; p = 0.01-0.05; p < 0.01). This was used to inform the researcher whether existing

differences in the scores were not statistically significant (>0.05; < 92%), statistically

significant (0.01-0.05; 95%), or highly statistically significant (< 0.01; 99%).

67

Compilation of Data Trends

The statistical analyses in this research were conducted to facilitate the

comparison of the achievement data for tenth grade students with and without AVID

learning strategy instruction. The comparison of the achievement levels included an

assessment of the significance of the AVID learning strategies as a positive influence on

the achievement outcomes. The trends in the statistical results are summarized herein.

Pass rates. The analysis of the state assessment data in reading, math, and writing

indicated that the students enrolled in the AVID elective course had a higher pass rate

than non-AVID students. The trend of a higher pass rate for the AVID students was for

all three assessments and each year tested. Prior research indicated AVID was an

effective vehicle to improve academics schoolwide (e.g., Ford, 2010; Klopfenstein &


Watt et al., 2006; Watt et al., 2007). The pass and fail rates, annually, were displayed in

Table 12. Although the AVID students had an overall higher pass rate than non-AVID

students, the pass rate declined each year (Table 13).

Table 13

Summary Table for Pass Rate Decline

FCAT Subject Test AVID Non-AVID Year Site % Failure

Reading 2010-2011 -11.2% -14.9% 2010 45.5%

Reading 2011-2012 -1.4% -1.9% 2011 59.4%

Cumulative Decline -12.6% -16.8% 2012 61.0%

68

Table 13 continued

FCAT Subject AVID Non-AVID Year Site % Failure

Math 2010-2011 -13.6% -17.8% 2010 17.9%

Math 2011-2012 -14.9% -12.0% 2011 34.6%


Writing 2010-2011 -2.4% -4.6% 2010 2.1%

Writing 2011-2012 -5.4% -10.3% 2011 6.1%


The incremental decline in the pass rates were reflected in the increasing site failure rates.

Within each subject area, there were annual increases in the failure rates. These trends

evidenced substantial shifts both within and between the groups. These trends indicate

declines in success throughout the timeline and in all subject areas, within and between

the groups.

Mean scores. The statistical analyses of the FCAT reading results revealed that

the AVID students had attained higher mean scores in 2010, 2011, and 2012. The

divergence between the mean scores decreased incrementally throughout the three testing

years. The analysis of the variances (ANOVA) was used to determine whether the

differences in the two groups of student scores indicated that the AVID learning

strategies had a statistically significant influence on the achievement levels attained.

Overall, the variance between the student reading outcomes in both 2010 and

2011 was not statistically significant (i.e., null hypothesis accepted), while 2012 was

statistically significant (i.e., null hypothesis rejected). In 2012, as displayed in Table 11,

the significance level was 99%, which means the AVID elective course did have a

positive impact on student achievement.

69

Through the analysis of the FCAT and EOCT math results, it was shown that the

AVID students had higher mean scores for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Overall, 2010 and

2011 were not statistically significant (i.e., null hypothesis accepted), while 2012 was

statistically significant (i.e., null hypothesis rejected). In 2012, the significance level was

95%, which indicated that the AVID elective course did have a positive impact on

student achievement. The 95% significance level indicated that the impact on the level of

student achievement did not happen by chance. Rather, the data suggests that

implementing the AVID elective course was a contributing factor to the higher level of

student performance attained by the AVID students compared to their NonAVID peers on

the state’s standardized test in mathematics.

The analysis of the FCAT writing results revealed that the AVID students had a

higher mean score for 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, the variance fluctuated during

the three testing years. The determination was that the variance in 2010 was statistically

significant (95%) and, in both 2011 and 2012, the variance was highly statistically

significant (99%). This provided sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis; the

alternative hypothesis was accepted. Ultimately, the significance level was 99%, which

means the AVID elective course did have a positive impact on student achievement.

