The science achievement of various subgroups on alternative assessment formats

Science Education

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 279-290

  Lawrenz, Frances ^a   Huffman, Douglas ^a   Welch, Wayne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035532540     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.1010     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Baxter, G. P., & Shavelson, R. J. (1994). Science performance assessments: Benchmarks and surrogates. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 279-297.
3. Dalton, B., Morocco, C. C., Tivnan, T., & Rawson, P. (1994). Effect of format on learning disabled and non-learning disabled students' performance on a hands-on science assessment. In R. J. Shavelson (Ed.), Performance assessment (pp. 299-314).
4. Feinberg, L. (1990). Multiple-choice and its critics: Are the alternatives any better? Commentaries from the College Board, 3-15.
5. Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
6. Harlen, W. (1990). Performance testing and science education in England and Wales. In A. B. Champagne, B. E. Lovitts, & B. J. Calenger (Eds.), Assessment in the service of instruction (pp. 181-206). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
7. Harnisch, D. L. (1994). Performance assessment in review: New directions for assessing student understanding. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 341-350.
8. Herman, J. et al. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9. Herman, J. L., & Winters, L. (1994). Portfolio research: A slim collection. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 48-55.
10. Jenkins, L. B., & MacDonald, W. B. (1989). Science teaching in the spirit of science. Issues in Science and Technology, 63, 60-65.
11. Jovanovic, J., & Shavelson, R. J. (1995, April). Examination of gender differences on performance-based assessments in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
12. Klein, S. P., Jovanovic, J., Stecher, B. M., McCaffrey, D., Shavelson, R. J., Haertel, E., Solano-Flores, G., & Comfort, K. (1997). Gender and racial/ethnic differences on performance assessments in science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 83-97.
13. Kulm, G., & Malcom, S. M. (1991). Science assessment in the service of reform. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
14. Madaus, G. (1981). The influence of testing on teaching mathematics and science in grades 4-12. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
15. Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T. (1993). The British experience with "authentic" testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 458-468.
16. Madaus, G. F., West, M. M., Harmon, M. C., Lomax, R. G., Viator, K. A., Mungal, C. F., Butler, P. A., McDowell, C., Simmons, R., & Sweeney, E. (1992). The influence of testing on teaching math and science in grades 4-12. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Science Foundation.
17. Maeroff, G. I. (1991). Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 272-281.
18. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. National Science Foundation (1996). 1994 indicators of science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: Author.
20. Neil, D. M., & Medina, N. J. (1989). Standardized testing: Harmful to educational health. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 688-696.
21. Rennie. L. J., & Parker, L. H. (1995). De-gendering assessment in science. In D. Baker & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Science "coeducation": Viewpoints from gender, race and ethnic perspectives (pp. 131-139). Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
22. Resnick. L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer.
23. Shavelson, R. J., Carey, N. B., & Webb, N. M. (1990). Indicators of science achievement: Options for a powerful policy instrument. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 692-697.
24. Taylor, C. (1994). Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of large-scale assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 231-262.
25. Welford, G., Harlen, W., & Schofield, B. (1985). Practical testing at ages 11, 13, and 15. APU Science Report for Teachers: 6.
26. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.
27. Williams, T., & Levine, D. (Eds.). (1996). United States Third International Mathematics and Science Study Technical Report. National Center for Educational Statistics: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.