More Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing

This article explores the basis of negative sentiments toward and current critiques of high-stakes student testing from within the education profession. To promote some balance for current policy debates, evidence for 10 unintended, unrecognized, or unarticulated positive consequences is provided. The article concludes with an examination of the relationship between high-stakes testing and accountability systems.     

The Development of Measures of Individual Differences in Self-Regulatory Control and Their Relationship to Academic Performance

Two studies are reported describing the development and validation of the Strategic Flexibility Questionnaire (SFQ): a self-report instrument aimed at eliciting students’ beliefs about the need for, and conditional nature of, self-regulatory control over learning. In Study 1, 281 first-year university education students completed a 40-item pilot questionnaire. Factor analysis of responses revealed a 21-item instrument indicating three types of control beliefs: adaptive executive control, inflexible executive control, and irresolute executive control. In Study 2, the predictive validity of these conceptions was tested against the academic performance of 105 third-year university education students. Results indicated that students reporting adaptive executive control beliefs were more successful academically, while those students reporting inflexible or irresolute control beliefs were significantly less successful academically.     

Neuropsychological classification and treatment of dyslexia.

Evidence shows that initial and advanced learning to read are predominantly mediated by the right and left cerebral hemispheres, respectively. Premature reliance on left-hemispheric reading strategies may result in L-type dyslexia, characterized by hurried and inaccurate reading. P-type dyslexia, characterized by a slow and fragmented style of reading, may result from the inability to shift from the predominant generation of right-hemispheric reading strategies to the predominant generation of left-hemispheric reading strategies. Results of investigations concerning the validity of the L/P-typology are discussed, as are the reading effects of hemisphere-specific and hemisphere-alluding stimulation in children with L- and P-type dyslexia.     

Ensuring Content‐Area Learning by Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities

Three factors tied with secondary student success in content‐area reading are demonstrated: (a) validated teacher‐focused and student‐focused interventions, (b) integrated and comprehensive service delivery systems, and (c) well‐designed, data‐based professional developmental programs. Difficult challenges face secondary students with LD and their teachers with regard to these students’ participation and success in required general education classes. Recently, instructional methods and materials have been developed and validated for promoting these students’ success. Some of them focus on how general education teachers plan and teach their content‐area courses; others focus on giving students the strategies they need to respond independently to the demands of their courses. This article describes these instructional methods, a service‐delivery model for implementing these interventions in secondary schools, and professional‐development mechanisms and administrative support that must be in place for the model to be maintained effectively.     

Expectations,observations, and violations: Comparing their effects on course ratings

Knowledgeable observers generally agree that students can give reasonably unbiased assessments of their classes, as long as proper instruments and procedures are used. These same observers agree, however, that more research is needed to understand the subtle dynamics which affect evaluations. Students' expectations (obtained on the first day) and the violation of these expectations are two possible factors. Their effects on students' final interest and future intentions are compared with students' actual reports of the class given at the end of the semester (n=196). Regression analysis using a simultaneous entry of expectations, expectancy violations, and final reports shows that students' reports at the end of the course account for almost all of the explained variance in the course rating items.