<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" href="/ERICWebPortal/resources/xml/rss.xml" type="text/xsl"  media="screen"?>
















<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>ERIC What Works Clearinghouse RSS Feed showing top 50 results</title>
        <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=What+Works+Clearinghouse&amp;ERICExtSearch_Operator_2=and&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchType_2=kw&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=jn&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchCount=2&amp;ERICExtSearch_PubDate_From=0&amp;ERICExtSearch_Operator_1=and&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchType_1=kw&amp;_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&amp;feed=wwc</link>
        <description>What Works Clearinghouse publications</description>
        <copyright>Copyright(c) 2008 Education Resources Information Center</copyright>
        <language>en-us</language>
            
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:33:07 EST</lastBuildDate>
        <webMaster>ericsupport@csc.com</webMaster>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506980</guid>
            <title>ED506980 - YouthBuild. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506980</link>
            <description><![CDATA["YouthBuild" offers low-income youth both education and job training services. "YouthBuild's" education component emphasizes attaining a GED or high school diploma, typically in alternative schools with small class sizes and an emphasis on individualized instruction. In "YouthBuild's" job-training program, participants work in construction jobs building affordable housing for low-income and homeless people in their communities. "YouthBuild" is targeted to youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are from low-income families and who have demonstrated educational need, typically by being high school dropouts. Participants spend six months to two years in the program. During this time, they alternate weeks between being full-time students and working full-time in the job-training program. Throughout the program, youth participate in counseling, peer support groups, and life-planning exercises that are intended to encourage them to overcome negative habits and pursue life goals. "YouthBuild" programs are typically sponsored by community- or faith-based organizations. These programs are linked by a centralized national office that provides implementation support to local "YouthBuild" sites, such as staff training and information on best practices and program innovations. The WWC identified 32 studies of YouthBuild that were published or released between 1996 and 2009. No studies of "YouthBuild" that fall within the scope of the Dropout Prevention review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "YouthBuild." (Contains 2 notes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-11-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Social Support Groups</category>
            
            <category> Educational Needs</category>
            
            <category> Homeless People</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Prevention</category>
            
            <category> Dropouts</category>
            
            <category> Job Training</category>
            
            <category> Housing</category>
            
            <category> Low Income Groups</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Young Adults</category>
            
            <category> Construction (Process)</category>
            
            <category> High School Equivalency Programs</category>
            
            <category> Nontraditional Education</category>
            
            <category> Class Size</category>
            
            <category> Counseling</category>
            
            <category> Goal Orientation</category>
            
            <category> Community Organizations</category>
            
            <category> Church Role</category>
            
            <category> Churches</category>
            
            <category> Best Practices</category>
            
            <category> Innovation</category>
            
            <category> Disadvantaged Youth</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Youth Programs</category>
            
            <category> Youth Employment</category>
            
            <category> Building Trades</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506775</guid>
            <title>ED506775 - READ 180. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506775</link>
            <description><![CDATA["READ 180" is a reading program designed for students in elementary through high school whose reading achievement is below the proficient level. The goal of "READ 180" is to address gaps in students' skills through the use of a computer program, literature, and direct instruction in reading skills. The software component of the program aims to track and adapt to each student's progress. In addition to the computer program, the "READ 180" program includes workbooks designed to address reading comprehension skills, paperback books for independent reading, and audiobooks with corresponding CDs for modeled reading. One hundred one studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of "READ 180." Seven studies (Haslam, White, & Klinge, 2006; Interactive Inc., 2002; Lang, Torgesen, Petscher, Vogel, Chanter, & Lefsky, 2008; Scholastic Research, 2008; White, Haslam, & Hewes, 2006; White, Williams, & Haslem, 2006; Woods, 2007), one of which is a randomized controlled trial and six of which are quasi-experimental designs, meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 94 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. The WWC review of interventions for "READ 180" addresses student outcomes in four domains: alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and general literacy achievement. The studies included in this report cover two domains: comprehension and general literacy achievement. Comprehension includes two constructs: reading comprehension and vocabulary development. The findings in this report present the authors' estimates and WWC-calculated estimates of the size and the statistical significance of the effects of READ 180 on students. READ 180 was found to have potentially positive effects on comprehension and general literacy achievement. Appendixes include: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures; (3) Summary of study findings; (4) Summary of subgroup findings; (5) "READ 180" rating; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 14 footnotes.) [This publication was produced by the What Works Clearinghouse. The following studies are reviewed in this intervention report: (1) Haslam, M. B., White, R. N., & Klinge, A. (2006). "Improving student literacy: "READ 180" in the Austin Independent School District," 2004-05. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; (2) Interactive Inc. (2002). "An efficacy study of "READ 180," a print and electronic adaptive intervention program, grades 4 and above." New York, New York: Scholastic Inc.; (3) Lang, L. H., Torgesen, J. K., Petscher, Y., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., & Lefsky, E. (2008, March). "Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students." Paper presented at the annual research conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Crystal City, Virginia; (4) Scholastic Research. (2008). "Desert Sands Unified School District," California. New York, New York: Scholastic Inc.; (5) White, R. N., Haslam, M. B., & Hewes, G. M. (2006). "Improving student literacy: "READ 180" in the Phoenix Union High School District, 2003-04 and 2004-05." Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; (6) White, R. N., Williams, I. J., & Haslem, M. B. (2005). "Performance of District 23 students participating in Scholastic "READ 180"." Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; and (7) Woods, D. E. (2007). "An investigation of the effects of a middle school reading intervention on school dropout rates." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Reading Programs</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Computer Oriented Programs</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Individualized Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Independent Reading</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Secondary Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506864</guid>
            <title>ED506864 - "Headsprout Early Reading" [TM]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506864</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Headsprout Early Reading"[TM] is an Internet-based supplemental early literacy curriculum consisting of forty 20-minute animated episodes that are designed to teach phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The program adapts to a child's responses, providing additional instruction and review if a child does not choose the correct answer. Teachers may use stories based on the episodes to reinforce instruction provided in the lessons. One study of "Headsprout Early Reading"[TM] meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards and no studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. This study included 62 preschool children across five classrooms in two Head Start centers in Florida. Based on this study, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for "Headsprout Early Reading"[TM] to be small for oral language and print knowledge. No studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of "Headsprout Early Reading"[TM] in the phonological processing, early reading and writing, cognition, and math domains. "Headsprout Early Reading" [TM] was found to have potentially positive effects on oral language and print knowledge. [The following study was reviewed in this report: Huffstetter, M. (2005). The effects of an Internet-based program on the early reading and oral language skills of at-risk preschool students and their teachers' perceptions of the program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa. (68813195).]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Early Reading</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Internet</category>
            
            <category> Emergent Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Oral Language</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505962</guid>
            <title>ED505962 - Structuring Out-of-School Time to Improve Academic Achievement. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2009-012</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505962</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Out-of-school time programs can enhance academic achievement by helping students learn outside the classroom. The purpose of this practice guide is to provide recommendations for organizing and delivering school-based out-of-school time (OST) programs to improve the academic achievement of student participants. The five recommendations in this guide are intended to help district and school administrators, out-of-school program providers, and educators design out-of-school time programs that will increase learning for students. These recommendations are: (1) Align the OST program academically with the school day; (2) Maximize student participation and attendance; (3) Adapt instruction to individual and small group needs; (4) Provide engaging learning experiences; and (5) Assess program performance and use the results to improve the quality of the program. The guide also describes the research supporting each recommendation, how to carry out each recommendation, and how to address roadblocks that might arise in implementing them. The scope of this practice guide is limited to programs that (1) serve elementary and middle school students; (2) are organized by or conducted in partnership with a school or school district; and (3) aim to improve academic outcomes. Appendices include: (1) Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences; (2) About the authors; (3) Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest; and (4) Technical information on the studies. (Contains 9 tables, 1 exhibit, and 421 footnotes.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences by the What Works Clearinghouse, a project of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.]]]></description>
            <author>Beckett, Megan;  Borman, Geoffrey;  Capizzano, Jeffrey;  Parsley, Danette;  Ross, Steven;  Schirm, Allen;  Taylor, Jessica</author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Conflict of Interest</category>
            
            <category> Student Participation</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> After School Programs</category>
            
            <category> Educational Change</category>
            
            <category> Student Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Alignment (Education)</category>
            
            <category> Attendance</category>
            
            <category> Student Needs</category>
            
            <category> Learner Engagement</category>
            
            <category> Learning Experience</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Partnerships in Education</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506043</guid>
            <title>ED506043 - High School Puente Program. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506043</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The "High School Puente Program" aims to help disadvantaged students graduate from high school, become college eligible, and enroll in four-year colleges and universities. The program consists of three components: (1) a 9th- and 10th-grade college preparatory English class that incorporates Mexican-American/Latino and other multicultural literature; (2) a four-year academic counseling program for students; and (3) student leadership and mentoring activities with volunteers from the local community. "High School Puente" is open to all students and is targeted to students from populations with low rates of enrollment at four-year colleges. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 11 studies of the "High School Puente Program" that were published or released between 1988 and 2009. These studies either do not fall within the scope of the Dropout Prevention review protocol, or do not meet WWC evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the "High School Puente Program." A list of 10 additional sources is included. (Contains 2 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>College Preparation</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Prevention</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Disadvantaged</category>
            
            <category> English Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Literature</category>
            
            <category> Grade 9</category>
            
            <category> Grade 10</category>
            
            <category> Counseling Services</category>
            
            <category> Student Leadership</category>
            
            <category> Mentors</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506042</guid>
            <title>ED506042 - Cognitive Tutor[R] Algebra I. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506042</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The "Cognitive Tutor[R] Algebra I" curriculum, published by Carnegie Learning, is an approach that combines algebra textbooks with interactive software. The software is developed around an artificial intelligence model that identifies strengths and weaknesses in each individual student's mastery of mathematical concepts. It then customizes prompts to focus on areas where the student is struggling and sends the student to new problems that address those specific concepts. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 14 studies on "Cognitive Tutor[R] Algebra I." One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards; the remaining 13 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the one study, the WWC found potentially positive effects on math achievement. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Six appendices include: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures; (3) Summary of study findings; (4) Summary of additional findings; (5) Rating by achievement domain and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 8 footnotes.) [This report has been updated to include reviews of studies released since an earlier WWC Intervention Report. For the previous report, see ED499299.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Textbooks</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Computer Software</category>
            
            <category> Artificial Intelligence</category>
            
            <category> Mathematical Concepts</category>
            
            <category> Algebra</category>
            
            <category> Class Activities</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Problem Sets</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506041</guid>
            <title>ED506041 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "An Evaluation of Teachers Trained through Different Routes to Certification"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506041</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined whether having a teacher who chose an alternate route to certification (AC) rather than a teacher who chose a traditional certification route (TC) affects the reading and math achievement of elementary school students. The study included about 2,600 kindergarten through fifth-grade students and their 174 teachers. These students were enrolled in 63 schools across seven states. The study compared students' standardized reading and math scores from the California Achievement Test (CAT-5), which were collected at both the beginning and the end of the school year. The authors found that elementary school students whose teachers chose an alternate route to certification scored no differently on standardized math and reading tests from students whose teachers chose a traditional route to certification. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) found the study to be a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. [The following report was the focus of this "Quick Review": "An Evaluation of Teachers Trained through Different Routes to Certification: Final Report" (NCEE 2009-4043). J. Constantine, D. Player, T. Silva, K. Hallgren, M. Grider, M., and J. Deke. (2009) (ED504313).]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Teacher Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Alternative Teacher Certification</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506157</guid>
            <title>ED506157 - Success for All[R]. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506157</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Success for All (SFA)[R] is a whole-school reform model that includes a reading, writing, and oral language development program for students in prekindergarten through eighth grade. Classroom reading instruction is delivered in daily 90-minute blocks to students grouped by reading ability. Immediate intervention with tutors who are certified teachers is given each day to those students who are having difficulty reading at the same level as their classmates. This intervention report focuses on the reading component of SFA[R], which is often implemented in the context of the SFA[R] whole-school reform program. Although the whole-school reform program has key components that are implemented in each school, school sites may vary considerably in the number of personnel used to implement SFA[R], particularly tutors and family support staff. The reading curricula are essentially the same at  all schools, with each school receiving the same training, coaching support, and materials. Ratings presented in this report are not disaggregated by the variations in implementation of wholeschool reforms. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 110 studies on Success for All[R]. One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards; six studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 103 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the seven studies, the WWC found positive effects in the alphabetics domain, potentially positive effects in the general reading achievement domain, and mixed effects in the comprehension domain. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Six appendices are included: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures by construct within domain; (3) Summary of findings by domain; (4) Summaries of earlier findings and subgroup findings by domain; (5) Ratings by domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 12 footnotes.) [For earlier report, see ED497839. The following report meeting WWC evauation standards is reviewed in this intervention report: Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N., & Chambers, B. (2006). "Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All." Retrieved from Success for All website: ttp://www.successforall.  net/_images/pdfs/Third_Year_Results_06.doc.]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>School Restructuring</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Oral Language</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Family Programs</category>
            
            <category> Educational Change</category>
            
            <category> Reading Ability</category>
            
            <category> Tutors</category>
            
            <category> Language Acquisition</category>
            
            <category> Children</category>
            
            <category> Preadolescents</category>
            
            <category> Homogeneous Grouping</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Curriculum Design</category>
            
            <category> Tutoring</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Phonics</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506156</guid>
            <title>ED506156 - The Creative Curriculum[R] for Preschool. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506156</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The Creative Curriculum[R] for Preschool is a project-based early childhood curriculum designed to foster the development of the whole child through teacher-led small and large group activities. The curriculum provides information on child development, working with families, and organizing the classroom around 11 interest areas. Child assessments are an ongoing part of the curriculum, and an online program provides record-keeping tools to assist teachers with the maintenance and organization of child portfolios, individualized planning, and report production. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed eight studies of The Creative Curriculum[R]. One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards, and two of these studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. Five studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the three studies, the WWC found no discernible effects of The Creative Curriculum[R] on oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and math. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Six appendices are included: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures by domain; (3) Summary of study findings included in rating by domain; (4) Summary of follow-up findings by domain; (5) Ratings by domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. [The following study meeting WWC evidence standards is reviewed in this intervention report: Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) Consortium. (2008). Creative Curriculum: University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In "Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness" (pp. 55-64). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.] (Contains 8 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Preschool Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Group Activities</category>
            
            <category> Oral Language</category>
            
            <category> Child Development</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Student Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Phonological Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Reading Skills</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Skills</category>
            
            <category> Family School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Teachers</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506240</guid>
            <title>ED506240 - Odyssey Math. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506240</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Odyssey Math," published by CompassLearning[R], is a web-based K-8 mathematics curriculum and assessment tool designed to allow for instructional differentiation and data-driven decision making. The online program includes electronic curriculum and materials for individual or small group work, assessments aligned with state curriculum standards, and a data management system that allows teachers to develop individualized instructional and assessment tools, as well as track individual and classroom student performance. "Odyssey Math" can be used as a standalone curriculum or as a supplement to other mathematics curriculum. The primary school version of the Odyssey Math curriculum focuses on fundamental math skills like numeracy for the earlier grades, while in later grades, the curriculum equips students for skills necessary in middle and high school mathematics. The interactive activities used for both age groups allow for the application of ideas, tools, and manipulatives, and build upon previous knowledge. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 14 studies of "Odyssey Math." One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 13 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the one study, the WWC found potentially positive effects in math achievement. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Five appendices are included: (1) Study Characteristics; (2) Outcome measures; (3) Summary of study findings; (4) Rating; and (5) Extent of evidence.  (Contains 10 footnotes. Appendices are footnoted individually.) [The following study is reviewed in this intervention report: DiLeo, J. (2007). "A study of a specific language arts and mathematics software program: Is there a correlation between usage levels and achievement?" Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. For the "Odyssey Math. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report" on Middle School Math, dated March 2009, see ED504602.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Elementary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Computer Software</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Grade 5</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506384</guid>
            <title>ED506384 - Let's Begin with the Letter People[R]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506384</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Let's Begin with the Letter People"[R] is an early education curriculum that uses 26 thematic units to develop children's language and early literacy skills. A major focus is phonological  awareness, including rhyming, word play, alliteration, and segmentation. Children are encouraged to learn as individuals, in small groups, and in a whole-class environment. Teacher resource books and a set of classroom books and other program materials are available as a program kit. Two studies of "Let's Begin with the Letter People"[R] meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards and no studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The two studies include children in 49 classrooms in 25 preschools in Houston, Texas, and southeastern New York State. Based on these two studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for "Let's Begin with the Letter People"[R] to be medium to large for oral language and print knowledge and small for phonological processing and math. No studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of "Let's Begin with the Letter People"[R] in the early reading and writing or cognition domains. "Let's Begin with the Letter People"[R] was found to have no discernible effects on oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, or math. Contains 21 appendices: (1) Study characteristics: Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008 (randomized controlled trial); (2) Study characteristics: Fischel, Bracken, Fuchs-Eisenberg, Spira, Katz, & Shaller, 2007 (randomized controlled trial); (3) Outcome measures for the oral language domain; (4) Outcome measures for the print knowledge domain; (5) Outcome measures for the phonological processing domain; (6) Outcome measures for the math domain; (7) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the oral language domain; (8) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the print knowledge domain; (9) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the phonological processing domain; (10) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the math domain; (11) Summary of follow-up findings for the oral language domain; (12) Summary of follow-up findings for the print knowledge domain; (13) Summary of follow-up findings for the phonological processing domain; (14) Summary of follow-up findings for the math domain; (15) Summary of findings for comparisons between Let's Begin with the Letter People[R] and Waterford Early Reading[TM] Level One for the oral language domain; (16) Summary of findings for comparisons between Let's Begin with the Letter People [R]  and Waterford Early Reading[TM] Level One for the print knowledge domain; (17) Let's Begin with the Letter People[R] rating for the oral language domain; (18) Let's Begin with the Letter People[R] rating for the print knowledge domain; (19) Let's Begin with the Letter People[R] rating for the phonological processing domain; (20) Let's Begin with the Letter People[R] rating for the math domain; and (21) Extent of evidence by domain.  [The following two studies are reviewed in this intervention report: (1) Fischel, J. E., Bracken, S. S., Fuchs-Eisenberg, A., Spira, E. G., Katz, S., & Shaller, G. (2007). Evaluation of curricular approaches to enhance preschool early literacy skills. "Journal of Literacy Research," 39(4), 471-501; and (2) Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) Consortium. (2008). Doors to Discovery and Let's Begin with the Letter People. In "Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness" (pp. 85-98). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (Contains 86 notes.)  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-09-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Preschool Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Evaluation Research</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Early Reading</category>
            
            <category> Curriculum Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Oral Language</category>
            
            <category> Early Childhood Education</category>
            
            <category> Phonological Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Phonology</category>
            
            <category> Rhyme</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Kindergarten</category>
            
            <category> Books</category>
            
            <category> Pretests Posttests</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Federal Programs</category>
            
            <category> Disadvantaged Youth</category>
            
            <category> Low Income</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506465</guid>
            <title>ED506465 - Helping Students Navigate the Path to College: What High Schools Can Do. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2009-4066</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506465</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Access to higher education remains a challenge for many students who face academic and informational barriers to college entry. This guide targets high schools and school districts, and focuses on effective practices that prepare students academically for college, assist them in completing the steps to college entry, and improve their likelihood of enrolling in college. The guide contains specific steps on how to implement the recommendations that are targeted at school- and district-level administrators, teachers, counselors, and related education staff. The guide also indicates the level of research evidence demonstrating that each recommended practice is effective. This practice guide includes five recommendations for how high schools and school districts can improve access to higher education. The first two recommendations focus on preparing students academically for college by offering a college preparatory curriculum and assessing whether students are building the knowledge and skills needed for college. These two recommendations reflect the panel's belief that students are best served when schools develop a culture of achievement and a culture of evidence. The next recommendation describes how high schools can build and sustain college aspirations by surrounding students with adults and peers who support these aspirations. Recommendations 4 and 5 explain how high schools can assist students in completing the critical steps to college entry, including college entrance exams and college and financial aid applications. Appended to this guide are: (1) Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences; (2) About the authors; (3) Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest; and (4) Technical information on the studies. (Contains 5 tables, 5 exhibits, and 264 footnotes.) This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences by the What Works Clearinghouse, a project of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.]]]></description>
            <author>Tierney, William G.;  Bailey, Thomas;  Constantine, Jill;  Finkelstein, Neal;  Hurd, Nicole Farmer</author>
            <pubDate>2009-09-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Higher Education</category>
            
            <category> High Schools</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Access to Education</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Barriers</category>
            
            <category> College Preparation</category>
            
            <category> College Admission</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Administrators</category>
            
            <category> School Counselors</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Student Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> College Entrance Examinations</category>
            
            <category> Student Financial Aid</category>
            
            <category> Financial Aid Applicants</category>
            
            <category> Records (Forms)</category>
            
            <category> College Bound Students</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505399</guid>
            <title>ED505399 - Summer Training and Education Program (STEP). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505399</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Summer Training and Education Program (STEP) is a summer employment,  academic remediation, and life skills program intended to lower school dropout rates by reducing summer learning loss and preventing teen parenthood. The program is integrated into the federal summer jobs program and is offered during six-to-eight-week sessions in two consecutive summers. It includes part-time summer work at minimum wage, a daily reading and math curriculum, and "life skills and opportunities" classes that focus on topics such as sexual behavior, drug use, careers, and community involvement. The program serves low-income 14- and 15-year-olds who have tested below grade level in either reading or math. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed three studies of STEP. Two of these studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the remaining study, a randomized controlled trial including more than 2,500 students in Massachusetts, California, Washington, and Oregon, the WWC found the intervention to have no discernible effects on either staying in school or progressing in school. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Six appendices are included. (1) Study Characteristics; (2) Outcome measures for the staying and progressing in school domains; (3) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the staying and progressing in school domains; (4) Summary of graduation rate findings; (5) STEP rating for the staying and progressing in school domains; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 10 footnotes. Appendices are individually footnoted.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-05-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Clearinghouses</category>
            
            <category> Summer Programs</category>
            
            <category> Temporary Employment</category>
            
            <category> Remedial Programs</category>
            
            <category> Daily Living Skills</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Rate</category>
            
            <category> Maintenance</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Prevention</category>
            
            <category> Early Parenthood</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Minimum Wage</category>
            
            <category> Directed Reading Activity</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Activities</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Drug Use</category>
            
            <category> Sexuality</category>
            
            <category> Career Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Community Involvement</category>
            
            <category> Low Income Groups</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505400</guid>
            <title>ED505400 - Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505400</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program offers secondary school students who are considered at risk of dropping out the opportunity to serve as tutors in elementary schools. By having these at-risk students serve as tutors, the program aims to improve their basic academic skills and self-esteem, with the goal of keeping them enrolled in school. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified four studies of the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program that were published or released between 1988 and 2008. One study is within the scope of the review protocol but does not meet WWC evidence standards; one study is out of the scope of the review protocol; and two studies are out of the scope of the review, as defined  by the Dropout Prevention protocol. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program. (Contains 2 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-05-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Clearinghouses</category>
            
            <category> Youth Programs</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Students</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Prevention</category>
            
            <category> Tutors</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Schools</category>
            
            <category> Educational Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Self Esteem</category>
            
            <category> School Holding Power</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505437</guid>
            <title>ED505437 - SuccessMaker[R]. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505437</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The SuccessMaker[R] program is a set of computer-based courses used to supplement regular classroom reading instruction in grades K-8. Using adaptive lessons tailored to a student's reading level, SuccessMaker[R] aims to improve understanding in areas such as phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts of print. The computer analyzes students' skills development and assigns specific segments of the program, introducing new skills as they become appropriate. As the student progresses through the program, performance is measured by the probability of the student answering the next exercise correctly, which determines the next steps of the lesson. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 26 studies on SuccessMaker[R]. Thirty-three do no meet WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. The remaining three studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The three studies included 450 students, ranging in age from nine to 16 years, who attended elementary, middle, and middle-high schools in Alabama, Illinois, and Virginia. Based on the three studies, the WWC found no discernible effects in alphabetics and reading fluency, and potentially positive effects in comprehension and general literacy achievement. The three studies that met WWC evidence standards with reservations are: (1) Beattie, K. K. (2000). The effects of intensive computer-based language intervention on language functioning and reading achievement in language-impaired adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2000). "Dissertation Abstracts International," 61(08A), 194-3116; (2) Campbell, J. P. (2000). A comparison of computerized and traditional instruction in the area of elementary reading (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 2000). "Dissertation Abstracts International," 61(03A), 77-952; and (3) Gallagher, E. M. (1996). Utilization of an ILS to increase reading comprehension (integrated learning systems, CAI) (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 996). "Dissertation Abstracts International," 58(05A), 79-1591. Six appendixes are included: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures by domain; (3) Summary of study findings included in the rating (by domain); (4) Summary of subgroup findings for the comprehension domain; (5) Ratings by domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 12 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Reading Fluency</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Phonological Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Phonics</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505572</guid>
            <title>ED505572 - Bright Beginnings. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505572</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Bright Beginnings is an early childhood curriculum, based in part on High/Scope[R] and Creative Curriculum[R], with an additional emphasis on literacy skills. The curriculum consists of nine thematic units designed to enhance children's cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development, and each unit includes concept maps, literacy lessons, center activities, and home activities. Special emphasis is placed on the development of early language and literacy skills, and parent involvement is a key component of the program. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed five studies of Bright Beginnings. One of  these studies meets WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining four studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the one study, the WWC found potentially positive effects on print knowledge and no discernible effects on oral language, phonological processing, and math. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Six appendices are included: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Summary of study findings included in the rating for each domain; (4) Summary of follow-up findings for each domain; (5) Ratings for each domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 8 footnotes.) [The following study is reviewed in this intervention report: Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) Consortium. (2008). Bright Beginnings and Creative Curriculum: Vanderbilt  University. In Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness (pp. 41-54). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences,  U.S. Department of Education.]  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Preschool Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Emergent Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Clearinghouses</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Evaluation Research</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Concept Mapping</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Parent Participation</category>
            
            <category> Parent School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Oral Language</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505573</guid>
            <title>ED505573 - Doors to Discovery [TM]. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505573</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Doors to Discovery[TM], an early childhood curriculum, focuses on the development of children's vocabulary and expressive and receptive language through a learning process called "shared literacy," where adults and children work together to develop literacy-related skills. Literacy activities, organized into thematic units, encourage children's development in a number of areas identified by research as the foundation for early literacy success: oral language, phonological awareness, concepts of print, alphabet knowledge, writing, and comprehension. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed six studies on Doors to Discovery[TM]. One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards, one study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations, and the remaining four studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the two studies, the WWC found potentially positive effects on oral language and print knowledge, and no discernible effects on phonological processing and math. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Six appendices are included: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures by domain; (3) Summary of study findings by domain; (4) Summary of follow-up findings by domain; (5) Ratings by domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 13 footnotes.) [The following studies are reviewed in this intervention report: (1) Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) Consortium. (2008). Doors to Discovery and Let's Begin with the Letter People. In Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness (pp. 85-98). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; and (2) Christie, J., Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Han, M. (2003, June). The effects of a well-designed literacy program on young children's language and literacy development. In F. Lamb-Parker, J. Hagen, R. Robinson, & H. Rhee (Eds.), The first eight years--pathways to the future: Implications for research, policy, and practice (pp. 447-448). "Proceedings of the Head Start National Research Conference." New York: Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University.]  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Preschool Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Emergent Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Clearinghouses</category>
            
            <category> Evaluation Research</category>
            
            <category> Receptive Language</category>
            
            <category> Parent Participation</category>
            
            <category> Oral Language</category>
            
            <category> Phonological Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505493</guid>
            <title>ED505493 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Findings from the Second Year of Implementation"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505493</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined whether supplemental literacy classes improve the reading skills of struggling ninth-grade readers. Study authors reported that supplemental literacy classes led to a statistically significant increase in student test scores for reading comprehension, although the intervention did not affect vocabulary test scores. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) found the study to be a well-implemented randomized controlled trial consistent with WWC evidence standards. [The following report was the focus of this "Quick Review": "The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Findings from the Second Year of Implementation" (NCEE 2009-4036). W. Corrin, M.-A. Somers, J. Kemple, E. Nelson, and S. Sepanik, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 2009.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Reading Difficulties</category>
            
            <category> Special Needs Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade 9</category>
            
            <category> Reading Skills</category>
            
            <category> Academic Support Services</category>
            
            <category> Educational Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Research Methodology</category>
            
            <category> High Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505492</guid>
            <title>ED505492 - WWC Quick Review of the Article "Effects of Social Development Intervention in Childhood 15 Years Later"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505492</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The selected study examined the long-term effects of the "Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP)," an elementary-school-based intervention designed to improve students' social skills and engagement. The study analyzed data on about 600 young adults who had been students in 15 public elementary schools serving high-crime areas in Seattle, Washington in the 1980s. Study participants were interviewed at ages 24 and 27. Three research groups were created: (1) students receiving SSDP in both early and later elementary school; (2) students receiving SSDP in later elementary school only; and (3) students not receiving SSDP services. Study authors reported that receiving SSDP in both early and late elementary school improved some mental health outcomes in young adulthood and reduced the likelihood of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. The program did not affect rates of substance use or involvement with the criminal justice system. Although the research groups were well-matched on a number of initial characteristics, including gender, race/ethnicity, and childhood poverty, What Works Clearinghouse has reservations about the reported results because the research groups may have been different from each other in ways not controlled for in the analysis. [The following report was the focus of this "Quick Review": "Effects of Social Development Intervention in Childhood 15 Years Later." J. D. Hawkins, R. Kosterman, R. F. Catalano, K. G. Hill, and R. D. Abbott. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, v162 n12 p1133-1141. 2008.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Data Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Longitudinal Studies</category>
            
            <category> Young Adults</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Education</category>
            
            <category> Interpersonal Competence</category>
            
            <category> Conflict Resolution</category>
            
            <category> Parent Education</category>
            
            <category> Social Development</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505496</guid>
            <title>ED505496 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505496</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The selected study examined the effects of comprehensive teacher induction (CTI) programs on teacher outcomes and student achievement. Within participating school districts, schools were randomly assigned to offer their beginning teachers either a CTI program or the district's standard induction program. Within the group participating in CTI, the study examined CTI's effects on teacher practice and teacher retention. This review examines the study's teacher retention analysis. Study authors reported no statistically significant effects of the CTI program on teacher retention rates after one year, nor on the proportion who remained in the teaching profession a year later. Authors also reported no effects of the CTI program on student reading or math achievement. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) found the analysis of teacher outcomes to be consistent with WWC evidence standards. Analysis of student outcomes was found to be consistent with WWC standards with reservations, as CTI students may have been different from control students in ways not controlled for in the study. [The following report was the focus of this "Quick Review": "Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study" (NCEE 2009-4034). S. Glazerman, S. Dolfin, M. Bleeker, A. Johnson, E. Isenberg, J. Lugo-Gil, M. Grider, and E. Britton. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 2008. For study report, see ED503061.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Beginning Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Beginning Teacher Induction</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Persistence</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Teaching (Occupation)</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Orientation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505688</guid>
            <title>ED505688 - Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP). WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505688</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) is a framework for planning and delivering instruction in content areas such as science, history, and mathematics to limited-English proficient students. The goal of SIOP is to help teachers integrate academic language development into their lessons, allowing students to learn and practice English as it is used in the context of school, including the vocabulary used in textbooks and lectures in each academic discipline. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified eight studies of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) that were published or released between 1983 and 2008. No studies of SIOP that fall within the scope of the English Language Learners (ELL) review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of SIOP. (Contains 2 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Textbooks</category>
            
            <category> Observation</category>
            
            <category> Second Language Learning</category>
            
            <category> Intellectual Disciplines</category>
            
            <category> English (Second Language)</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Faculty Development</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505803</guid>
            <title>ED505803 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505803</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined the effects of the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring  Program (SMP) on students' interpersonal relationships, academic outcomes, and delinquent  and risk behaviors. The study focused on approximately 2,600 at-risk fourth-through-  eighth-grade students in 32 SMP sites. Applicants were randomly assigned to a program  group that was offered SMP services or to a control group that was not. Control-group students were free to receive mentoring services through other programs. The authors collected data on students' interpersonal relationships and delinquent and risk behaviors through student surveys. They collected data on course grades, statewide assessment  scores, and disciplinary infractions from school records. Study authors found that the student mentoring program had no statistically significant effect on the academic and behavioral outcomes they examined once they adjusted their statistical tests for the analysis of multiple outcomes. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) found the research to be consistent with WWC evidence standards, cautioning that 20-35 percent of students in the original sample were missing school records data, depending on the outcome. These students are excluded from the analyses of grades, test scores, and disciplinary infractions. [The following report was the focus of this "Quick Review": "Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program (NCEE 2009-4047)." L. Bernstein, C. Dun Rappaport,  L. Olsho, D. Hunt, and M. Levin. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 2009. For study report, see  ED504310.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Mentors</category>
            
            <category> Federal Programs</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Control Groups</category>
            
            <category> Interpersonal Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Delinquency</category>
            
            <category> Student Behavior</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505845</guid>
            <title>ED505845 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "Reengaging High School Dropouts: Early Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program Evaluation"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505845</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether participating in the "National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program",   a quasi-military residential/mentoring program for dropouts, improved the educational and other outcomes of at-risk youth. The study analyzed data on about 1,000 16- to 18-year-old high school dropouts enrolled in 10 ChalleNGe programs throughout the country. Study authors reported that the ChalleNGe program increased the percentage of youth who had earned a high school diploma or GED nine months after random assignment. Additionally, the study reported that after nine months, the program had increased the rate at which youth were employed and enrolled in college and had reduced their likelihood of arrest. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) found the study to be a well-implemented randomized  controlled trial, consistent with WWC evidence standards. [The following report was the subject of this "Quick Review": "Reengaging High School Dropouts: Early Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program Evaluation." D. Bloom, A. Gardenhire-Crooks, and C. Mandsager. 2009. For study report, see ED504645.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Mentors</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Dropouts</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Youth Programs</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Programs</category>
            
            <category> Residential Programs</category>
            
            <category> Armed Forces</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Control Groups</category>
            
            <category> Experimental Groups</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> High School Equivalency Programs</category>
            
            <category> Educational Attainment</category>
            
            <category> Employment</category>
            
            <category> College Attendance</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Military Training</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505846</guid>
            <title>ED505846 - Lexia Reading. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505846</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Lexia Reading is a computerized reading program that provides phonics instruction and gives students independent practice in basic reading skills. Lexia Reading is designed to supplement regular classroom instruction. It is designed to support skill development in the five areas of reading instruction identified by the National Reading Panel. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 11 studies on Lexia Reading. Two of these studies meet WWC evidence standards. One study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining eight studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the three studies, the WWC found potentially positive effects of Lexia Reading on alphabetics and comprehension and no discernible effects on fluency and general reading achievement. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Six appendices are included: (1) Study Characteristics; (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Summary of study findings included in the rating for each domain; (4) Summary of subscale and subgroup findings for each domain; (5) Lexia Reading rating for each domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 7 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Phonics</category>
            
            <category> Reading</category>
            
            <category> Reading Programs</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Skills</category>
            
            <category> Skill Development</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Standards</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Reading Fluency</category>
            
            <category> Alphabets</category>
            
            <category> English (Second Language)</category>
            
            <category> Early Reading</category>
            
            <category> Kindergarten</category>
            
            <category> Grade 1</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505847</guid>
            <title>ED505847 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "National Board Certification and Teacher Effectiveness: Evidence from a Random Assignment Experiment"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505847</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined whether having a teacher with National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification improves student achievement. The study analyzed data on about 3,800 second through fifth grade students taught by 198 teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Study data were from 2003-04 and 2004-05. The authors compared the test scores of students assigned to NBPTS-certified teachers and teachers who failed to receive NBPTS certification to those of students assigned to comparison teachers. The study found no statistically significant differences between the math and language arts test scores of students assigned to NBPTS-certified teachers and those assigned to teachers who did not apply for NBPTS certification. However, students assigned to teachers who applied for and  failed to receive NBPTS certification had lower test scores than students assigned to teachers who did not apply for certification. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) found the study to be a sell-implemented randomized controlled trial that is consistent with WWC evidence standards. [The following report was the focus of this "Quick Review": "National Board Certification and Teacher Effectiveness: Evidence from a Random Assignment Experiment (NBER Working Paper 14608)." S. Cantrell, J. Fullerton, T. J. Kane, and D. O. Staiger. National Bureau of Economic Research. 2008. For the subject report, see ED503841.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Teacher Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> National Standards</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Certification</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Competencies</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> National Competency Tests</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Qualifications</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Influence</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Tests</category>
            
            <category> Language Tests</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504808</guid>
            <title>ED504808 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "College Outcomes Comparisons by AP and Non-AP High School Experiences"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504808</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether taking Advanced Placement Program[R] (AP) courses and exams in high school improves student college performance. The study included students who graduated from Texas public high schools between 1998 and 2002 and then went on to attend a Texas public college or university. Data on students' college grade point average (GPA), credits earned, and graduation rates were drawn from a statewide database. The study compared the college outcomes of students who took both an AP course and exam in  a particular subject to other groups of students who did not. When making these comparisons, students were grouped according to their SAT scores and socio-economic status. The study reported that students who took both the AP course and the AP exam had higher college GPAs, earned more credits, and had higher graduation rates than students who took only the AP course or a non-AP course in the same subject area. The study reported no differences between students who took both the course and the exam and students who took only the exam. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) does not consider these results to be conclusive because the study does not provide evidence that the students were initially equivalent. The reported differences might reflect initial differences in the types of students who take AP courses and exams rather than the effect of AP courses and exams on college outcomes.  [The study evaluated in this "Quick Review" was: "College Outcomes Comparisons by AP and Non-AP High School Experiences." L. Hargrove, D. Godin and B. Dodd (2008).]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Advanced Placement Programs</category>
            
            <category> Student Participation</category>
            
            <category> High School Graduates</category>
            
            <category> Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> College Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade Point Average</category>
            
            <category> Graduation Rate</category>
            
            <category> Credits</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504864</guid>
            <title>ED504864 - Bridges in Mathematics. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504864</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Bridges in Mathematics," published by the Math Learning Center (MLC), is an elementary school math curriculum covering kindergarten through fifth grade that focuses on problem solving and skill building, and applies a combination of whole-group, small-group, and independent activities. Lessons incorporate visual models, including manipulatives, to reinforce learning. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 23 studies of "Bridges in Mathematics" that were published or released between 1985 and 2008: four studies are out of the scope of the review protocol because they have an ineligible study design that does not meet WWC evidence standards; one study is out of the scope of the Elementary School Math review protocol because it is not a study of effectiveness; and eighteen studies are within the scope of the review protocol and have an eligible design, but do not meet WWC evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "Bridges in Mathematics."]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Elementary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Skill Development</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Visual Aids</category>
            
            <category> Group Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Independent Study</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505064</guid>
            <title>ED505064 - Singapore Math</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505064</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Singapore Math" is a collection of math curricula originally developed by Singapore's Ministry of Education and private textbook publishers for use in Singapore schools. "Singapore Math" curricula were developed under a national framework centered on problem solving that emphasizes computational skills as well as conceptual and strategic thinking processes. Compared to many U.S. textbooks, "Singapore Math" textbooks, particularly those intended for earlier grades, tend to provide more in-depth coverage of a relatively small number of topics. Curricula for the secondary level follow an integrated approach, where concepts and examples from algebra and geometry are introduced progressively at each grade level. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 12 studies of Singapore Math that were published or released between 1983 and 2008. Six studies are out of scope of the review protocol because they have an ineligible design; the other six are out of scope of the review protocol for other reasons. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "Singapore Math."  (Contains 5 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Foreign Countries</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Research Design</category>
            
            <category> Middle Schools</category>
            
            <category> Textbooks</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505063</guid>
            <title>ED505063 - WWC Quick Review of the Article "School Recess and Group Classroom Behavior"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505063</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined whether providing daily recess to third graders improves their classroom behavior. The study analyzed a nationally representative sample of over 10,000 students enrolled in third grade during the 2001-2002 school year. Data were drawn from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999. The authors analyzed data from teacher questionnaires on teacher assessments of classroom behavior, comparing the ratings from teachers whose students were offered daily recess with the ratings from teachers whose students were not offered daily recess. The study reported that teachers rated their classrooms' behavior more favorably when their students were offered daily recess; however, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) does not consider these results to be conclusive. Because the research groups were not equivalent initially, reported differences in behavior between the groups might reflect differences unrelated to the amount of recess available to students. [The following study is the focus of this review: School Recess and Group Classroom Behavior. "Pediatrics" 123(2) 431-436 2009. R. M. Barros, E. J. Silver, and R. E. K. Stein.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Recess Breaks</category>
            
            <category> Grade 3</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Attitudes</category>
            
            <category> Student Behavior</category>
            
            <category> Behavior Modification</category>
            
            <category> Classroom Environment</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504995</guid>
            <title>ED504995 - Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools. NCEE 2009-4060</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504995</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Students struggling with mathematics may benefit from early interventions aimed at improving their mathematics ability and ultimately preventing subsequent failure. This guide provides eight specific recommendations intended to help teachers, principals, and school administrators use Response to Intervention (RtI) to identify students who need assistance in mathematics and to address the needs of these students through focused interventions. The guide provides suggestions on how to carry out each recommendation and explains how educators can overcome potential roadblocks to implementing the recommendations. Each recommendation is rated strong, moderate, or low based on the strength of the research evidence for the respective recommendation. Specific recommendations include: (1) Screen all students to identify those at risk for potential mathematics difficulties and provide interventions to students identified as at risk; (2) Committee-selected instructional materials for students receiving interventions should focus intensely on in-depth treatment of whole numbers in kindergarten through grade 5 and on rational numbers in grades 4 through 8; (3) Instruction during intervention should be explicit and systematic, and should include models of proficient problem solving, verbalization of thought processes, guided practice, corrective feedback, and frequent cumulative review; (4) Interventions should include instruction on solving word problems that is based on common underlying structures; (5) Intervention  materials should include opportunities for students to work with visual representations of mathematical ideas and interventionists should be proficient in the use of visual representations of mathematical ideas; (6) Interventions at all grade levels should devote about 10 minutes in each session to building fluent retrieval of basic arithmetic facts; (7) Monitor the progress of students receiving supplemental instruction and other students who are at risk; and (8) Include motivational strategies in tier 2 and tier 3 interventions. Four appendixes are included: (1) Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences; (2) About the authors; (3) Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest; and (4) Technical information on the studies. A glossary is included. (Contains 314 footnotes, 12 examples and 7 tables.)]]></description>
            <author>Gersten, Russell;  Beckmann, Sybilla;  Clarke, Benjamin;  Foegen, Anne;  Marsh, Laurel;  Star, Jon R.;  Witzel, Bradley</author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Early Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Learning Problems</category>
            
            <category> Identification</category>
            
            <category> Formative Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Materials</category>
            
            <category> Numeracy</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Word Problems (Mathematics)</category>
            
            <category> Visual Aids</category>
            
            <category> Arithmetic</category>
            
            <category> Supplementary Education</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Motivation Techniques</category>
            
            <category> Barriers</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504264</guid>
            <title>ED504264 - Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2009-4045</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504264</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Response to Intervention (RtI) is a comprehensive early detection and prevention strategy  that identifies struggling students and assists them before they fall behind. RtI systems  combine universal screening and high-quality instruction for all students with interventions  targeted at struggling students. This guide offers five specific recommendations to help educators identify struggling readers and implement evidence-based strategies to promote their reading achievement. Teachers and reading specialists can utilize these strategies to implement RtI and multi-tier intervention methods and frameworks at the classroom or school level. Recommendations cover how to screen students for reading problems, design a multi-tier intervention program, adjust instruction to help struggling readers, and monitor student progress. Note that this guide focuses on screening and interventions for struggling readers; it does not provide recommendations for general classroom reading instruction. (Contains 6 tables.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Prevention</category>
            
            <category> Identification</category>
            
            <category> Reading Difficulties</category>
            
            <category> Formative Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Individualized Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Individual Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Reading Skills</category>
            
            <category> Small Group Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Primary Education</category>
            
            <category> Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Guides</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504300</guid>
            <title>ED504300 - Investigations in Number, Data, and Space[R]. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504300</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Investigations in Number, Data, and Space[R], published by Pearson Scott Foresman, is an activity-based K-5 mathematics curriculum designed to help students understand the fundamental ideas of number and operations, geometry, data, measurement, and early algebra. The curriculum encourages students to use prior knowledge to develop an understanding of fundamental mathematical ideas, focusing on activities that encourage  students to develop their own strategies for solving problems and engage in discussion about their reasoning and ideas. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 40 studies of Investigations in Number, Data, and Space[R] that were published or released between 1994 and 2008: seven are within the scope of the review protocol and have an eligible design, but do not meet WWC evidence standards because they do not establish that the comparison  group was comparable to the treatment group prior to the start of the intervention; seven are out of the scope of the review protocol because they have an ineligible study design that does not meet WWC evidence standards; and twenty-six are out of the scope of the Elementary School Math review protocol for reasons other than study design. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Investigations in Number, Data, and Space[R].]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Prior Learning</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Class Activities</category>
            
            <category> Mathematical Concepts</category>
            
            <category> Investigations</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Meta Analysis</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503803</guid>
            <title>ED503803 - Wyman Teen Outreach Program (TOP). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503803</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The "Wyman Teen Outreach Program" (TOP) is a life skills curriculum for 12- to 17-year-olds that aims to prevent negative youth behaviors, such as school failure and early pregnancy. Trained facilitators deliver the curriculum in weekly classes throughout the school year. Participants discuss topics such as goal-setting, peer pressure, relationship dynamics, values, and communication skills. The program can be integrated with a school's existing curriculum, offered as an in-school elective, or an after-school program. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 9 studies of TOP that were published or released between 1988 and 2008. Seven studies are within the scope of the review and have an eligible design, but do not meet WWC evidence standards, and two studies are out of the scope of the review, as defined by the Dropout Prevention protocol, because they do not present primary research. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of TOP.]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-01-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Outreach Programs</category>
            
            <category> Youth Programs</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Daily Living Skills</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504059</guid>
            <title>ED504059 - Earobics[R]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504059</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Earobics[R] is interactive software that provides students in pre-K through third grade with individual, systematic instruction in early literacy skills as students interact with animated characters. Earobics[R] Foundations is the version for pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade. Earobics[R] Connections is for second and third graders and older struggling readers. The program builds children's skills in phonemic awareness, auditory processing, and phonics, as well as the cognitive and language skills required for comprehension. Each level of instruction addresses recognizing and blending sounds, rhyming, and discriminating phonemes within words, adjusting to each student's ability level. The software is supported by music, audiocassettes, and videotapes and includes picture/word cards, letter-sound decks, big books, little books, and leveled readers for reading independently or in groups.  What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 28 studies on Earobics[R]. Two of these studies meet WWC evidence standards; two studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 24 studies either do not meet WWC evidence standards or do not meet eligibility screens. Based on the four studies, the WWC found positive effects for alphabetics and potentially positive effects for reading fluency. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Five appendices are included: (1) Study Characteristics; (2) Outcome Measures; (3) Summary of Study Findings: (4) Ratings; and (5) Extent of Evidence.]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-01-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Computer Software</category>
            
            <category> Interaction</category>
            
            <category> Animation</category>
            
            <category> Individual Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Education</category>
            
            <category> Kindergarten</category>
            
            <category> Grade 1</category>
            
            <category> Grade 2</category>
            
            <category> Grade 3</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Clearinghouses</category>
            
            <category> Auditory Training</category>
            
            <category> Phonics</category>
            
            <category> Emergent Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Phonemic Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Reading Fluency</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504724</guid>
            <title>ED504724 - Curiosity Corner. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504724</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Curiosity Corner" is an early childhood curriculum emphasizing children's language and literacy skills. It comprises two sets of 38 weekly thematic units--one for three-year-olds and one for four-year-olds. Program staff conduct daily lessons using sequential daily activities. One study of "Curiosity Corner" meets the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards, and one study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The two studies included more than 500 preschool children from 34 preschools in Florida, Kansas, and New Jersey. Based on these two studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for "Curiosity Corner" to be medium to large for oral language and small for print knowledge, phonological processing, cognition, and math. No studies that meet WWC standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of "Curiosity Corner" in the early reading and writing domain. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [This report has been updated to include a review of two studies that have been released since 2006. A complete list and disposition of all studies reviewed is provided in the references. The following two studies are reviewed in this intervention report: (1) Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) Consortium. (2008). Chapter 5. "Curiosity Corner": Success for All Foundation. In "Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness" (pp. 75-83). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; and (2) Chambers, B., Chamberlain, A., Hurley, E. A., & Slavin, R. E. (2001). "Curiosity Corner: Enhancing preschoolers' language abilities through comprehensive reform." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 2001.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-01-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Preschool Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Early Reading</category>
            
            <category> Curriculum Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Oral Language</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Personality Traits</category>
            
            <category> Emergent Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Poverty</category>
            
            <category> Urban Schools</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Sequential Learning</category>
            
            <category> Parent Participation</category>
            
            <category> Pretests Posttests</category>
            
            <category> Phonological Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Cognitive Ability</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504380</guid>
            <title>ED504380 - Talent Development Middle Grades Program. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504380</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Talent Development Middle Grades Program (TDMG) is a whole school reform approach for large middle schools that face serious problems with student attendance, discipline, and academic achievement. The program includes both structural and curriculum reforms. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 17 studies of TDMG that were published or released between 1988 and 2008. Fourteen studies are out of the scope of the review, as defined by the Dropout Prevention protocol. Two of these studies do not present primary research, and 12 do not examine outcomes within a domain specified in the protocol. Three studies of the TDMG fall within the scope of the Dropout Prevention review protocol, but do not meet WWC evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of TDMG.]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Middle Schools</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Prevention</category>
            
            <category> Attendance</category>
            
            <category> Talent Development</category>
            
            <category> Educational Change</category>
            
            <category> Discipline</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Curriculum Development</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Faculty Development</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504381</guid>
            <title>ED504381 - University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra. WWC Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504381</link>
            <description><![CDATA[University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra is a one-year course covering three primary topics: (1) linear and quadratic expressions, sentences, and functions; (2) exponential expressions and functions; and (3) linear systems. Topics from  geometry, probability, and statistics are integrated with the appropriate algebra. Problem-solving and real-world applications are used throughout to develop and maintain basic skills and concepts. Computer algebra system (CAS) technology is used in the classroom to aid in the development of properties and skills, and graphing calculators are used to complete assignments at home. Thirteen studies reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) investigated the effects of UCSMP Algebra. Twelve studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. One study of UCSMP Algebra meets WWC (WWC) evidence standards with reservations: based on this one study, which found that UCSMP Algebra had no discernible effects on math achievement, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for UCSMP Algebra to be small for the math achievement domain. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Five appendixes are included: (1) Study Characteristics; (2) Outcome Measures; (3) Summary of Study Findings; (4) Rating; and (5) Extent of Domain. (Contains 8 footnotes. Appendixes are footnoted individually.) [The following study is reviewed in this intervention report: Peters, K. G. (1992). Skill performance comparability of two algebra programs on an eighth-grade population. "Dissertation Abstracts International," 54(01), 77A. (UMI No. 9314428)]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Graphing Calculators</category>
            
            <category> Educational Technology</category>
            
            <category> Probability</category>
            
            <category> Algebra</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Mathematical Formulas</category>
            
            <category> Geometry</category>
            
            <category> Statistics</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Assignments</category>
            
            <category> Computer Uses in Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504431</guid>
            <title>ED504431 - I CAN Learn[R] Pre-Algebra and Algebra. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504431</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The I CAN Learn[R] Education System is an interactive, self-paced, mastery-based software system that includes the I CAN Learn[R] Fundamentals of Math (5th-6th grade math) curriculum, the I CAN Learn[R] Pre-Algebra curriculum, and the I CAN Learn[R] Algebra curriculum. College algebra credit is also available to students in participating schools through the 121 lesson CLEP program, an open enrollment dual-credit program for middle  and high school students. Studies included in this What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) review assess the effectiveness of the Pre-Algebra and Algebra components of the I CAN Learn[R] Education System. The WWC reviewed 27 studies on I CAN Learn[R] Pre-Algebra and Algebra. One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards; four studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 22 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the five studies, the WWC found positive effects in math achievement. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new  research emerges. Six appendixes are included: (1) Study Characteristics; (2) Outcome Measures; (3) Summary of Study Findings; (4) Summary of Subgroup Findings; (5) Ratings; and (6) Extent of Evidence. (Contains 9 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Clearinghouses</category>
            
            <category> Computer Software Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Man Machine Systems</category>
            
            <category> Algebra</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Grade 5</category>
            
            <category> Grade 6</category>
            
            <category> College Credits</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Mastery Learning</category>
            
            <category> Individualized Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Pacing</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504465</guid>
            <title>ED504465 - I Have A Dream. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504465</link>
            <description><![CDATA["I Have A Dream" is a program that encourages students in low-income communities to complete high school and go on to college. The program guarantees that tuition for higher education will be covered after high school graduation. In addition, it provides participants with tutoring and counseling from elementary school through high school. Each "I Have A Dream" program sponsors either an entire grade level of students at a low-income public elementary school or an entire cohort of same-age children in a public housing development. These students are tracked over time and encouraged to participate in program activities, such as tutoring, mentoring, counseling, community service, and recreational opportunities. A full-time paid staff member coordinates program activities and serves as a mentor to program participants. A group of sponsors commits to working with the students throughout the life of the program and often provides the program with funding and other resources. The sponsors and other local donors ensure that participants who graduate from high school receive post-secondary education tuition assistance. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 14 studies of I Have A Dream that were published or released between 1988 and 2008. Seven studies are out of the scope of the review, as defined by the Dropout Prevention protocol; seven studies are within the scope of the review protocol and have an eligible design, but do not meet WWC evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "I Have A Dream."]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Disadvantaged Youth</category>
            
            <category> Low Income Groups</category>
            
            <category> Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> Public Housing</category>
            
            <category> Student Financial Aid</category>
            
            <category> Tutoring</category>
            
            <category> Counseling</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Prevention</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504464</guid>
            <title>ED504464 - Middle College High School. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504464</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Middle College High Schools" are alternative high schools located on college campuses that aim to help at-risk students complete high school and encourage them to attend college. The four-year program offers a project-centered, interdisciplinary curriculum with an emphasis on team teaching, individualized attention, and the development of critical thinking skills. Students are also offered support services, including specialized counseling, peer support, and career experience opportunities. The What Works Clearing (WWC) reviewed 15 studies on "Middle College High School." One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards; the remaining 14 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on this one study, the WWC found the intervention to have no discernible effects on staying in school or completing school. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Six appendixes are included: (1) Study Characteristics; (2) Outcome Measures; (3) Summary of Study Findings; (4) Summary of Additional Findings; (5) Ratings; and (6) Extent of Evidence. (Contains 9 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> High Schools</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Prevention</category>
            
            <category> College School Cooperation</category>
            
            <category> Nontraditional Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504602</guid>
            <title>ED504602 - Odyssey Math. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504602</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Odyssey Math," published by CompassLearning[R], is an interactive, software-based K-8 mathematics curriculum. It includes individualized instructional and assessment tools, as well as an administrative function that allows teachers to track student performance and progress and to generate reports. Lessons employ real-world contexts in which students can apply ideas, tools, and manipulatives, and they allow for individualized assessment and instruction. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 23 studies of "Odyssey Math" that were published or released between 1983 and 2008. Five studies are out of the scope of the review because they have an ineligible study design that does not meet WWC evidence standards; an additional fifteen studies are out of the scope of the review, as defined by the Middle School Math protocol, for reasons other than study design. The remaining three studies are withing the scope of the review and have an eligible design, but do not meet WWC evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "Odyssey Math." (Contains 3 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504631</guid>
            <title>ED504631 - Destination Math. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504631</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Destination Math" is a series of computer-based curricula designed to be used for at least 90 minutes a week. Featuring sequenced, prescriptive, step-by-step instruction, "Destination Math" is designed for the development of fluency in critical skills, math reasoning, conceptual understanding, and problem-solving skills. Intermediate Math (grades 4-6), Advanced Math (6-8), Pre-Algebra (6-8), and Algebra (9-12) are available for middle school students. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 11 studies of Destination Math that were published or released between 1983 and 2008: Six studies are our of the scope of the review because they have an ineligible study design that does not meet WWC evidence standards; four studies are our of the scope of the review, as defined by the Middle School Math protocol, for reasons other than study design; and one study is within the scope of the review and has an eligible design, but does not meet WWC evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "Destination Math." (Contains 2 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Middle Schools</category>
            
            <category> Algebra</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504699</guid>
            <title>ED504699 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "Rewarding Persistence: Effects of a Performance-Based Scholarship Program for Low-Income Parents"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504699</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Rewarding Persistence: Effects of a Performance-Based Scholarship Program for Low-Income Parents" examined whether community college students are more likely to persist in school if they are offered financial incentives tied to school performance. The study included 1,019 low-income parents enrolled at two Louisiana community colleges. Eligible students who had not previously taken college-level courses at the community college and volunteered  to participate were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the performance-based scholarship or a control group that did not. The study authors analyzed school transcript data to assess effects on college enrollment and credits earned. The financial incentive program increased the percentage of community college students who were enrolled the second semester after random assignment, and increased the average number of credits they earned during the first two semesters after random assignment. For students whose follow-up period was not interrupted by Hurricane Katrina, study authors reported that the intervention group was significantly more likely than the control group to be enrolled in school four semesters after random assignment and had earned significantly more credits over that period. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) found the described research consistent with WWC evidence standards, citing the study as a well-implemented control trial, while recognizing that Hurricane Katrina interrupted the study's follow-up period and affected examination of longer-term impacts. [The following report was the focus of this "Quick Review": "Rewarding Persistence: Effects of a Performance-Based Scholarship Program for Low-Income Parents." L. Richburg-Ayes, T. Brock, A. LeBlanc, C. Paxson, C. E. Rouse, and L. Barrow. MDRC, 2009 (ED503917).]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Control Groups</category>
            
            <category> Community Colleges</category>
            
            <category> Eligibility</category>
            
            <category> Incentives</category>
            
            <category> Credits</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Scholarships</category>
            
            <category> Two Year College Students</category>
            
            <category> Academic Persistence</category>
            
            <category> Low Income Groups</category>
            
            <category> Parents</category>
            
            <category> Counseling</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Grades (Scholastic)</category>
            
            <category> College Attendance</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504697</guid>
            <title>ED504697 - WWC Quick Review of the Article "Promoting Academic and Social-Emotional School Readiness: The Head Start REDI Program"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504697</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined whether the Head Start Research-based Developmentally Informed (REDI) program is more effective than the standard Head Start program at improving the language, emergent literacy, and social-emotional skills of preschoolers. Head Start centers in three Pennsylvania counties were randomly assigned either to use the REDI program or to continue using the standard Head Start program. The study included 44 classrooms and 356 4-year-olds across the two research groups. The study assessed language development and emergent literacy skills, as well as emotional understanding, social problem-solving skills, social-emotional behaviors, and learning engagement. Assessments were conducted at the beginning and again at the end of the school year for most outcomes. The study finds that students in the REDI group outperformed control students on one of three measures of language development and two of three measures of emergent literacy skills. Additionally, REDI program students exhibited greater understanding of emotions, better social problem-solving skills, and higher levels of learning engagement than students in regular Head Start classrooms. This What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) review finds that the research described is consistent with WWC evidence standards, and cites the study as a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. A cautionary observation is included that the authors examined the REDI program's effects on more than twenty outcomes. Estimating effects on a large set of outcomes increases the possibility that some results may be found to be statistically significant by chance: the authors do not adjust for this possibility in their analysis. [The following report was the focus of this "Quick Review": Berman, K. L., Dietrich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Geest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., et AL. (2008). Promoting Academic and Social-emotional School Readiness: The Head Start REDI Program. Child Development, 79(6) (EJ818718).]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Emergent Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Language Acquisition</category>
            
            <category> Interpersonal Competence</category>
            
            <category> Emotional Intelligence</category>
            
            <category> Social Behavior</category>
            
            <category> Affective Behavior</category>
            
            <category> Learner Engagement</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Education</category>
            
            <category> School Readiness</category>
            
            <category> Disadvantaged Youth</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504430</guid>
            <title>ED504430 - Kumon Math. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504430</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Kumon Math," published by Kumon North America, Inc., is a supplemental mathematics curriculum for students in preschool through secondary school. The curriculum is not structured by age or grade level, but by a student's own pace, and is composed of hundreds of short assignments that progress through increasingly difficult mathematics skills. Students complete one assignment every weekday and attend a Kumon center for two sessions per week. Every assignment is timed and graded. Students master skills through repetition and cannot progress to a new skill before completing an assignment within a set amount of time and with close to 100% accuracy. New skills and exercises build on previously mastered concepts. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified five studies of Kumon Math that were published or released between 1985 and 2008. Two studies are within the scope of the review protocol and have an eligible design, but do not meet WWC evidence standards because there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions. Three studies are out of the scope of the review protocol. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "Kumon Math."]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Clearinghouses</category>
            
            <category> Enrichment Activities</category>
            
            <category> Meta Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Skills</category>
            
            <category> Individualized Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Pacing</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED499774</guid>
            <title>ED499774 - New Chance. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED499774</link>
            <description><![CDATA["New Chance," a program for young welfare mothers who have dropped out of school, aims to improve both their employment potential and their parenting skills. Participants take GED (General Educational Development) preparation classes and complete a parenting and life skills curriculum. Once they complete this first phase of the program, they can receive occupational training and job placement assistance from "New Chance," which also offers case management and child care. One study of "New Chance" met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. This randomized controlled trial, including over 2,000 women, was conducted in 16 sites in 10 states: California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Based on this one study, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for "New Chance" to be small for completing school. That study did not examine the effectiveness of "New Chance" in the domains of staying or progressing in school. "New Chance" was found to have potentially positive effects on completing school. (Contains 7 footnotes.) [The following study is reviewed in this intervention report: Quint, J. C., Bos, H. M., & Polit, D. F. (1997). "New Chance: Final report on a comprehensive program for young mothers in poverty and their children." New York, NY: MDRC.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2008-01-24</pubDate>
            
            <category>Employment Potential</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Job Placement</category>
            
            <category> Mothers</category>
            
            <category> Comprehensive Programs</category>
            
            <category> Child Rearing</category>
            
            <category> Job Training</category>
            
            <category> Parenting Skills</category>
            
            <category> Welfare Services</category>
            
            <category> Dropouts</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED499775</guid>
            <title>ED499775 - First Things First. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED499775</link>
            <description><![CDATA["First Things First" is a reform model intended to transform elementary, middle, and high schools serving significant proportions of economically disadvantaged students. Its three main components are: (1) "small learning communities" of students and teachers; (2) a family and student advocate system that pairs staff members and students to monitor and support progress and that serves as a bridge between the school and family; and (3) instructional improvements to make classroom teaching more rigorous and engaging and more closely aligned with state standards and assessments. One study of "First Things First" met the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards with reservations. The quasi-experimental research design included students from Houston high schools: 3 "First Things First" schools, each matched to 10 or 11 comparison schools. Based on this one study, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for "First Things First" to be small for staying in school. That study did not examine the effectiveness of "First Things First" in the domains of progressing in school or completing school. "First Things First" was found to have no discernible effects on staying in school in its first year of implementation. (Contains 9 footnotes and 1 table.) [The following study is reviewed in this intervention report: Quint, J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Stephens, L. (2005). "Scaling up First Things First: The challenge of scaling up educational reform." New York, NY: MDRC.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2008-01-24</pubDate>
            
            <category>Research Design</category>
            
            <category> High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> State Standards</category>
            
            <category> Economically Disadvantaged</category>
            
            <category> School Restructuring</category>
            
            <category> Models</category>
            
            <category> Educational Change</category>
            
            <category> Family School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Advocacy</category>
            
            <category> Academic Persistence</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Educational Practices</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502619</guid>
            <title>ED502619 - Reading Mastery. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report  </title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502619</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Reading Mastery," one of several curriculum components that constitute the Scientific Research Associate's Direct Instruction curriculum, is designed to provide systematic instruction in English language reading. "Reading Mastery" is a full-year curriculum and is available in two versions, "Reading Mastery Classic" levels I and II (for use in grades K-3) and "Reading Mastery Plus," an integrated reading language program for grades K-6. The program begins by teaching phonemic awareness and sound-letter correspondence and progresses to word and passage reading, vocabulary development, comprehension, and building oral reading fluency. Later lessons emphasize accurate and fluent decoding while teaching students the skills necessary to comprehend and learn from expository text. Lessons are designed to be fast-paced and interactive. Students are grouped by similar reading level, based on program placement tests. The program includes placement assessments and a continuous monitoring component. No studies of "Reading Mastery" that fell within the scope of the Beginning Reading review meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "Reading Mastery." (Contains 1 footnote.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Scientific Research</category>
            
            <category> Reading Fluency</category>
            
            <category> Beginning Reading</category>
            
            <category> Phonemic Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Vocabulary Development</category>
            
            <category> Clearinghouses</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Inferences</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502412</guid>
            <title>ED502412 - The New Century High Schools Initiative. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502412</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The "New Century High Schools Initiative" is a program designed to improve large, under-performing high schools by transforming them into small schools with links to community organizations. "New Century High Schools" each have about 400 students; the small size is intended to foster strong relationships between students and educators. These schools commit to a broad set of educational principles, but are free to make their own choices about curriculum. Typically, schools choose a curriculum that has a theme or career focus, such as engineering, health science, or theater. Each New Century High School is designed in partnership with a community organization that can participate in curriculum development, school management, after-school activities, or other operational aspects of the school. These organizations include arts and cultural institutions, universities, and social service groups. Partnership with community organizations is intended to bring schools additional expertise and resources related to the school theme or career focus. "New Century High Schools" are expected to maintain benchmarks of 80 percent on-time graduation rates and 92 percent attendance rates. No studies of the "New Century High Schools Initiative" that fell within the scope of the Dropout Prevention review meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "New Century High Schools." (Contains 1 footnote.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Improvement Programs</category>
            
            <category> Small Schools</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> School Community Programs</category>
            
            <category> Community Organizations</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Dropout Prevention</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502411</guid>
            <title>ED502411 - Mathematics in Context (MiC). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502411</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Mathematics in Context" is a middle school mathematics curriculum for grades 5 through 8. It was developed to align with the 1989 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Curriculum and Evaluation Standards. It is also based on the Dutch Realistic Mathematics Education approach of engaging students in understanding real-life problems and gradually moving to abstract concepts. Rather than focusing on one mathematical domain at a time, "Mathematics in Context" teaches students to explore the relationships among different domains of mathematics and to develop strategies for reasoning through problems mathematically. "Mathematics in Context" also encourages students to collaborate on problem solving. No studies of "Mathematics in Context" that fell within the scope of the Middle School Math review met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of "Mathematics in Context." (Contains 1 footnote.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Middle Schools</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>
    
    </channel>
</rss>
