Advertisement

A case study of elementary teacher candidates’ preparation for a high stakes teacher performance assessment

  • Susan Swars AuslanderEmail author
  • Stephanie Z. Smith
  • Marvin E. Smith
  • Kayla Myers
Article

Abstract

Increased accountability demands are being placed on teacher preparation programs across the USA to demonstrate competencies of their teacher candidates. As a means of evaluating teacher candidates’ instructional effectiveness and readiness for their own classrooms, some programs are using standardized teacher performance assessments, with faculty navigating how to respond to these requirements while maintaining a focus on desired learning outcomes of methods courses. This study’s elementary teacher preparation program is located in one of the states recently requiring successful completion of the Elementary Education edTPA, which includes four tasks with one focused on mathematics (i.e., Math Task 4). A case study design was used to explore the preparation of teacher candidates (N = 51) for edTPA during a mathematics methods course emphasizing Cognitively Guided Instruction that included a simulated Math Task 4 assignment. The study specifically investigated changes in mathematical beliefs across the course and perspectives on engagement in the simulated Math Task 4. Data were collected via two belief surveys: an open-ended questionnaire and individual interviews of six participants. The quantitative findings show two important course intentions—that pedagogical beliefs would shift toward more cognitive alignment and teaching efficacy beliefs would increase—were not realized. The qualitative data provide insights into some of the struggles associated with edTPA, including pronounced anxiety and substantial misalignment with classroom placements, serving as a filter for learning and change during the course.

Keywords

Mathematics teacher preparation Elementary teachers Standardized teacher performance assessments Mathematics methods courses Cognitively Guided Instruction Teacher beliefs 

