Contents

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Teacher Concerns In a Portfolio Classroom
• Documenting Teacher Experiences with Portfolios
• Our Study
  • Method
  • Results
  • Discussion/Recommendations
• Final Thoughts
• References

Executive Summary

Teacher professional development plays an essential role in successful educational reform. High-quality professional development refers to rigorous and relevant content strategies, and organizational support that will ensure long-term teacher development. These require partnerships between schools, government, and postsecondary institutions to promote inclusive learning communities composed of teachers. These institutions need to work closely together to bring ideas, commitment and resources to address complex and important educational issues in a variety of settings for a diverse student body.

In October 2000, The Quebec Ministry of Education, Anglophone Services, in conjunction with the Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance (CSLP), began to explore teacher perceptions, attitudes and beliefs towards educational portfolios.

One of the major goals of this initiative was to establish a central clearinghouse for sharing portfolio tools, ideas, and resources between anglophone boards as well as to document teacher implementation of portfolios in the classroom.

This study focused on two major areas:

• The identification of teacher attitudes, and perceptions relating to the implementation of portfolios in the classroom.
• The encouragement of individuals to share their knowledge and portfolio tools with their colleagues and to provide a forum for this interaction and exchange.

Various recommendations include creating an online learning community that will support professional development in the portfolio classroom and providing teachers with ongoing training and support on the portfolio process.

Introduction

Educational portfolios are used worldwide, in countries such as Spain, England, Finland, South Africa, Australia, and the United States. Portfolios have been touted as one of the best and most innovative learning tools of the new millennium. Educators believe that educational portfolios not only teach students to think critically, but also to become active, independent and self-regulated learners (Bergman, 1994; Pintrich et al. 1993).

Portfolios have become popular in the educational community because of a general dissatisfaction by teachers, educators and school administrators with traditional assessment methods which fail to reflect authentic student learning (Klenowski, 1998). Portfolios are currently used for a variety of purposes such as large-scale external testing, setting standards for middle school graduation, and for college placement or for state-wide report cards (Lucas, 1993). Farr (1990) notes that in many colleges and universities in the United States, portfolios are now used as part of entrance requirements.

A classroom portfolio is defined as a "'purposeful collection of student work that exhibits to the student (and/or others) the student's efforts, progress or achievement in (a) given area(s)" (Frederick and Shaw, 1996, p.3). The steps (goal setting, peer-conferencing, self-reflection, self- assessment etc.) that students encounter as they go through the portfolio process (Gearhart and Wolf, 1995; Barrett, 1994; and Sweet, 1993), are aligned with sociocognitive models of learning that facilitate self-regulated learning. Students need the necessary meta-cognitive skills in order to monitor, organize, evaluate and regulate their thinking process. Pintrich et al. 1993 point out that educational portfolios create a classroom environment that encourages self-regulated learning.

The traditional container for portfolios has been paper folders. However, with current technological advancements, portfolio containers now include diskettes, CD-ROMs and the worldwide web. Electronic portfolios have become popular in the last five years or so (Ambrester, 1996). The emergence of electronic portfolios in the classroom comes as a result of major changes in both pedagogy and technology (Moerech and Fisher, 1995).

A large proportion of the current literature we have available today concerning educational portfolios comes from the United States. This is not to say that other countries have not published on portfolios; it is difficult to obtain papers from countries whose official language is not English. The current literature on portfolios is filled with teacher narratives, persuasive papers, opinion papers, evaluation reports and surveys. Many recent research efforts have focused on portfolios as a form of alternative assessment; the reliability and validity of assessing portfolios; and benefits of a portfolio classroom. While these previous research efforts have concentrated on important components of portfolios, they have failed to examine student learning in the portfolio classroom. In fact, Herman and Winters (1994) claim that in reviewing the literature on portfolios there is a lack of scholarly research on portfolios. They argue that most papers on portfolios explain the rational for using portfolios and the benefits associated with them, yet there is no empirical research to back up these claims.

Teacher Concerns in a Portfolio Classroom

This report focuses on professional development issues surrounding educational portfolios. Although there are a variety of resources on educational portfolios for teachers, including books, articles, and web sites; there is a lack of literature that examines teacher attitudes and perceptions in the portfolio classroom. In fact, Hall et al.1999 note that' 'there has been little research documenting the connection between teachers' attitudes about portfolios and use of portfolios' (p.1). What is found instead are numerous anecdotes, documented stories, on teachers attitudes and perceptions towards portfolios. It is felt that if we have a better understanding of teacher perceptions related to portfolios, then professional development efforts will be more effective.

