Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
It’s clear that high-stakes testing has an effect on curriculum, and that this effect is not a good one. The author carefully refrains from commenting on his findings in an evaluative way, but anyone who cares about learning will agree that a narrowing of content, a more fragmented content structure, and a change toward teacher-centered, direct instruction (and away from integrative, student-centered methods) all are not good trends.
What makes me shiver is knowing that indeed, some people who are policy-makers and even educators look on this sort of tightly controlled, atomistic, narrow curriculum as a good thing. It makes me wonder if really it’s seen as a good way to keep certain populations “in their places” (working for the more powerful or even fighting their wars). I know this sounds cynical, but. . .
Will Au’s work be taken seriously, responsibly crafted as it is? Probably not, because the powerful often discount qualitative research.
No comments:
Post a Comment