University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: a model for teacher preparation?

(USC Thesis Other)

The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: a model for teacher preparation?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EDUCATION TEACHER PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: A MODEL FOR
TEACHER PREPARATION?
By
Joseph M. Kotarski
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2020
Copyright 2020 Joseph M. Kotarski

ii

DEDICATION
For my wife Sofiya, you endured and supported me throughout this journey. Without your
unconditional support, patience and love I would have never made it. You are my love for eternity.
To Yacob and Isabella, develop an inclination to seek out challenges, invest effort in
learning, persist when difficulty mounts, and rebound from failure. Do not become frustrated when
you experience failure, learn from it. Do not become boastful when you succeed, be humble about
it, and use the fruits of your success to help others.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the unconditional love and support my family has shown me
throughout my life. Mom and dad, thank you for investing your faith and resources in me to help
get me through college as a young adult. You clearly placed value on my education and supporting
my transition to adulthood. Without you, I would not be where I am today.
Uncle Nate, growing up I always admired your intellect. Whether you were helping me as a
kid at the kitchen table with math or helping me revise essays as an undergraduate, you had the
most amazing consistency, patience, and precise feedback; thank you.
Aunt Millie, Uncle Norman, and Grandma Tillie, our time was too short. You always told
me to take my study seriously and I hope I have met your expectations.
To Mohammed and Fatima, I am so fortunate for the way you have unconditionally
accepted me into your family and showered my family with your love and grace. I would not have
made it through this program without the unconditional support and love you provided us during
our time together the last few years.
I would like to thank Al Akhawayn University, the beautiful institution nestled in the Atlas
Mountains of North Africa where I spent 3 beautiful years working, learning, and writing much of
this dissertation. Thank you for giving me a chance to be a part of your institution.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………….…………..…..……..ii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………iii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..ix
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………….……xi
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..ix
List of Equations…………………………………………………………………………………xii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice .......................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................................. 3
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................... 4
Organizational Performance Status/Need ....................................................................................... 5
Related Literature ............................................................................................................................ 7
Evaluation of the edTPA and MAT Program Redesign ................................................................ 10
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................................. 13
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................... 14
Stakeholder Group for the Study ................................................................................................... 16
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................................ 17
Methodological Framework .......................................................................................................... 18
Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Organization of the Study .............................................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 22
The edTPA: an educative approach? ......................................................................................... 22
Preparing Effective Teachers: Shifting the Paradigm ............................................................... 25
An Overview of Effective Teacher Preparation ............................................................................ 27

v

Coherent Experiences Through Clinical Education .................................................................. 27
Clinical Practice: residency and professional development schools ...................................... 28
Mentoring preservice teachers ............................................................................................... 29
Many Preparation Programs Fail to Prepare Preservice Teachers ............................................. 30
Disconnections: Preservice Teacher Evaluation and Classroom Readiness .......................... 32
Teacher Performance Assessments ............................................................................................ 33
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework .............................................. 34
Stakeholder KMO Influences ........................................................................................................ 35
Knowledge and Skills ................................................................................................................ 35
Knowledge Influences ............................................................................................................... 37
Conceptual knowledge ........................................................................................................... 38
Pedagogical praxis ................................................................................................................. 38
Procedural knowledge ............................................................................................................ 39
Intrinsic cognitive load ........................................................................................................... 39
Metacognitive Knowledge ..................................................................................................... 40
Motivation Influences ................................................................................................................ 42
Reflective praxis .................................................................................................................... 43
Self-regulation ........................................................................................................................ 44
Self-efficacy theory ................................................................................................................ 45
Expectancy value theory ........................................................................................................ 46
Organization Influences ............................................................................................................. 47
General organization theory ................................................................................................... 49
Cultural models ...................................................................................................................... 49
Organizational human resource frame ................................................................................... 50
Organizational political frame ............................................................................................... 50
Cultural settings ..................................................................................................................... 51
Effective teacher training and assessment models ................................................................. 52
Support and mentorship models ............................................................................................. 53
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholders KMO Context ............................................ 54
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 62
Introduction to the Methodology ................................................................................................... 62

vi

Sampling and Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 63
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 63
Survey Sampling Strategy, Criteria, and Rationale ................................................................... 63
Survey Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale .......................................................... 65
Interview Sampling, Criteria, and Rationale ............................................................................. 67
Criterion 1. MAT 2017 and 2018 cohort participants who agreed to be contacted for follow up.
................................................................................................................................................ 68
Interview Group Sampling and Recruitment Strategy and Rationale .................................... 68
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................................. 69
Surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 70
Survey Instrument .................................................................................................................. 70
Survey Procedures .................................................................................................................. 71
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 73
Interview Protocol .................................................................................................................. 73
Interview Procedures .............................................................................................................. 74
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 75
Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................................. 78
Credibility and Trustworthiness .................................................................................................... 80
Ethics ...................................................................................................................................... 81
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................................... 84
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................. 86
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 87
Survey Participants .................................................................................................................... 87
1:1 Interview Participants .......................................................................................................... 88
Determination of Assets and Needs .............................................................................................. 89
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................................... 90
Research Question 1 .................................................................................................................. 91
Knowledge ................................................................................................................................. 91
Conceptual knowledge-pedagogical praxis ........................................................................... 91
Subjective knowledge: demonstration of pedagogical praxis based on personal interpretations
................................................................................................................................................ 92
Procedural knowledge ............................................................................................................ 95
Intrinsic cognitive load ........................................................................................................... 97

vii

Metacognitive Knowledge ................................................................................................... 100
Research Question 2 ................................................................................................................ 103
Motivation ................................................................................................................................ 103
Self-regulation and reflective practice ................................................................................. 104
Self-efficacy theory .............................................................................................................. 107
Expectancy Value ................................................................................................................ 111
Research Question 3 ................................................................................................................ 116
Organization ............................................................................................................................ 117
Cultural model 1: organizational human resource frame ..................................................... 117
Cultural model 2: organizational political frame ................................................................. 120
Cultural setting 1: effective teacher training and assessment models .................................. 123
Cultural setting 2: support and mentorship models ............................................................. 126
Summary of Validated Influences ............................................................................................... 130
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 133
Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 133
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..................................................... 137
Knowledge Recommendations ................................................................................................ 137
Knowledge solution: Procedural .......................................................................................... 138
Motivation Recommendations ................................................................................................. 141
Motivation Solution: Self-efficacy ....................................................................................... 144
Motivation Solution: Expectancy Value .............................................................................. 145
Organizational Recommendations ........................................................................................... 146
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ......................................................................... 147
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ........................................................................... 147
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ..................................................................... 149
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ................................................................................. 150
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................................................... 151
Critical behaviors ................................................................................................................. 151
Required drivers ................................................................................................................... 152
Monitoring: Organizational support ..................................................................................... 154
Level Two: Learning ............................................................................................................... 156
Learning Goals ..................................................................................................................... 156

viii

Program ................................................................................................................................ 156
Components of learning ....................................................................................................... 157
Level One: Reaction ................................................................................................................ 158
Evaluation Tools ...................................................................................................................... 159
During and immediately following the program implementation ....................................... 160
Delayed for a period after the program implementation ...................................................... 160
Data Analysis and Reporting ................................................................................................... 161
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 163
Study Strengths, Limitations, and Delimitations ......................................................................... 163
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 164
References ................................................................................................................................... 166
Appendix 1 Survey Instrument .................................................................................................... 184
Appendix 2 Letter Inviting MAT Participants ..................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................... 192
Appendix 3 Weekly Reminder E-mail for Survey Participation ................................................. 193
Appendix 4 Interview Questions and Protocol ............................................................................ 194
Appendix 5 Interview Purpose Letter ......................................................................................... 198
Appendix 6 Comparison of study’s survey items to Ressler et al. (2017) survey items ............. 199
Appendix 7 Comparison of study’s interview items to Ressler et al. (2017) interview items. ... 202
Appendix 8 Consent Form For Research Participation ............................................................... 205
Appendix 9 Human Subjects Protection Program ....................................................................... 208
Appendix 10 Information Fact Sheet (IFS) for Exempt Non-Medical Research ........................ 209
Appendix 11 Blended Evaluation Tool ....................................................................................... 212

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals……….…..16
Table 2 Knowledge Influences………………………………………….……………………….42
Table 3 Motivational Influences and Types………………………….………………………….48
Table 4 Organizational Influences and Types……………………….……………………….….55
Table 5 Survey Participants Demographics Data…………………….………………………….88
Table 6 Survey Participants Who Left Qualitative Commentary by KMO Section..……….…..88
Table 7 Interview Participants Demographics Data………………….…………..….……..........89
Table 8 Participant Reported Knowledge: Pedagogical Praxis……………….…………………93
Table 9 Participant Reported Pedagogical Praxis Themes………………………………...…….93
Table 10 Participant Reported Teacher Knowledge: Procedural………………...……………...96
Table 11 Participant Reported edTPA Pass Rates………………………………...…………….97
Table 12 2016-2018 MAT/National Average edTPA Pass Rate………….………………….....97
Table 13 Participant Reported Intrinsic Cognitive Load Themes……………………………....98
Table 14 Participant Reported Knowledge: Metacognitive……………………….…………....100
Table 15 Participant Reported Meta-Cognitive Theme………………………….……………..101
Table 16 Participant Reported Motivation: Self-Regulatory Process……………….………….105
Table 17 Participant Reported Self-Regulatory Themes………………………….……………105
Table 18 Participant Reported Motivation: Self-Efficacy……………………………….……..108
Table 19 Participant Reported Self-Efficacy Themes………………………………….………108
Table 20 Participant Reported Motivation: Utility Value…….……………………….………..112
Table 21 Participant Reported Utility Value Themes………….……………….……….……...112
Table 22 Participant Reported Cultural Model: Faculty Mentorship and
Feedback…...…………………………………………………………………………….…..…118
Table 23 Participant Reported Cultural Model 1 Theme…….………….……….……………..118
Table 24 Participant Reported Cultural Model: MAT Program Alignment with the edTPA
……………………………………………………………………………….…………..…......121
Table 25 Participant Reported Cultural Model 2 Themes………………………..…………….122

x

Table 26 Participant Reported Cultural Setting: Faculty Messaged Importance of edTPA
………………………………………………………………………………………..……..…...124
Table 27 Participant Reported Cultural Setting 1 Theme…………….....……...…...……….….125
Table 28 Participant Reported Cultural Setting: Mentorship and Support of Preservice Teachers
……………………………………………………………………………...…...…………..…..127
Table 29 Participant Reported Cultural Setting 2 Themes………………......…...……….….…128
Table 30 Assumed Knowledge Influences: Determination of Assets or Needs…...…...….…....130
Table 31 Assumed Motivation Influences: Determination of Assets or Needs…….......……….131
Table 32 Assumed Organizational Influences: Determination of Assets or Needs.......………...131
Table 33 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations………….…......………..139
Table 34 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations.…………....…………….142
Table 35 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations……….……….…..…...148
Table 36 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal
Outcomes……………………………………………………………..………......………..…….151
Table 37 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for
Evaluation………………………………………………………………..……......………..….. 153
Table 38 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors………………...…...........…………..155
Table 39 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program………….....……………158
Table 40 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program………...………..……..…………159

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: MAT Preservice Teacher KMO Influences Conceptual Framework……..………….59
Figure 2: Candidates Reporting Time Spent in Hours on the edTPA Portfolio………..….…...115
Figure 3: Sample Data Report to Report Progress Towards Goals………………….….……...162

xii

LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation 1: Formula to calculate the sample size to achieve a 95% confidence level
…………………………………………………………………………….….…….………...…66

xiii

ABSTRACT
Since its introduction in 2013, the Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) has
been lauded by advocates as an effective means of focusing teacher preparation provision and as a
measure of ensuring candidate quality by serving as a gate keeper to the profession. However,
critics of the edTPA have claimed that assessment is a dangerous standardization of teaching, a
corporate takeover of teacher education, and lacks validity in measuring teacher effectiveness. This
dissertation employed a mixed methods explanatory design and evaluated the experiences of 2
cohorts of preservice teachers from Master of Arts program with respect to their interaction,
development, and submission of their edTPA portfolio. Specifically, the study evaluated three areas
of MAT preservice teachers experience with the edTPA: (a) the knowledge influences needed for
preservice teachers to develop and demonstrate their readiness to teach as measured by their edTPA
portfolio scores, (b), the extent that MAT preservice teachers are influenced by motivational
constructs as they develop their teaching abilities and their edTPA portfolio, and (c) the
organizational influences that contribute to the success, or lack of, MAT preservice teachers’
edTPA scores. After a presentation of the results and findings of the data, the study concludes by
sharing to the identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps and recommends an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan for the MAT program to consider for use with future
MAT cohorts and their edTPA preparation.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Improving schools to impact student learning is deeply connected to teacher quality and
ensuring well-prepared teachers enter the profession depends on effective teacher preparation
that connects theory to practice (Ressler, King, & Nelson, 2016). The quality of teacher
preparation programs greatly influences preservice teachers’ ability to develop the needed
knowledge, skills, and abilities to be effective in the classroom. K-12 teacher preparation
programs that use teacher performance assessments as a measure of preservice teachers’
readiness to teach have been found to better prepare teachers in training to impact student
achievement gains when they enter the classroom as first year teachers (Darling-Hammond,
2010; Darling- Hammond, 2014). When teacher preparation programs effectively analyze
teacher candidates’ performance assessment results trends can be established and the data can be
used to validate or improve teacher training program curriculum (Adkins, 2016; Ledwell &
Oyler, 2016; Pecheone & Whittaker, 2016).
Historically, there has been a failure to merge academic theory of teacher practice with
professional practice in the field creating decontextualized and undervalued experiences for
preservice teachers (Kameniar, Davies, Kinsman, Reid, Acquaro, 2017). There are thousands of
teacher preparation programs in the U.S. that are regulated by state standards operating
independently of each other, and many state frameworks and requirements for awarding teacher
licensure are weak (Darling-Hammond, 2010; McDonald, Kazemi, Elham, & Schneider, 2013;
and Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy 2010). Credentialing is weak as a result of preparation programs
reliance on standardized tests about pedagogy that are disconnected from authentic teaching
situations that fail to assess teacher readiness to enter the classroom as first year teachers of
record (Sato, 2014).

2

Literature suggests that when preservice teachers are developed, supported, and assessed
by program faculty and highly qualified mentor teachers their ability to impact student learning
is greatly enhanced (AACTE, 2011; Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwner, Korthagen, & Bergen,
2011; Shuey, Johnson, Alsup & Shoffner, 2012). Yet, mentoring preservice teachers does not
automatically occur between the cooperating teacher and university supervisor as the provision
of mentorship is not planned for or evaluated in many cases leading to obstacles to the success of
preservice teachers (NCATE,2010; Williamson & Hodder, 2015).
This is a problem as student achievement outcomes are closely related to teacher quality;
when teacher preparation programs do not effectively prepare and assess teachers’ in training
effectiveness, student achievement outcomes are impacted (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Hightower, Delgado, Wittenstein, Sellers, & Swanson, 2011; Minnici, 2014; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015; Pew Research Center, 2017; Stonge, Ward, Tucker, & Hindman,
2007). Okhremtchouk, Seiki, Gilliland, Ateh, Wallace, and Kato (2009) conducted a sequential
exploratory study that aimed to evaluate the impact of teacher performance assessments on
student teachers and found performance assessments helped preservice teachers learn about their
teaching in the areas of their own actions, their student behaviors, and ways they could better
plan and prepare lessons and assess students enabling them to better impact student learning.
This dissertation evaluated the experiences of MAT preservice teachers in respect to their
interaction, development, and submission of the Education Teacher Performance Assessment
(edTPA) portfolio. Specifically, the study evaluated three areas of MAT preservice teachers
experience with the edTPA: (a) the knowledge influences needed for preservice teachers to
develop and demonstrate their readiness to teach as measured by their edTPA portfolio scores,
(b), the extent that MAT preservice teachers are influenced by motivational constructs as they

3

develop their teaching abilities and their edTPA portfolio, and (c) the organizational influences
that contribute to the success, or lack of, MAT preservice teachers’ edTPA scores.
Background of the Problem
Historically, approaches to teacher preparation and curriculum have been fragmented
between preparation programs. Teacher education programs and research have developed
independently of one another, and research in the field has lagged unlike other professional
occupations (McDonald et al., 2013). Over time, occupations such as medicine, nursing, law,
engineering, accounting, and architecture synchronized through the introduction of rigorous
licensing and certification. In these professions, candidates have “to show that they know and
can do the things that are expected of professionals in their field: analyze cases and write briefs,
diagnose patients, design safe bridges” and qualification assessments are designed and scored by
professionals experienced in their respective field of practice (Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2013,
p. 2). This has not been the case in teacher candidate assessments and certification. An ongoing
challenge that has hindered teacher education programs is that learning to teach has been
fragmented (Hammerness, 2006).
Due to the lack of a nationalized set of competencies aligned with teaching, teacher
training programs have diverged into multiple preparation formats causing vast differences in
quality and focus as Sykes et al. (2010) argue that traditional and alternative teacher preparation
programs lack a specific body of professional knowledge when assessing the effectiveness of
preservice teachers. The multiple approaches to preparing and assessing preservice teachers’
underscores the lack of a codified body of knowledge for the profession and approach to assess
candidate readiness to enter the classroom (Sykes et al., 2010).

4

Organizational Context and Mission
The School of Education at the University of the West (pseudonym), a private research
university, is one of 23 academic schools in the university and is located in the Western United
States. The School of Education offers undergraduate and graduate programs and its mission is
to prepare leaders to achieve educational equity through practice, research, and policy by
working to improve learning opportunities and outcomes in urban settings. Specific to this study,
the School of Education has a Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program whose preservice
teachers are the focus of this study. The curriculum of the program is fully integrated with
preparation for the state’s preliminary teaching credential in Multiple Subjects (Elementary) or
Single Subject (English, Math, Science, or Social Studies), and with additional coursework,
students can also pursue a Special Education Credential, Gifted Certificate, or Bilingual
Authorization for Spanish Certificate (School of Education, 2018). Over the course of three
semesters, full time students take 9 courses that are framed around core pedagogy and practice
courses. Additionally, seminar courses that focus on social contexts, learning differences,
equitable teaching, language development, literacy, and blended learning are part of the
coursework. All three semesters place students in fieldwork. Term 1 preservice teachers engage
in video observations of teaching to decompose practice followed by terms two and three where
they are placed in the field for their student teaching experience.
From the period of fall 2017 to fall 2019 there were 2 on campus and 2 online MAT
cohorts; approximately 253 students were enrolled full-time on campus students compared to
207 full-time online students. Both formats completed the program after three semesters. The
curriculum of the program is three-fold as it aims to develop and measure students understanding
of K-12 educational theory, application and understanding of teaching and learning to meet
diverse learner needs, and demonstration of mastery of instructional methods and subject-matter-

5

specific pedagogies. In addition to completing degree work, students must submit an edTPA
portfolio of teaching assessments to Pearson Education for external scoring in order to be
awarded preliminary teacher credentialing from the state. For the purpose of this study, focus
was on candidate’s performance and experience with the edTPA.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
The State Commission on Teacher Credentialing (SCTC (pseudonym)) requires that the
teacher candidates undertake and pass a performance assessment to obtain their preliminary
teaching credential. While the state allows for teacher preparation programs to choose from three
available preservice teacher performance assessment frameworks, the MAT program uses the
edTPA as its assessment tool (State Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2018; University of
the West 2018). As of 2016, the School of Education’s MAT published preservice teacher pass
rate on the edTPA was 84%, compared to the national average of 78% (edTPA, 2018; School of
Education, 2018). This means that in 2016 over 15% of School of Education MAT preservice
teachers and over 20% of national preservice teacher candidates failed the assessment.
Beginning in January 2017 the MAT underwent a program redesign process with the goal
of establishing a coherent program vision by systematically aligning program assessment tools
with one another and with the edTPA (MAT Program Chair presentation, 2019a). Additionally,
the program design emphasized three areas: (a) Powerful Partnerships: candidates are paired with
a highly qualified mentor teacher, (b) Powerful Practice: all candidates complete a rigorous,
video based fieldwork curriculum using portfolio assessments through which they learn in and
from initial rehearsals, co-teaching, and leading instruction, and (c) Powerful Participation: all
candidates learn teaching strategies with the use of digital collaboration tools and online learning
settings (MAT Program Chair presentation, 2019a). Additionally, all MAT faculty received

6

hybrid edTPA professional development during the Spring 2018 with an edTPA national
consultant. Faculty regularly are expected to access subject-specific edTPA overview videos sent
at the beginning of each semester, including edTPA guides.
The edTPA is comprised of 3 tasks: (a) planning for instruction and assessment, (b)
instructing and engaging students in learning, and (c) assessing student learning. To guide the
alignment of program assessment tools between one another and with the edTPA the program
redesign was informed by the SCTC standards, especially in respect to preservice teacher
preparation and support. This led the program to design formative coursework opportunities for
candidates aligned with the edTPA tasks/activities they would need to eventually demonstrate
mastery on as evidenced in their portfolio submission. The program coursework now has four
key assessments that are aligned with the edTPA. Assessment 1 is comprised of tasks aligned to
planning for instruction and assessment. Assessment 2 asks preservice teachers to submit two 3
to 10-minute video clips of two sequential lessons that demonstrate how they interact with
students in a positive learning environment to develop their subject matter understanding.
Assessment 3 asks preservice teachers to plan 3 to 5 consecutive lessons to capture learning
segments where students are provided opportunities to comprehend, construct meaning from,
interpret complex text, and to create a product, interpreting or responding to complex features of
a text that are just beyond students’ current skill levels. Finally, assessment 4 calls on preservice
teachers to complete a series of assignments geared at facilitating critical reflection skills on
problems of practice and solutions by constructing a capstone project (MAT Program Chair
presentation, 2019a).
Semester 2 of the program is referred to as general practice A and semester 3 is general
practice B. Candidates develop and collect teaching artifacts from their general practice A such

7

as planning materials, video clips of their class instruction, assessment samples, and use of their
academic language while teaching. Preservice teachers then write commentaries about their
artifacts during general practice B to demonstrate their understandings and reflections to be
compiled in their portfolio. The edTPA assessment typically includes 15 rubrics, each of which
is scored on a scale of five points, which sum to a total maximum possible score of 75. The
national recommended professional performance standard cut score is set at 42 compared to 41
in the state where the university is located (each state is allowed to set its own professional
performance standard cut score and ranges from 35-42 (edTPA, 2018).
Given that there have been significant revisions to the MAT program, it is important to
evaluate the variables that the program’s preservice teachers identify as contributors to their
success or underperformance on their edTPA portfolio submission. If edTPA pass rates of
candidates have significantly improved, then the School of Education’s MAT program may have
the capacity to serve as a promising practice for other teacher preparation programs. On the other
hand, if the program has not seen improvement in candidate scores then it is important to
understand what variables continue to contribute to underperformance on the portfolio
assessment so that performance solutions can further be identified and recommended in order to
actualize the mission of the School of Education and the requirement of the edTPA for licensure.
Related Literature
Since its introduction in 2013, the edTPA has been lauded by advocates as an effective
means of focusing teacher preparation quality and as a measure of ensuring teacher candidate
quality by serving as a gatekeeper for the profession (Carter & Lochte, 2017; Goldhaber, Cowan,
and Theobald, 2017; Lalley, 2017; Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Ressler, et. al, 2017; Sato, 2014). On
the other end of the spectrum, critics have claimed that the edTPA is a dangerous standardization
of teaching, a corporate takeover of teacher education, and lacks validity in measuring teacher

8

effectiveness (Carter & Lochte, 2017; Goldhaber, Cowan, and Theobald, 2017; Lalley, 2017;
Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Ressler, et. al, 2017; Sato, 2014).
At its inception, the edTPA was developed by The Stanford Center for Assessment,
Learning, and Equity (SCALE) as an educator-designed support and assessment program for
teacher candidates in 27 individual content areas. The mission of the edTPA is to develop and
evaluate teacher candidates’ skills and competencies by specifically focusing on teaching-related
performance tasks. The performance tasks are embedded in clinical practice and focused on
developing and assessing teacher planning, instruction, assessment, academic language, and
analysis of teaching to build the essential competencies first year teachers will need when they
enter the classroom post training (SCALE, 2018).
After the first five years of the edTPA’s use the literature suggests that there are mixed
views by its critical consumers- teacher preparation programs, preservice teachers, and guiding
teacher mentors in the field (Goldhaber, et. al, 2017; Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Sato, 2014;
Seymour, Burns, & Henry, 2018; Ressler, et. al, 2017). Some preparation programs have
acknowledged that the edTPA’s assessments are educative in preparing preservice teachers. For
instance, programs have used the edTPA framework and student scores to improve curriculum
redesign and program improvement (Adkins, 2016).
Other preparation programs have expressed concerns that their program curriculum and
assessments have been sidelined in an exchange for “teaching to the test” of the edTPA (Ledwell
& Oyler, 2016; Ressler, et. al, 2017, p. 124). Ledwell and Oyler (2016) highlighted the
differences of curricular value between preparation programs and teacher educators. Their study
used data from semi-structured interviews of 19 teacher educators from 12 teacher preparation
programs and public information on edTPA pass rates and found that the edTPA influenced a
wide range of curricular responses ranging from in-depth edTPA integration into teacher

9

preparation curriculum and coursework to a complete marginalization of the assessments from
curriculum and coursework. Their study highlighted colleges that had integrated the edTPA
purposefully into their teacher preparation curriculum saw improved candidate understanding of
their practice with classroom assessment and instruction. Contrarily, teacher preparation
programs who did not align encountered “deep paradigmatic conflicts” between the edTPA and
the curriculum of their program (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016, p. 129).
The level of support and mentorship preservice teachers receive on developing their
edTPA portfolio is greatly influenced by preparation programs framing of the edTPA.
Additionally, preservice teacher perceptions of and experience with the edTPA are also greatly
influenced by the way programs frame the purpose of the requirement. Ratner and Kolman
(2016) designed a qualitative exploratory inquiry into the experiences of edTPA candidates and
found disparity and variation in the level and kind of support offered to preservice teacher
candidates. Programs that frame the edTPA as a “you need to do this” requirement, rather than a
professional framework, have been found to offer lower levels of candidate support (Cohen,
Berlin, Mathews, McGraw, & Gottlieb, 2018, p. 7).
On the one hand, preservice teachers have been found to value the edTPA as a
developmental framework and measure of their abilities. On the other hand, preservice teacher
concerns have surfaced in respect to the assessment as authentic measure of teacher preparation
and ability. Ressler et al. (2017) conducted a qualitative study of 41 preservice teachers and first
year teachers who submitted an edTPA portfolio during the 2013-2015 academic years to probe
if they perceived if the performance assessments improved the quality of their preparation and
practice. Their study found that the majority of preservice teachers’ feedback indicated that the
edTPA helped to improve their teaching, their reflexivity, analytical skills, and their own and
their students’ learning. However, their study samples also indicated that the edTPA assessments

10

were not an authentic measure of their teaching signaling mixed views on the value of the
edTPA.
Seymour et al. (2018) surveyed 32 cooperating teacher mentors of edTPA preservice
teachers and results indicated that they felt the edTPA was a relevant task and for preservice
teachers, suggesting value, and likening the process to professional performance reviews, but
were not convinced that the certification requirement of the edTPA enhanced the clinical
experience of preservice teachers. The survey also revealed that the majority of cooperating
teachers felt that time requirements of the edTPA were appropriate, and just over half (54%) of
cooperating teachers felt the edTPA did not interfere with the day to day responsibilities of
preservice teachers. The mixed views of the preparation programs, teacher mentors, and
preservice teachers demonstrate that the early use of the edTPA as a teacher preparation
curriculum framework has differing opinions of the edTPA’s value and authenticity as a measure
of preservice teacher abilities.
Evaluation of the edTPA and MAT Program Redesign
Given that the edTPA has only been in use for a short period of time and that literature
indicates mixed views of its implementation, effectiveness, and value this dissertation evaluates
the experiences of two MAT cohorts whose candidates all submitted an edTPA: (a) the 2017-
2018 cohort who competed the program in December 2018, and (b) the 2018-2019 MAT cohort
who completed the program in December 2019. Evaluating these cohorts help to contribute to
critical understanding and capacity about the edTPA in practice and the variables of the MAT
program redesign that contributed to preservice teachers edTPA experiences. Specifically, the
study evaluates: (a) the knowledge influences needed for preservice teachers to develop their
edTPA portfolio artifacts and commentaries, (b) the extent that preservice teachers valued the
edTPA as an authentic assessment of their teaching capabilities, and (c) the extent that preservice

11

teachers felt that the MAT program curriculum, materials and resources, assessments, faculty,
and host mentor teachers supported their development of their edTPA portfolio.
The problem of K-12 traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs lack of a
specific body of professional knowledge and candidate performance assessment measures is
important to address. While teacher preparation programs produce a significant amount of
candidates, not all enter the field, and many of those who do, do not stay in the profession
costing public schools 7 billion dollars per year as a result of teacher turnover (Hobson, Harris,
Buckner-Manley, & Smith, 2012). Hammerness (2006) argues that university-based teacher
education programs consist of disconnected individual courses, disconnected coursework and
field work, and a lack of vision for teaching and learning.
Beginning in the 1980s, U.S. education policy was influenced by poor student
performance on national and international standardized assessments initiating a shift towards the
use of performance assessments in teacher preparation (Gurl, Caraballo, Grey, Gunn, Gerwin,
and Bembenutty, 2016). For instance, the state Connecticut in 1986 introduced the Beginning
Educators Support and Training (BEST) assessment to identify areas of growth and guide
recommendations for professional development for newly certified teachers (Denton, 2013). A
year later, in 1987 the National Board Certification (NBC) for professional teaching standards
was created to guide professional teachers to demonstrate standards-based evidence via
performance assessments on the positive impact they have on student learning (National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards, 2020). In 1998, California law makers passed a bill that
mandated performance assessments as part of teacher credentialing in the state leading to the
Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), a precursor to the edTPA (Gurl, et.
Al, 2016). To date, the edTPA aims to serve as a national framework for preparing and
credentialing teachers (SCALE, 2014).

12

Yet, literature has indicated that some preparation programs have marginalized the
edTPA by not aligning the TPA with preparation program curriculum and assessments (Ledwell
& Oyler, 2016; Ratner & Kolman, 2016). Additionally, preparation programs have been found to
frame the edTPA as a bureaucratic requirement as opposed to a developmental process and
lagged in supporting candidates with immersion and development of their TPAs (Cohen et al.,
2018).
On the contrary, the MAT program redesign has aimed to create a structurally and
conceptually coherent program to facilitate powerful learning experiences -aligned to the
edTPA- for prospective teachers. To be clear, the program redesign was much more than just
addressing the high stake demands of the edTPA and was first driven by School of Education’s
vision of what a teacher should be and can do; the expectation is to graduate teachers who
transform their classrooms, schools, districts, and contribute to the dialogue about educational
change. The vision for redesign then needed to be cognizant to their program accreditor, the
SCTC, and align with their credentialing requirements with one such requirement being that a
teacher candidate pass an externally evaluated set of performance assessments. This is where the
program redesign addressed building candidates’ assessment literacy by strategically aligning the
program coursework and assessments with expectations and demands of the edTPA (MAT
Program Chair presentation, 2019a).
The MAT redesign led to a tiered, integrated, and applied practice approach through the
use of a program-designed reflective teaching cycle. The reflective teaching cycle incorporates
lesson artifacts, rehearsal, lesson videos for analysis setting and further experimentation. The
programs regular use of video analysis allows for a joint examination of teaching between the
candidate and program faculty. The reflective teaching cycle is integrated with formative
reflective teaching video assignments in fieldwork courses and are backward aligned with the

13

edTPA. Over the course of 30 weeks of fieldwork in the program, these series of assignments
sum up to multiple mini-TPA’s where candidates engage in reflective narratives and are set
expectations for improvement over time through the course of those assignments. The program
strongly believes that the reflective teaching cycle is at the heart of the systematically preparing
teachers to be successful active and agentic forces in their own development (MAT Program
Chair presentation, 2019a).
By evaluating the program experiences of MAT candidates and scores of their edTPA
portfolios, the MAT program could have potential to be a model teacher preparation program
and promising practice that has successfully integrated the edTPA into its curriculum and
assessments. By implementing performance assessments, like the edTPA, there is great potential
to improve the quality of teaching, and practitioners will be more responsive to traditionally
under-served low achieving minority urban and rural students (McDonald, et. al, 2013). By
intentionally using TPAs, student outcomes are in a better position to be improved as teachers
will be better prepared for the realities of classroom and their contextual needs (Darling-
Hammond, 2010).
Organizational Performance Goal
The goal of the MAT program is to ensure that all candidates are successfully and fully
prepared to enter the profession to serve all students in their first-year classrooms. All faculty
agree that candidates’ preparation in the program must fully prepare them to be successful to
enter the profession. As part of candidature preparation and to enter the profession, candidates
must be able to pass the edTPA licensure assessment. Candidates who do not pass their edTPA
in their first submission are supported by the university with a revision plan and expected to pass
after their second submission.

14

As a result of the 2017 program redesign that led to the new assessment-literate approach
to the design and implementation of performance assessments throughout the program, most of
which includes various components that are backward aligned with the edTPA, by fall of 2019
the School of Education will have a 100% pass rate of edTPA scores from preservice teacher
candidates. The MAT program chair and committee established this goal in conjunction with the
program faculty in response to the 2017 program redesign process. The achievement of this goal
was measured by evaluating the external edTPA results of the 2017 to 2019 academic years and
internally by preservice teacher reflection surveys during and at the end of their program. It is
important for the MAT program to evaluate the effectiveness of its program revisions for a
variety of reasons. With the evaluation of program revisions effectiveness as measured in edTPA
scores and students’ experiences the program will be able to validate areas that have improved in
the program and areas that may still need further revision when supporting students in
developing their edTPA portfolio of artifacts and commentaries.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The School of Education MAT stakeholder groups are the preservice teachers in their
general practice field placement, guiding mentor teachers of preservice teachers, and supervising
faculty members (including the edTPA coordinator) of preservice teachers. Ideally, a complete
needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders, the stakeholder group of focus for this study is
the preservice teachers in the program who have submitted their edTPA portfolio. This study
evaluated the 2017-18 and 2018-2019 MAT cohorts. By the time the study collected program
data, both cohorts had engaged in Seminar Courses that parallel instruction in the core pedagogy
courses, conduct video-based fieldwork and student teaching fieldwork, and complete four
program assessments that are closely aligned with the edTPA (MAT Program Chair presentation,

15

2019a). Candidates will also have had access to edTPA materials such as handbooks, webinars,
and edTPA coordinator support.
It is important to note that the SCTC outlines forms of support that candidates can receive
while constructing their edTPA. Per the SCTC guidelines MAT faculty and host mentor teachers
are allowed to guide discussions about TPA tasks and scoring rubrics and ask probing questions
about candidate draft TPA’s. However, faculty and host teachers are strictly forbidden from
making specific suggestions or direct edits to a candidate about their edTPA (SCTC, 2016). With
this in mind, the MAT program provides supports to its candidates in several ways. First, there is
an edTPA coordinator who provides content specific edTPA handbooks and other support
materials to candidates at the beginning of their general practice A. There is also an edTPA
tutorial in the orientation materials on the program learning management system. Finally, over
the course of the general practices the edTPA coordinator also hosts webinars and visits
candidate classes to review edTPA requirements. Candidates also have access to faculty office
hours.
Candidates are provided program instruction, materials and supports to help them
“decompose the pedagogy and examine the way it should be enacted” in multiple lenses to
support their development of their teaching competencies (MAT Program Chair presentation,
2019a). Guiding mentor teachers agree to work closely with MAT supervising faculty to receive
edTPA training in order to be best positioned to support preservice teachers during their
placement with their edTPA portfolio development. Guiding mentor teachers model effective
practices of teaching to preservice teachers and provide them with constructive feedback through
observation of their practice for their continued reflection. The supervising MAT faculty provide
the overall structure of support for preservice teachers and mentors by being responsible for
developing the curriculum and feedback frequency that equip preservice teachers to demonstrate

16

the needed readiness to teach in order to build artifacts for the edTPA portfolio. While working
with guiding mentor teachers, supervising MAT faculty support the tracking and monitoring
progress towards the goal of successfully developing the associated competencies needed to
submit a passing edTPA portfolio. The stakeholder goals are further articulated below in table 1.
Table 1
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of the MAT program in the School of Education at the University of the West is to
prepare leaders to achieve educational equity through practice, research, and policy by working to
improve learning opportunities and outcomes in urban settings.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December 2019, 100% of MAT edTPA candidates will demonstrate their readiness to teach
by submitting and passing their edTPA portfolio to gain their initial state teaching credential.
Stakeholder 1 Goal Stakeholder 2 Goal Stakeholder 3 Goal
Preservice Teachers
By May 2019, preservice
teachers will have collected
their edTPA artifacts during
their general practice-A in
semester 2 to be positioned to
write their commentaries
during general practice-B in
semester 3.
Guiding Mentor Teachers
By August 2019, 100% of
guiding mentor teachers will
have received edTPA training
that will enable them to
support preservice teachers
with their edTPA development
and submission.
MAT Supervising Faculty
By June 2020, the MAT
Program Chair and supervising
faculty will review the first-
time pass rates of its students’
edTPA scores and stakeholder
surveys to identify program
strengths and any needed
program improvement
revisions.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
All of the previously mentioned stakeholders are essential to the development and the
achievement of the overall organizational goal of increasing edTPA pass rates of MAT
preservice teachers leading to better prepared teachers to enter the profession. Yet, it is especially
vital to ascertain the needs of the preservice teachers in the field as they attempt to develop the
needed knowledge, skills and abilities to enable them to create the artifacts and commentaries for

17

their edTPA portfolio. Therefore, the stakeholders of this study are all full-time fall 2017 and
2018 alumni MAT preservice teacher cohort candidates. The stakeholder goal, supported by
MAT supervising faculty and guiding mentor teachers, is that by December 2019, 100%
preservice teachers submit their completed edTPA portfolio to Pearson Education for external
review and scoring with the goal of a 100% pass rate. Preservice teachers in the 2018 cohort
immerse in activities that support their development of their edTPA portfolio as follows: (a)
accessing an edTPA online orientation tutorial and webinars provided by the MAT program; (b)
engaging with the edTPA coordinator during onsite visits to discuss and learn about portfolio
requirements; (c) develop edTPA artifacts during general practice-A with the support of guiding
mentor teachers and MAT supporting faculty; and (d) develop any outstanding artifacts and write
commentaries for their final portfolio submission. This stakeholder goal was determined initially
in 2017 when the MAT program revamped to meet new credential program standards and
teacher performance expectations set by the state (University of the West, 2019).
Using the 2016 published pass rates of MAT preservice teachers MAT scores reveal that
a significant group of MAT preservice teachers’ edTPA scores- 15% -did not meet the minimum
cut passing score of 41. This creates a significant gap in performance for a subgroup of MAT
preservice teachers. If preservice teachers do not meet the cut passing score of the edTPA it
suggests that their understandings and ability to effectively teach to impact student learning is
underdeveloped.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of MAT preservice teachers in
respect to their interaction, development, and submission of their edTPA portfolio. Specifically,
the study evaluated three areas of MAT preservice teachers experience with the edTPA: (a) the
knowledge influences needed for preservice teachers to develop and demonstrate their readiness

18

to teach as measured by their edTPA portfolio scores, (b), the extent that MAT preservice
teachers are influenced by motivational constructs as they develop their teaching abilities and
their edTPA portfolio, and (c) the organizational influences that contribute to the success, or lack
of, MAT preservice teachers’ edTPA scores.
Employing the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model starts with the identification of
potential needs aligned to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. The study then
examined those potential needs to focus on specific or emergent needs systematically. While a
complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders, the stakeholder group of interest for
this study is the preservice teachers of the fall 2017 and 2018 MAT cohorts.
The questions guiding this study are:

1. What are the knowledge influences on MAT preservice teachers during their
development and demonstration of their readiness to teach as measured by their edTPA
portfolio scores?

2. How do motivational constructs influence MAT preservice teachers as they develop their
teaching abilities and their edTPA portfolio?

3. What organizational influences contribute to the success, or lack of, MAT preservice
teachers’ edTPA scores?

Methodological Framework
This study employs the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, which places targeted
analysis on the current performance of an organization and identifies gaps in parallel to the
desired performance. The model identifies three variables of influence on performance which are
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The model was be adapted to evaluate and
analyze current organizational performance trends and recommend performance solutions as a
result of the evaluation. The study identifies the assumed knowledge, motivational, and
organizational needs based on personal understandings and the related literature.

19

Once the assumed needs were identified, this study then sought to validate those needs
through an embedded mixed-methods explanatory design by employing surveys and follow up
1:1 interviews (Creswell, 2014). The research design began with a quantitative instrument in the
form of a survey to collect a sample of past and present MAT preservice teachers’ perceived
experiences with the MAT program and the edTPA. The survey data reviewed participant
reported experiences and the available edTPA score data for the period of the study.
Qualitatively, participants who indicated they were willing to be contacted for a follow up
interview on the survey were invited to a 1:1 interview with the researcher. This mixed methods
approach afforded the study the ability to inform the recommended research-based solutions
more comprehensively and more intentionally to the organizational context and needs.
Following the review of the participants reported perceptions, the study recommended research-
based solutions and an implementation plan, and a continued evaluation model.
Definitions
Traditional Teacher Preparation: Refers to teacher preparation programs administered
by universities and colleges at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Alternative Teacher Preparation: Refers to teacher preparation programs, usually an
independent organization, that trains and awards individuals a teaching license even though that
person has not completed a 4-year degree in education and in a different field; Alternative
teacher preparation programs emerged in the 1980s in response to state teacher shortages as a
way to recruit and train individuals with degrees in other fields to transition them to the
profession.
Preservice Teacher: A term used for undergraduate, graduate students, or professionals
switching careers who are enrolled in a teacher preparation program and are in a field placement

20

as the culminating apprenticeship of teaching and learning prior to transitioning to professional
teachers of record post program completion.
Clinical Teaching Experience: Teacher preparation programs that focus more on the core
tasks of teaching and learning through multiple observation contexts and settings as opposed to
teacher knowledge and beliefs by placing emphasis on essential classroom skills and
competencies as demonstrated though performance assessments.
edTPA: A performance-based subject-specific assessment and support system to
emphasize, measure, and support the skills and knowledge that are deemed necessary for
preservice teachers to transition from teachers in training to first year teachers of record.
Planning for Instructional Assessment Task 1: Pertaining of rubrics 1-5, teachers collect artifacts
and comment on each in the areas of: (a) Planning for Content Understandings, (b) Knowledge
of Students, (c) Supporting Academic Language Development, and (d) Planning Assessments.
Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning Task 2: Pertaining of rubrics 6-10, teachers
capture multiple video recordings with the goal of selecting those that demonstrate: (a) the
Learning Environment, (b) Engaging Students, (c) Deepening Student Learning, (d) Subject-
Specific Pedagogy, and (e) Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness. Assessing Student Learning Task
3: Pertaining of rubrics 11-15, teachers are asked to demonstrate their ability to: (a) Analyze
Student Learning, (b) give Feedback, (c) Analyze Students’ Academic Language Understanding
and Use, and (d) Use of Assessment to inform instruction.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One has framed the relationship
between well-prepared preservice teachers and their ability to impact student achievement with
effectively designed teacher preparation programs that leverage performance assessments as a
tool of preservice teacher development, assessment, and feedback for professional growth. This

21

relationship is facilitated by support from program faculty and highly qualified mentor teachers.
The chapter has demonstrated a need to improve teacher preparation programs with a more
nationally understood and practiced methods of preparing and measuring preservice ability and
readiness to teach as founded in the framework of teacher performance assessments. The need
for better prepared preservice teachers transitioning to the classroom is essential as it addresses
the national need to increase student achievement. Approaches to better preparing and evaluating
preservice teachers through performance assessments have been discussed and the reader has
been introduced to key concepts and terminology related to preservice teaching including the
mission, goals, and stakeholders of the institution. This chapter has also introduced the concept
of gap analysis model as a vehicle to delve into identifying the program’s needs. Chapter Two
reviews current literature relevant to the study and then aligns the literature to the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influence types on preservice teachers. Specifically, existing
literature on the edTPA’s use as an exclusive credentialing requirement of preservice teacher
candidates is analyzed to best understand stakeholder experiences and attitudes. Chapter Three
outlines the methodology for this study and rationalizes the choice of the selected instruments to
collect data from the study’s participants. The chapter also discusses ethical, credibility,
trustworthiness, reliability and validity considerations for the study. Chapter Four analyzes and
discusses the findings from the data collection. Chapter Five connects the data findings to the
literature, provides potential solutions for narrowing the performance gap to a close, and makes
recommendations for implementing and continued evaluation of a plan leading to continued
innovation.

22

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter reviews literature related to teacher preparation in clinical contexts aligned
with the use of performance assessments. The review begins by examining the literature that
advocates for the use of the edTPA and literature that is critical of the assessment. Then,
generalized research on the paradigm shift underway in teacher preparation is reviewed. Next,
existing literature on creating coherent experiences during field placement and the importance of
effective mentorship of preservice teachers is explored. Then, literature related to the challenges
teacher preparation programs face when training preservice teachers is evaluated. The review of
the literature concludes by presenting the characteristics of teacher performance assessments.
Following the research literature, a pivot to the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
through the lens of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on preservice
teacher’s ability to effectively develop and demonstrate the needed skills associated with
pedagogical and reflective praxis to position them to be successful on their edTPA will be
discussed.
The edTPA: an educative approach?
The Stanford Center for Assessment and Learning (SCALE) developed the edTPA in
collaboration with teachers and teacher educators’ nationwide representative of 29 states and 400
intuitions (SCALE, 2014). SCALE’s intention for the edTPA was to conceptualize a national
framework of how preservice teachers should be trained and assessed by establishing what
knowledge, skills, and competencies graduating teachers should demonstrate before entering the
profession, and now is in use in over 780 teacher preparation programs (edTPA Administrative
Report, 2017). The edTPA aims to develop preservice teachers by: (a) preparing them to
demonstrate their readiness to teach via lesson plans designed to support the strengths and needs

23

of the students they teach; (b) engaging the students they teach in ambitious learning; and (c)
adopting their instruction towards effectiveness (Pecheone & Whittiker, 2016). The edTPA is
designed for 27 content fields and each field has 15 rubrics with 5-point scales ranging from 5-75
points, which measures teacher performance portfolios (edTPA Administrative Report, 2017).
Advocates of the edTPA argue that the edTPA is an educative process for all involved
stakeholders. Preservice teacher candidates are positioned to integrate the knowledge and skills
associated with effective teaching through application and reflection during their practice
(AACTE, 2018). Teacher preparation programs can use candidate data and experiences to help
them identify program areas of strength and growth by analyzing candidate assessment rubric
data trends in content fields and performance category scores (Adkins, 2016). Candidates, with
the support of mentors or program faculty, can use their edTPA results to chart their future
professional development based on rubric score feedback (Pecheone & Whittaker, 2016). Some
academics have argued that the edTPA has an improved metric of assessing preservice teacher
ability compared to traditional standardized paper and pencil tests (Gurl, et. al, 2016). Data
collected during practice and post assessment provide policy makers with more insight on how
programs are preparing new teachers for the profession (AACTE, 2018).
Critics have claimed that the edTPA is a dangerous standardization of teaching, a
corporate takeover of teacher education, and lacks reliability and validity in measuring teacher
effectiveness (Carter & Lochte, 2017; Goldhaber, Cowan, & Theobald, 2017; Lalley, 2017;
Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Ressler, et. al, 2017; Sato, 2014). Pearson Corporation exclusively
administers the edTPA which creates an intersection between reform efforts of policy makers
and privatization (Gurl, et. al, 2016). Dover and Schultz (2015) assert that the edTPA is a
standardization of teaching and corrupts the teacher preparation process as a result of diminished

24

authenticity of the evaluation process of candidate teaching ability. Some have problematized the
differentiation between preservice teachers as professional learners against pressures for edTPA
compliance and standardization (Behizadeh & Neely, 2019; Wendell, Power, & Gillbert, 2018).
For example, Ledwell & Oyler (2016) surveyed teachers in training who submitted an edTPA
portfolio across 12 colleges within their university and the trend emerged that the edTPA could
be characterized as a conflicting model for conceptualization of the content of the field with
pedagogical concerns. Overall, some studies have indicated that preparation programs and
preservice teachers have shared mixed views on the value of the edTPA (Behizadeh & Neely,
2019; McConville, 2014; McKenna, 2014; Ressler et al., 2017).
The purpose of the edTPA is to be an authentic assessment of preservice teacher
readiness to enter the field and raise student achievement. Yet, existing literature challenges this
notion. For instance, Lalley (2016) examined the reliability and validity of the 2015 edTPA
annual report by applying traditional psychometric methods for evaluating the effectiveness of
assessment instruments and concluded the edTPA was not found to be reliable with limited
validity evidence as there was not a connection between performance and the edTPA with actual
teaching in the profession. Herbert (2018) analyzed edTPA handbooks to explore how the
edTPA frames the clinical experience and suggested that the edTPA mischaracterizes student
teaching within the clinical context. Goldhaber, Cowan, & Theobald, (2017) used longitudinal
data from edTPA candidates and found the relationship between their edTPA scores and teaching
effectiveness was mixed.
While there are opposing views on the use of and value of the edTPA, the review
explores existing literature on research in the field of teacher preparation that frames highly
effective program characteristics in concert with performance assessments. By looking at current

25

paradigm shifts in teacher preparation, the review gives particular focus on clinical experiences,
mentorship, continued challenges in the field, and the use of performance assessments.
Preparing Effective Teachers: Shifting the Paradigm
Historically, many teacher preparation programs have focused on preservice teachers’
knowledge and beliefs lacking focus on the core competencies of teaching and learning.
However, in the last several years stakeholder dialogue and preparation focus has shifted towards
preparing preservice teachers with pedagogical skills to impact student learning. There are over
2000 teacher training programs in the U.S. and there needs to be better communication between
policy makers, preparation programs, and K-12 schools based on a framework that all
stakeholders can contribute to and learn from (McDonald, Kazemi, Elham, and Schneider, 2013).
Controversy towards teacher training exists in the U.S. Many question programming’s ability to
train teachers that are able to raise student achievement due to teacher education programs
tendency to be housed in universities separated from the field of practice unlike other professions
that link to professional schools (Cochran-Smith, Cannady, McEachern, Piazza, Power, and
Ryan, 2011). In teacher education and the profession, a signature pedagogy has not emerged
unlike other professions like medicine or law (Sykes, Bird, and Kennedy, 2010). While there has
been advocacy for a "professionalization agenda" calling for higher standards in preservice
teaching that are grounded in performance-based assessment systems of candidates since the
1980's, reform initiatives, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), instead focused on teacher
qualifications and credentials, not teacher effectiveness, ignoring teacher impact on student
achievement (Johnsen, 2016; Peterman & Peterman, 2005, p. 5).
A report commissioned by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) calls for a shift away from the misalignment of academic preparation, coursework, and

26

loosely connected school-based experiences by having fully grounded clinical practice tightly
related to academic content and professional courses (2011). The recent reform efforts of the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) begins to shift policy focus towards teaching high academic
standards to students and measuring their learning and growth towards the standards (U.S.
Department of Ed., 2015). NCLB exposed achievement gaps among traditionally underserved
students, yet its accountability model did not focus on how to facilitate student learning and
growth and in 2016 the Department of Education published Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR)
on the “Teacher Education Issue” (Docket ID: ED-2014-OPE-0057), which put into place
regulations for recruiting and preparing teachers to have a direct impact on classroom learning
(Improving Teacher Preparation, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
In recent years, preservice teacher candidates have had their experiences expanded in
schools by teacher preparation programs by creating stronger partnerships between their
programs and local schools that serve as laboratories of practice and innovation (AACTE,
2018a). Many teacher preparation programs are now placing a stronger emphasis on clinical
experiences coupled with preservice teacher performance assessments that require demonstration
of essential teaching skills (AACTE, 2018b). While reform efforts to improve teacher
preparation have been well intended, they have lacked the scaling needed to focus on student
learning and growth only until recently. Given the volume of teacher preparation programs in the
U.S., programs must be realigned to a set of preparation wide credentialing standards (Darling-
Hammond, 2014). By doing so, such standards will strengthen the basis for how teacher
preparation programs connect academic coursework, classroom experiences, and assessment of
preservice teachers to student learning and growth (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Preservice
teachers will be better prepared for day one in the classroom if they experience their training in

27

clinical contexts with the assessment of their teaching readiness tied to performance measures
(AACTE, 2018a).
An Overview of Effective Teacher Preparation
Coherent Experiences Through Clinical Education
Teacher preparation programs that place preservice teachers in extended clinical practice
contexts better prepare preservice teachers for the classroom. According to the Clinical Practice
Commission (CPC) clinical practice in teacher education is defined as: a model to prepare high-
quality educators with and through a pedagogical skill set that provides articulated benefits for
every participant, while being fully embedded in the PK-12 setting (AACTE, 2018a, p. 6). A call
for a shift to school based clinical practice for preservice teachers much like hospital-based
clinical preparation of doctors and many teacher preparation programs are now placing a
stronger emphasis on clinical experiences coupled with preservice teacher performance
assessments that require demonstration of essential teaching skills (AACTE, 2018b). Clinical
experiences that put student learning as the focus, integrate core experiences of teacher education
by weaving content and pedagogy together, and place preservice teachers into interactive
professional communities where they receive rigorous peer review and feedback on their practice
and ability to impact student learning are effective in developing preservice teachers (NCATE,
2011). AACTE identifies a model for teacher preparation that is focused on pedagogy and
clinical practice by teaching: (a) courses that cover essential topics of the program and PK-12
schools, (b) foundational coursework that explores and embeds theoretical perspectives, (c)
human development, especially that of children’s’ cognitive development, (d) methods of
pedagogy tied to regular candidate feedback, and (e) preservice teaching under the supervision of
experienced and accomplished mentor teachers (AACTE, 2018a).

28

A shift from traditional and alternative teacher preparation to clinical preparation better
positions aspiring teachers to be prepared to enter the classroom. Schools of education, teacher
preparation programs, and policy makers can look to the clinical teacher preparation model as a
framework to design coherent classroom and field experiences for preservice teachers, which can
ultimately impact PK-12 student outcomes. Effective models of clinical teacher preparation are
closely aligned to residency-based teacher preparation programs and partnerships between
schools of education and professional development schools.
Clinical Practice: residency and professional development schools
When teacher preparation programs design clinical practice experiences to be set in
strong residential partnerships with professional development schools, preservice teachers are
more likely to increase their instructional effectiveness and impact student learning (NCATE,
2010; AACTE, 2018a). Teacher residencies place aspiring teachers into a one-year placement
with a mentor teacher of record coupled with streamlined coursework leading to credentialing
(National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011). Residential experiences that closely align and
take place in professional development schools have been found to be more effective preparing
preservice teachers (Mitchel, 2013). A professional development school (PDS) is a school that
has a partnership between all educators, both novice and experienced, whether in schools or
universities, who work in environments focused on best pedagogical practices. Teacher
residencies follow the model of the teaching hospital where medical residents join
interdisciplinary teams of attending physicians to conduct clinical rounds to observe and be
apprenticed to the medical language and methods doctors use to treat patients (Williamson &
Hodder, 2015). The benefits of preservice teachers conducting clinical rounds during their
educational residency enables them to observe problems of practice connected to the

29

instructional core by exposing residents to different grade levels, schools, neighborhoods, and
can be personalized to preservice teachers’ developmental needs (Williamson & Hodder, 2015).
Castle, Fox, and O’ Hanlan-Souder (2006) assessed the impact PDS’s had on preservice
teachers by comparing PDS and non-PDS preservice teachers up to their point of licensure and
found through a statistical and qualitative analysis that PDS preservice teachers scored
significantly higher on their student teaching evaluations and portfolio presentations compared to
non-PDS preservice teachers. The study concluded that PDS preservice teachers may affect
student learning sooner than traditionally trained teachers. Clinical experiences that align with
residential framework, coupled with professional development partnerships between teacher
preparation programs, universities, and schools, create more authentic and optimized learning
experiences for preservice teachers. This is achieved by facilitating best pedagogical practice
experiences to address the problems of practice they are likely to face as teachers of record post
training. While effective models of clinical teacher preparation are closely aligned to residency-
based teacher preparation programs and partnerships between schools of education and
professional development schools, a key ingredient for these experiences to be impactful for
preservice teachers is strong mentorship.
Mentoring preservice teachers
When preservice teachers have strong mentorship during their preservice training, their
teaching competencies are positively impacted. Preservice teachers are greatly influenced by
mentor teachers in terms of the curricular and pedagogical decisions they use during their student
teaching placement making the role of the mentor essential (Shuey, Johnson, Alsup & Shoffner,
2012). The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE, 2011)
highlighted the essential need for preservice teachers to be placed with teacher mentors, also

30

known as clinical teachers, who have been found to positively impact teacher training outcomes
as a result of their deep expertise and extensive experience.
Mentoring preservice teachers has been found to positively impact preservice teachers
teaching competencies and socialization process by providing emotional and psychological
support (Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwner, Korthagen, & Bergen, 2011). Through a mixed-
methods study, Hobson, Harris, Buckner-Manley, and Smith (2012) surveyed the perceptions of
135 preservice teachers about the mentorship they had received and found preservice teachers
highly rated the need for mentors to serve as a role model, coach, and mentor as essential to their
success in the classroom.
The NCATE (2010) reported that a key component of preservice teaching is that
preservice teachers have to be intentionally placed with experienced classroom teachers who
have been known to impact student learning while also having the effective character traits
needed to guide, support, and provide mentorship. Such character traits include personal skills
for building trust, rapport, and communication with candidates. Given that preservice teachers
are greatly influenced by their mentor in terms of the curriculum and pedagogical choices they
will make, it is vital that teacher preparation programs identify and leverage effective classroom
teacher mentors. While the literature has demonstrated that teacher preparation has gravitated
towards clinical practice models and more university-school partnerships, clinical educator
preparation has not gone to a national scale as a common practice and many teacher preparation
programs have continued to under prepare teachers for the classroom.
Many Preparation Programs Fail to Prepare Preservice Teachers
While the literature suggests the framework and successful design principles and
practices for the clinical preparation of preservice teachers, many teacher preparation programs

31

continue to fail to effectively prepare teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2011; Sykes, Bird, and Kennedy,
2010; Weston & Henderson, 2015; Hammerness, 2006). Consequently, this reality impacts
variables such as student achievement and teacher retention in the profession. A fragmentation
and lack of shared knowledge exists between teacher preparation programs. This is due to the
size of the teacher workforce, which is over 3 million, and multiple grade levels, subjects, and
specializations that are difficult for programs to individually tailor to (Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy,
2010). Weston and Henderson (2015) argue that teacher education programs create disconnected
experiences for preservice teachers that are incoherent and do not align theory to field work as
programs simplify training by using uniformity to address teaching as a universal approach
without closely aligning needed content knowledge pedagogy.
Clinical practice is the least structured portion of teacher education programs and largely
remains an ad hoc process (Williamson & Hodder, 2015; NCATE, 2010). Moreover, mentoring
preservice teachers does not automatically occur with the cooperating teacher and university
supervisor as the provision of mentorship is not planned for or evaluated in many cases leading
to obstacles to the success of preservice teachers. The consequences of poor of mentorship can
lead preservice teachers positioned to be ineffective with time management, organization skills,
and lack of meaningful classroom practice and experience (Hobson, Harris, Buckner-Manley, &
Smith, 2012).
Given the volume of teacher preparation programs and the lack of nationwide accepted
set of standards and approaches to teacher training, universities and colleges continue to offer
very different experiences when training teachers resulting in graduating underprepared teachers
to the profession. After preservice teachers have spent considerable time taking theoretical
coursework and, in many cases, disconnected field placement experiences, they are assessed on

32

their content knowledge and own beliefs as opposed to their actual competencies and ability to
impact student learning.
Disconnections: Preservice Teacher Evaluation and Classroom Readiness
Evaluation of preservice teachers and licensure requirements have not focused on the
impact of teacher effectiveness, but instead on qualifications and credentialing. Most
undergraduate programs are 120 credit hours and around 30 of these are geared towards teacher
preparation with a semester of student teaching that does not effectively evaluate preservice
teachers teaching abilities (Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy, 2010). Teacher preparation programs
subjectively evaluate preservice teachers as traditional program measures include portfolios,
documentation of lesson plans, and evaluation of content knowledge. These measures lack
rigorous control for variation between assessors, are site specific and lack comparison across
programs and context, and lack understanding of preservice teacher growth in knowledge,
abilities, and instructional quality (Wiens, Hessberg, LoCasale-Crouch, & DeCoster, 2013).
Traditional preservice teacher evaluative measures have not given enough emphasis on teaching
for student learning, and instead have focused on other metrics less impactful to student
achievement creating the need for programs to shift to a more intentional measurement of the
key skills associated with effective teaching. Darling-Hammond (2014) describes the key skills
associated with highly prepared and effective teachers as follows: (a) an understanding of core
curriculum, (b) understanding of child development and learning, and (c) an understanding of
strategies to help students confront their own perceptions about themselves and learn about
others. In an effort to create more authentic measures of preservice teacher evaluation, states and
teacher preparation programs have shifted from using standardized tests about content and
pedagogical knowledge to using teacher performance assessments (TPAs) that measure

33

preservice teachers’ planning, instruction, assessment, and reflection. TPA’s measure the overall
readiness of a preservice teacher’s ability to teach and impact student learning.
Teacher Performance Assessments
Literature suggests that TPAs better prepare teachers new to the profession to be ready to
enter the classroom post training as they measure areas of candidate planning, teaching,
assessment, and reflection. Preservice teachers who have been developed and assessed via TPAs
are more likely to transition to the profession better prepared to meet the diverse needs of
students, be effective at raising student achievement, and have an overall readiness to enter the
classroom compared to non-TPA prepared teachers (Barron, 2015). Teacher performance
assessments have been found to influence recruitment, selection, mentoring, and professional
development of teachers greatly influencing classroom practice (Johnson, 2010).
Okhremtchouk, Seiki, Gilliland, Ateh, Wallace, and Kato (2009) conducted a sequential
exploratory design that aimed to answer the question of the impact teacher performance
assessments had on student teachers and found performance assessments helped preservice
teachers learn about their teaching in the areas of their own actions, their student behaviors, ways
they could better plan and prepare lessons, and approaches to assess their students. A key
component of TPAs is the use of video representation of teaching for analysis, reflection, and
commentary. Hatch and Grossman (2009) used video collaboration software to examine novice
teacher practice and learning from practice. Their findings revealed that multimedia
representation of teaching is essential to facilitate collaborative examinations of practice from
multiple perspectives. Wiens, Hessberg, LoCasale-Crouch, & DeCoster (2013) further
established the use of video-based teaching as a key tool of teacher performance assessments.

34

They found that video-based teaching helped preservice teachers better identify and connect with
their own teaching strategies and behaviors.
Teacher performance assessments are effective in helping preservice teachers develop the
needed competencies for the classroom, while serving as a quality control mechanism to help
improve teacher education programs through the use of preservice teacher assessment data by
informing areas of program strength and improvement. The use of teacher performance
assessments has been scaled up as a result of the edTPA, the first teacher performance
assessment to be used in teacher preparation programs on a national scale.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Organizations tend to waste time and money on performance solutions that lead to
mediocre results that are mixed as a result of implementing performance products or strategies
that do not target root causes of organizational performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Kluger and DiNisi (1998) found through comparison of performance feedback research studies
that two-thirds of performance feedback studies had no impact or actually depressed
organizational performance. Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic conceptual framework
evaluates organizational performance by identifying root causes of performance problems in an
evidence-based approach that analyzes stakeholder knowledge (K), motivation (M), and
organizational (O) processes and resources. The approach entails identifying information through
personal knowledge, interviews, learning and motivation theories, and existing literature while
understanding how those two variables interplay within organizational culture.
For this evaluative study, Clark and Estes (2008) KMO gap analysis framework was be
adapted to identify and analyze the MAT preservice teacher needs concerning their development
of the associated teaching performance assessments needed to be developed for their edTPA

35

portfolio submission. The following section identifies, and reviews literature related to the
particular knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that contribute to MAT
preservice teacher’s development of core teaching competencies as related to the performance on
their edTPA portfolio assessments. This understanding of teacher knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences as a functioning system is an important aspect of the larger
investigation in considering ways to best support preservice teachers experience in the
development of their competencies of teaching and to support their performance assessment
experience (AACTE, 2018a; AACTE, 2018b; AACTE, 2011; Adkins, 2016; Baron, 2015;
Cochran & Smith, 2010; NCATE, 2011; Hennissen et al., 2011; Hessberg et al., 2013; Hobson et
al., 2012; Johnson, 2010; Okhremtchouk et al., 2009; Pecheone & Whittiker, 2016; Williamson
& Hodder, 2015; SCALE, 2014).
Stakeholder KMO Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Students in the MAT program who wish to teach in the State must complete the edTPA,
a series of teacher performance assessments that candidates compile into a portfolio of evidence
capturing their ability to impact students’ learning. The externally scored portfolio rates teacher
readiness to enter the classroom and a final average rubric score of level 3- acceptable level to
begin teaching- is needed to be awarded credentialing. The organizational goal is for 100% of
preservice teacher candidates in the fall 2018 and fall 2019 cohorts to demonstrate their readiness
to teach by submitting and passing their edTPA portfolio to gain their initial state teaching
credential.
For MAT teachers in training to meet this goal they will need to demonstrate the skills
and abilities to equip them to work towards becoming effective practitioners in the classroom.

36

Specifically, teachers in training need to gain critical understanding and application of 5
domains: (a) planning; (b) instruction, (c) assessment, (d) analysis of teaching, and (e) the use of
academic language (SCALE, 2018). Preservice teachers need to develop the knowledge and
skills in these 5 domains during their seminar and core courses and video observations.
Preservice teachers need to connect the knowledge, skills, and competencies of the five domains
to their continued learning during their general practice placements in order to be positioned to
document the knowledge and skills in application on the performance assessments of the edTPA.
During semester two, MAT students transition from the classroom to their placement, which is
referred to as General Practice-A and during this time the expectation is for students to collect
most, if not all of their edTPA artifacts. In Semester 3, the final semester of the program,
students are placed in General Practice-B, where they write the commentaries of their edTPA
portfolio artifacts. There are monthly submission windows for edTPA scoring, but students will
need to submit their portfolios by the end of the final semester.
To evaluate the extent to which MAT teachers in training know how to impact the
learning of the students they teach, as measured by their performance assessments, it is essential
to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that may contribute to the
success of, or lack of, the teachers in training goal. Clark and Estes (2008) discuss how
knowledge and motivation are two distinct yet cooperating psychological systems that
individuals are made up of. On the one hand, knowledge informs individuals how to approach
tasks while on the other motivation informs the amount of effort one spends on tasks. Equally
significant are organizational influences. Organizational influences, including cultural settings
and models, either influence or hinder efficient and effective organizational work processes and
material resources (Clark and Estes, 2008).

37

In this study, the knowledge, skills, and motivation constructs framed by Clark and Estes
(2008) was used as a vehicle to guide the subsequent research and literature review that is
presented in the sections below. The literature reviewed in the preceding sections will focus on
the specific elements of knowledge, skills, motivation, and organization that influence the
achievement of MAT students in attaining their goal.
Knowledge Influences
In order to be effective in the classroom, teachers must have the necessary knowledge
and skills to impact student learning. Teaching is a complex, situated, and ill-defined activity
(Hatch & Grossman, 2009). Mayer (2011) identifies 5 types of knowledge in the context of
academic learning, instruction, and assessment by establishing the knowledge types that are most
relevant to the instructional outcomes: (a) Factual; (b) Conceptual; (c) Procedural; (d) Strategic,
and (e) Belief-based. The discussed knowledge types are strategically important for the academic
learning of MAT students, for the purpose of MAT teachers goal of achieving an average rubric
score of level 3- acceptable level to begin teaching- on their assessed edTPA score portfolio, this
discussion focuses on the conceptual, procedural, and meta-cognitive knowledge types. The
rationale for focusing on these knowledge types is due to their alignment to the process of praxis.
Brookfield (1990) defines the process of praxis as “…ideas, skills, insights learned in a
classroom are tested and experienced in real life. Essential to the practice of praxis is reflection
on experience…” (p.50). By focusing on the identified knowledge types in the frame of praxis it
allows the review to focus on associated practices of developing preservice teachers to be
connected with the edTPA domains where they need to demonstrate praxis. Within the
knowledge constructs the concepts of pedagogical praxis will be articulated.

38

Conceptual knowledge
Conceptual knowledge refers to an in-depth and complex understanding of knowledge
(Anderson et al., 2001). Conceptually, teachers in the MAT program begin their general practice-
A placement in semester two of the program, by which point they have immersed in 4 courses
that have covered principles of planning, instruction, and assessment along with video
observational fieldwork. Preservice teachers need to demonstrate the process of praxis by
enacting the theory, lessons, and skills they have acquired from their coursework and video-
based field observations to demonstrate their conceptual understanding of the skills associated
with effective teaching. A concept that greatly influences conceptual knowledge acquisition and
demonstration is pedagogical praxis.
Pedagogical praxis
Pedagogical praxis is defined as a specific form of learning where preservice teachers
demonstrate application of their preparation theory into practice- school praxis -while developing
the competencies necessary for the profession (Sirotová, 2016). Pedagogical praxis plays an
important role in the pre-gradual preparation of preservice teachers. Without the conceptual
background knowledge that should be developed during coursework and field observation,
pedagogical praxis is not possible. Preservice teachers in training need to demonstrate
pedagogical praxis through conceptual understanding of their theory preparation in the classroom
and later on the edTPA. Preservice teachers need to know how to author 3-5 lessons of planned
and connected instruction as they eventually submit a portfolio of three performance assessments
that captures teaching artifacts such as lesson plans, in class video clips, and student work
samples. The performance assessments that preservice teachers need to address as portfolio
artifacts need to demonstrate conceptual understanding and application of the knowledge of the
skills associated with teaching, and specific knowledge of their single or multiple subject

39

certification foci. Additional conceptual knowledge preservice teachers need pertains to how to
develop and record portfolio artifacts and commentaries identified in the edTPA handbooks and
rubrics. Therefore, preservice teachers must develop the conceptual knowledge of edTPA
portfolio requirements of documentation which requires them to develop schemas of procedural
knowledge.
Procedural knowledge
Procedurally, MAT preservice teachers need to know the requirements of the edTPA
performance assessments and expectations of the needed portfolio construction. Ledwell and
Oyler (2016) used semi-structured interviews with 19 teacher educators from 12 teacher
preparation programs from one private teachers college, as well as public information on edTPA
pass rates, and found that 6 out of 12 programs experienced multiple teacher candidate failure on
the performance assessments. The cited reasons for candidate failure ranged from balancing the
edTPA assessments with additional program coursework in their teacher preparation programs,
poor candidate writing quality (not writing enough on the assessments), and submission of
unreadable artifacts or film clips that would not play. MAT edTPA candidates need the
procedural knowledge of building the needed evidence to capture and submit their performance
assessments. There is one theoretical context that influences procedural knowledge acquisition
and demonstration which is intrinsic cognitive load management.
Intrinsic cognitive load
Intrinsic cognitive load can be described in terms of element interactivity as most
schemas must be learned simultaneously; when interaction between many elements is high, then
intrinsic cognitive load will be high (Sweller, 1994). The edTPA presents multiple schemas: (a)
planning; (b) instruction, (c) assessment, (d) analysis of teaching, and (e) the use of academic
language. These schemas interact with one another creating high intrinsic cognitive load for

40

preservice teachers. Ressler, et al. (2016) conducted a study that collected feedback from 41
preservice teachers about their edTPA experience and 95% of the respondents, unprompted,
shared experiences of anxiety and overwhelming stress through the process. Additional
literature, Behizadeh and Neely (2018); Bergstrand, Roleinson, Molfenter, Rice, and Drame,
(2017); and Koziel, Hall, Rambo, Randell, and Vigneau (2018) also cite edTPA candidates
having to grapple with high levels of stress during their preservice teaching experience.
The extent that preservice teachers develop, demonstrate, and interact between the
multiple schemas associated with teaching is captured and documented within their performance
assessments. This requires their competency in pedagogical praxis and then a procedural
understanding of capturing their artifacts to compile in their portfolio of performance assessment
(Scale, 2018; Sweller, 1995). Preservice teachers need to read relevant edTPA support and
implementation materials, and act on all MAT offered support and guidance in designing,
applying, capturing performance assessments with the culmination of submitting their portfolio
for external assessment. Preservice teachers need to manage their intrinsic cognitive load by
organizing the interconnected schemas such as the praxis of planning, instruction, and
assessment, and integrate these schemas into their practice in the classroom and into their
performance assessments. As preservice teachers develop their pedagogical praxis and portfolio
artifacts leading to their commentaries about them, they too have to develop a strong sense of
metacognitive knowledge.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge entails an individual developing knowledge in three areas: (a)
strategic knowledge in relation to subject matter and the use of heuristics, (b) knowledge about
cognitive tasks and the cognitive demands of differing tasks and, (c) self-knowledge in respect to
one’s own understanding of their ability and strengths and weaknesses on a given task

41

(Anderson, et al., 2001). Metacognition plays an essential role in teachers’ development and
praxis (Jiang, Ma, & Gao, 2016; Porayska-Pomsta, Mccalla, Lane, & Bull, 2016). When teachers
develop an understanding and practice of metacognitive knowledge they are able to exercise
general strategies that might be used to inform different teaching situations, have a heightened
sense of the conditions under which the strategies might be used, and knowledge of the extent to
which the strategies are effective (Flavell, 1979, Pintrich et al., 2000; Pintrich, 2002; Schneider
& Pressley, 1997).
Preservice teachers need to develop metacognitive strategies that come from their student
teaching experiences in the classroom. Metacognitive practices increase a learner’s ability to
transfer or adapt their learning to new contexts and tasks (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking;
Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Scardamalia et al., 1984; Schoenfeld, 1991). By using feedback from
their own teaching experiences, from their program faculty, and classroom mentors, and the
assessments of the edTPA, preservice teachers are more likely to be positioned to use these
feedback inputs to develop a sharpened sense of their strategic knowledge, knowledge about
cognitive tasks, and self-knowledge. By developing metacognitive practices preservice teachers
to develop a stronger sense of learning, teaching, and assessing and be in a stronger position to
successfully demonstrate their abilities on the edTPA.
Table 2 on the next page provides a summary of the knowledge influences and types,
necessary for the preservice teachers in the MAT program to achieve the goal of developing their
edTPA portfolio artifacts, and ultimately writing their commentaries and submitting and passing
their edTPA assessment in order to demonstrate their readiness to teach and impact student
learning.

42

Motivation Influences
Whether or not preservice teachers successfully reach their goal largely depends upon
how motivated they are to immerse in the general practice placement and develop their
performance assessment artifacts and commentaries. Motivation is essential to the success of the
stakeholders’ goal because as Rueda (2011) points out, motivation is connected to the process in
which an individual develops positive or negative belief sets as learners. More specifically,
Mayer (2011) articulates the concept of belief-based knowledge as one’s belief of how well they
can learn or perform a task, which largely influences their motivation.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission of the MAT program in the School of Education at the University of the West is to
prepare leaders to achieve educational equity through practice, research, and policy by working to
improve learning opportunities and outcomes in urban settings.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December 2019, 100% of MAT edTPA candidates will demonstrate their readiness to teach by
submitting and passing their edTPA portfolio to gain their initial state teaching credential.
Knowledge Influences Knowledge Type
Preservice teachers need to demonstrate
praxis in the skills of planning, instruction, and
assessment in practice and on their edTPA
performance assessments.

Conceptual

Preservice teachers need to know how to
manage their intrinsic cognitive load in
order to plan for, enact, and document
artifacts that captures their performance
assessments for their edTPA portfolio.

Procedural

Preservice teachers will need to develop
metacognitive skills needed to improve
their practice based on mentor and faculty
feedback and their own assessment of
their teaching effectiveness.

Metacognitive

43

Motivation can be impacted by multiple factors. For MAT preservice teachers, three
specific factors are essential to the success of their goal. First, MAT preservice teachers need a
strong degree of reflective praxis and self-regulation. Researchers have linked learner
achievement to self-regulation, which is one’s ability to develop regulatory mechanisms to plan
for performances, monitor performances while in the act of doing, and evaluate post-
performance strengths and weaknesses (Wigfield, Klauda, and Cambria, 2011). Second, MAT
preservice teachers must feel confident in their ability to teach and impact student learning.
Confidence is directly driven by one’s sense of self-efficacy. Bandura (1991) defines self-
efficacy as one’s belief in their ability to be successful at a given task. Third, and finally MAT
preservice teachers need to see the value in immersing in the edTPA performance assessments
and portfolio construction. Expectancy value motivational theory is defined as when an
individual places high value on a task they are more likely to be engaged and successfully
complete it, whereas the opposite is true when low value is invested in a task (Eccles. 2006).
Reflective praxis
Barrera and Dowell (2017) discuss how acts of reflective praxis are integral to all aspects
of teacher preparation as teacher educators must facilitate intentional experiences that allow
preservice teachers to gain meaning from the experiences that lead to “deep thinking” (p. 3). The
MAT has a built-in reflective teaching cycle framework to engage preservice teachers in a series
of evidence-based inquiry, rehearsal, application, and reflection practices throughout their
courses and during field work application of instructional activities and models of teaching
(MAT Program Chair presentation, 2019a). Further, SCALE (2018) encourages cooperating
teachers to use the subject-specific rubric constructs/language when evaluating and debriefing
preservice teachers about their practice in addition to using probing questions about edTPA draft

44

responses and video recordings leading to candidate reflection. Additionally, preservice teachers
are held accountable for their own professional learning through the specific rubrics for analysis
of their own teaching that requires reflective praxis guided by their performance and own
assessment of their effectiveness in the classroom (Sato, 2014).
Self-regulation
Learning to teach is not enough as preservice teachers need to learn how to learn
(Dembo, 2001). Zimmerman and Moylan (2009) discuss how self-regulation is the intersection
of meta-cognition and motivation. Three separate phases of self-regulation have been identified
which in order of process are forethought and planning, performance monitoring, and reflections
on performance (Pintrich and Zusho, 2002; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000).
Forethought and planning entails when an individual plans his or her course of action
while activating various motivational beliefs, values, and goals (Zimmerman, 2000). Preservice
teachers need to develop this first level of self-regulation to aid their edTPA planning approach
as SCALE (2018) explains to preservice teachers that time management is critical to planning
and completion of a successful portfolio. Individuals exercise self-regulation through
performance monitoring of their learning, which is metacognitive in practice. By monitoring
performance and motivation in an attempt to self-control performance, this process leads learners
to decide when there is a need to adapt strategies they are using (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002).
Preservice teachers receive MAT program, guiding mentor teacher, and video feedback on their
teaching performance and it is essential that they self-regulate by adjusting and adopting needed
strategies to respond to the stakeholder feedback and their own reflection when preparing their
portfolio of assessments.

45

The third phase of self-regulation is reflection on performance, which occurs after the
learning activity is completed. Students attempt to make meaning as to why different outcomes
may have occurred, manage their own emotions in respect to their degree of achievement
outcomes, and otherwise engage in self-evaluation and reflection about the learning situation
experienced (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). This phase of self-regulation ties into the prior
metacognitive knowledge influence of reflective praxis. Preservice teachers need to demonstrate
a deep level of reflectivity on the writing commentaries that are required for each performance
assessment and artifacts. SCALE (2018) advises preservice teacher candidates to spend more
time reflecting on their instruction and lessons in preparation for the written commentaries they
must submit.
Self-efficacy theory
A key driver of motivation is linked to the degree of individual self-efficacy. Bandura
(1991) established that if an individual believes they are capable of success on a task, then it is
more probable to be successfully completed, whereas if self-efficacy is low, then one’s
motivation is diminished, and engagement and completion of the task is low. Self-efficacy is an
important aspect of preservice teachers’ ability to improve their knowledge and skills in the
classroom. Holzberger, Philipp, and Kunter (2013) conducted a longitudinal analysis of 155
teachers and over 3,000 students and concluded that teacher self-efficacy is important to examine
when measuring instructional quality. Developing the self-efficacy of preservice teachers allows
them to build the confidence needed to become more independent and effective classroom
teachers. This in turn empowers them to undertake their performance assessments and construct
their edTPA portfolio.

46

In order for teachers in training to develop the high level of self-efficacy they need, it is
crucial that they are motivated and supported by an experienced mentor teacher. In fact, McClain
(2010) emphasizes that the role of a teacher mentor is crucial to preservice teachers’ morale
development. Successful mentor feedback helps preservice teachers’ performance improve by
increasing their ability to think and act like experienced teachers, especially when the feedback is
specific and timely (Shute, 2008; Spangler & Fink, 2013). Bandura (1991) described the
relationship between feedback and self-efficacy by establishing the concept of social
persuasions, which connects positive feedback to raising self-efficacy and negative feedback to
lowering self-efficacy. Aydin and Hoy (2005) used a descriptive survey study and found that
highly efficacious student teachers in their sample tended to positive relationships with their
mentors and more teaching support. Cooperating mentor teachers evaluate and debrief
observations of preservice teacher planning, teaching, and assessments as part of the clinical
supervision process (SCALE, 2018). Having successful mentorship, support, and targeted
feedback could greatly increase preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and ultimately motivate them,
while having a lack of support may lead to lessened preservice teacher self-efficacy.
Expectancy value theory
Expectancy value theory aligns to self-regulation and self-efficacy as they all contribute
to the motivation of individuals to engage, persist, and execute a task, as individual’s beliefs
towards a goal or task align and enhance their own personal or professional life (Bembenutty,
White, & Vélez, 2015; Eccles, 2006). MAT preservice teachers need to see value in creating an
edTPA portfolio. The value an individual places on a task ultimately impacts the achievement of
a task or goal (Bandura, 1991). Ressler et al. (2017) surveyed 71 teachers in training who
submitted the edTPA in 2015 at their university and the survey data suggested mixed views on

47

the value of the edTPA. Some studies have indicated that preparation programs and preservice
teachers have not valued the edTPA (Behizadeh & Neely, 2019; McConville, 2014; McKenna,
2014; Ressler et al., 2017).
Critical to the success of the global organizational goal of a 100% edTPA pass rate is the
preservice teachers’ value of the edTPA. If MAT preservice teachers lack value in engaging the
edTPA and view the assessments a bureaucratic requirement of their credentialing, then their
expectancy value could be significantly lessened. A question to be raised is how can MAT
program support increase the expectancy value of its candidates? One way the literature has
suggested to improve preservice teacher value in developing their edTPA portfolio points to
cooperating teachers serving as active stakeholders in the performance assessment and portfolio
process. Specifically, Seymour et al. (2018) surveyed 57 cooperating teachers of student teachers
from their college in the spring of 2015 and concluded that the cooperating teachers
overwhelmingly felt that their role was to actively support teachers in training through their
edTPA and be active stakeholders in the process. When program seminar support, program
mentors, and cooperating teachers are highly involved as stakeholders in the developmental
process of preservice teachers, then edTPA candidate pass rates are found to be higher leading to
increased value of preservice teacher edTPA experiences (Semour et. Al, 2018). Table 3 on the
next page illustrates a summary of motivational influences and related assessments needed for
preservice teachers in the MAT program to achieve the goal of collecting acceptable teaching
and learning artifacts during their general practice.
Organization Influences
Organizational culture inevitably influences efforts to improve performance and
organizational change effectiveness depends on accounting for organizational culture (Clark &

48

Estes, 2008). Ultimately, for MAT preservice teachers to achieve their goal and pass their
portfolio assessment at or beyond the national recommended score, realities that arise from
organizational culture must be considered parallel to the previously outlined knowledge and
motivation influences. By starting with a general theory about organizational culture, this section
reviews literature that focuses on organizational cultural models and settings that affect MAT
preservice teachers in achieving their performance goal.
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Types
Organizational Mission
The mission of the MAT program in the School of Education at the University of the West is to
prepare leaders to achieve educational equity through practice, research and policy by working to
improve learning opportunities and outcomes in urban settings.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December 2019, 100% of MAT edTPA candidates will demonstrate their readiness to teach
by submitting and passing their edTPA portfolio to gain their initial state teaching credential.
Motivation Influences Motivation Type
Preservice teachers need to gain meaning
from their student teaching experience that
leads them to deep thinking.

Reflective Praxis
Preservice teachers need to engage the three
separate phases of self-regulation cycle in
order to adjust and adopt their teaching
strategies.

Self-Regulation

Preservice teachers need to develop a strong
sense of self-efficacy to gain the needed
confidence to effectively teach and influence
student learning outcomes.
Self-Efficacy
Preservice teachers need to develop an
expectancy value towards the edTPA
performance tasks as an educative process that
benefits their professional and future career
development needs.
Expectancy Value

49

General organization theory
Organizational culture is referred to by researchers and managers as a concept of climate
and practices that organizations develop around the handling of people, or the “espoused values
and credo” of an organization (Schein, 2004, p. 7). Organizations are the people within them; if
people do not change then there can be no organizational change as change comes from the
psychology of its employees (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Organizations that are able to
continually adapt and generate are able to be more successful. Adaptive and flexible
organizational cultures better position organizations to be responsive to unforeseen challenges
and complex activities (Scharmer, 2007; Schein, 2004; Senge, 1990). Schien (2004) discusses
how adaptive learning environments use a process of inquiry, communication, and a systems
approach to acknowledge and adapt to the complexities of the world and its problems. It takes
time, continuous developments and evolution for learning culture to efficiently function within
an organization (Senge, 2014). In the following sections the literature relevant to organizational
influences on MAT preservice teachers’ achievement on their edTPA performance assessments
is examined in relation to the cultural models and settings that influence their performance goal.
Cultural models
When cultural models are addressed in parallel to knowledge and motivation then
opportunities for positive organizational growth can be facilitated. Shared mental schema or
normative understandings of how the world works encapsulates the concept of a cultural model
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models are usually invisible as communities or groups
share evolved ways of perceiving, thinking, and storing possible responses to challenges and
changes. (Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo, 1996). This section reviews the literature related to
cultural models present at some teacher preparation programs that may be barriers or assets to

50

stakeholder goal achievement, including the organizational human resource frame and the
organizational political frame.

Organizational human resource frame
All organizational goals are achieved by a system of interacting processes that require
specialized knowledge, skills, and motivation to operate successfully (Clark & Estes, 2008).
People’s skills, attitudes, energy, and commitment should be cultivated by organizations as
people and organizations need each other (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Bolman and Deal (2013)
articulate that the development of human needs by an organization are a central element in
everyday psychology and conditions or elements in the environment that allow individuals to
grow. Building on the human resource frame premise that organizations need people and people
need organizations connects to the relationship between the effectiveness of teacher preparation
programs and preservice teachers. Teacher preparation programs that develop its preservice
teachers’ ability to recognize and internalize effective teaching and learning are better positioned
to understand the learning progress of their candidates and validate the effectiveness of their
programs (Weins, Hessberg, LoCasle-Crouch, & DeCoster, 2013). To support candidate
internalization of effective teaching and learning, the MAT program redesign has aimed to
integrate and engage its candidates in the teaching cycle by implementing the new assessment-
literate approach to the design and implementation of performance assessments throughout the
program, most of which is includes various components that are backward aligned with the
edTPA.
Organizational political frame
The organization political frame views organizations as places where coalitions of
different individuals and interest groups interact and that coalition members have enduring

51

differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality (Bolman & Deal,
2013). The implementation and use of the edTPA over the past 6 years have had its fair share of
advocates and critics. Advocates of the edTPA believe it is an educative process for all involved
stakeholders, while others have viewed the edTPA as a controversial license requirement in
many academic institutions of K-12 and higher education (AACTE, 2018; Adkins, 2016.; Carter
& Lochte, 2017; Pecheone & Whittaker, 2016; Ressler, King, & Nelson, 2017; and Seymour,
Burns, & Henry, 2018). Ledwell and Oyler (2016) surveyed edTPA preservice teacher programs
across 12 colleges within their university and asked programs to report the curriculum decisions
that were made in response to the edTPA requirement of licensure and found 10 programs made
curriculum decisions to marginalize the edTPA despite the edTPA being a state mandated
licensure requirement. This study demonstrates the organizational political frame in action as
competing differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of realty were at
play in relation to the implementation of the edTPA within teacher preparation colleges.
Furthermore, conflict between federal and state requirements and program improvement has
presented barriers to advancing clinical educator preparation as a result of restrictive-compliance
driven methods of teacher evaluation as opposed to the field's own science of pedagogy that is
renewed through practice by those who immerse in it (AACTE, 2018a). The MAT program has
backward aligned various components of the edTPA with program curriculum and assessments.
Yet, the extent that preservice teachers feel that the MAT program curriculum, materials and
resources, assessments, faculty, and host mentor teachers supported their development of their
edTPA portfolio aims to be further investigated.
Cultural settings
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural settings as a setting where people form
in a group over time to accomplish something and are embedded by the “ecological niche” in

52

which they are set (p. 47). Polices, practices, rewards, and punishments are visible within
cultural settings and influence organizational climates greatly (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996).
This section reviews the literature related to specific cultural settings at teacher preparation
programs that may be barriers or assets to edTPA stakeholder goal achievement, including
effective teacher trainings and assessment models and support and mentorship models.
Effective teacher training and assessment models
The edTPA was designed to develop and evaluate teacher candidates’ skills and
competencies by specifically focusing on teaching-related performance tasks. The performance
tasks, or constructs, are embedded in clinical practice and focused on developing and assessing
teacher planning, instruction, assessment, academic language, and analysis of teaching to build
the essential competencies first year teachers need when they enter the classroom post training.
Teacher preparation programs are now placing a stronger emphasis on clinical experiences
coupled with preservice teacher performance assessments that require demonstration of essential
teaching skills (AACTE, 2018b). Teacher preparation programs that create clinical contexts for
their preservice teachers are more likely to develop more highly trained teachers, who
subsequently earn a successful edTPA experience and portfolio score demonstrating their
readiness to enter the classroom (Johnson, 2016; AACTE, 2018a). Based on teacher preparation
reform, the MAT, as an organization, needs to have a strong emphasis on creating clinical
experiences that expose its preservice teachers to the identified constructs of the edTPA.
However, supporting and developing preservice teachers in this way is a challenge as
teacher preparation has lacked connected experiences in coursework knowledge and clinical
fieldwork that lead to the necessary understandings of teaching, subsequently graduating teachers
who are not grounded in discipline specific methods (Weston & Henderson, 2015). Clinical

53

preparation is poorly defined and under supported and remains the most ad-hoc component of
teacher preparation as most placement experiences for preservice teachers last for between 10-14
weeks (NCATE, 2010). As a consequence, teacher preparation programs produce a significant
amount of candidates, not all enter the field, and many of those who do, do not stay in the
profession costing public schools 7 billion per year as a result of teacher turnover (Hobson,
Harris, Buckner-Manley, & Smith, 2012). Teaching is a professional practice, and the MAT
program and its preservice teachers have to be developed to use the knowledge of the profession
to cultivate student learning and growth (NCATE, 2010). Preservice teachers who are trained
and developed via performance assessments are better prepared for the classroom and more able
to meet the diverse needs of students (Barron, 2015).
Support and mentorship models
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2010) highlighted the
need for preservice teachers to be placed with teacher mentors who have deep expertise,
extensive experience and be matched to similar subject and grade level. Mentoring preservice
teachers has been found to positively impact their teaching competencies, socialization process,
and provides emotional and psychological support (Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwer, Korthagen,
and Bergen (2011). Paulsen, Clark, and Anderson (2016) discuss that an integral part of
supporting preservice teachers should be focused on supporting their development of their own
self-efficacy, the skills they need, such as structured lesson planning, and proactive classroom
strategies, which have all been found to empower preservice teachers and lead to the successful
outcome of their students. Further, preservice teachers who are trained and developed-
supported- via performance assessments are better prepared for the classroom and the MAT, as

54

an organization, needs to have a strong program that delivers these characteristics (Barron,
2015).
Yet, supporting and mentoring preservice teachers is not clear, nor well developed in
preservice teacher field placements. The NCATE (2010) pointed out that about half of states
require training of preservice mentors, but many fail to identify what roles and requirements of
mentors should be. Mentors of preservice teachers can feel daunted and isolated when trying to
explain the intimate knowledge of teaching practice and universities can gravitate towards
creating a false dichotomy (Taylor & Klein, 2015). A key design principle of clinical practice
should include a rigorous selection process of clinical educators and coaches with content
expertise to serve as preservice teacher support mentors (AACTE, 2018a). The MAT needs to
have these characteristics in place when selecting and pairing supervising teachers with
preservice teachers. Table 4 on the next page illustrates a summary of organizational influences
and types necessary for the preservice teachers in the MAT program to achieve their goal of
preparing the artifacts and commentaries needed to pass their edTPA portfolio assessments.
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholders KMO Context
The research problem of practice for this dissertation study investigated the performance
influences that contribute to MAT preservice teachers’ edTPA assessment scores and program
experience. Regardless of disciplinary orientation, no researcher engages a research setting as a
tabula rasa; conceptual frameworks are derived from disciplinary orientations, which in turn
inform what researchers study and how they study it (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). A
conceptual framework serves as a network of concepts, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, and
theories that supports and informs research. Theories within a conceptual framework are linked
and interwoven together to establish relationships between concepts in order to make meaning of

55

such relationships (Maxwell, 2013). Conceptual frameworks enable the researcher to
operationalize terms, concepts, models, thoughts, ideas, and reference specific theories that will
be explained and measured in a study (Merriam &Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework for
this study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic model by conceptualizing the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on preservice teacher edTPA performance
by identifying the key factors and variables that influence stakeholders’ edTPA portfolio
assessments performance and overall edTPA experience.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Types
Organizational Mission
The mission of the MAT program in the School of Education at the University of the West is to
prepare leaders to achieve educational equity through practice, research, and policy by working to
improve learning opportunities and outcomes in urban settings.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December 2019, 100% of MAT edTPA candidates will demonstrate their readiness to teach by
submitting and passing their edTPA portfolio to gain their initial state teaching credential.
Organizational Influences Organizational Type
Organizational human resource frame. Preservice teachers’
internalization and acquisition of effective engagement with the
program teaching cycle needs to be continually monitored and
measured throughout their training by MAT program assessments
to ensure their development.

Cultural Model 1

Organizational political frame. The MAT program must integrate
edTPA requirements into program curriculum, regardless of
members’ differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and
perceptions of reality towards the edTPA.

Cultural Model 2
Effective teacher training and assessment models. Preservice
teachers need to be trained via a clinical experience coupled with
grounded performance assessment.

Cultural Setting 1
Support and mentorship models. Preservice teachers need to be
placed with strong mentorship and provided with support
mechanisms as they develop teaching competencies.

Cultural Setting 2

56

By employing the analytic gap model of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on performance as the conceptual framework of this study it enables the research to be
viewed through a performance influence lens. Further, the analytic gap model aligns to what
Maxwell (2013) defines as the presumed relationships between the key factors, concepts, or
variables a conceptual framework affords. This research focus reflects the conceptual
framework, which helps to further identify performance problems, the research questions, data
collection, analysis, and interpretation. While the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences were presented independently of one another in the literature review section this does
not mean that they remain in isolation from one another. All three influences deeply interact with
each other and this is why the analytic gap model enables the research to establish what Maxwell
(2018) refers to as a tentative theory of the phenomena by demonstrating the relationships and
interactions of the influences.
The stakeholder goal of demonstrating their readiness to teach by submitting and passing
their edTPA portfolio to gain their initial state teaching credential is influenced in several ways.
A knowledge influence that occurs in the first two semesters of MAT coursework is when
preservice teachers should acquire the knowledge and skills associated with learning theories and
pedagogies which then should be demonstrated through pedagogical and reflective praxis in the
field. Specifically, candidates engage a tiered, integrated, and applied practice approach through
the use of a program-designed reflective teaching cycle. The teaching cycle incorporates lesson
artifacts, rehearsal, lesson videos for analysis setting and further experimentation. Candidates
engage in reflective narratives and are set expectations for improvement over time through the
course of those assignments.

57

This knowledge influence interacts with the demands of teaching and with the multiple
knowledge schemas that need to be demonstrated on the performance assessments. For instance,
when teacher candidates work through the teaching cycle process they engage with critically
reflective practice that leads to interactions in their self-analysis, peer-analysis, and goal-setting
and experimentation with new practice repeated over the span of 30 weeks in the field with the
use of their lesson videos. This knowledge influence is a process that includes a finite knowledge
and skills endemic to the procedural knowledge and skills required of edTPA.
Motivationally, students who have succeeded in mastering pedagogical and reflective
praxis, are more likely to have a heightened sense of self-regulation and self-efficacy as they
experience their general practice placements and develop their edTPA artifacts and
commentaries (Bandura, 2005; Denler, 2006; Eccles, 2006; Wolters, & Benzon, 2018; Hobson,
Harris, Buckner-Manley, & Smith, 2012). Therefore, the discussed knowledge and motivational
influences occur from the time of the theoretical coursework and filed observation in the first
two semesters of the program and greatly influence preservice teachers as they transition to and
immerse in their general practice teaching placements.
During the general practice experiences, the second knowledge influence on the success
of their development as teachers is their ability to demonstrate pedagogical praxis. Developing,
internalizing, and adopting effective teaching is a key influence and predictor to a preservice
teacher’s future success in the classroom (Wiens, Hessberg, LoCasale-Crouch, & DeCoster,
2013). The ability for preservice teachers to develop this knowledge successfully greatly
interacts with and is influenced by motivational and organizational influences. The knowledge
and motivational influences on preservice teacher performance interact with two organizational
influences: (a) MAT program edTPA aligned curriculum and assessments coupled with edTPA
supporting materials and resources, and (b) guiding faculty and mentor teacher

58

support. Literature shows that when preservice teachers have strong mentorship from supervising
faculty and from an experienced supervising teacher that their acquisition of knowledge- the
craft of teaching- and level of self-efficacy is much more likely to be positive leading to better
performance (AACTE, 2010; Clark, Brey, & Clark, 2016; Dovel, Kearney, & Garza, 2016; Gut,
Beam, Henning, Cochran, & Knight, 2014; Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwer, Kourthagen, &
Bergen, 2011; Hobson, Harris, Buckner-Manley, & Smith, 2012; Maynes & Hatt, 2012; Nicholas
& Williams, 2009; Paulsen, Clark, & Anderson, 2016; Pfitzner-Eden, 2016; Richards & Ressler,
2015; Shuey, Johnson, Alsup & Shoffner, 2012; and Weston & Henderson, 2015). Given the
strong case the literature makes for preservice teacher mentorship, this study aimed to understand
student perspectives on the extent they felt supported by their mentor teacher and program
faculty to understand the relationship between their experiences, value of the edTPA, and score
on their edTPA portfolio. Therefore, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
on preservice teachers during the general practices greatly interact with each other and, in turn
influence the performance of MAT preservice teachers experience and the subsequent edTPA
portfolio.
Figure One on the next page illustrates the shared layers of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences in a stacked Venn diagram that articulates the interactions
between multiple stakeholders. The two outer layers of the diagram illustrate the organizational
influences on preservice teacher development, which in turn influences the inner 2 layers of
preservice teacher knowledge and motivation. The inner layers of the diagram demonstrate the
relationship between praxis and self-regulation/efficacy development positioning preservice
teachers with the needed skills and understandings to develop their edTPA portfolio.

59

Figure 1: MAT Preservice Teacher KMO Influences Conceptual Framework.
At the core of the diagram is the stakeholder; the preservice teacher goal of passing the
edTPA portfolio assessments, having an educative experience, and valuing the process.
Preservice teacher knowledge influences their goal, but the goal is heavily dependent on the
organizational and motivational factors that are developed throughout the MAT program leading

60

to the portfolio assessment. The conceptual diagram illustrates that the goal embedded within the
KMO influencers that encapsulates the circulation of influencers that develop well-prepared
preservice teachers. When MAT edTPA candidates’ goal of passing their performance
assessments as the national standard is achieved ensures that well-prepared preservice teachers
are ready to enter the classroom and impact student learning from the first day on the job.
Conclusion
This evaluative study seeks to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on MAT preservice teachers’ goal of preparing the needed artifacts and commentaries
to earn a passing score on their edTPA. Additionally, the KMO influences aim to understand
preservice teacher experiences and value of the edTPA as an authentic assessment of their
teaching. To inform this study, this chapter has reviewed the literature related to preservice
teacher preparation and performance assessment models. This review has outlined the concept of
clinical teacher preparation and the connection to teacher performance assessments enhancement
in preparing preservice teachers to be effective in impacting student learning. This literature
review process has informed the identification of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences specifically related to the achievement of the stakeholder goal and the
edTPA experience of MAT preservice teachers in the MAT program. The knowledge influences
include conceptual and procedural knowledge about demonstrating pedagogical praxis and
intrinsic cognitive load management, and the meta-cognitive knowledge preservice teachers will
need when developing their self-reflection and regulation skills to demonstrate reflective praxis.
These meta-cognition skills are needed to continually improve their effectiveness in applying and
refining the needed constructs of teaching to position them to prepare their edTPA artifacts and
commentaries. The motivation influences include gained self-regulation mechanisms at varying
stages, self-efficacy from classroom experiences and mentorship support and feedback; in

61

addition, expectancy-value theory influences preservice teachers as they need to see the value in
immersing in the edTPA. Finally, the organizational influences include programming design
around creating effective preservice teacher training and assessment experiences that align to the
constructs of the edTPA. The depth of support and mentorship preservice teachers are afforded
during their placement is also critical in supporting their success towards their goal during their
placement. Chapter Three describes the validation processes for these influences.

62

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction to the Methodology
This evaluative study set out to identify KMO influences on preservice teachers during
their experiences in respect to their interaction, development, and submission of the Education
Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) portfolio. This was done with the aim of
understanding if the participants’ experiences with the edTPA connected with their overall
performance on the assessment scores. The study employed the gap analysis framework with an
embedded explanatory mixed methods design to draw together both quantitative and qualitative
data to best understand the focus stakeholder experiences. This chapter outlines the research
design and methodology, data collection and instrumentation, and the approach to the data
analysis.
The guiding questions of the study are:
1. What are the knowledge influences on MAT preservice teachers during their
development and demonstration of their readiness to teach as measured by their edTPA
portfolio scores?

2. How do motivational constructs influence MAT preservice teachers as they develop their
teaching abilities and their edTPA portfolio?

3. What organizational influences contribute to the success, or lack of, MAT preservice
teachers’ edTPA scores?

The chapter begins with a description of the participating stakeholders and follows with
an explanation of the methods used and sampling criteria for both the quantitative and qualitative
phases of the study.

63

Sampling and Recruitment
Participating Stakeholders
MAT supervising faculty and supervising teacher mentors both play significant roles in
supporting MAT preservice teachers in meeting their goal of passing their edTPA portfolio of
assessments; evaluation of MAT preservice teachers experience is of significance. This study
aimed to evaluate preservice teachers’ experiences in the MAT program, and their experience
with the development and submission of their edTPA portfolio to aid identifying areas of
program improvement. Therefore, this study focuses on all MAT preservice teachers who
submitted an edTPA portfolio between 2017 and 2019. Between 2017-2019, there were 253 on
campus MAT students and 207 online MAT students. Participants, regardless of their study
format, that were invited to participate in the study had completed their edTPA portfolio and
submitted to Pearson Education for evaluation leading to portfolio score.
Survey Sampling Strategy, Criteria, and Rationale
Researchers use sampling in quantitative research in order to inform and build accurate
generalizations about a population using participant data. Specifically, for this study, the
researcher developed research questions that aim to understand what Creswell (2018) describes
as “…quantitative descriptions of trends, attitudes, and opinions of a population” (p. 147). The
sampling for this data collection was approached through homogenous sampling. Gay, Mills, and
Airasian (2009) define homogenous sampling as the process whereby researchers select
participants who are similar in experience, which produces a narrow, homogenous sample
making data collection and analysis more accessible and immediate. Given that the participants
had to go through the same MAT coursework and submit an edTPA portfolio for licensure the

64

group aligned to the homogenous sampling strategy of selecting a small group of participants
who fit a narrow, homogenous topic.
Therefore, the quantitative survey questions collected data about the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences related to MAT program and edTPA preservice
experiences. In an effort to maximize the sample size from a homogenous group, the researcher
sent the survey to the entire population of the combined 2017 and 2018 cohorts of on-campus
and on-line cohorts in effort to sample the census. Given that a 100% response rate was unlikely
to occur, the census approach afforded the study the access to the largest possible sample size of
the entire population that had to date studied and interacted in the revised MAT program. Below
is the selection criteria for the participants in the population:
Criterion 1. MAT 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 cohorts. Preservice teachers from the 2017-
2018 and from the 2018-2019 cohort who completed the program by December 2019. These
cohorts submitted an edTPA portfolio for scoring by the time the survey was deployed.
Preservice teachers had gone through interacting with the constructs of the edTPA and
subsequent portfolio submission of their portfolio performance assessments and were positioned
to share their experiences with the edTPA.
Criterion 2. Full time MAT students. Preservice teachers in the two identified cohorts
were full time students in the on-campus or online programs. The study focus was on the full-
time program preservice teachers as the units of analysis in order to create a tighter focus on the
population and setting of the study. This was necessary to align with the homogenous sampling
process whereby researchers select participants who are similar in experience.

65

Survey Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
Israel (1992) outlines 3 criteria for sample size selection; (a) level of precision, (b) level
of confidence or risk, and (c) degree of variability in the attributes being measured. The first
criterion, the level of precision, also known as the sampling error, is the range in which the true
value of the population is estimated, often expressed in percentage points. The general rule for
acceptable margin of error in educational and social science research for categorical data is 5%
(Bartlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001).
The second criterion for establishing the sample size is identifying the desired confidence
or risk level of the sample. This is based on the Central Limit Theorem where if a population
were repeatedly sampled the average value of the attribute obtained by those samples is equal to
the true population value. In a normal distribution, approximately 95% of the sample values are
within two standard deviations of the true population value (e.g., mean). A larger sample size
with a confidence level of 95% increases the probability of statistical significance. This study
sought to establish a population size that projected a 95% confidence level. The third and final
criterion, the degree of variability, considers the attributes being measured and refers to the
distribution of attributes in the population. The more homogenous a population, the smaller the
sample size is needed to obtain a given level of precision. To reiterate, the study took a
homogenous approach sampling the census.
There are several strategies to for determining the sample size of a study. They include
the use of prior studies, published tables, or the use of formulas. Researchers may need to
calculate the necessary sample size for different level combinations of precision, confidence, and
variability justifying the use of formulas when the case (Israel, 1992). The researcher could not

66

find a published study or table that matched the population size of the study census leading the
researcher to employ a formula to calculate the needed sample size for a 95% confidence level.
By recruiting a sample size that represents a 95% confidence level the researcher aimed
to increase the validity of the survey results. Below, equation 1 demonstrates the formula for
calculating the needed sample size from the census for a 95% confidence level. N equals the
population size of 451, e equals the margin of error calculated at 6.5%, and Z represents the
number of standard deviations a given proportion is away from the mean. The Z score of 1.96
represents a 95% confidence level. To achieve a 95% confidence level, the formula calculated
that 150 study participants were needed to participate in the survey. Therefore, the benchmark of
the sample size was set at 150 survey participants with the goal of recruiting enough participants
to increase survey results validity.

Equation 1: Formula to calculate the sample size to achieve a 95% confidence level.
Due to the researcher’s lack of relationship with the participant population, the researcher
offered an incentive with the goal of increasing participation on the survey. Guidance on using
incentives has mixed views, yet, in the case of survey samples, using incentives has the potential
to encourage higher levels of participation and can lead to a more representative sample of the
population than could otherwise be achieved (Research Ethics Guidebook, 2018). Therefore, the
participants were offered a $20-dollar gift card redeemable at an online vendor. This benchmark
for participation was achieved, as outlined in chapter Four.

