University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Assessing dispositions towards diversity in math and science submissions of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

Assessing dispositions towards diversity in math and science submissions of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

1

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY IN MATH AND SCIENCE
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FOR CALIFORNIA TEACHERS

by

Leslie Stephanie Kapner

___________________________________________________________________

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 2013

Copyright 2013 Leslie Stephanie Kapner

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

2
DEDICATION
For my father, Alex Kapner, my friends, and my son, Max Kapner: My past, my present
and the future.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am sincerely thankful to my committee members, each of whom brought their expertise
and guidance to the dissertation process. My chair, Dr. Melora Sundt, provided flexibility,
support and institutional knowledge. Dr. Kenneth Yates was incredibly generous with his
precious time, and knowledge of learning theory. Dr. Andrea Whittaker shared her deep
knowledge of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers and its development into the
edTPA. I am particularly grateful that in the process of contesting and conversing about my
research, my esteemed committee members considered me a colleague. I would also like to thank
Dr. Katie Moulton and Dr. Linda Fischer for direction in navigating through the writing process.
Finally, I would like to thank Chi Michela and Jessica Manzone for filling in as parents to my
son Max. I could not have accomplished this without them.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review 26
Chapter 3: Methodology 50
Figure 1. Data collection process 62
Chapter 4: Results 65
Chapter 5: Summary of Findings 86
References 97
Appendices 108
Appendix A: Teaching Performance Expectations Summary 108
Appendix B: Rossier Strategic Plan 113
Appendix C: Rossier Four Academic Pillars 117
Appendix D: Implementation Plans and Activities for Each Goal 118
Appendix E: The Thinking Behind the Dispositions Rubric: Valuing Diversity 122
Appendix F: Dispositions: Valuing Diversity 125
Appendix G: Guiding Principles 127
Appendix H: Study Version: The Thinking Behind the Dispositions Rubric: 130
Valuing Diversity
Appendix I: Questions to Assessors 135
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Taxonomy of the Affective Domain 16
Table 2: Draft of Preliminary Dispositions Rubric 55
Table 3: Final Draft of Dispositions Rubric 57
Table 4: PACT Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible 59
Table 5: PACT Rubric 10: Reflecting on Learning 60
Table 6: Demographic Background of Sample 67
Table 7: Rubric Levels and Corresponding Assessor Comments 69
Table 8: Overall Candidate Performance on Valuing Diversity Rubric (Rubric 13) 71
Table 9: Distribution of Scores by Content Area (Rubric 13) 72
Table 10: Mean Scores by Demographic Variables 73
Table 11: Results of Independent Sample T-test Comparisons — Gender Groups 74
Table 12: Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Valuing Diversity Level 75
Table 13: Comparison Between Teaching Location Groups in Valuing Diversity Level 76
Table 14: Comparison Between Content Area Groups in Valuing Diversity Level 77
Table 15: Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Secondary Math Group 78
Table 16: Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Secondary Science Group 79
Table 17: Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Elementary Math Group 79
Table 18: Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Secondary Math Group 80
Table 19: Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Secondary Science Group 81
Table 20: Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Elementary Math Group 81
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

6
ABSTRACT
This study applies the frameworks of Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964), Smith and Ragan
(2004), and one school of education’s Conceptual Framework as a means to develop a measure
of teacher candidate dispositions towards diversity on the Performance Assessment for
California Teachers (PACT). The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the
PACT contains evidence to assess valuing diversity, using a theoretically grounded original
rubric designed based upon program-identified candidate proficiencies, and the PACT’s
developmental perspective. Using secondary data from Secondary Math (N=10), Secondary
Science (N=11) and Elementary Math (N=19) submissions, this mixed methods study collected
and analyzed assessor comments and feedback in addition to numerical scores comparing
candidate performance on existing PACT rubrics with the new Valuing Diversity rubric. The
study revealed that the rubric was a useful valid instrument for identifying valuing diversity in
the PACT. While assessors found evidence to assign a score based on the elements of the rubric,
they also found that the candidates scored lower on the Valuing Diversity rubric than on the
related rubrics that were also analyzed. Programmatic recommendations including a curriculum
audit, and targeted professional development, as well as recommended future research are
presented. Although further research is necessary, this study has contributed to the empirical
research on assessing dispositions. The combination of learning theory, an affective taxonomy,
and expected candidate proficiencies provided a lens with which to examine candidates attitudes,
values, and beliefs as they influenced the application of knowledge and skills in their guided
practice classrooms.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

7
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The face of teaching has remained the same for the past 40 years, but the faces of the
students have not. The demographics of the teacher population as mainly white, middle class,
monolingual and female (Urrieta & Reidel, 2008) have remained consistent in the United States,
while nearly half of all students will be of color by the year 2020 (Banks, 1994). In addition to
differences in race and ethnicity, teachers are also dealing with the fact that approximately 20
percent of the school age population now lives in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010) and
mainstream classrooms are now the “least restrictive environment” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004) for an increased number of students with physical and developmental
challenges. Explicit in national standards for teacher preparation (National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2008; Interstate New Teacher Assessment
Support Consortium [INTASC], 1992) and implicit in the California Standards for Teacher
Preparation (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CCTC], 2008) is the charge of
preparing teacher candidates with the skills, knowledge and dispositions necessary to help all
children learn. Teacher candidates, however, report that they do not know how to work with
students from diverse groups (NCATE, 2008).
Many presevice teachers enter their teacher education programs ignorant or unconcerned
about issues of diversity (Liggett & Finley, 2009). Some exit programs with their stereotypical
beliefs unchanged or even reinforced. The reasons for this may be due to the particular teacher
education program (Varvus, 1999), or a disconnect between theory and practice in their learning
to teach experiences (Banks, 2001). They may lack exposure to individuals different from
themselves (Milner, 2003) except through media messages about diversity that often serve to
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

8
institutionalize negative and inaccurate of images and attitudes about diversity (Bartolome &
Macedo, 1997). These teacher candidates may graduate from teacher preparation programs
believing that the low academic achievement and success of diverse students is inevitable.
Programs that are addressing issues of diversity through altering curriculum or fieldwork
experiences are reporting that teacher preservice discourse continues to include prejudice and
stereotypes (Cho & DeCastro-Ambrosetti, 2006; Liggett & Finley, 2009). Teacher candidates
who are confronted with issues of institutional racism, power, and positionality frequently resist
or resent the fact that they may unknowingly be perpetuating an injustice on children (Sleeter,
2001). Others may be lacking the self-efficacy to implement a curriculum that moves beyond the
status quo (Guyton & Wesche, 2005).
Teacher attitudes and expectations have been shown to correlate with student
achievement, particularly among students of color and low-income students (Bennett, 2001; Gay,
2000; Banks, 1997; Giroux, 1995). Student attitudes about their teachers have also had an effect
on student performance (Talbert-Johnson, 2006). The impact is evident in school attendance, low
graduation rates, expulsions, drop out rates and special education placements (Bennett, 2001;
Gay, 2000; Duncan, 2009).
According to Milner (2003), an important aim of teacher education is to help new
teachers develop the knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to work with diverse groups.
Teacher candidates need the skills, knowledge, and dispositions necessary to enable all students
to reach their fullest potential (Bennett, 2001) and teacher education programs are being asked to
assess the progress candidates have made in these areas (NCATE, 2008). Teacher education
programs have attempted to meet this challenge (Liggett & Finley, 2009), and have developed
assessments such as the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) to measure
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

9
skills and abilities, but regarding dispositions “little empirical attention has been paid to issues of
evaluation and assessment…in these areas” (Ponterotto, Baluch, Greig, & Rivera, 1998).
Teacher Performance Assessment
Teacher education programs (TEPs) are politically and professionally under increased
scrutiny to prove their effectiveness in preparing qualified teacher candidates (Englehart et al.,
2012; Wilkerson & Lang, 2011). In fact, TEP evaluations have historically been found to be
“spotty, evolutionary, and limited in scope” (Hall, Smith, & Nowinski, 2005, p. 19). Although
there is not yet a consistent national system for ensuring that teachers are well-prepared or
effective educators, California has an assessment in place that attempts to do just that (CCTC,
2008). Credential candidates in the state must successfully complete one of three models of a
teacher performance assessment. Performance assessments focus on what candidates do in the
classroom, and can be powerful tools for assessing their skills and readiness to teach (Darling-
Hammond, 2010). Quality performance assessments are standards-based, reliably scored, and
contextualized. They help candidates pull together all they have learned (Darling-Hammond,
2010). Evidence is beginning to emerge that success on these types of performance assessments
is positively predicting teachers’ contributions to student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
The performance assessment that was the focus of this study was the Performance
Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). The PACT explicitly assesses a beginning teacher’s
knowledge, skills and abilities in the classroom. Dispositions, including those regarding
diversity, are not explicitly assessed in the PACT. A positive disposition towards diversity, its
impact on student achievement especially in math and science, and the complexity of assessing
dispositions was the other focus of this study.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

10
California was one of the first states that sought to establish a strong link between teacher
preparation and student learning (Hafner & Maxie, 2006). In 2001, the California Commission
on Teacher Credentialing approved new standards for teacher preparation programs and
induction. As a result, a Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) were developed to describe
the set of knowledge, skills, and abilities beginning teachers should have and be able to
demonstrate (Appendix A). The majority of these skills and abilities are assessed through a
teacher performance assessment. The PACT, used by over 30 universities, is composed of six
subject specific and integrated tasks embedded in a three to five day learning segment. This
learning segment or “teaching event” measures teacher candidate performance in the critical
areas of planning, instruction, assessment, reflection, and academic language, using standardized
and developmental rubrics for scoring. Dispositions are implicitly embedded in the standards
and the TPEs, but are not explicitly assessed in the teacher performance assessment.
Besides a concern about the behavioral orientation to knowledge and skills, and a lack of
focus on dispositions, in their study of 5 California State Universities, 3 Universities of
California, 2 private Institutes of Higher Education, and 2 Local Education Agencies, Hafner and
Maxie (2006) found many teacher education programs thought that the areas of diversity and
equity were reduced as a focus of their programs because of the new standards and the TPA.
Programs were not asked to define diversity in response to this study, but institutions accredited
by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) must meet Diversity
Standard 4, which states:
Teacher candidates will be prepared to understand diversity, including English language
learners and students with exceptionalities, develop and teach lessons that incorporate
diversity, connect instruction and services to students’ experiences and cultures
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

11
demonstrate sensitivity to cultural and gender differences, develop classroom/school
climates that value diversity, and demonstrate dispositions valuing fairness and learning
by all. (NCATE, 2008, NCATE Standard 4)
NCATE and INTASC
The movement toward the assessment of teacher candidate skills and abilities, including
dispositions began when the Interstate New Teacher Assessment Support Consortium published
Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for State
Dialogue (INTASC, 1992). In many states, as the voluntary INTASC principles were
incorporated into teacher licensing programs, these programs began looking at the issue of
dispositions in teacher preparation (Villegas, 2007). INTASC Standards listed 10 teacher
performance principles, and included dispositional indicators for each one. The INTASC focus is
on values that are based on skills, such as: The teacher believes that plans must always be open to
adjustment and revision based on student needs and changing circumstances (INTASC Principle
#7, italics added).
Building upon the INTASC Standards, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) released new national accreditation standards (NCATE, 2008) that required
a performance based assessment of “professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions.” In
contrast to INTASC, NCATE’s definition does not focus on skill-based values (Wilkerson &
Lang, 2007). NCATE provides the following definition to guide universities in meeting this
requirement:
The attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal
behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities.
These professional dispositions support student learning and development. NCATE
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

12
expects candidates to demonstrate classroom behaviors that are consistent with ideas of
fairness and the belief that all students can learn. Based on their mission and conceptual
framework, professional education units can determine additional professional
dispositions such as caring, honesty, responsibility, and social justice. NCATE expects
institutions to assess professional dispositions based on observable verbal and non-verbal
behaviors in educational settings. (NCATE, 2008)
Defining Dispositions
Since NCATE currently accredits about half of the nation’s teacher education programs,
the dialogue on dispositions has now received significant attention, and has created controversy.
There has been widespread, but not unanimous, agreement that teacher dispositions are an
important factor in teacher effectiveness (Singh & Stolof, 2007; Wilkerson, 2006; Koeppen &
Davison-Jenkins, 2007; Diez, 2006, Ruddell, 1999). Bennett’s (2001) research on multicultural
education found classroom structures and practices, as well as the attitudes, values, and beliefs of
teachers contribute to high and equitable levels of student achievement and positive intergroup
relations (p. 183). Researchers argue that dispositions may affect student learning, student
motivation, and student development more than teacher content knowledge or pedagogical skills
(Singh & Stoloff, 2007). Where educators have not reached consensus is on the definition of
dispositions.
The literature reveals the different approaches that schools of education have taken
towards defining dispositions (Diez, 2006; Koeppen & Davison-Jenkins, 2007; Ruddell, 1999;
Singh & Stolof, 2007; Wilkerson, 2006, Wilkerson & Lang, 2011). These differing perspectives
have in turn, influenced how dispositions are identified and assessed at different institutions.
This complex process begins with programs determining which dispositions they consider
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

13
important for candidates to possess by the time they receive a credential. Dispositions may
include personal and professional attributes, or alternatively, focus solely on those that are
determined to affect student achievement. Alverno College (Diez, 2006) emphasizes broad
characteristics such as respect for others, willingness to maintain engagement with other
learners, and willingness to do what it takes to help students learn. San Jose State University
(Steever, 2010) has identified values they expect to see reflected in their teacher candidates such
as: reflectiveness, responsibility, commitment to the profession and commitment to fairness and
equity. Alternatively, some universities cite research to guide the definition of candidate
dispositions. Eastern Connecticut State University (Singh & Stoloff, 2007) based their
definitions on the work of Combs et al. (1974). They focus on teacher perceptions about self,
others, the field, the process, and the purpose of education. The University of Nebraska cited
Costa and Kallik’s (2000) sixteen habits of mind and Marzano’s (1992) productive habits of
mind in developing their program’s definitions. The habits of mind include persistence, the
ability to question problems, pose solutions, and communicate with clarity and precision.
Assessing Dispositions
The vast array of instruments that measure dispositions reflect the diversity of approaches
to assessment. Methods range from self-reports, to observations, to indices. The University of
Nebraska at Omaha developed a Teacher Disposition Index (Shulte et al., 2004), which is a self-
assessment instrument used by the candidate throughout the program. The Teacher Disposition
Index was developed to align with INTASC Model Standards for Beginning Teachers (1992).
Following this, Alawiye and Williams (2010) developed a Disposition Profile Index building on
the work of Shulte et al. (2004). Eastern College in Connecticut (Singh & Stoloff, 2007)
developed the Eastern Teacher Dispositions Index that measures by using 46 Likert scale items,
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

14
which enable the candidate to self-assess their perceptions. Koeppen and Davison-Jenkins (2007)
developed a Dispositions Rubric that aligned with their university’s definition of dispositions.
Wilkerson and Lang (2011) designed the Dispositions Assessments Aligned with Teacher
Standards (DAATS). This battery of instruments approaches the measurement of dispositions
through the use of student focus groups, apperception tests, agreement scales, questionnaires and
a checklist. These approaches to assessing dispositions will be explored more fully in the
literature review chapter of this document.
Wilkerson and Lang (2007) reviewed 22 NCATE institutional reports available on-line in
2005 to determine how these programs were meeting the requirement to assess dispositions.
They found that of the institutions reviewed, none appeared to show a systematic approach to
assessing dispositions that is research as well as literature based. The majority (15) of programs
based their assessments on constructs that have not been empirically proven to be relevant, such
as dress code. Two programs used the language particular to their conceptual frameworks; two
did not describe their construct, and two used the INTASC standards as some basis for
assessment.
The variety of data generated from the assessments matches the variety of methods used
for collection, including observations, interviews, referral of concerns sheets, portfolio reviews
and self-reports. Only ten institutions reported on how the data were used, and only two of those
programs looked at used dispositions data for program improvement.
The Controversy
The imprecise definition of what dispositions are, which dispositions are desirable, and
whether it matters, has led others to question whether teacher education programs should be
assessing dispositions at all (Damon, 2007; Gershman, 2005; Hines, 2007; Leo, 2005). NCATE
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

15
is asking teacher education programs to assess beliefs, and behaviors based on these beliefs.
Damon (2007) wrote that the NCATE definition “has a long reach as well as a certain
looseness,” and he quotes Gershman (2005) in saying that, “Dispositions is an empty vessel that
can be filled with any agenda you want” (p. 1). There are those who view that agenda as
politically to the left (National Association of Scholars [NAS], 2006), and tending towards
thought control (Leo, 2005) and political screening (Hines, 2007).
Maylone (2002) asked whether teacher educators are even qualified to assess
dispositions. He saw evaluating dispositions as difficult and “fraught with pitfalls” (p. 22).
Besides defining which dispositions are meaningful to assess, he provided issues for programs to
think about such as how to determine a passing score. The instrument or process used for
defining and assessing dispositions may also be problematic. Checklists, rubrics, and committee
decisions all have shortcomings (Maylone, 2002), due mostly to the lack of an accepted
definition for teacher dispositions.
Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions
Although knowledge, skills, and dispositions are often presented as hierarchical in
importance and as separate and distinct categories (Wilkerson & Lang, 2011), each influences
the other. Knowledge is cognitive and involves critical thinking. It may influence a candidate’s
ideas and point of view. Skills are behavioral and involve demonstrated capacities. Dispositions
involve what a candidate believes and values (Smith & Ragan, 2004). Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001) have developed a well-known taxonomy of learning that focuses on the cognitive domain.
In earlier work, Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) developed a taxonomy of the affective
domain to describe several levels of affective learning. The connection between the cognitive
and affective domains is made clear through the examples provided in Table 1.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

16

Table 1
Taxonomy of the Affective Domain
Level Definition Example
Receiving Being aware of or
attending to something in
the environment
Person would listen to a lecture or presentation
about a structural model related to human
behavior.
Responding Showing some new
behaviors as a result of
experience
The individual would answer questions about
the model or might rewrite lecture notes the next
day.
Valuing Showing some definite
involvement or
commitment
The individual might begin to think how
education may be modified to take advantage of
some of the concepts presented in the model and
perhaps generate a set of lessons using some of
the concepts presented.
Organization Integrating a new value
into one’s general set of
values, giving it some
ranking among one’s
general priorities
This is the level at which a person would begin
to make long-range commitments to arranging
his or her instruction and assessment relative to
the model.
Characterization
by Value
Acting consistently with
the new value
At this highest level, a person would be firmly
committed to utilizing the model to develop,
select, or arrange instruction and would become
known for that action.
(Table developed by W. Huitt, Valdosta State University, GA. http://edpsycinteractive.org)
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

17
Statement of the Problem
In this era of assessment and accountability, valid and reliable methods, such as the
Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), have been developed to measure the
two most accessible indicators of teacher success, the skills and abilities of teacher candidates.
There is a third indicator of potential teacher success, dispositions, (Singh & Stoloff, 2007;
Wilkerson, 2006) required for national accreditation (NCATE, 2008), which has proven more
difficult to assess, or even define. Since the adoption of the revised National Council for Teacher
Education Standards (NCATE, 2008) in 2002, teacher education programs have begun to grapple
with how candidates will “demonstrate…the dispositions necessary to help all students learn”
(NCATE Standard 1). A disposition viewed as essential for teacher candidates to possess is that
of valuing diversity (NCATE Standard 4). Teacher education programs have identified
dispositions as characteristics (Diez, 2006), values (Steever, 2010) or habits of mind (Singh &
Stoloff, 2007). For the purposes of this study, Wilkerson and Lang’s (2007) definition of
dispositions as teacher affect — the attitudes, values and beliefs that influence the application of
knowledge and skills (p. 2) — was used to focus on the disposition towards valuing diversity.
Wilkerson and Lang (2007) reference the taxonomy developed by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia
(1964) as a foundation for their framework for assessing dispositions as defined above. They
recognize the developmental nature of acquiring dispositions and have settled on the level of
“Valuing” as appropriate for novice teachers. Their work influenced the author in focusing on
the valuing of diversity as a desired disposition to be assessed in this study.
Teacher education programs have used their conceptual frameworks and program
missions to identify specific valued dispositions, and NCATE Standards and INTASC Standards
have had an important influence on unifying the identification and assessment of dispositions.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

18
Some teacher education programs respond to NCATE accreditation by referencing the NCATE
and INTASC standards together (Mullin, 2003; Shulte et al., 2004). NCATE standards define
unit level expectations for the assessment of dispositions. The INTASC Principles identify
behavioral indicators of dispositions.
The Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) are the foundation for the Performance
Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). The TPEs are explicit about the knowledge and
skills required of a beginning teacher, but dispositions such as valuing diversity, are implicit
expectations. Dispositions about diversity are also implicit in the PACT, but are not considered
as a factor in scoring this summative assessment. The PACT has been validated as an instrument
to measure teacher candidates’ developing skills and abilities. While it was not designed to
assess dispositions, the PACT has the potential to provide evidence of candidates’ “attitudes,
values and beliefs that influence the application of knowledge and skills” (Wilkerson & Lang,
2007). There has been no instrument or process developed to determine whether teacher
candidates PACT submissions reflect the disposition towards diversity expected by most
California institutions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which the Performance Assessment
for California Teachers (PACT) can be used to assess the disposition valuing diversity by
developing a rubric for identifying evidence in students’ PACT submissions. During the process
of evaluating PACT submissions, assessors identified evidence to place the submission at a
specific developmental level on the rubric labeled Valuing Diversity.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

19
The overall question that guided this study is:
To what extent is the disposition valuing diversity, a core belief of Rossier School of
Education, reflected in candidates’ Performance Assessment for California Teachers
submissions?
Related questions include:
1. What useful information do PACT submissions include for assessing dispositions
towards diversity according to the valuing diversity rubric?
2. How do MAT STEM students perform according to the valuing diversity rubric?
a. How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with scores on PACT Planning
Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible?
b. How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with PACT Reflection Rubric
10: Reflecting on Learning?
3. What pertinent information can assessors provide regarding the design and
implementation of the Valuing Diversity rubric?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study was the affective taxonomy introduced earlier in
this chapter, created by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) and elaborated upon by Smith and
Ragan (2004) and Wilkerson and Lang (2011).
Smith and Ragan (2004) use the term attitudes, when referring to the affective domain of
learning. They present three components of attitudinal learning: knowing how to do something
(cognitive), engaging in that behavior (behavioral) and articulating why they are engaging in that
behavior (affective). For example, they would expect for a teacher to know how to create a
learner-centered lesson, how to teach that lesson, and why it is important to teach learner-
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

20
centered lessons. Smith and Ragan (2004) base the concept of attitude on knowing how to do
something and then choosing to do it. Although their work is mainly focused on instructional
strategies, Smith and Ragan’s (2004) conceptualization of Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’s
(1964) taxonomy has proved informative to the design of this study.
Wilkerson and Lang (2011) define dispositions as “teacher affect-attitudes, values and
beliefs that influence the application of knowledge and skills” (p. 2). Their work on assessing
dispositions is formulated on determining whether a teacher has reached the level of “valuing”
the INTASC aligned, standards-based, skill-related dispositions on Krathwohl, Bloom, and
Masia’s taxonomy. Wilkerson and Lang (2011) hold strong beliefs that the assessment of
teacher candidates’ dispositions is important in predicting whether they will continue exhibiting
these dispositions as teachers in their own classrooms.
Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’s taxonomy (1964) consists of five categories arranged in
hierarchical order. The lowest level is Receiving. At this level a candidate becomes aware of or
begins to attend to an idea or concept. The second level is Responding. At this level, a candidate
responds with compliance, and comes to a level of appreciation. The level of Valuing, is where a
candidate accepts a value, may even prefer it or show a commitment towards that value. This is
the level at which Wilkerson and Lang (2011) believe all teacher candidates should be at a
minimum. Smith and Ragan (2004) found that many school and training objectives are written at
this level with the expectation that participants will internalize an interest and see the value in a
topic. At the next level, Organization, a candidate has begun to conceptualize a value and
integrate it into an organized value system, while adapting behavior to this value system. The
highest level on this taxonomy is Characterization. At this level, a value is consistently
practiced, has become a part of a candidate’s character, and he or she has become a role model
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

21
for this value. For this study, an assessment of a disposition using the PACT for evidence was
developed in alignment with Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’s taxonomy (1964).
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study is based on its potential to provide the Rossier Masters in
the Art of Teaching (MAT) program, as well as over thirty other California institutions with a
model for developing a formal measure for assessing dispositions using the Performance
Assessment for California Teachers. While there is an abundance of literature on the way teacher
education programs are meeting the NCATE requirement to assess dispositions (Alawiye &
Williams, 2010; Koeppen & Davison-Jenkins, 2007; Mullin, 2003), there is no current literature
connecting dispositions and the PACT. The combination of PACT, Krathwohl, Bloom, and
Masia’s taxonomy (1964), and the Rossier Conceptual Framework, is a unique approach to
assessment of dispositions.
The MAT may benefit directly from the results of this study as a method for the
assessment of dispositions. This information will be an important component of program
improvement and NCATE accreditation. As the rest of the nation moves towards teacher
performance assessment, those states adopting the national version of the PACT, the edTPA,
could also benefit from the results of this study and from additional evidence as to whether they
are graduating teacher candidates who possess “…the necessary dispositions to help all students
learn” (NCATE, 2008).
Limitations and Delimitations
While this study will make a contribution to the field, it was be limited to looking at one
disposition present in the Rossier Conceptual Framework, Valuing Diversity, and how it is
evidenced in one assessment, the Performance Assessment for California Teachers, during two
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

22
submission cycles. The submissions reviewed were limited to Secondary Math and Science, and
Elementary Math candidates. Thus, the specific results, while significant to the MAT, may not be
generalizable to other teacher education programs but may influence the direction of further
research. The scope was this study was limited by time and human resources and focused on the
validity of the instrument rather than its reliability.
Assumptions
The primary assumption underlying this study is that dispositions can be assessed. It is
assumed that all candidates have received instruction and assignments throughout the program
that prepare them to consider the valuing of diversity and that they have received instruction and
feedback on how to operationalize this in their teaching practice. In other words, candidates have
been provided with an opportunity to learn to value diversity. What is being assessed is whether
candidates choose to put into practice what they have learned while preparing their summative
assessment, the PACT.
Definitions of Terms
Candidate Proficiency. A level of performance based on development of identified
knowledge, skills and dispositions.
CCTC. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Conceptual Framework. The theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of the School
of Education, and a necessary element for NCATE Accreditation.
Contextually responsive teaching practice. Includes: (1) teacher is responsive to student
values; (2) teacher creates a culturally congruent environment for the students home/school; (3)
teacher uses communicative strategies that are valued and familiar to the students.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

23
Disposition. Teacher affect — the attitudes, values and beliefs that influence the
application of knowledge and skills.
edTPA. A national TPA pilot assessment.
INTASC. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium.
Diversity. Individual and cultural differences including but not limited to socioeconomic
status, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language proficiency and ability.
NCATE. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
PACT. Performance Assessment for California Teachers.
STEM. Science, technology, engineering, mathematics.
Teaching Event. The PACT product submitted by candidates for evaluation.
TEP. Teacher Education Programs. Includes any teacher preparation entity.
TPA. Teacher Performance Assessment. A general term for a performance based
evaluation.
TPE. Teacher Performance Expectations. The level at which beginning teachers are
expected to perform.
Organization of the Study
This study was organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview and
introduction to the research problem. The goal of the chapter is to explicate the need for teacher
candidates to develop the dispositions necessary to implement an equity-pedagogy and to
establish the need to specifically prepare teacher candidates to work in diverse classrooms to
facilitate student achievement. The need for the identification and assessment of teacher
candidates’ beliefs, attitudes, and values towards that end, as is the lack of consensus or
consistency in that process across programs is presented. The purpose of this study was to
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

24
determine whether the disposition valuing diversity can be determined by using a developmental
rubric similar to those used to assess the Performance Assessment for California Teachers in
conjunction with the candidates’ PACT submissions.
Chapter Two is a literature review focused on how teacher education programs have
developed and implemented means for identifying and assessing dispositions given the
complexities presented earlier in Chapter One. The literature will reveal that a disposition
towards valuing diversity is an element emphasized in almost every teacher education program.
It will illustrate why programs chose diversity as a valued disposition, how programs designed
assessment instruments and what evidence was found, with a particular focus on how
dispositions towards diversity are revealed in the content areas of math and science.
Chapter Three presents the methodology for this descriptive quantitative study. The
practical and theoretical foundations for the development of a new instrument used to measure a
disposition towards valuing diversity in conjunction with the PACT are discussed. The training,
calibration, and scoring processes for using the dispositions rubric are detailed. Procedures for
quantitative data collection, and the plan for data analysis is presented for the purpose of
determining the extent to which teacher candidate’s PACT submissions reflect a disposition
towards valuing diversity.
Chapter Four presents an analysis of the findings for the three research questions using
qualitative research methods to examine the validity of the Valuing Diversity rubric and
descriptive statistics to analyze how the Science, Math and Elementary Math candidates
performed on the rubric, and related rubrics in PACT.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

25
Chapter Five provides an overview of the study and the conclusions of the research.
Recommendations are presented for future research to broaden the scope of this study and to add
to the field of teacher preparation in dispositions in general.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

26
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
For at least a decade, preservice teacher education programs in California have been held
accountable for assessing the skills and abilities of teacher candidates to meet the needs of
diverse learners using valid and reliable measures (SB 2042, 1998). There is increased emphasis
nationwide on assessing candidates’ dispositions towards diverse learners as well (NCATE,
2008). This focus on dispositions towards diversity has caused teacher preparation programs to
create instruments and processes for assessment that are as unique and non-standardized as the
programs themselves (Wilkerson & Lang, 2007). The lack of valid and reliable measures for
dispositions appears to contradict the importance of assessing whether teacher candidates can
demonstrate dispositions “valuing fairness and learning by all” (NCATE, 2008).
The literature in this review details how teacher educations programs have responded to
NCATE’s requirement for assessing dispositions. NCATE’s inclusion of a Diversity Standard
form the basis for the second focus of this literature review: defining diversity, and how teacher
dispositions toward diversity impact student learning, especially in math and science. This study
examines Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) submissions, so this review
begins by looking at the literature pertaining to the development and implementation of PACT in
California institutions of higher education (IHE).
The Performance Assessment for California Teachers
In 2001, Senate Bill 2042 required all multiple and single subject candidates for a
teaching credential to complete a teacher performance assessment (TPA) based on the California
Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs). CalTPA is the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CCTC) approved model developed in consultation with Educational Testing
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

27
Services (ETS). The CalTPA requires candidates to complete four separate and discrete
performance tasks that are embedded in their teacher preparation coursework (CCTC, 2008).
Accredited teacher education programs may develop alternative TPAs provided they are valid
and reliable and approved by the CCTC. Stanford provided leadership and organizational support
through foundation funding to twelve institutions of higher education (IHEs). These were eight
of the nine University of California institutions, Mills College, San Jose State University, San
Diego State University, who formed the original PACT Consortium. Consortium members were
seeking to develop a contextualized and authentic assessment that emphasized subject specific
pedagogy and meeting the needs of diverse learners, and that was supported by documented
evidence including video clips and other artifacts (Pecheone, 2008). Besides meeting the
legislative requirements, the PACT was developed to be educative to the candidate and
informative to teacher education programs (Chung, 2008).
The developers of the PACT reviewed models of well-researched and field tested
portfolio assessments from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, the
Connecticut State Department of Education, and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and
Support Consortium (INTASC). They also investigated the use of portfolios by teacher
preparation programs such as University of California, Santa Barbara, Alverno College in
Milwaukee and the University of Southern Maine, and the Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment induction process widely used in California (Pecheone, 2005). Situated knowledge
theory (Brunner, 1996; Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996, cited in Chung, 2008, p. 1), social
constructivist theory (Gage & Berliner, 1998, Lave & Wenger, 1991, cited in Chung, 2008, p. 1)
and socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) informed the development and design of the PACT.
The end result was the PACT Teaching Event; a subject specific unified learning segment that
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

28
assesses planning, instruction, assessment, reflection and academic language with attention to
context and diverse learning needs.
Other research that informed the PACT consortium came from the field of teacher
education. Shulman (1987) and Darling-Hammond (1998) influenced the creation of authentic
assessment that was designed for beginning teachers, but that would have predictive validity.
Unlike the CalTPA, “the integration of tasks in a unified learning segment” design of the PACT
necessitated that candidates make connections between the tasks of planning, instruction,
assessment, reflection, and academic language and analyze their pedagogical choices (Pecheone,
2008).
PACT was first piloted in the 2002-2003 academic year. Three hundred ninety five
PACT submissions across subject areas from 11 institutions were scored once, and about forty
percent were double scored to check for interrater reliability. In 2003-2004, 628 submissions
from 14 institutions of were scored at local IHEs and about thirty-two percent were centrally
audited (Pecheone & Chung, 2006). Results from the pilot proved the PACT a reliable and valid
assessment and in 2007, the CCTC approved PACT as an alternate TPA. Subsequently, the
PACT Consortium grew to thirty-two members and PACT is used by almost thirty percent of
teacher candidates in California.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) also drew upon
the standards developed by INTASC as they designed requirements for national accreditation. In
an attempt to define teacher effectiveness, the profession is examining teacher education
program outcomes and one of the means for achieving recognition as an effective program is
through NCATE accreditation. NCATE has been a driving force behind the emphasis on
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

29
dispositions. NCATE Standard 1 (2008) requires: “Candidates preparing to work in schools as
teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical,
and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.”
Institutions accredited by NCATE must demonstrate an assessment system that measures
candidate dispositions. NCATE requires that schools of education align the measurement of
dispositions with a research-based conceptual framework. The unique characteristics of a
conceptual framework are responsive to the individual institution and contribute to the variety of
definitions and assessment measures of candidate dispositions.
TEP Program Responses to Assessing Dispositions
Determining and Defining Dispositions
The concern with teacher dispositions is not new (Dewey, 1922), but the NCATE
mandate to assess dispositions has caused teacher education programs throughout the nation to
reexamine the notion of dispositions. The literature overwhelming references NCATE as a
catalyst for creating a philosophical and definitional (Dottin, 2009) framework for assessing
teacher candidate dispositions. NCATE’s imprecise conceptualization of dispositions caused
TEPs to draw on a variety of disciplines and different traditions of thought and practice (Diez,
2007) in their approach to dispositions.
NCATE directs programs to base their definition and assessment of dispositions on their
conceptual framework, but Wilkerson and Lang (2007) found few programs that did this. This
literature review found one program that made a consistent clear connection from conceptual
framework to assessment tool at Northern Illinois University (Melin & Walker, 2009). The
dispositional statements cited in the INTASC standards were another starting point used by
teacher preparation programs, although those standards pertain to inservice teachers (Shulte et
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

30
al., 2004). Alverno College was involved in the development of the INTASC standards and were
updating their conceptual framework at the time they addressed the definition and assessment of
dispositions (Diez, 2007). Mansfield University (2012) in Pennsylvania developed their approach
to dispositions using the Danielson (2007) Framework, which has its roots in the INTASC
standards. The teacher preparation program at the University of Omaha looked at problematic
candidate behaviors through the lens of the INTASC dispositional statements in order to define
the positive dispositions necessary for candidate success (Edwards & Edick, 2006).
The NCATE requirement to address dispositions caused other programs to review the
literature in psychology, education and teacher effectiveness (Notar et al., 2009; Singh & Stoloff,
2007). Some programs used the concept of “perceptual psychology” developed by Arthur Combs
(1974). Combs viewed teaching as a helping profession and defined perceptions as values,
attitudes and beliefs. He felt that these, combined with significant knowledge and skills, ensured
the facilitation of growth, learning and development for all students. Results of Combs’ research
on educator dispositions point to five categories of perceptions that can serve to differentiate
effective from ineffective educators. They are: (1) perceptions about subject matter; (2)
perceptions about self (self-concept); (3) perceptions about other people; (4) perceptions about
the teaching task; (5) general frame of reference (p. 22). Singh and Stoloff (2007), Wasicsko
(2007) and others have created instruments to assess dispositions based on the work of Combs.
These will be discussed in an upcoming section.
The most common approach to the question of teacher candidate dispositions was to align
desired characteristics to program values and mission, with little attention to empirical research,
validity or reliability (Drew & Tande, 2004; Gracia, 2008). Some programs sought to support
their dispositional choices through surveys of practitioners (Almerico et al., 2011; Rike & Sharp,
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

31
2008). As a result, teacher education programs are attempting to assess dispositions that run the
gamut from “caring” to “demonstrates professionalism”. Below is a partial list of dispositions
expected of teacher candidates found repeatedly in the literature:
Advocacy Fairness
Attendance Honesty
Caring Integrity
Collaboration Life Long Learning
Creativity Positive Attitude
Curiosity Professional Conduct
Dependability Reflective
Effective Communication Responsibility
Empathy Respectful
Perhaps in recognition of the need to meet the needs of a diverse student population, or in
reaction to NCATE Diversity Standard 4 (NCATE, 2008), the disposition that appeared most
consistently, however, was a positive disposition towards diversity. The body of literature
discussing the disposition towards diversity will be discussed in an upcoming section of this
chapter.
Operationalizing and Assessing Dispositions
Situated between beliefs and behaviors, desired dispositions, and how to assess them,
have proven a challenge to programs that have identified them. Instruments range from
structured admissions interviews (Mullin, 2003) to extensive exit essays (Boyce College, 2011).
A representative selection of instruments for assessing identified dispositions of teacher
candidates will be presented here. Prescreening protocols are not included.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

32
Admissions Interview
Mullin (2003) developed an instrument to be used for interviewing teacher candidates.
The interview was never used as a basis for denying students, but was seen as helping to focus
students on expected dispositions and possible areas for growth.
Checklists
The use of checklists was the method most commonly found in the literature (Almerico
et al., 2011; Lees-McRae College, 2012; Purdue University Calumet, 2012; Rike & Sharp, 2008;
Stewart & Davis, 2009). Faculty or field supervisors including master teachers generally filled
out checklists, although there was very little mentioned as to how these personnel were trained to
use the checklist. Assessments might be based on observations, assignments or interactions.
(Stewart & Davis, 2009). Some checklists contained developmental levels such as “emerging”
through “accomplished” (Lees-McRae College, 2012), others contained scales of 1-4 or levels
that corresponded with percentages or frequency such as “rarely” or “always” (Gracia, 2008;
McNeese State University, 2006). Most checklists were administered more than once during the
program, usually towards the beginning, middle and before student teaching. Some programs
targeted particular dispositions for assessment in certain courses (University of Tennessee, n.d.)
while others used the same assessment checklist in a number of courses (McNeese State
University, 2006; Rike & Sharp, 2008). Checklists were sometimes filled out by candidates as a
formative assessment and by instructors as a summative assessment (Gracia, 2008; McNeese
State University, 2006).
Self-Assessments
Shulte et al. (2004) developed the Teacher Disposition Index (TDI), a self-
assessment/self awareness tool based on the INSTASC standards and on the literature around
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

33
teacher effectiveness. It has 45 items grouped into two subscales: the student centered subscale
and the professionalism and curriculum-centered subscale. Alawiye and Williams (2010) built
upon the TDI by adding four domains: open-mindedness, self-reflection, curiosity and social
justice, and created the Disposition Profile Inventory. Singh and Stolof (2007) built their Eastern
Teachers Dispositions Index (ESTDI) based on Combs’ (1974) concept of perceptual psychology
and Wascisko’s (2007) interpretation of his mentor’s work. The ESTDI is comprised of 45 Likert
type items that reflect the five categories of perceptions mentioned above.
Instruments Using Rubrics
Wasicsko (2007) developed the Perceptual Rating Scale. Candidates are introduced to
dispositions and the assignments that are a part of the rating scale in their Introduction to
Education course. Assessors who have been formally trained to use the rating scale evaluate the
assignments. An example of an assignment is for candidates to write to a prompt about a
“Human Relations Incident” that they experienced, and for assessors to rate the perceptions
(attitudes, values, beliefs) in evidence on a continuum with 7 as “identified” and 1 as “not
identified.”
Wichita State University (n.d.) developed two rubrics to assess candidate dispositions.
The classroom dispositions rubric is scored from 5 to -1, while the field rubric has only two
choices relating to whether the disposition is evident or not. Melin and Walker (2009) developed
a rubric based on their university’s conceptual framework that is used with current coursework.
The University of South Carolina (2009) has also developed a rubric based on the unit’s
conceptual framework. It has levels of “Unacceptable”, “Acceptable” and “Target”, with
descriptors for each level. Each program in the unit decides how to use the rubric.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

34
Boyce College, a small Christian college in Kentucky has developed a complex and
multifaceted approach to assessing their teacher candidates’ dispositions. They have developed a
30-item Disposition Survey to be taken twice during the program, as well as a Dispositions
Questionnaire. The questionnaire is actually comprised of 9 separate in-depth writing prompts
that students respond to by completing essays. These essays are scored using rubrics that contain
sample descriptors and are leveled at “Target”, “Below Target” and “Off Target”. Candidates
complete these during their Clinical Experience Course and during their field experience (Boyce
College, 2011).
Other Approaches
Both Mansfield University (2012) in Pennsylvania, and Alverno College (Diez, 2007) in
Wisconsin, take an integrated approach to assessing teacher candidate dispositions. They believe
that assessments should be varied and spread throughout the program. Mansfield uses essays,
observations, and rubrics at four points during the program. Alverno provides assessment
prompts throughout the program that intertwines candidate knowledge, skills and dispositions.
Wilkerson and Lang (2007) developed the Dispositions Assessments Aligned with
Teacher Standards (DAATS) model for designing assessments for dispositions. The model
includes the Belief About Teaching Scale (BATS), the Experience in Teaching Questionnaire
(ETQ), K-12 Impact Disposition Scale (KIDS), the Classroom Disposition Checklist (CDC) the
Situational Reflection Assessment (SRA), which is an apperception test, and when necessary a
Disposition Event Report (DER). Wilkerson and Lang provide the framework for institutions to
design their own instruments based on local, state and national standards. Preliminary studies
successfully using some of their tools are discussed in Wilkerson and Lang (2011).
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

35
NCATE Standard 4: Diversity
As has been discussed, the influence of NCATE on the assessing of dispositions has been
unmistakable. NCATE also assumes a position towards diversity that is clearly articulated in the
following excerpts from the NCATE Standards:
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for
candidates to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional
dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can
demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to diversity… (NCATE, 2008).

One of the goals of this standard is the development of educators who can help all
students learn or support their learning through their professional roles in schools. This
goal requires educators who can reflect multicultural and global perspectives that draw on
the histories, experiences, and representations of students and families from diverse
populations. Therefore, the unit has the responsibility to provide opportunities for
candidates to understand diversity and equity in the teaching and learning process.
Coursework, field experiences, and clinical practice must be designed to help candidates
understand the influence of culture on education and acquire the ability to develop
meaningful learning experiences for all students. Candidates learn about exceptionalities
and inclusion, English language learners and language acquisition, ethnic/racial cultural
and linguistic differences, and gender differences, and the impact of these factors on
learning. Proficiencies, including those related to professional dispositions and diversity,
are drawn from the standards of the profession, state, and institution. Candidates are
helped to understand the potential impact of discrimination based on race, class, gender,
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

36
disability, sexual orientation, and language on students and their learning. Proficiencies
related to diversity are identified in the unit’s conceptual framework… (NCATE, 2008, p.
37)
The following sections of this literature review will examine how teacher education
programs have responded to the NCATE requirements to assess dispositions and meet the
Diversity Standard included above.
Linking Dispositions to Diversity
Some programs saw the mandate from NCATE as an opportunity to explicitly identify
and teach about dispositions they valued (Diez, 2007), as varied as those may be. Many saw the
assessment of teacher candidate dispositions as a mechanism to identify and document
candidates with “deficiencies” (Edwards & Edick, 2006; Melin & Walker, 2009; Wasicsko,
2007). Some programs are using what they have learned to improve their program (Boyce
College, 2011; Wilkerson & Lang, 2011). All programs responded to the directive from NCATE
that candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn (NCATE, 2008). This was referenced as “diversity” (Melin & Walker,
2009); a “respectful environment for diverse populations” (Lees-McRae College, 2012); “respect
for diversity” (Gracia, 2008; Mansfield University, 2012; Purdue University Calumet, 2012);
“exhibits an appreciation and value for diversity” (Almerico et al., 2011; Mullin, 2003); using
“appropriate methods for meeting diverse learning needs” (University of Tennessee, n.d.) and
“appreciates and values human diversity, and shows respect for and sensitivity to the students’
varied perspectives, talents and cultures, and adapts instruction/interactions accordingly” (Rike
& Sharp, 2008). While not using the term “diversity” other programs referenced social justice,
treating students fairly and equally while respecting individual differences, positive climate,
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

37
respect for resources such as family and community and a positive view of others (Alawiye &
Williams, 2010; Edwards & Edick, 2006; Notar et al., 2009; Rike & Sharp, 2008; University of
Tennessee, n.d.). The remainder of this chapter looks at NCATE Standard 4 and the literature
that discusses teacher dispositions toward diversity.
Almost a century ago, Dewey (1922) was writing about the need to connect curriculum
with community. The civil rights movements of the 1960s brought an emphasis on recognizing
the contributions of minorities to the fabric of American life and history through what is often
called multicultural education. One approach to multicultural education discussed in Banks
(1999) is the Achievement Approach (p. 8), which conceptualizes its purpose as increasing the
academic achievement of diverse students through relevant goals, theories, and strategies.
Discontinuity between home and school culture can lead to rejection of one culture or the other,
and can affect learning. Hollins (2008) used learning theories developed by Vygotsky (1978),
Piaget and others to discuss the role of culturally mediated instruction as a scaffold to learning.
The positive effects of culturally responsive curriculum and pedagogy on student achievement
(Au, 1990; Bennett, 2001; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1990; Sleeter, 2005) have been well
documented in the literature. NCATE Standard 4 has refocused attention on the issues of
diversity and has necessitated that programs articulate how they prepare and assess teacher
candidates’ knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Diversity, much like multicultural education, is often addressed in programs through a
specific course or as an add-on to the traditional curriculum (Schussler, 2006). Zeichner (1999)
sees this segregated approach as one that perpetuates the notion that diversity is a deficit to be
addressed and remediated. He, and others (Cochran-Smith, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Sleeter,
2005) see the need to systemically infuse critical social consciousness and culturally relevant
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

38
pedagogical practices throughout the teacher education program. Much of the literature speaks to
the need for teacher candidates to develop self-awareness of their own biases and assumptions
and how these affect every instructional decision a teacher makes (Hollins & Guzman, 2005;
Pohan & Aguilar, 1999; Schussler et al., 2010; Sleeter, 2005). Gay (2000) expresses concern
that awareness becomes a “proxy for action” (p. 8) and does not translate into a change in
instructional practices that would benefit diverse learners.
The complexities of defining and assessing dispositions in teacher education programs
have been addressed previously in this chapter. Defining and assessing dispositions towards
diversity add yet another layer of complexity, especially in combination with the fact that the
majority of teacher candidates are white. Again, there is controversy. Have teacher candidates
already developed their dispositions towards diversity before they enter a program? Should they
be prescreened (Haberman, 1996)? Or do perceptions (values) evolve (Hollins, 2008)? Are
programs assessing beliefs, or behaviors?
Determining and Defining Dispositions towards Diversity
Nelson Maylone (2002) provocatively asks, “What does ‘respect’ actually mean in
‘respect for cultural diversity’?” (p. 11), and whether some groups like Nazis or Al Qaeda are
beyond deserving respect. NCATE has provided a definition for diversity, but has left the
definitions of diversity dispositions up to individual programs (NCATE, 2008). The assessment
of dispositions towards diversity are embedded in the instruments mentioned earlier in this
chapter, and face similar challenges in terms of reliability and validity. Fortunately, NCATE
requires programs to assess dispositions, not to create a pass/fail mechanism.
A review of NCATE accredited teacher education programs found a variety of
approaches and language regarding diversity and dispositions. Ten examples of programs and
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

39
their approaches to diversity dispositions are represented here. The programs are grouped to
illustrate the organizing principles for defining desired dispositions including use of the mission
statement, conceptual framework, INTASC standards and other unique frameworks.
Informal Assessments based on Mission Statement
Stanford University has as its mission a commitment to social justice and meeting the
needs of diverse students, and prides itself on integrating these values throughout their program.
Stanford Teacher Education Program assesses candidate dispositions in a similar fashion. In their
response to NCATE, Stanford wrote:
Candidates learn to build on the resources of individuals, families, and communities.
They develop the empathy and vision to see their students for who they are, the skills to
address student learning strengths, interests and needs, and the commitment to continue
working for students when obstacles are inevitably encountered. Candidates are expected
to demonstrate these proficiencies in their university assignments as well as in their work
in the field. (NCATE, 2008, Standard 1)
Regarding assessing the dispositions towards diversity, their NCATE report states:
STEP draws on many assessments outlined in Standard 2 to evaluate candidates’
proficiencies related to diversity in each part of the teaching and learning cycle: planning,
instruction, assessment, and reflection. These aspects of the teaching and learning cycle
are evaluated in part on their attention to issues of equity…As noted in Standard 2, the
summative assessment of these proficiencies is the PACT Teaching Event included in the
graduation portfolio. (NCATE, 2008, Standard 4)
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

40
Formal Assessments Based on Conceptual Framework
Towson University in Maryland took the elements of their conceptual framework:
commitment, caring, and collaboration, and crafted language in their assessment to reflect this.
The majority of diversity dispositions fall under caring. Sample language from the assessment:
Always persists in efforts to improve student learning based on a belief that all students
can learn…consistently demonstrates culturally responsive teaching and celebration of
cultural differences… (Watson-Thompson et al., 2007, p. 59)
Northern Illinois University has diversity as an element of their conceptual framework and built
upon that in their describing the components of a disposition towards diversity. The Diversity
Standard states:
The exemplary educator has an appreciation for human diversity and enjoys working with
students representing a broad range of diverse groups in an equitable and non-
discriminatory manner. (Northern Illinois University, n.d.)
They are looking at performance indicators that show candidates believe all students can learn,
that they demonstrate inclusive practices, that they use strategies to meet the needs of all learners
and that the candidate interacts respectfully with diverse individuals in the educational
community.
Thomas University in Georgia has diversity as one of the nine components of its
conceptual framework. The proficiencies they expect their candidates to develop in this area are:
• Demonstrate the ability to listen and be respectful of divergent viewpoints.
• Demonstrate behaviors that are consistent with the belief that all students can learn.
• Create lesson plans that indicate a respect for cultural and linguistic diversity.
• Create lesson plans for individual needs, abilities, and interests.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

41
• Modify instruction to create student-centered classroom environments that respects,
values, and meets the needs of all students.
• Develop habits of reflection that will lead to a deeper understanding of diversity in
the classroom in order to improve learning for all students. (Thomas University, n.d.)
Diversity by Design
The University of South Carolina assembled a disposition task force to develop a way to
consistently assess dispositions. They used the core values identified by an earlier task force;
integrity, intellectual spirit, justice and stewardship, to guide the development of language
around dispositions. Diversity dispositions fall mainly in the category of justice.
Consistently models respect for all people. Written work and other expressions reflect
understanding of diversity (race, gender, culture, exceptionalities). Seeks a variety of
perspectives in exploring issues. Selects materials, designs activities, and interacts in
ways that demonstrate appreciation of diversity. Seeks forums or leads efforts to advocate
for inclusion and consideration of diverse perspectives.
Behaves in ways that reflect concern and equitable effort on behalf of all. Seeks
information from variety of sources to analyze needs and to plan and implement
appropriate experiences. Interacts in ways that consider individual differences and life
experiences. Takes care to provide appropriate experiences for all. Works to influence
others’ provision of services for those beyond those in his/her immediate setting.
(University of South Carolina, 2006)
Members of the faculty at the University of Tampa analyzed research on the assessment
of dispositions for the purpose of operationalizing validated dispositions. A candidate possessing
a positive disposition towards diversity:
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

42
Exhibits an appreciation and value for diversity - Approaches diversity with a positive
attitude, embraces all differences, does not use racial stereotypes, does not engage in
tokenism, interacts in a friendly manner with the majority of peers in the classroom, seeks
to grow through knowledge, remains open to differing persons and opinions, does not
demean others. (Almerico et al., 2011)
Clarion University in Pennsylvania formed a dispositions committee to look at the
program’s conceptual framework, Pennsylvania State Standards, The National Board for Teacher
Certification Standards, and other professional and ethical standards. The language from their
current handbook (2007) states that candidates demonstrate:
Commitment to diversity — values multiple aspects of diversity; respects children and
adults of various cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, social
classes, abilities, political beliefs, etc. (p. 15)
Lees-McRae College faculty developed a framework based on reflective practice and
aligned this framework with the North Carolina Standards for Teachers to create a standard that
addresses diversity. The standard reads, “Teachers Establish a Respectful Environment for a
Diverse Population of Students” and looks for dispositions that reflect:
• Respect students as valued individuals by making professional decisions based on
student needs rather than personal preferences.
• Establishes and maintains high standards for all students, as indicated through
curriculum planning and implementation.
• Uses awareness/experiences of diversity to enhance and modify curriculum.
• Include students’ backgrounds in the teaching/learning process. (Lees-McRae
College, 2012)
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

43
Aligned with INTASC
The joint Education Department of the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s
University in Minnesota used the INTASC Standards to develop their framework for assessing
dispositions in entering teacher candidates. The expected dispositions dealing with diversity were
aligned with Principle 3: The teacher understands how students differ in their approach to
learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. The related
disposition: “The candidate is disposed toward a commitment to social justice that is supported
by a desire to understand and appreciate various dimensions of human diversity.” (Mullin, 2003,
pp. 12-13).
Southern Connecticut State University uses INTASC to align their dispositions, including
the one labeled, “Embracing Diversity.” This disposition says:
Learners/clients are individuals with differing personal and family backgrounds, various
skills, abilities, perspectives, talents and interests. The candidate embraces this diversity
and makes learners/clients feel valued, helping them to learn to value each other and to
use these peer relationships to establish an inclusive climate of learning.
In the field exemplars include:
Integrates diversity actively, combating the marginalization of groups or individuals.
Identifies and appreciates the varied contributions of individuals to create an inclusive
climate. Seeks to integrate diverse culture, languages and dialects into his/her
instructional practice to engage students in learning. Demonstrates respect for diverse
culture, languages and dialects by not overcorrecting. Works to professionally apply
multicultural competencies and standards. (Southern Connecticut State University, 2012)
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

44
These ten programs exemplify what is both complex and challenging about assessing
dispositions. The need to prepare teachers with the knowledge, skills and dispositions to work
with diverse students is inarguable, but defining and assessing dispositions towards diversity is
problematic. Most dispositional assessments are designed to identify deficiencies more
proficiencies. Diversity proficiencies present an even greater challenge as it is difficult to
measure the development of empathy and vision (Stanford), or belief that all students can learn
(Towson) or enjoyment working with diverse students (Northern Illinois University) or even the
appreciation, valuing, or embracing of diversity mentioned by many of the teacher education
programs. A review of the literature found very little pertaining to how faculty were trained or
calibrated to use the assessment tools, or what common understanding there was about how
proficiency would be exhibited by candidates. Additionally, in their survey of empirical studies
on diversity disposition assessments, Pohan and Aguilar (1999) found that most were self-
assessment scales that focused on a limited selection of characteristics of diversity such as race,
or culture, or gender, or specific aspects of diverse learners such as academic achievement. The
instruments they looked at included the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory, the Bogardus
Social Distance Scale and other unique designs. Finding little written about validity or reliability
Pohan and Aguilar designed and tested the Personal Beliefs about Diversity Scale and the
Professional Beliefs about Diversity Scale (1999). Other approaches to identifying and assessing
diversity dispositions include Leonard & Leonard’s (2006) use of autobiographical journals,
focus group interviews (Lee & Hemer-Patnode, 2010), and class assignments and observations
(Major & Brock, 2003).
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

45
Demonstrating Diversity in the Classroom
For almost a century, the mission of Rossier School of Education has been dedicated to
educating leaders who are change agents, seeking “efficacious and just solutions” to improve
urban education (USC Rossier School of Education, n.d.). To support this mission to improve
urban education, Rossier uses guiding principles built upon four pillars. The four pillars of all
Rossier’s programs, found in the Conceptual Framework (USC Rossier School of Education,
2013), are learning, diversity, accountability and leadership (Appendix C). The Conceptual
Framework is instrumental in establishing Rossier’s shared vision of the necessary dispositions
for candidates who will enter P-12 settings upon graduation (USC Rossier School of Education,
2013). Regarding diversity, the USC Rossier School of Education:
...strives to promote the understanding of the specific strengths and needs of learners who
differ in race, culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age,
physical or intellectual abilities, religious, personal, and political beliefs. This focus
includes an analysis of the distribution of power and how it impacts equity and access to
educational and other forms of opportunity; the policies, practices, and beliefs that create
barriers for learners and the ways in which these barriers may be personally and
collectively navigated (Reynolds & Pope, 1991). Our concept of diversity encompasses
acceptance and respect, and fosters the understanding that each individual is unique and
that differences and similarities within and between groups are important factors to
consider when addressing issues in education (Bennett, 2001). The Rossier’s curriculum
reflects our deliberate efforts to model, foster, and develop the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to move beyond tolerance toward embracing and celebrating the rich
dimensions of diversity and in creating equitable learning environments for all students
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

46
(Gallagher et al., 2012). Our goal is to provide Rossier students with the conceptual
foundation and analytic skills needed to apply various competing and complimentary
theories, propositions, variables, definitions, research evidence, assumptions, and
application to educational practice. Our academic programs aim to help Rossier students
explore, develop and apply useful strategies for assertively addressing educational issues
related to diverse populations and to reconstruct learning environments to meet the needs
of all learners (USC Rossier School of Education, 2013).
Furthermore, the Conceptual Framework lists as a candidate proficiency that graduates
will: “Demonstrate the belief that effective instruction is learner-centered, theoretically
grounded, and contextually responsive to the individual differences of all learners (USC Rossier
School of Education, 2013). Of particular interest to this study is how a candidate in a math or
science classroom would demonstrate those elements.
The literature on how to effectively meet the needs of diverse students in science is fairly
recent but is growing. It has consistently shown, however, that when diverse students are
provided with accessible curriculum and high expectations, they demonstrate “science
achievement, interest and agency” (Lukyx & Lee, 2007). Likewise, mathematics curriculum that
is relevant and problem centered is seen as more aligned with how people actually learn
(National Research Council, 1996). Meeting the needs of diverse students is especially
important with the current emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).
These students have not traditionally performed well on science and math assessments. Teachers
tend to believe the reasons for underachievement lie with the students. They see a lack of
motivation, lack of family support, or language ability as factors contributing to a lack of success
(Bol & Berry, 2005). Teacher expectations and behaviors towards students were also correlated
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

47
with student achievement (Atwater & Riley, 1993). Math and science education have typically
focused on one culture, and in our pluralistic society, this has had the effect of disengaging
students from the curriculum.
There have been math and science educators who have developed successful approaches
to reaching diverse students. These instructors see the opportunity to make math and science
more meaningful and accessible to students by taking advantage of the knowledge and
experiences students bring to school with them (Scott & Raborn, 1996). They consistently
reference the need to have high expectations and a climate of mutual care and respect (Adeeb &
Bosnick, 1998; Atwater & Riley, 1993; Johnson, 2011), as well as the belief that all children can
learn science or math. Knowledge of students’ backgrounds and communities is also emphasized
as foundational in implementing learner-centered and contextualized instruction. From there
instructors can create lessons that are grounded in the context of the real world and that can
support students in critically evaluating that world (Johnson, 2011). Math and science can be
used to explore and understand the world in which students live, including its inequalities.
Teachers who recognize the everyday science and math of students’ lives and use these
experiences to create “bridging analogies” (Warren et al., 2001, p. 531) provide access to the
knowledge and skills necessary to be successful.
Other ways a math or science teacher who values diversity would demonstrate their belief
that effective instruction is learner-centered, theoretically grounded, and contextually responsive
to the individual differences of all learners (USC Rossier School of Education, 2013) is by:
Providing hands-on learning experiences, organizing cooperative learning opportunities and
recognizing the strengths students bring (Scott & Raborn, 1996; Prediger, 2005) as well as
allowing students to demonstrate learning in multiple ways (Johnson, 2011). By using inquiry
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

48
and problem solving as a basis for building science and math skills (Johnson, 2011; Prediger,
2005; Warren et al., 2001), recognizing that the scientific practice and mathematical discourse of
students may not fit the traditional conceptions of science and math (Warren et al., 2001) but
using this as a foundation for, rather than an obstacle to, further learning. Teachers introducing
the contributions of women, minorities, differently-abled, and other non-majority individuals to
the fields of math and science (Johnson, 2011; Adeeb & Bosnick, 1998) evidence a valuing of
diversity. Identifying discriminatory language, stereotypes, and omissions in curricular materials
(Banks, 1999) and by using curriculum that reinforces the usefulness of math and science in
students’ lives are demonstrations of a positive disposition towards diversity.
Other strategies mentioned that serve to integrate diversity with math and science are
using personal story problems, and open-ended approaches to problem solving (Prediger, 2005).
Math and science journals were cited as a means to recognize and incorporate diversity (Johnson,
2011; Scott & Raborn, 1996). There are other strategies that can provide access to curriculum for
diverse students, and if articulated, can demonstrate a teacher’s valuing of diversity. These
include using a variety of tools to engage students, including media and realia that relates to their
lives (Atwater & Riley, 1993), games (Adeeb & Bosnick, 1998), and music, rhythms, and chants
(Scott & Raborn, 1996).
An approach to math or science that values diversity may cause teachers to challenge
their own beliefs and assumptions (Bol & Berry, 2005), about the “neutrality” of math and
science instruction, about their students’ abilities, and about their own biases. These teachers
may have the knowledge and skills to teach math and science, but for the sake of the students it
is also important that they have a positive dispositions towards diversity and a belief that all
children can learn.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

49
The literature has revealed the necessity as well as the complexity involved in preparing
quality teachers able to help all students learn. It becomes the responsibility of teacher education
programs to identify, develop, and assess diversity dispositions in order to ensure that teacher
candidates possess the knowledge, skills and abilities to help all children learn. Building upon
the body of knowledge pertaining to assessing dispositions, and diversity this study attempted to
empirically measure candidates’ disposition towards valuing diversity based on the proficiencies
identified by the university’s conceptual framework, and a proven performance assessment, the
PACT.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

50
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) is scored using 12 rubrics
designed to measure proficiencies in planning, instruction, assessment, reflection, and academic
language. While dispositions towards teaching a diverse student population are implicit in the
PACT, there is no rubric for dispositions assessment. The author has created a “thirteenth rubric”
designed to assess PACT submissions for a disposition towards valuing diversity.
The purpose of this study was two-fold. The study attempted to determine the extent to
which MAT teacher candidates in Secondary Math, Secondary Science, and Elementary Math
reflected the disposition “valuing diversity” in their PACT submissions, and whether the author’s
rubric was a valid measure of this disposition. The current focus on preparing increasingly
diverse students, and the teachers of these students in the science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) content areas make this an important and timely area of study. All institutions
seeking NCATE accreditation are required to assess dispositions. California institutions are
required to implement a performance-based assessment for teacher candidates. The teacher
education program at Rossier School of Education, with diversity as one of its conceptual pillars,
is involved in both of these processes. This study provided a unique opportunity to learn more
about the program as well as the teacher candidates. The PACT does not currently explicitly
measure dispositions, so findings from this study contribute information to the field in the areas
of teacher performance assessment, dispositions, and diversity, especially as it pertains to math
and science instruction.
This study used secondary data from all MAT on-line Secondary Math (N=10) and all
Secondary Science (N=11) candidates completing their PACT submissions as a requirement for a
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

51
credential recommendation in December 2012 and March 2013. Submissions from 19 Multiple
Subjects candidates were also included in this study. This research study provided preliminary
empirical information to the program with implications for practice involving one its guiding
principles and candidate proficiencies, diversity. This mixed method research analyzed the
content of candidates’ PACT submissions looking for the “attitudes, values, and beliefs that
influence the application of skills” (Wilkerson & Lang, 2007) and assigned a numerical value to
the results. As indicated in the preceding chapters, a majority of the research on dispositions has
focused on broader definitions of teacher professionalism, and has relied heavily on the self-
perceptions of teacher candidates. There has been little published regarding the empirical results
obtained by teacher education programs attempting to assess dispositions.
The research question is to what extent is the disposition valuing diversity, a core belief
of Rossier School of Education, reflected in candidates’ Performance Assessment for California
Teachers submissions? The hypothesis, implicit in the research question and purpose, is that
candidates’ dispositions toward valuing diversity can be measured in part by using the valuing
diversity rubric to assess their PACT submissions. Related questions are:
1. What useful information do PACT submissions include for assessing dispositions
towards diversity according to the valuing diversity rubric?
2. How do MAT STEM students perform according to the valuing diversity rubric?
a. How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with scores on PACT Planning
Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible?
b. How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with PACT Reflection Rubric
10: Reflecting on Learning?
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

52
3. What pertinent information can assessors provide regarding the design and
implementation of the Valuing Diversity rubric?
Research Method and Design
A mixed methods approach to research was used in this study. Mixed methods research
combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches in tandem as a means to strengthen the
study (Creswell, 2007). The author has purposefully selected PACT submissions from Secondary
Math, Secondary Science and Elementary Math for analysis. Qualitative measures were used to
examine candidates’ commentaries and assessor comments in response to the research questions.
These included coding of assessor comments from scoring, and compiling assessor feedback
regarding the use and design of the rubric. Quantitative research methods were used as
candidates’ PACT submissions were examined using a rubric designed to capture specific
behaviors believed to reflect a positive value towards diversity, and were recorded by the
assessors on a secure website, Taskstream. According to Creswell (2007) a quantitative research
design reflects a post positivist worldview that knowledge is based on careful observation and
measurement of the objective reality that exists “out there” in the world (p. 7), whereas
qualitative research demands an emphasis on objectivity and requires researchers to limit the
influence of bias in their methods or conclusions. The author brings a pragmatic worldview as
defined by Creswell (2007) when referring to mixed methods research. Pragmatic research is
concerned with applications and solutions to problems. The focus of mixed method research with
this philosophy is not on the methods, but on the research problem, allowing for a variety of
methods both qualitative and quantitative.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

53
Site Selection
The research site for this study was the University of Southern California’s Rossier
School of Education. The school offers several comprehensive Master’s of Education degrees, a
Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership (Ed.D.) degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy in
Urban Education Policy (Ph.D.) degree. The Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) was the focus of
this study. The Master of Arts in Teaching at Rossier is a rigorous one-year combined credential
and masters degree program. The MAT Program has evolved over time in response to the
economic, social, political, and now, technological climate. Once a small, campus-based
program, the MAT Program has become a program that blends new technology with customized
curriculum and field-based experiences. Candidates may choose an on campus classroom
environment for learning, or they may attend live classes taught by USC faculty via an on-line
platform. The delivery system is different, but the curriculum, the faculty, and the academic
demands are the same. The MAT currently has 1500 on-line and 75 on-ground students from
over 45 states and 25 countries enrolled (MAT@USC, 2011). Candidates are located throughout
the United States, and in fact, throughout the world, but the program is designed based upon the
California Standards for Teacher Preparation Programs (SB 2042, 1998). All candidates are
required to complete the PACT regardless of where they reside. Teacher candidates in the MAT
are pursuing credentials in Secondary Math, Secondary Science, Secondary History and Social
Science, Secondary English, Music, and Multiple Subjects.
Instrumentation
In an effort to identify an existing rubric that could be used with PACT submissions, the
author conducted a thorough review of the literature that revealed the use of rubrics by many
teacher education programs. Many included a focus on diversity, however, no diversity rubrics
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

54
were found that closely matched the design, wording, and developmental levels of the PACT
rubrics. The author designed an original rubric based on existing diversity rubrics such as those
used by University of South Carolina, Purdue University, and the University of Tennessee, in an
attempt to build on the best thinking of those institutions. These exemplars combined with the
NCATE requirements, the developmental design of the PACT, and the author’s knowledge
regarding the curriculum used in the MAT formed the basis for a new rubric on valuing
diversity.
In April 2012, ten diverse and experienced PACT assessors volunteered to pilot and give
feedback on the rubric while scoring PACT submissions. These assessors were trained on the use
of the rubric and were provided with a document that clarified the meaning of each level
(Appendix E). The Valuing Diversity rubric was scored after the other 12 PACT rubrics and had
no bearing on the official score of the candidates.
Assessors’ feedback reflected concerns with definitions, demography and the candidates’
ability to reflect the disposition as defined in their PACT submissions. The assessors’ feedback
regarding the design and use of the rubric after they used it to score candidate teaching events
contained comments such as, “The score for this candidate represents a lack of representation. It
seems fairly obvious that that she is not rejecting culturally relevant pedagogy and is not
engaging in negative stereotypes but she is not employing it either.” (Other comments by
assessors are contained in Appendix F.)
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

55
Table 2
Draft of Preliminary Dispositions Rubric
DISPOSITIONS: VALUING DIVERSITY
XX13: How do the candidate’s context, planning, instruction, assessment, and reflection,
demonstrate a valuing of diversity?
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
• The candidate
participates in the
use of negative
stereotypes or
language.
OR
• The candidate
rejects, or is
unaware of the
need for culturally
responsive
pedagogy or
curriculum.
• The candidate
acknowledges
individual and
cultural differences.
• The candidate
articulates the funds
of knowledge
present in the
classroom and
makes reasonable
attempts to build
on these strengths
within the learning
segment.
• The candidate is
sensitive to and
considers individual
and cultural
differences.
• Candidate
demonstrates an
appreciation of
diversity by the
selection of
materials, design of
activities, and
interactions with
students in ways
that support
progress towards
meeting the
standards/objectives
of the learning
segment.
• All components of a
Level 3 plus:
• Candidate
demonstrates an
understanding that
the ideas
surrounding
difference are
socially
constructed,
cultural bias can
be overcome, and
advocates or plans
to advocate for
inclusion.

The pilot rubric appeared to raise questions rather than provide answers as to the
usefulness of PACT submissions for identifying dispositions. Based on scorer feedback, the
author identified the need for a stronger conceptual framework on which to base the rubric
design. This led the author to redesign the Valuing Diversity rubric to specifically reflect the
candidate proficiencies described in the Rossier Conceptual Framework, the theoretical
framework of Smith and Ragan (2004) and the Taxonomy of the Affective Domain developed by
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

56
Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964). The Rossier Conceptual Framework includes as one of its
candidate proficiencies the ability to “Demonstrate the belief that effective instruction is learner-
centered, theoretically grounded, and contextually responsive to the individual differences of all
students” (USC Rossier School of Education, 2012, pp. 22-23). This phrase formed the basis for
the language and focus of the diversity rubric. As explained below, the work of Smith and
Ragan (2004) and Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) provided the framework for including
the requirement that candidates are able articulate the importance of the rubric elements, and at
what level.
All PACT rubrics are designed on a Level 1 through 4 Continuum. A candidate receives
only one score for each rubric based on the evidence found in the PACT submission. A score of
Level 1 on any of the PACT rubrics indicate that the teacher candidate has not met minimal
proficiency in that area of teacher skills and knowledge. According to the developers of the
PACT, a score of Level 2 represents a minimal level of proficiency, but also shows potential and
a readiness to begin a teaching career (Pecheone & Chung, 2007). The valuing diversity rubric
was designed to reflect the current 4 level formats of the other 12 PACT rubrics. As with the
other PACT rubrics, Level 1 is not sufficient to pass. Using the language of the Conceptual
Framework, the levels for the Valuing Diversity Rubric were determined using the taxonomy of
Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia (1964), with Level 1 representing Receiving, Level 2 representing
Responding and Valuing, and Levels 3 and 4 representing Organization and Characterization.
The three components of attitudinal learning, cognitive (knowing how), behavioral (engaging in
a behavior), and affective (articulating why) proposed by Smith and Ragan (2004), are also
incorporated in the rubric design.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

57
Table 3
Final Draft of Dispositions Rubric
DISPOSITIONS: VALUING DIVERSITY
XX13: How do the candidate’s context, planning, instruction, assessment, and reflection,
demonstrate a valuing of diversity that is learner-centered, theoretically grounded and
contextually responsive to the individual differences of all learners?
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
• The candidate has
received instruction
and assignments on
developing learner-
centered,
theoretically
grounded and
contextually
responsive
teaching practice
but does not show
evidence of
considering these in
planning or
instruction.
• The candidate’s
makes a
reasonable
attempt at
designing lesson
plans that are
primarily learner-
centered,
theoretically
grounded and
contextually
responsive to the
individual
differences of some
learners.
• The candidate is
able to articulate
the value of
considering one or
more of these
components in
lesson planning.
• Plans, instruction
and commentaries
are consistently
learner-centered,
theoretically
grounded and
responsive to the
individual
differences of all
students.
• The candidate is
able to articulate
the value and
purpose of
considering these
three components
as an on-going
element of their
teaching practice.
• All components of
a Level 3 plus:
• Candidate provides
evidence through
assessment and
reflection, as to
how learner-
centered,
theoretically
grounded and
contextually
responsive teaching
contributed to
student learning
during the teaching
event.

All candidates in the MAT received instruction in the elements of learner-centered,
theoretically grounded and contextually responsive teaching practice, therefore all PACT
submissions had the potential to reflect these elements. A candidate at Level 1 did not include
any of the three components in their PACT submission, while a candidate at Level 4 exhibited
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

58
mastery of all of these components at a superior level. PACT (Pecheone & Chung, 2007) defines
a level 4 as representing the top 5% of teacher candidates. A companion document, The Thinking
Behind the Diversity Rubric, modeled after a similar document designed by Stanford for use with
the PACT (Pecheone, 2008) was developed to further explain the expectations and differences of
candidates at each level (Appendix H).
Two existing rubrics in the PACT have been identified by the author as having elements
related to learner-centered, theoretically grounded and contextually responsive teaching practice.
PACT Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible asks candidates to demonstrate that lesson plans
draw on students’ experiential backgrounds, interests or prior learning in order to pass. Rubric
10: Reflecting on Learning also contains elements related to Valuing Diversity. Candidates are
asked to reflect on (articulate) their teaching practice as it relates to principles from theory. They
are also asked to explain the assumptions they had about how student learning was affected by
their own planning, instruction or assessment decisions. The Valuing Diversity rubric asks for
learner centered, theoretically grounded and contextually responsive teaching practice. It was the
author’s contention that these sets of requirements are not redundant but related, and the author
sought to compare how candidates performed on the two rubrics. The rationale for this
comparison was to detect any patterns in performance. A second purpose was to see if an
additional rubric for diversity dispositions provided additional information about the PACT
submissions.
PACT Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible and Rubric 10: Reflecting on learning are
reproduced below in Tables 4 and 5.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

59

Table 4
PACT Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible
PLANNING: MAKING CONTENT ACCESSIBLE
Rubric 2: How do the plans make the curriculum accessible to the students in the class?
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
• Plans refer to
students’
experiential
backgrounds,
interests, or prior
learning that have
little or no
relationship to the
learning segment’s
standards/
objectives.
OR
• There are significant
content
inaccuracies in
plans that will lead
to student
misunderstandings.
• Plans draw on
students’
experiential
backgrounds,
interests, or prior
learning to help
students reach the
learning segment’s
standards/
objectives.
• Plans for
implementation of
learning tasks
include support to
help students who
often struggle with
the content.
• Plans draw on
students’ prior
learning as well as
experiential
backgrounds or
interests to help
students reach the
learning segment’s
standards/
objectives.
• Plans for learning
tasks include
scaffolding or
other structured
forms of support to
provide access to
grade-level
standards/
objectives.
All components of
Level 3 plus:
• Plans include well-
integrated
instructional
strategies that are
tailored to address
a variety of
specific student
learning needs.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

60

Table 5
PACT Rubric 10: Reflecting on Learning
REFLECTION: REFLECTING ON LEARNING
Rubric 10: How does the candidate use research, theory, and reflections on teaching and
learning to guide practice? (TPEs 1, 4, 7, 8)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
• Reflections on
teaching practice
are erroneously
supported through
a significant
misapplication of
theory or research
principles.
OR
• Changes in
teaching practice
are not based on
reasonable
assumptions about
how student
learning was
affected by
planning,
instruction, or
assessment
decisions.
• Reflections on
teaching practice
are consistent
with principles
from theory and
research.
• Changes in
teaching practice
are based on
reasonable
assumptions
about how student
learning was
affected by
planning,
instruction, or
assessment
decisions.
• Reflections on
teaching practice
are based on sound
knowledge of
research and
theory linked to
knowledge of
students in the
class.
• Changes in teaching
practice are based
on reasonable
assumptions about
how student
learning was
affected by
planning,
instruction, or
assessment
decisions.
• Reflections on
teaching practice
integrate sound
knowledge of
research and theory
about effective
teaching practice,
knowledge of
students in the class,
and knowledge of
content.
• Changes in teaching
practice are specific
and strategic to
improve individual
and collective
student
understanding of
standards/objectives.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

61
Data Collection
PACT Implementation
Candidates receive information and support for their summative performance assessment
throughout the MAT program. The PACT is submitted during a candidate’s last quarter of
student teaching using a secure electronic platform designed specifically to submit and score
their submissions. PACTs are submitted with numerical identifiers, not with candidate names.
The assessors also remain anonymous to the candidate.
Assessor training is subject specific. Assessors complete a 16-hour training and are
calibrated for interrater reliability in preparation for scoring PACTs. Assessors are then
randomly assigned Teaching Events to be scored. These events are accessed through the same
electronic platform that the candidates use.
Preparation for data collection began with the development of a calibration process for
the Valuing Diversity rubric using Calibration Teaching Events, with passing standards,
provided to all PACT institutions by Stanford University in each content area. Since there is not
a calibrated version of the Valuing Diversity rubric, the PACT Math, Science, and Elementary
Math Content Area Leads in conjunction with the author, determined a score for each Calibration
Teaching Event and provided evidence for scoring. The Content Area Leads are highly trained
as PACT assessors and trainers of PACT assessors, and their input provided the author with
information useful in developing the assessor training for the Valuing Diversity rubric.
The author then trained participating PACT assessors on the thinking behind the diversity
rubric and where to look for evidence, and included samples of evidence at different levels.
Assessors then completed the scoring of their required annual Calibration Teaching Event, which
was the same event as was scored by the Content Leads. As part of the overall PACT calibration
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

62
process, author and the Content Leads reviewed the Valuing Diversity rubric responses as well
as scores on the existing PACT rubrics.

Figure 1. Data collection process

Ten assessors trained in Science, Math, and Elementary Math agreed to use the Valuing
Diversity rubric. They were expert in the subject area in which they scored, and they have all
worked as instructors of teacher candidates or beginning level teachers and had previously
participated in a foundational two-day training and calibration process. The majority held adjunct
faculty positions with Rossier. All were experienced at scoring PACT. The assessors were
diverse in other ways, however, including gender, ethnicity, age, and current employment. The
assessors were compensated for calibration, and scoring PACTs, but did not receive any
additional compensation for including the Valuing Diversity rubric as part of the calibration or
scoring process.
!"
# $%&'(&)"*+,%(-"./0"12(/3(/4"5&2(/0"62&"*+,%(-")(62"78/6&/6"
9&.0:"
;""""
# 78/6&/6"9&.0:"+:&"*+,%(-"8/":6./0.%0(<&0""-.=(,%.6(8/"1>?>"
@"
# *&:&.%-2&%"6%.(/:".=="A.%6(-(A.6(/4".::&::8%:"8/"+:&"8B"62&"*+,%(-"
C"
# D::&::8%:"-8EA=&6&"*+,%(-"0+%(/4"0+%(/4".//+.="-.=(,%.6(8/"
A%8-&::>"*&:&.%-2&%"./0"78/6&/6"9&.0:"%&'(&)":-8%&:>"
F"
# D::&::8%:"-8EA=&6&"$D71":-8%(/4".:":-2&0+=&0G"./0"(/-=+0&"
*+,%(-"
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

63
These assessors were provided with documentation explaining the thinking behind the
rubrics (Appendix E) and met with the author on-line for group training to ensure a common
understanding of what the rubric is designed to look for, and to discuss possible evidence for
scoring a candidate at a particular level.
Although ten assessors in secondary math, secondary science and elementary math were
trained to use the Valuing Diversity rubric, only 7 participated in the actual scoring. There were
two math assessors, two science assessors and three elementary math assessors.
In early November 2012 and January 2013, the Valuing Diversity rubric was included as
a separate response option on the electronic platform used for scoring (Appendix H). PACT
submissions were not identifiable to the assessor by name and the scoring of this rubric did not
affect whether a candidate passed the PACT. The use of the electronic platform allowed for the
generation of statistics and captured the comments used to provide evidence. Similar to all PACT
rubrics, scoring of the Valuing Diversity rubric consisted of identifying evidence that supported
the level at which the candidate was scored. If no evidence was found for Valuing Diversity, the
assessor was asked whether they thought the lack of evidence was due to the particular candidate
submission or whether the design of the rubric made it difficult to determine this disposition.
Data Analysis
The overall question that guided this study is: To what extent do MAT teacher candidates
in Math, Science and Elementary Math reflect a disposition towards valuing diversity according
to the diversity rubric? This, and the related questions listed earlier in this chapter were asked
using the variables related to the diversity rubric:
• What useful information do PACT submissions include for assessing dispositions
towards diversity according to the valuing diversity rubric?
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

64
• How do MAT STEM students perform according to the valuing diversity rubric?
• How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with scores on PACT Planning Rubric
2: Making Content Accessible?
• How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with PACT Reflection Rubric 10:
Reflecting on Learning?
• What pertinent information can assessors provide regarding the design and
implementation of the Valuing Diversity rubric?
The assessor comments on the Valuing Diversity rubric were analyzed and coded for
language and agreement with the rubric to determine whether PACT submissions contained
enough evidence to score this rubric.
Descriptive statistics such as frequency and means were used to describe candidate
gender, race/ethnicity, subject/topic taught, location of teaching placement, and scores on the
Valuing Diversity rubric. Comparisons between mean scores based on demographic variables
were explored using t tests. For example, mean scores on the Valuing Diversity rubric were
compared by gender to determine if men or women scored higher, or by grade level to determine
whether elementary or secondary candidates scored differently. A one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to examine the mean difference in the Valuing Diversity levels
between groups divided by content areas of the participants. Finally, data including the video of
assessor training, informal feedback, and a short questionnaire (Appendix I) were collected and
compiled to obtain feedback from the assessors on the design and use of the Valuing Diversity
rubric.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

65
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Teachers in the United States need to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student
population. Teacher preparation programs are being asked to assess candidates’ proficiency in
the knowledge and skills to teach diverse populations, but also to assess their dispositions
regarding diversity. Programs, and candidates, are being held accountable for demonstrating
skills and knowledge through the growing use of standardized teacher performance
assessments. There is currently nothing approaching a statewide or national standardized
assessment for dispositions.
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the disposition of valuing
diversity, a core belief of the teacher education program, is reflected in math, science and
elementary math candidates’ summative assessment, the Performance Assessment for California
Teachers (PACT). An original rubric based on the work of Smith and Ragan (2004) and
Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) was designed by the author to assess candidates’ progress
towards meeting the diversity proficiencies stated in the institution’s conceptual framework. An
important underlying assumption embedded in the design of the rubric is that all MAT
candidates have received instruction and assignments on learner-centered, theoretically grounded
and contextually responsive teaching practice as stated in the Conceptual Framework (USC
Rossier School of Education, 2013). The research questions are:
1. What useful information do PACT submissions include for assessing dispositions
towards diversity according to the valuing diversity rubric?
2. How do MAT STEM students perform according to the valuing diversity rubric?
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

66
a. How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with scores on PACT Planning
Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible?
b. How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with PACT Reflection Rubric
10: Reflecting on Learning?
3. What pertinent information can assessors provide regarding the design and
implementation of the Valuing Diversity rubric?
The first research question focused on the ability of assessors to locate and record
evidence for scoring using the new rubric. The second research question looked at how
candidates performed according to the rubric, while the third question asked for feedback from
the assessors on the design and implementation of the rubric. Together, answers to these three
questions provided preliminary insight as to whether the PACT is a valid source of data for
dispositions, and whether the valuing diversity rubric is a valid means for measuring this
disposition.
A mixed methods approach to research was used in this study. Qualitative measures
were used to examine candidates’ commentaries and assessor comments in response to the
research questions. These included coding of assessor comments from scoring, and compiling
assessor feedback regarding the use and design of the rubric. Quantitative research methods
were used as candidates’ PACT submissions were examined using a rubric designed to capture
specific behaviors believed to reflect a positive value towards diversity, and were recorded by
the assessors on a secure website, Taskstream.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 6 shows the demographic breakdown of the candidates whose PACT submissions
were reviewed. The data for this study came from a total of 40 (N=40) MAT PACT submissions
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

67
from October 2012 and January 2013. All candidates were on-line students and self-reported
their demographic information. As shown in the table below, almost half of the candidates were
preparing to become elementary teachers (N=19). Three quarters (N=30) of the candidates were
female. The majority of candidates identified as White (N=26), and over fifty percent reported
working in an urban or inner city context (N=21).

Table 6
Demographic Background of Sample
N %
Gender
Male 10 25%
Female 30 75%
Ethnicity
American Indian 1 2.5%
Asian 1 2.5%
Black 6 15%
Latina 5 12.5%
Mixed Race 1 2.5%
White 26 65%
Teaching Location
Inner City 7 17.5%
Urban 14 35%
Suburban 4 10%
Small City 9 22.5%
Rural 2 5%
N/A 4 10%
Content Area
Secondary Math 10 25%
Secondary Science 11 27.5%
Elementary Math 19 47.5%
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

68
Research Question 1: Finding Evidence for Assessment
Research question one asked, “What evidence can be found in Science, Math and
Elementary Math submissions for assessing dispositions according to the Valuing Diversity
rubric?” All candidates were required to complete a Context Commentary for their PACT
submission. In this commentary, candidates are asked to detail and describe the diverse
backgrounds, needs, and abilities of their students. The candidates are then instructed to meet
the needs of these students through their planning, instruction and assessment. The PACT was
designed to measure candidate skills and knowledge. It was not designed to measure
dispositions, so it was first necessary to determine whether assessors even had the opportunity to
observe data that would capture the disposition of valuing diversity as measured by the rubric.
Findings rule out a Type II error by showing that assessors were able to locate evidence in three
out of four levels to score all 40 PACT submissions on the Valuing Diversity rubric. Rubric level
language and corresponding comments from the assessors are included in Table 7. The assessors
viewed the PACT submission holistically and the comments represent an overall impression of
the submission.
The Context Commentary provided the assessors the context with which to determine
whether candidates had indeed been “contextually responsive” to the students in their planning,
instruction and assessment. The lesson plans, but particularly the commentaries in which
candidates explained their thinking and decision-making, provided an opportunity to articulate
the value and purpose they assigned to contextually responsive, theoretically grounded and
learner-centered teaching practice as assessed in the Valuing Diversity rubric. Lesson plans and
commentaries contained enough evidence as to the “attitudes, values, and beliefs that influenced
their application of knowledge and skills” (Wilkerson & Lang, 2007) to assess.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

69
Table 7
Rubric Levels and Corresponding Assessor Comments
Rubric Language Assessor Comments
Level 1 for Valuing Diversity
The candidate has received instruction and
assignments on developing learner-centered,
theoretically grounded, and contextually
responsive teaching practice but does not
show evidence of considering these in
planning or instruction.
• Not clearly evidenced
• No tangible evidence
• Does not show evidence
• Discussion lacked mention
• Lack of discussion
• Lack of detail
• Does not show evidence of considering
• Does not consider
• Teacher centered
Level 2 for Valuing Diversity
The candidate makes a reasonable attempt
at designing lesson plans that are primarily
learner-centered, theoretically grounded and
contextually responsive to the individual
differences of some learners. The candidate is
able to articulate the value of considering
one or more of these components in lesson
planning.
• Making “reasonable attempts” to meet the
elements of the rubric.
• Ability to articulate
• Discussed, discussion, or states
• Takes into consideration, considers
• Takes into account
• Learner-centered
Level 3 for Valuing Diversity
Plans, instruction and commentaries are
consistently learner-centered, theoretically
grounded and responsive to the individual
differences of all students. The candidate is
able to articulate the value and purpose of
considering these three components as an on-
going element of their teaching practice.
• Consistently meeting the needs of all
students
• Consistently demonstrating a valuing…by
meeting student needs
• Able to articulate the value and purpose of
considering (elements of the rubric)
Level 4 for Valuing Diversity
All components of a Level 3 plus, candidate
provides evidence through assessment and
reflection, as to how learner-centered,
theoretically grounded and contextually
responsive teaching contributed to student
learning during the teaching event.
No submissions were scored at a Level 4.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

70
Findings for Research Question 1
Assessors consistently used the language of the rubrics to describe and validate the score
given to a candidate. For example, one assessor noted, “The candidate articulates the importance
of building a safe community of learners so that all students’ voices may be valued and heard.”
Another commented, “The candidate is able to articulate the importance of personal context and
how this connects learners to content.” A rubric scored at level 3 contained the comment: “The
candidate is able to articulate the value and purpose of considering these three components as an
on-going element of their teaching.” Assessors were also able to document the lack of evidence
for a Level 2 or above with comments such as, “Candidate has a variety of learners in the
classroom, but there is lack of detail that addresses specific needs of these students.” An
assessor observed, “The majority of the learning experiences crafted include the teacher as the
center of the environment.” There were also comments stating that there was a complete lack of
evidence regarding the demonstration of valuing diversity as defined by learner-centered,
theoretically grounded, or contextually responsive planning or instruction.
No evidence was found to assign a Level 4 to any submission.
Research Question 2: How Candidates Perform
Research Question two looked at how the MAT Science, Math, and Elementary Math
students performed according to the Valuing Diversity rubric. The distribution of scores, and the
mean scores were analyzed using the candidates’ demographic data as the independent variable.
Questions 2a and 2b looked at comparisons between candidate scores on the Valuing Diversity
rubric, and two existing PACT rubrics that assess elements related to the Valuing Diversity
rubric elements.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

71
Findings for Research Question 2
Table 8 combines the results of Secondary Math, Science and Elementary Math and
shows the distribution of scores by level.

Table 8
Overall Candidate Performance on Valuing Diversity Rubric (Rubric 13)
N %
Level 1 10 25%
Level 2 27 67.5%
Level 3 3 7.5%
Level 4 0 0%

A chi square test is used to determine whether there is a significant difference between
the expected frequencies and observed frequencies in one or more categories. For Table 9, Chi-
squared analysis was run to examine whether the content area groups differed significantly in the
number of the observed versus expected participants (N=40) in the levels of Valuing Diversity
Rubric 13. The results of Chi-square tests indicated no statistically significant difference on the
participant counts in the levels between the secondary math, secondary science and elementary
math groups, !" (4) = .091.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

72

Table 9
Distribution of Scores by Content Area (Rubric 13)
Secondary Math Secondary Science Elementary Math
Level N % N % N %
Level 1 4 40% 4 36% 2 11%
Expected Count 2.5 2.8 4.8
Level 2 4 40% 7 63% 16 84%
Expected Count 6.8 7.4 12.8
Level 3 2 20% 0 0% 1 5%
Expected Count 0.8 0.8 1.4
Level 4 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Expected Count

Table 10 lists the mean scores for participants grouped by the demographic variables
described in Table 6. Tables 11, 12, and 13 show the results of statistical analysis done to show if
there was any statistical significance between candidates performance according to these
demographic variables.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

73
Table 10
Mean Scores by Demographic Variables
Mean
Gender
Male 1.7
Female 1.8
Ethnicity
American Indian 1
Asian 2
Black 1.6
Latina 1.3
Mixed Race 2
White 2
Teaching Location
Inner City 1.7
Urban 1.7
Suburban 1.5
Small City 1.8
Rural 1.5
N/A 2.3
Content Area
Secondary Math 1.8
Secondary Science 1.6
Elementary Math 1.9
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

74
Gender.
An independent sample t-test was conducted to determine whether male and female
groups showed a significant mean difference in their Valuing Diversity rubric 13 scores. The
means, standard deviations, the t-value, and probability level of the observed variable, and the
mean difference are summarized in Table 11. Results for the test, indicated that the mean
difference between the groups was not significant, t (37) = -.652, p =.519.

Table 11
Results of Independent Sample T-test Comparisons — Gender Groups
Group Level Mean SD
Mean Difference
Between Groups t df p
Male 1.73 0.47
0.13 -0.652 37 0.519
Female 1.86 0.59
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

Ethnicity.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to look into the mean
difference (if any) in Valuing Diversity rubric 13 scores between the ethnic groups. The Valuing
Diversity rubric 13 were entered as the Dependent Variables (DVs) and Ethnicity, with six
levels, American Indian, Asian, Black, Latina, Mixed Race and White as the Independent
Variable (IV). The results were examined to determine the mean differences of the ethnic groups
in the valuing diversity level. Close to significant difference at the .05 level was found in the
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

75
level means of Valuing Diversity rubric 13 scores of these ethnic groups, (F (5, 39) = 2.40, p =
.057). It is important to note that the N for American Indian, Asian, and Mixed Race were each
equal to 1, as this may weight those scores disproportionately.
Table 12 summarizes the means, the mean differences between groups with highest and
lowest, F-value, degree of freedom and p-value.

Table 12
Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Valuing Diversity Level
Ethnicity Mean Mean Difference f df p-Value
2.40 5 0.057
American Indian 1
Asian 2 1 (with American Indian)
Black 1.6
Latina 1.3
Mixed Race 2 1 (with American Indian)
White 2 1 (with American Indian)
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Teaching location.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the mean
difference (if any) in Valuing Diversity rubric 13 scores between the groups divided by teaching
locations of the participants. The Valuing Diversity rubric 13 scores were the Dependent
Variables (DVs) and teaching location, with five levels, Inner City, Urban, Suburban, Small
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

76
City, and Rural as the Independent Variable (IV). The results were examined to determine the
mean differences of the observed groups by teaching location in the valuing diversity level. No
significant difference was found in the means of Valuing Diversity rubric 13 scores with these
diverse groups (F (4, 35) = .561, p = .692). Table 13 presents the means, the mean differences
between groups with highest and lowest, F-value, degree of freedom and p-value.

Table 13
Comparison Between Teaching Location Groups in Valuing Diversity Level
Teaching Location Mean Mean Difference f df p-Value
0.56 4 0.69
Inner City 1.7
Urban 1.7
Suburban 1.5
Small City 1.8 0.3 (with Rural)
Rural 1.5
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Content area.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the mean
difference (if any) in the valuing diversity levels between the groups divided by content areas of
the participants. The Valuing Diversity rubric 13 scores were entered as the Dependent Variables
(DVs) and content areas, with three levels, Secondary Math, Secondary Science, and Elementary
Math as the Independent Variable (IV). According to the results, no significant difference in the
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

77
means for the Valuing Diversity level was found between these groups, (F (2, 39) = 1.138, p =
.332). Table 14 presents the means, the mean differences between groups with highest and
lowest, F-value, degree of freedom and p-value.

Table 14
Comparison Between Content Area Groups in Valuing Diversity Level
Content Area Mean Mean Difference f df p-Value
1.138 2 0.33
Secondary Math 1.8
Secondary Science 1.6
Elementary Math 1.9 0.3 (with Secondary Science)

Question 2a: How Do Scores on the Valuing Diversity Rubric Compare to PACT Rubric 2:
Making Content Accessible?
PACT Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible asks candidates to demonstrate that lesson
plans draw on students’ experiential backgrounds, interests or prior learning in order to pass.
Level 3 for this rubric asks candidates to include all three of these elements in the lessons. The
Valuing Diversity rubric asks for learner centered, theoretically grounded and contextually
responsive teaching practice. It was the author’s contention that these sets of requirements are
not redundant but related and the author sought to compare how candidates performed on the two
rubrics.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

78
A paired sample t-test was utilized to examine the mean difference (if any) between the
scores for Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible and Rubric 13: Valuing Diversity for each
content area group. The means, standard deviations, the t-value, and probability level of the
observed variable, and the mean difference are presented in Table 15 for Secondary Math, Table
16 for Secondary Science and Table 17 for Elementary Math. The results show that candidates in
all of the represented content areas consistently scored higher on Rubric 2: Making Content
Accessible, than on the Valuing Diversity rubric.

Table 15
Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Secondary Math Group
Rubric Level Mean SD
Mean Difference
Between Rubrics t df p
2 2.80 0.79
1.00 3.873 9 0.004*
13 1.80 0.79
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .01 level.

According to the results of analysis, the mean difference between the rubrics was
significant at the .01 level, t (9) = 3.873, p =.004.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

79
Table 16
Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Secondary Science Group
Rubric Level Mean SD
Mean Difference
Between Rubrics t df p
2 2.18 0.41
0.54 2.631 10 0.025*
13 1.64 0.51
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

According to the results for the test, the mean difference between the rubrics was
significant at the .05 level, t (10) = 2.631, p =.025.

Table 17
Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Elementary Math Group
Rubric Level Mean SD
Mean Difference
Between Rubrics t df p
2 2.58 0.58
0.63 5.56 18 0.000*
13 1.95 0.41
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

According to the results of the analysis, the mean difference between the rubrics was
statistically significant at the .001 level, t (18) = 5.56, p =.000.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

80
Question 2b: How Do Scores on the Valuing Diversity Rubric Compare to PACT Rubric
10: Reflecting on Learning?
Rubric 10: Reflecting on Learning also contains elements related to Valuing Diversity.
Candidates are asked to reflect on (articulate) their teaching practice as it relates to principles
from theory. They are also asked to explain the assumptions they had about how student learning
was affected by their own planning, instruction or assessment decisions. A level 3 on this PACT
rubric asks candidates to demonstrate a sound knowledge of research and theory linked to a
knowledge of students in the class.
A paired sample t-test was utilized to examine the mean difference (if any) between the
scores for Rubric 10: Reflecting on Learning and Rubric 13: Valuing Diversity for each content
area group. The means, standard deviations, the t-value, and probability level of the observed
variable, and the mean difference are presented in Table 18 for Secondary Math, Table 19 for
Secondary Science and Table 20 for Elementary Math. The results show that there was a
significant difference for Elementary Math, but no significant difference for Secondary Math and
Science.

Table 18
Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Secondary Math Group
Rubric Level Mean SD
Mean Difference
Between Rubrics t df p
10 2.00 0.67
0.20 0.802 9 0.443
13 1.80 0.79
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

81
Results for the test, indicated that the mean difference between the rubrics was not
significant, t (9) = .802, p =.443.

Table 19
Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Secondary Science Group
Rubric Level Mean SD
Mean Difference
Between Rubrics t df p
10 2.09 0.54
0.45 1.838 10 0.096
13 1.64 0.51
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Results for the test, indicated that the mean difference between the rubrics was not
significant, t (10) = 1.838, p =.096.

Table 20
Results of Paired Sample T-test Comparisons — Elementary Math Group
Rubric Level Mean SD
Mean Difference
Between Rubrics t df p
10 2.32 0.58
0.37 3.240 18 0.005*
13 1.95 0.41
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .01 level.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

82
According to the results of the analysis, the mean difference between the rubrics was
statistically significant at the .01 level, t (18) = 3.240, p =.005.

Research Question 3: Assessor Feedback
Research Question 3: What pertinent information can assessors provide regarding the
design and implementation of the Valuing Diversity rubric?
The author sought PACT assessor input throughout the development and implementation
of the Valuing Diversity rubric. As described in Chapter 3, participating assessors were chosen
for their diversity and expertise.
Findings for Research Question 3
Assessor feedback was important to the research process for this study, and was collected
in two phases. Assessors provided valuable information on the pilot rubric and its design. These
comments reflected the inability of assessors to find evidence for valuing diversity as measured
by the rubric. Although assessors had been provided an explanatory document, and had
participated in conversations around the rubric, they had difficulty applying the rubric and found
the developmental progression between rubric levels problematic.
This assessor feedback, combined with additional research, led to the current format of
the Valuing Diversity rubric. A new explanatory document (Appendix H) was developed and a
live, on-line training was held to orient assessors to the rubric and address any concerns
(https://uscrossier.adobeconnect.com/p4357k9i25d?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=
normal). The following concerns surfaced during the training for the revised rubric:
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

83
• Nothing in PACT asks directly about diversity or dispositions.
• Schools often require candidates to teach in a particular way that may not be learner
centered.
• Class discussions, where a candidate might express a valuing of diversity, may not
necessarily be reflected in PACT submissions.
• Currently PACT deals with issues superficially — this rubric is also somewhat
superficial in what it is requiring for passing.
• Even Level 1 is a high bar for beginning teachers.
Some assessors expressed the Valuing Diversity rubric might be a tool for including the
elements of learner-centered, theoretically grounded and contextually responsive teaching more
consistently throughout the program.
As revealed in research question one, the assessors were able to find evidence to score the
PACT submissions. When asked, they all responded that lesson plans and commentaries
provided opportunities to assess using the Valuing Diversity rubric. Elementary assessors found
it easy to find evidence, while secondary math and science assessors saw it as more challenging.
When a score of Level 1 was assigned to a candidate, the majority of assessors determined that it
was the submission and not the rubric that was problematic. One assessor thought that the score
of Level 1 was a combination of a teacher-centered lesson and the opportunity for ambiguity in
terms used in the rubric. When questioned further, this assessor shared, “I think my concern is
more about the broad use of the term culturally responsive instruction and expectations teachers
may have for students of certain ethnicities based on their often narrow view of what a student’s
culture entails. I also believe that the average educator limits cultural/contextual characteristics
to a student’s ethnicity when in fact all students are a part of many overlapping cultural groups.”
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

84
Another assessor felt that Level 2 was “too high a bar” for beginning science teachers although
candidates are introduced to inquiry model teaching and are prompted throughout the program,
as well as in the PACT, to attend to individual needs. One assessor determined that it was the
submission that was lacking, but wondered how well the program prepared candidates to
consider and articulate the elements on the rubric. The assessor added, “The submission and in
part the program curriculum. If candidates don’t have the frame of mind to think about these
things then no prompt will guide then to talk about it.” (In order to determine whether candidates
were expressing a value rather than compliance, PACT directions did not include the Valuing
Diversity rubric so they were not specifically prompted to address the elements of the rubric.)
Finally, assessors shared that the training and the materials for implementing the rubric
were clear and well done, although two mentioned that additional calibration for inter-rater
reliability would have been useful.
Summary
Assessors had the opportunity to find evidence for the valuing diversity rubric while
scoring candidates’ PACT submissions. They were able to document the absence or presence of
learner-centered, theoretically grounded, and contextually responsive teaching practice as
defined in the rubric.
When scores were analyzed according to content area, there was no significant difference
between the three content areas (Secondary Math, Secondary Science, Elementary Math) on the
Valuing Diversity rubric. There were also no significant differences between scores when
analyzed by gender or location, and a close to but not significant difference by ethnicity.
All three content areas showed significant differences when comparing candidates’
performance on Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible, consistently scoring higher on rubric 2
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

85
than on Valuing Diversity. Elementary Math candidates also scored significantly higher on
Rubric 10: Reflecting on Learning than on Valuing Diversity, while the secondary candidates
showed no significant difference.
The feedback from assessors during their training and scoring experiences provided
insight that helped to inform much of the discussion in Chapter 5. Assessors were able to use the
Valuing Diversity rubric to find evidence to score all 40 PACT submissions. When the evidence
did not merit a passing score, assessors noted that this was likely due to the quality of the
submission, and not because of the design of the rubric. This observation in particular led the
assessors to questions regarding candidates’ definitions of diversity; the teaching expectations of
candidates’ math and science instructors as well as master teachers; and whether the MAT
curriculum prepares candidates to meet the proficiency included under the guiding principle of
Learning in Rossier’s Conceptual Framework to: “Demonstrate the belief that effective
instruction is learner-centered, theoretically grounded, and contextually responsive to the
individual differences of all learners” (Appendix B).
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

86
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The “belief that all children can learn” (NCATE, 2008) is at the heart of the research on
developing a positive disposition towards diversity (Banks, 1997; Bennett, 2001; Edwards &
Edick, 2006). NCATE has responded to the growing diversity of the student population being
served by teachers in the United States by requiring that programs seeking NCATE accreditation
assess this disposition. The fact that the majority of teachers are white while the majority of
students are not adds urgency to need to prepare students with the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to help all children learn. Rossier School of Education has recognized this demand
on teachers by including these elements in their candidate proficiencies (USC Rossier School of
Education, 2013). Believing that valuing diversity is fundamental to the belief that all children
can learn, it was the author’s intent to integrate into the existing summative assessment, PACT,
an additional assessment instrument for measuring the valuing of diversity. The author found no
existing assessment that was consistent with the Rossier School of Education Conceptual
Framework and the developmental design of PACT. This broadened the focus of the study
beyond examining how the teacher candidates were performing on this important disposition to
— how do we know? Conceptually based on the work of Smith and Ragan (2004) and
Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) the author designed an original rubric to be used with
PACT submissions. The research questions then became about the validity of this new
instrument, whether the PACT would yield evidence, and how well the candidates performed.
These questions were:
1. What useful information do PACT submissions include for assessing dispositions
towards diversity according to the valuing diversity rubric?
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

87
2. How do MAT STEM students perform according to the valuing diversity rubric?
a. How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with scores on PACT Planning
Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible?
b. How do scores on the diversity rubric compare with PACT Reflection Rubric
10: Reflecting on Learning?
3. What pertinent information can assessors provide regarding the design and
implementation of the Valuing Diversity rubric?
Summary of Findings and Interpretations
The author’s hypothesis — that data could be found in PACT submissions to assess a
valuing of diversity-was supported. Assessors were able to successfully use the rubric to score all
PACT submissions in this study. Seventy-five percent of the PACT submissions reviewed in this
study passed the Valuing Diversity rubric with a score of 2 or above. Submissions analyzed by
content area (Math, Science and Elementary Math) showed no significant difference in scores.
The mean scores for all three content areas ranged from 1.6-1.9. Nor was there a statistically
significant difference between any of the demographic variables although the statistics were not
sophisticated enough to look at cross variables (i.e., Latino and urban) together. The data show
that the Valuing Diversity rubric was a valid instrument to use with PACT submissions, but the
constraints of time and resources did not allow the author to verify the reliability of the new
rubric. Darling-Hammond (2010) writes that quality assessments are standards based,
contextualized, and reliably scored. Double scoring at least 30% of the submissions would have
tested the reliability of the instrument and comparing results on the Valuing Diversity rubric with
diversity assignments completed during candidates’ pedagogy classes would have provided
further insight into the rubric’s reliability.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

88
The sample population was limited to Math, Science and Elementary Math submissions.
It is not possible to extrapolate the findings to English, Social Studies or Music candidates. The
author focused on content areas considered “neutral” (Bol & Berry, 2005) by many, and this may
have affected the amount or quality of evidence found, whereas, Social Studies and English
might seem a more natural fit with elements of diversity.
The PACT does not directly prompt students to use learner-centered, theoretically
grounded, or contextually responsive teaching practices, although these are to have been the
practices in which they received instruction during the program. According to the taxonomy
created by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964), a candidate performing at a prompted or
“responding” level, would not be demonstrating the level of valuing diversity cited as minimal
by Wilkerson and Lang (2007). To prompt the candidates directly would take this assessment
from the realm of dispositions: the attitudes, values and beliefs that influence the application of
knowledge and skills (Wilkerson & Lang, 2007) to one of high stake test compliance.
Two existing rubrics in the PACT have been identified by the author as having elements
related to learner-centered, theoretically grounded and contextually responsive teaching practice.
The first of these rubrics was Rubric 2: Making Content Accessible, which is a planning rubric.
PACT candidates generally score well on the Planning Task (Pecheone & Chung, 2007), and the
mean for the study candidates was statistically significantly higher on this rubric than on the
Valuing Diversity rubric. There are several possible reasons for this. The PACT prompts
candidates to address students’ prior learning or experience in planning lessons, and to scaffold
students who may need it. Scaffolding may consist of something as basic as circulating
throughout the room. Candidates in the MAT are well versed in lesson planning and would not
find this rubric difficult to pass at a Level 2. Assessors have more experience scoring Rubric 2
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

89
than the Valuing Diversity rubric, and may have found it easier to document evidence for passing
since the candidates use the language of the prompt in their responses. Rubric 10: Reflecting on
Learning is the other rubric compared to the Valuing Diversity rubric. This rubric asks
candidates to ground their reflections in research or theory. A candidate at Level 2 would need to
show some basic connection between a learning theory and their practice, but it may be at an
unsophisticated level of understanding of theory or practice. Secondary Math and Secondary
Science candidates both scored higher on Rubric 10, but not significantly so. Elementary Math
candidates scored significantly higher on Rubric 10 then on the Valuing Diversity rubric. As
with Rubric 2, candidates are prompted to respond to the rubric, and the expectation for the
understanding of theory is quite basic. At Level 2 candidates are asked to apply theory, but not
necessarily to understand it deeply. A Level 2 on the Valuing Diversity rubric asks candidates to
articulate the importance of learner centered or theoretically grounded or contextually
responsive teaching practice. The PACT presents the elements included in the prompts as
understood to be important. To pass PACT there is no need for the candidate to articulate why
they might be important.
Language of the PACT is transparently presented to candidates throughout the MAT
program to familiarize them with the requirements of this high stake summative assessment.
Candidates are not as familiar with the candidate proficiencies set forth in the Rossier Strategic
Plan (USC Rossier School of Education, 2013). The PACT was designed to assess skills and
knowledge, not dispositions, and MAT candidates may not have been encouraged to consider
dispositions with an equal focus as they are not now formally assessed in the program. Both the
PACT and the candidate proficiencies should reflect what is learned in the MAT program, but
preliminary results using the Valuing Diversity rubric do not show this. MAT pass rates for the
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

90
PACT Teaching Event for the academic years 2010-2013 (USC Rossier School of Education,
2012) have ranged from 90% to 98%, significantly higher than the pass rate for the Valuing
Diversity rubric in this study. Assessors, many of whom are also adjunct instructors, questioned
whether the MAT program adequately prepares candidates to meet the proficiencies included in
the Valuing Diversity rubric. Science inquiry and project-based math are components of the
curriculum in the MAT, but assessors felt there was inconsistency in how instruction to
candidates was delivered. They felt instructor experience with, and knowledge about diverse
populations affected the quality of instruction for these proficiencies. Additionally, the tension
between theory learned in the program and actual classroom experiences in Guided Practice has
an impact on candidates’ sense-making of teaching practice. Valuing Diversity is a mental
demand that “requires a complex mental orientation to the world” (Kegan, 1998, p. 200). Rossier
MAT strives to cultivate this complex orientation in its candidates, but has less influence over
the master teachers in whose rooms these candidates are learning to teach.
Implications for Practice
The findings for this study pertain primarily to the Rossier School of Education, although
other institutions using the PACT and the edTPA may find the process and the product of this
study informative. Both the PACT and edTPA are designed to be reliable across institutions
while allowing each institution to reflect the values that define them. This author found that
teacher education programs consistently identified some version of valuing diversity as a desired
disposition. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to use a formal assessment for
dispositions found in PACT teaching events. The ever-increasing focus on Science, Math,
Engineering, and Technology (STEM), prompted the focus on Math and Science in this research.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

91
All students must be given the opportunity to learn these and other content areas through
instruction that is accessible and meaningful, by well-prepared teachers (NCATE, 2008)
Curricular Implications
Findings from this study should be used by MAT Math and Science instructors to review
how the disposition of valuing diversity is introduced, reinforced, mastered, and assessed
throughout the curriculum and clinical practice. Math, Science and Multiple Subjects candidates
are introduced to pedagogy that is learner-centered and theoretically grounded, and should be
encouraged to articulate why these are important components of teaching practice (Gay, 2000;
Johnson, 2011; Scott & Raborn, 1996). Candidates should be able to enter classrooms with the
confidence and ability (self-efficacy) to critique the practice they observe. Instructors should also
have the confidence and ability to critique the candidates (and themselves) on progress towards
the proficiencies included in valuing diversity. Consistent quality in-service should be provided
to faculty in order to prepare them to support candidates in their development of dispositions.
Implications for Assessment of Other Dispositions
Goal 2 of the Rossier Strategic Plan (USC Rossier School of Education, 2013) states:
“100% of Rossier graduates will enter their profession fully prepared and able to improve
learning in urban education.” Candidate proficiencies for Rossier reflect the research and
realities of urban (and to this author, all) schooling, by stating that all “Students will demonstrate
the belief that effective instruction is learner-centered, theoretically grounded and contextually
responsive to the individual differences of all learners” (USC Rossier School of Education,
2013). The Valuing Diversity rubric is one way, at one point in time that the MAT program can
assess whether its candidates are making sufficient progress towards this goal. It is not the
author’s contention that this should be the only assessment of dispositions during the program, or
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

92
the only disposition assessed, but the data from the rubric could be an important addition to
continuous program improvement. Results from this study provide evidence to the NCATE
accreditation team that Rossier is making progress in the area of assessment of dispositions.
Programmatic Implications
The results of this study should be considered as a part of a larger institutional
conversation on dispositions at Rossier. It is widely recommended (Diez, 2006; Koeppen &
Davison-Jenkins, 2007; Wasicsko et al., 2004; Wilkerson & Lang, 2007) that faculties spend a
considerable amount of time cooperatively developing formal expectations and definitions for
candidate dispositions. Included in this conversation should be a focus on what the program
values as teacher dispositions, and how these should be demonstrated at the novice level. This
should be followed with decisions on when and how these dispositions should be introduced,
reinforced and mastered, and how the program will assess mastery, perhaps with a curriculum
audit. The state of California does not currently require assessment of dispositions, but the author
has aligned the Valuing Diversity rubric to NCATE standards as well as Rossier program
standards for dispositions. This would be a useful model for the Rossier School of Education to
follow as they pursue NCATE accreditation. Once this important foundational work has been
done, the results should be explicitly shared with all students and all faculty, and should be an
integrated component of the program.
Recommendations for Future Research
As noted earlier in this chapter, it was beyond the scope of this study to test the Valuing
Diversity rubric for reliability. This would be initial recommendation for future research so that
if the rubric is used in the future it will be with a greater degree of confidence. Comparing the
results of other diversity related assignments or with class participation videos with the results
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

93
found on the Valuing Diversity rubric would add information regarding its validity. Other
recommended research to expand the scope of this study would examine cross variables such as
race and gender to provide more complex indicators as to candidate performance. Testing the
rubric on English and Social Studies PACT submissions would add to its validity, and would
provide the opportunity to compare candidate results between the Sciences and the Humanities.
The Valuing Diversity rubric was designed using the Rossier Conceptual Framework. Research
could be conducted to see whether a rubric designed for Rossier could be applicable to other
institutions, or whether designing unique rubrics for each institution is preferable. Additional
research could look at the national model for assessing teacher candidates, the edTPA, and
whether a similar rubric would be useful or identifying dispositions in these submissions. A
comparison between edTPA rubrics related to valuing diversity, such as those discussed below,
may reveal if the edTPA shows consistency across scores because of the language that is used in
the prompts. A research team from the University of Maryland (Hyler et al., 2012) recently
reviewed the edTPA to identify prompts that provided candidates the opportunity to demonstrate
equity-centered pedagogy in their responses. The edTPA rubrics (edTPA, 2012) contain
language that is not currently used in the PACT. Candidates are asked to specifically address the
IEP and 504 requirements of their identified students. Language referring to the
“personal/cultural/community assets” of the students is included in one of the rubrics. Candidates
are asked to show evidence of a “low-risk social environment that reveals mutual respect
between students”, as well as evidence of a positive teacher-student rapport. A similar analysis of
the PACT rubrics would reveal opportunities for learning that could be used by Rossier to
support the development of candidate proficiencies, including dispositions. During this study, the
MAT participated in a pilot of the edTPA. On-ground Multiple Subjects candidates submitted
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

94
edTPA portfolios while on-line Multiple Subjects candidates submitted PACTs. A study
comparing the performance of the two groups on the diversity rubric would contribute towards
understanding the differences and similarities between the two TPAs and whether candidates are
able to exhibit a disposition towards diversity in both of them.
Finally, the author has noted that the current study focuses on one disposition as it is
evidenced in one assignment, the PACT. The development of additional rubrics, or similar
measures, for assessing other assignments and other dispositions is recommended.
Conclusion
The quality of a child’s teacher has been found to be the most important determinant in a
student’s academic success (Darling-Hammond, 2010). One of the characteristics of a quality
teacher is the belief that all children can learn (Bennett, 2001; Milner, 2003). NCATE
accreditation has pushed teacher education programs, including Rossier, to assess how well they
are preparing teachers to develop a disposition that values diversity. The purpose of this study
was to determine to what extent the disposition valuing diversity, a core belief of Rossier School
of Education, is reflected in candidates’ Performance Assessment for California Teachers
(PACT) submissions. No empirical studies were found linking dispositions to the PACT, and no
instrument had been developed linking the Rossier Conceptual Framework with the PACT. The
goal of the study was to add to the empirical research base on the assessment of dispositions,
particularly using the PACT for evidence. To that end, the author developed a theoretically
grounded, learner-centered, and contextually responsive rubric to assess the valuing of diversity
evidenced in PACT. The study revealed that according to this rubric, the PACT’s implicit
valuing of diversity could be explicitly assessed. It also revealed that while the majority of Math,
Science and Elementary Math teacher candidates passed the rubric, more can be done to
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

95
emphasize the dispositions included in the Rossier candidate proficiencies in order to meet the
goals set forth in the Rossier Strategic Plan (USC Rossier School of Education, 2013).
While this study was being conducted, two of its foundational documents were in the
process of transition. California began the process of updating the Teacher Performance
Expectations and NCATE merged with the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) to
create a new entity, the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), and new
standards for teacher preparation program accreditation. The national teacher performance
assessment, the edTPA, which was designed based on PACT, has been implemented by several
states across the country, and is mentioned specifically in the draft CAEP Standards.
The language around dispositions in the proposed CAEP standards has changed from
asking for the knowledge, skills and dispositions to help all children learn to: “develop the
knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students’
learning” (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP], 2013, p. 17).
According to CAEP, dispositions are considered non-academic and non-cognitive candidate
skills that none-the-less show significance in relationship to student outcomes and are associated
with teacher effectiveness (p. 20). CAEP provides examples of characteristics such as empathy,
cultural competency, beliefs that all children can learn, and an interest in urban issues, and asks
programs to demonstrate how they assess such non-academic qualities. Clinical educators
(Guiding Teachers) are asked by CAEP to assess, support, and develop candidates’ knowledge,
skills and dispositions during the clinical experience. CAEP concedes, however, that:
Research has not definitively recognized a particular set of non-academic qualities that
teachers should possess. There are numerous studies that list different characteristics,
sometimes referring to similar characteristics by different labels. Furthermore, there does
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

96
not seem to be a clear measure for these non- academic qualities, although a few of them
have scales and other measures that have been developed. The CAEP Commission
recognizes the on-going development of this knowledge base and recommends that
CAEP revise criteria as evidence emerges. (p. 45)
As CAEP attests, much has been written about dispositions, but little has been
empirically measured. NCATE has pushed the field to re-examine dispositions in a more formal
manner, and to grapple with the dilemma of assessing dispositions, particularly the belief that all
children can learn. The field is very practiced at assessing knowledge and skills, and this study
has the potential to contribute to the development and creation of assessments for dispositions
that reflect a program’s desired candidate characteristics with a measure that is developmentally
appropriate and grounded in learning theory.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

97
REFERENCES
Adeeb, P., & Bosnick, J. (1998). Hands-on mathematics + multicultural education =student
success. Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/math.html

Alawiye, O., & Williams, H. (2010). Disposition profile inventory: An assessment tool for
measuring the professional attitudes and behaviors of teacher education candidates.
National Social Science Journal, 34(2), 1-12.

Almerico, G., Johnston, P., Henriott, D., & Shapiro, M. (2011). Dispositions assessment in
teacher education: Developing an assessment instrument for the college classroom and
the field. Research in High Education Journal, 11, Article 1. Retrieved from
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10665.pdf

Anderson, L. W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.), Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E.,
Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete
edition). New York: Longman.

Atwater, M. M., & Riley, J. P. (1993). Multicultural science education: Perspective, definitions,
and research agenda. Science Education, 77(6), 661-668.

Au, K. H. (1990). Changes in a teacher’s view of interactive comprehension instruction. In L. C.
Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology (pp. 271-286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Banks, C. M. (2001). Becoming a cross-cultural teacher. In C. F. Diaz (Ed.), Multicultural
education in the 21st century (pp. 171-183). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational
Publishers, Inc.

Banks, J. A. (1994). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. New York: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University.

Banks, J. A. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.

Bartolome, L., & Macedo, D. (1997). Dancing with bigotry: The poisoning of racial and ethnic
identities. Harvard Educational Review, 67(2), 222-245.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217.

Bol, L., & Berry, R. Q. (2005). Secondary mathematics teachers’ perceptions of the achievement
gap. The High School Journal, 88(4), 32-46.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

98
Boyce College. (2011, December). Undergraduate TEP student handbook. Louisville, KY:
Boyce College. Retrieved from http://www.boycecollege.com/files/tep_student_handbk-
11-02-2011-revised-for-ppst1.pdf

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2008). Standards of quality and effectiveness
for teacher preparation programs for preliminary multiple and single subject teaching
credentials. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Senate. (1998). SB 2042, Teacher credentialing. Retrieved from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_2001-
2050/sb_2042_bill_19980918_chaptered.html

Cho, G., & DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D. (2006). Is ignorance bliss? Preservice teachers’ attitudes
toward multicultural education. The High School Journal, 89(2), 24-28.

Chung, R. (2008). Beyond assessment: Performance assessments in teacher education. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 35(1), 7-29.

Clarion University of Pennsylvania. (2007). Dispositions monitoring system. Retrieved from
http://www.clarion.edu/199698.pdf

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The multiple meanings of multicutural teacher education: A
conceptual framework. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 7-26.

Combs, A. W. (1974). Humanistic goals of education. In I. D. Welch, F. Richards, and A. C.
Richards (Eds.), Educational accountability: A humanistic perspective. San Francisco,
CA: Shields.

Combs, A. W., Blume, R. A., Newman, A. J., & Wass, H. L. (1974). The professional education
of teachers (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Discovering and exploring habits of mind. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). Draft standards. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/commission/standards/

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing,
assessment, and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Damon, W. (2007). Dispositions and teacher assessment: The need for a more rigorous
definition. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 365–369.

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

99
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a National
Commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5-15.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57(X), 1-15.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance
assessments can measure and improve teaching. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2010/10/19/8502/evaluating-
teacher-effectiveness/

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York:
Modern Library.

Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum: And the school and society (originally published
in 1902). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Diez, M. E. (2006). Assessing dispositions: Five principles to guide practice. In H. Sockett (Ed.),
Teacher dispositions: Building an education framework of moral standards. Washington,
D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Diez, M. E. (2007). Assessing dispositions: Context and questions. In M. E. Diez & J. Raths
(Eds.), Dispositions in Teacher Education (pp. 188-193). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age.

Diez, M., & Raths, J. (Eds.) (2007). Dispositions in teacher education. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.

Dottin, E. S. (2009). Professional judgment and dispositions in teacher education. Teaching &
Teacher Education, 25(1), 83-88.

Drew, T., & Tande, K. (2004). NCATE dispositions standard implementation survey: Summary
of results. Peru, NE: Peru State College, School of Professional Studies.

Duncan, A. (2009, October 22). Arne Duncan full transcript. New York, NY: Columbia
University, Teachers College. Retrieved from
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news.htm?articleID=7195

Edick, N., Danielson, L., & Edwards, S. (2006). Dispositions: Defining, aligning and assessing.
Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 4(4), 1-5.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

100
edTPA. (2012). Secondary mathematics assessment handbook. Retrieved from
http://edtpa.aacte.org/ (access restricted)

Edwards, S. K., & Edick, N. (2006). Dispositions matter: Findings for at risk teacher candidates.
The Teacher Educator, 42(1), 1-14.

Edwards, S. K., Schulte, L. E., & Edick, N. A. (2007). Defining and assessing diversity
dispositions in one midwestern teacher preparation program. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New
York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p142261_index.html

Englehart, D. S., Batchelder, H. L., Jennings, K. L., Wilkerson, J. R., Lang, W. S., & Quinn, D.
(2012). Teacher dispositions: Moving from assessment to improvement. The
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 26-44.

Gallagher, K. S., Goodyear, R., Brewer, D. J., & Rueda, R. (Eds.). (2012). Urban education: A
model for leadership and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gershman, J. (2005, May 31). ‘Disposition’ emerges as issue at Brooklyn College. The New York
Sun. Retrieved from http://www2.nysun.com/article/14604

Giroux, C. (1995). Teaching for social justice. Democracy and Education, 10(2), 43.

Gracia, S. (2008). Validity and reliability of dispositions assessment. Paper presented at the 40th
Annual Meeting of the New England Educational Research Organization, Hyannis, MA.

Guyton, E. M., & Wesche, M. V. (2005). The multicultural efficacy scale: Development, item
selection, and reliability. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(4), 21-29.

Haberman, M. (1996). Selecting and preparing culturally competent teachers for urban schools.
In J. P. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 747-760). New
York: Macmillan.

Hafner, A., & Maxie, A. (2006). Looking at answers about reform: Findings from the SB 2042
implementation study. Issues in Teacher Education, 15(1), 85-102.

Hall, G., Smith, C., & Nowinski, M. (2005). An organizing framework for using evidenced-
based assessments to improve teaching and learning in teacher preparation programs.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(3), 19-33.

Hines, L. (2007). The history of teacher attitude adjustment. Education Next, 7(2). Retrieved
from http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-161658048/return-of-the-thought-police-the-
history-of-teacher

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

101
Hollins, E. R. (2008). Culture in school learning (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hollins, E., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In
M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the
AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477-548). Washington, D.C.:
American Educational Research Association.

Huitt, W. (2001, April). Krathwol et al.’s taxonomy of the affective domain. Retrieved from
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/affdom.html

Hyler, M. (2012). Unpublished research sharing session at PACT and edTPA Implementation
Conference, San Diego, CA, November 1-3, 2012.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards for
beginning teacher licensing and development. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State
School Officers.

Johnson, C. C. (2011). The road to culturally relevant science: Exploring how teachers navigate
change in pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 170.

Kegan, R. (1998). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Koeppen, K., & Davison-Jenkins, J. (2007). Teacher dispositions: Envisioning their role in
education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1990). Like lightning in a bottle: Attempting to capture the pedagogical
excellence of successful teachers of Black students. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 3, 335-344.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In C.
A. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 747-761). New
York: MacMillian.

Lee, Y. A., & Herner-Patnode, L. (2010). Developing teacher candidates’ knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to teach diverse students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 222-
235.

Lees-McRae College. (2012). Teacher candidate evaluation rubric dispositions. Banner Elk,
NC: Lees-McRae College. Retrieved from
http://www.lmc.edu/academics/programs_of_study/education/files/2012-14/01-
DispostionsRubric.pdf

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

102
Leo, J. (2005, October 16). Class(room) warriors. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/051024/24john.htm.

Leonard, P., & Leonard, L. (2006). Teachers and tolerance: Discriminating diversity
dispositions. The Teacher Educator, 42(1), 30-62.

Ligget, T., & Finley, S. (2009). Upsetting the apple cart: Issues of diversity in preservice teacher
education. Multicultural Education, 16(4), 33-38.

Lukyx, A., & Lee, O. (2007). Measuring instructional congruence in elementary science
classrooms: Pedagogical and methodological components of a theoretical framework.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 424-447.

Major, E. M., & Brock, C. H. (2003). Fostering positive dispositions toward diversity: Dialogical
explorations of a moral dilemma. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(4), 7-26.

Mansfield University of Pennsylvania. (2012, September). Teacher education field experience
handbook. Retrieved from http://www2.mansfield.edu/teacher/upload/Handbook-Field-
Experience-09-06-12.pdf

Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Maylone, N. (2002, February). Identifying desirable pre-service teacher dispositions: An
intractable problem? Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New York, NY. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED463258)

McNeese State University. (2006). Assessment of dispositions in initial teacher education
programs. Lake Charles, LA: McNeese State University, Professional Education Unit.
Retrieved from http://stpes.mcneese.edu/dispositions_plan_021308.pdf

Melin, L. S., & Walker, D. A. (2009). A data-driven dispositions model for teacher candidates
and program review. Action in Teacher Education, 31(1), 58-74.

Milner, H. R. (2003). Teacher reflection and race in cultural contexts: History, meanings, and
methods in teaching. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 173-180.

Mullin, D. (2003, January). Developing a framework for the assessment of teacher candidate
dispositions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED479255)

National Association of Scholars. (2006). NAS calls upon U.S. Department of Education to deny
NCATE accrediting authority. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.nas.org/print/pressreleases/ hqnas/releas_05Jun06.htm
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

103
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2007, April). UAB Accreditation
Actions. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/Portals/0/documents/Boards/Sum_board_ActionsS07.pdf

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Unit standards. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/institutions/standards.asp?ch=8

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.

Northern Illinois University. (n.d.). Assessment rubric. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University,
College of Education. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from
http://www.cedu.niu.edu/partnership/dispositions/rubric.shtml

Notar, C., Riley, G., & Taylor, P. (2009). Dispositions: Ability and assessment. International
Journal of Education, 1, 2-14.

Pecheone, R. L. (2005). Overview of elementary literacy teaching event. Retrieved from
http://pacttpa.org/_files/Publications_and_Presentations/Appendixes_A-D.pdf

Pecheone, R. L. (2008). The thinking behind PACT: Performance Assessment for California
Teachers. Retrieved from
http://pacttpa.org/_files/Publications_and_Preentations/PACT.ppt

Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance
assessment for California teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.

Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2007). Technical report of the Performance Assessment for
California Teachers (PACT): Summary of validity and reliability studies for the 2003-
2004 pilot year. Retrieved from
http://www.pacttpa.org/_files/Publications_and_Presentations/PACT_Technical_Report_
March07.pdf

Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). (n.d.). What is PACT? Retrieved June
27, 2013, from http://pacttpa.org

Pohan, C., & Aguilar, T. (1999). The beliefs about diversity scale: User manual and scoring
guide. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Department of Educational Psychology and
the Center for Curriculum and Instruction.

Ponterotto, J. G., Baluch, S., Greig, T., & Rivera, L. (1998). Development and initial score
validation of the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 58, 1002-1016.

Prediger, S. (2005). Diversity as a chance in mathematics classrooms. International Journal for
Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1-8.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

104
Purdue University Calumet. (2012). Teacher candidate handbook. Hammond, IN: Purdue
University Calumet, Department of Teacher Preparation. Retrieved from
http://www.purduecal.edu/education/itp/2012-2013DTPhandbook.pdf

Reynolds, A., & Pope, R. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppressions.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(1), 174-80.

Rike, C., & Sharp, L. (2008). Assessing preservice teachers’ dispositions: A critical dimension of
professional preparation. Childhood Education, 84(3), 150-153.

Ruddell, R. (1999). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an influential teacher.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Schulte, L., Edick, N., Edwards, S., & Mackiel, D. (2004). The development and validation of
the Teacher Dispositions Index. Essays in Education, 12. Retrieved from
http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol12winter2004.html

Schussler, D. L. (2006). Defining dispositions: Wading through murky waters. Teacher
Educator, 41(4), 251-268.

Schussler, D. L., Stooksberry, L. M., & Bercaw, L. A. (2010). Understanding teacher candidate
dispositions: Reflecting to build self-awareness. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4),
350-363.

Scott, P. B., & Raborn, D. T. (1996). Realizing the gifts of diversity among students with
learning disabilities. LD Forum, 21(2), 10-18.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Singh, D. K., & Stoloff, D. L. (2007, November). Measuring teacher dispositions. Paper
presented at the National Fifth Annual Symposium on Educator Dispositions, Erlanger,
KY.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: The overwhelming
presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94-106.

Sleeter, C. E. (2005). Unstandardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-
based classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Smith, P. L, & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design. New York: Wiley.

Southern Connecticut State University. (2012). The nuts and bolts of the school of education.
New Haven, CT: Southern Connecticut State University, School of Education. Retrieved
from http://www.southernct.edu/academics/schools/education/school-education-
handbook.html
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

105
Steever, M. (2010). Syllabus for colloquium and seminar on science education (SCED 375). San
Jose, CA: San Jose State University College of Science.

Stewart, P., & Davis, S. (2009). Developing dispositions of preservice teachers through
membership in professional organizations. (Unpublished manuscript). Mountain Home,
AR: Arkansas State University, Department of Education.

Talbert-Johnson, C. (2006). Preparing highly qualified teacher candidates for urban schools: The
importance of dispositions. Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 147-160.

Taylor, R. L., & Wasicsko, M. M. (2000). The dispositions to teach. Retrieved from
http://www.educatordispositions.org/dispositions/The%20Dispositions%20to%
20Teach.pdf

Thomas University. (n.d.). Georgia Professional Standards Commission, Standard 4. Diversity.
Retrieved, June 29, 2013, from
http://www.thomasu.edu/Content/Default/29/1185/1184/georgia-professional-standards-
commission/4a.-design,-implementation,-and-evaluation-of-curriculum-and-
experiences.html

University of South Carolina. (2006). The unit’s conceptual framework. Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, Professional Education Unit. Retrieved January 2, 2012,
from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7IabchQUqFg%3D&tabid

University of South Carolina. (2009). USC initial certification candidate dispositions. Columbia,
SC: University of South Carolina, College of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.sc.edu/supce/PDFs/Candidate%20dispositions%20-
%20revised%20fall%2009.pdf

University of Tennessee. (n.d.). Documenting dispositions module. Knoxville, TN: University of
Tennessee, College of Education. Retrieved June 27, 2013 from
http://web.utk.edu/~wwishar1/ddm/

Urrieta, L., & Reidel, M. (2008) Citizenship normalizing and white preservice social studies
teachers. Social Justice, 35(1), 91-108.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2010). United States Census 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/2010census/

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Building the legacy: IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act) 2004. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/

USC Rossier School of Education. (n.d.). About the USC Rossier School of Education.
Retrieved, June 29, 2013, from http://rossier.usc.edu/about/

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

106
USC Rossier School of Education. (n.d.). MAT@USC facts. Retrieved November 24, 2011, from
http://mat@usc.edu

USC Rossier School of Education. (2012). USC Rossier preconditions report submitted to:
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Los Angeles, CA:
USC Rossier School of Education, Office of Program Accreditation and Evaluation.

USC Rossier School of Education. (2013). Strategic Plan 2012-2017. Retrieved from
http://rossier.usc.edu/about/USC%20Rossier%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf

Varvus, M. (1999). Preservice teacher performance assessment during student teaching:
Consequences and pitfalls. Paper presented at the National Symposium of the National
Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, Bellevue, WA.

Villegas, A. M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of
Teacher Education, 58(5), 370-380. doi: 10.1177/0022487107308419

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Re-
thinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday languages. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529–552.

Wasicsko, M. M. (2007). The perceptual approach to teacher dispositions: The effective teacher
as an effective person. In M. E. Diez & J. Raths (Eds.), Dispositions in Teacher
Education (pp. 31-52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Wasicsko, M. M., Callahan, C., & Wirtz, P. (2004). Integrating dispositions into the conceptual
framework: Four a priori questions. KCA Journal, 23(1), 1‐8.

Watson-Thompson, O., Wiltz, N., Cawley, H., Daniels, J., Cruzado-Guerrero, J., Lea, D.,
Skelley, H., & Steele, B. (2007). Department of early childhood education internship III
handbook. Towson, MD: Towson University, Department of Early Childhood Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.towson.edu/coe/eced/undergrad/documents/internshiphandbookcompleteapril
2007.pdf

Welch, B., & Hebert, D. (2007). Assessment system update. Lake Charles, LA: McNeese State
University, Professional Education Unit. Retrieved from
http://stpes.mcneese.edu/AssessmentSystemUpdate.pdf

Wichita State University. (n.d.). Teacher education student handbook. Wichita, KS: Wichita
State University, College of Education. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from
http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/COEdESS/Handbooks/TeacherE
d_handbook.pdf
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

107
Wilkerson, J. (2006). Measuring teacher dispositions: Standards-based or morality-based?
Teacher’s College Record. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=12493

Wilkerson, J. R., & Lang, S. (2006). Measuring teacher dispositions: Standards-based or
morality-based? Teachers College Record, 20, 85-95.

Wilkerson, J. R., & Lang, S. (2007). Assessing teacher dispositions: Five standards-based steps
to valid measurement using the DAATS model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wilkerson, J. R., & Lang, S. (2011). Standards-based teacher dispositions as a necessary and
measureable construct. International Journal of Educational and Psychological
Assessment, 7(2), 34-55.

Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9),
4-15.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

108
APPENDIX A
TEACHING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS SUMMARY
A: MAKING SUBJECT MATTER COMPREHENSIBLE TO STUDENTS

TPE 1: Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction

Candidates demonstrate the ability to teach the state-adopted academic content standards and
instruct in ways within a learning environment that develop skills in:

• Reading and English Language Arts. Deliver a comprehensive program that promotes
learning to read and write, comprehension and composition, appreciation and analysis, as
well as performance and enjoyment of the language arts.

• Mathematics. Teach basic computations, concepts, and symbols, problem solving
through mathematical reasoning using concrete, verbal, symbolic, and graphic
representations.

• Science. Explain and demonstrate scientific concepts, principles, investigation, and
experimentation. Emphasize accuracy, precision, and estimation.

• History and social science. Teach basic analytical thinking skills through a variety of
media. Develop insights into historical periods and cultures using social science concepts
and themes. Provide multiple perspectives by using simulations, case studies, cultural
artifacts, works of arts and literature, cooperative projects and student research.

B: ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING

TPE 2: Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction

• Monitor student work at key points during instruction to check for adequate progress

• Pace instruction and re-teach content using assessment strategies such as questioning
students and examining their work

• Anticipate, check for, and address common student misconceptions and
misunderstandings

TPE 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments

• Know how to familiarize students with, and administer assessment instruments

• Collect multiple sources of information to assess student learning
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

109

• Interpret assessment results

• Determine student progress and use results to plan instruction

• Teach students how to use self-assessment strategies. Provide time for practice

• Give students specific and timely feedback. Maintain accurate records of student
achievement

• Work with families to help students achieve. Explain curriculum content and students’
strengths and areas for growth

C: ENGAGING AND SUPPORTING STUDENTS IN LEARNING

TPE 4: Making Content Accessible

• Incorporate and sequence strategies, instructional materials and experiences that address
state-adopted content standards

• Adjust lesson design to accommodate students’ current level of achievement

• Vary strategies. Explain and reinforce content in multiple ways (presentations,
manipulatives, models, the arts, diagrams, non-verbal communication, and technology)

• Develop students’ academic language. Encourage their creativity and imagination

TPE 5: Student Engagement

• Clearly communicate learning objectives

• Use various instructional strategies and create relevant activities. Use community
resources and student experiences

• Create stimulating discussions and challenge students by asking different types of
questions using Bloom’s taxonomy

• Monitor student progress. Encourage active/equitable participation. Re-engage off-task
students using various instructional strategies
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

110
TPE 6: Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Practices

Establish expectations that are appropriate at distinct stages and adolescent development, such
as:

• In grades K-3: Structure daily activities that allow for movement and attention span of
young learners. Connect with their world. Use manipulatives and hands-on learning
experiences. Teach and model norms of social interactions.

• In grades 4-8: Support students who lack basic skills. Teach from grade level texts.
Extend concrete thinking; foster abstract reasoning and problem-solving skills. Help
students develop effective learning strategies and assist them in time-management skills.
Support new roles and responsibilities; facilitate group efforts and responsible behavior.

• In grades 9-12: Establish challenging academic expectations and clearly communicate
these to students and families. Understand adolescence and its challenges. Foster
advanced abstract thinking and problem-solving skills. Connect curriculum to adult life.
Encourage responsibility and individuality while acknowledging peer pressure.

TPE 7: Teaching English Learners

• Know and use effective ELD strategies leading to English literacy

• Differentiate instruction and select appropriate instructional materials and strategies
based on individual language assessment data

• Collaborate with specialists and para-educators

• Develop students’ academic knowledge and language in core subjects

• Use effective questioning strategies and model English constructions

D: PLANNING INSTRUCTION AND DESIGNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR
STUDENTS

TPE 8: Learning about Students

• Use knowledge of patterns of child and adolescent development to understand students

• Assess students’ language abilities, content knowledge and skill, using both formal
methods and interpersonal interactions

• Encourage, support and facilitate parent participation

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

111
• Understand how factors such as gender and health influence behavior and learning
potential

• Use multiple means of assessment to identify students with special needs

TPE 9: Instructional Planning

• Plan comprehensive instruction based on state-adopted academic content standards

• Establish short and long term learning goals based on state and local standards as well as
student current achievement levels

• Use a variety of explicit teaching methods

• Use experience and reflection to improve implementation of instructional strategies

• Sequence instruction appropriately, using effective strategies and instructional material

• Connect academic content with students’ backgrounds, interests, and needs

• Differentiate instruction to accommodate students’ needs

• Use support personnel to help students reach goals

E: CREATING AND MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS FOR STUDENT
LEARNING

TPE 10: Instructional Time

• Allocate instructional time to maximize student achievement

• Establish procedures for routine tasks and manage transitions efficiently

• Use reflection and consultation to adjust instructional time to optimize learning
opportunities and outcomes

TPE 11: Social Environment

• Develop and maintain clear academic and behavioral expectations, effectively
implementing a discipline plan

• Create a positive climate for learning by promoting student effort and engagement

• Establish rapport with students and their families through caring, respect, fairness and
sensitivity
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

112

• Foster responsibility and independence in students

• Make necessary changes in the social environment to maximize academic achievement

F: DEVELOPING AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR

TPE 12: Professional, legal and ethical obligations

• Take responsibility for student academic learning outcomes, ensuring that they are met

• Resist racism and acts of intolerance and maintain a non-hostile classroom environment

• Understand and implement state and federal law and school and district policies

• Understand and honor professional and legal obligations and model ethical behaviors

TPE 13: Professional Growth

• Evaluate their own teaching practices and subject matter knowledge and solicit feedback

• Improve their teaching practices by using reflection and feedback to formulate and
prioritize goals
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

113
APPENDIX B
ROSSIER STRATEGIC PLAN
Strategic Plan 2012-2017
Our Mission
The mission of the USC Rossier School of Education is to improve learning in urban education
locally, nationally and globally.

Urban education takes place within many contexts including pre-kindergarten through high
school, in human services, higher education, and workplace settings. Urban areas typically have
unique strengths including racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity. Urban areas often face
challenges associated with equity and access, poverty, density, mobility and immigration,
environmental degradation and strained social conditions around housing, healthcare and crime.
Our emphasis on and learning in urban contexts guides us as we generate knowledge that is
applicable to contexts beyond the urban core.

We will transform urban education by:

• Leading the search for innovative, efficacious, and just solutions by engaging in
collaborative translational research.

• Preparing and developing educational leaders who are change agents committed to urban
education and who possess the competencies needed to address complex educational and
social issues.

• Creating mutually beneficial partnerships to ensure our work is field-based and
incorporates a diversity of perspectives and experiences.

Our Vision
Our vision is a world where every student, regardless of personal circumstance, is able to learn
and succeed. We believe that USC Rossier, as a top tier research institution, has the
responsibility and the ability to train the education leaders and to develop the innovative
practices inclusive of equity and access that will help realize this vision. We rely on the
following guiding values and distinctive characteristics to achieve our goals.

Our Guiding Values
We will work toward our mission guided by a set of values, which we believe to be imperative to
improving urban education.

Results Oriented: We are problem solvers. We identify challenges in urban education and will
work to ensure improvement. Achieving excellence means maintaining a shared culture of high
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

114
expectations for ourselves and for our students — a culture in which attaining specific goals and
benchmarks must be the starting point for identifying new ones.

Collaborative Inquiry: Educational challenges are multifaceted; therefore, they must be
addressed from a variety of perspectives; using the expertise of researchers and practitioners
from the community, academy, and the private sector.

Combine Research and Practice: Urban education needs the best ideas from theory and practice,
and the Rossier School embraces and combines both. This requires critical reflection of the
practices, programs, and institutions of schooling, standing outside the framework of
conventional norms and assumptions.

Innovation: Excellence in urban education means thinking outside of common problem/solution
identification. We are committed to innovative solutions that often emerge outside of traditional
structures and cultures.

Commitment to Diversity: Meeting our mission means believing that all people can learn,
regardless of personal circumstance. We also believe in a diverse scholarly community (race,
ethnicity, gender, social class, sexual orientation, epistemological differences, among others) in
which multiple points of view are nourished.

The USC Rossier School of Education is committed to four academic pillars that guide all
academic, research, and service efforts within our School and service as a guide for meeting the
School’s mission. These pillars are Leadership, Diversity, Learning and Accountability. For
more complete information related to the four pillars see Appendix A.

Our Distinctive Characteristics

Our plan builds upon the transformation and translational goals on the university-wide plan, but
is unique to the capabilities and commitments of our School. As a School we are thoroughly
committed to high levels of quality in all aspects of our work.

Success requires us to embrace five distinctive characteristics: scale, speed & agility, risk, impact
and integrity.

• Scale, because education challenges are far-reaching and solutions should touch as many
people as possible;

• Speed & Agility, because we share a sense of urgency about the rapidly evolving
challenges;

• Risk, because this work is complex and solutions will require bold action, innovative
thinking, and high levels of creativity;

• Impact, because our work must make positive change for students and education
professionals;
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

115

• Integrity, because the foundation of all of our work is having accountability and honesty
in what we do, who we are, and how we do it. Our research and teaching strive to solve
complex and difficult social problems with compassion, dignity, humility, and truth.

Our Goals & Strategies

This plan extends and refines the focus and work generated by the 2007-2012 strategic plan and
is guided by three measurable goals. These goals are ambitious, given the demands of the field,
but reachable, given the depth of our commitment.

GOAL 1: To produce the highest quality translational urban education research. We will take an
entrepreneurial approach that leverages technology to engage in research that reflects a scientific
industry model of “Research and Development.” Our research will be driven by the mission of
our School and reflect the five characteristics that inform our work.

a. We value strong academic, collaborative interdisciplinary research teams that engage in
the development of new innovations, ideas and solutions to urban education issues and
directly impacts practice.

b. We will bring proven interventions to the field at greater agility and scale that will
continually engage in development of measurable outcomes that will evaluate how our
own research and teaching impact practice and educational outcomes.

c. We will significantly increase the amount of externally funded research and support
faculty in their effort to secure this funding.

d. We will build a stronger infrastructure to support research active faculty with funding and
project management.

GOAL 2: 100% of Rossier graduates will enter their profession fully prepared and able to
improve learning in urban education – through their research, ability to leverage technology,
program or curriculum development, teaching, policy development or counseling and
intervention.

a. The curriculum for every degree program will be based on Rossier’s four academic
pillars: Accountability, Learning, Diversity, Leadership, and will build specific
competencies in Rossier Proficiencies built upon these four themes. Demonstrate a
valuing of integrating multiple perspectives by building a community of stakeholders,
who advocate for high academic achievement for all learners in any educational setting.

b. Every Rossier degree program will establish a measurable outcome goal that articulates
what it expects its graduates to be able to do with respect to improving learning in urban
education as a result of completing the degree program.

c. We will commit to helping our graduates improve learning in urban education by creating
a monitoring and support system to track our graduates’ progress against the outcome
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

116
goal, and if a graduate does not meet that goal, we will, by request, work with that
graduate until she or he meets the goal or leaves the profession.

d. We will identify at least three new academic areas of need which support our mission and
reflect Rossier’s commitment to urban education, for which we could either redesign an
existing program or create a new degree program.

GOAL 3: Identify, create, and maintain partnerships that are sustained, deliberate and
strategically integrated with our degree programs and research efforts.
We recognize that we cannot reach any of these goals alone. We have a long standing history of
meaningful partnerships through the local, national, and global community. Over the coming
years, we will work closely to refine and deepen these purposeful relationships.

a. We will determine criteria for partnerships that will match both our mission and values,
reflect local, national and global perspectives and utilize various technologies to better
track and maintain partnerships through online database and records management.

b. Using those criteria, we will determine whether to end or continue current partnerships –
as well as to target new strategic partnerships. We anticipate partnerships in the following
areas and to include more areas as needed:

• K-12 districts, charter management organizations
• State level higher education systems and institutions
• Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership
• USC Schools (Viterbi, Keck, Cinema, Annenberg, Marshall, etc.)
• Nationally and Internationally Recognized Institutions of Higher Education and
Schools of Education (e.g. HHKUST, APRU, Yang Pu)
• USC’s Office of Community Engagement, USC’s Family of Schools
• Funder-led collaborations (e.g. 100kin10)

c. Using an alumni portal and leveraging other technology including open source platforms,
we will facilitate the continued exchange of ideas, including providing access to newly
created asynchronous and synchronous materials that will provide content on previous
and current Rossier priority projects at all stages of development from pilot through scale
internally, to key partners in the academic, research, and practitioner fields as well as the
greater community at large. Current key priorities for research and development include,
but are not limited to:

• Access, Equity, and Quality
• STEM Education
• Teaching with Technology
• Teacher Education and Preparation
• Professional development for Teachers, Education Professionals, Principals,
Administrators and Superintendents
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

117
APPENDIX C
ROSSIER FOUR ACADEMIC PILLARS
Accountability. Students will develop the ability to: #Establish goals and strategies for their
position that support improved learning in their organization #Apply goal-directed, data-driven
decision making to generate consistent and measureable outcomes that are responsive to
established standards and the needs of students, community and society. Demonstrate the belief
that accountability and communication to all stakeholder groups leads to transparent and
equitable educational outcomes that are responsive to all learners.

Learning. Students will: #Apply evidence-based theories and principles of learning, motivation,
and cultural competence to optimize practice in educational settings locally, nationally, and
globally. #Demonstrate the belief that effective instruction is learner-centered, theoretically
grounded, and contextually responsive to the individual differences of all learners.

Diversity. Students will: #Develop an unshakeable commitment to a diversity of thought and
experience in their practice (e.g. diversity of race, socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, language proficiency and disability). Identify practices, structures and policies that
create barriers to learning and develop the skill and political savvy to negotiate, if not eliminate,
those barriers for themselves and on behalf of others. #Demonstrate a valuing of using individual
and cultural differences to inform practice related to accountability, leadership, and instruction
that result in equal opportunity and access for all learners.

Leadership. Students will: Apply accountable leadership strategies to create the structural,
human relations, political and symbolic/cultural dimensions critical for high performance
learning organizations. Demonstrate initiative in creating solutions to barriers to learning that
they identify within their organization and community. Demonstrate an ability to create and
sustain partnerships (i.e., groups, teams, organizations) that effectively improve learning.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

118
APPENDIX D
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND ACTIVITIES FOR EACH GOAL
GOAL 1: To produce the highest quality translational urban education research. We will take an
entrepreneurial approach that leverages technology to engage in research that reflects a scientific
industry model of “Research and Development.” Our research will be driven by the mission of
our School while exhibiting the five characteristics that inform our work.

Implementation Plan for A

i. Establishing a pool of research innovation funds to competitively fund new start-up
projects or to fund current projects ready to scale within a specified time frame. [Year 1]

ii. Hosting an annual TedX style conference, multiple workshops and meetings to foster
communication and idea generation among faculty, practitioners, and private and public
stakeholders. [Year 1]

iii. Develop an online journal on urban education innovation. [Year 2]

iv. Developing and implementing a strategy to align academic programs, research and
professional development to integrate our global work. [Year 1]

v. Creating physical and virtual Research and Development hub for USC faculty, USC
alumni, researchers from other institutions, private and public stakeholders and
practitioners to develop, USC Rossier Strategic Plan 2012-2017

vi. Implement, study and scale innovate ideas and projects that directly impact urban
education. [Year 2-3]

Implementation Plan for B

i. Products and interventions found to have strong potential for high impact at scale will be
supported for further development with a range of resources (intellectual, expertise,
financing, and partnerships). [Years 2-4]. Current areas of focus on Rossier Research and
Development include but are not limited to Interventions and Research that aim to: a)
Reduce high school dropout rate; b) Increase high quality STEM teachers in K-12 urban
settings; c) Increase Access, Equity and Success in Higher Education.

Implementation Plan for C

i. We will expand our research funding plan to increase a diversity of new research,
international, training, and professional development contracts and grants. [Years 1-5]

ii. We will continue to support faculty and academic programs to increase the number of
prestigious individual research and international fellowships for faculty and students (i.e.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

119
Fulbright, Spencer/NaED dissertation and post doctoral fellowships, David L. Boren
Fellowships, Guggenheim, Macarthur Genius Awards, etc.). [Years 1-5]

iii. We will have a national federally funded Research Center in Education at Rossier by
2017.

Implementation Plan for D

i. Centralized research administration services that support faculty of all rank and type.
[Years 1-2]

ii. An incentive structure that leverages faculty strengths and expertise to increase faculty
members’ ability to participate in research (creation of a faculty committee to advise the
Dean on an incentive structure which may include new buy-out and merit options).
[Years 1-2]

iii. Communications support to translate and share academic research more broadly. [Years
1-2]

iv. Strengthen and expand qualitative and quantitative methods expertise for our faculty and
students (via additional personnel, support, and training). [Years 1-5]

GOAL 2: 100% of Rossier graduates will enter their profession fully prepared and able to
improve learning in urban education – through their research, ability to leverage technology,
program or curriculum development, teaching, policy development or counseling and
intervention.

Implementation Plan for A and B

i. Each program will have delineated the key competencies (skills, knowledge and
abilities), including those in A that contribute to the measurable outcome goal in B. [Year
1]

ii. Each program will have a completed Scope and Sequence that maps these competencies
(and any others the program designates) against course syllabi. [Year 1]

iii. Each program will have designated Key Assessments for these competencies. [Year 1]

iv. We will have created a routine data collection process for assessing students’ incoming
skill level with these competencies, and linked that data to the ongoing academic
assessment process. [Years 1-2]

v. We will have created a feedback system that provides faculty and staff with regular
feedback regarding students’ progress in these competencies (and others, as desired).
[Years 2-3]

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

120
Implementation Plan for C

i. We will have built the prototype and piloted the alumni/professional development
infrastructure to support our alumni in their postgraduate practice. [Years 1-2]

ii. We will develop the data/communications system that allows us to track our graduates
and their progress, and help them assess their impact. [Years 1-3]

iii. We will establish, pilot and refine a system for the collection, analysis and dissemination
of data about our students at routine intervals (i.e., orientation, the final semester, and
annually post- graduation). [Years 1-4]

Implementation Plan for D

i. We will have conducted an “audit” of all existing programs to determine their potential
for impacting urban education, and decide which could continue “as is,” which could be
expanded, blended or revised and have greater impact, and which, if any, should be
discontinued. [Year 1]

ii. We will determine our capacity for new programs – programs that could be an off-shoot
of an existing degree program, or something completely new to Rossier. [Years 1-2]

iii. The basic proposals for 2 of those programs will have moved through the approval
process within the University and into the development phase. [Years 1-3]

iv. At least 2 new or revised programs will be launched, and the proposal for a third will
have moved through the approval process into the development phase. [Years 1-4]

v. A minimum of 3 new or revised programs will have been launched, and an ongoing
“opportunity scan” process will have been initiated that will allow Rossier to anticipate
future preparation needs, assess its program offerings against that data and the School’s
mission. [Years 1-5]

GOAL 3: Identify and create strategic partnerships that are integrated with our degree programs
and research efforts.

Implementation Plan for A:

i. Define the structure and levels of engagement needed for each partnership that Rossier
engages with and develop strategies to best facilitate the requirements of the partnership.
[Year 1]

ii. Developing a database system of better articulation and tracking of partnerships and
working expectations. [Year 1]
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

121
Implementation Plan for B

i. Run reports and queries from database system and develop strategy plans for cultivation,
maintenance and expansion of key partnerships. [Years 1-3]

ii. Based on developed strategy plans move toward formalizing key partnerships through
signed memorandum of understandings, increased research and academic collaborations,
student exchanges and faculty residencies. [Years 2-5]

Implementation Plan for C

i. Expansion of the developing online alumni portal to include hub of online materials and
communications to build networks of partnerships with key stakeholders in academia and
the field. [Years 1-2]
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

122
APPENDIX E
THE THINKING BEHIND THE DISPOSITIONS RUBRIC: VALUING DIVERSITY
The dispositions rubrics are designed to draw from evidence across all tasks. Note that they
focus on candidates’ attitudes, values and beliefs that influence the application of knowledge and
skills (Wilkerson & Lang, 2007). The dispositions that are the focus of these rubrics are defined
as the demonstrated values, attitudes, and beliefs that diversity is not a drawback, and that all
children can learn. While many candidates know how to write a differentiated lesson, these
rubrics seek to measure whether the candidate values the differences and needs of all students in
belief and practice.

Big ideas and their progression across the rubric:
Recognition of individual and cultural differences as assets – The assumption is that
candidates will consider their students’ individual and cultural differences in relation to the tasks
planned for the learning segment and select, develop, and/or modify instructional materials to
assist their students’ growth. This big idea addresses the match between students’ individual and
cultural differences and the candidate’s attention to these differences as demonstrated in their
writing, language, instructional materials, and student-teacher interactions. At Level 1,
candidates are unaware of the impact of cultural differences, or view these differences in a
negative or stereotypical manner. At Level 2, candidates are aware of individual and cultural
differences and make reasonable attempts to build on these as strengths. At level 3, candidates
consider the individual and cultural differences of their students in choosing activities and
materials for instruction. At Level 4, the candidate demonstrates an understanding of the social
construction of differences and a commitment to overcoming bias.

Differences between levels

Between 1 and 2

There are two ways to achieve a Level 1. The candidate has used negative stereotypes or
language in the Teaching Event. The fact that a candidate may be unaware of their behavior does
not influence the scoring level of this rubric. Likewise, if a candidate states that they don’t “see
color” or other differences in their students, good intentions alone do not move them from a
Level 1. Candidates who show no awareness of culturally responsive pedagogy or curriculum, or
who reject it also receive a Level 1. At Level 2 a candidate acknowledges student differences,
but is also able to recognize the strengths students bring to the classroom, and makes reasonable
attempts to build on these strengths through choices in planning, instruction and assessment.

Between 2 and 3

At Level 3 The candidate is intentional in the use of materials, activities, and interactions as a
consideration for supporting students in meeting the standards and objectives of the lessons. The
candidate views individual and cultural differences as contributions rather than student deficits.

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

123
Between 3 and 4

At Level 4 the candidate demonstrates an understanding that individual and cultural differences
are social constructs, and actively works to combat bias.

Examples

Level 1

Candidate makes statements such as:

“I don’t see differences. All children are the same.”
“I know this is hard for you students.”
“These parents don’t value education.”
“These children just need the basics.”

Or other statements that reflect negative stereotypes about student differences.

Or statements that reflect a lack of awareness or agreement about using student differences as a
factor in curriculum orpedagogy.

Level 2

Candidate identifies and acknowledges student differences in the class.

Candidate knows and articulates the individual and cultural strengths that all students bring to the
classroom.

“I have several students from…One of my students has…and this is what that brings to the
classroom”

The candidate makes reasonable attempts to build on student differences in choices made during
the learning segment, but not necessarily with prior intent.

“I saw this opportunity to make a connection…”
“This student is able to…so I…”

Candidate does not overcorrect student language or approach to curriculum that may be based on
cultural or language differences.

Level 3

Candidate purposefully selects materials and activities to reflect, engage and respect individual
and cultural differences.

“I chose this particular activity/approach because …”
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

124
“I know my students…so I included…in my lessons so they could access the content/concept in
a more meaningful way.”

Candidate interactions demonstrate respect and sensitivity to individual and cultural difference.

All students are provided an opportunity to engage with the candidate and curriculum, and all
types of students (girls, boys, students of color, special needs, etc) . Not evident that candidate
didn’t call on girls, for example.

Level 4

The candidate demonstrates through writing or actions that he/she understands that differences,
and the discrimination that comes with them, are the result of social constructs.

The candidate communicates an advocacy approach to individual and cultural differences
through the choice of curriculum or as evidenced in student interactions.

The candidate “stands up” for a student or group of students either in the classroom or school
setting.

The candidates “next steps” indicate an intention to advocate for students with differences.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

125
APPENDIX F
DISPOSITIONS: VALUING DIVERSITY
DISPOSITIONS: VALUING DIVERSITY
XX13: How do the candidate’s context, planning, instruction, assessment, and reflection,
demonstrate a valuing of diversity?
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
• The candidate
participates in the
use of negative
stereotypes or
language.
• The candidate
rejects, or is
unaware of, the
need for culturally
responsive
pedagogy or
curriculum.
• The candidate
acknowledges
individual and
cultural
differences.
• The candidate
articulates the
funds of
knowledge
present in the
classroom and
makes
reasonable
attempts to
build on these
strengths
within the
learning
segment.
• The candidate is
sensitive to and
considers individual
and cultural
differences.
• The candidate
demonstrates an
appreciation of
diversity by the
selection of
materials, design of
activities, and
interactions with
students in ways
that support progress
towards meeting the
standards/ objectives
of the learning
segment.
• All components
of a Level 3,
plus:
• The candidate
demonstrates an
understanding
that the ideas
surrounding
difference are
socially
constructed,
cultural bias can
be overcome,
and advocates
or plans to
advocate for
inclusion.

Evidence:

Scorer feedback on the rubric (not the candidate):

• Is there anything that you observed in text or video related to valuing diversity, that did
not fit anywhere on the rubric?

• What do you think the score represents?

• Do the steps between rubric levels appear to be equal, or are some intervals between
levels larger than others?

• Is there something missing?

ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

126
Any other thoughts?

… The focus should be on how candidates deliberately and conscientiously incorporate,
ethnicity, culture, gender, social class, and the language differences of their students into their
teaching to improve their performance…

…the purpose of culturally responsive pedagogy is to improve the performance of
underachieving students of color while the valuing of diversity concept addresses issues of
gender, students with disabilities, social class…

…difference between acknowledge (level 2) and sensitivity to (level 3). Does sensitivity assume
application as a result?

…The score for this candidate represents a lack of representation. It seems fairly obvious that
that she is not rejecting culturally relevant pedagogy and is not engaging in negative stereotypes
but she is not employing it either.

…Maybe asking for the incorporation of theorists that speak about race, privilege and culturally
responsive teaching.…

I think putting a diversity component will be difficult considering candidates come from varying
places in the U.S. We shouldn’t penalize the candidate if their school is not diverse according to
USC standards.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

127
APPENDIX G
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Goal 1 Goal 2 & 3
Guiding
Principle Candidate Proficiencies Faculty Expectations Unit Expectations
Accountability • Establish goals and strategies for
their position that support
improved learning in their
organization. (KS)
• Apply goal-directed, data-driven
decision making to generate
consistent and measureable
outcomes that are responsive to
established standards and the
needs of students, community
and society. (KS)
Demonstrate the belief that
accountability and
communication to all stakeholder
groups leads to transparent and
equitable educational outcomes
that are responsive to all learners.
(D)
• Models accountable
behavior in practice for
teaching, scholarship,
and service
• Practices transparency
and fairness in
assessment
• Includes theory and
principles of
accountability in
courses
Participates in internal
and external evaluations
• Supports internal
and external
accountability
efforts
• Maintains
relationships with
professional
organizations.
Provides the human
and financial
resources to support
accountability
efforts.
Diversity • Develop an unshakeable
commitment to a diversity of
thought and experience in their
practice (e.g. diversity of
socioeconomic status, gender,
ethnicity, sexual orientation,
language proficiency and
disability). (D)
• Identify practices, structures and
policies that create barriers to
learning. (KS)
• Develop the skill and political
savvy to negotiate, if not
eliminate, those barriers for
themselves and on behalf of
others. (KS)
Demonstrate a valuing of using
individual and cultural
differences to inform practice
related to accountability,
leadership, and instruction that
result in equal opportunity and
access for all learners. (D)
• Provides scholarship
and service that
addresses the needs of
diverse populations
locally and nationally
Includes concepts and
strategies for enhancing
educational practice in
diverse urban settings in
the curriculum
• Communicates
with various
professional
networks to recruit
a diverse faculty
and staff.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

128
Goal 1 Goal 2 & 3
Guiding
Principle Candidate Proficiencies Faculty Expectations Unit Expectations
Learning • Apply evidence-based theories
and principles of learning,
motivation, and cultural
competence to optimize practice
in educational settings locally,
nationally, and globally. (KS)
• Demonstrate the belief that
effective instruction is learner-
centered, theoretically
grounded, and contextually
responsive to the individual
differences of all learners. (D)
• Demonstrates new media
literacy and the ability to use
media in educational settings.
(KS)
Demonstrates competency in
academic writing. (KS)
• Participates in academic
conferences and
associations to further
professional
development
• Contributes to academic
publications and other
knowledge bases within
their fields
• Reflects on and updates
courses to reflect
current research
• Develops capacity to
incorporate technology
and new media in
instruction
• Provides opportunities
for candidates to use
technology skills in
courses
• Teaches new media
literacy in courses
Reflects on feedback
from course evaluations
to adjust practice
• Creates the
conditions and
support for research
• Hires qualified
faculty and support
staff
Provides resources
to faculty and staff
to incorporate
technology and
media for
instruction and
assessment.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

129
Goal 1 Goal 2 & 3
Guiding
Principle Candidate Proficiencies Faculty Expectations Unit Expectations
Leadership • Apply accountable leadership
strategies to create the
structural, human relations,
political and symbolic/cultural
dimensions critical for high
performance learning
organizations. (KS)
• Demonstrate initiative in
creating solutions to barriers to
learning that they identify
within their organization and
community.(D)
• Demonstrate an ability to create
and sustain partnerships (i.e.,
groups, teams, organizations)
that effectively improve
learning. (KS)
Demonstrate a valuing of
integrating multiple
perspectives by building a
community of stakeholders who
advocate for high academic
achievement for all learners in
any educational setting. (D)
• Models leadership
behavior in their
teaching, scholarship,
and service
• Participates the
development of new
courses and curriculum
• Provides service to the
Unit, the University and
the community
Participates in
associations relevant to
their field
• Models accountable
leadership
strategies that
create a high
performance
learning
organization.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

130
APPENDIX H
STUDY VERSION: THE THINKING BEHIND THE DISPOSITIONS RUBRIC:
VALUING DIVERSITY
The dispositions rubric is designed to draw from evidence across all tasks. Note that the focus is
on the attitudes, values and beliefs that influence the candidates’ application of knowledge and
skills (Wilkerson & Lang, 2007). The disposition that is being addressed by this rubric is the
demonstrated valuing of diversity. While many candidates know how to write a differentiated
lesson, these rubrics seek to measure whether the candidate values the differences and needs of
all students in belief and practice.

Big ideas and their progression across the rubric:

Recognition of the value of learner centered, theoretically grounded and contextually
responsive practice* in meeting the needs of diverse learners.

The valuing of diversity is a core value of the Rossier School of Education. As such, it is
embedded in theory, instruction and practice in the MAT. The assumption is that candidates will
consider theory, the learner, and how to be contextually responsive to the individual learner in
planning for the learning segment. The candidate should be able to articulate the value learner
centered, theoretically grounded and contextually responsive considerations have in the
selection, development, and/or modification of instructional materials and learning experiences.
This big idea addresses the match between students’ individual and cultural differences and the
candidate’s understanding of and attention to these differences as demonstrated in their writing,
language, instructional materials, and student-teacher interactions. A candidate at Level 1 does
not consider developing plans that are learner centered, theoretically grounded or contextually
responsive. At Level 2, candidates consider and articulate the value of at least one of these
elements and make reasonable attempts to include them in their lesson planning and instruction.
At level 3, candidates consistently consider the learner, the theory, and the context of their
students in choosing activities and materials for instruction. As a component of the
commentaries, candidates are able to articulate the value and purpose of learner centered,
theoretically grounded and contextualized instruction as an on-going element of good teaching
practice. At Level 4, the candidate includes all the components of a level 3, but also provides
evidence in the Assessment and Reflection Tasks as to how instruction contributed to student
learning.

Differences between levels

Between 1 and 2

At Level 1, the candidate has shown no consideration of using what he or she knows about the
learners, theory, or instructional context in planning for the learning segment. Candidates who
use a predesigned curriculum without making adjustments for the needs of the current learners
might receive a 1. At Level 2 a candidate makes a reasonable attempt to plan for a learning
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

131
segment that meets the needs of some diverse learners by taking into account at least one of the
following: learner centered instruction, theory that speaks to the needs of diverse learners, or
contextually responsive teaching. The candidate is able to explain the value of including at least
one of these considerations in instructional planning.

WHERE TO FIND EVIDENCE: Primarily in Task 1 and Task 2, and Task 5.

Between 2 and 3

At Level 3 The candidate’s plans, instruction and commentaries show a consistent use of
materials, learning experiences, and interactions that are learner centered, theoretically grounded
and contextually responsive to the individual differences of all students. At this level, a
candidate exhibits the integration of these three components as an on-going element of practice.
The candidate is able to articulate their value and purpose of their instructional decisions in
meeting the needs of all learners.

WHERE TO FIND EVIDENCE: Primarily in Task 1, Task 2, Task 3 and Task 5

Between 3 and 4

Level 4 includes all the components of Level 3, but in addition, the candidate provides evidence
as to how student learning was affected by the use of learner centered, theoretically grounded
and contextually responsive teaching. Evidence may be through informal or formal assessments.

WHERE TO FIND EVIDENCE: Whole TE

*Contextually responsive teaching practice refers to the extent to which candidates are
tailoring their instruction in relation to the contexts where they were teaching, including
modifying instruction to suit individual learners. It moves beyond the concept of making content
accessible assessed in rubric 2 because the content in contextually responsive teaching practice is
transformed by the knowledge and resources the students contribute to the learning process.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

132

Levels/Criteria 1 2 3 4
Score/
Level
• How do the
candidate’s
context,
planning,
instruction,
assessment, and
reflection,
demonstrate a
valuing of
diversity that is
learner-centered,
theoretically
grounded and
contextually
responsive to the
individual
differences of all
learners?
• The candidate
has received
instruction and
assignments
on developing
learner-
centered,
theoretically
grounded and
contextually
responsive
teaching
practice, but
does not show
evidence of
considering
these in
planning or
instruction.
• The candidate
makes a
reasonable
attempt at
designing
lesson plans
that are
primarily
learner-
centered,
theoretically
grounded and
contextually
responsive to
the individual
differences of
all learners.
• The candidate
is able to
articulates the
value of
considering
one or more of
these
components in
lesson
planning.
• Plans, instruction
and
commentaries
are consistently
learner-centered,
theoretically
grounded and
responsive to the
individual
differences of all
students.
• The candidate is
able to articulate
the value and
purpose of
considering these
three
components as
an on-going
element of their
teaching
practice.
• All components of
a Level 3 plus:
• The candidate
provides evidence
and articulates how
learner-centered,
theoretically
grounded and
contextually
responsive teaching
contributed to
effective teaching
and student
learning during the
teaching event.

Standards

CA- CCTC: Standards for Credential Candidates

Area: Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Multiple and Single Subject Credentials
Category III: Candidate Competence and Performance

Standard: Program Standard 11: Student Rapport and Classroom EnvironmentEach candidate
establishes and sustains a level of student rapport and a classroom environment that promotes
learning and equity, and that fosters mutual respect among the persons in a class.

Emphasis: Rationale
To realize their educational goals and potential, children and adolescents must feel respected in
the school environment. Each prospective teacher must, therefore, learn to establish and maintain
respectful relationships with students, and a classroom environment that fosters learning and
respect.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

133
Emphasis: Factors to Consider
The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program
accreditation.

Factor: Each candidate establishes a positive rapport with students in a variety of appropriate
ways, such as the use of verbal and nonverbal communication (e.g. eye contact, physical
proximity, and physical contact).

Factor: Each candidate establishes a productive learning environment that includes clearly-
stated expectations regarding student conduct.

Factor: Each candidate communicates and interacts respectfully with all students in a class, and
reinforces respectful interactions among the students in the class.

Standard: Program Standard 13: Diverse and Appropriate Teaching Each candidate prepares
and uses instructional strategies, activities and materials that are appropriate for students with
diverse needs, interests and learning styles.

Emphasis: Rationale
A teacher’s strategies, techniques and materials should facilitate students’ efforts to learn the
subjects of instruction.

Emphasis: Factors to Consider

The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program
accreditation.

Factor: Each candidate utilizes strategies, techniques, and materials that are free of bias and that
foster learning among diverse students.

Standard: Program Standard 14: Student Motivation, Involvement and Conduct Each candidate
motivates and sustains student interest, involvement and appropriate conduct equitably during a
variety of class activities.

Emphasis: Factors to Consider
The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program
accreditation.

Factor: Each candidate encourages all students to excel and promotes involvement by students
from different gender and ethnic groups, and with different handicapping conditions, in all
classroom activities.

Standard: Program Standard 19: Capacity to Teach Diverse Students Each candidate
demonstrates compatibility with, and ability to teach students who are different from the
candidate. The differences between students and the candidate should include ethnic, cultural,
gender, linguistic and socio-economic differences.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

134
Emphasis: Factors to Consider
The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program
accreditation.

Factor: Each candidate fulfills Standards 10 through 17 while teaching students who are
different from the candidate in ethnicity, culture, gender, language background and socio-
economic background.

Factor: Each candidate exhibits understanding, appreciation and sensitivity toward the cultural
heritage, community values and individual aspirations of the diverse students in a class.

Factor: Each candidate encourages respect for human diversity through planned lessons and
through personal interaction with students.
ASSESSING DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS DIVERSITY

135
APPENDIX I
QUESTIONS TO ASSESSORS
1. How easy was it to find evidence in PACT submissions to support a score on the Valuing
Diversity rubric? Where did you find evidence?

2. If someone you scored received a 1, do you believe it was due to the submission or because
of the rubric?

If no evidence was found for valuing diversity, to what extent do you think the absence was
due to:

a. The Structure: The PACT format does not provide an opportunity for candidates to
exhibit valuing diversity

b. The Student: The student had the opportunity but this PACT did not demonstrate a
valuing of diversity.

c. The Subject: The student chose an area of math or science where it is not possible to
exhibit valuing diversity.

d. The Instrument: The rubric did not capture what the student exhibited as a valuing
of diversity.

3. What could have been done to improve the assessor training?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applies the frameworks of Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964), Smith and Ragan (2004), and one school of education’s Conceptual Framework as a means to develop a measure of teacher candidate dispositions towards diversity on the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the PACT contains evidence to assess valuing diversity, using a theoretically grounded original rubric designed based upon program-identified candidate proficiencies, and the PACT’s developmental perspective. Using secondary data from Secondary Math (N=10), Secondary Science (N=11) and Elementary Math (N=19) submissions, this mixed methods study collected and analyzed assessor comments and feedback in addition to numerical scores comparing candidate performance on existing PACT rubrics with the new Valuing Diversity rubric. The study revealed that the rubric was a useful valid instrument for identifying valuing diversity in the PACT. While assessors found evidence to assign a score based on the elements of the rubric, they also found that the candidates scored lower on the Valuing Diversity rubric than on the related rubrics that were also analyzed. Programmatic recommendations including a curriculum audit, and targeted professional development, as well as recommended future research are presented. Although further research is necessary, this study has contributed to the empirical research on assessing dispositions. The combination of learning theory, an affective taxonomy, and expected candidate proficiencies provided a lens with which to examine candidates attitudes, values, and beliefs as they influenced the application of knowledge and skills in their guided practice classrooms.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Values and beliefs related to diversity amongst students being prepared as teachers

PDF

Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model

PDF

Differentiated motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i

PDF

Housing challenges for commercial sexual exploitation of children: a gap analysis of shelter retention rates

PDF

Understanding science and math teacher retention in Hawai‘i public schools

PDF

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

PDF

Examining regular high school teachers’ roles in enhancing students academic performance: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

An examination of supervisors’ perspectives of teamwork in a federal agency: promising practices and challenges using a gap analysis framework

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning

Asset Metadata

Creator Kapner, Leslie Stephanie (author)

Core Title Assessing dispositions towards diversity in math and science submissions of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/17/2013

Defense Date 06/10/2013

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

Tag dispositions,diversity,OAI-PMH Harvest,PACT,teacher candidate assessment

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Whittaker, Andrea (committee member), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email leslie.kapner@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-291912

Unique identifier UC11288015

Identifier etd-KapnerLesl-1789.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-291912 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KapnerLesl-1789.pdf

Dmrecord 291912

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kapner, Leslie Stephanie

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