Daniel / G. Middle Grades Research Journal

1. Auflage 2017
ISBN: 978-1-64113-241-1
Verlag: Information Age Publishing
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 137 Seiten

Middle Grades Research Journal (MGRJ) is a refereed, peer reviewed journal that publishes original studies providing both empirical and theoretical frameworks that focus on middle grades education. A variety of articles are published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each volume year.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Daniel, Larry G

Daniel,

G., Larry

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Volume 11, Issue 2, 2017;6
3;Corrigendum—Supporting English Language Learners’ Writing Abilities;8
3.1;Exploring Third Spaces;8
3.1.1;Lori Czop Assaf Margarita Zisselsberger;8
3.1.1.1;Texas State University Loyola University Maryland;8
3.1.1.1.1;This corrigendum is being written because Margarita Zisselsberger, the second author, has been added considering that the present study (originally published in MGRJ, 9(1) is based on a larger research project in which Margarita Zisselsberger and Lor...;8
3.1.1.1.1.1;Corrected Sections;8
3.1.1.1.1.2;Theoretical Framework;9
3.1.1.1.1.3;Discussion;11
4;The Impact of Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) on the Achievement of Eighth-Grade Students;14
4.1;Heather R.C. Wooldridge;14
4.1.1;Baltimore County Public Schools;14
4.1.1.1;The Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program has been preparing students who are first generation. college-going students from subgroups traditionally underrepresented in higher education, and students from lower socioeconomic families...;14
4.1.1.1.1;PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY;15
4.1.1.1.2;THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK;15
4.1.1.1.3;Literature Review;16
4.1.1.1.3.1;AVID’s 11 Essentials;17
4.1.1.1.4;RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY;21
4.1.1.1.5;HYPOTHESES;21
4.1.1.1.6;SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION;21
4.1.1.1.6.1;Participation in the AVID Program;21
4.1.1.1.6.2;Selection Process for Participation in the AVID Program;21
4.1.1.1.7;1. The students should be in the “academic middle”—they should start out in the program with a GPA between 2.0 and 3.5.;21
4.1.1.1.8;2. The students should come from demographic subgroups that are traditionally underrepresented in higher education, from lower socioeconomic families, and/ or from individuals who will be first generation college-going students.;21
4.1.1.1.8.1;3. The students must volunteer to participate.;21
4.1.1.1.9;1. Attendance at an informational session for students and/or family members.;21
4.1.1.1.10;2. Voluntary completion, by the student, of the written application form.;21
4.1.1.1.11;3. Student, and sometimes parent, participation in a face-to-face interview with an AVID site team member.;21
4.1.1.1.12;4. Verification of teacher recommendations.;21
4.1.1.1.13;5. Ensuring that the overall demographics of the AVID program participants at a particular school were a microcosm of the overall demographics of the school as a whole.;21
4.1.1.1.13.1;Career Readiness (The ReadiSTEP Test);22
4.1.1.1.13.2;Grade Point Averages;22
4.1.1.1.13.3;Attendance;22
4.1.1.1.13.4;Suspensions;22
4.1.1.1.13.5;Results for Hypothesis 1;22
4.1.1.1.13.6;Results for Hypothesis 2;22
4.1.1.1.13.7;Results for Hypothesis 3;22
4.1.1.1.13.8;Table 1;23
4.1.1.1.14;AVID Versus Non-AVID on the ReadiSTEP Test;23
4.1.1.1.15;9.784;23
4.1.1.1.16;1.8837;23
4.1.1.1.17;.0529;23
4.1.1.1.18;10.141;23
4.1.1.1.19;1.5218;23
4.1.1.1.20;.1028;23
4.1.1.1.20.1;Table 2;23
4.1.1.1.21;AVID Versus Non-AVID for Fourth Quarter GPAs Hypothesis;23
4.1.1.1.22;2.3885;23
4.1.1.1.23;.86256;23
4.1.1.1.24;.02285;23
4.1.1.1.25;2.6393;23
4.1.1.1.26;.81248;23
4.1.1.1.27;.05453;23
4.1.1.1.27.1;Table 3;23
4.1.1.1.28;AVID Versus Non-AVID Attendance;23
4.1.1.1.29;5.960;23
4.1.1.1.30;6.0867;23
4.1.1.1.31;.1611;23
4.1.1.1.32;5.838;23
4.1.1.1.33;5.7423;23
4.1.1.1.34;.3854;23
4.1.1.1.34.1;Table 4;23
4.1.1.1.35;AVID Versus Non-AVID Suspension Rates;23
4.1.1.1.36;.521;23
4.1.1.1.37;1.4596;23
4.1.1.1.38;.0380;23
4.1.1.1.39;.243;23
4.1.1.1.40;.9581;23
4.1.1.1.41;.0643;23
4.1.1.1.41.1;Results for Hypothesis 4;23
4.1.1.1.41.2;Discussion;23
4.1.1.1.41.2.1;Suggestions for Further Research:;25
4.1.1.1.41.3;SUMMARY;25
4.1.1.1.41.4;References;25
5;A National Study of Common Planning Time Activities;28
5.1;Examination of Differences by State;28
5.1.1;David J. Lomascolo Pamela S. Angelle;28
5.1.1.1;Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago The University of Tennessee;28
5.1.1.1.1;1. How do middle grades teachers spend common planning time?;29
5.1.1.1.2;2. Are there differences by state in how teachers report spending common planning time?;29
5.1.1.1.3;3. Does teacher certification level and teamwork during student teaching influence teachers’ time spent on CPT activities?;29
5.1.1.1.4;4. Does teacher certification level and teamwork during student teaching influence their understanding of quality CPT?;29
5.1.1.1.4.1;CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK;29
5.1.1.1.4.2;Method;30
5.1.1.1.4.3;DATA SOURCES;30
5.1.1.1.4.4;Results;31
5.1.1.1.4.5;Table 1;32
5.1.1.1.5;Mean Scores for Time Spent on Variable Activities and Understanding of CPT Quality by State;32
5.1.1.1.6;119;32
5.1.1.1.7;4.0;32
5.1.1.1.8;1.0;32
5.1.1.1.9;3.8;32
5.1.1.1.10;1.1;32
5.1.1.1.11;3.9;32
5.1.1.1.12;.7;32
5.1.1.1.13;147;32
5.1.1.1.14;3.2;32
5.1.1.1.15;1.2;32
5.1.1.1.16;3.6;32
5.1.1.1.17;1.3;32
5.1.1.1.18;4.2;32
5.1.1.1.19;.7;32
5.1.1.1.20;50;32
5.1.1.1.21;3.0;32
5.1.1.1.22;1.2;32
5.1.1.1.23;4.0;32
5.1.1.1.24;1.1;32
5.1.1.1.25;4.3;32
5.1.1.1.26;.5;32
5.1.1.1.27;33;32
5.1.1.1.28;3.8;32
5.1.1.1.29;1.1;32
5.1.1.1.30;4.2;32
5.1.1.1.31;1.4;32
5.1.1.1.32;4.1;32
5.1.1.1.33;.6;32
5.1.1.1.34;37;32
5.1.1.1.35;4.4;32
5.1.1.1.36;1.1;32
5.1.1.1.37;4.3;32
5.1.1.1.38;1.0;32
5.1.1.1.39;4.2;32
5.1.1.1.40;.6;32
5.1.1.1.41;47;32
5.1.1.1.42;2.8;32
5.1.1.1.43;1.2;32
5.1.1.1.44;3.3;32
5.1.1.1.45;1.3;32
5.1.1.1.46;3.6;32
5.1.1.1.47;.8;32
5.1.1.1.48;131;32
5.1.1.1.49;3.4;32
5.1.1.1.50;1.4;32
5.1.1.1.51;3.6;32
5.1.1.1.52;1.5;32
5.1.1.1.53;3.9;32
5.1.1.1.54;.7;32
5.1.1.1.54.1;Table 2;33
5.1.1.1.55;Most Frequently Selected Common Planning Time Activities Across States;33
5.1.1.1.56;436;33
5.1.1.1.57;77;33
5.1.1.1.58;407;33
5.1.1.1.59;72;33
5.1.1.1.60;222;33
5.1.1.1.61;39;33
5.1.1.1.62;82;33
5.1.1.1.63;15;33
5.1.1.1.64;59;33
5.1.1.1.65;9;33
5.1.1.1.66;58;33
5.1.1.1.67;10;33
5.1.1.1.68;53;33
5.1.1.1.69;9;33
5.1.1.1.70;43;33
5.1.1.1.71;8;33
5.1.1.1.72;42;33
5.1.1.1.73;7;33
5.1.1.1.74;42;33
5.1.1.1.75;7;33
5.1.1.1.76;35;33
5.1.1.1.77;6;33
5.1.1.1.78;32;33
5.1.1.1.79;6;33
5.1.1.1.80;22;33
5.1.1.1.81;4;33
5.1.1.1.82;12;33
5.1.1.1.83;12;33
5.1.1.1.84;2;33
5.1.1.1.85;.4;33
5.1.1.1.85.1;Table 3;33
5.1.1.1.86;Most Commonly Selected CPT Activities Within Across States;33
5.1.1.1.87;51%;33
5.1.1.1.88;28%;33
5.1.1.1.89;82%;33
5.1.1.1.90;24%;33
5.1.1.1.91;83%;33
5.1.1.1.92;23%;33
5.1.1.1.93;48%;33
5.1.1.1.94;32%;33
5.1.1.1.95;75%;33
5.1.1.1.96;27%;33
5.1.1.1.97;83%;33
5.1.1.1.98;28%;33
5.1.1.1.99;18%;33
5.1.1.1.100;4%;33
5.1.1.1.101;78%;33
5.1.1.1.102;10%;33
5.1.1.1.103;88%;33
5.1.1.1.104;10%;33
5.1.1.1.105;27%;33
5.1.1.1.106;4%;33
5.1.1.1.107;85%;33
5.1.1.1.108;7%;33
5.1.1.1.109;73%;33
5.1.1.1.110;6%;33
5.1.1.1.111;51%;33
5.1.1.1.112;9%;33
5.1.1.1.113;70%;33
5.1.1.1.114;6%;33
5.1.1.1.115;73%;33
5.1.1.1.116;6%;33
5.1.1.1.117;36%;33
5.1.1.1.118;8%;33
5.1.1.1.119;89%;33
5.1.1.1.120;10%;33
5.1.1.1.121;87%;33
5.1.1.1.122;9%;33
5.1.1.1.123;28%;33
5.1.1.1.124;17%;33
5.1.1.1.125;50%;33
5.1.1.1.126;16%;33
5.1.1.1.127;60%;33
5.1.1.1.128;18%;33
5.1.1.1.128.1;Discussion;34
5.1.1.1.128.2;References;38
5.1.1.1.128.3;Table 4;35
5.1.1.1.129;Bivariate Correlation Among Teacher Certification, Teamwork, and Aggregated CPT Activities;35
5.1.1.1.130;1;35
5.1.1.1.131;1;35
5.1.1.1.132;–.054;35
5.1.1.1.133;1;35
5.1.1.1.134;1;35
6;Personalized Learning in the Middle Grades;40
6.1;A Case Study of One Team’s Successes and Challenges;40
6.1.1;Steven Netcoh and Penny A. Bishop;40
6.1.1.1;The University of Vermont;40
6.1.1.1.1;Although the idea of responding to learners’ individual needs is far from new in the middle grades movement, there have been renewed efforts in recent years for schools to tailor programs and practices to students’ unique interests and needs thro...;40
6.1.1.1.1.1;Introduction;40
6.1.1.1.1.2;Literature Review;42
6.1.1.1.1.3;Methodology;44
6.1.1.1.1.4;Findings;46
6.1.1.1.1.5;Table 2;46
6.1.1.1.1.6;Summary of Themes and Subthemes;46
6.1.1.1.1.6.1;Discussion;49
6.1.1.1.1.6.2;Limitations;51
6.1.1.1.1.6.3;Conclusion;52
6.1.1.1.1.6.4;NOTES;52
6.1.1.1.1.6.5;Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Teachers;52
6.1.1.1.1.6.6;1. Can you talk a little about your experience with E-Time this year?;52
6.1.1.1.1.6.7;2. What do you believe have been some successes of E-Time?;52
6.1.1.1.1.6.8;3. What have been some struggles or challenges with E-Time?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.9;4. What are some areas for improvement with E-Time?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.10;5. What has the student experience in E- Time been like?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.11;6. What have students been saying about E- Time?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.11.1;7. What are some projects that students have done in E-Time?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.11.2;Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol for Teachers;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.12;1. What are some of your main lessons learned or takeaways from your experience with E-Time this year?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.13;2. What do you think was the biggest success of E-Time this year?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.14;3. Are there any special considerations that must be accounted for when taking more personalized approaches to learning with middle school students?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.14.1;4. I got the sense during the team reflection that you are thinking about using time differently during E-Time next year. Am I right in that assumption? If so, can you talk a little about how you’re thinking of using that time?;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.14.2;References;53
6.1.1.1.1.6.14.3;Table 1;44
6.1.1.1.1.7;Team Explorer Teacher Demographics;44
6.1.1.1.1.8;Cal;44
6.1.1.1.1.9;5;44
6.1.1.1.1.10;White;44
6.1.1.1.1.11;Man;44
6.1.1.1.1.12;Humanities;44
6.1.1.1.1.13;Amanda;44
6.1.1.1.1.14;10;44
6.1.1.1.1.15;White;44
6.1.1.1.1.16;Woman;44
6.1.1.1.1.17;Science;44
6.1.1.1.1.18;Monica;44
6.1.1.1.1.19;9;44
6.1.1.1.1.20;White;44
6.1.1.1.1.21;Woman;44
6.1.1.1.1.22;Math;44
6.1.1.1.1.23;Christina;44
6.1.1.1.1.24;1st year (student teacher);44
6.1.1.1.1.25;White;44
6.1.1.1.1.26;Woman;44
6.1.1.1.1.27;Humanities;44
6.1.1.1.1.28;Allison;44
6.1.1.1.1.29;16;44
6.1.1.1.1.30;White;44
6.1.1.1.1.31;Woman;44
6.1.1.1.1.32;Humanities;44
6.1.1.1.1.33;Gwen;44
6.1.1.1.1.34;11;44
6.1.1.1.1.35;White;44
6.1.1.1.1.36;Woman;44
6.1.1.1.1.37;ESL;44
6.1.1.1.1.38;Ted;44
6.1.1.1.1.39;1;44
6.1.1.1.1.40;White;44
6.1.1.1.1.41;Man;44
6.1.1.1.1.42;Special education;44
6.1.1.1.1.43;Denise;44
6.1.1.1.1.44;33;44
6.1.1.1.1.45;White;44
6.1.1.1.1.46;Woman;44
6.1.1.1.1.47;Math/science;44
7;Student Assets and Commitment to Learning in an Afterschool Leadership Development Program;56
7.1;Looking Beyond the Myths;56
7.1.1;Erin Kostina-Ritchey, Paulina Velez-Gomez, and Sara L. Dodd;56
7.1.1.1;Texas Tech University;56
