arthur l. petterway, phd proposal defense, dissertation committee member, dr. william allan...

8/14/2019 Arthur L. Petterway, PhD Proposal Defense, Dissertation Committee Member, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arthur-l-petterway-phd-proposal-defense-dissertation-committee-member-dr 1/55

MAY 2006 1

Impact of High Stakes Testing on

English Language Learners inMajor Urban High Schools in

Texas

A Dissertation ProposalbyArthur L. Petterway

William Allan Kritsonis, PhDDissertation Committee Member



MAY 2006 2

Proposal DefenseFormat

I. Purpose of Study

II. Research Questions(4)

III. Hypotheses(2)

III. Significance of the Study

IV. Review of LiteratureV. Research Design



MAY 2006 3

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is two-fold:

1. Determine whether there is a significant

relationship between the ratio of ESLstudents taking the TAKS test, relativeproportion of the school’s faculty who arecertified to teach English as a firstlanguage and the Grade 10 TAKS in

Reading/English Language Arts andMathematics.



MAY 2006 4

Purpose of the Study

2. Explore what certified ESL teachers,

non – certified ESL teachers who

teach ELLs, campus administrators,

and district ESL personnel view as

the impact that high stakes

standardized assessments have on

ELLs, ELL curriculum and instruction.



MAY 2006 5

ResearchQuestions(1):• What is the effect of high

stakes standardized

assessments and their

impact on ELLs’

motivation, state of mind

or behavior / view of thetest?



MAY 2006 6

ResearchQuestions(2):

• What is the influence of

teacher certification

status on high stakesstandardized

assessments on ELLs?


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arthur-l-petterway-phd-proposal-defense-dissertation-committee-member-dr 7/55MAY 2006 7

ResearchQuestions(3):

• What is the impact of

high stakes

standardized

assessments on ELLs?



ResearchQuestions(4):• Is there a relationship between

TAKS performance in

Reading/English Language Arts

and Mathematics of 10th Graders

and designation of ESL or non-

ESL, type of teacher (certified or

non-certified to teach ESL) and %of students who do not speak

English as a first language ?



Hypotheses(1):

Ho1: There is no statistically significant

relationship between the ratio of ESL

students taking the TAKS test, relative

proportion of the school’s faculty whoare certified to teach ESL students and

the % of students who do not speak

English as a first language and the

school’s performance in the Grade 10TAKS test in English/Language Arts.



Hypotheses(2):

Ho2: There is no statistically significant

relationship between the of ratio of ESL

students taking the TAKS test, relative

proportion of the school’s facultywho are certified to teach ESL students

and the % of students who do not speak

English as a first language and the

school’s performance in the Grade 10TAKS test in Mathematics.



Significance of theStudy:• Expected outcome of the study

will be to provide additional datafor standardized assessment

writers in regards to biases andto school districts in developingassessments that truly measurelearning without the nullifyingeffects of linguistic and culturalbiases.



Significance of theStudy

•It will also help toenhance the reliability of

standardized assessmentsas a tool to determineaccountability for student

performance of Englishlanguage learners.



Review of Literature

•No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

•Adequate Yearly Progress

(AYP)•Limited English Proficient

(LEP) Students

•High Stakes/Statewide Testing




•No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

–Historical Note

–Description of the KeyFactors

–Expectations for Parents

–Response to NCLB




• No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB)

–Historical Note:In 2003, the Center of

Educational Policy clarified

why accountability was nota part of ESEA in 1965:



MAY 2006 16


“At that time the federalrole in education wasmarginal, most stateeducation agencies had very limited authority and capabilities, and local

people were extremely

wary that more federal aid would bring federalcontrol”(p.iv).



MAY 2006 17


• No Child Left Behind Act of 2002(NCLB)

-Description of the Key Factors

(Rosenbusch, 2005)(4):1. Accountability

2. Testing3. Teacher Quality4. Scientifically-BasedResearch



MAY 2006 18


• Accountability to Parents

– Beginning in 2005, grades 3 – 8 must be tested

in Math and English

– By the end of SY 2005 – 2006, teachers mustbe “highly qualified”

– Number of students achieving state standards

must increase each year until reaching 100%

at the end of 12 years – Schools must notify parents if their child’s

school is targeted for improvement



MAY 2006 19


• Expectations for Parents (cont.)

– If a school targeted for improvement fails after

two years, parents may choose to transfer their

child to another school or enroll in free tutoring.

Source: collegeboard.com



MAY 2006 20


• Response to NCLB – Controversy (Rosenbusch, 2005)

– Majority of Americans believe in local control of schools (Rose & Gallup, 2003)

– Many believe Math and English testing notsufficient to give accurate picture of the school(Rose & Gallup, 2003)

– Could result in narrowing of the curriculum and

“sorting of students” (Marshak, 2003, p.229) – NEA says focus on punishment is an obstacle

(National Education Association, n.d.)



MAY 2006 21


•Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP)

–Purpose and Support toNCLB

–Changes and Updates



MAY 2006 22


•Limited English Proficient(LEP) Students

–Definition of EnglishLanguage Learners (ELLs)

– Issues and Other Considerations of LEP



MAY 2006 23


• High Stakes/Statewide Testing

– Principles of Testing Programs

– Accountability in Testing– Effects of High Stakes Testing

on Student Motivation

– Other Considerations of Assessment on Testing



MAY 2006 24


• Identification of ELLs – Home Language Survey

– Proficiency tests

(Abedi, 2004b)

– Assessment instruments may not be

sufficient

– Leads to inconsistency(Zehler, Hopstock, Fleischman & Greniuk,

1994)



MAY 2006 25


• Strategies to improve LEP instruction

– Improve classification methods

– Improve monitoring

– Improve teacher quality

– Include redesignated LEP students as

part of the LEP subgroup

(Abedi, 2003)



MAY 2006 26


• High Stakes Statewide Testing – States required to administer Reading and

Math tests annually in grades 3 – 8 and during

one year in high school starting in 2005 – 2006(National Center for Education Statistics,

2002)

– States must meet AYP goals (Abrams &

Madaus, 2003)

– Use of testing to change pedagogical priorities

has a long history (Madaus & O’Dwyer, 1999)



MAY 2006 27

Principles of Testing

Programs



MAY 2006 28


• Principle 1

–The power of tests is a

perceptual phenomenon –All parties must believe the

results are important

(Airasian, 1988)



MAY 2006 29


• Principle 2

– The more a quantitative social indicator

is used for social decision making, the

more likely it will be to distort andcorrupt the social process it is intended

to monitor

(Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Haladyna,

Nolen & Haas, 1991; Klein, Hamilton,

McCaffrey & Stecher, 2000; Linn, 1998)



MAY 2006 30


• Principle 3 – If important decisions are based on

test results, then teachers will teach

to the test.(Jones et al., 1999; Madaus, 1991;

Madaus, 1991; McMillan, Myran &

Workman, 1999; Pedulla et al., 2003;Stecher, Barron, Chun & Ross, 2000)



MAY 2006 31


• Principle 4

– In every setting where high-stakes

tests operate, the exam contenteventually defines the curriculum

(Herman and Golan, n.d.; Hoffman,

Assaf, & Paris, 2001; Jones et al.,

1999; Pedula et al., 2003)



MAY 2006 32


• Principle 5

– Teachers pay attention to the form

of the questions of high-stakestests and adjust their instruction

accordingly.

(Taylor, Shepard, Kinner &

Rosenthal, 2003; Kortz, Barron,

Mitchell, & Keith, 1996a)



MAY 2006 33


• Principle 6

– When test results are the arbiter of

future education or life choices,society treats test results as the

major goal of schooling.

(Holmes, 1911, p.128; Edwards,

2003)



MAY 2006 34


• Principle 7

–A high-stakes test transfers

control over the curriculumto the agency that sets or

controls the exam.(Myers, 2003)



MAY 2006 35


• Accountability in Testing

– Cut-off scores are arbitrary (Horn,

Ramos, Blumer & Madaus, 2000) – Test scores are fallible (Rhoades &

Madaus, 2003)

– No test can be truly comprehensive(Harlow & Jones, 2003)



MAY 2006 36


• Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Student

Motivation and Learning

– Evidence shows that such tests actually

decrease student motivation and increase thenumber of students who leave school early.

(Arein & Berliner, 2003)

– Attaching high stakes to tests apparently

obstructs students’ paths to becoming lifelong,self-directed learners and alienates students.

(Sheldon & Biddle, 1998)



MAY 2006 37



Motivation and Learning (cont.)

– Many researchers hold high-stakes testing at least

partly to blame for climbing dropout rates.

(Rothstein, 2002; Jacob, 2001; FairTest &

Massachusetts CARE, 2000)

– More teenagers are exiting school early to earn a

General Educational Development (GED) credential

(Murnane, Willett, & Tyler, 2000)



MAY 2006 38



Motivation and Learning (cont.)

– May increase drop-out rate when promotion to

next grade hinges on passing state exams(Goldschmidt & Wang, 1999)

– Results in a high percentage of minority and

low socio-economic background students

being retained (McNeil, 2000; Haney, 2000,2001; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffey & Stecher,

2000; Yardley, 2000; Fisher, 2000)



MAY 2006 39


• Other Considerations of Assessment and

Testing

– Can affect the number of students, especially

black and Hispanic students, who are classifiedas Special Education

(Thurlow, Neilson, Tellucksingh,& Ysseldyke,

2000; Haney, 2000; D’Emilio, 2003, June;

Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, &Stepherson, 2003)



MAY 2006 40



Testing (continued)

– Can negatively affect teacher and student

morale (Anderson, 2004; Flores & Clark, 2003)

– Can decrease student motivation (Lane &

Stone, 2002)

– May increase drop-out rate for English

Language Learners ( Hood, 2003; Anderson,

2004; Barro & Kolstad, 1987; Kaufman, alt &

Chapman, 2001)



MAY 2006 41



Testing (continued)

– May contribute to teacher burnout (Hinde,

2003) – Vitally connected to socio-cultural, economic

and psychological issues (solano-Flores &

Trumbull, 2003

– Can change the way in which teachers andstudents interact (Cheng, 1999)



MAY 2006 42


• Other Considerations of

Assessment and Testing

(continued) – Requires administrators, teachers

and students to be motivated and

invested in demonstrating

achievement in order to be

successful (Lane and Stone, 2002)



MAY 2006 43

Research Design

• Research Methodology

– Descriptive Comparative Research

– Triangulation (open-endedquestionnaire, focus groups, and

interviews)

–Explanatory Design

– Correlational Research

A Mixed Methods Analysis of Impact of High Stakes Testing on English



MAY 2006 44


Language Learners in Major Urban High Schools in Texas

Q

U

A

N

T

I

T

A

T

I

V

E

Q

U

A

L

IT

A

T

I

V

E

Explanatory

Design

Predictors

% ELLspassing

% Non-ELLs

passing

% Non-

Certified

passing

Views/

Opinions

Administrators

Teachers

District

Personnel

Dependent

Variable

Grade 10

TAKS

Reading/

ELA &Math

Impact of

Statewide

Testing

On

ELLs

Student

Performance

ESL

Curriculum

And

Instruction

Multiple Regression



MAY 2006 45

Research Design

• Correlational Research – Independent Variables:

1. The ratio of ESL students taking the TAKS

test

2. The relative proportion of the school’sfaculty who are certified to teach ELL

3. The percentage of students who do not

speak English as a first language

– Dependent Variable:

10th grade Reading/English Language Arts andMathematics TAKS scores



MAY 2006 46

Research Design

• Subjects of the StudyQuantitative:

All major high schools inselected major urbanschool districts in Texas



MAY 2006 47

Research Design

• Subjects of the Study

Qualitative:

Per School Total

1. ESL Teachers 3 30

2. Non-Certified ESL 3 30

Teachers

1. Principals 1 10

2. Assistant Principals 2 20

3. District ESL Personnel 8

Total 98



MAY 2006 48

Research Design

•Pilot Study - Qualitative

– 2 HISD schools

Three basic considerations:

1. Administer pre-test under conditions comparable tothose anticipated in the final study.

2. Analyze results to assess the effectiveness of the trialquestionnaire.

3. Make additions, deletions, and/or modifications to thequestionnaire.

(Isaac and Michael, 1995)



MAY 2006 49

Research Design

• InstrumentationQuantitative:

The records section of TEA

Qualitative:• Open-ended questionnaire

www.apetterway.speedsurvey.com

• Focus groups• Interviews

http://www.apetterway.speedsurvey.com/

http://www.apetterway.speedsurvey.com/



MAY 2006 50

Research Design

• Reliability and Validity –Qualitative

The triangulation method willinvolve (1) the analysis of thequantitative data, (2) collation of data from the on-linequestionnaire, and (3)interviews/focus groups.



MAY 2006 51

Research Design

• Data Analysis – QuantitativeDescriptive and Comparative

Statistics will be used to calculate

the means and standarddeviations between the variables.



MAY 2006 52

Research Design

• Data Analysis – Quantitative

Correlational Research

Two separate multipleregressions will be computed:

y=a+b1x

1+b

2x

2+b

3x

3

– Reading/English Language Arts– Mathematics



MAY 2006 53

Research Design• Data Analysis – Quantitative

Correlational Research

SPSS computations:

1. A Pearson r correlation coefficient will be

calculated

2. Multiple R and R squared

3. Degree of freedom, the F-value, and the

level of significance4. Regression formula for predictability



MAY 2006 54

Research Design

Data Analysis – Qualitative

The information gathered from the

qualitative portion will beorganized under different

categories in a frequency table.

Percentages will be calculatedand listed in descending order.




Language Learners in Major Urban High Schools in Texas

Q

U

A

N

T

I

T

A

T

I

V

E

Q

U

A

L

IT

A

T

I

V

E

Explanatory

Design

Predictors

% ELLs

passing

% Non-ELLs

passing

% Non-

Certified

passing

Views/

Opinions

Administrators

Teachers

District

Personnel

Dependent

Variable

Grade 10

TAKS

Reading/

ELA &Math

Impact of

Statewide

Testing

On

ELLs

Student

Performance

ESL

Curriculum

And

Instruction

Multiple Regression

arthur l. petterway, phd proposal defense, dissertation committee member, dr. william allan...

Documents