Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universal design for assessment

Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2005, Pages

  Ketterlin Geller, Leanne R ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b Research for Behavioral Research and Teaching

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27844608983     PISSN: 15402525     EISSN: 15402525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1). Available from http://www.jtla.org
3. Burk, M. (1998). Computerized test accommodations: A new approach for inclusion and success for students with disabilities. Washington, D.C.: A. U. Software.
4. Center for Universal Design. (1997). What is universal design? NC State University: The Center for Universal Design.
5. Dolan, B. (2000). Universal design for learning: Associate editor's column. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47-51.
6. Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Available from http://www.jtla.org
7. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & McKevitt, B. C. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 39(1), 3-24.
8. Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs. D. (1999). Fair and unfair testing accommodations. School Administrator, 56(10), 24-29.
9. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C., Binkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 67-81.
10. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral verses a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 39-47.
12. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P. J. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 113-125.
13. Helwig, R. & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(2), 211-225.
14. Hickman, J. A. (2000). Individualized education plan (IEP). In C.R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Special Education (pp. 939-940). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Higbee, J. L. (2001). Implications of universal instructional design for developmental education. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 17(2), 67-70.
16. Hopper, M. F. (2001). The implications of accommodations in testing students with disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463 627).
17. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2003). Establishing a validity argument for universally designed assessments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
18. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2004). Use of Focus Groups to Inform the Construction of a Universally Designed Mathematics Test (Tech. Rep. No. 29). Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, College of Education, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
19. Lowe, P. A. & Reynolds, C. R. (2000). Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA). In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Special Education (pp. 940-948). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
20. Mace, R. L., Hardie, G. J., & Place, J. P. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. In W. E. Preiser, J. C. Vischer, & E. T. White (Eds.). Design intervention: Toward a more humane architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
21. Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.
22. National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2003). Special topic area: Accommodations for students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 30, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/ Accommodations/Accom_topic
23. Pisha, B. & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197-203.
24. Rudner, L. M. (1998). An on-line, interactive, computer adaptive testing tutorial. Retrieved on September 15, 2003 from http://ericae.net/scripts/cat
25. Shriner, J. G. & Destefano, L. (2003). Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of individualized education programs. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(2), 147-161.
26. Stansfield, C. W. (2002). Linguistic simplification: A promising test accommodation for LEP students? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(7). Retrieved on April 30, 2003 from http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v= 8&n=7
27. Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. NC State University: The Center for Universal Design.
28. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 7, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.htm
29. Thompson, S. & Thurlow, M. (2002). Universal design assessments: Better tests for everyone! (Policy Directions No. 14). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 7, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Policy14.htm
30. Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., & Moore, M. (2002). Using computer-based tests with students with disabilities (Policy Directions No. 15). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 13, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Policy15.htm
31. Tindal, G., Anderson, L., Helwig, R., Miller, & Glasgow, A. (2000). Accommodating students with learning disabilities on math tests using language simplification. Eugene, OR: RCTP.
32. Tindal, G. & Crawford, L. (2003). Technology applications for students with disabilities: Using learning assessments to design effective programs. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
33. U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). ADA Regulations and Technical Assistance Materials. Retrieved April 30, 2003 from http://www.usdoj.gov