The Classroom Assessment of Reading

Handbook of Reading Research: Volume IV

Volumn 4, Issue , 2011, Pages 487-514

  Afflerbach, Peter P ^a   Cho, Byeong Young ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869155058     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203840412-25     Document Type: Chapter

References (143)

1. Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Plummer, J. (1997). Final report of language background as a variable in NAEP mathematics performance. CSE Technical Report 429. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
2. Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hofstetter, C., & Baker, E. (2000) Impact of accommodation strategies on English language learners’ test performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19, 16-26.
3. AERA, APA, & NCME. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:Author.
4. Afflerbach, P. (2002). The road to folly and redemption: Perspectives on the legitimacy of high-stakes testing. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 348-360.
5. Afflerbach, P. (2007). Understanding and using reading assessment, K-12. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
6. Afflerbach, P., Cho, B., & Kim, J. (In press). The assessment of higher order thinking in reading. In G. Schraw (Ed.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills. Denver, CO: Information Age.
7. Afflerbach, P., Cho, B., Kim, J., & Clark, S. (2010). The classroom assessment of literacy. In D. Wycliffe (Ed.), International handbook of English, language and literacy (pp. 401-412). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Afflerbach, P., & Meuwissen, K. (2005). Teaching and learning self-assessment strategies. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 141-164). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Afflerbach, P., & Moni, K. (1995). The intended and interpreted meanings of teachers’ evaluative feedback to students during reading lessons. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 137-147.
10. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D., & Paris, S. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364-373.
11. Alexander, P. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32, 10-14.
12. Anderson, L., & Bourke, S. (2000). Assessing affective characteristics in schools, 2/e. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
13. Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Brophy, J. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, 79, 193-223.
14. Andrade, H. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57, 13-18.
15. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3). Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=3
16. Au, K., Carroll, J. H. (1997). Improving literacy achievement through a constructivist approach: The KEEP demonstration classroom project. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 203-221.
17. Bakan, R. (1971). Academic performance and self-concept as a function of achievement variability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 317-319.
18. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
19. Baxter, G., & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 37-45.
20. Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3-24.
21. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7-74.
22. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
23. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In. J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 81-100). London: Sage.
24. Board on Testing and Assessment. (2004). Keeping score for all: The effects of inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
25. Brookhart, S. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment information. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 153-169.
26. Brookhart, S. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purpose and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 5-12.
27. Brookhart, S., & Durkin, D. (2003). Classroom assessment, student motivation, and achievement in high school social studies classes. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 27-54.
28. Brookhart, S., Walsh, J., & Zientarski, W. (2006). The dynamics of motivation and effort for classroom assessments in middle school science and social studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(2), 151-184.
29. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
30. Calfee, R., & Hiebert, E. (1991). Classroom assessment of reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, 281-309). White Plains, NY: Longman.
31. Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432-462). New York: Macmillan.
32. Chapman, J., & Tunmer, W. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 154-167.
33. Cohen, E., Lotan, R., Abram, P., Scarloss, B., & Schults, S. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104, 1045-1068.
34. Corno, L. (1993). The best laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22, 14-22.
35. Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2006). Critical analysis of current approaches to modeling educational effectiveness; the importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 347-366.
36. Crooks, T. (1989). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.
37. Davis, A. (1998). The limits of educational assessment. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
38. Deno, S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
39. Denzin, N. (1978) Sociological methods: A sourcebook, 2e. New York: McGraw Hill.
40. Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 14, 1-11.
41. Dweck, C. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
42. Falk, B., Ort, S. W., & Moirs, K. (2007). Keeping the focus on the child: Supporting and reporting on teaching and learning with a classroom-based performance assessment system. Educational Measurement, 12, 47-75.
43. Fitt, D., Rafferty, K., Presner, M., & Heverly, M. (1999). Improving the quality of teacher’s tests. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-55409981.html
44. Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-119.
46. Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing and on teaching and learning. [theoretical study]. American Psychologist, 39(3), 193-202.
47. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18, 27-32.
48. Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
49. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). New directions in research: Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
50. Gambrell, L., Palmer, B., Codling, R., & Mazzoni, S. (1996). Motivation to read profile (MRP). Athens, GA:National Reading Research Center.
51. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
52. Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment and learning. London: Sage.
53. Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
54. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355-392.
55. Greeno, J., and the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
56. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
57. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
58. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Schmidt, M. (2002). Perspectives on alternative assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 69-95.
59. Hartman, H. (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
60. Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York:Cambridge University Press.
61. Herman, J. L., Gearhart, M., & Aschbacher, M. (1996). Portfolios for classroom assessment: Design and implementation issues. In R. Calfee & P. Perfumo (Eds.), Writing portfolios in the classroom: Policy and practice, promise and peril (pp. 27-59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2005). Engaged participation: A sociocultural model of motivation with implications for educational assessment. Educational Assessment, 10, 277-305.
63. Hiebert, E., Winograd, P., & Danner, F. (1984). Children’s attributions for failure and success in different aspects of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1139-1148.
64. Huey, E. B. (1908/1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading: With a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
65. Johnston, P. (2005). Choice words. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
66. Kaestle, C. (1991). Studing the history of literacy. In C. Kaestle (Ed.), Literacy in the United States: Readers and reading since 1880 (pp. 3-32). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
67. Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific media news briefs. Science Education, 81, 515-532.
68. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.
69. Labaree, D. (2007). Education, markets, and the public good: Selected works of David F. Labaree. London:Routledge.
70. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2005). Qualitative reading inventory (4th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
72. Leu, D., Jr., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Henry, L., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on instruction and assessment of the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C. Block, & S. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 321-346). New York: Guilford.
73. Liepzig, D., & Afflerbach, P. (2000). Determining the suitability of assessments: Using the CURRV framework. In L. Baker, M. Dreher, & J. Guthrie (Eds.) Engaging young readers (pp. 159-187). New York:Guilford.
74. Lincoln, Y., & Guba. E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
75. Linn, R. (1990). Essentials of student assessment: From accountability to instructional aid. Teachers College Record, 91, 422-436.
76. Linn R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-16.
77. Linn, R., Baker, E., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 15-21.
78. McDonnell, L. (2008). The politics of educational accountability: Can the clock be turned back? In K. Ryan & L. Shepard (Eds.), The future of test-based educational accountability (pp. 47-67). New York:Routledge.
79. McKenna, M., & Kear, D. (1990). Measuring attitude towards reading: a new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43, 626-639.
80. McKenna, M., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York: Guilford.
81. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organizaton in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 12-103). London:Collier Macmillan.
83. Moje, E., McIntosh Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38-71.
84. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132-141.
85. Morrow, L., Reutzel, D., & Casey, H. (2006). Organization and management of language arts teaching:Classroom environments, grouping practices, and exemplary instruction. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 559-581). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
86. Moskal, P. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom perormance assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=14
87. Moss, P. (2003). Reconceptualizing validity for classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 13-25.
88. Moss, P., Beck, J., Ebbs, C., Matson, B., Muchmore, J., Steele, D. (1992). Portfolios, accountability, and interpretive approach to validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 11, 12-21.
89. National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). 2009 NAEP reading framework. Washington, DC:Author.
90. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.
91. Norris, S., & Philips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
92. Olson, K., Banaji, M., Dweck, C., & Spelke, E. (2006). Children’s biased evaluations of lucky vs, unlucky people and their social groups. Psychological Science, 17, 822-845.
93. Olson, B., Mead, R., & Payne, D. (2002). A report of standard setting method for alternative assessments for students with significant disabilities. Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
94. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York:Basic Books.
95. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
96. Paratore, J., Hindin, A., Krol-Sinclair, B., & Duran, P. (1999). Discourse between teachers and Latino parents during conferences based on home literacy portfolio. Education and Urban Society, 32, 58-82.
97. Pearson, P., & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
98. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
99. Philips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21, 317-327.
100. Phillips, S. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
101. Pintrich, P., Marx, R., & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
102. Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong-and what’s right-with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72-75.
103. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal reports of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
104. Raphael, T., & Au, K. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59, 206-221.
105. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283-314.
106. Sadler, R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5, 77-84.
107. Scherr, R., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 147-174.
108. Schon, D. (1987). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
109. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
110. Shepard, L., & Bliem, C. (1995). Parents’ thinking about standardized tests and performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 24, 25-32.
111. Simon, M., & Forgette-Giroux, R. (2000). Impact of a content selection framework on portfolio assessment at the classroom level. Assessment in Education, 7, 83-101.
112. Smith, J. (2003). Reconsidering reliability in classroom assessment and grading. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice, 22, 26-33.
113. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
114. Spector, J. (2005). How reliable are informal reading inventories? Psychology in the schools. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110520731/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
115. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
116. Stansfield, C. (2002). Linguistic simplification: A promising test accommodation for LEP students? Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=7
117. Stiggins, R., & Bridgeford, N. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 271-286.
118. Stiggins, R., & Conklin, N. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practices of classroom assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
119. Stobart, G. (2006). The validity of formative assessment. In. J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 133-146). London: Sage.
120. Street, B. (1995). Social literacies. London: Longmans.
121. Stretch, L., & Osborne, J. (2005). Extended time test accommodation: Directions for future research and practice. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n8.pdf
122. Tierney, R., & Clark, C. (with Fenner, L., Herter, R., Simpson, C., & Wiser, B.). (1998). Portfolios: Assumptions, tensions, and possibilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 474-486.
123. Tierney, R., & Simon, M. (2004). What’s still wrong with rubrics: Focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=2
124. Tittle, C. (1989). Validity: Whose construction is it in the teaching and learning context? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 8, 5-13.
125. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
126. Uhry, J., & Ehri, L. (1999). Children’s reading acquisition. In D. Wagner, R. Venezky, & B. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An International Handbook. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
127. Underwood, T. (1998). The consequences of portfolio assessment: A case study. Educational Assessment, 5, 147-194.
128. United States Department of Education Office of the Inspector General. (2006). The Reading First grant application process. Final inspection report. Washington, DC: Author.
129. University of Oregon. (2009). Big ideas in reading: The purposes of assessment. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://reading.uoregon.edu/assessment/assess_types.php
130. Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (2000). Policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessment. In M. J. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 911-935). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
131. Valencia, S., Hiebert, E., & Afflerbach, P. (1994). Authentic assessment: Practices and possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
132. Van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1998). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and online construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
133. VanSledright, B. (2002). In search of America’s past: Learning to read history in elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press.
134. Verhoeven, L., & Snow, C. (2001). Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
135. Vygotsky, L. (1979). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
136. Wells, G. (1989). Language in the classroom: Literacy and collaborative talk. Language and Education, 3, 251-274.
137. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 23, 537-548.
138. Wineburg, S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519.
139. Winne, P., & Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekarts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532-566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
140. Wolf, D. (1987, Winter). The art of questioning. Academic Connection, 1-7.
141. Yin, Y., Shavelson, R., Ayala, C., Araceli Ruiz-Primo, M., Brandon, P., Furtak, E., et al. (2008). On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 335-359.
142. Ziegler, J., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3-29.
143. Zuriff, G. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential hypothesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 99-117.