Assessing Dispositions

Strategies/Challenges

What are dispositions?

NCATEs

definition: Professional attitudes,

values, and beliefs demonstrated through
both verbal and nonverbal behaviors as
educators interact with students, families,
colleagues, and communities. These
positive behaviors support student learning
and development.

What does NCATE require?

Inclusion

of two specific dispositions:

fairness and the belief that all students
can learn.
Assessment based on observable behaviors
in educational settings
Institutions can add additional dispositions
based on their mission and conceptual
framework

NCATEs definition of fairness - The

commitment demonstrated in striving to

meet the educational needs of all students in
a caring, non-discriminatory, and equitable
manner.

Steps in the Process

Defining the dispositions you value

Clarifying the connections among the dispositions,
your conceptual framework, and unit/program
standards
Developing faculty buy-in; reaching consensus
Developing and piloting an instrument
Learning from the data: revisiting consensus building

 Developing

and implementing a policy and

procedure for using the data and addressing
concerns
Learning from the data: revisiting consensus
building -- again

Defining the Dispositions You Value

What

we did

Assessment Committee drafted a

list of dispositions consistent with the Colleges
Conceptual Framework
List was correlated with the dispositions from
INTASC (correlation matrix)
List was revised, combining some, adding a new
one (revised list)

Dispositions, Conceptual Framework,

and Standards
Our

list was consistent with key concepts on

the CF, but dispositions were not addressed
specifically in the CF
CF Committee revised the CF document to
clearly articulate expectations for dispositions
The CF Elements were revised to reflect the
inclusion of dispositions and the integrated
relationship among the principles, processes,
characteristics, and dispositions of the CF

Proposal to the Faculty

Proposed list of dispositions, with defining indicators

Proposed process: dispositions to be assessed
every semester in every course requiring LiveText
No high stakes at this point just feedback
Required, but no connection to grade
Use the same rating scale faculty chose for portfolio
assessment (Proficient, Developing, Unacceptable,
Not Able to Rate)

What We Told the Students

One of your requirements in this class is to submit a

Dispositions Assessment Permission in LiveText to
me. At the end of the course, I will provide you with
formative feedback on your development and
demonstration of the professional dispositions that
are important for Transforming Practitioners. No
grade or score from the dispositions assessment will
affect your course grade, but the submission of your
permission form is required before your grade will be
posted. Instructions on the submission process will
be provided and we will discuss in class the specific
dispositions that will be assessed.

How We Defined the Rating Scale

Proficient:

The candidate demonstrates the

professional disposition at the level expected
of a new teacher.
Developing: The candidate is in the
beginning stages of developing the described
disposition but does not yet demonstrate it at
the level expected.

 Unacceptable:

The candidate has not

demonstrated the expected professional
disposition; you have substantial concerns
about this area of the candidates
development.
N/O: You do not have enough information to
be able to rate the candidate.

 Assessment

committee charged with

developing a complete policy related to
dispositions assessment.
Unit would adapt the process as necessary,
informed by the initial semesters
experiences and the data.

What we learned from the data:

There

was a wide range of faculty

interpretations of the rating scale.
Conflicts became evident when the faculty
were asked to adopt a policy.

Ad Hoc Committee Charge:

Review

process and proposed policies

Further analyze data to identify patterns
Read the AACTE monograph on Dispositions
Assessment (Sockett, 2006)
Recommend possible revisions to full faculty

Emerging Issues:
Growth

model vs. deficit model?

Development vs. gate-keeping?
Same language, different assumptions
(survey exercise)
Same language of rating scale for portfolio
and dispositions; different purposes of
assessments
Due process for students

Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations

Addition

of eighth disposition category

(revised list)
Changes to definitions of ratings
Growth model and a document clearly
articulating our philosophy of assessment
Revisions to the proposed policy (#1, #2, #3)

Process for Reviewing Assessment

Data
Assessment

Committees process
recommendation
Individual Improvement Plan form
Form used for first review

What we learned this time:

Still on different pages about rating scale (one

instructors unacceptable was another ones
developing)
Dispositions most disparately understood:
Commitment to Life-long Learning (advanced only?)
and Belief in Teacher Efficacy (locus of control issue
teacher efficacy vs. personal efficacy)
Still at odds on purpose of the assessment and the
implications of it

Next Steps

Consider new terms for the ratings scale important to

use different terms than those for portfolio assessment.
Revise indicators/descriptors to be much more detailed
and behavioral (this will probably make the instrument
or at least its accompanying rubric longer and more
cumbersome).
Have two sets of indicators: one for use by classroom
instructor; one for use in field work.
Reach consensus that, while the process is
developmental, it needs to be possible for candidates to
meet the expectations while they are still pre-service
teachers.

Those are our issues youll find your

own.
Take

systematic steps to ensure a fair,

equitable, and meaningful assessment
process.
Assume that disparate values and
understandings lie beneath a common
language and take steps to uncover,
examine, and work through the different
perspectives held by faculty.

Contact Info:
Susan

Malone
Mercer University
malone_sc@mercer.edu