With the increasing emphasis on minimum competency testing has come a corresponding increase in mandated, district-wide testing programs. Results of such testing are oftn highly publicized, though perhaps not always completely understood. Yet, even though mandated tests have become an integral part of schooling in many areas of this country, we know little about specific testing practices

Kinzer, Charles K

Stone, Ruth J

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 24Issue 1 October 1983 Article 1110-1-1983A Comparative Study of Educators' Perceptionsand Use of Mandated Reading AssessmentsCharles K. KinzerPeabody College, Vanderbilt UniversityRuth J. StonePeabody College, Vanderbilt UniversityFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationKinzer, C. K., & Stone, R. J. (1983). A Comparative Study of Educators' Perceptions and Use of Mandated Reading Assessments.Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 24 (1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol24/iss1/11A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EDUCATORS' PERCEPTIONS AND USE OF MANDATED READING ASSESSMENTS Charles K. Kinzer and Ruth J. Stone PEABODY COLLEGE, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE With the increasing emphasis on minimum competency testing has come a corresponding increase in mandated, district-wide testing programs. Results of such testing are often highly publicized, though perhaps not always completely understood. Yet, even though mandated tests have become an integral part of schooling in many areas of this country, we know little about specific testing prac-tices. Even less data are available regarding the attitudes, values and perceived impact of testing programs in reading from the stand-point of educators whom such tests affect most directly: teachers and principals. Our lack of knowledge in this important area has been previously noted by Singer, Ruddell, McNeil & Whittrock (1980) and Ruddell (1981). The need for such data, if school district personnel and test publishers are to make reasoned, cost effective decisions, is clear. There is also a paucity of comparative data, both on national and international levels, regarding test use and impact. This study used an instrument developed by Ruddell & Kinzer (1981), which previously served as a tool to gather such data in California. The study reported here was rrade in Puerto Rico, a site chosen because Puerto Rico is aU. S. protectorate, yet has an independent educational system and is often considered a Latin American country. The results provide insights into testing practices and opinions in diverse regions, and allow a direct comparison to the results of Ruddell & Kinzer's (1982) research, as well as to findings reported by Kinzer & Ruddell (1981). The following research ques-tions guided this study: 1. How do teachers' and principals' perceptions regarding tests and testing in reading compare across Puerto Rico and California? 2. How are tests used and perceived by teachers and princi-pals in Puerto Rico? 3. What do teachers and principals feel are the rrajor areas of impact of standardized testing programs, related to reading, in Puerto Rico? 4. How well do teachers and principals feel the goals of stan-dardized testing programs, related to reading, are being met in Puerto Rico? rh-65 Table 1 Comparative and Descriptive Data (Percent of Valid Responses) Puerto Rican Data Ruddell & Kinzer Kinzer & Ruddell (Californian Data) Princ. Teacher Princ. Teacher N=14 N=22 N=12 N=18 Test Utilization/Importance useful to very useful 92.80 83.85 86.67 76.47 important to very important 85.70 76.85 100.00 84.00 Test Administration (Per-ceived optimum number) once a year 64.30 32.25 73.33 50.00 twice a year 28.60 53.00 6.67 38.89 more than twice a year 7.10 14.55 6.67 0 never 0 0 13.33 11.11 Curriculum Factors test strongly related to curriculum 71.40 71.25 100.00 88.20 Impact of Testing (Per-ceived major impact) dist. curriculum planning 63.63 26.67 66.67 47.05 local school planning 80.00 72.22 80.00 47.05 planning inservice needs 37.50 42.85 21.42 23.52 planning class instruc. 50.00 53.33 14.28 41.17 budgetary planning 16.70 28.57 9.(19 29.41 Goals of Testing (perceived as met mostly or completly) aid in program improvement 92.30 66.67 84.61 44.44 provide public w/ knowledge 46.16 36.84 46.67 31.58 evaluate spec. programs 84.61 65.00 26.67 27.78 budget allocation decisions 58.33 27.78 13.33 5.88 Test Preferences (major pre-ference for province/state--wide testing) standardized 53.84 29.30 78.57 64.70 criterion referenced 33.33 21.42 16.67 45.45 teacher-ffi3.de 16.66 70.10 9.09 12.50 Test Preferences (major pre-ference for schoolwide test) standardized 25.00 7.14 60.00 17.64 criterion referenced 61.50 40.95 42.85 58.82 teacher-ffi3.de 23.10 63.90 0 45.45 Test Preferences (major pre-ference for classroom tests) standardized 9.09 7.14 28.57 0 criterion referenced 63.63 39.30 53.84 47.05 teacher-ffi3.de 41.66 66.70 23.07 62.50 66-rh Methcxi The Ruddell & Kinzer questionnaire was translated and slightly modified for the Spanish speaking population. Seventy-five 43-item questionnaires were sent to 25 Puerto lUcan schools. In each school, principals as well as second aTld fifth grade teachers were asked to respond. The sample reflected a balance across rural and urban schools and school districts across the country. An initial and follow-up mailing yielded a 4f!ffo return, including 14 responses from principals, and 11 each from second and fifth grade teachers. In 11 instances, all three respondents within the school returned the questionnaire. In three cases, only the princi pal responded. The sample size and sampling procedure was chosen to reflect that used by the Ruddell & Kinzer and Kinzer & Ruddell studies. Results and Discussion Table 1 surrrnarizes the results of the Puerto Rican data and provides a comparison with the Ruddell & Kinzer and Kinzer & Ruddell findings in California. As in the Californian studies, the Puerto Rican data are reported as percentages of valid responses, exclud-ing missing data. Attitudes and Perceptions Respondents across both regions felt that standardized testing programs in reading are useful and important. Teachers and princi-pals in California, however, were markedly less supportive of such tests being administered more than once a year. In the sample from California, 11.11% of the teachers and 13.33% of the principals felt that such tests should never be given. None of the Puerto Rican respondents felt similarly, with 14.55% of the teachers stating that standardized reading tests should be administered more than twice a year. Yet, more respondents in California felt that their testing program matched their reading curriculum than did their Puerto Rican counterparts. When asked to rank the impact of their testing programs, respondents in both regions noted the greatest impact in local school curriculum planning. Puerto Rican teachers, however, ranked planning for class instruction as the next greatest area of impact, while the other respondents ranked district curriculum planning as second. The impact of standardized testing programs in reading on budgetary planning was ranked last overall. Perceptions regarding how well goals of the respecti ve dis-trict-wide testing programs were being met differed somewhat across Puerto Rico and California. With the exception of the goal "to provide the public with knowledge," which approximately equal numbers of respondents agreed was being mostly-to-completely met, more Puerto Rican than Californian respondents felt that their testing program goals were being met. In both regions studied, the greatest number of respondents felt that the goal "to aid in program improvement" was being met, while the goal "to aid in budget decisions" ranked last. Overall, more principals than teachers felt that the testing program goals were being fulfilled. rh-67 Test Preferences Respondents were asked to rank standardized, criterion refer-enced and teacher-made tests in terms of preference for assessing student reading in province/state-wide, school-wide, or classroom situations. Results indicate that the Californian teachers and princip3ls are more comfortable with standardized tests than are the Puerto Rican respondents. Although principals in both regions ranked standardized tests as their first choice for testing on a province/state-wide basis, 78.57% of Californian princip3ls (and 64.70'/0 of the teachers) noted this preference, as compared to only 53.84% and 12.50'/0, school-wide and classroom testing situations. Puerto Rican teachers seem to place more faith in their own, teacher-made tests than in other types of measures, ranking teacher-rode tests as their first choice across all three testing situ-ations. Criterion referenced tests were the second choice of Puerto Rican teachers. for both school-wide and classroom assessment. Teachers in California agreed with the primary ranking of teacher-rode tests for classroom testing, but preferred criterion reference tests for school-wide testing, and standardized tests for testing on a province/state-wide basis. Conclusions The results of this study point toward four general conclu-sions. These relate specifically to the research questions noted previously. First, tests are valued and extensively used by both princip3ls and teachers in Puerto Rico. This is true even though over 60'/0 of both teachers and princip3ls noted that over 3 hours were required to prepare for test administration (e.g., group meetings to examine manuals, discuss procedure, etc.). This did not include actual administration time, which was time that would otherwise have been used for instructional purposes. Yet, even though a significant amount of instructional time is required to administer the standardized testing program, respondents felt that such testing was useful and important. Secondly, province and district-wide reading assessments in Puerto Rico impact priITBrily on curriculum decisions. with the greatest impact at the local school level. This might well be the reason for the testing program being perceived as valuable and important, even given the amounts of time and energy required for its implementation. Assessment results also have a significant impact on curriculum planning at the classroom and district level, although to a somewhat lesser degree. The impact of district-wide reading/testing programs in Puerto Rico is least felt in the areas of inservice and budgetary planning. Thirdly, Puerto Rican teachers and princip3ls feel that five generally accepted goals of testing programs are being met. Though teachers felt less confident than principals that the goals of their district's testing program were being fulfilled, there was no general teacher dissatisfaction with the overall testing program in reading. 68-rh Finally, a comparison of the Puerto Rican data with similar studies in California reveals that the two groups are similar rather than dichotomous. Although specific, interesting differences exist, most, notably in the nreas of test preferences and amount, of t,ost ing whi ch is ,q ('('rpt,,q hlp , EPnf~rn 1 p.qt,t,PrTlS ,qre similar. Educators in both regions voice a clear concern that test should be performed for educationally sound purposes, and that reading tests should be consistent with the curriculum being taught. REFERENCES Kinzer, C. K., & Ruddell, R. B. Evaluation and test of reading: field educators' perceptions, attitudes, and values (Part One). Paper presented at the 31st annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Dallas, 1981. Ruddel, R. B. Evaluation and testing of reading: field educators' perceptions, attitudes, and values (Part Two). Paper presented at the 31st annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Dallas, 1981. Ruddell, R.B., & Kinzer, C. K. Test Preferences and competencies of field educators. In J. Niles & L. Harris (Eds.), New In-quiries in Reading Research and Instruction. NY: NRC, l~ Singer, Harry, Ruddell, R. B., McNeil, J., & Whittrock, M. Testing Achievement in Basic Skills. California Policy Seminar University of California, Berkeley, 1980. 

A Comparative Study of Educators\u27 Perceptions and Use of Mandated Reading Assessments

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1918&amp;context=reading_horizons

A Comparative Study of Educators\u27 Perceptions and Use of Mandated Reading Assessments

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU