|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; School Effectiveness; Accountability; Achievement Gains; Data Analysis; Correlation; Educational Quality; Evaluation Methods; Scores; Mathematics Tests; Psychometrics; Grade 4; Grade 5; Elementary School Students
Abstract:
Accountability systems that measure student learning rather than student achievement have the potential to more accurately evaluate school quality. However, one methodological concern has remained surprisingly absent from discussions of value-added modeling. Standardized assessments that exhibit either positive or negative correlations between achievement and achievement gains will produce value-added estimates that contradict actual patterns of school effectiveness. This study uses student-level state assessment data to explore the ramifications of these relationships for value-added indicators. Within this state's assessment, the author finds strong negative relationships between achievement and subsequent achievement gains--initially low-scoring students appeared to gain more than their high-achieving peers. Because students are not randomly assigned to schools by achievement, these child-level correlations strongly influence school-level value-added estimates, in some cases quite dramatically. However, the manifestation of these relationships varies across four different analytic techniques, depending on how a particular approach modeled the associations between initial status and gain. (Contains 6 tables, 2 figures and 4 notes.)
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
|
Author(s): |
Lenkeit, Jenny |
Source: |
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, v24 n1 p39-63 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Program Effectiveness; Foreign Countries; Feedback (Response); Family Characteristics; Numeracy; Case Studies; Comparative Analysis; Models; Outcomes of Education; Scores; Accountability; Achievement Gains; Reading Achievement; Grade 6; Grade 4; Grade 5; Elementary School Students
Abstract:
Educational effectiveness research often appeals to "value-added models (VAM)" to gauge the impact of schooling on student learning net of the effect of student background variables. A huge amount of cross-sectional studies do not, however, meet VAM's requirement for longitudinal data. "Contextualised attainment models (CAM)" measure the influence of schools on student outcomes controlling for family background characteristics in cross-sectional studies. It is argued that the latter are adequate substitutes for student prior attainment. Drawing on data from a 3-point longitudinal study in the city of Berlin, Germany (n = 3,074), reading and mathematics achievement of primary students are investigated to assess effectiveness measures of schools. Estimates are compared for a 3-level growth curve analysis (VAM), a hierarchical linear model controlling for background characteristics (CAM), and one additionally controlling for prior achievement scores (prior attainment model). The article contributes to the enhancement of a feedback culture for cross-sectional study results. (Contains 5 tables, 5 figures and 6 notes.)
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
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Information Analyses; Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Evidence; Attitude Change; Teaching Methods; Student Teaching; Teacher Education Programs; Educational Change; Elementary Secondary Education; Preservice Teachers; Teaching Experience; Professional Development; Urban Education; Urban Schools; Special Needs Students; At Risk Students; Literature Reviews; Meta Analysis; Journal Articles; Beliefs; Program Effectiveness; Educational Practices; Cultural Context; Ethnic Diversity; Context Effect; Change Strategies; Educational Research; Achievement Gains; Performance Factors
Abstract:
Despite increasing emphasis on preparing more and better teachers and despite the near universal presence of student teaching across teacher education programs (TEPs), numerous questions about what and how student teaching experiences contribute to preservice teachers' development remain unanswered. Indeed, much of the attention focused on student teaching in reform and policy discourses emphasizes student teaching's structural and logistical dimensions--for example, its location, duration, and division of labor--but not its contributions to learning among preservice teachers, nor K-12 students. This article reviews empirical articles published over the past two decades to determine what and how student teaching experiences contribute to preservice teachers' development as future teachers of students in urban and/or high-needs schools specifically. While keeping this central focus, the article also considers the implications of student teaching for the schools that play host to it and for the students who attend those schools. Anchored by sociocultural perspectives on learning and learning to teach, the review highlights a disproportionate emphasis on belief and attitude change, a relatively slim evidence base concerning the development of actual teaching practice, a tendency toward reductive views of culture and context, and a need for more longitudinal analyses that address the situated and mediated nature of preservice teachers' learning in the field. Based on these findings, authors offer direction for future research that will extend and deepen the knowledge base. (Contains 1 table and 6 notes.)
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
|
Author(s): |
Porter, Stephen R. |
Source: |
Research in Higher Education, v54 n2 p201-226 Mar 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
College Students; Student Surveys; Achievement Gains; Theories; Responses; Measurement Techniques; Predictive Validity; Construct Validity
Abstract:
Recent studies have asserted that self-reported learning gains (SRLG) are valid measures of learning, because gains in specific content areas vary across academic disciplines as theoretically predicted. In contrast, other studies find no relationship between actual and self-reported gains in learning, calling into question the validity of SRLG. I reconcile these two divergent sets of literature by proposing a theory of college student survey response that relies on the belief-sampling model of attitude formation. This theoretical approach demonstrates how students can easily construct answers to SRLG questions that will result in theoretically consistent differences in gains across academic majors, while at the same time lacking the cognitive ability to accurately report their actual learning gains. Four predictions from the theory are tested, using data from the 2006-2009 Wabash National Study. Contrary to previous research, I find little evidence as to the construct and criterion validity of SRLG questions.
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
|
Author(s): |
N/A |
Source: |
What Works Clearinghouse |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation; Measures (Individuals); Test Validity; Scores; Observation; Student Surveys; Comparative Analysis; Academic Achievement; Achievement Gains; Educational Research
Abstract:
"Have We Identified Effective Teachers? Validating Measures of Effective Teaching Using Random Assignment" tested whether a measure created by study authors could identify teachers who are effective at increasing student achievement. The authors used 2009-10 school year data to create a single composite measure of teacher effectiveness; this composite measure included estimates of teacher value-added to student test scores, data from classroom observations of teachers, and responses to student surveys. Then, for the following school year (2010-11), the authors randomly assigned classrooms of students to teachers (to ensure that there were no measured or unmeasured differences in students assigned to each teacher) and then followed the students' academic progress throughout the school year. The authors compared the students' actual academic achievement with their predicted achievement to determine how well the teacher effectiveness measure identified teachers who were improving student performance beyond their expected gains. The study found that the measure of teacher effectiveness created using 2009-10 data was correlated with student achievement measured at the end of 2010-11. On average, students of teachers who were identified as being relatively more effective had higher achievement gains than students of other teachers in the same school, grade, and subject. Although this study aims to identify effective teachers in terms of improved student achievement, it is not eligible for review by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) because the study does not include identifiable intervention and comparison groups. This study does not test a specific policy, intervention, or practice. Instead, it assesses whether student achievement can be predicted from a continuous measure of teacher effectiveness.
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 (89K)
|
|
