HOW DOES HIGH STAKES TESTING INFLUENCE TEACHERSd- .i how does high stakes testing influence teachers’

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of HOW DOES HIGH STAKES TESTING INFLUENCE TEACHERSd- .i how does high stakes testing influence...

  • i

    HOW DOES HIGH STAKES TESTING INFLUENCE TEACHERS CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION?: INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES AND CLASSROOM

    INSTRUCTION

    by

    Mika Yoder Yamashita

    Yamanashi University, B.A., 1990

    Lesley College, M.A., 2000

    Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

    School of Education in partial fulfillment

    of the requirements for the degree of

    Doctor of Philosophy

    University of Pittsburgh

    2011

  • ii

  • iii

    UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

    SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

    This dissertation was presented

    by

    Mika Yoder Yamashita

    It was defended on

    February 3, 2011

    and approved by

    Maureen McClure, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies

    Michael Gunzenhauser, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies

    Cynthia E. Coburn, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Policy, Organization, Measurement and

    Evaluation, University of California, Berkeley

    Dissertation Advisor: Mary Kay Stein, Ph.D., Professor, Learning Policy Center

  • iv

    Copyright by Mika Yoder Yamashita

    2011

  • v

    This study examined how a total of eight math and science elementary school teachers

    changed their classroom instruction in response to high stakes and low stakes testing in

    one school district. The district introduced new assessment in the school year of 2005-06

    to meet the requirement set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)that the

    assessment should be aligned with the state academic standards. I conducted interviews

    with teachers and school administrators at two elementary schools, district officials, and a

    representative of a non-profit organization during the school year 2007-08 to examine

    how the new assessment introduced in 2005-06 had shaped classroom instruction.

    Concepts from New Institutional Theory and cognitive approaches to policy

    implementation guided the design of this study. This study focused on how materials and

    activities associated with high stakes testing promoted ideas about good instruction, and

    how these ideas were carried to teachers. The study examined how teachers received

    messages about instruction and how they responded to the messages.

    The study found that high stakes testing influenced teachers classroom

    instruction more than low stakes testing; however, the instructional changes teachers

    made in response to state testing was at the content level. The teachers instructional

    HOW DOES HIGH STAKES TESTING INFLUENCE TEACHERS CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION?: INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES AND

    CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

    Mika Yoder Yamashita Ph.D.

    University of Pittsburgh, 2011

    University of Pittsburgh, 2011

  • vi

    strategies did not change. The teachers instructional changes varied with the degree of

    implementation of existing math curriculum and with the degree of support they received

    in understanding the meaning of assessment results.

    The study concluded that, among the six teachers I studied, high stakes testing

    was not a sufficient intervention for changing teachers instructional strategies. The

    study also addressed the challenges of aligning instructional messages across assessment,

    standards, and curriculum.

  • vii

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

    2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................... 5

    2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 5

    2.2 DOES HIGH STAKES TESTING CHANGE CLASSROOM

    INSTRUCTION MORE THAN LOW STAKES TESTING? .............................................. 7

    2.2.1 Studies that Used Teacher Self-Report ......................................................... 7

    2.2.2 Studies that Used Observation ...................................................................... 9

    2.3 WHAT INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGES DO TEACHERS MAKE? ........... 11

    2.3.1 Studies that Used Teacher Self-Report ....................................................... 11

    2.3.2 Studies that Used Observation .................................................................... 15

    2.4 WHAT INQUIRIES ARE NEEDED? ............................................................ 19

    2.4.1 How Does A Schools Organizational Context Shape Instructional Change?

    ......................................................................................................................20

    2.4.2 How Do Different Academic Subjects Shape Instructional Change? ......... 20

    2.4.3 How Do Policy Pressures from Testing Shape Instructional Change in the

    Long Term?............................................................................................................................21

    2.4.4 What Messages Do Teachers Come Across? .............................................. 22

    2.5 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 23

    3.0 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................ 24

    3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 24

    3.2 NEW INSTITUTIONAL THEORY ............................................................... 25

  • viii

    3.3 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT OF NEW INSTITUTIONAL

    THEORY...................................................................................................................................27

    3.4 COGNITIVE APPROACH TO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ............... 32

    3.5 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THIS STUDY ............................................... 36

    4.0 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 42

    5.0 METHODS ................................................................................................ 44

    5.1 DESIGN OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 44

    5.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 1:

    CHANGE OF INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS ......................................................................... 46

    5.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 2:

    CHANGE OF INSTRUCTION ............................................................................................. 47

    5.3.1 Data Collection ........................................................................................... 47

    5.3.2 Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 54

    5.4 GENERALIZABILITY, VALIDITY AND LIMITATIONS OF THE

    STUDY......................................................................................................................................58

    5.4.1 Generalizability ........................................................................................... 58

    5.4.2 Validity........................................................................................................ 59

    5.4.3 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................. 61

    6.0 FINDINGS: CHANGE OF ORGANIZATIONAL FIELD ................... 64

    6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 64

    6.2 FROM 1989 TO 1995: PROMOTING REFORM-ORIENTED

    INSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 68

    6.2.1 Institutional Logic: Reform-Oriented Instruction ....................................... 68

    6.2.2 Governance ................................................................................................. 73

  • ix

    6.2.3 Spread of Institutional Logics ..................................................................... 75

    6.3 FROM 1996 TO 2003: PROMOTION OF REFORM ORIENTED

    INSTRUCTION AND TEACHING FOR THE TEST ........................................................ 76

    6.3.1 Institutional Logics: Reform-Oriented Instruction and Teaching for the Test

    77

    6.3.2 Governance ................................................................................................. 86

    6.3.3 Spread of Institutional Logics ..................................................................... 87

    6.4 FROM 2004-2008: MOVING FROM REFORM-ORIENTED

    INSTRUCTION TO TEACHING FOR THE TEST ........................................................... 90

    6.4.1 Institutional Logics: From Reform Oriented Instruction to Teaching for the

    Test.........................................................................................................................................91

    6.4.2 Governance ............................................................................................... 108

    6.4.3 Spread of Institutional Logics ................................................................... 110

    6.5 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 112

    7.0 FINDINGS: POLICY PRESSURES ASSOCIATED WITH MATH

    AND SCIENCE IN THE FIELD OF DCPS ............................................................... 114

    7.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................