Spring 2015
COURSE SYLLABUS
Syllabus developed by Dr. Richard McEwing, Dr. Howard Pullman, and Dr. M. Kathleen Cripe.
Educational Assessment
FOUN 3710 - 3 s.h. - CRN 22335)
Prerequisites:
FOUN 1501. (Note: When grouped with other courses for the purposes of
block instruction, students must be admitted to the complete instructional
block to take this course.)
Class meetings:
Tuesday and Thursday, 11:00 to 12:15; BCOE Room 4302
Text/Resources: Stiggins,R. & Chappuis,J. An Introduction to Student-Involved Assessment
For Learning (2012). Pearson.
McEwing, Richard. Website - http://people.ysu.edu/~ramcewing
(Many details related to this course are on the class web site)
Instructor:
Dr. Richard A. McEwing, Professor Emeritus
Department of Educational Foundations, Research, Technology & Leadership
Beeghly College of Education
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, OH 44555-0001
Office:
Beeghly College of Education, Rm 4113
Office Hours:
TTh 10:00 to 11:00; 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm
Office Phone:
(330) 941-1929
E-mail:
[email protected]
Technology/Materials Fee: Candidates are required to have purchased individual TaskStream
accounts. TaskStream is a web-based program used the test construction project in this course and
is the web-based program used throughout the teacher education program.
Catalog Description: Critical review of types, purposes, procedures, uses, and limitations of assessment
strategies and techniques including authentic assessment, value-added assessment, and alternate
assessment. Standardized testing and implications for current practice.
Critical Tasks: The FOUN 3710 Essential task provides an assessment of the candidate’s capabilities in
constructing a classroom test appropriate for the individual’s teaching field. The classroom test must
include assessment alternatives for three diverse students. This assignment must be submitted on
TaskStream.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 1 of 12
Spring 2015
Course Outline - Class meeting topics and due dates for submissions are scheduled to follow the
sequence below. Assignments worth points and Due Dates are written in red. Should
adjustments to this plan be necessary, they will be announced in class.
Dates
Projected Class Topics & Assignments
Jan 13-22
*Jan 13
Introduction to Course & TaskStream
Pre- Assessment (#1)
Classroom Assessment for Student Success
Understanding Why We Assess
Basic Measurement Concepts
Syllabus, Website
Clear Achievement Expectations
Rubrics
Designing Quality Classroom Assessments
Bloom, Standards, Objectives
Standards, Objectives Assignment Due (#2)
Stiggins Chap 3 & Website
Readings-Website
Stiggins Chap 4 & Website
Readings-Website
Selected Response
Selected Response Items Due (#3)
Backward Design
Stiggins Chap 5 & Website
Written Response (Essay) Assessment
Written Response Items Assignment Due (#4)
Feedback
Stiggins Chap 6 & Website
Performance Assessment
Performance Assessment Due (#5)
Test Administration, Cheating
Stiggins Chap 7 & Website
Feb 24, 26
Personal Communication as Assessment
Assessing Dispositions
What Lies Beneath . . .
