Effects of Testing on Teaching - Literature review Example

Running Head: Effects of Testing on Teaching Effects of Testing on Teaching Name Institution Date Effects of testing on teaching: A review of literature Student’s assessments have been a subject to debate in the recent past. Despite the fact that many professionals and scholars are united around the idea that students require modern skills to be successful today (Rotterham and Daniel Willingham, 2009), results are however mixed on the effects on teaching. Unfortunately, Literature reviews have not adequately settled these debates, a fact that may be attributed to the inconsistency in the literature (Kennedy, 2008:345). The present review focuses on three articles are: Samuel Lobascher (2011) “What are the Potential Impacts of High-stakes Testing on Literacy Education in Australia?” ; Wayne Au (2007)”High stakes testing and Curricular control: A qualitative Meta-synthesis” High Stakes and Deborah Palmer and Virginia Snodgrass Rangel (2011)”Accountability and Policy Implementation: Teacher Decision Making in Bilingual Classrooms in Texas . All the three articles relate to High stakes testing and have a divergent view of the same hence of great significance to the present research topic. This review is organized around a series of questions which centre on curriculum and instruction/pedagogy. High Stakes Accountability and Policy Implementation: Teacher Decision Making in Bilingual Classrooms in Texas by Deborah Palmer and Virginia Snodgrass Rangel This is a qualitative study which employed the use of ethnographic interviews -qualitative research. The study utilized open-ended interviews and also relied on both implementation theory and sense-making in a bid to stress the process which affected teacher decision making with a particular focus on bilingual teachers in Texas urban district. Unlike other studies Palmer and Rangel focused beyond the impacts to build on the existing theory to illustrate how policy initiates influenced teacher decisions and consequently leading to some negative effects. One of the observations of this study relates to reduced autonomy. Respondents who were mainly teachers argued that testing significantly reduced not only their autonomy but also decision-making power. In a similar study in Florida, Jones and Egley’s (2004) however observed that only very few respondents were concerned with the loss of curricula autonomy. The Palmer and Rangel’s study also revealed teachers were forced to adopt the “teach to test” approach of instruction. Despite the negative effects, Palmer and Rangel noted that a larger number of respondents were willing to practice authentic teaching (p. 633). This observation is quite in contrast to Shohamy’s (2006) study where teachers implemented these policies with out a second thought. Although this article shed light on the current subject matter, it has several shortcomings coming from its limited sample size and also due to the fact that every respondent was interviewed once (p. 623). High stakes testing and Curricular control: A qualitative Meta synthesis by Wayne Au This is a qualitative research and has taken a met synthesis approach to explore about 49 qualitative studies in order to investigate the effects of student’s assessments on curriculum, particularly in terms of content, knowledge form, as well as pedagogy. In this study, Wayne Au observed there was a close relationship or association between testing and changes in curriculum. He believes that these changes affect the curriculum in it’s of its content form as well as its pedagogic aspects. There was a narrowing of curriculum where teachers tended to “teach to test”. On the other hand, curriculum form changed either through fragmentation or integration of knowledge. Teachers tended to concentrate on key areas as opposed to other subject-matter knowledge. The findings also revealed an increase in teacher- centered pedagogies and direct transmission of test-related facts. On the contrary, Yei (2005) noted that pedagogy was not affected negatively by these tests because these tests were well designed and did not promote drill and note memorization. However, this study also revealed that, in a significantly fewer cases, some tests brought about expansion of content and knowledge integration. Besides this, the tests led to a more student-centred, cooperative pedagogy. In his analysis, Au realized that there was a weaker but close/significant relationship between expansion of subject matter and an increase in a more integrated structure of knowledge as a result of these tests (p.263). These findings are consistent with those of Rex and Nelson (2004), Barton (2005) and Vogler (2003). Wayne Au argues that these positive effects are closely linked to mainly two things: Quality of the testing instrument and the available professional development opportunities given teachers intended to address the expectations of accountability systems. He thus recommends that professional development be considered in influencing the pedagogical responses to high-stakes testing. To Au, the effects of tests on teaching depended to a great extent on the structures of the tests themselves. Although he offers quite persuasive ideas, his observations are limited in a number of grounds. They tend to be skewed towards predominantly test related events while excluding the non-tested events. The findings are also inconsistent in terms of how curriculum changes in relation to the time period. Apart from this, there are also unanswered questions for instance; whether teaching to test and teacher-centered instruction good or bad for teachers, students, schools, community and educations in general. Potential Impacts of High-stakes testing on Literacy Education in Australia? By Samuel Lobascher This study adopts both qualitative and qualitative methods to explore both positive and negative aspects or intended and unintended of high stakes testing. It's mainly based on literature from the United States and the United Kingdom which have both implemented high-stakes testing geared towards increased standardization, accountability as well reducing or solving existing inequality between socially advantaged and socially disadvantaged students. Samuel Lobascher has clearly shown that high testing can have both positive and negative impacts on teaching. He noted that there were various positive outcomes including greater consistency within and across several schools which is consistent with Crocker (2004) findings. A noticeable effect within the US and the UK was an increase in the time spent teaching literacy. A similar observation was also reported by Jones and his colleagues. They found that standardized testing led to increased time taken particularly in social science instructions (Jones et al., 2003). A comparable analysis of teachers in Maine and Missouri also confirmed this as it was observed that an extra 10 minutes was being used up each day teaching reading skills (Powell et al., 2009). In the same vein, Teachers in England revealed that they spent more time on literacy instruction to train students for Key Stage tests (Collins et al., 2010). The consequence of this focus upon literacy has resulted in improving performance (Bourque, 2004). Samuel Lobascher further observed that more experience teacher effective professional development would accompany or link up these high-stakes testing with excellent teaching (P. 14). This is consistent with Jones findings that the tests were more likely facilitate greater consistency in literacy education while at the same time providing teachers with a clearer expectation about what they ought to teach students (Jones, 2007). In the same line of argument RAI (2011:18) reinstated that tests can significantly to enhanced learning since teachers accurately identify students’ learning strengths and needs and were able to teach within their zones of proximal development. In terms of the negatives, Lobascher conceded that High-stakes testing led to ineffective pedagogies. Instructors were not creative but focused more of test preparation as opposed to in-depth understanding. It encouraged narrowing of curriculum and didactic teach-to-the-test methods that diminish motivation (P.14). In a related study, Anagnostopoulos' (2003) study also reveals pedagogical concerns. Here, the teachers spent only three weeks studying the novel compared with 12 weeks spent preparing the students for the tests. In addition, the study also indicated that didactic based approaches were adopted that only rendered the students as passive uncritical readers; a claim supported by evidence about 70 percent of posed questions were generally literal while 90 percent of written tasks required students to complete worksheets. This is similar to Mills findings when he indicated that testing led to extra time spent teaching basic skills at the expense of critical literacy (Mills, 2008). Similarly, Jones and his colleagues argue that high-stakes testing has taken the art out of teaching, encouraging what they term a cookbook approach to teaching where one simply delivers the prescribed lessons (Jones et al. 2003) And as a result impacted negatively on their creativity (Jones & Egley, 2004: 19) and also made students lose their excitement and interest in learning as teachers are discouraged from teaching innovatively (Scot et al., 2009). The paper concludes these unintended impacts were triggered by a failure to gain the support of teachers for testing systems. Thus, there is an urgent need to give or accommodate teachers in the design, implementation and evaluation of the tests. It is only through this that literacy education will benefit from the opportunities provided by the emphasis upon literacy in high-stakes systems. To some extent, the dominant aim of this article seems to convince the reader that high stake test has both negative and positive effects however; many of his findings are not clearly separated from the reviewed books or journals. One cannot say some of these findings as really his opinion for instance in his closing remarks he states that “International research suggests that an approach that empowers and entrusts teachers within an accountability framework would be unique” in solving the problem at hand. Comparative analysis