During the 2011 academic semester, three candidates volunteered to be a part of the researcher’s pilot in a pre-phase of this study. Each candidate was asked to complete the TPA, two interviews with the researcher, and to provide feedback to the rising cohort of candidates in a video- taped forum. In the middle of the pilot, one of the three candidates opted not to participate due to the strain of the TPA on the ST experience. In fall 2011, all UG candidates completed TPA, were surveyed, and interviewed. Faculty at Sterner were trained to score TPA. A sub-group of scorers were also interviewed. While helpful to the researcher, ultimately, these TPA samples and the feedback from participants proved less beneficial because the assessment underwent significant revision between September 2011 and January 2012.
During the 2012 spring semester, all candidates in WA were required to pilot the TPA in core endorsement areas. At Sterner there were thirty-one traditional undergraduate candidates, thirty graduate candidates, and thirty non-traditional undergraduate candidates placed in ST internships. The director of the non-traditional program chose not to have that group participate. Due to IRB requirements at Sterner, all subjects were recruited by a third-party. Candidates were invited to volunteer in a short presentation, letter introducing the project, and consent form. Those interested in the case study marked a check-box on the consent form. Following university guidelines for internal research, the third-party research assistant collated and logged consents and kept the master-list. She also selected from the volunteers three graduate and three undergraduate candidates for the case study based on placement levels (elementary, middle, high) within each group. Until the conclusion of the term, the investigator was unaware of which candidates gave permission, beyond the three graduate candidates interviewed for the case study.
Candidates participating in ST were determined based on programmatic criteria independent of the study, which included the accomplishment of programmatic benchmarks, successful completion of coursework, recommendations from faculty advisors and field teachers, and an interview with the Director of ST20 (undergraduate) or Elementary/Secondary Coordinator (graduate). Four undergraduate candidates opted not to participate. In addition, one undergraduate candidate took a medical leave in the middle of the semester and was removed from the study. Four graduate candidates opted not to participate. A total of fifty-two candidates (85%) participated.21
Sterner SOE, along with all teacher-preparation programs in WA, piloted the TPA in the following subject-specific areas: Elementary Math, Elementary Reading, Secondary Social Studies, Secondary Math, Secondary Science, Secondary English, Theatre Arts, Secondary World Languages, and Music Performance. It was not possible to randomly assign subjects into piloting and control groups because all candidates were required to pilot the instrument.
Further, because of the way that Sterner programs were designed and organized, candidates’ program coursework and ST requirements varied by cohort groups, some of whom remained together as a cohort. It was not possible, therefore, to control for coursework, the way in which candidates were introduced to the tool, or how much exposure each candidate had to the TPA prior to the study. Although undergraduate and graduate candidates at Sterner take similar
coursework, the courses were taught by different instructors and may have been offered in different academic semesters. Sequencing of courses was also sometimes different. In addition, some
programs and cohorts had longer ST placements.22
20 The Director of Student Teaching is also the study investigator.
21 Note: All assessment participants released rights to privacy for their test scores as a TPA submission requirement. When TPA test scores are reported, the N=58. For all other aspects of the study N=52.
22 Graduate candidates are placed for 24 weeks, elementary undergraduates are placed for 32 weeks and secondary undergraduate are placed for 12 weeks.
Candidates in this study are not as diverse as the population at large but represent
demographics at Sterner. Diversity in recruiting for teacher preparation is a current concern among university educators (AACTE, 2011; Morrell, 2010; NCATE, 2010). Participants were 18-49 years of age and the majority female. All participants were from the US. All were fluent in English. Most candidates declared their racial background as Caucasian with a minority few from Asian, Latino or other racial backgrounds.
Table 3.5
Programmatic Differences in Age
Table 3.6
Programmatic Differences in Sex
n=46/52 (89%)
Undergraduate Graduate Totals
18-20 1/26 (4%) 0% 2% 21-29 23/26 (92%) 16/26 (76%) 85% 30-39 1/26 (4%) 3/26 (14%) 9% 40-49 0% 2/26 (10%) 4% Total 26 26 n=47/52 (90%)
Undergraduate Graduate Total
Males 4/26 (16%) 8/26 (36%) 26%
Females 21/26 (84%) 14/26 (64%) 74%
Table 3.7
Programmatic Differences in Racial Background
n=47/52 (90%)
Undergraduate Graduate Total
Caucasian 22/26 (92%) 21/26 (96%) 94% Black or African-American 0% 0% 0% American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% 0% 0% Asian 1/26 (4%) 1/26 (4%) 4%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
0% 0% 0%
From multiple races 1/26 (4%) 0% 2%
Hispanic/ Latino 1/26 (4%) 0% 2%
Total 26 26
In order to determine motivation and background, candidates were surveyed prior to the start of ST. The survey asked candidates to indicate areas of strength and readiness for teaching and areas of weakness, or concern. Candidates were also asked to identify their motivation for
completing the TPA. In Table 3.8 data collected from candidates’ self-reported initial motivations are listed. Note that the most important reason, also the highest scoring reason overall, was that it was a requirement for licensure. This is particularly significant because, during the state-wide field test, completion of the TPA was not a requirement of licensure. The second most important motivation identified by candidates was that the TPA was required coursework for their program. In both programs, candidates received a pass/fail based on TPA submission, not TPA performance. The least important reason selected was to be motivated by the TPA as a professional development
determining their teaching strengths and weaknesses was one of their top three motivations. Similarly, as discussed in Chapter two, one of the primary benefits of using performance assessment, versus other types of assessment such as item-based multiple choice, is that it offers formative growth for the test-taker (Chung, 2005).
Table 3.8
Candidates Initial Motivation for Completing the TPA.
I will complete the TPA because: Response Rate: 44/52 (85%) (1) most important reason (2) (3) (4) (5) least important reason It is a professional development opportunity 4/44 (9%) 2/44 (5%) 13/44 (30%) 11/44 (25%) 14/44 (32%) It is required for certification 26/44 (59%) 11/44 (25%) 1/44 (2%) 5/44 (11%) 1/44 (2%) I want to challenge myself as a professional 2/44 (5%) 5/44 (11%) 5/44 (11%) 18/44 (41%) 14/44 (32%)
I will use the TPA to determine my strengths and areas for improvement 5/44 (11%) 4/44 (9%) 24/44 (55%) 5/44 (11%) 6/44 (14%) It is required coursework in the SOE 7/44 (16%) 22/44 (50%) 1/44 (2%) 5/44 (11%) 9/44 (21%)
Mentor Teachers
Mentors were partnered with candidates based on voluntary participation and permission from their school administrator and district office. Some mentors selected candidates based on prior experience with the candidate, while others were randomly assigned based on district and building requirements and needs. All mentors were licensed in their grade and discipline areas. All mentors had at least three years of teaching experience. Mentors were invited to participate in the study through a letter describing the study and a conversation with the supervisor who served as the
liaison between the university and the placement site. Seventy-five mentors were assigned to candidates in the program. Mentor participation varied over the study period (33%-82%). Table 3.9
Mentor Differences in Sex
n=58/75 (77%) Responses
Male 13/58 (22%)
Female 45/58 (78%)
Table 3.10
Mentor Differences in Level of and Recent Experience
Because the TPA expectations and format has been compared to the National Board Certification requirements for practicing teachers, mentors were asked to report whether they had earned NB certification. Of those that responded, few (12%) had achieved NB.
n=58/75 (77%) Responses
First year 14/58 (24%)
2-5 years 24/58 (41%)
5-7 years 5/58 (9%)
More than 7 years 15/58 (26%)
Recent Experiences
Hosted last year 34/58 (59%)
Hosted two to three years ago 14/58 (24%)
Hosted three to five years ago 4/58 (7%)
Table 3.11
Mentors with National Board Certification
n=58/75 (77%) Responses
Yes 7/58 (12%)
No 51/58 (88%)
Currently in the process 0%