Applied Systemic Improvement (10 pts)

This assignment digs more deeply into using achievement data for instructional decision making. In particular you delve into the focus on "evidence-based practices" that are supported by experimental evidence associated with the US DOE What Works Clearinghouse.  Upon completion you should 

• Apply the US DOE Recommendations for using evidence to drive instruction in a relevant educational context
• Articulate a position on the importance of "evidence-based" and randomized experimental studies in you professional context.

ENGAGE WITH THE READING  (REQUIRED, BY DUE DATE)

1.  Access and read/review the paper.  Click here to access Hamilton, Halverson, Jackson, Mandinach, Supovitz, & Wayman (2006).  Links to an external site.  Try to read the paper straight through.  If you have trouble, read through the introduction and the overview of the report and then skim through the recommendations.
2.  Summarize the Recommendations for Educational Decision Making.  As summarized on page 9 and elaborated in the body of the paper, Hamilton et al. discuss five recommendations for using educational data to guide instruction.  Summarize how each of these recommendations might be relevant in your professional context and what roadblocks you might encounter in each area.
3.  Take a position on the role of empirical evidence in your context.  Read about levels of evidence in the introduction and look at the technical information in Appendix D.  Notice that the panel concluded that there was very little causal evidence supporting their recommendations.  How important do you think it is to have randomized clinical trials in support of recommendations like this.  There was a major push in the USDOE around the "What Works Clearinghouse" to make it possible to distinguish between recommendations with high levels of causal evidence supporting recommendations.  While the DOE and the community has backed away from it somewhat, it is still a very important and relevant debate.  Take a position on how important causal evidence is in your professional EDS context.  Do you think causal evidence is necessary to back up these kinds of recommendations.  You may with to return to this after searching for and reviewing relevant outside resources.
4. Save (there is no survey this week).  

LOCATE AND SHARE EXTERNAL RESOURCES, PUBLISH, AND SUBMIT (REQUIRED FOR CREDIT OR BADGES, BY THE DUE DATE)

1. Search the Internet for relevant resources.  Use Google Scholar and the links on the Resources Classwiki and begin searching for external resources that are relevant to your EDS Challenge and your professional roles and goals.  These can be articles, podcasts, websites, slideshares, etc. Spend enough time to find ones that are relevant and then engage with them.  If you find useful directories to multiple resources, please insert them at the top of the classwiki.  These guidelines for evidence were controversial.  You should be able to find more recent articles and discussions and find some consideration of this issue in your area.  This is a complicated but important issue.

2.  List and annotate least three relevant external resources.  Insert an appropriate header.  Insert the URLs for at least three external resource that are particularly relevant to your challenge, roles, and goals. Add an annotation indicating how the article is relevant to you and more generally.  List them in order of relevance and make it clear why the first one is most relevant. If you plan to write the optional literature review paper, write these as paragraphs closer to how they might appear in a literature review paper.
3.  Share your most relevant resource.  Copy and past your most relevant resource and annotation with the class and paste it under the appropriate header for this week on the classwiki.
4.  Refine your EDS Challenge.  You should be able to further refine your EDS challenge using insights gained from interacting with the paper.
5. Save, publish, and submit (by the due date).  

INTERACT WITH PEERS (REQUIRED, BEFORE AND AFTER THE DUE DATE)

This is the same as in the previous assignment except that a peer promotion element was added.

1. Consider posting a question to the instructor and your peers.  Try to come up with a question that this assignment raised for you.  Post it as a comment to your wikifolio. It is best to write the question in a way that leads others to read your wikifolio.
2.  Read and discuss peer wikifolios.  Examine and comment on at least four of your peers.  Be sure to read their introductions on their homepage before reading their wikifolios. Post questions, get discussion going, etc.
3.  Respond to comments and questions.  Be sure to go back to your own wikifolio and respond to comments and questions.
4. Like at least four peer comments.  This should just be carried out as part of your peer interactions.

REFLECT ON YOUR ENGAGEMENT (REQUIRED FOR CREDIT OR BADGES, WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE DUE DATE)

1.  Critical engagement: How suitable was your EDS challenge and professional context for learning the big ideas this week?  Did your classmates have a challenge and a context that were more directly relevant?    You are not being asked to criticize your understanding or your work; rather you are critiquing the suitability of your professional context for learning to use the knowledge of EDS that we were introduced to this week.
2.  Collaborative engagement.  Review the comments from your classmates and reflect on any insights that emerged in the discussions, anything particularly useful or interesting.  Single out the peers that have been particularly helpful in your thinking, both in their comments and from reading their wikifolios.  Your goal each week should be to get recognized in the reflection on collaborative engagement by your peers.
3. Consequential engagement.  What are the consequences of what you learned this week for your professional role and for educational professionals in general. What are the broader consequences of these ideas?  Try to be specific in your examples but general in your thinking.