[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-585521-105":59,"doc-detail-585521-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-20182019-evaluation-report-april-2020-revised-cresst-report-867","LITERACY DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 2018–2019 EVALUATION REPORT - April 2020 Revised CRESST Report 867","","The Literacy Design Collaborative 2018–2019 evaluation report presents findings from a comprehensive study supported by a CRESST grant, revising prior reporting in April 2020. It outlines the logic model, evaluation questions, study methodology, and analysis plans covering survey data, qualitative open-ended responses, and exploratory analyses. Results are reported across teacher, teacher leader, and administrator surveys, plus analyses of LDC CoreTools engagement, module artifacts, and fidelity of implementation from 2017–2018 to 2018–2019.",{"@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-20182019-evaluation-report-april-2020-revised-cresst-report-867/585521/",{"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-20182019-evaluation-report-april-2020-revised-cresst-report-867/585521.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the report’s purpose and scope?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It evaluates the Literacy Design Collaborative’s 2018–2019 implementation using multiple evidence sources, including surveys, CoreTools data, module artifact analysis, and fidelity of implementation measures.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the report structure its evaluation questions and methodology?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It presents a logic model, evaluation questions, and a detailed study methodology covering data and instruments, population and generalizability, sampling for implementation and outcomes analyses, and analytical approaches.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which types of results are covered in the report?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Findings include teacher, teacher leader, and administrator survey results; open-ended responses; analyses of LDC CoreTools participation and engagement; module artifact analyses; and fidelity of implementation analyses, including change from 2017–2018 to 2018–2019.","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},585521,1792189666,{"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":39,"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 2018–2019 EVALUATION REPORT  \nJia Wang, Joan L . Herman, Scott Epstein, Seth Leon, Deborah La Torre, and Velette Bozeman  \nAPRIL 2020 REVISED CRESST REPORT 867  \nCopyright © 2020 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., & Bozeman, V. (2020) . Literacy Design Collaborative 2018–2019 evaluation report (CRESST Report 867) . 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 .......................................................................................................................... 3  \n1.2 Evaluation Questions............................................................................................................ 4  \n2.0 Study Methodology ...........................................................................................................6  \n2.1 Data and Instruments........................................................................................................... 6  \n2.2 Study Population and Generalizability ................................................................................. 9  \n2.3 Sample for Implementation and Outcomes Analyses ........................................................ 13  \n2.4 Survey Recruitment and Administration ............................................................................ 18  \n2.5 Module Rating Process ....................................................................................................... 18  \n2.6 Analytical Approaches ........................................................................................................ 19  \n3.0 Survey Analysis ................................................................................................................26  \n3.1 Teacher Survey Results ...................................................................................................... 26  \n3.2 Teacher Leader Survey Results........................................................................................... 39  \n3.3 Administrator Survey Results ............................................................................................. 50  \n3.4 Open-Ended Responses for All Participants ....................................................................... 57  \n3.5 Exploratory Analysis ........................................................................................................... 61  \n3.6 Summary of Results............................................................................................................ 66  \n4.0 Analyses of LDC CoreTools Data .......................................................................................68  \n4.1 CoreTools Activity Participation Rates ............................................................................... 68  \n4.2 Engagement With Key CoreTools Activities ....................................................................... 69  \n4.3 CoreTools Engagement as an Implementation Variable .................................................... 73  \n4.4 Summary of Results.......................................................................","cbCaijz188n6n7pJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijz188n6n7pJ","pdf",2964738,240,"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 Study Population and Generalizability\n# 3.0 Survey Analysis\n## 3.1 Teacher Survey Results\n## 3.6 Summary of Results\n# 4.0 Analyses of LDC CoreTools Data\n## 4.1 CoreTools Activity Participation Rates\n## 4.4 Summary of Results\n# 5.0 Module Artifact Analysis\n## 5.1 Analysis of Elementary Modules\n## 5.5 Summary of Results\n# 6.0 Fidelity of Implementation Analysis\n## 6.2 Key Component 1\n## 6.8 Summary of Results","[{\"question\":\"What is the report’s purpose and scope?\",\"answer\":\"It evaluates the Literacy Design Collaborative’s 2018–2019 implementation using multiple evidence sources, including surveys, CoreTools data, module artifact analysis, and fidelity of implementation measures.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the report structure its evaluation questions and methodology?\",\"answer\":\"It presents a logic model, evaluation questions, and a detailed study methodology covering data and instruments, population and generalizability, sampling for implementation and outcomes analyses, and analytical approaches.\"},{\"question\":\"Which types of results are covered in the report?\",\"answer\":\"Findings include teacher, teacher leader, and administrator survey results; open-ended responses; analyses of LDC CoreTools participation and engagement; module artifact analyses; and fidelity of implementation analyses, including change from 2017–2018 to 2018–2019.\"}]","LITERACY DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 2018–2019 EVALUATION REPORT - April 2020 Revised CRESST Report 867 | PDF",1792054939,605]