Return
to the Winter 2004 - Vol. 34, No. 1 Contents
Study of Instructional Improvement (SII) Sets New Standard for Research
hat if researchers used a full range of research methods, both quantitative
and qualitative, to look closely at teaching and learning in their complexity,
over a long period of time— say, the time frame a child might spend in
an elementary school? Could they then uncover the critical resources needed
to improve educational outcomes for children in America’s most disadvantaged
schools?
Anticipation grows for the findings of a massive study involving high-poverty,
urban elementary schools in 40 districts, 7 states and the District of Columbia.
The Study of Instructional Improvement, led by School of Education faculty
Brian
Rowan, David
Cohen, and Deborah
Ball, is being conducted in collaboration
with colleagues from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, UM’s
Institute of Social Research, and an army of graduate students, research scientists,
faculty collaborators, and educator/participants. The study utilizes surveys,
interviews with parents, teachers, and administrators, teacher logs, classroom
observations, and student achievement data over multiple years in its quest
to capture the complex nature of teaching and learning in American schools
and connect it to students’ academic development.
Two factors make this study unique in the annals of educational research:
its elegant, out-of-the-box conception of education “resources,” and
its stunningly ambitious attempt to connect the nuances of classroom instruction
to students’ academic growth. The study will examine instruction and
student achievement in over 120 high-poverty elementary schools and also paint
detailed portraits of twelve schools and three whole school reform programs — Success
for All, Accelerated Schools, and America’s Choice — as they work
within school, district, state, and national contexts and policy environments. 
Normally, when people talk about “resources” for schools, they mean money spent per pupil, the number of books in the library, and the formal qualifications of the teachers. Often, these resources are thought to be “active agents of instruction,” so more books in the library somehow should result in better student achievement. SII investigators say the question isn’t, “Do resources matter?” but instead, “What resources matter, how, and under what circumstances?”
To look very closely at the kinds of resources that matter for classroom instruction and student learning, the researchers have involved a large number of teachers in data collection. Teachers in these schools have been keeping detailed daily logs of their reading/language arts and mathematics instruction. Classroom observations and logs made by researchers have then been compared and contrasted with teachers’ self-reports. These data, when examined along with measures of student achievement, will provide a richly detailed look at the kinds of instruction that matter.
David Cohen, the Dewey Chair in Education and the Annenberg Chair in Public
Policy, notes, “There has been a lot of discouraging news about the weak
effects of schooling on student learning. However, those reports are likely
based on poorly designed research studies.” Cohen and his colleagues
are concerned that decisions about education policy at the federal, state,
and local levels are being made without referring to a solid research base.
All connected with the study express a level of optimism about public education, based on what they’ve been learning. Ruben Carriedo, SII’s Associate Director of Outreach, says,” As a former administrator of a large urban district in California, I have been heartened by my visits to the schools in this study, some of the most challenged schools in the country.” Brian Rowan, the Study Director, reports, “We’re finding that these instructional interventions, on average, do affect instruction, perhaps because they are more well-crafted and intensive than traditional approaches, and they include serious implementation strategies.”
However, Carol
Barnes, SII’s Associate Director of Qualitative Studies,
cautions, “Stability may be an issue. In one school, after three years
of work with America’s Choice, the staff was just starting to see the
effects of their efforts. The students were understanding the routines, teachers
were learning and using new instructional practices, and the school had moved
more students out of the bottom levels of achievement than in previous years.” During
the fourth year, pressured by district 
interpretations
of state and federal testing requirements, the school dropped the program and
shifted to a new district-mandated program. She notes that this school’s
decision represents a pattern of shifting influences and policy cycles that
is probably going to be part of formal study findings.
According to Barnes, a series of reports based on these case studies is in process. The first, which will focus on the districts’ management of school improvement, will be out in Winter 2004. Additional reports will focus on the schools’ management of improvement, on professional education, and on instructional practice. The SII research team believes better policies and decisions at all levels could result from their work as the United States attempts to improve schooling in high-poverty, urban settings.
-Published in the Winter 2004 edition of Innovator
About SII
The Study of Instructional Improvment - http://sii.soe.umich.edu
Faculty - The Study of Instructional Improvment
Researchers - http://sii.soe.umich.edu/team.html
Return
to the Winter 2004 - Vol. 34, No. 1 Contents
