The Impact Of High Stakes Testing On Curriculum, Teaching .
The Impact of High Stakes TestingOn Curriculum, Teaching, and LearningGregory P. SullivanDissertation submitted to the Faculty of theVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityin partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of EducationinCurriculum and InstructionMark E. Sanders, ChairJanice K. McBeeKenneth PotterJohn G. WellsMay 9, 2006Blacksburg, VirginiaKeywords: high stakes testing, digital divide, computer/technology
The Impact of High Stakes TestingOn Curriculum, Teaching, and LearningByGregory P. Sullivan, B.S., M.A.Mark E. Sanders, ChairVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityAbstractResearch suggests that high stakes testing impacts teachers’ decisions regarding curriculum andinstruction, which, in turn, impacts student learning. Because Virginia administered SOL testsfor Computer/Technology, then discontinued them, a study was possible comparing teachers’perceptions and actual student achievement of those taught while the high-stakes tests were inplace and those taught after the tests were discontinued.A survey was administered to all elementary and middle school classroom teachers in a midsizeurban Virginia school division to determine their perceptions of the effects of high-stakes testing.Cross tabulations were performed based upon: school level; on whether the teacher had taughtprior to, or only after, the SOL tests were implemented; and whether the teacher perceived he/shewas teaching a high or low percentage of lower socio-economic status (SES) students.In addition to the survey, the 2002 versions of the Virginia Computer/Technology Standards ofLearning (C/T SOL) assessments were administered to all 2005 fifth and eighth grade studentswithin the same school division. Statistical comparisons of the means of raw scores from the2002 fifth (n 625) and eighth (n 641) grade groups and the 2005 fifth (n 583) and eighth (n 522) grade groups were conducted. Comparisons were also conducted on scores from each testbetween groups of students who qualified for free and reduced price lunches and those that didnot qualify. Finally, statistical comparisons were made between the scaled scores of studentswho were eighth graders in 2005 (n 397) and their scaled scores as fifth graders when tested in2002.The study found a majority of teachers felt high-stakes testing creates pressure and changes thefocus of instruction to tested areas at the expense of other activities and non-tested content.When the means of the scores of students who took the C/T SOL tests in 2002 were compared tothose from 2005, the scores for the students taught under the high-stakes testing pressure weresignificantly better than those tested in 2005. Further, this gap in student achievement was morepronounced for lower SES students, suggesting a widening of the “digital divide.”ii
DedicationTo Dr. Stephen C. Smith, friend and colleague, for his countless hours of reading copy andfaithfully attending the Monday morning breakfast progress reports. I am forever grateful for hisadvice, support, and encouragement.iii
AcknowledgementsThe completion of this research project would not have been possible without the support, timeand expertise of the author's committee. My appreciation is extended to Ms. Janice McBee, Dr.Ken Potter, and Dr. John Wells. A special thank you is extended to my committee chair, Dr.Mark E. Sanders, for his patience, support, and friendship throughout this long process.I would also like to thank Dr. Paul McKendrick, superintendent, for granting me permission toconduct this study. I am grateful for his support and for the letters he wrote to the principals toenlist their assistance with the teacher survey and student testing.I am thankful for the assistance of the Instructional Technology Specialists and the elementaryand middle school principals in the administration of the assessments used in this study.I am grateful for the support and encouragement I received from friends and colleagues as Ipursued this degree.I want to thank my mom and dad, Jerome and Gloria Sullivan, for their support andencouragement, and for my dad’s subtle reminders that I need to complete this study in hislifetime.Finally, to my wife, Sally, and my sons, Patrick and Ryan, I thank you for your love and supportand for the sacrifices you made in order for me to complete the degree requirements.iv
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLES . viiiFIGURES. xivCHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION. 1Teachers as Decision Makers. 1Testing as an Influence on Teachers. 1Standards and Accountability Movement. 2Consequences of Testing . 3Statement of the Problem. 3Significance of Study. 4Purposes of Study . 5Research Questions. 5Teacher Perceptions . 5Impact on Student Learning. 6CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 8Standards, Measurement, and Accountability . 8Teachers as Decision Makers. 9Policy Makers Influence on Teachers. 9Influence of Standards and Accountability Measures on Teachers . 10Background on Standards and Accountability Measures . 10The Call for Greater Accountability . 10Reactions to Increased Measures of Accountability. 11Standards and Testing Combine for Even Greater Accountability. 11Background on the Virginia Standards of Learning. 11Growth of State Standards-Based Assessment Programs. 12State Standards and Assessments Impact on Schools and Classrooms . 13Federal Accountability Measures . 14Impact of State and Federal Accountability Measures . 16Research on the Effects of Test-Based Accountability. 16Attention to What Is Tested . 17Teaching What Is Tested . 18Teaching How It Is Tested. 18Time Allocation for Tested Subjects . 19Impact on Non-Tested Content. 20Digital Divide. 21Impact on the Digital Divide. 23National Study of States – Mandated Testing Programs . 24Instrumentation . 24NBETPP Survey Findings . 25Instructional Time for Tested Content. 25Pressure to Teach Tested Content. 26Summary . 27v
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY . 30Introduction. 30Teacher Perceptions . 30Research Questions. 30Impact on Learning . 32Research Questions. 32Procedures of the Study: Phase I – Teacher Survey . 32Population and Sample . 32Instrumentation . 33Survey Validation . 34Data Collection . 35Data Entry and Analysis . 36Procedures of the Study: Phase II – Student Testing. 38Population and Sample . 38Instrumentation . 38Test Administration . 38Elementary School . 38Middle School. 39Data Analysis . 39CHAPTER 4: RESULTS. 41Teacher Survey . 41Questionnaire Data. 41Participants. 41Teachers’ Grade Level Status . 41Teaching Experience. 42Teacher Estimates of Free and Reduced Lunch Students. 42Teacher Questionnaire Data. 43Phase II - Student Testing . 114Population and Sample . 114Instrumentation . 114Elementary School . 114Middle School. 115Data Analysis . 115Fifth Grade Results of Raw Score Comparison. 115Eighth Grade Results of Raw Score Comparison . 118Fifth Grade Results of Raw Score Comparison of Lower SES Students to Group . 120Eighth Grade Results of Raw Score Comparison of Lower SES Students to Group . 121Results of Scaled Score Comparison of 2005 Eighth to 2002 Fifth GradeCohort Group . 123CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . 126Summary and Discussion of the Results. 127Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effects of High Stakes Testing onClassroom Instruction . 127Teachers’ perceptions of feeling pressure to improve SOL test scores . 129vi
Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of SOL testing on students’ knowledge of theComputer/Technology SOL . 130Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of socio-economic status of students on theirknowledge of Computer/Technology SOL content . 133Teacher Perceptions of 2002 Fifth Grade – 2005 Eighth Grade Low SESCohort Performance . 135Conclusions. 136Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research. 137References. 139Appendix A: Teacher Survey. 145Appendix B: Survey Validation Measure . 148Appendix C: Survey Validation Measure Data . 152Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter . 155Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Letters. 158Appendix F: C/T SOL Test Validity and Reliability Procedures. 161vii
TABLESTable 1. Teacher Respondents by Grade Level Status . 42Table 2. Teacher Respondents by Teaching Experience With Standards ofLearning Assessments. 42Table 3. Teacher Respondents by Teaching Perceived Levels of Lower SES Students . 43Table 4. Teacher Response to Whether Instruction in Content Areas Has Changed . 43Table 5. Teacher Response by Teaching Level to Whether Instruction in Content AreasHas Changed . 44Table 6. Teacher Response by SOL Experience to Whether Instruction in Content AreasHas Changed .44Table 7. Teacher Response by Perceived Levels of Lower SES Students to WhetherInstruction in Content Areas Has Changed. 45Table 8. Teacher Response to Whether Instruction in Areas Not SOL Tested Has Changed . 46Table 9. Teacher Response by Teaching Level to Whether Instruction in AreasNot SOL Tested Has Changed . 46Table 10. Teacher Response by SOL Experience to Whether Instruction in AreasNot SOL Tested Has Changed . 47Table 11. Teacher Response by Perceived Levels of Lower SES Students to WhetherInstruction in Areas Not SOL Tested Has Changed. 47Table 12. Teacher Response to Whether Information is Omitted Because of Time . 48Table 13. Teacher Response by Teaching Level to Whether Information is OmittedBecause of Time . 48Table 14. Teacher Response to Whether Information is Omitted Because of Timeby SOL Experience . 49Table 15. Teacher Response to Whether Instruction in Areas Not SOL Tested HasChanged by Perceived Levels of Lower SES Students . 49Table 16. Teacher Response to Whether Activities Are Omitted Due to SOL Test ContentRequirements . 50Table 17. Teacher Response to Whether Activities Are Omitted Due to SOL Test ContentRequirements by Teaching Level . 51Table 18. Teacher Response to Whether Activities Are Omitted Due to SOL Test ContentRequirements by SOL Experience . 51Table 19. Teacher Respo
The Impact of High Stakes Testing On Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning By Gregory P. Sullivan, B.S., M.A. Mark E. Sanders, Chair Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Abstract Research suggests that high stakes testing impacts teachers’ decisions regarding curriculum and instruction, which, in turn, impacts student learning.
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Standardization High-Stakes Standardization does not equal high-stakes High-stakes Test outcomes are used to make important, often life-altering decisions Standardized tests were predominately used as a source of information Although the expansion of high-stakes testing in the U.S. can be traced long before the implementation of NCLB, the use of high-stakes tests in the U.S. has increased
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Food outlets which focused on food quality, Service quality, environment and price factors, are thè valuable factors for food outlets to increase thè satisfaction level of customers and it will create a positive impact through word ofmouth. Keyword : Customer satisfaction, food quality, Service quality, physical environment off ood outlets .
