Can the edTPA Be Reenvisioned as a Lever Rather Than a Hammer?

• In Event: 18.037 - Examinations of Faculty Motivation and Engagement Within Current Sociopolitical Contexts for Teacher Education Reform

Abstract

Objectives/Purposes
New York State announced in spring 2012 that teacher education programs had 18 months to prepare candidates for the edTPA. Of concern to advocates and critics alike is the possibility that requiring candidates to pass this costly performance assessment could reduce the number of economically marginal individuals (many of whom come from racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse backgrounds) in the teacher ranks (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016). With a shrinking percentage of minority teachers, the mismatch between who teaches and who learns in our schools worsens.
Preparing a diverse teacher work force is of paramount importance to the institution described in this case study, a public, urban, commuter college. Phase one of the case study (2012-2015) concentrated on unit and program level implementation. In phase two (2015-2017), investigators focus on how an individual instructor’s incorporation of edTPA elements/resources into capstone seminars affects candidate outcomes.
Theoretical Framework
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hall & Loucks, 1978; Hall & Hord, 2011) provides a useful theoretical framework for the longitudinal case study. Grounded in Fuller’s theory of teacher development (1969), CBAM presumes that an individual’s reaction to change can be charted on a trajectory. Based on our previous research, the authors documented a shift in faculty concerns related to the edTPA (Authors B., 2016). School of Education faculty moved from self-oriented to student-oriented concerns. Once faculty gained enough knowledge and received sufficient support regarding technical aspects of the edTPA, they started to think practically and realistically about specifics: curriculum changes, time management for instructors and candidates alike, benefits and drawbacks of the assessment itself, and the importance of team work. External mandates were viewed by most as intrusive (hammer); however, there were also those who envisioned the edTPA as a change agent (lever).
Data Sources
In the first phase, we collected and analyzed unit and program level data. In the second phase, we shift our focus and look at individual variations among faculty who are responsible for capstone seminars. Using semi-structured interviews, we will determine Levels of Use (Hall, Dirksen, & George, 2006) of five key elements/resources provided by SCALE (https://scale.stanford.edu/teaching/edtpa) or developed locally. As a follow-up, we share edTPA data and ask instructors to generate explanations for candidates’ performance and to think aloud about ways to adapt their practice based on results.
Results
Initial findings indicate that an instructor’s LoU is predictive of candidate performance. Faculty with higher LoU scores are individuals who move beyond mechanistic use patterns and devise ways to make handbooks accessible by providing structure, actionable feedback, and emotional support.
Significance
By applying Levels of Use, the second dimension of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall & Hord, 2011), we continue to validate CBAM as a framework for tracking change in teacher education. During phase one, the researchers identified general shifts across programs but were unable to tease out how each faculty member incorporated the edTPA into their teaching. In phase two we use LoU to determine whether candidate success is linked to instructor’s level of engagement.
 

Authors

• Harriet R. Fayne, Lehman College - CUNY

• Gaoyin Qian, Lehman College - CUNY