[Simtrainer-l] Content Enhancement Research

[Schumaker, Jean]

Hi all—I’m thinking of you all today and wishing you fabulous new year! I hope that all is well after all your holiday experiences.
      I‘m writing because I’m hearing that finding research studies on the Content Enhancement (CE) Routines can be difficult. I am attaching two review articles written by Joe Fisher and me that cover a lot of bases and a lot of studies on Content Enhancement. The articles focus on four CE Routines. Here are the key takeaway ideas from these articles.
• All the routines are all built on the same principles of learning, and they are designed to work in the same way.
• Each routine works in terms of producing significantly more learning in students enrolled in general-education subject-area courses. We confirmed this by having a researcher use the routine in classes and administering tests similar to the tests used in these classes. (The same researcher also taught control classes using the lecture method.) We measured growth in student learning with pretests and posttests constructed like the tests given in subject-area courses. (See the Part I article attached.) Students in the classes where the routines were used earned significantly higher scores than students in the lecture classes. Students in different subgroups earned higher scores than their paired counterparts in the lecture classes. This is a key and unique finding. Researchers rarely look at the performance of subgroups of students.
• Next, we had actual teachers of subject-area classes learn to use the routines. We showed that they could be taught by a computer program within three hours to be excellent implementers. Likewise, teachers were excellent implementers when we taught them in a live workshop.
• We also showed that when the teachers used the routines, their students earned significantly higher scores on the posttests versus pretests, regardless of how the teachers were trained (See the Part II article.)
• Additionally, the students’ performance on tests was measured in all the classes for the whole group of students and students with LD. In all cases, the students earned significantly higher scores on the posttests than the pretests. In a couple of instances, the students whose teachers received the computerized training earned significantly higher scores than the students of teachers who received the workshop training. (See the Part II article.)
• What’s really important and exciting about the research reported in both articles is that the gains in student performance happened in all subgroups of students, including students with disabilities and other low achievers enrolled in the inclusive general education classes.
• What I think characterizes these articles is that they show replication. That is, we showed over and over that a Content Enhancement Routine works in almost exactly the same way, regardless of the routine used, the subject-area content, and how the teachers were trained. The same results were repeated again and again in all student subgroups.
• One more thing that makes the studies about Content Enhancement Routines different from any other intervention in the research literature is that the results of student subgroups in general education classes are not only shown separately in relation to teaching subject-area content in these studies, but that the percentages of students in different subgroups who earn passing scores are also shown. Not only have other researchers not shown that test scores have increased in different subgroups in subject-area classes, but they have not shown how those increased scores translate into passing grades. The Content Enhancement Research shows that large percentages of students in different subgroups pass the test (i.e., earn scores at or above 60%) after the routines are used. This is an important concept since most of students’ quarterly grades are based on test scores.
(See the Part I article.) It lends credence to the idea that Content Enhancement can serve as an intervention that can affect students’ quality of life regarding their progress in earning course credits.

As you start up the new semester, please keep these unique findings in mind, and share them with others. Please let me know if you have any questions.  Jean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/simtrainer-l/attachments/20240104/c5d0ce5b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CE review Part I Final pdf.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1246725 bytes
Desc: CE review Part I Final pdf.pdf
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/simtrainer-l/attachments/20240104/c5d0ce5b/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Part II page proofs.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 316030 bytes
Desc: Part II page proofs.pdf
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/simtrainer-l/attachments/20240104/c5d0ce5b/attachment-0003.pdf>