67

The researcher allowed for up to one month for respondents to complete the survey
(Appendix 1). The MAT program sent the survey invitation letter (Appendix 2) to participants on
behalf of the researcher. Reminders were sent once a week to those qualified to take the survey
(Appendix 3). This quantitative phase took place before the qualitative phase. The next section
describes the sampling for the qualitative phase.
Interview Sampling, Criteria, and Rationale
Creswell (2015) describes the process of explanatory sequential design where
quantitative data are collected first to identify what the participants’ beliefs and espoused values
were, which is then followed by qualitative data collection with the purpose of explaining the
results or findings in more depth. By following an explanatory sequential design where the
survey instrument collects the quantitative data first followed by semi-structured interviews, the
process allowed the researcher to follow up on qualitative cultural stories, beliefs, and examples.
Interviews afforded revelation of what participants’ beliefs were in respect to their experience
with the MAT program and their edTPA. The explanatory mixed methods design allowed the
researcher to elaborate on the survey results by enlivening the findings by collecting and writing
case vignettes (Gay, Mills, Airasian, 2009).
Semi-structured qualitative investigations tend to collect data through a mix of less
structured interview questions and more open-ended questions compared to structured interviews
that draw from standardized predetermined questions. The semi-structured approach affords the
individual respondents more opportunity to express how they view the world in unique ways
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study utilized online semi-structured interviews as a means to
qualitatively build meaning regarding the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
related to the experiences of the MAT preservice teachers who studied in the MAT program and

68

submitted an edTPA portfolio. The semi-structured interviews also considered the interaction of
these influences and how they connect to the organizational context and culture of preservice
teacher general practice placements. Semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to inquire
about the research setting by finding out where the participants were coming from and what they
have experienced (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009).
Criterion 1. MAT 2017 and 2018 cohort participants who agreed to be contacted for
follow up.
In addition to criterion 1 and 2 identified in the survey sampling criteria, a criterion for
the follow up interview was that the participant gave consent for further contact. Given that the
survey was anonymous, interview participants had to acknowledge their personal consent before
being contacted for a follow up interview by sharing their contact details.
Interview Group Sampling and Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
Saunders and Townsend (2016) highlighted the impossibility specifying the precise
numbers of interviews that will be required for any study and that advice regarding the number
of participants required for qualitative interviews is therefore often opinion. However, they urge
researchers using qualitative interviews in organization and workplace research to explain their
choice of participants in relation to their research purpose by explaining explicitly how
participants chosen enabled the research purpose to be met. Given that the researcher had limited
resources and was unable to offer further incentives like the survey participation, and the time
allocated to conduct the study was set within the researcher’s university program of study, the
researcher aimed to recruit 8-10 study participants. The researcher rationalized the benchmark of
interview participants based on the population; interview participants represented a homogenous
sample where they engaged the same MAT programing scope and sequences, edTPA materials

69

and supports, and had identical coursework assignments and the culminating edTPA portfolio
submission. Additionally, the researcher sought to recruit at least 6 minority candidates as the
program demographics generally include 50% of more of these students enrolled each cohort.
This approach is also in line with the program mission of providing learning opportunities and
outcomes in urban setting. The benchmark for the interview phase of the study was achieved as
discussed in Chapter Four.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study employed two primary methods of data collection: surveys and interviews.
The researcher gained perspective and insight into the extent that the knowledge, motivational,
and organizational influences impacted preservice teachers’ edTPA portfolio preparation and
experience through a mixed methods approach. By conducting a survey, important statistically
significant trends were positioned to be identified. Robinson and Leonard (2019) note that
surveys are ideal to measure respondents’ knowledge, skills, and feelings. Yet, Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) point out that while surveys are an important tool in understanding attitudes and
opinions, they cannot capture the qualitative feedback that an interview could afford in revealing
participants shared experiences, especially recommendations for improvement.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) discuss the importance of tying together both the
quantitative results and qualitative results of explanatory sequential mixed methods design as the
results of the survey can be built on to explain them in more detail with qualitative research. The
mixed methods approach guided the researcher to develop follow-up interview questions that
delved for an in-depth analysis of participants on a case by case basis with respect to their
experiences in the MAT program and interaction, development, and submission of their edTPA.
The researcher employed a set of open-ended and less structured formatted questions. Less

70

structured formats assume that the individual respondents define the world in unique ways
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Given that each participant had their own unique experience in the
MAT program, the classroom, and with the edTPA, a semi-structured interview format was an
appropriate approach to collecting qualitative data. The proceeding section discusses the
methodological approaches used to collect data via surveys and interviews.
Surveys
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument (Appendix 1) is comprised of 25 items with 8 items focused on
demographic data and the remaining 17 items connected to a knowledge, motivational, and
organizational constructed question in relation to the conceptual framework. The survey
instrument was administered via Google surveys. Google surveys was employed as the survey
medium because of ease of access to the researcher, given the account was linked to the
researcher’s doctoral program. The account was password protected and allowed for results to be
immediately broken down into graphic representation (i.e. pie/bar charts), and the results were
exported to excel for further graphic representation.
The possible responses to each KMO item were measured by an ordinal scale ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Items were organized by KMO sections and at the end
of each section there was an open-ended response that asked respondents to optionally share any
additional feedback pertaining to the section of items. The final question of the survey asked
respondents if they were willing to be contacted for a follow up 1:1 interview. Those that
responded yes provided contact details in the form of an email address for the researcher to later
follow up.

71

The survey items reflect the conceptual framework in relation to the KMO influences on
preservice teachers’ MAT program and edTPA portfolio experience. Preservice teachers develop
their knowledge of pedagogical praxis of planning, pedagogy, and assessment during the
classroom-based and field observation segment of the MAT program. Conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge -pedagogical praxis- is applied during student teaching and
measured by the edTPA portfolio of artifacts and written commentaries. For instance, a
knowledge item asked respondents to rate the extent that they felt that they have acquired the
knowledge and skills to plan for instruction and assessment as a result of engaging the edTPA.
Likewise, an example of a motivation item that surveyed the samples utility value asked
participants the extent they valued their edTPA experience.
Organizational influences that impact preservice teachers and their edTPA experience
were surveyed with respect to their perception of support and mentorship they received on their
program key assessments and actual edTPA. The faculty, the MAT edTPA coordinator, and the
supervising teacher contribute to organizational influences on preservice teachers and their
edTPA portfolio development. Finally, the level of success on coursework, field experiences, key
assessments, and ultimately the edTPA portfolio submission contribute to motivation influences
in the form of reflective praxis and self-regulation. Preservice teacher self-efficacy and utility
value all greatly influence their value of the edTPA. Multiple items surveyed these motivational
domains.
Survey Procedures
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a law that protects the privacy
of student education records and is applicable to all schools that receive funds from programs of
the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Given that research

72

participants of the study attended a University that the FERPA law applies to, the researcher is
not legally authorized to request contact details of the research participants and directly contact
them to participate in the survey. Therefore, the researcher sought approval from the MAT
governance committee to distribute the study survey on his behalf to be complaint with FERPA.
The researcher wrote a letter (Appendix 2) that explained the purpose of the survey and
instructions for accessing the survey and the MAT program distributed the letter by e-mail to all
alumni who submitted an edTPA portfolio between 2017 and 2019. The rationale for selecting
this range of participants is due to the 2017 MAT curriculum revisions. The intention of the
researcher was to measure the extent the revisions impacted candidate edTPA scores. In addition,
the letter ethically ensures anonymity to the research participants and that the raw data would not
be shared with the institution. Yet, the letter communicates that the findings and
recommendations ascertained from the results would be shared with the MAT committee.
As mentioned in the prior survey instrument section, the survey was the first data
collection method to be employed in the study given the geographic location of the researcher
and respondents. Interviews were arranged for those respondents who indicated that they were
available for a follow up interview at the end of the survey. Purposeful sampling afforded the
researcher the ability to study information-rich cases leading to deeper insight and
understandings as opposed to only having empirical understandings (Patton, 2002). By
purposefully selecting participants from the two MAT cohorts and on-campus and online
formats, the researcher learned further about issues of central importance to the edTPA
experience. Given the time constraints of the study, and in line with when the final 2019 MAT
cohort has gone through the edTPA portfolio submission process, the researcher launched the
open window of the survey on December 29
th
, 2019 and remained open for four weeks.

73

Robinson and Leonard (2019) offer a set of guidelines for developing a survey timeline and
suggest that three reminder phases are adequate during the open survey period. Therefore, the
researcher sent four reminders; three at the start of each week once the survey period was open
and one final reminder the day before the survey closed (Appendix 3). By completing the survey
period in January, the researcher was able to immediately conduct follow up interviews affording
enough time to complete the study in the set timeframe.
Interviews
Interview Protocol
The interview protocol followed a semi-structured approach (Appendix 4). Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) note that qualitative investigations that employ the use of semi-structured
interviews are mainly guided by a list of questions to be explored. Therefore, the survey
questions were the framework that guided the development of the follow up interview
questioning. The rationale for selecting a semi-structured interview was because the interview
questions were steered by the themes of the survey questions and allowed the interview questions
to build on the survey questions by further probing participants to learn more about their
respondents’ experience and beliefs. The interview protocol built on the survey phase of the
study in alignment with the explanatory mixed methods approach.
To further probe study participants about their experiences in the MAT program and on
the edTPA, the researcher followed up by asking questions pertaining to the KMO sections of the
survey and structured questions to draw on interviewee experience, behavior, opinion, and
values. Patton (2015) describes experience and behavior questions as those that get at the things
a person does or did, behaviors, actions, and activities; opinion and value questions tap into a
person’s opinions, beliefs, and what they think about something. Experience and behavior

74

questions focused on preservice teacher interviewees’ knowledge influences. An example of an
experience and behavior interview question that measured knowledge would be, “You just
shared that the process of your completing your edTPA impacted the learning of the students you
taught. Could you explain why?” An example of an opinion and value question that relates to
motivation would be, “Could you please explain your view on the edTPA. Do you feel it was an
authentic assessment of your teaching? Can you please elaborate?
Interview Procedures
As mentioned in the prior sections, the interviews were conducted in the month of
February after the survey window had closed in January. As outlined in the interview sampling
and recruitment strategy and rationale section the researcher set the benchmark of interviewing
8-10 participants. The researcher aimed to purposefully select a group of 4-5 men and 4-5
women across gender and race to stratify the sample given that the MAT program expresses a
vested interest in recruiting and retaining teacher candidates of color in line with the School of
Education’s mission of service in urban contexts. Additionally, the graduates of the program
need to be aware of the culturally and linguistically diverse k-12 students they will likely serve.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discuss how there are not a set number of participants to
include in any one purposeful study, but instead sample sizes should depend on the questions
being asked and the data being gathered. Given that the interviews were entirely optional, the
first step was to review the survey respondents who selected to be contacted for 1:1 follow up
interviewers with the researcher. For those who expressed interest in being interviewed the
researcher followed up via e-mail by sharing an invitation letter (Appendix 5) explaining the
purpose of the follow up interview. In the first instance, the researcher invited a total of 20
follow-up interviews with the goal to interview 4 of each gender, and at least 6 candidates

75

identifying as minorities and 2 white candidates where possible. The researcher used the
participant self-identified demographic data from the survey to target 15 minority candidates
compared to 5 self-identified white candidates when sending the 20 invitations. The researcher
was able to recruit 2 Asian, 3 African American, and 2 white candidates; one candidate wished
not to identify their race.
After the total number of interviewees were identified, the researcher built an online tool
that allowed the researcher to contact, schedule, reschedule, and remind the interviewees of the
interview. The researcher selected the online Google calendar, which met the stated criteria of
the online scheduling tool. The researcher employed the Zoom video conferencing solution to
audio record the interview and then transcribed a transcript of the interview conversation. All
calls done in the Zoom platform were saved to the researcher’s private password protected Zoom
account. The researcher conducted all interviews in the privacy of his personal office void of
distractions. The estimated interview time was between 25 minutes and 35 minutes given the 3
sections of KMO themes to discuss; roughly 10-12 minutes for each section. In total, the contact
time of interviews ranged around 3.5 to 4.75 hours for eight interviews. Interviews were semi-
formal as the researcher followed guidelines laid out by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) pertaining to
semi-structured interviews; a mix of more and less structured interview questions guided by a list
of questions to be explored to elicit specific data from all respondents concerning their survey
responses.
Data Analysis
In the explanatory mixed methods approach the two sets of data are considered together
in 3 phases: (a) the first phase follows the form of reporting the quantitative results, (b) the
second phase reports the qualitative results and, (c) the third phase is interpretation; how the

76

qualitative findings help explain the quantitative results. In conducting the analysis for the
quantitative data, the researcher calculated measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion
(range and standard deviation) for ratio data. This approach is the most common way of
representing results and quantitative understanding of the participants (Gay, Mills, & Airasian,
2009). The survey was conducted using Google forms which supported the analysis by aiding for
cross tabulations between data points to aid disaggregation. Survey items were presented in
narrative form along with visual tables in Chapter Four.
When conducting the analysis for the qualitative interview data the researcher took
several approaches. First, the researcher reviewed the recordings of the interviews to ensure their
completeness and audio quality. Then, the researcher took specific notes while listening to the
interview recordings to capture specific participants that could be significant to the study
analysis and discussion. Next, the recordings were sent to a transcription service where they
converted the interview audio segments into transcripts. Once the researcher received the
transcriptions they were reviewed for accuracy, and once confirmed the researcher deleted the
recordings to maintain confidentiality of participants. The researcher was able to adhere to
respondent validation by checking the transcripts for accuracy.
The coding of the data was engaged in several stages. The researcher approached the first
stage of coding the open survey comments and transcripts in order to look for empirical codes
and priori codes as connected to the literature and conceptual framework. Each section of KMO
comments left on the survey and each transcript was broken down into categories this way. Then
the researcher went through each survey comment and each transcript and used Corbin and
Strauss’s (2008) analytic tools to decompose the text and identify open codes. The next stage of
coding the data employed the development of an open comment and transcript code book

77

arranged by pattern codes and themes that emerged from the empirical and priori codes. When
codes between open comments and interviewee transcripts demonstrated shared common
empirical codes, they were combined together to form a theme. The criteria used to establish
each qualitative theme was approached by identifying when 10 or more survey participants
shared similar feedback on each KMO section that aligned with 4 or more interviewees’
perceived KMO experiences.
The codebook positioned the researcher to address the documentation of any conflicting
codes or counter examples. This helped the researcher to assure that the eventual report of the
findings completely and precisely documented and represented the study into the research
questions. To capture the full depth of the analysis process, the researcher utilized an Excel
workbook, with sheets for the data sets related to the knowledge, motivation, organization, and
experiences and values (the narrative analysis guiding the study) for the quantitative data and the
codebook for the qualitative data. The codebook afforded a method that accounted for the
typicality of the codes within and across the open survey comments and interviews.
In the third phase of the explanatory mixed methods approach the researcher provided
interpretation and discussion on how the qualitative findings helped to provide more depth and
insight into the qualitative results. The discussion focused on specifying how the qualitative
results help to expand or explain the quantitative results. The focus of the study was to validate
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as assets or needs with respect to the study
stakeholder achieving their goal of being ready to transition to the classroom as measured by
their edTPA score. When validating each influence as an asset or need the researcher first looked
at the aligned KMO survey items and applied the established margin of error of 6.5% at the 95%
confidence level when determining participant majority -56.5% or higher- when agreeing or

78

strongly agreeing with an item. When items reported 56.5% or higher the item was considered
an asset and when reported at 43.5% or lower the KMO item was validated as a need. For KMO
survey items that reported between 44% and 56% -not a true majority or minority- the researcher
drew from the qualitative phase data related to the KMO item to consider participant feedback
towards the respective KMO influence as an asset or need. To reiterate, when 10 or more survey
participants and 4 or more interviewees shared similar feedback on the given KMO section or
interview question they were grouped to form a theme.
Validity and Reliability
The survey method lends itself to a discussion of validity and reliability. Gay, Mills, and
Airasian (2009) describe content validity as the degree to which an instrument measures an
intended content area and requires item validity; items are relevant to the measurement of the
intended content area. In this case, the content area is the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on preservice teachers constructing their edTPA and their overall
experience with and value of the process. Given the study followed an explanatory sequential
mixed methods design, to establish the validity of the scores from the quantitative measures and
to discuss the validity of the qualitative findings Creswell (2018) recommends selecting samples
from the quantitative study to participate in the qualitative study to maximize the importance of
one phase explaining the other. As discussed in prior sections, participants from the survey were
given the opportunity to participate in a follow up interview, which lends to interconnectivity of
the phases of the study increasing validity.
In an effort to further strengthen validity, the researcher sought to strengthen this study’s
content measurement by drawing from a study conducted by Ressler et al. (2017). They
conducted a study that employed a survey instrument (and later interviews) to better understand

79

preservice teachers and new teachers who took the practice and assessed edTPA between the
years 2013-2015 in terms of their perceptions of the edTPA, whether or not they felt better
equipped to teach, and weather they felt it was an authentic and effective evaluation of their
teaching. Their study practiced Creswell’s (2018) recommendation of selecting samples from the
quantitative survey study to participate in the interview qualitative study. While their study did
not specifically address content validity, it did address the content of measurement in the form of
institutional curriculum changes (organizational influences), and the measurement of edTPA
candidate experiences (knowledge and motivation). Thus, the researcher contacted the authors of
the study and, per their agreement, obtained their study survey instrument. While their survey
instrument is not being used verbatim in this study, many of their items have closely related
themes to this study and align with the KMO influences identified in the literature review and the
conceptual framework. Appendix 6 compares the Ressler et al. (2017) items to this study’s items
therefore strengthening the validity. The researcher understands that once the shared instrument
is altered, it impacts the psychometrics properties.
By drawing from Ressler et al. (2017) survey instrument validity and reliability is
increased for this study’s instrument while decreasing researcher bias. Similar to Ressler et al.
(2017), this study sampled preservice teachers who were in a teacher preparation program. This
study drew from 2 separate cohorts from 2017-2019- 2 years- the same span of their sample
range of 2013-2015. The researcher assumed that not all contacted for the study would
participate, this reality lead to a subset sampling of participants. The number of participants -
33%- from the 2017-2019 academic years contributes to greater validity in the study, as Johnson
and Christenson (2014) discussed how when there is enough data collected it allows the
researcher to reliably generalize about the population.

80

Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research positions the researcher as the instrument in any study as Maxwell
(2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) point out that the qualitative phase of research brings
inherent biases. The proceeding section describes the steps the researcher took to minimize
inherent biases and increase credibility and trustworthiness through various phases of the
research. Mixed methods designs are able to combine both qualitative and quantitative criteria to
assess the trustworthiness of a study. For instance, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) identify strategies
for establishing for the authenticity and trustworthiness of a study based on world views and
questions congruent with philosophical assumptions. This study’s trustworthiness aims to be
established on the epistemological perspective of constructivism; the study’s purpose is to
describe, understand, and interpret experiences of MAT preservice teachers through the
employed mixed method approach with the goal of identifying the multiple realities based the
context of participants.
This study worked to increase credibility in the research design by bridging the methods
to context and body of literature that informs the conceptual framework. As mentioned, prior, the
design choices for the survey and interview questions were drawn from Ressler et al.’s (2017)
study that used phone interviews as a follow up to their survey. This study used components of
their interview questions and modified them to fit into the semi-structured interview follow up to
the KMO survey (Appendix 7). By using existing literature, and survey data with follow up 1:1
interviews the study used the triangulation method to safeguard against researcher bias and
increase the credibility study (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By
converging multiple sources of data together that validate each other credibility further increases
(McMillam, 2004; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

81

The researcher employed “adequate engagement in data collection” as credibility and
trustworthiness method during the data collection phase by spending time facilitating 1:1
interviews with survey respondents who consented follow up in order to establish emergent
findings until the point of saturation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; p 259). By taking the adequate
engagement in data collection approach the researcher was able to identify the same types of
findings and themes that continually emerge, with no new insights of information emerging. To
test the credibility of the findings, the researcher actively sought ideas and examples that
opposed emerging themes in the qualitative method chosen and needed follow-up.
Finally, the researcher increased credibility and trustworthiness by ensuring rich, thick
descriptions. Rich, thick descriptions as a strategy of credibility and trustworthiness called on the
researcher to contextualize the study findings so that readers could to draw meaning from the
research context and connect their own situations and potentially transfer findings (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The aim of the study was to evaluate the preservice teachers’ experiences with
and value of performance on the edTPA and associated KMO influences. It is the hope of the
researcher that the study serves the University of focus and future schools of education in best
understanding the KMO influences on preservice teachers and reflect on best practices of design
and when training and supporting edTPA candidates.
Ethics
The importance of ethical practice before, during, and following the study was of the
upmost priority. The researcher had to consider several responsibilities to conduct this mixed
methods study in an ethical manner. The study employed a survey instrument in addition to
follow up 1:1 interview questions. Such responsibilities included informed consent, data

82

handling, and confidentiality (Appendix 8). Researcher ethical practices and responsibilities must
always be put before the goal of constructing new knowledge (Glesne, 2011).
Rubin and Rubin (2012) discuss how the institutional review board (IRB) is a mandatory
process to protect human subjects. Participants must be protected, and researchers have the
responsibility to ensure no harm comes to study participants (Glesne, 2011). Given the study
involved human subjects, the researcher had the responsibility to ensure that all participation was
informed participation.
All participants were informed by the researcher of their protection through the
researcher’s University Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) (Appendix 9). The
researcher provided all survey participants with the Information Fact Sheet (IFS) for Exempt
Non-Medical Research (Appendix 10). By sharing the IFS the sample participants were informed
of the purpose of the study and their role in responding to the questions. Further, the IFS stated
that all participation would be confidential and at no time would the researcher share any
information that may identify the identity of the respondent to the associated MAT stakeholders.
Participants were informed that they could stop taking the survey all together, at any time, and
answer all or some of the survey questions as they deemed appropriate.
The researcher used a private Google Drive account to build and administer the e-survey
participants that was used. This affords for data protection and storage during the coding and
analysis phase of the study. Given that participants did not share their names unless they choose
to do so for later follow up from the researcher, the surveys were anonymous, and data was only
accessible by the researcher during and post study.
When facilitating this study, the researcher assumed that preservice teachers and
university alumni want to improve the MAT program and general practice experiences for future

83

preservice teachers in the program. Therefore, it is the researcher’s assumption that program
alumni answered questions in surveys honestly and accurately. There were inherent biases the
researcher had to account for as the study commenced. These biases included that the researcher
has 15 years’ experience in the field of study as a teacher, school leader, and mentor of
preservice teachers. Research, whether quantitative or qualitative, experiential or naturalistic, is a
human activity and therefore prone to biases and assumptions (Norris, 2007). Wolf (2012)
recommends that researchers not only need to consider their own biases, but also those of other
stakeholders associated with the study. The researcher took the approach of managing his own
bias and assumptions through detachment from his own and other’s biases while being open to
criticism and self-critical reflection in a constructive approach. Therefore, an important aspect of
ethical practice that was enacted by the researcher was with respect to disclosing his role as a
graduate researcher and created clear expectations to the participants’ that their responses would
be anonymous during and after the study.
In addition, ethical dilemmas could be positioned to crop up given the process of data
gathering. Given that the researcher is professional educator, he always strives to support
educational institutions when improving program practices, especially when developing and
training preservice teachers given his professional experience and interest in teacher
development. Therefore, the researcher felt the need to act as a reformer or advocate. At the
conclusion of the study, the researcher presented his findings to the MAT program governance
committee. Glense (2011) explains how researchers can take on the role of a reformer to
intervene to raise awareness of issues in an attempt to improve quality. In addition, researchers
may gravitate towards advocacy to address issues that arise from the research.

84

To reiterate, the researcher made every reasonable effort to ensure participants had
complete awareness of anonymity. By establishing anonymity, this afforded the conditions for
reliability and validity of the survey instrument. Credibility and trust worthiness of the study was
strengthened given that the respondents were able to voluntarily choose to participate in follow
up interviews, which lead to a higher probability of respondents feeling comfortable to respond
honestly and openly (Creswell, 2014). In sum, the researcher needed to express mindfulness
when considering these roles and possible dilemmas. The researcher sought to engage
mindfulness through reflective practice. Reflective practice is a process by which one looks back
at their own assumptions and actions that led to behaviors and actions (Du Preez, 2008). By
bringing these challenges to the fore a higher likelihood that a more valid interpretation of the
data was possible (Glesne, 2011).
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations and delimitations any researcher must acknowledge as the research
commences. Limitations are the influences that are not in the researcher’s grasp of control.
Limitations that present themselves to this study include:
● The study relied on the truthfulness of the respondents;
● The MAT program revisions were recently implemented, which may lead to
historical threat to validity;
● The study was conducted during a short period of time and drew on participants
at different points in their program, career, or format, i.e. online or on-campus.
Delimitations are the choices a researcher must make that lead to implications for the
study. The delimitations that may affect this study include:

85

● Data was only collected from select cohorts of alumni. The data did not include
MAT faculty, edTPA coordinator, or placement mentor teachers’ perspectives;
● Data was collected from a limited number of participants, especially during the
qualitative phase of the study;
This study was conducted virtually and not in person, allowing for potential differences in online
interactions compared to in-person interactions.

86

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This study set out to evaluate the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 cohorts in the MAT program
with respect to their experiences developing and submitting their edTPA portfolio. This study
aimed to understand the extent that the 2017 MAT program redesign contributed to the success
of candidates developing the needed knowledge and skills to begin teaching as measured by their
edTPA portfolio score. This study has employed a gap analytic framework organized around the
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization influences with an embedded explanatory
mixed methods design principle. This chapter begins by reviewing the stakeholder participants in
the study, followed by an outline of the findings and results from the assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences delineated in Chapter Three. The administered MAT
preservice teacher survey and 1:1 follow up interview instruments were designed to collect
candidate feedback around the following research questions:

1. What are the knowledge influences on MAT preservice teachers during their
development and demonstration of their readiness to teach as measured by their edTPA
portfolio scores?

2. How do motivational constructs influence MAT preservice teachers as they develop their
teaching abilities and their edTPA portfolio?

3. What organizational influences contribute to the success, or lack of, MAT preservice
teachers’ edTPA scores?

The 25-item survey was administered online first and the data collected from the survey took
place over a four-week window. The rationale for deploying the survey first was to poll the
census of the specified years of study focus. In total, 150 respondents completed the survey,
representing a 33.25% response rate. The online survey took around 30 to 40 minutes to
complete. Once the survey window closed follow up 1:1 interviews were scheduled via video
conferencing. Participants were recruited through the survey as an item asked respondents to

87

indicate yes, maybe, or no with respect to participating in the follow up interview. Results
recorded 45 participants indicating yes, 40 indicating maybe, and 65 indicating no. The
researcher e-mailed 20 participants and 8 responded to schedule a follow up interview.
Interviews ranged from 25 to 35 minutes each in length.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group that the study examined was the 2017-2018 and 2018-19 preservice
teacher candidates in the MAT program. This population consisted of 451 candidates spanning
across single and multiple subject candidates for teacher credentialing. Of the 451 candidates 150
participated in the survey and 8 survey participants agreed to be interviewed. This study sought
to establish a sample of candidates that had joined the MAT program in 2017 onward to evaluate
their experiences under the new program redesign with a particular interest in its strategic
alignment of program coursework with the edTPA. This section details preservice teacher
candidates who participated in the survey and followed by a description of those who
participated in the 1:1 interviews.
Survey Participants
The survey was delivered by email to a combination of 451 MAT on-campus and online
candidates who were in the program between 2017-2019. The survey had 150 respondents, and
table 5 on the next page depicts the candidate demographics for the quantitative phase of the
study.

88

Table 5
Survey Participants Demographics Data

N %
Gender
Female 99 66.5
Male 48 32.2
Transgender 1 .65
Did not wish to identify 1 .65
Age
22-25 52 35.1
26-30 57 38.5
31-35 21 14.2
36-40 8 05.5
40 or older 10 06.7
Hispanic or Latino
Yes 37 24.7
No 113 75.3
Race
American Ind./Alaskan Native 3 2.07
Asian 27 18.62
Black/African American 12 8.28
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. 3 2.07
White 69 47.59
Other 29 20
Do not wish to identify 2 1.37
Total 150 100%

The survey items were organized into the three KMO themed sections. At the end of each
section participants had the opportunity to write optional comments. Table 6 displays how many
participants chose to leave qualitative feedback by section.
Table 6
Participants Who Left Qualitative Commentary by KMO Section
Knowledge Motivation Organization
52 31 42

1:1 Interview Participants
As described in Chapter Three, the researcher took a purposeful sampling approach when
selecting the number of participants for the interview. The researcher reviewed how many

89

participants were willing to be interviewed out the 150 participants; 45 reported their willingness
to be interviewed and 40 reported they would consider being interviewed. The researcher
emailed a purposefully selected group of 10 men and 10 women across gender and race, inviting
a total of 20 follow-up interviews. Of the 20 invited, 9 accepted -4 men and 5 women- with the
researcher choosing to interview 4 of each gender across race. The purposeful selection of
interview participants was stratified, so there were equal gender interviewees and age and race
representation across demographics where possible. Table 7 demonstrates the demographics of
the 1:1 interview participants.
Table 7
Interview Participants Demographics Data
N %
Gender
Female 4 50
Male 4 50
Age
22-25 3 37.5
26-30 2 25
31-35 1 12.5
36-40 1 12.5
40 or older 1 12.5
Race
Asian 2 25
Black/African American 3 37.5
White 2 25
Do not wish to identify 1 12.5
Total 8 100

Determination of Assets and Needs
The sources of data for this study derived from the survey and 1:1 interviews. The survey
ratings on the Likert scale of strongly agree through strongly disagree were coded to numerical
values to create statistical representation. Any other comments/feedback sections on the survey
where the participant provided written commentary were open coded and compiled into a
codebook organized around the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence empirical

90

codes leading to analytic codes. Likewise, the 1:1 interview transcripts were open coded and also
compiled into a codebook organized around the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influence empirical codes leading to analytic codes. As discussed in Chapter 3, when validating
each influence as an asset or need the researcher applied the established margin of error of 6.5%
at the 95% confidence level when determining group majority perception towards an item at
56.5% or higher. When items reported 56.5% or higher the item was validated as an asset and
when reported at 43.5% or lower the KMO item was validated as a need. For the purpose of
reporting the results of the open comment and interview analysis, when 10 or more survey
participants left likeminded comments in the KMO sections of the survey and 4 of 8 respondents
discussed a similar concept in response to a question the researcher considered them to have
some indication of importance in corroborating the survey items and experience. The researcher
acknowledges that the limited survey comments and 8 interviewee participants do not represent
the population. However, these participants can provoke insights into KMO items that reported
between 44% and 56% -not a true majority or minority. When this was the case the researcher
drew from the qualitative phase data related to the KMO item to help consider the respective
KMO influence as an asset or need.
Results and Findings
The proceeding section reports the results of the survey and findings from participant
comments, along with the findings of the 1:1 interviews concerning the study research questions.
Presented are the outcomes in alignment with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences identified in the conceptual framework and the literature. By item, the survey
responses report the self-perception of participants in relation to their own beliefs pertaining to
the assessed KMO influences. Next interviewee responses have been considered in the context

91

of the corresponding items. The chapter concludes with tables that list the KMO influences as
assets or needs for the MAT program to consider.
Research Question 1
What are the knowledge influences on MAT preservice teachers during their development
and demonstration of their readiness to teach as measured by their edTPA portfolio scores?
Knowledge
Krathwol (2002) identifies 3 areas of knowledge: (a) Factual and conceptual declarative
knowledge, (b) procedural knowledge, and (c) metacognitive knowledge. Clark and Estes (2008)
discuss how identified knowledge influences increase performance and can be used to address
any performance gaps. This section discusses each knowledge domain and then reports the
results of the survey items followed by a presentation of the theme-based survey comments and
interview responses related to each knowledge domain.
Conceptual knowledge-pedagogical praxis
Conceptual knowledge refers to an in-depth and complex understanding of knowledge
(Anderson et al., 2001). Likewise, pedagogical praxis is a specific form of learning where
preservice teachers demonstrate the application of their preparation theory into practice parallel
to developing the competencies necessary for teaching (Sirotová, 2016). Conceptually, teachers
in the MAT program begin their general practice-A placement in semester two of the program,
by which point they have immersed in 4 courses that have covered principles of planning,
instruction, and assessment along with video observational fieldwork. Preservice teachers in
training need to demonstrate pedagogical praxis to be successful on their edTPA. Candidates are
required to demonstrate the skills associated with planned and connected instruction by authoring
3-5 lessons they will submit as artifacts and commentaries in their edTPA portfolio. The

92

performance assessments capture teaching artifacts such as lesson plans, in-class video clips, and
student work samples.
There were 3 survey items that asked respondents to report on their conceptual
knowledge as shown in table 8 on the next page. The first survey question related to this
knowledge domain recorded that 87% of participants reported that after submitting the edTPA,
they had the knowledge and skills to plan for instruction and assessment for future classes they
would teach. 13% of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the question. The second
conceptual knowledge survey question asked candidates to report on their perceived acquisition
of the knowledge and skills to create a positive learning environment in the classroom for future
classes they would teach and 87% of participants reported that they agreed or strongly agreed.
The final survey item for conceptual knowledge influence of pedagogical praxis reported that
86% of participants shared that they had the knowledge and skills to develop their students’
subject matter understanding in future classes that they would teach. The next section further
discusses the nuances of this knowledge domain as shared on the any other comments sections of
the survey and as explored with the interview participants.
Subjective knowledge: demonstration of pedagogical praxis based on personal
interpretations
The participants from the survey who shared comments and the interviewee feedback
with respect to the interview question related to demonstrating pedagogical praxis via the edTPA
provided a nuanced understanding of the result. An emergent theme related to the knowledge
domain of conceptual-pedagogical praxis came from 44 survey respondents and 4 interviewees;
the edTPA did not contribute to the development of preservice teacher candidates' pedagogical
praxis. Instead, survey and interview participants revealed through open comments and interview

93

discussion that they developed their abilities in the areas of planning and assessment during the
MAT program and student teaching as opposed to the edTPA. Table 9 shares the themes.
Table 8
Participant Reported Knowledge: Pedagogical Praxis
Survey Item Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
After submitting your edTPA, to what extent
do you agree that you have the knowledge
and skills to plan for instruction and
assessment for future classes that you will
teach?

87%
After submitting your edTPA, to what extent
do you agree that you now have the
knowledge and skills to create a positive
learning environment in the classroom for
future classes that you will teach?

87%
After submitting your edTPA, to what extent
do you agree that you now have the
knowledge and skills to develop your
students’ subject matter understanding in
future classes that you will teach?
86%

Table 9
Participant Reported Pedagogical Praxis Themes
Theme 1: edTPA a non-contributor to
candidate development of pedagogical praxis
Theme 2: MAT a contributor to candidate
pedagogical praxis

• edTPA did not inform pedagogy
• edTPA did not inform instruction and
assessment practices
• edTPA did not provide candidate
training towards teaching experiences
• MAT provided candidate training
towards teaching experiences
• MAT informed instruction and
assessment practices
• Professors and students real source of
knowledge
• Learned more from student teaching
experience, not the edTPA

Examples of theme 1 and 2 of participants perceived experiences is shared at this
juncture. For instance, a survey participant shared, “I agree to have the aforementioned skills
after taking the edTPA, I do not credit any of them to the edTPA itself…” Another survey

94

respondent wrote, “I don’t know that completing the edTPA helped me achieve the skills in
question; however, by the time I submitted my edTPA, I felt confident in my skills.” Likewise, a
survey participant shared, “The skills are taught in the classes, the edTPA just puts it all together,
but I don't see it as a tool, more as the final hurdle that I just merely need to get over.” Another
survey participant wrote:
“I agree that I have these skills after submitting the edTPA, but not because I took the
edTPA. I have these skills because of the feedback from my master teachers, professors,
and self throughout my MAT journey.”
One survey participant commented, “…most of our repertoire of teaching was from our
time as a student teacher and in our core curriculum courses. I am unsure if the edTPA actually
helped our knowledge.”
As for the 1:1 interviews, the same emergent theme of the edTPA not playing a
developmental role in candidates' demonstration of pedagogical praxis was prevalent. Four of the
interviewees reported that the MAT program was more influential in helping them to develop
and demonstrate pedagogical praxis. According to interviewee 3:
“...the (MAT) program gave me great training and educational experience. I don’t
consider the edTPA to be a part of that. It did not provide me training or education; it was
an exam.”
Interviewee 4 shared, “…this thing (edTPA) that was just kind of lingering…it felt out of context
and did not build towards the program.” Interviewee 2 discussed how:

95

“…assignments completed from the MAT program did a much better job of actually
helping me learn how to plan strategically and serve my students. I don’t think I learned
anything from doing the edTPA process.”
According to the Stanford Center for Assessment Learning and Equity (SCALE, 2018),
the purpose of the performance tasks on the edTPA is to build the essential competencies that
first-year teachers need when they enter the classroom post-training. The quantitative and
qualitative results and findings are complimentary in helping to learn more about the experiences
of the participants with respect to if they felt ready to enter the profession to begin teaching. On
the one hand, survey item results reported that a vast majority of the participants self-perceived
that they had acquired the skills associated with teaching and were ready to enter into the
profession. On the other hand, the survey comments and follow up interviews demonstrate that
participant skill acquisition was not the credit of the edTPA process or experience, but the MAT
or student teaching placement that readied them to enter the profession. Both data collection
instruments led to valuable insight in understanding this particular knowledge domain providing
evidence that this knowledge domain can be considered an asset.
Procedural knowledge
Procedural knowledge is the knowledge about procedures in the application of a task
(Mayer, 2006). MAT preservice teachers need to know the requirements of the edTPA
performance assessments and expectations of the required portfolio formatting and submission.
Further, they need the procedural knowledge of building the required artifact evidence and
commentaries to capture and submit their performance assessments. On the survey item related
to procedural knowledge, 72% of participants indicated a self-perception that they were able to
connect their teaching to the artifacts and commentary requirements of the edTPA portfolio by

96

indicating that they agreed or strongly agreed with the item. Candidates that disagreed or
strongly disagreed stood at 28%. Table 10 captures the result of this item.
Table 10
Participant Reported Knowledge: Procedural
Survey Item
Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
Overall, to what extent do you agree that you
were able to connect your teaching to the
artifacts and commentaries of the edTPA
portfolio?
72%

Ledwell and Oyler (2016) used semi-structured interviews with 19 teacher educators
from 12 teacher preparation programs from one private teachers college, as well as public
information on edTPA pass rates. They found that 6 out of 12 programs experienced multiple
teacher candidate failures on the performance assessments. Before the program redesign in 2016,
the MAT program had a published candidate pass rate of 84% compared to the 2016 national
edTPA pass rate of 78% (School of Education, 2018; edTPA administrative report, 2016). When
evaluating the pass rates of the sample, the data revealed that 72% of candidates had a first-time
pass on the edTPA compared to 18% of candidates who failed. On the second attempt by
candidates who failed the first submission of their edTPA, an additional 17% of participants
reported passing, increasing the total pass rate to 89% for the sample. Table 11 depicts these
trends.
The 2016 MAT edTPA pass rate compared to the polled sample who studied under the
new MAT program design beginning in 2017 demonstrates an overall improved pass rate of 5%.
Comparatively, the national edTPA pass rate average of 2016 was at 78% while the combined
2017 and 2018 average pass rate is 73% showing a 5% decrease (edTPA administrative report,
2016; edTPA administrative report, 2017; edTPA administrative report, 2018). These results and

97

findings indicate that this knowledge domain is an asset. Table 12 demonstrates this result and
finding.
Table 11
Participant Reported edTPA Pass Rates
Survey Item
Total Percentage of the Population Reporting
on Their Attempts of edTPA Submissions
Did you earn a passing edTPA score in your
first submission?

72%
If you answered no, did you earn a passing
score on your second edTPA submission?
17%

Total edTPA pass rate of sample
89%

Table 12
2016-2018 MAT/National Average edTPA Pass Rate
MAT Program vs. National
edTPA Pass Rates
MAT Pass Rate National Pass Rate
MAT program edTPA pass
rate compared to the national
edTPA pass rate 2016

84% 78%
MAT 2017/2018 survey
sample edTPA pass rate
compared to the 2017/2018
average edTPA national pass
rate
89% 72%

Intrinsic cognitive load
Intrinsic cognitive load can be described in terms of element interactivity as most
schemas simultaneously are learned; when the interaction between many elements is high, then
intrinsic cognitive load will be high (Sweller, 1994). The edTPA presents multiple schemas: (a)
planning; (b) instruction, (c) assessment, (d) analysis of teaching, and (e) the use of academic
language. These schemas interact with one another, creating high intrinsic cognitive load for
preservice teachers. Ressler, et al. (2016) conducted a study that collected feedback from 41

98

preservice teachers about their edTPA experience and 95% of the respondents, unprompted,
shared experiences of anxiety and overwhelming stress through the process. Additional
literature, Behizadeh and Neely (2018); Bergstrand, Roleinson, Molfenter, Rice, and Drame,
(2017); and Koziel, Hall, Rambo, Randell, and Vigneau (2018) also cite edTPA candidates
having to grapple with high levels of stress during their preservice teaching experience.
When evaluating the open survey knowledge comments and interviewee transcripts, the
findings indicate alignment to the literature concerning candidates experiencing anxiety and
stress. Themes emerged of tedious, stressful, and burdensome experiences with the edTPA, as
reported by the 33 survey participants who recorded comments and 4 interview participants.
Table 13 displays these themes.
Table 13
Participant Reported Intrinsic Cognitive Load Themes
Theme 1: edTPA caused anxiety Theme 2: edTPA was a burden
• edTPA was tedious
• edTPA was stressful
• Process of writing about video
analysis was overwhelming
• edTPA recording time too short to
demonstrate assessed skills; caused
candidate anxiety/anxiousness
• edTPA was added step and more costs
than benefits
• edTPA was a nuisance
• edTPA is too time consuming
• edTPA not aligned with realities of
classroom

Example participant experiences as related to theme 1 and 2 of this knowledge domain
were prevalent. One survey participant shared that, “I have not yet submitted my edTPA because
I have so much stress and anxiety surrounding it that it makes me physically ill, and I go into
panic.” “The edTPA was a very stressful process” shared another survey respondent. “The
edTPA was an added stressor that pulled me away from those tasks (curriculum planning)” wrote
one survey participant. “It’s has been a stressful exam” shared another survey participant.
“edTPA …just add stress for whoever wants to become a teacher” another survey participant

99

shared. One survey respondent wrote, “The edTPA was merely a summary of everything of what
I`ve learned to this point with a huge dose of stress.” One open comment shared:
“The edTPA was a nuisance at best and played no significant role in my overall ability to
teach. It was a hurdle that needed to be jumped through. In my opinion, the stress and
time associated with completing the edTPA is not worth it, considering the little impact it
has on my teaching now.”
Four of the interview participants stuck a similar tone as the those who shared comments
on the survey with respect to the edTPA causing candidate stress and anxiety. Participant 2
shared the edTPA process was “nerve-wracking” in the sense of trying to connect MAT program
experiences with requirements of the portfolio submission. The same candidate shared that the
last semester became very “stressful” managing the demands of the MAT course work in parallel
to the edTPA expectations. According to interviewee 1, “I don’t feel it (edTPA) impacted me
except for maybe a bit more anxiety about it just because it was such a monstrous thing.”
Interviewee 4 shared:
“…the edTPA is burning out young passionate teachers before they even enter their first
year of teaching because it is so time-consuming to complete. It’s a bar exam or medical
exam…It’s six to eight weeks of your life on top of a master's degree program, on top of
student teaching, you know, on top of basically having to live to write and be an adult
and self-care. I consider the edTPA dehumanizing.”
The frequency of the open survey comments and the interviewees' comments on
experiencing anxiety and stress during their edTPA suggests a potential gap in candidates' ability
to manage their intrinsic cognitive load. Therefore, this knowledge domain is be considered a
need.

100

Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge entails an individual developing knowledge in three areas: (a)
strategic knowledge concerning the subject matter and the use of heuristics, (b) knowledge about
cognitive tasks and the cognitive demands of differing teaching demands and, (c) self-knowledge
in respect to one’s own understanding of their ability and strengths and weaknesses on a given
task (Anderson, et al., 2001). The survey items that polled participants on metacognition resulted
in 56% of the sample reporting that they agreed or strongly agreed with the extent that the
edTPA helped them to better identify and understand their areas of strength and growth as a
student teacher. After completing the edTPA, 54% of respondents shared that they agreed or
strongly agreed that their edTPA experience helped them to develop a range of teaching
strategies and knowing when to use them. Table 14 captures this outcome.
Table 14
Participant Reported Knowledge: Metacognitive
Survey Item
Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
Overall, to what extent do you agree that the
edTPA helped you to better identify and
understand your areas of strength and growth
as a student teacher?

56%
Now that you have completed the edTPA, to
what extent do you agree that the experience
helped you to develop a range of teaching
strategies and knowing when to use them?
54%

The item that surveyed participants on the extent that they felt the edTPA helped them to
better identify and understand their areas of strength and growth as a student teacher saw 23
participants leave commentary feedback agreeing with the item. The findings from the open
knowledge survey comments and 5 interviewees' responses described how the performance
assessments helped them to make a connection to their self-perceived use of meta-cognitive

101

practices. A theme emerged, suggesting that the edTPA prompted candidates to evaluate their
teaching and identify their strengths and areas of development. Table 15 shows this theme.
Table 15
Participant Reported Meta-Cognitive Theme
Theme: edTPA promoted candidates to engage
meta-cognitive practices
Theme: edTPA video performance
assessment importance

• edTPA helped candidates to reflect on the
process of teaching
• edTPA performance assessments prompted
candidate rehearsal, enactment, reflection,
and future planning
• edTPA process helped candidate to think
about school environment, socio-economic
status of students leading to their assessment
of their own teaching strategies to meet
these needs
• Writing commentaries about their own
teaching helped facilitate reflection and
future planning

• Review of recorded teaching
helped candidates focus on their
own teacher practices
• Observation of recorded
teaching segments helped
candidate validate when
learning was and was not
happening
• Reviewing recording of own
teaching prompted candidate
reflection
• Video analysis prompted
candidate rehearsal for future
teaching

The theme that emerged from the participants indicated that they engaged meta-cognitive
practices as a result of the edTPA. For instance, one survey participant wrote, “The edTPA does
help with honing skills and practices…The whole edTPA process is a great resource for teachers
in that it forces you to focus on every last detail.” Another survey participant wrote, “The intent
of the of the edTPA is good and helpful for practicing and developing the teaching cycle as a
student teacher.” One survey participant echoed that the edTPA was useful in developing their
teaching skills by writing, “The edTPA helped me plan as a teacher my lessons plans, prepare for
misconceptions, reflect on student data and make sure to plan an appropriate reteach lessons for
effective teaching.” Finally, one survey respondent shared:
“…as a teacher I have grown throughout the program when working on my teaching
tasks, TLEs, reflecting weekly on my teaching, teaching daily in the classroom,

102

throughout the discussion with my guided practice instructor and my classmates. These
were times when I have grown as a teacher.”
Likewise, the findings from 5 interviewees' responses described the edTPA linking them
to meta-cognitive practices by describing the role that the edTPA played in their understanding
of their teaching. Five interviewees aligned with this view. Interviewee 5 shared:
“The edTPA made me think about…myself teaching; if something didn’t work out
(teaching), why didn’t it go well? Or, how do I switch things up to make sure all students
understand what’s going on in learning?”
Interviewee 7 described how MAT coursework feedback to candidates was meaningful
to prompt reflection, “…feedback from my professors on assignments…that was more
meaningful. They knew me as a growing teacher…” Interviewee 2 described how student
teaching allowed theory to be put into practice when developing strategies to understand their
strengths and areas of development in the classroom by sharing that “…experiences in the
classroom helped me for the edTPA because I had a better understanding of exactly what goes
into my practice.” By learning from their own teaching experiences, study participants
demonstrated how they believed that they developed strategic knowledge, knowledge about
cognitive tasks, and self-knowledge.
As for the item that evaluated if the edTPA experience helped participants to develop a
range of teaching strategies and knowing when to use them, a theme emerged that showed the
importance of the video performance assessment. Four interviewees shared how they felt the
video performance assessment developed their range of teaching strategies. Interviewee shared 3:
“I am talking about reflection and seeing yourself on video and seeing what your students
are saying, how they are behaving, what their facial expressions are, catching all the
things that you’re saying…that’s good practice.”

103

Interviewee 8 shared their experience about the video performance assessment by
commenting, “The edTPA allowed me to reflect on the process which was helpful to help me
recognize how I could successfully plan for future classes.” Interviewee 7 explained, “…having
to analyze my video so deeply, and the assessment I gave my students, allowed me to improve
my teaching practices.” Finally, interviewee 2 articulated that:
“…going back to look at my recording, because as a teacher, you always want to see your
teacher moves. …it (video) was my most eye-opening experience because I saw either
my students learning, or I could see where disconnect in student learning was. …with my
mentor teacher, we were both able to catch different moments in learning that we wanted
to improve my skills on.”
The feedback from the survey comments and interviewees have developed themes that
suggest preservice teachers were able to engage with meta-cognitive practices by acting on
feedback from program faculty, classroom mentor teachers, and their interactions with the
assessments of the edTPA. While results on the survey items do not give the majority to either
the asset or need of the knowledge domain, the open comments and interviewees point to the
knowledge domain as an asset.
Research Question 2
How do motivational constructs influence MAT preservice teachers as they develop their
teaching abilities and their edTPA portfolio?
Motivation
The process in which an individual develops positive or negative beliefs as learners is
what influences one's motivation (Rueda, 2011). Belief-based knowledge is one’s belief in how
well they can learn or perform a task, which primarily affects their motivation (Mayer, 2011).

104

Clark and Estes (2008) explain how three elements related to motivation interact with learners:
(a) the learner chooses to engage the activity, (b) is persistent in working towards the goal, and
(c) puts mental effort into the task. When these elements of motivation merge with knowledge
factors, there is increased performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section of the study reports
on the results of the survey and findings from the open comments along with the interviewee
participant feedback as related to the motivation influences on MAT preservice teachers as they
develop their teaching abilities and their edTPA portfolio.
Self-regulation and reflective practice
Self-regulation is one’s ability to develop regulatory mechanisms to plan for
performances, monitor performances while in the act of doing, and evaluating post-performance
strengths and weaknesses (Wigfield, Klauda, and Cambria, 2011). Reflective praxis is when
preservice teachers make meaning from their training and student teaching experiences that lead
to deeper thinking and reflection (Barrera & Dowell, 2017). These two constructs intersect as the
MAT has a built-in reflective teaching cycle framework that aligns with expectations of the
edTPA. The cycle engages preservice teachers in a series of evidence-based inquiry, rehearsal,
application, and reflection practices throughout their courses and during fieldwork application of
instructional activities and models of teaching (MAT Program Chair presentation, 2019a).
One item that surveyed participants' sense of self-regulation concerning the edTPA
process serving as a cycle of planning, monitoring, and evaluation of their teaching. The majority
of survey participants, 71%, agreed or strongly agreed that the edTPA process served as a cycle
of planning, monitoring, and evaluating their teaching. The participants that disagreed with this
item stood at 29%. Table 16 captures the result of this item.

105

Table 16
Participant Reported Motivation: Self-Regulatory Process
Survey Item
Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
Overall, to what extent do you agree that the
edTPA process served as a cycle of planning,
monitoring, and evaluating of your own
teaching?
71%

The open commenting item in the motivation section on the survey had 31 participants
leave feedback of the 150 participants. The 20 open comments on the survey section of
motivation suggested a theme that the edTPA promoted monitoring of candidates' own teaching
as the process broke down the stages of teaching to encourage deeper reflection. 4 interviewees’
feedback presented a theme that suggesting that the MAT program developed candidates' ability
to engage cycles of planning. Equally, four interviewees shared that student teaching contributed
to candidates' development of cycles of planning, peer and self-monitoring, and evaluation of
practice. Table 17 shares the qualitative themes associated with self-regulation.
Table 17
Participant Reported Self-Regulatory Themes
Theme 1: edTPA prompted candidate
monitoring of own teaching and reflection
Theme 2: MAT & student teaching helped
candidates to develop cycles of planning

• edTPA broke down stages of teaching
to promote reflection
• edTPA promoted self-monitoring of
teaching
• Filming of own teaching contributed
to self-reflection
• edTPA was valuable in helping
candidate develop planning for skill-
based lessons and methods of
assessment of learning
• edTPA assessments helped candidate
to engage a reflective cycle of their
own practice
• Developed skills of cycles of planning
from MAT, but further consolidated
them during the edTPA

106

Examples of survey and interview responses related to this motivation domain are
provided to give insight into the 2 themes. “I think the process is useful for self-evaluation in
planning for effective teaching…” commented one survey participant. Another survey
participant shared, “…the edTPA clearly broke down the stages of teaching to promote
reflection…” One survey participant commented, “The process of filming myself teaching paired
with the structured reflection of the assessment was definitely beneficial.” Finally, a survey
participant concluded:
“Self-monitoring myself for the edTPA has better prepared me for teaching because I
have to manage my own time to complete various goals. So overall, the edTPA process
and MAT helped me grow as an educator by giving me a preview as a teacher to develop
my teaching, analyzing, and reteaching plans.”
Interviewee 7 shared, “…reflection and the observation practice in the classroom… was
the thing that sparked those insights (evaluation of own teaching).” “I felt like those things
(cycles of planning) were things that I learned in the classroom” another interviewee participant
responded.
There was difference of opinions between the interviewees on the role the edTPA played
in planning cycles of teaching and self-evaluation. On the one hand, half of the interviewees felt
that the edTPA did not play a role in supporting their ability in planning cycles of teaching and
promotion of their own self-evaluation. On the other hand, the other half of interviewees reported
that the edTPA did support their ability to develop cycles of planning and their own sense of
self-evaluation. However, 7 of 8 interviewees indicated that the edTPA was a consolidated
means of assessing their understanding of those practices. Interviewee 3 stated that “I actually
thought about cycles of learning, but it was not through the edTPA but through talking to my
professors, my colleagues, or my guiding teachers.” Interviewee 8 shared, “...after I did the

107

edTPA, I was a little more conscientious of my actions in the classroom.” Interviewee discussed,
“…where I got the skill set was from the MAT, not necessarily the edTPA; that kind of just
tested for it.” Finally, interviewee 4 articulated that:
“I was already undergoing that…like the same cycles of planning when doing my
assignments for the program. I did not learn that from the edTPA, but I guess it was a
good time to practice that.”
The survey and interview responses indicate that the motivational domain of self-
regulation is an asset to the program. While the qualitative data suggested difference of opinion
of the role the edTPA played in developing candidates in this motivational domain, the findings
of the survey reported the majority of survey participants -71%- indicated that the edTPA served
as a means of measuring and consolidating their teaching abilities in planning instructional
cycles. The findings of the survey comments and interviews also indicate a participant self-
perception that the edTPA promotes meaning making from the experiences of engaging the
portfolio requirements of artifacts and commentaries.
Self-efficacy theory
When an individual believes they are capable of success on a task, then it is more
probable to be successfully completed. In contrast, when an individual believes their chances of
success are low, then one’s motivation is diminished, and engagement and completion of the task
are low. Self-efficacy is the extent to which an individual believes they can accomplish a task
(Bandura, 1991). The degree of self-efficacy preservice teachers develop during their training
and student teaching is vital as they will need the confidence to become more independent and
effective classroom teachers. The item on the survey related to preservice teacher self-efficacy
found that 45% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the edTPA process increased their

108

confidence in their teaching abilities. Those who disagreed or strongly disagreed stood at 55%.
Table 18 depicts this result.
Table 18
Participant Reported Motivation: Self-Efficacy
Item
Total Percentage of Participants Who Agree
or Strongly Agree
Overall, to what extent do you agree that the
edTPA process increased your confidence in
your teaching abilities?
45%

Drawing from the open survey comments and interviewee feedback participants
perceived a theme that the edTPA was not the primary driver of developing their own confidence
as related to their teaching abilities. Instead, 19 survey participants and four interviewees
reported a theme that student teaching and feedback from other stakeholders influenced
participant self-efficacy positively. In some cases, the edTPA was responsible for diminishing
candidates' self-efficacy, notably due to lack of feedback. Table 19 captures participant self-
efficacy themes.
Table 19
Participant Reported Self-Efficacy Themes
Theme 1: edTPA did not develop candidates’
self-efficacy towards teaching
Theme 2: Student teaching experience
developed candidates’ self-efficacy towards
teaching
• edTPA tore diminished candidates’
confidence
• edTPA did not build candidates’
capacity to impact student learning;
• The lack of feedback during and after
the edTPA impacted candidate
confidence
• Student teaching experience supported
candidates’ development to impact
student learning
• Program faculty and mentor teachers
helped candidates develop stronger
self-efficacy towards teaching
• Teaching confidence is developed
over time in the classroom

109

Provided are several examples of participant feedback that contributed to the two
identified self-efficacy themes. One survey respondent commented:
“The edTPA tore down my confidence. I failed my first time and thought I was an awful
teacher and could never be a teacher. The way my guiding teacher, students, and
professors taught me is what shaped the teacher I am today, not the edTPA.”
Another response from the survey comments shared, “I never really felt confident in what
I was submitting because I knew it was up to the interpretation of whoever was reading it. I feel
like I spent so much time second-guessing myself…”
A survey respondent echoed by stating:
“I was not confident in my first submission and wanted more insight on how I could
improve it (portfolio) but was sadly not given the assistance I needed. I spent so much
time, probably more than necessary, reading my entire submission over and over again
and constantly tweaking and adding to it. However, it was not enough, and I spent even
more time on it the second time around.”
Four interviewees shared their confidence was developed by the MAT program and
during their student teaching experience alongside their mentor teacher, not so much the edTPA.
For example, Interviewee 4 shared:
“…the edTPA is just another test…I couldn’t get actual feedback from the edTPA. The
only thing that was actually helping me along the way was talking to my guiding teachers
and have them see me firsthand do certain things. …they gave me some advice or
feedback.”
Interviewee 1 reiterated that the edTPA did not develop their confidence:

110

“…towards the end of my student teaching I began doing the edTPA but I feel like my
MAT classes or my guided practice class, as well as my discussions with my guiding
teacher, prepared me more to take that lead role and feel confident about going through a
lesson with multiple classes.”
Likewise, interviewee 6 shared:
“…I am able to develop confidence in the classroom. …the edTPA could not contribute
to that. Actually, the edTPA takes away from that…since the edTPA consumes so much
time, it inhibits my ability to teach because I am basically micromanaged…”
In sum, seven of the eight interview participants shared that the edTPA did not contribute
to the development of their confidence. However, they did share the significant role of working
through their student teaching, MAT coursework, and receiving feedback from their mentor
teachers as critical drivers of their confidence building. Building on the theme of lack of edTPA
feedback leading to an impact on candidate confidence, it is relevant to note that the State
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (SCTC) has very explicit guidance on offering candidates
support and feedback on their edTPA artifacts and commentaries. Specifically, the SCTC
outlines several TPA support activities that programs can provide to the candidate, but they are
not required. For instance, the SCTC states programs can support by “Asking probing questions
about the candidate draft TPA responses, without providing draft edits or specific suggestions
about the candidate work.”
The survey item results, and qualitative findings suggest that the edTPA is not a positive
influence on candidates' development of their self-efficacy. The survey item related to self-
efficacy was near the 43.5% margin of error for the minority at 45%. In alignment with
explanatory mixed methods design the study design calls for the qualitative results to be used

111

further to interpret and explain the quantitative findings, especially since the results did not bear
majority and neared minority margin of error. The open comments and interviewee feedback
suggest preservice teacher self-efficacy was leveraged through student teaching experiences and
interactions with program stakeholder feedback. Yet, the edTPA is a requirement and therefore
this motivation domain is a program need. However, the program, including mentor teachers,
might choose to exercise the supports they can provide in terms of edTPA artifact and
commentary feedback to better support candidates through the process.
Expectancy Value
Expectancy value motivational theory states when an individual places a high value on a
task, the more likely they are to be engaged and successfully complete it; this theory in practice
is referred to as utility value (Eccles, 2006). In contrast, the opposite is true when the value on a
task is low for an individual. To be awarded a preliminary state teaching credential, candidates in
the program must pass the edTPA. Ressler et al. (2017) surveyed 71 teachers in training who
submitted the edTPA in 2015 at their university, and the survey data suggested mixed views on
the value of the edTPA. Some studies have indicated that preparation programs and preservice
teachers have not valued the edTPA (Behizadeh & Neely, 2019; McConville, 2014; McKenna,
2014; Ressler et al., 2017).
The item that surveyed participants' belief regarding the extent that the edTPA portfolio
process influenced their development as a teacher reported that 54% of participants agreed or
strongly agreed. 46% of survey participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the item. The
second survey item related to utility value asked respondents to share if the edTPA was a good
use of their time; 62% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed compared to 38% who
agreed or strongly agreed. Table 20 captures these two item results.

112

Table 20
Participant Reported Motivation: Utility Value
Survey Item
Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
During the process of constructing your
edTPA portfolio, to what extent do you agree
that the process influenced your development
as a teacher?
54%
Overall, to what extent do you agree that the
edTPA was an effective use of your time?
38%

The open motivation survey comments from 26 participants identified a theme that the
edTPA process did not develop their teaching abilities when they were teachers in training.
Subthemes emerged that the edTPA was not able to evaluate effective teaching given its rigid
technical requirements. Similarly, themes from 4 of the interview participants developed a theme
that the edTPA was not an effective evaluation of their teaching nor a good use of their time.
Table 21 captures the established themes.
Table 21
Participant Reported Utility Value Themes

Theme 1: edTPA did not
develop candidate teaching
abilities
Theme 2: edTPA was too
rigid & technical in its
requirements
Theme 3: edTPA was not a good
use of candidate time
• edTPA does not
develop candidates’
classroom
management/student
interaction skills
• edTPA is not helpful
in helping
candidates’
understand traits of
a successful teacher

• Time spent on the
preparing the edTPA
takes focus away
from teaching
• Significant amount of
time is wasted as a
result of preparing,
writing, editing
commentaries
• writing and rules are
excessive
• edTPA video clip
cannot demonstrate
full ability of
candidates’ teaching
• edTPA just a final hurdle
to get through
• edTPA just a gate
keeping experience
• edTPA was a
bureaucratic process
• edTPA not an authentic
evaluation of candidates
teaching abilities

113

26 survey participants who left comments shared feedback that revealed they felt that the
edTPA played little, if any, part in developing their teaching abilities. Examples from comments
and interviewees are provided. For instance, one survey participant shared:
“The edTPA requires so much stuff not related to teaching, such as editing videos,
compressing videos, dissecting rubrics, and reading manuals that there is little time left to
actually prepare to teach.”
Another survey participant wrote:
“The assessment focuses too much on technicalities of submission. I spent more time
figuring out how to meet the writing and evidentiary requirements than I did developing
my lesson plans” commented another survey respondent.
Additionally, one survey participant shared:
“…many of their questions are so redundant that significant amounts of time are wasted
in preparing, writing, editing, and reading on the part of the evaluators. The edTPA is not
necessarily helpful in some other practical aspects of teaching, such as classroom
management.”
The 26 survey respondents shared in sum that the edTPA was not a clear indicator their
teaching ability and is just a final hurdle to jump through; the edTPA was just an exam and not
an authentic evaluation of teaching. One survey participant shared a comment that
communicated, “Unfortunately, the edTPA was a test; any test is not a clear indication of one’s
teaching or learning abilities.” Another survey participant wrote:

114

“…many students needed to shovel out hundreds of dollars, and stressful hours, just to
pass an arbitrary collection of 'stuff' that in no way proves that I am a good or bad
teacher.”
Finally, another survey participant echoed the theme by responding that:
“At the end, it was about passing and not the process. I didn’t even bother to read the
edTPA commentary/feedback. I cared more about what my professors and mentor teacher
had to say; edTPA is an overblown test.”
Similar responses emerged when looking at the interviewee respondent answers related to
the edTPA process as an effective and authentic evaluation of their teaching and use of time.
Specifically, a theme emerged from 5 interviewees who shared the edTPA was not an authentic
evaluation of their teaching abilities. For instance, interviewee 4 discussed how “the whole
process felt inauthentic” while interviewee 3 shared that the “edTPA is problematic…large one
size fits all tests are problematic.” Interviewee 7 expressed, “I feel as though recording
yourself…it’s not really a whole picture of how you teach. It is just a little snapshot.”
The same interview participants shared concerns of the edTPA inconsistencies with
respect to the fairness of portfolio evaluation scores. Interviewees shared how they felt the
edTPA evaluators have no way of knowing the intricacies of their student teaching experiences
compared to the stakeholders from the MAT program or mentor teachers. Interviewee 8 shared:
“Your entire livelihood or your ability to be a teacher is just graded on that small little
portion, that small commentary, that 20-minute video. They don’t know who we are as an
individual.”
Interviewee 6, who is now on his 5
th
edTPA submission attempt shared:

115

“My first submission I got a 36. So, when I redid it, I wrote the max page limit for each
page and made edits. I got a 36 again and I thought how, I rewrote the whole thing? I
even checked to see if I mistakenly resubmitted the first submission. My third attempt I
submitted the second submission again without changing a word; I just sent it off again.
When they sent it back my score was a 39! That kind of discrepancy is alarming.”
On average, 124 survey participants shared that they spend 65 hours completing their
edTPA portfolio until submission. Figure 2 reports the full break down of time participants
reported spending developing their edTPA portfolio to submission.

Figure 2: Participant Reported Time Spent in Hours on the edTPA Portfolio
15 survey respondents shared relatable feedback that their well-being was compromised;
the edTPA process may contribute to teacher burnout. Additionally, it was reported by these
survey participants that the edTPA assessment was serving as potential gatekeeper to the
profession. “…the edTPA is burning out young passionate teachers before they even enter their
first year of teaching because it is so time consuming to complete.” Another survey respondent
12
24
21 21
8
9
13
4
16
1 TO 15
HRS
16 TO 30
HRS
31 TO 45
HRS
46 TO 60
HRS
61 TO 75
HRS
76 TO 90
HRS
91 TO 105
HRS
106 TO
120 HRS
OVER 120
HRS
Reported Time Spent on edTPA
Portfilio by Participant
1 to 15 hrs 16 to 30 hrs 31 to 45 hrs 46 to 60 hrs 61 to 75 hrs
76 to 90 hrs 91 to 105 hrs 106 to 120 hrs Over 120 hrs

116

commented that, “No positive comments on the EdTPA. The process encouraged me to leave the
profession.” One interviewee expressed, “…I thought it (edTPA) was a total waste of my time.
Does the edTPA contribute to the pedagogy of poverty? …maybe this is a detractor from
education, not a contributor.”
When interviewee participants were asked if the edTPA was a good use of their time, 6
participants shared that the process was not. These participants cited that the edTPA process was
not a good use of time because it detracted them away from their day to day classroom planning
needs and interactions with students. “I don’t think it (edTPA) really added much to my teaching
practice” interviewee 8 claimed. Interviewee 1 shared:
“…absolutely not. …so much time was actually put into the edTPA; countless hours.
Time spent on the edTPA could have been better used. I didn’t really learn anything from
the process…because I didn’t learn anything new or additional…putting that much time
on it, I don’t really value it.”
While the SCTC mandates that in order to gain credentialing candidates must undertake
an external TPA the reported survey results on utility items and the qualitative findings suggest
that participants of the study had low utility value for the edTPA as a process. In sum, the edTPA
was not a good use of participant time. This finding validates the motivational influence of utility
value as a need.
Research Question 3
What organizational influences contribute to the success, or lack of, MAT preservice
teachers’ edTPA scores?

117

Organization
Organizational culture inevitably influences efforts to improve performance and
organizational change effectiveness depends on accounting for organizational culture (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Organizational culture is referred to by researchers and managers as a concept of
climate and practices that organizations develop around the handling of people, or the “espoused
values and credo” of an organization (Schein, 2004, p. 7). This section reports on two
organizational domains: (a) cultural models, and (b) cultural settings. Cultural models are usually
invisible as communities or groups share evolved ways of perceiving, thinking, and storing
possible responses to challenges and changes (Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo, 1996). Whereas,
cultural settings are described as the polices, practices, rewards, and punishments that are visible
within cultural settings and influence organizational climates greatly (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo,
1996). The results and findings of the two organizational domains impacting study participant
interactions with the edTPA are reported on in this section.
Cultural model 1: organizational human resource frame
Bolman and Deal (2013) articulate that the development of human needs by an
organization is a central element in everyday psychology and conditions in the environment that
allow individuals to grow. The survey item related to the cultural model of the human resource
frame surveyed participants views on the extent that program faculty provided them mentorship
and feedback on their edTPA experience. The survey results found that 74% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed compared to 26% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Table 22
shows these results.

118

Table 22
Participant Reported Cultural Model: Faculty Mentorship and Feedback
Survey Item Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
Overall, to what extent do you agree that
program faculty provided you with feedback
and mentorship about your teaching during
your edTPA experience?
74%

14 survey participants of 42 who left comments in the organizational survey section and 4
interviewee participants reported that MAT faculty did not provide mentorship and support with
respect to their edTPA. When coding the open survey comments and interviewee participants
feedback empirical codes emerged describing candidates perception that MAT faculty lacked a
full conceptual understanding of all edTPA requirements, and they did not have the practical
experience given that assessments were a recent credentialing requirement. Table 23 displays the
theme.
Table 23
Participant Reported Cultural Model 1 Theme
Theme: MAT faculty lacked conceptual and practical understanding of the edTPA

• MAT faculty never sat the edTPA as candidates
• The edTPA is a new credential requirement and faculty have little
experience in practice

The reason cited for lack of mentorship and support emerged into a theme that program
faculty did not have a solid conceptual understanding of the edTPA and its requirements. For
example, one survey participant commented, “Professors…need to be more knowledgeable about
necessary specifics to consider to be included in the edTPA.” Another commented, “My guided
teacher did not have a good understanding of what the edTPA was. He had difficulty helping me

119

or providing the time I needed for edTPA.” One wrote “…the vast majority of the professors
were unaware of the specifics for the assessment.” Interviewee 8 shared:
“She (edTPA coordinator) gives me different feedback every time. …last time I
submitted it I worked with her for 2 months, sent it (edTPA commentaries) back and forth.
…right before I submitted, we were on the phone for like an hour, going through it (portfolio)
line by line and she told me it looked fine. …when I got my score back, which was a 40 and you
need 41 to pass, we looked at it again and she started pointing out areas of improvement. I sat
there thinking why you didn’t point these areas out before I submitted it?”
18 study participants, both survey and interviewee, shared their concerns of the edTPA
being relatively new. Subsequently, the theme of the lack of MAT professor experience and own
training and interaction with the edTPA was prevalent. For instance, in reference to the edTPA,
“…(professors) limited because the edTPA is so new. Many of the professors themselves have
read about it or heard about it but have not done it themselves. They lack experience” shared
interviewee 7. Interviewee 3 shared, “…faculty advisors should be required to take and pass it.
Having individuals who have never taken the assessment prepare us for it seems counter-
intuitive.” One survey candidate shared:
“The professor certified by Pearson to evaluate edTPA was far and away the most
valuable source of advice. Other professors, while having useful professional knowledge,
can only do so much to prep students for a test they aren't qualified to grade and have
possibly never taken themselves.”
The survey response to the item associated with cultural model 1reports a majority at
74%. The qualitative findings suggest that MAT faculty are professional and well-intended in
their desire to support candidates but may lack experience with the edTPA given its recent

120

release; many professors may have never sat the assessment themselves or may lack the training
from Pearson education to be an evaluator of the assessments. Given the established criteria of
validating each domain an asset or need based on the survey results reporting 56.5% or higher,
cultural model 1 is therefore validated asset.
Cultural model 2: organizational political frame
The organization political frame views organizations as places where coalitions of
different individuals and interest groups interact; coalition members have enduring differences in
values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The
edTPA has had both advocates and critics. Those who advocate for the edTPA point to the
process as educative for all involved stakeholders compared to critics who argue the edTPA is a
controversial license requirement (AACTE, 2018; Adkins, 2016.; Carter & Lochte, 2017;
Pecheone & Whittaker, 2016; Ressler, King, & Nelson, 2017; and Seymour, Burns, & Henry,
2018). One study conducted by Ledwell and Oyler (2016) surveyed edTPA preservice teacher
programs across 12 colleges within their university and asked programs to report the curriculum
decisions that were made in response to the edTPA requirement to obtain licensure and found 10
programs made curriculum decisions to marginalize the edTPA despite the edTPA being a state
mandated licensure requirement.
The MAT program redesign aimed to integrate and engage its candidates in a teaching
cycle that developed candidates’ assessment-literacy through the use - of performance
assessments. Most of the program assessments include various components that are backward
aligned with the edTPA. The two survey items related to the cultural model of the political frame
aimed to measure survey participants' experience with the MAT program coursework in terms of
its alignment with the edTPA, and subsequent preparedness to undertake the portfolio. 75% of

121

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that MAT program key assessments prepared them for
successful completion of the edTPA compared to 25% who disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Likewise, 78% reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that the edTPA materials provided
by the MAT program were supportive. Table 24 captures the results.
Table 24
Participant Reported Cultural Model: MAT Program Alignment with the edTPA
Survey Item Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
Overall, to what extent do you agree that the
program key assessments prepared you for
successful completion of the edTPA?
75%
Overall, to what extent do you agree that the
edTPA materials provided to you by the MAT
Program were supportive?
78%

In the organization survey comment section less than 10 participants did not leave
feedback related to the cultural model 2 item that aimed to understand the extent program key
assessments prepared candidates for their edTPA. Therefore, survey comments related to this
item will not be considered with the interviewee feedback when suggesting a theme as
established in the data analysis criteria. After evaluating the interviewee responses, 5
interviewees reported a theme that they felt there was alignment between the MAT program key
assessments and the edTPA better positioning them to engage the edTPA.
Concerning the item that measured the supportiveness of the edTPA materials provided
by the program 11 survey participants and 4 interviewees commented in sum that the materials
were useful in supporting their understanding of how to prepare edTPA commentaries and
artifacts. Samples of mock candidate edTPA’s along with the scoring rubrics were reported to
have been shared and graded collaboratively in MAT classes. Cultural model 2 themes are
displayed in table on the next page 25.

122

Table 25
Participant Reported Cultural Model 2 Themes
Theme 1: Alignment between MAT Key
Assessments and edTPA
Theme 2: MAT provided edTPA materials
supported candidates with developing their
artifacts and commentaries
• Program key assessments reflected
edTPA assessments
• Mini TPA’s build candidates
understanding of edTPA video
requirements
• Mini TPA feedback helped candidate
plan for future expectations of the
edTPA.
• edTPA rubrics were useful
• exemplar edTPA's were useful: video
samples, writing, verbiage and
language use
• MAT provided section templates to
help candidate organize edTPA
commentaries

Concerning the program key assessments and their alignment to the edTPA theme,
Interviewee 1 shared, “overall, the process is aligned” while another interviewee shared that “the
MAT program tried its best to replicate what would be on the edTPA.” Interviewee 2 discussed
MAT program alignment with the edTPA by sharing:
“I believe that they almost mirror…when you start your student teaching you had to
submit the same videos, you had to analyze yourself, you had to go through the whole
process. It was a mock edTPA…”
Interviewee 6 stated, “I feel as though the MAT program was stronger because the
faculty prepare students consistently with feedback that is similar to the edTPA.”
The theme that 11 survey participants and 4 interviewees shared as related the benefit of
program provided edTPA support materials supported the 78% of those who agreed or strongly
agreed on the survey item. One commented on the survey that:
“…especially in our guiding practice classes because that was actually putting the edTPA
into practice. …those classes helped us with the planning portion, the teaching and the

123

assessment, understanding what goes into them (teaching performance assessments) and
why they are so important.”
Assessment commentary templates were provided to candidates to manage each edTPA
section. This was reported to greatly support candidates by survey respondents. For example, one
survey respondent wrote, “…they were essentially mini edTPAs. We were pretty adept at the
filming and assessing our own teaching and student learning reviewing our assessments.”
Interview participants also shared the value in materials provided by the program. An
interviewee participant also shared:
“…everything the MAT was allowed to give us and prepare us for what the edTPA
would like was provided. The formatting, what sort of language, and verbiage and key
phrases and buzzwords that were going to be expected…. We were prepared when it
came time to actually sit down and write the thing.”
This cultural model organizational domain is an asset for the program. Demonstrably, there have
been curriculum decisions made within the program that integrate and align the requirements of
the edTPA. The results from survey and participant commentary and interview feedback validate
this cultural model 2 organizational influence as an asset.
Cultural setting 1: effective teacher training and assessment models
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural settings as a setting where people form
in a group over time to accomplish something and are embedded by the “ecological niche” in
which they are set (p. 47). Teacher preparation programs that connect program coursework,
student teaching placement experiences, and teacher performance assessments that require

124

demonstration of essential teaching skills build the core competencies first year teachers need
when they enter the profession (AACTE, 2018b).
The survey item that measured the extent that participants agreed if the MAT program
messaged that the edTPA was an important set of assessments aimed at developing their teaching
abilities polled favorably; 81% agreed or strongly agreed with the item compared to 19% who
disagreed or strongly disagreed. Table 26 shared the items result.
Table 26
Participant Reported Cultural Setting: Faculty Messaged Importance of edTPA
Survey Item
Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
Overall, to what extent do you agree that the
MAT program communicated the edTPA to
be an important set of assessments aimed at
developing your teaching effectiveness?
81%

In the organization survey comment section less than 10 participants did not leave
feedback related to the cultural setting 1 item that aimed to understand the extent that the MAT
program communicated the edTPA to be an important part of candidate teaching effectiveness.
Therefore, survey comments related to this item will not be considered with the interviewee
feedback when suggesting a theme as established in the data analysis criteria. After evaluating
interviewee feedback a theme developed demonstrating that 5 interview participants shared that
their MAT guided practice classes were connected to their student teaching experience.
Interviewees reported the connection helped them gain exposure to professional expectations and
pedagogies. Table 27 shows the theme and associated empirical codes.

125

Table 27
Participant Reported Cultural Setting 1 Theme
Theme: Program guided practice connected to student teaching experience
• Skills gained in the program were transferable to the classroom
• The guided practice classes connected TPA’s to classroom practice and
informed pedagogical choices

Qualitative interviewee samples demonstrate the established theme. For instance, one
interviewee commented, “I feel that the program was very strong and helpful in providing me
with the skills to learn to teach and acquire the skills to improve my teaching ability.” Another
interviewee discussed how the guided practice classes in the program helped her to “put into
practice” planning, teaching strategies, and assessment into action in the classroom. Interview
participants further shared that the guided practice class connected to expectations of the edTPA
in practice by utilizing the performance assessments of planning, teaching, and assessment.
One interviewee articulated how the program leveraged the edTPA assessments to break
down contexts of the schooling environment that they taught in by encouraging her to think
about questions like, “…how many students are receiving free and reduced lunch? What is the
cultural and ethnic background of your students?” By evaluating such questions, the participant
shared it helped her to break down her planning and pedagogical choices on the edTPA. Another
interviewee shared how the MAT program gave him “…a great educational and training
experience” to “understand and connect” pedagogy to the classroom during their placement.
Finally, one interviewee shared how the performance assessments practiced in the MAT and
eventually on the edTPA prepared her teaching by:
“After being a preservice teacher and now being like an actual teacher in a classroom
every day I can go back and look and like, wow, …I saw either my students learning, or I

126

could see where the disconnect in student learning was. This was my most eye-opening
experience.”
The item that sought to understand the perception of survey candidates’ belief that the
MAT program communicated the edTPA to be an important assessment in their teaching
development stood at 81%. The established theme of the connection between guided practice and
student teaching gives insight towards program communication of TPA’s use in theory and in
practice. Cultural setting 1 is therefore validated as a program asset.
Cultural setting 2: support and mentorship models
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2010) highlighted the need for
preservice teachers to be placed with teacher mentors who have deep expertise, extensive
experience and be matched to similar subject and grade level. Mentoring preservice teachers has
been found to positively impact their teaching competencies, socialization process, and provides
emotional and psychological support (Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwer, Korthagen, & Bergen,
2011). When reporting the results of the two survey items that measured this organizational
construct, 74% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their mentor teacher provided
feedback and mentorship about their teaching compared to 26% who disagreed or strongly
disagreed. Additionally, 71% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the item that
measured if participants felt that their mentor teacher supported them through to the completion
of their edTPA; 29% of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with this item. Table 28
captures the two items results.

127

Table 28
Participant Reported Cultural Setting: Mentorship and Support of Preservice Teachers
Survey Item Total Percentage of Participants who Agree or
Strongly Agree
Overall, to what extent do you agree that
program faculty provided you with feedback
and mentorship about your teaching during
your edTPA experience?
74%
Overall, to what extent do you agree that your
supervising teacher supported you for your
successful completion of the edTPA?
71%

In the organization survey comment section less than 10 participants did not leave
feedback related to the cultural setting 2 items that aimed to understand the extent that program
faculty and supervising teachers provided feedback and mentorship to candidates for successful
completion of their edTPA. Therefore, survey comments related to this item will not be
considered with the interviewee feedback when suggesting a theme. The findings from the
interview discussions surfaced a split of opinion between the interviewees as half of the
participants felt supported and mentored by their student teaching mentor while the other half did
not. In line with the survey result, 4 of the interviewees provided positive feedback regarding the
extent of feedback and mentorship that they received during student teaching and with regard to
the edTPA. However, the other 4 of interviewees reported that they did not receive adequate
mentorship and support with respect to their student teaching and edTPA experience. Table 29
shows the opposing themes.

128

Table 29
Participant Reported Cultural Setting 2 Themes
Theme 1: Candidates were mentored and
supported by student teaching mentor teacher
Theme 2: Candidates were not mentored and
supported by student teaching mentor teacher
• Mentor teachers were supportive of
candidates when they were active
stakeholders in their development
• Mentor teachers were more supportive
when they had a deeper understanding of
the edTPA requirements and expectations
• Mentor teachers were less supportive
of candidates when they were not
knowledgeable of the edTPA
requirements and expectations
• Mentor teachers were less supportive
when they had low utility for edTPA as
credentialing requirement

For example, interviewees were probed to understand the extent that their mentor
teachers supported them with completion of their edTPA. 4 interviewee participants reported
their mentor teacher and supported them with the development of their edTPA. “…my mentor
teacher took edTPA and shared their own portfolio as an example” commented one interviewee.
Another interviewee discussed how her student teacher mentor supported by developing her skill
acquisition needed for the portfolio artifacts by sharing “…she would make sure my artifacts for
the assessments were perfect.” Another interviewee stated “…my guiding mentor teacher was
extremely helpful. …he would talk to me frequently and ask me how my edTPA was going and
if there were any questions, I needed help on.” Finally, one interviewee discussed how their
mentor supported them by providing background info on students such as 504 plans, IEP’s etc…
“…he was very accessible…In regards to artifacts he just really understood why they were so
important…” Two of the interviewees reported that their mentor teachers themselves had
submitted and passed the edTPA. Compared to other interviewee candidates, the researcher
observed that these interviewees appeared to be better positioned with support given their
mentors own experiences with the assessments.
In contrast, the responses from the other 4 interviewee participants suggested that their
level of support and mentorship, especially on the edTPA, was impacted due to lack mentor

129

familiarity with the edTPA. An interviewee shared, “My guided teacher did not have a good
understanding of what the edTPA was. He had difficulty helping me or providing the time I
needed for edTPA.” Another interviewee explained “I did not receive any guidance or support
from my guiding teacher. …she hadn’t gone through this process and she hadn’t even heard of
the (edTPA) process.” Likewise, another interviewee shared “…she didn’t really know anything
about it (edTPA). …I kind of had to introduce her…in terms of the edTPA she was completely
hands off.” An interviewee reported, “My guiding teacher was not informed on what the edTPA
was and could not offer guidance either.” The same interviewee articulated how his mentor
teacher:
“…she (mentor teacher) had been in the profession for 15 year or more. “She kind of had
me just do everything so she didn’t really provide any support. …here is my room and
students. You can do whatever you like. But other than that, she didn’t really provide me
with ideas or help me expand on things much”.
4 interviewee participants reported that their mentor teacher expressed low utility value
with respect to the edTPA as a valuable preservice preparation tool. For instance, one
interviewee shared her mentor teacher’s sediments towards the edTPA “…she was like, this is
ridiculous. This means nothing. She was kind of like, this is not what teaching is.” She went on
to share, “While my supervising teacher knew of the edTPA, she did not provide feedback or
support in that area.” Additionally, other interviewees shared how mentor teacher and school
curriculum expectations interfered with their ability to engage fully with the edTPA. One
interviewee pinpointed this claim by sharing how her mentor teacher had a strong ownership of
her class curriculum. “…it was hard to get her to allow me to make changes and integrate some

130

of the teaching strategies that were necessary to essentially pull off what the edTPA was asking
for.”
The survey results validated the cultural setting 2 organizational domain to be an asset.
Additionally, half of study participants reported they received support and mentorship from their
mentors during their student teaching and edTPA experience. Cultural setting 2 can be validated
as an asset.
Summary of Validated Influences
Table 30, 31, and 32 on the proceeding pages show the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences for this study and their determination as an asset or need.
Table 30
Assumed Knowledge Influences: Determination of Assets or Needs
Assumed Knowledge Influences Asset or
Need

Conceptual
Preservice teachers need to demonstrate
praxis in the skills of planning, instruction, and assessment in
practice and on their edTPA performance assessments.

Asset

Procedural
Preservice teachers need to know how to manage
their intrinsic cognitive load in order to plan for,
enact, and document artifacts that captures their
performance assessments for their edTPA portfolio.

Need

Metacognitive
Preservice teachers need to develop metacognitive
skills needed to improve their practice based on
mentor and faculty feedback and their own
assessment of their teaching effectiveness.

Asset

131

Table 31
Motivation Influences: Determination of Assets or Needs
Assumed Motivation Influences Asset or Need
Self-Regulation: Reflective Praxis
Preservice teachers need to gain meaning from
their student teaching experience that leads
them to deep thinking.

Asset
Self-Regulation
Preservice teachers need to engage the three
separate phases of self-regulation cycle in order
to adjust and adopt their teaching strategies.

Asset

Self-Efficacy
Preservice teachers need to develop a strong
sense of self-efficacy to gain the needed
confidence to effectively teach and influence
student learning outcomes.

Need
Expectancy Value
Preservice teachers need to believe that the
edTPA performance tasks are a valuable and
educative process that benefits their
professional development.

Need

Table 32
Assumed Organizational Influences: Determination of Assets or Needs
Assumed Organizational Influences Asset or Need
Cultural Model 1
Organizational human resource frame. Preservice
teachers’ internalization and acquisition of
effective engagement with the program teaching
cycle needs to be continually monitored and
measured throughout their training by MAT
program assessments to ensure their development.
Asset

132

Table 32
Continued
Cultural Model 2
Organizational political frame. The MAT
program must integrate edTPA requirements into
program curriculum, regardless of members’
differences in values, beliefs, information,
interests, and perceptions of reality towards the
edTPA.
Asset
Cultural Setting 1
Effective teacher training and assessment models.
Preservice teachers need to be trained via a
clinical experience coupled with grounded
performance assessment.

Asset
Cultural Setting 2
Support and mentorship models. Preservice
teachers need to be placed with strong mentorship
and provided with support mechanisms as they
develop teaching competencies.

Asset

In chapter 5, the final chapter of the study, empirical evidence was used to present
recommendations for solutions to the identified procedural knowledge domain and the
motivational domains of self-efficacy and expectancy value. The chapter employs the
Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) as a framework to structure recommendations and
solutions.

133

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Four discussed the results and findings from the survey and 1:1 interviews with
focus on answering the research questions by identifying the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs of preservice teachers as they develop their pedagogical abilities as
measured on their edTPA. The results and findings also consider the KMO influences that
support preservice teachers during their MAT program and how these influences support, or
hinder, their interaction with the development of their edTPA. The results in Chapter Four also
evaluated the interaction of the organizational context with preservice teachers’ knowledge and
motivation. Chapter 5 addresses the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational
solutions in response to the results and findings of chapter 4. The chapter begins with a
discussion of the results and findings and recaps each KMO influence as a validated asset or
need. Then the chapter presents recommendations for practice with solutions to address the
validated needs from an organizational context. Next, the chapter presents a proposed integrated
implementation and evaluation plan for the recommendations through the Kirkpatrick New
World Model (2016) The chapter closes by discussing the study strength and weaknesses and
draws a final conclusion.
Discussion
The vision of the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE), the
designers of the edTPA, was to establish a national framework for teacher preparation; the
edTPA was established to train preservice teachers and measure their competencies aligned with
skills and practices deemed essential to teaching. Historically, literature suggests that there has
been a misalignment between schools of education teacher preparation programing, practice in
the field -student teaching- and focus of program assessments that measures teacher candidate

134

readiness to enter the profession post program completion. The University of the West
underwent a MAT program redesign process with the goal of establishing a coherent program
vision by systematically aligning program assessment tools with one another and with the
edTPA.
This study validated 3 needs; 1 knowledge and 2 motivational. Additionally, the
qualitative phase identified several themes across the KMO constructs. A central focus of the
organizational goal for the MAT program was to redesign its program to create coherent
experiences by aligning program coursework, field placement practice, and the performance
assessments of the edTPA. From a knowledge perspective, the majority of survey participants
validated the conceptual knowledge domain as an asset. Participants in the survey (87%)
reported that they were able to develop and apply their understanding and practice as related to
pedagogy. The majority of participants (72%) reported that they were able to transfer their
acquired skills from program into practice in their classroom placement and in application on the
edTPA.
Additionally, 54%of survey participants, 23 survey comments, and 5 interviewees
reported that they were able to develop and practice strategic knowledge in relation to subject
matter, and their own self-knowledge with respect to their own understanding of their abilities in
multiple areas associated with teaching. This reported perception from study participants
validated the meta-cognitive domain as an asset. Specifically, participants in majority (56%)
reported they were able to develop ability to evaluate their own teaching and best understand
their own areas of strength and development indicating that the edTPA supported preservice
teacher metacognition practices. The procedural knowledge domain of intrinsic cognitive load
was validated as a need. 33 survey participants commented on the survey along with four

135

interviewee participants who identified themes of the anxiety and burden with respect to
completing the edTPA.
Of the motivational constructs, the survey participants (71%) validated self-regulatory
practices as an asset. Survey comments (20) and interviewee feedback (4) supported this
validation by suggesting 2 themes: (a) the edTPA prompted candidate monitoring of their own
teaching and reflection, and (b) the MAT program and student teaching helped candidates
develop cycles of planning. Survey participants (55%) reported that their confidence was not
developed by the edTPA. Likewise, 19 survey participants and 4 interviewees’ feedback
developed into a theme that reported that the edTPA diminished their sense of self-efficacy
towards teaching and instead that student teaching played a more pronounced role in developing
participants’ self-efficacy towards teaching.
Additionally, another motivational need -expectancy value- was validated as a need by
56% of survey participants. A majority of study participants (62%) reported that they found little
value for the edTPA indicating it was not a good use of their time. 26 survey comments and four
Interviewee participants built on the survey findings by suggesting a theme that the MAT
program and student teaching placement mentors were better positioned to understand their areas
of strength and growth; the edTPA was just a test that could not possibly measure -nor
understand- the nuances of their experience throughout the program and student teaching
placement.
Organizationally, the survey participants reported in majority (74%) that the MAT
program faculty provided them mentorship and feedback when they were candidates in the
program. This cultural model -human resource frame- was validated as an asset. Survey
comments (14) and interviewee participants (4) provided more nuanced feedback regarding this

136

cultural model by questioning the extent that faculty could fully understand and deliver specific
knowledge and guidance about the edTPA given that the recent mandate of the assessment as a
credentialing tool. A trend emerged in the qualitative feedback where participants reported that
faculty had never submitted an edTPA of their own and there were questions raised regarding
their experience with the TPAs. Interviewee participants reported that some MAT faculty were
certified by Pearson, the evaluators of the edTPA, and that these faculty were best positioned to
support them during their edTPA experience compared to those who were not.
The majority of survey participants (75%) reported that the MAT program integrated the
expected tasks of the edTPA into the MAT program curriculum validating the organizational
cultural model of the political frame as an asset. Interview participants (5) supported the survey
findings related to edTPA and MAT curriculum alignment by reporting that curriculum choices
made by their faculty were aligned with the expectations and practice of the edTPA driven by
“mini-TPA’s within teaching cycles and the development of their assessment approaches.
Additionally, survey participants (78%) reported that the edTPA support materials provided by
the MAT program were supportive to them. 5 interviewees corroborated the item result by
sharing the support materials were useful in helping them with their edTPA artifacts and
commentaries.
Participants in the majority (81%) reported that the MAT program communicated that the
edTPA was an important set of assessments aimed at developing their teaching. This finding
validated the organizational construct of the cultural setting of effective teacher training
assessment models as an asset. Additionally, the majority of participants reported that the overall
mentorship and support from program faculty (74%) and their student teaching placement

137

mentor teacher (71%) was positive validating the cultural setting of effective teacher training
assessment models as an asset.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
This study employed an evaluative model that aimed to understand the impact the MAT
program revisions had on preservice teachers’ readiness to teach as measured by the edTPA. The
goal of the MAT program is to ensure that all candidates are successfully and fully prepared to
enter the profession to serve all students in their first-year classrooms. As part of candidature
preparation and to enter the profession, candidates must be able to pass the edTPA licensure
assessment. The literature review focused on teacher preparation models that integrate
performance assessments in developing and evaluating preservice teachers. The literature review
identified several assumed influences and possible barriers to the goal of preparing preservice
teachers to be ready to enter the classroom as professionals post preparation. These identified
influences were categorized within the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and
organization (KMO) framework. Evaluating these barriers within the model increases the
likelihood of overcoming deficiencies in the program and thus supporting the organizational goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008). By addressing potential barriers preservice teachers in the program will
be more likely to have a successful edTPA score and impact the classroom learning day on the
job. The following sections outline the recommendations for the assumed influences and barriers
according to the framework.
Knowledge Recommendations
Organizations must address knowledge gaps to achieve their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Declarative factual, declarative conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledges constitute
the 4 types of knowledge. Declarative knowledge is comprised of factual and conceptual

138

knowledge and captures the content to be learned. Procedural knowledge references the approach
and needed skills of how to execute a task, and metacognitive knowledge refers to reflection and
self-awareness of processes (Krathwol, 2002).
Clark and Estes (2008) discuss four types of assistance organizations can provide their
employees to develop and support their knowledge acquisition: (a) information, (b) job aids, (c)
training, and (d) education. Information outlines what employees need to know in order to
execute their job performance expectations; a more detailed checklist or formula for employee
supports comes in the form of job aids. Training entails a process by which employees are
provided with both information and a job aid including guidance, support, and feedback from
other more skilled and experienced organizational members. Education is the final tier of support
that organizations can provide employees with both theoretical and conceptual understanding
coupled with strategies that equips them to respond and manage unforeseen circumstances in
novel ways (Clark and Estes, 2008). This study recommends a comprehensive educational model
layered with preservice teacher training aids (job aids) and training that continues to build off of
the MAT program curriculum leading to a well-embedded conceptual and practical
understanding of pedagogy and skills needed to be successful to transition to lead classroom
teachers in the profession. Table 33 demonstrates the comprehensive educational model.
Knowledge solution: Procedural
Procedurally, 72% study participants agreed or strongly agreed that they were
able to connect their teaching experiences from the program to the expectations and
demands of the edTPA. Yet, the qualitative feedback reported in the form of survey
comments and qualitative interviews developed a theme that revealed that participants

139

experienced a high intrinsic cognitive load during their student teaching and edTPA
experience indicating the knowledge indicating the knowledge influence as a partial gap.
Table 33
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
(P)rocedural
(M)etacognitive
(C)onceptual
Asset
(A)
Need
(N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Preservice
teachers need to
demonstrate the
knowledge of
praxis in
the skills of
planning,
instruction, and
assessment. (C)

A N
Conceptual knowledge refers
to the in-depth and complex
understanding of knowledge
(Anderson, et al., 2001).
To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and
know when to apply what
they have learned. (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
Continue to develop the
conceptual knowledge
of preservice teachers
through the Core
Pedagogy and Practice
class each term.
Preservice
teachers need to
manage their
intrinsic
cognitive load by
managing the
demands of
program
coursework,
student teaching
responsibilities,
and edTPA
expectations. (P)
N N
Manage intrinsic load by
segmenting complex
material into simpler parts
and pre-training, among
other strategies, enables
learning to be enhanced
(Kirshner, Kirshner, & Paas,
2009)
Continue to provide
edTPA support
materials and model
worked samples;
consider segmenting the
edTPA portfolio process
over the course of 2
terms; term 2 students
develop portfolio
artifacts and term 3
students complete
commentaries.

Preservice teachers
to develop, and
practice
metacognitive skills
needed to
continually improve
their teaching
effectiveness (M).

A

N
Provide opportunities for
learners to:
• engage in guided self-
monitoring and self-
assessment;
• debrief the thinking
process upon completion
of learning task;

Continue to immerse
candidates in the
reflective teaching cycle
framework that
incorporates lesson
artifacts, rehearsal, joint
observation of lesson
videos for analysis
setting and further
teacher experimentation.

140

Table 33
Continued
• model own metacognitive
process by talking out loud
and assessing strengths
and weaknesses;
• provide peer collaboration
and discussion where
learners can discuss their
strategies and processes
related to the learning task
(Baker, 2006).

By organizing and rehearsing
modeled behaviors and
enacting them overtly
learners will master skills
(Bandura, 2005).

Intrinsic load can be described in terms of element interactivity as most schemas
simultaneously are learned; when the interaction between many elements is high, then intrinsic
cognitive load will be high (Sweller, 1994). Kirshner, Kirshner, & Paas (2006) discuss how
intrinsic load can be managed by segmenting complex material into simpler parts and pre-
training to enable learning to be enhanced. The edTPA presents multiple schemas: (a) planning;
(b) instruction, (c) assessment, (d) analysis of teaching, and (e) the use of academic language.
These schemas interact with one another, creating high intrinsic cognitive load for preservice
teachers. The researcher recommends that the MAT program continue to provide edTPA support
materials and model worked samples. However, a recommendation for the MAT program to
consider is segmenting the edTPA portfolio process over the course of 2 terms where in one term
candidates collect their teaching artifacts and then spend the second term writing their portfolio
commentaries as opposed to completing the entire edTPA process in the final term of the
program. This adjustment could support preservice teachers in managing the demands of their

141

program coursework, student teaching placement, and edTPA credentialing demands. For
example, in term 2 when preservice teachers begin the course Applications of Curriculum and
Pedagogy, Part A, and their first 15-week student teaching placement, they could begin the
process of collecting their edTPA artifacts.
Muth, Kremer, Keiper, Schnake, and MacCudden (2018) piloted implementing the
edTPA the semester prior to student teaching during their methods seminar course at their liberal
arts university teacher preparation program. The rationale for the earlier implementation of the
edTPA was to ease tensions associated with completing the edTPA during student teaching and
to position candidates to apply what they had learned from the edTPA during their student
teaching. Preservice teachers in the program spent 1 week of pre-student teaching at a school site
where they supported the lead class teacher half of the day and then taught 1 hour per day. In this
setting candidates were given a modified practice version of the edTPA and were allowed to later
use the artifacts and commentaries during their later student teaching. Post program completion
preservice teachers of the pilot were polled and asked to express the extent of their interest if
given the option of completing the edTPA during the methods semester. Over 62% of the cohort
responded favorably to the option of completing the edTPA in the semester prior to student
teaching. The study supports the recommendation to provide preservice teachers the opportunity
to begin their edTPA in the second term prior to student teaching in term 3.
Motivation Recommendations
Motivation is comprised of 3 specific attributes: choice; persistence; and mental effort
(Clark and Estes, 2008). Choice is the decision one makes to actively work towards a goal.
Persistence is when one consistently works towards a goal regardless of challenges and barriers.
Mental effort is when one exhibits determined effort to learn anew in order to approach a task or

142

address challenge in innovative ways (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) state that
when these motivation factors combine with knowledge, performance is enhanced.
The data from this study validated two motivational influences as assets while validating
two as needs. On the one hand, the motivational construct of self-regulation (reflective praxis)
was found to be an asset. On the other hand, the motivational constructs of self-efficacy and
expectancy value were identified as needs. Table 34 outlines these motivational factors
influencing he achievement of the stakeholder goal. The table also lists the motivational
principles and related recommendations.
Table 34
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence
(SR) Self-
Regulation
(SE) Self-
Efficacy
(EV)Expectancy
Value

Asset (A)
Need (N)

Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Preservice teachers
need to engage the
three separate phases
of self-regulation
cycle in order to
adjust and adapt their
teaching strategies.
(SR)

A

N
Provide opportunities for
learners to check their
progress and adjust their
learning strategies as
needed (Denler et al.,
2006).
Provide timely feedback
that links use of learning
strategies wit improved
performance (Dembo &
Eaton, 2000).
Continue to engage
and guide new
teachers in
professional practice
through lesson
preparation,
rehearsal, application
and enactment of
teaching methods,
and reflection of
teaching through self-
assessment of
teaching in
collaboration with
peers and faculty.

143

Table 34
Continued

Preservice teachers
need to develop a
strong sense of self-
efficacy to gain the
needed confidence to
effectively teach and
influence student
learning outcomes.
(SE)
N Y
High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation; feedback and
modeling increase self-
efficacy (Pajares, 2006).

Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for success;
make it clear that
individuals are capable
of learning what is being
taught or are capable of
performing a task
(Pajares, 2006).

Point out how learning
and training will be
useful in people’s lives
(Pintrich, 2003).

Leverage the video-
based field work as a
key means for
facilitating
collaborative faculty
and peer
examinations of
approximated
practice to build
novice
understandings and
self-efficacy.
Preservice teachers
will need to develop
an expectancy value
towards the edTPA
performance tasks as
an educative process
that benefits their
professional and
future career
development needs.
(E.V.)
N Y
Increase subjective task
values by defining the
perceived importance of
a task or activity; four
facets include:
• intrinsic
(enjoyment)
• utility (usefulness
for proximal or
distal goals)
• attainment
(importance for
one’s sense of
self)
• cost
(psychological
barriers to, and
negative
consequences of,
task engagement)
(Eccles, et al.,
1983)

Provide frequent
opportunities over the
course of each term to
preservice teachers to
reflect and report on
expectancy, utility,
cost, and connection
frequencies.

144

Motivation Solution: Self-efficacy
The motivation influence of self-efficacy was identified as a gap in this study as 55% of
study participants indicated a self-perception that the edTPA process did not increase their
confidence with respect to their teaching abilities. Further, the open survey comments also
suggested that the edTPA did not contribute to the development of participant confidence, but
instead the MAT and student teaching experiences did. Pajares (2006) identified several
strategies for increasing one’s self-efficacy: (a) modeling, (b) feedback from teachers or trainers
that is clear to individuals that they are capable of learning or performing a task, and (c)
enhancing learning and motivation when learners believe they will be successful on a task.
Additionally, Pintrich (2003) discusses how self-efficacy increases when learners are informed
how learning and training will be useful in n their lives. While the study identified low self-
efficacy of participants towards the edTPA and its relation to their teaching abilities participants
in the qualitative phase did identify a stronger sense of gained self-efficacy from the MAT
program and student teaching. To increase preservice teacher self-efficacy in relation to their
edTPA and their own teaching the researcher recommends that the program leverage the video-
based field work the program has in place. According to the program, the video-based field work
serves as a key means for facilitating collaborative faculty and peer examinations of
approximated teaching practice to build novice understandings. By explicitly connecting the
video-based field work of the program to the edTPA candidates are more likely to apply and
transfer what they have learned from the video-based field work to their edTPA increasing their
self-efficacy on the task.
Hong (2010) studied teacher identity and attrition and suggested that the extent of self-
efficacy among preservice teachers connected to their confidence level in the subject matter,
delivering of the subject matter, prior experience in teacher education programs, and developing

145

relationships with students; the extent of preservice teacher self-efficacy contributed to their
competence in the classroom. Hudson (2016) conducted a mixed methods study that explored
how preservice teachers experience evaluation via teacher performance assessments. The general
findings suggest a video product is a “great catalyst” for prompting discussions and learning
about teaching leading to boost in preservice teacher self-efficacy (Hudson, 2016, p. 208).
Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999) discussed how video collaborations helped
candidates to “approximate” practice that focuses on “key aspects of the practice that may be
difficult for novices, but almost second nature to more experienced practitioners (p. 2078).
During the term 1 video-based field work and into the student teaching experience the program
should continue to utilize the video collaboration to help preservice teachers to further develop
their confidence -self-efficacy- as practitioners in the classroom.
Motivation Solution: Expectancy Value
The survey items that measured study participants expectancy and utility value reported a
perception that the edTPA process did not influence their development as teachers and that the
edTPA was not an effective use of their time indicating a gap of the motivational influence.
Expectancy value theory aligns to self-regulation and self-efficacy as they all contribute to the
motivation of individuals to engage, persist, and execute a task, as individual’s beliefs towards a
goal or task align and enhance their own personal or professional life (Bembenutty, White, &
Vélez, 2015; Eccles, 2006). Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala, Meece, and Midgley
(1983) defined subjective task values as the perceived importance of a task or activity, and four
facets were identified: intrinsic (enjoyment), utility (usefulness for proximal or distal goals),
attainment (importance for one’s sense of self), and cost (psychological barriers to, and negative
consequences of, task engagement). Preservice teachers will need to develop an expectancy
value towards the edTPA performance tasks as an educative process that benefits their

146

professional and future career development needs. The researcher suggests that the MAT provide
frequent opportunities over the course of each term to preservice teachers to reflect and report on
expectancy, utility, cost, and connection frequencies. For example, 2-3 times per semester the
program could provide preservice teachers with check-in surveys as a form of utility value
intervention that use items to measure expectancy, utility, cost, and connection frequencies to
understand how to better support preservice teachers making connections to the goals and
desired outcomes of the edTPA.
Hulleman, Kosovich, Barron, and Daniel (2017) conducted a study that measured
student expectancy, utility value, cost, and connection frequency. A sample of 97 students
completed self-report surveys at three time points during the semester and found that making
more connections was positively related to expecting to do well in the course, valuing the course
material, and continuing interest. Additionally, their study design was previously validated with
students in middle school (Kosovich, Hulleman, Barron, & Getty, 2015), high school (Hulleman
& Harackiewicz, 2009), and college (Grays, 2013; Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, &
Harackiewicz, 2008).
Organizational Recommendations
In order for organizational change solutions to be effective and successful leaders must
first consider organizational culture (Clark and Estes, 2008). Organizational theory is comprised
of two constructs: cultural models and cultural settings. Cultural models are usually invisible as
communities or groups share evolved ways of perceiving, thinking, and strong possible
responses to challenges and changes (Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo, 1996). Cultural settings are
the policies, practices, rewards, and punishments that are visible within an organizational setting
and context, and greatly influence organizational climates (Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo, 1996).
The data collected in this study validated that the cultural model and setting influences in the

147

MAT program to be assets. Table 35 on the next page provides an outline of the cultural models
and settings that influence the stakeholder’s goal of this study. The table also provides the
guiding theoretical principles to inform the validated organizational practices that are assets.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will guide the
implementation and evaluation plan as derived from the original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model
of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). An essential part of an effective training plan
includes evaluation metrics to measure training value, program improvement goals, and learning
transfer (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). By using the New World Kirkpatrick Model’s Four
Levels it affords the opportunity for organizations to effectively monitor and implement their
stated goals with a lens on the results (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model begins
with the end in mind (level 4). Level Four (Results) refers to the extent that participants achieve
the stated outcomes from the training. The leads to observable measurements being identified.
Next, Level Three (Behavior) identifies the critical behaviors to reinforce on-the-job
performance. Level 2 (Learning) then determines the degree to which learning occurred in the
areas of knowledge and skill, attitude, confidence, and commitment. Finally, Level 1 (Reaction)
measures the impressions of the participants and the extent that they have found the training
experience relevant and engaging (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

148

Table 35
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organizational
Influence
(CM) Cultural Model
(CS) Cultural Setting

Asset (A)
Need (N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Organizational human
resource
frame. Preservice
teachers’ beliefs and
practice of effective
teaching and learning
needs to be continually
monitored, supported,
and measured
throughout their training
by MAT program
measures to ensure their
development. (CM)
A N
People’s skills,
attitudes, energy,
and commitment
should be cultivated
by organizations as
people and
organizations need
each other (Bolman
& Deal, 2013).
The MAT faculty
and program
stakeholders should
continue to provide
feedback ad
mentorship to
preservice teachers
with respect to their
teaching abilities
and edTPA
assessments.
Organizational political
frame. Organizations are
places where coalitions
of different individuals
and interest groups
interact with enduring
differences; the use of
the edTPA over the past
6 years has had
advocates and critics.
(CM)
A N
Organizations are
places where
coalitions of
different individuals
and interest groups
interact; coalition
members have
enduring differences
in values, beliefs,
information,
interests, and
perceptions of
reality (Bolman
& Deal, 2013).
Continue to deliver
MAT program
curriculum and
support materials in
the form of key
assessments that
align to what
preservice teachers
will experience on
the edTPA.
Effective teacher
training and assessment
models. Preservice
teachers are better
developed when trained
via a clinical experience
coupled with grounded
performance
assessments. (CS)

A N
Practices that are
visible within
cultural settings
influence
organizational
climates greatly
(Schneider, Brief, &
Guzzo, 1996).

Continue
messaging to
preservice teachers
that the edTPA is
an important set of
assessments aimed
at developing their
teaching
competencies.

149

Table 35
Continued

Cultural Setting 2:
Support and mentorship
models. Preservice
teachers need to be
placed with strong
mentorship and
provided with support
mechanisms as they
develop teaching
competencies. (CS)
A N
Processes and
observed behaviors
in organizations
greatly contribute to
climate (Schien,
2004)
Faculty continue to
provide feedback
and mentorship to
preservice teachers
in support of their
teaching
development and
on their edTPA
portfolio.

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of the MAT program in the School of Education at the University of the
West is to prepare leaders to achieve educational equity through practice, research and policy by
working to improve learning opportunities and outcomes in urban settings. The goal of the MAT
program is to ensure that all candidates are successfully and fully prepared to enter the
profession to serve all students in their first-year classrooms. All faculty agree that candidates’
preparation in the program must fully prepare them to be successful to enter the profession. As
part of candidature preparation and to enter the profession, candidates must be able to pass the
edTPA licensure assessment. As a result of implemented program revisions initiated in 2017, by
fall of 2019, the School of Education will have a 100% pass rate of edTPA scores from
preservice teacher candidates. The MAT program chair and committee established this goal in
conjunction with the program faculty in response to the 2017 program redesign process.
This study examined the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
and barriers to preservice teachers developing the associated competencies to enter into the
profession of teaching. While all stakeholders’ perspectives are valuable to consider and address,
this study looked explicitly at preservice teacher related influences. The proposed solution, an

150

intervention based on expectancy value-theory design to improve student outcomes includes job
supports for preservice teachers to develop their self-efficacy and expectancy value. The solution
provides the support preservice teachers require to build the needed efficacy towards their
edTPA by supporting them to make connections between the course material, the edTPA, and
their future teaching career. By implementing the solution, the interest and performance
frequency with which preservice teachers make connections between the course material, the
edTPA, and their future teaching career will lead to an increased engagement with the program
goals.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
As the MAT program implements a comprehensive teacher preparation and credentialing
program that ensures that all candidates are successfully and fully prepared to enter the
profession to serve all students in their first-year classrooms, it is essential to monitor progress
towards the outcomes. Developing and measuring leading indicators are vital to support
organizations in determining whether the goals are met (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Specific leading indicators serve as the identifiers throughout the implementation of the solution.
By identifying leading indicators, they serve to identify on-going adjustments to the program or
to signify goal achievement. These indicators are both internal and external short-term outcomes.
Internal outcomes include policy development that supports the needed preservice teacher
efficacy development towards their edTPA by supporting them to make connections between the
course material, the edTPA, and their future teaching career. As the MAT program achieves the
internal outcomes, it can expect to see the external outcomes also realized. External outcomes
include increased reported self-efficacy and reduced stress, higher expectancy and utility towards
the edTPA, and ultimately higher first time edTPA pass rates. Table 36 on the next page outlines
these internal and external outcomes and the related metrics and methods for measuring them.

151

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) discuss how that after training in level 3 the most
significant and challenging aspect of an implementation and evaluation plan is with respect to the
difficultly in supporting and holding stakeholders accountable for applying their learning.
Therefore, it is critical that preservice teacher behavior is monitored to support the achievement
of their goal. These behaviors include learning skills associated with data literacy. These
behaviors include learning skills associated with data literacy. Teachers in training need to be
developed with data literacy habits of mind that empower them to identify, collect, organize,
analyze, summarize, and prioritize data allowing them to identify hypotheses, problems, and to
determine the best course of action for instructional practice (Bocala & Parker Boudett, 2015;
Mandinach & Gummer, 2013). Skills of data literacy can be developed through the phases of the
MAT program teaching cycle: (a) observe/analyze, (b) prepare/rehearse, (c) apply/teach, (d) self-
assess, and (e) guided review. The level three behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing are listed
in Table 37.
Table 36
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased edTPA first time pass
rates of preservice teachers.

Number of teachers
requiring program support
for revised edTPA
submissions decreases.

Program data regarding the
number of candidate pass
rates.
Increased preservice teacher
satisfaction rates.
Number of preservice
teachers who report
satisfaction in the program
and their edTPA
experience.
Preservice teacher
expectancy-value-cost and
connection surveys.

152

Table 36
Continued

Preservice teachers actively
engaged in program/edTPA
aligned learning.
The video-based field work
and reflective teaching
cycles preservice teachers
are engaged in, based on the
program curriculum and
assessment outcomes.
Aggregate data from
student assignment
feedback/grades.
Preservice teacher survey
data.
Teaching analysis from
faculty guided review of
the reflecting teaching
cycle.
Internal Outcomes
Policy developed about the extent
that faculty can support, and the
types of support, they can provide
on the edTPA.

Published policy.
Solicit information/data
from State Commission on
Teacher Credentialing
handbooks.

Preservice teachers understand
the support available to them in
the form of faculty mentorship on
the edTPA.
Number of preservice
teachers engaged with
faculty office hours.

Number of preservice
teaches who access edTPA
supports such as webinars.
Data from interviews
regarding support and
development practices in
the program.
Increased preservice teacher
understanding of relationship and
significance of program
coursework, key assessments, and
the edTPA.
Number of preservice
teachers who report
understanding of
significance of teacher
performance assessments.
Preservice teacher
expectancy-value-cost and
connection surveys.

Required drivers
To facilitate training and improvement, organizations must support critical behaviors by
ensuring required drivers are in place. The critical behaviors presented in the table above must be
supported by the required drivers of reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring.
Reinforcing drivers are those that emphasize the importance of the transfer of the new skills into
the daily activity (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

153

Table 37
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Observe/Analyze School and classroom
context, instruction,
curriculum, and assessment in
practice.

Observation. Daily
2. Prepare/Rehearse Context specific lesson
planning and rehearsal.

Collaborate with
guiding teacher.

Weekly
3. Apply/Teach Record a full-length lesson
unedited.

Enactment. Weekly
4. Self-Assess Teaching video review. Video analysis and self-
reflection.

Weekly
5. Guided Review Peer/Faculty guided review. Probes/teaching video
sample scrutiny/
discussion.
Weekly

Reinforcing drivers include the knowledge related solutions of providing job aids in the
form of edTPA support materials, worked samples of performance assessment artifacts and
commentaries, and segmenting complex material into simpler parts and pre-training.
Motivational solutions included building preservice teacher teaching capacity by using video
analysis of teaching to build confidence and efficacy towards the associated performance tasks
needed to teach and the regular checks on student expectancy, utility, cost, and connections.
Encouraging drivers are those systems, supports, and processes that provide consistent
motivation for participants to continue the transfer of the skills (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The encouraging drivers incorporate motivation related solutions such as rationales that
provide utility value for the edTPA beyond it merely being just a credentialing requirement but
instead a set of performance competencies essential to master to demonstrate readiness to enter
the classroom as a first-year practitioner. Rewarding drivers are those which recognize the
appropriate implementation of the skills (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Rewarding drivers

154

include public recognition and peer coaching incentives for preservice teachers who develop and
display exemplar performance assessments. Table 27 outlines the recommended drivers to
support acquisition of the critical behaviors that need to be demonstrated by preservice teachers.
Monitoring: Organizational support
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) discuss drivers in two ways: support and
accountability. The regular review of preservice teachers’ goals and related programing is a vital
aspect of monitoring these drivers of critical behaviors. Faculty, guiding mentor teachers, and
program administrators are all significant stakeholders in review and follow-up. The knowledge,
motivation, and organization need for the key stakeholders is beyond the scope of this
dissertation and should be explored further. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) highlight that
dashboards that support teachers in self-peer-monitoring with highlighted key performance
indicators and bi-annual surveys and interviews also support accountability for the required
drivers and critical behaviors. The researcher suggests that the program continue to leverage the
teaching cycle, particularly its use of the Edthena observation group dashboard for collaborative
video observations of teaching. Additionally, the researcher suggests that the MAT monitor
preservice teacher self-efficacy, expectancy-utility-cost, and program connections to future
teaching through targeted surveys given at three points throughout each semester to inform
faculty practice any necessary interventions. Table 38 displays the required drivers to support
critical behaviors.

155

Table 38
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Job aid video diary modeling the various stages of
the reflective teaching cycle.

On-going 1-5
Job aid containing a glossary of key terms found
in the edTPA and handbooks that clearly outlines
timelines, pacing, and milestones.

On-going 1, 3-4
Job aid that includes worked samples of the
various edTPA components with connected rubric
commentaries.

On-going 1, 3-4
Job aid that outlines effective strategies for critical
reflection and peer feedback.

Daily 1-5
Encouraging
Rationale for the edTPA (utility value).
Ongoing 1, 3-4
Guiding teacher/peer/mentor observations.
Ongoing 1-5
Peer modeling during class meetings
On-going 1-5
Preservice teachers receive targeted and useful
feedback from peers, mentor, guiding teacher. Weekly 1-5
Rewarding
Public recognition; spotlight on effective practice
and well executed performance assessment
artifacts/commentaries during class time.
Ongoing 1-5
Incentivize effective preservice teachers to peer
coach and collaborate with classmates. Ongoing 1-5
Monitoring
Faculty monitor preservice teacher progress and
understandings through engaging the teaching
cycle and key program assessments.

Ongoing 1-5
Monitor preservice teacher engagement through
the online Edthena video observation dashboard.

Ongoing 1-5
Program administrators monitor preservice teacher
self-efficacy and utility through several survey
check-ins each semester.
Bi-monthly 1-5

156

Level Two: Learning
Learning Goals
Following completion of the recommended solutions through the implemented program
recommendations, preservice teachers will be able to:
1. Confidently engage the edTPA aligned program video-based teaching cycle to prompt
discussions and reflection about learning and teaching (Motivation: Self-efficacy).
2. Manage intrinsic cognitive load by authoring edTPA artifacts and commentaries over
the course of two terms (Procedural Knowledge: Intrinsic cognitive load).
3. Through regular self-reporting and collaborative discussions make connections
between program course assignment/assessments, the edTPA, and teaching
competencies needed to enter the profession (Motivation: Expectancy Value).
4. Value the edTPA as an important set of performance assessments aimed at
developing their teaching competencies as measured by utility-expectancy framed
survey checks and discussions (Motivation: Utility Value).
Program
In addition to the MAT teacher preparation program the recommendations present
a comprehensive plan for assuring preservice teacher self-efficacy and expectancy and
utility value is addressed as candidates engage, develop, and submit their edTPA. The
recommended supports will aid preservice teachers in achieving the above stated learning
goals through foundational supports in understanding and developing effective teaching
practices as learned through course and field work, engagement with collaborative
teaching conversations, and self-reflection linked to the connecting with the value of
teacher performance assessments.

157

Throughout this process, the program will provide job aids for expectations and
strategies, worked samples, models, and practices to decompose best teaching practices.
The program supports will be delivered in a blended format, with a combination of
asynchronous job aids in the form of the teaching videos on the Edthena platform
illustrating both expectations and exemplars. To support learning further, faculty, guiding
mentor teachers, and peers will check for understanding through observation of the
guided review of practice and discussions of teaching videos.
During the teaching cycle stage of the recorded planning conference with the
guiding teacher and during peer and faculty guided review of teaching emphasis on the
application of skills learned through the job aids and asynchronous materials will be
given. Preservice teachers work with peers and faculty to present strategies they have
practiced in their classrooms and will receive feedback. Whether preservice teachers have
presented or provided feedback they will revisit the skills of each performance
assessment and set new targets for themselves. This practice aims to develop constructive
individual and team learning to promote the development of preservice teacher
confidence and utility.
Components of learning
As preservice teachers develop confidence in their classrooms and utility towards
the learned performance assessments, they need to demonstrate they have acquired the
learned knowledge. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the extent that preservice
teachers have learned the declarative and procedural knowledge. Table 39 on the next
page outlines the methods of evaluation and the timing devoted to each component.

158

Level One: Reaction
In level One, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend measuring three reactions.
These include engagement, relevance, and satisfaction. These three components are essential to
the success of the program. When each reaction is measured as high functioning the program is
better positioned to yield the desired results. Table 40 below outlines the components to measure
the reactions from the programs.
Table 39
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using TPA rubrics to validate
practices through discussions, think-pair-shares, and
other individual group/activities.

Weekly documentation through in
class meetings and observation notes.
Knowledge checks through planning conference with
guiding teacher and in peer/faculty guided reviews.
Prior to teaching and immediately
after video job aids of teaching and
class meetings.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Demonstration of individual use of the job aids to
successfully implement teaching and learning
strategies.

Through observation notes and
reports from faculty and guiding
mentor teachers.
Demonstration and modeling of worked TPA samples
as job aids to engage preservice teachers in
conversations around pedagogical strategies.

Through observation notes and
reports from faculty and guiding
mentor teachers.
Quality of lesson planning and the degree that plans
meet individual learning needs for the social and
curricular context of students.
Weekly throughout video-based and
student teaching-based field work.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre- and post-surveys Three times per semester.
Discussions of the value of what they are being asked
to do on the job.
During the coaching and feedback
sessions with faculty, guiding practice
teachers, and peers.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Scaled Survey
Following teaching cycles and key
assessments when TPA strategies are
introduced.

Discussions following practice and feedback.
During the guided review sessions
and 1:1 feedback with guided practice
teachers.

159

Table 39
Continued
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Creation of individual goals related to TPA objectives
and expectations.
During class sessions and 1:1 student-
faculty meetings.

Table 40
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation During fieldwork.

Discussion

During classes, planning conferences, and guided
review.

Observation

During classes, planning conferences, and guided
review.
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with preservice
teachers via exit tickets and scaled
online survey and discussion (ongoing).
After each guided review class meeting; 3 survey
times per semester aligned with the
teaching/assessment of mini TPA’s.

End of semester evaluation program
with connection questions to candidate
value of the edTPA.
After each guided review class meeting; third
survey at the end of each semester aligned with the
teaching/assessment of mini TPA’s.
Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with preservice
teachers via exit tickets and scaled
online survey and discussion (ongoing).
After each guided review class meeting; 3 survey
times per semester aligned with the
teaching/assessment of mini TPA’s.

End of semester evaluation program
with connection questions to candidate
value of the edTPA.
Two weeks following the end of each semester.

Evaluation Tools
Evaluation of the program through participant feedback supports the improvement of the
program and leverages learning transfer to observable behaviors and subsequent organizational
results leading to value of the training to the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Multiple methods will guide and present informative feedback from the evaluation tools so that
MAT faculty, guiding teachers, and preservice teachers acquire a comprehensive understanding
of preservice teaching experiences and outcomes. Such methods of evaluation will best move the

160

program forward. The following sections summarize the evaluation tools used during and
immediately following the program implantation and delayed evaluation tools based on the
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend.
During and immediately following the program implementation
At three points in the fieldwork based semesters (3
rd
, 9
th
, and 15
th
weeks) preservice
teachers will participate in surveys that assess their confidence and expectancy in applying
teaching strategies, commitment to application, perceived relevance to their daily work, and
overall satisfaction with the content, delivery, and general structure of the reflective teaching
cycle and structure of practiced and assessed TPA’s. This approach of participant assessment
timing follows Hulleman et al. (2017) study of guided intervention based on expectancy-value
theory designed to enhance student learning by measuring expectancy, utility, cost, and student
connections. The faculty will solicit Level One feedback about relevance during the whole class
guided reviews through discussion and pulse check exit tickets that ask participants to share
digitally or verbally at least one new learning and at least one wondering piece of feedback.
These pulse-checks will provide faculty with the needed insights and understandings of group
Level One and Level Two reflection points. Additionally, a final reflective discussion or online
prompt will ask preservice teachers to identify one or more ways they can apply the associated
skills of the TPA when they return to their guided classrooms.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation
Follow up evaluation will occur after a delayed period of time, within five weeks to allow
for further synthesizing on the information and practice implementation strategies. A blended
model, incorporating all the levels from reaction to results improves the likelihood of
maximizing perspective on the experience (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The evaluation
tool should include survey items assessing engagement (expectancy), relevance (utility) and

161

satisfaction (cost) (Level One), confidence (self-efficacy) in and value of knowledge acquired
(Level Two), the degree to which preservice teachers applied the learning (Level Three), and the
degree to which the training has impacted daily the learning environment (connections (Level
Four)). See Appendix 11 for a sample blended evaluation survey.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level Four Goals for the implementation of the solution to address self-efficacy and
expectancy/utility value and increased first time edTPA pass rates. For the greatest impact, it is
important to make the learning and progress towards the goal visible. Following the program
evaluation at the end of the semester the program should report the findings within the program
MAT Governance Committee. Figure 3 on the following page demonstrates the example data
regarding the program goals of increasing efficacy, expectancy, and utility value with increased
edTPA pass rates.

162

Figure 3 Sample Data report to report progress towards goals

163

Summary
This implementation and evaluation plan were based on the New World Kirkpatrick
Model. The model is backward designed and begins with the organizational goals and then
identifies the necessary learning and assessment components to incrementally and systematically
realize those goals. This framework is proactive and places learning at the center. Through this
process, success is defined from the beginning and offers the organization a clear return on
expectations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Through the New World Kirkpatrick Model, the
program can address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences defined and
validated in this study, setting the conditions for an educated, competent, productive, and
dynamic program graduates ready to enter the profession of teaching. When preservice teachers
are prepared to enter the profession this greatly increases the learning opportunities and
experiences for students in the K-12 classroom.
Study Strengths, Limitations, and Delimitations
Like any study, this evaluative study had strengths, limitations, and delimitations. A
strength of this mixed methods study can be found in the triangulation of the existing edTPA
literature against the quantitative survey design (validity and reliability) and the qualitative
interview design (credibility and trustworthiness). The researcher strived to create alignment
between the analytic gap framework -KMO specific domains-, qualitative and quantitative
question design, and interpretation of the study results and findings against the literature. A
further study strength that can be suggested is with respect to the participant turnout on the
quantitative phase of the study leading to a stronger confidence level of the survey results. 33%
of all MAT students from the 2017-2019 period (two years post MAT program revision)
participated in the study and offered insight to their experiences enabling the researcher to offer
the program insight from an outside perspective.

164

A limitation was the time constraints of the study; the researcher could not include other
key stakeholders such as MAT faculty and student teacher mentors into the study. Their
perceptions and feedback would offer valuable insight into their experiences with preservice
teachers and the edTPA. Future research should aim to evaluate these stakeholders to further
understand their perspectives and inform the MAT program and edTPA policy makers. A further
limitation of this study was the small sample of interviewees. The researcher acknowledges that
8 interviewees are not representative of the 460 MAT students who enrolled in the program
between 2017-2019. Future research should also aim to conduct a larger qualitative sample that
is representative of future MAT cohorts.
Finally, a delimitation of the study was the broad sampling of MAT students across on-
campus and online program formats. The researcher had hoped to focus the study sample on on-
campus students but given the researcher was not legally able to manage the online survey
distribution due to FERPA law, the survey was administered to all students in all program
formats. Future research should also aim to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and general
differences of MAT program formats with respect to candidate experiences, especially the
edTPA.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the experiences of MAT preservice teachers in
respect to their interaction, development, and submission of the Education Teacher Performance
Assessment (edTPA) portfolio. The study evaluated the knowledge influences, the extent that
MAT preservice teachers were influenced by motivational constructs, and the organizational
influences that contributed to the success, or lack of, MAT preservice teachers’ edTPA scores.
This study validated several knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as program

165

assets while partially validating one knowledge and validating two motivation influences as
program needs. A subdomain of procedural knowledge, intrinsic cognitive load, was addressed
by recommending the program consider how to best support preservice teachers with managing
their intrinsic cognitive load by segmenting preservice teacher preparation of their edTPA
artifacts and commentaries. Motivationally, expectancy and utility value theories -in addition to
efficacy strategies- to increase motivation for individual and collective preservice teacher
engagement and connection with their credentialing requirement of the edTPA were
recommended. By enacting the recommendations, the program stands to offer an opportunity to
connect all components of the program to credentialing requirements of teacher performance
assessments and graduate highly competent and prepared preservice teachers prepared to impact
student learning from day 1 in the classroom. Further, the MAT program can serve as a model
for other teacher preparation programs, especially those that require the edTPA as part of the
credentialing process.

166

References
Adkins, A. (2016). The benefits of edTPA. (Pre-service teacher performance
assessment). Educational Leadership, 73(8), 55–58.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2018a, January 17). AACTE
Commission Issues Proclamations for Effective Educator Preparation [Press Release].
Retrieved from https://aacte.org/news-room/press-releases-statements/543-aacte-
commission-issues-proclamations-for-effective-clinical-educator-preparation
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2018b). Colleges of Education: A
National Portrait. Washington, D.C., USA: King, J. & Hampel, R.
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., andBloom, B.
(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing : a revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy of educational objectives (Abridged ed.). New York: Longman.
Aydin, Y. C., and Hoy, A.W (2005). "What predicts student teacher self-efficacy?" Academic
Exchange Quarterly, winter, p. 123+. Academic OneFile, Accessed 1 July 2019.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 24 8–287.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K.G. Smith & M.A. Hit (Eds.),
Great minds in management (pp. 9-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barrera, E., & Dowell, M. (2017). Achieving praxis in teacher preparation: Using varied
methods of participant reflection in qualitative research to reveal critical thinking. SAGE
Research Methods Cases.doi:10.4135/9781473958920

167

Barron, L. (2015). Preparing pre-service teachers for performance assessments. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 3(2), 68-75. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1800719907?accountid=14749
Behizadeh, B., & Neely, A. (2018) Testing Injustice: Examining the Consequential Validity of
edTPA, Equity & Excellence in Education, 51:3-4, 242-
264, DOI: 10.1080/10665684.2019.1568927
Bergstrand Othman, L., Robinson, R., Molfenter, N., Rice, N., & Drame, E. (2017). Emerging
Issues With Consequential Use of the edTPA: Overall and Through a Special Education
Lens. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(4), 269–277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417718251
Bocala, C. & Boudet, K. (2015). Teaching Educators Habits of Mind for Using Data Wisely.
Teachers College Record. 117. 1-20.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, John D., Brown Ann L., and Cocking Rodney R. (2000). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Bray, P., & Schatz, S. (2013). A Model for Developing Meta-Cognitive Tools in Teacher
Apprenticeships. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 15(1), 48–56.
https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2013-0003
Building ethics into the research design. (2019, April 18). Retrieved May 16, 2019, from
http://www.ethicsguidebook.ac.uk/Compensation-rewards-or-incentives-89

168

Campbell, C. (2013). Research on teacher competency in classroom assessment. In J. H.
McMillan SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 71-84). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452218649.n5
Carter, J., & Lochte, H. (2017). Teacher Performance Assessment and Accountability Reforms
[electronic resource]: The Impacts of edTPA on Teaching and Schools / edited by Julie
H. Carter, Hilary A. Lochte.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Cochran-Smith, Cannady, McEachern, Piazza, Power and Ryan (2010/2011). Teachers’
Education, Teaching Practice, and Retention: A Cross-Genre Review of Recent Research.
Journal of Education, 191(2) 19-31.
Cohen, J., Hutt, E., Berlin, R. L., Mathews, H. M., McGraw, J. P., & Gottlieb, J. (2018). Sense
Making and Professional Identity in the Implementation of edTPA. Journal of Teacher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118783183
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.) (pp. 65-86). Los Angeles:
SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Fifth edition. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Chapter 1.

169

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications.
Cristyne, H. (2018) Assessment in the clinical experience: student teaching and the edTPA,
Teaching Education, DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2018.1505842
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher Education and the American Future. Journal of Teacher
Education 61(1-2) 35-47.
Darling-Hammond, L. and Hyler, M. E. (2013). Rethinking, The role of performance assessment
in developing teaching as a profession. 27(4). Retrieved from
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/27_04/27_04_darling-hammond_hyler.shtm
Dembo, M. H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough: Future teachers also need to learn how to
learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 23–35.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. (2000). Self-Regulation of Academic Learning in Middle-Level
Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social Cognitive Theory. Retrieved July 28,
2018, from
https://project542.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/0/17108470/social_cognitive_theory__educ
ation.com.pdf
Denton, D. H. (2013). “Responding to edTPA: Transforming Practice or Applying Shortcuts?”
AILACTE Journal 10(1), 19–36. Available in
http://www.ailacte.org/images/uploads/general/ AILACTE_Journal_Fall_2013.pdf

170

Dover, A., & Schultz, B. (2016) Troubling the edTPA: Illusions of Objectivity and Rigor, The
Educational Forum, 80:1, 95-106, DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2015.1102368
Du Preez, J. (2008). Locating the researcher in the research: personal narrative and reflective
practice. Reflective Practice, 9(4), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802431499
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). (2018, March 01). Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Freire, P. (1970), Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Academy, p. 126.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gay, L., Mills. G. & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
application (9th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Grays, M. P. (2013). Measuring motivation for coursework across the academic career: A
Longitudinal invariance study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation.] James Madison
University, Harrisonburg, VA.

171

Grossman, P.L., Smagorinsky, P, & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching
English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of
Education, 108(1), 1-29.
Gurl, Theresa J., Caraballo, Limarys., Grey, Leslee., Gunn, John H., Gerwin, David., and
Bembenutty, Héfer. Policy, Professionalization, Privatization, and Performance
Assessment Affordances and Constraints for Teacher Education Programs 1st ed. 2016.
Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016.
Hammerness, K. (2006). From Coherence in Theory to Coherence in Practice. Teachers College
Record, 108(7) 1241-1265.
Hennissen, P., Crasborn, F., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (n.d.). Clarifying Pre-
Service Teacher Perceptions of Mentor Teachers’ Developing Use of Mentoring
Skills. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and
Studies, 27(6), 1049–1058. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.009
Hightower, A., Delgado, R., Loyd, S., Wittenstein, R., Sellers, K., & Swanson, C. (n.d.).
Improving Student Learning by Supporting Quality Teaching: Key Issues, Effective
Strategies (Rep.). Retrieved December 2, 2017, from EdWeek website:
https://www.edweek.org/media/eperc_qualityteaching_12.11.pdf
Hobson, L., Harris, D., Buckner-Manley, K., & Smith, P. (2012). The Importance of Mentoring
Novice and Pre-Service Teachers: Findings from a HBCU Student Teaching Program.
Educational Foundations, 26, 67–4), p.67–80.

172

Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers self-efficacy is related to
instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3),
774.
Honigmann, J.J. (1982) Sampling in ethnographic fieldwork. In R.G. Burgess (Ed.), Field
research: A sourcebook and filed manual (pp. 79-90). London: Allen & Unwin.
Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values,
achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 398 – 416. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high
school science classes. Science, 326, 1410 –1412.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1177067

Hulleman, C., Kosovich, J., Barron, K., & Daniel, D. (2017). Making connections: replicating
and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom.(Report)(Author abstract).
Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 387–404.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000146
Huston, T. (2017). edTPA, videotape, and occupational identity: a study of pre-service teachers.
Teaching Education, 28(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1237482
Improving Teacher Preparation: Building on Innovation. U.S. Department of Education,
accessed October 3, 2018. http//www.ed.gov/teacherprep.
Jiang, Y., Ma, L., & Gao, L. (2016). Assessing teachers’ metacognition in teaching: The Teacher
Metacognition Inventory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 403–413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.014

173

Johnsen, S. (2010.). Teacher performance assessments. (from the editor). Gifted Child Today,
33(1), 5, 65.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kameniar, B, Davies, LM, Kinsman, J, Reid, C, Tyler, D and Acquaro, D 2017 , 'Clinical praxis
exams: linking academic study with professional practice knowledge', in M Peters and B
Cowie and I Menter (eds.), A Companion to Research in Teacher Education , Springer,
Singapore, pp. 53-67.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31-42.
Kosovich, J. J., Hulleman, C. S., Barron, K. E., & Getty, S. (2015). A practical measure of
student motivation: Establishing validity evidence for the expectancy-value-cost scale in
middle school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35, 790 – 816.
Kotrlik, J. W. K. J. W., & Higgins, C. C. H. C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining
appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey
research. Information technology, learning, and performance journal, 19(1), 43.

174

Koziel, E., Fisher, R., Hall, A., Rambo, C., Ransdell, M., & Vigneau, M. (2018). Are We Lovin’
It?: The edTPA and the Mcdonaldization of Music Teacher Training. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2051387803/
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Chapter 4, pp. 66–68.
Lalley J.P. (2017) Reliability and Validity of edTPA. In: Carter J., Lochte H. (eds) Teacher
Performance Assessment and Accountability Reforms. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
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.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ellen B. Mandinach, & Edith S. Gummer. (2013). A Systemic View of Implementing Data
Literacy in Educator Preparation. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 30–37.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12459803
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: SAGE Publications.
MAT Program Chair (2019a). Program Overview [PowerPoint slides]. Pseudonym, confidential.

175

MAT Program Chair (2019b). Personal Interview [online via Zoom].
Mayer, R. (2011). Applying the science of learning / Richard E. Mayer. Boston, MA:
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McClain, M. (2010). Wanted: Mentors for Future English Teachers. English Journal, 100(1),
117-119.
McConville, J. (2013). edTPA: You, Too, Shall Pass, 14(1), 34–34.
https://doi.org/10.7916/D81N8CRB
McDonald, Kazemi, Elham, and Schneider "Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education:
a call for a common language and collective activity." Journal of Teacher Education,
vol. 64, no. 5, 2013, p. 378+. Biography in
Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A350677365/BIC1?u=usocal_main&xid=bcf5d0
b8. Accessed 9 Oct. 2017.
McMillan, J. H. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity
for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Minnici, A. (2014). The mind shift in teacher evaluation: Where we stand-and where we need to
go. American Educator, 22.

176

Muth, N., Kremer, K., Keiper, V., Schnake, R., & Maccudden, R. (2018). Implementation of
edTPA Completion Prior to Student Teaching. Mid-Western Educational
Researcher, 30(3), 71–92.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (n.d.). National Board Certification
Overview. Retrieved January 4, 2020, from https://www.nbpts.org/national-board-
certification/overview/
Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (n.d.). School Experience Influences on Pre-Service Teachers’
Evolving Beliefs about Effective Teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(2), 278–289.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.010
Norris, N. (1997). Error, bias and validity in qualitative research. Educational Action
Research, 5(1), 172-176. doi:10.1080/09650799700200020
Okhremtchouk, I., Seiki, S., Gilliland, B., Ateh, C., Wallace, M., & Kato, A. (2009). Voices of
pre-service teachers: Perspectives on the performance assessment for California teachers
(PACT). Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 39-62. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/233315289?accountid=14749
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents . Greenwich, Conn: IAP -
Information Age Pub., Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

177

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Paulsen, T., Clark, T., & Anderson, R. (2016). Using the Tuning Protocol to Generate Peer
Feedback during Student Teaching Lesson Plan Development. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 57(3), 18–32. doi:10.5032/jae.2016.03018
Paugh, P., Bethke Wendell, K., Power, C., & Michael Gilbert (2018) ‘It’s not that easy to solve’:
edTPA and preservice teacher learning, Teaching Education, 29:2, 147-
164, DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2017.1369025
Paunonen, S., & Hong, R. (2010). Self‐Efficacy and the Prediction of Domain‐Specific
Cognitive Abilities. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 339–360.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00618.x
Pecheone, R. L., Whittaker, A., & Klesch, H. (2016). Educative Assessment & Meaningful
Support: 2016 edTPA Administrative Report (pp. 1-62, Rep.). Stanford, CA: Stanford
Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity.
Pintrich, P. R., & Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated
learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in measurement of metacognition (pp.
43-97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: the role of
cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of
achievement motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

178

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41:4, Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e3f1/25c4e15176d2f34540b7feece1c1b3d8dfd8.pdf
Pintrich, P. (2003). A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in
Learning and Teaching Contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Porayska - Pomsta, K., Mccalla, G., Lane, C., & Bull, S. (2016). AI as a Methodology for
Supporting Educational Praxis and Teacher Metacognition. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education. Retrieved from
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1474566/1/art%253A10.1007%252Fs40593-016-0101-4.pdf
Ratner, A.R. & Kolman, Joni. (2016). Breakers, benders, and obeyers: Inquiring into teacher
educators’ mediation of edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 24.
10.14507/epaa.v24.2112.
Ressler, B., King, K., & Nelson, H. (2017). Ensuring Quality Teacher Candidates: Does the
edTPA Answer the call? In Carter, J., & Lochte, H. (Eds.), Teacher Performance
Assessment and Accountability Reforms (pp. 119-140) [electronic resource]: The Impacts
of edTPA on Teaching and Schools.
Robinson, S., & Leonard, K.F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Sato, M. (2014). What Is the Underlying Conception of Teaching of the edTPA? Journal of
Teacher Education, 65(5), 421-434.

179

Saunders, M., & Townsend, K. (2016). Reporting and Justifying the Number of Interview
Participants in Organization and Workplace Research. British Journal of Management,
27(4), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12182
Scardamalia, Marlene, Bereiter, Carl, and Steinbach, Rosanne. (1984). Teachability of reflective
processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173-190.
Scharmer, C. Otto (2007). Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future As It Emerges. The
Social Technology of Presenting, (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler)
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein,
(Ed.), Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schoenfeld, Alan H. (1991). On mathematics as sense making: An informal attack on the
fortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In James F. Voss, David N.
Perkins, and Judith W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 311-344).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

180

School Composition and the Black-White Achievement Gap. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2017,
from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2015018.aspx
Schraw, G. & McCruden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy
enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook
of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Scott, S. & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Seymour, Clancy A., Burns, Barbara A., & Henry, Julie J. (2018). Cooperating Teachers:
Stakeholders in the edTPA? Issues in Teacher Education, 27(1), 41-56.
Shuey, C., Johnson, T., Alsup, J., & Shoffner, M. (n.d.). Supervisor’s dilemma: Power in the
student teacher/mentor teacher relationship. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1241606631/
Shute, V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-
189.
Sirotová, M. (2016). Pedagogical Praxis as a Process of Developing Professional Competencies
in University Education of Future Teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 228, 529–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.081

181

Spangler, S., & Fink, L. (2013). With a Little Help from Their Friends: Making the Transition
from Student to Teacher. English Journal, 102(3), 87-92.
Stronge, J., Ward, T., Tucker, P., and Hinderman, J. (2007). What is the Relationship between
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement? An Exploratory Study. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education 20 (3-4) 165-185.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Journal of
Leaning and Instruction, vol. 4 (4) 295-312.
Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. (2018). Making Good Choices [PDF file].
Retrieved from https://www.edtpa.com/Content/Docs/edTPAMGC.pdf
Sykes, Bird, and Kennedy "Teacher education: its problems and some prospects." Journal of
Teacher Education, vol. 61, no. 5, 2010, p. 464+. Biography in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A250470339/BIC1?u=usocal_main&xid=fd410d90.
Accessed 9 Oct. 2017.
Taylor, M., & Klein, E. (2015). A Year in the Life of a Third Space Urban Teacher Residency
Using Inquiry to Reinvent Teacher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Doi:
10.1007/978-94-6300-253-0
The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many education questions (National
Center for Education Statistics). (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2017, from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1
Saunders, M., & Townsend, K. (2016). Reporting and Justifying the Number of Interview
Participants in Organization and Workplace Research. British Journal of
Management, 27(4), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12182

182

Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective
teachers. (2011). The Education Digest, 76(7), 9-13. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1933127967?accountid=14749Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).
Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Weston, T., & Henderson, S. (2015). Coherent Experiences: The New Missing Paradigm in
Teacher Education. The Educational Forum, 79(3), 321-335.
Wiens, P., Hessberg, K., LoCasale-Crouch, J., & DeCoster, J. (n.d.). Using a Standardized
Video-Based Assessment in a University Teacher Education Program to Examine
Preservice Teachers Knowledge Related to Effective Teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 33, 24–33.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.010
White, M. C., & Bembenutty, H. (2013). Not all avoidance help seekers are created equal
individual differences in adaptive and executive help seeking. SAGE Open, 3(2), 1–14.
doi: 10.1177/2158244013484916.
Wigfield, A., Klauda, S., Cambria, J. (2011). Influences on the Development of Academic Self-
Regulatory Processes from: Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance
Routledge Accessed on: 15 Jan 2019
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203839010.ch3
Wolf, R. F. (2014, August 07). How to Minimize Your Biases When Making Decisions.
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/09/how-to-minimize-your-biases-when

183

McKenna, A. (2013). edTPA? Good Grief! https://doi.org/10.7916/D8M61JVW
Zhang, Guili, & Zeller, Nancy. (2016). A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationship between
Teacher Preparation and Teacher Retention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(2), 73-92.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and
motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The
educational psychology series. Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299-315).
New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

184

Appendix 1 Survey Instrument
Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representation
Demographics-
Sample Description
NA How old are you?

a. 22-25
b. 26-30
c. 31-35
d. 36-40
e. 40 or older
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie Chart
Demographics-
Sample Description
NA What is your gender identity?

a. Female
b. Male
c. Transgender
d. Do not wish to identify
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie Chart
Demographics-
Sample Description
NA Are you Hispanic or Latino?

a. Yes
b. No
c. Do not wish to identify

Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie Chart
Demographics-
Sample Description
NA Regardless of your answer to the
prior question, please indicate how
you identify yourself (You may
select one or more)

a. American Indian or
Alaska Native
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie Chart

185

b. Asian
c. Black or African
American
d. Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
e. White
f. Other ________________
g. Do not wish to identify

Demographics-
Sample Description
NA Did you earn a passing edTPA score
in your first submission?

a. Yes
b. No

Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie Chart
Demographics-
Sample Description
NA If you answered no, did you earn a
passing score on your second edTPA
submission?

a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Applicable

Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie Chart
Demographics-
Sample Description
NA What was your first edTPA score?
(Answer should range between 15
and 75).
a. .

Interval Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Mean, Standard
Deviation,
Range
Table

186

What are the
knowledge
influences on MAT
preservice teachers
during their
development and
demonstration of a
readiness to teach as
measured by their
edTPA portfolio
scores?

K-P.P. / K-
C
After submitting your edTPA, to
what extent do you agree that you
have the knowledge and skills to plan
for instruction and assessment for
future classes that you will teach?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

What are the
knowledge
influences on MAT
preservice teachers
during their
development and
demonstration of a
readiness to teach as
measured by their
edTPA portfolio
scores?

K-P.P. / K-
C
After submitting your edTPA, to
what extent do you agree that you
now have the knowledge and skills to
create a positive learning
environment in the classroom for
future classes that you will teach?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart
What are the
knowledge
influences on MAT
preservice teachers
during their
development and
demonstration of a
K-P.P. / K-
C
After submitting your edTPA, to
what extent do you agree that you
now have the knowledge and skills to
develop your students’ subject matter
understanding in future classes that
you will teach?

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart

187

readiness to teach as
measured by their
edTPA portfolio
scores?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

What are the
knowledge
influences on MAT
preservice teachers
during their
development and
demonstration of a
readiness to teach as
measured by their
edTPA portfolio
scores?

K-P / K-
I.C.L
Overall, to what extent do you agree
that you were able to connect your
teaching to the artifacts and
commentaries of the edTPA
portfolio?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

What are the
knowledge
influences on MAT
preservice teachers
during their
development and
demonstration of a
readiness to teach as
measured by their
edTPA portfolio
scores?

K-M.C. Overall, to what extent do you agree
that the edTPA helped you to better
identify and understand your areas of
strength and growth as a student
teacher?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

What are the
knowledge
influences on MAT
K-M.C. Now that you have completed the
edTPA, to what extent do you agree
that the experience helped you to

188

preservice teachers
during their
development and
demonstration of a
readiness to teach as
measured by their
edTPA portfolio
scores?

develop a range of teaching strategies
and knowing when to use them?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

What organizational
influences contribute
to the success, or
lack of, MAT
preservice teachers’
edTPA scores?

O-C.M. 1 Overall, to what extent do you agree
that program faculty provided you
with feedback and mentorship about
your teaching during your edTPA
experience?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart
What organizational
influences contribute
to the success, or
lack of, MAT
preservice teachers’
edTPA scores?

O-C.M. 1 Overall, to what extent do you agree
that your supervising teacher
provided you with feedback and
mentorship about your teaching
during your edTPA experience?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart

189

What organizational
influences contribute
to the success, or
lack of, MAT
preservice teachers’
edTPA scores?

O-C.M. 2 Overall, to what extent do you agree
that the program key assessments
prepared you for successful
completion of the edTPA?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart
What organizational
influences contribute
to the success, or
lack of, MAT
preservice teachers’
edTPA scores?

O-C.M. 2 Overall, to what extent do you agree
that the edTPA materials provided to
you by the MAT Program were
supportive?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart
What organizational
influences contribute
to the success, or
lack of, MAT
preservice teachers’
edTPA scores?

O-C.S. 1 /
O-C.S. 2
Overall, to what extent do you agree
that the MAT program
communicated the edTPA to be an
important set of assessments aimed at
developing your teaching
effectiveness?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart

190

What organizational
influences contribute
to the success, or
lack of, MAT
preservice teachers’
edTPA scores?

O-C.S. 2 Overall, to what extent do you agree
that your supervising teacher
supported you for your successful
completion of the edTPA?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart
How are MAT
preservice teachers
influenced by
motivational
constructs as they
develop their
teaching abilities
and their edTPA
portfolio?

M-E.V. During the process of constructing
your edTPA portfolio, to what extent
do you agree that the process
influenced your development as a
teacher?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart
How are MAT
preservice teachers
influenced by
motivational
constructs as they
develop their
teaching abilities
and their edTPA
portfolio?

M-S.R. Overall, to what extent do you agree
that the edTPA process served as a
cycle of planning, monitoring, and
evaluating of your own teaching?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart

191

How are MAT
preservice teachers
influenced by
motivational
constructs as they
develop their
teaching abilities
and their edTPA
portfolio?

M-S-E Overall, to what extent do you agree
that the edTPA process increased
your confidence in your teaching
abilities?

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart
Sample Description N/A How many hours would you estimate
you spent on the entire edTPA
process during your general teaching
practices? (Please exclude from this
total actual teaching and preparation
time you would have otherwise still
undertaken if NOT completing the
edTPA.)

Hours of edTPA Preparation .

Interval Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Mean, Standard
Deviation,
Range
Table
How are MAT
preservice teachers
influenced by
motivational
constructs as they
develop their
teaching abilities
and their edTPA
portfolio?

M-E.V. Overall, to what extent do you agree
that the edTPA was an effective use
of your time?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Range
Table, Stacked bar
chart

192

Appendix 2 Letter Inviting MAT Participants
December 29
th
, 2019
Dear MAT Student,
My name is Joseph Kotarski, a Doctorate student conducting research on preservice teacher
experiences with the Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA). The MAT program
has agreed to distribute this letter on my behalf for your consideration. Specifically, my research
is exploring the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on preservice teachers as
they immerse with the edTPA and ultimately submit their portfolio.
In your capacity as current or former MAT student who submitted an edTPA portfolio I am
inviting you to complete a short survey. By taking the survey, your valuable feedback will help
to contribute to academic and program understanding of student experiences with the edTPA and
can help to make program improvements and recommendations to policy makers.
The survey is anonymous and I will be the only one able to access the data, which will be stored
in secured online account. However, I will be reporting back to the MAT program on my
findings and recommendations based on the trends in the survey data. Again, you will not need
to share your identity but optionally may do so if you agree to be contacted for a follow up 1:1
interview at your discretion.
For your valuable time and input, once you have completed the survey you will be sent a $20
gift card from an online retailor for your time. The window for completing the survey is
from December 29
th
through January 24
th
, 2020.
To access the survey link please visit www.edTPA2019MATsurvey.com
Thank you again for your contribution to my study and your valuable feedback.
Sincerely,

Joseph M. Kotarski

193

Appendix 3 Weekly Reminder E-mail for Survey Participation

January 15 / 12/ 19 / 23, 2019
Dear MAT Student,
This is a reminder to participate in an online survey in your capacity as current or former MAT
student who submitted an edTPA portfolio. By taking the survey, your valuable feedback will
help to contribute to academic and program understanding of student experiences with the
edTPA and can help to make program improvements and recommendations to policy makers.
The survey is anonymous and I will be the only one able to access the data, which will be stored
in secured online account. However, I will be reporting back to the MAT program on my
findings and recommendations based on the trends in the survey data. Again, you will not need
to share your identity but optionally may do so if you agree to be contacted for a follow up 1:1
interview at your discretion.
For your valuable time and input, once you have completed the survey you will be sent a $20
gift card from an online retailor for your time. The window for completing the survey is
from December 29
th
through January 24
th
, 2020. To access the survey link please visit
www.edTPA2019MATsurvey.com Thank you again for your contribution to my study and your
valuable feedback.
Sincerely,
Joseph M. Kotarski

194

Appendix 4 Interview Questions and Protocol
Research Questions KMO
Construct
Interview Questions
Demographic N/A What is your name?
Demographic N/A What year did you enroll in the MAT program?
What are the knowledge influences on MAT
preservice teachers during their development and
demonstration of pedagogical praxis and
subsequent edTPA portfolio artifacts and
commentaries?

K-P.P. / K-
C
The developer of the edTPA, SCALE, describes the process as
“educative” for stakeholders. We would like to explore the extent
that the edTPA was an educative process given your experience.
1. Please tell me about what your experiences were as you
completed your edTPA portfolio.
a. Did the edTPA help you to develop the knowledge
and skills to plan for instruction and assessment? (If
so, how?)
b. Of the 3 performance tasks, which did you find to be
most impactful to your development as a teacher?
How do you know?
c. Did edTPA enable you to build capacity to impact
student learning? (If so, how?)
What are the knowledge influences on MAT
preservice teachers during their development and
demonstration of pedagogical praxis and
subsequent edTPA portfolio artifacts and
commentaries?
K-P / K-
I.C.L
d. What might be some of the difficulties or challenges
you faced in regard to your edTPA portfolio
construction, and how did you overcome them?
What are the knowledge influences on MAT
preservice teachers during their development and
demonstration of pedagogical praxis and
subsequent edTPA portfolio artifacts and
commentaries?

K-M.C. 2. To what extent do you think the edTPA supported your ability
to better identify and understand your areas of strength and
growth as a student teacher?

195

3. Do you think the edTPA supported your development as a
teacher by raising your awareness of effective teaching and
learning strategies (why or why not?)
a. Probe for examples. Probe for each why/why not.
Organizationally, to what extent are MAT
preservice teachers’ provided feedback and
mentorship by MAT faculty and their supervising
teacher during their edTPA experience?

O-C.M. 1 The next part of the interview will cover the extent of support
and mentorship you perceived to have received from MAT
program, faculty, and your supervising teacher with respect to
your edTPA.

4. To what extent do you feel your MAT supervising faculty
was able to provide guidance and support as you developed
your artifacts and commentaries for your edTPA portfolio?
a. Probe for examples. What did this look like? What did it
sound like? Have them walk you through an example.
b. What additional guidance or support would have been
helpful?
5. Similarly, to what extent do you feel your supervising teacher
was able to provide guidance and support as you developed
your artifacts and commentaries for your edTPA portfolio?
a. Probe for examples. What did this look like? What did it
sound like? Have them walk you through an example.
b. What additional guidance or support would have been
helpful?
Organizationally, to what extent are MAT
preservice teachers’ provided feedback and
mentorship by MAT faculty and their supervising
teacher during their edTPA experience?
O-C.M. 2 6. Do you feel that the program assessments were well aligned
to what you were asked to do on the edTPA? How do you
know? Can you provide some examples?

a. Tell me about the edTPA materials the MAT provided to
you. Were they useful in helping you to understand and

196

apply what you needed to do to complete the requirements
of the edTPA?
Organizationally, to what extent are MAT
preservice teachers’ provided feedback and
mentorship by MAT faculty and their supervising
teacher during their edTPA experience?
O-C.S. 1
7. In your experience, how did the MAT program communicate
to you the rationale and of the edTPA?
a. Did the program communicate that the edTPA was more
of a requirement, or an important set of assessments
aimed at developing your effectiveness, or both?
Organizationally, to what extent are MAT
preservice teachers’ provided feedback and
mentorship by MAT faculty and their supervising
teacher during their edTPA experience?
O-C.S. 2 8. Similarly, how did your supervising teacher communicate to
you the rationale and of the edTPA?
b. Did he or she communicate that the edTPA was more of a
requirement, or an important set of assessments aimed at
developing your effectiveness, or both?
To what extent are MAT preservice teachers’
motivated to value their edTPA experience as an
authentic pedagogical framework and assessment
of their teaching capabilities?

M-E.V. The last part of the interview will cover the extent that you
valued the edTPA as an educative process.

1. Please share the extent that you feel the edTPA influenced
your overall development as a teacher in training. (Probe.
How do you know?)
To what extent are MAT preservice teachers’
motivated to value their edTPA experience as an
authentic pedagogical framework and assessment
of their teaching capabilities?

M-S.R. a. Was the edTPA valuable in helping you to develop cycles of
planning? (Why or why not?)
b. Were you able to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of
your own teaching as result of the edTPA (How do you
know?)
To what extent are MAT preservice teachers’
motivated to value their edTPA experience as an
authentic pedagogical framework and assessment
of their teaching capabilities?
M-S-E c. As a teacher in training and throughout your placement, were
you able to develop confidence as the lead teacher in the

197

classroom? (How so?) Did the edTPA influence this process
in any way?

To what extent are MAT preservice teachers’
motivated to value their edTPA experience as an
authentic pedagogical framework and assessment
of their teaching capabilities?

M-E.V. d. Do you feel that the edTPA was a good use of your time?
(Why or why not?)
To what extent are MAT preservice teachers’
motivated to value their edTPA experience as an
authentic pedagogical framework and assessment
of their teaching capabilities?
M-U.V. e. Overall, do you feel the edTPA an effective and authentic
evaluation of your teaching? (Why or why not?)

9. Is there any other information or insights you would like to contribute to the conversation that I might not have covered today?

Closing & Follow-Up
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really value your time and your willingness to share your
experiences with me. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for the MAT program evaluation with respect to the edTPA. If I
find myself with a follow-up question, what is the best way to contact you? Again, thank you for participating!

198

Appendix 5 Interview Purpose Letter
Dear Interview Participant,
Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in a follow up interview about your edTPA experience. My
name is Joseph Kotarski, I am a Doctorate Candidate a Principle Investigator (PI) for this study. It has been a
rewarding experience to learn about your experience with the edTPA MAT program as indicated on your
survey responses. I am so very impressed with the work that you have undertaken as a preservice teacher and
your passion to head to the call of developing young people for betterment of society.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the structure of the interview you volunteered to participate
in, which will last around 1 hour. I would like to first frame the overview of what the focus of the discussion
will entail and hope this letter helps to answer any questions that you may have about your participation.
I will be having conversations with current or former MAT preservice teachers who agreed to be
interviewed. By doing so I am hoping for a comprehensive understanding of your experiences with the edTPA
in the MAT program. The goal of the data collection is to identify areas of success and challenges that you
would like to share about your experience with developing your edTPA artifacts and commentaries for your
portfolio submission.
The final piece of information I would like to share with you is the logistics of the interview process. I
will record our discussion so that I can focus on the conversation and not taking notes. The recorded
discussion also helps me accurately capture the conversation. If at any time you wish to turn off the recorder
you can ask me to do so, or you may make comments “off the record.” Your participation in all aspects of data
collection is completely voluntary.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that everything said in the interview will be kept strictly
confidential. All of the findings for the MAT program will be reported in the aggregate. When using an actual
quote from a participant, I will not compromise the identity of the participant. Your name and the names of
other participants will never be associated with the findings. I also would like to share with you and assure that
none of the data collected will be shared with any other parties including in the administrators of the MAT
program, but I will share the aggregate data with the MAT program so that they can consider the trends and
implications of the data to better improve the experience of preservice teachers in respect to the edTPA.
If you have any questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have concerns or
suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than the researcher about the study, please call the OPRS at
(323) 442-0114 or e-mail complaints.ohrp@hhs.gov. You can reference IRB # UP-19-00612.
Once again, I thank you for volunteering your valuable time

199

Appendix 6 Comparison of study’s survey items to Ressler et al.
(2017) survey items

KMO
Construct
Study Survey Items Ressler et al., 2017 Survey Items
K-P.P. / K-
C
After submitting your edTPA, to what extent do you agree
that you have the knowledge and skills to plan for
instruction and assessment for future classes that you will
teach?
How do you anticipate completing the edTPA during
student teaching (residency) will impact your teaching
effectiveness?
K-P.P. / K-
C
After submitting your edTPA, to what extent do you agree
that you now have the knowledge and skills to create a
positive learning environment in the classroom for future
classes that you will teach?
How do you anticipate completing the edTPA during
student teaching (residency) will impact your teaching
effectiveness?
K-P.P. / K-
C
After submitting your edTPA, to what extent do you agree
that you now have the knowledge and skills to develop your
students’ subject matter understanding in future classes that
you will teach?
How do you anticipate completing the edTPA during
student teaching (residency) will impact your teaching
effectiveness?
K-P / K-
I.C.L
Overall, to what extent do you agree that you were able to
connect your teaching to the artifacts and commentaries of
the edTPA portfolio?
Explain your perception of the edTPA’s benefits and
drawbacks.
K-M.C. Overall, to what extent do you agree that the edTPA helped
you to better identify and understand your areas of strength
and growth as a student teacher?
Overall, how satisfied are you that the edTPA has
prepared you for successful completion of the edTPA
during student teaching (residency)?
K-M.C. Now that you have completed the edTPA, to what extent do
you agree that the experience helped you to develop a range
of teaching strategies and knowing when to use them?
Overall, how satisfied are you that the edTPA has
prepared you for successful completion of the edTPA
during student teaching (residency)?

200

O-C.M. 1 Overall, to what extent do you agree that program faculty
provided you with feedback and mentorship about your
teaching during your edTPA experience?
How satisfied were you with classroom instruction for
the practice edTPA?
O-C.M. 1 Overall, to what extent do you agree that your supervising
teacher provided you with feedback and mentorship about
your teaching during your edTPA experience?
N/A
O-C.M. 2 Overall, to what extent do you agree that the program key
assessments prepared you for successful completion of the
edTPA?
Overall, how satisfied are you that the practice edTPA
has prepared you for successful completion of the
edTPA during student teaching (residency)?
O-C.M. 2 Overall, to what extent do you agree that the edTPA
materials provided to you by the MAT Program were
supportive?
How satisfied were you with the materials you were
provided to prepare for the practice edTPA?
O-C.S. 1 /
O-C.S. 2
Overall, to what extent do you agree that the MAT program
communicated the edTPA to be an important set of
assessments aimed at developing your teaching
effectiveness?
Overall, how satisfied are you that the practice edTPA
has prepared you for successful completion of the
edTPA during student teaching (residency)?
O-C.S. 2 Overall, to what extent do you agree that your supervising
teacher supported you for your successful completion of the
edTPA?
N/A
M-E.V. During the process of constructing your edTPA portfolio, to
what extent do you agree that the process influenced your
development as a teacher?
Overall, how satisfied are you that the edTPA has
prepared you for successful completion of the edTPA
during student teaching (residency)?
M-S.R. Overall, to what extent do you agree that the edTPA process
served as a cycle of planning, monitoring, and evaluating of
your own teaching?
Overall, how satisfied are you that the edTPA has
prepared you for successful completion of the edTPA
during student teaching (residency)?
M-S-E Overall, to what extent do you agree that the edTPA process
increased your confidence in your teaching abilities?
Overall, how satisfied are you that the edTPA will
improve your teaching practice?
N/A How many hours would you estimate you spent on the entire
edTPA process during your general teaching practices?
(Please exclude from this total actual teaching and
preparation time you would have otherwise still undertaken
if NOT completing the edTPA.)

How many hours would you estimate you spent on the
entire edTPA process during your general teaching
practices? (Please exclude from this total actual
teaching and preparation time you would have
otherwise still undertaken if NOT completing the
edTPA.)

201

Hours of edTPA Preparation .

Hours of edTPA Preparation .

M-E.V. Overall, to what extent do you agree that the edTPA was an
effective use of your time?
How effective was the use of your time for the
edTPA?
M-U.V. Overall, to what extent do you agree that the edTPA was an
accurate assessment of your teaching ability?

How effective was the use of your time for the
edTPA?

202

Appendix 7 Comparison of study’s interview items to Ressler
et al. (2017) interview items.
KMO
Construct
Study Interview Questions Ressler et al., 2017 Interview Questions
K-P.P. / K-
C
1. Please tell me about what your experiences were as
you completed your edTPA portfolio.
a. Did the edTPA help you to develop the
knowledge and skills to plan for instruction
and assessment? (If so, how?)
b. Of the 3 performance tasks, which did you
find to be most impactful to your
development as a teacher? How do you
know?
c. Did edTPA enable you to build capacity to
impact student learning? (If so, how?)
1. Explain your perceptions of the edTPA. What
are a couple of benefits and a couple of
drawbacks?
2. What were your experiences with navigating
the format of the edTPA?
K-P / K-
I.C.L
d. What might be some of the difficulties or
challenges you faced in regard to your
edTPA portfolio construction, and how did
you overcome them?
K-M.C. e. To what extent do you think the edTPA
supported your ability to better identify and
understand your areas of strength and growth
as a student teacher?
Do you think the edTPA supported your development as a
teacher by raising your awareness of effective teaching and
learning strategies (why or why not?)
3. Did the edTPA help you develop as a teacher?
(If so, how?)

203

O-C.M. 1 2. To what extent do you feel your MAT supervising
faculty was able to provide guidance and support as
you developed your artifacts and commentaries for
your edTPA portfolio?
a. What additional guidance or support would
have been helpful?
3. Similarly, to what extent do you feel your
supervising teacher was able to provide guidance
and support as you developed your artifacts and
commentaries for your edTPA portfolio?
a. What additional guidance or support would have
been helpful?
4. Did the practice edTPA prepare you for the
edTPA? How?

5. Did your placement impact your edTPA
experience?

O-C.M. 2 6. Do you feel that the program assessments were well
aligned to what you were asked to do on the edTPA?
How do you know? Can you provide some
examples?
7. Tell me about the edTPA materials the MAT
provided to you. Were they useful in helping you to
understand and apply what you needed to do to
complete the requirements of the edTPA?
O-C.S. 1 8. In your experience, how did the MAT program
communicate to you the rationale and of the edTPA?
a. Did the program communicate that the edTPA
was more of a requirement, or an important set
of assessments aimed at developing your
effectiveness, or both?
O-C.S. 2 9. Similarly, how did your supervising teacher
communicate to you the rationale and of the edTPA?

204

a. Did he or she communicate that the edTPA was
more of a requirement, or an important set of
assessments aimed at developing your effectiveness,
or both?
M-E.V. 10. Please share the extent that you feel the edTPA
influenced your overall development as a teacher in
training.
6. Did the edTPA impact the rest of your student
teaching experience? How?

7. Did the process of completing the edTPA
impact student learning? How

8. Was the edTPA an effective and authentic
evaluation of your teaching? Why or why not?
M-S.R. a. Was the edTPA valuable in helping you to
develop cycles of planning? (Why or why not?)
b. Were you able to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of your own teaching as result of
the edTPA (How do you know?)
M-S-E c. As a teacher in training and throughout your
placement, were you able to develop confidence
as the lead teacher in the classroom? (How so?)
Did the edTPA influence this process in any
way?

M-E.V. 11. Do you feel that the edTPA was a good use of your
time? (Why or why not?)
M-U.V. a. Overall, do you feel the edTPA an effective and
authentic evaluation of your teaching? (Why or
why not?)

205

Appendix 8 Consent Form For Research Participation
Study Title: The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: Authentic and Valued?

Principal Investigator: Joseph Kotarski

IRB Study Number: XXX XXX

I am a graduate student at the University of XXX, in the XXX of Education. I am planning to
conduct a research study, which I invite you to take part in. I am doing this study in fulfilment of
the requirements of my Doctorate of Education. This form has important information about the
reason for doing this study, what I will ask you to do if you decide to be in this study, and the
way we would like to use information about you if you choose to be in the study.
Why are you doing this study?
You are being asked to participate in a research study about MAT student experiences with the
Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA). The purpose of the study is to evaluate
three areas in respect to the edTPA: (a) the knowledge influences needed for preservice teachers
to develop pedagogical praxis and their edTPA portfolio artifacts and commentaries, (b) the
extent that preservice teachers are motivated to value the edTPA as an authentic pedagogical
framework and assessment of their teaching capabilities, and (c) organizationally, the extent that
preservice teachers were provided feedback and mentorship by their MAT faculty and their
supervising teacher while developing their edTPA.

What will I do if I choose to be in this study?
You will be asked to complete a survey about your experience with the edTPA as a MAT
student. The survey is anonymous and I will be the only one able to access the data, which will
be stored in secured online account. However, I will be reporting back to the MAT program on
my findings and recommendations based on the trends in the survey data. Again, you will not
need to share your identity.
Once you have completed the survey your participation in the study may conclude at that
moment. However, you may optionally agree to be contacted for a follow up 1:1 interview at
your discretion. By choosing to be contacted for a follow up interview you acknowledge sharing
your name and contact details with the researcher. The researcher shall keep your details
anonymous and secured in an online account.
Study time: Study participation will take approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour and 15
minutes depending on your level of participation. If you only choose to participate in the survey
portion of the study the time needed to do so should not exceed 30 minutes. If you choose to be
contacted for a follow up 1:1 interview the conversation should last around 45 minutes.
Study location: The survey will take place online on a device and location at the
participant’s convenience. The survey window will be from October 1, 2019 until October 31
st
,

206

2019. Interviews will be conducted the month of November 2019 and will be scheduled with the
participant online via Zoom, Skype, or by telephone.
I would like to audio-record this interview to make sure that I remember accurately all the
information you provide. I will keep these recordings in a secure online cloud account and they
will only be used by me, the researcher. If you prefer not to be audio-recorded, I will take notes
instead.
I may quote your remarks in presentations or articles resulting from this work. A pseudonym
will be used to protect your identity.
What are my rights as a research participant?
Participation in this study is voluntary. You do not have to answer any question you do not want
to answer. If at any time and for any reason, you would prefer not to participate in this study,
please feel free not to. If at any time you would like to stop participating, please tell me. We can
take a break, stop and continue at a later date, or stop altogether. You may withdraw from this
study at any time, and you will not be penalized in any way for deciding to stop participation.
If you decide to withdraw from this study, the researchers will ask you if the information already
collected from you can be used.
What are the possible benefits for me or others?
You are not likely to have any direct benefit from being in this research study. This study is
designed to learn more about MAT preservice teacher experiences with the edTPA. The study
results may be used to help inform program improvement and to help other stakeholders such as
faculty, supervising teachers, and preservice teachers in the future.
How will you protect the information you collect about me, and how will that information
be shared?
Results of this study may be used in publications and presentations. Your study data will be
handled as confidentially as possible. If results of this study are published or presented,
individual names and other personally identifiable information will not be used.
To minimize the risks to confidentiality, I will store the survey data in a secure online cloud
account that is password protected. Additionally, interview recordings will be stored in a
password protected online cloud account and only accessible by the researcher.
Financial Information
Participation in this study will involve no cost to you. If you participate in the survey study, you
will be given a $10 gift card to an online retailer for participating in this study. By participating
in the interview follow up, you will be given a $20 gift card to an online retailer for participating
in this study.

207

Who can I contact if I have questions or concerns about this research study?
If you have questions, you are free to ask them now. If you have questions later, you may contact
the researchers at j_kotarski@hotmail.com or at 810-728-0423.
If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this research, you can contact the
following office at the University:
University IRB: (323) 442 0114
University Office of Compliance: (213) 740-8258
Office for the Protection of Research Subjects: (213) 821-1154

Anonymous Complaints
The University hotline can be used to confidentially report suspected violations of law, without
fear of retribution. Anyone who has knowledge or a good faith belief that an applicable law,
regulation, or university policy has been violated, should report such information to the Help and
Hotline at (213) 740-2500.
Consent
I have read this form and the research study has been explained to me. I have been given the
opportunity to ask questions and my questions have been answered. If I have additional
questions, I have been told whom to contact. I agree to participate in the research study described
above and will receive a copy of this consent form.

______________________________________________________
Participant’s Name (printed)
____________________________________________________ ________________
Participant’s Signature Date

208

Appendix 9 Human Subjects Protection Program
Office for the Protection of Research Subjects
Human Subjects Protection Program
The University is committed to the protection of human research participants in all biomedical
and behavioral research conducted by or at the University or with university resources. The
University adheres to ethical principles of The Nuremberg Code, The Belmont Report: Ethical
Principles and Guidelines for the Human Subjects of Research, and the Report of the National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
The Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) consists of the OPRS and four Institutional
Review Boards. These entities comply with existing regulations of the federal government (FDA,
OHRP, OCR), state and local laws as well as institutional policies. This commitment to the
protection of human participants applies to all University research involving human participants
regardless of whether the research is funded through the university, the federal government, a
non-profit or industry sponsor and regardless of the location of the research.
OPRS sets policies for the conduct and review of human subjects research, furthers education at
all levels of the Human Subject Protection Program, affects communication between all levels of
the research community, and provides oversight of the University IRBs.
The University Institutional Review Boards, overseen by OPRS, review all research in
accordance with ethical and regulatory best practices. These boards are composed of faculty,
staff, students, and members of the community at large.
Among the achievements of University and the HSPP are accreditation through the Association
for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs and assuring excellence for
human subjects research programs across the university through the implementation of
comprehensive Human Subjects Policies and Procedures. A university-wide research ethics
program and continuing educational programs assures the University remains ahead of ever
changing ethical and regulatory standards.

209

Appendix 10 Information Fact Sheet (IFS) for Exempt Non-Medical Research
Exempt
All University human subjects research projects must undergo review and approval by an IRB
prior to initiation of research activities. There are 3 categories of review (exempt, expedited, and
full board) defined by the Federal Regulations for Protection of Human Research Subjects (45
CFR 46).
Exempt reviews are conducted by at least one reviewer. To qualify for review at the exempt
level, the research must not be greater than minimal risk* and must fall into one or more of the
exempt categories described below.
*Minimal risk is defined by the federal regulations as the probability and magnitude of physical
or psychological harm that is normally encountered in the daily lives, or in the routine medical,
dental, or psychological examination of healthy persons.

Exempt Categories:
1. Education research
2. Surveys, interviews, educational tests,
public observations (that do not involve children)
3. Benign behavioral interventions
4. Analysis of previously-collected, identifiable info/specimens
5. Federal research/demonstration projects
6. Taste and food evaluation studies

Exempt Categories in Detail

Category 1 – Education research
Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal
educational practices that are not likely to adversely impact students’ opportunity to learn or
assessment of educators
Examples:
● Evaluating the use of accepted or revised standardized tests
● Testing or comparing a curriculum or lesson

210

● A program evaluation of pharmacy continuing education

Category 2 – Surveys, interviews, educational tests, public observations
Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement),
survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior and:
● Recorded information cannot readily identify the subject (directly or
indirectly/linked) OR
● Any disclosure of responses outside of the research would NOT reasonably place subject
at risk (criminal, civil liability, financial, employability, educational advancement,
reputation)
Examples:
● Surveying teachers, nurses, or doctors about a technique or an outcome
● Interviewing managers about a management style or best practice
● Conducting a focus group about an experience or an opinion of a community program

Category 3 – Benign Behavioral Interventions
Research involving Benign Behavioral Interventions through verbal, written responses,
(including data entry or audiovisual recording) from adult subjects who prospectively agrees and
ONE of following met:
● Recorded information cannot readily identify the subject (directly or
indirectly/linked) OR
● Any disclosure of responses outside of the research would NOT reasonably place subject
at risk (criminal, civil liability, financial, employability, educational advancement,
reputation)
Example:
● Solving puzzles under various noise conditions
● Playing an economic game
● Being exposed to stimuli such as color, light or sound (at safe levels)
● Performing cognitive tasks

211

Category 4 – Secondary Research Uses of Identifiable Private Information or Identifiable
Biospecimens
Secondary research with identifiable Information/specimens collected for some other initial
activity, if ONE of following:
● Biospecimens or information is publically available
● Information recorded so subject cannot readily be identified (directly or
indirectly/linked); investigator does not contact subjects and will not re-identify the
subjects
● Collection and analysis involving Investigators Use of identifiable health information
when use is regulated by HIPAA “health care operations” or “research” or “public health
activities and purposes”
● Research information collected by or on behalf of federal government using government
generated or collected information obtained for non-research activities
Example:
● Analyzing existing tissue samples or data set which are recorded by the investigator
without identifiers

Category 5 – Federal research or demonstration projects
Research and demonstration projects supported by a Federal Agency/Dept. AND designed to
study, public benefit or service programs.
● Federal agencies must publish a list of projects covered by this
exemption prior to research commencing

Category 6 – Taste and food quality evaluation studies
Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies,
● if wholesome foods without additives are consumed OR
● if a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use
found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the
level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.

212

Appendix 11 Blended Evaluation Tool
In effort to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of the ongoing planning conferences, guided
review sessions, and class discussions related to teaching, learning, and the edTPA please
provide your responses to this short survey. Your responses provide important information as we
work as a program to improve our overall professional learning and education experience for
aspiring teachers. Thank you for your candid feedback.
Survey Items (four-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree)
Level One: Reactions
Engagement
1. Engaging in planning conferences, guided teaching reviews, and key assessments
improved my understanding of the performance assessments on the edTPA.
2. I felt engaged in guided teaching reviews.
Relevance
3. I feel the information and skills covered in planning conferences, guided teaching
reviews, and key assessments has been relevant to my preparation for the edTPA.
Satisfaction
4. The edTPA was a valuable use of my time in preparing me for my future career in
teaching.
Level Two: Learning
5. The planning conferences, guided teaching reviews, and key assessments increased my
knowledge about planning.
6. The planning conferences, guided teaching reviews, and key assessments increased my
knowledge about pedagogy.
7. The planning conferences, guided teaching reviews, and key assessments increased my
knowledge about student assessment strategies.
8. The edTPA increased my knowledge about common expectations and practices first year
classroom teachers will need and encounter.

213

Level Three: Behavior
9. My use of strategies learned from the teaching performance assessments has increased
since the fieldwork-based video experiences.
10. I have used one or more of the strategies from the teaching performance assessments with
in my classroom or with my students.
11. I have referred to the edTPA rubrics and worked samples (job aids) to support the
application of the strategies in my classroom and with students.
Level Four: Results
12. I have made progress on my goals since transitioning from the video-based fieldwork
semester to the student teaching semester.
13. I feel more competent in addressing the teacher performance assessments on the edTPA
by using the strategies learned from the planning conferences, guided teaching reviews,
and key assessments.
Open Ended Response:
I feel the planning conferences/guided teaching reviews/key assessments could be improved by:

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Since its introduction in 2013, the Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) has been lauded by advocates as an effective means of focusing teacher preparation provision and as a measure of ensuring candidate quality by serving as a gate keeper to the profession. However, critics of the edTPA have claimed that assessment is a dangerous standardization of teaching, a corporate takeover of teacher education, and lacks validity in measuring teacher effectiveness. This dissertation employed a mixed methods explanatory design and evaluated the experiences of 2 cohorts of preservice teachers from Master of Arts program with respect to their interaction, development, and submission of their edTPA portfolio. Specifically, the study evaluated three areas of MAT preservice teachers experience with the edTPA: (a) the knowledge influences needed for preservice teachers to develop and demonstrate their readiness to teach as measured by their edTPA portfolio scores, (b), the extent that MAT preservice teachers are influenced by motivational constructs as they develop their teaching abilities and their edTPA portfolio, and (c) the organizational influences that contribute to the success, or lack of, MAT preservice teachers’ edTPA scores. After a presentation of the results and findings of the data, the study concludes by sharing to the identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps and recommends an integrated implementation and evaluation plan for the MAT program to consider for use with future MAT cohorts and their edTPA preparation.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Representation in the teaching force: recruitment of teachers of color

PDF

Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

PDF

Staying power: new teacher retention and educator preparation

PDF

Calibrating the college preparation bridgeway for independent study program students at Amazing Independent High School District: a multisite evaluation study through the teachers' lens

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

Changing nature of preservice teacher concerns in an accelerated, graduate-level teacher education program

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

PDF

The African American male achievement gap: teachers as change agents

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The intersection of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational culture on implementing positive psychology interventions through a character education curriculum

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

Asset Metadata

Creator Kotarski, Joseph M. (author)

Core Title The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: a model for teacher preparation?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 08/02/2020

Defense Date 06/15/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag alternative teacher preparation,clinical teaching experience,edTPA,OAI-PMH Harvest,preservice teacher,traditional teacher preparation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Moore, Ekaterina (committee chair), Kwock Hu, Lindsay (committee member), Pascarella, John (committee member)

Creator Email j_kotarski@hotmail.com,kotarski@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-357262

Unique identifier UC11666333

Identifier etd-KotarskiJo-8857.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-357262 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KotarskiJo-8857.pdf

Dmrecord 357262

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kotarski, Joseph M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA