1. What Helps Students Learn? Winston-Salem State University Edwin D. Bell

2. Introduction Wang, Haertel, and Wahlberg, (1993/94) conducted an analysis of 50 years of research on the factors that influence student learning. Wang, Haertel, and Wahlberg, (1993/94) conducted an analysis of 50 years of research on the factors that influence student learning. The research was supported by the Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education and by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. DOE. The research was supported by the Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education and by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. DOE.

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

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

5. Student Aptitude

6. Classroom Instruction and Climate

7. Context

8. Program Design

9. School Organization

10. State and District Characteristics Wang, et al.,1993/1994, pp. 76-77

11. What did they find out? Student aptitude had the most influence on student learning and within that broad area of influence the student’s metacognitive process, i.e., the capacity to plan and monitor their work, had the most impact on student learning (Wang, et al., 1993/1994). Student aptitude had the most influence on student learning and within that broad area of influence the student’s metacognitive process, i.e., the capacity to plan and monitor their work, had the most impact on student learning (Wang, et al., 1993/1994). Classroom climate and instruction had as nearly as much impact on student learning as student aptitude (Wang, et al., 1993/1994). Classroom climate and instruction had as nearly as much impact on student learning as student aptitude (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).

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

13. Findings (continued) Their analysis indicated that classroom implementation and support, which deals with instructional services, staff development and the adequate training of teachers was the least influential in the classroom climate and instruction category (Wang, et al., 1993/1994). Their analysis indicated that classroom implementation and support, which deals with instructional services, staff development and the adequate training of teachers was the least influential in the classroom climate and instruction category (Wang, et al., 1993/1994). They argued that this weak relationship was probably due to the poor implementation of the variables involved, e.g., lack of time, resources, or support to implement new ideas and strategies (Wang, et al., 1993/1994). They argued that this weak relationship was probably due to the poor implementation of the variables involved, e.g., lack of time, resources, or support to implement new ideas and strategies (Wang, et al., 1993/1994).

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

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

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

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

18. Findings (continued) Wang, et al. (1993/1994) summarized the average influence of their six areas this way. Wang, et al. (1993/1994) summarized the average influence of their six areas this way. (p. 79)

19. Conclusion and Recommendation “ Generally, proximal variables (e.g., psychological, instructional, and home environment) exert more influence than distal variables (e.g., demographic, policy, and organizational).” (Wang, et al., 1993, p. 249 “ Generally, proximal variables (e.g., psychological, instructional, and home environment) exert more influence than distal variables (e.g., demographic, policy, and organizational).” (Wang, et al., 1993, p. 249 “Overall our findings support renewed emphasis on psychological, instructional, and contextual influences” (Wang, et al. 1993/1994, p. 79) “Overall our findings support renewed emphasis on psychological, instructional, and contextual influences” (Wang, et al. 1993/1994, p. 79)

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

21. References Irving, O. & Martin, J. (1982). Withitness: The confusing variable. American Educational Research Journal 19 (2), 313-319. Irving, O. & Martin, J. (1982). Withitness: The confusing variable. American Educational Research Journal 19 (2), 313-319. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Wahlberg, H. J. (1993/94). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74-79. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Wahlberg, H. J. (1993/94). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74-79.

22. References Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Wahlberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning Review of Education Research, 63(3), 249-294. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Wahlberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning Review of Education Research, 63(3), 249-294.