1.  Barbara A. Burns and Jeffrey Lindauer Canisius College

2. 

3.  Pre-student teaching—semester before student teaching o Extensive practicum (50-200 hours) o “Looped” into student teaching  Benefits o Maximize candidate success o Allowed for groups of candidates to be in one environment to learn from each other and for support o Candidates were already familiar with the schools/CT’s/curriculum o Faculty could collaborate with schools using existing support structures to assure CT’s were engaged in conversations about edTPA o Regular contact between College/School liaisons

4. o Strategically assigned teacher candidates to PDS or partnership schools o Offered professional development to CT’s around edTPA requirements o College faculty designed a PPT that emphasized connections between edTPA and the APPR

5.  Completed entire edTPA during pre-student teaching  Pre-student teaching courses taught by college faculty who were trained edTPA scorers or who completed significant PD on the edTPA  Candidates were taught who to complete each task, followed deadlines, received peer and faculty feedback and practiced uploading to Taskstream  College faculty used edTPA to discuss standards-based lesson planning, differentiated instruction, data-based decision making, and reflective practice  Helpful for technical details of edTPA technology requirements

6.  Revised student teaching seminar to edTPA support for first half of semester  FT college faculty with extensive expertise in edTPA taught the seminars  edTPA rubrics were discussed as each Task was due  Peer review and feedback were utilized  Candidates completed edTPA in first placement and a week was added between placements to allow more time to complete and submit edTPA  Graduate tutor hired through the Student Support Center  College faculty educated IT staff on edTPA and they assisted in support for technology needs

7. 

8.  We collected survey information from our cooperating teachers and student teachers dealing with edTPA in general and our support model in particular  Our cooperating teacher response rate was 86%  Our student teacher response rate was 78%  Common elements in survey prompts: o edTPA was overwhelming o Impact of edTPA on student teaching responsibilities o Relevance of edTPA to student teaching experiences o Our “looping” model

9. Cooperating Teachers  69% reported student teacher was overwhelmed  “I have never worked with a student teacher who was so clearly stressed”  “Even though she was organized, it was always on her mind” Student Teachers  87% felt edTPA was overwhelming

10. Cooperating Teachers  39% reported interference  “Lesson plans suffered and weren’t turned in to me in a timely fashion”  “She needed to complete certain parts of edTPA before she could even think about teaching” Student Teachers  80% reported interference

11. Cooperating Teachers  53% recognized relevance  16% indicated edTPA enhanced the experience  “Hands-on experience is going to enhance student teaching, not worrying about all of the paperwork that is required!” Student Teachers  67% recognized relevance  22% indicated edTPA enhanced the experience

12. Cooperating teachers  83% agreed that looping was a valuable support  “This time was vital for my student teacher to meeting the obligations of edTPA”  “This was huge! The first week of student teaching was spent on the edTPA not having them observe and get to know us” Student Teachers  83% agreed that looping was a valuable support

13.  Where do we go from here?

14.  Our survey results indicated: o Still a lot of work to be done in the area of implementation of edTPA o Overwhelmed feeling needs to be toned down o Looping model helped our students to be more comfortable with the class and better able to work on their edTPA o Looping model helped our cooperating teachers to know what to expect in regard to edTPA implementation o The more time they spend in the same classroom, the more comfortable they are o What would a clinically rich model look like?