Assessing new assessments: How do they measure up?

Theory into Practice

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 196-204

  Herman, Joan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031232301     PISSN: 00405841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00405849709543769     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (1996). Making standards matter 1996: An annual fifty state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Aschbacher, P.R. (1994, June). Helping educators to develop and use alternative assessments: Barriers and facilitators. Educational Policy, 8, 202-223.
3. Baker, E. (1994). Learning based assessments of history understanding. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 97-106.
4. Baxter, G., & Glaser, R. (1996). An approach to analyzing the cognitive complexity of science performance assessments. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
5. Bond, L.A., Braskamp, D., & Roeber, E. (1996). The status report of the assessment programs in the United States. Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL)/Council of Chief State School Officers.
6. Catterall, J., & Winters, L. (1994). Economic analysis of testing: Competency, certification, and "authentic" assessments (CSE Technical Report No. 383). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
7. Corbett, H.D., & Wilson, B.L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Equity issues in performance based assessment. In M.T. Nettles & A.L. Nettles (Eds.), Equity and excellence in educational testing and assessment (pp. 89-114). Boston: Kluwer.
9. Deming, W.E. (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
10. Dorr-Bremme, D., & Herman, J. (1986). Assessing student achievement: A profile of classroom practices (CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation No. 11). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
11. Dunbar, S.B., Koretz, D.M., & Hoover, H.D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 298-303.
12. Flexor, R. (1995). How "messing about" with performance assessment in mathematics affects what happens in classrooms (CSE Technical Report No. 396). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
13. Gearhart, M., Wolf, S., Burkey, B., & Whittaker, A. (1994). Engaging teachers in students' narrative writing (CSE Technical Report No. 377). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
14. Gordon, E. (1996). Equity and assessment. Invited presentation at Moving up to Complex Assessment Systems. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST).
15. Hardy, R.A. (1995). Examining the costs of performance assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 8(2), 121-134.
16. Herman, J., Aschbacher, P., & Winters, L. (1992). Practical guide to alternative assessment. Arlington, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
17. Herman, J., & Klein, D. (1996). Evaluating equity in alternative assessment: An illustration of opportunity to learn issues. Journal of Educational Research, 89(9), 246-256.
18. Hoover, H.D., & Bray, G.B. (1995, April). The research and development phase: Can performance assessment be cost effective? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
19. Johnson, J., & Immerwahr, J. (1994). First things first: What Americans expect from the public schools. New York: Public Agenda.
20. Kellaghan, T., & Madaus, G. (1991, November). National testing: Lessons for America from Europe. Educational Leadership, 49, 87-93.
21. Koretz, D.M., Barron, S., Mitchell, K.J., & Stecher, B.M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
22. Koretz, D.M., Madaus, G.F., Haertel, E., & Beaton, A.E. (1992). National educational standards and testing: A response to the National Council on Education Standards and Testing. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
23. Koretz, D.M., Mitchell, K.J., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). Perceived effects of the Maryland State Assessment Program (CSE Technical Report No. 409). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
24. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., McCaffrey, D., & Deibert, E. (1993). Can portfolios assess student performance and influence instruction? The 1991-92 Vermont experience (CSE Technical Report No. 371). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
25. Linn, R., Baker, E., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
26. Linn, R.L., Burton, E., DeStefano, L., & Hanson, M. (1995). Generalizability of New Standards Project 1993 Pilot Study Tasks in Mathematics (CSE Technical Report No. 392). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
27. McDonnell, L.M. (1996). The politics of state testing: Implementing new student assessments. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
28. McDonnell, L.M., & Choisser, C. (in press). Testing and teaching: Local implementation of new state assessments. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
29. Picus, L., & Tralli, A. (in press). Alternative assessment progress: What are their true costs? Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
30. Popham, W.J., Cruse, K.L., Rankin, S.C., Sandifer, P.D., & Williams, R.L. (1985). Measurement-driven instruction: It's on the road. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 628-634.
31. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B.G. Gifford & M.C. O'Conner (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer.
32. Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 215-232.
33. Shepard, L. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? (CSE Technical Report No. 342). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
34. Smith, M.L. (1996). Reforming schools by reforming assessment: Consequences of the Arizona student assessment program (CSE Technical Report No. 425). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
35. Stecher, B. (1995). The cost of performance assessment in science. Invited symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
36. Webb, N. (1996). Alignment of content standards and assessment measures in mathematics and science. Invited session at the annual CRESST Conference. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).