In this article, we consider three components of the current assessment landscape and analyze the problems inherent in documenting student performance and progress. In particular, we focus on middle-secondary subject matter. First, we address state standards that are fundamental to most large-scale assessment systems. Then, we reference the curriculum, critiquing the text structures that frame content information and eventually limit the type of learning that can be documented. Finally, we consider critical thinking measures, an alternative procedure for monitoring student performance and progress. We end with an analysis of alignment between the three components.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armentok, B.J., Córdova, J.M., Klor de Alva, J.J., Nach, G.B., Ng, E., Salter, C.L., et al. (1999). Across the centuries. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
2.
Bean, R.M., Zigmond, N., & Hartman, D.K. (1994). Adapted use of social studies textbooks in elementary classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 15(4), 216-226.
3.
Beck, R.B. (1999). Modem world history: Patterns of interaction. Geneva, IL: McDougal Littell.
4.
Bransford, J., Brown, L.A., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
Carnine, D. (1993). Effective teaching for higher cognitive functioning . Educational Technology, 33(10), 29-33.
6.
Daniels, D. (1996). A study of science textbook readability. AustralianScience Teachers Journal, 42(3), 61-66.
7.
Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F2d. 397 (5th Cir. 1981).
8.
Diegmueller, K. (1995). Buy the book. Education Week, 15(8), 3-11.
9.
Durkin, T., & Erlend, G. (1999). What's the use of high-school physics texts? PhysicsTeacher, 37(5), 306-308.
10.
Espin, C., & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students (pp. 214-253). In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Press.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum?Exceptional Children, 61(1), 15-24.
12.
Gaynor, E., & Esler, A. (1999). World history: Connections to today. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
Harniss, M.K., Dickson, S.V., Kinder, D., & Hollenbeck, K.L. (2001). Textual problems and instructional solutions: Strategies for enhancing learning from published history textbooks . Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17, 127-150.
14.
Hollenbeck, K., & Tindal, G. (1996). Teaching law concepts within mainstreamed middle school social studies settings. Diagnostique, 21 (4), 37-58.
15.
Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller, T. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8(2), 106-126.
16.
Jitendra, A., Nolet, V., Xin, Y.P., Gomez, O., Renouf, K., Iskold, L., et al. (2001). An analysis of middle school geography textbooks: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly,17, 151-173.
17.
Linn, R.L. (2001). Assessments and accountability (condensed version) . Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(11). Retrieved May 10, 2002, from: http//ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=11
18.
Madaus, G.F. (1983). The courts, validity, and minimum competency testing . Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing .
19.
McCleery, J.A. (2000). Effects of explicit instruction and concept focus on student declarative content knowledge and problem solving skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
20.
McCleery, J.A., & Tindal, G. (1999). Teaching the scientific method to at-risk students and students with learning disabilities through concepts anchoring and explicit instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1),7-18.
21.
Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 14(4), 5-8.
22.
Mid-continental Regional Educational Laboratory. (n.d.). Standards. Retrieved April 26, 2002, from www.mcrel.org/standards
23.
Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1994). Instruction and learning in middle school science classes: Implications for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28(2), 166-187.
24.
Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25.
Roid, G.H., & Haladyna, T.M. (1982). A technology for test item writing. New York: Academic Press .
26.
Schug, M.C., Western, R.D., & Enochs, L.G. (1997). Why do social studies teachers use textbooks? The answer may lie in economic theory. Social Education, 61(2),97-101.
27.
Schulte, A.C., Villwock, D.N., Whichard, S.M., & Stallings, C.F. (2001). High stakes testing and expected progress standards for students with learning disabilities: A five-year study of one district. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 487-507.
28.
Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America's urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2),114-127.
Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus onExceptional Children, 7(27), 1-22.
31.
Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1996). Serving students in middle school content classes: a heuristic study of critical variables linking instruction and assessment . The Journal of Special Education, 29(4), 414-432.
32.
Tindal, G., Nolet, V., & Blake, G. (1992). Focus on teaching and learning in content classes . Eugene: University of Oregon.
33.
Tindal, G., Rebar, M., Nolet, V., & McCollum, S. (1995). Understanding instructional outcome options for students with special needs in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10(2), 72-84.
