Your search found 68307 results.

Descriptors:
Research Utilization; Instructional Leadership; Educational Research; Information Dissemination; Context Effect; Political Issues; Higher Education

Abstract:
Within this article, the authors explore the disconnect between research production, dissemination, and utilization, particularly within the field of educational leadership in the United States. Their exploration begins with an examination of the macro-level contexts within which such activities currently take place. They then turn to an examination of the relative value placed on educational research and its utilization as well as the threats that emerge when high-quality research is not (perceived as) accessible or aligned with perceived needs. Through their explorations, the authors identify significant challenges to research utilization, challenges they argue can be understood, addressed, and overcome. (Contains 7 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:
Stakeholders; Foreign Countries; Peer Evaluation; Educational Research; Information Dissemination; Program Development; Research Utilization; Computer Networks; Online Systems

Abstract:
This paper outlines the process by which the Ontario Education Research Exchange (OERE), part of the Knowledge Network of Applied Education Research, developed and launched an online hub of education research summaries to facilitate greater use of research by stakeholders in the field of education. The project is an effort in knowledge mobilization funded by the Ontario Ministry of Education to help increase the use of research to inform policy and practice in Ontario. The paper begins with an outline of the background and history of the project. Next, the three main components of the project are outlined--collecting/writing the summaries and creating the inventory, putting together the peer review process, and creating the online hub for storing and sharing the summaries and facilitating the peer review process. This paper provides useful information that can be translated to similar projects with the goals of summarizing, storing, and/or sharing research with a broad audience. (Contains 3 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 (469K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Graduate Students; Second Language Learning; Computer Software; Computer System Design; Computer Software Evaluation; Comparative Analysis; Documentation; Journal Articles; English for Academic Purposes; Internet; Natural Language Processing; Computational Linguistics; Instructional Design; Computer Assisted Instruction; Control Groups; Experimental Groups; Student Attitudes

Abstract:
Various writing assistance tools have been developed through efforts in the areas of natural language processing with different degrees of success of curriculum integration depending on their functional rigor and pedagogical designs. In this paper, we developed a system, WriteAhead, that provides six types of suggestions when non-native graduate students of English from different disciplines are composing journal abstracts, and assessed its effectiveness. The method involved automatically building domain-specific corpora of abstracts from the Web via domain names and related keywords as query expansions, and automatically extracting vocabulary and n-grams from the corpora in order to offer writing suggestions. At runtime, learners' input in the writing area of the system actively triggered a set of corresponding writing suggestions. This abstract writing assistant system facilitates interactions between learners and the system for writing abstracts in an effective and contextualized way, by providing suggestions such as collocations or transitional words. For assessment of WriteAhead, we compared the writing performance of two groups of students with or without using the system, and adopted student perception data. Findings show that the experiment group wrote better, and most students were satisfied with the system concerning most suggestion types, as they can effectively compose quality abstracts through provided language supports from WriteAhead. 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:
Educational Research; Research Projects; Information Dissemination; Research Utilization; Federal Programs; Educational Policy; Theory Practice Relationship; School Districts; Partnerships in Education; Educational Cooperation; Program Descriptions; Trust Responsibility (Government); Regional Programs; Laboratories; Technical Assistance

Abstract:
In an effort to bring more knowledge about "what works" to educational practitioners, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has made significant investments in developing and disseminating focused, rigorous research projects in order to increase the supply of and demand for this research in educational decision making. These efforts built on decades of earlier work by the U.S. Department of Education. Despite this investment, practitioners and policymakers continue to make little use of research findings to drive state, district, school, and classroom decision making. Increasingly, education researchers are voicing concern over the structural division between researchers and practitioners and are looking for new ways to integrate practitioners into the research process. Against this backdrop, IES has developed a new scope of work and awarded contracts in January for its ten Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). The RELs are now required to engage in long-term research alliances with states, districts, and jurisdictions around a coherent research agenda. While there is significant overlap among RELs in the content areas identified as priorities for their alliances, the RELs have adopted a variety of models for research alliances--multi-district, multi-state, single jurisdiction, and cross-level (state and district combined). The proposed panel will discuss the work of three RELs under the new contract. Each REL will provide a short overview of their alliances and the first year of work underway. 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 (118K)

Descriptors:
Reading Lists; Research Methodology; Applied Linguistics; Language Research; Research Utilization; Journal Articles; Research Reports; Educational Environment; Educational Research; Research Design; Bibliographic Databases; Sampling; Glossaries; Periodicals; Data Analysis

Abstract:
Newly updated and revised, this popular text provides a solid introduction to the foundations of research methods, with the goal of enabling students and professionals in the field of applied linguistics to become not just casual consumers of research who passively read bits and pieces of a research article, but "discerning" consumers able to effectively use published research for practical purposes in educational settings. All issues important for understanding and using published research for these purposes are covered. Key principles are illustrated with research studies published in refereed journals across a wide spectrum of applied linguistics. Exercises throughout the text encourage readers to engage interactively with what they are reading at the point when the information is fresh in their minds. Changes in the second edition: (1) new examples in chapter two reflecting formatting changes made by ERIC; (2) major reordering in chapter four to better represent the sample types; (3) reorganization of chapters six and seven to enhance cohesion of the themes being discussed; and (4) updated references and recommended reading lists in all chapters. [For the first edition, "Research in Applied Linguistics: Becoming a Discerning Consumer", see ED529692.] 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:
Notetaking; Reading Writing Relationship; Communication (Thought Transfer); Information Dissemination; Documentation; Technological Advancement; Information Technology; Electronic Publishing; Access to Information; Information Management; Educational History; Educational Psychology; Conferences (Gatherings)

Abstract:
Considering how much attention people lavish on the technologies of writing--scroll, codex, print, screen--it's striking how little they pay to the technologies for digesting and regurgitating it. One way or another, there's no sector of the modern world that is not saturated with note-taking--the bureaucracy, the liberal professions, the sciences, the modern firm, and especially the academy, whose residents, transient and permanent, have more right than anyone else to claim that taking notes is what they do. Taken, made, jotted, foot, or head: Notes are necessary interventions between the things people read and the things they write. (Contains 6 endnotes.) 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:
Models; Information Systems; Literature Reviews; Comparative Analysis; Scholarship; Researchers; Peer Evaluation; Periodicals; Journal Articles; Evaluation Methods; Teaching Methods; Academic Discourse

Abstract:
Evaluations of prior scholarship play a crucial role in the literature review (LR) of a research article by showing how the boundary of an area of inquiry can be further advanced by the writer's work. Yet, many inexperienced writers find evaluating others' work a major challenge. Although the task has received some attention in research and writing manuals, advice given tends to be rather general, often with little distinction made of practices followed in different paradigms. This gap could have resulted from the scarcity of empirical work in this regard. Motivated by both these gaps, this study examines how researchers in two paradigms evaluate others' work in LRs. LRs of 80 articles were collected from four journals of Information Systems. Forty of the articles were drawn from two journals that follow a strong behavioural science research paradigm while the other 40 were from two journals that show a strong design science research paradigm. Evaluations in the LRs were analyzed based on a conceptual framework developed from the CARS model (Swales, 1990) and the work on academic evaluations in Hunston (1993a, 1993b) and Hunston and Thompson (2000). The analysis aims to characterize and compare (a) the major types of evaluation acts performed by writers in the two research domains, (b) the entities that they evaluate and (c) the value parameters they employ. Results show marked cross-domain differences in the three areas. This article will discuss how the findings and the integrated conceptual framework can inform teaching of evaluations in LRs. (Contains 4 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:
Gifted; Educational Research; Educational History; Bibliometrics; Definitions; Research Methodology; Research Problems; Literature Reviews; Meta Analysis; Generalizability Theory; Generalization; Validity; Experimenter Characteristics; Comparative Analysis; Ability Identification; Educational Practices; Journal Articles

Abstract:
The lack of a unified definition of giftedness leads researchers to use very different operationalizations when selecting a sample of gifted individuals for use in research. We found 104 empirical articles from 38 journals that differentiated between gifted and nongifted students which were analyzed to determine the most common methods of identifying individuals in research. Results of the analysis show a lack of consensus as to what qualifies a person to be defined as gifted for the purposes of research. This lack of consensus leads to lower generalizability of research about giftedness and to an inability for researchers in the field to compare results of studies. An agreed-upon unified definition of giftedness for the purposes of research will lead to a more homogeneous group of participants, which in turn would lead to multiple benefits, including higher external validity in research designs. (Contains 4 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:
Evidence; Attitude Change; Teaching Methods; Student Teaching; Teacher Education Programs; Educational Change; Elementary Secondary Education; Preservice Teachers; Teaching Experience; Professional Development; Urban Education; Urban Schools; Special Needs Students; At Risk Students; Literature Reviews; Meta Analysis; Journal Articles; Beliefs; Program Effectiveness; Educational Practices; Cultural Context; Ethnic Diversity; Context Effect; Change Strategies; Educational Research; Achievement Gains; Performance Factors

Abstract:
Despite increasing emphasis on preparing more and better teachers and despite the near universal presence of student teaching across teacher education programs (TEPs), numerous questions about what and how student teaching experiences contribute to preservice teachers' development remain unanswered. Indeed, much of the attention focused on student teaching in reform and policy discourses emphasizes student teaching's structural and logistical dimensions--for example, its location, duration, and division of labor--but not its contributions to learning among preservice teachers, nor K-12 students. This article reviews empirical articles published over the past two decades to determine what and how student teaching experiences contribute to preservice teachers' development as future teachers of students in urban and/or high-needs schools specifically. While keeping this central focus, the article also considers the implications of student teaching for the schools that play host to it and for the students who attend those schools. Anchored by sociocultural perspectives on learning and learning to teach, the review highlights a disproportionate emphasis on belief and attitude change, a relatively slim evidence base concerning the development of actual teaching practice, a tendency toward reductive views of culture and context, and a need for more longitudinal analyses that address the situated and mediated nature of preservice teachers' learning in the field. Based on these findings, authors offer direction for future research that will extend and deepen the knowledge base. (Contains 1 table 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:
Social Work; Models; Epistemology; Educational Research; Qualitative Research; Journal Articles; Periodicals; Caseworkers; Power Structure

Abstract:
This study explores the epistemological foundations of qualitative social work research. A template-based review was completed on 100 articles from social work journals. Reviewers examined five things: (1) the purpose or aims of the research, (2) the rationale or justification for the work, (3) the populations studied, (4) the presence of four epistemological markers (addressing theory, paradigm, reflexivity, and power dynamics), and (5) the implications presented. Results underscore the exploratory nature of qualitative social work research; authors were most likely to use the word "explore" and least likely to use the term "understand" to describe their aims. The most common rationale given for the research was a gap in the literature (77%), followed by the severity or extent of the problem (50%). Authors emphasized the perspectives of respondents, who were most likely to be social work practitioners (39%) or clients (28%). Among the epistemological markers examined, authors were most likely to mention use of theory (55%) and a research paradigm (51%) and least likely to apply reflexivity (16%) or acknowledge power dynamics inherent in research (7%). Finally, authors were most likely to identify practice implications in their work (90%), followed by research (60%), theory (38%), and policy (29%). 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