This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]On: 20 November 2014, At: 05:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Using Student-Involved Classroom Assessment to CloseAchievement GapsRick Stiggins & Jan ChappuisPublished online: 24 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Rick Stiggins & Jan Chappuis (2005) Using Student-Involved Classroom Assessment to Close AchievementGaps, Theory Into Practice, 44:1, 11-18, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4401_3

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4401_3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Rick StigginsJan Chappuis

Using Student-InvolvedClassroom Assessment to CloseAchievement Gaps

The authors argue that the failure of 60 years oftotal reliance on assessment via standardized teststo help reduce achievement score gaps must com-pel us to rethink the role of assessment in this en-deavor. They advocate rebalancing assessmentpriorities to bring classroom assessment into theequation. Evidence gathered over decades fromaround the world reveals strong achievementgains and reduced achievement score gaps whenteachers implement student-involved classroomassessment practices in support of student learn-ing in their classrooms. Five standards of soundclassroom assessment practice are described that,if put in place, would permit teachers and schoolsto draw upon a heretofore untapped reservoir ofmotivation in ways that benefit students, espe-cially low performers.

FROM THEIR VERY earliest school experiences,

our students draw life-shaping conclusionsabout themselves as learners on the basis of the in-formation we provide to them as a result of theirteachers’ classroom assessments. As that evidenceaccumulates over time, they decide if they are ca-pable of succeeding or not. They decide whetherthe learning is worth the commitment it will taketo attain it. They decide if they should have confi-dence in themselves as learners and in their teach-ers—that is, whether to risk investing in theschooling experience. These decisions are crucialto their academic well-being. Depending on howthey decide, their teachers may or may not be ableto influence their learning lives.

Because of individual academic difficulties,some students can land on the wrong side of thesedecisions. If we are to help them—if we are toclose achievement gaps—we must help them be-lieve they are capable of succeeding and that suc-cess is worth the investment.

The results of a decade of research and devel-opment (cited later) help us understand how to usethe classroom assessment process and its results tohelp students become confident learners. Strong

11

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 44(1), 11–18

Rick Stiggins and Jan Chappuis work at AssessmentTraining Institute.

Requests for reprints can be sent to Rick Stiggins,Assessment Training Institute, 317 SW Alder Street,Suite 1200, Portland OR 97204. E-mail: ati@-assessmentinst.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:27

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

achievement gains are within reach for all stu-dents, especially those who have experienced littlesuccess before. To gain access to these results, wemust (a) fundamentally redefine the relationshipsamong assessment, student motivation, and effec-tive schools, and (b) provide teachers with a set ofclassroom assessment competencies that histori-cally has been denied them. This article describessuch a new vision and the conditions that must bein place to attain it.

The Challenge

In motivating low-performing students to wantto learn, our collective challenge comes in twoparts. First, we must prevent students from givingup in hopelessness at the outset, by engenderingconfidence from their earliest experiences. Sec-ond, we must rekindle hope among those studentswho have lost faith in themselves as learnersalready.

It’s tempting to conceive of the latter challengeas an issue of self-concept, that is, as a per-sonal–emotional concern. If we can raise thesestudents’ self-concept, they will become capablelearners. But this approach puts the cart before thehorse. Rather, we conceptualize the problem farmore productively if we conceive of the first chal-lenge in light of effective classroom assessment.

If these students are to believe in themselves asproductive learners, then they must first experi-ence credible forms of academic success as re-flected in the results of what they understand to berigorous assessment. A small success can sparkconfidence, which, in turn, encourages more ef-fort. If each attempt brings more success, their ac-ademic self-concept will begin to shift in a morepositive direction. Our goal then is to perpetuatethis cycle.

The direction of this effect is critical. Firstcomes achievement and then comes confidence.With increased confidence comes the belief thatlearning is possible. Success must be framed interms of academic attainments that represent a sig-nificant personal stretch. Focused effort with anexpectation of success is essential. Students mustcome honestly to believe that what counts here—

indeed the only thing that counts here—is learningthat results from the effort expended.

Such evidence kindles students’ faith in them-selves as learners. Feedback delivered once a yearfrom standardized district, state, national, or inter-national assessments is far too infrequent andbroadly focused to be helpful. The evidence mustcome to students moment to moment throughon-going classroom assessment. This places theclassroom teacher at the heart of the relation be-tween assessment and school effectiveness.

Thus, the essential school improvement ques-tion from an assessment point of view is this: Arewe skilled enough to use classroom assessment toeither (1) keep all learners from losing hope to be-gin with, or (2) rebuild that hope once it has beendestroyed?

Successful students enjoy the rewards of theirown success at learning. These keep them striving(typically on the upper side of achievement scoregaps), and teachers can continue to rely on thosemotivators. But what of those students who havenot experienced success? What do we do when thetraditional reward- and punishment-driven behav-ior-management system has lost its motivationalpower in the eyes of the student?

The Insufficiencyof Accountability Testing

Over the decades, we have attempted to moti-vate by holding schools accountable for scores onstandardized tests and by intensifying the stakesassociated with low test scores. This began in the1940s with college admissions tests. Next camedistrict-wide standardized tests in the 1950s and1960s. The 1970s was the decade of the state as-sessment. In the 1980s and 1990s, we added na-tional and international assessments. During theselatter decades, we have seen fit to attach truly direconsequences to low test scores. For individualstudents these can include promotion/retention, aswell as graduation decisions. Surely, policy-makers believe, this will compel everyone in-volved to strive for academic excellence.

But alas, not only is there little evidence thatthese multiple layers of externally imposed tests

12

Closing Achievement Gaps: What Will It Take?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:27

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

have improved school quality or reducedachievement score gaps, but some contend thatthey have exacerbated the problem by forcing in-creases in dropout rates and declines in gradua-tion rates, especially among minorities (Amrein& Berliner, 2002). These high-stakes tests havecaused as many chronic low achievers to give upin the face of what they believe to be unattain-able achievement standards as they have spurredhigh achievers to try even harder. So test scoreaverages flatline, with gaps between differentsubgroups of our student population apparentlycast in stone.

The Case for Student-InvolvedClassroom Assessment

Ongoing classroom assessments can be usedin far more productive ways to encourage studentconfidence. Three categories of powerful tools,taken together, permit us to tap a wellspring ofmotivation that resides within each learner.These tools include student involvement in theassessment process, student-involved recordkeeping, and student-involved communication.Together, they redefine how we use assessmentto excite students about their learning potential.Here’s why:

The teacher’s instructional task is to take stu-dents to the edge of their capabilities, to encouragegrowth. From the point of view of some students,stepping off that edge can be frightening. “When Ihave stepped off the edge in the past, I have disap-peared into the chasm below, crashing in a cloudof dust. Thanks much, but not again.” In such in-stances, the teacher’s instructional challenge is tohelp students face their personal edge with confi-dence, trusting that their teacher will help themlearn from their initial mistakes. Students must un-derstand that, when they try to grow academically,at first, they may not be very proficient, and that isall right. The trick is to help them know that fail-ures hold the seeds of later success, but only if wekeep going.

In other words, we must stop delivering themessage to students that low-level performance isalways and necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes

low performance is inevitable, such as when theyare trying something new. Everyone makes haltingprogress as a writer at first. Wise teachers use theclassroom assessment process as an instructionalintervention to teach the lesson that small incre-ments of progress are normal. Success is definedas continual improvement over the long haul. Wecan use student involvement in the assessment, re-cord keeping, and communication processes toteach these lessons.

Student-involved classroom assessment opensthe assessment process and invites students in aspartners, monitoring their own levels of achieve-ment. Under the careful management of theirteachers (who begin with a clear and appropriatevision of what they want their students to achieve),students are invited to play a role in defining thecriteria by which their work will be judged. Theylearn to apply these criteria, identifying thestrengths and weaknesses in their own practicework. In short, student-involved assessment helpslearners see and understand our vision of their aca-demic success. The result will be classrooms inwhich there are no surprises and no excuses. Thisbuilds trust and confidence.

