Bridging the gap between testing and technology in schools

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 8, Issue , 2000, Pages

  Russell, Michael ^a,b   Haney, Walt ^a,c  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b Natl Bd Educ Test and Pub Plcy   (United States)

^c ERIC Clearinghouse Assess and Eval   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0007255136     PISSN: 10682341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v8n19.2000     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet Use by Teachers: Conditions of Professional Use and Teacher-Directed Student Use. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
2. Bunderson, C. V., Inouye, D. K. & Olsen, J. B. (1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In Linn, R. L., Educational Measurement (3rd ed.), Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, pp. 367-407.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) Hillsadale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Council of Chief State School Officers (1998). Key State Education Policies on K-12 Education: Standards, Graduation, Assessment, Teacher Licensure, Time and Attendance. Washington, DC.
5. Fabos, B. & Young, M. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3) 217-259.
6. Fisher, M. & Elliott, S. (2000) Proficiency: The test questioned. Dayton Daily News (March 12). http://www.activedayton.com/news/2000/03/12/ 0313main001.html
7. Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a national strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
8. Haney, W., Madaus, G., & Lyons, R. (1993). The Fractured Marketplace for Standardized Testing. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Haney, W. & Russel, M. (1999). Low-tech tests shortchange high-tech students.Christian Science Monitor. July 1, 1999.
10. Holmes, R. (1999). A gender bias in the MCAS? MetroWest Town Online. http://www.townonline.com/metrowest/archive/022499/.
11. Heubert, J. & Hauser, R. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. (Report of the Committee on Appropriate Test Use). Washington, D.C.: Natioinal Academy Press. (Available on-line at http://www.nap.edu).
12. Market Data Retrieval. (1999). Technology in Education 1999. (A report issued by Market Data Retrieval). Shelton, CN: Market Data Retrieval.
13. Mead, A. D. & Drasgow, (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114 (3), 449-58.
14. Newburger, E. C. (1997). Computer Use In the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
15. Powers, D., Fowles, M, Farnum, M, & Ramsey, P. (1994). Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word-processed essays. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 220-233.
16. Russell, M. & Haney, W. (1997). Testing Writing on Computers: An Experiment Comparing Student Performance on Tests Conducted via Computer and via Paper-and-Pencil. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5(1). Available online: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html.
17. Russell, M. (1999). Testing Writing on Computers: A Follow-up Study Comparing Performance on Computer and on Paper. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). Available online: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20/.
18. Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds. Reading MA: Perseus Books.
19. Snyder, T. D. & Hoffman, C. (1990). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
20. Snyder, T. D. & Hoffman, C. (1994). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
21. Wolf, F. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. SAGE University series on quatitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07-059. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
22. Zandvliet, D. & Farragher, P. (1997). A comparison of computer-administered and written tests. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(4), 423-438.