Journal of Assessment and Accountability in Educator Preparation
Volume 2, Number 1, February 2012, p. 2
From the Editor: Moving Forward with Assessment
and Accountability
Robert M. Boody University of Northern Iowa well what they do matches important criteria (based on
NCATE Standard 2).
In “Predicting Teaching Performance: Proceed with
Caution”, Wilson and Robinson provide data from their
university’s preservice teachers showing that PRAXIS
II scores don’t correlate with performance measures of
candidate quality. On the other hand, TWS scores do.
Finally, Counsell addresses an understudied aspect
of assessment: how does one do assessment and
accountability in a constructivist way? Her article,
“Creating an Accountability System for a Deeply
Constructivist Graduate Program: The Case of Idaho
State University’s Early Childhood Blended Certificate
Program” provides a case study of such an attempt.
In this Issue
So many issues related to assessment and
accountability in the preparation of educators and so
little time. The articles in this issue each address an
important issue in the preparation of teachers.
How might a program or academic department
show its results in a useful way and one which is
consistent with other entities at the same institution? In
“Evidences Of Learning: The Department Profile”,
Kramer and colleagues provide a model. Their work
provides a conceptual model for thinking through what
a department should do as well as the actual document
from their own institution as an example.
Is there evidence that teacher candidates improve
across a sequential program in their ability to help
student achieve more? Denner and colleagues provide
empirical evidence showing this in the context of the
Teacher Work Sample (TWS), an on-demand
performance assessment used with preservice teacher
candidates during student teaching.
But what if teacher candidates must take a paper
and pencil test along with, or even instead of
performance assessments to become certified? Wall
and colleagues offer an approach to preparing their
physical education teacher candidates to pass the
PRAXIS II exam, the most widely used paper-andpencil set of exams for preservice teachers, in
“Preparing To Pass The Physical Education Praxis-II
Examination: Increasing Teacher Candidate TestWiseness, Self-Efficacy And Content Knowledge In
The Era Of Accountability”.
What do educator preparation institutions actually
do in their assessment systems? The literature has very
little to offer. Based on a study of documentation from
10 institutions, Boody and Kitajima offer a first attempt
at documenting what institutions actually do, and how
About the Journal
This journal is not meant to compete with other
existing journals that deal specifically with technical
aspects of measurement or with issues of
teacher/educator preparation. There are many fine
journals in these areas.
What this journal was
specifically intended to do was fill a specific need. In
spite of all educator preparation programs having to
develop and use assessment systems for students,
program improvement, and outside accountability,
there is little literature around the topic and no
dedicated scholarly outlets.
Pieces have been
published, but in a wide variety of outlets that prevent
easy connection and response. It is our hope that this
journal will help provide an outlet for material related
to its topic, as well as generate constructive
questioning.
We encourage those who are interested in this topic
to contribute manuscripts.
The journal website,
http://www.uni.edu/coe/jaaep/current.html, gives information
on
the
current
call
for
papers.