|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
ASSESSMENT IN SUPPORT OF
INSTRUCTION
A ' ~ r r — A ~ ' ~ rim ,~ ~ ' rat
Bridging the Gap Between Large-Scale
and Classroom Assessment
Workshop Report
Committee on Assessment in Support of Instruction and Learning
Board on Testing and Assessment
Committee on Science Education K-12
Mathematical Sciences Education Board
Center for Education
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Insti-
tute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen
for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. ESI-0102582 between the National Acad-
emy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclu-
sions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authorts) and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for
the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-08978-6 (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-52616-7 (PDF)
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500
Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-
3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Research Council (2003~. Assessment in support of instruc-
tion and learning: Bridging the gap between large-scale and classroom assessment.
Workshop report. Committee on Assessment in Support of Instruction and Learning.
Board on Testing and Assessment, Committee on Science Education K-12, Mathematical
Sciences Education Board. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate
that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is
autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government.
The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of
. ~ . .
. engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences
to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination
of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to
be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of
medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute
of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the
principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are
chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www. nationa l-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT IN SUPPORT OF
INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING
,1. MYRON ATKIN (Chair), Center for Educational Research, Stanford
University
EVA L. BAKER, School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles
,IAN DE LANGE, Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
TOM KELLER, Maine Department of Education, Augusta
,IAMES MINSTRELL, Talaria, Inc., Seattle
MARGE M. PETIT, National Center for the Improvement of Educational
Assessment, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
ANTHONY SCOTT, Chicago Public Schools
LORRIE A. SHEPARD, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder
GUADALUPE VALDES, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Stanford
University
MERYL W. BERTENTHAL, Study Director
ANDREW E. TOMPKINS, Research Assistant
MICHAEL DECARMINE, Project Assistant
v
OCR for page R6
BOARD ON TESTING AND ASSESSMENT
EVA L. BAKER (Chair), The Center for the Study of Evaluation, University
of California, Los Angeles
LORRAINE MCDONNELL (Vice Chair), Departments of Political Science
and Education, University of California, Santa Barbara
LAURESS L. WISE (Vice Chair), Human Resources Research Organization,
Alexandria, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER F. EDLEY, ,IR., Harvard University Law School
EMERSON ,1. ELLIOTT, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia
MILTON D. HAKEL, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State
University
ROBERT M. HAWSER, Institute for Research on Poverty, Center for
Demography, University of Wisconsin, Madison
PAUL W. HOLLAND, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey
DANIEL M. KORETZ, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
EDWARD P. LAZEAR, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
RICHARD ,1. LIGHT, Graduate School of Education and John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University
ROBERT ,1. MISLEVY, Department of Measurement and Statistics,
University of Maryland
,IAMES W. PELLEGRINO, University of Illinois, Chicago
LORRIE A. SHEPARD, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder
KENNETH I. WOLPIN, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania
PATRICIA MORISON, Acting Director
LISA ALSTON, Administrative Associate
vim
OCR for page R7
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE EDUCATION K-12
CARY SNEIDER (Chair), Boston Museum of Science
CARLO PARRAVANO (Vice Chair), Merck Institute for Science Education,
Rahway, New Jersey
TANYA ATWATER, Department of Geological Sciences, University of
California, S ante B arbara
FRANCISCO AYALA, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
University of California, Irvine
CAROL BREWER, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana,
Missoula
JUANITA CLAY-CHAMBERS, Detroit Public Schools
KATHLEEN COMFORT, WestEd, San Francisco
DAVID CONLEY, Center for Educational Policy Research, University of
Oregon, Eugene
ALAN FRIEDMAN, New York Hall of Science, Corona
JEFFREY FRIEDMAN, Friedman Lab, Rockefeller University, New York
BARBARA GONZALEZ, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
California State University, Fullerton
LINDA GREGG, TERC, Cambridge, Massachusetts
PATRICIA HARMON, San Francisco Unified School District, California
,IENIFER HELMS, Educational ConsultantlEvaluator, Denver
ANNE JOLLY, The Regional Laboratory at SERVE, Mobile, Alabama
JUDITH JONES, East Chapel Hill High School, North Carolina
TOM KELLER, Maine Department of Education, Augusta
OKHEE LEE, School of Education, University of Miami, Florida
,IAMES MINSTRELL, Talaria, Inc., Seattle
MARY JANE SCHOTT, Charles A. Dana Center, Austin, Texas
JERRY VALADEZ, Fresno Unified School District, California
JEAN MOON, Study Director
JULIE SCHUCK, Research Associate
LASHAWN SIDBURY, Senior Project Assistant
. .
via
OCR for page R8
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES EDUCATION BOARD
JOAN LEITZEL (Chair), President Emerita, University of New Hampshire
,IERE CONFREY (Vice Chair), Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
University of Texas, Austin
JUDY ACKERMAN, Montgomery College, Rockville, Maryland
DEBORAH LOEWENBERG BALL, School of Education, University of
Michigan
THOMAS BANCHOFF, Department of Mathematics, Brown University
,IAN DE LANGE, Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
LOUIS GOMEZ, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern
University
DOUGLAS A. GROUWS, Curriculum and Instruction, University of Iowa
ARTHUR GAFFE, Department of Mathematics, Harvard University
ERIC JOLLY, Education Development Center, Newton, Massachusetts
DANIEL KENNEDY, The Baylor School, Chattanooga, Tennessee
JIM LEWIS, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln
KAREN LONGHART, Flathead High School, Kalispell, Montana
GEORGE MCSHAN, National School Boards Association, Harlingen, Texas
KAREN MICHALOWICZ, The Langley School, McLean, Virginia
JUDITH MUMME, WestEd, Camarillo, California
CASILDA PARDO, Valle Vista Elementary School, Albuquerque
SUE PARSONS, Department of Mathematics, Cerritos College, Norwalk.
California
MARGE PETIT, The National Center for the Improvement of Educational
Assessment, North Fayston, Vermont
DONALD SAARI, Distinguished Professor of Economics and Professor of
Mathematics, University of California, Irvine
RICHARD SCHEAFFER, Professor Emeritus, University of Florida
WILLIAM STEENKEN, Hamilton, Ohio
FRANCIS SULLIVAN, Center for Computing Sciences, Bowie, Maryland
HUNG HIS WU, Department of Mathematics, University of California,
Berkeley
CAROLE LACAMPAGNE, Study Director
VICKI STOHL, Research Associate
DIONNA WILLIAMS, Senior Project Assistant
. . .
vail
OCR for page R9
Preface
The National Research Council (NRC) Workshop on Bridging the Gap
Between Large-Scale and Classroom Assessment was convened during a period
of rising attention in education policy circles to matters of testing and assessment.
At this juncture in American education history, the emphasis is increasingly on
large-scale examinations developed outside the classroom to gauge what students
know. Their aim is primarily to strengthen public accountability. This kind of
assessment, which now is projected at orders of magnitude much greater than
anything yet seen in this country, is already having profound effects. There are
serious consequences financial and otherwise for students, parents, teachers,
schools, and districts associated with the test results. Tests have also been shown
to have powerful influences on curriculum and teaching methods.
One problem with relying exclusively on tests designed to examine millions
of students is that they do not easily conform to curricula devised to match state
and national standards for mathematics or science. Nor do they do much to
promote the kind of student learning that is reflected in those standards. Addi-
tionally, these external assessments may have little relation to what students are
learning and teachers are teaching in their classrooms. Most important, at present
the system does not usually incorporate forms of assessment that have been
shown, when done well, to have a direct and positive influence on how much
students learn: specifically, the assessments that are part of a teacher's everyday
classroom practice and that are integrated into instruction.
To quote from a recent publication, Knowing What Students Know (NRC,
2001 c) from the Board on Testing and Assessment, one of three NRC standing
boards and committees that joined to organize the present workshop, "The cur-
~x
OCR for page R10
x
PREFACE
rent imbalance of mandates and resources should be redressed by shifting from
an emphasis on external forms of assessment to an increased emphasis on class-
room formative assessment to assist learning" (p. 310~.
The NRC workshop reported here addressed that gap between external and
classroom assessment. During the workshop we heard about issues associated
with designing an assessment system that meets the demands of public account-
ability and, at the same time, improves the quality of the education that students
receive day by day. The workshop focused on assessment that addresses both
accountability and learning.
What guidelines or criteria might be developed to take advantage of the
strengths and potential inherent in large-scale examinations, on the one hand, and
everyday assessment in the classroom on the other? How might steps be taken to
minimize the sometimes counterproductive nature of some assessment practices-
indeed, to maximize the potential of each practice? What are the challenges?
What is gained and what is lost as the states and the nation try to create a coherent
and integrated assessment system? These are some of the many questions raised.
The heart of the workshop was an opportunity to learn about approximately
a dozen programs in which attempts are being made to bridge the gap. It should
be recognized that the workshop was exploratory. It was not a showcase. None
of the programs that were described and discussed is perfect. Few are exemplary,
except in the goals they are trying to accomplish. Most face serious challenges.
The members of the committee that planned the workshop are deeply indebted to
those who agreed to talk about the current state of their work in a setting that
encouraged probing questions. All the participants recognized that it would take
hard and steady effort to construct a high-quality system.*
A further goal of the workshop was to establish clearer directions for specific
NRC initiatives in the months and years ahead to inform the larger education
community about issues associated with assessment, learning, and accountability.
Therefore the genesis of the workshop is relevant. Three of the constituent
bodies of the NRC's Center for Education joined to plan the two-day meeting.
They will be involved in whatever initiatives grow out of the workshop delibera-
tions.
For ten years, the Board on Testing and Assessment has been producing
insightful publications on improving large-scale examinations. It has helped the
education community and the public to recognize the strengths and limitations of
such examinations. It has led the way in synthesizing research on the topic,
making recommendations, and pointing out areas that need additional serious
study. The Mathematical Sciences Education Board and the Committee on
Science Education K-12, while not inattentive to assessment issues, have focused
primarily on matters of curriculum and teacher education. Bringing these three
*See Appendix C for sources of further information about the programs discussed.
OCR for page R11
PREFACE
Xt
groups together to lead this workshop, and inform the NRC's future work in this
arena, helps to ensure the kind of scope and comprehensiveness needed around
the topic of assessment for both learning and accountability.
In planning this workshop the Committee on Assessment in Support of
Instruction and Learning benefited tremendously from the contributions and good-
will of many people, and the committee is grateful for their support. First, we
wish to acknowledge the National Science Foundation (NSF), which sponsored
this workshop through a grant to the Center for Education. We particularly thank
Janice Earle, who served as the link between the NSF and the committee. The
Board on Testing and Assessment, the Committee on Science Education K-12,
and the Mathematical Sciences Education Board the units within the National
Research Council that launched this workshop were instrumental in shaping the
project and in providing general guidance and support along the way.
Within the NRC, a number of individuals supported the project. Michael
Feuer, executive director of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education; Patricia Morison, associate director of the Center for Education; and
Jay Labov, deputy director of the Center for Education, provided support and
encouragement along the way. The committee expresses particular gratitude to
the members of the NRC project staff for contributing their intellectual and
organizational skills throughout the life of the project. Meryl Bertenthal, the
project's study director, helped to conceptualize the workshop and provided guid-
ance and support to the committee. Judy Koenig was responsible for planning the
committee's first meeting and, at the workshop, proved to be a skilled note taker
and exacting timekeeper. Andrew Tompkins provided excellent research support
and adeptly handled all of the logistics related to the workshop. We were particu-
larly impressed by his knowledge and use of technology, which allowed us to
feature more than twenty speakers and their slides without a single glitch. Michael
DeCarmine ably assisted Andrew in ensuring that the committee's work pro-
ceeded smoothly. The committee is extremely grateful to Alix Beatty for her
skillful writing of this workshop summary.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their
Averse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures
approved by the NRC' s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this indepen-
dent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institu-
tion in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the
report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness
to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confiden-
tial to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the
following individuals for their review of this report: Paul J. Black, Department of
Education and Professional Studies, King's College, London; Peggy Carlisle,
Teacher, Pecan Park Elementary School, Jackson, Mississippi; Sharon Sikora,
Center for Learning and Teaching of the West, Colorado State University; and
OCR for page R12
xt!
PREFACE
Gary Sykes, Education Administration and Teacher Education, Michigan State
University
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive com-
ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the final draft of the report
before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Marshall S. Smith,
Education Program, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Menlo Park,
California. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for
making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were care-
fully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely
with the authoring committee and the institution.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the committee members, who generously
contributed their time and intellectual efforts to this project. The organization of
such a large workshop and the conceptualization of the criteria for selecting
programs to feature was an extraordinary challenge that they met extremely well.
J. Myron Atkin, Chair
OCR for page R13
Contents
Introduction
The Criteria in Context
The Ideal, 10
Large-Scale Assessments, 11
Classroom Assessments, 13
The Nature of the Gap
Some International Examples
Australia, 20
Queensland, 21
Great Britain: Enhanced Formative Assessment, 22
The International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme, 23
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 23
Assessment to Improve Learning
Nebraska: School-Based Teacher-Led Assessment Recording
System, 26
Delaware: Comprehensive Science Assessment, 27
Vermont: The Vermont Assessment System and the Partnership for
the Assessment of Standards-Based Science, 29
Wyoming: Body of Evidence System, 30
. . .
x~
5
16
19
26
OCR for page R14
xlv
Maine: Comprehensive Assessment System, 32
Washington: Adapting a Traditional Assessment, 34
Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research System, 35
Northern California Mathematics Assessment Collaborative, 36
Facet-Based Assessment, 38
Model-Based Assessment, 39
Concluding Thoughts and Possible Next Steps
References
Appendices
A Workshop Agenda
B Workshop Participants
C Resources for Further Information
CONTENTS
42
45
47
51
55
