AirasianP. W., and JonesA. M. (1993). The teacher as applied measurer: Realities of classroom measurement and assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 241—254.
2.
AndersonJ. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
AndersonL. W., KrathwohlD. R., AirasianP. W., CruikshankK. A., MayerR. E., PintrichP. R., RathsJ., and WittrockM. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
4.
BakerE. L. (1974). Formative evaluation of instruction. In and and PophamW.J. (Ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applications (pp. 531—585). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 123 239.).
5.
BakerE. L. (1997). Model-based performance assessment. Theory into Practice, 36(4), 247—254.
6.
BakerE. L. (1999, Summer). Technology: Something's coming–Something good. CRESST Policy Brief 2. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
7.
BakerE. L. (2000, May). Watching the watchers: Standards for accountability systems congressional briefing. Presentation at the Consortium for Policy Research in Education Congressional Briefing, Washington, DC.
BakerE. L., FreemanM., and ClaytonS. (1991). Cognitive assessment of history for large-scale testing. In WittrockM.C., and BakerE.L. (Eds.), Testing and cognition (pp. 131—153). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10.
BakerE. L., and HermanJ. L. (2003). A distributed evaluation model. In HaertelG., and MeansB. (Eds.), Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning (pp. 95—119). New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
BakerE. L., and LinnR. L. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In FuhrmanS., and ElmoreR. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 47—72). New York: Teachers College Press.
12.
BakerE. L., LinnR. L., HermanJ. L., and KoretzD. (2002, Winter). Standards for educational accountability systems. CRESST Policy Brief 5. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
13.
BakerE. L., and NiemiD. (2001). Assessments to support the transition to complex learning in science (Proposal to the National Science Foundation Interagency Education Research Initiative). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
14.
BallD. L., and BassH. (2001). What mathematical knowledge is entailed in teaching children to reason mathematically? In National Research Council, Knowing and learning mathematics for teaching: Proceedings of a workshop (pp. 26—34). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10050.html
15.
BassokM., and HolyoakK. J. (1989). Transfer of domain-specific problem solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 522—533.
16.
BlackP., and WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7—74.
17.
BloomB. S., EngelhartM. D., FurstE. J., HillW. H., and KrathwohlD. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of education goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David Mckay.
18.
BoscardinC. K. (2001). Strategies for early identification of students with reading difficulties using growth mixture models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
19.
CaseR. (1996). Reconceptualizing the nature of children's conceptual structures and their development in middle childhood. In R. Case & Y. Okamoto (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial 246, 61(1–2), 1—26.
20.
ChenA., MuntzR. R., YuenS., LocherI., ParkS. I., and SrivastavaM. B. (2002, April–June). A support infrastructure for the Smart Kindergarten. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 1(2), 49—57.
21.
ChiM. T. H., FeltovichP., and GlaserR. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121—152.
22.
ChiM. T. H., GlaserR., and FarrM. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
ChungG.K.W.K., DelacruzG. C., DionneG. B., and BewleyW. L. (2003). Linking assessment and instruction using ontologies. Proceedings of the I/ITSEC, 25, 1811—1822.
24.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Assessment of distance learning technology. In BakerE.L., and O'NeilH.F.Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 63—78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
CorbettA. T., and AndersonJ. R. (1992). LISP intelligent tutoring system: Research in skill acquisition. In LarkinJ.H., and ChabayR.W. (Eds.), Computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: Shared goals and complementary approaches (pp. 73—109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
CronbachL. J., and MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281—302.
28.
EricssonK. A. (2003). The search for general abilities and basic capacities: Theoretical implications from the modifiability and complexity of mechanisms mediating expert performance. In SternbergR.J., and GrigorenkoE.L. (Eds.), Perspectives on the psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 93—125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
GagnéR.M., and MedskerK. L. (1996). The conditions of learning. Training applications. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
30.
GlaserR. (1973). Educational psychology and education. American Psychologist, 23(7), 557—566.
31.
GlaserR., and KlausD. J. (1962). Proficiency measurement: Assessing human performance. In and and GagneR.M. (Ed.), Psychological principles in system development (pp. 419—474). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32.
GruberT. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 907—928.
33.
Hasegawa-JohnsonM., and AlwanA. (2002). Speech coding: Fundamentals and applications. In and and ProakisJ. (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of telecommunications (Vol. 5, pp. 2340—2359). New York: Wiley & Sons.
34.
HeritageH. M., and LeeJ. J. (2004, March). The Quality School Portfolio: A new web-based system to support data informed decisions. Presentation at the Secretary's (U.S. Department of Education) No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit, St. Louis, MO.
35.
HivelyW., PattersonH. L., and PageS. H. (1968). A “universe-defined” system of arithmetic achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 275—290.
36.
JensenF. V. (2001). Bayesian networks and decision graphs. New York: Springer-Verlag.
37.
KalyugaS., and SwellerJ. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 558—568.
38.
KoedingerK. R., and AndersonJ. R. (1998). Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 161—180.
39.
KoedingerK. R., and NathanM. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129—164.
40.
MarshallS. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
41.
MayerR. E. (2005). Multimedia strategies. In and and O'NeilH.F. (Ed.), What works in distance learning: Guidelines (pp. 7—23). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.
42.
MerrillM. D., and TennysonR. D. (1977). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
43.
MinstrellJ. (2000). Student thinking and related assessment: Creating a facet-based learning environment. In Committee on the Evaluation of National & State Assessments of Educational Progress, RajuN.S., PellegrinoJ.W., BertenthalM.W., MitchellK.J., and JonesL.R. (Eds.), Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Grading the nation's report card: Research from the evaluation of NAEP (pp. 44—73). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
44.
MislevyR. J., AlmondR. G., and SteinbergL. (1998). A note on knowledge-based model construction in educational assessment. CSE Technical Report 480. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
45.
MislevyR. J., ChudowskyN., DraneyK., FriedR., GaffneyT., HaertelG., HafterA., HamelL., KennedyC., LongK., MorrisonA. L., MurphyR., PenaP., QuellmalzE., RosenquistA., SongerN. B., SchankP., WenkA., and WilsonM. (2003). Design patterns for assessing science inquiry. PADI. Principled Assessment Designs for Inquiry (PADI Tech. Rep. 1). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved July 8, 2003, from http://padi.sri.com/downloads/TR1_Design_Patterns.pdf
46.
MunroA. (2004). Learning by doing in the context of distance learning about complex decisions. Presentation in the Technology Research Symposium Beyond Web Pages: Advanced Distributed Learning for Complex Training Environments at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
47.
MunroA., JohnsonM., PizziniQ., SurmonD., and WogulisJ. (n.d.). A tool for building simulation-based learning environments. Retrieved January 6, 2005, from http://btl.usc.edu/rides/shortPapers/bldsim.html
48.
MuthénB., KhooS. T., FrancisD. J., and BoscardinC. K. (2003). Analysis of reading skills development from kindergarten through first grade: An application of growth mixture modeling to sequential processes. In ReiseS.P., and DuanN. (Eds.), Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues and applications (pp. 71—89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49.
National Council on Education Standards and Testing. (1992). Raising standards for American education. A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American people. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
50.
NewellA. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
NiemiD. (1996). Assessing conceptual understanding in mathematics: Representations, problem solutions, justifications, and explanations. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 351—363.
52.
NiemiD. (1997). Cognitive science, expert-novice research, and performance assessment. Theory into Practice, 36(4), 239—246.
53.
NiemiD., ChungG.K.W.K., and BewleyW. L. (in press). Assessment design using ontologies: Linking assessment, content, and cognitive demands. Educational Assessment.
54.
NiemiD., VendlinskiT., and WangJ. (2004, November) Computer guided assessment design: Assessing students’ higher order thinking. Paper presented at the California Educational Research Association (CERA) 86th Annual Conference, Pasadena, CA.
55.
NormanD. A. (1981). Twelve issues for cognitive science. In and and NormanD.A. (Ed.), Perspectives on cognitive science (pp. 265—295). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
56.
NormanD. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
57.
NyquistJ. B. (2003, December). The benefits of reconstructing feedback as a larger system of formative assessment: A meta-analysis. Unpublished master's thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
58.
O'NeilH.F.Jr., WangS. L., ChungG.K.W.K., and HerlH. E. (2000). Assessment of teamwork skills using computer-based teamwork simulations. In O'NeilH.F.Jr., and AndrewsD.H. (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 245—276). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59.
PophamW. J. (1967). Development of a performance test of teaching proficiency. Los Angeles: University of California.
60.
ShepardL. A. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In and and RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1066—1101). Washington, DC: AERA.
61.
ShermisM. D., and BursteinJ. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62.
VanLehnK. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. In SpenceJ., DarlyJ., and FossD.J. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 513—539). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
63.
VanLehnK., and MartinJ. (1998). Evaluation of an assessment system based on Bayesian student modeling. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 179—221.
64.
VendlinskiT., NiemiD., and WangJ. (2005). Learning assessment by designing assessments: An on-line formative assessment design tool. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) 16th International Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
65.
VendlinskiT., and StevensR. (2000). The use of artificial neural nets (ANN) to help evaluate student problem solving strategies. In FishmanB., and O'Conner-DivelblissS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 108—114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66.
VendlinskiT., and StevensR. (2001). Assessing student problem-solving skills with complex computer-based tasks. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org