Search

This research is aimed at developing novel theory to advance innovative methods for examining how collaborative groups progress toward productively engaging during classroom activity that integrates disciplinary practices. This work draws on a situative perspective, along with prior framings of individual engagement, to conceptualize engagement as a shared and multidimensional phenomenon. A multidimensional conceptualization affords the study of distinct engagement dimensions, as well as the interrelationships of engagement dimensions that together are productive. Development and exploration of an observational rubric evaluating collaborative group disciplinary engagement (GDE) is presented, leveraging the benefits of observational methods with a rubric specifying quality ratings, enabling the potential for analyses of larger samples more efficiently than prior approaches, but with similar ability to richly characterize the shared and multidimensional nature of group engagement. Mixed-methods analyses, including case illustrations and profile analysis, showcase the synergistic interrelations among engagement dimensions constituting GDE. The rubric effectively captured engagement features that could be identified via intensive video analysis, while affording the evaluation of broader claims about group engagement patterns. Application of the rubric across curricular contexts, and within and between lessons across a curricular unit, will enable comparative studies that can inform theory about collaborative engagement, as well as instructional design and practice.

Computational thinking (CT) is a set of cognitive skills that every child should acquire. K-12 classrooms are expected to provide students opportunities (tasks) to think computationally. We introduce a CT competency assessment for middle school students. The assessment design process started by establishing a cognitive model of CT domain mastery, in which three broad skill types were identified to represent CT competency. After multiple-choice item prototypes were written, pilot tested, and revised, 15 of them were finally selected to be administered to 564 students in two middle schools in the Midwestern United States. Using a cognitive diagnostic scoring model, mastery classifications for each student were determined that can be used diagnostically by teachers as a pretest and, perhaps in the future, to compare the outcomes of CT instructional programs. The results inform an initial understanding of typical learning progressions in CT at the middle school level.

Cognitive abilities are related to job performance. However, there is less agreement about the relative contribution of general versus specific cognitive abilities to job performance. Similarly, it is not clear how cognitive abilities operate in the context of complex occupations. This study assessed the role of cognitive abilities on the performance of three aviation-related jobs: flying, navigation, and air battle management (ABM). Correlated-factor and bifactor models were used to draw a conclusion about the predictive relations between cognitive abilities and job performance. Overall, the importance of particular cognitive abilities tends to vary across the three occupations, and each occupation has different sets of essential abilities. Importantly, the interplay of general versus specific abilities is different across occupations, and some specific abilities also show substantial predictive power.

This research is motivated by the perspective that when empirical studies and assessment frameworks inform each other, assessments can enrich science education and strengthen its connections to modern science. The research proposes a bioenergy competency assessment for science education. It uses an argument-based approach to validation. Multiple types of validity evidence were collected to support the proposed scores use and scores interpretation. Along with reporting a series of psychometric properties of response data, the findings indicated that empirical response data corresponded to the hypothesized data structure. The latent logistic scale established through a generalized partial credit model (GPCM) seemed useful in measuring students' bioenergy competency.

The Observation of Human-Animal Interaction for Research (OHAIRE) is a coding tool developed to capture the behavior of children when interacting with social partners and animals in naturalistic settings. The OHAIRE behavioral categories of focus are emotional displays, social communication behaviors toward adults and peers, behaviors directed toward animals or experimental control objects, and interfering behaviors. To date, the OHAIRE has been used by 14 coders to code 2,732 min of video across four studies with a total of 201 participants ages 5 to 18 years (M = 10.1, SD = 2.5). Studies involved animal-assisted intervention with three species (i.e., dogs, horses, and guinea pigs) and three populations (i.e., autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and typically developing children) in a school, a therapeutic horseback riding program, a group therapy program, and the hospital setting. We explored the psychometric properties of the OHAIRE through analyses of its inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, convergent and divergent validity, and internal structure, using data from these four human-animal interaction studies. The average inter-rater reliability was excellent (kappa = 0.81), with good reliability in most of the behavioral categories coded. Intra-rater reliability was consistently excellent (0.87 ≤ kappa ≤0.96). Internal structure analyses with Cronbach's alpha supported the exploratory use of subscales to measure social communication behaviors toward peers (α = 0.638) and adults (α = 0.605), and interactions experimental control objects (α = 0.589), and the use of a subscale to measure interactions with animals (α = 0.773). Correlation analyses with multiple questionnaires showed a convergence between positive emotional display and social behaviors as assessed by the OHAIRE and social skills as assessed by the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) and the Social Communication Questionnaires (SCQ). Little concordance was found between the OHAIRE and the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) or the Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Community (ABC). The OHAIRE shows promise for wider use in the field of Human-Animal Interaction, with a need for generalization across more settings and ages.

BackgroundAdjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) provides a modest survival benefit. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, improves outcomes when added to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced-stage non-squamous NSCLC. We aimed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage resected NSCLC.MethodsWe did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and who had completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm) to IIIA (defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer 6th edition) NSCLC. We enrolled patients from across the US National Clinical Trials Network, including patients from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) affiliates in Europe and from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, within 6-12 weeks of surgery. The chemotherapy regimen for each patient was selected before randomisation and administered intravenously; it consisted of four 21-day cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2 on day 1 in all regimens) in combination with investigator's choice of vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), docetaxel (75 mg/m2 on day 1), gemcitabine (1200 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), or pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1). Patients in the bevacizumab group received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days starting with cycle 1 of chemotherapy and continuing for 1 year. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) to group A (chemotherapy alone) or group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab), centrally, using permuted blocks sizes and stratified by chemotherapy regimen, stage of disease, histology, and sex. No one was masked to treatment assignment, except the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00324805.FindingsBetween June 1, 2007, and Sept 20, 2013, 1501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 749 to group A (chemotherapy alone) and 752 to group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab). 383 (26%) of 1458 patients (with complete staging information) had stage IB, 636 (44%) had stage II, and 439 (30%) had stage IIIA disease (stage of disease data were missing for 43 patients). Squamous cell histology was reported for 422 (28%) of 1501 patients. All four cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens were used: 377 (25%) patients received vinorelbine, 343 (23%) received docetaxel, 283 (19%) received gemcitabine, and 497 (33%) received pemetrexed. At a median follow-up of 50·3 months (IQR 32·9-68·0), the estimated median overall survival in group A has not been reached, and in group B was 85·8 months (95% CI 74·9 to not reached); hazard ratio (group B vs group A) 0·99 (95% CI 0·82-1·19; p=0·90). Grade 3-5 toxicities of note (all attributions) that were reported more frequently in group B (the bevacizumab group) than in group A (chemotherapy alone) were overall worst grade (ie, all grade 3-5 toxicities; 496 [67%] of 738 in group A vs 610 [83%] of 735 in group B), hypertension (60 [8%] vs 219 [30%]), and neutropenia (241 [33%] vs 275 [37%]). The number of deaths on treatment did not differ between the groups (15 deaths in group A vs 19 in group B). Of these deaths, three in group A and ten in group B were considered at least possibly related to treatment.InterpretationAddition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve overall survival for patients with surgically resected early-stage NSCLC. Bevacizumab does not have a role in this setting and should not be considered as an adjuvant therapy for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC.FundingNational Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

During the development of large-scale school achievement tests, panels of independent subject-matter experts use systematic judgmental methods to rate the correspondence between a given test's items and performance objective statements. The individual experts' ratings may then be used to compute summary indices to quantify the match between a given test and its target item domain. The magnitude of alignment index variability across experts within a panel, and randomly-sampled panels, is largely unknown, however. Using rater-by-item data from alignment reviews of 14 US states' achievement tests, we examine observed distributions and estimate standard errors for three alignment indices developed by Webb. Our results suggest that alignment decisions based on the recommended criterion for the balance-of-representation index may often be uncertain, and that the criterion for the depth-of-knowledge consistency index should perhaps be reconsidered. We also examine current recommendations about the number of expert panelists required to compute these alignment indices.

It has long been argued that U.S. states' differential performance on nationwide assessments may reflect differences in students' opportunity to learn the tested content that is primarily due to variation in curricular content standards, rather than in instructional quality or educational investment. To quantify the effect of differences in states' intended curricular goals on test item performance in the mid-to-late 2000s, we use fractional logit regression of state-specific mathematics item difficulty values on a measure of content emphasis in state elementary school mathematics curricular standards documents. Finding weak but positive associations between content emphasis in state standards and proportion-correct item difficulty, we conclude that variations in states' intended curriculum content, alone, appear to have had limited influence on cross-state mathematics test item performance during the time frame examined. Implications for cross-state assessment are discussed.

Variation in test performance among examinees from different regions or national jurisdictions is often partially attributed to differences in the degree of content correspondence between local school or training program curricula, and the test of interest. This posited relationship between test-curriculum correspondence, or "alignment," and test performance is usually inferred from highly distal evidence, rather than directly examined. Utilizing mathematics standards content analysis data and achievement test item data from ten U.S. states, we examine the relationship between topic-specific alignment and test item performance. When a particular item's content type is emphasized by the standards, we find evidence of a positive relationship between the alignment measure and proportion-correct test item difficulty, although this effect is not consistent across samples. Implications of the results for curricular achievement test development and score interpretation are discussed.

Combining methods from earlier content validity and more contemporary content alignment studies may allow a more complete evaluation of the meaning of test scores than if either set of methods is used on its own. This article distinguishes item relevance indices in the content validity literature from test representativeness indices in the subsequent content alignment literature. We then demonstrate that setting minimum thresholds for both types of indices in a sequential process can affect conclusions about test content representativeness, which are integral to validity evaluation. We illustrate this outcome using test item-to-target domain objective match data from subject-matter expert panelists who reviewed sixteen US state achievement tests. Although the illustration incorporates educational achievement test data, the process has broader applicability to development of survey questionnaires, workplace tests, and other instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In international achievement studies, questionnaires typically ask about the presence of particular household assets in students' homes. Responses to the assets questions are used to compute a total score, which is intended to represent household wealth in models of test performance. This study uses item analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to assess the validity of assets indices as wealth measures in three educational surveys of primary or secondary school students. We find that scores generated from binary household asset items can reasonably be interpreted as predominantly measuring a single wealth factor, but some scores are imprecise, with between one-third and one-half of their variability attributable to measurement error. Our study illustrates the potential of psychometric analyses to contribute to improvement of the household wealth items administered in similar international achievement assessments.

Background/Context: In this article we explore equity issues related to school district decision-making about students' opportunities to learn algebra. We chose algebra because of the important role it plays in the U.S. as a gatekeeper to future academic success. Current research has not yet explored issues of equity in district-level decision-making. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: We examine the extent to which district decision-makers for mathematics attend to aspects of equity when they make decisions about resources related to the teaching and learning of algebra. The research questions guiding this study were: How do district decision-makers for mathematics report considering issues of equity when making decisions about students' opportunities to learn Algebra I? How do district characteristics, particularly students' racial and ethnic diversity, affect the extent of equity considerations by mathematics decision-makers? Research Design: We surveyed a national probability sample of 993 district decision-makers for mathematics about criteria that they consider when they select and distribute resources and structure learning opportunities in algebra for students and teachers in their districts. These survey items were our attempt to identify district-level practices in relationship to an equity framework. In this study, we examine national patterns in criteria for decision-making about algebra resources and examine the relation of these criteria to district features using a structural equation model. Findings: Our findings suggest that fewer decision-makers considered equity-related criteria in their decision-making about algebra, while many tended to endorse equality-related items addressing considerations for all students, such as giving all students the same resources or attending to preparation for standardized testing. The vast majority of decision-makers reported considering real life contexts for algebra when making decisions about professional development (PD) and curriculum, while fewer considered the students' culture or culturally relevant teaching. Decision-makers in only about half of the districts reported considering structural aspects, such as tracking. Modeling of the survey responses indicates that decision-makers in the most racially or ethnically and linguistically diverse districts have the greatest tendency to consider equity criteria in structuring students' opportunities to learn algebra. Conclusions/Recommendations: The extent to which district decision-makers for mathematics attend to aspects of equity is noteworthy because their decisions inform the selection and distribution of educational resources for learning algebra across districts. These findings raise important concerns with respect to how district decision-making mobilizes and shapes the resources available to teachers and students. Recommendations include supporting district decision-makers in a) expanding their conceptions of real life contexts to include students' culture, b) considering different framings of the problem of participation gaps, c) reconsidering ability grouping and understanding the negative consequences of tracking, and d) carefully examining the kinds of stated and unarticulated rules, rewards, and sanctions that get put into place to uncover how inequitable practices get perpetuated.