Students' perceptions of a Maryland state performance assessment

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 107, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 305-324

  Parke, Carol S ^a   Lane, Suzanne ^b  

^a DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846202498     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/511709     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-38.
2. Borko, H., Wolf, S. A., Simone, G., & Uchiyama, K. (2003). Schools in transition: Reform efforts in exemplary schools in Washington. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 171-202.
3. Chudowsky, N., & Behuniak, P. (1998). Using focus groups to examine the consequential aspect of validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(4), 28-38.
4. Firestone, W. A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
5. Haertel, E., & Herman, J. L. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing (Center for the Study of Evaluation Tech. Rep. No. 654). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
6. Herman, J. (1994). A first look: Are claims for alternative assessment holding up? Project 3.2: State accountability models in action. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
7. Herman, J. L. (2002). Instructional effect in elementary schools (Center for the Study of Evaluation Tech. Rep. No. 577). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
8. Herman, J. L. (2005). Making accountability work to improve student learning (Center for the Study of Evaluation Tech. Rep. No. 649). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
9. Lane, S. (2004). Validity of high-stakes assessment: Are students engaged in complex thinking? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(3), 6-14.
10. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). Impact of a state performance-based assessment and accountability program in mathematics: Evidence from survey data and school performance. Educational Assessment, 8(4), 279-315.
11. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., Stone, C. A., Cerillo, T. L., & Hansen, M. A. (2000, December). MSPAP impact study: Science. Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.279-A), for the Maryland Assessment System Project.
12. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., Stone, C. A., Hansen, M. A., & Cerillo, T. L. (2000, November). MSPAP impact study: Social studies. Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.279-A), for the Maryland Assessment System Project.
13. Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1-16.
14. Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
15. Maryland State Board of Education. (1995). Maryland school performance report: State and school systems. Baltimore: Author.
16. McDonnell, L. M., & Choisser, C. (1997, September). Testing and teaching: Local implementation of new state assessments (Center for the Study of Evaluation Tech. Rep. No. 442). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
17. Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(13), 1-30.
18. Mehrens, W. A., Popham, W. J., & Ryan, J. M. (1998). How to prepare students for performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 18-22.
19. Messick, S. (1992). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessment. Research report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Mullis, I. (2002). Background questions in TIMSS and PIRLS: An overview. Paper commissioned by the National Assessment Governing Board. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy (PIRLS) International Study Center. Boston, MA: Boston College, Lynch School of Education.
21. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
22. Parke, C. S., Cerrillo, T. L., Levenson, J., O'Mara, J., Hansen, M. A., & Lane, S. (1999, April). Impact of the MSPAP: Evidence from classroom instruction and assessment activities - reading and writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal.
23. Parke, C. S., Lane, S., Silver, E. A., & Magone, M. E. (2003). Using assessment to improve middle-grades mathematics teaching and learning. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
24. Skinner, R. A. (2005, January 6). State of the states. Education Week, 24(17), 77-106.
25. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
26. Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Assessment, student confidence, and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 191-198.
27. Stiggins, R. J., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 11-18.
28. Stone, C. A., & Lane, S. (2003). Consequences of a state accountability program: Examining relationships between school performance gains and teacher, student, and school variables. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 1-26.
29. Webb, N. L. (2002a, November). Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessment in four states. Washinton, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
30. Webb, N. L. (2002b, April). An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessments for three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
31. Zhang, L. (2001). Delaware student testing program: Report of student questionnaire survey2000 administration in science and social studies for grades 4 and 6. Dover: Delaware Department of Education.