Notes

References

  1. AACTE. (2018). How are states using edTPA for program approval and/or licensure? Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.org/state-policy.
  2. Adkins, A. (2016). The benefits of edTPA. Educational Leadership, 73(8), 55–58.Google Scholar
  3. Althauser, K. L. (2018). The emphasis of inquiry instructional strategies: Impact on preservice teachers’ mathematics efficacy. Journal of Education and Learning, 7, 53–70.Google Scholar
  4. Au, W. (2013). What’s a nice test like you doing in a place like this? Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 22–27.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2010). Teaching skillful teaching. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 40–45.Google Scholar
  6. Beswick, K. (2006). The importance of mathematics teachers’ beliefs. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 62(4), 17–22.Google Scholar
  7. Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs about school mathematics and mathematicians’ mathematics and their relationship to practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 127–147.Google Scholar
  8. Bunch, G. C., Aguirre, J. M., & Tellez, K. (2009). Beyond the scores: Using candidate responses on high stakes performance assessment to inform teacher preparation for English learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 18, 103–128.Google Scholar
  9. Cady, J. A., Meier, S. L., & Lubinski, C. A. (2006). Developing mathematics teachers: The transition from preservice to experienced teacher. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 295–305.Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (2014). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann and NCTM.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. Cross Francis, D. L. (2015). Dispelling the notion of inconsistencies in teachers’ mathematics beliefs and practices: A 3-year case study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 173–201.Google Scholar
  13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can be learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 291–309.Google Scholar
  14. Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2013). The role of performance assessment in developing teaching as a profession. Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 10–15.Google Scholar
  15. Enochs, L., Smith, P., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 194–202.Google Scholar
  16. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.Google Scholar
  17. Fosnot, C. T. (2006). Contexts for learning mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding teachers’ self-sustaining generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 67–80.Google Scholar
  19. Georgia Department of Education. (2016). Mathematics frameworks units. Retrieved https://www.georgiastandards.org/Frameworks/Pages/BrowseFrameworks/math.aspx.
  20. Greenblatt, D., & O’Hara, K. E. (2015). Buyer beware: Lessons learned from edTPA implementation in New York state. Thought and Action, 42(2), 57–67.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, L. C., Oesterle, S., Swars Auslander, S., & Kajander, A. (Eds.). (2016). The mathematics preparation of elementary teachers: Issues and strategies for content courses. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–23). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  23. Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future Children, 17, 129–153.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobson, E., & Kilpatrick, J. (2015). Understanding teacher affect, knowledge, and instruction over time: An agenda for research on productive disposition for teaching mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 401–406.Google Scholar
  25. Lannin, J. K., & Chval, K. B. (2013). Challenge beginning teacher beliefs. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19, 508–515.Google Scholar
  26. Ledwell, K., & Oyler, C. (2016). Unstandardized responses to a “standardized” test: The edTPA as gatekeeper and curriculum change agent. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(2), 120–134.Google Scholar
  27. Liljedahl, P. G. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2–3), 219–235.Google Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Maasepp, B., & Bobis, J. (2014/2015). Prospective primary teachers’ beliefs about mathematics. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(2), 89–107.Google Scholar
  30. Madeloni, B., & Gorlewski, J. (2013). Wrong answer to the wrong question. Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 16–21.Google Scholar
  31. Mathematics Assessment Project. (2016). Teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. Retrieved from http://map.mathshell.org/trumath/intro_to_tru_20161223.pdf.
  32. Meuwissen, K. W., & Choppin, J. M. (2015). Preservice teachers’ adaptations to tensions associated with the edTPA during its early implementation in New York and Washington states. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(103), 1–25.Google Scholar
  33. Moscardini, L. (2014). Developing equitable elementary mathematics classrooms through teachers learning about children’s mathematical thinking: Cognitively Guided Instruction as an inclusive pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 69–79.Google Scholar
  34. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  35. NCTM. (2006). Curriculum focal points. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Inc.Google Scholar
  36. NCTM. (2007). Navigations. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Inc.Google Scholar
  37. NCTM. (2014a). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  38. NCTM. (2014b). Procedural fluency in mathematics. Retrieved from: http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Procedural-Fluency-in-Mathematics/.
  39. NGACBP & CCSSO. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
  40. NRC. (2001). The strands of mathematical proficiency. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics (pp. 115–155). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pecheone, R. L., & Whittaker, A. (2016). Well-prepared teachers inspire student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(7), 8–13.Google Scholar
  42. Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 1–40.Google Scholar
  43. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Philipp, R. A. (2008). Motivating prospective elementary school teachers to learn mathematics by focusing on children’s thinking. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 7–16.Google Scholar
  45. Philipp, R. A., Ambrose, R., Lamb, L., Sowder, J. L., Schappelle, B. P., & Sowder, L. (2007). Effects of early field experiences on the mathematics content knowledge and beliefs of prospective elementary teachers: An experimental study. Journal for Research on Mathematics Education, 38(5), 438–476.Google Scholar
  46. Polly, D., McGee, J. R., Wang, C., Lambert, R. G., Pugalee, D. K., & Johnson, S. (2013). The association between teachers’ beliefs, enacted practices, and student learning in mathematics. The Mathematics Educator, 22(2), 11–30.Google Scholar
  47. Ratner, A. R., & Kolman, J. S. (2016). Breakers, benders, and obeyers: Inquiring into teachers educators’ medication of edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(35), 1–26.Google Scholar
  48. Russell, S. J. (2000). Developing computational fluency with whole numbers. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(3), 154–158.Google Scholar
  49. Santagata, R., Yeh, C., & Mercado, J. (2018). Preparing elementary school teachers to learn from teaching: A comparison of two approaches to mathematics methods instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27, 474–516.Google Scholar
  50. Saran, R., & Gujarati, J. (2013). Moving toward positive mathematics beliefs and developing socio-mathematical authority: Urban preservice teachers in mathematics methods courses. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 9, 100–111.Google Scholar
  51. SCALE. (2015). edTPA elementary education assessment handbook. Retrieved from http://education.ucsc.edu/academics/mac-info/edtpaelehandbook.pdf.
  52. Schifter, D., Bastable, V., & Russell, S. J. (2008). Developing mathematical ideas: Casebooks. Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour/Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  53. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). What counts, when? Reflection on beliefs, affect, attitude, orientations, habits of mind, grain size, time scale, context, theory, and method. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education (pp. 395–404). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Skott, J. (2015). Towards a participatory approach to ‘beliefs’ in mathematics education. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education (pp. 3–23). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, M. E., Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Hart, L. C., & Haardoerfer, R. (2012). Effects of an additional mathematics content courses on elementary teachers’ mathematical beliefs and knowledge for teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 4, 336–348.Google Scholar
  56. Sowder, J. T. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  57. Steele, D. F. (2001). The interfacing of preservice and inservice experiences of reform-based teaching: A longitudinal study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 139–172.Google Scholar
  58. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction. New York: Teachers College Press and NCTM.Google Scholar
  59. Sun, J., & van Es, E. A. (2015). An exploratory study of the influence that analyzing teaching has on preservice teachers’ classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 201–214.Google Scholar
  60. Swars, S. L., Hart, L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M., & Tolar, T. (2007). A longitudinal study of elementary pre-service teachers’ mathematics beliefs and content knowledge. School Science and Mathematics, 107(9), 325–335.Google Scholar
  61. Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., Carothers, J., & Myers, K. (2018). The preparation experiences of elementary mathematics specialists: Examining influences on beliefs, content knowledge, and teaching practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(2), 123–145.Google Scholar
  62. Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., & Hart, L. C. (2009). A longitudinal study of effects of a developmental teacher preparation program on elementary prospective teachers’ mathematics beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 47–66.Google Scholar
  63. Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness. (2016). Retrieved from http://education.gsu.edu/teacher-preparation-program-effectiveness/.
  64. Technical Education Research Centers. (2012). Investigations in number, data, and space. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  65. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
  66. Tyminski, A. M., Land, T. J., Drake, C., Zambak, V. S., & Simpson, A. (2014). Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ emerging ability to write problems to build on children’s mathematics. In J. Lo, K. R. Leatham, & L. R. Van Zoest (Eds.), Research trends in mathematics teacher education (pp. 193–218). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2007). Everyday mathematics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  68. Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’ changing beliefs and instructional use of children’s mathematics thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 89–110.Google Scholar
  69. van Es, E. A., & Conroy, J. (2009). Using the Performance Assessment for California Teachers to examine pre-service teachers’ conceptions of teaching mathematics for understanding. Issues in Teacher Education, 18, 83–102.Google Scholar
  70. van Es, E. A., Haymore Sandholtz, J., & Shea, L. M. (2014). Exploring the influences of a partner-based teacher credential program on candidates’ performance outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 482–499.Google Scholar
  71. Wilkins, J. L. M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 139–164.Google Scholar
  72. Wilson, M., & Cooney, T. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development: The role of beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Toerner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 127–148). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  73. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Swars Auslander
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephanie Z. Smith
    • 1
  • Marvin E. Smith
    • 2
  • Kayla Myers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Early Childhood and Elementary EducationGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Elementary and Early Childhood EducationKennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA

Personalised recommendations