Definitions of effective teaching focus on three primary areas: performances, essential knowledge, and critical dispositions. While no one measure provides a complete picture of teacher effectiveness, empirical inquiry into critical dispositions lags behind what is known about essential knowledge and performances. We found this underdevelopment true in our own educator preparation program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, which led to the development, testing, and implementation of the Professional Competencies, Attitudes, and Dispositions (ProCAD) assessment. In this article, we introduce the ProCAD assessment, describing each piece of the ProCAD framework and its alignment with InTASC critical disposition substandards. We present findings from the analysis of ProCAD data and close with implications for better understanding effective teaching and future research.
AlawiyeO.WilliamsH. (2010). Disposition profile inventory: An assessment tool for measuring the professional attitudes and behaviors of teacher education candidates. National Social Science Journal, 34(2), 1–10.
2.
AtteberryA.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2017). Teacher churning reassignment rates and implications for student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 3–30.
3.
BoydD.GoldhaberD. D.LankfordH.WyckoffJ. H. (2007). The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17(1), 45–68.
4.
BoydD.GrossmanP.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176–216.
5.
CCSSO. (2011, April). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model care teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue.
ChettyR.HendrenN.KlineP.SaezE. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States (No. z19843). National Bureau of Economic Research.
8.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26, 673–682.
9.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 399–438.
10.
CroweE. (2010). Measuring what matters: A stronger accountability model for teacher education. Center for American Progress.
11.
Darling-HammondL.ChungR.FrelowF. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach?Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302.
12.
EngelM.JacobB. A.CurranF. C. (2014). New evidence on teacher labor supply. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 36–72.
13.
FlodenR. E. (2012). Teacher value added as a measure of program quality: Interpret with caution. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 356–360.
14.
GabrielR. (2017). Rubrics and reflection: A discursive analysis of observation debrief conversations between novice teach for America teachers and mentors. Action in Teacher Education, 39(1), 85–102.
15.
GansleK. A.NoellG. H.KnoxR. M.SchaferM. J. (2010). Value added assessment of teacher preparation in Louisiana: 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 [Value Added Teacher Preparation Program Assessment, Year 5]. Louisiana State University.
16.
GitomerD. H.MartínezJ. F.BatteyD.HylandN. E. (2019). Assessing the assessment: Evidence of reliability and validity in the edTPA. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 3–31.
17.
GoldhaberD.LaveryL.TheobaldR. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44, 293–307.
18.
GoldhaberD.QuinceV.TheobaldR. (2018). Has it always been this way? Tracing the evolution of teacher quality gaps in U.S. public schools. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 171–201.
19.
GoldhaberD.StartzR. (2017). On the distribution of worker productivity: The case of teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Statistics and Public Policy, 4(1), 1–12.
20.
GoldschmidtP.PhelpsG. (2010). Does teacher professional development affect content and pedagogical knowledge?Economics of Education Review, 29, 432–439.
21.
HagansK. S.PowersK. (2015). Measuring credential candidates’ impact on student achievement. Action in Teacher Education, 37(4), 355–372.
22.
HallamM. K. (2009). Another piece of the language learning puzzle: Why teacher dispositions are a crucial aspect of student success. The Language Educator, 4(1), 26–29.
23.
HanS. W.BorgonoviF.GuerrieroS. (2018). What motivates high school students to want to be teachers? He role of salary, working conditions, and societal evaluations about occupations in a comparative perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 3–39.
24.
HanssonE. E.SvenssonP. J.StrandbergE. L.TroeinM.BeckmanA. (2014). Inter-rater reliability and agreement of rubrics for assessment of scientific writing. Education, 4(1), 12–17.
25.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2009). What makes for a good teacher and who can tell?National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Reform, The Urban Institute.
26.
HeckR. H. (2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a multilevel cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 227–249.
27.
HenryG. T.BastianK. C.SmithA. A. (2012). Scholarships to recruit the “best and brightest” into teaching: Who is recruited, where do they teach, how effective are they, and how long do they stay?Educational Researcher, 41, 83–92.
28.
HenryG. T.KershawD. C.ZulliR. A.SmithA. A. (2012). Incorporating teacher effectiveness into teacher preparation program evaluation. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 335–355.
29.
JohnsonS. M.BirkelandS. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617.
30.
JonssonA.SvingbyG. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity, and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2007), 130–144.
31.
KalogridesD.LoebS.BéteilleT. (2013). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86(2), 103–123.
32.
KatzL. G.RathsJ. D. (1985). Dispositions as goals for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), 301–307.
33.
KeeA. N. (2012). Feelings of preparedness among alternatively certified teachers: What is the role of program features?Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 23–38.
34.
Kukla-AcevedoS. (2009). Do teacher characteristics matter? New results on the effects of teacher preparation on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 28, 49–57.
35.
MansfieldR. K. (2015). Teacher quality and student inequality. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(3Pt 1), 751–788.
36.
MatulaJ. (2011). Embedding due process measures throughout the evaluation of teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 95(2), 99–121.
37.
MoscoviciH. (2009). Science teacher retention in today’s urban schools: A study of success and failure. Urban Education, 44(1), 88–105.
38.
NCTE. (2012). Evaluating English/language arts teachers: A policy research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Council Chronicle, 21(3), 15–18.
39.
NewtonX.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.ThomasE. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness. An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23). http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810/858
40.
NoellG. H.PorterB. A.PattR. M.DahirA. (2008). Value added assessment of teacher preparation in Louisiana: 2004-2005 to 2006-2007. Louisiana State University.
41.
PetersonK. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 60–79.
42.
PhelpsP. H.BensonT. R. (2012). Teachers with a passion for the profession. Action in Teacher Education, 34(1), 65–76.
43.
PleckiM. L.ElfersA. M.NakamuraY. (2012). Using evidence for teacher education program improvement and accountability: An illustrative case of the role of value-added measures. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 318–334.
44.
RockoffJ. E.SperoniC. (2011). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness: Evidence from New York City. Labour Economics, 18, 687–696.
45.
RokeachM. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. Jossey-Bass.
46.
SCALE. (2017). Making good choices: A support guide for edTPA candidates. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University.
47.
SteeleJ. L.PepperM. J.SpringerM. G.LockwoodJ. R. (2015). The distribution and mobility of effective teachers: Evidence from a large, urban school district. Economics of Education Review, 48, 86–101.
48.
StellmackM.Konheim-KalksteinY.ManorJ.MasseyA.SchmitzJ. (2009). An assessment of reliability and validity of a rubric for grading APA-style introductions. Teaching of Psychology, 36(2), 102–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902739776
49.
SydnorJ. (2017). “I didn’t realize how hard it would be!” Tensions and transformations in becoming a teacher. Action in Teacher Education, 39(2), 218–236.
50.
TournakiN.SamuelsW. E. (2016). Do graduate teacher education programs change teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and efficacy beliefs?Action in Teacher Education, 38(4), 384–398.
51.
TuytensM.DevosG. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher evaluation: An impossible task for the school leader?Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 891–899.
52.
van HelvoortJ.Brand-GruwelS.HuysmansF.SjoerE. (2017). Reliability and validity test of a scoring rubric for information literacy. Journal of Documentation, 73, 305–316.
53.
WattH. M. G.RichardsonP. W. (2012). An introduction to teaching motivations in different countries: Comparisons using the FIT-Choice Scale. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 185–197.
54.
WattH. M. G.RichardsonP. W.KlusmannU.KunterM.BeyerB.TrautweinU.BaumertJ. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: An international comparison using the FIT-Choice Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 791–805.
55.
WilsonS. M.RozelleJ. J.MikeskaJ. N. (2011). Cacophony or embarrassment of riches: Building a system of support for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 383–394.
56.
YostD. S. (2006). Reflection and self-efficacy: Enhancing the retention of qualified teachers from a teacher education perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 59–76.
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.
