210 likes | 414 Views
Creating, Implementing, and Researching Supports for the Secondary Science edTPA: The First Year Conference on Emerging Evidence and Promising Practices Albany, NY June 18, 2014. American Museum of Natural History Masters of Arts in Teaching Program. AMNH New York City
E N D
Creating, Implementing, and Researching Supports for the Secondary Science edTPA: The First Year Conference on Emerging Evidence and Promising PracticesAlbany, NYJune 18, 2014
American Museum of Natural History Masters of Arts in Teaching Program • AMNH • New York City • Scientific research and education institution • 200+ scientists • MAT Program • Graduate level teacher preparation program • Urban teacher residency model • Earth and planetary science • 5 year pilot through NYSED and RTTT • Additional funding through NSF & Noyce Foundation
Residency Model Museum Residency School Residency Museum Residency Mentoring(online and onsite) Courses in Science and Pedagogy(online and onsite) AMNH Professional Support
Overview of Presentation • Strong scaffolding • Needed to develop quickly • Program is rigorous already • Ongoing formative assessment • Examples of scaffolding and formative assessment • How did the program’s candidates do on the edTPA exam?
Formative Tasks as Formative Assessments • We embedded formative tasks (SCALE, 2013) in coursework. • We used these formative tasks as formative assessments. • Students also evaluated their “strengths and needs.” • We used the formative assessments and students’ self-evaluations to design workshops to support edTPA submissions.
Formative Tasks in Coursework • Context for Learning • Introduced in summer courses • Required for all AMNH MAT e-Portfolio entries • Task 1: Planning for Instruction and Assessment • Candidates used edTPA-based lesson template throughout program to plan and teach lessons for multiple course assignments in the fall • Instructors used edTPA-like rubrics to assess • SCI 670, SCI 665, EDU 620
Lesson Plan Template Scan and put in here
Formative Tasks in Coursework • Task 2: Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning • EDU 620 – Curriculum & Instruction • Developed and taught lesson: Analyzing and Interpreting Data • Video and Commentary • Task 3: Assessing Student Learning • EDU 620
Analyzing Instructor Feedback • Extensive feedback on formative tasks with edTPA-like rubrics • Analyzed the feedback from the instructor to determine where candidates needed more support • Candidates were confused by academic language (see also Canty, 2014; Hundley, 2013). • Candidates were not adept at analyzing student work to inform instruction nor at structuring opportunities for students to use teacher feedback (SCALE, 2013a). • Candidates had difficulty relating personal, cultural, and community assets to science content. • Candidates had difficulty including research and theory in commentaries.
Introduction to edTPA Workshop • Rationale/Overview of edTPA • Overview of Secondary Science Tasks (pp. 6-8 of handbook) • Linking of tasks to formative assignments: Candidates’ self-assessments • Homework for Feb. 19th: • Context for Learning • Learning Segment Plan • Videotaping in schools – finalizing permission for your class • Review of AMNH edTPA timeline (April 17th deadline) • Overview of the Digication upload tool • Evaluation of the session
Summary of Candidates’ Self-Assessments • Academic language • Development of science understandings through language • Syntax and discourse • Assessment • Identifying patterns of learning • Giving feedback to students • Next instructional steps • Linking students’ prior learning and personal, cultural, and community assets to content • Using theory
Workshops 1-5 • Based in our assessments of formative tasks, along with candidates’ self-assessments using these tasks • Five full day Workshops • General Pattern: • Working with Rubrics • Mini-lessons to address needs • Time for independent work and peer review • Troubleshooting and Questions • Homework: edTPA Task to bring in for next workshop’s peer review • Workshop evaluations
Connecting Students and Content 1. Think about the content for your learning segment.
Connecting Students and Content 2. What do you know about your students?
Workshop Evaluation: Workshop I Connecting students and science • I am still confused on how to relate culture and community assets to an ES unit. • What community assets might I use to help NYC kinds connect to earthquakes? Time • Sometimes the structure of the day is too constricting and makes me flustered when I only have x amount of time to do y amount of work. • We need way more time to just work on our lesson plans. • I would have appreciated more time to work independently with my peers in a less structured way. Connecting theory and practice • I need more practice with connecting research/theory with informing my instruction. • Talk/review different theory of education. Maybe provide a table with description of theories and examples. Subject-specific • What distinction does edTPA make between scientific explanations and scientific arguments?
edTPA Scores • National pass rate 67% • New York State pass rate 84% • AMNH MAT pass rate 93% (14 out of 15 candidates) • AMNH MAT scores ranged from 32 to 61, with an average of 50 • Strongest: • Rubric 2: Planning to Support Varied Student Learning Needs (3.8:3.1 +7) • Rubric 5: Planning Assessments to Monitor and Support Student Learning (3.7:3.2 +5) • Rubric 9: Subject Specific Pedagogy: Analyzing Data (3.3:2.7 +6) • Weakest: • Rubric 6: Learning Environment (2.8:3.2 -4) • Rubric 8: Deepening Student Learning (3.0:3.0) • Rubric 13: Student Use of Feedback (2.6:2.6)
Next Steps • Continue and deepen our analysis (self-study research) • Clarify and solidify where edTPA formative tasks exist across courses (CMP) • Develop and implement lessons earlier in the year for weak categories (e.g., in residency meetings) • Time line: • Push milestones for drafts to earlier • Increase number of sessions, and space them out more • Allow one full week out-of-residency for writing and peer review • Continue peer review • Recognize and allow for each candidates’ work preferences