Pre-Service Teachers’ Reactions to Education Teacher Performance Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of study was to explore the experiences of teacher candidates about being assessed by the Education Teacher Preparation Assessment (edTPA) requirements during their student teaching practicum. Fifty-six elementary and adolescent majors working for a Master of Science Degree in Education participated in the study by responding to open-ended survey questions. The study aimed at answering two research questions: (1) What are the challenges/concerns that the student teachers report about their experiences of edTPA during their student teaching placements? (2) Do teacher candidates suggest edTPA remains as part of the teacher education program requirement? The findings of the study indicate that the teacher candidates are adamant about their unfavorable experiences of edTPA implementation. They expressed that they found edTPA requirements to be an additional burden, not beneficial, a distraction, and they suggest that edTPA should be discarded from current teacher education programing. While such findings call for considerations to revisit aspects of edTPA for improvement, further studies are suggested to add insight into the nature of edTPA implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".