Electronic Portfolio Adoption for Teacher Education Candidates
Michael W. Ledoux1,2 and Nadine McHenry1
Programs of professional development for preservice teachers of young children in the UnitedStates attempt to align their program goals and candidate performances to The NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), Association of Childhood
Education International (ACEI), and their particular state standards. In addition they attemptto teach candidates to be knowledgeable and reflective practitioners who use the best practicesin their field. This article will address one university’s attempt to adopt this process and utilize
electronic portfolios. The article will include examples of course objectives, standards, rubrics,and candidate performances interwoven through program matrices in order to insure theproper delivery of instruction while maintaining flexibility and creativity. It is hoped that the
article will foster discussion about the strengths and challenges of accountability and academicfreedom in preparing candidates in early childhood education.
KEY WORDS: standards; teacher preparation; portfolios; technology; assessment.
INTRODUCTION
We live in an era of accountability. Govern-mental agencies, churches, businesses, and privatecitizens are being scrutinized more closely than everfor actions and behaviors that are inconsistent withthe missions and goals of organizations. Teachereducation programs in colleges and universitiesthroughout the United States are undergoing strin-gent reviews from state agencies and accreditingbodies to make sure that their programs are properlyaligned to performance standards established byprofessional societies, accreditation agencies orgovernmental bodies (cf. Association for ChildhoodEducation 2000–2001; Darling-Hammond, 1999;Edelfelt & Raths, 1998; Galluzzo, 1999; Myers &Crowe, 2000).
One may wonder whether this new fervor forstrict alignment of objectives, instruction, and
assessment with standards in order to improveprograms is meritorious or whether it is a fad thatwill pass. It is also hoped that reflection upon thisprocess will cause educators to review the meaning ofacademic freedom and press for expanded notions ofassessment that will allow for more ample expressionsof ideas in preparation programs.
Within this context, we would like to address theuse of an electronic portfolio system for the prepa-ration of candidates in early childhood educationprograms at the initial licensure level. We will makeuse of the program standards for The NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children(NAEYC: NAEYC, 2001), Association of ChildhoodEducation International (ACEI), since these standardsmay be the most familiar to practitioners in theUnited States and are comparable to standards inother countries with similar school systems. It is byusing these core standards (see Table I) that anelectronic portfolio system can be helpful in aggre-gating data to assist in program approval, and, moreimportantly, program improvement.
As those who have gone through the accreditingprocess recently know, the first, and possiblymost daunting task in establishing a program
1Education, Widener University, One University Place, Chester,
PA 19013, USA.2Correspondence should be directed to Michael W. Ledoux,
Education, Widener University, One University Place, Chester,
PA 19013, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, October 2006 (� 2006)DOI: 10.1007/s10643-006-0111-1
1031082-3301/06/1000-0103/0 � 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
Table
I.StandardsAlignment
INTASC
Standards
ACEIStandards
NAEYC
Standards
NETsCompetencies
Principle
#1:Theteacher
understandsthe
centralconcepts,toolsofinquiry,and
structure
ofthediscipline(s)
heorshetea-
ches
andcancreate
learningexperiences
thatmaketheseaspects
ofthesubject
matter
meaningfulforstudents
1.Development,learning,andmotivation.
Candidatesknow,understand,anduse
the
majorconcepts,principles,theories,and
researchrelatedto
developmentofchildren
andyoungadolescents
toconstruct
learn-
ingopportunitiesthatsupport
individual
students’development,acquisitionof
knowledge,
andmotivation.
1.PromotingChildDevelopmentand
Learning.Candidatesuse
theirunder-
standingofyoungchildren’scharacteristics
andneedsandofmultiple
interacting
influencesonchildren’sdevelopmentand
learning,to
create
environments
thatare
healthy,respectful,supportiveandchal-
lengingforallchildren.
1.TechnologyOperationsandConcepts.
Teachersdem
onstrate
asoundunder-
standingoftechnologyconcepts
and
operations
Principle#2:Theteacher
understandshow
childrenlearn
anddevelopandcanprovide
learningopportunitiesthatsupport
their
intellectual,socialandpersonaldevelop-
ment
2a.Centralconcepts,toolsofinquiry,and
structuresofcontent.Candidatesknow,
understand,anduse
thecentralconcepts,
toolsofinquiry,andstructuresofcontent
forstudents
across
theK-6
grades
andcan
create
meaningfullearningexperiencesthat
developstudents’competence
insubject
matter
andskillsforvariousdevelopmen-
tallevels.
2.BuildingFamilyandCommunityRela-
tionships.Candidatesknow
about,under-
stand,andvaluetheim
portance
and
complexcharacteristics
ofchildren’s
familiesandcommunities.They
use
this
understandingto
create
respectful,
reciprocalrelationshipsthatsupport
andem
power
familiesin
theirchildren’s
developmentandlearning.
2.PlanninganddesigningLearningEnvi-
ronments
andExperiences.Teachersplan
anddesigneff
ectivelearningenvironments
andexperiencessupported
bytechnology.
Principle#3:Theteacher
understandshow
students
differ
intheirapproaches
tolearningandcreatesinstructional
opportunitiesthatare
adapted
todiverse
learners
2i.Connectionsacross
thecurriculum.
Candidatesknow,understand,anduse
the
connectionsamongconcepts,procedures,
andapplicationsfrom
contentareasto
motivate
elem
entary
students,build
understanding,andencouragetheappli-
cationofknowledge,skills,tools,andideas
torealworldissues.
3.Observing,DocumentingandAssessingto
Support
YoungChildrenandFamilies.
Candidatesknow
aboutandunderstand
thegoals,benefits
andusesofassessm
ent.
They
know
aboutanduse
system
atic
observation,documentation,andother
effectiveassessm
entstrategiesin
arespon-
sibleways,in
partnership
withfamiliesand
other
professionals,to
positivelyinfluence
children’sdevelopmentandlearning.
3.Teaching,LearningandtheCurriculum.
Teachersim
plementcurriculum
plans
thatincludemethodsandstrategiesfor
applyingtechnologyto
maxim
izestudent
learning.
Principle#4:Theteacher
understandsand
usesavarietyofinstructionalstrategiesto
encouragestudents’developmentofcritical
thinking,problem
solving,andperfor-
mance
skills
3a.Integratingandapplyingknowledgefor
instruction.Candidatesplanandim
ple-
mentinstructionbasedonknowledgeof
students,learningtheory,subject
matter,
curriculargoals,andcommunity.
4.TeachingandLearning.Candidates
integrate
theirunderstandingofandrela-
tionship
withchildrenandfamilies;their
understandingofdevelopmentallyeff
ective
approaches
toteachingandlearning;and
theirknowledgeofacadem
icdisciplines,to
design,im
plement,andevaluate
experi-
encesthatpromote
positivedevelopment
andlearningforallchildren.(Thereare
subsectionsto
thisstandard.)
4.Assessm
entandEvaluation.Teachers
apply
technologyto
facilitate
avarietyof
effectiveassessm
entandevaluation
104 Ledoux and McHenry
Principle
#5:Theteacher
usesanunder-
standingofindividualandgroupmotiva-
tionandbehaviorto
create
alearning
environmentthatencourages
positive
socialinteraction,activeengagem
entin
learningandself-m
otivation
3b.Adaptationto
diverse
students.Candi-
datesunderstandhow
elem
entary
students
differ
intheirdevelopmentandapproaches
tolearning,andcreate
instructional
opportunitiesthatare
adapted
todiverse
students.
5.BecomingaProfessional.Candidates
identify
andconduct
them
selves
asmem
-
bersoftheearlychildhoodprofession.
They
know
anduse
ethicalguidelines
and
other
professionalstandardsrelatedto
earlychildhoodpractice.
They
are
contin-
uous,collaborativelearnerswhodem
on-
strate
knowledgeable,reflective,
and
criticalperspectives
ontheirwork,making
inform
eddecisionsthatintegrate
knowl-
edgefrom
avarietyofsources.They
are
inform
edadvocatesforsoundeducational
practices
andpolicies.
5.ProductivityandProfessionalPractice.
Teachersapply
technologyto
enhance
theirproductivityandprofessional
practice.
Principle
#6:Theteacher
usesknowledge
ofeff
ectiveverbal,nonverbal,andmedia
communicationtechniques
tofoster
active
inquiry,collaboration,andsupportive
interactionin
theclassroom
3c.
Developmentofcriticalthinking,prob-
lem
solvingandperform
ance
skills.Candi-
datesunderstandanduse
avarietyof
teachingstrategiesthatencourageelem
en-
tary
students’developmentofcritical
thinking,problem
solving,andperfor-
mance
skills.
6.Social,Ethical,LegalandHumanIssues.
Teachersunderstandthesocial,ethical,
legalandhumanissues
surroundingtheuse
oftechnologyin
PK-12schoolsandapply
those
principlesin
practice.
Principle#7:Theteacher
plansinstruction
baseduponknowledgeofsubject
matter,
students,thecommunity,andcurriculum
goals.
3d.Activeengagem
entin
learning.Candi-
datesuse
theirknowledgeandunder-
standingofindividualandgroup
motivationandbehavioramongstudents
attheK-6
levelto
foster
activeengagem
ent
inlearning,selfmotivation,andpositive
socialinteractionandto
create
supportive
learningenvironments.
Principle#8:Theteacher
understandsand
usesform
alandinform
alassessm
ent
strategiesto
evaluate
ensure
thecontinu-
ousintellectual,socialandphysical
developmentofthelearner.
3e.
Communicationto
foster
learning.
Candidatesuse
theirknowledgeand
understandingofeff
ectiveverbal,nonver-
bal,andmedia
communicationtechniques
tofoster
activeinquiry,collaboration,and
supportiveinteractionin
theelem
entary
classroom.
Principle
#9:Theteacher
isareflective
practitioner
whocontinuallyevaluatesthe
effects
ofhis/her
choices
andactionson
others(students,parents,andother
pro-
fessionalsin
thelearningcommunity)and
whoactivelyseeksoutopportunitiesto
grow
professionally.
4.Assessm
entforinstruction.Candidates
know,understand,anduse
form
aland
inform
alassessm
entstrategiesto
plan,
evaluate,andstrengthen
instructionthat
willpromote
continuousintellectual,so-
cial,em
otional,andphysicaldevelopment
ofeach
elem
entary
student.
Principle
#10:Theteacher
fostersrela-
tionshipswithschoolcolleagues,parents,
andagencies
inthelarger
communityto
support
students’learningandwell-being.
5a.Practices
andbehaviors
ofdeveloping
career
teachers.Candidatesunderstand
andapply
practices
andbehaviors
that
are
characteristicofdevelopingcareer
teachers.
105Electronic Portfolios
Table
I.Continued
INTASC
Standards
ACEIStandards
NAEYC
Standards
NETsCompetencies
5b.Reflectionandevaluation.Candidates
are
aware
ofandreflectontheirpracticein
lightofresearchonteachingandresources
available
forprofessionallearning;they
continuallyevaluate
theeff
ects
oftheir
professionaldecisionsandactionsonstu-
dents,parents,andother
professionalsin
thelearningcommunityandactivelyseek
outopportunitiesto
grow
professionally.
5c.
Collaborationwithfamilies.Candidates
know
theim
portance
ofestablishingand
maintainingapositivecollaborativerela-
tionship
withfamiliesto
promote
the
intellectual,social,em
otional,andphysical
growth
ofchildren.
5d.Collaborationwithcolleagues
andthe
community.Candidatesfoster
relationships
withschoolcolleagues
andagencies
inthe
larger
communityto
support
students’
learningandwell-being.
2b.English
languagearts.Candidates
dem
onstrate
ahighlevel
ofcompetence
in
use
oftheEnglish
languageartsandthey
know,understand,anduse
concepts
from
reading,languageandchilddevelopment,
toteach
reading,writing,speaking,view-
ing,listening,andthinkingskillsandto
helpstudents
successfullyapply
their
developingskillsto
manydifferentsitua-
tions,materials,andideas.
2c.
Science.Candidatesknow,understand,
anduse
fundamentalconcepts
inthesub-
ject
matter
ofscience–includingphysical,
life,andearthandspace
sciences–aswellas
conceptsin
science
andtechnology,science
inpersonalandsocialperspectives,the
history
andnature
ofscience,theunifying
concepts
ofscience,andtheinquirypro-
cesses
scientistsuse
indiscoveryofnew
knowledgeto
buildabase
forscientificand
technologicalliteracy.
106 Ledoux and McHenry
2d.Mathem
atics.Candidatesknow,
understand,anduse
themajorconcepts,
procedures,andreasoningprocesses
of
mathem
atics
thatdefinenumber
system
s
andnumber
sense,geometry,measure-
ment,statisticsandprobability,andalge-
bra
inorder
tofoster
student
understandinganduse
ofpatterns,quan-
tities,andspatialrelationshipsthatcan
representphenomena,solveproblems,
andmanagedata.
2e.
Socialstudies.Candidatesknow,
understand,anduse
themajorconcepts
andmodes
ofinquiryfrom
thesocial
studies–theintegratedstudyofhistory,
geography,thesocialsciences,andother
relatedareas–to
promote
elem
entary
stu-
dents’abilitiesto
makeinform
eddecisions
ascitizensofaculturallydiverse
dem
o-
craticsocietyandinterdependentworld.
2f.Thearts.Candidatesknow,understand,
anduse–asappropriate
totheirown
knowledgeandskills–thecontent,func-
tions,andachievem
ents
ofdance,music,
theater,andtheseveralvisualarts
asprimary
media
forcommunication,
inquiry,andinsightamongelem
entary
students.
2g.Healtheducation.Candidatesknow,
understand,anduse
themajorconcepts
in
thesubject
matter
ofhealtheducationto
create
opportunitiesforstudentdevelop-
mentandpracticeofskillsthatcontribute
togoodhealth.
2h.Physicaleducation.Candidatesknow,
understand,anduse–asappropriate
to
theirownunderstandingandskills–human
movem
entandphysicalactivityascentral
elem
ents
tofoster
active,
healthylife
styles
andenhancedquality
oflife
forelem
entary
students.
107Electronic Portfolios
review is to align the various standards for the mul-tiple programs being offered by any institution. Asample of the possibly alignment is offered in Table I.Once this alignment is complete, demonstrating thecongruence of required performances across IN-TASC and Specialized Professional Association(SPA) standards, the faculty engaged in this processmust agree on how to reflect these outcomes in theptograms(s) and individual courses. Many faculties inthe US have come to adopt the INTASC Principles asthe driving force describing candidate performance.The INTASC standards then need to be reflectedwithin the syllabi of each of the faculty members whoare teaching preparation courses and a matrixdeveloped to show where each of the programmaticofferings intend to present candidates with thelearning opportunities aligned with these Principles.Making the standards matrix in an electronic move-able format will allow faculty to rearrange thestandards to fit into the appropriate configuration.Faculty members who develop their own courseobjectives and assessment tasks then need a furthertranslation. A sample of the syllabus and coursetask alignments is offered in Table II. Those whohave gone through this process realize the complexi-ties involved, especially when teacher educatorprograms involve faculty from schools or divisionsother than education. For those who have not yetwrestled with these standards and the alignmentprocess, you are wished the best of success and lots ofpatience.
HOW TO ASSESS PRESERVICE EARLY
CHILDHOOD PRACTITIONERS
Accrediting agencies and veteran educators atthe higher education level often view assessment indifferent ways. External agencies seek measures thatapply to all students who pass through a professionalpreparation program so that similar competenciescan be assessed for all program completers or at anyparticular stage of a program. Our university, repre-sentative of many, has three patterns of programcompletion in early childhood education: typicalundergraduate progression, accelerated adult learnersthrough the University College program, and grad-uate students who are likely to be part-time adults incareer changes. In order to set any assumptions aboutassessment, it becomes necessary to convince (coerce)all instructors, both adjunct and full-time, to agree onat least a few assessment strategies that will result indata that can be aggregated across sections.
