Investigating the Impact of edTPA Professional Development on Classroom Practice and Student Teaching Experience

Abstract

In an era of increased teacher accountability, teacher preparation programs across the country are faced with increasing pressure to adopt rigorous and high stakes performance-based assessments, such as edTPA, that provide data-based evidence that their candidates are ready to teach upon program completion. Furthermore, in response to new accreditation standards for teacher training programs established by the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation, colleges of education are now required to demonstrate enduring and mutually beneficial partnerships with K-12 partners. Given the influence of the K-12 cooperating teacher (CT) on candidate classroom practice, providing professional development (PD) to CTs on edTPA represents a possible means of accomplishing both goals. This study examined the impact of an edTPA PD workshop designed specifically for CTs on CT practice and candidate edTPA scores. Results suggest that candidates placed with CTs who have received edTPA PD can benefit from increased CT knowledge about the edTPA assessment.

Keywords

student teaching performance assessment preservice teacher education accountability

In a time of instructional reform and increased teacher accountability in the United States, schools and school districts have faced increasing pressure to demonstrate that their teachers make a positive impact on student learning. Traditional assessments of teachers’ knowledge are being replaced by demonstrated evidence of their teaching effectiveness and student outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2012). In an editorial in the Journal of Teacher Education, Knight et al. (2014) wrote, “In general, calls for performance assessments of teaching to provide both formative and summative information about the quality of teachers . . . pervade the current discourse on education” (p. 372). A similar transformation is underway in postsecondary programs that prepare future teachers (Sato, 2014). Cochrane-Smith, Piazza, and Power (2013) stated that teacher training programs have experienced “a major programmatic shift from inputs and processes to outcomes” (p. 12). As part of this paradigm shift, teacher preparation programs have faced pressure to adopt performance-based assessments that provide data-based evidence that their candidates are ready to teach upon completion of their respective programs (Cochrane-Smith et al., 2013; Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2014). Race for the Top funds, for example, have been used as an incentive for states to adopt performance measures that tie K-12 student outcomes to teacher training programs and to sanction underperforming programs (Denton, 2013). Similar pressure has come from professional associations, like the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), which promotes the use of performance-based assessments to counter growing criticism against teacher training programs (Sato, 2014).

Developed by AACTE and the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE), edTPA is an example of one such assessment that has been gaining national attention. Currently implemented in 40 states and the District of Columbia (AACTE, 2016), edTPA is a standardized assessment that measures teacher candidate ability to plan, instruct, and assess student learning in 27 different content areas (SCALE, 2013). The assessment requires teacher candidates, during the student teaching internship, to provide convincing evidence of their ability to teach using best practices that have a positive impact on their K-12 students. Candidates who are unable to reach their program-specific benchmark or “cut” score on the assessment may be ineligible for certification.

The implications of such high stakes testing on teacher education programs are clear. Colleges of education implementing edTPA must ensure a high-quality internship experience that provides interns with the opportunity to develop and apply the best practices required in the assessment. Given the influential role of the cooperating teacher (CT) in the student teaching experience (Ferber & Nillas, 2010), it becomes critical to secure CTs that model these best practices for their interns. Research consistently shows that teacher candidates often emulate the strategies modeled by their CT (Kissau, 2014). Interns placed with CTs who model traditional, teacher-centered instruction risk perpetuating these practices in their own classrooms and may struggle to meet the edTPA requirements, thereby jeopardizing their ability to obtain licensure. Unfortunately, the placement of teacher candidates with CTs that model best practices is often challenging and flawed (Clarke, Triggs, & Nielsen, 2014). Time constraints on teacher training programs, paradigm shifts in teaching methodologies, and increased accountability on teachers have made it difficult to find CTs who exhibit best practices and are willing to allow a novice teacher teach their K-12 students. To address this concern, the researchers identified, recruited, and provided targeted edTPA-related professional development (PD) for a pool of K-12 teachers who committed to serving as CTs in 2015-2016, and examined the impact these CTs had on teacher candidates’ teaching performance.

Review of Related Literature

To guide and inform the project, a review of related research was conducted. As the goal of the study was to investigate means of supporting teacher candidates to improve their edTPA results, the review focused first on candidate edTPA performance, followed by an analysis of various support strategies aimed at improving scores, including curricular changes and CT PD.

Teacher Candidate Performance

Due to the recent adoption of edTPA in many teacher education programs across the United States, there is little published research reporting candidate results on the assessment (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2014). The limited research that is available suggests that candidates often struggle with components of the performance-based assessment. In a study examining the edTPA scores of 21 world language teacher candidates in two of the nation’s largest producers of new teachers, Hildebrandt and Swanson (2014) found that while the aspiring teachers were able to create a relaxed and supportive learning environment for their students (Rubric 5), they struggled in regard to Rubrics 6 to 8, with approximately one fifth scoring in the bottom two levels. Furthermore, although the interns were able to successfully analyze student performance (Rubric 10) and provide meaningful feedback (Rubric 11), many struggled to provide suggestions to improve student performance (Rubric 12). One third of the teacher candidates received scores in the bottom two levels for Rubric 12, and approximately one quarter had similarly low scores for Rubric 13 (using assessment to inform instruction).

A study involving 23 teacher candidates in an early childhood education program further emphasized the need to prepare aspiring teachers to complete the edTPA assessment (Noel, 2014). The researcher shared teacher candidate results on an edTPA practice assessment embedded in a language and literacy course. Results indicated that the candidates had little prior knowledge of edTPA and struggled both to comprehend the academic language of the associated rubrics and to apply elements of the rubrics into their instruction.

