1 The Perceptions of High School Honor Students on ...

1 The Perceptions of High School Honor Students on the Academic Skills Needed to Succeed in College Science Classes

by Dr. Peter Kiriakidis, PhD Founder and CEO of Higher Education Research and Consulting Company and Paul Barber, EdD Research Paper Pertains to K-12 School Districts and the Institute of Higher Education Keywords: school district, high school honor graduates, high school, science classes, college level, freshman college science classes, preparation of high school honor graduates, entering college, teachers and administrators, effectively prepare honor students for college science classes First Author‘s Biography Dr. Peter Kiriakidis, PhD has expertise in higher education educational leadership: (a) chairing comprehensive examinations and dissertation committees; (b) developing curriculum and academic programs; and (c) teaching graduate courses in research, educational leadership in higher education, educational and information technology, online technology, e-commerce, software development, and information systems. Peter is a reviewer of many academic journals. Peter has presented a plethora of research studies nationally and internationally. Email: [email protected] Second Author‘s Biography Dr. Paul Barber has expertise in teacher leadership. Paul has worked as clinical faculty. He holds certifications from the American Society of Clinical Pathologists as both a Medical Technologist and a Specialist in Clinical Chemistry. Email: [email protected] Abstract High school honor graduates at a rural high school in the Southeastern United States of America have not been as prepared for science classes at the college level as their teachers expected. At the study site, which is located in one rural high school, honor

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1828144

2 graduates have been struggling with their freshman college science classes although these students were honors students in their high school science classes. The purpose of this study was to understand how well prepared high school honor graduates felt upon entering college. This qualitative case study was grounded in the brain-based theory of Caine and Caine with regard to honor high school students entering college. The research question focused what teachers and administrators can do to more effectively prepare honor students for college science classes. Twenty high school honor students participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews, and a predominant theme was identified through coding of the interview transcripts by case and research question. The findings revealed what skill sets were most important for success in college. Introduction Higher education is crucial for a progressive nation (Ji, 2009). Higher education institutions in the United States of American need students who have acquired the necessary academic skills in high schools. Unprepared high school students who enter colleges need college remediation. Almost 40% of students entering college required remedial classes (Attewell, Lavin, Domina, & Levey, 2006; Pascopella, 2005). Problem Statement At the study site, which is located in the eastern United States of America, high school honor graduates have been struggling with their freshman college science classes although these students were honors students in their high school science classes. Educational stakeholders at the study site needed research-based findings on how

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1828144

3 understanding how teachers and administrators could better prepare these students for college science courses. Nature of the Study The researchers conducted a qualitative case study in order to understand the perceptions of high school honor students on the academic skills needed to succeed in college science classes. The sample consisted of 20 honor graduates from a rural high school in the United States of America who have attended some college science classes. The participants were selected based on a set of predetermined criteria: (a) being a high school honor graduate from the study site, (b) having experience in science classes, and (c) being 18 years or older. Research Question What are the perceptions of high school honor students on the academic skills needed to succeed in college science classes? Purpose of the Study and Conceptual Framework The purpose of this study was to understand why high school honor graduates have not been as successful as expected in their freshman college science classes. The findings may help teachers and researchers to better understand the current challenges facing America‘s high school honor students and their lack of preparedness for college level academic work. According to Caine and Caine‘s (1995) brain-based learning model, academic challenge leads to higher level learning. Teachers need to establish a challenging, but

4 nonthreatening learning environment, and orchestrate immersion into a complex experience, and provide a dynamic learning environment. Educators can apply the brainbased learning model by encouraging students to innately search for meaning. Students can apply the brain-based learning model by continually challenging themselves in their learning. Caine and Caine (1990) used the term relaxed alertness to refer to the contexts where the brain is most open to learning, comprehending, and relating. This is the active processing element that has been described as critical to learning (Lujan & DeCarlo, 2006). When challenge does not exist in the high school science curriculum, students may not be as successful academically in their college science classes as their high school teachers expect them to be (Lujan & DeCarlo). Definition of Terms Academic preparedness: Academic preparedness refers to the degree of ability to do college level work sufficiently. Students who are sufficiently prepared academically possess sufficient academic skills to be successful in college (Perrin, 2004). Rigorous curriculum: A curriculum is rigorous when academic work is challenging, demanding, and holds students to high expectations (Wraga, 2010). Curriculum is designed to expose learners to difficult and challenging concepts and emphasizes depth of instruction to breadth of instruction (Andrew, 2008).

5 Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations, and Scope For the purpose of this study, the researchers assumed that academic challenge promotes growth and growth leads to a higher level of preparedness of honor students for college academic work. The researchers assumed that better prepared high school students perform better academically in college than lesser-prepared peers. The weakness of the study was that the researchers relied on the participants‘ honesty in their responses during the interviews. This research was limited to high school honor students within one school district and the implementation of a challenging science curriculum. The findings apply directly to the data site. This study was bounded by one high school. The scope of this study was specific to the high school honor students at the study site who were the focus of this study. The sample size limited the opportunity to generalize the findings to the larger and like school student populations in other school districts or states. The researchers interviewed 20 high school honor students. The timeframe for the study was limited to 10 weeks during the 2009-2010 academic year. The researchers had no authoritative position over the participants and therefore there was not concerned with the possibility of coercion. The participants were selected from predetermined criteria. Significance of Study This study was significant in several ways. The findings generated new knowledge for high school teachers. The findings expanded the knowledge about what

6 academic skills are most essential for students entering college. The findings may shed further light on student preparation for college and professional opportunities for teachers. The findings of this study may help stakeholders at the high school level to prepare students, teachers, administrators, and policymakers to institute effective academic programs. The findings may guide education leaders‘ efforts to hire highly qualified science high school teachers who understand the needs of honor students. The findings might help parents recognize their roles in helping their honor children and assure parents that their children are learning at the honors level for ongoing academic success. The findings might help honor students themselves through their science teachers‘ improved instructional strategies. Local institutes of higher education, teacher organizations, school districts, and community members might benefit from having an awareness of the experiences of honor students with regard to high school science curriculum and their teachers‘ instructional practices. These stakeholders might utilize the findings in terms of understanding how to support honor students, how to utilize instructional strategies to teach these students, and how to benefit from participating in professional development opportunities on how to teach and motivate these students. Literature Review Less than half of high school graduates feel prepared for work or post secondary education (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007), and that two-thirds feel inadequately prepared for a four-year college (Culpepper, Basile, Ferguson, Lanning, &

7 Perkins, 2010; Hardy, 2006). Lack of academic preparation has negatively impacted students‘ success rates in college (Steinberg & Almeida, 2008). College remediation rates have increased across the nation (Attewell et al., 2006; Bettinger & Long, 2005). College students need remedial courses (Kirst, 1998). College freshmen spend less than a year in remediation (National Science Foundation, 2006). Remediation rates suggest a profound disjuncture between K-12 education and postsecondary institutions (Kirst, 1998). College costs have increased (Kennamer, Katsinas, Hardy, & Roessleer, 2010) and 49 of the 50 states received a failing grade in college affordability (Hebel, 2009, 2010). Colleges and universities spent around $16.6 billion annually for remedial education (Hussey & Allen, 2006). Costs of remediation have been a contributing factor in the high costs of college. Student accountability is probably one of the most crucial aspects of a quality education (Fisher & Frey, 2008). Lack of accountability has been documented in education (Hussey & Allen, 2006; Pascopella, 2005). Peer-led labs and peer-teaching have both been shown to raise achievement and motivation among students (Tai & Sadler, 2008; Tribe & Kostka, 2007). Wentzel (2007) reported that students appreciate the ability to assess themselves. Hands on teaching strategies are also effective in improving student achievement (Zan & Geiken, 2010). Inquiry-based science instructional methods are necessary in teaching science where instructional strategies are effective for all levels of students (Sanger, 2007).

