Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Media Rich Instruction pp 169–185Cite as

Comprehensive Assessment Planning: Developing and Managing Multiple Types of Assessments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1656 Accesses

Abstract

Assessment is not a new concept. However, “the current education system treats assessment as a function largely separated from teaching” (Council of Chief State School Officers, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author, 2011, p. 4). The revised In TASC Model Core Teaching Standards advocate for the real integration of “assessment, planning, and instructional strategies in coordinated and engaging ways” (Council of Chief State School Officers, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author, 2011, p. 9). The consistent collection, review, and use of data from multiple types of assessments have been difficult for teachers, schools, and districts to manage. With the increase of cost-effective computing devices and applications that include features for the collection and reporting of data, the development of meaningful and manageable assessment plans that meet the expectations outlined in the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards are becoming practical to implement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrams, J. (2013, July). House passes bill to replace no child left behind law [Web log post]. Time Swampland. Retrieved from http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/19/house-passes-bill-to-replace-no-child-left-behnd-law/

  • AERA, APA, & NCME. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, S., & Reinhart, V. R. (2013). Assessing NETS*T performance in teacher candidates: Exploring the Wayfind Teacher Assessment. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(2), 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conn, C. & Pieper, S. (2014, May). Strategies for examining the validity of interpretations and uses of performance assessment data. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Institutional Research (AIR), Orlando, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2011/intasc_model_core_teaching_standards_2011.pdf

  • Dodge, J. (2009). 25 quick formative assessments for a differentiated classroom: Easy, low-prep assessments that help you pinpoint students’ needs and reach all learners. New York, NY: Scholastic Teaching Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Pumpian, I. (2012). How to create a culture of achievement in your school and classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotch, C. M., & Perie, M. (2012, April). Using validity arguments to evaluate the technical quality of local assessment systems. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, D. F. (1995). Dynamic econometrics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology Education. (2007). National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Advancing digital age learning. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.

  • International Society for Technology Education. (2008). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers: Advancing digital age teaching. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers

  • Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum & assessment K–12. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaCelle-Peterson, M., & Rigden, D. (2012, September). Establishing reliability and validity of your evidence: What’s the evidence about the evidence? Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), Arlington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, E. R., Wei, H., Hall, E. L., & Fulkerson, D. (2012). Establishing an evidence based validity argument for performance assessment. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/tmrs/Establishing_evidence-based_validity_argument_performance_assessment.pdf

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. K. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Common core state standards initiative: In the states. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states

  • NGSS Leads States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinchok, N., & Brandt, W. C. (2009, December). Connecting formative assessment research to practice: An introductory guide for educators. Chicago, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/FormativeAssessment.pdf

  • State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2013). Educational Technology Assessments. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/EdTech/Assessment/edtechassessments.aspx

  • Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2005). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback and promote student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, J. (2013, June). Mastery in motion: Driven by data and powered by technology. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE), San Antonio, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2009, February 18). The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009: Education jobs and reform. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/overview.html

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Specialties Department, Northern Arizona University, 5774, Flagstaff, AZ, 86001-5774, USA

    Cynthia A. Conn

Authors
  1. Cynthia A. Conn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia A. Conn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Del and Jewell Lewis Endowed Chair, Learning Centered Leadership, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

    Rosemary Papa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Conn, C.A. (2015). Comprehensive Assessment Planning: Developing and Managing Multiple Types of Assessments. In: Papa, R. (eds) Media Rich Instruction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00152-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation