ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Online Delivery of VET Qualifications: Current Use and Outcomes. Research Report
Author: Griffin, Tabatha
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Online Courses,Vocational Education,Educational Technology,Technology Uses in Education,Program Effectiveness,Withdrawal (Education),Academic Persistence,Teaching Methods,Educational Quality,Teacher Competencies,Student Needs,Certification,Postsecondary Education

The online delivery of training is well established in the vocational education and training (VET) sector, and it is not unusual for a course to include training that is delivered online in one or more units. However, little is known about the online delivery of entire qualifications in VET and how this works, given the overarching role of the competency-based training system in the sector. This research provides a contemporary view of how online learning is used to deliver complete qualifications in the Australian VET sector. It estimates the extent to which entire qualifications are delivered online, as well as investigates the nature of this online delivery and whether this training is providing students with a similar experience and outcomes to that of face-to-face training. The final element of this research identifies the factors that contribute to good practice in online delivery. Key messages include the following: (1) It is estimated that 8.6% of all VET program commencements in 2017 were in courses delivered fully online; (2) Online VET is characterised by higher subject withdrawal rates and lower course completion rates; (3) Higher subject withdrawals and course non-completion can be due to many factors, such as poor quality training, the delivery mode not suiting the student, issues with securing a work placement (if required), or the student lacking access to the necessary tools or technology to complete the course; (4) For those students who completed an online course, the outcomes were mixed but in general, comparable to other delivery modes; and (5) The attributes of good practice in online delivery include, a positive and supportive attitude, students with realistic expectations of the course and delivery mode on enrollment, well-structured, up-to-date and engaging resources, effective and accessible student support, and skilled and knowledgeable teachers and trainers.
Breakfast Report: Health Risk Behavior Association of Students Who Eat Breakfast and Students Who Do Not Eat Breakfast. 2019 Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Author: Montana Office of Public Instruction
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: High School Students,Health Behavior,Risk,At Risk Persons,Eating Habits,Racial Differences,Hispanic American Students,White Students,American Indian Students,Grade 9,Grade 10,Grade 11,Grade 12,Physical Activity Level,Television Viewing,Video Games,Athletics,Head Injuries,Sleep,Grades (Scholastic),Special Education,Substance Abuse,Sexuality,Obesity,Smoking,Suicide,Sexual Abuse,Bullying,School Safety,Safety,Restraints (Vehicle Safety)

The Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is administered by the Montana Office of Public Instruction every two years to students in grades 7 through 12. The purpose of the survey is to help monitor the prevalence of behaviors that not only influence youth health, but also put youth at risk for the most significant health and social problems that can occur during adolescence. While all schools in Montana can participate in the survey on a volunteer basis, approximately 50 high schools are randomly selected to be included to provide the Montana statewide data to be used in other national YRBS reports. The 2019 YRBS was conducted in February 2019. Schools administering the survey were provided with detailed written instructions on conducting a random survey in their schools. To encourage accurate responses to sensitive questions, a strict protocol was implemented to protect the privacy and confidentiality of all participating students. Data used in this report from the 2019 YRBS are based on a random sample survey of Montana high school students. The weighted data results contained in this report can be used to make inferences about the priority health-risk behaviors of all high school students in grades 9 through 12 in all schools in Montana. [This report was produced by the Montana Office of Public Instruction's Health Enhancement and Safety Division.]
PARCC Final Technical Report for 2015 Administration
Author: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
Date: 2016-04-18
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Standardized Tests,Career Readiness,College Readiness,Test Validity,Training,Testing,Computer Assisted Testing,Common Core State Standards,Language Arts,Literacy,Mathematics,Scoring,Student Characteristics,Test Bias,Test Reliability,Item Response Theory,Scaling,Performance,Scores,Quality Control,Test Construction,Guidelines,Adaptive Testing,Students with Disabilities,English Language Learners,Testing Accommodations

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a state-led consortium designed to create next-generation assessments that, compared to traditional K-12 assessments, more accurately measure student progress toward college and career readiness. The PARCC assessments are aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and were administered operationally for the first time in the 2014-2015 academic year. PARCC comprises assessments in both English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA/L) and Mathematics in grades 3 to 8 and high school. The information provided in this technical report is intended for use by those who evaluate tests, interpret scores, or use test results in making educational decisions. It is assumed that the reader has technical knowledge of test construction and measurement procedures, as stated in &quot;Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing&quot; (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], &amp; National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). The purpose of this technical report is to describe the first operational administration of the PARCC assessments and includes the following topics: (1) Background and purpose of the assessments; (2) Test development of items and forms; (3) Test administration, security, and scoring; (4) Test taker characteristics; (5) Classical item analyses and differential item functioning; (6) Reliability and validity of scores; (7) Item response theory (IRT) calibration and scaling; (8) Performance level setting; (9) Development of the score reporting scales and student performance; and (10) Quality control procedures.
The Relationship between School Principals&apos; Paternalistic Leadership Behavior and the Level of Classroom Teachers&apos; Organizational Ostracism = Okul Müdürlerinin Paternalistik Liderlik Davranislari ile Ögretmenlerin Örgütsel Dislanma Düzeyleri Arasindaki Iliski
Author: Akgün, Nuri
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Leadership Styles,Elementary School Teachers,Professional Isolation,Teaching Conditions,Predictor Variables,Principals,Administrator Behavior

The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between paternalistic leadership and the level of classroom teachers' ostracism. The participants for this study consisted of 101 classroom teachers at primary schools located in Bartin. Data in this study were collected by using paternalistic leadership scale developed by Aycan, Schyns, Sun, Felfe &amp; Saher, and the level of classroom teachers' ostracism were assessed with using the the Workplace Ostracism Scale developed by Ferris et al. and was adapted in Turkish Language by Çelik ve Kosar. Mean, standard deviation, correlation and regression test were used in analysis of data. The correlation analysis shows that paternalistic leadership has significantly negatively correlation with the level of teachers' ostracism. The results of regression analysis indicated that paternalistic leadership was a significant predictor for teachers' ostracism. [This study was presented as an oral paper in 13th Educational Administration Congress held in Sivas, in 10-12 May 2018.]
Native American Trend Analysis. 2019 Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Author: Montana Office of Public Instruction
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Health Behavior,High School Students,Risk,Student Behavior,American Indian Students,Injuries,Accidents,Violence,Smoking,Drinking,Drug Abuse,Sexuality,Eating Habits,Physical Activity Level,Sexual Abuse,Safety,Restraints (Vehicle Safety),Bullying,Mental Health,Suicide,Food,Obesity,Physical Education,Dental Health,Diseases,Sleep,Special Education

The Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) assists educators and health professionals in determining the prevalence of health-risk behaviors as self-reported by Montana youth. Initiated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1988, the YRBS aims to identify the leading causes of mortality, morbidity, and social problems among youth. This report analyzes trends among Native American youth from the Montana YRBS years 2011-2019. Seven data tables focus on: (1) Unintentional Injuries and Violence; (2) Tobacco Use; (3) Alcohol and Other Drugs; (4) Sexual Behaviors; (5) Dietary Behaviors; (6) Physical Inactivity; and (7) Other Health-Related Topics.
2019 Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey Summary Report
Author: Montana Office of Public Instruction
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: High School Students,Health Behavior,Risk,National Surveys,Injuries,Violence,Smoking,Drinking,Drug Use,Sexuality,Pregnancy,Sexually Transmitted Diseases,Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS),Dietetics,Physical Activities,Bullying,Mental Health,Suicide,Body Weight

This Summary Report complements the 2019 Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey Report and contains information regarding risk behaviors of Montana youth in relation to: (1) Unintentional injuries and violence; (2) Tobacco use; (3) Alcohol and other drug use; (4) Sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection; (5) Unhealthy dietary behaviors; and (6) Inadequate physical activity. [A list of the Survey's co-sponsors can be found on page 8 of the PDF. For the &quot;2019 Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey Report,&quot; see ED599135.]
Seizing the Opportunity: Educating Students with Disabilities in Charter Schools
Author: DeArmond, Michael
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Students with Disabilities,Charter Schools,School Effectiveness,Institutional Characteristics,Educational Improvement,Special Education,Outcomes of Education,Educational Strategies,Access to Education,Individualized Education Programs,Regular and Special Education Relationship,Instructional Effectiveness,Academic Accommodations (Disabilities),Inclusion,Governance,Accountability

The challenge of serving students with disabilities is familiar to both practitioners and policymakers, especially when it comes to education reform. Charter schools are often viewed as institutions that fail to serve students with disabilities well, or in the same proportions as district-run schools. Sometimes this is true, but it oversimplifies reality. Some charter schools serve few students with disabilities, and others are systematically discouraged from doing so because of available resources and district partnerships. And there are charter schools that have deeply committed to serving these students well. The grand promise of charter schools is that they will use their flexibility to provide every child with a great education that prepares them for college, career, and life. This echoes the dream of all parents when they send their children off to kindergarten. Clear-eyed research about the characteristics of these schools could help cut through much of the rhetoric that fills the vacuum of information. This report examines how some charter schools are improving outcomes for students with disabilities and what factors influence their ability to do so. It offers lessons for schools working to improve how to educate students with disabilities. [For the executive summary, see ED599151.]
National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program. Study Highlights. NCEE 2020-001
Author: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED)
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Technical Assistance,Federal Programs,Program Design,Program Implementation,State Departments of Education,Program Effectiveness,Capacity Building,Program Improvement

Between 2012 and 2018, the U.S. Department of Education invested nearly $350 million in 22 Comprehensive Technical Assistance (TA) Centers that operated across the nation. These Centers were charged with delivering TA that builds the capacity of state education agencies (SEAs) to support local education agencies in improving student outcomes. Centers were given broad discretion in interpreting and enacting this mandate. This evaluation sought to address the open questions about how the Centers designed and implemented the TA, what challenges they encountered, and what outcomes they achieved. With thorough documentation of how this process played out, stakeholders will be in a better position to inform future program improvement. Key takeaways from the study include: (1) Overall, Centers and their TA recipients reported that the Centers' TA improved the capacity of SEAs to meet their goals; (2) Centers shared similar approaches to the design and implementation of their TA. Those Center practices perceived to be instrumental to building capacity included: engaging a broad array of stakeholders to provide input on policy; providing products and tools for SEA staff to use as they took greater ownership of policy design and implementation; imparting organizational practices and structures resilient to SEA turnover and policy shifts; and flexibly adapting TA in response to changing priorities and needs; and (3) Centers and their TA recipients pointed to a few areas for program improvement, including clarification of the Centers' role and expected outcomes related to their work with LEAs, and further guidance for SEAs about how best to use the Centers. [For the final report, see ED599103. For the appendices, see ED599104.]
National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program Final Report. NCEE 2020-001
Author: Weinstock, Phyllis
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Technical Assistance,Federal Programs,Program Design,Program Implementation,State Departments of Education,Program Effectiveness,Capacity Building,Program Improvement

Between 2012 and 2018, the U.S. Department of Education invested nearly $350 million in 22 Comprehensive Technical Assistance (TA) Centers operating across the nation. These Centers were charged with delivering TA that builds the capacity of state education agencies (SEAs) to support local educational agencies (LEAs) in improving student outcomes. Centers were given broad discretion in interpreting and enacting this mandate. This evaluation sought to address the open questions about how the Centers designed and implemented the TA, what challenges they encountered, and what outcomes they achieved. With thorough documentation of how this process played out, stakeholders will be in a better position to inform future program improvement. Key takeaways from the study include: (1) Overall, Centers and their TA recipients reported that the Centers' TA improved the capacity of SEAs to meet their goals; (2) Centers shared similar approaches to the design and implementation of their TA. Those Center practices perceived to be instrumental to building capacity included: engaging a broad array of stakeholders to provide input on policy; providing products and tools for SEA staff to use as they took greater ownership of policy design and implementation; imparting organizational practices and structures resilient to SEA turnover and policy shifts; and flexibly adapting TA in response to changing priorities and needs. (3) Centers and their TA recipients pointed to a few areas for program improvement, including clarification of the Centers' role and expected outcomes related to their work with LEAs, and further guidance for SEAs about how best to use the Centers. Overall, the evaluation found that Centers shared similarities in their approaches to the design and implementation of their work, and Centers and key TA recipients reported that the work generally helped build SEA capacity. These two projects are not necessarily representative of all Center projects, but were selected to bring the overall findings in this report more to life while also recognizing the unique combinations of needs, strategies, challenges, and outcomes that may make up each project. This evaluation's findings are consistent with the findings of the prior national evaluation of the Centers, published in 2011. [For the 2011 report, see ED523401. For the study highlights of the 2019 report, see ED599102. For the appendices for the 2019 report, see ED599104.]
National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program Final Report. Appendices. NCEE 2020-001
Author: Weinstock, Phyllis
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Technical Assistance,Federal Programs,Program Design,Program Implementation,State Departments of Education,Program Effectiveness,Capacity Building,Program Improvement,Evaluation Methods,Surveys,Interviews

This evaluation, which focuses on the capacity-building mission of the Comprehensive Centers, was designed to add to the findings of the previous national evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program. That evaluation, completed in 2011, used survey data, structured interviews, and rating scales to analyze the extent to which State Education Agency (SEA) capacity changed and to assess the quality, relevance, and usefulness of Center services across all state priority areas. The current evaluation analyzed the processes by which Centers may produce SEA capacity change. In addition, by focusing on two priority areas, the current evaluation aimed to provide more nuanced information on the implementation processes and how they may lead to changes in capacity-related outcomes. [For the Final report, see ED599103. For the study highlights, see ED599102.
Defining and Measuring College and Career Readiness and Informing the Development of Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs)
Author: Camara, Wayne
Date: 2012-01-05
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: College Readiness,Career Readiness,Evaluation Criteria,Grades (Scholastic),Grade Point Average,Student Evaluation,Academic Achievement,High School Students,Academic Standards,Consortia,Predictor Variables,Academic Persistence,Time to Degree,Student Placement,Remedial Instruction,Validity,Students with Disabilities,Models,Benchmarking

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a consortia of states that is developing a next-generation assessment system in English and math anchored in what it takes to be ready for college and careers. To accomplish this goal the consortia must determine whether individual students are college and career-ready, or are on track. A direct empirical relationship between PARCC assessment scores and subsequent success in college and career training provides the strongest form of evidence. This paper reviews many criteria that can be used to gauge college and career success but argues that student academic performance (e.g., grades, GPA) in credit bearing courses is the most relevant and available criteria for defining success. The paper describes a general validation approach and the required evidence to conduct predictive studies between PARCC secondary assessments postsecondary success. The progression and coherence of PLDs should be based on empirical data from the statistical links between high school assessments and college and career outcomes, as well as, educators' judgments from content-based standard setting approaches. The paper provides examples of PLDs based on statistical data and postsecondary outcomes, and nine major recommendations for establishing a validity argument for consortia assessments.
Making Inferences about Growth and Value-Added: Design Issues for the PARCC Consortium. A White Paper
Author: Briggs, Derek C.
Date: 2011-12-28
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Value Added Models,Language Usage,Measurement,Inferences,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gains,Consortia,Scores,Achievement Tests,Learning Processes,Test Items,Test Construction,Error of Measurement,Elementary School Students,School Districts,Comparative Analysis,State Standards,Mathematics Achievement,Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,Trend Analysis,Accountability

There is often confusion about distinctions between growth models and value-added models. The first half of this paper attempts to dispel some of these confusions by clarifying terminology and illustrating by example how the results from a large-scale assessment can and will be used to make inferences about student growth and the value-added attributable to teachers or schools. Two key differences between growth models and value-added models are discussed: the unit of analysis (growth models focus first and foremost on students; value-added models focus on teachers or schools) and inferential intent (growth models are primarily descriptive, value-added models are meant to support causal inferences). The point is made that all growth models can be used to make value-added inferences, but value-added models almost never lead to student-specific inferences about growth. The focus of the second half of this paper is on design issues that will need to be considered by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortium such that test scores can be used for either growth or value-added inferences. It is shown that vertically scaled test scores are &quot;not&quot; prerequisite for value-added modeling. Vertical scales are most desirable in support of student-level growth interpretations, but certain conditions must be met before their creation would be defensible. In particular, the case is made that vertical scales will be most compatible with a learning progression perspective on construct and item development. The second half of the paper also discusses design factors that would minimize the role that measurement error will play in distorting inferences about growth and value-added. Finally, the paper concludes with the some recommendations for the PARCC consortia.