Stiggins Chap 8 & Website
Stiggins Chap 9 & Website
Website
Mar 3, 5
Record Keeping
Report Cards
Assigning Grades
Conferences as Productive Communication
Stiggins Chap 10 & Website
Stiggins Chap 11 & Website
Website
Stiggins Chap 13 & Website
Jan 27, 29
*Jan 27
Feb 3, 5
*Feb 3
Feb 10, 12
*Feb 10
Feb 17, 19
*Feb 17
Related Material and Readings
Stiggins Chap 1 & Website
Stiggins Chap 2 & Website
Website
Readings-Website
Readings-Website
Website
*Mar 5
Test Construction Project Due – on TaskStream (#6) – NOTE . . . students may
decide to postpone the submission of this project until Final Exam Week
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 2 of 12
Spring 2015
Mar 10, 12
NO ON-CAMPUS CLASSES – SPRING BREAK
NO ASSESSMENT CLASS MEETINGS ON CAMPUS NEXT SIX WEEKS, CANDIDATES
TOTALLY IN THE FIELD ASSIGNMENT
Mar 17, 19
Week One in the Field (Week Beginning March 16)
Mar 24, 26
Week Two in the Field (Week Beginning March 23)
Mar31,Apr2 Week Three in the Field (Week Beginning March 30)
*Apr 2
Report Card / Record Keeping Assignment Due (#7) – Submitted via email
Apr 7, 9
Week Four in the Field (Week Beginning April 6)
Apr 14, 16
*Apr 16
Week Five in the Field (Week Beginning April 13)
Sum/Anal of Assessment System Assignment Due (#8) – Submitted via email
Apr 21, 23
Week Six in the Field (Week Beginning April 20 – Ending April 24)
BACK AT YSU
Apr 28
*Apr 28
Apr 39
Apr 30
*Apr 30
*Apr 30
Communication with Standardized Test Scores
Norms and Criteria
High Stakes Testing
Feedback Assignment Due (#9)
Stiggins Chap 14
Website
Website
Portfolios as Rich Communications
Value Added in Ohio
Self-Evaluation
Salary Data
Class Participation Assessment (#10)
Post - Assessment (#11)
Stiggins Chap 12
Website
Website
Website
May 7
Final Exam Thursday 10:30 to 12:30
*You have until 12:30 to submit your Test Construction Project
Candidates will be meeting in work groups during Final Exam week to conduct the
AYA Cluster Course SED 3706 Videotaping Review as your final exam
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 3 of 12
Spring 2015
Course Grading:
The course Grade Determination Checklist below indicates the maximum point values assigned
to each evaluation area:
Evaluation Area
Points Possible
No. 1 Pre-Assessment
5
No. 2 Identify Standard/Write Objective
5
No. 3 Selected Response Items/Key
7
No. 4 Essay Items/Key (rubric)
7
No. 5 Performance Items/Key
7
No. 6 Test Construction Project
20
No. 7 Report on Record Keeping/
Analyze Report Card
8
No. 8 Summary/Analysis of Assessment System
7
No. 9 Feedback Assignment
15
No. 10 Class participation/discussion
14
No. 11 Post-Test
5
---100 Total
Related Course Obj.
1.3
1.4
1.2, 1.6
1.2, 1.6
1.2, 1.6
1.3, 1.6, 2.1 - 2.5
1.1 - 1.3
1.1 - 1.3
1.3 - 1.5
3.1 – 3.6
1.3
Each student starts the class with 100 points. The checklist points earned above are added to
determine the course grade as follows:
181 - 200 . . . . . . . . A
161 - 180 . . . . . . . . B
141 - 160 . . . . . . . . C
121 - 140 . . . . . . . . D
101 - 120 . . . . . . . . F
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF EVALUATION AREAS:
Pre-Assessment (5 points)
All candidates will be given a pre-assessment at the beginning of the course. The instructor will
use this pre-assessment to guide class and individual discussions with candidates and to set the
stage for modification of instruction based on pre-assessment. Each candidate completing the
pretest receives all 5 points.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 4 of 12
Spring 2015
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF EVALUATION AREAS (continued):
Identify Standard/Write Objective (5 points)
Candidate will choose a Standard in their content area and grade level and write three measurable
lesson objectives that assess each standard utilizing Bloom’s Taxonomy (see Standards and
Objectives –Assignment #2 link for instructions) AND include a pre-assessment plan and a
formative assessment plan. These items will be turned in at the beginning of a designated class
and critiqued by the class the class will provide feedback. 3 points are earned for having the
complete assignment ready at start of class; 2 points are earned for having your work on the
assignment critiqued reviewed by class. When you turn your assignment in, place you name on
the back and either the word YES or NO. By the way, we will be doing this assignment in a
modified “flipped teaching” mode (to be explained in class). These items (in revised form) may
be used by you as a basis for the Test Construction Project.
Item Writing: Selected Response Items / Essay Items / Performance Items. Including
answer keys) (7 points each item set; 21 points total) Each candidate will develop grade level
questions and answer keys (Selected Response, Essay, Performance) in their content area based
on the Common Core (Academic Content) Standards and objectives identified above. These
items will be turned in at the beginning of a designated class and the class will provide feedback.
4 points are earned for having the questions/answers ready at start of class; 3 points are earned
for having the questions/answers reviewed by class (using same procedures as described on
previous assignment). Taken together, the item writing requirement is worth a total of 21 points.
