ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Assessing Pragmatics: DCTS and Retrospective Verbal Reports
Author: Beltrán-Palanques, Vicente
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Pragmatics,Second Language Learning,Second Language Instruction,Trust (Psychology),Research Methodology,Task Analysis,Cognitive Processes,English (Second Language),Verbal Communication,Speech Acts,Evaluation Methods,Online Courses,Adult Students,Questionnaires,Student Characteristics,Social Status,Social Distance,Protocol Analysis,Spanish,Romance Languages,Language Usage,Bilingualism,Student Evaluation,Foreign Countries

Assessing pragmatic knowledge in the instructed setting is seen as a complex but necessary task, which requires the design of appropriate research methodologies to examine pragmatic performance. This study discusses the use of two different research methodologies, namely those of Discourse Completion Tests/Tasks (DCTs) and verbal reports. Research has shown that the use of DCTs in combination with verbal reports can increase the trustworthiness of the results (Félix-Brasdefer, 2010). Hence, taking into account the potential of verbal reports, the present study aims to investigate the cognitive processes undertaken by a group of English language learners as regards their pragmatic performance. Findings regarding the value of retrospective verbal reports are discussed together with practical recommendations for the use of DCTs and verbal reports to assess speech act performance in the instructed setting. [For the complete volume, &quot;New Perspectives on Teaching and Working with Languages in the Digital Era,&quot; see ED565799.]
Using Corpus Management Tools in Public Service Translator Training: An Example of Its Application in the Translation of Judgments
Author: Sánchez Ramos, María Del Mar
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Computational Linguistics,Public Service,Second Language Learning,Court Litigation,Translation,Foreign Countries,Users (Information),Communication (Thought Transfer),Crime,Second Language Instruction,Teaching Methods,Discourse Analysis,Comparative Analysis,Competence,Expertise,Computer Software,Indexes,Monolingualism,Course Descriptions,Phrase Structure,Intercultural Communication,Masters Programs,Program Descriptions,Legal Aid

As stated by Valero-Garcés (2006, p. 38), the new scenario including public service providers and users who are not fluent in the language used by the former has opened up new ways of linguistic and cultural mediation in current multicultural and multilingual societies. As a consequence, there is an ever increasing need for translators and interpreters in different public service environments (hospitals, police stations, administration offices, etc.) and successful communication is a must in these contexts. In this context, Translation Studies has seen the emergence of a new academic branch called Public Service Interpreting and Translation (henceforth PSIT), which is present in a wide range of environments where communication (and mediation) is, as stated above, essential, such as healthcare, education and justice to name a few. In PSIT, legal translation principally involves the documents most commonly used in criminal proceedings, as in Spain legal aid is usually provided in criminal cases. Hence, PSIT legal translation training is intended to help trainees to develop their legal translation competence and focuses mainly on legal asymmetry, terminological incongruence, legal discourse, comparative textology and, fundamentally, on the rendering of a text which is both valid in legal terms and comprehensible to the final reader (Prieto, 2011, pp. 12-13). Our paper highlights how corpus management tools can be utilised in the translation of judgments within criminal proceedings in order to develop trainees' technological competence and to help them to acquire expertise in this specific language domain. We describe how monolingual virtual corpora and concordance software can be used as tools for translator training within a PSIT syllabus to engender a better understanding of specialised text types as well as phraseological and terminological information.[For the complete volume, &quot;New Perspectives on Teaching and Working with Languages in the Digital Era,&quot; see ED565799.]
How Are Teacher Evaluation Data Used in Five Arizona Districts? REL 2016-142
Author: Makkonen, Reino
Date: 2016-05-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Teacher Evaluation,Data,Evaluation Utilization,School Districts,Feedback (Response),Faculty Development,Coaching (Performance),Observation,Teacher Leadership,Teacher Placement,Interviews,Administrators,Principals,Administrator Surveys,Teacher Surveys,Teacher Attitudes,Administrator Attitudes,Online Systems,Test Results,Merit Pay,Elementary School Teachers,Middle School Teachers,Secondary School Teachers,High Schools

Recent teacher evaluation reforms instituted across the country have sought to yield richer information about educators' strengths and limitations and guide decisions about targeted opportunities for professional growth. This study describes how results from new multiple-measure teacher evaluations were being used in 2014/15 in five school districts in Arizona (according to interviews with district leaders and instructional coaches and surveys of school principals and teachers), with each district administering its own local evaluation system developed to align with the overarching state evaluation regulations passed in 2011. Findings from a majority of the study districts indicated that online data platforms are facilitating observation-based feedback, with evaluation results reportedly influencing subsequent professional development for teachers--in particular shaping the work of instructional coaches and/or the support opportunities that are suggested for teachers within the district's online system. However, responding teachers in the five study districts expressed some skepticism about the relevance of school- and district-level professional development offerings, and viewed themselves as responsible for their own professional growth activities. In addition, respondents indicated that the timing of the release of standardized state test data renders those data less useful for professional development decisions than observation results. Meanwhile, teacher evaluation data are reportedly being less systematically used in talent management decisions, including to identify teacher leaders or to assign teachers to schools or classrooms. Regarding evaluation's impact, principals and teachers in a majority of study districts agreed that their new teacher evaluations have improved teachers' instructional practice, but teachers in all five study districts were less likely than principals to agree that evaluations have benefited students. Together, these findings are suggestive of positive benefits from organizational structures that support the review of data during the school year, such as standards-based observation frameworks, benchmark assessments, professional learning communities, and instructional coaching and feedback. However, skepticism among teachers (particularly high school teachers) suggests that they may not yet perceive their evaluations as entirely credible and relevant to their work. The following are appended: (1) Data sources and methodology; (2) Protocol and code book for district interviews; and (3) Case summaries.
Understanding FCAT 2.0 Reports
Author: Florida Department of Education
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Achievement Tests,Standardized Tests,State Standards,Academic Standards,Alignment (Education),Reports,Scores,Student Evaluation,Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Grade 3,Elementary Secondary Education,Parents,Students,School Districts

The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) is transitioning from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) to the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test® 2.0 (FCAT 2.0) to align with new student academic content standards. This booklet has been prepared to help understand the reports for the FCAT 2.0. It includes explanations of the reports, a glossary of the terms used in these reports, and the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS) content assessed on the FCAT 2.0.
Postsecondary Institutions and Cost of Attendance in 2014-15; Degrees and Other Awards Conferred, 2013-14; and 12-Month Enrollment, 2013-14. First Look (Provisional Data). NCES 2015-097rev
Author: Ginder, Scott A.
Date: 2015-11-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Surveys,Institutional Characteristics,Graduation,Enrollment Trends,Costs,College Attendance,Tuition,Fees,Geographic Location,Student Financial Aid,Student Characteristics,Racial Differences,Ethnic Groups,Gender Differences,Undergraduate Study,Graduate Study,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Two Year Colleges,College Students,Academic Degrees,Tables (Data)

This &quot;First Look&quot; presents findings from the provisional data of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) fall 2014 data collection, which included three survey components: (1) Institutional Characteristics for the 2014-15 academic year; (2) Completions, covering the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014; and (3) 12-Month Enrollment, covering the same period. Data for all three components were collected through the IPEDS web-based data collection system.This &quot;First Look&quot; provides users with access to fully reviewed, edited, and imputed IPEDS data. These provisional data are an update to the previously released preliminary data, which were not extensively reviewed or edited. Final data, including revisions to the provisional data submitted by institutions after the close of data collection, will be available during the next collection year (2015-16). The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through tables containing descriptive information. The following are appended: (1) Data Collection Procedures; and (2) Glossary of Terms. [For the previously released preliminary data report, &quot;Postsecondary Institutions and Cost of Attendance in 2014-15; Degrees and Other Awards Conferred, 2013-14; and 12-Month Enrollment, 2013-14. First Look (Preliminary Data). NCES 2015-097,&quot; see ED557948.]
Pay for Performance Proposals in Race to the Top Round II Applications. Briefing Memo
Author: Rose, Stephanie
Date: 2010-07-20
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,Merit Pay,Teacher Salaries,Grants,School Districts,Pilot Projects,School District Autonomy,State Programs,Teacher Evaluation

The Education Commission of the States reviewed all 36 Race to the Top (RttT) round II applications. Each of the 36 states that applied for round II funding referenced pay for performance under the heading of &quot;Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance.&quot; The majority of states outlined pay for performance initiatives to be implemented upon receipt of RttT funds. Key takeaways from the 36 applications are: (1) Most pay for performance initiatives are to be implemented at the individual teacher level and will be informed by annual evaluations; (2) Programs range from defined bonuses granted on top of an existing pay schedule (Georgia) to complete overhauls of the compensation system tying teacher pay to performance (Florida); (3) Many states intend to provide differentiated pay for additional responsibilities and/or teaching in high-need schools or subject areas; (4) In addition to state-level funds provided for pay for performance development, Local Education Agency (LEA) subgrants in many states also can fund pay-for-performance initiatives; and (5) Many states asserted that they will continue to seek grants from the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) program, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others to fund pay for performance pilots in their states.
Summer Report: Creating a Culture of Excellence in Indiana Schools
Author: TNTP
Date: 2012-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: School Culture,Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Administrator Relationship,Pilot Projects,Program Implementation,Teacher Effectiveness,Feedback (Response),Observation,Educational Cooperation,Satisfaction,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gains

If Indiana schools are going to prepare students for success in the 21st century, administrators and teachers need to work together toward a shared vision of excellence in the classroom. Indiana's innovative pilot evaluation systems give educators the tools and common language they need to have honest conversations about their most important job: helping students learn. This requires a sustained and meaningful culture shift at the school level, especially in the way we envision the relationship between teachers and administrators. Indiana's evaluation pilot is informed by three core principles: (1) Teachers deserve to be treated like professionals; (2) Better evaluations give principals the tools they need to become instructional leaders; and (3) When teachers grow, students grow. Successful collaboration between administrators and teachers requires honesty, reflection, and a commitment to constant improvement. Educators of all experience levels will need to learn new skills and reevaluate how they spend their time. Meaningful change won't happen overnight, but throughout the evaluation pilot year administrators and teachers have been seen working together to make the kinds of instructional adjustments that can have a lasting, positive effect on student learning. Through a partnership with TNTP, the DOE has continued its pilot of new evaluation systems in six corporations throughout the state. This report focuses on the results from the year-long pilot. Based on the findings of this report, recommendations to consider when implementing a new evaluation system are provided. Appended are: (1) Pilot Corporation Profiles; and (2) Descriptions of Pilot Evaluation Systems.
School Improvement Grants: Selected States Generally Awarded Funds Only to Eligible Schools. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Final Audit Report. ED-OIG/A05L0002
Author: Office of Inspector General (ED)
Date: 2012-03-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Grants,Educational Improvement,Academic Achievement,Audits (Verification),Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,State Departments of Education,Resource Allocation,School Districts,Eligibility,Educational Finance,Elementary Secondary Education,School Turnaround,Low Achievement,Intervention,Expenditures,Statistical Data,Reliability

This final audit report covers the results of the review of five State educational agencies' monitoring plans and awarding processes for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and regular School Improvement Grants funds that the State educational agencies awarded for fiscal year 2009 (for use during school year 2010-2011). The objectives of the audit were to: (1) identify monitoring plans related to School Improvement Grants funds at selected State educational agencies (SEA); and (2) determine whether selected SEAs used award processes that resulted in the appropriate allocations of School Improvement Grants funds only to local educational agencies (LEA) with schools having the greatest need for the funds and to LEAs with the strongest commitment to using the funds to raise student achievement. The audit was conducted at the Florida Department of Education (Florida), Georgia Department of Education (Georgia), New York State Education Department (New York), Ohio Department of Education (Ohio), and Texas Education Agency (Texas). The audit was focused on the five SEAs' monitoring plans and awarding processes for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and regular School Improvement Grants funds that the SEAs awarded for fiscal year 2009 (for use during school year 2010-2011). For the first objective, the audit period reviewed each SEA varied depending on the dates of our site visits. The audit period for the second objective was March 29, 2010, through December 31, 2010. The following are appended: (1) Monitoring Plans for Florida, Georgia, New York, Ohio, and Texas; and (2) Auditee Comments.
A Guide to Using Student Learning Objectives as a Locally-Determined Measure of Student Growth
Author: Ohio Department of Education
Date: 2012-00-00
Type: Tests/Questionnaires
Subjects: Outcome Measures,Evaluation Methods,Guidelines,Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Expectations of Students,Benchmarking,Educational Policy,Barriers,Program Implementation,Change Strategies,Check Lists,Selection Criteria,Data Analysis,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gains,Achievement Rating

Over the past decade, Ohio has made important education policy advances, with a focus on student learning and achievement, standards, and accountability. Ohio is serious about its commitment to quality schools and honors this commitment by providing Local Education Agencies (LEAs) a research-based, transparent, fair teacher evaluation system adaptable to the specific contexts of Ohio's LEAs. This guide focuses on the use of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as an optional, locally determined measure for student growth. The information contained in this guide is intended to support LEAs that are piloting SLOs as a measure of student growth during summer 2012. Contained in this guide are the resources and guidance that has been developed by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) thus far; however, information within the guide is subject to revision at the conclusion of the pilot program based on feedback from participating LEAs. These materials were developed to support the creation of SLO examples by LEAs participating in the pilot process. This LEA work will support the ODE guidance for student growth measures and help to build capacity and knowledge of LEAs to implement student growth measures. The following are appended: (1) Student Learning Objective (SLO) Template; (2) Student Learning Objective (SLO) Template Checklist; (3) Guidance on Selecting Assessments for SLOs; and (4) Sample Template for the Analysis of Data.
Student Learning Objectives: Benefits, Challenges, and Solutions
Author: Lachlan-Haché, Lisa
Date: 2012-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Student Educational Objectives,Educational Benefits,Teacher Effectiveness,Educational Innovation,Educational Quality,Program Implementation,Best Practices,Educational Practices,Outcomes of Education,Teacher Collaboration,Educational Assessment,Expectation,Accountability,Barriers

Not all student growth measures are alike, nor are they designed to be. But when student growth measures are used for educator evaluation, fairness and comparability become critical. This paper focuses on the benefits and challenges of student learning objectives (SLOs) and their use in educator effectiveness systems. To support educators in implementing fair and equitable SLOs, this paper highlights the work of leading states and districts as they develop innovative solutions to improve the quality of SLOs as a measure of student growth, and in turn, as a measure of educator effectiveness. The following topics are presented: (1) Benefits of Implementing SLOs; (2) Challenges to Implementing SLOs; and (3) SLO Solutions.
Assessing the Rothstein Test: Does It Really Show Teacher Value-Added Models Are Biased? Working Paper 5
Author: Goldhaber, Dan
Date: 2012-02-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Value Added Models,Academic Achievement,Teacher Effectiveness,Correlation,Regression (Statistics),Simulation,Teachers,Statistical Bias,Computation,Error Patterns,Statistical Significance,Test Bias,Models

In a provocative and influential paper, Jesse Rothstein (2010) finds that standard value-added models (VAMs) suggest implausible future teacher effects on past student achievement, a finding that obviously cannot be viewed as causal. This is the basis of a falsification test (the Rothstein falsification test) that appears to indicate bias in VAM estimates of current teacher contributions to student learning. Rothstein's finding is significant because there is considerable interest in using VAM teacher effect estimates for high-stakes teacher personnel policies, and the results of the Rothstein test cast considerable doubt on the notion that VAMs can be used fairly for this purpose. However, in this paper, we illustrate--theoretically and through simulations--plausible conditions under which the Rothstein falsification test rejects VAMs even when there is no bias in estimated teacher effects, and even when students are randomly assigned conditional on the covariates in the model. On the whole, our findings show that the &quot;Rothstein falsification test&quot; is not definitive in showing bias, which suggests a much more encouraging picture for those wishing to use VAM teacher effect estimates for policy purposes. The following are appended: (1) When Falsification Tests Fail; and (2) Negatively Correlated Errors Need Not Cause Bias.
Guidance on the New York State Districtwide Growth Goal-Setting Process for Teachers: Student Learning Objectives. Revised
Author: New York State Education Department
Date: 2013-11-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Guidance,Strategic Planning,Teacher Evaluation,Administrator Evaluation,Outcome Measures,Alternative Assessment,Evaluation Methods,Evaluation Criteria,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gains,Achievement Rating,Academic Standards,Scoring Formulas,Behavioral Objectives,Benchmarking,State Standards,State Policy

The New York State Board of Regents has committed to the transformation of the preparation, support and evaluation of all teachers and school leaders in New York State, and the New York State Legislature has enacted historic legislation (Education Law §3012-c) that fundamentally changes the way teachers and principals are evaluated. Under the new law, New York State will differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness using four rating categories--Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, and Ineffective. Education Law §3012-c(2)(a) requires annual professional performance reviews (APPRs) to result in a single composite teacher or principal effectiveness score that incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness. The results of the evaluations shall be a significant factor in employment decisions, including but not limited to promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination, and supplemental compensation, as well as teacher and principal professional development (including coaching, induction support, and differentiated professional development). The law specifies that student performance will comprise 40% of teacher and principal evaluations. For teachers where there is no State-provided measure of student growth, &quot;comparable measures&quot; are the State-determined District-wide growth goal-setting process. Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) are the State-determined process. A Student Learning Objective is an academic goal for a teacher's students that is set at the start of a course. It represents the most important learning for the year (or, semester, where applicable). It must be specific and measurable, based on available prior student learning data, and aligned to Common Core, State, or national standards, as well as any other school and District priorities. Teachers' scores are based upon the degree to which their goals were attained. This report provides background information about SLOs, describes SLO rules and considerations for comparable growth measures, discusses scoring SLOs and determining final ratings for comparable growth measures, outlines major district steps to plan and implement SLOs as comparable growth measures, discusses SLOs as an option for locally-selected measures of student achievement, and includes sample SLO scoring models for comparable growth measures. Definitions of key terms are appended.