Understanding, Assessing, and Teaching Reading : a Diagnostic Approach 7th Edition

Educational evaluation method

Educational cess or educational evaluation ^[1] is the systematic process of documenting and using empirical data on the knowledge, skill, attitudes, and beliefs to refine programs and amend student learning.^[2] Assessment information can be obtained from direct examining educatee work to assess the achievement of learning outcomes or tin be based on data from which i can make inferences nearly learning.^[3] Assessment is oft used interchangeably with test, simply not limited to tests.^[4] Assessment tin can focus on the individual learner, the learning community (class, workshop, or other organized group of learners), a course, an academic program, the institution, or the educational system every bit a whole (also known every bit granularity). The word 'assessment' came into use in an educational context after the Second World War.^[five]

As a continuous process, assessment establishes measurable and articulate student learning outcomes for learning, providing a sufficient amount of learning opportunities to achieve these outcomes, implementing a systematic way of gathering, analyzing and interpreting evidence to determine how well educatee learning matches expectations, and using the collected data to inform improvement in educatee learning.^[six]

The terminal purpose of assessment practices in education depends on the theoretical framework of the practitioners and researchers, their assumptions and behavior about the nature of man mind, the origin of cognition, and the procedure of learning.

Types [edit]

The term assessment is generally used to refer to all activities teachers use to help students learn and to gauge student progress.^[7] Assessment can be divided for the sake of convenience using the post-obit categorizations:

Placement, formative, summative and diagnostic assessment
Objective and subjective
Referencing (criterion-referenced, norm-referenced, and ipsative (forced-choice))
Informal and formal
Internal and external

Placement, formative, summative and diagnostic [edit]

Assessment is frequently divided into initial, formative, and summative categories for the purpose of considering dissimilar objectives for assessment practices.

Placement cess – Placement evaluation is used to identify students according to prior achievement or personal characteristics, at the near appropriate indicate in an instructional sequence, in a unique instructional strategy, or with a suitable teacher^[8] conducted through placement testing, i.eastward. the tests that colleges and universities utilise to assess college readiness and place students into their initial classes. Placement evaluation, also referred to as pre-assessment or initial assessment, is conducted prior to instruction or intervention to establish a baseline from which individual student growth can be measured. This type of an cess is used to know what the student's skill level is well-nigh the discipline. Information technology helps the instructor to explain the fabric more than efficiently. These assessments are not graded.^[9]
Formative assessment – Formative cess is generally carried out throughout a form or project. Formative assessment, as well referred to every bit "educative assessment," is used to aid learning. In an educational setting, formative assessment might be a instructor (or peer) or the learner, providing feedback on a educatee'south work and would not necessarily exist used for grading purposes. Formative assessments can take the form of diagnostic, standardized tests, quizzes, oral question, or typhoon piece of work. Formative assessments are carried out concurrently with instructions. The issue may count. The formative assessments aim to see if the students understand the didactics before doing a summative assessment.^[ix]
Summative assessment – Summative assessment is generally carried out at the end of a class or project. In an educational setting, summative assessments are typically used to assign students a class class. Summative assessments are evaluative. Summative assessments are made to summarize what the students take learned, to decide whether they understand the subject matter well. This type of assessment is typically graded (east.grand. pass/neglect, 0-100) and can take the form of tests, exams or projects. Summative assessments are oftentimes used to determine whether a pupil has passed or failed a course. A criticism of summative assessments is that they are reductive, and learners discover how well they accept caused cognition as well tardily for it to be of use.^[9]
Diagnostic assessment – Diagnostic assessment deals with the whole difficulties at the end that occurs during the learning procedure.

Jay McTighe and Ken O'Connor proposed seven practices to constructive learning.^[nine] One of them is about showing the criteria of the evaluation before the test. Some other is well-nigh the importance of pre-assessment to know what the skill levels of a student are earlier giving instructions. Giving a lot of feedback and encouraging are other practices.

Educational researcher Robert Stake^[10] explains the difference between determinative and summative cess with the following analogy:

When the melt tastes the soup, that's formative. When the guests taste the soup, that'southward summative.^[eleven]

Summative and formative assessment are oftentimes referred to in a learning context as cess of learning and assessment for learning respectively. Assessment of learning is more often than not summative in nature and intended to measure out learning outcomes and study those outcomes to students, parents and administrators. Assessment of learning by and large occurs at the conclusion of a class, grade, semester or academic yr. Assessment for learning is generally formative in nature and is used by teachers to consider approaches to education and next steps for individual learners and the class.^[12]

A common class of formative assessment is diagnostic cess. Diagnostic assessment measures a educatee's current cognition and skills for the purpose of identifying a suitable programme of learning. Self-assessment is a form of diagnostic assessment which involves students assessing themselves. Forward-looking assessment asks those beingness assessed to consider themselves in hypothetical hereafter situations.^[xiii]

Performance-based assessment is similar to summative assessment, equally it focuses on achievement. Information technology is often aligned with the standards-based education reform and outcomes-based teaching movement. Though ideally they are significantly unlike from a traditional multiple option test, they are about ordinarily associated with standards-based assessment which use gratis-form responses to standard questions scored past man scorers on a standards-based scale, coming together, falling below or exceeding a performance standard rather than being ranked on a curve. A well-defined task is identified and students are asked to create, produce or practice something, ofttimes in settings that involve real-world application of noesis and skills. Proficiency is demonstrated by providing an extended response. Performance formats are farther differentiated into products and performances. The performance may result in a production, such equally a painting, portfolio, paper or exhibition, or it may consist of a performance, such equally a speech, athletic skill, musical recital or reading.

Objective and subjective [edit]

Assessment (either summative or formative) is often categorized as either objective or subjective. Objective cess is a form of questioning which has a single right answer. Subjective assessment is a form of questioning which may have more than one right respond (or more than 1 way of expressing the correct answer). There are various types of objective and subjective questions. Objective question types include true/imitation answers, multiple choice, multiple-response and matching questions. Subjective questions include extended-response questions and essays. Objective assessment is well suited to the increasingly popular computerized or online cess format.

Some have argued that the distinction between objective and subjective assessments is neither useful nor authentic because, in reality, at that place is no such thing every bit "objective" cess. In fact, all assessments are created with inherent biases built into decisions about relevant bailiwick thing and content, every bit well as cultural (form, ethnic, and gender) biases.^[xiv]

Basis of comparison [edit]

Examination results can be compared against an established criterion, or against the performance of other students, or against previous functioning:

Criterion-referenced assessment, typically using a benchmark-referenced test, equally the name implies, occurs when candidates are measured against defined (and objective) criteria. Criterion-referenced assessment is ofttimes, but not always, used to institute a person'south competence (whether s/he can exercise something). The best known case of criterion-referenced assessment is the driving test, when learner drivers are measured against a range of explicit criteria (such equally "Not endangering other road users").
Norm-referenced cess (colloquially known as "grading on the curve"), typically using a norm-referenced test, is not measured against divers criteria. This type of assessment is relative to the student body undertaking the assessment. It is finer a style of comparing students. The IQ test is the best known instance of norm-referenced assessment. Many entrance tests (to prestigious schools or universities) are norm-referenced, permitting a stock-still proportion of students to pass ("passing" in this context means being accepted into the school or university rather than an explicit level of ability). This ways that standards may vary from year to year, depending on the quality of the cohort; criterion-referenced assessment does not vary from year to year (unless the criteria change).^[15]
Ipsative cess is self comparing either in the aforementioned domain over fourth dimension, or comparative to other domains within the same student.

