Statewide Implementation of edTPA in Preparation for High-Stakes Testing: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Concerns of edTPA Coordinators

• In Event: Implementing the edTPA—a National Performance-Based Assessment: Research on Concerns, Implications, and Impact

Abstract

Objectives
• What are edTPA coordinators’ stages of concern during an implementation year prior to edTPA becoming consequential in their state and are these stages of concern related to the context of the coordinator’s role or institution?
• How do edTPA coordinators personally describe their concerns related to facilitating edTPA implementation?
Theoretical Framework
A current trend in teacher education is the use of a national portfolio assessment (edTPA) as a certification or program completion requirement for teacher candidates. Policy changes in teacher education program requirements involving the use of this tool as a high-stakes assessment have met with both enthusiasm and concerns from faculty, preservice teachers, and other stakeholders. Advocates argue for the need for a performance assessment to set the bar for expectations for beginning teachers while critics express concerns related to the standardization of teacher preparation and the outsourcing of evaluation to a corporate entity (Sato, 2014). In Georgia, policy changes resulted in all institutions of higher education being required to implement edTPA in their programs during the 2014-2015 school year, with the assessment results becoming consequential for certification beginning in fall 2015.
Previous research on the implementation of education reforms has indicated understanding faculty concerns with respect to adoption of innovations can be related to the degree to which they make changes in curriculum and should influence the nature of professional development that is offered (Hall & Hord, 2015; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008). The concerns-based adoption model provides a theoretical lens for understanding how concerns of participants can impact the success or failure of an educational innovation (Kapustka & Damore, 2009).
Method and Data Sources
This study is designed to provide a state-wide analysis of the concerns of teacher educators who were involved in facilitating edTPA implementation in public and private institutions in Georgia. In Phase I, 38 edTPA coordinators participated in a survey using items from Measuring Change Facilitators’ Stages of Concern questionnaire (Hall, Newlove, George, Rutherford, & Hord, 1991). In Phase II, 25 survey respondents agreed to participate in a follow up interview lasting 30 – 45 minutes. Interview data were analyzed using a constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Thomas, 2011.)
Results
The largest group of the edTPA coordinators (44%) were at the “Management” stage, with concerns related to their ability to overload faculty and staff, to allocate time for the innovation, and to have the resources to support edTPA implementation. Regression analyses indicated institutional factors were not related to coordinators’ stages of concern; however qualitative data yielded unique patterns within stages in light of institutional contexts.
Significance
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model theorizes that professional development needs and successful implementation of curricular innovations can be directly related to facilitators’ and faculty members' stages of concern. Given the national trends in adopting the edTPA as a high stakes assessment, more information is needed to better understand how institution context and faculty concerns might inform the implementation process.

Authors

• Joyce E. Many, Georgia State University

• Ruchi Bhatnagar, Georgia State University

• Mary Ariail, Georgia State University

• Carla Tanguay, Georgia State University

• Morgin Jones Williams, Georgia State University

• Clarice Thomas, Georgia State University

• Judi Wilson, Georgia Regents University

• Tamra W. Ogletree, The University of West Georgia

• Karen Kurz, Berry College

• Jihye Kim, Kennesaw State University

• Susan Ophelia Cannon, Georgia State University

• Shaneeka Favors, Georgia State University

• Shannon Howrey, Georgia State University

• Sohyun An, Kennesaw State University