Curriculum assessment

Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 141-159

  Porter, Andrew C ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85084534710     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203874769-13     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Ananda, S. (2003). Rethinking issues of alignment under No Child Left Behind. San Francisco: WestEd.
2. Berger, A., Desimone, L., Herman, R., Garet, M., & Margolin, J. (2002). Content of state standards and the alignment of state assessments with state standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
3. Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 21-29.
4. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica. CA: RAND.
5. Cohen, S. A. (1995). Instructional alignment. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.
6. Correnti, R., Rowan, B., & Camburn, E. (2003, April). School reform programs, literacy practices in 3rd grade classrooms, and instructional effects on student achievement: Notes from the first year of a study of instructional improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
7. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002, September). Models for alignment analysis and assistance to states. Washington, DC: Author.
8. Debra P. v. Turlington, 474 F. Supp. 244 (M.D. Fla. 1979), aff'd, 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir., 1981).
9. Freeman, D. J., Kuhs, T. M., Porter, A. C., Floden, R. E., Schmidt, W. H., & Schwille, J. R. (1983). Do textbooks and tests define a national curriculum in elementary school mathematics'! Elementary School Journal, 83, 501-513.
10. Freeman, D. T., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26, 403-421.
11. Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338.
12. Herman, J. L., Klein, D. C. D., & Abedi, J. (2000). Assessing students' opportunity to learn: Teacher and student perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(4), 16-24.
13. Herman, J. L., Webb, N., & Zuniga, S. (2002, April). Alignment and college admissions: The match of expectations, assessments, and educator perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
14. Impara, J. C. (2001, April). Alignment: One element of an assessment's instructional utility. Paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
15. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review [Electronic version]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522-549.
16. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29-45.
17. McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A. (2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement: The case of stan-dards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 493-517.
18. McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O., Travers, K. J., et al. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
19. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-1 10, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
20. Olson, L. (2003). Standards and tests: Keeping them aligned. Research Points: Essential Information for Education Policy, 7(1).
21. Plake, B. S., Buckendahl, C. W., & Impara, J. C. (2001, June). A comparison of publishers' and teachers' perspectives on the alignment of norm-referenced tests to Nebraska's language-arts content standards. Paper presented at the annual large-scale assessment conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Snowbird, UT.
22. Porter, A. C. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher; 18(5), 9-15.
23. Porter, A. C. (1995). The uses and misuses of opportunity-to-learn standards. Educational Researcher; 24(1), 21-27.
24. Porter, A. C. (1998a, October). Curriculum reform and measuring what is taught: Measuring the quality of education processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New York City.
25. Porter, A. C. (1998b). The effects of upgrading policies on high school mathematics and science. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 1998 (pp. 123-172). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
26. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher; 31 (7), 3-14.
27. Porter, A. C. (2003, October). Prospects for school reform and closing the achievement gap. Paper presented at the Educational Testing Service Invitational Conference, New York City.
28. Porter, A. C., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schille, J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematical teaching (pp. 96-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
29. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. S., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms (Final report to the National Science Foundation on Grant No. SPA–8953446 to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
30. Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom'? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states–One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 60-80). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Rothman, R. (2004). Imperfect matches: The alignment of standards and tests. Paper prepared for the Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, National Research Council. Available at www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/AlignmentofStandards.doc.
32. Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2002). Berzchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 566). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
33. Rowan, B. (1998). The task characteristics of teaching: Implications for the organizational design of schools. In R. Bernhardt, C. N. Hedley, G. Cattaro, & V. Svolopoulos (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Rethinking schools for the 21st century. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
34. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Correnti, R. (2003, April). Using teacher logs to measure the enucted curriculum in lurge-scale surveys: Insights from the study of instructionul improvement. Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
35. Rowan, B., Harrison, D. M., & Hayes, A. (2003). Using instructional logs to study elementary school mathematics: A close look at curriculum and teaching in the early grades. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Education.
36. Schmidt, W. H. (1983a). High school course-taking: A study of variation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(2), 167-182.
37. Schmidt, W. H. (1983b). High school course-taking: Its relationship to achievement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(3), 311-332.
38. Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., Houang, R., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D., Cogan, L., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39. Schwille, J. R., Porter, A. C., Belli, G., Floden, R. E., Freeman, D. J., Knappen, L. B., et al. (1983). Teachers as policy brokers in the content of elementary school mathematics. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook on teaching and policy (pp. 370-391). New York: Longman.
40. Sebring, P. A. (1987). Consequences of differential amounts of high school coursework: Will the new graduation requirements help? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(3), 257-273.
41. Shavelson, R. J., & Dempsey-Atwood, N. (1976). Generalizability of measures of teaching behavior. Review of Educational Research, 46, 553-611.
42. Spillane, J. R, & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
43. Walberg, H. J., & Shanahan. T. (1983). High school effects on individual students. Educational Researcher, 12(1), 4-9.
44. Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 6). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, National Institute for Science Education.
45. Webb, N. L. (2002). Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
46. Wixson, K. K., Fisk, M. C., Dutro, E., & McDaniel, J. (2002). The alignment qfstate standards and assessments in elementary reading (CIERA Rep. No. 3–024). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Education, Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.