This study is a phenomenological study that examines the No Child Left Behind testing experience of middle school English language learners (ELLs) through their journal writing. Thirteen students in a seventh/ eighth-grade self-contained Chinese bilingual classroom wrote journal entries in response to a prompt asking their opinion of standardized testing; students responded in either Chinese or English. The author found that students had many incisive critiques of testing and test preparation, articulated reasons for not performing well, expressed their psychological or emotional reactions, and offered recommendations for improving the experience. Some students used their knowledge of the Chinese educational system to compare and contrast their testing experiences. The students’ overall negative experience was due to overtesting, the ineffectiveness of remedial computer programs, “luck” as an unpredictable factor in multiple-choice tests, or their status as second language learners. Reactions of anxiety and fear of doing poorly also mattered. The author relates the concept of “student voice” to counter-narratives, identity construction, and resistance to dominant discourses about immigrant ELL students. She discusses how these “student voices” disrupt essentialized views of ELLs and recent immigrant students and urges educators to make the voices of immigrant and ELL students more prominent in classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbediJ. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.
2.
AbramsL., PedullaJ. J., & MadausG. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers’ opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18–29.
3.
AjayiL. J. (2006). Multiple voices, multiple realities: Self-defined images of self among adolescent Hispanic English language learners. Education, 126(3), 468–480.
4.
BarbieriM. (2002). “Change my life forever”: Giving voice to English language learners. Portsmouth, Nh: Heinemann.
5.
BartlettL. (2007). To seem and to feel: Situated identities and literacy practices. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 51–69.
6.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CammarotaJ., & FineM. (Eds.). (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York. NY: Routledge.
9.
CampanoG. (2007). Immigrant students and literacy: Reading. writing and remembering. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10.
CampanoG. (2009). Honoring student stories. In SchererM. (Ed.), Supporting the whole child: Reflections on best practices in learning (pp. 242–254). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
11.
CookH. G., BoalsT., WilmesC., & SantosM. (2008). Issues in the development of annual measurable achievement objectives for WIDA consortium states (WCER Working Paper No. 2008-2). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/Working_Paper_No_2008_02.pdf
12.
DuranR. P. (2008). Assessing English language learners. Review of Research in Education, 32, 292–327.
13.
FoucaultM. (1991). Discipline and punish (2nd Vintage Books ed., May 1995). New York, NY: Random House.
14.
FreireP. (2010). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Revised 30th anniversary edition). New York, NY: Continuum.
15.
HakutaK., ButlerY., & WittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1. Santa Barbara: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
16.
HartD. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
17.
HornC. (2003), High stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating a cycle of failure?Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 30–41.
18.
JonesB. D., & EgleyR. J. (2004). Voices from the frontlines: Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes resting. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(39).
19.
LarsonH. A., El RamahiM. K., ConnS. R., EstesL. A., & GhibelliniA. B. (2010). Reducing test anxiety among third grade students through the implementation of relaxation techniques. Journal of School Counseling, 8.
20.
MalloryJ. M., & Valdez PierceL. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MenkenK. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
24.
MorrellE. (2008). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
25.
MoyaP. M. L. (2002). Learning from experience: Minority identities, multicultural struggles. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
MulvenonS. W., StegmanC. E., & RitterG. (2005). Test anxiety: A multi-faced study of the perceptions of teachers, principals, counselors, students, and parents. International Journal of Testing, 5(1), 37–61.
27.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
28.
PandyaJ. Z. (2011). Overtested: How high stakes accountability fails English language learners (pp. 489–499). New York. NY: Teachers College Press.
29.
RodriguezD., & CarrasquilloA. (2014). The bilingual advantage. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
30.
SegoolN. K., CarlsonJ. S., GoforthA. N., Von Der EmbseN., & BarternabJ. A. (2013). Test anxiety among young children: Elementary school students’ anxious responses to high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 50(50), 489–499.
31.
Suárez-OrozcoC., Suárez-OrozcoM. M., & TodorovaI. (2008). Learning a new land: immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
SimonR., & CampanoG. (2013). Activist literacies: Teacher research as resistance to the “normal curve.” Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 9(1), 21–39.
33.
SolórzanoD., & YossoT. J. (2001) Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
34.
SolórzanoR. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260–329.
35.
ThomasW. P., & CollierV. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Clara, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
36.
TriplettC. F., & BarksdaleM. A. (2005). Third through sixth graders’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 237–260.
37.
TriplettC. F., BarksdaleM. A., & LeftwichP. (2003). Children's perceptions of high stakes testing. Journal of Research in Education, 13(1), 15–21.
38.
TsangS., KatzA., & StackJ. (2008). Achievement testing for English language learners, ready or not?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(1), 1–29.
39.
WrightW., & ChoiD. (2006). The impact of language and high stake testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13), 1–75.
