0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

5 Aufrufe18 SeitenApr 10, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

5 Aufrufe

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- The Secret
- Principles: Life and Work
- Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
- Leonardo da Vinci
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and What to Do About It
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers
- Flowers for Algernon
- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
- What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People
- Unfu*k Yourself: Get out of your head and into your life
- Unfu*k Yourself: Get Out of Your Head and into Your Life
- Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance
- Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Out of My Mind
- The Art of Communicating
- The Art of Communicating
- Educated: A Memoir
- The Success Principles(TM)
- The Mind Illuminated: A Complete Meditation Guide Integrating Buddhist Wisdom and Brain Science for Greater Mindfulness
- The Explosive Child: A New Approach for Understanding and Parenting Easily Frustrated, Chronically Inflexible Children

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

OF TEACH TO ONE: MATH

Associate Professor of Education and Public Policy

Teachers College, Columbia University

ddr2111@columbia.edu

December 4, 2014

Contents

Section

Page

Executive Summary

Introduction

11

Conclusions

15

Executive Summary

This report examined test-score outcomes associated with the first two years of implementation

of Teach to One: Math (TTO), an innovative blended-learning approach to middle school

mathematics instruction developed by New Classrooms Innovation Partners. TTO was

implemented in seven schools in grades 6-8 during the 2012-2013 academic year, and fifteen

schools in grades 5-8 during the 2013-2014 academic year. All schools were located in large,

urbanized areas including New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Charlotte, N.C., and

northern New Jersey.

The methods and available data were not able to produce causal evidence of the impact of TTO

on student outcomes. Instead, mathematics skills development among TTO students was

compared to that of other students nationally using student-level test scores on the Measures of

Academic Progress (MAP) assessment, an established and widely used test developed by the

Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA).

Key findings from these first two years of TTO implementation:

TTO students in both implementation years had initial mathematics skills that were well

below national averages.

However, during the 2012-2013 school year TTO students gained mathematics skills at a

rate that was roughly 15% higher than the national average (effect size=0.12 SD). In the

second year of implementationthe 2013-2014 academic yeargains among TTO

students were almost 47% above national norms (effect size=0.35 SD), a sizable

improvement over the first implementation year.

Across both academic years, students who started with the weakest mathematics skills

made the largest gains. During the first year of implementation, gains among highachieving students were below national averages, but were comparable to national gain

norms during the second year of implementation.

During year one, only two of seven schools exhibited gains that were significantly above

national norms. In year two, gains in 11 of 15 schools were significantly above average.

Black students gains were below the overall national average during the first year of

TTO, but were roughly 36% above average during the second year of implementation.

1

OF TEACH TO ONE: MATH

Introduction

Teach to One (TTO), developed by New Classrooms Innovation Partners, represents a

fundamentally different approach to teaching mathematics in grades 5-8. The model seeks to

leverage personalization and multiple instructional approaches to improve student mathematics

performance.1 Implementation of the TTO program began in the 2012-13 school year with

roughly 3,500 students and eight schools in Chicago, New York City, and Washington, D.C.

During the 2013-2014 school year, over 6,000 students in 15 schools experienced TTO, with

schools added in Charlotte, North Carolina and in several urban communities in northern New

Jersey.

Teach to One students are assessed daily to determine current skill levels, and an algorithm

employs these test results to target content delivery for the following day. In addition to creating

daily learning plans for each student, this adaptive, self-improving algorithm also generates a

unique daily instruction schedule for each teacher. An additional key aspect of the model is that

TTO integrates multiple technology-enabled and live instruction modalities simultaneously into

each classroom. At any moment in a given classroom, students may be working in one of eight

learning modalities, including teacher-led instruction; small-group collaboration with three to six

students; peer-to-peer collaboration with two to three students; virtual instruction via digital

lessons; virtual reinforcement of specific concepts; virtual 1:1 live tutoring; independent

practice; and multi-day sessions involving real-world tasks related to mathematics.

In using this approach of daily assessment combined with targeted learning stations, TTO seeks

to offer instruction that is continually responsive to the students current demonstrated abilities.

According to TTO, the process also provides teachers with real-time information about student

performance and frees their time to support individual and collaborative groups of students. New

Classrooms personnel relied upon the Common Core State Standards in the construction of the

TTO curriculum. Teacher and student web-based portals also provide complete, real-time

1

see www.newclassrooms.org

information on student progress and enable students and teachers to navigate their schedules and

lessons and review performance history. Students are able to log in to the portal 24 hours a day

to review lessons, prepare for exams, share their progress with their parents, and access a variety

of resources to supplement in-class learning.

The set of analyses contained in this report explore mathematics achievement among TTO

students. The analyses do not seek to establish a causal link between TTO and student learning in

mathematics, meaning that potential differences in skills development rates between TTO and

other students nationally cannot be attributed solely to TTO. Instead, this report compares

academic performance among TTO students to national norms using a large-scale, longitudinal

mathematics assessment that provides estimates of student learning during the academic year.

This report uses data from the first two years of TTO implementation. For year onethe 20122013 academic yearthe data include information on 2,264 TTO students who attended one of

seven2 participating schools in sixth (n=832), seventh (n=819), or eighth grade (n=613).3 The

year two (2013-2014) data include 4,117 students across 15 schools who were in fifth (n=220),

sixth (n=1,458), seventh (n=1,320) or eighth grade (n=1,119). As indicated in Table 1, the

demographic backgrounds of these students differ considerably from those of their public school

peers nationally. The TTO students were far more likely to be black, Hispanic, or Asian, and far

less likely to be white. Similarly, nearly all TTO students received free/reduced-price lunch,

compared to fewer than half of students nationwide. Year-one TTO students were also over twice

as likely to have English as their second language. Moreover, the schools attended by these

students were generally located in large, urban school districtsChicago, New York City,

Washington, D.C., Charlotte, N.C., and several urban areas of northern New Jerseythat face

unique challenges in terms of fiscal constraints and the populations they serve.

2

One school was excluded from this study because the impact of Hurricane Sandy interrupted its

implementation of TTO for an extended period of time.

3

Analyses for 2012-2013 only include TTO students who attended at least 70% of TTO classes during the

2012-13 academic year, completed both the fall and spring MAP mathematics assessments, and spent at least

six minutes taking the short MAP assessment. Analyses were run without these exclusions, and the

differences were negligible. For 2013-2014, these analyses included students who attended at least 70% of

TTO classes, and who had both a MAP pre- and a post-test (discussed in greater detail below).

Table 1. Characteristics of Teach to One Students and Public School Students Nationally

Demographic Characteristic

Race/Ethnicity

% American Indian/Alaskan

Native

% Asian/Pacific Islander

% Black

% Hispanic

% White

% Multiracial

2012-2013 (n=2,264)

2013-2014 (n=4,117)

Nationwide

0.5

0.1

1.2

15.2

38.6

32.8

12.9

0.1

10.3

32.5

43.0

13.2

0.9

5.2

15.8

23.9

51.4

2.5

% Free/Reduced-Price Lunch

91.3

94.8

48.1

% English is Second Language

22.7

10.3

9.8

% Special Education

13.8

8.0

12.9

Source: Teach to One data provided by New Classrooms Inc.; national data retrieved from National

Center for Education Statistics (available at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2012menu_tables.asp)

To explore mathematics skills development among these TTO students and to compare that

development to national norms, these analyses used student-level data on the Measures of

Academic Progress (MAP) mathematics assessment, created and managed by the Northwest

Evaluation Association (NWEA). The MAP assessments are untimed, computer adaptive tests

that draw on thousands of possible questions, depending on each students ability level.4 Yearone TTO students completed the MAP assessment in Fall 2012 and again in Spring 2013.

Variability across schools in when the MAP assessments were administered during year two

required the use of three different growth measurement periods. For three schools, growth is

measured from Spring, 2013 to Spring, 2014; for 10 schools growth was measured from Fall,

2013 to Spring, 2014 (the same time frame as the year-one schools); and for two schools growth

was measured from Winter, 2014 to Spring, 2014.5

NWEA has released national MAP math assessment norms for all grades for both achievement

and achievement gains. These analyses compared mathematics performance among TTO

students to these national norms. Due to (relatively weak) correlations between initial status and

subsequent mathematic gainspositive in fifth, sixth and seventh grade, but negative in eighth

4

For more information on the MAP assessments, see www.nwea.org

5

Student-level achievement gains were standardized (z-scored) to permit comparisons across schools

participating in each of the three testing periods. See footnote 6 below.

gradeNWEA calculates growth norms based on initial achievement strata.6 Moreover, because

schools across the country administer the MAP tests at different times during the academic year,

norms are also published based on which months students completed the pre- and post-tests

(more time between tests is associated with larger achievement gains). These considerations

permit comparisons of mathematics skills growth among TTO students to a national sample of

students who had similar initial mathematics skills and similar numbers of instructional days

during each growth measurement period. When appropriate, results are presented in effect size

differences between TTO student test scores (or test-score gains) and national norms.7

Unfortunately, NWEA has not released national MAP norms broken down by student subgroups. This represents an important limitation, given that TTO students are far from nationally

representative (see Table 1 above). The differences between TTO students and the typical public

school student and the fact that the MAP norms are based on student samples that are more

nationally representative, suggests that the results presented below are potentially conservative

estimates of the performance differences between Teach to One students and similar students

nationally.

Findings Year One

As indicated in Figure 1, on average across all grades, TTO students started the 2012-13

academic year with mathematics skills that lagged behind national norms. In sixth grade, TTO

students began the academic year at a statistically significant disadvantage of 4.5 points

compared to their peers nationally (ES = -0.29; p<.001).8 A somewhat smaller (but still

statistically significant) initial gap of 2.8 points existed among seventh graders (ES = -17;

p<.001), and a much larger deficit of 6.8 points in eighth grade (ES = 0.40; p<.001).9 These

initial differences prior to the start of TTO were quite understandable given the fact that, as noted

above, TTO students were more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds compared to the

6

see: Northwest Evaluation Association. (2011). RIT scale norms: For use with Measures of Academic

Progress (MAP) and MAP for Primary Grades. Portland, OR: Author.

7

To calculate a standardized difference score, the national norm gain for students who started within

particular initial achievement strata was subtracted from each students actual gain. This difference score

was then divided by the national average standard deviation of gain for that grade and time period.

8

An effect size (ES) is the mean difference between two groups divided by the standard deviation of the

outcome being explored. A general rule is to interpret ESs smaller than 0.1 SD as trivially small; 0.1-0.3

SDs as small; 0.3-0.5 SDs as moderately large; and ESs larger than 0.5 as large.

9

All indications of statistical significance were obtained from one-sample t-tests.

students on whose skills these national norms were based. The question, however, and the

primary focus in this study, was how much TTO students learned while in the program. TTO

students began the year with weaker math skills. But was their subsequent academic growth

generally below, comparable to, or above the gains made by students nationally on the same

assessment?

to National Norms (2012-2013)

235

230.2

230

225.6

225

223.4***

222.8***

219.6

220

215.1***

215

210

205

New

Sixth-Grade

New

Seventh-Grade

New

Eighth-Grade

Classrooms National Norm Classrooms National Norm Classrooms National Norm

Sixth Grade

Seventh Grade

Eighth Grade

(n=832)

(n=819)

(n=613)

***p<.001; significance tests compare to same-grade national norm. Includes students who spent at least 70% of the

academic year in a Teach to One classroom, and who spent at least six minutes on both the fall and spring MAP.

assessments.

As indicated in Figure 2, TTO students gained somewhat more than their same-grade peers

nationally who began the school year with similar mathematics skills, and who took the MAP

assessments during the same timeframe. These findings can be interpreted in terms of one-year

expected growth. If one understands the national norms to roughly represent one year of

academic growth (fall to spring gains), TTO students achieved 1.14 years of growth in sixth and

seventh grade, or 14% more than the typical student nationally, while eighth graders gained 1.17

years of growth, or 17% more than the national average. Across all grades, TTO student gains

were roughly 1.15 times greater than national norms, or 15% greater.10 Expressed in terms of

standard deviation units, sixth graders gained 0.14 standard deviations more (p<.05), while

seventh and eighth graders gained 0.10 and 0.12 standard deviations more, respectively (p<.10).

It should be stressed again, however, that TTO students are by no means nationally

representative. Considering the relatively disadvantaged backgrounds of TTO students, the fact

that their average MAP test score gains in mathematics were above the national norms is

noteworthy. It is equally important to bear in mind that these analyses are unable to attribute the

greater gains among TTO students to TTO itself. While these gains may very well be attributable

to TTO, they may also flow from other unmeasured characteristics of students, their teachers and

principals, or other school and community characteristics.

Compared to National Norms (2012-2013)

1.18

1.16

1.17~

1.14*

1.14~

1.14

1.12

1.1

1.08

1.06

1.04

1.02

1

Eighth Grade (n=613)

~p<.10; *p<.05; significance tests compare to same-grade, same initial achievement strata national norm.

10

This conclusion that TTO students gained math skills at a rate 1.15 times greater than the national

average differs slightly from the rate of 1.19 times the national average reported in an earlier evaluation of

TTO by the same author (and colleagues). The result here more accurately reflects the fact that TTO

students completed the MAP assessments roughly one month later than the national average, and thus had

somewhat more instructional time compared to their peers nationwide.

Disaggregating the results indicates that these gains differed by students initial mathematics

abilities. Figure 3 displays average annual gains organized by students initial (fall) mathematics

ability. The national grade-specific distribution of fall achievement was divided into thirds based

on percentile ranking. Students falling into the bottom third of the test score distribution are

labeled low achieving, those in the middle third categorized as average achieving, and those in

the top third of the distribution are considered to be high achieving. TTO students were then

categorized into one of these three groups based on their own fall achievement. The relatively

low-levels of initial mathematics achievement among TTO students are quite apparent, with well

over half of all TTO students categorized as low-achieving, and under 14% categorized as highachieving. As indicated in Figure 3, low-achieving TTO students gained 37% more than other

initially low-achieving students nationally (ES = 0.29; p<.001), while average-achieving TTO

students gained skills at a rate that was statistically comparable to the national norm (p>.05). The

relatively smaller number of high-achieving TTO students, however, gained skills at a rate that

only 74% of the national average (ES = -0.22; p<.05).

Achievement Compared to National Norms (2012-2013)

1.6

1.4

1.37***

1.2

0.96

0.74*

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Low Achieving (n=1220)

*p<.05; ***p<.001; significance tests compare to same-grade, same initial achievement strata national norm.

above, and as indicated by the first bar on the left, on average across schools and grades, TTO

students gained skills at a rate 1.15 times (or 15% above) the national average (p<.001).

Somewhat surprisingly, TTO English-language learners and free/reduced-price lunch eligible

students all made gains that were above the national norms (20 and 17% greater, respectively), as

did white, Asian, and Hispanic students, on average. During this first year of implementation,

black students were the only student subgroup to experience mathematics learning rates that

were below national norms. Special education TTO students gained skills that were comparable

to the national norm (of all students, not only special education students).

Compared to National Norms (2012-2013)

1.6

1.39***

1.4

1.2

1.15***

1.2*

1.35***

1.2~

1.17***

1.07

0.88~

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

TOTAL ELL (n=515) Special Ed

(n=2264)

(n=313)

Free/Red

Lunch

(n=2050)

Asian

(n=342)

Black

(n=866)

Hispanic

(n=739)

White

(n=290)

11

As a reminder, NWEA does not publish norms by student subgroups. As such, Figure 4 simply

compares mean gains among TTO student subgroups to the grade-specific and testing timeframe-relevant

national norms for all students.

It is important to also note that student gains varied across TTO schools. Describing only average

gains across schools masks these differences. Each of the seven 2012-2013 TTO schools are

provided pseudonyms in Figure 5. On average across grades, gains in two schools were above

national norms. Indeed, students in School A gained skills at almost double the national rate.

Gains in four schools were statistically comparable to national norms (p>.05), although three of

these four school means were above the national norms.12 Students in School G gained skills at

less than half the national rate (p<.001). Interpretations of the below-average gain observed in

one school should again take into account that TTO students and schools are not representative,

unlike the students and schools on which these national norms are based. School A was

removed in a separate analysis to determine whether this single school was driving the results

presented above. Doing so did render all grade-specific differences non-significant (i.e.,

statistically, TTO schools performed neither better nor worse compared to national averages).

The report now turns to the second-year evaluation results.

National Norms (2012-2013)

Ratio of TTO Student Gains to National Norms

2.5

1.99***

1.5

1.22*

1.19

1.12

1.06

0.82

0.45***

0.5

0

School A

School B

School C

School D

School E

NATIONAL

NORM

School F

School G

12

The lack of statistically significant differences here is driven in part by the relatively small sample sizes

associated with these school-specific analyses.

