ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
The Relationship between School-Based Practices and Students&apos; Discipline Evidence from Secondary Schools in Kabarole District
Author: Ndungo, Issa
Date: 2020-03-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Discipline,Foreign Countries,Student School Relationship,School Uniforms,Student Records,Teacher Student Relationship,School Administration,School Security,School Schedules,Information Dissemination,School Policy,Secondary School Teachers,Secondary School Students,Correlation

The present study was conducted to investigate the relationship between school-based practices and students' discipline in secondary schools. The school-based practices that were focused on were: Managing access procedures, managing students' identity and sensitisation of students on rules and regulations. The study adopted a correlational research design in order to establish the relationship between the dependent and independent variables in question. A total of 351 students and 93 teachers were selected using simple random and stratified sampling. A closed ended questionnaire was administered to both respondents and the data obtained were entered and analyzed using the statistical package for social scientists (SPSS). It was found that the sensitization activities and managing students' identity had a positive but low effect on the students' discipline while managing access procedures had a slightly high influence. The study generally showed that, there is a moderate positive relationship (r = 0.559) between the school-based practices and the students' discipline. This was tested to be statistically significant at 0.01 level with p&lt;0.05.
What Is a Better Argument in Middle School? The Better Arguments Project
Author: Aspen Institute
Date: 2020-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Persuasive Discourse,Communication Skills,Middle School Students,Middle School Teachers,Skill Development,Citizenship Education,Interpersonal Communication,Debate,Competition,Interpersonal Relationship,Context Effect,World Views,Student Development,Democratic Values,School Role

In this time of deep divisions, many Americans have recognized the need to heal schisms, repair the social fabric, and restore trust and civility in public discourse. The Better Arguments Project is based on the premise that American civic life does not need fewer arguments; it needs Better Arguments. The project stems from the founding idea that America does not just contain arguments, America is an argument -- between federalist and anti-federalist worldviews, strong national government and local control, liberty and equality, individual rights and collective responsibility, color-blindness and color-consciousness, pluribus and unum. These definable polarities have shaped the project that is America from its inception. This report focuses on middle school students and educators, because it is believed it is particularly important to equip young people with the skills and tools they need not only to engage in Better Arguments among themselves but also to lead others in their lives and communities to do so. [The Better Arguments team includes: Eric Liu, Caroline Hopper and Seth Henderson. For &quot;What Is a Better Argument? Report on Key Operating Principles,&quot; see ED604444.]
Assessment 2.0: An Organic Supplement to Standard Assessment Procedure. Ocsasional Paper #36
Author: Metzler, Eric T.
Date: 2018-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Best Practices,Educational Assessment,Evaluation Methods,Student Evaluation,Standards,Teacher Attitudes,College Faculty,Higher Education,Alternative Assessment

The discipline of assessment has matured to the point where there is general agreement on best practices. However, the field has made little progress in developing a theoretical basis -- whether for assessment in general or for more specific dimensions of assessment as they emerge. Without a generalizable theory to work from, assessment professionals remain focused on the details of practice -- getting it done -- instead of turning their attention to systems thinking in the service of improving, revising, growing, or otherwise developing a field that is still far from perfect. In this article, the authors bring sociological theory to bear on learning outcomes assessment in order to understand its strengths and challenges from a systems point of view. Then, using this theoretical understanding, we propose an alternative method of assessment (Assessment 2.0) designed to supplement the assessment work already being done while at the same time avoiding its most difficult challenges. Assessment 2.0 is organic because it grows naturally from the professional judgment and experience of instructors rather than from the highly structured, linear procedure commonly followed in standard assessment practice.
Mathematics Framework for the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress
Author: National Assessment Governing Board
Date: 2017-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Mathematics Tests,Mathematics Achievement,Mathematics Instruction,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grade 12,National Competency Tests,Test Format,Educational Trends,Trend Analysis,Guidelines,Scores,Comparative Analysis,Gender Differences,Race,Ethnicity,Socioeconomic Status,Geographic Regions,Student Characteristics,Problem Solving,Item Analysis,Probability,Statistics,Data Analysis,Algebra,Geometry,Measurement

Since 1973, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has gathered information about student achievement in mathematics. Results of these periodic assessments, produced in print and web-based formats, provide valuable information to a wide variety of audiences. They inform citizens about the nature of students' comprehension of the subject, curriculum specialists about the level and nature of student achievement, and policymakers about factors related to schooling and its relationship to student proficiency in mathematics. The NAEP assessment in mathematics has two components that differ in purpose. One assessment measures long-term trends in achievement among 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students by using the same basic design each time. This unique measure allows for comparisons of students' knowledge of mathematics since it was first administered in 1973. The main NAEP assessment is administered at the national, state, and selected urban district levels. Results are reported on student achievement in grades 4, 8, and 12 at the national level, and for grades 4 and 8 at the state level and for large urban districts that volunteered to participate. The main NAEP assessment is based on a framework (such as this one) that can be updated periodically. The 2017 Mathematics Framework reflects changes from 2005 in grade 12 only; mathematics content objectives for grades 4 and 8 have not changed. Therefore, main NAEP trend lines from the early 1990s can continue at fourth and eighth grades for the 2017 assessment. Special analyses have also determined that main NAEP trend lines from 2005 can continue at 12th grade for the 2017 assessment. Taken together, the NAEP assessments provide a rich, broad, and deep picture of student mathematics achievement in the U.S. Results are reported in terms of scale scores and percentiles. These reports provide comprehensive information about what students in the U.S. know and can do in the area of mathematics. These reports present information on strengths and weaknesses in students' knowledge of mathematics and their ability to apply that knowledge in problem-solving situations. In addition, these reports provide comparative student data according to gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, and geographic region; describe trends in student performance over time; and report on relationships between student proficiency and certain background variables. [For the 2015 report, see ED604439. For the abridged version of this report, see ED604453.]
Assessing Student Learning in the Online Modality. Occasional Paper #40
Author: Muller, Kristyn
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Electronic Learning,Online Courses,Student Evaluation,Higher Education,Educational Objectives,Scoring Rubrics,Course Organization,Instructional Design,Student Writing Models,Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance,Teaching Methods,Discussion Groups,Asynchronous Communication,Formative Evaluation,Summative Evaluation,Technology Uses in Education,Best Practices,Curriculum Implementation,Case Studies

Online education can be leveraged to help current students complete their degrees and to attract new students. While online learning is not new, in recent years, it has been moving away from the periphery of higher education and becoming a central component of institutional strategies for increasing student enrollment, retention, and completion. Research regarding online learning has demonstrated that there is no significant difference between student outcomes in online versus face-to-face courses; with some studies showing that online learning can be more effective. Student learning outcomes assessment must be part of quality course design and instruction whether a course is delivered face-to-face or online; many best practices for face-to-face assessment also apply to online learning assessment. Yet, there are differences between the two modalities that must be taken into account when developing online courses. The first part of this paper will provide an in-depth discussion of the Open SUNY Course Quality Review Rubric (OSCQR)--an online course design rubric and process that is openly licensed for anyone to use and adapt. The aim of the OSCQR Rubric and Process is to assist online instructional designers and online faculty to improve the quality and accessibility of their online courses. OSCQR also provides a system-wide approach to collect data that informs faculty development and supports large scale online course design review and refresh efforts in a systematic and consistent way. This paper then explores general considerations of online teaching as they pertain to the assessment of student learning outcomes. Finally, specific examples will be given of how online course instructors and distance learning administrators have designed their courses and programs to ensure appropriate assessment of learning outcomes.
Abridged Mathematics Framework for the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress
Author: National Assessment Governing Board
Date: 2017-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Mathematics Achievement,Multiple Choice Tests,National Competency Tests,Educational Trends,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grade 12,Elementary Secondary Education,Scores,Guidelines,Test Format,Test Content,Measurement,Geometry,Algebra,Mathematics Instruction,Statistics,Data Analysis,Probability,Test Items,Item Analysis,Mathematics Tests,Trend Analysis

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only continuing and nationally representative measure of trends in academic achievement of U.S. elementary and secondary school students in various subjects. For more than four decades, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other subjects. &quot;The NAEP Mathematics Assessment&quot; regularly collects achievement information on representative samples of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Through The Nation's Report Card, NAEP reports how well students use and apply mathematics knowledge in various situations by answering multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. As required under the No Child Left Behind Act, NAEP assesses mathematics in grades 4 and 8 every two years and in grade 12 every four years. The results provide a rich, broad, and deep picture of student mathematics achievement in the U.S., reported in terms of achievement levels, scale scores, and percentiles. Only academic achievement data and related information are collected about contexts for student learning. The privacy of individual students and their families is protected. This is an abridge version of the full report &quot;Mathematics Framework for the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress&quot; (ED604448).
Aboriginal Service Plan and Reporting Guidelines, 2018/19-2020/21
Author: Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training (Canada)
Date: 2017-10-00
Type: Guides - General
Subjects: Canada Natives,Foreign Countries,Postsecondary Education,Strategic Planning,Reports,Standards,Layout (Publications),Guidelines,Evaluation Criteria,Eligibility,Surveys,Public Colleges,College Students,American Indian Education

An Aboriginal Service Plan (ASP) is a three-year rolling strategic plan for enhancing the post-secondary educational experiences and outcomes of Aboriginal learners. The goals are to: (1) Increase access, retention, completion and transition opportunities for Aboriginal learners; (2) Strengthen partnerships and collaboration in Aboriginal post-secondary education; and (3) Increase the receptivity and relevance of post-secondary institutions and programs for Aboriginal learners, including providing support for initiatives that address systemic barriers. Aboriginal Service Plans are developed and implemented collaboratively by public post-secondary institutions and Aboriginal communities, including Aboriginal-controlled organizations and post-secondary institutes. The Aboriginal Service Plan initiative provides additional funding to post-secondary institutions to implement innovative new programs, activities and services for Aboriginal learners in addition to investments the institution is already making in programs, activities and services for Aboriginal learners. It is intended that institutions move successful Aboriginal Service Plan programs, activities and services into the institution's base budget over time. Aboriginal Service Plans, Financial Reports, and Final Reports are intended to integrate with existing planning processes. Aboriginal Service Plans are updated on an annual basis. These guidelines are intended to provide public post-secondary institutions, Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal organizations and Aboriginal post-secondary institutes, and Ministry staff with common standards, definitions, and format requirements for the 2017/18-2019/20 Aboriginal Service Plans, 2017/18 Interim Financial Report and 2018/18 Final Report.
Using CAS as a Framework to Assess Holistic Learning. Occasional Paper No. 43
Author: Henning, Gavin W.
Date: 2020-02-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Holistic Approach,Higher Education,College Students,Evaluation Methods,Standards,Educational Objectives,Goal Orientation,Program Development,Service Learning,Advocacy,Educational Resources,Alignment (Education),Learning,Marketing,Self Evaluation (Groups),School Effectiveness

Holistic student learning has been a hallmark of U.S. higher education since the early 20th Century when the American Council on Education (ACE) published the &quot;Student Personnel Point of View&quot; (SPPV) in 1937, reaffirming time and again that learning happens both inside and outside of the classroom. To consider students' holistic development, various scholars and organizations have developed learning taxonomies and learning outcome frameworks. The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) provides tools and resources to guide the development of holistic learning and development outcomes that employers and higher education professionals wish to see in college graduates. CAS consists of a consortium of experts from various areas of higher education engaged in developing standards for professional practice as well as resources for self-assessment for functional areas of student support in higher education. Based in holistic learning and incorporating 47 functional areas involved in student learning and development, the CAS Standards serve as a validated, reliable resource in this data-driven, accountability-focused higher education environment. CAS Standards align with multiple other learning frameworks, are endorsed by higher education organizations and associations, and have multiple uses in research, evaluation, and assessment of student engagement, learning, and development. This paper explores how the CAS learning domains and dimensions can be used to identify and achieve various division-level or functional unit goals, to advance self-assessment, and to inform institutional effectiveness.
A Comprehensive Approach to Assessment of High-Impact Practices. Occasional Paper No. 41
Author: Finley, Ashley
Date: 2019-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Practices,Higher Education,Educational Assessment,Evaluation Methods,Educational Objectives,Check Lists,Logical Thinking,Models,Outcomes of Education,Evidence Based Practice,Educational Quality,Equal Education,Educational Resources

High-impact practices, such as learning communities, capstones, undergraduate research, and community-based experiences, are effective pedagogies. Most of these practices have been around for decades. By clustering the effective elements of these activities through the term &quot;high-impact practices,&quot; we bring together elements which we know are effective pedagogies, without weight to any one practice over another. The vast majority of campuses can proudly point to multiple high-impact practices happening somewhere within their institutions, not just one or two. Thus, to talk singularly about high-impact practices--and the assessment of them--would be like evaluating just one tire on a car. To ultimately understand what makes an institution move requires looking at all of the moving parts. And given the intense focus across institutions of higher education on identifying, tagging, and touting their high-impact practices, assessment is what will separate the committed practitioners from the casual adopters. A good assessment plan for high-impact practices starts with acknowledging three things. One, the name alone does not make them high-impact. Two, evidence of effect requires assessing more than outcomes, alone. And three, assessment must be, at every stage, attentive to equity. Building upon these three ideas, this Occasional Paper outlines a process of effectively assessing high-impact practices at your institution.
Predictiveness of Prior Failures Is Improved by Incorporating Trial Duration
Author: Eglington, Luke G.
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: College Students,Student Behavior,Models,Goodness of Fit,Electronic Learning,Failure,Predictive Validity,Testing,Time,Accuracy,Student Motivation

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of adaptive learner models that seek to predict student correctness. Improvements on earlier models have shown that separate predictors for prior successes, failures, and recent performance further improve fit while remaining interpretable. However, students who engage in &quot;gaming&quot; or other off-task behaviors may reduce the predictiveness of learner models that treat counts of prior performance equivalently across gaming and non-gaming student populations. The present research evaluated how sub-groups of students that varied in their potential gaming behavior were differently fit by a logistic learner model, and whether any observed differences between sub-groups could inspire the creation of new predictors that might improve model fit. Student data extracted from a college-level online learning application were clustered according to speed and accuracy using Gaussian mixture modeling. Distinct clusters were found, with similar cluster patterns detected in three separate datasets. Subsequently, each cluster was separately fit to a Performance Factors Analysis model (PFA). Significantly different parameter coefficients across clusters implied that students more likely to have been gaming benefitted less from prior failures. These differences inspired new and modified predictors that were found to improve overall model fit - an improvement that varied in magnitude across clusters. The present findings indicate that incorporating trial duration into counts of prior failures can improve the predictive power of learning models. [This article was published in &quot;Journal of Educational Data Mining&quot; (EJ1230298).]
The Struggle to Pass Algebra: Online vs. Face-to-Face Credit Recovery for At-Risk Urban Students
Author: Heppen, Jessica B.
Date: 2017-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: At Risk Students,Urban Youth,Algebra,Mathematics Instruction,Electronic Learning,Repetition,Required Courses,Synchronous Communication,Pretests Posttests,Online Courses,Grade 9,Comparative Analysis,Mathematics Skills,Secondary School Mathematics,Public Schools,Academic Failure,High School Students

Students who fail algebra are significantly less likely to graduate on time, and algebra failure rates are consistently high in urban districts. Identifying effective credit recovery strategies is critical for getting students back on track. Online courses are now widely used for credit recovery, yet there is no rigorous evidence about the relative efficacy of online versus face-to-face credit recovery courses. To address this gap, this study randomly assigned 1,224 ninth graders who failed algebra in 17 Chicago public high schools to take an online or face-to-face algebra credit recovery course. Compared to students in face-to-face credit recovery, students in online credit recovery reported that the course was more difficult, were less likely to recover credit, and scored lower on an algebra posttest. There were no statistically significant differences by condition on any outcomes measured during the second year of high school (standardized mathematics test and algebra subtest scores, likelihood of passing subsequent math classes, cumulative math credits, or on-track rates). The benefits and challenges of online learning for credit recovery are discussed in light of the findings to date. [This article was published in &quot;Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness&quot; (EJ1135796).]
Efficacy of the Check &amp; Connect Mentoring Program for At-Risk General Education High School Students
Author: Heppen, Jessica B.
Date: 2017-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: At Risk Students,High School Students,Mentors,Urban Areas,School Districts,Program Descriptions,Intervention,Academic Persistence,School Holding Power,General Education,Attendance,Graduation,Student Behavior,Academic Achievement,Program Implementation,Fidelity,Dropouts,Prevention,Statistical Analysis,Randomized Controlled Trials,Grade 9,Student Surveys,Grade 8

Although graduation rates are rising, the high school dropout problem remains a national crisis, and evidence-based information about interventions for at-risk students is critically needed. Prior research shows that Check &amp; Connect, an individualized mentoring program, has positive effects on school persistence and progression for students with disabilities. This study examined the efficacy of Check &amp; Connect with general education students who showed early warning signs of risk for dropping out of high school in a large urban district. The sample included 553 students with the lowest predicted probabilities of on-time graduation based on attendance, behavior, and course performance in Grades 8 and 9. Students were randomly assigned to receive a Check &amp; Connect mentor for three years, starting in the summer after Grade 9, or not. Findings suggest the program was implemented with fidelity, except with students who left district schools. Check &amp; Connect did not have any statistically significant impacts on measures of engagement, academic progress, the likelihood of dropping out, or graduation. These results are discussed in the context of other literature on mentoring and dropout prevention. [This is the online version of an article published in &quot;Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness&quot; (ISSN 1934-5747). For the published version of this article, see EJ1170313.]