Approaches to Measuring

Teaching Practice: Review of

Seven Systems

Tony Milanowski
University of Wisconsin-Madison
(With Contributions from Herb Heneman & Steve Kimball)
Teaching Assessment Links Competencies
to HC Management Systems
 Seven Assessment Approaches
• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)
• Formative Assessment System Continuum of Teacher Development
- New Teacher Center at University of California Santa Cruz
• Framework for Teaching & Framework adaption by the Cincinnati
Public Schools
• National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification
Assessments
• Teacher Advancement Program (National Institute for Excellence in
Teaching)
• Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT)
• PRAXIS III© (Educational Testing Service)
 Preliminary Conclusion 1
• Considerable agreement on competencies
– Engagement
– Promote HOTS
– Differentiation of instruction
– Use of formative assessment
– High expectations
– Pedagogical content knowledge

• But specific differences in emphasis are worth noting

– PACT & National Board assessments are most concerned with
content & pedagogical content knowledge
– CLASS has a special emphasis on teacher/student relationships
– In Cincinnati, the emphasis is on standards
 Preliminary Conclusion 2
• Generic models can be customized by
incorporating key elements of state or
district strategy (Cincinnati, TAP)
– Student standards
– Curriculum alignment
– Grade or subject teaming
– Use of particular literacy or math approach
 Preliminary Conclusion 3
• Convergence on what is needed for
reliable assessment
– Clear standards & multi-level behavior-based
rubrics
– Assessor training
– Accountability for accuracy

• The technology to reliably assess teaching

exists
– NB, PACT, CLASS, Cincinnati can all produce
reliable ratings
 Preliminary Conclusion 4
• There is promising technology to improve
the efficiency of teaching assessments
– Videos & written reflections as used in NB &
PACT can allow assessment outside of the
school year
– MyTeachingPartner based on CLASS shows
how efficient formative assessment and
coaching can work
 Preliminary Conclusion 5
• Some promising evidence on relationship
to student achievement for:
– CLASS
– Cincinnati Framework adaptation
– National Board
– PACT predecessor (Connecticut BEST)
 Preliminary Conclusion 6
• One assessment method is not going to fit all HCM
purposes
– Performance tasks as used by NBPTS & PACT seem best
for assessing content & pedagogical content knowledge
– Need to add observational protocols to assess classroom
management & student relationships
• But all assessments need to be aligned based on the
same competency model
 Specification
1. Underlying competency model should
reflect drivers of student achievement &
state/district strategies
2. System should be applicable to all grade
levels/subjects/experience levels
3. Include performance tasks to assess
content & pedagogical content knowledge
4. Use content-knowledgeable assessors
 Specification
5. Include features that promote reliable and valid
measurement
– multi-level, behaviorally-anchored rating scales or rubrics
– assessor training & accountability
– multiple assessors/observations
6. Include features that promote teacher learning:
– Feedback for teachers to understand their scores
– Coaching and assistance for teachers who want to improve
– Assessment embedded in a planned set of developmental
activities as part of induction and intensive professional
development
 Our Tentative Roadmap
1. Develop competency model
Student Achievement Goals

Instructional Strategies

What Teachers Need to Know

& be Able to Do

Competency Models
Underlying Existing Current
Teaching Competency Model State/District
Assessments Teaching Standards
 Roadmap
2. Decide on a high-leverage initial use
Full professional license
– Tenure decision
– Pay system
2. –Develop assessment plan
Choose assessment methods suited to competencies to be assessed
– Reliability & validity critical
– Consider performance task “work samples” as core of assessment
–
 Roadmap
What might an assessment based on performance
tasks/work samples look like?
• Based on instructional unit
• Teacher submits descriptions of students,
unit/lesson plans, videos, assessments, student
work & feedback, explanations of decisions &
reflections
• Submitted electronically
• Scored externally by content-knowledgeable
assessors
 Roadmap
4. Pilot test & revise
5. Analyze assessment needs for other HCM uses & develop supporting assessments
6. Collect reliability & validity evidence from initial assessments and periodically thereafter
 Roadmap
7. Consider combining teaching practice
assessments with measures of student
outcomes
– Calibration: compare specific assessors’ scores with
value-added; look for causes of big discrepancies
– Complementary Measurement: using both value-
added and practice assessments to provide multiple
performance measures for some important human
capital management decisions
How Can SMHC Move Forward on
this Agenda?