8 The teacher is the most important factor in the success and achievement of a student (Darling-Hammond & Rustique, 2005; Haycock & Chenowith, 2005). The teacher must be able to adapt (Haycock, 2005), and provide instruction that is relevant outside of school (Barab & Plucker, 2002). Continuing education workshops have been valuable in helping science teachers adopt a more real world focus in their classrooms (Barak, Carson, & Zoller, 2009). Mahalingham, Schaefer, and Morlino (2008) found that collaborative problem solving in science chasses was beneficial. Teachers who are truly caring for students are giving them the most rigorous education possible (Schnee, 2008). A student‘s academic achievement is linked to the rigor of the curriculum (Allen & Robbins, 2008; Barton & Coley, 2010; Pardini, 2007). Loveless (2008) and SeonYoung et al. (2010) reported that young people are not challenged in school. The rigor and challenge of a student‘s high school classes have been found to be the best indicators of how well that student might perform in college (Culpepper et al., 2010; Levesque, Wun, & Green, 2010; Smith, 2006). Ali and Jenkins (2002) found that exposure to a highly rigorous high school curriculum resulted in increases in college graduation rates. Academic rigor in coursework has been found to be most crucial among gifted students (McCollister & Sayler, 2010; Weber, Boswell, & Smith, 2008). Tsai (2007) found that an unchallenging curriculum is a major reason that a gifted student may become an underachiever. A rigorous curriculum should encourage critical thinking skills through high instructional standards (Payne, Kleine, Purcell, & Carter, 2005). Teachers must have high

9 expectations of their students (Ford, 2011). Smith (2008) found that many students leave honors level classes and programs when they perceive that only the amount of work has increased and they get no net learning benefit from the honors level classes when compared to the regular classes. Culpepper et al. (2010) found higher achievement in college science among students who had taken rigorous coursework in math and science in high school. A rigorous curriculum embraces the deep immersion in the content area specified in Caine and Caine‘s brain-based learning model (Washor & Mojkowski, 2007). A rigorous and challenging curriculum is beneficial to students and is needed in schools (Wiggins & McTighe, 2008). Students learn best when they are interested and motivated, and their achievement level rises (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Martin, 2008; Tella, Tella, & Adeniyi, 2009; Winebrenner, 2006). Brain-based learning increases student interest (Wilson, 2004) and when interest is increased, achievement follows (Tella et al., 2009). The academic rigor associated with brain-based theory is required to stimulate students and promote academic growth (McCollister & Sayler, 2010). Brain-based learning has been found to be more effective than traditional methods in increasing student achievement (Ozden & Gultekin, 2008). A challenging curriculum, such as prescribed in the brain-based learning model, and academic achievement in the post secondary realm are positively correlated (Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, 2006). The beneficial effects of increasing academic challenge and rigor have been well documented (Colangelo &

10 Assouline, 2005). Brain-based learning, with its emphasis on challenge, has been found to be effective in increasing student achievement (Lujan & DeCarlo, 2006). Challenge and rigor do effect achievement (Kaufman, Robinson, Bellah, Akers, Haase-Wittler, & Martindale., 2008). Sample and Context of the Study The population was high school honor graduates. The study site was a rural high school in the southeastern United States. The participants were selected based on a set of predetermined criteria: (a) being a high school honor graduate from the study site, (b) having experience in science classes, and (c) being 18 years or older. These criteria were employed to ensure that all participants would be able to report relevant and specific information concerning the inquiry. The participants were honor graduates from the study site and were registered in some college science courses. The participant pool was limited to those who had graduated with honors within the previous 5 years. Those candidates who agreed to participate in this study were invited to participate in the study. The sample consisted of 20 honor high school students of which 11 were males and nine were females. Qualitative data were collected from high school honor graduates through face-to-face interviews. The times and places were chosen for the convenience of each participant. The participants had graduated high school within the previous 5 years and have attended some college. The participants were identified by the type of college they first attended, community college, 4-year university, or technical school, and the time since their high

11 school graduation, either 2 years of less or more than 2 years. All of the participants in this study attended college directly out of high school. Fourteen of the participants in this study went to community college, five went to state university, and one went to a technical college. Additionally, seven of the participants who have been out of high school for more than 2 years have gone on to attend a 4-year college after completing community college. Twelve of the participants took an elective science their senior year, either physics or anatomy and physiology. Eleven of the participants took science classes classified as honors level or gifted classes. Research Design A case study design was chosen for this study. Through interviews, the participants shared their perceptions of this topic. The narrative research design was not chosen because the lives of individuals were not studied. The ethnography research design was not chosen because the participants were not members of an intact cultural or ethnic group. The phenomenological research design was not chosen because the participants were not studied for a prolonged engagement. All quantitative research designs were not chosen because the goal of this study was to learn how and why particular aspects of a high school curriculum are effective to prepare honor students for college science. As a result, a qualitative case study was chosen and the participants were interviewed in a natural setting at the study site over a 10-week time period.

