[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-585472-105":59,"doc-detail-585472-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","literacy-design-collaborative-2017-2018-evaluation-report-evaluation-report","Literacy Design Collaborative 2017-2018 Evaluation Report - Evaluation Report","","Evaluation report for the Literacy Design Collaborative’s 2017–2018 implementation, summarizing findings, methods, and analyses across multiple stakeholder surveys and data sources. The document presents study methodology, including data and instruments, sample selection, recruitment and administration, and module rating procedures. It analyzes teacher, teacher leader, and administrator survey results, open-ended responses, and LDC CoreTools participation and engagement metrics, then evaluates module artifacts. Additional sections assess fidelity of implementation and report student outcome analyses using matched analytic samples.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/literacy-design-collaborative-2017-2018-evaluation-report-evaluation-report/585472/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/literacy-design-collaborative-2017-2018-evaluation-report-evaluation-report/585472.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the purpose of this Literacy Design Collaborative evaluation report?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It reports findings from the Literacy Design Collaborative’s 2017–2018 efforts by compiling results from surveys, CoreTools usage data, module artifact analyses, fidelity of implementation, and student outcome analyses.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What kinds of data and measures does the report analyze?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The report covers survey data from teachers, teacher leaders, and administrators; open-ended responses; CoreTools activity participation and engagement; module artifact analyses; fidelity of implementation scores; and student outcomes using matched analytic samples.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the report evaluate fidelity of implementation?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It analyzes fidelity at school- and program-level and examines key implementation components, including planning time with synchronous coach support, asynchronous support from coaches, teacher implementation activities, and leadership support at different levels.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},585472,1792189667,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","LITERACY DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 2017–2018 EVALUATION REPORT  \nJia Wang, Joan L. Herman, Scott Epstein, Seth Leon, Deborah La Torre, Sandy Chang, Velette Bozeman, and Julie Haubner  \nCopyright © 2019 The Regents of the University of California.  \nThe work reported herein was supported by grant number 20145515 from the Literacy Design Collaborative with funding to the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) .  \nThe findings and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Literacy Design Collaborative.  \nTo cite from this report, please use the following as your APA reference: Wang, J., Herman, J. L., Epstein, S., Leon, S., La Torre, D., Chang, S.,… Haubner, J. (2019) . Literacy Design Collaborative 2017–2018 evaluation report (CRESST Report 863) . Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) .  \nTable of Contents  \nExecutive Summary .................................................................................................................v  \n1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1  \n1.1 Logic Model ............................................................................................................................2  \n1.2 Evaluation Questions .............................................................................................................4  \n2.0 Study Methodology........................................................................................................... 6  \n2.1 Data and Instruments ............................................................................................................6  \n2.2 Sample....................................................................................................................................9  \n2.3 Survey Recruitment and Administration ............................................................................ 12  \n2.4 Module Rating Process ....................................................................................................... 12  \n2.5 Analytical Approaches ........................................................................................................ 13  \n3.0 Survey Analysis ............................................................................................................... 19  \n3.1 Teacher Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 19  \n3.2 Teacher Leader Survey Results ........................................................................................... 32  \n3.3 Administrator Survey Results ............................................................................................. 37  \n3.4 Open-Ended Responses for All Participants ....................................................................... 40  \n3.5 Summary of Results ............................................................................................................ 43  \n4.0 Analyses of LDC CoreTools Data ...................................................................................... 46  \n4.1 CoreTools Activity Participation Rates................................................................................ 46  \n4.2 Engagement With Key CoreTools Activities........................................................................ 47  \n4.3 CoreTools Engagement as an Implementation Variable .................................................... 51  \n4.4 Summary of Results ............................................................................................................ 51  \n5.0 Module Artifact Analysis ................................................................................................. 53  \n5.1 Analysis of Elementary Modules......","cbCaievyrVvqyCuD","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaievyrVvqyCuD","pdf",2406968,194,"English","# Executive Summary\n# 1.0 Introduction\n## 1.1 Logic Model\n## 1.2 Evaluation Questions\n# 2.0 Study Methodology\n## 2.1 Data and Instruments\n## 2.2 Sample\n## 2.3 Survey Recruitment and Administration\n## 2.4 Module Rating Process\n## 2.5 Analytical Approaches\n# 3.0 Survey Analysis\n## 3.1 Teacher Survey Results\n## 3.2 Teacher Leader Survey Results\n## 3.3 Administrator Survey Results\n## 3.4 Open-Ended Responses for All Participants\n## 3.5 Summary of Results\n# 4.0 Analyses of LDC CoreTools Data\n## 4.1 CoreTools Activity Participation Rates\n## 4.2 Engagement With Key CoreTools Activities\n## 4.3 CoreTools Engagement as an Implementation Variable\n## 4.4 Summary of Results\n# 5.0 Module Artifact Analysis\n## 5.1 Analysis of Elementary Modules\n## 5.2 Analysis of Secondary Modules\n## 5.3 Exploratory Analysis of Modules\n## 5.4 Qualitative Results\n## 5.5 Summary of Results\n# 6.0 Fidelity of Implementation Analysis\n## 6.1 School-and Program-Level Fidelity of Implementation Scores\n## 6.2 Key Component 1\n## 6.3 Key Component 2\n## 6.4 Key Component 3\n## 6.5 Key Component 4\n## 6.6 Summary of Results\n# 7.0 Student Outcome Analysis\n## 7.1 LDC Sample and the Matching Process\n## 7.2 Descriptive Results on the Matched Analytic Samples\n## 7.3 Outcome Analysis Results: Cohort 1 Middle School Sample","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of this Literacy Design Collaborative evaluation report?\",\"answer\":\"It reports findings from the Literacy Design Collaborative’s 2017–2018 efforts by compiling results from surveys, CoreTools usage data, module artifact analyses, fidelity of implementation, and student outcome analyses.\"},{\"question\":\"What kinds of data and measures does the report analyze?\",\"answer\":\"The report covers survey data from teachers, teacher leaders, and administrators; open-ended responses; CoreTools activity participation and engagement; module artifact analyses; fidelity of implementation scores; and student outcomes using matched analytic samples.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the report evaluate fidelity of implementation?\",\"answer\":\"It analyzes fidelity at school- and program-level and examines key implementation components, including planning time with synchronous coach support, asynchronous support from coaches, teacher implementation activities, and leadership support at different levels.\"}]","Literacy Design Collaborative 2017-2018 Evaluation Report - Evaluation Report | PDF",1792054830,489]