Chapter 8: What counts as evidence of educational achievement? the role of constructs in the pursuit of equity in assessment

Review of Research in Education

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 254-284

  Wiliam, Dylan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950877367     PISSN: 0091732X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X09351544     Document Type: Article

References (115)

1. Abrami, P.C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), 1-15.
2. Access to Medicine. (2009). Access to medicine. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.accesstomedicine.org/.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement Used in Education. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin Supplement, 51(2, Part 2), 1-38.
5. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1966). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8. Angoff, W.H. (1974). Criterion-referencing, norm-referencing and the SAT. College Board Review, 92(Summer), 2-5, 21.
9. Angoff, W.H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 19-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey.
11. Bechtoldt, H.P. (1951). Selection. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1237-1267). New York: Wiley.
12. Bechtoldt, H.P. (1959). Construct validity: A critique. The American Psychologist, 14, 619-629.
13. Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
14. Berlak, H. (1992). Toward the development of a new science of educational testing and assessment. In H. Berlak, F. M. Newmann, E. Adams, D. A. Archbald, T. Burgess, J. Raven, et al. (Eds.), Towards a new science of educational testing and assessment (pp. 181-206). Albany: State University of New York Press.
15. Bishop, J.H. (2001a). A steeper, better road to graduation. Education Next, 1(4), 56-61.
16. Bishop, J.H. (2001b). Why do students learn more when achievement is examined externally? Retrieved June 11, 2009, from http://media.hoover.org/documents/ednext20014unabridged_bishop.pdf.
17. Block, J.H. (1976). Issues, problems and pitfalls in assessing sex differences: A critical review of The Psychology of Sex Differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 22, 283-308.
18. Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
19. Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting relational equity and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 167-194.
20. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
21. Brasel, K.J., Bragg, D., Simpson, D.E., & Weigelt, J.A. (2004). Meeting the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies using established residency training program assessment tools. American Journal of Surgery, 188, 9-12.
22. Breland, H.M. (1991). A study of sex differences (Research Rep. No. RR-91-61). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
23. Brennan, R. L. (Ed.). (2006). Educational measurement (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education/ Praeger.
24. Broome, E.C. (1903). A historical and critical discussion of college admission requirements. New York: Macmillan.
25. Burton, L. (2004). Mathematicians as enquirers: Learning about learning mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
26. Calfee, R., Lau, E., & Sutter, L. (1983). Establishing instructional validity for minimum competency programs. In G. F. Madaus (Ed.), The courts, validity and minimum competency testing (pp. 95-113). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
27. Campbell, D.T. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Public Affairs Center.
28. Cohen, L., Mannion, L., & Morrison, K. (2004). A guide to teaching practice. London: Routledge.
29. College Board. (2009). New SATs for the press. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/sat/faqs.html.
30. Corbett, H.D., & Wilson, B.L. (1991). Testing, reform and rebellion. Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.
31. Council of Heads of Medical Schools. (1998). Statement of principles. London: Author.
32. Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
33. Crouse, J., & Trusheim, D. (1988). The case against the SAT. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
34. Cureton, E.E. (1951). Validity. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 621-694). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
35. Davidson, W.M., & Carroll, J.B. (1945). Speed and level components in time limit scores: A factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 5, 411-427.
36. Davies, T., Kaiser, R., & Boone, J. (1987). Speededness of the Academic Assessment Placement Program (AAPP) reading comprehension test. Nashville: Board of Regents of the State University and Community College System of Tennessee.
37. Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2008). GCSE and equivalent results in England 2007/08 (provisional). London: Author.
38. Dorans, N.J. (1999). Correspondence between ACT and SAT I scores (Vol. RR 99-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
39. Dorans, N.J. (2004). Freedle's table 2: Fact or fiction? Harvard Educational Review, 74(1), 62-72.
40. Durán, R.P. (2008). Assessing English-language learners' achievement. Review of Research in Education, 32, 292-327.
41. Eckstein, M.A., & Noah, H.J. (1993). Secondary school examinations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42. Ellerin Rindler, S. (1979). Pitfalls in assessing test speededness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 261-270.
43. Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. The American Psychologist, 43, 95-103.
44. Ferguson, R. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28, 465-498.
45. Freedle, R.O. (2003). Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method of reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 1-43.
46. Friedman, L. (1989). Mathematics and the gender gap: A meta-analysis of recent studies on sex differences in mathematical tasks. Review of Educational Research, 59, 185-213.
47. Gardner, H. (1989). Zero-based arts education: An introduction to Arts PROPEL. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 30(2), 71-83.
48. Gardner, H. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardised testing. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 77-117). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
49. Garlick, P., & Brown, G. (2008, May 17). Widening participation in medicine. British Medical Journal, 336, 1111-1113.
50. Garrett, H.E. (1937). Statistics in psychology and education. New York: Longmans, Green.
51. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52. Goldin, C., & Katz, L.F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53. Guilford, J.P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427-438.
54. Hackman, D.A., & Farah, M.J. (2009). Socioeconomic status and the developing brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13(2), 65-73.
55. Hanson, F.A. (1993). Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
56. Hart, K. M. (Ed.). (1981). Children's understanding of mathematics: 11-16. London: John Murray.
57. Hezlett, S.A., Kuncel, N.R., Vey, M.A., Ahart, A.M., Ones, D.S., Campbell, J.,et al.(2001). The effectiveness of the SAT in predicting success early and late in college: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
58. Holland, P., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59. Hubin, D.R. (1988). The Scholastic Aptitude Test: Its development and introduction, 1900- 1948. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
60. Hume, D. (1896). A treatise of human nature: Being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739).
61. Hyde, J.S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S.J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.
62. Hyde, J.S., Lindberg, S.M., Linn, M.C., Ellis, A.B., & Williams, C.C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494-495.
63. Hyde, J.S., & Mertz, J.E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 8801-8807.
64. Jewitt, C. (2006). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241-267.
65. Kellaghan, T. (Ed.). (1996). Admission to higher education: Issues and practice. Princeton, NJ: International Association for Educational Assessment.
66. Kelley, T.L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
67. Kishiyama, M.M., Boyce, W.T., Knight, R.T., Jimenez, A.M., & Perry, L.M. (2009). Socioeconomic disparities affect prefrontal function in children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1106-1115.
68. Kobrin, J.L., Camara, W.J., & Milewski, G.B. (2002). The utility of the SAT-I and SAT-II for admissions decisions in California and the nation (Report No. 2002-6). New York: College Board.
69. Koretz, D.M. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70. Koretz, D.M., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S.P., McCaffrey, D., & Deibert, E. (1994). Can portfolios assess student performance and influence instruction? The 1991-92 Vermont experience (Vol. RP-259). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
71. Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
72. Levine, D.O. (1986). The American college and the culture of aspiration 1915-1940. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
73. Lieberman, A., & Wood, D.R. (2002). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
74. Lindquist, E. F. (Ed.). (1951). Educational measurement (1sted.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
75. Linn, M.C. (1992). Gender differences in educational achievement. In Educational Testing Service (Ed.), Sex equity in educational opportunity, achievement, and testing: Proceedings of a 1991 ETS invitational conference (pp. 11-50). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
76. Linn, R. L. (Ed.). (1989). Educational measurement (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
77. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3(Suppl. 9), 635-694.
78. Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
79. Mathews, J. (2004). Whatever happened to portfolio assessment? Education Next, 4(3), 73-75.
80. Maxwell, G.S. (2004, March). Progressive assessment for learning and certification: Some lessons from school-based assessment in Queensland. Paper presented at the third conference of the Association of Commonwealth Examination and Assessment Boards, Nadi, Fiji. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland Graduate School of Education.
81. McCallin, R.C. (2006). Test administration. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 625-652). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
82. McGovern, C. (1994). The SCAA Review of National Curriculum History: A minority report. York, UK: Campaign for Real Education.
83. Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. The American Psychologist, 35, 1012-1027.
84. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
85. Miles, E. (1998). The Bangor dyslexia teaching system. London: Whurr.
86. Mislevy, R.J., Almond, R.G., & Lukas, J.F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence centered design (ETS Research Rep. No. RR-03-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
87. Moss, P.A., Girard, B.J., & Haniford, L.C. (2006). Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30, 109-162.
88. National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2008). Participation and accommodation summary reports 2006-2007. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from http://data.nceo.info/pa-summaries.asp.
89. Newmann, F.M., Bryk, A.S., & Nagaoka, J.K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
90. Nuttall, D.L. (1987). The validity of assessments. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2, 109-118.
91. O'Connell, A.N. (1990). Eleanor Emmons Maccoby. In A. N. O'Connell & N. F. Russo (Eds.), Women in psychology: A bio-bibliographic sourcebook (pp. 231-237). New York: Greenwood.
92. O'Day, J., & Smith, M.S. (1993). Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
93. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2008). Education at a glance 2008. Paris: Author.
94. Piché, D. M., & Taylor, W. L. (Eds.). (1991). A report on shortchanging children: The impact of fiscal inequity on the education of students at risk (Prepared for the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, Second Session). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
95. Pirie, S.E.B. (1987). Nurses and mathematics: Deficiencies in basic mathematical skills among nurses- Development and evaluation of methods of detection and treatment. London: Royal College of Nursing/Scutari Press.
96. Project Zero. (2005). Arts PROPEL. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://pzweb.harvard.edu/research/propel.htm.
97. Pullin, D. (2008). Individualizing assessment and opportunity to learn: Lessons from the education of students with disabilities. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 109-135). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
98. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
99. Shayer, M., & Adey, P.S. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum demand. London: Heinemann.
100. Thorndike, R.L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York: Wiley.
101. Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.). (1971). Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
102. Vinner, S. (1997). From intuition to inhibition-Mathematics, education and other endangered species. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 63-78). Lahti, Finland: University of Helsinki, Lahti Research and Training Centre.
103. Vogt, W.P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
104. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.
105. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M.P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270.
106. Wiley, D.E. (2001). Validity of constructs versus construct validity. In H. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 207-227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
107. Wiliam, D. (2001). Reliability, validity and all that jazz. Education 3-13, 29(3), 17-21.
108. Wiliam, D. (2003). Constructing difference: Assessment in mathematics education. In L. Burton (Ed.), Which way social justice in mathematics education? (pp. 189-207). Westport, CT: Praeger Press.
109. Wiliam, D. (under review). Standardized student assessment in an age of accountability. Educational Psychologist.
110. Wiliam, D., Brown, M., Kerslake, D., Martin, S., & Neill, H. (1999). The transition from GCSE to A-level in mathematics: A preliminary study. Advances in Mathematics Education, 1, 41-56.
111. Wiliam, D., Millar, M., & Bartholomew, H. (2004). Selection for medical education: A review of the literature. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from www.dylanwiliam.net.
112. Willingham, W. S., & Cole, N. S. (Eds.). (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
113. Wineburg, S.S., & Fournier, J. (1994). Contextualized thinking in history. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 285-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
114. Ysseldyke, J., Dennison, A., & Nelson, R. (2003). Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities (Synthesis Rep. No. 51). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis51.html.
115. Zenderland, L. (1998). Measuring minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the origins of American intelligence testing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.