Abstract
Reference
X
- Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
- Dorr-Bremme, D., & Herman, J. (1983). Assessing student achievement: A profile of classroom practices. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California at Los Angeles.
- Gaither, G. H., Nedwek, B. P., & Neal, J. E. (1994). Measuring up the promises and pitfalls of performance indicators in higher education. Washington, DC: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
- Hart, D. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
- Herman, J. (1992). What research tells us about good assessment. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 74–78.
- Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Herman, J., & Golan, S. (1991). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and learning—another look. CSE technical report #334. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California at Los Angeles.
- Kellaghan, T. & Madaus, G. (1991). National testing: Lessons for America from Europe. Educational Leadership 49(3), 87–93.
- Loyd, B. H., & Loyd, D. E. (1997). Kindergarten through grade 12 standards: A philosophy of grading. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 481–490). San Diego: Academic Press.
- National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
- National Middle School Association Curriculum Task Force. (1993). Middle level curriculum: A work in progress. The initial position paper of National Middle School Association. Columbus, OH: Author.
- Office of the Press Secretary. (2002). Factsheet: No child left behind act. Retrieved February 19, 2002, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/or/print/20020108.html.
- Pate, P. E., Homestead, E., & McGinnis, K. (1993). Designing rubrics for authentic assessment. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 25–27.
- Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995). Educational assessment reassessed: The usefulness of standardized and alternative measures of student achievement as indicators for the assessment of educational outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(6).
- Schultz, R. A. (2000). Flirting with underachievement: Hidden for a reason. Highly Gifted Children, 13(2), 42–48.
- Shepard, L. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 232–238.
- Smith, M. L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991). Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10(4), 7–11.
- Stevenson, C., & Carr, J. F. (1993). Daring to dance or not. In C. Stevenson & J. F. Carr (Eds.), Integrated studies in the middle grades: Dancing through walls (pp. 183–201). New York: Teachers College Press.
- U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Executive summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved February 19, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/execsumm.html.
- Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Wolf, D. P., & Reardon, S. F. (1996). Access to excellence through new forms of student assessment. In J. B. Baron, & D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities (pp. 1–31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Email To A Friend
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
Bookmark
- Volume 25
- Issue 4
- Publication Date: Fall 2002
Teachers as Learners: Studying a Three-Phased Rubric Assessment Plan
Robert A. Schultz
Accountability serves as a grounding principle in any discussion surrounding education. The current emphasis links student performance to teacher preparedness, ultimately judging teaching effectiveness in assessing student work. Researchers have focused on this relationship for more than 100 years in America. Several experiments conducted as early as the turn of the 20th century in the United States examined variability in evaluation of student work. For example, in 1900, a group of 116 teachers evaluated the same geometry paper—marks ranged from 28 to 92 (Hart, 1994). Results from this study brought teacher objectivity and the validity of this type of evaluation into question.
Cart Summary
Your cart is empty.