Designing classroom assessments with the end user in mind

References

• Alonzo, A. C. (2018). An argument for formative assessment with science learning progressions. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(2), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2017.1408630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Atit, K., Power, J. R., Pigott, T., Lee, J., Geer, E. A., Uttal, D. H., Ganley, C. M., & Sorby, S. A. (2021). Examining the relations between spatial skills and mathematical performance: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(3), 699–720. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02012-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aunio, P., & Niemivirta, M. (2010). Predicting children’s mathematical performance in grade one by early numeracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroody, A. J., Purpura, D. J., Eiland, M. D., Reid, E. E., & Paliwal, V. (2016). Does fostering reasoning strategies for relatively difficult basic combinations promote transfer by K-3 students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 576–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, T., Knight, K., Hatfield, C., Perry, L., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2019). Teacher advisory panel technical report: Fall 2018 – summer 2019 (Technical Report No. 19-25) [Technical Report]. Southern Methodist University, Research in Mathematics Education.
   Google Scholar
• Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender differences in high school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/749456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedek, J., & Miner, T. (2002, July 8–12). Measuring desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. In Proceedings of UPA 2002 Conference. https://nanopdf.com/download/measuring-desirability-new-methods-for-evaluating_pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E. (2015). The changing nature of educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 370–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14554179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowie, A., & Cassim, F. (2016). Linking classroom and community: A theoretical alignment of service learning and a human-centered design methodology in contemporary communication design education. Education as Change, 20(1), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.17159/19479417/2016/556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, M. A., & Asbury, J. (2012). Focus group research. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterji, M. (2013). Bad tests or bad test use: A case of SAT use to examine why we need stakeholder conversations on validity. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 115(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, Y.-L., & Mix, K. S. (2013). Spatial training improves children’s mathematics ability. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claessens, A., & Engel, M. (2013). How important is where you start? Early mathematics knowledge and later school success. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 115(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2016). Math, science, and technology in the early grades. The Future of Children, 26(2), 75–94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43940582 https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cockburn, A. (2000). Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley Professional.
   Google Scholar
• Confrey, J. (2018). Future of education and skills 2030: Curriculum analysis – a synthesis of research on learning trajectories/progressions in mathematics (EDU/EDPC[2018]44/ANN3). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.) SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Corcoran, T., Mogat, F. A., & Rosher, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (CPRE Research Report #RR-63). Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrington-Flint, L., Canobi, K. H., Wood, C., & Faulkner, D. (2007). The role of relational reasoning in children’s addition concepts. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151006X108406
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, W., Oon, E. P.-T., & Benson, S. (2021). Rethinking educational assessment from the perspective of design thinking. EDeR. Educational Design Research, 5(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.5.1.1537
   Google Scholar
• Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centered design? The Design Journal, 17(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2009). Developer, teacher, student and employer evaluations of competency-based assessment quality. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(2–3), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Hanington, B. (2003). Methods in the making: A perspective on the state of human research in design. Design Issues, 19(4), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793603322545019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2019). Universal methods of design expanded and revised: 125 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. (2010). An introduction to design thinking: Process guide. Stanford University. https://web.stanford.edu/∼mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf
   Google Scholar
• International Test Commission. (2012). International guidelines on quality control in scoring, test analysis, and reporting of test scores. www.intestcom.org
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, C. M., Johnson, T. R., & Zhang, J. (2005). A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawakita, J. (1982). The original KJ method. Kawakita Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Kettler, R. J., Glover, T. A., Albers, C. A., & Feeney-Kettler, K. A. (2014). An introduction to universal screening in educational settings. In R. J. Kettler, T. A. Glover, C. A. Albers, & K. A. Feeney-Kettler (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings (pp. 3–16). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2016). Test development process. In S Lane, M. R. Raymond, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 3–18). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, B., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to explore complex problems, develop innovative strategies, and deliver effective design solutions. Quarto Publishing Group USA.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, J. A., Merkley, R., Mickle, J., Collimore, L.-M., Hawes, Z., & Ansari, D. (2021). Exploring the implementation of early math assessments in Kindergarten classrooms: A research-practice collaboration. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15(4), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKercher, K. A. (2020). Beyond sticky notes. Doing co-design for real: Mindsets, methods and movements. Beyond Sticky Notes.
   Google Scholar
• McMurrer, J., Barton, T., Hatfield, C., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2021). MMaRS Teacher Advisory Panel: Teacher resource development (Tech. Rep. No. 21-06). Southern Methodist University, Research in Mathematics Education.
   Google Scholar
• McMurrer, J., Mota, A., Pinilla, R., Hatfield, C., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2020). Teacher advisory panel: Summer 2020 (Technical Report No. 20-22) [Technical Report]. Southern Methodist University, Research in Mathematics Education.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12519
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9822
   Google Scholar
• Newcombe, N. S., & Frick, A. (2010). Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what, and how. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(3), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01089.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-052029-2.50005-X
   Google Scholar
• Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Barros, R., & Sylva, K. (2012). The relative importance of two different mathematical abilities to mathematics achievement. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(Pt 1), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02033.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrino, J. W. (2014). Assessment as a positive influence on 21st century teaching and learning: A systems approach to progress. Psicología Educativa, 20(2), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.002
   Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., & Watkins, D. A. (2019). Assessment to promote equity and epistemic justice: A use-case of a research-practice partnership in science education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219843249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., Confrey, J., Maloney, A., & Rupp, A. A. (2014). Design decisions in developing learning trajectories-based assessments in mathematics: A case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 47–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.866118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohrer, C. P. (2008, October 28). Desirability studies: Measuring aesthetic response to visual designs. XD Strategy. https://www.xdstrategy.com/desirability-studies/
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00080.x
   Google Scholar
• Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2019). Learning trajectories in early mathematics education. In D. Siemon (Ed.), Researching and using progressions (trajectories) in mathematics education (pp. 32–55). Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Shedroff, N. (2003). Research methods for designing effective experiences. In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 156–159). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 147–181). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014). What’s past is prologue: Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational Researcher (Washington, D.C.: 1972), 43(7), 352–360. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14553660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitacre, I., Schoen, R. C., Champagne, Z., & Goddard, A. (2016). Relational thinking: What’s the difference? Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(5), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.23.5.0302
   Google Scholar