Blueprint 2000 Student Performance Standards: What Variables Correlate with
Teacher Perceptions of Goal 3?
Charlotte County Public Schools
Florida Journal of Educational Research
Fall 1997, Vol. 37(1)
Many previous educational reform efforts have ultimately failed
to meet initial expectations. One critical factor, easily over-looked in the
reform process, is teacher attitude. Using attitude theory and research on
teacher attitudes, instruments were developed to measure teacher attitudes
toward the Blueprint 2000 student performance standards and student assessment
procedures. A sample of 138 teachers completed a survey measuring attitudes
toward Goal 3 standards and type of assessment. Teachers rated the standards as
being important instructional objectives, and a moderate correlation between
attitude toward performance based assessment and attitude toward Goal 3
standards was observed. Implications are discussed.
Educational literature documents many examples of well-intentioned reform
initiatives, implemented as "top-down" directives, using "best
practices", that eventually failed to achieve initial expectations
(McCollum, 1994). The change process has been analyzed in numerous ways. One
element in the educational reform process that might be overlooked is teacher
attitude. Researchers have shown the importance of teacher attitude in the
dynamics of educational reform, and number of studies identify teacher attitude
as a key component in successful reform initiatives (Kimpston, 1985; Griswold,
1988; Harvey & McGovern, 1985; and Jett & Schafer, 1993). Perhaps
teachers with favorable attitudes are more receptive to training. If so, using
information on teacher attitude could assist in directing current reform
In 1994 the Goals 2000: Educate America Act became national law. This
educational reform initiative, broad and ambitious in design is intended to
impact every school in the nation (America 2000, 1991; Goals 2000, 1994).
Blueprint 2000 was adopted by the Florida legislature to implement Goals 2000 on
a local level (Florida Commission, 1992). A study of initial secondary school
improvement plans revealed that plans designed at the school level tended to
reflect efforts to raise test scores and improve attendance rates in the absence
of additional, substantial resources (Kushner, Carey, & Kromrey, 1995).
Alternative assessment, specifically performance based assessment, is closely
linked with current educational reform initiatives (Linn, 1987). In 1991, a
Committee on Educational Assessment was established by the Florida Commissioner
of Education to study the state's current and developing educational assessment
programs. The Committee's purpose was to describe assessment activities that are
congruent with Florida's accountability program (Florida Committee on
Educational Assessment, 1992). Alternative assessment techniques were considered
because of their potential for: (1) addressing student knowledge directly, (2)
incorporating tasks that provide an opportunity for students to use higher-order
thinking skills, and (3) integrating knowledge learned in and out of the school
environment. Although the committee concluded that the complexity of using
alternative assessments necessitated caution, they recommended implementing
pilot projects that use portfolios, performance assessment tasks, projects, and
demonstrations. This effort to develop performance based assessments is similar
to other national and international efforts such as the New Standards Project
(Learning Research and Development Center, 1991). It could be, with the
importance of assessment to current reform, teacher attitudes toward assessment
might serve as one indicator of the potential success of Blueprint 2000.
By design, teachers play a pivotal role in the implementation of Blueprint
2000 student performance objectives. Not only do many teachers serve on School
Improvement Teams, which are responsible for developing and assessing school
based goals, but they also serve as the change agent in incorporating classroom
instruction and assessment changes. This is supported by existing evidence that
successful school based change addresses what teachers do and think (Tollefson
et al, 1985). Furthermore, the current state assessment system is designed to
have more impact at the classroom level than previous systems (Florida
Department of Education, 1994). Teacher attitude toward the standards and
different assessment methods may well serve as one barometer of the potential
success of current reform efforts. Teacher attitudes represent a potential
source of information that could be used to facilitate reform efforts and assist
in the development of training programs.
This evaluation is a context analysis study. The purpose is to describe
teacher attitudes toward Blueprint 2000 student performance standards;
norm-referenced achievement testing, and performance based assessment. The
relationship between teacher attitude toward the performance standards and
selected demographic and attitudinal variables is also investigated.
The following evaluation questions are addressed: (1) Do teachers consider
the Blueprint 2000 student performance standards as important instructional
objectives? (2) Do teachers value performance-based assessment? (3) Do teachers
value norm-referenced achievement testing? (4) What is the relationship between
selected demographic and attitudinal variables and teachers' attitude toward the
student performance standards?
Attitude Theory. Triandis (1971) defines an
attitude as "an idea charged with emotion which predisposes a class of
actions to a particular class of social situations." Earlier, Rosenberg and
Hovland (1960) delineated an attitude model consisting of three components:
cognitive, affective, and behavioral. According to their model, a person
categorizes an attitude object, for which an emotional response is associated,
resulting in a predisposition to action.
One can infer a strong relationship among these three components
from initial research (Rosenberg, 1956; Bagozzi, 1978); evidence to the contrary
has also been produced (Gardner, Wonnacott, and Taylor, 1968). Other factors,
such as normative beliefs, (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1973; Burnkrant and Page, 1988)
have also been hypothesized as influencing the prediction of behaviors based on
attitude. Most researchers would probably agree that a more general cognitive
theory acknowledging the influence of both internal and external cue information
would be most functional for predicting behavior (Chaiken and Baldwin, 1981).
Teacher Attitude Theory. Researcher's early models
depicting influences on teacher behavior gave little credibility to the role of
attitudes (Munby, 1982). Ernest (1989) created a model defining the relationship
among knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes. The model relates specifically to
mathematics, but offers insights into teacher attitudes in general. His model
acknowledges the role of beliefs and attitudes, with attitudes defined as a
teacher's personal reaction to educational experiences, compounded with other
influences. Ernest suggests that a crucial factor in developing beliefs and
attitudes through teacher training activities is the form, rather than the
content of the learning experiences. An example of how this knowledge is often
ignored is when preservice or inservice activities use a lecture format for
presenting training in new and innovative instructional methodologies. Drawing
on these findings a model depicting influences on teacher behavior is presented
in Figure A.
Teacher Attitude Toward Testing. In
assessing teacher attitudes toward traditional testing practices, specifically,
standardized achievement testing, results have been less than definitive. Some
researchers have found teacher attitudes to be generally positive (Beck &
Stetz, 1979; Dorr-Breme, 1983; and Jett & Scafer, 1993), while others find
their attitudes to be negative (Green & Stager, 1984, 1986; Lambert, 1981;
Lissitz & Schafer, 1987). Regarding testing behavior, there is some evidence
that teacher attitude toward testing practices can be used to predict actual
testing practices (Monsaas & Englehard, 1991) and that, attitude, along with
training and experience, are important factors related to test use
(Lazar-Morrison, 1980). Monsaas (1991), using a model representing attitudes and
subjective norms as predictors of behavior, accounted for forty-two percent of
the variance in teacher testing practices.
Teacher Attitude Correlates. Studies aimed at
identifying teacher characteristics associated with specific teacher attitudes
have provided interesting results. Related to attitude toward standardized
achievement testing, teachers with more classroom experience tend to be more
positive than inexperienced teachers (Yeh, 1978). Furthermore, teacher attitudes
toward standardized testing are a function of grade level assignment, i.e.,
teachers at higher grades are more positive (Green & Stager, 1986; Tollefson
et al., 1985). In contrast, these latter two studies report conflicting findings
about the relationship between formal measurement training and positive testing
attitudes. In surveying teacher attitudes toward the Blueprint 2000 standards,
Hall and Tremmel (1995) found the greatest support for the standards among
elementary teachers and teachers with less teaching experience.
In summary, the following assumptions are offered: (1) attitude
can be conceptualized as multidimensional, with internal and external factors
influencing predicted behavior; (2) teacher attitude is a key factor in the
success of educational reform efforts; (3) teacher attitude can be used in a
prediction model of future behaviors; and (4) certain teacher characteristics
may be associated with outcome variables such as attitudes toward traditional
testing practices or current educational reform. These assumptions provide the
basis for an initial exploration into teacher characteristics that are
associated with positive attitudes toward Blueprint 2000 student performance
standards, a key element in the Florida reform initiative.
Instrumentation/ Alpha Studies. Measures for three
different attitudes were developed: attitude toward standardized achievement
testing, attitude toward performance-based assessment, and attitude toward the
Blueprint 2000 Goal 3 student performance standards. Initial forms of the three
scales contained items representing affective, cognitive, and behavioral
components. Validation evidence was gathered through pilot studies and field
Attitude Toward Standardized Achievement Testing. To
measure a respondent's perception of the usefulness of standardized achievement
test data, items based on previous research and current practice were developed
using a Likert-style scale. Responses were categorized on a 5 point scale
ranging from "Strongly agree " to Strongly disagree". Individual
items represented the three attitudinal components, with most classified as
behavioral and cognitive. A stratified random sample of 95 teachers from a
medium-sized Florida school district completed the original 44 item form. Data
analysis based on item-remainder correlations produced 12 items that
demonstrated internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) in measuring the construct
(r=.95). Item-remainder coefficients ranged from .63 to .84.
Attitude Toward Performance Based Assessment. Similar
procedures were used to develop a measure of teachers' attitude toward the
usefulness of information derived from performance-based assessment. Items were
generated and formatted with the same Likert-style scale. As with the previous
measure, most items represented the behavioral and cognitive attitude
Teachers from the same school district were randomly selected.
In addition, a group of students in an undergraduate measurement course was also
randomly selected. A total of 108 teachers and teacher candidates completed the
30 item scale. Analysis revealed 10 items that demonstrated internal
consistency, (Cronbach's alpha, r=.94). Item-reminder coefficients ranged from
.62 to .95.
Attitude Toward Blueprint 2000 Student Performance
Standards. Blueprint 2000 Goal 3 states that, "Students
successfully compete at the highest levels nationally and internationally and
are prepared to make well-reasoned, thoughtful, and healthy lifelong
decisions", and standards were developed to measure progress toward meeting
this goal. To develop an attitudinal measure, teacher perception of the
importance of each of the individual standards was determined by having them
rate each standard using a 5 point scale: not important (1); somewhat important;
important; very important; and extremely important - essential (5).
A pilot sample was chosen by selecting two schools from each
organizational level (elementary, middle, and high school) in another medium
size school district. A total of 210 teachers completed the survey. On the
5-point scale, individual standard - mean ratings ranged from 3.82 to 4.43.
Responses to the individual standards were collapsed to provide an overall
estimate of attitude toward the student performance goal. This resulted in a
distribution that was negatively skewed, i.e., most responses were in the upper
range of the scale.
Procedures. The version of the instrument used for
this study incorporated the three attitudinal measures described, along with
several demographic items. Some demographic variables were chosen based on
previous research findings that suggest an association between the student
performance attitude variable and teaching level (Hall & Tremmel, 1995);
teaching experience (Hall & Tremmel, 1995) and measurement courses
completed. Other variables were studied based on expected association with the
standards attitude variable. School Improvement Team membership was included
because a higher level of participation in reform efforts would be expected to
be associated with positive attitudes toward the reform. Recertification method
was also studied on the premise that teachers recertifying through university
courses would be more likely to be exposed to recent reform methodology and
thus, more favorable to reform, than teachers earning inservice points through
their local school district. The practice of using the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards was chosen as a variable since it would
be expected that users of those reform efforts would also be favorable to the
Blueprint 2000 reform initiative.
Data Collection. The sampling plan reflected a
purposive design, with 4 schools chosen on the basis of organizational level and
geographic location (2 elementary schools, 1 middle school, and 1 high school).
Each teacher received the instrument as well as a sample of a performance-based
assessment prompt. Responses were anonymous.
Respondents. Of the 234 surveys distributed, 138
were returned for an overall response rate of 59%. Broken down by organizational
level, the number and response rate were as follows: elementary 78 (80%); middle
school 31 (54%); and high school 27 (30%). This represents a high response rate
among elementary teachers and a moderate to low rate for secondary teachers. Of
the total number of respondents, 57% were at the elementary level, 23% were at
the middle school level, and 20% were at the high school level. This
distribution approximates the proportional representation of teachers district
wide. In terms of experience, 57% had 10 years or more experience, 18% had at
least 6 years of teaching experience, and only 5% had 1 year or less experience.
Seventy-nine percent reported taking at least 2 college courses in measurement
and testing. Thirty-seven percent had served on School Improvement Teams.
Sixty-four percent recertified through inservice points. Thirty-eight percent
reported using the NCTM standards, while over 50% indicated that these standards
did not apply to their situation. The sampling design did not follow a classical
random format; consequently, caution must be exercised in generalizing findings.
Ratings of the Student Performance Standards.
Analysis of the respondents' rating of the Blueprint 2000 Goal 3 standards
clearly shows that teachers consider the standards to be important educational
objectives. On a 5-point scale, mean ratings of the standards ranged from 3.9 to
4.5. T-test results revealed that the mean ratings of each of the individual
standards was significantly different than the neutral response position. Table
1 summarizes the data from the teachers' rating of the student performance
standards. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine whether any
discernible factors emerged from the 10 standards. Using the principal factor
method with varimax rotation, all ten standards loaded on a single factor. This
resulted in an eigenvalue of 4.8 and accounted for 90% of the possible variance.
This justifies collapsing the individual responses to derive an overall attitude
toward Goal 3 which can be used in subsequent analyses.
Teacher Ratings of Student Performance Standards
|1. Florida students locate,
comprehend, interpret, evaluate, maintain, and apply information,
concepts, and ideas found in literature, the arts, symbols, recordings,
video and other graphic displays, and computer files, in order to
perform tasks and/or for enjoyment.
|2. Florida students communicate
in English and other languages, using information, concepts, prose,
symbols, reports, audio and video recordings, speeches, graphic
displays, and computer-based programs.
|3. Florida students collect,
describe, analyze, disaggregate, communicate, and synthesize numeric
data to identify and solve problems.
|4. Florida students use creative
thinking skills to generate new ideas, make the best decision, recognize
and solve problems through reasoning, interpret symbolic data, and
develop efficient techniques for lifelong learning.
|5. Florida students display
social skills, self-management, responsibility, self-esteem, integrity ,
|6. Florida students will
appropriately allocate time, money, materials, and other resources.
|7. Florida students integrate
their knowledge and understanding of how broad-based systems work with
their abilities to analyze trends, design solutions and apply technology
to solve problems, invent new ideas, and understand the complex
relationships among objects and events in their world.
|8. Florida students work
cooperatively to successfully complete a project or activity.
|9.Florida students establish
credibility with their colleagues through competence and integrity, and
help their peers achieve their goals by communicating their feelings and
ideas to justify or successfully negotiate a position which advances
|10. Florida students appreciate
their own culture and the culture of others, understand the concerns and
perspectives of members of other ethnic and gender groups, reject the
stereotyping of themselves and others, and seek out and utilize the
views of persons from diverse ethnic, social, and educational
backgrounds while completing individual and group projects.
|Note: Results are
based on a 5 point scale: (1) "Not Important"- (5)
"Extremely Important, Essential"
Attitude Toward Type of Assessment. The responses
to the items measuring attitude toward standardized achievement test data and
attitude toward performance-based assessment were first analyzed for internal
consistency. The internal consistency analysis (Cronbach's alpha) confirmed
previous findings that these measures demonstrate a high level of reliability
(standardized achievement test data, r=.87; performance-assessment, r=.92). In
summarizing the results for attitude toward standardized achievement testing,
the mean response on a 5-point scale was 2.9 with a standard deviation of .75.
For attitude toward performance based assessment, the average response was 3.2,
with a standard deviation of .89. Both means were close to the neutral response
position of 3.0. Other results from the assessment attitude surveys are depicted
in Tables 2 and 3.
Attitude Toward Standardized Achievement Testing Data
|1. The use of test data does not
help increase my job effectiveness.
|2. If additional test data were
available I would utilize it in performing my job functions
|3. Test data is an important
source of information for showing how a student will perform in class
|4. If more student data were
available I would probably not use it.
|5. Student test data does not
contribute significantly to the information I need to do my job.
|6. Students would benefit from
educators having a greater availability of test data on individual
|7. When test data is discussed
with others who are in a similar position as mine, it helps increase our
|8. Test data is not important in
my assessment of student performance.
|9. Test data is an essential
source of information for me in performing my job functions.
|10. If additional test data were
available I would not use it in the performance of my job duties.
|11. Time spent reviewing test
data is well spent.
|12. I would decrease the amount
of time involved in using test data.
|Note: Results are
based on a 5 point scale: (1) "Strongly Disagree" - (5)
"Strongly Agree". Numeric values are scaled to reflect a
positive attitude toward testing data, i.e., negatively stated item
response values were inverted.
Attitude Toward Performance Based Assessment Results
|1. These types of assessments
results are not very useful to me in performing my job functions.
|2. When teachers make effective
use of such assessment results student instruction improves.
|3. If more of these types of
assessment results were available I probably would not use them.
|4. More funds should be spent to
make such assessments available.
|5. When such results are
discussed with others who are in a similar position as mine, our job
|6. Any decision to spend
additional funds for these types of assessments should be re-thought.
|7. Such assessments are an
essential source of information for me in performing my job functions. .
|8. Such assessment results
should be reviewed and discussed by teachers and administrators to
improve classroom instruction
|9. These student assessment
results do not contribute significantly to the information I need to do
|10. Students would benefit from
educators having a greater availability of such assessment results.
|Note: Results are
based on a 5 point scale: (1) "Strongly Disagree" - (5)
"Strongly Agree". Numeric values are scaled to reflect a
positive attitude toward performance based assessment results, i.e.,
negatively stated item response values were inverted.
Correlates of Attitude Toward Student Performance
Standards. To investigate the relationship between selected demographic
and attitudinal variables with attitude toward the Goal 3 standards, a
regression model was used the standards attitude variable as the dependent
variable. The predictor variables and regression analysis data are displayed in
Table 4. Only the performance based assessment attitude variable was significant
in predicting Goal 3 attitude. (F=7.36, p<.008, DF=77). This represents a
moderate relationship between these two variables (r=.30) with the resultant
model accounting for about 8% of the total variance. None of the other variables
proved significant for predicting the Goal 3 attitude.
Predictor Variables Used in Regression Model
Correlation w/ Goal 3 Attitude
(elementary, middle, high school)
|Years of Teaching Experience
(number of testing or measurement courses taken)
|Participation in School
(School Improvement Team membership)
(inservice points or university courses)
|Use of NCTM Standards
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics)
|Attitude Toward Standardized
Achievement Test Data
|Attitude Toward Performance
Based Assessment Results
Correlation Coefficient (r) and probability value (p) for the
correlation of each predictor variable with Attitude Toward Goal 3
Standards ** Results from applying the regression model: (B) Beta weight
(standardized regression coefficient) (T) statistic for measuring the
relationship between the dependent and predictor variables (p)
probability value for T
Results from the sample data show that teachers consider the
Blueprint 2000 student performance standards to be important instructional
objectives. Positive attitudes were reflected at all organizational levels. This
is different from the findings of Hall and Tremmel, who found more negative
attitudes among veteran and secondary level teachers. There are several
plausible reasons for this difference: (1) Hall and Tremmel investigated
attitude toward each goal. The current study measured attitude toward the Goal 3
standards. (2) Different districts were sampled. The school culture in each
could be sufficiently different to produce dissimilar results. For example,
inservice training may reflect varying degrees of emphasis on the reform issues.
(3) The current study was conducted a year later when teachers might have been
more familiar with the reform efforts. Another finding of interest is that
teachers were neither positive nor negative about information derived from
standardized achievement tests or performance based assessments.
Some findings should be noted in relation to the internal and
external factors depicted in the model developed for this study. Concerning
internal factors, teachers expressed neutrality toward both forms of testing,
standardized achievement testing and performance based assessment. A finding
relative to an external factor revealed that a high level of group norm beliefs
exists toward the Blueprint 2000 student performance standards.
The attempt at creating a regression model for predicting
attitude towards the Goal 3 standards yielded only one mildly related variable,
performance based assessment attitude. This is not surprising when one considers
that much of the rhetoric supporting the basic instructional reform implied by
the student performance standards is similar to the rationale for alternative,
performance-based assessments (Resnick and Resnick, 1992).
The major finding that there are positive teacher attitudes
toward a key element of Blueprint 2000 should be encouraging to those educators
looking to implement this reform initiative. Results provide evidence that
positive group norms exist at the high school, middle school, and elementary
school levels for fostering change.
The purpose of this study was to develop a tool for assisting
administrators in their quest for identifying individuals and groups supportive
of current educational reform. Although the concept is so basic as to seem
simplistic, identifying "pockets" of support would seem to be
fundamental to the initial stages of educational reform. Attitude theory and
research supports the process for identifying individuals (attitude components)
within groups (normative beliefs) who would be most supportive of a particular
reform effort. A future line of research could investigate the validation of a
process for identifying schools for classification purposes.
A number of other benefits from using such a survey are
possible: (1) Increasing the awareness of the staff regarding educational
reform. Many teachers who were not familiar with the standards would now have an
awareness of what instruction should emphasize. (2) Providing administrators
with information on what their staff's beliefs are on key instructional issues.
This information could assist in the decision making process when considering
school based reform. (3) Providing information on potential support for school
goals. This information could be used as part of the needs assessment process
when developing school improvement goals. (4) Identifying which grade levels or
departments within a school are most conducive to change. This would be helpful
for targeting the subgroups that would provide the best environment for
cultivating reform. Clearly, knowledge of teacher attitudes can greatly enhance
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and
normative variables as predictors of specific behaviors. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 27, 41-57.
Bagozzi, R. (1978). The construct validity of the
affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude by analysis
of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 13,
Beck, M. & Stetz, F. (1979). Teachers' opinions
of standardized test use and usefulness. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Burnkrant, R. & Page, T. (1988). The structure and
antecedents of the normative and attitudinal components of Fishbein's
Theory of reasoned action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Chaiken, S. & Baldwin, M. (1981).
Affective-cognitive consistency and the effect of salient behavioral
information on the self-perception of attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 41, 1-12.
Committee on Educational Assessment (1992). Report of
the Committee on Educational Assessment. Tallahassee: Florida
Department of Education.
Dorr-Bremme, D. (1983). Assessing students: teachers'
routine practices and reasoning. Evaluation Comment, 6,1-12.
Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes
of the mathematics teacher: a model. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 15, 13-34.
Florida Commission on Education and Accountability
(1992). Blueprint 2000: A system of school improvement and
accountability. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida, Department of
Florida Department of Education (1994). An assessment
design for goal 3 student performance. (Report for project
290-90950-40001) Tallahassee, FL: Student Assessment Services Section.
Bureau of School Improvement and Curriculum.
Garner, R., Wonnacott, E., & Taylor, D. (1968). A
factor analytic investigation. Canadian Journal of Psychology,
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (1994). Public Law
103-227. 103rd Congress., 2nd session. 20 U.S. Code section 5801.
Green, K. & Stager, S. (1984). Wyoming teachers'
use of tests and attitudes toward classroom and standardized tests. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 252 575).
Green, K. & Stager, S. (1985). Measuring attitudes
of teachers toward testing. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 141-150.
Griswold, P. (1988). Teachers' attitudes toward
testing: Recommendations for district policy and staff development. An
occasional report to the superintendent. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 182 465).
Hall, B. & Tremmel, J. (1995). A survey of
Pinellas County Classroom Teachers Regarding Blueprint 2000. League
of Women Voters of the St. Petersburg Area and League of Women's Voters
of North Pinellas County. St. Petersburg, FL.
Jett, D. & Schafer, W. (1993). High school
teachers' attitudes toward a statewide high stakes student performance
assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational
Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Kimpston, R. (1985). Teacher and principal concerns: The
implementation of benchmark setting. Planning and Changing, 16,
Kushner, S., Carey, L., & Kromrey, J. (1995). A
portrait of school improvement efforts across Florida high schools: A
content analysis of the 1993-94 school improvement plans. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Lambert, R. (1987). Teacher attitudes on testing. The
College Board Review, 18. 13-14, 29-30.
Lazaar-Morrison, C. (1980). A review of the
literature on test use. Los Angeles, CA: California University.
Center for the Study of Evaluation.
Learning Research and Development Center and the
National Center on Education and the Economy. (1991). The New
Standards Project: An overview. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
Linn, R. (1987). Educational assessment: Expanded
expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 15, 1-16.
McCollum, H. (1994). School reform for youth at risk.
Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
McGovern P. & Harvey, T. (1985). Teacher attitudes
to pupil profiling: The use of an attitude scale. Educational Studies,
Monsaas, J. & Engelhard, G. (1991). Attitudes
toward testing practices as cheating and teacher testing practices. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers' beliefs in
research on teacher thinking and decision-making and alternative
methodology. Instructional Science, 11, 201-225.
Resnick, L. & Resnick, D. (1992). Assessing the
thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In Changing
assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction
39-75. Boston: Kluwer.
Rosenberg, M. (1956). Cognitive structure and
attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
Rosenberg, M. & Hovland, C. ((1960). Cognitive,
affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In Attitude
Organization and Change 1-14.New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schafer, W. & Lissitz, R. (1987). Measurement
training for school personnel: Recommendations and reality. Journal
of Teacher Education, 38, 57-62.
Tollefson, N., Chen, J., Kaiser, J., Kleinsasser, A.,
& Tracy, D. (1985). Teachers attitudes towards tests. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Triandis, H. (1971). Attitude theory . In Attitude
and Attitude Change 60-100. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yeh, J. (1980). A reanalysis of test use data from
the test use project. National Institute of Education. Washington,
The Florida Journal of Educational Research (FJER) is published on-line
by FERA at the University of South Florida. Responsibility for the contents
rests upon the authors and not upon FERA.