Middle Grades Research Journal, Volume 5(3), 2010, pp. 107–117 ISSN 1937-0814
Copyright © 2010 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
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 assess-
ment, 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 performance-
based assessment, not only traditional paper-
and-pencil testing, design assessments them-
selves which match their objectives and
instructional approaches, and use assessment
which is formative, not just summative. This
study examined classroom assessment prac-
tices of a representative sample of teachers
across a Midwestern state. It reports on the
extent to which these key recommended class-
room assessment approaches are being used
and identifies the characteristics of teachers
who choose them. The frequencies of a wide
variety of specific classroom assessment for-
mats, both traditional and performance-based,
are also reported.
Classroom assessment researchers note that
the “assessments best suited to guide improve-
ments in student learning are the … assess-
ments that teachers administer in their
classrooms” (Guskey, 2003, p. 6) and class-
room 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
66045. Telephone: (785) 864-9706. E-mail: [email protected]
108 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010
1998). While much educational measurement
research is focused on state administered, stan-
dardized assessments, teachers place the high-
est information value on the tests they have
constructed themselves (Boothroyd, McMor-
ris, & 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 (Stig-
gins, 1991a).
While classroom assessment research has
focused primarily on issues of validity and
reliability of traditional paper-and-pencil test-
ing, 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 exam-
ine performance on worthy intellectual tasks”
(Wiggins, 1990, p. 1), validly measure impor-
tant classroom objectives, and use assessment
to promote learning.
Three best practice recommendations, sup-
ported 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 per-
formance-based measures (Brookhart, 1999;
McMillan, 2001; Mertler, 2003; Popham,
1997, 2005; Stiggins, 1995). Teachers have
begun using performance assessment tech-
niques 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 curric-
ulum; 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 pro-
duced by others who have taught similar sub-
ject 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 stu-
dents in the classroom. Classroom assessments
designed to affect learning by providing feed-
back 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 imple-
mented correctly, has been shown to increase
student achievement (Costa & Kallick, 2001;
Earl, 2001). In a review of more than 250 jour-
nal articles and book chapters, Black and Wil-
iam (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 adjust-
ments in instruction, and students can use feed-
back 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-tra-
ditional 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 Accel-
erate 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.
Teachers’ Classroom Assessment Practices 109
METHODS
Participants
Selecting systematically from a comprehen-
sive list provided by the state board of educa-
tion, 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 follow-
up 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 characteris-
tics 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 dis-
trict. 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 respon-
dents 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/fill-
in-the-blank or essay questions. They
are usually designed to measure under-
standing 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 subjec-
tive judgment.
These definitions consider essay questions
to be traditional tests, but the item type might
reasonably fit in either, both, or neither cate-
gory (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 abil-
ity 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 respon-
dents.
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. tra-
ditional, 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.
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 prac-
tices. The primary research questions con-
cerned the frequency with which teachers use
tests they have written themselves, use forma-
tive assessment, and use performance-based
assessments. Correlations and analyses of vari-
ance 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 perfor-
mance assessment (as opposed to tradi-
tional 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 assess-
ment);
• 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 them-
selves only about half the time (M = 55.01%,
SD = 34.08). Only a small proportion of class-
room 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 tradi-
tional paper-and-pencil format, performance-
based 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) per-
formance-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 assess-
ment reported, followed by short answer/fill-
in-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 them-
selves 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 prefer-
ences, however, vary based on years of teach-
ing experience. When teachers choose to
assess with traditional paper-and-pencil meth-
ods, 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 for-
mats teachers preferred and how long they had
been teaching.
Performance-Based Assessment
A two-way analysis of variance was con-
ducted 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 η2 = .04. Neither
the grade level taught main effect nor the inter-
Teachers’ Classroom Assessment Practices 111
TABLE 1Teachers’ 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
55.01
35.18
9.24
34.08
30.94
16.30
Of all your assessments, what percentage are given:
• during instruction
• after instruction
24.98
75.02
23.17
23.17
Of all your assessments, what percentage:
• do not affect students’ grades
• affect students grades
12.44
87.68
19.10
19.11
About what percentage of the time do you use:
• traditional tests
• performance tests
• one assessment which combines both
60.01
27.58
12.27
30.17
22.85
23.82
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
23.97
14.18
9.81
27.13
14.72
10.59
21.45
12.20
10.58
24.11
17.94
25.25
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
8.57
23.36
5.84
19.81
24.46
17.80
16.23
22.44
8.27
19.12
22.11
28.79
Note: N = 139.
TABLE 2Frequency of Classroom Assessment Formats
Assessment Format
Percentage of All
Assessments
Essays or writing assignments 18.57
Short answer/fill-in-the-blank items 16.28
Multiple-choice items 14.38
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
112 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010
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 (ele-
mentary, math, science, social studies and lan-
guage arts) as the independent variables and
the percentage of the time that teachers use
performance-based tests as the dependent vari-
able. Significant differences were found for
subject taught with a moderate to large effect
size, F(4,109) = 3.13, p = .02, partial η2 = .10.
Follow-up comparisons found that perfor-
mance-based assessment was used by lan-
guage 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 perfor-
mance-based assessment in that topic area. As
can be seen in Figure 2, which presents the
results of this analysis, male teachers in lan-
guage 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 analy-
sis, essay tests were categorized as traditional
assessment, not performance assessment.
Teacher-Made Tests
A two-way analysis of variance was con-
ducted 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 η2 = .07,
and a small effect size for gender, F(1,113) =
4.76, p = .03, partial η2 = .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
3-5 6-8 9-12
Grade Level Taught
25
30
35
40
45
Percen
tag
e o
f T
im
e T
each
ers U
se
Perfo
rm
an
ce-B
ased
Assessm
en
t
Females
Males
FIGURE 1Gender, Grade Level, and Use of Performance-Based Assessment
Teachers’ Classroom Assessment Practices 113
found that the grade level main effect was
driven by significant differences between 3rd-
through 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 con-
ducted 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 differ-
ences were found with a large effect size,
F(4,114) = 6.730, p < .001, partial η2 = .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 =
18.39. Because of significantly different vari-
ances 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 assess-
ment. 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 inde-
pendent variables and responses to these two
language artssocial studiessciencemathelementary
Subject Taught
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Percen
tag
e o
f T
im
e T
each
ers U
se
Perfo
rm
an
ce-B
ased
A
ssessm
en
t
Females
Males
FIGURE 2Subject Taught, Gender, and Use of Performance-Based Assessment
114 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010
items as the dependent variables. Two one-
way analyses of variance on the items were
also conducted with subject taught as the inde-
pendent 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 stu-
dent grades differed by subject taught,
F(4,113) = 2.32, p = .06, partial η2 = .08, and
grade level taught, F(2,113) = 2.94, p = .06,
partial η2 = .05. Follow-up analyses found fre-
quency differences between elementary teach-
ers (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 perfor-
mance-based assessment more often than male
teachers and use tests they made themselves
less often. Language arts teachers use perfor-
mance 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 forma-
tive assessment.
DISCUSSION
A quarter century ago, Gullickson and col-
leagues (Gullickson, 1985; Gullickson & Ell-
wein, 1985) and others (e.g., Gulliksen, 1985)
urged educational researchers to focus on
improving classroom assessment. The argu-
ment 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., objec-
tively 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 pro-
viding 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 measure-
ment community must do a better job of train-
ing 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 3Summary of Findings
Dependent Variable Gender Grade Level Subject Taught
Percentage of the time that teachers give performance-based tests p = .03
η2 = .04
n.s. p = .02
η2 = .10
Percentage of the time teachers give tests they have made themselves p = .03
η2 = .04
p = .02
η2 = .07
p < .001
η2 = .19
Percentage of the time teachers give test which do not affect grades n.s. p = .06
η2 = .05
p = .06
η2 = .08
Percentage of time teachers give tests during instruction n.s. n.s. n.s.
