Assessment with an “End in View”

Fulfilling our educative mission: A response to edTPA critique

“…In contrast, we are encouraged that edTPA can be a positive force in the development of teachers (there is evidence cited in this volume and elsewhere of educative use of edTPA). There is growing evidence that programs that choose to take an inquiry based approach (Fayne & Qian, 2016;Peck & McDonald, 2013;Whittaker & Nelson, 2013) to implementing performance based assessments (including edTPA) has a positive effect on the preparation of teachers as a "test worth teaching to" (Shulman, 2007). Programs that take an inquiry approach to preparing new teachers find ways to embed edTPA related constructs formatively, portray what edTPA measures as what good teachers do, and use edTPA as a potential lever for addressing long standing problems of practice in teacher preparation.…”

Politics of policy: Assessing the implementation, impact, and evolution of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) and edTPA

“…University faculty and program experiences with the PACT. Studies generally reveal faculty perspectives on the PACT as a real or potential catalyst for program change (Darling-Hammond, Newton, & Wei, 2010;Lit & Lotan, 2013;Pecheone & Chung, 2006;Peck & McDonald, 2013;Whittaker & Nelson, 2013), as well as for faculty feeling more accountable for their practice (Sloan, 2013). Across studies, however, we find mixed interpretations of the PACT by program faculty.…”

“…Across studies, however, we find mixed interpretations of the PACT by program faculty. In some cases, the PACT was viewed by university faculty as an assessment "done to us," which resulted in "cannibalizing" (Whittaker & Nelson, 2013) or "colonizing" (Chung, 2008;Liu & Milman, 2013) of the program's curriculum, shifting the curriculum toward a more limited consideration of perspectives, or more fundamentally contributing to a loss in program identity (Lit & Lotan, 2013;Liu & Milman, 2013;Peck et al, 2010;Sandholtz & Shea, 2012;Sloan, 2013;Whittaker & Nelson, 2013). In these instances, faculty perceived that PACT-related policies were a threat to their autonomy, which contributed to their resistance to what they perceived to be an externally imposed assessment, or, in some cases, an unwelcome force to promote or extend a particular vision of the profession (Peck et al, 2010;Peck & McDonald, 2013).…”

“…In other cases, the PACT was viewed as a process of moving faculty and their perspectives along (Lit & Lotan, 2013;Liu & Milman, 2013;Peck et al, 2010;Sandholtz & Shea, 2012;Sloan, 2013;Whittaker & Nelson, 2013). These studies highlighted enhanced faculty collaborations across courses, clear articulation for faculty and students across coursework, and greater shared understanding of the program as a whole (Sloan, 2013).…”

“…These studies highlighted enhanced faculty collaborations across courses, clear articulation for faculty and students across coursework, and greater shared understanding of the program as a whole (Sloan, 2013). Factors that appeared to contribute to faculty "buy-in" included incorporating all program members as part of the PACT scoring process (Sloan, 2013), designing formative, embedded signature assessments that permitted a "standardized flexibility" across the curriculum and supported academic freedom (Whittaker & Nelson, 2013), and designating program leaders to coordinate efforts and manage private/public space and work loads (Sloan, 2013).…”