Collectively, these items (in revised form) may be used in the Test Construction Project.
Report on Record Keeping/Grading/Report Card (8 points)
See guidelines and scoring rubric on instructor’s website.
Summary/Analysis of Assessment in Field Placement (7 points)
See guidelines and scoring rubric on instructor’s website.
Feedback to Students Assignment (15 points)
See guidelines and scoring rubric on instructor’s website.
Class Participation (14 points)
While the knowledge base related to this course can be acquired through reading the text, the
examination of (and reflection on) our ideas with regard to this knowledge is attained only by
being present at class activities and discussions. In recognition of this commitment, individuals
who attend all classes earn 14 pts. For every class absence, 2 points are deducted.
Post-Assessment (5 points)
Each candidate completing the post-test receives all 5 points.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 5 of 12
Spring 2015
Essential Task – The Test Construction Project (20 points)
This assignment, designated as an essential task, requires the construction of a whole unit/topic
summative assessment plan (to include a final exam) appropriate for the candidate’s teaching
field. The candidate’s project must be submitted to TaskStream where it will be evaluated by the
instructor. See the 10-page document “Test Construction Project and Annotated Rubric” on the
class website. This project is worth a potential of 20 points.
Other Important Course Definitions and Policies
Class Cancellation: Notice that this class is being cancelled for any one day because of instructor illness, or other reasons, will be sent to the
student address <@student.ysu.edu> as soon as possible. University-wide closure or class cancellation is a decision made through the Presidents
office, and announced via the YSU homepage and on WYSU-FM radio.
Academic Honesty - Departmental Policy: All candidates are expected to comply with generally accepted professional ethics of Academic
Honesty in meeting their course requirements (refer to http://penguinconnection.ysu.edu/handbook/Policies/POLICIES.shtml). Candidates are
expected to submit materials that are respectful of intellectual property rights, as well as complying with all Federal Copyright Laws (refer to
http://www.copyright.gov/). Any breach of this code of ethics will be handled according to the YSU Student Handbook. Any proven acts of
cheating, plagiarizing, or engaging in any form of academic dishonesty, could result in a severe disciplinary action, an “F” grade for the assignment
or course, and possible referral to the Office of Student Affairs for disciplinary action.
Students with Disabilities: Youngstown State University is committed to providing reasonable accommodations for all persons with disabilities.
This syllabus is available in alternative format upon request. In accordance with University procedures, if you have a documented disability and
require accommodations to obtain equal access in this course, please contact me privately to discuss your specific needs. You must be registered
with the Center for Student Progress Disability Services, located at 275 Fifth Avenue, and provide a letter of accommodation to coordinate
reasonable accommodations. You can reach CSP Disability Services at 330-941-1372. Youngstown State University does not discriminate on the
basis of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression, disability, age, religion or veteran/military status in its
programs or activities. Please visit www.ysu.edu/ada-accessibility for contact information for persons designated to handle questions about this
policy.
Incomplete Grade Policy: An incomplete grade of an “I” may be given to a student who has been doing satisfactory work in a course but, for reasons
beyond control of the student and deemed justifiable by the instructor, had not completed all requirements for a course when grades were submitted. A
written explanation of the reason for the “I” will be forwarded to the Registrar for inclusion in the student’s permanent record. Upon subsequent
completion of the course requirements, the instructor initiates a grade change. Incompletes must be completed during the following term by these
deadlines: Spring semester incompletes finished by Sept. 1, summer incompletes by October 1, and fall incompletes by March 1. If courses are not
completed by the designated date, the “I” automatically converts to an “F.” If graduation occurs within the time period, the “Incomplete” grade will be
converted to an “F” prior to graduation.
Candidate Disposition Alert Process: The purpose of this alert process is to identify candidate performance or conduct that fails to satisfy
professional expectations associated with professionalism, inclusivity and collaboration determined by the BCOE faculty as necessary standards to
effectively serve all students or clients. The Candidate Performance Alert form is completed when a concern is raised about a candidate’s
performance during any class, sponsored activity by the Beeghly College of Education, or during a YSU required field or clinical experience. This
form may be used when a candidate engages in conduct, irrespective of its time or location, which raises substantial questions about the candidate’s
ability to perform his or her role as an educational professional. The Candidate Performance Alert Form can be used by university faculty, staff,
supervisors, cooperating teachers, or other school personnel when they have a concern, other than one that can be effectively addressed through
routine means of supervision.
Essential Tasks: Selected performance-based assignments reflect a candidate’s knowledge, skills and/or dispositions and are aligned with the
standards for teacher preparation of the licensure area. These tasks assess a candidate’s ability to move through the teacher preparation
program in an effective way, meeting and/or exceeding expectations in these professional standards. Such tasks typically make up a
substantial proportion of the final course grade. Therefore, candidates must perform satisfactorily on essential tasks to pass the course.
Failure to effectively pass the Essential Task will usually result in remediation through repetition of the course to guarantee that each teacher
candidate is prepared to be an effective educator once the candidate leaves Youngstown State University.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 6 of 12
Spring 2015
FOUNDATIONS 3710: KNOWLEDGE BASE RATIONALE, CONNECTIONS TO THE BCOE
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND OHIO’S PERFORMANCE-BASED LICENSURE EXPECTATIONS, AND
COURSE OBJECTIVES
I. Knowledge Base Rationale:
As the bell curve becomes obsolete as an acceptable standard of teachers' success with students as our democratizing and developing society demands more, and more equitably disbursed,
education - teachers must be able to successfully to teach groups of students whom they have not,
in the past, succeeded in teaching. To attain this emerging professional standard, teachers will
need to stronger, in depth and breadth, in their three traditional areas of learning: content
knowledge; pedagogy; and knowledge of the learners and the teaching-learning situation in their
familial, local, societal, cultural, and political contexts. Educational Assessment addresses a key
component of pedagogy – assessment.
This course, like its Foundations predecessor, Foun 1501, continues to foster commitment to the
principle that children of all colors, backgrounds, creeds, abilities, and styles can learn. The
focus of the course in educational assessment to include assessments generated by teachers and
standardized assessments teachers must interpret. The class meeting discussions, field work
assignments, and course assessments flow from intertwined topics. The overriding approach
used is to introduce the techniques of “how” along with the concerns of “to what purpose.”
The following are knowledge bases used in setting the course objectives -1. If assessment tools and approaches are not of high quality or not appropriate for the purpose
used, there is potential for harm when decisions affecting students' futures are being made based
on the results. The most important factors in determining technical quality are the reliability,
validity, and fairness of classroom assessments. The Praxis II PLT Category II - Assessment
topics will be a central guide; i.e., types of assessments, characteristics of assessments, scoring
assessments, uses of assessments, understanding of measurement theory and assessment-related
issues (Nuttall, 1989; ETS Booklet on the PLT - Tests and a Glance).
2. Professionals need to know certain statistical and measurement concepts to organize, use,
interpret and evaluate data. Candidates will learn basic concepts and develop skills in descriptive
statistics (e.g., scales, distributions, measures of central tendency, measures of variability,
measures of relationship), to understand test scores (e.g. criterion referenced interpretation,
norm-referenced interpretation, percentiles, standard scores) and the purposes/timing of testing;
e.g. placement, diagnostic, formative, summative (U.S. Congress, 1992, February; Blommers,
1977; Bloom, Hastings & Madaus, 1971; Coladarci & Coladarci, 1980; Hooke, 1983).
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 7 of 12
Spring 2015
3. The primary aim of assessment is to foster learning of worthwhile academic content for
all students (Wolf, Bixby, Glenn, & Gardner, 1991). Many educators believe that what gets
assessed is what gets taught and that the format of assessment influences the format of
instruction (O'Day & Smith, 1993).
4. Assessments of student achievement are ever changing. Candidates need to understand not
only the basics of assessment technique, but they also need to learn to think critically, analyze,
and make inferences. Student assessment is the centerpiece of educational improvement efforts.
Changes in assessment may cause teachers to do things differently (Linn, 1987; Madaus, 1985).
5. Candidates need to be aware of the promise and the challenges inherent in using assessment
practices for high-stakes decisions (such as student retention, promotion, graduation, and
assignment to particular instructional groups). In many schools, districts, and states,
interpretations based on a single test score have been used to place students in low-track classes,
to require students to repeat grades, and to deny high school graduation diplomas. The negative
personal and societal effects for students are well-documented: exposure to a less challenging
curriculum, significantly increased dropout rates, and lives of unemployment and welfare
dependency (Oakes, 1986a; Oakes, 1986b; Shepard & Smith, 1986; Jaeger, 1991).
