the teaching performance_final


 

 
 
Volume 13, Number 1                            ISSN 1099-839X 
 

 
The Teacher Performance Assessment: Reflections on the Pedagogical 

Thought Processes of Three Student Teachers 
 

Kimberlee A. Sharp, Ed.D.  
Morehead State University 

 
Citation 

Sharp, K.A. (2010). The Teacher Performance Assessment: Reflections on the Pedagogical  
Thought Processes of Three Student Teachers. Current Issues in Education, 13(1). 
Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ 

 

Abstract 

The impact of the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) on three pre-service teachers’ 

pedagogical thought processes and self-perceptions is the focus of this study. Qualitative 

research procedures included interviews, observations, and coding of the pre-service teachers’ 

written documents. Emerging themes and implications for teacher education include variance 

in: 1) the pre-service teachers’ ability to analyze and articulate learner outcome results; 2) how 

they thought they impacted student learning; and 3) their locus of control. 

 

Keywords: pre-service teachers, pre-service teacher supervision, qualitative research, teacher 

performance assessment 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 2 
 
About the Author(s) 

Author: Kimberlee A. Sharp, Ed.D. 
Affiliation: Morehead State University 
Address: 301-C Ginger Hall, Morehead, KY 40351. 
Email: k.sharp@moreheadstate.edu 
Biographical information: Kimberlee Sharp is an Assistant Professor of Teacher 

Education in the Department of Middle Grades and Secondary Education at Morehead 

State University in Kentucky. Her research efforts focus on the pedagogy of controversial 

issues in the social studies, citizenship education, and pre-service teacher preparation and 

supervision. 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 3 
 
 What is teacher quality? What attributes and dispositions must teachers possess to 

demonstrate quality? What is the relationship between teachers’ instructional decisions and 

students’ learning? These questions are just a few on the minds of teacher educators in this 

era of No Child Left Behind and heightened interest in pre-service teacher effectiveness. Because 

teacher attributes resulting in significant learner gains are difficult to determine and classify, 

recent experiences using performance assessments is drawing attention. This article suggests that 

the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA), although strong in its ability to evaluate entry- 

level teacher competencies, is capable of yielding more important information about teacher 

candidates: their pedagogical thought processes and perceptions of themselves as teachers. 

 

The Teacher Performance Assessment 

 Conceptualized at Western Oregon University as the “teacher work sample,” the Teacher 

Performance Assessment (TPA) was developed as a means to assist pre-service and new teachers 

to evaluate their instructional effects on learners (Devlin–Scherer, Burroughs, Daly & McCartan, 

2007; Girod & Girod, 2006). More precisely, Girod and Girod state that the purpose of the TPA 

is to develop in teachers the ability to “make systematic connections between their teaching 

actions and the learning of each student in their classrooms” using student data (p. 482). To 

ensure this occurs, pre-service and new teachers (“candidates,” henceforth) follow a six-step 

process while planning a unit of instruction which involves documenting: 1) student contextual 

features; 2) desired learning outcomes; 3) instructional plans; 4) assessment plans; 5) evidence of 

learner gains; and 6) reflections on student achievement and instructional decision – making 

(French, 2002). 

 It is not surprising that the TPA methodology is receiving widespread attention among 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 4 
 
teacher preparation programs. Federal and state education reforms have created a high-stakes 

atmosphere, and at no other time in American public school history has student achievement 

been scrutinized as closely as it is today (French, 2002; Mayer, 2005). Changes occurring in the 

credentialing and licensing of new teachers is an example of the impact of these reforms. Many 

states now have new-teacher induction programs, bureaucratic accountability systems, and new 

teacher standards to evaluate entry-level competence (Branyon, 2008; Mayer, 2005; Ohio 

Department of Education [ODE], 1999; Pecheone, Pigg, Chung & Souviney, 2005). In addition 

to these responses to education reform, teacher accreditation organizations, such as the National 

Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) have revised their standards to 

include performance-based models for assessing teacher candidates and accrediting teacher 

preparation programs (Cawyer & Caldwell, 2002; National Council for the Accreditation of 

Teacher Education [NCATE], 2008). 

 The current educational reform environment has given rise to several studies examining the 

value of using the TPA to evaluate teacher candidates’ entry-level teaching skills. One theme 

emerging from the current literature concerns candidates’ attitudes and supports they perceive to 

have received while completing a TPA. With regard to attitudes, Okhremtchouk, Seiki, Gilliland, 

Ateh, Wallace and Kato (2009) found the TPA adversely affects candidates’ ability to complete 

concurrent university coursework and impedes their ability to maintain normal sleeping routines 

and personal relationships. Another study conducted by Stone (1998) revealed lack of time and 

lack of preparation assistance by university supervisors as deterrents to 

the candidates’ attitudes toward performance-based assessment. Taking this finding further, 

Devlin – Scherer et al. (2007) reported that some mentor teachers are unsupportive of pre- 

assessment techniques as a method for determining instructional course of action by teacher 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 5 
 
candidates. Even worse, the candidates in Okhremtchouk et al. reported that mentor teachers had 

“nothing to do” with candidates’ teacher performance preparation and maintained an 

“indifference to [its] importance and significance” (p. 54). Thus, the attitudes regarding TPA 

supports reported in these studies may be suggestive of team members’ competing pedagogical 

beliefs and differing levels of expertise with performance assessment. Reports such as these may 

also justify the move of some teacher preparation programs to train partner teachers in the TPA 

process (Branyon, 2008; Devlin – Scherer et al.). 

