lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 778–782

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Examining teacher ethical dilemmas in classroom assessment

Nakia Pope a,*, Susan K. Green a, Robert L. Johnson b, Mark Mitchell a

a Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC 29733, USAb University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 August 2007Received in revised form11 November 2008Accepted 26 November 2008

Keywords:Classroom assessmentEthics

* Corresponding author. Winthrop University, CenRiley College of Education, 304 B Withers/WTS, Rock803 323 4735; fax: þ1 803 323 2585.

E-mail address: popen@winthrop.edu (N. Pope).

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.013

a b s t r a c t

The current spotlight on assessment in education raises ethical issues as practices evolve. This studydocuments ethical conflicts faced by teachers in the United States regarding assessment of students.Critical incidents generated by practising teachers revealed a majority of reported conflicts related toscore pollution, and conflicts frequently arose between teachers’ perceptions of institutional demandsand the needs of students. The most frequently mentioned assessment topics causing conflict includedgrading, standardised testing, and special populations. These findings suggest that explicit guidelines fordefining and avoiding unethical behaviour would be helpful to teachers in developing their assessmentpractices.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Teachers in many countries today are faced with demandsrelated to the worldwide proliferation of large-scale testing sincethe 1990s. For example, Black and Wiliam (2005) survey trends inEngland, France, Germany and the United States; and Tierney(2006) discusses these influences on assessment practices based onresearch from Canada, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Israel, NewZealand and the United States. At the same time, efforts to improveclassroom assessment skills across many nations are burgeoning(Black & Wiliam, 1998 (England); Dwyer, 2008 (United States);Inbar-Lourie, 2008 (Israel); McMillan, 2007 (United States);O’Leary, 2008 (Ireland); Stiggins, 1999 (United States); Wang,Wank, and Huang, 2008 (Taiwan)). Also indicative that teacherassessment practices are an issue at the international level areresults from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study(PIRLS), showing a narrow range of typical classroom assessmentpractices used in classrooms in 35 countries on five continents(Mullis & Mullis, 2003; Mullis et al., 2008, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy,2007). This spotlight on assessment inevitably raises issues relatedto ethical concerns as practices evolve. These concerns are reflectedin incidents taken from US newspaper headlines related to conse-quences for cheating, inappropriate preparation for large-scaletests, and other serious issues (e.g., Carroll, 2002, February 9; Click,2004).

ter for Pedagogy, Richard W.Hill, SC 29733, USA. Tel.:þ1

All rights reserved.

Colnerud (1997) proposes that the best way to explore the issuesof professional ethics and teaching is by examining the ethicalconflicts teachers face in their relationships with the individualsthey interact with in their professional life – colleagues, parents,and students. In this Swedish study, Colnerud used the criticalincident technique to investigate both the ethical conflicts teachersface and the conditions that contribute to those conflicts. Heidentified five norms that come into conflict, thus causing ethicaldilemmas for teachers. These norms – interpersonal, professional,institutional, social conformity, and self-protection – can lead toethical dilemmas as they conflict with one another in the activitiesof teachers.

Colnerud also breaks the interpersonal norm into five sub-categories – protection from harm, respect for integrity, respect forautonomy, justice, and veracity. These sub-norms could conflictwith each other as well as the other norms. Colnerud sees themajority of conflicts at this ethical interpersonal level, which can beregarded as the most abstract. While he acknowledges that normsare not separated in the real lives of teachers, he does not providean extensive experiential context for his categorisation scheme. Themajority of Colnerud’s responses were categorised into the mostabstract categories. Providing further context for categories andtheir use in classification could be helpful in understanding theprocess by which teacher experiences can be translated into ethicallanguage.

Colnerud’s focus was on the general ethical dilemmas faced byteachers, not directly on the ethical issues posed by assessment.Thus, while guidelines for ethical assessment have been offered byvarious sources within the United States (e.g., The Joint Committeeon Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE), 2003) andconsiderable effort has been undertaken to research the ethical

N. Pope et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 778–782 779

dilemmas faced by teachers, little work combines the two byoffering research into the ethical dilemmas posed by assessmentfrom the teacher’s perspective.

