Educators’ Technology-Integration Performance Assessment (E-TIPA)

Procedures and Scoring: Whether it is used for self-assessment, formative assessment, or summative assessment, the E-TIPA starts in
the hands of the TC, who provides information about an activity or lesson s/he has designed and enacted, identifies the specific areas of
teaching and learning s/he has enhanced via technology integration, rates his/her level of achievement in each of these identified areas,
attaches one or more types of evidence to support the ratings given, and writes explanatory comments in the space provided for that
purpose. The TC may also give him/herself an overall rating for technology integration using the criteria listed in the “Overall Score”
section. When the E-ATIPA is used for formative assessment, the TC then gives the filled-in form to a professor, mentor teacher, or field
supervisor, who reviews the evidence the TC has provided, enters his/her ratings in each area next to the TC’s ratings, and writes narrative
feedback in the space provided for that purpose. When the E-ATIPA is used for summative assessment, the TC’s filled-in form is
additionally reviewed and scored by a second professor, mentor teacher, or field supervisor. Summative assessment scores are recorded
in the TC’s program dossier. (If Reviewers #1 and #2 assign different levels in a particular area, they are expected to confer to try to
resolve the discrepancy. If disagreement persists, points corresponding to levels are summed and then divided by two, yielding a score that
is not a whole number in that area.)

SECTION 1: Submission Information

Teacher Candidate: Emily Phipps Date submitted: 12/10/2018

Reviewer #1: Me, Myself Date scored: “”

Reviewer #2: And, I Date scored: “”

[x] Self-Assessment [] Formative Assessment [x] Summative Assessment

Lesson/Activity Title: World War II launching activity
Lesson/Activity Description: This is a smartboard activity about the six major leaders of the countries involved in World War II. The
goal of this activity is to address student misconceptions and to get them engaged with the content so they will be interested when we
learn more in depth. Another sub goal is to get students to understand that people like Adolf Hitler are mere human beings. The quotes I
chose are quite humanizing and confusing. I think this makes Hitler scarier though, is that he has been vilified as a monster, and don’t
get me wrong, he is, but I think it is more terrible that he is just a human capable of doing all that he did.

SECTION 2: Areas of Teaching and Learning Addressed via Technology Integration

(check all that apply)
1. Assessing and monitoring PK-12 2. Representing, illustrating, and explaining 3. Differentiating texts, assignments, and
students’ learning content in more than one way supports for diverse learners

1

[x] F2F in the classroom
[x] Beyond the classroom
[] Not yet addressed
4. Extending learning activities and
supports for learning beyond the classroom
[x] F2F in the classroom
[x] Beyond the classroom
[] Not yet addressed
SECTION 3: Evidence Provided
(check all that apply)
Type 1
[x] Description and rationale
(e.g., lesson plan with detailed description of
technology-enhanced components)
SECTION 4: Scoring Rubric
1. Assessing and monitoring PK-12 students’ learning
Exceeding Expectations (4 pts)
● Assessment and monitoring of
PK-12 students’ learning are
significantly enhanced with
technology with regard to
efficiency and one or more other
desirable features (e.g., with
regard to the quantity, quality,
and/or timeliness of information
obtained about students’
learning).
● Integrated technology is
engaging and problem-free or
almost entirely problem-free for
both teacher and students.
DRAFT Ver. 3.3 Updated 111018
[x] F2F in the classroom [x] F2F in the classroom
[] Beyond the classroom [] Beyond the classroom
[] Not yet addressed [] Not yet addressed
5. Enabling PK-12 students to show what 6. Making teacher and/or student thinking
they have learned in more than one way visible
[x] F2F in the classroom [x] F2F in the classroom
[x] Beyond the classroom x] Beyond the classroom
[] Not yet addressed [] Not yet addressed
Type 3
Type 2
[x] Documentation of enactment and reflection on
[x] Prepared digital materials enactment
(e.g., video of classroom teaching with reflection
(e.g., links to functioning TC-designed or about what worked well and what didn’t)
TC-tailored digital materials)
Meeting Expectations (3 pts) Approaching Expectations (2 pts) Not Meeting Expectations (1 pt)
● Assessment and monitoring of ● Technology is integrated to ● No evidence of technology
PK-12 students’ learning are assess and monitor PK-12 integration in this area.
enhanced with technology with students’ learning but has not yet AND
regard to improved efficiency resulted in improvement over ● No explanation or insufficient
or another desirable feature what could be accomplished explanation provided for the
(e.g., with regard to the without technology (e.g., absence of technology
quantity, quality, or timeliness information obtained could be integration in this area.
of information obtained about obtained as efficiently without
students’ learning). technology).
● Integration of technology has OR
created no significant burdens ● Assessment and monitoring of
or problems for the teacher or PK-12 students’ learning are
for PK-12 students. slightly improved in some way,
● While generally effective, but integration of technology has
2
 DRAFT Ver. 3.3 Updated 111018

technology integration may not created significant burdens or

be completely problem-free in problems for the teacher and/or
its implementation. for students.
OR
● Detailed justification is provided
for the absence of technology
integration in this area
(demonstrating knowledge of
technology-integration options).

For example: For example: For example:

● Students respond to questions
embedded in the text they are
reading (e.g., with InsertLearning)
or the video they are watching
(e.g., with EdPuzzle), giving their
teacher insight into how they are
comprehending the material, as
well as what they have
understood so far.
● Students are working on large ● Students type responses to
screens and in groups. multiple-choice and short-answer
Thinking is visible and questions in individual Google
discussions make thinking and Docs and email their document
understanding visible. This to the teacher.
allows me to adjust instruction
later in the day. However, not
all the groups will have active
or vocal students.

[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [x] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2

2. Representing, illustrating, and explaining content in more than one way

Exceeding Expectations (4 pts)
● Representing, illustrating, and
explaining content are
significantly enhanced with
technology with regard to
efficiency and one or more other
desirable features, such as
presenting content in different
modalities (e.g., audio, video),
presenting multiple examples or
analogies, and/or enabling
students to interact with an
animation or simulation to test or
deepen understanding.
● Integrated technology is
engaging and problem-free for
both teacher and students.
Meeting Expectations (3 pts)
● Representing, illustrating, and ● Technology is integrated to
explaining content are
enhanced with technology with
regard to improved efficiency or
another desirable feature, such
as presenting content in
different modalities (e.g., audio,
video), or presenting multiple
examples or analogies, or
enabling students to interact
with an animation or
simulation.
● Integration of technology has
created no significant burdens
or problems for the teacher or
for students.
Approaching Expectations (2 pts) Not Meeting Expectations (1 pt)
● No evidence of technology
represent, illustrate, and explain integration in this area.
content but has not yet resulted AND
in improvement over what could ● No explanation or insufficient
be accomplished without explanation provided for the
technology (e.g., paper texts, absence of technology
images, and other materials are integration in this area.
digitized but not otherwise
enhanced).
OR
● Representing, illustrating, and
explaining content are slightly
improved in some way, but
integration of technology has
created significant burdens or
problems for the teacher and/or

3

For example:
● ● This is a non traditional way of
[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
3. Differentiating texts, assignments, and supports for diverse learners
Exceeding Expectations (4 pts)
● Differentiation of texts,
assignments, and supports is
significantly enhanced with
technology with regard to the
amount, extent, and quality of
differentiation provided for
diverse learners.
● Integrated technology is
engaging and problem-free for
both teacher and students.
● While generally effective,
technology integration may not OR
be completely problem-free in ● Detailed justification is provided
its implementation.
For example:
learning or working with text in
history. There are pictures,
maps and quotes. The whole
thing is on a screen to be
interacted with.
[x] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
Meeting Expectations (3 pts)
● Differentiation of texts,
assignments, and supports is
enhanced with technology with
regard to the amount, or extent,
or quality of differentiation
provided for diverse learners.
● Integration of technology has
created no significant burdens
or problems for the teacher or
for students.
● While generally effective,
technology integration may not
be completely problem-free in
its implementation.
DRAFT Ver. 3.3 Updated 111018
for students.
for the absence of technology
integration in this area
(demonstrating knowledge of
technology-integration options).
For example:
[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
Approaching Expectations (2 Not Meeting Expectations (1 pt)
pts) ● No evidence of technology
● Technology is integrated to integration in this area.
differentiate texts, assignments, AND
or supports but has not yet ● No explanation or insufficient
resulted in improvement over explanation provided for the
what could be accomplished absence of technology
without technology. integration in this area.
OR
● Differentiation of texts,
assignments, and supports is
slightly improved in some way,
but integration of technology
has created significant burdens
or problems for the teacher
and/or for students.
OR
● Detailed justification is provided
for the absence of technology
integration in this area
(demonstrating knowledge of
technology-integration options).
4

For example:
● ●
[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
4. Extending learning activities and supports for learning beyond the classroom
Exceeding Expectations (4 pts)
● Extending and deepening of
learning and supports for
learning beyond the classroom
are significantly enhanced with
technology with regard to the
relevance and quality of the
learning materials, the level of
support provided to students,
and the way students are
engaged in active learning (as
opposed to just passively
watching a video, for example).
● Integrated technology is
engaging and problem-free for
both teacher and students.
For example:
● This is a digital tool that can be
accessed and done online
perhaps through the school
moodle page. They can make
copies of the assignment and
what they did with it and turn it
in to me and send it to each
other with questions.
[x] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
For example:
[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
Meeting Expectations (3 pts)
● Extending and deepening of
learning and supports for
learning beyond the classroom
are enhanced with technology
with regard to the relevance and
quality of the learning materials
or the level of support provided
to students, or the way students
are engaged in active learning
(as opposed to just passively
watching a video, for example).
● Integration of technology has
created no significant burdens
or problems for the teacher or
for students.
● While generally effective,
technology integration may not
be completely problem-free in
its implementation.
For example:
● ●
[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
DRAFT Ver. 3.3 Updated 111018
For example:
● There are no modifications or
adaptations. I only did this with
one group of learners.
[x] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
Approaching Expectations (2 Not Meeting Expectations (1 pt)
pts) ● No evidence of technology
● Technology integration aims to integration in this area.
extend learning activities and AND
supports for learning beyond the ● No explanation or insufficient
classroom but has not yet explanation provided for the
resulted in improvement over absence of technology
what could be accomplished integration in this area.
without technology.
● Integration of technology
exhibits one or more significant
drawbacks for the teacher
and/or students.
OR
● Detailed justification provided
for the absence of technology
integration in this area
(demonstrating knowledge of
technology-integration options).
For example:
[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2
5
 DRAFT Ver. 3.3 Updated 111018

5. Enabling PK-12 students to show what they have learned in more than one way
Exceeding Expectations (4 pts)
● Students are enabled with
technology to show what they
have learned in ways that are
relevant to the content, likely to
capture significantly more of
what they know and can do than
would be the case without
technology, and well scaffolded
and supported.
● Integrated technology is
engaging and problem-free for
both teacher and students.
Meeting Expectations (3 pts) Approaching Expectations (2 Not Meeting Expectations (1 pt)
● Technology integration pts) ● No evidence of technology
enhances the options students ● Technology integration aims to integration in this area.
have to express themselves and enhance the options students AND
show what they have learned . have to express themselves and ● No explanation or insufficient
● Students are enabled with show what they have learned explanation provided for the
technology to show what they but has not yet resulted in absence of technology
have learned in more than one improvement over what could integration in this area.
way so that more of what they be accomplished without
know and can do is captured technology.
than would be the case without ● Integration of technology
technology. exhibits one or more significant
● Integration of technology has drawbacks for the teacher
created no significant burdens and/or students.
or problems for the teacher or OR
for students. ● Detailed justification provided
● While generally effective, for the absence of technology
technology integration may not integration in this area
be completely problem-free in (demonstrating knowledge of
its implementation. technology-integration options).

