<?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/ERICWebPortal/search/rssSearch.jsp?_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>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:59:33 EDT</lastBuildDate>
        <webMaster>ericsupport@csc.com</webMaster>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531596</guid>
            <title>ED531596 - Peer-Assisted Learning/Literacy Strategies. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531596</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies" and a similar program known as "Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies" are peer-tutoring programs that supplement the primary reading curriculum (Fuchs, Fuchs, Kazdan, & Allen, 1999; Mathes & Babyak, 2001). This review uses the acronym "PALS" to encompass both programs and their respective full names when referring to a specific program. Students in "PALS" classrooms work in pairs on reading activities intended to improve reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Students in the pairs--who alternately take on the role of tutor and tutee--read aloud, listen to their partner read, and provide feedback during various structured activities. Teachers train students to use the following learning strategies: passage reading with partners, paragraph "shrinking" (or describing the main idea), and prediction relay (predicting what is likely to happen next in the passage). "PALS" includes separate versions for kindergarten and grade 1. "Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies" also includes versions for grades 2-3 (which are part of a larger set produced for grades 2-6). Forty-five studies reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) investigated the effects of "PALS" on beginning readers. Two studies (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005; Stein, Berends, Fuchs, McMaster, Saenz, Yen, & Compton, 2008) are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC evidence standards. One study (Mathes & Babyak, 2001) is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. These three studies are summarized in this report. The remaining 42 studies do not meet either WWC eligibility screens or evidence standards. Appended are: (1) Research details for McMaster et al. (2005); (2) Research details for Stein et al. (2008); (3) Research details for Mathes & Babyak (2001); (4) Outcome measures for each domain; (5) Findings included in the rating for the alphabetics domain; (6) Findings included in the rating for the fluency domain; (7) Findings included in the rating for the comprehension domain; and (8) Single-case design studies reviewed for this intervention. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 8 tables and 11 endnotes.)        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-05-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Peer Teaching</category>
            
            <category> Tutoring</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Learning Strategies</category>
            
            <category> Beginning Reading</category>
            
            <category> Kindergarten</category>
            
            <category> Grade 1</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Reading Fluency</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Phonological Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Phonemic Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Phonics</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531792</guid>
            <title>ED531792 - The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS) Program[R]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531792</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The "LeTUS" program is a three-year, project-based, technology-integrated middle school science curriculum for grades 6-8. The "LeTUS" program is composed of multiple units, each lasting between eight and ten weeks. Topics include global warming, water and air quality, force and motion, communicable diseases, and ecological systems. The units are designed around projects through which students learn science by conducting scientific investigations and using interactive computer software along with scientific visualization and graphing tools. Each unit stresses inquiry, student collaboration, and the use of computing and communications technologies. The sequence of units can be used in different ways, depending on standards and curriculum requirements; for example, teachers can use units at grade levels other than those suggested. Each unit can also be used independently when inserted into a different curricular context. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified five studies of "LeTUS" for middle school students that were published or released between 1990 and 2011. One study is within the scope of the Science review protocol but does not meet WWC evidence standards. This study uses a quasi-experimental design but does not establish that the comparison group was comparable to the treatment group prior to the start of the intervention. Two studies are out of the scope of the Science review protocol because they have an ineligible study design; they do not use a comparison group design. Two studies are out of the scope of the Science review protocol for reasons other than study design; they do not include an eligible science outcome. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 2 endnotes and 1 additional source.)      ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-05-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Middle Schools</category>
            
            <category> Urban Schools</category>
            
            <category> Science Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Educational Technology</category>
            
            <category> Technology Integration</category>
            
            <category> Active Learning</category>
            
            <category> Student Projects</category>
            
            <category> Computer Uses in Education</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531791</guid>
            <title>ED531791 - Technology Enhanced Elementary and Middle School Science (TEEMSS). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531791</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Technology Enhanced Elementary and Middle School Science" ("TEEMSS") is a physical science curriculum for grades 3-8 that utilizes computers, sensors, and interactive models to support investigations of real-world phenomena. Through 15 inquiry-based instructional units, students interact with computers, gather and analyze data, and formulate ideas for further exploration. This information is managed by software in a handheld computer and transmitted to other students and to the teacher. All classroom units use handheld computers to avoid the expense of networked desktop computers. The program includes a web-based teacher-reporting tool that allows teachers to review student portfolios and gather student responses for assessment and class discussion. Three studies reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) investigated the effects of "TEEMSS" on elementary school students. One study (Zucker, Tinker, Staudt, Mansfield, & Metcalf, 2008) is a quasi-experimental design that meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. This study is summarized in this report. The remaining two studies do not meet either WWC eligibility screens or evidence standards. Appended are: (1) Research details for Zucker et al. (2008); (2) Outcome measures for each domain; and (3) Findings included in the rating for the general science achievement domain. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 4 tables, 8 endnotes and 1 additional source.)                      ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-05-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Physical Sciences</category>
            
            <category> Science Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Inquiry</category>
            
            <category> Active Learning</category>
            
            <category> Computer Uses in Education</category>
            
            <category> Educational Technology</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade 3</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Science Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531793</guid>
            <title>ED531793 - Astronomy Resources for Intercurricular Elementary Science (ARIES): Exploring Motion and Forces. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531793</link>
            <description><![CDATA["ARIES: Exploring Motion and Forces" is a physical science curriculum for students in grades 5-8 that employs 18 inquiry-centered, hands-on lessons called "explorations." The curriculum draws upon students' curiosity to explore phenomena, allowing for a discovery-based learning process. Group-centered lab work is designed to help students build an understanding of inertia, friction, gravity, speed, and acceleration. Students examine their prior ideas about the phenomena, formulate questions, build and use an apparatus to observe natural phenomena, make predictions, and gather data through structured experiments. "Exploring Motion and Forces" is part of the "ARIES" sequence of eight physical science units. The "ARIES" sequences can be used together for an overall curriculum or independently. Two studies reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) investigated the effects of "ARIES: Exploring Motion and Forces" on middle school students. One study (Pyke, Lynch, Kuipers, Szesze, & Watson, 2004, 2005, 2006) is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards. The remaining study does not meet WWC evidence standards. Appended are: (1) Research details for Pyke et al., 2004; (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Findings included in the rating for the general science achievement domain; and (4) Subgroup findings for the general science achievement domain. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 4 tables, 11 endnotes and 3 additional sources.)      ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-05-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Elementary School Science</category>
            
            <category> Astronomy</category>
            
            <category> Physics</category>
            
            <category> Motion</category>
            
            <category> Inquiry</category>
            
            <category> Active Learning</category>
            
            <category> Hands on Science</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade 6</category>
            
            <category> Science Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED530840</guid>
            <title>ED530840 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Longitudinal Educational Growth Study Fifth Year Report"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED530840</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined the effectiveness of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), which provides vouchers for low-income students to attend private schools. The study examined the four-year academic achievement growth of more than 600 students who were given a voucher in the 2006-07 school year, compared to the academic achievement growth of a matched sample of students who had attended Milwaukee public schools. The study reported that students who began participating in the MPCP in the 2006-07 school year had statistically significantly higher reading achievement in the 2010-11 school year than comparison students, with an effect size of 0.15. There was no difference in math achievement. The study cannot "meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards" because it is not a randomized controlled trial. The study may be able to "meet WWC evidence standards with reservations" because the authors established that their quasi-experimental matching design resulted in equivalent groups of MPCP students and comparison students on test scores and demographic characteristics in 2006. However, because of a change in district policy in the final year that applied only to schools receiving voucher students, it is possible that the observed effects were not solely due to the MPCP. A more thorough review (forthcoming) will examine the issue further to determine the study rating. [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "MPCP Longitudinal Educational Growth Study: Fifth Year Report. SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report #29." To access this report, see ED530071.]           ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>School Choice</category>
            
            <category> Educational Vouchers</category>
            
            <category> Low Income Groups</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Private Schools</category>
            
            <category> Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Longitudinal Studies</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED530900</guid>
            <title>ED530900 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "An Evaluation of the Chicago Teacher Advancement Program (Chicago TAP)"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED530900</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether the Chicago Public Schools' Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), which provides mentoring, leadership opportunities, and financial incentives to teachers, improved student academic achievement and teacher retention. The study examined the academic achievement of more than 7,600 students in grades 4-8 from 34 schools in the Chicago Public School system. Implementation was staggered across all schools, with the schools randomly assigned to implement later serving as the comparison group for the analysis. The analysis of teacher retention was based on a matched sample of over 2,600 teachers in Chicago TAP and conventional public schools. The study reported that Chicago TAP did not have a statistically significant effect on student achievement in math, reading, and science, as measured by the Illinois Standards Achievement Test. The study reported some evidence of statistically significant positive impacts on teacher retention measured one, two, and three years after implementation of Chicago TAP for teachers in schools that were first to implement the program. This study used a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of Chicago TAP on student achievement scores. However, the authors did not clearly document student attrition or establish baseline equivalence of students. Similarly, the analysis of teacher retention is based on a quasi-experimental matching design where the authors did not clearly establish baseline equivalence of treatment and comparison groups. A more thorough review (forthcoming) will determine whether the student achievement analysis "meets WWC evidence standards" and whether the teacher retention analysis "meets WWC evidence standards with reservations." [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "An Evaluation of the Chicago Teacher Advancement Program (Chicago TAP) after Four Years. Final Report" (ED530098).]           ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Urban Schools</category>
            
            <category> Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Promotion</category>
            
            <category> Mentors</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Leadership</category>
            
            <category> Incentives</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Persistence</category>
            
            <category> Faculty Mobility</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531231</guid>
            <title>ED531231 - High School Puente Program. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531231</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. Interdisciplinary in approach, the program has three components: writing, counseling, and mentoring. Students in the ninth and tenth grades receive rigorous writing practice through college preparatory English classes. The curriculum includes Mexican-American/Latino and other multicultural literature. The counseling component of the "High School Puente Program" guides students in identifying career goals, developing short- and long-term education plans, and applying to four-year colleges. The mentoring component provides student leadership opportunities and structured mentoring activities with volunteers from the local community. The "High School Puente Program" is open to all students but is targeted to students from populations with low rates of enrollment at four-year colleges. Students are identified for the program at the end of eighth grade through an application and selection process. Each "High School Puente" site has an assigned academic counselor and an English teacher. These team members receive intensive initial training in program methodologies, along with ongoing training and support. In addition to "High School Puente", the Puente Program has a community college program model that does not fall within the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Adolescent Literacy review protocol. The WWC identified 27 studies of the High School Puente Program for adolescent learners that were published or released between 1989 and 2011. One study is within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol but does not meet WWC evidence standards. This study uses a quasi-experimental design but does not establish that the comparison group was comparable to the treatment group prior to the start of the intervention. Eight studies are out of the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol because they have an ineligible study design. Five studies do not use a comparison group design. Three studies are literature reviews or meta-analyses. Eighteen studies are out of the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol for reasons other than study design. Fourteen studies do not include students in grades 4-12. Three studies do not include an eligible literacy outcome. One study uses a sample that does not include at least 50% general education students. No studies of the High School Puente Program that fall within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy 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 the High School Puente Program on adolescent readers. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of this intervention. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 2 endnotes and 4 additional sources.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Disadvantaged Youth</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> College Preparation</category>
            
            <category> School Counseling</category>
            
            <category> Mentors</category>
            
            <category> English Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Writing Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Grade 9</category>
            
            <category> Grade 10</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531337</guid>
            <title>ED531337 - Milieu Teaching. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531337</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Milieu teaching" is a practice that involves manipulating or arranging stimuli in a preschool child's natural environment to create a setting that encourages them to engage in a targeted behavior. For example, a teacher might place a desirable toy in a setting to encourage a student to request that toy (where requesting a toy is the desired target behavior). One hundred sixty-one studies reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) investigated the effects of "milieu teaching" on preschool children with disabilities. One study (Yoder, Kaiser, & Alpert, 1991), is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards. That one study is summarized in this report. No studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 160 studies do not meet either WWC eligibility screens or evidence standards. Fourteen additional studies were reviewed against the pilot Single-Case Design standards. Two studies meet the pilot Single-Case Design standards, two studies meet the pilot Single-Case Design standards with reservations, and 10 did not meet pilot Single-Case Design standards. Studies reviewed against pilot Single-Case Design standards are listed in Appendix D and do not contribute to the intervention's rating of effectiveness. Appended are: (1) Summary of findings; (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Findings included in the rating for the communication/language competencies domain; and (4) Single-case design studies reviewed for this intervention. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 3 tables, 5 endnotes and 1 additional source.)    ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Preschool Education</category>
            
            <category> Behavior Modification</category>
            
            <category> Teaching Methods</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Developmental Delays</category>
            
            <category> English Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Language Skills</category>
            
            <category> Communication Skills</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531336</guid>
            <title>ED531336 - Play-Based Interventions. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531336</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Play-based interventions" are practices designed to improve socio-emotional, physical, language, and cognitive development through guided interactive play. During play sessions, an interventionist uses strategies including modeling, verbal redirection, reinforcement, and indirect instruction to sustain and encourage child play activities. Through the use of appropriate play materials and the direction of the interventionist, the goal is for young children with disabilities to be better able to explore, experiment, interact, and express themselves. "Play-based interventions" can be conducted across a variety of settings, including at school or at home, as one-on-one activities between an interventionist and a child, or in small group settings. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 62 studies of "play-based interventions" for preschool children with disabilities in early education settings that were published or released between 1989 and 2011. Three studies are within the scope of the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol and were reviewed for this intervention report. However, these studies do not meet WWC evidence standards. Two studies did not establish that the comparison group was comparable to the treatment group prior to the start of the intervention. One of these used a quasi-experimental design, and the other was a randomized controlled trial with high attrition. One study assigned only one unit to the treatment condition and one unit to the control condition, which makes it impossible to attribute the observed effect solely to the "play-based intervention". Twenty-one studies are out of the scope of the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol because they have an ineligible study design. Thirty-eight studies are out of the scope of the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol for reasons other than study design. Four additional studies (not included in the counts above) were reviewed using the pilot Single-Case Design standards. One study meets the pilot Single-Case Design standards, and three do not meet pilot Single-Case Design standards. Single-case design studies reviewed for this intervention (but not included in this intervention report) are appended. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 2 endnotes.)                ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Quasiexperimental Design</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Play</category>
            
            <category> Early Childhood Education</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Cognitive Development</category>
            
            <category> Young Children</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Treatment</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Child Language</category>
            
            <category> Reinforcement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED528940</guid>
            <title>ED528940 - Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED528940</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies" (PALS) is a peer-tutoring instructional program that supplements the primary reading curriculum. Pairs of students work together on reading activities intended to improve reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Students in the pairs--who alternately take on the roles of tutor and tutee--read aloud, listen to their partner read, and provide feedback during various structured activities. This report focuses on "Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies" reading programs for grades 2-6 and high school. Ninety-seven studies reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Adolescent Literacy topic area investigated the effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies. One study (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997) is a randomized controlled trial with randomization problems that meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 96 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Appended are: (1) Research details for Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons (1997); (2) Outcome measures for each domain; and (3) Findings included in the rating for comprehension domain. (Contains 3 tables and 12 endnotes.)    ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-01-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Peer Teaching</category>
            
            <category> Tutoring</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Reading Programs</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED528942</guid>
            <title>ED528942 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review of the Report "Transforming the High School Experience: How New York City's New Small Schools Are Boosting Student Achievement and Graduation Rates"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED528942</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Transforming the High School Experience: How New York City's New Small Schools Are Boosting Student Achievement and Graduation Rates" examined whether winning an admissions lottery for a small school of choice improved high school students' progress toward graduation and graduation rates. The study analyzed data on more than 21,000 students in New York City who participated in a ninth-grade admissions lottery for a small school of choice. Eighth-grade students who participated in lotteries during the 2004-05 through 2007-08 school years were followed through the 2008-09 school year, resulting in four years of follow-up data for the cohort in the 2004-05 lottery, three years for the cohort in the 2005-06 lottery, and so on. The study found that students who won an admissions lottery for a small school of choice showed the following statistically significant improvements in graduation prospects, relative to students who lost the same admissions lottery: After the first year of high school, lottery winners were more likely than members of the control group to be on track for graduation: 57.9% compared with 50.5%. After the second and third years of high school, lottery winners averaged 1.4 and 1.3 more credits toward graduation than control group members. Four years after their scheduled entry into ninth grade, 68.1% of lottery winners graduated compared with 63.8% of control group members. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has reservations about these results because carrying out the lotteries using the method described in the report may have resulted in nonrandom differences between the study groups. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Transforming the High School Experience: How New York City's New Small Schools Are Boosting Student Achievement and Graduation Rates." To access this report, see ED511106.]    ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-01-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Control Groups</category>
            
            <category> Small Schools</category>
            
            <category> High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Graduation Rate</category>
            
            <category> Graduation</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Credits</category>
            
            <category> Educational Experience</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> School Choice</category>
            
            <category> Admission (School)</category>
            
            <category> Urban Schools</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED528941</guid>
            <title>ED528941 - Odyssey Reading. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED528941</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Odyssey Reading," published by CompassLearning[R], is a web-based K-12 reading/language arts program designed to allow for instructional differentiation and data-driven decision making. The online program includes electronic curricula 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 instruction and assessment tools to track individual student and classroom performance. "Odyssey Reading" can be used as a stand-alone curriculum or as a supplement to other reading and language arts curricula. This report focuses on "Odyssey Reading" programs in grades 4 and higher. "Odyssey Reading" for students in grades 4-8 provides instruction in phonics, context, decoding, and comprehension. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 27 studies of "Odyssey Reading" for adolescent learners that were published or released between 1989 and 2011. No studies of "Odyssey Reading" that fall within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol 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 Reading" on adolescent learners. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of this intervention. (Contains 6 endnotes.)    ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-01-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Phonics</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Secondary Education</category>
            
            <category> Language Arts</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Decision Making</category>
            
            <category> Data</category>
            
            <category> Reading</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Individualized Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Decoding (Reading)</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Technology Uses in Education</category>
            
            <category> Reading Programs</category>
            
            <category> Teaching Methods</category>
            
            <category> Web Based Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Electronic Learning</category>
            
            <category> Standards</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529182</guid>
            <title>ED529182 - The Incredible Years. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529182</link>
            <description><![CDATA["The Incredible Years" is an intervention composed of training programs for children, parents, and teachers that is intended to reduce children's aggression and improve their social skills. The three programs (child, parent, and teacher) can be used independently or in combination. The child program focuses on building social and emotional skills for students in preschool through early elementary school. The child program can be delivered to children referred for difficult behavior or to an entire classroom as a preventive measure. This program can be offered in either a classroom or a clinical setting. In a classroom setting, the teacher presents 20- to 30-minute lessons two to three times a week during circle time. Alternately, the child program can be conducted as a pullout program for small groups of children. Lessons cover recognizing and understanding feelings, getting along with friends, anger management, problem solving, and behavior at school. In a clinical setting, referred students complete activities during 18-20 two-hour weekly small-group meetings. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 166 studies of "The Incredible Years" for preschool children with disabilities in early education settings that were published or released between 1989 and 2011. Three studies are within the scope of the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol but do not meet WWC evidence standards. One study was a randomized controlled trial in which the combination of overall and differential attrition exceeded WWC evidence standards. The resulting analytic intervention groups were too dissimilar at baseline to be considered equivalent. Therefore, this study did not meet WWC evidence standards. Two studies have the delivery of the intervention as a confounding factor, which makes it impossible to attribute the observed effect solely to "The Incredible Years." In one study, the author led all of the sessions for the intervention group and did not lead the control group sessions. In the second study, the intervention sessions were led by the same two-person team, while the control group sessions were led by different individuals. In both of these studies, reported program effects may be attributed to the individual(s) who delivered "The Incredible Years" rather than to the intervention itself. Seventy-two studies are out of the scope of the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol because they have an ineligible study design. Ninety-one studies are out of the scope of the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol for reasons other than study design. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 2 endnotes.)        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Early Childhood Education</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Child Behavior</category>
            
            <category> Interpersonal Competence</category>
            
            <category> Aggression</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529183</guid>
            <title>ED529183 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review of the Report "School-Based Early Childhood Education and Age-28 Well-Being: Effects by Timing, Dosage, and Subgroups"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529183</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined the effect of an early childhood education program on educational attainment by age 28. The study analyzed data from 900 individuals who completed the Child-Parent Center Education Program for preschool and kindergarten and 486 individuals from similar backgrounds who completed alternative kindergarten programs through the Chicago Effective Schools Project. Both groups completed kindergarten in 1986. The study found positive, statistically significant differences on four outcomes related to educational attainment. Intervention group members completed 0.27 years more schooling, on average, than comparison group members. In addition, intervention group members were more likely to complete high school (82% versus 75%), graduate on time from high school (44% versus 37%), and attend a four-year college than comparison group members (15% versus 11%). The study did not find statistically significant differences on ever attending college or receipt of a postsecondary degree. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has reservations about the results because individuals who attended the Child-Parent Center Education Program may have differed from individuals in the comparison group in ways not controlled for in the analysis. [The following study is the focus of this "Quick Review": Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S.-R., Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. B. (2011). "School-based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: Effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups." "Science Express". DOI:10.1126/science.1203618.]              ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Early Childhood Education</category>
            
            <category> Educational Attainment</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529184</guid>
            <title>ED529184 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review of the Report "Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings after the Second Year of Implementation"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529184</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether a professional development program for seventh grade mathematics teachers improved the teachers' knowledge of rational number topics and the performance of their students on a rational number test. Before the first year of the program, schools within districts were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that offered the professional development program in rational number topics to all seventh grade mathematics teachers or to a control group that did not offer the program. The study analyzed data collected at the end of the second year of implementation of the professional development program. Eighty-nine teachers and about 2,100 students from 39 schools in six largely urban school districts were included. An additional six school districts participated in a study of the first year of the program but were dropped from the study during the second year because of resource constraints. The study measured teacher knowledge and student achievement with rational numbers tests developed specifically for this study. It assessed the effectiveness of the professional development program by comparing outcomes of teachers and students at treatment schools with outcomes of teachers and students at control schools. The study found no statistically significant difference in teacher knowledge of rational numbers or student achievement between treatment and control schools. The research described in this report meets the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings after the Second Year of Implementation. NCEE 2011-4024" (ED519922).]        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Middle School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Grade 7</category>
            
            <category> Faculty Development</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Characteristics</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Urban Schools</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Numbers</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529431</guid>
            <title>ED529431 - ThinkerTools. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529431</link>
            <description><![CDATA["ThinkerTools" is a computer-based program that aims to develop students' understanding of physics and scientific modeling. The program is composed of two curricula for middle school students, "ThinkerTools Inquiry" and "Model-Enhanced ThinkerTools". "ThinkerTools Inquiry" allows students to explore the physics of motion and then asks them to apply that knowledge to solve real-world problems. In the "Model-Enhanced ThinkerTools" curriculum, students create computer models that express their own theories of force and motion. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified four studies of "ThinkerTools" for middle school students that were published or released between 1990 and 2011. Two studies are within the scope of the Science review protocol but do not meet WWC evidence standards. These quasi-experimental studies did not establish that the comparison group was comparable to the treatment group prior to the start of the intervention. Two studies are out of the scope of the Science review protocol because they have an ineligible study design. For the purposes of this report, the studies did not use a valid comparison group, as authors compared "Model-Enhanced ThinkerTools" to the prior curriculum version, "ThinkerTools Inquiry". A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 3 endnotes.)        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Physics</category>
            
            <category> Science Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Science Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529430</guid>
            <title>ED529430 - Chemistry That Applies. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529430</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Chemistry That Applies" is an instructional unit designed to help students in grades 8-10 understand the law of conservation of matter. It consists of 24 lessons organized in four clusters. Working in groups, students explore four chemical reactions: burning, rusting, the decomposition of water, and the reaction of baking soda and vinegar. As part of the unit, students conduct experiments in which they cause these reactions to happen, obtain and record data in individual notebooks, analyze the data, and use evidence-based arguments to explain the data. The instructional unit engages the students in a structured sequence of hands-on laboratory investigations interwoven with other forms of instruction. Two studies reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Science Topic Area investigated the effects of "Chemistry That Applies" on middle school students. One study (Pyke, Lynch, Kuipers, Szesze, & Driver, 2004), summarized in this report, is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards. The remaining study does not meet WWC eligibility screens. Appended are: (1) Summary of findings; (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Findings included in the rating for the general science achievement domain; and (4) Summary of subgroup findings for the general science achievement domain. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 3 tables and 9 endnotes.)        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Chemistry</category>
            
            <category> Science Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Units of Study</category>
            
