Alignment of standards and assessment: A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment

Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue 16, 2008, Pages 667-690

  Näsström, Gunilla ^a   Henriksson, Widar ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Alignment; Assessment; Bloom's revised taxonomy; Porter's taxonomy; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449587491     PISSN: 16995880     EISSN: 16962095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213-230.
2. Ananda, S. (2003). Achieving alignment. Leadership, 33(1), 18-21.
3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
4. Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A reexamination. Theory in Practice, 41(4), 255-260.
5. Baartman, L. K. J., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). The wheel of compentency assessment: presenting quality criteria for competency assessment programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(2), 153-170.
6. Baker, E. L. (2004). Aligning curriculum, standards, and assessments: Fulfilling the promise of school reform (CSE Technical report 645). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student testing.
7. 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.
8. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Birmingham: Open University Press.
9. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Glasgow: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
10. Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science. Results from survey of enacted curriculum project. Final report. Washington: Council of Chief State School Officers.
11. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
12. de Landsheere, V. (1990). Taxonomies of educational objectives. In Herbert J. Walberg & Geneva D. Haertel (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 179-188). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
13. Farenga, S. J., Joyce, B. A. & Ness, D. (2002). Reaching the zone of optimal learning: The alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning. Arlington: NSTA press.
14. Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378-382.
15. Fuhrman, S. H. (ed.) (2001). From the capitol to the classroom: Standardsbased reform in the States. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
16. Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17. Hambleton, R.K. (2001). Setting performance standards on educational assessment and criteria for evaluating the process. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 89-116). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Hansche, L. N. (1998). Meeting the requirements of title I: Handbook for the development of performance standards. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
19. Hauenstein, A. D. (1998). A conceptual framework for educational objectives. A holistic approach to traditional taxonomies. Lanham: University Press of America.
20. Herman, J.L., Webb, N.M. & Zuniga, S.A. (2005). Measurement issues in the alignment of standards and assessments: A case study (CSE report 653). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student testing.
21. Herman, J.L., Webb, N.M. & Zuniga, S.A. (2007). Measurement issues in the alignment of standards and assessments: A case study. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 101-126.
22. Koretz, D. M. & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.) Educational Measurement (pp.531-578). Westport: American Council on Education & Praeger.
23. La Marca, P.M., Redfield, D., Winter, P.C., Bailey, A. & Hansche, D. (2000). State standards and state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Washington: Council of Chief State School Officers.
24. La Marca, P.M. (2001). Alignment of standards and assessments as an accountability criterion. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(21).
25. Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159-174.
26. Martineau, J., Paek, P., Keene, J. & Hirsch, T. (2007). Integrated, comprehensive alignment as a foundation for measuring student progress. Educational Measurement: Issues and practice, 26(1), 28-35.
27. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
28. Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
29. Mosely, D., Baumfield, V., Higgins, S., Lin, M., Miller, D., Robson, S., Elliot, J. & Gregson, M. (2004). Thinking skill frameworks for post-16 learners: an evaluation. A research report for the learning and skills research centre. Trowbridge: Learning & Skills research centre.
30. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Smith, T.A., Garden, R.A., Gregory, K.D., Gonzales, E.J. Chrostowski, S.J. & O'Connor, K. M. (2001). TIMSS assessment frameworks and specifications 2003. Chestnut Hill: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
31. NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
32. OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD.
33. Olson, L. (2003). Standards and tests: Keeping them aligned. Research Points, 1(1), 1-4.
34. Porter, A.C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
35. Porter, A.C. & Smithson, J.L. (2001a). Defining, developing, and using curriculum indicators (CPRE Research report series RR-048). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
36. Porter, A. C. & Smithson, J. L. (2001b). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. H. Fuhrmans (ed.) From the Capitol to the classroom. Standardsbased reform in the States (pp 60-80). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago press.
37. Porter, A. C. & Smithson, J. L. (2002). Alignment of assessments, standards and instruction: Using curriculum indicator data. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1-5 2002.
38. Roach, A. T., Elliot, 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. The Journal of Special education, 38(4), 218-231.
39. Robitallie, D. F., Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S., McKnight C., Britton, E. & Nicol, C. (1993). Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
40. Rothman, R. (2003). Imperfect matches: The alignment of standards and tests. Paper commissioned by the Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, March 2003.
41. Rothman, R., Slattery, J.B., Vranek, J.L. & Resnick, L.R. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (CSE Technical report 566). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student testing.
42. Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(4).
43. Thurston, A., Grant, G. & Topping, K. J. (2006). Constructing understanding in primary science: An exploration of process and outcomes in the topic areas of light and the earth in space. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 1-34.
44. Ward, A. W., Stocker, H.W., & Murray-Ward, M. (1984). Educational measurement. Origins, theories and explications. Volume II. Theories and applications. Lanham: University Press of America.
45. Webb, N.L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research monograph, No. 6). Madison: National Institute for Science Education.
46. Webb, N.L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research monograph, No. 18). Madison: National Institute for Science Education.
47. Webb, N.L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7-25.
48. Wolf, R. M. (1997). Rating scales. In J. P. Keeves (ed.) Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp.958-965). Cambridge: Pergamon.