Completed Action Research Paper

Abstract

            The State of Texas has recently changed the testing system in the state from the TAKS test to STAAR test.  With the new test have come new requirements, standards, and accountability.  This increase in accountability has lead many teachers to question whether or not freshmen and sophomore students will be motivated enough to pass the test.  In the TAKS testing era student performance would jump on average from 10-15% from a class’s sophomore year to their junior year.  At Rice High School in Rice CISD many of the teachers I work with had these same questions.  The teachers wanted to know if the increased student accountability would help to increase student scores overall.  The district has performed at an adequate to below adequate rate for a number of years.  They struggle to meet AYP most years and sometimes do not.  Furthermore, the high school most often receives an acceptable rating from TEA.  The district is working hard to make strides in increasing student performance and become a recognized school district establishing the need for research on student motivation and testing within the student population. 

Title and Author

Student Motivation Related to STAAR EOC tests

John Jarrett

Introduction

The project grew from staff concern at school.  Teachers were worried about how students would perform on the new STAAR EOC tests.  Recently, the district did not meet AYP standards by a narrow margin.  The general background of the district is a racial makeup of approximately 60% Hispanic, 25% White, and 15% African American.  Furthermore, the district has a total of approximately 75% of the students who fall into the category of a low socioeconomic status.   In the TAKS testing era most schools noticed a significant jump in the scores from after a class’s sophomore year.   This jump has most widely been attributed to the fact that the freshmen and sophomore level test did not require a passing score while the junior level test did require a score to graduate.   With the background of the school and the large number of at risk kids in the school, combined with the low motivational level, the teachers were worried if the increased stakes of the new EOC would hinder the development of the low performing students in the district.  There are many students in the school who live in poor conditions and have very rough home lives.   A second aspect of the project is to see if teacher immediacy with these students will result in higher performance.   

                The problem with meeting AYP is not a new one to the school district.  It has happened in the past and the school has managed to work its way out of the hole.  However, the school district has set goals to work diligently to increase test scores consistently and try to eliminate bad years where the school fails to meet AYP. 

The goal of the research project is to determine if the increased standards of the STAAR EOC test would motivate students to pass the tests.  Furthermore, the secondary goal of the project is to determine if use of teacher immediacy will impact low performing student scores in a positive manner. 

Literature Review

Throughout the action research process, several articles were found regarding student motivation and student motivation in testing environments.  The first examined the affect that low-stakes testing has on schools.  The article describes that, “when low stakes assessment test are used, low motivation can lead to substantial underestimation of student profiency.  (Wise, Demars 2003)

	Campus	AA	Hispanic	White	ED
ELA
2010	85%	73%	88%	85%	75%
2011	95%	99%	90%	97%	93%
Math
2010	79%	50%	81%	89%	60%
2011	93%	80%	94%	97%	93%
Science
2010	75%	50%	74%	85%	63%
2011	89%	90%	87%	97%	90%
Social St.
2010	93%	75%	97%	96%	87%
2011	96%	90%	94%	99%	85%

 This data taken from the TEA website represents the seniors of 2012 who took the TAKS test.  As can be seen, there are major jumps in student performance from their sophomore year (2011) to their junior year (2012).  While the sophomore level test may affect the school, it was a low stakes test for the students.  The TAKS tests taken a student’s junior year directly affect their ability to graduate from high school creating an incentive to pass. While high stakes testing make increase student performance, Amrein and Berliner discuss how high stakes testing has not lead to any increase in student learning.  In the article the authors state that, “ …when we look at 18 states with high stakes testing policies, we find that such results have resulted in no measureable improvement in student learning.” (Amrein, Berliner 2003)  Even so, teachers feel forced to teach to the test and try to spoon feed kids information to help them pass standardized tests.  A dramatic increase of time in test preparation does not allow enough time for valuable learning experiences that promote lifelong learners.  As tests get harder and standards increase, teachers are looking for new ways to motivate their students.  The specific types of student motivation as described by Williams and Williams include, “…student, teacher, content, method/process, and environment.” (Williams, Williams)  The authors suggest that every student is different and requires different methods to motivate them.  This was an idea that I thought about daily when determining the best methods for motivating students.   In another study, the author suggested that  “Students succeed academically only if they want to succeed and feel capable of doing so. If they lack either desire or confidence, they will not be successful. Therefore, the essential question is a dual one: How do we help our students want to learn and feel capable of learning?”  (Stiggins)  The point made by Stiggins was a driving force for the research.  Stiggins established that a student must legitimately care about the test or subject and have the desire to pass it in order to be able to be motivated. 

The secondary question of the research was to determine different methods of motivation to try and reach the 10-15% of students who are not motivated by the need to pass the test for graduation purposes.  Two articles helped to shed some light on the subject.  An article by Ames discusses how the classroom learning environment, goals, and structures can affect student motivation.  The article discusses a multitude of ideas from classroom management strategies, goal orientation, along with rewards systems that help to increase student motivation.  Even so, as I looked at my kids and tried to determine different ways to motivate them, I went in search of a different form of motivation to try to meet the needs of the students who continually underperform.  I have always been a firm believer that if you build positive student relationships that learning will take place.  In an article involving teacher immediacy, this claim is backed up.  The author completed a study on teacher immediacy at the college level and found that it helped to increase student results in the classroom.  Furthermore, the author predicted that , “…this study might prove to be much stronger if data were collected at the elementary or secondary levels where teachers are seen as a more potent factor in student learning.” (Christophell)

Action Research Design

Subjects

The research project was limited to all of my 80 sophomore Geometry students.    I was able to follow the students from the spring of their freshmen year all the way through this year.  Secondly, in order to determine if the use of teacher immediacy would increase testing scores I chose 10 low performing individuals to work with throughout the year.  All ten of these students had either failed last year’s Algebra 1 EOC or only passed by a small margin. 

Procedures

The first stage of the action research process involved determining how the requirements of the new STAAR EOC tests would affect the motivational levels of students in Algebra 1.  This study was conducted in the spring of 2012 prior to the first EOC tests.  I had the students fill out a small survey to answer two questions. Question one asked if the students felt that they had worked hard enough to pass the Algebra 1 EOC.  Question 2 asked if the students felt they maintained an appropriate motivational level to pass the Algebra 1 EOC.  The second portion of my research involving student motivation to pass high stakes test included using the school benchmark data from this school year.  The school district gives two benchmarks per year.  One is in the fall, the other in the spring.  The fall benchmark  is simple a test grade, while the spring benchmark is not only a test grade but, it also determines if a student will be eligible for flex days at the end of the school year.  If a passes all of their spring benchmarks, as well as meeting other criteria, they will become eligible for the flex days and get out of school 10 days earlier than students who do not meet the criteria.    The third portion of the research project involved the 10 low performing students and the use of teacher immediacy.  I made it a priority to develop relationships with these students and develop a trusting caring relationship.  I focused on using class time to show a direct interest in their personal lives.  Simply put, I was hoping that if I showed that I cared for them, then they would want to work a little harder in my class. 

Findings

·        The responses to both survey questions were similar in that approximately 87% of students felt that they had worked hard enough and were motivated enough to pass the EOC tests.  When the test results came back, the correlation was very evident.  I had right at 85% of my kids pass the Algebra 1 EOC.  The Wise and Demars study implied that low stakes testing resulted in lower scores.  The schools previous passing rate on freshmen level state test had hovered around 76%.  The increase in stakes resulted in higher student motivation and an increased passing rate of 9%. 

·        The benchmark scores also reflected how the increase in accountability and higher stakes lead to higher test scores. The Geometry passing rates for the fall benchmark were 65%.  The passing rates for the spring benchmark jumped to an amazing 85%.  

·        The 10 students I took a particular interest in this year to develop a better sense of teacher immediacy this year did not show the same results.  In total, only two made significant strides in their benchmark scores and class work throughout the year.  The rest hovered around the pass/fail mark throughout the entirety.  

Conclusions

In conclusion, the research conducted clearly shows that the increased stakes has lead to higher performance on standardized testing results at the freshmen and sophomore level.  The students clearly performed better when the stakes were higher.  On the Algebra 1 EOC students passed at a rate 9% higher than past years.  Furthermore, when flex days were added as a reward for benchmark scores, the passing rate jumped an astounding 20%.  On the other hand, the focus on using teacher immediacy to try to reach low performing students and increase their scores did not show the same results.  Two out of the 10 improved significantly while the rest did not. 

While I do not always agree with the difficulty and effectiveness of the STAAR EOC tests, I do agree that it has increased student performance and motivation due to the higher stakes.  While I know the state of Texas is already talking about tweaking the system, I would recommend that students be required to pass if they have to take it.  As the evidence shows some students take the attitude that if I do not have to pass it then, what is the point? Furthermore, I would recommend that the strategy of teacher immediacy would still be a good one if more teachers became involved.  If every sophomore teacher focused on developing relationships with the low performing students, one of them is bound to make a difference hopefully resulting in better results in every class. Also, I would recommend the use of flex days as a reward for student performance.  Not only did passing rates jump up but, the flex days at the end of the year allow for teachers to build relationships and work one on one with the students who truly struggle and need the extra help. 

 References

Ames, Carol (1992 ) Classroom: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation Journal of Educational Psychology http://www.unco.edu/cebs/psychology/kevinpugh/motivation_project/resources/ames92.pdf

Amrein, A., Berliner, D. (February 2003) The Effects of High Stakes Testing on Student Motivation and Learning. Educational Leadership http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/611/testing_and_motivation.pdf

Christophell, M. Diane (October 1990) The Relationship Among Teacher Immediacy Behaviors , Student Motivation, and Learning Communication Education http://professoryates.com/seu/Podcasts/Dissertation%20Research/SteveArticles11.12C/Christophel90ImmediacyMotivationLearning.pdf

Stigging, J. Richard (November 1999) Assessment, Student confidence, and School Success. Phi Delta Kappan http://www.tvdsb.ca/webpages/charris/files/stiggins%20assessment%20article.pdf

Williams, K., Williams, C. (date unknown) Five Key Ingredients for Improving Students Motivation.       Research in Higher Education Journal            http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11834.pdf

Wise, S., DeMars, C. (June 2003) Examinee Motivation in Low-Stakes Assessment: Problems and Potential Solutions. American Association of Higher Education Assessment Conference, Seattle http://www.jmu.edu/assessment/wm_library/Examinee_Motivation.pdf