What Is a Performance Based Assessment Reading

Educational evaluation method

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

As a continuous process, assessment establishes measurable and clear student learning outcomes for learning, providing a sufficient amount of learning opportunities to accomplish these outcomes, implementing a systematic way of gathering, analyzing and interpreting evidence to decide how well student learning matches expectations, and using the nerveless data to inform comeback in student learning.^[6]

The final purpose of assessment practices in instruction depends on the theoretical framework of the practitioners and researchers, their assumptions and behavior virtually the nature of human mind, the origin of knowledge, and the process of learning.

Types [edit]

The term assessment is generally used to refer to all activities teachers use to help students acquire and to judge pupil progress.^[7] Assessment can be divided for the sake of convenience using the following categorizations:

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

Placement, formative, summative and diagnostic [edit]

Cess is often divided into initial, formative, and summative categories for the purpose of because dissimilar objectives for cess practices.

Placement assessment – Placement evaluation is used to place students according to prior achievement or personal characteristics, at the nearly appropriate point 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 employ to assess college readiness and place students into their initial classes. Placement evaluation, also referred to every bit pre-cess or initial cess, is conducted prior to instruction or intervention to establish a baseline from which individual student growth tin can exist measured. This type of an assessment is used to know what the student'southward skill level is near the discipline. It helps the teacher to explain the material more efficiently. These assessments are not graded.^[9]
Formative assessment – Formative assessment is generally carried out throughout a course or projection. Formative assessment, also referred to as "educative assessment," is used to assist learning. In an educational setting, formative assessment might be a teacher (or peer) or the learner, providing feedback on a student's work and would not necessarily be used for grading purposes. Formative assessments can take the form of diagnostic, standardized tests, quizzes, oral question, or draft work. Formative assessments are carried out concurrently with instructions. The result may count. The formative assessments aim to run into if the students understand the didactics before doing a summative assessment.^[9]
Summative assessment – Summative cess is more often than not carried out at the cease of a course or project. In an educational setting, summative assessments are typically used to assign students a form grade. Summative assessments are evaluative. Summative assessments are made to summarize what the students take learned, to make up one's mind whether they understand the field of study matter well. This blazon of assessment is typically graded (due east.g. pass/fail, 0-100) and tin take the form of tests, exams or projects. Summative assessments are oftentimes used to determine whether a educatee has passed or failed a form. A criticism of summative assessments is that they are reductive, and learners discover how well they have caused cognition too late for it to be of use.^[9]
Diagnostic assessment – Diagnostic cess deals with the whole difficulties at the end that occurs during the learning process.

Jay McTighe and Ken O'Connor proposed vii practices to effective learning.^[9] One of them is near showing the criteria of the evaluation before the examination. Another is about the importance of pre-assessment to know what the skill levels of a educatee are before giving instructions. Giving a lot of feedback and encouraging are other practices.

Educational researcher Robert Stake^[ten] explains the departure between formative and summative assessment with the following analogy:

When the cook tastes the soup, that's determinative. When the guests gustation the soup, that's summative.^[eleven]

Summative and formative assessment are oftentimes referred to in a learning context as assessment of learning and assessment for learning respectively. Assessment of learning is generally summative in nature and intended to mensurate learning outcomes and report those outcomes to students, parents and administrators. Assessment of learning generally occurs at the conclusion of a course, course, semester or academic year. Cess for learning is generally formative in nature and is used past teachers to consider approaches to teaching and side by side steps for individual learners and the class.^[12]

A common grade of formative assessment is diagnostic assessment. Diagnostic assessment measures a educatee's current noesis and skills for the purpose of identifying a suitable program of learning. Self-assessment is a form of diagnostic assessment which involves students assessing themselves. Forward-looking cess asks those being assessed to consider themselves in hypothetical time to come situations.^[13]

Performance-based assessment is similar to summative assessment, as it focuses on achievement. It is oftentimes aligned with the standards-based educational activity reform and outcomes-based didactics movement. Though ideally they are significantly different from a traditional multiple choice test, they are well-nigh unremarkably associated with standards-based assessment which utilize costless-form responses to standard questions scored by human scorers on a standards-based scale, meeting, falling beneath or exceeding a operation standard rather than beingness ranked on a curve. A well-defined job is identified and students are asked to create, produce or do something, often in settings that involve real-world application of cognition and skills. Proficiency is demonstrated past providing an extended response. Operation formats are further differentiated into products and performances. The operation may outcome in a production, such as a painting, portfolio, paper or exhibition, or it may consist of a performance, such every bit a speech, able-bodied skill, musical recital or reading.

