KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name ECE 9320 Linking Traditional Assessment to Instruction
Department Elementary and Early Childhood Education
Degree Title (if applicable) Education Doctorate (Ed.D.)
Proposed Effective Date Fall 2006
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
x
New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Faculty Member
Approved
_____
Date
Not Approved
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
Date
School Curriculum Committee
Date
School Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate Studies
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
Date
Page 1 of 12
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number ECE 9320 _____________________
Course Title __Linking Traditional Assessment to Instruction
Credit Hours 3
Prerequisites Acceptance to the Ed.D. program
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
As legislatures, both state and federal, continue to require more and more assessment of learning, it is critical that
practicing teachers and teacher leaders learn how to use assessment as a tool to improve instruction rather than a
number to put on a report card. Item analysis test design, purpose of tests and test interpretation will be examined.
How to design assessment strategies that address quality of learning while assuring that students learning will be
reflected in traditional tests will be explored
III.
Justification
Testing, an integral part of all school systems, is used for a multitude of reasons. In an effort to improve our
educational systems, testing has become a focus of teachers’ lives rather than a source of support to improve
teaching. It is not uncommon to hear teachers express concern about “preparing for THE test—what ever THE test is.
The purpose of this class is to help educational professionals understand, use and value THE test, whether it be
authentic assessment, criterion referenced testing, or standardized testing. Helping educational leaders see the
connections between all types of testing and using this understanding to improve teaching will enhance not only
students’ learning but also the climate in classroom when THE test is administered. Fear and threats do assure long
term improvements in education. Only with complete understanding and the ability to incorporate this new found
knowledge into the teaching process will testing become a positive part of teaching.
Page 2 of 12
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: To be Assigned
Text:






American Psychological Association, Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association, (5th ed) Washington, DC: Author
Allen, D (Ed. (1998) Assessing Student Learning: From grading to understanding. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Lissitz, R W & Shcafer, W. D. (2002). Assessment in Educational reform: Both means and
ends. Boston. Allyn & Bacon.
Poplan, W. J. (2002). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (3rd). New York:
Allyn & Bacon
Weishaar, M. K & Scott V. G. (2005). Case Studies in assessment of students with
disabilities.” New York: Pearson
Ysseldyke, S. (2001). Assessment.(8thd ed). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Ed.D. program
Objectives:
Course objective
1. Reflect upon and explain personal
philosophy about testing in your own
classroom.
Doctoral
KSDs
2.d, 3.b,
4.b, 4.e
2. Examine the legal and ethical
consideration in assessment as they
relate to current practice in their own
classrooms.
2.b, 3.a,
4.b
3 Identify and explain the basic
concepts of measurement.
4.b, 4.c,
4.d, 4.e, 4.f
Distributed School Leadership Roles*
Change Leaders, Relationship Development
Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Operations Leader
Change Leaders,
Process Improvement
Relationship Development Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Operations Leader
Change Leaders,
Process Improvement
Relationship Development Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
PSC/NCATE
Standard
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
Page 3 of 12
4. Design ways to incorporate and
use “testing” as a teaching and
learning tool
4.a, 4.b
4.c, 4.d.
5. Create a new assessment strategy
to use in the classroom.
4.a, 4.b,
4.c, 4.d,
4.e, 4.f
6. Evaluate effectiveness of assessment
strategy used in the classroom.
4.f
Leader
Operations Leader
Change Leaders,
Process Improvement
Relationship Development Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Operations Leader
Change Leaders,
Process Improvement
Relationship Development Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Operations Leader
Learning & Development Leader
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
1.3, 1.4
Data Analysis Leader
7. Identify effective technological
assessment programs.
4.f
8. Discuss and debate the nature of
assessment today and what
improvements can be made for the
future of education.
1.c, 2.a,
2.b, 6.c
Learning & Development Leader
Data Analysis Leader
Change Leader, Relationship Development
Leader, Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader, Operations Leader,
Process Improvement Leader, Curriculum,
Instruction & Assessment Leader
1.3, 1.4
1.1, 1.3, 1.4,
1.5, 1.6, 1.7
Instructional Method
Lecture, class participation and discussion, technology, group and individual assignments
Method of Evaluation
Individual Assignment
 Personal Philosophy Statement about Testing in Public Schools--100 points
 Identify and explain basic concepts of measurement used in your classroom--100 points
 Analysis and Synthesis of current assessment practices in own classroom--100 points
 Identify ways to incorporate testing as a teaching tool in your classroom--100 points
 Reflections and Communication--S or U Group Assignment
 Examine legal and ethical issues about assessment in today’s classroom--100 points .
Development of a new assessment test to be administered to elementary students--100
points
Page 4 of 12



Evaluate effectiveness (items analysis, distributions of scores—descriptive analysis) of a
new assessment instrument--100 points
Modify assessment instrument based on analysis; complete cycle of tests development
again--100 points Identify effective technological strategies used in the classroom -100 points
Exploration of grant writing opportunities--S or U
Three points will be subtracted from the final average for each “U” received.
A:
B:
C:
F:
V.
92% - 100%
84% - 91%
75% - 83%
75% or lower
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
*Course funding is addressed in a comprehensive manner in the comprehensive proposal for the umbrella
Ed.D degree for the Bagwell College of Education.
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the
Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 16 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
EECE
ECE 9320
Trad. Assessment
3
Fall 2006
Regular
Page 5 of 12
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee
VII Attach Syllabus
Page 6 of 12
Elementary and Early Childhood Education
ECE 9320 Linking Traditional Assessment to Instruction
Semester Fall, 2006
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education
I.
Course: ECE 9320Linking Traditional Assessment to Instruction
II.
INSTRUCTOR: To be assigned
Kennesaw Hall Room xxx
Office Phone- xxxxx
e-mail xxxxx
III.
CLASS MEETINGS: TBA
IV:
TEXTS selection that could be chosen for ECE 9320 Assessment of Learning)
American Psychological Association, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, (5 th
ed) Washington, DC: Author
Allen, D (Ed. (1998) Assessing Student Learning: From grading to understandting. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Lissitz, R W & Shcafer, W. D. .(2002). Assessment in Educational reform: Both means and ends. Boston.
Allyn & Bacon.
Poplan, W. J.. (2002). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (3rd). New York: Allyn & Bacon
Weishaar, M. K & Scott V. G.. (2005). Case Studies in assessment of students with disabilities.” New York:
Pearson
Ysseldyke, S.. (2001). Assessment .(8thd ed). New York:. Houghton Mifflin Company..
Also you will need to bring an APA Style Manual (hard copy or CD) and computer disks to class everyday. Those
students who own laptop computers should bring those to class, too.
V.
CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTIONS:
ECE 9320 Linking Traditional Assessment to Instruction
As legislatures, both state and federal, continue to require more and more assessment of learning, it is critical that
practicing teachers and teacher leaders learn how to use assessment as a tool to improve instruction rather than a
number to put on a report card. Item analysis test design, purpose of tests and test interpretation will be examined.
How to design assessment strategies that address quality of learning while assuring that students learning will be
reflected in traditional tests will be explored.
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Testing, an integral part of all school systems, is used for a multitude of reasons. In an effort to improve our
educational systems, testing has become a focus of teachers’ lives rather than a source of support to improve
teaching. It is not uncommon to hear teachers express concern about “preparing for THE test—what ever THE test
is. The purpose of this class is to help educational professionals understand, use and value THE test, whether it be
authentic assessment, criterion referenced testing, or standardized testing. Helping educational leaders see the
connections between all types of testing and using this understanding to improve teaching will enhance not only
students’ learning but also the climate in classroom when THE test is administered. Fear and threats do assure
long term improvements in education. Only with complete understanding and the ability to incorporate this new
found knowledge into the teaching process will testing become a positive part of teaching.
Page 7 of 12
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative development of expertise in teaching and learning
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to developing
expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the
capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students through effective,
research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all
learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages of
growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is
viewed as a process of continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational
leaders must embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning.
In that way, candidates at the doctoral level develop into leaders for learning and facilitators of the
teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative
practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through
this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents and other
professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all
students to high levels of learning.
Knowledge Base
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service,
renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to
analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believe that the concept of expertise is central to
preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers
progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their
teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
Use of Technology : Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all
candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators.
During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media. They will master use
of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional
materials, and create WWW resources.
VII.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators who understand
their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these understandings to
making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the
requirements of these courses, the candidate will demonstrate the following outcomes:
Upon completion of the course, the candidates will be able to:
Course objective
1. Reflect upon and explain personal
philosophy about testing in your own
classroom.
Doctoral
KSDs
2.d, 3.b,
4.b, 4.e
Distributed School Leadership Roles*
Change Leaders, Relationship Development
Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
PSC/NCATE
Standard
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
Page 8 of 12
2. Examine the legal and ethical
consideration in assessment as they
relate to current practice in their own
classrooms.
2.b, 3.a,
4.b
3 Identify and explain the basic
concepts of measurement.
4.b, 4.c,
4.d, 4.e, 4.f
4. Design ways to incorporate and
use “testing” as a teaching and
learning tool
4.a, 4.b
4.c, 4.d.
5. Create a new assessment strategy
to use in the classroom.
4.a, 4.b,
4.c, 4.d,
4.e, 4.f
6. Evaluate effectiveness of assessment
strategy used in the classroom.
4.f
Operations Leader
Change Leaders,
Process Improvement
Relationship Development Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Operations Leader
Change Leaders,
Process Improvement
Relationship Development Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Operations Leader
Change Leaders,
Process Improvement
Relationship Development Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Operations Leader
Change Leaders,
Process Improvement
Relationship Development Leaders
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Learning & Development Leader Data
Analysis Leader
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
Leader
Operations Leader
Learning & Development Leader
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4,1.5, 1.6, 1.7
1.3, 1.4
Data Analysis Leader
7. Identify effective technological
assessment programs.
4.f
8. Discuss and debate the nature of
assessment today and what
improvements can be made for the
future of education.
1.c, 2.a,
2.b, 6.c
Learning & Development Leader
Data Analysis Leader
Change Leader, Relationship Development
Leader, Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader, Operations Leader,
Process Improvement Leader, Curriculum,
Instruction & Assessment Leader
1.3, 1.4
1.1, 1.3, 1.4,
1.5, 1.6, 1.7
Page 9 of 12
*Georgia's Leadership Institute for School Improvement & Georgia Committee on Educational Leadership
Preparation’s Distributed School Leadership Roles
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:
Individual Assignment
Personal Philosophy Statement about Testing in Public Schools--100 points
Identify and explain basic concepts of measurement used in your classroom--100 points
Analysis and Synthesis of current assessment practices in own classroom--100 points
Identify ways to incorporate testing as a teaching tool in your classroom--100 points
Reflections and Communication--S or U
Group Assignment
Examine legal and ethical issues about assessment in today’s classroom--100 points
Development of a new assessment test to be administered to elementary students--100 points Evaluate
effectiveness (items analysis, distributions of scores—descriptive analysis) of a new assessment instrument—
(100 points)
Modify assessment instrument based on analysis; complete cycle of tests development again--100 points
Identify effective technological strategies used in the classroom--100 points
Exploration of grant writing opportunities--S or U
Three points will be subtracted from the final average for each “U” received.
VIII. Grading
93-100%
85-92 %
A
B
77-84%
C
69-76%
D
<69%
F
Assignments are due on date assigned. All written assignments must be typed in 12 point font with standard margins. Work that is unedited or presented with
little thought or planning will not be accepted.
Note: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high standards of investigation associated with college-level studies. Papers should
be typewritten, on 8 1/2 x 11 in. paper. All work submitted should follow APA format. Manuscripts must be proof-read to ensure accuracy in spelling,
punctuation, and grammar. Written work should be attractive and neat -- ESPECIALLY WITH MATERIALS INTENDED FOR STUDENT USE
IX. Policies
Diversity: A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an
understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment
within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical
multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of
multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every
student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic
region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An
emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to
support students with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students
must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required.
Page 10 of 12
Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that
address each of the multicultural variables outlined above.
Professionalism- Academic Honesty: KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their academic
programs in an ethical, professional manner. Faculty of the EdS and EdD programs abide by the policies
and guidelines established by the university in their expectations for candidates’ work. Candidates are
responsible for knowing and adhering to the guidelines of academic honesty as stated in the graduate
catalog. Any candidate who is found to have violated these guidelines will be subject to disciplinary action
consistent with university policy. For example, plagiarism or other violations of the University’s Academic
Honesty policies could result in a grade of “F” in the course and a formal hearing before the Judiciary
Committee.
Professionalism- Participation and Attendance: Part of your success in this class is related to your ability to provide peer
reviews and feedback to your editing groups regarding their research and their writing. Furthermore, responding effectively and
appropriately to feedback from your peers and the professor is another measure of one’s professionalism. In addition, since
each class meeting represents a week of instruction/learning, failure to attend class will likely impact your performance on
assignments and final exams. Please be prepared with all readings completed prior to class. We depend on one another to ask
pertinent and insightful questions.
XI.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8(2),
71-82. (A
Anderson, R. & Speck, B. (2001). Using technology in K-8 literacy classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Barman, C. R. (1992). An evaluation of the use of a technique designed to assist prospective elementary teachers the use of the
learning cycle with science textbooks. School science and mathematics. 92(2), 59-63.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bishop, D.V.M. (1997). “Chapter 2: Specific language impairment,” (pp. 19-39).
Uncommon understanding: Development and disorders of language
comprehension in children. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P.E. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory,
verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42
Collins, J. (2001) From Good to Great. Harper Business
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Glasser, W. (1997). A new look at school failure and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, April 1997, 597-602.
Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Gunderson, L., & Siegal, L.S. (2001). The evils of the use of IQ tests to define learning disabilities in first- and second-language
learners. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 48-55.
Hirshulhl, J. & Bishop, D. (2000). Computers in education 00/01. Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Katzenmeyer, M. & Moller, G. (1996). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership Development for teachers. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Kellogg Foundation (1996). Celebrations & challenges: A report on science education improvement. W.K. Kellogg Foundation,
One Michigan Avenue East, Battle Creek, MI 49017-4058.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
LaBoskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Martin, D. J. (1994). Concept mapping as an aid to lesson planning: A longitudinal study. Journal of elementary science
education, 6(2), 11-30.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Orlich, D., Harder, R., Callahan, R. & Gibbson, H. (1998). Teaching strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Page 11 of 12
Owens, R.E. (2004). “Chapter 11: Specific intervention techniques,” (pp. 277-320).
Language disorders: A functional approach to assessment and intervention, 4th
Ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Payne, R. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty. RFT Publishing Co.
Piaget, J. (1959). Origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world. New York: Random House.
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Challenges in assessing children: The process. In J. M. Sattler, Assessment of Children: Cognitive
Applications (4th ed.). (pp.1-22). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Useful statistical and measurement concepts. In J. M. Sattler,
Assessment of Children: Cognitive Applications (4th ed.). (pp.86-127). San Diego,
CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(1), 1-22.
Silberman, C. (1971). Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House.
Snow, C. (2003). Chapter 11: “Assessment of reading comprehension: Researchers and
practitioners helping themselves and each other.” In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow
(Eds.), Rethinking Reading Comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press
Sternberg, R.J. (1996). Educational psychology has fallen, but it can get up. Educational psychology review, 8(2), 175-185.
Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science,
26, 127-140.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Vellutino, F. (2003). Chapter 4: “Individual differences as sources of variability in
reading comprehension in elementary school children.” In A.P. Sweet & C.E.
Snow (Eds.), Rethinking Reading Comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press
Von Glassersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
Page 12 of 12