Educational Assessment Syllabus



COURSE SYLLABUS

Syllabus developed by Dr. Richard McEwing, Dr. Howard Pullman, and Dr. M. Kathleen Cripe.

Educational Assessment

FOUN 3710 - 3 s.h. - CRN 22335)

Prerequisites: FOUN 1501. (Note: When grouped with other courses for the purposes of block instruction, students must be admitted to the complete instructional block to take this course.)

Class meetings: Tuesday and Thursday, 11:00 to 12:15; BCOE Room 4302

Text/Resources: Stiggins,R. & Chappuis,J. An Introduction to Student-Involved Assessment For Learning (2012). Pearson.

McEwing, Richard. Website -

(Many details related to this course are on the class web site)

Instructor: Dr. Richard A. McEwing, Professor Emeritus

Department of Educational Foundations, Research, Technology & Leadership

Beeghly College of Education

Youngstown State University

Youngstown, OH 44555-0001

Office: Beeghly College of Education, Rm 4113

Office Hours: TTh 10:00 to 11:00; 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm

Office Phone: (330) 941-1929

E-mail: ramcewing@ysu.edu

Technology/Materials Fee: Candidates are required to have purchased individual TaskStream accounts. TaskStream is a web-based program used the test construction project in this course and is the web-based program used throughout the teacher education program.

Catalog Description: Critical review of types, purposes, procedures, uses, and limitations of assessment strategies and techniques including authentic assessment, value-added assessment, and alternate assessment.  Standardized testing and implications for current practice.

 

Critical Tasks: The FOUN 3710 Essential task provides an assessment of the candidate’s capabilities in constructing a classroom test appropriate for the individual’s teaching field. The classroom test must include assessment alternatives for three diverse students. This assignment must be submitted on TaskStream.

Course Outline - Class meeting topics and due dates for submissions are scheduled to follow the sequence below. Assignments worth points and Due Dates are written in red. Should adjustments to this plan be necessary, they will be announced in class.

Dates Projected Class Topics & Assignments Related Material and Readings

Jan 13-22 Introduction to Course & TaskStream Syllabus, Website

*Jan 13 Pre- Assessment (#1)

Classroom Assessment for Student Success Stiggins Chap 1 & Website

Understanding Why We Assess Stiggins Chap 2 & Website

Basic Measurement Concepts Website

Jan 27, 29 Clear Achievement Expectations Stiggins Chap 3 & Website

Rubrics Readings-Website

Designing Quality Classroom Assessments Stiggins Chap 4 & Website

Bloom, Standards, Objectives Readings-Website

*Jan 27 Standards, Objectives Assignment Due (#2)

Feb 3, 5 Selected Response Stiggins Chap 5 & Website

*Feb 3 Selected Response Items Due (#3)

Backward Design Readings-Website

Feb 10, 12 Written Response (Essay) Assessment Stiggins Chap 6 & Website

*Feb 10 Written Response Items Assignment Due (#4)

Feedback Readings-Website

Feb 17, 19 Performance Assessment Stiggins Chap 7 & Website

*Feb 17 Performance Assessment Due (#5)

Test Administration, Cheating Website

Feb 24, 26 Personal Communication as Assessment Stiggins Chap 8 & Website

Assessing Dispositions Stiggins Chap 9 & Website

What Lies Beneath . . . Website

Mar 3, 5 Record Keeping Stiggins Chap 10 & Website

Report Cards Stiggins Chap 11 & Website

Assigning Grades Website

Conferences as Productive Communication Stiggins Chap 13 & Website

*Mar 5 Test Construction Project Due – on TaskStream (#6) – NOTE . . . students may decide to postpone the submission of this project until Final Exam Week

Mar 10, 12 NO ON-CAMPUS CLASSES – SPRING BREAK

No Assessment Class MEETINGS on Campus next SIX weeks, candidates totally in the field assignment

Mar 17, 19 Week One in the Field (Week Beginning March 16)

Mar 24, 26 Week Two in the Field (Week Beginning March 23)

Mar31,Apr2 Week Three in the Field (Week Beginning March 30)

*Apr 2 Report Card / Record Keeping Assignment Due (#7) – Submitted via email

Apr 7, 9 Week Four in the Field (Week Beginning April 6)

Apr 14, 16 Week Five in the Field (Week Beginning April 13)

*Apr 16 Sum/Anal of Assessment System Assignment Due (#8) – Submitted via email

Apr 21, 23 Week Six in the Field (Week Beginning April 20 – Ending April 24)

BACK AT YSU

Apr 28 Communication with Standardized Test Scores Stiggins Chap 14

Norms and Criteria Website

High Stakes Testing Website

*Apr 28 Feedback Assignment Due (#9)

Apr 39 Portfolios as Rich Communications Stiggins Chap 12

Value Added in Ohio Website

Self-Evaluation Website

Apr 30 Salary Data Website

*Apr 30 Class Participation Assessment (#10)

*Apr 30 Post - Assessment (#11)

May 7 Final Exam Thursday 10:30 to 12:30

*You have until 12:30 to submit your Test Construction Project

Candidates will be meeting in work groups during Final Exam week to conduct the AYA Cluster Course SED 3706 Videotaping Review as your final exam

Course Grading:

The course Grade Determination Checklist below indicates the maximum point values assigned to each evaluation area:

Evaluation Area Points Possible Related Course Obj.

No. 1 Pre-Assessment 5 1.3

No. 2 Identify Standard/Write Objective 5 1.4

No. 3 Selected Response Items/Key 7 1.2, 1.6

No. 4 Essay Items/Key (rubric) 7 1.2, 1.6

No. 5 Performance Items/Key 7 1.2, 1.6

No. 6 Test Construction Project 20 1.3, 1.6, 2.1 - 2.5

No. 7 Report on Record Keeping/

Analyze Report Card 8 1.1 - 1.3

No. 8 Summary/Analysis of Assessment System 7 1.1 - 1.3

No. 9 Feedback Assignment 15 1.3 - 1.5

No. 10 Class participation/discussion 14 3.1 – 3.6

No. 11 Post-Test 5 1.3

----

100 Total

Each student starts the class with 100 points. The checklist points earned above are added to determine the course grade as follows:

181 - 200 . . . . . . . . A

161 - 180 . . . . . . . . B

141 - 160 . . . . . . . . C

121 - 140 . . . . . . . . D

101 - 120 . . . . . . . . F

Brief Descriptions of Evaluation Areas:

Pre-Assessment (5 points)

All candidates will be given a pre-assessment at the beginning of the course. The instructor will use this pre-assessment to guide class and individual discussions with candidates and to set the stage for modification of instruction based on pre-assessment. Each candidate completing the pretest receives all 5 points.

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF EVALUATION AREAS (continued):

Identify Standard/Write Objective (5 points)

Candidate will choose a Standard in their content area and grade level and write three measurable lesson objectives that assess each standard utilizing Bloom’s Taxonomy (see Standards and Objectives –Assignment #2 link for instructions) AND include a pre-assessment plan and a formative assessment plan. These items will be turned in at the beginning of a designated class and critiqued by the class the class will provide feedback. 3 points are earned for having the complete assignment ready at start of class; 2 points are earned for having your work on the assignment critiqued reviewed by class. When you turn your assignment in, place you name on the back and either the word YES or NO. By the way, we will be doing this assignment in a modified “flipped teaching” mode (to be explained in class). These items (in revised form) may be used by you as a basis for the Test Construction Project.

Item Writing: Selected Response Items / Essay Items / Performance Items. Including answer keys) (7 points each item set; 21 points total) Each candidate will develop grade level questions and answer keys (Selected Response, Essay, Performance) in their content area based on the Common Core (Academic Content) Standards and objectives identified above. These items will be turned in at the beginning of a designated class and the class will provide feedback. 4 points are earned for having the questions/answers ready at start of class; 3 points are earned for having the questions/answers reviewed by class (using same procedures as described on previous assignment). Taken together, the item writing requirement is worth a total of 21 points. Collectively, these items (in revised form) may be used in the Test Construction Project.

Report on Record Keeping/Grading/Report Card (8 points)

See guidelines and scoring rubric on instructor’s website.

Summary/Analysis of Assessment in Field Placement (7 points)

See guidelines and scoring rubric on instructor’s website.

Feedback to Students Assignment (15 points)

See guidelines and scoring rubric on instructor’s website.

Class Participation (14 points)

While the knowledge base related to this course can be acquired through reading the text, the examination of (and reflection on) our ideas with regard to this knowledge is attained only by being present at class activities and discussions. In recognition of this commitment, individuals who attend all classes earn 14 pts. For every class absence, 2 points are deducted.

Post-Assessment (5 points)

Each candidate completing the post-test receives all 5 points.

Essential Task – The Test Construction Project (20 points)

This assignment, designated as an essential task, requires the construction of a whole unit/topic summative assessment plan (to include a final exam) appropriate for the candidate’s teaching field. The candidate’s project must be submitted to TaskStream where it will be evaluated by the instructor. See the 10-page document “Test Construction Project and Annotated Rubric” on the class website. This project is worth a potential of 20 points.

Other Important Course Definitions and Policies

Class Cancellation: Notice that this class is being cancelled for any one day because of instructor illness, or other reasons, will be sent to the student address as soon as possible. University-wide closure or class cancellation is a decision made through the Presidents office, and announced via the YSU homepage and on WYSU-FM radio.

Academic Honesty - Departmental Policy: All candidates are expected to comply with generally accepted professional ethics of Academic Honesty in meeting their course requirements (refer to ). Candidates are expected to submit materials that are respectful of intellectual property rights, as well as complying with all Federal Copyright Laws (refer to ). Any breach of this code of ethics will be handled according to the YSU Student Handbook. Any proven acts of cheating, plagiarizing, or engaging in any form of academic dishonesty, could result in a severe disciplinary action, an “F” grade for the assignment or course, and possible referral to the Office of Student Affairs for disciplinary action.

Students with Disabilities: Youngstown State University is committed to providing reasonable accommodations for all persons with disabilities. This syllabus is available in alternative format upon request. In accordance with University procedures, if you have a documented disability and require accommodations to obtain equal access in this course, please contact me privately to discuss your specific needs.  You must be registered with the Center for Student Progress Disability Services, located at 275 Fifth Avenue, and provide a letter of accommodation to coordinate reasonable accommodations.  You can reach CSP Disability Services at 330-941-1372. Youngstown State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression, disability, age, religion or veteran/military status in its programs or activities. Please visit ysu.edu/ada-accessibility for contact information for persons designated to handle questions about this policy.

Incomplete Grade Policy: An incomplete grade of an “I” may be given to a student who has been doing satisfactory work in a course but, for reasons beyond control of the student and deemed justifiable by the instructor, had not completed all requirements for a course when grades were submitted. A written explanation of the reason for the “I” will be forwarded to the Registrar for inclusion in the student’s permanent record. Upon subsequent completion of the course requirements, the instructor initiates a grade change. Incompletes must be completed during the following term by these deadlines: Spring semester incompletes finished by Sept. 1, summer incompletes by October 1, and fall incompletes by March 1. If courses are not completed by the designated date, the “I” automatically converts to an “F.” If graduation occurs within the time period, the “Incomplete” grade will be converted to an “F” prior to graduation.

Candidate Disposition Alert Process: The purpose of this alert process is to identify candidate performance or conduct that fails to satisfy professional expectations associated with professionalism, inclusivity and collaboration determined by the BCOE faculty as necessary standards to effectively serve all students or clients. The Candidate Performance Alert form is completed when a concern is raised about a candidate’s performance during any class, sponsored activity by the Beeghly College of Education, or during a YSU required field or clinical experience. This form may be used when a candidate engages in conduct, irrespective of its time or location, which raises substantial questions about the candidate’s ability to perform his or her role as an educational professional. The Candidate Performance Alert Form can be used by university faculty, staff, supervisors, cooperating teachers, or other school personnel when they have a concern, other than one that can be effectively addressed through routine means of supervision.

Essential Tasks: Selected performance-based assignments reflect a candidate’s knowledge, skills and/or dispositions and are aligned with the standards for teacher preparation of the licensure area.  These tasks assess a candidate’s ability to move through the teacher preparation program in an effective way, meeting and/or exceeding expectations in these professional standards.  Such tasks typically make up a substantial proportion of the final course grade. Therefore, candidates must perform satisfactorily on essential tasks to pass the course.  Failure to effectively pass the Essential Task will usually result in remediation through repetition of the course to guarantee that each teacher candidate is prepared to be an effective educator once the candidate leaves Youngstown State University.

Foundations 3710: Knowledge Base Rationale, Connections to the BCOE Conceptual Framework and Ohio’s Performance-Based Licensure Expectations, and Course Objectives

I. Knowledge Base Rationale:

As the bell curve becomes obsolete as an acceptable standard of teachers' success with students - as our democratizing and developing society demands more, and more equitably disbursed, education - teachers must be able to successfully to teach groups of students whom they have not, in the past, succeeded in teaching.  To attain this emerging professional standard, teachers will need to stronger, in depth and breadth, in their three traditional areas of learning:  content knowledge; pedagogy; and knowledge of the learners and the teaching-learning situation in their familial, local, societal, cultural, and political contexts.  Educational Assessment addresses a key component of pedagogy – assessment.

This course, like its Foundations predecessor, Foun 1501, continues to foster commitment to the principle that children of all colors, backgrounds, creeds, abilities, and styles can learn.  The focus of the course in educational assessment to include assessments generated by teachers and standardized assessments teachers must interpret. The class meeting discussions, field work assignments, and course assessments flow from intertwined topics. The overriding approach used is to introduce the techniques of “how” along with the concerns of “to what purpose.”

The following are knowledge bases used in setting the course objectives --

1. If assessment tools and approaches are not of high quality or not appropriate for the purpose used, there is potential for harm when decisions affecting students' futures are being made based on the results. The most important factors in determining technical quality are the reliability, validity, and fairness of classroom assessments. The Praxis II PLT Category II - Assessment topics will be a central guide; i.e., types of assessments, characteristics of assessments, scoring assessments, uses of assessments, understanding of measurement theory and assessment-related issues (Nuttall, 1989; ETS Booklet on the PLT - Tests and a Glance).

2. Professionals need to know certain statistical and measurement concepts to organize, use, interpret and evaluate data. Candidates will learn basic concepts and develop skills in descriptive statistics (e.g., scales, distributions, measures of central tendency, measures of variability, measures of relationship), to understand test scores (e.g. criterion referenced interpretation, norm-referenced interpretation, percentiles, standard scores) and the purposes/timing of testing; e.g. placement, diagnostic, formative, summative (U.S. Congress, 1992, February; Blommers, 1977; Bloom, Hastings & Madaus, 1971; Coladarci & Coladarci, 1980; Hooke, 1983).

3. The primary aim of assessment is to foster learning of worthwhile academic content for all students (Wolf, Bixby, Glenn, & Gardner, 1991). Many educators believe that what gets assessed is what gets taught and that the format of assessment influences the format of instruction (O'Day & Smith, 1993).

4. Assessments of student achievement are ever changing. Candidates need to understand not only the basics of assessment technique, but they also need to learn to think critically, analyze, and make inferences. Student assessment is the centerpiece of educational improvement efforts. Changes in assessment may cause teachers to do things differently (Linn, 1987; Madaus, 1985).

5. Candidates need to be aware of the promise and the challenges inherent in using assessment practices for high-stakes decisions (such as student retention, promotion, graduation, and assignment to particular instructional groups). In many schools, districts, and states, interpretations based on a single test score have been used to place students in low-track classes, to require students to repeat grades, and to deny high school graduation diplomas. The negative personal and societal effects for students are well-documented: exposure to a less challenging curriculum, significantly increased dropout rates, and lives of unemployment and welfare dependency (Oakes, 1986a; Oakes, 1986b; Shepard & Smith, 1986; Jaeger, 1991).

6. Authentic assessment involves candidates creating problems which are engaging or questions of importance, in which students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and creatively. The tasks are either replicas of, or analogous to, the kinds of problems faced by adult citizens and consumers or professionals in the field. (Wiggins, 1993). Examples of tools or instruments used in authentic assessment include rubrics and portfolios.

7. Value-added assessment gives candidates a powerful diagnostic tool for measuring the effect of their own teaching academic achievement. Student performance on assessments can be measured in two very different ways, both of which are important. Achievement describes the absolute levels attained by students in their end-of-year tests. Growth, in contrast, describes the progress in test scores made over the school year. Value-added assessment measures growth and answers the question: how much value did the school staff add to the students who live in its community? If teachers and schools are to be judged fairly, it is important to understand this significant difference (McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2004).

8. It is key that assessment results are report effectively to students, parents and the wider community so that their needs for information are met and they have a clear understanding of the assessment. When properly presented, assessment reports can help build support for schools and for initiatives that educators wish to carry out. But if assessment results are poorly reported, they can be disregarded or interpreted incorrectly, adversely affecting students, educators, and others in the school community. Determine the audience for the reporting activity. Reports should be geared toward the audience (Roeber, Donovan, and Cole, 1980).

9. An examination historic and current controversies in educational assessment. The issues have less to do with technique than they do with deep seated beliefs, working conditions, and social conditions. Issues will vary over time but typical issues would include test anxiety, test wise-ness, coaching, the computer in assessment, environmental assessment, and the politics of assessment (Messick, 1989; Kochman, (1989).

II. Connections to the BCOE Conceptual Framework and Ohio’s Performance-Based Licensure Expectations:

The BCOE Conceptual Framework “Reflection in Action” uses the mnemonic device “REFLECT” to specify its seven keys components. These seven components are then specified as candidate learning outcomes in the “BCOE Institutional Standards & Outcome Statements.” These outcome statements are index to the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession in a matrix called the Alignment of Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession and BCOE Conceptual Framework.

III. Course Objectives: (OS#_ indicates Ohio Standard connections; R#_ indicates BCOE Conceptual Framework connections.)

A. Cognitive Domain (Knowledge categories - Bloom's taxonomy, revised 2001)

1.1. Remember (was Knowledge)

1.1.1. Knows the definitions of common measurement terms,

e.g., validity, reliability, mastery (OS#3.1; R#1B).

1.1.2. Knows where to find sources of information about

standardized testing (OS#3.1; R#1B).

1.1.3. Knows basic testing concepts, e.g., norms, standard

error of measurement, percentile rank (OS#3.1; R#1B).

1.1.4. Knows how to develop learning outcomes objectives using

taxonomies, domains, categories, illustrative verbs (OS#3.1; R#1B).

1.2. Understand (was Comprehension)

1.2.1. Understands the difference between

criterion-referenced and norm-referenced testing (OS#3.1; R#1B).

1.2.2. Understands advantages and disadvantages of

various item types (OS#3.1; R#1B).

1.2.3. Understands how factors unrelated to the test

itself may influence the test results (OS#3.1; R#1B).

1.2.4. Generalizes principles that under gird sound test

administration procedures. (OS#3.1; R#1B)

1.3. Apply (was Application)

1.3.1. Predicts appropriate situational use for the various

categories of evaluation, e.g., placement,

diagnostic, formative, summative (OS#3.2; R#1B).

1.3.2. Demonstrates correct usage of a variety of evaluation

procedures, e.g., anecdotal records, rating scales,

checklists, achievement and aptitude tests (OS#3.2; R#1B).

1.3.3. - 1.3.7 (See Psychomotor Domain)

1.4. Analyze (was Analysis)

1.4.1. Differentiates among the contributions and limitations

of standardized tests and other high stakes assessments (OS#3.3; R#1C).

1.4.2. Identifies strengths and weaknesses of teacher-made

classroom tests (OS#3.3; R#1C).

1.4.3. Interprets the results of standardized tests (OS#3.3; R#1C).

1.5. Evaluate (was Evaluation)

1.5.1. Judges the relative worth of a wide variety of educational

data possibilities (OS#3.5; R#1C).

1.5.2. Evaluates data to make decisions (OS#3.5; R#1C).

1.6. Create (was Synthesis)

1.6.1. Formulates a well-balanced exam (TaskStream) (OS#3.1; R#1B).

B. Psychomotor Domain (Skills)

2.1. Develops a table of specifications (OS#3.2; R#1B).

2.2. Constructs various item types (OS#3.2; R#1B).

2.3. Assembles items into a classroom test (OS#3.2; R#1B).

2.4. Computes simple descriptive statistics (OS#3.2; R#1B).

2.5. Performs item analysis (OS#3.2; R#1B).

C. Affective Domain (Dispositions)

3.1. Accepts the importance of the individual in meaningful

interpretation of test results (OS#3.5; R#1C).

3.2. Shows awareness of professional ethical standards relating

to confidentiality of test scores (OS#3.4; R#3A).

3.3. Appreciates the role of reporting and communicating

testing information to all legitimate parties (OS#3.4; R#3D).

3.4. Values testing as means to obtain reliable data in

order to make decisions about students (OS#3.5; R#1C).

3.5. Values multifaceted assessment as a means of creating

fairness in a grading policy (OS#3.1; R#1B).

3.6. Displays sensitivity to social and political issues related to testing (OS#3.4; R#3D).

References

Baker, E. L., O'Neill, H. F., Jr., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessments. American Psychologist, 48, 1210-1218.

Blommers, Paul J. (1977). Elementary statistical methods in psychology and education. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.

Bloom, Benjamin S., J. Thomas Hastings, George F. Madaus. Handbook On Formative And Summative Evaluation Of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Braun, Henry I. “Using Student Progress to Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models,” Educational Testing Service - Policy Information Center. September 2005.

Coladarci, Arthur and Theodore Coladarci. (1980). Elementary Descriptive Statistics. San Francisco: Wadsworth, Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994, Spring). Performance assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 5-29.

Educational Testing Service (ETS) website ().

Hooke, Robert. (1983). How to tell the liars from the statisticians. New York: M. Dekker.

Jaeger, R.M. (1991). Legislative perspectives on statewide testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 239-242.

Kochman, T. (1989). Black and white cultural styles in pluralistic perspective. In B. R. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language and culture. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Linn, R. (1987). Accountability: The comparison of educational systems and the quality of test results. Educational Policy, 1 (2), 181-198.

Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., & Dunbar, S.B. (1991, November). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20 (8), 15-21.

Madaus, G. (1985). Public policy and the testing profession - You've never had it so good? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 4 (1), 5-11.

McCaffrey, Daniel, Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, Daniel, and Hamilton, Laura. "Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability." An Education Report by the Rand Corporation (prepared for the Carnegie Corporation), 2004.

Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.

Nuttall, D. L. (1989). The validity of assessments. In P. Murphy & B. Moon (Ed.), Developments in learning and assessment (pp. 265-276). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Oakes, J. (1986a, Fall). Beyond tracking. Educational Horizons, 65(1), 32-35.

Oakes, J. (1986b, November). Tracking, inequality, and the rhetoric of school reform: Why schools don't change. Journal of Education, 168(1), 61-80.

O'Day, J.A., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-311). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roeber, E. D., Donovan, D., & Cole, R. (1980, December). Telling the statewide testing story ... and living to tell it again. Phi Delta Kappan, 62(4), 273-274.

Sanders, William. "Beyond No Child Left Behind.” 2003 Annual Meeting. American Educational Research Association. Chicago. 2003.

Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. New York: Falmer Press.

Value-Added Assessment Special Issue, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Volume 29 No 1, Spring 2004

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

Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., III, & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1992, February). Testing in American Schools: Asking the right questions. (OTA-SET-519). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download