Summarily, the FCAT Writes assessment results were statistically significant all

three years (i.e., 2010-2012). All three state assessments (i.e., reading, math, and writing)

were statistically significant when analyzing the 2012 results. The data for 2010

indicated FCAT Writes scores were statistically significant at a level of 95%, while the

2011 and 2012 scores were both highly statistically significant at the level of 99%.

70

The analysis of Tables 10 and 11 indicated that the tenth grade AVID students

had a consistently higher mean score on all three state assessment tests (i.e., reading,

math, writing) when compared to the mean scores of tenth grade non-AVID students in

2010, 2011, and 2012. The variance declined annually in Reading. The variance

fluctuated in writing. The variance in math dropped substantially on the FCAT between

2009 and 2010, but rose marginally when using the Geometry EOCT in 2012.

Possible Influential Conditions

The difference in the variance and decline in the pass rates may be attributed to

the fact that the research study only represented sophomore students between 2010–2012.

The research study was not a longitudinal assessment of the progress or gains made by

students after two, three, and four years in the AVID program. The study was focused in

an attempt to address the effects of high school implementation of the AVID curriculum.

Specifically, the effects of using the high-yield teaching strategies introduced to students

within the AVID elective course curriculum were analyzed. The research study was

designed to explore the impact of use of these strategies on the academic achievement of

the tenth grade students who were enrolled in the AVID elective class since the start of

their ninth grade school year. Three years of student achievement data (i.e., 2010-2012),

reported as developmental scale scores (DSS) from the state assessment tests (i.e., FCAT,

EOCT) in reading, writing, and mathematics, were used to compare the achievement

levels attained by tenth grade AVID versus non-AVID students. The acquisition and

generalization of these learning strategies might be impacted by the initial learning

experience.

71

Towards this end, the learning community and specifically the AVID program

was experiencing variable conditions throughout the timeline of the study. Specifically,

there was an annual increase in the number of AVID elective teachers, as well as high

teacher turnover. In 2009, there was only one AVID teacher; this teacher resigned at the

end of the school year. In 2010, the AVID elective teachers increased from one to two.

Both of the AVID elective teachers in 2010 were newly trained to teach the AVID

curriculum. In 2011, the teachers remained the same. One of the AVID elective teachers

resigned at the end of the 2011 school year. In 2012, the number of AVID elective

teachers increased from two to three. Two of the three AVID elective teachers were

newly trained to teach the AVID curriculum. During the same years, the school principal

remained the same.

The impact of AVID is closely associated with site and program leadership as

well as the selection of the most effective AVID elective teacher (Huerta et al., 2008;

Pitch et al., 2006; Watt, Mills, & Huerta, 2010). Therefore, it is important in this

research study to recognize the change in AVID elective teacher-leadership and the

consistency of the school principal. The results from the literature review led to the

conclusion that the leadership within the school had a direct impact on the success or

failure of the program implementation (Watt et al., 2004). The review of the literature

indicated the importance of the principal developing shared leadership. The commonality

within the research from Fullan (2001), Kouzas and Posner (2010), and Ulrich et al.

(2008) is the belief that empowering others will help to bring the vision and mission into

action. It was through the shared leadership from the teacher and AVID Site Team that

the vision and mission were put into action through the AVID 11 Essentials. Therefore,

72

the data of being statistically significant in all three test areas in 2012 supports the

conclusion that as the research site began to proceed as outlined by the Certified Self

Study Indicators moving from (a) not AVID, (b) to meeting standards, (c) to routine use,

and (d) ultimately institutionalized (AVID, 2012).

Implementation research for educational programming (e.g., Duriak & Dupree,

2008) refers to the early phase as an introductory period wherein the achievement

outcomes might not attain the desired or targeted levels. Inconsistency is normative. The

implementation phase for AVID at the study site overlaps the research timeline.

