Reading Fundamentals #1:
An Introduction to Scientifically-based
Research
|
Instructor Name: |
Dr. Karen Lea |
|
Facilitator: |
Mick R. Jackson MS/ED |
|
Phone: |
509-891-7219 |
|
Office Hours: |
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday - Friday |
|
Email: |
|
|
Address: |
Virtual Education Software |
|
|
23403 E Mission Avenue, Suite 220F |
|
|
Liberty Lake, WA 99019 |
|
Technical Support: |
Introduction
Reading Fundamentals supports the concept of using scientifically-based reading research to develop an
effective approach to reading assessment, instruction, evaluation, and
remediation.
An Introduction to Scientifically-based
Research,
the first in the three-course Reading Fundamentals series on effective reading
instruction, was designed to give background on scientifically-based
instruction as it applies to federal legislation. The course discusses the research that
supports scientifically-based research as it applies
to effective instruction, assessment, and evaluation. The course explores myths
and misconceptions concerning reading instruction and remediation. It also
presents an evaluation checklist designed to assess the effectiveness of your
current reading program. The goal of the course is to present you with research,
trustworthy evidence, and background information that support
the need for a reading program that is based on scientific research and proven
methods.
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting
program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on
your home or school computer. Technical
support information can be found in the Help section of your course.
Course Materials (Online)
|
Title: |
Reading Fundamentals #1: An
Introduction to Scientifically-based Research |
|
Author: |
Ronald Martella, Ph.D. |
|
Publisher: |
Virtual
Education Software, inc. 2004, Revised
2010, Revised 2014, Revised 2017, Revised 2020 |
|
Instructor: |
Dr.
Karen Lea |
|
Facilitator: |
Mick
Jackson MS/ED |
Academic
Integrity Statement
The structure and format of most distance-learning
courses presume a high level of personal and academic integrity in completion
and submission of coursework. Individuals enrolled in a distance-learning
course are expected to adhere to the following standards of academic conduct.
Academic Work
Academic work submitted
by the individual (such as papers, assignments, reports, tests) shall be the
student’s own work or appropriately attributed in part or in whole to its
correct source. Submission of commercially prepared (or group prepared)
materials as if they are one’s own work is unacceptable.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual
will encourage honesty in others by refraining from providing materials or
information to another person with knowledge these materials or information
will be used improperly.
Violations of these
academic standards will result in the assignment of a failing grade and
subsequent loss of credit for the course.
Level of Application
This course is designed to be an
informational course with application to educational settings. The curriculum
suggestions and teaching strategies explained here were designed to be used for
the teaching and remediation of students in kindergarten through twelfth grade.
Some alterations may be needed if working with specific populations such as
gifted, ESL, or special education.
Expected Learning
Outcomes
1. Describe what is meant by critical thinking.
2. Explain what science is and
illustrate the six scientific principles.
3. Explain the myths and misconceptions
of science, and describe the ways in which we gain
information.
4. Describe the impact science has had
on medicine, clinical psychology, and education.
5. Illustrate the constraint levels in
educational research.
6. Explain the difference in
assumptions regarding the sources of variability, the type of logic approach,
and the ability
to generalize results between experimental group research
and single-case research.
7. Describe the concepts
of reliability and validity and trustworthiness or believability of measures.
8. Explain what is meant by
variability, including the sources of variability.
9. Describe the terms internal and external validity,
and explain the threats to each.
10. Illustrate the different research
designs/methods (i.e., experimental, single-case, causal-comparative,
correlational, and qualitative).
11. Describe the importance of
replications and illustrate the types of replications.
12. Describe what is meant by the term research synthesis.
13. Describe the difference between evidence-based and
research-based practices.
Course Description
The
Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) outlines a clear
approach for improving literacy success by supporting states in the development
of effective literacy instruction and a continuum of support and interventions
for those students who are at risk for reading failure. Thus, educators must
have a working knowledge of evidence-based
instructional strategies and approaches. (Note: A summary of this
legislation regarding the use of evidence-based instructional materials appears
in Course 2.)
According to Evans,
Waring, and Christodoulou (2017), teachers should use research to guide their
practice. Unfortunately, according to Evans et al., teachers’ research
knowledge is lacking. Teachers are not adequately trained in research
methodology in their pre-service programs. An interesting phenomenon is present
in teacher preparation programs. Undergraduate students are rarely required to
take research methods or statistics courses. Contrast this with the situation
of undergraduates in psychology. Psychology undergraduates are typically
required to take research and statistics courses. The interesting aspect of
this difference is that students in teacher preparation programs are highly
likely to be accountable for the academic progress of students in their
classrooms once they become teachers. In comparison, psychology students will
likely be much less accountable for the progress of individuals in their charge
(e.g., direct care services such as group homes and residential facilities). In
other words, if we compare the responsibilities of education college students
with those of psychology college students, the students who would be most in
need of training in the scientific process (e.g., data-based decision-making)
would be those preparing to be teachers.
Student Expectations
As a student you will be
expected to:
·
Complete all five information sections showing a
competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
·
Complete all five section examinations, showing a
competent understanding of the material presented. You
must obtain an overall score of 70%
or higher, with no individual exam score below 50%, and successfully
complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by
college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to
determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
·
Complete a review of any
section on which your examination score was below 50%.
·
Retake any examination,
after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a
minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a
minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please
note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university;
therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your
minimum exam score requirements are.
·
Complete all course
journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown
for each writing assignment.
·
Complete a course
evaluation form at the end of the course.
Course Overview
Chapter 1: Introduction
to Scientifically-Based Research
This
first chapter contains information on what scientifically-based research means and discusses the myths
and misconceptions of science. This chapter will lay out the basic foundation
of scientifically-based research that will be used as
the basis for understanding the remaining sections.
Chapter
2: Constraint Levels, Validity & Variability in Research
This chapter will discuss
the various types of research and the constraint levels in educational
research. The difference in assumptions made regarding sources of variability,
the type of logic approach, and the ability to
generalize results between experimental group research and single-case research
will be explained. There will be information on the issues of reliability and
validity and trustworthiness or believability in research.
Chapter 3: Internal
& External Validity
The
third chapter will deal exclusively with internal and external validity of
educational research. This chapter focuses solely on these two issues due to
their importance and a need for the issue or research validity to be clearly
understood.
Chapter 4: Experimental
Designs
This chapter will discuss
quasi-experimental designs, pre-experimental designs, true experimental
designs, and single case designs. It will discuss causal-comparatives and
correlational research as well as qualitative research. The chapter will also
discuss objectives and methodology.
Chapter 5: Putting It
All Together
Chapter 5 wraps up the
course by presenting information on replication and research synthesis. The
chapter will end with a general review and prepare the user for information to
be presented in the second course of this series.
Examinations
At the end of each course chapter, you will be
expected to complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge. You may
take these exams a total of three times.
Your last score will save, not the highest score. After your third
attempt, each examination will lock and not allow
further access. The average from
your exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However, this is not your final grade since
your required writing assignments have not been reviewed. Exceptionally written or poorly written
required writing assignments, or violation of the academic integrity policy in
the course syllabus, will affect your grade.
As this is a self-paced computerized
instruction program, you may review course information as often as necessary.
You will not be able to exit any examinations until you have answered all questions. If you try to exit the exam before you complete
all questions, your information will be lost. You are expected to complete the
entire exam in one sitting.
Writing Assignments
All assignments are
reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written assignments, or violation of
the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus for policy), will affect
your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined by your writing
assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other fifty percent.
Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines which were sent as an attachment with your
original course link. You should also
refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum which was sent as an attachment with your
original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in
addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article
Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay
Grading Guidelines will also apply.
Your writing assignments
must meet the minimum word count and are not to include the question or your
final citations as part of your word count.
In other words, the question and citations are not to be used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
Critical Thinking Questions
There are four CTQs that
you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500
words (maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information
that you gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong
understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the questions, click on REQUIRED
ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to complete; this will bring up a
screen where you may enter your essay.
Prior to course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your
essay, but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE before you write
another essay or move on to another part of the course.
Journal Article Summations
You are required to
write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or
scholarly journal articles (one article per JAS), written by an author with a
Ph.D., Ed.D. or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS section in the
“Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs,
abstracts, news articles or similar are not acceptable). Your article choice
must relate specifically to the discussion topic listed in each individual
JAS. You will choose a total of three relevant articles (one article per
JAS) and write a thorough summary of the information presented in each article
(you must write a minimum of
200 words with a 400 word maximum per JAS). Be sure to provide
the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any other critical information
to allow the facilitator to access and review each article.
To write your summary,
click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A
writing program will automatically launch where you can write your summary.
When you are ready to stop, click SAVE. Prior to course submission you may go back at
any point to edit your summaries but you must be
certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits. For more information
on the features of this assignment, please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE
before you write another summary or move on to another part of the course.