At first, this may seem a simple and logical step.However, it involves the transformation of culturesamong many faculty. It is felt to be an intrusion intotheir own domain of instruction and assessment. Tofurther complicate matters, a choice must be made inhow to involve adjunct faculty in the decision processfor overall student performance. Again a cultureshift, this meant, for us, that adjuncts were asked todo more than arrive on campus to teach; they wererequired to meet with full-time faculty and be trainedin the goals of the program assessment and portfoliosystem. For those institutions with schools ofeducation who are separated from content areadepartments of liberal arts, this again becomes amatter of cultural intrusion.
Let us illustrate this with an example. All earlychildhood majors are required to take an introduc-tory course in psychology. The need for such a courseis apparent and relates to INTASC Principle #2,NAEYC Standard #1 (see Table I, column 1 forINTASC principles), and most state requirements.However, this meant that to decide upon a task oroutcome for students from this course across allprogram, we needed to involve full-time faculty fromthe School of Arts & Sciences, adjunct faculty fromthe University College, full-time and part-time fac-ulty from the Center for Education, and theirrespective administrators. These faculty, typically ledby the full-time faculty, then needed to determinewhich tasks or strategies would be common to allsections of all syllabi. This process was then repli-cated for all courses to determine which assessmenttasks would become standard fare for this course.Level(s) of proficiency also had to be agreed upongiven the challenges of graduate and undergraduatestudents and the involvement of non-traditional stu-dents in initial certification programs. This discussioncontinued within the formation of rubrics to bediscussed later in this article.
In the end, two strategies developed among fac-ulty. The first was to develop a standardized syllabusfor all sections of the same course. This meant thatfaculty relinquished control of their personal assess-ment choices and agreed to conform to a set ofassessment tasks, content, and timelines for studentprogression. The second strategy was that facultyagreed (perhaps conceded) to include three assess-ment strategies that would be common to all sections,but left other strategies as optional or used at thediscretion of the instructor.
A third strategy was also attempted. This was anattempt to determine that the same objective could be
108 Ledoux and McHenry
Table
II.LearningObjectives
Aligned
INTASC
Principles
LearningObjectives
Assessm
entTasks
Weekly
e-activities
Research
Paper
Unit
Plan
Technology
Evaluations
Final
Port-folio
A&P
12
34
5
Principle
#1:Theteacher
understandsthecentralcon-
cepts,toolsofinquiry,and
structure
ofthediscipline(s)
he
orsheteaches
andcancreate
learningexperiencesthatmake
theseaspects
ofthesubject
matter
meaningfulforstudents.
1.Candidatesknow
and
understandmajorconcepts
and
modes
ofinquiryfrom
the
socialstudies.(1998–2002,
AssociationforChildhood
EducationInternational.
Retrieved
June22,2003from:
http://w
ww.udel.edu/bateman/
acei/ncateindex.htm
).
––
––
––
––
–
Principle
#7:Theteacher
plans
instructionbaseduponknowl-
edgeofsubject
matter,stu-
dents,thecommunity,and
curriculum
goals.
2.
Candidates
will
use
and
apply
thesocialstudiescontent
standardsappropriately.
––
––
–
Principle
#2:Theteacher
understandshow
childrenlearn
anddevelopandcanprovide
learningopportunitiesthat
support
theirintellectual,social
andpersonaldevelopment.
3.Candidateswilluse
and
apply
thesocialstudiesteach-
ingstandardsappropriately.
––
–
Principle
#4:Theteacher
understandsandusesavariety
ofinstructionalstrategiesto
encouragestudents’develop-
mentofcriticalthinking,prob-
lem
solving,andperform
ance
skills.
Principle
#5:Theteacher
uses
anunderstandingofindividual
andgroupmotivationand
behaviorto
create
alearning
environmentthatencourages
positivesocialinteraction,ac-
tiveengagem
entin
learningand
self-m
otivation.
109Electronic Portfolios
Table
II.Continued
INTASC
Principles
LearningObjectives
Assessm
entTasks
Weekly
e-activities
Research
Paper
Unit
Plan
Technology
Evaluations
Final
Port-folio
A&P
12
34
5
Principle
#8:Theteacher
understandsandusesform
al
andinform
alassessm
entstrat-
egiesto
evaluate
ensure
the
continuousintellectual,social
andphysicaldevelopmentof
thelearner.Principle#9:The
teacher
isareflectivepracti-
tioner
whocontinuallyevalu-
atestheeff
ects
ofhis/her
choices
andactionsonothers
(students,parents,andother
professionalsin
thelearning
community)andwhoactively
seeksoutopportunitiesto
grow
professionally.
Principle
#2:Theteacher
understandshow
childrenlearn
anddevelopandcanprovide
learningopportunitiesthat
support
theirintellectual,social
andpersonaldevelopment.
4.Candidateswillapply
a
varietyofteaching,learning
andassessm
entstrategiesthat
acknowledgethediversity
of
learnersin
hisorher
class.
––
–
Principle
#4:Theteacher
understandsandusesavariety
ofinstructionalstrategiesto
encouragestudents’develop-
mentofcriticalthinking,prob-
lem
solving,andperform
ance
skills.
110 Ledoux and McHenry
Principle
#5:Theteacher
uses
anunderstandingofindividual
andgroupmotivationand
behaviorto
create
alearning
environmentthatencourages
positivesocialinteraction,ac-
tiveengagem
entin
learningand
self-m
otivation.
Principle
#8:Theteacher
understandsandusesform
al
andinform
alassessm
entstrat-
egiesto
evaluate
ensure
the
continuousintellectual,social
andphysicaldevelopmentof
thelearner.Principle#9:The
teacher
isareflectivepracti-
tioner
whocontinuallyevalu-
atestheeff
ects
ofhis/her
choices
andactionsonothers
(students,parents,andother
professionalsin
thelearning
community)andwhoactively
seeksoutopportunitiesto
grow
professionally.
Principle
#6:Theteacher
uses
knowledgeofeff
ectiveverbal,
nonverbal,andmedia
commu-
nicationtechniques
tofoster
activeinquiry,collaboration,
andsupportiveinteractionin
theclassroom
5.Candidateswillunderstand
andutilize
educational
technologywithin
theSocial
Studiescurriculum.
––
––
6.Candidateswilldem
onstrate
higher
order
cognitiveskillsin
theirwritten
andoralcommu-
nication.
––
––
––
––
––
FinalGrades
––
––
––
111Electronic Portfolios
measured in multiple ways within or among differingsections of the same course and could be aggregatedfor the same score. Although this strategy preservedmore teacher autonomy, in the end, it was discardedas simply too cumbersome.
The next issue that faculty had to agree uponwere certain premises to measure student progress.Multiple levels of governance had to be involved toestablish these processes. The first, a local educationleadership group to determine assessment (appropri-ately named the assessment committee) that receivedtheir charge from the Center for Education’s Aca-demic Affairs Committee. The second level was aninterscholastic committee termed the Teacher Edu-cation Council to act as liaison among all academicentities involved with teacher education from theaforementioned schools and units. This body receivedapproval from the University level Academic AffairsCommittee and the local levels involved in thecommittee.
Once satisfied that student-learning outcomesare properly aligned, accrediting agencies are seekingevidence of student performance. The use of portfo-lios as a means of auditing student performance moreauthentically has been popular for more than a dec-ade (e.g. Danielson, 1996; Zubizarreta, 1994). Mostteacher education programs have required portfoliosof student teachers or students as a graduationrequirement. Once the challenge of alignment of syl-labi and the need to show student performances wasdescribed to the faculty, the Teacher EducationCouncil and the local committees agreed upon the useof a portfolio system for aggregating studentprogress.
In order to use the portfolios for studentassessment, certain premises must be made as to theway initial training processes with portfolios willoccur, how artifacts will be included or excluded, thetimes of review for artifacts, and who the appro-priate persons are to review the artifacts (cf. Cole &Ryan 1998, p. 12). Along with the adoption of aformal portfolio system for assessment along theprogram, which had previously only been requiredby individual instructors and at the completion ofstudent teaching, we also chose to adopt an elec-tronic system with the belief that it would moreeasily assist us in assessing and aggregating data. Tothat end, the Teacher Education Council formulateda plan for the implementation for the system andsome premises.
In our process, we determined that the followingpremises:
1. All teacher candidates in initial certification programs
will use electronic portfolios;
2. Teacher candidates will be introduced to the electronic
portfolio technology during their first year in the teacher
education program in a technology for education class.
This provides the necessary instruction and support for
the process.
3. Teacher candidates will use the INTASC Principles
as performance expectations. Teacher candidates must
submit artifacts that demonstrate achievement of each
INTASC Principle.
4. Teacher candidates will be required to use information
from their first Introduction to Education to develop
artifacts that will represent their achievement.
5. Teacher candidates will self select their best representa-
tions as evidence of accomplishment of a particular
standard or standards.
5a. The term ‘‘best’’ will vary according to students’
progression through the program. Teacher candidates
may receive excellent grades from one or more instruc-
tors or supervisors, while still being deemed ‘‘emergent’’
in performance level due to their position in the
program.
6. Decision points will be established within courses in the
first three years of the program so that designated fac-
ulty will become responsible for portfolio review.
7. Final ‘‘proficiency’’ will be established by a review of the
electronic portfolio at the end of the student’s program.
The end of program will include PRAXIS exam comple-
tion and successful student teaching.
Although most of these premises seem self-explanatory and logical, the sixth premise is of con-cern for teacher candidates and reviewers. Becausestudents in an initial field placement or course may behighly successful (i.e. earning a letter grade of A) attheir assessment task, they still may not demonstratethe skills and development necessary to be deemedproficient in a particular standard. As a candidateprogresses through the program, the target shifts. Assophomores, candidates are expected to reach theemergent level; as juniors, they are expected to reachproficiency; and as seniors, we hope that many willreach the target level. Expectations vary according toraters and the levels are different with graduate initialcertification candidates and adult learners in initiallicensure.
This necessitated the establishment of yet an-other committee to develop rubrics for portfolioassessment at each of the decision points so thatstudents among differing programs and in differentlevels of courses could be assessed according to cri-teria that could be aggregated independently fromgrade reporting or instructor evaluations. The‘‘Portfolio Rubrics Committee’’ developed extensiverubrics (see Table III) to assess student progress atthe determined ‘‘decision points.’’ This allowed for
112 Ledoux and McHenry
Table
III.
