Search results

This study examined the effects of QUEST+AI, an AI-supported inquiry model, on AI literacy and authentic performance among preservice teachers in Central China. The study used a nonequivalent-groups, quasi-experimental pretest–posttest design with two intact sections of an undergraduate Educational Research Methods course at a public university. Ninety-five preservice teachers participated, including 52 students in the experimental group and 43 students in the comparison group. Both groups received the same face-to-face course instruction over a 10-week period. The experimental group completed two QUEST+AI inquiry cycles with coached use of generative artificial intelligence, while the comparison group completed conventional homework assignments.

The data include participant demographic variables, pretest and posttest responses to a multidimensional AI literacy questionnaire, AI literacy total and subscale scores, final research proposal scores, and group assignment indicators. AI literacy measures cover use and application of AI, knowledge and understanding of AI, AI detection, AI ethics, AI creation, AI-supported problem solving, AI persuasion literacy, and AI emotion regulation. Authentic performance is represented by scores on a final educational research proposal, evaluated with a common rubric by two independent raters. The dataset also includes variables used in the study’s comparative analyses, including group condition, pretest scores, gender, grade level, age, and major.

The Enhance Diversity Study (EDS) was part of the longitudinal evaluation of the training and mentoring interventions implemented by institutions receiving grants through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiative, BUilding Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD). Interventions, launched in 2015, were designed to understand effective approaches to mentoring, faculty development, student engagement, research capacity building, and infrastructure development at undergraduate institutions.

Study participants were faculty at one of the institutions with a BUILD program, with focus on those in departments broadly related to biomedical research. The cohort was initially created from those who completed the survey in academic year 2016-2017. As faculty participated in BUILD programs, they were added to the study if they had not been in the initial cohort. The sample was refreshed in 2020-2021 to include recently hired faculty. Once participants were enrolled in the study, they were surveyed annually each Spring through 2022.

Surveys focused on elements of academic career trajectories that are relevant to the BUILD interventions. Related to Hallmarks of Success, these reflected psychosocial predictors such as mentor competency and science identity; short and medium-term outcomes included mentoring, research engagement, publications, and pedagogy presentations; and longer-term outcomes such as participation in professional organizations and grant submissions/awards. In 2017 and 2020, EDS used the Faculty Survey administered by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). For other time points, surveys were developed specifically for the study to include measures important for the evaluation.

In addition to surveys, the data available in this study include information about BUILD program participation by academic term. The BUILD programs were wide-reaching, including professional skill development (mentoring, pedagogy, and research), mentoring opportunities, and pilot and lab grant funding. These data can be used to determine whether survey respondents participated in any BUILD programs and the type and date of such participation.

Finally, summary demographics are provided. Using demographic information across surveys and from institution records, researchers created standardized indicators based on NIH classification of under-represented groups for faculty racial and ethnic, gender, and sexual minority identities.

• Study 1. REQSEL Measure Development EFA Qualtrics Sample 1 (May 2021)
• Study 2. REQSEL Measure Development EFA Qualtrics Sample 2 (July/August 2021)
• Study 3. REQSEL Measure Development CFA-Validation Qualtrics Sample (July/August 2021)
• Study 4. REQSEL Measure Development CFA Field Sample Wave 1 (Fall 2021)  

The Digital Scaffolding for English Language Arts project examines the effect of Visual Syntactic Text Formatting (VSTF) on reading and writing outcomes of 7th and 8th-grade students. VSTF is a technology which reformats text to facilitate reading comprehension. The study used a randomized control trial and was set in an urban school district.

The project considers both teachers and students in its implementation of VSTF within the classroom. Variables include demographics, classroom observations, survey responses, annual state assessment results and an end of the year on demand writing task.

Funded by the National Institute of Justice, and in collaboration with the Flippen Group, the South Carolina Department of Education, and the districts of Charleston, Georgetown, Greenville, and Richland County Schools, WestEd conducted a randomized controlled trial of violence prevention and a school climate improvement program known as Capturing Kids' Hearts Campus by Design (CKH).

CKH is a skill intensive, systematic process, whole-school intervention, designed to strengthen students' connectedness to school through enhancing protective factors (strong bonds with teachers, clear rules of conduct that are consistently enforced) and targeting modifiable risk factors (inappropriate behavior, poor social coping skills). The CKH training program aims to address the mechanisms and processes of social skills instruction that lead to improved student behavior by promoting skills acquisition (i.e., modeling, coaching, and behavioral rehearsal), enhancing skills performance, removing competing behavior, and facilitating maintenance of social skills.

Components of CKH have been widely used throughout the United States. As of 2013, CKH training has been offered to over 200,000 staff in more than 7,000 schools. Although widely used, the whole package of CKH training and service has not been sufficiently subjected to a rigorous evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the program.

The purpose of this study is to test and evaluate the Capturing Kids' Hearts package of programs and processes offered in the school-wide model, CKH Campus by Design, which includes Capturing Kids' Hearts, Process Champions-Plus, Campus TrAction Pacs, Teen Leadership, CKH Recharged, and Leadership Blueprint.

In 2012, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched a demonstration field experiment, the Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP) and Evaluation to examine: (1) the use of an "advocacy" role for mentors; and (2) the use of a teaching/information provision role for mentors. The overall goal of MEDP was to develop program models that specified what advocacy and teaching look like in practice and to understand whether encouraging the general practice of advocacy and teaching could improve youth outcomes. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted a rigorous process and outcome evaluation of programs funded by OJJDP in 2012. The evaluation was designed to rigorously assess the effectiveness of programs that agreed to develop and implement enhanced practices incorporating advocacy or teaching roles for mentors, including providing focused prematch and ongoing training to mentors, and providing ongoing support to help mentors carry out the targeted roles.

MEDP grantees comprised collaboratives that would offer coordinated implementation of the same set of program enhancements in three or four separate established and qualified mentoring programs located within the same regional area. The MEDP collaboratives varied widely in their geographical locations, their size and experience in mentoring, and the structure of their mentoring programs. The types and structures of mentoring programs also varied across, and sometimes within, collaboratives. All the collaboratives proposed enhancements in the way they would train mentors for their roles, and in the way they would provide ongoing support to the mentors and in some cases the youth that they were matched with.

This data collection consists of multiple types of respondents (youth, parents, mentors, and staff) across multiple data collection periods.

The Teacher Quality Grants Texas project was a broad, evaluative study with the goal of better understanding the professional growth in teachers who self-selected to participate in focused, long-term professional development in mathematics or science provided by the Teacher Quality Granting Program (TQGP). The TQGP, funded through No Child Left Behind (NCLB), aimed to improve the quality of teaching which, in turn, leads to improved student achievement.

The 2014-2016 cycle of this study includes administrative and qualitative data, much of which contain observation notes and comments from trained raters observing teachers in their classroom environments. The data also include ratings on classroom activities, organization, student attention, type of student cognition, instructional inquiry demonstrated by teacher, and types of assessment. Teachers in the classroom were also rated on instructional, discourse, assessment, and curriculum factors. Additional, the data contain pre- and post-scores of content tests taken by teachers at the high school level. Administrative data on teachers includes academic degree type, college hours in project topic area, whether teacher had an alternative emergency certificate, grade level(s) taught, teaching assignments related to grant topic area, certification exams passed before and after the grant project, teaching assignment after grant project, reason for leaving grant project, and number of project days and hours by year.

Additional qualitative data in this study includes participant reflective writings and interview transcripts. Teachers responded to a series of eight reflective prompts designed to elicit participant growth in subject matter, pedagogy, use of instructional technology, and development within a professional community of practice. A subset of teacher-participants were also interviewed by phone, during the summer following a year of grant participation.

The Measures of Effective Teaching Project (MET)

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Observation Score Calibration and Validation File

The Observation Score Calibration and Validation file enables psychometric research on rater error. The MET Project may be the largest application of instruments designed to measure teacher effectiveness from classroom observations ever conducted. More than eight hundred raters were trained to score over fifteen thousand videos recorded by teachers in the MET Project. The result is a database of more than 2.4 million scored items from five observations instruments:

1. Framework for Teaching (FFT)
2. Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)
3. Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI)
4. Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO)
5. Quality of Science Teaching (QST)

This data file has all scores assigned by raters, including scores used to evaluate raters during the scoring process. Each row in the file is the score assigned to a segment of a video by a rater under one of the five instruments evaluated by the MET Project.

MET observation scores were assigned remotely using a web application supervised by ETS and Teachscape (exception of the UTOP instrument, which was managed by the National Math and Science Initiative [NMSI]) that displayed excerpts of videos and prompted raters for scores. Raters were trained on videos that had been "master scored" with "true" scores. At the beginning of every scoring session raters were assigned pre-scored "calibration" videos to assure that instruments were applied consistently. Even after they were approved for scoring, raters were occasionally given "validation" videos to be sure that their scores were consistent with expectations. Please see Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains Research Paper on the MET Project Web site, as well as Section 6.3 "Classroom Videos and Video Scoring Processes" of the User Guide for complete details.

The Observation Score Calibration and Validation file is provided for research on questions like the consistency of scoring across raters. For example, these data show how often raters failed validation tests and needed to be re-trained on each item used in the MET Project. Users who want to combine observation scores based on videos with other types of MET data should use the observation scores found in the Core [ICPSR 34414] or Basic [ICPSR 34346] data files.

Also included in this release is a Scoring Design Memorandum from MET researchers at ETS and Teachscape written in 2011 to MET Project leadership which describes procedures for creating observation scores for MET videos.

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Observational Scores Release

This release consists of data files for the five observational protocols listed (CLASS, FFT, MQI, PLATO, and QST) and the UTOP subset. Also included are rater comment files explaining rater scores on the CLASS instrument and master coded scores for the CLASS, FFT, PLATO, MQI and QST observational measures.

The Measures of Effective Teaching Project (MET)

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Study Information Release

Contained in this release are a comprehensive user guide, an observation measures report, a randomization file, a video information file, a subject ID file, a teacher demographics file, a student global ID crosswalk file, and a teacher global ID crosswalk file.

• User Guide - The user guide provides information on all data releases included in the MET longitudinal database. The report describes: (1) the educational research and policy context for the study; (2) research questions addressed by MET researchers; (3) the core study design and sub-studies; (4) the realized study sample; (5) additional information on study instruments and derived measures; and (6) the data files available for secondary analysis.
• Observation Measures Report - This report includes a description of the scoring design used for each phase and each year of the video observation measures and final reports of the scoring carried out for each measure.
• Randomization File - Year two of the MET study included a process for randomizing the classroom to which teachers were assigned. Information found in the randomization file includes district, school, section and student IDs, teacher IDs for the teacher a student was randomly assigned to, the actual teacher the student was recorded as having in May of that year, and the actual teacher the student was recorded as having in October of that year. Also included in the file are variables that indicate the grade of the student, their randomization block and exchange group and section each student was assigned to.
• Video Information File - This file contains descriptive information about the videos captured for the MET project. Variables found in the file include the ID of the video, as well as IDs for the district, school, teacher and section related to each video, the subject, grade, and year of the video and whether the file is available for users to view.
• Subject ID Crosswalk - This file contains only ID variables and is included to describe the associations between districts, schools, teachers, sections and students.
• Teacher Demographics File - This file contains descriptive information about the teachers in the MET project. Variables found in the file include the ID of the teacher, as well as IDs for the district, gender, race, years experience, and level of education.
• Student Global ID Crosswalk File - Students were given new and unique IDs in each year of data collection. This file matches those Student IDs across the 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 academic years.
• Teacher Global ID Crosswalk File - Teachers were given new and unique IDs in each year of data collection. This file matchers those Teachers IDs across the 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 academic years.

The Teacher Quality Grants Texas project is a broad, ongoing evaluative study with the goal of better understanding the professional growth in teachers who have self-selected to participate in focused, long-term professional development in mathematics or science provided by the Teacher Quality Granting Program (TQGP). The TQGP, funded through No Child Left Behind (NCLB), aims to improve the quality of teaching which, in turn, leads to improved student achievement.

The 2012-2014 cycle of this study includes administrative and qualitative data, much of which contain observation notes and comments from trained raters observing teachers in their classroom environments. The data include ratings on classroom activities, organization, student attention, type of student cognition, instructional inquiry demonstrated by teacher, and types of assessment. Teachers in the classroom were also rated on instructional, discourse, assessment, and curriculum factors. Additionally, the data contain pre- and post-scores of content tests taken by teachers at the high school level. Administrative data on teachers includes academic degree type, college hours in project topic area, whether teacher had an alternative emergency certificate, grade level(s) taught, teaching assignments related to grant topic area, certification exams passed before and after the grant project, teaching assignment after grant project, reason for leaving grant project, and number of project days and hours by year.

Additional qualitative data in this study includes participant reflective writings and interview transcripts. Teachers responded to a series of eight reflective prompts designed to elicit participant growth in subject matter, pedagogy, use of instructional technology, and development within a professional community of practice. A subset of teacher-participants were also interviewed by phone, during the summer following a year of grant participation.

The Political Engagement Project (PEP), 2003-2005 [United States] collection includes data that was collected as part of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Political Engagement Project. PEP was conducted to study the effects of a number of promising educational approaches that were designed to support political development. PEP data describe and assess the impact of 21 undergraduate courses and co- or extra-curricular programs in the United States designed to foster informed political engagement.

Outcome for PEP interventions were measured in four central dimensions of political engagement: knowledge and understanding, skills, motivation, and action. Political engagement was broadly defined to include a wide range of democratic involvement, including not only voting and electoral participation, but also many types of non-electoral or nonconventional activities, from informal political discussions, to involvement in community problem-solving, to boycotts, protests, and other efforts to influence political decisions or policies at any level. PEP survey instruments also included variables to explore students' political party identifications and self-descriptions to determine if these were impacted by the PEP interventions.

The courses and programs included in the study were located at a diverse set of institutions across the country and drew a wide range of students, including many racial/ethnic minorities and first generation college students. The data document the course and program goals and pedagogies, students' perspectives on their experiences in the program, and the impact of these experiences on key dimensions of political development such as knowledge, sense of political efficacy and identity, and skills of democratic participation. Students completed a survey before and after each course or program, and a small number of students from each were interviewed in depth. The faculty leaders were also interviewed and completed a survey, as well as participating in two in-depth conferences.

The student survey and other research instruments were designed to document and examine course and program goals, particular approaches to teaching and learning, student perspectives on their experiences, and the impact of these experiences on students' political learning and engagement. To that end, the survey includes a number of questions from existing national surveys that can be used to compare students to other populations, as well as many new questions the research team developed to help identify and understand students' experiences and outlooks with greater specificity and nuance.

This collection includes the following demographic variables: year in school, academic major, employment status, living environment, sex, race, age category, religion, citizenship, country of birth, parental country of origin, and parental education level.

Low-income preschool children experience greater risks to their social and emotional development than their more affluent peers. These gaps are observed before children begin their formal schooling, and they remain or increase during the elementary school years. Since social and emotional risks may compromise children's future mental health and peer relationships, addressing them is important in its own right. In addition, social-emotional competence may aid learning: children who have difficulty regulating their emotions and behaviors have been found to receive less instruction, to be less engaged in and less positive about their role as learners, and to have fewer opportunities for learning from peers.

The Head Start CARES (Classroom-based Approaches and Resources for Emotion and Social skill promotion) demonstration tests three distinct approaches to enhancing children's social-emotional development on a large scale within the Head Start system - the largest federally funded early-childhood education program in the United States. Conceived and sponsored by the Office of Head Start and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start CARES demonstration was conducted by MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization, in collaboration with MEF Associates and several academic partners.

The three evidence-based social-emotional interventions selected for the Head Start CARES evaluation included: The Incredible Years Teacher Training Program (IY), Preschool PATHS (PATHS), and a one-year version of Tools of the Mind- Play (Tools). The interventions are referred to as "enhancements" because they enriched and complemented existing practices and curricula used in Head Start classrooms. These enhancements represent three "types" of social-emotional programming. That is, while all three were aimed at children's social-emotional development, they varied in their approach to changing this set of child outcomes by targeting somewhat different teacher practices, because they were built on differing theories about how social and emotional skills develop.

Baseline and Follow-up Class-level Impact Analysis Data Files

Data included in class-level data files were collected from external observers and teachers through two sources: Classroom Observations and Teacher Self-Surveys.

Classroom Observations were conducted by observers blind to treatment status who observed the classrooms participating in the study in four different sessions at Spring Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. This source includes the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) scores and the Adapted Teaching Style Rating Scale (Adapted-TSRS) scores.

Teacher Self-Surveys were collected from lead teachers at Spring Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. This data source includes information on classroom composition as well as teacher demographics, teaching experience, level of stress and depression, and professional relationship with peers and supervisors.

Child-level Impact Analysis Data File

Data included in this file were collected at Fall Baseline, Pre-K Follow-up and K Follow-up from teachers, children and their parents through three sources: Teacher Reports on Individual Children, Direct Child Assessments and Parent Surveys.

Teacher Reports on Individual Children (Teacher Reports) were collected at Fall Baseline, Pre-K Follow-up and K Follow-up. Lead teachers filled out surveys for each child separately, including questions about the child's social skills and behavior, the child's specific knowledge and skills, and the teacher's relationship with the child. Teacher reports were collected for both 4-year-olds and 3-year-olds at Fall Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up, but were not collected for 3-year-olds at K Follow-up. As a cover page to the Teacher Report, a shortened version of the Teacher Self-Survey was collected at K Follow-up and those data are included in this dataset.

Direct Child Assessments were conducted at Fall Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. The dataset comprises data on a set of tasks measuring different skills for each child separately, including social and emotional skills, self-regulation skills and academic skills. Direct Child Assessments were collected for 4-year- olds only.

Parent Surveys were collected at Fall Baseline and K Follow-up. The survey was administered by phone and includes information on family demographics, parent-teacher involvement, parent's perception of school safety, child's social skills and behavior problems, parental level of stress and depression, and household composition and income. Parent Surveys were collected for 4-year-olds only.

Class-level Implementation Analysis Data File

This data file includes data collected from coaches, trainers and teachers on teacher training, classroom-based coaching, and classroom implementation. The data included in this dataset were collected through five separate instruments: (1) Teacher Training Attendance Forms, (2) Coach Weekly Logs, (3) Coach Monthly Fidelity Logs, (4) Trainer Fidelity Logs, and (5) Teacher's View of the Enhancement. Data collected from the first four data sources were collected multiple times during the implementation year while the fifth was collected once at the beginning of the implementation year. The instruments were administered through the Head Start CARES management information system (MIS) with the exception of the Teacher Training Attendance Forms, which were collected on paper. The file also includes some Teacher Self-Survey variables. Data were collected for program group classrooms only.

Coach-level Implementation Analysis Data File

This data file includes data collected from coaches and trainers on classroom-based coaching. The data included in this dataset were collected through five separate instruments: (1) Teacher Training Attendance Forms, (2) Trainer Supervision Logs, (3) Trainer Logs of Coach Quality, (4) Coach Demographics Survey, and (5) Coach End-of-Year Reflections. The instruments were administered through the Head Start CARES management information system (MIS) with the exception of the Teacher Training Attendance Forms, which were collected on paper.

Audiotape Analysis Data File

The audiotape data file includes data created using qualitative information (audiotape transcripts of coach-teacher meetings) that can be used to conduct analyses on one of the two components of the professional development model for the Head Start CARES demonstration: classroom-based coaching.

Child-level Tracking Data File

The child-level tracking data file includes parent-reported data collected in elementary school for children from the Head Start CARES sample. It includes information from parents about children's location and grade, social skills and problem behaviors at home, and receipt of special services.

The Impacts and Implementation of the i3-Funded Scale-Up of Success for All study examined the implementation and impacts of a whole-school reform model, Success for All (SFA), which seeks to increase reading proficiency among students in elementary schools serving low-income children, as this model was scaled up under an Investing in Innovation (i3) grant from the United States Department of Education. The impact evaluation used a cluster random assignment design in which 37 schools in five school districts were selected at random either to implement SFA (the program group schools) or to put in place their business-as-usual reading program (the control group schools). This collection contains Parts 1 to 7 for public use; and Part 8 for restricted use only.

In Part 1: Primary Student Sample data, children who began kindergarten in sampled schools and remained in them through second grade were assessed using standardized assessments of phonics skills, reading fluency, and comprehension. In Part 2: Auxiliary Sample, additional analyses examined third-year impacts on reading skills for all second graders, whether or not they remained continuously enrolled in the study schools, and for students in grades 3 through 5. The analysis also examined impacts for subgroups defined by ethnicity, early literacy skills measured upon entry into kindergarten, and other variables.

Part 3: School Achievement Snapshot Data contain implementation data for analysis using an instrument created by SFA's developers that measures the extent to which program elements were put in place at each program group at the end of each year. This instrument was utilized to assess fidelity to the program model. The implementation analysis was also informed by principal (Part 5: Principal Survey) and teacher surveys (Part 4: Teacher Survey) in all schools, as well by logs (Part 6: Teacher Log) that asked teachers to document their instructional practices in early reading classes. These data, collected in all three study years, make it possible to measure implementation over the study period and to compare program group schools and control group schools on a variety of dimensions.

Part 7: Scale-Up Sample Data provided data on the schools that adopted SFA (and those which were approached, but did not adopt), and schools that adopted before the Investing in Innovations grant. Part 8 is the restricted version of Part 7, which retains geographic location variables.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Reported data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size permits limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables.

The Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools, 2009 survey provides national estimates on the availability and use of educational technology among teachers in public elementary and secondary schools during 2009. This is one of a set of three surveys (at the district, school, and teacher levels) that collected data on a range of educational technology resources. A stratified multistage sample design was used to select teachers for this study. Data collection was conducted September 2008 through July 2009, and 3,159 eligible teachers completed the survey by web, mail, fax, or telephone.

The survey asked respondents to report information on the use of computers and Internet access in the classroom; availability and use of computing devices, software, and school or district networks (including remote access) by teachers; students' use of educational technology; teachers' preparation to use educational technology for instruction; and technology-related professional development activities. Respondents reported quantities for the following: computers located in the classroom every day, computers that can be brought into the classroom, and computers with Internet access. Data on the availability and frequency of using computers and other technology devices during instructional time were also collected. Respondents reported on students' use of educational technology resources during classes and teachers' use of modes of technology to communicate with parents and students. Additional survey topics included teacher training and preparation to effectively use educational technology for instruction, and teachers' opinions related to statements about their participation in professional development for educational technology. Respondents were also asked for administrative information such as school instructional level, school enrollment size, main teaching assignment, and years of experience.

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were:

• Stanford 9 (SAT 9) Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8
• Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8
• ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology (ACT)

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Supplemental Test Files release consists of data files for the three supplemental assessments (SAT 9, BAM, and ACT).

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways--through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia

• Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson

• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan

• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University

• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia

• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson

• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan

• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University

• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Survey Instruments and Assessment Files release consists of data files created from the six collection instruments described below:

• The Principal Survey focuses on whether principals already know what they need to know about the effectiveness of their teachers or whether the instruments provide new information to these principals. The survey asks principals to provide an effectiveness rating for up to 12 MET teachers. It asks them how confident they are about each rating and what information they use to assess effective teaching.

• The Student Perception Survey analyzes the value of elementary and secondary student feedback on the effort to improve both teaching and learning. Questions were created to elucidate the perceptions of the students and their school and classroom experiences.

• The Teacher Web Survey was created to help answer whether teachers take seriously the rating provide by their administrator. It asks teachers to report whether they trust their principal -- Using Meyer, Davis, and Schoonhoven's three bases of trust: consistency, competency, and benevolence. It also asks teachers whether and to what extent they have acted on the feedback provided by their principal and whether the change made a positive difference in their teaching effectiveness.

• The Teacher Working Condition Survey questions were intended to shed light on the level of support existing for teachers at their school environments, e.g., whether educators are valued, trusted, and have the time and ability to collaborate to improve instruction, as well as other aspects of working conditions such as time, facilities and resources, empowerment, professional development, community engagement, induction and leadership.

• The Teacher Knowledge Assessment questions were intended to test the utility of both newly developed and well established measures of teacher knowledge to predict measures of teacher effectiveness.

• The Survey of Enacted Curriculum was intended to investigate the role that the content of instruction plays in affecting student achievement gains, as compared to the study's broader focus on instructional quality measures

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were:

• Stanford 9 (SAT-9) Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8
• Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8
• ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos are also being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

1. District/School File - This data file contains an ID for the district where MET teachers taught and data on the schools where they taught. All data are from year one of the study. The data included for schools include limited measures of school organization, student composition, and aggregated test score information. The file also includes data collected from school principals about the nature of teacher evaluation processes in a school.
2. Teacher File - This data file contains data on those MET teachers who participated in year one of the study only or who participated in both years of the study. There is one data record per teacher. Data in the teacher file was collected (or recorded) only once during the study. Among the variables included in the file are: (1) teacher IDs; (2) ID variables for district and school; (3) variables indicating a teacher's grade, subject, and study status; (4) measures of teachers' personal characteristics and professional background; (5) teacher responses to MET teacher working conditions survey [administered in year one of the study]; (6) teacher responses to the MET teacher survey administered [in year two of the study]; (7) teachers' scaled scores as well as multiple choice and constructed response sub-scores for the CKT measures; and (8) principal ratings of a teacher's effectiveness.
3. Class Section File - This data file contains data on the focal class sections taught by MET teachers. There is one data record per section. In most cases, generalists have one class section per year in the study, so that teachers who participated in both years of the study will have a total of 2 class sections of data per teacher record per year. Specialists generally have 2 class sections in year one and 1 class section in year two year, so that teachers who participated in both years of the study will have a total of up to 3 class sections of data per teacher record. Among the variables included for each class section taught by a teacher are: (1) section IDs; (2) ID variables for teacher, school, and district; (3) variables indicating a teacher's grade, subject, and study status; (4) measures of class composition, including aggregated data on students' prior year test scores, ethnic composition, free lunch status, and special education status; and (5) class size. Also included in this data file are: (6) value-added measures of teaching effectiveness based on student achievement scores [aggregated to the section level]; (7) measures of teaching effectiveness based on classroom observation score data [aggregated to the section level]; and (8) measures of teaching effectiveness based on student survey data [aggregated to the section level].
4. Student File - These data files contain data on students who were in the focal class sections of MET teachers during either year. Data on each student include: (1) student ID; (2) ID variables for section, teacher, school, and district; (3) measures of current and prior student achievement for all tests/years recorded [e.g., 2010-2011, 2009-2010; and up to three prior years]; (4) measures of student background [sex, ethnicity, lunch status, special education status, program participation]; and (5) student survey responses.
5. Classroom Observation Scores File - These data files contain data from all classroom observation sessions conducted on each teacher. There will be one file per observation instrument and each file will have one record for each segment scored by a rater. Data on each observation session include: (1) a segment ID, (2) ID variables for video, section, teacher, school, and district; (3) variables indicating the video's grade, and subject; (4) a variable indicating whether score comes from the primary scorer or a secondary scorer; (5) scores on the dimensions of the given observation instrument; (5) a variable indicating if the rater deferred scoring of the video to the scoring leader. Note that each video will generally have multiple rows because scores were given at the segment level. Additionally, instruments with different segment scoring lengths will not be comparable at the segment level.