Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 10/1/2017 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 1/4/2018 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 1/12/2018 SPECIAL ISSUE Redesigning Assessment and Accountability education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 26 Number 16 January 29, 2018 ISSN 1068-2341 Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessments: Creating a Grassroots Accountability System to Leverage State Policy Change Dan French Center for Collaborative Education United States Citation: French, D. (2018). Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessments: Creating a grassroots accountability system to leverage state policy change. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(16). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3442 This article is part of the special issue, Redesigning Assessment and Accountability for Meaningful Student Learning, guest edited by Soung Bae, Jon Snyder, and Elizabeth Leisy Stosich. Abstract: Standardized testing remains the predominant proficiency measure for students and schools, placing teacher and student focus on test-prep and lower order skills while maintaining achievement gaps that penalize underserved students. The Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Assessment seeks to close this gap and change assessment measures on a state level by training teachers to become leaders in implementing student- centered performance assessments and encouraging state leg islators to consider alternative, forward-thinking accountability systems. Keywords: Achievement; Standards; Accountability; Assessment; Equal Educati on; Outcomes Measurement; Public Schools; Teacher Education http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3442 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 16 SPECIAL ISSUE 2 Consorcio de Massachusetts para evaluaciones educativas innovadoras: Creando un sistema de responsabilidad de base para influenciar el cambio de política estatal Resumen: Las pruebas estandarizadas continúan siendo la medida de competencia predominante para los estudiantes y las escuelas, colocando al docente y a los estudiantes enfocados en las habilidades de preparación de exámenes y de orden inferior mientras se mantienen las brechas de rendimiento que penalizan a los estudiantes desatendidos. El Consorcio de Massachusetts para Evaluación Innovadora busca cerrar esta brecha y cambiar las medidas de evaluación a nivel estatal capacitando a los maestros para que se conviertan en líderes en la implementación de evaluaciones de desempeño centradas en el estudiante y alentando a los legisladores estatales para que consideren sistemas alternativos de responsabilidad con visión de futuro. Palabras clave: Rendimiento; estándares; responsabilidad; evaluación; medida de resultados; escuelas públicas; educación de profesores Consórcio de Massachusetts para avaliações educacionais inovadoras: Criando um sistema de responsabilidade de base para influenciar a mudança de política estadual Resumo: Os testes padronizados continuam a ser a medida predominante de competência para estudantes e escolas, colocando os professores e os alunos focados na preparação de testes e nas habilidades de menor ordem, mantendo as lacunas de desempenho que penalizam os estudantes desatendidos . O Consórcio de Massachusetts para avaliação inovadora do Massachusetts procura reduzir esta lacuna e alterar as medidas de avaliação no nível estadual, capacitando professores para se tornarem líderes na implementação de avaliações de desempenho centradas no aluno e incentivando os legisladores estaduais a considerar sistemas de responsabilidade alternativa com uma visão do futuro. Palavras-chave: Desempenho; padrões; responsabilidade; avaliação; medição de resultados; escolas públicas; educação de profesores Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessments: Creating a Grassroots Accountability System to Leverage State Policy Change We are in need of dramatic change to our state education accountability systems. While the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and standardized testing did shine a spotlight on achievement disparities by subgroup, this form of testing has done more harm than good through narrowing the curriculum, placing an undue focus on test-prep and lower order thinking skills, and labeling and penalizing schools that serve high percentages of historically underserved students who score poorly on standardized tests (Mickelson et al, 2015). Most importantly, standardized testing as the predominant and often sole measure in making student and school proficiency determinations has failed to close this nation’s stubborn achievement gap by race and income (Hanushek, 2016; Reardon, 2011). This latter point is especially salient at a time when our student enrollment today represents a greater percentage of low-income students, English learners, immigrants, and students of color than any time in past decades (NCES, 2017; SEC, 2015). Simultaneously, there is an increased understanding of the growing importance of the acquisition of higher order thinking skills and dispositions to better prepare students for multiple future opportunities in college and career, while preparing them to contribute in creating a just and equitable world. This set of skills and dispositions cannot be well assessed within a standardized test (Conley et al, 2009). Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessments 3 With the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states now have the opportunity to add in additional outcome measures of student and school progress; yet standardized tests still are required to be the majority factor in determining student proficiency and school quality. A limited number of states, however, can be federally approved to replace state standardized tests for locally designed assessment systems. Within this new policy climate, there is growing interest within states in the potential of performance assessments as a more effective measure to assess student proficiency (Stosich, Snyder, & Wilczak, 2018). This growing interest is supported by research studies that have found that implementation of performance assessments can improve classroom instruction and student outcomes. Darling- Hammond & Rustique-Forrester (2005) found that use of performance assessments improved teacher instruction due to embedding assessment into the curriculum, the immediate availability of results, and the authenticity of the tasks. Additionally, through sharing assignments and scoring student work together, teachers have the opportunity to develop more collaborative practices. Teachers can uniformly increase their expectations for the quality of student work because they now have common agreement on performance levels (Darling-Hammond & Wood, 2008). A study of seven performance assessment scale-up efforts found that performance assessments provide more opportunities for students to demonstrate their knowledge and complex skills, and offer teachers better information about student progress (Tung & Stasesky, 2010). Stosich, Snyder, and Wilczak (2018) analyzed the policy and capacity building efforts of 12 states to elevate the role of performance assessments in measuring student learning, and identified four common strategies: Supporting classroom-based performance assessments; Using “capstone” performance assessments as a high school graduation requirement; Using performance assessments for school accountability requirements including in non-tested subjects; Applying for federal waivers to allow locally-generated performance assessments to replace federal testing requirements within state accountability systems. However, in some cases state departments of education are not well positioned or prepared to lead the charge toward new accountability systems that embrace performance assessments over standardized tests. What, then, can teachers, school leaders, and superintendents eager to embrace new models of accountability do? In many states, we will need grassroots and grasstops (including professionals who can raise public awareness and influence decision makers) movements to push for state-level reform in accountability systems. One example of an initiative that seeks to adopt most of the strategies articulated by Stosich et al is the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment (MCIEA). Massachusetts is considered a national leader in education, and is a top performer on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests. The state has been a strong proponent of using high stakes standardized tests as a means to drive student achievement. Yet, despite Massachusetts' aggregate educational successes, the state has some of the highest income, race, and language achievement gaps in the nation (French & Lebeaux, 2016). At a time when the state’s student body is growing ever more diverse, there is greater urgency to adopt an accountability system that better meets all students’ needs. It is with this backdrop that MCIEA formed in 2016 as a partnership of six Massachusetts public school districts and their local teacher unions representing almost 90,000 students (making up nearly 10% of the state’s students), 183 schools, and 6,600 teachers. A unique consortium aspect is that the governing board is made up of the superintendents and local teacher union presidents of member districts. The Center for Collaborative Education (CCE) and College of the Holy Cross (CHC) provide facilitation, coordination, and technical support. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 16 SPECIAL ISSUE 4 MCIEA believes there are richer means of assessing student and school progress than a single high stakes standardized test. Learning from past and present performance assessment and school quality initiatives such as the New York Performance Standards Consortium, New Hampshire’s Performance Assessment for Competency Education, and California’s CORE districts, the consortium is building an assessment system that recognizes the multi-dimensionality of schools and will result in high-quality information that does not merely reflect student demography. By achieving this goal, MCIEA seeks to increase achievement for all students, close achievement gaps among subgroups, and prepare all students for college, career, and life. Through focus groups of students, parents, educators, and community members in each district, and combined with polling data and research, the consortium identified five categories of school quality that are most important for constituencies to know—Teachers and the Teaching Environment, School Culture, Resources, Indicators of Academic Learning, and Citizenship & Wellbeing—and over 30 unique data measures. The consortium has constructed a multiple measures school quality data dashboard that provides easy access to all constituencies to track the progress of schools, both in the aggregate and by subgroups. For the Indicators of Academic Learning, the consortium emphasizes the primacy of teacher-generated, curriculum-embedded performance assessments for determining student proficiency, with the belief that performance assessments engage and assess students in meaningful, complex learning in which they apply new knowledge and skills to real-world situations. Thus, the consortium is developing the capacity of districts, schools, and teachers to create high quality classroom-based performance assessments, to use performance assessments for school accountability requirements in multiple disciplines, and eventually to gain federal approval to enable its performance assessment system to replace federal testing requirements. The consortium aims to have teachers become the experts and leaders in creating high quality performance assessments through their Quality Performance Assessment institute, a year- long institute that engages educators in a performance assessment design cycle. Educators within the consortium construct curriculum-embedded performance tasks with school-based teams and use protocols to assess the quality of draft tasks (e.g., alignment, fairness, Universal Design, engagement) and make task revisions, field test the tasks, and learn how to score student work reliably in order to make consistent proficiency determinations. Each lead team is then empowered and supported, with assistance from CCE staff, to build performance assessment literacy for the entire faculty. With teacher capacity to create high quality performance assessments increasing, the consortium will be field-testing the creation of cross-district performance tasks that are broad enough to be contextualized within local curriculum. The goal is to build a system in which student work from multiple performance assessments are used to make proficiency determinations of students across major academic disciplines. This process results in raising teachers’ quality of instruction, as noted by a consortium teacher: Teams have really bought into the process and started to use the tools to analyze their assessments and student work to reflect back to the assessment task and then rubric and did we truly assess what we meant to assess. [We] went through the [calibration protocol the] first time and realized, “Wait a minute, that’s not really what we were wanting to assess, but that’s what the students perceived. How do we then get to where we want to be with this assessment?” So it has been a great feedback tool. In increasing local capacity to create high quality performance assessments, CCE and the consortium pay attention to three elements critical to scaling up and sustaining performance assessment Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessments 5 systems—technical quality, robust and ongoing teacher professional development, and leadership and policy support (Tung & Stasezky, 2010). In addition to the intensive and ongoing professional development provided to lead teacher teams, the National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment will assist the consortium to ensure that the eventual performance assessment system meets standards of technical quality. MCIEA intends to use this model to encourage state policy makers to embrace a performance assessment system in place of the current standardized tests and/or press the state to apply for federal approval for consortium districts to forego the state accountability model and adopt their own. With this in mind, MCIEA will only be successful if they can convince parents, educators, and, most importantly, policymakers that it is time for a new future-minded accountability system. References Conley, D., Lombardi, A., Seburn, M., & McGaughy, C. (2009). Formative Assessment for College Readiness: Measuring Skill and Growth in Five Key Cognitive Strategies Associated with Postsecondary Success. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rustique-Forrester, E. (2005). The consequences of student testing for teaching and teacher quality. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104, 289-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2005.00034.x Darling-Hammond, L., & Wood, G. H. (2008). Refocusing Accountability: Using Performance Assessments to Enhance Teaching and Learning for Higher Order Skills. Retrieved from www.forumforeducation.org French, D., & Lebeaux, D. (2016). A Vision for Personalized Learning in Massachusetts. Center for Collaborative Education. Retrieved from http://cce.org/files/A-Vision-for-Personalized-Learning- in-Massachusetts.pdf Hanushek, E. (2016). What Matters for Student Achievement. Education Next, 16(2). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/what-matters-for-student-achievement/ Mickelson, R., Giersch, J., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2013). How (and Why) NCLB Failed to Close the Achievement Gap: Evidence from North Carolina, 1998-2004. ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy, 3(1). Retrieved from http://ecipublications.org/ijlsp/vol3/iss1/1 National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The Condition of Education at a Glance: English Language Learners in Public Schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The Condition of Education at a Glance: Racial-Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.as Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain Life Chances of Low-Income Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Retrieved from http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic- achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible Southern Education Foundation. (2015). A New Majority: Low-Income Students Now a Majority in The Nation’s Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/4ac62e27-5260-47a5-9d02- 14896ec3a531/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-Income-Students-Now.aspx Stosich, E., Snyder, J., & Wilczak, K. (2018). How do states integrate performance assessments into their systems of assessment? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(12). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2906 http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2906 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 16 SPECIAL ISSUE 6 Tung, R., & Stazesky, P. (2010). Including Performance Assessments in Accountability Systems: A Review of Scale Up Efforts. Boston, MA: Center for Collaborative Education. Retrieved from http://cce.org/files/PAScaleUp_fullreport2010.pdf About the Author Dan French Center for Collaborative Education dfrench@ccebos.org Dan French is Executive Director of the Center for Collaborative Education and leads all of CCE’s initiatives. He works with the board of directors to lead the strategic development of the organization and has secured grants from over 30 foundations and the U.S. Department of Education. He assisted the Boston Public Schools to expand the Pilot model, launched the New England Small Schools Network, and created the National Turning Points Network. Dan is a member of the Massachusetts Citizens for Public Schools Board of Directors and has authored numerous publications, including Boston’s Pilot Schools: An Alternative to Charter Schools. He is the former Director of Instruction and Curriculum for the Massachusetts Department of Education and special educator at the Charles River Academy. Dan earned an M.Ed. in Urban Education from Antioch University and an Ed.D. in Urban Education from University of Massachusetts at Amherst. About the Guest Editors Elizabeth Leisy Stosich Fordham University estosich@fordham.edu Elizabeth Leisy Stosich is an Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership, Administration, and Policy at Fordham University. Previously, she was a Research and Policy Fellow at the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Her research interests include education policy, assessment and accountability, school and district leadership, school improvement, and teachers’ professional learning. Soung Bae Stanford University soungb@stanford.edu Soung Bae is a Senior Learning Specialist and UDL Innovation Studio Manager at the Schwab Learning Center at Stanford University. Formerly, she was a Senior Research and Policy Analyst at the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Her research interests focus on school accountability, student engagement, and designing learning environments that appreciate and support learner variability. Jon Snyder Stanford University jdsnyder@stanford.edu Jon Snyder is the Executive Director of the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE). His research interests include teacher learning, conditions that support teacher learning, and the relationships between teacher and student learning. mailto:dfrench@ccebos.org mailto:estosich@fordham.edu mailto:soungb@stanford.edu mailto:jdsnyder@stanford.edu Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessments 7 SPECIAL ISSUE Redesigning Assessment and Accountability education policy analysis archives Volume 26 Number 16 January 29, 2018 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non- commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in th e work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at Audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:Audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 16 SPECIAL ISSUE 8 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Scott Marley, Iveta Silova, Maria Teresa Tatto (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Gene V Glass Arizona State University Susan L. Robertson Bristol University, UK Gary Anderson New York University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Jeff Bale OISE, University of Toronto, Canada Eric M. Haas WestEd A. G. Rud Washington State University Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio David C. Berliner Arizona State University Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Henry Braun Boston College Aimee Howley Ohio University Jack Schneider College of the Holy Cross Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Steve Klees University of Maryland Noah Sobe Loyola University Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Sherman Dorn Arizona State University William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Kathy Escamilla University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessments 9 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Jason Beech (Universidad de San Andrés), Ezequiel Gomez Caride (Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina), Antonio Luzon (Universidad de Granada), Angelica Buendia (Metropolitan Autonomous University), José Luis Ramírez (Universidad de Sonora) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Paula Razquin Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/816') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 16 SPECIAL ISSUE 10 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Associados: Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil