Preservice teachers’ beliefs about high-stakes testing and their working environments

6Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In this exploratory mixed methods survey study, we assess preservice teachers’ (n=379) experiences with and beliefs about their high-stakes testing experiences and analyze how they relate to their beliefs about the role and efficacy of high-stakes testing in education and their future profession. Using Likert, vignette, and open-ended response opportunities, we gauged preservice teachers’ beliefs about accountability and the role of high-stakes testing in three ways: (a) what are their personal experiences with high-stakes testing, (b) what are their their beliefs about accountability and high-stakes testing in general, and (c) what role does accountability (and testing pressures) play in their future workplace preferences? Results indicate that preservice teachers’ experiences with and beliefs about high-stakes testing accountability vary based on gender, ethnicity, and previous experiences with high-stakes tests. Importantly, although in aggregate our participants reported they generally disliked the high-stakes tests they personally had to take in high school, subgroup analyses reveal that for those who took them during the NCLB era, they also saw high-stakes tests as good thing for education overall. Preservice teachers who were younger and “grew up” under NCLB and the height of high-stakes testing believed high-stakes tests to be a waste of time for them personally, but a useful way to evaluate teachers as an educational policy. Vignette and qualitative analyses of workplace preferences and rationales underscore some of the assumptions our preservice teachers hold about high-stakes testing as a policy mechanism to help explain this finding. We conclude with implications for policy and future research.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nichols, S. L., & Brewington, S. (2020). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about high-stakes testing and their working environments. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4877

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free