Over the past two decades, the presence and use of technology in the workplace and in schools has increased dramatically. At the same time, the importance of test-based educational accountability has also increased. Currently, formal testing programs are used in 49 states. Some observers have raised concerns that the testing programs that make high-stakes decisions about students and/or schools have adverse impact on instructional practices. This study examines the extent to which teachers believe they are modifying instructional uses of computers for writing in response to state testing programs. Through a national survey of teachers, the study finds that a substantial percentage of teachers believe they are decreasing instructional uses of computers for writing as a result of paper-based state tests. This study also reports that computing skills of students in urban and poor performing schools are reported by teachers to be less developed than students in suburban schools. The combined effect is that those students who most need opportunities to develop skills in using computers for writing in school may not be acquiring those opportunities as a result of teachers’ responses to paper-based state tests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use.Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
2.
BennettR. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(l). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/v1n1.shtml
3.
DaiuteC. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 41–59.
4.
DillmanD. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
EtchisonC. (1989). Word processing: A helpful tool for basic writers. Computers and Composition, 6(2), 33–43.
6.
GlennanT. K., & MelmedA. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a national strategy.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
7.
GoldbergA., RussellM., & CookA. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: a meta-analysis of studies from 1992–2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1). Retrieved March 1, 2003, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/v2n1.shtml.
8.
HannafinM. J., & DaltonD. W. (1987). The effects of word processing on written composition. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 338–342.
9.
HenryD., CookeS., BuckleyP., GillG., DumaganJ., LaPorteS., & PastoreD. (1999). The emerging digital economy II.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
10.
HermanJ. L., BrownR. S., & BakerE. L. (2000). Student assessment and student achievement in the California public school system. CSE Technical Report 519.Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
11.
HeubertJ. P., & HauserR. M. (Eds.) (1999). High-stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12.
HoffmanJ. V., AssafL. C., & ParisS. G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow?The Reading Teacher, 54(5), 482–494.
13.
KerchnerL. B., & KistingerB. J. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers, and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(4), 329–335.
14.
LinnR. L., BakerE. L., & DunbarS. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21.
15.
Market Data Retrieval. (1999). Technology in education 1999 (Report issued by Market Data Retrieval). Shelton, CN: Author.
16.
Market Data Retrieval. (2001). Technology in Education 2001 (Report issued by Market Data Retrieval). Shelton, CN: Author.
17.
National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18.
NewburgerE. C. (1997). Computer use In the United States.Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
19.
OrlofskyG. F., & OlsonL. (2001). The state of the states. Education Week, 20(17), 86–88.
20.
PedullaJ., AbramsL., MadausG., RussellM., RamosM., & MiaoJ. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers.Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
21.
PowersD., FowlesM., FarnumM., & RamseyP. (1994). Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word-processed essays. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 220–233.
22.
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee Panel on Transforming Learning. (2001). Report to the President: Using information technology to transform the way we learn. Retrieved April 19, 2002, from http://www.itrd.gov/pubs/pitac/pitac-t1-9feb01.pdf
23.
RussellM., & HaneyW. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5(1). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html
24.
RussellM., & HaneyW. (2000). Bridging the gap between testing and technology in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(19). Retrieved March 20, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n19.html.
25.
RussellM., & PlatiT. (2001). Effects of computer versus paper administration of a state-mandated writing assessment. Teachers College Record. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10709
26.
RussellM., & PlatiT. (2002). Does it matter with which I write: Comparing performance on paper, computer and portable writing devices. Current Issues in Education, 5 (4). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume5/number4/
27.
RussellM. (1999). Testing writing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20/
28.
RussellM. (2002a). Effects of handwriting and computer-print on composition scores: A follow-up to Powers et al.Chestnut Hill, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/publications.shtml
29.
RussellM. (2002b). The influence of computer-print on rater scores.Chestnut Hill, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/publications.shtml
30.
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
31.
ShepardL. (1990). Inflating test score gains: Is the problem old norms or teaching the test. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15–22.
32.
ShoreA., PedullaJ., & ClarkeM. (2001). The building blocks of state testing programs. National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy Statements, 2(4).
VaccN. N. (1987). Word processor versus handwriting: A comparative study of writing samples produced by mildly mentally handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54(2), 156–165.
WilliamsonM. L., & PenceP. (1989). Word processing and student writers. In BritenB. K., & GlynnS. M. (Eds.), Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design (pp. 96–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