6. Authentic assessment involves candidates creating problems which are engaging or questions
of importance, in which students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and
creatively. The tasks are either replicas of, or analogous to, the kinds of problems faced by adult
citizens and consumers or professionals in the field. (Wiggins, 1993). Examples of tools or
instruments used in authentic assessment include rubrics and portfolios.
7. Value-added assessment gives candidates a powerful diagnostic tool for measuring the
effect of their own teaching academic achievement. Student performance on assessments can
be measured in two very different ways, both of which are important. Achievement describes the
absolute levels attained by students in their end-of-year tests. Growth, in contrast, describes the
progress in test scores made over the school year. Value-added assessment measures growth and
answers the question: how much value did the school staff add to the students who live in its
community? If teachers and schools are to be judged fairly, it is important to understand this
significant difference (McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2004).
8. It is key that assessment results are report effectively to students, parents and the wider
community so that their needs for information are met and they have a clear understanding of the
assessment. When properly presented, assessment reports can help build support for schools and
for initiatives that educators wish to carry out. But if assessment results are poorly reported, they
can be disregarded or interpreted incorrectly, adversely affecting students, educators, and others
in the school community. Determine the audience for the reporting activity. Reports should be
geared toward the audience (Roeber, Donovan, and Cole, 1980).
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 8 of 12
Spring 2015
9. An examination historic and current controversies in educational assessment. The issues
have less to do with technique than they do with deep seated beliefs, working conditions,
and social conditions. Issues will vary over time but typical issues would include test anxiety,
test wise-ness, coaching, the computer in assessment, environmental assessment, and the politics
of assessment (Messick, 1989; Kochman, (1989).
II. Connections to the BCOE Conceptual Framework and Ohio’s Performance-Based Licensure
Expectations:
The BCOE Conceptual Framework “Reflection in Action” uses the mnemonic device
“REFLECT” to specify its seven keys components. These seven components are then specified
as candidate learning outcomes in the “BCOE Institutional Standards & Outcome Statements.”
These outcome statements are index to the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession in a
matrix called the Alignment of Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession and BCOE
Conceptual Framework.
III. Course Objectives: (OS#_ indicates Ohio Standard connections; R#_ indicates BCOE
Conceptual Framework connections.)
A. Cognitive Domain (Knowledge categories - Bloom's taxonomy, revised 2001)
1.1. Remember (was Knowledge)
1.1.1. Knows the definitions of common measurement terms,
e.g., validity, reliability, mastery (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.1.2. Knows where to find sources of information about
standardized testing (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.1.3. Knows basic testing concepts, e.g., norms, standard
error of measurement, percentile rank (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.1.4. Knows how to develop learning outcomes objectives using
taxonomies, domains, categories, illustrative verbs (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.2. Understand (was Comprehension)
1.2.1. Understands the difference between
criterion-referenced and norm-referenced testing (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.2.2. Understands advantages and disadvantages of
various item types (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.2.3. Understands how factors unrelated to the test
itself may influence the test results (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.2.4. Generalizes principles that under gird sound test
administration procedures. (OS#3.1; R#1B)
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 9 of 12
Spring 2015
1.3. Apply (was Application)
1.3.1. Predicts appropriate situational use for the various
categories of evaluation, e.g., placement,
diagnostic, formative, summative (OS#3.2; R#1B).
1.3.2. Demonstrates correct usage of a variety of evaluation
procedures, e.g., anecdotal records, rating scales,
checklists, achievement and aptitude tests (OS#3.2; R#1B).
1.3.3. - 1.3.7 (See Psychomotor Domain)
1.4. Analyze (was Analysis)
1.4.1. Differentiates among the contributions and limitations
of standardized tests and other high stakes assessments (OS#3.3; R#1C).
1.4.2. Identifies strengths and weaknesses of teacher-made
classroom tests (OS#3.3; R#1C).
