NCTE INTRODUCTION

The National Council for Teacher Education, in its previous status since 1973, was an advisory body
for the Central and State Governments on all matters pertaining to teacher education, with its
Secretariat in the Department of Teacher Education of the National Council of Educational Research
and Training (NCERT). Despite its commendable work in the academic fields, it could not perform
essential regulatory functions, to ensure maintenance of standards in teacher education and preventing
proliferation of substandard teacher education institutions. The National Policy on Education (NPE),
1986 and the Programme of Action thereunder, envisaged a National Council for Teacher Education
with statutory status and necessary resources as a first step for overhauling the system of teacher
education. The National Council for Teacher Education as a statutory body came into existence in
pursuance of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (No. 73 of 1993) on the 17th
August,1995.

Objective
The main objective of the NCTE is to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher
education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of Norms and
Standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. The mandate given to
the NCTE is very broad and covers the whole gamut of teacher education programmes including
research and training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and
senior secondary stages in schools, and non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and
distance (correspondence) education courses.

Functions of Council
It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-
ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for
teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may:

a. undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the
result thereof;
b. make recommendations to the Central and State Government, Universities, University Grants
Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and
programmes in the field of teacher education;
c. co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country;
d. lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a
teacher in schools or in recognised institutions;
e. lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education,
including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of
candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum;
f. lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or
training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff
qualification;
g. lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications,
criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training;
h. lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees chargeable by recognised institutions;
i. promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher education and
disseminate the results thereof;
j. examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid
down by the Council, and to suitably advise the recognised institution;
 k. evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanism for enforcing
accountability on recognised institutions;
l. formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions
and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes;
m. take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; and
n. perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government.

Programmes Recognised by NCTE

NCTE notified revised Regulations and Norms and Standards on November 28, 2014 for the following
Teacher Education Programmes:

a. Diploma in early childhood education programme leading to Diploma in Preschool Education

(DPSE).
b. Elementary teacher education programme leading to Diploma in Elementary Education
(D.El.Ed.).
c. Bachelor of elementary teacher education programme leading to Bachelor of Elementary
Education (B.El.Ed.) degree.
d. Bachelor of education programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree.
e. Master of education programme leading to Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree.
f. Diploma in physical education programme leading to Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.).
g. Bachelor of physical education programme leading to Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.)
degree.
h. Master of physical education programme leading to Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.)
degree.
i. Diploma in elementary education programme through Open and Distance Learning System
leading to Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.).
j. Bachelor of education programme through Open and Distance Learning System leading to
Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree.
k. Diploma in arts education (Visual Arts) programme leading to Diploma in Arts Education
(Visual Arts).
l. Diploma in arts education (Performing Arts) programme leading to Diploma in Arts Education
(Performing Arts).
m. 4-year Integrated programme leading to B.A.B.Ed./B.Sc.B.Ed. degree.
n. Bachelor of education programme 3-year (Part Time) leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed)
degree.
o. 3-year Integrated programme leading to B.Ed., M.Ed (Integrated) degree.

NCTE Regulations 2014: Highlights

NCTE completed and notified the revised Regulations 2014, along with Norms and Standards for 15
programmes on November 28, 2014 under Government of India Gazette Notification No.346 (F.No.
51-1/2014/NCTE/N&S) by following the recommendations of the Justice Verma Commission (JVC)
appointed by the Government at the instance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The JVC had
suggested wide range reforms in Teacher Education which the new Regulations 2014 have addressed.
The new Regulations are an outcome of wider consultations with stakeholders undertaken by NCTE.

The important highlights of Regulations 2014 are as under:

a. A wide basket with 15 programmes is on offer, recognising for the first time three new
programmes – 4-year B.A/B.Sc.B.Ed., 3-year B.Ed. (Part-time), and 3-year B.Ed.-M.Ed.
programme.
b. The duration of three programmes – B.Ed., B.P.Ed., M.Ed. – has been increased to two years,
providing more professional rigour and at par with best international standards.
c. Henceforth, in place of stand-alone institutions, teacher education shall be established in
composite institutions (multi-disciplinary or multi-teacher education programmes).
d. Each programme curriculum comprises three components – theory, practicum, internship; and
at least 25% of the programme is developed to school-based activities and internship.
e. ICT, Yoga Education, Gender and Disability/Inclusive Education are integral part of each
programme curriculum.
f. More integrated teacher education programmes are encouraged.
g. The teacher educator M.Ed. Degree comes with specialization in either Elementary Education
or in Secondary/Senior Secondary Education.
h. Open and Distance Learning (ODL) has become more rigorous with built-in quality assurance
mechanisms.
i. In-service teachers have more option to acquire higher TE qualifications—DElEd (ODL), B.Ed.
(ODL), B.Ed. (Part-Time).
j. NOC from affiliating university/body is mandatory while making an application.
k. Provision of application, payment of fees, visiting team reports, etc. online. Centralized
computerized visiting team for transparent use by both HQs and Regional Committees for
inspection/monitoring. (For this, E-Governance is in the process of finalization).
l. Each teacher education institution to have compulsory accreditation in every 5 years from an
accrediting agency recognized by NCTE. (An MoU has already been signed with NAAC in this
regard).
m. NCTE stands as national counsil for teacher education.

n. NCTE was established with the help of UGC , NCERT and ministry of education. First NCTE
was set up on 21May,1973 advisory by Kothari commission and national level CABE in 5th
plan. In 1993 it becomes independent body. The first meeting of NCTE was held in Delhi on
Dec21,1973 with Prof. Nurul Hasan as the chairperson. The headquater of NCTE is in Delhi.
NCTE has four regional centers.
o. 1. Jaipur
p. 2. Bangalure
q. 3. Bhubaneswar
r. 4. Bhopal
s.
t. OBJECTIVES
u.
v. 1. To achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the
country.
w. 2. To improve the standard and working of teacher education.
x.
y. FUNCTIONS ( According to Act 1993)
z.
aa. 1. Undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the
results there of.
bb. 2. Make recommendations to the central and state governments, universities, UGC and its
recognistion institutes in matter of preparing plans and programmes for teacher education.
cc. 3. Coordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country.
dd. 4. Lay down the guidelines in respect a person to be employed as teacher in school.
ee. 5. Lay down the norms for any specified category of course in teacher education.
 ff. 6. Lay down guidelines for recognised insitution to starting new course.
gg. 7. Lay down guidelines regarding tution fees and other fees chargeable by recognised insitution.
hh. 8. Promote and conduct innovation and research in various fields of teacher education.
ii. 9. Examine and review periodically the implementation of norms, standards and guidelines laid
down by the counsil.
jj. 10. Take necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education.
kk.
ll. NCTE REGULATIONS 2014
mm.
nn. 1. Recognising ist time 3 new programmes 4-year B.A, B.Sc , B.Ed ; 3-Year B.Ed (part time).
oo. 2. Duration of B.Ed, B.P.Ed, M.Ed has been increased to two years.
pp. 3. Teacher education shall be established in composite insitutions.
qq. 4. Each programme curriculum comprises 3components theory, practium and internship at least
25% of programme is developed to school based activities.
rr. 5. ICT, yoga education, gender and inclusive education are integral part of each education
programme.
ss. 6. Provision of application , payment of fees , visiting team report are online.
tt. CONCLUSION
uu. NCTE generally related to improvements in quality of teacher eduaction programme. For
Inservice education of teachers NCTE organises workshops , seminars, conferences and study
group.

Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students

Developed by the
American Federation of Teachers
National Council on Measurement in Education
National Education Association

This is not copyrighted material. Reproduction and dissemination are encouraged. 1990

The professional education associations began working in 1987 to develop standards for teacher competence in
student assessment out of concern that the potential educational benefits of student assessments be fully
realized. The Committee[1] appointed to this project completed its work in 1990 following reviews of earlier
drafts by members of the measurement, teaching, and teacher preparation and certification communities.
Parallel committees of affected associations are encouraged to develop similar statements of qualifications for
school administrators, counselors, testing directors, supervisors, and other educators in the near future. These
statements are intended to guide the preservice and inservice preparation of educators, the accreditation of
preparation programs, and the future certification of all educators.

A standard is defined here as a principle generally accepted by the professional associations responsible for this
document. Assessment is defined as the process of obtaining information that is used to make educational
decisions about students, to give feedback to the student about his or her progress, strengths, and weaknesses,
to judge instructional effectiveness and curricular adequacy, and to inform policy. The various assessment
techniques include, but are not limited to, formal and informal observation, qualitative analysis of pupil
performance and products, paper-and-pencil tests, oral questioning, and analysis of student records. The
assessment competencies included here are the knowledge and skills critical to a teacher's role as educator. It
is understood that there are many competencies beyond assessment competencies which teachers must
possess.

By establishing standards for teacher competence in student assessment, the associations subscribe to the
view that student assessment is an essential part of teaching and that good teaching cannot exist without good
student assessment. Training to develop the competencies covered in the standards should be an integral part
of preservice preparation. Further, such assessment training should be widely available to practicing teachers
through staff development programs at the district and building levels.

The standards are intended for use as:

 a guide for teacher educators as they design and approve programs for teacher preparation
 a self-assessment guide for teachers in identifying their needs for professional development in student
assessment
 a guide for workshop instructors as they design professional development experiences for in-service
teachers
 an impetus for educational measurement specialists and teacher trainers to conceptualize student
assessment and teacher training in student assessment more broadly than has been the case in the
past.

The standards should be incorporated into future teacher training and certification programs. Teachers who
have not had the preparation these standards imply should have the opportunity and support to develop these
competencies before the standards enter into the evaluation of these teachers.

