Building a better body of evidence: New opportunities to strengthen evaluation utilization

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 489-498

  Ginsburg, Alan ^a   Rhett, Nancy ^b  

^a United States Department of Education   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0344824385     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ameval.2003.10.005     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Boruch, R. F. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Bourque, M. L., & Grissmer, D. (2003). Background information framework for the national assessment. Draft report to the National Assessment Governing Board, Washington, DC.
3. Campbell Collaboration. (2003). http://www.campbellcollaboration.org.
4. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago: Rand McNally.
5. Carter L.F. The sustaining effects study of compensatory and elementary education Educational Researcher 13 1984 5-13
6. Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (1999, September). How can we help? Lessons from federal drop-out prevention programs. Prepared for the Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
7. Dynarski, M., James-Burdumy, S., Mansfield, W., Mayer, D., Moore, M., Mullens, J., Silva, T., Pistorino, C., & Hermond, D. (2003). The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. Prepared for the Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
8. Heckman J. Hotz V.J. Choosing among alternative non-experimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: The case of manpower training Journal of the American Statistical Association 84 1989 862-874
9. Lyon, G. R. (1999, April). NICHD's core battery for reading development studies. Personal communication from G. Reid Lyon, Chief, Child Development and Behavior Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
10. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11. Meyers, D., & Schirim, A. (1999). The impacts of Upward Bound: Final report for phase I of the national evaluation. Prepared for the Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
12. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development-NICHD. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH Pub. No. 00-4769.
13. Puma, J. J., Jones, C., Rock, C. C., & Fernandez, R. (1993). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educational growth and opportunity. Interim report. Prepared for the Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
14. Raham, H. (2001). Effective schools research. Education analyst (Vol. 4, No. 2). Available at http://www.saee.bc.ca/2001_4_2_3.html.
15. Riccio, J. A., Bloom, H. S. (2001). Extending the reach of randomized social experiments. New York, NY: MDRC.
16. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. CPRE Research Report Series. RR-051.
17. Scriven, M. (1993). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation (Series No. 58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. St. Pierre, R., Ricciuti, A., Tao, F., Creps, C., Swartz, J., Lee, W., Parsad, A., & Rimdzius, T. (2003). Third national Even Start evaluation: Program impacts and implications for improvement. Prepared for Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
19. St. Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Ganise, B., Murray, S., Deck, D., & Nickel, P. (1995). National evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Final report. Prepared for the Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
20. Treisman U. Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college College Mathematics Journal 23 1992 362-372
21. U.S. Congress. (2002). P.L. 107-279 Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America.
22. U.S. Department of Education. (2002, August 7). Press release: U.S. Department of Education Awards Contract for "What Works Clearinghouse".
23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: HHS.
24. Washington Post. (2003, April 22). Academic research: A study in politics scholars and stars square off with educational policy on the line. Page A07.
25. Weiss, C. H. (1987). Where politics and evaluation research meet. In D. J. Palumbo (Ed.), The politics of program evaluation. Yearbooks in politics and public policy (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. Yin, R. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: Design and method. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 229-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.