electronic portfolio adoption for teacher education candidates

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


positivesocialinteraction,ac-

tiveengagem

entin

learningand

self-m

otivation.


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


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.


Principle

#5:Theteacher

uses

anunderstandingofindividual

andgroupmotivationand

behaviorto

create

alearning


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

––

––

––


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


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.


adequately

written,contain

no

technicalerrors

andaddress

some,

butnotall,ofthemain

points

oftheIN

TASC

Princi-

ples.


wellwritten,contain

notech-

nicalerrors

andaddress

all,of

themain

pointsoftheIN

TASC

Principles.


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


ade-

quately

written

anddem

on-

strate

somefirsthand

knowledgeofeach

artifact’s

relationship

tothePrinciple.

Amajority

ofidentificationand


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


to

thePrinciple.

Artifact

rationalesim

ply,but

donotexplicitlydem

onstrate,

each


to

thePrinciple.

Artifact

rationalesare

well

written

andclearlydem

onstrate

each


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.


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


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


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.


electronic portfolio adoption for teacher education candidates

Documents