ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Improving Developmental Education Assessment and Placement: Lessons from Community Colleges across the Country. CCRC Working Paper No. 51
Author: Hodara, Michelle
Date: 2012-11-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Student Placement,Community Colleges,Two Year College Students,Educational Quality,Difficulty Level,Academic Standards,College Readiness,Educational Change,Student Evaluation,Alignment (Education),Exit Examinations,Measures (Individuals)

At open-access two-year public colleges, the goal of the traditional assessment and placement process is to match incoming students to the developmental or college-level courses for which they have adequate preparation; the process presumably increases underprepared students' chances of short- and long-term success in college while maintaining the academic quality and rigor of college-level courses. However, the traditional process may be limited in its ability to achieve these aims due to poor course placement accuracy and inconsistent standards of college readiness. To understand current approaches that seek to improve the process, we conducted a scan of assessment and placement policies and practices at open-access two-year colleges in Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. We describe the variety of approaches that systems and colleges employed to ameliorate poor course placement accuracy and inconsistent standards associated with the traditional process. Taking a broad view of the extent of these approaches, we find that most colleges we studied adopted a &quot;measured&quot; approach that addressed a single limitation without attending to other limitations that contribute to the same overall problem of poor course placement accuracy or inconsistent standards. Much less common were &quot;comprehensive&quot; approaches that attended to multiple limitations of the process; these approaches were likely to result from changes to developmental education as a whole. Drawing from the study's findings, we also discuss how colleges can overcome barriers to reform in order to implement approaches that hold promise for improved course placement accuracy, more consistent standards of college readiness, and, potentially, greater long-term academic success of community college students. Data Collection Process is appended. (Contains 3 tables and 3 footnotes.)
Do Value-Added Methods Level the Playing Field for Teachers? What We Know Series: Value-Added Methods and Applications. Knowledge Brief 2
Author: McCaffrey, Daniel F.
Date: 2012-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Student Characteristics,Teacher Effectiveness,Teacher Evaluation,Models,Educational Testing,Scores,Academic Achievement,Evidence,School Districts,Decision Making

Value-added models have caught the interest of policymakers because, unlike using student tests scores for other means of accountability, they purport to "level the playing field." That is, they supposedly reflect only a teacher's effectiveness, not whether she teaches high- or low-income students, for instance, or students in accelerated or standard classes. Yet many people are concerned that teacher effects from value-added measures "will" be sensitive to the characteristics of her students. More specifically, they believe that teachers of low-income, minority, or special education students will have lower value-added scores than equally effective teachers who are teaching students outside these populations. Other people worry that the opposite might be true--that some value-added models might cause teachers of low-income, minority, or special education students to have "higher" value-added scores than equally effective teachers who work with higher-achieving, less risky populations. In this brief, the author discusses what is and is not known about how well value-added measures level the playing field for teachers by controlling for student characteristics. He first discusses the results of empirical explorations. He then addresses outstanding questions and the challenges to answering them with empirical data. Finally, he discusses the implications of these findings for teacher evaluations and the actions that may be based on them. (Contains 26 endnotes.)
Literature Review of Japanese Contrastive Rhetoric
Author: Cumming, Brett
Date: 2012-11-28
Type: Information Analyses
Subjects: Writing Skills,Teaching Methods,English (Second Language),Rhetoric,Literature Reviews,Contrastive Linguistics,Rhetorical Criticism,Second Language Instruction,Writing Instruction,Intellectual History,Student Characteristics,Educational Strategies,Writing Strategies,Classroom Techniques,Writing Processes,Feedback (Response),Educational Development

This literature review serves to inform the reader on current literature on Contrastive Rhetoric (CR), with specific reference to teaching writing to Japanese students of English. It will examine the historical developments of CR and its present significance before then looking at possible reasons for unique characteristics of Japanese L2 writers and implications for teaching. Understanding the issues outlined here should help teachers to apply classroom strategies to facilitate development of students' overall writing skills through appropriate methodologies and sound pedagogical strategies.
How Should Educators Interpret Value-Added Scores? What We Know Series: Value-Added Methods and Applications. Knowledge Brief 1
Author: Raudenbush, Stephen W.
Date: 2012-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Achievement Tests,Statistical Bias,Teacher Evaluation,Academic Achievement,School Districts,Decision Making,Administrator Attitudes,Administrators,Error of Measurement,Achievement Gains,Reliability,Computation,Statistical Analysis

A teacher's value-added score is intended to convey how much that teacher has contributed to student learning in a particular subject in a particular year. Different school districts define and compute value-added scores in different ways. A variety of people may see value-added estimates, and each group may use them for different purposes. Teachers themselves may want to compare their scores with those of others and use them to improve their work. Administrators may use them to make decisions about teaching assignments, professional development, pay, or promotion. Parents, if they see the scores, may use them to request particular teachers for their children. And, finally, researchers may use the estimates for studies on improving instruction. Using value-added scores in any of these ways can be controversial. Some people doubt the validity of the achievement tests on which the scores are based, some question the emphasis on test scores to begin with, and others challenge the very idea that student learning gains reflect how well teachers do their jobs. The authors' purpose is to answer a more limited, but essential, question: How might educators reasonably interpret value-added scores? Social science has yet to come up with a perfect measure of teacher effectiveness, so anyone who makes decisions on the basis of value-added estimates will be doing so in the midst of uncertainty. Making choices in the face of doubt is hardly unusual--they routinely contend with projected weather forecasts, financial predictions, medical diagnoses, and election polls. But as in these other areas, in order to sensibly interpret value-added scores, it is important to do two things: understand the sources of uncertainty and quantify its extent. The authors' aim is to identify possible errors of interpretation, to consider how likely these errors are to arise, and to help educators assess how consequential they are for different decisions. They will begin by asking how value-added scores are defined and computed. Next, they will consider two sources of error: statistical bias and statistical imprecision. (Contains 4 figures, 1 table, and 11 endnotes.)
Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2009-10 (Fiscal Year 2010). First Look. NCES 2013-305
Author: Cornman, Stephen Q.
Date: 2012-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Charter Schools,Vocational Education,Expenditures,Public Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Data Collection,State Departments of Education,Public Schools,Educational Finance,Special Education,Expenditure per Student,School Districts,School Construction,National Surveys,Tables (Data)

The Common Core of Data (CCD) is an annual collection of public elementary and secondary education data by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the data collection for the finance surveys on behalf of NCES. State education agencies (SEAs) report the finance data through an online data collection site. SEAs report student membership data through the U.S. Department of Education's EDFacts data collection system. The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information; therefore, the selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) component of CCD. The selected findings do not represent a complete review of all observed differences in the data and are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. This report presents findings on public education revenues and expenditures using fiscal year 2010 (FY 10) data from the provisional version 1a NPEFS file of the CCD survey system. Programs covered in NPEFS include regular, special, and vocational education; charter schools; and state-run education programs (such as special education centers or education programs for incarcerated youth). This First Look provides users with an opportunity to access provisional NPEFS data that have been fully reviewed, edited, and imputed. Final data, including revisions to the provisional data submitted by the SEAs after the close of data collection, will be available during the following collection year (2013). Appended are: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; (2) Common Core of Data Glossary; and (3) Revised Fiscal Year 2009 Tables. (Contains 11 tables, 3 figures and 3 footnotes.)
Promoting Student Learning and Institutional Improvement: Lessons from NSSE at 13. Annual Results 2012
Author: Indiana University, National Survey of Student Engagement
Date: 2012-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: National Surveys,Student Surveys,Undergraduate Students,Learner Engagement,Educational Quality,Student Experience,Benchmarking,Learning Processes,Study,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics,Educational Practices,Majors (Students),Course Selection (Students),Influences,Financial Problems,Anxiety,Social Networks,Computer Mediated Communication,High School Students,College Freshmen,College Faculty,Teacher Surveys,Service Learning,Teacher Student Relationship,Educational Objectives,Program Evaluation,Instructional Improvement,Student Diversity,Curriculum Development,Sustainability,Consortia,Institutional Mission,Outcome Measures,Active Learning,Cooperative Learning,Educational Experience,College Environment,Foreign Countries

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) documents dimensions of quality in undergraduate education and provides information and assistance to colleges, universities, and other organizations to improve student learning. Its primary activity is annually surveying college students to assess the extent to which they engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development. The selected results reported are based on more than 285,000 census-administered or randomly sampled students attending 546 U.S. bachelor's degree-granting institutions that participated in NSSE in Spring 2012 (eight U.S. institutions were excluded due to special circumstances). This paper contains several themes. The first--Key NSSE Findings Revisited and Updated--not only revisits some of the strongest and most consistent findings to date, but refreshes and at times amplifies the prior results using 2012 data. The second theme reviews the updated NSSE survey for 2013 and introduces new content, summary measures, and customization options. Next, the results are presented from three sets of experimental questions, each of which delves into key issues and trends faced by today's college students: choice of major, financial stress, and social networking. Finally, this paper uses data from the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) to provide additional evidence of the utility of these companion instruments. These include an analysis of high school engagement and campus support, and how faculty may differ in their teaching approaches by disciplinary area. A list of resources is included. (Contains 9 tables, 14 figures and 19 references and resources.) [For the 2011 report, see ED527089.]
Self-Assessed Personal and Professional Prospects and Program Expectations of Students in Three Doctoral Cohorts
Author: Fahy, Patrick J.
Date: 2010-11-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Adult Students,Writing Skills,Questionnaires,Distance Education,Career Change,Graduate Students,Research Opportunities,Self Evaluation (Individuals),Expectation,Doctoral Programs,Satisfaction,Self Esteem,Data Analysis,Employment Opportunities,Professional Identity,Student Role,Employees,Family Role,Prior Learning,Student Characteristics,Cohort Analysis

The purpose of this study was to determine, through a survey of students registered in the first three cohorts (consisting of 40 students) of Athabasca University's Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) program, the perceived prospects and career and personal plans of students. As they began the program, but before any program interaction had occurred, students were asked to complete an online questionnaire (included as part of this report). (Another questionnaire, completed at the end of the first year of the program, is the subject of another report.) The questionnaire asked students to assess their career prospects (career advancement and career change were known, through previous research, to be major motivations of program students), and their expectations of the program. Specifically, students were asked to state how important an outcome was, and to identify which outcomes were &quot;critical&quot; to their satisfaction with the program. The survey sought to determine the areas in which doctoral students already felt confidence, the areas in which they hoped they would gain greater skills or more capabilities, and the topics considered critical to their satisfaction with the program. Results were analyzed using Microsoft Excel, ATLAS.ti, and SPSS.PC. The conclusions and recommendations showed that students expected programs to provide the following: increased credibility; knowledge of the distance education literature; data-analysis and writing skills; enhanced academic prospects; opportunities to do more teaching; connections to other universities; and broad knowledge of technology developments. Also, to meet students' express expectations, Athabasca University's graduate programs (master's and doctorate) should provide a better introduction to fields (enculturation and socialization); more research opportunities through engagement with the working research community; more direct links to employment; emphasis on development of a unique professional, academic identity; and specific research and presentation skills, especially writing. Finally, tensions were identified between the role of graduate student, and that of employee and family member, all roles of the program's adult students. The Survey Instrument: Online Survey of Doctoral Students is appended. (Contains 6 tables.)
Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Education Interventions into More Readily Interpretable Forms
Author: Lipsey, Mark W.
Date: 2012-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Intervention,Experimental Groups,Statistical Significance,Researchers,Benchmarking,Program Costs,Cost Effectiveness,Academic Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Reading Achievement,Control Groups,National Competency Tests,Special Education

This paper is directed to researchers who conduct and report education intervention studies. Its purpose is to stimulate and guide them to go a step beyond reporting the statistics that emerge from their analysis of the differences between experimental groups on the respective outcome variables. With what is often very minimal additional effort, those statistical representations can be translated into forms that allow their magnitude and practical significance to be more readily understood by the practitioners, policymakers, and even other researchers who are interested in the intervention that was evaluated. (Contains 12 tables and 6 figures.)
Revisiting the Concepts "Approach", "Design" and "Procedure" According to the Richards and Rodgers (2011) Framework
Author: Cumming, Brett
Date: 2012-11-28
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Second Language Instruction,Communicative Competence (Languages),Teaching Models,Teaching Methods

The three concepts Approach, Design and Procedure as proposed in Rodgers' Framework are considered particularly effective as a framework in second language teaching with the specific aim of developing communication as well as for better understanding methodology in the use of communicative language use.
Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2009
Author: Missouri Department of Higher Education (MDHE)
Date: 2009-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Annual Reports,State Agencies,State Legislation,Educational Needs,Postsecondary Education,Labor Force Development,Community Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Enrollment,Enrollment Trends,Technical Institutes,Proprietary Schools,Strategic Planning,Educational Policy,Budgets,Educational Finance,Educational Trends,Educational Change,Educational Planning,State Policy,Statewide Planning,Teacher Education,Outcome Measures,Student Financial Aid,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Dropout Rate,High School Students,Minority Group Students,Low Income Groups,Educational Certificates,Academic Degrees,Comparative Analysis,Economics,Access to Education,Federal Programs,Grants

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education and the Missouri Department of Higher Education present this FY2009 Annual Report to inform individuals of the state's status and progress in higher education. This year's shortened format is intended to provide a snapshot of how Missouri measures up in the goals outlined by the state's coordinated plan for higher education, &quot;Imperatives for Change: Building a Higher Education System for the 21st Century.&quot; This annual report describes each goal, provides data and conclusions regarding progress toward that goal, and summarizes efforts of the MDHE toward achieving the goal. As the report describes, Missouri struggles to improve access to and maintain quality in higher education in stark economic times. Most measures of the goals outlined in &quot;Imperatives for Change&quot; indicate that the state is about average in meeting objectives. Yet by understanding the challenges and collectively making progress toward improvement, more Missouri children will aspire to, attain and enjoy the benefits provided by a college degree. Appended are: (1) Enrollment Changes and Totals; (2) Student Aid Programs; (3) College Access Challenge Grants; (4) Proprietary School Enrollment; (5) Academic Program Actions; and (6) FY11 Appropriation Request. [For the 2008 annual report, see ED537457.]
Learning Assessment in Missouri Postsecondary Education (LAMP): Status Report to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education
Author: Missouri Department of Higher Education (MDHE)
Date: 2009-06-11
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Community Colleges,Educational Assessment,Stakeholders,Cooperation,Best Practices,College Students,Access to Information,Student Placement,College Readiness,Alignment (Education),Measures (Individuals)

The Learning Assessment in Missouri Postsecondary Education (LAMP) Advisory Council was created to consider the issues surrounding statewide learning assessment and to make recommendations for policy. LAMP is comprised of a voluntary group of assessment professionals, postsecondary faculty and administrators, secondary educators and administrators, and Missouri Department of Higher Education (MDHE) staff. The work of the Advisory Council was completed within subcommittees: Assessment Practices Subcommittee, Communications/Next Steps Subcommittee, and the Literature Review Subcommittee. This report reflects the progress-to-date of the LAMP Subcommittees; their draft documents are included in this report. Appended are: (1) SAC and MAIS Methodology; (2) SAC De-Identified Responses; (3) SAC Instrument; and (4) MAIS Survey Summary Tables. (Contains 3 footnotes.)
Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2010
Author: Missouri Department of Higher Education (MDHE)
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Comparative Analysis,Economics,Access to Computers,Access to Education,Federal Programs,Grants,Higher Education,Annual Reports,State Agencies,State Legislation,Educational Needs,Postsecondary Education,Labor Force Development,Community Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Enrollment,Enrollment Trends,Technical Institutes,Proprietary Schools,Strategic Planning,Educational Policy,Budgets,Educational Finance,Educational Trends,Educational Planning,State Policy,Statewide Planning,Outcome Measures,Educational Objectives,Student Financial Aid,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Dropout Rate,High School Students,White Students,Minority Group Students,Educational Certificates,Academic Degrees

This 2010 Annual Report for the Missouri Department of Higher Education takes a close look at the performance of Missouri's system of postsecondary education in Fiscal Year 2010. The annual report follows the format of the state's public agenda for higher education, &quot;Imperatives for Change: Building a Higher Education System for the 21st Century,&quot; which was first issued in 2008. &quot;Imperatives for Change&quot; is organized around three goals. Each section of this report includes measures for accomplishing the goals, sets a target for each measure and provides data to show progress toward the targets. The report also analyzes Missouri's strengths and weaknesses, how it compares to other states and the national average, and what programs and initiatives are under way to enhance progress toward goal attainment. More than 600,000 students attended 13 public four-year university campuses, 21 public two-year campuses, 25 independent colleges and universities and 163 private for-private (proprietary) schools in Missouri in Fiscal Year 2010. Missouri taxpayers provided more than one billion dollars to support public colleges and universities so students can pursue affordable options for higher education, including completion of postsecondary certificate and degree programs. Appended are: (1) Enrollment Charts; (2) Student Aid Programs; (3) College Access Challenge Grant;  (4) Proprietary Enrollment; and (5) All Academic Program Actions. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [For the 2009 annual report, see ED537449.]