Facilitator Description
Reading Fundamentals #1:
An Introduction to Scientifically-based Research has been developed by a team of professionals with
educational backgrounds in the areas of clinical psychology, direct reading,
and phonetic instructional practices. Mick Jackson, the facilitator, is a
Behavioral Intervention Specialist with a Master's Degree in
Special Education and Behavioral Theory and a minor in Reading
Remediation. He has 15 years’ combined
experience in self-contained special education classrooms, resource rooms, and
a hospital day treatment setting. He has
conducted oral seminars, presenting to school districts, teacher groups, and at
educational conferences. Please
contact Professor Jackson if you have course content or examination questions.
Instructor Description
Karen Lea holds a Ph.D. in education. Dr. Lea has fifteen years’
experience teaching at the K-12 level and another fourteen years’ experience
teaching education courses at the undergraduate and post-graduate level.
Currently she is a coordinator for a cadre of instructional developers and
project manager for aerospace online training. Dr. Lea has been professionally
published over fifteen times and has served on over a dozen panels and boards,
including serving on the NCATE (CAEP) Board of Examiners. Please
contact Professor Jackson if you have course content or examination questions.
Contacting the Facilitator
You may contact the facilitator by
emailing Professor Jackson at mick@virtualeduc.com or calling him at
800-313-6744 Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PST. Phone messages
will be answered within 24 hours.
Phone conferences will be limited to ten minutes per student, per day, given
that this is a self-paced instructional program. Please do not contact the
instructor about technical problems, course glitches, or other issues that
involve the operation of the course.
Technical Questions
If you have questions or problems related to the operation of
this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists
please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help section of your
course.
If you need personal assistance
then email support@virtualeduc.com or call (509) 891-7219. When contacting technical support, please
know your course version number (it is located at the bottom left side of the
Welcome Screen) and your operating system, and be
seated in front of the computer at the time of your call.
Minimum Computer Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi
if you have further questions about the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer to the addendum regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion
Information, Items to be Submitted and how to submit your completed
information. The addendum will also note any additional course assignments that
you may be required to complete that are not listed in this syllabus.
Bibliography
Adams, M. J., Fillmore,
L. W., Goldenberg, C., Oakhill, J., Paige, D., Rasinski,
T., & Shanahan, T. (2020). Comparing
reading research to program design. Student Achievement Partners.
Retrieved from achievethecore.org
Archer,
A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and
efficient teaching. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., &
Osborn, J. (2006). Put reading first: The research building blocks for
teaching children to read (3rd ed.). Jessup, MD: Center for the Improvement
of Early Reading Achievement.
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs:
Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bell, K., & Dolainski,
S. (2012). What is evidence-based reading
instruction and how do you know it when you see it? Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/EDVAE09C0042EBRILAUSD.pdf
Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E.
(2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high
school literacy. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn,
S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosanovich, M.
(2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice
brief. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K.
(2006). Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Bordens,
K., & Barrington Abbott, B. (2018). Research
design and methods: A process approach (10th ed.). Columbus, OH:
McGraw-Hill.
Bornstein, R. F. (1990). Publication
politics, experimenter bias and the replication process in social science
research. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 5(4), 71–81.
Castles, A., Rastle,
K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from
novice to expert. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51. doi:10.1177/1529100618772271
Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported
psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685-716. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.685
Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013).
Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47, 71-82. doi:10.1177/0022466911420
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui,
E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2011). Effective
teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D.
(2018). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N.
(2018). Qualitative inquiry &
research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S.
(2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Evans, C., Waring, M., & Christodoulou,
A. (2017). Building teachers’ research literacy: Integrating practice and
research. Research Papers in Education,
32(4), 403–423. doi:10.1080/02671522.2017.1322357
Every Student Succeeds Act. S.1177,
114th Cong. (2015). Retrieved from http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/every_student_succeeds_act__conference_report.pdf
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Applied
social research methods series: Vol. 17. Ethnography step by step. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Fleishman, S., Kohlmoos,
J. W., & Rotherham, A. J. (2003, March). From
research to practice. Education Week.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=26fleischman.h22
Foorman,
B. R., Smith, K. G., & Kosanovich, M. L. (2017). Rubric for evaluating reading/ language
arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 (REL 2017–219). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg,
W. R. (2010). Applying educational research (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg,
W. R. (2015). Applying educational research (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R.
(2018). Single case research methodology:
Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY:
Norton.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010).
Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie
Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2020). Research methods: A process of
inquiry (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hendrick,
C. (1990). Replications, strict replications, and conceptual replications: Are
they important? Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 41–49.
Howe, K., & Eisenhart,
M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A
prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(5),
2–9. doi:10.3102/0013189X019004002
International Literacy Association.
(2018). Explaining phonics instruction:
An educator’s guide. Newark, DE:
Author.
International Literacy Association.
(2019). Right to knowledgeable and
qualified literacy educators [Research
brief]. Newark, DE: Author.
International Literacy Association.
(2019). Meeting the challenges of
early literacy phonics instruction. Newark, DE: Author.
International Reading Association.
(2002). What is evidence-based reading
instruction? A position statement of the International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/position-statements-and-resolutions/ps1055_evidence_based.pdflamal
Jordan, R., Garwood, J., & Trathen, W. (2019). Assessing general education and special
education majors’ self-efficacy for teaching reading. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(4), 185–193. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12207
Kazdin,
A. E. (2010). Single-case research designs:
Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Kamil,
M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C.,
Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving
adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice
guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/8
Lamal,
P. A. (1990). On the importance of replication. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 31–35.
Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014).
Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and
guidelines. Neuropsychological
Rehabilitation, 24, 445–463. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.815636
Ledford, J. R., & Gast, D. L.
(2014). Measuring procedural fidelity in behavioural
research. Neuropsychological
Rehabilitation, 24, 332–348. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.861352
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based,
and community-based participatory research approaches. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Martella,
R. C., Nelson, J. R., Morgan, R. L., & Marchand-Martella,
N. E. (2013). Understanding and
interpreting educational research. New York, NY: Guilford.
McCardle, P., Chhabra, V., & Kapinus, B. (2008). Reading
research in action: A teacher’s guide for student success. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Meier, K. (1997, February 7). The value
of replicating social-science research. Chronicle
of Higher Education, p. B7.
Moats, L. (2007). Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based
reading instruction” isn’t. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2007/200701_wholelanguagehijinks/Moats2007.pdf
National Center for the Study of Adult
Learning and Literacy. (2005). Accessing
and using research for evidence-based practice. Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/Accessing_R-based_practice.pdf
National
Governors Association for Best Practices. (2005). Reading to achieve: A
governor’s guide to adolescent literacy. Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0510GOVGUIDELITERACY.PDF
National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (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: Reports of
the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/pages/smallbook.aspx
National Institute for Literacy (NIFL).
(2007). What content-area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Retrieved
from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/adolescent_literacy07.pdf
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R.
(1993a). Everyone was wrong: There are lots of replications out there. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
8(6), 1–8.
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R.
(1993b). Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(6), 21–29.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Popper, K. R. (1957/1996). Philosophy
of science: A personal report. In S. Sarkar (Ed.), Science and philosophy in the twentieth century: Decline and
obsolescence of logical empiricism (pp. 237–273). New York, NY: Garland.
(Reprinted from British philosophy in the
mid-century: A Cambridge symposium, pp. 155–191, by C. A. Mace, Ed., 1957,
New York, NY: Macmillan Norwood Russe).
Park, R. (2000). Voodoo science: The road from foolishness to fraud. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1990). Replication in
behavioral research. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 1–30. doi:10.1016/S0927-5371(97)00012-2
Rosnow,
R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1976). The volunteer subject revisited. Australian Journal of Psychology, 28,
97–108. doi:10.1080/00049537608255268
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., &
Henry, G. T. (2019). Evaluation: A
systematic approach (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G.,
Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C.
K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions
for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for
practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Sheperis, C. J., Young, J. S., &
Daniels, M. H. (2016). Counseling research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methods (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). London, Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Slavin,
R. E. (2003, February). A reader’s guide to scientifically based research:
Learning how to assess the validity of education
research is vital for creating effective, sustained reform. Educational Leadership, 12–16. Retrieved
from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb03/vol60/num05/A-Reader's-Guide-to-Scientifically-Based-Research.aspx
Slavin,
R. E. (2018). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (12th ed.). New York, NY:
Pearson.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational
practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide.
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and
development. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences/National
Science Foundation.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every student succeeds act
(ESSA). Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Wing Institute. (2020). Evidence-based education. Retrieved from
https://www.winginstitute.org
Course content is updated every three years. Due to this
update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or may have changed.
Please type the title of the organization into the command line of any Internet
browser search window and you will be able to find whether the URL link is
still active or any new link to the corresponding organization's web home page.
10/28/20 jn