3 on 2 Evaluation Report 1976-1977. Volume II: Team Interpretations and Recommendations.

Institution	Northwest Regional Educational Lab., Portland, OR.
Titel	3 on 2 Evaluation Report 1976-1977. Volume II: Team Interpretations and Recommendations.
Quelle	(1977), (110 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Achievement Gains; Achievement Tests; Attitude Measures; Educational Objectives; Elementary School Mathematics; Experimental Programs; Individualized Instruction; Primary Education; Program Costs; Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Reading Comprehension; Self Contained Classrooms; Team Teaching; Test Results; Hawaii + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Achievement gain; Leistungssteigerung; Achievement test; Achievement; Testing; Test; Tests; Leistungsbeurteilung; Leistungsüberprüfung; Leistung; Testdurchführung; Testen; Educational objective; Bildungsziel; Erziehungsziel; Elementare Mathematik; Schulmathematik; Erprobungsprogramm; Individualisierender Unterricht; Primarbereich; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Leseverstehen; Teamteaching
Abstract	The arguments are presented for and against the Hawaii 3 on 2 program, a team-taught, flexible, individualized instructional program for primary grade students. This report is based on an advocate-adversary evaluation design. The advocate team concluded that: the program is working effectively; teachers, principals, and parents support the program; lack of higher test scores than those obtained in self-contained classes is attributable to deficiencies in the tests; some assistance should be given to less effective teaching teams; criterion-referenced tests should be used; and organizational structure is effective in meeting students' needs. The adversary team concluded that: students in the program do not show greater achievement gains in reading, mathematics or in attitudes, based on achievement and attitude test results; parents and teachers did not notice discernible differences between the students in 3 on 2 classes and in self-contained classes; the program was not put through experimental stages; the objectives are ambiguous: individualization can be carried out as effectively in self-contained classes as in 3 on 2 classes; and the program costs cannot be justified. Each evaluation team further supported its observations by rebutting the other team's observations. (MH)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC