Action in Teacher Education Spring 1995, Vol. XVII, No. 1, pp. 30-39

Teaching Portfolios and Portfolio Conversations for Teacher Educators and Teachers

Kenneth Wolf University of Colorado at Denver

Barbara Whinery Patricia Hagerty University of Northern Colorado

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss our experiences as university faculty members and teacher educators in constructing portfolios of our teaching and in holding portfolio-based conversations with colleagues in order to enhance our effectiveness as teachers. Based on these experiences, we describe guidelines that others might follow as they participate in a similar process. In particular, if (a) portfolio conversations focus on teaching artifacts and teachers’ questions about their own practice, (b) the sessions are eflciently run, (c) the portfolio review group is carefilly organized, and (4 the portfolio contents are built around a specijk and extended teaching enterprise, then portfolio conversations may help teachers improve practice. We also discuss the implications of our experiences for teacher education.

Teaching portfolios-selective and purposeful collections of information about a teacher’s practice-are growing in popularity and emerging in a number of different settings (Shulman, 1988; Wolf, 1991). Teaching portfolios are featured in teacher education programs with preservice teachers (Lichtenstein, Rubin, & Grant, 1992), in induction programs for beginning teachers (MacIsaac, 1992; Whittaker & Ray, 1994), with practicing teachers in subject matter projects (Pisano, 1993), in school district pay-for-performance plans (Wolf & Lichtenstein, in progress), with teacher re-licensure at the state level (Lichtenstein & Wolf, in progress), in national efforts to certify accomplished practitioners (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1988), and with university faculties in higher education (Seldin, 1991; Hagerty, Whinery, & Wolf, in progress). While the purposes for constructing teaching portfolios vary across these different contexts, the ultimate aim of each of these efforts is the same-to improve teaching effectiveness.

Shulman (1992) has pointed out that a significant obstacle to improving instructional effectiveness is that teaching is like dry ice at room temperature-it evaporates in front of our eyes and leaves no visible traces. In most cases, there is little tangible evidence of the teaching that took place, and consequently, only a limited opportunity to examine its strengths and weaknesses. Learning from experience is often unrealized because evidence of teaching effectiveness is frequently unavailable.

30

Teaching portfolios address this problem by providing teachers with a structure for documenting and reflecting on their practice. By collecting an array of information about their teaching over time in authentic contexts, teachers can build a broad and textured picture of their practice. Through this process teachers can gain insights into their instructional practices in ways that they would not have been able to otherwise (Bird, 1991; Wolf, 1994).

As productive as teaching portfolios might be for engendering individual reflection and improving practice, their value in promoting teaching effectiveness are more likely to dramatically increase when they serve as the focal point for conversations with colleagues about teaching. Shulman (1992) offers the following definition of a teaching portfolio:

A teaching portfolio is the structured documentary history of a set of coached or mentored accomplishments, substantiated by samples of student work, and fully realized only through reflective writing, deliberation, and serious conversation.

According to Shulman, teaching portfolios do not achieve their full value if they sit in a box, but only when they become a departure point for substantive conversations about the quality of a teacher’s work.

While the role of portfolio-based conversations in promoting individual learning is promising, questions remain about the form that these conversations should take. What should they focus on? How should they be structured? Who should participate? This paper will not focus on teaching portfolios per se, but on strategies for maximizing their usefulness as a departure point for conversations about teaching. The issues raised in this paper apply to teaching portfolios for teachers, as well as for university faculty. Examples used in this paper broadly apply to both contexts.

An example of a structured teaching portfolio that could apply to K-12 teachers or university faculty is presented next. More detailed information about constructing and evaluating teaching portfolios can be found in other sources, including Wolf (1994) and Seldin (1991).

Example Contents of a Teaching Portfolio

A teaching portfolio contains a variety of information, such as unit and lesson plans, samples of student work, videotapes of one’s teaching, and written commentaries about the teaching documented in the portfolio. The contents and structure of the portfolio vary depending upon the purposes and context for preparing the portfolio. A university faculty member’s portfolio, for example, will have a different focus and content than that of an elementary school teacher. Moreover, portfolios constructed for high-stakes assessment will be different than those prepared for professional development purposes only. The following example presents possible contents for a K-12 or university faculty portfolio that could serve either formative or summative assessment purposes.