Curricular Changes

In response to areas of weakness revealed in candidate edTPA scores, researchers have proposed a variety of curricular changes in teacher training programs to provide candidates with greater edTPA support. For example, researchers have suggested providing teacher candidates with opportunities to practice tasks similar to those found in edTPA throughout teacher preparation coursework to prepare them for the culminating assessment in their internship (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2016; Kissau & Algozzine, 2017). More specifically, in response to reports that candidates struggle when analyzing and interpreting student assessment data in Task 3 (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2014), Miller, Carroll, Jancic, and Markworth (2015) suggested emphasis on the principles of backward design early in teacher preparation programs, and Sharp (2010) recommended teacher preparation programs provide candidates greater opportunity in their clinical experiences in K-12 schools to practice analyzing student data and making appropriate inferences based on the analysis. Similarly, following repeated accounts that weak reflective writing skills among some teacher candidates were contributing to their poor performance when writing edTPA commentaries (Denton, 2013; Ledwell & Oyler, 2016), Lachuk and Koellner (2015) and Troyan and Kaplan (2015) emphasized the need to infuse more explicit reflective and evidence-based writing practice and instruction in teacher preparation coursework. Technical problems when recording instruction, uploading videos, and compressing video files have also been tied to unscorable products and poor performance on edTPA (Burns, Henry, & Lindauer, 2015; Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2016), and have led to calls for further IT support and opportunities for candidates to “work out the technical details so that the videotaping and the backing up and uploading of all files [are] non-issues during student teaching” (Burns et al., 2015, p. 30). While the above-mentioned recommendations in the literature are promising and represent possible means of enhancing candidate support, no empirical data were presented as to whether or not they led to improved candidate performance. Prior to investing in programmatic and curricular revisions to support their candidates, teacher training programs would benefit from a better understanding of the effectiveness of such changes.

CT PD

In light of the critical role played by CTs in the student teaching internship (Ferber & Nillas, 2010; Turunen & Tuovila, 2012; Weiss & Weiss, 2001), they represent a possible key source of candidate support when completing edTPA. Despite their influence, the selection and training of CTs has been widely criticized in the literature (Clarke et al., 2014; Koster, Korthagen, & Wubbels, 1998; Metcalf, 1991). At a time when the selection and training of mentoring teachers may be lacking, the emergence of high stakes, performance-based assessments like edTPA makes the need for supportive CTs that model best practices for their interns even more critical. In a recent study investigating the influence of 22 foreign language teacher candidates’ placements on their edTPA performance, interns who indicated that their CTs had been helpful while completing the assessment performed well on edTPA, while others who indicated a lack of CT support performed more poorly, and the candidate who expressed the least amount of CT support performed most poorly (Behney, 2016). Of additional concern, several of the participants in the Behney (2016) study also mentioned that their CTs exhibited teaching behaviors that were not congruent with edTPA expectations (i.e., lack of target language use). Research has shown that teacher candidates often emulate the instructional strategies modeled by their CT (Kissau, 2014). Mirroring CT instructional practices is troubling given that studies have shown that teachers’ instructional strategies are not always reflective of what is considered to be best practice (Kang & Wallace, 2005; Lee, 2009). With this in mind, it could be hypothesized that interns placed with CTs who model traditional, teacher-centered instruction risk adopting these practices in their own classrooms and, as a result, may struggle to meet the edTPA requirements, thereby jeopardizing their ability to get licensed to teach.

While research on the benefits of offering PD to CTs remains relatively scarce, the few related studies suggest that purposeful PD can enhance the critical role played by CTs (Killian & Wilkins, 2009; McIntyre & Killian, 1987). In a study of 13 elementary school CTs, Killian and Wilkins (2009) identified training in student teacher supervision as the most powerful predictor of “highly effective” (p. 68) CTs. Specifically, the researchers identified “deep training” (p. 67) on systematic observation, feedback, and conferencing skills as a contributor to CTs’ ability to articulate beliefs behind pedagogical practices and to use practices in ways that supported their beliefs (Killian & Wilkins, 2009). More recently, Gareis and Grant (2014) studied the effect of a 9-month training program for CTs intended to support student teachers during the teaching internship. Trained CTs received better evaluations from their student teachers, and exhibited an increased level of self-efficacy in supporting student teachers and incorporating effective techniques into clinical supervision.

Need for Continuing Research

To summarize the limited research that is currently available, edTPA is a challenging assessment that teacher candidates need support to successfully complete. Analysis of the related research has also revealed a clear lack of empirical studies aimed at supporting teacher training programs and teacher candidates in the implementation and successful completion of edTPA. In support of this statement, Hildebrandt and Swanson (2014) wrote “ . . . at the time of this writing, no empirical research exists on the use of edTPA and its impact on content-specific teacher preparation programs” (p. 577), and that “best practices for preparing candidates to be successful would be informative” (p. 589). The literature also makes it clear that the CT plays a pivotal role in providing interns with the support they need, and that CT PD activities have the potential to positively impact teacher candidate performance. To address the void in the related literature and to support teacher education programs and their interns in the successful implementation and completion of edTPA, the researchers conducted a research project. They hypothesized that by providing specific PD for CTs on edTPA, their capacity to effectively mentor teacher candidates would increase, resulting in higher edTPA scores among teacher candidates whose CT completed the PD than those whose CT did not. Following the identification, recruitment, and training of the CTs, the researchers sought to answer the following questions:

Research Question 1: To what extent are the edTPA-specific vocabulary and domains addressed in the CT PD modeled in CT classroom practice (i.e., how did the PD affect the CTs’ practice)?

Research Question 2: To what extent does the CT PD affect the performance of teacher candidates during the internship experience?

Method

A mixed method design was used in the study. To investigate the possible impact of the PD on CT practice (Research Question 1), the researchers collected and compared quantitative data from CTs who participated in the workshop and from those who did not by using classroom observations. An online survey completed by the CTs’ interns after they had completed the student teaching experience also provided quantitative data specific to Research Question 1. To further address this research question, qualitative data were also gathered from CTs who participated in the PD and those who did not during semistructured interviews. Quantitative data collected via student completion of edTPA were compared to investigate the extent CT PD affected teacher candidate performance (Research Question 2).