The following are some of the problems we isolated from the current literature on portfolios, in regards to teacher concerns in a portfolio classroom:

• lack of time for understanding how to best integrate portfolios in the classroom (Aschbacher, 1993);
• need to have ongoing training and support (Aschbacker,1993);
• need for professional development in understanding how to use alternative forms of assessment (Copeland, 1999);
• lack of a thorough understanding of how to specify criteria to judge student work (Aschbacher, 1993);
• time commitment, as portfolios take up a great deal of teacher's time (Sweet, 1992);
• lack of organized time to meet with other teachers to discuss issues surrounding portfolios (Sweet, 1992);
• problems of finding places to store portfolios, and the need for more space (Koca & Hea-Jin Lee, 1999);
• lack of planning in portfolio assessment (Popp, 1999);
• difficulty of deciding upon what content to include in portfolios (Koretz, 1994);
• feelings of discomfort from being judged by their students performance in the portfolio classroom (Aschbacker,1993);
• lack of a long-range implementation plan for portfolio usage. (Aschbacker,1993); and
• lack of adequate portfolio resources (CSLP, 2000).

Documenting Teachers Experiences with Portfolios: A Global Perspective

Worldwide, countries that have implemented portfolios into their school system have faced similar experiences. This section offers a snap shot view of these experiences.

Canada

The use of portfolios is encouraged in recent educational reforms in Quebec. Some boards are now implementing portfolios boardwide (e.g. Riverside) and have designed new portfolio-oriented report cards. Two years ago the CSLP and Centennial Regional High School worked together exploring portfolio issues in the classroom. Some findings include:

• The need for teachers to meet regularly to discuss portfolio issues;
• The need for a portfolio resource centre where teachers have access to articles, journals etc.; and
• The necessity for teachers to have access to video cameras to record portfolios classes, teacher-conferencing sessions etc.

United States - United States Department of Statistics (1994-1995)

Many schools in the United States are experimenting with portfolios. The government conducted a national survey to examine the prevalence of teachers using portfolios in the classroom. Key findings include:

• 80% of teachers reported using portfolios for more than one subject; and
• less experienced teachers(less than 4 years) were more likely to use portfolios than more experienced (more than 4 years) teachers.

Wyoming (Ellsworth, 2000)

A longitudinal study was initiated between 1993-2000 between the University of Wyoming and an elementary school implementing portfolios school-wide. Key findings from this study found that:

• teachers were excited about the prospect of using portfolios;
• teachers were frustrated at the lack of control they had in making decisions regarded new curriculum reforms with regards to portfolios; and
• teachers strongly felt that in order to effectively implement portfolios they needed to have:
  1. a school principal who supports the process,
  2. time during the day in order to meet with teachers to discuss portfolio issues and
  3. the opportunity to be part of the decision making process with the new curricular reforms.

United States and Canada (Focused Portfolios, 1999)

In October of 1998 five early childhood school programs in Illinois and the Center de la Petite Enfance St Mary's in Montreal, Quebec began piloting focused portfolios ® ( a structured assessment portfolio: for more detailed definition refer to http://www.focusedportfolios.com/about.html). At the end of the pilot project, designers met with the teachers to discuss some of their reactions. Teachers reported that:

• They were able to know their students better;
• Organizing children's work was easier;
• They could 'show' parents how their children were learning.

Finland (Tenhula, 1996)

In a recent study of literacy in European countries, the scores from Finnish students were quite low as compared to other European countries (Lundberg and Linnakyla, 1992). After a careful analysis of the situation, the Finnish government felt that integrating portfolios into the school system would improve the quality of education.

Because Finnish teachers were not experienced with using portfolios, university teacher education programs focused on teaching teachers the principles of the portfolio process (Tenhula, 1996) at the university level. At the University of Oula, teachers were encouraged to develop and organize their portfolio skills and the knowledge teachers gained in this process would enable them to effectively use portfolios in their own classroom.

Australia (Geelan, 1997)

Geelan (1997) examined teachers' experiences with new reforms in the school curriculum. One of these new reforms is portfolio assessment. He found that:

• teachers felt that resistance to change came from pressures put on them from external examinations from the State; and
• reforms should not just focus on teaching teacher attitudes and beliefs but also on expected roles and beliefs of the students as well.

Our Study

Method Used

his study used principles of action research and narrative methodology (Connelly and Clandinin, 1996) also as known as the case study approach.

Each English school board selected a representative teacher to participate in the study. The case study was conducted exclusively online. Each week questions were sent via email and the participants had one week to respond. Responses took approximately 30 minutes to prepare and were sent back electronically.

The questions were composed based on a review of the literature focusing on the salient issues related to teacher integration of educational portfolios in their classroom.

Participants

Twenty-five teachers from eight English school boards from the province of Quebec participated in the study and 12 members of the QESN RECIT (an organization linking school board ICT consultants and the QESN network). The majority of teachers
had an adequate level of computer knowledge and were comfortable using technology in their portfolio classrooms. Participants had to have Internet access in order to participate in the study.

Results

One purpose of this study was to: Identify teacher attitudes, and perceptions related to the implementation of portfolios in the classroom.

Each week, digests were prepared that summarized teacher responses. These digests were emailed to participants and posted on the QESN website: http://www.qesn.meq.gouv.qc.ca/portfolio/eng/res.htm.

Table 1. Summary of the Key findings

The second purpose of thestudy was to: Encourage individuals to share their knowledge and portfolio tools with their colleagues and to provide a forum for this interaction and exchange.

There was a great deal of sharing among the RECIT animators in this emergent process at the meetings in terms of models, tools, and structures. Teachers did share materials and resources informally. Little sharing of concrete tools occurred other than the regular contributors to the website as:

• teachers believed that their resources were not of publishable quality for a public audience (many of the resources were 'works in progress' and not final products);
• there was some difficulty imposed on animators traveling to schools to collect resources (often it is only when an animator sees a document and explains its value to other teachers that we can obtain it, teachers felt that their resources were not transferable; they did not believe that others would benefit);
• there was an uncertainty involved in embarking on such a new process - time is needed to feel proficient enough to share (teachers had participated in this project for a couple of months only); and
• teachers would want to use their own resources (some teachers also feared the loss of ownership of the tools they developed).

Discussion and Recommendations

Teacher participation varied on a weekly basis. On average there were a total of nine teachers from a pool of 25 who participated. The following reasons may be attributed to this:

• technology infrastructure in terms of email etc. was not easily accessible for all teachers; and
• lack of time on the part of the teachers (the teachers participating in this case study were not only school leaders but also IT experimenters and therefore were involved in many projects).

There were several areas that teachers pinpointed as 'trouble areas' in regards to their perceptions and attitudes towards portfolios. This section offers some suggestions in addressing these problems.

Problem: No sense of involvement in the reform process, lack of time to collaborate with other teachers and lack of ongoing support.

Recommendation: Time-saving Tips

The Kentucky Department of Education (1998) has developed a useful handbook for administrators and teachers detailing timesaving strategies throughout the portfolio writing process (see Appendix B for a copy of the handbook). Some of their suggestions for teachers are:

• Choosing reading samples that represent the kind of writing that students should include in their portfolio;
• Teaching mini-lessons that demonstrate the kind of skills needed to complete the assignment;
• Focusing on pre-writing activites; and
• Concentrating on one or two skills when assessing portfolios.

Recommendation: On-going Portfolio Professional Development

There is a general consensus among educators that effective professional development is extremely valuable for teachers (Adger, 1999). Educators believe that school improvement is dependent upon professional development (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995) and that it represents a critical vehicle for schools to support teachers in their ongoing acquisitions of skills and strategies that enable them to teach well in this changing context ' (McGregor et al. 1998 p. 44) Success of any type of professional development is embedded upon the reality of: teacher's needs, with teacher input, critical thinking and meaningful collaboration, and sustainment over a long period of time (Little, 1993; Renyi, 1996: Sparks & Hirsh, 1997).

Recent school reform has resulted in the realization that more time should be devoted to professional development (NCREL, 1997). Corcoran (1995) points out 'teachers need more time to work with colleagues, to critically examine the new standards being proposed, and to revise curriculum. They need opportunities to develop, master, and reflect on new approaches to working with children'. In addition, teachers need the necessary time to understand and reflect upon new curriculum reforms before they are required to implement them (Cambone, 1995).

Some portfolio professional development activities can include:

• Visits to other schools to see how other teachers are implementing portfolios;
• The use of one common free period per week for a 'portfolio meeting' to discuss problems, share resources etc.;
• Focus groups meetings once per term with RECIT animators to discuss issues of concern;
• The establishment of new models of interaction through a virtual workspace, phone conferencing etc.;
• A special 'portfolio day' for teachers from different school boards to present their classroom portfolios, exchange resources etc.;
• The encouragement of teachers to become researchers in their own classroom;
• The development of a portfolio resource area for teachers in their schools; and
• Teacher presentation of their portfolio experiences at conferences.

