UNPROVEN INNOVATION: IPADS IN K-12 ENVIRONMENTS

Nationally, the education sector spends more than 5 billion dollars annually on digital tools, “yet seldom are technology solutions factored into any viable equation for improving student academic achievement” (Moersch, 2014, p. ix). Consider the following case in point: In July 2014, Apple announced that in just 3 years, the company had sold more than13 million iPads to educational institutions worldwide (Cavanagh, 2014). Put into perspective, that represents more than 5.2 billion dollars spent by the education industry to purchase iPads, which is the equivalent of the annual salaries of 89,655 teachers (“High School Teacher: Salary,” 2014). Despite such vast expenditures, there have been very few attempts to evaluate the efficacy of these digital tools on improving academic achievement. This research involved a quantitative data review of participant (student and teacher) survey data to explore one of the country’s largest K-12 iPad implementation undertakings in an effort to identify (a) best practices and (b) lessons learned from implementing the iPad into K-12 educational environments. It should be noted that the school system forming the basis of this research already had administered and collated the surveys used in this study.

INVESTIGATING THE USE OF MAZE-CBM FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Recent legislation and initiatives set forth high academic expectations for all high school graduates in the area of reading (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015). To determine which students need additional support to meet these reading standards, teachers can conduct universal screening using formative assessments. Maze Curriculum-Based Measurement (Maze-CBM) is a commonly used screening and progress monitoring assessment that the National Center on Intensive Intervention (2013) and the Center on Instruction (Torgesen & Miller, 2009) recommend. Despite the recommendation to use Maze-CBM, little research has been conducted on the reliability and validity of Maze-CBM for measuring reading ability for students at the secondary level (Mitchell & Wexler, 2016). In the papers included in this dissertation, I present an initial investigation into the use of Maze-CBM for secondary students. In the first paper, I investigated prior studies of Maze-CBM for students in Grades 6 through 12. Next, in the second paper, I investigated the alternate-form reliability and validity for screening students in Grades 9 and 10 using signal detection theory methods. In the third paper, I examined the effect of genre on Maze-CBM scores with a sample of students in Grades 9 and 10 using multilevel modeling. When writing these three papers, I discovered several important findings related to Maze-CBM. First, there are few studies that have investigated the technical adequacy of Maze-CBM for screening and progress monitoring students in Grades 6 through 12. Additionally, only two studies (McMaster, Wayman, & Cao, 2006; Pierce, McMaster, & Deno, 2010) examined the technical adequacy of Maze-CBM for high school students. A second finding is that the reliability of Maze-CBM is often below acceptable levels for making screening decisions or progress monitoring decisions (.80 and above and .90 and above, respectively; Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt, 2007) for secondary students. A third finding is that Maze-CBM scores show promise of being a valid screening tool for reading ability of secondary students. Finally, I found that the genre of the text used in the Maze-CBM assessment does impact scores on Maze-CBM for students in Grades 9 and 10.

Mentoring When Librarians Have Faculty Status

Numerous academic libraries participate in their campuses' systems for faculty status for librarians, in separate tracks or identical tracks as those for teaching faculty. In either case, a practice is to encourage or require mentoring for librarians without tenure or permanent status. This chapter will cover the special challenges and benefits of mentoring and faculty status, the need for mentoring, and processes for best practices to make mentoring meaningful for all involved. The chapter will draw on the authors’ experiences, an environmental scan, a survey of selected institutional practice where librarians have faculty status, and published research and related literature. It will also feature mentoring programs developed by various institutions, including the University of Maryland Libraries.