Document

Report
Undergrad
TOTAL 2014 Exam Scores to Date
Graduate
N
%
N
%
Pass
7
77%
89
92%
39
 Pass
4
44%
37
38%
55
52
 Mastery
3
33%
52
54%
Fail
10
9
Fail
2
22%
8
8%
TOTAL 2014
106
100
Pass
N
96
%
91
 Pass
41
 Mastery Level
*Two students failed due to
uploading issues
TOTAL 2014
9
97
Undergrad students are PE, Music and Art.
Graduate students include all Masters
programs plus the STEP (5 year BA/MA).
Rubric Name
Planning for Alignment + Development of Knowl
+ Skills
Planning Challenge + Support for Focus Learner
Justification of Instruction and Support
Supporting Focus Learner Academic Lang Dev
Planning Assessment to Monitor + Support
Learning
Learning Environment
Engaging Focus Learner
Deepening Learning
Supporting Teaching + Learning
Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness
Analysis of Focus Learner Performance
Using Feedback to Guide Further Learning
Learner Use of Feedback
Explain Focus Learner Academic Lang Use
Using Assessment to Inform Instruction
Analyze Whole Class Understanding
Analyze Indiv Student Work Samples
Using Evidence to Reflect on Teaching
N
Min
Max
Mean
SD
106
2.0
5.0
3.401
.7052
R2
R3
R4
R5
106
0.0
5.0
.8287
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
3.236
3.439
3.255
.6699
106
0.0
5.0
3.217
.8166
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R18
106
2.0
5.0
.5661
106
2.0
5.0
106
2.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
4.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
42
1.0
4.0
42
2.0
5.0
42
1.0
5.0
3.368
3.292
3.302
3.193
3.080
3.311
3.311
2.750
2.910
3.142
3.060
3.250
3.167
R1
.7768
.6167
.6387
.7450
.6905
.8090
.7186
.7079
.6928
.7769
.6644
.7093
.7938
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
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

Syllabi
 Childhood
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBME8xUFZueDVYcUE
/edit?usp=sharing
 Adolescent
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBMGpUZDkxYWxIQ2
8/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
Ongoing!
•Program meetings
•Curriculum & Instruction department meetings
•School of Education retreats
– Using Evidence for Program Improvement – May
13, 2014
– Childhood Retreat- June 25, 2014
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
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.
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.
•
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?
Rubric Name
Planning for Alignment + Development of Knowl
+ Skills
Planning Challenge + Support for Focus Learner
Justification of Instruction and Support
Supporting Focus Learner Academic Lang Dev
Planning Assessment to Monitor + Support
Learning
Learning Environment
Engaging Focus Learner
Deepening Learning
Supporting Teaching + Learning
Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness
Analysis of Focus Learner Performance
Using Feedback to Guide Further Learning
Learner Use of Feedback
Explain Focus Learner Academic Lang Use
Using Assessment to Inform Instruction
Analyze Whole Class Understanding
Analyze Indiv Student Work Samples
Using Evidence to Reflect on Teaching
N
Min
Max
Mean
SD
106
2.0
5.0
3.401
.7052
R2
R3
R4
R5
106
0.0
5.0
.8287
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
3.236
3.439
3.255
.6699
106
0.0
5.0
3.217
.8166
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R18
106
2.0
5.0
.5661
106
2.0
5.0
106
2.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
4.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
106
1.0
5.0
42
1.0
4.0
42
2.0
5.0
42
1.0
5.0
3.368
3.292
3.302
3.193
3.080
3.311
3.311
2.750
2.910
3.142
3.060
3.250
3.167
R1
.7768
.6167
.6387
.7450
.6905
.8090
.7186
.7079
.6928
.7769
.6644
.7093
.7938

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)
 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


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!
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.
 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.
 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.





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




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.
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
 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
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
Corinne Donovan
[email protected]
Emily Kang
[email protected]
Mary Jean McCarthy
[email protected]
Devin Thornburg
[email protected]

similar documents