This article describes the influence of recently adopted high-stakes testing on the curriculum and instruction of 12 secondary science student teachers (or interns). The study, which used a postpositivist, qualitative method with researcher as participant as the university supervisor, focused on interns' abilities to implement hands-on, reform-minded practices in the context of their school placements. Findings indicate that high-stakes testing could adversely influence interns' use of hands-on activities in courses assessed on tests and in schools where students did not receive high scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondary science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81, 29-50.
2.
Barksdale-Ladd, M., & Thomas, K. (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 384-398.
3.
Charlesworth, R., Fleege, P. O., & Weitman, C. J. (1994). Research on the effects of group standardized testing on instruction, pupils, and teachers: New directions for policy. Early Education & Development, 5(3), 195-212.
4.
Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (1998). Methods that matter: Six structures for best practice classrooms. York, Maine: Stenhouse.
5.
Eick, C. J. (2000, April). Putting the standards in practice in student teaching: The interplay of classroom influences with personal histories. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
6.
Eick, C. J. (in press). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education.
7.
Falk, B., & Larson, J. (1996). An invitation to invention: Top-down support for bottom-up reform of assessment in New York State (Report No. EA 027 403). New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 158).
8.
Hilliard, A. G. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 293-305.
9.
Jones, M. G.,Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203.
10.
Knowles,J. G., & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1991). Shaping pedagogies through personal histories in preservice teacher education. Teachers College Record, 93, 87-113.
11.
Madaus, G. F. (1988). The distortion of teaching and testing: High-stakes testing and instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29-46.
12.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London: Sage.
13.
McIntyre, J., Byrd, D., & Foxx, S. (1997). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 171-193). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
14.
Mitchell, K. J. (1997). What happens when school reform and accountability testing meet?Theory Into Practice, 36(4), 262-265.
15.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1997). Meaningful learning in science: The human constructivist perspective. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning (pp. 405-447). San Diego: Academic Press.
16.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.
18.
Richardson, L., & Simmons, P. (1994). Self-Q research method and analysis, teacher pedagogical philosophy interview, theoretical background, samples of data. (Research technical report.) Athens: The University of Georgia.
19.
Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
20.
Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 164-180.
21.
Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability in high-stakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 334-345.
22.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Su, J. Z. X. (1992). Sources of influence in preservice teacher socialization. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(3), 239E-258E.
24.
Veronesi, P., & Van Voorst, C. (2000). Science teacher beliefs: Toward an understanding of state science exams and their influence on teacher beliefs. In P. A. Rubba, J. A. Rye, P. F. Keig, and W. J. Di Biase (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
25.
Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The "filtering effect" of teachers' beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137-159.
