ERIC Number: ED237505
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1983-Aug
Reference Count: N/A
Differences among Teachers in Their Use of Curriculum-Embedded Tests. Research Series No. 133.
Kuhs, Therese; And Others
Year-long case studies of instructional practices in elementary school mathematics were analyzed to describe testing practices of seven teachers in three school districts in Michigan and the uses those teachers made of test results. Focused on were: (1) curriculum-embedded tests (in particular the Management By Objectives system); (2) the use of results of curriculum-embedded tests for placement of students; (3) content decisions; and (4) student evaluation. Each time teachers made placement decisions (e.g., to create homogeneous groups within classrooms), some form of curriculum-embedded test was used. When teachers made content decisions about topic selection and pacing, four distinct styles of curriculum-embedded test usage emerged: (1) not monitoring student progress and referring to tests rarely, if ever; (2) relying on informal assessments (not labeled as tests) that are conducted with the intent of determining adequacy of student understanding; (3) using curriculum-embedded tests to make the domain for mastery clear and public but not actually to monitor student progress; and (4) using the results of curriculum-embedded tests as the sole criterion for deciding when a student can move on to a new topic. Overall, the data suggest that curriculum-embedded tests are important for some purposes, but not for others. (Author/JMK)
Descriptors: Behavioral Objectives, Case Studies, Educational Testing, Elementary School Mathematics, Elementary School Teachers, Quantitative Tests, Student Evaluation, Teaching Methods, Test Interpretation, Test Results, Test Use
Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education, Michigan State University, 252 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824 ($3.00).
Publication Type: Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Sponsor: National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.
Authoring Institution: Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. Inst. for Research on Teaching.