Chapter 3: Research on History Tests¹

Testing has been a part of the American education landscape for well over 100 years. And, if anything, its presence is increasing: Central to George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation is more testing. Even states with well-established testing programs such as Maryland, New York, and Michigan are adding exams in order to meet new federal guidelines. Although the many problems associated with testing have not diminished, neither has policymakers’ faith in testing as a means of educational change.

Just as testing advocates line up their rationales, so too do testing critics line up theirs. Some of these rationales are based in empirical studies, but most are not. So in this chapter, I focus on the available research in order to address three questions that lie close to the heart of the testing debate. The first asks what tests can tell us about students’ understandings of history. The news here is not good, especially if one looks only at the national testing data. A couple of issues complicate this assessment, however. The second question centers on whether testing drives teaching. Although this assumption is largely accepted in some faculty rooms and in most state departments of education, I argue that the research literature offers little direct support for this claim. The final question explores the relationship between increasing the stakes for students and teachers and increasing educational standards and more ambitious teaching. Policymakers, and a good portion of the public, pin much hope on the common sense premise that more tests and higher stakes will yield better academic outcomes. The research evidence undercuts this optimism. Tests do matter to teachers and students as they construct their classroom lives, but whether tests matter in ways that promote higher standards and better teaching is unclear.