The field of literacy education has long been concerned with the question of how to help classroom teachers improve their practices so that students will improve as readers. Although there is consensus on what characterizes effective professional development, the reading research on which this consensus is based most often is small scale and involves direct support provided by university faculty. The South Carolina Reading Initiative is an exception: It is a statewide, site-based, large-scale staff development effort led by site-selected literacy coaches. Although university faculty provide longterm staff development to the coaches, the faculty are not directly involved with the professional development provided to teachers. In this study we sought to understand whether site-based, site-chosen literacy coaches could help teachers' beliefs and practices become more consistent with what the field considers to be best practices. To understand teacher change, we used two surveys (Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile, n = 817; South Carolina Reading Profile, n = 1,005) and case study research (n = 39) to document teachers' beliefs and practices. We also had access to a state department survey (n = 1,428). Across these data, we found that teachers' beliefs and
Articles
216
Journal of Literacy Research 43(3)practices became increasingly consistent with best practices as defined by standards set by the South Carolina State Department of Education, standards that were consistent with national standards. This suggests that large-scale staff development can affect teachers when the providers are site-based, site-selected literacy coaches.
ChatGPT, a language-learning model chatbot, has garnered considerable attention for its ability to respond to users’ questions. Using data from 14 countries and 186 institutions, we compare ChatGPT and student performance for 28,085 questions from accounting assessments and textbook test banks. As of January 2023, ChatGPT provides correct answers for 56.5 percent of questions and partially correct answers for an additional 9.4 percent of questions. When considering point values for questions, students significantly outperform ChatGPT with a 76.7 percent average on assessments compared to 47.5 percent for ChatGPT if no partial credit is awarded and 56.5 percent if partial credit is awarded. Still, ChatGPT performs better than the student average for 15.8 percent of assessments when we include partial credit. We provide evidence of how ChatGPT performs on different question types, accounting topics, class levels, open/closed assessments, and test bank questions. We also discuss implications for accounting education and research.
Using survey data from 300 employees, we examine whether feedback, training, standard operating procedures (SOPs) and visual management are positively related to intrinsic motivation, and, in turn, performance, via perceptions of autonomy. Specifically, we consider these relationships in the context of a lean organizational setting. We aim to contribute to the management accounting literature by investigating when and how employees' perceptions of control mechanisms facilitate intrinsic motivation and ultimately performance. Our results show that perceptions of training, feedback, and visual management are positively related to intrinsic motivation (and, in turn performance) via autonomy. In a supplemental analysis, we decompose intrinsic motivation into two dimensions, challenge and enjoyment. We find that our original model holds but is driven by the intrinsic motivation employees receive from challenging tasks. We also show that SOPs are not related to autonomy but are directly related to the enjoyment dimension of intrinsic motivation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.