Specifically, in 2010, for reading, the learning strategies of mark the text and chart the

text were only taught to the AVID students. By 2011, these strategies were taught to all

learners for use in all classes. These approaches help develop students’ understanding by

enabling them to process the information as they are reading it to evaluate, synthesize,

and make predictions about the text read.

In addition to the changes in AVID program and leadership, another factor that

might have impacted the assessment outcomes was the state’s department of education

(FLDOE) and the decisions regarding standardized testing updates between 2010 and

2012. The FLDOE changed the Developmental Scale Scores for reading and math in

2011. The pass cut score in reading was 1926 (2010) to 245 (2011, 2012). Regarding the

math assessment, FLDOE changed the pass rate from 1889 (2010) to 245 (2011).

Moreover, the sophomore year assessment in math changed from the FCAT (2010, 2011)

to the end course exam in Geometry (2012). The 2012 math scores are the state’s end of

course exam results in geometry, which might be skewed due to the first year

implementation of the assessment. Additionally, the data from Table 13 indicates the

73

math pass rates had the highest variance decline for both AVID and non-AVID students,

which may be a result of the changing test scores and format.

The FLDOE provides as strong warning about comparing FCAT Writes scores.

The FLDOE (n.d.) explained,

When reviewing FCAT Writing essay results from 2010 and beyond, comparisons

to previous years' writing scores should be avoided. This caution is given for three

reasons. First, in spring 2010 and spring 2011, each essay was scored by one

rater. In previous years and in 2012, two raters were used and the scores were

averaged allowing for half-point scores. … Second, beginning in 2010, each

student within the same grade level was required to write an essay using the same

writing purpose, which is also called the mode (narrative, expository, or

persuasive). In previous years, with the exception of grade 10 in 2008, there were

two modes assessed at each grade level with half of the students responding to

each mode. … Third, in 2012, scoring decisions included expanded expectations

regarding the following: (1) increased attention to the correct use of standard

English conventions, and (2) increased attention to the quality of details, requiring

use of relevant, logical, and plausible support, rather than contrived statistical

claims or unsubstantiated generalities (“Bureau of K 12 Assessment,” para. 2).

Therefore, the FCAT writes scores cannot be compared to determine a trend in

performance for the three years of the research study.

Table 14 is a summary of the demographics at the research site for the three years

of test data analyzed. The purpose of Table 14 is to enable the researcher to determine

whether there were external factors that might have impacted the assessment performance

outcomes.

74

Table 14

Summary Table for Research Site Demographics

Demographics 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Enrollment 1377 1472 1640

Title One Status No No Yes

Minority 70.3% 71.2% 74.1%

ESE 14.6% 13.4% 13.2%

Gifted 7.3% 6.5% 5.4%

Mobility 30.7% 29.8% 29.8%

Stability 64.7% 86.2% 86.2%

Attendance 91.6% 92.9% 91.5%

LEP 9.4% 8.6% 8.0%

Free/Reduced Lunch 75.0% 74.0% 77.0%

(LCSD, 2012)

The data displayed in Table 14 shows the annual changes associated with student-

body changes between 2010 and 2012. The data indicates the school enrollment

increased annually, growing by +95 from 2010-2011, +168 from 2011-2012, with an

overall increase of +263 students. Within this growth, the minority population increased

by nearly 4% and the free and reduced lunch rate increased by 2%. The greatest increase

was the stability rate, which rose by 21.5%. This data reflects that the students were

enrolling and remaining at the school for longer periods. However, these factors might

be a direct result of the changes in the student population. Therefore, the changes cannot

be assumed to be directly or exclusively associated with the performance outcomes.

The students enrolled in the AVID elective course outperformed non-AVID

students in FCAT reading, math, and writing. Statistically, the data indicated in 2012

reading, math, and writing were all statistically and/or highly statistically significant.

75

The significance may be attributed to the increased implementation of AVID schoolwide,

annually, through professional development. The impact of AVID schoolwide is closely

tied to professional development (Huerta et al., 2008; Pitch et al., 2006; Watt, Mills, &

Huerta, 2010). Therefore, the results from the research study and the review of the

literature indicated schoolwide impact attributable to the implementation of AVID

(BEST, 2004; Huerta et al., 2008; Watt, Huerta, & Mills, 2010; Watt, Mills, & Huerta,

2010; Watt et al., 2008; Watt et al., 2004; Pitch et al., 2006).

Conclusions

To draw conclusions in this research, the guiding research queries must be

answered, based on the hypothesis determinations from the statistical findings. Table 15

displays a summary of these data. The aforementioned significance of the scores

indicates whether AVID had a statistically significant impact on the students’

achievement.

Table 15

Summary Table for Impact of the AVID Elective Course

Assessment Impact of AVID Level of Impact

Reading 2010 Not Statistically Significant Impact < 92%

Reading 2011 Not Statistically Significant Impact < 92%

Reading 2012 Highly Statistically Significant Positive Impact 99%

Math 2010 Not Statistically Significant Impact < 92%

Math 2011 Not Statistically Significant Impact < 92%

Math 2012 Statistically Significant Positive Impact 95%

Writing 2010 Statistically Significant Positive Impact 95%

Writing 2011 Highly Statistically Significant Positive Impact 99%

Writing 2012 Highly Statistically Significant Positive Impact 99%

76

RQ1: Reading achievement. The first research question was the foundation for

the comparison of the AVID and non-AVID students’ achievement levels in reading. In

2010 and 2011there was not a statistically significant positive effect on student

achievement, as measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in

reading when comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study site.

Therefore, we can conclude the AVID elective course did not have a statistically

significant positive impact on student performance in reading during 2010 or 2011. In

2012, there was a highly statistically significant positive effect on student achievement in

reading, as measured by the tenth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in

reading when comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study site.

Overall, we can conclude the AVID elective course did have a positive impact on student

performance. The conclusion that the AVID program positively influences student

performance was evident within the literature reviewed, specifically the research

conducted by Klopfenstein and Thomas (2009), Martinez and Klopott (2006), McKeena

(2011), Varee (2008), and Watt et al. (2007). The research within the prior studies

concluded that the AVID program positively impacted schoolwide academics and

improved student performance. This study’s findings were aligned with and supportive

of prior research.

RQ2: Mathematics achievement. The second research question was the

foundation for the comparison of the AVID and non-AVID students’ achievement levels

in mathematics. In 2010 and 2011 there was not a statistically significant positive effect

on student achievement, as measured by the tenth grade Florida state standardized exam

in math when comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study site.

77

Therefore, we can conclude that in 2010 and 2011 the AVID elective course did not have

a statistically significant positive impact on student performance in mathematics.

However, in 2012, there was a statistically significant positive effect on student

achievement in mathematics, as measured by the tenth grade Florida state standardized

exam in math when comparing AVID and non-AVID students at the selected study site.

Overall, we can conclude the AVID elective course did have a positive impact on student

performance in mathematics. The positive impact on student performance was evident

within the literature reviewed from prior research. Ford (2010) used quantitative research

to identify instructional practices that impacted student achievement. Ford’s research

included eight cohorts; four cohorts were AVID students and four were non-AVID

students. The results indicated that the AVID program promoted achievement

schoolwide (Ford, 2010). Across the three years assessed in this study, the findings

within this Florida high school were aligned with the prior research regarding impact of

AVID schoolwide.

RQ3: Writing achievement. The third research question was the foundation for

the comparison of the AVID and non-AVID students’ achievement levels in writing. In

2010, 2011, and 2012 there was a statistically significant or highly statistically significant

positive effect on student achievement in writing, as measured by the tenth grade Florida

Comprehensive Assessment Test in writing when comparing AVID and non-AVID

students at the selected study site. Therefore, we can conclude the AVID elective course

did have a positive impact on student performance in writing. The impact of AVID for

improvement of student achievement was evident within the literature reviewed of prior

research. Quantitative research conducted by Rorie (2007) advocates that AVID is an

78

effective system to improve student achievement. Rorie’s study was conducted at four

high schools comparing the academic performance of AVID and non-AVID graduates.

The research compared AVID and non-AVID students’ achievement in subject areas of

reading, writing, and math; as well as their successful completion of all high school

courses; and GPA (Rorie, 2007). The results of the quantitative study indicated that

AVID students performed better than non-AVID students in both overall coursework and

GPA (Rorie, 2007). The assertion that AVID students outperformed non-AVID students

was a prevalent theme within the literature reviewed (Ford, 2010; Klopfenstein &


Watt et al., 2007).

Overall, there appeared to be positive influence from the students’ exposure to

and use of the AVID strategies. The expansion of the use of AVID as schoolwide

practice may have helped minimize achievement variances. The statistical evidence

revealed that only in writing was there a statistically significant positive effect on the

achievement levels evident in the standardized test scores during all three years.

However, by 2012, there was a statistically significant positive effect in all three subjects.

The three-year trend revealed that while there was not a statistically significant positive

effect in each of the subject tests, there was still evidence that the AVID class students

performed at a higher level of proficiency (i.e., mean, range, scored higher, passing

rates). Further, at the end of the three years, there was either statistically or highly

statistically significant positive impact of AVID on the students’ achievement levels.

79

Implications for Practice

The research site was the first school within the district to implement the AVID

program. As a result, other schools from across the state and within the district have

observed AVID trained classrooms at the research site to determine implementation at

their own settings. The AVID program strategies used in all of classes, not the course

curriculum, are universal. As evidenced within this study, there may be aspects of the

community enrollment, the leadership, and the instruction provided that could influence

the achievement outcomes. Therefore, schools and districts should analyze their own

data to determine the effectiveness of AVID strategies implemented within their own

local setting.

The summary data from the research study (Table 15) revealed that the

implementation of AVID, school-wide, takes time. Schools that implement the AVID

program should ensure the process is completed with fidelity. Fidelity includes (a)

voluntary student enrollment in the AVID elective course (Ed.gov, 2005), (b) the AVID

elective class is scheduled within the school day, (c) AVID students are expected to be

enrolled in one of the most rigorous courses in addition to the AVID elective class, (d)

the AVID elective teacher volunteers to the be the educator (Watt et al., 2004), (e) the

AVID elective teacher uses WICOR and college tutors in the curriculum (AVID, n.d.,

“Overview,” para. 2), (f) the AVID 11 Essentials are used to guide schoolwide

implementation (AVID, 2012), and (g) an AVID Site Team is created and used as a

vehicle to support schoolwide implementation voluntary (Watt et al., 2004).

The data indicates that the AVID teacher needs to be trained as an elective teacher

and implement the curriculum with fidelity. This is evidenced by the overall state

80

assessment pass rates and mean scores for AVID students when compared to non-AVID

students. The data indicates schoolwide implementation needs to be methodical and

deliberate to be successfully implemented over time. Additionally, professional

development for all staff is essential for the AVID strategies to become routine use,

which advances fidelity and competency. This is evidenced by the data indicating

significant and highly significant positive effects in the student achievement in all three

tests for 2012.

Recommendations for Future Research

After analyzing the research study, the following recommendations are proposed

for future research:

1. It is suggested that future research should target WICOR strategies more

specifically to determine the impact on student achievement. Due to the research

study, it is suggested that the implementation of WICOR with fidelity in all

classrooms would need to be analyzed. To assess WICOR, researchers would

analyze professional development in the strategies, lesson plan development, and

implementation in the classroom.

