Latest News
April 23, 2018
A Synthesis of Quantitative Research on Reading Programs for Secondary Students
This review of the research on secondary reading programs focuses on 69 studies that used random assignment (n=62) or high-quality quasi-experiments (n=7) to evaluate outcomes of 51 programs on widely accepted measures of reading. Reading performance of students in America’s middle and high schools is one of the most important problems in education. In 2015, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; NCES, 2016) reported that only 34% of eighth graders scored at or above proficiency. At the twelfth-grade level only 37% of students scored at or above proficiency. Given the importance of mastering reading for success in school it is important that schools adopt programs to help bridge the gap between current performance and expectations.
The study found programs using one-to-one and small-group tutoring (+0.14 to +0.28 effect size), cooperative learning (+0.10 effect size), whole-school approaches including organizational reforms such as teacher teams (+0.06 effect size), and writing-focused approaches (+0.13 effect size) showed positive outcomes. Individual approaches in a few other categories also showed positive impacts. These include programs emphasizing social studies/science, structured strategies, and personalized and group/personalization rotation approaches for struggling readers.
An important finding was programs providing a daily extra period of reading and those utilizing technology were no more effective, on average, than programs that did not provide these resources. This might not be as surprising as it appears on the surface. If students are struggling in reading, just placing them in a setting to read may only produce additional frustration and failure for those currently struggling with reading.
A few commonalities among programs that achieved positive outcomes are worth noting. One of these factors was that programs with positive outcomes tended to emphasize student motivation, student-to-student and student-to-teacher relationships, and social-emotional learning. An additional factor found in many of the promising programs is individualizing the intervention.
The findings are important suggesting interventions for secondary readers to improve struggling student’s chances of experiencing greater success in high school and better opportunities after graduation. Although, these effect sizes are small, given the large number of participants, smaller effect sizes would be anticipated and still may be of interest to school administrators.
Citation: Baye, A., Lake, C., Inns, A. & Slavin, R. E. (2018, January). A Synthesis of Quantitative Research on Reading Programs for Secondary Students. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research and Reform in Education.
Link: https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rrq.229
April 10, 2018
Call for Action to Prevent Gun Violence in the United States of America Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence
In response to the continuing gun violence in American schools, an interdisciplinary group of 19 scholars are proposing an eight-point plan to prevent future tragedies that have become common place in the nation. This one-page position statement proposes a public health approach to protecting children as well as adults from gun violence involves three levels of prevention: (1) universal approaches promoting safety and well-being for everyone; (2) practices for reducing risk and promoting protective factors for persons experiencing difficulties; and (3) interventions for individuals where violence is present or appears imminent.
Citation: Astor, R. et al. (2018). Call for Action to Prevent Gun Violence in the United States of America. University of Virginia.
Link: https://curry.virginia.edu/prevent-gun-violence
April 10, 2018
Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities
The US Government Accountability Office has recently released a new report evaluating the disproportionality in discipline in K-12 grades. The racial and gender gap persists in spite of efforts to remediate. African-American youth, boys, and individuals with disabilities are more likely to receive any type of discipline than are individuals in our sub-groups than would be predicted on the basis of their percentage of the population. In this evaluation, the disproportionality existed even though economic level of the student was controlled for. Previously, it had been argued that the disproportionality was a function of poverty rather than race and gender. This study challenges that argument. These data highlight that as a society we still have a great deal of work to do to overcome racial and gender biases in this country.
Citation: United States Governmental Accountability Office (2018). K-12 education: A guide for schools (GAO publication-18-258). Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258
Link: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258
April 3, 2018
Why Do School Psychologists Cling to Ineffective Practices? Let’s Do What Works.
This article examines the impact of poor decision making in school psychology, with a focus on determining eligibility for special education. Effective decision making depends upon the selection and correct use of measures that yield reliable scores and valid conclusions, but traditional psychometric adequacy often comes up short. The author suggests specific ways in which school psychologists might overcome barriers to using effective assessment and intervention practices in schools in order to produce better results.
Citation: VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2018, March). Why Do School Psychologists Cling to Ineffective Practices? Let’s Do What Works. In School Psychology Forum, Research in Practice(Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 44-52). National Association of School Psychologists.
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324065605_Why_Do_School_Psychologists_Cling_to_Ineffective_Practices_Let%27s_Do_What_Works
March 22, 2018
Summative Assessment Overview
Summative assessment is an appraisal of learning at the end of an instructional unit or at a specific point in time. It compares student knowledge or skills against standards or benchmarks. Summative assessment evaluates the mastery of learning whereas its counterpart, formative assessment, measures progress and functions as a diagnostic tool to help specific students. Generally, summative assessment gauges how a particular population responds to an intervention rather than focusing on an individual. It often aggregates data across students to act as an independent yardstick that allows teachers, administrators, and parents to judge the effectiveness of the materials, curriculum, and instruction used to meet national, state, or local standards. Summative assessment includes midterm exams, final project, papers, teacher-designed tests, standardized tests, and high-stakes tests. As a subset of summative assessment, standardized tests play a pivotal role in ensuring that schools are held to the same standards and that all students regardless of race or socio-economic background perform to expectations. Summative assessment provides educators with the metrics to know what’s working and what’s not.
Citation: States, J., Detrich, R. & Keyworth, R. (2018). Overview of Summative Assessment. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/assessment-summative.
Link: https://www.winginstitute.org/assessment-summative
March 22, 2018
Promoting Educator Effectiveness: The Effects of Two Key Strategies
The National Center for Education Evaluation, a division of the Institute of Education Sciences has released a new research brief that evaluated two strategies for improving educator effectiveness as measured by improvements in student outcomes. The two strategies evaluated were performance feedback to educators about several dimensions of their performance for a period of two years and a pay-for-performance system that was in place for four years. In the performance feedback project teachers were given feedback four times per year on their classroom practices and principals received feedback two times per year. The impact on student outcomes were small. After the first year, there was a statistically significant difference between students in math but not in reading in the feedback schools compared to the schools that served as the control group as measured by end of year scores. At the end of the second year there were no statistically significant effects for either reading or math. The net gain in math achievement for the students in the feedback schools was about 4 weeks compared to the control group.
The pay-for-performance study teachers were eligible for performance bonuses based on their ratings across multiple dimensions of their performance. The students in the pay-for-performance schools outperformed the students in the control group schools in both math and reading. Statistically significant scores were obtained in reading beginning the first year and each subsequent year through the third year. Students math scores in the pay-for-performance schools achieved statistically significant scores only at the end of the third year. There was no additional benefit in reading or math for pay-for-performance in the fourth year. The overall benefit of the gains by the students in the pay-for-performance schools was estimated to be 3-4 weeks. Again, this is a relatively small impact. It was noted that the quality of implementation may have reduced the impact of the two projects. Across both studies, there were discrepancies between how the programs were intended to be implemented and how they were actually implemented. Further limitations of the studies are that the performance feedback for teachers was only four times per year. This is generally considered to be far too infrequent to have meaningful impact. In the pay-for-performance study, 40% of the teachers reported that they were not aware they were eligible for bonuses, limiting the motivational properties of the bonus system. Given these results it is clear that we must continue searching for effective approaches to improving educator performance and ways to assure high quality implementation.
Citation: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (March 2018). Promoting Educator Effectiveness: The Effects of Two Key Strategies.
Link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184009/index.asp
March 21, 2018
The Effectiveness of School-Based Mental Health Services for Elementary-Aged Children: A Meta-Analysis
News Summary: This meta-analysis examines the effects of school-based mental health services for elementary school-age children delivered by school personnel. Forty-three controlled trials evaluating 49,941 elementary school-age children met criteria for inclusion in this study. The study used a randomized, between-subjects, controlled comparison or quasi-experimental design using matched samples to minimize selection bias. The study finds school-based mental health services had a small to medium effect size (Hedges g = 0.39) in decreasing mental health problems. The largest effect size was for targeted intervention, (Hedges g = 0.76), followed by selective prevention (Hedges g = 0.67) compared with universal prevention (Hedges g = 0.29). Interventions integrated into student’s academic instruction using contingency management were found to have positive impacts (Hedges g = 0.57), and interventions implemented multiple times per week (Hedges g = 0.50) were also shown to have a notable impact for improving student’s lives. These results are promising considering the normal barriers that impede students from receiving mental health care outside of school and the fact 80% of mental health service are provided in schools by personnel who are readily available and are shown to be effective in addressing student’s mental health needs (Ringeisen, Henderson, and Hoagwood, 2003).
Definitions
- Targeted Intervention: interventions provided only to students identified as having mental health problems.
- Universal prevention: interventions provided to all students in a classroom
- Selective prevention: interventions provided only to students at risk for mental health problems according to a teacher referral or mental health screening
Citation: Sanchez, A. L., Cornacchio, D., Poznanski, B., Golik, A. M., Chou, T., & Comer, J. S. (2018). The effectiveness of school-based mental health services for elementary-aged children: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 57(3), 153-165.
Link: http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(17)31926-3/fulltext
March 15, 2018
The Campbell Collaboration: Providing Better Evidence for a Better World
News Summary: This paper provides the history and summarizes the development of the Campbell Collaboration. The Campbell Collaboration is a “nonprofit organization with the mission of helping people make well-informed decisions about the effects of interventions in the social, behavioral, and educational domains. The paper looks at the organization’s efforts to build a world library of accurate, synthesized evidence to inform policy and practice and improve human well-being worldwide. The Education section of the Campbell research library produces reviews on issues in early childhood, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. Topics range from academic programs, teacher qualifications, testing, to a wide variety of school-based interventions. Campbell systematic reviews and related evidence synthesis provide unbiased summaries of bodies of empirical evidence. The Campbell Collaboration has recently implemented new changes in its practices designed to significantly increase the production, dissemination, and use of rigorous syntheses of research. Following the acquisition of new funding, The Campbell Collaboration embarked on a process of reform culminating in the appointment of a new Board of Directors and the creation of an annual members conference.
Citation: Littell, J. H., & White, H. (2018). The Campbell Collaboration: Providing better evidence for a better world. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), 6-12.
Link: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1049731517703748
March 15, 2018
Research on Mathematics Instruction with Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Has Anything Changed?
News Summary: This research examines mathematics instruction for learners of significant cognitive disabilities. This study builds on the previous meta-analysis by Browder et al. (2008) and has added an additional 29 studies. The purpose of this literature review was to identify research of teaching mathematics skills published since 2006 and to evaluate the evidence of instructional practices used in these studies. The review also attempts to examine if any progress has been made in implementing five strands of mathematics instruction identified in the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; (2000) recommendations. The five strands for effective instruction of mathematics are: (1) Number and Operations, (2) Algebra, (3) Geometry, (4) Measurement, (5) Data Analysis and Probability. The criteria for quality of research developed by Horner and colleagues for single subject designed research was used to review the studies (Horner et al., 2005). These standards require that to be included in this review a minimum of five single-case studies must be conducted by a minimum of three different researchers across a minimum of three different geographical regions with no less than 20 participants be required for a practice to be considered evidence-based. The data from both reviews were combined as well as they were compared. The results show more studies since 2008 taught skills from Number and Operations, Geometry, and Algebra. Additionally, the study found that the teaching of Measurement decreased and Data Analysis and Probability remained unchanged. The systematic analysis conducted by the study of specific instructional practices found systematic instruction, in vivo instruction, system of least prompts strategy, constant time delay strategy, and task-analytic instruction met criteria for being considered evidence-based practices for teaching mathematics to learners with significant cognitive disabilities.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A. A., & Wakemanxya, S. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional children, 74(4), 407-432.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional children, 71(2), 165-179.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Ed.). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics (Vol. 1). National Council of Teachers of.
Citation: Hudson, M. E., Rivera, C. J., & Grady, M. M. (2018). Research on Mathematics Instruction with Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Has Anything Changed?. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 1540796918756601.
Link: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=education+meta-analysis&ff1=dtyIn_2018&id=EJ1169270
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Rivera2/publication/322762194_Research_on_Mathematics_Instruction_with_Students_with_Significant_Cognitive_Disabilities_Has_Anything_Changed/links/5a84d7a1aca272c99ac38c01/Research-on-Mathematics-Instruction-with-Students-with-Significant-Cognitive-Disabilities-Has-Anything-Changed.pdf
March 12, 2018
Graduate Research Grant 2018 RFP
The purpose of the Wing Institute Graduate Research Funding Program is to:
- Sponsor and promote new research in areas of evidence-based education, including: efficacy research, effectiveness research, implementation, and monitoring
- Sponsor and promote new research across disciplines, types of research, and venues
- Encourage graduate students to focus their future professional work in this subject area, increasing the number of professionals dedicated to the field of evidence-based education
- Disseminate research findings for application in real world” settings, further bridging the gap between research and practice.
FUNDING
Grants vary in size; the maximum grant is $5,000 per annum. These funds will be available to recipients as they achieve agreed upon “benchmarks” in the research process.
Applications available: Immediately
Application deadline: May 15, 2018
Funding decisions: June 15, 2018
ELIGIBILITY: Applicants must be enrolled full-time and be in good standing in a masters or doctoral at a regionally accredited university or college.
LINK AND INSTRUCTIONS:
