SPRING 2010
COURSE SYLLABUS
Educational Assessment
FOUN 3710 - 3 s.h. - CRN 22335)
Prerequisites:
FOUN 1501. (Note: When grouped with other courses for the purposes of
block instruction, students must be admitted to the complete instructional
block to take this course.)
Class meetings:
Spring Semester, 2010
TT 08:00 to 09:15; BCOE Room 4302
Text/Resources: Hogan, T. Educational Assessment: A Practical Introduction (2007). John
Wiley & Sons, Inc
McEwing, Richard. Website - http://www.cc.ysu.edu/~ramcewin
(Essential details related to this course are on the class web site)
Syllabus developed by Dr. Richard McEwing
Instructor:
Dr. Richard A. McEwing, Professor
Department of Educational Foundations, Research, Technology & Leadership
Beeghly College of Education
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, OH 44555-0001
Office:
Beeghly College of Education, Rm 4105
Office Hours:
MWF 9:00 to 10:00; TT 9:15 to 11:00
Office Phone:
(330) 941-1933
E-mail:
ramcewin@cc.ysu.edu
Technology/Materials Fee: Students are required to have purchased individual TaskStream
accounts. TaskStream is a web-based program used for a number of class requirements in this
course and is the web-based program used throughout the teacher education program.
Catalog Description: Critical review of types, purposes, procedures, uses, and limitations of assessment
strategies and techniques including authentic assessment, value-added assessment, and alternate
assessment. Standardized testing and implications for current practice.
Critical Tasks: The FOUN 3710 Critical Tasks provide an assessment of the candidate’s capabilities in
1) reviewing an article from their own professional literature that deals a testing issue and 2) constructing a
classroom test appropriate for the their teaching field. The classroom test must include assessment
alternatives for two diverse students. These assignments must be submitted on TaskStream.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 1 of 13
SPRING 2010
Knowledge Base Rationale:
As the bell curve becomes obsolete as an acceptable standard of teachers' success with students as our democratizing and developing society demands more, and more equitably disbursed,
education - teachers must be able to successfully to teach groups of students whom they have not,
in the past, succeeded in teaching. To attain this emerging professional standard, teachers will
need to stronger, in depth and breadth, in their three traditional areas of learning: content
knowledge; pedagogy; and knowledge of the learners and the teaching-learning situation in their
familial, local, societal, cultural, and political contexts. Educational Assessment addresses a key
component of pedagogy – assessment.
This course, like its Foundations predecessor, Foun 1501, continues to foster commitment to the
principle that children of all colors, backgrounds, creeds, abilities, and styles can learn. The
focus of the course in educational assessment to include assessments generated by teachers and
standardized assessments teachers must interpret. The class meeting discussions, field work
assignments, and course assessments flow from intertwined topics. The overriding approach
used is to introduce the techniques of “how” along with the concerns of “to what purpose.”
The following are knowledge bases used in setting the course objectives -1. If assessment tools and approaches are not of high quality or not appropriate for the purpose
used, there is potential for harm when decisions affecting students' futures are being made based
on the results. The most important factors in determining technical quality are the reliability,
validity, and fairness of classroom assessments. The Praxis II PLT Category II - Assessment
topics will be a central guide; i.e., types of assessments, characteristics of assessments, scoring
assessments, uses of assessments, understanding of measurement theory and assessment-related
issues (Nuttall, 1989; ETS Booklet on the PLT - Tests and a Glance).
2. Professionals need to know certain statistical and measurement concepts to organize, use,
interpret and evaluate data. Candidates will learn to utilize internet calculator web sites to
explore basic concepts and develop skills in descriptive statistics (e.g., scales, distributions,
measures of central tendency, measures of variability, measures of relationship) and
understanding test scores (e.g. criterion referenced interpretation, norm-referenced interpretation,
percentiles, standard scores) and the purposes/timing of testing; e.g. placement, diagnostic,
formative, summative (U.S. Congress, 1992, February; Blommers, 1977; Bloom, Hastings &
Madaus, 1971; Coladarci & Coladarci, 1980; Hooke, 1983).
3. The primary aim of assessment is to foster learning of worthwhile academic content for
all students (Wolf, Bixby, Glenn, & Gardner, 1991). Many educators believe that what gets
assessed is what gets taught and that the format of assessment influences the format of
instruction (O'Day & Smith, 1993).
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 2 of 13
SPRING 2010
4. Assessments of student achievement are ever changing. Candidates need to understand not
only the basics of assessment technique, but they also need to learn to think critically, analyze,
and make inferences. Student assessment is the centerpiece of educational improvement efforts.
Changes in assessment may cause teachers to do things differently (Linn, 1987; Madaus, 1985).
5. Candidates need to be aware of the promise and the challenges inherent in using assessment
practices for high-stakes decisions (such as student retention, promotion, graduation, and
assignment to particular instructional groups). In many schools, districts, and states,
interpretations based on a single test score have been used to place students in low-track classes,
to require students to repeat grades, and to deny high school graduation diplomas. The negative
personal and societal effects for students are well-documented: exposure to a less challenging
curriculum, significantly increased dropout rates, and lives of unemployment and welfare
dependency (Oakes, 1986a; Oakes, 1986b; Shepard & Smith, 1986; Jaeger, 1991).
6. Authentic assessment involves candidates creating problems which are engaging or questions
of importance, in which students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and
creatively. The tasks are either replicas of, or analogous to, the kinds of problems faced by adult
citizens and consumers or professionals in the field. (Wiggins, 1993). Examples of tools or
instruments used in authentic assessment include rubrics and portfolios.
7. Value-added assessment gives candidates a powerful diagnostic tool for measuring the
effect of their own teaching academic achievement. Student performance on assessments can
be measured in two very different ways, both of which are important. Achievement describes the
absolute levels attained by students in their end-of-year tests. Growth, in contrast, describes the
progress in test scores made over the school year. Value-added assessment measures growth and
answers the question: how much value did the school staff add to the students who live in its
community? If teachers and schools are to be judged fairly, it is important to understand this
significant difference (McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2004).
8. It is key that assessment results are report effectively to students, parents and the wider
community so that their needs for information are met and they have a clear understanding of the
assessment. When properly presented, assessment reports can help build support for schools and
for initiatives that educators wish to carry out. But if assessment results are poorly reported, they
can be disregarded or interpreted incorrectly, adversely affecting students, educators, and others
in the school community. Determine the audience for the reporting activity. Reports should be
geared toward the audience (Roeber, Donovan, and Cole, 1980).
9. An examination historic and current controversies in educational assessment. The issues
have less to do with technique than they do with deep seated beliefs, working conditions,
and social conditions. Issues will vary over time but typical issues would include test anxiety,
test wise-ness, coaching, the computer in assessment, environmental assessment, and the politics
of assessment (Messick, 1989; Kochman, (1989).
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 3 of 13
SPRING 2010
Connections to the BCOE Conceptual Framework and Ohio’s Performance-Based Licensure
Expectations:
The BCOE Conceptual Framework “Reflection in Action” uses the mnemonic device
“REFLECT” to specify its seven keys components. These seven components are then specified
as candidate learning outcomes in the “BCOE Institutional Standards & Outcome Statements.”
These outcome statements are index to the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession in a
matrix called the Alignment of Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession and BCOE
Conceptual Framework.
Course Objectives: (OS#_ indicates Ohio Standard connections; R#_ indicates BCOE Conceptual
Framework connections.)
A. Cognitive Domain (Knowledge categories - Bloom's taxonomy, revised 2001)
1.1. Remember (was Knowledge)
1.1.1. Knows the definitions of common measurement terms,
e.g., validity, reliability, mastery (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.1.2. Knows where to find sources of information about
standardized testing (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.1.3. Knows basic testing concepts, e.g., norms, standard
error of measurement, percentile rank (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.1.4. Knows how to develop learning outcomes objectives using
taxonomies, domains, categories, illustrative verbs (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.2. Understand (was Comprehension)
1.2.1. Understands the difference between
criterion-referenced and norm-referenced testing (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.2.2. Understands advantages and disadvantages of
various item types (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.2.3. Understands how factors unrelated to the test
itself may influence the test results (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.2.4. Generalizes principles that under gird sound test
administration procedures. (OS#3.1; R#1B)
1.3. Apply (was Application)
1.3.1. Predicts appropriate situational use for the various
categories of evaluation, e.g., placement,
diagnostic, formative, summative (OS#3.2; R#1B).
1.3.2. Demonstrates correct usage of a variety of evaluation
procedures, e.g., anecdotal records, rating scales,
checklists, achievement and aptitude tests (OS#3.2; R#1B).
1.3.3. - 1.3.7 (See Psychomotor Domain)
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 4 of 13
SPRING 2010
1.4. Analyze (was Analysis)
1.4.1. Differentiates among the contributions and limitations
of standardized tests and other high stakes assessments (OS#3.3; R#1C).
1.4.2. Identifies strengths and weaknesses of teacher-made
classroom tests (OS#3.3; R#1C).
1.4.3. Interprets the results of standardized tests (OS#3.3; R#1C).
1.5. Evaluate (was Evaluation)
1.5.1. Judges the relative worth of a wide variety of educational
data possibilities (OS#3.5; R#1C).
1.5.2. Evaluates data to make decisions (OS#3.5; R#1C).
1.6. Create (was Synthesis)
1.6.1. Constructs well-organized reviews on topics related
to educational evaluation (TaskStream) (OS#3.1; R#1B).
1.6.2. Formulates a well-balanced exam (TaskStream) (OS#3.1; R#1B).
B. Psychomotor Domain (Skills)
2.1. Develops a table of specifications (OS#3.2; R#1B).
2.2. Constructs various item types (OS#3.2; R#1B).
2.3. Assembles items into a classroom test (OS#3.2; R#1B).
2.4. Computes simple descriptive statistics (Internet Calculators) (OS#3.2; R#1B).
2.5. Performs item analysis (OS#3.2; R#1B).
C. Affective Domain (Dispositions)
3.1. Accepts the importance of the individual in meaningful
interpretation of test results (OS#3.5; R#1C).
3.2. Shows awareness of professional ethical standards relating
to confidentiality of test scores (OS#3.4; R#3A).
3.3. Appreciates the role of reporting and communicating
testing information to all legitimate parties (OS#3.4; R#3D).
3.4. Values testing as means to obtain reliable data in
order to make decisions about students (OS#3.5; R#1C).
3.5. Values multifaceted assessment as a means of creating
fairness in a grading policy (OS#3.1; R#1B).
3.6. Displays sensitivity to social and political issues related to testing (OS#3.4; R#3D).
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 5 of 13
SPRING 2010
Course Outline - Class meeting topics and due dates for written submissions are scheduled to
follow the sequence below. Should adjustments to this plan be necessary, they will be announced
in class.
Dates
Topic
Related Material and Readings
Jan 12
Review of Syllabus & Course Expectations Syllabus / web site
Educational Assessment Pretest
Jan 14
The World of Educational Assessment
Jan 18
UNIVERSITY CLOSED – MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
Jan 19
Statistics
Hogan Chap 2
Jan 21
More Statistics
Hogan Chap 2
Jan 26
Reliability
Hogan Chap 3
Hogan Chap 1
**Jan 26 Schedule Individual Statistics Task with Instructor
Jan 28
Validity
Hogan Chap 4
**Jan 28 “Article Review” via TaskStream is Due
Feb 2
Norms and Criteria
Hogan Chap 5
Feb 4
Planning for Assessment
Hogan Chap 6
Feb 9
Selected Response Items
Hogan Chap 7
Feb 11
Constructed Response Items
Group Work “Dwarfs” Testing Activity
Hogan Chap 8
**Feb 16 Mid-Term Exam – Chapters 1 through 8
Feb 18,23
Administering & Analyzing Tests
Hogan Chap 10
Feb 23,25
Grading & Reporting
Hogan Chap 13
Mar 2
High Stakes Testing
Standardized Tests: Achievement
Hogan Chap 11
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 6 of 13
SPRING 2010
Mar 4
High Stakes Testing Continued:
School Report Cards &
Value Added Assessment
Class Web Site
**March 4 “Test Construction Project” via TaskStream Due
Mar 9,11
NO CLASSES ON CAMPUS – SPRING BREAK
Totally in the field
Mar 16,18
In the Field
Mar 23,25
In the Field
Mar20,Apr1 In the Field
Apr 6,8
In the Field
Apr 13,15
In the Field
Apr 20,22
In the Field
Back to YSU Classroom
Apr 27
Evaluating Teaching:
Applying Assessment To Yourself
Hogan Chap 15
**Apr 27 Schedule Extra Credit Individual Statistics Task if Desired
Apr 27,29
What Lies Beneath – Attitude & Ability
Nontest Indicators: e.g. – Creativity, Interests Hogan Chap 9
Standardized Tests: e.g - Ability, Personality
Hogan Chap 12
Apr 29
Educational Assessment & the Law
Hogan Chap 14
**Apr 30 Last Date for Extra Credit Individual Statistics Task
**May 4 - Final Exam 8:00 am – 10:00 am
(Chapters 9 – 15, School Report Cards, Value Added)
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 7 of 13
SPRING 2010
Course Grading:
The course Grade Determination Checklist below indicates the maximum point values assigned
to each evaluation area:
Evaluation Area
Points Possible
Related Course Obj.
No. 1 Educational Assessment Pretest
10
1.3
No. 2 Statistics Performance Task
20
2.4
No. 3 Critical Task - Article Review
10
1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 3.6
No. 4 Class-Participation
20
3.1 through 3.6
No. 5 Critical Task – Test Construction Project
40
1.6, 2.1 through 2.5
No. 6 Mid-Term Exam
25
1.1, 1.2
No. 7 Final Exam
25
1.1, 1.2
---150 Total
Each student starts the class with 150 points. The checklist points earned above are added to
determine the course grade as follows:
271 - 300 . . . . . . . . A
241 - 270 . . . . . . . . B
211 - 240 . . . . . . . . C
181 - 210 . . . . . . . . D
0 - 180 . . . . . . . . F
Educational Assessment Pretest Points Explained:
All students will be given an assessment at the beginning of the course to determine their
awareness of key concepts and terms related to assessment. Each student taking the pretest is
awarded all 10 points. The instructor will use the scores on the pretest to guide subsequent
instruction.
Educational Assessment Mid-Term and Final Points Explained:
All students will be given two tests to determine their knowledge of key concepts and terms
related to assessment. These are called the Mid-Term and the Final. Each test will be 50
multiple choice or other selected response item types. Students taking these exams earn .5 point
for each correct answer. Each test is worth 25 points. The Final is not cumulative.
Critical Task #1 - Article Review Points Explained:
For the first Critical Task all students must review an article from their own professional
literature that deals with an issue in testing. Each selected article will be evaluated using
TaskStream according a rubric created by the instructor. The article review itself is worth a
potential 10 points toward the course grade (see rubric).
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 8 of 13
SPRING 2010
Critical Task #2 – The Test Construction Project Points Explained:
The second Critical Task for the course is the construction of a classroom test appropriate for the
candidate’s teaching field. This will be submitted through TaskStream and is worth a potential of 40
points (see rubric). Evaluation of the candidate’s project will be done through TaskStream.
Test Construction Project Components

Introduction
o
a description of the unit or topic to be taught
o
the grade level in which the unit or topic could be taught

A list of at least three and no more than four specific learning objectives or outcomes, each
targeted at a different Bloom level (specify by name and briefly explain), that will be achieved
during instruction, with a table of specifications. (Note: all objectives/outcomes listed must be
evaluated by the test as demonstrated through the table of specifications).

A pretest assessment plan designed to be given prior to instruction.

A formative evaluation plan.

