Third-Party Evaluation Studies as a Basis for Determining Program Effectiveness and Improvement Needs Center for Research and Reform in Education Johns.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IH PTO General Meeting Sept. 25, 2013 Check out our new website Look for us on Facebook too!
Advertisements

Literacy in the middle years of schooling focusing on Aboriginal Students.
Update on Strategic Plan Inquiry Based Learning Grades 9-12 Minnetonka Public Schools 2011/12.
LINDSAY CLARE MATSUMURA HELEN GARNIER BRIAN JUNKER LAUREN RESNICK DONNA DIPRIMA BICKEL June 30, 2010 Institute of Educational Sciences Conference Evidence.
Briefing: NYU Education Policy Breakfast on Teacher Quality November 4, 2011 Dennis M. Walcott Chancellor NYC Department of Education.
Arkansas MSP Grants: Statewide Evaluation Plan Judy Trowell Arkansas Department of Education Charles Stegman Calli Holaway-Johnson University of Arkansas.
Computing Leadership Summit STEM Education Steve Robinson U.S. Department of Education White House Domestic Policy Council February 22, 2010.
Third-Party Evaluation Studies as a Basis for Determining Program Effectiveness and Improvement Needs Center for Research and Reform in Education Johns.
Kindergarten Readiness:
DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT PLAN Student Achievement Annual Progress Report Lakewood School District # 306.
Supporting PreK Teachers During Act 3 Implementation.
What is the Parent Involvement Plan (PIP)? Why do we have a Parent Involvement Plan (PIP)? (PIP) PARENT INVOLVEMENT PLAN 1.
The Community Schools Evaluation Toolkit: Moving the Research Agenda Forward Reuben Jacobson, University of Maryland Shital C. Shah, Coalition for Community.
This work was supported in part by MSP grant # through the National Science Foundation. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily.
Performance-Based Assessment June 16, 17, 18, 2008 Workshop.
Moving to the Common Core Janet Rummel Assessment Specialist Indiana Department of Education.
Embedded Assessment M.Ed. In Curriculum & Instruction with a Specialization in Language & Literacy.
Project P.O.S.T. Preparing Outstanding Science Teachers A Partnership of GCS & UNCG A Partnership of GCS & UNCG.
Exploring Strategies for the Secondary Level in Mathematics Patricia Latham and Cathie McQueeney September 28, 2006.
Evaluating the Outcomes of SSOS: Qualities of an Effective Evaluation Steven M. Ross, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University.
Student Learning Objectives 1 Phase 3 Regional Training April 2013.
Home, school & community partnerships Leadership & co-ordination Strategies & targets Monitoring & assessment Classroom teaching strategies Professional.
The Pershing/Rice University Math Partnership: PUMPing Up Math Achievement Caren Grant Pershing MS, Houston ISD
Developing teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching Challenges in the implementation and sustainability of a new MSP Dr. Tara Stevens Department of.
State Role in Supporting Educators C HRIS M INNICH M AY 2012 | SCEE M EETING.
Leading Change Through Differentiated PD Approaches and Structures University-District partnerships for Strengthening Instructional Leadership In Mathematics.
Striving to Link Teacher and Student Outcomes: Results from an Analysis of Whole-school Interventions Kelly Feighan, Elena Kirtcheva, and Eric Kucharik.
Evaluating the Vermont Mathematics Initiative (VMI) in a Value Added Context H. ‘Bud’ Meyers, Ph.D. College of Education and Social Services University.
Reaching for Excellence in Middle and High School Science Teaching Partnership Cooperative Partners Tennessee Department of Education College of Arts and.
PARENT COORDINATOR INFORMATION SESSION PARENT ACCOUNTABILITY Wednesday, July 20, 2011 Madelene Chan, Supt. D24 Danielle DiMango, Supt. D25.
In what ways do you contribute to students’ learning in mathematics? What do you think is the role of the district in improving math achievement?
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION working together to improve education with technology Using Evidence for Educational Technology Success.
Mathematics and Science Education U.S. Department of Education.
Principals’ Meeting SCIENCE UPDATE APRIL 20, 2011 Nancy Tevebaugh (903) Judy Grubbs (903)
Texas Regional Collaboratives for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching*: An Exemplary Texas MSP Program Gina S. Day Deputy Associate Commissioner,
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
Evaluating the Outcomes of SSOS: Qualities of an Effective Evaluation Steven M. Ross, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University.
The Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program California Postsecondary Education Commission California Mathematics & Science Partnership 2011 Spring.
Evidence-Based Observations Training for Observers of Teachers Module 5 Dr. Marijo Pearson Dr. Mike Doughty Mr. John Schiess Spring 2012.
CRESST’s Evaluation of the Artful Learning Program: “Findings,” Contexts, and Future Explorations Noelle Griffin,Ph.D UCLA Graduate School of Education.
Community Context Series of Community Math Nights Leadership Development for Math Support Team Mathematics Content Courses for K-20 Teachers Ongoing support.
Does Reading First Work? Feng-Yi Hung, Ph.D. Director of Assessment and Program Evaluation Clover Park School District.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Summary of the Performance Period 2008 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Education.
Math and Science Partnership Program Approaches to State Longitudinal Evaluation March 21, 2011 San Francisco MSP Regional Meeting Patty O’Driscoll Public.
Marjorie Hall Haley, PhD - GMU1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The reauthorized elementary and secondary education act.
CaMSP Cohort 8 Orientation Cohort 8 State and Local Evaluation Overview, Reporting Requirements, and Attendance Database February 23, 2011 California Department.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Summary of the FY2006 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Education.
Challenges and Trade-offs in Measuring the Outcomes of NSF’s Mathematics and Science Partnership Program: Lessons from four years on the learning curve.
Leading Beyond the Institution: Graduates as Learners, Leaders, and Scholarly Practitioners Drs. Ron Zambo, Debby Zambo, Ray R. Buss.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Summary of the Performance Period 2008 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Education.
ARTS EDUCATION in GEORGIA. Georgia Council for the Arts MISSION The mission of Georgia Council for the Arts is to cultivate the growth of vibrant, thriving.
Student Learning Objectives 1 SCEE Summit Student Learning Objectives District Professional Development is the Key 2.
MSP Program Evaluation Carol L. Fletcher, Ph.D. TRC Project Director Meetings 1/27/09 and 2/5/09 Carol L. Fletcher, Ph.D. TRC Project Director Meetings.
Florida Charter School Conference Orlando, Florida November, 2009 Clark Dorman Project Leader Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI Project University.
Minnesota's Approach to Comprehensive Assessment Megan E. Cox, Ph.D. Principal Leadership Academy January 11, 2016 Minnesota’s Approach to Comprehensive.
Statewide Evaluation Cohort 7 Overview of Evaluation March 23, 2010 Mikala L. Rahn, Ph.D.
Past, Present, & Key to our Future. * In 1995 a survey was conducted across DE and it was found that the predominant form of Science Education was textbook.
1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The reauthorized elementary and secondary education act.
Network to Transform Teaching Supporting Educator Effectiveness Development Presentation to the Board of Directors The National Board Unpacking The Problem.
AEMP Grade Level Collaborative Module 8 Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and School Support Language Acquisition Branch Academic English Mastery Program.
Funding Opportunities at the Institute of Education Sciences Elizabeth R. Albro, Ph.D. Teaching and Learning Division National Center for Education Research.
NYSED Policy Update Pat Geary Statewide RSE-TASC Meeting May 2013.
SIOP Implementation in Manatee County A Title I and Title III Partnership Presented by: Debra Estes, ESOL Coordinator.
EVALUATING A MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH M.ED. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. Knowledge, Pedagogy, Practice or Student Achievement:
MSP Summary of First Year Annual Report FY 2004 Projects.
Update on Teaching, Learning and Leading
Kansas Leads the World in the Success of Each Student.
ANNUAL TITLE I MEETING NOBLE ACADEMY COLUMBUS.
New Prospect Elementary School
Federal Program Funding to Improve Student Outcomes
Presentation transcript:

Third-Party Evaluation Studies as a Basis for Determining Program Effectiveness and Improvement Needs Center for Research and Reform in Education Johns Hopkins University Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Professor and Evaluation Director

The School of Education and CRRE We want SOE to be the place where education companies and others go for research and development and instruction.

The Center for Research and Reform in Education: Evaluation Services Independent studies of program implementation, products, and outcomes Literature reviews and research papers on selected topics Best Evidence Encyclopedia (BEE)

Recent and Ongoing CRRE Evaluations Parent Engagement and Partnership Program (EIA) Middlebury Interactive Program (EIA) JUMP Math in NYC Middle School Matters National Institute of School Leaders Three principal preparation programs Women’s Initiative Fellowship Program High school reform in Minnesota Social-emotional learning in Northern Ireland The Leader in Me Program in two schools Pre-K and K Early Literacy English Language Learners in Texas

Growing Demand for Evidence Publishers ◦ Evidence-Based Acquisition Standards State/Local Education Agencies ◦ Contract RFP Evaluation Criteria Federal Government ◦ Rising Standard of Efficacy Companies ◦ Product Differentiation Investors ◦ Culling Criteria

A Hierarchy of Program Evaluations Level I: Design Study ◦ What is the quality of the program design with regard to instructional theory, logic model, pedagogy, etc.? ◦ Focus: Systematic program review relative to rubrics and standards.

A Hierarchy of Program Evaluations Level II: Development Study ◦ What is the quality of program implementation, user satisfaction, and refinement needs? Is the program ready for broader implementation? ◦ Focus: Case study in one or a few selected application contexts (e.g., classrooms or schools)

A Hierarchy of Program Evaluations Level III: Efficacy Study ◦ What is the potential of the program to produce educational benefits in selected target contexts? ◦ Focus: Treatment-control comparison in a small number of selected application contexts (e.g., 3 program schools vs. 3 control schools. )

A Hierarchy of Program Evaluations Level IV: Effectiveness Study ◦ What are the effects of the program to produce educational benefits in a broad range of target contexts? ◦ Focus: Highly rigorous treatment-control comparison in a large number of application contexts (e.g., 20 program schools vs. 20 control schools )

Types of Evaluation Studies Simplest and Least Costly ◦ Case Study Example: Examining a middle school’s use of a new computer program for supplementing math instruction

Types of Evaluation Studies Simplest and Least Costly ◦ Survey/Interview Study Example: How 325 principals who participated in online leadership training react to the program and their application of the skills taught

Types of Evaluation Studies Simplest and Least Costly ◦ Achievement Profile Study Example: Descriptive analysis of posted state assessment scores for 25 schools before and after using a new after-school program in E/LA

Types of Evaluation Studies Medium Rigor and Cost ◦ Mixed-Methods Control Group Study Example: Program Schools A and B are compared on district science assessments to Control Schools C and D

Types of Evaluation Studies Medium Rigor and Cost ◦ Quantitative Control Group Study Example: Using statistical controls, comparisons are made on school-level AP scores in chemistry between 26 program schools and 50 control schools

Types of Evaluation Studies Medium Rigor and Cost ◦ Qualitative Control Group Study Example: Through observations, interviews, and surveys, teaching methods and student engagement are compared at two schools receiving professional development in project- based learning and two control schools

Types of Evaluation Studies Most Rigorous and Costly (Often funded by federal grants) ◦ Mixed-Methods Matched Comparison Study Example: 10 schools that elected to use a new program are compared on student-level test scores and qualitative measures to 10 matched schools serving as control sites

What Determines Rigor? Multiple measures (triangulation) Standardized measures (unbiased/objective) Treatment-control group comparisons Equivalent comparison groups

What Determines Cost? Accessibility of data Cooperativeness of participants Travel

Major Considerations What questions do you want to answer? How quickly do you need the answers? What resources are available to fund the study? How accessible are participants and data?

Steven M. Ross Evaluation Director, CRRE