Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 73
7 Studies of School and Classroom Effectiveness Whereas Chapter 6 focuses on program evaluations, in which the issue of instructional language is paramount, this chapter focuses on empirical studies that attempt to identify school- and classroom-level factors related to effective schooling for English-language learners from early education programs through high school. Although the issue of language of instruction is an important feature of the research described in this chapter, it does not dominate the work as much as it has the evaluation research discussed in Chapter 6. FINDINGS Observations on Studies of Effective Schools and Classrooms Based on a systematic literature search, we identified reports of 33 studies for inclusion in this review (see the appendix). Several general observations can be made about this collection. First, this is a heterogeneous group of studies, employing at least four different types of designs. In the effective schools design, schools are designated as effective based on measures of student learning or achievement. In the nominated schools design, schools are identified in accordance with the professional judgments of knowledgeable educators, rather than being identified on the basis of outcome measures. Prospective case studies and quasi-experiments represent a different approach to studying effective schooling. In-
OCR for page 74
stead of finding schools that are already "effective" or have been nominated as such, prospective studies attempt to document changes in school-wide programs or classrooms and the effects of these changes on student achievement. Quasi-experimental designs employ comparison schools or classrooms. In addition, the studies range from single-classroom and - school studies to a study of nine different "exemplary programs" in a total of 39 schools. Furthermore, they represent levels of schooling from kindergarten to preschool. A second general observation is that school- and classroom-level factors associated with varying outcomes for English-language learners have received less attention than have other areas of research on these students. Clearly, the issue of language of instruction (whether English-language learners should be taught in their native language, and if so, to what extent) has dominated the research agenda (see Chapter 6). There have also been qualitative and ethnographic studies that have examined social context, language distribution, classroom interaction, and sociocultural enactments of classroom pedagogy (see Chapters 2-4). Although these studies provide rich descriptions of educational environments, many do not relate practice to learning outcomes. Third, although many non-English languages found in U.S. schools appear to be represented in these studies, by far the most commonly found is Spanish. This of course reflects the reality that approximately three-fourths of English-language learners are Spanish speaking. Most of the studies were conducted in schools that were predominately Latino. However, some sites within larger studies had substantial numbers of non-Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Only a few studies—Slavin and Yampolsky (1992) (Asian), Wong Fillmore et al. (1985) (Chinese), Rosebery et al. (1992) (Haitian-Creole), and Tharp (1982) (Hawaiian)—targeted non-Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Fourth, as previously mentioned, by far the greatest number of schools and classrooms studied have been within the nominated schools design. These studies, as well as a few in the other categories, do not report student achievement data.1 The absence of outcome data does not mean 1 In their report on the California Case Studies, Gold and Tempes (1987:7) explicitly state that their project "was not designed as an experiment" and that they "carefully avoided efforts to set up premature or unreasonable comparisons." However, achievement data on the California Case Studies have been reported in various papers and publications (e.g., Krashen and Biber, 1988). Samaniego and Eubank (1991) conducted a more objective and rigorous secondary analysis of achievement data at four of the five sites. Three other studies included in this review (Lucas et al., 1990; Tikunoff, 1983; Tikunoff et al., 1991) report that some indicators of student outcomes informed the selection of the "effective" or "exemplary" sites, but neither these data nor the criteria used by investigators are reported. Of the remaining studies, one was exclusively exploratory (Minicucci and Olsen, 1992) and makes no claim of trying to explain how effective programs came to be; the studies by Berman et al. (1992, 1995), Pease-Alvarez et al. (1991), and Gersten (1996) neither report outcome data nor apparently used student outcomes to inform the selection of nominated sites. With the exception of Short (1994), which is more of an exploratory study, the prospective and quasi-experimental studies report student outcome data.
OCR for page 75
that a study is uninformative. Indeed, these studies are filled with interesting and useful data about programs, staff, students, community, and, more generally, the very complex and challenging circumstances in which students and teachers must function. They also provide what in many cases are highly compelling accounts of dedicated educators working to create engaging, meaningful, and responsive settings for student learning. However, they do not link these settings to indicators of student outcomes, at least not in any explicit way. Finally, as noted above, these studies report a wide range of school-and classroom-level attributes related to effectiveness. These attributes, summarized in the following section, can be conceptualized and categorized in many different ways. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the attributes discussed here represent concepts refracted through at least two sets of lenses (the original investigators' and this committee's), that the empirical bases for making strong causal claims vary considerably and are sometimes unknown, and that there are caveats associated with some of the attributes. For example, different attributes may be more or less important for different age groups or different ethnic groups. Therefore, none of these individual attributes should be considered necessary or sufficient conditions for the schooling of English-language learners. Attributes of Effective Schools and Classrooms Based on the findings of the 33 studies reviewed, effective schools and classrooms can be said to have the following attributes.2 Supportive School-Wide Climate Carter and Chatfield (1986), Moll (1988), Lucas et al. (1990), Tikunoff (1983), Tikunoff et al. (1991), Berman et al. (1992, 1995), and Minicucci 2 Note that not all studies include all attributes, but the general attributes appear in many of the studies.
OCR for page 76
and Olsen (1992) report that a positive school-wide climate was a feature of the effective or exemplary schools they studied. The schools varied in their particular manifestations of such a climate, but overall emphasized three things—value placed on the linguistic and cultural background of English-language learners, high expectations for their academic achievement, and their integral involvement in the overall school operation. How does a school climate, or ethos, change from being "not conducive" to being "conducive" to high levels of achievement for English-language learners? Unfortunately, the studies do not offer much guidance here. Only Goldenberg and Sullivan (1994) address this question directly and prospectively. They claim that changes in school climate were the result of a complex process, aimed at improving student achievement, that began with identification of school-wide goals and expectations for students, followed by consistent, visible, multiple, and long-term efforts to work toward those goals. Teachers responded positively to the more meaningful and substantive focus at the school. Although the logic of attempting to change school climate through staff development and training to improve student achievement is supported by research on teacher expectations, an alternative hypothesis may merit attention: that school climate is at least as much a reflection of student achievement as an influence on it (Jussim, 1986). In other words, it may be that teachers hold high expectations when they have students who achieve, and conversely that they hold low expectations when their students do not achieve. If this formulation is valid, it suggests that one important way to raise teacher expectations is to increase student achievement by creating structures at a school and helping teachers acquire the skills and knowledge needed to be more successful with students, rather than by exhorting teachers to raise their expectations. School Leadership Consistent with findings of the effective schools research that began two decades ago, school-level leadership appears to be a critical dimension of effective schooling for English-language learners (Tikunoff et al., 1991; Carter and Chatfield, 1986; Lucas et al., 1990; Goldenberg and Sullivan, 1994). At least half of the studies reviewed name leadership, often the principal's, as an important factor; the role of leadership can also be inferred from several of the other studies that do not explicitly cite it. An important exception can be found in the Success for All studies, which do not name leadership as an important attribute. This stance is atypical of the school change literature as a whole, and some suggest that
OCR for page 77
the Success for All program does not require a strong principal because leadership comes from a Success for All site facilitator, teachers provide this leadership, and the program is highly structured and limited to language arts and reading instruction. Customized Learning Environment Staff in effective schools and classrooms design the learning environment to reflect school and community contextual factors and goals while meeting the diverse needs of their students (Berman et al., 1992, 1995; Tikunoff et al., 1991; Moll, 1988; Samaniego and Eubank, 1991; Lucas et al., 1990). Many researchers have noted that there is no one right way to educate English-language learners; different approaches are necessary because of the great diversity of conditions faced by schools and students. These researchers recommend that local staff and community members identify the conditions under which one or some combination of approaches is best suited and then adapt models to match their particular circumstances. For example, Lucas et al. (1990) found that English-language learners are more likely to achieve when a school's curriculum responds to their individual and differing needs by offering variety in three areas: the skills, abilities, and knowledge classes are designed to develop (i.e., native-language development, ESL, subject matter knowledge); the degrees of difficulty and sophistication among available classes (i.e., advanced as well as low-level classes); and the approaches to teaching content (i.e., native-language instruction, content ESL, and specially designed instruction in English). Articulation and Coordination Within and Between Schools Effective schools are characterized by a smooth transition between levels of language development classes (e.g., between content-based ESL and sheltered instruction) and coordination and articulation between special second-language programs and other school programs, as well as between levels of schooling (Short, 1994; Slavin and Yampolsky, 1992; Minicucci and Olsen, 1992; Berman et al., 1995; Saunders et al., 1996; Calderon et al., 1996). In many of the schools studied, there was collaboration between special language teachers and mainstream classroom or content teachers to articulate students' instructional programs. Moreover, in these schools the transition from special language instruction to mainstream classes was gradual, carefully planned, and supported with activi-
