Measuring instruction for teacher learning

Measurement Issues and Assessment for Teaching Quality

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 179-205

  Stein, Mary Kay ^a   Matsumura, Lindsay Clare ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867281949     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4135/9781483329857.n11     Document Type: Chapter

References (77)

1. Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). Testing and student engagement with literature in urban classrooms: A multi-layered perspective. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2), 177-212.
2. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 499-536. doi:10.1007/s10857-006-6585-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-6585-3
3. Aschbacher, P. R. (1999). Developing indicators of classroom practice to monitor and support school reform (CSE Technical Report No. 513). Los Angeles: University of California, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
4. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G.Sykes & L.Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
6. Berns, B. B., & Swanson, J. (2000, April). Middle school science: Working in a confused context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444944)
7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box. Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
8. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teacher's knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T. R.Guskey & M.Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 35-65). New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (in press). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers' classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
10. Boston, M., & Wolf, M. K. (2006). Assessing academic rigor in mathematics instruction: The development of the Instructional Quality Assessment toolkit (CSE Technical Report No. 672). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
13. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
14. California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2007). California higher education accountability: Goal-student success, Measure: California community college students' degrees and certificates awarded and successful transfers. Retrieved December 14, 2007, from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2007reports/07-06.pdf
15. Clare, L. (2000). Using teachers' assignments as an indicator of classroom practice (CSE Technical Report No. 532). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
16. Clare, L., & Aschbacher, P. (2001). Exploring the technical quality of using assignments and student work as indicators of classroom practice. Educational Assessment, 7, 39-59. doi:10.1207/S15326977EA0701_5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0701_5
17. Clare, L., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., & Gallimore, R. (1996). Using moral dilemmas in children's literature as a vehicle for moral education and teaching reading comprehension. Journal of Moral Education, 25, 325-341. doi:10.1080/0305724960250305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305724960250305
18. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
19. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199. doi:10.3102/00346543053002159 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
21. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167-180. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2302_6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2302_6
22. Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
23. Garcia, G. E. (2004). The reading comprehension development and instruction of English-language learners. In A. P.Sweet & C. E.Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 30-50). New York: Guilford Press.
24. George, J. C. (1972). Julie of the wolves. New York: HarperCollins.
25. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C.Berliner & R. C.Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Macmillan.
26. Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68. doi:10.3102/0091732X027001025 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0091732X027001025
27. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Continuum.
28. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Bogard Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (NCES 2003-013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
29. Hill, H. (2006). How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation. In M. I.Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 65-82). Albany: State University of New York Press.
30. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton-Century.
31. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1981, April). Teacher training research: Working hypotheses for program design and directions for future study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
32. Junker, B., Weisberg, Y., Matsumura, L. C., Crosson, A., Wolf, M., Levison, A., et al. (2005). Overview of the instructional quality assessment (CSE Technical Report No. 671). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
33. Kingsbury, G. G., Olson, A., Cronin, J., Hauser, C., & Houser, R. (2003). The state of state standards: Research investigating proficiency levels in fourteen states. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
34. Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (1995). Academic challenge in high poverty classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 770-776.
35. Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L.Brennen (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 531-578). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
36. Lanier, J., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 527-569). New York: Macmillan.
37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
38. Linn, R. L. (2003). Performance standards: Utility for different uses of assessments. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(31). Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n31/
39. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Matsumura, L. C. (2005). Creating high-quality classroom assignments. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
41. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Pascal, J., & Valdés, R. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 207-229. doi:10.1207/S15326977EA0803_01 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0803_01
42. Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C, Wolf, M., Crosson, A., Levison, A., Peterson, M., et al. (2006). Using the Instructional Quality Assessment Toolkit to investigate the quality of reading comprehension assignments and student work (CSE Technical Report No. 669). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
43. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
44. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
45. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The condition of education in 2004 in brief (NCES 2004-076). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science.
46. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author.
47. 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.
48. Newmann, F. M., Lopez, G., & Bryk, A. S. (1998). The quality of intellectual work in Chicago schools: A baseline report. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
49. Peck, R., & Tucker, J. (1973). Research on teacher education. In R.Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 940-978). Chicago: Rand McNally.
50. Perrenoud, P. (1991). Towards a pragmatic approach to formative evaluation. In P.Weston (Ed.), Assessment of pupils' achievement: Motivation and school success (pp. 77-101). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
51. Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. M. (2005). Johnny can read … in some states: Assessing the rigor of state assessment systems. Education Next, 5(3), 52-53.
52. Richardson, V. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
53. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623-1640. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00303.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00303.x
54. Richardson, V., & Roosevelt, D. (2004). The preparation of teachers and the improvement of teacher education. In M.Smylie & D.Miretzky (Eds.), Developing the teacher workforce: NSSE Yearbook, 103, Part I (pp. 105-144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
56. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.
57. Schmidt, W. H, Houang, R. T., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Value-added research: Right idea but wrong solution? In R.Lissitz (Ed.), Value-added models in education: Theory and applications (pp. 145-164). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
58. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 50-91). New York: Macmillan.
59. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X029007004 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
60. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan.
61. Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR Project: The "revolution of the possible" in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 30, 476-521. doi:10.1177/0042085996030004006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085996030004006
62. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
63. Smith, T. S, Desimone, L. M., & Ueno, K. (2005). "Highly qualified" to do what? The relationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-oriented instruction in middle school mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 75-109. doi:10.3102/01623737027001075 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737027001075
64. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
65. Spinelli, J. (1990). Maniac magee. London: Little, Brown.
66. Spillane, J. P, & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 1-27. doi:10.3102/01623737021001001 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737021001001
67. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455-488. doi:10.3102/00028312033002455 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455
68. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 50-80. doi:10.1080/1380361960020103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1380361960020103
69. Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 423-448. doi:10.3102/01623737025004423 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737025004423
70. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
71. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
72. Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L.Darling-Hammond & G.Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
73. Thorndike, E. L. (1922). The psychology of arithmetic. New York: Macmillan. doi:10.1037/11080-000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11080-000
74. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES 2003-013). Washington, DC: Author.
75. Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high-quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61(5), 24-28.
76. Wittrock, M. C. (1986a). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
77. Wittrock, M. C. (1986b). Students' thought processes. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.