新评估与教师问责:教师实践的经验教训

IF 3.5 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH American Educational Research Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-24 DOI:10.3102/00028312211024596
Jessalynn K. James
{"title":"新评估与教师问责:教师实践的经验教训","authors":"Jessalynn K. James","doi":"10.3102/00028312211024596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The transition to new assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards was a significant turning point in the standards’ implementation. Concerns about the transition led districts to suspend the use of value-added scores for evaluating teachers, but changes to other measures, such as classroom observations, were rare. Using data from the Washington, DC Public Schools, I evaluate the effect of the assessment transition on teachers’ practice. I find substantial declines in instructional practice, ranging from 13% to 20% of a standard deviation, for teachers in tested grades and subjects when the new exam was introduced. These results suggest that policymakers should consider the ramifications of testing changes on a wider array of teaching outcomes than value-added scores alone.","PeriodicalId":48375,"journal":{"name":"American Educational Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New Assessments and Teacher Accountability: Lessons for Teachers’ Practice\",\"authors\":\"Jessalynn K. James\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/00028312211024596\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The transition to new assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards was a significant turning point in the standards’ implementation. Concerns about the transition led districts to suspend the use of value-added scores for evaluating teachers, but changes to other measures, such as classroom observations, were rare. Using data from the Washington, DC Public Schools, I evaluate the effect of the assessment transition on teachers’ practice. I find substantial declines in instructional practice, ranging from 13% to 20% of a standard deviation, for teachers in tested grades and subjects when the new exam was introduced. These results suggest that policymakers should consider the ramifications of testing changes on a wider array of teaching outcomes than value-added scores alone.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48375,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Educational Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Educational Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211024596\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211024596","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

向与共同核心州标准相一致的新评估的过渡是标准实施的一个重要转折点。对这种转变的担忧导致各学区暂停使用增值分数来评估教师,但对课堂观察等其他措施的改变却很少。使用来自华盛顿特区公立学校的数据,我评估了评估过渡对教师实践的影响。我发现,在引入新考试后,教师的教学实践出现了大幅下降,从标准偏差的13%到20%不等。这些结果表明,政策制定者应该考虑考试变化对更广泛的教学结果的影响,而不仅仅是增值分数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
New Assessments and Teacher Accountability: Lessons for Teachers’ Practice
The transition to new assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards was a significant turning point in the standards’ implementation. Concerns about the transition led districts to suspend the use of value-added scores for evaluating teachers, but changes to other measures, such as classroom observations, were rare. Using data from the Washington, DC Public Schools, I evaluate the effect of the assessment transition on teachers’ practice. I find substantial declines in instructional practice, ranging from 13% to 20% of a standard deviation, for teachers in tested grades and subjects when the new exam was introduced. These results suggest that policymakers should consider the ramifications of testing changes on a wider array of teaching outcomes than value-added scores alone.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Educational Research Journal
American Educational Research Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) is the flagship journal of the American Educational Research Association, featuring articles that advance the empirical, theoretical, and methodological understanding of education and learning. It publishes original peer-reviewed analyses that span the field of education research across all subfields and disciplines and all levels of analysis. It also encourages submissions across all levels of education throughout the life span and all forms of learning. AERJ welcomes submissions of the highest quality, reflecting a wide range of perspectives, topics, contexts, and methods, including interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary work.
期刊最新文献
Teacher-Student Race Match and Identification for Discretionary Educational Services The Mismatch Between World Bank Actions and the Decentralization of Educational Systems in LMICs Invisible Policy Brokers: The Political Roles of Interpreters in Educational Policy Negotiations With Language Minoritized Mothers Polarization, Partisan Sorting, and the Politics of Education The Role and Influence of Exclusively Online Degree Programs in Higher Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1