桐村 豪文

神戸常盤大学では、2017年度から年次進行で4年間をかけ、全科目のシラバスにルーブリックを明示した。その際、教員がルーブリックを作成する際の参考になるよう、リファレンスルーブリック(R2)を策定し提示した。本研究では全科目のシラバスにルーブリックを明示するために何を行なったかを述べる。また、科目シラバスにおけるルーブリックの最適化を評価するため、「神戸常盤大学・重要他集団（SOGRs）」が、Eduinformaticsに基づき、機械学習によるR2と科目ルーブリックの類似度評価というエビデンスに基づく検証を行った。

〈生〉を中心に置いた社会正義論を、本稿と続稿を通して展開する。本稿では、身体と他者をキーワードに、〈生〉について論じる。 ハイデガーは人間存在の〈生〉の様子を「被投的企投」という。それは、企投性と被投性の二つの契機が常に作動しながら生きる様子を意味する。身体はまさにこの動的な〈生〉をいうものである。身体は、①動的安定性の観点から、②前言語的な企投的身体は、③輪郭が常に定かでないままに、④意味的ネットワークを構成し、⑤ネットワーク内には、"中心""周縁"の差異が生まれ、その安定性を保持しようとする。⑥企投的身体はその発現をもって被投的身体を得るが、⑦その発現は決して単線的なものではなく、身体と環境条件との動的な対話がそこでは為される。⑧そして、その対話では、しばしば差異を消費して社会的身体を一時的に担うという事態がある。ここにいう差異は他者の現れの一つであり、他者の現れには、①差異として、②否定としての二面性がある。

本研究では、学校法人益田永島学園・明誠高等学校による文部科学省委託事業のもと、通信制課程卒業生の進路未決定の問題を前に、通信制課程の高校生を対象にJST を行った結果として、社会参加意識をはじめとする彼らの内面における心的傾向の変化を捉え、もってJST の効果を測定するため、アンケート調査を行い、その結果の分析を行った。 分析の結果、「社会的消極志向」という因子が出力され、さらに因子の全体を捉えた上で、プロット図上で課題となる象限の存在を発見するに至った。その上で、彼らの内面における心的傾向の変化をプロット図上で可視化した。

近年、教育をめぐる議論において「エビデンス」の語が当たり前のように用いられるようになった。問題は、何をもって「エビデンス」と見なすべきか、敷衍して言えば、実際のエビデンスの活用に目を向けたとき、本当に教育の改善に資する「エビデンス」とは何か、というアクチュアルな問いである。 英国・米国において現在進行中のエビデンス政策では、ランダム化比較試験（RCT）に裁判官（裁定者）の座を与え、一切の対立の解消を期待している。批判的に問うべきは、RCT を「最後の裁定者」として序列体系の頂点に配し、超越的立場から教育の質的向上を図ろうとするエビデンス政策の在り方である。 カートライト＆ハーディは、「『そこでうまくいった（it worked there）』から『ここでうまくいく（it will work here）』への飛躍はいかにして可能か」を中核の課題に据え、「ここ」での活用に焦点を当てた活用のためのエビデンス論を展開する。前者から後者へのその飛躍を可能にするため、カートライト＆ハーディは、水平的探求と垂直的探求が必要であること、そして「ここ」というローカル性に徹底的に目を向けることの必要性を説く。 加えて、それらの探求を現実に落とし込む際には、「差異」を重視する民主的態度が求められ、またそれに必要なガバナンスの体制が整備されることが期待される。

In recent years, the word "evidence" has come to be commonly used in the public debate over education in Japan. In this paper, in relation to the question of what kind of "evidence" should be required, and in what kind of content should "evidence" be praised in the federal education policy of the United States, the cases of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Comprehensive School Reform (CSR), Investing in Innovation Fund (i3), and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) were examined, and the transition of the policies were overviewed. NCLB gave the definition of "scientifically based research, " and practices and programs called for scientific support by providing evidence on its effectiveness. CSR tried to embody the concept of its definition, where a lower standard called "strong evidence" was prepared separately from "scientifically based research" from a realistic point of view. Still CSR tried to maintain the hierarchical order of evidence with the randomized controlled trial at the top. This feature is also seen in subsequent policies, and can also be seen in the i3 founded in 2009. However, the Every Student Succeeds Act, established in 2015, granted substantial discretion to state and local education authorities in the context of the use of evidence. Moreover, it is said that only the lowest-rated evidence should be presented for grants other than Title I. Therefore, it can be said that the policy of "evidence" in the federal education policy of the United States has undergone a major change.

Kobe Tokiwa University is currently performing university reform. To address many pressing and important problems of university reform, we had, over the past three years, determined research questions about these problems and resolved each of them when a problem presented itself, publishing our findings as reports or presenting in meetings. Before we began this research, we thought that there were no relationships between our studies. In this study, we reflect on our research during the last three years. Looking back, we discovered that we can classify our research into six groups by context analysis: group 1: university reform and collaboration between academic faculty and administrative staff, group 2: proposal of novel knowledge-creation models, group 3: novel visualization methods for education, group 4: information and communication technology for education, group 5: evidence-based education, group 6: first-year experience. More abstractly, our research can provide basis for a novel interdisciplinary concept, which we call "eduinformatics." Based on this research, we propose changes to higher education that will result in increased quality of learning and teaching.| 神戸常盤大学は大学改革の真っ只中にある。われわれは過去3年間、本学における高等教育上の重要な課題を解決すべく、その都度リサーチクエスチョンを定めたうえでそれを解決し、その内容を論文や学会発表という形で公表してきた。今回、これらの一連の研究成果を俯瞰的に眺め、文脈解析を行った結果、われわれの研究が、①大学改革と教職協働、②新たな知の創造モデルの提案、③教育の新可視化法の開発、④ ICTを用いた教育方法の開発、⑤エビデンス・ベースドな教育の実践、⑥初年次教育、の6つの分野に分類できることを見出した。そしてこの6つの分野が、bioinformaticsという既存の概念に倣い、教育研究といういわゆる文系色の濃い分野に、いわゆる理系色を融合させた学際的分野として"eduinformatics"という新たな概念を提唱することで1つに括れることを発見した。この新たな概念を高等教育研究に敷衍することで、わが国の高等教育研究が飛躍的に発展していくことが期待できる。

本稿では、平成29（2017）年度に新たに開講した初年次教育科目「まなぶる➤ときわびとⅠ」において学生が何を学び得たかを、学生自身が自らの学修を省みて述べた記述文を踏まえ、本科目の要改善点も含め、明らかにすることを目的とする。第15回の授業終了時に課した中間レポートと第30回の授業終了時に課した最終レポートに対して計量テキスト分析を行い、共起ネットワークを描画した。その結果、本科目の特徴を学生が正しく理解していることが窺え、また一定の成果を中間レポートと最終レポートとの間の変化・差異にみることができた。ただし、カリキュラム全体の統一性がいまだ保たれていないことが学生の認識にも表れている点に、今後の改善点をみてとることができる。|A first-year experience course,"Manable-Tokiwabito," was newly offered in FY 2017 at Kobe Tokiwa University. In the course, around 20 teachers teach approximately 350 students. In this paper, we clarify, using text analysis, what students learned from that course. We analyzed the student's report and drew a co-occurrence network. The analysis showed that it is evident that students understand the characteristics of this subject correctly and that they have fulfilled certain educational outcomes. However, one problem that has been recognized is that the unity of the curriculum as a whole is not yet maintained.

平成29年4月の大学設置基準の改正により、大学職員の能力開発、いわゆるSD（staff development）が義務化された。そこで改めて注目されるべきが教職協働（UD／university development）である。大学運営における教職協働の重要性は以前より指摘され続けてきたが、その実例やそれに類する研究といったアウトカムは決して多いとはいえない。神戸常盤大学におけるこれまでの教職協働実践の知見から、UDを阻害する決定的な要因は、教職員間のコミュニケーション不全であるとの認識に至った。そして、その壁を乗り越えてコミュニケーションを円滑にするために必要な要素が、日常的に教職員が集う「場」の設定とファシリテーター、さらにはチームビルディングに欠かすことができないコミュニケーションツールであると結論づけた。そこで今回、アクションリサーチの手法を用いて、大学運営において教職員が協働していくうえでのドライブツールと関連プログラムを新たに開発した。| In 2017, the development of administrative staff capacity in Japanese university, the so-called staff development (SD) was mandated. Currently, the importance of university development (UD), which implies collaboration between academic faculty and administrative staff for university reform, is increasing. However, the collaboration between the two is not necessarily successful. In Kobe Tokiwa University, we observed that one of the most obvious causes of this unsuccessful collaboration is communication failure. This problem can be solved through "placemaking" with academic faculty and administrative staff, facilitators of placemaking, and communication tools for both. In this study, we develop a "linkage system" using information and communication technology (ICT) and procedure to facilitate communication for UD.

神戸常盤大学は、建学の精神のもと、知性と感性を備えた専門職業人の育成を目的としている。現代社会は、国際化、情報化、科学技術の高度化が加速し、変化の激しい社会である。その社会で専門職業人として必要とされるためには、大学で学んだ知識・技術を基礎として時代や社会の変化に対応できるよう自律的、協調的に思考し、判断し、表現できる専門職業人でなければならない。本学は、時代や社会の要請に応えるべく専門職業人の育成のための第一歩として、受動的な教育から能動的な学びへの転換を図ること、そして「学ぶ悦び、知る愉しさ」を実感できる初年次教育科目として「まなぶる➤ときわびとⅠ」と「まなぶる➤ときわびとⅡ」を開講するに至った。本稿では、教育から学習へのパラダイム転換が求められる背景と、学生の学習（学修）に主眼をおいた本年度前期に開講したアクティブ・ラーニング科目である「まなぶる➤ときわびとⅠ」の実践と評価について考察する。|Based on its mission statement, Kobe Tokiwa University aims to cultivate students to be professionals with both intelligence and sensitivity. In these modern times, internationalization, computerization, and technology have become more rapid in society, resulting in rapid societal changes. Therefore, it is required for professionals to be able to think and judge by themselves and present their thinking based on knowledge and technology gained. Presently, Kobe Tokiwa University is undergoing university reform. As part of the reform, we started a new first-year experience (FYE) course called "Academic Skills and Deep Learning I and II," which exemplifies a paradigm shift in education from teaching to learning. In this article, we explained the background to the changes in the paradigm shift from teaching to learning and discussed implementation and evaluation of the course.

近年、大学改革待ったなしの状況であり、そのなかの1つに教養教育改革が含まれている。先稿では、教職協働の取り組みの末にたどり着いた本学の教学マネジメント改革の理念構築について報告したが、本稿では、その改革の理念のもとに行った教養教育の再検討と、そのうえで行った基盤教育の設計とその背後にある理念などについて論じる。基盤教育の設計においては、「コスモロジー」「プロト・ディシプリナリー」を鍵概念とし、科目間の"越境関係"を意識しながら、また「なぜ、それを教えるのか」という根源的な問いから、さらに、準正課・正課外を含めた俯瞰的視野から「誰が、どこで、どのように教えるべきか」という問いに発展させ、包括的に科目設計を行った。|In recent years, there has been no waiting for university reform, which includes general education reform. In the previous paper, we reported on the idea of the educational management reform of our university, which we accomplished through collaborative efforts between academic faculty and administrative staff. In this paper, we review the general education conducted and discuss the design and idea of liberal arts education through collaboration between academic faculty and administrative staff. In designing general education, we designed courses comprehensively according to a broad perspective including cosmetics and regular exercise activities, while taking cosmology and protodiplomacy as key concepts.

平成29年度から始まった本学の基盤教育の中心科目に「まなぶる▶ときわびと」が設定された。「まなぶる▶ときわびと」は、学生が様々なプログラムに能動的に参加し、「仲間を作る力」「仲間と議論する力」「自らを見つめ直す力」などを身につけるアクティブ・ラーニングの科目である。この実践において、教師はグループにおける学習過程を観察し、介入と促進を行うファシリテータの役割を担った。教師の指導助言の質が学生の学びに重要な意味を持つ。教師が行う指導助言の指標になるのが、学びのプロセスを蓄積したポートフォリオ評価から得たデータである。本稿では「まなぶる▶ときわびとⅠ」におけるポートフォリオ評価の実際を分析し、目標と指導と評価の一体化を図ることの意義と有効性について考察する。|"Manaburu-Tokiwabito" was introduced as a core subject for Kobe Tokiwa University's fundamental curriculum in 2017. "Manaburu-Tokiwabito" is a course in which students aim to gain people skills, discussion skills, and the ability to analyze oneself through group work. Therefore, it is an active learning course that encourages students to participate in various programs through their own initiative. The teacher observed the process of learning in students' group work and took a facilitator role, conducting intervention and assistance in this practice. The quality of instructor guidance and advice is of importance to student learning. The teacher used the data found from the portfolio assessment as the guideline. This report analyzes the actual portfolio assessment used in "Manaburu-Tokiwabito I" and considers the effectiveness of the integration of its goals, instruction, and assessment.