10

As they did in Fall 2012, on average across all grades, TTO students started the 2013-14

academic year with mathematics skills that lagged behind national norms (see Figure 6).13 In

fifth and sixth grades, TTO students began the academic year at a statistically significant

disadvantage of 0.50 standard deviations compared to their peers nationally (p<.001). A slightly

smaller (but still statistically significant) initial gap of 0.43 standard deviations was found among

seventh graders (p<.001), and a much larger deficit of 0.60 standard deviations in eighth grade

(p<.001). As with the first year of TTO implementation, however, the more important question is

Compared to National Norms (2013-2014)

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

-0.40

-0.50

-0.43***

-0.50***

-0.50***

-0.60

-0.60***

-0.70

New Classrooms Fifth New Classrooms Sixth

Grade (n=220)

Grade (n=1,458)

New Classrooms

Seventh Grade

(n=1,320)

Grade (n=1,119)

***p<.001; significance tests compare to same-grade, same testing time-period national norm.

13

In contrast to Figure 1, which displayed TTO students skills in raw MAP score points, initial status

here is indicated in effect sizes. This is because in contrast to the 2012-2013 academic year, when all TTO

students completed the map assessments during essentially the same time period, and thus students in

each grade could be compared to the identical national norm, during the 2013-2014 academic year

students initial status was compared to the national norms associated with three different initial status

periods: Spring 2013, Fall 2013, and early Winter 2014.

11

As indicated in Figure 7, on average, TTO students gained more mathematics skills compared to

their same-grade peers nationally who began the school year with similar mathematics skills, and

who took the MAP assessments during the same time-frames. 14 Fifth graders gains were 28%

above the national average (ES = 0.17; p<.10),15 while sixth, seventh and eighth graders gained

skills at rates there were 28, 73, 43% above their national norms, respectively (ES = 0.24, 0.53,

0.31; p<.001). Averaged across all grades, student gains were 47% above national norms (ES =

0.35; p<.001). It is important to note that these gains made during the second year of TTO

implementation (2013-2014) were considerably larger than those made during year one (20122013). On average across grades in year one, gains among TTO students were 15% larger than

the national average. With the second year of implementation, TTO students gains were roughly

47% greater than national norms.

National Norms (2013-2014)

1.8

1.73***

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.43***

1.4

1.3

1.28~

1.28***

Fifth Grade

Sixth Grade

1.2

1.1

1

Seventh Grade

Eighth Grade

~p<.10; ***p<.001; significance tests compare to same-grade, same initial achievement strata national norm..

14

For students whose gains were measured from spring to spring or from fall to spring, one can interpret

this as one year of expected gains.

15

The fact that this difference is only marginally significant (p<.10) is related in part to the relatively

small number of TTO fifth graders (n=220).

12

These year-two results, however, again differ depending on students initial mathematics

abilities. Figure 8 displays average annual gains organized by students mathematics ability at

the start of their particular testing time period (Spring 2013, Fall 2013, or Winter 2014). The

national grade-specific distribution of initial achievement was divided into thirds based on

percentile ranking. The relatively low levels of initial mathematics achievement among TTO

students are again quite apparent, with well over half of all TTO students categorized as low

achieving, and under 18% categorized as high achieving. As indicated in Figure 8, low-achieving

TTO students gained skills at a rate that was 81% above the national average, (ES = 0.61;

p<.001), while average-achieving TTO students gains were 21% above the national norm (ES =

0.17; p<.001). The relatively smaller number of high-achieving TTO students, however, gained

skills at a rate that was statistically comparable to the national average (p>.05). This stands in

stark contrast to the year-one results, in which gains among high-achieving students were

Achievement Compared to National Norms (2013-2014)

2

1.81***

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.21***

1.2

0.97

1

0.8

Low Achieving (n=2,029)

***p<.001; significance tests compare to same-grade, same initial achievement strata national norm.

13

Figure 9 disaggregates mathematics gains by student demographic subgroups. These results are

far stronger than the similar analyses using year-one data (see Figure 4 above). All student

subgroups, including those traditionally associated with weaker academic performance, gained

skills at rates above national averages (p<.001). Notable is the fact that black TTO students

gains were 65% above national norms during the 2013-2014 academic year, but were below

average during the 2012-2013 school year.

As they did during year-one implementation, student gains varied considerably across TTO

schools, although school-level average gains were far stronger during the second year of

implementation.16 On average across grades, gains in eleven of the fifteen TTO schools were

significantly above national norms during the 2013-2014 academic year (see Figure 10). Gains in

two schools were statistically comparable to national norms (p>.05), while gains in two other

schools were significantly below national norms. These year-two school-level results are

16

School pseudonyms are not consistent across Figures 5 and 10 (e.g., School A is not the same in both

figures).

14

noticeably improved compared to year one, when only two of the seven TTO schools exhibited

gains that were significantly above national norms (see Figure 5 above).

1.22***

1.40

1.24***

-0.26~

-0.2***

0.00

-0.18

0.41***

0.10

0.17~

0.20

0.33**

0.40

0.44***

0.48***

0.60

0.54***

0.80

0.62***

1.00

0.67***

1.20

0.73***

-0.20

-0.40

**p<.01; ***p<.001; significance tests compare to same-grade, same initial achievement strata national norm.

Conclusions

These analyses provide student test-score results from the first two years of implementation of

Teach to One: Math, which was implemented in seven schools in grades 6-8 during the 20122013 academic year, and fifteen schools in grades 5-8 during the 2013-2014 academic year. TTO

served students who were academically and demographically less advantaged compared to their

peers nationally. These students, who typically started each academic year with mathematics

skills that were far below national averages, were virtually all eligible for free/reduced-price

lunches, attended schools in high-poverty, high-needs communities, and were predominantly

black and Hispanic.

15

Despite these considerable disadvantages, TTO students gained mathematics skills at rates that

surpassed those of other students nationally. In the first year of implementation, across all grades

and schools, average gains among TTO students were 15% above national averages. During the

second year of implementation, average gains were roughly 47% above national averagesa

marked improvement. Gains were also stronger among student subgroups during the second year

of implementation, when all TTO student subgroups scored above the national norm.

During year one, student gains were uneven across schools, with only two of seven schools

making gains that were significantly above national norms. Gains across schools were far

stronger in the second year of implementation, when 11 of 15 schools exhibited average gains

that were significantly above national norms. Interestingly, given the generally low levels of

initial achievement among TTO students, across both implementation years, gains were strongest

among the lowest-achieving students.

It is important to stress again that these findings cannot be attributed to TTO without the use of

experimental or quasi-experimental designs. In other words, we cannot state definitively that

TTO caused the above-average achievement gains noted above. The available data did not

include information on the characteristics and backgrounds of teachers or administrators in these

schools, and we therefore know little about how they compare to those in similar schools

nationally. Adding to the ambiguity is the fact that the norms against which TTO students were

compared were based on student samples that were on average academically and

demographically far more advantaged. However, given their academic and demographic profiles,

it is encouraging that TTO students exhibited skills gains that were above these national

averages. In light of these multiple uncertainties, which may have biased these findings in

unknown directions, future research should employ data and analytic methods that afford causal

estimates of the effects of TTO on student learning.

Despite these caveats, these early results are quite promising. This is particularly so given the

improvement in gains during the second year of implementation, with a larger and equally

disadvantaged group of students and schools.

16

- 2014 11 14 Special Minutes DraftHochgeladen vonched macquigg
- Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) Exam Study GuideHochgeladen vonMcRee Learning Center
- Module CSMM187 (2017) Underground Excavation DesignHochgeladen vonnopenopenope2
- 2003 Online Exam Practice SystemHochgeladen vonVishal Vihol
- psychology lesson 22Hochgeladen vonapi-300277282
- Resolution on Educational Leadership in DelawareHochgeladen vonKevinOhlandt
- BUSS1030 OutlinesHochgeladen vonNicyKOK
- pbl planning formHochgeladen vonapi-231802568
- 4 srt lesson idea garciaHochgeladen vonapi-394527392
- mastery of unit sheet executive branchHochgeladen vonapi-232469506
- StrategyHochgeladen vonSuriya Sv
- typesofassessmentHochgeladen vonapi-217974692
- LA Proficiency AssessmentHochgeladen vonNur Azimah Lamy
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ed4345.501 05f taught by Angela Mcnulty (mcnulty)Hochgeladen vonUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Types of AssessmentHochgeladen vonAina Insyirah Muhammad
- idt syllabus for i c- moultrieHochgeladen vonapi-372868175
- Career Award in BusinessHochgeladen vonSima Roxana
- Resonance Teaching MethodologyHochgeladen vonAbhishek Jain
- SimHochgeladen vonrinlacer
- Classroom Assessment Preferences of JapaneseHochgeladen vonShe Liwanag Romulo
- Valenzuela Success Factors in Learners Assessment in Southeast AsiaHochgeladen vonCarlo Magno
- Syllabus Assessment 2aHochgeladen vonMiskiah Pahruddin
- copy of syllabus 2014-2015-11th grade newHochgeladen vonapi-325876936
- EssayHochgeladen vonDinesh Rawal
- Principles of AssessmentHochgeladen vonJohnson Ho
- assessment 1 part a final draftHochgeladen vonapi-297389221
- 2015-16 Preliminary School Performance Data - Project LIFTHochgeladen vonElizabethRiebe-Thomas
- Final-cost Accounting 2Hochgeladen vonSHana ANa
- Vdocuments.mx Investigating Assessment Practices of in Service TeachersHochgeladen vonAZLAN
- anticipation guide lesson-2Hochgeladen vonapi-396667346

- Semana_internacional Julio 2014Hochgeladen vonDomingoFeriado
- Ej 1056593Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Humphrey PaperHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- After the Mergers, The Pain of Goodwill - Barron'sHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- 37246431Hochgeladen vonLuis Mendiola
- 2Q04ReconciliationEBIT EBITDAHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- 00330 Lets MegadealHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- epso.15Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- fanfe.15Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Cases 5645Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Finexec BrHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Guidelines Debt SecuritiesHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Guidelines Covered Debt SecuritiesHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- D318_USP09646AB92Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- 428487574Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- 66181075Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Junior Mine 0407 EnHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- JuniorMiningCompanies_PtIIHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- JuniorMiningCompanies_PtI.pdfHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Junior Mines 2010 10 EnHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Hirsch EyHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- 2009Q4MDAHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- 2010MDAQ3Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- 2010FSQ3Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- 2009Q4FSHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Bloom Berg Beta InterpretationHochgeladen vonPeter Ulrich
- Portfolio Disposition FAQs Update 05-02-11_FinalHochgeladen voneav206
- s71411-135Hochgeladen vonLuisMendiola
- Beta According to BloombergHochgeladen vonLuisMendiola

- CASSA Youth ReportHochgeladen vonsmitaray
- 2018 County Health Rankings Report (Iowa)Hochgeladen vonLyndaWaddington
- 11a American Indian Children Powerpoint (BigFoot)Hochgeladen vonWilliam Aldam
- alexie unitHochgeladen vonapi-254359325
- Health and Human Services: ADDGS Definitions for Data Collection%20Oct 20Hochgeladen vonHHS
- Review of the Recruitment, selection and hiring process for LAFD training academy class 13-1Hochgeladen vonLos Angeles Daily News
- Exit Interview QuestionnaireHochgeladen vonjain2007gaurav
- Is There a Quiet Revolution in Women’s Travel? Revisiting the Gender Gap in CommutingHochgeladen vonfapperForReal
- 236-599 Syllabus Fall 2014Hochgeladen vonRyan Fernando
- Hay ThesisHochgeladen vonAriana Hernandez Reguant
- BPD Demographic Data 2015- AnalyzedHochgeladen vonBerkeley Copwatch
- lesson plan 5 3Hochgeladen vonapi-283477224
- International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) - Policing Diverse Communities in the 21st Century (July 2007)Hochgeladen vonJ Cox
- 16UW ALICE Report INDUpdate 8.26.16 LowresHochgeladen vonSaige Driver
- soalHochgeladen vonhermansawiran37
- Open Letter to Kwame Zulu ShabazzHochgeladen vonDenise McVea
- Red BonesHochgeladen vonCameron Davis
- New Wave of African ImmigrantsHochgeladen vonAnn Okafor
- Behavior data by race.xlsHochgeladen vonslscarranza
- issue exploration essayHochgeladen vonapi-252845687
- Www Moorishciviletter Net Civics HTMLHochgeladen vonBradford Ohbliv
- UntitledHochgeladen vonapi-242504494
- interest meeting applicationHochgeladen vonapi-375045314
- Millennials’ Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration PoliciesHochgeladen vonopportunityagenda
- Social Studies Standards Us History And World HistoryHochgeladen vonfernandezc2015
- Teen PregnancyHochgeladen vondave
- 2015-16 THP-Plus & THP+FC Annual ReportHochgeladen vonJohn Burton Advocates for Youth
- Islamophobia DefinedHochgeladen vonMichael Smith
- US Bureau Of Justice Statistics Special Report: Contacts between Police and the Public (2005)Hochgeladen vonwmartin46
- Cu Profile 62196Hochgeladen vonOdel Kabristante

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.