Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Effects of Learner Centered

education on the academic outcomes
of minority groups
Moises Salinas

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Effect of Learner-Cent ered educat ion on t he Academic out comes of Minorit y Groups
Moises Salinas Fleit man

Relat ions of learner-cent ered t eaching pract ices t o adolescent s’ achievement goals
Barbara L McCombs

Using a 360 degree assessment model t o support learning t o learn

Ellen Verdel
 Effect of Learner-Centered education on the
Academic outcomes of Minority Groups
Moises F. Salinas and Johanna Garr

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effect that learner-centered class-
rooms and schools have on the academic performance of minority and non-minority
groups. A diverse sample of schools at the elementary school level were selected.
Teachers were also asked to complete the Teacher Beliefs Survey and the Teacher
Classroom Practices questionnaire, instruments designed to assess the level of learner-
centered orientation of teachers and schools. Data was collected on student’s perfor-
mance on state standardized tests, but in addition, students were assessed in a number
of non-traditional learning criteria, such as creativity, motivation, self-regulation,
cooperative skills, openness to diversity, and metacognitive skills. Results indicate
that minorities in schools and classrooms with higher learner-centered orientations
not only have test scores statistically equal of those from their white peers, but also
that students in Learner-Centered schools have higher scores in the non-traditional
measures, including tolerance and openness to diversity.

The performance gap on standardized
tests between historically underrepresented
ethnic minority groups (African American,
Latino and Native American) and non-minor-
ity (mostly White/European American, but
lately also Asian American) students in the
United States is a problem that has become
more severe as new federal initiatives increase
the amount and importance of such tests.
However, as an increasingly sophisticated and
service-oriented workplace emerges in the 21st
century, many researchers and educators have
called into question the basic relevance of
these tests to reflect higher thinking skills and
complex knowledge (e.g., Williams, 2005;
Kohn, 2000; Meier & Wood, 2004; Camara
& Brown, 1995). Moreover, an increasingly
larger body of literature suggests that factors
other than grades are more important to pre-
dict success in academic performance, career
accomplishments, and life in general. For
example, factors such as self-efficacy (e.g.,
Moises F. Salinas and Johanna Garr, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Central Connecticut State
University.
Correspondence concerning this paper
should be addressed to Dr. Moises F. Salinas at
salinasm@ccsu.edu
Saks, 2006; Gore, 2006; Malka & Coving-
ton, 2005; Zimmerman, 2006), motivation
(e.g., Carmichael & Taylor, 2005; Cecchini,
González, Prado, & Brustad, 2005; Malka &
Covington, 2005; Turner & Johnson, 2003),
creativity (e.g., Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow,
2005), collaboration (e.g., Killian, 2005;
Prather & Jones, 2003), innovation (e.g.,
Utsch & Rauch, 2000), learning strategies
(e.g., Zimmerman, 1996), and goal setting
or orientation (e.g., Zimmerman, 1996; Ce-
cchini, González, Prado, & Brustad, 2005)
have each been shown to predict success in
certain aspects of life. It is, therefore, increas-
ingly important not only to identify factors
that can decrease this gap in the educational
performance of our children, but re-focus our
educational outcomes in terms of the skills
and knowledge that are actually relevant for
the world of the new millennium.
One model that proposes to look at
these issues from a systemic perspective is
the learner-centered model of education. In
1990, the APA appointed the Presidential
Task Force on Psychology in Education
whose task was twofold: (a) to determine
ways in which the psychological knowledge
base related to learning, motivation, and in-
dividual differences could contribute directly
2/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 2
to improvements in the quality of student
achievement and (b) to provide guidance for
the design of educational systems that would
best support individual student learning and
achievement (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).
The result was an integrated set of principles
that reflect the best practices, as supported
by psychological and educational research,
to improve education for all students. “Taken
as a whole [the learner centered principles]
provide an integrated perspective on factors
influencing learning for all learners. Together,
they are intended to be understood as an
organized knowledge base that supports
a learner-centered model” (McCombs &
Whisler, 1997, p. 3).
The learner-centered model and prin-
ciples were first compiled by the American
Psychological Association Presidential Task
Force (1993), and then further developed by
McCombs and Whisler (1993). The revised
model includes fourteen principles clustered
in four areas: (a) cognitive and metacognitive
factors, (b) motivational and affective factors,
(c) developmental and social factors, and (d)
individual difference factors (APA, 1997).
The American Psychological Association
Board of Educational Affairs (2005) describes
these areas that define the learner-centered
model as follows:
1. Cognitive and metacognitive factors that
relate to the constructive nature of the
learning process and the value of helping
learners to become more aware of their
thinking and learning.
2. Motivational and affective factors that
relate to the influence of emotions and the
interest of the student in learning.
3. Developmental and social factors that
emphasize positive learning climates
and relationships in establishing a so-
cial context that facilitates meaningful
learning, and also focus on identifying
developmental differences within and
among learners.
4. Individual differences that relate to basic
principles of learning and the identifica-
tion of unique individual attributes that
determine effective learning modes for
different learners.
Since their publication, these principles
have inspired a large number of studies and
educational programs. In turn, these stud-
ies and programs have provided evidence
suggesting that learner-centered schools are
more effective than traditional educational
settings in promoting traditional indicators
of school performance such as achievement
(Fasko & Grubb, 1997; Ovando & Alford,
1997; Perry, 1999; Matthews & McLaughlin,
1994; Alfassi, 2004) and graduation rates
(Ancess, 1995), as well as other, less tradi-
tional indicators, like motivation (Daniels,
Kalkman & McCombs, 2001; Alfassi, 2004),
student self-regulation (Salisbury-Glennon,
Gorrell, Sanders, Boyd, & Kamen, 1999),
self-efficacy and self-esteem (Fasko & Grubb,
1997; Ancess, 1995; Perry, 1999; Houle,
1992), creativity (Rallis, 1996; Schuh, 2001;
Hamilton, 1999), and tolerance, diversity,
and multiculturalism (Rallis, 1996; Thornton
& McEntee, 1995; Donohue, 2001; Sewell,
DuCette & Shapiro, 1998; Udvari-Solner,
Alice, & Thousand, 1996; Houle, 1992).
One example of a study supporting in-
creased achievement was performed by Mat-
thews and McLaughlin in 1994. In their study,
a group of twelfth grade biology students were
assigned to either a traditional lecture class,
or to a learner-centered lecture course with
a guided laboratory class. Scores on a post
test requiring higher level reasoning showed
that the students in the learner-centered class
scored significantly higher than the students
in the traditional lecture class. Similarly, in a
field study by Fasko and Grubb (1997), sixth
to twelfth grade teachers from a rural school
system rated themselves using a learner-cen-
tered teacher survey, and they were also rated
by their students. Effective teachers were
found to demonstrate greater implementation
of learner-centered principles. Additionally,

the level of implementation predicted student
achievement. In another study, Alfassi (2004)
compared groups of students at a high risk
of dropping out of school. 74 high school
students at high academic risk and attending
alternative schools in an urban school district
were studied. One group in a traditional school
setting and two groups which implemented
learner-centered programs were evaluated.
Significantly higher achievement scores were
obtained in those schools that implemented
learner-centered programs.
Research on learner-centered teaching
methods has also assessed effects of such
methods on less traditional indicators of
student success. For example, Salisbury-
Glennon, Gorrell, Sanders, Boyd, and Ka-
men, (1999), collected data on 114 sixth and
seventh graders from an urban middle-class
school in two classrooms that used a learner-
centered approach. The researchers found
that these students exhibited a number of
charactersitics that are indicative of self-
regulation, such as an orientation toward
“developing new skills, the intrinsic value
of learning, developing their understanding,
and improvement” (p. X).
In another study, Daniels, Kalkman, and
McCombs (2001) interviewed children in kin-
dergarten through second grades, and found
that the children’s motivation for learning
and interest in schoolwork was significantly
higher in learner-centered classrooms than
in more traditional classrooms. In addition,
through Alfassi’s (2004) study of students at
academic risk, results showed that learner-
centered programs also yielded greater
internal motivation in students.
Some of the most compelling areas in
which learner-centered models appear to
make an impact, however, are in the areas
of tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.
This is particularly important in an era which
has experienced an increase in bullying,
stereotyping, and violence in the schools.
E../3
For example, Donohue (2001) investigated
whether or not a more learner-centered en-
vironment in the classroom leads to lower
rates of student rejection by peers. Data
was collected from 28 kindergarten and
first grade teachers, and results revealed that
learner-centered methodologies are linked
to lower levels of peer rejection. In 2003,
Donohue and her colleagues (Donohue,
Perry & Weinstein, 2003) collected data on
14 first-grade classrooms. Greater use of
learner-centered practices led to less reported
anger and more empathy toward a hypotheti-
cal disruptive peer. Such practices also led
to fewer interpersonal behavioral problems
and lower levels of peer rejection.
The purpose of the present study is to
investigate the effects of learner-centered
classrooms and schools on the academic
performance of minority and non-minority
students. Performance was investigated both
in terms of traditional standardized testing
performance measures, as well as a number
of non-traditional performance criteria that
are better reflective of the skills needed
to succeed in the modern, technology and
research-driven economy of today’s 21st cen-
tury. Such skills needed for success include
self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, creativity,
initiative, the ability to work in groups, and
openness to diversity. To that purpose, a
diverse sample of both learner-centered and
traditional schools at the elementary school
level was selected, and data was collected
on students’ performance on state standard-
ized tests, as well as on the non-traditional
learning criteria. We expect that minority
students in classrooms with high learner-
centered orientations would have academic
performance indicators similar to those of
their non-minority peers. In addition, we
expected that all students in high learner-
centered classrooms would score higher on
the non-traditional measures than their peers
in low learner-centered classrooms.
4/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 2
Method
Participants
Participants were 236 elementary
schools students from six learner-centered
(LC) and six matched control schools across
the United States. Descriptive data on the
school compositions can be found in table 1.
The six LC schools were selected using the
following procedure: We reviewed a number
of large data bases of schools nationwide look-
ing for elementary schools that self-described
as LC based on the criteria by McCombs and
Whisler (1997):
• Choice regarding their own projects
and graded assignments, be able to
select areas that are personally rel-
evant
• Individual pace - Flexibility of time
• Demonstrate their knowledge in
unique ways - Mastery, feedback,
risk taking
• Engaged and participating in indi-
vidual and group learning activi-
ties;
• Increasing responsibility for the
learning process; e.g., attendance
• Refine their understanding by using
critical thinking skills;
In addition, and in order to reduce other
noise factors, we decided that we would look
only at public schools that had an open enroll-
ment (either zonal or lottery) but not private
or charter schools with selective enrollment.
Furthermore, because we needed a relative
proportion of minority and non-minority stu-
dents, we restricted our selection to schools
that had between one-third to two-third under
represented minority populations.
We found about 70 schools that fit the
basic profile. Then, in order to select the
schools, we needed a matched control for
each school. By using publicly available
school district data from the district’s web
site, we located match control schools with
the following characteristics:
• Close geographical location (within
same district)
• Traditional model of instruction
• Similar SES distribution
• Similar ethnic/racial distribution
• Similar school size
Using this procedure, we were able
to locate about 35 LC-Matched Control
sets. We then contacted all the schools and
asked them to participate on the study. Of
the original dataset, only six pairs agreed to
participate in the study, although ultimately
the data from one experimental school had
to be eliminated from analysis because the
demographic data was submitted erroneously
separately from the other scores. Once the
schools agreed to participate, we asked them
to identify teachers willing to be part of the
study. Each teacher who participated was
given a $100 gift certificate to the store of
their choice. A total of 14 teachers volunteered
(six from LC schools, eight from controls).
Once the teachers were identified, in order to
confirm if they in fact used LC practices in
their classrooms, the teacher completed the
Teacher section of the Assessment of Learner
Centered Practices (ALCP) (Weinberger &
McCombs, 2001). Results from ALCP show
that the teachers in the LC schools (X=46.87,
SD=1.10) were significantly higher (t=6.65,
p<.0001) in LC practices than the traditional
schools (X=43.72, SD=.75).
Instruments
To compare the differences in perfor-
mance between the students in the LC and
traditional schools, we used two sets of
measures. In order to evaluate performance
in the traditional academic areas, we decided
to collect data from the most recent state
standard academic achievement measures
as required by the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB)legislation. For the non-traditional
indicators of school performance, we used a
battery of tests that included the Assessment
of Learner Centered practices – student form,

