Classroom Evaluation - Critic Article

RESEARCH STARTERS ACADEMIC TOPIC OVERVIEWS

Classroom Evaluation Testing & Evaluation > Classroom Evaluation

Table of Contents Abstract Keywords

Overview History Accountability Purposes Figure 1. The Role of Assessment within the Instructional Process

Applications Traditional vs. Alternative Assessment Table 1: Classification of Different Methods of Assessment Quantitative vs. Qualitative Assessments Locally Developed Assessments Figure 2. Product & Performance Tic-TacToe

Viewpoints Advantages Disadvantages

Terms & Concepts Bibliography Suggested Reading

Abstract Classroom evaluation is a crucial part of the learning process as it is used to measure and improve student learning as well as the quality of classroom instruction. Classroom evaluation encompasses the procedures used by teachers to determine if, and to what degree, their students can demonstrate a skill, behavior, or body of knowledge. Over the past century, the number of assessment methods have grow exponentially; teachers today can avail themselves of a variety of traditional and alternative assessment methods to evaluate and improve the quantity and quality of students’ skills and knowledge.

Overview The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation defines evaluation as “the systematic investigation of the worth or merit of a student’s performance in relation to a set of learner expectations or standards of performance” (2003, p. 228). Teacher evaluations measure student achievement by scoring students on a set of explicit expectations and then placing their scores on a scale which differentiates the degrees to which students demonstrate a skill, body of knowledge, or behavior. Evaluations can measure cognitive outcomes (of demonstrated knowledge) as well as affective outcomes (higher-order connections) (McMillan, 2001; Marzano, 2001; Popham, 2001). The feedback evaluations provide to instructors plays a prominent role in every facet and at every level of curricular development (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). Assessment methods are the techniques and strategies teachers use to collect significant information about students’ skills, body of knowledge, or behavior in order to perform their evaluations. Like evaluation, the process of assessment is central to instruction. Twenty-first century curricula demand that teachers be adept at using a variety of classroom assessment methods (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003; Littke & Grabelle, 2004; Marzano, 2001; Wiggins, 1998).

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Classroom Evaluation

Keywords Alternative Assessments Analytic Rubrics Assessment Methods Authentic Assessments Diagnostic Assessments Evaluation Formative Assessments Inferences Measurement Multiform Assessments Nontraditional Assessments Performance Assessments Portfolios Qualitative Assessments Quantitative Assessments Summative Assessments Traditional Assessments History Curriculum evaluation moved through a number of stages during the late 19th century and throughout the 20th- century. The scientific experimentation and measurement movement with its emphasis on grading, marking and judging dominated the late 1800s and early 1900s. The measurement movement grew steadily throughout the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Evaluation expanded beyond measurement with the so-called “Eight-Year Study” (1933-1941). However, the grading-marking-judging approach to classroom evaluation has guided educators throughout the history of education and is still widespread in the early 21st-century (Schubert, 1986). A shift came during the 1940s when the U.S. Office of Strategic Services began using a multiform, holistic system of assessment to identify the military personnel best suited for espionage behind enemy lines. The system was described in the agency’s report Assessment of Men: Selection of Personnel for the Office of Strategic Services. These assessments used an assortment of procedures and tests to evaluate not only individuals’ capabilities and skills, but also personal characteristics and attitudes. And by

