Field Test II with students should not be implemented until Field Test I evaluation yields a go decision on staff competencies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 1975 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q1 i? In the workbook's field-testing procedure, the student field test is gated on a satisfactory evaluation of staff competency attainment. → Huenecke 1975

Evidence¶

Huenecke 1975¶

Huenecke, Dorothy M.; Stansbury, George W. (1975). A Systems Approach to Staff Development. Georgia State Dept. of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED123751

q1 · i? · design · r1

This is a procedural prescription from the workbook's field-testing section, presented as design guidance rather than an empirically tested result. Field Test I trains a sample of staff in needed competencies with concomitant evaluation; Field Test II then field tests the educational improvement activities with selected students. Evaluation at each point is a go or no-go decision.

"Field Test II should not he implemented Until the evaluation for Field Test I yields. a "go" decision,.e. the desired competencies have been attained."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Simulation allows the expense and effect of a policy change to be evaluated before implementation — related
• Active participation and commitment of teaching staff were essential for successful CA-supported LO assessment, fostered by clear actionable data and institutional support — related