12 Ethical Protection of the Participants The administrator responsible for research at the study site, which was a high school, provided the researchers with a list of former students who had been honor graduates. Potential research candidates were contacted during their summer break when they were back in their hometown to participate in the study. Those candidates who agreed to participate in the study were provided with an informed consent form to sign. Those candidates who signed the consent form, were the participants in this study. The names of the participants were not revealed during and after this study was conducted. Each participant was assigned a unique number such as 10 represented the tenth participant. The names of the teachers of the participants were not collected during the interviews. All interviews were held in a comfortable place. All participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time. The consent and release forms detailed all privacy protection measures. Data Collection Procedures The interviews focused on the research topic and were conducted face-to-face, recorded, transcribed, and member checked when completed. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain the interviewees‘ interpretations of their experiences on this topic. Interviews were audio-taped with the participant‘s permission. The interviews were 1 hour each in duration. The interview protocol was used during the interviews (Appendix A). The responses of the participants were entered into NVivo 8.0 to manage the interview data. Follow-up interviews were scheduled with the participants after the

13 completion of the scheduled interviews when member checking was needed. Follow-up contacts were made in person in order to give a complete examination of each response collected during the face-to-face interviews. Data Analysis Procedures All interviews were transcribed and recorded in color-coded notebooks representing a particular form of data. During the reading and deciphering of the interview transcripts, new or different codes were determined. Analyses for each case and by each research question were conducted. Themes emerged from the interview transcripts. Quality was assured by member checking and peer debriefing. The findings were distributed the participants for their member checking. Specifically, each interview transcript was shared with the participant of that interview session to allow the participant to confirm that what was recorded was accurate. A researcher experienced on this topic conducting the peer debriefing by reviewing the interview transcripts and findings. Reliability and Validity Scholars can replicate the findings of this study. The researchers minimized data collection and analysis errors and researcher biases. The interview protocol was pilottested by experts on this important topic. The interview questions were used as data collection instruments and were designed to measure what they were intended to measure. The researchers were the research instrument and as a result, credibility for validity was established through trustworthiness and member checking that contributed to the credibility of the findings by minimizing investigative bias.

14 Findings Theme: Students who developed critical thinking, problem solving, and study skills in high school are better prepared for college The participants reported these skills: study, problem solving, and critical thinking skills. All of the participants reported that they developed problem solving skills in high school. Half of the participants reported that they developed critical thinking skills in high school. Half of the participants reported that that they developed study skills in high school. Table List of Academic Skills

Academic Skills

Percent

Problem Solving

100%

Critical Thinking

50%

How to Study Effectively

50%

Participants 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 reported that the high school teachers and administrators can do more to make their top academic students be better prepared for science classes in college. Participant 1 reported, ―Good problem solving skills developed in high school make college courses easier because students were taught how to study effectively.‖ Participant 3 reported, ―High school teachers taught us how to

15 problem solve and how to take tests.‖ Participant 5 reported, ―The teachers had excellent teaching strategies and helped us problem solve and study well.‖ Participant 6 reported, ―At least one high school teacher taught using lecture-centered lessons with the focus on problem solving.‖ Participant 6 reported, ―We mastered how to take notes during each lecture.‖ The participants reported that their academic skills needed to succeed in college science classes depend on how well they were prepared after high school. Seven participants felt their academic skills were well developed while six felt their skills were somewhat developed, and seven felt their skills were not developed at all. Eight participants reported that they felt prepared in science courses and not in other academic courses. Ten of the participants indicated that they felt their high school science curriculum was challenging. All participants reported that grades were the overwhelming focus in high school. Sixteen participants reported that teaching should be about understanding the curriculum and not memorizing concepts. Evidence of Quality In member checking, the results were presented to the participants to ensure that they accurately reflected the participants‘ feelings. No participant suggested any correction or modification after member checking was conducted. Interview data were found to be consistent. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and then presented to the participants for their review. This additional review allowed the participants to read their

16 interviews and make comments, if necessary. All participants reviewed their interview transcripts to make sure that the information they shared during the face-to-face interviews were accurate. The participants‘ rights were protected during this study. Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations The theme that emerged was that the participants who developed critical thinking, problem solving, and study skills were better prepared for college. Results showed that participants felt their high school curriculum was a challenging curriculum and beneficial in preparing honor students for college. In addition, results showed that honor graduates perceived that their high school curriculum affected their preparedness for college science classes, specifically those honor students who considered their high school curriculum to have been challenging felt more prepared for college than those honor students who did not consider their high school curriculum to have been challenging. Interpretations of the findings emerged from the interviews with the participants. Honor students felt that a challenging curriculum in high school science, one that required more work from students, was instrumental in preparing them for college. The findings indicated that the participants were divided into two categories: those who felt prepared and those who were not prepared for their freshman college science classes. The participants who felt that their high school curriculum was challenging were required to work harder. As a result, these participants felt more prepared when they got to their college science classes. The participants who did not feel that their high school curriculum was challenging did not feel required to work harder. As a result, many of

17 these participants did not feel as prepared as their peers did when they got to their college science classes. The participants who felt prepared reported that a high quality curriculum required them to work and study harder. These participants reported rigorous and challenging classes were important to them. Having attended college, the participants were aware of what aspects of their high school education had helped them to become prepared for college. The participants were also aware of the aspects of their high school education that were not beneficial in helping them to become prepared for college. The participants were able to reflect on their recent high school experiences in light of their college experiences meaningfully analyze the practical efficacy of both their high school curriculum and their high school teachers‘ teaching strategies. The findings are supported by the current research that there is a link between academic work with a rigorous curriculum and high achievement in college, and study skill have been shown to be crucial for success in college (Huang & Cho, 2009). With respect to gifted students, depth of instruction is crucial, and this requires the student to develop and utilize his or her study, problem solving, and critical thinking skills (Ruf 2005). These findings support the suppositions of the brain-based learning theory as proposed by Caine and Caine (1990, 1995). Caine and Caine advocated that integrating bits of information together into an understanding is better than collecting and displaying random bits of information. This is what the participants were meaning when they

18 referred to teachers‘ asking them to think critically and develop study skills. According to St. Jarre (2010), effectively increasing rigor in education requires more emphasis on the teachers‘ assigning the students a ―heavy work which requires complex thought … adapting preexisting knowledge to new concepts‖ (p. 80). Practical Applications of the Findings The findings of this study may help stakeholders at the high school level to prepare students, teachers, administrators, and policymakers to institute effective programs for high school honor students. Education stakeholders need to measure the academic skills of high school honor students by providing evidence that these students have developed higher competencies for success at the next academic level. High school honor students need critical thinking and problem solving skills in order to do well in college or university sources. The findings might contribute to the primary objectives of NCLB (2002) to provide quality education for all children. The findings might help parents recognize their roles in helping their honor children acquire and hone these necessary skills, and assure parents that their children are learning at the honors level for ongoing academic success. The findings might help honor students themselves through their science teachers‘ improved instructional strategies. Conclusion The finding that high school honor students who developed critical thinking, problem solving, and study skills in high school are better prepared for college has made positive contributions to the field of research. Focusing on the honor students‘ experiences,

19 professional development programs can be developed to make these practices more effective.

20 References

Abbott, W. (2008). The politics of grade inflation: A case study. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 32-37. Retrieved from http://changemag.org Adams, C. (2003). Twenty-five years later—spinning our wheels or moving forward? Roeper Review, 25(3), 116-117. doi:10.1080/02783190309554212 Adelman, C. (1998). The kiss of death: An alternative view of college remediation. National Crosstalk, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.highereducation.org Ali, R., & Jenkins, G. (2002, April). The high school diploma: Making it more than an empty promise. The Education Trust West. Oakland, CA. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org. Allen, J., & Robbins, S. (2008). Prediction of college major persistence based on vocational interests, academic preparation, and first year academic performance. Research in Higher Education, 49(1), 62-79. doi: 10.1007/s11162-007-9064-5 Andrew, T. (2008). Teach a rigorous curriculum: Tips for including rigor in existing classroom lessons. Retrieved from http://www.suite101.com Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924. Retrieved from http://www.ohiostatepress.org/ Barab, S., & Plucker, J. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning.

21 Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182. Retrieved from http://www.erlbaum.com Barak, M., Carson, K., & Zoller, U. (2007). The ―chemistry is in the news‖ project: Can a workshop induce a pedagogical change? Journal of Chemical Education, 84(10), 1712-1716. Barton, P., & Coley, R. (2010). Those persistent. Educational Leadership, 67(4), 18-23. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2005). Addressing the needs of under-prepared students in higher education: Does college remediation work? (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11325). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http:// www.nber.org Caine, R., & Caine, G (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning and teaching. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 66-70. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org Caine, R., & Caine, G (1995). Reinventing schools through brain-based learning. Educational Leadership, 52(7), 43-47. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org Callahan, C., Cooper, C., & Glascock, R. (2003). Preparing teachers to develop and enhance talent: The position of national education organizations. Charlottesville,

22 VA: National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org Chaddock, G. (2004, Dec. 7). Math + test = trouble for U. S. economy. Christian Science Monitor, 97(8). Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. (2005). Accelerating Gifted Children. Principal, 84(5), 62. Retrieved http://www.naesp.org Cook, G. (2004). Grade inflation reaches new heights. American School Board Journal, 191(6), 8. Retrieved from http://www.asbj.com/ Creech, J. (1997). Better preparation, less remediation. Challenging courses make a difference. Southern Regional Education Board, Washington, D. C. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Culpepper, S. A., Basile, C., Ferguson, C. A., Lanning, J. A., & Perkins, M. A. (2010). Understanding the transition between high school and college mathematics and science. The Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 12, 157-167.

23 Cushman, K. (2003). Fires in the bathroom: Advice for teachers from high school students. New York, NY: The New Press. Dalton, B., Ingels, S., Downing, J., & Bozick, R. (2007). Advanced math and science coursetaking in the spring high school senior classes of 1982, 1992, and 2004. Statistical analysis report. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rustique-Forrester, E. (2005). The consequences of student testing for teaching and teacher quality. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(2), 289-319. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED EJ885537). doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2005.00034.x Dlugos, P. (2003). Using critical thinking to assess the ineffable. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(7), 613-629. doi:10.1080/10668920390194525 Downey, C. J., Prase, L. E., Paston, W. K., & Steffy, B. (2003). Fifty ways to close the achievement gap. United States of America: Curriculum Management Systems. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Releasing Responsibility. Educational Leadership 66(3), 32-37. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org Ford, D. (2011). Closing the achievement gap: Gifted education must join the battle. Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 31-34.

24 Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P.R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 360-389. doi: 10.1080/08957340802347852 Gavlik, D. (2004, June). Are your high school constituents successful in college? The Issue. Columbus, OH: Ohio Board of Regents. Gose, B. (1999). Study says rigor of high-school courses is the best predictor of college graduation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(9), A46. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com Greene. K. (2010). From reluctance to results: A veteran teacher embraces research. English Journal, 99(3), 91-94. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/ Gross, P. (2005, October). Less than proficient: A review of the draft science framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Foreword by Finn, C. & Petrilli, M. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net Gross, P. (2005, December). State of state science standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (1994). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

25 Hardy, L. (2006). Graduation statistics and systemic reform spark a conversation among state leaders. American School Board Journal, 193(2), 10-11. Retrieved from http://www.asbj.com/ Hassel, H., & Lourey, J. (2005). The dea(r)th of student responsibility. College Teaching, 53(1), 2-13. doi:10.3200/CTCH.53.1.2-13 Hatch, J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Haught, M. (2008). Improving the high school senior year: Problems and solutions. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3304460) Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org Haycock, K., & Chenowith, K. (2005). Choosing to make a difference. American School Board Journal, 192(4), 28-31. Haycock, K. (2005). Choosing to matter more. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 256265. doi10.1177/0022487105275552 Haycock, K. (2010). Building common college-ready standards. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(4), 14-19. Retrieved from http://heldref.org Hebel, S. (2008). The U.S. is falling behind on education and lacks key data, report card finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(16), 14-15. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com.

26 Hebel, S. (2009). Obama urges colleges to control spiraling costs. The Chronicle of Higher Education 55(28), 21. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com Hebel, S. (2010). Bill Clinton tells colleges to close education gaps, rein in costs. The Chronicle of Higher Education 56(32), 21-22. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com Hirsh, S. (2005). Professional development and closing the achievement gap. Theory into Practice, 44(1). doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4401_6 Hoff, D. (2002). Science standards have yet to seep into class, panel says. Education Week, 21(37), 10. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ Howell, W., West, M., & Peterson, P. (2007). What Americans think about their schools: The 2007 ―Education Next‖-PEPG survey. Education Next, 7(4), 12-26. Retrieved from http://www.hoover.org Hoyt, J. E., & Sorensen, C. T. (2001). High school preparation, placement, testing, and college remediation. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(2), 26-34. Retrieved from http://www.ncde.appstate.edu Huang, D., & Cho, J. (2009). Academic enrichment in high functioning homework after school programs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(3), 382. Hussey, J., & Allen, J. (2006). The American education diet: Can U.S. students survive on junk food? Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform. Retrieved from http://www.edreform.com

27 Jago, C. (2000). It‘s the curriculum, stupid. American School Board Journal. 187(4). Abstract retrieved from http://www.asbj.com/ Jago, C. (2001, September). The best of times, the worst of times. English Journal 91(1), 20-21. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org Janesick, V. (2004). ―Stretching” Exercises for Qualitative Researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Janisch, C., & Johnson, M. (2003). Effective literacy practices and challenging curriculum for at-risk learners: Great expectations. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(3), 295-308. Retrieved from Education Research Complete Ji, Z. (2009). Teaching evaluation: A critical measure for improving the quality of education. Chinese Education and Society, 42(2) 7-19. doi: 10.2753/CED10611932420201 Jones, B. (2009). Profiles of state-supported residential math and science schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(3), 472-501. Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com Kaufman, E. K., Robinson, J. S., Bellah, K. A., Akers, C., Haase-Wittler, P., & Martindale, L . (2008). Engaging students with brain-based learning. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 83(6), 50-55. Retrieved from http://www.acteonline.org

28 Kennamer, M. A., Katsinas, S. G., Hardy, D. E., & Roessler, B. (2010). Closing the doors of opportunity? Trends in enrollment, college costs, and direct grant aid at community colleges in the United States, 2000-2001 to 2005-2006. Community College Journal of Reaearch and Practice, 34, 7-24. doi:10.1080/10668920903388115 Kirst, M. (1998). Bridging the remediation gap [Electronic Version]. Education Week, 18(1), 76-77. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org Kohn, A. (2002). The dangerous myth of grade inflation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(11), 7. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com Leamnson, R. (1999). Thinking about teaching and learning: Developing habits of learning with first-year college and university students. Sterking, VA: Stylus. Learning Point Associates (2005). Strategies to Improve High Schools. Washington, DC: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Lee, V., & Ready, D. (2009). U.S. high school curriculum: Three phases of contemporary research and reform. Future of Children, 19(1), 135-156. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/ Lerner, J., & Brand, B. ( 2007). The impact of secondary–postsecondary learning options on college preparation. Peer Review, 9(1), 27-30. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org

29 Levesque, K., Wun, J., & Green, C. (2010). Science achievement and occupational career/technical education coursetaking in high school: The class of 2005. Statistics in brief. (NCES 2010-021). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E., (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Loveless, T. (2008). High achieving students in the era of NCLB. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Lujan, H., & DiCarlo, S. (2006). Too much teaching, not enough learning: What is the solution? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(1-4), 17-22. doi:10.1152/advan.00061.2005.

Mahalingam, M., Schaefeer, F., & Morlino,E. (2008). Promoting student learning thorugh group problem in general chemistry recitations. Journal of Chemical Education 85(11), 1577-1581. Manthey, G. (2005). Too many students fall over achievement ―cliff.‖ Leadership, 34(3), 19. Retrieved from http://www.acsa.org Martin, A. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 239-269. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003 Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current research, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 1(10), 327-365.

30 Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCollister, K., & Sayler, M. (2010). Lift the ceiling: Increase rigor with critical thinking skills. Gifted Child Today, 33(1), 41-47. Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com/ National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Program for international student assessment (PISA). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov National Science Foundation (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov Olson, L. (2002, May). Research underscores need for tough courses. EducationWeek, 21(37), 10. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org 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), 3-19. Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu Pardini, P. (2007). Higher expectations challenge teachers and students to succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 28(4), 10-13. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org Pascopella, A. (2005). Shift in high school education necessary. District Administration, 41(3), 20-21. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com

31 Payne, S., Kleine, K., Purcell, J., & Carter, G. (2005). Evaluating academic challenge beyond the NSSE. Innovative Higher Education, 30(2), 129-146. doi: 10.1007/s10755-005-5015-2 Pearson Education (2005). International comparison of math, reading, and science skills among 15-year-olds. Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com Perrin, D. (2004). Remediation beyond developmental education: The use of learning assistance centers to increase academic preparedness in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(7), 559-582. doi:10.1080/10668920490467224 Planty, M., Provasnik, S., & Daniel, B. (2007). High school course taking: Findings from The Condition of Education, 2007. (NCES 2007-065). Retreived from http://nces.ed.gov Regnier, M. (2001). The American education diet: Can U.S. students survive on junk food? Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform. Retrieved from http://edreform.com Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ruf, D. (2005). Losing our minds: Gifted children left behind. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

32 Sanger, M. (2007). The effects of inquiry-based instruction on elementary teaching majors‘ chemistry content knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(6), 1035-1039. Santovec, M. (2004). Public attitudes toward higher education. Administrator 23(9), 5-6. Schnee, E. (2008). ―In the real world no one drops their standards for you‖: Academic rigor in a college worker education program. Equity and Excellence in Education, 41(1), 62-80. doi 10.1080/10665680701764502 Schutz, G. (2007). The impact of educational experience on student persistence at six public universities. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3259043) Seo, H., Lee, E., & Kim, K. (2005). Korean science teachers‘ understanding of creativity in gifted education. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2/3), 98-105. doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-476 Seon-Young, L., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Peternel, G. (2010). The efficacy of academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 189-208. doi: 10.1177/0016986210369256 Smith, J. (2006). Examining the long term impact of achievement loss during the transition to high school. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(4), 211221. Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com/

33 Smith, K (2008). Becoming an ‗honours student‘: The interplay of literacies and identities in a high-track class. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 481-507. doi:10.1080/00220270701798996 Southern Education Foundation (2002). Remediation in college in southern education states. Retrieved from http://www.sefatl.org St. Jarre, K. (2010). Brain torque. Phi Delta Kappan 91(5), 80. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org Stake, R. (2005). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Steinberg, A., & Almeida, C. (2008). Raising graduation rates in an era of high standards: Five commitments for state action. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org Tai, R., & Sadler, P. (2008). High school chemistry instructional practices and their association with college chemistry grades. Journal of Chemical Education. 84(6), 1040-1046. Tella, A., Tella, A., & Adeniyi, O. (2009). Locus of control, interest in schooling, selfefficacy and academic achievement. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 168-182. Retrieved from www.world-education-center.org Tribe, L., & Kostka, K. (2007). Peer-developed and peer-led labs in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(6), 1031-1034.

34 Tsai, D. (2007). Differentiating curriculum for gifted students by providing accelerated options. Gifted Education International, 23(1), 88-97. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Warburton, E., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A., (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and postsecondary success of first generation students. (NCES 2001153). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov Washor, E., & Mojkowski, C. (2007). What do you mean by rigor? Educational Leadership, 64(4), 84-87. Weber, C., Boswell, C., & Smith, D. (2008). Different paths to accountability: Defining rigorous outcomes for gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 31(1), 54-65. Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com Wenzel, T. (2007). Evaluation tools to guide students‘ peer-assessment and selfassessment in group activities for the lab and classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(1), 182-186. White, E., & Cohen, J. (2004). Creating shared student responsibility for general education. Peer Review. 7(1), 8-10. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2008). Put understanding first. Educational Leadership 65(8), 36-41. Wilson, S. (2004). Creative projects stimulate classroom learning. Science Scope, 28(2), 41-43. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org

35 Winebrenner. S. (2006). Effective teaching strategies for open enrollment honors and AP classes. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(3), 159-177. doi:10.4219/jsge-2006-402 Wraga, W. (2010, May). What’s the problem with a “rigorous academic curriculum”? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Professors of Education/American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zan, B., & Geiken, R. (2010). Ramps and Pathways: Developmentally appropriate, intellectually rigorous, and fun physical science. Young Children 65(1), 12-17. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org