平成28年に成立した「義務教育の段階における普通教育に相当する教育の機会の確保等に関する法律（教育機会確保法）」では、その審議の過程で保守／リベラルの揺らぎがあった。本稿では、その揺らぎの背後に「学校に行く」ということの自明性がいま問い直される事態を見、本稿では、その自明性の危機の中にあって、教育行政が果たすべき役割を、正義の観点から考え直し、そのうえで、その一翼を担うべき適応指導教室の実態と課題を明らかにする、その一歩として本研究がとるアプローチを明らかにした。|In the law concerning the securing of opportunities for education equivalent to ordinary education at the stage of compulsory education (Educational opportunity securing law), established in Heisei 28,there was fluctuation of conservatism / liberalism during the deliberation process. In this article, we see a situation where the obviousness of "going to school" behind that fluctuation is questioned, and the roles that educational administration should fulfill in that situation are considered from the perspective of justice. In addition, I revealed the approach taken by this research as a step to clarify the actual situation and problems of the specially designated guidance classroom that should be a part of roles.

昨今、教育界においてエビデンス論が勢いを増している。その象徴に、中室牧子の著書『「学力」の経済学』のベストセラー現象がある。小論は、ガバナンス論の観点からエビデンス論を検討することにより中室が提起するエビデンス論の脆弱性を示す。結果、同論はその前にも後にも現場に生きるローカルノレッジとの対話の余地はなく、上から目線の啓蒙者に坐してしまっている点に問題がある。教育現場にとって研究が坐しうる位置を考えると、一方では啓蒙者の位置を得ようとする論があり、他方では教育現場にとって研究は無益であるという声もある。前者は解体したところであるが、では解は後者に収斂するのだろうか。小論は、その前者でも後者でもないメタガバナンスという位置に可能性を見出すべく、進化生物学の知見を借りながら論を展開した。真っ暗闇の適応度地形を可能な限りよりなだらかにし、また案内役を買って出ることが、その役割としてありうるだろう。|This paper examines the truth or falsehood of Makiko Nakamuro's theory of evidence-based education. In the discussion, this paper reveals the frailty of the theory, for it has no room for dialogue with local knowledge form the field. On the one hand, it is said that educational research or researchers play an instructional and enlightening role in the educational field, while on the other hand, it is said that they are not useful. Though it is suggested that the former line of thought is wrong, this paper asks if the latter is generally applicable. This paper provides another possibility, of meta-governance, which leads the progresses under the fitness landscape.

大学改革待ったなしの状況であり、その中で教職協働の必要性に対する認識が広まっている。今回、教職協働の取り組みを通じて本学の教学マネジメント改革の理念構築を行った。その結果、本学の建学の精神と「理性と感性を兼ね備えた専門職業人の育成」という言葉を核としながら「ときわ教育目標」を作成し、またそれをもとに「アドミッション・ポリシー」「カリキュラム・ポリシー」「ディプロマ・ポリシー」の3つのポリシーに加え、「アセスメント・ポリシー」ならびに我が国で初めて提唱することになった「ステューデント・サポート・ポリシー」を含めた5つのポリシー、さらには本学の学修全体をとおして獲得すべき力を具体的に列挙した「ときわコンピテンシー」からなる【まなびのre：デザイン】を構築するに至った。|This paper discusses idea-building through collaboration amongst faculty at institutions of learning. Particularly, as a case study, and in an effort to improve the management at our own university, we attempted to conceptualize this topic from the perspective of collaboration between academic faculty and administrative staff. We were able to evaluate the school's management in its entirety, and developed a system of exercises to determine how management can improve with greater collaboration between academic faculty and administrative staff. This idea comprises of five policies, along with competency-based educational goals. The five policies are: the diploma policy, the admission policy, the curriculum policy, the assessment policy, and the student support policy. The student support policy is a novel and remarkable concept in the universities of Japan.

