The implementation of teaching performance assessments has prompted a range of concerns. Some educators question whether these assessments provide information beyond what university supervisors gain through their formative evaluations and classroom observations of candidates. This research examines the relationship between supervisors’ predictions and candidates’ performance on a summative assessment based on a capstone teaching event, the Performance Assessment for California Teachers. The study, based on records for 337 teacher candidates over a 2-year period, specifically addresses the following questions: To what extent do university supervisors predict candidates’ total scores? On which questions and categories of the assessment do supervisors most accurately predict their candidates’ scores? Do supervisors predict scores more accurately for high- and low-performing candidates? The findings indicate that university supervisors’ perspectives did not always correspond with outcomes on the performance assessment, particularly for high and low performers.
ArendsR. I. (2006a). Performance assessment in perspective: History, opportunities, and challenges. In CastleS.ShakleeB. S. (Eds.), Assessing teacher performance: Performance-based assessment in teacher education (pp. 3-22). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
2.
ArendsR. I. (2006b). Summative performance assessments. In CastleS.ShakleeB. S. (Eds.), Assessing teacher performance: Performance-based assessment in teacher education (pp. 93-123). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
3.
BrintS. (1994). In an age of experts: The changing role of professionals in politics and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BunchG. C.AguirreJ. M.TellezK. (2009). Beyond the scores: Using candidate responses on high stakes performance assessment to inform teacher preparation for English learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 103-128.
Darling-HammondL. (1986). A proposal for evaluation in the teaching profession. Elementary School Journal, 86(4), 531-551.
7.
Darling-HammondL. (2001). Standard setting in teaching: Changes in licensing, certification, and assessment. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Fourth handbook of research on teaching (pp. 751-776). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
8.
Darling-HammondL. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120-138.
9.
Darling-HammondL.SnyderJ. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 523-545.
10.
Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
DelandshereG.ArensS. A. (2001). Representations of teaching and standards-based reform: Are we closing the debate about teacher education?Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 547-566.
12.
FenstermacherG. D.RichardsonV. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-215.
13.
FriedsonE. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: On the practice of knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
GuaglianoneC. L.PayneM.KinseyG. W.ChieroR. (2009). Teaching performance assessment: A comparative study of implementation and impact among California State University campuses. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 129-148.
15.
KornfeldJ.GradyK.MarkerP. M.RuddellM. R. (2007). Caught in the current: A self-study of state-mandated compliance in a teacher education program. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 1902-1930.
16.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
18.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2000). The validity of National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)/Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) assessments for effective urban teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19.
LeeC. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20.
LeinhardtG. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Fourth handbook of research on teaching (pp. 333-357). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
21.
MitchellK. J.RobinsonD. Z.PlakeB. S.KnowlesK. T. (2001). Testing teacher candidates: The role of licensure tests in improving teacher quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22.
MunbyH.RussellT.MartinA. K. (2001). Teachers knowledge and how it develops. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Fourth handbook of research on teaching (pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
23.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1999). What teachers should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA: Author.
24.
NoddingsN. (1991). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25.
OkhremtchoukI.SeikiS.GillilandB.AtchC.WallaceM.KatoA. (2009). Voices of pre-service teachers: Perspectives on the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 39-62.
26.
PecheoneR. L.ChungR. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.
PetersonK. (1987). Teacher evaluation with multiple and variable lines of evidence. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 311-317.
30.
PetersonK. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
31.
PorterA.YoungsP.OddenA. (2001). Advances in teacher assessments and their use. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 259-297). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
32.
Rennert-ArievP. (2008). The hidden curriculum of performance-based teacher education. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 105-138.
33.
RichardsonV.PlacierP. (2001). Teacher change. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Fourth handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
34.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York, NY: Macmillan.
35.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
36.
SnyderJ. (2009). Taking stock of performance assessments in teaching. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 7-11.
37.
TellezK. (1996). Authentic assessment. In SikulaJ. (Ed.), The handbook of research in teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 704-721). New York, NY: Macmillan.
38.
UhlenbeckA. M.VerloopN.BeijaardD. (2002). Requirements for an assessment procedure for beginning teachers: Implications from recent theories on teaching and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 242-272.
39.
ZeichnerK. M. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 490-519.
