Technology and formative assessment

International Encyclopedia of Education

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 42-47

  Pellegrino, J W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Classroom assessment; Cognition; Diagnostic assessment; Feedback; Formative assessment; Instruction; Interim assessment; Large scale assessment; Mathematics; Reading; Science; Summative assessment; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874006997     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00700-4     Document Type: Chapter

References (30)

1. Bangert-Drowns R.L., Kulik J.A., Kulik C.C. Effects of frequent classroom testing. Journal of Educational Research 1991, 85(2):89-99.
2. Black P., Harrison C., Lee C., Marshall B., Wiliam D. Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 2004, 86(1):8-21.
3. Black P.J., Wiliam D. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 1998, 80(2):139-148.
4. Datnow A., Park V., Wohlstetter P. Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary schools 2007, Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/focus/education_reform/publicati ons.html.
5. Learning and Instruction: A SERP Research Agenda 2004, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. M.S. Donovan, J.W. Pellegrino (Eds.).
6. Feng M., Heffernan N.T. Informing teachers live about student learning: Reporting in the assessment system. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning 2005, 3:1-14.
7. Good R.H., Gruba J., Kaminski R.A. Best practices in using dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. Best Practices in School Psychology IV 2001, 679-700. National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC. A. Thomas, J. Grimes (Eds.).
8. Goodman K.S., Flurkey A., Kato T., et al. The Truth about DIBELS: What It Is, What It Does 2006, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NJ.
9. Kika F.M., McLaughlin T.F., Dixon J. Effects of frequent testing of secondary algebra students. Journal of Educational Research 1992, 85:159-162.
10. Kintsch E., Steinhart D., Stahl G., et al. Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments 2000, 8:87-109.
11. Kling N., McCorkle D., Miller C., Reardon J. The impact of testing frequency on student performance in a marketing course. Journal of Education for Business 2005, 81:67-72.
12. Lemke J.J. Across the scale of time: Artifacts, activities, and meaning in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity 2000, 7(4):273-290.
13. Martinez J., Martinez N.C. Re-examining repeated testing and teacher effects in a remedial mathematics course. British Journal of Educational Psychology 1992, 62:356-363.
14. Minstrell J., Kraus P. Guided inquiry in the science classroom. How People Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom 2005, 475-512. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. M.S. Donovan, J.D. Bransford (Eds.).
15. Assessment Standards for School Mathematics 1995, NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.
16. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics 2000, NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.
17. Nyquist J.B. The Benefits of Reconstruing Feedback as a Larger System of Formative Assessment: A Meta-Analysis 2003, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, Unpublished master's Thesis.
18. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment 2001, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, (National Research Council's Committee on the Foundations of Assessment). J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, R. Glaser (Eds.).
19. Pellegrino J.W., Hickey D. Educational assessment: Towards better alignment between theory and practice. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series: Instructional Psychology: Past, Present and Future Trends. Sixteen Essays in Honour of Erik De Corte 2006, 169-189. Elsevier, Oxford. L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, S. Vosniadou (Eds.).
20. Perie M., Marion S., Gong B. Moving towards a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 2009, 28(3):5-13.
21. Quellmalz E., Pellegrino J.W. Technology and testing. Science 2009, 323:75-79.
22. Ritter S., Anderson J.R., Koedinger K.R., Corbett A. Cognitive tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2007, 14(2):249-255.
23. Ruiz-Primo M.A., Shavelson R.J., Hamilton L., Klein S. On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2002, 39(5):369-393.
24. Sadler D.R. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science 1989, 18:119-144.
25. Shepard L.A. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher 2000, 29(7):4-14.
26. Stevens R., Dexter S. Developing teachers' decision-making strategies for effective technology integration: A simulation design framework 2003.
27. Stiggins R.J. Student-Involved Classroom Assessment 2001, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 3rd edn.
28. Stiggins R.J. Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan 2002, 83(10):758-765.
29. Vendlinski T., Stevens R. Assessing student problem-solving skills with complex computer-based tasks. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 2002, 1(3). (accessed August 2009). http://www.jtla.org.
30. Webb N.L. Determining alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. NISE Brief 1997, 1(2). (accessed August 2009). http://facstaff.wcer.wisc.edu/normw/1997alignmentbrief.htm.