Setting and Participants

The research was conducted at a large university in the southeastern United States with approximately 29,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The institution’s College of Education is one of the two largest producers of new teachers annually in the state, graduating approximately 450 to 500 new teachers per year. For the purposes of the study, the PD focused on candidates in the Middle/Secondary education department. This department includes candidates seeking licensure in Middle Grades (Grades 6-9) and Secondary (Grades 9-12) in math, English/language arts, science, and social studies, and also candidates seeking licensure in K-12 areas of foreign language and teaching English as a second language (TESL). Both CTs and teacher candidates were included in the study.

CTs

Each semester the Office of Field Experiences at the participating university secures student teaching placements for candidates with licensed and experienced CTs in a local school district where the candidates complete their semester-long, full-time internship. From this group of practicing teachers in the fall (2015) and spring (2016) semesters, the researchers contacted CTs and invited them to participate in a summer workshop. A Scholarship of Teaching and Learning grant obtained by the researchers provided funds to offer a $350 stipend for a maximum of 18 CTs to complete the workshop on edTPA designed by the researchers. Purposeful sampling (Coyne, 1997; Palinkas, Horwitz, Green, Wisdom, Duan, & Hoagwood, 2015; Patton, 2002) was used when selecting these CTs to ensure representation from a diverse pool of practicing teachers, to minimize the potential for bias, and to reflect the diverse content areas represented in the department. Specifically, as the participating department trains middle and high school teachers in six different content areas, efforts were made to select teachers from each of these disciplines. However, due to small enrollment in some areas (i.e., foreign language and science) and scheduling difficulties, not all disciplines were equally represented. In the end, 10 CTs agreed to participate in the PD workshop and the related study. Four of the 10 self-identified as math teachers (40%), four as social studies teachers (40%), one as a language arts teacher (10%), and one as a teacher of English as a second language (10%). Three were high school teachers (30%) and seven taught middle school (70%). Three were male (30%) and seven female (70%). All 10 of these CTs were assigned a student teacher in fall 2015 or spring 2016.

During the summer (2015), these 10 teachers participated in a full-day PD workshop. During the first half of the workshop, participants were familiarized with the expectations of the edTPA assessment. Logistical details of the assessment were provided, such as video recording teacher candidate lessons, obtaining parental consent to video-record K-12 students, and ethically supporting interns. The second half of the workshop involved break-out sessions on specific content areas (i.e., math teachers attended a workshop led by a math methodology instructor). The purpose of these sessions was to bring CTs and university faculty together to develop a common consensus and understanding on best practices for each content area and how these best practices align with edTPA expectations. While university faculty members were more familiar with edTPA, CTs were full partners in these sessions, and were recognized for their expertise as practitioners in the field. Specifically, CTs and university faculty (a) discussed best practices in the respective content area; (b) reviewed the content-specific requirements of edTPA, the edTPA-specific vocabulary, and key content understandings of the project (which were different for each content area); and (c) brainstormed together how to best support candidates during the internship with this project. Research was also shared that noted the powerful influence of the CT on teacher candidates, and the need for effective CT modeling of best practices for successful candidate development. After completing the workshop, the CTs were assigned a teacher candidate.

Teacher candidates

To gain teacher candidate perspectives on the impact of the PD on CT practices (Research Question 1), of the 161 total student teachers in the above-mentioned department that were placed with a CT in 2015-2016, all 10 placed with one of the 10 CTs who attended the workshop (CTs with PD) were invited to complete an online survey, as were 60 of their randomly selected peers who were assigned to a CT who had not completed the training (CTs without PD). The survey compared the student teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which their CTs exhibited classroom behaviors aligned with edTPA expectations that were addressed in the summer PD. Of the 70 interns contacted, 46 (66%) completed the survey, including all 10 of the interns placed with a CT with the PD (22%), and 36 who were mentored by a CT who had not completed the PD (78%). The survey completers were aspiring teachers of English (28%), math (24%), social studies (17%), English as a second language (17%), science (9%), and foreign language (4%). Twenty-five (45%) completed the internship in a high school setting. Sixteen (35%) were in a middle school, and the remaining five were in a K-5 foreign language or English as a second language classroom. The survey completers were split evenly among undergraduate (23) and graduate (23) students, and 33 (72%) were female and 13 (28%) were male.

Procedure

Consistent with the three skills targeted in edTPA, the researchers collected data specific to planning, instruction, and assessment at multiple points in time and using multiple measures. First, in both the fall 2015 and spring 2016 semesters, quantitative data related to the potential impact of the PD on CT practice (Research Question 1) were collected via classroom observations. While no pretest was given to establish a baseline of data, the researchers wanted to see if any discernable alignment existed between CT classroom practice and edTPA skills and knowledge (particularly with those CTs who had attended the workshop). Quantitative data were also collected from teacher candidates through the use of an online survey. To address this same research question, at the end of each semester, qualitative data were collected during semistructured CT interviews. Quantitative data specific to the impact of the CT PD on teacher candidate performance (Research Question 2) were gathered via candidate completion of edTPA. While the institution has not yet implemented a benchmark edTPA score required to receive a licensure recommendation, all candidates had to complete the assessment during their internship, and their score influenced their student teaching grade. Candidate edTPA scores were collected from Pearson and archived in the college’s Accreditation and Assessment Office. Triangulation of data sources is noted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Triangulation of data sources.

