USING TPA as Inquiry for Improving TE Programs – the MINNESOTA MODEL

1. USING TPA as Inquiry for Improving TE Programs – the MINNESOTA MODEL Presentation for Minnesota TPA Liaisons Minnesota Department of Education 9:00am-12:00pm, December 19, 2011 Cathy Zozakiewicz TPAC Consultant, Stanford University

2. Introductions • Introduce yourself, your affiliation and one thing you hope to get out of today • Review of MN TPA Process So Far – My Outsider/Insider Perspective Based on My TPAC Travels Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

3. TPA Liaison Goals • Participate, as a faculty member in TPA as Inquiry for Improving our TE Programs • As you participate as faculty, be metacognitive and consider how this model will work and/or need to be modified for your TE program context • To ask questions about this process as a TPA Liaison, who may prepare and/or facilitate a similar session at your institution

4. OVERALL Goals/Outcomes • Briefly reorient ourselves to the architecture of the TPA including the conceptual framework, constructs of the rubrics, and the scoring process • Consider how to utilize quantitative and qualitative TPA data for program renewal/improvement • Review, analyze and map evidence to rubric concepts for a “Representative” TPA program sample in an appropriate Content Area – Elementary Literacy/4th Grade • Reflect upon our TE program content, practices and structures in light of the sample candidate’s strengths and areas of need in understanding and implementing effective teaching practices in the field

5. OUR GUIDING QUESTIONS • What do we value as teacher educators in preparing new teachers for the cycle of teaching: planning, academic language, instruction, assessment, and reflection and how does this align with what is measured in the TPA? • How effectively are candidates making sense of and performing the act of teaching? What do the data show in terms of teacher candidates’ understandings and professional performance? AND • How are we making sense of candidates’ performances and data in order to reflect upon, improve and have evidence-based dialogue about our own TE program, practices, and structures? What are the implications for our program in terms of what and how we teach?

6. WHAT TODAY IS NOT ABOUT: OUR BE CAREFULS TODAY IS NOT ABOUT: • ACCURATELY SCORING A TPA SAMPLE • CRITIQUING/EVALUATING THE PROGRAM FROM WHICH THE TPA SAMPLE CAME • CRITIQUING/JUDGING THE STUDENT TEACHER WHO COMPLETED THE SAMPLE • CRITIQUING THE TPA/TPA RUBRIC Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

7. TPAC GOALS TPAC is working to develop and implement at scale a way of assessing teaching that… • Provides evidence of teaching effectiveness, • Supports teacher preparation program improvement • Informs policy makers about qualities of teaching associated with student learning. TPAC is ONE example of an assessment system that is designed to leverage the alignment of policies and support program renewal. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

8. Accountability reframed ….as our professional responsibility USING INQUIRY How can we gather and use evidence of the qualities of teaching performance that inspire, engage, and sustain students as learners – to improve teachingand teacher preparation? Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

9. TPA Overview and Architecture Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

10. TPAC Lineage • National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) portfolio assessments – accomplished teachers • Connecticut BEST assessment system – teachers at end of induction • Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) – pre-service teachers Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

11. Standards and tPAC • Common Core alignment • InTASC alignment • NCATE/CAEP endorsement • SPA endorsement Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

12. Design Principles forEducative Assessment • Discipline specific and embedded in curriculum • Student Centered: Examines teaching practice in relationship to student learning • Analytic: Provides feedback and support along targeted dimensions. • Integrative: maintains the complexity of teaching • Affords complex view of teaching based on multiple measures Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

13. TPA Architecture • A summative assessment of teaching practice • Collection of artifacts and commentaries • “Learning Segment” of 3-5 days • Plans based on context and knowledge of students • Academic, social emotional and language development • Prior learning, lived experiences, family, community and cultural assets Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

14. TPAC Artifacts of Practice Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

15. Multiple Measures Assessment System TPAC Capstone Assessment Embedded Signature Assessments • Integration of: • Planning • Instruction • Assessment • Analysis of Teaching • with attention to Academic Language Child Case Studies Analyses of Student Learning Curriculum/Teaching Analyses Observation/Supervisory Evaluation & Feedback Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

16. Rubric progression • Early novice  highly accomplished beginner • Rubrics are additive and analytic • Candidates demonstrate: • Expanding repertoire of skills and strategies • Deepening of rationale and reflection • Teacher focus  student focus • Whole class  generic groups  individuals Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

17. Rubric blueprint

18. CONSIDERING BOTH SETS OF DATA • QUANTITATIVE DATA – RUBRIC SCORES AND NUMBER OF CANDIDATES WHO PASS/DEMONSTRATE COMPETENCY AND WHO DO NOT PASS/DO NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPETENCY • QUALITATIVE DATA – TPA SAMPLES – WHOLE TPAs OR INDIVIDUAL TASKS (PLANNING, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT, REFLECTION/ANALYZING TEACHING) Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

19. USING quantitative tpa data • Analyze scoring patterns of strengths and weakness (competency and failing) within and across program areas, and within and across TPA tasks. • Consider using electronic data platform to save and manipulate quantitative data across time for program improvement, accreditation and research purposes (for institutions and individual faculty). For example, at San Diego State University, we use Tableau for our TPA data. • Using data patterns, choose representative content area TPAs or TPA tasks to review and score for inquiry purposes as a whole faculty or in strategic faculty groups (including administrators as appropriate). Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

24. Targeted Competencies PLANNING • Planning for content understandings • Using knowledge of students to inform teaching • Planning assessments to monitor and support student learning INSTRUCTION • Engaging students in learning • Deepening student learning during instruction ASSESSMENT Analyzing student work Using feedback to guide further learning Using assessment to inform instruction REFLECTION Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness ACADEMIC LANGUAGE Identifying Language Demands Supporting students’ academic language development Evidence of language use Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

25. Competencies To Map - QUANTITATIVE DATA PLANNING 1. Planning for content understandings 2. Using knowledge of students to inform teaching ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 10. Identifying Language Demands 11. Supporting students’ academic language development PLANNING CONTINUED 3. Planning assessments to monitor and support student learning ASSESSMENT 6. Analyzing student work 8. Using assessment to inform instruction REFLECTION 9. Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

26. Discussing Academic Language • What are our present understandings/framings of academic language? • Why do we think it is included in the TPA? • How is it included in our present TE Program practices? • What are our questions about AL so far? Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

27. WHY include Academic Language IN TPA? • Academic language is different from everyday language. Some students are not exposed to this language outside of school. • Much of academic language is discipline-specific and deepens subject matter THINKING. • Unless we make academic language explicit for learning, some students will be excluded from classroom discourse and future opportunities that depend on having acquired this language. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

28. Academic Language • Academic language is the oral and written language used in school necessary for learning content. • This includes the “language of the discipline” (vocabulary and forms/functions of language associated with learning outcomes) and the “instructional language” used to engage students’ in learning content. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

29. Vocabulary • Technical vocabulary: triangle, metaphor, metabolize • Words whose technical meaning is different than everyday language: “balance” in chemistry, “plane” in mathematics, “ruler” in history/social science, “force” in science • Connector words: and, but, because, therefore, however Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

30. Three F Words The FUNCTIONSof Academic Language areto clearly and explicitly define, classify, analyze, explain, argue, interpret and evaluate ideas for distant audiences. Every language function has FORMS or structures that are common and often discipline specific (text, sentence or graphic/symbolic) Developing students’ FLUENCY in academic language forms and functions provides access to the “language of school” and academic success Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

31. Academic LanguageCompetencies Measured • Understanding students’ language development and identifying language demands • Supporting language demands (vocabulary, form and function) to deepen content learning • Identifying evidence that students understand and use targeted academic language in ways that support content learning and language development. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

32. Academic LanguageCompetencies Measured • Understanding students’ language development and identifying language demands • Supporting language demands (vocabulary, form and function) to deepen content learning • Identifying evidence that students understand and use targeted academic language in ways that support content learning and language development. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

33. Additional Resources • Jeff Zwiers • Building Academic Language: Essential Practices for Content Classrooms, Grades 5-12 • SIOP • Academic Language webinars archived on the TPAC Ning • Melanie Hundley - Tennessee • Ann Lippincott and Laura Hill Bonet Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

34. Context of classroom FOR TPA SAMPLE • Urban Elementary School • 4th grade, 30 students, 15 girls, 15 boys, 1 ELL, 2 STs id as Gifted and Talented • Several students with ADHD, 1 with Asperger’s and 1 with dev. delays – both STs go to another room for language arts each day Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

35. Planning Rubric 1 – PLANNING FOR UNDERSTANDING READ LESSONS AND COMMENTARY SECTIONS - 1. CHOICE OF LEARNING TASKS/MATERIALS & 2. LESSON SEQUENCE AND CONNECTIONS (Prompts 1, 3a-b). PAY ATTENTION TO EVIDENCE FOR THESE CENTRAL CONCEPTS. EL1: How do the candidate’s plans develop students’ abilities to comprehend or compose text through literacy skills and strategies? • Standards, objectives and learning tasks are aligned. Objectives define measurable outcomes. • Plans for instruction build on each other to support student learningof conventions/skills with connections to strategies for comprehending or composing text

36. EVIDENCE FOR Planning 1 (SEE DOC.) SEGMENT FOCUS: For students to apply pre-reading strategies to become more efficient readers and improve comprehension. Standard Grade 4: Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from text. Objectives: Activate PK to make predictions about text. Lesson 1: Introduce and define PK. Chart PK versus predictions by skimming 3 text pages selected in pairs. Share out with class. Whole group questions to check for understanding.

37. MORE EVIDENCE FOR Planning 1 Objective: Analyze text to make predictions. Lesson 2: Sts read pages in text, then skim next set of pages. Sts write 3-5 predictions based on skimming section. Sts close read to self assess predictions using rubric [not included]. Share out. Objective: Utilize BK on topic before reading it. Standard: Interpret information presented visually, orally… and explain how information contributes to understanding of text in which it appears Lesson 3: Brainstorm what do you know about Minneapolis whole group. KWL earthquakes teacher-lead. Teacher shares sample concept map on rainforest. Sts create map on text character.

38. MORE EVIDENCE FOR Planning 1 Objective: Infer based on reading of text. Lesson Plan 4: Mime actions to infer from with class discussion. Demonstrate inferring with cue cards, then pairs practice and review answers with teacher. Review definition of infer. Sts read text section – The Earth Shakes. Complete Collins Writing Assessment - write 5 sentences on inferences from text.

39. Excerpts From Planning commentary I feel that lesson sequence and connecting skills and strategies may have been one of the strengths of my TPA. On Mon., they made predictions using pictures. On Wed., they were handed sentence strips on LRRH and asked to use PK to put them in order. On Thur., teams competed in coming up with known facts about Minneapolis. And on Fri., they used what they knew to infer what I was during during charades. At the end of each anticipatory set, I reviewed key terms (PK, prediction), asking volunteers to define them for class. …From day to day, the pre-reading strategies became a little more complex, which allowed them to building on what they had previously practiced. Mon. and Wed. featured making predictions, Thurs. included graphic organizers to assist with reading, and Fri. was about using information to infer, which proved to be the most difficult for the students to grasp.

40. Planning Rubric 1 Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

41. Planning Rubric 2A- USING KNOWLEDGE OF STUDENTS EL2: How does the candidate use knowledge of his/her students to target support for students’ understandings of comprehending or composing text? • Plans draw on students’ prior knowledge and experiences, and social/emotional development or interests. • Planned tasks and/or scaffolding are tied to learning objectives and student characteristics, including 504 and IEP requirements.

42. Evidence Planning 2A • To Begin: • Review LPs & Read Plan. Commentary Prompts 2a-d, 3a, 3f – Knowledge of STs, Developmental Approximations, and Adaptations/Differentiation • Collect Evidence for Planning Concepts below: • Plans draw on students’ prior knowledge and experiences, and social/emotional development or interests. • Planned tasks and/or scaffolding are tied to learning objectives and student characteristics, including 504 and IEP requirements.

43. RECORDINNG Evidence FOR Planning 2A • Plans draw on knowledge of students: • Scaffolding:

44. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

45. Planning RUBRIC 2B • GQ EL 2B: How does candidate use knowledge of students to target support for students’ literacy development? Candidate uses examples of students’ prior learning and experience OR/AND relevant research/theory to justify learning tasks READ PLANNING SECTION ON: Social and Emotional Development (Prompt 5a)

46. EVIDENCE FORRUBRIC 2B Candidate uses examples of students’ prior learning and experience OR/AND relevant research/theory to justify learning tasks: • Discusses cultural and social experiences used (Simpsons, clock partners, culturally relevant content) • Refers to reading tests given without discussing how results are used in planning • Uses Piaget – claims students are at concrete operational stage and therefore, “majority of lesson planning takes this into account… with exception of lesson on inferences… bordering on formal operational.” • Explains Vygotsky and Zone of PD, and discusses what she does

47. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

48. ACAD. LANG. Rubric 10 –UNDERSTANDING LANG. DEV. AND LANG. DEMANDS READ COMMENTARY - ACAD LANG. (Prompts 2 a-b, 3b) and AL sections of lessons. EL10: How does the candidate use knowledge of students’ language development to identify a key language demand central to literacy learning? • Description of academic language development identifies strengths and needs. • Candidate identifies vocabulary and a language demand that are central to learning segment and appropriate to students’language development.

49. EVIDENCE FOR ACAD. LANGUAGE Rubric 10 Description of academic language development identifies strengths and needs. • Candidate identifies vocabulary and a language demand that are central to learning segment and appropriate to students’language development. EVIDENCE: How does candidate describe students academic language development? What is/are the identified vocabulary and language demands?

50. EVIDENCE FOR ACAD. LANGUAGE Rubric 10 Description of academic language development identifies strengths and needs. • Candidate identifies vocabulary and a language demand that are central to learning segment and appropriate to students’language development. EVIDENCE: Identifies predict and infer as language demands, and prior knowledge and predict as vocabulary. Refers to students needs in terms of reading levels, but not in connection to AL demands. Instead focuses more on what she as teacher will do.