1 / 13

Lessons Learned: Using Data from the edTPA to Improve our Adolescent Program

Lessons Learned: Using Data from the edTPA to Improve our Adolescent Program. Mary Rose McCarthy Christine Clayton Pace University. Where we Started – Four Years Ago. Strong emphasis on Backwards Design (UDL)

damien
Télécharger la présentation

Lessons Learned: Using Data from the edTPA to Improve our Adolescent Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lessons Learned: Using Data from the edTPA to Improve our Adolescent Program Mary Rose McCarthy Christine Clayton Pace University

  2. Where we Started – Four Years Ago • Strong emphasis on Backwards Design (UDL) • Required assessment of all undergraduate and graduate candidates which used 3 cycles of instruction and assessment to identify impact on student learning. • For our graduate programs, NYSED-required capstone Teacher Research project. • Candidates had some practice with reflection on videos of microteaching. • Development of a dual certification inclusive adolescent program – this led us to look at the PACT

  3. Three Years Ago • Revisions to Lesson and Unit Plan tasks and templates – introducing planning rationales that would get candidates to articulate a research basis and to consider student needs • Beginning to strengthen candidate skill in data literacy with curriculum mapping of various competencies (i.e. data set, simulations, model class).

  4. Enter edTPA: 2012-2013 • Reviewed initial handbooks and rubrics to understand the language and demands of the edTPA • Consequently, continued to revise lesson and unit planning tasks, templates (including annotated templates), and rubrics. • Integrated academic language demands in coursework • Introduced adjuncts to the edTPA (content methods instructors) and worked with some clinical supervisors to try to pilot aspects of the edTPA (unable to particpate in state pilot)

  5. Pace edTPA Pilot: Fall 2013 • Revised Assessment of Student Learning rubrics to align with edTPA and still meet SPA requirements • Fall student teachers participated in an in-house modified edTPA (no video) in place of the previous Assessment of Student Learning. • Enhanced the role of the seminar leader to support the edTPA pilot.

  6. edTPA Pilot: Lessons Learned • Key importance of the seminar leader. • Candidate ability to plan instruction was solid. • Candidates struggled with: • The unfamiliar “language of the edTPA” • Articulating a research basis for planning • Creating assessments that aligned with learning goals • Interpreting assessment results • Providing feedback to students

  7. edTPA Launch: Spring 2014 • Increased seminar contact hours. Seminar leaders and some clinical supervisors were “coaches.” • Shared pilot work (“context for learning,” complete pilot submissions) with candidates. • Brought in alumni to the seminar, including those who had participated in the pilot, for discussion with candidates.

  8. edTPA Launch: Spring 2014 • Two edTPA boot camps in January and February with emphasis on academic language, using data, analysis of teaching, and feedback. • One peer-review support session in March. • In the adolescent program, 90% passed of those who have submitted (n=9/10); 60% at the mastery level (n=6/10). • 23% (n=3) of adolescent candidates have not yet submitted.

  9. edTPA: First Round Results • Adolescent candidates were strong, in general, in planning (generally and in terms of academic language), their analysis of teaching and assessment, and providing feedback. • Adolescent candidates ability to analyze student use of feedback and academic language were weaker.

  10. Planning Results (range 3.3 - 4)

  11. Instruction Results (range 3.1 – 3.6)

  12. Assessment Results (range 3.0 – 3.7)

  13. edTPA: Lessons Learned • Candidates reported that the edTPA focused them on the core tasks of teaching – more reflection, more on assessment than previously in their program coursework. • Candidates reported that completing coursework during this time was shortchanged and became a source of friction. • Candidates, supervisors, and seminar leaders reported that student teaching focused on edTPA completion. • Individual stories caution us: Money matters and No Room for Risk-Taking, Mistakes.

More Related