No description available.

The principal objective of this report is to conceptualize and articulate a product plan for EvoLesson, a hosted application for supporting the implementation of the standards-based lesson cycle. EvoLesson is a lesson planning application that supports the creation of efficient, effective and aligned assessments and daily lesson plans without restricting teacher autonomy. EvoLesson's lesson design process creates shared resources for objective driven, backwards-planned lesson development that facilitates the creation of teacher-generated daily objective student mastery data. EvoLesson's mission is to provide public school teachers and administrators with a platform to find, create, edit and share lesson planning resources and generate student data to improve teacher effectiveness and drive student performance. EvoLesson was created as a means of solving the daily challenge teachers face in attempting to implement standards-based lesson plans effectively. EvoLesson's teacher centered design creates values for both teachers and administrators by offering the following lesson planning benefits to impact student achievement. EvoLesson addresses the critical need of providing teachers and administrators with essential resources to support effective planning and drive student achievement. EvoLesson is positioned to compete in the rapidly growing education technology market, with specific emphasis on the content and instructional support segments. This report outlines a comprehensive strategy for marketing EvoLesson to both teachers and school districts. EvoLesson's future role in providing critical support for the implementation of standards-based learning has wide-ranging education policy implications, including increased student performance, improved teacher quality, and data support for improved teacher evaluation methods. At the state level, the ability to aggregate daily objective student mastery data can provide quality data feedback on standards alignment and testing. / text

none

The purpose of this mixed-method study was to explore the instructional changes in first grade classrooms and reading progress of first grade students in relation to implementation of standards-based report cards (SBRC). The goal of this study, conducted in a suburban Texas school district, was to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in reading progress between students enrolled in first grade classrooms in which traditional report cards were used in comparison to comparable classrooms in which SBRCs were used. Additionally, the instructional practices of teachers were examined to determine the types of changes that took place as the district moved from traditional report cards to SBRCs. A total of 709 students and 15 teachers were involved in the study. The study revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the reading growth of students assessed in SBRC classrooms and those assessed with traditional report cards. There were, however, significant differences in instructional practices employed by teachers in SBRC classrooms. These changes in practice included instructing with a greater degree of focus on specific objectives to be taught, more closely following the district’s scope and sequence, greater communication regarding the grading criteria and methods used for reporting progress, use of the most recent achievement data when determining grades (in comparison to averaging of grades during a reporting period), and a greater awareness of students’ specific abilities.

THE NATURE OF FEEDBACK PROVIDED TO ELEMENTARY STUDENTS BY TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS WHERE GRADING AND REPORTING ARE STANDARDS-BASED Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement. Hattie (2002) found that the giving of quality feedback to students is one of the top five strategies teachers can use to improve student achievement. Research has confirmed that the right kind of feedback is essential for effective teaching and learning (McMillan, 2007). The University of Queensland (Australia) notes that feedback is the entity that brings assessment into the learning process (1998). The evidence also shows, however, that how feedback is given and the types of feedback given can provide disparate results with both achievement and student motivation. One mitigating factor to the giving and receiving of feedback in classrooms is a climate of evaluation, competition, rewards, punishments, winners and losers. In fact, research shows that while the giving of descriptive feedback enhances learning and motivation, the giving of norm-referenced grades has a negative impact on students (Bandura, 1993; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Butler & Nisan, 1986; Butler, 1987). This qualitative study used interviews, teacher observations, and document analysis to seek out the nature of feedback provided to students in a standards-based school district, where grading is standards-based rather than norm-referenced. The literature review suggests particular properties and circumstances that make feedback effective, and the researcher has used this research to analyze the oral and written feedback that teachers provide students. The analysis describes the use of feedback and feedback loops in these classrooms and the findings add to the current knowledge-base about the giving and receiving of feedback in standards-based schools and suggests areas for teacher improvement and development.

Instructional practices in mathematics courses at two-year colleges include lecture as the predominant instructional form in 78% of two-year colleges, with class sizes averaging about 26 students (AACC, 2005). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicates that there is a need for change in the practices of mathematics teachers because students are not being served well by the traditional pedagogical approaches (Burrill & Hollweg, 2003). The standards-based reform movement has had a positive impact on pedagogy but there are ongoing issues of alignment of teaching strategies to more student-centered practices (Barrington, 2004). This study examined the standards-based teaching practices of college mathematics faculty in the first two years to answer the research questions: What alignment exists between two-year college mathematics instructor’s knowledge and the instructional standards published by the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges in Beyond Crossroads? What are the components that characterize the instructional practices of two-year college instructors? What relationship exists between the alignment of Two-Year College mathematics faculty instructional practices with Beyond Crossroads? An interpretative qualitative methodology with an embedded survey was applied to examine how the American Mathematical Association of Two Year Colleges standards are currently being aligned with instruction in the first two years of college. An analysis of the data revealed that standards-based teaching strengthens instructor delivery and accommodates diverse learning styles. Mathematics faculty use technology as a teaching tool and use a variety of student-centered activities to engage students to help them make meaningful connections. Findings from the study suggest there exist a strong relationship between the American Mathematical Association of Two Year College standards and instructor practice in the first two years. The findings indicate that mathematics faculty struggled in changing their instructional practice to meet the needs of their students. Furthermore, findings suggest that those invested in the mathematics education in the first two years constantly adjust their teaching through professional development opportunities. Additionally, mathematics faculty modified the curriculum to customize their instruction to align with standards-based teaching practices as their knowledge and awareness of standards develops as a professional.

The dissertation describes a study of the instructional validity of the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), a standards-based assessment. The study addresses the third- and fifth-grade mathematics portion of the 2005 AIMS test, focusing on two performance objectives per grade level. The study centers on the following questions: Can variation in students' mathematics achievement on AIMS be explained by instructional validity measures, namely: (1) alignment between test items and instructional characteristics and (2) by the degree of teacher emphasis on the two skills of interest to the study? Does the relationship between these measures and AIMS performance differ across grade levels? What possible explanations exist to account for grade level differences? Is there a relationship between the instructional validity measures and performance on the objectives of interest to this study?The dissertation discusses the evolution of thinking about instructional validity as standardized testing has changed. The study methods, including developing alignment measures from interview transcripts and classroom assessment examples collected from 16 third-grade teachers and 20 fifth-grade teachers in one school district are also described. Findings include that, although the method of using qualitative data to gauge instructional validity yields rich information about instructional practice, there was little instructional variation between classrooms in the district studied. This may have occurred because the district requires teachers to provide instruction exactly as specified in the district-adopted mathematics text. Some between-grade level differences do exist in the curricular alignment with AIMS. Teachers attempted to overcome this in their instruction despite district mandates to the contrary. Results support the instructional sensitivity of AIMS at third grade, but not at fifth grade. Differences in instructional sensitivity across grade levels might be linked to curricular differences; some third-grade teachers reported supplementing the curriculum to address the state standards while fifth-grade teachers largely reported that this was not necessary. Interestingly, the degree of alignment at third- and fifth-grade did not vary, although fifth-grade teachers placed more emphasis the study objectives. This speaks to third-grade teacher commitment to address the standards, and the challenges in emphasizing them when district-adopted curricula are not well-aligned with state standards.

In seeking to maximize student learning, educators must implement grading practices that assess well-defined course standards and clearly articulate student proficiency. Standards-based grading (SBG) practices enhance student learning by linking well-defined course standards and effective feedback. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing sought to determine if the use of standards-based grading in Algebra I resulted in higher achievement on standardized tests, specifically the Algebra I the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) End of Course (EOC) assessment. Specifically, addressing the following research questions: Are there differences on Algebra I scores on the STAAR EOC scores between students in a traditional grading system, hybrid grading system, and a standards-based grading system? Are the effects of grading system methods moderated by participant characteristics, i.e., gender, race/ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian), English language learner, special education services, or economically disadvantaged? One high school campus in a large school district in North Texas was involved in the current study. The study examines three years of data as the campus transitioned from a traditional grading system to one that employs the tenants of an SBG system while continuing to formally report percentage grades for assessments. In this study, the researcher found evidence to suggest a statistically significant impact from standards-based grading methods on student achievement as measured by the Algebra I STAAR EOC assessment for the entire population with mixed results when examined by participant characteristics.

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to examine elementary education teacher perceptions of the change process that occurred in a public-school district during the four-year transition from a traditional grade reporting process to a standards-based system. The director of elementary education and a district leadership team provided oversight as the initial teacher cohort participated in a full school year of planning and designing the new standards-based report card for kindergarten and was executed the following school year. First-grade cohort teachers began their initial year of planning and design the same year kindergarten began implementation. The second-grade teacher cohort followed with the same progression. This study was designed to collect qualitative data from district cohort teachers who participated in the shift to the standards-based report card. The evidence was used to determine the successes and challenges involved with the collaborative reform process between district leaders and grade level cohort members in designing, creating, and implementing the standards-based report card. The system-change that occurred was explored and compared to Fullan’s (2016b) three dimensions of change model. The results of this study demonstrate a general interpretation of how cohort teachers perceived the relationships and interactions that influenced the leadership quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of change.

The purpose of this study was to determine if method of instruction, standards-based or traditional, had an impact on student mathematics achievement. More specifically, this study sought to determine if students taught using the JBHM Achievement Connections® standards-based method of instruction would show higher academic gain than students taught using a traditional method of instruction through the use of Mathematics: Applications and Connections, Course 2® in seventh-grade. The research design was a quasi-experimental design, with 65 students participating. Group A received a traditional method of instruction through the use of Mathematics: Applications and Connections, Course 2 and Group B received a standards-based method of instruction through the use of JBHM Achievement Connections. The test instrument administered for the pretest and posttest was the PLATO eduTest®. An analysis of the pretest and posttest scores was conducted. T-tests were run to examine the differences between pretest and posttest cores and gender, based on the method of instruction. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to examine differences in performance based on class period representation. A paired t-test was computed to examine differences between the pretest and posttest scores after students were exposed to a method of instruction. After the data was collected and analyzed, the findings showed that there were no statistical differences in student achievement between students taught using JBHM Achievement Connections standards-based method of instruction (Group A) and those students taught using Mathematics: Applications and Connections, Course 2 traditional method of instruction (Group B) as measured by the PLATO eduTest scores. Students taught using the JBHM Achievement Connections standards-based method of instruction and the Mathematics: Applications and Connections, Course 2 traditional method of instruction both showed increased mathematics outcomes. However, the students taught using JBHM Achievement Connections standards-based method of instruction had a higher mean score and a greater degree of gain between pretest and posttest scores than the students taught using the Mathematics: Applications and Connections, Course 2 traditional method of instruction.