Your search found 1643 results.

Descriptors:
Teaching Methods; Social Studies; Reading Comprehension; Content Area Reading; Academic Achievement; Reading Improvement; Middle Schools; Grade 8; Comparative Analysis; Reading; Pretests Posttests; Intervention; Core Curriculum; State Standards; Alignment (Education)

Abstract:
This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a content acquisition and reading comprehension treatment implemented by eighth-grade social studies teachers. Using a within-teacher design, the eighth-grade teachers' social studies classes were randomly assigned to treatment or comparison conditions. Teachers (n = 5) taught the same instructional content to both treatment and comparison classes, but the treatment classes used instructional practices focused on teaching essential words, text as a source for reading and discussion, and team-based learning approaches. Students in the treatment conditions (n = 261) scored statistically higher than students in the comparison conditions (n = 158) on all three outcomes: content acquisition (ES = 0.17), content reading comprehension (ES = 0.29), and standardized reading comprehension (ES = 0.20). Findings are interpreted as demonstrating support for the treatment in improving both knowledge acquisition and reading comprehension within content area instruction. (Contains 8 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.) 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:
Core Curriculum; State Standards; Alignment (Education); Grade 2; Grade 3; Elementary Education; Language Arts; Beginning Reading; Reader Text Relationship; Difficulty Level; Reading Achievement; Pattern Recognition; Readability Formulas; Word Frequency

Abstract:
The Common Core Standards for the English Language Arts (CCSS) provide explicit guidelines matching grade-level bands (e.g., 2-3, 4-5) with targeted text complexity levels. The CCSS staircase accelerates text expectations for students across Grades 2-12 in order to close a gap in the complexity of texts typically used in high school and those of college and career. The first step of the band at second and third grades is examined because it marks the entry into the staircase and a critical developmental juncture. In this article, we examine the theoretical and empirical support for three assumptions that underlie the acceleration of text complexity in Grades 2-3. Then we identify patterns in American reading achievement and instruction to illustrate the potential and far-reaching consequences of an increase in the first step of the CCSS staircase. (Contains 1 figure and 2 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:
Disabilities; Higher Education; State Standards; Educational Technology; Evidence; Teacher Interns; Consortia; Expertise; Severity (of Disability); Alignment (Education); Internship Programs; Academic Standards; National Standards; Mentors; Needs Assessment; Educational Needs; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Best Practices; Teacher Collaboration; College Faculty; Special Education Teachers

Abstract:
Teachers of students with moderate and severe disabilities must possess the skills and knowledge to address a unique set of needs and challenges. These may include, but are not limited to, management of challenging behaviors, performance of health-related procedures, use of assistive technology, and instruction using evidence-based strategies. This article describes the process undertaken by a higher education consortium of faculty with expertise in low incidence disabilities from across institutions of higher education in Kentucky to address the challenge of supporting 1st year teachers (i.e., interns) when assigned mentors and administrators who do not have expertise in this area. This consortium addressed this challenge by creating two documents: (a) an alignment of state standards to professional standards and (b) an addendum to the state internship materials. The intent of this article is to share the development process with others who may wish to design similar documents to address state and national standards for teacher interns. (Contains 2 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:
Program Effectiveness; Instructional Materials; Geography; Educational Change; Best Practices; Elementary Secondary Education; Geography Instruction; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Evaluation Methods; Evaluation Research; Evaluation Needs; Needs Assessment; Change Strategies; Academic Standards; Alignment (Education); Behavioral Objectives; Educational Objectives

Abstract:
In late 2012, both the second edition of the "Geography for Life: National Geography Standards" and the National Science Foundation-funded "Road Map for Geography Education Project" reports were released; the former document describes the conceptual goals for K-12 geography education, and the latter, a route to coordinating reform efforts to realize those goals. A central premise of the Road Map Project reports is that reform must be implemented comprehensively across each facet of education. This will require a more robust foundation of research about teaching and learning around the geography learning objectives, developing high-quality instructional materials that move students toward those goals, preparing geography teachers to facilitate learning them, and creating assessments that validly and reliably assess them. The Road Map Project assessment report describes a process for creating assessments, from describing best practices for design and use of assessments, to describing a system for articulating what should be assessed, and how it should be assessed. In this article, the authors highlight five central components of the report, including: (1) areas identified as high priorities for geography assessments; (2) a clarification of the goals to be assessed; (3) an examination of how well existing assessments meet those goals; (4) a framework for creating a new generation of assessments that can support reform efforts; and (5) recommendations for where efforts should be focused to implement these changes. (Contains 2 figures and 1 footnote.) 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 Standards; Genetics; Heuristics; Models; Expertise; Curriculum Development; Educational Assessment; Theory Practice Relationship; Alignment (Education); Longitudinal Studies; Correlation; Learning Processes; Interviews

Abstract:
Learning progressions (LPs) are theoretical models of how learners develop expertise in a domain over extended periods of time. Recent policy reports have touted LPs as a promising approach to aligning standards, curriculum, and assessment. However, the scholarship on LPs is relatively sparse, and the jury is still out on the theoretical and practical value of this approach. To realize any potential of LPs researchers need to systematically refine these hypothetical models in real-world contexts. Such refinement efforts are challenging, as they require the coordination of messy empirical data with often underspecified theoretical models. Many of the current reports involving the empirical refinement and validation of LPs do not sufficiently explicate the process of how one goes about making modifications to the LP based on empirical data. In this article we present heuristics for facilitating the coordination of data and LP models. Using an illustrative example of a genetics LP and data from a 2-year longitudinal study of this LP, we demonstrate the use of these heuristics to refine the hypothesized levels of the LP. We also discuss the process we used to identify contingencies (relationships) between the constructs of this LP. We conclude with a discussion of implications of the refinement process for the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. (Contains 4 tables and 2 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:
High Stakes Tests; Program Effectiveness; Performance Tests; Performance Based Assessment; Teacher Education Programs; Program Evaluation; Summative Evaluation; Teacher Certification; Accountability; Curriculum Development; Goal Orientation; Alignment (Education)

Abstract:
Dilemmas abound in the design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation of the outcomes of a summative performance assessment of teaching when used for licensing, for individual and program evaluation, and for accountability purposes. In this article, we explore the impact of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) on the Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP). Specifically, we explore ways in which this high-stakes assessment influences programmatic priorities and drives structural and curricular decisions that might or might not be at odds with the conceptual frame and stated mission of the program. We highlight two thorny dilemmas that have challenged our program in the implementation of the PACT Teaching Event--a high-stakes performance assessment for teachers--and our attempts to manage these dilemmas "satisficingly." (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:

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

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:
State Standards; Citizenship; Content Area Reading; Core Curriculum; Alignment (Education); Literacy; Reading; Learner Engagement

Abstract:
In this column, content area literacy scholars Tom Bean and David O'Brien challenge the older "infusion" model of content area literacy with its emphasis on generic strategies. Rather, they argue for and provide examples of projects that draw on the unique dimensions of various disciplines like history, science, and English, particularly in light of the Common Core State Standards. They offer alternative approaches that capitalize on students' interests in multimedia and the arts. Acknowledging the increasingly diverse dimensions of our classrooms and students' transnational experiences, Bean and O'Brien call for creative lesson and unit planning that engages students in preparation for global citizenship. 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:
State Standards; Literacy Education; Literacy; Educational Change; Reading Comprehension; Core Curriculum; Alignment (Education); Technology Uses in Education; Information Technology; Internet; Problem Based Learning; Reading; College Readiness; Career Readiness

Abstract:
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is the latest effort to reform education through standards. This article examines how the Standards promise to prepare students for the changing world of the 21st century, yet do not consider the changing nature of literacy--especially the centrality of the Internet as a 21st century text, and online reading comprehension as a problem-based experience. States and districts have begun to adopt and adjust the Common Core Standards as their own. This article seeks to inform teachers' understanding of the Common Core State Standards, so they can be active players in shaping literacy education based on the Standards. (Contains 3 tables, 5 resources, and 1 online resource.) 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:
Graduation Requirements; Higher Education; Educational Finance; Educational Attainment; Kindergarten; Graduation; Public Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Master Plans; Preschool Education; Access to Education; Teacher Supply and Demand; State Boards of Education; College Admission; Education Work Relationship; Partnerships in Education; High Schools; Academic Standards; State Standards; Accountability; Academic Achievement; Educational Indicators; Educational Improvement; College Readiness; Graduation Rate; Career Readiness; Alignment (Education)

Abstract:
This paper complies with the requirements established in T.C.A. Section 49-1-302(a)(10). The act directs the State Board of Education and the Tennessee Higher Education Commission to provide a report to the Governor and General Assembly, all public schools, and institutions of higher learning and their respective boards. This report is to include, but is not limited to, a discussion of the following four areas: (1) Minimizing Duplication: The extent of duplication in elementary, secondary and postsecondary education; (2) Compatibility: The extent of compatibility between high school graduation requirements and admission requirements of postsecondary institutions; (3) Master Plan Fulfillment: The extent to which respective master plans of the board and the higher education commission are being fulfilled; and (4) State Needs in Public Education: The extent to which state needs in public education are being met as determined by such board and commission. This year's joint report marks the continuation of a new era for education in Tennessee, which began during the special session of the 106th General Assembly (2010) and included passage of the First to the Top and the Complete College Tennessee Acts. Both Acts focus on raising the level of statewide accountability and support in K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. Legislation from the 106th General Assembly provides the framework for collaboration between all state systems of education, addressing the overarching need to produce a higher proportion of college- and career-ready graduates. Tennessee will use this framework to make significant progress toward increasing postsecondary educational attainment to the national average by 2025. Appended are: (1) Tennessee High School Graduation Requirements; (2) Minimum High School Course Requirements for Regular Undergraduate Admissions to Tennessee Public Higher Education Institutions; and (3) Tennessee College and Career Ready Goals and Indicators. (Contains 3 tables, 1 figure and 3 footnotes.) [For "Annual Joint Report on Pre-Kindergarten through Higher Education in Tennessee, 2012", see ED540084.] 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 (350K)