Improving Achievement With Digital Age Best Practices

Books

Christopher M. Moersch

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    Preface

    We live in a results-now world. Seldom do we hear about a college football coach, school superintendent, or a business CEO maintaining his or her job tenure without demonstrating both immediate and measureable results impacting the bottom line. Imagine legendary figures, such as college men's basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski—who has coached four national championship teams— getting fired after posting losing records during two of his first 3 years at Duke University or IBM's CEO Louis Gerstner, who posted an average net profit of $5.8 billion from 1994 to 2002, losing his job after his first year as CEO for generating a modest end-of-year profit of $3 billion in 1994.

    School systems nationwide are notorious for following a similar modus operandi. The craze to bolster test scores often forces districts to expend the majority of available funding as well as their collective focus to this single purpose at the detriment of other competing initiatives (e.g., 21st Century Skills, differentiated instruction, student-directed learning environments). Employing a one-size-fits-all mentality to increase student achievement may achieve limited short-term success, but its long-term ramifications often result in school systems, especially those within an urban setting, repeating a vicious cycle of continuous remediation.

    Technology use Practices

    The heavy investment that schools spend nationally on digital tools and resources (e.g., laptops, interactive whiteboards, mobile devices) in the United States exceeds five billion dollars annually, yet seldom are technology solutions factored into any viable equation for improving student academic achievement. In fact, the pervasive use of digital tools in K-12 classrooms has not changed dramatically during the past two decades. According to data released from the national LoTi® (Levels of Teaching Innovation) survey in 2012, the predominant LoTi level nationally remains at a LoTi Level 2.

    At a LoTi Level 2, the instructional focus emphasizes content understanding and supports mastery learning and direct instruction. Student learning focuses on lower levels of cognitive processing (e.g., Bloom levels—remembering, understanding, applying; Webb's levels—recall and reproduction, working with skills and concepts). Digital and/or environmental resources are used by students for extension activities, enrichment exercises, or information gathering assignments that reinforce lower cognitive skill development relating to the content under investigation.

    Digital Age Best Practices

    How can school systems leverage their available digital tools and resources, curriculum initiatives, and limited local, state, and federal funding to achieve academic success in their schools? There is no single variable responsible for any school system's turnaround. Achieving success on all fronts of the curriculum and instruction spectrum requires a synergistic effort to maintain a high degree of fidelity to a common set of principles over the course of a lengthy period of time. These common principles are what I refer to as Digital Age Best Practices. These best practices include

    • Bolstering purposeful inquiry through student questions
    • Promoting shared expertise with networked collaboration
    • Personalizing and globalizing content by making authentic connections
    • Accelerating individual growth through vertical and horizontal differentiation
    • Anchoring student learning with digital age tools and resources
    • Clarifying student understanding with formative assessments
    • Implementing student-centered learning environments

    The term digital age is used judiciously to signify a set of classroom best practices that (a) can be seamlessly expanded when used in conjunction with digital tools and resources (e.g., mobile devices, interactive whiteboards, digital responders) and/or (b) apply the principles of 21st Century Skills (e.g., critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration).

    The use of the Digital Age Best Practices provides a solid foundation for instructional decision making while supporting other district initiatives, such as new teacher evaluation systems, classroom walkthrough protocols, academic benchmarking, differentiated instruction, technology integration, and “conventional” best practices in the classroom.

    Can school systems designated as low achieving according to state and federal guidelines achieve academic excellence? Exemplars do exist that document the efficacy of Digital Age Best Practices, strategic team building, flexible professional development, and shared accountability to bring forth such dramatic improvement. One example is the Atlantic City School District in Atlantic City, New Jersey. This urban school system comprised of a 98% Title 1 population in the PreK-8 schools was designated as a high performing district by the New Jersey Department of Education during the 2011 through 2012 school year—one of a handful of urban school systems in the state to move from a “school in need of improvement” to “high performing.”

    A Different Approach

    This book chronicles how one urban school district, Atlantic City Public Schools, overcame institutional inertia, poverty, and gang violence to elevate student and teacher performance with dwindling federal and state financial resources through a common set of best practices known as Digital Age Best Practices. These best practices, however, are not limited to an urban setting but flourish equally well within any K-12 school system. Collectively, they can help transform static, didactic bastions of information processing into vibrant learning communities without the need for additional spending. The Digital Age Best Practices can provide value-added benefits to schools that have already invested heavily in well-conceived initiatives ranging from one-to-x mobile device acquisitions to a new math adoption.

