Creating an Instructional Framework to Prepare Teacher Education Candidates for Success on a Performance-Based Assessment
Keywords:
Teacher Education, Performance-based Assessments, Instructional Framework, edTPA, Business Teacher EducationAbstract
Problem: Beginning in fall 2013, business teacher education (BTE) candidates at Illinois State University (ISU) were required to complete the Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA), which is a national performance-based, subject-specific assessment used by more than 600 teacher preparation programs in some 40 states to emphasize, measure, and support the skills and knowledge that all classroom teachers need from Day 1 (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2015).
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether increased teacher candidate preparation and support and greater instructor knowledge of the edTPA would result in higher candidate scores on the edTPA.
Method: After the first full year of pilot-testing (2013-2014), the BTE students averaged 31.57 out of a possible 75 points on the assessment. A score of 35 was considered successful. The BTE program was one of the lowest-scoring programs in the university during the pilot. Faculty members determined that several steps needed to be taken to assist BTE students in understanding and preparing for this new assessment. Consequently, faculty created an instructional framework to prepare students for the edTPA.
Findings: After implementing the framework, student edTPA scores increased to a mean score of 48.5. The results indicated that candidate success on the edTPA can be impacted by three factors: instructor knowledge, candidate preparation, and candidate supports. If any one of the three factors is deficient, candidates are not as prepared as they could be for successful completion of the performance-based assessment.
Downloads
References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2015). EdTPA>>FAQ. Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.org/faq#51
Assessment handbook for business education. (2013). Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity.
Business education Task 1: Planning commentary. (2015). Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity.
Business education Task 2: Instruction commentary. (2015). Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity.
Business education Task 3: Assessment commentary. (2015). Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity.
Chitpin, S., & Simon, M. (2009). “Even if no-one looked at it, it was important for my own development”: Pre-service teacher perceptions of professional portfolios. Australian Journal of Education, 53(3). doi:10.1177/000494410905300306
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120-138.
Delandshere, G., & Arens, S. A. (2003). Examining the quality of evidence in preservice teacher portfolios. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 57-73.
Denney, M. K., & Grier, J. M. (2012). Establishing a portfolio assessment framework for pre-service teachers: A multiple perspectives approach. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 425-437.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan.
Henry, G. T., Campbell, S. L., Thompson, C. L., Patriarca, L. A., Luterbach, K. J., Lys, D. B., & Covington, V. M. (2013). The predictive validity of measures of teacher candidate programs and perfomance: Towards an evidence-based approach to teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 439-453.
Jarde, A., Losilla, J. M., & Vives, J. (2012). Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies. International Journal of Clinical Health & Psychology, 12(1), 970-1008.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lord, H. G. (1973). Ex post facto studies as a research method: Special report No. 7320. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C.
Making good choices: A support guide for edTPA candidates. (2013). Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity.
McNelly, T. A. (2002). Evaluations that ensure growth: Teacher portfolios. Principal Leadership, 3, 55-60.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: NCATE.
Robichaux, R. R., & Guarino, A. J. (2012). The impact of implementing a portfolio assessment system on pre-service teachers’ daily teaching reflections in improvement, performance, and professionalism. Creative Education, 3(3), 290-
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sickle, M. V., Bogan, M. B., Kamen, M., Baird, W., & Butcher, C. (2005). Dilemmas faced establishing portfolio assessment of pre-service teachers in the Southeastern United States. College Student Journal, 39(3), 497-509.
Struyven, K., Blieck, Y., & De Roeck, V. (2014). The electronic portfolio as a tool to develop and assess pre-service student teaching competencies: Challenges for quality. Studies in Educational Evaluation. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.06.001
Understanding rubric level progressions. (2014). Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity.
