Fresno Assessment of Student Teaching (FAST)
Commission on Teacher Credentialing February 10, 2022
Dr. Juliet Wahleithner, Assistant Director of Teacher Education
Ricci Ulrich, FAST Coordinator
Fresno State
FAST Background + Overview
- Developed in-house at Fresno State with funding from Title II grant (Torgerson, Macy, Beare, & Tanner, 2009)
- Originally reviewed and approved by the Commission in 2007
- 2018: updated to align with design standards and updated TPEs
FAST Background + Overview
- Integrated into Teacher Education Program
- Course assignments created to align with tasks
- Rubrics used by coaches in evaluation of teaching and to guide candidates’ reflection
- Faculty involved in assessment
- Funded by Fresno State’s Kremen School of Education & Human Development
- No cost to students
Components-
Site Visitation Project
Assesses candidates’ ability to plan, teach, and evaluate a lesson in alignment with TPEs
- 20 to 45 minute lesson
- whole class or small group
- Focus on content area AND language development
- Three sections, each scored with a 4-point rubric
- Planning (TPE 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7)
- Implementation (TPE 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.8, 2.2, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5)
- Reflection (TPE 2.2, 3.2, 6.1)
Teaching Sample Project
Assesses candidates’ ability to plan an integrated (5-lesson) unit of study with focus on content knowledge and literacy assessment
- Seven sections, each scored with a 4-point rubric
- Students in Context (TPE 1.6, 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 4.1, 5.8)
- Learning Outcomes (TPE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3)
- Assessment Plan (TPE 4.3, 5.1, 5.2)
- Design for Instruction (TPE 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.4, 4.7, 5.8)
- Instructional Decision Making (TPE 1.8, 3.2)
- Analysis of Student Learning (TPE 5.2, 5.5)
- Reflection and Self-Evaluation (TPE 6.1, 6.3, 6.5)
Scoring Process-
Assessor Training + Calibration
- Scored by faculty, including university coaches
- Orientation provided for all coaches each semester
- Mandatory annual calibration sessions
- Scorers must be +/- 1 score point
Reliability of Scores
- 15% of projects double-scored
- Psychometric Analysis every 2 years
- 100% within +/- 1-score point
- 94.7% agreed that project should pass/fail
Results & Analysis
| Academic Year | Total Attempted | N Passed First Attempt | Percent Passed First Attempt | N Passed Second Attempt | Percent Passed Second Attempt | N Passed First or Second Attempt | Percent Passed First or Second Attempt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-2019 | 785 | 741 | 94.4% | 44 | 100% | 785 | 100% |
| 2019-2020 | 773 | 746 | 96.5% | 25 | 93% | 771 | 99.7% |
| 2020-2021 | 806 | 784 | 97.3% | 22 | 100% | 806 | 100% |
| Measure | Fall 2018-Spring 2019 Multiple Subject (n=190) | Fall 2018-Spring 2019 Single Subject (n=171) | Fall 2019-Spring 2020 Multiple Subject (n=123) | Fall 2019-Spring 2020 Single Subject (n=125) | Fall 2020-Spring 2021 Multiple Subject (n=269) | Fall 2020-Spring 2021 Single Subject (n=150) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.9 |
| Implementation | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.9 |
| Reflection | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
| Measure | Fall 2018-Spring 2019 Multiple Subject (n=212) | Fall 2018-Spring 2019 Single Subject (n=181) | Fall 2019-Spring 2020 Multiple Subject (n=229) | Fall 2019-Spring 2020 Single Subject (n=165) | Fall 2020-Spring 2021 Multiple Subject (n=222) | Fall 2020-Spring 2021 Single Subject (n=165) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Context | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
| Outcomes | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.6 |
| Assessment | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.6 |
| Instruction | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
| Decisions | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.6 |
| Analysis | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.7 |
| Reflection | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.7 |
Primary Take-Aways from 2018-2021
- Overall high pass rates, even within pandemic
- Mean scores have remained stable, with slight increases
- Attribute successes to integration of FAST throughout program
- Faculty embed related tasks within coursework
- Coaches (university supervisors) use rubrics during observation de-briefs to guide reflections
- Candidate performance used to inform future instruction
Juliet Wahleithner • jwahleithner@csufresno.edu
Ricci Ulrich • rulrich@csufresno.edu
This PDF is provided as a print-only reference document and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. For more information, please visit Title II Rule on Digital Accessibility page.