Search results

Although standardized testing of K-12 student knowledge and understanding garners considerable attention, few observers profess satisfaction with the assessments in place. In this exploratory paper, we report on the data gathered from an open-ended email survey of small, convenience samples of teachers and researchers. Although no clear consensus about alternative assessments of students’ historical knowing and understanding emerged, we argue that the potential for a consensus exists. Any emergent consensus, however, must be negotiated with several issues in mind.

Understanding what children know about history or social studies has proven illusive. In this think piece, I explore two dilemmas—the representation dilemma and the testing dilemma—that surround the question, “How do we know what children know?” I conclude that teachers, researchers, and policymakers must engage in conversations that put students’ representations of their historical knowledge and understanding at the forefront.

This qualitative case study investigated an interdisciplinary expedition in an urban high school (based on the Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound model). The author wanted to understand what happened during an expedition and how the Global History teacher perceived teaching a tested course in an Expeditionary Learning School. Findings indicated the teacher thought the expeditions students engaged in each semester assisted them in developing a sense of global awareness and in making interdisciplinary connections. The teacher also discussed challenges encountered when teaching the Expeditionary Learning curriculum to students who struggled academically. Though 35% of students failed the state Global History and Geography test at the end of the semester, the teacher remained committed to teaching with expeditions. This research highlights the teacher’s perceptions of the benefits and challenges of implementing expeditions in a state-tested course in an urban high school, as well as the need for additional supports for implementing this type of curriculum and preparing students for high-stakes exams.

The authors examine psychologically informed coaching approaches for evidence-based work-applied management through a meta-analysis. This analysis synthesized previous empirical coaching research evidence on cognitive behavioral and positive psychology frameworks regarding a range of workplace outcomes, including learning, performance and psychological well-being.

The authors undertook a systematic literature search to identify primary studies (k = 20, n = 957), then conducted a meta-analysis with robust variance estimates (RVEs) to test the overall effect size and the effects of each moderator.

The results confirm that psychologically informed coaching approaches facilitated effective work-related outcomes, particularly on goal attainment (g = 1.29) and self-efficacy (g = 0.59). Besides, these identified coaching frameworks generated a greater impact on objective work performance rated by others (e.g. 360 feedback) than on coachees' self-reported performance. Moreover, a cognitive behavioral-oriented coaching process stimulated individuals' internal self-regulation and awareness to promote work satisfaction and facilitated sustainable changes. Yet, there was no statistically significant difference between popular and commonly used coaching approaches. Instead, an integrative coaching approach that combines different frameworks facilitated better outcomes (g = 0.71), including coachees' psychological well-being.

Effective coaching activities should integrate cognitive coping (e.g. combining cognitive behavioral and solution-focused technique), positive individual traits (i.e. strength-based approach) and contextual factors for an integrative approach to address the full range of coachees' values, motivators and organizational resources for yielding positive outcomes.

Building on previous meta-analyses and reviews of coaching, this synthesis offers a new insight into effective mechanisms to facilitate desired coaching results. Frameworks grounded in psychotherapy and positive appear most prominent in the literature, yet an integrative approach appears most effective.

This qualitative case study explores how one secondary world history teacher, teaching in a high-stakes testing context in a district pushing teachers to utilize differentiated instruction, makes sense of this pedagogical approach. We examine teacher sense-making within a conceptual framework of policy realization and ambitious teaching and learning. The teacher made no claims to being an expert on differentiation; yet, the findings indicated that she did possess an understanding of differentiation congruent with the literature and, whether she recognized it or not, used many strategies suggested by Tomlinson and other experts on differentiation. Her thinking about differentiation also appeared to be shaped by relational and contextual issues. Stated differently, the Virginia Standards of Learning exams and the pressure from administration for high pass rates appeared to shape how the teacher thought about her students, her content, her instruction and, ultimately, her approach to differentiation.

In this paper, we outline the rationale for developing the Survey of the Status of Social Studies (S4). The instrument contains items for analyzing the organizational structure, instructional decision-making, professional attitudes, and demographics of social studies teachers. Nationally-inclusive data generated from this survey analysis were used to examine the technical and theoretical validity of the instrument. Incorporating factor analysis, findings suggest constructs embedded within S4 related to social studies pedagogy, content emphases, and technology-use that reflect extant theory. As such, the S4 and accompanying nationwide data set offer social educators a valuable resource for fostering professional development and policy.

This study examined and traced the relationship between, and the influence of, the official standards documents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the related day-to-day lesson planning and implementation of a pair of co-teachers. Using a case study methodology alongside a conventional content analysis we traced the processes of how these policy texts (the Standards of Learning [SOLs] for World History) were connected to and activated within the daily routines of these teachers who taught struggling students in a high-stakes testing context. The findings illustrated how the policy texts and discursive practices emerging from the State’s SOLs constituted a level of pedagogical governance that saw these teachers organize instruction clearly designed to support student recall on the end of year multiple choice test. Our work recognized the power of policy texts as they interact with teachers. The significance of unpacking policy documents in order to examine issues of power, symmetry and potential areas of negotiation in the planning and implementation of instruction for teacher educators is discussed.

This paper examines how a beginning teacher in Virginia and a beginning teacher in Florida make sense of the high-stakes tests in their state. By examining beginning teachers in two states where the tests are so very different, we gain important insight into whether there are similarities and differences across states and how the nature of the test affects the teaching and learning of history. We first offer insight into the context of accountability in Virginia and Florida and then discuss what ambitious teaching and learning look like in these states as informed by the literature. Then, we turn to our research methods, findings, and implications for the field of social studies.

Prior to the launch of Valuing People (DH, 2001), Gordon Grant and Paul Ramcharan were appointed by the Department of Health as co‐ordinators of the Learning Disability Research Initiative (LDRI). The LDRI was a £2m research initiative, funded through the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme, linked to the implementation of Valuing People. The LDRI was brought to a conclusion in November 2007 with a final conference at which an overview report and accessible summary of the findings were launched (Grant & Ramcharan, 2007a, 2007b). In this paper we summarise the main findings of the LDRI with reference to Valuing People's main principles of rights, choice, inclusion and independence. In conclusion we consider how to build on the evidence base.