Alignment methodologies

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-5

  Herman, Joan L ^a,b   Webb, Noreen M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b National Center for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student Testing   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248361949     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame2001_1     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12. University of California, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED053 419).
2. Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18, 519-521.
3. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
4. Popham, W. J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 679-682.
5. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. G. Gifford & M. C. O'Conner (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer.
6. Thorndike, E. L. (1918). The nature, purposes and general methods of measurements of educational products. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The measurement of educational products (17th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, pp. 16-24). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.
7. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.