7.1.1.1.1;The present study is the first reported analysis of participant data from an afterschool leadership development program targeting the elementary to middle school transition for fifth-grade students. Data were collected from 2012 to 2015 from 261 adol...;56
7.1.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;56
7.1.1.1.1.2;METHODS;59
7.1.1.1.1.3;1. Subgroups of adolescents can be identified by their scores on external assets (i.e. support and empowerment) and internal assets (positive values).;59
7.1.1.1.1.4;2. Subgroups of adolescents identified by their assets scores significantly differ in their commitment to learning.;59
7.1.1.1.1.5;3. Only high asset fifth-grade students self- select into a leadership program voluntarily.;59
7.1.1.1.1.6;4. Students from low SES schools are overrepresented in low asset subgroups.;59
7.1.1.1.1.7;5. Students from high SES will be highly represented in the high asset subgroup.;59
7.1.1.1.1.8;6. Students from rural communities will be overrepresented in low asset subgroups.;59
7.1.1.1.1.8.1;RESULTS;61
7.1.1.1.1.8.2;Table 1;62
7.1.1.1.1.9;Means, Standard Deviations, and Range for Study Variables (N = 261);62
7.1.1.1.1.10;9.97;62
7.1.1.1.1.11;0.51;62
7.1.1.1.1.12;8 – 11;62
7.1.1.1.1.13;26.88;62
7.1.1.1.1.14;3.49;62
7.1.1.1.1.15;9 – 30;62
7.1.1.1.1.16;25.20;62
7.1.1.1.1.17;4.60;62
7.1.1.1.1.18;7 – 30;62
7.1.1.1.1.19;25.03;62
7.1.1.1.1.20;3.79;62
7.1.1.1.1.21;11 – 30;62
7.1.1.1.1.22;25.87;62
7.1.1.1.1.23;4.15;62
7.1.1.1.1.24;3 – 30;62
7.1.1.1.1.24.1;Table 2;62
7.1.1.1.1.25;Bivariate Correlations Among Study’s Variables;62
7.1.1.1.1.26;1;62
7.1.1.1.1.27;.024;62
7.1.1.1.1.28;1;62
7.1.1.1.1.29;.018;62
7.1.1.1.1.30;.584**;62
7.1.1.1.1.31;1;62
7.1.1.1.1.32;.045;62
7.1.1.1.1.33;.460**;62
7.1.1.1.1.34;.582**;62
7.1.1.1.1.35;1;62
7.1.1.1.1.36;.019;62
7.1.1.1.1.37;.474**;62
7.1.1.1.1.38;.535**;62
7.1.1.1.1.39;.550**;62
7.1.1.1.1.40;1;62
7.1.1.1.1.40.1;Figure 1;63
7.1.1.1.1.40.2;Table 3;64
7.1.1.1.1.41;Standardized Variables’ Means for the Hierarchical and k-Means Cluster Solutions;64
7.1.1.1.1.42;–1.95;64
7.1.1.1.1.43;–0.11;64
7.1.1.1.1.44;0.70;64
7.1.1.1.1.45;–2.00;64
7.1.1.1.1.46;–0.20;64
7.1.1.1.1.47;0.56;64
7.1.1.1.1.48;–1.54;64
7.1.1.1.1.49;–0.26;64
7.1.1.1.1.50;0.74;64
7.1.1.1.1.51;–1.77;64
7.1.1.1.1.52;–0.40;64
7.1.1.1.1.53;0.67;64
7.1.1.1.1.54;–1.11;64
7.1.1.1.1.55;–0.32;64
7.1.1.1.1.56;0.68;64
7.1.1.1.1.57;–1.29;64
7.1.1.1.1.58;–0.48;64
7.1.1.1.1.59;0.63;64
7.1.1.1.1.60;32;64
7.1.1.1.1.61;120;64
7.1.1.1.1.62;109;64
7.1.1.1.1.63;28;64
7.1.1.1.1.64;99;64
7.1.1.1.1.65;134;64
7.1.1.1.1.65.1;DISCUSSION;64
7.1.1.1.1.65.2;Table 4;65
7.1.1.1.1.66;Demographic Characteristics by School;65
7.1.1.1.1.67;A;65
7.1.1.1.1.68;High;65
7.1.1.1.1.69;Urban;65
7.1.1.1.1.70;B;65
7.1.1.1.1.71;High;65
7.1.1.1.1.72;Urban;65
7.1.1.1.1.73;C;65
7.1.1.1.1.74;Low;65
7.1.1.1.1.75;Urban;65
7.1.1.1.1.76;D;65
7.1.1.1.1.77;High;65
7.1.1.1.1.78;Urban;65
7.1.1.1.1.79;E;65
7.1.1.1.1.80;Low;65
7.1.1.1.1.81;Urban;65
7.1.1.1.1.82;F;65
7.1.1.1.1.83;High;65
7.1.1.1.1.84;Urban;65
7.1.1.1.1.85;G;65
7.1.1.1.1.86;Low;65
7.1.1.1.1.87;Rural;65
7.1.1.1.1.87.1;References;65
8;A Case Study of Dilemmas Encountered When Connecting Middle School Mathematics Instruction to Relevant Real World Examples;68
8.1;Amanda T. Sugimoto Erin E. Turner Kathleen J. Stoehr;68
8.1.1;Portland State University University of Arizona Santa Clara University;68
8.1.1.1;The pedagogical practice of connecting mathematical content to real world contexts, particularly contexts relevant to students’ knowledge and experiences, can positively impact student motivation as well as promote conceptual understanding. However...;68
8.1.1.1.1;Introduction;68
8.1.1.1.1.1;Figure 1;71
8.1.1.1.2;CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: DILEMMATIC SPACES;72
8.1.1.1.3;1. What, if any, dilemmas did this teacher negotiate while connecting her mathematics instruction to relevant real world contexts? and;73
8.1.1.1.3.1;2. What, if any, supports did this teacher draw upon when faced with said dilemmas?;73
8.1.1.1.3.2;Methodology;73
8.1.1.1.3.2.1;Data Sources;74
8.1.1.1.3.3;Table 1;74
8.1.1.1.4;Summary of Data Collection Tools;74
8.1.1.1.4.1;Data Analysis;74
8.1.1.1.4.2;Findings;75
8.1.1.1.4.2.1;Figure 2;80
8.1.1.1.4.2.2;Figure 3;81
8.1.1.1.4.2.3;Figure 4;83
8.1.1.1.4.3;Discussion;83
8.1.1.1.4.3.1;Figure 5;84
8.1.1.1.4.4;Implications;86
8.1.1.1.4.5;References;87
9;Perceptions of Teaching Practices, Teacher Support, and School Engagement Among Middle School Students;90
9.1;An Examination of the Developmental Designs Approach;90
9.1.1;Faheemah N. Mustafaa Fantasy T. Lozada Jozet Channey;90
9.1.1.1;University of California-Berkeley Virginia Commonwealth University University of Michigan;90
9.1.2;Alexandra Skoog-Hoffman Robert J. Jagers;90
9.1.2.1;TNTP University of Michigan;90
9.1.2.1.1;School engagement is important in promoting adolescents’ academic and socioemotional outcomes. We explored whether sixth-grade students’ (N = 571, Mage = 11.27, 52% female, 50% racial/ethnic minority) school engagement at the end of the academic ...;90
9.1.2.1.1.1;Method;93
9.1.2.1.1.1.1;Figure 1;95
9.1.2.1.1.2;Results;95
9.1.2.1.1.3;Table 2;98
9.1.2.1.1.4;Within-Class Model of Sixth Grade End-of-Year School Engagement;98
9.1.2.1.1.5;.06;98
9.1.2.1.1.6;30;98
9.1.2.1.1.7;.03;98
9.1.2.1.1.8;535;98
9.1.2.1.1.9;0.04;98
9.1.2.1.1.10;535;98
9.1.2.1.1.11;0.04;98
9.1.2.1.1.12;535;98
9.1.2.1.1.13;.04;98
9.1.2.1.1.14;535;98
9.1.2.1.1.15;0.05;98
9.1.2.1.1.16;535;98
9.1.2.1.1.17;.22;98
9.1.2.1.1.18;32;98
9.1.2.1.1.19;91.74;98
9.1.2.1.1.20;.70;98
9.1.2.1.1.20.1;Discussion;98
9.1.2.1.1.20.2;References;101
9.1.2.1.1.20.3;Table 1;97
9.1.2.1.1.21;Correlations and Scale Descriptives for Key Study Variables (N = 571);97
9.1.2.1.1.22;11.27;97
9.1.2.1.1.23;0.46;97
9.1.2.1.1.24;10.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.25;13.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.26;—;97
9.1.2.1.1.27;.35***;97
9.1.2.1.1.28;.03;97
9.1.2.1.1.29;11.77;97
9.1.2.1.1.30;0.45;97
9.1.2.1.1.31;10.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.32;13.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.33;—;97
9.1.2.1.1.34;.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.35;3.26;97
9.1.2.1.1.36;0.60;97
9.1.2.1.1.37;1.40;97
9.1.2.1.1.38;4.80;97
9.1.2.1.1.39;—;97
9.1.2.1.1.40;3.29;97
9.1.2.1.1.41;0.59;97
9.1.2.1.1.42;1.60;97
9.1.2.1.1.43;5.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.44;—;97
9.1.2.1.1.45;3.97;97
9.1.2.1.1.46;0.76;97
9.1.2.1.1.47;1.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.48;5.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.49;—;97
9.1.2.1.1.50;3.70;97
9.1.2.1.1.51;0.86;97
9.1.2.1.1.52;1.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.53;5.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.54;—;97
9.1.2.1.1.55;3.89;97
9.1.2.1.1.56;0.53;97
9.1.2.1.1.57;1.94;97
9.1.2.1.1.58;5.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.59;—;97
9.1.2.1.1.60;3.70;97
9.1.2.1.1.61;0.56;97
9.1.2.1.1.62;1.35;97
9.1.2.1.1.63;5.00;97
9.1.2.1.1.64;—;97
10;Classroom Debates in Middle School Social Studies;106
10.1;Moving From Personal Attacks to Evidence and Reasoning;106
10.1.1;Leslie Duhaylongsod;106
10.1.1.1;Salem State University;106
10.1.1.1.1;Using transcripts of 6 classroom debates that took place in 4 urban schools, the present study takes a closer look at what middle school students do during classroom debates in the context of a social studies curriculum designed to support student ar...;106
10.1.1.1.1.1;Background;107
10.1.1.1.1.2;The Present Study;108
10.1.1.1.1.3;1. What argumentative moves do urban middle school students make in classroom debates within the context of a debate- supporting social studies curriculum?;108
10.1.1.1.1.4;2. How do these students support their argumentative moves in these debates?;108
10.1.1.1.1.5;3. How do students connect their argumentative moves and evidence, if at all?;108
10.1.1.1.1.5.1;4. Are specific argumentative moves related to the kinds of support they offer for their argumentative moves?;109
10.1.1.1.1.5.2;Method;109
10.1.1.1.1.5.3;Table 1;109
10.1.1.1.1.6;Classroom Debate Information;109
10.1.1.1.1.7;5/16/2012;109
10.1.1.1.1.8;Ms. T;109
10.1.1.1.1.9;Whole-class (teams);109
10.1.1.1.1.10;6;109
10.1.1.1.1.11;5/25/2012;109
10.1.1.1.1.12;Ms. A;109
10.1.1.1.1.13;Whole-class (teams);109
10.1.1.1.1.14;6;109
10.1.1.1.1.15;12/4/2012;109
10.1.1.1.1.16;Ms. T;109
10.1.1.1.1.17;Fishbowl;109
10.1.1.1.1.18;6;109
10.1.1.1.1.19;12/19/2012;109
10.1.1.1.1.20;Mr. C;109
10.1.1.1.1.21;Whole-class (teams);109
10.1.1.1.1.22;7;109
10.1.1.1.1.23;3/6/2013;109
10.1.1.1.1.24;Mr. L & Ms. N;109
10.1.1.1.1.25;Fishbowl;109
10.1.1.1.1.26;7;109
10.1.1.1.1.27;3/11/2013;109
10.1.1.1.1.28;Ms. T;109
10.1.1.1.1.29;Fishbowl;109
10.1.1.1.1.30;6;109
10.1.1.1.1.30.1;Figure 1;111
10.1.1.1.1.30.2;Figure 2;112
10.1.1.1.1.30.3;Table 2;114
10.1.1.1.1.31;Coding Scheme for Argumentative Moves;114
10.1.1.1.1.31.1;Table 3;114
10.1.1.1.1.32;Coding Scheme for the Quality of Text-based Historical Grounds;114
10.1.1.1.1.32.1;Results;115
10.1.1.1.1.32.1.1;Figure 3;116
10.1.1.1.1.32.1.2;Figure 5;118
10.1.1.1.1.32.2;Discussion;119
10.1.1.1.1.32.3;Conclusion;120
10.1.1.1.1.32.4;Author Note;121
10.1.1.1.1.32.5;NOTE;121
10.1.1.1.1.32.6;References;121
11;Language Arts Classroom Practices and Early Adolescents’ Needs;124
11.1;A Comparison of Student and Teacher Perceptions;124
11.1.1;Sarah Pennington;124
11.1.1.1;Montana State University;124
11.1.1.1.1;Introduction and Purpose;124
11.1.1.1.2;Theoretical Framework;125
11.1.1.1.3;Methods;125
11.1.1.1.4;Table 1;127
11.1.1.1.5;Instructional Practices Included in Student and Teacher Survey;127
11.1.1.1.5.1;Results;128
11.1.1.1.5.2;Table 2;129
11.1.1.1.6;Correlations Between Student and Teacher Survey Frequency of Use Items;129
11.1.1.1.7;–0.03;129
11.1.1.1.8;0.43;129
11.1.1.1.9;0.63;129
11.1.1.1.10;0.50;129
11.1.1.1.11;0.77*;129
11.1.1.1.12;0.73*;129
11.1.1.1.13;0.24;129
11.1.1.1.14;–0.38*;129
11.1.1.1.15;–0.03;129
11.1.1.1.16;0.61;129
11.1.1.1.17;0.48;129
11.1.1.1.18;0.24;129
11.1.1.1.18.1;Table 3;129
11.1.1.1.19;Correlations Between Student and Teacher Survey Competence Subscale Items;129
11.1.1.1.20;0.25;129
11.1.1.1.21;0.40;129
11.1.1.1.22;–0.19;129
11.1.1.1.23;–0.17;129
11.1.1.1.24;–0.13;129
11.1.1.1.25;–0.15;129
11.1.1.1.26;0.55;129
11.1.1.1.27;–0.07;129
11.1.1.1.28;0.54;129
11.1.1.1.29;–0.37;129
11.1.1.1.30;0.24;129
11.1.1.1.31;–0.11;129
11.1.1.1.31.1;Table 4;130
11.1.1.1.32;Correlations Between Student and Teacher Survey Autonomy Subscale Items;130
11.1.1.1.33;0.55;130
11.1.1.1.34;0.30;130
11.1.1.1.35;–0.34;130
11.1.1.1.36;–0.43;130
11.1.1.1.37;0.34;130
11.1.1.1.38;–0.33;130
11.1.1.1.39;–0.16;130
11.1.1.1.40;–0.32;130
11.1.1.1.41;0.53;130
11.1.1.1.42;–0.17;130
11.1.1.1.43;0.72*;130
11.1.1.1.44;–0.21;130
11.1.1.1.44.1;Discussion and Significance;130
11.1.1.1.44.2;Table 5;131
11.1.1.1.45;Correlations Between Student and Teacher Survey Relatedness Subscale Item;131
11.1.1.1.46;0.04;131
11.1.1.1.47;0.57;131
11.1.1.1.48;0.53;131
11.1.1.1.49;0.02;131
11.1.1.1.50;0.33;131
11.1.1.1.51;–0.09;131
11.1.1.1.52;–0.47;131
11.1.1.1.53;–0.40;131
11.1.1.1.54;0.42;131
11.1.1.1.55;–0.35;131
11.1.1.1.56;0.71;131
11.1.1.1.57;–0.13;131
11.1.1.1.57.1;Table 6;131
11.1.1.1.58;Correlations Between Student and Teacher Survey Intrinsic Motivation Subscale Items;131
11.1.1.1.59;0.18;131
11.1.1.1.60;0.56;131
11.1.1.1.61;0.17;131
11.1.1.1.62;0.24;131
11.1.1.1.63;0.59;131
11.1.1.1.64;–0.03;131
11.1.1.1.65;0.45;131
11.1.1.1.66;–0.15;131
11.1.1.1.67;0.17;131
11.1.1.1.68;–0.32;131
11.1.1.1.69;0.66;131
11.1.1.1.70;–0.58;131
11.1.1.1.70.1;References;133
11.2;Back Cover;136