The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of high-stakes tests on teachers’ instructional practices. Data were obtained from a survey instrument given to a stratified random sample of Mississippi social studies teachers who teach the same content that is tested on their state’s high school graduation examination. An analysis found teachers spending the most time preparing students for the examination were more likely to use traditional, teacher-centered practices such as textbooks, multiple-choice questions, lecturing, and textbook-based assignments. Also, teachers’ use of instructional practices was most influenced by factors relating to sanctions attached to the examination rather than items such as personal desire or belief about using “best” practices.
Barksdale-LaddM. A., & ThomasK. F., (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 384-397.
3.
CimbriczS. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://epaa.asu/epaa/vl0n2.html
4.
EggenP., & KauchakD., (2001). Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill Prentice Hall.
5.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of1965, Pub. L.89-10.
6.
FirestoneW. A., MonfilsL., CamilliG., SchorrR., HicksJ., & MayrowetzD. (2002). The ambiguity of test preparation: A muiltmethod analysis in one state. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1485-1523.
7.
GoodT. L., & BrophyJ. E. (2000). Looking in Classrooms (8th ed.). New York: Longman.
8.
GrantS. G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing in New York station teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 398-426
9.
JonesB. D., & JohnsonA. F., (2002). The effects of high-stakes testing on instructional practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (New Orleans, LA, April 14-18, 2002).
10.
JonesM. G., JonesB.D., & HargroveT. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
11.
MarchetteF. (2003). Impacts of scheduling configurations on Mississippi biology subject area testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482467)
12.
McNeilL. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
13.
Mississippi Department of Education. (2004a). Graduation Requirements. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from Mississippi Department of Education, Office of Student Assessment Web site: http://www.mde.kl2.ms.us/acad/osa/newgrad.html
14.
Mississippi Department of Education. (2004b). Subject Area Testing Program. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from Mississippi Department of Education, Office of Student Assessment Web site: http://www.mde.kl2.ms.us/acad/osa/sat p.html
15.
Mississippi Department of Education. (2004c). Subject Area and FLE Graduation Requirements. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from Mississippi Department of Education, Office of Student Assessment Web site: http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ acad/osa/grad.pdf
16.
NatrielloG., & PallasA. M., (1999). The development and impact of high-stakes testing.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443871)
17.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002)
18.
PiagetJ. (1973). To Understand is to Invent. New York: Grossman.
19.
PressleyM., RankinJ., & YokoiL., (1996). A survey of instructional practice of Primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 363-384.
20.
SkinnerR. A., & StaresinaL. N., (2004, January 8). State of the states. Education Week, 23(17), 97-153.
21.
VoglerK. E. (2002). The impact of high-stakes, state-mandated student performance assessment on teachers’ instructional practices. Education, 123(1), 39-55.
22.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.
23.
WenglinskyH. (2000). How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back into Discussions of Teacher Quality. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.
24.
YarbroughT. L. (1999). Teacher perceptions on the North Carolina ABC program and the relationship to classroom practice. Ph. D. dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
25.
ZemelmanS., DanielsH. & HydeA. (1998). Best practices: New standards for teaching and learning in American’s public schools. (2nd ed.). Portsmith: Heinemann
