Search

A study was conducted in response to a request from the Illinois State Board of Education to examine closely which reading programs work best for Illinois students and schools. In some Illinois schools, students exhibit consistently high levels of reading achievement--the teaching, learning, and other practices of these schools may point the way to improved reading instruction across the state. The study examined the characteristics of reading programs at schools where students have demonstrated consistently high achievement in reading in grades 1-12. For the study's purposes, "high-achieving" schools are defined as schools scoring in the top 5% of Illinois public schools on the Illinois Goals Assessment Program reading test as well as high performance on a second standardized measure of achievement. Data collection instruments were developed, sites were selected and visited, and data were synthesized, analyzed, and reported. Ten schools participated in the study--3 elementary, 4 middle school/junior high, and 3 high schools; total student population for schools participating was 8,567. Findings suggest there is no one best way to teach reading and that student engagement in learning is valued above curriculum plans and materials. Additionally, classroom teachers (and students) benefit greatly from strong leadership and administrative support as well as from being involved in planning school programs and resource allocations. A key finding was that exemplary programs provide students with many opportunities to read and write during the school day. Includes 11 tables. Appended are: final study list of sites and master list of sites; and data collection instruments. (Contains 11 tables and 44 references.) (NKA)

This report documents the methodology and findings of a study of the characteristics of Illinois public school district 31's reading programs in kindergarten through grade 8. For the study's purposes, the term "reading program" includes integrated language arts and humanities instruction. The study was conducted in response to a request from District 31 to investigate why the reading test scores of students were lower than expected, and did not necessarily match teachers' perceptions of students' reading ability. Related to this issue is the extent to which there is alignment among reading assessments, the district's curriculum, and reading instruction. The North Central Regional Educational Lab (NCREL) proposed a study sufficiently wide in scope to develop and support recommendations regarding strengths and weaknesses in District 31's reading program. The report contains information on the background of the study, its design and methodology (development of data collection instruments, data collection, and synthesizing, analyzing, and reporting data), findings (synthesizes data gathered through site visits and analysis of the teacher questionnaire and interview as well as the artifacts collected), and conclusions and recommendations (interprets key findings, suggests areas where additional study is needed, and presents recommendations for District 31 schools). Appended are data collection instruments (focus group questions, individual teacher interviews, a teacher/staff questionnaire, and the observation protocol). (Contains 11 notes, 15 tables, 10 figures, and 100 references.) (NKA)

To understand the value and impact of technology, it must be recognized that there have been three distinct phases in technology uses and expectations: Print Automation, Expansion of Learning Opportunities, and Data-Driven Virtual Learning. This report takes an in-depth look at these three phases and, for each, addresses two very important and highly interrelated questions facing educators as they try to determine the best use of technology in K-12 settings: (1) What evidence is there that the use of computer-based technology in each phase has a positive effect on learning? and (2) What significance do the findings from each phase have for educators today as they try to make technology-related decisions that have an impact on student learning? In Phase I, instruction was characterized by the use of behavioral-based branching software that relied heavily on drill and practice to teach segmented content and/or skills. During Phase II, computers become tools for learner-centered practices rather than content delivery systems, helping teachers move from largely isolated learning activities to applications that involved working in groups. Phase III carries with it the additional expectation of making schools more effective through the use of data-driven decision making of a much more sophisticated nature than previously expected. The conclusions of this report provide cumulative findings over the three phases, which are intended to help informed educators, policymakers, school administrators, school technical coordinators, and researchers make research-based decisions regarding the most beneficial approaches to technology use in K-12 education in the 21st century. (Contains 106 references.) (AEF)

In the 1998-99 school year, the Arlington Heights School District 59 (Illinois) joined with the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory to evaluate the district's technology program, focusing on the impact of technology on engaged learning. The evaluation took place at a cluster of one junior high school and two of its feeder elementary schools. Findings suggest that teachers usually focused on one technology tool at a time when the structure is already in place for using multiple applications to engage students. The evaluation showed that teachers really did not know how best to use technology for instruction, even though the tasks they used were generally authentic and challenging to a degree. Evidence supported the idea that technology use supports student engagement, but that continued professional development is needed to enable teachers to use technology to enhance student learning. (SLD)

To understand the value and impact of technology, one must recognize that there have been three distinct phases in technology uses and expectations: Print Automation, Expansion of Learning Opportunities, and Data-Driven Virtual Learning. This report takes an in-depth look at these three phases and, for each, addresses two important and highly interrelated questions facing educators as they try to determine the best use of technology in K-12 settings: (1) What evidence is there that the use of computer-based technology in each phase has a positive effect on learning? and (2) What significance do the findings from each phase have for educators today as they try to make technology-related decisions that have an impact on student learning? The conclusions of this report provide cumulative findings over the three phases, which are intended to help informed educators, policymakers, school administrators, school technical coordinators, and researchers make research-based decisions regarding the most beneficial approaches to technology use in K-12 education. (Contains 106 references.) (AEF)

Performance assessment is reviewed as an emerging form of alternative assessment, focusing on how it has been defined in the research literature, the criteria for evaluating its authenticity, the measurement of process and product, and the link between assessment and instruction. Three important dimensions that must be considered in describing performance tests are the extent to which test is authentic (simulating real life), what is actually being evaluated, and the basic response format of the task. In evaluating authenticity, it is necessary to consider structure and design, grading and scoring, and fairness and equity. Performance tests can focus primarily on the product or on the process, and it is important to recognize where the focus lies. The basic types of response situations include oral, written, and graphic representation tasks. Good instructional activities may inform the design of good assessment tasks, but it cannot be assumed that authentic assessment will automatically result in classroom activities that are more conducive to learning. In practice, a compromise between multiple-choice tests and full-blown simulations of actual situations can be found, even though this may not be the highest form of performance assessment. (SLD)

A study focused on the background factors that are most closely related to reading instruction and reading performance, including instructional approaches, reading experiences, home influences, and demographic characteristics. Data for these assessments were collected in the spring of 1988 and 1990 from a nationally representative sample of approximately 13,000 students in 1988 and 25,000 students in 1990 at grades 4, 8, and 12 attending public and private schools. The measurement of achievement included in this study is students' average reading performance on a scale of 0 to 500 that allows for direct comparison across the grades and among subgroups of the population assessed. This scale differs from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale data and are not comparable to the 1988 and 1990 reading results. Major findings of the assessment were: (1) the amount of reading that students do in and out of school was positively related to their reading achievement, yet students report relatively little reading in or out of school; (2) students who reported home environments that fostered reading had higher reading achievement; (3) despite extensive research suggesting that effective reading instruction includes moving from an emphasis on workbooks to combining reading and writing activities, schools were slow to make the transition; (4) students demonstrated difficulty in providing details and arguments to support interpretations of what they read; and (5) frequency of library use in 1990 appeared to decrease as grade level increased. (Twenty-one tables, two figures of data, and a "procedural appendix" are included. A separate data summary of the 1990 assessment, prepared by Eugene Owen, is appended.