Coping with the conflicts and consequences of high-stake testing

In their commentary article Testing, Teaching, Learning, who is in charge, Resnick and Schantz (2017) argue that educational practice will be weakened if tests are at odds with ‘what we know about how people learn’. They claim American teachers practice ‘teaching to the test’ and that students take ‘practice tests’ that closely match content and form of high-stake tests: ‘Teaching methods focused on problem-solving, reasoning and dialogic discussion are pushed out’ (ibid, p. 430). The dilemmas of high-stake testing is also the theme of this issue’s first article, with a specific focus upon how teachers cope with the conflicts and consequences of high-stake testing.

In this issue, Klein (2017) examines whether educational staff perceive conflicts between the educational demands they experience in schools due to high-stake testing and then goes on to investigate how staff cope with these conflicts. Klein describes the Israeli context where the high-stake School Efficacy and Growth Measure tests (Meitzav tests) have been administrated to elementary and junior high schools since 2002, in the four subjects Science and Technology, Mother Tongue (Hebrew or Arabic), Mathematics and English. The test is administrated by RAMA – the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education, with the aim to provide the Ministry of Education and school principals with objective information about the schools. The tests are marked by examiners outside the school. Findings are reported back to the schools and published on an internet site, comparing national, district and local authority results. Half of the schools in Israel sit for the tests each year. The other half of the schools are offered test booklets and pedagogical material to practice for internal use until they are tested the year after. In the present study, 150 teachers from 30 public elementary schools, year 5, and 150 teachers from 30 public high schools, year 8, participated. Some of the concerns raised in the article are teachers reporting that they ask low achievers in their class not to take the tests, so-called ‘strategic behavior’. Teachers further report that they make slightly more effort in the subject they know will be tested. Klein discusses several options for tackling the consequences of high-stake tests and their impact upon schools.

Unintended consequences of assessment and evaluation systems are also discussed in the article by Gagnon, Hall and Marion (2017), Teacher evaluation and local control in the US: an investigation into the degree of local control afforded to districts in defining evaluation procedures for teachers in non-tested subjects and grades. The authors write that states and schools in the United States have moved to incorporate indicators of students’ achievement into the teacher evaluation system. The rationale behind the policy is that more effective teaching should result in improved student outcomes, and therefore students’ achievements need to be included in the system. The authors note that one of the biggest challenges is to identify appropriate measures of student achievement and how to use those measures to make inferences about a teacher’s impact on students’ learning. Gagnon, Hall and Marion argue that it is particularly challenging regarding teachers who teach in the so-called ‘non-tested subjects and grades’.

We end this year by publishing reviews of five books as a timely reminder of the importance of keeping up to date on new research published in books on assessment. Klenowski (2017) has reviewed the book Excellence in university assessment: learning from award-winning practice, by David Carless. Klenowski writes that the aim of the book is to bring together much of the assessment research in Higher Education and contribute to assessment theory by critically reviewing recent empirical studies that have had a learning-oriented assessment perspective on how to engage students with feedback and how to develop both teachers’ and students’ evaluative expertise. The book cover areas such as fairness, cheating and plagiarism, assessment across disciplines, teachers’ conceptions of assessment and assessment literacy. Klenowski makes the point that the voice of the student is included in many of the chapters, something that is often neglected in the assessment literature. Further, the book includes practical authentic examples and frameworks that illustrate how to achieve better teacher practice and assessment. Examples are also given from award-winning teacher practice.

The second review by Tina Isaac looks at Henry Braund’s edited book ‘Meeting the challenges to measurement in an era of accountability’ (Isaac, 2017). It is a collection of essays written as part of the NCME Applications of Educational Measurement and Assessment Book Series from the National Council on Measurement in Education. Isaac claims the essays are far more about measurement than accountability, and that a serious discussion on accountability is missing. Hence, the target audience is more professionals in the field, NCME members and graduate students, and less practitioners and teachers who might be interested in the accountability perspective described. The book covers areas such as the authentic assessment debate that was prevalent in the US in the 1990s with examples from states such as Vermont and Kentucky which tried to expand their testing examination by including more open-ended test items, performance-based assessment, validity, accountability and discussions on how large-scale assessment could ascertain students’ deep learning and higher order thinking. The final chapters also offer subject-based views on principled assessment design, including subjects that are also outside compulsory NCLB and ESSA testing. Of these chapters, Isaac particularly recommends the history chapter, as it emphases the need for developing students’ engagement and involving them in critical and complex historical thinking.

Mary Richardson (2017) has written the third book review on Educational assessment on trial, edited by Gerard Lum with Andrew Davis and Christopher Winch as contributors. In the introduction, Lum is setting the scene for a philosophical discussion of assessment based on two central arguments. The first is Andrew Davis’ contention that there are conceptual challenges using assessment as a form of accountability, while in the second, Winch argues that assessment is ‘… an important and necessary part of any educational endevour’. In his part, Davis questions the current form of assessment in UK, such as the England’s school inspectorate Ofsted and the way schools are held accountable through the test systems. From a philosophical perspective, he challenges the current status quo and asks whether there are better ways to hold schools accountable and understand pupils’ achievement than the current measures used. In the second half of the book Winch responds to Davis. According to Richardson, Winch’s use of philosophical discourse is well-written and provides a different lens to themes such as formative assessment, teachers’ understanding of how to review their own work and adjust their teaching accordingly and how teacher education could focus more upon such skills. Richardson welcomes the philosophical challenges Winch, Davis and Lum offer, as she suggests it can ‘generate a better quality of discussion about educational assessment within academia, policy development agencies and, perhaps most importantly of all, within the public domain’.

In the fourth book review, Shaw (2017) presents the first volume one of the second edition of Handbook of Test Development, edited by Suzanne Lane, Mark R. Raymond and Thomas M. Haladyna which covers the foundations of test development. The first six chapters are specifically related to test development components, such as domain definition, item development, test design, test administration and test security. The new edition offers the readers a comprehensive framework for test development, and also includes relevant recommendations from the standards (2014). According to Shaw, the Handbook of Test Development offers an excellent overview of the theoretical and practical test design considerations and test development procedures that underpin sound tests.

Section two of Handbook of Test Development is reviewed by Tom Bramley (2017). It contains five chapters, covering areas such as setting performance standards, determining content and cognitive demands for achievement tests and tests or examinations used for credentialing. Bramley considers Chapter 10 by Patrick Kyllonen, an especially important chapter, with its’ focus upon so-called ‘21st century skills’. The chapter provides an overview of the field and Bramley believes it will be a great resource for anyone who would like to develop assessment in this area with the growing interest in 21st century skills. Knowing of the current debates in this research field, I echo his recommendation (Alexander, 2012; Ananiadou & Claro, 2009).

Therese N. Hopfenbeck
Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment, UK
[email protected]