lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Views on using portfolio in teacher education

Margarete Imhof*, Christin PicardJohann Gutenberg University Institute of Psychology, Staudinger Weg 9, D-55099 Mainz Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 June 2006Received in revised form 10 January 2008Accepted 11 August 2008

Keywords:PortfolioTeacher educationEvaluationTeaching competences

* Corresponding author. Johannes Gutenberg UniveStaudinger Weg 9, D-55099 Mainz, Germany. Tel.: þ4

E-mail address: imhof@uni-mainz.de (M. Imhof).

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.001

a b s t r a c t

The usage of portfolio methods to document professional development in teaching is increasing inGermany, but despite its proliferation, the issue of how the effects of portfolio methods can be deter-mined has received little attention. This paper investigates the acceptance of portfolio by the pre-serviceteachers (N¼ 144, 112 female) and the effects of portfolio on their professional attitudes and compe-tences. In addition, N¼ 15 teacher educators were interviewed on their assessment of the portfoliomethod. Results suggest that the efficiency of the portfolio method depends both on personal compe-tences and on the framing within the training program.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Competence orientation in teacher education and the roleof portfolio

As competence-oriented perspectives on teacher education arebeing developed, the need for adequate formats and methods ofdocumentation and assessment of professional competences ofpre-service teachers has been recognized as well (Baumgartner,2005). Criticism of traditional forms of product-oriented evaluationand certification raised the issue of process-oriented documenta-tion of the teaching competences. The goal is to support profes-sional development of teachers and to emphasize the continuouslearning process of a ‘‘reflective practitioner’’ (Schoen, 1983; seealso: Altrichter & Posch, 2006). In this context, the professionalteaching portfolio has received special attention as a flexible,concise, and authentic way of developing and evaluating individualteaching competences (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000). Look-ing at the variety of approaches and instruments, both paper-basedand electronic (Barrett, 2005; Chetcuti et al., 2003; Hafliger & Lauer,2003; Woolfolk, 2004), one starts to wonder what exactly consti-tutes the smallest common denominator of portfolio methods(Imhof et al., 2006; Wolf & Dietz, 1998). Currently, the followingfour aspects seem to define the context for a portfolio:

(1) Constructivist theories of self-regulated learning describelearning as a series of cycles from planning through evaluating

rsity, Institute of Psychology,9 6131 39 23105.

All rights reserved.

progressing over time and across different learning environ-ments (van den Boom, Paas, & van Merrienboer, 2007; Zim-merman, 2001). A portfolio is considered an appropriate way ofdocumenting the individual learning history (Foote, 2001).

(2) Recognition of individualized learning in a self-reflexive andself-regulated mode: Learning is viewed as a function of anindividual’s ability to reflect on his or her learning goals andstrategies. Therefore, reflective writing is considered as a crit-ical step which creates the content space in which theconstruction and transformation of knowledge is assumed totake place (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Eigler, 2005).

(3) Competence and standard orientation in teacher education:Teachers are recognized on the one hand for their profes-sionalism and, on the other hand, for their uniqueness. Theintroduction of competence and standard orientation inteacher education mirrors an attempt to account for bothaspects of the teacher personality and competencies (Camp-bell, Cignetti, Melenyzer, Nettles, & Wyman, 2004; Zeichner& Wray, 2001).

(4) Documentation and continuous reflection of the professionalexperience: Learning is a lifelong experience and very probablya teacher, like any other professional, will face the challenge ofcontinuous changes, e.g., of the knowledge base and teachingtechnology (Baumgartner, 2005).

1.2. The role of professional portfolios in the learning process

A portfolio is best described as a focused collection of diversedocuments and artifacts that are apt to reflect a person’s learningprocess. Campbell et al. (2004, p. 3f) define the professional

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154150

teaching portfolio as ‘‘an organized, goal-driven documentation of. professional growth and achieved competence in the complexact called teaching.’’ A portfolio can (and must) be adjusted to servevarying purposes (Wolf & Dietz, 1998; Zeichner & Wray, 2001). Ingeneral, various types of portfolio are distinguished for differenttypes of content, degrees of selectivity, and functions (Forster &Masters, 1996; Hacker & Lissmann, 2007; Wolf & Dietz, 1998).

Although great expectations have been placed on the portfolio,research on the efficiency of the instrument has been few and farbetween. To this day, it is true that ‘‘we need to learn how to takeadvantage of their potential for promoting meaningful teachergrowth and in giving us better insights into prospective teachers’teaching as we assess it’’ (Zeichner & Wray, 2001, p. 620). Oneobvious problem is the definition of evaluation criteria: Whatexactly are the behaviors and perceptions which would be signifi-cantly affected by the portfolio process? Another question is atwhat point in time the effects, if they exist, would show and howlong they would last. Another aspect of evaluation is concernedwith the acceptance of the instrument itself from the point of viewof both the pre-service teachers and their mentors. In a two-partstudy, the attitudes of both pre-service teachers and teachereducators toward portfolio were investigated and an attempt wasmade to identify the effects of portfolio on the competences andattitudes of the pre-service teachers.

1.3. Description of the portfolio used in the current study

The study was conducted in Germany in the federal state ofHesse about one year and a half after the portfolio had beenintroduced in teacher training. To better understand the conditionsin which the study was conducted, some remarks on the teachereducation system seem appropriate. The pre-service teachers aregraduates from a three to four-year university program whichincludes studies of the teaching subjects and basic courses ineducation, educational psychology and social sciences. For thesubsequent practical training, the pre-service teachers are enrolledfor another two years in a dual setting where they teach part-timeand receive supervised teacher training, focusing on practicalteaching methods. In this stage, the pre-service teachers work witha mentor to plan and evaluate their teaching and they also corre-spond with a supervisor who functions as their formal instructorand who comes into their classes to observe and assess thecandidates’ work. At several points in this two-year program, thepre-service teacher presents a showcase lesson which is graded.The program is concluded with final tests, including oral andwritten exams, as well as an extended research paper anda comprehensive evaluation of their professional progress.

The portfolio was introduced into the teacher training programwith the aim to replace traditional reports and to enhance profes-sional development, to encourage cooperative learning, and tostructure and document the communication between pre-serviceteachers and both their mentors and supervisors. The portfolio wasnew both to the pre-service teachers and to their mentors andsupervisors.

The portfolio consisted of nine components which containedspecific assignments. The general instruction was to carry out, todocument, and to reflect upon the series of tasks (Meissner &Asbeck, 2003): (1) introductory workshop to familiarize thelearners with the portfolio method; (2) a professional self-portrait;(3) general classroom observation; (4) shadowing of teachers; (5)problem-oriented observation of individual students; (6) planning,conducting, and reflecting teaching experience; (7) statement of anexplicit working theory; (8) finding a learning partner; (9) andreflection and goal setting. The overall impression was that theportfolio documentation was open to individual preferences andhad room for a variety of ways to present one’s reflections. The

portfolio was not formally graded, but both supervisors andmentors were expected to have access to the portfoliodocumentation.

2. Part 1

2.1. The perspective of the pre-service teachers

The first part of the study focused on pre-service teachers whohad used the portfolio to document professional progress in theirteacher training. At the point of time of the data collection, the pre-service teachers had advanced in the program to different levelsand they had worked with the portfolio for different periods oftime. This part of the study was designed to investigate twoevaluation questions:

(1) What can be said about the general assessment of the portfolioby the pre-service teachers?

(2) How can the effects of the portfolio method on relevantcompetences and professional attitudes be described?

In order to deal with the second evaluation question, a decisionhad to be made as to which aspects were to be assessed. Due to thelack of a tested model we turned to the constructivist theories oflearning and decided to look at teacher self-efficacy, the perceptionof workload and stress, and at the proactive attitude, since weexpected that portfolio should have a positive effect on theseconstructs. We now describe the rationale for the selection of theseaspects.

2.1.1. Teacher self-efficacyAccording to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy is defined as ‘‘people’s

judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses ofaction required to attain designated types of performances. It isconcerned not with the skills one has but with judgments of whatone can do with whatever skills one possesses’’ (Bandura, 1986,p. 391).

RQ1 Do learners in a self-regulated environment which includesportfolio display a higher degree of self-efficacy (Anderson &DeMeulle, 1998; Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000)?

2.1.2. Perception of subjective workload and stressWhen using portfolio methods, learners should ideally assume

responsibility for their own progress and play an active part insetting goals for themselves and in shaping their personal learningprocess (Leopold & Leutner, 2006; Schmitz, 2001).

RQ2 Do learners perceive less pressure and more control overtheir workload when they use portfolio?

2.1.3. Proactive attitudeThe portfolio learning environment allows personal growth in

a cooperative, learning-oriented community which reinforces thelearners’ awareness of their strengths and problem-solvingcompetences (Jones, 1994; Kremer-Hayon & Tillema, 1999; Tillema,2001).

RQ3 Do learners develop the self-confidence that they can activelycontrol their professional goals and the degree to which theywould achieve them?

Table 1Ratings for importance and usefulness of portfolio in the teacher education program

In the context of the teacher training program, the portfolio was. Total N

Important Rather important Not really important Not at all important7.3% 37.3% 45.5% 10.0% 110Useful Rather useful Not really useful Not at all useful17.4% 42.6% 33.9% 6.0% 115

Table 2Evaluation of the portfolio and its components

Component Important Somewhatimportant

Not reallyimportant

Not at allimportant

N

Workshop 36.2% 41.9% 18.1% 3.8% 105Teacher self-

portrait34.5% 37.9% 19.8% 7.8% 116

Classroomobservation

27.4% 37.6% 29.1% 6.0% 117

Shadowing 8.4% 15.0% 43.9% 32.7% 107Student

observation25.0% 39.7% 25.0% 10.3% 116

Teaching 42.9% 35.7% 18.4% 2.0% 98Working theory 26.5% 41.9% 26.5% 5.1% 117Reflection and goal

setting34.5% 40.5% 19.8% 5.2% 116

Learning partner 38.8% 21.6% 26.7% 12.9% 116

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154 151

2.2. Method

2.2.1. SampleA total of N¼ 144 pre-service teachers (112 females) partici-

pated in the study, among them 118 had been assigned to workwith portfolio on a regular basis, whereas 26 persons were ina traditional teacher training program without portfolio. This lattergroup was tentatively used as the control group for the portfolioeffects. Out of this sample, 85 individuals indicated that they werein the beginning phase of their training, while 59 were about tograduate. The pre-service teachers in the sample were organized ingroups of about ten who were associated with 15 supervisors andinstructors. The participants were between 24 and 50 years oldwith an average of 28.5 years (SD¼ 4.99). The mode of the distri-bution of age was at 25.

2.2.2. InstrumentsTo investigate evaluation question (1), a questionnaire was

designed to measure the acceptance of the components of theportfolio and its structure, and to assess the ratings of the impor-tance and usefulness, and to survey how the subjects actuallyworked with the portfolio. An open-ended question at the endoffered room for expressing individual opinions. The responses tothese questions were coded and summarized.

Evaluation question (2) was approached by using previouslypublished scales which were known to tap the professionalcompetences and attitudes which had been specified in theresearch questions 1–3: The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale bySchwarzer and Schmitz (1999b), e.g., ‘‘I am convinced that I am ableto successfully teach all relevant subject content to even the mostdifficult students.’’, the Perceived Workload Scale by Enzmann andKleiber (1989), e.g., ‘‘I often feel overstrained.’’ and the Work StressScale by Jerusalem (1995), e.g., ‘‘I am doubtful that I can successfullycomplete the tasks at hand.’’, and, finally, the Proactive AttitudeScale by Schwarzer and Schmitz (1999a), e.g., ‘‘I feel in charge ofmaking things happen.’’. The questionnaires had been constructedas Likert-type scales with either a four or a five-point formatranging from ‘‘I totally agree’’ to ‘‘I totally disagree’’.

2.2.3. ProcedureThe questionnaire was administered during regular meetings of

the pre-service teachers. It took about 15 min to complete thequestionnaires. Participants were instructed to carefully read theitems and not to omit any items if possible. They were reassuredthat the data were anonymized and that feedback would be givenon the group level only.

2.3. Results

2.3.1. Evaluation question (1): Assessment of the portfolio andits components

Results are first presented for the acceptance and evaluation ofthe portfolio and its components. Then the data on professionalattitudes and competences will be reported. The general evaluationof the portfolio is rather mixed (see Table 1). There are slightly moreparticipants who think that the portfolio was not at all important orof little importance than there were participants who think it wasimportant or rather important. However, a majority of pre-serviceteachers express the view that the portfolio was useful, whilea relatively small proportion would contend that it was not at alluseful. The assessment of importance and usefulness correlate atr¼ .80 (p< .001). Some subjects see the potential use of the port-folio, but still find it not important for their progress.

Most participants agreed on the statement that the portfolio inuse was well structured, while only two found that the portfoliowas not laid out clearly. As summarized in Table 2, the different

components of the portfolio received rather positive attention, withthe exception of the shadowing and, to a lesser extent, the classobservation task. In the minds of the pre-service teachers, thesingle most important component of the portfolio was teaming upwith a learning partner, followed by the documentation andreflection of the teaching experience and subsequent goal setting.

2.3.2. Evaluation question (2): The effect of portfolio on professionaldevelopment

Concerning the professional experience and attitudes, thefollowing aspects were investigated: Teacher self-efficacy, percep-tion of subjective workload and stress, and proactive attitude. Thecurrent investigation confirms the technical merits of the scales asthe reliability coefficients could be replicated in a satisfactory way(see Table 3).

The data on professional attitudes and perceptions of pre-service teachers are listed in Table 4. The beginning group and thegraduating group report similar levels of stress, proactive attitudes,teacher self-efficacy, and perception of professional load. There isa slight tendency for beginners toward a more intensive perceptionof professional load. Overall, however, the scales are by no meansexhausted so that the means that were returned are very likelyneither due to a ceiling nor to a floor effect.

The research questions 1–3 were all tested using t-tests forindependent group comparisons. Pre-service teachers at differentstages in their career (beginning and graduating pre-serviceteachers) and pre-service teachers with and without portfoliowriting were grouped and compared. To make it short, there wereno significant differences whatsoever to be found for the measuredaspects of professional development. The portfolio did not makea significant difference in any of the quantitative scales andvariables.

This result is in line with other research (McCrindle & Chris-tensen, 1995; Wade & Yarbrough, 1996), but still requires anexplanation. Further exploration of the data suggest that theportfolio as it was used with the pre-service teachers in the presentstudy is rather tailored to individuals who are already strong interms of self-efficacy, handling workload and stress, and proactivebehavior. There are substantial correlations between the respectivescales: Individuals who are high in teacher self-efficacy are also

Table 3Cronbach’s a coefficients returned for the scales to measure professional attitudesand competences

Scale Cronbach’s a Item discrimination N

Teacher self-efficacy .77 .33–.55 134Perception of workload .84 .29–.67 139Perception of stress .83 .31–.64 143Proactive attitude .64 .16–.55 131

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154152

high in proactive attitudes (r¼ .42, p< .001) and more positive inthe perception of stress (r¼ .30, p< .001) and workload (r¼ .39,p<. 001). In the same line, proactive attitude correlates stronglywith lower perception of stress (r¼ .57, p< .001) and a more con-tained perception of workload (r¼ .76, p< .001). Considering thishighly interrelated set of attitudes, the picture of a teacherpersonality emerges who is highly self-efficient and has found waysto deal with the professional demands rather effectively. This groupseems to benefit most from the portfolio. Individuals with a strongproactive attitude tend to find the portfolio more important andmore useful than individuals with a weak proactive attitude. Lowerbut still significant correlations exist between the perception of theprofessional load and the appreciation for the portfolio in a waythat those who perceive less stress and a lower load find theportfolio more important and more useful. The question, of course,remains as to how these attitudes are related in terms of cause andeffect or if a third umbrella variable (and if so, which one) hasa beneficial effect on these aspects of professional development.

2.3.3. Open-ended questions concerning the portfolioIn addition to this, the responses to the open-ended questions

were coded and categorized in an attempt to shed light on thequestion why the portfolio was not learning effective though it hadbeen well-received. The answers addressed six different issues,namely, the introductory workshop for the portfolio, the feedback,assessment and self-assessment, aspects of the content and form ofthe portfolio, and the investment of time.

The comments emphasized the importance of a comprehensiveintroduction to the portfolio process. This included preciseinstructions and a well-communicated rationale for the portfolio.Pre-service teachers felt that if they were expected to generatea continuous professional portfolio, they wanted to have a clearidea of the formalities, the content, and the prospective learningbenefit. In particular, it was of concern to the pre-service teachers toensure that they were compensated for the time invested in theportfolio.

Secondly, participants in our study complained about the lack offeedback from their mentors and supervisors. Some felt that theportfolio process ought to be driven by the communication witheither their instructors or their peers. They expressed the view thatif portfolio entries remained strictly private, the motivation to workon them would fade.

It was also a concern of the participants that supervisors, and toa lesser degree the mentors, as external addressees of the portfoliowere also assessing the teaching and learning performance of thepre-service teachers. If the portfolio was meant to be

Table 4Means, standard deviations, and minima and maxima returned for scales measuring profgraduating group

Beginning pre-service teachers

M SD Min

Teacher self-efficacy (range 9–36) 15.74 3.00 9Perception of workload (range 14–70) 29.18 7.22 17Perception of stress (range 8–36) 12.72 3.85 8Proactive attitude (range 8–36) 12.54 2.73 8

a documentation of the professional development with all its upsand downs, it would very probably contain some failures or at leastsome not so brilliant work examples which some might prefer notto share with supervisors. This is why some participants pointed atthe fact that the anticipation of assessment may have had an impacton the way in which the portfolio was compiled and that, as a resultof this, the portfolio entries may not constitute an authenticreflection of a person’s struggle to progress.

With regard to self-assessment, some participants found thatthe portfolio had failed to convince them of the extra benefit,because they felt that they would be reflecting on their workanyhow. The form of reflection mandated by the portfolio was notconsidered an obvious asset, because some participants said theypreferred to take notes more informally, while others did not seethe value of actually putting their thoughts in writing as opposed tokeeping a kind of ‘mental’ log.

Reviewing the form and the components of the portfolio, someparticipants made the point that the required documentation leftroom for individual strategies. Some participants expressed the fearthat if the instructions were too restrictive (e.g., ‘write two pages.’), individual creativity would be curtailed along with the moti-vation to invest time and effort.

Finally, it was brought forward that this particular type ofportfolio was rather time-consuming and that using the portfoliofor teacher training made sense only if other forms of documen-tation were waived. Participants expressed the fear that the port-folio and the pertaining reflection processes were devalued if therewas an overload of required documentation. Repetitious docu-mentation was also brought forward as a possible cause for thedecrease of the motivation to reflect and the decline of quality ofthe work over time.

2.4. Interpretation and discussion of results from Part 1

This part of the study was designed as an evaluation of a port-folio version used in pre-service teacher training in the Germanfederal state of Hesse. The portfolio was part of a reformed practicein teacher training and, as such, new both to the teacher candidatesand their supervisors and mentors. The results of the studyconstitute a first reflection on the acceptance of the portfolio, theperceived critical issues and the impact of the portfolio on profes-sional attitudes.

In response to evaluation question (1) addressing acceptanceand general assessment, it can be summarized that the generalimpression is that the portfolio is rather well-received both by thetrainees and their instructors. The study, and in particular theanswers to the open-ended questions, also indicate that clarity ofinstruction, satisfaction with the pertaining communication andfeedback processes, and the perceived learning benefits derivedfrom the portfolio are critical issues. In terms of evaluation question(2) which looked at the specific effects of the portfolio, the presentstudy failed to produce general evidence for a positive impact of theportfolio on professional attitudes and the perception of stress. Itrather seems that individuals who enroll in teacher training withproactive attitudes and a belief in their self-efficacy, and who

essional attitudes and competences of pre-service teachers in the beginning and the

Graduating pre-service teachers

Max M SD Min Max

23 14.00 2.80 9 1962 26.97 5.15 14 3830 12.31 3.14 8 2120 12.43 2.56 7 17

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154 153

dispose of strategies to handle professional challenges, are moresusceptible to the potential of the portfolio than others who tend tofeel more anxious about their developing professional role and theentailing tasks.

This result recalls the findings reported by Wade and Yarbrough(1996) with a different, still less structured type of portfolio. Theyalso suggest that open forms of reporting and reflecting seem tocater to more self-regulated types of learners. Further research willneed to deal with the issue whether and how portfolio can supportthose learners who need more support in their developmenttoward being self-regulated learners.

3. Part 2

The second part of the study surveyed the 15 supervisors whowere in charge of the pre-service teachers and who instructed andassessed the portfolio. Since the supervisors are in charge of theeducation program and the entailing assignments, and, simulta-neously, of the assessment of individual candidates, it is vital for thesuccess of the portfolio method (or any other teaching method) thatthey support the format and communicate its value and signifi-cance. This is why we decided to extend the research to this group.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. SampleThe supervisors who worked with the pre-service teachers in

our sample were administered a questionnaire that tapped intotheir opinions on the portfolio. They came from different types ofschool (primary, secondary) and different in subject background(maths, general education, language arts).

3.1.2. InstrumentsThe supervisors were asked about their opinions in an open

format. Their comments were subsumed under one of threeperspectives, namely the general conditions under which theywould consider using the portfolio, their ideas on the componentsand general concept of the portfolio, and finally their personalopinions about portfolio.

3.2. Results

All but one of the supervisors agreed that there was potential inthe portfolio and that they were willing to continue to work with thisformat. They also expressed some doubts, however, which addressedseveral aspects. So, for example, the issue was raised if the portfolioentries could be taken as ‘honest’ reflections of the pre-serviceteacher who knew as they were putting the portfolio together that itwould be read by their supervisors. Supervisors also acknowledgedthe fact that portfolio work needed communication and feedbackand, consequently, that their schedule needed to allow for this extratime. In addition, supervisors found it important to communicatewith peers about the handling of the portfolio. They emphasized thattaking responsibility for the portfolio process of the pre-serviceteachers was new to them and that they needed support for theconceptual change involved in this new method. In particular, theyfelt that it would be important to discuss the ramifications of theportfolio method in terms of assessment and grading.

The supervisors would prefer to use the components of theportfolio as optional rather than as mandatory, because not all partsseemed to suit the learning needs of a particular group. This mayhave been why some supervisors chose to leave out selectedcomponents of the portfolio. They were also willing to allow moreindividual choice as how to organize the documentation of theprofessional experience. To add more flexibility to the portfolio, itwas suggested by the supervisors to use an electronic platform for

the compilation of documents (ePortfolio). At the same time,according to the opinions expressed here, there should be moreclarity right from the beginning concerning the function of theportfolio and as to which parts of the portfolio would be keptprivate and which would be shared with others. Supervisorsconsented on the idea that the more clearly the conditions werenegotiated and communicated at the outset, the more productivethe portfolio process would be in the end.

Supervisors noted that, as a windfall product, the portfolioprocess and the peer-interaction driven by this process, resulted inwhat they viewed as a more elaborate style of reflecting on theprofessional development on the one hand and in a more produc-tive and independent group process among the pre-serviceteachers, on the other hand.

4. General discussion and conclusions

The two-part study shed some light on the conditions whichshould be observed when the portfolio method is introduced inteacher training programs. It is important to note that the needsand experience of both the trainees and the instructors must betaken into account as the general picture is considered. Of course,since the portfolio as an instrument for teaching and learning wasnew to all involved in the current study, the results may partly bedue to the lack of experience. But still, some lessons for futureportfolio projects can be learned from this study.

In the course of the study, it became obvious that some pre-service teachers benefited from the portfolio while others did not.This is why we suggest that the evaluation of the portfolio processought to concentrate on the quality of the reflection captured in theindividual texts (e.g., Ward & McCotter, 2004). Looking at thetransfer effects, as was done in this study, might have beenpremature, because there is the quality and depth of reflectionwhich might be the missing link to make a prediction aboutsubsequent effects. To keep and administer a portfolio requiresreflexive writing skills (Eigler, 2005; Lee, 2005), among which maybe counted a general sensitivity for critical events, the ability toreflect on one’s own role in a conflict, the willingness to accepterrors and mistakes as learning opportunities. It is important tonote that the issue of identifying effects of portfolio on theprofessional development is separate from the issue of portfolioappraisal (as discussed, e.g., in Tillema & Smith, 2007).

Moreover, the results of the current study suggest that pre-service teachers who emphasize learning orientation as opposed toperformance orientation and who have developed a more receptiveattitude for portfolio, are more successful (or perceive themselvesto be more successful) with the portfolio. As a consequence, whenimplementing portfolio, it seems advisable to help the learnersdevelop those facilitating skills which are not only essential toportfolio but also to teaching in general.

Based on the results of the study, we feel it is safe to assume thatthe success of the portfolio method is closely associated with theclarity of communication between trainees and instructors. Wefound a large variance in terms of satisfaction with the portfolioacross learning groups and that much of the perceived usefulnessdepended on the credibility of the instruction. As it turned out inthe evaluation, a lack of a clear understanding of the purpose andownership of a portfolio constitutes a serious flaw in the process.When trainees and supervisors do not start the process with anagreed-upon set of rules for the portfolio, it is more than likely thatcooperation will be hard to maintain. When, in addition, it shouldbe the case that some supervisors and mentors insist on otherforms of documentation parallel to the portfolio the level of frus-tration with the workload is bound to rise.

What has become obvious in this study confirms the warningsthat had been expressed elsewhere: ‘‘. if a portfolio is not fully

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154154

integrated in the learning environment and does not become anintegral part of this environment, it will remain in the form ofa separate instrument that will be regarded by instructors andteachers as another extra feature that takes time and effort, suchthat the chance for success of a portfolio will be minimal’’ (Fisser &Wetterling, 2005, p. 146). As was evident from the responses to theopen-ended questions, the introduction of the portfolio methodwas, in some cases, barely half-hearted. Obviously, it is importantfor the success of the portfolio process that mentors and supervi-sors set aside time for the pre-service teachers to compile theportfolio and time for themselves to study the portfolios andprovide feedback on them. This is why we underline the impor-tance of instructor feedback, because when instructors fail to giveconstructive feedback the trainees are likely to perceive the port-folio tasks as tedious and as an ineffective end in itself. This processwould be detrimental to the motivation to keep a portfolio and toattitudes on reflective professional tasks.

Another point to be made here is that the implementation ofa portfolio needs first and foremost to secure the involvement ofthe instructors. They need to possess the expertise of how toinstruct a portfolio, they need the time to actually support theportfolio process and to provide feedback, and, last but not least,they need to be convinced that the portfolio is a useful format fordocumenting the professional development of the pre-serviceteachers. If these conditions are not met, the effects of portfolio arevery likely to be compromised from the outset (Darling-Hammond& Snyder, 2000).

References

Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (2006). Lehrer und Lehrerinnen erforschen ihren Unterricht.[Action research in teaching]. Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn.

Anderson, R. S., & DeMeulle, L. (1998). Portfolio use in twenty four teachereducation programs. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25, 23–31.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barrett, H. (2005). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement.Available from: http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/whitepaper.pdf. Retrieved27.06.06.

Baumgartner, P. (2005). Competence-based education with weblogs and e-portfolios:a challenge for developing a new learning culture. Paper given at a conference onePortfolios (Salzburg, April 27, 2005). Available from: http://www.peter.baumgartner.name/paper-de/competence-based-education-with-weblogs-and-e-portfolios-a-challenge-for-developing-a-new-learning-culture. Retrieved 27.06.06.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hill-sdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Campbell, D. M., Cignetti, P. B., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H., & Wyman, R. M.(2004). How to develop a professional portfolio. A manual for teachers. New York:Pearson.

Chetcuti, D., Apap, P., Bartolo, P., Borg, C., Cardona, A., Farrugia, M. T., et al. (2003).Professional development portfolio. Msida, Malta: University of Malta.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Synder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching incontext. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523–545.

Eigler, G. (2005). Epistemisches Schreiben ist schwierig – seine Erforschung nochmehr. [Epistemic writing is challenging – to investigate it even more so].Unterrichtswissenschaft, 33, 244–255.

Enzmann, D., & Kleiber, D. (1989). Berufliche Belastung (BEL). [Burnout inventory].Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissen-schaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Availablefrom: R. Schwarzer, & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- undSchulermerkmalen (pp. 72–73) http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/schulen/skalen.htm. Retrieved 26.06.06.

Fisser, P., & Wetterling, J. (2005). The use of ICT in Dutch higher education: devel-oping an e-learning structure. In U. Dittler, H. Kahler, M. Kindt, & C. Schwarz(Eds.), E-learning in Europe – Learning Europe (pp. 127–153). Munster:Waxmann.

Foote, C. J. (2001). Teaching portfolio 101: implementing the teaching portfolio inintroductory courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28, 31–37.

Forster, M., & Masters, G. (1996). Portfolios. Assessment resource kit (ARK). Camber-well: Allanby Press Printers Ltd.

Hacker, T., & Lissmann, U. (2007). Moglichkeiten und Spannungsfelder der Portfo-lioarbeit – Perspektiven fur Forschung und Praxis. [Chances and problems ofportfolios: Perspectives for research and practice]. Empirische Padagogik, 21,209–239.

Hafliger, R., & Lauer, U. (2003). Pilotversuch portfolio. [Piloting portfolio]. Basel:Padagogisches Institut Basel-Stadt.

Imhof, M., Borsch, F., Hanssig, A., Korneck, F., Labonte, U., Petras, A., et al. (2006).Einsatz von Portfolio in den Schulpraktischen Studien. Eine Handreichung.[Using portfolio for the documentation of student teaching courses. A manual].In M. Imhof (Ed.), Portfolio und reflexives Schreiben in der Lehrerausbildung (pp.121–143). Tonning: Der Andere Verlag.

Jerusalem, M. (1995). Herausforderungs-Bedrohungs-, und Verlusteinschatzungenvon Lehrern. [Teachers’ perceptions of challenge, threat, and loss]. Doku-mentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissen-schaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Availablefrom: R. Schwarzer, & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- undSchulermerkmalen (pp. 81–84) http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/schulen/skalen.htm. Retrieved 26.06.06.

Jones, J. E. (1994). Portfolio assessment as a strategy for self-direction in learning.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 64, 23–29.

Kremer-Hayon, H. H., & Tillema, H. (1999). Self-regulated learning in the context ofteacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 507–522.

Lee, H.-J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflectivethinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 699–715.

Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2006). Selbstregulation beim Lernen aus Sachtexten.[Self-regulated learning from texts]. In H. Mandl, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.),Handbuch Lernstrategien (pp. 162–171). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995). The impact of learning journals onmetacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning andInstruction, 5, 167–187.

Meissner, M., & Asbeck, C. (2003). Das Portfolio in der II. Phase der Lehrerausbildung.[The portfolio in the practical phase of teacher training]. Frankfurt/M.: Amt furLehrerausbildung.

Schmitz, G. (2001). Kann Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung Lehrer vor Burnout schut-zen? [Can perceived self-efficacy protect against burnout?]. Psychologie inErziehung und Unterricht, 48, 49–67.

Schoen, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.London: Basic Books.

Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. (1999a). Proaktive Einstellung (PRO). [Proactivecoping]. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen derWissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen.Available from: R. Schwarzer, & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), Skalen zur Erfassung vonLehrer- und Schulermerkmalen (pp. 88–89) http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/schulen/skalen.htm. Retrieved 26.06.06.

Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. (1999b). Skala zur Lehrerselbstwirksamkeitserwartung(WIRKLEHR). [Teacher self-efficacy]. Dokumentation der psychometrischenVerfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des ModellversuchsSelbstwirksame Schulen. Available from: R. Schwarzer, & M. Jerusalem (Eds.),Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schulermerkmalen (pp. 61–64) http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/schulen/skalen.htm. Retrieved 26.06.06.

Tillema, H. (2001). Portfolios as developmental assessment tools. InternationalJournal of Training and Development, 5, 126–135.

Tillema, H., & Smith, K. (2007). Portfolio appraisal: In search of criteria. Teaching andTeacher Education, 23, 442–456.

Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2007). Effects of elicitedreflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning andlearning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 532–548.

Wade, R. C., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolio: A tool for reflective thinking inteacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 63–79.

Ward, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preserviceteachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 243–257.

Wolf, K., & Dietz, M. (1998). Teaching portfolios: purposes and possibilities. TeacherEducation Quarterly, 25, 9–22.

Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology. Boston: Pearson.Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education

programs: what we know and what we need to know. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 17, 613–621.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academicachievement: an overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk(Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 1–37). Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum.