Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:24:06.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - The Learning Sciences in Educational Assessment: An Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Jacqueline P. Leighton  and
Mark J. Gierl
Jacqueline P. Leighton
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Mark J. Gierl
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Summary

Victor Hugo is credited with stating that “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” In educational achievement testing, a multi-billion-dollar activity with profound implications for individuals, governments, and countries, the idea whose time has come, it seems, is that large-scale achievement tests must be designed according to the science of human learning. Why this idea, and why now? To begin to set a context for this idea and this question, a litany of research studies and public policy reports can be cited to make the simple point that students in the United States and abroad are performing relatively poorly in relation to expected standards and projected economic growth requirements (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; Chen, Gorin, Thompson, & Tatsuoka, 2008; Grigg, Lauko, & Brockway, 2006; Hanushek, 2003, 2009; Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001; Kirsch, Braun, & Yamamoto, 2007; Manski & Wise, 1983; Murnane, Willet, Dulhaldeborde, & Tyler, 2000; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; National Research Council, 2005, 2007, 2009; Newcombe et al., 2009; Phillips, 2007; Provasnik, Gonzales, & Miller, 2009). According to a 2007 article in the New York Times, Gary Phillips, chief scientist at the American Institutes for Research, was quoted as saying, “our Asian economic competitors are winning the race to prepare students in math and science.”

Type
Chapter
Information
The Learning Sciences in Educational Assessment
The Role of Cognitive Models
 , pp. 1 - 44
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, S. & Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669−681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing – a revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Anderson, J.R. (2007) How can the human mind occur in the physical universe?New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baxter, G. & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 17, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R.E. & Gitomer, D.H. (2008). Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment, and professional support. ETS Research Memorandum-08–13, 1–30. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Birenbaum, M., Tatsuoka, C., & Yamada, T. (2004). Diagnostic assessment in TIMSS-R: Between countries and within-country comparisons of eighth graders' mathematics performance. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 151–173.Google Scholar
Bishop, J. (1989). Is the test score decline responsible for the productivity growth decline?American Economic Review, 79, 178–97.Google Scholar
Bishop, J.H. (1991). Achievement, test scores, and relative wages. In Kosters, M. H. (Ed.), Workers and their wages (pp. 146–186). Washington, DC: The AEI Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, S.M. (2006). Assessing for deep understanding. In Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 205–221). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Y-H., Gorin, J.S., Thompson, M.S. & Tatsuoka, K.K. (2008). Cross-cultural validity of the TIMSS-1999 mathematics test: Verification of a cognitive model. International Journal of Testing, 8, 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M.T.H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A., Halverson, R., & Brown, J.S. (2009). Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Corter, J.E. & Tatsuoka, K.K. (2002). Cognitive and measurement foundations of diagnostic assessments in mathematics. College Board Technical Report. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Cronbach, L.J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, J. (2007). Large-scale assessment of mathematics education. In Lester, F.K. Jr. (Ed.), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1111–1142). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Downing, S.M. & Haladyna, T.M. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of test development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Embretson, S.E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 380–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embretson, S.E. & Daniel, R.S. (2008). Understanding and quantifying cognitive complexity level in mathematical problem solving items. Psychology Science, 50, 328–344.Google Scholar
Embretson, S.E. & Wetzel, C.D. (1987). Component latent trait models for paragraph comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K.A. (2009). (Ed.). Development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J., & Hoffman, R.R. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K.A. & Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. New York: Cambridge Press.
Ferrara, S. & DeMauro, G.E. (2006). Standardized assessment of individual achievement in K-12. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 579–621). Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education and American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Gierl, M.J. (1997). Comparing the cognitive representations of test developers and students on a mathematics achievement test using Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gierl, M.J., Leighton, J.P., Wang, C., Zhou, J., Gokiert, R., & Tan, A. (2009). Validating cognitive models of task performance in algebra on the SAT®. College Board Research Report No. 2009–3. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar
Gierl, M.J., Zheng, Y., & Cui, Y. (2008). Using the attribute hierarchy method to identify and interpret cognitive skills that produce group differences. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobbo, C. & Chi, M.T.H. (1986). How knowledge is structured and used by expert and novice children. Cognitive Development, 1, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, E.J. & Miles, J.A. (2001). TIMSS 1999 user guide for the international database: IEA's repeat of the third international mathematics and science study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
Gorin, J.S. (2009). Diagnostic Classification Models: Are they Necessary?Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 7(1), 30–33.Google Scholar
Gorin, J.S. (2006). Test Design with cognition in mind. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorin, J.S. & Embretson, S.E. (2006). Item difficulty modeling of paragraph comprehension items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 394–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J.G. (1983). Forms of understanding in mathematical problem solving. In Paris, S.G., Olson, G.M., Stevenson, H.W. (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Greeno, J.G. (2003). Measurement, trust, and meaning. Measurement: Interdisciplinary, Research, and Perspectives, 1, 260–263.Google Scholar
Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nation's report card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006–466). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E.A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113, 64–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, E.A. (2005). The economics of school quality. German Economic Review, 6, 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, E.A. (2009). The economic value of education and cognitive skills. In Sykes, G., Schneider, B. & Plank, D. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 39–56). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hussar, W.J. & Bailey, T.M. (2008). Projections of Education Statistics to 2017 (NCES 2008–078). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Irvine, S.H. & Kyllonen, P.C. (2002). Item generation for test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. & Bara, B.G. (1984). Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2004). Mental models and reasoning. In Leighton, J.P. & Sternberg's, R.J. (Eds.), Nature of reasoning (pp. 169–204). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education and American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (Ed.). (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirsch, I., Braun, H., & Yamamoto, K. (2007). America's perfect storm: Three forces changing our nation's future. ETS Policy Information Report. Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koedinger, K.R. & Anderson, J.R. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14, 511–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koretz, D.M. & Hamilton, L.S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In Brennan, R. (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 531–578). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?Psychological Science, 12, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Larkin, J. & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10,000 words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, J.P. (in press). A Cognitive Model for the Assessment of Higher Order Thinking in Students. To appear in Schraw, G. (Ed.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Assessment of higher order thinking skills. Information Age Publishing.
Leighton, J.P., Cui, Y., & Cor, M.K. (2009). Testing expert-based and student-based cognitive models: An application of the attribute hierarchy method and hierarchical consistency index. Applied Measurement in Education, 22, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, J.P., Gierl, M.J., & Hunka, S. (2004). The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: A Variation on Tatsuoka's rule-space approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 205–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, J.P. & Gierl, M.J. (2007). Defining and evaluating models of cognition used in educational measurement to make inferences about examinees' thinking processes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, J.P., Heffernan, C., Cor, M.K., Gokiert, R., & Cui, Y. (in press). An experimental test of student verbal reports and teacher evaluations as a source of validity evidence for test development. Applied Measurement in Education.
Leighton, J.P. & Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Reasoning and problem solving. In Healy, A.F. & Proctor, R.W. (Volume Eds.), Experimental psychology (pp. 623–648). Volume 4 in I. B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief) Handbook of psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lohman, D.F. & Nichols, P. (2006). Meeting the NRC panel's recommendations: Commentary on the papers by Mislevy and Haertel, Gorin, and Abedi and Gandara. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C.F. & Wise, D.A. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, R.J. (1993). Foundations of a new test theory. In Frederiksen, N., Mislevy, R.J., & Bejar, I.I. (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 19–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R.J. (2006). Cognitive psychology and educational assessment. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 257–305). Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education and American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R.J. & Behrens, J.T., Bennett, R.E., Demark, S.F., Frezzo, D.C., Levy, R., Robinson, D.H., Rutstein, D.W., Shute, V.J., Stanley, K., & Winters, F.I. (2010). On the roles of external knowledge representations in assessment design. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(2). http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol8/2.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R.J. & Haertel, G. (2006). Implications for evidence-centered design for educational assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25, 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L.S., & Almond, R.G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–67.Google Scholar
Murnane, R.J., Willett, J.B., Duhaldeborde, Y. & Tyler, J.H. (2000). How important are the cognitive skills of teenagers in predicting subsequent earnings?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 547–68.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
,National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
,National Research Council (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., and Glaser, R. (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
,National Research Council. National Research Council (2005). How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. In Donovan, M.S. & Bransford, J.D. (Eds.), Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
,National Research Council. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
,National Research Council. National Research Council (2009). Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood: Paths Toward Excellence and Equity. Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics, Cross, Christopher T., Woods, Taniesha A., and Schweingruber, Heidi, Editors. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Newcombe, N.S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J., Gomez, L., Klahr, D., Linn, M., Miller, K., & Mix, K. (2009). Psychology's role in mathematics and science education. American Psychologist, 64, 538–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Times, New York (Nov. 14, 2007), Study compares states' math and science scores with other countries'.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub Law No. 107–110 (2002, January). Retrieved April 11, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/ 107–110.pdf
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003). Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Author.