 Recent research has also explored teacher candidates’ perceived value of the TPA in terms 

of informing their instructional practice. Girod & Girod’s (2006) web-based simulation, the 

“Cook School District Simulation,” is one example. Used as a training tool to introduce teacher 

candidates to performance assessment methodology, the Cook Simulation rendered positive 

results in candidates’ ability to connect teaching and learning in simulated classroom exercises. 

Okhremtchouk et al. (2009) found that despite the performance assessment’s negative features 

(i.e., the consumption of one’s time and the sacrifice of other coursework), candidates reported to 

have improved their skills in lesson plan development and aligning assessment with state 

standards. Branyon’s (2008) study further affirms the methodology’s power to inform 

instructional practice. This study reported that candidates “had indeed affected K-12 student 

learning” (p. 36), and the collaboration of skilled mentor teachers was an essential factor in the 

candidates’ performance. Yet another marker of the perceived value of the TPA by candidates is 

the extent to which they claim to differentiate instruction based upon diverse learning needs and 

learning styles. In the Devlin – Scherer et al. (2007) study, candidates reported reflection and 

experimentation with fusing theory and practice as the key elements to informing their 

instructional decisions regarding individualized adaptations. 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 6 
 
 In summary of the literature, the TPA is a powerful methodology for evaluating teacher 

candidate instructional effects on learners. It sensitizes beginning teachers to numerous factors 

and nuances of classroom teaching. Because of this, candidates need to possess nominal skills 

and understandings prior to commencing a TPA. The collective skills represented in the research 

above stipulate common features to determine candidate effectiveness, which include: 1) the 

ability to demonstrate effective oral and written communication; 2) the ability to identify and 

articulate learner outcomes; 3) the ability to identify appropriate assessment procedures; and 4) 

the ability to adapt instruction according to student dynamics and student outcomes. The 

collective research also underscores the importance of developmentally appropriate instructional 

practices as informed by theory and practice as well as the presentation of thorough and accurate 

content knowledge as requisite understandings of teacher candidates. The Teacher Education 

Program (TEP) described in this article affirmed this collective body of knowledge and 

scaffolded the skills and understandings in courses and field – experiences prior to its candidates’ 

Clinical Practice Semester. 

 

Methodology 

 The role of the TPA on the pedagogical thought processes of 3 student teachers and the 

perceived impact on student learning described in this article took place at a regional university 

in the Southern region of the United States during the 2008 spring semester. The National 

Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the state’s teacher licensing board 

accredit this university’s teacher education program. The College of Education at this university 

is composed of three departments, all of which share in the pre- and post-professional 

preparation of teachers, both undergraduate and graduate. 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 7 
 
 Prior to this College of Education’s adoption of the TPA, faculty assessed their student 

teachers’ initial teaching competencies using a portfolio of artifacts aligned with state teacher 

standards. Although the Portfolio was designed to represent a comprehensive evaluation of the 

student teachers’ exiting competencies, several faculty members criticized the method for its lack 

of tangible, quantifiable evidence of pre-service teacher skills (e.g., articulation of instructional 

decisions as determined by student data) and for its “scrapbook” format. Members of the 

faculty and clinical practice supervisors decided to replace the Portfolio with the TPA and 

vigorously drafted its own manual and scoring rubrics using existing TPA models, such as The 

Renaissance Partnership Teacher Work Sample (The Renaissance Partnership for Improving 

Teacher Quality [RPITQ], 2004). 

 The author (“professor,” henceforth) hoped to gain insight into the pedagogical thought 

processes of 3 student teachers during and following their work on the TPA. She solicited 

volunteers from among the College of Education’s student teachers during their Clinical Practice 

semester. The professor informed the volunteers that the inquiry would consist of regularly 

scheduled conferences, interviews, and observations in order to render conclusions about their 

thought processes, actions, and self – perceptions as teachers. 

 The professor collected data about the 3 student teachers’ pedagogical thought processes 

using methodology from the qualitative research tradition; more specifically, classroom action 

research. According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2000), this tradition involves researchers 

assisting teachers in “making judgments about how to improve their own practices” (p. 569). The 

professor employed a reflexive system of questioning in order to challenge the student teachers’ 

existing views of theory and practice as well as their interactions and actions in the classroom. In 

doing so, the professor relied upon the unique context of each student teacher’s placement to 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 8 
 
determine the sets of questions asked. However, to stimulate thinking about lesson planning and 

differentiation, the professor developed some common questions that she asked of each student 

teacher: 

1) Given the special needs identified in your classroom, how do you expect to modify 

instruction for every child? 

 2) What do you believe will be some obstacles or challenges when designing your lesson 

plans for your group of students? 

 3) What do you believe to be your strengths and/ or weaknesses with regard to the topic 

you are about to teach? What do you plan to do to compensate for weak areas? 

 4) Can you explain how community factors and background experiences of your students 

will impact the unit you are about to teach? And, how do you know these factors will impact 

learning? What is the relationship between the community factors and background experiences to 

the unit topic you are about to teach? What do you anticipate some misunderstandings will be? 

