The Teaching Performance Assessment

Consortium (TPAC)

Andrea Whittaker, Ph.D.Stanford UniversitySeptember 2011

Agenda and Goals

• Update on National Project

• Ohio policies and timeline

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Why Now?

Blue Ribbon Panel – 10 Principles

PARCC and Smarter BalanceAssessments

Where TPAC fits in

TPAC is working to develop and implement at scale a way of assessing teaching that…

• Provides evidence of teaching effectiveness,

• Supports teacher preparation program improvement

• Informs policy makers about qualities of teaching associated with student learning.

TPAC is ONE example of an assessment system that is designed to leverage the alignment of policies and support program renewal.Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Accountability reframed

How can we gather and use evidence of the qualities of teaching performance that inspire, engage, and sustain students as learners – to improve teaching and teacher preparation?

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

National Leadership

AACTE• overall project management, communication

with programs

Stanford University• assessment development and technical

support

Council of Chief State School Officers • policy development and support,

communication with state education agencies (prior to March 2011)

Highlights of Pearson’s Role in the TPA

• Pearson has been selected as Stanford’s operational partner.

• Support Stanford and AACTE with assessment development and technical review.

• Train and certify scorers, provide a scoring platform and report results for the operational TPA.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Pearson’s Role in the Field Test

• Development Support for Field Testing• Handbook and template publication • Recruitment and training of scorers, scoring and

scorer compensation • Benchmarking• Reporting results • Providing an electronic platform to manage TPA

submissions.

Pearson’s Role in Operational Use

• Pearson will provide Assessment Services to deliver the TPA Nationally and Sustainably.• Web-based services that allow candidate

registration, assembly of artifacts, faculty/supervisor feedback, final submission for official TPA scoring and a score report.

• Scoring services such as the recruitment, training and certification of all scorers, scoring for all submitted TPA responses

• Reporting services such as the generation of all official score reports to candidates and institutions of record.

Partnering States

Standards and tPAC

•Common Core alignment

•InTASC alignment

•NCATE/CAEP endorsement

•SPA endorsement

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

TPAC Lineage

• National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) portfolio assessments – accomplished teachers

• Connecticut BEST assessment system – teachers at end of induction

• Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) – pre-service teachers

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Role of K-12 Partners

• NEA and AACTE affiliate state meetings

• Roles for cooperating teachers and school site principals

• Call for collaboration with IHEs

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

State Policy issues

Emerging recognition of state role and responsibility for educator effectiveness – states are revisiting policies and practices

TPAC is coming at this through:• Program improvement and accountability• The psychometric challenge – is the instrument

usable?• Informs policy development in critical levels of

program approval (measure of effectiveness), as well as initial licensure (candidate readiness)

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

STATE POLICY ISSUES

States are realizing that valid, reliable and predictive measures are critical to the success of any change, especially when student performance is the end objective. Early implementers:

Washington, Minnesota, Tennessee, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

House Bill 1

Transfers responsibility for approving teacher preparation programs from the State Board to the Chancellor of the Board of Regents

Directs the Chancellor, jointly with the State Superintendent, to: (1) establish metrics and educator preparation programs for the preparation of educators and other school personnel, and (2) provide for inspection of the institutions.

Through HB1, Ohio is first in the nation to require a four-year induction program (Resident Educator)

• Formative assessment coupled with goal setting and coaching

• Annual summative assessment based on multiple measures of educator effectiveness including student growth

Ohio Comprehensive System of Educator Accountability

Not Effective

Effective

More coursework or enter different area of study

Recommended for resident educator license

Teacher Residency

PAR Progra

m

Recommended for Five Year Professional License

Annual Teacher Evaluation

Pre-Service

Metrics

• Content Knowledge: Praxis II

• Performance Assessment: TPA

• Formative assessments that inform PD and coaching support

• Annual summative assessment based on multiple measures of educator effectiveness including student growth

Not Effective

Effective

Not Effective

Effective

Performance Outcome

Continue with Residency

Not Effective

Effective

Employment terminated

Informs decisions: retention, dismissal, tenure, promotion, compensation

Continue as Teacher

PAR Progra

m

Not Effective

Effective

Employment terminated

Ohio alignment

• TPA has also been aligned to the Ohio Teacher Standards.

• Karen Herrington is working to align TPA with the alignment instrument with state/national standards Ohio IHEs compiled in 2005-06

Ohio’s LIneage

• Praxis III Assessment in Entry Year Teaching• Focus of Planning, Environment,

Teaching for Learning and Professionalism

• Pathwise Training for Mentors assisting entry year teachers and incorporation

• Transition of PIII to Resident Educator Program

TPA Architecture

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Design Principles for Educative Assessment

Discipline specific and embedded in curriculum

Student Centered: Examines teaching practice in relationship to student learning

Analytic: Provides feedback and support along targeted dimensions.

Integrative: maintains the complexity of teaching

Affords complex view of teaching based on multiple measuresStanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

2011

TPA Architecture

• A summative assessment of teaching practice

• Collection of artifacts and commentaries

• “Learning Segment” of 3-5 days

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

TPAC Artifacts of Practice

Planning Instruction Assessment

• Instructional and social context

• Lesson plans• Handouts,

overheads, student work

• Planning Commentary

• Video Clips• Instruction

Commentary

• Analysis of Whole Class Assessment

• Analysis of learning and Feedback to two students

• Instructional next steps

• Assessment Commentary

Daily Reflection NotesAnalysis of Teaching Effectiveness CommentaryEvidence of Academic Language DevelopmentStanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

2011

• What? – candidate describes plans or provides descriptions or evidence of what candidate or students did

• So what? – rationale for plans in terms of knowledge of students & research/theory, explanation of what happened in terms of student learning or how teaching affected student learning

• Now what? – what candidate would do differently if could do over, next instructional steps based on assessment, feedback to students

Conceptual Framework of Assessment

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Multiple Measures Assessment System

Embedded Signature Assessments

Observation/Supervisory Evaluation & Feedback

Child Case Studies

Analyses of Student Learning

Curriculum/Teaching Analyses

TPAC Capstone Assessment

Integration of:

Planning

Instruction

Assessment

Analysis of Teaching

with attention to Academic Language

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Targeted Competencies

PLANNING

• Planning for content understandings

• Using knowledge of students to inform teaching

• Planning assessments to monitor and support student learning

INSTRUCTION

• Engaging students in learning

• Deepening student learning during instruction

ASSESSMENT

• Analyzing student work

• Using feedback to guide further learning

• Using assessment to inform instruction

REFLECTION• Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

• Identifying Language Demands

• Supporting students’ academic language development

• Evidence of language useStanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Rubric progression

• Early novice highly accomplished beginner

• Rubrics are additive and analytic

• Candidates demonstrate:• Expanding repertoire of skills and

strategies• Deepening of rationale and reflection

• Teacher focus student focus• Whole class generic groups

individuals Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Rubric blueprint

Task name: Rubric TitleGuiding Question

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Struggling candidate, not ready to teach

Some skill but needs more practice to be teacher-of-record

Acceptable level to begin teaching

Solid foundation of knowledge and skills

Stellar candidate (top 5%)

Rubric SampleEliciting and Monitoring Students’ Mathematical

UnderstandingsLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Candidate talks throughout the clip(s) and students provide few responses.

The candidate stays focused on facts or procedures with no attention to mathematical concepts and representations of content.

Candidate primarily asks surface-level questions and evaluates student responses as correct or incorrect.

Candidate makes vague or superficial use of representations to help students understand mathematical concepts.

The candidate elicits student responses related to reasoning/problem solving.

Candidate uses representations in ways that help students understand mathematical concepts.

Candidate elicits and builds on students’ reasoning/ problem solving to explicitly portray, extend, or clarify a mathematical concept.

Candidate uses strategically chosen representations in ways that deepen student understanding of mathematical concepts.

All components of Level 4 plus,  Candidate facilitates interactions among students to evaluate their own ideas.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

Academic Language

• Academic language is different from everyday language. Some students are not exposed to this language outside of school.

• Much of academic language is discipline-specific.

• Unless we make academic language explicit for learning, some students will be excluded from classroom discourse and future opportunities that depend on having acquired this language.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

• Academic language is the oral and written language used in school necessary for learning content.

• This includes the “language of the discipline” (vocabulary and forms/functions of language associated with learning outcomes) and the “instructional language” used to engage students’ in learning content.

Academic Language

Academic Language Competencies Measured

• Understanding students’ language development and identifying language demands

• Supporting language demands (form and function) to deepen content learning

• Identifying evidence that students understand and use targeted academic language in ways that support their language development and content learning.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Development Timeline

•2009-10 Small-scale tryout tasks & feedback from users.

•2010-11 Development of six pilot prototypes based on feedback. Piloted in 20 states. User feedback gathered to guide revisions.

•2011-12 National field test of 13 prototypes, producing a technical report with reliability and validity studies, and a bias and sensitivity review. National standard setting.

•2012-13 Adoption of validated assessmentStanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Pilot Data Analysis

• Scores (descriptive stats)

• Scoring process • Inter-rater reliability and agreement rates

• Examinee and faculty feedback

• Benchmark identification

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Handbook Changes

• Deep focus on student learning

• Five level rubric

• Clear organization, prompts and alignment with rubrics

• Academic language reframing

• Analyzing teaching

• Subject specific glossaries

• Professional look and interactive features

Ohio Spring Pilot 2011

• Three IHEs completed 150 portfolios in six content areas

• 91 were scored by 35 calibrated faculty (univ./school) scorers representing 9 institutions

• Results were returned to the three IHEs from a commonly used server

• Feedback sent to T Candidates with scored portfolios in late summer

Program/Unit Discussions

• Results shared with program representatives

• Discussions about strengths and challenges noted from data results

• Sharing of next steps based upon the results for the coming academic year

Framing Reliability and Validity Research

• Current policies in play

• Evidence needed to support TPA use for accreditation and licensure decision-making

• Potential role for VAM and other predictive validity measures

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Field Test Design•Design is driven by overall goals:

• Data to enhance validity evidence

• Reports to describe technical aspects and the set of validity and reliability studies

• Effectiveness and efficiency of scorer training materials and process

• Refinements to the assessment

• Reporting design and distribution

• Support systems:

• portfolio management system and

• scoring management system

•Participation/Sampling plan – location (state-based or national population) and discipline-specific

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Field Test Analyses• Field Test data analysis and research areas:

• Content Validity• CV meetings held in July 2011

• Bias Review scheduled for November 2011

• Construct Validity • defining the construct of the TPA, factor analysis

• Consequential Validity • candidates & programs

• Predictive Validity • reliability between performance on the TPA and other measures (e.g.,

TPA scores and state teacher certification test scores)

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Field Test Participation

• Subject Areas to be field tested• Elementary Literacy , Elementary Mathematics,

English/Language Arts, History/Social Science, Secondary Mathematics, Science

• Special Education, Early Childhood Development, Middle Grades (Science, ELA, Math, and History Social Science), Art, Performing Arts (Music, Dance, Theater), Physical Education, and World Language

• Other low-incidence draft handbooks will be available for trying out

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Field Test Participation

• Pearson will support scoring training and scoring stipends for a national sample of 18,000 candidates

• Scoring training and certification online (some synchronous events)

• Scorers to include IHE faculty, field supervisors, cooperating teaching, principals, NBCTs and others with pedagogical content knowledge and experience with beginning teacher development.

• Local, state and national scoring

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Ohio’s Projections for 2011-2012

• 72% of Ohio’s IHEs are current TPA participants

• Additional IHEs have pending MOUs being completed

• Over 2100 portfolios, 13 of the14 content areas, are projected for completion

Timeline of Activities

• Release of revised handbooks

• September 2011

• Commitment/registrations to participate in Field Test

• Summer/Fall 2011

• Pearson systems ready for registration, submissions, and scoring

• Spring 2012 – scorer management system ready

• TBD 2012 – candidate registration and TPA submission system readyStanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

2011

Timeline of Activities

• Release of revised handbooks

• September 2011

• Commitment/registrations to participate in Field Test

• Summer/Fall 2011

• Pearson systems ready for registration, submissions, and scoring

• Spring 2012 – scorer management system ready

• TBD 2012 – candidate registration and TPA submission system readyStanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

2011

Next Steps

• Join TPAC Online (Ning)

• Field test commitments

• Technical assistance• AACTE affiliate meetings• Ongoing webinars and Ning discussions

• PACT/TPAC Implementation Conference – October 20-21 in San Diego

• AACTE Annual Meeting – February 17-19, 2012Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity

2011

Ohio’s Next Steps

NE Region SW Region

Host: Hiram College /University of Akron Host: University of Cincinnati

Contact: Jennifer Miller/Lynn Kline Contact: Chet Laine

Date: October 28 or Nov 4 (TBA) Date: February 24

SE Region NE Region

Host: Franciscan University Host: Bowling Green State University

Contact: Mary Kathryn McVey Contact: Mary Murray

Date: November 16 Date: March (TBA)

Central Region

Host: Ohio Dominican University

Contact: Bonnie Beach

Date: January 6

Ohio’s Next Steps

NE Region SW Region

Host: University of Akron Host: University of Cincinnati

Contact: Lynn Kline Contact: Chet Laine

Date: Nov. 9 Date: February 24

SE Region NE Region

Host: Franciscan University Host: Bowling Green State University

Contact: Mary Kathryn McVey Contact: Mary Murray

Date: November 16 Date: March 14

Central Region

Host: Ohio Dominican University

Contact: Bonnie Beach

Date: January 6

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity 2011

Other TPAc presentations

• Breakouts today• Supporting Students• Engaging faculty• Lessons learned from Scoring• Pilot year insights• Academic language

• TPAC 101 on Thursday

• Thursday Keynote – Program renewal