In the entire articles one thing is apparent. All the three scholars agree that testing affects curriculum in one way or another. Again all do agree that high testing can have negative impacts of Curriculum however for Wayne Au, this depends significantly on the structure of the test themselves however for the other two scholars, and these depend on the teachers’ support. Another theme that emerges from all the three articles is that there is a tendency to narrow the curriculum. All the three articles found consistent agreement that these tests resulted in narrowing of the Curriculum. According to Lobascher, curriculum itself becomes aligned with the content being tested and encourages test based methods of teaching (Lobascher, 2011) A position also held by other scholars: Au (2007) and Palmer and Rangel (2011). In addition, the articles by Palmer and Rangel (2011) Au (2007) have consensus that these changes were enhanced by pressures by high stakes environment. According to Au, there was a close relationship of curriculum and the increase in teacher's centered instruction attributed to associated pressure in the test environment (p. 263) unlike the other two articles, Lobascher also highlighted extensively on positive impacts. For instance, he believed that literacy curriculum would become more focused and consistent as a result of alignment with these standardized tests (Lobascher, 2011). Conclusion In summing up, these articles give a limited amount of direct evidence on the effects of student assessment/tests on teaching. The findings are consistent; however, in showing that these tests do affect teaching. From this, one can argue these affect both positively and negatively. For instance, Palmer and Rangel (2011) and Au (2007) found these assessments narrowed the curriculum; however, in Lobascher (2011), respondents also revealed that these test leads to a more focused curriculum. This therefore calls further inquiry. Reference Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). Testing and student engagement with literature in urban classrooms: a multi-layered perspective. Research in the Teaching of English, 38 (2), 177–212. Rotterham, A. J., and Willingham, D., (2009) 21st Century Skills: The Challenges Ahead, Educational Leadership, Vol. 67 | ( 1):16-21 Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36 (5), 258–267. Barton, K.C (2005).”Am not saying these are going to be easy” Wise practice in an urban elementary school. In Yeager E. A and Davis O.L (Eds), Wise social studies teaching in an age of high –stakes testing (pp. 11-31) Greenwich CT: information Age publishing. Collins, S., Reiss, M. & Stobart, G. (2010). What happens when high-stakes testing stops? Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of compulsory national testing in science of 11-year-olds in England and its abolition in Wales. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17 (3), 273–286. Crocker, L. (2004). Teaching For the Test: How and Why Test Preparation is Appropriate. In R.P. Phelps (Ed.) Defending Standardized Testing (pp. 159–174). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jones, B.D. (2007). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23 (2), 65–86. Jones, B.D. & Egley, R.J. (2004). Voices from the Frontlines: Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (39). Jones, M.G., Jones, B.D. & Hargrove, T.Y. (2003). The Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Kennedy, M.M., (2008) Contributions of Qualitative Research to Research on Teacher Qualifications Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 344–367 Lobascher, S., (2011) What Are the Potential Impacts of High-stakes testing on Literacy Education in Australia? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, Vol. 19, ( 2):9-19 Mills, K.A. (2008). Will large-scale assessments raise literacy standards in Australian schools? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 31 (3), 211–224. Palmer, D., and Rangel, V.S., (2011) High Stakes Accountability and Policy Implementation: Teacher Decision Making in Bilingual Classrooms in Texas Educational Policy25 (4):614-647 RAI (2011). Response by reading association of Ireland with the department of education and skills document – better literacy and numeracy for children and young people: a draft plan to improve literacy and numeracy in schools. Drumcondra: Saint Patrick's College, Educational Research Centre Rex, L.A., and Nelson, M.C. (2004). How teachers professionals identities position high stakes preparation in their class rooms. Teachers College Record, Vol.106 (6): 1288-1331 Shohamy, E. G. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge Scot, T.P., Callahan, C.M. & Urquhart, J. (2009). Paint-by-number teachers and cookie-cutter students: the unintended effects of high-stakes testing on the education of gifted students. Roeper Review, 31 (1), 40–52. Vogler, K.E (2003). An integrated curriculum suing state standards in a high stakes testing environment. Middle school journal, Vol. 34(4), 10 Yei, S.S (2005). Limiting the unintended consequences of high sate testing education policy analysis archives, Vol. 13(43) Read More