Professional Teaching Portfolio:
A Catalyst for Rethinking Education

Judith Johnson, Ph.D., Jeff Kaplan, Ph.D., & Susan Marie Marsh

University of Central Florida

Paper presented at the International Conference,

Self-Study in Teacher Education: Empowering our Future,

Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England August 5-8, 1996

 

Professional Teaching Portfolio: A Catalyst for Rethinking Education

INTRODUCTION

 

Learning to teach - like teaching itself- is always the process of becoming; a time of formation and transformation, of scrutiny into what one is doing, and who one can become (Britzman, 1993, p. 113 ). "The goal of this southern university College of Education is to facilitate development of educators who "demonstrate excellence through a continual, lifelong, reflective processes of learning". This goal is articulated in the College of Education Conceptual Framework developed by the Teacher Education Committee and affirmed by a majority of the faculty. Discussion about how to authentically assess this Framework resulted in the implementation a portfolio review procedure as an admission requirement for Internships I and II. This process posed not only logistical problems, but as with most innovations, the expected debate, dissension, and disequilibrium of "learning something new". The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe how portfolio assessment was implemented and to focus on how this process impacts faculty, students, and program development. This research clearly reveals that professional portfolios are constructive instruments for authentic assessment for students and that this process has provided a substantive catalyst for faculty professional dialogue and development.

 

Background

 

Members of the Teacher Education Committee (TEC) are elected to represent all departments in the College of Education. The role of this committee is to collaborate with the College of Education administrators to monitor Teacher Education programs for congruence and relevance to the needs of the larger educational community. In 1992, the College of Education began the process of an external program review and the role of this committee became one of documenting congruence between the Conceptual Framework and the College of Education programs. Simultaneously, the Teacher Education Committee recommended to the Dean of the College of Education that a portfolio assessment instrument, based on the College Conceptual Framework, should be an application requirement for both Internships I and II. Traditionally, students applying for Internship I (two full days per week) and II (full-time, 12 week experience with a certified teacher) were required to complete an application form, document the required GPA, and write a brief autobiography. It was determined that portfolio assessment offers a more effective way to examine both the breadth and depth of preservice teacher thinking and behavior prior to actual teaching in classrooms. It was also agreed that this process would provide a vehicle for internal program review.

 

Teaching Portfolio Guidelines

 

A Professional Teaching Portfolio Document was prepared by the Teacher Education Committee as a guide for students as they prepare their Professional Portfolios. The sections selected for the Professional Portfolio were derived from the College of Education Conceptual Model. The sections include: Commitment; Collaboration; Communication Skills; Ethical Standards; Knowledge of Content ; Knowledge of Pedagogy; Reflective Practice; Diversity; and Technology. The Portfolio Guidelines provide suggestions for evidences, and examples of reflections. Students are instructed that the reflections must be more than descriptive statements, and they are given a guide that describes technical, practical and critical reflections (Van Manen, 1977).

 

All students applying for Internship I must submit a portfolio with all sections labeled and four completed sections including the Autobiography, Personal Resume, and a choice of two of the other sections cited above. The purpose is to initiate students into the process of portfolio development and to assure that they will be able to complete all sections prior to application to Internship II. Application for Internship II must include a completed portfolio.

 

During the 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years, the review of portfolios was accomplished by six- to ten-member committees composed of faculty, graduate assistants and public school personnel from Professional Development Sites. One day was set aside during Fall and Spring semesters for the process and each student was provided with a feedback form to reflect the comments of the committee. Those students who did not submit a portfolio or who received and 'unsatisfactory' rating and/or did not revise their work, were not permitted to enroll in Internship I or II.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

 

This study is an ongoing single case study of the implementation of an innovation (portfolio assessment) by a College of Education. Data collection methods are designed to illuminate the factors affecting the implementation of an innovation and the impact of implementation on faculty and program development. Data sources include formal and informal interviews, surveys, documents, and field observations. This study began during the Fall semester of 1994 and continues as new data and insights are collected. Field studies methodologies involve the overlap of data collection and analysis, therefore as themes emerge from the data, the researchers seek to clarify and develop further understandings.

 

FINDINGS

 

This research, as well as others', is clearly revealing that portfolios are constructive instruments for instructional improvement and authentic assessment (Lomask, Pecheone & Baron, 1995; Wolf, 1996). Because they contain a broad repertoire of performances over time, portfolios can paint a rich, developmental view of teaching and learning. In addition, review of these documents provides a panoramic view of the teacher education program from which they were derived, as well as a forum for discussion among faculty.

 

Analysis of the data reveals two broad themes including implementing an innovation which is informed by change research and the impact of the portfolio review process. The focus of this paper is to describe the impact of the review process on faculty, students, and the teacher education program. The sources of data include both formal and informal interviews with faculty, public school personnel, and students, surveys of faculty and students, documents, and observations.

 

Setting - The Review Process

 

During the academic year, there are approximately 550 students from the main campus and two branch campuses, who apply for Internships I or II. The office of the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Studies processes the applications, collaborates with surrounding school districts to place students, and assigns university intern supervisors.

 

The initiation of the portfolio assessment process created additional logistical issues including timing, and dealing the sheer numbers of portfolio documents being reviewed. It was decided that students would continue to submit the traditional application form to serve as an indicator of an intention to submit a portfolio, and to give the Dean's office an approximate number to plan for placement. Approximately two weeks later, portfolios were submitted by students on "Portfolio Day" which was designated each semester by the Dean of the College of Education. A letter was sent to all faculty by the Dean of the College of Education, requesting their assistance in the review process and to be informed of those unable to attend.

 

The "Portfolio Review Day" began with a continental breakfast for faculty, public school personnel and graduate student participants, an overview of the process by members of the TEC committee, and explanations of the scoring rubric and feedback form for students. The participants were divided into teams of six to ten and were seated at tables in a large multipurpose room. The review process concluded at noon with a lunch, again provided by the College Dean's office. Each committee reviewed approximately 50-55 Internship I and II portfolios. Because Internship I portfolios are viewed as beginning documents and have only four sections, the committees were provided with approximately 25 of each level of portfolio for review. Graduate students and the TEC committee members facilitated the process, and tabulated results. As the portfolios were reviewed, a copy of a duplicate review form was both filed and placed in the portfolio. The reviewed portfolios were stored alphabetically for students to pick up the following Monday.

 

(Copies of the Student Professional Teaching Portfolio Document, scoring rubric, and review form will be made available during the presentation.)

 

Impacts of the Portfolio Review Process

 

The professional portfolio concept has the potential to document and inform learning and instruction while it recognizes that teacher education programs must model intentional and purposeful assessment. Our research sought to discover how this process in a College of Education had an effect on faculty, students, teacher education program, and public school personnel.

 

Faculty

 

This research has shown that the portfolio review process fosters professional development of faculty and served as a catalyst for substantive analysis of teaching philosophy, methods, and goals. The portfolio reviews by faculty structured collegial dialogue that served as powerful motivator for common curricular thinking. This process provided a framework for faculty to think and engage in critical discourse from educational philosophy to teaching models.

 

Faculty Enhancement

 

A subtheme that emerged from this category was faculty enhancement. Clearly, some faculty had neither utilized portfolio assessment in their own coursework, or had a clear sense of how portfolio assessment might be implemented. In some instances, faculty have learned how the portfolio assessment process allows them to more closely align their coursework with the Conceptual Model. For example, during an interview, one faculty member commented,

 

I didn't even know what a portfolio was. Some students had asked me about it because they were being asked to assist with student portfolios where they were interns, but I didn't think you could do that in physical education. Then I started hearing about the C.O.E. professional portfolio and then I was on a review team for the first time. I realized how they are used and built, and now in my methods class, we work on one topic in the portfolio each week.

 

During the review process, faculty members have consistently noted the weaknesses in student reflections. In an interview, a department chair noted,

 

You know, it's easy as educators to sit around and talk about being reflective and a reflective educator, but I'm not sure our students understand that. . . somehow we need to bridge the gap of what we think about as professional educators and how our students are perceiving the whole process.

 

This data suggests that faculty are both learning about the reflective process themselves, and learning ways to assist their students to utilize reflection to examine, discuss, and think about their performance. A survey of faculty who participated in the review process reveals that most of the reviewers view student reflection as a weakness, for example,

 

"Students seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding the difference between reporting and reflecting."

 

In interviews, faculty members commented,

 

I'm always revising my syllabus, but doing the portfolio reviews really brought home to me that students need help with self assessment and reflection.

 

. . students need to practice it more in our classes so it becomes just a common way of thinking instead of just something that needs to be put in a binder.

 

Recently, action was taken on these statements when the lead teacher for the Teaching Strategies I course invited a member of the TEC to speak to the adjunct faculty about strategies for initiating and providing feedback for student reflection.

 

Faculty Concerns

 

Faculty surveys and interviews consistently give voice to concerns primary concerns, including the consistency of reviews and the uneven distribution of the work load of the review process.

 

The student guidelines for development of the Professional Portfolio were distributed to all faculty for their information and to solicit their input and suggestions for revision. Additionally, the TEC provided overviews and criteria for the review process for reviewers prior to each 'Portfolio Day'. However, it is clear from some of the survey and interview comments that some faculty came into the review process without a clear understanding of the guidelines the students were given and/or didnot attend the overview sessions. The result has been that there are inconsistencies in the reviews and in the feedback given to students on the feedback form. A small percentage of faculty rated portfolios as 'Unsatisfactory' without providing narrative feedback for students. In some instances, feedback was given by a faculty reviewer, but when the student returned with their portfolio to their advisor, the feedback was dismissed and the portfolio approved. Although these examples are small, it serves to promote an image of faculty inconsistency and dissension. One adjunct faculty interviewed reported, "I'll tell you the big thing from my students was that they were not evaluated consistently.. . . They wanted more feedback and they wanted to know why they did good or bad." Another faculty concern was about the distribution of the work load for reviewing portfolios. During the first year of the process, approximately 70% of the faculty in the College of Education participated. During the second year the participation had fallen to approximately 50%. While there was overt and enthusiastic support by the Dean of the College of Education, there is varying levels of faculty support for the process. Analysis of the faculty participants reveal a representation from all of these levels including, (a) the enthusiastic supporters who are using alternative assessment in their courses and want to learn more about what their students know and are able to do; (b) the 'test the water' group who are learning about authentic assessment and are beginning to examine their courses in light of what they learn; and (c) the dissenters who view program renewal and change as a threat to their 'turf' and to the status quo.

 

Student Development

 

Portfolio development by preservice teachers provides a head start in shaping a career based on continual improvement (Seldin, & Annis, 1992) . This goal is articulated by some school districts who are implementing portfolio assessment in classrooms as well as professional teaching portfolios for teachers. Student comments on surveys and in informal interviews reveals a common agreement with the process, but a concern about the consistency of the reviewers. Some reported that it was stressful to assemble the portfolio but that they were proud of the final product. When asked about the benefits of having a portfolio, 83% of the respondents (102 students) reported that they have a pride in what they have accomplished and they hope that it will assist them to find a teaching position. Some faculty interviews related that their view of the portfolios was that it would assist students to be employed. A Department chair stated, "That's the bottom line - everything else is just window dressing - are they using it, is it making them better, and is it helping them be employed. . ."

 

Because this issue emerged from interviews and surveys of both faculty and students, we recorded a focus group interview of administrators from two nearby school districts. One stated, "We would definitely be impressed with a teacher candidate who not only had developed their own portfolio, but who would bring it with them as an example for us to view". All of the public school personnel who have participated in the portfolio reviews have been enthusiastic about the process and believe that this process will benefit the teachers they hope to employ. An assistant principal commented on a survey, "As an administrator, I see great value in portfolios. We often have only 20-25 minutes for an interview. Portfolios would be a tremendous asset in determining potential of a candidate".

 

Students have reported a variety of responses. With a few exceptions, they take great pride in their portfolios, and express deep disappointment if a review team rates it 'satisfactory' instead of 'outstanding' or if they suggest revisions. Some students have reported to faculty that when they reviewed the Portfolio Guidelines, they determined that they were not prepared for internship, and some cases changed their career goals. In addition, students report that they are more conscientious about organizing and saving materials and resources from their coursework, and that they are looking outside the College of Education for learning about teaching and learning. For example, they are seeking out professional organizations, professional conferences, and local workshops. One faculty member confirmed this in an interview stating, "I think that it's getting them to broaden their horizons. They're e gong to school board meetings, they're trying professional organizations - SNEA our membership has gone from 12 at the beginning of the year to almost 150 right now and I think their portfolio might be one reason for that."

 

Program Development

 

Program development has been observed to occur as faculty and peer reviewers consider selective, evidence-based information from a wide variety of courses taken by preservice teachers. Prompted by legislative action mandating a reduction in the credit hours that can be required, the College of Education has embarked on a process of restructuring. The portfolio review processes has served as a template for those discussions. Graduate faculty have revealed that the review process has allowed them a broader insight about the graduate students who are alumni and undergraduate faculty have reported the need for faculty communication and collaboration between and among departments.

 

Interviews and surveys reveal a common theme of collaboration. Faculty member comments include:

 

The one benefit that I have enjoyed is the actual collaborative working at a table with other faculty . . our organizational structure whether it's a governance structure or a physical space here in the college does not lend itself to collaboration always.. . .Because the portfolio is a requirement of the entire college of education, the benefit I've gained from having that . . is the actual day that faculty are seated together at tables and discussing information that real academicians should be doing on a more continual basis. . .

 

It was nice to see people very professionally involved in something - everybody that was there was really into it . . . The involvement builds and feeds on itself - we're getting some of the after effects in that people want to collaborate more. . . . this created an environment in the beginning which was very conducive for collaboration. . .

 

I enjoy working with my colleagues.

 

Data from both students and faculty reveals that it has the potential to be the intersection between instruction and assessment. Instructors involved in the review process have indicated that it has assisted them to think about their teaching in new ways.

 

Comments on a survey question about their experience in the portfolio review included the following.

 

I learned more about what we weren't doing than what the kids were doing in terms of what was going on . . . you could begin to realize that a lot of that [inconsistency] had to do with who they got in some of those courses and we did have a lot of adjuncts teaching those courses. . .

 

Reviewing the portfolios has helped me solidify my thinking in terms of my responsibility for teaching students how to approach the task, organize evidence, and respond in thoughtful and reflective terms.

 

I got some insights into some things to stress in my courses.

 

It will help me modify some of my objectives, and work towards weak areas.

 

It reinforces the need to focus on helping students develop rationales for their educational practices and the habit of reflection.

 

It gave me an insight on what the students are producing and thinking. This is a super idea although time consuming.

 

I got a lot of good ideas for my classes.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

Teachers for the 21st century must have unique professional knowledge, personal qualities and attitudes and effective instructional strategies. Furthermore, they must leave their professional education with the skills of self-renewal, reflective practice, and habits of mind that will assure that they will continue to grow and learn as their career progresses. While the College of Education Conceptual Model provides a perspective and direction for students in the College of Education, it is clear that implementation of these concepts may not be uniform and consistent. The professional teaching portfolio assessment development has become a tool to rethink existing epistemology, to conceptually align programs, and to assess these efforts. In a deeper sense, it is providing fertile ground for learning about how the need for continuous change is juxtaposed with a continuously conservative system.

 

While the implementation of the portfolio assessment process had provided evidence of student, faculty and program development, it is not free of the pitfalls and potholes of the change process. The process has been in place only four semesters and our research is revealing that students are beginning to view it as an expected part of their education, rather than an 'experiment'. Faculty, however, are troubled by the unequal work load caused by nonparticipating faculty, and some worry about inconsistent reviews or 'interrater reliability'. The process requires risk-taking on the part of both students and faculty because both teaching and learning are laid open for review. Even well-planned innovations represent uncertainty because the problems and solutions are unpredictable. Stacey (1992) advises, "Route and destination must be discovered through the journey itself if you wish to travel to new lands. . . the key to success lies in the creative activity of making new maps" (p. 1).

 

Our research has alerted us to our own roles in this process and to the pitfalls of making assumptions. Frequent discussions and personal experiences of TEC members resulted in shared understandings of the purposes and uses of portfolios and the value of reflections. We then assumed that the College of Education faculty had similar understandings. We also overlooked the risk involved in the review process itself. When students select evidences that result from coursework, it is then shared with all of the faculty review committee members. In addition, the committee members who organized the portfolio review days underestimated the resistance to change and the disequilibrium often experienced by those who do not share the same visions. While this process was initiated and supported by faculty and administrators who caution teachers about making assumptions about their students, we found that we were 'guilty' of making assumptions about our colleagues and that these assumptions have resulted in building some barriers to change.

 

The Road Ahead

 

Recent faculty meetings reveal a consensus agreement to continue the portfolio assessment process. Faculty and administrators acknowledge that we must honor the time needed to learning something new. The leaders who fare best are those who continually see themselves as designers not crusaders. Many of the best intentioned efforts to foster new learning disciplines flounder because those leading the change forget the first rule of learning: People learn what they need to learn, not what someone else thinks they need to learn (Senge, p. 345).

 

Continuing the process of implementation must be also include broadening the avenues of communication between and among faculty and students. Both faculty and students should be involved in revisions of the Portfolio Guidelines. Informational seminars for faculty and students concerning the guidelines and the review process should continue to be provided. It has been determined that the instructors for the first course in the College of Education program, Teaching Strategies I, will work with a member of the TEC to design a strategy for consistently introducing the portfolio assessment to students.

 

In response to faculty concern about the work load distribution, TEC recommended to the Dean of the College of Education that the review process in the Fall of 1996 will be accomplished by a review committee of approximately 20 members representing the College. This committee will determine the organization of the review, will work with the TEC to increase the consistency of reviews, and will receive in-kind compensations from their department chairs. While this format was suggested by a number of faculty, others are concerned that this will reduce communication and collaboration among faculty. Real change involves confronting real problems that are difficult to solve, taking risks, and time to learn something new. In addition Fullan (1993) warns that an absence of difficulty usually means that substantive changes are not really being attempted. Our research reveals not only the potential for this innovation to promote ownership of the learning process, foster reflection, enhance teaching, and provide concrete evidence of achievement, but it illustrates that the implementation has broad impact on faculty development, thinking, and planning.

 

REFERENCES

 

Fullan, M.G.(1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. New York: Falmer.

Lomask, M; Pecheone, R & Baron, J. (1995) Assessing new science teachers. Educational Leadership

Pascale, P. (1990) Managing on the edge. New York: Touchstone.

Seldin, P & Annis, L. (1991-92) The teaching portfolio. Teaching excellence: Toward the best in the academy. Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, Iowa State University, Ames, Vol. 3.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Basic Books.

Stacey, R. (1992) Managing the unknowable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Van Manen, M. (1977) Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry 6, 205-228.

Wolf, K. (1996) Developing an effective teaching portfolio. Educational Leadership, 53,6, 34-37.