TExES PPR EC-12 (160) common mistakes
TExES PPR EC-12 (160) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Selecting an answer that matches instruction to a student's identified 'learning style' (auditory learner gets lecture, visual learner gets a diagram) instead of choosing a response that presents content in multiple ways and gives students multiple ways to show what they know.
Learning-style matching is a widely repeated belief from professional-development workshops and personal experience, so it feels like differentiation and sounds student-centered.
What to do instead
On differentiation items, eliminate any option whose logic is 'one student = one fixed modality.' Prefer options that vary how content is represented (visual plus verbal plus hands-on), offer choice in product, and keep the cognitive demand of the standard intact. The defensible construct is multimodal instruction and Universal Design for Learning, not modality matching.
Recommending a special education referral for an English learner who is quiet, is not completing work, or is scoring low on English-language assessments, rather than choosing scaffolds such as visuals, sentence frames, cooperative grouping, and native-language support.
The observed behavior looks identical to a learning or language disability, and candidates skip the second-language acquisition question before jumping to the referral.
What to do instead
For any ELL stem, first ask whether the pattern is consistent with normal second-language development (silent/receptive period, BICS acquired before CALP, transfer errors). Eliminate options that label the student before documentation of sheltered instruction and intervention. Referral is only correct after documented, appropriate instruction has been tried and the pattern persists across languages.
Treating an accommodation and a modification as interchangeable, for example selecting 'shorten the assignment and change the passing standard' for a student whose IEP lists only extended time, preferential seating, and oral administration.
Both appear as 'helping the student' and are used loosely in everyday teacher talk, so the distinction is not applied when reading the stem.
What to do instead
Read the stem for what the IEP or 504 lists, then check whether the option changes what is being measured. Accommodations (time, setting, presentation, response format) preserve the grade-level standard; modifications change content or expectations and are an ARD/IEP-team decision, not a teacher's classroom call. Choose the option that keeps the standard and changes the access route.
Choosing a norm-referenced, standardized achievement test when the stem asks how to determine whether a class mastered the TEKS taught in a just-completed unit, or choosing to enter a formative check as a major grade.
Candidates collapse 'assessment' into 'the big test' and don't separate purpose (diagnose, monitor, certify) from format (selected response, performance, standardized).
What to do instead
Match the instrument to the stated purpose before reading the options: teacher-made criterion-referenced or performance tasks for unit mastery against the TEKS; formative, ungraded or feedback-only checks while learning is in progress; norm-referenced tests only when the stem is about comparing students to a national sample. If the stem says 'to plan instruction' or 'during the unit,' formative wins.
Applying a developmental stage to the wrong age band, such as describing a four-year-old as capable of conservation, expecting a second grader to reason abstractly in formal operations, or describing a seventh grader as being in Erikson's trust-versus-mistrust stage.
Stage names are memorized as a list without being anchored to the age ranges, key behaviors, and the classroom implication that goes with each.
What to do instead
Build one page per theorist with three columns: stage name, age band, and one classroom implication. Before answering, locate the grade level stated in the stem and check the stage against that band. If an option's expectation would be developmentally out of reach for the stated age, it is a distractor regardless of how good it sounds.
Choosing a public, punitive first response to a minor off-task behavior (verbal reprimand across the room, sending the student to the hallway, writing a referral) when the item asks for the most appropriate teacher response.
A discipline-first reflex and memories of what a cooperating teacher did make the stern option feel like 'showing you have standards.'
What to do instead
Order behavior options from least to most disruptive and pick the earliest one that addresses the function of the behavior: proximity and nonverbal signal, brief private redirection, reteaching the expectation, then a logical consequence tied to the behavior. Eliminate any option that stops instruction for the class or humiliates the student, unless the stem describes a safety threat.
Selecting an option that consists mainly of posting rules, reading the syllabus, or announcing consequences on the first day, without modeling, practice, or reinforcement of procedures.
Rules are concrete and easy to picture, while routines and rehearsal feel less like 'real' management, so the announcement option reads as proactive.
What to do instead
When a stem asks how to establish a productive environment early, prefer options that include explicit teaching of procedures, modeling by the teacher, student practice with feedback, and consistent reinforcement. Rules-only or consequence-only options are setting up compliance without habits; choose the option that builds predictable routines students rehearse.
Preferring the teacher-centered option (lecture, teacher demonstration, teacher summarizing the concept) over an option in which students investigate, discuss, or explain, even when the stem's standard or objective calls for analysis, application, or evaluation.
Direct instruction feels efficient and low-risk, so candidates project their own comfort onto the word 'effective.'
What to do instead
Read the verb in the objective or standard first. If it is analyze, compare, justify, or apply, eliminate options where the teacher does the thinking and select the option where students produce the reasoning, with the teacher structuring and questioning. Teacher modeling is the correct answer only when the stem is about introducing a new skill or building background knowledge.
Choosing to notify the parent, question the child in detail, or conduct an in-school investigation as the first step after a student discloses abuse or neglect, instead of following the mandated-reporting chain.
The instinct to keep information inside the school-family relationship and to 'get the facts first' competes with the legal duty, and candidates are unsure who must be told and in what order.
What to do instead
On any suspected abuse or neglect stem, the teacher's legal duty is to report promptly to the campus administrator or counselor and/or the state child-protective agency as required by law and district policy, documenting only what the student said. Never investigate, photograph, or contact the parent about the allegation. If the option says 'call the parent first' or 'verify before reporting,' eliminate it.
Selecting an option in which the teacher shares a student's records, grades, discipline history, or IEP details with another parent, a colleague who does not have an educational need to know, or directly with a requesting parent without going through the campus records process.
Friendly communication norms and the desire to be transparent make disclosure feel helpful rather than legal, and the confidentiality rules governing education records are not front of mind under time pressure.
What to do instead
Ask two questions of every option: does this person have a legitimate educational interest, and is the teacher the right channel? Sharing with colleagues outside the student's instructional team, naming students in public settings, or handing over records personally is wrong. Parent requests for records go to the campus administrator or records custodian under FERPA; a teacher may discuss only that parent's own child's progress.