Classroom observation instrument

To investigate how the PD affected CT practice (Research Question 1), one of the researchers conducted an observation session in the classroom of each of 12 randomly selected CTs (see Table 1). Six of the CTs had completed the PD, and six had not. These sessions involved a detailed analysis of the CT’s daily lesson plans over a 2-week period and the observation of a 60- to 90-min lesson. During the lesson plan analyses and teaching observations, CTs’ use of the edTPA-specific vocabulary and teaching practices that were addressed in the PD were noted via an observation tool aligned with the planning, implementation, and assessment expectations of edTPA (see Appendix A). The first five items of the tool focused on the lesson plan analysis (e.g., The teacher’s lesson plans are clearly shown to align with state standards). The next seven items pertained to instruction (e.g., During the lesson, the teacher demonstrates positive support and respect for students) and assessment practices (e.g., During the lesson, the teacher provides constructive feedback to students addressing both strengths and areas of improvement) observed during classroom teaching. For more information on the alignment of items on the Classroom Observation Tool with specific edTPA rubrics, see Appendix A. In regard to all items, a 3-point Likert-type scale was used to assess the extent the teachers’ planning, instruction, and assessment behaviors aligned with edTPA expectations (1 = does not align; 3 = clearly aligns).

Table 1.

Cooperating Teacher Classroom Observation and Interview Participants.

Participant	Attended PD workshop?	Level	Content area	National Board certification
Teacher 1	Yes	High school	ESL	No
Teacher 2	Yes	Middle school	Social studies	No
Teacher 3	No	High school	Social studies	No
Teacher 4	No	High school	Math	No
Teacher 5	No	High school	Social studies	No
Teacher 6	Yes	Middle school	Social studies	No
Teacher 7	Yes	Middle school	Social studies	No
Teacher 8	Yes	Middle school	Math	No
Teacher 9	No	Middle school	Science	No
Teacher 10	No	Middle school	Language arts	Yes
Teacher 11	No	Middle school	Language arts	No
Teacher 12	Yes	Middle school	Math	Yes

Note. PD = professional development; ESL = English as a second language.

Survey

To further investigate how the PD affected CT practice (Research Question 1), data were collected via an online survey (see Appendix B) completed by teacher candidates (those with and without a CT who attended the workshop). The survey, completed at the end of the semester (fall 2015 and spring 2016), was designed by the researchers to align with the content and focus of the three edTPA tasks, the observation instrument, and the PD in that it targeted lesson planning, instruction, and assessment behaviors. The first five survey items sought teacher candidate perspectives related to CT lesson plans. More specifically, the items asked the extent CT lesson plans (a) aligned with state standards, (b) supported various learning needs, (c) incorporated prior learning, (d) provided opportunities for interaction using content-specific vocabulary, and (e) included multiple forms of assessment. The second section of the survey contained four items pertaining to classroom instruction that sought teacher candidates’ perspectives on the extent their respective CT (a) demonstrated respect and support for students, (b) engaged students in learning activities that built upon prior knowledge and incorporated student interests and/or cultures, (c) asked questions to develop deeper student understanding, and (d) adjusted instruction in response to student feedback. The third and final section contained five items specific to assessment. Teacher candidates were asked to indicate the degree their CT (a) collected and analyzed student data, (b) provided feedback to students, (c) provided individual support to students with special needs, (d) assessed students’ ability to interact using content-specific vocabulary, and (e) used assessment data to guide instruction. Alignment of survey items with specific edTPA rubrics is indicated in Appendix B.

Interviews

Qualitative data were also collected via interviews to investigate the impact of the PD on CT practice (Research Question 1). During the interviews, the same 12 CTs who participated in the classroom observations (see Table 1) were asked to describe how they supported their intern in the completion of edTPA, and what further support might they have provided. For exploratory purposes, each CT was also asked how the participating institution could further assist them in supporting their interns in the future.

edTPA assessment

To measure the effect the PD had on teacher candidate performance during the internship (Research Question 2), all teacher candidates (with and without a CT who received the PD) completed the edTPA assignment during their internship. The assessment required candidates to demonstrate their readiness to teach via the development of an electronic portfolio that included three to five candidate-developed lesson plans that reflect best practices in the content area, video clips of the intern applying those practices in a K-12 class, and reflections on their instructional strategies, assessment, and decision making. The submitted evidence was reviewed by trained, calibrated scorers who used 13 to 15 standardized rubrics (depending on the content area) with a scale ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 5. While passing scores, often referred to as cut scores, are determined at the state level (Kornfeld, Grady, Marker, & Ruddell, 2007), SCALE (2014) has recommended programs set their initial cut scores at 32 to 36 for programs that use only 13 rubrics (such as World and Classical Languages) and 37 to 42 points for programs using 15 rubrics.

Data Analysis

To investigate the impact of the PD on CT practice (Research Question 1), the researchers compared subscale scores on the observation tool using independent group (e.g., teachers who received the PD and teachers who did not) t tests. In addition, independent-group t tests were also used on the survey data to compare perspectives of candidates placed with CTs who attended the workshop versus those placed with CTs who did not. To further address the first research question, a grounded theory approach (Glaser, 1992) was then used to analyze the data collected from the interviews. The researchers compared interview responses from CTs (both those with and without the PD) to detect themes that helped to explain the quantitative results. Once all interview transcriptions were completed, the researchers followed the procedures outlined by Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995) for reading and compressing the data. Individual responses to interview questions were grouped together, and the responses in each group were analyzed line by line and coded to identify themes. Collectively, these analyses allowed for a triangulation of data sources.

To investigate the second research question, the official edTPA scores for the 161 candidates who completed their internship in fall 2015 and spring 2016 were obtained from Pearson. Independent group (i.e., control and intervention) comparisons were completed for the total edTPA score as well as the score for each of the three tasks that make up the total score: (Planning for Instruction and Assessment, Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning, Assessing Student Learning). Data sets from 17 candidates who received “Incomplete” scores were not included, resulting in analysis of 144 edTPA portfolios (10 with CTs with PD, 134 with CTs without PD). The level for statistical significance was set at .01 for all comparisons and effect sizes (d = [M₁ – M₂] / SD₁) were calculated as additional estimates of the magnitude of practical significance unrelated to sample sizes (Cohen, 1990; Sullivan & Feinn, 2012; Thompson, 2006).

Results

Impact of PD on CT Practice

Specific to Research Question 1, means, standard deviations, and comparison statistics for overall scores on the classroom observation tool are in Table 2. While not statistically significantly different, ratings on both lesson planning and classroom performance (collectively measured to include the subscale items in each area) were higher for the CTs who received the PD than their counterparts without the PD. In addition, on three items (i.e., lesson plans support variety of learning needs, teacher demonstrates positive support and respect, and teacher provides feedback) both CTs with and without the PD received the same score; higher mean scores were reported by the observer for the CTs with PD in regard to seven of the 12 items (i.e., lesson plans clearly aligned to state standards, incorporate prior learning, and provide opportunities for content vocabulary; and, teacher engages interests and cultures, adjusts practice as needed, uses differentiations, and uses assessment data); and, CTs without PD received higher scores on two items (i.e., lesson plans include multiple forms of assessment, teacher asks questions to deepen understanding), but none of these differences were statistically significant.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Comparison Statistics for Classroom Observation Tool Scores.

edTPA expectations	Group				t statistic	p	d
	CT with PD (n = 6)		CT without PD (n = 6)
	M	SD	M	SD
Lesson plan review (overall)	1.93	0.33	1.57	0.61	1.30	.225	0.60
Classroom observation (overall)	2.57	0.29	2.36	0.30	1.28	.231	0.72

Note. d = (M_withPD – M_noPD) / SD_noPD. N = 12 observations, six of cooperating teachers who attended PD and six of CTs who did not attend PD. CT = cooperating teacher; PD = professional development.

Further related to the first research question, means, standard deviations, and comparison statistics for perceptions of student teachers partnered with CTs who had/had not completed the PD are presented in Table 3. No statistically significant group differences were indicated for ratings of planning, instruction, or assessment. As with the observation tool, candidates with CTs who completed the PD generally reported higher mean scores than their counterparts whose CT did not complete the PD for most (i.e., 11 of 14) of the individual items.

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Comparison Statistics for Candidate Perceptions of CT Behavior.

Behavior	Group				t statistic	p	d
	CT with PD (n = 10)		CT without PD (n = 36)
	M	SD	M	SD
Planning	4.24	0.79	4.03	0.98	0.63	.531	0.22
Instruction	4.40	0.70	4.33	0.87	0.25	.807	0.08
Assessment	4.09	0.79	3.99	1.00	0.28	.783	0.10

Note. d = (M_CTwithPD – M_CTnoPD) / SD_CTnoPD. N = 46 teacher candidates, 10 placed with a CT who attended the PD and 36 placed with a CT who did not attend the PD. CT = cooperating teacher; PD = professional development.

Evidence supporting the positive impact of the PD on CT practice (Research Question 1) was also evident in the qualitative interviews conducted with practicing CTs, two of whom had recently gone through the National Boards certification process. Two primary themes emerged in those data: (a) Overall, CTs who received the PD and CTs with National Board certification gave more detailed and meaningful feedback and assistance to their candidates on edTPA; and (b) these CTs also better understood the “big picture,” making specific and deliberate connections between edTPA and best practice.

The CTs who completed the PD and those with National Board certification were able to provide more guidance to candidates on the choice of assessment used in the edTPA project, the lesson plan activities, and reflective pieces. “I definitely helped [the candidate] a lot and assisted him with the actual lesson planning and unit planning,” said Teacher 1. “With the edTPA [the candidate] did get tons of feedback,” reported Teacher 2. Teachers who attended the PD were also able to discuss the demands of edTPA in detail, in terms of how they could help their candidates and what the candidates themselves could do. “I had a pretty good idea of what needed to happen,” said Teacher 7, “I asked [the candidate] off and on how it was going, what was he planning to do, and what class was he planning on using as, you know, the main focus.” Teacher 12, who participated in the PD and was also National Board certified, shared, “When she [the candidate] was doing the videos, I was saying, ‘You [have to] pick a lesson where there’s a lot of good math dialogue between you and the students and between the students themselves.’” She elaborated, “so we planned around which lessons would lend best to that. So that the people grading it could have the best chance of seeing those interactions take place.” Teacher 6 also described in detail how her candidate assessed student work:

He would do [previously created assessments] so it was a little easier and quicker to assess, but there was also assessment for writing, looking at a document-based question and analyzing primary sources and writing. And when he did give that kind of assessment, which would tend to be a longer assignment, he was very thorough in um, grading and giving feedback to the students about how they did or what he was looking for, or what they missed, or what they did really well.

In contrast, the shorter, less detailed responses from teachers who did not complete the PD indicated little understanding or knowledge about edTPA: “To be honest, I don’t think that I was really able to support [my candidate],” said Teacher 5. “I mean I was aware of the project, um, but as far as trying to help him through it . . . it didn’t really happen.” Teacher 9 confessed, “I couldn’t tell you the assessments that [my candidate] did identify . . . I don’t really remember the assignment that she used for her edTPA, to be honest with you.” In addition, CTs without the PD seemed to show less initiative in consulting with their candidates about edTPA elements, versus the CTs with the PD who took a more active approach. For example, a CT without the PD (Teacher 11) commented, “I mostly waited for her [the candidate] to ask [about edTPA].” Along the same lines, Teacher 4 stated, “I let him know that at the end of the day, his name is attached to that project. So, it’s his project—not mine.” Yet another CT without the PD (Teacher 3) added, “edTPA was her part, her business, that was what she needed to complete for school.” Also for the teachers without the PD, there was a clear disconnect between the skills and knowledge required in edTPA and how those skills could transfer into candidate performance in the classroom. Teacher 11 (no PD) shared, “Yea, you know I feel like edTPA was um, a lot of boxes that just kind of had to be checked off.” Even when the teacher knew edTPA to be a big part of the candidate’s semester, there was still a lack of clarity as to exactly what edTPA was: “She [the candidate] put a lot of work into it, and I’m not sure, like, exactly how it turned out or what it looks like.” Teacher 5 (no PD) stated, “I was more concerned about what was involving my students”—the implication being that edTPA had no connection to the learning going on in the classroom.

In contrast, CTs who had participated in the PD were able to describe clear connections to best practices when working with candidates on edTPA. For example, Teacher 8 reported that she assisted her candidate with the selection of an assessment, and noted that, “[the candidate] had taught the students really well how they needed to show all of their work, so they could be as successful as possible.” The two National Board certified CTs (Teachers 10 and 12), one who attended the PD (Teacher 12) and one who had not (Teacher 10), were able to give substantive feedback to their candidates, and their responses to the interview questions indicated a deep understanding of the demands of the edTPA project and the importance of reflection; in fact, of all the teachers interviewed, these two were the only two to discuss the reflective nature of best practice in developing practitioners. Teacher 10 stated, “Basically, I just had her really focusing, when you’re being reflective and when you’re writing anything like this, make sure you’re expressing the why you did it.” Teacher 10 went on to say that it was important to her to ask her candidate “to create lessons reflectively, thinking about why you’re doing what you’re doing and kind of going deeper than you’re doing it.” Teacher 12 gave a similarly robust, detailed description of how he coached his candidate:

I just kind of told her the things I had done for my National Boards, when I did those, and so kind of planned those things of, you know making sure you’re correcting the kids, making sure it’s a positive environment, making sure they’re engaged in the lesson, showing a little bit of use of technology within the lesson. It’s a lot to put into a 15-minute video, but just little snippets of those things. Or to be able to re-watch the video again and say, oh, ok, well this kid didn’t get it, this is what I did. I just gave her some of the views I used to, kind of, push her in that direction.

The qualitative interview data also revealed that CTs who did not complete the PD relied heavily on the university supervisor for support and guidance with respect to edTPA. Unfamiliar with edTPA expectations, three of the six CTs without the PD that were interviewed made specific reference to support provided by an individual university supervisor who was a trained Pearson edTPA scorer. Teacher 4 (no PD), for example, lamented that she was unable to attend the PD, but benefited greatly from her student teacher’s university supervisor:

Unfortunately, I didn’t have a chance to go to [the PD] . . . but [the university supervisor] that came in was great. Any questions I had, because I wanted to make sure I was doing it correctly, he answered those.

Teacher 4 added, “I mean, I was fortunate . . . [the university supervisor] went over it with both of us during our initial meeting.”

Six of the 12 teachers interviewed expressed either an appreciation for being included in the PD or a desire to do so in the future. Teacher 1 said,

I feel like if I had not gone through the initial, like, “this is what the edTPA is,” I clearly would have been trying to figure it out. So, um, I kind of feel bad for the teachers who really do not get training on what edTPA is.

Teacher 12, who participated in the PD and one of the two National Board certified teachers, noted, “I think the training we went through at the beginning of the year was useful.” Offering a different perspective, a CT who did not participate in the PD (Teacher 4) shared, “I could have used like an alternative training date, or something else, so that I could have had a better understanding of what I was doing.”

Impact on Teacher Candidate Performance

Means, standard deviations, and comparison statistics for teacher candidate performance on edTPA are in Table 4. While not statistically significantly different, ratings on planning, instruction, and assessment (collectively measured to include the subscale items in each area) as well as on the total and average scores were higher for the intervention group (i.e., candidates placed with CTs who completed the PD). Similarly, candidates placed with CTs who attended the PD obtained higher scores on 13 of the 15 rubrics (i.e., 1-5, 7, 9-15). In contrast, student teachers assigned to CTs who did not complete the PD obtained higher scores in regard to only two (i.e., 6 and 8) of the 15 rubrics. None of these differences, however, were statistically significant.

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Comparison Statistics for Candidate edTPA Scores.

Indicator	Group						t statistic	p	d
	Control			Intervention
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Planning	129	3.01	0.48	10	3.20	0.48	−1.23	.220	0.40
Instruction	134	2.88	0.54	10	2.98	0.24	−0.61	.546	0.19
Assessment	129	2.77	0.58	10	3.18	0.36	−2.20	.029	0.71
Total	134	43.19	7.01	10	46.80	4.87	−1.60	.112	0.52
Average	134	2.89	0.47	10	3.12	0.32	−1.50	.136	0.48

Note. d = (M_Comparison – M_Intervention) / SD_Comparison. N = 144 viable edTPA products, 10 candidates placed with a CT who attended the PD and 134 candidates placed with a CT who did not attend the PD. CT = cooperating teacher; PD = professional development.

An additional area of comparison on candidate edTPA performance involved the number of “Incomplete” ratings that the candidates in the comparison groups received. Beginning in fall 2015, a rating of “Incomplete” is given to any edTPA product where elements that are not scorable are present in two or more tasks; for example, a candidate may have included an edited video (which is not allowed) or included fewer than the requisite number of lesson plans. These kinds of errors typically result in an “Incomplete” rating with no numeric score provided. Of the 151 edTPA portfolios submitted by candidates assigned to CTs with no PD, 11% of the products (17) received a score of Incomplete. In sharp contrast, none of the 10 candidates with CTs who participated in the PD received Incompletes. In addition, while the institution in question does not currently have a minimum edTPA score required for a licensure recommendation, the institution does note whether the edTPA score meets the minimal SCALE-recommended score range (i.e., 32 on 13 rubrics; 37 on 15 rubrics). Twenty-four of the 144 (17%) scorable edTPA portfolios (no Incompletes) failed to meet the minimum recommended score range, and all of them were submitted by candidates assigned to CTs who had not received the PD. On the contrary, all the candidates assigned to CTs who attended the edTPA PD scored at least three points above the minimum score range.

Discussion

The study responds to calls in recent research for empirical studies investigating means of supporting teacher candidate performance on edTPA (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2014; Noel, 2014). As made evident in the literature review, while multiple studies have offered recommendations to enhance teacher candidate performance on edTPA (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2016; Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Miller et al., 2015), few have investigated the effectiveness of these support strategies. In this study, the quantitative results of the edTPA score analysis, while not statistically significant, did show positive results for candidates with CTs who received PD on edTPA. While scores for all 10 candidates with CTs who completed the PD were at least three points above passing, 24 of the portfolios submitted by candidates assigned to CTs who did not complete the PD failed to meet the minimum recommended score range. Furthermore, none of the 10 interns placed with CTs who attended the PD received any Incompletes. In sharp contrast, of the 151 total edTPA portfolios submitted by candidates assigned to CTs without the PD, 11% of the products (17) received a score of Incomplete.

The study’s results also serve to both confirm and build upon the extant literature related to CT support. In accordance with previous research (Ferber & Nillas, 2010; Turunen & Tuovila, 2012; Weiss & Weiss, 2001), the results suggested the valuable role played by the CT in the student teaching internship. Teacher candidates, and particularly those with CTs who had participated in the edTPA PD, reported to benefit from the feedback received from their CTs when completing edTPA. Building upon the current body of knowledge, the study offers a possible means of preparing more effective CTs, at a time when their selection and training are widely criticized (Clarke et al., 2014; Koster et al., 1998; Metcalf, 1991). Although the quantitative data analyses did not yield significant results, a definite trend did emerge. The quantitative data trends noted in this study suggest that CTs who possess a working knowledge of how they can integrate edTPA supports into best classroom practices are better able to incorporate edTPA skills and knowledge into their own work, and also to better support their candidates with completion of the edTPA product. With respect to both the observation instrument and the survey, CTs who received the PD were rated higher overall than their counterparts. The qualitative data provided even more compelling evidence of the benefits of the CT PD. The CTs who attended the PD gave more specific and deliberate feedback, and showed greater understanding of the connections between edTPA and established best practices. Qualitative data results also made it clear that teachers appreciate and want such PD opportunities. Finally, the study provides a possible means of addressing Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards, specifically CAEP Standard 2. In alignment with the expectations outlined in this standard, the project involved a mutually beneficial partnership between a teacher training program and its K-12 partners to support teacher candidate performance (CAEP, 2013). The teachers in this study worked with university faculty to develop common understandings about how candidates could be supported on edTPA during their internship within the context of best practice specific to the content area.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

Teacher training programs seeking measures to further support their candidates in the successful completion of performance-based assessments, like edTPA, should consider the study’s results. Programs that wish to offer similar CT PD might offer multiple workshops and/or online modules to better accommodate CT schedules. In this study, several CTs wished to participate, but were unavailable at the time of the summer workshop. Incorporating PD into an established CT orientation (which is a staple for most teacher preparation programs) may be another way to reach a greater number of CTs. While suggesting the benefits of providing edTPA-related PD to CTs, the study’s results also offer a possible remedy for filling in gaps when CTs do not receive edTPA PD. Due to the many similarities between edTPA and National Board certification, teacher training programs may be wise to seek National Board certified teachers to serve as CTs when unable to provide PD to all teachers assigned interns. The two National Board certified teachers in the study were both able to give substantive feedback to their candidates and demonstrated a deep understanding of the demands of the edTPA project and the importance of reflection. Finally, given the reliance on university supervisors for edTPA support, particularly among CTs who had not participated in the PD, teacher training programs should consider mandatory edTPA training for all of their supervisors.

Limitations

As the researchers were unable to randomly assign teachers or teacher candidates for participation, their work was limited by the availability and willingness of CTs to participate in the summer PD as well as by the placement options for teacher candidates. For example, due to higher enrollments in some areas (i.e., math and social studies), CTs and student teachers in other content areas (i.e., English as a second language) were less represented. Similarly, the sample sizes were limited by the context in which the study was completed; however, effect sizes were included to reduce the potential negative effect of small numbers of participants on the interpretation of the findings.

Conclusion

Identifying ways to support teacher candidates and promote best practices in K-12 classrooms is essential in improving the educational experience of all students and addressing the national shortage of teachers, particularly in high needs areas like math, science, English as a second language, and foreign language instruction. The need to ensure teacher candidates are exposed to and utilize best practices during their internship is even more critical in the era of high stakes assessments like edTPA. This study contributes to the related body of knowledge by investigating the impact of strategic partnerships between CTs with edTPA-related PD and teacher candidates on candidate teaching performance, and responds to a growing demand for research investigating means of supporting interns in the completion of edTPA. Furthermore, it has the potential to inform teacher training programs on the need to plan opportunities for CTs to engage with university faculty on how to best support candidates in the successful completion of edTPA in the future. While no significant results were noted in this study, trends in the data did emerge. CTs who participated in the PD were rated higher overall than their colleagues who did not participate on all quantitative measures. Qualitative results were more definitive. Comments from participants showed that CTs who completed the PD were able to offer more detailed, specific feedback to their candidates about edTPA and also better understood the connections between the requirements of edTPA and established best practice. National Board certified teachers were able to offer the highest quality feedback, suggesting that teacher preparation programs may wish to deliberately request National Board certified teachers as mentors whenever possible. In any case, designing edTPA-related PD for CTs as part of a mentor program would seem to be a prudent and logical course of action for institutions implementing edTPA.

