Document

Download Report

Transcript Document

TOTAL 2014 Exam Scores to Date

Pass

 Pass N

41 %

39  Mastery Level 55 52

Fail 10 9

TOTAL 2014 106 100

Pass

 Pass  Mastery

Fail

TOTAL 2014

Undergrad

N %

7 77%

4 44% 3 33%

2 22%

Graduate

N %

89 92%

37 38% 52 54%

*Two students failed due to uploading issues

Undergrad students are PE, Music and Art.

Graduate students include all Masters programs plus the STEP (5 year BA/MA).

Rubric Name

Planning for Alignment + Development of Knowl + Skills Planning Challenge + Support for Focus Learner Justification of Instruction and Support Supporting Focus Learner Academic Lang Dev Planning Assessment to Monitor + Support Learning Learning Environment Engaging Focus Learner Deepening Learning Supporting Teaching + Learning Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness Analysis of Focus Learner Performance Using Feedback to Guide Further Learning Learner Use of Feedback Explain Focus Learner Academic Lang Use Using Assessment to Inform Instruction Analyze Whole Class Understanding Analyze Indiv Student Work Samples Using Evidence to Reflect on Teaching R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18

106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 42 42 42

Min

2.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

Max

5.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

Mean

3.401

3.236

3.439

3.255

3.217

3.368

3.292

3.302

3.193

3.080

3.311

2.750

2.910

3.142

3.060

3.250

3.167

.7052

.8287

.7768

.6699

.8166

.5661

.6167

.6387

.7450

.6905

.8090

.7186

.7079

.6928

.7769

.6644

.7093

.7938

Mini edTPA’s starting 2 years prior to edTPA state licensure exam Science mini edTPA https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBaFA4aE9valJjZDA/edit?usp=sharing Math mini edTPA format https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBcmJlWTJrS1c4c2s/edit?usp=sharing Social Studies and Critical Literacy Unit Plan https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBMkxTQ0xHZWRBVmhvUmp3aW5oU2tnY0p4NGxv/edit?usp

=sharing

Standing Fieldwork Committee created EdTPA Working Group.

Chair shared edTPA seminar plan with Dean who secured support from University Administration to run 5 noncredit bearing, tuition-free edTPA seminars (January – March 2014).

1 in Physical Education and Health 1 in Special Education 1 in Adolescence 1 in our NYC location (mixed content) 1 in Childhood Education

 Syllabi  Childhood  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBME8xUFZueDVYcUE /edit?usp=sharing  Adolescent  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBMGpUZDkxYWxIQ2 8/edit?usp=sharing  Lesson plan template https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBb2wyd3pCMXJhUTg/edit?usp=sharing  https://sites.google.com/a/adelphi.edu/edtpa-draft-childhood-ed/  Moodle and Google site Plethora of “ digestible ” , focused resources  e.g., Video Thoughts to consider (aligned with “ unpacked ” https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Cgs9SZmYkBNF9mQ1lTdGthbWs/edit?usp=sharing rubrics)

Ongoing!

• Program meetings • Curriculum & Instruction department meetings • School of Education retreats – Using Evidence for Program Improvement – May 13, 2014 – Childhood Retreat- June 25, 2014

Survey ( Survey Monkey) ( N= 32) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8uGWEpTm5CYbDduNV9LYWczZFk/edit?usp=sharing Follow-Up Interview ( N = 7) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8uGWEpTm5CYTlhGdHpNVFNYWUk/edit?usp=sharing

Strengths • • It was an incredibly stressful year with all of the changes and new exams. Reported a high level of support from the • School of Ed in terms of the edTPA seminar and prep workshops provided for the exams. The FT faculty had a strong command of edTPA and all felt that they found a primary faculty to count on for support.

Areas of Need • Some University Supervisors had little or no knowledge of edTPA, and were “ in fact either learning along with them...

” • Differentiation strategies in early courses. Specific names of strategies and types; need more and earlier. • Assessment course should be better aligned to edTPA requirements, more rigorous.

• • • • Even if NOT a model student, should begin placement in school (at least 1 day a week observing), and complete Task 4 before December. Any experience using video analysis/ self-reflection will help prepare for edTPA and make you a better teacher, peers are critical since others ’ perspectives are important. Recommend ST ’ s get onto edTPA platform as EARLY as possible (just pay the $$, will have to eventually). There are many resources, and you will see and understand the exact formatting and technical requirements for each section. What if some of the method courses paired students with a current ST to come observe with them, and provide some support for videotaping?

Rubric Name

106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 42 42 42

Min

2.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

Max

5.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

Mean

3.401

3.236

3.439

3.255

3.217

3.368

3.292

3.302

3.193

3.080

3.311

2.750

2.910

3.142

3.060

3.250

3.167

.7052

.8287

.7768

.6699

.8166

.5661

.6167

.6387

.7450

.6905

.8090

.7186

.7079

.6928

.7769

.6644

.7093

.7938

 Rubrics associated with assessment  Rubric 3 (preassessment)  Rubric 5 (informal and formal assessments throughout instruction)  Rubrics 11-15 (analysis of findings from 1 assessment)  Rubrics 16-18 (Elementary Math)

 Post-assessment  Rubric (how you will score post-assessment)  Summary of student learning chart and analysis of class set of work  3 samples of student work (focus students)  Give feedback (written or oral) – write directly on student work or type in commentary  Next steps for instruction based upon what students did/not learn

  Task 3 tends to be the lowest scoring task Possible reasons:  Fatigue by the end of this process  Weak background in assessing student work, developing rubrics, aligning assessments to objectives and rubrics  

PERSEVERE UNTIL THE END! IT COULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PASSING AND NOT PASSING!

While preassessing students is not required by edTPA, doing so may help candidates who are new to their placement quickly identify student learning needs and strengths.

   Examples of assessments: Think pair share, kwl  informal assessments, Oral, written, diagrams, mapping Make sure IEP/504 accommodations are met (longer time, scribe); if no IEPs/504s than not applicable Level 4: multiple assessments in multiple ways throughout start out with KWL, then do think-pair-share, then do groupwork where they create multimedia, then give formative assessment  assessment is throughout.

 Candidate describes how students will use feedback to revise current work:  Ex: “ If you redo and turn back into me then I will give you higher points ”  Ideal candidate response on lesson on maps/diagrams: Need to label this better because that is what scientists/historians/mathematicians do.

     Level 2: only addressed vocabulary Level 3: evidence that students demonstrated syntax or discourse Make sure that it is consistent with what candidate identified as language function initially: analyze, explain, justify with evidence Level 4: talk about patterns (including discussion of subgroups Usually scores are between 2 and 3

    Candidates only focus on vocabulary instruction Language function mentioned in Task 1 is not consistently taught in lessons Language function is not assessed in formal and/or informal assessments Candidates (and supervisors and professors!) have unclear idea of what syntax and discourse are.

Short term perspective:  edTPA seminar – there are so many technical and pedagogical layers to the edTPA that guided support is a must   Professors, supervisors should sign up to be scorers Practice! Use real student work from candidate placements, tied to objectives – (art ed candidate comment – “I didn’t know what I was doing for assessment until I got to be in a real classroom context and knew what skills, content,  language I wanted to emphasize with my students) Practice in creating rubrics that align to candidate-created assessments

 K-12 schools’ tight adherence to Engage NY Common Core modules  affects candidates’ freedom to design inquiry-based curriculum  Teacher accountability/APPR constraints  Videotaping permission

Long term perspective:  Connection to research and theory – foundations,  methods courses Academic language throughout coursework   Practice assessing real student work Good student teaching placements where they can see exemplary planning, teaching, assessing  modeled Build strong ties to local schools – ease of videotaping

Corinne Donovan [email protected]

Emily Kang [email protected]

Mary Jean McCarthy [email protected]

Devin Thornburg [email protected]

Document

Transcript Document

Directory