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007). PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World Executive Summary. Author. Accessed from world wide web on March 26, 2010, at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf.
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009). Education today: The OECD perspective. Author.
Pashler, H., Rohrer, D., Cepeda, N. & Carpenter, S. (2007). Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: Choices and consequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellegrino, J.W., BaxterG.P., G.P., & Glaser, R., (1999). Addressing the “Two Disciplines” problem: linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practice. Review of Research in Education, 24, 307–352.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child's conception of space. New York: W. W. Norton &Co.Google Scholar
Phillips, G.W. (2007). Expressing international educational achievement in terms of U.S. performance standards: Linking NAEP achievement levels to TIMSS. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
Polikoff, M. (2010). Instructional sensitivity as a psychometric property of assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29, 3–14.CrossRef
Provasnik, S., Gonzales, P., & Miller, D. (2009). U.S. Performance Across International Assessments of Student Achievement: Special Supplement to The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009–083). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Resnick, L.B. (1983). Toward a cognitive theory of instruction. In Paris, S.G., Olson, G.M., Stevenson, H.W. (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 5–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Russell, J.F. (2005). Evidence related to awareness, adoption, and implementation of the standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. The Journal of Technology Studies, 31, 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, A.A. (2007). The answer is in the question: A guide for describing and investigating the conceptual foundations and statistical properties of cognitive psychometric models. International Journal of Testing, 7, 95–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, A.A. & Templin, J.L. (2008). Unique characteristics of diagnostic classification models: A comprehensive review of the current state-of-the-art. Measurement, 2, 219–262.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shute, V.J., Hansen, E.G., & Almond, R.G. (2008). You can't fatten a hog by weighing it – or can you? Evaluating an assessment for learning system called ACED. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18, 289–316.Google Scholar
Shute, V.J., Masduki, I., Donmez, O., Kim, Y.J., Dennen, V.P., Jeong, A.C., & Wang, C-Y. (2010). Modeling, assessing, and supporting key competencies within game environments. In Ifenthaler, D., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Seel, N.M. (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 281–310). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Siegler, R.S. (2005). Children's learning. American Psychologist, 60, 769–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmeiser, C.B. & Welch, C.J. (2006). Test development. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 307–353). Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education and American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Shrager, J. & Siegler, R.S. (1998). SCADS: A model of children's strategy choices and strategy discoveries. Psychological Science, 9, 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slotta, J.D. & Chi, M.T.H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, R.E. & Lohman, D.F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 263–331). New York: American Council on Education, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K.K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatsuoka, K.K. (1985). A probabilistic model for diagnostic misconceptions in the pattern classification approach. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatsuoka, K.K. (1995). Architecture of knowledge structures and cognitive diagnosis: A statistical pattern recognition and classification approach. In Nichols, P. D., Chipman, S. F.., & Brennan, R. L. (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 327–359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K.K. (2009). Cognitive assessment. An introduction to the rule space method. New York City, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K.K., Corter, J.E., & Guerrero, A. (2004). Coding manual for identifying involvement of content, skill, and process subskills for the TIMSS-R 8th grade and 12th grade general mathematics test items (Technical Report). New York: Department of Human Development, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K.K., Corter, J.E., & Tatsuoka, C. (2004). Patterns of diagnosed mathematical content and process skills in TIMSS-R across a sample of 20 countries. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 901–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D., Li, Q., Knott, L., & Zhongxiao, L. (2008). The structure of student dialogue in web-assisted mathematics courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36, 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tubau, E. (2008). Enhancing probabilistic reasoning: The role of causal graphs, statistical format and numerical skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, B. (2002). Some ways that graphics communicate. In Allen, N. (Editor), Words and images: New steps in an old dance, (pp. 57–74). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
,U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2008). Digest of education statistics, 2008, Chapter 6 (NCES 2008–022).
Wilson, M. & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, L. (2009). Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2006–07 (Fiscal Year 2007). (NCES 2009–337). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×