Your search found 49616 results.

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Partnerships in Education; School Community Relationship; Access to Health Care; Social Justice; College Faculty; Faculty Promotion; Tenure; Change Strategies; Systems Approach; Change; Models; Teacher Competency Testing; Career Development; Barriers; Peer Evaluation; Service Learning; Careers; Health Materials; Resource Materials; Information Dissemination; Public Health

Abstract:
Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH) is a national membership organization that promotes health equity and social justice through partnerships between communities and higher education institutions. In response to faculty concerns about the institutional barriers to community-engaged careers in the academy, CCPH embarked on a series of national initiatives centered on a two-pronged change strategy: (1) to support community-engaged faculty members going up for promotion and tenure in a system unlikely to change in time to benefit them, and (2) to work toward longer-term systems change. CCPH's initiative, Faculty for the Engaged Campus, aimed to strengthen community-engaged career paths in the academy by developing innovative competency-based models of faculty development, facilitating peer review and dissemination of products of community-engaged scholarship, and supporting community-engaged faculty members through the promotion and tenure process. In this article, the authors describe these challenges, the approaches taken to address them, lessons learned, and observations for the future. Subsequent articles in this thematic issue of the "Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement" report on the design and impact of the initiative's components. (Contains 3 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (236K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Talent; Gifted; Testing Accommodations; Teacher Effectiveness; Achievement Gap; Student Motivation; Accountability; Evidence; Immigrants; Educational Attainment; Educational Psychology; Critical Theory; Theory Practice Relationship; Individual Differences; Cultural Influences; Context Effect; Student Attitudes; Educational Assessment; Academic Achievement; Decision Making; Teaching Skills; Special Needs Students; Data Analysis; Constructivism (Learning); Trend Analysis; Information Processing; Metacognition; Social Cognition; Sociocultural Patterns; Educational Philosophy; Epistemology; Short Term Memory; Self Control; Racial Factors; Genetics; Neurosciences; Cognitive Style; Personality; Gender Issues; Educational Environment; Ethical Instruction; Values Education; Neighborhoods; Parent Participation; Ethnicity

Abstract:
The "APA Educational Psychology Handbook" reflects the broad nature of the field today, with state-of-the-science reviews of the diverse critical theories driving research and practice; in-depth investigation of the range of individual differences and cultural/contextual factors that affect student achievement, motivation, and beliefs; and close examination of the research driving current assessment, decision making, teaching skills and content, teacher preparation, and the promotion of learning across the life span and with special populations. Volume 1 addresses the definition of educational psychology, some of the most critical theories driving research and practice today, broad areas of research that educational psychology has addressed based on multiple theories and that make an important contribution to the field, and emerging and cutting-edge issues. Volume 2 includes 21 chapters that examine a range of individual differences, cultural factors, and contextual factors affecting student achievement, motivation, and beliefs. Volume 3 focuses on specific applications of research in educational psychology for assessment and decision making, teaching skills and content, promoting learning, and teacher preparation as well as across the life span and with special populations. Volume one contains the following: (1) Projecting Educational Psychology's Future From Its Past and Present: A Trend Analysis (Patricia A. Alexander, P. Karen Murphy, and Jeffrey A. Greene); (2) Current and Emerging Design and Data Analysis Approaches (Jonna M. Kulikowich and Nell Sedransk); (3) Constructivism (Angela M. O'Donnell); (4) Information Processing (Richard E. Mayer); (5) Social Cognitive Theory (Dale H. Schunk); (6) Sociocultural Approaches to Educational Psychology: Theory, Research, and Application (Artin Goncu and Mary Gauvain); (7) Metacognition in Education (Carey Dimmitt and Christine B. McCormick); (8) Knowledge and Knowing: The Journey From Philosophy and Psychology to Human Learning (P. Karen Murphy, Patricia A. Alexander, and Krista R. Muis); (9) Personal Epistemology: Theory, Research, and Future Directions (Barbara K. Hofer and Lisa D. Bendixen); (10) Enhancing Students' Performance in Traditional Education: Implications From the Expert Performance Approach and Deliberate Practice (Kiruthiga Nandagopal and K. Anders Ericsson); (11) Human Cognitive Architecture: Why Some Instructional Procedures Work and Others Do Not (John Sweller); (12) Working Memory, Learning, and Academic Achievement (H. Lee Swanson and Tracy Packiam Alloway); (13) Motivation: Past, Present, and Future (Sandra Graham and Bernard Weiner); (14) Self-Regulation of Learning: Process Approaches to Personal Development (Barry J. Zimmerman and Andju Sara Labuhn); (15) Self-Concept: A Synergy of Theory, Method, and Application (Herbert W. Marsh, Man Xu, and Andrew J. Martin); (16) Resistance and Resiliency in a Color-Conscious Society: Implications for Learning and Teaching (Margaret Beale Spencer, Davido Dupree, Brian Tinsley, Ebony O. McGee, Jennifer Hall, Suzanne G. Fegley, and Tyhesha Goss Elmore); (17) Evidence-Based Practices in Education (Bryan G. Cook, Garnett J. Smith, and Melody Tankersley); (18) Genetics and Education: Toward a Genetically Sensitive Classroom (Claire M. A. Haworth and Robert Plomin); (19) How Neuroscience Contributes to Our Understanding of Learning and Development in Typically Developing and Special-Needs Students (James P. Byrnes); and (20) Evolutionary Educational Psychology (David C. Geary). Volume two contains the following: (1) Academic Emotions (Reinhard Pekrun and Elizabeth J. Stephens); (2) From General Intelligence to Multiple Intelligences: Meanings, Models, and Measures (Richard D. Roberts and Anastasiya A. Lipnevich); (3) Learning Styles and Approaches to Learning (Adrian Furnham); (4) Gifted and Talented Education: History, Issues, and Recommendations (Donna Y. Ford); (5) Personality (Moshe Zeidner and Gerald Matthews); (6) Gender, Motivation, and Educational Attainment (Judith L. Meece and Karyl J. S. Askew); (7) Motivation Theory in Educational Practice: Knowledge Claims, Challenges, and Future Directions (Avi Kaplan, Idit Katz, and Hanoch Flum); (8) Engagement and Positive Youth Development: Creating Optimal Learning Environments (David J. Shernoff); (9) Conceptual Change Induced by Instruction: A Complex Interplay of Multiple Factors (Stella Vosniadou and Lucia Mason); (10) Moral and Character Education (Marvin W. Berkowitz); (11) Ethnic and Racial Identity in Childhood and Adolescence (Cynthia Hudley and Miles Irving); (12) Factors Affecting the Motivation and Achievement of Immigrant Students (Tim Urdan); (13) Explaining the Black-White Achievement Gap: An Intergenerational Stratification and Developmental Perspective (W. Jean Yeung); (14) Neighborhoods, Schools, and Achievement (Jondou J. Chen and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn); (15) Child and Adolescent Peer Relations in Educational Context (Philip C. Rodkin and Allison M. Ryan); (16) Understanding and Preventing Bullying and Sexual Harassment in School (Dorothy L. Espelage and Melissa K. Holt); (17) Parents' Involvement in Children's Learning (Eva M. Pomerantz, Elizabeth Moorman Kim, and Cecilia Sin-Sze Cheung); (18) Effective Classrooms (Helen Patrick, Panayota Mantzicopoulos, and David Sears); (19) Spring Cleaning for the "Messy" Construct of Teachers' Beliefs: What Are They? Which Have Been Examined? What Can They Tell Us? (Helenrose Fives and Michelle M. Buehl); (20) Effective Teachers and Teaching: Characteristics and Practices Related to Positive Student Outcomes (Alysia D. Roehrig, Jeannine E. Turner, Meagan C. Arrastia, Eric Christesen, Sarah McElhaney, and Laura M. Jakiel); and (21) Three Generations of Research on Class-Size Effects (Peter Blatchford). Volume three contains the following: (1) Early Childhood Education (Penny Hauser-Cram and Darcy B. Mitchell); (2) Global Perspectives on Education During Middle Childhood (Scot G. Paris, Alexander Seeshing Yeung, Hwei Ming Wong, and Serena Wenshu Luo); (3) Adolescence (Eric M. Anderman); (4) Learning and Assessment of Adult Reading Literacy (John P. Sabatini); (5) Using Assessment Data to Make Decisions About Teaching and Learning (John L. Hosp); (6) Large-Scale Assessment for Educational Accountability (Stephen N. Elliott, Alexander Kurz, and Laura Neergaard); (7) Testing Accommodations for Students With Disabilities (James M. Royer and Jennifer Randall); (8) Current and Historical Perspectives on Reading Research and Instruction (Michael L. Kamil); (9) Writing (Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub Van den Bergh, Michel Couzijn, Tanja Janssen, Martine Braaksma, Marion Tillema, Elke Van Steendam, and Mariet Raedts); (10) Critical Transitions: Arithmetic to Algebra (Martha Carr); (11) Thinking and Reasoning in Science: Promoting Epistemic Conceptual Change (Gale M. Sinatra and Clark A. Chinn); (12) Learning Social Studies: An Evidence-Based Approach (David Hicks, Stephanie van Hover, Peter E. Doolittle, and Phillip VanFossen); (13) The Power of Setting: The Role of Field Experience in Learning to Teach (Pam Grossman, Matthew Ronfeldt, and Julia J. Cohen); (14) Designing Instruction for the Contemporary Learning Landscape (Fred Paas, Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer, and Tamara A. J. M. van Gog); (15) Classroom Applications of Cooperative Learning (Robert E. Slavin); (16) Strategies Instruction (Charles A. MacArthur); (17) Problem-Based Learning (Sofie M. M. Loyens, Paul A. Kirschner, and Fred Paas); (18) Application of Technology to Learning (Roxanna Moreno); (19) Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Arthur C. Graesser, Mark W. Conley, and Andrew Olney); (20) Homework (Harris Cooper, Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, and Amy L. Dent); (21) The Education of English Language Learners (Fred Genesee and Kathryn Lindholm-Leary); (22) Methods for Preventing Early Academic Difficulties (Adriana G. Bus, Paul P. M. Leseman, and Susan B. Neuman); and (23) A Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tier Model to Meet Students' Academic, Behavioral, and Social Needs (Kathleen Lynne Lane, Holly Mariah Menzies, Jemma Robertson Kalberg, and Wendy P. Oakes) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
College Students; Writing Assignments; Dating (Social); Interpersonal Attraction; Attachment Behavior; Intimacy; Change; School Counselors; Higher Education; Reflection; Emotional Response; Social Adjustment; Emotional Adjustment; Context Effect; Student Attitudes

Abstract:
In this study, the authors examined the potential effects of type of writing task (loss/gain vs. general prompt) on the narrative content offered by college students (N = 41) who experienced romantic breakup. Qualitative analyses indicated differences based on type of writing task. Students who received the loss/gain prompt exhibited more cognitive, balanced, and complex responses, whereas those who received the general prompt offered more emotional and factual accounts of their experience. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Animals; Inhibition; Classical Conditioning; Change; Familiarity; Novelty (Stimulus Dimension); Context Effect; Comparative Analysis

Abstract:
Contextual specificity of Latent Inhibition (LI) has been demonstrated using an ample range of experimental procedures. Context dependence has not been consistently obtained, however, when LI has been induced using a Conditioned Taste Aversion (CTA) procedure. This paper presents two experiments designed to analyze whether the context plays the same role in LI with a CTA paradigm as compared to other Pavlovian techniques. Experiment 1 compared the effect on LI of a context change between the conditioning and test stages as a function of whether the testing context was new or the animals' home cage. The results of this experiment showed that using the animals' home cage as context at testing enhanced the expression of LI. Experiment 2 manipulated context novelty and familiarity beforehand to introduce different context changes. The results indicate that, as compared to the no context change condition, the strength of LI increased when the conditioning context was different from that of preexposure and testing (ABA). Conversely, a context change from preexposure to conditioning/test stages (ABB) disrupted LI, but only when the animals had been pre-familiarized with the new context introduced at conditioning. These results are similar to those obtained with other conditioning procedures different from CTA. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Military Schools; Military Training; Military Personnel; Females; College Choice; Gender Discrimination; Time Perspective; Social Integration; Enrollment; College Bound Students; Decision Making; Student Motivation; Academic Aspiration; Educational Research; Qualitative Research; Semi Structured Interviews; Public Policy; Change; Context Effect; Educational Opportunities; Fathers; Parent Influence

Abstract:
In 1976 and again in 1995, several brave women chose to enroll at--and thereby to "gender integrate"--America's military colleges. In 1976, women were admitted to the Department of Defense (DOD) service academies after an Act of Congress changed a law so as to allow for their matriculation. Beginning in 1995, women were admitted to state-supported military colleges after a long legal battle ended with the decision that state-run academies must be open to men and women. How did certain women come to decide to be the first to attend what historically had been all-male institutions? What were their main reasons for choosing to do so? This study explores the college choice decisions of several of the first women to attend--and so to "gender integrate"--America's military colleges. (Contains 5 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Program Effectiveness; Student Motivation; Elementary Schools; Constructivism (Learning); Holistic Approach; Preservice Teachers; Case Studies; Learner Engagement; Interdisciplinary Approach; Context Effect; Instructional Effectiveness; Cohort Analysis; Public Schools; Foreign Countries; Inquiry; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Learning Theories; Learning Processes; Educational Environment

Abstract:
This article examines whether models of cross-curricular, context-based learning are more effective in engaging learners through generating conditions which interest, motivate, engage and inspire pupils through a variety of effective pedagogies. This article reports on a case study of two cohorts of primary PGCE trainee teachers (292) over two years who participated in a model of context-based learning. Trainee teachers commented on the models with regard to their impact on engagement and motivation. Analyses of their responses were made during the period of the course. Experiences of trainees thus far had been predominantly a discrete subject model of teacher training, developing subject and pedagogical skills and knowledge within the core subjects, closely aligned to the focus on the core subjects in English state primary schools. In contrast, the holistic approach to the context-based learning model predominantly encompassed constructivist and enquiry-based pedagogies with learning placed within a context, also known as situated learning. (Contains 10 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Majors (Students); Career Guidance; Young Adults; Decision Making; Comparative Analysis; Higher Education; Evaluation; Careers; Career Choice; Course Selection (Students); Career Counseling; Foreign Countries; Predictor Variables

Abstract:
A sample of 182 young adults about to choose their college major were randomly assigned to 2 guidance methods aimed at facilitating choosing among promising career alternatives: Table-for-Choice and Circles-for-Choice. Table-for-Choice was perceived as more effective, but individuals' confidence in their choice was higher in the Circles-for-Choice condition. More factors that serve to compare and evaluate the options were listed by participants in the Circles-for-Choice condition. No interaction emerged between the participant's decision-making style and the usefulness of the two methods. Both methods were perceived as more useful for participants who were already at the choice stage than for those who were only at the prescreening or the in-depth explorations stage. (Contains 2 tables and 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Principals; Urban Schools; Surveys; Electronic Publishing; Educational Indicators; Federal Programs; Academic Achievement; Personality Theories; Systems Approach; Social Change; Decision Making; Administrator Behavior; Educational Improvement; Context Effect

Abstract:
Urban school leaders have challenges in continually improving student achievement and making change as quickly as needed. To address this problem 37 non-Title I principals completed an on-line survey, Principal's Actions Survey (PAS), based on the seven responsibilities for second order change identified by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005). Principals were also asked what actions they took to improve student achievement and to which actions they attributed improvement in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) subgroups. While principals indicated that they implemented the seven responsibilities, there was not a significant relationship between their overall PAS score and student achievement. The principals' responses were compared to results in an earlier study (La Cava, 2009) using the PAS scores of Title I urban elementary principals in the same geographic area and the comparison revealed that the Title I principals had a significantly higher PAS score and reported a significantly higher implementation of ideals/beliefs and monitoring/evaluating. Principals identified actions to which they attributed change in AYP subgroup performance aligned with principal action themes (Taylor, 2010a) of focusing the culture on learning, using data-based decision-making, personally investing in the change, and making decisions for student learning. (Contains 10 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (551K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Campuses; Universities; Heritage Education; Educational Finance; Religious Factors; Strategic Planning; Citizenship; Money Management; Economic Factors; Administrator Role; Systems Approach; School Location; Physical Environment; Student Recruitment; Context Effect; Educational Facilities Improvement; School Community Relationship; Resource Allocation; Decision Making; Evaluation Criteria; Educational Facilities; School Construction

Abstract:
For many it's a dollars and cents issue; for others, it's a heritage or spiritual issue. In reality campus heritage is both a spiritual and a monetary/economic issue. Some say that heritage should reflect institutional values, tradition, academic stature, and the role graduates have played in society, and others cast aside tradition and pay attention to the mighty dollar. For them, it is the bottom line that counts. This article explores the two main competing drivers of campus heritage planning. One is good citizenship--yes, the institution should exercise good citizenship in its attitude toward maintaining campus heritage, heritage that may be physical or spiritual (e.g., traditions). But being a good citizen in principle is not enough when economic times are tight. It is too easy for the financial side of the organization to review decisions on maintaining campus heritage, whether physical or spiritual, solely on the basis of affordability, the other competing driver. (Contains 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Enrollment Trends; Economic Climate; Financial Problems; College Transfer Students; Student Mobility; Educational Attainment; Pattern Recognition; Community Colleges; Context Effect; Systems Approach; Economics; Unemployment; Data Analysis; Resource Allocation; Decision Making; State Government; Fiscal Capacity; Time Perspective; Longitudinal Studies; Proprietary Schools; Competition; Student Recruitment

Abstract:
This study seeks to extend the literature on higher education enrollment patterns during times of recession by examining patterns of enrollment and successful course completion in one of the world's largest higher education systems--the California Community College system. The data are drawn from publicly available data sources on the web. CCC system budget data can be found on the Chancellor's Office website (CCCCO 2010). The CCCCO Data Mart was used to collect term-level data on head counts, enrollments in transfer courses and course success patterns. Economic data and unemployment statistics came from the California Employment. The authors begin by examining enrollment patterns during times of economic recession over the last 20 years. Figure 1 provides a snapshot of annual changes in CCC head count from 1992 to the fall 2010 term. To be more specific, the graph charts fall to fall, spring to spring, and summer to summer changes in the unduplicated term head count, so each academic year has three enrolment bars. In many of the terms, one can witness growth from year to year that tracks with California's growing adult population, and the state's budget fortunes--allowing for growth funding in the system budget. The downturns in enrollment track reasonably well with the three California recessions identified by state economists (June 1990 to May 1993, March 2001 to July 2003, and July 2007 to December 2009). The two largest drops in CCC enrollment occurred in the fall term of 2003 (-187,973) and the summer term of 2010 (-266,713), and both of those terms came immediately after the declared end of the two recessions. Community College veterans of the prior recessionary period (2003) can readily recall the massive number of course section reductions that occurred at that time and the loss in both head count and FTES. The CCC system office (CCCCO 2005, 11) reported at that time that a nearly 10% decline in unduplicated head count occurred in the 2003-04 academic year,an a decline of 4.3% in FTES enrollment. Beyond the reduced budget dollars flowing from the state, the 2003-04 period featured increased enrollment fees for students, with prices per unit of enrollment rising from $11 in spring 2003 to $18 the following year, and $26 beginning in fall 2004 (CCCCO 2005, 8). (Contains 1 figure, 4 tables and 2 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (328K)