This article discusses the rationale for, and explicates the process used in, developing differentiated authentic assessments for middle school classrooms (many of which contain gifted students) that are aligned with state academic standards. The assessments were developed based on learner-centered psychological principles and revised based on a content validation study involving a panel of 46 experts representing a variety of educational professionals. In addition to the content validation study of the assessments, interrater reliability estimates based on Kappa were calculated using student responses to the assessments in classrooms in two states. Results provide evidence that these types of assessments can provide quantifiable information about student learning, as well as inform the instructional process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderP. A.MurphyP. K. (1994). The research base for APA's learner-centered psychological principles. Invited symposium at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
2.
AllenM. J.YenW. M. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Prospect heights, IL: Waveland Press.
3.
ArchbaldD. A. (1991). Authentic assessment: What it means and how it can help schools (Report No. TM 020 999). Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366624)
4.
BaldwinA. Y. (1994). The seven plus story: Developing hidden talent among students in socioeconomically disadvantaged environments. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 80–84.
5.
CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A.MoonT. R.TomchinE. M.PluckerJ. A. (1995). Project START: Using a multiple intelligences model in identifying and promoting talent in high-risk students (Research Monograph No. 95136). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
6.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1990). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
7.
CheekD. W. (1993). Plain talk about alternative assessment. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 6–10.
8.
ClausenD. R.MiddletonJ. A.ConnellT. J. (1994). Assessing artistic and problem solving performance in minority and non-minority students using a nontraditional multidimensional approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 27–32.
9.
DanaT. M.TippinsD. J. (1993). Considering alternative assessment for middle level learners. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 3–5.
10.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
EganK.GardnerH. (1992). An exchange: The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. Teachers College Record, 94, 397–407.
12.
GardnerH. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: BasicBooks.
13.
GordonE. W. (1992). Implications of diversity in human characteristics for authentic assessment (Report No. CSE-TR-341). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California at Los Angeles.
14.
GordonE. W.Bonilla-BowmanC. (1996). Can performance-based assessment contribute to the achievement of educational equity? In BaronJ. B.WolfD. P. (Eds.), Performance-based student achievement: Challenges and possibilities (pp. 32–51). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
15.
HendersonP.Karr-KidwellP. J. (1998). Authentic assessment: An extensive literary review and recommendations for administrators (Report No. TM 028 235). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418140)
16.
JacksonA. W.DavisG. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
JamentzK. (1994). Making sure that assessment improves practice. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 55–57.
18.
KennedyM. (1996). A teacher's manifesto: Designing learning which cures rather than causes academic risk: Part 2. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 2(2), 16–27.
19.
KraemerH. C. (1982). Kappa coefficient. In KotzS.JohnsonN. L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. New York: Wiley.
20.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
21.
LinesC. (1994). Authentic assessment at the middle level. Middle School Journal, 25(4), 39–41.
22.
MarzanoR. J. (2002). A comparison of selected methods of scoring classroom assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 249–267.
23.
MessickS. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.
24.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M.CallahanC. M. (2003). The influences of state testing programs on elementary teachers and students. Roeper Review, 25, 45–60.
25.
MoonT. R.CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A. (2002). Effects of state testing programs on elementary schools with high concentrations of student poverty-Good news or bad news?Current Issues in Education, 6(8). Retrieved June 23, 2005, from http://cie.asu.edu/volume6/number8
26.
National Middle School Association. (NMSA). (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle schools. Columbus, OH: Author.
27.
ReedL. (1993). Achieving the aims and purposes of schooling through authentic assessment. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 11–13.
28.
ResnickL. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.
29.
ResnickL. B.ResnickD. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In GiffordB.O'ConnorM. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37–75). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
30.
TomlinsonC. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
31.
TomlinsonC. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ.BassG.ReisR.PolandD.AveryL. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high-ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 25–36.
33.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ.ZuoL.AveryL. D.LittleC. A. (2002). Curriculum study of gifted-student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30–44.
