21st Century Skills Assessment

8/6/2019 21st Century Skills Assessment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/21st-century-skills-assessment 1/14

21st Century Skills A ssessment

A P artnership for 21st Century Skills e-paper

Wh y do we n eed assessments of 21st century skills?

Student assessment, whether by standardized tests or classroom-based measures,is a cornerstone of effective teaching and learning. Taken as a whole, goodassessments can not only provide a reliable and valid measure of a student’slearning and understanding, but also help guide both teachers and students on aday-to-day basis.

Over the past two decades, assessment has played a central role in educationpolicy in the United States, as it has in other countries for many decades. Large-scale, summative assessments, for example, are viewed as powerful levers forinfluencing what happens in schools and classrooms, and as such, assessmentstudies are routinely carried out to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of students. Furthermore, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,testing has become not only more routine but also increasingly influential andfocused on core content domains. Results from large-scale summativeassessments, along with other measures of achievement, are regularly used todetermine whether students can advance to the next grade, and to judge the

quality of schools and the educators who work in them.In recent years, educators, business leaders, and policymakers in the U.S. havequestioned whether the current design of assessment systems focuses too much onmeasuring students’ ability to recall discrete facts using multiple choice tests at thecost of not adequately measuring a student’s ability to engage in and completecomplex thinking and problem-solving tasks. Outside observers of the U.S. schoolsystem have been quick to note potential shortcomings, claiming that narrowlyfocused high-stakes assessment systems produce at best only illusory student gains(Ridgeway, McCusker and Pead 2004). The end result is a widening gap betweenthe knowledge and skills students are acquiring in schools and the knowledge andskills needed to succeed in the increasingly global, technology-infused 21st centuryworkplace. While the current assessment landscape is replete with assessmentsthat measure knowledge of core content areas such as language arts, mathematics,science and social studies, there is a comparative lack of assessments and analysesfocused on 21st century skills. Current tests fall short in several key ways:

• The tests are not designed to gauge how well students apply what they knowto new situations or evaluate how students might use technologies to solveproblems or communicate ideas.



Copyright © 2007, Partnership for 21 st Century SkillsAll rights reserved. Last revised 10.14.07.

2

• While teachers and schools are being asked to modify their practice based onstandardized test data, the tests are not designed to help teachers makedecisions about how to target their daily instruction.

• Current testing systems are rarely designed to measure a school or district’scontribution to learning from a student’s first day until his or her last day.

Meeting the demands of today’s world requires a shift in assessment strategies tomeasure the skills now prized in a complex global environment. The Partnership for21 st Century Skills believes that such a shift is vital to the widespread adoption of 21st century skills in our schools. We must move from primarily measuring discreteknowledge to measuring students’ ability to think critically, examine problems,gather information, and make informed, reasoned decisions while using technology.In addition to posing real world challenges, such assessments should accept arange of solutions to a task. For example, one possible assessment of 21 st centuryskills would focus more on a student’s operational skills, such as her expertise inusing multiple sources appropriately and efficiently, rather than on whether or not a

correct response was submitted.

With spending on assessment development in the U.S. alone is expected to growinto the billions of dollars this decade, it is vital that our investment focuses notmerely on fulfilling federal requirements, but on preparing today’s children to facethe challenges of tomorrow’s complex communities and workplaces.

How are summative and formative assessments different from one another— and can they both support 21 st century skills?

Assessments of 21st

century skills, like assessments in general, fall under two broadcategories: summative and formative. All educators should be familiar withsummative tests, one common example being the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests for reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S.history, civics, geography, and the arts. There also are summative classroomassessments that, compared to the NAEP assessments, are administered morenarrowly and more frequently. Ideally, summative assessments of 21 st centuryskills should be given at the end of an instructional unit and provide accountabilityas well as a measure of how schools, districts, and states are progressing in termsof achieving 21 st century skill competency in their students.

Formative assessment, by contrast, is a process that occurs during instruction usingactivities that range from a performance task, to a thoughtful and thorough (thoughnot necessarily long) conversation between teacher and student. The Partnershipfor 21 st Century Skills believes formative assessments, along with summativeassessments, should be part of any school or districts’ overall assessment strategybecause they are integrally tied to teaching and learning. Consider the benefits of formative assessments:

• Instead of merely checking students’ achievement, effective formativeassessments can actually enhance it. During the formative assessment, the




3

focus is on making a student’s thought processes visible, so that a teachercan adapt teaching strategies to better meet students’ needs. Black andWiliam (1998) explain it in this way: “[An] assessment becomes formativeassessment when the evidence is actually used to adapt teaching to meetstudent needs.”

• Good formative tests clearly define the learning goals of an instructional unit,and invite students to model their behaviors to fit those criteria and tobecome more informed about themselves.

• As students become more aware of what and how they are learning, theybecome more motivated. Hence educators need to build assessments for learning, rather than assessments of learning. (Stiggins and Chappuis, 2006;Quellmalz and Kozma, 2003).

Education experts recommend a balanced approach to using formative andsummative assessments and advocate that both types are important in order tooptimize teaching and learning. Assessment must be seen both as an instructionaltool for use while learning is occurring ( formative ), and as an accountability tool todetermine if learning has occurred ( summative ). Both functions are important andshould be used in concert in the classroom. An example of this concept in practiceis the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Balanced Assessment System,which comprises a continuum of assessments that includes formative, interim, andlarge-scale testing varieties. Formative tests are used within and between lessonsto help educators determine next steps in a lesson; interim benchmarkassessments are given within and between instructional units to identify strengthsand gaps in instruction and curriculum; and large-scale assessments areadministered annually or bi-annually to measure school, district, and/or stateprogress.

Wh at are the characteristics of an effective summative assessment of 21 st century skills?

The primary goal of summative assessments is to determine whether the learningthat was intended actually occurred. Thus, a successful summative measure of 21 st century skills will produce data that is useful, valid, reliable, and fair so that it canbe used to inform curricular or policy decisions. Below is a list of several keycharacteristics of effective summative assessments of 21 st century skills.

Effective s u m m a t i v e assessments of 21 st century skills should: Example

∗

∗

All examples in this document are just that: individual illustrations of a particular idea orconcept. The Route 21 database contains many more examples.




4

Focus on 21 st centuryskills and content (asdefined by the P21Framework)

21 st century subject matterincludes, in addition to thestandard core subjects,important areas of study such asglobal awareness, civic literacy,etc., and skills, such as ICTliteracy, critical thinking,problem-solving, and life skills.

The K to the 8th PowerTechnology LiteracyAssessment wasdeveloped to assistteachers andadministrators indetermining 6 th , 7 th ,and 8 th graders’ level of technology literacy. Thefour-part, multiple-choice test is alignedwith NETS standardsand proficiencyindicators.

Provide usefulinformation aboutstudent achievement bymeasuring thecomprehension,absorption andapplication of higher-order concepts.

The assessment must be tied topreviously established learninggoals for the teaching unit.Assessing unimportant or trivialconcepts is not an effective wayto assess student achievement.

The Cisco NetworkingAcademy Programassessment andcurricular teams worktogether to ensure thatwhat is included in eachassessment coversimportant parts of thecurriculum and whatthe instructors teach isappropriately tested.

Be valid. The assessment should measurewhat it is supposed to measure.Keeping questions short, to the

point, and free of ambiguity isone way to assure this.

The Intermediate-LevelGeography Test createdby the National Council

for GeographyEducation was revisedand reassessed in 2000to ensure contentvalidity and reliability.

Be reliable. The assessment should providestudent scores that are notaffected by arbitrary factors. Forexample, the number of itemsand answer options on a testshould be high enough so that itis unlikely that a student can geta high score by simply guessingrandomly.

The Civic Outcomes forElementary SchoolStudents assessment isbased on a set of validand reliable measuresof civic knowledge,skills, attitudes, andbehaviors.

Be fair. The assessment must give thesame chance of success to allstudents. Take-home tests thatrequire access to the Internetmay unfairly favor students fromhigher-income families, for

The UK’s Key Stage 3ICT LiteracyAssessmentuses generic softwareprograms developed bythe QCA to provide the




5

example. same capabilities asfamiliar productivitysoftware on the levelplaying field of a non-brand-specific platform.

Be administered widely. This is important so that schools,districts, states, as well ascountries can be informed as towhether learning has takenplace. It also allows educators tomake comparisons within andbetween successively largerpopulations of students (class,school, district, state, country).

The Program forInternational StudentAssessment (PISA) isan internationallystandardizedassessment that istypically administeredto 4,500-10,000students in eachcountry. Sixty-twocountries have signedup to participate in the4th assessment in2009.

Wh at are characteristics of effective formative assessments of 21 st centuryskills?

The primary goal of formative 21 st century tests is to make student learning andunderstanding readily apparent, so that a teacher can adapt teaching strategies tobetter meet students’ needs. Thus, successful formative assessments helpeducators determine their students’ current knowledge, understandings,

misconceptions, and thinking processes. Below is a list of several keycharacteristics of effective formative assessments of 21 st century skills.

Effective f o r m a t i v e

assessment of 21 st century skillsshould: Example

∗

Focus on 21 st centuryskills and content (asdefined by the P21

Framework)

21 st century subject matter includes,in addition to the standard coresubjects, important areas of study

such as global awareness, civicliteracy, etc., and skills, such as ICTliteracy, critical thinking, problem-solving, and life skills.

The Intel EducationAssessing Projectstool is a database of

assessments of hard-to-measure 21 st century skills likecritical thinking andcreativity.

∗ All examples in this document are just that: individual illustrations of a particular idea orconcept. The Route 21 database contains many more examples.




6

Make thinking visibleby revealing the kindsof conceptualstrategies a studentuses to solve aproblem.

Complicated, multi-dimensional,real-world solutions rarely requiremastery of a single, isolated skill orunderstanding of a single subjectmatter. Thus, a 21 st centuryassessment must be able tomeasure or observe a student’smastery along several differentaxes. In addition, assessing studentwork using established rubrics andchecklists is important. Not allassessments need to be formal andpublished.

mClass: Mathdiagnostic softwareprovides insight intostudents’ mathematicalthinking.

Be structured so thateducators can identifythe background

knowledge a studentused to solve eachproblem in real-time.

This will help measure and clarifystudents’ knowledge-base andprocedural proficiencies.

IMMEX is a problem-solving assessmentsoftware in which

students arepresented with aproblem, and canaccess a palette of menu options toextract information tosolve the problem.The program keeps arecord of the choiceseach student makes.

Be largelyperformance-basedand authentic, callingupon students to use21 st century skills.

Students need to hone the ability toapply content knowledge to criticalthinking, problem solving, andanalysis tasks throughout theireducation, as well as understandthat successful learning is as muchabout the process as it is about factsand figures. In addition, tasksshould mirror real-world situationsas much as possible, so thatstudents gain valuable training thatwill prepare them for success intheir future endeavors.

Authentic assessments use data andperformance criteria that are relatedto the students’ projects.

TerraNovaPerformanceAssessments offerextended, open-ended tasks thatmeasure knowledgeand critical processskills in Reading,Language Arts,Writing andMathematics. Theypresent realisticscenarios and offer

students anopportunity todemonstrateknowledge in uniqueways.

Generate data that canbe used to directlyinform instructional

Evidence from formative assessmentmust be used, not just collected.Teachers need to be able to

Princeton Review’sformativeassessments are




7

practices. understand what the assessmentcan reveal about the student’sthinking in order to adapt theirteaching to meet students’ needs.By discovering the backgroundknowledge, integration, orconceptual strategies that studentsmay not have mastered, a teachercan identify the skills that needfurther work to adjust his or herteaching.

designed to beadministeredfrequently and resultsare reported in atimely fashion andinclude an actionableanalysis to helpteachers interpretresults.

Aim to build capacity— both teachers’ andstudents’.

Both teachers and students shouldlearn from formative assessments.Before a lesson is concluded, theseassessments can show wherefurther teaching and learning isneeded, so teachers can discoverways to help students integrate 21 st century skills and knowledge intotheir learning, thereby buildingpedagogical methods and studentability.

DIAGNOSER is aninteractive web-basedprogram that providesfeedback to studentsas they work throughtheir assignment.Teachers can viewreports that detailfacets of theirstudents' thinkingabout the assignedtopic and can use thisinformation to targetspecific problemideas.

Be part of acomprehensive

assessmentcontinuum.

21 st century skills assessment mustbe ongoing. Students must visualize

their thought process and how italigns with a strategy to solve orcomplete a problem. Since students’ thought constructs are continuallychanging, formative assessmentshould be regularly given sostudents can see improvements intheir skills and strategies, as well asknowledge transfer to parallel orrelated problems.

BioLogica activitiesmonitor students'

performance andcollect theirinvestigations intoelectronic portfoliosfor later evaluationand assessment. Theyenable students toprogress at their ownpace, and help theteacher to identify"teachable moments.”

Reflect anunderstanding of learning asmultidimensional,integrated, andrevealed inperformance overtime.

Formative assessments should relayto the student that high-qualityeducation involves a process of knowledge integration, processing,and performance. Students can thenfocus on learning and integrating21 st century skills to allow them toconceptualize and think aboutproblems, rather than divert focus

The Full OptionScience Systemrequires that studentsproduce a body of work related to theirscienceinvestigations.Progress is assessedusing teacher




8

only to procedures and answers. observation,anecdotal notes,student interviews,and student writtenwork.

How can states create and implement assessments to promote 21 st centuryskills in their classrooms?

Implementing an assessment of 21st century skills strategy is a challenging processthat will require effort from educators at all levels of a state. Both summative andformative assessments need to be aimed at core subject knowledge, as well aslearning and thinking skills, 21 st century content, ICT literacy, and life skills. Thiswill require a large commitment from your state as well as the recognition that theimplementation process will be a gradual one and will require multiple cycles of creation, implementation, and evaluation strategies. With that in mind, it isimportant to start with the following actions:

1) Create necessary standards. Guidelines and standards need to be drawnby the state for teachers and educators to begin the process of creatingsummative and formative assessments. Assessments should be made tomatch the units and lessons outlined in the states’ reformed standards. Thestandards could provide examples of assessments as well as indicate howand when to use them. For further assistance with this, see the Standardssection on the Route 21 website.

2) Develop, implem ent, evaluate and improve assessm ents. A plan mustbe created to implement the created assessments into districts, schools, andclassrooms and to evaluate their effectiveness in adjusting teacher strategiesto target students’ 21 st century skills. In addition, the assessments must beevaluated, in terms of their adherence to state standards, their usefulness inimproving teaching and learning, and their effective use in the classroom.Any or all of these aspects will probably require constant adjustment andimprovement across several years before truly effective strategies forassessment can be realized. Structured research, consultations withassessment experts, and regular multi-level, multidisciplinary discussionsamongst stakeholders will provide a strong preliminary step towards bringing21 st century skills into the education system.

3) Align formative and summative assessments to curriculum andinstruction. In many ways, assessment drives what is taught, as schoolsfocus resources and time on the content and skills that are tested. Helpingteachers understand how to integrate 21 st century skills within theirclassroom practice and how to adjust teaching strategies accordingly is avital step to reforming statewide assessment strategies.




9

4) Develop a professional development strategy. A professionaldevelopment initiative that will help teachers incorporate skills necessary forusing assessments of 21 st century skills, especially of the formative variety,is another important step in the process. Utilizing this assessment strategywill likely require the development of several new skills, including assessmentcreation, implementation, analysis, and teaching strategy adjustment. Forfurther assistance with this, see the Professional Development section on theRoute 21 website.

Wh ere can I learn more about assessments that support 21st centuryskills?

Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity . New York: Springer-Verlag Incorporated.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261-271.

Andrade, A. (1999). The thinking classroom . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero.Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/index.cfm

Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbookfor college teachers, 2nd ed . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Araisian, P.W. (1991). Classroom assessment . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Araisian, P. W. (2001). Classroom assessment, 2nd edition . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Wiliam, D., & Johnson, D. (1997). Effectiveteachers of numeracy . London: King's College, University of London.

Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box .Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education.

Association for Achievement and Improvement through Assessment. (2002). Self Assessment . Birmingham, England: Author

Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulick, J.A., & Morgan, M.T. (1991). The instructional effectof feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 213-238.

Bernard-Powers, J., Darling-Hammond, L., Der Ramos, A., Kass, M., LaBoskey, V.,& Markowitz, M., et al. (2000). Principles of high quality teacher development . SanJose, CA: The Teacher Quality Collaborative.

Beyer, B. K. (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking . Boston: Allyn& Bacon.




10

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment forlearning: Putting it into practice . Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment inEducation, 5 (1), 7-74.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box? Raising standards throughclassroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), 139-148. Retrieved May 8, 2007,from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2001). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment inEducation , March, 7-74.

Bowman, B.T., Donovan, M.S., & Burns, M.S. (Eds.). (2001). National ResearchCouncil: Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers . Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Bruce, L. B. (2001). Student self-assessment: Making standards come alive.Classroom leadership, 5 (1), 1-6.

Buchler, B. (2003). Terms of engagement—Rethinking teachers' independentlearning traits . Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Retrieved April 11, 2007, fromwww.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd400.htm

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Building a system for assessing thinking. In A. L.Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking , (pp. 517-

534). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Crawford, V., & Toyama, Y. (2002). Assessment of student technology proficiencyand an analysis of the need for technology proficiency assessments: A review of state approaches . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Duschl, R.D., & Gitomer, D.H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to change thefocus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment,4 (1), 37-73.

Elawar, M.C., & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers' writtenfeedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than alot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (2), 162-173.

ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (1993). ERIC Digest:Alternative assessment and technology . Syracuse, NY: Author.




11

Fontana, D., & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performanceas a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 64 (3), 407-417.

Frederiksen, J.R., & White, B.J. (1997). Reflective assessment of students' researchwithin an inquiry-based middle school science curriculum . Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Garrison, D.R. (1997, Fall). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model.Adult Education Quarterly, 48 (1), 18-34.

Guskey, T. R. (2005). Mapping the road to proficiency. Educational leadership,63 (3), 32-38.

Herman, J.L., Ashbacher, P.R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternativeassessment . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Johnson, N., & Rose, L. (1997). Portfolios: Clarifying, constructing, and enhancing .Lancaster, Pa.: Technomic Pub. Co.

Kennedy, M. (1991). Policy issues in teaching education. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (9),661-666.

Kitsantis, A., Reisner, R. A., & Doster, J. (2004). Developing self-regulatedlearners: Goal setting, self-evaluation, and organizational signals during acquisitionof procedural skills. The Journal of Experimental Education. 72 (4), 269-288.

Kulm, G. (1994). Mathematics assessment: What works in the classroom . SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness . New York: Merloyd Lawrence.

Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment—minute by minute, day by day, Educational Leadership, 63 (3), 18-24.

Marzano, R. J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction.Aurora, CO: McREL. Retrieved April 25, 2007, fromwww.mcrel.org/PDF/Instruction/5982RR_InstructionMeta_Analysis.pdf

McCurdy, B.L., & Shapiro, E.S. (1992). A comparison of teacher monitoring, peermonitoring, and self-monitoring with curriculum-based measurement in readingamong students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 26 (2), 162-180.

McMillan, J. H. (2000). Basic assessment concepts for teachers and schooladministrators . College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment andEvaluation.




12

Moon, J., & Schulman, L. (1995). Finding the connections: Linking assessment,instruction, and curriculum in elementary mathematics . Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Neesom, A. (2000). Report on teachers' perception of formative assessment .London: The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed), Creativityhandbook , (pp. 392-430). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Noonan, B. & Duncan, R. (2005). Peer and self-assessment in high schools.Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10 (17), 1-8. Retrieved online May5, 2007, from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n17.pdf

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). enGauge 21st Centuryskills: Literacy in the digital age . Naperville, IL: Author. Retrieved online May 8,2007, from www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/engauge21st.pdf

Paris, S., & Ayres, L. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers .Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Pausch, L.M., & Popp, M.P. (1997). Assessment of information literacy: Lessonsfrom the higher education assessment movement . Retrieved October 30, 2001,from http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/d30.html

Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know:The science and design of educational assessment . Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Popham, W.J. (2006). Defining and enhancing formative assessment . Washington,DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Quellmalz, E.S., & Haertel, G.D. (2006). Assessing new literacies in science andmathematics . Menlo Park, CA: Center for Technology in Learning, SRI International.

Quellmalz, E.S., & Kozma, R. (2003). Designing assessments of learning withtechnology. Assessment in Education, 10 (3), 389-407.

Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28 (1),4-13.

Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professionaldevelopment for student success . New York: National Foundation for theImprovement of Education.

Ridgeway, J. MCCusker, S. & Pead, D. (2004). Literature review on e-assessment.United Kingdom: Nesta Futurelab Series. Report 10.




13

Rolheiser, C., & Ross, J. A. (2000). Student self-evaluation—What do we know?Orbit, 30 (4), 33–36.

Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.Instructional Science, 18 (2), 119-144.

Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategyinstruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on thecomposition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 340-352.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers andwriters: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie & A.Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement (pp. 34-50). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Scriven, M.S. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M.Scriven, (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation , (AERA Monograph Series onCurriculum Evaluation). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educationalleadership, 63 (3), 66-70.

Stiggins, R.J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning.Phi Delta Kappan. 83 (10), 758-765.

Stiggins, R. & Chappuis, J. (2006). What a difference a word makes: Assessment

FOR learning rather than assessment OF learning helps students succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 27 (1), 10-14.

Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi DeltaKappan, 86 (1), 22-27.

Stiggins, R.J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment, 2nd edition . UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Stiggins, R. J. (1994). Student-centered classroom assessment . New York:Macmillan Publishing Company.

Svedkauskaite, A., & McNabb, M. (2004). Critical issue: Multiple dimensions of assessment that support student progress in science and mathematics-- Aresearch-based exploration of how different kinds of assessment can improvestudent achievement . Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Retrieved April 11, 2007, fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc700.htm




14

Taylor, B. (1995). Self-directed learning: Revisiting an idea most appropriate formiddle school students . Paper presented at the Combined Meeting of the GreatLakes and Southeast International Reading Association, Nashville, TN, Nov 11-15.[ED395287]

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades .Champaign, IL: Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Venezky, R. L., & Davis, C. (2002). Quo vademus? The transformation of schoolingin a networked world . Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment. Retrieved May 10, 2007, fromhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/20/2073054.pdf

Vispoel, W.P., & Austin, J.R. (1995). Success and failure in junior high school: Acritical incident approach to understanding students' attributional beliefs. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 32 (2), 377-412.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform andimprove student performance . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment . Washington, DC: AmericanInstitute for Research.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professionaldevelopment. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research inEducation (pp. 173-209). Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.

Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation: A peer-reviewed journal thataddresses issues of assessment.http://pareonline.net/

Audio/ Visual Resources

Edutopia Radio Show Archive: August 12, 2004, Authentic Assessment, GrantWiggins

Dr. Grant Wiggins, an expert in the hot topic of Assessment, will talk aboutchanging the way we measure student progress and authentic assessment.http://www.edutopia.org/php/radio.php?id=R154

Documents

21st Century Skills Assessment