the Khatena-Morse Multitalent Perception
Inventory, the Classroom Environment
Scale, and the Miville-Guzman Universal-
ity-Diversity Scale.
NCLB Data. Each school provided the
sub-scale scores for each student on their most
recent NCLB standard test. However, data
came from schools in six different states, and
although NCLB gives general guidelines in
order to evaluate areas of academic achieve-
ment consistently, each state develops its own
measures, which differ in the specific areas
of evaluation as well as the scoring system
for each test. A summary of the test areas
and scoring scales is presented on table 2. In
order to convert all the different scores into a
single measure, we first converted each states
sub-scale scores to Z scores using school
district norming standard deviation data.
Then, we calculated a composite score per
participant by averaging all the different sub
tests Z scores. The descriptive statistics of the
resulting scores are presented on table 3.
Assessment of Learner Centered Prac-
tices (ALCP). The Assessment of Learner
Centered Practices-Student Form is a self-as-
sessment instrument based on the 14 Learner
Centered principles endorsed by the American
Psychological Association (APA, 1995).
It evaluates the impact of learner centered
practices on the students. It has been normed
and validated with over 25,000 K to College
students (McCombs, 2003). The student form
consists of 75 likert-type items and has seven
sub scales: Self Efficacy, State Epistemic
Curiosity, Active Learning Strategies, Effort
Avoidance Strategies, Task Mastery Goals,
Performance Oriented Goals, and Work
Avoidance Goals.
Khatena-Morse Multitalent Perception
Inventory (KMMPI). The KMMPI (Morse
& Khatena, 1991; Khatena & Morse, 1990)
is a standard self-report instrument designed
to measure six factors associated with talent
(Artistry, Musical, Creative Imagination, Ini-
tiative, Leadership and Versatility). The full
scale contains 50 likert-type items. For our
E../5
booklets, we selected 35 items, corresponding
to four of the sub scales, Creative Imagination,
Initiative, Leadership, and Versatility.
Classroom Environment Scale (CES).
The CES (Fisher& Fraser, 1983) is an instru-
ment designed to measure nine dimensions of
classroom climate: Involvement, Affiliation,
Teacher Support, Task Orientation, Competi-
tion, Order and Organization, Rule Clarity,
Teacher Control, and Innovation. The full
scale contains 90 true-false items, 10 for
each sub scale. For our booklet, we selected
20 items corresponding to the sub-scales of
Affiliation and Innovation.
Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity
Scale (M-GUDS). The M-GUDS-Short Scale
(Miville et al., 1999) is a standard instru-
ment that has been normed and validated
for elementary school age children, and that
measures student attitudes, cognitions, and
behaviors regarding openness to diversity. It
consists of 15, six-point likert-type multiple
choice items, and contains two sub-scales:
Tolerance and Comfort with Differences.
Procedure
We compiled student response booklets
containing the selected subscales, as well as a
demographic information page, and a form to
include the standard mastery NCLB scores for
each child. Identifying information was all on
the last page of the student response booklet,
and teachers were in charge of removing that
page before mailing the booklets back to us,
so the data will remain anonymous. Book-
lets were pilot tested for length on a small
number of fifth grade children to make sure
the administration time was appropriate. The
piloting showed that actual administration
time was approximately 50 minutes.
Packets of information were compiled
and sent to the schools containing the student
response booklets with the instrument scales,
as well as consent forms, gift certificate
requests and the teacher section of the As-
sessment of Learner Centered Practices. The
instruments were administered in school to
6/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 2
the students, per the teachers discretion during
a convenient time and class period. Teachers
filled in the standard mastery NCLB scores
for each child, removed names and other
identifying information from the booklets,
and mailed the completed booklets to us. We
mailed $100 gift certificates to teachers upon
receipt of the completed packets.
Results
The goal of the present study was to
investigate the effects of learner-centered
education on the academic performance of
minority and non-minority students, both
in terms of traditional standardized testing
performance measures, as well as a number
of non-traditional performance criteria. The
two main independent variables collected
were ethnicity (minority vs. non-minority)
and educational model (learner centered vs.
traditional). For all analyses, Ethnicity was
collapsed into Minority and Non-Minority
categories, due to the fact that there was only
one Native American participant, and 8 Asian
participants, leading to repeated “singularity”
errors. In addition, the data from a Florida
Learner-Centered school had to be eliminated
from the analysis because of a reporting error
in which demographic data was submitted
separately from other scores.
We conducted a series of ANOVAS
to test if there were differences within the
minority and non-minority ethnic groups,
and found no significant differences in any
of the dependent variables. Therefore, based
on the similarity of statistical patterns and
historical trends between different ethnic
groups, African Americans, Latino and Native
American participants were collapsed into the
“Minority” category, while White and Asian
participants conformed the “Non-Minority”
category. Students who responded “Other”
or had missing data were excluded from
relevant analyses.
Scores on each students state-mandated
standardized achievement tests were col-
lected. In addition, we collected 14 non-
traditional learning dependent variables: 1.
Self Efficacy, 2. State Epistemic Curiosity, 3.
Active Learning Strategies 4. Effort Avoid-
ance Strategies, 5. Task Mastery Goals,
6.Performance Oriented Goals, 7. Work
Avoidance Goals, 8. Creative Imagination,
9. Initiative, , 10. Leadership, 11. Affiliation,
12. Innovation , 13. Tolerance and 14.
Diversity Appreciation
Achievement Scores
To test the significance of group dif-
ferences in achievement scores, first it was
necessary to standardize the different scores
from the different state mandated tests. Each
one of the six states where we collected data
has a different combination of sub-tests and
scoring systems, which are presented on table
2. In order to standardize these scores, first, we
computed a composite score for students in
each state by adding the scores on the different
sub-tests. Then, by using each states norm-
ing standard deviation data, we computed a
standard score Z for each participant. The
results from these performance scores as a
function of educational model and ethnicity
are illustrated in Figure 1.
In order to compare the composite
achievement scores, a two way ANOVA was
performed using a 2 (minority vs. non-mi-
nority) X 2 (learner-centered vs. traditional)
design to examine whether achievement
scores on the standardized tests varied
across ethnicity and educational model. As
expected, the analysis revealed that there
were no significant effects of ethnicity F( 1,
209) = 3.04, p =.08, or educational model F(
1, 209) = 1.05, p =.31. However, the ANOVA
revealed a significant interaction effect F(
1,209) = 3.94, p <.05. Planned comparisons
showed that this significant interaction effect
was due to the fact that there was, as widely
documented in the literature, a large perfor-
mance gap between minority (M = -.27; SD
= .85) and non-minority (M = .20; SD = .94)
students in the traditional educational model
(t=2.83, p<.005), but no significant difference

whatsoever between the minority (M = .11;
SD = .70) and non-minority (M = .08; SD =
.1.03) students in the learner-centered model
(t=.161, p>.87).
Assessment of Learner Centered Practices
(ALCP)
We collected data from all the seven
sub scales that are part of the ALCP. The
descriptive statistics for these seven factors
are presented in table 4. We conducted a 2 X
2 (Ethnicity X Educational Model) MANOVA
to test for differences in all seven factors. The
MANOVA revealed significant differences
for the main Educational model effect F(
1, 189) = 4.40, p =.0002, and no significant
differences for either the Ethnicity main
effect of the interaction effect. In order to
determine the specific factors in which the
traditional and learner-centered educational
models yielded significant differences, we
conducted a series of planned comparisons
between the two groups. Consistent with the
hypothesis, the results suggest that students
in the learner centered model scored better
in six of the seven factors. The results are
presented in table 5.
Khatena-Morse Multitalent Perception
Inventory (KMMPI)
Data was collected from three of the
KMMPI subscales: Creative Imagination,
Initiative and Leadership. In order to test for
differences, we conducted a series of 2 X 2
(Ethnicity X Educational Model) ANOVAs,
one for each factor. The only significant effect
was the Educational Model main effect on the
Initiative sub-scale F(1, 212) = 4.70, p =.03. A
planned comparison t=2.14, p=.03, revealed
that the students in the learner centered con-
dition scored significantly higher (M=3.02,
SD=1.24) than students in the traditional
model (M=2.61, SD=1.43).
Classroom Environment Scale (CES)
The CES consists of two sub-scales, Af-
filiation and Innovation. In order to test for
E../7
differences in these two sub scales, two 2 X
2 (Ethnicity X Educational Model) ANOVAs
were conducted. Both ANOVAs revealed a
significant main Educational Model effect,
and no Ethnicity or interaction effects. For
Affiliation, the significant Educational Model
effect was F(1, 202) = 6.22, p =.013, and for
Innovation it was F(1, 202) = 6.75, p =.01.
Planned comparisons (t=2.64. p=.009) re-
vealed that for the Affiliation sub-scale, the
Learner-Centered model (M=31.1, SD=10.3)
scored significantly higher than the traditional
model (M=27.6, SD=8.54). For the Innova-
tion sub-scale, the Learner-Centered model
(M=32.6, SD=9.88) scored significantly
higher (t=2.80, p=.006) than the traditional
model (M=29.0, SD=8.25).
Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity
Scale (M-GUDS)
The M-GUDS consists of two sub-scales,
Diversity Appreciation and Tolerance. In
order to test for differences in these two sub
scales, we again performed two 2 X 2 (Ethnic-
ity X Educational Model) ANOVAs. For Di-
versity Appreciation, there was a significant
main Educational Model effect F(1, 197) =
6.75, p =.01, and no Ethnicity or interaction
effects. Planned comparisons (t=2.62. p=.01)
revealed that the Learner-Centered model
(M=44.2, SD=6.90) scored significantly
higher than the traditional model (M=41.75,
SD=6.10). For Tolerance, there was also a
significant main Educational Model effect
F(1, 197) = 8.33, p =.004, and no Ethnicity
or interaction effects. Planned comparisons
(t=3.14. p=.002) revealed that the Learner-
Centered model (M=44.1, SD=7.03) once
again scored significantly higher than the
traditional model (M=41.0, SD=6.90).
Discussion
In recent years, there has been a major
shift in educational models, because of the
NCLB act, away from teacher and school
control of the classroom and curriculum, and
towards greater control by the state and the
8/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 2
federal government. The Learner centered
model of education argues that the control of
the learning should be exactly the opposite of
the recent trend, and should reside primarily
on the learner him or herself, with the teacher
serving as a facilitator for the constructiv-
ist learning process. The practical changes
derived form the NCLB act necessitated a
greater dependence on quantitative, stan-
dard measures to achieve its accountability
mandate, making our reliance on standard-
ized tests greater, with all it’s drawbacks as
they have been previously documented (e.g.,
Kohn, 2000; Williams, 2005; Buckendahl,
2005; Goodman & Hambleton, 2005; Oha-
nian, 1999). This problems are exacerbated
for minority students, who experience a per-
vasive gap in scores that has resisted many
attempts at intervention (e.g., Guisbond &
Neill, 2004; Lomax, West, Harmon & Viator,
1995; Haney, 1993). In that light, our most
important finding is that in spite of the limita-
tions that NCLB testing imposes, minority
students in Learner Centered classrooms
were able to close the performance gap with
their non-minority peers. As stated above, we
found a significant difference in Standard-
ized test performance between Traditional
vs. Learner-Centered schools, in which the
gap between minorities and non-minorities
is completely closed in the learner-centered
schools.
Moreover, we also found that students
in the LC schools had higher scores in a
number of areas, including Self Efficacy, Cu-
riosity, Active Learning Strategies, Mastery
orientation, Initiative, Innovation and value
of Diversity, skills that are very valuable in
a competitive marketplace in which mere
knowledge of mathematics and language can
only assure a low-skills job. In an era were
the economy is shifting towards high-end,
service oriented jobs, higher level skills be-
come of the utmost importance. These result
are really significant since they support the
value of Learner-Centered education not
only in terms of closing the achievement
gap between minorities and non-minorities,
but also to improve the education of the stu-
dents in areas beyond traditional academic
performance.
References
Alfassi, M. (2004). Effects of a Learner-Centred
Environment on the academic competence
and motivation of students at risk. Learning
Environments Research, 7(1), 1-22.
American Psychological Association, (1995).
Learner-Centered Psychological Principles:
A Framework for School Redesign and Re-
form. Washington, DC: APA.
Buckendahl, C. (2005). Practical and perceived
challenges to instructionally supportive
accountability tests. Measurement: Inter-
disciplinary Research and Perspectives,
3(3), 180-193.
Camara, W., & Brown, D. (1995). Educational and
employment testing: Changing concepts in
measurement and policy. Educational Mea-
surement: Issues and Practice, 14(1), 5-11.
Carmichael, C., & Taylor, J. (2005). Analysis
of student beliefs in a tertiary preparatory
mathematics course. International Journal
of Mathematical Education in Science &
Technology, 36(7), 713-719.
Cecchini, J., González, C., Prado, J., & Brustad,
R. (2005). Relación del Clima Motivacional
Percibido con la Orientación de Meta, la
Motivación Intrínseca y las Opiniones y
Conductas de Fair Play. Revista Mexicana
de Psicología, 22(2), 469-479.
Donohue, K. (2001). Classroom instructional
practices and children’s rejection by their
peers. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 61,
(7-A), 3839.
Donohue, K., Perry, K., & Weinstein, R. (2003).
Teachers’ classroom practices and children’s
rejection by their peers. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 91.
Fisher, D., & Fraser, B. (1983). Validity and
use of the Classroom Environment Scale.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
5(3), 261-271.
Goodman, D., & Hambleton, R. (2005). Some
Misconceptions About Large-Scale Educa-
tional Assessments. Defending standardized
testing (pp. 91-110). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.

Gore, P. (2006). Academic Self-Efficacy as a
Predictor of College Outcomes: Two Incre-
mental Validity Studies. Journal of Career
Assessment, 14(1), 92-115.
Guisbond, L., & Neill, M. (2004). Failing Our
Children: No Child Left behind Undermines
Quality and Equity in Education. Clearing
House, 78(1),
Haney, W. (1993). Testing and minorities. Beyond
silenced voices: Class, race, and gender
in United States schools (pp. 45-73). State
University of New York Press.
Khatena, J., & Morse, D. (1990). Additional
evidence on reliability and validity for the
Khatena-Morse Multitalent Perception In-
ventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70(3),
1267-1270.
Killian, J. (2005). Collaborative relationships
and successful aging at work. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sci-
ences and Engineering, Vol 66(1-B), 2005.
pp. 603. Retrieved Friday, December 08,
2006 from the PsycINFO database.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standard-
ized testing: raising the scores, ruining the
schools. Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.
Lomax, R., West, M., Harmon, M., & Viator, K.
(1995). The impact of mandated standardized
testing on minority students. Journal of Negro
Education, 64(2), 171-185.
Malka, A., & Covington, M. (2005). Perceiv-
ing School Performance as Instrumental to
Future Goal Attainment: Effects on Graded
Performance. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 30(1), 60-80.
McCombs, B. L. (2003). Defining Tools for
Teacher Reflection: The Assessment of
Learner-Centered Practices (ALCP). Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association
(Chicago, IL, April, 2003).
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The
learner-centered classroom and school :
strategies for increasing student motivation
and achievement. San Francisco : Jossey-
Bass.
Meier, D., & Wood, G. H. (2004). Many children
left behind : how the No Child Left Behind
Act is damaging our children and our schools.
Boston, MA : Beacon Press.
Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W.,
Touradji, P., Holloway, P., & Fuertes, J.
E../9
(1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing
differences: The Miville-Guzman Universal-
ity-Diversity Scale. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46, 291–307.
Morse, D., & Khatena, J. (1991). Factor structure
of the Khatena-Morse Multitalent Percep-
tion Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
72(3), 867-874.
Ohanian, S. (1999). One Size Fits Few: The Folly
of Educational Standards. . Retrieved Friday,
April 27, 2007 from the ERIC database.
Prather, S., & Jones, D. (2003). Physician Leader-
ship: Influence on Practice-Based Learning
and Improvement. Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 23,
S63.
Saks, A. (2006). Multiple Predictors and Criteria
of Job Search Success. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68(3), 400-415.
Turner, L., & Johnson, B. (2003). A Model of
Mastery Motivatin for at-Risk Preschoolers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3),
495-505.
Utsch, A., & Rauch, A. (2000). Innovativeness
and initiative as mediators between achieve-
ment orientation and venture performance.
European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2005). Cre-
ativity and Occupational Accomplishments
Among Intellectually Precocious Youths:
An Age 13 to Age 33 Longitudinal Study.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3),
484-492.
Weinberger, E., & McCombs, B. (2001). The
Impact of Learner-Centered Practices on the
Academic and Non-Academic Outcomes of
Upper Elementary and Middle School Stu-
dents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research As-
sociation (Seattle, WA, April 2001).
Williams, B. (2005). Standardized students: The
problems with writing for tests instead of
people. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Lit-
eracy, 49(2), 152-158.
Zimmerman, B. (1996). Enhancing Student
Academic and Health Functioning: A Self-
Regulatory Perspective. School Psychology
Quarterly, 11(1), 47-66.
Author Note:
We thank our research assistants who
10/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 2

made this study possible: Ana Eugenia

Garduño, Kara D’Aniello, Laura Zenuh and
Nicole Kral.
This study was conducted with the
support of an AERA/IES research grant, as
well as internal grants from the School of
Arts & Sciences, Central Connecticut State
University.

Figure Caption
Figure 1. Mean performance Z scores as a function of educational model and ethnicity.
 E . . / 11
Table 1
Descriptive Information of Schools in Sample

Group Participants Grade Minority Non-Minority

California
LC 31 6 17 14
Control 28 6 10 17
Connecticut
LC 25 5 5 21
Control 28 5 7 21
Florida
Control 16 4 15 1
Massachusetts
LC 16 6 13 3
Control 14 6 11 3
New Jersey
LC 12 4-5 3 9
Control 36 6 14 21
Texas
LC 15 6 9 6
Control 9 3-4 4 5

Table 2
States, Tests, Areas and Scoring Ranges

State Test Areas Scoring Range

CA California Standards Test Language Arts 150-600 *

Mathematics
Science
CT Connecticut Mastery Test Mathematics 100-400
Reading
Writing
FL Florida Comprehensive Reading 100-500 *
Assessment Test Mathematics
MA Massachusetts Comprehensive Language Arts 200-280
Assessment System Mathematics
Science
History
NJ New Jersey Assessment Language Arts 150-600
of Knowledge and Skills Mathematics
Science
TX Texas Assessment Reading 1000-3000
of Knowledge and Skills Math
Writing

*Reported as Percentiles
12/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 2

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics on Academic Performance

Group n Z SD

California
Control 28 -.042 1.00
Learner Centered 31 .037 1.01
Connecticut
Control 28 .001 .99
Learner Centered 26 .234 .84
Florida
Control 14 .016 1.03
Massachusetts
Control 9 .274 .59
Learner Centered 20 -.123 1.13
New Jersey
Control 35 -.016 .98
Learner Centered 12 .047 1.10
Texas
Control 10 .001 1.00
Learner Centered 9 .001 .99

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for ALCP, Learner Centered vs. Control

Learner Centered (n=98) Control (n=124)

Scale M SD M SD

Self Efficacy 3.04 .50 2.82 .60

State Epistemic Curiosity 2.795 .452 2.611 .588

Active Learning Strategies 2.883 .476 2.607 .548

Effort Avoidance Strategies 2.283 .517 2.334 .632

Task Mastery Goals 2.963 .522 2.736 .651

Performance Oriented Goals 2.482 .563 2.705 .611

Work Avoidance Goals 2.293 .566 2.508 .669

 E . . / 13

Table 5
Unpaired T tests for Learner Centered vs. Traditional students on ALCP

Scale Mean difference t

Self Efficacy -.222 2.860**

State Epistemic Curiosity -.185 2.461*
Active Learning Strategies -.276 3.801**
Effort Avoidance Strategies .050 .615
Task Mastery Goals -.227 2.751**
Performance Oriented Goals .223 2.720**
Work Avoidance Goals .215 2.471*

*p<.05. **p<.01.

PLEASE INDICATE WHERE YOU WOULD

LIKE THE TABLES PLACED IN THE AR-
TICLE.

THANKS!

View publication stats