Abstract
Due, in part, to changes in federal policy (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] and No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act), the past two decades have seen a dramatic change in the number of students included in state and district accountability systems. According to the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), in the early 1990s most states reported that fewer than 10% of students with disabilities participated in their states’ large-scale assessment. By the year 2000, the average percentage of students with disabilities in the general assessment had risen to 84%, and by 2008 that number had risen to above 95% (i.e., the participation rate required by NCLB).
Keywords
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.
We hardly know anything about what students think about educational change because no one ever asks them….The information is negligible as to what students think of specific innovations that affect them. To say that students do not have feelings and opinions about these matters is to say that they are objects, not humans (Fullan, 2001, pp. 182–189).
Portions of this chapter appeared previously in Roach, A. T., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N., (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Bremer, C. (2009). Achieving transparency in the public reporting of 2006–2007 assessment results (Technical Report 53). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
Beddow, P. A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Test accessibility and modification inventory (TAMI). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University; Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bryan, J. H., Sonnefeld, L. J., & Grabowski, B. (1983). The relationship between fear of failure and learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 6, 217–222.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Retrieved November 7, 2010, from the http://www.jtla.org database
Elliott, S. N. (1986). Children’s ratings of the acceptability of classroom interventions for misbehavior: Findings and methodological considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 23–35.
Feldman, E., Kim, J., & Elliott, S. N. (in press). The effects of accommodations on adolescents’ self-efficacy and test performance. Journal of Special Education.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallagher, M. (2009). Data collection and analysis. In E. K. Tisdal, J. M. Davis & M. Gallagher (Eds.), Researching with children and young people: Research design, methods, & analysis (pp. 65–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnstone, C., Liu, K., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. (2007). Student think aloud reflections on comprehensible and readable assessment items: Perspectives on what does and does not make an item readable (Technical Report 48). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Johnstone, C. J., Bottsford-Miller, N. A., & Thompson, S. J. (2006). Using the think aloud method (cognitive labs) to evaluate test design for students with disabilities and English language learners (Technical Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493–506.
Moss, P. (1996). Enlarging the dialogue in educational measurement: Voices from interpretive research traditions. Educational Researcher, 25(1), 20–28.
Moss, P. A., Pullin, D., Gee, J. P., & Haertel, E. H. (2005). The idea of testing: Psychometric and sociocultural perspectives. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 3(2), 63–83.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Principles for professional ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author.
Nicase, M. (1995). Treating text anxiety: A review of three approaches. Teacher Education and Practice, 11, 65–81.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Roach, A. T., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80.
Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 197.
Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3–13.
Saliva, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2007). Assessment in Special and Inclusive Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sena, W. J. D., Lowe, P. A., & Lee, S. W. (2007). Significant predictors of test anxiety among students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 360–376.
Smart, J. (2001). Disability, Society, and the Individual. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Anderson, M. E., & Miller, N. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (Technical Report 42). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical42.htm
Triplett, C. F., & Barksdale, M. A. (2005). Third through sixth graders’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 237–260.
United States Department of Education. (2007, April). Modified academic achievement standards: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
Wheelock, A., Haney, W., & Bebell, D. (2000). What can student drawings tell us about high-stakes testing in Massachusetts? The Teachers College Record, ID Number: 10634.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roach, A.T., Beddow, P.A. (2011). Including Student Voices in the Design of More Inclusive Assessments. In: Elliott, S., Kettler, R., Beddow, P., Kurz, A. (eds) Handbook of Accessible Achievement Tests for All Students. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9356-4_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9356-4_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-9355-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-9356-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)