Teaching Portfolio 101: Implementing the Teaching Portfolio in Introductory Courses.

Teaching portfolios have become the norm in teacher education programs over the last decade. In this article, the authors emphasize the need for the initial creation of teaching portfolios during introductory and foundation level education coursework, based on the constructivist perspective of learning. Early initiation to the portfolio process instills a reflective practitioner orientation and learning goal in teacher candidates. Recommendations are made regarding the content of these early portfolios and the use of a reflection process that connects each submission with an intended goal. The authors discuss the necessity of field experiences in relation to portfolio development and offer suggestions for reviewing and evaluating introductory portfolios.

For a little over a decade teacher preparation programs have been wrestling with implementing the portfolio process for preservice teacher evaluation (Bartell, Kaye & Morin, 1998; Copenhaver, et. al., 1997; Dollase, 1993;Wolf, 1991). Portfolios are now established products of the student teaching semester and are frequently used in the semesters immediately preceding student teaching. Recently, portfolio advocates have called for implementing the process earlier in the program to ease the time constraints associated with creating the portfolio in an otherwise busy internship or methods semester (Wenzlaff & Cummings, 1996), and to develop in future teachers the reflective practitioner dispositions associated with the portfolio process (Anderson & DeMeulle, 1998; Wenzlaff, 1998).

Many institutions are now experimenting with the use of portfolios in introductory courses. As preservice teachers begin their professional education study, they have very little experience or educational background to draw upon in creating these initial portfolios (Krause, 1996). They, in essence, lack educational theory and practice, appearing to have little to demonstrate in a portfolio. Students in these foundation level courses are typically concerned and frustrated when they are requested to prepare a portfolio because this type of project is not familiar to them. This article is intended to provide faculty teaching such courses with the rationale for portfolio use at this early stage, and provide insight into the necessary elements for producing effective introductory portfolios.

Why Porfolios

When teacher education programs begin the voyage toward portfolio evaluation with preservice teachers they often proclaim its value within a constructivist framework. Constructivism generally focuses on the importance of prior knowledge and experience in the development of new knowledge and skills. Students enter a teacher education program with many pre-existing theories about teaching based upon years of being a student (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). Teacher educators working in a constructivist paradigm allow students to examine, reflect upon, and alter these initial beliefs as they learn about their chosen careers through coursework and field experiences. Developmental portfolio evaluation systems are compatible with this perspective because they allow the learner to demonstrate and document personal growth over time.

Proponents of the process claim that portfolios focus preservice teachers on the kinds of experiences and responsibilities they will face as practicing professionals (Barton and Collins, 1993) and instill an attitude of life-long learning that emphasizes reflective practice and continual development within the profession (Anderson & DeMeulle, 1998).

Portfolio Functions

Portfolios in teacher education take on three primary functions: learning, assessment, and employment (Simmons, 1996; Wolf& Dietz, 1998). The learning portfolio contains a more personalized collection of artifacts selected by the student. This type of portfolio is open-ended and is meant to demonstrate professional development over time according to the personal goals of the student. Its major goal is to stimulate reflective practice and provide evidence of this reflection.

The assessment portfolio is more structured and standardized according to the goals and objectives of a particular teacher education program, accrediting body, or certification agency. This type of portfolio specifies many of the artifacts necessary for submission and possesses a higher degree of reliability and validity than portfolios that more closely reflect other functions. However, the relatively dictated nature of this type of portfolio places less emphasis on personal reflection.

The last type of portfolio is the employment portfolio. Employment portfolios represent a center ground between the open ended learning portfolio and the standardized assessment portfolio. These portfolios typically include the pre-service teachers "best" work and are meant to present the strengths of the teacher candidate. Employment portfolios usually contain the materials commonly requested by school districts like a resume and teaching philosophy, as well as, individually selected submissions that set the candidate apart from other potential employees. Employment portfolios therefore share a standardized and reflective quality.

The function of the preservice teaching portfolio is highly influenced by the stage of teacher preparation of the student. As the preservice teacher nears graduation the portfolio necessarily takes on an employment function. It is the goal of the student at this level to secure a teaching position. The student who is embarking upon student teaching must demonstrate the skills and abilities to take on this new challenge. This type of portfolio is therefore, more aligned with the assessment function since the student must document attainment of the basic qualifications for beginning student teaching. When the preservice teacher is first introduced to the portfolio development process in a teacher education program, we argue that the primary focus should be to develop skills of reflective practice. This can not happen as effectively when other functions are in the forefront of the mind of the student, as occurs near the climax of the preparation program. For this reason, the initial portfolio created by a preservice teacher should be developed during the foundations level course work, where it can take on a learning function.

Introductory Portfolio Development: Function and Content

It is widely believed that students need time to develop the reflective dispositions associated with the portfolio process (Yost, Sentner, and Forlenza-Bailey, 2000; Wenzlaff, 1998). Those with experience in teacher portfolio development realize that the process must be taught. Students need to be given the rationale for the portfolio. They need to understand how to organize it, and most importantly they need to practice the reflection process.

Students in introductory education courses are being exposed to philosophies and theories of learning, human development, teaching, exceptionality, multi-cultural education, and school structure. They have a number of semesters before they will be expected to take full responsibility of a classroom. These early courses allow the pre-service teacher time to learn the portfolio process, and design and organize a basic portfolio. The submissions created for the foundation level portfolio can be reflected upon and revised throughout the introductory coursework and revisited in methods and student teaching semesters. The portfolio process in later courses therefore takes on more of a learning function. Rather than create new submissions in an already time restricted internship, students can review earlier submissions and update or supplement them according to their current understanding, a very constructivist process.

The introductory portfolio needs to establish a breadth of knowledge and skill as a foundation for later revision. The portfolio should include information on the student's level of content knowledge. Although students have not usually completed all of their liberal arts course work at the onset of their education curriculum, they have at least completed their K- 12 compulsory education and are enrolled in college level liberal arts study. Students are therefore well on their way to establishing the appropriate level of content knowledge in the subject areas they will be teaching. Evidence of content knowledge in the introductory portfolio might include:

* Transcripts from high school and college

* Standardized test scores such as the SAT or ACT

* Papers, lab reports or projects competed in earlier content related coursework

* A resume referencing content related job experiences

* A letter from a professor in the content area

The introductory portfolio need also demonstrate the student's current understanding of educational foundations. This type of knowledge can be demonstrated in the portfolio in a variety of ways including:

* A personal statement or teaching philosophy

* Case studies

* Observations

* Journal reflections or logs

* Term papers or projects completed in educational coursework

* A resume referencing education related experiences

One final important element needs to be documented in the introductory portfolio. This component deals with the social and emotional development of the student. Too often, education faculty observe students at the methods or student teaching level who lack the affective qualities necessary to be a successful teacher. These students are perhaps disorganized, dress inappropriately, lack inter- and intra-personal skills, or generally present themselves as unprofessional. Developmental portfolios can alleviate some of these situations through both the submission process and the presentation process. Students can submit evidence of professionalism including:

* A letter of introduction to field supervisors

* Reports from field supervisors referencing the students attendance habits, dress, and demeanor with students and faculty

* Photographs of tutoring placements presenting the student in a professional manner

* Self-reports of personal and professional strengths and weaknesses following a professional growth plan model

* Evidence of compliance with legal and ethical codes of conduct

* Letters of recommendation

* Thank you letters to field supervisors

These sample submissions represent only a few of the possible entries in an introductory portfolio. Of course there are many other submissions that might evidence content knowledge, educational foundations, and social-emotional development. These suggestions are meant to provide a guide for the professor and student embarking upon portfolio development at the foundations level.

The contents and functions of the teaching portfolio are impacted by a number of additional factors including the reflection procedures built into the portfolio process, the quantity and quality of field experiences across the program, and the methods used for portfolio review. In order to obtain the full benefit of the portfolio process, it is important to examine each of these contributing factors.

Reflection Process

The process of reflection is what makes the portfolio a tool for life-long learning and professional development instead of merely a collection of work. The portfolio author needs to be able to make a direct connection, whether verbally, in writing or both; between each submission and an intended goal or objective. The student needs to be able to explain why a specific submission was placed within the portfolio. If the portfolio is intended to demonstrate improvement, the author needs to be able to identify how a particular submission provides evidences of growth over earlier submissions. If the goal is to demonstrate a standard of quality, the author should be able to discuss how the particular submission represents that standard.

Two promising practices that promote reflection are dialogue and writing experiences (Yost, Sentner, and Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). These processes are easily adapted to the portfolio reflection. Dialogue takes place in the portfolio presentation wherein the student-author engages in conversation about the portfolio with another individual or small group of reviewers. This conversation may be student- or reviewer-led. Student-led presentations allow students to discuss in free form their thoughts about their portfolio submissions. While in reviewer-led presentations, the student responds to questions about the portfolio posed by the reviewer. In either instance, the student may reflect upon the following types of information verbally:

* Why was a particular submission created or selected?

* What does a particular submission demonstrate?

* What difficulties did I have in creating a submission?

* What did I learn from a particular submission?

* How will my teaching be impacted as a result of a particular submission?

An advantage of this reflection process is that the conversations that take place during a portfolio presentation negotiate meaning within the constructivist learning paradigm. Both the presenter and reviewer become more aware of their understandings through the presentation. An alternate advantage is that it closely simulates the employment interview and teacher conference processes allowing the student to practice these skills.

Reflection through writing experiences takes place using the portfolio caption. This process involves the author providing a brief written summary for each portfolio submission explaining the value of the entry. Many different versions of the portfolio caption are being utilized in various teacher preparation programs. The most effective caption formats for encouraging reflection require the student to progress beyond a mere description of the submission to a level of exploration wherein the submission is related to a broader social, political and historical context (Hatton & Smith, 1995).

One advantage of the written caption method is that it records the student's reflection for future review, in essence it demonstrates the student's thinking at a particular point in time. An additional advantage of this method for the teacher educator is that the portfolio author need not be present during the assessment process. Therefore, allowing the reviewer the ability to evaluate the student's level of reflection when personal time constraints allow.

Field Experiences

A key component necessary for developing the authentic, reflective portfolio is field experiences. Without some field-based frame of reference, introductory portfolios easily become scrapbooks of course papers and projects. Even a reflection journal or log has little value void of field experiences, since introductory level students are reflecting on past experience or prophesizing about future actions. These field experiences need not be cumbersome or intrusive. Students might perform classroom observations, job shadowing, or at most small group tutoring. These activities allow students to make connections between course work and the practice of teaching. Rather than writing a term paper describing historical features of American education, students can relate historical phenomena to today's classroom as they see it. These personal connections lead to greater professional development and research demonstrates the powerful relationship between quality field experience and the integration and application of the pedagogy covered in teacher education coursework (Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998).

Field experiences are the bridge between educational theory and practice. Teacher education programs that provide early, frequent, and high quality experiences offer themselves many more avenues for authentic application in portfolio development. All field experiences, whether at the student teaching, method, or introductory level need to have structured connections with the preparation program through supervision, seminars, and class discussions. Portfolio submissions are often a product of these connections between theory and practice.

Reviewing the Introductory Portfolio

Evaluating the introductory portfolio can be quite a challenge for the professor. At first glance, the portfolio review is overwhelming. We would like to offer some suggestions based on five years of experimenting with portfolio evaluation at the introductory level. A primary suggestion is that you, as the course professor, don't have to do it alone. In fact, it may be better if you don't. Rather than personally examining each entry, invite outside reviewers. Talk with teachers and administrators in local schools, recent alumni, current student teachers, parents, faculty in the liberal arts and sciences, and fellow education faculty members. When given appropriate guidance, these people can be an asset in reviewing the work of introductory level students. Not only do they give a unique insight to students, but this is a terrific way to link those people who have a stake in the professional development of the student. The feedback provided by outside reviewers is helpful to the student and it assists in the assessment, evaluation, and development of the teacher education program.

Once the reviewers have been identified, it is necessary to establish a format for the review. We have experimented with open house formats in which hundreds of people are invited to attend a one evening session where all students in a particular class have their portfolios on display. We even go so far as placing an announcement in the local newspapers inviting portfolio reviewers to attend the open house. The public relations coverage associated with this format has been an unexpected benefit. Another successful strategy has been to assign each student to multiple reviewers and require them to complete a portfolio review meeting with each reviewer by a set deadline.

Once the format has been established, the reviewer and portfolio presenter must be clear on the evaluation process. They need to know what and how to assess the portfolio. One, seemingly low level factor in the portfolio examination, deals with organization. Portfolio reviewers should examine the layout of the portfolio, as well as the condition of the submissions, asking themselves:

* Is the portfolio easy to follow?

* Does the order of submissions make sense?

* Can portfolio authors find the submissions they are referencing during a presentation?

* Are the contents clean, neat, type written, colorful, engaging, etc.?

Reviewers should also pay attention to the communication skills of the portfolio author as they present their work, noting:

* Does the author model the appropriate use of language?

* Is the author engaging in manner and tone?

* Does the author appear self-confident and proud of the work?

* Does the author appear to understand the submissions or has this work been submitted without reflection?

Although these factors might not seem crucially linked to the pedagogical information covered within an introductory course, they are the first examination of what we commonly think of as professionalism. Many of these factors aren't fully examined until the student-teaching semester where, many would argue, it is too late.

Another factor to examine is the connection between each submission and the intended instructional objective. Does the submission demonstrate what it is supposed to demonstrate? Does it make sense? The student reflection is a key component in this type of review. Whether written or verbal, does the student make a logical and accurate connection between the submission and the required goal? Rubrics are a useful tool in establishing this connection. These rubrics may be created with the assistance of students and can be made available to reviewers.

It is not always necessary for the portfolio reviewer to examine every submission in the introductory portfolio. Many of the submitted items may have already been evaluated as part of course work. Random spot-checking allows the reviewer to determine if the student has made the appropriate submissions and the reflections detail the students ability to discuss and elaborate upon the relevance of each submission. Since the introductory portfolio is designed to be revisited throughout the education program, it is in the student's best interest to complete the work. The portfolio review at this level, therefore, does not have to take on a policing function.

Conclusion

In this article, we have emphasized the need for portfolio creation during introductory education coursework based on the constructivist perspective of learning. We argue that teacher education programs that initiate the portfolio process in introductory or foundational education courses are more likely to instill a reflective practitioner orientation and learning goal in their graduates. Early exposure allows students the time to create and revisit the portfolio submissions witnessing and owning their professional development. The introductory portfolio must therefore, document the breadth of knowledge and skills that the student will be expected to develop throughout the teacher preparation program, allowing the student the opportunity to revisit, improve, construct and reconstruct in later courses.

We call for the explicit use of a reflection process in the portfolio evaluation that connects each submission with an intended goal. We also argue that field experiences are a necessary component of introductory courses implementing portfolios, since they provide the setting for making authentic connections between coursework and the professional of teaching. Finally, we offer suggestions for reviewing and evaluating introductory portfolios.

In conclusion, we concede that there are many functions portfolios may take including the facilitation of employment and assessment of teaching qualification. However we believe the most noble of these functions is that of advancing learning among teachers and their students, and suggest that the best way to encourage this function is to establish portfolios early in the teacher preparation program and revisit them throughout.

References

Anderson, R. & DeMeulle, L. (1998). Portfolio use in twenty-four teacher education programs. Teacher Education Quarter(v, 25(1), 23-31.

Bartell, C; Kaye, C & Morin, J (1998). Guest editors' introduction: Teaching portfolios and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 5-8.

Barton, J. & Collins, A. (1993). Portfolios in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 200-210.

Brookhart, S. & Freeman, D. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62, 37-60.

Copenhaver, R.; Waggoner, J.; Young, A. & James, T. (1997). Promoting preservice teachers' professional growth through developmental portfolios. The Teacher Educator, 33(2), 103-111.

Dollase, R.H. (1996). The Vermont experiment in state-mandated portfolio program approval. The Journal of Teacher Education, 4 7(2), 85-93.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementatrion. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.

Krause, S. (1996). Portfolios in teacher education effects of instruction on preservice teachers' early comprehension of the portfolio process. The Journal of Teacher Education, 47(2), 130-139.

Simmons, J. (1996). Control the purpose, not the contents: Coaching the creation of teaching portfolios, Action in Teacher Education, 18(1), 71-81.

Wenzlaff, T. (1998). Dispositions and portfolio development: Is there a connection? Education, 118(4), 564-573.

Wenzlaff, T. & Cummings, K. (1996). The portfolio as a metaphor for teacher reflection. Contemporary Education, 67(2),109-113.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective to inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.

Wolf, K. (1996). Developing an effective teaching portfolio. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 34-38.

Wolf, K. & Dietz, M. (1998). Teaching portfolios: Purposes and possibilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 9-22.

Yost, D.; Sentner, S. & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An explanation of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21 st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-49.

Chandra J. Foote, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and Paul J. Vermette, Ed.D., Professor/ Teacher Educator, College of Education Niagara University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Chandra J. Foote, B'14 O'Shea Hall, Niagara University, New York 14109-2042.