|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-12-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
High School Students; Reading Difficulties; Reading Comprehension; Scores; Reading Tests; Outcomes of Education; Program Evaluation; Program Effectiveness; Intervention; Core Curriculum; Credits; Multivariate Analysis; Fidelity; Robustness (Statistics); Grade 9; Grade 10; Learning Strategies; High Schools; Interrater Reliability
Abstract:
This report presents the findings of a rigorous experimental impact evaluation and implementation study of one such intervention, the Content Literacy Continuum (CLC), developed by researchers at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. This evaluation of CLC was conducted by three partnering organizations: REL Midwest, MDRC, and Survey Research Management. Thirty-three high schools in nine districts across four Midwestern states agreed to participate in this evaluation, and 28 of those 33 schools continued their participation throughout the entire study period. Full implementation of this intervention began in the 2008/09 school year and continued through the 2009/10 school year. Given that CLC was designed to address the dual needs of high schools to support both the literacy and content learning of students, the evaluation focused on program impacts on reading comprehension test scores and students' accumulation of course credits in core content areas. To assess the impacts of CLC on these outcomes, the study team conducted a cluster randomized trial. That is, participating high schools within each district were randomly assigned either to implement CLC (CLC schools) or to continue with "business as usual" (non-CLC schools). Impacts were estimated by analyzing the outcomes of students at the CLC schools compared with those at the non-CLC schools. The evaluation's primary research questions focused on the impact of CLC on students' reading comprehension and course performance at the end of the second year of implementation. Secondary research questions compared the first-year impacts and second-year impacts and also investigated program impacts on other student outcomes. In addition, the evaluation examined the implementation of the CLC framework within the CLC schools. This report presents findings regarding the degree to which schools assigned to implement CLC set up the necessary structures and organizational processes needed to support implementation of CLC (referred to as structural fidelity in this report) and the degree to which the pedagogical practices emphasized in CLC-related professional development were apparent within the instruction of core content teachers in participating schools (referred to as instructional fidelity). The structures and instruction at CLC schools and non-CLC schools also were compared to provide information about the contrast that CLC implementation provided compared with business as usual. Appended are: (1) Sampling of Classrooms for GRADE Testing and Classroom Observations; (2) Measuring Instructional Practice with the ACE Observation Protocol; (3) Characteristics of the Student Analysis Samples; (4) Characteristics of the Sampled and Observed Classrooms; (5) Technical Notes for the Impact Analysis; (6) Statistical Power and Minimum Detectable Effect Size; (7) Description of Frequently Introduced Content Enhancement Routines and Learning Strategies; (8) Explanation of Shared Pedagogical Practices Obtained through Classroom Observations Using the ACE Protocol; (9) Interrater Reliability for Shared Pedagogical Features; (10) Robustness of Estimated Impacts on Student Outcomes; (11) Model Fit Information; (12) Descriptive Statistics for Student Outcomes and Impact Model Covariates; (13) Impact Findings and Sample Characteristics for All Study Schools in Year 1; (14) Additional Impact Findings: Credits Attempted, Successful Credit Completion, and Attendance; and (15) Impacts by Student Subgroup. (Contains 17 figures, 89 tables, 1 box, and 198 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 (4346K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2009-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Teacher Supply and Demand; Teacher Shortage; State Departments of Education; Research Methodology; Costs; State Legislation; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; Compliance (Legal); Interviews
Abstract:
This report describes how state education agencies in the Midwest Region monitor teacher supply, demand, and shortage; details why they monitor these data; and offers estimates of the monetary costs incurred in performing such studies. This study responds to a request from state education agencies in the Midwest Region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) to learn more about teacher supply and demand studies conducted in neighboring states. The study aimed to determine: (1) what motivates states to assess teacher supply and demand; (2) what methodologies do Midwest Region states employ to monitor teacher supply and demand; (3) what the costs are of various state approaches. The study found that state education agencies conduct teacher supply and demand studies to comply with federal laws and regulations, including provisions of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, federal regulations on loan deferment or forgiveness programs and scholarships, and Title II requirements of the Higher Education Act. Appended are: (1) Descriptions of codes of federal regulation and federal law related to teacher shortage areas; (2) The literature review for forecast models; (3) Interview questions; and (4) Data reported in most recent teacher supply and demand reports, by Midwest Region state. (Contains 2 boxes, 1 figure, 10 tables, and 11 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:
ERIC
Full Text (571K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2005-08-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Opinion Papers; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Higher Education; Global Approach; International Relations; Foreign Countries; Climate; Foreign Policy; Business; Role of Education; Competition; Terrorism; Weapons; Communicable Diseases; Public Health; Political Power; World Problems; World Affairs
Abstract:
At its Summer 2003 meeting, the Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF) engaged the questions of America's role in the post-Sept.11, 2001 world. Following a series of panel presentations, BHEF members specifically examined the important issues of sustaining, legitimating, and using American power. Six major foreign policy challenges facing the United States were identified: (1) Defeating Islamist terrorism; (2) Stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; (3) Extending the benefits of globalization; (4) Adapting to a growing China; (5) Averting catastrophic climate change; and (6) Containing virulent infectious diseases. The report concludes that America has confronted many challenges during its history, has always risen to the occasion in the past, and that it is time to do so again. The authors urge advocating a thorough and searching national debate that sees the world as it is, acknowledging both American power and its limits, understanding that accomplishing U.S. goals will often require the cooperation of others, and that there are no simple answers to these challenges.
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 (187K)
|
|