Note: n.s. = not significant.
Teachers’ Classroom Assessment Practices 115
certification guidelines continued to have no
explicit requirement that teachers were even
trained in assessment, there continued to be lit-
tle 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 impor-
tantly, today’s emphasis is on federally man-
dated 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 tradi-
tional paper-and-pencil tests was the most
common method used across all levels and
subjects taught. The study also found that lan-
guage arts teachers were more likely than sci-
ence or social science teachers to use some
methods which could be considered perfor-
mance-based assessment-papers/notebooks
and oral reports. This study’s findings are con-
sistent 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-pen-
cil testing remains the predominant classroom
assessment paradigm. Formative assessment is
not common, as only about 12% of assess-
ments do not affect student grades and three
out of every four tests are given after instruc-
tion is completed. Even though teachers fre-
quently 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 assess-
ment approaches for young adolescents in pro-
moting 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 assess-
ment 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 environ-
ments were characterized by student percep-
tions 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 stu-
dents learn through meaningful, hands-on
experiences in the classroom that is collabora-
tive in nature and involves students in the deci-
sion-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 faith-
fully 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 stu-
dents, and (3) involve students in the assess-
ment 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 con-
tinue to be important. Better understanding of
the choices teachers make when testing stu-
116 Middle Grades Research Journal Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010
dents can be of great benefit to those con-
cerned with improving the quality of
classroom assessment. A generation after the
call for improved classroom assessment prac-
tices, in a continuing age of accountability,
when the research focus is overwhelmingly on
large-scale test development with little empha-
sis on assisting teachers in developing high
quality classroom measures, the typical assess-
ment system used by teachers in actual prac-
tice continues to be out of balance.
REFERENCES
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998, October). Inside the
black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 139-144.
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 assess-
ment. Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evalua-
tion Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED470206)
Bottiger, L. (2009). The middle school experience:
A Latina perspective. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of
classroom assessment: The missing part of peda-
gogy. 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 sci-
ence and social studies. Applied Measurement in
Education, 19, 2, 151-184.
Brualdi, A. (1998). Implementing performance
assessment in the classroom. Practical Assess-
ment, Research and Evaluation, 6(2). Retrieved
from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n
=2
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2001). Assessment
strategies for self-directed learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Earl, L. M. (2001). Assessment as learning. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psy-
chology: 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, 357-364.
Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2007). Coming to
terms with classroom assessment. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 18, (3), 402-423.
Gullickson, A. R. (1985). Student evaluation tech-
niques and their relationship to grade and curric-
ulum. Journal of Educational Research, 79(2),
96-100.
Gullickson, A. R., & Ellwein, M. C. (1985). Post
hoc analysis of teacher-made tests: The good-
ness-of-fit between prescription and practice.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
4, 1, 15-18.
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), 6-11.
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 con-
cepts 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 adoles-
cents. Westerville, OH: Author.
Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong—and what’s
right—with rubrics. Educational Leadership,
55(2) 72-75.
Popham, W. J. (2005). Classroom assessment:
What teachers need to know (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Teachers’ Classroom Assessment Practices 117
Stiggins, R. J. (1991a, March). Assessment literacy.
Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534-539.
Stiggins, R.J. (1991b). Relevant classroom assess-
ment training for teachers. Educational Mea-
surement: Issues and Practice, 10, 7-12.
Stiggins, R. J. (1995). Sound performance assess-
ment in the guidance context. Clearinghouse on
Counseling and Student Services. (ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED388889)
Stiggins, R. J. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of
classroom assessment. Educational Measure-
ment: Issues and Practice, 20(3), 5-15.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The
absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(102), 78-83.
Trice, A. D. (2000). A handbook of classroom
assessment. New York, NY: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assess-
ment. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction 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,
37-42.
Copyright of Middle Grades Research Journal is the property of Information Age Publishing and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.