Can assessment drive instruction? Understanding the impact of one state's alternate assessment

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 199-209

  Goldstein, Jessica ^a   Behuniak, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871305491     PISSN: 15407969     EISSN: 21692408     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2511/027494812804153589     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133.
2. Agran, M., Blanchard, C., & Wehmeyer, M. (2000). Promoting transition goals and self-directed learning model of instruction. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 351-364.
3. Agran, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S. (2006). Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effects of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 230-241.
4. Agran, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S. (2010). Promoting active engagement in the general education classroom and access to the general education curriculum for students with cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 163-174.
5. Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., Cavin, M., & Palmer, S. (2008). Promoting student active classroom participation skills through instruction to promote self-regulated learning and self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 106-114.
6. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
7. Behuniak, P., & Amenta, J. (2009). Assessing all students in Connecticut. In W. M. Schafer & R. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential. Baltimore: Brooks Publishing.
8. Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2005). How states implement alternate assessments for students with disabilities and recommendations for national policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 209-220.
9. Browder, D., & Grasso, E. (1999). Teaching money skills to individuals with mental retardation: A research review with practical applications. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 297-308.
10. Browder, D. M., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Fallin, K., & Courtade-Little, G. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267-282.
11. Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. (2008). A meta-Analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407-432.
12. Browder, D., Spooner, F., Algozzine, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Karvonen, M. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45-62.
13. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela, K., & Baker, J. N. (2006a). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 309-321.
14. Browder, D.,Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006b). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 392-408.
15. Browder, D., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-Analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130-153.
16. Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S., & Koons, H. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 397-412.
17. Connecticut State Department of Education. (2006). CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist: Technical manual. Hartford, CT: Author.
18. Copeland, S. R., & Cosbey, J. (2008/2009).Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33-34, 214-227.
19. Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R. E. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement theory, and public policy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
20. Goldstein, J., & Behuniak, P. (2010). Assessing students using the CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist: A study of teachers' tasks. Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Department of Education.
21. Goldstein, J., & Behuniak, P. (2012). Assessing students with significant cognitive disabilities on academic content: A study of teacher ratings. Journal of Special Education, 46, 117-127.
22. Goldstein, J., & Stuck, J. (2010, October). Examining the impact of alternate assessments on instruction: A multimethod study of test consequences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association (NERA), Rocky Hill, CT.
23. Haertel, E. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 5-9.
24. Karvonen, M., Flowers, C., Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Case study of the influences on alternate assessment outcomes for students with disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 95-110.
25. Kearns, J., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., Kleinert, J., & Thomas, M. (2009). Characteristics of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 3-14.
26. Kleinert, H., Browder, D., & Towles-Reeves, E. (2005). The assessment triangle and students with significant cognitive disabilities: Models of student cognition. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, National Alternate Assessment Center.
27. Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2004). Alternate assessments. In F. Orelove, D. Sobsey, & R. Silberman (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (4th ed., pp. 115-149). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
28. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 24-28.
29. Mehrens, W. (2002). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? In G. Tindal & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
30. Moss, P. A. (1998). The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement, 17, 6-12.
31. Reckase, M. (1998). Consequential validity from the test developer's perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 13-16.
32. Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high stakes assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 7-15.
33. Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., & Kleinert, J. (2009a). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 241-254.
34. Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., & Muhomba, M. (2009b). Alternate assessment: Have we learned anything new? Exceptional Children, 75, 233-252.
35. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
36. U.S. Department of Education. (2005, August). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance.Washington, DC: Author.
37. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 327-342.
38. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle-school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262-272.
39. Wehmeyer, M., Sands, D. J., Knowlton, H. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2002). Teaching students with mental retardation: Providing access to the general curriculum. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.