Section I: Background Information Resumehitae Information on teaching context Educational philosophy and teaching goals

31

Section 11: Teaching Artifacts and Rejlective Commentaries Documentation of an extended teaching enterprise (e.g., unit, course)

Description of unit or course goals Graphic overview (e.g., calendar) of major unit or course activities Description of resources used, including texts Two consecutive lesson plans Videotape of teaching (20-40 minutes) Student work samples Examples of feedback to student work, including formal evaluations Student evaluations of course Evaluation by observer of lesson from unit or course

Explanatory captions attached to all artifacts Written commentary on the teaching of the unit or course

Section III: Professional In formation Description of professional activities List of recent publications Letters of recommendation Formal evaluations

Theoretical Connections and Empirical Findings

The movement to both student and teacher portfolios has been driven in part by new conceptions of teaching and learning, and in part by dissatisfaction with the dominance of standardized tests (Wolf, Bixby, Glenn, & Gardner, 1991). In particular, the cognitive revolution, along with an increasing recognition of the social and contextual nature of learning, has led to the view that learning is a dynamic and complex process that is strongly shaped by the social context and setting in which it occurs (Vygotsky, 1978; Resnick & Resnick, 1992).

At the same time, criticisms of current testing practices are on the rise. Multiple-choice standardized tests, the dominant mode of testing in this country, have been accused of narrowing the curriculum (McNeil, 1988), distorting teaching (Haertel, 1990), undermining student motivation (Paris, Lawton, Turner, & Roth, 1991), deprofessionalizing teaching (Smith, 1991), and misrepresenting student achievement (Cannell, 1987). As a result, educators have begun to explore alternative forms of assessment.

Portfolios fit well with these new views about learning and assessment. Portfolios are malleable enough to capture individual styles and varied contexts, and robust enough to reflect broad and deep views of teaching and learning. Moreover, carefully conceptualized, portfolios not only present a window on teaching and learning, but can promote growth by providing a textured picture of teaching and learning as they unfold over time, enabling students and teachers to examine, discuss, and reflect on their performance.

As for the value of portfolio-based conversations, a number of theoretical and empirical research lines converge. Vygotsky (1978) convincingly argued that learning is first and foremost a social process; while, Slavin (1988) highlighted the contribution that cooperative learning can make in advancing individual learning. Furthermore, the value of exploratory talk in deepening our understanding of concepts and in examining our work

32

from a variety of perspectives has been documented by a number of educational researchers (Barnes, 1976; Dyson, 1993).

The theoretical support for portfolios and portfolio-based conversations is strong. However, the professional literature on both student and teacher portfolios is rich in rhetoric, but slender in empirical evidence (Herman & Winters, 1994). Proponents argue that portfolios promote ownership over the learning process, foster reflection, enhance teaching, and open up assessment, to mention a few of the many claims (e.g., Wolf, 1989; Wolf, 1994). As for actual evidence of the effects of student portfolios, Herman and Winters (1994) found that most of the published articles on the topic were anecdotal or conceptual, and few reported research-based results.

The evidence for the effectiveness of teaching portfolios is even more sparse. A few studies suggest that when teachers construct their own teaching portfolios, they report that the process advances their practice. In one study by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards on teachers’ reactions to preparing their professional portfolios, approximately 80% of the teachers surveyed believed that the portfolio process contributed significantly to their professional development (Jaeger & Thompson, 1994). In addition, reports from teachers who constructed portfolios for the Stanford Teacher Assessment Project were favorable about the benefits of teaching portfolios as well (Athanases, 1994).

We must recognize, however, that portfolios are in the early stage of development, and it may be too soon to draw strong conclusions about their effectiveness as learning strategies or assessment tools. Nonetheless, the theoretical claims and research literature surrounding portfolios are compelling, and serious explorations are in order.

Portfolio Conversations

Portfolio conversations refer to structured discussions among the portfolio author and other group members about the portfolio author’s teaching practices. These discussions focus on documented evidence of teaching that is collected and submitted by the portfolio author. A typical discussion group is composed of four to five people, and primarily consists of the portfolio author and several colleagues, but may also include students or invited others, such as a curriculum coordinator. A teaching portfolio group usually meets for at least four sessions (but often more) during a semester or year. The sessions often focus on an extended teaching enterprise, such as a thematic unit for a schoolteacher or a single course for a university faculty member. While teaching portfolios can be used for both formative and summative assessment, portfolio conversations, which allow teachers to explore challenging issues of practice with the aid of their colleagues, are formative in focus.

Based on our experiences with both student and teacher portfolios in a variety of educational settings, it has become apparent to us that insightful conversations about the quality of one’s work do not just naturally unfold when people get together. We have noticed that on some occasions, these portfolio-based conversations are focused and fruitful discussions, while in other instances they are meandering and unproductive chats.

A case in point. Recently, we were members of a group that examined the teaching portfolios of two university colleagues. We met several times during the year to review the

33

portfolios of these faculty members and to discuss the teaching they had documented. In one of our group meetings, the portfolio author began her session by passing out her syllabus for the group to review. The conversation first focused on the information in the syllabus, but soon began to move away from the specifics of the course, and turned to a number of broader issues, including program organization and the role of professional development schools. For the next hour, the discussion addressed these and other worthy topics. While the issues discussed were profoundly important, the portfolio author came away from the session with few ideas for improving her practice. In contrast, at other meetings, the conversations were tightly focused on the portfolio artifacts, and the teacher whose portfolio was under review came away from the experience with many specific ideas for improving instruction.

As important as it is to address the larger issues in education, we believe that the goal of a portfolio conversation should be more modest-to help the portfolio author (as well as the rest of the members of the group) improve his or her teaching. To increase the possibility that the sessions will achieve this goal, we have come to realize that several conditions are necessary. In particular, we have found that (1) focusing on teaching artifacts during the conversations, (2) establishing guidelines for the sessions, (3) carefully organizing the portfolio discussion group, and (4) building the portfolio contents around a specific and extended teaching enterprise (such as a unit or course), are critical ingredients of successful portfolio conversations. In addition to drawing on our own experiences, we also incorporate ideas from two other sources: writer's workshop (Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1985, Graves, 1983) and meeting management (Ware, 1977).

Focusing on Artifacts and Questions: Lessons from Writer's Workshop

A common problem in portfolio conversations is that the group loses sight of the primary goal of the session--to guide the portfolio author in improving his or her practice. We have found, however, that when the conversation is focused on a particular artifact, or a set of related artifacts, and the portfolio author gives the group members a specific request for feedback, the conversations are more rewarding for the portfolio author.

We take a lead here from Writers' Workshop (Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1985; & Graves, 1983). Writers' Workshop is a process approach to teaching writing that includes mini-lessons, writing time, conferring, and sharing of written pieces, often in the form of the author's chair. When a piece is shared in the author's chair, the author begins by asking the listeners for specific help. Requests, in the form of questions or statements, might range from, "I need ideas on how to end this." to "DO you think I've included enough description?" to the more broad "I would like to know if you think it makes sense and if not, what do I need to change?"

After the author reads the piece, the listeners provide feedback, based upon the initial request. To end the session, the writer answers questions such as, "What ideas did you get from the listeners?", "What changes will you make to your piece?", and "HOW will you go about doing that?" These questions, usually asked by the classroom teacher, provide the impetus for revision.

We recommend that conversations around teaching portfolios follow a similar flow, as suggested in the Portfolio Conversation Guide below . The portfolio author, who sits in

34

the "author's chair," shares an artifact with the group members and presents specific requests for help about something that he or she is struggling with. For example, in one of our group sessions, a portfolio author requested feedback on the assignments she had asked of her students by referring to her syllabus and stating, "I need help with the kinds of assignments I'm giving. Do you think these listed here require too much writing? Is there a way I can vary the assignments?" The same questions may carry over from session to session as the portfolio author tries out new strategies and collects new artifacts related to the original question.

From our perspective, it is critical that the discussions focus on artifacts of teachin% such as lesson plans or samples of student work, and not on teaching or education in general. Support for this point comes fiom Richert (1991), who found that when teachers had an artifact directly in front of them as they talked with a colleague about their teaching, the conversations were much more focused and reflective. At the same time, an artifact can serve as a stimulus for discussions about vital issues that extend beyond the collection of materials on the table, such as the philosophy underlying whole language, and these opportunities should not be missed. A good rule of thumb for keeping the conversation on task is that if the group members have not referred to an artifact for the last couple of minutes, then the conversation has probably wandered.

Once the author's initial set of questions has been satisfactorily addressed, group members have the responsibility to raise additional questions that the portfolio author may not have considered. For example, a group member, after reviewing the collection of artifacts, might raise a question based on the observation that student self-assessment appears to play no role in the classroom evaluation process. As with writers' workshop, the session should close with the portfolio author summarizing what he or she has learned and what action he or she will take as a result.

Portfolio Conversation Guide

The portfolio author: (1) presents a teaching artifact(s), (2) poses a question(s) for the group to consider, (3) discusses various teaching and learning approaches with the group in light of the questions asked and the information conveyed through the artifacts, (4) considers questions raised by other group members, and ( 5 ) comments on what was learned and what action will be taken.

Conducting the Sessions: Lessons from Meeting Management

Some simple meeting management strategies will further ensure that the time together is well spent. Strategies include setting an agenda, getting meeting materials to people ahead of time, keeping the sessions on task and on time, and closing the meeting by reviewing what was agreed on, including any tasks for the next session.

35

An agenda functions like a road map; it lets participants know the intended route and destination for the meeting. Getting materials to group members ahead of time reminds them of the meeting and allows them to examine the artifacts beforehand. Keeping on task helps to ensure that the meeting time is productively spent. A formal closing allows the group to review the suggestions that were made and prepare an action plan.

All of the group members are responsible for ensuring a successful session, but their specific responsibilities differ. The portfolio author is responsible for preparing and sending out an agenda, identifying an artifact(s) to focus on, generating questions for the group to consider, and concluding with a review of the key points and future action. Other group members’ responsibilities include previewing materials ahead of time and keeping the discussion focused on the portfolio author’s artifacts and questions. In addition to their responsibility as critical discussants, other group members might take on assigned roles, including: (1) a facilitator who opens and closes the meeting, keeps the group on task, and directs the flow of conversation to ensure that all members participate; (2) a time keeper who periodically reminds the group of time remaining; and (3) a recorder who takes notes for the portfolio author on key points.

Organizing the Portfolio Group: Commitment and Composition

Two features that influence the success of a portfolio group are individual commitment and group composition. All members of the group must commit to regular participation. It is difficult to sustain a coherent conversation if each member is party to only part of the conversation. When the calendar is set, all members must make every effort to prepare for and attend all of the sessions. Four sessions are probably the minimum, with no more than a month transpiring between sessions.

While the size of the group can vary, four to five members seems to be a good size because it is large enough to hold a conversation, but small enough so that everyone can actively participate. In addition to the portfolio author, the group should include at least one colleague whose teaching responsibilities are similar to the portfolio author’s, including a shared subject matter focus. While non-content area specialists can comment on the pedagogical soundness of the portfolio author’s teaching, they usually cannot provide indepth feedback on content knowledge or pedagogical content (e.g., “What is a good strategy for introducing process writing to preservice teachers?”).

Other group members may include colleagues from related areas, as well as upper-grade or university students. If the portfolio author is focusing on a specific in-progress class or course, current students can offer an insider’s perspective. However, including students in the conversation often changes the nature of the interactions. The focus can shift from what is being taught and how, to what is being learned and why (not necessarily an unproductive focus. . . ). Ultimately, decisions about group composition depend on the portfolio author’s purposes and preferences. An additional consideration is that the group may be composed of more than one portfolio author, and the session leadership could rotate among members.

36

Building the Portfolio: Focusing on Specific Contents

The portfolio contents under review may focus on a single course or area of emphasis (e.g., a ninth-grade geometry class or a thematic unit in sixth grade social studies on Native Americans of the Southwest), or on a more comprehensive view of a person’s teaching effectiveness over time or across content areas. Our experience has been that the most productive emphasis is a class or course that is in-progress or that has been recently taught. A more narrow focus better allows the group to consider specific features of the teacher’s practice, such as the coherence of the instruction or the connections between what was taught and what was learned. If the focus of the portfolio is too broad, the conversations are often too general.

As for the specific contents of the portfolio, we view the following pieces of information as highly desirable (Wolf, 1994): instructional artifacts, student work, videotapes of teaching, and written commentaries. Instructional artifacts, such as a course syllabus or instructions for a major assignment, are particularly valuable sources of evidence about the design of the course and the intentions of the teacher. Student work is important because it can illustrate what students actually did or did not learn. Student work can also provide insights into the usefulness of the feedback that the teacher provides to students. Videotapes offer information about aspects of a teacher’s effectiveness, such as the teacher’s interaction style or use of wait time (Rowe, 1974), that are not visible through other sources. A written commentary, in which the author discusses his or her successes, failures, and challenges can give group members insights into the thinking behind the teaching.

A variety of other sources of information could be included in the teaching portfolio as well, such as an audiotape of the teacher explaining a basic concept to the class, mid-course feedback from students about the course, or a list of required and recommended texts. The important point is that some direct evidence of teaching or learning in the form of artifacts should be brought to the table to focus the conversation.

Implications for Teacher Education

While we describe our experiences as faculty members in constructing our own teaching portfolios, the strategies that we discuss in this paper have direct implications for our work as teacher educators and for teacher education programs in general. The process that we have gone through is similar to what we would advocate for preservice and practicing teachers, and the recommendations that we offer apply to portfolio conversations in any setting.

We believe that by engaging teachers and teachers-in-development in the practice of documenting and reflecting on their teaching, and in holding regular and focused conversations with their colleagues about their practice, we are building individual dispositions and a professional culture that values reflective, collaborative practice. In turn, we hope that teachers who prepare their own portfolios, and use these portfolios to talk with their peers about their performance, will become better at implementing these same practices with their own students.

We also believe that by constructing our own portfolios as teacher educators, we not only strengthen our effectiveness as teachers, we also gain insights into the benefits and

37

limitations of portfolios that we could not have had without this direct experience. Furthermore, by preparing our own portfolios, we can model the methods we are advocating for our students.

While we have described strategies for structuring portfolio-based conversations to better ensure that they will contribute to teachers’ professional development, conversations about teaching, of course, should not be limited to these sessions, nor should they end when the portfolio review group officially disbands. Reflective conversations about teaching and learning should permeate our planning and teaching and be an integral part of who we are as teachers.

References

Athanases, S. Z. (1994). Teachers’ reports of the effects of preparing portfolios of literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 42 1-439.

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.

Barnes, D. (1 976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Bird, T. (1990). The schoolteacher’s portfolio: An essay on possibilities. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers, (pp. 24 1-56). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Calkins, L. M. (1985). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cannell, J. J. ( 1987) National norm-referenced elementary achievement testing in

America’s public schools: How all fifty states are above the national average. Charleston West Virginia: Friends of Education.

school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary

Graves, D. (1983). Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Haertel, E. (1990). Student achievement tests as tools of educational policy: Practices

and consequences. In B. R. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language, and culture (pp. 13- 14). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hagerty, P., Whinery, B., & Wolf, K. (in progress). Teaching portfolios for university faculty: One Group’s Experiences.

Herman, J . , & Winters, L. (1994). Portfolio research: A slim collection. Educational Leadership, 52, 48-55.

Jaeger, R., & Thompson, M. (1994). A summary of responses to candidates for national board certification to selected-response questions posed in a self-administered questionnaire. Greensboro, NC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Lichtenstein, G., Rubin, T., & Grant, G. (1992). Portfolios as professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Lichtenstein, G., & Wolf, K. P. (in progress). Teacher re-licensure through teacher portfolios: A new direction in Colorado.

MacIsaac, D. (1 992, January). Partner teachers’ portfolios document teaching experience. Teacher Induction Partnerships. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado.

McNeil, L. (1988). Contradictions of control, Part 2: Teachers, students, and curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 433-438.

38

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1989). Toward high and rigorous standards for the teaching profession. Washington, DC: Author.

Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J. C., & Roth, J. L. (1991). A developmental perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20, 12-20.

Pisano, J. (1993). Portfolio evaluation system. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Department of Education.

Resnick, L., & Resnick, D. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O’Conner (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative view of aptitude, achievement, and instruction , (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwar Academic Publishers.

Richert, A. E. (1990). Teaching teachers to reflect: A consideration of programme structure. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 509-527.

Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait time-Is anyone listening? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 203-224.

Seldin, P. (1 99 1). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotional/tenure decisions. Anker: Bolton, MA.

Shulman, L. S. (1988). A union of insufficiencies: Strategies for teacher assessment in a period of reform. Educational Leadership, 46, 36-4 1.

Shulman, L. S. (1992, April). Portfolios for teacher education: A component of reflective teacher education. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Leadership, 45, 3 1-33.

Educational Researcher, 20, 8- 1 1.

Slavin, R. (1 988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational

Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ware, J. (1977). How to run a meeting. Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School. Whittaker, A., & Ray, L. (1994). Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment: Cohort I1

Wolf, D. P. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work. Educational

Wolf, D. P., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well:

San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research.

Leadership, 46, 35-39.

Investigating new forms of student assessment. In G. Grant (Ed.),Review of Research in Education (pp. 3 1-74). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Wolf, K. P., & Lichtenstein (in progress). Identifying outstanding teachers through teaching portfolios.

Wolf, K. P. (1991). The schoolteacher’s portfolio: Issues in design, implementation, and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 129- 136.

Wolf, K. P. (1994). Teaching portfolios: Capturing the complexity of teaching. In L. Ingvarson & R. Chadborne (Eds.), Valuing Teachers Work: New directions in teacher appraisal. (pp. 1 12-136) Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Kenneth Wolf is an assistant professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. Barbara Whinery is an assistant professor at the University of Northern Colorado. Patricia Hagerty is an associate professor at the University of Northern Colorado.

The authors wish to thank Gary Lichtenstein and Andrea Whittaker for their helphl comments on this article.

39