Alignment of scores on large-scale assessments and report-card grades

Alberta Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 327-341

  Ross, John A ^a,b   Gray, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b Centre in Peterborough   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60149101593     PISSN: 00024805     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. American Educational Research Association. (2000). Position statement of the American Educational Research Association concerning high-stakes testing in preK-12 education. Educational Researcher, 29(8), 24-25.
2. American Federation of Teachers. (2006). Smart testing: Let's get it right: How assessment-savvy have states become since NCLB? Retrieved February 20, 2007, from: http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2006/ smarttesting/Testingbrief.pdf
3. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Borko, H. (1997). New forms of classroom assessment: Implications for staff development. Theory into Practice, 36, 231-238.
5. Borko, H., & Elliott, R. (1999). Hands-on pedagogy versus hands-off accountability: Tensions between competing commitments for exemplary math teachers in Kentucky. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 394-400.
6. Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125-230.
7. Brennan, R., Kim, J., Wenz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G. (2002). The relative equitability of high stakes testing versus teacher-assigned grades: An analysis of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Harvard Educational Review, 71, 173-216.
8. Case, B.J., Jorgensen, M.A., & Zucker, S. (2004). Alignment in educational assessment. Retrieved February 20,2006, from: http://harcourtassessment.com/hai/Images/pdf/assessmentReports/AlignEdAss.pdf
9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Datnow, A. (2001, April). The sustainability of externally developed school reforms in changing district and state contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
11. Dennis, M. (1994). Ethical and practical randomized field experiments. In J. Wholey, H. Hatry, & K. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical evaluation (pp. 155-197). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12. Dunn, J., Childs, R., Cleland, P., Pang, X., & Saunders, K. (2004, April). Isolating item and rater variance in the grade 3 assessment of reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
13. Educational Quality and Accountability Office, (n.d.). Scoring guides and anchors, 2002-03: Grade 3 and grade 6 assessment of reading, writing and mathematics. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from: http://www.eqao.com/Educators/ Elementary/036/036-7.aspx?Lang=E&gr=036&Aud=Educators&yr=03&gb= true
14. Educational Quality and Accountability Office. (2006a). Grade 3 assessment of reading, writing, and mathematics: Framework. Retrieved February 22, 2006, from: http://www.eqao.com/pdf-e/06/06P008e.pdf
15. Educational Quality and Accountability Office. (2006b). Grade 6 assessment of reading, writing, and mathematics: Framework. Retrieved February 22, 2006, from: http://www.eqao.com/pdf-e/06/06P008e.pdf
16. English, F.W., & Steffy, B.E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment. Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
17. Firestone, W., Winter, J., & Fitz, J. (2000). Different assessments, common practice? Mathematics testing and teaching in the USA and England and Wales. Assessment in Education, 7(1), 13-37.
18. Forster, M., & Masters, G. (2004). Bridging the conceptual gap between classroom assessment and system accountability. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II, pp. 51-73). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19. Frederickson, J.R., & White, B.Y. (2004). Designing assessments for instruction and accountability: An application of validity theory to assessing scientific inquiry. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II, pp. 74-104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Frey, B.B., Schmitt, V.L., Petersen, S.E., & Peyton, V.D. (2004, April). Validity of teacher-made tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
21. Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. In R. Floden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 27, pp. 25-68). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
22. Johnson, D.R. (2005). Signposts of success: Interpreting Ontario's elementary school test scores. Toronto, ON: CD. Howe Institute.
23. LeMahieu, P.G., & Reilly, E.C. (2004). Systems of coherence and resonance: Assessment for education and assessment of education. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II, pp. 189-202). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. Linn, R. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy, promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4-14.
25. Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181-1209.
26. Lloyd, J.E.V., Walsh, J., & Yailagh, M. S. (2005). Sex, differences in performance attributions, self-efficacy, an achievement in mathematics: If I'm so smart, why don't I know it? Canadian journal of Education, 28, 384-408.
27. Marso, R., & Pigge, F. (1991). An analysis of teacher-made tests: Testing practices, cognitive demands and item construction errors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 279-286.
28. McDonnell, L.M. (1994). Assessment policy as persuasion and regulation. American Journal of Education, 102, 394-420.
29. Moss, P. (2004). The risks of coherence. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II, pp. 217-238). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1999). Guide to the provincial report card, grades 9-12. Retrieved February 22, 2006, from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/forms/report/sec/srepgde.pdf
31. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (2000a). Guide to the provincial report card, grades 1-8. Retrieved February 22, 2006, from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/forms/report/1998/repgde.pdf
32. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (2000b). The Ontario curriculum grades 9-12: Program planning and assessment. Toronto, ON: Author.
33. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
34. Pellegrino, J.W., Baxter, G.P., & Glaser, R. (1999). Addressing the "two disciplines" problem: Linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practice. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (vol. 24, pp. 307-353). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
35. Porter, A. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
36. Resnick, L.B., Rothman, R., & Slattery, J.B. (2004). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing. Educational Assessment, 9(1/2), 1-28.
37. Roach, A.T., Elliott, S.N., & Webb, N.L. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment. Journal of Special Education, 38, 218-232.
38. Schafer, W.D., Swanson, G., Bene, N., & Newberry, G. (2001). Effects of teacher knowledge of rubrics on student achievement in four content areas. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 151-170.
39. Shepard, L.A., Flexer, R.J., Hiebert, E.H., Marion, S.F., Mayfield, V., & Weston, T.J. (1996). Effects of introducing classroom performance assessments on student learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(3), 7-18.
40. Smithson, J.L., & Porter, A.C. (2004). From policy to practice: The evolution of one approach to describing and using curriculum data. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II, pp. 105-131). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41. Stecher, B. (1998). The local benefits and burdens of large-scale portfolio assessment. Assessment in Education, 5, 335-351.
42. Willingham, W.W., Pollack, J.M., & Lewis, C. (2002). Grades and test scores: Accounting for observed differences. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39, 1-37.
43. Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2004). Some links between large-scale and classroom assessments: The case of the BEAR assessment system. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II, pp. 132-154). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44. Wolf, S.A., Borko, H., Elliott, R.L., & Mclver, M.C. (2000). "That dog won't hunt!": Exemplary school change efforts within the Kentucky reform. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 349-393.
45. Wolfe, R., Childs, R., & Elgie, S. (2004). Ensuring quality assessments: A project to refine and affirm assessment processes. Final report of the external assessment of EQAO's assessment processes. Toronto, ON: OISE/UT.