Table 2. MoPTA Summary 21 3. CalTPA Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficient 68 Table 4. Results of Scores from Tasks 1-4: Fall 2014 74 Table 5. Results of Scores from Tasks 1-4: Spring 2014 74 Table 6. Results from ANOVA Test for Tasks 1-4: Fall 2014 75 Table 7. Results from ANOVA Test for Tasks 1-4: Spring 2014 75 Table 8. Scheffe Test: Tasks 1-4 Fall 2014 76 9. Scheffe Test: Tasks 1-4 Spring 2015 76 Table 10. BAT v. MAT Students 78 Table 11. Scheffe Test: BA v. MA Students 78 Table 12. Tasks 1-4: Elementary v. Secondary/K-12 Students 85 13. Scheffe Test: Elementary v. Secondary/K-12 Students 85 List of Figures Figure 1. Foliotek screen shot 41 Figure 2. Task 1 rubric 62 Figure 3. Inter-rater reliability for Task 1 80 Figure 4. Inter-rater reliability for Task 2 81 Figure 5. reliability for Task 3 82 Figure 6. Inter-rater reliability for Task 4 83
and student assessment” through commentary and supporting evidence (AACTE, 2013, p. 1). According to the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2013) edTPA created their assessment by aligning with National Standards (InTASC) and Common Core State Standards, and “shares key points of alignment with the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation Standards (CAEP)” (p. 1). Just as MoPTA partnered with ETS to create their assessment, edTPA partnered with the testing company Pearson (edTPA, n.d.), which charged $300 (edTPA, 2014, para. 1). The test was created due to increasing sentiment that all new educators must be ready to “meet the academic needs of all students” (AACTE, 2013, p. 2). Similar to other companies and places of employment, TEPs are a way to have an agreement with the people of the community and state to hold themselves accountable for the services they provide to the teacher candidates they are preparing (AACTE, 2013). EdTPA insisted they were not just measuring “teaching effectiveness” but using the assessment as a means to gather data to help the teacher candidate grow into a capable educator ready to instruct students and help them reach their full academic level (AACTE, 2013, p. 4). EdTPA created 27 different subject assessments revolving around the following tasks: “Task 1 Planning: Planning for Instruction and Assessment; Task 2 Instruction: Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning; Task 3 Assessment: Assessing Student Learning” (AACTE, 2013, p. 11). These are parallel to MoPTAs tasks that cover knowing students and their community before planning a lesson (MODESE, 2013b), collecting data to “measure student learning (MODESE, 2013c, para. 1), “designing instruction for student learning” (MODESE, 2013d, para. 1), and “implementing and analyzing instruction to promote student learning” (MODESE, 2013e, para. 1). Also
Missouri Educator Gateway Assessments. (2015b). Missouri general education assessment. Retrieved on June 11, 2015 from http://www.mo.nesinc.com/PageView.aspx?f=GEN_Tests.html Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Naidoo, A. (2012, June). Leading curriculum renew in a faculty of education: A story from within. Perspectives in Education, 30(2), 71-80. Ongel, S., Capa, Y., & Vellom, R. P. (2002, April). A study of the effectiveness of a preservice teacher education scheme. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Peck, C., & McDonald, M. (2013). Creating ‘cultures of evidence’ in teacher education: Context, policy and practice in three high data use programs. The New Educator, 9(1), 12-28. Private University. (n.d.a.). Student teaching handbook. Retrieved from http://www.xxx.edu/education/teachered/docs/handbook.pdf Private University. (n.d.b.). Teacher education department. Undergraduate catalog Retrieved from