2. A longitudinal comparison of the DSS data for each student in ninth through

twelfth grades to analyze trends and determine long-term AVID impact, is

recommended. It is suggested that this should follow the students’ learning and

achievement growth throughout high school. This approach would facilitate

analysis of the correlation between AVID learning skill acquisition, use, and

mastery and the students’ subject-specific achievement gains.

81

3. It is proposed that this study should be replicated as a longitudinal study with a

longer timeline. A longer research study would gather and analyze data to

determine student achievement trends within the AVID program and in relation to

schoolwide implementation.

4. This research can be extended in new directions by looking at other indicators of

achievement. Specifically, it is proposed that future research should track AVID

graduation rates and enrollment into postsecondary institutions. The literature

review indicates AVID has a positive impact upon enrollment in postsecondary

education (e.g., Klopfenstein &Thomas, 2009; Martinez & Klopott, 2006;

McKeena, 2011; Varee, 2008; Watt et al., 2007).

5. Further, it is proposed that other research would be availed by following the

students’ postsecondary enrollment to (a) assess use of AVID strategies within the

postsecondary venue, (b) secure qualitative feedback about the relevant

applications of the tools, or (c) quantitative comparison of AVID versus non-

AVID students’ success in postsecondary placements would all give new insights

regarding students’ achievement using the AVID strategies.

6. Finally, future research should track participation and success of AVID students

in International Baccalaureate, College Board Advanced Placement, or Advanced

International Certificate Examinations programs compared to their peers on the

end-of-course assessments for core subject courses (Klopfenstein & Thomas,

2009; Martinez & Klopott, 2006; Watt et al., 2007).

82

REFERENCES

AVID. (n.d.a). AVID secondary elective. Retrieved from http://www.avid.org/sta

_avidsecondary.html#student

AVID. (n.d.b) Where is AVID? Retrieved from http://www.avid.org/abo

_whereisavid.html

AVID. (2009). Journey to school wide AVID. Retrieved from http://www.avid.org

/dl/abo_swdw/swdw_cs_journeytoschoolwideavid.pdf

AVID. (2011a). AVID teacher resources. Retrieved from http://www.avid.org

/abo_teacherresources.html

AVID. (2011b). What is AVID? Retrieved from http://www.avid.org/abo_

whatisavid.html

AVID. (2012). Certification process flowchart. Retrieved from https://www.avidonline

.org/admin/cgi-bin/member_home_NEW.asp

AVID Weekly. (n.d.a). Charting the text. Retrieved from www.scoe.org/docs/avid

/charting-the-text.pdf

AVID Weekly. (n.d.b). Cornell Notes. Retrieved from www.sdcoe.net/lret/avid/

resources/CornellNotetaking.pdf

AVID Weekly. (n.d.c). Marking the text. Retrieved from www.scoe.org/docs/avid/mark

ing-the-text.pdf

AVID Weekly. (n.d.d). Philosophical chairs. Retrieved from www.sdcoe.net/lret/avid/

resources/philosophical_chairs.pdf

Building Engineering and Science Talent (BEST). (2004). What it takes: Pre-K-12 design

principles to broaden participation in science, technology, engineering, and math.

Retrieved from http://www.bestworkforce.org/

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cunningham, A., Redmond, C., & Meriotis, J. (2003). Investing early: Intervention

programs in selected U.S. states. Montreal, Canada: Canada Millennium

Scholarship Foundation.

Dessoff, A. (2012, March). Education reformer: Robert Marzano. District

Administration. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration

.com/article/education-reformer-robert-j-marzano

83

Ed.gov. (2005, August). Students in the middle demonstrate AVIDus and reach new

academic heights. The Education Innovator, 29(3), pp. 1-2.

Florida Department of Education (FLDOE). (2007). FCAT Reading & Mathematics:

Technical Report for 2006 FCAT Administrations. San Antonio, TX: Human

Resources Research Organization & Harcourt Assessment, Inc.

Florida Department of Education (FLDOE). (2004). Assessment and accountability

briefing book. Retrieved from fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/BriefingBook07web.pdf

Ford, C. (2010). Impact of the advancement via individual determination (AVID)

program on closing the academic achievement gap. Retrieved from ProQuest

Digital dissertation databases.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. NY, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Govtrack.us. (2005). H.Res. 576 (109th): Celebrating Advancement Via Individual

Determination’s 25 years of success. Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/

congress/bills/109/hres576/text/ih

Guthrie, L.F., & Guthrie, G.P. (2002). The magnificent eight: AVID best practices study.

Burlingame, CA: Center for Research, Evaluation, and Training in Education.

Harrison, C., & Killion, J. (2007, September). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational

Leadership, 65(1), pp. 74-77.

Herlihy, C., & Quint, J. (2006). Emerging evidence on improving high school student

achievement and graduation rates: The effects of four popular improvement

programs. Retrieved from http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/

NHSC_EmergingEvidenceBrief_111606Final.pd

Huerta, J., Watt, K., & Alkan, E. (2008). Exploring the relationship between AVID

professional development and teacher leadership. Academic Leadership 6(1).

Jensen, E. (2000, November). Moving with the brain in mind. Educational Leadership,

58(3), pp. 34-37.

Kagan, S. (2003). Kagan structures: Research and rationale in a nutshell. Retrieved from

http://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/research_and_rationale/283/Kagan-

Structures-Research-and-Rationale-in-a-Nutshell

Kagan, S. (1990, January). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational

Leadership, 47(4), pp. 12-15.

84

Kagan, S. & Kagan, L. (2012). About Kagan publishing and professional development.

Retrieved from http://www.kaganonline.com/ about_us.php

Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, K. M. (2009). The link between Advanced Placement

experience and early college success. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), pp. 873-

891.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2010). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

L County School District (LCSD). (2012). School data for Lehigh Senior High School.

Retrieved from http://accountability.leeschools.net/School_data_profiles/

L Senior High School (LSrHS). (2012). Vision and mission. Retrieved from

http://lsh.leeschools.net/

Lambert, L. (2002, May). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership:

Beyond Instructional Leadership, 59(8), pp. 37-40.

Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2006). The link between high school reform and college

access and success for low-income and minority youth. Washington, D.C.:

American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.

Marzano, R. (2009, September). Setting the record straight on high yield teaching

strategies. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(01), pp. 30-37.

McKeena, M. (2011). Examining the advancement via individual determination (AVID)

program using the framework of social capital theory a case study of the AVID

program in a high-achieving, suburban high school. Retrieved from ProQuest


Mertler, C., & Vannatta, R. (2002). Advanced an multivariate statistical methods:

Practical application and interpretation. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Nagaoka, J., Roderick, M., & LaForce, M. (2010). Evaluating the impact of the

Advancement Via Individual Determination program on ninth-grade students’

learning and study skills [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

ies.ed.gov/director/conferences/10ies_conference/ppt/nagaoka.ppt

National Council for Community and Education Partnerships. (n.d.). What is GEAR UP?

An overview of the GEAR UP initiative. Washington, DC: National Council for

Community and Education Partnerships.

Nelson, J. (2009, Fall). Research, education and AVID. ACCESS, 15(3), p. 3.

Nelson, J. (2007, April). AVIDly seeking students. Educational Leadership, 64(7), pp.

72-74.

85

Ozden, M., & Gultekin, M. (2008). The effects of brain-based learning on academic

achievement and retention of knowledge in science course. Electronic Journal of

Science Education, 12(1), pp. 1-17.

Pitch, L., Marchand, G., Hoffman, B., & Lewis, A. (2006). AVID effectiveness study. Las

Vegas: Clark County School District.

Project GRAD. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://projectgrad.org/about/

Rorie, L. (2007). An investigation of achievement in the advancement via individual

determination (AVID) program at the high school level. Retrieved from ProQuest


Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why. NY, NY: Penguin Group.

Slavin, R., Sharan, S., Kagan, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Webb, C., & Schmuck, R.

(1985). Learning to cooperate, Cooperating to learn. NY, NY: Plenum.

Socratic Seminars International. (2006). What are Socratic seminars? Retrieved from

http://www.socraticseminars.com/education/whatare.html

Swanson, M.C. (1989, February). Advancement Via Individual Determination: Project

AVID. Educational Leadership, 46(5), pp. 63-64.

Swanson, M.C. (1995). The power of the AVID site team. ACCESS, 3(1), pp. 1-2.

Swanson, M.C. (2002). AVID as the catalyst for school-wide change. San Diego, CA:

AVID Press.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Supervision Development.

Turnaround for Children. (n.d.). The Intervention Process. Retrieved from

http://turnaroundusa.org/how-we-work

Ulrich, D., Smallwood, N., & Sweetman, K. (2008). The leadership code. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business Press.

United States Department of Education (USDOE). (2001). No child left behind. Retrieved

from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

United States Department of Education (USDOE). (2012). Gaining early awareness and

readiness for undergraduate programs (GEAR UP). Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/gearup/index.html

United States Department of Education (USDOE). (2012). Upward bound program.

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/index.html

86

Varee, R. (2008). Factors contributing to transforming school culture: A case study of

the advancement via individual determination program. Retrieved from ProQuest


Watt, K., Huerta, J., & Alkan, E. (2012). Advancement Via Individual Determination

(AVID) in a community college setting: A case study. Community College

Journal of Research and Practice, 36, pp. 752-760.

Watt, K., Huerta, J., & Cossio, G. (2004, Spring). Leadership and AVID implementation

levels in four south Texas border schools. Catalyst for Change, 32(2), pp. 10-14.

Watt, K., Huerta, J., & Lozano, A. (2007). A comparison study of AVID and GEAR UP

10th

– grade students on two high schools in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 12(2), pp. 185-212.

Watt, K., Huerta, J., & Mills, J. (2010, Spring). The impact of Advancement Via

Individual Determination (AVID) professional development on teacher

perceptions of school culture and climate in the United States. International

Journal of Educational Reform, 19(3), pp.172-183.

Watt, K., Johnston, D., Huerta, J., Mendiola, I., & Alkan, E. (2008, Fall). Retention of

first-generation college-going seniors in the college preparatory program AVID.

American Secondary Education, 37(1), pp. 17-40.

Watt, K., Mills, S., & Huerta, J. (2010, May). Identifying attributes of teacher leaders

within the Advancement Via Individual Program: A survey of school principals.

Journal of School Leadership, 20, pp. 352-368.

Watt, K., Powell, C., Mendiola, I., & Cossio, G. (2006). Schoolwide impact and AVID:

How have selected Texas high schools addressed the new accountability

measures. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(1), pp. 57-73.

87

APPENDIX

Subject-specific Developmental Scale Scores

88

DSS Ratings for Tenth Grade Reading and Mathematics Exams

FCAT Reading Mathematics

Level 2010 2011 & 2012 FCAT 2010 FCAT 2011 EOCT 2012

One 844-1851 188-227 1068-1831 188-227 20-36

Two 1852-2067 228-244 1832-1946 228-244 37-43

Three 2068-2218 245-255 1947-2049 245-255 44-50

Four 2219-2310 256-270 2050-2192 256-270 51-58

Five 2311-3008 271-302 2193-2709 271-302 59-80

Note. The Math EOCT was sophomore year Geometry. Levels three through five exceed

proficiency standards (FLDOE, 2007).

FCAT Writing

2010-2012

Unscorable

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

(FLDOE, 2003)

Passing Cut Scores 2010-2012

FCAT Writing FCAT Reading Mathematics

2010 3.0 1926 1889

2011 3.0 245 245

2012 3.0 245 44

(FLDOE, 2009, 2012)

statement of copyright release to argosy university

Documents