Th is paper describes the application of a Multi-Tiered Model of Assessment to a costume history course. A review of assessment literature is followed by a description of the three-tiered model. Elements of the model applied to a general education costume history course include peer review, teaching journal analysis, locally developed and national measures of student perceptions, and measures of student learning outcomes. Strategies for course redesign based on the data are discussed. ment from multiple points of view, (c) emphasize student learning outcomes, and (d) disseminate assessment results to eff ect change. Each of these guidelines is discussed below. Focus on GoalsAn eff ective assessment begins with the stated goals and outcomes of the course, selects assessment strategies appropriate for these goals, and interprets assessment results in context of the goals. Th us, the course goals are the foundation of an eff ective assessment. As Palomba and Banta (1999) point out:

This research reports on prospective middle school teachers' perceptions of a “best mathematics class” during their involvement in an inquiry‐designed mathematics content course. Grounded in the prestigious Glenn Commission report (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), the study examined the prospective teachers' perceptions of effective mathematics instruction both prior to and after completing the inquiry course. Pre‐essay analysis revealed that students could be grouped into one of two categories: the Watch‐Learn‐Practice view and the Self as Initiator view. Post‐essay analysis indicated that over two thirds of all students involved in the study changed their views of a best math class after the inquiry courses. The Watch‐Learn‐Practice group's changes focused on developing reasoning skills and learning how one “knows” in mathematics. The Self as Initiator group noted expanded roles for the students, particularly emphasizing the importance of going beyond basic requirements to think deeply about the why and how of mathematics and expanded views of the benefits of group learning.

The use of writing as a pedagogical tool to help students learn mathematics is receiving increased attention at the college level (Meier & Rishel, 1998), and the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) built a strong case for including writing in school mathematics, suggesting that writing enhances students' mathematical thinking. Yet, classroom experience indicates that not all students are able to write well about mathematics. This study examines the writing of a two groups of students in a college‐level calculus class in order to identify criteria that discriminate “;successful” vs. “;unsuccessful” writers in mathematics. Results indicate that “;successful” writers are more likely than “;unsuccessful” writers to use appropriate mathematical language, build a context for their writing, use a variety of examples for elaboration, include multiple modes of representation (algebraic, graphical, numeric) for their ideas, use appropriate mathematical notation, and address all topics specified in the assignment. These six criteria result in The Mathematics Writer's Checklist, and methods for its use as an instructional and assessment tool in the mathematics classroom are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract