What Preservice Teachers Learn by Using Games in Tutoring.
Mary Timothy, Ed.D.
Arthur Quickenton,
Ph.D.
Gayle Turner, Ph.D.
With the concern and movement towards better teacher preparation, universities are implementing tutoring as one possibility for early field experience. Tutoring allows preservice teachers to explore different opportunities and ways to practice strategies and methods to help children learn. Research has been conducted about tutoring in regards to successful tutoring programs. Often children have difficulty learning concepts (Murphy, 2000). The literature supports the use of games as a tool to help children learn and apply concepts. This study examines the potential benefits preservice teachers receive from using games as a tool in helping children comprehend concepts during tutoring in math content area reading. The researchers argue that games are typically under utilized in K-12 classroom instruction and in tutoring. This paper explores this assertion through an examination of relevant literature and research data. Central to this task is the development in preservice teachers of an understanding of the use of games in learning. Components of this understanding include several key elements: (a) games can provide an introduction to a subject, (b) game playing, and the creation of self-generated games can encourage the development of higher order thinking skills, (c) games can provide drill and practice in the selected subjects, and (d) games can be used as a form of assessment.
Movements for educational reforms call for changes in teaching practices, yet it is difficult to change core teaching beliefs and practices (Borko, Flory, & Cumbo, 1993). Change can begin in teacher education programs. This study considers what preservice teachers learn from creating and playing games as a form of tutoring in math. The study examines preservice teachers tutoring fieldnotes/reflections and surveys.
Games
Games have
a history of use in some fields of K-12 instruction, particularly in English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms (Domke,
1991; Holt, 1995). According to Holt (1995), the use of age-appropriate games
enhances instruction in language and literacy development. Domke
(1991) reported on ESL instruction in the former
Games used as an introduction to a topic or subject can help student reinforce background knowledge. In a study by Hitchcock (2002), he used role-playing games to introduce a time period/topic to be studied. The game motivated his students and they exceeded Hitchcock’s expectations. Hitchcock found that playing the game should not be too complicated and should be interesting enough so that students will spend more time playing the game rather than learning how to play the game.
Game playing has also been conceived of as a form of learning by theorists such as Piaget, Montessori, and Vygotsky. Piaget (1962) believed that it is through various forms of play that children both construct knowledge and promote their cognitive development. Montessori (1912) noted that play is children’s work, while Vygotsky (1978) argued that play is central to both the emotional and cognitive development of the child. When children themselves create games to play, they choose the rules they wish to use to negotiate their play, and hence internalize those rules in the process of creation and implementation of the game (King, 1986). Creating and playing games teaches children reasoning strategies and skills; while playing manufactured games such as checkers, according to Fernie (1988), teaches offensive and defensive alternatives within the clear conceptual frame of the game. Games also can motivate children intellectually. Many researchers have found that games motivate students in mathematics by providing them with an enjoyable structure for recalling and restructuring their knowledge (Carr, 1990; Clark, 1997; Fernie, 1988; Hartog & Brosnan, 1994; Hitchcock, 2000; Suydam, 2000).
One key to
mastering math is frequent practice. However, repetitive math worksheets are
tiresome to both students and teachers (
Often teachers will use games as a
form of drill and practice. May (1998) stated that key to mastering math was
frequent practice. She found that by using games as a form of practicing math,
students retained the concepts. Bingo (commercial or teacher-made) can be used
to reinforce number recognition and concentration (Holt, 1995). ESL classrooms
will use Word Bingo (teacher-made) to help students listen for vocabulary words
used in a song (Domke, 1991). Math Bingo,
teacher-made, was used by a
Games allow instructors to assess student learning. In traditional forms of reading assessment, it does not allow instructors to see the process involved in reading, but lets the teacher infer how the student has comprehended (Powell, 1989). In traditional math assessment, the answer is either right or wrong (Lampert, 1988). The math process may not even be seen by the assessor.
Standardized testing has been on the increase across the nation (Powell, 1989; Clark, 1997). Both Presidents Clinton and Bush have proposed national standardized testing in math. According to Ratnesar & Ghosh (1997), “Education experts agree that American public schools badly need tougher—and higher—national standards. National testing would enable parents and schools to measure an individual student’s performance against a common yardstick.” (p.68) However, those opposed to national testing claim that results from math tests (Ratnesar & Ghosh, 1997; Wiggins, 1990) will classify poor and minority students as educationally inadequate. A second concern is that the test results will weigh too heavily in the decision to promote a child to the next grade (Ratnesar & Ghosh, 1997). National testing also could label schools and teachers with low performances on tests, as failures without examining other important factors such as parental socioeconomic status, per pupil expenditure, classroom size, and intervention programs (Ratnesar & Ghosh, 1997). With this kind of pressure on performance, some teachers “teach towards the test.” Opponents argue that standardized math texts only examine rote memorization; that is, the recall of what is learned out of context (Nikiforuk, 2001; Ratnesar & Ghosh, 1997; Wiggins, 1990), while critical thinking skills and application are not assessed (Wiggins, 1990). Therefore, teaching to these tests results in a curriculum that is filled with worksheets and rote memorizations and devoid of problem solving and critical analysis. Introducing games into such a curriculum will increase student opportunities for critical thinking and problem solving. In addition, game playing can be used in assessing higher order student learning.
Often teachers and researchers look for “authentic” assessments to discover what children are really learning from math (Powell, 1986; Wiggins, 1990). Authentic assessment requires a performance of acquired knowledge in pursuit of a worthy task, whereas traditional modes of assessment, such as standardized tests, assess what students recognize or recall. Wiggins (1990) contends that teaching wich employs authentic modes of assessment improves both teaching and learning; students perform what they have learned, while teachers can directly see how instruction relates to performance. We
see game playing as a movement toward more authentic assessment.
Students enter teacher preparation programs for many personal reasons, a good number are personal. They come to these programs with existing ideas about teaching and content areas (Knowles & Holt-Reynolds, 1991; Pajares, 1993). One idea students bring with them is the fear of math, and the teaching of math. Preservice teachers may also believe that teaching is transmitting knowledge by standing in front of the class and manipulating what information is shared, or knowing how to present knowledge in such a way that learning appeals to students (Feiman-Nemser, 1985; Holt-Reynolds, 1994). Preservice teachers that enter teacher preparation programs have explicit and idealistic ideas of what teaching is from personal histories as students (Blanton, 1999; Carr, 1998; Knowles & Holt-Reynolds, 1991). These preconceived ideas held by preservice teachers must be challenged to provide for the possibility of new ways of thinking about teaching and learning. If we expect new teachers to be well informed and to have the flexibility to deal with new classroom situations, critical thinking must then be an essential component of preservice teacher education programs (Knapp, 1992).
Tutoring
Tutoring gives preservice teachers a small taste of teaching in a one-to-one situation by reading with students, supervising homework, and stimulating learning. Tutoring allows preservice teachers to become involved in schools with students (Fischetti, Maloy, & Heffley, 1988) and apply what they are learning (Roskos, Boehlen, & Walker, 2000). It fosters the opportunity to learn how to connect with individual students and how to design instruction that will support their learning (Roskos, Boehlen, & Walker, 2000). Tutors can put into practice what is being learned in the college classroom, by working with individual students while not having the responsibility of dealing with whole classrooms (Korthagen, 1985).
Bates (1984) studied the effects of tutoring reading with secondary education majors. These preservice teachers found tutoring contributed to their professional growth by practicing what they learned, while at the same time reducing anxiety, and promoting positive attitudes. Data suggests that preservice teachers engaged in tutorial programs learned not only about students but themselves through developing higher thinking skills, better communication skills, and good work habits along with reviewing content material (Gausted, 1993; McIntyre, Bryd, & Foxx, 1996). The benefits of tutoring increase if reflection is included in the experience and program (McIntyre, Bryd, & Foxx, 1996; Pajares, 1993). Tutoring provides an excellent opportunity for preservice teachers to explore personal inquiry regarding their beliefs, strategies, methods, and learning.
Method
According to Bogden & Biklin (1998), "If you want to understand the way people think about their world and how those definitions are formed you need to get close to them, to hear them talk, and observe them in their day-to-day lives" (p.32). Qualitative methods were chosen as a form of naturalistic inquiry, which allowed the researchers to approach the setting and the participants without a predetermined hypothesis (Patton, 1990). In the setting in which we collected data, the tutors were assigned to work with students one-on-one, or in small groups.
Participants
Participants in this study were
nine preservice teachers enrolled in their first
educational course in one of the larger teacher education programs in the
southeastern
Nine preservice teachers submitted on-line teacher belief surveys and student biographies at the beginning of the semester. They were collected and examined using content analysis to establish which preconceived ideas were exhibited by the tutors. Tutors’ individual on-line fieldnotes/reflections were collected and examined for emerging themes. Three raters independently examined the data for common themes regarding their attitude towards games and the use of games during tutoring. After the raters completed the independent analysis, they met to discuss the findings and emerging themes.
Data Analysis
For this study, multiple sources provide data: (1) Teacher Beliefs survey, (2) student biographies, and (3) student fieldnotes/reflections. The first two established preservice teachers thinking (preconceived ideas) prior to tutoring. The latter is a reflection of changing perceptions.
The literature establishes that students came to teacher preparation programs with pre-existing ideas regarding teaching. Prior to tutoring, tutors completed a Teachers Belief the survey. The survey focused on tutors’ beliefs about learning, through asking for response questions such as: What is learning? How do children learn? What is teaching? Why do children succeed or fail? Through their responses to the questions on the survey, the tutors were encouraged to express what they though they knew about teaching and children.
Student biographical surveys were completed by students at the beginning of the course. The biographies included students' educational histories, their beliefs and perceptions regarding teaching, and reflections on their relationship to schooling. The biographical survey focused on individual preservice teacher’s experiences in public school. The survey asked questions such as: What topics and subject matter were easy and difficult for you to learn and why? Describe your prior school. What strengths do you think you have that will assist you in becoming your ideal of the “good teacher”?
Once the tutoring began, the tutors were required to post fieldnotes/reflections weakly through a course webpage. The nature of the fieldnotes/reflections varied from student to student. Some tutors submitted fieldnotes which were short and descriptive, while others showed depth and perception. Nonetheless, the fieldnotes/reflections revealed students' perceptions about what they were doing, and why. Approximately fifty fieldnotes, from the nine participating students, were examined. The fieldnotes/reflections asked students to examine their experiences after each tutoring session through a series of motivating questions in a structured manner.
The two survey results (biographical survey, and Teacher Belief survey), and fieldnote/reflections were compiled and coded for emerging themes and categories. Responses were tabulated across students by questions and general patterns were described.
Results
The Teacher Beliefs surveys gathered data from nine tutors participating in after-school tutoring. Their responses about teachers and learners indicated certain preconceived ideas of teaching:
(1) Teaching is the transmission of knowledge: that is, “I teach-you learn.”
(2) Teaching is what it was for me in my own schooling. Seventy-seven percent of preservice teachers replied that learning was the gaining of knowledge. One tutor wrote, “Learning is the ability to gain knowledge, experience, and ‘instinct.’ This may seem like a dictionary definition but it is what I believe learning is.”
(3) Learning is the processing of knowledge. Thirty-three percent claimed learning was through the process of knowledge. A tutor responded, “Learning is the ability to process information of a subject matter into understanding it.”
(4) Children fail to learn largely through their own fault. Eighty-eight percent said it was the child’s responsibility if the child failed to learn, sixty-six percent blamed teachers, and forty-four percent held parents responsible.
Reviewing tutor's ideas about teaching and learning revealed a focus on teachers, and on students being responsible for their own learning. When tutors responded regarding their own learning experiences via the student biographies, two areas were most evident in the responses: interest in subject matter and the qualities of the teacher. When asked why some subject matter was easy and others difficult to learn, 99 percent responded that subject interest was the key to succeeding and/or failure.
When asked about their strengths they have that will assist them in teaching, the answers varied. Forty-four percent said interest in people was their strength, while 33 percent said it was their knowledge base. However, 100 percent believed they were strong in their content area knowledge, while 33 percent believed content area knowledge would be a strength in their teaching. Prior to tutoring, the tutors believed that teaching would be easy if they cared enough about the students and had content knowledge. They thought that they would be able to go to tutoring and relate information and the students would learn.
In analyzing the fieldnotes several patterns emerged. Some of the reflections shed light on what was occurring with the tutors and their own learning. Five major themes emerged from the fieldnotes/reflections: (a) traditional teaching methods were appealing, (b) games were not learning, (c) games could be used as rewards and motivators, (d) there was a need to create games, and (e) games could be used to teach concepts. At the beginning of the semester, tutors did not believe games were teaching tools. In the early fieldnotes/reflections, most students referred to tutoring as re-teaching math using traditional methods such as using worksheets for repetitive practice. One student wrote:
My kids got extra practice on multiplication problems today because they all had a bunch of worksheets with multiplication on it. I hope they have a better understanding of this concept and will need my help even less next time on this subject.
Another tutor explained her process of helping children learn long division. She wrote:
One of the steps of long division is multiplication. It intrigues me to see my girls doing multiplication on their fingers. I am glad that they get the right answers, but at the same time it saddens me to see that they had lost their speed in doing so. Next time I might drill them a little on multiplication to see where their skills are.
These tutors were exposed to worksheets and drill and practice as they learned mathematics in their own K-12 schooling, and as would be expected from the literature, often tutors rely on personal experiences to help them tutor.
Occasionally in tutoring, children will not need help with homework. This often frustrates tutors. One tutor wrote when she encountered this:
What has worked well for me is playing games with the kids. It is not fun for them or me to do their homework because usually they can just do it on their own. So, playing games has helped me to bond with them, but it is not tutoring.
Later in the semester, this same tutor discovered that she could combine games and tutoring.
I introduced the game, “dots” to them, and they caught on quickly and really enjoyed it. I felt great that I had taught them something, and they were having fun at the same time. The game involves strategy and using one’s mind, so it really did have an academic purpose. I noted one of the girls teaching the game to someone else later. I felt quite satisfied that I had passed something on that they had used.
At the outset of the tutoring experience, tutors were apprised that games were available at the tutoring site. Some tutors used them only as rewards and motivators; the idea that games could teach math concepts had not occurred to them, though the subject had been covered in the pre-tutoring workshops. One student reflected, “I am going to take away that twenty four game [homework assignment] with me and maybe use it for fun with the kids when they get done with their homework early.” Here a game was presented in a homework assignment and the tutor saw it as a game to use as a reward for getting work done early. Another tutor used games as a break from learning and doing homework. This tutor wrote:
I wanted to spend some time playing a game with my students to continue to show them that math is fun. Using the girls’ homework to show them to use reasoning skills, we were able to get two things done at once. The girls enjoyed the game of Uno as they needed a break from their homework before they went home.
The tutor continued to say that she had to constantly to keep the girls on task while they were doing their math homework.
As the semester progressed, tutors views of games started to change, as reflected in the fieldnotes. Some tutors began to think about creating games to help teach a concept, or to use games as an alternative to worksheets. One tutor reflected:
I will create new challenging games dealing with numbers to increase her attention and awareness in math. This way she can relate to her homework along with fun number games and math won’t be too boring for her.
Another tutor shared her ideas about starting to use games as a way to teach math. She wrote:
I was a little frustrated with the multiplication problems, because they are of course so easy and fast for me to do. I was trying to thing back to how I had learned to do them so well once upon a time. I felt like I needed a game or something to help them understand what I was explaining.
Towards the end of the semester, students became more comfortable using games as a teaching strategy and games became a part of the tutoring experience. This was evident when tutors started playing games before and during tutoring and also bringing games they had created that related to the concept the students were learning. One tutor wrote:
When he was having trouble with math word problems, another boy took out some money and gave my student situations using the money. My student thought it was a game and loved it, not even realizing that he was learning a math skill at the same time.
Another tutor taught her students the game Buzz. She was hesitant about using the game, but found it was successful. She wrote:
Games can help a student learn things as much as a worksheet. Games will also entertain the student and the teacher more. This also allows teachers and students to interact and students to interact with one another if the group is big enough. I was nervous about this game with the fourth graders since it is somewhat challenging for adults who play. I look forward to playing it again.
Different tutors used different games to teach different concepts. One tutor used the game of Crazy 8 to help her teach math. She reflected:
I wanted to show them how math can be fun by playing Crazy 8’s and incorporating some math into the set-up of the games. During the game, I was able to integrate math problems such as how many cards they had in their hand by doing subtraction and division. By doing that, they were able to see a reason for math.
Not all the tutors learned that playing games enhanced tutoring in math and reading skills. However, many of the tutors did learn the importance of games in helping students understand concepts and problem solving.
For a significant number of preservice teachers in this study, tutoring opened their minds to new ideas about schools, teaching, learners, and assessment. Preservice teachers came to tutoring with preconceived ideas about teaching and children; however, the tutoring experince provided an opportunity for preservice teachers to re-examine their existing ideas regarding teaching and learning, and allowed them to construct meaning from these new experiences.
Discussion
This study examines what preservice teachers learn from creating and playing games as a form of tutoring in math. Tutoring impacted preservice teachers by encouraging them not only to view schools, teaching, and learners from the perspective of a professional entering his or her chosen field, but also to examine math strategies and practices. Preservice teachers had the opportunity to examine what they thought they knew, and to reshape their beliefs regarding the teaching and tutoring of math. Tutoring gave preservice teachers the opportunity (a) to confront and re-evaluate prior beliefs and preconceived knowledge and (b) to construct new meaning through sensory and cognitive experiences gained in the relationship between tutors and students, materials, and ideas. Tutoring placed preservice teachers into the schools where they examined homework and lesson plans given by teachers, and were able to participate first-hand in experiencing how children learn.
The two surveys and fieldnotes indicated that tutors learned about the work of teachers through homework the teachers assigned to their students. Some of the teachers were also available to the tutors for clarification and directions. Tutors did not see teachers implementing the curriculum during the school day, but they did experience developing and playing games to help students connect with homework. Often tutors were surprised by how students at different grade levels reacted to learning through games.
Initially, tutors described themselves as having a mastery of math content. However, once tutoring started, the tutors became frustrated as they tried to explain math to their students. Though the tutors themselves knew how to do the work, they were unable to explain how they were doing it. Tutors began to see that using games could help them explain something to their students by demonstrating math concepts. Tutors began to see how children learn; they began to learn what motivates children, and to understand what interests them. Some tutors confronted reconceptualizing teaching by considering the use of games as a learning strategy instead of as a reward. One tutor wrote:
She [the student] wants to get her homework done as much as she can and she doesn’t allow time for us to do other things because she would rather finish her homework. My question arise[s], if it is better to finish her homework or is it better to provide extra time to play games and not finish her homework. I feel that I should allow time for us to play math games and apply what she is doing in class.
The exploration of methods and materials through tutoring was beneficial to tutors as they prepared to become teachers; one tutor found that making multiplication flash cards with her student was more beneficial to the students’ learning than completing worksheets assigned as homework. Other tutors invented their own manipulatives for helping students complete worksheets.
Preservice teachers brought with them preconceived ideas regarding games and traditional methods of teaching and tutoring. Their initial ideas regarding education were rooted in their own schooling experiences (Knowles & Holt-Reynolds, 1991; Pajares, 1993). When confronted with new ideas about playing games, preservice teachers reverted to their own schooling, where games were rewards for completing work early. Without constructive intervention, preservice teachers most likely will teach as they were taught. Tutoring was implemented as a required component of preservice teacher education to encourage students to look beyond their established beliefs and examine schooling through a teacher's eyes. The availability of games in a tutoring setting encouraged tutors to develop a revised conception of the nature and purpose of games.
Tutors also learned that simply telling, and then showing students how something is done was not sufficient. Tutors became frustrated when students did not understand what they were told. Tutors began to learn to create a learning situation around which the student was then able to construct meaning. Some tutors used manipulatives, games, context clues (shopping, making change, telling time) and drawing problems to help students understand math concepts and problems.
Most tutors initially believed there was a "formal" mode of teaching through which knowledge should be transmitted. Tutoring, perhaps, opened them up to the possibility that games, puzzles, and other activities, which for them were not commonly associated with teaching, were in fact beneficial to the students and themselves. Tutors mentioned they re-examined their earlier beliefs regarding the nature of teaching and the variety of methods available to help students learn what was presented. Initially, tutors were hesitant to include games for fear they would interfere with the students’ homework; they saved games to serve as a reward when homework was completed. Once tutors began to try the different games available, they realized how math concepts were integral to the games. We believe this study points to avenues for assisting preservice teachers developing notions of teaching and learning that will encourage them to transcend notions of teaching as simply the transmission of knowledge.
References
Bates, G.W. (1984). The
effects of early field experience tutoring in reading on
secondary majors' attitudes, expectations and
teaching effectiveness. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association.
Blanton, W. (1999) Conceptual Framework
for the RCOE. Boone, N.C: The
Appalachian
Bogdan, R.C.,
& Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative
research in education: An introduction
to
theory and methods.
Borko, H., Flory, M., & Cumbo, K. (1993,
April). Teachers’ ideas and
practices about
assessment and instruction. A case study of the effects of alternative assessment
in instruction, student learning and accountability practices. Paper presented at
the meeting of
American Educational Research Association,
Carr, K.S. (1990). How can we teach critical thinking? ERIC Digest (EDD00036). Office
of Educational
Research and Improvement,
Clark, F. (1997). Let the games begin. Teaching PreK-8 27(4) 44-46.
Domke, D. (1991). Creative activities for teaching English as a foreign language. ERIC
Digest
(ED333713). Office on Languages and Linguistics,
Feiman-Nemser,
S. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher
preparation.
Record 87 (1), 53-65.
Fernie, D. (1988). The nature of children’s play. ERIC Digest (ED307967). Office on
Elementary
and Early a Childhood Education,
Fischelli, J., Maloy, R. & Heffley, J. (1988-89). Undergraduates tutoring in secondary
school: Collaborative opportunities for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, X(4). 9-14.
Gaustad, J. (1993) Peer and cross-age tutoring. ERIC Digest 79, Clearing House on
Educational Management,
www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed354608.html. 1-4.
Hitchcock,
A.A. (2000). Improving learning,
retention of knowledge, and attitude of
students in a vocational-technical college through interactive computer
technology. Ed.D. Practicum Report,
Holt, G.M. (1995). Teaching low-level adult ESL learners. ERIC Digest (EDD00036).
Office
of Educational Research and Improvement,
Holt-Reynolds, D. (1994). When agreeing with the professor is bad news for preservice
teacher education: Jeanneane, her personal story, and coursework. Teacher Education Quarterly 1 (1), 13-35.
King, N.
(1986). Play and the culture of childhood. In G. Fein
& M. Rivkin (Eds.), The
young child at play.
Knapp, C.E. (1992). Thinking in outdoor inquiry. ERIC Digest Clearing House on Rural
Education
and Small Schools,
Knowles, J.G. & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1991). Shaping pedagogies through personal
histories
in preservice teacher education.
Korthagen, A.J. (1985). Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the
Lampert, M. (1988). The
teacher’s role in reinventing the meaning of mathematical
knowing in the classroom. The institute for Research on Teaching, College of
Education,
May, L. (1998). Practice makes perfect. Teaching PreK-8 29(1) 3.
McIntyre, D.J., Bryd, D.M., & Foxx, S.M. (1996). Field and laboratory experience.
Handbook of Research on Teaching Education,
2nd Edition, 171-193.
Murphy, S.J. (2000). Teaching math, reaching kids. Teaching PreK-8(1) 4, 51-54.
Montessori, M. (1912). The
Montessori method.
Nikiforuk, A. (2001). A Formula for failure. Canadian Business 74(3) 70-74.
Pajares, F.
(1993). Preservice teachers' beliefs: A focus
for teacher education. Action in
Teacher Education, 15(2), 45-54.
Patton,
M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and
research methods,
Sage Publications.
Piaget,
J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in
childhood.
Powell, J.L. (1989). How well do tests measure read reading? ERIC Digest (ED306552).
Office
on
Ratnesar, R., & Ghosh, C. (1997). A tempest over national testing. Time 150(12) 68.
Roskos, D., Boehlen, S., Walker, B.J. (2000) Learning the art of instructional
conversation: The influence of self-assessment on teachers' instructional discourse in a reading clinic. The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 229-252.
Suydam, M.N. (2000). The role of review in mathematics instruction. ERIC Digest
(ED2660891). Office for Science Mathematics and Environmental
Education,
Vygotsky,
L.S. (1962). Thought
and Language.
Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. ERIC Digest (ED3288611).
Office on Tests Measurement and Evaluation,