evidence of teacher learning in a performance … · anissa r. stewart, jennifer n. scalzo, nicole...

Anissa R. Stewart, Jennifer N. Scalzo, Nicole Merino, & Katherine Nilsen

33

Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer 2015

Beyond the Criteria:Evidence of Teacher Learningin a Performance Assessment

By Anissa R. Stewart, Jennifer N. Scalzo,Nicole Merino, & Katherine Nilsen

Researchonuniversity-basedteacherpreparationhasbeenroutinelyscruti-nized.Currentcriticismsbypolicymakersandscholarsarefocusedontheneedforempiricallybasedevidenceonifandhowteacherpreparationmatters(e.g.,Boyd,Grossman,Lankford,Loeb,&Wyckoff,2009;Darling-Hammond,2008;NationalResearchCouncil[NRC],2010).OneofthestrongestsourcesofevidencecomesfromthereportStudying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education(Cochran-Smith&Zeichner,2005),whichclearlyillustratesthatteachereducationprogramsinfluencepreserviceteachers’thinkingaboutteachingandlearning,self-awareness,andbeliefsandattitudes(seealsoClift&Brady,2005;Hollins&Guzman,2005).Furtherevidenceexistsonthepositiveeffectsofassessmentsinuniversityteachereducationprograms(e.g.,Bunch,Aguirre,&Téllez,2009;Darling-Hammond&Snyder,2000;Nagle,2009;Snyder,Lippincott,&Bower,1998),butlackofconsistentevidencethreatensthe

AnissaR.StewartisprogramdirectorwithUniversityExtension,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara;JenniferN.ScalzoisalecturerintheTeacherEducationProgramoftheGevirtz GraduateSchool ofEducation,University ofCalifornia,SantaBarbara;NicoleMerinoisdirectorofPACT/TPAwiththeStanfordCenterforAssessment,Learning,andEquity,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,California;andKatherineNilsenisprogrammanagerwithUniversityExtension,UniversityofCalifornia,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],&[email protected]

Beyond the Criteria

34

sustained belief that teacher education programs enhance teacher effectiveness(Grossman,2008). Although teacher preparation programs are required to show evidence ofpreservicecandidates’teachingability,mostassessmentshavebeenintheformofsubjectmattertests(Cochran-Smith,2006);manystatesuseoneormoreoftheEducationalTesting Service’s (ETS) Praxis series tests. Nevertheless, researchindicatesaweakcorrelationbetweenthesetestsofcontentknowledgeandteachereffectiveness(Darling-Hammond,2006;K.J.Mitchell,Robinson,Plake,&Knowles,2001;NRC,2001).AsDarling-Hammond(2010)argued,“currentmeasuresforevaluatingteachersarenotoftenlinkedtotheircapacitytoteach”(p.2). EvenU.S.SecretaryofEducationArneDuncan(2009)underscoredtheneedforbetterassessmentsofthepedagogicalskillsofnewteacherswhenheidentifiedtheeffortsoftheAmericanAssociationofCollegesforTeacherEducation(AACTE)andits800collegesanduniversitiestoimprovestudentlearningthroughdevelopinganationalassessmentofteachercandidatereadiness,aperformance-basedassessmentmodeledafterthePerformanceAssessmentforCaliforniaTeachers(PACT).ThePACT,ateachingperformanceassessment,isdesignedtomeasureeffectiveteachingthroughassessingfivedomains (with rubricscoveringAssessment,Reflection,AcademicLanguage,Planning,andInstruction).Thecurrentperformanceassessment,endorsedbytheAACTEandtheTeacherPerformanceAssessmentConsortium(TPAC),isknownastheedTPAandcomprises33statesandtheDistrictofColumbia.1

Purpose of the Study

Thepurposeofthisstudywastoexaminewhatteachercandidatesmadevisibleabouttheirpracticesandunderstandingsoftheteachingandlearningprocessinconstructingtheirperformanceassessments.Thisstudywasdesignedtoexaminethekindsofteachingpracticesteachercandidatesutilizedintheclassroom,specifi-callyexamininghowcandidateswhoscoredhighestoncertainPACTrubrics(inthedomainsofAssessment,Reflection,andAcademicLanguage)plannedinstruc-tionalsupports,assessed,andreflectedinwayssignificantlydifferentthanthosewhoscoredlowestonPACTrubrics.Forthisstudy,weexamined12performanceassessments completedbypreservice teachers fromaCentralCoastCaliforniaTeacherEducationProgram.Althoughvarioustypesofassessmentsarerequiredduringthisprogram,PACToffersthemostcomprehensiveevidenceofhowteachercandidatesengageinthepracticeofteachingandlearningafterhavingparticipatedinvarietyofteacherpreparationcoursesandwhilecompletingtheirfieldwork. AsofJuly1,2008,allcandidatesadmittedtoacredentialprograminCali-forniaarerequiredtopassateacherperformanceassessment(TPA).PACTisanapprovedTPA,alongwithedTPAandtwoothers.PACTissubjectspecificandis“designedtomeasureandpromotecandidates’abilitiestointegratetheirknowledgeofcontent,students,andinstructionalcontextinmakinginstructionaldecisionsand


35

reflectingonpractice”(Pecheone&Chung,2007,p.5).TocompleteoneofthePACTTeacherEvents,candidatesmustsubmitteacherartifactsandcommentar-iescenteredonthefivedimensionsofteaching:planning,instruction,assessment,reflection,andacademiclanguage.Artifactsforthefirstfourdimensionsincludelessonplans,videoclipsofteaching,studentworksamples,anddailyreflectionsoninstruction.Academiclanguageisexaminedthroughtheseartifactsandcandi-dates’commentaryresponsesandevaluates“howtheirlessonsandinstructionhelptobuildstudents’acquisitionanddevelopmentofacademiclanguage”(Pecheone&Chung,2007,p.10),includingthevocabulary,symbols,andlanguagedemandcentraltothelearningsegment. Inthisstudy,twophasesofanalysiswereconducted.Thefirstphasewasadiscourseanalysisthatfocusedonhowteachercandidateswhoscoredhighestonthe performance assessment described their teaching and students’ learning inwaysthatwereclearlydifferentthanthewaysthosecandidateswhoscoredlowestontheassessmentlearned.Inthisphase,weconstructedtellingcases,ameansbywhichtheteachercandidates’discursivechoicesbecomedescriptionsofformerlyinvisiblesocialconditions(seeJ.C.Mitchell,1984).Thesetellingcasessupportourgroundedinferencesofhowdifferentcandidatesengagedinandreflectedontheirteachingandlearningpractices.Inthesecondphase,wefocusedmoreonas-sessmentsofcandidateswhoscoredhighestonthePACTtohighlightdifferencesinpracticesrelatedtoacademiclanguagedevelopmentacrossdisciplines.Throughthesephasesofanalysis,weaddressedthefollowingresearchquestions:

1.WhatkindsofteachingpracticesdidteachercandidateswhoscoredhighestontheAssessment,Reflection,andAcademicLanguagerubricsuse?Howwerethesepracticesorstrategiesdifferentfromthepracticesorstrategiesthosecandidateswhoscoredlowestonthesamerubricsused?

2.Are thesedifferencesevidentacross teachingpractices fordifferentsubjectareas?

Inanswering these researchquestions,we sought tohighlightwhatdistin-guished a strongperformance assessment from aweaker one, basedon scoresfortheAssessment,Reflection,andAcademicLanguagerubrics.WefocusedonscoresfortheserubricsbecauseourcandidatesconsistentlyreceivehigherscoresinthePlanningandInstructionrubrics.Weconductedthisanalysisspecificallytoinformthedesignofourowncourseshereattheuniversityandtobettersupportour teacher candidates going through the performance assessment process.Anadditionalaimofthisstudyistoinformalargeraudienceofteachereducatorsuti-lizingperformanceassessmentstomeasureteachercandidatelearning.AsteachereducatorsandtrainedPACTscorersatouruniversities,wedrewinthisresearchandsubsequentanalysisfromanumberofexperiencesinworkingwithteachercandidates,includingperformanceassessmentandmaster’sprojectcoordinators

Beyond the Criteria

36

andinstructorsforcoursesoncurriculumdesignandinstruction,EnglishlanguagedevelopmentandspeciallydesignedacademicinstructioninEnglish,educationalpsychology,literacycourses,andsciencemethods.

The Performance Assessment for California Teachers

ThePACTisastandardizedperformanceassessmentthatincludesEmbeddedSignatureAssignmentsthatvaryamonginstitutions.2PACTwasdevelopedtoassessateachercandidate’sabilitytoplanlessonsthatprovideopportunitiesforstudentstolearn,design,andanalyzeassessments;toreflectonwhatoccurredduringandasaresultoftheinstruction;andtoproposenextstepsforthestudents’learningprocesses. Intheassessment,teachercandidatesarerequiredtoconsidertheclassroomcontextinwhichtheyareteachingandtoplanlessonsthatareappropriatefortheirgroupofstudents.TheyalsoarepromptedtoprovidespecificsupportforEnglishlanguage learners, students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or504Plans,orstudentswhomaystrugglewithcontent.Thesevariousdocuments,descriptions,andexplanationsareorganizedintoaTeachingEvent(TE).TheTEcomprisesfivetasks:Task1includestheContextforLearningFormandContextCommentary;Task2includeslessonplans,instructionalmaterials,andPlanningCommentary;Task3 includes thevideoof classroom teaching and InstructionCommentary;Task4includestheassessmentrubric,threestudentworksamples,andtheAssessmentCommentary;andTask5includesdailyreflectionsandtheReflectionCommentary.Evidenceofattentiontoacademiclanguagedevelopmentisembeddedacrosseachofthetasks. Trainedandcalibratedscorersevaluatethecandidates’performances;thesescorersaremostlyfacultyandsupervisorswithintheirownteachereducationpro-grams.ScorersevaluatethePACTTEusing12four-levelrubricsdividedbytask(Table1).TopasstheTE,ateachercandidatemustachieveatleastaLevel2on10ofthe12rubricsandnotreceivetwoscoresofLevel1withinthesametask.3WhenacandidatepassesPACT,heorsheisdeemedreadytotakeoverhisorherownclassroom.AlthoughourdataderivesolelyfromthePACTTE,wearguethatthefindingsdiscussedinthisstudyhaveimplicationsforanyuniversity-basedteachereducationprogramthatusesorplanstouseperformanceassessmentstoevaluateteachercandidates’knowledgeaboutteachingandlearning.

A Conceptual Framework for Studying Teacher Learning

Weunderstandteacherlearningtobeacontinualprocessofsociallyconstructedandreconstructedteachingandlearningexperiences.Twobodiesofresearchinformourviewofteacherlearningandsubsequentstudyofperformanceassessments:(a)teachercapacity,orwhatteachersshouldknowanddemonstrateaseffective


37

Table 1Task Name, Rubric Numbers, and Guiding Questions for the PACT Rubrics

Task Rubric Guiding Questions

Planning 1 Howdotheplanssupportstudentlearningofstrategies forunderstanding,interpreting,andrespondingto complextext?(TPEs1,4,9)

2 Howdotheplansmakethecurriculumaccessibleto thestudentsintheclass?(TPEs1,4,5,6,7,8,9)

3 Whatopportunitiesdostudentshavetodemonstrate theirunderstandingofthestandardsandlearning objectives?(TPEs1,5,11)

Instruction 4 Howdoesthecandidateactivelyengagestudentsintheir ownunderstandingofhowtounderstand,interpret,or respondtoacomplextext?(TPEs1,5,11)

5 Howdoesthecandidatemonitorstudentlearning duringinstructionandrespondtostudentquestions, comments,andneeds?(TPEs2,5)

Assessment 6 Howdoesthecandidatedemonstrateanunderstanding ofstudentperformancewithrespecttostandards/ objectives?(TPEs1,3)

7 Howdoesthecandidateusetheanalysisofstudent learningtoproposenextstepsininstruction?(TPEs3,4)

8 Whatisthequalityoffeedbacktostudents?(TPEs3,4)

Reflection 9 Howdoesthecandidatemonitorstudentlearningand makeappropriateadjustmentsininstructionduringthe learningsegment?(TPEs2,10,12,13)

10 Howdoesthecandidateuseresearch,theory,and reflectionsonteachingandlearningtoguidepractice? (TPEs10,11,12,13)

Academic 11 HowdoesthecandidatedescribethelanguagedemandsLanguage ofthelearningtasksandassessmentsinrelationto studentsatdifferentlevelsofEnglishlanguage proficiency?(TPEs1,4,7,8)

12 Howdothecandidate’splanning,instruction,and assessmentsupportacademiclanguagedevelopment? (TPEs1,4,7,8)

Beyond the Criteria

38

teaching,includingsupportforstudents’academiclanguagedevelopment,and(b)performanceassessmentsandwhattheyrevealaboutcandidates’teachingpracticesandunderstandingoftheirpractices.

Teacher Capacity

Grant(2008)definedteacher capacityas“ateacher’sknowledge,skillsanddispositions”(p.127).McDiarmidandClevenger-Bright(2008)discussedtheevolv-ingandexpandingconceptionsofteachercapacity,drawingattentiontotheroleofteachers’subjectmatterknowledgeandresponsibilitiesforprovidingaccesstoallstudents.Theseconceptionsofteachercapacityhaveadvancedfromaskill-focusedviewor“oldformulaofknowledge,skills,anddispositions”toincludeamorecollaborativeframingofcircumstances,events,andproblemsteachersencounter(p.147).Feiman-Nemser(2001)arguedthatcentraltocontinuationofthisteacherlearningprocessarefivetasksthatbuildonideasaboutwhatteachersneedtoknowandbeabletodo.TonotconfusetasksasoutlinedinPACTwithFeiman-Nemser’stasks,werefertothelatteraspracticesindescribingherframework.PracticesmostsignificanttothisstudyincludePractice3,introducingperspectivesondevelop-mentandlearningto“providenecessaryframeworksforunderstandingstudents,designingappropriatelearningactivities,andjustifyingpedagogicaldecisionsandactions”(p.1018),andPractice5,providingteachercandidateswithopportunitiestoobserve, interpret,andanalyze,aswith“analyzingstudentwork,comparingdifferentcurricularmaterials,...andobservingwhatimpacttheirinstructionhasonstudents”(p.1019).Buildingonthesignificanceofteacherlearning,Cochran-Smith(2005)arguedthatthemostdefininggoalofteachereducationshouldbeafocusonstudentlearning.Furthermore,Darling-Hammond(2006)arguedthatthemostimportantquestionsforteachereducatorsconcerntherelationbetweenwhatteachershavelearnedandhowitinfluenceswhattheirpupilslearn. The National Academy of Education Committee on Teacher Education(NAECTE;2007)describedeffectiveteachersasthosewhouseavarietyofdiffer-enttoolstoassesshowstudentslearninadditiontowhatstudentsknow.Effectiveteachersdesignlessonsbasedonstudents’priorknowledgeandlevelofdevelop-mentandadaptthecurriculumtostudents’needs.Theyalsoengagestudentsinactive learning (aswithdebating,discussing, researching,experimenting,etc.).Asidefromdefininganeffectiveteacher,theauthorsofNAECTEalsoexplainthatteachereducationprogramsshouldbestructuredinwaysthatenablecandidatestolearnaboutpracticeinpractice,bybridginglearningexperiencesoncampustothosetakingplaceintheschoolclassroom,tolayafoundationforlifelonglearn-ing.Inotherwords,teacherresearchandperformanceassessmentsshouldrelateteacherlearningtoclassroompractice(seealsoDarling-Hammond,2000,2010)andshouldhelpcandidatesdevelophabitsofreflectionandanalysis,whichmaybeutilizedoncetheyhavecompletedaparticularpreserviceprogram(NAECTE,2007).Specificcharacteristicsthatdefineteachercapacityandteachereffectiveness


39

arerelatedtoteachercandidates’abilitiestounderstandtheirstudents,designap-propriatelearningactivities,justifypedagogicaldecisions(Feiman-Nemser,2001),andadaptthecurriculumtostudents’needs(NAECTE,2007).Buildingonthesecharacteristicsandothers,wearguethatcentraltoateachercandidate’ssuccessintheclassroomishisorherabilitytoprovidestudentswithopportunitiestodeveloptheacademiclanguageinthespecificdiscipline. Theacademic language frameworkused inour teachereducationprogramatthetimetheseassessmentswerecompletedcenteredontheworkofDutroandMoran(2003).DutroandMoranincludedasimplifieddescriptionofacademiclanguageasthe“languageoftexts,ofacademicdiscussion,andofformalwriting”(p.231).Thesemayincludejustifyingevidence,generatinghypotheses,summa-rizing,evaluatinginformation,definingcausalrelationships,andcomparingandsynthesizinginformation(seeChamot&O’Malley,1994;Dutro&Moran,2003).Academiclanguageincludeshow(forms)weuselanguagetoaccomplishacademicpurposes(functions)insideandoutsideoftheclassroom.Languagefunctionsareexpressedthroughforms.Formscanincludediscipline-specificcontentvocabulary,whichmay takeondifferentmeaningsdependingon thediscipline.Dutro andMoran(2003)distinguishedbetweentwodifferentbutinterrelatedtypesofforms.Usinganarchitecturalmetaphor,theydefinedcontent-specificvocabularytermsas“brickterms”andthelinguisticorgrammaticalstructuresthatshowrelationshipsamongwordsasthe“mortar”terms.Thebrickandmortartermsandphrasesworkintandemtoexpressideas. Currentresearchhasindicatedthatteachercandidatesareabletoapplylanguageobjectives,functions,andlanguagestructurestotheirlessonplans(Scalzo,2010)andthattheyareabletoarticulatedifferentlevelsofunderstandingandadvocateforavarietyofinstructionalsupportsforEnglishlearners(Bunchetal.,2009).Furthermore,studentscanuseacademiclanguageintheclassroom,butonlywheninstructionalsupportisprovided(Fillmore&Snow,2002;Schleppegrell,2004).However,asGrant(2008)argued,absentfrommuchofthescholarshiponteachercapacityisresearchonhowteachercapacityrelatestoknowledgeandskillsforteachingdiversegroupsofstudents.Nevertheless,DutroandMoran’s(2003)approachtakesastructuralviewoflanguage,andnoevidenceexiststhatstudentsstudyingexplicitformsdeveloplanguagefluency(seeValdés,Capitelli,&Alvarez,2011).Assuch,weareexploringmorerecentandsophisticatedapproachestostudyingacademiclanguagedevelopmentinourworkwithpreserviceteachers(see,e.g.,Bailey,2007;Bailey&Butler,2003;Bunch,2013;Arias&Faltis,2013).Theseinclude opportunities for teachers to develop pedagogical language knowledge(Galguera,2011);tofacilitatestudents’academiclanguagedevelopmentwithinthefabricofeverydayclassroominteractions,notseparatedfromsociallanguage(Faltis,2013);andtodevelopacademiclanguageproficiencyteststobetterunder-standlanguageusageinacademicsettings(Bailey,2007;Bailey&Butler,2003).Specificapproachestostudents’developmentofacademiclanguageasasocial

Beyond the Criteria

40

practicearedefinedintermsof“learningtotalkscience”(Lemke,1990)andusinglanguagerecognizedbysocialscientists(Short,1994),orwhatDeOliveira(2013)calledhistory discourse, includingpresentingand interpretinghistoricalevents(Schleppegrell,2004).Inthefieldofmathematics,studentsusestructuresaswellaslanguageindevelopingamathematics register(Middleton,Llamas-Flores,&Guerra-Lombardi,2013).Educatorshavealsousedsystemic functional linguisticstounderstandtheimportanceoflanguageformsformeaningmaking(Halliday,1985;Halliday&Webster,2004).Inparticular,accordingtoFaltis(2013),

ifteacherscouldlearnaboutlanguageformationswithindifferentacademicdis-ciplinesandteachstudentstorecognizeandusethesepatterns,studentswouldhavemoreaccesstotheacademiccontentbecausethefeaturesoflanguageinacademiccontextswouldbecometransparent.(p.20)

Performance Assessments

Performance assessments are used for a variety of reasons and have beenidentifiedasavaluabletoolforevaluatingteacherpreparation(Darling-Hammond,2010).Byutilizingperformanceassessments,educatorscanbemoreflexibleinhowtheydesignandimplementtheirteachereducationprograms.Furthermore,performanceassessmentsmostcloselyalignwithevaluatingwhatteachersactuallydo(Arends,2006;Darling-Hammond,2010).Contextisimportant—justaswithstudentsatanylevel,“thelearningvarieswithindividuallearnersandtheiraspira-tionsandabilities”(Arends,2006,p.20).Self-reporteddatabyteacherswhofoundcompletingthePACTtobevaluableindicatedthattheassessmentwashelpfulforsequencinglessons,evaluatingwhatstudentswerelearning(andnotlearning),andreflectingonhowtousethatunderstandingtoprepareforthenextlesson.Teach-ersreportedthatcompletingthisassessmentcontinuedtoinfluencetheirteachingpracticesduringtheirfirstyearofteaching(Darling-Hammond,2010). Research on what performance assessments make visible about effectiveteachingindicatesthatcandidatesusemultiplerepresentationstomakelanguageandmathematicalconceptscomprehensible,theypromoteandfacilitatetheuseofmathematicalvocabularyanddiscourse, theyusedavarietyofparticipationstructures,andtheysupportedtheuseofstudents’nativelanguages(Bunchetal.,2009).Although this studyexaminedhow the teachercandidatesdesignedandimplementedtheirlessons,otherresearchershavefocusedonthereflectiontaskandhavefoundthatcandidatesmade“ashiftfrominnerreflectiontoamorecriticallyreflectivepracticegroundedontheexaminationofartifactsandreasoneddiscourseaboutsuchinquiry”(Nagle,2009,p.4).ThisprocessmovedthediscourseawayfromwhatNaglecalled“warstories”orotherpersonalstoriestowardmoreanalyti-calandproductiveconversationsaboutteachingpractices.Teachercandidatesalsointegrateaspectsoftheseconversationsintotheirworkandcreateanexpectationthatreflectivepracticeispartofeverydayteachingpractice.


41

Methodology and Data Collection

Forthisarticle,wequalitativelyanalyzed12performanceassessmentssub-mittedbyteachercandidateswhowerepartofthesecondaryteachingcohortinthe2009-2010academicschoolyear.Table2chartsthesumofeachcandidate’sscores.Sothatpseudonymsareeasytodistinguish,weusednamesthatstartwiththeletterHtorepresentcandidatesthatreceivedthe“highest”setofscores.NamesthatstartwithLwerechosentorepresentcandidatesthatreceivedthe“lowest”setofscores,andnamesthatstartedwiththeletterNwerechosentorepresentcandidatesthatreceivedthe“nextlowest”setofscores.AsrepresentedinTable2,candidateswhoreceivedthehighestscoresearnedbetween20and25.Becausetherearesevenrubrics,theteachercandidateswhosubmittedstrongassessmentsreceived,onaverage,ascoreofLevel3foreachrubric.Teachercandidateswiththelowestscoresreceivedatotalbetween11and15,anaverageatorbelowaLevel2oneachofthesevenrubrics.Nevertheless,alloftheperformanceassessmentsweanalyzedreceivedpassingscores(seesection“ThePerformanceAssessmentforCaliforniaTeachers”fortheCaliforniapassingstandard). Afterselectingtheassessmentswewantedtoexaminefurther,wereadthroughtheperformanceassessmentsandhighlightedkeycharacteristicsandpracticesas-sociatedwitheffectiveteaching(seeDarling-Hammond,2000;Feiman-Nemser,2001;NAECTE,2007).Specifically,wecodedthecandidates’discursivechoicesaboutthepedagogicalskillstheyincorporatedintotheirlessons,howtheymoni-toredstudentlearning,howtheyinterpretedandusedassessments,howtheymadecontentaccessible,andhowtheyscaffoldedforEnglishlearners(ELs)andotherstheyidentifiedasstrugglingwiththecontent.Aftercodingtheteachercandidates’descriptions,wechartedthembytask(Assessment,AcademicLanguage,orRe-flection)andthenanalyzedthechartstoteaseoutpatternsofdifferencesbetween

Table 2Highest and Lowest Set of Total Scores for Rubrics 6-12

Subject area Sum of scores for Rubrics 6-12

Holly Science 23Nancy Science 14Laura Science 13Hannah Mathematics 25Norah Mathematics 15Lucy Mathematics 11Heather Englishlanguagearts 20Nikki Englishlanguagearts 14Larry Englishlanguagearts 13Henry History/socialscience 21Nadia History/socialscience 14Luke History/socialscience 13

Beyond the Criteria

42

thestrongandweakperformanceassessmentsforeachsubjectand,subsequently,lookedforevidenceofthesepatternsacrosstheTEsinthefourdifferentsubjectareas.Duringthisanalysis,wefoundfivedifferencesinhowteachercandidatesplanned,assessed,andreflectedontheirteachinginthe“strong”versus“weak/poor”performanceassessments. Onthebasisofthesefindings,weconstructedtellingcases(seeJ.C.Mitchell,1984)ofthosefivedifferences,whichmaketransparentstrongpracticesversusweakerpracticesinrelationtocharacteristicsofeffectiveteaching.Thesetellingcasesmakevisiblethespectrumofunderstandingsconstructedfromtheidealorplannedopportunities,asavailablethroughparticipationintheteachereducationprogram, to the more situational opportunities made available in the differentclassroomcontextsandthroughthefeedbackprovidedbythedifferentschoolsu-pervisors,amongothers.Duringtheanalyticprocess,wemakevisiblehowteachercandidates’actionsanddiscursivechoicesarerepresentativeofteacherswhoeitherscoredhighestorscoredlowestornextlowestonthePACT.Inthesecondphaseofanalysis,wecontrastedteachingpracticesofthosewhoscoredhighest,specificallylookingathowcandidatesengagedstudentsinacademiclanguageopportunitiestodetermineifdifferencesacrossdisciplineswereevident.

Findings

Comparison of Teaching Practices

Table3presentsthebreakdownofthedifferentclasscontexts,asdescribedintheperformanceassessmentsweanalyzed,accordingtogradelevel,subjectarea,numberofstudentsintheclass,andnumberofstudentswhoweredesignatedELandwhohadIEPsor504Plans.FromTable3,itisimportanttonotethattheseclasscontextsrepresentarangeofgradelevelsandsubjectareas,andallclasseshadatleastonestudentwhowasdesignatedELaccordingtohisorherperformanceontheCaliforniaEnglishLanguageDevelopmentTest.Furthermore,studentsintheseclassesrepresentadiversepopulationofstudents,bothlinguisticallyandculturally,andthusarichsourceofdatacollectionandcomplexlearningenvironments.

Key teaching actions.Throughanalysisoftheperformanceassessmentdocu-ments,wefoundfivekeyteachingactionsthatdistinguishedastrongTEfromonethatreceivedthelowestornextlowestsetofpassingscores.Findingsfromthisphaseofanalysisareasfollows:

1.TeachercandidateswhodidwellonthePACTusedformativeassess-mentstomonitor students’ understanding toward meeting the standards and learning objectives (seePractice3 inFeiman-Nemser, 2001) and language objectives;whereasteachercandidateswhodidnotdoaswellusedformativeassessmentstodetermine if students were on task orto monitor behavior.


43

2.TeachercandidateswhodidwellonPACTusedassessmentcriteriathatfocused on content and language objectives(seePractice5inFeiman-Nemser,2001),whereasteachercandidateswhodidnotdoaswellfocused primarily on completion of the task and the grammatical or mechanical elements of writing.

3.TeachercandidateswhodidwellonPACTutilizedscaffoldingthatsup-ported students’ ability to build academic language fluency(seePractice5inFeiman-Nemser,2001),whereasteachercandidateswhodidnotdoaswelloftenplannedsupportsthatconstrained what the students were able to discuss in their assignments.

