Q2: Critique: Are the research questions clearly stated in the article? What are they? Does the author justify the sample size used in the research? Were there ample participants in this study to produce valid results?
Q3: Teaching: What are some issues and concerns that you have about high stakes testing that you have in your classroom? Are there concerns that the teachers expressed in this study that you feel strongly about? Feel free to cite specific examples from the study.
In the article I do believe the reseach questions are clearly stated on page 4. They include: What extent to standardized tests measure what the children are actually taught? Extent to which instruction and testing match the guidelines set forth by professional organizations? How standardized tests directly influence the curriculum that is taught?
ReplyDeleteI do not feel though that the author seemed to answer any of these questions in the research that was done directly.
The author does justify the same size. This is seen in the limitations part of the study. The author realizes that his sample size was small as well as only in one school district.
I do not feel that 38 out of the 100 people that recieved questionnaires is enough of a sample. Even if all 100 responded I still feel like only one school district is not enough. However, their thoughts and concerns ranged while others were similiar.
Some of my concerns that I will have for my own classroom is similiar to what these teachers expressed: Time to teach and prepare my students for the testing without teaching to the test, their reading abilities, and how their emotions are about the testing (since so many students get nervous and stressed over the tests- as does the teacher!)
One teacher even stated that she was happy that science was now more important- but this was only because now their was a test involved in it. Therefore, she now struggles with the fact that she has yet another test to prepare her students for.
research*- I spelled it wrong in the very first sentence!
ReplyDeleteThe questions in the article are clear, they are stated in question form, that I noticed, and I wonder why some people just imply the question and why some write it out clearly. However, this question was easy to pick up as it is an often asked, often studied, but very importan question: How does the pressure of high-stakes testing affect how teachers teach, specifically science?
ReplyDeleteThis study, as with many in education, lacks a large enough sample group to effectivley support claims that may be applied to other co-horts outside of the study. However, it does seem that research in education is difficult. There are so many contributing factors involved in studying public education students and teachers; location, demographics, culture, high and low SES, parental involvment etc. While the authors did recognize this shortcoming it does not change the effect on the results.
To be honest, I do not have that big of a problem with testing students. I even find many of the state tests to be fairly well prepared, not perfect, but okay. In fact, I feel that one of the better tests is the hands-on practicle portion of the 4th grade state science test. much of what is tested is important and teherfore it is taught in the class. HOWEVER...
I have a HUGE problem with what they do with the reults of these tests. This is when the real problem of 'teaching-to-the-tests' begins. As I said some things on the tests are important and should be taught. But when the curriculum is designed around the test, we have a problem. And as one teacher accurately mentioned, that is exactly what happens when 'high-stakes' is attached.
I have always viewd ASSESSMENT (testing is something we do to lab rats) as a way to drive my instruction. So I can find out what my students need and how I can teach better.
The reality is the tests are there. Just do your best all year, encourage your students to do the same and then tell them what I always tell them before a test;
"Don't let a test tell you how smart you are because it doesn't know you. It doesn't know if your tired, hungry or sick. It doesn't know if you forgot your glasses, what language you speak or if your cat died last weekend. You do your personal best and that's how you will do."
What else can I say to them?
-Josh
I that Laurin brings up one of the main contributing factor, including the weight put on the results of these tests, and that is time. There is very little even if you get an hour for math and or science, which is hard to come by, that still is not enough, especially with the materials required for science. So.. you get people teaching quickly and only what the students need to know to pass that test! Yay!
ReplyDelete-Josh
Of course that should read I THINK that Laurin...
ReplyDeleteJosh and Laurin, you are doing a great job with this so far. Laurin, it is good that you mentioned that science is now more important in the schools. It is too bad that they have to put the pressure of a test to make it more important. Josh, the idea of testing can be good but as you said it is what they do with the results that puts on the pressure. I feel that the tests are somewhat good, but when they start having the curriculum based around the test, it takes away from the fun of learning. Great job so far! The comments are greatly appreciated thus far!
ReplyDeleteHigh stakes testing is interesting to me because right now I am working in a special education room. We work with some severe learning disabilities, however not severe enough because they are also including our class in the data for state testing results. When the author termed high stakes testing as "teacher strangulation", it really pin pointed the problem, we all are now trying to teach what we are hoping will be on the standardized test. What the state wants us to know. In special education, we are more focused on teaching life skills and problem solving rather than algebra and explorers. Yes those are important however not for everyone. New curriculum is being created based around the state tests and there is even less time left for teachers to use their creative freedom and give important and fun lessons because it might not be useful for the state test
ReplyDeleteQ1: I like that you chose this topic because it is definitely a huge part of being/becoming a teacher today. High Stakes Testing is everywhere!
ReplyDeleteQ2: I found that this research was qualitative for the most part. I am saying this because, I am finding with the research we have been looking at in education (adding to Josh's comment) has mostly had small sample sizes. I am wondering if this is a characteristic of qualitative research because reading teacher responses to open-ended questions from thousands of teachers would be difficult? Any ideas? I agree with all the posts so far that the research questions were easy to find (How does to introduction of a high stakes test in science affect the way teachers teach science in elementary classrooms). I also agree with Laurin that this question isn't necessarily answered with this research. Although, I think the intention of this research was to be an introduction to the topic because at the point of this research, the test had not been introduced or given yet. So, they were trying to pinpoint teacher reactions to the implementation of a new test and how they were dealing with it. They even stated in the discussion & limitations that further research is necessary. I definitely think that when the researchers only received 38% of their surveys back, they needed to send out more & not continue with the research until more data was collected. 38 teachers is definitely too small of a response! In the literature review section I noticed that the researchers did not present any opposing research (research that says the tests impact curriculum positively). Is this because there is none?
Q3: I have to agree with Josh (first of all, I like assessment better than test too :) that some assessment is a good thing. Teachers are assessing their students on a daily basis by checking for understanding and then in turn modifying their instruction to meet student needs. I do however not like the implications of high stakes testing. It makes kids, teachers, and parents extremely nervous. It also forces teachers to cover a large amount of material in a small amount of time leaving no time for re-teaching or those teachable moments. I feel like I am constantly telling my students "not right now" because we have to keep on top of time in order to make sure EVERYTHING is covered....not to mention the tests are never at the end of the school year....always less time to cover material. Lastly - These tests don't necessarily help up drive instruction because they are summative & mainly test what students have memorized due to test-prep practice.
I agree with the other posts that a return rate of 38% for the questionnaires is not great, especially because it was given out to 100 teachers. I think maybe they could have handed it out again and saw if they got any more responses. I also agree that the research questions are stated in the article but are not answered, as Laurin said. I don't really agree with high-stakes testing because I think it produces a lot of anxiety for students and teachers. It also hinders creativity and the fun of teaching for educators. Teachers get too caught up in teaching to the textbook or to what will be on the tests that they forget sometimes about hands on learning or learning that will promote development in the long run for students. The article focused alot on what the teacher's concerns about the high stakes tests were. It also told us that the teachers are now shifting their teaching to integrating science into other subjects.
ReplyDeleteDave, great point about how the author uses the term "teacher strangulation". I completely agree that many teachers are focusing their teaching on what is gonna be on the test. It literally strangles the teachers ability to be creative with their lessons. The situation that you are in with your special ed class is a very difficult one. Like you said, the students don't have the same daily learning objectives as other students, so i can only imagine how your students will handle the testing. Great job!
ReplyDeleteColleen, I agree that many teachers do get caught up with teaching to the test and because of that creativity and hands on learning get lost. Great point about how some teachers talked about integrating science into the other subjects. Great point about how the tests are never at the end of the school. I was talking to a friend who teaches 5th grade, and he has to prepare the students to take their SS test in Nov. He said he has already felt the pressure of trying to get all the up to speed. If teachers are feeling anxiety this early in the school year about testing, what are the parents and students feeling? Great Job colleen!
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, can't imagine the students and parents stress as they are just trying to get used to a new school year...I am teaching 5th grade also & definitely feeling that pressure already!
ReplyDeleteFollowing-up on what Colleen said, and most others, I find it odd that the researchers in this study, and lat weeks, did not attempt to get nmore feedback/data when they recognized that it was lacking. Why go through all of the trouble to set up varying methods that you will ultimately base your findings on and then explain in detail how you should have done it better or gathered nmore data to better prove your case? I understand the 'work-in-progress' rationale, but incomplete data does not really answer questions properlly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren about the questions being clearly stated. There were several things being looked at in this research case. All of it is very relevent to the high stakes testing. I like how this study used many different teachers of different abilities to get a well rounded perspective.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh as well on how he handles giving tests and keeping the classroom atmospher as calm as possible so that the students don't stress out. However, I am against the type of testing that the NCLB act has been using. I do not think it shows much of anything but, that the goverenment does not trust that the teachers are doing their jobs.
I believe that small tests at the end of a unit are ok but I like projects better because I as a student am horrible at tests and I fail most all of them. I do awesome on prjects though. I believe that there are several students out their like me that do not do well on tests but still know the material.
Testing is just a way for the government to see if teachers are doing their jobs and it is affecting the students. This article has covered many important facts but at the same time until the state finds a better way to assess both teachers and students we are stuck with tests.
High stakes testing leading to a lack in "creative planners and thinkers" is what concerns me the most (pg. 357). No matter how hard a teacher may try, they will inevitably teach to the test to some degree. There's only so much one teacher can do to keep from teaching to a test that is so demanding and specific.
ReplyDeleteWhen I student taught, I was in a fourth grade classroom during the time they took both the state math and science state tests. The three fourth grades were set up so each teacher had a level of ELA (high, mid and low students) and then one teacher did math, another did social studies and my teacher did science. So I saw three classes of science everyday and the weeks up until the science test were filled with tons of past state "practice" exams so the students could get a feel for the general format of the test and maybe get and idea of what to expect. I do see the need for test prep but that needs to be integrated within the science lessons. I could see that, for my teacher, she had very little enthusiasm to be so creative. This "burn-out" is all too common and due to state testing and the degree of difficulty required to not teach to the test, burn-out is becoming more and more prevalent.
I don't have a clue as to why state testing hasn't been done away with. I guess it's because people (government, parents) need to see results and they figure state testing is the easiest way to get them even though it's not effective or worth while for students and teachers.
The first question is quite interesting, I don’t know if it’s me but I had trouble finding the exact research question. Having said this however, I could pick out the research questions that were in my opinion, more implied than clear and straightforward. The questions being, “What is the impact of the upcoming high-stakes testing in science on curriculum? What are envisioned changes that will be made to accommodate regular science teaching in the classroom? I do also think that the researchers don’t really answer the questions. Yet, they provide more of qualitative data regarding responses and reactions of teachers regarding high stakes testing in science. In this case, I think the research question should be, What are the teachers’ perceptions and concerns about upcoming high-stakes testing in elementary science?
ReplyDeleteYes, the authors justify the sample size used in their research. For example, the authors state that it was a “convenience sample” because they had access and permission from the school board and the principals. They also claimed that by narrowing the study to one district, the “variability across the school districts was limited.” In addition in the Limitations section, the authors also state that they were essentially under a time-crunch to gather the information and data before the high stakes tests were administered to the students. Therefore, this study had to include this small sample size. In addition, I also agree with what Colleen said about the qualitative data. As a result of the nature of the study (responses/reactions/questionnaires from teachers), it was easier to complete with a small sample size. Having said this, I don’t think that there were ample participants in this study to produce valid results. In order for the results to be significant I think that a much more wide sampling would have created valid results and thus their study would not have been limited and biased to only one district.
I really liked reading this particular article, I think that high stakes testing and especially teaching to the test is very prevalent in schools. In fact, while I was doing my student teaching, the students took their NYS Math tests. I could sense the anticipation and anxiety on the teachers’ end and also on the students’ end. My teacher spent some time “outside” of math time to go over strategies and other test preparation activities with her students. In addition, it was interesting to read about the responses about the tests just being “another reading and writing test” and wanting to know “will ALL children have a chance to succeed.” (354) I bring this concern up because it is major concern with high stakes tests. For example according to the article, high stakes testing “depend heavily on students reading the question, analyzing the information, and providing short and long written answers.” Therefore not only do children need to do the actual problems related to the subject but they must also need the required reading and writing skills that not all students are not up to par with. In addition another concern that stood out for me was: “eventually, as with all tests, our curriculum will be structured to cover test materials in the way they present them in the tests, ignoring how children learn science.” I think that this statement is quite sad and shows how curriculum has changed to just “teach to the tests.” In addition, I also think that teaching science in regards to test prep is basically ignoring how students learn science. Students need to learn science by using hands on activities and lab experiments not with “boring workbooks that teach to the test.”
Connie, it is all too true that there are many children out there like you that are not good at tests. They create such an anxiety that they cannot handle it and really prefer projects over tests. Seahorsey545 (not sure who this is Sorry!) but great point about the "burn out." These tests do cause too many teachers to veer away from being creative and focus their ideas to the test. Testing is an easy way to see how students are doing in school but a very ineffective method for going about it.
ReplyDeleteMeaghan, great point about the children. Not all children will be ready for these tests. Many students do learn in a different way. If we could change these tests so they can meet the needs of All students then it would maybe be more effective to use these tests.
Everyone, Thank you for all the posts! Great work! See you in class tomorrow or later this afternoon!
Q1: There is so much research both for and against high stakes testing looking at the students but very little from the teachers’ perspective. It is a nice change of pace, seeing we have all experienced testing and various levels. As teachers we know the pros and cons of testing for students. I personally feel that testing should be used as an assessment tool for the teacher to use. In many school districts there is a very large demand on teachers to ensure that their students do well on the test. I feel like this leads to teaching to the test which I do not agree with! I have recently changed school districts and I can already see a drastic change in instruction just because we are not as focused on the assessment piece. It is a very welcoming change!
ReplyDeleteQ3: My main concern about high states testing is that it is an assessment tool used by the government to control funds to the schools and many teachers can lose their jobs or me reprimanded because their students did not score high enough on the test. High stakes testing also leads to a lack “in creative planners and thinkers.” Teaching and learning are not enjoyable if it is based around a tests and all the class does is practice taking a test. As a teacher I would much rather have the freedom to choose the lessons and activities I wish to teach. It also gives students the opportunity to broaden their learning styles. We know as educators there are numerous learning styles but why do we only give one standardized test? I am very thankful that I am now in a school district that does not focus as much on kindergarten assessments. It is nice to be able to base my lessons and activities on the students’ interests! And not the schools or states assessment needs…
1. I have to agree with almost all of these posts. Testing is a great assessment but I do think that the testing should be used more for the teacher than the student. I also agree with what Hannah said about teaching to the test. During my student teaching, I was forced to teach to the test because of the time period and I thought it was a disadvantage and that the kids were not getting as much time with certain subjects because you were rushed to get everything in.
ReplyDelete2.Like Laurin said above, I do not believe that the authors clearly answer the questions. I do realize the author mentions the amount of people in the study, but I think this definitely does effect the outcome. I agree with everyones comments above for question 2.
3. Some issues and concerns that I will have in my class, when I have a class, would also be very similar to those above. Personally, I was never a good test taker so it is hard for me to give test to students when I know how much I hated them. I think it is important to look at how you are assessing the students everyday. Everyone is not going to be a great test taker and enjoy taking test because I personally think it just makes everyone nervous with effects how some kids do on the test. Therefore, i think that having several kinds of assessment is important in the classroom and that less stress should be put on these tests. I like the quotation at the end of Joshs' post. I think that is so true, what else are you really suppose to tell these children when they are sick or they are just having an off day?
Apparently mine is too long so I will have to post seperately :) Sorry!
ReplyDeleteQ1: I found this article to be quite interesting. With the increase of requirements made by NCLB, a more rigorous testing process was enforced in schools. I did not find it surprising that it mentioned in the article that “the inclusion of science in the elementary school curriculum was basically left to the discretion of individual school policies and, in some cases, the teachers made the decision for their classes.” From researching different articles both in this class and my others, I have noticed more and more that it has been left up to the teacher to figure out what and when to incorporate the science curriculum into their day. With high-performing schools receiving rewards and the staff being considered effective, there is no doubt in my mind that teachers, with these goals in mind, would teach strictly to the test, providing students with only the materials they need to know in order to score highly. I found it of great importance that this article mentioned that “lack of evidence in the literature that supports high-stakes testing as an instrument for school reform to higher academic achievement.” Basically, yes these students are performing well on this test, however what are they actually learning and going to retain in the long run? Not only have these tests been shown to provide bias measures in the areas of gender, race, and socioeconomic status, but also create a system that is both unfair and destructive to learning for all students involved. I found it funny that teachers are putting such a high emphasis on only materials that will be covered on the test and not focusing on skills that will help student in the future, such as high order thinking and problem solving skills. I believe that yes, obviously we need to focus on the material that is going to be on the test, but also need to incorporate different levels of thinking as well as materials to ensure that the student is benefitting as much as possible in the classroom.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteQ2: In this article, I did not find a clear research question. I found three different occurrences where the author mentioned the purpose of the article, however no defined specific research question. On the first page of the article, the author states “The purpose of our study was to provide baseline data of teachers’ perspectives of the impending standardized testing in science.” On the second page of the article, the author elaborates further stating “In this paper, we discuss the impact of high-stakes testing and report the results of research hat sought to understand the impact of the impending standardized testing policies on elementary teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning science before the full implementation of the statewide science assessment.” And lastly, on the fifth page, the author again states “The purpose of this investigation was to examine teachers’ perceptions and concerns about upcoming high-stakes testing in elementary science.” So although there was no one formal research question posed, I suppose you could take the information provided by the author above and come to a conclusion on your own. As for the sample size used in this study, ten schools in a suburban school district in north-central Florida were used. The author’s reasons for using this district, I feel were weak reasons; however I understand that localized policies within the schools were a determining issue. One hundred questionnaires were issues to teachers, with only thirty-eight being returned. I feel this is a rather small sample size in order to conclude valid results. Thirty eight teachers from the same school district? Seems to me like the answers would be very similar in nature.
Q3: One of the main issues that I am concerned about when dealing with high stakes testing in the classroom is the lack of creativity. I, myself, am a very creative person and try to incorporate creativity in each one of my lessons taught. However, I would find this much harder to do with lessons and curriculum predetermined by the creators of these tests. Another issue that I have a problem with is the level of stress experienced by my students before and during testing. Students know that high-stakes testing is a big deal and often place high priority on it. This is turn, causes a high level of stress on their performance. I think that the article provides numerous examples of the negative effects that high-stakes testing has on students and teachers alike, and will conclude with a statement made on page 349, “these practices (high-stakes testing)…are harmful to student learning, their self-image, and well-being.”
I agree with Colleen about all these tests, children need different forms of assessment because like Josh said they could be having a bad day and besides tests really DO NOT measure much about that child as an INDIVIDUAL! Besides there are other great and dare I say again- fun ways like projects, portfolios, etc. that hit the other learning styles/methods of the different and unique students in your class. Not a fan of the state testing as you can see. Especially the fact that teachers are not given enough time to prepare for them and end up cramming and stressing everyone out more than they already are!
ReplyDelete