Teachers' perceptions of large-scale assessment programs within low-stakes accountability frameworks

International Journal of Testing

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 122-143

  Klinger, Don A ^a   Rogers, W Todd ^b  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Large scale assessment; Purposes and issues

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957463162     PISSN: 15305058     EISSN: 15327574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15305058.2011.552748     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Anderson, J. O., Muir, W., Bateson, D. J., Blackmore, D., & Rogers, W.T. (1990). The impact of provincial examinations on education in British Columbia: General report. Report submitted to the British Columbia Ministry of Education.
2. Berliner, D. C., Popham,W. J., & Shepard, L.A. (2000, April). Three blueprints for a revolution: How to halt the harm caused by high-stakes tests. General Session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
3. Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. (1974). The ANOVA and multiple comparisons for data with heterogeneous variances. Biometrics, 30, 719-724.
4. Childs, R.A.,& Fung, L. (2009). The first year they cried": Howteachers address test stress. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 64. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap
5. Cizek, G. J. (2001).More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19-27.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
7. Creighton, T. (2007). Schools and data: The educator's guide for using data to improve decisionmaking (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
8. Darling-Hammond, L.,Ancess, J., and Falk, B. (1994). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Delandshere, G. (2001). Implicit theories, unexamined assumptions and the status quo of educational assessment. Assessment in Education, 8, 113-133.
10. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading in a data rich world: Harnessing data for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11. Elmore, R. F. (2004). The problem of stakes in performance-based accountability systems. In S. F. Furman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 274-296). New York: Teachers College Press.
12. Finn, J. D. (1974). A general model for multivariate analysis. New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston.
13. Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
14. Hummel, T. J., & Sligo, J. R. (1971). Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate analysis of variance procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 76(1), 49-57.
15. Jamieson, B. (2007). Male presence in teaching continues to decline. Professionally Speaking, June. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/june2007/maleteachers.asp
16. Kaiser, H. F. (1963). Image analysis. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring change (pp. 156-166). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
17. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2002). Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test-based accountability systems. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 2002 (pp. 235-283). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
18. Klinger, D. A., DeLuca, C., & Miller, T. (2008). The evolving culture of large-scale assessments in Canadian education. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 76. Retrieved July 5, 2009, from http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/klinger.html
19. Klinger, D. A., Rogers, W. T., Anderson, J. O., Poth, C., & Calman, R. (2006). Contextual and school factors associated with achievement on a high-stakes examination. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 771-797.
20. Lam, T. C. M., & Klockars, A. J. (1982). Anchor point effects on the equivalence of questionnaire items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 317-322.
21. Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4-14.
22. Linn, R.L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 3-13.
23. Mazzeo, C. (2001). Frameworks of state: Assessment policy in historical perspective. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 367-397.
24. McLean, L. D. (1985). The craft of student evaluation in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.
25. Morris, J. D. (1979). A comparison of regression predication accuracy on several types of factor scores. American Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 17-24.
26. No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). Public Law No. 107-10. United States Federal Education Legislation.
27. Popham, W. J. (2002, April). High-stakes tests: Harmful, permanent, fixable. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Research Council, New Orleans, LO.
28. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
30. Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of lowachieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Analysis and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 197-227.
31. Rogers, W.T. (1991). Establishing measurement standards for Canada's schools. The Canadian School Executive, 11(3), 4-10.
32. Rogers,W.T., Ma, X., Klinger, D.A., Dawber, T., Hellesten, L., Nowicki, D., et al. (2006). Examination of the influence of selected factors on performance on Alberta Learning achievement tests. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 708-733.
33. Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 7-15.
34. Shepard, L. A. (1991). Psychometricians' beliefs about learning. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 2-16.
35. Shepard, L. A. (2010).What the marketplace has brought us: Item-by-item teaching with little instructional insight. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 246-257.
36. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (2000). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Tamhane, A. C. (1979). A comparison of procedures for multiple comparisons of means with unequal variances. Journal of American Statistical Association, 74, 471-480.
38. Thompson, S. (2001). The authentic testing movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 358-362.
39. Thurlow, M. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Standard setting challenges for special populations. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 387-410). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40. United States Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top program: Executive summary. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
41. Volante, L., & Ben Jaafar, S. (2008). Profiles of education assessment systems worldwide. Educational assessment in Canada. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 201-210.
42. Wilbrink, B. (1997). Assessment in historical perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(1), 31-48.
43. Willms, J. D. (1992). Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators. Lewes, East Sussex, UK: Falmer.
44. Wolfe, R., Childs, R. A., & Elgie, S. (2004). Final report of the external evaluation of EQAO's assessment processes. Toronto: Education Quality and Accountability Office.