4.TeachercandidateswhodidwellonPACTprovided different types of support for academic language developmentandwereable to articulate why these strategies are likely to support the development of the students’ understandingsofthecoursecontent(seePractice3inFeiman-Nemser,2001),whereastheteachercandidateswhodidnotdoaswellplanned

Table 3Breakdown of Class Contexts for Each Teaching Event Analyzed Science Math Englishlanguagearts History/socialscience

Holly Nancy Laura Hannah Norah Lucy Heather Nikki Larry HenryNadia Luke

Gradea 8 8 7 9(22), 10(1),11 8 11(28), 8 9 11 12 7 10(5), (24),12(5) 12(2) 11(1)

Subjectareab CP phs. Gate CPgeom. pre-calc alg.2 English/ CP CP CP CP CP phys. sci. lifesci. Am.lit. Engl. Engl. U.S. econ. world hist. hist.

Focusoflessons how stars struc./ polygons/ combining slope editorials poetry dia- mino-circu- justice forces and func- parallelogramsfunctions as inter- logue rities lar and contri- planetstion repre-. pre- and flow feudal buteto of senta- tation WWIIand life velocity DNA tion macro- ofrate econ- omics

No.students 32 27 28 28 30 29 30 29 24 34 34 32

No.designatedELsc 6RF; 1AD; 1AD;1AD; 8RF; 3AD;8EL; 7AD; 10IA;5AD;6RF; 9AD; 12LP 13RF 7RF 4RF 5LP 1EA 9RF 5EA 2RF 2IA 12LP 3EA

No.IEPs N/A 1with 1w/ N/A N/A 2with 1w/504 1w/ N/A 7w/ 8w/ N/Aor504Plans IEP 504 504 4w/IEPs IEP 504 IEPs 1w/ 1w/ IEP IEP

IEP – 1 1 – − 0 4 1 – 1 8 –

504 – 0 1 – – 2 1 0 – 7 0 –

aCP=collegepreparatory.bFormultiplegrades,numberofstudentspergradeinparentheses.cEL=Englishlearner;RF=reclassifiedfluent;LP=limitedproficiency;AD=advanced;EA=earlyadvanced; IA=intermediateadvanced.InformationprovidedisbasedtheCaliforniaEnglishLanguageDevelopmentTest.

Beyond the Criteria

44

support that focused on pronunciation and repetition of words and/or definitions.

5.TeachercandidateswhodidwellonPACTdiscussed next steps that focused on reteaching, review, and using different strategies and/or as-sessments(seePractice5inFeiman-Nemser,2001),whereastheteachercandidateswhodidnotdoaswellreiterated what they already did or explained that they would spend more time presenting information in essentially the same way.

Onthebasisofthesefindings,weshiftedouranalysistoconstructingtellingcasestofurtherillustratethesedifferences.Inconstructingthesetellingcases,wedescribedthedifferencesinmoredetailandhighlightedthediscursivechoicesmadebyteachercandidateswhoearnedhigherscoresonthePACTversusbythosewhoscoredlowestandnextlowestonthePACT.

Use of formative assessments.Eachofthe12teachercandidatesusedthetermformative assessmentthroughouthisorherlessonplan.TheteachersalsoaddressedhowtheyusedformativeassessmentsaspromptedbyaquestioninthePlanningCommentary,whichasks,“Explainhowthecollectionofassessmentsfromyourplanallowsyoutoevaluateyourstudents’learningofspecificstudentstandards/objectivesandprovidefeedbacktostudentsontheir learning.”CandidateswhoscoredhighestonPACTusedavarietyofdifferenttypesofformativeassessments,includingapreassessmentthatinformedthedesignoftheirlessons,anobservationchecklistoradescriptionofhowthecandidatewouldcirculatetheroomandaskspecificquestionstocheckforunderstanding,andstrategiesforrequiringstudentstoexplaintheiranswers.Forexample,Holly’sstudentscompletedavocabularypreassessmentthatrequiredthemtowritedefinitionsanddrawpicturesofscienceconcepts.Sheusedthispreassessmenttodetermineifandhowstudentsunderstoodtheconceptsbeforeshebeganhernewunit.Inaddition,Heatherpreassessedherstudents’academic languagedevelopment, readingcomprehension,andwritingskillsbyhavingthemanalyzeapoliticalcartoon(beforemovingtomorecomplexeditorials),andHannahpreassessedherstudents’abilitytoidentifypolygonsanddescribeinwritingwhyaparticularshapewasconsideredapolygonornot.HenryhadhisstudentscompleteaK-W-Lcharttodeterminewhatthey“knew”andwhatthey“wantedtoknow”aboutthestudyofminoritiesduringWorldWarII(whatstudents“learned”wouldbeassessedattheendoftheunit).Conversely,onlyoneoftheothereightteachercandidates(whoscoredlowestornextlowest)statedthatsheusedapreassessment.Lauramentionedthatshegaveapretestbutprovidednoexplanationofwhatsherequiredstudentstodoandwhatshewantedtoknowaboutthestudents’priorunderstandingbeforeplanningherlessons. Inaddition,allofthe12candidatesstatedthattheywouldcirculatetheclass-roomduringinstructionaltimeand/orwouldaskquestionsduringthelessonsas


45

partofformativeassessments.Candidateswhoscoredhighestprovidedexamplesof the specificquestions theyplanned to ask.For example, onDay5,Hannahexplainsthatshewillbewalkingaroundtheclassroomobservingstudents’workandlookingforspecificevidenceofunderstanding:

Iwillbelookingforcorrectanswersasindicationsthatthey[thestudents]areapplyingthepropertiesofparallelograms.Ialsowillbelookingtoseeifstudentsare labeling the parallelograms using the properties of the parallelograms. Ifstudentsarewritingincorrectmeasurements,Iwillknowtheyrequireadditionalinstructionwithapplyingthepropertiesofaparallelogram.

Hannahdescribesquestioningstrategiesshewillincorporatetomakevisiblestu-dents’understanding,butalsotoextendtheirunderstandingoftheconcepts.OnDay2ofherlessonplans,shestates,

Iwillaskthemtoidentifypolygonsandthenfollowtheirstatementswith“why”questions to dig into their thinking. I anticipate students will have questionsabouttheconceptsofirregular,regular,andspecificnamesforpolygons.IplantoaddressthesequestionsduringaPowerPointpresentation[ofdifferentphotoexamplesofpolygonsinsporting,travel,recreation,andhomecontexts]andasthey arise during class. During the angle sums investigation, I will be askingstudents to respond to“whydidyoudrawthe triangles thatway,”“howmanytrianglesarethere,”and“whatwouldthesumbeif...”toassesstheirknowledgeof interioranglesumsandprogress toward thecontentstandardandcognitiveobjectivesforthislesson.

Basedontheseexcerpts,itisclearHannahwasmonitoringstudents’under-standingsbylookingathowtheyengagedinthemathactivities.Shewaslookingtoseeifstudentswerelabelingandmeasuringtheshapescorrectlybutwasalsoaskingstudentsopen-endedquestionsthatrequiredthemtodiscusshowandwhytheywereapproachingtheassignmentsorquestionsincertainways. Otherteachercandidateswhoscoredlowestandnextlowestalsostatedthattheywouldbecirculatingtheroomduringinstructionaltime,buttheydescribedthisformativeassessmentprocessasawaytomonitorifstudentswere“ontask.”Forexample,Lauraexplainedthatshewouldassessstudentsontheirabilitytoworkingroupsandtheamountofinputfromeachstudent.Nancystatedthatshewouldcirculatetheroomgiving“tickets”tostudentswhowereparticipating,arewardtheycouldexchangeforaprizelaterintheweek.Inaddition,Lucystatesshewouldaskstudentsquestions“tocheckunderstandingofpreviouslycoveredtopics”and“toseehoweachgroupisdoing,”butshedoesnotdescribethestrategiesshemightuseorthespecificquestionsshewouldask.Interestingly,however,sheexplainstheimportanceofpositivefeedbackduringherdailyformativeassessments.Ineverydayofherlessonplans,shewrites,

Throughoutall stagesof the formativeassessments,positive feedbackwillbecritical.Whenstudentsvolunteeranswersinclass,theyneedtobeencouragedand

Beyond the Criteria

46

praised.Ialsoplantomakepositivecommentstothestudentswhoareworkinghardontheclassworkandareontherighttrack.Thestudentswhoarestrugglingwillneedencouragementaswell.Oftentheyonlyneedasmallnudgetogetthembackontrack,anditishelpfulforthemtoseehowclosetheyalreadyare.

Thus“workinghard”andbeing“ontherighttrack”indicategoodbehaviorbutalsounderstandingofthematerial.Althoughprovidingpositivefeedbackisimportant,itshouldnotbethefocusoftheformativeassessmentdescription.

Assessment criteria.All12candidatesprovideda rubricorsetofcriteriatheyusedtoevaluatewhetherstudentsmet,didnotmeet,orexceededthelearningobjectives.Differencesbetweenhighestscoringandlowestscoringperformanceassessmentsilluminateddifferencesinhowcriteriaweremeasuredandalignedwithrespecttothelearningobjectivesandrelatedstandards.Candidateswhoscoredhighestdetailedcriteriaforevaluatingwhetherstudentsproperlyusedacademiclanguage(Hannah,Holly,Henry),wereabletomakestrongclaimsandsupportthoseclaimswithevidencefromthetext(Heather,Henry),accuratelyrepresentedthehistoryofthetime(Henry),andprovidedjustificationfortheiranswers(Han-nah,Heather,Holly).Theyalsowereabletoexplainhowcertainstudentsdemon-stratedlimitedorpartialunderstanding.Heather’slessonsfocusedontheanalysisof rhetorical devices, structure, and techniques by which authors and speakersconveymeaning.Inparticular,sheaddressedstandardsonstructuralfeaturesofinformationalmaterialsandexpositorycritique.Heather’ssummativeassessmentcriteriaincluded(a)selectinganeditorialcartoonorwritteneditorialsuitableforanalysis;(b)understandinglessonconcepts(persuasivetechniques,rhetoricalde-vices,pointofview,strengthsandweaknessesofarguments);and(c)structuringwrittenresponses.Thesecriteriawerebasedonathree-levelscale,withascoreof1forbelowstandards,a2formeetsstandards,anda3forexceedsstandards.Heather’sspecificcriteriafocusedonwhetherthestudentswereableto“identifyawriter’sstance,”the“persuasivetechniquesthatwereusedintheeditorial,”andifand“howstudentswarrantedtheirclaimswithevidence.” Teachercandidateswhoscoredlowestornextlowestontheperformanceas-sessmentrubricslistedcriteriasuchascompletionofthehandouts(Norah,Laura,Lucy, Luke), length of writing assignments (Nikki, Larry, Luke), and whetheranswerswerecorrectornotcorrect(Nadia,Norah,Nikki,Lucy,Laura,Luke).Forexample,Larryrequiredstudentstocreateadialogueaboutaparticularexperiencetheyhadhad,andhisfourassessmentcriteriaincluded(a)lengthofdialogue,(b)charactertraits,(c)characteremotion,and(d)otherinformationincluded. Larry’scriteriawerebasedonafour-levelscale.Althoughtheselevelswerenotlabeledintheassessmentdocuments,1typicallydenotesnotmeetingthestandardand4isexceedingthestandard,withscoresof2and3meetingpartsofthestan-dards.Toassesshowstudentsmeteachofthesefourcriteria,Larryusedquantita-tivemeasuresforthefirsttwocriteria(lengthofdialogueandcharactertraits).For


47

example,aLevel3ontherubricwasqualifiedas“thedialoguehaving6-7lines”(length)and“describingatleast1charactertraitpercharacter.”Thethirdcriterion,character emotion, was measured explicitly by whether the student “identifiedcharacteremotionsthroughtheuseoftags,structure,anddiction.”Furthermore,whenhediscussedwhathelearnedfromanalyzingstudents’assessments(apromptintheAssessmentCommentary),heexplainedthatsomeofthestudents“didnotmeethisexpectationsanddidnotpunctuatetheirdialoguecorrectly”or“didnotwritetextthatconveyedemotion”butwereableto“showtraitsofthecharactersintheirdialogue.”Larryneverexplainedhowsomestudentswereableornotabletowritetextthatconveyedemotionorthatillustratedcharactertraits.

Academic language framework.Allcandidatesusedafunctionalapproachtoacademiclanguagethroughtheuseoffunctions,forms,andfluencyasdiscussedinDutroandMoran(2003),buthowtheyemployedthisapproachandwhattheysoughttoaccomplishdiffered.Eachcandidatelistedkeyvocabularystudentsneededtoknowtodemonstratetheirunderstanding.Onecandidate,Nancy,actuallydif-ferentiatedbetween“brick”and“mortar”terms.Elevenoutofthe12candidatesidentifiedlanguagedemands,suchasdescribe,explain,convert,summarize,andask/answerclarifyingquestions,amongothers.TheonlycandidatewhodidnotidentifyalanguagedemandwasLucy. Mostteachercandidatesusedsentenceframestosupportstudents’abilitytobuildacademiclanguagefluency.Nineoutof12candidateslistedatleastonesentenceframethatstudentscouldusetoconstructargumentsand/orprovideexplanationsforwhattheyunderstoodaboutthecontent.Throughourcontrastiveanalysis,wefoundcleardifferencebetweenhowthecandidatesconstructedthesentenceframes.Forexample,Larry,Luke,Nancy,andNikkiprovidedsentenceframesthatweremorelikefill-in-the-blanksentences,whichconstrainedwhatstudentscouldsayorwriteandthushowthestudentscouldexplaintheirunderstanding.Nancylistedhersentenceframeasfollows:“ThestructureofDNAisa__________,whichisshapedlikea__________.”Toaddresstheblanksinthissentence,studentsneededtodeterminewhattwowordsfitintothosetwosetsofblanksratherthanbeingabletoexplainwhatDNAis.Conversely,Norah,Hannah,Heather,Holly,andHenryusedsentenceframesthatrequiredstudentstoincludebricktermsorpropernounsbutalsotoprovideevidencetoexplaintheirunderstandingofthecontent.Forexample,Henryincorporatedthefollowingsentenceframe:“Whileallminoritiesexperiencedalevelofdiscrimination,Ithinkthat_____sufferedthemostonthehomefrontduringWWIIbecauseof_____and_____.” Inthisexample,thesentenceframeallowedstudentstocraftathesisstatement,whichtheysubsequentlydevelopedintheiressays.Thistypeofsupportencouragedstudentstodecideandarticulatewhichofthreegivenminoritygroups(MexicanAmerican,JapaneseAmerican,andAfricanAmerican)sufferedthemostdiscrimi-nationduringWorldWarIIandthenjustifytheirresponseswithevidence.

Beyond the Criteria

48

Lukeintroducedaparagraphframethatessentiallyprovidedtheentirestructureofthewrittenassessment.Bydiscussing“Wilma’s”treatment,Lukeprovidedasampleparagraphforthestudentstofollowwhencraftingtheiressaysandjustify-ingtheirclaims:

I thinkWilmawouldhavereceived just treatment if the . . . [chooseHenryIIreformsorMagnaCarta]hasbeenineffect.First,shewouldhavereceived[firstpieceofevidence]inordertocountertheinjusticeof....Secondshewouldhavereceived[secondpieceofevidence] inorder tocounter the injusticeof. . . . IbelievethatifWilmahadlivedduringthe[ReformsofHenryIIorthesigningoftheMagnaCarta—chooseone]shewouldhavereceivedbettertreatmentbasedontheevidencethatwaspresented.

Thishighlystructuredparagraphframeofferslimitedopportunitiesforstudentstoexpressthemselves.Althoughthecandidate’sgoalwastoprovidescaffolding,thissupport was oriented toward a fill-in-the-blank assignment. Students were askedtochoosewhichone,HenryII’sreformsortheMagnaCarta,wouldhaveenabledjusttreatmentofaparticularcase.Thistypeofsupportdoesnotrequirestudentstounderstandthelawsandapplytheinformationbutratheressentiallytoincludeoneofthelawsthatwouldhavechangedtheoutcomeofthecase.Lukedidrequirestu-dentstojustifytheirclaimswithspecificevidence.Inlookingmorecloselyatwhatthecandidatewasaskingstudentstodo,whatbecomesvisibleishowthecandidateaskedthemtochooseaspecificlawthatwouldhavechanged“X”injustice.Herestudentsneededtounderstandtheinjusticeandapplywhichlawcouldhavechangedtheoutcomeofthatinjustice.Thisdidrequirestudentstoexaminethelawsandap-plythemtospecificcases.Again,theclosingsentenceintheframeofferedonlytwochoices(MagnaCartaorHenryII’sreforms).Thisexplanationisnotacritiqueofusingparagraphframesbutratherisanexampleofhowtheframecanpotentiallyconstrainwhatcanbestated.Furthermore,allcandidateswhoscoredhighestonthePACTrubricsdiscussedtheuseofsentenceframesasan“option”forstudents,whereascandidateswhoscoredlowestandnextlowestdiscussedsentenceframesasarequirementforparticipationinthelessons.

Supports for developing academic language. Inaddition to the sentenceframe,teachercandidatesusedavarietyofothertypesofsupportforstudents’aca-demiclanguagedevelopment.Someteachercandidatesmodeledfortheirstudentshowtoengagewithcontent.Othersprovidedstudentswithgraphicorganizers.Anumberofthecandidatesprovidedopportunitiesforstudentstoshareanswerswithpartnersorinsmallgroupsasawayforstudentstopracticeexplaining,describing,and/orsummarizingtoapeerorpeers,beforedoingsoinfrontofthewholeclass.Forexample,Hollyincludedathink/pair/shareactivityinherlessonplanonDay1andstated,

Iaskstudentstothinkoftwomoreexamplesofforcesontheirown[aftersheprovidesanexample]andthensharetheirideaswithapartner—why?—tolower


49

theaffectivefilterbeforeIcallonthemindividuallytoanswerthequestion.Italsoprovidestheopportunityfortwo-wayinteractions,whichsupportstheneedformyELtobuildlanguageproficiency.

Inadditiontobuildinglanguageproficiency,HollyalsoexplainedinherPlanningCommentary,

Togivemystudentsrealhands-onexperiencewithforces,oneofthelearningtasksinvolvesstudentsworkinginpairstobuildahouseofcards.Duringthistimetheywillseeforcesinaction.Tomovebeyondsimplyidentifyingforcesandtodeveloptheiracademiclanguage,studentsarerequiredtowriteaparagraphabouttheirexperiencebuildingahouseofcards.Theyaregivenkeyvocabularywordsthattheymustincludeintheirparagraphtoexplaintheforcesthatareinvolvedinconstructinganddestroyingthestructure.

NotonlydidHollyusedifferentstrategiestosupportherstudents’academiclan-guagedevelopment,shearticulatedwhythestrategiesmostlikelywouldsupportherstudents.Nancyreferencedacademiclanguagesupportinthisway:

Academiclanguageisaddressedprimarilythroughrepetitionofterms.Studentsareunsureofpronunciationatfirst,butwithrepeatedpractice(Ihavethestudentsrepeatafterme)theyincorporatethenewlanguage.

WhatisinterestingaboutthisexampleisthatNancyhadlanguageobjectivesthatrequiredstudentstolist,name,predict,andsummarize,butthenshediscussedhowstudentswoulddevelopacademiclanguageproficiencybyrepeatingterms.Nancywasnottheonlycandidatetomentiontheneedforstudentstorepeattermsanddefinitionsasawaytobuildacademiclanguagefluency.Infact,allcandidateswhoscoredlowestandnextlowestdescribedtheneedforstudentstoheartheacademiclanguagetermsandtorepeatthetermsand/ordefinitionsmultipletimes,butnotnecessarilyinasentenceformorinthecontextoftheparticularlesson.

Adjustments to instruction. The final difference concerns how teachercandidatesplannedfornextsteps,asmadevisibleintheReflectionCommentary.CandidateswhoscoredhighestonthePACTdiscussednextstepsthatdescribedreteachingthelessonusingdifferentstrategiesand/orassessments.Thusthefocuswasonhelpingtofacilitatetheirstudents’understanding.Candidateswhoscoredlowestandnextlowestreiteratedwhattheydidinthelessonsand/ordescribednextstepsforteachinginessentiallythesamewaysasbefore.Forexample,Hannahexplainshernextstepsinthisway:

Inmyplansforthislearningsegment,Iwoulddoseveralthingsdifferently.DuringtheconstructionslabinLesson1,Iwouldhaveplannedtogothroughthefinalthreetaskswiththestudentsinmoreguidedexploration.IfeelthatdoingsowouldhavesupportedbothELandEnglish-onlystudentssincethemajorityofstudentshadtroublereadingandfollowingthewritteninstructionsontheirown....ThesecondthingIwouldhaveplannedtododifferentlyistogivestudentsdifferent-

Beyond the Criteria

50

sizedparallelogramsduringtheexplorationofthepropertiesofparallelogramsinLesson3.Ifeelthatthiswouldhavesupportedtheideathatthepropertiesworkforalltheparallelogramsandnotjustacertainparallelogramforallstudents.

Inthisexcerpt,Hannahdescribestheneedformoreguidedexplorationandgivingstudentsdifferentsizedshapessotheycouldmakelargerconnectionsaboutpropertiesofparallelograms.Henrydiscussedtheneedforstudentstohaveagraphicorganizerthatcouldbeusedtoimprovestudents’historicalanalysisandwritingskills.Hollytalkedaboutusingdifferentassessmentsorincorporatingmoreopen-endedquestionsintotheassessmentssothatstudentswouldbeabletoexplainhowtheyknowtheanswerorconcept.Heatherdescribedtheneedforherfirstlessontohaveadifferentpoliticalcartoonthatwasmoreaccessibletothestudentsandhavingdirectionsinwrittenform,notjustinoralform,sothatstudentscouldbet-terunderstandthestepsforanalyzingcartoonsandeditorials.Conversely,Lucyexplainedheradjustmentsthisway:

IfIcouldgobackandteachthislearningsegmentagain,IwouldwanttogobackonemoredaybeforeDay1.Ithinkthefactthatwestartedthesegmentlatethrewthingsofffortherestoftheweek.BecauseIwasnotabletothoroughlyexplainthehomeworkassignmentthatwasdueonDay1,weendedupspendingalotoftimegoingoverit,andgettingbehindschedule.Thisleftlesstimeoverthenext3daysforthestudentstoworkontheassignedproblems.

Although Lucy discussed issues of time management, her plan to adjustinstructionfocusesonexplanationofthehomeworkthatwasassignedbeforeherlessonsegmenttookplace.Instead,sheshouldhaveexplainedwhatstudentslearnedordidnotlearnfromherlessonsandhowshecouldhavemadeadjustmentsthatprovidedmoreaccesstothecontentorbettersupportedstudents’understandingoftheconcepts.

Differences Across Discipline

Inthesecondphaseofanalysis,weshiftedfocustoonlythosewhoearnedthehighestscoresinAssessment,Reflection,andAcademicLanguagetodetermineifthereweredifferencesacrossdisciplines—whetherthecandidatesutilizeddifferentteachingpractices,includingplanningforstudents’useofdiscipline-recognizedlanguageineverydayclassroominteractionsandthenassessmentoflanguageuseinthecontextofstructuredacademicactivities.

Everyday classroom interactions.Everydayclassroominteractionsarede-finedasopportunitiesforstudentstoengagesociallywhilepracticingacademiclanguagevocabularyinaction.Acrossalldisciplines,higherscoringteachercan-didatesrequiredstudentstoworkinpairsorsmallgroupstoelicitpriorknowledgeonconcepts(mathandscience)orprimarysources(EnglishLanguageArtsandHistory/Social Science), which often occurred at the beginning of a lesson or


51

unit.StudentsinHannah’sclasssharedpriorknowledgeofpolygons,includingcharacteristicsofpolygonstheyhadidentifiedfromhome(orsomewhereoutsidetheclassroom),andthencreatedadefinitionbasedonthisdiscussion.StudentsinHolly’sclassworkedinsmallgroupstosharetheirdefinitionsofspeed,velocity,andaccelerationinonesciencelessonandthentoshareexamplesofforceswithapartnerinasubsequentlesson.StudentsinHenry’sclasspartneredtoanalyzeanddiscussprimarysourcesrelatedtothechallengesminoritiesexperiencedduringWorldWarII.Thesediscussionsweredocumentedonagraphicorganizerthatwasusedwhenstudentsdraftedtheir“MinorityReports.”StudentsinHeather’sclasscompletedagiveone/getonehandoutrelatedtotheeditorialstheychosetoanalyzeforhomework.Inaddition,shehadthemsharethefindingsfromtheircompletedhandoutswithpeers,stating,“Iknowthatanumberofstudentsinmyclasscanargue.Ialsoknowthatmanyofthemhavesocial,political,andlegalissuesthattheyhaveastrongstanceon.”Thisactivityallowedstudentstoshareideaswithmultiplepartnersinamoresocialcontextthanwouldbefoundbydebatingasawholeclassinamoreacademicallystructuredcontext.

Academic language in context.Academiclanguageincontextcanbedefinedbyhowstudentsuselanguageinwaysthatmembersofthedisciplinemayuselanguage.Inotherwords,inthecontextofstructuredlessons,studentspractice“talkingsci-ence”or“historydiscourse,”similartohowprofessionalsunderstandconceptsandinnovateintheirfields.Thispracticelookedverydifferentacrossdisciplines.Hannah’sassessmentrequiredstudentstoidentifyanddefinecharacteristicsofpolygonsandsolveforangles;herlessonsalsorequiredstudentstojustifytheiranswersand/orexplaintheirsolutions.Forexample,toreceivefullcreditonthesummativeassess-ment,studentsneededtojustifywhetherafigurewasapolygonand/orwhetheritwasirregular.Thereforeacademiclanguageusewasfoundwrittenonthehandoutsasexplanations.Hollyplannedaninquiry-basedlabinwhichstudents“engagedinthescientificprocessbyplanningandconductinganinvestigationtotestahypothesis,”relatedtotheamountofforceonaHershey’sKissandhowitaffectsthedistanceittravels.Thecandidateassessedstudentsbasedon“spontaneouslyusingmultiplevocabularywordswithoutprompting”andprovidingaccuratedefinitions.Shetrackedthisparticipationonaspreadsheet,whilecirculatingtheroom.Henrydefinedhisassessmentasa“constructivistbasedinquiry...engagingthestudentsininquirieswheretheyare‘doinghistory,’usingtheirindividualstrengthsandpreviousknowledgetocomprehendthecontentmatter....Theywerebuildingliteracyskillstoimprovetheircontentknowledge.”Therubrichedesignedassessedstudents’useofvocabu-larywordsandiftheywereusedinthe“correctcontext.”Heather’slessonengagedstudentsinaJigsawactivitywherestudentswereassignedtoreadandanalyzeoneoftheeditorialsprovidedinapacket,becomingtheexpertonthatparticulareditorial.Ingroups,studentssharedindividualunderstandingsoftheeditorial.Studentswereassessedbasedontheirabilitytoidentifythewriter’sstanceandpersuasivetechnique

Beyond the Criteria

52

tomeetthestandards,butcouldexceedthestandardsifheorshe“backsuptheclaimswithevidencefromtheeditorial.”Soacademiclanguageusewasassessedinwritingassignmentsinthedisciplinesofmath,history,andEnglishlanguagearts,butELAstudentscouldearnaproficientscorebychoosingtherightstanceortechnique(potentiallyunderstandingthedefinitionsofthevocabulary)withouthavingtociteevidencetosupporttheirchoice.Academiclanguagewasassessedverbally,basedonstudents’activeparticipationinthesciencelabandonwrittenworkbasedontheirdefinitions.

Systemic linguistic functions.Teachercandidatesusedavarietyofdifferentlanguageformsasstructuresforstudentstomakemeaning(Halliday,1985;Hal-liday&Webster,2004).Allthecandidatesintroducedsentenceframesforstudentstousetosupporttheirconstructionofthesisstatementsorotherwrittenwork.Thehigherscoringcandidates,however,wentbeyondthesescaffoldstosupportstu-dents’learninginotherways.Forexample,Hannahencouragedmanipulativeuseforconstructionofmeaningbyhavingstudentsusedifferent-sizedparallelogramswhen exploring the properties of these geometric shapes. Students in Henry’sclassanalyzedprimarysourcesandwereaskedtodocumentevidencedrawnfromthemonagraphicorganizerthatfocusedoncontrastingeventsandperspectives.Heatherfocusedonstructuralfeaturesofinformationalmaterialsandexpositorycritique.Studentswereintroducedtoeditorialsandpoliticalcartoons,wererequiredtoanalyzethem,andwereultimatelyrequiredtoidentifyapersuasivetechniquebeingusedthat“isparticularlystrong”andthenexplainhowthistechniqueaddstothewriter’sorartist’sargument(forexceedingproficiency).Hollyusedavarietyofformativeassessmentsandopen-endedquestionstopromotemeaningmakingthroughoutherunit;yethersummativeassessmentwasbasedonstudents’recallofdefinitionsandpropertiesofforces.Sherequiredstudentstoperformcalculations,chooseatypeofforcebasedonadiagramand“explainhowyouknow,”demand-ingareiterationofthedefinitionofforcesasopposedtoprovingordisprovingahypothesiswithevidence,whichismoreinlinewithwhatscientistsdo.

Discussion

Throughexaminationofperformanceassessments,wefoundthatcandidateswhoscoredhighestonAssessment,Reflection,andAcademicLanguagerubricsincludedclearlystatedformativeassessmentcriteriatheyusedtomonitorstudents’understandingsofthecontentanddetailedrubricsthatdescribedvariouslevelsofproficiencytowardmeetingthestandardsorobjectives.TheyalsoincorporatedanAcademicLanguageframeworkthroughouttheirlessonstosupporttheacademiclanguagedevelopmentoftheirstudentsandwereabletoclearlyexplainwhytheparticularstrategieswerelikelytosupporttheirparticularclassroomcontextandstudent demographics. Finally, teacher candidates who submitted the strongest


53

assessments were able to discuss how they would plan to adjust instruction inthefuture,basedonanalysisofwhatoccurredduringinstructionandofstudents’formativeandsummativeassessments. Candidateswhoscoredlowestonthoserubricsfocusedonstudentbehaviorandcompletionofassignmentsratherthanonevidenceoflearning.Thesecandidatesalsoincludedwhattheyconsideredsupportfordevelopingacademiclanguage,butthat“support”oftenconstrainedwhatstudentswereabletodiscussintheirwriting,andthesupportstrategiesfocusedmostlyonrepetitionofwordsanddefinitions.Finally,thosecandidateswhodidnotdoaswellontheperformanceassessmentsstruggledwiththeabilitytodiscussthechangestheyneededtomaketobemoreeffectiveand reflective teachers,anecessaryexpectation foreveryday teachingpractice(Nagle,2009). Throughcloserexamination,wefoundthathigherscorerswereabletoteachbeyondvocabularyandmechanicsandpromotegenuinediscourseintheirdisciplinetosomeextent.Allhigherperformingcandidatesfocusedonacademiclanguagedevelopmentthroughstudent-drivendiscussions,typicallyatthebeginningofthelessons,whenstudentswerepair-sharingor,asinthecaseofHolly’slessons,duringthecurlinglabconversations.Eachoftheseactivitiesfocusedonthedevelopmentofdisciplinaryknowledgeandskills(e.g., forces inscience;polygonsinmath;editorialsinELA;historicalprimarysourcesinHSS).Theseteachercandidatespromotedacademiclanguagedevelopmentincontextsrecognizedasappropriatebyprofessionalsintheirdisciplines.Forexample,inthesciencelesson,studentsengaged in inquiry practices related to forces; in math, students explored thepropertiesofpolygonsusingmanipulatives;inELA,studentsidentifiedawriter’sstanceandpersuasivetechniquethroughexaminingeditorials;andinhistory,stu-dentsconstructedargumentsbasedontheanalysisofpoliticalcartoonsandotherprimarysourcedocuments.Inaddition,allteachercandidatesusedlanguageformstoassiststudentsinunderstandingdiscipline-specificcontentknowledge,butnotseparatedfromsociallanguage(Faltis,2013).Henryhadstudentsparticipateinhistorydiscourseasalinguistically responsivehistoryteacher(DeOliveira,2013)bymakingthecontentaccessibletoELs,notbysimplifyingthetexts,butbypro-vidingscaffoldingstrategiesforstudentstomakemeaningofthetext,documentevidence,andconstructanargumentwithsupportfromthetexts.Hannahfacilitatedstudents’useofmathematicalvocabularyanddiscourse(Bunchetal.,2009),whilesupportingdevelopmentof theirmathematical registerbyrequiringstudents tocommunicatethereasoningbehindmathematicalsolutions(Garrison,Amaral,&Ponce,2006;Middletonetal.,2013).Hollydidnotalwaysuseformsthatreflectedwhatmembersofthescientificcommunitywoulduseintheirownoccupations.Forinstance,shehadherstudentsansweropen-endedquestionsinhersummativeassessment,butmanyscientistslearnthroughcollaborationwithoneanotherand/orfromdevelopingahypothesisandtestingitviaaniterativeprocess.Infact,therewasadiscrepancybetweenwhatsomeoftheteachercandidatesassessedattheendof

Beyond the Criteria

54

theunitandhowtheyplannedactivitiesduringtheunit,whichmayhaveoccurredbecausementorteachersrequiredteachercandidatesuseaparticularsummativeassessmentattheendofaunit. Okhremtchouk,Seiki,Gilliland,Ateh,Wallace,andKato(2009)explainedtheimportanceofexamining“theeffectsoftheseassessments[PACT]onteachercandi-datesinordertofurtherunderstandandshapeprogramsthatpreparecandidatesforsuchevaluations”(p.40).Weagree,butjustcollectingstudentperspectivesisnotenough.Byanalyzingtheperformanceassessmentsandthecandidates’discursivechoices,wewereabletoexaminehowcandidatesinscribetheirunderstandingsofworkingwithlinguisticallydiversestudents(Bunchetal.,2009)andalsoaddtothefindingsofhowteachercandidatesareabletouseandinterpretassessmentsandreflectontheirteachingpracticestoinformnextstepsintheirinstruction.Onelimitationtothisstudyisthenumberofperformanceassessmentsthatweexamined.Infutureresearch,wewillusethesefindingstoanalyzemoreassessmentsfromdifferentcontentareas,specificallytoseeifthereisagreaterinfluenceofthenewCommonCoreStateStandardsandNextGenerationStandardsonsummativeas-sessmentchoices.

Conclusion

Althoughteachereducationstillhasitsshareofharshcritics,theshifttowardsolidempiricalevidencesupportingitseffectivenessisgrowing(Cochran-Smith,2005).Interviewsandsurveysofteachereducationcandidatesmayprovideevidenceastochangesinthinking,growthinunderstanding,andreflection.However,exam-iningtheperformanceassessmentsconstructedbyteachercandidatesduringandabouttheirclassroomexperiencesmayofferclearerevidenceofchangesintheirbeliefsandunderstandingsabouttheteachingandlearningprocessinrelationtothecontextsinwhichtheyareworking.Theuseofperformanceassessmentsinteachereducationprogramsisnotnew,butresearchtendstofocusonteachercandidates’perceptionsoftheassessmentsortheprocessofcompletingtheassessments.Thisstudyaddsmuchtotheliteratureonwhatperformanceassessmentsmakevisibleaboutwhetherteachercandidatescanengageineffectiveteachingpracticesandwhatelementsoftheteachereducationprogramdesignneedtobefurtherrevisedand/ordevelopedtostrengthenpreservicecandidates’abilitytoplanengagingandeffectivelessons. Webelievetheimplicationsofourstudyaremanifold.Byunderstandingwhattypesofteachingpracticesaremoreeffectivethanothersandhowteachercandidatesinscribetheirunderstandingsofthesepractices,teachereducatorsarebetterablenotonlytoassessteachercandidatesbutalsotomodelandfacilitatehighlyeffectiveteachingpractices.Infact,wearguethatanyeducatorresponsibleforevaluatingteacherqualityatthepreservicelevelcouldbenefitfromthesefindings,includingthosewhoareteachingcoursesoninstructionaldesign,lessonplanning,andas-


55

sessmentandthosewhoaresupervisingandgivingfeedbacktoteachercandidatesduringtheirfieldwork.Also,experiencedteachersworkingtowardnationalboardcertificationcouldbenefit,asthePACTispartlymodeledonthenationalboardofprofessionalteachingstandards.4Inconclusion,whileArneDuncanhasstressedtheneedforanationalassessmentofteachercandidatereadinessandhighlightedAACTEeffortswiththeedTPA,hisrecentcallfortheNationalCouncilonTeacherQuality(NCTQ)torateinstitutionsofteachereducationhasdrawnintensecriti-cism.AsLindaDarling-Hammond(2013)explained,“NCTQ’smethodologyisapaperreviewofpublishedcourserequirementsandcoursesyllabiagainstachecklistthatdoesnotconsidertheactualqualityofinstructionthattheprogramsoffer,evidenceofwhattheirstudentslearn,orwhethergraduatescanactuallyteach.”Byassessingevidenceofteacherlearningandperformance,onecanlookbeyondthecriteria,beyondwhatisoutlinedinalessonplanorsyllabus,andbetterrecognizewhatteachersareunderstandingabouttheteachingandlearningprocess,howstu-dentsareengaginginlessons,andhowteachersaredeterminingwhatstudentsarelearningornotlearning—evidencethatultimatelycanbeusedtoimproveteachereducationprogramsandclassroomlearning.

Notes 1Seehttp://edtpa.aacte.org/formoreinformation. 2 For more information on PACT and its history and the other assessments, visithttp://www.pacttpa.org/.SeealsoDarling-Hammond(2010,Table1)formoredetailsonthedimensionsofPACT. 3ThisrepresentsthepassingstandardforPACTinCalifornia.Seehttp://www.pacttpa.org/formoreclarificationconcerningthispassingstandard.Also,thisdoesnotrepresentthepassingstandardforthosestatesimplementingTPAC.Eachstatemaysetitsownstandardbasedonanalysisofpilotdata. 4Formoreinformation,visithttp://www.nbpts.org/.

ReferencesArends,R.I.(2006).Performanceassessmentinperspective:History,opportunities,and

challenges.InS.Castle&B.D.Shaklee(Eds.),Assessing teacher performance: Per-formance-based assessments in teacher education(pp.3-22).Lanham,MD:Rowman&LittlefieldEducation.

Arias,M.B.,&Faltis,C.(2013).Academic language in second language learning.Charlotte,NC:InformationAge.

BaileyA.(Ed.).(2007).The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Bailey,A.L.,&Butler,F.A.(2003).An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic language for broad application to K-12 education: A design document(CSETechni-calReportNo.611).LosAngeles,CA:UniversityofCalifornia,NationalCenterforResearchonEvaluation,Standards,andStudentTesting.

Beyond the Criteria

56

Boyd,D.,Grossman,P.,Lankford,H.,Loeb,S.,&Wyckoff,J.(2009).Teacherpreparationandstudentachievement.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4),416-440.

Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachersforEnglishlearnersinthenewstandardsera.Review of Research in Education, 37,298-341.

Bunch,G.C.,Aguirre,J.M.,&Téllez,K.(2009).Beyondscores:UsingcandidateresponsesonhighstakesperformanceassessmenttoinformteacherpreparationofEnglishlearn-ers.Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1),103-128.

Chamot,A.U.,&O’Malley,M.J.(1994).The CALLA handbook.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Clift,R.,&Brady,P.(2005).Researchonmethodscoursesandfieldexperiences.InM.Cochran-Smith&K.Zeichner(Eds.),Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education(pp.261-308).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Cochran-Smith,M.(2005).Studyingteachereducation:Whatweknowandneedtoknow.Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4),301-306.

Cochran-Smith,M.(2006).Takingstockin2006:Evidence,evidenceeverywhere.Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1),6-12.

Cochran-Smith,M.,&Zeichner,K.(2005).Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2000).Studies of excellence in teacher education.Washington,DC:AmericanAssociationofCollegesofTeacherEducation.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006).Assessing teacher education:The usefulness of multiplemeasures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2),120-138.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2008).Thecaseforuniversity-basedteachereducation.InM.Co-chran-Smith,S.Feiman-Nemser,J.D.McIntyre,&K.E.Demers(Eds.),Handbook of research on teacher education(pp.333-346).NewYork:Routledge.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010, October). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching.Center forAmericanProgress.Retrievedfromhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/teacher_ef-fectiveness.html

Darling-Hammond,L.(2013,June18).WhytheNCTQteacherprepratingsarenonsense.Washington Post.Retrievedfromhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/18/why-the-nctq-teacher-prep-ratings-are-nonsense/

Darling-Hammond,L.,&Snyder,J.(2000).Authenticassessmentofteachingincontext.Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6),523-245.

DeOliveira,L.C.(2013).AcademiclanguageinthesocialstudiesforEnglishlearners.InM.B.Aria&C.Faltis(Eds.),Academic language in second language learning(pp.149-170).Charlotte,NC:InformationAge.

Duncan,A.(2009,October22).Teacherpreparation:Reformingtheuncertainprofessional.RemarksofSecretaryDuncanatTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.

Dutro,S.,&Moran,C.(2003).RethinkingEnglishlanguageinstruction:Anarchitecturalapproach.InG.Garcia(Ed.),English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy(pp.227-258).Newark,NJ:InternationalReadingAssociation.

Faltis,C.(2013).Demystifyingandquestioningthepowerofacademiclanguage.InM.


57

Arias&C.Faltis(Eds.),Academic language in second language learning(pp.3-26).Charlotte,NC:InformationAge.

Feiman-Nemser,S.(2001).Frompreparationtopractice:Designingacontinuumtostrengthenandsustainteaching.Teachers College Record, 103(6),1013-1055.

Fillmore,L.W.,&Snow,C.E.(2002).Whatteachersneedtoknowaboutlanguage.InC.T.Adger,C.E.Snot,&D.Christian(Eds.),What teachers need to know about language(pp.7-54).Washington,DC:CenteredforAppliedLinguisticsandDeltaSystems.

Galguera,T.(2011).Participantstructuresasprofessionallearningtasksandthedevelopmentofpedagogical languageknowledgeamongpreservice teachers.Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(Winter),85-106.

Garrison, L.,Amaral, O., & Ponce, G. (2006). UnLATCHING mathematics instructionforEnglish learners.MCSM Journal for Mathematics Education Leadership, 9(1),14-24.

Grant,C.A.(2008).Teachercapacity:Introductiontothesection.InM.Cochran-Smith,S.Feiman-Nemser,J.D.McIntyre,&K.E.Demers(Eds.),Handbook of research on teacher education(pp.127-133).NewYork:Routledge.

Grossman,P.(2008).Respondingtoourcritics:Fromcrisistoopportunityinresearchonteachereducation.Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1),10-23.

Halliday,M.A.K.(1985).An introduction to functional grammar.London,UK:EdwardArnold.

Halliday,M.A.K.,&Webster,J.J.(2004).The language of science.London,UK:Con-tinuum.

Hollins,E.,&Guzman,M.(2005).Preparingteachersfordiversepopulations.InM.Co-chran-Smith&K.Zeichner(Eds.),Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477-548). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Lemke,J.(1990).Talking science: Language, learning, and values.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.McDiarmid,G.W.,&Clevenger-Bright,M. (2008).Rethinking teacher capacity. InM.

Cochran-Smith,S.Feiman-Nemser,J.D.McIntyre,&K.E.Demers(Eds.),Handbook of research on teacher education(pp.134-156).NewYork:Routledge.

Middleton,J.A.,Llamas-Flores,S.,&Guerra-Lombardi,P.P.(2013).English languagelearningandlearningacademiclanguageinmathematics.InM.B.Aria&C.Faltis(Eds.),Academic language in second language learning(pp.201-224).Charlotte,NC:InformationAge.

Mitchell,J.C.(1984).Typicalityandthecasestudy.InR.F.Ellens(Ed.),Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct(pp.238-241).NewYork:AcademicPress.

Mitchell,K.J.,Robinson,D.Z.,Plake,B.S.,&Knowles,K.T.(2001).Testing teacher: The role of licensure tests in improving teacher quality.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress.

Nagle,J.(2009).PerformanceassessmentforCaliforniateachers(PACT)TeachingEvent:Usingastateaccountabilitymeasureofteachingtoenhancecriticallyreflectivepractice.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericanAssociationofCollegesforTeacherEducation.Retrievedfromhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p35871_index.html

NationalAcademyofEducationCommitteeonTeacherEducation.(2007).A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve(L.Darling-Hammond&J.Baratz-Snowden,Eds.).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

NationalResearchCouncil.(2001).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.

Beyond the Criteria

58

Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress.NationalResearchCouncil.(2010).Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.

Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress.Okhremtchouk,I.,Seiki,S.,Gilliland,B.,Ateh,C.,Wallace,M.,&Kato,A.(2009).Voices

ofpre-service teachers:Perspectiveson theperformanceassessment forCaliforniateachers(PACT).Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1),39-62.

Pecheone,R.L.,&Chung,R.R.(2007).Technical report of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT): Summary of validity and reliability studies for the 2003-2004 pilot year.Stanford,CA:PACTConsortium.

Scalzo,J.N.(2010).Thesocialconstructionofacademiclanguageinteachereducation:PreparingpreserviceteacherstoworkwithEnglishlanguagelearners(Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.(UMINo.3437286)

Schleppegrell,M.J.(2004).The language of schooling: A functional linguistic approach.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Short,D. (1994).Expandingmiddleschoolhorizons: Integrating language,culture,andsocialstudies.TESOL Quarterly, 28(3),581-608.

Snyder,J.,Lippincott,A.,&Bower,D.(1998).Theinherenttensionsinthemultipleusesofportfoliosinteachereducation.Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(10),45-60.

Valdés,G.,Capitelli,S.,&Alvarez,L.(2011).Realisticexpectations:English languagelearnersandtheacquisitionof“academic”English.InG.Valdés,S.Capitelli,&L.Alvarez(Eds.),Latino children learning English: Steps in the journey(pp.15-41).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

evidence of teacher learning in a performance … · anissa r. stewart, jennifer n. scalzo, nicole...

Documents