ANNOTATED JOURNAL #3: Praxis II Exams

Brown, J.R., Brown, L.J., & Brown, C.L. (2008). "Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs ... and the sign says:" You got to have a praxis II membership card to get inside. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 29-42.

Kahn, J. H. & Nauta, M.M. (2001). Social-cognitive predictors of first-year college persistence: The Importance of proximal assessment. Research in Higher Education, 42 (6), 1-20.

McKernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and Imagination. New York, NY: Routledge.

Preparation for the Praxis II Exam (18th ed.). (2005). Lawrenceville, NJ: Thomson Peterson's.

Schoonover, B. (2003). Future OSU educators among best in nation. The Lantern.
Retrieved February 4, 2009 from www.thelantern.com.

Professional Concept

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 sets a goal for all subjects to be taught by Highly Qualified Teachers. Praxis tests are “designed to measure the academic proficiencies of students entering or completing teacher preparation programs and individuals seeking professional certification” (“Preparation for the Praxis II,” 2005). Each teacher candidate takes the Praxis II tests to provide proof of basic proficiency in content areas through the Multiple Subjects Assessment for Teachers and Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT).

The Ohio Department of Education states “successful completion of the Praxis II test(s) is designed to ensure that candidates for licensure have acquired the minimal knowledge necessary for entry level positions” (http://www.ode.state.oh.us/) Hence, the Praxis is a starting point – an entry gate for new teachers. But does passing Praxis II make teachers effective educators? A look at the benefits and pitfalls of the Praxis II exams (PLT and Content Area) follows next. Research findings will be discussed throughout. Lastly, Capital University’s competency in regards to preparing students to pass the Praxis II exams will be examined.

Positives of Praxis II

The Praxis II tests are used by approximately 80% of all states as a measure of individuals’ content and pedagogical skills (Brown et al., 2008). In administering the tests, all teacher candidates are evaluated using the same criteria which can be seen as an equitable way to compare students from different teacher education programs. Passing scores satisfy one of the requirements of NCLB, namely state certification or licensure. Additionally, one of the values of Praxis assessment is its ability to show the changes teacher education programs need to make in order to prepare future teachers more effectively. The results of Praxis tests can be used to show what areas institutions do well in and what areas need improvement in regards to teacher preparation.

Pitfalls of Praxis II

McKernan states that “education implies the ability not to acquire skills and abilities, but to go beyond these by using knowledge, skills and abilities in a creative and imaginative fashion” (p.90). Praxis II exams only assess the acquisition of skills, which is only a small part of successful teaching. Moreover, McKernan (2008) points out the many newly trained teachers never enter the professions of teaching, and of those who do, nearly “50 percent leave within the first five years” (p. 44). Praxis II does not address this major failure of our teacher education system.

The fact that the Praxis II exam does not address attrition rates is not so much a drawback of Praxis tests alone, but all standardized tests. For instance, a study by Kahn and Nauta (2001) recommends that scores on college entrance exams (e.g., ACT scores) serve as only one predictor of college persistence and success. Brown, Brown, & Brown (2008) point out that the Praxis II tests fail to address both the aptitude or disposition of a candidate for teaching. In addition, they show that prior research finds no empirical relationship between positive Praxis scores and positive job performance.

Furthermore, Brown et al. contend that those who score well on the SAT test and complete a teacher education program will test well on Praxis II tests. More research is needed to determine the reasons for this strong correlation, but it certainly suggests that those who test well before teacher education programs and complete an education program will continue to perform proficiently on further standardized tests.

Other findings show low scores on Praxis II may not be an indication of low knowledge, but a failure of teacher education programs to use the same vocabulary as on the tests (Schoonover, 2003). However, Brown et al contend that the availability of practice tests over the years reduces the effect of the unknown on the test. Teacher preparation programs typically adjust to use the terminology of the tests in order to better prepare their students. One might also think that teacher preparation programs alter course work in an effort to prepare students to perform well on the test.

Another difficulty with Praxis testing is that not all states use Praxis Tests, and those that do have different testing requirements for licensure. Assessing scores on the Elementary Education PLT (K - 5) range from a value of 152 in Missouri to a high of 169 in Nevada. Ohio requires a score of 168. The target score for ETS Recognition of Excellence on the same test is 185. Why the different states require different passing scores in not clear. Regardless, the differences should not necessarily be a problem when it is argued that the Praxis tests are not a true measure of teacher excellence.

Capital University & Praxis II

According to the Ohio Department of Education website, Capital University is deemed an “effective” institution, as 88% pass the Principles Learning and Teaching (PLT) 5-9 exam, 97% pass the PLT 7-12, 94 % pass the Early Childhood Education content area exam, and 100% pass the Music Content Knowledge exam. But one must not jump to causation and assume that Capital’s program and faculty are the sole reason behind this success. Capital may just attract students who are passionate about teaching and willing to study outside of class for the Praxis II exam. While there certainly must be a positive correlation with high Praxis passing rates and Capital’s program, evidence remains correlational at present.

However, the question remains whether those who pass the Praxis II from Capital University have a lower risk of attrition than other university graduates. Perhaps tK20 will allow for the collection of such data in the next few years. Empirically, Capital seems to do a good job of representing the realities of teaching to students, and helping them identify if teaching is truly the right profession for them. For now, it is safe to conclude though that passing the Praxis II exam while attending Capital or afterwards is highly likely.

Annotated Bibliography: Certification Tests vs. College

Jonas, Peter M. and Don Weimer. “Non-traditional vs. Traditional Academic Delivery Systems: Comparing ETS Scores for Undergraduate Students in Business Programs, 1996-1999.” Abstract. Resources in Education (1999).

McKernan, James. Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy, and Action Research. New York: Routledge Press, 2008.

Murray, Charles. “For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time.” The Wall Street Journal. 13 Aug. 2008. 13 Jan. 2009

Qualities Employers Look For Career and Community Learning Center, U of Minnesota. 25 Jan. 2009

Robinson, Ryan P. & Doverspike, Dennis. “Computers in Teaching: Factors Predicting the Choice of an Online Versus a Traditional Course.” Teaching of Psychology (2006): 64-68.


Charles Murray in his 2008 article “For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time,” attacks the bachelor’s degree, framing it as a “cruel” and “insane” system that provides few individuals with success. He comments that only a “handful of majors,” tell an employer anything specific about an applicant’s knowledge or skill level. He proposes that the solution to this problem is “not better degrees, but no degrees (1).” Specifically, Murray contends that national certification tests are the best means to show an applicant’s qualifications. He suggests that the CPA exam used for accountants should be viewed as the certification prototype to be replicated by all other disciplines.

While Murray’s point that the current system of degrees is flawed is somewhat valid, his solution seems to have many weaknesses. Firstly, Murray has failed to see any negative effects that will occur if a certification system is established. Secondly, Murray has disregarded some basic truths about how people learn best. Lastly, Murray has seemed to ignore many of the qualities employers are looking for in potential employees.

Murray’s claim that certification tests essentially have no drawbacks at the least invites speculation. For one, certification tests offer barriers to more people than just those “coasting through their years in college (2).” What about those working diligently who know their content, but are poor test takers? What about people with learning disabilities who may not be able to pass a certification test, but are highly qualified for their profession because of their interpersonal skills? What about English Language Learners (E.L.L.) who may have exemplary leadership skills, but are unaccustomed to standardized test formats or questions? Clearly, Murray has overlooked many potentially capable people who would be denied the opportunity to contribute to society because they cannot pass a test. Furthermore, if the poor test takers, students with learning disabilities, and E.L.L. students have to keep re-taking the certification test, the idea that certification tests are more cost-efficient is defeated.

Moreover, Murray seems to paint a picture that if a system of certification tests is put into place, everyone will rush to sign up for online courses and bypass traditional college. While a 1999 study by Peter Jonas and Don Weimer indicates that students in non-traditional accelerated business programs score as well, if not better, than traditional students in business programs at the same institutions (abstract), a 2006 study conducted by the University of Akron shows that students still prefer traditional programs. Specifically, the 2006 study found that “students’ attitudes and subjective norms toward an online course to be relatively negative compared to their preference for a traditional course (Robinson & Doverspike, 67).” Some students do not like how online learning hinders faculty and peer interaction. Still others have anxiety about the Internet and computer use in general (Robinson & Doverspike, 68). Hence, Murray seems to have overlooked the fact that while online courses may be less expensive, many students prefer traditional education. This makes sense when put into the context of Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory (1983). For instance, those that learn best by interacting with others would find online learning challenging. And online learning could be problematic for those individuals who are not visual or kinesthetic learners.

Just as students prefer multiple delivery modalities to learn material, employers prefer applicants who are well-rounded and flexible. If students are only preparing to pass a certification test, the chances that they will develop all of the skills an employer is looking for is greatly diminished. A multiple choice and essay certification test can only show one-dimension of someone. Employers are interested in more than just that one dimension. For example, The Career and Community Learning Center of the University of Minnesota, says knowledge is just one of several characteristics employers are looking for in employees. An ability to communicate effectively, to exercise maturity, to demonstrate flexibility, and to be a leader are all just as important as being academically strong.

A look at McKernan’s book, Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy, and Action Research, supports this notion of the detriments of preparing people only to pass tests. If Murray’s utopia of national certification tests were to come to fruition, our society would move closer to an uncreative, uniform civilization. Being able to pass tests would take precedence over anything else related to being valuable employees. The ability to communicate effectively, to work as a team player, to be a creative problem solver would become underdeveloped, as students would concentrate on passing a standardized exam.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ohio Department of Education Standards & McKernan’s Curriculum and Imagination

Looking at the social studies standards for second grade, I can see how McKernan’s idea that an objectives, outcomes-based model would inhibit depth. The indicators for History alone are quite lengthy, and when you consider history is just one of seven different benchmarks (e.g., geography, economics, government, etc.) that is to be covered in a year, one can see how a teacher may focus end up doing a glossary overview of things. Take for instance, the seventh indicator for History:

7. Recognize the importance of individual action and character and explain how they have made a difference in others’ lives with emphasis on the importance of:

a) Social and political leaders in the United States (e.g., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Tecumseh, Harriet Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr.)

b.) Explorers, inventors and scientists (e.g., George Washing Carver, Thomas Edison, Charles Drew, Rachel Carson and Neil Armstrong).

It is kind of unrealistic to expect children to learn all of this in any great detail along with nearly forty other indicators for social studies in one year. I don’t know if block scheduling is the solution to this dilemma of depth though, especially at the elementary level, children’s attention spans are rather short.

Based upon the words used to identify what students should be capable of doing at the end of the school year, I have to agree with McKernan that “an outcomes-based design is suitable for low-level rote learning instruction” (p. 87). A look at Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives for the cognitive domain (1956) shows that most indicators do not go beyond the first two levels of understanding, namely knowledge and comprehension. Take for example, the indicator mentioned earlier. The words recognize and explain are used, and these do not ask a student to think critically, make judgments, or apply their knowledge. Moreover, it is in the application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information that students have a chance to be imaginative and creative. The sheer bulk of low-level objectives that must be met though make it very difficult to allow for higher level orders of cognition. I suppose I must agree with McKernan then that “in a sense, to have objectives is to set limits to human speculation and development” (p.97).

A positive spin on this “low-level objectives” though is that “unanticipated, or unplanned, objectives or outcomes” are likely to be achieved if a teacher is imaginative in his or her instruction and allows for inquiry (p. 81). For instance, if a teacher decides that students will be able to hit this seventh indicator for History by assigning everyone in class one of the famous leaders or inventors above, and then having the class have a discussion where each student talks from the standpoint of their historical figure, than more than simple recall and comprehension is bound to take place. Students will likely immerse themselves into their new parts and want to be experts on their historical person’s life so that they seem credible and real. Also, students will likely want to show that their person is the “best,” so they will be motivated to show how their contributions to society were the most profound.

Even still though, I think McKernan does have a valuable point when he say that these objectives “reduces education to a production process rather than a creative and constructionist experience” for the vast majority of Ohio classrooms (p.90). I mean most teachers may look at the 7th indicator above and think well a few books and some worksheets can cover this standard. These teachers worried about covering every objective, may not stop and think of creative ways to allow students to gain not only this factual knowledge, but think critically about the lives of these social and political leaders, explorers, and inventors. But for the teacher that does stop to think and is concerned about stretching his or her student’s minds, open classroom discussions can take place about the contributions of George Washington Carver versus Thomas Edison or ponder what the world would be like if they hadn’t lived. In these discussions, teachers can “help students to become aware of their beliefs, attitudes, and values” and “detect bias and prejudice” (p. 93).

On another note, McKernan believes that “students should not be told what it is they will know, find, and be able to do as a result of their inquiries” (p. 39). I can see how by telling students objectives may be restricting, as students may then just concentrate on memorizing the facts and neglect to deeply think about things. However, can’t telling students the objectives help them to learn the information? I know that if I am told I will need to learn such and such, I tend to increase my level of focus so that I learn such and such. And is there something wrong with adjusting the standards to allow for higher level thinking. Students don’t need to know that the real 7th indicator is to “recognize the importance of individual action” highlighting the lives of George Washington, Harriet Tubman, etc., but can be told that they will need to be able to analyze and evaluate the lives of George Washington and Harriet Tubman.