The Changing Nature of Educational Assessment

Review of Research in Education

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 370-407

  Bennett, Randy Elliot ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924980914     PISSN: 0091732X     EISSN: 19351038     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X14554179     Document Type: Article

References (148)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2012). Uniform examination FAQs: Examination content structure and delivery. Retrieved from http://www.aicpa.org/BecomeACPA/CPAExam/ForCandidates/FAQ/Pages/computer_faqs_1.aspx
2. Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations. Washington, DC: Author; 1986:
3. Anderson J. R.,Corbett A. T.,Koedinger K. R.,Pelletier R.Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.Journal of Learning Sciences. 1995;4:167-207
4. Attali Y.Automated subscores for TOEFL iBT independent essays. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2011:
5. Attali Y.Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. Shermis M. D.Burstein J., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013:181-198.
6. Attali M.,Cayton-Hodges G.Expanding the CBAL mathematics assessment to elementary grades: The development of a competency model and a rational number learning progression. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2014:
7. BedardJ.ChiM. T. H. (1992). Expertise. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 135–139. Retrieved from http://chilab.asu.edu/papers/Expertise.pdf
8. Bejar I. I.Rater cognition: Implications for validity.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2012;31 (3): 2-9
9. BennettR. E. (1998). Reinventing assessment: Speculations on the future of large-scale educational testing. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/pic-reinvent
10. Bennett R. E.Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment.Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2010a;8:70-91
11. Bennett R. E.International encyclopedia of education. (2010b). Technology for large-scale assessment. In PetersonP.BakerE.McGawB. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 8, pp. 48–55). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Peterson P.Baker E.McGaw B., ed. Oxford, England: Elsevier; 2010b:48-55.
12. BennettR. E. (2011a). Automated scoring of constructed-response literacy and mathematics items. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/s/k12/pdf/k12_commonassess_automated_scoring_math.pdf
13. Bennett R. E.CBAL: Results from piloting innovative k-12 assessments. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2011b:
14. Bennett R. E.Formative assessment: A critical review.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2011c;18:5-25
15. BennettR. E. (2014). Preparing for the future: What educational assessment must do. Teachers College Record, 116(11). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=17623
16. Bennett R. E.,Bejar I. I.Validity and automated scoring: It’s not only the scoring.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 1998;17 (4): 9-17
17. BennettR. E.BraswellJ.OranjeA.SandeneBKaplanB.YanF. (2008). Does it matter if I take my mathematics test on computer? A second empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(9). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ838621.pdf
18. Bennett R. E.,Gitomer D. H.Educational assessment in the 21st century. Wyatt-Smith C.Cumming J., ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2009:43-61.
19. Bennett R. E.,Kane M. T.,Bridgeman B.Theory of action and validity argument in the context of through-course summative assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2011:
20. BennettR. E.PerskyH.WeissA. R.JenkinsF. (2007). Problem solving in technology-rich environments: A report from the NAEP Technology-Based Assessment Project (NCES 2007-466). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007466
21. BennettR. E.PerskyH.WeissA.JenkinsF. (2010). Measuring problem solving with technology: A demonstration study for NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(8). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1627/1471
22. Bennett R. E.,Zhang M.Technology in testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement. Drasgow F., ed. Washington, DC: National Council on Measurement in Education; in press:
23. Black P.,Wiliam D.Assessment and classroom learning.Assessment in Education. 1998a;5:7-74
24. BlackP.WiliamD. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–148. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm
25. Bridgeman B.Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. Shermis M. D.Burstein J., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013:221-232.
26. Brookhart S. M.Formative assessment strategies for every classroom: An ASCD action tool. Alexandria, VA: ASCD; 2010:
27. Bunderson C. V.,Inouye D. K.,Olsen J. B.Educational measurement. (1989). The four generations of computerized testing. In L. LinnR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 367–407). New York, NY: Macmillan.L. Linn R., ed. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1989:367-407.
28. Butler A. C.Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2010;36:1118-1133
29. CarmichaelS. B.MartinoG.Porter-MageeK.WilsonW. S. (2010). The state of state standards—and the Common Core in 2010. Washington, DC: Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/FORD/SOSSandCC2010_FullReportFINAL.pdf
30. Cayton-Hodges G. A.,Marquez E.,Keehner M.,Laitusis C.,van Rijn P.,Zapata-Rivera D.,.. Hakkinen M. T.Technology enhanced assessments in mathematics and beyond: Strengths, challenges, and future directions. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2012:
31. Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS. (2014). Coming together to raise achievement: New assessments for the Common Core State Standards. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/coming_together_to_raise_achievement_april2014.pdf
32. ChandlerM. A. (2013, May20). All Virginia students to use computers for standardized tests. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/all-virginia-students-to-use-computers-for-standardized-tests/2013/05/20/e473f924-bd9c-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html
33. Coffey J. E.,Hammer D.,Levin D., M.,Grant T.The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2011;48:1109-1136
34. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/
35. Confrey J.,Maloney A.,Nguyen K.,Mojica G.,Myers M.Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Tzekaki M.Kaldrimidou M.Sakonidis C., ed. Thessaloniki, Greece: PME; 2009:345-352.
36. Corcoran T.,Mosher F. A.,Rogat A.Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. New York: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE); 2009:
37. Daro P.,Mosher F. A.,Corcoran T.Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Philadelphia, PA: CPRE; 2011:
38. Deane P.Writing assessment in the 21st century. Elliot N.Perelman L., ed. New York, NY: Hampton Press; 2012:87-100.
39. Deane P.,Fowles M.,Baldwin D.,Persky H.The CBAL summative writing assessment: A draft eighth-grade design. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2011:
40. Deane P.,Sabatini J.,Fowles M.International advances in writing research: Cultures, places, measures. Bazerman C.Dean C.Early J.Lunsford K.Null S.Rogers P.Stansell A., ed. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press; 2012:83-102.
41. DeaneP.SabatiniJ.O’ReillyT. (2012). The CBAL English language arts competency model and provisional learning progressions: Outline of provisional learning progressions. Retrieved from http://elalp.cbalwiki.ets.org/Outline+of+Provisional+Learning+Progressions
42. Drasgow F.,Luecht R. M.,Bennett R. E.Educational measurement. (2006). Technology and testing. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 471–515). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.Brennan R. L., ed. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger; 2006:471-515.
43. Durso R.,Golub-Smith M. L.,Mills C. N.,Schaeffer G. A.,Steffen M.The introduction and comparability of the computer adaptive GRE General Test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1995:
44. Ericsson K. A.,Krampe R. T.,Tesch-Romer C.The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.Psychological Review. 1993;100:363-406
45. Federation of State Medical Boards. (2010). Medical licensing examination: Generation application information. Retrieved from http://www.fsmb.org/usmle_apply.html#usmlefees
46. Flower L.The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 1994:
47. Frederiksen N.The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning.American Psychologist. 1984;39:193-202
48. GeeJ. P.ShafferD. W. (2010). Looking where the light is bad: Video games and the future of assessment. Edge, 6, 3–19. Retrieved from http://edgaps.org/gaps/wp-content/uploads/EDge-Light.pdf
49. Getting Smart. (2012, April12). Automated essay scoring demonstrated effective in big trial. Retrieved from http://gettingsmart.com/2012/04/automated-essay-scoring-systems-demonstrate-effectiveness/
50. Automatic item generation: Theory and practice. Gierl M. J.Haladyna T. M., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013:
51. Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. (2013). A public policy statement. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gordoncommission.org/rsc/pdfs/gordon_commission_public_policy_report.pdf
52. Graf E. A.Defining mathematics competency in the service of Cognitively Based Assessment for grades 6 through 8. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2009:
53. Graf E. A.,Harris K.,Marquez E.,Fife J.,Redman M.Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning (CBAL) in mathematics: A design and first steps toward implementation. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2009:
54. HarfordT. (2014, March28). Big data: Are we making a big mistake?FT Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/21a6e7d8-b479-11e3-a09a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2xl8loPdL
55. HeritageM. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/ClassroomAssessmentIntegration/pubdocs/FASTLearningProgressions.pdf
56. HeroldB. (2014a, March13). Google under fire for data-mining student email messages. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2
57. HeroldB. (2014b, April21). inBloom to shut down amid growing data-privacy concerns. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2014/04/inbloom_to_shut_down_amid_growing_data_privacy_concerns.html
58. Herrington A.,Moran C.Writing assessment in the 21st century: Essays in honor of Edward M. White. Elliot N.Perelman L., ed. New York, NY: Hampton Press; 2012:219-232.
59. Hinze S. R.,Wiley J.,Pellegrino J. W.The importance of constructive comprehension processes in learning from tests.Journal of Memory and Language. 2013;69:151-164
60. Holland P. W.,Dorans N. J.Educational measurement. (2006). Linking and equating. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 187–220). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.Brennan R. L., ed. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger; 2006:187-220.
61. HorkayN.BennettR. E.AllenN.KaplanBYanF. (2006). Does it matter if I take my writing test on computer? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(2). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ843858.pdf
62. Irvine S. H.,Kyllonen P. C.Item generation for test development. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010:
63. KamisarB. (2014, January7). InBloom sputters amid concerns about privacy of student data. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/08/15inbloom_ep.h33.html
64. Kane M. T.Educational measurement. (2006). Validation. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.Brennan R. L., ed. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger; 2006:17-64.
65. Kapur M.Productive failure in mathematical problem solving.Instructional Science. 2010;38:523-550
66. Kingsbury G. G.,Houser R. L.Innovations in computerized assessment. Drasgow F.Olson-Buchanan J. B., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999:93-115.
67. Kingston N. M.Comparability of computer- and paper-administered multiple-choice tests for k–12 populations: A synthesis.Applied Measurement in Education. 2008;22:22-37
68. KoprivaR. J. (2009). Assessing the skills and abilities in math and science of ELLs with low English proficiency: A promising new method. AccELLerate!, 2, 7–10. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/17/Accellerate_2_1.pdf
69. Koretz D.,Hamilton L. S.Educational measurement. (2006). Testing for accountability in k-12. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531–578). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.Brennan R. L., ed. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger; 2006:531-578.
70. Lave J.Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Resnick L. B.Levine J. M.Teasley S. D., ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1991:63-82.
71. Lemann N.The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux; 1999:
72. Linn R. L.,Burton E.Performance-based assessment: Implications of task specificity.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 1994;13 (1): 5-8
73. Liu L.,Rogat A.,Bertling M.A CBAL science model of cognition: Developing a competency model and learning progressions to support assessment development. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2013:
74. LuechtR. M. (2009). Adaptive computer-based tasks under an assessment engineering paradigm. In WeissD. J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing. Retrieved from http://publicdocs.iacat.org/cat2010/cat09luecht.pdf
75. MarcusG.DavisE. (2014, April6). Eight (no, nine!) problems with big data. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/opinion/eight-no-nine-problems-with-big-data.html?_r=1
76. McManusS. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council for Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=362
77. Mislevy R. J.,Almond R. G.,Lukas J. F.A brief introduction to evidence-centered design. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2003:
78. MislevyR. J.BehrensJ. T.BennettR. E.DemarkS. F.FrezzoD. C.LevyR.. ShuteV. J. (2010). On the roles of external knowledge representations in assessment design. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(2). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ873671.pdf
79. MislevyR. J.BehrensJ. T.DiCerboK. E.LevyR. (2012). Design and discovery in educational assessment: Evidence-centered design, psychometrics, and educational data mining. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.educationaldatamining.org/JEDM/index.php/JEDM/article/view/22/12
80. Mislevy R. J.,Zwick R.Scaling, linking, and reporting in a periodic assessment system.Journal of Educational Measurement. 2012;49:148-166
81. National Association of State Boards of Accountancy. (2012). New York: Applying for the Uniform CPA Exam. Retrieved from http://www.nasba.org/exams/cpaexam/newyork/
82. National Board of Medical Examiners. (2012). USMLE examination fees. Retrieved from http://www.nbme.org/students/examfees.html
83. The nation’s report card: Science in action: Hands-on and interactive computer tasks from the 2009 science assessment. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2012:
84. National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. (2009). Taking the ARE. Retrieved from http://www.ncarb.org/ARE/Taking-the-ARE.aspx
85. National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. (2012). ARE guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.ncarb.org/ARE/~/media/Files/PDF/Guidelines/ARE_Guidelines.pdf
86. National Council of Teachers of English. (2013). NCTE position statement on machine scoring: Machine scoring fails the test. Urbana, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/machine_scoring
87. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000:
88. PaneJ. F.GriffinB. A.McCaffreyD. F.KaramR. (2013). Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at scale (WR-984-DEIES). Pittsburgh, PA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.siia.net/visionk20/files/Effectiveness%20of%20Cognitive%20Tutor%20Algebra%20I%20at%20Scale.pdf
89. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2010). The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) application for the Race to the Top comprehensive assessment systems competition. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC%20Application%20-%20FINAL.pdf
90. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013a). Diagnostic assessments and K-1 formative assessment tools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/DiagnosticK-1July%202013Overview.pdf
91. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013b). Non-summative assessments. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/non-summative-assessments
92. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013c). PARCC accessibility features and accommodations manual. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCAccessibilityFeaturesandAccommodationsManualNovember2013.pdf
93. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013d). PARCC assessment administration guidance (Version 1.0). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC%20Assessment%20Administration%20Guidance_FINAL_0.pdf
94. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013e). Technology guidelines for PARCC assessments (Version 3.0): Frequently asked questions. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC_TechnologyGuidelines-V3_FAQ.pdf
95. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2014). States select contractor to help develop and implement PARCC tests: Cost comes in under projection. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/states-select-contractor-help-develop-and-implement-parcc-tests
96. Pellegrino J. W.,Chudowsky N.,Glaser R.Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001:
97. Perelman L.When “the state of the art” is counting words.Assessing Writing. 2014;21:104-111
98. Popham W. J.Phony formative assessments: Buyer beware!.Educational Leadership. 2006;64 (3): 86-87
99. Popham W. J.Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD; 2008:
100. Quellmalz E. S.,Davenport J. L.,Timms M. J.,DeBoer G. E.,Jordan K. A.,Huang C.-W.,Buckley B. C.Next-generation environments for assessing and promoting complex science learning.Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013;105:1100-1114
101. QuillenI. (2012, May9). Hewlett automated-essay-grader winners announced. Education Week, Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2012/05/essay_grader_winners_announced.html
102. Ramineni C.,Trapani C. S.,Williamson D. M.,Davey T.,Bridgeman B.Evaluation of e-rater for the GRE issue and argument prompts. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2012:
103. Ravitch D.The reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Knopf; 2013:
104. ReidK. S. (2014, February28). Chicago parents form coalition to promote state test boycott. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/parentsandthepublic/2014/02/chicago_parents_form_coalition_to_support_state_test_boycott.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2
105. ReidenbergJ.RussellN. C.KovnotJ.NortonT. B.CloutierR.AlvaradoD. (2013). Privacy and cloud computing in public schools. New York, NY: Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy. Retrieved from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/clip/2/
106. Ritter S.,Anderson J. R.,Koedinger K. R.,Corbett A.Cognitive tutor: Applied research in mathematics education.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2007;14:249-255
107. Roediger H. L.,Karpicke J. D.Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention.Psychological Science. 2006;17:249-255
108. Rohrer D.,Pashler H.Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies.Educational Researcher. 2010;39:406-412
109. Rudner L. M.Elements of adaptive testing. van der Linden W. J.Glas C. A. W., ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2010:151-165.
110. RudnerL. M.GarciaV.WelchC. (2006). An evaluation of the IntelliMetricTM essay scoring system. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(4). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1651/1493
111. Schmidt W. H.,Houang R. T.Curricular coherence and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.Educational Researcher. 2012;41:294-308
112. Shaffer D. W.How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan; 2006:
113. Shavelson R. J.,Baxter G. P.,Gao X.Sampling variability of performance assessments.Journal of Educational Measurement. 1993;30:215-232
114. Shepard L. A.The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning. Dwyer C. A., ed. New York, NY: Erlbaum; 2008:279-303.
115. ShepardL. A.DaroP.StancavageF. B. (2013). The relevance of learning progressions for NAEP. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/files/NVS_combined_study_3_Relevance_of_Learning_Progressions_for_NAEP.pdf
116. Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. Shermis M. D.Burstein J., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013:
117. Shermis M. D.,Hamner B.Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. Shermis M. D.Burstein J., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013:313-346.
118. Sigel I.The development and meaning of psychological distance. Cocking R.Renninger K. A., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1993:141-158.
119. SingerN. (2013, October5). Deciding who sees student data. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/deciding-who-sees-students-data.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&adxnnlx=1389978450-gFo%20edDUCpRuRLvjV%20ngMQ
120. Intelligent tutoring systems. Sleeman D.Brown J. S., ed. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1982:
121. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2010a). Race to the Top Assessment Program Application for new grants: Comprehensive Assessment Systems CFDA Number: 84.395B. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Smarter-Balanced-RttT-Application.pdf
122. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2010b). Theory of action: An excerpt from the Smarter Balanced Race to the Top Application. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Smarter-Balanced-Theory-of-Action.pdf
123. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2012a). Frequently asked questions. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/resources-events/faqs/
124. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2012b). Smarter Balanced assessments. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/smarter-balanced-assessments/
125. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2014). Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: Usability, accessibility, and accommodations guidelines. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SmarterBalanced_Guidelines_091113.pdf
126. SongY.DeaneP.GrafE. A.van RijnP. (2013). Using argumentation learning progressions to support teaching and assessments of English language arts. R&D Connections, 22, 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RD_Connections_22.pdf
127. StecherB. (2010). Performance assessment in an era of standards-based educational accountability. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from https://scale.stanford.edu/system/files/performance-assessment-era-standards-based-educational-accountability.pdf
128. Steenbergen-Hu S.,Cooper H.A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K-12 students’ mathematical learning.Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013;105:980-987
129. Steenbergen-Hu S.,Cooper H.A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning.Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014;106:331-347
130. Stone E.,Davey T.Computer-adaptive testing for students with disabilities: A review of the literature. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.; 2011:
131. StraussV. (2014, September28). How much time will new Common Core tests take kids to finish? Quite a lot. Washington Post. Retrieved October1, 2014 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/28/how-much-time-will-new-common-core-tests-take-kids-to-finish-quite-a-lot/
132. TanS. (2014, May16). What’s the upside to tough, new Common Core tests for schools? Throwing out those decade-old computers. Hechinger Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/content/whats-upside-tough-new-common-core-tests-schools-throwing-decade-old-computers_15905/
133. TuckerB. (2012, May/June). Grand test auto: The end of testing. Washington Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/mayjune_2012/special_report/grand_test_auto037192.php
134. University of Akron. (2012, April4). Man and machine: Better writers, better grades. Retrieved from http://www.uakron.edu/im/online-newsroom/news_details.dot?newsId=40920394-9e62-415d-b038-15fe2e72a677&pageTitle=Top%20Story%20Headline&crumbTitle=Man%20and%20%20machine:%20Better%20writers,%20better%20grades
135. Race to the Top assessment program application for new grants: Comprehensive Assessment Systems. Washington, DC: Author; 2010:
136. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1994). What do student grades mean? Differences across schools (Office of Research Report OR 94-3401). Washington, DC: Office of Research. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367666.pdf
137. U.S. Medical Licensing Examination. (2012). 2013 USMLE bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.usmle.org/
138. VanLehn K.,van de Sande B.Development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments. Ericsson K. A., ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2009:356-378.
139. Virginia Department of Education. (2012). Standards of Learning (SOL) and testing. Richmond, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/mathematics/parents_students_should_know.shtml
140. Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Wainer H., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2000:
141. Wang S.,Jiao H.,Young M. J.,Brooks T.,Olson J.Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing in K−12 reading assessments: A meta-analysis of testing mode effects.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2007a;68:5-24
142. Wang S.,Jiao H.,Young M. J.,Brooks T. E.,Olson J.A meta-analysis of testing mode effects in Grade K–12 mathematics tests.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2007b;67:219-238
143. Ward W. C.The College Board Computerized Placement Tests: An application of computerized adaptive testing.Machine-Mediated Learning. 1988;2:271-282
144. Weiss D. J.Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1982;6:473-492
145. Wenger E.Communities of practice and social learning systems.Organization. 2000;7:225-246
146. Williamson D. M.Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. Shermis M. D.Burstein J., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013:153-180.
147. WoodruffD. J.ZiomekR. L. (2004). Differential grading standards among high schools (ACT Research Report Series 2004-2). Iowa City, IA: ACT. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/researchers/reports/pdf/ACT_RR2004-2.pdf
148. Computerized multistage testing: Theory and applications. Yan D.von Davier A. A.Lewis C., ed. London, England: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2014: