Assessment 3: Planning
N
Annotated (2) Bibliography
Standards
Objectives-NAEYC 4C OSTP 1,4
Rationale-NAEYC 4B OSTP 1,4
Background Knowledge OSTP 1
Methods/ Procedures-NAEYC 4C OSTP 4
Critical Thinking-NAEYC 4D OSTP 1, 4
Adaptations-NAEYC 4D OSTP 1, 4
Cultural Diversity-NAEYC 2A OSTP 1
Grouping
Assessment-NAEYC 3A/B/C OSTP 3
2008-9
UC-E
17.8
45.1
8.7
4.8
4.0
4.7
14.3
22
9.4
4.6
4.9
9.4
2009-2010
Uptown
15.3
44.9
8.3
4.8
4.6
4.9
23.4
34
9.4
9.8
9.9
UC-E
20.0
35.0
22.6
16
5.6
10.0
9.6
10.0
UC-E
2010-2011
Uptown
10.0
50.0
9.7
5.0
5.0
5.0
14.8
20
8.5
5.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
44.6
4.9
4.9
4.2
4.3
21.3
29
9.5
8.1
12.8
14.2
2011-2012
UC-E Uptown
14.75
21
5
5
10
50
9.65
5
8.5
5
10
10
19. 73
48.6
4.4
4.9
4.3
9.47
21.8
24
9.4
5.0
7.8
4.63

2010-2011 Teacher Performance Assessment Pilot
During the 2010-2011 Pilot, candidates’ submissions were rated by program faculty members.
In addition, four point scale was used.
Data related to the TPA tasks follow:
Task ↓
Rating→
M1: How do the plans support students’ development of conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and mathematical reasoning skills
M2: How does the candidate use knowledge of his/her students to target support for students’ development of conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and mathematical reasoning skills?
M3: How do the informal and formal assessments provide information to understand student progress toward the standards/objectives?
Number of Candidates Rated at Each Level
2010-2011
1 2 3 4
0
0
0
0
17
27
32
22
0 8 31 10
During the 2011-2012 TPA Field Test, candidates’ submissions were rated by nationally calibrated evaluators. The participating programs did not rather their own candidates. The rubric was expanded to five points to increase differentiation between ratings 1 and 2.
Elementary Mathemantics - ECE Candidates (56)
Rubrics
1
2a
2b
3
1 2
4
5 5
7
7
Ratings at Each Level
3 4 5
23
33
27
14
2
23
25
24 1
19 2
Other