virginia’s spdg 2005-2012
DESCRIPTION
Adolescent Literacy and Academic Behavior Self-Efficacy Survey (ALAB) Sharon deFur, Virginia SPDG Evaluation. Virginia’s SPDG 2005-2012. School wide initiative focused on improving adolescent literacy based on the KU-CRL Content Literacy Continuum - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Adolescent Literacy and Academic Behavior Self-Efficacy Survey (ALAB)
Sharon deFur, Virginia SPDG Evaluation
[email protected] March 2013
Virginia’s SPDG 2005-2012• School wide initiative focused on
improving adolescent literacy based on the KU-CRL Content Literacy Continuum
• Began with 4 schools: 2 middle and 2 high schools
• School-based literacy teams• Intensive all Faculty and Administrator
Professional Development on intervention(s) including follow-up, coaching, implementation monitoring by administrators and coaches, data collections
• School-wide student assessment to identify students in need of interventions beyond classroom routines
• Teacher evaluation expectations for evidence of use of interventions
• Opportunities for career advancement with additional professional development for teachers
• School wide initiative focused on improving adolescent literacy based on the KU-CRL Content Literacy Continuum
• Began with 4 schools: 2 middle and 2 high schools
• School-based literacy teams• Intensive all Faculty and Administrator
Professional Development on intervention(s) including follow-up, coaching, implementation monitoring by administrators and coaches, data collections
• School-wide student assessment to identify students in need of interventions beyond classroom routines
• Teacher evaluation expectations for evidence of use of interventions
• Opportunities for career advancement with additional professional development for teachers
[email protected] March 2013
Adolescent Literacy & Academic Behavior Self-Efficacy Survey (ALAB)
deFur & Runnells, 2011, Runnells & College of William and Mary, 2012
• Goals– To develop a validated student self-efficacy measure
linked to reading and writing literacy achievement enabling academic behaviors
• Intent– To provide SPDG schools and teachers with a literacy
self-efficacy measure that could be used to identify change in student literacy confidences and motivation
• Result – 28 item survey for use
• Self-report from 0 – 9 reflecting self confidence
[email protected] March 2013
Why Self-Efficacy Focus?
Positive self-efficacy• These students work harder,
persist longer, persevere in the face of adversity, have greater optimism and lower anxiety, and achieve more.
• The degree of self-efficacy explains more than 25% of the variance in the prediction of academic performance (Pajares, 2006).
[email protected] March 2013
Pajares (2006) defined self-efficacy as the belief and confidence students hold about their ability to succeed at a given task.
Important to this construct is that self-efficacy is context specific.
• Self-Efficacy refers to confidence in, or beliefs about, one’s ability to perform a skill and can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy (Hunter & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Pajares, 2006; Schunk & Meece, 2006).
• Self-efficacy strengthens as a function of the continuum of skill development from basic to mastery (Lodewyk & Winne, 2005).
• Self-efficacy is widely used to predict and explain student achievement (Feldman, Kim, & Elliott, 2011; Mucherah & Yoder, 2008; Pajares, Johnson, & Usher, 2007; Phan, 2011)
[email protected] March 2013
Study 1 - Validation of the Adolescent Literacy and Academic Behavior Self-Efficacy Survey (ALAB) Development and Site
Selection /Analyses Processes
• DEVELOPMENT– Developed based on self-
efficacy assessment process from the work of Pajares & Urdan (2006) and Bandura (2006) as well as the work on adolescent literacy of Scammacca et al. (2007), Torgesen et al. (2007), Deshler & Hock (2007), KU-CRL CLC.
– Field tested with 11 youth– Expert review of survey– 28 item survey
• DATA COLLECTION– Surveys sent to schools
with a request to collect information from a representative sample
– Data entered into SPSS– Data analyses included
descriptive statistics, principal component factor analyses, and reliability analyses
Response Scale
• Scale from 0 to 9
Thinking about school-related tasks in any classroom, how confident are you that you can…
[email protected] March 2013
Comparison of validation studies
Study 1 (deFur & Runnells, 2011)• 28 item survey with 0 – 9 scale, no items dropped out
• N = 271, grades 6 – 11, eight schools, all participating in the SPDG literacy intervention at varying levels of implementation stages
• Near equal distribution of males and females
• Non-random selection & Non-controlled participation
• >8% self-reported having IEPs, no data on race/ethnicity
• Reliability .96 for Total Self-Efficacy• Factor analysis yielded four
correlated factors
• 28 item survey with 0 – 9 scale, no items dropped out
• N = 271, grades 6 – 11, eight schools, all participating in the SPDG literacy intervention at varying levels of implementation stages
• Near equal distribution of males and females
• Non-random selection & Non-controlled participation
• >8% self-reported having IEPs, no data on race/ethnicity
• Reliability .96 for Total Self-Efficacy• Factor analysis yielded four
correlated factors
Study 2 (Runnells, 2012)• 28 item survey with 0 – 9 scale• N = 1110, grades 7-9, one SPDG
participating school division that did not participate in Study 1; in initial implementation stage of intervention– 17% ELL– ~13% SWD
• ~ 20% ELL• Near equal distribution of males and
females• 39% Hispanic; 32% White; 15% Black;
5% Asian; 5% Other• Reliability .98 for Total Self-Efficacy• Factor analysis yielded five correlated
factors (original four plus one new factor)
• Correlation with literacy measure
• 28 item survey with 0 – 9 scale• N = 1110, grades 7-9, one SPDG
participating school division that did not participate in Study 1; in initial implementation stage of intervention– 17% ELL– ~13% SWD
• ~ 20% ELL• Near equal distribution of males and
females• 39% Hispanic; 32% White; 15% Black;
5% Asian; 5% Other• Reliability .98 for Total Self-Efficacy• Factor analysis yielded five correlated
factors (original four plus one new factor)
• Correlation with literacy measure
[email protected] March 2013
Factor Survey Item Examples
1. READING– Read my textbooks
2. WRITING– Write good sentences
3. APPLICATION– Use diagrams or pictures to
remember what I am learning
4. SELF-REGULATION– Complete my homework on time
5. STRATEGIC LEARNING– Ask questions in class
[email protected] March 2013
Student Literacy Perceptions by Program Classification (Runnells & WM, 2012)
[email protected] March 2013
ALAB Precautions & ConsiderationsALAB Precautions & Considerations• Significant correlation (p<.05) with the Measure of Academic
Progress (MAP) and Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy, but low effect sizes
• Determined internal validity and reliability, but not test re-test reliability
• Have not yet used longitudinally to assess utility in intervention evaluation
• Maturation and time in school impacts self-efficacy – overall, 9th grade students rated themselves as more confident than 8th, 8th grade students were more confident than 7th grade students
• Students with disabilities (SWD) and Students who are English Language Learners (ELL) expressed lower self-efficacy for some factors (total self-efficacy, writing self-efficacy, & reading self-efficacy)
• Students who were ELL, but not disabled, had self-efficacy scores comparable to SWD
[email protected] March 2013
Disclaimer
• Funding for this project was partially provided by a grant from the Virginia Department of Education and the USDOE Virginia‘s State Personnel Development Grant # H232070029. This project was found to comply with appropriate ethical standards and was exempted from the need for formal review by the College of William and Mary. The opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of the Virginia Department of Education or the USDOE.
[email protected] March 2013