A QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF ACT SCORES FOR STUDENTS TAKING AND NOT TAKING A DISTRICT-SPONSORED PRACTICE ACT TEST by Julie A. Blevins A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DWIGHT SCHAR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ASHLAND UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Education in Leadership Studies Julie A. Blevins, B.A., M.Ed. ASHLAND UNIVERSITY ASHLAND, OH 2013 ©Copyright by Julie A. Blevins All Rights Reserved 2013 A Dissertation Entitled A Quantitative Comparison of ACT Scores for Students Taking and Not Taking a District-Sponsored Practice ACT Test By Julie A. Blevins In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Education in Leadership Studies ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Carla Edlefson, Committee Chair Date ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. James Olive, Committee Member Date ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Cathryn Chappell, Committee Member Date ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Judy Alston, Chair, Department of Leadership Studies Date ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. James Van Kueren, Dean, College of Education Date ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. John E. Moser, Interim Director, Graduate School Date Ashland University September, 2013 iii A QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF ACT SCORES FOR STUDENTS TAKING AND NOT TAKING A DISTRICT-SPONSORED PRACTICE ACT TEST By Julie A. Blevins ASHLAND UNIVERSITY, 2013 Dissertation Chair, Dr. Carla Edlefson ABSTRACT Due to the increased attention college readiness metrics, such as the ACT, receive from colleges, preparatory practices for these metrics are becoming common among high school students. The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive capability of a practice test given to high school juniors, and a number of confounding variables cited in the literature as influential to ACT scores, individually and simultaneously. Findings showed that even after controlling for these confounding variables, with statistical significance, practice still accounted for variability in final ACT scores. Further, data from the study showed statistically significant lower performance for various groups of students, such as females, as well as students with lower GPAs, from lower income schools, and from certain ethnic groupings. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to recognize the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Carla Edlefson, Dr. James Olive, and Dr. Cathryn Chappell. I appreciate their time, effort, and assistance in strengthening my study. In particular, I wish to thank Committee Chair, Dr. Carla Edlefson for her continued guidance and encouragement throughout this process, and Dr. James Olive for driving me to be efficient with my time and “to just write.” Second, I thank my dear family and friends. Their consistent encouragement and assistance provided me with the necessary motivation to achieve yet another life goal. Specifically, I want to warmly thank my son, Keegan. He was very understanding and supportive during very stressful times and accepting of me needing to be away to work on this study. I also thank my family, especially my father, for helping to provide care for my son when I needed to be away to focus on this process. Third, I want to acknowledge and thank the two participating districts that provided me with the data for this study. They were very cooperative in providing the necessary data and answering questions. Last, I want to thank my Ashland University cohort members, especially my “car” group. These friends provided a great deal of support, time, and encouragement to me to help me stay focused during very trying times. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Identification of the Problem ........................................................................................... 4 Research Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 6 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 6 Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 7 Terms/Definitions ............................................................................................................ 8 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9 II ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Post-Secondary Education ............................................................................................. 12 Compensation ............................................................................................................ 12 Aspirations ................................................................................................................. 13 Enrollment ................................................................................................................. 16 College Readiness ......................................................................................................... 17 Perceptions ................................................................................................................. 19 Definition ................................................................................................................... 22 Readiness Measures ...................................................................................................... 24 College Admission Tests ........................................................................................... 24 Single Readiness Metrics ........................................................................................... 27 Multiple Readiness Metrics ....................................................................................... 28 Non-cognitive Readiness Metrics .............................................................................. 30 vi College and Career Readiness Instruments ................................................................... 32 Readiness Assessments .............................................................................................. 33 ACT Entrance Exam .................................................................................................. 34 College Admission Requirement ............................................................................... 35 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 36 Classical Test Theory ................................................................................................ 36 Biases ............................................................................................................................ 41 Demographic and Educational Variables .................................................................. 41 Practice, Re-testing, and Coaching ............................................................................ 43 Leveling the Field ...................................................................................................... 48 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 49 III ....................................................................................................................................... 51 Research Approach ....................................................................................................... 51 Philosophical Approach ................................................................................................ 52 Positivist paradigms .................................................................................................. 53 Research Design ............................................................................................................ 53 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 54 Research Procedure ....................................................................................................... 55 Site Selections ............................................................................................................... 56 Participant Selection ...................................................................................................... 59 Strategies to Protect Human Subjects ........................................................................ 59 Data Collected ............................................................................................................... 59 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 60 vii Analysis Methods ...................................................................................................... 60 Design Issues ................................................................................................................