Recent work has begun to examine educators’ perceptions onthe ethical issues teachers face regarding assessment (Green,Johnson, Kim, & Pope, 2007; Johnson, Green, Kim, & Pope, in press).These studies assessed the degree of agreement among educatorsregarding assessment issues that arise in the classroom by askingrespondents to classify scenarios relating to assessment as eitherethical or unethical. These scenarios were related to two generalethical principles – do no harm and avoid score pollution.

Do no harm is a well-established principle, dating back toancient Greece. It demands that an individual avoid behaviourswhich result in physical or mental harm to other individuals. It isalso a central principle for other fields of professional ethics,particularly medical ethics, where it forms the core of the Hippo-cratic Oath (Munson, 2000). In education, do no harm requires thatteachers act in such a way as to avoid causing harm to students aswell as other individuals in schools.

Avoid score pollution is a narrower principle, and can be seen asan application of the principle of do no harm to assessment. Thisprinciple is adapted from guidelines suggested by researchers inthe United States (Popham, 1991; Haladyna, Nolen, & Haas, 1991)for ethical standardised test preparation. These authors suggestthat any practice that improves test performance without concur-rently increasing actual mastery of the content tested producesscore pollution. The score does not represent actual academicachievement because it is ‘‘polluted’’ by unrelated factors. Forexample, practising test items before a test produces score pollu-tion because the scores no longer measure generalised mastery butonly ability to memorise specific familiar items. Score pollution isan ethical issue because polluted scores misrepresent the students’mastery of the assessed material. Green et al. (2007) extended thisprinciple to other elements of classroom assessment, suggestingthat grades and other official assessments should only reflect thedegree to which students have mastered the goals of instruction.When teachers modify grades or scores because of student effort,late work, or behaviour problems, the scores may significantlyoverstate or understate a student’s knowledge or understanding.This can lead to serious ethical problems when polluted scores areused in decision making. Score pollution can generate a variety ofproblematic situations for teachers and students, such as a teacherbeing praised for improved scores that do not represent actuallearning, or students receiving high report card grades yet scoringat a much lower level on state, regional, or national assessments.

Green et al. (2007) found that respondents had strong agree-ment with one another on less than half of the scenarios presented.Johnson et al. (in press) reported strong agreement on 50% of theethical scenarios. Green and colleagues reported that scenariosrelated to the principle of avoiding score pollution were particularlycontroversial with only 43% of the scenarios demonstrating highagreement and 29% demonstrating high disagreement. Thesefindings suggest to these researchers that ‘‘assessment is a realmwithout professional consensus’’ (p. 999).

These findings also reinforce current work by Colnerud (2006)who argues that, while theoretical synthesis has been achieved onsome approaches to research on teacher ethics, ‘‘the difficulty inbeing a morally good teacher’’ needs further development (p. 366).Colnerud sees this difficulty as arising from the competing obliga-tions present in the teaching profession such as loyalty tocolleagues versus acting in the best interests of students. He alsonotes that the organisation of the institutions in which teacherswork may make resolving these conflicts more difficult, a fact alsonoted by Bredo (1998).

The present authors seek to expand upon the work by Greenet al. (2007), Johnson et al. (in press), and Colnerud (1997, 2006) by

documenting specific ethical conflicts faced by educators in theirassessment of students. While Colnerud has stated that furtherinquiry into the everyday moral dilemmas of teachers is necessary,he has not specifically addressed ethical concerns unique to class-room assessment. Furthermore, Green et al. demonstrate that thisdomain may be especially problematic for practising teachersbecause of lack of agreement about ethical behaviour. Thepreceding discussion suggests the need for research into teacherperceptions on the ethical issues related to assessment of students,encompassing various types of classroom assessment as well asstandardised testing practices.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The participant pool for this study consisted of 103 educators ingraduate programmes at two universities in the southeasternUnited States. The pool consisted of in-service teachers andadministrators enrolled in a classroom assessment course, in-service teachers enrolled in a leadership course, and in-serviceteachers enrolled in a social foundations of education course. Theaverage age of the sample was 37.7, with 84% females and 16%males. The majority of the respondents were European American(67%), with 31% African American and 2% other races/ethnicities.Respondents had taught for an average of 10.8 years. Current gradelevel taught ranged from kindergarten to 12th grade with thelargest group (44%) at the elementary level, and equivalent groups(28% each) at middle and high school levels.

In the most recent survey of teachers in the United States, theaverage age of the teachers was 42.5 years, with 75.2% females and24.8% males (Strizek et al., 2006). Demographics for ethnicity were83.7% European American, 7.4% African American, 6% Hispanic, 1.4%Asian. In addition, 19.5% of the teachers had three or fewer years ofexperience and 80.5% had four or more years. The largest group ofteachers (65%) taught in an elementary setting, with 30%secondary, and 5% in a combined setting. With a slightly youngergroup, and a lower percentage of European American, male, andelementary teachers, the sample in our study differed somewhatfrom national demographics; so any generalisation of the findingsshould be done with caution.

2.2. Instrument

The researchers used a critical incidents technique similar toColnerud’s (1997) procedure to collect data. This techniqueinvolves asking subjects to respond in writing to a single questionabout a significant experience. The instructions requested thatrespondents ‘‘Briefly describe a situation or a kind of situationwhen you find it difficult to know what is the right or wrong thingto do from a moral/ethical point of view in relation to classroomassessment of students. Feel free to describe a first-hand experi-ence with ethics and classroom assessment or more generalethical issues you have encountered with classroom assessment.’’Reponses were systematically compared and coded according tosimilarities and differences. Categories were created during thecoding process. This methodology allows subjects to respond fromtheir own perspective in their own words and thus better describethe dilemmas they face. Emergent categories and coding can thenbe developed that are responsive to the complex nature of thedata. Drawbacks to the critical incident technique involve relyingon the selective and biased nature of the respondent’s memory.For example, more recent and vivid events are typically easier torecall.

In addition, on a separate page, respondents completed demo-graphic data related to gender, grade level taught, number of years

N. Pope et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 778–782780

teaching, race/ethnicity, and age. After assurance that participationwas voluntary, respondents completed their answers.

3. Results

3.1. Do No Harm vs. Avoid Score Pollution

To examine the usefulness of the ethical categories Do No Harmand Avoid Score Pollution reported by Green et al. (2007), the firsttwo authors independently sorted all responses into one of thesetwo categories. They agreed on labels for 88% of the 103 responses.Differences for the remaining 12 responses were resolved throughdiscussion. Out of all responses coded, 62% were classified asconsistent with ethical dilemmas centring on ‘‘pollution’’ of gradesor test scores by factors such as considerations of student effort,inappropriate assistance before or during an assessment, orconsiderations of other student characteristics (e.g., disability). Thisclear majority of incidents suggest that the issue of score pollutionis prominent in the minds of teachers when asked to think aboutethical dilemmas related to assessment. The remainder ofresponses (38%) were classified as Do No Harm. These dilemmasfocused on varied concerns such as harmful effects of standardisedtests on students, problems with placements and promotion, andtime problems related to grading, among others.

3.2. Ethical conflicts

To examine the content of the incidents more closely, wedecided to organise the incidents by their conflicting elements. Webegan with Colnerud’s (1997) list of possible conflicting norms asan organising framework. Then we refined our categories to reflectthe assessment conflicts we encountered as we worked through theset of incidents. The first and second authors independently clas-sified each incident and then discussed the outcomes together toarrive at the set of classifications. To examine interrater reliability,a graduate student then independently classified all incidents.Agreement was reached on 83% of the incidents. Disagreementswere resolved through discussion.

Table 1 lists the resulting elements of conflict down the left sideand across the top. Each incident can be defined by where its twoconflicting elements intersect. For example, if a teacher describedan incident in which she felt that a student’s needs were not wellserved by receiving an ‘‘F’’ on an assignment, but school policyrequired that she assign that grade, the conflict would fall at theintersection of institutional requirements and student needs. Table 1also lists the frequency of incidents that were classified in each cell.Table 2 provides a definition of each type of conflict and anexample.

In examining the pattern of results, we found that almost all ofthe conflicts (95%) involved institutional requirements as one of theconflicting elements. Institutional requirements mentionedincluded requirements for standardised test administration, rulesfor placement in special programmes or promotion, exceptions andaccommodations for students in special education, or school or

Table 1Categorisation of ethical incidents by conflicting elements.

Conflicting element Institutionalrequirements

Studentneed

Parentneed

Teacherneed

Basicvalues

Institutionalrequirements

5

Student need 66 1Parent need 10Teacher need 17 2Basic values 2

district rules about grading practices. These findings suggest thatmany teachers perceive that the institutional contexts in whichthey work impose constraints that may be at odds with otherconsiderations about assessment that they view as important.

In examining some of the other considerations against whichinstitutional requirements competed, we found that the mostprevalent was student needs. The cell containing conflicts betweeninstitutional requirements and student needs made up 64% of thetotal incidents reported. Of these incidents, 40 (or 61%) were clas-sified as Do No Harm, and 26 (or 39%) were classified as ScorePollution. Examples of actual respondents’ responses classified asconflicts between institutional requirements and student needs areincluded in Table 3.

The largest number of incidents within the institutionalrequirements versus student needs category addressed gradingissues (N ¼ 28). The majority of these were categorised as ScorePollution (N ¼ 22). Issues related to special populations (e.g., specialeducation, English language learners) were the second mostmentioned type of problem, with 16 incidents, with about halfclassified as Score Pollution (N ¼ 9) and about half as Do No Harm(N ¼ 7). In addition, six of these items addressed grading of specialpopulations, and were thus included in counts for both categories.The third most frequent topic respondents mentioned involvedstandardised tests with 13 incidents, the majority of which (N ¼ 9)were Do No Harm. One of these incidents involved special pop-ulations and was included in both categories.

The conflict between institutional requirements and teacherneeds was the second most prevalent category in Table 1, with 17incidents making up 16% of the total incidents reported. Thegreatest number (N ¼ 9) addressed score pollution issues related tostandardised testing, such as violations of test security to enhancescores. The second largest group of incidents (N ¼ 6) related todifficulties with grading practices, such as not grading all workturned in by students. The majority of these incidents (N ¼ 4) werealso related to score pollution. Three incidents involving conflictbetween institutional requirements and teacher needs related tospecial populations, which included one item related to specialpopulations and standardised testing. Examples of respondentincidents reflecting conflict between institutional requirementsand teacher needs are included in Table 4.

To summarise key points, when describing ethical conflictsrelated to assessment, the majority of this group of teachers (62%)harboured important concerns about score pollution. In addition,when analysing the interplay of conflicting elements of ethicaldilemmas, the most frequently cited element was institutionalrequirements. Two categories of conflict, institutional requirementsversus student needs and institutional requirements versus teacherneeds, contained the majority (81%) of the total responses.Together, these two types of conflicts included a large number ofincidents concerning grading practices (N ¼ 34, or 33% of all inci-dents reported), standardised testing issues (N ¼ 22, or 21% of allincidents reported), or special populations (N ¼ 19, or 18% of allincidents reported).

4. Discussion

The present study found that ethical dilemmas centring on scorepollution made up the majority of incidents. These findings areconsistent with the findings of Green et al. (2007), which showedthat teachers disagreed most about the ethicality of items relatingto score pollution. The persistence of teacher conflicts relating toethical issues of score pollution suggests that teachers do not haveclear principles guiding them on score pollution issues.

This study also found that institutional requirements area significant component of ethical dilemmas that teachers in theUnited States face with assessment. Given the strong impact policy

Table 2Types of conflict in order of prevalence.

Type of conflict N Definition/explanation Example

Institutional requirements vs.student need

66 Rules from the state, district, or school conflict with whatteacher sees as best for student

Teacher must test student functioning at kindergarten level on2nd grade level test

Institutional requirements vs.teacher need

17 Rules from the state, district, or school conflict with teacherneeds or desires

Teacher gives students practise with specific standardised testitems to raise test scores to keep job

Institutional requirements vs.parent need

10 Rules from the state, district, or school conflict with whatparent needs or desires

Parent pressures teacher to alter standards or bend the rules

Institutional requirements vs.institutional requirements

5 Rules from the state, district, or school conflict with otherrules from the state, district, or school

Grades for advanced students sometimes turn out lower thangrades for below grade level students because they are gradedagainst two different standards

Basic values vs. basic values 2 A basic value held by the teacher conflicts with another basicvalue

Teacher wants to be fair to all students by catching cheatersbut doesn’t want to unfairly accuse, either

Teacher need vs. student need 2 A need or desire of the teacher conflicts with a need or desireof the student

Teacher has difficulty evaluating a student whose opinion onthe topic differs from the teacher’s

Student need vs. student need 1 A need of the student conflicts with a different student need Teacher had difficulty choosing between easy test questionsthat enhance confidence vs. challenging questions thatusually result in disappointingly lower scores

N. Pope et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 778–782 781

and politics have in shaping and constraining classroom assess-ment practices across nations (Black & Wiliam, 2005), these find-ings may not be surprising. They also reinforce the work ofColnerud (1997) who found a similar prevalence of institutionaleffects on general ethical dilemmas faced by teachers in Sweden. Italso gives empirical support to Bredo (1998) who proposes that thetheory underlying educational organisations and the resultinginstitutional structure often contribute to the ethical dilemmas ofteachers. This study thus partially answers Colnerud’s (2006) callfor further research on what makes being a morally good teacherdifficult. Teachers in the present study believed that the require-ments placed on them by their institutions contribute to theirethical dilemmas.

In the eyes of this study’s respondents, institutional require-ments often conflict with the needs of students. Our data suggesta commendable concern for the needs of students on the part ofteachers. These needs were often compromised by institutionalrequirements relating to grading, standardised testing, promotion,and the proper way to assess students who have special needs.Many of the respondents felt conflicted when they were forced toassess students on material they knew students had not mastered,were asked to promote students who were not ready, or wereconstrained from reaching out to their students by standardisedtest practices. To some degree, this conflict is to be expected.Teachers see the needs of their individual students every day.Institutional requirements operate at a different level and aremeant to meet the needs of various groups besides students –legislators, parents, legal advocates, administrators, and manyothers. In terms of serving student needs, institutional require-ments are a blunt instrument, meant to serve students in theabstract, but not dealing with students as individuals. In the esti-mation of our respondents, schools are institutions that are notbuilt to serve individual student needs particularly well. The issuemay be one of priorities. If institutional requirements designed tomeet the needs of other groups and students in the abstract conflict

Table 3Sample responses categorised as institutional requirements vs. student needs.

‘‘One situation that I encountered last year that made me wonder if my assessment techa problemed, but bright, young man. He would not get his assignments finished on timpoints and failed the first quarter. After the first quarter he completely gave up; he no lohe was assigned.’’

In my curriculum (middle school orchestra), it is very hard to assess students musically wthe student does all the work, participates in class, but cannot play the material or ththem for not being able to perform like other students?’’

‘‘Today I gave a comprehension test to my second graders. As I watched them, some of thfeel unsuccessful as a teacher, because I knew they weren’t capable of the task. I hadbecause it is part of the reading program. To me this test was not a true grade.’’

with the needs of students regarding assessment, then should notstudent needs have priority? We should also point out that this isnot only an assessment issue. Institutional requirements can and doconflict with perceived student needs in terms of curriculum,instructional methodology, classroom management, and otherareas.

The grading of students and standardised testing were areas ofconcern for many of our respondents. These common educationalpractices are also ripe with the potential for score pollution, placingteachers in ethically difficult situations. If score pollution issuescould be mitigated for teachers, perhaps with clearer guidelinesabout what constitutes score pollution and why score pollution isunethical, then perhaps these ethical dilemmas would not be soprevalent.

Teachers in the United States may spend as much as one third oftheir time in assessment-related activities (Stiggins, 2001).However, 35 out of 50 states in the United States do not requireteachers to take a course, or demonstrate competency in the area ofassessment (Tienken & Wilson, 2001) suggesting that teachersoften lack formal training in student assessment (Shafer, 1993;Stiggins, 1992). In addition, calls for an increased focus on profes-sional development in assessment in other nations from Israel(Inbar-Lourie, 2008), to Canada (Volante & Fazio (2007), to theUnited Kingdom (O’Leary, 2008), to Taiwan (Wang et al., 2008)suggest that these concerns are widespread. Lack of preparation inassessment is problematic because capabilities for ethical reasoningin assessment do not appear to develop on the job. Green et al.(2007) reported that in-service teachers and pre-service teachersrated the ethicality of assessment practices (e.g., assigning a zero fornot returning a form requiring a parent’s signature) very similarly.

If teachers are to develop ethical reasoning capabilities, thenteacher education programmes will need to address the ethics ofassessment in pre-service teachers’ coursework. As teachers receivemore training in assessment practices, our data suggest that moretime also needs to be spent confronting the ethical dilemmas of

niques were not fair involvede, and because of this he lost

nger even tried to do the work

Avoid Score Pollution Grading

ho have physical disabilities. Ifeir instruments, do I penalise

Avoid Score Pollution Special Populations/Grading

em were in tears. It made meto give them the assessment

Do No Harm Standardised Testing

Table 4Sample responses categorised as institutional requirements vs. teacher needs.

‘‘. I watched a teacher ‘‘peek’’ at the test before its official administration. She then worked several problems that mimicked the testquestions just 1 or 2 days before the test. Of course, this inflated her test scores tremendously. The principal, oblivious to the‘‘peeking,’’ bragged about how this teacher was doing all the right things and making a difference with the students. . Thisinfuriated the other teachers whose test scores were valid of the hard work we put in, but hardly as impressive .’’

Avoid ScorePollution

StandardisedTesting

‘‘When confronted with providing equivalent modifications in class assessments and in state assessments, at times the modificationsaren’t the same due to the lack of resources, staff, space, etc. For example when preparing for the state writing test I am unable tocontinually give all students the ‘‘write to scribe’’ modification they receive on the actual assessment.’’

Do No Harm SpecialPopulations

N. Pope et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 778–782782

assessment and methods of approaching and resolving thesedilemmas. Strike (1990) argues that explicit instruction in ethicalconcepts ought to be part of teacher preparation. These conceptsshould be directly related to the work in which teachers engage.One key task of teachers is assessment of students. Strike (1990)gives an example of the concept of due process as a ‘‘teachableconcept’’ that directly relates to grading. He raises the issues ofgrading for effort or grades as punishment as questions that willarise during discussion of due process as it relates to assessment.Strike’s position is very similar to ours – a lack of instruction onspecific ethical concepts related to teaching potentially leads tounethical behaviour by teachers. Given the prevalence of theconflict between institutional requirements and student needs inour data, teachers may also need better training in how to under-stand the various institutional requirements and advocate for theirrevision.

The authors of this study believe that continued research isneeded to more clearly define the ethical issues teachers face inregards to assessment. Perhaps a greater variety of ethical issueswould emerge in different populations or different locales. Basedon the present findings, however, discussion of ethical guidelineswith pre-service teachers would seem beneficial, especially inregards to defining and avoiding score pollution and balancinginstitutional requirements with student need. The anguishexpressed by the teachers in the current study demands action.

References

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards throughclassroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–144.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: how policies, politicsand cultures constrain and afford assessment practises. The Curriculum Journal,16, 249–261.

Bredo, E. (1998). Ethical implications of organisation theory. Leading & Managing,4(4), 256–274.

Carroll, D. (2002, February 9). Piper teacher who resigned in plagiarism dispute isa hit with media. The Kansas City Star. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/2634836.htm?1c Retrieved August 3, 2004 from.

Click, C. (2004, August 20). Benedict fires two professors bucking effort-basedgrading. The State. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/breaking_news/9447674.htm Retrieved December 15, 2004 from.

Colnerud, G. (1997). Ethical conflicts in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13,627–635.

Colnerud, G. (2006). Teacher ethics as a research problem syntheses achieved andnew issues. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practise, 12(3), 365–385.

Dwyer, C. A. (2008). The future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning. NewYork: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Green, S., Johnson, R., Kim, D., & Pope, N. (2007). Ethics in classroom assessmentpractices: issues and attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 999–1011.

Haladyna, T. M., Nolen, S. B., & Haas, N. S. (1991). Raising standardised achievementtest scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher, 20,2–7.

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base:a focus on language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385–402.

JCSEE. (2003). The student evaluation standards. Arlen Gullickson, Chair. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin.

Johnson, R., Green, S., Kim, D., & Pope, N.. Educational leaders’ perceptions aboutethical assessment practices. The American Journal of Evaluation (in press).

McMillan, J. (2007). Formative classroom assessment: theory into practice. New York:Teachers College Press.

Mullis, I., Mullis, A. (2003). PIRLS 2001 International Report. Retrieved August 9,2008 from http://pirls.bc.edu/pirls2001i/PIRLS2001_Pubs_IR.html.

Mullis, I., Martin, M., Kennedy, A., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report.Retrieved August 9, 2008 from http://pirls.bc.edu/pirls2006/intl_rpt.html.

Munson, R. (2000). Intervention and reflection: basic issues in medical ethics (6th ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

O’Leary, M. O. (2008). Towards an agenda for professional development in assess-ment. Journal of In-service Education, 34, 109–114.

Popham, W. J. (1991). Appropriateness of teachers’ test-preparation practices.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(4), 12–15.

Shafer, W. (1993). Assessment literacy for teachers. Theory Into Practice, 32(2),118–126.

Stiggins, R. (1992). High quality classroom assessment: what does it really mean?Educational Measurement. Issues and Practice, 12, 211–215.

Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher educationprograms. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1), 23–27.

Stiggins, R. (2001). The principal’s leadership role in assessment. NASSP Bulletin,85(621), 13–26.

Strike, K. (1990). Teaching ethics to teachers: what the curriculum should be about.Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(1), 42–53.

Strizek, G., Pittsonberger, J., Riordan, K., Lyter, D., & Orlofsky, G. (2006). Character-istics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the UnitedStates: 2003–04 schools and staffing survey. Retrieved August 9, 2008 fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid¼2006313.

Tienken, C., & Wilson, M. (2001). Using state standards and tests to improveinstruction. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(13). Retrieved July24, 2007 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v¼7&;N¼13.

Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidate’s assessment literacy:implications for teacher education reform and professional development.Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 749. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. EJ780818) Retrieved August 6, 2008, from ERIC database.

Wang, T., Wank, K., & Huang, S. (2008, August). Designing a Web-based assessmentenvironment for improving pre-service teacher assessment literacy. Computers& Education, 51, 448–462. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.010, Retrieved August6, 2008.