Sarah M. Bonner

The relationship between classroom assessment and educational measurement has been under discussion for some time. This article uses the TISM framework ( Theory, Instrumentation, Scales and units , and Modeling ) to clarify which aspects of classroom assessment are educational measurement (e.g., a grade on a performance assessment keyed to a learning standard) and which are not (e.g., extended elaborated feedback on that same assessment). We conclude that classroom assessment which produces ordinal or interval‐level quantitative scores—by whatever name they are called, including scores, grades, and performance levels—is educational measurement because it implicates theory, instrumentation, scales and units, and modeling of error. On this basis, we claim that work in classroom assessment and educational measurement can and should be mutually informative.

AERA Online Paper Repository Viewer

Summative course grades or marks are teacher-constructed and contain sources of variance other than achievement. Nonachievement grading dimensions may relate to beliefs about learning and instruction, which are formed early and have effects on practice. We report the development and validation of the Survey of Unorthodox Grading Beliefs for teacher candidates and teachers. Individuals seeking licensure in teaching participated in survey research. Using confirmatory factor analysis (n = 714), we found four latent factors related to management concerns, beliefs about effort, a success orientation, and general leniency. The internal structure was acceptable and further supported by external structural relationships. We found predicted relationships between dimensions of grading beliefs and other instructional and assessment perceptions such as attitudes about testing and constructivist teaching. The systematic nature of beliefs about grading has implications for research involving use of grades, as well as for teacher education and professional development.

We describe the use of think alouds to examine substantive processes involved in performance on a formative assessment of computational thinking (CT) designed to support self-regulated learning (SRL). Our task design model included three phases of work on a computational thinking problem: forethought, performance, and reflection. The cognitive processes of seven students who reported their thinking during all three phases were analyzed. Ratings of artifacts of code indicated the computational thinking problem was moderately difficult to solve (M = 15, SD = 5) on a scale of 0 to 21 points. Profiles were created to illustrate length and sequence of different types of cognitive processes during the think-aloud. Results provide construct validity evidence for the tasks as formative assessments of CT, elucidate the way learners at different levels of skill use SRL, shed light on the nature of computational thinking, and point out areas for improvement in assessment design.