a Does it relate to your Preplanning / Unit?


a What are you doing as the Teacher? a What should your students be doing? a How are you assessing your students (Formative / Summative)?


Task 3 – Assessment a Assessment of student outcome, NOT teacher delivery.


a Formative Assessment – We do this all the time, but must provide evidence (predictions of pitfalls, and evidence of small victories along the path).


a Summative Assessments- How do you know the students met the overall objective of the lesson? Unit?


a Note – Assessments must have a student feedback component (written/verbal). How can they know where they are if they are not told?


Step 4: Work/Plan Backwards Remember this is a new process for


many including preservice teachers and teacher educators. I highly recommend working backwards knowing the necessary outcomes and justifications needed to be successful according to edTPATM


. Again, I


encourage all to keep in mind this is NOT a curriculum it is a teaching assessment to assure student focused teaching and assessment. Familiarize yourselves with the rubrics. Level 3 is passing. Even if you have components from the higher levels, but do not accomplish everything from level 3 you risk receiving a no pass rating. Ask… How can I accomplish components needed for successful completion of edTPATM


in my unit? Yes, this


is a manipulated situation, but isn’t every class? As good teachers, we present new information and manufacture situations or experiences for our students to embody the new concepts. The video evidence for the edTPATM assessment is cause for the dissection of several good teaching habits, student responses, and assessment to occur in a small amount of time; therefore, planning is essential. I would recommend recording as much as possible. It is beneficial to review the footage as a best practice, but also finding the best uncut representative footage is essential. Effective communication is very


important. Although graders are told not to reduce scores due to poor writing, many times scores are lowered because of the lack of effective communication. Assume the grader know little about your curriculum, and set the


ala breve


scene for the grader in clear simple sentences using key terms from the rubrics and glossary. Identify the evidence (Artifacts, Commentary, video) and make clear connections from preplanning through the assessment. Above all, speak the obvious. What is obvious to the writer may not be to the grader after grading several projects. It is important to note that reflecting on what should have happened only means that it did not happen and does not add to overall score.


Areas most often not addressed with success:


As with every project this large,


certain common areas are overlooked. Task 1 - Context & Preplanning, in my experience, often presents great information about the background of our classroom students, their prior knowledge, the accommodations needed to meet individual education plans, the curriculum objects and academic language goals. The challenge is whatever information is presented here it must be threaded throughout the rest of the student commentary. Therefore, be careful in what you consider important information. If that particular bit of information does not alter your teaching and assessment then it can be left out.


Task 2 - Instruction & Student


Engagement often presents the challenge of effective communication. I know this has been stated previously, but please remember to write from an educational jargon perspective. It is our duty to connect the world of music and the field of education/administration for the edTPATM grader. This is a challenge that will serve you well when advocating for your program. Two additional areas that are often overlooked are tracking accommodations/modifications and implementation of formative assessments. Make clear connections to the accommodations/modifications made to the curriculum and/or instructions to address the needs of your students. I encourage all to think of formative assessment erroring on the more formal side. Collect hard data. Performance based classes are often evaluated through listening and visual cues, but this process if hard to track. This type of assessment can be done, but possible reflect the results in a rubric form.


Task 3 – Assessments are based on


the collected data. This sounds obvious, but many times reflections are made not based on


27


the data collected. This section is to ensure that preservice teachers can track individual and groups of students while modifying instruction to meet the needs based on the interpretation of collected data. Assessments must also contain two facets: 1) Information received by the instructor, and 2) feedback given to the classroom students. Gathering information does not seem to be the challenge, it is the feedback given to the classroom student. Feedback can be in either verbal or written form, but remember to capture the verbal feedback on video if you are going to use it as an exemplar for the grader.


Wow! This is a huge project with lots


of components. BUT, it is manageable and will assist in producing future teachers with student focused learning concepts and data driven assessments. More importantly, it will assist future music teachers in bridging the gap between the science and the art of the teaching in the music classroom.


Fuller F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A de- velopmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 201–226. 10.3102/00028312006002207


Fuller F., Bown O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In Ryan K. (Ed.), Teacher education, Part II: The 74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 25– 52). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.


Killian, J., Dye, K. & Wayman J.B. (2013). Music student teachers: Pre–student teach- ing concerns and post–student teaching per- ceptions over a 5-year period. Journal of Research in Music Education.


Peck, C., Gallucci, C., & Sloan, T. (2010). Negotiating implementation of high-stakes performance assessment polices in teacher education: From compliance to inquiry. Jour- nal of teacher Education, 61(5), 451-563.


John B. Wayman, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Choral Music Education at the University of Texas at Arlington


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44