|
Best Practices in the Analysis of Longitudinal Survey Data for K-12 Evaluations
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Megan Townsend, North Carolina State University, mbcarpen@ncsu.edu
|
| Melinda Mollette, North Carolina State University, melinda_mollette@ncsu.edu
|
| Dina Walker-DeVose, North Carolina State University, dcwalker@ncsu.edu
|
| Jeni Corn, North Carolina State University, jeni_corn@ncsu.edu
|
| Abstract:
The need to track changes in teacher and student variables means that sharing information about reliable quantitative measures and methodologies that may be used in a variety of contexts is increasingly important. A common challenge faced by evaluators is the inability to locate reliable surveys to measure outcomes of interest. This session presents three surveys used in the evaluation of teachers and students participating in IMPACT, a media and technology program in North Carolina. Each of these empirically-validated, selected-response surveys measures changes in technology skills. Presenters will also focus on some of the more significant methodological challenges experienced during the IMPACT evaluations, including issues related to conducting evaluations across multiple school levels and administering online surveys repeatedly over four years. The discussion will highlight strategies used to overcome these challenges.
|
|
Reviewing Systematic Reviews: Meta-Analysis of What Works Clearinghouse Computer-Assisted Interventions
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Andrei Streke, Mathematica Policy Research, astreke@mathematica-mpr.com
|
| Tsze Chan, American Institutes for Research, tchan@air.org
|
| Abstract:
The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) offers reviews of evidence on broad topics in education, identifies interventions shown by rigorous research to be effective, and develops targeted reviews of interventions. This paper systematically reviews research on the achievement outcomes of computer-assisted interventions that have met WWC evidence standards (with or without reservations). Computer-assisted learning programs have become increasingly popular as an alternative to the traditional teacher/student
interaction intervention on improving student performance on various topics. The paper systematically reviews computer-assisted programs featured in reading topic areas. This work updates previous work by the authors, includes new and updated WWC intervention reports released since September 2010, and investigates which program and student characteristics are associated with the most positive outcomes.
|
|
Spatial Methods are Key to Understanding Educational Phenomena
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kristina Mycek, University at Albany, km1042@albany.edu
|
| Susan Rogers, State University of New York, Sullivan, susan.roger.edu@gmail.com
|
| Abstract:
As evaluators are asked to assess a ever-widening variety of programs, it becomes more and more important to accurately determine the root causes of an outcome. In order to accomplish this spatial methods are being employed by vast numbers of educational evaluators. This study attempts to explore the importance of spatial methods in education while using an international dataset (PISA).
|
|
Formative Uses of Value-Added Approach for Identifying Best Instructional Practices and Modifying Implementation of Professional Development
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Chi-Keung Chan, Minneapolis Public Schools, alex.chan@mpls.k12.mn.us
|
| Paul Hegre, Minneapolis Public Schools, paul.hegre@mpls.k12.mn.us
|
| David Heistad, Minneapolis Public Schools, david.heistad@mpls.k12.mn.us
|
| Abstract:
This study breakthroughs the restrictive summative use of value-added approach and illustrates the formative uses of this approach for identifying best instructional practices and modifying professional development (PD) implementation. Using two-year data of the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) collected at a Mid-West urban school district, the authors first linked teachers' value-added results to their degree of implementation observation scores. Then, the authors adopted a quadrant visualization approach to classify teachers into four categories: (1) high implementation, high value-added (HIHV); (2) high implementation, low value-added (HILV); (3) low implementation, high value-added (LIHV), and (4) low implementation, low value-added (LILV). Teachers in HIHV category are exemplars of best instructional practices. Teachers in LILV category need more intensive PD support. In-depth examination of teachers in HILV and LIHV categories add understanding of the consistencies between instructional practices and student learning that contributes valuable knowledge for modifying the PD.
|
| | | |