Informal and formal [edit]

Assessment can be either formal or informal. Formal assessment usually implies a written document, such equally a test, quiz, or paper. A formal cess is given a numerical score or course based on educatee performance, whereas an informal assessment does not contribute to a student's final grade. An breezy assessment usually occurs in a more than casual way and may include observation, inventories, checklists, rating scales, rubrics, performance and portfolio assessments, participation, peer and self-evaluation, and discussion.^[xvi]

Internal and external [edit]

Internal cess is gear up and marked by the school (i.east. teachers). Students get the mark and feedback regarding the assessment. External assessment is set by the governing body, and is marked past non-biased personnel. Some external assessments give much more limited feedback in their marking. However, in tests such as Commonwealth of australia's NAPLAN, the benchmark addressed by students is given detailed feedback in order for their teachers to address and compare the student's learning achievements and also to plan for the futurity.

Standards of quality [edit]

In general, high-quality assessments are considered those with a high level of reliability and validity. Approaches to reliability and validity vary, all the same.

Reliability [edit]

Reliability relates to the consistency of an assessment. A reliable assessment is 1 that consistently achieves the same results with the aforementioned (or similar) cohort of students. Various factors affect reliability—including ambiguous questions, as well many options within a question paper, vague marking instructions and poorly trained markers. Traditionally, the reliability of an assessment is based on the following:

Temporal stability: Performance on a test is comparable on two or more dissever occasions.
Form equivalence: Performance amongst examinees is equivalent on different forms of a test based on the same content.
Internal consistency: Responses on a examination are consistent across questions. For example: In a survey that asks respondents to rate attitudes toward engineering science, consistency would exist expected in responses to the post-obit questions:
- "I experience very negative about computers in general."
- "I enjoy using computers."^[17]

The reliability of a measurement 10 can also be defined quantitatively equally: $R_{\text{ten}}=V_{\text{t}}/V_{\text{x}}$ where $R_{\text{ten}}$ is the reliability in the observed (test) score, x; $V_{\text{t}}$ and $V_{\text{10}}$ are the variability in 'true' (i.e., candidate's innate performance) and measured exam scores respectively. $R_{\text{x}}$ can range from 0 (completely unreliable), to i (completely reliable).

Validity [edit]

Valid assessment is i that measures what it is intended to measure. For example, it would not be valid to appraise driving skills through a written examination lone. A more valid way of assessing driving skills would exist through a combination of tests that assistance determine what a commuter knows, such as through a written test of driving knowledge, and what a commuter is able to do, such as through a performance assessment of actual driving. Teachers frequently complain that some examinations do not properly assess the syllabus upon which the examination is based; they are, finer, questioning the validity of the exam.

Validity of an assessment is generally gauged through examination of evidence in the following categories:

Content – Does the content of the test measure stated objectives?
Criterion – Do scores correlate to an outside reference? (ex: Do high scores on a quaternary grade reading test accurately predict reading skill in hereafter grades?)
Construct – Does the assessment stand for to other significant variables? (ex: Exercise ESL students consistently perform differently on a writing examination than native English speakers?)^[eighteen]

A good cess has both validity and reliability, plus the other quality attributes noted above for a specific context and purpose. In practice, an assessment is rarely totally valid or totally reliable. A ruler which is marked wrongly will e'er give the same (wrong) measurements. Information technology is very reliable, but non very valid. Asking random individuals to tell the time without looking at a clock or watch is sometimes used every bit an example of an assessment which is valid, just not reliable. The answers will vary betwixt individuals, just the average answer is probably close to the actual time. In many fields, such as medical research, educational testing, and psychology, at that place volition oftentimes be a trade-off between reliability and validity. A history test written for high validity volition accept many essay and fill-in-the-blank questions. It will be a good measure of mastery of the subject field, but difficult to score completely accurately. A history test written for high reliability will exist entirely multiple choice. It isn't as practiced at measuring knowledge of history, merely can hands be scored with slap-up precision. Nosotros may generalize from this. The more reliable our estimate is of what we purport to measure, the less certain we are that we are actually measuring that attribute of attainment.

Information technology is well to distinguish between "bailiwick-affair" validity and "predictive" validity. The onetime, used widely in education, predicts the score a student would get on a similar test but with unlike questions. The latter, used widely in the workplace, predicts performance. Thus, a discipline-matter-valid examination of knowledge of driving rules is appropriate while a predictively valid test would assess whether the potential commuter could follow those rules.

Evaluation standards [edit]

In the field of evaluation, and in particular educational evaluation, the Joint Commission on Standards for Educational Evaluation has published three sets of standards for evaluations. The Personnel Evaluation Standards were published in 1988,^[19] The Programme Evaluation Standards (2nd edition) were published in 1994,^[20] and The Pupil Evaluation Standards were published in 2003.^[21]

Each publication presents and elaborates a set up of standards for utilise in a variety of educational settings. The standards provide guidelines for designing, implementing, assessing and improving the identified form of evaluation. Each of the standards has been placed in one of four fundamental categories to promote educational evaluations that are proper, useful, feasible, and authentic. In these sets of standards, validity and reliability considerations are covered under the accuracy topic. For instance, the educatee accuracy standards aid ensure that pupil evaluations will provide sound, accurate, and credible information almost student learning and performance.

In the UK, an award in Training, Cess and Quality Assurance (TAQA) is available to assist staff learn and develop expert practice in relation to educational assessment in adult, further and work-based education and preparation contexts.^[22]

Summary table of the main theoretical frameworks [edit]

The following table summarizes the main theoretical frameworks behind almost all the theoretical and research work, and the instructional practices in education (one of them being, of course, the practise of cess). These different frameworks have given rise to interesting debates among scholars.

Topics	Empiricism	Rationalism	Socioculturalism
Philosophical orientation	Hume: British empiricism	Kant, Descartes: Continental rationalism	Hegel, Marx: cultural dialectic
Metaphorical orientation	Mechanistic/Functioning of a Motorcar or Calculator	Organismic/Growth of a Constitute	Contextualist/Examination of a Historical Event
Leading theorists	B. F. Skinner (behaviorism)/ Herb Simon, John Anderson, Robert Gagné: (cognitivism)	Jean Piaget/Robbie Case	Lev Vygotsky, Luria, Bruner/Alan Collins, Jim Greeno, Ann Dark-brown, John Bransford
Nature of mind	Initially blank device that detects patterns in the world and operates on them. Qualitatively identical to lower animals, only quantitatively superior.	Organ that evolved to acquire knowledge by making sense of the world. Uniquely human, qualitatively different from lower animals.	Unique among species for developing language, tools, and educational activity.
Nature of knowledge (epistemology)	Hierarchically organized associations that present an accurate but incomplete representation of the world. Assumes that the sum of the components of cognition is the same every bit the whole. Because knowledge is accurately represented by components, one who demonstrates those components is presumed to know	General and/or specific cognitive and conceptual structures, constructed by the heed and according to rational criteria. Essentially these are the college-level structures that are synthetic to digest new info to existing structure and as the structures adjust more new info. Knowledge is represented past ability to solve new issues.	Distributed across people, communities, and physical environment. Represents culture of community that continues to create information technology. To know ways to be attuned to the constraints and affordances of systems in which activeness occurs. Noesis is represented in the regularities of successful activeness.
Nature of learning (the procedure by which knowledge is increased or modified)	Forming and strengthening cognitive or S-R associations. Generation of knowledge by (1) exposure to pattern, (2) efficiently recognizing and responding to blueprint (3) recognizing patterns in other contexts.	Engaging in agile procedure of making sense of ("rationalizing") the surroundings. Mind applying existing structure to new experience to rationalize it. You don't actually learn the components, only structures needed to bargain with those components later.	Increasing ability to participate in a particular community of practice. Initiation into the life of a grouping, strengthening ability to participate by becoming attuned to constraints and affordances.
Features of authentic assessment	Assess knowledge components. Focus on mastery of many components and fluency. Apply psychometrics to standardize.	Assess extended performance on new issues. Credit varieties of excellence.	Appraise participation in inquiry and social practices of learning (e.1000. portfolios, observations) Students should participate in cess process. Assessments should be integrated into larger environment.

Controversy [edit]

Concerns over how best to apply assessment practices across public schoolhouse systems accept largely focused on questions nigh the utilise of high-stakes testing and standardized tests, often used to gauge student progress, teacher quality, and schoolhouse-, district-, or statewide educational success.

No Child Left Behind [edit]

For most researchers and practitioners, the question is not whether tests should be administered at all—there is a full general consensus that, when administered in useful means, tests can offer useful data about student progress and curriculum implementation, too as offering determinative uses for learners.^[23] The real upshot, then, is whether testing practices as currently implemented can provide these services for educators and students.

President Bush-league signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on Jan 8, 2002. The NCLB Act reauthorized the Simple and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. President Johnson signed the ESEA to help fight the War on Poverty and helped fund uncomplicated and secondary schools. President Johnson'south goal was to emphasizes equal access to education and establishes high standards and accountability. The NCLB Act required states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states had to give these assessments to all students at select grade level.

In the U.S., the No Child Left Backside Act mandates standardized testing nationwide. These tests align with state curriculum and link instructor, educatee, district, and land accountability to the results of these tests. Proponents of NCLB debate that it offers a tangible method of gauging educational success, holding teachers and schools accountable for failing scores, and endmost the achievement gap beyond grade and ethnicity.^[24]

Opponents of standardized testing dispute these claims, arguing that holding educators answerable for test results leads to the practise of "educational activity to the test." Additionally, many fence that the focus on standardized testing encourages teachers to equip students with a narrow prepare of skills that enhance exam performance without actually fostering a deeper agreement of subject matter or key principles within a cognition domain.^[25]

Loftier-stakes testing [edit]

The assessments which have caused the near controversy in the U.S. are the apply of loftier school graduation examinations, which are used to deny diplomas to students who have attended high school for four years, but cannot demonstrate that they accept learned the required material when writing exams. Opponents say that no student who has put in four years of seat time should be denied a high school diploma merely for repeatedly failing a test, or even for not knowing the required material.^[26] ^[27] ^[28]

High-stakes tests have been blamed for causing sickness and test feet in students and teachers, and for teachers choosing to narrow the curriculum towards what the teacher believes will exist tested. In an exercise designed to make children comfortable virtually testing, a Spokane, Washington paper published a picture of a monster that feeds on fear.^[29] The published image is purportedly the response of a student who was asked to describe a picture of what she thought of the country assessment.

Other critics, such as Washington State University'due south Don Orlich, question the use of test items far across standard cognitive levels for students' age.^[30]

Compared to portfolio assessments, uncomplicated multiple-selection tests are much less expensive, less prone to disagreement betwixt scorers, and can be scored rapidly enough to exist returned before the end of the school year. Standardized tests (all students take the same test under the same conditions) often employ multiple-choice tests for these reasons. Orlich criticizes the use of expensive, holistically graded tests, rather than inexpensive multiple-choice "chimera tests", to measure the quality of both the system and individuals for very large numbers of students.^[30] Other prominent critics of high-stakes testing include Fairtest and Alfie Kohn.

The employ of IQ tests has been banned in some states for educational decisions, and norm-referenced tests, which rank students from "all-time" to "worst", take been criticized for bias confronting minorities. Virtually teaching officials support criterion-referenced tests (each individual educatee's score depends solely on whether he answered the questions correctly, regardless of whether his neighbors did ameliorate or worse) for making loftier-stakes decisions.

