High-Stakes Testing - Literature review Example

Heading: High-stakes Testing Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Introduction High-stake testing is a situation in which results of a standardized test are employed as a determining factor in the process of making decisions related to students. Some of these outcomes are: holding back a student in a grade, or not being permitted to graduate till the pass the test. This practice has a long history and largely applied in the United States up-to-date. Therefore, this paper seeks to explore some of the connections that exist between the application of high-stakes tests and teacher’s performance and work. To attain this, the paper addresses issues, such as, effects of high-stakes tests, accountability on teachers’ identities in terms of instructional practice, teacher efficacy and work environment. Teachers’ professional identities The way teachers perceive themselves and their professional identities are, in most cases, interlinked and related to their feelings and beliefs, and have been formed by their work environment. Some of the instructors strongly believe that they are destined to teach with claims that their career is a gift or a calling. Most of them got into in the profession since they wanted to bring a positive change in their students’ lives. On the other, a good number of teachers believe that the profession was the only career that could make sense in their lives. Explicitly, teachers’ professional identities are known to be dynamic and malleable, and can change as teaching work changes and as instructors mature in their work. Currently, teachers’ work is indulged within the context of high-stakes testing and responsibility, which is a basic constituent of educational change. Moreover, educational policy makers have been instrumental in the promotion of accountability and high-stakes testing as a technique of enhancing students’ achievement, by improving the teaching force. Some of the enactments that have taken place in the process include the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and it requires a yearly testing in order to sharpen nations’ focus on the promotion of students’ performance. Before this enactment, many countries had started implementing their own responsibility systems. Besides, ever since accountability and high-stakes tests have been influential in permeation and shaping of global education, teachers’ work lives have greatly changed. In the present environment of high teacher accountability, teachers’ experiences and reactions to the experiences may affect the way they feel, and their perceptions on the teaching professional identity. In addition, research indicates that beliefs on accountability and testing largely shape teacher’s performance. Therefore, the paper seeks to explore the extent to which accountability and high-stakes testing affect how teachers perceive their professional identities and who they are. As well, the information in the paper is obtained largely based on the opinions of the practicing teachers. High-Stakes Testing as Educational Reform Educators, policy makers and the public have greatly focused on education reform. According to Perrault (2000, pp. 705-711), accountability and high-stakes testing systems have been employed as a way of driving instructional and curricular changes in efforts to enhance education in many countries. Popham (2001, pp. 15-20) says that individuals that believe that tests with outcomes, as the only means to high academic standards stand, sharply differ with others that see high-stakes unjustly affect disadvantaged and minority students, and standardize learning (Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2000, pp. 21-25). According to the rural school administrators, test outcomes are influential in teacher motivation, evaluation and establishment of ways meeting their students’ needs (Egley & Jones, 2004, pp. 30-39). Sloan (2006, pp. 119-152) notes that the fact that high-stakes testing is a driver in educational development has raised awareness of curriculum and testing issues. Recently, at the federal level, educational change has manifested in form of NCBA. Effect of high-stakes testing on teachers and their work A substantial number of studies have been carried out on high-stakes testing. According to them, execution of high-stakes testing in a state’s accountability systems has impacted on the teacher’s teaching practice, their personal factors, and their working environments (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000, pp. 384-397). Moreover, instructors’ experiences and reactions to accountability are unpredictable, unique, and multi-dimensional. They also demonstrate that accountability has both negative and positive effects on the equity and quality of instructors’ teaching practice. Moreover, instructors’ understanding of responsibility matters regularly happens through translation by their institutional leaders, and this can distort the significance and meaning of the policies (Sloan, 2006, pp. 119-152). In addition, Cimbricz (2000, pp. 12-13) indicates that teachers view their reactions to high-stakes testing in various ways. These impacts of high-stakes testing are known to be positive to a section of teachers and positive to another section, for instance, when curriculum is narrowed, some instructors see this impact as a positive while others perceive it negatively. Furthermore, some research findings indicate that individual instructors are aware of both wanted and unwanted outcomes of testing. This is illustrated by Hamilton and Stecher (2006, pp.34-45)’s report that most of elementary instructors believe that testing narrowed curriculum that they perceive negatively, but others viewed it as very effective. Besides, testing also affects teachers in that it increases the pressure on them. According to the practicing teachers, this pressure has made them instruct through controversial to their teaching beliefs; hence, negative effects on their work relations (Cimbricz, 2000, pp. 12-13). For a number of teachers, this pressure is seen as a stimulant for instructional enhancement. Increased pressure that results from testing is said to come from school administrators, the public and within the instructors themselves. Consequently, much pressure caused by testing is related to discourses about instructors’ teaching practice, work environments, and their personal factors (Perrault, 2000, pp. 705-711). Effects on instructional practice This section addresses the impacts of high-stakes testing on the instructor’s behaviors, especially on instructional practice. There is considerable number of studies that have been carried out on the issue. According to some of them, high-stakes testing affects instruction in various was that include narrowing of the curriculum; choosing of lesson content; and increasing focus on remedial and drill practices (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000, pp. 384-397). Research has also reported that application of high-stakes improve focus on educational standards and sensitivity to different needs of students. Popham (2001, pp. 15-20) argues that there is a temptation for instructors to minimize resources and time allocated to non-tested subjects in reaction to the execution of high-stakes testing. Further research shows that NCLB had experienced this impact on non-tested subjects. According to Hamilton and Stetcher (2006, p. 24), a majority of school administrators interviewed asserted that they had required or encouraged their teachers to focus more on tested subjects than the non-tested ones. Pederson (2007, pp. 287-291) says that most of the evaluation directors claim that subjects assessed under NCLB do not receive focus and resources. In educational triage, educators have devoted resources to learners while basing on teachers’ evaluation of available test information to foresee how effectively learners will perform on national examinations. Research also shows that some educators give emphasis to certain resources, such as, small-group instruction and tutoring on learners who are considered to be performing well, but made different resources to poorly or lowly performing students (Booher-Jennings, 2005, pp. 231-268). What is more, teachers assert that they have been forced by the pressure to improve test scores into increasing time spent in the preparation for examinations (Egley & Jones, 2004, pp. 30-39). This pressure has also restricted teachers’ use of other teaching activities that are believed to promote high-order thinking and problem-skills. In addition, educators are encouraged to employ examination preparation strategies and instruct to the assessment by their school administrators. Therefore, most of these teachers end up teaching learners on topics that they believe would appear in the examinations. They do this by applying national examination formats in teacher-made assessments, daily test preparations and instructing on test-taking strategies. Grant (2000, pp. 12-15) says that some teachers argue that this pressure has forced them to direct their teaching to the examination parameters. Additionally, Egley & Jones (2004, pp. 30-39) demonstrate that the perception that teachers have on time constraints have led them to merely cover material instead of offering an in-depth instruction. Teachers also maintain that tests focus on critical thinking, but they do not enhance memorization and drill. They also report that national examinations have increases their responsibility and enhanced their instructional quality. In addition, teachers claim that examinations are not worth the resources that are essential in the implementation. Explicitly, instructors’ choices of teaching strategies are associated with both environmental and personal factors. As well, studies show that teachers’ choices of teaching methods are determined by a variety of factors. For example, educators that are more knowledgeable about their countries’ standards and confident with their work are less likely to be involved in didactic teaching. Instead, these instructors opt to employ more intellectually complex instruction strategies. In other studies, it is clear that the most appropriate strategies were replaced by teat preparation and drill often in underperforming institutions with many minority and poor learners (Grant, 2000, pp. 12-15). Teachers are employing tools that help them address matters related to the negative effects of high-stakes testing on them and instruction. Teachers' Work Environments Studies indicate that teachers’ work environments have been greatly affected by the application of accountability and high-stakes testing (Egley & Jones, 2004, pp. 30-39). Teachers’ work environment entails school and classrooms settings; relationships with workmates, school culture, and focus on high-stakes testing in the internal and external educational context. In these environments, studies demonstrate that testing has influenced their relationships with fellow teachers, public opinion on teachers, and degree of stress, pressure and their classroom and school support (Pederson, 2007, pp. 287-291). Firestone and Mayrowetz (2000, pp. 724-749) note that public reporting of information has an effect on the teachers’ work environment. Besides, published reports on newspapers and other public resources may be intended by countries to stimulate instructors into production of higher test results. It is also worth-noting that rural communities hold a lot of significance with publication of test results. Nonetheless, Pederson (2007, pp. 287-291) says that some of the teachers view publication of scores and comparison of schools negatively since schools are labeled with results. In fact, some of the media reports are said to refer to certain schools as failures and that the instructors are lazy. As a result, this publication of national test scores has negatively affected the teachers’ perceptions, and caused them a lot of stress and anxiety. In as much as this publication can trigger healthy competition among schools undertaking national examinations, it can promote collegiality among education providers. According to some of the teachers’ reports, test publication enhances competition among schools, teachers, and districts to attain higher test results than their competitors (Firestone & Mayrowetz, 2000, pp. 724-749). Besides, teachers also hold that test pressure in their work environment is facilitated by interactions with their administrators and colleagues, apart from the media. They also believe that stress and pressure caused by high-stakes testing is transferred to their learners. This also makes teachers feel that they are causing a lot of harm to the learners through the effects of testing (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000, 384-397). What is more, the connections in the teachers’ working environments have been influenced, for instance, there is tension on teaching assignments. Teachers in high-stakes testing countries say that their colleagues in their institutions have asked for transfers to non-tested grade in large numbers than those that are in low-stakes countries. Moreover, test pressure has caused rapport challenges among instructors. Additionally, Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000, 384-397) note that teachers say that some of their colleagues who get the highest examination results brag about teaching to the assessment without engaging in other instruction activities. As a result, this creates negative feelings and reactions among counterparts. Therefore, although testing increase collaboration among teachers, it has adverse effects, such as, pressure to produce high scores competition and friction among instructors whose classes are not tested. School culture or work environment as it is affected by new changes and demands relies on the message that teachers obtain form their elementary school principal. According to Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000, 384-397), principal is a mediator in the way teachers view the meaning and experience the effects of implementing new educational policies. Principals can act as buffers during the implementation of policies in order to protect their schools from increased strain and demands. For teachers that work in high-demand settings of socio-economically disadvantaged learners, there are reports of problems, such as, low parental assistance ill health and parental support. These instructors are at a higher risk of losing their commitment and motivation to teach than their colleagues working in low-demand settings (Day, 2008, pp. 243-260). In fact, some of the teachers feel that the high-stakes demands in accountability systems have caused a rise in paperwork. Accountability requirements involve a lot of documentation that relates to testing. Teachers' Personal Factors Studies have demonstrated the effect of high-stakes testing on different teacher’s personal factors that include teachers’ beliefs, teachers’ autonomy, teachers’ efficacy and emotions. To begin with, Day (2008, pp. 243-260) says that teacher efficacy is affected by the implementation of testing due to the increased anxiety, stress and anxiety. Imperatively, there is a lot of significance on the way teachers’ physical and emotional responses are viewed and interpreted. The way teachers view and interpret anxiety, stress and pressure can be as a result of accountability and high-stakes testing, and this is determined by partially by the efficacy feelings (Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas, 2000, 384-397). According to Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007, pp. 611-625) assert that there are six dimensions of teacher efficacy and they are: adapting education to learners’ needs; motivating students; maintaining discipline; instruction, coping with challenges and changes; and cooperating with parents and colleagues. It is known that experienced instructors have higher overall teacher efficacy beliefs than those with five or less years’ of teaching experience (Day, 2008, pp. 243-260). Research results also indicate that there is a correlation between teacher self-esteem and teacher personal efficacy. In addition, studies show that teachers’ efficacy beliefs are associated with their experience time and the students’ grade level. Further, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007, pp. 611-625) show that teacher efficacy greatly affects decisions about ways in which instructors should conduct their work with their learners. In fact, teachers who are inefficacious indicate little commitment and motivation to teach, and do not apply their energies on academic issues. Pederson (2007, pp. 287-291) argues that some of teachers even do not believe that they have any impact on their learners’ achievement on the examination results; instead, they believe that the results are determined by factors that are beyond their control. Additionally, accountability and high-stakes testing are said to have caused many blames on instructors on the learners’ academic failures. According to Grant (2000, pp. 12-15), teachers feel that there are scapegoats if their learners fail in the national examinations. In fact, some of the curriculum resources are said to be teacher-proof or scripted, which implies that teachers have inadequate knowledge to effectively teach students. Conclusion Evidently, there are many connections between teachers’ work and high-stakes testing. These connections are reinforced by certain factors, such as, teachers’ professional identities, teachers’ efficacy, teachers’ personal factors and teachers’ working environment. Imperatively, many studies demonstrate that the implementation accountability and high-stakes testing systems have both positive and negative effects on learners’ performance and teachers’ work. Although the system promotes competition among districts, learners and teachers, there are study reports that teachers experience a lot of anxiety, stress and pressure as a result using it. Moreover, the system leads to narrowing of educational curriculum. Therefore, there is a need to use the system appropriately in order to have more positive than negative impact on teachers’ work. References Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What's at stake in high stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384-397. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system [Electronic version]. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268. Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved March 28, 2010 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/281 Day, C. (2008). Committed for life? Variations in teachers’ work, lives and effectiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 9(3), 243-260. Egley, R., & Jones, B. (2004, September 1). Rural elementary administrators views of high- stakes testing. Rural Educator, 26(1), 30-39. Firestone, W., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking ‘high stakes’: Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 724-749. Grant, S. G. (2000). Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers' perceptions of changes in the New York state testing program. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(14). Retrieved January 5, 2006 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n14.html Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2006). Measuring instructional responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Pp.34-45. Hurwitz, N., & Hurwitz, S. (2000, January). Do high-stakes assessments really improve learning? American School Board Journal, 187(1), 21-25.  Pederson, P. (2007). What is measure is treasured: The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on non-assessed subjects. Clearing House, 80(6), 287-291. Popham, J. (2001). The truth about testing. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 15-20. Perrault, G. (2000). The classroom impact of high-stress testing. Education, 120(4), 705-711. Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). The dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611-625. Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyonds the all-good/all-bad discourse on accountability explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 119- 152. Read More