Objective and subjective [edit]

Assessment (either summative or determinative) is often categorized equally either objective or subjective. Objective assessment is a grade of questioning which has a single correct answer. Subjective assessment is a course of questioning which may take more than one right respond (or more one way of expressing the correct answer). There are various types of objective and subjective questions. Objective question types include true/imitation answers, multiple pick, 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 assessment format.

Some have argued that the stardom betwixt objective and subjective assessments is neither useful nor authentic because, in reality, at that place is no such thing as "objective" assessment. In fact, all assessments are created with inherent biases built into decisions about relevant subject matter and content, likewise as cultural (class, indigenous, and gender) biases.^[fourteen]

Basis of comparing [edit]

Test results tin can be compared against an established criterion, or against the performance of other students, or confronting previous performance:

Criterion-referenced assessment, typically using a criterion-referenced test, equally the name implies, occurs when candidates are measured against defined (and objective) criteria. Criterion-referenced assessment is often, but not always, used to institute a person's competence (whether due south/he can do something). The best known case of criterion-referenced assessment is the driving test, when learner drivers are measured confronting a range of explicit criteria (such as "Not endangering other route users").
Norm-referenced assessment (colloquially known as "grading on the curve"), typically using a norm-referenced exam, is non measured confronting defined criteria. This type of assessment is relative to the student body undertaking the cess. It is effectively a manner of comparing students. The IQ test is the best known example of norm-referenced assessment. Many archway tests (to prestigious schools or universities) are norm-referenced, permitting a stock-still proportion of students to laissez passer ("passing" in this context means existence accepted into the school or academy rather than an explicit level of ability). This means that standards may vary from year to twelvemonth, depending on the quality of the accomplice; criterion-referenced assessment does not vary from year to year (unless the criteria change).^[xv]
Ipsative cess is self comparison either in the same domain over fourth dimension, or comparative to other domains within the same student.

Informal and formal [edit]

Assessment tin can be either formal or informal. Formal assessment usually implies a written document, such as a examination, quiz, or paper. A formal assessment is given a numerical score or class based on student performance, whereas an informal cess does not contribute to a student's final grade. An informal assessment usually occurs in a more casual manner and may include ascertainment, inventories, checklists, rating scales, rubrics, performance and portfolio assessments, participation, peer and self-evaluation, and word.^[16]

Internal and external [edit]

Internal cess is gear up and marked by the schoolhouse (i.e. teachers). Students get the mark and feedback regarding the assessment. External assessment is set by the governing body, and is marked by non-biased personnel. Some external assessments requite much more limited feedback in their marker. However, in tests such as Australia's NAPLAN, the criterion addressed by students is given detailed feedback in society for their teachers to address and compare the student's learning achievements and also to plan for the future.

Standards of quality [edit]

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

Reliability [edit]

Reliability relates to the consistency of an assessment. A reliable assessment is i that consistently achieves the same results with the same (or like) cohort of students. Diverse factors bear upon reliability—including ambiguous questions, too many options within a question paper, vague marking instructions and poorly trained markers. Traditionally, the reliability of an assessment is based on the post-obit:

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

The reliability of a measurement x tin also exist defined quantitatively every bit: $R_{\text{x}}=V_{\text{t}}/V_{\text{ten}}$ where $R_{\text{x}}$ is the reliability in the observed (test) score, x; $V_{\text{t}}$ and $V_{\text{x}}$ are the variability in 'true' (i.due east., candidate'south innate operation) and measured exam scores respectively. $R_{\text{10}}$ can range from 0 (completely unreliable), to ane (completely reliable).

Validity [edit]

Valid cess is one that measures what it is intended to measure out. For example, it would not be valid to assess driving skills through a written test alone. A more than valid manner of assessing driving skills would be through a combination of tests that aid determine what a driver knows, such equally through a written test of driving knowledge, and what a commuter is able to practice, such equally through a performance assessment of actual driving. Teachers often complain that some examinations do not properly appraise the syllabus upon which the examination is based; they are, effectively, questioning the validity of the exam.

Validity of an assessment is more often than not gauged through examination of evidence in the post-obit categories:

Content – Does the content of the examination measure stated objectives?
Criterion – Do scores correlate to an outside reference? (ex: Do high scores on a 4th grade reading examination accurately predict reading skill in hereafter grades?)
Construct – Does the assessment correspond to other meaning variables? (ex: Do ESL students consistently perform differently on a writing exam than native English speakers?)^[18]

A good assessment has both validity and reliability, plus the other quality attributes noted to a higher place for a specific context and purpose. In practice, an assessment is rarely totally valid or totally reliable. A ruler which is marked wrongly will always requite the same (wrong) measurements. It is very reliable, but not very valid. Asking random individuals to tell the fourth dimension without looking at a clock or watch is sometimes used equally an instance of an cess which is valid, but not reliable. The answers will vary between individuals, but the average answer is probably shut to the actual time. In many fields, such as medical research, educational testing, and psychology, there will oftentimes be a trade-off between reliability and validity. A history test written for loftier validity volition have many essay and backup-the-blank questions. It will exist a good measure of mastery of the subject, only difficult to score completely accurately. A history test written for high reliability will be entirely multiple choice. It isn't equally good at measuring knowledge of history, but can hands be scored with groovy precision. We may generalize from this. The more than reliable our estimate is of what nosotros purport to mensurate, the less sure we are that we are really measuring that aspect of attainment.

It is well to distinguish between "subject-affair" validity and "predictive" validity. The erstwhile, used widely in education, predicts the score a pupil would get on a similar test but with different questions. The latter, used widely in the workplace, predicts operation. Thus, a subject-matter-valid test of knowledge of driving rules is appropriate while a predictively valid test would assess whether the potential driver could follow those rules.

Evaluation standards [edit]

In the field of evaluation, and in particular educational evaluation, the Articulation Committee 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 of standards for apply in a variety of educational settings. The standards provide guidelines for designing, implementing, assessing and improving the identified course of evaluation. Each of the standards has been placed in one of 4 fundamental categories to promote educational evaluations that are proper, useful, feasible, and accurate. In these sets of standards, validity and reliability considerations are covered under the accuracy topic. For example, the student accuracy standards help ensure that student evaluations will provide sound, accurate, and apparent data about pupil learning and performance.

In the U.k., an award in Training, Assessment and Quality Assurance (TAQA) is available to assist staff learn and develop good practice in relation to educational assessment in adult, further and piece of work-based educational activity and training contexts.^[22]

Summary tabular array of the master theoretical frameworks [edit]

The following table summarizes the main theoretical frameworks backside almost all the theoretical and research work, and the instructional practices in educational activity (1 of them being, of course, the exercise of assessment). These unlike 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/Operation of a Automobile or Computer	Organismic/Growth of a Found	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 Brown, John Bransford
Nature of mind	Initially bare device that detects patterns in the world and operates on them. Qualitatively identical to lower animals, but quantitatively superior.	Organ that evolved to acquire noesis by making sense of the world. Uniquely human being, qualitatively different from lower animals.	Unique among species for developing language, tools, and education.
Nature of noesis (epistemology)	Hierarchically organized associations that present an accurate only incomplete representation of the globe. Assumes that the sum of the components of knowledge is the same every bit the whole. Because noesis 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 listen and co-ordinate to rational criteria. Essentially these are the college-level structures that are synthetic to digest new info to existing structure and every bit the structures accommodate more than new info. Knowledge is represented by power to solve new issues.	Distributed across people, communities, and physical environment. Represents culture of community that continues to create it. To know means to be attuned to the constraints and affordances of systems in which activity occurs. Knowledge is represented in the regularities of successful activity.
Nature of learning (the procedure by which knowledge is increased or modified)	Forming and strengthening cognitive or Due south-R associations. Generation of knowledge by (1) exposure to design, (2) efficiently recognizing and responding to pattern (three) recognizing patterns in other contexts.	Engaging in active procedure of making sense of ("rationalizing") the environment. Mind applying existing structure to new feel to rationalize it. You lot don't really learn the components, only structures needed to deal with those components later.	Increasing ability to participate in a detail community of practice. Initiation into the life of a grouping, strengthening ability to participate by condign attuned to constraints and affordances.
Features of accurate cess	Assess cognition components. Focus on mastery of many components and fluency. Apply psychometrics to standardize.	Assess extended operation on new bug. Credit varieties of excellence.	Assess participation in enquiry and social practices of learning (east.g. portfolios, observations) Students should participate in assessment procedure. Assessments should be integrated into larger environment.

Controversy [edit]

Concerns over how best to apply cess practices beyond public school systems have largely focused on questions about the use of high-stakes testing and standardized tests, often used to gauge student progress, teacher quality, and school-, district-, or statewide educational success.

No Child Left Behind [edit]

For nearly researchers and practitioners, the question is non whether tests should be administered at all—there is a general consensus that, when administered in useful ways, tests tin can offering useful information near student progress and curriculum implementation, as well every bit offer formative uses for learners.^[23] The real result, then, is whether testing practices as currently implemented tin provide these services for educators and students.

President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on January 8, 2002. The NCLB Act reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Pedagogy Act (ESEA) of 1965. President Johnson signed the ESEA to help fight the War on Poverty and helped fund elementary and secondary schools. President Johnson's goal was to emphasizes equal access to pedagogy and establishes high standards and accountability. The NCLB Human action 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 Behind Act mandates standardized testing nationwide. These tests marshal with state curriculum and link teacher, student, commune, and land accountability to the results of these tests. Proponents of NCLB fence that it offers a tangible method of gauging educational success, property teachers and schools accountable for declining scores, and closing the achievement gap beyond class and ethnicity.^[24]

Opponents of standardized testing dispute these claims, arguing that belongings educators accountable for test results leads to the practise of "pedagogy to the test." Additionally, many argue that the focus on standardized testing encourages teachers to equip students with a narrow set of skills that enhance test performance without actually fostering a deeper understanding of subject matter or fundamental principles within a knowledge domain.^[25]

High-stakes testing [edit]

The assessments which take caused the most controversy in the U.S. are the use of high school graduation examinations, which are used to deny diplomas to students who take attended loftier school for iv years, but cannot demonstrate that they have 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 loftier school diploma merely for repeatedly failing a test, or even for not knowing the required fabric.^[26] ^[27] ^[28]

Loftier-stakes tests have been blamed for causing sickness and test anxiety in students and teachers, and for teachers choosing to narrow the curriculum towards what the teacher believes will be tested. In an exercise designed to make children comfortable about testing, a Spokane, Washington newspaper published a film of a monster that feeds on fright.^[29] The published image is purportedly the response of a student who was asked to draw a picture of what she thought of the state cess.

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

Compared to portfolio assessments, simple multiple-selection tests are much less expensive, less decumbent to disagreement between scorers, and tin can be scored rapidly plenty to exist returned before the stop of the schoolhouse year. Standardized tests (all students have the same test under the aforementioned conditions) often use multiple-choice tests for these reasons. Orlich criticizes the utilise of expensive, holistically graded tests, rather than inexpensive multiple-selection "chimera tests", to measure the quality of both the system and individuals for very big numbers of students.^[thirty] Other prominent critics of high-stakes testing include Fairtest and Alfie Kohn.

The use of IQ tests has been banned in some states for educational decisions, and norm-referenced tests, which rank students from "best" to "worst", have been criticized for bias against minorities. Most education officials back up benchmark-referenced tests (each individual student's score depends solely on whether he answered the questions correctly, regardless of whether his neighbors did amend or worse) for making high-stakes decisions.

21st century assessment [edit]

It has been widely noted that with the emergence of social media and Web two.0 technologies and mindsets, learning is increasingly collaborative and knowledge increasingly distributed beyond many members of a learning customs. Traditional cess practices, however, focus in large office on the individual and fail to business relationship for cognition-edifice and learning in context. As researchers in the field of assessment consider the cultural shifts that arise from the emergence of a more participatory civilization, they will need to find new methods of applying assessments to learners.^[31]

Large-scale learning assessment [edit]

Big-calibration learning assessments (LSLAs) are organisation-level assessments that provide a snapshot of learning achievement for a grouping of learners in a given yr, and in a limited number of domains. They are ofttimes categorized as national or cross-national assessments and draw attending to issues related to levels of learning and determinants of learning, including teacher qualification; the quality of school environments; parental support and guidance; and social and emotional health in and outside schools.^[32]

Assessment in a democratic schoolhouse [edit]

The Sudbury model of democratic pedagogy schools practice not perform and do non offering assessments, evaluations, transcripts, or recommendations. They assert that they do non rate people, and that school is not a judge; comparing students to each other, or to some standard that has been set is for them a violation of the student's right to privacy and to self-conclusion. Students make up one's mind for themselves how to measure their progress as self-starting learners equally a process of self-evaluation: real lifelong learning and the proper educational cess for the 21st century, they criminate.^[33]

Co-ordinate to Sudbury schools, this policy does not cause harm to their students every bit they move on to life exterior the school. However, they admit it makes the process more hard, just that such hardship is role of the students learning to make their own way, gear up their own standards and meet their own goals.

The no-grading and no-rating policy helps to create an atmosphere complimentary of competition amidst students or battles for adult approving, and encourages a positive cooperative environs amongst the student torso.^[34]

The concluding stage of a Sudbury education, should the student cull to take it, is the graduation thesis. Each educatee writes on the topic of how they accept prepared themselves for adulthood and entering the community at big. This thesis is submitted to the Associates, who reviews it. The concluding stage of the thesis process is an oral defence given by the student in which they open the flooring for questions, challenges and comments from all Assembly members. At the finish, the Assembly votes by surreptitious ballot on whether or not to award a diploma.^[35]

Assessing ELL students [edit]

A major business with the use of educational assessments is the overall validity, accurateness, and fairness when it comes to assessing English language learners (ELL). The majority of assessments within the U.s.a. have normative standards based on the English-speaking culture, which does not adequately represent ELL populations.^{[ commendation needed ]} Consequently, it would in many cases be inaccurate and inappropriate to describe conclusions from ELL students' normative scores. Research shows that the majority of schools exercise non appropriately modify assessments in order to accommodate students from unique cultural backgrounds.^{[ citation needed ]} This has resulted in the over-referral of ELL students to special education, causing them to be unduly represented in special didactics programs. Although some may meet this inappropriate placement in special educational activity as supportive and helpful, research has shown that inappropriately placed students really regressed in progress.^{[ citation needed ]}

It is often necessary to utilise the services of a translator in gild to administer the assessment in an ELL student's native language; however, there are several issues when translating assessment items. One issue is that translations can oft advise a right or expected response, changing the difficulty of the assessment particular.^[36] Additionally, the translation of assessment items tin sometimes distort the original significant of the particular.^[36] Finally, many translators are non qualified or properly trained to work with ELL students in an cess situation.^{[ commendation 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, however, some still present cultural biases within the assessment items.^[36]

When considering an ELL student for special teaching the assessment team should integrate and interpret all of the information collected in order to ensure a non biased conclusion.^[36] The decision should be based on multidimensional sources of information including teacher and parent interviews, as well equally classroom observations.^[36] Decisions should accept the students unique cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds into consideration, and should non be strictly based on assessment results.

Universal screening [edit]

Assessment can be associated with disparity when students from traditionally underrepresented groups are excluded from testing needed for access to certain programs or opportunities, as is the case for gifted programs. Ane style to combat this disparity is universal screening, which involves testing all students (such every bit for giftedness) instead of testing simply 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 person, and ELLs) identified for gifted programs, without the standards for identification beingness modified in any way.^[37]

Sources [edit]

This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under 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 learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia manufactures, please run into this how-to folio. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, delight run across the terms of use.

References [edit]

^ Some educators and education theorists use the terms assessment and evaluation to refer to the different concepts of testing during a learning process to ameliorate it (for which the equally unambiguous terms determinative cess or determinative evaluation are preferable) and of testing after completion of a learning process (for which the equally unambiguous terms summative assessment or summative evaluation are preferable), merely they are in fact synonyms and practice non intrinsically mean dissimilar things. Most dictionaries not simply say that these terms are synonyms but also use them to ascertain each other. If the terms are used for different concepts, careful editing requires both the explanation that they are unremarkably synonyms and the clarification that they are used to refer to different concepts in the current text.
^ Allen, M.J. (2004). Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Didactics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
^ Kuh, G.D.; Jankowski, N.; Ikenberry, S.O. (2014). Knowing What Students Know and Tin Exercise: The Electric current Land of Learning Outcomes Assessment in U.Southward. Colleges and Universities (PDF). Urbana: University of Illinois and Indiana Academy, National Found 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 Machine
^ Nelson, Robert; Dawson, Phillip (2014). "A contribution to the history of assessment: how a conversation simulator redeems Socratic method". Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 39 (2): 195–204. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.798394. S2CID 56445840.
^ Suskie, Linda (2004). Assessing Student Learning. Bolton, MA: Anker.
^ Black, Paul, & William, Dylan (October 1998). "Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment."Phi Beta Kappan. Available at http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/members/orders.asp?action=results&t=A&desc=Inside+the+Blackness+Box%3A+Raising+Standards+Through+Classroom+Assessment&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 Due west. (1969-eleven-30). "Placement, Formative, Diagnostic, and Summative Evaluation of Classroom Learning".
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Mctighe, Jay; O'Connor, Ken (Nov 2005). "Seven practices for effective learning". Educational Leadership. 63 (3): ten–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-iv.
^ Earl, Lorna (2003). Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximise Student Learning. G Oaks, CA, Corwin Printing. ISBN 0-7619-4626-8
^ Reed, Daniel. "Diagnostic Assessment in Language Teaching and Learning." Eye for Language Education and Research, available at Google.com Archived 2011-09-14 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved Jan 28, 2009.
^ Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). "What Do Nosotros Hateful by e-Assessment?" JISC InfoNet. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://tools.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/downloads/vle/eassessment-printable.pdf Archived 2017-01-sixteen at the Wayback Auto
^ Educational Technologies at Virginia Tech. "Assessment Purposes." VirginiaTech DesignShop: Lessons in Constructive Didactics, available at Edtech.vt.edu Archived 2009-02-26 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved January 29, 2009.
^ Valencia, Sheila W. "What Are the Unlike Forms of Accurate Cess?" Understanding Authentic Classroom-Based Literacy Cess (1997), available at Eduplace.com. Retrieved January 29, 2009.
^ Yu, Chong Ho (2005). "Reliability and Validity." Educational Assessment. Available at Creative-wisdom.com. Retrieved January 29, 2009.
^ Moskal, Barbara; Leydens, Jon (23 Nov 2019). "Scoring Rubric Evolution: Validity and Reliability". Practical 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 Printing
^ City & Guilds, Agreement the Principles and Practice of Assessment: Qualification Factsheet, accessed 26 Feb 2020
^ American Psychological Association. "Appropriate Utilize of High-Stakes Testing in Our Nation's Schools." APA Online, available at APA.org, Retrieved January 24, 2010
^ (nd) Reauthorization of NCLB. Section of Education. Retrieved 1/29/09.
^ (nd) What'due south Wrong With Standardized Testing? FairTest.org. Retrieved January 29, 2009.
^ Dang, Nick (18 March 2003). "Reform teaching, not leave exams". Daily Bruin. One common complaint from failed test-takers is that they weren't taught the tested material in schoolhouse. Here, inadequate schooling, not the test, is at fault. Blaming the test for one'due south failure is like blaming the service station for a failed smog check; information technology ignores the underlying problems within the 'schooling vehicle.' ^{[ permanent dead link ]}
^ Weinkopf, Chris (2002). "Blame the test: LAUSD denies responsibility for low scores". Daily News. The arraign belongs to 'high-stakes tests' similar the Stanford 9 and California'southward Loftier School Get out Test. Reliance on such tests, the board grumbles, 'unfairly penalizes students that have not 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 gear up to strike down that state'due south high schoolhouse exit examination. Why? Because it's working. It'southward telling students they need to learn more. We call that useful data. To the plaintiffs who are suing to stop the utilise of the examination as a graduation requirement, it'due south something else: Evidence of unequal treatment... the leave examination was deemed unfair because as well many students who failed the examination had as well few credentialed teachers. Well, perchance they did, merely granting them a diploma when they lack the required knowledge only 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 19, 2005). "WASL worries stress kids, schools." Seattle Mail service-Intelligencer. Retrieved January 30, 2009 from Seattlepi.nwsource.com.
^ Fadel, Charles, Honey, Margaret, & Pasnik, Shelley (May xviii, 2007). "Cess in the Age of Innovation." Educational activity Week. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/05/23/38fadel.h26.html
^ UNESCO (2019). The promise of large-scale learning assessments: acknowledging limits to unlock opportunities. UNESCO. ISBN978-92-3-100333-2.
^ 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). Affiliate 20,Evaluation, Free at Last — The Sudbury Valley School.
^ Graduation Thesis Procedure, 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 spider web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as championship (link)
^ Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted pedagogy? (Working Paper No. 21519). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w21519