知の創造プロセスに関する先行研究では、これまでいくつかのモデルが提唱されてきた。先に我々は、知の創造理論について、数学の一分野であるノード（点）とエッジ（線）で結ばれた「グラフ」を用いたグラフ理論や、ライフサイエンスの分野である「タンパク質相互作用ネットワーク（PPI： Protein-Protein Interaction）」などを援用して、知の創造プロセスについて「増殖段階」「混在段階」「創造段階」の3段階からなる【知のネットワーク成長モデル】を提唱した。本稿では、従来モデルにさらにタグという概念を援用し、新たに【知のタグネットワーク・タグモデル】を提唱する。| Research on the knowledge-creation process has yielded several models of knowledge-creation. By applying the notion of "tags" to existing knowledge-creation models, and inspired by protein-protein interaction networks and graph theory, we propose a novel knowledge-creation model, which we term "tag-based knowledge networks."

昨今の大学運営において、教職協働の必要性に対する認識が広まっている。今回、本学の教学マネジメントの改善に資するため、教職協働によりその課題の可視化に取り組んだ。その結果、本学の教学マネジメントの全体を俯瞰することができ、なおかつその課題を可視化することができる活動システムを描くに至った。教職協働を「知」の観点から捉えるとき、その取り組みは異なる専門知同士の相互交流とみることができる。とはいえ、知の相互交流は決して容易なことではない。「専門家/非専門家」の境界線を固定的に捉える限り、知の流れは一方向的にしかならない。知の交流が促進されるためには、パラレルな知性が駆使されるよう環境を整備することが求められる。サロンのような場の設定、ファシリテーターの役割を担う人材の配置がその例である。このような環境があってこそ、セレンディピティの可能性が高まり、知の交流に留まらず新たな知の創造に至るのである。

知の創造プロセスに関する先行研究では、これまでいくつかのモデルが提唱されてきた。本稿で我々は、知の創造プロセスについて「増殖段階」「混在段階」「創造段階」の3段階からなる【知のネットワーク成長モデル】を新たに提唱する。本モデルが従来のモデルと異なる点は、知の創造理論について、数学の一分野であるノード(点)とエッジ(線)で結ばれた「グラフ」を用いたグラフ理論や、ライフサイエンスの分野である「タンパク質相互作用ネットワーク(PPI: Protein-Protein Interaction)」などを援用して、知の創造プロセスを提唱している点にある。さらに「混在段階」と「創造段階」の溝(キャズム)を越え、混在させた知に新しい価値を付加するためのセレンディピティの必要性についても言及している点にある。

In the United States, many efforts to develop educational programs based on research results have been made by universities and private sector organizations. By adopting these programs, school districts and schools receive support from the universities and organizations. This article discusses one of these educational programs, "Success for All" (SFA), a schoolwide program for students in Grades pre-K to 6 which organizes resources to ensure that every student will reach the third grade on time with adequate basic skills and build on this basis throughout the elementary grades, with no student being allowed to fall between the cracks. Efforts of this kind include an issue raised from the point of view of administration: governance. In efforts of this kind, meta-governance is set properly for governance to function more effectively. Governance is always open to the possibility of failure. Meta-governance is widely defined as the "governing of governing", and is to govern the network properly in order to avoid the possibility of failure of governance, or to cope with the difficulty of governance. Then, what meta-governance would be required in order to ensure effective governance? This article analyzes the form of meta-governance that aim to effectively govern the governance in the SFA program. The points that should be noted in terms of capturing the meta-governance are (a) to take into account the self-organization of the network without relying on the linear model "those who control/ who are controlled", and (b) to capture the meta-governance functionally, rather than substantively. Given these two points, meta-governance refers to (the infrastructure for organizing and encouraging the dynamic mechanism) the self-organization of the network. The analytical challenges to be addressed in this article are (1) to capture the infrastructure needed for a self-organizing network in SFA, and (2) to explore the reason why the SFA Foundation could function as meta-governor. The issue to be addressed first as meta-governance in SFA, is to incorporate the research knowledge into practice, because research knowledge is heterologous for education governance. However, research knowledge cannot be incorporated directly into practice in its raw form: it must first be translated into a practicable form (e.g. lesson plan, teacher manual). And in order to enhance the practicability, training for teachers is also required. However, since the teachers could rebel against unilateral impositions of research knowledge, it is necessary to employ additional measures to alleviate the psychological resistance of the teachers. In order to solve this problem, (a) the SFA Foundation requires the schools to hold in-school votes before adopting the SFA program, and (b) the foundation permits the teachers to adapt it. The foundation will approve a adaptation as long as it is intended to respond to school goals and is intended to improve the learning outcomes of students. Further, in order to maintain a proper balance between adaptation and fidelity, the SFA Foundation devises methods by which the facilitators attempt to keep the teachers on pace and limit the number of adaptations. Then, why could the SFA Foundation function as meta-governor? In order for the foundation to function as meta-governor, the presence of the code <effective / not effective> is required, and by this code, all the meta-governance organized under this code is meaningful. But more important and fundamental is that the position of meta-governor is not given from the outside, but that the function is held barely in the dynamic process on self-reference.

Now "evidence" is required even in education. In the United States, the discussions around what is "scientific educational research" have been notable since 2000. This paper discusses epistemological and methodological positions from which one investigates and examines the effectiveness of the interventions, what works on the outcome interested, or causation between the variables. On the methodological positions, Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) is especially important element to decide the position because quantitative researchers often regard RCT as a determinate means to discover the causation. The purpose of this paper is to show the diversity and disparity on the epistemological and methodological positions. This paper examine the five actors, (i) U.S. Department of Education、(ii) SRE、(iii) Pierre、(iv) Howe、(v) Maxwell. First, Department of Education takes a stance of positivism and regard RCT as 'gold standard' for evaluating an intervention' s effectiveness. Second, SRE takes a stance of postpositivism whose difference from positivism is accepting the incompleteness of human. postpositivism is that SRE gives qualitative method the role in the scientific research, although it remains limited to the auxiliary role. Third, Pierre takes a stance of postpositivism and makes a critical attack on SRE in the terms of not accepting the diversity of epistemology and methodology. Fourth, Howe exposes the problem of black-box about RCT. Finally, Maxwell takes "realist approaches in philosophy that see causation as fundamentally a matter of processes and mechanisms rather than observed regularities."

In this article, it is attempted to deconstruct the schema with which we hunt causation which is labeled the regularity approach, and to replace it with the realist approach that sees causality as fundamentally referring to the actual causal mechanisms and processes that are involved in particular events and situations. In the regularity approach, the actual process of causality is treated as unobservable a, "black box, " and discovering whether there is a systematic relationship between inputs and outputs is focused on. This conception of causality leads to quantitative research that we need comparison in order to establish causality. In the realist approach, it is argued that causation can be identified in a single case and qualitative research is given the priority over quantitative research. Realist researchers place considerable emphasis on the context dependence of causal explanation. In the 3rd chapter, the effectiveness of Success for All is to be reconstructed into this schema.

It may be true that improving student outcomes is the ultimate purpose of all educational policymakers and educational researchers. Improving the effectiveness of the intervention, which involves an educational program, a product, a practice, or a policy aimed at improving student outcomes is a typical purpose to be accomplished. However, it should be noted that this study addressed the question "how and why can you say that intervention X caused the outcome Y?" or "what gives assurance that intervention X caused the outcome Y?" and not "did intervention X cause the outcome Y?" That is, the purpose of this study was not to discuss the effectiveness itself but pave the way for discussing the effectiveness. The target of this paper is the methodology used in the Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center report, which evaluated and rated the effectiveness of models used by the schools in the Comprehensive School Reform program. The characteristic of the methodology is a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), which is the "gold standard" for evidence-based policies in the USA. This paper demonstrates why the methodology is superior to the econometric methodology based on the theory of Cartwright.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the legitimacy of the standard of "scientifically based research". The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act seeks to improve the quality of public education by requiring educators to use programs and practices that are based on scientific research. The term "scientifically based research" appears 111 times in the NCLB Act. For all other programs under NCLB except for the Reading First program and the Comprehensive School Reform program, the law contains a highly specific definition of scientifically based research. The term "scientifically based research" includes research that is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments. The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance about implementing scientifically based research in the Reading First program and the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program. The definition of scientifically based research that applies only to the Reading First program as well as the definition of "strong evidence" in the CSR program is different from, and less rigorous than the definition that applies to all other programs in the NCLB Act.