Advertisement

Cultural sensemaking and the implementation of edTPA technological tools: lessons for the field

Abstract

Since 2009, one-third of all US teacher preparation programs have implemented a new, technology-based teacher assessment—edTPA. Intended to replace traditional measures of initial teaching competency, edTPA utilizes a candidate-curated video lesson and ePortfolio. While research shows that these technology-based tools enhance professional practice, the authors demonstrated that unintended consequences occurred when such tools were incompatible with the cultural contexts implementing them. Employing a multiple-embedded case study, qualitative interviews, focus groups, and field observations (N = 75) were conducted across eight teacher preparation programs. Findings indicate that policy design and organizational factors influenced how programs culturally made sense of and implemented edTPA’s videotaping and ePortfolio tasks for teacher candidates—substantively or instrumentally. In the process, the authors developed a theoretical and practical understanding of how, and under what conditions, large-scale, technology-based policy tools may be implemented successfully across education contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2019). Participation map. Retrieved from https://edtpa.aacte.org. Accessed 20 Dec 2019.

  2. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Exploring the influence of web-based portfolio development on learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,11, 415–442.

  3. Ayers, J. B., & Qualls, G. S. (1979). Concurrent and predictive validity of the national teacher examinations. The Journal of Educational Research,73(2), 86–92.

  4. Beauchamp, C. (2015). Reflection in teacher education: Issues emerging from a review of current literature. Reflective Practice,16(1), 123–141.

  5. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change vol VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

  6. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  7. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, England: SAGE.

  8. Choppin, J., & Meuwissen, K. (2017). Threats to validity in the edTPA video component. Action in Teacher Education,39(1), 39–53.

  9. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,23(2), 145–170.

  10. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy,19(3), 476–509.

  11. Coburn, C. E. (2016). What's policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education,122(3), 465–475.

  12. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. Chicago, IL: Pearson.

  13. Cross, S. B., Dunn, A. H., & Dotson, E. K. (2018). The intersections of selves and policies: A poetic inquiry into the hydra of teacher education. Education Policy Analysis Archives,26, 29.

  14. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

  15. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  16. Danielowich, R. M., & McCarthy, M. J. (2013). Teacher educators as learners: How supervisors shape their pedagogies by creating and using classroom videos with their student teachers. Action in Teacher Education,35, 147–164.

  17. Darling-Hammond, L. (1986). A proposal for evaluation in the teaching profession. Elementary School Journal,86, 531–551.

  18. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). New York, NY: Routledge.

  19. De Voto, C. (2016). The edTPA mandate in Illinois: A tale of two institutions. Paper presented at the Illinois Education Research Council Annual Conference, Bloomington, IL.

  20. De Voto, C. (2019). Sensemaking and policy implementation of edTPA: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Chicago.

  21. Donovan, M. K., & Cannon, S. O. (2018). The university supervisor, edTPA, and the new making of the teacher. Education Policy Analysis Archives,26, 28.

  22. Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum,69(2), 134–142.

  23. Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  24. Feuer, M. J., Floden, R. E., Chudowsky, N., & Ahn, J. (2013). Evaluation of teacher preparation programs: Purposes, methods, and policy options. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565694.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.

  25. Firestone, W. A. (1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,11(2), 151–164.

  26. Fleck, J., Webster, J., & Williams, R. (1990). Dynamics of information technology implementation: A reassessment of paradigms and trajectories of development. Futures,22(6), 618–640.

  27. Gibbons, S., & Farley, A. N. (2019). The use of video reflection for teacher education and professional learning. Mid-Western Educational Researcher,31(2), 263–273.

  28. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

  29. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

  30. Goertz, M. E., & Pitcher, B. (1985). The impact of NTE use by states on teacher selection (Research Report No. 85-1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

  31. Goldhaber, D., Cowan, J., & Theobald, R. (2017). Evaluating prospective teachers: Testing the predictive validity of the edTPA. Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research American Institutes for Research.

  32. Greenblatt, D. (2015). Investigating the authenticity of the edTPA. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

  33. Greenblatt, D. (2016). New York City elementary education teacher candidates' experience with the implementation of the edTPA. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, Annual Conference, Washington, DC.

  34. Gurl, T. J., Caraballo, L., Grey, L., Gunn, J. H., Gerwin, D., & Bembenutty, H. (2016). Policy, professionalization, privatization, and performance assessment: Affordances and constraints for teacher education programs. New York, NY: Springer.

  35. Haertal, E. H. (1991). New forms of teacher assessment. Review of Research in Education,17, 3–29.

  36. Haney, W., Madaus, G., & Kreitzer, A. (1987). Charms talismanic: Testing teachers for the improvement of American education. Review of Research in Education,14, 169–238.

  37. Henderson, M. (2015). The (mis)use of community of practice: Delusion, confusion, and instrumentalism in educational technology research. In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson, & C. Bigum (Eds.), Critical perspectives on technology and education (pp. 127–140). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

  38. Jaeger, E. L. (2013). Teacher reflection: Supports, barriers, and results. Issues in Teacher Education,22(1), 89–104.

  39. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education,54(3), 722–732.

  40. Kang, H., & van Es, E. A. (2019). Articulating design principles for productive use of uideo in preservice education. Journal of Teacher Education,70(3), 237–250.

  41. Kleinknecht, M., & Gröschner, A. (2016). Fostering preservice teachers’ noticing with structured video feedback: Results of an online-and video-based intervention study. Teaching and Teacher Education,59, 45–56.

  42. Kroeber, A., & Kluckholn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Peabody Museum Papers,47(1), 180–190.

  43. Landis, C. M., Scott, S. B., & Kahn, S. (2015). Examining the role of reflection in ePortfolios: A case study. International Journal of ePortfolio,5(2), 107–121.

  44. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  45. Lomask, M., Crismond, D., & Hacker, M. (2018). Using teaching portfolios to revise curriculum and explore instructional practices of technology and engineering education teachers. Journal of Technology Education,29(2), 54–72.

  46. Lyons, N. (1998). Reflection in teaching: Can it be developmental? A portfolio perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly,25, 115–127.

  47. Lys, D. B., L’Esperance, M., Dobson, E., & Bullock, A. A. (2014). Large-scale implementation of the edTPA: Reflections upon institutional change in action. Current Issues in Education,17(3), 1–12.

  48. Madaus, G. F., & Pullin, D. (1987). Teacher certification tests: Do they really measure what we need to know? Phi Delta Kappan,69, 31–38.

  49. Madeloni, B., & Gorlewski, J. (2013). Wrong answer to the wrong question: Why we need critical teacher education, not standardization. Rethinking Schools,27, 4.

  50. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education,56(2), 429–440.

  51. McKinney, M. (1998). Preservice teachers’ electronic portfolios: Integrating technology, self-assessment, and reflection. Teacher Education Quarterly,25, 85–103.

  52. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,9(2), 171–178.

  53. McLeod, R. H., Kim, S., & Resua, K. A. (2018). The effects of coaching with video and email feedback on preservice teachers’ use of recommended practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,38, 1–12.

  54. Meuwissen, K. W., & Choppin, J. M. (2015). Preservice teachers’ adaptations to tensions associated with the edTPA during its early implementation in New York and Washington states. Education Policy Analysis Archives,23, 103.

  55. Meuwissen, K. W., & Choppin, J. M. (2017). Representing teaching within high-stakes teacher performance assessments. In M. A. Peters, B. Cowie, & I. Menter (Eds.), A companion to research in teacher education (pp. 597–608). Singapore: Springer.

  56. Milman, N. B. (2005). Web-based digital teaching portfolios: Fostering reflection and technology competence in preservice teacher education students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,13(3), 373–396.

  57. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,108(6), 1017–1054.

  58. Muffoletto, R., & Knupfer, N. N. (1993). Computers in education: Social, political, and historical perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

  59. Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: A large-scale faculty professional development program on effective integration of educational technology. Educational Technology & Society,18(3), 16–28.

  60. Nast, T. (2014). Darling-Hammond: NY is messing up our teacher prep model. Co-Opt-Ed. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from https://co-opt-ed.org. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.

  61. Nelson, C. C., Waechter-Versaw, A., Mitchener, C. P., & Chou, V. (2014). Teacher performance assessment in the age of accountability: The case of the edTPA. Chicago: RUEPI, University of Illinois at Chicago.

  62. Pai, Y., Adler, S. A., & Shadlow, L. K. (1997). Cultural foundations of education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

  63. Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

  64. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon,9(5), 1–6.

  65. Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,10(2), 447–470.

  66. Reagan, E. M., Schram, T., McCurdy, K., Chang, T. H., & Evans, C. M. (2016). Politics of policy: Assessing the implementation, impact, and evolution of the performance assessment for California teachers (PACT) and edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives,24, 9.

  67. Ressler, M. B., King, K. B., & Nelson, H. (2016). Ensuring quality teacher candidates: Does the edTPA answer the call? In J. H. Carter & H. A. Lochte (Eds.), Teacher performance assessment and accountability reforms: The impacts of edTPA on teaching and schools (pp. 119–140). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

  68. Richert, A. E. (1990). Teaching teachers to reflect: A consideration of programme structure. Journal of Curriculum Studies,22(6), 509–527.

  69. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

  70. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education,59(4), 347–360.

  71. Russell, S., & Williams, R. (2002). Social shaping of technology: Frameworks, findings and implications for policy with glossary of social shaping concepts. In K. H. Sørensen & R. Williams (Eds.), Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces and tools (pp. 37–132). Cheltenham: Edward Algar.

  72. Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal,8(4), 538–560.

  73. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers: 3E. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  74. Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. W. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in preservice teacher education: An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,10(2), 123–140.

  75. Schultz, B. D., & Dover, A. G. (2016). We do everything with edTPA: Interrupting and disrupting teacher education in troubling times. In J. H. Carter & H. A. Lochte (Eds.), Teacher performance assessment and accountability reforms: The impacts of edTPA on teaching and schools (pp. 107–118). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

  76. Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (Eds.). (2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, controversies, and connections. New York, NY: Springer.

  77. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.

  78. Shepherd, C. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Examining preservice teacher inquiry through video-based, formative assessment e-portfolios. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,25(1), 31–37.

  79. Sherman, G. (2006). Instructional roles of electronic portfolios. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolios. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

  80. Shulman, L. S. (1986). A national board for teaching? In search of a bold standard. Washington, DC: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.

  81. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher,30(3), 23–28.

  82. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal,48(3), 586–619.

  83. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (ed.), New directions in education policy implementation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

  84. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  85. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning & Equity. (2015). Educative assessment & meaningful support: 2014 edTPA administrative report. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity. Retrieved from https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=2183&ref=edtpa. Accessed 16 Feb 2018.

  86. Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35–65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

  87. Suzuka, K., Frank, R., Crawford, E., & Yakel, E. (2018). Video re-use in mathematics teacher education. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 329–336). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  88. Thomas, M., & Liu, K. (2012). The performance of reflection: A grounded analysis of prospective teachers’ ePortfolios. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,20(3), 305–330.

  89. Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Resource dependence and institutional environments: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly,30, 1–13.

  90. Tylor, E. B. (1924). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art and custom (1st Vol). London: John Murray.

  91. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children,23(3), 34–41.

  92. Wahl, R. (2017). What can be known and how people grow: The philosophical stakes of the assessment debate. Studies in Philosophy and Education,36(5), 499–515.

  93. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  94. Weiss, C. H. (1983). Ideology, interests, and information: The basis of policy positions. In D. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis (pp. 213–245). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

  95. Whittaker, A., Pecheone, R. L., & Stansbury, K. (2018). Fulfilling our educative mission: A response to edTPA critique. Education Policy Analysis Archives,26, 30.

  96. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Craig De Voto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Voto, C., Thomas, M.K. Cultural sensemaking and the implementation of edTPA technological tools: lessons for the field. Education Tech Research Dev (2020) doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09732-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • edTPA
  • Teacher education
  • Technology
  • ePortfolios
  • High-stakes assessment