An evidence-based reflection on edTPA implementation and its impact on teacher preparationCorinne Donovan, Emily Kang, MaryJean McCarthy, Devin ThornburgAdelphi UniversityAlbany, New YorkJune 18, 2014
edTPA Score Results *Two students failed due to uploading issues Undergrad students are PE, Music and Art. Graduate students include all Masters programs plus the STEP (5 year BA/MA).
Methods Courses Mini edTPA’s starting 2 years prior to edTPA state licensure exam Science mini edTPA https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBaFA4aE9valJjZDA/edit?usp=sharing Math mini edTPA format https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBcmJlWTJrS1c4c2s/edit?usp=sharing Social Studies and Critical Literacy Unit Plan https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBMkxTQ0xHZWRBVmhvUmp3aW5oU2tnY0p4NGxv/edit?usp=sharing
edTPA Seminars Standing Fieldwork Committee created EdTPA Working Group. Chair shared edTPA seminar plan with Dean who secured support from University Administration to run 5 noncredit bearing, tuition-free edTPA seminars (January – March 2014). 1 in Physical Education and Health 1 in Special Education 1 in Adolescence 1 in our NYC location (mixed content) 1 in Childhood Education
edTPA Seminar • Syllabi • Childhood • https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBME8xUFZueDVYcUE/edit?usp=sharing • Adolescent • https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBMGpUZDkxYWxIQ28/edit?usp=sharing • Lesson plan template https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBb2wyd3pCMXJhUTg/edit?usp=sharing • Moodle and Google site https://sites.google.com/a/adelphi.edu/edtpa-draft-childhood-ed/ • Plethora of “digestible”, focused resources • e.g., Video Thoughts to consider (aligned with “unpacked” rubrics) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBNF9mQ1lTdGthbWs/edit?usp=sharing
Curriculum Mapping Ongoing! • Program meetings • Curriculum & Instruction department meetings • School of Education retreats • Using Evidence for Program Improvement – May 13, 2014 • Childhood Retreat- June 25, 2014
edTPA Student Feedback Survey ( Survey Monkey) ( N= 32) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8uGWEpTm5CYbDduNV9LYWczZFk/edit?usp=sharing Follow-Up Interview ( N = 7) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8uGWEpTm5CYTlhGdHpNVFNYWUk/edit?usp=sharing
edTPA Student Feedback – High Level Strengths • It was an incredibly stressful year with all of the changes and new exams. • Reported a high level of support from the School of Ed in terms of the edTPA seminar and prep workshops provided for the exams. • The FT faculty had a strong command of edTPA and all felt that they found a primary faculty to count on for support.
edTPA Student Feedback – High Level Areas of Need • Some University Supervisors had little or no knowledge of edTPA, and were “in fact either learning along with them...” • Differentiation strategies in early courses. Specific names of strategies and types; need more and earlier. • Assessment course should be better aligned to edTPA requirements, more rigorous.
Student Recommendations • Even if NOT a model student, should begin placement in school (at least 1 day a week observing), and complete Task 4 before December. • Any experience using video analysis/ self-reflection will help prepare for edTPA and make you a better teacher, peers are critical since others’ perspectives are important. • Recommend ST’s get onto edTPA platform as EARLY as possible (just pay the $$, will have to eventually). There are many resources, and you will see and understand the exact formatting and technical requirements for each section. • What if some of the method courses paired students with a current ST to come observe with them, and provide some support for videotaping?
Analysis of Task 3: Assessment • Rubrics associated with assessment • Rubric 3 (preassessment) • Rubric 5 (informal and formal assessments throughout instruction) • Rubrics 11-15 (analysis of findings from 1 assessment) • Rubrics 16-18 (Elementary Math)
Task 3: Assessment Requirements • Post-assessment • Rubric (how you will score post-assessment) • Summary of student learning chart and analysis of class set of work • 3 samples of student work (focus students) • Give feedback (written or oral) – write directly on student work or type in commentary • Next steps for instruction based upon what students did/not learn
Possible reasons for low scores on Task 3 • Task 3 tends to be the lowest scoring task • Possible reasons: • Fatigue by the end of this process • Weak background in assessing student work, developing rubrics, aligning assessments to objectives and rubrics • PERSEVERE UNTIL THE END! • IT COULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PASSING AND NOT PASSING!
Rubric 3 (from Adol Science) While preassessing students is not required by edTPA, doing so may help candidates who are new to their placement quickly identify student learning needs and strengths.
Rubric 5 (from Elem Literacy ) • Examples of assessments: Think pair share, kwl informal assessments, Oral, written, diagrams, mapping • Make sure IEP/504 accommodations are met (longer time, scribe); if no IEPs/504s than not applicable • Level 4: multiple assessments in multiple ways throughout start out with KWL, then do think-pair-share, then do groupwork where they create multimedia, then give formative assessment assessment is throughout.
Rubric 13 (from Adol SS) • Candidate describes how students will use feedback to revise current work: • Ex: “If you redo and turn back into me then I will give you higher points” • Ideal candidate response on lesson on maps/diagrams: Need to label this better because that is what scientists/historians/mathematicians do.
Rubric 14 (from Adol SS) • Level 2: only addressed vocabulary • Level 3: evidence that students demonstrated syntax or discourse • Make sure that it is consistent with what candidate identified as language function initially: analyze, explain, justify with evidence • Level 4: talk about patterns (including discussion of subgroups • Usually scores are between 2 and 3
Pitfalls to watch for regarding Academic Language • Candidates only focus on vocabulary instruction • Language function mentioned in Task 1 is not consistently taught in lessons • Language function is not assessed in formal and/or informal assessments • Candidates (and supervisors and professors!) have unclear idea of what syntax and discourse are.
Ways to support candidates’ success in the immediate situation of student teaching Short term perspective: • edTPA seminar – there are so many technical and pedagogical layers to the edTPA that guided support is a must • Professors, supervisors should sign up to be scorers • Practice! Use real student work from candidate placements, tied to objectives – (art ed candidate comment – “I didn’t know what I was doing for assessment until I got to be in a real classroom context and knew what skills, content, language I wanted to emphasize with my students) • Practice in creating rubrics that align to candidate-created assessments
Factors beyond SOEs that nonetheless affect candidates’ ability to complete edTPA • K-12 schools’ tight adherence to Engage NY Common Core modules affects candidates’ freedom to design inquiry-based curriculum • Teacher accountability/APPR constraints • Videotaping permission
Ways to cumulatively build stronger skills in this area across a candidate’s program Long term perspective: • Connection to research and theory – foundations, methods courses • Academic language throughout coursework • Practice assessing real student work • Good student teaching placements where they can see exemplary planning, teaching, assessing modeled • Build strong ties to local schools – ease of videotaping
Thank you! Further questions… Corinne Donovan email@example.com Emily Kang firstname.lastname@example.org Mary Jean McCarthy email@example.com Devin Thornburg firstname.lastname@example.org