We question the utility of traditional conceptualizations of validity and reliability, developed in the context of large scale, external testing, and the psychology of individual differences, for the context of the classroom. We compare traditional views of validity and reliability to alternate frameworks that situate these constructs in teachers' work in classrooms. We describe how we used these frameworks to design an assessment course for preservice teachers, and present data that suggest students in the redesigned course not only saw the course as more valuable in their work as teachers, but developed deeper understandings of validity and reliability than did their counterparts in a traditional tests and measurement course. We close by discussing the implications of these data for the teaching of assessment, and for the use and interpretation of classroom assessment data for purposes of local and state accountability. More than ever before, pressure is being placed on teachers to create high quality assessments of their students' learning. Work is underway in Kentucky, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and in the eighteen states that are members of the New Standards Project (Resnick and Resnick, 1991) to explore the viability of classroom-based assessments, projects, and portfolios as sources of state or national accountability data about student learning. These initiatives emerge from a growing belief that the teacher can be one of the best sources of
[1]
Scott F. Marion,et al.
Do Standardized Test Scores Influence Parental Choice of High School
,
1995
.
[2]
D. Hocevar,et al.
A Taxonomy and Critique of Measurements Used in the Study of Creativity
,
1989
.
[3]
J. L. Holland,et al.
Some limitations of teacher ratings as predictors of creativity.
,
1959
.
[4]
J. Birch,et al.
Locating Gifted Children In Junior High Schools
,
1959
.
[5]
Samuel L. Guskin,et al.
Do Teachers React to "Multiple Intelligences"? Effects of Teachers' Stereotypes on Judgments and Expectancies for Students with Diverse Patterns of Giftedness/Talent
,
1992
.
[6]
R. Shavelson,et al.
Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update.
,
1996
.
[7]
B. Bridgeman,et al.
Success in college for students with discrepancies between performance on multiple-choice and essay tests.
,
1996
.
[8]
J. Plucker,et al.
WHEREFORE ART THOU, MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES? ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR IDENTIFYING TALENT IN ETHNICALLY DIVERSE AND ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS
,
1996
.