The effects of technology-enhanced formative evaluation on student performance on state accountability math tests

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 582-591

  Burns, Matthew K ^a   Klingbeil, David A ^a   Ysseldyke, Jim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955593113     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: 15206807     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20492     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
2. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. E. (1971). Handbook on the formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Brem, S. K. (2003). AM users outperform controls when exposure and quality of interaction are high: A two year study of the effects of accelerated math on math performance in a Title I elementary school. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
4. Burns, M. K. (in press). Formative evaluation in school psychology: Using data to design instruction. School Psychology Forum.
5. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Sugai, G. (2007). School-based behavioral assessment: Informing instruction and intervention. New York: Guilford.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Florida Department of Education. (2005). Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) handbook-A resource for educators. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
8. Forgione, P. D. (1998). Responses to frequently asked questions about 12th-Grade TIMSS. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 769-772.
9. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
10. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103-111.
11. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Allinder, R. M. (1991). Effects of expert system advice within curriculum-based measurement on teacher planning and student achievement in spelling. School Psychology Review, 20, 49-66.
12. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1990). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19, 6-22.
13. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergarteners' mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. Elementary School Journal, 101, 495-510.
14. Holmes, C. T., Brown, C. L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Promoting academic success for all students. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10, 141-147.
15. Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2007. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
16. Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
17. Minnesota Department of Education. (2007). The Minnesota assessments technical manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
18. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and science study at the eighth and fourth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
20. National Council of Teachers ofMathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for math in grades kindergarten through grade 8: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
21. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22. New York State Education Department. (2007a). New York state testing program 2007: English/language arts; Grades 3-8. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
23. New York State Education Department. (2007b). New York state testing program 2007: Mathematics; Grades 3-8. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
24. No Child Left Behind. (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110, §3001, 115 Stat. 1689. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
25. Phillips, G. W. (2007). Chance favors the prepared mind: Mathematics and science indicators for comparing states and nations. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
26. Planty, M., Hussar,W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., et al. (2008).The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.
27. Qualls, A. L. (1995). Estimating the reliability of a test containing multiple item formats. AppliedMeasurement in Education, 8, 111-120.
28. Renaissance Learning. (1998a). Accelerated math. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
29. Renaissance Learning. (1998b). STAR math. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
30. Saffer, N. (1999). Core subjects and your career. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 43(2), 26-40.
31. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. E. (2009). Assessment: In special and inclusive education (11th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
32. Spicuzza, R., Ysseldyke, J. E., Lemkuil, A., McGill, S., Boys, C., & Teelucksingh, E. (2001). Effects of curriculum-based monitoring on classroom instruction and math achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 521-542.
33. Springer, R. M., Pugalee, D., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Improving mathematics skills in high school students. Clearing House, 81, 37-44.
34. Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 324-328.
35. Teelucksingh, E., Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., & Ginsburg-Block, M. (2001). Enhancing the learning of English language learners: Consultation and a curriculum based monitoring system.Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes.
36. Texas Education Agency. (2006). Technical digest for the academic year 2006-2007. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
37. Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. (2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36, 453-467.
38. Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., et al. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
39. Ysseldyke, J., & Tardew, S. (2007). Use of a progress monitoring system to enable teachers to differentiate mathematics instruction. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 1-28.
40. Ysseldyke, J. E., Betts, J., Thill, T., & Hannigan, E. (2004). Use of an instructional management system to improve mathematics skills for students in Title I programs. Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 10-14.
41. Ysseldyke, J. E., & McLeod, S. (2007). Using technology tools to monitor response to intervention. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanderHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention. New York: Springer.
42. Ysseldyke, J. E., Spicuzza, R., Kosciolek, S., & Boys, C. (2003). Effects of a learning information system on mathematics achievement and classroom structure. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 163-173.
43. Ysseldyke, J. E., Tardew, S., Betts, J., Thill, T., & Hannigan, E. (2004). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 293-310.
44. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment between standards and assessment. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
45. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11, 283-289.