1. Self-Assessment with the PTEPA. Rubric
Self-Assessment with the PTEPA* Rubric * Physics Teacher Education Program Analysis
Stephanie Chasteen (Chasteen Educational Consulting)
Monica Plisch (APS)
Rachel Scherr (Scherr & Associates)
Outline here:
Here introduce myself and mention Rachel.

2. Activity 1: Case studies
On your own, read the two case studies.
What are these institutions doing well?
Underline the key features as you go.
5 minutes

3. 1. What problem are we trying to solve with this project?

4. What does excellence in physics teacher preparation look like?
KCs are useful, but don’t allow systematic categorization.
The case studies allow us to extract useful features, but not compare ourselves against them or look for areas of improvement.
How can we do systematic research? How can we guide sites as to what they might add to their approach?
Common question from sites: These KCs are great, but what should we do first?
Photos courtesy BYU, Rowan, GSU.

5. Our solution: Start to define excellence by creating a system to measure it.
PTEPA Rubric is a rubric to systematically categorize what teacher preparation programs do.
Enables self-study and research (will NOT be used as a program assessment per se).
The solution is to develop a rubric to describe what thriving programs do.
The rubric will allow us to do systematic research (what tends to happen at an R1? What elements seem most consistently connected to high teacher production?) and for sites to do self-assessment and use that to guide programmatic change.
MONICA can speak here.

6. Methods
Set out to create a rubric which describes what Thriving Physics Teacher Education Programs* do.
Started with TEPA + compared to physics specific research.
Applied at 8 diverse thriving programs in site visits.
Revised, revised, revised, revised.
Thriving programs were phystec and non.
*Large institutions producing 5+ physics teachers/year

7. Note feedback sheet
At the end of your handouts is a sheet for providing feedback or commentary on the PTEPA Rubric.
Please make any notes you would like to communicate to me as we go!

8. Activity 2: Orientation
Rate your site on the two PTEPA Rubric items on your handout (do the 3rd if you finish early). Discuss.
5 minutes
11:00

9. Orienting to the structure
There are 6 Standards:
Institutional Commitment
Leadership & Collaboration
Recruitment
Knowledge & Skills for Teaching Physics
Mentoring and Professional Support
Program Assessment
Note which standards they saw (2, 4 and 5).
Process included reorganizing content into these standards; discovered standards through site visits.

10. Orienting to the structure of the PTEPA Rubric
Each Standard has:
3-4 Components
Items
3 levels per Item
Prevalent items.
Notes:
Items are unidimensional
Levels are not intended to be interpreted numerically (1, 2, 3)
Prevalent items may eventually lead to shorter rubric.
Discuss items, trying to be unidimensional
Discuss meaning of basic/benchmark/exemplary and how they were chosen. THEY ARE NOT NUMERICAL.

11. You have several things in your folder
Snapshot
Overview
Rubric
The whole shebang
Introduction to the PTEPA
Q&A document
Also online: Interactive Excel version of the PTEPA Rubric
Show interactive version.
Take a few minutes to look through. Quick questions/comments?

12. Activity 3: Exploration
Visit the two components spread around the room; feel free to discuss.
Rate your sites with stickers.
You may want your copy of the PTEPA Rubric to read in hand.
10 minutes
11:15

13. 2A: Program Team Members
Directors
Tenured faculty
TIRs or Master Teachers
Administrators
For more examples from sites, see Introduction document.
11:25
Picture courtesy of Rowan

14. 2A: Program Team Members: Range of responses
Most sites were at Exemplary level for leaders & team
TIR and TAG are less consistent; but TIR still prevalent.
Mention that we required some confidence level to indicate that the majority of sites were benchmark in each.
Mention how TIR is a lynchpin, from this many other things follow such as recruitment, mentoring, positive ambassador for teaching, good supervision in student teaching.
Team members vs. collaboration with SoE. Collaboration with SoE is separate.

15. 3B: Recruitment Activities
Announcements in courses
s, postcards, speak at orientation
Celebrated teaching career track
“Go to” advisor in dept.
Early teaching experiences are a separate component
11:30
Picture courtesy of CU Boulder

16. 3B: Recruitment Activities: Range of responses across sites
Physics teaching ambassador and advisor are particularly prevalent
Note that accurate information about teaching careers data is preliminary.
Some don’t do program promotion because they have plenty of students. The physics department is quite variable. But need the go-to advisor. And all have a teaching ambassador.

17. Small group discussion: PTEPA Rubric Content
Discuss the content of the PTEPA Rubric.
What gaps did you discover in your program during the exercise?
Can you help each other identify ways to address these gaps, from your experience?
5 minutes
11:35

18. Now let’s discuss the PTEPA Process
How would you use the PTEPA Rubric?
To identify gaps?
To argue for resources?
How would you gather the information or incentivize it?
What are your challenges or questions?
11:45

19. Gathering more data (from YOU!) Eventual short form PTEPA Rubric
Next steps
Full report in Summer 2018
Gathering more data (from YOU!)
Eventual short form PTEPA Rubric

20. THANKS! Hand in your feedback sheets! You can also find me at:om
Special thanks to all the people who made this possible:
Collaborators Rachel Scherr, Claudia Fracchiollia, Justyna Zwolak, Monica Plisch
All the sites: GSU, Rowan, CU Boulder, Rutgers, UT Austin, Cal Poly SLO, Stony Brook U, BYU
Presentation template by SlidesCarnival; Photographs by Unsplash, Rowan, GSU, CU
We acknowledge funding from NSF and APS’s 21st Century Campaign