This exploratory study examines the relationship between preservice teachers’ performance on a teaching performance assessment for licensure in elementary mathematics and a measure of knowledge that, in studies of practicing teachers, was found to predict effective mathematics teaching. A sample of 89 preservice teachers completed the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) and the classroom video analysis (CVA) instrument. Correlation analyses found overall weak associations between measures for the whole group. For groups of high, medium, and low performers on PACT, average scores on the CVA measure and its subscales varied in the predicted direction. However, individuals within the PACT performing groups had a relatively broad range of scores on the CVA, and several preservice teachers who performed poorly on PACT had average or better than average performance on the CVA. Similarly, several of the PACT high performers scored below the whole group CVA average. In addition to suggesting areas for future research, the findings raise questions about assessing preservice teachers’ readiness to teach mathematics and the use of a single measure to make licensing decisions.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
9.
D’AgostinoJ. V.PowersS. J. (2009). Predicting teacher performance with test scores and grade point average: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 46-182.
10.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
11.
Darling-HammondL.NewtonS. P.WeiR. C. (2013). Developing and assessing beginning teacher effectiveness: The potential of performance assessments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 25(3), 179-204.
12.
Darling-HammondL.SnyderJ. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 523-545.
13.
Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Darling-HammondL.WiseA. E.KleinS. P. (1999). A license to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
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.
16.
Feiman-NemserS. (2012). Teachers as Learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
17.
GoldhaberD.HansenM. (2010). Race, gender and teacher testing: How informative a tool is teacher licensure testing?American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 218-251.
18.
GreenblattD.O’HaraK. E. (2015). Buyer beware: Lessons learned from edTPA implementation in New York State. Thought and Action: The Journal of the National Education Association, 31, 57-67.
19.
HammernessK.Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ.BerlinerD.Cochran-SmithM.McDonaldM.KennethZ. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 258-289). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
21.
KennedyM. (2016). Parsing the practice of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 6-17.
22.
KerstingN. B. (2008). Using video clips of mathematic classroom instruction to measure teachers’ knowledge of teaching mathematics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 845-861.
23.
KerstingN. B.GivvinK. B.SoteloF. L.StiglerJ. W. (2010). Teachers’ analysis of classroom video predict student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 172-181.
24.
KerstingN. B.GivvinK. B.ThompsonB.SantagataR.StiglerJ. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Education Research Journal, 49(3), 568-589.
25.
KerstingN. B.SherinB. L.StiglerJ. W. (2014). Automated scoring of teachers’ open-ended responses to video prompts: Bringing the classroom-video-analysis assessment to scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(6), 950-974.
26.
KerstingN. B.SuttonT.Kalinec-CraigC.StoehrK. J.HeshmatiS.LozanoG.StiglerJ. W. (2016). Further exploration of the classroom video analysis (CVA) instrument as a measure of usable knowledge for teaching mathematics: Taking a knowledge system perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(1-2), 97-109.
27.
KnievelI.LindmeierA. M.HeinzeA. (2015). Beyond knowledge: Measuring primary teachers’ subject-specific competences in and for teaching mathematics with items based on video vignettes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 309-329.
28.
KnightS.LloydG.ArbaughF.GamsonD.McDonaldS.NolanJ.WhitneyA. (2014). Performance assessment of teaching: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 372-374.
29.
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.
30.
LitI. W.LotanR. (2013). A balancing act: Dilemmas of implementing a high-stakes performance assessment. The New Educator, 9(1), 54-76.
31.
MeuwissenK. W.ChoppinJ. M.CloonanK. D.Shang-ButlerH. (2016, April). Celebrations, confessionals, and creative interpretations: Representing teaching practice in the edTPA as a high-stakes certification exam in New York and Washington States. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Association, Washington, DC.
32.
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.
33.
MitchellR.BarthP. (1999). Not good enough: A content analysis of teacher licensing examinations. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
34.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1999). What teachers should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA: Author.
35.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Author.
36.
PecheoneR. L.ChungR. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.
37.
PecheoneR. L.ChungR. R. (2007). PACT technical report. Stanford: Performance Assessment for California Teachers Consortium.
38.
Performance Assessment for California Teachers Consortium. (2009). Implementation handbook. Stanford, CA: Author.
39.
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.
40.
RichardsonV.PlacierP. (2001). Teacher change. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Fourth handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
41.
SandholtzJ. H.SheaL. M. (2012). Predicting performance: A comparison of university supervisors’ predictions and teacher candidates’ scores on a teaching performance assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 39-50.
42.
SandholtzJ. H.SheaL. M. (2015). Examining the extremes: High and low performance on a teaching performance assessment for licensure. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(2), 17-42.
43.
SatoM. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA?Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 421-434.
44.
SherinM. G.JacobsV.PhilippR. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
SherinM. G.Van EsE. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37.
46.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
47.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
48.
SnyderJ. (2009). Taking stock of performance assessments in teaching. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 7-11.
49.
TattoM. T.SchwilleJ.SenkS.IngvarsonL.PeckR.RowleyG. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.
50.
TellezK. (2016, April). An analysis of the structure and assessment of standards for teacher candidates and programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
51.
WeiR.PecheoneR. (2010). Assessment for learning in pre-service teacher education: Performance-based assessments. In KennedyM. (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 69-132). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
52.
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, 490-519.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