 As the student teachers progressed through the teaching of their units, the professor queried 

them about their lesson plans, the delivery of instruction, their assessment practices, and their 

instructional decision – making. Examples of these questions included: 

 1) During your lesson today, I noticed that you had confused the students on the 

explanation of two similar, but different concepts. Can you identify when that happened during 

your lesson and identify the two concepts? How do you think you 

will address this error tomorrow in your teaching? What strategy do you think will 

help iron – out the students’ confusion? (student teacher #1, Marie)  

 2) How did you derive the questions asked during the interviews of your students? Did 

these interviews elicit the responses you wanted? Why or why not? (student teacher 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 9 
 
#1, Marie)  

 3) What do you predict your students’ retention level will be using the strategy you have 

selected? What other strategies have you tried when helping your learners with 

rote – level tasks? Did they work? Why or why not? (student teacher #2, Anne)  

 4) During your lesson, I observed two students off-task. Can you identify when this 

occurred? Physical and cognitive disability aside, what could you do to ensure that everyone 

participate? How do you know they understand “rhyming”? Did the “tick- marks” used to tally 

their claps demonstrate an understand of rhyming? Why or why not? (student teacher #2, Anne) 

 5) Based upon results of your pre-assessment, what modern day examples do you think you 

could use to serve as analogies for explaining prohibition and women’s suffrage? How do you 

know your students will identify with these examples? What is their connection to these 

examples? (student teacher #3, June) 

 6) Can you explain how you decided upon “community-building” as part of your lesson 

plan development? What factors about the students influenced your decisions to use community 

building in your lessons? During your observation, I noticed a breakdown of the “democratic 

process.” What do you believe caused this breakdown? How do plan to restore democracy 

tomorrow? (student teacher #3, June) 

 The professor archived the questions and responses in individually labeled portfolios for 

each student teacher. These portfolios also held classroom observation protocols, email 

exchanges, the student teachers’ written lesson plans, action-impact-refinement essays, and 

drafts of narratives of their TPA documents. Following each meeting with the student teachers 

and review of TPA documents, the professor recorded notes on an Excel spreadsheet and coded 

them according to decisions about instructional strategies, adaptations, assessment procedures, 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 10 
 
and resources used. The professor also recorded verbatim comments made by the student 

teachers that appeared to be unique thoughts and responses to their teaching and learning 

experience. It was during this process of recording the student teachers’ interview comments, 

written reflections, and anecdotal information from observations that the professor employed the 

constant comparative method and discovered patterns emerging from the data. 

 According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), the constant comparison method enables the 

researcher to identify “variations in the patterns” of the data by comparing those patterns to 

various “properties and dimensions under different conditions” (p. 67). The researcher coded 

the student teachers’ information according to pre-conceived properties (e.g., instructional 

strategies, assessment plans, etc.) and found variance in their behaviors, thinking processes, and 

comments. The researcher deduced the variances were due to the individual context and 

predilection of each student teacher as well as the context of their classroom placement. This 

process generated three themes attributed to the student teachers’ entry-level competencies in 

which this article proceeds to report: 1) their ability to analyze and articulate learner outcome 

results; 2) their perceptions of how they thought they impacted student learning; and 3) the role 

their exhibited locus of control played in the delivery of their lessons. 

 

The Student Teachers 

 The professor assigned pseudonyms to the three student teachers in order to protect their 

anonymity. Each of the 3 participating student teachers were dual special education and regular 

education majors and completed their Clinical Practice Semester in the same school district close 

to the university. The school district services students of the entire county and consists of one 

high school, one middle school, and four elementary schools. Although the district is rural and 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 11 
 
generally homogenous in terms of ethnicity and religious background, several aspects regarding 

the grade level, classroom profile, and subject matter deemed each of these student teachers’ 

experiences as very different. 

 The first student teacher, Marie, was a dual elementary P-5/MSD (moderate to severe 

disabilities) P-12 major and assigned to a self-contained, inclusive 5th grade classroom. Several 

of Marie’s students exhibited the range of ability levels often associated with inclusive learning 

environments. These ability levels included students with significant learning delays and/ or 

disabilities in addition to students designated as academically gifted. At the time of Marie’s 

arrival, the class was studying early history and political life of the American colonies. To keep 

with this general theme, Marie’s cooperating teacher assigned the Preamble to the United States 

Constitution as the subject for her TPA learning sequence. 

 The second student teacher, Anne, also a dual elementary P-5/MSD P-12 major, was 

assigned to a self-contained, multi-age MSD classroom consisting of grades 6, 7, and 8. Each of 

the 9 students in this classroom had disabilities which precluded their ability to function in 

regular education settings, although a few of these students “went out” for physical education, 

social studies, and music. Some of the specific disabilities represented in this classroom included 

Down Syndrome, Childhood Ataxia with Central Hypomyelination (CACH), and other 

neurological and physical disorders impeding normal cognitive development and growth. The 

curriculum practiced in this classroom primarily focused on the practical living needs of the 

students supplemented with some academic instruction in reading, mathematics, and science. 

Anne’s cooperating teacher assigned poetry, more specifically, the attributes of rhyme and 

rhythm of poetry as her TPA learning sequence topic. 

 The third student teacher, June, was a dual elementary P-5/LBD (Learning and Behavior 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 12 
 
Disorders) P-12 major, and assigned to the county high school for her student teaching 

assignment. Her experience occurred in an 11th grade LBD Resource Classroom in which the 

students’ disabilities consisted of mild mental disorders, emotional behavioral disorders, and 

specific learning disabilities in reading and comprehension. June’s cooperating teacher taught 

mathematics, language arts, and social studies at different times of the day, and assigned June 

U.S. History, more specifically, the Roaring Twenties, as her subject for the TPA learning 

sequence. 

 

Findings 

 As stated previously, the professor spent significant time conferencing with the 3 

participating student teachers during and following the completion of their TPA for the purpose 

of understanding their pedagogical thought processes. These conferences along with their 

individual TPA documentation produced several findings which appeared to have profound 

effect on these pre-service teachers’ decision-making skills and the achievement of their 

students. These findings include variances in their understanding of their students’ prior 

knowledge and cognitive capabilities, their perceptions of how they thought they impacted 

student learning, and the extent to which their observed locus of control may have contributed to 

their perceptions of their impact on learning. 

 Prior to the TPA learning sequence, each student teacher ascertained their students’ prior 

knowledge by administering an informal pre-test. Although the student teachers gleaned 

productive information from these pre-tests, especially in the form of zeroing in on daily skill 

and concept targets, the professor noted differences in the student teachers’ expectations of 

student performance and cognitive capabilities. Marie, whose TPA learning sequence was 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 13 
 
written for a 5th grade social studies class, appeared to have the greatest challenge reconciling her 

students’ misunderstandings with her selected instructional strategies. Marie’s pre-test results 

indicated that 100% of her students could recite the Preamble with near perfection, that 62.5% of 

her students understood that the Preamble is an introduction, and that 37.5% of her students 

knew the Preamble is part of the U.S. Constitution. These results indicated that her students’ 

rote-level understanding of the Preamble was sufficient and did not require extensive re- 

teaching. However, the pre-test also showed Marie that only .03% of her students understood the 

meaning of each of the 6 goals listed in the Preamble; thus, “after the pre-test, it was clear that 

my students only had a superficial understanding of the Preamble” and its role in American’s 

lives. This pre-test result caused Marie to focus her daily instruction on the “current day 

representations of each goal so that [the] students can derive meaning from the complex words.” 

Marie developed higher – order objectives using Bloom’s Taxonomy that she hoped would 

enable her students “to apply those meanings to present day experiences.” In summary, Marie 

“felt that having the students recite a bunch of big words without any conceptual understanding 

would serve little, if any practical purpose.” 

 To aid her students’ understanding of the Preamble and its current day representations, 

Marie planned a variety of instructional strategies that were hands-on, engaging, and nurtured 

conceptual understanding. The conferences with Marie and the notes in her TPA revealed that 

she planned these exercises according to Lev Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal 

development utilizing scaffolds such as rich conversation, analogies, and current event 

representations of the Preamble. Marie alluded to this constructivist approach by commenting, 

I will probe the students about their understanding of the Constitution ... as an 

analogy using a game board. This activity will take the form of a whole class 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 14 
 

discussion ... present[ing] the information in a student inquiry method. I will 

have the students discover the meaning of the game board by guiding them to 

the final conclusion that the Constitution is like the instruction manual for our 

nation’s government. 

Marie also demonstrated a constructivist approach to teaching this topic by her frequent 

use of “interactive PowerPoint,” in which the teacher recorded student comments and questions 

on the computer for all students to see. This approach allowed Marie’s students an opportunity to 

revise their thinking about each goal of the Preamble as they proceeded through their activities. 

Using the interactive PowerPoint Marie “move[d] onto the next activity using newspapers ... 

each group [having] one goal from the Preamble and had them take time to locate articles from 

the newspaper that represent that goal.” As each group presented their current event 

representation of the Preamble, “students [were] encouraged to jot down notes” using the 

PowerPoint as their guide. 

 Although Marie observed slight gains in her students’ conceptual understanding of the 

Preamble’s 6 goals, she appeared somewhat discouraged in their ability to retain or make sense 

of the goals’ abstract meanings. To compensate for this, she supplemented the interactive 

PowerPoint exercises with core content textbooks, re-taught the newspaper exercise using video 

clips and discussion, and asked the students to illustrate their personal constructions of the goals 

in small groups. The professor’s classroom observations with Marie also indicated that she had 

confused the students during their daily discussions on two of the goals by giving vague 

definitions and examples to ambiguous goals, namely, “providing for the common defense” and 

“establishing domestic tranquility.” Despite this error, the students’ scores regarding the 

meanings of the 6 goals listed in the Preamble did improve on the post-assessment that Marie 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 15 
 
administered, moving from .03% correct responses to 56.2% correct. Marie commented that, 

those scores show a marked improvement in the conceptual understanding of the goals ... I think 

that this [the Preamble] was an extremely challenging and abstract concept for 5th graders to 

understand and that my class especially had trouble due to their limited means and limited 

experience outside of their rural community.  

 Marie exhibited a strong internal locus of control in her TPA documentation as well as 

during the conferences she had with the professor. When asked about how she thought she 

impacted student learning, it was clear that she derived her explanations from thoughtful 

observations and data evaluation. She testified in her TPA that 88.8% of her students improved 

their conceptual understanding of each of the Preamble’s goals between their pre-test and post- 

test performances. She made a decision to “teach the Preamble from a conceptual 

standpoint” and added that she “expect[ed] the students at the end of the unit to be able to 

provide specific examples and evidence of how the goals in the Preamble can be seen in action 

today.” Marie’s decision-making appeared effective as she observed that her students “provided 

examples of each goal from the Preamble,” and attributed her students’ success to factors for 

which she was in control as evidenced in her comment that, “after reviewing the students’ 

[written] answers, I 

could see much of my phrasing that was used throughout the learning sequence.” In short, 

Marie’s students were successful in repeating drilled examples of the Preamble’s goals in written 

form. 

 Further evidence of Marie’s strong internal locus of control in impacting student learning 

occurred during the administration of a second tier to her post-test. Cleverly designed to augment 

her understanding of the depth of knowledge gained by her students, Marie interviewed 4 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 16 
 
students of differing academic abilities and socioeconomic backgrounds about the goals set forth 

in the Preamble by showing them pictures of events, people, and/ or situations. Marie noted vast 

differences and errors in their responses and interpretations about the pictures, and reasoned that 

5th grade students have “a limited ability to attach the meaning of the goals to pictorial 

representations” and to explain them in their own words. Marie further reasoned that her 

students’ difficulty to think abstractly on the subject was due to their “limited experiences,” yet 

qualified this statement by recounting various compensations she implemented to bridge the 

experience gap. Thus, Marie’s use of interview allowed her to discover firsthand the degree to 

which environment plays in students’ abstract thinking and served to reconcile for her the 

importance of examining instructional inputs in light of students’ special backgrounds. 

 Anne’s experiences teaching her TPA learning sequence and the expectations she had for 

her students were notably different than Marie’s; the most important difference being the student 

context of Anne’s classroom: multi-age students with severe neurological, physical, and 

cognitive disabilities. Each of Anne’s students were exempt from state standardized testing. As 

Marie had done, Anne administered a pre-test about rhyme and rhythm in poetry. Her pre-test 

differed from Marie’s, however, because Anne developed pre-tests according to each student’s 

individual IEP and Alternate Portfolio. Having access to each of the students’ records therefore 

enabled Anne to effectively plan her learning sequence and assessments based upon known 

abilities and frustration levels. 

 Each student failed Anne’s pre-test which contained questions regarding the rudiments of 

poetry, rhyme, and rhythm. Anne informed the professor that she expected each of the students 

to fail the pre-test because of their cognitive disabilities and because “the students lacked basic 

understanding and / or awareness of this literary genre.” Anne reasoned that her daily objectives 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 17 
 
needed to focus on the lowest levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, and, tasks will need to be age 

appropriate since they are in middle school, even though their academic and functional abilities 

are as low as a typical 1st grader ... I feel emphasizing the knowledge, comprehension, and 

application levels will be appropriate for my students because I want them to work at both the 

independent and instructional levels. I don’t want to push my students to their frustration level 

because they can get very sensitive, and their [impaired] confidence will prohibit them from 

achieving my objectives. 

 As a result of Anne’s acute attention to her students’ cognitive capabilities, she developed 

only one to two lower-order objectives for each day of her instructional sequence with sub-

objectives specifying adaptations for each student. 

 The theoretical foundation by which Anne selected instructional strategies to teach about 

rhyme and rhythm in poetry differed markedly from Marie’s unit on the Preamble. Whereas the 

latter relied heavily on “students making meaning,” (i.e., constructivism), the former selected 

strategies which had more in common with behaviorist assumptions about learning (Parsons, 

Hinson, & Sardo – Brown, 2001). Using the stimulus – response model, Anne taught rhyme by 

reading rhyming words from Shel Silverstein’s (1996) “Spoiled Brat” and having her students 

match Silverstein’s words to highlighted words on individualized worksheets. In addition, Anne 

attempted to teach rhythm by breaking down the skill into small, easily emulated tasks. Anne 

introduced syllables and rhythm by reading segments of another Shel Silverstein (1974) poem, 

“Alice.” She read phrases out loud and clapped with the expectation of students echo clapping in 

unison. As a follow up to this exercise, the students were given a sheet with the poem printed on 

it. To the side of each phrase, space was provided for students to write in tick marks. Tick marks 

indicated each time a clap was heard. For this activity, the teacher clapped the poem as the 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 18 
 
students made tick marks. 

 Following the post-assessment on rhyme and rhythm in poetry, Anne discovered that her 

students demonstrated limited success toward her established objectives. Anne’s pre-test scores 

were extremely low prior to her unit (i.e., 33%, 44%, 25%, and 0% for each of the four students 

taught), yet the daily formative assessment scores were nearly perfect. Anne commented, 

with the results of their formatives being so high, I expected a near perfect summative 

assessment [for each student] ... Knowing that my students have such limited cognitive ability, I 

had to provide several manipulatives and accommodations during their lessons to help them be 

successful. 

