|
|
 |
EXAMPLE: A rationale for the assessment
of subject matter knowledge
The assessment (1) is tied to various program
subject matter requirements, (2) has a basis and track record
in the literature, (3) is empirically supported, (4) is practical
and efficient, and (5) is otherwise a reasonable procedure for
assessing subject matter knowledge.
In the rationale, the program faculty members give
their reasons and their argument for using the measures they do.
They address such questions as these:
*Why do we think this measure indicates subject
matter knowledge?
*How is this measure related to the teacher’s competence to
teach the subject matter?
*How does the measure align with the program requirements?
*Why would anyone think the measure has anything to do with subject
matter knowledge?
*What are the limitations of the measure and what are its strengths?
|
EXAMPLE: Linking assessment
procedures and the program goal
If the program’s stated
goal is to develop teachers who are reflective practitioners,
the faculty’s task would be to write an argument that shows
how being a reflective practitioner is connected to being competent,
caring, and qualified.
The way the faculty assesses reflective practice
should be shown to be plausibly, or authentically, connected to
competence. This link is also an argument for the validity of the
assessment—that it measures the graduates’ teaching
competence. |
|
EXAMPLE:
Assessment procedures and claims
If a program claims that its graduates are constructivists,
the faculty would address the question: Why is it credible to believe
that the measures employed by the faculty, for example, also measure
constructivism?
The faculty members would give their reasons for
believing that they have at least assessed this specific goal of
their program. They would give an operational definition for constructivism
when they set out the argument for the link between the claim that
their graduates are constructivists and their particular assessment
or measure of constructivism. |
|
EXAMPLE:
Assessment procedures and program requirements
Faculty members might argue, for example, that
their graduates are competent because they have mastered their teaching
subject, mathematics; that they have mastered their teaching subject
because they have majored in the subject successfully; and that
they have majored in the subject successfully because they passed
a planned sequence of mathematics courses. On this line of reasoning,
it follows that those who have majored in mathematics have mastered
the subject and are competent to teach school mathematics.
This is a credible line of reasoning when the faculty
knows, from the course grades, and other measures, that the graduates
have mastered the teaching subject. |
|
|
