High-stakes testing (HST) of entire student cohorts, in which students undertake compulsory tests with an uncertain outcome but a potential benefit, is increasingly used as a policy tool by countries seeking to improve achievement. Long established in the United States, high-stakes testing programs have become prominent features of the accountability landscape in many countries. Researchers have documented the impacts of high stakes testing on schools, teachers, and students (e.g. Polesel et al., Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 640–657. 2014); (Segool et al., Psychology in the Schools, 50(5), 489–499. 2013); (Baker et al., Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis Archives, 21, 1–71. 2013). Often such research assumes that those involved in testing will value tests and their associated stakes equally and will respond in similar ways. However, different stakeholder groups – students, parents, teachers, school leaders and policymakers – will have different stakes in the outcomes of tests, and within each of these groups, the value placed on the stakes is likely to vary among individuals. How these stakes differ between stakeholders, the role that the value placed on stakes plays, and the effects of these aspects on responses to testing, often remain unexamined. In this paper we propose a theoretical framework of stakeholders and stakes drawing on expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. 2000). We theorise that the impact of testing will be influenced by stakeholder motivation and expectations in relation to stakes. We argue that this framework provides a starting point for the development of a more nuanced, multifaceted exploration of the impacts of testing, one that can encompass different stakes and differences in the value stakeholders place on them.
Rice et al. (Fri,) studied this question.