|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
The Grasshopper and the Ant: Motivational Responses of Low-Achieving Students to High-Stakes Testing
Melissa Roderick and
Mimi Engel
University of Chicago and Consortium on Chicago School Research
Advocates of high-stakes testing argue that providing strong incentives for students to take learning more seriously will result in greater student effort and motivation. Opponents argue that these policies set up low-achieving students to fail, looking to research on motivation for evidence that extrinsic and negative incentives such as the threat of retention will undermine students' engagement in school. This article seeks to evaluate these claims by examining the responses of 102 low-achieving sixth- and eighth-grade students to Chicago's highly publicized effort to end social promotion. Does this policy lead students to work harder? If so, to what extent does hard work pay off? The majority of these students described increased work effort under the policy. They reported greater attention to class work, increased academic press and support from teachers, and more time spent studying outside school. These efforts were confirmed by teachers' reports. Students with high levels of work effort generally had greater-than-average learning gains and positive promotional outcomes. Approximately one third, however, showed little work effort despite a desire not to be retained. These students faced significantly larger skill gaps and barriers to learning both within and outside school than did their peers with high work effort. How teachers manage high-stakes testing policieswhether they create environments that make low-achieving students feel supported and efficacious in responding to new demands and whether they direct students' efforts in productive wayshas an important impact on student motivation and passing rates.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 23, No. 3,
197-227 (2001)
DOI: 10.3102/01623737023003197

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. W. Perna and S. L. Thomas
Barriers to College Opportunity: The Unintended Consequences of State-Mandated Testing
Educational Policy,
May 1, 2009;
23(3):
451 - 479.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. M. Decker and S. E. Bolt
Challenges and Opportunities for Promoting Student Achievement Through Large-Scale Assessment Results: Research, Reflections, and Future Directions
Assessment for Effective Intervention,
December 1, 2008;
34(1):
43 - 51.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. Anagnostopoulos
"Real Students"and "True Demotes": Ending Social Promotion and the Moral Ordering of Urban High Schools
American Educational Research Journal,
January 1, 2006;
43(1):
5 - 42.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. M. Picklo and S. L. Christenson
Alternatives to Retention and Social Promotion: The Availability of Instructional Options
Remedial and Special Education,
October 1, 2005;
26(5):
258 - 268.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. M. Allensworth
Dropout Rates After High-Stakes Testing in Elementary School: A Study of the Contradictory Effects of Chicago's Efforts to End Social Promotion
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
January 1, 2005;
27(4):
341 - 364.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Lee and K. K. Wong
The Impact of Accountability on Racial and Socioeconomic Equity: Considering Both School Resources and Achievement Outcomes
American Educational Research Journal,
January 1, 2004;
41(4):
797 - 832.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. Hamilton
Chapter 2: Assessment as a Policy Tool
Review of Research in Education,
January 1, 2003;
27(1):
25 - 68.
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. S. Schiller and C. Muller
Raising the Bar and Equity? Effects of State High School Graduation Requirements and Accountability Policies on Students' Mathematics Course Taking
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
January 1, 2003;
25(3):
299 - 318.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|