The European Educational Researcher

Student Teachers’ Assessments Involving Three Role Groups: Challenges and Possibilities

Ruchi Bhatnagar 1 *
1 Georgia State University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
The European Educational Researcher, Volume 1, Issue 2, October 2018, pp. 77-97
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 723 DOWNLOADS: 283 Publication date: 15 Oct 2018
ABSTRACT
Evidence and use of standards have become buzz words in teacher education. In order to satisfy the policy requirements, meet accreditation standards, and respond to the critics of traditional routes of teacher preparation, teacher educators are attempting to balance their program philosophy with state and national standards in designing their assessment systems. Using a mixed methods design, this study examined the use of an assessment instrument by three role groups in the student teaching semester and the purposes these assessment data fulfilled for the student teaching triad, the teacher education program, and the policy makers. The findings of this study highlight the difficulties involved in creating standards for assessment in teacher education such that they inform the practice of teacher education, are valid indicators of student teachers’ knowledge, performance, and dispositions, and reflect the effectiveness of teacher education programs.
KEYWORDS
Teacher education, Teacher education assessments, Teacher education policy
CITATION (APA)
Bhatnagar, R. (2018). Student Teachers’ Assessments Involving Three Role Groups: Challenges and Possibilities. The European Educational Researcher, 1(2), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.121
REFERENCES
  1. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2014). On path to equity: Improving effectiveness of beginning teachers. Retrieved on May 20, 2018, from http://www.all4ed.org/publications.
  2. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2005). Democracy and civic engagement: A guide for higher education. Washington, DC: Author.
  3. Anderson, D. (2009). The impact of cooperating teachers on the teaching perspectives of student teachers. The International Journal of Learning, 16, 120-133.
  4. Bastian, K. C., Lys, D., & Pan, Yi. (2018). A framework for improvement: Analyzing performance assessment scores for evidence-based teacher preparation program reforms. Journal of Teacher Education, 69, 1-15.
  5. Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2002). Professors and the practicum: Involvement of university faculty in preservice practicum supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 6-19.
  6. Berry, B. (2005). The future of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 56, 272-278.
  7. Bhatnagar, R. (2008). Assessing student teachers’ preparedness: Use of domains in the undergraduate program (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  8. Bhatnagar, R. (2011). Use of standards in assessment of student teachers: Purposes fulfilled, untapped potentials. Paper presented at the annual conference of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La.
  9. Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. (2007). Genres of empirical research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 3-11.
  10. Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Taking stock in 2006: Evidence, evidence everywhere. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 6-12.
  11. Cochran-Smith, M., & Boston College Evidence Team. (2009). “Re-Culturing” teacher education: Inquiry, evidence, and action. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 458-468.
  12. Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, M. K. (2005). The AERA Panel on Teacher Education research: Context and Goals. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner, eds. Report of the American Educational Research Association panel on research on teacher education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  13. Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L. W., Chavez-Moreno, L. C., & Mills, T. (2016). Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds). Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 439-547). Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association.
  14. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2003). Research methods in education. London. UK: Routledge.
  15. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) (2018). Standard 5: Provider quality, continuous improvement, and capacity. Retrieved May 9, 2018 from http://www.ncate.org/standards/standard-5
  16. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advance mixed methods research designs. In A.Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  17. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  18. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 120-138.
  19. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.) Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  20. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed). New York: McGraw Hill.
  21. Donovan, M. K., & Cannon, S. O. (2018). The university supervisor, edTPA, and the new making of the teacher. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 26 (28), 1-30.
  22. Dover, A. G., & Schultz, B. D. (2016). Troubling the edTPA: Illusions of objectivity and rigor. The Educational Forum, 80, 95-106
  23. Duncan, A. (2010). Teacher preparation: Reforming the uncertain profession. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 75(5), 13-22. Retrieved November, 2010 from ERIC database.
  24. Educational Testing Services. (2016). ETS: A rich history of educator performance assessment Innovation. Author. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/s/ppa/pdf/ets-performance-assessment-history.pdf
  25. He, Ye., & Levin, B. B. (2008). Match or Mismatch? How congruent are the beliefs of teacher candidates, cooperating teachers, and university-based teacher educators? Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 37-55.
  26. 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 performance: Toward an evidence-based approach to teacher preparation. The Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 439-453.
  27. Hill, H.C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2),371- 406.
  28. Goldhaber, D. (2015). Teacher effectiveness research and the evolution of U.S. teacher policy (The Productivity for Results Series No. 5). George W. Bush Institute, Education Reform Initiative. Retrieved from http://gwbcenter.imgix.net/Resources/gwbi-teacher-effectiveness-research.pdf Google Scholar.
  29. Gorlewski, D. A., & Gorlewski, J. A. (2015). Producing professionals: Analyzing what counts for edTPA. In K. A. O’Hara (Ed.), Teacher evaluation: The charge and the challenges. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 19-37.
  30. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184-205.
  31. Labaree, D. (2010). Teach for America and teacher ed: Heads they win tails we lose. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 48-55.
  32. Lachuk, A. J., & Koellner, K. (2015). Performance-based assessment for certification: Insights from edTPA implementation. Language Arts, 93(2), 84-95.
  33. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. The education schools project. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm
  34. Liston, D., Whitcomb, J., & Borko, H. (2006). Too little or too much: Teacher preparation and the first years of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 351-358.
  35. Lit, I., & Lotan, R. (2013). A balancing act: Dilemmas of implementing a high-stakes performance assessment. The New Educator, 9(1), 54-76.
  36. Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2013). National assessments for student teachers: Documenting teaching readiness to the tipping point. Action in Teacher Education, 35(4), 272-285.
  37. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17 (2), 13-17.
  38. Miles, B. M., & Huberman, M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Edition). New York: Sage Publications.
  39. National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  40. Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment for California teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 120-138.
  41. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger
  42. to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
  43. Sandholtz, J., & Shea, L. (2012). Predicting performance: A comparison of university supervisors’ predictions and teacher candidates’ scores on a teaching performance assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 39-50.
  44. Sato, M. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 421–434.
  45. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (2017). edTPA annual administrative report. Stanford, Ca.
  46. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (2018). edTPA Participation Map. Retrieved May 9, 2018 from http://edtpa.aacte.org/state-policy.
  47. Sykes, G., Bird, T., & Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (5), 461-476.
  48. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. Harper Collins College Publishers: New York.
  49. Tillema, H. H. (2009). Assessment for learning to teach: Appraisal of practice teaching lessons by mentors, supervisors, and student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 155-167.
  50. Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices, and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 11, 573-596.
  51. Wayne, A., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89-122
  52. Whitney, L., Golez, F., Nagel, G., & Nieto, C. (2002). Listening to voices of practicing teachers to examine the effectiveness of a teacher education program. Action in Teacher education, (23)4, 69-76.
  53. Wilson, S. F. & Youngs, P. (2005) Research on accountability processes in teacher education. M. Cochran-Smith, M. & K. Zeichner, (Eds). Report of the American Educational Research Association panel on the research on teacher education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  54. Wei, R.C., Pecheone, R.L., & Wilczak, K.L. (2014). Performance Assessment 2.0: Lessons from Large-Scale Policy & Practice. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity.
  55. Whittaker, A., Pecheone, R., & Stansbury, K. (2018). Fulfilling our educative mission: A response to edTPA critique. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(30).
  56. Wineburg, S. M. (2006). Evidence in teacher preparation: Establishing a framework for accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 51-64.
  57. Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 34-46.
  58. Zeichner, K., Payne, K. A., & Brayko, K. (2015). Democratizing teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 122-135.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.