The Approach Used To Develop The Standards

The members of the associations that supported this work are professional educators involved in teaching,
teacher education, and student assessment. Members of these associations are concerned about the
inadequacy with which teachers are prepared for assessing the educational progress of their students, and thus
sought to address this concern effectively. A committee named by the associations first met in September 1987
and affirmed its commitment to defining standards for teacher preparation in student assessment. The
committee then undertook a review of the research literature to identify needs in student assessment, current
levels of teacher training in student assessment, areas of teacher activities requiring competence in using
assessments, and current levels of teacher competence in student assessment.

The members of the committee used their collective experience and expertise to formulate and then revise
statements of important assessment competencies. Drafts of these competencies went through several
revisions by the Committee before the standards were released for public review. Comments by reviewers
from each of the associations were then used to prepare a final statement.

The Scope of a Teacher's Professional Role and Responsibilities for Student Assessment

There are seven standards in this document. In recognizing the critical need to revitalize classroom assessment,
some standards focus on classroom-based competencies. Because of teachers' growing roles in education and
policy decisions beyond the classroom, other standards address assessment competencies underlying teacher
participation in decisions related to assessment at the school, district, state, and national levels.
The scope of a teacher's professional role and responsibilities for student assessment may be described in
terms of the following activities. These activities imply that teachers need competence in student assessment
and sufficient time and resources to complete them in a professional manner.

 Activities Occurring Prior to Instruction

o (a) Understanding students' cultural backgrounds, interests, skills, and abilities as they apply
across a range of learning domains and/or subject areas;
o (b) understanding students' motivations and their interests in specific class content;
o (c) clarifying and articulating the performance outcomes expected of pupils; and
o (d) planning instruction for individuals or groups of students.
 Activities Occurring During Instruction
o (a) Monitoring pupil progress toward instructional goals;
o (b) identifying gains and difficulties pupils are experiencing in learning and performing;
o (c) adjusting instruction;
o (d) giving contingent, specific, and credible praise and feedback;
o (e) motivating students to learn; and
o (f) judging the extent of pupil attainment of instructional outcomes.
 Activities Occurring After The Appropriate Instructional Segment (e.g. lesson, class, semester, grade)
o (a) Describing the extent to which each pupil has attained both short- and long-term
instructional goals;
o (b) communicating strengths and weaknesses based on assessment results to students, and
parents or guardians;
o (c) recording and reporting assessment results for school-level analysis, evaluation, and
decision-making;
o (d) analyzing assessment information gathered before and during instruction to understand
each students' progress to date and to inform future instructional planning;
o (e) evaluating the effectiveness of instruction; and
o (f) evaluating the effectiveness of the curriculum and materials in use.
 Activities Associated With a Teacher's Involvement in School Building and School District Decision-
Making
o (a) Serving on a school or district committee examining the school's and district's strengths and
weaknesses in the development of its students;
o (b) working on the development or selection of assessment methods for school building or
school district use;
o (c) evaluating school district curriculum; and
o (d) other related activities.
 Activities Associated With a Teacher's Involvement in a Wider Community of Educators
o (a) Serving on a state committee asked to develop learning goals and associated assessment
methods;
o (b) participating in reviews of the appropriateness of district, state, or national student goals
and associated assessment methods; and
o (c) interpreting the results of state and national student assessment programs.

Each standard that follows is an expectation for assessment knowledge or skill that a teacher should possess in
order to perform well in the five areas just described. As a set, the standards call on teachers to demonstrate
skill at selecting, developing, applying, using, communicating, and evaluating student assessment information
and student assessment practices. A brief rationale and illustrative behaviors follow each standard.

The standards represent a conceptual framework or scaffolding from which specific skills can be derived. Work
to make these standards operational will be needed even after they have been published. It is also expected
that experience in the application of these standards should lead to their improvement and further
development.

Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students

1. Teachers should be skilled in choosing assessment methods appropriate for instructional

decisions.

Skills in choosing appropriate, useful, administratively convenient, technically adequate, and fair
assessment methods are prerequisite to good use of information to support instructional decisions.
Teachers need to be well-acquainted with the kinds of information provided by a broad range of
assessment alternatives and their strengths and weaknesses. In particular, they should be familiar with
criteria for evaluating and selecting assessment methods in light of instructional plans.

Teachers who meet this standard will have the conceptual and application skills that follow. They will
be able to use the concepts of assessment error and validity when developing or selecting their
approaches to classroom assessment of students. They will understand how valid assessment data can
support instructional activities such as providing appropriate feedback to students, diagnosing group
and individual learning needs, planning for individualized educational programs, motivating students,
and evaluating instructional procedures. They will understand how invalid information can affect
instructional decisions about students. They will also be able to use and evaluate assessment options
available to them, considering among other things, the cultural, social, economic, and language
backgrounds of students. They will be aware that different assessment approaches can be incompatible
with certain instructional goals and may impact quite differently on their teaching.

