Math Methodology

Part 2: Assessment (Page 1 of 2)--Essay

This section on assessment is part of the Math Methodology series on instruction, assessment, and curriculum design. The short essay that follows, The Role of Assessment, is part 2 of the essay, Teaching and Math Methodology, which includes: Part 1: Math Methodology: Instruction Instruction Essay An Introduction to Teaching Challenges, Bloom's Taxonomy and Levels of Understanding; and Teaching Mathematics Right the First Time: Learning for Understanding Instruction Resources Part 2: The Role of Assessment Assessment Essay (Page 1 of 2) The essay on this page addresses systems for assessment (diagnostic, formative, summative), and more on self-assessment, teacher-made tests, and vendor-made tests. Assessment Resources (Page 2 of 2) Part 3: Curriculum: Content and Mapping

Teaching and Math Methodology

The Role of Assessment

Anne Davies (2004) states key tenets on the role of assessment, which illustrate the partnership that should exist between teaching and learning.  "Keeping students informed about the learning objectives or standards they are working toward helps support their success.  Quality and success also become clearer for students when we engage them in setting criteria" (p. 2).  Thus, assessment is more than collecting data on test performance. 

Davies (2004) indicates that assessment is a process of triangulation or gathering evidence over time that agreed-upon criteria have been met from multiple sources: artifacts that students produce, observation notes on the process of students' learning, and documentation from talking with students about their learning.  Assessment includes guiding students to self-assess their learning, involving parents and students in discussions of progress, and students showing evidence of their learning to audiences they care about. It is a complex process because of differences in learning styles, multiple intelligences, and the diverse backgrounds that students bring to classrooms (2004). 

With the current focus on assessment using standardized testing, educators might have overlooked the value of performance assessments, which also provide evidence of what students can do.  Such evidence of student artifacts gathered over time, as Davies (2004) notes, is clearly evident in Edutopia's video: Assessment Overview: Beyond Standardized Testing.  It will definitely give you ideas for your own classroom.  

The following sections address systems for assessment (diagnostic, formative, summative), more on self-assessment, teacher-made tests, and vendor-made tests.

Systems

There are two kinds of tests that may or may not help a teacher to do a better instructional job: teacher-made classroom tests and externally imposed tests, "those tests required by state or district authorities and designed by professional test developers to measure student mastery of the sets of objectives experts have deemed essential" (Popham, 2003, section: Preface).  The accountability movement has placed a great deal of stress upon teachers to prepare students for those state standardized tests and even greater stress upon students to perform well on those tests, which are now mandated by the No Child Left Behind legislation.  To this end, Popham (2007) suggests that schools also need interim tests that they "can administer every few months to predict students' performances on upcoming accountability tests" (p. 80).

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Carter, 2004) supports using multiple measures in assessment systems, rather than reliance on the outcome of a single test, to accurately measure achievement and to hold stakeholders accountable.  Such assessment systems are

• Fair, balanced, and grounded in the art and science of learning and teaching; 

• Reflective of curricular and developmental goals and representative of content that students have had an opportunity to learn; 

• Used to inform and improve instruction; 

• Designed to accommodate nonnative speakers and special needs students; and 

• Valid, reliable, and supported by professional, scientific, and ethical standards designed to fairly assess the unique and diverse abilities and knowledge base of all students (para. 9).

In Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam (1998) stated from the TIMSS video study, "A focus on standards and accountability that ignores the processes of teaching and learning in classrooms will not provide the direction that teachers need in their quest to improve" (para. 2).   Those processes involve teachers making assessment decisions, which W. James Popham (2003) indicates can be made based on the structure of the tests themselves or on students' performance on those tests.  Teachers can make decisions about the nature and purpose of the curriculum, about students' prior knowledge, about how long to teach something, and about the effectiveness of instruction (Chapter 1, section: What Sorts of Teaching Decisions Can Tests Help?)

Sometimes state and district content standards are not worded clearly enough for use at the classroom level and lead to possible multiple interpretations.  Hence, Popham (2003, Chapter 1) points out the need for teachers to examine test sample items to clarify the intent of a particular curricular goal.  They can then focus instruction appropriately on that intent.

How teachers use assessment plays a major role in achieving standards. Assessments can be diagnostic, formative, and summative.  As you read about those categories in what follows, consider the seven assessment and grading practices for effective learning suggested by Jay McTighe and Ken O'Connor (2006):

1. Use summative assessments to frame meaningful performance goals. ... To avoid the danger of viewing the standards and benchmarks as inert content to “cover,” educators should frame the standards and benchmarks in terms of desired performances and ensure that the performances are as authentic as possible.  Present those tasks at the beginning of a new unit.

2. Show criteria and models in advance.  Rubrics and multiple models showing both strong and weak work help learners judge their own performances.

3. Assess before teaching.

4. Offer appropriate choices.  While keeping goals in mind, options judiciously offered enable students different opportunities for best demonstrating their learning.

5. Provide feedback early and often.  Learners will benefit from opportunities to act on the feedback—to refine, revise, practice, and retry.

6. Encourage self-assessment and goal setting.

7. Allow new evidence of achievement to replace old evidence. (pp. 13-19)

Diagnostic Assessment

The diagnostic assessment, typically given at the beginning of an instructional unit or school year, will determine students' prior knowledge, strengths, weaknesses, and skill level.  It will help you to adjust curriculum or provide for remediation.  According to Tomlinson and McTighe (2006), they can also help "identify misconceptions, interests, or learning style preferences," and help with planning for differentiated instruction.  Assessments might take the forms of "skill-checks, knowledge surveys, nongraded pre-tests, interest or learning preference checks, and checks for misconceptions" (p. 71). Thus, pretests help "to isolate the things your new students already know as well as the things you will need to teach them" (Popham, 2003, Chapter 1, section: Using Tests to Determine Students' Entry Status).  Further, "A pretest/post-test evaluative approach ... can contribute meaningfully to how teachers determine their own instructional impact" (Chapter 1, section: Using Tests to Determine the Effectiveness of Instruction).

Progress Monitoring: A Component of Responsiveness to Intervention

The point of a diagnostic is not just to assess, but to do something with test results leading to improved learning.  Thus, progress monitoring with individual students or an entire class makes sense.  According to the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, progress monitoring is "a scientifically based practice."  The term is relatively new, and educators might be more familiar with Curriculum-Based Measurement and Curriculum-Based Assessment.  An implementation involves determining a student’s current levels of performance and setting goals for learning that will take place over time. "The student’s academic performance is measured on a regular basis (weekly or monthly). Progress toward meeting the student’s goals is measured by comparing expected and actual rates of learning. Based on these measurements, teaching is adjusted as needed. Thus, the student’s progression of achievement is monitored and instructional techniques are adjusted to meet the individual students learning needs" (NCSPM, sec: Common Questions). 

Although NCSPM does not endorse specific products, it has identified tools (based on its annual reviews) that demonstrate sufficient evidence for its progress monitoring standards.  Among those for math are Renaissance Learning's Accelerated Math and STAR Math, CTB/McGraw-Hill's Yearly Progress Pro, and Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (MBSP Basic Math) from Pro-Ed.  These are representative of progress monitoring products.

Progress monitoring is one component of Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI), which is an education model for early identification of students at risk for learning disabilities.  Of equal importance is the emphasis on providing appropriate learning experiences for all students by ensuring "current levels of skill and ability are aligned with the instructional and curricular choices provided within their classroom" (National Research Center on Learning Disabilities [NRCLD], n.d., sec: What is RTI?).  The NRCLD provides extensive information on RTI and the how to's of progress monitoring.

Formative Assessment

Formative assessment is assessment for learning.  In their Central Michigan University Assessment Toolkit, Burns et al. (n.d.) indicate that formative assessments provide immediate evidence of student learning, and can be used to help improve upon quality of instruction and to monitor progress in achieving learning outcomes.  It "is an essential component of classroom work and its development can raise standards of achievement” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, section: Are We Serious About Standards?, para. 2). 

