State Assessment and Instructional Change: A Path Model Analysis

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 217-234

  Pomplun, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031535292     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1003_2     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Asher, H. B. (1983). Causal modeling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2. Cantlon, D., Rushcamp, S., & Freeman, D. (1991). The interplay between state and district guidelines for curriculum reform in elementary schools. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 63-80). Bristol, PA: Palmer.
3. Cohen, D. K. (1991). Revolution in one classroom. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 103-124). Bristol, PA: Palmer.
4. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890-1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
5. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys. New York: Wiley.
6. Druker, S. L., & Shavelson, R. J. (1995, April). Assessment reform from both sides of the fence: Reformers' expectations and teachers' reports of impacts on classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
7. Griffin, G. A. (1988). Leadership for curriculum improvement: The school administrator's role. In L. N. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum (pp. 224-266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Henshaw, J., Wilson, C., & Morefield, J. (1987). Seeing clearly: The school as the unit of change. In J. I. Goodlad (Ed.), The ecology of school renewal (pp. 118-133). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Hippler, H. J., & Schwarz, N. (1987). Response effects in surveys. In H. J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 102-122). New York: Springer-Verlag.
10. Kansas State Board of Education. (1993a). Kansas Curricular Standards for Communication. Topeka: Author.
11. Kansas State Board of Education. (1993b). Kansas Curricular Standards for Science. Topeka: Author.
12. Kansas State Board of Education. (1993c). Kansas Curricular Standards for Social Studies. Topeka: Author.
13. Kansas State Board of Education. (1993d). Kansas Mathematics Curriculum Standards. Topeka: Author.
14. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causation. New York: Wiley.
15. Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1-16.
16. Linn, R. L. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4-14.
17. Madaus, G. F. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum, In L. N. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum (pp. 83-121). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Mercer, C. A., Glasnapp, D. R., Poggio, J. P., Capps, L. R., & Droegemueller, L. (1992, April). Field perceptions: Teacher and student reactions to the new assessment devices. Paper presented at the meeting for the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
19. Messick, S. (1992). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments (Research Rep. No. 92-39). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Messick, S. (1994). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment (Research Memorandum No. 94-17). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
22. Pomplun, M., Nebelsick-Gullett, L., Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (1994). Results for the Kansas Mathematics Assessment Teacher Survey of 1994. Lawrence: University of Kansas, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation.
23. Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.
24. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-268). Bristol, PA: Palmer.
25. Stecher, B. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (1995, April). Vermont teachers' understanding of mathematical problem solving and "good" math problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
26. Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Williams, R. C., Moffett, K. L., & Newlin, B. (1987). The district role in school renewal. In J. I. Goodlad (Ed.), The ecology of school renewal (pp. 118-133). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.