1.4.3. Interprets the results of standardized tests (OS#3.3; R#1C).
1.5. Evaluate (was Evaluation)
1.5.1. Judges the relative worth of a wide variety of educational
data possibilities (OS#3.5; R#1C).
1.5.2. Evaluates data to make decisions (OS#3.5; R#1C).
1.6. Create (was Synthesis)
1.6.1. Formulates a well-balanced exam (TaskStream) (OS#3.1; R#1B).
B. Psychomotor Domain (Skills)
2.1. Develops a table of specifications (OS#3.2; R#1B).
2.2. Constructs various item types (OS#3.2; R#1B).
2.3. Assembles items into a classroom test (OS#3.2; R#1B).
2.4. Computes simple descriptive statistics (OS#3.2; R#1B).
2.5. Performs item analysis (OS#3.2; R#1B).
C. Affective Domain (Dispositions)
3.1. Accepts the importance of the individual in meaningful
interpretation of test results (OS#3.5; R#1C).
3.2. Shows awareness of professional ethical standards relating
to confidentiality of test scores (OS#3.4; R#3A).
3.3. Appreciates the role of reporting and communicating
testing information to all legitimate parties (OS#3.4; R#3D).
3.4. Values testing as means to obtain reliable data in
order to make decisions about students (OS#3.5; R#1C).
3.5. Values multifaceted assessment as a means of creating
fairness in a grading policy (OS#3.1; R#1B).
3.6. Displays sensitivity to social and political issues related to testing (OS#3.4; R#3D).
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 10 of 12
Spring 2015
References
Baker, E. L., O'Neill, H. F., Jr., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for
performance-based assessments. American Psychologist, 48, 1210-1218.
Blommers, Paul J. (1977). Elementary statistical methods in psychology and education. Lanham,
Md.: University Press of America.
Bloom, Benjamin S., J. Thomas Hastings, George F. Madaus. Handbook On Formative And
Summative Evaluation Of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Braun, Henry I. “Using Student Progress to Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added
Models,” Educational Testing Service - Policy Information Center. September 2005.
Coladarci, Arthur and Theodore Coladarci. (1980). Elementary Descriptive Statistics. San
Francisco: Wadsworth, Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994, Spring). Performance assessment and educational equity. Harvard
Educational Review, 64(1), 5-29.
Educational Testing Service (ETS) website (www.ets.org).
Hooke, Robert. (1983). How to tell the liars from the statisticians. New York: M. Dekker.
Jaeger, R.M. (1991). Legislative perspectives on statewide testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3),
239-242.
Kochman, T. (1989). Black and white cultural styles in pluralistic perspective. In B. R. Gifford
(Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language and culture. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Linn, R. (1987). Accountability: The comparison of educational systems and the quality of test
results. Educational Policy, 1 (2), 181-198.
Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., & Dunbar, S.B. (1991, November). Complex, performance-based
assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20 (8), 15-21.
Madaus, G. (1985). Public policy and the testing profession - You've never had it so good?
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 4 (1), 5-11.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 11 of 12
Spring 2015
McCaffrey, Daniel, Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, Daniel, and Hamilton, Laura. "Evaluating ValueAdded Models for Teacher Accountability." An Education Report by the Rand Corporation
(prepared for the Carnegie Corporation), 2004.
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment.
Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.
Nuttall, D. L. (1989). The validity of assessments. In P. Murphy & B. Moon (Ed.), Developments
in learning and assessment (pp. 265-276). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Oakes, J. (1986a, Fall). Beyond tracking. Educational Horizons, 65(1), 32-35.
Oakes, J. (1986b, November). Tracking, inequality, and the rhetoric of school reform: Why
schools don't change. Journal of Education, 168(1), 61-80.
O'Day, J.A., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In S.
Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-311). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roeber, E. D., Donovan, D., & Cole, R. (1980, December). Telling the statewide testing story ...
and living to tell it again. Phi Delta Kappan, 62(4), 273-274.
Sanders, William. "Beyond No Child Left Behind.” 2003 Annual Meeting. American
Educational Research Association. Chicago. 2003.
Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. New
York: Falmer Press.
Value-Added Assessment Special Issue, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,
Volume 29 No 1, Spring 2004
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., III, & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating
new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1992, February). Testing in American
Schools: Asking the right questions. (OTA-SET-519). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 12 of 12