OCR for page 78
ties (prior to reclassification and after mainstreaming) designed to ensure students' success. Use of Native Language and Culture The advantages of native-language use are a prominent theme among these studies, either explicitly (e.g., Henderson and Landesman, 1992; Hernandez, 1991; Muniz-Swicegood, 1994; Lucas et al., 1990; Berman et al., 1995; Rosebery et al., 1992, Tikunoff, 1983; Pease-Alvarez et al., 1991; Calderon et al., 1996) or implicitly (Carter and Chatfield, 1986, and Goldenberg and Sullivan, 1994, both of which took place in school settings where there was a firm commitment to bilingual education). Even those studies that report on Special Alternative Instructional Programs, where most instruction takes place in English, cite teachers' use of students' native languages to clarify and elaborate on points made in English (Tikunoff et al., 1991). Moreover, findings from a study of nine Special Alternative Instructional Programs (Lucas and Katz, 1994:545) indicate that even in exemplary programs designed to provide instruction primarily in English, the classrooms were "multilingual environments in which students' native languages served a multitude of purposes and functions. Across sites, native language use emerged as a persistent and key instructional strategy realized in very site-specific ways." Nevertheless, several sites examined in these studies do not feature native-language programs. One of the Success for All sites, for example, has a largely Asian population, and all instruction is in English. In addition, while some of the Spanish-speaking students in the Success for All studies are in primary-language programs, some are in sheltered English programs. Similarly, most of the studies cited in this review can contribute little direct knowledge to important questions about adapting instructional programs to students' home culture (e.g., sociolinguistic patterns, cognitive styles). These studies take place in contexts where the students' home culture is valued and seen as a resource to build upon, rather than a liability to remediate. Most of the studies report some aspect of home culture validation, accommodation, or inclusion in their effective sites. Again, Success for All presents a challenging counterpoint. There is nothing in the Success for All literature indicating that cultural validation or cultural accommodation per se is an important element of the program or, indeed, that culture plays any direct role at all (aside from language). Of course, it is possible that cultural adaptations were taking place in the
OCR for page 79
Success for All schools studied (as a result of the programs or not), but this factor was not examined. Thus the studies reviewed can, at best, make an oblique contribution to the debate on the role of home language and culture in the education of these students. In part, this is because there are no rigorous studies that have controlled for interactions among student background (e.g., prior schooling in the native language, age), ways in which the first and second languages are used, and other instructional variables (e.g., overall quality of schooling). Balanced Curriculum In much of the quasi-experimental research, classroom teachers combine basic and higher-order skills. In the Success for All schools, there is a balance between instruction in basic and higher-order skills at all grade levels. Success for All's strong outcomes make the balance of these two levels of instruction very compelling. Both Goldenberg and Gallimore (1991) and Goldenberg and Sullivan (1994) report that the schools they worked with and studied included a "balanced" literacy program in which key skills and subjects such as phonics, word recognition, specific comprehension skills, and writing conventions were taught. However, they argue that early reading achievement improved at those schools partly because teachers incorporated language and meaning-based approaches into a system that had previously relied on basic decoding skills as the only avenue for learning to read. Explicit Skills Instruction The studies reviewed indicate that effective teachers for English-language learners use explicit skills instruction for certain tasks, mostly (though not always) to help students acquire basic skills (Wong Fillmore et al., 1985; Tikunoff, 1983; Carter and Chatfield, 1986; Goldenberg and Sullivan, 1994; Slavin and Yampolsky, 1992). The value of explicit skills instruction is corroborated by other researchers. According to Sternberg (1986), explicit skills instruction is highly effective for some tasks (e.g., teaching subject matter knowledge, knowledge of hierarchical relationships among bits of information, and knowledge of valid strategies in science, and enhancing beginning readers' ability to decode and use process strategies such as summarization, clarification, questioning, and prediction to enhance comprehension). Executive processes such as comprehension monitoring can also be taught through explicit skills instruction if developmentally appropriate for the student. Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) argue that explicit teaching is
OCR for page 80
highly effective for well-structured skill and knowledge domains such as math computation, explicit reading comprehension strategies, map reading, and decoding. Opportunities for Student-Directed Activities The studies reviewed indicate that teachers supplement explicit skills instruction, characteristic of the initial effective schools research, with student-directed activities such as cooperative learning, partner reading, and collaborative inquiry (Berman et al., 1995; Moll, 1988; Pease-Alvarez et al., 1991; Rosebery et al., 1992; Henderson and Landesman, 1992; Cohen, 1984; Muniz-Swicegood, 1994; Hernandez, 1991; Calderon et al., 1996; Saunders et al., 1996; Gersten, 1996). Instructional Strategies That Enhance Understanding Effective teachers of English-language learners use specially tailored strategies to enhance understanding. Examples include teaching metacognitive strategies (Dianda and Flaherty, 1995; Muniz-Swicegood, 1994; Hernandez, 1991; Chamot et al., 1992) and using routines (Edelsky et al., 1983; Calderon et al., 1996). Making instruction comprehensible to English-language learners by adjusting the level of English vocabulary and structure so it is appropriate for the students given their current level of proficiency in English is another important strategy and entails the following: using explicit discourse markers such as "first" and "next"; calling attention to the language in the course of using it; using the language in ways that reveal its structure; providing explicit discussion of vocabulary and structure; explaining and in some cases demonstrating what students will be doing or experiencing; providing students with appropriate background knowledge; building on students' previous knowledge and understanding to establish a connection between personal experience and the subject matter they are learning; and using manipulatives, pictures, objects, and film related to the subject matter (Wong Fillmore et al., 1985; Gersten 1996; Mace-Matluck et al., 1989; Saunders et al., 1996; Short, 1994). Opportunities for Practice This attribute entails building redundancy into activities, giving English-language learners opportunities to interact with fluent English-speaking peers, and providing opportunities for extended dialogue (Saunders et
OCR for page 81
al., 1996; Calderon et al., 1996; Berman et al., 1995; Wong Fillmore et al., 1985; Tikunoff et al., 1991; Garcia, 1990a; Gersten, 1996). One method of providing opportunity for extended dialogue is the "instructional conversation"—discussion-based lessons focused on an idea or concept that has both educational value and meaning and relevance for students. The teacher encourages students to express their ideas either orally or in writing not just to the teacher, but also to classmates, and guides them to increasingly sophisticated levels of understanding (Saunders et al., 1996; Saunders and Goldenberg, in press). Systematic Student Assessment Many studies have found that effective schools use systematic student assessment—a feature identified in the effective and nominated schools research—to inform ongoing efforts to improve achievement (Carter and Chatfield, 1986; Goldenberg and Gallimore, 1991; Goldenberg and Sullivan, 1994; Slavin and Yampolsky, 1992; Slavin and Madden, 1994). In these schools, students are assessed on a regular basis to determine whether they need additional or different assistance; programmatic changes are made on this basis. (See also Chapter 5.) Staff Development Staff training and development are important components of effective schools for English-language learners not identified in the original effective schools research. As previously mentioned, one important way to raise teacher expectations is to increase student achievement by helping teachers acquire the skills and knowledge needed to be more successful with students, rather than exhorting teachers to raise their expectations. Often the training identified in the studies reviewed here is specific to teachers of these students, such as English-language development and use of sheltered instruction (Lucas et al., 1990). In other instances (e.g., Slavin and Yampolsky, 1992; Slavin and Madden, 1994), the training is in instructional strategies that are specific to the implemented program, such as use of thematic units, vocabulary development, classroom management, instructional pace, and cooperative learning, but not targeted at English-language learners per se. Staff development for all teachers in the school, not just language specialists, was an important component of many of these programs (Carter and Chatfield, 1986; Lucas et al., 1990; Minicucci and Olsen, 1992; Berman et al., 1995). Although the programs provided ongoing
OCR for page 82
staff development directly related to resolving new instructional issues for ESL and bilingual education teachers, they also recruited excellent content area teachers and trained them in English-language development strategies. In preparing teachers, Moll and his colleagues (Moll et al., 1992) have avoided one pitfall often associated with culturally responsive pedagogy (defined as teaching practices attuned to the cultural background of students)—the tendency to base instructional practices on teachers' assumptions and stereotypical beliefs about groups of students. They base professional development on empirical findings about the community, rather than stereotypes. A real question that remains is what sort of training is most relevant for improving school processes, as well as teacher knowledge and skills. It is also important to validate the effectiveness of this training through assessments of student outcomes. Home and Parent Involvement Home and parent involvement—an attribute that, like staff development, was not a part of the original effective schools conceptualization—plays an important role in enhancing outcomes for English-language learners. Moll (1988), Garcia (1990b), Carter and Chatfield (1986), and Lucas et al. (1990) all note that in the effective schools they document, an ongoing community/school process is an important contributor to the school's success. Neither the studies reviewed here nor any other existing studies can answer the question of what type of home or parent involvement is most effective. Extrapolating from the observations in these studies, however, two hypotheses seem reasonable. First, cognitive or academic effects are most likely to be the result of home-school connections that focus specifically on cognitive or academic learning at home, that is, increasing and improving home learning opportunities through the use of homework or other organized activities designed to promote learning. Second, schools with comprehensive home involvement programs encompassing various types of home-school connections probably help families and children in a number of important ways. The more types of productive connections homes and schools can forge, the more positive and powerful the effects on children, families, and schools will be. At least in U.S. settings, these hypotheses are probably valid regardless of students' cultural or language background (Goldenberg, 1993). (See Chapter 4 for further elaboration on this theme.)
OCR for page 83
Methodological Strengths and Limitations of the Studies Each of the major types of studies reviewed here has its methodological strengths and limitations. While the fact that a study has limitations does not invalidate its findings, those limitations should be considered in assessing the strength and generalizability of its conclusions. The nominated schools and classroom designs have introduced a valuable element to the literature—rich and highly detailed descriptions, some quantitative and some qualitative, of schools and classrooms. As exploratory strategies, both the effective and nominated schools designs make a great deal of intuitive and logical sense. But there are also limitations to what they can tell us. First, and most fundamental, neither design directly or empirically addresses the issue of how a school or classroom came to be effective, except for possible retrospective accounts and inferences. A second limitation of these designs, related to the first, is the difficulty of separating cause from effect: Do the characteristics of schools cause them to be effective, or does effectiveness lead to these characteristics? As previously mentioned, a third limitation is that the nominated schools design now in favor reports no data whatsoever on student outcomes, although some gauge of student outcomes may have been used in the selection process. Exemplary schools are selected because they satisfy criteria shared by nominators and investigators regarding what effective schooling for English-language learners should look like. Prospective case studies have the advantage, in principle, of collecting data contemporaneously with change efforts, permitting observation and analysis of the actual change process, participants' views and perspectives, and the apparent ongoing results of the changes undertaken. Under ideal circumstances, they would be true cases of the implementation of theories regarding effective schooling. However, our systematic review uncovered very few such studies beyond those described in the previous section. An advantage of these studies, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, is that if the changes are effective and actually work, the students and teachers at the intervention site will have benefited. However, methodological problems, possibly related to the close collaboration of researchers and educators, can compromise study findings. For example, in one study, investigators who analyzed the interview protocols for changes in student knowledge knew which protocols were pretest and which were post-test. Traditionally, threats to validity have been addressed within an experimental framework or, when dealing with social phenomena where random assignment is impossible, a quasi-experimental framework. From
OCR for page 84
a design standpoint, the quasi-experimental design obviously offers a stronger basis for claiming that changes in student achievement resulted from something that happened at a target site. In the absence of a comparison site with students who are comparable in features such as demographics and transience, changes in student outcomes at a particular school can be due to any number of extraneous factors or artifacts. Quasi-experiments also permit stronger causal inferences about school processes, dynamics, and structures on the one hand and improvements in student outcomes on the other. However, school changes are so complex and involve so many dimensions that it is usually very difficult to draw tight linkages between specific processes or program components and student outcomes. Quasi-experimental designs are really just parallel case studies and do not preclude in-depth study and subtle analysis of school and instructional organization features. On the contrary, richer descriptions of the processes and dynamics of school change would permit clearer interpretations or hypotheses about what explains changes in student outcomes—or the failure to effect such changes. Quasi-experimental designs do require that investigators either take an active hand in helping to bring about changes at a school or be present when a school, on its own, decides to try to instigate changes so that appropriate measures in the "before" state can be taken. In either case, investigators must then gauge the effects of those changes on student outcomes, using appropriate measures and comparable schools as controls. Some of the studies reviewed here—particularly those that examine student outcomes and relate them to changes in school-wide and classroom functioning and organization—suggest processes by which schools and classrooms can reorganize themselves to promote higher levels of achievement for students. An important question is whether a school can become effective by successfully adopting an effective externally developed program, or a certain amount of "reinventing the wheel" is required, school by school. Although Slavin and Madden's (1995) results provide a strong basis for concluding that some well-defined effective programs can be exported successfully, their position (and, apparently, their data) runs counter not only to much of the accepted wisdom in the school reform literature, but also to previous efforts to disseminate and replicate effective programs (e.g., Anderson et al., 1978).
OCR for page 85
IMPLICATIONS Educational A number of attributes have been discussed in this chapter that are identified as being associated with effective schools and classrooms. Although these attributes provide important guidance for developing effective programs and instructional strategies for English-language learners, they need to be assessed in the context of the schools and classrooms in which they are implemented. To determine their effectiveness, it is critical to know the extent to which they have been implemented and to measure associated student outcomes. Research Researchers should make explicit their principles for selecting effective schools and classrooms. These principles should be based on some combination of indicators of process (e.g., curriculum, leadership, school climate, instructional strategies) and outcomes (e.g., standardized and performance-based achievement measures). The definition should be influenced by local priorities and contexts. In addition, research should investigate the extent of variability in the definition of effective schools and classrooms for English-language learners, for example, how definitions of effectiveness interact with local site characteristics and student characteristics. Once learning goals have been set by the community, research is needed to determine the linguistic and cultural adaptations that will help English-language learners meet these goals. What methods work best to give English-language learners access to the academic and social opportunities of native English speakers? Such methods include both school-wide adaptations, such as the way sequences of classes are organized to give English-language learners optimal access to subject matter knowledge and English proficiency, and classroom adaptations, such the use of particular teaching strategies and classroom composition. Moreover, research is needed to determine the resources required for effective instruction of English-language learners in different contexts. Research is needed as well to examine effective educational practice for special populations: (1) the effects of instructional interventions and social environments on the linguistic, social, and cognitive development of young children; (2) the attributes of effective middle and secondary schools and classrooms serving English-language learners; and (3) the
OCR for page 86
effectiveness of newcomer programs, either in relationship to each other or compared with doing nothing at all. Involving families of English-language learners and engaging community resources on their behalf pose special challenges for schools. More focused research is needed to provide information about the challenges to such involvement and engagement, the potential benefits, and successful approaches. Prospective research that examines the school change process is also needed, beginning from the point before a school undertakes change, to document the processes and outcomes on a sound theoretical and programmatic basis. Prospective studies should document the problems, possibilities, dynamics, difficulties, successes, and outcomes of school and program change. An important focus should be on how schools and teachers maintain effective components once in place. Research should also determine which kinds of improvement strategies are exportable and which aspects may be influenced by local context. In addition, future research should examine the benefits and short-comings of different improvement strategies, again using models and programs already in existence. A component of this research should be to examine whether educators and policymakers find empirical research or rich cases more compelling in prompting them to change their current practices. Some prospective case studies of sites on the verge of reform could help answer these important policy implementation questions. Finally, research should examine the extent to which generic reform efforts incorporate English-language learners. Moreover, this research should explore whether these reform efforts are beneficial to English-language learners, and if not how they can be adapted to benefit this group of students.
OCR for page 87
APPENDIX STUDIES OF SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM EFFECTIVENESS Effective Schools Carter and Chatfield (1986) Quasi-Experimental Studies Calderon et al. (1996) Chamot et al. (1992) Dianda and Flaherty (1994) Goldenberg and Sullivan (1994) Goldenberg and Gallimore (1991) Henderson and Landesman (1992) Muniz-Swicegood (1994) Saunders et al. (1996) Slavin and Madden (1994) Slavin and Yampolsky (1992) Effective Classrooms Edelsky et al. (1983) Mace-Matluck et al. (1989) Wong Fillmore et al. (1985) Effective and Nominated Classrooms Garcia (1990a) Moll (1988) Nominated Schools Berman et al. (1995) Berman et al. (1992) Gersten (1966) Lucas et al. (1990) Pease-Alvarez et al. (1991) Tikunoff et al. (1991) Tikunoff (1983) Experimental Tharp (1982) Other Minicucci and Olsen (1992) Prospective Case Studies Cohen (1984) Gold and Tempes (1987) Hernandez (1991) Rosebery et al. (1992) Short (1994)
OCR for page 88
This page in the original is blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter: