No description available.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002) is the most significant piece of federal education legislation since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. The policy changes made through NCLB, though, did not emerge from a vacuum: NCLB is a product of our times, an evolved cousin of previous policy texts that have influenced its creation and implenetation. This study seeks to understand the historical antecedents to NCLB, the political intent behind NCLB, and the effect of this legislation on students of low socioeconomic status. Using a historical political analysis of policy texts, secondary artifacts, and narrative analysis of policy activity, this study discusses the historical foundations for NCLB, the intersection of NCLB and A Nation at Risk, and their effects upon students of low socioeconomic status. Finally, this study posits recommendations for enacting socially just, policy-based education reform in the United States.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2006. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Limited research findings have suggested that field-independence-dependence (FID), a dimension of cognitive style, may be a biasing factor in student ratings of instruction. This study experimentally investigated the extent to which field-dependent (FD) and field-independent (FI) students differentially perceived a lecture presentation in which (a) lecture content coverage and (b) instructor expressiveness (enthusiasm) were systematically manipulated. The four dependent variables were student scores representing: (a) a global rating of overall presentation, (b) specific ratings of lecture content, (c) specific ratings of instructor expressiveness, and (d) student achievement.The four treatment conditions consisted of 20-minute videotaped lectures that differed systematically on lecture content (high, low) and instructor expressiveness (high, low). These lectures were presented by a professional actor who spoke on the topic "The Biochemistry of Memory." The high-content lectures purportedly contained 19 teaching points, and the low-content lectures, 2 teaching; points. These and two other medium-content lecture videotapes have been used in previous research to examine the Dr. Fox effect (the tendency to give hi,-;h ratings to an enthusiastic lecturer irrespective of the number of teaching points presented).The subjects were 120 female students enrolled in 12 sections of an undergraduate educational psychology course. Approximately 70% were education majors. Using the Group Embedded Figures Test, one-half of the subjects was classified as field dependent (FD), and the other half, field independent (FI).The subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four videotaped lectures which were shown simultaneously in four classrooms on seven different occasions during a regularly scheduled class period. They were told that an instructor at another university was in the process of developing a series of instructional videotapes and was interested in receiving student feedback in order to make necessary improvements. After viewing the lecture, students completed a rating form and a 19-item achievement test.This study employed a 2 x 2 x 2 (Lecture Content x Instructor Expressiveness x FID) three-way balanced factorial design. All factors were considered fixed. Alphas were set at the .05 level. Comparisons made a priori between FD and FI rating scores were tested using the F statistic. No significant differences were found between FD and FI student ratings of instruction; however, all observed differences were in the directions hypothesized. Multivariate and univariate analyses of variance were completed for the overall-presentation, lecture-content, and instructor-expressiveness subscale dependent variables. Student scores on each of the three rating subscales were significantly higher for the high-expressive instructor than for the low-expressive instructor. Also, student scores on two of the rating subscales (overall presentation and lecture content) were significantly higher for the high-content lectures than for the low-content lectures.A separate analysis of covariance, treating Scholastic Aptitude Test-Verbal scores as the covariate, was used to test hypotheses for student achievement scores. Achievement was significantly higher for the high-content lectures than for the low-content lecturessignificant interaction between lecture content and student FID was interpreted as follows: (a) FI groups outperformed the FD groups for the high-content lecture conditions and (b) FD and FI groups did not differ for low-content conditions. The manipulation of instructor expressiveness did not affect student achievement.The findings did not support the Dr. Fox effect. They are: (a) student FID characteristics appeared to have no effect on student ratings; (b) large differences in the amounts of informational material presented significantly influenced student responses both to a global rating item and to specific rating items designed to measure lecture content; (c) extremely expressive instructor behaviors positively influenced student ratings regardless of the intended measurement purposes of the rating subscales; (d) when specific rating items were used, student ratings were more sensitive to extremes in instructor expressiveness than to extremes in lecture content coverage.

The purpose of the study was to develop a formative model for the evaluation of teacher in-service programs relative to instructional behavior of teachers in the classroom. A second purpose of the study was to test the proposed model in an in-service program established to treat in-classroom instructional behavior.The operational elements of the developed model were tested by utilizing the model in an evaluation study of a specific teacher in-service education program. Participants of the in-service program included sixty-eight classroom teachers serving in kindergarten through grade five from ten elementary schools of a single suburban public school district located in the State of Indiana.The component aspects of the proposed model are:Objective: To describe and evaluate the effects of a teacher in-service education program relative to the instructional behavior of teachers revealed by the perceptions and judgements of the individuals involved in the program.Method: By defining the objectives for the in-service training program in terms of behavior that characterize the objective and measuring as criteria, the behavior associated with the objectives and processing the information in the forms of descriptions, implications, and recommendations.Relation The analysis of results based on actual to behavior provide feedback to the stated to Decision- objectives to determine the value of the in-service program for purposes of Making: modification or revision of the program objectives.Collection To obtain the information, multiple data gathering devices should be used withof data: teacher participants of the in-service program. Interviews, questionnaires, and classroom observations as a system of data gathering is recommended.Reporting Reporting statements should be of three types: descriptive, implications, and the data: recommendations for decision-making. Descriptive data would include summaries of the information collected and state implications which grow from the information. The summaries would be limited to the collected information and should be free of any conclusions.The recommendations would be made in view of the stated desired objectives. Judgements made in the recommendations should be cycled back to modify or revise the objectives identified for the in-service program.The findings from the testing of the proposed model are:1. Objectives for teacher in-service education programs relative to in-classroom instruction, can be developed to define behaviors as outcomes.2. Behaviors which characterize objectives can be identified for measuring.3. Identified measurable behaviors can serve as criteria for determining the success or failure of specific objectives of teacher in-service programs.4. Data collection instruments can be developed to measure behaviors which characterize objectives of teacher in-service education programs.5. The use of multiple data collection instruments, i.e., questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observations, contribute information in breadth, depth, and applied behaviors respectively.6. Information obtained from data collection instruments can be processed into statements of descriptions, implications, and recommendations.7. Statements of recommendation can be developed to provide evaluative data which teacher in-service program officials may use in making judgements relative to achievement of objectives of teacher in-service education programs. Conclusions of the study include the following:1. A model for the evaluation of teacher in-service education programs relative to the instructional behavior of teachers has been needed to provide a bases for intermediate evaluation and improvement of teacher in-service programming.2. A model for evaluation of teacher in-service programs utilizing a systematic procedure for securing information which incorporates reported and observed behavior can provide direct implications for planning and conducting phases of the teacher in-service program during the intermediate stages of implementation.3. A formative model for evaluation of teacher in-service education programs relative to the instructional behavior of teachers can be utilized to advance improved teacher in-service programming by collecting and treating data reported and observed from teacher participants of a teacher in-service program.4. A formative model for the evaluation of teacher in-service education programs can be utilized to collect and report data relative to the objectives of teacher in-service education programs for purposes of revising or modifying objectives of planned teacher in-service programs.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2007. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on February 29, 2008) Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Tulsa, 1975. / Bibliography: l. 149-158.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Georgia Southern University, 2005. / "A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Georgia Southern University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education." ETD. Includes bibliographical references (p. 181-192) and appendices.