"Formative assessment includes both formal and informal methods, such as ungraded quizzes, oral questioning, observations, draft work, think-alouds, student constructed concept maps, dress rehearsals, peer response groups, and portfolio reviews" (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 71), and conferences.  Students might  write their understanding of vocabulary or concepts before and after instruction, or summarize the main ideas they've taken away from a lecture, discussion, or assigned reading.  They can complete a few problems or questions at the end of instruction and check answers.  Teachers can interview students individually or in groups about their thinking as they solve problems, or assign brief, in-class writing assignments (Brown, 2002, section: Examples of Formative Assessment).

These writing assignments, accompanied by peer group discussions, are essential, as "Knowledge and thinking must go hand in hand" (McConachie et al., 2006, p. 8).  Embedding writing in performance tasks enables teachers to "guide students to deeper levels of understanding" (p. 12).  McConachie et al. provided the following example, appropriate for a grade 7 math unit on percents:

To celebrate your election to the student council, your grandparents take you shopping.  You have a 20-percent-off coupon.  The cashier takes 20 percent off the $68.79 bill.  Your grandmother remembers that she has an additional coupon for 10 percent off.  The cashier takes the 10 percent off what the case register shows.  Does this result in the same amount as 30 percent off the original bill?  Explain why or why not? (p. 12).

In determining if students truly understand percents in the above example, teachers are assessing if students know what a percent is, if they can use percents in a real-world application, and interpret their answers appropriately. 

The RAFT method is a particularly useful formative assessment writing strategy for checking understanding.  According to Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey (2007), RAFT prompts ask students to consider the role of the writer (R), the audience (A) to whom the response is written, the format (F) of the writing, and the topic (F) of the writing. For example, to determine if students understand characteristics of triangles, one such prompt might be:

R: Scalene triangle

A: Your angles

F: Text message

T: Our unequal relationship (p. 69).

Denise Anthony and Linda MacKenzie (2003, p. 3) suggest other examples, such as:

Black and Wiliam (1998) provide the following suggestions for improving formative assessment (section: How can we improve formative assessment?):

• In terms of building self-esteem in pupils, “feedback to any pupil should be about the particular qualities of his or her work, with advice on what he or she can do to improve, and should avoid comparisons with other pupils” (para. 3).

• Self-assessment by pupils is an essential component in formative assessment, which involves three components: students must recognize the desired goal, have evidence about their present position, and some understanding of a way to close the gap between the two.  “[I]f formative assessment is to be productive, pupils should be trained in self-assessment so that they can understand the main purposes of their learning and thereby grasp what they need to do to achieve” (para. 7).

 In terms of effective teaching:

•  “[O]pportunities for pupils to express their understanding should be designed into any piece of teaching, for this will initiate the interaction through which formative assessment aids learning” (para. 9).

• “[T]he dialogue between pupils and a teacher should be thoughtful, reflective, focused to evoke and explore understanding, and conducted so that all pupils have an opportunity to think and to express their ideas” (para. 13).

• "[F]eedback on tests, seatwork, and homework should give each pupil guidance on how to improve, and each pupil must be given help and an opportunity to work on the improvement” (para. 15).

Stephen Chappuis and Jan Chappuis (2007/2008) say that a key point on the nature of formative assessment is that "there is no final mark on the paper and so summative grade in the gradebook" (p. 17).  The intent of this type of assessment for learning is for students to know where they are going in terms of learning targets they are responsible for mastering, where they are now, and how they can close any gap. "It functions as a global positioning system, offering descriptive information about the work, product, or performance relative to the intended learning goals" (p. 17).  Such descriptive feedback identifies specific strengths, then areas where improvement is needed, and suggests specific corrective actions to take.  For example, in a study of graphing, an appropriate descriptive feedback statement might be "You have interpreted the bars on this graph correctly, but you need to make sure the marks on the x and y axes are placed at equal intervals" (p. 17).  Notice that the statement does not overwhelm the student with more than he/she can act on at one time.

Corrective Activities in Formative Assessment

Thomas Guskey (2007/2008) points out that formative assessments will not necessarily lead to improved student learning or teacher quality without appropriate follow-up corrective activities after the assessments.  These activities have three essential characteristics.  They present concepts differently, engage students differently in learning, and provide students with successful learning experiences.  For example, if a concept was originally taught using a deductive approach, a corrective activity might employ an inductive approach.  An initial group activity might be replaced by an individual activity, or vice versa.  Corrective activities can be done with the teacher, with a student's friend, or by the student working alone.  As learning styles vary, providing several types of such activities to give students some choice will reinforce learning (pp. 29-30). 

Guskey (2007/2008) suggests several activities to consider, which are included in the following table.  He recommends these be done during class time to ensure those who need them the most will take part.  

Enrichment Activities in Formative Assessment

According to Guskey (2007/2008), some students will demonstrate mastery of concepts on an initial formative assessment. These students are ideal candidates for enrichment activities while others are engaged in corrective activities.  "Rather than being narrowly restricted to the content of specific instructional units, enrichment activities should be broadly construed to cover a wide range of related topics" (p. 32).  As with corrective activities, students should have some freedom to choose an activity that interests them.  Teachers might consider having students produce a product of some kind summarizing their work.  This enhances the experience so that students don't construe the time spent as busy work.

Summative Assessment

Unlike formative assessment, which is assessment for learning, summative assessment is assessment of learning.  According to Burns and colleagues (n.d.), these assessments are comprehensive, typically given at the end of a program, and provide for accountability.  Such judgments include grading a paper or test, for example.

Traditional assessments might include multiple choice, true/false, and matching.  However, consider alternative assessments such as short answer questions, essays, electronic or paper-based portfolios, journal writing, oral presentations, demonstrations, creation of a product, student self-assessment and reflections, and performance tasks that are assessed by predetermined criteria.  [Note: You will find more about performance tasks in CT4ME's section on curriculum mapping.]  Self and peer assessments can be both formative and summative in nature, and help students to take responsibility for and to become critical of their own work. 

In their definition of performance assessment, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (n.d.) states, "Performance tasks often have more than one acceptable solution; they may call for a student to create a response to a problem and then explain or defend it. The process involves the use of higher-order thinking skills (e.g., cause and effect analysis, deductive or inductive reasoning, experimentation, and problem solving)" (para. 3). Conrad and Donaldson (2004) characterize an authentic activity as one that  "simulates an actual situation" and "draws on the previous experiences of the learners" (p. 85).  They posed six questions to guide educators who design such activities:

1. Is the activity authentic?

2. Does it require learners to work collaboratively and use their experiences as a starting point?

3. Are learners allowed to learn from their mistakes?

4. Does the activity have value beyond the learning setting?

5. Does the activity build skills that can be used beyond the life of the course?

6. Do learners have a way to implement their outcomes in a meaningful way? (p. 86). 

The School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Stout has an extensive collection of authentic assessment resources and rubrics. 

Back to top

More on Self-Assessment

Learning how to self-assess is an incremental process that can begin with the elementary grades.  Heidi Andrade (2007/2008) says, "During self-assessment, students reflect on the quality of their work, judge the degree to which it reflects explicitly stated goals or criteria, and revise.  Self-assessment is formative...Self-evaluation, in contrast, is summative--it involves students giving themselves a grade" (p. 60). 

For self-assessment to be meaningful to students, they must prove to themselves that it can make a difference in their learning.  Alison Preece (1995) provides eight tips for success.  Teachers might point out that payoff, start small and keep things simple, build self-[assessment] into day-to-day activities, make it useful, clarify criteria, focus on strengths, encourage variety and integrate self-[assessment] strategies with peer and teacher [assessment], and grant it a high profile (p. 30).  Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) say that "self-assessment in a differentiated classroom also enables student and teacher to focus both on nonnegotiable goals for the class and personal or individual goals that are important for the development of each learner" (p. 80).

To ease students into the process of evaluation, students might first evaluate the materials they use and activities in which they are involved.  Teachers might ask for suggestions for improvement of lessons they have presented, peers might comment on work of others by acknowledging what was good and providing a suggestion for a change or addition (Preece, 1995).  Eventually students would "try a variety of strategies such as learning logs, conference records, response journals, self-report sheets, attitude surveys, and portfolio annotations" (p. 33).  Teachers might encourage them to come up with questions on "attitudes, strategies, stumbling blocks, and indicators of progress or achievement" (p. 35).  Students might write one or two statements of meaningful goals for themselves with some strategies for achieving them.  The key for success on this latter is follow-up to monitor progress toward those goals with negotiated check-in times for discussion, including possible refinement or replacement.

To help students develop their personal accountability for learning, Preece (1995) suggests that teachers might require students to keep a record book with books/content read, completed assignments, projects, personal goals, accomplishments and what is working well, challenges to learning, and difficulties encountered.  This serves as a basis for conferences, either with the teacher or with parents.  In either case, students use this tool and lead those conferences to report their progress on learning.

Rubrics in Self-Assessment

Rubrics are not just for evaluation (i.e., assigning a grade) of student work.  They are excellent tools to use for self- and peer-assessment, orienting students to what constitutes quality from the viewpoint of experts and serving as guides for revision and improvement.  They are particularly valuable when students have input into their construction.  When they use them to monitor their progress on an assignment, they might underline key phrases in the rubric, perhaps with a colored pencil, and then use that same color to underline or circle those parts in their draft work that meet the standard identified in the rubric.  If they can't find where in their work that they have met the standard, they will immediately know that revision is needed (Andrade, 2007/2008).  The key to success when using rubrics is to build time for revision into the learning plan.

The design of the rubric is also crucial.  Rubrics add the objective component to assessment and evaluation.  Caution should be exercised on their use in evaluation.  If a typical rubric has five to seven categories, some criteria of value (e.g., originality) to a grader might not be among those.  The unique perspective of students and their creativity might be thwarted in self-assessing their own work using only the standards on the rubric.  Maja Wilson (2007/2008) points out the importance of dialogue as an assessment tool.  Where "ideas, expertise, intent and audience matter...a conversation is the only process responsive enough to expose the human mind's complex interactions with language" (p. 80).  Dialogue is just as important as using the rubric in assessment, and may lead to changes in the rubric itself as teachers collaborate with their students.

Back to top

Teacher-Made Tests

According to Popham (2003), the purposes of classroom tests vary, but prior to constructing any test, teachers should first identify the kinds of instructional decisions that will be made based on test results, and the kinds of score-based inferences needed to support those decisions.  Teachers would be most interested in the content validity of their tests and how well their test items represent the curriculum to be assessed, which is essential to make accurate inferences on students' cognitive or affective status.  "There should be no obvious content gaps, and the number and weighting of items on a test should be representative of the importance of the content standards being measured" (Chapter 5, section: All About Inferences).

Test items can be classified as selected-response (e.g., multiple-choice or true-false) or constructed-response (e.g., essay or short-answer). When constructing either type, Popham (2003) offers five pitfalls to avoid, all of which interfere with making accurate inferences of students' status.  They are "(1) unclear directions, (2) ambiguous statements, (3) unintentional clues, (4) complex phrasing, and (5) difficult vocabulary (Chapter 5, section: Roadblocks to Good Item-Writing).  Students would benefit by knowing the differential weighting of questions and time limits in the directions.  Ambiguity would be lessened with clearly referenced pronouns when used, and phrases that have singular meanings.  Items should be written without obvious clues as to the correct answer.  Examples of unintentional clues include the correct answer-option written longer than the incorrect answer-options or grammatical tip-offs (e.g., never, always).

Illustrating Popham's (2003) pitfalls to avoid, Fisher and Frey (2007, p. 107) provided an example showing the difficulty in writing test stems for multiple-choice items.  A student looks at a right triangle with legs marked as 5 cm each.  The intention is for the student to find the length of the missing hypotenuse, as shown.  Consider the following stems: "Find X." and "Calculate the hypotenuse (X) of the right triangle."  A middle school student who is at the beginning stages of learning English might circle the X.  He has found it!  However, it is the latter choice that was intended, and is, therefore, the better unambiguous stem for the question.

Back to top

Vendor-Made Tests

According to Popham (2007), assessments for the most part should be supplied to teachers, rather than having them create their own.  However, "many vendors are not providing the sorts of assessments that educators need" (p. 80).  For classroom use, formative diagnostic and interim predictive for upcoming accountability tests are most in demand, as well as "instructionally sensitive accountability tests that can accurately evaluate school quality" (p. 80).  Teachers must be able to evaluate a vendor's test to determine if it fulfills the role that it is intended to serve.  In doing so, Popham suggests that teachers keep the following questions in mind:

1. Does the test measure a manageable number of instructionally meaningful curricular aims?

2. Do the descriptive materials accompanying the test clearly communicate the test's assessment targets?

3. Are there sufficient items on the test that measure each assessed curricular aim to let teachers and students know whether a student has mastered each skill or body of knowledge?

4. Are the items on the test more likely to assess what a student has been taught in school rather than what that student might have learned elsewhere? (p. 82).

Back to top

References:

Andrade, H. (2007/2008, Dec/Jan). Self-assessment through rubrics. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 60-63.

Anthony, D., & MacKenzie, L. (2003, Sept.). RAFT Model (Role/Audience/Format/Topic). Strategic Reader Review, 3, 1-4. Available: http://www.bcsd.org/files/1399/September_2003_Newsletter_Web.pdf

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (n.d.). Definition of performance assessment. Available from ASCD Education Topics: http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd

Black, P.,  & Wiliam, D. (1998).  Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment [Online]. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2).  Available: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm [Note: see Dylan Wiliam's website for other publications: http://www.dylanwiliam.net/].

Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9). Available:  http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9

Burns, M., Fager, J., Gumm, A., Haley, A., Krider, D., Linrud, J., et al. (n.d.). CMU assessment toolkit.  Central Michigan University. Available: http://academicaffairs.cmich.edu/caa/assessment/resources/toolkit.shtml

Carter, G. (2004, Dec). When assessment defies best practice [Online editorial]. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available: http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/
menuitem.ef397d712ea0a4a0a89ad324d3108a0c/

Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2007/2008, Dec/Jan). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14-18.

Conrad, R., & Donaldson, J. (2004).  Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davies, A. (2004). Transforming learning and teaching through quality classroom assessment: What does the research say? National Council of Teachers of English: School Talk, 10(1), 2-3.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Guskey, T. (2007/2008, Dec/Jan). The rest of the story. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 28-35.

Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative. Available: http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ELI3001 

McConachie, S., Hall, M., Resnick, L., Ravi, A., Bill, V., Bintz, J., & Taylor, J. (2006). Task, text, and talk: Literacy for all subjects. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 8-14.

McTighe, J., & O'Connor, K. (2006, Summer). Seven practices for effective learning.  Educational Leadership, 63(10), 13-19.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (n.d.). What is RTI?Available: http://www.nrcld.org/

Popham, W. J. (2007). Who should make the test? Educational Leadership, 65(1), 80-82.

Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available: http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/template.book/
menuitem.b71d101a2f7c208cdeb3ffdb62108a0c/?bookMgmtId=9f6344dbdecaff00VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD

Preece, A. (1995). Self-evaluation: Making it matter. In A. Costa, & B. Kallick, Assessment in the Learning Organization (pp. 30-48).  Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

National Center for Student Progress Monitoring (n.d.). Common questions for progress monitoring. Available: http://www.studentprogress.org/default.asp

Tomlinson, C., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction with Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tuttle, H. G. (2007, Feb. 15). Digital-age assessment. Technology & Learning. Available: http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=196604246

Wilson, M. (2007/2008, Dec/Jan). The view form somewhere. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 76-80.

Back to top Math Methodology: Assessment Page 1  |  2   | 

See other Math Methodology pages:

Instruction--Essay, Instruction--Resources, and Curriculum: Content and Mapping

To cite this page, use the following format:

Deubel, P. (fill in year from last revised). Math methodology: Assessment [Online]. Retrieved [fill in date] from Computing Technology for Math Excellence at http://www.ct4me.net/assessment.htm