Student-involved record keeping encourageslearners to monitor improvements in their perfor-mance over time through repeated self-assess-ment. For example, as students build growth port-folios of evidence of their success over time, theycan reflect on the changes they see. In effect, weuse such repeated formative classroom assess-ments as a mirror permitting students to watchthemselves grow. As they chart progress, they gaina sense of control over their own learning. Thiscan be a powerful confidence builder.

Student-involved communication inviteslearners to share their self-assessments with oth-ers. Student-involved parent/teacher confer-ences—a significant breakthrough in communi-cating about student achievement—illustrate thisconcept in action. When students are preparedwell over an extended period to tell the story oftheir own success (or lack thereof), they experi-ence a fundamental shift in their internal sense ofresponsibility for that success. The pride that stu-dents feel when they have a positive story to tell,and then tell it convincingly, engenders commit-

13

Stiggins and Chappuis Student-Involved Classroom Assessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:27

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ment to further learning. And, students feel animmense sense of personal responsibility whenthey know that they might have to face the musicof telling their parents about the specifics of theirnonachievement. They will work very hard toavoid that eventuality; that prospect can drivethem to productive work.

In these three ways, we can use student in-volvement to help them see, understand, contrib-ute to, and appreciate their own journey ofachievement success. This is exactly what teach-ers must do to help their students understand theachievement expectations, find and follow thepath of success, and feel in charge of, rather thanvictimized by, the assessment process.

Research Evidence of ReducedAchievement Gaps

In 1984, Bloom published a summary of his re-search on the impact of mastery learning modelson student learning, comparing standardwhole-class instruction (the control condition)with two experimental interventions, a masterylearning environment and one-on-one tutoring ofindividual students. One hallmark of both experi-mental conditions was the extensive use of class-room assessment in support of, and not merely tocheck for, learning as a key part of the instruc-tional process. The analyses revealed significantdifferences in student achievement favoring theexperimental conditions that relied on classroomassessment to support learning (effect sizes rangedfrom one to two standard deviations).

In their 1998 research review, Black andWiliam examined the research literature on as-sessment worldwide, asking if there is evidencethat improving the quality and effectiveness ofuse of student-involved formative assessmentsraises student achievement as reflected insummative assessments. They reviewed morethan 250 articles that addressed the issue. Onpooling the information on the estimated effectsof student-involved classroom assessment onsummative test scores, they too uncovered posi-tive effects, reporting effect sizes of a half to afull standard deviation. Further, Black and

Wiliam report that “improved [student-involved]formative assessment helps low achievers morethan other students and so reduces the range ofachievement while raising achievement overall”(p. 141). This result has direct implications fordistricts seeking to reduce achievement gaps be-tween and among subgroups of students.

The work of the Education Trust (Jerald, 2001)revealed that one key to promoting very high lev-els of achievement in traditionally low-perform-ing schools was the effective use of day-to-dayclassroom assessment as an integral part of ahealthy teaching and learning process.

More recently, Meisels, Atkins-Burnett, Xue,and Bickel (2003) revealed how student involve-ment with work sample-based performance as-sessments yields similar gains on standardizedtest performance when compared with studentswho did not experience the embedded perfor-mance assessment (effect sizes ranged .75 to 1.5SD).

In 2004, Rodriguez reported similar sizeachievement gains when examining the relation-ships among student characteristics, teachers’classroom assessment practices, and student ach-ievement as measured in the Third InternationalMath and Science Study (TIMSS). Specifically, heconcluded that “There are areas in which teachershave a potential to affect students: developingself-efficacy regarding their potential of masteringmathematics and discouraging the uncontrollableattributions students make in the classroom” (p.20). In other words, teachers can help all students,but especially low performers, come to believethat they can control their own success in learningmathematics.

Taken together, the evidence provided in thesestudies suggests that achievement gains and re-ductions in score gaps are within reach if class-room assessments (a) focus on clear purposes, (b)provide accurate reflections of achievement, (c)provide students with continuous access to de-scriptive feedback on improvement in their work(versus infrequent judgmental feedback), and (d)bring students into the classroom assessment pro-cesses. These four findings, then, frame the neces-sary conditions that must be satisfied to gain ac-cess to the achievement effects reported.

14

Closing Achievement Gaps: What Will It Take?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:27

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Classroom Assessment to ReduceAchievement Gaps

These four conditions must be satisfied to en-sure the effective use of any assessment in anycontext (Stiggins, 2005)—but especially to closeachievement gaps. Part of the reason our nationhas experienced difficulty in improving studentachievement overall and in reducing achievementgaps, we contend, is that the vast majority ofteachers and administrators practicing in theUnited States today have never been given the op-portunity to understand, let alone learn to satisfythese conditions:

Condition #1: Assessment DevelopmentMust Always Be Driven by a ClearlyArticulated Purpose

That is, the information needs of the intendeduser(s) must be considered in designing, devel-oping, and using the assessment. Sometimesthose users and uses center on assessment to sup-port learning—to inform teachers about how tohelp students learn more and to inform studentsthemselves about how to maximize their success.We call these assessments FOR learning (Assess-ment Reform Group, 1999; Stiggins, 2002).Other times assessments serve to verify thatlearning has occurred (or not). These may informschool leaders about program effectiveness orprovide agents of accountability with evidence tothe community. We label these assessments OFlearning.

The research evidence cited herein reveals thatpaying careful attention to the former, assessmentFOR learning via sound classroom assessment,will yield significant school improvement and re-duced score gaps. Students need more informationabout their learning destination and progress thanthey typically get. Assessment FOR learning prac-tices remedy that by helping students answer threequestions: Where am I going? Where am I now?How can I get there from here? In other words, stu-dents need to know what the intended learning orexpected standard of quality is. They need to knowhow to judge and monitor their own progress. Andthey need to know what to do to get themselves

from where they are to where they need to be(Black & Wiliam, 1998; Sadler, 1989). Assess-ment FOR learning engages students in thinkingabout themselves as learners. It is a new idea formany teachers to understand that formative as-sessment can and should be done for and by stu-dents, and yet it is crucial to students becoming ef-fective learners.

Condition #1 calls on educators to understandstudents’ information needs and to plan assess-ments purposefully to meet those needs along withthe information needs of adult instructional deci-sion makers.

Condition #2: Assessments Must AriseFrom and Accurately Reflect ClearlySpecified and Appropriate AchievementExpectations

In any assessment context, we must begin as-sessment development by defining a clear visionof what it means to succeed. In assessment OFlearning contexts, we identify state, local, or class-room achievement standards and devise assess-ments reflective of those. In assessment FORlearning environments, teachers deconstruct stan-dards into the enabling classroom targets studentsmust master on their journey to meeting state stan-dards. To meet any standard, students must mastersubject matter content, meaning to know and un-derstand. Some standards demand that they learnto use knowledge to reason and solve problems,whereas others require mastery of specific perfor-mance skills, where it’s the doing that is important,or the ability to create products that satisfy certaincriteria of quality. Student success hinges on theclarity of these expectations in the minds of teach-ers and then of their students.

Students need to know where they are headedto participate actively in their own learning; whenthey don’t know the learning destination, they areat best just along for the ride. Teacher and studentscannot partner effectively without a shared visionof the enterprise. And the effectiveness of subse-quent student involvement in the assessment pro-cess depends on their knowing what the achieve-ment expectations are.

15

Stiggins and Chappuis Student-Involved Classroom Assessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:27

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Condition #2 requires that teachers becomeclear themselves about the intended learning,teach intentionally to it, and let students in on thesecret up front.

Condition # 3: Assessment MethodsUsed Must Be Capable of AccuratelyReflecting the Intended Targets and AreUsed as Teaching Tools Along the Wayto Proficiency

Teachers have a variety of assessment alterna-tives from which to select as they focus on the val-ued leaning targets. Accurate assessment conclu-sions are dependent on the selection ordevelopment of proper assessment tools. The op-tions include selected response (multiple choice,true/false, matching, and fill in), extended written

response, performance assessments (based on ob-servation and judgment), and direct personalcommunication with the student. The challenge inall contexts is to match an assessment method withan intended achievement target. Bad matchesyield inaccurate assessments.

The teaching challenge is to use the assess-ment, in advance of the graded event, as a vehicleto deepen the learning and to reveal to studentstheir developing proficiencies. Table 1 provides asampling of strategies using different assessmentmethods as teaching tools (Stiggins, Arter,Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2004).

In addition, all assessments rely on a relativelysmall number of exercises to permit the user todraw inferences about a student’s mastery oflarger domains of achievement. Accurate assess-ments rely on a representative sample of all those

16

Closing Achievement Gaps: What Will It Take?

Table 1Classroom Assessment in Service of Learning

1. Engage students in reviewing strong and weak samples to determine attributes of a good performance orproduct.

2. Before a discussion or conference with the teacher or peer, students identify their own perceptions ofstrengths and weaknesses on a specific aspect of their work.

3. Students practice using criteria to evaluate anonymous strong and weak work.4. Students work in pairs to revise an anonymous weak work sample they have just evaluated.5. Students write a process paper, detailing the process they went through to create a product or

performance. In it they reflect on problems they encountered and how they solved them.6. Students develop practice test plans based on their understanding of the intended learning targets and

essential concepts in material to be learned.7. Students generate and answer questions they think might be on the test, based on their understanding of

the content/processes/skills/ they were responsible for learning.8. A few days before a test, students discuss or write answers to questions such as: “Why am I taking this

test? Who will use the results? How?” “What is it testing?” “How do I think I will do?” “What do I needto study?” “With whom might I work?”

9. Teacher arranges items on a test according to specific learning targets, and prepares a “test analysis” chartfor students, with three boxes: “My strengths,” “Quick review,” and “Further study.” After handing backthe corrected test, students identify learning targets they have mastered and write them in the “Mystrengths” box. Next, students categorize their wrong answers as either “simple mistake” or “furtherstudy.” Then, students list the simple mistakes in the “Quick review” box. Last, students write the rest ofthe learning targets represented by wrong answers in the “Further study” box.

10. Students review a collection of their work over time and reflect on their growth: “I have become a betterreader this quarter. I used to …, but now I … ”

11. Students use a collection of their self-assessments to summarize their learning and set goals for futurelearning: “Here is what I have learned… Here is what I need to work on … ”

12. Students select and annotate evidence of achievement for a portfolio.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:27

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

possibilities that is large enough to yield depend-able inferences about how the respondent wouldhave done if given all possible exercises.

But even if we devise clear achievement tar-gets, transform them into proper assessment meth-ods, and sample student performance appropri-ately, there are still factors that can cause astudent’s score on a test to misrepresent his or herreal achievement. Problems can arise from thetest, the student, or the environment where the testis administered.

For example, tests can consist of poorly wordedquestions, place reading or writing demands on re-spondents that are confounded with mastery of thematerial being tested, have more than one correctresponse, be incorrectly scored, or contain racialor ethnic bias. The student can experience extremeevaluation anxiety or interpret test items differ-ently from the author’s intent, as well as cheat,guess, or lack motivation. Any of these could giverise to inaccurate test results. Or the assessmentenvironment could be uncomfortable, poorlylighted, noisy, or otherwise distracting. Part of thechallenge of assessing well in the classroom is tobe aware of the potential sources of bias and toknow how to devise assessments, prepare stu-dents, and plan assessment environments to de-flect these problems before they ever impactresults.

Condition #3, then, demands accuracy of as-sessment results and intentional involvement ofstudents to deepen the learning.

Condition #4: Communication SystemsMust Deliver Assessment Results Intothe Hands of Their Intended Users in aTimely, Understandable, and HelpfulManner

The central question of the first condition,“What is the purpose for the assessment?”guides the development of effective communi-cation systems. In assessments OF learning,where the assessment purpose is to report howmuch students have learned at a particular pointin time, our communication systems consist ofgrade reports, standardized test reports, par-

ent–teacher conferences, and the like. Thesesystems are firmly in place (indeed, they may bethe only systems in place), and although ensur-ing their timeliness and clarity is important, de-veloping communication systems in service ofassessment FOR learning is required to close theachievement gap.

In assessments FOR learning, the assessmentpurpose is to provide teachers and students withinformation they need along the way, during thelearning process, to make decisions that will bringabout more learning. In this side of the assessmenthouse, an effective communication system pro-vides regular diagnostic information to the teacherand frequent descriptive feedback to the learner.Grades (numbers and letters) do not provide thedetail needed to function effectively as feedbackin this setting. Furthermore, evaluative,“high-stakes” grades—those destined for the re-port card—are often counterproductive while stu-dents are in the process of learning, for judgmentoffered too soon can shut learning down. Bloom,Black, and Wiliam, and other researchers,strongly support the use of criterion-based feed-back, instead, to keep the learning process going.Such comments reflect student strengths and areasfor improvement relative to established standards,but do not insert a summative judgment. They aremost powerful when they identify what studentsare doing right, or have learned, as well as whatthey need to work on (Black & Wiliam, 1998;Bloom, 1984).

Students also play an important role in a com-munication system designed to support learning.When they are involved in collecting evidence oftheir achievement, charting their growth, and set-ting goals for future learning, students develop in-sight into themselves as learners. In addition, boththe achievement and their commitment to learningincrease (Covington, 1992). Such practices pre-pare students to become active participants insharing their achievement with parents and otherteachers.

Condition #4, then, requires careful attentionto meeting the communication needs of audi-ences in both assessment OF and FOR learningcontexts.

17

Stiggins and Chappuis Student-Involved Classroom Assessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:27

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Conclusion

Students’ decisions about their academic ca-pabilities are formulated on the basis of class-room assessment evidence. In contexts wherewide gaps appear in test score results betweenand among different subgroups of the studentpopulation, the chances are high that low per-formers have judged themselves to be incapableof succeeding. In this presentation, we proposethe use of student-involved classroom assessmentto turn their thinking in more positive directions.The evidence reveals that there is no questionabout what will happen to their achievement andscore gaps when we do so.

References

Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakestesting, uncertainty, and student learning. Educa-tional Policy Analysis Archives, 10(8). RetrievedMay 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.

Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment forlearning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK:University of Cambridge Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and class-room learning. Educational Assessment: Principles,Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. Also summarized inan article entitled, Inside the black box: Raising

standards through classroom assessment. Phi DeltaKappan, 80, 139–148.

Bloom, B. (1984). The search for methods of group in-struction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educa-tional Leadership, 41(8), 4–17.

Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worthperspective on motivation and school reform. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Jerald, C. D. (2001). Dispelling the Myth Revisited.Washington DC: Education Trust.

Meisels, S., Atkins-Burnett, S., Xue, Y., & Bickel, D. D.(2003). Creating a system of accountability: The im-pact of instructional assessment on elementary chil-dren’s achievement scores. Educational PolicyAnalysis Archives, 11(9). Retrieved January 2004from http://epaa .asu.edu/eapp/v11n9/

Rodriguez, M. C. (2004). The role of classroom assess-ment in student performance on TIMSS. AppliedMeasurement in Education, 17, 1–24.

Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the designof instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18,119–144.

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis! The absenceof assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83,758–765.

Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-involved assessmentFOR learning (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: MerrillPrentice Hall.

Stiggins, R. Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S.(2004). Classroom assessment for student learning:Doing it right—using it well. Portland, OR: Assess-ment Training Institute.

18

Closing Achievement Gaps: What Will It Take?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:27

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14