An alternative approach to measuring opportunity-to-learn in high school classes

Alberta Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 107-126

  Jaafar, Sonia Ben ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b Department of Theory and Policy Studies ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748947873     PISSN: 00024805     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American Educational Research Association. (2000). Position statement of the American Educational Research Association concerning high-stakes testing in pre-K-12 education. Educational Researcher, 29(8), 24-25.
2. Ben Jaafar, S. (2002, October). The effects of testing on classroom practices. Poster presented at the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Athens, GA.
3. Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Milton Keynes, UK; Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
4. Berstein, L., McDonnell, L.M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators (MR-658-NSF). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
5. Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
6. Carroll, J.B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 11-15.
7. Chief State Schools Officers. (2003, June 9). Surveys of enacted curriculum. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from: http://www.ccsso.org/projects/ Surveys_of_Enacted_Curriculum/
8. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London; New York: Routledge/Falmer.
9. Education and Quality Accountability Office (EQAO). (1996, February 6, 2003.). EQAO Madate. Retrieved February 9, 2003, from: http://www.eqao.com/eqao/ home_pa.ge/01e/1_2e.html
10. Fitz-Gibbon, & Kochan, S. (2000). School effectiveness and educational indicators. In D. Reynolds (Ed.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 257-282). London: Palmer Press.
11. Hawley, W.D., Rosenholtz, S., Goodstein, H., & Hasselbring, T. (1984). Good schools: What research says about improving student achievement. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(4), 1-178.
12. Husén, T. (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
13. Karweit, N.L. (1983). Time-on-task: A research review (Report 332). Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
14. Karweit, N.L., & Slavin, R.E. (1982). Time-on-task: Issues of timing, sampling, and definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 844-851.
15. Lapointe, A.E., Mead, N.A., & Phillips, G.W. (1989). A world of difference: An international assessment of mathematics and science. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
16. Leithwood, K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: An international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 1-18.
17. Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., & Betebenner, D.W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-16.
18. Marsh, C.J., & Willis, G. (1999). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulation? Educational Researcher, 17, 13-17.
20. McDonnell, L., Berstein, L., Ormseth, T., Catterall, J., & Moody, D. (1990). Discovering what schools really teach: Designing improved coursework indicators (Report R3886). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
21. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22. Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). The development of comprehensive school reform. In A. Datnow (Ed.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 3-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23. Muthen, B.O., Kao, C., & Berstein, L. (1991). Instructionally sensitive psychometrics: Application of a new IRT-based detection technique to mathematics achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(1), 1-22.
24. Nagy, P. (1996). International comparisons of student achievement in mathematics and science: A Canadian perspective. Canadian Journal of Education, 21, 396-413.
25. Ontario Ministry of Education. (1999). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10 mathematics. Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
26. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2000). Curriculum update: Elementary/secondary implementation-Issue 4. Retrieved November 12, 2001, from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/update/winter00/dec00.html#real
27. Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers' Federation. (2002, September 30). Grade 10 literacy test results disastrous. Retrieved January 4, 2003, from: http://www.osstf.on.ca/www/pub/pressrel/sept02_aug03/sept30-102.html
28. People for Education. (2003, April 24). Literacy test results show thousands of secondary students continue to struggle [media release]. Retrieved May 12, 2003, from: http://www.peopleforeducation.com/releases/2003/apr24_03.PDF
29. Popham, W.J. (1999). Where large scale educational assessment is heading and why it shouldn't. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(3), 13-17.
30. Porter, A.C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
31. Porter, A.C., & Associates. (1994). Reform of high school mathematics and science and opportunity to learn. CPRE policy brief (Research ED 377 037). Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
32. Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. In D. Reynolds (Ed.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 206-231). London: Falmer Press.
33. Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J.J. (2004). Educational equity and accountability: Paradigms, policies, and politics. New York: Routledge Palmer.
34. Smithson, J.L., & Porter, A.C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum-The reform up close study (Research/Technical). Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy Research and Improvement.
35. Stevens, F.I. (1993). Opportunity to learn and other social contextual issues: Addressing the low academic achievement of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 227-231.
36. Taylor, F.W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: London: Harper.
37. Traub, R.E., & Wolfe, R.G. (1981). Latent trait theories and the assessment of education achievement. In D.C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 377-435). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
38. Travers, K.J., Westbury, I., & International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics curricula. Oxford, UK; New York: Pergamon Press.
39. Wang, J. (1998). Opportunity to learn: The impacts and policy implications. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 137-156.
40. Winfield, L.F. (1987). Teachers' estimates of test content covered in first grade reading and achievement. Elementary School Journal, 87, 437-454.
41. Zancanella, D. (1992). The influence of state-mandated testing on teachers of literature. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 283-295.