            <category> Hands on Science</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529641</guid>
            <title>ED529641 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review of the Report "An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529641</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined the effect of a secondary school teacher training and coaching program on student achievement. Eighty-eight teachers were randomly assigned to either the My Teaching Partner-Secondary (MTP-S) group or the control group. Of these teachers, 76 participated in the study during the intervention year (when they received coaching) and 61 participated in the study during the post-intervention year (when they no longer received coaching). Data from two student cohorts were analyzed. The first cohort included about 1,300 students of the teachers who participated during the intervention year; the second cohort included about 1,000 students of the teachers who participated during the post-intervention year. Analyses of the intervention year did not find a statistically significant difference in achievement between students of MTP-S teachers and students of control group teachers. Analyses of the post-intervention year found that achievement among students of MTP-S teachers was significantly higher than among students of control group teachers. The effect size of 0.22 is roughly equivalent to an increase in student achievement from the 50th to the 59th percentile. However, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has reservations about these results, as unaccounted-for differences between the two groups of students may have existed before the intervention. The analyses based on the intervention year meet WWC evidence standards. The analyses based on the post-intervention year meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. (Contains 1 footnote.)            ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Inservice Teacher Education</category>
            
            <category> Coaching (Performance)</category>
            
            <category> Cohort Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529761</guid>
            <title>ED529761 - I CAN Learn[R]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529761</link>
            <description><![CDATA["I CAN Learn"[R] is a computer software system that provides math instruction through a series of interactive lessons. These lessons are delivered with a one-to-one student-to-computer ratio. Students determine the pace of each lesson and must demonstrate mastery of the lesson before progressing to the next one. Teachers provide individualized instruction to students on the basis of their performance on the lessons. The available "I CAN Learn"[R] curricula include fifth- to sixth-grade math, pre-algebra, algebra, and geometry. These curricula are aligned to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards and can be customized to meet state- or district-specific standards. Studies included in this What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) review assess the effectiveness of the pre-algebra and algebra components of "I CAN Learn"[R]. One study (Barrow, Markman, & Rouse, 2009) is a randomized controlled trial with high levels of attrition that meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. That study is summarized in this report. The remaining 10 studies do not meet either WWC eligibility screens or evidence standards. Appended are: (1) Research details for Barrow et al. (2009); (2) Outcome measures for each domain; and (3) Findings included in the rating for the math achievement domain. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 4 tables, 4 endnotes and 1 additional resource.)    ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Computer Software</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Algebra</category>
            
            <category> Individualized Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Education</category>
            
            <category> Geometry</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Tests</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Mathematics</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529860</guid>
            <title>ED529860 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529860</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined whether being taught by a teacher with a high "value-added" improves a student's long-term outcomes. The study analyzed more than 20 years of data for nearly one million fourth- through eighth-grade students in a large urban school district. The study reported that having a teacher with a higher level of value-added was associated with higher test scores, lower rates of teen pregnancy, higher probability of college attendance and college quality, higher earnings growth in their 20s, higher rates of saving for retirement, and higher neighborhood quality. The study is not a randomized controlled trial and, therefore, cannot receive the highest rating of meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. It used a quasi-experimental design, but did not clearly establish that students with and without high value-added teachers were similar before exposure to the teachers. Once the WWC conducts a more thorough review (forthcoming), it will be able to determine whether the study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. NBER Working Paper No. 17699" (ED528374).]            ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Urban Schools</category>
            
            <category> Quasiexperimental Design</category>
            
            <category> College Attendance</category>
            
            <category> Pregnancy</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Probability</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> School District Size</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Retirement</category>
            
            <category> Neighborhoods</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Adults</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Qualifications</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED529895</guid>
            <title>ED529895 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Gathering Feedback for Teachers: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED529895</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined five instruments used to assess the effectiveness of teacher practices based on classroom observations. The study first examined whether observers could reliably assess teachers with each instrument, and then examined how well each instrument, along with other information, predicted student achievement. The study reported that, in order to reliably assess a teacher using the instruments, it was necessary to combine scores from multiple lessons and observers. It also found that teachers' observation scores were positively related to their students' achievement test scores, particularly when the observation scores for teachers were combined with students' feedback on their classroom environments. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) only reviews studies that examine the impact of particular programs, policies, or practices on student outcomes. This study provides information on how to assess teacher practices reliably in the classroom and identifies some classroom observation tools that are correlated with student achievement. However, it does not examine the impacts on student outcomes associated with performance measures of teachers and, therefore, it is not eligible for review by the WWC. [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). "Gathering Feedback for Teachers: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains."]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Test Reviews</category>
            
            <category> Teaching Methods</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Observation</category>
            
            <category> Classroom Environment</category>
            
            <category> Test Reliability</category>
            
            <category> Feedback (Response)</category>
            
            <category> Student Surveys</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gains</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Measures (Individuals)</category>
            
            <category> Prediction</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED530009</guid>
            <title>ED530009 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED530009</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined the effect of non-profit charter-school management organizations (CMOs) on middle school academic achievement and rates of high school graduation and post-secondary enrollment. Within eight geographically diverse states, the authors matched each charter school student with similar students attending conventional public schools. The sample included nearly 14,000 students attending 68 middle schools operated by 22 CMOs and nearly 3,000 students who attended 13 high schools operated by six CMOs. The study reported that, on average, there were no statistically significant effects of attending a CMO-operated school on state assessments in math, reading, science, or social studies among middle school youth. There were also no statistically significant impacts on high school graduation and college enrollment rates. The study reported substantial variation in both the magnitude and level of statistical significance of the impacts across the participating CMOs. The study is not a randomized controlled trial and, therefore, cannot receive the highest rating of "meets WWC (What Works Clearinghouse) evidence standards". It used a quasi-experimental design, established that CMO and non-CMO students were similar on measured characteristics such as baseline test scores and demographics, and controlled for baseline characteristics of students in the analysis. A more thorough review (forthcoming) will confirm whether the study "meets WWC evidence standards with reservations". [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts. Updated Edition" (ED528536).]       ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Charter Schools</category>
            
            <category> Nonprofit Organizations</category>
            
            <category> School Administration</category>
            
            <category> Organizational Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Middle Schools</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Graduation Rate</category>
            
            <category> High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Enrollment</category>
            
            <category> Postsecondary Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED530022</guid>
            <title>ED530022 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Better Schools, Less Crime?"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED530022</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined the effect of public school choice on adult crime and school-based outcomes. Prior to the 2002-03 school year, the Charlotte-Mecklenberg school district switched from forced desegregation to a district-wide open enrollment lottery. This study focuses on more than 2,000 male students in grades 6-11 who participated in the subset of these admission lotteries in which the assignment process was random. By comparing the crime records of students who won a middle school lottery to those of students who did not, the study reported that the number of days incarcerated was significantly lower among lottery winners overall and for those in the top risk quintile. Among high school students, the number of felony arrests was significantly lower among lottery winners for those in the top risk quintile, but not across students overall. The study also reported small improvements in attendance and behavioral measures during school, but no change in test scores or graduation rates. This study "meets WWC (What Works Clearinghouse) evidence standards" because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition for the outcomes related to adult crime. There is not enough information for the analyses of school-based outcomes to provide a rating at this time. A more thorough review (forthcoming) will confirm whether the analyses of school-based outcomes also "meet WWC evidence standards".        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> School Choice</category>
            
            <category> Crime</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> School Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Males</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Student Behavior</category>
            
            <category> Attendance</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Graduation Rate</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED530141</guid>
            <title>ED530141 - First Step to Success. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED530141</link>
            <description><![CDATA["First Step to Success" is an early intervention program designed to help children who are at risk for developing aggressive or antisocial behavioral patterns. The program uses a trained behavior coach who works with each student and his or her class peers, teacher, and parents for approximately 50 to 60 hours over a three-month period. "First Step to Success" includes three interconnected modules: screening, classroom intervention, and parent training. The screening module is used to identify candidates who meet eligibility criteria for program participation. Classroom intervention and parent training comprise the program intervention component of "First Step to Success". Two studies of "First Step to Success" that fall within the scope of the Children Classified as Having an Emotional Disturbance review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards, and no studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The two studies included 243 children in kindergarten through third grade who attended schools in New Mexico and Oregon. Based on these two studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for "First Step to Success" on children classified with an emotional disturbance (or children at risk for classification) to be small for all domains examined in this report (external behavior, emotional/internal behavior, social outcomes, reading achievement/literacy, and other academic performance domains). Appended are: (1) Research details for Walker et al., 1998 and for Walker et al., 2009; (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Findings included in the rating for the external behavior domain, the emotional/internal behavior domain, the social outcomes domain, the the reading achievement/literacy domain, and the other academic performance domain; and (4) Single-Case Design studies reviewed for this intervention. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 21 tables, 15 endnotes and 3 additional resources.)    ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Early Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Behavior Modification</category>
            
            <category> Aggression</category>
            
            <category> Antisocial Behavior</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Emotional Disturbances</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Primary Education</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Student Behavior</category>
            
            <category> Interpersonal Competence</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED530206</guid>
            <title>ED530206 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Philadelphia's Renaissance Schools Initiative: 18 Month Interim Report"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED530206</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined the effectiveness of Philadelphia's Renaissance Schools Initiative after one year of implementation. The Renaissance Schools Initiative, which began in the 2010-11 school year, aimed at improving low-performing schools by providing new management, additional resources, and new educational strategies. The study reported that students in grade K-8 Renaissance Schools had higher math achievement, reading achievement, and attendance rates than students in comparison schools. This study does not meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards because the Renaissance schools and comparison schools did not have similar achievement levels in the year before the Renaissance Schools Initiative began. Therefore, any changes in student achievement or attendance cannot be attributed solely to the implementation of the Renaissance Schools Initiative.        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Educational Strategies</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Low Achievement</category>
            
            <category> School Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> School Administration</category>
            
            <category> Resources</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Education</category>
            
            <category> Attendance Patterns</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gains</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED530318</guid>
            <title>ED530318 - Project SEED. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED530318</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Project SEED" is a supplemental mathematics program for low-achieving students in grades 3 through 8 and is intended to prepare students to be successful in high school and college math. Based on the Socratic method, instruction is delivered through a series of questions to the class. In addition to individual responses, the instructor solicits group feedback through silent hand signals, chorus responses, and quick surveys of written work. The program is intended to encourage active student learning, develop critical thinking, and strengthen articulation skills. Student learning is assessed regularly, and instructors adapt the lessons to accommodate different ability levels. The curriculum, taught by mathematics specialists, includes topics from advanced mathematics, such as advanced algebra, pre-calculus, group theory, number theory, calculus, and geometry. "Project SEED" instruction is provided in addition to regular math instruction four times a week for 14 to 16 weeks. The program also provides professional development for classroom teachers through modeling, coaching, and workshops. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 16 studies of "Project SEED" for elementary school students that were published or released between 1988 and 2011. Eight studies are within the scope of the Elementary School Math review protocol but do not meet WWC evidence standards. Five of these studies use a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent prior to the start of the intervention. In the remaining three studies, "Project SEED" was offered through learning centers that provided a number of educational interventions in addition to "Project SEED". Therefore, measures of effectiveness in these studies cannot be attributed solely to "Project SEED". Eight studies are out of the scope of the Elementary School Math review protocol because they have an ineligible study design. Six of these studies do not include primary analysis of the effectiveness of "Project SEED". One study does not use a comparison group or single-case design. One study does not use a sample of elementary school students. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 2 endnotes and 1 additional resource.)              ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Feedback (Response)</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Quasiexperimental Design</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Number Concepts</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Low Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Faculty Development</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531296</guid>
            <title>ED531296 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review of the Report "Exercise Improves Executive Function and Achievement and Alters Brain Activation in Overweight Children: A Randomized, Controlled Trial"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531296</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether exercise offered to sedentary, overweight children ages 7 to 11 improved executive function--defined as strategy execution when presented with a novel task--and academic performance in reading and math. The study authors analyzed data on about 170 students from Georgia who were recruited in five cohorts from 2003 to 2006. Of all students who participated, 56% were female, and 61% were African American. Students in the study sample were assigned randomly to one of three treatments: a low-dose exercise program, a high-dose exercise program, or no program. The study found that students assigned to the high-dose exercise program had statistically significantly higher math achievement and executive function than students not in an exercise program. The What Works Clearinghouse's (WWC) calculations indicate the magnitude of the difference is approximately 0.30 standard deviations in math and 0.24 standard deviations in executive function, which is roughly equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 62nd  percentile in math and from the 50th to the 60th percentile in executive function. Reading achievement was not significantly different between students assigned to the high-dose exercise program and students assigned to no program. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in executive function or in reading and math achievement between students assigned to the low-dose exercise program and students assigned to no program. The research described in this report meets WWC evidence standards. (Contains 2 footnotes.)  [The following study is the focus of this "Quick Review": Davis, C. L., Tomporowski, P. D., McDowell, J. E., Austin, B. P., Miller, P. H., Yanasak, N. E., Allison, J. D., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). "Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: A randomized, controlled trial". "Health Psychology", 30(1), 91-98.]      ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Executive Function</category>
            
            <category> Obesity</category>
            
            <category> Exercise</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Brain</category>
            
            <category> Children</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED531480</guid>
            <title>ED531480 - What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: "Academic Music: Music Instruction to Engage Third-Grade Students in Learning Basic Fraction Concepts"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED531480</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined the effectiveness of an intervention designed to teach mathematical concepts through music. Specifically, it investigated the effect of the intervention on third-grade students' understanding of fractions. Sixty-seven students from one northern California elementary school participated in the study over a period of six weeks; of those, about half received both music instruction and mathematics instruction, while the other half received regular mathematics instruction. The study reported that students in the music intervention had greater understanding of fraction computation, but not fraction concepts, than students who did not receive the music intervention. The results reported in the paper are based on an analysis that "does not meet WWC (What Works Clearinghouse) evidence standards" because a required statistical adjustment for initial differences between the students who received the music intervention and those who did not was not included. The authors described an additional analysis which may have included the statistical adjustment, but the results of that analysis were not presented in the paper. A more thorough review (forthcoming) will examine whether this analysis may "meet WWC evidence standards with reservations." [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: Courey, S. J., Balough, E., Siker, J. R., & Paik, J. (2012). "Academic music: Music instruction to engage third-grade students in learning basic fraction concepts." "Educational Studies in Mathematics," 1-28. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9395-9.]    ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2012-00-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Music Education</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Mathematical Concepts</category>
            
            <category> Grade 3</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED521414</guid>
            <title>ED521414 - Great Books. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED521414</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Great Books" is a program that aims to improve the reading, writing, and critical thinking skills of students in kindergarten through high school. The program is implemented as a core or complementary curriculum and is based on the Shared Inquiry[TM] method of learning. The purpose of "Great Books" is to engage students in higher-order thinking and collaborative problem solving. It involves teachers focusing discussion on the interpretation of a text and students participating as partners in these discussions. No studies of "Great Books" that fall within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy 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 "Great Books" on adolescent learners. (Contains 5 footnotes.)  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Reading Programs</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Critical Thinking</category>
            
            <category> Thinking Skills</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED521930</guid>
            <title>ED521930 - Accelerated Math[TM]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED521930</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Accelerated Math"[TM], published by Renaissance Learning, is a software tool used to customize assignments and monitor progress in math for students in grades 1-12. The "Accelerated Math"[TM] software creates individualized assignments aligned with state standards and national guidelines, scores student work, and generates reports on student progress. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified four studies of "Accelerated Math"[TM] for high school students that were published or released between January 1988 and October 2010. No studies of "Accelerated Math"[TM] that fall within the scope of the High School Math 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 "Accelerated Math"[TM] on high school students. (Contains 3 footnotes.)            ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Computer Software</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED521929</guid>
            <title>ED521929 - University of Chicago School Mathematics Project 6-12 Curriculum. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED521929</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The "University of Chicago School Mathematics Project ("UCSMP") 6-12 Curriculum" is a series of yearlong courses--(1) Transition Mathematics; (2) Algebra; (3) Geometry; (4) Advanced Algebra; (5) Functions, Statistics, and Trigonometry; and (6) Precalculus and Discrete Mathematics--emphasizing problem solving, real-world applications, and the use of technology. The program is designed to allow schools to offer the appropriate math to students regardless of grade level. Beginning with the Algebra course, technology is used in the classroom to aid in the development of properties and skills, and graphing calculators are used to complete assignments at all levels. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) High School Math topic area reviewed 20 studies on the "UCSMP". Two of these studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 18 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the two studies, the WWC found potentially positive effects in math achievement for high school students. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Appended are: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures for the math achievement domain; (3) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the math achievement domain; (4) "UCSMP" rating for the math achievement domain; and (5) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 9 footnotes.)    ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Secondary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED525365</guid>
            <title>ED525365 - Coping Power. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED525365</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Coping Power" is based on the earlier "Anger Coping Power" program. It emphasizes social and emotional skills that are needed during the transition to middle school. The program incorporates child and parent components. The child component consists of thirty-four 50-minute group sessions and periodic individual sessions over the course of 15-18 months, although the program can be shortened to fit into a single school year. Lessons focus on goal setting, problem solving, anger management, and peer relationships. The parent component is composed of 16 group sessions and periodic individual meetings. Lessons support the child component of the program and address setting expectations, praise, discipline, managing stress, communication, and child study skills. Three studies of "Coping Power" that fall within the scope of the Children Classified as Having an Emotional Disturbance review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The three studies included 650 students who were at high risk for delinquent and/or aggressive behavior from grades 4 and 5 in Alabama and North Carolina. Based on these three studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for "Coping Power" on children classified as having an emotional disturbance (or children at risk for classification) to be medium to large for external behavior and small for social outcomes. The three studies that meet WWC evidence standards did not examine the effectiveness of "Coping Power" on children classified with an emotional disturbance in the emotional/internal behavior, reading achievement/literacy, math achievement, school attendance, or other academic performance domains. "Coping Power" was found to have positive effects on external behavior and potentially positive effects on social  outcomes for children classified with an emotional disturbance. Twenty-three studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of "Coping Power" on children classified as having an emotional disturbance (or children at risk for classification). Three studies (Lochman et al., 2009; Lochman, Boxmeyer, Powell, Roth, & Windle, 2006; Lochman & Wells, 2004) are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC evidence standards. The remaining 20 studies do not meet WWC eligibility screens or WWC evidence standards. Appended are: (1) Research details for Lochman et al., 2009; (2) Research details for Lochman et al., 2006; (3) Research details for Lochman and Wells (2004); (4) Outcome measures for each domain; (5) Findings included in the rating for the external behavior domain; (6) Findings included in the rating for the social outcomes domain; (7) Summary of other treatment group findings for the external behavior domain; (8) Summary of other treatment group findings for the social outcomes domain; (9) Glossary of terms and criteria for study rating, effectiveness rating, and extent of evidence; (10) Criteria used to determine the rating of a study; (11) Criteria used to determine the rating of effectiveness for an intervention; and (12) Criteria used to determine the extent of evidence for an intervention. (Contains 8 tables and 22 endnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Aggression</category>
            
            <category> Emotional Disturbances</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Attendance</category>
            
            <category> Criteria</category>
            
            <category> Goal Orientation</category>
            
            <category> Coping</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Standards</category>
            
            <category> Parents</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Parent Participation</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Psychological Patterns</category>
            
            <category> Peer Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Expectation</category>
            
            <category> Stress Management</category>
            
            <category> Student Behavior</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED525366</guid>
            <title>ED525366 - Check &amp; Connect. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED525366</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Check & Connect" is designed to promote students' engagement with school and learning. Students may be referred to the program if they exhibit academic, emotional, or behavioral warning signs. "Check & Connect" is implemented by a monitor, who is a combination of a student mentor, an advocate, and a service coordinator. The monitor's primary goal is to keep education a salient issue for disengaged students and their teachers and family. Student levels of engagement (such as attendance, grades, and suspensions) are "checked" regularly and used to guide the monitors' efforts to increase and maintain the students' "connection" with school. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 25 studies of "Check & Connect" for children classified as having an emotional disturbance that were published or released between 1989 and 2011. No studies of "Check & Connect" that fall within the scope of the Children Classified as Having an Emotional Disturbance review protocol 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 "Check & Connect" on children classified as having an emotional disturbance or students at risk for classification. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of this intervention. A glossary of terms and criteria for study rating, effectiveness rating, and extent of evidence is included. (Contains 2 endnotes.)                      ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Emotional Disturbances</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Standards</category>
            
            <category> Learner Engagement</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED526132</guid>
            <title>ED526132 - Student Team Reading and Writing. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED526132</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Student team reading and writing" refers to two cooperative learning programs for secondary students included in this intervention report: (1) "Student Team Reading and Writing" and (2) Student Team Reading. The "Student Team Reading and Writing" program (Stevens, 2003) is an integrated approach to reading and language arts for early adolescents. The program incorporates (1) cooperative learning classroom processes; (2) a literature anthology for high-interest reading material; (3) explicit instruction in reading comprehension; (4) integrated reading, writing, and language arts instruction; and (5) a writing process approach to language arts. "Student Team Reading (Stevens, 1989; Stevens & Durkin, 1992) comprises the reading part of Student Team Reading and Writing" and consists of two principal elements: (1) literature-related activities (including partner reading, treasure hunts, word mastery, story retelling, story-related writing, and quizzes) and (2) direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies (such as identifying main ideas and themes, drawing conclusions, making predictions, and understanding figurative language). The writing part of the "Student Team Reading and Writing" program includes selection-related writing. As part of the two programs that are the focus of this report, students work in heterogeneous learning teams, and activities are designed to follow  a regular cycle that involves teacher presentation, team practice, independent practice, peer pre-assessment, and individual assessments that form the basis for team scores. The cooperative learning teams used in the programs are intended to engage students in academic interactions. Two studies of student team reading and writing that fall within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards with reservations. The two studies included more than 5,200 adolescent learners from grades 6 through 8 in urban middle schools in the eastern United States. Based on these two studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for student team reading and writing on adolescent learners to be medium to large for the comprehension domain and small for the general literacy achievement domain. The two studies that meet WWC evidence standards with reservations did not examine the effectiveness of student team reading and writing on adolescent learners in the alphabetics and reading fluency domains. Student team reading and writing was found to have potentially positive effects on comprehension and no discernible effects on general literacy achievement for adolescent learners. Appended are: (1) Research details for Stevens (2003); (2) Research details for Stevens & Durkin (1992); (3) Summary of findings; (4) Outcome measures for each domain; (5) Findings included in the rating for the comprehension domain; (6) Findings included in the rating for the general literacy achievement domain; (7) Criteria used to determine the rating of a study; (8) Criteria used to determine the rating of effectiveness for an intervention; and (9) Criteria used to determine the extent of evidence for an intervention.   [The following study that met WWC evidence standards with reservations was reviewed in this intervention report: Stevens, R. J. (2003). "Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to middle school literacy instruction." Educational Research and Evaluation, v9 n2 p137-160.] (Contains 4 tables and 5 endnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-11-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Writing Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Cooperative Learning</category>
            
            <category> Teamwork</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Urban Schools</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED526133</guid>
            <title>ED526133 - The Incredible Years. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED526133</link>
            <description><![CDATA["The Incredible Years" is composed of training programs for children, parents, and teachers. The child program is designed for children (ages 0-12) with challenging behaviors and focuses on building social and emotional skills. Lessons can be delivered to children referred for difficult behavior or to an entire classroom as a preventative measure. The program consists of 20- to 30-minute lessons two to three times a week; these lessons are reinforced by small-group activities, practicing skills throughout the day, and communicating with parents. Lessons cover recognizing and understanding feelings, getting along with friends, anger management, problem solving, and behavior at school. Parent training programs focus on positive discipline, promoting learning and development, and involvement in children's life at school. One study of "The Incredible Years" that falls within the scope of the Children Classified as Having an Emotional Disturbance review protocol meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. This one study included 51 four- to eight-year-old children with oppositional defiant disorder who attended school in Washington state. Based on this one study, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for The Incredible Years on children classified as having an emotional disturbance (or children at risk for classification) to be small for the external behavior and social outcomes domains. "The Incredible Years" was found to have potentially positive effects on external behavior and potentially positive effects on social outcomes for children classified as having an emotional disturbance. Appended are: (1) Research details for Webster-Stratton et al., 2004; (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Findings included in the rating for the external behavior domain; (4) Findings included in the rating for the social outcomes domain; (5) Partial implementation findings for the external behavior domain; (6) Partial implementation findings for the social outcomes domain; (7) Criteria used to determine the rating of a study; and (8) Criteria used to determine the extent of evidence for an intervention. [The following study is reviewed in this intervention report: Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2004). "Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: Intervention outcomes for parent, child, and teacher training." Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, v33 n1 105-124.] (Contains 4 tables, 8 endnotes, 1 additional source, and 1 recommended citation.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-11-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Child Behavior</category>
            
            <category> Behavior Modification</category>
            
            <category> Training</category>
            
            <category> Children</category>
            
            <category> Emotional Disturbances</category>
            
            <category> Interpersonal Competence</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED524674</guid>
            <title>ED524674 - WWC Quick Review of the Report: "Charter School Performance in Indiana"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED524674</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study featured in this What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Quick Review examined the effect of charter school attendance on annual student achievement growth in math and reading. The study analyzed data from a large sample of students in grades 4 through 9 in Indiana from 2004 to 2008. The study found that charter school students' annual math score growth was 0.07 standard deviations higher, and that their annual reading test score growth was 0.05 standard deviations higher, than a group of similar students attending traditional public schools. These differences were statistically significant, and the WWC interprets them as roughly equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 53rd percentile in math and from the 50th to the 52nd percentile in reading. The study also found that, in general, charter school students with reading and math scores in the bottom half of the achievement distribution the previous year had significantly higher gains than their comparison counterparts. The research described in this report meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. (Contains 2 footnotes.) [The following study is the focus of this "Quick Review": "Charter School Performance in Indiana."]        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-09-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Charter Schools</category>
            
            <category> Reading Tests</category>
            
            <category> Attendance</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Tests</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gains</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED527096</guid>
            <title>ED527096 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "The Effectiveness of a Program to Accelerate Vocabulary Development in Kindergarten"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED527096</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether exposure to Kindergarten PAVEd for Success, a vocabulary instruction program, improved expressive vocabulary of kindergartners. The study analyzed data for nearly 1,300 kindergarten students in 64 schools serving predominantly rural and high poverty youth in the Mississippi Delta region and surrounding areas. Kindergarten students in schools using Kindergarten PAVEd for Success as a supplement to regular literacy instruction performed better than kindergarten students in control schools on expressive vocabulary. The estimated effect size was 0.14, a statistically significant result. The authors reported that students who received Kindergarten PAVEd for Success instruction were one month ahead in vocabulary development at the end of kindergarten compared with students in the control group. The research described in this report meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. (Contains 2 footnotes.) [The following study is the focus of this "Quick Review": Goodson, B., Wolf, A., Bell, S., Turner, H., & Finney, P. B. (2010). "The effectiveness of a program to accelerate vocabulary development in kindergarten" (ED512900).]        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-12-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Control Groups</category>
            
            <category> Vocabulary</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Kindergarten</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Vocabulary Development</category>
            
            <category> Low Income Groups</category>
            
            <category> Young Children</category>
            
            <category> Expressive Language</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Literacy Education</category>
            
            <category> Effect Size</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED521113</guid>
            <title>ED521113 - WWC Quick Review of "Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED521113</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether using the retrieval-practice studying technique--in which students alternate between reading a passage and writing memorable information from that passage--improved student learning of a science passage more than the study-once, repeated-study, or concept-mapping techniques. The study found that students using the retrieval-practice technique scored significantly higher than students using the study-once, repeated-study, and concept-mapping techniques. The average percent of correct test questions for each group was 67% for retrieval practice, 27% for study once, 49% for repeated study, and 45% for concept mapping. The research described in this report meets the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. [The following study is the focus of this "Quick Review": Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). "Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping." "Science," 331, 772-775.]        ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Study Skills</category>
            
            <category> Concept Mapping</category>
            
            <category> Undergraduate Students</category>
            
            <category> Learning</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED518026</guid>
            <title>ED518026 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "Teacher Pay for Performance: Experimental Evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED518026</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether offering financial incentives to teachers of fifth- through eighth-grade math students improved their students' achievement on the math section of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program. The study took place in the Metropolitan Nashville Public School District during the 2006-07 through 2008-09 school years. It analyzed data on about 24,000 students of 300 teachers who volunteered to participate in the study and received a stipend for doing so. Overall, the study found that students with math teachers who were offered the financial incentives exhibited math achievement growth that was no better or worse than students with teachers who were not offered the financial incentives. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) does not consider these results to be conclusive because the groups of students compared may have differed before the intervention. The research described in this report does not meet WWC evidence standards. (Contains 2 footnotes.) [The following study is the focus of this "Quick Review": Springer, M. G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V., Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D., Pepper, M., & Stecher, B. (2010). "Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching." Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University (ED513347).]          ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Evidence</category>
            
            <category> Incentives</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Merit Pay</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Salaries</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gains</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Standards</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED518282</guid>
            <title>ED518282 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "Achievement Effects of Four Early Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings for First and Second Graders"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED518282</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined the relative effectiveness of four early elementary school math curricula: Investigations in Number, Data, and Space; Math Expressions; Saxon Math; and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. The study analyzed data on more than 8,000 first- and second-grade students in 110 schools in 12 districts in 10 states. In each of the participating school districts, schools were randomly assigned to use one of the four curricula. A random sample of approximately 10 students per classroom was included in the analysis. The study measured the relative effects of the four curricula by comparing end-of-year test scores on a nationally normed math assessment developed for the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten (ECLS-K) for first graders and on a similar assessment adapted for this study for second graders. For first graders, the authors found no statistically significant differences in student math achievement among the curricula after adjusting results for multiple curricula comparisons within the same analysis. For second graders, one difference was statistically significant after taking multiple curricula comparisons into account. Second-grade students attending Saxon Math schools scored 0.17 standard deviations higher than students attending Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics schools, roughly equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 57th percentile in math achievement. The research described in this report meets WWC evidence standards. This was a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. [The following study is reviewed in this intervention report: Agodini, R., Harris, B., Thomas, M., Murphy, R., Gallagher, L., & Pendleton, A. (2010). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: Findings for first and second graders (NCEE 2011-4001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. A copy of this study can be accessed at ED512551. An earlier report in this series focused on one cohort of first graders: "Achievement effects of four elementary school math curricula: Findings from first graders in 39 schools (NCEE 2009-4052)." This report may be found at ED504418.]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Grade 2</category>
            
            <category> Grade 1</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Education</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED515877</guid>
            <title>ED515877 - Saxon Math. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED515877</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Saxon Math" is a textbook series covering grades K-12 based on incremental development and continual review of mathematical concepts to give students time to learn and practice concepts throughout the year. A distinguishing feature of "Saxon Math" is its use of a distributed approach--spreading practice and instruction for any single math content strand across the course of the entire instructional year--as opposed to a chapter-based approach for instruction and assessment. The program is built on the premise that students learn best when instruction is incremental and explicit, previously learned concepts are continually reviewed, and assessment is frequent and cumulative. At each grade level, math concepts are introduced, reviewed, and practiced over time in order to move students from understanding to fluency. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) High School Math topic area reviewed eight studies on "Saxon Math". One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining seven studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the one study, the WWC found no discernible effects on math achievement for high school students. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Appendices include: (1) Study characteristics: Abrams, 1989; (2) Outcome measures for the math achievement domain; (3) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the math achievement domain; (4) Summary of subtest findings for the math achievement domain; (5) "Saxon Math" rating for the math achievement domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 6 footnotes.)      ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2011-02-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Elementary Secondary Education</category>
            
            <category> Textbooks</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Mathematical Concepts</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Algebra</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511609</guid>
            <title>ED511609 - Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition[R]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511609</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition"[R] is a reading and writing program for students in grades 2 through 6. It has three principal elements: story-related activities, direct instruction in reading comprehension, and integrated language arts/writing. Daily lessons provide students with an opportunity to practice comprehension and reading skills in pairs and small groups. Pairs of students read to each other; predict how stories will end; summarize stories; write responses to questions posed by the teacher; and practice spelling, decoding, and vocabulary. Within cooperative teams of four, students work to understand the main idea of a story and work through the writing activities linked to the story. A Spanish version of the program is available for grades 2 through 5. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 52 studies of "Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition"[R] for adolescent learners. Two studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 50 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on these studies, the WWC found potentially positive effects on comprehension and general literacy achievement for adolescent learners. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Appendices include: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures; (3) Summary of study findings included in the ratings; (4) Summary of one-year implementation findings; (5) "Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition"[R] ratings; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 10 footnotes.)  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Writing Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Direct Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Integrated Activities</category>
            
            <category> Cooperative Learning</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Group Activities</category>
            
            <category> Story Reading</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511606</guid>
            <title>ED511606 - Ladders to Literacy. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511606</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Ladders to Literacy" is a supplemental early literacy curriculum composed of more than 70 activities designed to develop children's print/book awareness, metalinguistic awareness, and oral language skills. The curriculum, published in the book "Ladders to Literacy: A Preschool Activity Book, Second Edition," can be used in a variety of early childhood settings and provides guidance on how teachers can adapt the activities for children with special needs. The activities are intended as models or suggestions that teachers can adopt within an existing curriculum. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed eight studies on "Ladders to Literacy" for preschool children. One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards; one study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations; and the remaining six studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the two studies, the WWC found potentially negative effects on oral language and no discernible effects on print knowledge, phonological processing, and math for preschool children. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Appendices include: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures; (3) Summary of study findings included in the ratings; (4) Summary of follow-up findings; (5) "Ladders to Literacy" ratings; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 7 footnotes.)  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Emergent Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Oral Language</category>
            
            <category> Language Skills</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Metalinguistics</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511596</guid>
            <title>ED511596 - Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor[R] Software. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511596</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The combination of "Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor[R] Software" merges algebra textbooks with interactive software developed around an artificial intelligence model that identifies strengths and weaknesses in an individual student's mastery of mathematical concepts. The software customizes prompts to focus on areas in which the student is struggling and routes the student to problems that address those specific concepts. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 24 studies on "Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor[R] Software" for high school students. Two of these studies meet WWC evidence standards; two studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 20 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the four studies, the WWC found no discernible effects on mathematics achievement for high school students. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Appendices include: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures for the mathematics achievement domain; (3) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the mathematics achievement domain; (4) Summary of subscale findings for the mathematics achievement domain; (5) "Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor[R] Software" rating for the mathematics achievement domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 7 footnotes.)  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Computer Software</category>
            
            <category> Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Algebra</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Textbooks</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Mathematical Concepts</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511592</guid>
            <title>ED511592 - Fast ForWord[R]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511592</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Fast ForWord"[R] is a computer-based reading program intended to help students develop and strengthen the cognitive skills necessary for successful reading and learning. The program, which is designed to be used 30 to 100 minutes a day, five days a week, for 4 to 16 weeks, includes two components. The first component aims to build cognitive skills such as memory, attention, processing, and sequencing, as well as language and reading skills, including listening accuracy, phonological awareness, and knowledge of language structures. The second component aims to increase processing efficiency and further improve reading skills such as sound-letter associations, phonological awareness, word recognition, knowledge of English language conventions, vocabulary, and comprehension. The program, developed by scientists with expertise in the areas of brain plasticity, cognitive development, and reading instruction, is designed to adapt the nature and difficulty of the content based on individual students' responses. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 305 studies on "Fast ForWord"[R] for adolescent learners. Two of these studies meet WWC evidence standards; six studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 297 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the eight studies, the WWC found no discernible effects in the alphabetics and general literacy achievement domains, and potentially positive effects in the reading fluency and comprehension domains for adolescent learners. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Appendices include: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures; (3) Summary of study findings; (4) Summary of subgroup findings; (5) "Fast ForWord"[R] ratings; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 14 footnotes.)  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Computer Assisted Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Reading Programs</category>
            
            <category> Reading Fluency</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Phonemic Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Phonological Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>
            
            <category> Foreign Countries</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Students</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511491</guid>
            <title>ED511491 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "Financial Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from Randomized Trials"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511491</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examined the effect of financial incentives on student achievement. The study analyzed data on approximately 38,000 students from about 260 public schools in Chicago, Dallas, New York City, and Washington, DC. The study found no statistically significant effects on standardized math or reading outcomes in Chicago, New York City, or Washington, DC. The research described in this report is consistent with WWC evidence standards. This was a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. Although no schools were dropped from the analysis, it is unclear how many students left the schools over the course of the study. If attrition was high, any observed differences between the groups may have resulted from the types of students remaining in each group. [The following study is reviewed in this quick review: Fryer, R. G. (2010). "Financial incentives and student achievement: Evidence from randomized trials" (NBER Working Paper 15898). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. This report may be found at ED509178.]  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Incentives</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Research Methodology</category>
            
            <category> Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> Student Attrition</category>
            
            <category> Statistical Significance</category>
            
            <category> Standards</category>
            
            <category> Reading Tests</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Tests</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511483</guid>
            <title>ED511483 - Lovaas Model of Applied Behavior Analysis. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511483</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The "Lovaas Model of Applied Behavior Analysis" is a type of behavioral therapy that initially focuses on discrete trials: brief periods of one-on-one instruction, during which a teacher cues a behavior, prompts the appropriate response, and provides reinforcement to the child. Children in the program receive an average of 35 to 40 hours of intervention per week, which consists of in-home one-to-one instruction, facilitated peer play, inclusion and support in regular education classrooms, and generalization activities for transfer of skills to natural environments. In addition, parents are trained in instructional techniques. The intervention generally lasts about three years. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 58 studies on the "Lovaas Model" for children with disabilities. One study meets WWC evidence standards; one study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 56 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on the two studies, the WWC found potentially positive effects on cognitive development for children with disabilities and no discernible effects on communication/language competencies, social-emotional development/behavior, and functional abilities. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Appendices include: (1) Study characteristics; (2) Outcome measures; (3) Summary of study findings included in the ratings; (4) "Lovaas Model" ratings; and (5) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 12 footnotes.)      ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Emotional Development</category>
            
            <category> Cognitive Development</category>
            
            <category> Behavior Modification</category>
            
            <category> Behavioral Science Research</category>
            
            <category> Early Childhood Education</category>
            
            <category> Effect Size</category>
            
            <category> Statistical Significance</category>
            
            <category> Social Development</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Well Being</category>
            
            <category> Language Acquisition</category>
            
            <category> Functional Behavioral Assessment</category>
            
            <category> Mathematical Aptitude</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511482</guid>
            <title>ED511482 - WWC Quick Review of the Report "Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings after the First Year of Implementation"</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511482</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examined whether 7th-graders' knowledge of rational numbers improved when the students' math teachers participated in related professional development activities. The study analyzed data on about 4,500 students and 200 teachers from approximately 80 schools in 12 districts during the 2007-08 academic year. The study found that students in schools where teachers were offered extensive professional development by the study performed no better on a test of math achievement in rational numbers than students in comparison schools at the end of the 2007-08 academic year. However, the study found a significant positive impact of the professional development on one of the three measures of teacher instructional practices examined. Teachers who were offered the study's extensive professional development engaged in 1.03 more activities per hour that elicited student thinking than teachers not offered the study's professional development. The research described in this report is consistent with What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The study was a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. [The following study is reviewed in this quick review: Garet, M., Wayne, A., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Walters, K., Song, M., et al. Doolittle, F. (2010). "Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings after the first year of implementation" (NCEE 2010-4009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. This report may be found at ED509306.]  ]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Middle School Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade 7</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Numbers</category>
            
            <category> Middle School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Professional Development</category>
            
            <category> Inservice Teacher Education</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511269</guid>
            <title>ED511269 - Reading Mastery. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511269</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Reading Mastery," one of several curriculum components that constitute the "Direct Instruction" curriculum from SRA/McGraw-Hill, is designed to provide systematic instruction in reading to students in grades K-6. "Reading Mastery," which can be used as an intervention program for struggling readers, as a supplement to a school's core reading program, or as a stand-alone reading program, is available in three versions: (1) "Reading Mastery Classic" (for use in grades pre-K-3); (2) "Reading Mastery Plus" (for grades K-6); and (3) "Reading Mastery Signature Edition" (for use in grades K-5). During the implementation of "Reading Mastery," students are grouped with other students at a similar reading level, based on program placement tests. The program includes a continuous monitoring component. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed 175 studies on "Reading Mastery" for adolescent learners. One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards, and one study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 173 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on these studies, the WWC found potentially positive effects on reading fluency and no discernible effects on comprehension for adolescent learners. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges. Appendices include: (1) Study characteristics of Stockard, 2010 and Yu & Rachor, 2000; (2) Outcome measures for the reading fluency domain and the comprehension domain; (3) Summary of study findings included in the ratings for the reading fluency domain and the comprehension domain; (4) Summary of one-year implementation findings for the comprehension domain; (5) "Reading Mastery" ratings for the reading fluency domain and the comprehension domain; and (6) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 10 footnotes.) [For the 2008 report, see ED502619.]]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Reading</category>
            
            <category> Reading Programs</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Student Placement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Tests</category>
            
            <category> Direct Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Reading Difficulties</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Education</category>
            
            <category> Program Implementation</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Grouping (Instructional Purposes)</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Reading Fluency</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Reading Research</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Beginning Reading</category>
            
            <category> Phonemic Awareness</category>
            
            <category> Vocabulary Development</category>
            
            <category> Teaching Methods</category>
            
            <category> Reading Skills</category>
            
            <category> Decoding (Reading)</category>
            
            <category> Word Recognition</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED511268</guid>
            <title>ED511268 - Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511268</link>
            <description><![CDATA["Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction" is a reading comprehension instructional program for grades 3-9 that integrates reading and science through activities and the use of science books during reading instruction. The program supplements a school's standard science and reading curricula and offers instruction in reading strategies, scientific concepts, and inquiry skills. "Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction" intends to improve reading comprehension and increase reading engagement. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 48 studies of "Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction" for adolescent learners that were published or released between 1989 and 2009. However, no studies of "Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction" that fall within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy 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 "Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction" on adolescent learners. (Contains 6 footnotes.)]]></description>
            <author></author>
            <pubDate>2010-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Science Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Reading Comprehension</category>
            
            <category> Content Area Reading</category>
            
            <category> Reading Strategies</category>
            
            <category> Learner Engagement</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>
    
    </channel>
</rss>

