Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of state-mandated standardized testing: The michigan educational assessment program (meap) as a case study of consequences

Theory and Research in Social Education

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 287-325

  Segall, Avner ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547183825     PISSN: 00933104     EISSN: 21631654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2003.10473227     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (18). http:://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
2. Britzman, D. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social construction in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56 (4), 442-456.
3. Britzman, D. (1991) Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
4. Cimbricz, S. (2002, January 9). State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (2) http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n2.html.
5. Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). Two state minimum competency testing programs and their effect on curriculum and instruction. In R. Stake (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 1. Effects of mandated assessment on teaching (pp. 710). Greenwich, C T: JAI Press.
6. Evans, R. W. (2001). Thoughts on redirecting a runaway train: A critique of the standards movement. Theory & Research in Social education, 29 (2), 330-339.
7. Feltovich, P., Spiro, R., & Coulson, R. (1993). Learning, teaching, and testing for complex conceptual understanding. In N. Frederickson, R. Mislevy, & I. Berjarq (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 181-217). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Finn, C. (1995). Who’s afraid of the big, bad test? In. D. Ravitch (Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards as assessments? (pp. 120-144). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
9. Firestone, W. A., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking 'high-stakes': Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102 (4), 724-749.
10. Firestone, W. A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20 (2), 95-113.
11. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Fleury, S. C. (1997). Misconstruing constructivism and state regulation of teaching. Theory & Research in Social Education, 25 (3), 349-353.
13. Foucault, M. (1972). The order of discourse. In Robert Young (Ed.). (1981). Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp. 48-78). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
14. Gibson, R. (1999). The impact of testing in Michigan. FairTest Examiner http://www.faitest.org/examarts/spring99/impactontesting.html
15. Gibson, R. (2001). Outfoxing the destruction of wisdom. Theory & Research in Social Education, 29 (2), 308-329.
16. Giroux, H. A. (1996). Is there a place for cultural studies in colleges of education? In H. A. Giroux, C. Lankshear, P McLaren & M. Peters (Eds.), Counter narratives: Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces (pp. 41-58). New York: Routledge.
17. Goodman, J., & Adler, S. (1985). Becoming an elementary social studies teacher: A study of perspectives. Theory & Research in Social Education, 13 (2), 1-20.
18. Gordon, S. P., & Reese, M. (1997). High stakes testing: Worth the price? Journal of School Leadership, 7, 345-368.
19. Grant, S. G. (1997). Opportunities lost: Teachers learning about the New York State Social Studies Framework. Theory & Research in Social Education 25 (3), 259-287.
20. Grant, S. G. (2000). Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers' perceptions of changes in New York State’s testing program. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (14) http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n14.html
21. Grant, S. G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing in New York State on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103 (3), 398-426.
22. Grant, S. G., Gradwell, J. M., Lauricella, A. M., Derme-Insinna, A., Puyllano, L., & Tzetzo, K. (2002). When increasing stakes need not mean increasing standards: The case of New York state global history and geography exam. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30 (4), 488-515.
23. Haladyna, T., Haas, N., & Allison, J. (1998). Continuing tensions in standardized testing. Childhood Education, 74 (5), 262-273.
24. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (41). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
25. Heilman, E. E. (2001). Teachers' perspectives on real world challenges for social studies education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 29 (4), 696-733.
26. Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
28. Hursh, D. (2000). Neoliberalism and the control of teacher, students, and learning: The rise of standards, standardization, and accountability. Cultural Logic, 4 (1). http: //eserver.org/clogic/4-1/hursh.html
29. Kohn, A. (2000). Burnt at the high stakes. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (4), 315-327.
30. Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the tests: A practical guide to rescuing our schools. Cultural Logic, 4 (1). http://eserver.Org/clogic/4-1/kohn.html
31. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (2), 4-16.
32. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 13 (6), 3-16.
33. th yearbook of the NSSE, Part 1 (pp. 83-121). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Marker, P. (2001). Standards and high stakes testing: The dark side of a generation of political, economic, and social neglect of public education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 29 (2), 357-362.
35. Mathison, S. (1997). Another opportunity lost? Theory & Research in Social Education, 25 (3), 364-248.
36. Mathison, S., & Freeman, M. (in press). Constraining elementary teachers' work: Dilemmas and paradoxes created by state mandated testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives. http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/
37. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
38. Meier, D. (2000). Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press.
39. Michigan Department of Treasury. Michigan Merit Award & MEAP Information http://www.meritaward.state.mi.us/mma/design.htm
40. Michigan Department of Treasury (2002). MEAP Update, March, p. 5.
41. Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42. Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feelings: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 293-306.
43. Pellegrino, J. (1992). Understanding what we measure and measuring what we understand. In B. Gifford & M. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 275-294). Boston: Kluwer.
44. Popham, J. (1987). The merits of measurement driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 679-682.
45. Ravitch, D. (Ed.). (1995). Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
46. Ravitch, D. (1996). The case for tough standards. The Clearing House, 69, January/February, 134-135.
47. Resnick, D. P., & Resnick, L. B. (1985). Standards, curriculum, and performance: A historical and comparative perspective. Educational Researcher, 14 (4), 5-20.
48. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
49. Ross, E. W. (1987). Teachers perspective development: A study of pre-service social studies teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education, 25 (4), 225-243.
50. Ross, E. W. (1999). Resisting test mania. Z Magazine. http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/zarticle.cfm?Url=/articles/sept99ross.htm
51. Sloterdijk, P. (1987). Critique of cynical reason (trans. M. Eldred). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
52. Smith, J., & Niemi, R. G. (2001). Learning history in school: The impact of course work and instructional practices on achievement. Theory & Research in Social Education, 29 (1), 18-21.
53. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20 (5), 8-11.
54. Stake, R. (1998. July 21). Some comments on assessment in U.S. education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6 (14). http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v6n14.html
55. van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers' meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72 (4), 577-625.
56. Vinson, K. D., & Ross, E. W. (2001).Education and the new disciplinarity: Surveillance, spectacle, and the case of SBER. Cultural Logic, 4 (1). http://eserver.org/clogic/4-1/vinson%26ross.html
57. Zizek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London & New York: Verso.