Overview | Background | Portfolio Structure | Portfolio Assessment | Models | Infrastructure ConsiderationsChallenges | References

Developing a University-Wide Electronic Portfolio System for Teacher Education
Laurie Mullen, William I. Bauer, W. Webster Newbold  

 

Abstract
  • Open-Ended
  • Template-Based
  • "Autobiography"
  • This document describes the collaborative process we have utilized in conceptualizing a electronic portfolio requirement for all teacher education majors. We outline the philosophical, logistical, and infrastructure considerations that have been part of the process along with the portfolio structure we have adopted; we demonstrate several examples of potential portfolio types and approaches; and we discuss the assessment timeline for portfolio evaluation.

    Overview
    Throughout the country, three conditions or external forces guide how schools of education approach the integration of technology into teacher education programs.

    1. University faculty and students need the tools, environments, and on-going professional development to integrate technology into the teacher education curriculum.
    2. New national accreditation standards are requiring schools of education to prepare new teachers and administrators who can integrate technology into their curricula.
    3. Licensure and certification are now requiring proficiency in technology integration for new teachers and administrators.

    These national, state, and local imperatives are the foundation of our institutional reform goals.
         As our institution plans for the implementation of such issues, the electronic portfolio has emerged as one tool that we envision enabling us to assess students' competencies. We also believe that engaging in the electronic portfolio process will help students, faculty, and administrators to develop technology-related knowledge and skills.
         In this article, we provide background related to the collaborative process we have utilized and the story behind our construction of the infrastructure to support it. We discuss the philosophical, pedagogical, and logistical considerations that have been part of the process; describe the portfolio model we have developed; and provide a list of resources for other institutions who may be considering a similar path.

    Background
    Instigated by a new statute of the state's Professional Standards our university is mandated to have a performance-based Unit Assessment Plan (UAS) approved by the state Professional Standards Board in place by June 2002. In other words, we will need to completely restructure teacher education and licensure. In the past, progress toward degrees and certification was determined by course completion, grades and test scores, and student teaching outcomes. The new performance-based licensure program requires demonstrated competence in particular standards rather than paper/pencil tests.
         The national trend toward performance assessment encourages national and state standards bodies to require institutions who prepare teachers to depart radically from traditional curricula and assessment means to achieve more authentic, "real world" ways of verifying the preparedness of education graduates. This shift in assessment began in the mid-1980's as a response to the nature of "paper testing" for a teaching license. Performance assessment in teacher education challenges the relationship between testing for licensure and actual teaching performance. The essence of performance assessment is to evaluate more accurately what teachers must know and do to be effective in the classroom.

    Performance Assessment
    "Performance assessment" is a broad term, encompassing many of the characteristics of both authentic assessment and alternative assessment:

    performance assessments provide students with opportunities to demonstrate their understanding and to thoughtfully apply knowledge, skills, and habits of mind in a variety of structured and unstructured situations. These assessments often occur over time and result in a tangible product or observable performance. (Coalition of Essential Schools)

    Many performance assessments include real-life tasks that call for higher-order thinking. When students are asked to perform a complex task or create a product, they are assessed on both the process and end result of their work. Direct, systematic observation of an actual student performance (or examples of student performances), and rating of that performance according to pre-established performance criteria, reflects that students' abilities more realistically and accurately than indirect measures such as tests or course grades.
         This departure from traditional assessment practices has led to questions about how political movements determine educational practices and to struggle with how current curricula – which in the case of teacher education programs are highly complex – can be incorporate performance assessment practices. At Ball State, these difficult issues have centered around the unit assessment plan, where the performance "rubber" meets the curricular "road" in teacher education reform.
         In general, our projected UAS has multiple "Decision Points" (four main stages) where students need to satisfactorily exhibit performances as the progress, notably at the completion of their first year, completion of their second year, admission to student teaching, and graduation/licensure. The judgment on student competency is to be based on sets of standards, framed conceptually by the INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) Core, the Indiana Developmental and Content Standards, and NETS (National Educational Technology Standards).
         For two years, a campus-wide group called the Teacher Education Performance Assessment Steering Committee (TEPASC) has worked on creating procedures for reaching this goal. In regard to the knowledge, disposition, and performances for teaching majors (the three dimensions of each INTASC standard), TEPASC has recommended that: (a) licensure areas provide multiple opportunities for each student in the program to demonstrate and to document an understanding of the state P-12 proficiencies, and (b) students demonstrate and document successful experiences in planning and executing lessons directly related to relevant P-12 proficiencies. Within this complex assessment plan, we have identified student electronic portfolios as one potentially powerful performance assessment instrument that can allow students to demonstrate multiple competencies.
         The in-depth development of our portfolio initiative commenced under the auspices of a U.S. Department of Education PT3 grant, (Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology), which is being co-administered by Laurie Mullen in Ball State's Department of Educational Studies in Teacher's College (BSU PT3 site). A team of university faculty (including Mullen and co-authors William Bauer and Web Newbold) met weekly beginning in Fall 2000 to develop the concept base and practical format for the portfolio. In addition, a series of experts from other universities and corporations such as Apple computer were brought to campus to provide their insights regarding conceptual frameworks, technological infrastructure, and portfolio logistics. These sessions, which were open to all of the university community, stimulated discussion about the shape and form of our portfolio system. We sought out and examined other teacher education institutions attempting to implement similar initiatives as well as individual faculty across the country working in this area.
         As the university began to discuss a campus-wide portfolio model for teacher education, it was recognized that our cross-disciplinary expertise could be tapped, and that a consensus needed to emerge as to the type of portfolio best suited for teacher education. The decision to recommend a electronic portfolio over a paper-based portfolio emerged in part as a result of parallel initiatives to infuse computer technologies in teacher education and other curricula. The interactive, non-linear attributes of electronic media, which may include audio, video, text, numerical data and graphics, have potential to bring a depth and richness to student work and understanding and offer efficient storage and access as well.

    Portfolio Purpose
    In recent years, a number of portfolio types have been used on our campus by faculty from a variety of disciplines. The media of these portfolios have included paper, PowerPoint, and the World Wide Web. Likewise, the specific purpose of the portfolios has varied according to the needs of the discipline and the preferences of the faculty member teaching the course. Types include process portfolios, reading portfolios, showcase portfolios, and exit portfolios (see Katz & Johnson-Kuby, 1996).
         The portfolio structure we envision responds to a variety of needs – personal, pedagogical, and program related. While the overall goal for the digital portfolio is to meet the learning and competency objectives of the teacher education program, our special aim is to maintain the emphasis on reflection and to highlight the developmental process of portfolio construction. Thus, the primary purpose of our student digital portfolio is a cumulative and on-going reflection of their progress and readiness in learning to teach. The portfolio as a whole must reflect the students' entire certification program. That is, students are expected to draw on as many of their courses and experiences as possible. Klenowski (1998) writes that portfolios provide a structure for documenting and reflecting on teaching and learning practice. (See Barrett (2000).) The portfolio allows for the collection of a range of tasks and information about teaching over time in different settings. Consequently, a richer portrayal of teaching practice is possible. Portfolio projects and publications in English studies have especially stressed the benefits of portfolios for encouraging metacognitive thinking and allowing for authentic assessment of the deep skills of literacy, and as such have inspired our reflective aim. (See Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000) and Burch (1997).)
         Given the longitudinal nature of the student portfolio, we hope that student reflection will become more rich and complex as they continue in the program providing quality information that can be used to examine growth and progress over time. Wolf, Whinery & Hagerty (1995) indicate that

    by engaging teachers-in-development in the practice of documenting and reflecting on their teaching, and in holding regular and focused conversations with their colleagues about their practice, we are building individual dispositions and a professional culture that values reflective, collaborative practice (p. 37).

    The portfolios our students develop will serve many purposes. Indeed, a primary goal of the digital portfolio will be to provide a vehicle for students to demonstrate they have met the learning and competency objectives of the teacher education program. But before they can present themselves as teachers and models, education students should themselves master the communicative tools that underlie every subject and support every learning method: reading and writing. Portfolio assessment of literacy skills provides a more authentic and reliable way to judge how students are using language over time, and how they are growing in ability and effectiveness. Another important objective will be to emphasize pedagogical reflection and to highlight the pre-service teacher's developmental process. Students will be expected to draw on as many of their courses and experiences as possible. Given the longitudinal nature of the portfolio, we hope that students' reflections will become more rich and complex as they progress in the program, providing quality information that can be used to examine growth and progress over time. Finally, students will need to continue to document their development as teachers via a portfolio during the "induction" phase (first two years) of their professional career in Indiana. The portfolio students develop throughout their undergraduate curriculum will continue to evolve during their initial years as full time teachers.

    Portfolio Structure
    A Web-based medium has been chosen for our electronic portfolios. The Web is advantageous for several reasons. First, it is cross-platform; persons creating and viewing the portfolio can use the computer of their choice. Second, many media types can be utilized on the Web including text, graphics, sound, and video. Multimedia will allow for rich representations of student learning and development. Third, HTML is not a proprietary format. As it is an international standard, with each new version slated to maintain compatibility with previous versions, it will endure. Fourth, Web files are easily transportable and can be displayed either online or distributed through other media such as CD-ROM. Finally, a Web-based portfolio can be more easily accessed for asynchronous assessment by all stakeholders (teacher education faculty, content area specialists, and P-12 teachers).
         Requirements for documenting student competencies in numerous state and national standards compelled us to frame the structure of the portfolio on a more holistic and broad level. To do this, we returned to our institution's conceptual framework based on the INTASC Standards. Students will reflect on and document their development as teachers in relation to each of the ten INTASC standards. Appropriate artifacts supporting their development in each standard will be hyperlinked within the portfolio.
         The categories of artifacts that can be used for sources of evidence are mandated by the state and may include:

    1. Classroom Performance - Video
    2. Lesson Artifacts ( e.g., lesson/unit planning, handouts, slides, assessment documents)
    3. Paper/Pencil Tests of Knowledge
    4. On-Demand Tasks (e.g., simulations, case studies, problem-based scenarios)
    5. Interviews of Candidates
    6. Testimonials (e.g., cooperating teachers, university supervisors, students)
    7. Products Reflecting Learning of Candidates' Students (e.g., student artifacts)
    8. Other Assessments (e.g., self-reports, special projects)

    Portfolio Assessment
    As previously mentioned, we have chosen four main stages for the portfolio development process, within which students build toward "decision points" in their teacher training. At each of these decision points, assessment of the portfolio will occur. In addition, selected artifacts of the portfolio will be developed and assessed as part of courses in the students' curriculum. Artifacts may be submitted and assessed at different stages of a student's progress, from admission to graduation. Early assessment will be more formative in nature, attempting to guide
    If you're interested in additional perspectives, check this piece out.
    students in relation to their learning practices and overall career goals; later assessment will judge performance more directly, applying the range of standards in an increasingly summative way.
         Obviously, this aspect of the larger portfolio program is crucial to its success. While a detailed assessment plan is still being formulated, many if not most course teachers will need to be involved, both in the core education courses and the various licensure areas. The need to fit portfolio assessment into departmental programs, as well as into faculty members' personal plans and preferences, presents perhaps the major challenge to our teacher education portfolio effort.

    Models
    Our Portfolio Task Force has examined three approaches to electronic portfolios that have come in some cases from our collective experiences with smaller scale development efforts with e-portfolios in disciplinary courses. These represent three possible points of approach that highlight strengths which could be incorporated into a general teacher education assessment process, but which also need further refinement and testing in program and course contexts. Testing will proceed across licensure areas in Fall 2001.

    Infrastructure Considerations
    A new critical need is to integrate the portfolio with performance assessment records. Parallel initiatives at Ball State involve the development and implementation of large-scale Web-based databases that support longitudinal portfolio construction and distribution as a core service of our licensure program. The portfolio database will be integrated into other Web-based representations of competence.
         This is the systems and infrastructure that will support large-scale, Web-enabled, relational databases that sustain and promote the competency profiling, performance assessment, and electronic portfolio initiatives. Teams are building an advanced data engine to support the representation and development of performance and competence. We are building upon established models for examining the NCATE, ISTE and NETS, INTASC, IPSB and P-12 competencies and standards and the ways they interface into the academic cycles of teacher education majors. For the duration of their teacher education experience, students, faculty, and cooperating teachers and administrators will interact with the competency database for the following services:

    1. Providing Web-based diagnostics in relation to INTASC, ISTE, NETS, and content area standards and competencies.
    2. Evaluating progress towards competence.
    3. Represent performance for assessment and licensure.
    4. Maintaining student portfolio and coursework relevant to licensure.

     The database is still under development and will be tested in Fall 2001.
         Other infrastructure considerations under discussion include the need for faculty professional development, computer lab resources – hardware, software, and staffing – for support of portfolio development among roughly 3,500 teacher education students, and a university-wide plan to support and update technical resources in all areas.

    Challenges
    Certainly infrastructure considerations mentioned above present immediate challenges to our program. But just as significant are what might be called "extrinsic challenges" related to changing our approach to a central activity of the University. Those of us who have adopted electronic portfolios can dream dreams and project possibilities, but these must be enacted in departments and licensure areas with very specific program needs and expectations; these are usually complex and make large demands on faculty and staff. Performance assessment represents a new way of evaluating students in all programs, and will need to be accommodated as a major part of language arts, or math, or life sciences teaching sequences. Faculty from the content areas will have to be involved in some way with the assessment of each student's competency in that area, based on the performance artifacts of the digital portfolio. This process goes beyond the normal course completion and grade indicators currently standard in education generally; it will be difficult to train teachers and also to compensate them when assessment activities go beyond what can reasonably be expected of a full time professional. Ultimately, the success of this major reform effort will depend on the ability of teachers, staff, administrators, and students to work together to achieve a better assessment regime in higher education. Can the limits of course-based, grade-ranked educational practices be overcome for the advantage of all concerned? This will be the question we will need to consistently raise and to seek consensus about. Our portfolio project is helping raise these issues and offering viable ways to rethink and reorganize, and revitalize assessment, using new media tools to show how this reform can be put into action.


    References

    Barrett, H. (2000). Electronic portfolios = multimedia development + portfolio development: The electronic portfolio development process. Electronic Portfolios: Information about Electronic Portfolio Development. <http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/aahe2000.html>

    Burch, C. B. (1997). Finding out what's in their heads: using teaching portfolios to assess English education students and programs. In Yancey, K. B., and Weiser, I. eds., pp. 263-277.

    Campbell, D.M., Cignetti, P.B., Melenyzer, B.J., Nettles, D.H., and Wyman, R.M. (1997). How to develop a professional portfolio: A manual for teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Hamp-Lyons, L., and Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio : principles for practice, theory & research. Cresskill, N.J: Hampton Press.

    Katz, C.A., Johnson-Kuby, S.A. (1996). Like portfolios for assessment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, v39(6), pp. 508-511.

    Klenowski, V. (1998). Guidelines for portfolio use in initial teacher education. Paper and Monograph Series in Education. Centre for Research and International Collaboration. Hong Kong Institute of Education.

    Wolf, K., Whinery, B. & Hagerty, P. (1995). Teaching portfolios and portfolio conversations for teacher educators and teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 17 (1), Spring, 30-39.

    Yancey, K. B., and Weiser, I. eds. (1997). Situating portfolios: four perspectives. Logan, Utah : Utah State University Press.