ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Measuring Up 2004: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Delaware
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2004-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree

This state report card is derived from &quot;Measuring Up 2004,&quot; the national report card for higher education. Its purpose is to provide the public and policymakers with information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; is the third in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately are students in each state being prepared for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates and degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive as a result of having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Delaware include: (1) Despite improvement over the past decade, Delaware needs to do more to prepare students to succeed in college. Delaware receives a C+ in preparation this year; (2) Over the past decade, Delaware has lost ground in its efforts to enroll students in higher education. This year Delaware receives a C+ in participation; (3) Over the past decade, the affordability of higher education in Delaware has declined considerably. Delaware receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Over the past decade, Delaware has seen substantial improvement in the number of students earning certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Delaware receives an A- in completion; (5) Over the past decade, Delaware has seen a substantial increase in benefits from having a more highly educated population. Delaware receives an A- in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Delaware received an Incomplete in learning because there are no comparable data that would allow for meaningful state-by-state comparisons in learning. This report also includes additional information, questions and answers, state grades, and &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; resources. [For &quot;Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED508096.]
Measuring Up 2004: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Indiana
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2004-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree

This state report card is derived from &quot;Measuring Up 2004,&quot; the national report card for higher education. Its purpose is to provide the public and policymakers with information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; is the third in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately are students in each state being prepared for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates and degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive as a result of having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Indiana include: (1) Despite substantial improvement over the past decade, Indiana lags behind many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Indiana receives a C in preparation; (2) Over the past decade, Indiana has made no notable progress in enrolling students in higher education. Indiana receives a C+ in participation this year; (3) Indiana has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education opportunities over the past decade. Indiana receives a D in affordability this year; (4) Over the past decade, Indiana has seen a decline in the number of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Indiana receives a B in completion; (5) Over the past decade, Indiana has seen a notable increase in benefits from having a more highly educated population. However, Indiana receives only a C in benefits this year because other states performed better; and (6) Like most states, Indiana received an Incomplete in learning because there are no comparable data that would allow for meaningful state-by-state comparisons in learning. This report also includes additional information, questions and answers, state grades, and &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; resources. [For &quot;Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED508096.]
Measuring Up 2004: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Hawaii
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2004-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree

This state report card is derived from &quot;Measuring Up 2004,&quot; the national report card for higher education. Its purpose is to provide the public and policymakers with information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; is the third in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately are students in each state being prepared for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates and degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive as a result of having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Hawaii include: (1) Despite improvement over the past decade, Hawaii lags behind most other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Hawaii receives a C in preparation; (2) Over the past decade, Hawaii has shown no notable progress in enrolling students in higher education. This year Hawaii receives a B- in participation; (3) Over the past decade, the affordability of higher education in Hawaii has declined substantially. Hawaii receives a D in affordability this year; (4) Although there has been improvement over the past decade, relatively few students in Hawaii earn a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Hawaii receives a C in completion this year; (5) Over the past decade, Hawaii has shown consistently good performance in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year, Hawaii receives a B in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Hawaii received an Incomplete in learning because there are no comparable data that would allow for meaningful state-by-state comparisons in learning. This report also includes additional information, questions and answers, state grades, and &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; resources. [For &quot;Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED508096.]
Measuring Up 2004: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Georgia
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2004-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree

This state report card is derived from &quot;Measuring Up 2004,&quot; the national report card for higher education. Its purpose is to provide the public and policymakers with information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; is the third in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately are students in each state being prepared for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates and degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive as a result of having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? This state report card begins by summarizing the state's performance today compared with ten years ago, and by presenting key policy questions that these results suggest for the state. Next, the state's performance in each category is described in greater detail, followed by additional contextual information. Findings for Georgia include: (1) Despite improvement over the past decade, Georgia still does not adequately prepare students to succeed in college. This year Georgia receives a C in preparation; (2) Over the past decade, Georgia has struggled to enroll students in higher education. This year Georgia receives a D in participation; (3) Over the past decade, Georgia has made no notable progress in providing opportunities for affordable higher education. This year Georgia is one of many states to receive an F in affordability; (4) Over the past decade, Georgia has improved in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Georgia receives a B in completion; (5) Over the past decade, Georgia has seen a notable increase in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. Georgia receives a B in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Georgia received an Incomplete in learning because there are no comparable data that would allow for meaningful state-by-state comparisons in learning. [For &quot;Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED508096.]
Measuring Up 2004: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Arizona
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2004-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree

This state report card is derived from &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot;, the national report card for higher education. Its purpose is to provide the public and policymakers with information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; is the third in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately are students in each state being prepared for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates and degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive as a result of having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? This state report card begins by summarizing the state's performance today compared with ten years ago, and by presenting key policy questions that these results suggest for the state. Next, the state's performance in each category is described in greater detail, followed by additional contextual information. Findings for Arizona include: (1) Over the past decade, Arizona has made no notable progress in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Arizona receives a D in preparation; (2) In Arizona, the proportion of students enrolling in higher education has decreased over the past decade. Despite that decline, Arizona earns a B+ in participation this year; (3) Over the past decade, Arizona has lost ground in making higher education affordable. This year Arizona receives an F in affordability; (4) Over the past decade, Arizona has seen substantial improvement in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Despite that improvement, Arizona receives a C+ in completion this year; (5) Over the past decade, Arizona, like many other states, has reaped a notable increase in benefits from having a more highly educated population. This year, Arizona earns a B in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Arizona received an Incomplete in learning because there are no comparable data that would allow for meaningful state-by-state comparisons in learning. [For &quot;Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED508096.]
Measuring Up 2004: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Alabama
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2004-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree

This state report card is derived from &quot;Measuring Up 2004,&quot; the national report card for higher education. Its purpose is to provide the public and policymakers with information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; is the third in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately are students in each state being prepared for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates and degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive as a result of having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? This state report card begins by summarizing the state's performance today compared with ten years ago, and by presenting key policy questions that these results suggest for the state. Next, the state's performance in each category is described in greater detail, followed by additional contextual information. Findings for Alabama include: (1) Despite improvement over the past decade, Alabama continues to struggle in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Alabama earns a D- in preparation; (2) Over the past decade, Alabama has declined in the number of students enrolling in higher education. This year Alabama receives a C in participation; (3) Over the past decade, Alabama has lost ground in making higher education affordable. This year Alabama receives an F in affordability; (4) Alabama has shown no notable progress in the proportion of students receiving certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Alabama earns a B- in completion; (5) Over the past decade, Alabama has seen an increase in benefits from having a more highly educated population. This year, however, Alabama receives a C+ in benefits because other states performed better; and (6) Like most states, Alabama received an Incomplete in learning because there are no comparable data that would allow for meaningful state-by-state comparisons in learning. [For &quot;Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED508096.]
Incorporating Person Covariates and Response Times as Collateral Information to Improve Person and Item Parameter Estimations
Author: Wang, Shudong
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Reaction Time,Item Response Theory,Computer Assisted Testing,Computation,Educational Assessment,Statistical Analysis,Student Characteristics

For decades, researchers and practitioners have made a great deal of effort to study a variety of methods to increase parameter accuracy, but only recently can researchers start focusing on improving parameter estimations by using a joint model that could incorporate RT and students information as CI. Given that many tests are currently administrated by computers and recorded RT as much other personal information is usually thrown out as test byproduct, how to use such available (may be valuable) information to improve the quality of many high stake tests has become urgent issues for states and test industries.  So far in practice, the consequence of not using CI in estimation is ignored and few studies have focused on this issue; the present study attempts to provide empirical evidence on the consequence of ignoring CI on improvement parameter estimation. (Contains 5 tables and 12 figures.)
Measuring Up 2004: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Alaska
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2004-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree

This state report card is derived from &quot;Measuring Up 2004,&quot; the national report card for higher education. Its purpose is to provide the public and policymakers with information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2004&quot; is the third in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately are students in each state being prepared for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates and degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive as a result of having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? This state report card begins by summarizing the state's performance today compared with ten years ago, and by presenting key policy questions that these results suggest for the state. Next, the state's performance in each category is described in greater detail, followed by additional contextual information. Findings for Alaska include: (1) Over the past decade, Alaska has improved in preparing students to perform well in college, but has not kept pace with the rest of the country. This year Alaska drops to a B- in preparation; (2) Over the past decade, the number of students who enroll in higher education in Alaska has declined. Alaska receives a C in participation this year; (3) Alaska has lost ground in making higher education affordable over the past decade. This year Alaska receives an F in affordability; (4) Despite substantial improvement over the past decade, Alaska is one of the worst-performing states in the proportion of students earning certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Alaska is one of only two states to receive an F in completion; (5) Over the past decade, Alaska has seen an increase in benefits from having a more highly educated population. This year Alaska earns a B in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Alaska received an Incomplete in learning because there are no comparable data that would allow for meaningful state-by-state comparisons in learning. [For &quot;Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED508096.]
Effect of Person Cluster on Accuracy of Ability Estimation of Computerized Adaptive Testing in K-12 Education Assessment
Author: Wang, Shudong
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Accuracy,Computation,Computer Assisted Testing,Adaptive Testing,Item Response Theory,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Assessment

The ability estimation procedure is one of the most important components in a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) system. Currently, all CATs that provide K-12 student scores are based on the item response theory (IRT) model(s); while such application directly violates the assumption of independent sample of a person in IRT models because ability estimation is mostly based on cluster (or correlated) educational data in which students usually are clustered in certain groups or settings (classrooms or schools). The consequences of such violations are commonly ignored. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of ignoring hierarchical data structures of students sample on the accuracy of ability estimation by using a regular Rasch model. Results show that ICCs have not only statistically significant effect on the accuracy of a person's ability estimation, but also large effect sizes. (Contains 13 tables and 7 figures.)