Supplemental Material

721706 – Supplemental material for Investigating the Impact of edTPA Professional Development on Classroom Practice and Student Teaching Experience

Supplemental material, 721706 for Investigating the Impact of edTPA Professional Development on Classroom Practice and Student Teaching Experience by Scott Kissau, Laura C. Hart and Bob Algozzine in Journal of Teacher Education

Footnotes

Appendix A

Classroom Observation Tool.

Name: __________________ School: _________________ Content Area: _____________ Grade: __________

Time of observation: ___________Approximate number of students: _______Additional Info: _____________.

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was made possible via funding from the UNC Charlotte Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Author Biographies

Scott Kissau (PhD, University of Windsor) is a professor and chair of the Department of Middle, Secondary, and K-12 Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He is the recipient of multiple local, state, and national teaching awards. His research interests include gender and language learning motivation and preparing language teachers.

Laura C. Hart (EdD, University of North Carolina at Charlotte) is the director of Assessment and Accreditation for the Cato College of Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She also serves as the edTPA Coordinator. Her research interests include gender equity issues and assessment of teacher candidates.

Bob Algozzine (PhD, Penn State University) is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His current research interests include schoolwide discipline, effective teaching, data-based decision making, and positive behavior support.

References

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2016). FAQs—General information: Who is participating in edTPA? Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.org/faq#51

Behney

(2016). Perceived influence of cooperating teachers on edTPA performance. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 271-286.

Burns

Henry

Lindauer

(2015). Working together to foster candidate success on the edTPA. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 6, 18-37.

Clarke

Triggs

Nielsen

(2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84, 163-202.

Cochrane-Smith

Piazza

Power

(2013). The politics of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77, 6-27.

Cohen

(1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/standards/introduction

Coyne

I. T.

(1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 623-630.

Darling-Hammond

(2012). The right start: Creating a strong foundation for the teaching career. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 8-13.

10.

Denton

(2013). Responding to edTPA: Transforming practice or applying shortcuts? AILACTE Journal, 10(1), 19-36.

11.

Emerson

R. M.

Fretz

R. I.

Shaw

L. L.

(1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

12.

Ferber

Nillas

(2010). Through the eyes of student teachers: Successes and challenges in field teaching experiences. National Teacher Education Journal, 3(2), 61-86.

13.

Gareis

C. R.

Grant

L. W.

(2014). The efficacy of training cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 77-88.

14.

Glaser

B. G.

(1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

15.

Hildebrandt

S. A.

Swanson

(2014). World language teacher candidate performance on edTPA: An exploratory study. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 576-591.

16.

Hildebrandt

S. A.

Swanson

(2016). Understanding the world language edTPA. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

17.

Kang

N. N.

Wallace

(2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89, 140-165.

18.

Killian

J. E.

Wilkins

E. A.

(2009). Characteristics of highly effective cooperating teachers: A study of their backgrounds and preparation. Action in Teacher Education, 30(4), 67-83.

19.

Kissau

(2014). Type of instructional delivery and second language teacher candidate performance: Online versus face-to-face. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 513-531.

20.

Kissau

Algozzine

(2017). Effective foreign language teaching: Broadening the concept of content knowledge. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 114-134.

21.

Knight

S. L.

Lloyd

G. M.

Arbaugh

Gamson

McDonald

S. P.

Nolan

Jr. . . . Whitney

A. E.

(2014). Performance assessment of teaching: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 372-374.

22.

Kornfeld

Grady

Marker

Ruddell

(2007). Caught in the current: A self-study of state-mandated compliance in a teacher education program. The Teachers College Record, 109, 1902-1930.

23.

Koster

Korthagen

Wubbels

(1998). Is there anything left for us? Functions of cooperating teachers and teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 75-89.

24.

Lachuk

Koellner

(2015). Performance-based assessment for certification: Insights from edTPA implementation. Language Arts, 93, 84-95.

25.

Ledwell

Oyler

(2016). Unstandardized responses to a “standardized” test: The edTPA as gatekeeper and curriculum change agent. Journal of Teacher Education, 67, 120-134.

26.

Lee

(2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63, 13-22.

27.

McIntyre

D. J.

Killian

J. E.

(1987). The influence of supervisory training for cooperating teachers on preservice teachers’ development during early field experiences. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 277-282.

28.

Metcalf

(1991). The supervision of student teaching: A review of research. The Teacher Educator, 26(4), 27-42.

29.

Miller

Carroll

Jancic

M. M.

Markworth

(2015). Developing a culture of learning around the edTPA: One university’s journey. The New Educator, 11(1), 37-59.

30.

Noel

(2014). Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA): An instructor’s development and evaluation of an embedded signature assessment in an early childhood literacy course. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35, 357-372.

31.

Palinkas

L. A.

Horwitz

S. M.

Green

C. A.

Wisdom

J. P.

Duan

Hoagwood

(2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42, 533-544.

32.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

33.

Sato

(2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 421-434.

34.

Sharp

K. A.

(2010). The Teacher Performance Assessment: Reflections on the pedagogical thought processes of three student teachers. Current Issues in Education, 13(1). Available from http://cie.asu.edu/

35.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. (2013). edTPA field test: Summary report. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.org/news-area/announcements/edtpa-summary-report-is-now-available.html

36.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. (2014). Recommended professional performance standard. Retrieved from http://www.edtpa.com/PageView.aspx?f=GEN_PerformanceStandard.html

37.

Sullivan

G. M.

Feinn

(2012). Using effect size—Or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4, 279-282.

38.

Thompson

(2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

39.

Troyan

F. J.

Kaplan

C. S.

(2015). The functions of reflection in high-stakes assessment of world language teacher candidates. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 372-393.

40.

Turunen

Tuovila

(2012). Mind the gap: Combining theory and practice in a field experience. Teaching Education, 23, 115-130.

41.

Weiss

E. M.

Weiss

(2001). Doing reflective supervision with student teachers in a professional development school culture. Reflective Practice, 2, 125-154.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB