{"title":"Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 2000.","authors":"Charlene M. Hoffman","doi":"10.1037/e492182006-013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e492182006-013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"45 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130740133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1998 Writing Assessment measured student writing performance at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. Scoring guides for each grade allowed scorers to objectively evaluate students’ work. This issue of NAEPfacts includes a 4th-grade narrative scoring guide, along with samples of student work at each of six levels of performance on the scoring guide. The NAEP Writing Framework, developed by the National Assessment Governing Board, set six overarching goals for the NAEP 1998 Writing Assessment: • Students should write for a variety of purposes: narrative, informative, and persuasive. • Students should write on a variety of tasks and for many different audiences. • Students should write from a variety of stimulus materials, and within various time constraints. • Students should generate, draft, revise, and edit ideas and forms of expression in their writing. • Students should display effective choices in the organization of their writing. They should include detail to illustrate and elaborate their ideas, and use appropriate conventions of written English. • Students should value writing as a communicative activity. Fourth-graders were given two writing topics, or “prompts,” out of a possible 20 and were given 25 minutes to write on each. Each topic was classified according to purpose as either narrative, informative, or persuasive. Three 4th-grade topics have been released to the public. Scoring guides were developed for each writing purpose. The guides established six levels of student performance for each writing purpose, ranging from “Unsatisfactory” to “Excellent.” This issue of NAEPfacts includes the complete text of the 4thgrade “narrative” scoring guide on page two, the complete text of a narrative prompt asking students to write a story about a magic castle, examples of student writing at each of the six levels in response to the “magic castle” prompt, and a discussion of how the scoring guide applies to the six student writing samples. Focused Holistic Scoring The scorers of the NAEP 1998 writing assessment used a scoring method described as “focused holistic scoring.” This approach combines holistic and “primary trait” scoring. A strict holistic approach to the scoring of writing treats a writing task as a “springboard” for writing. A particular writing task is given to students as a stimulus to engage them and inspire them to write, and students’ responses are scored in terms of the overall writing quality. The “primary trait” method of scoring writing, on the other hand, is concerned with how well students respond to a specific topic. For example, if students are asked to write about whether they like adventure movies, students who do not address the topic of
{"title":"NAEP Scoring of Fourth-Grade Narrative Writing.","authors":"Sheida White, Alan Vanneman","doi":"10.1037/e314662005-001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e314662005-001","url":null,"abstract":"The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1998 Writing Assessment measured student writing performance at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. Scoring guides for each grade allowed scorers to objectively evaluate students’ work. This issue of NAEPfacts includes a 4th-grade narrative scoring guide, along with samples of student work at each of six levels of performance on the scoring guide. The NAEP Writing Framework, developed by the National Assessment Governing Board, set six overarching goals for the NAEP 1998 Writing Assessment: • Students should write for a variety of purposes: narrative, informative, and persuasive. • Students should write on a variety of tasks and for many different audiences. • Students should write from a variety of stimulus materials, and within various time constraints. • Students should generate, draft, revise, and edit ideas and forms of expression in their writing. • Students should display effective choices in the organization of their writing. They should include detail to illustrate and elaborate their ideas, and use appropriate conventions of written English. • Students should value writing as a communicative activity. Fourth-graders were given two writing topics, or “prompts,” out of a possible 20 and were given 25 minutes to write on each. Each topic was classified according to purpose as either narrative, informative, or persuasive. Three 4th-grade topics have been released to the public. Scoring guides were developed for each writing purpose. The guides established six levels of student performance for each writing purpose, ranging from “Unsatisfactory” to “Excellent.” This issue of NAEPfacts includes the complete text of the 4thgrade “narrative” scoring guide on page two, the complete text of a narrative prompt asking students to write a story about a magic castle, examples of student writing at each of the six levels in response to the “magic castle” prompt, and a discussion of how the scoring guide applies to the six student writing samples. Focused Holistic Scoring The scorers of the NAEP 1998 writing assessment used a scoring method described as “focused holistic scoring.” This approach combines holistic and “primary trait” scoring. A strict holistic approach to the scoring of writing treats a writing task as a “springboard” for writing. A particular writing task is given to students as a stimulus to engage them and inspire them to write, and students’ responses are scored in terms of the overall writing quality. The “primary trait” method of scoring writing, on the other hand, is concerned with how well students respond to a specific topic. For example, if students are asked to write about whether they like adventure movies, students who do not address the topic of","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124049936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1998 Writing Assessment measured student writing performance at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. Scoring guides for three different writing purposes at each grade allowed scorers to objectively evaluate students' work. This issue of NAEPfacts includes a 12th-grade persuasive writing scoring guide, along with samples of student work at each of six levels of performance. (Author/RS) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
{"title":"NAEP Scoring of Twelfth-Grade Persuasive Writing.","authors":"Sheida White, Alan Vanneman","doi":"10.1037/e314672005-001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e314672005-001","url":null,"abstract":"The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1998 Writing Assessment measured student writing performance at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. Scoring guides for three different writing purposes at each grade allowed scorers to objectively evaluate students' work. This issue of NAEPfacts includes a 12th-grade persuasive writing scoring guide, along with samples of student work at each of six levels of performance. (Author/RS) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122878762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Yupin Bae, Susan P. Choy, Claire M. Geddes, Jennifer Sable, Thomas D. Snyder
Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, by Yupin Bae, Susan Choy, Claire Giddes, Jennifer Sable and Thomas Snyder. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2000. 99 pp. $10.00, paper. Reviewed by Cecilia Griffin Golden, YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh. Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women was produced in response to a request made by Congress to the office of the Secretary to the Department of the U.S. Department of Education to prepare a report on the status of educational equity for girls and women in the United States. The study includes presentations of data from varied sources including surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The book is a statistical report organized around data presented for a series of 44 indicators, which examine educational equity from students' pre-school experiences through post-secondary education. The data are presented for each indicator in many forms. Actual survey questions are included when appropriate. Bar and line graphs are provided and supported by narratives. The following are some of the findings presented: 1. Virtually, no difference in levels of courses taken by girls or boys in mathematics or science, except for physics, where boys are more represented. 2. Repeating grades for ages 5-12 was found more often among boys, as was placement in learning disabled classes. 3. The gaps in employment between males and females have narrowed over time. 4. Women tend to earn less than men with similar educational attainment, but this may partly reflect women's patterns of labor market participation and taking certain kinds of jobs. 5. Course taking patterns show evidence of growth patterns of females and males taking advanced levels of mathematics and science, including calculus and trigonometry. 6. The percentage of students who study calculus, both male and female, has grown to approximately 12% of school populations. 7. Females appeared to have less confidence than males that they could do well in mathematics and science. 8. Black and Hispanic women earned higher percentages of the Bachelor's degrees in 1997 (64% and 57%, respectively) than White, non-Hispanic women (55%). The aforementioned findings represent only a portion of those included in the study. The study provides useful information and includes data across a broad band of areas. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply those findings to public schools and colleges across the United States, due to the researchers' treatment of the variable of race: "The report focuses generally on overall comparisons between males and females, not on the experiences of various subgroups, which may show different patterns." Ergo, race is introduced as a factor only intermittently. Decisions around the presentation of the data included in this statistical report do not reflect a commitment to critically analyze the notion of equity in the United States educational attainments. Moreover, while the authors incl
{"title":"Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women.","authors":"Yupin Bae, Susan P. Choy, Claire M. Geddes, Jennifer Sable, Thomas D. Snyder","doi":"10.2307/2696256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2696256","url":null,"abstract":"Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, by Yupin Bae, Susan Choy, Claire Giddes, Jennifer Sable and Thomas Snyder. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2000. 99 pp. $10.00, paper. Reviewed by Cecilia Griffin Golden, YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh. Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women was produced in response to a request made by Congress to the office of the Secretary to the Department of the U.S. Department of Education to prepare a report on the status of educational equity for girls and women in the United States. The study includes presentations of data from varied sources including surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The book is a statistical report organized around data presented for a series of 44 indicators, which examine educational equity from students' pre-school experiences through post-secondary education. The data are presented for each indicator in many forms. Actual survey questions are included when appropriate. Bar and line graphs are provided and supported by narratives. The following are some of the findings presented: 1. Virtually, no difference in levels of courses taken by girls or boys in mathematics or science, except for physics, where boys are more represented. 2. Repeating grades for ages 5-12 was found more often among boys, as was placement in learning disabled classes. 3. The gaps in employment between males and females have narrowed over time. 4. Women tend to earn less than men with similar educational attainment, but this may partly reflect women's patterns of labor market participation and taking certain kinds of jobs. 5. Course taking patterns show evidence of growth patterns of females and males taking advanced levels of mathematics and science, including calculus and trigonometry. 6. The percentage of students who study calculus, both male and female, has grown to approximately 12% of school populations. 7. Females appeared to have less confidence than males that they could do well in mathematics and science. 8. Black and Hispanic women earned higher percentages of the Bachelor's degrees in 1997 (64% and 57%, respectively) than White, non-Hispanic women (55%). The aforementioned findings represent only a portion of those included in the study. The study provides useful information and includes data across a broad band of areas. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply those findings to public schools and colleges across the United States, due to the researchers' treatment of the variable of race: \"The report focuses generally on overall comparisons between males and females, not on the experiences of various subgroups, which may show different patterns.\" Ergo, race is introduced as a factor only intermittently. Decisions around the presentation of the data included in this statistical report do not reflect a commitment to critically analyze the notion of equity in the United States educational attainments. Moreover, while the authors incl","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122144143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marisa Burian-Fitzgerald, Daniel J. McGrath, V. Plisko
In 1995, half of the states (25) had content standards in mathematics; by 1998, this number had increased to 42 (Council of Chief State School Officers 2000). Forty-five states had student assessments in mathematics in 1994; by 1999, 47 states had such assessments. The existence of standards and assessments at the state level does not guarantee that classroom teachers are familiar with the standards or with the specifications of assessments (Cohen and Hill 2000). Neither does it guarantee that classroom instruction reflects the standards and assessments. In fact, mathematics standards have created significant controversy over the efficacy of different types of instruction for improving student performance (Loveless 2001, see, especially, Loveless chapter).
1995年，有一半的州(25个)制定了数学内容标准;到1998年，这一数字增加到42(2000年国家首席学校官员委员会)。1994年，45个州对学生进行了数学评估;到1999年，有47个州进行了这样的评估。州一级标准和评估的存在并不能保证课堂教师熟悉标准或评估规范(Cohen and Hill 2000)。它也不能保证课堂教学反映标准和评估。事实上，数学标准在不同类型的教学对提高学生成绩的效果上产生了重大的争议(Loveless 2001，特别参见Loveless章节)。
{"title":"Mathematics Teachers' Familiarity with Standards and Their Instructional Practices: 1995 and 1999.","authors":"Marisa Burian-Fitzgerald, Daniel J. McGrath, V. Plisko","doi":"10.1037/e610352011-011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e610352011-011","url":null,"abstract":"In 1995, half of the states (25) had content standards in mathematics; by 1998, this number had increased to 42 (Council of Chief State School Officers 2000). Forty-five states had student assessments in mathematics in 1994; by 1999, 47 states had such assessments. The existence of standards and assessments at the state level does not guarantee that classroom teachers are familiar with the standards or with the specifications of assessments (Cohen and Hill 2000). Neither does it guarantee that classroom instruction reflects the standards and assessments. In fact, mathematics standards have created significant controversy over the efficacy of different types of instruction for improving student performance (Loveless 2001, see, especially, Loveless chapter).","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116189644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Fall Enrollment in Title IV Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 1998.","authors":"F. Morgan","doi":"10.1037/e492182006-006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e492182006-006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131660600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Profiles of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1999-2000.","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/e492172006-011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e492172006-011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133975701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Gender and Racial/Ethnic Composition of Postsecondary Instructional Faculty and Staff: 1992-98.","authors":"Denise M. Glover, B. Parsad","doi":"10.1037/e492172006-016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e492172006-016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"134 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129026969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many NCES publications present data that are based on representative samples and thus are subject to sampling variability. In these cases, tests for statistical significance take both the study design and the number of comparisons into account. NCES publications only discuss differences that are significant at the 95 percent confidence level or higher. Because of variations in study design, differences of roughly the same magnitude can be statistically significant in some cases but not in others. In addition, results from surveys are subject to nonsampling errors. In the design, conduct, and data processing of NCES surveys, efforts are made to minimize the effects of nonsampling errors, such as item nonresponse, measurement error, data processing error, and other systematic error.
{"title":"Note from NCES.","authors":"Peggy Carr","doi":"10.1037/e492152006-002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e492152006-002","url":null,"abstract":"Many NCES publications present data that are based on representative samples and thus are subject to sampling variability. In these cases, tests for statistical significance take both the study design and the number of comparisons into account. NCES publications only discuss differences that are significant at the 95 percent confidence level or higher. Because of variations in study design, differences of roughly the same magnitude can be statistically significant in some cases but not in others. In addition, results from surveys are subject to nonsampling errors. In the design, conduct, and data processing of NCES surveys, efforts are made to minimize the effects of nonsampling errors, such as item nonresponse, measurement error, data processing error, and other systematic error.","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114607846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
and full and complete reports and specialized of the and significance of such statistics; assist local agencies in their statistical systems; and and on activities
并对统计的内容和意义作全面完整的报告和专门说明;协助地方机构建立统计系统;关于活动
{"title":"Early Estimates of Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics: School Year 2001-02.","authors":"L. McDowell","doi":"10.1037/e610732011-009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e610732011-009","url":null,"abstract":"and full and complete reports and specialized of the and significance of such statistics; assist local agencies in their statistical systems; and and on activities","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"197 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115322437","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：