Electronic
PortfolioRubrics
GeneralGuidelines
forTeacher
Candidates
Insufficient(1)
Emergent(2)
Proficient(3)
Distinguished
(4)
Resume
Containsfew
ofthecompo-
nents
required.Is
poorly
written
andcontains
technicalerrors.
Containssomebutnotallof
thecomponents
required.Is
adequately
written
andcon-
tainsnotechnicalerrors.
Containsallofthecomponents
required.Is
wellwritten
and
provides
agoodoverviewofthe
candidate’sbackgroundand
experience.Containsno
technicalerrors.
Containsallofthecomponents
required.Is
exceptionallywell
written
andprovides
acom-
prehensiveoverview
ofthe
candidate’sbackgroundand
experience.Containsno
technicalerrors.
EducationalPhilosophy
Philosophydoes
notfocuson
anycore
beliefs
aboutteaching
andlearning.Narrativeis
poorlywritten.Nonotation/
linksto
artifacts.
Philosophyfocusisoncore
beliefs
aboutteachingand
learningbutdoes
notdescribe
personalexperiencesthatdem
-
onstrate
thesebeliefs.Narrative
isadequately
written.Few
notation/linksto
artifacts.
Philosophyfocusisontw
o-four
core
beliefs
aboutteachingand
learninganddescribes
personal
experiencesthatdem
onstrate
thesebeliefs.Narrativeiswell
written
butlacksdetail.Nota-
tion/linksto
artifactsare
in-
cluded
andare
consistentwith
beliefs.
Philosophyfocusisontw
o-four
core
beliefs
aboutteachingand
learninganddescribes
personal
experiencesthatdem
onstrate
thesebeliefs.Narrativeis
exceptionallywritten.Nota-
tion/linksto
artifactsare
included
andare
consistent
withbeliefs.
INTASC
Principle
Sections
•InterpretationofIN
TASC
Principles
Interpretiveparagraphsare
poorlywritten,contain
techni-
calerrors
anddonotaddress
themain
pointsoftheIN
TASC
Principles.
Interpretiveparagraphsare
adequately
written,contain
no
technicalerrors
andaddress
some,
butnotall,ofthemain
points
oftheIN
TASC
Princi-
ples.
Interpretiveparagraphsare
wellwritten,contain
notech-
nicalerrors
andaddress
all,of
themain
pointsoftheIN
TASC
Principles.
Interpretiveparagraphsare
exceptionallywritten,contain
notechnicalerrors
andeff
ec-
tivelyintegrate
allofthemain
points
oftheIN
TASC
Princi-
ples.
•IdentificationandDescription
ofArtifacts
Amajority
ofidentificationand
descriptiveparagraphsare
poorlywritten
andfailto
dem
-
onstrate
firsthandknowledgeof
each
artifact’srelationship
to
thePrinciple.
Amajority
ofidentificationand
descriptiveparagraphsare
ade-
quately
written
anddem
on-
strate
somefirsthand
knowledgeofeach
artifact’s
relationship
tothePrinciple.
Amajority
ofidentificationand
descriptiveparagraphsare
well
written
anddem
onstrate
first-
handknowledgeofeach
arti-
fact’srelationship
tothe
Principle.
Allidentificationanddescrip-
tiveparagraphsare
exception-
allywritten
andclearly
dem
onstrate
firsthandknowl-
edgeofeach
artifact’srelation-
ship
tothePrinciple.
•Rationale
forSelectionof
Artifacts
Artifact
rationalesare
poorly
written
anddonotdem
onstrate
each
artifact’srelationship
to
thePrinciple.
Artifact
rationalesim
ply,but
donotexplicitlydem
onstrate,
each
artifact’srelationship
to
thePrinciple.
Artifact
rationalesare
well
written
andclearlydem
onstrate
each
artifact’srelationship
to
thePrinciple.
Artifact
rationalesare
excep-
tionallywritten
andexplicitly
dem
onstrate
each
artifact’s
relationship
tothePrinciple.
•Artifacts
Amajority
oftheartifactscho-
senoffer
littleornosupportfor
theIN
TASC
Principle
chosen.
Amajority
oftheartifacts
chosenoffer
somesupport
for
theIN
TASC
Principle
chosen.
Amajority
oftheartifacts
chosenoffer
clearsupport
for
theIN
TASC
Principle
chosen.
Allartifactschosenoffer
com-
prehensivesupport
forthe
INTASC
Principle
chosen.
•GeneralGuidelines
Overallportfoliodoes
notmeet
generalguidelines
forIN
TASC
Portfolio.
Overallportfoliomeetssomeof
thegeneralguidelines
forIN
-
TASC
Portfolio.
Overallportfoliomeets
most
of
thegeneralguidelines
forIN
-
TASC
Portfolio.
Overallportfoliomeets
allthe
generalguidelines
forIN
TASC
Portfolio.
113Electronic Portfolios
the determination of student progress accordingto the levels of emergent, proficient, and target,regardless of the course grade assigned by a profes-sor.
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS V. HARD COPY
The most cumbersome requirements of portfolioassessment for faculty are the review of the artifacts,the aggregation of data to show program strengthsand weaknesses, and the transport and storage of thehard-copy portfolios. The use of an electronic port-folio system can aid in this process, due to the fluidityof transfer and storage of materials.
The electronic portfolio system used is a pro-prietary system we adopted was developed by JohnsHopkins University with support from them. It al-lows teacher candidates unlimited storage capacity,the ability to develop multiple portfolios for differentuses, log in using the same protocols as the regularcampus system, and transfer their portfolios to othermembers of the learning community for review. It isthis last feature that allows for scoring and dataaggregation.
By establishing ‘‘decision points’’ the teachingfaculty are able to view a student’s progress accord-ing to the INTASC Standards and apply them to theNAEYC and ACEI standards accordingly. Havingestablished four decision points (initially at ED 101;at time of application to certification, with approxi-mately 48 credits of coursework completed; afterstudent teaching; and upon exiting the program); thedata collection is able to take place by way of theportfolio review. However, in order to ascertainactual program needs, data aggregation has to occurand two scenarios can take place. The first is tospecify that, among the particular artifacts chosen,certain artifact ‘‘constants’’ must be included, such asa social studies unit or lesson plan. The second is toallow the variety of artifacts to remain, but to assessoverall achievement against the standards. We chosethe latter to allow for greater student flexibility andreflection in understanding of how artifacts fulfill therequirements of each standard. It is our hope thatteacher candidates will become more reflective intheir learning by this process of self-selection asindicated in portfolio assessment as some researcherssuggest (Campbell, Gidnetti, Melenyzer, Nettle, &Wyman, 2004; Meyer, et al 1996; Niles & Bruneau,1994).
During the stated decision points, faculty assessportfolios against the INTASC standards for profi-
ciency. The fluid transfer of electronic portfolioswithin the community allows for access by single ormultiple assessors. The establishment of rubrics forportfolio assessment by designated faculty will reducegaps in interrater reliability issues.
STUDENT USE OF ELECTRONIC
PORTFOLIOS
Beyond the flexibility, storage, and transfercapabilities of the electronic version of portfolios,electronic portfolios have helped us to imbed tech-nology use in an authentic task aimed at helpingteacher candidates develop a product and set ofperformances that will be connected to career devel-opment. The electronic portfolio requires skills intechnological awareness that are transferable to manyother aspects of professional practice. The ACEIstandards require student proficiency in means ofcommunication related to practice. ‘‘3.4 Communi-cation to foster learning-Candidates use their knowl-edge and understanding of effective verbal,nonverbal, and media communication techniques tofoster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportiveinteraction in the elementary classroom’’ (NCATE,2000). This standard is aligned with teacher candi-dates’ performance in the design and maintenance ofthe portfolio as outlined in INTASC Standard 6:‘‘The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal,nonverbal, and media communication techniques tofoster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportiveinteraction in the classroom.’’ (Chief State SchoolOfficers Council, 1992). Other standards, such as thestandards for technology achievement may also beused.
Electronic portfolios, as any portfolio collection,can be nothing more than a storage container if tea-cher candidates are not effectively taught to utilize thecontents to show performances. The design of theelectronic portfolio system, which allows for artifactsto be utilized as evidence to support multiple stan-dards, helps teacher candidates to shape portfoliosfor specific purposes. A teacher candidates can de-velop one portfolio for a teacher in a class, anotherfor his or her supervisor of student teaching, and yetanother for an employer during a job interview. Onceagain, this ability is not limited to electronic portfo-lios, but the transfer of files and repositioning ofitems is far more flexible than the cumbersome tasksconnected to hard copy forms.
Since reflective practice is one of the goals ofportfolio development and part of a constructivist
114 Ledoux and McHenry
educational agenda (Meyer, Tusin, & Turner, 1996;Niles & Bruneau, 1994), the electronic portfolio helpsteacher candidates to become reflective of their workand the audience they are addressing. Part of thework we are doing with candidates is to help them touse portfolios to substantiate claims of teachingabilities, rather than simply collect works that arehanded to a supervisor or employer (NAEYC Stan-dard 5). Thus, the candidate is educated on ways ofpresentation of ideas using the electronic portfoliosfor differing audiences. As an example of this, stu-dents in a social studies methods class are asked touse their portfolios in two ways: one, to show howthey, as reflective learners, have achieved skills nec-essary for the teaching of a concept; and two, toprovide an example of an interview scenario where anemployer will ask about the ability to involve thecommunity or parents in a lesson. The student willmake active use of the portfolio illustrating to theteacher and/or employer a video clip of a lessonwhere parents were brought into a class to do an oralhistory project or grandparents helped develop atimeline.
Those of us who have gone back into the attic toreview old notes or papers from our undergraduatedays will often laugh at our earlier attempts at aparticular subject or come across a piece of materialthat was especially prophetic or insightful. The elec-tronic portfolio system allows teacher candidates amore immediate review of material on a regular basis.The flexibility of data reconfiguration and the regularreview of materials by faculty under differing cir-cumstances: class assignments, portfolio review,supervisors, or cooperating teachers, is an importantpart of the reflective process. Teacher candidates havethe opportunity to review their own materials andassess their own level of proficiency.
The electronic version of portfolios has an addedbenefit of being both dynamic and static. Hard copyportfolios require the duplication of material or thetransfer of materials from one-storage container toanother. In order for dynamic student process to beexamined, the physical artifact must be recreated ormoved to a new design. This is obviously facilitatedwith the electronic format. Beyond this, however, theelectronic format allows a candidate to burn a CD atany time within the process to keep a year oneportfolio, year two portfolio, social studies portfolio,etc. without the need to reproduce hard copyartifacts. The result is that one can have a collage ofboth still photos and motion clips of studentprogress.
LIMITATIONS OF THE ELECTRONIC
PORTFOLIO FOR TEACHER CANDIDATES
Technology is always changing. A major concernfor those of us using electronic data storage is therapid revision of systems and processes. It was fewerthan twenty years ago when floppy disks were actu-ally floppy, even fewer years ago when a disc was thenormative storage piece. Concerns about retrieval ofdata in the future are a significant limitation. Paperstill remains easy to locate and retrieve. For anyonewith an eight-track tape or a beta recorder, infor-mation retrieval in the wake of technologicaladvances should be a concern.
Cost benefit analyses are also a concern for mostinstitutions. As a moderate to small institution, theadoption of an electronic system is expensive.Although some of the costs can be transferred to thelearner, the overall costs of higher education arealready prohibitive to many teacher candidates.Whether the flexibility, easy alignment with stan-dards, and communication to reviewers is worth theinvestment will be dependent upon institutionalresources.
Access to systems beyond graduation is anotherlimitation of the current electronic portfolio systemson the market. Candidates can burn CDs at the endof a program, but they must subscribe to ongoingservices for storage, support and licensing if they areto use the portfolio system continuously. This may bea way for development and alumni offices to maintaincontact with graduates, but the costs are significant.
Another illustration of a problem that occurswith electronic portfolios is the acceptance, resistanceor inherent ability of faculty to use electronic media.Anyone with the experience of watching a youngerchild play a video game and an elder relative fumblewith a digital clock has gained anecdotal evidence ofthe digital divide that is not determined by socio-economic factors but generational exposure andfacility with the media. Many faculty, although adeptat the use of technology, still revert to hard copy textfor reading and assessment purposes. For those whohave termed those competent with technology asdigital citizens and those who are not as aliens, manyof our faculty are ‘‘naturalized citizens’’ in the pro-cess. This has meant, for us, that faculty will continueto download artifacts for review, rather than utilizingthe electronic form and responding without paper.Instead of adding an ease of the process, it is an ad-ded burden among reviewers. It also increases theneed for faculty training in the electronic portfolios
115Electronic Portfolios
system, adding to both the costs and infrastructuresupport (release time, training materials, etc.).
Finally, there is a philosophic question that goesbeyond the electronic system and more to the ques-tion of standards and accountability in general. Doesthis make for better early childhood educators? Will astudent who is able to document his or her attain-ment of certain levels of proficiency throughout aprogram that contains reflective practice, truly re-main a lifelong leaner? Will the move towardsaccountability and standards insure a population ofteachers who is more connected with children and thecommunity? Is the coercive nature of standardsantithetical to the basic freedoms that an educatedcitizenry should espouse? Or, is this a coercion thatsimply tracks the best qualities of candidates andhelps us to weed out the chaff of the profession?
REFERENCES
Association of Childhood Education International (2000–2001).Global guidelines for early childhood education and care in the21st century. Retrieved May 10, 2005 at: http://www. acei.org/wguides.htm.
Campbell, D. M., Cignetti, P. B., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H.,& Wyman, R. M. (2004). How to develop a professionalportfolio: A manual for teachers. Boston: Pearson.
Cole, D. J., & Ryan, C. W. (1998). Documentation of teacher fieldexperience of professional year interns via electronic portfo-lios. Dallas, TX: Association of Teacher Education. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED418057) .
Council of Chief State School Officers (1992). Model standards forbeginning teachers licensing, assessment and development: Aresource for state dialogue. Retrieved February 8, 2005 atwww.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/corestrd.pdf.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A frameworkfor teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Reshaping teaching policy, pre-paration, and practice: Influence of the national board forprofessional training standards. Washington, DC: Associationof Colleges of Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. 432570).
Edelfelt, R. A., & Rathes, J. D. (1998). A brief history of standardsin teacher education. Reston, VA: Association of TeacherEducators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.461627).
Galluzzo, G. (1999). Aligning standards to improve teacherpreparation and practice. Washington, DC: National Associa-tion for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 438261).
Meyer, D. K., Tusin, L. F., & Turner, J. C. (1996). PreserviceteachersGuø use of portfolios: Process versus performance.New York: American Educational Research Association.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396000).
Meyers, C. B., & Crowe, A. R. (2000). Standards-driven, practice-based assessment of pre-service teacher education: A focus onsubject matter knowledge and competence in social studies.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April24–28, 2000). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.443789).
National Association for the Education of Young Children (2001).NAEYC standards for early childhood professional preparation:Initial licensure program. Retrieved February 8, 2005, from:www.naeyc.org/faculty/pdf/2001.pdf.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2000).Program standards for elementary teacher preparation.Retrieved February 8, 2005 from: www.acei.org/Synopsis.
Niles, K., & Bruneau, B. (1994). Portfolio assessment in preserviceCourses: Scaffolding learning portfolios. San Diego, CA,National Reading Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No ED 379616).
Zubizarreta, J. (1994). Teaching portfolios and the beginningteacher. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(4), 323–326.
116 Ledoux and McHenry