THE EFFECT OF GROUP COUNSELING INTERVENTION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF

Donna A. Caudell

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Liberty University

THE EFFECT OF GROUP COUNSELING INTERVENTION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF

RURAL STUDENTS ON THE GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TESTS

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

APPROVED BY:

Steven McDonald, Ed.D., Committee Member

ABSTRACT

With an increase in high-stakes testing, educators continue to search for the best

methodologies for assisting students in maximizing academic achievement and successful

completion of graduation requirements including mandatory tests for high school graduation. At

the Georgia High School Writing Test (GHSWT) assessed writing. Psychometric theory, social

cognitive theory, and cognitive behavioral theory provided the theoretical framework for this

study. Students from a rural high school in Georgia comprised the sample. This quantitative

study employed a posttest-only control group design with randomization. Students who had

failed at least one of the GHSGT were randomly placed into control and treatment groups.

The results of this study found no significant difference between the groups’ test scores.

Keywords: exit exams, graduation tests, GHSGT, certificate of attendance, Student

Success Skills, group guidance

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband and children. My husband, Doug, is the

most intelligent and highly practical person I have ever had the privilege to know. Without his

unwavering faith and incredible support throughout this process, this dissertation might not have

I am thankful to God for leading me through this experience. Proverbs 3:6 has been

made real to me as I have completed this document. When I started this process, I was unsure of

why God was leading me in this direction. As the time has unfolded, He has steadfastly opened

process. His willingness to answer each question and to keep me on a logical track has been

invaluable. Also, to Dr. Steven McDonald to whom I owe many thanks for his help with the

methodology part of this dissertation. There were many times I would have faltered without his

patient encouragement and explanations of statistical nuances. Additionally, I owe a debt of

gratitude to Dr. Sam Smith for his help and willingness to read the many installments of this

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 3

Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 5

Background ........................................................................................................................ 12

Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 16

Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................. 17

Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 17

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 24

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 24

Theoretical Background .................................................................................................... 24

Review of the Related Literature ....................................................................................... 29

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 59

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 61

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 61

Design ................................................................................................................................ 61

Participants ........................................................................................................................ 65

Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 72

Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 75

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 78

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 79

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 79

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 79

Results ............................................................................................................................... 82

Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 89

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 93

Implications ....................................................................................................................... 94

APPENDIX A: Student Success Skills Program ........................................................................ 125

APPENDIX B: Approval by District School Superintendent to Conduct Research ................... 126

APPENDIX C: Approval by School Principal to Conduct Research .......................................... 128

APPENDIX D: Institutional Review Board Approvals .............................................................. 129

APPENDIX E: Parent or Guardian Permission Letter ................................................................ 131

APPENDIX F: Student Participation Consent Form ................................................................... 133

The problem is a lack of research on interventions designed to help students perform well

on standardized tests such as high school exit exams. Much research is available for predictive

factors that contribute to low student achievement, including poor attendance and behavior

Pedersen, 2009; National Reading Panel, 2000; Scarborough, 1998; Scarborough, 2001; Snow,

Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). There is

little research, however, that addresses methodologies for helping students successfully complete

their high stakes exit exams. Students who fail their exit exams are classified as dropouts and

face the same risk factors as students who drop out of school before graduation (Atkinson &

these tests for their students (McIntosh, 2012). Some states, such as Georgia, have replaced their

exit exams with other forms of standardized testing as part of their school’s academic

achievement instrument (GADOE, n.d.-e). The gaps in the literature become quite evident for

Results from recent research, however, indicate that short-term, empirically-based

interventions, in the form of group counseling, academic support, and social frameworks, can

have a significant positive impact on student achievement (Ascher & Maguire, 2007; Brigman &

Campbell, 2003; Brigman, Webb, & Campbell, 2007; Savitz-Romer & Jager-Hyman, 2009).

Brigman et al. (2007) found positive statistical results in the implementation of the Student

Success Skills (SSS) program for students taking the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test

The purpose of this experimental posttest-only control group design with randomization

was to determine if the 8-week guidance portion of the Student Success Skills (SSS) program

could statistically impact the Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) scores of students

who had previously failed at least one portion of the GHSGT. The independent variable was

pass the GHSGT. Randomly selected students were guided through the SSS curriculum in

activities that facilitated cognitive and meta-cognitive skills, social skills, and self-management

skills. The scores of these treatment group students were compared to the scores of the control

Early intervention has been studied as a strategy for students who struggle with taking

standardized tests. Research indicates that identifying students who exhibit academic risk factors

for the purpose of establishing a plan for intervention has been found to be statistically positive

in helping students achieve academically (Allensworth & Easton, 2005; Garriott, 2007;

Kurleander, Reardon, & Jackson, 2008; Montes & Lehmann, 2004). Jerald (2007) indicates that

With a current national dropout rate of almost 25%, which includes students who

received certificates of attendance, educators are charged with raising the graduation rate and

exploring multiple options for helping students succeed academically (Stillwell et al., 2011; U.S.

Department of Education, 2010). This research, utilizing the SSS curriculum, sought to

determine the potential statistical significance of a standardized group intervention process as it

to the research body regarding successful strategies that are available for school personnel to

provide intervention for students who have difficulty passing high-stakes exams.

While GHSGT is no longer required for students to receive their diploma in Georgia,

may be useful for K–12 educators seeking to find effective methods for improving standardized

test scores on high stakes tests including high school exit exams. Also, policy makers may find

this study helpful as they develop accountability measures for students and schools.

The rural Georgia school that hosted this study failed to meet AYP for the 2009–2010

and 2010–2011 school years due to the low test scores of the students with disabilities subgroup

for both years and a low graduation rate in 2011 (GADOE, 2011). On February 9, 2012, the

on the Georgia EOCTs, GHSWT, SAT, ACT, Compass, Advanced Placement exams, and

International Baccalaureate exams (GADOE, n.d.-a.). The CCRPI rubric is currently in use and

is updated yearly to reflect changes implemented by the Georgia Board of Education. The state

of Georgia implemented a new testing system called Georgia Milestones in the spring of 2015

that is a blended criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessment (GADOE, n.d-e). The

struggle to pass high stakes exams.

RQ1: Is there a difference in Georgia High School Graduation Test scores in math for

RQ2: Is there a difference in Georgia High School Graduation Test scores in social

studies for students who participated in the group guidance portion of the Student Success Skills

curriculum as compared to students who did not participate in the group guidance portion of the

Student Success Skills curriculum?

RQ3: Is there a difference in Georgia High School Graduation Test scores in English

language arts for students who participated in the group guidance portion of the Student Success

H

1: There is no significant difference in Georgia High School Graduation Test scores in

math for students who participated in the group guidance portion of the Student Success Skills

curriculum as compared to students who did not participate in the group guidance portion of the

Student Success Skills curriculum.

H

2: There is no significant difference in Georgia High School Graduation Test scores in

H

3: There is no significant difference in Georgia High School Graduation Test scores in

English language arts for students who participated in the group guidance portion of the Student

Success Skills curriculum as compared to students who did not participate in the group guidance

GHSGT received a certificate of attendance rather than a high school diploma.

Students were allowed to retake any failed exam after their graduation date, but were

not awarded a diploma until they successfully completed all exams. Students were

allowed unlimited attempts to replace their certificate of attendance with a diploma

(GADOE, n.d.-d).

2. College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCPRI) - Georgia’s school

possibility of earning up to an additional 10 challenge points. The CCRPI is scored

on a complex formula accounting for Georgia Milestones EOC scores, participation

in a career pathway, number of graduates, SAT and ACT scores, as well as the

number of students completing college level classes while still in high school.

Additionally, schools can earn points for the number of high school completers, the

school students are required to take EOC exams upon completion of Ninth Grade

Literature and Composition, Analytic Geometry, United States History, American

Literature and Composition, Geometry, Coordinate Algebra Physical Science,

areas of Physical Science, Biology, Ninth Grade Literature, American Literature,

Math I, Math II, United States History, and Economics as the final exam for these

courses. The EOCT scores counted as 15% of the student’s overall grade point

average (GPA) in the respective course. Beginning in 2013, students who passed the

EOCT in a content area could exempt the GHSGT in that content area (GADOE, n.d.-

c).

employers to be confident of the student’s level of achievement, (Holme, Richards,

Jimmerson, & Cohen, 2010). In the state of Georgia, students who entered grade 9

from July 1, 1991, to June 30, 2011, had to pass both the GHSGT and the GHSWT in

order to earn a high school diploma (GADOE, n.d.-d).

6. Georgia High School Graduation Tests (GHSGT) –GHSGT were required for

proficiency of high school students, and helped identify areas in which students

needed additional instruction (GADOE, n.d.-d).

7. Georgia High School Writing Test (GHSWT) – The GHSWT was an exit exam used

a student who failed to earn a diploma from an accredited high school or who earned

a GED. Students who completed their high school course work, but were unable to

pass any of the GHSGT were also classified as dropouts (Downey, 2010; Stillwell et

al., 2011).

9. Student Success Skills (SSS) – The SSS program is a K–12 program designed as a

school counselor-led program that helps student develop cognitive, social, and self-

Campbell, 2003).

Summary

Until 2015, Georgia high school students were required to pass an exit exam, the

GHSGT, in order to receive a diploma. Many students across the state failed to pass this high

stakes standardized test. Consequently, they were awarded certificates of attendance and

randomization was to determine if the 8-week guidance portion of the Student Success Skills

(SSS) program could statistically impact the Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT)

scores of students who had previously failed at least one portion of the GHSGT. This study will

underpinning the study and a review of the relevant literature.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

As educators in the United States continue to work to prepare the next generation for

participation in the global market, they face increasing pressure from the public to improve the

schools and states were measured annually to track progress on ELA scores, math scores, and

high school graduation rate. Schools meeting the year’s set criteria were identified as having met

AYP. Schools not meeting AYP were classified as needs improvement and were required to

implement measures to increase student test scores and graduation rate (Bush, 2001).

The increasing dependence on testing as a measure of academic rigor and achievement

student’s successful completion of standardized tests (Brigman & Campbell, 2003; Brigman et

al., 2007; Bruce et al., 2009; Campbell & Brigman, 2005; Dennis, 2010; Miranda, Webb,

Brigman, & Peluso, 2007; Nichols, 2003). Further research by Campbell and Brigman (2005)

The theoretical basis for standardized testing can be traced to various philosophies

including Piaget’s work in cognitive development (Gray, 1978; Jaffe, 1998), the psychometric

theories of Alfred Binet and Raymond Cattell (Cattell, 1971; Jaffe, 1998), and the social

cognitive theory espoused by Bandura (1991) and Zimmerman (1989). All of these theories

define calculable and quantifiable expectations and identify developmental tasks based on a

student’s age and educational level.

used in this experiment is based on CBT as it works to help students establish goals and change

thought processes while working to increase academic knowledge as they prepare for exit exams

(Brigman et al., 2007).

Cognitive Development Theory

Jean Piaget, a predecessor to psychometric theory, defined stages in cognitive

development of a child’s expected age-related competencies that could easily be identified as

benchmarks in today’s educational terminology (Gray, 1978).

Similarly, psychometric theories deal with the statistical measurement of differences in

be calculated via standardized means of measurement (Cattell, 1971; Jaffe, 1998).

consistency from school system to school system and from state to state. NCLB additionally

sought to provide feedback on performance to students and parents, act as a benchmark for

expectations, create high expectations, and align instruction to the curriculum (Berger, 2000;

Goertz & Massell, 2005). In short, NCLB was intended to raise the standards of academic

Schools were evaluated on the proportion of students in each grade level achieving a defined

proficiency. The mandate indicated that the level of competency of various student subgroups

within the school was expected to increase each year until all cohorts reached 100% proficiency

by the year 2014 (Wiliam, 2010a). Hanushek and Raymond (2005) viewed NCLB as simply a

formalization of the move toward standardized testing that has been sweeping from state to state

As can be expected with almost any issue within the educational arena, one can find both

proponents and critics of the current trend toward testing as an indicator of student achievement.

An area of pervasive dispute between advocates and opponents of increased testing for

Some argue that a myriad of external factors that cannot be controlled in the educational

environment, such as the racial composition of a school (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005), student

grouping within the school (Figazzolo, 2009), general intelligence, work drive, self-discipline,

perseverance, and motivation (Geiser, 2009; Ridgell & Lounsbury, 2004), and even state-specific

educational policies (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005) may influence student achievement on

standardized tests. Opponents of standardized testing also claim that both the rewards and

educators from helping students develop proficiency in necessary skills such as time-

management and short-range planning, which are necessary competencies for success in the

post-secondary job market (Kitsantas, Winsler, & Huie, 2008; Nodding, 2004). Kornhaber

(2004) asserts that the current focus that policymakers have on using standardized testing for

attempting to solve many educational problems should be balanced by creating assessments that

impacted not only their academic focus, but also added additional stress, causing some students

to drop out of high school because they felt that they would not be able to successfully pass the

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. This research further looked at the impact of exit

preparing for the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills negatively impacted their

education. So, while test scores of these EL students were improving, their dropout rates had

increased, with 60% of ELs not graduating in 2007 (Heilig, 2011).

While the majority of research is negative toward standardized testing, Wang, Beckett,

and Brown (2006) chose to study both sides of the standardized assessment controversy. Their

investigation found that high-stakes assessment can drive and has driven improvements in

learning models, curriculum, and staff development opportunities.

Some researchers argue that the educational system is too reliant on testing as a measure

of knowledge achievement (Geiser, 2009; Kornhaber, 2004; Nodding, 2004; Volger, 2008;

Wiliam, 2010b) rather than implementing a variety of assessment types. Further questions have

been raised regarding the current high-stakes testing required by NCLB and whether it has

academic martial law forcing schools to focus on raising student test scores, while neglecting

other important school factors that were more difficult to measure (“Interview: Beyond ‘the

stone age’ of testing,” 2004). Even the widely accepted SAT is charged with having a negative

function in the world. The argument is made that more focus must be placed on helping students

make the transition from high school to the workplace or to postsecondary education, rather than

requiring schools to expend so much time and energy on raising test scores (Conely, 2001;

Kornhaber, 2004; Nodding, 2004).

