American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/education Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
American Journal of Educational Research. 2018, 6(7), 902-908
DOI: 10.12691/education-6-7-3
Open AccessArticle

Push-pull Relationships between Concerns and Personal Engagement: Exploring the Adoption of edTPA as an Innovation

Tamra W. Ogletree1, , Jihye Kim2, Ruchi Bhatnagar3, Joyce Many3 and Carla Tanguay3

1University of West Georgia

2Kennesaw State University

3Georgia State University, Berry College, Karen Kurz

Pub. Date: June 30, 2018

Cite this paper:
Tamra W. Ogletree, Jihye Kim, Ruchi Bhatnagar, Joyce Many and Carla Tanguay. Push-pull Relationships between Concerns and Personal Engagement: Exploring the Adoption of edTPA as an Innovation. American Journal of Educational Research. 2018; 6(7):902-908. doi: 10.12691/education-6-7-3

Abstract

This study utilized the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) to understand faculty’s responses to the implementation of edTPA as a requirement for initial teacher certification. Two instruments were used to examine faculty’s behavioral and motivational response to the policy change. Faculty representing private and public institutions across the state (N = 56) responded to both instruments. Questionnaire items were analyzed by converting raw scores to percentiles, while open-ended responses were coded by stage of concern. Positive correlations between stages of concern and levels of integration indicated that engaging in a collaborative process of analyzing candidates’ scores possibly leads to a deeper understanding of edTPA as a construct and may help faculty make informed decisions about their emphasis on different aspects of edTPA in their courses. Faculty who were unconcerned or focused on personal issues were less likely to be involved in activities such as analyzing and making informed decisions utilizing student data from local and national scores. Faculty who integrated edTPA-like content into their courses were more focused on finding ways to manage time and resources related to edTPA and were more involved in collaboration with other faculty members. Opportunities for collective data analysis within institutions may have played an important role in faculty’s involvement in assessing personal strengths and areas of improvement in preparing candidates to pass edTPA in the consequential year.

Keywords:
edTPA stages of concern levels of integration faculty concerns policy implementation

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Kapustka, K. M., & Damore, S. J. (2009). Process of change in professional development schools as viewed through the lens of the concerns-based adoption model. School-University Partnerships, 3(2), 116-131.
 
[2]  Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D. J., & George, A. A. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: Levels of Use. Austin, TX: SEDL. Available from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/cbam18.html.
 
[3]  Bhatnagar, R., Kim, J., & Many, J. E. (2017). An instrument to study state-wide implementation of edTPA: Validating the levels of edTPA integration survey. Journal of Research in Education, 27(1), 24-33.
 
[4]  George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL. Available from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/cbam17.html.
 
[5]  Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
 
[6]  Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a NCLB-EETT funded professional development program on teacher self-efficacy and resultant implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 43-61.
 
[7]  Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 42(3), 231-253.
 
[8]  Hall, G. E., Newlove, B. W., George, A. A., Rutherford, W. L., & Hord, M. (1991). Measuring change facilitator stages of concern: A manual for use of the CFSoC questionnaire. Colorado, CO: Center for Research on Teaching and Learning.
 
[9]  Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin.
 
[10]  Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns-based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367.
 
[11]  Ledwell, K., & Oyler, C. (2016). Unstandardized responses to a “standardized” test: The edTPA as gatekeeper and curriculum change agent. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(2), 120-134.
 
[12]  Sloan, T. F. (2015). Data and learning that affords program improvement: A response to the U.S. accountability movement in teacher education. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14(3), 259-271.
 
[13]  Whittaker, A., & Nelson, C. (2013). Assessment with an “end in view.” The New Educator, 9(1), 77-93.
 
[14]  Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: MacMillan.
 
[15]  Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J. N., Bullock, A. A., Lys, D. B., Smith, J. J., & Fogarty, E. (2014). Mapping the journey of reform and assessment for an elementary education teacher preparation program. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 67-85.
 
[16]  Lys, D. B., L’Esperance, M., Dobson, E., & Bullock, A. A. (2014). Large-scale implementation of the edTPA: Reflections upon institutional change in action. Current Issues in Education, 17(3), 1-10.
 
[17]  Miller, M., Carroll, D., Jancic, M., & Markworth, K. (2015). Developing a culture of learning around the edTPA: One university’s journey. The New Educator, 11(1), 37-59.
 
[18]  Peck, C., & McDonald, M. (2013). Creating “cultures of evidence” in teacher education: Context, policy and practice in three high data use programs. The New Educator, 9(1), 12-28.
 
[19]  Sloan, T. (2013). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Implementation of a teaching performance measure. The New Educator, 9(1), 29-53.
 
[20]  Lachuk, A. J., & Koellner, K. (2015). Performance-based assessment for certification: Insights from edTPA implementation. Language Arts, 93(2), 84-95.
 
[21]  Lit, I. W., & Lotan, R. (2013). A balancing act: Dilemmas of implementing a high-stakes performance assessment. The New Educator, 9(1), 54-76.
 
[22]  Sato, M. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 421-434.
 
[23]  Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A, L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
 
[24]  Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1997). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
 
[25]  Au, W. (2013). What’s a nice test like you doing in a place like this? The edTPA and corporate education “reform.” Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 22-27.
 
[26]  Madeloni, B., & Gorlewski, J. (2013). Wrong answer to the wrong question: Why we need critical teacher education, not standardization. Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 16-21.
 
[27]  Many, J. E., Favors-Welch, S., Kurz, K., Ogletree, T., & Thomas, C. (2017). Using the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) as a framework to understand and support edTPA coordinators and faculty during the implementation process. In J. Many and R. Bhatnagar (Eds.), Implementing and analyzing performance assessments in teacher education (pp. 217-246). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.