ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0
Author: What Works Clearinghouse (ED)
Date: 2014-03-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Educational Research,Guides,Intervention,Classification,Comparative Analysis,Computation,Data,Effect Size,Evaluation,Evaluation Methods,Evidence,Measures (Individuals),Participant Characteristics,Program Descriptions,Program Effectiveness,Program Evaluation,Research Reports,Sample Size,Standards,Statistical Analysis,Statistical Significance,Control Groups,Experimental Groups,Multivariate Analysis,Error of Measurement,Research Problems,Data Analysis,Statistical Inference

This &quot;What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0)&quot; provides a detailed description of the standards and procedures of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). The remaining chapters of this Handbook are organized to take the reader through the basic steps that the WWC uses to develop a review protocol, identify the relevant literature, assess research quality, and summarize evidence of effectiveness. Organizational procedures used by the WWC to ensure an independent, systematic, and objective review are described in the appendices. Table I.1 provides a summary of the remaining chapters and associated appendices. The main differences between this version of the procedures and standards and the previous version (Version 2.1) are in clarity, detail, and scope. The organization of the Handbook, as well as all text, was reviewed and modified to support clarity; additionally, examples have been added throughout. There is more detail on the specific procedures and standards used by the WWC, including how to deal with missing data, random assignment probabilities, and cluster-level designs. Finally, whereas the previous version focused almost exclusively on intervention reports, this version provides information on other key WWC products, which include practice guides, single study reviews, and quick reviews. As the WWC continues to refine processes, develop new standards, and create new products, the &quot;What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook&quot; will be revised to reflect these changes. Appended are: (1) Staffing, Reviewer Certification, and Quality Assurance; (2) Policies for Searching and Prioritizing Studies for Review; (3) The WWC Study Review Process; (4) Pilot Regression Discontinuity Design Standards; (5) Pilot Single-Case Design Standards; (6) Magnitude of Findings for Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Experimental Designs; and (7) Statistical Significance for Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi Experimental Designs. [See ED503772 to view previous version of this guide.]
What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: &quot;Closing the Social-Class Achievement Gap: A Difference-Education Intervention Improves First-Generation Students&apos; Academic Performance and All Students&apos; College Transition&quot;
Author: What Works Clearinghouse (ED)
Date: 2014-03-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Social Class,Achievement Gap,Intervention,Achievement Gains,Academic Achievement,Transitional Programs,First Generation College Students,Group Discussion,Questioning Techniques,Student Characteristics,Private Colleges,Grades (Scholastic),Grade Point Average,Comparative Analysis

This study measured the impact of a difference-education intervention on the academic achievement of first generation college students. The difference-education intervention teaches students how their social class backgrounds can affect what they experience in college. Participants attended a moderated panel discussion featuring demographically diverse junior and senior college students who shared stories with incoming students about how they adjusted to and found success in college. The questions posed by the moderator were similar across conditions, but in the intervention condition, panelists' responses illustrated how their backgrounds contributed--both positively and negatively--to their college experience, and also emphasized the need for students to utilize strategies for success that take their different backgrounds into account. In the comparison condition, similar stories were told, but these did not connect student background with the college experience and did not emphasize that strategies for success can differ by social class. After the panel discussion, participants created a short video testimonial in order to provide students a chance to internalize what they believed they learned from the panel. The study authors reported that there was a statistically significant effect on student grades at the end of the first year. Specifically, the GPA for first-generation college students in the intervention condition was statistically significantly higher than the GPA for first-generation students in the comparison condition (3.40 vs. 3.16). However, the GPAs for non-first generation students did not differ across the intervention and comparison groups (3.51 vs. 3.46). This study is a randomized experiment, and as such, could meet What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards without reservations. However, more information is needed from the study authors regarding attrition from the intervention and comparison groups before a rating can be given. A more thorough review (forthcoming) will determine the final study rating and report more fully on the study's results. [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., &amp; Destin, M. (in press). &quot;Closing the Social-Class Achievement Gap: A Difference-Education Intervention Improves First-Generation Students' Academic Performance and All Students' College Transition.&quot; &quot;Psychological Science.&quot; doi:10.1177/0956797613518349.]
Connections between Teacher Perceptions of School Effectiveness and Student Outcomes in Idaho's Low-Achieving Schools. Summary. REL 2014-012
Author: Scott, Caitlin
Date: 2014-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: School Effectiveness,Outcomes of Education,Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Attendance,Low Achievement,Teacher Attitudes,Teacher Surveys,Elementary Schools,Secondary Schools,Elementary School Teachers,Secondary School Teachers,Leadership Effectiveness,Instructional Leadership,Correlation

This summary highlights the findings of a study that examined the survey responses of teachers from 75 Idaho schools working on school improvement. Results of the study showed schools with higher teacher reports of the presence of the goals, processes, and supports essential for student success did not have higher rates of reading proficiency, math proficiency, or attendance. A few significant relationships were found in subsamples of schools. A significant positive relationship was also found between school attendance in elementary schools in 2012 and teacher ratings of five of nine other essential goals, supports, and processes. The findings suggest that Idaho educators and others using teacher perception surveys should proceed cautiously in making decisions based on perception surveys. They might also consider using data from other sources to assess the school goals, processes, and supports they seek to investigate through teacher surveys. [&quot;Connections between Teacher Perceptions of School Effectiveness and Student Outcomes in Idaho's Low-Achieving Schools. Summary. REL 2014-012&quot; was written with Traci Fantz. This report summary was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest administered by Education Northwest. For the full report, see ED544778.]
Logic Models: A Tool for Effective Program Planning, Collaboration, and Monitoring. REL 2014-025
Author: Kekahio, Wendy
Date: 2014-03-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Models,Logical Thinking,Program Development,Program Effectiveness,Outcomes of Education,Educational Resources,Activities,Educational Cooperation,Program Evaluation

A logic model is a visual representation of the assumptions and theory of action that underlie the structure of an education program. A program can be a strategy for instruction in a classroom, a training session for a group of teachers, a grade-level curriculum, a building-level intervention, or a district-or statewide initiative. This guide, an installment in a four-part series on logic models, describes the role of logic models in effective program planning, collaboration, and monitoring. It defines the  four components of these models--resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes--and explains how they connect. Using logic models can help practitioners and evaluators better understand a program's mechanics and structure and chart a course toward improved policy and practice. [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific administered by Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. To view &quot;Logic Models: A Tool for Designing and Monitoring Program Evaluations. REL 2014-007,&quot; see ED544752.]
The Economics of Higher Education: A Report Prepared by the Department of the Treasury with the Department of Education
Author: Department of the Treasury
Date: 2012-12-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Research Reports,Educational Assessment,Educational Indicators,Enrollment Trends,Institutional Characteristics,Educational Attainment,Racial Differences,Gender Differences,Educational Benefits,Skilled Workers,Salary Wage Differentials,Social Mobility,Generational Differences,Cohort Analysis,Graduation Rate,Access to Education,Tuition,Educational Finance,State Aid,Student Financial Aid,Educational Policy,Federal Programs

This report discusses the current state of higher education, with a brief high-level overview of the market and a more detailed discussion and analysis of the financial aid system. It also discusses the important changes President Obama has made to make higher education more accessible and affordable. The key findings are: (1) The economic returns to higher education remain high and provide a pathway for individual economic mobility; (2) Public colleges educate the vast majority of the nation's students enrolled in institutions of higher education, but private, for-profit schools are growing the most rapidly; (3) Historically, society provided a significant subsidy to young people through the widespread availability of inexpensive public higher education. However, over the past several decades, there has been a substantial shift in the overall funding of higher  education from state assistance, in the forms of grants and subsidies, to increased tuition borne by students; (4) The Obama Administration has offset some of those increased costs with recent increases in educational support through increased Pell grants and the American Opportunity Tax Credit; and (5) The combination of decreased state subsidies for higher education and increased federal spending on financial aid represents a shift in the responsibility for paying for college toward a greater onus on students, families, and the federal government. This report is divided into four sections. The first section provides a broad overview of the basic characteristics of the market for higher education. The report then discusses the impact of higher education on individual earnings and economic mobility. The next section focuses on cost and access to higher education, including the difference between posted and net tuition. The final section considers the financial aid system and other federal policies related to higher education. The following are appended: (1) Expected Family Contributions; and (2) Distribution of Campus-Based Aid to Schools.
Higher Education Earnings Premium: Value, Variation, and Trends
Author: Baum, Sandy
Date: 2014-02-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Labor Market,Higher Education,Education Work Relationship,College Graduates,Outcomes of Education,Comparative Analysis,Occupations,Geographic Location,Compensation (Remuneration),Gender Differences,Age Differences,Trend Analysis

Much of the current skepticism about the financial payoff of higher education emerges from recent media focus on young college graduates struggling to enter a weak labor market. This brief highlights some of the complexities underlying discussions of the return to the investment in postsecondary education and describes some of the variation in outcomes that leads to the prevalent uncertainty about the value of the investment, clarifying that disappointing outcomes for some are not inconsistent with a high average payoff and significant benefits for most students. [Jennifer Ma and Charles Kurose collaborated with the author on the College Board publication that provided the inspiration for this brief. Greg Acs, Jennifer Ma, and Kim Rueben provided helpful comments and others at the Urban Institute also made valuable contributions to this work.]
Recovery Act: Billions of Dollars in Education Credits Appear to Be Erroneous. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Reference Number: 2011-41-083
Author: Department of the Treasury
Date: 2011-09-16
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Tax Credits,Higher Education,Government Role,Compliance (Legal),Agency Cooperation,Outcome Measures,Lifelong Learning,Federal Legislation,College Students,Financial Policy

Education credits are available to help offset the costs of higher education for taxpayers, their spouses, and dependents who qualify as eligible students. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) amended the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit (Hope Credit) to provide for a refundable tax credit known as the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC). The AOTC allows taxpayers to receive a credit for higher education expenses up to $4,000 for Tax Years (TY) 2009 and 2010. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 further extended the AOTC to apply to TYs 2011 and 2012. This report presents the results of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's (TIGTA) review to assess the effectiveness of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) processes to identify erroneous AOTC claims from January 1 through May 28, 2010. This review is included in the Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Audit Plan and addresses the major management challenge of Erroneous and Improper Credits and Payments. Results reveal that the IRS does not have effective processes to identify taxpayers who claim erroneous education credits. These ineffective processes have resulted in  losses of revenue. Eleven recommendations are presented along with management's responses. Among TIGTA's recommendations are the revision of the current tax form to claim education credits, coordination with the Department of Education to assess using its data files in tax return processing, revision of compliance programs to identify taxpayers who erroneously claim the credit, and coordination with the Department of the Treasury to determine whether legislation is needed to clarify whether or not the credit may be claimed for students without a valid Social Security Number. Appended are: (1) Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Major Contributors to This Report; (3) Report Distribution List; (4) Outcome Measures; (5) Tax Year 2010 Education Credits (American Opportunity and Lifetime Learning Credits) (Form 8863); and (6) Management's Response to the Draft Report.
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2014-4012
Author: Baker, Scott
Date: 2014-04-00
Type: Guides - Classroom - Teacher
Subjects: English Language Learners,English (Second Language),Second Language Instruction,Literacy,Academic Education,Elementary School Students,Middle School Students,Academic Discourse,Vocabulary,Oral Language,Written Language,Writing Instruction,Small Group Instruction,Teaching Methods,Learning Activities,Content Area Writing,Instructional Effectiveness,Educational Research,Evidence

As English learners face the double demands of building knowledge of a second language while learning complex grade-level content, teachers must find effective ways to make challenging content comprehensible for students. This updated English learner practice guide, &quot;Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School,&quot; provides four recommendations for teaching complex content to English learners while simultaneously building academic language and writing and oral language proficiency. This updated practice guide builds on the work of the first practice guide on English learners, expands the grade range from K-5 to K-8, and incorporates instruction in mathematics, science, and social studies, as well as literacy. With techniques found in this guide, teachers can effectively address English learners' content and language needs by systematically--and at times explicitly--building students' English language and literacy, while teaching history, mathematics, science, and other disciplines. The four recommendations include concrete guidance on: (1) Teaching English learners academic vocabulary intensively within the context of an engaging piece of informational text; (2) Helping English learners make sense of the content area material; (3) Supporting English learners as they learn to generate well-organized essays that are progressively longer and more complex; and (4) Providing struggling English learners with high-quality instructional interventions in reading and English language development. Like all other practice guides, this updated practice guide is based on research that has met the rigorous standards set by the What Works Clearinghouse, capitalizing on recently conducted research on content learning and academic language. The research base for this guide was identified through a comprehensive search for studies evaluating instructional practices for teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in K-8. Appended are: (1) Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences; (2) About the Panel and Research Staff; (3) Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest; and (4) Rationale for Evidence Ratings. A glossary is also included.
A Focused Look at Rural Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants. NCEE Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2014-4013
Author: Rosenberg, Linda
Date: 2014-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: School Turnaround,Case Studies,Grants,Educational Improvement,Longitudinal Studies,Rural Areas,Rural Schools,Context Effect,Parent Participation,Teacher Persistence,Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Surveys,Population Distribution,Transportation,Teacher Student Ratio,Faculty Development,Fringe Benefits,Merit Pay,Teachers

The Study of School Turnaround is a set of case studies of the school improvement process in a purposive sample of 35 schools receiving federal funds through the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program over a three-year period (school years 2010-11 to 2012-13). This evaluation brief focuses on the nine SIG schools that were in rural areas and how respondents in these schools perceived their rural context to influence specific turnaround activities. Key findings that emerged from the rural case study data collected in spring 2012 include: (1) Although rural SIG schools reported some challenges that nonrural SIG schools have also reported, such as low student motivation and staff morale, the rural schools reported additional challenges resulting from their schools' remote locations and large catchment areas. For example, respondents reported that these rural characteristics affected the recruitment or retention of teachers and, to a lesser extent, parents' involvement in the schools. (2) School and district administrators in eight of the nine schools suggested that long teacher commutes or isolated communities posed challenges to recruiting or retaining teachers. To counter these challenges, respondents in two schools reported offering direct support for teacher commutes (for example, gas stipends or vans), and respondents in three schools reported offering signing bonuses to incoming teachers. (3) School and district administrators and teaching staff in the nine schools mentioned multiple factors limiting parent involvement in school-based activities. Respondents from five schools perceived that a lack of access to transportation limited parent involvement, whereas respondents from three schools noted that the distance between schools and parents' homes was a contributing factor. Four schools focused on hiring or expanding the role of parent liaisons to increase parent involvement. Appended are: (1) Data Collection and Analytic Methods; (2) Analytic Approach for Categorizing Rural Schools; (3) Percentage of Teachers, by School, Who Reported the Following Challenges as &quot;Moderate or Major&quot; Challenges to Improving Students' Performance; and (4) Analytic Approach for Assessing School Focus on Increasing Parents' Involvement.
Race for Results: Building a Path to Opportunity for All Children
Author: Annie E. Casey Foundation
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: African Americans,American Indians,Asian Americans,Pacific Americans,Hispanic Americans,Whites,Multiracial Persons,Children,Opportunities,Body Weight,Birth,Preschool Education,Kindergarten,Enrollment,Reading Achievement,Grade 4,Mathematics Achievement,Grade 8,Females,Early Parenthood,Adolescents,High School Students,Graduation,Young Adults,Employment,Postsecondary Education,Educational Attainment,Family (Sociological Unit),Family Income,Poverty,Poverty Areas,Immigrants,Geographic Location

In this policy report, the Annie E. Casey Foundation explores the intersection of kids, race, and opportunity. The report features the new Race for Results index, which compares how children are progressing on key milestones across racial and ethnic groups at the national and state level. The index is based on 12 indicators that measure a child&apos;s success in each stage of life, from birth to adulthood, in the areas of early childhood; education and early work; family supports; and neighborhood context. The report also makes four policy recommendations to help ensure that all children and their families achieve their full potential. These recommendations are: (1) expanding data collection; (2) connecting data to investments and policymaking; (3) implementing promising evidence-based programs and practices; and (4) encouraging economic inclusion. [Primary research and writing assistance was provided by Frank Gilliam, Jr., PhD.]