Four Textbooks on Assessment: A Qualitative Comparison · Four Textbooks on Assessment 3 Fall, 2006 Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:3 Snowman's suggestion that there should

Four Textbooks on Assessment 1

Fall, 2006 Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:3

Four Textbooks on Assessment: A Qualitative Comparison

Virginia Navarro

This paper presents a qualitative analysis of the assessment chapters from four popular educationalpsychology texts. Teacher knowledge about assessment tools and how they support learning is critical toimproving student outcomes. The goals of the analysis are to (a) differentiate author 'voices' by looking at styleand content choices, (b) track embedded links between theory and practice, (c) note the level of multiculturalconsciousness in addressing testing issues and (d) compare cited research. Comparisons will be developedfrom textual evidence gleaned from a close reading of the two assessment chapters in each text that coverclassroom and standardized assessment. Interpretive content analysis inevitably reflects the researcher's ideasabout what preservice teachers need to know about assessment; however, this analysis provides a fine-grainedcomparative critique that encourages educational psychology instructors to re-look at the importance oftheoretical frameworks, links between theory and practice, multicultural consciousness and cited research inchoosing an educational psychology textbook for their classes.

Keywords: educational assessment, textbook content, textbook evaluation, textbook selection, culture, culturalawareness, theory practice relationship

Teacher education programs rely oneducational psychology textbooks to equip futureteachers with a knowledge base aboutteaching/learning processes and humandevelopment that draws from both research andpractitioner wisdom. The marketplace offersmultiple educational psychology textbooks, andinstructors must decide which book will best supportlearning goals in their contexts. When makingcourse textbook decisions, instructors may conferwith colleagues, preview publisher copies, checkout supplements, and review student feedback.Once a specific textbook’s features and tools havebecome familiar to professors, adjuncts, andteacher assistants, departments often stay with anauthor through several editions because instructorsare comfortable with the content. In fact, there iseven resistance to updating content from those whohave used a text for several years (Ormrod, 2006).

This article offers a qualitative comparison ofthe assessment chapters in four well-knowneducational psychology textbooks in order tohighlight perceived strengths and weaknesses. Mygoals include the following (a) to differentiate author'voices' by looking at style and content choices, (b)to track embedded links between theory andpractice, (c) to note the level of multiculturalconsciousness in addressing testing issues and (d)to compare the research cited by each textbook’sauthor(s). Selected quotes from each text areincluded to support my analysis, but I recognize thatmy perspective is shaped by my beliefs about

teacher preparation needs and my experienceteaching educational psychology over ten years.

In order to situate myself in this researchproject and make any potential biases astransparent as possible, I will share a bit about myexperience as a teacher educator: In the pastseveral years, I have taught undergraduate courseson child and adolescent development for preserviceteachers, an online graduate course in thepsychology of early childhood, and adolescentdevelopment courses for post-degree certificationstudents. From1997-2001, I also taught the basiceducational psychology course at both graduateand undergraduate levels using earlier versions ofthe Ormrod and Woolfolk texts. Currently I teachqualitative research methods and socioculturaltheory courses for doctoral students. As I gravitatetowards a more post-modern consciousness, mycritique of positivistic epistemological stances hasincreased, and I believe that teachers need to beguided toward a realistic view of the pros, cons, andinherent limitations of any assessment tool.

My focus on teaching in urban contexts isreflected in my work with the Urban Network toImprove Teacher Education (UNITE) and my workas co-director of the Career Transition CertificationProgram (CTCP), a partnership with St. LouisPublic Schools. Participation in the TeachingEducational Psychology Special Interest Group(TEPSIG) of the American Educational ResearchAssociation (AERA) has supported my examinationof "best practices" in teaching educational



psychology. For example, in my courses, although Ido mini-lectures on course content, I try to create adialogic environment though group projects,choices for text readings, case study analysis,electronic Discussion Boards, and assignments tiedto activities in schools.

As an English major in the 1960s, I was trainedto analyze texts for internal patterns withoutreferencing outside biographical and historicalfactors. Deconstructing language meaningscontinues to fascinate me, but now I apply the morecontextual theories of Vygotsky (1986), Bakhtin(1991), and others to think about the multi-voicedness of all texts. The choice of citations usedby these authors ventriloquate other voices acrosstime (Wertsch, 2001) and textbook content echoesauthors of the past with re-accentuation. Becauseof my orientation towards sociocultural theory, Ibring a critical sense about the importance ofcontext to thinking about the teaching/learningprocess. Yet I am also committed to discerning howvarious theoretical perspectives might shape howeach author chooses to present topical information.Qualitative content analysis allows me to compareactual sentences and phrases, as well as spaceallocation, related to a limited number of topics andtexts. Analyzing what authors write and do notwrite, what research they include and exclude, whatsupport materials are offered, etc., can clarify ifthere are real or only perceived differences amongtextbooks.

It seems that in each new edition of mosteducational psychology textbooks, the lists of sub-topics covered grows longer, which makes meponder if authors and instructors are reallypracticing the "less is more" maxim that we so oftenpreach to preservice teachers. I have chosen, inthis analysis, to focus on these textbooks’ coverageof assessment because of my feeling that the roleof assessment in teaching has taken a radical newdirection since the 2001 No Child Left Behindlegislation. Many scholars have debated the validityand reliability of state and national test scores(Madaus, 1991; Baker, O’Neil, & Linn, 1993;Shepard, 2000; Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Popham,2005a, 2005b). Ideological differences run deepbetween those who argue for professional teachersequipped to document student learning incontextual classrooms, and those who believe thatincentives for high stakes test scores tied to marketdriven school choice will improve educationalsystems (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001).

The rhetoric of accountability, in my opinion,has involved systematic discrediting of teacherknowledge and a facile attack on teacher educationthat masks opposition to the perceived liberal bentof higher education. NCLB’s mandate for AdequateYearly Progress (AYP) does not reflect the realitythat learning progress is often uneven, rather thanincremental, even in the most stable school districts(Ding & Navarro, 2004). If teachers cannot learn todocument student learning in skilled ways, webecome overly reliant on high-stakes, extrinsicmeasures of performance to guide decision-making.Teacher educators need textbooks that fostercomplex thinking about assessment in theirstudents. Because documenting learning inmultiple and complex ways is a teacher'sresponsibility, teachers today require anincreasingly sophisticated understanding of bothtools and context when assessing learning.

PREVIOUS TEXTBOOK COMPARISONS

The present study builds on earlier inquiriesabout educational psychology textbooks thatcompared issues such as social/emotional andmoral development, classroom management,individual differences, exceptionality, diversity, andassessment. Feldhusen (1977), for example,identified common topics across 26 texts in hisstudy and then had instructors rate the importanceof each topic. Snowman (1997) also did a contentanalysis of ten educational psychology textspublished after 1990, establishing what percentageof the total pages was devoted to individual topics.Snowman (1997) summarizes his findings in thisway:

In general, six topics account for more thanhalf of the pages in the typical text. The sixtopics, with average numbers of pages andaverage percent of total pages inparentheses, are instructional methods andpractices (45.5, 11.2%), motivation (40.9,10.1%), information processing theory(38.6, 9.5%), classroom measurement andevaluation (33.3, 8.2%), classroommanagement (29, 7.1%), and intellectualdifferences (26.9, 6.6%) . . . Most textscontain anywhere from 12 to 18 chaptersthat reflect about a dozen major topicareas, and unlike textbooks prior to the1970s, there is a strong emphasis onexplaining and illustrating how classroomteachers can use psychological principlesto help students achieve educational goalsand objectives. (pp. 157-159)



Snowman's suggestion that there should be atwo-semester course to allow time for more in-depthcoverage of selected concepts (p. 162) seemsfurther than ever from reality as states slashpedagogical requirements for certification. Tenyears later, in 2007, Snowman’s identified topicsare still prominent in newer editions. Tellingly,however, the average percentage of pages devotedto assessment has increased over 50%, from the8.2% cited above to 12.7%, in the four texts chosenfor this study.

Wininger & Norman (2005) offer a more recentcontent analysis of 20 educational psychology texts,looking at preservice teachers' exposure to theconcept of formative assessment. They concludethat teacher candidates are exposed to a minimallevel of information on this topic even though theNCLB mandate has greatly increased their need tounderstand basic concepts such as why feedback iscritical to learning success. Three of the textsdiscussed here use the term "formative evaluation"(Eggen & Kauchak, Ormrod, and Snowman &Biehler) while Woolfolk uses the term "formativeassessment," saying, “The purposes of formativeassessment are to guide the teacher in planningand to help students identify areas that need work”(Woolfolk, 2005, p. 534). According to Snowman &Biehler (2006), “formative evaluation includes suchdata points as quizzes, homework assignments, in-class worksheets, oral reading, responding toteacher questions, and behavioral observations”(pp. 457-458).

State departments of education in the currentconservative political environment are exertingtremendous pressure to streamline educationcoursework and privilege subject contentknowledge. As a result, there are fewer requiredcourses in foundations and educational psychologyfor preservice teachers. Practitioners oftenchallenge the usefulness of theoretical courses andreport that they need more classroom managementskills to succeed. Colleagues in Departments ofCurriculum & Instruction and EducationalLeadership are also voicing concerns about theutility of traditional educational psychology forteachers (Kiewra & Gubbels 1997; Snowman 1997;Chase 1998; Zechmeister & Zeichmeister, 2000;Hanich & Deemer, 2005). Snowman (1997)acknowledges that textbook authors’ are working tobridge theory and practice more intentionally byinserting new features:

The authors of these ten textbooks went togreat lengths to blunt the traditional

criticism that educational psychologyprovides the prospective teacher withnothing of practical value. First, each textcontained one or more chapters onplanning and carrying out classroominstruction. Second, each text had one ormore features that described and illustratedhow psychological knowledge might beused to deal with a variety of educationalconcerns. (p. 6)

These features have names such as"Suggestions for Teaching in Your Classroom,""Implications for Teachers," "Theory into Practice,""Teachers on Teaching," and "Teacher'sCasebook.” While textbook authors are to beapplauded for responding to critics’, and students’calls for relevance, students need help to avoidseeing such “application’ sections as simpleprescriptions; they need to understand clearly thatprinciples of educational psychology must beinterpreted and applied locally in culturallycompetent ways.

METHOD AND PROCESS

I chose a purposive sample of four educationalpsychology textbooks for this in-depth analysis:

Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2004).Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms.Columbus, OH: Pearson, Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Ormrod, J. E. (2003). E d u c a t i o n a lpsychology: Developing learners. Columbus, OH:Pearson, Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Snowman, J. & Biehler, R. (2006).Psychology applied to teaching. New York:Houghton-Mifflin.

Woolfolk, A. (2005). E d u c a t i o n a lpsychology (9th ed. ). Bos ton : Al lyn &Bacon/Pearson.

The choice of these four particular texts out ofmultiple possibilities was dictated in part by KelvinSeifert's study of these same four texts for hisarticle in this special issue. However, Eggen &Kauchak, Ormrod, Snowman & Biehler, andWoolfolk, are arguably the best-selling authors inthe field as well. As we write, two of these fourbooks are ready to introduce new editions (Woolfolkand Eggen & Kauchak), and all have publishedmultiple editions over the years. An overview ofthese four textbooks, including chapter titles,



editions, chapter length, and percent of total pages appears in Table 1.

TABLE 1

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY TEXTBOOK PROFILES: ASSESSMENT CHAPTERS

AUTHOR BOOK TITLE& DATE

ED. PUBLISHER CHAPTER TITLE TOTAL PGS % ofBOOK

EducationalPsychology:Windows onclassrooms(2004, 2001,1999, 1997,1994, 1992)

6th

ed.Merrill PrenticeHall/Pearson

CH 14: AssessingClassroom Learning

CH 15: Assessmentthrough StandardizedTesting

492-539(47 pages)

540-567(27 pages)

8.3%

4.7%

Paul Eggen,University ofNorth FloridaDon Kauchak,University ofUtah

74 pages 74/568=13%

Jeanne EllisOrmrod,University ofNewHampshire

EducationalPsychology:Developinglearners(2003,2000,1998,1995)

4th

ed.Merrill PrenticeHall/Pearson

CH 15: Basic Conceptsand Issues in Assessment

CH 16: ClassroomAssessment Strategies

510-551(41 pages)

552-591(39 pages

6.9%

6.6%

80 pages 80/591=13.5%

JackSnowman,SouthernIllinoisUniversityRobert Biehler

PsychologyApplied toTeaching (2006)Other eds. notlisted

11th

ed.Houghton MifflinCompany

CH 14: Assessment ofClassroom Learning

CH 15: Understandingand Using StandardizedTests

455-490(35 pages)

492-521(29 pages)

6.5%

5.4%

64 pages 64/536=11.9%

AnitaWoolfolk,Ohio StateUniversity

EducationalPsychology:Active learningedition(2005, 2004)

9th

ed.Allyn & Bacon/Pearson

Cluster 14: Evaluation,Measurement, andAssessmentModule 39Def. & Concepts Module40Standardized Tests

Module 41Trad. ApproachesModule 42Innovations in ClassroomAss

502-533(31 pages)

534-565(31 pages)

5.5%

5.5%

62 pages 62/565=11%



As seen in this table, the chapters onassessment range from 9 percent to 13.5 per centof the total text volume in these texts. Since all fourtexts have one chapter devoted to evaluationterminology, concepts and standardized testing;and a second chapter that features informal teacherassessment, test construction, and grading issues, Idecided to divide the analysis into two sections. Iwill discuss the four chapters on the first of thesetopics, addressing the books in alphabetical order,and then tackle a comparison across the secondblock of content using the same order. In thissection, in order to give the reader an overview ofthe topics involved, I developed a table thatprovides a more in-depth outline of theorganizational structure for the teacher assessmentchapters in two of the four texts.

My guiding questions in this analysis were:What theoretical orientation is revealed thougheach textbook’s choice of emphasis? How well istheory translated into applied practice? Whatinterpretive stance is taken toward high-stakes testsand formative assessment? What research is citedto support arguments? These topics representparticular areas of interest to me as a teachereducator. While I acknowledge that comparisonson other topics might yield different results, carefulqualitative comparison of each text's presentation ofthese key conceptual domains yielded someprovocative differences. I chose to discuss eachtextbook’s chapters in a parallel set, rather thanorganizing by theme or questions, so the readercan get a clearer sense of each authorial voice.Comparison of authors’ style and content as a wayof discerning their theoretical orientation, however,runs throughout the analyses, rather than beingpulled out as a separate section.

FOUR VOICES ON THE DISCOURSE OF

ACCOUNTABILITY AND STANDARDIZED TESTING

Eggen & Kauchak

Chapter 15 "Assessment through StandardizedTesting," in Eggen's & Kauchak's (2004)Educational psychology: Windows on classroomsidentifies three broad areas of coverage in theoutline: ‘Standardized Tests’, ‘Understanding andInterpreting Scores’, and ‘Issues in StandardizedTesting.” The chapter begins with the case of afourth grade teacher helping a parent interpretStanford achievement test scores, which areprovided in a Figure. The chapter offers assignmentquestions in the margin for each section.

Unfortunately, these student questions seem toprompt recall rather than analysis and application; atypical question is "Identify at least one similarityand two differences between standardized testsand teacher-made tests" (p. 543). In other words,these questions simply require students to parrotback adjoining text passages.

For me, Eggen & Kauchak appeared the leastconcerned, and even somewhat naïve, about themisuse or potential bias issues in testing. Forexample, in the section on using tests for selectingand placing students in high school, they write,"Scores from the math section of a standardizedtest can help the math faculty place students inclasses that will best match their background andcapabilities" (p. 544). No cautionary note is insertedabout the potential harmful effects of tracking, or onthe effects on test scores of prior education atdifferent feeder schools or the sophistication ofstudents' test-taking skills, etc. Likewise, theseauthors seem to assume that ACT and SAT scoresare an accurate and acceptable means of helpingadmissions officers make college acceptancedecisions. No reference is included from voices thatproblematize such ideas, no mention is made aboutthe correlation between SAT or ACT scores andSES, and nothing is said about their lack ofpredictive validity for school success beyond thefreshman year in college. Although they do later citeShepard's (1993) study, stating that the correlationbetween SAT and college grades is only .42, whilehigh school grades have a .46 correlation withcollege grades (p. 549), the authors frame ACT andSAT scores this way:

Because the tests are objective and reliable,they eliminate teacher bias and the inconsistency ofgrading practices from different teachers andschools. In this regard, they add valuableinformation in predicting future success (p. 548,italics added).

These assertions reveal a level of true belief intests that strikes me as problematic in today's post-modern world. Issues such as middle-class culturalcapital and the influence of internalized deficitlabels on performance are never raised in this text.In my classes, I generally try to address this idea bybringing in copies of Highlights, a subscriptionmagazine for children, for my students to analyze.Magazine features align with the tasks and formatof intelligence tests and might function as theoriginal test prep kit for preschoolers.Acknowledging the uneven playing field for students



entering formal school is important in today’ssociety.

Eggen & Kauchak also mention a Berliner(1984) study that documents that some elementarymath tests have only a 47% to 71% correlation withthe actual taught curricula. In this section, thestudent question in the margins reads, "Describewhat a teacher might do if a lack of fit is uncoveredbetween a standardized achievement test and theteacher's curriculum?" (p. 455). I guess the choicesare to teach to the test or to choose a different test.Although it is important to align standards, tests,and curriculum, I miss any questions from theseauthors about whose knowledge counts most, aquestion at the heart of how meaning is assigned tothe results of high stakes tests.

The statistical description sections in this textare detailed and clear. Like most of the texts in thisstudy, this one includes a Figure that has a normalcurve on top and then underneath the range ofstandard deviations percentile, stanines, z-scores,t-scores, and SAT scores so students can visualizehow the pieces and terms relate to one another.There is also a full explanation of the concepts ofconfidence interval and standard error ofmeasurement.

The three bulleted items in the "Issues" sectionof Eggen's & Kauchak's chapter focus on (a) theaccountability movement, (b) testing teachers, and(c) cultural minorities and standardized testing.Despite their overall disposition toward ‘tests astruth,’ I found the Eggen & Kauchak examples thatillustrate bias in content, bias in testing procedures,and bias in test use to be realistic and concrete.The syntax of some sentences in this section,however, still implies a somewhat skeptical attitudetoward the conclusions of those challenging themeaning of tests, e.g. "Critics contend" or"Evidence suggests that test results are sometimesused in ways that discriminate." According to theauthors, advocates of minimum competency testsargue "that the tests are the fairest and mosteffective means of achieving the aim of democraticschooling: a quality education for all students" (p.559, italics added). This translates for me as asincere belief in the myth of meritocracy because itglosses the contextual constraints of poverty andracism– including affordable housing, literateparents, and resourced schools - issues thatimpinge on test outcomes in complex andunderstudied ways.

A final item of interest in the "Analyze TestContent" section involves a moral dilemma faced bya teacher, who while previewing a test, realizes thata test item will "clearly disadvantage a particulargroup of students" (p. 563). A distinction is thenmade between curriculum teaching, that is ethical,and item teaching, which is "indefensible.” I had notheard these terms before and I applaud the authorsfor presenting tools to help teachers think aboutsuch real-world dilemmas of practice. Finally, theauthors send a clear message that "No one testshould be used as the sole basis for educationaldecisions about individual students" (p. 564).

Ormrod

The topics listed in Ormrod's overview ofChapter 15 in her 2003 edition of Educationalpsychology: Developing learners include itemssuch as "Using Assessment for Different Purposes,""Important Qualities of Good Assessments,""Standardized Tests," "Types of Test Scores,""High-Stakes Testing and Accountability,""Confidentiality and Communication of Results,"and "Taking Student Diversity into Account.” Noticethat the first two topics set up a conceptualframework before actual tests are discussed. I findthis typical of Ormrod's style. She organizesmaterial carefully, with her audience of preserviceteachers clearly in mind. Too often authors andteachers assume a knowledge base in thesestudents that is illusionary. I like the list of openingquestions in this chapter because they frame theissue of assessment in personal terms, such as"What do we mean by assessment, and what formscan it take in classroom settings?" (p. 511). In thisway, Ormrod models how to probe prior knowledgebefore instruction, which can assist the teacher indesigning instructional strategies appropriate to aspecific class and context. Second, Ormrod clearlyraises the issue of who should know test resultsand how best to communicate them. Ethicaldecision-making is part of every teacher's day, so Ithink it is important to include items highlightingsuch issues in these chapters.

Ormrod’s section on standardized tests (pp.526-541) describes two ways they are useful: Theyprovide a comparison of our students againststudents elsewhere, and they provide a means oftracking general progress over time. Comments onthe SAT echo Eggen & Kauchak in that scores arelinked with predicting college success andmeasuring general capacity to learn. Ormrod,however, does problematize the concept of"intelligence" and brings up the idea that education



should develop aptitudes, not just measurepresumably innate qualities.

Her discussion of norm-referenced and criterionreferenced tests is clear, with ample exemplars ofthe points raised. Overall, I feel Ormrod has abalanced sense of pros and cons of testing, butdoes not fully develop the conversation around thecentrality of situated contexts in designingperformance systems. The strength of the chapteris in not talking down to preservice teachers whilealso elaborating on the concepts, such as SD, z-scores, etc., so they are understandable. Forinstance, the section that describes the dangers of"grading on the curve" (p. 535) provides anexcellent example of unpacking potential negativeconsequences of norm-referenced assessments.

In the section on "High-Stakes Testing,"Ormrod clearly positions the chapter content withheaders such as "Problems with." and "PotentialSolutions for". The issue of Social-Economic-Status(SES) emerges in the discussion, and the failure of“proficiency” to mean the same thing across states,or even within states, is aired. The solutions arepractical in nature and include educating the publicmore fully on the limits of high stakes test scores'meanings while assuring that multiple measures arealways part of any decision-making.

The discussion of confidentiality andcommunication about assessment results section isa value added feature of the text in my opinion. Weneed to help teachers be more sensitive to theirmoral, legal, and ethical responsibilities to families.The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act(FERPA) poses serious implications for ethical andtransparent practice; teachers need to know thelegal rights of families.

For younger children (K-3) so-called"readiness" tests are poor predictors of success inschool, according to Ormrod, yet our culture is sofixated on testing that pressure to perform againstpeers starts early. Her compare/contrast Table 15.4(p. 544) provides a to-do and not-to-do list foravoiding student test anxiety. A side box notes thattest bias can be around gender, SES, culture andethnicity, which is certainly true. But when Ormrodwrites about a question that culturally offends astudent, her concern seems that it distracts themfrom doing their best work on the test, rather thanabout the deeper issue of institutional racism thatreifies stereotypes in ways that affect learners' self-images. Special-needs students can get teststranslated into their primary language, unlike

regular classroom students, but Ormrod cautionsagainst interpreting translated test results becausethey have little reliability or validity data to supportthem.

The case study called "The Math Test," inwhich a frustrated middle school teacher blameskids for poor scores without offering them any help,demonstrates how not to use test scores. Thisteacher demands that parents must sign correctedwork without probing into what went wrong. Angerwill not help teachers to problem-solve, but a closelook at the test items might offer clues on how toremediate. Ormrod goes on to argue that tests arenot bad in themselves, but rather that meaningsattributed to test scores by persons canmisrepresent results. I personally am not quite soready to absolve the tests because they too arecultural products that reflect the social order, but Iget the point about not being too quick to shoot themessenger.

The series of Boxes called "Into the Classroom"offers concrete ideas for teachers to put thetheories presented in the chapter into "bestpractice". Six such strategies are recommended inorder to use assessment to best promote students'learning and achievement: (1) pretest to determinewhere to begin instruction, (2) choose assessmentsthat match knowledge and skills you want studentsto achieve, (3) align assessments to how you wantstudents to process, (4) use assessments aslearning experiences (Ex: science teacher who hasstudents collect and analyze local water samples),(5) use tests to give specific feedback, and (6)provide criteria for student self-evaluation.

Practical insights such as the danger ofpresenting incorrect information on a test that maybe remembered instead of the correct response arepeppered throughout each sub-topic along withexamples from practice. Of particular value are thescanned informal instruments from actual teachersthat are analyzed for flaws in construction. Themarginal asides often connect the current topic withsections in previous chapters – a careful weavingtogether of text pieces.

Modeling the use of learning strategies, Ormrodcreates an acronym or mnemonic to help studentsremember the qualities of good assessment RSVP:reliability, standardization, validity, and practicality.Ormrod’s underlying position seems to be that testsare objective and worth trusting when usedappropriately. Speaking of reliability, Ormrod writesthat teachers



must be confident that our conclusions willbe essentially the same regardless ofwhether we give the assessment onMonday or Wednesday, whether theweather is sunny or rainy, and whether weevaluate students' responses while in agood mood or a foul frame of mind. (p. 519)

However, in the classrooms I hang around,context has more of an impact on performanceoutcomes than is suggested here. In other words,context does matter in how students perform ontests, and learning in one’s zone of proximaldevelopment is a dynamic rather than a staticprocess based on getting the same test/retestresults. Even internalized notions of academicidentity can influence the degree to which what oneknows can be translated into test performance in asituated assessment setting. When, where, andunder what conditions will inevitably skew testresults to some degree.

Ormrod develops the concepts of content,predictive, and construct validity extensively andwith examples. A few of her assertions on constructvalidity are worth examining. The first implied that,by observing students' on-task or off-task behavior,one could infer motivation to learn "academicsubject matter" (p.525), yet I know that bored andtraumatized students can be off-task and still havestrong motivation to learn. The second assertionfocused on the need to compare the performance oftwo groups who are known to be different. Thisexample involved a comparison of non-disabled 12-year-olds and 12-year-olds "identified as havingmental retardation" (p. 525). Even though usingperson-centered language, the author's justificationfor comparing intelligence scores between thesetwo groups seemed weak at best to me.

For me the strength of Ormrod's books havealways been in the pedagogy of the text itself, alongwith multiple up-to-date realistic examples frompractice and careful organizational weavingtogether of the content across chapters. Thelearning aides are more than blobs to break upprint; they emphasize practical ideas to implementtheory and organize ideas.

Snowman & Biehler

The chapter by in Snowman & Biehler’s (2006)Psychology applied to teaching on understandingand using standardized tests is organized underthree sub-headings: "Standardized Tests (ST),""Using Standardized Tests for Accountability

Purposes: High-Stakes Testing," and "StandardizedTesting and Technology.” This text does a good joboverall of pointing the reader to web sites for furtherinformation. The authors begin, however, with thenature, prevalence, and uses of standardizedtesting without setting the stage as Ormrod did toprobe what the preservice teachers are alreadythinking about these topics. Unlike Eggen &Kauchak (2004) and Ormrod (2003), Snowman &Biehler do not rely on case studies to frame chaptercontent in applied ways. A piece of what I labelvalue-added information notes, however, that

147 million standardized tests areadministered annually to public schoolstudents. Of this total, about 51 million areadministered as part of state-mandatedassessment programs, 85 million are givenas part of district-level programs, and 11million are given to special populations.(Clarke, Madeus, Horn, & Ramos, 2001, ascited in Snowman & Biehler, p. 492)

What struck me in this statement is that localentities administer the most standard assessmentsby far. I also wondered about where NAEP data fitinto this schema. These figures leave little doubtthat U.S. children are being fully assessed!

A feature in this text that I particularly liked isthe "pause and reflect" marginal questions. Theypersonalize the material by probing students'thinking about tests and to what degree they reflectwhat one really learns or is capable of learning. Thechapter is fairly detailed about explaining conceptssuch as reliability, validity, norm and criterionreferenced tests, etc. For example, under the"Aptitude Tests" section the authors cite RichardSnow's (1992) article that argues for broadeningthis concept of aptitude to embrace characteristicssuch as "extroversion, conformity, independence,production of mental images, attention span,beliefs, and fear of failure" (p.497). The authors alsoseem to support the view that "we should abandonthe view that one's ability is the cause of one'sachievement" (p. 497). They cite Sternberg's ideathat we might better think of aptitudes as"developing expertise." Such ideas resonate withmy own notions about aptitude versus abilitygarnered from Perkins (1994) book calledOutsmarting IQ.

Like Ormrod (2003), Snowman & Biehlercritique norm-referenced tests as promotingcompetitive comparisons rather than fosteringfeedback for individual learning. When presenting



the usual sections on stanine scores, z- and t-tests,etc., the margin notes mention a web tool calledglossary Flashcards that helps students learn andreview vocabulary – a useful idea.

Like Eggen & Kauchak (2004), these authorsbegin the section on using standardized tests byreferencing the report, A Nation at Risk (1983).Although they describe the doom and gloom mantraof American education generated by such reports,they also include counter research (Bracey, 2002,2003; Berliner & Biddle, 1997). Acknowledging thatmultiple perspectives and interpretations exist on atopic is especially important to develop preserviceteachers' sense of critical thinking around textcontent.

Features of NCLB are also described in detail,including the concept of Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP) and recent developments on modifications toAYP, such as the 95% participation rate beingaveraged over two or three years. I think Snowman& Biehler provide the most extensive informationabout the politics and reality of NCLB and in a fairlyeven-handed way. They do not gloss over the manyproblems with implementation, but they also echoother writers in listing the pro side of the argumentfor high-stakes testing: i.e. goal clarity, improvedquality control, and beneficial effects for teachingand student learning. On the down side of NCLB,they cite structural limitations, misinterpretation andmisuse of test results, a one-size-fits-all approachto motivation, and undesirable side effects. I feltthese sections of Snowman & Biehler wereoutstanding in that the latest research is reported,summaries of information located in other parts ofthe text are included, and ideas are presented inclear and thoughtful ways. As they note, "High-stakes test systems tend to ignore the contributionsof input and process variables, or what might becalled opportunity to learn" (p. 509). A value addedfeature is discussion of WYTIWYG (what you test iswhat you get). If you prepare students toospecifically for a particular test, there is often littlecarryover or transfer to other measures of the samecontent. What this means to me is that conceptmastery is not easily measured through traditionaltesting.

In the section on the effects of high-stakestesting, a study done in Chicago by Roderick &Engel (2001) is cited to demonstrate that "no singlepolicy or approach will work for all studentsbecause classroom learning is an extremelycomplex phenomenon that is only partly under theteacher's control" (Snowman & Biehler, 2006, p.

512). I applaud their recommendations, includingholding policymakers accountable for the effects oftheir high-stakes accountability systems. Again the"pause and reflect" questions challenge readers totake action by writing letters, informing school boardmembers, set up workshops, etc. It is refreshing tosee a text actually encourage a level of activismand advocacy for teachers.

Snowman & Biehler are also the only authors tooffer a section on standardized testing andtechnology with recommended web links (pp. 515-517) such as www.smartthinking.com, whichprovides tutoring and digital whiteboards, andTestU (www.testu.com/), which offers diagnosticpretests. Evidently some districts and states aremaking these services available to students withoutcost, but I am cautious about the wisdom ofpromoting commercial outlets in textbooks. Also ofinterest is computer adaptive testing, a system thatadjusts type and difficulty of questions based onearlier responses. Video games have honedexpectations for immediate feedback andprogressive levels of difficulty as the player canhandle them, and adaptive testing systems mirrorthis capacity of games. In the final section ofChapter 15, the authors offer six directives on howto use standardized tests. As in other textsdiscussed, they emphasize that test scores are onlyone piece of information about students and that asa teacher, you are committed to using test scoresnot to classify students, but to help them learn.

Woolfolk

In Woolfolk’s (2005) Active Learning Edition ofEducational Psychology, the edition I used for thisanalysis, the terms "Cluster" and "Module" are usedas organizers rather than "Chapter," so I willconsider her Modules 41 and 42 as a unit tocompare with others’ chapters on classroomassessment; and her Modules 39 and 40 asanother unit to compare with chapters onstandardized testing.

Module 39, Definitions and Concepts, beginsthis way: "All teaching involves evaluation. At theheart of evaluation is judgment, making decisionsbased on values" (p. 504). I think Woolfolk gets theoverall conceptual framework right here, as readersare guided to think about how norm-referenced orcriterion-referenced tests create value to educators'work. I love the way she gives us a set of raw data(p. 506) and then lets the learner constructmeanings around finding the mean, median, and



mode, demonstrating how these measures canmean different things, given different scenarios.

Concepts such as standard deviation (SD) arediscussed in depth, including providing the formulafor establishing SD on a set of scores (no otherbook provided detailed mathematical models), andexplaining why SD is important in understandingscores. Unlike Ormrod (2003), who provides visualsof actual standardized test printouts, Woolfolk relieson more traditional normal curve graphs to show aset of scores and how they fall on the curve. I feltthat Woolfolk's explanation of confidence intervalsmade good sense for preservice teachers, whooften think of scores as discrete points on acontinuum.

Challenges to construct-related evidence forvalidity are discussed, and it is emphasized thatdata is gathered over years to establish constructvalidity. In the feature called "Guidelines" Woolfolklists five principles for increasing reliability andvalidity with multiple prompts under each heading;this reminded me of the information in theSnowman & Biehler (2006) chapter and is evidenceof efforts to bridge theory and practice. Woolfolkmore than the others continually brings thestudent's gaze outward into the larger communityby using "Family and Community Partnership"boxes.

Module 40, called Standardized Tests, coversachievement, diagnostic, and aptitude tests as wellas accountability issues and testing of teachers.Value added information in this short moduleincludes Table 40.1 that compares features on fivefrequently used tests: Iowa Basic, MAT-7, SAT-9,TerraNova CAT, and TerraNova CTBS; websiteswhere more information is available are listed.Table 40.2 describes the testing programs for ninestates (again with web site support links). Beginningteachers are too often clueless about what teststheir district uses and why. A final value addedfeature is the "Guidelines: Accommodations inTesting" (p. 531) that lays out a whole page ofdetailed suggestions under specific needs such assetting, timing, scheduling, presentation andresponse accommodations. Both modules readsmoothly and strike me as particularly thoughtfuland reflective.

issue of testing teachers is handled as aPoint/Counterpoint box with both sides, pro andcon, making their best argument. A list of ten ideasfor testing programs (p. 525) argues for such thingsas matching the district standards, being part of a

larger plan, testing complex thinking, and providingalternative assessment strategies and opportunitiesfor retesting when the stakes are high. The list goeson to say that assessment systems should includeall students, provide appropriate remediation,assure that students have adequate opportunity tolearn content, and take into account the student'slanguage. Good advice is "Use test results forchildren, not against them" (Haladyna, 2002).

TEACHER ASSESSMENT OF CLASSROOM

LEARNING: TOOLS AND PRACTICE

This next section on classroom assessment oflearning will also go through the four texts inalphabetical order, similar to the previous sectionon high-stakes testing. Table 2 looks at the numberof references used by each author and Table 3 liststhe Table of Contents for two texts so the readercan get a quick overview of how they generallyalign. As I reviewed the Tables of Contents for allfour texts, I found more variation in choice ofmaterial for the classroom assessment chaptersthan for the standardized testing chapters, yet allfour texts do cover the basic topics of formative andsummative assessment, traditional paper/pencil andperformance evaluations, portfolios, and norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced testing. Asindicated in Table 2 below, these chapters run from35 to 50 pages of text and have 80 to 105references to support and explain their content.

Although Woolfolk’s (2005) Modules 39 and 40include fewer research references (39) than Eggen& Kauchak (2004) (64), Ormrod (2003) (69), orSnowman & Biehler (2006) (67), Woolfolk doesinclude the full citation for each article in the marginrather than at the end of the book. I like thisbecause it encourages students to pay moreattention to where the cited material originates.Often there are a group of articles in a specialjournal edition highlighted this way.

Eggen & Kauchak

Eggen & Kauchak’s chapter on classroomassessment starts with a case study of a fourthgrade teacher who, on the basis of a pretest onfractions (which is included so we can see studentwork), decides to begin teaching on equivalentfractions using consumable chocolate wrappedcandies as her manipulatives. Her post-test thenshows her students’ success in learning. With 105references in a 47-page chapter, these authorsdraw on literature from the past two decades to lookclosely at classroom assessment and best



practices. I agree with their assertion that manyteachers do not have a strong knowledge base andlack confidence in their assessment practices. Newteachers rank assessment fourth, behind classroommanagement, motivation, and dealing withindividual differences, as a problem area(Veenman, 1984). That Veenman’s findings are still

relevant was confirmed for me recently when acolleague shared a conversation she had had withan elementary teacher about how perhapshomework should not count for such a highpercentage of class points. The teacher replied, "If Ido not count homework, what will I grade on?”. . . adiscouraging moment for a teacher educator.

TABLE 2:

NUMBER OF CITED REFERENCES INCLUDED BY CHAPTER AND AUTHOR

(Shaded areas represent classroom assessment chapters)

Author Chapter Title No. of References. No. of Pages

Paul Eggen,Don Kauchak

CH 14: Assessing Classroom Learning 105 47

CH 15: Assessment through Standardized Testing 64 27

(totals) 169 74

Jeanne EllisOrmrod

CH 15: Basic Concepts and Issues in Assessment 69 41

CH 16: Classroom Assessment Strategies 89 39

(totals) 158 80

Jack Snowman,Robert Biehler

CH 14: Assessment of Classroom Learning 80 35

CH 15: Understanding and Using Standardized Tests 67 29

(totals) 147 64

Anita Woolfolk Cluster 14: Evaluation, Measurement, and Assessment

Modules 39 and 40Definitions/Concepts & Stan. Tests

31 31

Modules 41 and 42 Traditional Approaches &Innovations in Classroom Assessment

60 31

(totals) 91 62

The purpose of assessment is framed by Eggen& Kauchak in terms of (a) increasing learning, and(b) increasing motivation: "Frequent assessment,linked to well-planned goals, encourages studentsto pace themselves and keep up with their studies"(Eggen-Kauchak, p. 495).

Measurement is defined as "the process ofgathering information about learning" andevaluation as "the process of making decisions onthe basis of measurements" (p. 495). Figure 14.1(p. 496) lists both traditional formats (true-false,

multiple choice, matching, fill in blank, short answer,paragraph response to specific or open-endedquestions, and essay) and alternative formats(performance task, timed trial, exhibition, reflectivejournal, oral presentation, collaborative project,audiovisual presentation, debate, and simulation)(cited from Cheek, 1993, pp. 6-10). The authorsalso caution teachers against bias in grading,particularly in the early grades where personality,appearance, neatness, etc. might swayassumptions about quality of work.



TABLE 3

OUTLINES OF TWO CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT CHAPTERS

EGGEN & KAUCHAK (2004)

CH 14: ASSESSING CLASSROOM LEARNING

1) Classroom assessment (CA)a) Functions of CAb) Measurement and evaluation

i) Formal and informal measurementii) The need for systematic assessment

c) Validity: making appropriate evaluation decisionsd) Reliability: consistency in measurement

2) Traditional assessment strategiesa) Teachers' assessment patternsb) Valid test itemsc) Constructing valid test items: instructional strategies

i) Multiple-choice itemsii) Matching itemsiii) True-false itemsiv) Completion itemsv) Essay tests: measuring complex outcomesvi) Using rubrics

d) Commercially prepared test items3) Alternative assessment

a) Performance assessment (PA)b) Designing pa: instructional strategies

i) Specifying the type of performanceii) Selecting the focus of assessmentiii) Structuring the evaluation settingiv) Designing evaluation proceduresv) Performance evaluation strategies

c) Portfoliosd) Putting traditional & alternative assessments into

perspective4) Effective assessment practices: instructional strategies

a) Planning for assessmenti) Tables of specification: increasing validity

through planningb) Preparing students for assessments

i) Teaching test-taking strategiesii) Reducing test anxietyiii) Specific test-preparation procedures

c) Administering assessmentsd) Analyzing resultse) Accommodating diversity in classrooms: reducing

bias in assessmenti) Carefully wording itemsii) Making provisions for non-native speakersiii) Accommodating diversity in scoring

5) Grading and reporting: the total assessment systema) Designing a grading system

i) Formative and summative evaluationii) Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced

evaluationsiii) Tests and quizzesiv) Alternative assessmentsv) Homework

b) Assigning grades: increasing learning and motivationi) Raw points or percentages?

c) Technology and learning: using technology to improveassessmenti) Planning and constructing testsii) Analyzing test dataiii) Maintaining student records

6) Technology and portfolios

SNOWMAN & BIEHLER (2006)

CH 14: ASSESSMENT OF CLASSROOM LEARNING

1) The role of assessment in teachinga) What is assessment?

i) Measurementii) Evaluation

b) Why should we assess students' learning?i) Summative evaluationii) Formative evaluationiii) Diagnosisiv) Effects on learning

2) Ways to Measure Student Learninga) Written tests

(for each category Characteristics, Advantages,&Disadvantages)i) Selected response testsii) Short-answer testsiii) Essay testsiv) Constructing a useful test

b) Performance Tests (PT)i) What are PTs?ii) Types of PTs

(1) Direct writing assessments(2) Portfolios(3) Exhibitions(4) Demonstrations(5) Characteristics of PT

iii) Emphasis on active respondingiv) Degree of realismv) Emphasis on complex problemsvi) Close relationship b/t teaching and testingvii) Use of scoring rubricsviii) Use of formative evaluationix) Responsiveness to cultural diversity

(1) Some concerns about performance assessment3) Ways to Evaluate Student Learning

a) Norm-referenced grading (nature, strengths, weaknesses)b) Criterion-referenced grading (nature, strengths, weaknesses,

mastery approach)4) Improving your Grading Methods: Assessment Practices to Avoid5) Technology for Classroom Assessment

a) Electronic grade books and grading programsb) Technology-based Performance Assessmentc) Digital Portfoliosd) Performance and Portfolio Assessment Problems

6) Effective Assessment Techniques



On the other hand, I felt Eggen & Kauchak’ssections on validity and reliability exhibited apatronizing tone toward teachers, as if theyroutinely graded on "appearance rather thansubstance" (p. 497). The feel of the prose is that theteacher is "other," but if teachers will only "look forways to improve" and "conscientiously revise items"they may be able to develop the recommended"reflective attitude" the authors say is “needed forsuccess.” Figure 14.3, “Characteristics of teacher-made tests,” lists six common flaws of teacher-made items. The authors attribute these commonfailings to the fact that teachers respond tocomplexity by simplifying their work, use completionand matching items which are the easiest to grade,resist revising items, and avoid essays that takemore time to grade (p. 499-500). I find this attitudetoo global and sweeping and not particularymotivating in terms of helping new teachersimprove. Eggen & Kauchak state that

All teachers, elementary and secondary,lack confidence in their ability to write goodtest items and use assessment to improvelearning. . . Because of inadequate training,teachers frequently have difficulty writingclear and precise items at a level aboveknowledge and recall. (p. 500)

Although several studies are cited to supportthese assertions, the tone still feels a bit hostile.That being said, the authors do go on to givespecific concrete suggestions for how to go aboutcomposing good test items that are helpful, thoughother authors still do a better job, I think, of givingreaders applied examples for this content.

This chapter in Eggen & Kauchak also includeslinks to additional technology, such as videos onteachers use of rubrics. A value-added portion ofthis section involves sharing the Oregon Six TraitsWriting Rubric: ideas, organization, voice, wordchoice, sentence fluency, and conventions. Eggen& Kauchak cite Airasian (2000) when listingcautions about using textbook pre-made tests (p.509), agreeing with him that alignment with learninggoals and classroom events must be the priority inassessment. To get a comparative overview of thetable of contents for two of the texts (Eggen &Kauchak (2004) and Snowman & Biehler (2006)), Ihave included a list that show detailed topics for theteacher assessment chapters.

In Eggen & Kauchak, seven pages are devotedto alternative assessment methods, slightly fewerthan the 11 pages on traditional assessment, but

substantial nonetheless, with several Figuresshowing sample evaluation tools. Performanceassessment connected with constructivist beliefsabout learning as holistic and the concern thattraditional testing does not encourage higher orderthinking. The marginal questions in this chapter,however, remain unhelpful on the critical andcreative thinking barometer; for example, onereads, "Are essay i tems performanceassessments? Defend your answer, using theinformation from this section" (p. 511).

The information on designing evaluationprocedures, including systematic observation,checklists, and rating scales, is somewhat helpfulbut a bit abstract for preservice teachers to getexcited about. The portfolio section is not extensivebut does emphasize the involvement of students inevaluating their own work to encourage reflectiveand metacognitive development, a position I totallysupport. After listing the pros and cons ofalternative assessments using multiple citations foreach point raised, the authors conclude that,"assessment isn't as simple as it appears on thesurface; effective measurement and evaluationrequire sensitive and intelligent teachers" (p. 518)."Classroom Connections", a feature to connecttheory and practice, lists three important ways toinsure valid and reliable instruments with examplesprovided for each level of schooling. Thesuggestions include these points: (1) Increasevalidity through careful planning prior toassessment; (2) Use alternate assessments toincrease validity; and (3) Use portfolios andperformance assessments to develop learner self-regulation (p. 518).

Most of the texts in this study refer to theconcept of building matrices to insure that testsalign with the learning goals and covered subjectmatter, but Eggen & Kauchak go further to developexplicit ideas on how to build a table ofspecifications, including providing a sample table.They reconnect us with the fourth grade class wemet at the beginning of the chapter to learn moreabout how the teacher has prepared the kids totake the test on fractions and how she administersthe test. Demystifying testing for students meansexplaining to them why this test format was chosenfor this particular material, how to best study for thetest, and how the test will be scored. It amazes methat, even in excellent schools, teachers fail toscaffold these minimal criteria for success. Testanxiety in our culture is understandably high, giventhe paranoia over high stakes test results and what



they mean for a person's identity and futureeducational opportunities. Eggen & Kauchakcontinue to draw on this case as they discussanalyzing test results. I feel this whole section, withits connection to an actual case study, is strong andraises many issues that will be faced by teachers.

Although the modifications to testingprocedures suggested in relation to diversity issuesseem reasonable, Eggen & Kauchak gloss over thelarger contextual reasons why students of coloroften experience weaker teachers, less homesupport, and less affirmation of themselves aslearners. Carefully wording items, makingprovisions for non-native English speakers, andaccommodating diversity in scoring (breaking apartcontent knowledge, problem-solving and the abilityto use language) do not suffice to address thesocial justice issues that create an uneven playingfield for many children in our wealthy nation.

The final section of the chapter is on gradingand reporting as part of a total assessment system.This introduces sections on formative andsummative, norm-referenced and criterion-referenced evaluation tools. Eggen & Kauchak statethat norm referencing is "virtually non-existent inelementary schools and rarely seen in middle andsecondary schools" (p. 529); I feel the othertextbooks in this study offer a more realistic critiqueof common classroom norm-referenced testingpractices, including the ubiquitous practice of“grading on the curve”. Woolfolk (2005), forexample, begins her chapter with an in-classassignment for groups to design a grading systemfor a grade or subject area and defend it to peers.Transfer is not likely unless we build in applied useof concepts.

The "Assigning grades: Increasing leaning andmotivation" (p. 530) section in Eggen & Kauchukincludes another case study, comparing a mathteacher's and science teacher's approach toweighting tests, quizzes, homework, performance,and projects. The danger of converting assignmentsof unequal value to a percent grade and thenaveraging those percents is clearly laid out. Thechapter closes with a "Windows on Classrooms"case study followed by two Praxis preparationexercises: (1) constructed response questions onthis final case and (2) a document-based analysisof the first case. These exercises are well-designedto provoke higher level thinking and authenticdialogue when students share responses, while thePraxis connection seems to appear across all thePearson published texts in some form.

Ormrod

The opening case study in Ormrod’s (2003) textshows two students, Ellen and Rosyln, studying fora geography test on the same chapter, but for twodifferent teachers: one who emphasizes facts, theother who is a constructivist teacher looking forknowledge application on the test. Assessment inclassrooms is approached through the processes ofcognition and metacognition. The RSVP ideamentioned earlier (Reliability, Standardization,Validity and Practicality) appears again as amnemonic to organize Ormrod's sections on bothinformal and formal assessments. Samples ofstudent work are sprinkled throughout the chapter,and the various analyses of teacher responsescontinually showcase issues of how teachers’perceptions and assumptions might distort theirevaluation of student work – a problem dealt with inmore judgmental language by Eggen & Kauchak.

In describing the “halo effect” Ormrod cites aDarley & Gross (1983) study that hadundergraduates evaluate a video of a fourth gradegirl's oral achievement test based on severalcriteria. In one condition the undergraduates hadbeen made to believe the girl was from a low SESfamily; in another that she had high SES. Thosewho believed she had high status rated her aboveaverage; those who believed her to have low statusrated the same performance as below average. Weneed to continually bring such studies to students'attention because the implications for all of us areenormous.

Ormrod’s section on how to construct paper-pencil assessments is outstanding, detailed,thoughtful, and full of essential information forteachers to know and practice. In a recent article,Ormrod (2005) discussed her reasons for using somany student and teacher artifacts in her newedition:

Artifacts not only make such concepts[learning and cognition, effects of priorknowledge, metacognition and self-regulation, motivation, affect, andinstructional strategies] more concrete forfuture teachers but also situate theconcepts in actual classroom tasks andactivities. (p. 217). (bracketed materialadded)

The many ways that test items canmisrepresent the real question we want to ask isdocumented with lots of examples for each type of



test item. A brief fill-in-the-blank item on Chapter 15is given to help students experience the frustrationof how sentences out of context can have morethan one word that is appropriate (p. 562). It isimportant to show both positive and negativeexemplars of test questions and to give reasons forwhat is right or wrong about them. This is newterrain for many students despite sixteen years ofschooling.

Analyzing the many hand-written stories andteacher-made test examples included by Ormrodengages preservice teachers in imaginingthemselves in the role of teacher, I believe. Seeingactual student work makes the day-to-day job ofworking with young people more accessible andincreases motivation to learn the concepts involvedin the analysis. I have mixed feelings, however,about Ormrod's advice, to assess writing skills"separately from the content of students' responsesto the extent possible" (p. 568). I think opportunityfor revision might be appropriate at times, but it isimportant for students to know that form does countas well as content. Detailed feedback, of course,can turn an evaluation into a teachable moment.

Ormrod includes a well-developed section onperformance assessment, including design,choosing activities, and evaluating outcomes. Indiscussing individual versus group performance,she offers a field-based cooperative group projectthat will help high school students "think as anurban planner would think" (Newmann, 1997 inOrmrod, p. 572). She links the concept of dynamicassessment to Vygotsky's notion of the zone ofproximal development, in which a child is providedinstruction within the potential developmental levelrather than at the actual independent level.According to Vygotsky, learning pulls developmentalong, and individual children can stretch theirminds with help from a more knowledgeable otherto wrestle with various degrees of conceptualknowing. Ideas unfurl over time as children growinto the use of cultural tools of knowing. There aredefinite limits to what testing can accomplish, butpreservice teachers need to have an up-to-datetoolbox to be effective. I feel Ormrod’s section onhow to score student responses offers solutions tosome of Eggen's & Kauchak's (2004) concernsabout the reliability and validity of alternativeperformance evaluations. Citing Stiggins (2001) andThorndike (1997), Ormrod reiterates that usingmore than one rater to evaluate a student'sperformance is a good idea (if sometimesunrealistic because of overloaded teacher-days).Probably the closest approximation is to have

students evaluate peers with a rubric to confirmwhat the teacher saw or to raise other points.Throughout the chapter, Ormrod encouragesinvolving students in assessing their own work,others’ work, and teacher pedagogy – always agood idea.

The only author to discuss item analysis at anylength, Ormrod provides the formula for itemdiscrimination that will tell a teacher if the item helpsdistinguish high scorers from low scorers (internalconsistency reliability). Learning how to assess andgrade well has moral implications as students,teachers, and districts continue to be judged bytesting outcomes. Ormrod advocates for criterion,not norm-referenced testing, in high school andcautions teachers about assigning credit forimprovement or effort. I agree with her that extracredit has to be offered equitably to all students andshould be used very sparingly as an option.

In the final section on diversity, Ormrod reviewsinformation from earlier chapters on gender, raceand ethnicity and includes a large table withsuggestions for assessing students with specialeducational needs. I came away from Ormrod’schapter with a sense of organized and practicalinformation that reflects respect for the P-12students as well as a realistic understanding of theknowledge base of traditional preservice teachers.

Snowman & Biehler

From the outset, the goals for assessment inSnowman's & Biehler's chapter are clearly indicatedas a two-fold process: "using teacher-mademeasures to assess mastery of the teacher'sspecific objectives and using professionallyprepared standardized tests to measure the extentof a student's general knowledge base andaptitudes" (p. 455). I confess that the way thesegoals are expressed made me wonder if theauthors are implying that teacher tests are notconsidered "professional" because they are notdesigned by statisticians.

Under "Ways to Measure Student Learning,"the first point says, "Written tests measure degreeof knowledge about a subject" (p. 455). Although Ibelieve strongly in the importance of assessmentfor learning, I feel Snowman & Biehler reflect oursociety’s tendency toward a concept of learning thatfocuses almost exclusively on the individual learner,rather than the complex cultural social system thatassigns by subtle cues the role of non-learner tosome groups of children. We have to be very



skeptical and organize multiple strategies forassessment so we do not misdiagnose anystudent’s will and talent to learn.

Snowman & Biehler lay out four reasons toassess: summative (clear feedback on performancelevel), formative (monitor progress, remediate),diagnosis (find out what is interfering with learning),and effects of learning (increases positiveoutcomes) (pp. 457-58). The many formats fortesting are then enumerated by listing theircharacteristics, advantages and disadvantages.Using Popham's (2003) frame, Snowman & Biehlerdiscuss attributes of a useful classroom test:s ign i f i cance , teachabil ity, describabil ity,reportability, and nonintrusiveness. Like Ormrod(2003), they offer the reader fairly detailedinformation on performance evaluations (eightpages versus three on traditional formats).Examples and models are provided to clarifyconcepts. Statements such as, "Students withlearning disabilities are likely to experience thegreatest benefit from being given a scoring rubricand being shown how to use it" (Jackson & Larkin,2002), reveal a general sense of advocacy andfairness toward students.

I am always glad to read texts thatacknowledge that "meaningful learning occurswithin a cultural context with which one is familiarand comfortable" (p. 466). While Snowman &Biehler argue for a closer relationship betweeninstruction and assessment, they open their chapteroutline with a claim that traditional written tests arevalid measures of learning and that we needstandardized tests by professionals to measuregeneral base knowledge. For me theseperspectives seem somewhat contradictory inwarrant. Two empirical studies by Supovitz &Brennan, (1997) and Supovitz (1998) are cited asevidence for increased achievement by minoritychildren on performance tests such as portfoliosover standard paper-and-pencil tests. While listingconcerns about performance assessments fromsome quarters, Snowman & Biehler comment thatwith this sort of testing "a teacher becomes more ofa collaborator and facilitator than a gatekeeper" (p.467). This made me think of Ormrod's (2003) ideasabout Vygotsky's ZPD and dynamic assessmentsystems. If learning is the ultimate goal, whichteacher role will best bring individual childrenforward developmentally? I guess I would argue itdepends on context. At any rate, the section endsby cajoling readers to sign up for an electivemeasurement course in their programs.

In their section about ways to evaluate studentlearning, Snowman & Biehler lay out the usual normversus criterion-referenced arguments. Theirexamples arouse readers' sympathy for the built-inpros and cons of all testing formats. The overallmessage continues to be that complex assessmentstrategies can support better learning for allstudents. I like better the way Ormrod (2003) laysout the many differing purposes of assessment.Assessments can be motivators, mechanisms forreview, learning experiences, or feedback topromote learning. Assessment practices can alsoguide instructional decision-making, diagnoselearning and performance problems, promote self-regulation, and determine what students havelearned (pp.514-517). With such a range ofapplications, it becomes clear why a deepknowledge base about assessment is critical forteachers.

Snowman & Biehler also comment on the ironyof some common responses to a mastery approachto learning, such as accusing teachers of ‘dumbingdown’ curriculum and lowering standards, whenthey allow students to continue to work towardsdefined levels of success (p. 473). The detailed 14-point guide on how to set up a mastery learningclassroom is practical and useful.

Snowman & Biehler's Chapter 14, on “avoidingpitfalls” in grading, is a value-added feature. Theseauthors pull no punches as they talk about"worshipping averages" and "using zeroesindiscriminately.” Their fervor in denouncing suchunprofessional practices almost seem to be aproduct of personal encounters with poorassessment practices. Taking Snowman & Biehler'slitany of mistakes to heart could make a bigdifference for future teachers.

Another value-added feature of this text is thesection on ways to integrate technology into theassessment process: e.g. electronic grade books,technology-based performance assessments,simulations, hypermedia, web quests, digitalportfolios, and/or digital rubrics (Niguidula, 2005).The web sites and shared free teacher tools forgrading, making rubrics, etc., seem useful, but maybe hard to keep up-to-date, although publishers aregetting better at having hotlinks as part of the onlinesupport packages.

The applied "Suggestions for Teaching in YourClassroom" feature provides a seven-page re-capthat lists seven effective assessment techniqueswith exemplars and bulleted indicators.



For students to effectively plan howthey will master your objectives, they needto know as early as possible how manytests they will have to take, when the testswill occur, what types of items each test willcontain, and what content they will betested on. (p. 483)

As mentioned earlier, Snowman & Biehler alsothoroughly cover the table of specifications conceptas a way to plan tests to align with goals and classcontent.

Woolfolk

The title of Woolfolk’s Module 41, "Getting themost from traditional assessment approaches:Testing and grading" seems to recognize thepersistence of paper-and-pencil tests in schools.Why do teachers hold fast to the model of fill in theblanks and matching? I have known cases where atest came out of a co-operating teacher's files to beduplicated exactly by a student teacher becausethere was no electronic copy to modify. Suchexperiences seem to convey a belief that,regardless of how the curricular inputs mightchange, the instrument to test outcomes can remainfixed and static. Before we chastise teachers,however, we need to examine the demands of theirwork and the lack of collaborative time for them todevelop and refine lessons. As mentioned before,Eggen & Kauchak (2004) implied that the path ofleast resistance is normative when it comes toassessment design, but I think that if school culturebetter supported professional development andcollaboration in the assessment area, manyteachers would gladly improve their assessmentpractices.

Woolfolk's textbook has value added featuressuch as "Connect & Extend" marginal boxes thatcontinually link the content to the Teaching Portfolioand Praxis test. The chapter begins with anexcellent "Teachers' Casebook" selection that asksstudents to identify what assignments and projectsthey would develop for a grade and asks them insmall groups to develop a class handbookdescribing the grading policy. Such critical thinkingactivities go beyond probing prior knowledge intoconstructing new knowledge by problem-solving.

After discussing the characteristics of formativeand summative assessments, Woolfolk lays outexamples of good and bad test questions toillustrate the directives given for design. In an even-handed way, she charts the pros and cons of each

type of test item. The value-added part of herchapter for me was her portrayal of the effects offailure on students: "Students receiving low gradesare more likely to withdraw, blame others, decidethat the work is "dumb" or feel responsible for thelow grade but helpless to make improvements" (p.542), and the very different effects of constructivefeedback. Four questions are identified to guideteacher comments: "What is the key error? What isthe probable reason the student made this error?How can I guide the student to avoid the error in thefuture? What did the student do well that could benoted?" (p. 541). Although these questions seemobvious, they too often get obscured in educationaljargon.

Woolfolk, like others, comments on the negativeuse of percentage averaging and how remarkablyresistant to change this practice has become,despite the availability of better methods of scoring.I think Woolfolk is the only one to explain thecontract system of grading. The "Guidelines" box onUsing Any Grading System also has a nicesummary of issues to consider including "giving thestudent the benefit of the doubt" (p. 547), a hardlesson for new teachers to learn. Like Ormrod(2003), Woolfolk always includes material onworking with special needs populations and talksabout the FERPA and Educational AmendmentActs of 1974 in terms of open communication withfamilies. Families and communities must becultivated as allies, not transformed into adversariesbecause they question or challenge educationalpractices.

Woolfolk begins her final Module onassessment by posing a question to the readerabout a new teacher interviewing at an innovativeschool and being asked what they know aboutusing portfolios, performances, projects, and rubricsto assess learning. I worry that many of ourstudents, judging from their electronic portfolios,would not be able to articulate the benefits andexecution of such systems. Woolfolk includes aPoint/Counterpoint box from Wiggins (1991) toargue both sides of the traditional versus authenticassessment debate. She also shares a personalstory about her advocacy as a graduate student foralternative doctoral comprehensive exams. Manysample rubrics and guideline lists are pepperedthroughout this chapter. In regards to diversity,there is not much space devoted to the topic butrelated issues are discussed and linked to equity ofopportunity and support.



Overall Woolfolk seems knowledgeable aboutthe latest developments in assessment but shedoes not use citations as extensively as some ofthe other authors when developing her points onthis topic. There are many design features withinthese modules that have solid information, butModule 42 seems a bit fragmented with so manyinterruptions to the eye. The choice of content andstyle suggest that Woolfolk herself might be more infavor of newer authentic assessments than some ofthe other authors considered here.

SAME IDEAS BUT FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES

After listing all the references for each chapter, Isorted them alphabetically, expecting to see a fairamount of overlap. I had noticed the reliance on acore of authors who were referenced across texts.In the chapters on standardized testing, however,the only identical reference I found in all four textswas Linn & Gronlund (2000). Various articles byPopham (1990; 1993; 1995; 1998; 2000; 2001;2002; 2003) and Airasian (1996; 2000; 2001) arefrequently cited. At least two authors used Heubert& Hauser (1999), Anastasi & Urbina (1997), Olson(2000; 2001; 2002; 2003), and Messick (1989).

For the chapters on Classroom Assessmentsthe alignment of referenced texts was no stronger.Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik (1991) are cited inall four texts as is Airasian but for different articles(1994; 2000; 2001). Gronlund too shows up in thefour studied texts (1988; 1993; 1998; 2003).Popham’s work is regularly cited from a variety ofreferences (1990; 1995; 2001; 2002; 2003) as isStiggins (1992; 2001; 2002). Haladyna is mentionedin three texts with differing co-authors (2001; 2002),as is Guskey (2001; 2002; 2003). Pintrich & Schunk(2002) show up in two classroom assessmentchapters. As Table 2 shows there is a fair range inthe number of citations across chapters. Yet with atotal of some 573 authors cited, some many timesin a single chapter, over these eight chapters onassessment, only a handful of overlapping citationsamong these texts could be documented.

This phenomenon may be worth more study,since the field of education is often accused oflacking a cohesive set of findings shared by thediscipline. Given that the topics in the chapters doalign fairly closely, it is worth noting that theopinions and facts presented draw on substantiallydivergent readings. To confirm this lack of overlap, Itried to combine the authors used by each authoracross the two chapters, to see if the broader frame

of assessment might make the common texts morevisible, but the patterns were similar.

What might account for the uniqueness of themajority of the references cited by individualauthors? Are some more aligned with APA literatureand others more in tune with AERA publications?Are there just so many refereed journals ineducation that we cannot possibly remain current inall venues relating to a topic? The idiosyncraticnature of the knowledge base that supports ourcorpus of knowledge about assessment ineducational psychology may be a matter or concernor celebration, but I think it is an area that needsfurther examination.

SUMMING UP

This qualitative analysis of four populareducational psychology texts posed the followingquestions: How well do the authors translate theoryinto applied practices? How do they represent ideasabout evaluation and assessment in an era of highstakes accountability? What theoretical orientationis revealed in the choice of material to include orexclude? What research do they cite to supportassertions made? Are there substantial differencesamong the four texts in content or message?

My interpretive analysis suggests that thesepopular texts have a similar scope of topics, butwith varying degrees of elaboration. Each textstrikes a somewhat different tone that indicatessome differing values and perspectives onassessment. Eggen & Kauchak (2004) seem themost positivistic in their beliefs about the meaningof statistically sound test scores, while Woolfolk(2005) probably represents the most socialconstructivist perspective. Although Ormrod (2003)remains fairly individualistic in her psychologicaltheory of learning, she is probably the best forscaffolding student learning through structure anddetailed supportive learning tools; I would give herchapters high marks for ‘walking the talk’ so tospeak. Snowman & Biehler (2006) begin theirchapters by asserting a strong belief in traditionalassessment, but they also demonstrate awarenessof recent critiques of standardized assessmentsand present a balanced picture on controversialissues.

Overall, the two assessment chapters in thefour texts represent 11-13.5% of the total textcontent, a substantial increase from Snowman's1997 mean of only 8.2%. This is not surprising



since NCLB legislation in 2001 has brought a laser-like focus on assessment and accountability issuesin schools.

Theory-to-practice efforts are clear in all thebooks; however, I came away thinking that Woolfolk(2005) and Ormrod (2003) make such links moreexplicit and understandable, suggesting activities tohelp students understand how to apply educationalpsychology insights in a real world. Everyone butSnowman & Biehler (2006) opens their chapterswith case studies; Eggen & Kauchak (2004) evendraw on an initial case throughout the chapter asnew ideas are introduced.

At the end of the day, I feel all four texts haveunique value-added content as well as somestrengths and weaknesses in their choice ofmaterial, tone of delivery, organization of supports,and theory to practice bridges. I conclude thatcoverage of assessment topics is not radicallydifferent across these texts, but the spin and degreeof elaboration on a topic definitely reveals somecritical variation in intent, beliefs, practitionerorientation, and theoretical framework. Assessmentpractice should be integral to a teacher's thinkingabout learning because close observation andreflection on the results of both informal and formalassessments can be powerful tools for improvingteaching practice and student learning. Additionally,the goals and instructional design of learning unitsmust be carefully aligned with assessmentprocedures. Too often classroom assessmentsshow stronger correlations with literacy levels and

test-taking skills than actual content mastery of thecurriculum. Another problem to avoid is gradingdisproportionately on form rather than intellectualrigor. Without sophisticated assessment, targetingdifferentiated instruction to meet individual learninggoals cannot be achieved.

I recognize that the interpretive nature of myanalysis, based on topics that interested me, ispartial and subjective, yet I have tried to providetextual evidence for my claims and to attend to bothstrengths and weaknesses in each chapteranalyzed. I hope that reading this study provokesothers to do similar fine-grained analyses of othertopics in educational psychology textbooks in orderto help instructors identify books that will align withspecific goals and priorities.

If we could pick and choose sections frommultiple texts to create our “personal preference”educational psychology text (technology is alreadymaking this an option), we might benefit even morefrom parallel studies of different concepts to help usre-look at the texts we use, the reasons we usethem, the alignment of text content to teachinggoals, and the situated learning needs of ourstudents. Stimulating such conversations is thepurpose of this work as we continue to dialogueabout "best practices" in teaching educationalpsychology. All the authors of these four textbookshave my admiration and appreciation for their abilityto utilize a broad knowledge base to write acomprehensive textbook for the field.

REFERENCES

Airasian, P. (2000). Classroom assessment (3rded.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Amrein, A.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2002, March 28).High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and studentlearning. Educational Policy Analysis Archives,10(18). Retrieved May 25, 2022 fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.

Anderson, L. M. & Blumenfield, P. (1995).Educational psychology for teachers: Reformingour courses, rethinking our roles. EducationalPsychologist 30, 143-157.

Artiles, A. J. & Trent, S. C. (2000). From individualacquisition to cultural-historical practices inmulticultural teacher education. Remedial &Special Education 21(2), 79-91.

Baker, E. L., O’Neil, H. F., & Linn, R. L. (1993).Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessment. American Psychologist, 48,1212-1218.

Berliner, D. (1994). Making our schools moreeffective: Proceedings from three stateconferences. San Francisco: Far WestLaboratory.

Berliner, D. & Biddle,B.J. (1997). The manufacturedcrisis: Myths, frauds, and the attack onAmerica's public schools. White Plains, NY:Longman.

Berliner, D. & Calfee, R. (1996). Handbook ofEducational Psychology. New York: MacmillanLibrary Reference USA.



Bracey, G.W. (2002). The 12th Bracey report on thecondition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan,84(2) 135-150.

Bracey, G.W. (2003). The 13th Bracey report on thecondition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan,54(2) 148-164.

Brownlee, J., N. Purdie, et al. (2001). ChangingEpistemological Beliefs in Pre-service TeacherEducation Students. Teaching in HigherEducation 6(2): 247-268.

Chase, C. I. (1998). A Chat Room -EducationalPsychologists but No CurriculumMethodologists? Educational PsychologyReview 10(2): 239-248.

Cheek, D. (1993). Plain talk about alternativeassessment. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 6-10).

Cochran-Smith, M. & Fries, M.K. (2001). Sticks,stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform inteacher education. Educational Researcher,30(8), 3-15.

Darley, J.M. & Gross, P.H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33.

Ding, C. & Navarro, V. (2004). An examination ofstudent mathematics learning as assessed bySAT 9: A longitudinal look. Studies inEducational Evaluation 30, 237-253.

Educational Psychologist; Special Issue (1996;2001).

Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2004). EducationalPsychology: Windows on classrooms.Columbus, OH: Pearson, Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Feldhusen, J.F. (1977). Issues in teachingundergraduate educational psychology courses.In D. F. Treffinger, J.K. Davis, & R.E. Ripple(eds.), Handbook of Teaching EducationalPsychology. New York: Academic Press.

Foster, H & Iannaccone, C. (1994). Multiculturalcontent in special education introductorytextbooks. Journal of Special Education 28(1),77. Retrieved Saturday March 11, 2006 from theAcademic Search Premier database.

Haladyna, T.H. (2002). Essentials of standardizedachievement testing: validity and accountability.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hanick, L.B. & Deemer, S. (2005). The relevance ofeducational psychology in teacher educationprograms. Clearing House, 78 (5), pp.189-191.

Hoffman, D.H. & Elliott, S. (October 2, 1998). Webconferencing case dialogues: A supplement totraditional journal writing assignments ineducational psychology. Paper presented at theMidwest Association of Teachers of EducationalPsychology, Oxford, Ohio.

Jackson, C.W. & Larkin, M.J. (2002). Rubric:Teaching students to use grading rubrics.Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(1), 40-45.

Kiewra, K. A. & Gubbels, P.S. (1997). Areeducational psychology courses educationallyand psychologically sound? What textbooks andteachers say. Educational Psychology Review9(2): 121-148.

Knapp, N.F. ((2005). "They're not all like me!" Therole of educational psychology in preparingteachers for diversity. The Clearing House 78(5)202-206.

Madaus, G, F. (1991). The effects of importanttests on students: Implications for a NationalExamination System. Phi Delta Kappan, 73,226-231.

Medina, M.A., Morrone, A. & Anderson, J. (2005).Promoting social justice in an urban secondaryteacher education program. The Clearing House78(5), 207-212.

Navarro, V. & Marquez-Zenkov, K. (Eds.). (2005).Staying connected: Re-framing the contours ofpartnership work in education. An editedvolume of case study narratives on forming,sustaining, and celebrating school-universitycollaboration. Milwaukee, WI: Urban Network toImprove Teacher Education and The HolmesPartnership.

Niguidula, D. (2005). Documenting learning withdigital portfolios. Educational Leadership 63(3),44-47.

Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational Psychology:Developing learners. Columbus, OH: Pearson,Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Ormrod, J. (2005). Using student and teacherartifacts as case studies in educationalpsychology. The Clearing House78(5), 213-217.

Ormrod, J. (2006). Paper presented at the AmericanEducational Research Association Meeting, SanFrancisco, CA.

Perkins, D. (1994). Outsmarting IQ: The emergingscience of learnable intelligence. New York:Free Press.



Peterman, F. (Ed.). (2005). Designing PerformanceAssessment Systems for Urban TeacherPreparation. New York: Erlbaum.

Popham, W. J. (2003). The seductive allure of data.Educational Leadership, 60(5), 48-51.

Popham, W. J. (2005a). The age of compliance.Educational Leadership, 63(2), 84-85. RetrievedApril 21, 2006, from ERIC database.

Popham, W. J. (2005b). NAEP: Gold standard orfool's gold? Educational Leadership, 62(8), 79-81. Retrieved April 21, 2006, from ERICdatabase.

Ransom, J.C. (1979). The new criticism. Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.

Seifert, K. (2005). Learning about peers: A missedopportunity for educational psychology. TheClearing House 78 (5) 239-243.

Shepard, L. (1993). Evaluating test validity. In L.Darling-Hammond (Ed.). Review of Research inEducation, 19, 405-450. Washington, DC:AERA.

Shepard, L (2000). The role of assessment in alearning culture. Educational Researcher, 29 (7),4-14

Shepard, L. (2005). Linking formative assessment toscaffolding. Educational Leadership 63(3), 66-71.

Snowman, J. & Biehler, R. (2006). Psychologyapplied to teaching. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

Snowman, J. (1997). Educational psychology: Whatdo we teach? What should we teach?Educational Psychology Review 9(2). 151-169.

Supovitz, J. & Brennan, R.T. (Fall, 1997). Mirror,mirror on the wall, Which is the fairest test of all?An examination of the equitability of portfolioassessment relative to standardized tests.Harvard Educational Review 67(3), 472-506.

Supovitz, J. (1998). Gender and racial/ethnicdifferences on alternative science assessments.Journal of Women and Minorities in Science andEngineering, 4(2), 129-140.

Veenman, (1984). Perceived problems of beginningteachers. Review of Educational Research, 54,143-178.

Verdi, M. & Johnson, J. (2005). Teachingeducational psychology in an onlineenvironment. The Clearing House 78 (5), 235-238.

Wertsch, J. (2001). Voices of the mind: Asociocultural approach to mediated action.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Wiggins, G. (1991). Standards, not standardization:Evoking quality student work. EducationalLeadership, 48(5), 18-25.

Wininger, S.R. & Norman, A. D. (2005). Teachercandidates' exposure to formative assessment ineducational psychology textbooks: A contentanalysis. Educational Assessment 10(1). 19-37.

Woolfolk, A. (2005). Educational Psychology, 9th ed.Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

Worthen, B. (1993). Critical issue that will determinethe future of alternative assessment. Phi DeltaKappan, 74, 12-27.

Yanowitz, K. & Weathers, K. (2004). Do boys andgirls act differently in the classroom? A contentanalysis of student characters in educationalpsychology textbooks. Sex Roles 51(1/2), 101-108. Retrieved Saturday March 11, 2006 fromthe Academic Search Premier database.

Zechmeister, J. & Zechmeister, E. (2000).Introductory psychology textbooks: An objectiveanalysis. Teaching of Psychology, 27(1), 6-11.Retrieved Saturday March 11, 2006 from theAcademic Search Premier database.

Virginia Navarro, an Associate Professor in the Division of Teaching & Learning at the Universityof Missouri-St. Louis, currently chairs the Teaching Educational Psychology SIG for AERA. Shewrites about the social construction of identity, higher education teaching and learning, andschool/university partnership work. As Co-Director of a Career Transition program, Virginia preparesurban educators as advocates for youth within a social justice framework.

Documents

Four Textbooks on Assessment: A Qualitative Comparison · Four Textbooks on Assessment 3 Fall, 2006 Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:3 Snowman's suggestion that there should