21st century assessment [edit]

It has been widely noted that with the emergence of social media and Spider web 2.0 technologies and mindsets, learning is increasingly collaborative and knowledge increasingly distributed across many members of a learning community. Traditional assessment practices, nevertheless, focus in large part on the individual and fail to account for noesis-building and learning in context. As researchers in the field of assessment consider the cultural shifts that ascend from the emergence of a more participatory culture, they volition need to find new methods of applying assessments to learners.^[31]

Large-scale learning assessment [edit]

Large-scale learning assessments (LSLAs) are system-level assessments that provide a snapshot of learning achievement for a group of learners in a given yr, and in a limited number of domains. They are oftentimes categorized as national or cross-national assessments and describe attending to issues related to levels of learning and determinants of learning, including teacher qualification; the quality of school environments; parental back up and guidance; and social and emotional health in and outside schools.^[32]

Assessment in a democratic school [edit]

The Sudbury model of democratic education schools practice not perform and exercise not offering assessments, evaluations, transcripts, or recommendations. They assert that they do non charge per unit people, and that school is not a gauge; comparing students to each other, or to some standard that has been set is for them a violation of the student's correct to privacy and to self-determination. Students determine for themselves how to measure their progress equally self-starting learners equally a process of self-evaluation: real lifelong learning and the proper educational assessment for the 21st century, they allege.^[33]

According to Sudbury schools, this policy does not crusade impairment to their students as they motility on to life outside the school. All the same, they admit it makes the procedure more difficult, but that such hardship is part of the students learning to brand their own style, set their ain standards and meet their own goals.

The no-grading and no-rating policy helps to create an atmosphere free of competition among students or battles for adult approval, and encourages a positive cooperative environs amid the educatee torso.^[34]

The final phase of a Sudbury didactics, should the student cull to take it, is the graduation thesis. Each student writes on the topic of how they have prepared themselves for adulthood and entering the community at large. This thesis is submitted to the Assembly, who reviews it. The terminal stage of the thesis procedure is an oral defense given past the educatee in which they open the floor for questions, challenges and comments from all Assembly members. At the finish, the Assembly votes by secret election on whether or not to award a diploma.^[35]

Assessing ELL students [edit]

A major concern with the employ of educational assessments is the overall validity, accurateness, and fairness when it comes to assessing English language learners (ELL). The majority of assessments inside the United States have normative standards based on the English language-speaking civilisation, which does non adequately correspond ELL populations.^{[ citation needed ]} Consequently, it would in many cases exist inaccurate and inappropriate to describe conclusions from ELL students' normative scores. Research shows that the majority of schools do not appropriately alter assessments in order to accommodate students from unique cultural backgrounds.^{[ commendation needed ]} This has resulted in the over-referral of ELL students to special teaching, causing them to be disproportionately represented in special instruction programs. Although some may see this inappropriate placement in special education equally supportive and helpful, research has shown that inappropriately placed students actually regressed in progress.^{[ commendation needed ]}

It is frequently necessary to employ the services of a translator in order to administer the assessment in an ELL student's native language; nevertheless, in that location are several bug when translating cess items. I issue is that translations tin frequently advise a right or expected response, changing the difficulty of the assessment item.^[36] Additionally, the translation of assessment items can sometimes misconstrue the original significant of the item.^[36] Finally, many translators are not qualified or properly trained to work with ELL students in an assessment situation.^{[ citation needed ]} All of these factors compromise the validity and fairness of assessments, making the results not reliable. Nonverbal assessments have shown to be less discriminatory for ELL students, notwithstanding, some even so nowadays cultural biases within the assessment items.^[36]

When because an ELL student for special didactics the assessment team should integrate and interpret all of the data collected in society to ensure a not biased determination.^[36] The decision should be based on multidimensional sources of information including teacher and parent interviews, every bit well as classroom observations.^[36] Decisions should take the students unique cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds into consideration, and should not be strictly based on assessment results.

Universal screening [edit]

Cess can be associated with disparity when students from traditionally underrepresented groups are excluded from testing needed for access to certain programs or opportunities, every bit is the case for gifted programs. Ane fashion to combat this disparity is universal screening, which involves testing all students (such as for giftedness) instead of testing merely some students based on teachers' or parents' recommendations. Universal screening results in big increases in traditionally underserved groups (such every bit Black, Hispanic, poor, female, and ELLs) identified for gifted programs, without the standards for identification being modified in any style.^[37]

Sources [edit]

This commodity incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed nether CC Past-SA 3.0 IGO Text taken from The promise of large-scale learning assessments: acknowledging limits to unlock opportunities, UNESCO, UNESCO. UNESCO. To acquire how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles, please meet this how-to folio. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.

References [edit]

^ Some educators and pedagogy theorists apply the terms assessment and evaluation to refer to the dissimilar concepts of testing during a learning process to amend it (for which the equally unambiguous terms formative assessment or formative evaluation are preferable) and of testing later completion of a learning process (for which the equally unambiguous terms summative assessment or summative evaluation are preferable), only they are in fact synonyms and do not intrinsically mean different things. Most dictionaries not simply say that these terms are synonyms just also employ them to define each other. If the terms are used for unlike concepts, conscientious editing requires both the explanation that they are normally synonyms and the clarification that they are used to refer to different concepts in the current text.
^ Allen, G.J. (2004). Assessing Academic Programs in College Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
^ Kuh, Chiliad.D.; Jankowski, North.; Ikenberry, S.O. (2014). Knowing What Students Know and Tin Practise: The Current State of Learning Outcomes Cess in U.Due south. Colleges and Universities (PDF). Urbana: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Cess.
^ National quango on Measurement in Education http://www.ncme.org/ncme/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary1.aspx?hkey=4bb87415-44dc-4088-9ed9-e8515326a061#anchorA Archived 2017-07-22 at the Wayback Motorcar
^ Nelson, Robert; Dawson, Phillip (2014). "A contribution to the history of assessment: how a chat simulator redeems Socratic method". Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Teaching. 39 (2): 195–204. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.798394. S2CID 56445840.
^ Suskie, Linda (2004). Assessing Student Learning. Bolton, MA: Anker.
^ Blackness, Paul, & William, Dylan (Oct 1998). "Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment."Phi Beta Kappan. Available at http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/members/orders.asp?activeness=results&t=A&desc=Inside+the+Blackness+Box%3A+Raising+Standards+Through+Classroom+Cess&text=&lname_1=&fname_1=&lname_2=&fname_2=&kw_1=&kw_2=&kw_3=&kw_4=&mn1=&yr1=&mn2=&yr2=&c1=^{[ permanent dead link ]} PDKintl.org]. Retrieved January 28, 2009.
^ Madaus, George F.; Airasian, Peter W. (1969-11-30). "Placement, Determinative, Diagnostic, and Summative Evaluation of Classroom Learning".
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Mctighe, Jay; O'Connor, Ken (November 2005). "Seven practices for effective learning". Educational Leadership. 63 (3): 10–17. Retrieved iii March 2017.
^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-02-08. Retrieved 2009-01-29 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create as title (link)
^ Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. 4th ed. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications. ISBN 0-8039-4364-4.
^ Earl, Lorna (2003). Assessment equally Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximise Pupil Learning. Grand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press. ISBN 0-7619-4626-8
^ Reed, Daniel. "Diagnostic Assessment in Language Instruction and Learning." Center for Linguistic communication Instruction and Research, available at Google.com Archived 2011-09-14 at the Wayback Automobile. Retrieved January 28, 2009.
^ Articulation Information Systems Committee (JISC). "What Exercise We Mean by e-Assessment?" JISC InfoNet. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://tools.jiscinfonet.air conditioning.uk/downloads/vle/eassessment-printable.pdf Archived 2017-01-16 at the Wayback Auto
^ Educational Technologies at Virginia Tech. "Assessment Purposes." VirginiaTech DesignShop: Lessons in Constructive Teaching, available at Edtech.vt.edu Archived 2009-02-26 at the Wayback Auto. Retrieved January 29, 2009.
^ Valencia, Sheila Westward. "What Are the Unlike Forms of Authentic Cess?" Understanding Authentic Classroom-Based Literacy Assessment (1997), bachelor at Eduplace.com. Retrieved Jan 29, 2009.
^ Yu, Chong Ho (2005). "Reliability and Validity." Educational Assessment. Available at Artistic-wisdom.com. Retrieved January 29, 2009.
^ Moskal, Barbara; Leydens, Jon (23 November 2019). "Scoring Rubric Development: Validity and Reliability". Applied Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. seven (1). doi:10.7275/q7rm-gg74.
^ Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). "The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators". Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
^ Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994).The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
^ Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2003). The Student Evaluation Standards: How to Improve Evaluations of Students. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press
^ Urban center & Guilds, Agreement the Principles and Practice of Assessment: Qualification Factsheet, accessed 26 February 2020
^ American Psychological Clan. "Advisable Use of High-Stakes Testing in Our Nation's Schools." APA Online, available at APA.org, Retrieved January 24, 2010
^ (nd) Reauthorization of NCLB. Department of Education. Retrieved 1/29/09.
^ (nd) What's Incorrect With Standardized Testing? FairTest.org. Retrieved January 29, 2009.
^ Dang, Nick (xviii March 2003). "Reform didactics, not exit exams". Daily Bruin. 1 common complaint from failed examination-takers is that they weren't taught the tested material in school. Hither, inadequate schooling, not the test, is at fault. Blaming the test for i'southward failure is like blaming the service station for a failed smog check; information technology ignores the underlying problems within the 'schooling vehicle.' ^{[ permanent expressionless link ]}
^ Weinkopf, Chris (2002). "Blame the exam: LAUSD denies responsibility for low scores". Daily News. The blame belongs to 'high-stakes tests' like the Stanford 9 and California'southward High Schoolhouse Exit Test. Reliance on such tests, the board grumbles, 'unfairly penalizes students that have non been provided with the academic tools to perform to their highest potential on these tests'.
^ "Blaming The Test". Investor's Business Daily. 11 May 2006. A judge in California is set up to strike down that state's high school exit test. Why? Because information technology's working. It's telling students they need to learn more than. We call that useful data. To the plaintiffs who are suing to finish the employ of the exam as a graduation requirement, it's something else: Evidence of unequal handling... the exit exam was deemed unfair because too many students who failed the test had besides few credentialed teachers. Well, maybe they did, but granting them a diploma when they lack the required knowledge just compounds the injustice by leaving them with a worthless piece of paper." ^{[ permanent dead link ]}
^ "ASD.wednet.edu". Archived from the original on 2007-02-25. Retrieved 2006-09-22 .
^ ^a ^b Bach, Deborah, & Blanchard, Jessica (April xix, 2005). "WASL worries stress kids, schools." Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved January 30, 2009 from Seattlepi.nwsource.com.
^ Fadel, Charles, Dear, Margaret, & Pasnik, Shelley (May 18, 2007). "Assessment in the Age of Innovation." Education Calendar week. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://world wide web.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/05/23/38fadel.h26.html
^ UNESCO (2019). The promise of large-calibration learning assessments: acknowledging limits to unlock opportunities. UNESCO. ISBN978-92-three-100333-ii.
^ Greenberg, D. (2000). 21st Century Schools, edited transcript of a talk delivered at the April 2000 International Conference on Learning in the 21st Century.
^ Greenberg, D. (1987). Chapter 20,Evaluation, Free at Concluding — The Sudbury Valley School.
^ Graduation Thesis Process, Mountain Laurel Sudbury School.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e "Archived re-create" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-05-29. Retrieved 2012-04-11 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create as title (link)
^ Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increment the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (Working Newspaper No. 21519). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from world wide web.nber.org/papers/w21519

Hyett Whimes