Literature Review

Abstract:

Many students are retained at the early primary grades because they fail to read on grade level. This is especially true in students going from 2nd to 3rd grade. Students leaving the 2nd grade must be reading at a level 28, this is to ensure that the student would be capable of passing the 3rd grade TAKS reading test. There is not a win-win situation here, they can either fail 2nd grade for not reading on level or fail 3rd grade for not passing the TAKS.

In my first year as a classroom teacher I was faced with a challenge that I was not able to meet. Andrea was a nine-year-old student in my 2nd grade class. She had been retained twice, once in kindergarten and she was currently repeating 2nd grade. Still Andrea was not at the top of the class; it seemed as if her social inadequacy –being that she was older than most her classmates- only made her feel inferior and this reflected in her academic achievement. Many questions where left unanswered, as I remember her today I ask myself, what could I have done differently? Where did I go wrong? In this review of the literature the focus would be in the effects of retention and does it truly improve later school achievement and ability, (i.e. literacy development)? Also as a secondary focus, how social promotion benefits students and how computer technology can assist in the development of early literacy? From reviewing these literature I have found partial answers to some of my questions but most importantly the knowledge to know what to do if faced with a similar situation in the future.

Effects of retention and does it truly improve later school achievement and ability: a brief look at social promotion and computer technology as a means to decrease the number of retainees.

Sugey Villarreal

Retention:
Retention means that a child who has spent a full school year in a particular grade must repeat the entire grade just completed (Westbury, 1994). Is this practice of holding back students the best we can do as educators? Many students would conclude that retention is ineffective for improving achievements and ability (Westbury 1994). In a longitudinal study of the effects of retention/promotion on academic achievement Peterson, DeGracie and Ayabe (1987) explained that: “One of the reasons typically offered as an explanation for the failure of retention to improve academic achievement is that students are often retained in programs that were not beneficial to the student because no specific educational plan has been developed”. I can personally attest to this fact, I was never given a plan of action or intervention to work with Andrea. I found myself piecing together the bits and pieces from the already limited information that was accessible to me. She did not perform well on tests and that was surprising to me but the research gave me an insight -their test scores do not improve as a result of promotion,- “retained children appear to score, at best, no better than comparison groups of continually promoted children” (Westbury 1994). Other studies asserted that it may seem as if the students catch up but that this is only in the short-term; in the long-run this progress diminishes. A study of the students in the Mesa Public School System showed that although, “students who were retained would outperform their promoted counterparts on achievement tests in Reading and Language in the first year following retention…these differences were not found on third grade retainees (Peterson, DeGracie and Ayabe, 1987).

Another study addressed the issue that retention was most beneficial in the earlier grades because it improved literacy development but it failed to address the negative effects of retention no matter how early it is done. The same article agrees that retention after the fourth grade was highly ineffective (Pomplun 1988). A study by Manset-Williamson et al. (2002) reports that: “Fewer students may be failing at reading in these programs that include explicit skills or lower order skills (use of worksheets, basals, etc.) this is confirmed by the passing rates on the language arts test. Conversely, explicit skill instruction is positively associated with retention rates.” On the other hand, the greater the focus on holistic skills (higher order cognitive skills) the lower the rate of student retention. In my experience students benefit more from holistic instruction but more research needs to be done to design a balanced literacy program.

Social Promotion:

New research needs to be developed in relation to social promotion and its benefits. Policymakers are most opposed than ever to this practice, in spite of the fact that there are students that show that there is little harm resulting from this practice (Frey, 2005). Andrea would have benefited from being promoted to the third grade because of her age as one study affirms: “When compared to socially promoted pupils, retained students show both poorer academic results and inferior personal adjustment” (Westbury, 1994). Do we want to cripple our already struggling students by giving them an inferiority complex? I am not suggesting that this be used as an excuse but rather as a means to look deeper into what we can do to better address retention and suggest new alternatives.

How can technology help students in acquiring literacy skills to prevent possible retention:

The use of technology alone does not guarantee the improvement in acquiring literacy skills but the integration of computer base programs as well as other kind of literacies into the classroom can probe to be an effective match. The use of a software program in a study suggests that: “This general concept of using computer technology as scaffolding to assist the process of learning can be traced to Vygotsky’s notions (1986, 1978) ‘zone of proximal development’ and ‘social reconstruction of knowledge’ (Fasting and Halaas Lyster, 2005). A student from the preceding study was quoted stating that: “I could do my ordinary school work/homework in the MultiFunk sessions.” This assertion by the student proves that students are willing to/and want to learn if given the proper tools. Students such as Andrea would have benefited from this technology and from the scaffolding that it offers in addition to that provided by the classroom teacher.

Conclusion:

The available research that supports retention is not conclusive by any means, it rather lends itself to provide more questions that are left unanswered. There is no one single research that concludes that it is more beneficial to retain students than to socially promote them. On the other hand there is very little proof that social promotion can harm students, research kind of suggests that it may indeed be beneficial, especially for those students of lower economic status areas. It has also been suggested that: “social promotion with remediation may be more effective than retention with remediation” (Peterson, DeGracie and Ayabe, 1987). However, social promotion is not an answer in itself; it needs to be paired with other successful plans and/or strategies. Just passing a student does not guarantee that their literacy skills would improve as retaining them does not guarantee that their deficiencies would be corrected. If we want to keep implementing retention as a means to remediate deficient literacy skills we must ensure the success of our students. As Westbury (1994) stated in her study: “Educators must seek alternatives to grade repetition that correct learning problems early…Some recent remediation programs that focus on individual tutoring for lower achievers while keeping students with their grade peers have proven successful” (D. Armstrong, personal communication, 17 March 1992).

References:

Fasting, Rolf B., & Halaas Lyster, Solveig-Alma (2005). The effects of computer
technology in assisting the development of literacy in young struggling readers
and spellers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 21-
40. Retrieved from JSTOR database 31 July 2007.

Frey, Nancy (2005). Retention, Social Promotion, and Academic Redshirting: What Do
We Know and Need to Know? Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 26, No. 6, 332-
46. Retrieved from JSTOR database 31 July 2007.

Jackson, Gregg B. (1975). The Research Evidence on the Effects of Grade Retention.
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 45, No. 4, 613-635. Retrieved from JSTOR
database 31 July 2007.

Manset-Williamson, Genevieve, St. John, Edward, Hu, Shouping & Gordon, David
(2002). Early Literacy Practices as Predictors of Reading Related Outcomes:
Test Scores, Test Passing Rates, Retention, and Special Education Referral.
Exceptionality 10(1), 11-28. Retrieved from JSTOR database 31 July 2007.

Peterson, Sarah E., DeGracie, James S., & Ayabe, Carol R. (1987). A longitudinal
Study of the Effects of Retention/Promotion on Academic Achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, Vol 24, No. 1, 107-18. Retrieved from JSTOR
database 31 July 2007.

Pomplun, Mark (1988). Retention: The Earlier, the Better? Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 81, No. 5, 281-87. Retrieved from JSTOR database 31 July 2007.

Westbury, Marilyn (1994). The Effect of Elementary Grade Retention and Subsequent
School Achievement and Ability. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne
de l’éducation, Vol. 19, No. 3, 241-50. Retrieved from JSTOR database 31 July
2007.