Your search found 530281 results.

Descriptors:
Academically Gifted; Psychological Patterns; Teaching Experience; Foreign Countries; Birth Order; Measures (Individuals); Correlation; Comparative Analysis; Social Characteristics; Emotional Response; Self Concept; Acceleration (Education); Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education; Children; Adolescents; Young Adults

Abstract:
Background: In the studies of acceleration conducted so far a multidimensional perspective has largely been neglected. No attempt has been made to relate social-emotional characteristics of accelerated versus non-accelerated students in perspective of environmental factors. Aims: In this study, social-emotional characteristics of accelerated gifted students in the Netherlands were examined in relation to personal and environmental factors. Samples: Self-concept and social contacts of accelerated (n = 148) and non-accelerated (n = 55) gifted students, aged 4 to 27 (M = 11.22, SD = 4.27) were measured. Method: Self-concept and social contacts of accelerated and non-accelerated gifted students were measured using a questionnaire and a diary, and parents of these students evaluated their behavioural characteristics. Gender and birth order were studied as personal factors and grade, classroom, teachers' gender, teaching experience, and the quality of parent-school contact as environmental factors. Results: The results showed minimal differences in the social-emotional characteristics of accelerated and non-accelerated gifted students. The few differences we found favoured the accelerated students. We also found that multiple grade skipping does not have negative effects on social-emotional characteristics, and that long-term effects of acceleration tend to be positive. As regards the possible modulation of personal and environmental factors, we merely found an impact of such factors in the non-accelerated group. Conclusions: The results of this study strongly suggest that social-emotional characteristics of accelerated gifted students and non-accelerated gifted students are largely similar. These results thus do not support worries expressed by teachers about the acceleration of gifted students. Our findings parallel the outcomes of earlier studies in the United States and Germany in that we observed that acceleration does not harm gifted students, not even in the case of multiple grade skipping. On the contrary, there is a suggestion in the data that accelerated students are more socially competent than non-accelerated students. The findings in this study can reassure those parents and teachers who worry about the social-emotional consequences of acceleration in school: If a student is gifted, acceleration seems to be a sound and, in many cases, appropriate measure in gifted education. (Contains 3 footnotes and 8 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academically Gifted; Educational Objectives; Outcomes of Education; Identification; Global Approach; Student Evaluation; Theories; Intelligence; Measures (Individuals); Academic Ability; Ability Identification; Tests; Foreign Countries; Elementary Secondary Education; Primary Education; Secondary Education; Comparative Analysis

Abstract:
The current need to think globally over the long term has necessarily altered perspectives in education. Expectations for educational outcomes have increased over the last century for all students and, in many societies, diverse educational programs are available for those who are deemed to be particularly gifted. However, many children are likely to have intellectual gifts that are not easily revealed by the narrow range of cognitive and academic assessments typically employed by schools and, as a result, their abilities and potentials may remain unrealized. Who are these children and how can we best identify them? Assessment procedures designed for the identification of gifted students have become more refined in many cases, but there is an ever-present danger of having too narrow a perspective. This study demonstrates how an assessment approach based on a theory of intelligence encompassing multiple abilities may be useful in broadening the scope of conceptions and measures of giftedness. (Contains 4 figures, 4 tables and 6 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Exceptional Child Research; Academically Gifted; Advanced Students; Gifted; Acceleration (Education); Teacher Attitudes; Attitude Measures; Development; Construct Validity; Social Development; Intellectual Development; Administrator Attitudes; School Administration; Self Efficacy; Influences; Teacher Behavior; Factor Analysis; Teacher Student Relationship; Teacher Influence

Abstract:
Despite the research supporting acceleration, some teachers are still hesitant to recommend acceleration for advanced students. The Teacher Attitudes Toward Subject-Specific Acceleration (TATSSA) instrument was designed to uncover the factors that influence teacher decisions to recommend students for subject-specific acceleration. First, we describe the creation of the TATSSA and initial instrument validation process. Then we examine the validity of the established measurement model and explore the construct validity of the TATSSA. Scores on the TATSSA predicted teacher intent to recommend acceleration, were related to teacher past recommendation behavior, and discriminated between groups known to be more or less likely to accelerate. The most important findings were that teacher self-efficacy toward recommending acceleration was universally important in predicting teacher acceleration attitudes and behavior, administrative support of acceleration was critical, and teachers appeared to give more weight to potential negative outcomes of acceleration than positive ones. (Contains 3 notes, 4 tables and 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Associate Degrees; High Schools; Sustainability; Low Income; Educational Assessment; Program Effectiveness; Quasiexperimental Design; Higher Education; Acceleration (Education); Dual Enrollment; Disproportionate Representation; Alignment (Education); Student Development; Measures (Individuals); Outcomes of Education; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
Early College High Schools are unique, almost counter intuitive, creations. By design, they are to enable low income, minority, and even low performing students to earn a high school diploma and up to two years of college or an Associate Degree simultaneously. In order for this to happen youth, often as young as 14 or 15 years of age, must begin to tackle and succeed at demanding college coursework. How well they do this can be measured and counted. This report maintains that there are much broader issues centered on how well educators evaluate ECHSs that may be critical to the future sustainability of such schools. Evaluation must become more than mere numbers; it must become a point of proof. Such proof will increasingly become necessary given the real and perceived expense of ECHSs in a climate where education budgets become constrained. On a global scale, ECHS evaluation has taken place in two specific contexts, neither one of which may be immediately useful in local situations. The first context is the evaluation of the overall initiative for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and SRI International. This series of six reports contains a wealth of knowledge on the implementation and growth of the initiative but no data that can be attributed to individual schools or communities. The second context is the emergence of quasi-experimental studies that seek to establish the impact of ECHS. (Contains 26 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (547K)

Descriptors:
Evaluation Methods; Mentors; Science Laboratories; Student Development; International Education; Summer Programs; Health Sciences; Science Careers; Disproportionate Representation; Minority Group Students; Student Research; Undergraduate Students; Student Attitudes; Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Followup Studies; Student Surveys; Attitude Measures; Outcomes of Education; Outcome Measures; Integrated Learning Systems; Open Source Technology; Computer Uses in Education; Neurosciences; Federal Programs; STEM Education; Evaluation Criteria; Alignment (Education)

Abstract:
The Old Westbury Neuroscience International Research Program (OWNIP) encourages undergraduate students from health disparities populations and underrepresented minorities to pursue careers in basic science, biomedical, clinical, and behavioral health research fields. To evaluate this program, several measures were used tracked through an online learning management system (ModdleMentors and Angel), including: science related perceptions by students; student program assessments; laboratory performance of students evaluated by mentors; and (since 2011) student performance of weekly and biweekly online deliverables, a journal entry, and a research report. Herein we describe our more broad-based approach to program evaluations of this type, including the articulation of a full program model linking key program elements with priority outcomes, and the reporting of findings from the first and second cohort of students who participated in the summers of 2010 and 2011 and the tracking of students who have participated since the inception of the program in 1994. (Contains 3 tables and 4 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Ohio's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, Ohio built on its Year 1 successes. In its transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the State created a high school and IHE committee to align college and career standards with colleges' and universities' entrance requirements. To improve educator data access and allow the State to track students once they exit the kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) system, the State worked with an external vendor to assign statewide student identifiers (SSIDs) to all high school seniors and freshmen attending State public IHEs (institutions of higher education). The State also created structures to ensure that participating local educational agencies (LEAs) receive frequent Race to the Top updates. During Year 2 Ohio faced some difficulty aligning ODE (Ohio Department of Education) and OBR (Ohio Board of Regents) efforts, as well as developing comprehensive contractor oversight processes. In addition, the State grappled with how to provide support to non-traditional persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools, namely community and virtual schools. Ohio continues to focus on ways to ensure sustainability of its Race to the Top reforms and high levels of LEA engagement. During Year 3, Ohio plans to assess and revise its structures to ensure quality implementation of all of its projects. As part of this work, Ohio developed an expanded statewide engagement strategy for educators and other stakeholders such as the general public and policymakers. In addition, Ohio plans to reevaluate its curriculum and assessment resources, as well as how LEA professional development plans are submitted, reviewed, and approved. Finally, in Year 3, participating LEAs will pilot or implement the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) and the Ohio Principal Evaluation System (OPES) to support full implementation of both systems no later than SY 2013-2014. A glossary is included. (Contains 18 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Ohio Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529325.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1444K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
The State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Massachusetts' Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, Massachusetts continued to implement strong systems to track progress of projects, assess risk, and provide support of project implementation as needed. The State fully implemented project management structures through the Delivery approach, which regularly assesses project progress and identifies potential problems based on predetermined goals and objectives. The Delivery process allows for a candid assessment of project risks and timely application of action plans for projects that may be getting off track. The State demonstrated a strong understanding of its progress and the areas that required additional support. Additionally, the State proactively collaborated with key stakeholders throughout the development of major components of its Race to the Top reform efforts, which resulted in greater buy-in from educators during implementation. While Massachusetts has put concerted time and resources into efforts to implement the schools interoperability framework (SIF) in order to improve the data collection process, there continued to be significant delays in this project. The State fell short of meeting its performance measure for this project for the first two years of the grant. In SY 2011-2012, the State reported that 100 percent of local educational agencies (LEAs) implemented the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which are incorporated into the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics. LEAs faced challenges finalizing local collective bargaining agreements in time to prepare for implementation of educator evaluation systems in SY 2012-2013. The State reported in October 2012 that 88 of the 236 participating LEAs had ESE-approved evaluation system plans that align with the State's regulations. Massachusetts plans to fully implement the 2011 Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, which incorporate the CCSS, in Year 3. In addition, all Race to the Top participating LEAs will implement new educator evaluation systems. The State will continue to develop data systems and curricular materials that support these initiatives and will provide further guidance to LEAs as they roll out their new curricula and evaluations. A glossary is included. (Contains 11 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Massachusetts Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529318. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1467K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Georgia's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, Georgia had a range of accomplishments across Race to the Top education reform areas. For example, Georgia completed two additional rounds of the Innovation Fund competitive grant program, awarding a total of 24 grants in Years 1 and 2. The State remains optimistic about the initiative and views the Innovation Fund as a way to stimulate new thinking about competitive grant funds for innovative education in Georgia. The Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) also provided all local educational agencies (LEAs) with a variety of resources (e.g., webinars, newsletters, and curriculum frameworks), professional development, and face-to-face support from English language arts (ELA) and mathematics specialists that will help them implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), referred to as the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS) in Georgia, in school year (SY) 2012-2013. Additionally, in moving forward with new and high-quality assessments, the State is developing a formative assessment toolkit. To ensure reliability, Georgia has field tested 800 assessment items using a representative sample of schools. Georgia experienced significant challenges related to implementation of its educator evaluation system in Year 2 of its Race to the Top grant. The Department is concerned about the overall strategic planning, evaluation, and project management for that system, which include decisions regarding the quality of the tools and measures used during the educator evaluation pilot and the scalability of the supports the State offered to participating LEAs. During Year 3, Georgia plans to develop rigorous routines and processes to better manage its Race to the Top projects and to more effectively monitor and assess participating LEAs' progress and quality of implementation. The State will also work with a consulting firm to enhance its communications plan to better articulate the various components of its Race to the Top initiative and how these components align. A glossary is included. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Georgia Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529314.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1493K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of the District of Columbia's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. Despite the delays, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) has made progress in implementation since Year 1. OSSE continues to leverage Race to the Top-specific task forces to accomplish District-wide work. This includes the development of competitive subgrants and corresponding Requests for Applications (RFAs), and the review of teacher and leader evaluation plans. OSSE has a new Race to the Top Director since January 2012, which has provided stability in leadership across Race to the Top projects. OSSE experienced several procurement delays that directly affected Race to the Top initiatives, including the Enterprise Grants Management System, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) resource website, statewide longitudinal data system (SLDS), Expanded Growth Measures, and Teacher Preparation Program Scorecard projects. In Year 3, the District plans for its Race to the Top team to play a major role in a tiered system of support for persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools, which is aligned with the District's approved Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility request. OSSE will continue to provide professional development opportunities for educators on implementing the CCSS. It also plans to promote its CCSS resource website and release the Standards Entry Points for Differentiated Learning, a consortium-developed manual for special education teachers. A glossary is included. (Contains 7 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. District of Columbia Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529308.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1619K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Tennessee's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) revamped its approach to project management to ensure meaningful project oversight and revised project work plans and goals that focus on measuring project performance and impact at the State educational agency (SEA) level. The State also participated in partnership meetings with local educational agencies (LEAs) to build relationships focused on data and collaborative problem solving. These meetings reinforced the State's goal of transitioning from compliance monitoring to a more collaborative role as LEAs implemented their Race to the Top plans. Although Tennessee made excellent progress in Year 2, it still faced challenges as it rolled out the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), built data systems to support instruction, and expanded its science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) network. Moving into Year 3 of its grant, Tennessee plans to build on its accomplishments and address its challenges from Year 2. The State is reassessing its implementation plans in several reform areas to ensure continuous improvement and effective implementation. For example, the State is making changes to its educator evaluation system to address feedback from teachers and principals. In addition, TDOE is enhancing its existing Field Service Centers (FSCs) to provide content-specific supports to LEAs and schools. The FSCs will now be called Centers of Regional Excellence (COREs) and will leverage the existing strengths of FSCs and add additional capacities to provide support to LEAs as they implement the CCSS and the new evaluation system. The State's plans for Years 3 and 4 rely heavily on effective CORE implementation, highlighting the need for the State to establish high-quality centers and mechanisms to assess their effectiveness. A glossary is included. (Contains 20 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Tennessee Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529330.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1550K)