 Anne was surprised with the students’ post-test results as only two students passed her test 

on rhyme and rhythm with scores of 70% or higher. Anne’s reflection revealed that she may 

have contributed to the low scores by not taking into account her students’ inability “to retain 

even the simplest skills and pieces of information on a day-to-day basis.” As a self-identified 

growth area, Anne emphasized the need for frequent repetition, modeling, and immersion while 

developing new skills and concepts, especially with students having moderate to severe learning 

disabilities. 

 Whereas Anne’s TPA documentation and conference notes indicated significant 

elaborations regarding her instructional plans and was replete with data used to inform her 

practice, Anne’s perceptions for how she thought she impacted learning were less detailed. The 

professor observed that her reasoning emanated largely from the obvious physical and cognitive 

impairments of her students, their academic histories, and their behaviors in class; in other 

words, factors beyond her immediate control. Thus, Anne exhibited a greater tendency to justify 

her students’ performance based on their disabilities and other extraneous factors. In terms of her 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 19 
 
students’ reluctant behaviors and limited attention spans, Anne attributed frequent interruptions 

in the classroom as the impediment for meaningful instruction to occur, by noting, 

most of my students need bathroom assistance, which is provided by the teacher or one of her 

aides. This can take away a lot of the day because of how much time it takes to get to every 

student in the room. 

 Anne also attributed her students’ limited attention span on day 2 of her learning sequence 

by commenting, “My students were not as engaged in the activities I had. The behavior of one 

student was slouching, putting her head down, and arguing. Others were frustrated that we were 

working with poetry again.” And finally, Anne pointed out that in order to maintain a student’s 

Alternate Portfolio designation, pre-test scores for the core content must fall below 50%, and 

based upon that standard, “By looking at my [post-test] results, I feel that my students did have 

success.” 

 Anne’s TPA lacked compelling evidence to suggest that she thought constructively about 

the impact of the external factors on her instructional delivery and on her students’ achievement, 

even though she mentioned the externals several times. Anne provided little to no reflection for 

how to atone for those factors by taking responsibility for them. Instead, Anne’s documentation 

contained several references of the burden for achievement as belonging to the students, such as 

in her statement that, “Being able to retain knowledge into another lesson can be hard for 

students, but it is especially hard for my students.” Further, Anne’s documentation mentioned 

“review” as a means to address her students’ inability to “retain knowledge”; yet she 

inadvertently failed to identify specific instructional interventions and their predicted impact on 

learning. Because of this omission, Anne’s understanding of the overall contributions she made 

toward her students’ achievement may only be superficial. 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 20 
 
 The final student teacher, June, appeared to have the fewest struggles planning and 

teaching her TPA learning sequence. Like Anne, June had access to her students’ individual IEPs 

and academic histories which enabled her to differentiate instruction according to specific 

learning styles and needs. Although her students were 11th graders in a special education 

Resource Classroom, none of her students’ learning delays were severe enough for exemption 

from the state standardized test for U.S. History. In conferencing with June, the professor found 

that developing a learning sequence with strong connections to the present was her primary 

focus. With help from her cooperating teacher and investigation into the state’s core content for 

assessment, June identified the “Roaring Twenties” as the topic that would elicit the greatest 

interest and discussion among her students. 

 June’s pre-test consisted of 10 questions using the Anticipation Guide method (Fisher, 

Brozo, Frey, & Ivey, 2007). Her aim was to determine what the students considered fact or 

fiction regarding women’s suffrage, prohibition, and cultural change in the 1920s. The results of 

June’s pre-test showed that the students had naïve constructions of the term, “women’s 

suffrage,” had little understanding of the term “prohibition” and its effects on American society, 

yet had realistic understanding of the impact of automobiles and factories on society and on the 

economy. These misunderstandings caused June to focus her learning sequence on women’s 

suffrage and prohibition by, tapping into students’ interests and background experiences, asking 

them to make comparisons of women’s rights of yesteryear with the present, and by asking them 

to think about restrictions on the sale of alcohol in our state today compared to the past. June’s 

TPA suggested numerous efforts to compensate for her students’ lower academic 

aptitudes and impaired motivations to learn by involving them in the planning and decision- 

making process of the learning sequence. Much in the spirit of John Dewey’s (1933) democracy-



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 21 
 
building in the classroom, June commented that, “Each of [the students] gave me their 

suggestions on how to make the unit beneficial to them . . . I added those suggestions before I 

taught the unit. These suggestions included more visuals and more class participation 

assignments.” 

 In addition, June attempted to nurture community- building and participatory citizenship 

skills among her students by involving them in a constructive discussion exercise. June observed 

that the topics of women’s rights and restrictions on the sale of alcohol evoked emotional and 

argumentative responses from her students. The professor observed that June did not succumb to 

their outbursts and strong convictions; instead, she decided to channel their intensity “by having 

them participate in a teacher - moderated debate between the boys and girls.” To prepare her 

students for the debate, June provided video clips, primary sources such as advertisements and 

photographs, and short journal articles and newspaper clippings as resources for their position 

development. 

 June’s students collectively demonstrated significant gains in achievement between her 

pre-test and post-test administrations; the former average being 66.67% and the latter being 

92.67%. She noted, however, that her students struggled on the segment of the post-test which 

assessed students’ analysis of the Roaring Twenties’ issues and their relationship to 

contemporary society. June noted that because of the open-ended format and requirement to 

“write complete sentences and use paragraph form,” her students “had trouble explaining in 

writing, when they rarely have trouble explaining verbally,” even though the task was necessary 

for her to determine their depth of understanding. 

