State-Mandated Testing and Teachers' Beliefs and Practice

By Sandra K. Cimbricz. 2002

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In this article, I examine the relationship between state-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. The studies reviewed suggest that while state testing does matter by influencing what teachers say and do, so, too, do other things, such as teachers' knowledge of subject matter, their approaches to teaching, their views of learning, and the amalgam of experience and status they possess in the school organization. As a result, the influence state-mandated testing has (or not) on teachers and teaching would seem to depend on how teachers interpret state testing and use it to guide their actions. Moreover, the influence state testing may or may not have on teachers and teaching expands beyond individual perceptions and actions to include the network of constructed meanings and significance extant within particular educational contexts. Consequently, although a relationship between the state-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice does exist, testing does not appear to be an exclusive or a primary lever of change. There is further suggestion that it might not be a substantive one either. Studies that provide a richer, more in-depth understanding of the relationship between state-mandated testing and teaching in actual school settings, therefore, not only point toward important directions for future research in this area, but are greatly needed.

Subfields: Education, Information Systems and Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/00c6c21826590c824d0729c83c31836faa5f2aaf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Information Systems and Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Voices from the Frontlines: Teachers' Perceptions of High-Stakes Testing. (2004, background): “There is a growing consensus that high-stakes testing has a positive effect on some teachers’ teaching practices, a negative effect on some teachers’ practices, and little to no effect on others teaching practices (Cimbricz, 2002; Jones, Jones, & Hargrove, 2003).”
Strategic Compromise a Student Teacher's Design of Kindergarten Mathematics Instruction in a High-Stakes Testing Climate (2007, background): “The demands and pressures that high-stakes tests place on teachers’ work have been documented in numerous studies (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Boardman & Woodruff, 2004; Cimbricz, 2002; Craig, 2004; Lasky, 2005; Smith, 1991).”
Cheating in the First, Second, and Third Degree: Educators' Responses to High-Stakes Testing. (2010, unknown): “bubbling score sheets, and the like (Berliner, 2009; Cimbricz, 2002; Firestone, Camilli, Yurecko, Monfils, & Mayrowetz, 2000; Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Linn, 2000; Linn, Graue & Sanders, 1990; McNeil, 2000; Madaus, West, Harmon, Lomax, & Viator, 1992; Madaus & Clarke, 2001; Sacks, 1999; Smith & Fey, 2”
What we Know and Need to Know about the Consequences of High-Stakes Testing for Students with Disabilities (2004, background): “Cimbricz (2002) reviewed several studies that examined the relationship between state-mandated testing and teacher classroom instruction.”
High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis (2007, background): “Some research finds that high-stakes tests merely represent one limited factor, among others, influencing classroom practice (see, e.g., Cimbricz, 2002; Firestone, Mayrowetz, & Fairman, 1998; Grant, 2003), have little to no influence on what teachers do in the classroom (see, e.g., Gradwell, 2006;…”