1 / 22

Assessing Dispositions

Assessing Dispositions. Strategies/Challenges. What are dispositions?.

Jims
Download Presentation

Assessing Dispositions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing Dispositions Strategies/Challenges

  2. What are dispositions? • NCATE’s definition: Professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities. These positive behaviors support student learning and development.

  3. What does NCATE require? • Inclusion of two specific dispositions: fairness and the belief that all students can learn. • Assessment based on observable behaviors in educational settings • Institutions can add additional dispositions based on their mission and conceptual framework

  4. NCATE’s definition of “fairness” -- • The commitment demonstrated in striving to meet the educational needs of all students in a caring, non-discriminatory, and equitable manner.

  5. Steps in the Process • Defining the dispositions you value • Clarifying the connections among the dispositions, your conceptual framework, and unit/program standards • Developing faculty buy-in; reaching consensus • Developing and piloting an instrument • Learning from the data: revisiting consensus building

  6. Developing and implementing a policy and procedure for using the data and addressing concerns • Learning from the data: revisiting consensus building -- again

  7. Defining the Dispositions You Value • What we did – • Assessment Committee drafted a list of dispositions consistent with the College’s Conceptual Framework • List was correlated with the dispositions from INTASC (correlation matrix) • List was revised, combining some, adding a new one (revised list)

  8. Dispositions, Conceptual Framework, and Standards • Our list was consistent with key concepts on the CF, but dispositions were not addressed specifically in the CF • CF Committee revised the CF document to clearly articulate expectations for dispositions • The CF Elements were revised to reflect the inclusion of dispositions and the integrated relationship among the principles, processes, characteristics, and dispositions of the CF

  9. Proposal to the Faculty • Proposed list of dispositions, with defining indicators • Proposed process: dispositions to be assessed every semester in every course requiring LiveText • No “high stakes” at this point – just feedback • Required, but no connection to grade • Use the same rating scale faculty chose for portfolio assessment (Proficient, Developing, Unacceptable, Not Able to Rate)

  10. What We Told the Students • One of your requirements in this class is to submit a Dispositions Assessment Permission in LiveText to me. At the end of the course, I will provide you with formative feedback on your development and demonstration of the professional dispositions that are important for Transforming Practitioners. No grade or score from the dispositions assessment will affect your course grade, but the submission of your permission form is required before your grade will be posted. Instructions on the submission process will be provided and we will discuss in class the specific dispositions that will be assessed.

  11. How We Defined the Rating Scale • Proficient: The candidate demonstrates the professional disposition at the level expected of a new teacher. • Developing: The candidate is in the beginning stages of developing the described disposition but does not yet demonstrate it at the level expected.

  12. Unacceptable: The candidate has not demonstrated the expected professional disposition; you have substantial concerns about this area of the candidate’s development. • N/O: You do not have enough information to be able to rate the candidate.

  13. Assessment committee charged with developing a complete policy related to dispositions assessment. • Unit would adapt the process as necessary, informed by the initial semester’s experiences and the data.

  14. What we learned from the data: • There was a wide range of faculty interpretations of the rating scale. • Conflicts became evident when the faculty were asked to adopt a policy.

  15. Ad Hoc Committee Charge: • Review process and proposed policies • Further analyze data to identify patterns • Read the AACTE monograph on Dispositions Assessment (Sockett, 2006) • Recommend possible revisions to full faculty

  16. Emerging Issues: • Growth model vs. deficit model? • Development vs. gate-keeping? • Same language, different assumptions (survey exercise) • Same language of rating scale for portfolio and dispositions; different purposes of assessments • Due process for students

  17. Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations • Addition of eighth disposition category (revised list) • Changes to definitions of ratings • “Growth model” and a document clearly articulating our philosophy of assessment • Revisions to the proposed policy (#1, #2, #3)

  18. Process for Reviewing Assessment Data • Assessment Committee’s process recommendation • Individual Improvement Plan form • Form used for first review

  19. What we learned this time: • Still on different pages about rating scale (one instructor’s “unacceptable” was another one’s “developing”) • Dispositions most disparately understood: Commitment to Life-long Learning (advanced only?) and Belief in Teacher Efficacy (locus of control issue – teacher efficacy vs. personal efficacy) • Still at odds on purpose of the assessment and the implications of it

  20. Next Steps • Consider new terms for the ratings scale – important to use different terms than those for portfolio assessment. • Revise indicators/descriptors to be much more detailed and behavioral (this will probably make the instrument – or at least its accompanying rubric – longer and more cumbersome). • Have two sets of indicators: one for use by classroom instructor; one for use in field work. • Reach consensus that, while the process is developmental, it needs to be possible for candidates to meet the expectations while they are still pre-service teachers.

  21. Those are our issues – you’ll find your own. • Take systematic steps to ensure a fair, equitable, and meaningful assessment process. • Assume that disparate values and understandings lie beneath a common language and take steps to uncover, examine, and work through the different perspectives held by faculty.

  22. Contact Info: • Susan MaloneMercer Universitymalone_sc@mercer.edu

More Related