Teachers will know, for each assessment approach they use, its appropriateness for making decisions
about their pupils. Moreover, teachers will know of where to find information about and/or reviews of
various assessment methods. Assessment options are diverse and include text- and curriculum-
embedded questions and tests, standardized criterion-referenced and norm-referenced tests, oral
questioning, spontaneous and structured performance assessments, portfolios, exhibitions,
demonstrations, rating scales, writing samples, paper-and-pencil tests, seatwork and homework, peer-
and self-assessments, student records, observations, questionnaires, interviews, projects, products, and
others' opinions.

2. Teachers should be skilled in developing assessment methods appropriate for instructional

decisions.

While teachers often use published or other external assessment tools, the bulk of the assessment
information they use for decision-making comes from approaches they create and implement. Indeed,
the assessment demands of the classroom go well beyond readily available instruments.

Teachers who meet this standard will have the conceptual and application skills that follow. Teachers
will be skilled in planning the collection of information that facilitates the decisions they will make.
They will know and follow appropriate principles for developing and using assessment methods in their
teaching, avoiding common pitfalls in student assessment. Such techniques may include several of the
options listed at the end of the first standard. The teacher will select the techniques which are
appropriate to the intent of the teacher's instruction.

Teachers meeting this standard will also be skilled in using student data to analyze the quality of each
assessment technique they use. Since most teachers do not have access to assessment specialists, they
must be prepared to do these analyses themselves.

3. The teacher should be skilled in administering, scoring and interpreting the results of both
externally-produced and teacher-produced assessment methods.

It is not enough that teachers are able to select and develop good assessment methods; they must also
be able to apply them properly. Teachers should be skilled in administering, scoring, and interpreting
results from diverse assessment methods.

Teachers who meet this standard will have the conceptual and application skills that follow. They will
be skilled in interpreting informal and formal teacher-produced assessment results, including pupils'
performances in class and on homework assignments. Teachers will be able to use guides for scoring
essay questions and projects, stencils for scoring response-choice questions, and scales for rating
performance assessments. They will be able to use these in ways that produce consistent results.

Teachers will be able to administer standardized achievement tests and be able to interpret the
commonly reported scores: percentile ranks, percentile band scores, standard scores, and grade
equivalents. They will have a conceptual understanding of the summary indexes commonly reported
with assessment results: measures of central tendency, dispersion, relationships, reliability, and errors
of measurement.

Teachers will be able to apply these concepts of score and summary indices in ways that enhance their
use of the assessments that they develop. They will be able to analyze assessment results to identify
pupils' strengths and errors. If they get inconsistent results, they will seek other explanations for the
discrepancy or other data to attempt to resolve the uncertainty before arriving at a decision. They will
be able to use assessment methods in ways that encourage students' educational development and that
do not inappropriately increase students' anxiety levels.

4. Teachers should be skilled in using assessment results when making decisions about individual
students, planning teaching, developing curriculum, and school improvement.

Assessment results are used to make educational decisions at several levels: in the classroom about
students, in the community about a school and a school district, and in society, generally, about the
purposes and outcomes of the educational enterprise. Teachers play a vital role when participating in
decision-making at each of these levels and must be able to use assessment results effectively.

Teachers who meet this standard will have the conceptual and application skills that follow. They will
be able to use accumulated assessment information to organize a sound instructional plan for
facilitating students' educational development. When using assessment results to plan and/or evaluate
instruction and curriculum, teachers will interpret the results correctly and avoid common
misinterpretations, such as basing decisions on scores that lack curriculum validity. They will be
informed about the results of local, regional, state, and national assessments and about their appropriate
use for pupil, classroom, school, district, state, and national educational improvement.

5. Teachers should be skilled in developing valid pupil grading procedures which use pupil
assessments.

Grading students is an important part of professional practice for teachers. Grading is defined as
indicating both a student's level of performance and a teacher's valuing of that performance. The
principles for using assessments to obtain valid grades are known and teachers should employ them.

Teachers who meet this standard will have the conceptual and application skills that follow. They will
be able to devise, implement, and explain a procedure for developing grades composed of marks from
various assignments, projects, inclass activities, quizzes, tests, and/or other assessments that they may
use. Teachers will understand and be able to articulate why the grades they assign are rational, justified,
and fair, acknowledging that such grades reflect their preferences and judgments. Teachers will be able
to recognize and to avoid faulty grading procedures such as using grades as punishment. They will be
able to evaluate and to modify their grading procedures in order to improve the validity of the
interpretations made from them about students' attainments.

6. Teachers should be skilled in communicating assessment results to students, parents, other lay
audiences, and other educators.

Teachers must routinely report assessment results to students and to parents or guardians. In addition,
they are frequently asked to report or to discuss assessment results with other educators and with
diverse lay audiences. If the results are not communicated effectively, they may be misused or not used.
To communicate effectively with others on matters of student assessment, teachers must be able to use
assessment terminology appropriately and must be able to articulate the meaning, limitations, and
implications of assessment results. Furthermore, teachers will sometimes be in a position that will
require them to defend their own assessment procedures and their interpretations of them. At other
times, teachers may need to help the public to interpret assessment results appropriately.

Teachers who meet this standard will have the conceptual and application skills that follow. Teachers
will understand and be able to give appropriate explanations of how the interpretation of student
assessments must be moderated by the student's socio-economic, cultural, language, and other
background factors. Teachers will be able to explain that assessment results do not imply that such
background factors limit a student's ultimate educational development. They will be able to
communicate to students and to their parents or guardians how they may assess the student's
educational progress. Teachers will understand and be able to explain the importance of taking
measurement errors into account when using assessments to make decisions about individual students.
Teachers will be able to explain the limitations of different informal and formal assessment methods.
They will be able to explain printed reports of the results of pupil assessments at the classroom, school
district, state, and national levels.

7. Teachers should be skilled in recognizing unethical, illegal, and otherwise inappropriate

assessment methods and uses of assessment information.

Fairness, the rights of all concerned, and professional ethical behavior must undergird all student
assessment activities, from the initial planning for and gathering of information to the interpretation,
use, and communication of the results. Teachers must be well-versed in their own ethical and legal
responsibilities in assessment. In addition, they should also attempt to have the inappropriate
assessment practices of others discontinued whenever they are encountered. Teachers should also
participate with the wider educational community in defining the limits of appropriate professional
behavior in assessment.

Teachers who meet this standard will have the conceptual and application skills that follow. They will
know those laws and case decisions which affect their classroom, school district, and state assessment
practices. Teachers will be aware that various assessment procedures can be misused or overused
resulting in harmful consequences such as embarrassing students, violating a student's right to
confidentiality, and inappropriately using students' standardized achievement test scores to measure
teaching effectiveness.
Implications for Teaching and Teacher Education
Page 128

Suggested Citation:"Part Four: Implications for Teaching and Teacher Education." National Research Council.
1998. High School Mathematics at Work: Essays and Examples for the Education of All Students. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5777.

Overview

For many experienced and prospective teachers, tasks like those in High School
Mathematics at Work pose several inter-related challenges involving curriculum,
pedagogy, and assessment.

 In planning the class: How can I tell if a task is appropriate for my students?
How would such tasks fit in my curriculum? After choosing a task, what are
the mathematical concepts and big ideas that can be approached with the
task?
 During class: How do I get students working on the task I've chosen? What can
I expect from classroom discussion? How can I engage all students in the big
mathematical ideas?
 After class: What can I expect from student work? What should I expect from
student work? How should I provide feedback?

These questions speak to the broad demands that today's students and curricula place
on teachers. To respond adequately to these demands, teachers must be very
resourceful and must have the skills and inclinations to create an intellectual
community in their classrooms. What is needed is teachers who are mathematically
confident and have the tools to learn mathematics as they need it, so that they and
their students may thrive when either the curriculum or the students take them into
uncharted territory. Furthermore, teachers need professional support in creating
learning communities of teachers in their schools, districts, and states.

Working with both preservice and inservice teachers, the authors of the essays in Part
Four find that tasks like those in this document have changed teachers' ideas about
students' capabilities, about how a curriculum might be organized, and about what it
means to do mathematics. In each case, such change requires time and support.

The Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (National Council of Teachers

of Mathematics, 1991) acknowledges the important role that teachers have in
choosing tasks in their curriculum. Under the heading "Worthwhile Mathematical
Tasks," it asserts that

The teacher of mathematics should pose tasks that are based on—
  sound and significant mathematics;
 knowledge of students' understandings, interests, and experiences;
 knowledge of the range of ways that diverse students learn mathematics. (p.
25)

In her essay, Glenda Lappan suggests that "teachers are architects of curriculum," for
what is learned depends upon the context in which it is taught. She acknowledges that
the use of complex problems creates more complexity in classrooms, and she notes
that if preservice teachers work through complex problems themselves, they receive
some of the background and confidence they need to handle such complexity. After
describing problem-centered teaching and some of the issues that it raises, Lappan
suggests that "teachers will find that learning alone is unlikely to be as powerful as
engaging in dialogue with other teachers."

Like Lappan, Gilbert Cuevas acknowledges that with scant experience solving
complex mathematical tasks, many preservice teachers are uncertain about using such
tasks in their classrooms. He presents five principles for the preparation of teachers,
such as providing "opportunity for reflection about their tasks and their
implementation with students," and emphasizing communication, discussion, and
orientation toward problems.

Paul LeMahieu and Marshá Horton note that assessments alone are not effective
agents of educational reform. When extended, open-ended tasks are included in
assessment, however, there is an opportunity for a different and powerful role, if
teachers are involved in the evaluation of student work responding to these items.
LeMahieu and Horton discuss how teachers develop consensus about quality and
rigorous expectations for quality through discussions of student work on assessments.
Furthermore, they note, inservice teachers' expectations for students change when
they participate in such scoring.

The tasks in Part Four might be used in the professional development of teachers,
both as a site for discussion of student work, as suggested by LeMahieu and Horton,
and as a complex task for their own exploration, as suggested by Lappan and Cuevas.
Because these tasks are more open-ended than most in previous sections, the
mathematical analysis sections do not include complete solutions, but instead suggest
some of the mathematical and pedagogical issues and some sources of data or other
useful information. Estimating Area (p. 145) brings to light mathematical ideas such
as the distinction between distance, area, and volume, scaling factors, and estimation,
possibly leading to calculus ideas such as limit and integration. Like the tasks in Part
Three, this is a task that may be fruitfully revisited several times in a student's career.

Timing Traffic Lights (p. 147) concerns a workplace situation usually considered by
town and city planners. The ideas are similar to the ideas behind scheduling trains,
airplanes, and canal-boats. The potential interest for students is that city planners'
solutions (both the good and the bad) can be seen in everyday life. This task may be
used to explore mathematical ideas such as distance, rate, time, velocity, modeling,
and representation.

Buying a Used Car (p. 153) is an everyday situation about which people do not often
think mathematically. Yet, by considering in the analysis not only estimates of the
purchase price and repair costs but also insurance, taxes, depreciation, interest on a
loan, and inflation, there is high potential for rich mathematical discussion.

Implications and Recommendations for Research, Policy, and Practice

The Committee on the Foundations of Assessment produced this report, with the
support of the National Science Foundation (NSF), to review and synthesize advances
in the cognitive and measurement sciences and to explore the implications of those
advances for improving educational assessment. Interest in the intersection of these
two fields is not new. Prompted by calls for assessments that can better inform and
support learning, a number of education researchers have put forth the potential
benefits of merging modern knowledge in the areas of cognition and learning and
methods of educational measurement (Baker, 1997; Cronbach and Gleser, 1965;
Glaser, 1981; Glaser and Silver, 1994; Messick, 1984; Mislevy, 1994; National
Academy of Education, 1996; Nichols, 1994; Pellegrino, Baxter, and Glaser, 1999;
Snow and Lohman, 1993; Wilson and Adams, 1996).

Several decades of research in the cognitive sciences has advanced the knowledge
base about how children develop understanding, how people reason and build
structures of knowledge, which thinking processes are associated with competent
performance, and how knowledge is shaped by social context (National Research
Council [NRC], 1999b). These findings, presented in Chapter 3, suggest directions
for revamping assessment to provide better information about students’ levels of
understanding, their thinking strategies, and the nature of their misunderstandings.

During this same period, there have been significant developments in measurement
(psychometric) methods and theory. As presented in Chapter 4, a wide array of
statistical measurement methods are currently available to support the kinds of
inferences that cognitive research suggests are important to pursue when assessing
student achievement.
Meanwhile, computer and telecommunications technologies are making it possible to
assess what students are learning at very fine levels of detail,

with vivid simulations of real-world situations, and in ways that are tightly integrated
with instruction. Chapter 7 provides examples of how technology is making it
feasible, for instance, for students to receive ongoing individualized feedback as they
work with a computerized tutoring system—feedback more detailed than what a
teacher could have provided a class of 30 students in the past.

This report describes a variety of promising assessment innovations that represent

first steps in capitalizing on these opportunities. However, most of these examples
have been limited to small-scale applications that have yet to affect mainstream
assessment practice. In this final chapter, we discuss priorities for research, practice,
and policy to enable the emergence of a “new science of assessment.” First, however,
we summarize some of the main points from the preceding chapters by describing a
vision for a future generation of educational assessments based on the merger of
modern cognitive theory and methods of measurement.
A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF ASSESSMENT

In the future envisioned by the committee, educational assessments will be viewed as

a facilitator of high levels of student achievement. They will help students learn and
succeed in school by making as clear as possible to them, their teachers, and other
education stakeholders the nature of their accomplishments and the progress of their
learning.

Teachers will assess students’ understanding frequently in the classroom to provide

them with feedback and determine next steps for instruction. Their classroom
practices will be grounded in principles of how students think and learn in content
domains and of assessment as a process of reasoning from evidence. Teachers will
use this knowledge to design assessments that provide students with feedback about
particular qualities of their work and what they can do to improve.

Students will provide evidence of their understanding and thinking in a variety of

ways—by responding to teachers’ questions, writing or producing projects, working
with computerized tutoring systems, or attempting to explain concepts to other
students. Teachers, in turn, will use this information to modify instruction for the
class and for individuals on the basis of their understanding and thinking patterns.

Teachers will have a clear picture of the learning goals in subject domains, as well as
typical learning pathways for reaching those goals. Ultimate and intermediate
learning goals will be shared regularly with students as a part of instruction. Students
will be engaged in activities such as peer and self-assessment to help them internalize
the criteria for high-quality work and develop metacognitive skills.
Teachers will also use summative assessments for ongoing reflection and feedback
about overall progress and for reporting of this information to others. External
summative assessments, such as state tests, will reinforce the same ultimate goals and
beliefs about learning that are operating in the classroom. Large-scale assessments
will set valuable learning goals for students to pursue. Such assessments will broadly
sample the desired outcomes for learning by using a variety of methods, such as on-
demand assessment combined with a sampling of work produced during the course of
instruction.

Policy makers, educators, and the public will come to expect more than the general
comparisons and rankings that characterize current test results. Performance on large-
scale assessments will be explicitly and publicly displayed so that students, parents,
and teachers can see the concepts and processes entailed at different levels of
competence. Assessments will be able to show, for instance, how a competent
performer proceeds on a mathematics problem and forms an answer, in comparison
with a student who is less proficient. Large-scale assessments will help show the
different kinds of interpretations, procedural strategies, explanations, and products
that differentiate among various levels or degrees of competence.

Within an education system, teachers, administrators, and policy makers will be

working from a shared knowledge base about how students learn subject matter and
what aspects of competence are important to assess. Resource materials that
synthesize modern scientific understanding of how people learn in areas of the
curriculum will serve as the basis for the design of classroom and large-scale
assessments, as well as curriculum and instruction, so that all the system’s
components work toward a coherent set of learning goals.

In many ways, this vision for assessment represents a significant departure from the
types of assessments typically available today and from the ways in which such
assessments are most commonly used. Current knowledge could serve as the basis for
a number of improvements to the assessment design process (as described in Chapters
3, 4, and 5 of this report) to produce assessment information that would be more
useful, valid, and fair. Full realization of the committee’s broader vision for
educational assessment, however, will require more knowledge about how to design
and use such assessments, as well as about the underlying fundamental properties of
learning and measurement. Furthermore, the committee recognizes that the maximum
potential of new forms of assessment cannot be realized unless educational practices
and policies adapt in significant ways. Some of the constraints that currently limit
assessment practice will need to be relaxed if the full benefits of a merger between
the cognitive and measurement sciences are to be realized. The new kinds of
assessment described in this report do not necessarily conform to the current mode of
on-demand, paper-and-pencil tests that students take individually at their desks under
strictly standardized conditions. Furthermore, realizing the potential benefits of new
forms of assessment will depend on making compatible changes in curriculum and
instruction.
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Like other groups before us (NRC, 1999c; National Academy of Education, 1999),
the committee recognizes that the bridge between research and practice takes time to
build and that research and practice must proceed interactively. It is unlikely that the
insights gained from current or new knowledge about cognition, learning, and
measurement will be sufficient by themselves to bring about transformations in
assessment such as those described in this report. As the NRC’s Committee on
Learning Research and Educational Practice pointed out, research and practice need
to be connected more directly through the building of a cumulative knowledge base
that serves both sets of interests. In the context of this study, that knowledge base
would focus on the development and use of theory-based assessment. Furthermore, it
is essential to recognize that research impacts practice indirectly through the
influence of the existing knowledge base on four important mediating arenas:
educational tools and materials; teacher education and professional development;
education policies; and public opinion and media coverage (NRC, 1999c). By
affecting each of these arenas, an expanding knowledge base on the principles and
practices of effective assessment can help change educational practice. And the study
of changes in practice, in turn, can help in further developing the knowledge base.
These organizing ideas regarding the connections between research and practice are
illustrated in Figure 8–1.

In this chapter we outline a proposed research and development agenda for expanding
the knowledge base on the integration of cognition and measurement and consider the
implications of such a knowledge base for each of the four mediating arenas that
directly influence educational practice. In doing so we propose two general guidelines
for how future work should proceed.

First, the committee advocates increased and sustained multidisciplinary

collaboration around theoretical and practical matters of assessment. We apply this
precept not only to the collaboration between researchers in the cognitive and
measurement sciences, but also to the collaboration of these groups with teachers,
curriculum specialists, and assessment developers. The committee believes the
potential for an improved science and design of educational assessment lies in a
mutually catalytic merger of the two foundational disciplines, especially as such
knowledge is brought to bear on conceptual and pragmatic problems of assessment
development and use.
Page 295
Suggested Citation:"8 Implications and Recommendations for Research, Policy, and Practice." National
Research Council. 2001. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10019.

FIGURE 8–1 Connections between research and practice.

SOURCE: Adapted from National Research Council (1999c, p. 34).

Second, the committee urges individuals in multiple communities, from research

through practice and policy, to consider the conceptual scheme and language used in
this report as a guide for stimulating further thinking and discussion about the many
issues associated with the productive use of assessments in education. The
assessment triangle set forth in Chapter 2 and summarized in Box 8–1 provides a
conceptual framework for principled thinking about the assumptions and foundations
underlying an assessment. In the next section of this chapter we consider some of the
implications of our conceptual scheme for research that can contribute to the
advancement of both theory and practice.

Before discussing specific implications for research and practice and presenting our
recommendations in each of these areas, we would be remiss if we did not note our
concern about continuing with the present system of educational assessment,
including the pattern of increasing investment in large-scale assessment designs and
practices that have serious limitations and in some cases do more harm than good.
This concern underlines the importance of seizing the opportunity that now exists to
reshape the assessment landscape while simultaneously reinforcing many of the
social and political reasons for investing in high-quality educational assessment
materials, designs, and practices. That opportunity should not be lost just because
every theoretical and operational detail has yet to be established for the design and
implementation of assessments based on a merger of the cognitive and measurement
sciences. There is much that can be done in the near term to improve assessment
design and use on the basis of existing knowledge, while an investment is being made
in the research and development needed to build assessments appropriate for the
educational systems of the 21st century.
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH

The research needed to approach the new science of assessment envisioned by the
committee needs to focus on those issues that lie at the intersection of cognitive and
measurement science. In this section we present the committee’s recommendations
for research organized into three broad categories: (1) synthesis of existing
knowledge, (2) research to expand the current knowledge base, and (3) some initial
steps for building the knowledge base.

For all the research recommendations presented below, we advocate a general

approach to research and development that differs from conventional practices. In the
traditional view of research, development, and implementation, scientists begin with
basic research that involves gathering fundamental knowledge and developing
theories about an area of inquiry. Other scientists and practitioners use this basic
research, together with their experience, to design prototypes that apply the
knowledge in practical settings. Still others then design ways to implement the
prototypes on a larger scale.

The committee believes that, in the case of the assessments we envision, research
should focus on design and implementation. The committee takes this position for
two reasons. The first is strategic. As described throughout this report, some
promising prototype assessments based on modern cognitive theory and measurement
principles have already been developed. While the prototypes have been used
effectively in selected classrooms and educational settings, there is generally limited
experience with their application outside of relatively controlled settings or in large-
scale contexts. In part this is because the new forms of assessment are often complex
and have not been tailored for widespread practical use. In addition, there are issues
involved in large-scale assessment that designers of classroom-based tools have yet to
confront. The committee takes the position that practical implementation should be
studied to raise questions about fundamental science.
In his book Pasteur’s Quadrant, Stokes (1997) argues that the traditional dichotomy
between “basic” and “applied” research is not always applicable. In many instances,
research aimed at solving practical problems can test the validity and generality of
fundamental principles and knowledge. Pasteur’s work is an archetype of this
approach. By focusing on a very real practical problem—developing ways to combat
harmful bacteria—Pasteur pursued “use-inspired strategic research” that not only
helped solve the immediate problem, but also contributed greatly to enhancing
fundamental knowledge about biology and biochemistry. Similarly, Hargreaves
(1999) argues that research results cannot be applied directly to classroom practice,
but must be transformed by practitioners; that is, teachers need to participate in
creating new knowledge.

In a report to the National Education Research Policies and Priorities Board of the
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, a panel of the National Academy
of Education argues that federal agencies should fund research in Pasteur’s Quadrant
as well as basic research (National Academy of Education, 1999). The panel states
that “problem-solving research and development” (the equivalent of what Stokes
describes as use-inspired strategic research) is characterized by four features:

 Commitment to the improvement of complex systems.

 Co-development by researchers and practitioners, with recognition of
differences in expertise and authority.
 Long-term engagement that involves continual refinement.
 Commitment to theory and explanation.

The panel notes that this last feature would enable prototypes generated in one site or
context of use to “travel” to other settings (the panel contrasts its view with the
traditional notion of “dissemination”). To permit wider adoption, the research would
have to generate principles to ensure that others would not simply replicate the
surface features of an innovation. Also required would be consideration of tools that
could help others apply the innovation faithfully, as well as people familiar with the
design who could help others implement it. The committee is sympathetic to this
argument and believes research that addresses ways to design assessments for use in
either classrooms or large-scale settings can simultaneously enhance understanding of
the design principles inherent in such assessments and improve basic knowledge
about cognition and measurement.

We advocate that the research recommended below be funded by federal agencies

and private foundations that currently support research on teaching and learning, as
well as private-sector entities involved in commercial assessment design and
development. Among the salient federal agencies are the Department of Education,
the NSF, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The
research agenda is expansive in both scope and likely duration. It would be sensible
for the funding of such work to be coordinated across agencies and, in many
instances, pursued cooperatively with foundations and the private sector.