Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated
Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) XIII: Institutional Characteristics of Colleges and Universities, 1978-1979 (ICPSR 6903)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-06
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Marshall Islands, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Global
Time period: 1978-01-01--1979-01-01
The Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) series was designed to provide comprehensive information on various aspects of postsecondary education in the United States and its territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Marshall Islands) and Department of Defense schools outside the United States. Data are available for both public and private two-year and four-year institutions. The HEGIS Institutional Characteristics component for 1978-1979 sought data on basic characteristics from institutions of higher education. The data include information on name, address, and telephone number of the institution as well as information about accreditations, state and city demographics, calendar system, program types, enrollment figures, administrative officers, student services, tuition and fees, room and board, and admission requirements.
Curated
Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) XII: Institutional Characteristics of Colleges and Universities, 1977-1978 (ICPSR 7647)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-14
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Marshall Islands, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Global
Time period: 1977-01-01--1978-01-01
The Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) series was designed to provide comprehensive information on various aspects of postsecondary education in the United States and its territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Marshall Islands) and Department of Defense schools outside the United States. Data are available for both public and private two-year and four-year institutions. The HEGIS Institutional Characteristics component for 1977-1978 sought data on basic characteristics from institutions of higher education. The data include information on name, address, and telephone number of the institution as well as information about accreditations, state and city demographics, calendar system, program types, enrollment figures, administrative officers, student services, tuition and fees, room and board, and admission requirements.
Curated
Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) XVIII: Institutional Characteristics of Colleges and Universities, 1983-1984 (ICPSR 8291)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-22
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Marshall Islands, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Global
Time period: 1983-01-01--1984-01-01
The Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) series was designed to provide comprehensive information on various aspects of postsecondary education in the United States and its territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northen Marianas, and the Marshall Islands) and Department of Defense schools outside the United States. Data are available for both public and private two-year and four-year institutions. The HEGIS Institutional Characteristics component for 1983-1984 sought data on basic characteristics from institutions of higher education. The data include information on name, address, and telephone number of the institution as well as information about accreditations, state and city demographics, calendar system, program types, enrollment figures, student services, tuition and fees, room and board, and admission requirements.
Curated
Jewish School Study, 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 4550)
Released/updated on: 2009-06-11
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
The Jewish School Study was undertaken to determine the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of Jewish education, how Jewish day schools are formed and organized, how Jewish schools contribute to the maintenance of continuity of a 400-year tradition, how adolescent Jews develop their identity, and what role religious education plays in this development. Questions also asked how Jewish adolescents and their parents participate in Jewish life, express their feelings about being Jewish, the role of spirituality in their lives, how they learn about Jewish life, and their relationship/ties with Israel and the Jewish people. Part 1, the Parent Survey, asked parents of students in Jewish schools about the financial costs of religious education, their religious background, Jewish religious practices of their household, as well as their own religious beliefs and spirituality. The survey also sought answers to questions on the parents' reasons for their choice of Jewish school, how involved and in what ways they were involved in their child's school and education, their involvement in the Jewish community, their level of knowledge on various subjects related to Judaism, and their opinions on their own parenting. Other information collected included marital status, income, family status, family origins, education, and employment. Part 2, the Student Survey, asked students about their religious background, the religious practices and experiences in their household, and their own Jewish practices. Students were then asked about how they spent their free time on Saturdays and weekdays, how they and their parents felt about being Jewish, and what types of rules their parents had for them. Additionally, students were queried about their values, friends, and future plans; knowledge of various subjects relating to Judaism; and their opinions of their school, teachers, and their own academic performance. Background information collected included gender, grade in school, name and types of schools attended, household composition, language spoken in the home, and parents' education and employment. Part 3, the Teacher Survey, asked teachers about the settings they worked in and the salary and benefits of those positions. Respondents also were asked about the classes they taught, the use of various teaching methods and media, and their roles and responsibilities. The survey also asked the teachers about their training and professional development, their perceptions and attitudes about their school, parental involvement, resources and facilities, and school goals. Additionally, teachers were asked about their religious background, Jewish religious practices of their own households, and their personal religious beliefs and spirituality. Background information collected included type of postsecondary education, gender, age, place of birth, marital status, income, and future career plans.
Curated
Study of Instructional Improvement (SII) (ICPSR 26282)
Released/updated on: 2010-05-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2004-01-01
To meet the growing need for high-quality research on whole-school approaches to instructional improvement, researchers at the University of Michigan School of Education, in cooperation with the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), conducted a large-scale, mixed method, longitudinal Study of Instructional Improvement to investigate the design, implementation, and effects on student achievement of three of the most widely-adopted whole-school school reform programs in the United States: the Accelerated Schools (ASP), America's Choice (AC), and Success for All (SFA). Each of these school reform programs sought to make "comprehensive" changes in the instructional capacity of schools, and each was being implemented in schools in diverse social environments. Each program, however, also pursued a different design for instructional improvement, and each developed particular strategies for assisting schools in the change process. In order to better understand the process of whole-school reform, Study of Instructional Improvement (SII) developed a program of research to examine how these interventions operated and to investigate their impact on schools' instructional practice and student achievement in reading and mathematics. The research program had 3 components: a longitudinal survey of 115 schools (roughly 30 schools in each of the 3 interventions under study, plus 26 matched control schools), case studies of the 3 interventions under study, and detailed case studies of 9 schools implementing the interventions under study (plus 3 matched control schools). Across all components of the SII study, the research examined alternative designs for instructional improvement, alternative strategies for putting these designs into practice in local schools, and the extent to which alternative designs and support strategies promote substantial changes in instructional capacity and student achievement in reading and mathematics. The most comprehensive component of SII was a large-scale, longitudinal, multisurvey study of schools. The use of survey research methods was intended to track the course of schools' engagement in comprehensive approaches to instructional improvement and to investigate the conditions under which this led to substantive changes in instructional practices and student achievement in reading and mathematics. The study design called for each school to participate in the study for a period of three years, although some schools voluntarily provided a fourth year of teacher, leader, and school-level information (no additional student-level data). In addition, survey researchers conducted interviews, primarily a telephone protocol with a parent or guardian of each cohort student in order to gather information on students' family background and on students' home and community environments. Researchers also gathered data from school leaders and others about the policy environments in which the schools are located. Another component of the research program involved the development of detailed case studies of a small number schools participating in the study. The case studies gathered observational, interview, and documentary evidence to better understand how instructional change processes unfolded in different school settings. Case studies were conducted in 12 schools operating in differently configured state and district policy environments. In each environment, researchers selected schools participating in one of the interventions under study as well as a "matched" control school. Finally, case study data was used to chart key similarities and differences in the design and operations of the interventions under study, to analyze how different design features affect operating strategies, and to better understand the general problem of how intervention programs can work to devise and "bring to scale" a feasible scheme for improving instruction in local schools.