 Throughout the TPA process, June exuded enthusiasm and self-confidence in her 

instructional abilities both in her written documentation and conversations with the professor. 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 22 
 
June opined in her reflection, I feel that I have not only grown as a teacher, but I have also grown 

as a human being. I have been able to experience this growth from the beginning to the end. 

Now, that it is over, I feel successful and confident in my abilities and for a new teacher that is 

the best reward. 

 Perhaps more so than her peers, June claimed the greatest responsibility for her actions and 

their effects on her learners, suggesting a strong internal locus of control. To support her 

students’ recommendations regarding strategies they would like to see her employ, June overtly 

sought ways to make her unit on the Roaring Twenties meaningful through extensive 

background reading on the subject. Owning up to this responsibility she commented, 

I think that I need to focus on the content areas I struggle with in order to better prepare myself 

for the classroom. As teachers, we are taught a wide range of content and information in a short 

period of time. With that in mind, I believe that as much as we tell our students that they need to 

be lifelong learners, we ourselves need to take that into consideration and should never stop 

increasing our knowledge of the content. 

 Insofar as the perceived impact June’s instruction had on her students, the professor 

observed that June felt she could control for her students’ various learning disabilities by actively 

involving them in the learning process. June’s written notes indicated that her cooperating 

teacher conditioned the students to work silently and independently in the Resource Classroom 

with little teacher/student interaction. By experimenting with Deweyian principles, June altered 

the learning arrangement to include group work, exchange of ideas through debate and 

discussion, and democratic decision-making. Her own decisions to include these strategies 

appeared beneficial, as evidenced in her observation that, “Each of my students was able to give 

an ‘alcohol’ law and state their opinion on why the government created that law. Learning from 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 23 
 
each other’s comments, this discussion was very successful in meeting my objective.” 

 Thus, June’s thought processes recorded in her TPA suggest that she perhaps displayed the 

strongest self-efficacy, or power, to impact learning among the three student teachers. She 

appeared to exert enthusiasm for the teaching process, appeared to own the responsibility for 

student achievement regardless of extenuating factors, and appeared to compensate for her 

students’ motivational challenges by involving them in the instructional decision-making 

process. 

 

Discussion 

 As stated earlier, the purpose of this inquiry was to help the professor gain a better insight 

into student teachers’ pedagogical thought processes and perceived impacts on student learning 

during their completion of a TPA. The professor’s inquiry involved only 3 student teachers and 

therefore the results described in this article are not necessarily demonstrative of their peers’ 

within the same population. Nonetheless, the professor uncovered worthwhile observations about 

these 3 student teachers’ thought processes and actions during their TPA which may have 

implications for teacher preparation programs and for predicting teacher effectiveness. 

Specifically, these implications concern the articulation of desirable TPA outcomes and desirable 

supervision of student teachers during their completion of TPAs. 

First and perhaps most important, the snapshots of these 3 student teachers’ experiences 

reveal that they demonstrated rudimentary instructional and analysis skills. Their TPAs represent 

the first opportunity to independently plan, implement, and analyze student assessment results 

for an entire learning sequence. In terms of knowing what to teach and cogitating appropriate 

strategies, each of these student teachers appeared to understand the connection between pre-



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 24 
 
tests and instructional targets. Additionally, each student teacher attempted to address student 

learning needs and learning preferences by differentiating instruction as much as possible.

 One explanation for these observations may rest in the fact that each of the 3 student 

teachers majored in both regular and special education (i.e., MSD and LBD specifically) and 

benefited from the emphasis placed on assessment and differentiation in their special education 

courses. If this is true, which continued research in this area could illumine, teacher preparation 

programs utilizing the TPA as a means of evaluating candidate competency should ensure all 

methods courses embed assessment and differentiation practices in their syllabi. 

 A second implication regarding these 3 student teachers’ experiences during their TPA 

completion is in the area of data analysis. Each of the student teachers adequately reported pre- 

test, formative, and summative assessment results in their TPAs using appropriate statistical 

calculations, graphs, and tables. Each attempted to articulate the meanings of those results; 

however, these attempts depicted nothing more than written summaries of their graphs, tables, 

and data artifacts found in the TPA appendices. Although sensitized to the importance of data 

collection and analysis to inform instruction, each of the 3 student teachers lacked important 

inferences and speculations about their students’ achievement and long – term impact on 

learning. An explanation for this observation may reside in the psychology of cognitive 

development; that as adults continue to grow and enter new situations and experiences, their 

ability to reason contextually expands. Due to these student teachers’ experiential and cognitive 

limitations, teacher preparation programs may need to consider the inability of the TPA to 

evaluate the likelihood new teachers can effectively use and make meaning of student data. 

 A third and final implication regarding these 3 student teachers’ thought processes during 

the completion of their TPA concerns the influence of internal and external factors on the 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 25 
 
shaping of their instructional decision-making. Two of the student teachers exhibited strong 

internal loci of control as evidenced by taking responsibility for reducing barriers to learning and 

holding students to high standards for achievement. The other student teacher, although equally 

capable and conscientious in her efforts, exhibited an external locus of control tendency as 

factors beyond her control (i.e., the students’ obvious physical and neurological disabilities, and 

classroom interruptions) appeared to influence her instructional responses. An explanation 

accounting for this variance in their decision-making and perceived impacts on learning may 

reside in their innate personalities, but also in the degree to which they believe their instructional 

efforts will be worthwhile. As a result, teacher preparation programs utilizing the TPA should 

nourish the attitude in their student teachers that all students are capable of learning regardless of 

intervening factors. Supervisors particularly should regularly query and challenge their student 

teachers’ thought processes in such a way that is conducive to enlightened instructional practice. 

 In closing, this article reported on the pedagogical thought processes of 3 student teachers 

as derived from TPA documentation and conferencing. The findings included variances in the 

student teachers’ understanding of their students’ prior knowledge and cognitive capabilities, 

their perceptions of how they thought they impacted student learning, and the extent to which 

their observed locus of control may have contributed to their self-perceptions. The insights 

illuminated in this article will hopefully spawn new interest and dialogue in the evaluative 

possibilities of the TPA in predicting teacher candidate effectiveness as it relates to student 

achievement. 

References 

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American 
Psychological Association (5th ed.).  Washington, DC: Author 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 26 
 
Branyon, J. (2008). Using mentoring and cohort collaboration: Enhancing teacher quality in pre-

service teachers. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(3), 35–38. 
 
Cawyer, C., & Caldwell, D.A. (2002). Performance-based assessment of teacher education: 

Some contextual considerations. Action in Teacher Education, 23(4), 1–3. 
 
Devlin – Scherer, R., Burroughs, G., Daly, J., & McCartan, W. (2007). The value of the teacher 

work sample for improving instruction and program. Action in Teacher Education, 29(1), 
51–60. 

 
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the 

educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. 
 
Fisher, D., Brozo, W.G., Frey, N., & Ivey, G. (2007). Anticipation guides. In 50 content area 

strategies for adolescent literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson 
 
Education, Inc. French, R. (2002). Linking teacher quality to student achievement through 

assessment [monograph]. Basic Education: A Monthly Forum for Analysis & Comment, 
 46(10), 12–16.  
 
Girod, M., & Girod, G. (2006). Exploring the efficacy of the cook school district 
 simulation [Electronic version]. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(5), 481–497.  
 
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N.K. Denzin & 
 Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, (pp. 567–605). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications, Inc. 
Mayer, D. (2005). Reviving the “policy bargain” discussion: Professional accountability and the 

contribution of teacher performance assessment. The Clearing House, 78(4), 177–181. 
 
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for 

the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, D.C.: NCATE. 
 
Ohio Department of Education. (1999). Ohio’s entry year program for teachers: Toward the 

implementation of performance- based licensure. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 
No. ED 436495). 

 
Okhremtchouk, I., Seiki, S., Gilliland, B., Ateh, C., Wallace, M., & Kato, A. (2009). Voices of 

pre-service teachers: Perspectives on the performance assessment for California Teachers 
(PACT). Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 39–62. 

 
Parsons, R.D., Hinson, S.L., & Sardo-Brown, D. (2001). Educational psychology: A practitioner 

– researcher model of teaching. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning, Inc. 
 
Pecheone, R.L., Pigg, M.J., Chung, R.R., & Souviney, R.J. (2005). Performance assessment and 

electronic portfolios: Their effect on teacher learning and education. The Clearing House, 
78(4), 164–176. 



T he T eacher P erform ance A ssessm ent 27 
 
 
Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality. (2004). The teacher work sample: 

Manual for teacher candidates – tips for preparing the teacher work sample. Retrieved June 
30, 2008 from http://www.uni.edu/itq/PDF_files/student_tws_manual_june_2004.pdf 

 
Silverstein, S. (1974). Alice. In where the sidewalk ends. New York, NY: Harper Collins 

Publishers, Inc. 
 
Silverstein, S. (1996). Spoiled brat. In Falling up. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 

Inc. 
 
Stone, B.A. (1998). Problems, pitfalls, and benefits of portfolios. Teacher Education Quarterly, 

25(1), 105–114. 
 
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

         Current Issues in Education         
http://cie.asu.edu 

Volume 13, Number 1                              ISSN 1099-839X 
 

Authors hold the copyright to articles published in Current Issues in Education. Requests to reprint CIE 
articles in other journals should be addressed to the author. Reprints should credit CIE as the original 

publisher and include the URL of the CIE publication. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article, 
provided CIE is credited and copies are not sold. 

 
 



C urrent Issues in E ducation V ol. 13 N o. 1 28 
 

 
Editorial Team  

Executive Editors   
Jeffery Johnson 
Lori Ellingford  

Katy Hirsch 
 

Section Editors 
Krista Adams 

Hillary Andrelchik 
Miriam Emran 
Tracy Geiger 
Sarah Heaslip 

Melinda Hollis 
Amber Johnston 
Seong Hee Kim 

Lindsay Richerson 
Rory Schmitt 

Tapati Sen 
Jennifer Wojtulewicz 

Lucinda Watson 
 

 
Faculty Advisers 

Gustavo E. Fischman 
Jeanne M. Powers 

Debby Zambo