A journey into portfolio assessment

Educational Forum, The, Fall 2002 by Skawinski, Susan F, Thibodeau, Sally J

* Portfolio evidence demonstrates a high level of content knowledge and pedagogical skill.

* Diversity in content and types of evidence is necessary to demonstrate breadth and depth of performance (Wolf and Dietz 1998).

The process that emerged served a number of equally significant purposes: as a chronicle of student growth and competence, as a vehicle for program improvement, as a means of establishing student eligibility for state licensure, and as a personal journey of self-assessment and reflection for students.

In addition to focusing on philosophical dimensions of design, we also attended to format and management issues. Two basic forms assist students in development. One is a table of contents that lists each program standard and indicator. Students link the evidence in their portfolios to the appropriate indicators and note entry and exit dates. This form has become both an organizational tool for students and a preview device for reviewers.

A second form, referred to as an "entry slip," is attached to each piece of evidence. In completing an entry slip, students provide a rationale for the links between standards and evidence and reflect on their performance as potential teachers (Wilcox 1996). We have also provided guidelines for students that designate the standards and indicators for each assessment point, options for evidence, and requirements for reflective entries. The education department's Web site has become a vehicle for the dissemination of forms, guidelines, and information.

Fostering Growth over Time

One of our most strategic decisions focused on when students should enter the process. Limiting portfolio development to the junior and senior year of students' programs would require fewer resources and a smaller number of reviews. In contrast, beginning the process at an earlier point would necessitate more support over a longer period but would allow students to demonstrate more thoroughly their growth as learners over time.

Because we believed a longer period of development would result in richer portfolios, students are introduced to the fundamental components of portfolio development early in their freshman year, with the expectation that their portfolios will be completed by the end of their senior year. Portfolios are reviewed at four points during that time. Three of these reviews are formal assessments (spring of sophomore year and fall and spring of senior year) that form the basis of decisions about students' proficiency; an additional review in the spring of their junior year is a monitoring check to ensure students are continuing to progress on schedule. Each assessment serves as an opportunity for feedback and support as students develop their evidence and reflections.

Creating Ownership

Student ownership is a fundamental characteristic of a meaningful portfolio (Tierney, Carter, and Desai 1991). This issue is not limited to who maintains portfolios and where they are kept; instead, it extends to more fundamental questions about who selects evidence to be included in portfolios and how such evidence is matched to standards. Our students are responsible for the physical maintenance of their portfolios and, for the most part, their content development. They include two types of evidence, as shown in figure 2 below. "Required" pieces are evidence that students must include in their portfolios prior to their final review (e.g., lesson plans with reflections, case studies on students, integrated units analysis papers); these pieces represent state-mandated tasks that are typically developed as part of coursework assignments. "Open" pieces are those students choose to include. They may represent exceptional or challenging class assignments or may be pieces designed specifically for portfolio inclusion. Regardless of whether pieces are required or open, students decide which evidence best meets each standard and explain their reasoning on their entry slip.