    The organization of this manuscript uses the common thread of the Atlantic City Public Schools as the backdrop to highlight both success stories as well as the obvious challenges embedded with implementing the change cycle. To this end, the book is divided into four progressive stages. Section I discusses each of the seven Digital Age Best Practices, including implementation challenges and their corresponding solutions, while Section II offers a broader perspective of Digital Age Best Practices within the context of national, state, and local initiatives. Section III provides a specific road map that school systems can follow to retrofit the Digital Age Best Practices into their own unique teaching and learning paradigm. Section IV highlights specific characteristics required of instructional leaders in the 21st century to optimize the benefits of Digital Age Best Practices, resulting in increased student academic progress and improved classroom pedagogy.

    A Word of Caution

    The reader, however, should not be confused by the book's sequential organization. The book is far from being a “how-to” instructional manual; rather, it is a guide to both tantalize and inform the reader with suggestions, illustrations, examples, and strategies aimed at elevating the teaching and learning experience. The use of well-intentioned theories is kept to a minimum; instead, the book relies on pragmatic examples that have helped many classroom teachers engage seemingly disgruntled, disenfranchised learners. The enclosed collection of sample lesson plans, frameworks, implementation strategies, and truisms is best utilized by readers who

    • desire suggestions based on actual experiences rather than on theoretical constructs,
    • recognize that change can be a slow yet satisfying process, and
    • are willing to do the work.

    Yet, a word of caution is offered as you peruse the ensuring sections. Don't be concerned about making too many changes too fast! To paraphrase Dr. Robert Marzano from his speech to the New Jersey Federal Providers Association in 2012, even incremental change in teacher effectiveness can have a statistically significant impact on student achievement.

    Acknowledgments

    I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the many individuals who saw me through this adventure; to all those who provided encouragement, talked things over, read, wrote, offered comments, allowed me to quote their remarks and, in some instances, borrow their ideas.

    I am deeply indebted to the work of our LoTi Team, LeeChel, Dennee, Fred, Mark, and Jeremiah, who provided the foundation for this work. I want to especially thank LeeChel Moersch, my wife, partner, and co-collaborator, who provided the initial idea for writing the book and who encouraged me through challenges too many to mention and orchestrated a clear pathway for the book's completion. I would like to thank representatives of the Atlantic City Board of Education and especially Marilyn Cohen, who provided the inspiration and insight into the operation of a high-performing urban school system.

    Publisher's Acknowledgments

    Corwin gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

    Roxie R. Ahlbrecht, Teacher, Consultant, Adjunct Faculty

    Sioux Falls Public Schools, Augustana College

    Sioux Falls, SD

    Neil MacNeill, Head Master

    Ellenbrook Independent Primary School

    Ellenbrook, Western Australia, Australia

    Leslie Standerfer, Principal

    Estrella Foothills High School

    Goodyear, AZ

    Kathy Tritz-Rhodes, Principal

    Marcus-Meriden-Cleghorn Schools

    Marcus, IA

    Bonnie Tryon, Former President

    School Administrators Association of New York State (SAANYS)

    Latham, NY

    About the Author

    Dr. Christopher M. Moersch For the past fifteen years, Dr. Christopher M. Moersch has been the principal investigator of the LoTi project and Executive Director of LoTi Connection Inc. In that capacity, he has worked with thousands of educators nationwide promoting the tenets of digital age literacy and professional development in an effort to transform low performing schools into high performing schools. He has more than twenty years’ experience in the areas of curriculum development, program evaluation, and technology integration practices. His specialization includes implementing school improvement initiatives, creating 21st century learning environments, and facilitating organizational change.

  • References

    Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(1), 1-12.
    Archer, J. (1998). The link to higher test scores. Education Week, 18(5), 10-21.
    Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. L. (1994). Evaluating the apple classrooms of tomorrowSM. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O'Neil Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 173-198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Barrows, H. (2002). Is it truly possible to have such a thing as dPBL? Distance Education, 23(1), 119-122.
    Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising the standards through classroom assessment. Retrieved from Phi Delta Kappan: http://blog.discoveryeducation.com/assessment/files/2009/02/blackbox_article.pdf
    Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
    Bowgren, L., & Sever, K. (2010). Differentiated professional development in a professional learning community. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
    Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J.C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
    Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2007). Using the classroom walk-through as an instructional leadership strategy. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/index.php?Itemid=5&id=424&option=com_content&task=view
    Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning. (2009). Summary of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from http://cell.uindy.edu/docs/PBL%20research%20summarypdf
    Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715-30.
    Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for Renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Chistopher-Gordon.
    Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.
    David, J. (2008). Classroom walkthroughs. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 81-82.
    Dochy, F, Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533-568.
    Dotson, J. M. (2001). Cooperative learning structures can increase student achievement. Kagan Online Magazine. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/research_and_rarionale/increase_achievement.php
    Downey, C. J., & Frase, L. E. (2001). Participant's manual for conducting walkthrough and reflective feedback to maximize student achievement (
    2nd ed.
    ). Huxley, IA: Curriculum Management Services.
    Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., English, F. W., Frase, L. E., & Poston, W. K., Jr. (2004). The three-minute classroom walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Duffy, F N. (2003). I think, therefore I am resistant to change. Journal of Staff Development, (24), 1. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/duffy241.cfm
    eCybermission, (n.d.). “2002-2011 National Winners.” Retrieved July 14, 2013. National Science Teacher's Association Website: http://www.ecybermission.com/Winners
    Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
    Fuch, L. S., & Fuch, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
    Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (
    2nd ed.
    ). New York: Basic Books.
    Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.
    Gibbs, G (1992). Assessing more students. Oxford, UK: Oxford Brookes University.
    Gill, S. (2010). What gets measured, gets done … or not. Retrieved from http://stephenjgill.typepad.com/performance_improvement_b/2010/02/what-gets-measured-gets-doneor-not.html
    Gulek, C. (2003). Preparing for high-stakes testing. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 42-50.
    Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2000). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
    Hartzler, D. S (2000). A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum programs and their effects on student achievement. (Unpublished dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
    Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 59-71.
    Hord, S. M, Rutherford, W. L, Huling-Austin, L., Hall, G. E, & Knoll, M. K (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    International Center for Research in Education. (n.d.). Rigor/relevance framework. Retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/rrr.html
    Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (a program of CCSSO). (n.d.). InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, support implementation of the updated InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers.
    Johnson, D. W, & Johnson, R. T (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (
    5th ed.
    ). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    Johnson, D. W, Johnson, R. T, & Stanne, M. B (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf
    Joiner, C. W., Jr. (1987). Leadership for change. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
    Kachur, D. S, Stout, J. A, & Edwards, C. L (2010). Classroom walkthroughs to improve teaching and learning. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
    Kahn, S.Search Khan Academy,” on Khan Academy website, retrieved June 10, 2013, https://www.khanacademy.org
    Kegerise, S. M (2007). Impact of differentiated instructional grouping strategy on fifth grade students’ mathematics achievement (Unpublished dissertation). Widener University, Chester, PA.
    Kessner, M. J (2008). How does implementation of inquiry-based science instruction in a high-stakes testing environment affect fifth-grade student science achievement? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3304567)
    Kise, J. A. G. (2006). Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Kohl, H. R (1995). I won't learn from you—and other thoughts on creative maladjustments. New York: The New Press.
    Kübler-Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2005). On grief and grieving: Finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss. New York: Scribner.
    Laitsch, D. (2007, June 25). Design-based learning and student achievement. Research Brief: Translating Education Research into Action, 5(6), 49-69.
    Learning-Theories.com. (n.d.). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Retrieved August 27, 2013, from http://www.learning-theories.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs.html
    LoTi Connection. (2012). Atlantic City Board of Education: LoTi Digital Age School Annual Summary. Carlsbad, CA: Author.
    Luster, R. J (2008). A quantitative study investigating the effects of whole-class and differentiated instruction on student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3320691)
    Marzano, R. J (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    Marzano, R. J (2012). Presentation at the New Jersey Association of Federal Program Administrators. Atlantic City, NJ.
    Marzano, R. J, Pickering, D. J, & Pollock, J. E (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Meissner, H. (1999, July 15-19). Creativity and Mathematics Education. Summary of International Conference.
    Mergendoller, J. R, Maxwell, N., & Bellisimo, Y. (2007). The effectiveness of problem based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2(2), 49-69.
    Mississippi Department of Education. (2009). Webb's depth of knowledge guide: Career and technical education definitions. Retrieved from http://www.aps.edu/rda/documents/resources/Webbs_DOK_Guide.pdf
    Moersch, C. (1995, November). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40-42.
    Moersch, C. (2004). Experiential-based action model. Unpublished manuscript.
    Moersch, C. (2009). LoTi math project summary: Year 3 report for Atlantic City Board of Education. Carlsbad, CA: LoTi Connection.
    Moersch, C. (2010). Levels of teaching innovation framework. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37(5). Retrieved from www.iste.org (reprinted with permission).
    Moersch, C. (2010, February). LoTi turns up the H.E.A.T. Learning and Leading with Technology, 5(37), 20-23.
    Mueller, J. (2005). The authentic assessment toolbox: Enhancing student learning through online faculty development. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1(1).
    National Academies. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    National Association of Secondary School Principals. (n.d.). NASSP assessment center FAQ. Retrieved May 13, 2013, from http://www.principals.org/tabid/3788/default.aspx?topic=26776
    National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
    National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Common Core State Standards initiative: Preparing America's students for college & career. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
    Panitz, T. (2013). 44 benefits of collaborative learning. Retrieved from http://www.gdrc.org/kmgmt/c-learn/44.html
    Papanastasiou, E., Zemblyas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 325-332.
    Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://www.p21.org/overview
    Perez-Prado, A., & Thirunarayanan, M. (2002). A qualitative comparison of online and classroom-based sections of a course: Exploring student perspectives. Education Media International, 39(2), 195-202.
    Pohan, C., & Aguilar, T. (2001, March 20). Measuring educators’ beliefs about diversity in personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 159-182.
    Preston, J. A (2008). Student-centered versus teacher-centered mathematics instruction: A meta-analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, http://gradworks.umi.com/32/89/3289778.html
    Randall, D. (n.d.). The greenhouse effect experiments. Retrieved July 17, 2013, from http://school.familyeducation.com/outdoor-games/greenhouse-effect/37442.html
    Research-based Results. (2008). Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.loticonnecrion.com/ldas_results.html
    Roschelle, J. M, Pea, R. D, Hoadley C. M., Gordin, D. N, & Means, B. M (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.
    Salinas, M. E, & Garr, J. (2009a). Effect of learner-centered education on the academic outcomes of minority groups. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(2), 1-13.
    Salinas, M. E, & Garr, J. (2009b). Effects of learner-centered education on the academic outcomes of minority groups. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 226-237.
    Sandy-Hanson, A. E (2006). A meta-analysis of the impact of computer technology versus traditional instruction on students in kindergarten through twelfth grade in the United States. A comparison of academic achievement, higher-order thinking skills, motivation, physical outcomes and social skills (Unpublished dissertation). Howard University, Washington, DC.
    Schacter, J. (1999, June). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
    Schroeder, C. M, Scott, T. P, Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (October 30, 2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436-1460.
    Senge, P. (n.d.). Educed: Commentary on education, leadership, and society. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://www.educed.org/?p=233
    Shepard, L. A (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE Technical Report # 517). Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
    Siemens, G. (2005, January). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
    Slavin, R. E (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48, 71-82.
    Slavin, R. E (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (
    2nd ed.
    ). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Slemmer, D. L (2002). The effect of learning styles on student achievement in various hypertext, hypermedia and technology enhanced learning environments: A meta-analysis (Unpublished dissertation). Boise State University, Boise, ID.
    Smith, D. (1996). A meta-analysis of student outcomes attributable to the teaching of science as inquiry as compared to traditional methodology (Unpublished dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
    Smith, J. (2010). Types of changes. Blog: Consulting and Organizational Changes. Retrieved from http://managementhelp.org/blogs/consulting-skills/2010/06/03/types-of-changes/
    Stanleigh, M. (2008). How to successfully manage your change effort. Retrieved August 27, 2013, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/learning/management_thinking/articles/pdf/change_effort.pdf?PHPSESSID=brfiatu6ol621gu08anuhcdhs3
    Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2008, January). Enhancing student learning. District Administration. Retrieved from http://www.disrrictadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?arricleid=1362&p=2#0
    Teele, L. (2006). The impact of integrated study skills and critical thinking on student achievement (Unpublished dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
    Thomas, J. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from www.kl2reform.org/foundarion/pbl/research/
    Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    270towin. (n.d.). “Content Display Issues,” on 2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College.
    270towin, 2004. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from http://www.270towin.com/U.S.Constirurion.net. (n.d.). U.S. Constitution online, Retrieved from http://www.usconsritution.net/consttop_stud.html
    U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013, June 17). Municipal solid waste. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm
    Wade, E. G. (1994). A study of the effects of a constructivist-based mathematics problem-solving instructional program on the attitudes, self-confidence, and achievement of post-fifth-grade students. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 9510417)
    Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1).
    Wallace, M., & Pocklington, K. (2002). Managing complex educational change: Large-scale reorganisation of schools. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
    Wenglinsky H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center.
    Westberg, K. L, & Archambault, F. X (2004). A multi-site case study of successful classroom practices for high ability students in differentiation for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin and National Association for Gifted Children.
    Wiggins, G. (2012, January). What works in education-Hattie's list of the greatest effects and why it matters [Web blog post]. Retrieved from http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-works-in-education-hatties-list-of-the-greatest-effects-and-why-it-matters/
    Wikipedia. (n.d.). Image of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved August 23, 2013, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AMaslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg
    Wininger, R. S (2005). Using your tests to teach: Formative summative assessment. Teaching Psychology, 32(2), 164-166.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website