Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Including Student Voices in the Design of More Inclusive Assessments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Accessible Achievement Tests for All Students

Abstract

Due, in part, to changes in federal policy (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] and No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act), the past two decades have seen a dramatic change in the number of students included in state and district accountability systems. According to the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), in the early 1990s most states reported that fewer than 10% of students with disabilities participated in their states’ large-scale assessment. By the year 2000, the average percentage of students with disabilities in the general assessment had risen to 84%, and by 2008 that number had risen to above 95% (i.e., the participation rate required by NCLB).

We hardly know anything about what students think about educational change because no one ever asks them….The information is negligible as to what students think of specific innovations that affect them. To say that students do not have feelings and opinions about these matters is to say that they are objects, not humans (Fullan, 2001, pp. 182–189).

Portions of this chapter appeared previously in Roach, A. T., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N., (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Bremer, C. (2009). Achieving transparency in the public reporting of 2006–2007 assessment results (Technical Report 53). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beddow, P. A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Test accessibility and modification inventory (TAMI). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University; Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, J. H., Sonnefeld, L. J., & Grabowski, B. (1983). The relationship between fear of failure and learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 6, 217–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Retrieved November 7, 2010, from the http://www.jtla.org database

  • Elliott, S. N. (1986). Children’s ratings of the acceptability of classroom interventions for misbehavior: Findings and methodological considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, E., Kim, J., & Elliott, S. N. (in press). The effects of accommodations on adolescents’ self-efficacy and test performance. Journal of Special Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, M. (2009). Data collection and analysis. In E. K. Tisdal, J. M. Davis & M. Gallagher (Eds.), Researching with children and young people: Research design, methods, & analysis (pp. 65–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, C., Liu, K., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. (2007). Student think aloud reflections on comprehensible and readable assessment items: Perspectives on what does and does not make an item readable (Technical Report 48). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, C. J., Bottsford-Miller, N. A., & Thompson, S. J. (2006). Using the think aloud method (cognitive labs) to evaluate test design for students with disabilities and English language learners (Technical Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, P. (1996). Enlarging the dialogue in educational measurement: Voices from interpretive research traditions. Educational Researcher, 25(1), 20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, P. A., Pullin, D., Gee, J. P., & Haertel, E. H. (2005). The idea of testing: Psychometric and sociocultural perspectives. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 3(2), 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Principles for professional ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicase, M. (1995). Treating text anxiety: A review of three approaches. Teacher Education and Practice, 11, 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, A. T., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saliva, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2007). Assessment in Special and Inclusive Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sena, W. J. D., Lowe, P. A., & Lee, S. W. (2007). Significant predictors of test anxiety among students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 360–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. (2001). Disability, Society, and the Individual. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Anderson, M. E., & Miller, N. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (Technical Report 42). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical42.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Triplett, C. F., & Barksdale, M. A. (2005). Third through sixth graders’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 237–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Education. (2007, April). Modified academic achievement standards: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelock, A., Haney, W., & Bebell, D. (2000). What can student drawings tell us about high-stakes testing in Massachusetts? The Teachers College Record, ID Number: 10634.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 30302, USA

    Andrew T. Roach

  2. Department of Special Education, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, 37067, Nashville, TN, USA

    Peter A. Beddow

Authors
  1. Andrew T. Roach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter A. Beddow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew T. Roach .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, 85287, Arizona, USA

    Stephen N. Elliott

  2. , Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, 37067, Tennessee, USA

    Ryan J. Kettler

  3. , Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, 37067, Tennessee, USA

    Peter A. Beddow

  4. , Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, 37067, Tennessee, USA

    Alexander Kurz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roach, A.T., Beddow, P.A. (2011). Including Student Voices in the Design of More Inclusive Assessments. In: Elliott, S., Kettler, R., Beddow, P., Kurz, A. (eds) Handbook of Accessible Achievement Tests for All Students. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9356-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation