References

Alpert, T., and Slater, S. (2010). A Coherent Approach to Adaptive Assessment. Presentation prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Alpert.pdf [accessed September 2010].

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Baker, E.L., O’Neil, H.F., and Linn, R.L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessment. American Psychologist, 48, 1,210-1,218.

Bennett, R. (2010). Innovative Assessment Systems: The Role of New Technology. Presentation prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Bennett.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Bishop, J. (1997). The Effect of Curriculum-Based Exit Exam Systems on Student Achievement (Working paper no. 97-15). Ithaca, NY: Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University. Abstract Available: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/156/ [accessed September 2010].

Blanc, S., Christman, J.B., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., Travers, E., and Bulkley, K.E. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 205-225.

Bond, L. (1995). Unintended consequences of performance assessment: Issues of bias and fairness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14, 21-24.

Bulkley, K., Christman, J., Goertz, M., and Lawrence, N. (2010). Building with benchmarks: The role of the district in Philadelphia’s benchmark assessment system. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 186-204. Abstract available: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a921425767 [accessed September 2010].



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 113
References Alpert, T., and Slater, S. (2010). A Coherent Approach to Adaptive Assessment. Presentation pre- pared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_ State_Assessment_presentation_Alpert.pdf [accessed September 2010]. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washing- ton, DC: American Educational Research Association. Baker, E.L., O’Neil, H.F., and Linn, R.L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for performance- based assessment. American Psychologist, , 1,210-1,218. Bennett, R. (2010). Innovative Assessment Systems: The Role of New Technology. Presentation prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_ State_Assessment_presentation_Bennett.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Bishop, J. (1997). The Effect of Curriculum-Based Exit Exam Systems on Student Achievement (Working paper no. 97-15). Ithaca, NY: Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University. Abstract Available: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/156/ [accessed September 2010]. Blanc, S., Christman, J.B., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., Travers, E., and Bulkley, K.E. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, (2), 205-225. Bond, L. (1995). Unintended consequences of performance assessment: Issues of bias and fairness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, , 21-24. Bulkley, K., Christman, J., Goertz, M., and Lawrence, N. (2010). Building with benchmarks: The role of the district in Philadelphia’s benchmark assessment system. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, (2), 186-204. Abstract available: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ content~db=all~content=a921425767 [accessed September 2010]. 

OCR for page 113
 STATE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS Cagle, P. (2010). How Assessments Could Inform Instruction. Presentation Prepared for the work- shop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_ presentation_Cagle.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Christman, J., Neild, R., Bulkley, K., Blanc, S., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., and Travers, E. (2009). Making the Most of Interim Assessment Data. Lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action. Chudowsky, N., and Chudowsky, V. (2007). No Child Left Behind at Five: A Review of Changes to State Accountability Plans. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Clune, W.H., and White, P.A. (2008). Policy Effectiveness of Interim Assessments in Providence Public Schools. (WCER Working Paper No. 2008-10, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.) Madison: University of Wisconsin. Cook, H.G. (in press). FLARE Language Learning Targets. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educa- tion Research. Cortiella, C., and Burnette, J. (2008). Challenging Change: How schools and Districts Are Improving the Performance of Special Education Students. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Available: http://www.ncld.org/images/stories/OnCapitolHill/PolicyRelatedPublications/ ChallengingChange/ChallengingChange.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Cronin, J., Dahlin, M. Xiang, Y., and McCahon, D. (2009). The Accountability Illusion. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Available: http://www.evsd.org/documents/accountability. pdf [accessed September 2010]. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Curriculum-Embedded Performance Assessments. Presentation Pre- pared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_ State_Assessment_presentation_Darling-Hammond1.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Dunbar, S.B, Koretz, D.M., and Hoover, H.D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, , 289-303. Elmore, R.F. (2003). Accountability and capacity. In M. Carnoy, R.F. Elmore, and L.S. Siskin (Eds.), High Schools and the New Accountability (pp. 195-209). New York: Routledge. Ferrara, S. (2009). The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) -00: Political Considerations. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7. nationalacademies.org/bota/Steve%20Ferrara.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Fuchs, T., and Woessmann, L. (2007). What accounts for international differences in student per- formance? A re-examination using the PISA data. Empirical Economics, (2-3), 433-464. Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., and Wright, J. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track Achievement. (Working Paper No.06-1). Berkeley: Univer- sity of California and Stanford University, Policy Analysis for California Education. Goertz, M.E. (2009). Overview of Current Assessment Practices. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Peg_Goertz_Paper.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Goertz, M.E., Olah, L.N., and Riggan, M. (2009). Can Interim Assessments Be Used for Instructional Change? CPRE Policy Briefs: Reporting on Issues and Research in Educa- tion Policy and Finance. Available: http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rb_51_ role%20policy%20brief_final%20web.pdf [accessed August 2010].

OCR for page 113
 REFERENCES Gong, B. (2009). Innovative Assessment in Kentucky’s KIRIS System: Political Considerations. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ bota/Brian%20Gong.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Government Accounting Office. (2003). Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Informa- tion Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO Report-03-389. Available: www.gao. gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-389 [accessed November 2009]. Government Accounting Office. (2009). No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of Education’s Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments. GAO Report-09- 911. Available: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-911 [accessed November 2009]. Hambleton, R.K. (2009). Using Common Standards to Enable Cross-National Comparisons. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Ron_Hambleton. pdf [accessed September 2010]. Heritage, M. (2010). Making Use of Assessment Information. Presentation for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_ presentation_Heritage.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinksi, T., and Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seam - less process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, (3), 24-31. Herman, J. (2010). Next Generation Assessment Systems: Toward Coherence and Utility. Presenta- tion for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_ State_Assessment_presentation_Herman.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Herman, J., Osmundson, E., and Silver, D. (2010). Capturing Quality in Formative Assessment Practice: Measurement Challenges. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evalua- tion, Standards, and Student Testing and the University of California, Los Angeles. Available: http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R770.pdf [accessed August 2010]. Hess, K. (2010). Strategies for Helping Teachers Make Better Use of Assessment Results. Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_ Assessment_presentation_Hess.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Hess, K., Kurizaki, V., and Holt, L. (2009). Reflections on Tools and Strategies Used in the Hawaii Progress Maps Project: Lessons Learned from Learning Progressions. Available: http://www. nciea.org/publications/Hawaii%20Lessons%20Learned_KH09.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Ho, A.D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Education Researcher, (6), 351-360. Jennings, J., and Rentner, D.S. (2006). Ten big effects of No Child Left Behind on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, (2), 110-113. Kirst, M., and J. Mazzeo (1996). The rise, fall, and rise of state assessment in California: 1993-1996. Phi Delta Kappan, (4), 319-323. Koretz, D., and Barron, S. (1998). The Validity of Gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., and McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont portfolio assessment pro - gram: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, (3), 5-16.

OCR for page 113
 STATE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS Koretz, D., Mitchell., K., Barron S., and Keith, S. (1996). Perceived Effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program. Final Report, Project 3.2 State Accountability Models in Action. National Center for Research on Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., and Reiser, B., (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based peda - gogy. Science Education, (1), 1-32. Krajcik, J., Stevens, S., and Shin, N. (2009). Developing Standards That Lead to Better Instruction and Learning. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies. org/bota/Krajcik_Stevens_Paper.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Lai, E.R., and Waltman, K. (2008). The Impact of NCLB on Instruction: A Comparison of Results for 00-0 to 00-0. IARP Report #7. Iowa City: Center for Evaluation and Assessment, University of Iowa. Lane, S., Ventrice, J., Cerrillo, T., Parke, C., and Stone, C. (1999). Impact of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP): Evidence from the Principal, Teacher, and Student Questionnaires (Reading, Writing, and Science). Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23, 1999). Available: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED434928.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Lazer, S. (2009). Technical Challenges with Innovative Item Types. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Steve%20Lazer.pdf [accessed Sep- tember 2010]. Lindquist, E.F. (1951). Preliminary considerations in objective test construction. In E.F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 119-158). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., and Dunbar, S.B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expec- tations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 0, 15-21. Linquanti, R. (2010). Issues to Consider with Innovative Assessments: How Will English Language Learners Participate? Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Linquanti.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Lukhele, R., Thissen, D., and Wainer, H. (1994). On the relative value of multiple-choice, con - structed-response, and examinee-selected items on two achievement tests. Journal of Educa- tional Measurement, , 234-250. Marion, S. (2009). Changes in Assessments and Assessment Systems Since 00. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improv - ing Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Scott%20Marion.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Mattson, D. (2009). Science Assessment in Minnesota. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Com- mittee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11. Available: http:// www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Dirk_Mattson.pdf [accessed September 2010]. McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, Changes, and Challenges; Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. McTighe, J., and Wiggins, G. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

OCR for page 113
 REFERENCES Mislevy, R. (1998). Foundations of a new test theory. In N. Fredericksen, R.J. Mislevy and I.I. Bejar (Eds.), Test Theory for a New Generation of Tests (pp. 19-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mislevy, R.J., and Riconscente, M. (2005). Evidence-Centered Assessment Design: Layers, Structures, and Terminology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. National Research Council. (1995). Anticipating Goals 000: Standards, Assessment, and Public Policy: Summary of a Workshop. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1999a). Embedding Questions: The Pursuit of a Common Measure in Uncommon Tests. Committee on Embedding Common Test Items in State and District Assessments. D.M. Koretz, M.W. Bertenthal, and B.F. Green (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1999b). Uncommon Measures: Equivalence and Linkage Among Edu- cational Tests. Committee on Equivalency and Linkage of Educational Tests. M.J. Feuer, P.W. Holland, B.F. Green, M.W. Bertenthal, and F.C. Hemphill (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing What Students Know. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser (Eds). Board on Testing and Assess- ment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2005). Systems for State Science Assessment. Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2008). Common Standards for K- Education? Considering the Evi- dence: Summary of a Workshop Series. A. Beatty, Rapporteur. Committee on State Standards in Education: A Workshop Series. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Olah, L., Lawrence, N., and Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, (2), 226-245. Perie, M., Marion, S., and Gong, B. (2007). The Role of Interim Assessments in a Comprehensive Assessment System: A Policy Brief. Center for Assessment, The Aspen Institute, and Achieve, Inc. Available: http://www.achieve.org/files/TheRoleofInterimAssessments.pdf [accessed March 2010]. Porter, A.C., Polikoff, M.S., and Smithson, J. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended cur- riculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (3), 238-268. Roeber, E. (2010). Designing High Quality, Affordable Assessment Systems. Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improv - ing Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_ State_Assessment_presentation_Roeber.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Rudner, L. (2010). Implementing the GMAT computerized adaptive test. In W. Van der Linden and C.A.W. Glas (Eds.), Elements of Adaptive Testing (pp. 151-166). Available: http://www. springerlink.com/content/k22114l4r64x7316/fulltext.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, , 525-559. Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P., and Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of science assessments . Journal of Educational Measurement, 0, 215-232. Shepard, L. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, (1), 405-450.

OCR for page 113
 STATE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS Shin, N., Stevens, S., and Krajcik, J. (in press) Using Construct-Centered Design as a Systematic Approach for Tracking Student Learning Over Time. London, England: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., and Krajcik, J. (2006) Implications of research on chil - dren’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, (1), 1-98. Smith, M., and O’Day, J. (1991). Systematic school reform. In S. Fuhrman and B. Malen (Eds.),The Politics of Curriculum and Testing (pp. 233-267). Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Stecher, B., and Hamilton, L. (2009). What Have We Learned from Pioneers in Innovative Assess- ment? Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies. org/bota/Brian_Stecher_and_Laura_Hamilton.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Stecher, B.M., Epstein, S., Hamilton, L.S., Marsh, J.A., Robyn, A., McCombs, J.S., Russell, J.L., and Naftel, S. (2008). Pain and Gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, 00 to 00. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., and Krajcik, J.S. (2009). The Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engi- neering. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press. Sunderman, G.L., Ed. (2008). Holding NCLB Accountable: Achieving Accountability, Equity, and School Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Thurlow, M. (2010). Issues to Consider with Innovative Assessments: Students with Disabilities Perspectives. Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Thurlow.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Toch, T. (2006). Margins of Error: The Education Testing Industry in the No Child Left Behind Era . Washington, DC: Education Sector. Topol, B., Olsen, J., and Roeber, E. (2010). The Cost of New High-Quality Assessments: A Compre- hensive Analysis of the Potential Costs for Future State Assessments . Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Tucker, M. (2010). BOTA Workshop on Best Practices for State Assessment. Presentation prepared for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improv - ing Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_ State_Assessment_presentation_Tucker.pdf [accessed September 2010]. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary Available: http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/resources.html [accessed January 2010]. Wilde, J. (2010). Comparing Results of the NAEP Long-Term Trend Assessment: ELLs, Former ELLs, and English-Proficient Students. Paper presented at the 2010 American Educational Research Association Annual meeting. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Available: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/16/AERA_2010_Wilde.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Wilson, M., Ed. (2004). Towards Coherence Between Classroom Assessment and Accountability. 0rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing Measures: An Item-Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

OCR for page 113
 REFERENCES Wilson, M. (2009). Developing Assessment Tasks That Lead to Better Instruction and Learning. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ bota/Mark_Wilson.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Wise, L. (2009). How Common Standards Might Support Improved State Assessments. Paper pre- pared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Laurie_ Wise_Paper.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Zwick, R. (2009). State Achievement Comparisons: Is the Time Right? Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, Decem- ber 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Rebecca_Zwick_Paper. pdf [accessed September 2010].

OCR for page 113