Problem: Organization of the Content to Include in the Portfolios

Recommendation: Clear Understanding of the Different Types of Portfolios

Danielson and Abrytyn (1997) have identified three main types of portfolios: working, showcase and assessment portfolio. A working portfolio is a 'holding tank' for works in progress. Usually a working portfolio is a temporary portfolio because students move on to either an assessment or show case portfolios. An assessment portfolio documents what students have learned. ' The content of the curriculum, then, will determine what students select for their portfolios' (Danielson and Abrytyn, 1997.p.5). The essential feature of a showcase portfolio is that it demonstrates a student's best work. Often when students are applying to colleges and universities they will use their showcase portfolio.

Regardless of the type of portfolio chosen or the media (folder, binder, diskette, web page) used to hold the portfolio, the pedagogy is the same in practice (Danielson and Abrytyn, 1997). Gearhart and Wolf (1995) point out that portfolio processes can entail the following processes: planning, multiple drafts or work, evidence of revision evidence of editing (peer or parent), oral peer-reflection, peer-assessment, self-assessment, teacher portfolio conference and self-reflection.

Recommendation: Understanding the Phases of Portfolio Development

Daleen van Niekerk (1999) developed a package for educators describing various development steps. The entire document can be found at http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/ole/oro1999/resources/portfolio/niekerk.PDF For a complete copy (see Appendix C).

Key steps for teachers are:

• Selecting a portfolio framework (chronology, themes, problem orientations);
• Keeping track of the portfolio; and
• The inclusion of goals and objectives, plan of action, self-selected, lecture selected and collaboratively selected portfolio content.

Problem: Lack of Knowledge about Assessment Strategies

Recommendation: Consult the QESN web page entitled Evaluation at http://www.qesn.meq.gouv.qc.ca/portfolio/eng/theory-E.htm#p-ass for a number of useful tips on assessment strategies.

Problem: Finding Portfolio Containers

Recommendations: How to Choose the Right Portfolio Container

A variety of media can be used to store portfolios. The decision to choose the appropriate media depends on the content of the material, space and financial issues. Paper-based portfolios are advantageous because they:

• are easy to use for both teachers and students;
• can be easily adjusted;
• can easily be transported from home to school etc.; and
• are easily retrieved.

Difficulties with using paper-based portfolios include:

• The lack of space available for storage;
• Difficulty in transferring portfolios from one year to the next (i.e. the container becomes to small to hold everything);
• Physical transportation; and
• Items get easily lost (i.e. paper falling out of binders).

Barett (1999) points out that the advantages of electronic-based portfolios over traditional portfolios include:

• Students can demonstrate their work in a variety of media;
• Students are able to demonstrate a variety of different learning activities (i.e oral skills);
• It is easier to manage the portfolio process, i.e storage, editing, presentation etc.;
• It is easier to view the portfolio process through hyperlinks;
• One can save storage space; and
• It is easier to duplicate and transfer.

The difficulties in using electronic portfolios include:

• Training teachers and students on how to use the technology;
• Designing a back up system;
• The dependence on the technology (i.e if school server is down and students portfolios are on it');
• Computer viruses;
• Material easily becoming lost due to deleted files;
• Issues ranging from choice of network to use to security of network (web-based portfolios); and
• Access to appropriate technology both at school or at home.

Recommendation: A Smooth Move Towards Electronic Portfolios

Teachers have expressed concern over the move from a print-based to a digital portfolio.

Mary Gorham (1996) describes one school's experience moving from paper based to digital portfolios in Moving Towards Digital Portfolio's: One Elementary School's Story (available at http://www.essentialschools.org/pubs16).

Some of the recommended actions include:

• Working with paper portfolios before going digital;
• Meeting with school administrators, technicians and educators about the technology hardware and software that is needed;
• Training the teachers on using the software and technology;
• Designing a portfolio template that is compatible with the technology available at the school; and
• Deciding upon administrative issues such as: the location for storage of portfolios, accessibility, the decisions to transfer material from one year to the next, and the backing up of student information.

Problem: Lack of Resources

Recommendation: Locating Existing Portfolio Resources

The CSLP-MEQ video project which will be launched some time in the Fall will highlight some key portfolio processes in vivo. Twelve video clips, each representing a step in the portfolio process, will be posted on the QESN website. This will be an excellent resource for teachers and students. These clips and accompanying resources will be available at: http://www.qesnrecit.qc.ca/portfolio

Dr. Helen Barrett from the University of Anchorage in Alaska is one of the leading experts of educational electronic portfolios. She has developed numerous on-line tutorials to help teachers and educators develop electronic portfolios. Her website address is http://transition.alaska.edu/www/Portfolios.html

Recommendation: Improved Accessibility to the Resources

Teachers need to find portfolio resources easily and efficiently without having to go through many steps to get there. A excellent way to organize portfolio materials on websites is to allow teachers to select the age group, subject and portfolio process resource that they need. A good example of this is the www.teachersnetwork.org . The QESN site could be redesigned to add these elements.

Final Thoughts

There is a void in the literature concerning portfolios.There is not only a lack of empirical research on teacher perceptions and attitudes towards portfolios, but as well on student learning outcomes and processes. Further empirical studies should be initiated in an attempt to address this void. For example, the CSLP currently has a study underway that will look at achievement gains. Secondly, in order to make effective use of the findings from this study what is needed in the future is a systematic research approach that will a) provide a clear snap-shot view of teachers' experiences with portfolios, b) pin-point specific resources and training areas that need improvement, and c) respond to teachers' need for a quick response to their concerns. These issues will be addressed by the MEQ Portfolio Committee in the coming year.

References

Aschbacher, P.R. (1993). Issues for innovative assessment for classroom practice: Barriers and facilitators. (Tech. Rep. No. 359). Los Angeles: University of California, CRESST; Center for Study of Evaluation.

Arter, J. and Spandel, V. 1991. Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Barrett, H. (1994). Technology supported assessment portfolios. Computing Teacher, 21(6), 9-12.

Barrett, H. C (1997). Collaborative planning for electronic portfolios: Asking strategic questions. Electronic Portfolio Planning Issues. p. 1,3. Retrieved May 22, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://trainsition.alaska.edu/www/portfolios/planning.html

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bergman, T (1994). Feasible electronic portfolios: Global networking for the self-directed learner in the digital age. Sitka, Alaska. Retrieved May 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mehs.educ.state.ak.us/portfolios/why_digital_portfolios.html

Brookhart, S.M (1997). The validity and reliability of information from student annotation from of work samples for portfolios. Journal of Research Methodology, 10 (1) 15-36.

Campbell, J. (1992, May,). Laser disk portfolios: Total child assessment. Educational Leadership, 69 - 70.

Camp, R. (1992). Portfolio reflections in middle and secondary school classrooms. In. K.B. Yancey (Ed.). Portfolios in the writing classroom (pp. 61-79).

Camp, R & Levine, D (1991). "Portfolios Evolving: Background and Variations in Sixth-Through Twelfth-Grade Classrooms." In P. Belanof & M. Dickson (Eds.). Portfolios: Process and product (pp.194-205). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann.

Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). (1993). Alternative assessments practice. Los Angeles: University of California, CRESST; Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers' professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories--stories of teachers--school stories--stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30.

Daiker, D.A. (1992). Implications of portfolio assessment. Portfolio News, 3(2), 4.5.10,11.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995) Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.

Ellsworth, J. Z. (2000, April). Reflecting Over Time: Teachers' views of classroom portfolios. (Report presented to the Northwest Initiative for Teaching and Learning, Bellevue, WA).

Farr, R (1990). Setting directions for language arts portfolios. Educational Leadership, 48 (3), 103.

Henderson R. W. (1986). Self regulated learning: Implications for the design of instructional modules. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 405-427.

Herman, J. L., Aschbacker, P. R., & Winters L.. (1993). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Lucas, C. (1993). Writing portfolios: Changes and challenges. Portfolio News. 4(3) 1-7.

Lundberg,I., and Linnakyla, P. (1992). Teaching reading around the world. The Hague, the Netherlands: the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Kolanowski, K. (1993). Use of portfolios in assessment of literature learning. NY: National Research Center of Literature Teaching and Learning.

Klenowski, V. (1998) 'The use of portfolios for assessment in teacher education: A perspective from Hong Kong Asia Pacific. Journal of Education, 18, 2, 74-86

Kakkar M., Zitkute L., & Abrami P. (2000). Student's perceptions of portfolio classrooms: Alternative assessment, teacher conferencing, peer conferencing, and self-reflection processes. Montreal, QC: Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University.

Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of academic efficacy make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415-435.

Koretz, D., Stecher B., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont Portfolio assessment program: Finding and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(3), 5-16.

Klenowski, V. (1998) 'The use of portfolios for assessment in teacher education: A perspective from Hong Kong' Asia Pacific.' Journal of Education, 18, 2, 74-86.

Popp P.J. (1999). Research and theory for practitioners. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana State University.

Popp, P.J. (1992, February). Family portfolios: Documenting change in parent-child relationships. Louisville, KY: National Center for Family Literacy.

Sweet, D (1993). Performance assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research Consumer Guide.

Tenhula T. (1996): Improving academic teaching practices by using teacher portfolio - the Finnish way to do it. ICED Conference.

Wolf, D P 1989. Portfolio assessment: sampling students work. Education Leadership 46:35-.

Case Study Report 2001
(170KB)