The Struggle to Professionalize Teaching: Examining edTPA as a Professionalization and Deprofessionalization Tool

Abstract

Background/Context: In the United States, strengthening the professionalization of teaching and teacher education has received extensive attention. Notably, the educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) has gained traction. Developed by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity (SCALE) in 2009, edTPA requires teacher candidates to videotape their teaching and reflect via three different tasks: planning, instructing, and assessing. More than one third (900+) of all teacher preparation programs (TPPs) across 41 states are now using edTPA, making it the most widely used licensure assessment in the field. Objective: In this study, we examine differences in how stakeholders (i.e., administrators, faculty, and staff) within and across TPPs are making sense of edTPA. We then examine why such differences in edTPA sensemaking have transpired, including varying policy designs, organizational contexts, and individual attitudes/values. Finally, we illustrate how these differences reflect a deeper historical dilemma in teacher education between those supporting professionalism (i.e., program-specific attitudes/beliefs) and those supporting the professionalization of teaching (i.e., structural or systemic characteristics across programs). Participants: Through purposive and snowball sampling, we interviewed 69 stakeholders across eight TPPs in two states, Illinois and Iowa. These stakeholders were interviewed between 2015 and 2018, approximately 1 year after their TPP adopted edTPA (via mandate or voluntarily). Research Design: We employed a multiple embedded case study design. The first set of cases were the two states selected (Illinois and Iowa) because their policy designs differed (mandated vs. voluntary). The second set of cases were the eight TPPs selected. One-hour interviews were conducted with each of the 69 stakeholders across these case TPPs. Using a sensemaking conceptual framework, instrumental case analysis was then used to examine how stakeholders made sense of edTPA and why. Findings/Results: We found diverse perspectives across our case TPPs as to how stakeholders viewed and implemented edTPA—as either a professionalization or a deprofessionalization tool. Those espousing a view of professionalization supported the assessment as a means to strengthen the profession’s perceived legitimacy and quality, whereas those espousing a view of deprofessionalization believed that it is detrimental in these regards. We argue that this divergence reflects enduring disagreement concerning the mechanisms that define “good” teaching and how best to measure it. Conclusions: We found that structural changes, such as edTPA adoption, may move a field toward being more or less professionalized, but those changes do not guarantee alignment or agreement among the professionals within that workforce. Improving this dilemma within teacher education therefore begins with coming to some reasonable consensus on how best to balance professionalization and professionalism.