Ministry of higher and secondary special educaion of the republic of uzbekistan

Performance Evaluation: See Legitimate Evaluation above. I use these terms interchangeably.
Portfolio: a collection of a student's work that has been chosen specifically to tell a specific story about the student. For more information, see Portfolios.
Reliability: the extent to which a measurement produces consistent outcomes.
Rubric: a scoring system for grading student work. A rubric consists of at least two criteria and two levels of performance for each criterion that are used to evaluate student work on a particular task. (Go to Rubrics for a more in-depth explanation of the various rubric variations and examples. Additionally, see Analysis Rubrics; Rubrics for the Whole
Standard: A standard is a statement of what students should know or be able to do, similar to a goal or objective. By stating that a standard is broader than an objective but narrower than a goal, I differentiate it from these other goal statements.
Stem: a set of choices or alternatives that respond to or complete a question or statement, followed by a question or statement. Stems are most usually tracked down in numerous decision questions. Check out the jargon for multiple-choice questions.)
Criteira of Value: statements about the attitudes teachers want students to develop toward learning (for example, that they will value diversity of opinion or perspective). Compare to Process Standards and Content Standards.

References

1. 
   Alica, S. M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40-47.
   
2. 
   Merlin, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). An NCME instructional module on: Using portfolio of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 36-45.
   
3. 
   Dick, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-364. Birenbaum, M., & Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1996). Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   
4. 
   Bernard, M. (1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 3-29). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
   
5. 
   John, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and the implications for asessment. In M. Segers, F. J. R. C. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   
6. 
   Cronin, J. F. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 78-80. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Setting standards for students: The case for authentic assessment. The Educational Forum, 59, 14-21.
   
7. 
   Derrick, D., Verschaffel, L., Janssens, D., Van Dooren, W., & Cleas, K. (2003). Do realistic contexts and graphical representations always have a beneficial impact on students' performance? Negative evidence from a study on modelling non-linear geometry problems. Learning and Instruction, 13, 441-463.
   
8. 
   Dierick, S., & Dochy, F. (2001). New lines in edumetrics: New forms of assessment lead to new assessment criteria. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(4), 307-329.
   
9. 
   Rusvelt, F. (2001). A new assessment era: different needs, new challenges. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 11-20.
   
10. 
    Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post- and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of quality and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    
11. 
    Hart, D. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for education. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
    
12. 
    Hannah, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.
    
13. 
    Huang, H. M. (2002). Towards constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. Britisch Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 27-37.
    
14. 
    Grew, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23
    
15. 
    Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards for authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
    
16. 
    Segers, M., Dochy, F., & De Corte, E. (1999). Assessment practices and students' knowledge profiles in a problem-based curriculum. Learning Environments Research, 2, 191-213.
    
17. 
    Sluijsmans, D. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: The training of peer assessment skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen.
    
18. 
    Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. Torrance, H. (1995). Evaluating authentic assessment. B
    
19. 
    Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 41-47.