Alignment as a teacher variable

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 27-51

  Porter, Andrew C ^a   Smithson, John ^b   Blank, Rolf ^c   Zeidner, Timothy ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c Study of State Mathematics and Science Frameworks   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248348708     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame2001_3     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Ananda, S. (2003). Rethinking issues of alignment under No Child Left Behind. San Francisco: WestEd.
2. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in drug surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 210-240.
3. Aquilino, W. S. (1998). Effects of interview mode on measuring depression in younger adults. Journal of Official Statistics, 14, 15-30.
4. Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 21-29.
5. Blank, R. K. (2004). Data on Enacted Curriculum study: Summary of findings. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
6. Blank, R. K., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics and science (Report from Survey of Enacted Curriculum Project; National Science Foundation REC98-03080). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
7. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
8. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
9. Dillman, D. A., & Tarnai, J. (1991). Mode effects of cognitively designed recall questions: A comparison of answers to telephone and mail surveys. In P. N. Beimer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 367-393). New York: Wiley.
10. Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Applied social research methods series (Vol. 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
12. Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. ( 1997, Winter). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19, 325-338.
13. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001, Winter). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38, 915-945.
14. Herman, J. L., Webb, N., & Zuniga, S. (2002, April). Alignment and college admissions: The match of expectations, assessments, and educator perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
15. Impara, J. C. (2001, April). Alignment: One element of an assessment's instructional utility. Paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
16. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review [Electronic version.]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522-549.
17. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29-45.
18. Mullens, J. (1995). Classroom instructional processes: A review of existing measurement approaches and their applicability for the teacher follow-up survey (NCES 95-15). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
19. Mullens, J. E., & Gayler, K. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction (NCES 1999-08). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
20. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1996). Using qualitative methods to validate quantitative survey instruments. In 1996 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 638-643). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
21. Olson, L. (2003, Spring). Standards and tests: Keeping them aligned. Research Points: Essential Information for Education Policy, 1(1).
22. Plake, B. S., Buckendahl, C. W., & Impara, J. C. (2001, June). A comparison of publishers' and teachers' perspectives on the alignment of norm-referenced tests to Nebraska's language-arts content standards. Paper presented at the annual large-scale assessment conference of the council of chief state school officers, Snowbird, UT.
23. Porter, A. C. (2002, October). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher 31(1), 3-14.
24. Porter, A. C., Blank, R., Smithson, J., & Osthoff, E. (2005, May). Place-based randomized trials to test the effects on instructional practices of a mathematics/science professional development program for teachers. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 599, 147-175.
25. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. S., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms (Final Report to the National Science Foundation on Grant No. SPA-8953446 to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
26. Porter, A. C., Schmidt, W. H., Floden, R. E., & Freeman, D. J. (1978). Practical significance in program evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 529-539.
27. Rothman, R. (2003). Imperfect matches: The alignment of standards and tests. Unpublished paper commissioned by the National Research Council, Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, Washington, DC.
28. Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 566). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
29. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer.
31. Schmoker, M. (2002). Up and away. Journal of Staff Development, 23(2), 10-13.
32. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 50-91 ). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
33. Smithson, J. L., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learnedfrom efforts to describe the enacted curriculum-the Reform Up Close study (CPRE Research Rep. Series No. 31). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
34. Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 6). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.
35. Webb, N. L. (2002, December). Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
36. Wixson, K. K., Fisk, M. C., Dutro, E., & McDaniel, J. (2002). The alignment of state standards and assessments in elementary reading (CIERA Rep. No. 3-024). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Education, Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.