Advertisement

The Place of Assessment to Improve Learning in a Context of High Accountability

  • Margaret Heritage
Chapter
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter examines how the use of assessment can improve learning. It discusses the potentially negative consequences of test-based accountability contexts on assessment practices and student learning, and considers how assessment to improve learning can be effectively incorporated into accountability contexts. It suggests directions for further investigation.

Keywords

Student Achievement Accountability System Common Core State Standard Accountability Purpose National Research Council Committee 
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.

References

  1. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002a). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). <http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/ >. Accessed 23 July 2012.
  2. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002b). The impact of high-stakes tests on student academic performance: An analysis of NAEP results in states with high-stakes tests and ACT, SAT, and AP test results in states with high school graduation exam s. EPSL-0211-126-EPRU. Tempe: Arizona State University, Education Policy Studies Laboratory—Education Policy Research Unit.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, E. L. (2003). From usable to useful assessment knowledge: A design problem. CSE technical report 612. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student Testing.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M., & Johnston, P. (2010). The impact of socioeconomic status on high stakes testing reexamined. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 193–199.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2002). Validity issues for accountability systems. CSE technical report 585. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation and National Center for Student Testing.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 5, 7–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun, H. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
  9. Braun, H., Chapman, L., & Vezzu, S. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap revisited. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21). < http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/772 >.
  10. Cankoy, O., & Tut, M. A. (2005). High-stakes testing and mathematics performance of fourth graders in North Cyprus. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Center on Education Policy. (2007a). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  13. Center on Education Policy. (2007b). State high school exit exams: Working to raise test scores. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  14. Center for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning. (2009). < www.learningbenefits.net >. Accessed 24 July 2012.
  15. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. NBER working paper 17699. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics and English Language Arts, 2011. < www.corestandards.org >. Accessed 24 July 2012.
  17. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. P. (2010). A Next Generation of Mathematics Assessments Based on Learning Trajectories. Paper presented at the Designing Technology—Enabled Diagnostic Assessments for K-12 Mathematics Conference, Raleigh.Google Scholar
  18. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform of teaching. CPRE research report 63. New York: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  19. Cullen, J. B., & Reback, R. (2006). Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system. In T. J. Gronberg & D. W. Jansen (Eds.), Improving school accountability: Advances in applied microeconomics (Vol. 14). Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  20. D’Agostino, J. V., Welsh, M. E., & Corson, N. M. (2007). Instructional sensitivity of a state’s standards-based assessment. Educational Assessment, 12(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rustique-Forrester, E. (2005). The consequences of student testing for teaching and teacher quality. In J. L. Herman & E.H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 104(2). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Distributed by Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2007). Do high school exit exams influence educational attainment or labor market performance?. In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Will no child left behind help close the poverty gap? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  23. Delandshere, G. (2002). Assessment as inquiry. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1461–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: history, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Erickson, F. (2007). Some thoughts on ‘proximal’ formative assessment of student learning. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106, 186–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. (2006). Accountability, ability, and disability: Gaming the system?. In T. J. Gronberg & D. W. Jansen (Eds.), Improving school accountability: Advances in applied microeconomics (Vol. 14). Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  27. Figlio, D. N., & Winicki, J. F. (2005). Food for thought? The effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition. Journal of Public Economics, 89(2-3), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Good, T. L., Wiley, C. R., & Sabers, D. (2010). Accountability and educational reform: A critical analysis of four perspectives and considerations for enhancing reform efforts. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haertel, E. H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 662–666.Google Scholar
  31. Haertel, E. H., & Wiley, D. E. (1993). Representations of ability structures: Implications for testing. In N. Frederiksen, R. Mislevy, & I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 359–384). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., Naftel, S., & Barney, H. (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  33. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 169–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hattie, J., & Timperely, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heritage, M. (2008). Learning Progressions: Supporting Instruction and Formative Assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. < www.ccsso.org/content/PDFs/FAST%20Learning%20Progressions.pdf >. Accessed 9 May 2008.
  37. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are losing an opportunity? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  38. Heritage, M. (2013). Formative assessment: A process of inquiry and action. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  39. Herman, J. L. (1997). Large-scale assessment in support of school reform: Lessons learned in the search for alternative measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 395–413.Google Scholar
  40. Herman, J. L. (2010). Coherence: Key to next generation assessment success. AACC report. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
  41. Herman, J. L., & Haertel, E. H. (Eds.). (2005). Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 104(2). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Distributed by Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute-by-minute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19–24.Google Scholar
  44. Lee, J. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 608–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–16.Google Scholar
  46. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Madaus, G., & Clarke, M. (1999). The adverse impact of high stakes testing on minority students: evidence from 100 years of test data. Paper presented at the High Stakes K-12 Testing Conference, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  48. McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (1998). The harmful effects of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. Paper presented at the High Stakes K-12 Testing Conference, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  49. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Fast Facts. <http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66>. Accessed 24 July 2012.
  50. NRC, National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science of design and educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. NRC, National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  52. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1). < http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/ >. Accessed 20 July 2009.
  53. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20). < http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1048 >. Accessed 20 July 2012.
  54. OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Education Policy Analysis: Focus on Higher Education 2005–2006. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Pellegrino, J. W. (2006). Rethinking and Redesigning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment: What Contemporary Research and Theory Suggests. Paper commissioned by the National Center for the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. < www.skillscommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Rethinking-and-Redesigning.pdf >. Accessed 29 October 2008.
  56. Phelps, R. P. (2005). The rich, robust research literature on testing’s achievement benefits. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 55–90). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  57. Polikoff, M. S. (2010). Instructional sensitivity as a psychometric property of assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(4), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Popham, W. J. (2006). Determining the instructional sensitivity of accountability tests. Presentation at the annual Large-Scale Assessment Conference, Council of Chief State School Officers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  59. Popham, W. J., Keller, T., Moulding, B., Pellegrino, J. W., & Sandifer, P. (2005). Instructionally supportive accountability tests in science: A viable assessment option?. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 3, 121–179.Google Scholar
  60. Resnick, L. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20, 54.Google Scholar
  61. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  62. Rosenshine, B. (2003). High-stakes testing: Another analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(24), 1–8. < http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n24/ >. Accessed 20 July 2012.
  63. Rouse, C. E., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. CALDER working paper 13. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  64. Shepard, L. A. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 232–238.Google Scholar
  65. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shepard, L. A. (2011). Key ideas in reforming assessment [Video file]. < https://sites.google.com/site/custemeducationalvideos/home/dber-cu-video-archives >. Accessed 24 July 2012.
  67. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). New York: Falmer.Google Scholar
  68. Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making Sense of Test-Based Accountability in Education. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  69. Stiggins, R. (2008). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. Portland: ETS Assessment Training Institute.Google Scholar
  70. Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. United States Department of Education. (2010). A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. < www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/ >. Accessed 30 July 2012.
  72. White, K. W., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2008). Inside the black box of accountability: How high-stakes accountability alters school culture and the classification and treatment of students and teachers. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. A. O’Day, G. W. Bohrnstedt, & K. M. Borman (Eds.), No child left behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal education policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Wiliam, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wong, M., Cook, T. D., & Steiner, P. M. (2009). No child left behind: An Interim evaluation of its effects on learning using two interrupted time series each with its own non-equivalent comparison series. Working Paper WP-09-11. Evanston: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student TestingUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUnited States

Personalised recommendations