International comparisons and sensitivity to instruction

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 253-257

  Wiliam, Dylan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61649090791     PISSN: 0969594X     EISSN: 1465329X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09695940802417426     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Hanushek, E.A., 2002. The importance of school quality, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution.
2. Hoffman, B., 1962. The tyranny of testing, New York: Crowell-Collier Press.
3. Holland, P., and Wainer, H., eds. 1993. Differential item functioning: Theory and practice, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Jones, D., 1993. Words with a similar meaning. Mathematics Teaching, 145: 14–15.
5. Poortinga, Y., 1995. “ Use of tests across cultures ”. In International perspectives on academic assessment, Edited by: Oakland, T., and Hambleton, R.K., 187–206. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6. Rodriguez, M.C., 2004. The role of classroom assessment in student performance on TIMSS. Applied Measurement in Education, 17 (1): 1–24.
7. Wiliam, D., 1998. Making international comparisons: The Third International Mathematics and Science Study. British Journal of Curriculum and Assessment, 8 (3): 37–42.
8. Wiliam, D., An index of sensitivity to instruction. Paper presented at the symposium entitled ‘Three practical policy-focused procedures for determining an accountability test’s instructional sensitivity’ at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association. April9–19, Chicago, IL.
9. Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., and Sanders, W.L., 1997. Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11 (1): 57–67.