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

assessing multiple aspects, the multiform assessments derived a fuller picture of individuals’ physical, mental, and emotional abilities and, thereby, their allover suitability for espionage (Office of Strategic Services, 1948; Wiggins, 1993). The 1950s brought Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, one of the most widely used tools for teachers’ classroom evaluation of student learning. This book provided teachers with multiple sets of behavioral verbs, helping them write performance descriptions, expectations or desired performance outcomes, and higher-level reasoning tasks for students (Bloom, 1956). Accountability Emerging in the late 1960s through the early 1970s and increasing in intensity, accountability-movement pressures began to dominate evaluation and assessment. After A Nation at Risk was published, the 1980s brought more rigorous requirements so as to improve students’ test scores and performances at college (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Schubert, 1986). The report sounded the call for accountability in education and exposed the failures of the U.S. educational system. Evaluation for accountability purposes became the watchwords of the 1980s and 1990s. The accountability movement has extended right up to the present day, culminating with the current standards-based assessments and the large-scale, highstakes, standardized state testing programs. Regardless of the dominance of accountability and standardized testing, recent years have also brought an expansion in the types of evaluation data that are considered valid for assessments. The influence and use of technology in authentic, contextual learning environments has led to dissatisfaction with existing classroom evaluation methodologies, spurring the development of innovative new methodologies (Kovalik & Dalton, 1997; Marzano, 2001). Purposes Assessments used in classroom evaluation need to focus not only on methods and techniques, but also on purposes. The type of classroom assessment used needs to be matched with its purpose(s). Classroom evaluations are certainly used to document what students have learned and to produce information about student progress, but classroom evaluations are also needed to provide teachers with information for making instructional decisions (Popham, 2001). The student-performance data emanating from classroom evaluations provide teachers with feedback on the effectiveness of their teaching procedures, helping them improve instruction and student learning. The daily classroom cycle of performance and feedback produces most student learning and most of the improvement in schools (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Wiggins, 1998). A schematic developed and illustrated in Popham’s 2001 book, The Truth About Testing: An Educator’s Call to Action, modified and reproduced here as Figure 1, shows the ideal relationships among assessment, instruction, content, inferences and decisions.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Page 2

Classroom Evaluation

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

Figure 1. The Role of Assessment within the Instructional Process

(Modified after Popham, 2001).

Applications Traditional vs. Alternative Assessment

DECISIONS

INSTRUCTION

Regarding Instruction

Educational evaluation includes a broad array of assessment approaches including both traditional and nontraditional techniques. Traditional assessments measure student learning with paper-and-pencil tests, while alternative assessments seek to measure learning along with students’ ability to reason and think critically. Both types of assessments can use objective, selectedresponse items and subjective, constructed-response items. Selected-response items limit the range of student responses through, for example, traditional multiple choice problems, or alternative self-assessment. Constructed-response items allow students to create their own responses to assessment prompts and can include traditional essays and alternative performance assessments (see Table 1).

CONTENT

INFERENCES

Knowledge, Skills, and/or Affect

Regarding Instruction

ASSESSMENT

Table 1: Classification of Different Methods of Assessment (Modified from McMillan, 2001).

Type of Response

Traditonal

Alternative

Selected-response:

Multiple-choice

Objective-type assessments in which responses or answers are chosen from those provided.

True-false

Student self-assessment

That Represents the Content

Teachers use assessments to sample students’ knowledge and skills. Sampling the larger body of content, teachers are able to use assessments to evaluate the degree to which students have mastered the body of content as a whole. They then rely on these evaluations to make decisions on how best to teach students (Popham, 2001). Instruction can move forward when classroom evaluations, based on the use of assessments, show that students have learned what they should (Gage & Berliner, 1988). For example, if a classroom teacher requires students to write two persuasive essays on a final exam and they perform well on both essays, then the teacher can reasonably infer that students are capable writers of persuasive essays (Popham, 2001). Remedial instruction is required if classroom evaluation reveals that some or all of the students have not acquired the skills that were taught. In some cases, evaluation indicates that the entire instructional sequence must be started anew. This requires rethinking educational objectives, student characteristics, teaching strategies, and the learning process (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Type of Assessment

Matching Binary-choice Structured observation Structured interview Surveys

Constructedresponse: Subjective-type assessments in which responses or answers are supplied or constructed.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Sentence completion

Performance assessment

Short answer

Authentic assessment

Essay Anecdotal observation Unstructured interview Papers Reports

Portfolio assessment Exhibitions Demonstrations Student self-assessment

Page 3

Classroom Evaluation

A variety of traditional and nontraditional assessment methods, techniques and formats are currently being used in K-12 classrooms to garner evaluative information and sources of evidence. Some are used more in certain subject areas than in others, but they can, for the most part, be used multidisciplinarily. These approaches include homework assignments; teacher-developed, paper-and-pencil quizzes and tests; teacher observations; journals; lab notebooks; and essays and writing samples (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003; Marzano, 2003; National Research Council, 2000; Wiggins, 1993). The specific assessment option(s) selected and implemented in a given circumstance should be the one(s) that will provide the best source(s) of evidence (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; McMillan, 2001; Popham, 2001). Quantitative vs. Qualitative Assessments A second classification scheme subdivides assessment methods into two major types: • Quantitative assessments— those using measurement, and • Qualitative assessments--those using non-numerical descriptions Quantitative assessments evaluate student learning as either a raw score or a standard score. Raw scores are determined from the number or percentage of test items a student answers correctly. Standard scores are determined by comparing a student’s raw score to those of other students and assigning a percentile rank (McMillan, 2001). Both standardized tests and the tests and quizzes developed by teachers are quantitative assessments. Standardized assessments include norm-referenced tests, which compare the test taker to a sample of his or her peers to derive a standard score, and criterion-referenced tests, which use a raw score to measure the degree to which the test taker possesses a trait or skill (Popham, 1975, cited in Measurement and Evaluation). Criterion-referenced standardized assessments thoroughly measure specific skills and knowledge – like geometry or American literature – while norm-referenced standardized assessments are designed to measure a broader variety of skills, such as reading comprehension or overall mathematical ability. Although standardized tests are easily compared across schools, districts, and states, the data they yield isn’t very significant for individual classrooms. By focusing on evaluating general skills and knowledge, these tests overlook specific learning as well as other important qualities of student works such as creativity and individuality. The tests should not be used to evaluate the quality of classroom instruction, since test scores can be influenced by a number of variables not related to actual student ability (e.g. socioeconomic status, curriculum exposure, or inherent academic aptitude) (Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Varying degrees of student motivation can also hinder the accuracy of large-scale assessments. Because standardized test results

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

are often not used to evaluate individual students, some students are not motivated to demonstrate their learning. This can lead to lower test scores and inaccurate data (Brookhart, Walsh, & Zientarski, 2006). Locally Developed Assessments Locally-developed assessments include grade-level tests, department tests, district-wide assessments and teacher-made tests. Departmental tests are developed by teachers at a single school to standardized curriculum goals throughout a subject area. District-wide tests are developed by teachers in collaboration with curriculum specialists to measure course and grade-level content goals (Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Teachers can use their own, non-standardized assessments for a variety of purposes. Diagnostic assessments, also known as pre-assessments or pretests, establish students’ performance baseline. Taken prior to beginning new units of study, these assessments gauge students’ starting points and readiness for learning. Diagnostic assessments can also provide insight into students’ interests and preferred routes to learning. Among the many types of diagnostic assessments are quizzes, concept maps, checklists, and journal entries (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Formative assessments are short-term, teacher-constructed tests used throughout instruction to promote and improve student learning and test performance. Teachers use them to guide learning and inform any adjustments in their instruction. They insure the consistent delivery of viable curriculum and have a strong impact on learning outcomes (National Research Council, 2000; Schmoker, 2006). Summative assessments present conclusions about the merit or worth of student performances. These traditional, teacher-made tests determine if, and to what degree, students have mastered a set of skills or body of knowledge. Major tests like midterm exams, final exams, six-week or eight-week exams, and unit exams are all summative assessments. They should be reliable, replicable, equitable for all students, systemic, interpretable, and comparable across classes and schools (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003; National Research Council, 2000; Popham, 2001; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Qualitative assessments are subjective classroom evaluations which verbally describe the quality of student learning and behavior (McMillan, 2001). These assessments make use of teacher observations, graphic organizers, multisensory tools, checklists, and narratives. Teacher observations can be based in casual, day-to-day interactions, or in formal, systemic assessments. They are particularly useful for assessing students’ ability to work in groups. Graphic organizers and multisensory tools use an organizational principal, such as chronology, to demonstrate relationships among ideas to elicit understanding from students. Teachers can also use checklists to evaluate student achievement of lesson objectives, and narratives to constructed detailed reports evaluating students’ progress and elaborate on any gaps in their learning (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Littke & Grabelle, 2004; National Research Council, 2000; O’Shea, 2005).

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Page 4

Classroom Evaluation

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

Alternative assessments follow a constructivist-research philosophy which contends that a good education develops students’ critical thinking and reasoning skills alongside their mastery of content (McMillan, 2001). Some of these alternative assessments are • Authentic assessments • Performance assessments • Portfolios • Exhibitions Curriculum-based authentic assessments are constructed to be consistent with scenarios naturally occurring outside the classroom. Authentic assessments are ‘self-referenced’: they allow teachers to compare separate instances of an individual student’s performance to determine how he or she has improved in a subject area over time. Authentic assessment tools include performance-based assessments, student portfolio entries, and writing samples. Authentic writing assessments are developed in response to writing prompts and are generally holistically scored using analytic rubrics. Analytic rubrics are more powerful evaluation tools than checklists because they can be used to identify gradations in the quality of students’ work (McMillan, 2001; O’Shea, 2005; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Performance assessments require students demonstrate a proficiency or skill by creating a product or performing a task. These assessments allow students to demonstrate learning in an individualized manner by focusing students’ individual talents (Macmillan, 2001; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). For example, the performance assessment format developed by Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) gives students structured choices for their product or performance while keeping in mind the end goal of demonstrating learning. Two versions—A and B—are shown in Figure 2. Based on the given genre or genres teachers would like students to use – written, visual or oral – they assign students an option from one or more of the columns. In the “free” blocks of version B, for each genre students have the freedom to propose an alternative source of evidence suiting their personal strengths.

Student portfolios document and illustrate student learning, performance, and progress. They typically include multiple instances of student performance (e.g. essay drafts, project notebooks, drawings, research papers, learning plans, or problem solutions). Portfolios – or process-folios, as they are sometimes called in the arts – can be used in almost any subject area to display not only finished works but also preliminary works that led up to the final piece (Gardner, 1991; Littke & Grabelle, 2004; McMillan, 2001; National Research Council, 2000). Exhibitions are authentic performances of a skill or body of knowledge in a ‘natural’ manner. Oral presentations, which demonstrate students’ knowledge and their public speaking skills, are an example of an exhibition. These assessments put students in the midst of their learning, and emphasize the process of learning as well as the end product. Students are also able to publicly demonstrate what they know, and involve teachers as well as students, parents, and community members in students’ learning (Littke & Grabelle, 2004; McMillan, 2001; Sizer, 1984; Tucker & Stronge, 2005).

Viewpoints Advantages Classroom evaluation is a critical step in the educational process as it helps students learn and educators determine program improvements (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). An efficacious assessment system facilitates better teaching and is educative and easy for students to use (Wiggins, 1998). Research has shown that assessment strategies should measure the full range of students’ learning experience to provide a composite picture which includes both the learning process and learning outcomes. The New Standards Project of the late 1990s, for example, recommended an assessment system of three interrelated components—performance standards, examinations and portfolios. Finally, to be fair and equitable, teachers must subject students to the same evaluations comprised of sets of equally difficult and representative tasks (American Association

Figure 2. Product & Performance Tic-Tac-Toe. This is a format that enables teachers to structure product-and-performance assessment options from various genres while giving students some choice. (modified from Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006).

B

A GENRE 1: WRITTEN

GENRE 2: VISUAL

GENRE 3: ORAL

Research Report

Poster

Lesson Presentation

News Article

Graphic Organizer

Oral Presentation

Information Brochure

PowerPoint

Radio Interview

GENRE 1: WRITTEN

GENRE 2: VISUAL

GENRE 3: ORAL

Free

CampaignCommercial Video

Speech

Persuasive Essay

Free

Debate

Editorial

Campaign Poster

Free

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Page 5

Classroom Evaluation

for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Kovalik & Dalton, 1997; National Center on Education and the Economy, 1997; National Research Council, 2000). Each type of assessment has its own strengths and weaknesses, so assessments should be used to complement one another. To insure consistency across classrooms, groups of teachers can work together to determine which assessments they will use, and create samples of each type (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; McMillan, 2001; Popham, 2006; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Students’ study habits are thought to be influenced by the types of assessments used (Crooks, 1988; Fleming, Ross, Tollefson, & Green, 1998). Different types of assessments measure for different types of knowledge (Marzano, 2001). Assessments that emphasize rote memorization will encourage students to adopt a surface approach to studying, while assessments that emphasize complex analysis will push them towards deep, integrative study. Students who expect more complex items on exams, such as short essays rather than multiple choice, will adjust their study habits accordingly. Therefore, classroom evaluation, students’ study strategies and the development of critical-thinking skills are believed to be interrelated (Crooks, 1988; Fleming, Ross, Tollefson, & Green, 1998). Disadvantages Classroom evaluation is a difficult process. Done incorrectly, it can lack integrity, substance, and worth. Evaluations need to be written carefully so that they don’t contain trick questions, use unrealistic or irrelevant norms, produce ambiguous observational data or assessment information, or give students an overwhelming amount of feedback (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986). Teachers should be skilled in using a variety of different methods for evaluating student learning. They need to know how to correctly interpret the results of multiple types of assessment, and be able to discern which types of assessment are appropriate for which classroom scenarios. Teacher should also be aware that individual tests cannot fully measure what students have learned, but only provide a fair sampling of that domain. To get a clear picture of students’ performance, evaluations must go beyond traditional tests. A variety of types of assessment best allows teachers to develop a summary profile of students’ knowledge, skills and achievement. It takes time to develop and use multiple types of assessments as well as document students’ achievement through multiple sources of evidence. A substantial amount of class time needs to be devoted to activities which allow teachers to evaluate students’ products or behavior. Additionally, high-quality classroom assessments require continual development. However, the quality of classroom assessments are in question and better assessments—rather than better testing, or more testing—are needed (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Crooks, 1988; Wiggins, 1993).

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

Terms & Concepts Alternative Assessments: Nontraditional or unconventional assessments; include a variety of types such as authentic assessments, performance assessments, portfolios and exhibitions. Analytic Rubrics: Evaluation tools used to identify gradations in the quality of students’ work and to assign a subjective and holistic score—that is, no score, 1, 2, 3, or 4, for example. Assessment Methods: The techniques or strategies that teachers use to acquire evaluation information from students. Authentic Assessments: Assessments constructed such that they are compatible and consistent with what people do in situations occurring naturally outside the classroom; examples are portfolio entries and writing samples. Diagnostic Assessments: Pre-assessments or pre-tests used by teachers to establish a performance baseline, gauge learners’ starting points and readiness prior to beginning new instructional units. Evaluation: “The systematic investigation of the worth or merit of a student’s performance in relation to a set of learner expectations or standards of performance” (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003, p. 228). Exhibitions: Authentic performances, demonstrations or oral presentations of knowledge and/or skill in a ‘natural manner’ that allow students to show publicly what they have learned. Formative Assessments: Assessments which teachers use to promote growth and improvement in students’ performance, to guide learning and to inform productive adjustments in instruction. Inferences: Conclusions drawn by teachers based on assessments regarding students’ content status —knowledge, attitudes and interests—and achievement in learning educational objectives. Measurement: The process of assigning alphanumeric grades, scores or marks to assessments based on an explicit set of rules. Multiform Assessments: Holistic, organismic assessments which use a large number of procedures and various tests to evaluate personal characteristics, attitudes, capabilities and skills and to derive a whole picture of personality (Office of Strategic Services, 1948; Wiggins, 1993). Nontraditional Assessments: Also unconventional assessments or alternative assessments; include a variety of types such as performance assessments, authentic assessments, portfolios and exhibitions. Performance Assessments: Assessments in which students demonstrate a proficiency or skill by producing, creating or doing something.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Page 6

Classroom Evaluation

Portfolios: Assessments which include exhibits of students’ work products and records of performance that document their learning, progress and improvement through or over time. Qualitative Assessments: Assessments using nonnumerical or verbal descriptions; examples are teacher observations, narratives, checklists, graphic organizers and multisensory tools. Quantitative Assessments: Assessments using measurement and involving the assignment of numerical scores, which are reported as raw scores of the numbers of items correct, the percentages of items answered correctly, percentile ranks or ‘standard scores’; examples are teacher-made and standardized tests. Summative Assessments: Also summative evaluations; assessments designed to present conclusions about the merit or worth of a student’s performance rather than to promote growth and improvement in a student’s performance as in formative assessments or evaluations (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003). Traditional Assessments: Also conventional assessments; paper-and-pencil tests which measure traits, attributes, characteristics, behaviors or performances of students; examples include multiple-choice and essay tests.

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

Dossett, D., & Munoz, M. A. (2003). Classroom accountability: A value-added methodology. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED478202). Fleming, K., Ross, M., Tollefson, N., & Green, S. B. (1998). Teachers’ choices of test-item formats for classes with diverse achievement levels. Journal of Educational Research, 91(4), 222-228. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A N=293713&site=ehost-live Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York, NY: Basic Books. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2003). The student evaluation standards: How to improve evaluations of students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kovalik, C. L., & Dalton, D. W. (1997). A conceptual framework for assessment: The process/outcome evaluation model. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409848).

American Educational Research Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.

Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (1987). Teaching special students in the mainstream. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., Jr., & Alessi, S. J., Jr. (1986). Curriculum planning and development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (handbook 1—cognitive domain). New York, NY: Longmans & Green.

McMillan, J. H. (2001). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006). The dynamics of motivation and effort for classroom assessments in middle school science and social studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(2), 151-184.Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=20549697&site=ehost-live

Measurement and Evaluation: Criterion- Versus NormReferenced Testing (n.d.) Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/measeval/crnmref. html

Bibliography

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.

Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. National Center on Education and the Economy. (1997). New Standards Project performance standards. Washington, DC: Author.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Page 7

Classroom Evaluation

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents.

Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Suggested Reading

Office of Strategic Services. (1948). Assessment of men: Selection of personnel for the Office of Strategic Services. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. O’Shea, M. R. (2005). From standards to success: A guide for school leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Development. Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for learning: An endangered species? Educational Leadership, 63(5), 82-83. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19632012&site=eho st-live Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic and fate control: Part One – Wait-time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81-94. Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm and possibility. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company. Sizer, T. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating— differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Alexandrin, J. R. (2003). Using continuous, constructive classroom evaluations. Testing Exceptional Children, 36(1), 52-57. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=109 65909&site=ehost-live Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9-21.Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14405943 &site=ehost-live Brookhart, S. M., & Bronowicz, D. L. (2003). ‘I don’t like writing. It makes my fingers hurt’: Students talk about their classroom assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 221-242. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10849125&site=eh ost-live Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006). The dynamics of motivation and effort for classroom assessments in middle school science and social studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(2), 151-184. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20549697&site=eh ost-live Bulterman-Bos, J., Verloop, N., Terwel, J., & Wardekker, W. (2003). Reconciling the pedagogical goal and the measurement goal of evaluation: The perspectives of teachers in the context of national standards. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 344-374. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A N=9353380&site=ehost-live Fleming, K., Ross, M., Tollefson, N., & Green, S. B. (1998). Teachers’ choices of test-item formats for classes with diverse achievement levels. Journal of Educational Research, 91(4), 222-228. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A N=293713&site=ehost-live

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Page 8

Classroom Evaluation

Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir ect=true&db=aph&AN=9029496&site=ehost-live Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & William, D. (2005). Classroom assessment minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18-24. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru e&db=aph&AN=18772694&site=ehost-live McNamee, G. D., & Chen, J. (2005). Dissolving the line between assessment and teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 72-76. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=18772761&site=ehost-live Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for learning: An endangered species? Educational Leadership, 63(5), 82-83. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19632012&site=eh ost-live Stiggins, R. (2006). Assessment for learning: A key to motivation and achievement. Edge: The Latest Information for the Education Practitioner, 2(2), 1-19. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23103856&site=ehost-live

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D. Roy Merritt holds a Doctorate in Education/Curriculum & Instruction (1994) with a specialization in Science Education from New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. He has multiple degrees in both Education and Science and he has worked professionally in both fields. In addition to serving as an Educational Consultant, he is also a freelance and contract writer and is the author of numerous publications including refereed journal articles and resource books.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

Page 9