CFDA Number: | 84.305 - Education Research |
Program Goal: Transform education into an evidence-based field. |
Objective 1 of 2: Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by the Department. |
Indicator 1.1 of 2: The percentage of new research proposals funded by Institute of Education Sciences that receive an average score of excellent or higher from an independent review panel of qualified scientists. |
Source: Expert panel review Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: September 2006 Limitations: Evaluations are only as good as the qualifications of the peer review panel. Inclusion of senior scientists who are leading researchers in their fields ensures the quality of the data. Explanation: The measure is calculated as the average panel review score for newly funded IES research proposals. |
Indicator 1.2 of 2: Of new research and evaluation projects funded by the IES that address causal questions, the percentage of projects that employ randomized experimental designs. |
Source: IES researchers evaluate all research and evaluation proposals newly funded by IES. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: March 2006 Having qualified researchers conduct the reviews, as well as having two IES researchers independently evaluate a subset of proposals (with minimum inter-rater agreement of 90 percent), minimizes threats to the validity and reliability of data. Limitations: Evaluations are only as good as the qualifications of the proposal reviewers. Explanation: The 75 percent target for 2002-2006 recognizes that some high-quality research addressing causal questions will not be able to employ randomized experimental designs. Presence of a causal question is defined as instances in which the investigation is designed to examine the effects of one variable on a second variable. A causal relation might be expressed as one variable influencing, affecting, or changing another variable. A randomized experimental design is defined as instances in which there are (a) an experimental (treatment) group and one or more comparison groups, and (b) random assignment of participants to treatment and comparison groups, or random assignment of groups (e.g., classrooms or schools) to treatment and comparison conditions. If a proposal includes a design in which two or more groups of participants are compared, but the PI does not explicitly indicate that random assignment procedures will be used, the proposal is recorded as not using a randomized experimental design. |
Objective 2 of 2: Increase the relevance of our research in order to meet the needs of our customers. |
Indicator 2.1 of 3: The percentage of new research projects funded by IES that are deemed to be of high relevance to education practice as determined by an independent review panel of qualified practitioners. |
Source: External panel of qualified practitioners Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: March 2006 Limitations: Evaluations are only as good as the qualifications of the external review panel. Inclusion of experienced practitioners and administrators in education and special education assures the quality of the data. Explanation: The target of 75 percent for 2006 recognizes that some important research may not seem immediately relevant but will make important contributions over the long term. |
Indicator 2.2 of 3: The number of annual hits on the What Works Clearinghouse Web site. |
Source: What Works Clearinghouse. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: March 2006 A Web based program automatically counts the hits on this Web site. |
Indicator 2.3 of 3: The percentage of WWC Web site users surveyed randomly who responded to the statement, ''Evidence provided on the WWC Web site is useful in making decisions about education programs and practices'' by checking ''agree'' or ''strongly agree.'' |
Source: What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Web site survey. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: March 2006 |