TEACHERS CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT PRACTICES

Transcription

1 TEACHERS CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT PRACTICES Bruce B. Frey and Vicki L. Schmitt This study examined classroom assessment practices of 3rd- through 12th-grade teachers in a Midwestern state. In addition to determining the frequency with which specific assessment item formats were utilized, the level of use of selected best practice approaches to assessment was considered (performance-based assessment, teacher-made tests, and formative assessment). Essays and written assignments were the most common assessment formats reported. There is substantial use of performance-based assessments across grade levels and subject, but traditional paper-and-pencil testing remains the predominant classroom assessment format. Female teachers choose performance-based assessment more often than male teachers. Performance-based assessment is used much more frequently by language arts teachers than by those who teach other subjects and is more common at higher levels than at the elementary level. Though teachers design their own classroom assessments, they routinely rely on tests or items written by others. Formative assessment is not common, as only about 12% of assessments do not affect student grades and 3 out of every 4 assessments are administered after instruction is completed. Implications for promoting quality classroom assessment are discussed. Decades of research have produced general recommendations for quality classroom assessment. Among these recommendations are that teachers should consider performancebased assessment, not only traditional paperand-pencil testing, design assessments themselves which match their objectives and instructional approaches, and use assessment which is formative, not just summative. This study examined classroom assessment practices of a representative sample of teachers across a Midwestern state. It reports on the extent to which these key recommended classroom assessment approaches are being used and identifies the characteristics of teachers who choose them. The frequencies of a wide variety of specific classroom assessment formats, both traditional and performance-based, are also reported. Classroom assessment researchers note that the assessments best suited to guide improvements in student learning are the assessments that teachers administer in their classrooms (Guskey, 2003, p. 6) and classroom teachers routinely construct assessments in order to measure student progress (Brualdi, Bruce Frey, 1122 West Campus Road, Room 643, Department of Psychology and Research in Education, Lawrence, KS Telephone: (785) bfrey@ku.edu Middle Grades Research Journal, Volume 5(3), 2010, pp ISSN Copyright 2010 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

2 108 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, ). While much educational measurement research is focused on state administered, standardized assessments, teachers place the highest information value on the tests they have constructed themselves (Boothroyd, McMorris, & Pruzek, 1992) and classroom assessment is perhaps the single most common teacher professional activity, with teachers devoting approximately 33% of their professional time assessing students in their classrooms (Stiggins, 1991a). While classroom assessment research has focused primarily on issues of validity and reliability of traditional paper-and-pencil testing, during the last two decades, a dramatic shift has occurred in classroom measurement with educators becoming increasingly aware of the need to focus on alternative means of assessing students that would directly examine performance on worthy intellectual tasks (Wiggins, 1990, p. 1), validly measure important classroom objectives, and use assessment to promote learning. Three best practice recommendations, supported in the research literature, were chosen as measurable behaviors for study. Perhaps the most consistently supported modern approach to classroom testing is the use of performance-based measures (Brookhart, 1999; McMillan, 2001; Mertler, 2003; Popham, 1997, 2005; Stiggins, 1995). Teachers have begun using performance assessment techniques more often, which require observation and professional judgment to make decisions regarding student achievement. Educational researchers also recommend the use of teacher-made tests. Teachers know the curriculum; they know what was covered and how it was covered. As a general practice, using items from test banks which accompany many textbooks, or entire commercially produced worksheet assessments, or using tests produced by others who have taught similar subject matter in the past, raises validity concerns (Frey, Petersen, Edwards, Pedrotti, & Peyton, 2005; McMillan, 2001). An additional research recommended purpose of classroom assessments is to promote the learning of students in the classroom. Classroom assessments designed to affect learning by providing feedback to learners and instructors typically differ from summative assessments as they are administered during instruction and do not affect student grades. This diagnostic tack that provides feedback to teachers and students is the philosophical approach of formative assessment (Boston, 2002) and, when implemented correctly, has been shown to increase student achievement (Costa & Kallick, 2001; Earl, 2001). In a review of more than 250 journal articles and book chapters, Black and Wiliam (1998) report that formative assessment has shown effects which range from.40 to.70 standard deviations on standardized tests. Classroom measures can provide continuous feedback for both teacher and students, and need not only be used when learning has come to an end (Guskey, 2003). In fact, teachers can utilize the information they collect from their assessment of student learning to make adjustments in instruction, and students can use feedback from frequent assessments to adjust their own learning strategies. Middle schools, in particular, provide a promising environment for innovation and best practice recommendations specifically aimed at that level include the utilization of non-traditional or modern methods of classroom assessment and to utilize frequent assessment. Among the emphases recommended by the Carnegie Corporation and Edna McConnell Clark Foundation s National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades (Bottiger, 2009) is the approach described in the Turning Points reform model (Jackson & Davis, 2000) which includes a focus on improving classroom assessment and linking it to learning and teaching (Jackson, 2000). Another product of the National Forum was to establish criteria for quality schools, the Schools to Watch criteria. One key criterion of academic excellence is a program of assessment which is individualized and connected to the real-world (Bottiger, 2009). In other words, classroom assessment should be formative and authentic.

3 Teachers Classroom Assessment Practices 109 METHODS Participants Selecting systematically from a comprehensive list provided by the state board of education, a cluster sampling method, using school buildings as a cluster of teachers, was used to obtain a sample of 140 third- to 12th-grade teachers representing 22 school districts. Teachers were solicited through letters which were part of a packet which school principals received. Two weeks after mailing, a followup reminder postcard was sent to all of the school principals originally solicited. Because it is unknown how many of the survey letters were distributed at the school level and how many teachers at each school were qualified to participate in the study, an exact response rate is difficult to determine. We estimate a response rate of 17% of teachers, 25% of schools and 33% of districts. The characteristics of the study sample matched well with characteristics of the population of the study state. About half of the teachers taught in a rural area (49.3%), 29% taught in a suburban area, while 22% taught in an urban school district. Most teachers in the sample were female (64%), had more than 6 years of teaching experience (70%) and taught in a public school (90%). A third of respondents had a graduate degree (32.9%) and all had a baccalaureate. All targeted grade levels were represented with about 39% teaching at the elementary level, 32% at the middle level and 29% at the high school level. Instrument The survey was one side of one page and consisted of four sections: 1. an informed consent paragraph describing the study and its voluntary nature; 2. a section of definitions asking respondents to use provided definitions for two key terms in the survey traditional tests and performance tests. Different teachers, textbooks and researchers have differing understandings of these terms. For the purposes of this study, teachers were asked to use the following definitions: Traditional tests are paper-and-pencil tests made up of multiple-choice, matching, true/false, short answer/fillin-the-blank or essay questions. They are usually designed to measure understanding or knowledge. Scoring is often objective. Performance tests, sometimes called alternative or authentic assessments, require the performance of a skill or the production of a product. They are usually designed to measure skill or ability. Scoring often requires subjective judgment. These definitions consider essay questions to be traditional tests, but the item type might reasonably fit in either, both, or neither category (Frey & Schmitt, 2007). In actual use, essay questions might be used to measure knowledge and be objectively scored, in which case they might best be considered traditional paper-and-pencil items. Conversely, essay questions can be used to measure skill or ability and be subjectively scored, so they might be considered performance-based in that case. For the purposes of this study, a choice was made and the definition provided to respondents. 3. a set of questions covering six aspects of classroom testing asking respondents to estimate the percentage of the time they use various types of assessments (e.g. traditional, assessment during instruction, tests which affect grades). Respondents were encouraged to produce estimates which summed to 100% within each area. Instructions indicated that teachers should only think about their own testing, not mandated standardized tests. 4. a set of demographic questions.

4 110 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010 Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were produced for all questions to examine the rate at which teachers choose various classroom assessment practices. The primary research questions concerned the frequency with which teachers use tests they have written themselves, use formative assessment, and use performance-based assessments. Correlations and analyses of variance were conducted to examine relationships between these key variables of interest: years of teaching experience; gender, grade level, subject taught; percentage of time that teachers use performance assessment (as opposed to traditional paper-and-pencil testing); percentage of time that teachers use tests they have written themselves; percentage of time that teachers use tests which affect grades (summative assessment); percentage of time that teachers give tests during instruction (formative assessment); and percentage of time that teachers choose specific assessment and item formats. RESULTS Descriptive results from the survey are shown in Table 1. Teachers reported that they use assessments they have entirely made themselves only about half the time (M = 55.01%, SD = 34.08). Only a small proportion of classroom tests are formative assessments, as the majority of assessments affect grades (87.68%, SD = 19.11) and are given after instruction is over (M = 75.02%, SD = 23.17). Though the majority of classroom assessment uses a traditional paper-and-pencil format, performancebased tests represents a substantial proportion of classroom assessment, as about 40% of assessments are entirely (M = 27.58%, SD = 22.85) or partly (M = 12.27%, SD = 23.82) performance-based. By combining responses to specific items, one can infer the overall relative frequency of a variety of assessment formats. For example if traditional assessment is used about 60% of the time, and about 10% of those assessments are true-false, then the true-false format is used about 6% of the time. Table 2 presents these frequency estimates. Writing assignments are the most common type of classroom assessment reported, followed by short answer/fillin-the-blank and multiple-choice items. Teaching Experience and Assessment Practices No correlation was found between years of teaching experience and the relative frequency with which teachers use tests they make themselves versus those made by others. There were, also, no relationships found between experience and use of formative assessment or use of performance-based assessments. Some traditional assessment format preferences, however, vary based on years of teaching experience. When teachers choose to assess with traditional paper-and-pencil methods, those with more years of experience tend to avoid the short answer format (r =.30, p <.001) and are somewhat more likely to use performance-based assessment, formats other than conventional multiple-choice, matching, true-false, and essay (r =.28, p =.002). There was no relationship found between which types of performance-based assessment formats teachers preferred and how long they had been teaching. Performance-Based Assessment A two-way analysis of variance was conducted with gender and grade level taught (3rd-5th, 6th-8th, 9th-12th) as the independent variables and the percentage of the time that teachers use performance-based tests as the dependent variable. The gender main effect was significant with a small effect size, F(1, 113) = 4.97, p =.03, partial η 2 =.04. Neither the grade level taught main effect nor the inter-

5 Teachers Classroom Assessment Practices 111 TABLE 1 Teachers Classroom Assessment Practices Item Mean SD About what percentage of the time do you use: tests you made yourself tests made by others one assessment which combines both Of all your assessments, what percentage are given: during instruction after instruction Of all your assessments, what percentage: do not affect students grades affect students grades About what percentage of the time do you use: traditional tests performance tests one assessment which combines both When you use traditional assessments, about what percentage of the time do you use: Multiple-choice Matching True-false Short answer/fill-in-the-blank Essay Other formats When you use performance assessments, about what percentage of the time do you use: Portfolios Group projects Concept mapping Presentations (e.g. debates, speeches) Essays or writing assignments Other formats Note: N = TABLE 2 Frequency of Classroom Assessment Formats Assessment Format Percentage of All Assessments Essays or writing assignments Short answer/fill-in-the-blank items Multiple-choice items Group projects 9.31 Matching items 8.50 Presentations (e.g. debates, speeches) 7.89 True-false items 5.89 Concept mapping 2.33 Other performance-based formats 7.09 Other traditional formats 6.36

6 112 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010 Percentage of Time Teachers Use Performance-Based Assessment Females Males Grade Level Taught FIGURE 1 Gender, Grade Level, and Use of Performance-Based Assessment action effect were significant. Figure 1 shows the results. Females use performance-based assessment about 50% more often than males at all grade levels. A second two-way analysis of variance was conducted with gender and subject taught (elementary, math, science, social studies and language arts) as the independent variables and the percentage of the time that teachers use performance-based tests as the dependent variable. Significant differences were found for subject taught with a moderate to large effect size, F(4,109) = 3.13, p =.02, partial η 2 =.10. Follow-up comparisons found that performance-based assessment was used by language arts teachers significantly more than teachers of other subjects. The gender effect and interaction effects were not significant. Though language arts teachers are much more likely to be female than male (five times more likely in our sample), that may not be the explanation for the higher frequency of performance-based assessment in that topic area. As can be seen in Figure 2, which presents the results of this analysis, male teachers in language arts reported greater use of performance assessment than female teachers. It is also not the presumably more common use of essay testing in language arts courses that explains the differences, as in this study, and this analysis, essay tests were categorized as traditional assessment, not performance assessment. Teacher-Made Tests A two-way analysis of variance was conducted with gender and grade level taught as the independent variables and the percentage of the time that teachers use tests they have made themselves as the dependent variable. Both the gender and grade level main effects were significant with a moderate effect size for level, F(2,113) = 4.21, p =.02, partial η 2 =.07, and a small effect size for gender, F(1,113) = 4.76, p =.03, partial η 2 =.04. The interaction term was not significant. Male teachers used tests they made themselves more often than female teachers (M = 67.53%, SD = 32.29; M = 50.93%, SD = 32.18). Follow-up comparisons

7 Teachers Classroom Assessment Practices Percentage of Time Teachers Use Performance-Based Assessment Males Females 20 elementary math science Subject Taught social studies language arts FIGURE 2 Subject Taught, Gender, and Use of Performance-Based Assessment found that the grade level main effect was driven by significant differences between 3rdthrough 5th-grade teachers (M = 37.67%, SD = 28.61) and the other grade levels (6th-8th, M = 59.57%, SD = 31.21, p =.003; 9th-12th, M = 68.31%, SD = 32.10, p <.001). A one-way analysis of variance was conducted with subject taught as the independent variable and the percentage of the time that teachers use tests they have made themselves as the dependent variable. Significant differences were found with a large effect size, F(4,114) = 6.730, p <.001, partial η 2 =.19. Descriptive results for the five groups were as follows: elementary, M = 37.64%, SD = 31.48; math, M = 56.35%, SD = 35.94; social studies, M = 62.44, SD = 29.39; science, M = 70.53%, SD = 30.27; language arts, M = 73.22, SD = Because of significantly different variances among the groups (Levene s F(4,114) = 3.68, p =.01), Dunnett s C, a method which does not require equality of variance, was used for follow-up comparisons. This analysis found that the elementary group used tests they made themselves significantly less often than social studies, science or language art teachers. Formative Assessment The survey included two items asking teachers about assessment practices consistent with the characteristics of formative assessment. Teachers were asked what percent of the time they give assessments which do not affect grades and what percent of the time they assess during instruction, instead of at the end. Two two-way analyses of variance were conducted with gender and grade level taught as the independent variables and responses to these two

8 114 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010 items as the dependent variables. Two oneway analyses of variance on the items were also conducted with subject taught as the independent variable. None of these analyses resulted in differences significant at less than the.05 level. However, two analyses identified differences significant at around the.06 level with small to moderate effect sizes. Those results are presented here. The frequency with which teachers give tests that do not affect student grades differed by subject taught, F(4,113) = 2.32, p =.06, partial η 2 =.08, and grade level taught, F(2,113) = 2.94, p =.06, partial η 2 =.05. Follow-up analyses found frequency differences between elementary teachers (M = 18.98%, SD = 22.94) and both math teachers (M = 5.85%, SD = 9.01, p =.01) and science teachers (M = 5.94%, SD = 13.69, p =.02). Differences were also found between teachers of 3rd-5th grade (M = 19.47%, SD = 22.42) and teachers of 9th-12th grade (M = 6.91%, SD = 13.41, p.05). Table 3 presents a summary of comparisons of assessment practices across gender, subject and level. Female teachers choose performance-based assessment more often than male teachers and use tests they made themselves less often. Language arts teachers use performance assessment more often than do teachers of other subjects. Elementary teachers use tests they construct themselves less often than other levels and other subjects, and they might be more likely (p =.06) to design assessments for use in ways consistent with the goals of formative assessment. DISCUSSION A quarter century ago, Gullickson and colleagues (Gullickson, 1985; Gullickson & Ellwein, 1985) and others (e.g., Gulliksen, 1985) urged educational researchers to focus on improving classroom assessment. The argument then was that the quality of teacher-made tests had declined during the early years of the 1980s, probably because the emphasis on national standardized test formats (i.e., objectively scorable multiple-choice items) led teachers to shy away from performance-based assessments and open-ended constructed response formats. The field called for better teacher preparation focused on the choices real-life teachers make, encouraging teachers to more frequently assess for purposes of providing feedback on student learning and the success of teacher instruction and a greater reliance on assessments tailored by teachers specifically for their students. The explicit solution then is what it is today; the measurement community must do a better job of training teachers. Following the call for better teacher-made assessment systems and during that time of greater researcher scrutiny of teacher-made assessments, teacher preparation programs did not improve. Most college programs and state TABLE 3 Summary of Findings Dependent Variable Gender Grade Level Subject Taught Percentage of the time that teachers give performance-based tests p =.03 η 2 =.04 Percentage of the time teachers give tests they have made themselves p =.03 η 2 =.04 n.s. p =.02 η 2 =.10 p =.02 η 2 =.07 Percentage of the time teachers give test which do not affect grades n.s. p =.06 η 2 =.05 p <.001 η 2 =.19 p =.06 η 2 =.08 Percentage of time teachers give tests during instruction n.s. n.s. n.s. Note: n.s. = not significant.

9 Teachers Classroom Assessment Practices 115 certification guidelines continued to have no explicit requirement that teachers were even trained in assessment, there continued to be little training after certification, and training remained focused on large-scale testing and score interpretation (Boothroyd et al., 1992; Stiggins, 1991b, 2001, 2002; Trice, 2000; Wise, Lukin, & Roos, 1991). Most importantly, today s emphasis is on federally mandated standardized tests to assess broad achievement areas more than ever before, much more even than was the case when the alarm was first sounded in the 1980s. A study with similar sampling methods which looked at teachers beliefs about the importance of a range of specific classroom assessment practices was conducted 25 years ago (Gullickson, 1985). Gullickson found that using teacher-made objectively scored traditional paper-and-pencil tests was the most common method used across all levels and subjects taught. The study also found that language arts teachers were more likely than science or social science teachers to use some methods which could be considered performance-based assessment-papers/notebooks and oral reports. This study s findings are consistent with that snapshot from a generation ago. Though there is now substantial use of performance-based assessments across grade levels and subjects, traditional paper-and-pencil testing remains the predominant classroom assessment paradigm. Formative assessment is not common, as only about 12% of assessments do not affect student grades and three out of every four tests are given after instruction is completed. Even though teachers frequently design classroom assessments to measure the effect of their own teaching, they still rely on tests or items written by others (presumably from textbooks, worksheets, or other teachers) about half the time. Implications Advocates of the middle school philosophy often cite the benefits of a student-centered approach in instructional strategies and assessment approaches for young adolescents in promoting a quality educational experience (Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2003). Those concerned with advancing student achievement in middle grades schools must begin to focus on assessment methods that not only increase student test scores on standardized measures, but that also increase the learning taking place in the classroom. There is some evidence to suggest that classroom assessment environments in middle school can be fertile ground for increasing academic performance. Brookhart, Walsh, and Zientarski (2006), for example, found that classroom assessment environments were characterized by student perceptions of the importance and value of assessment tasks, perceived self-efficacy and mastery goal orientations (p. 151) in their sampling of middle school social science and social studies classrooms. Research suggests that middle grades students learn through meaningful, hands-on experiences in the classroom that is collaborative in nature and involves students in the decision-making process (Eggen & Kauchak, 2001; Messick & Reynolds, 1992). Some even go so far as to say that young adolescents who are enrolled in middle schools that have faithfully followed the middle school model score highest on high stakes standardized tests (McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 2003, p. 67). Quality classroom assessment in middle grades schools have the potential to improve learning if teachers (1) focus on the quality of their assessments, (2) provide feedback to students, and (3) involve students in the assessment process (Stiggins, 2002). This student involved approach to classroom assessment requires that middle grades teachers make a concerted effort to engage in a formative assessment approach. Investigations into the time teachers spend developing their own assessments, the types of assessments they create and the purpose for which they use the information collected continue to be important. Better understanding of the choices teachers make when testing stu-

10 116 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010 dents can be of great benefit to those concerned with improving the quality of classroom assessment. A generation after the call for improved classroom assessment practices, in a continuing age of accountability, when the research focus is overwhelmingly on large-scale test development with little emphasis on assisting teachers in developing high quality classroom measures, the typical assessment system used by teachers in actual practice continues to be out of balance. REFERENCES Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998, October). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, Boothroyd, R. A., McMorris, R. F., & Pruzek, R. M. (1992, April). What do teachers know about measurement and how did they find out? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED351309) Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED470206) Bottiger, L. (2009). The middle school experience: A Latina perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of pedagogy. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 27, 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006). The dynamics of motivation and effort for classroom assessments in middle school science and social studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 2, Brualdi, A. (1998). Implementing performance assessment in the classroom. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 6(2). Retrieved from =2 Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2001). Assessment strategies for self-directed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Earl, L. M. (2001). Assessment as learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Frey, B. B., Petersen, S. E., Edwards, L. M., Pedrotti, J. T., & Peyton, V. (2005). Item-writing rules: Collective wisdom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2007). Coming to terms with classroom assessment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, (3), Gullickson, A. R. (1985). Student evaluation techniques and their relationship to grade and curriculum. Journal of Educational Research, 79(2), Gullickson, A. R., & Ellwein, M. C. (1985). Post hoc analysis of teacher-made tests: The goodness-of-fit between prescription and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4, 1, Gulliksen, H. (1985). Creating better classroom tests. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED268149) Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), Jackson, A. W. (2000) Turning points 2000: A look at adolescence. Weekly Report, 2, 81. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. McEwin, C., Dickinson, T., & Jenkins, D. (2003). American s middle schools in the new century: Status and progress. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. McMillan, J. H. (2001). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mertler, C. A. (2003). Classroom assessment: A practical guide for educators. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak. Messick, R. G., & Reynolds, K. E. (1992). Middle school curriculum in action. White Plains, NY: Longman. National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Popham, W. J. (1997). What s wrong and what s right with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55(2) Popham, W. J. (2005). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

11 Teachers Classroom Assessment Practices 117 Stiggins, R. J. (1991a, March). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), Stiggins, R.J. (1991b). Relevant classroom assessment training for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, Stiggins, R. J. (1995). Sound performance assessment in the guidance context. Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED388889) Stiggins, R. J. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(3), Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(102), Trice, A. D. (2000). A handbook of classroom assessment. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED328611) Wise, S. L., Lukin, L. E., & Roos, L. L. (1991). Teacher beliefs about training in testing and measurement. Journal of Teacher Education, 42,

12 Copyright of Middle Grades Research Journal is the property of Information Age Publishing and its content may not be copied or ed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or articles for individual use.