Towards state-mandated testing in Germany: How do teachers assess the pedagogical relevance of performance feedback information?

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 205-226

  Maier, Uwe ^a  

^a University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876300639     PISSN: 0969594X     EISSN: 1465329X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09695940903076030     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Amrein, A.L., and Berliner, D.C., 2002. High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (18) http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/(accessed October 31 2002)
2. Arps, S., 2005. Prolonging inequality? Education in Germany after unification. Journal of Education Policy, 20 (2): 159–87.
3. Baeriswyl, F., Wandeler, C., Trautwein, U., and Oswald, K., 2006. Leistungstest, Offenheit von Bildungsgängen und obligatorische Beratung der Eltern [Performance tests, tracking, openness and mandatory consultation for parents]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9 (3): 371–392.
4. Bos, W., Lankes, E.M., Prenzel, M., Schwippert, K., Valtin, R., and Walther, G., eds. 2004. IGLU: Einige Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im nationalen und internationalen Vergleich [International Reading Literacy Study: National and international comparison], Hamburg: Waxmann.
5. Bosker, R.J., and Scheerens, I., 2000. Publishing school performance data. European Education, 32 (3): 12–30.
6. Coe, R., 1998. Feedback, value added and teachers’ attitudes: Models, theories and experiments, UK: University of Durham. Ph.D diss.
7. Coe, R., 2002. “ Evidence on the role and impact of performance feedback in schools ”. In School improvement through performance feedback, Edited by: Visscher, A.J., and Coe, R., 3–26. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
8. Cortina, K.S., and Trommer, L., 2005. “ Bildungswege und Bildungsbiographien in der Sekundarstufe I [Educational tracking and life courses in secondary education] ”. In Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Education in the Federal Republic of Germany], Edited by: Cortina, K.S., Baumert, J., Leschinsky, A., Mayer, K.U., and Trommer, L., 342–391. Hamburg: Rowohlt.
9. Demie, F., 2003. Using value-added data for school self-evaluation: A case study of practice in inner-city schools. School Leadership and Management, 23 (4): 445–67.
10. Denzin, N., 1970. “ Strategies of multiple triangulation ”. In The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological method, Edited by: Denzin, N., 297–313. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Ditton, H., and Merz, D., 2000. Qualität von Schule und Unterricht-Kurzbericht über erste Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung an bayerischen Schulen [Quality of schooling and instruction–Report on first results of a study in Bavarian schools], Katholische Universität Eichstätt/Universität Osnabrück. http://www.quassu.net/index.htm (accessed January 3 2003)
12. Fitz-Gibbon, C.T., 2001. Value-added for those in despair: Research matter, London: British Psychological Society.
13. Fuchs, L.S., and Fuchs, D., 1986. Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53 (3): 199–208.
14. Glass, G.V., 1979. Policy for the unpredictable (uncertainty research and policy). Educational Researcher, 8 (9): 12–14.
15. Goldstein, H., 1999. The DfEE autumn package, January 2000 update Available at: http://www.IOE.Ac.Uk/hgpersonal.the-DfEE-Autumn-Package.Htm
16. Groß Ophoff, J., Koch, U., Hosenfeld, I., and Helmke, A., 2006. “ Ergebnisrückmeldung und ihre Rezeption im Projekt VERA [Performance feedback and feedback reception in the VERA project] ”. In Rückmeldung und Rezeption von Forschungsergebnissen [Feeding back and interpreting research results], Edited by: Kuper, H., and Schneewind, J., 19–40. New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann.
17. Hemsley-Brown, J., Wilson, R., and Easton, C., 2003. How are LEAs helping schools to use research and what are the benefits? CPD Update, June, 8
18. Hulpia, H., and Valcke, M., 2004. The use of performance indicators in a school improvement policy: The theoretical and empirical context. Evaluation and Research in Education, 18 (1 and 2): 102–20.
19. Klieme, E., 2004. Begründung, Implementation und Wirkung von Bildungsstandards: Aktuelle Diskussionslinien und empirische Befunde [Foundation, implementation and impact of standards: Recent discussion and empirical findings]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 50 (5): 625–34.
20. Klieme, E., Avenarius, H., Blum, W., Döbrich, P., Gruber, H., Prenzel, M., Reiss, K., Riquarts, K., Rost, J., Tenorth, H.-E., and Vollmer, H.J., 2003. Zur Entwicklung nationaler Bildungsstandards –Eine Expertise [An expertise on the development of national standards in education], Berlin: BMBF.
21. Klug, C., and Reh, S., 2000. Was fangen die Schulen mit den Ergebnissen an? Die Hamburger Leistungsvergleichsstudie aus der Sicht ‘beforschter’ Schulen [How do schools work with assessment results? School perspectives on assessment in Hamburg]. Pädagogik, 52 (12): 16–21.
22. Kluger, A.N., and DeNisi, A., 1996. The effects of Feedback Interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119 (2): 254–84.
23. Köller, O., Watermann, R., Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O., eds. 2004. Wege zur Hochschulreife in Baden-Württemberg. TOSCA–eine Untersuchung an allgemein bildenden und beruflichen Gymnasien [Different ways to university admission certificates in general and vocational education], 205–283. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
24. Leschinsky, A., 2005. “ Die Hauptschule - Sorgenkind im Schulwesen [General secondary schools as a ‘problem child’ in education] ”. In Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The educational system in Germany], Edited by: Cortina, K.S., Baumert, J., Leschinsky, A., Mayer, K.U., and Trommer, L., 392–457. Hamburg: Rowohlt.
25. Maier, U., 2007. Welche Konsequenzen ziehen Mathematiklehrkräfte aus verpflichtenden Diagnose-und Vergleichsarbeiten? [How do maths teachers use school performance feedback data?]. Mathematica Didacta, 30 (2): 5–31.
26. Maier, U., and Rauin, U., 2006. Vergleichsarbeiten - Hilfe zur Unterrichtsentwicklung? Zentrale Lernstandserhebungen aus Sicht baden-württembergischer Lehrkräfte [Does state-mandatory testing support school improvement? A teacher’s perspective]. Die Deutsche Schule, 98 (4): 403–21.
27. Metz, K., and Maier, U., 2007. Auswirkungen der Bildungsplanreform 2004 in Baden-Württemberg auf die schriftliche Leistungsmessung im Fach Deutsch [Impact of a standards-based reform in Baden-Württemberg on professional assessment in German Language]. Didaktik Deutsch, 23 (3): 55–66.
28. Moser, U., 2003. Klassencockpit im Kanton Zürich - Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern der 6. Klassen über ihre Erfahrungen im Rahmen der Erprobung von Klassencockpit im Schuljahr 2002/03 03 [The ‘Klassencockpit’ assessment tool in Zürich–Results of the pilot study], Bericht zuhanden der Bildungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich. http://www.lehrmittelverlag.ch/downloads/dateien/Evaluation%20Klassencockpit.pdf (accessed January 9 2007)
29. Nachtigall, C., ed. 2005. Landesbericht–Thüringer Kompetenztest 2005 [State report on performance assessment in Thüringen], Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
30. O’Day, J.A., 2002. Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72 (3): 293–329.
31. Peek, R., 2004. Qualitätsuntersuchung an Schulen zum Unterricht in Mathematik (QuaSUM)–Klassenbezogene Ergebnisrückmeldung und ihre Rezeption in Brandenburger Schulen [Classroom-based performance feedback and data reception in the QuaSUM project]. Empirische Pädagogik, 18 (1): 82–114.
32. Peek, R., and Dobbelstein, P., 2006. “ Benchmarks als Input für die Schulentwicklung–das Beispiel der Lerstandserhebungen in Nordrhein-Westfalen Westfalen [Benchmarks as information in the process of school improvement in Nordrhein-Westfalen] ”. In Rückmeldung und Rezeption von Forschungsergebnissen [Feeding back and interpreting research results], Edited by: Kuper, H., and Schneewind, J., 41–58. New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann.
33. Rossi, P.H., and Freeman, H.E., 1993. Evaluation: A systematic approach, Newbury Park/London /New Delhi: Sage.
34. Saunders, L., 2000. Understanding schools’ use of ‘value added’ data: The psychology and sociology of numbers. Research Papers in Education, 15 (3): 241–58.
35. Saunders, L., and Rudd, P., Schools’ use of value added data: A science in the service of an art?. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference. September2–5. Brighton, UK: the University of Sussex.
36. Scheerens, J., and Bosker, R.J., 1997. The foundations of educational effectiveness, Oxford/New York/Tokyo: Pergamon.
37. Scheerens, J., Glas, C., and Thomas, S.M., 2003. Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring–a systemic approach, Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
38. Schmitz, G. S., and Schwarzer, R., 2000. Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung von Lehrern: Längsschnittbefunde mit einem neuen Instrument [Teacher self efficacy: Results of a longitudinal study with a new instrument]. Pädagogische Psychologie, 14 (1): 12–25.
39. Schrader, F.-W., and Helmke, A., 2004. Von der Evaluation zur Innovation? Die Rezeptions-studie WALZER: Ergebnisse der Lehrerbefragung [From evaluation to innovation? Results of a study on teacher reception of feedback data]. Empirische Pädagogik, 18 (1): 140–61.
40. Schwarz-Jung, S., 2005. Übergänge auf weiterführende Schulen-Trotz ‘G8’ bleibt das Gymnasium erste Wahl [Tracking decisions after primary education–Parents prefer grammar schools despite reducing total time without reducing the curriculum]. Statistisches Monatsheft Baden-Württemberg,: 13–17.
41. Smith, L.M., 1998. “ A kind of educational idealism: Integrating realism and reform ”. In International handbook of educational change, Edited by: Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., and Hopkins, D., Vol. 5, 100–120. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
42. Tresch, S., 2006. Potenzial Leistungstest. Wie Lehrerinnen und Lehrer Ergebnisrückmeldungen zur Sicherung und Steigerung ihrer Unterrichtsqualität nutzen [The potential of performance tests. How teachers use performance feedback to enhance instructional quality], University of Zürich. Doctoral Diss.
43. Tymms, P.B., 1995. Influencing educational practice through performance indicators. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6 (2): 123–45.
44. Tymms, P.B., 1997. Responses of headteachers to value added and the impact of feedback. The Value Added National Project, Technical Report: Primary 3, London: SCAA.
45. Visscher, A.J., and Coe, R., 2003. School performance feedback systems: Conceptualisation, analysis, and reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14 (3): 321–49.
46. Wikeley, F., 1998. Dissemination of research as a tool for school improvement?. School Leadership and Management, 18 (1): 59–73.
47. Williamson, J., and Fitz-Gibbon, C.T., 1990. On the lack of impact of information. Educational Management and Administration, 18 (1): 37–45.
48. Yang, M., Goldstein, H., Rath, T., and Hill, N., 1999. The use of assessment data for school improvement purposes. Oxford Review of Education, 25 (4): 469–83.