ReviewOfLiterature


Review of Literature Effect of Computer-Based Preparation for the California High School Exit Exam
Download PDF-Review of Literature Action Research View Online CAHSEE Curriculum
. Effect of Computer-Based Preparation For the California High School Exit Exam Sandy Jaquish California State University, Sacramento April 2006 Introduction The use of technology-based tools in the classroom is an undeniable upward trend. In fact, a large portion of the estimated $600 billion educational market in the United States includes an element of technology (Buchen, 1999). Specifically, the Benton Foundation Communications Policy Program reported that the country invested over $37.9 billion between 1990 and 2000 to bring educational technology and internet access to schools through the E-Rate telecommunications discount and other state and federal funding (Great Expectations: Leveraging America's investment in educational technology, 2002). Some of the benefits of technology in the classroom are obvious. Technology enables students and teachers to access a universal field of information at the click of a mouse. Multimedia technology supplements written text books with memorable visual images. Prescriptive software can pinpoint a student’s gap in understanding and provide the necessary remediation. This amazing progress in the development of computer-based tools was aptly described by Seymour Papert when he said, “…this is not simply a story of the development of a technology. It is better described as the development of a culture” (Papert, 1997, p. 78). Concurrent with the trend toward the use of technology in the classroom is the trend toward the development of national academic standards to serve as a basis for measuring learning and attaching consequences to teacher and student performance (Weiss, 2000). Since the measurement of learning standardized material requires standardized assessment, there has been a corresponding increase in standardized “high-stakes” testing over the past 15 years. One such test is the high school exit exam covering minimum proficiencies deemed to be necessary to obtain a high school degree. By the spring of 2004 twenty states had implemented high school exit exams as a graduation requirement, with five additional states (including California) phasing in exit exams by spring of 2006 (Wise, 2005). The Case for Computer-Based Curricula The question as to whether or not the use of technology in the classroom is a proven benefit to students began two decades ago with the emergence of the personal computer. While the overall mounting body of evidence continues to support the conclusion that technology in the classroom is having a positive effect on achievement (Great expectations: Leveraging America's investment in educational technology, 2002), the task of quantifying the contribution of computer-based technology in the learning process is challenging because of the array of subjective contributing factors involved. Conclusions about the effect of technology in the classroom must be considered in the context of the additional variables present in the classroom environment (Collins, 1996; Collis, 1996; Owen, Calnin, & Lambert, 2002). Questions such as “How much technology?”, “What kind of technology?”, “Which students?”, “What level of training?”, and “What is the teacher’s attitude toward technology?” all present significant potential variability in research data. How Much Technology? The question of “How much technology” was proven to be directly proportionate to improved test scores among UK students in English, Math, Science, Modern Foreign Languages and Design Technology (Harrison, 2004). This research, referred to as the ImpaCT2 study, measured the amount of “Information and Communication Technology” (ICT) exposure to students at 60 schools on a school-wide basis as well as on an individual pupil basis. On both levels, greater amounts of information and communication technology in the classroom produced statistically improved school achievement. Which Students? Which students benefit the most from computer-based educational tools? A study at Texas Tech University compared student achievement in students participating in an online course to others participating in the same course delivered via traditional classroom lecture (Carnevale, 2002). Results showed that students in the online course who had initially tested as having higher comprehension skills learned 10% more than their counterparts who participated in the classroom series. But online course participation resulted in no difference among the students with lesser comprehension skills. The Role of the Teacher Technology benefits notwithstanding, some hold that the role of the teacher is the still the most influential factor in student achievement (Cuban, 1996). Although the capabilities of a computer can be used to assist in the learning process, the most critical element in impacting learning through the use of technology is the preparedness and skill level of the teachers who employ the technology (Hart, Allensworth, Lauen, & Gladden, 2002). Qualitative Factors in Computer-Based Curricula Evaluation of the impact of technology tools in the learning process without accounting for qualitative differences such tools would be like trying to determine the effect of food consumption on a person’s health without mention of what kind of food is being consumed. Computer-based curricula must be judged on several levels including the content being taught, the delivery manner and sensory modes employed, and the manner of information transmission, to name a few. Delivery Manner and Multiple Intelligences The importance of addressing individual differences among students is as important in technology-delivered instruction as it is in traditional classroom instruction. Ongoing research by cognitive psychologists continues to shed light on the individual differences in human learning and thinking. One prominent theory suggests that all people have unique modes of learning called “intelligences” resulting from a mixture of biological factors and cultural factors (Gardner, 1983). Gardner labeled these intelligences as linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, and interpersonal. An eighth intelligence, naturalist, was later added to the list (Checkley, 1997). According to Gardner and Checkley, these intelligences are defined as the ways in which we individually respond to kinds of content, music, or people. This theory suggests that individuals respond more positively when they are exposed to stimuli delivered within their preferred intelligence mode. Given that computer technology offers the option for students to select from a menu of delivery options, one potential benefit is the customization to the individual student needs in a way that a single teacher in a classroom cannot. Computer as Communicator vs. Computer as Transmitter The fact that teachers can do more than transmit data is undeniable. What role does the human interaction factor play in student learning and how might this factor put computer-based curricula at a distinct disadvantage? A study among 7 th grade students compared the “interactivity effect” in learning from a computer-based lesson (Moreno, 2001). The study revealed that students retained information better when the computer program presented words as audible speech rather than as text on a screen. The spoken word proved to promote meaningful learning, with or without the visual presence on the screen of the agent doing the speaking. The Trend Toward High Stakes Testing Another increasing trend in K-12 Education is the use of standardized testing as a way to raise standards and hold teachers and students more accountable. In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education asserted that the “rise in mediocrity threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” ("A Nation at Risk", 1983). In answer to this report, many states began to incorporate state-wide standardized testing, including high school exit exams, as a graduation requirement. The Education Commission of the States (Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy, 2006) recently provided the following succinct summary of some of the benefits and criticisms of high-stakes testing: Purposes and Benefits: Assures that standards are taken seriously, motivates teaching of the standards and holds schools accountable for student performance Motivates students to learn and increases emphasis on student achievement Provides the same high expectations and the same basis of evaluation for all students Provides information that can inform policymakers on the quality of education Monitors school improvement efforts Identifies student strengths and weaknesses to target instruction Allows recognition to schools and teachers of students who perform high and/or improve performance. Criticisms: What you test and how you test it is what you get; you do not get what is not tested. Too much emphasis on a single test score, which might not reflect true changes in student achievement. Statewide assessment leads to a more narrow statewide curriculum. The tests are unfair to low socioeconomic students and schools. High-stakes assessments result in too much time preparing students to take the test. High-stakes assessments do not provide information that can improve instruction. (p. 1-2) Impact of High Stakes Testing on Teaching Methods The reality that high stakes testing has become an integral part of our current educational policy leads to the question of how schools are preparing students for these tests and what impact test preparation is having on the classroom environment. In a 2003 national survey of teachers a large majority of K-12 teachers reported that they have little time to teach anything outside of what is covered on state tests due to pressure from administrators and parents to achieve high scores (Joseph J. Pedulla & Michael K. Russell, 2003). The task of preparing students for high stakes testing is a challenging one because one strategy does not fit all students or all subject areas. A study on test-taking strategies for high and low mathematics achievers revealed that there was a significant difference in the cognitive approach to test preparation in high vs. low math achievers (Hong, Sas, & SAS, 2006). The high math achievers utilized more higher order thinking and deductive reasoning whereas the lower math achievers utilized more memorization and rehearsal. Additional Challenge in Exit Exam Preparation In the case of preparing high school students for a high school exit exam the teacher’s task is even more daunting because the material to be tested on is primarily content from lower grades. Many high school teachers simply do not have experience teaching content from lower grade levels, nor is that content necessarily a part of the 11 th and 12 th grade academic standards that the teacher is also accountable to cover during class time. Role of Computer Games in Test Preparation One look at the explosive growth of the computer gaming industry provides convincing proof as to the motivational capacity of computer games. Research conducted among 3 rd graders (McDonald & Hannafin, 2003) demonstrated several outcomes of using a game format in computer-based instruction. Not only did students who participated in the game format score slightly better in material retention, an additional outcome included increased meaningful dialogue on the topic among students and increased student motivation to continue involvement (McDonald & Hannafin, 2003). McDonald’s observations included a marked increase in student enthusiasm evidenced by frequent requests to be allowed to spend more time on the activity on a regular basis. Current State of Affairs Regarding the California High School Exit Exam. In 1999 the California legislature established the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) requirement for the class of 2004. The exam consisted of an English-language arts (ELA) section as well as a mathematics section (Wise, 2005). In July of 2003, after the completion of the 2002-03 testing, the State Board of Education voted to defer the CAHSEE requirement until 2006. This recommendation was based upon an independent review conducted by Human Resource Research Organization (HumRRO) resulting in a variety of recommendations (Wise, 2005). By June of 2005, an estimated 100,000 California students in the class of 2006 had not yet satisfied the CAHSEE requirements (Wise, 2005). At the time of this writing, many of those students are within 8 weeks of being among the first in California to be denied a high school diploma due to having failed one or both parts of the exam. Sadly, there is no way to know exactly how many students fall into that category because California does not currently have a system in place to uniquely identify each pupil in our school system by which to track a student’s progress. This information is currently known only at the district level using a variety of ad hoc tracking and identification methods. A major recommendation in the HumRRO report was that California accelerate the effort to implement a statewide system of student identifiers (Wise, 2005). Another issue the HumRRO report focused on was the lower percentage of credentialed teachers in the areas of math and English-language in schools with high numbers of lower income students, as follows: Over half of schools report using some mathematics teachers with emergency credentials. A third of schools report some ELA teachers with emergency credentials. While EL students reportedly receive instruction from credentialed teachers at nearly the same rate as all students, students receiving special education services are more likely to receive both ELA and mathematics instruction from a teacher who does not hold a subject-area credential. ELA credentialing is lower in schools with high concentrations of African American students. Lower percentages of schools with high concentrations of EL, economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and African American students report math teachers with subject-area credentials than do schools without such high concentrations of at-risk students. (Executive Summary, p. vi,) Although the report did not recommend further postponing implementation of the CAHSEE, it did provide . strong recommendations that further resources be developed for CAHSEE preparation as well as options for . those who have not passed the exam by their senior year (Wise, 2005). Current CAHSEE Preparation Materials California legislation requires that the state provide extra help to students who are not showing progress toward passing the CAHSEE (The California High School Exit Exam, 2003), but does not necessarily provide funding to do so. It is up to each district to divert funding from other sources and choose their preferred method of assisting these students. The California Department of Education (CDE) provides one preparation workbook for math and one for ELA to each sophomore prior to their taking the CAHSEE for the first time. This workbook is also available in PDF form through the CDE website. At the time of this writing there is no online instructional program provided by or endorsed by the CDE. This paper will explore the potential benefit of incorporating an interactive computer-based curriculum into the high school exit exam preparation process. Summary Data supporting the benefits of computer technology in the educational process continues to mount, but carries important conditions such as the level of teacher training in effectively using the technology, the extent to which the technology incorporates multiple learning modalities, and the amount of student exposure to the technology. Although the data supporting the benefits vs. the costs of high stakes testing remains a matter of controversy, the reality of our country’s current educational policy continues to move in the direction of more standardized and high stakes testing. This being the case, it is only logical to further our research as to the potential benefit of increasing our utilization of computer technology as a tool for high stakes test preparation. References Buchen, I. H. (1999, 1999). Business Sees Profits in Education: Challenging Public Schools. The Futurist, 38 - 44. The California High School Exit Exam. (2003).): EdSource. (2003, August 2003). Carnevale, D. (2002). Stronger Students Benefit More from Online Course, Texas Study. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(45), A30. Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven...and the eighth: a conversation with Howard Gardner. Education Leadership, 55, 1, 8-13. Collis, B. A. L., K-W. (1996). Children and computers in school. Mahwah, MH: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cuban, L. (1996). Techno-reformers and classroom teachers. Education Week, 16(6), 37. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Harrison, L., Tymms, Fitz-Gibbon, and Restorick. (2004). USE of ICT and its relationship with performance in examinations: a comparison of the ImpaCT2 project's research findings using pupil-level, school-level and multilevel modeling data. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 319-337. Hart, H. M., Allensworth, E., Lauen, D., & Gladden, R. M. (2002). Educational technology: Availability and use in Chicago's public schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Hong, E., Sas, M., & SAS, J. C. (2006). Test-Taking Strategies of High and Low Mathematics Achievers. The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 99(3). McDonald, K. K., & Hannafin, R. D. (2003). Using Web-based Computer Games to Meet the Demands of Today's High-Stakes Testing: A Mixed Method Inquiry. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 459. Moreno, M., Spires, and Lester. (2001). The Case for Social Agency in Computer-Based Teaching: Do Students Learn More Deeply When They Interact With Animated Pedagogical Agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213. A Nation at Risk. (1983). (1983). In U. G. P. Office (Ed.), (pp. 5-6): National Commission on Excellence in Education. Owen, J., Calnin, G., & Lambert, F. (2002). Evaluation of science and technology education at the dawn of a new millennium. New York: Kluwar Academic. Papert, S. (1997). Educational Computing: How Are We Doing? THE Journal, 24(11), 78. Pedulla, J. J., Abrams, L. M., Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., Ramos, M. A., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived Effects of State-Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning. Boston: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy Weiss, S. (2000). The Progress of Education Reform (No. vol. 1, no. 5): Education Commission of the States. Wise, B., Harris, Taylor, Johnstone, and Miller. (2005). Independent Evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): 2005 Evaluation Report (Commissioned Report by Human Resources Research Organization for the California Department of Education No. FR-05-43). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO). .

Email Sandy Jaquish	Home Abstract Process Product Showcase

.

Effect of Computer-Based Preparation

For the California High School Exit Exam

Sandy Jaquish

California State University, Sacramento

April 2006

Introduction

          The use of technology-based tools in the classroom is an undeniable upward trend. In fact, a large portion of the estimated $600 billion educational market in the United States includes an element of technology (Buchen, 1999). Specifically, the Benton Foundation Communications Policy Program reported that the country invested over $37.9 billion between 1990 and 2000 to bring educational technology and internet access to schools through the E-Rate telecommunications discount and other state and federal funding (Great Expectations: Leveraging America's investment in educational technology, 2002).

           Some of the benefits of technology in the classroom are obvious. Technology enables students and teachers to access a universal field of information at the click of a mouse. Multimedia technology supplements written text books with memorable visual images. Prescriptive software can pinpoint a student’s gap in understanding and provide the necessary remediation. This amazing progress in the development of computer-based tools was aptly described by Seymour Papert when he said, “…this is not simply a story of the development of a technology. It is better described as the development of a culture” (Papert, 1997, p. 78).

            Concurrent with the trend toward the use of technology in the classroom is the trend toward the development of national academic standards to serve as a basis for measuring learning and attaching consequences to teacher and student performance (Weiss, 2000). Since the measurement of learning standardized material requires standardized assessment, there has been a corresponding increase in standardized “high-stakes” testing over the past 15 years. One such test is the high school exit exam covering minimum proficiencies deemed to be necessary to obtain a high school degree. By the spring of 2004 twenty states had implemented high school exit exams as a graduation requirement, with five additional states (including California) phasing in exit exams by spring of 2006 (Wise, 2005).

The Case for Computer-Based Curricula

          The question as to whether or not the use of technology in the classroom is a proven benefit to students began two decades ago with the emergence of the personal computer. While the overall mounting body of evidence continues to support the conclusion that technology in the classroom is having a positive effect on achievement (Great expectations: Leveraging America's investment in educational technology, 2002), the task of quantifying the contribution of computer-based technology in the learning process is challenging because of the array of subjective contributing factors involved. Conclusions about the effect of technology in the classroom must be considered in the context of the additional variables present in the classroom environment (Collins, 1996; Collis, 1996; Owen, Calnin, & Lambert, 2002). Questions such as “How much technology?”, “What kind of technology?”, “Which students?”, “What level of training?”, and “What is the teacher’s attitude toward technology?” all present significant potential variability in research data.

How Much Technology?

           The question of “How much technology” was proven to be directly proportionate to improved test scores among UK students in English, Math, Science, Modern Foreign Languages and Design Technology (Harrison, 2004). This research, referred to as the ImpaCT2 study, measured the amount of “Information and Communication Technology” (ICT) exposure to students at 60 schools on a school-wide basis as well as on an individual pupil basis. On both levels, greater amounts of information and communication technology in the classroom produced statistically improved school achievement.

Which Students?

           Which students benefit the most from computer-based educational tools? A study at Texas Tech University compared student achievement in students participating in an online course to others participating in the same course delivered via traditional classroom lecture (Carnevale, 2002). Results showed that students in the online course who had initially tested as having higher comprehension skills learned 10% more than their counterparts who participated in the classroom series. But online course participation resulted in no difference among the students with lesser comprehension skills.

The Role of the Teacher

           Technology benefits notwithstanding, some hold that the role of the teacher is the still the most influential factor in student achievement (Cuban, 1996). Although the capabilities of a computer can be used to assist in the learning process, the most critical element in impacting learning through the use of technology is the preparedness and skill level of the teachers who employ the technology (Hart, Allensworth, Lauen, & Gladden, 2002).

Qualitative Factors in Computer-Based Curricula

             Evaluation of the impact of technology tools in the learning process without accounting for qualitative differences such tools would be like trying to determine the effect of food consumption on a person’s health without mention of what kind of food is being consumed. Computer-based curricula must be judged on several levels including the content being taught, the delivery manner and sensory modes employed, and the manner of information transmission, to name a few.

Delivery Manner and Multiple Intelligences

               The importance of addressing individual differences among students is as important in technology-delivered instruction as it is in traditional classroom instruction. Ongoing research by cognitive psychologists continues to shed light on the individual differences in human learning and thinking. One prominent theory suggests that all people have unique modes of learning called “intelligences” resulting from a mixture of biological factors and cultural factors (Gardner, 1983). Gardner labeled these intelligences as linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, and interpersonal. An eighth intelligence, naturalist, was later added to the list (Checkley, 1997). According to Gardner and Checkley, these intelligences are defined as the ways in which we individually respond to kinds of content, music, or people. This theory suggests that individuals respond more positively when they are exposed to stimuli delivered within their preferred intelligence mode. Given that computer technology offers the option for students to select from a menu of delivery options, one potential benefit is the customization to the individual student needs in a way that a single teacher in a classroom cannot.

Computer as Communicator vs. Computer as Transmitter

             The fact that teachers can do more than transmit data is undeniable. What role does the human interaction factor play in student learning and how might this factor put computer-based curricula at a distinct disadvantage? A study among 7 th grade students compared the “interactivity effect” in learning from a computer-based lesson (Moreno, 2001). The study revealed that students retained information better when the computer program presented words as audible speech rather than as text on a screen. The spoken word proved to promote meaningful learning, with or without the visual presence on the screen of the agent doing the speaking.

The Trend Toward High Stakes Testing

           Another increasing trend in K-12 Education is the use of standardized testing as a way to raise standards and hold teachers and students more accountable. In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education asserted that the “rise in mediocrity threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” ("A Nation at Risk", 1983). In answer to this report, many states began to incorporate state-wide standardized testing, including high school exit exams, as a graduation requirement.

          The Education Commission of the States (Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy, 2006) recently provided the following succinct summary of some of the benefits and criticisms of high-stakes testing:

Purposes and Benefits:

Assures that standards are taken seriously, motivates teaching of the standards and holds schools accountable for student performance

Motivates students to learn and increases emphasis on student achievement

Provides the same high expectations and the same basis of evaluation for all students

Provides information that can inform policymakers on the quality of education

Monitors school improvement efforts

Identifies student strengths and weaknesses to target instruction

Allows recognition to schools and teachers of students who perform high and/or improve performance.

