Introduction
As educators across the nation
search persistently for ways to increase student learning amid the many
challenges of a diverse population, ever impatient lawmakers, spurred
by President George Bush, have driven improving classroom teaching to
the forefront of legislation (National Commission on Mathematics and
Science Teaching for the 21st Century, 2000; Lampert, 2001). In 2002,
President Bush made as his top educational priority a reauthorization
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is now commonly
known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The guiding principles
of this act focused on accountability for student performance, reduction
of bureaucracy, increased flexibility, emphasis on proven teaching methods,
and empowering parents. It included the expectations that: (1) states
needed to create their own standards for what a child should learn and
know in grades K-12; (2) reading and math standards needed to be established
immediately while science standards must be created and implemented
by the 2005-2006 school year; and (3) states must create tests that
are aligned with the standards, and must report student progress yearly
(U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
The goal of NCLB is for all
students to achieve academic proficiency by the year 2014. Proficiency
levels are commonly defined by state assessments such as North Carolina's
end of course/grade (EOC/EOG) test. According to the act,
| No Child Left Behind
requires each state to define adequate yearly progress for school
districts and schools, within the parameters set by Title I. In
defining adequate yearly progress, each state sets the minimum levels
of improvement--measurable in terms of student performance--that
school districts and schools must achieve within time frames specified
in the law (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). |
Schools that fail to meet their average yearly progress (AYP) receive penalties ranging from implementation of improvement plans to governmental school take over.
Assessing student understanding of content that is aligned with national and state standards is emphasized repeatedly. This is particularly true in mathematics and science where student proficiency is norm-referenced nationally through the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test and internationally through the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as The Nation's Report Card, (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a) is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in mathematics, reading, science, writing, U.S. history, geography, civics, the arts, and other subjects.
While exhaustive efforts are
expended on student performance, the same can not be said for the effort
being put forth to support teacher knowledge of the tests. One way of
addressing this need to understand test content with middle school math
and science teachers might be through the use of released NAEP and TIMSS
test items.
Testing in the Middle Grades
Middle grades education has recently become the focus of research and professional development. Students at this level are making the physiological and cognitive transition from elementary school to high school, which makes middle grades a popular platform for evaluating K-12 education holistically. How middle grades students go through the learning process is thought to be a good indicator for how they will evolve as learners throughout the rest of their academic careers and ultimately this learning process will impact a school's AYP.
Some of the dilemmas that middle schools face when designing academic programs that address both AYP and the special physiological and cognitive needs of their students are: How can curricula be designed to benefit the crucial learning stages of middle grades students; What are realistic goals for teachers to “teach for the test” or to teach to the different learning stages of middle grades students; and How much emphasis should be placed on the individual teacher to mold the curriculum versus the state providing the curriculum? How schools address these types of questions will in the end determine how they plan to attain a proficiency rating (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
Educators know that learning
is not passive but rather a highly interactive endeavor (Holiday, 1994).
Garrison (1990) and Tresman (1998) suggest two-way communication between
learner and instructor is central to the learning process. Garrison
(1990) states, "Passive access to information is not sufficient;
there must be active participation in the educational experience for
information to become meaningful knowledge" (p. 15). This crucial
interaction of giving and taking between student and teacher begins
to evolve in the middle grades. Middle school educators understand the
importance of this interaction and generally set up their classrooms
to facilitate better interaction with students. Teaching is taken to
mean facilitation of learning through individualization of teaching
and learning and encouragement of critical thinking (Holmberg, 1989).
Students are encouraged to be active learners in middle school. This
is not always the case for elementary and/or high school classrooms.
Therefore, one can theorize that middle grades students assimilate content
in a more meaningful manner than their younger and older counterparts.
Testing, assessments, and AYP all pose threats to the middle school classroom environment and to the special learning styles of middle grades students when age-appropriate, student-responsive instructional strategies are marginalized by passive “teach to the test” instruction. In reality, teachers who say they “teach to the test” actually “tell” students the content, ultimately breaking down the vital two-way, interactive communication/learning process between teacher and student. Sadly, students who are exposed to this “teaching strategy” not only are unable to regurgitate teacher responses on standardized tests, they also rarely achieve academic proficiency. Therefore, it is essential that middle grades teachers not only prepare students for assessments but, more importantly, understand how to prepare students for assessments without having to sacrifice successful middle grades instructional strategies.
For science and math, much of what is known about students learning on a national and international level can be gleaned from results of the NAEP and TIMSS. Since these tests are referred to as the best indicators of student progress, teachers need to know test objectives, item structure, and test design to be able to help their students.
New technologies and specifically
the Internet provide insight into these test objectives, item structure,
and test design by hosting released test items from the NAEP and TIMSS.
If used properly, these items not only help prepare students as better
test takers but also teachers as better equipped to focus more on appropriate
instructional strategies and less on testing. When teaching moves away
from teaching to the test, it becomes teaching to students - freeing
students to excel and to communicate. Testing examples offered through
the Internet suggest accurate and successful instructional methods for
teachers to model give and take interactions with students that are
so crucial to lifelong learning as well as meeting and surpassing state
standards. As former US Secretary of Education Rod Paige (2002) eloquently
notes, by using the Internet as a tool and harnessing technology, we
can expand access to learning and close the gap in America. The new
education reforms (i.e., NCLB) say loud and clear - one size does not
fit all when it comes to educating our children. We must challenge the
old ways. We must be innovative and creative in our thinking. We must
do whatever it takes to help ensure that every child is educated.
Using Released Items
The question then becomes how can released NAEP and TIMSS items on the Internet be useful for middle grades teachers and subsequently their students? These test items provide a good measure of knowledge. They come from assessments that are highly regarded as the science content knowledge benchmarks for both teachers and students. Items have been piloted, administered, and tested for validity. Item banks are plentiful, and the opportunity to choose which items align with individual teacher instruction is less difficult and time consuming than when teachers create test items from scratch. Further, the items are more valid and reliable than teacher-made questions that have not been piloted. Additionally, test items relate to both grades four and eight, and even if one does not teach in these grades it is not uncommon or unrealistic to use these items for assessing students. Most importantly, teachers can access all item data including scoring criteria, common student responses, and more (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. An example
of an NAEP released item and associated data from The Nation's Report
Card (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a). Released items from past
tests, performance data, content classification, scoring guides, sample
student responses, and additional information can be accessed from:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls/pickone.asp
