Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 59–69 | Cite as

Teachers' perspectives on competency-based testing

  • Norman Higgins
  • Elizabeth Rice


The study described in this article was designed to gather information about teachers' perspectives on achievement testing and to describe where the competency-based testing in Continuous Uniform Evaluation Systems (CUES) programs fits into teachers' overall plans for teaching and assessing students.

The specific objectives of the research were (1) to develop a taxonomy of techniques that teachers use to assess students, (2) to describe teachers' uses and perceptions of various assessment techniques, and (3) to describe the implementation of various assessment activities in natural classroom settings. The results of the study have implications for the design and implementation of instructional systems in school settings.


Evaluation System Educational Technology Specific Objective School Setting Classroom Setting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cole, N., & Nitko, A. (1979).Instrumentation and bias: Issues in selecting measures for educational evaluation. Paper presented at the National Symposium on Educational Research, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  2. D'Andrade, R. (1976). A propositional analysis of U. S. American beliefs about illness. In K. Basso & H. Selby (Eds.),Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dick, W., & Reiser, R. (1989).Planning effective instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Eisner, E. (1967). Educational objectives: Help or hindrance?School Review, 75, 250–266.Google Scholar
  5. Hambelton, R., Swaminathan, H., Algina, J., & Coulson, D. (1978). Criterion-referenced testing and measurement: A review of technical issues and developments.Review of Educational Research, 48, 1–47.Google Scholar
  6. Haladyna, T. (1991). Generic questioning strategies for linking teaching and testing.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(1), 73–81.Google Scholar
  7. Hanson, R., & Schutz, R. (1978). A new look at schooling effects from programmatic research and development. In D. Mann (Ed.),Making Change Happen. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Joyce, B. (1978–1979). Toward a theory of information-processing in teaching.Education Research Quarterly, 3, 66–67.Google Scholar
  9. Leinhardt, G., & Seewald, A. (1980).Overlap: What's tested, what's taught? Manuscript available from Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  10. Martin, B., & Clemente, R. (1990). Instructional systems design and public schools.Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 61–75.Google Scholar
  11. Mehan, H. (1979).Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Morine, G. (1976).A study of teacher planning. San Francisco: Far West Regional Laboratory.Google Scholar
  13. Nitko, A. (1980). Distinguishing the many varieties of criterion-referenced tests.Review of Educational Research, 50, 461–485.Google Scholar
  14. Pelto, P., & Pelto, G. (1978).Anthropological research: The structure of inquiry (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Quinsaat, M. (1980). ‘But it's important data’: Making the demands of a cognitive experiment meet the educational imperatives of the classroom.The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 2, 70–74.Google Scholar
  16. Salmon-Cox, L. (1980).Teachers and tests: What's really happening? Paper presented at the meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  17. Schiffman, S., & Gansneder, B. (1987). Graduate programs in educational technology: Their characteristics and involvement in public education.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 22–28.Google Scholar
  18. Shavelson, R. (1980).Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decision, and behavior. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Shrock, S., & Byrd, D. (1988). An instructional development look at staff development in the public schools.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 45–53.Google Scholar
  20. Spradley, J. (1979).The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Snelbecker, G. (1988). Instructional design skills for classroom teachers.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 33–40.Google Scholar
  22. Sullivan, H., & Higgins, N. (1983).Teaching for competence. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Yeh, J. (1978).Test use in the schools. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  24. Yinger, R. (1979).A study of teacher planning: Description and a model of pre-active decision making (Research Series 55). East Lansing: Institute for Research in Teaching.Google Scholar
  25. Zahorik, J. (1975). Teachers' planning models.Educational Leadership, 33, 134–139.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman Higgins
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Rice
    • 1
  1. 1.the College of EducationArizona State UniversityTempe

Personalised recommendations