Those who disagreed with the current focus on test scores argued that standardized

testing is highly utilized because policymakers see it as a simple way to ensure that students are

with Firestone and Martinez (2007) reported significant uncertainty regarding the impact that

standardized testing has on actual classroom experience and instructional practice, while Pintrich

(1988) cautioned that any assessment program designed to improve instruction should be based

on strong theoretical models of student learning, motivation, and instruction rather than political

expediency.

a high school diploma to seniors, worked as inspiration for harder and more focused work for

teachers and students alike. Wiliam (2010a) concluded that “it is only through assessment that

we can find out whether instruction has had its intended effect” (p. 107). The fundamental

Both opponents and promoters of high-stakes testing cite teaching to the test as a negative

effect of the standardized assessment process. In their research on the effects of testing in both

Maine and Maryland school systems, Firestone, Mayrowetz, and Fairman (1998) found that “the

effects of state testing on teaching may be overrated by both advocates and opponents of such

policies” (p. 111). Their research indicated that state assessment programs had more impact on

reorganizing learning opportunities for educators than impacting specific teaching behaviors and

indicated that they spent at least 20% of their school year prepping their students for

standardized tests.

Other research studies view achievement from a differing perspective and indicate that

factors such as general intelligence, work drive, self-discipline, perseverance, and motivation are

the strongest predictors of student success (Geiser, 2009; Ridgell & Lounsbury, 2004). Kitsantas

standards is viewed by many as preventing schools from helping students develop necessary life

management skills which are necessary for success in postsecondary education and careers.

Kornhaber (2004) argued that the creation of assessments that enable students to successfully

achievement continue to evolve. On January 31, 2010, The New York Times reported that the

Obama administration recommended massive changes to the NCLB legislation. While pledging

to maintain the spirit of the law, the White House sought to implement changes in the funding

formulas based on a school’s academic progress via as yet unnamed assessments rather than

assessing AYP through standardized testing. The plan included recognizing schools that were

succeeding and utilizing funds to improve or close schools that were unsuccessful in closing the

working to provide innovative reforms to increase student achievement and work readiness (U.S.

Department of Education, 2009).

While the 2002 reform proposal was never passed into law, continuing efforts were

offered for the revision of NCLB. One revision offered in the 2015 legislative session sought to

reduce some of the federal control over student achievement. Those who opposed this measure

Regardless of arguments on both sides of the political debate, it is clear that student

achievement and the increasing dropout rate is an educational factor that warrants the concern of

educators, parents, and politicians alike. As the debate continues regarding the best way to

Success on standardized tests. While many researchers have conducted studies on the

overall reliability and broad educational effects of standardized testing, little research targets

specific interventions for student success on high school exit exams. Studies have been done in

California, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida that focus on high school exit exams

(Brigman et al., 2007; Bruce et al., 2009; Dennis, 2010; Kurleander et al., 2008; Nichols, 2003;

Pedraza-Vidamour, 2008). However, three of the research projects focused on finding predictive

grades, in combination with their eleventh grade GPAs, was a strong forecaster of potential

failure on the California High School Exit Examination for first-time test takers, especially when

viewed in light of students’ socioeconomic status. Additionally, their research revealed that

students scoring significantly below average on other standardized California assessments had

very low rates of passing the CAHSEE on their first attempt. This research corroborated the

ELA and mathematics exit exams, examined students’ ninth, eighth, sixth, and third grade

standardized test results, along with their attendance and GPAs. This study found strong

predictive correlations between English and math achievement on standardized test scores, high

student academic success in the class. She studied the criterion-referenced test scores from the

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program, along with additional assessments that

measured “phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills” (p.

285) to determine core reading weaknesses for her sixth grade students. Through the use of the

combined data from these appraisals, she was able to target her students’ unique areas of

weakness in relation to their reading achievement so that she could create interventions within

assessment and proved to have a positive impact on student learning. This type of appraisal,

however, proved to be costly and difficult to establish reliability in traditional psychometric

terms (Wiliam, 2010a). So the pendulum swung back toward an easier form of assessment

measurement.

In the last century, criterion-referenced testing, which is designed to measure specific

2009; FairTest, 2007). Twenty-six states require some form of exit exam as a criterion for

issuing diplomas to high school graduates (GreatSchools Staff, n.d.; Pytel, 2007). College

admissions testing has grown exponentially (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009) with most colleges

High School Exit Exams

National trends for exit exams. The significance of researching methods for helping

students successfully complete standardized tests becomes evident when viewing the ever-

changing landscape of exit exam testing in the public school system. The most recent report

from the Center on Education Policy (CEP) highlights the current status and expected changes in

testing in American schools (McIntosh, 2012). The report found that almost 70% of students

Many states are now using, or plan to use, exit exams as evidence of college and career

readiness. In the CEP report, Georgia indicated that its high school exit exam was intended to

assess college and career readiness for its high school graduates. However, it is interesting to

note that 17 of the states responding to this report indicated that scores from their high school

exit exams are not used in college decisions about student admission, while other states either did

graduates (McIntosh, 2012). Most schools use either a comprehensive or EOC exam. A

comprehensive exam is typically standards-based and administered in the student’s 10th or 11th

grade year. The tests vary from state to state in the number of subject area tests that comprise the

EOC exams are content area tests given on completion of a specified academic course.

Some states require that students pass the EOC in specified content areas to earn a diploma,

while other states do not require a passing grade but count the EOC as a percentage of a student’s

course average. Two states, Georgia and South Carolina, were using both types of exams

simultaneously at the time of the CEP report (McIntosh, 2012).

Nationally, between 70% and 90% of students fail to pass their high school exit exam on

only two additional attempts. Most states offer additional testing opportunities through the

summer and during the school year until the time of the student’s graduation (McIntosh, 2012).

The state of Georgia allowed students to continue to take the test after the date of graduation,

with the possibility of unlimited attempts (GADOE, n.d.-d). Twenty-two states offer alternate

paths to graduation for students who cannot pass the high school exit exam. Several states offer

student assessment (McIntosh, 2012). Over the course of this research, Georgia allowed the

EOCT in any academic area to substitute for the exit exam in the same academic area as an

alternate path for graduation (GADOE, n.d.-d). Twelve states allow students to take an

students who had failed any portion of their exit exam, the GHSGT, to submit an appeal to their

local school board. Upon verification that the student has completed all coursework and has only

Regardless of one’s philosophical viewpoint on national standards and high-stakes testing

or on the superior methodology for increasing student academic and work readiness, the fact that

American student achievement has declined in the last forty years is undeniable. In a 2006

international assessment of 30 countries, American 15-year olds plummeted to a rank of 25 in

2006, with the United States holding the second highest college dropout rate of 27 countries in

that same year (Jerald, 2008). Questions remain, however, as to the best methods for

implementing educational reform and the most accurate means of assessing student achievement.

Whether the emphasis will remain on standardized testing or shift to another type of assessment,

it is most likely that students will continue to be tested in some way to ascertain their level of

achievement and work readiness. In 2000, the OECD investigated the relationship between

student learning and other factors that may have an influence on achievement by researching the

preparedness of young adults for the work force. The OECD authorized a long-term study,

Utilizing a standardized test administered in three-year cycles, PISA tested students from

57 countries in reading, math, and science. Correlating student performance indicators with

nonacademic factors such as motivation, self-efficacy, personal value, enjoyment of science, and

student optimism, the data from this assessment suggested that nations with higher national

incomes performed better in science and that parental attitudes toward education were positively

significant for student learning (Figazzolo, 2009; MacGaw, 2008; OECD, n.d.).

GPA, along with individual circumstances, have been found to be indicative of a student’s

overall success (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009; Bruce et al., 2009; Dryfoos, 1990; Franklin, 1992;

Geiser, 2009; Montes & Lehmann, 2004). Other researchers found that failing classes in middle

school and poor attendance are strong predictors for poor student achievement as well as

indicators of the lack of student engagement in school (Balfanz et al., 2007a, 2007b; Bridgeland,

the Black–White gap actually increased from 0.39 to 0.52 with the implementation of state

accountability measures, while the Hispanic–White achievement gap decreased from 0.63 to

0.44. Wiliam (2010a) found that variation in educational setting and practices yielded little

is increasingly clear to business leaders that the public education system is simply not going to

respond sufficiently to reformers without incentives to perform at high levels” (p. 8). The

implementation of rewards and incentives, such as merit pay, administrative bonuses,

scholarships based on achievement, and graduation tests are advocated by the National Business

Alliance as viable methods for encouraging higher student achievement (National Alliance of

Business, 2000).

achievement gaps” (p. 314). They suggested conducting more research determine the causal

effects of rewards and sanctions for states and educators with regard to the results of student

achievement via standardized testing.

Predicting Student Success

High school dropouts are less likely to find employment and currently have jobless rates

than their college-educated peers to become mothers at a young age, 9 times more likely to be

single mothers, and are more likely to experience social hardships (Sum, Khatiwada,

McLaughlin, & Palma, 2009). Students who complete all of their high school coursework, but

Research indicates that failing to finish high school can be associated with a complex

combination of risk factors involving a student’s family and school experiences, along with

individual circumstances and potential risk factors (Dryfoos, 1990; Franklin, 1992; Montes &

Lehmann, 2004). Factors such as race, socioeconomics status, gender, and GPA have been

found to be indicative of a student’s overall success (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009; Bruce et al.,

2009; Geiser, 2009; Silverstein, 2000).

at-risk for not graduating from high school are effective in reducing the dropout rate

(Allensworth & Easton, 2005; Brigman & Campbell, 2003; Garriott, 2007; Miranda et al., 2007;

Montes & Lehmann, 2004). Factors such as behavior problems, failing grades in math, failing

grades in English, and poor attendance have been found to be strong predictors of future dropout

risk, as well as indicators of the lack of student engagement in school (Balfanz et al., 2007a,

(Kurleander et al., 2008). Jerald (2007) indicated that dropping out of school is easily

predictable for 80–85% of students who leave high school without graduating. Identifying

students who are disengaged from the school environment and providing intervention strategies

indicator for students’ success in postsecondary education (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009; Burton &

Ramist, 2001; Geiser, 2009; Gwynne, Lesnick, Hart, & Allensworth, 2009), the search for other

predictive risk factors to determine students’ potential for academic failure is abundantly

available in the literature. Predictive factors for student achievement have been studied in

physical education (Lacy & LaMaster, 1996), reading (Morris, Bloodgood, & Perney, 2003;

Snow et al., 1998), disengaged and maladjusted students (Balfanz et al., 2007b; Janosz, LeBlanc,

between early academic factors, such as achievement in middle school math and English classes,

standardized testing skills, and student performance on state exit exams (National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992; Nichols, 2003).

At the elementary level, predictor variables that determine early reading difficulties have

been investigated (Goffreda et al., 2009; National Reading Panel, 2000; Scarborough, 1998;

effectively predicted in the middle of students’ kindergarten year. Balfanz et al. (2007b)

concluded that 60% of students who would fail to graduate could be identified in the sixth grade

by observing their attendance, behavior, and grades in English and mathematics.

of a student’s probability for becoming a dropout (Allensworth & Easton, 2007; Balfanz, 2009;

Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2007; Neild & Balfanz, 2006; Silver et al., 2008).

Research studies indicate that it is important to consider motivational factors, although

more difficult to quantifiably assess, when attempting to find variables for student success in

academics. Intrinsic motivation, self-regulated learning, and a students’ ability to value their

learning goals are significant predictive variables in their ability and desire to successfully

Students’ scores on high-stakes tests are intended to be used as motivators for both

students and educators. Students who fail to adequately perform on tests may be denied a high

school diploma or admission to the postsecondary institution of their choice (Pedraza-Vidamour,

2008; Technical College System of Georgia, 2015). However, some research studies have

indicated that test scores fail to provide positive motivation for student achievement. Instead,

Educators and schools are held accountable for test scores with financial consequences

and loss of autonomy in directing their school’s educational practices resulting from poor

performance (GADOE, n.d-a; Phelps, 2005). Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, along with

Cognitive Skills. The integral relationship that exists between cognitive skills and

academic achievement is a generally accepted concept by those who work with children and

adolescents. Literature identifies working memory capacity, processing speed, and spatial ability

as specific cognitive abilities that impact student achievement (Conway, Conwan, Bunting,

Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; Rohde & Thompson, 2007). While the relationship is

acknowledged, the determination of specific cognitive factors that may have a causal effect on

speed was a causal factor in positive correlation between intelligence and academic performance

in children and preteens. In a replication of Luo et al.’s 2003 research, Rohde and Thompson

(2007) found that general cognitive ability, spatial ability, and perceptual speed positively

contributed to mathematical achievement in young adult males, as measured by SAT math

scores; however, their research further indicated that general cognitive ability measures are more

connected in the school setting has long been noted by those who work regularly with students.

Research, however, also indicates that social skills can also considerably impact a student’s

overall academic achievement. Malecki and Elliott (2002) found that social skills were

Proponents of social-emotional learning (SEL) have identified four crucial areas that

relate to academic competence: self-awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and

responsible decision-making (Jones & Bouffard, 2012). Research studies indicate that SEL

positively impacts academic performance, as well as other personal/social aspects of life (Durlak

& Weissberg, 2011; Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). In a meta-analysis of over 200

studies of SEL-type programs, Durlak and Weissberg (2007) found that academic performance is

personal/social skills positively impacted participants' standardized test scores at a standard mean

difference of 0.31 (Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010). Similarly in a meta-analysis of 370

out-of-school programs, Lauer et al. (2006) found that programs with a combination of academic

and social components had a statistically positive effect on students’ mathematics and reading

scores. Other research studies indicated that programs with counseling components had

can also have a direct impact on a student’s overall performance in the academic arena. Students

who are better able to manage multiple aspects of their academic world and who exhibit intrinsic

self-efficacy skills are usually able to better perform in school. Research studies also indicate

Garrison (1997) defines self-management as one’s focus on task control issues. Self-

management is also related to the social and behavioral implementation of learning as defined by

one’s external activities associated with the learning process. One evidences self-management in

the process of implementing learning goals and management of learning resources. Self-

management of the learning process has been found to strengthen meaningful, long-term learning

for students and has been found positively linked to the concept of self-regulation and motivation

DeGroot, 1990). Self-management was found to be predictive of self-monitoring and motivation

in college freshmen education students since an elevated sense of responsibility on the part of the

learner yields a greater responsibility in the learning process. Additionally, motivation was

found to positively influence student achievement by building a sense of responsibility for one’s

own learning process (Abd-El-Fattah, 2010).

citing the need for students to value and be interested in their learning goals. Motivation is an

essential factor in a student’s ability and desire to perform academic tasks (Hamilton & Akhter,

2009). In an international study of 57 countries assessing the capacity of 15-year-old students to

MacGaw, 2008; OECD, n.d.; OECD, 2007).

While more difficult to quantifiably assess, research indicates that it is important to

consider motivational factors when attempting to find predictor variables for student success in

academics. Some researchers purport that testing itself can act as an academic motivator for both

students and educators (Phelps, 2005). This viewpoint is also evident in the fact that many

educational dollars are tied to testing outcomes in today’s climate of academic accountability

2004). Kitsantas et al. (2008) found that students exhibiting strong time-management skills and

short-range planning ability were more successful in the post-secondary setting.

Student Success Skills (SSS)

Brigham and Campbell (2003) focused their research on an intervention methodology

that involved classroom and group guidance sessions entitled Student Success Skills (SSS). In a

reading (p = .003) between students in the control and experimental groups. Further replication

of this study (Webb, Brigham, & Campbell, 2005) found that 85% of students in the treatment

group improved their FCAT scores in math when compared to students in the control group who

(Brigman & Campbell, 2003; Brigman et al., 2007; Campbell & Brigman, 2005; Webb et al.,

2005) found that the program resulted in statistically significant increases in student test scores

includes students in grades 10–12 only.

Table 1

Demographics for Study School

located is home to a large poultry industry, making it attractive to a large transitory Hispanic

population. The special education population comprised 16% of the student body, and 53.51%

percent of the students at this school qualified for free and reduced lunches. The gifted program

served 11% of the student body (GOSA, n.d.-b).

The school chosen for participation in this study failed to meet AYP status for the 2009–

2010, the 2010–2011, and the 2011–2012 school years due to low graduation test scores in a sub-

group and low graduation rates. The school’s graduation rate was impacted by the number of

students failing to receive a high school diploma due, in part, to the inability of some students to

pass all parts of the GHSGT (GADOE, 2011).

Participants

Each year, the GADOE required high school juniors to be tested for the first time during

the spring administration of the GHSGT. The exploration for potential GHSGT participants for

this study began with a group of 141 students who had failed the GHSGT in at least one area

winter 2012 administration. This brought the total number of potential participants to 147.

From this pool of 147 students, 25 students were removed before the treatment was

implemented because they were able to pass the content area test(s) they had previously failed.

Additionally, the Georgia State Board of Education ruled in April 2011 that a passing EOCT

score could replace a GHSGT score in the same content area resulting in the loss of 41 potential

treatment group (34 students) using randomizer.org as soon as IRB approval was granted in early

November 2012. Before the SSS program sessions began, one student from the control group

transferred to an alternative school setting in the district leaving 33 students in the control group.

these two students resulted in 32 students in the control group and 33 students in the treatment

group for an overall total of 65 students in the study.

The SSS sessions began in January 2013 and ended in early March 2013. Of the 65

participants, there were 59 students (91%) who were tested after implementation of the SSS

program during the spring 2013 testing session. An additional two students (3%) were tested

during the summer 2013 session, three students (5%) during the fall 2013 session, and one

were subdivided into content area groups according to the tests students did not pass for the

purpose of data analysis. Georgia statewide test results from the spring 2011 administration of

the GHSGT revealed that more students passed the science (93%) and ELA (91%) portions than

the math (84%) and social studies (80%) portions (GADOE, n.d.-f). Test results for the study

school from the spring 2011 administration of the GHSGT were similar to those of the state with

portion to include them in the study as many of these students retested and passed prior to the

implementation of the treatment and had to be removed from the potential participant list.

Therefore, only the math, social studies, and ELA results were included in the inferential

Table 2 shows gender and ethnicity information for the 32 students in the control group.

The largest group was white (75%) while Hispanic students comprised the second largest group

(25%). This is similar to the makeup of the school where 69% were white and 23% were

Hispanic. There were four more males (18) than females (14) in this group. Special education

students comprised 28% of the group while English language learners comprised 22%.

Table 2

Students in the control group were placed into the four content areas of the GHSGT

according to the content areas that they did not pass (see Table 3). The largest group was social

studies with 22 students, followed by ELA with 11 students, math with 10 students, and science

with 3 students. Inferential statistics were not calculated for the science group due to the small

Table 3

Demographics for the Control Group by GHSGT Content Area

Table 4 shows gender and ethnicity information for the 33 students in the treatment

group. The largest group was Hispanic (70%) while white students comprised the second largest

group (21%). This was the exact opposite of the control group where 75% were white and 25%

were Hispanic. There was one more female (17) than males (16) in this group. Special

education students comprised 27% of the group while 21% of the group was English language

learners. This closely mirrored the control group where 28% were special education students

and 22% were English language learners.

Table 4

Demographics for the Treatment Group

Students in the treatment group were placed into the four content areas of the GHSGT

according to the content areas that they did not pass as shown in Table 5. The math and social

studies groups each had 22 students while the ELA group had nine students and the science

group had eight. Inferential statistics were not calculated for the science group due to the small

sample size. The four treatment groups were mostly Hispanic ranging from 73% to 82%. The

social studies treatment group had the only black student in the study. Special education students

Table 5

Demographics for the Treatment Group by GHSGT Content Area

Studies

(proficiency) for each of the four content area tests. A score below 200 was considered not

passing. A student was required to retest on any content area test that received a score below

200. A Georgia high school student’s first attempt at the GHSGT occurred during the spring

administration of the test in March of the student’s 11th grade year. Students not successfully

following their junior year and the fall, winter, and spring administrations in September,

November, and March of their senior year. However, students who did not pass all parts by

graduation at the end of the senior year were allowed to continue taking the test until each part

was passed. If all other graduation requirements had been met, these students were issued a

certificate of attendance at graduation instead of a diploma. Georgia utilized the GHSGT as its

Reliability for the 2009–2010 Georgia High School Graduation Tests states that validity was

established for the GHSGT through a series of evidentiary steps throughout the test development

process (GADOE Assessment Research and Development Department, 2010).

failing to adequately progress academically, to provide data for the purpose of making

instructional decisions, and to identify strengths and weaknesses in school systems (GADOE

Assessment Research and Development Department, 2010, 2011).

The second step in establishing validity was a multi-step test development process that

included curriculum alignment, as well as the identification of content that would be tested.

Committees of content specialists, test designers, and state educators were tasked with the

multiple forms for student use (GADOE Assessment Research and Development Department,

2010, 2011). Reliability coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.93 for the 2009 and 2010

administrations of the GHSGT (GADOE Assessment Research and Development Department,

2010).

results were made available, a list of 147 students who had failed the GHSGT in at least one area

were identified from the four 2012 administrations of the test. Students who were no longer in

attendance at the school (13 students) or who had successfully retaken all tests (25 students) or

informational letter and statement of consent (see Appendices E and F). The SSS program was

explained to the student including information on program content, expectations for attendance,

and how scheduling for the program would look. Students were encouraged to ask questions and

discuss their questions and concerns with the researcher. Students were asked to give the

informational letter and statement of consent (see Appendices E and F) to their parents or

guardians and to return the signed permission form to the guidance office by the end of the

students to turn in their forms, called parents who had questions, and provided information to

teachers who had students who might miss some class time by participating in this research. The

68 students were randomly placed into either a control group or a treatment group using

randomizer.org.

After randomization, the researcher met with the 34 students in the treatment group, both

guidance portion of the SSS program. The GHSGT group sessions were held during January,

February, and early March 2013. Due to varying scheduling issues in the school year, the groups

were not always able to meet each week consecutively, but all eight sessions were completed as

different academic blocks in order to keep the student from missing too much class time.

The SSS program was designed to take place over an eight to ten week period before the

language arts for students who participated in the group guidance portion of the Student Success

Skills curriculum as compared to students who did not participate in the group guidance portion

of the Student Success Skills curriculum?

Null Hypotheses

Student Success Skills curriculum.

H

2: There is no significant difference in Georgia High School Graduation Test scores in

social studies for students who participated in the group guidance portion of the Student Success

Skills curriculum as compared to students who did not participate in the group guidance portion

of the Student Success Skills curriculum.

portion of the Student Success Skills curriculum.

GHSGT Math Group

GHSGT control and treatment groups performed similarly on the pretest, but the control group

outperformed the treatment group on the posttest by scoring about 7 points higher on average

than the treatment group.

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics for the GHSGT Math Pretest and Posttest

GHSGT ELA Group

A total of 20 students comprised the ELA group as shown in Table 9. The control group

had 2 more students than the treatment group. Mean and standard deviation were computed for

both the pretest and the posttest for the GHSGT ELA participants (see Table 9). The GHSGT

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for the GHSGT ELA Pretest and Posttest

examination determined that (a) there was independence within each group and mutual

independence between the two groups, (b) the data for the dependent variable (GHSGT math

scores) were continuous or ordinal, and (c) the data for the independent variable consisted of two

categorical, independent groups (those who participated in the SSS intervention and those who

the variance should be the same for the two groups (DeCoster, 2006). In order to determine

homogeneity of variances, Levene’s test is typically used; however, a nonparametric version of

this test must be used for Mann-Whitney. Therefore, a modified Levene’s test for ranked data

was run in order to establish that the shapes of the distributions were the same. This is necessary

for Mann Whitney. This modified Levene test was a one-way ANOVA of the absolute

and treatment groups for math posttest scores, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine

homogeneity of variances. If the results are not significant, it can be assumed that the

homogeneity of variances assumption has been met. Results of the one-way ANOVA for the

assumptions were met.

Mann-Whitney U test results. In order to test the first hypothesis, a Mann-Whitney U

test was conducted using the math posttest scores for the control and treatment groups to

determine if there was a difference in the scores between the two groups after the SSS

intervention was administered. Table 10 shows the descriptive statistics for the math posttest for

the control and treatment groups.

data sets failed to pass the normality assumption and the sample sizes were small, the GHSGT

social studies data were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test. Prior to conducting the Mann-

Whitney U test, it was determined that the assumption of independence was met and that the data

types were appropriate for conducting a Mann-Whitney-U test. The fourth assumption for the

Mann-Whitney U test requiring the distribution of the scores for both groups to have the same

greater than the alpha level of .05, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met for the

posttest scores. Further, it could be implied that the distributions were similar. All assumptions

were met.

Mann-Whitney U test results. In order to test the second hypothesis, a Mann-Whitney

U test was conducted using the social studies posttest scores for the control and treatment groups

Table 11

Descriptive Statistics for Mann-Whitney U Test for Social Studies Posttest Scores

n

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

209.50, z = -0.76, p = .445, 2-tailed. Since the p value of .445 was greater than the alpha level of

.05, the social studies posttest scores for the control group and the treatment group were not

significantly different. There was insufficient evidence to support that students who participated

in the SSS intervention and were retested on the social studies portion of the GHSGT scored

significantly different than those who did not participate in the SSS intervention. The null

English language arts for students who participated in the group guidance portion of the Student

Success Skills curriculum as compared to students who did not participate in the group guidance

portion of the Student Success Skills curriculum.

Mann-Whitney U test assumptions. Because the sample sizes were small, the GHSGT

ELA data were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test. Prior to conducting the Mann-Whitney

was tested as previously described. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine

homogeneity of variances. Results of the one-way ANOVA for the ELA posttest revealed

F(1,18) = 0.18, p = .673. Since the p value of the ELA posttest scores was greater than the alpha

test was conducted using the ELA posttest scores for the control and treatment groups to

determine if there was a difference in the scores between the two groups after the SSS

intervention was administered. Table 12 shows the descriptive statistics for the ELA posttest for

the control and treatment groups.

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics for Mann-Whitney U Test for ELA Posttest Scores

of the test in 2013 (posttest scores) were included. Descriptive statistics were included for

pretest and posttest scores. The results of Mann-Whitney U tests were analyzed and the results

were presented for the math, social studies, and ELA portions of the GHSGT. There was no

significant difference found for the three hypotheses, indicating that the SSS program had no

significant effect on the GHSGT scores of those students who participated in the program when

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 5 presents a synopsis of this study and its conclusions. The purpose of this

experimental posttest-only control group design with randomization was to determine if the 8-

week guidance portion of the Student Success Skills (SSS) program could statistically impact the

rural high school students.

Discussion

Increasing student achievement is a major focus of research in the field of education.

Available literature seeks to address a wide variety of factors that may impact a student’s ability

to learn and to demonstrate learning in a way that is measureable.

school. Additionally, research has identified significant predictive correlations between early

academic factors, such as achievement in middle school math and English classes, standardized

testing skills, and student performance on state exit exams (Nichols, 2003).

achievement and academic progress. The accountability measures in these laws require

demonstrable student achievement in exchange for tax dollars received.

improve their ability to pass standardized achievement tests.

Little research is available that addresses remediation for students who have previously

failed standardized tests. Many schools implement some sort of remediation program for their

students who fail high school exit exams, but on many occasions the remediation is random

Standards in math. Rothman and Henderson (2011) found that students who had participated in

tutoring sessions were more successful on a standardized math test. Other research indicates that

faculty involvement in tutoring and other interventions (Biesinger & Crippen, 2008), remediation

as a scheduled class (Biesinger & Crippen, 2008), and differentiation (Grimes & Stevens, 2009)

provided positive impact on standardized test scores. Little, McCoach, and Reis (2014) found

Many states have implemented the Common Core State Standards curriculum and have

or are in the process of developing assessments for their public schools (Common Core State

Standards Initiative, n.d.; National Governor’s Association, 2009). In the primary testing session

Carol Burris, a high school principal in New York and previous supporter of the

Common Core standards, maintained that principals, teachers, and students feel pressured to do

well on standardized exams. She indicated that educators were engaging in test preparation

activities to assist students in raising their standardized test scores, even to the point of

purchasing expensive test preparation materials from the test manufacturer (Strauss, 2013).

An unexpected result of this study is the insight into the emotional toll that testing of this

The data for this study was followed over a two-year period. Most of the students in this

research project took their failed graduation test(s) from two to five times. One student, who

received a certificate of attendance and kept coming back to retake the GHSGT, retook the ELA

test 5 times, the math test 5 times, the science test 4 times, and the social studies test 7 times over

the course of the two years of test scores used for data in this project. The data from this study

available to students. Subject area teachers offered most of the study sessions, but students were

not required to attend since the sessions were held before or after school.

When possible, the administration asked that students be scheduled in an appropriate

The SSS program was presented to the administration. The administrators were

interested in seeing the results of the study but did not want to consider its implementation until

this study was complete. However, over the course of this study, they implemented an

afterschool program that offered some tutoring in academic areas and hosted a few Saturday

study sessions a couple of weeks before the GHSGT testing dates. They also began a push to

encourage students who were failing classes or had failed a GHSGT to move to another

student’s passing EOCT score to replace their failing GHSGT score in the corresponding

academic area. The new law was retroactively implemented which greatly impacted the data set

for this study resulting in a loss of 41 potential participants.

All of these scenarios highlight the quickly changing landscape in which educators

currently work. The public demands improvement. If that improvement is not quickly seen in

Factors, such as parental pressure, additional tutoring, and administrative policies had the

potential to impact student scores and were unable to be controlled. Additionally, some students

factors that correlate with standardized test scores would be helpful in determining the necessity

for remediation and intervention for students taking standardized tests (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009;

Bruce et al., 2009; Dennis, 2010; Geiser, 2009; Nichols, 2003). Intervention strategies that focus

on cognitive, social, and self-management skills have been found to be successful in helping

students perform better academically (Bruce et al., 2009; Silver et al., 2008).

Tutoring sessions for the GHSGT were offered on a continuing basis and were open to all

Lack of student engagement is a limitation for a high-stakes exit exam. Engagement

impacts areas of student attendance, academic performance, and testing (Balfanz et al., 2007a,

2007b; Garriott, 2007). Completing the SSS guidance sessions while taking the content course

for the area to be tested and completing the test immediately upon completion of the content

course could potentially engage the student and influence the success of the program. The

perform on the test.

Maturation is also a common threat to external validity when students are tested multiple

times. Students were allowed unlimited retakes of the test(s) they had failed. The participants in

Recommendations for Future Research

While there was some positive impact on student test scores, the findings of this study

100

provided unlikely statistical evidence that short-term guidance sessions in isolation will be an

effective intervention for students attempting high-stakes standardized tests. Additional

research, with a much larger sample size, is needed to determine if guidance sessions would be

more effective as part of a system-wide effort to assist students in successfully completing these

The SSS program includes both classroom guidance and parent training sessions (Webb

et al., 2005). The program was found to have significant positive impact for students taking the

FCAT (Brigman et al., 2007; Webb et al., 2005). Further research, utilizing the comprehensive

program, including the parent training sessions, would provide insight into the potential impact

of this and similar programs on Georgia’s standardized tests and standardized tests in other

better on the assessments. The program implemented in this research was completed for students

who had already failed a GHSGT. Using predictor variables to identify at-risk students for

intervention is recommended before the student attempts the exit exam.

students in the treatment group who passed her test after previously failing the test four times

attributed her success directly to the skills she learned in the SSS group guidance sessions. For

101

this student, the results were life changing. After learning that she had passed her test, the

college of her choice accepted her giving her the opportunity to earn her college degree and

pursue her chosen career. For that student, this program was significant.

The current study further contributes to the field by assisting educators and policymakers

may not issue a diploma to students even if those students have passed all but one of their

graduation tests. Georgia has now moved to an EOC exam given upon completion of an

academic course. The grade on the EOC counts as 20% of the student’s grade, but will not

singularly prevent the student form graduating.

Additionally, a qualitative study on the impact of failing a high school exit exam is

As standardized testing continues to be an important part of the assessment and

evaluation for school and student success, it is imperative that educators continue to search for

methodologies that will allow them to help students succeed on these exams. Accountability is

After all, helping students succeed is the foundational premise for excellence in education.

102

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Fattah, S. M. (2010). Garrison’s model of self-directed learning: Preliminary validation

and relationship to academic achievement. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(2),

586–596.

school-graduation

American School Counselor Association (n.d.). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors.

Retrieved from

http://schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/Ethics/EthicalStandards2016.pdf

Amnesty International. (1996). The death penalty in Georgia: Racist, arbitrary and unfair.

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/297/423

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in

education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Atkinson, R. C., & Geiser, S. (2009). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests.

Educational Researcher, 38(9), 665–676. doi:10.3102/0013189X09351981

103

Baker, O., & Lang, K. (2013). The effect of high school exit exams on graduation, employment,

wages, and, incarceration (Working paper 19182). Retrieved from the National Bureau

of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19182.pdf

Balfanz, R. (2008). Three steps to building an early warning and intervention system for

Balfanz, R. (2009). Can the American high school become an avenue of advancement for all?

The Future of Children, 19(1), 17–36. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0025

Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007a). Keeping students on a graduation path in

Philadelphia’s middle-grades schools. Retrieved from

http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/SLC_Schools/docs/ms/rsrch/GraduationPathInMS%5B1%5D

identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42, 223–235.

doi:10.1080/00461520701621079

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and

910). New York, NY: Longman.

Barton, P. (2010). National education standards: To be or not to be? Educational Leadership,

104

67(7), 22–29.

Berger, J. (2000). Does top-down, standards based reform work? A review of the status of

statewide standards-based reform. NASSP Bulletin, 84(612), 57–65.

doi:10.1177/019263650008461210

Brase, C. H., & Brase, C. P. (2006). Understandable statistics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of

high school dropouts. Retrieved from

http://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/TheSilentEpidemic3-06Final.pdf

Brigman, G., & Campbell, C. (2003). Helping students improve academic achievement and

288.

Brooks, J. S., & Miles, M. (2006). From scientific management to social justice . . . and back

again? Pedagogical shifts in the study and practice of educational leadership.

approach to improve test performance of African-American students. Professional School

Counseling, 12(6), 450–457. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.450

105

Burton, N. W., & Ramist, L. (2001). Predicting success in college: SAT studies of classes

graduating since 1980 (College Board Report No. 2001-2). Retrieved from

http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-

2001-2-predicting-college-success-sat-studies.pdf

group counseling. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 30, 67–82.

doi:10.1080/01933920590908705

Carey, J. C., Dimmitt, C., Hatch, T. A., Lapan, R. T., & Whiston, S. C. (2008). Report of the

National Panel for Evidence-Based School Counseling: Outcome research coding

protocol and evaluation of Student Success Skills and Second Step. Professional School

dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28(6), 325–339.

Comer, R. (2015). Abnormal psychology (9th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Common Core State Standards Intiative (n.d.). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from

Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2002). A

latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity,

112

Holme, J., Richards, M., Jimerson, J., & Cohen, R. (2010). Assessing the effects of high school

exit examinations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 476–526. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40927292

shares his views on better, more subtle assessment. (2004, March). Scholastic

Administr@tor. Retrieved from http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=304

Isaacson, W. (2009). How to raise the standard in America’s schools. Time, 173(16), 32–36.

Jaffe, M. (1998). Adolescence. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Janosz, M., LeBlanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (2000). Predicting different types of

Retrieved from the Center for Public Education website:

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keeping-kids-in-

school-At-a-glance/Keeping-kids-in-school-Preventing-dropouts.html

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/0812BENCHMARKING.pdf

Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From

113

programs to strategies. Social Policy Report, 26(4), 1–22. Retrieved from the Society for

Research in Child Development website:

http://www.srcd.org/sites/default/files/documents/spr_264_final_2.pdf

Kane, M. C. (2015). The effect of student participation in student success skills on the academic

Klein, S. P., & Bell, R. M. (1995). How will the NCAA’s new standards affect minority student-

athletes? Chance, 8(3), 18–21.

Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic

success during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics,

20(1), 42–68.

teachers’effectiveness? Monthly Labor Review, 136(8). Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/beyond-bls/student-test-scores.htm

Kurleander, M., Reardon, S. F., & Jackson, J. (2008). Middle school predictors of high school

Lacy, A. C., & LaMaster, K. J. (1996). Teacher behaviors and student academic learning time in

elementary physical education. Physical Educator, 53, 44–51.

114

Lauer, P., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S., Apthrop, H., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. (2006). Out-of-

school time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of

Educational Research, 76, 275–313.

Levine, T. D. (2012). Effects of a remediation class on standardized test retake (Doctoral

on student achievement in middle school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(4), 384–

402. doi: 10.1177/1932202X145492

Luo, D., Thompson, L. A., & Detterman, D. K. (2003). The causal factor underlying the

correlation between psychometric g and scholastic performance. Intelligence, 31(1), 67–

83. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00113-7

achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1–23.

doi:10.1521/scpq.17.1.1.19902

Mariani, M., Webb, L., Villares, E., & Brigman, G. (2015). Effects of participation in student

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and

unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American

115

Psychologist, 53(2), 205–220. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.53.2.205

Mathews, J. (2006, November 14). Just whose idea was all this testing? The Washington Post.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111301007.html

Center on Education Policy website: http://www.cep-

dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=408

Miller, I., Freund, J. E., & Johnson, R. A. (1990). Probability and statistics for engineers.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miranda, A., Webb. L., Brigman, G., & Peluso, P. (2007). Student success skills: A promising

Montes, G., & Lehmann, C. (2004). Who will drop out of school? Key predictors from the

literature (No. T04-001). Retrieved from Children’s Institute, Inc. website:

http://www.childrensinstitute.net/sites/default/files/documents/T04-001.pdf

Nachar, N. (2008). The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples

come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1),

116

13–20.

National Alliance of Business. (2000). Improving performance: Competition in American public

education. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED443147)

National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988:

State Standards Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-

room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_fifty-one-states-and-

territories-join-common-core-state-standards-initiative.html

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction

graduation exam. Preventing School Failure, 47, 112–116.

doi:10.1080/10459880309604439

Noble, J., & Sawyer, R. (2002). Predicting different levels of academic success in college using

269. doi:10.1177/1477878504046520

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.). Programme for international

117

student assessment (PISA). Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_35845621_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Measuring student

knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Retrieved from

competencies for tomorrow’s world volume 1-analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/39703267.pdf

Papay, J., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2014). High-school exit examinations and the schooling

decisions of teenagers: Evidence from regression-discontinuity approaches. Journal of

Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 1–27. doi:10.1080/19345747.2013.819398

Phelps, R. P. (Ed.). (2005). Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Pintrich, P. R. (1988) A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In J. Startk &

of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 82(1), 33–40.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33

118

Plucker, J. A., & Esping, A. (Eds.). (2014). Alfred Binet. Retrieved from the Human Intelligence

website: http://www.intelltheory.com/binet.shtml

Progressive era. (n.d.). Retrieved from K12 academics website:

http://www.k12academics.com/history-education-united-states/progressive-era

http://www.stthomasu.ca/~jgillis/bio.htm

Ridgell, S. D., & Lounsbury, J. W. (2004). Predicting academic success: General intelligence,

“big five” personality traits, and work drive. College Student Journal, 38(4), 607–618.

Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive

ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 83–92. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.05.004

Savitz-Romer, M., & Jager-Hyman, J. (2009). Stronger together. Principal Leadership, 9(8),

48–53.

Scarborough, H. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities:

Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities:

Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early

119

literacy research (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford.

Schlenoff, D. (2015). Challenging the immigrant: The Ellis Island intelligence tests, 1915.

Retrieved from the Scientific American website:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ellis-island-challenging-the-immigrant/

Los Angeles Unified School District? (California Dropout Research Project Report #14).

Retrieved from California Dropout Research Project website:

http://www.cdrp.ucsb.edu/pubs_reports.htm

Silverstein, A. (2000). Standardized tests: The continuation of gender bias in higher education.

Hofstra Law Review, 29, 669–1401.

Georgia middle school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/143/

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2006). Reducing the gap: Success for all and the achievement of

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Spears, T. (2008, July 25). Gender gap bridged over math. The Province. Retrieved from

120

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=987a4bc3-991a-4c1a-8160-1a00e2735b4b

Stillwell, R., Sable, J., & Plotts, C. (2011). Public school graduates and dropouts from the

common core data: School year 2008-09 (NCES 2011-312). Retrieved from National

Center for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011312.pdf

Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answersheet/wp/2013/03/04/principal-i-was-

naive-about-common-core/

Sum, A., Khatiwada, I., McLaughlin, J., & Palma, S. (2009). The consequences of dropping out

of high school: Joblessness and jailing for high school dropouts and the high cost for

school graduation, Class of 2001. Retrieved from Urban Institute Education Policy

Center website: http://www.urban.org/publications/410934.html

Technical College System of Georgia. (2015). V. B. 1. Admissions requirements. Retrieved from

Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

349646)

121

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every student succeeds act (ESSA). Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/ESSA

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. Retrieved

from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-high-school-graduation-rate-

hits-new-record-high

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). No child left behind act: Education could do

more to help states better define graduation rates and improve knowledge about

intervention strategies (GAO Report 05-879). Retrieved from

Volger, K. E. (2008). Comparing the impact of accountability examinations on Mississippi and

Tennessee social studies teachers’ instructional practices. Educational Assessment, 13, 1–

32. doi:10.1080/10627190801968158

Walberg, H. J., & Paik, S. J. (2000). Educational practices series–3: Effective educational

practices. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/services/online-

128

Appendix D: Institutional Review Board Approvals

129

130

APPENDIX E: Parent or Guardian Permission Letter

Dear Students and Parents:

My name is Donna Caudell. I currently work as the Sophomore Counselor at Habersham Central High

School. Additionally, I am an Ed.D candidate in the School of Education at Liberty University, under the direction

of Dr. Casey Reason. I am working to conduct research on a method that will help students pass the Georgia High

School Graduation Tests. I am seeking students and high school completers, who still need to pass one or more of

Student Success Skills. The Student Success Skills program has been very successful in helping students

participate in this project, please read and sign that document, then return it to me with the attached Participant

Permission Form.

Your participation in this study is totally voluntary; nevertheless, your participation in each group guidance

contribute valuable information to the knowledge on best practices for assisting students in increasing their test

groups may not actively participate in the group sessions. These students will be considered as the control group

131

Sincerely,

Donna A. Caudell, Ed.D Candidate

706-778-7161, ext. 1130

132

APPENDIX F: Student Participation Consent Form

CONSENT FORM

STUDENTS ON THE GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TESTS OR END-OF-COURSE TESTS

Success Skills program helps students pass the Georgia High School Graduation Test. You were selected as a

possible participant because you still have one or more Georgia High School Graduation Tests to successfully

complete. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.

one portion of the Georgia High School Graduation Test.

2. Listen and treat all other group members with respect.

3. Complete the goals you set for yourself at each group guidance session before the next session.

4. Take the Georgia High School Graduation Test that you still need to pass during the spring 2013

administration of the tests.

5. Maintain confidentiality of everything done and discussed during the group guidance sessions. While the

discuss information that is too personal or private to them. Respect for others, however, indicates that all

with anyone outside of the group. There will be no audio or video taping of these group sessions.

133

Compensation:

You will not receive payment or any form of compensation for participating in this research project.

Confidentiality:

([email protected]). His phone number is 419-724-3391.

134