Effects of microcomputer-administered diagnostic testing on immediate and continuing science achievement and attitudes

This investigation had three purposes: (1) to document any immediate and continuing benefits associated with the use of microcomputer-administered testing; (2) to determine what type of student might benefit most from microcomputer-administered diagnostic testing; and (3) to document the feasibility of microcomputer-administered diagnostic testing. The subjects of the study were enrolled in a biology course based on the BSCS Blue text. A random half of the students received behaviorally-stated performance objectives, while the remaining half received behaviorally-stated performance objectives in conjunction with microcomputer-administered diagnostic testing. The results of this study indicate that microcomputer-administered diagnostic testing can positively influence the immediate, but not the continuing, achievement of students in science. In addition, neither student aptitude nor achievement motivation level were found to interact with treatment or influence achievement. Affective data indicate that students react favorably to the use of objectives, computers, and diagnostic testing. Cost summary data reveal that when the expense of administering diagnostic testing by microcomputer is prorated over a five-year period, the cost of a diagnostic test is reduced to approximately three cents.     

Factors that impact social networking in online self-regulated learning activities

Educational technology research and development - Among the literature on self-regulated learning and social networking, the studies, which explore the impact of social networks on learning...     

Embedding Interventions to Promote Self-Determination within Multitiered Systems of Supports

Schools are increasingly exploring the implementation of multitiered systems of support. This article reviews the literature pertaining to efforts to promote self-determination to provide initial direction as to how interventions and supports to promote self-determination could be implemented within a tiered framework. The intent is to provide direction to the field on how such an approach can engage all students—including students with and without disabilities—in their learning across the lifespan to promote positive school and postschool outcomes. Specifically, we review interventions and supports that have been described in the literature pertaining to self-determination, organizing our review and analysis around the traditional three-tier approach. Implications for future research and development to promote the universal applicability of self-determination are discussed.     

Social working memory: Memory for another rat's spatial choices can increase or decrease choice tendencies

In two experiments using a radial-arm maze, pairs of rats made choices among eight maze locations, each containing a large quantity of one of two food types. The choices made by 1 rat affected the choices made by the other rat. Under most conditions, visits by 1 rat increased the tendency of the other rat to subsequently choose that maze location. However, the effect depended on the quality of the food available in a particular location. When it was possible for the rats to observe each other on the maze arms and a rat had experienced that a location contained the less preferred food type, a previous visit to that location by the foraging partner decreased the tendency to visit that location. These effects are attributed to working memory for the spatial choices of another rat, and they indicate that memory produced by a rat’s own visit to a maze location is integrated with memory for the behavior of another rat to determine spatial choice     

Who is a Modeler?

Many standard philosophical accounts of scientific practicefail to distinguish between modeling and other types of theoryconstruction. This failure is unfortunate because there areimportant contrasts among the goals, procedures, and representationsemployed by modelers and other kinds of theorists. We can seesome of these differences intuitively when we reflect on themethods of theorists such as Vito Volterra and Linus Paulingon the one hand, and Charles Darwin and Dimitri Mendeleev onthe other. Much of Volterra's and Pauling's work involved modeling;much of Darwin's and Mendeleev's did not. In order to capturethis distinction, I consider two examples of theory constructionin detail: Volterra's treatment of post-WWI fishery dynamicsand Mendeleev's construction of the periodic system. I arguethat modeling can be distinguished from other forms of theorizingby the procedures modelers use to represent and to study real-worldphenomena: indirect representation and analysis. This differentiationbetween modelers and non-modelers is one component of the largerproject of understanding the practice of modeling, its distinctivefeatures, and the strategies of abstraction and idealizationit employs.

1 Introduction

2 The essential contrast

2.1 Modeling

2.2 Abstract directrepresentation

3 Scientific models

4 Distinguishing modeling from ADR

4.1 The first and secondstages of modeling

4.2 Third stage of modeling

4.3 ADR

5 Who is not a modeler?

6 Conclusion: who is a modeler?

     

Government Workers Adding Societal Value: The Ohio Workforce Development Program

ABSTRACT This case study illustrates the application of Mega—adding measurable value for all stakeholders including society—as the central and ultimate focus for needs assessment. In this case, two needs assessment studies were conducted within a five‐year period (1999–2003) with the State of Ohio's Workforce Development (WD) program. An initial needs assessment based on Mega outcomes—high quality of life for Ohio taxpayers and public employees though the services they provide—was conducted in 1999, identifying shared strategic goals to focus management‐labor partnership initiatives. A Mega‐centered data collection matrix was used as the basis for discussions with stakeholders in order to determine the key areas of Ohio's Workforce Development to be included in the study. In 2003, a follow‐up needs assessment based on the same data collection matrix was designed to determine the improvements made since that time, the areas with the most critical performance gaps, demographic changes, and future trends affecting Workforce Development beneficiaries and stakeholders.