A summative whole class assessment using a quantitative approach. This may vary a bit but it is
expected to include the following pieces:

o
clear directions and point values associated with each item or group of items.
o
20 selected-response items. This is normally achieved best using multiple choice (or
interpretive) questions. Matching or true-false items, depending on your unit, may be
appropriate. Your test must contain at least two selective-response item types. You may
NOT use short answer or fill-in-the-blank as selective-response.
o
a separate scoring key listing all the correct answers for your selected response items
o
2 constructed-response essay questions
o
1 constructed-response performance-based task
o
a sample full-credit separate scoring rubric for each of the 3 constructed-response
questions
o
identification of the objective/outcome tested by that item or group of items
An assessment alternative for two students; each with a different alternative assessment. Specify
what it is about these students (i.e., justify alternative assessments for these two students) that
leads you to create an alternative assessment for each. The difference might relate to learning
mode, reading ability, language acquisition, activity level, and so on. You may use qualitative
approaches here.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 9 of 13
SPRING 2010
Statistics Performance Task Explained:
Six statistics approaches using internet programs (bar graph, circle graph, histogram, meanmedian-mode, Spearman Rank Correlation and Pearson Correlation) are explored in class. Each
student will be required to demonstrate one-on-one his/her ability to use one of these programs.
The student will used the data sets found on the class website, use the statistic program discussed
in class to analyze the data, and answer questions the instructor raises during the process.
Each student will schedule an individual time to meet with the instructor. The student will not
know which of the six she/he must demonstrate to the instructor until the time of the meeting.
The internet program selected will be determined by roll of the die. Sub-tasks total to 20 points
possible on the overall task (see website examples for scoring tables).
Extra Credit Explained:
If a student chooses, he/she may do a second performance task for a potential extra credit of 15
points. This time, however, the student will be required to create his/her own data, use a
statistics program discussed in class to analyze the data, and answer questions the instructor
raises during the process. Sub-tasks total to 15 points possible on the overall task (see website
examples for scoring tables). The student may choose to do any of the six internet statistical
programs. This extra credit performance task must be scheduled and completed prior to the start
of final exam week.
Class Participation Points Explained:
While the knowledge base related to this course can be acquired through reading the text, the
examination of (and reflection on) our ideas with regard to this knowledge is attained only by
being present at class activities and discussions. In recognition of this commitment, individuals
who attend all classes earn 20 pts. For every class absence, 4 points are deductive from the 20
points possible.
Other Course Definitions and Policies
Class Cancellation: Notice that this class is being cancelled for any one day because of instructor illness,
or other reasons, will be sent to the student address <@student.ysu.edu> as soon as possible. Universitywide closure or class cancellation is a decision made through the Presidents office, and announced via the
YSU homepage and on WYSU-FM radio.
Academic Honesty - Departmental Policy: All candidates are expected to comply with generally accepted
professional ethics of Academic Honesty in meeting their course requirements (refer to
http://penguinconnection.ysu.edu/handbook/Policies/POLICIES.shtml). Candidates are expected to submit
materials that are respectful of intellectual property rights, as well as complying with all Federal Copyright
Laws (refer to http://www.copyright.gov/). Any breach of this code of ethics will be handled according to the
YSU Student Handbook. Any proven acts of cheating, plagiarizing, or engaging in any form of academic
dishonesty, could result in a severe disciplinary action, an “F” grade for the assignment or course, and possible
referral to the Office of Student Affairs for disciplinary action.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 10 of 13
SPRING 2010
Students with Disabilities: In accordance with University procedures, if you have a documented
disability and require accommodations to obtain equal access in this course; please contact me
privately to discuss your specific needs. You must be registered with CSP Disability Services,
located at Wick House, and provide a letter of accommodation to verify your eligibility. You can
reach CSP Disability Services at 330 941-1372.
Incomplete Grade Policy: An incomplete grade of an “I” may be given to a student who has
been doing satisfactory work in a course but, for reasons beyond control of the student and
deemed justifiable by the instructor, had not completed all requirements for a course when grades
were submitted. A written explanation of the reason for the “I” and a date (which must be within
one year) by which all course requirements will be completed, must be forwarded to the
Registrar for inclusion in the student’s permanent record, with copies to the student and
department chairperson. Upon the subsequent completion of the course requirements, the
instructor will initiate a grade change. If no formal grade change occurs within one year, the “I”
automatically converts to an “F.” If graduation occurs within the one-year time period, the
“Incomplete” grade will be converted to an “F” prior to graduation.
Candidate Disposition Alert Process: The purpose of this alert process is to identify candidate
performance or conduct that fails to satisfy professional expectations associated with
professionalism, inclusivity and collaboration determined by the BCOE faculty as necessary
standards to effectively serve all students or clients. The Candidate Performance Alert form is
completed when a concern is raised about a candidate’s performance during any class, sponsored
activity by the Beeghly College of Education, or during a YSU required field or clinical
experience. This form may be used when a candidate engages in conduct, irrespective of its time
or location, which raises substantial questions about the candidate’s ability to perform his or her
role as an educational professional. The Candidate Performance Alert Form can be used by
university faculty, staff, supervisors, cooperating teachers, or other school personnel when they
have a concern, other than one that can be effectively addressed through routine means of
supervision.
Critical Tasks: Selected performance-based assignments reflect a candidate’s knowledge,
skills and/or dispositions and are aligned with the standards for teacher preparation of the
licensure area. These tasks assess a candidate’s ability to move through the teacher
preparation program in an effective way, meeting and/or exceeding expectations in these
professional standards. Therefore, candidates must effectively pass a critical task to pass the
course. Failure to effectively pass the critical task(s) will result in remediation through
repetition of the course to guarantee that all teacher candidates are prepared to be an effe ctive
educator once they leave Youngstown State University.
Missed Exams: A make-up exam will be scheduled only when verification that an absence was
justified is provided.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 11 of 13
SPRING 2010
References
Baker, E. L., O'Neill, H. F., Jr., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for
performance-based assessments. American Psychologist, 48, 1210-1218.
Blommers, Paul J. (1977). Elementary statistical methods in psychology and education. Lanham,
Md.: University Press of America.
Bloom, Benjamin S., J. Thomas Hastings, George F. Madaus. Handbook On Formative And
Summative Evaluation Of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Braun, Henry I. “Using Student Progress to Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added
Models,” Educational Testing Service - Policy Information Center. September 2005.
Coladarci, Arthur and Theodore Coladarci. (1980). Elementary Descriptive Statistics. San
Francisco: Wadsworth, Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994, Spring). Performance assessment and educational equity. Harvard
Educational Review, 64(1), 5-29.
Educational Testing Service (ETS) website (www.ets.org).
Hooke, Robert. (1983). How to tell the liars from the statisticians. New York: M. Dekker.
Jaeger, R.M. (1991). Legislative perspectives on statewide testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3),
239-242.
Kochman, T. (1989). Black and white cultural styles in pluralistic perspective. In B. R. Gifford
(Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language and culture. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Linn, R. (1987). Accountability: The comparison of educational systems and the quality of test
results. Educational Policy, 1 (2), 181-198.
Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., & Dunbar, S.B. (1991, November). Complex, performance-based
assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20 (8), 15-21.
Madaus, G. (1985). Public policy and the testing profession - You've never had it so good?
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 4 (1), 5-11.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 12 of 13
SPRING 2010
McCaffrey, Daniel, Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, Daniel, and Hamilton, Laura. "Evaluating ValueAdded Models for Teacher Accountability." An Education Report by the Rand Corporation
(prepared for the Carnegie Corporation), 2004.
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment.
Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.
Nuttall, D. L. (1989). The validity of assessments. In P. Murphy & B. Moon (Ed.), Developments
in learning and assessment (pp. 265-276). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Oakes, J. (1986a, Fall). Beyond tracking. Educational Horizons, 65(1), 32-35.
Oakes, J. (1986b, November). Tracking, inequality, and the rhetoric of school reform: Why
schools don't change. Journal of Education, 168(1), 61-80.
O'Day, J.A., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In S.
Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-311). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roeber, E. D., Donovan, D., & Cole, R. (1980, December). Telling the statewide testing story ...
and living to tell it again. Phi Delta Kappan, 62(4), 273-274.
Sanders, William. "Beyond No Child Left Behind.” 2003 Annual Meeting. American
Educational Research Association. Chicago. 2003.
Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. New
York: Falmer Press.
Value-Added Assessment Special Issue, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,
Volume 29 No 1, Spring 2004
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., III, & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating
new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1992, February). Testing in American
Schools: Asking the right questions. (OTA-SET-519). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
McEwing - Foun 3710 - Page 13 of 13