For example: For example: For example:

● ● ● This is not a test of what they
have learned rather what they
know before instruction. But it is
a test of what they know so this
is not ‘not meeting expectations’

[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [x] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2

6. Making teacher and/or student thinking visible

Exceeding Expectations (4 pts)
● The teacher and students are
enabled with technology to
make their thinking visible, to
themselves and to others, and
evidence of thinking is efficiently
captured and shared to help
Meeting Expectations (3 pts) Approaching Expectations (2 Not Meeting Expectations (1 pt)
● The teacher and/or students are pts) ● No evidence of technology
enabled with technology to ● Technology is integrated to integration in this area
make their thinking visible, and make the teacher’s and/or AND
digital evidence of thinking is students’ thinking more visible ● No explanation or insufficient
used to shed light on thinking but has not yet resulted in explanation provided for the
procedures and routines that improvement over what could absence of technology

6
 DRAFT Ver. 3.3 Updated 111018

everyone gain insight into
thinking procedures and
routines that work well.
● Integrated technology is
engaging and problem-free for
both teacher and students
work well.
● Integration of technology
exhibits no significant problems
● While generally effective,
technology integration may not
be completely problem-free
be accomplished without integration in this area
technology
OR
● The teacher’s and/or students’
thinking is slightly more visible
than before, but integration of
technology has created
significant burdens or problems
for the teacher and/or for
students
OR
● Detailed justification is provided
for the absence of technology
integration in this area
(demonstrating knowledge of
technology-integration options)

For example: For example: For example:

● I gave an example showing my ● ●
thinking. This whole activity is
surrounding student thinking,
what they know, how they
problem solve etc.

[x] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2

SECTION 5: Overall Score 17

Exceeding Expectations** Meeting Expectations** Approaching Expectations Not Meeting Expectations

● Evidence of enactment of
technology integration with at
least five K-12 students;
● Evidence of reflection on what
worked well and what could be
further improved, with specific
future modifications described;
● TC does not receive a rating of
“Not Meeting Expectations” in
any area;
● Points earned across all six
● Evidence of enactment of
technology integration with at
least two K-12 students;
● Evidence of reflection on what
worked well and what could be
further improved;
● TC does not receive a rating of
“Not Meeting Expectations” in
any area;
● Points earned across all six
areas fall in the 17-20 range.
● Evidence of enactment of
technology integration with at
least one learner;
● Evidence of reflection on what
worked well and what could be
further improved;
● TC does not receive a rating of
“Not Meeting Expectations” in
more than one area;
● Points earned across all six
areas fall in the 12-16 range.
● Limited evidence so far of
efforts to integrate technology to
enhance teaching and learning;
● Points earned across all six
areas fall in the 6-11 range;
OR
● TC receives a rating of “Not
Meeting Expectations” in two or
more areas.

7
 DRAFT Ver. 3.3 Updated 111018

areas fall in the 21-24 range.

[] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [x] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2 [] TC [] Reviewer #1 [] Reviewer #2

**An overall rating at this level requires evidence of enactment with K-12 students

SECTION 6: Comments

Teacher Candidate Comments:

This whole activity is on a smart board. It is a technology activity. That being said, it isn’t a do all be all. It is not differentiated for
different populations. There are different texts/media included, but there could be more scaffolding, i.e. moving parts, sounds and
animations. It isn’t built for special populations. It does visibly show student thinking in the fact that it requires discussion, physically
moving the pieces. I can see them, formatively assess their thinking and use my data for teaching later on in the day. I give them my
thinking as a first example so they know what to do and that they can see me doing it myself. Evidence on these portions and pieces
are visible in the videoant linked here https://ant.umn.edu/pbtfgubcnt
Smart Board Activity Here https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ciVOicb01ZRMxXfimr6LaGoF18JVlS6/view?usp=sharing
Write up for activity here https://docs.google.com/document/d/14K2ZmeKe69f3bkVIybc4m7N5B-v4A8NtEGic-FA9RVE/edit?
usp=sharing

Reviewer #1 Comments:

Reviewer #2 Comments: