Instructionally relevant writing assessment

Reading and Writing Quarterly

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 29-48

  Isaacson, Stephen ^a  

^a PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70249132329     PISSN: 10573569     EISSN: 15210693     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/105735699278288     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Airasian, P. W. (1996). Assessment in the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Archer, A. L. (1992). An instructional model for teaching written composition. Unpublished inservice materials.
3. Baker, E. L. (1992). The role of domain specifications in improving the technical quality of performance assessment (Research report). University of California at Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 133)
4. Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). The criterion of ultimate functioning and public school services for severely handicapped students. In A. Thomas (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me: Education's investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2-15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
5. Charney, D. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: A critical review. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 65-81.
6. Coutinho, M. J., & Malouf, D. B. (1994). Preface to L. S. Fuchs, Connecting performance assessment to instruction (pp. iii-ix). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
7. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18, 27-32.
8. Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Connecting performance assessment to instruction. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
9. Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1982). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on student achievement and studes awareness of learning: An experimental study (Research Report No. 96). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
10. Gleason, M. M. (1992). Four paragraph types: Purposes, critical features, and possible organizational structures. Unpublished instructional materials, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
11. Guskey, T. R. (1994). What you assess may not be what you get. Educational Leadership, 51, 51-54.
12. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, B. C. (1983). Test of written language (TOM-Z). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
13. Howell, K. W., Bigelow, S. S., Moore, E. L., & Evoy, A. M. (1993). Bias in authentic assessment. Diagnostique, 19, 387-400.
14. Isaacson, S. (1988). Assessing the writing product: Qualitative and quantitative measures. Exceptional Children, 54, 528-534.
15. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Research, 20, 15-21.
16. Marzano, R. J. (1994). Lessons from the field about outcome-based performance assessments. Educational Leadership, 51, 44-50.
17. McLoughlin, J. A., & Lewis, R. B. (1994). Assessing special students (4th ed.). New York: Merrill/Macmillan.
18. Mullis, I. V. S. (1980). Using the primary trait system for evaluating writing (National Assessment of Educational Progress Report). Denver CO: Education Commission of the States.
19. Paris, S. G., & Ayres, L. R. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers with portfolios and authentic assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20. Spandel, V., & Culham, R. (1993). Analytical trait scoring guide. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
21. Spandel, V., & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). Creating writers: Linking assessment and writing instruction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
22. Stiggins, R. J. (1987). Design and development of performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6, 33-42.
23. Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The whys, whats, and hows. The Reading Teacher, 43, 338-340.
24. Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Research Report No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.