teachers, and how standardized testing influences the narrowing public schools to ensure the best education for content, and students are given practice in
| Previous PDF | Next PDF |
[PDF] Optimal Testing Environment Research Brief
Teach specific skills such as: how to read a passage, reading questions before the passage, outlining writing prompts before writing, underlining key words in the test questions and directions, planning the use of time, completing the questions they know first, going with their first answer, answering every question
[PDF] Testing Integrity: Issues and Recommendations for Best Practice
in academic testing, and how these best practices might change for Recent news reports of widespread or suspected cheating on standardized tests in several address topics such as the “test environment, the interactions between the test
[PDF] Administration Practices for Standardized Assessments - Pearson
Note: This report is based on “Appropriate Administration Practices with Standardized Tests” published in Testing Information Bulletin No 3 by Harcourt classroom environment (Nitko, 2004; Thurlow, Elliott, and Ysseldyke, 1998; Tindal It is Pearson's view that the best preparation that teachers can provide to their
[PDF] Standardized Testing - Corwin
required by the state, and indicated in best-practices techniques for teaching, the ricular questions can be lost in a high-stakes testing environment In some
Module 3
28 fév 2007 · administering standardized tests to students is to follow the directions carefully and explicitly (Linn gory of student test preparation practices that is ethical and appropriate ate learning environment is simply good teaching
[PDF] Standardized Testing - CORE
9 oct 2013 · Standardized Testing: An Overview for Pre-Service Teachers standardized, high-stakes assessments will impact on their professional work environment ( Pedulla is not the best way to improve test scores” (Bew, 2011) assessments in the classroom is to learn about effective assessment practices
[PDF] Perceptions of Teaching in an Environment of Standardized Testing
teachers, and how standardized testing influences the narrowing public schools to ensure the best education for content, and students are given practice in
[PDF] stanford computer science resume
[PDF] star academy paris latino clip
[PDF] star symbol mac
[PDF] starmore bed assembly instructions
[PDF] start nsclient++
[PDF] stat radar
[PDF] stata generate variable multiple conditions
[PDF] state of climate change 2019
[PDF] state primary nomination paper
[PDF] state representative district map
[PDF] state teaching certificate
[PDF] state the characteristics of oral language
[PDF] states that recognize federal tax treaties
[PDF] static method in java
Franklin, C. A., & Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2007). Perceptions of teaching in an environment of standardized
testing: Voices from the field. Trankalai, ra,Cn.A(1), 2-21.For c=......Y[<=UKYUqY 1K - O= 0e2GL&-2JLA d&- - /W) qOY...yW"... - U%W/UfI=/[Y[] - ]YSYK!
ZY...qY<]/=U[ =" "Y - qO/U4 /U - U dU'/...=U-YU] =" 5] - UK - ...K/zYK "Y[]/U4) "=/qY[ "...=- ]OY z/YWK
vOY...yW hS z... - U%W/U l yYUU/"Y... bS 5U=_&:Y...=U= Boise State Univer[/]y
This article ,aw-,Sln,alai, rn -GeJ SaenS-neal ,&Lan Sranwa, awS&-Gln-(n2aGS-,nSai ra,ln&Gnaoa2aGSi,0n
l r--oln7r-n7-,)n7&Srnw,ala,P& anSai ra,ln&Gno- ion l r--ocJG&Pa,l&S0nwi,SGa,lr&wlpnFai ra,lnlri,aen r-7nSra&,no&Paln&Gnaoa2aGSi,0nl r--olt oill,--2ln riPan riGsaenilnin,alJoSn-(nGa7nlSiGei,e&faen SalS&Gsn,ahJ&,a2aGSlpnkalJoSln(- Jln-Gnr-7n
i -JGSiL&o&S0nlS,J SJ,aln&G(oJaG aniGn&G ,ailan&Gn lS,alln-,nw,allJ,an-GnSai ra,lCnr-7nlSiGei,e&faen SalS&Gsn&G(oJaG alninea ,ailan&Gng-LnliS&l(i S&-Gn(-,n Sai ra,lCniGenr-7nlSiGei,e&faenSalS&Gsn&G(oJaG aln SranGi,,-7&Gsn-(n J,,& JoJ2niGen&GlS,J S&-Gn&Gn
aoa2aGSi,0n oill,--2lpnvGn-,ea,nS-n(&srSnisi&GlSnSran GasiS&Pan -GlahJaG aln-(nlSiGei,e&faenSalS&GsniGen Sran&2woa2aGSiS&-Gn-(nillall2aGSniGen
i -JGSiL&o&S0nlS,J SJ,aln&Gno&Gan7&SrnGa7n aeJ iS&-Gionw-o& 0CnSai ra,lCnie2&G&lS,iS-,lCniGen Sai ra,naeJ iS-,ln2JlSnLani7i,an-(nSranwa, awSJion &G(oJaG alniSnSran oill,--2noaPaop Keywoli, Chigh-stakes talS&GsCn2aGS-,nSai ra,lCn
aoa2aGSi,0nl r--oln n recent years, much emphasis has been placed on high-stakes testing within the larger context of implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002). As teacher educators,
reflecting upon Zimpher and Howey's (2005) call for "truly systemic P-16 partnerships" (p. 267), we set out to understand the impact that
high-stakes testing may be having in the lives of the mentor teachers who work within our elementary partner schools. Teacher educators may wish to remain out
of, or even above, such environments by continuing to promote progressivism, or what is more commonly now referred to as constructivism (Richardson, 2003). However, turning our backs on the realities of public school classrooms where direct instruction is believed to better prepare students for performance on a standardized test than other modes of instruction does a disservice to the prospective and practicing teachers with whom we work on a daily basis in order to engage in systemic partnership relationships. Furthermore, when we acknowledge teacher socialization as still largely based in functionalism (Zeichner & Gore, 1990) as a means to perpetuate the
traditional social institutions of schools, we must also address the fact that public school contexts exert tremendous influence on teacher job satisfaction and motivation. Disregarding high stakes standardized
testing and increased accountability in public education does little more than further marginalize teacher education in an area where it should have a larger deliberative The Researcher
n 3 voice. Therefore, we embarked upon a study designed to strengthen our teacher preparation partnerships as well as work with teachers in public schools to ensure the best education for elementary aged students as well as prospective teachers. Embracing the tension of current education contexts and a critical, social reconstructionist reflective tradition for teaching (Zeichner & Liston, 1996) remains a dichotomous yet hopeful place for us in our work in teacher education across the professional life span. Madaus (1988) claims
The power of tests and examinations to
affect individuals, institutions, curriculum, or instruction is a perceptual phenomenon; if students, teachers, or administrators believe that the results of an examination are important it matters very little whether this is really true or false - the effect is produced by what individuals perceive to be the case (p. 35).
In order to gain insight into the experience
of elementary school teachers in a local region, the authors (teacher educators) surveyed mentor teachers to gather information as to where to begin in supporting teachers in a high stakes testing environment. Considering the evidence of positive and negative consequences of standardized testing and accountability structures in education, we determined to explore the influences of the initial implementation of NCLB (2002) legislation in local school districts in a Northwestern Rocky Mountain Region.
Specifically, the purpose of this study was to
describe the perceptions of mentor teachers in elementary schools who work with prospective teachers from a local university. Srankalki, kCr Frin.CinC kA&ariSnC
C Madaus (1988) warns that testing may
become the "end of instruction" rather than a "tool of instruction" when high-stakes tests, which connect teacher performance and student achievement, weigh too heavily into curriculum and pedagogy. Currently, teachers view their professional work environments as changing due to the influences of multiple standardized assessments with varying levels of accountability attached to each (Pedulla, 2003). Scholarly literature contains multiple
warnings of the dangers of standardized testing as a means for accountability in education (see Chudowsky & Pelegrino, 2003; Kohn, 1999; Holloway, 2001; Miller,
2001; Yen & Henderson, 2002).
Although a review of literature on
standardized testing in K-12 education highlights both positive and negative aspects of this framework for an accountability system in education, a majority of studies highlight "the single greatest criticism of high-stakes tests is that they inevitably lead to teaching to the test" (Gordon & Reese, 1997, p. 346). Likewise, this trend toward
"teaching to the test" emphasizes the need to focus only on content that is tested. Hence, curriculum becomes increasingly narrowed in classrooms, including that which emphasizes higher-order thinking skills (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Birkmire, 1993; Darling-Hammond, 1991; Madaus, 1988;
Pedulla, 2003). Gilman and Reynolds (1991)
report side effects of standardized testing included indirect control of local curriculum, a lowering of faculty morale, an increase in instances of cheating, and negative psychological and physical effects on teachers and students. C. A. Franklin & J. L. Snow-Gerono
4 On the other hand, proponents of testing
stress the importance of an accountability system in education. Cizek (2001) highlights positive consequences of high stakes testing, including improvement upon the quality and focus of professional development for educators; an awareness of the needs of all students; an increase in the numbers of assessment literate teachers; an increase in data-driven decision-making; and an increase in the quality of tests. Each of these positive consequences, according to Cizek (2001), should ultimately benefit student learning, or at the very least, student achievement. M rwSkFC
The resulting research questions guiding
this study include: 1. How do new accountability structures
influence the stress and/or pressure on teachers in elementary classrooms? 2. How does standardized testing affect
the job satisfaction of elementary mentor teachers who serve as field placement mentors for preservice elementary teachers? 3. How does standardized testing affect
curriculum and instruction in elementary classrooms? As a quantitative study, the research reported
here embodies both quantitative and qualitative perspectives due to the inclusion of narrative comments by respondents and focus group interviews. Survey methodology was used (Dillman, 2000). The survey instrument response rate was 90%. .A&Sowo.A-SGC The sample population consisted of the 106
mentor teachers who work with elementary preservice teachers in school-university partnerships in the Northern Rocky Mountain Region. All of the respondents
work in partnership schools, so named by university and school partners during an effort to increase participation in initial teacher preparation and teacher development across institutional boundaries (Teitel, 2003). With an interest in the Professional
Development School movement (Darling-
Hammond, 1994; Holmes Group, 1990), this
university began partnering more strongly with public schools interested in initial teacher preparation. Each of the mentor teachers in this study work within one of these partnership schools at varying levels of mentorship. Preservice teachers spend three years in partner schools beginning with tutoring and one-on-one participation with students and moving toward small group and whole class instruction during a final internship year. Mentor teachers who responded to the survey instrument have an average of 19 years teaching experience and have served as mentor teachers for an average of six years. The majority of teachers work in first through fifth grades with a few kindergarten and sixth grade teachers as well as some specialists - for example, reading teachers. Nearly 30% of the mentor teachers teach in Chapter 1 schools, with 13% teaching English Language Learners (ELL) and children with identified special needs. This percentage of Chapter 1 and ELL
students exceeds the state average. Over the past three years, elementary
teachers in the state have been required to administer, on average, seven different local, state and national standardized tests per academic year. Each school in this sample, at the very least, administered the following standardized tests: Students are assessed on a state Reading Indicator test, kindergarten The Researcher
n 5 through 3rd grades, three times a year and rated on "reading fluency." The state standardized achievement test is taken in every grade 1st - 6th twice yearly with a mandatory "passing" regulation in 10th grade in order to complete high school graduation requirements. This state also has requirements for the regular
administration of a standardized Direct Writing Assessment in 5
th , 7 th , and 9 th grades and a Direct Math Assessment in 4th, 6th, and 8 th grades. In the elementary grades, a sampling of students in grades 4 th - 8 th also take the standardized National Assessment of Educational Progress exams in math, reading
and science. Additionally, local districts require standardized benchmark tests. Given the fact that the mentor teachers are
instrumental in preparing future teachers, we were interested to learn what, if any, impact the emphasis on testing has had on the work lives of elementary school mentor teachers. Changes in the school lives of elementary
mentor teachers and their students affect preservice teachers. As the teacher preparation program at this university is working to redesign components of its elementary education program, we believe it is necessary to learn about the influences of testing on not only the mentor teachers but on curriculum and instruction as well. This data informs teacher education faculty in program and course content redesign. I-GS&eJL-SASo(-C
A survey was constructed after review of
the research literature on high stakes testing, standardized testing, and teacher job satisfaction. A tested instrument, the Effects on Testing Study (Herman & Golan, 1990) was used to develop the survey for this study. This instrument has been used in large, wide-scale surveys of K-12 teacher perceptions. Dillman's (2000) Tailored Design Method (TDM) was used in the instrument design. TDM is a protocol for implementing effective Internet and mail survey research. This protocol included criteria for question development and ordering as well as graphic design of the instrument. The instrument addressed factors that
support teacher job satisfaction, pressure, and curriculum and instruction issues. Respondents were asked to rate the pressure
they felt to improve students' standardized test scores, how often they attended to testing issues in curriculum and instruction, how professional development at their school had changed, and how their job climate characteristics had changed over the last three years (see Appendix A). DASACw(00LwSo(-C
Implementation procedures suggested in
the TDM (Dillman, 2000) were followed to influence response rate positively. Four elements suggested in TDM that have been shown to improve response rate to mail surveys were followed: 1. A respondent friendly questionnaire
2. Up to five contacts with the
questionnaire recipient 3. Inclusion of stamped return
envelopes 4. Personalized correspondence
As suggested in element two, multiple
contacts consisted of four contacts by first class mail. The contacts were a brief prenotice letter, a questionnaire mailing, a thank you postcard, and a replacement questionnaire. Data were entered into a statistical analysis software program as the survey instruments were returned. Narrative comments were also invited throughout the survey instrument. Nearly all respondents C. A. Franklin & J. L. Snow-Gerono
6 included narrative comments in some form or another. Narrative comments of more than one or two sentences in response to the invitation to include "additional thoughts about how testing is affecting your life as an educator" were provided by 54 of the 91 respondents. These narrative comments were entered into a
Word document for analysis and triangulation
of the quantitative data. Additionally, although all survey
respondents were invited to participate in focus group interviews, only 30 % of the population participated in the focus groups. The focus group questions and goals were
grounded in the themes that emerged in the analysis of the survey results. The goals of the interviews were to further understand how teaching changed for the participants, what specific emphasis was placed on various standardized tests, how teachers were able to differentiate instruction, if at all, and what school-university partners can do to better support preservice and practicing teachers. l FA-rFC C Inferential and descriptive statistics were
employed in the analysis of data for this study. Frequencies and percentages, means and
standard deviations for each survey question were computed, and the data were reported in tables. The criterion variables for this study were job satisfaction and degrees of pressure felt by mentor teachers. The predictor variables were the measures of curricular and instructional changes and implementation of curriculum. Multiple regression analysis was used to test for relationships stated in the null hypotheses. Multiple correlations were computed and tested for significance. Additionally, narrative comments were coded
and analyzed for themes by multiple readings and memoing the data (Patton, 2004), and the two researchers held data analysis meetings to discuss findings and triangulate themes. LoJoSASo(-GC
The instrument used in this study was a
survey instrument that relied on self- reporting from the participants. The design of the survey and the protocol followed for mailings and contacts helped reduce this limitation (Dillman, 2000). A-A07GLGC
Three of the respondents were not
currently classroom teachers and work in other capacities at school sites. All of the teacher respondents indicate that at least three district or state mandated tests are administered to their students each academic year with the average being seven different tests per year. Approximately 60% of the teachers are responsible for test administration, and, for the remaining 40%, the classroom teachers and a test proctor hired by the district are responsible for test administration. H(PC2(C-LPCAww(e-SAco0oS7C
GS&ewSe&LGCo-p0eL-wLCS)LCGS&LGGCA-2t(&C
.&LGGe&LC(-CSLAw)L&GCo-CL0LJL-SA&7C w0AGG&((JGsCAll of the teachers indicate that they feel increased pressure to improve their students' standardized test scores with the greatest pressures being felt from the media, school boards, and their principals (see Table 1). Specific instrument questions can be located in the section of the instrument, "Teachers." Approximately 95% of the teachers indicate "testing creates
a lot of tension for teachers and/or students." A factor analysis of pressure variables indicates that three major types of The Researcher
n 7 pressures exist for these teachers: administrative pressure, media pressure, and pressure from other involved parties (see Table 2). Administrative pressure is
evaluative pressure as the personnel involved have an actual or perceived role of evaluation and includes the principal, school board and "other," which is comprised of school superintendents and district office personnel. In essence, these people are the teachers'
"bosses." The factor of pressure from other interested parties constituent is a non- evaluative role but comprises people who have a vested interest in the school. This factor includes other teachers, parents, and community members. The media pressure factor stands alone. It is worth noting that the respondents perceive media pressure to be the greatest pressure. Table 1. Percent Scores for Pressure to Improve Students' Standardized Test Scores Principal
Pressure
Other Administrator
Pressure
Other Teachers
School
Board Pressure
Parental
Pressure
Community
Pressure
Media Pressure
Almost no
pressure 0.0 5.3 12.8 0.0 15.4 5.1 1.3
Little 5.1 10.5 21.8 6.4 24.4 12.8 2.5
Moderate 32.1 27.6 34.6 25.6 32.1 34.6 11.4
Some 33.3 25.0 21.8 26.9 20.5 26.9 25.3
Great 29.5 31.6 9.0 41.0 7.7 20.5 59.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note. (N=78)
Table 2. Factor Analysis of Pressure Sources for Teachers Factor 1
Administrative
Factor 2
Other Interested Parties
Factor 3
Media Principal pressure .834
Other pressure .796
Board pressure .723
Teacher pressure .714
Parental pressure .842
Community pressure .690
Media pressure .896
Note. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. Absolute values <0.4 suppressed. Percent of variance explained in Factor 1: 30%, Factor 2:25%, Factor 3: 20%. A majority of respondents' narrative
comments mention feeling an increase in stress or pressure connected to their jobs due to increased testing and accountability. Most of the comments focus on the increased stress or pressure teachers feel in their work lives. An important, and often-mentioned, aspect of teachers' work lives includes their C. A. Franklin & J. L. Snow-Gerono
quotesdbs_dbs17.pdfusesText_23