RESEARCH STARTERS

ACADEMIC TOPIC OVERVIEWS

Classroom Evaluation
Testing & Evaluation > Classroom Evaluation

Abstract
Table of Contents
Classroom evaluation is a crucial part of the learning process as
Abstract it is used to measure and improve student learning as well as the
quality of classroom instruction. Classroom evaluation encom-
Keywords passes the procedures used by teachers to determine if, and to
what degree, their students can demonstrate a skill, behavior, or
Overview body of knowledge. Over the past century, the number of assess-
ment methods have grow exponentially; teachers today can avail
History
themselves of a variety of traditional and alternative assessment
Accountability methods to evaluate and improve the quantity and quality of stu-
dents’ skills and knowledge.
Purposes

Figure 1. The Role of Assessment within

Overview
the Instructional Process
The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evalua-
Applications tion defines evaluation as “the systematic investigation of the
worth or merit of a student’s performance in relation to a set
Traditional vs. Alternative Assessment
of learner expectations or standards of performance” (2003, p.
Table 1: Classification of Different 228). Teacher evaluations measure student achievement by scor-
ing students on a set of explicit expectations and then placing
Methods of Assessment
their scores on a scale which differentiates the degrees to which
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Assessments students demonstrate a skill, body of knowledge, or behavior.
Evaluations can measure cognitive outcomes (of demonstrated
Locally Developed Assessments knowledge) as well as affective outcomes (higher-order connec-
Figure 2. Product & Performance Tic-Tac- tions) (McMillan, 2001; Marzano, 2001; Popham, 2001). The
feedback evaluations provide to instructors plays a prominent
Toe role in every facet and at every level of curricular development
Viewpoints (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).
Assessment methods are the techniques and strategies teachers
Advantages
use to collect significant information about students’ skills, body
Disadvantages of knowledge, or behavior in order to perform their evaluations.
Like evaluation, the process of assessment is central to instruc-
Terms & Concepts tion. Twenty-first century curricula demand that teachers be adept
at using a variety of classroom assessment methods (American
Bibliography Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Joint Com-
mittee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003; Littke &
Suggested Reading Grabelle, 2004; Marzano, 2001; Wiggins, 1998).

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
 Classroom Evaluation Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

Keywords assessing multiple aspects, the multiform assessments derived

a fuller picture of individuals’ physical, mental, and emotional
Alternative Assessments abilities and, thereby, their allover suitability for espionage
(Office of Strategic Services, 1948; Wiggins, 1993).
Analytic Rubrics
The 1950s brought Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educa-
Assessment Methods tional Objectives, one of the most widely used tools for teachers’
classroom evaluation of student learning. This book provided
Authentic Assessments teachers with multiple sets of behavioral verbs, helping them
write performance descriptions, expectations or desired perfor-
Diagnostic Assessments
mance outcomes, and higher-level reasoning tasks for students
Evaluation (Bloom, 1956).

Formative Assessments Accountability

Inferences
Measurement
Multiform Assessments
Nontraditional Assessments
Performance Assessments
Portfolios
Qualitative Assessments
Quantitative Assessments
Summative Assessments
Traditional Assessments
History
Curriculum evaluation moved through a number of stages during
the late 19th century and throughout the 20th- century. The sci-
entific experimentation and measurement movement with its
emphasis on grading, marking and judging dominated the late
1800s and early 1900s. The measurement movement grew
steadily throughout the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Evaluation
expanded beyond measurement with the so-called “Eight-Year
Study” (1933-1941). However, the grading-marking-judging
approach to classroom evaluation has guided educators through-
out the history of education and is still widespread in the early
21st-century (Schubert, 1986).
A shift came during the 1940s when the U.S. Office of Strategic
Services began using a multiform, holistic system of assess-
ment to identify the military personnel best suited for espionage
behind enemy lines. The system was described in the agency’s
report Assessment of Men: Selection of Personnel for the Office
of Strategic Services. These assessments used an assortment of
procedures and tests to evaluate not only individuals’ capabilities
and skills, but also personal characteristics and attitudes. And by
Emerging in the late 1960s through the early 1970s and increasing
in intensity, accountability-movement pressures began to dominate
evaluation and assessment. After A Nation at Risk was published,
the 1980s brought more rigorous requirements so as to improve
students’ test scores and performances at college (National Com-
mission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Schubert, 1986). The
report sounded the call for accountability in education and exposed
the failures of the U.S. educational system.
Evaluation for accountability purposes became the watch-
words of the 1980s and 1990s. The accountability movement
has extended right up to the present day, culminating with the
current standards-based assessments and the large-scale, high-
stakes, standardized state testing programs. Regardless of the
dominance of accountability and standardized testing, recent
years have also brought an expansion in the types of evaluation
data that are considered valid for assessments. The influence and
use of technology in authentic, contextual learning environments
has led to dissatisfaction with existing classroom evaluation
methodologies, spurring the development of innovative new
methodologies (Kovalik & Dalton, 1997; Marzano, 2001).
Purposes
Assessments used in classroom evaluation need to focus not
only on methods and techniques, but also on purposes. The
type of classroom assessment used needs to be matched with
its purpose(s). Classroom evaluations are certainly used to
document what students have learned and to produce informa-
tion about student progress, but classroom evaluations are also
needed to provide teachers with information for making instruc-
tional decisions (Popham, 2001). The student-performance data
emanating from classroom evaluations provide teachers with
feedback on the effectiveness of their teaching procedures, help-
ing them improve instruction and student learning. The daily
classroom cycle of performance and feedback produces most
student learning and most of the improvement in schools (Lewis
& Doorlag, 1987; Wiggins, 1998).
A schematic developed and illustrated in Popham’s 2001 book,
The Truth About Testing: An Educator’s Call to Action, modified
and reproduced here as Figure 1, shows the ideal relationships
among assessment, instruction, content, inferences and decisions.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 2
 Classroom Evaluation Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

Figure 1. The Role of Assessment within the Instructional Process Applications

(Modified after Popham, 2001).
Traditional vs. Alternative Assessment
Educational evaluation includes a broad array of assessment
approaches including both traditional and nontraditional tech-
niques. Traditional assessments measure student learning with
paper-and-pencil tests, while alternative assessments seek to
measure learning along with students’ ability to reason and think
DECISIONS critically. Both types of assessments can use objective, selected-
Regarding INSTRUCTION response items and subjective, constructed-response items.
Instruction Selected-response items limit the range of student responses
through, for example, traditional multiple choice problems, or
alternative self-assessment. Constructed-response items allow
students to create their own responses to assessment prompts
and can include traditional essays and alternative performance
assessments (see Table 1).

CONTENT
INFERENCES Knowledge,
Regarding Skills, and/or Table 1: Classification of Different Methods of Assessment
Instruction Affect (Modified from McMillan, 2001).

Type of Response Type of Assessment

ASSESSMENT
Traditonal Alternative
That Represents
the Content

Selected-response: Multiple-choice Student

self-assessment
Objective-type True-false
assessments in
Matching
which responses
or answers are Binary-choice
chosen from those
provided. Structured
observation
Teachers use assessments to sample students’ knowledge and
skills. Sampling the larger body of content, teachers are able to Structured
use assessments to evaluate the degree to which students have interview
mastered the body of content as a whole. They then rely on Surveys
these evaluations to make decisions on how best to teach stu-
dents (Popham, 2001).
Sentence Performance
Instruction can move forward when classroom evaluations, based completion assessment
on the use of assessments, show that students have learned what Constructed-
response: Short answer Authentic
they should (Gage & Berliner, 1988). For example, if a class-
assessment
room teacher requires students to write two persuasive essays Subjective-type Essay
on a final exam and they perform well on both essays, then the assessments in Portfolio
Anecdotal
teacher can reasonably infer that students are capable writers which responses observation assessment
of persuasive essays (Popham, 2001). Remedial instruction is or answers are
supplied or Unstructured Exhibitions
required if classroom evaluation reveals that some or all of the constructed. interview
Demonstrations
students have not acquired the skills that were taught. In some
Papers
cases, evaluation indicates that the entire instructional sequence Student
must be started anew. This requires rethinking educational Reports self-assessment
objectives, student characteristics, teaching strategies, and the
learning process (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 3
 Classroom Evaluation
A variety of traditional and nontraditional assessment methods,
techniques and formats are currently being used in K-12 class-
rooms to garner evaluative information and sources of evidence.
Some are used more in certain subject areas than in others, but
they can, for the most part, be used multidisciplinarily. These
approaches include homework assignments; teacher-developed,
paper-and-pencil quizzes and tests; teacher observations; jour-
nals; lab notebooks; and essays and writing samples (American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Joint Com-
mittee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003; Marzano,
2003; National Research Council, 2000; Wiggins, 1993). The
specific assessment option(s) selected and implemented in a
given circumstance should be the one(s) that will provide the best
source(s) of evidence (American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, 2000; McMillan, 2001; Popham, 2001).
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Assessments
A second classification scheme subdivides assessment methods
into two major types:
• Quantitative assessments— those using measurement,
and
• Qualitative assessments--those using non-numerical
descriptions
Quantitative assessments evaluate student learning as either a
raw score or a standard score. Raw scores are determined from
the number or percentage of test items a student answers cor-
rectly. Standard scores are determined by comparing a student’s
raw score to those of other students and assigning a percentile
rank (McMillan, 2001). Both standardized tests and the tests and
quizzes developed by teachers are quantitative assessments.
Standardized assessments include norm-referenced tests, which
compare the test taker to a sample of his or her peers to derive
a standard score, and criterion-referenced tests, which use a raw
score to measure the degree to which the test taker possesses a
trait or skill (Popham, 1975, cited in Measurement and Evalua-
tion). Criterion-referenced standardized assessments thoroughly
measure specific skills and knowledge – like geometry or Ameri-
can literature – while norm-referenced standardized assessments
are designed to measure a broader variety of skills, such as read-
ing comprehension or overall mathematical ability.
Although standardized tests are easily compared across schools,
districts, and states, the data they yield isn’t very significant for
individual classrooms. By focusing on evaluating general skills
and knowledge, these tests overlook specific learning as well as
other important qualities of student works such as creativity and
individuality. The tests should not be used to evaluate the quality
of classroom instruction, since test scores can be influenced by
a number of variables not related to actual student ability (e.g.
socioeconomic status, curriculum exposure, or inherent aca-
demic aptitude) (Tucker & Stronge, 2005).
Varying degrees of student motivation can also hinder the accu-
racy of large-scale assessments. Because standardized test results
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.
are often not used to evaluate individual students, some students
are not motivated to demonstrate their learning. This can lead
to lower test scores and inaccurate data (Brookhart, Walsh, &
Zientarski, 2006).
Locally Developed Assessments
Locally-developed assessments include grade-level tests, depart-
ment tests, district-wide assessments and teacher-made tests.
Departmental tests are developed by teachers at a single school
to standardized curriculum goals throughout a subject area. Dis-
trict-wide tests are developed by teachers in collaboration with
curriculum specialists to measure course and grade-level con-
tent goals (Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Teachers can use their own,
non-standardized assessments for a variety of purposes.
Diagnostic assessments, also known as pre-assessments or pre-
tests, establish students’ performance baseline. Taken prior to
beginning new units of study, these assessments gauge students’
starting points and readiness for learning. Diagnostic assessments
can also provide insight into students’ interests and preferred
routes to learning. Among the many types of diagnostic assess-
ments are quizzes, concept maps, checklists, and journal entries
(Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006).
Formative assessments are short-term, teacher-constructed
tests used throughout instruction to promote and improve stu-
dent learning and test performance. Teachers use them to guide
learning and inform any adjustments in their instruction. They
insure the consistent delivery of viable curriculum and have a
strong impact on learning outcomes (National Research Council,
2000; Schmoker, 2006).
Summative assessments present conclusions about the merit or
worth of student performances. These traditional, teacher-made
tests determine if, and to what degree, students have mastered
a set of skills or body of knowledge. Major tests like midterm
exams, final exams, six-week or eight-week exams, and unit
exams are all summative assessments. They should be reliable,
replicable, equitable for all students, systemic, interpretable,
and comparable across classes and schools (Joint Committee on
Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003; National Research
Council, 2000; Popham, 2001; Tucker & Stronge, 2005).
Qualitative assessments are subjective classroom evaluations
which verbally describe the quality of student learning and
behavior (McMillan, 2001). These assessments make use of
teacher observations, graphic organizers, multisensory tools,
checklists, and narratives. Teacher observations can be based in
casual, day-to-day interactions, or in formal, systemic assess-
ments. They are particularly useful for assessing students’ ability
to work in groups. Graphic organizers and multisensory tools use
an organizational principal, such as chronology, to demonstrate
relationships among ideas to elicit understanding from students.
Teachers can also use checklists to evaluate student achieve-
ment of lesson objectives, and narratives to constructed detailed
reports evaluating students’ progress and elaborate on any gaps
in their learning (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Littke & Grabelle,
2004; National Research Council, 2000; O’Shea, 2005).
Page 4
 Classroom Evaluation
Alternative assessments follow a constructivist-research phi-
losophy which contends that a good education develops students’
critical thinking and reasoning skills alongside their mastery of
content (McMillan, 2001). Some of these alternative assess-
ments are
• Authentic assessments
• Performance assessments
• Portfolios
• Exhibitions
Curriculum-based authentic assessments are constructed to be
consistent with scenarios naturally occurring outside the class-
room. Authentic assessments are ‘self-referenced’: they allow
teachers to compare separate instances of an individual stu-
dent’s performance to determine how he or she has improved
in a subject area over time. Authentic assessment tools include
performance-based assessments, student portfolio entries, and
writing samples. Authentic writing assessments are developed
in response to writing prompts and are generally holistically
scored using analytic rubrics. Analytic rubrics are more power-
ful evaluation tools than checklists because they can be used to
identify gradations in the quality of students’ work (McMillan,
2001; O’Shea, 2005; Tucker & Stronge, 2005).
Performance assessments require students demonstrate a pro-
ficiency or skill by creating a product or performing a task.
These assessments allow students to demonstrate learning in
an individualized manner by focusing students’ individual tal-
ents (Macmillan, 2001; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). For example,
the performance assessment format developed by Tomlinson
and McTighe (2006) gives students structured choices for their
product or performance while keeping in mind the end goal of
demonstrating learning. Two versions—A and B—are shown in
Figure 2. Based on the given genre or genres teachers would like
students to use – written, visual or oral – they assign students an
option from one or more of the columns. In the “free” blocks of
version B, for each genre students have the freedom to propose an
alternative source of evidence suiting their personal strengths.
Figure 2. Product & Performance Tic-Tac-Toe.
This is a format that enables teachers to structure product-and-perfor-
mance assessment options from various genres while giving students
some choice. (modified from Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006).
A B
GENRE 1: GENRE 2: GENRE 3:
WRITTEN VISUAL ORAL
Research Report Poster Lesson Presentation
News Article Graphic Organizer Oral Presentation
Information
PowerPoint Radio Interview
Brochure
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.
Student portfolios document and illustrate student learning,
performance, and progress. They typically include multiple
instances of student performance (e.g. essay drafts, project note-
books, drawings, research papers, learning plans, or problem
solutions). Portfolios – or process-folios, as they are sometimes
called in the arts – can be used in almost any subject area to
display not only finished works but also preliminary works that
led up to the final piece (Gardner, 1991; Littke & Grabelle, 2004;
McMillan, 2001; National Research Council, 2000).
Exhibitions are authentic performances of a skill or body of
knowledge in a ‘natural’ manner. Oral presentations, which dem-
onstrate students’ knowledge and their public speaking skills, are
an example of an exhibition. These assessments put students in
the midst of their learning, and emphasize the process of learn-
ing as well as the end product. Students are also able to publicly
demonstrate what they know, and involve teachers as well as
students, parents, and community members in students’ learning
(Littke & Grabelle, 2004; McMillan, 2001; Sizer, 1984; Tucker
& Stronge, 2005).
Viewpoints
Advantages
Classroom evaluation is a critical step in the educational pro-
cess as it helps students learn and educators determine program
improvements (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).
An efficacious assessment system facilitates better teaching
and is educative and easy for students to use (Wiggins, 1998).
Research has shown that assessment strategies should mea-
sure the full range of students’ learning experience to provide
a composite picture which includes both the learning process
and learning outcomes. The New Standards Project of the late
1990s, for example, recommended an assessment system of three
interrelated components—performance standards, examinations
and portfolios. Finally, to be fair and equitable, teachers must
subject students to the same evaluations comprised of sets of
equally difficult and representative tasks (American Association
GENRE 1: GENRE 2: GENRE 3:
WRITTEN VISUAL ORAL
Campaign-
Free Speech
Commercial Video
Persuasive Essay Free Debate
Editorial Campaign Poster Free
Page 5
 Classroom Evaluation
for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Kovalik & Dalton, 1997;
National Center on Education and the Economy, 1997; National
Research Council, 2000).
Each type of assessment has its own strengths and weaknesses,
so assessments should be used to complement one another. To
insure consistency across classrooms, groups of teachers can
work together to determine which assessments they will use,
and create samples of each type (American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 2000; McMillan, 2001; Popham, 2006;
Tucker & Stronge, 2005).
Students’ study habits are thought to be influenced by the types
of assessments used (Crooks, 1988; Fleming, Ross, Tollefson,
& Green, 1998). Different types of assessments measure for dif-
ferent types of knowledge (Marzano, 2001). Assessments that
emphasize rote memorization will encourage students to adopt
a surface approach to studying, while assessments that empha-
size complex analysis will push them towards deep, integrative
study. Students who expect more complex items on exams, such
as short essays rather than multiple choice, will adjust their study
habits accordingly. Therefore, classroom evaluation, students’
study strategies and the development of critical-thinking skills
are believed to be interrelated (Crooks, 1988; Fleming, Ross,
Tollefson, & Green, 1998).
Disadvantages
Classroom evaluation is a difficult process. Done incorrectly, it
can lack integrity, substance, and worth. Evaluations need to be
written carefully so that they don’t contain trick questions, use
unrealistic or irrelevant norms, produce ambiguous observational
data or assessment information, or give students an overwhelm-
ing amount of feedback (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986).
Teachers should be skilled in using a variety of different methods
for evaluating student learning. They need to know how to cor-
rectly interpret the results of multiple types of assessment, and
be able to discern which types of assessment are appropriate for
which classroom scenarios.
Teacher should also be aware that individual tests cannot fully
measure what students have learned, but only provide a fair
sampling of that domain. To get a clear picture of students’ per-
formance, evaluations must go beyond traditional tests. A variety
of types of assessment best allows teachers to develop a summary
profile of students’ knowledge, skills and achievement.
It takes time to develop and use multiple types of assessments
as well as document students’ achievement through multiple
sources of evidence. A substantial amount of class time needs
to be devoted to activities which allow teachers to evaluate
students’ products or behavior. Additionally, high-quality class-
room assessments require continual development. However,
the quality of classroom assessments are in question and better
assessments—rather than better testing, or more testing—are
needed (American Association for the Advancement of Science,
2000; Crooks, 1988; Wiggins, 1993).
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.
Terms & Concepts
Alternative Assessments: Nontraditional or unconventional
assessments; include a variety of types such as authentic assess-
ments, performance assessments, portfolios and exhibitions.
Analytic Rubrics: Evaluation tools used to identify grada-
tions in the quality of students’ work and to assign a subjective
and holistic score—that is, no score, 1, 2, 3, or 4, for example.
Assessment Methods: The techniques or strategies that
teachers use to acquire evaluation information from students.
Authentic Assessments: Assessments constructed such that
they are compatible and consistent with what people do in situ-
ations occurring naturally outside the classroom; examples are
portfolio entries and writing samples.
Diagnostic Assessments: Pre-assessments or pre-tests used
by teachers to establish a performance baseline, gauge learners’
starting points and readiness prior to beginning new instruc-
tional units.
Evaluation: “The systematic investigation of the worth or
merit of a student’s performance in relation to a set of learner
expectations or standards of performance” (Joint Committee on
Standards for Educational Evaluation, 2003, p. 228).
Exhibitions: Authentic performances, demonstrations or oral
presentations of knowledge and/or skill in a ‘natural manner’
that allow students to show publicly what they have learned.
Formative Assessments: Assessments which teachers use
to promote growth and improvement in students’ performance,
to guide learning and to inform productive adjustments in
instruction.
Inferences: Conclusions drawn by teachers based on assess-
ments regarding students’ content status —knowledge, attitudes
and interests—and achievement in learning educational objec-
tives.
Measurement: The process of assigning alphanumeric grades,
scores or marks to assessments based on an explicit set of rules.
Multiform Assessments: Holistic, organismic assessments
which use a large number of procedures and various tests to
evaluate personal characteristics, attitudes, capabilities and
skills and to derive a whole picture of personality (Office of
Strategic Services, 1948; Wiggins, 1993).
Nontraditional Assessments: Also unconventional assess-
ments or alternative assessments; include a variety of types
such as performance assessments, authentic assessments, port-
folios and exhibitions.
Performance Assessments: Assessments in which students
demonstrate a proficiency or skill by producing, creating or
doing something.
Page 6
 Classroom Evaluation
Portfolios: Assessments which include exhibits of students’
work products and records of performance that document their
learning, progress and improvement through or over time.
Qualitative Assessments: Assessments using nonnumerical
or verbal descriptions; examples are teacher observations, nar-
ratives, checklists, graphic organizers and multisensory tools.
Quantitative Assessments: Assessments using measurement
and involving the assignment of numerical scores, which are
reported as raw scores of the numbers of items correct, the per-
centages of items answered correctly, percentile ranks or ‘standard
scores’; examples are teacher-made and standardized tests.
Summative Assessments: Also summative evaluations;
assessments designed to present conclusions about the merit or
worth of a student’s performance rather than to promote growth
and improvement in a student’s performance as in formative
assessments or evaluations (Joint Committee on Standards for
Educational Evaluation, 2003).
Traditional Assessments: Also conventional assessments;
paper-and-pencil tests which measure traits, attributes, char-
acteristics, behaviors or performances of students; examples
include multiple-choice and essay tests.
Bibliography
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
(2000). Designs for science literacy. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
American Educational Research Association. (1999).
Standards for educational and psychological testing.
Washington, DC: Author.
Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., Jr., & Alessi, S. J., Jr. (1986).
Curriculum planning and development. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objec-
tives: The classification of educational goals (handbook
1—cognitive domain). New York, NY: Longmans & Green.
Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006).
The dynamics of motivation and effort for classroom assess-
ments in middle school science and social studies. Applied
Measurement in Education, 19(2), 151-184.Retrieved August
03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search
Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=aph&AN=20549697&site=ehost-live
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation
practices on students. Review of Educational Research,
58(4), 438-481.
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.
Dossett, D., & Munoz, M. A. (2003). Classroom account-
ability: A value-added methodology. Washington,
DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED478202).
Fleming, K., Ross, M., Tollefson, N., & Green, S. B. (1998).
Teachers’ choices of test-item formats for classes with
diverse achievement levels. Journal of Educational
Research, 91(4), 222-228. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from
EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A
N=293713&site=ehost-live
Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational psychol-
ogy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children
think and how schools should teach. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation.
(2003). The student evaluation standards: How to
improve evaluations of students. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Kovalik, C. L., & Dalton, D. W. (1997). A conceptual
framework for assessment: The process/outcome evalu-
ation model. Washington, DC: Education Resources
Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED409848).
Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (1987). Teaching special
students in the mainstream. Columbus, OH: Merrill
Publishing Company.
Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education
is everyone’s business. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Essential assessment concepts
for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Measurement and Evaluation: Criterion- Versus Norm-
Referenced Testing (n.d.) Retrieved August 21, 2007, from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/measeval/crnmref.
html
Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of edu-
cational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (1997). New
Standards Project performance standards. Washington,
DC: Author.
Page 7
 Classroom Evaluation
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983).
A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National
Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and
learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Office of Strategic Services. (1948). Assessment of men:
Selection of personnel for the Office of Strategic Services.
Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
O’Shea, M. R. (2005). From standards to success: A guide
for school leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development Development.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educa-
tor’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for learning: An endan-
gered species? Educational Leadership, 63(5), 82-83.
Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database
Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19632012&site=eho
st-live
Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional
variables, their influence on language, logic and fate con-
trol: Part One – Wait-time. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 11(2), 81-94.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve
unprecedented improvements in teaching and learn-
ing. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm
and possibility. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company.
Sizer, T. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the
American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating—
differentiated instruction & understanding by design:
Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evalu-
ation and student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assess-
ments to inform and improve student performance. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.
Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance:
Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Suggested Reading
Alexandrin, J. R. (2003). Using continuous, constructive
classroom evaluations. Testing Exceptional Children,
36(1), 52-57. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO
Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=109
65909&site=ehost-live
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William,
D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment
for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1),
9-21.Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online
Database Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebsco-
host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14405943
&site=ehost-live
Brookhart, S. M., & Bronowicz, D. L. (2003). ‘I don’t like
writing. It makes my fingers hurt’: Students talk about
their classroom assessments. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 221-242. Retrieved
August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database
Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10849125&site=eh
ost-live
Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006).
The dynamics of motivation and effort for classroom
assessments in middle school science and social stud-
ies. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(2), 151-184.
Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database
Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20549697&site=eh
ost-live
Bulterman-Bos, J., Verloop, N., Terwel, J., & Wardekker, W.
(2003). Reconciling the pedagogical goal and the mea-
surement goal of evaluation: The perspectives of teachers
in the context of national standards. Teachers College
Record, 105(3), 344-374. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from
EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A
N=9353380&site=ehost-live
Fleming, K., Ross, M., Tollefson, N., & Green, S. B. (1998).
Teachers’ choices of test-item formats for classes with
diverse achievement levels. Journal of Educational
Research, 91(4), 222-228. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from
EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A
N=293713&site=ehost-live
Page 8
 Classroom Evaluation Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.
learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11. Retrieved http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a
August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic ph&AN=18772761&site=ehost-live
Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir
ect=true&db=aph&AN=9029496&site=ehost-live
Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for learning: An endan-
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & William, D. (2005). gered species? Educational Leadership, 63(5), 82-83.
Classroom assessment minute by minute, day by day. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database
Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18-24. Retrieved August Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/
03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19632012&site=eh
Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru ost-live
e&db=aph&AN=18772694&site=ehost-live
Stiggins, R. (2006). Assessment for learning: A key to moti-
McNamee, G. D., & Chen, J. (2005). Dissolving the vation and achievement. Edge: The Latest Information for
line between assessment and teaching. Educational the Education Practitioner, 2(2), 1-19. Retrieved August
Leadership, 63(3), 72-76. Retrieved August 03, 2007 from 03, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education
Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23103856&site=ehost-live

Essay by R.D. Merritt, Ph.D.

Roy Merritt holds a Doctorate in Education/Curriculum & Instruction (1994) with a specialization in Science Education from New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces. He has multiple degrees in both Education and Science and he has worked professionally in
both fields. In addition to serving as an Educational Consultant, he is also a freelance and contract writer and is the author of numerous
publications including refereed journal articles and resource books.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 9