Unstandardized Responses to a “Standardized” Test

Abstract

We examine edTPA (a teacher performance assessment) implementation at one private university during the first year that our state required this exam for initial teaching certification. Using data from semi-structured interviews with 19 teacher educators from 12 programs as well as public information on edTPA pass rates, we explore whether the edTPA served its intended roles as a gatekeeper to the teaching profession and a catalyst for curriculum change. Although the edTPA did not serve as gatekeeper in our context, we did find a wide variety of consequential program-level gatekeeping practices. To explore the test’s function as a curriculum improvement lever, we created weighted change scores to represent the range of edTPA-related curricular changes across 12 programs. We found a wide range of curricular responses to the edTPA, from marginalization of the assessment to deep edTPA integration in program coursework. Finally, we explore teacher educators’ analyses of the edTPA as an instructional tool.

State-wide implementation of edTPA in preparation for high-stakes testing: A mixed-methods study of the concerns of edTPA coordinators

“…As a state initiative, implementing edTPA as a licensure requirement was angst-ridden in Georgia. Several other accountability-related changes in the state were occurring simultaneously, a context which has been found to complicate the implementation landscape for edTPA coordinators (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016). Currently, 782 teacher education programs from 40 states and the District of Columbia are utilizing edTPA (SCALE, 2018), a phenomenon likely to have been encouraged by accrediting bodies' emphasis of the need for valid and consistent measures of performance (AAQEP, 2018;CAEP, 2018).…”

“…In response, teacher educators may comply or resist, in either case the mandates can be opportunities for inquiry, curriculum adaptation, and program improvement (Kornfeld, Grady, Marker, & Ruddell, 2007;Lit & Lotan, 2013;Peck et al, 2010;Sloan, 2015). When teacher educators respond to policy changes as learning experiences and explore teacher performance assessments (TPAs) as instructional tools, they can become leaders in the process and develop a culture of inquiry as opposed to adopting a compliance orientation (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016;Sloan, 2015). Faculty who have used inquiry to guide their involvement with edTPA have developed common understandings and used data for curriculum mapping, course revision, and program improvement (Lys, L'Esperance, Dobson, & Bullock, 2014).…”

“…Many have alluded to the challenge inherent in preparing candidates for edTPA expectations while maintaining program philosophy (Fayne & Qian, 2016;Lachuk & Koeller, 2015;Lit & Lotan, 2013;Miller et al, 2015). Others believe that when TPAs are high-stakes, changes in curriculum may actually take candidates' attention away from learning how to adopt responsive pedagogical practices (Henning et al, 2018;Ledwell & Oyler, 2016).…”

High-stakes assessment in elementary education teacher preparation: Educators’ perceptions and actions resulting in curriculum change

“…Other scholars indicate that teacher educators' local knowledge in developing their program curriculum (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016) and professional discourse (Kornfeld, Grady, Marker, & Ruddell, 2007) must be valued and permitted, rather than standardized. As participant researchers, Kornfeld, Grady, Marker, and Ruddell (2007) questioned who and what gave meaning to words, including "what counted as knowledge in teacher education and whose interests were being represented" (p.10).…”

“…Data proved to be useful as findings also included candidates' assumptions about their pupils' interests based on stereotypes and their own biases regarding race and ethnicity (Stillman et al, 2013). Finally, we learn that Ledwell and Oyler (2016) employed a decentralized approach permitting faculty to create their own pathways to examine edTPA. Ledwell's and Oyler's findings revealed that edTPA did not serve as a gatekeeper, since gatekeeping occurred early in the program.…”