Criticisms:

What you test and how you test it is what you get; you do not get what is not tested.

Too much emphasis on a single test score, which might not reflect true changes in student achievement.

Statewide assessment leads to a more narrow statewide curriculum.

The tests are unfair to low socioeconomic students and schools.

High-stakes assessments result in too much time preparing students to take the test.

High-stakes assessments do not provide information that can improve instruction. (p. 1-2)

Impact of High Stakes Testing on Teaching Methods

          The reality that high stakes testing has become an integral part of our current educational policy leads to the question of how schools are preparing students for these tests and what impact test preparation is having on the classroom environment. In a 2003 national survey of teachers a large majority of K-12 teachers reported that they have little time to teach anything outside of what is covered on state tests due to pressure from administrators and parents to achieve high scores (Joseph J. Pedulla & Michael K. Russell, 2003). The task of preparing students for high stakes testing is a challenging one because one strategy does not fit all students or all subject areas. A study on test-taking strategies for high and low mathematics achievers revealed that there was a significant difference in the cognitive approach to test preparation in high vs. low math achievers (Hong, Sas, & SAS, 2006). The high math achievers utilized more higher order thinking and deductive reasoning whereas the lower math achievers utilized more memorization and rehearsal.

Additional Challenge in Exit Exam Preparation

           In the case of preparing high school students for a high school exit exam the teacher’s task is even more daunting because the material to be tested on is primarily content from lower grades. Many high school teachers simply do not have experience teaching content from lower grade levels, nor is that content necessarily a part of the 11 th and 12 th grade academic standards that the teacher is also accountable to cover during class time.

Role of Computer Games in Test Preparation

           One look at the explosive growth of the computer gaming industry provides convincing proof as to the motivational capacity of computer games. Research conducted among 3 rd graders (McDonald & Hannafin, 2003) demonstrated several outcomes of using a game format in computer-based instruction. Not only did students who participated in the game format score slightly better in material retention, an additional outcome included increased meaningful dialogue on the topic among students and increased student motivation to continue involvement (McDonald & Hannafin, 2003). McDonald’s observations included a marked increase in student enthusiasm evidenced by frequent requests to be allowed to spend more time on the activity on a regular basis.

Current State of Affairs Regarding the California High School Exit Exam.

             In 1999 the California legislature established the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) requirement for the class of 2004. The exam consisted of an English-language arts (ELA) section as well as a mathematics section (Wise, 2005). In July of 2003, after the completion of the 2002-03 testing, the State Board of Education voted to defer the CAHSEE requirement until 2006. This recommendation was based upon an independent review conducted by Human Resource Research Organization (HumRRO) resulting in a variety of recommendations (Wise, 2005).

            By June of 2005, an estimated 100,000 California students in the class of 2006 had not yet satisfied the CAHSEE requirements (Wise, 2005). At the time of this writing, many of those students are within 8 weeks of being among the first in California to be denied a high school diploma due to having failed one or both parts of the exam. Sadly, there is no way to know exactly how many students fall into that category because California does not currently have a system in place to uniquely identify each pupil in our school system by which to track a student’s progress. This information is currently known only at the district level using a variety of ad hoc tracking and identification methods. A major recommendation in the HumRRO report was that California accelerate the effort to implement a statewide system of student identifiers (Wise, 2005).

           Another issue the HumRRO report focused on was the lower percentage of credentialed teachers in the areas of math and English-language in schools with high numbers of lower income students, as follows:

Over half of schools report using some mathematics teachers with emergency credentials.

A third of schools report some ELA teachers with emergency credentials.

While EL students reportedly receive instruction from credentialed teachers at nearly the same rate as all

students, students receiving special education services are more likely to receive both ELA and mathematics

instruction from a teacher who does not hold a subject-area credential.

ELA credentialing is lower in schools with high concentrations of African American students.

Lower percentages of schools with high concentrations of EL, economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and

African American students report math teachers with subject-area credentials than do schools without such high

concentrations of at-risk students. (Executive Summary, p. vi,)

Although the report did not recommend further postponing implementation of the CAHSEE, it did provide

strong recommendations that further resources be developed for CAHSEE preparation as well as options for

those who have not passed the exam by their senior year (Wise, 2005).

Current CAHSEE Preparation Materials

           California legislation requires that the state provide extra help to students who are not showing progress toward passing the CAHSEE (The California High School Exit Exam, 2003), but does not necessarily provide funding to do so. It is up to each district to divert funding from other sources and choose their preferred method of assisting these students. The California Department of Education (CDE) provides one preparation workbook for math and one for ELA to each sophomore prior to their taking the CAHSEE for the first time. This workbook is also available in PDF form through the CDE website. At the time of this writing there is no online instructional program provided by or endorsed by the CDE. This paper will explore the potential benefit of incorporating an interactive computer-based curriculum into the high school exit exam preparation process.

Summary

            Data supporting the benefits of computer technology in the educational process continues to mount, but carries important conditions such as the level of teacher training in effectively using the technology, the extent to which the technology incorporates multiple learning modalities, and the amount of student exposure to the technology.

            Although the data supporting the benefits vs. the costs of high stakes testing remains a matter of controversy, the reality of our country’s current educational policy continues to move in the direction of more standardized and high stakes testing. This being the case, it is only logical to further our research as to the potential benefit of increasing our utilization of computer technology as a tool for high stakes test preparation.

References

Buchen, I. H. (1999, 1999). Business Sees Profits in Education: Challenging Public Schools. The Futurist, 38 - 44.

The California High School Exit Exam. (2003).): EdSource. (2003, August 2003).

Carnevale, D. (2002). Stronger Students Benefit More from Online Course, Texas Study. Chronicle of Higher             Education, 48(45), A30.

Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven...and the eighth: a conversation with Howard Gardner. Education Leadership,             55, 1, 8-13.

Collis, B. A. L., K-W. (1996). Children and computers in school. Mahwah, MH: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cuban, L. (1996). Techno-reformers and classroom teachers. Education Week, 16(6), 37.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Harrison, L., Tymms, Fitz-Gibbon, and Restorick. (2004). USE of ICT and its relationship with performance in             examinations: a comparison of the ImpaCT2 project's research findings using pupil-level, school-level and             multilevel modeling data. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 319-337.

Hart, H. M., Allensworth, E., Lauen, D., & Gladden, R. M. (2002). Educational technology: Availability and use in              Chicago's public schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Hong, E., Sas, M., & SAS, J. C. (2006). Test-Taking Strategies of High and Low Mathematics Achievers. The              Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 99(3).

McDonald, K. K., & Hannafin, R. D. (2003). Using Web-based Computer Games to Meet the Demands of Today's             High-Stakes Testing: A Mixed Method Inquiry. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4),             459.

Moreno, M., Spires, and Lester. (2001). The Case for Social Agency in Computer-Based Teaching: Do Students             Learn More Deeply When They Interact With Animated Pedagogical Agents? Cognition and Instruction,             19(2), 177-213.

A Nation at Risk. (1983). (1983). In U. G. P. Office (Ed.), (pp. 5-6): National Commission on Excellence in             Education.

Owen, J., Calnin, G., & Lambert, F. (2002). Evaluation of science and technology education at the dawn of a             new millennium. New York: Kluwar Academic.

Papert, S. (1997). Educational Computing: How Are We Doing? THE Journal, 24(11), 78.

Pedulla, J. J., Abrams, L. M., Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., Ramos, M. A., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived Effects of             State-Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning. Boston: National Board on Educational Testing             and Public Policy

Weiss, S. (2000). The Progress of Education Reform (No. vol. 1, no. 5): Education Commission of the States.

Wise, B., Harris, Taylor, Johnstone, and Miller. (2005). Independent Evaluation of the California High School Exit             Examination (CAHSEE): 2005 Evaluation Report (Commissioned Report by Human Resources Research             Organization for the California Department of Education No. FR-05-43). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources             Research Organization (HumRRO).

.

Review of Literature

Effect of Computer-Based Preparation for the California High School Exit Exam

Effect of Computer-Based Preparation for the
California High School Exit Exam