Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 27 October 2014, At: 19:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal for AcademicDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rija20
Teaching portfolios: their role inteaching and learning policyMargaret Buckridge aa Griffith Institute for Higher Education , Griffith University ,Nathan, QLD, AustraliaPublished online: 23 May 2008.
To cite this article: Margaret Buckridge (2008) Teaching portfolios: their role in teachingand learning policy, International Journal for Academic Development, 13:2, 117-127, DOI:10.1080/13601440802076566
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440802076566
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal for Academic DevelopmentVol. 13, No. 2, June 2008, 117–127
ISSN 1360-144X print/ISSN 1470-1324 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13601440802076566http://www.informaworld.com
Teaching portfolios: their role in teaching and learning policy
Margaret Buckridge*
Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, AustraliaTaylor and Francis LtdRIJA_A_307822.sgm(Received 10 December 2007; final version received 18 March 2008)10.1080/13601440802076566International Journal for Academic Development1360-144X (print)/1470-1324 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis132000000June [email protected]
Teaching Portfolios are now common in higher education. They are used bothdevelopmentally and summatively in spite of the fact that many academics find themgenerically quite unfamiliar. This paper explores, primarily conceptually, the experience ofone institution as to the ways in which portfolios have functioned in its processes and itspractice. The paper introduces a small empirical sample of portfolios in an attempt to giveconcrete meaning to some of the points made. Ultimately, it questions whether portfolios canhave a mixed developmental/summative mode of existence and still meet the purposes theinstitution intends. This raises the issue of the extent to which a summative mechanism canbecome an end in itself and can actively limit progressive potential.
Les dossiers d’enseignement (teaching portfolios) font maintenant partie de la vie courante enenseignement supérieur. Ils sont utilisés dans une double optique de développement etd’évaluation sommative en dépit du fait que de nombreux universitaires les jugentgénéralement assez étranges. Cet article explore, d’un point de vue conceptuel, l’expérienced’une institution en ce qui a trait à l’utilisation des dossiers d’enseignement dans le cadre deses processus et de sa pratique. L’article présente un échantillon empirique limité de dossiersd’enseignement dans le but d’illustrer, de façon concrète, l’argument présenté. Ultimement,l’article remet en question l’idée que les dossiers d’enseignement peuvent à la fois avoir uneexistence mixte de développement/d’évaluation sommative et atteindre les objectifs visés parune institution. Ceci soulève la question de savoir dans quelle mesure un mécanismesommatif peut devenir une fin en soi et ainsi limiter activement le potentiel progressif.
Keywords: teaching portfolios; teaching improvement; teaching evaluation
Introduction
Teaching portfolios are neither easy to write nor easy to evaluate. Both tasks take significanttime and energy, and represent genres of work that are unfamiliar for many academics. In ahigher education system marked by increasing workload, institutions need to judge any initiativeagainst two criteria. First, does the initiative serve a purpose that makes it worth this effort?Second, is this initiative an effective way of serving this purpose?
This paper considers these questions in relation to teaching portfolios in one institution, Grif-fith University in Australia. It asks whether teaching portfolios have earned a place within policyfor teaching improvement. The paper focuses strongly on the issue of function. What is it thatportfolios can do? Do they do it? How valuable is this to an institution? I begin by looking brieflyat the current thinking around these questions, go on to explore the notional potential of portfo-lios, and then move to consider some examples of portfolios at Griffith, using them to illuminatethe issues at stake. The paper then returns to the two questions posed in the opening paragraph.
*Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
118 M. Buckridge
Portfolios in higher education
In adopting portfolios, higher education is following other areas of work that have pioneeredtheir use. Two of these areas are writing (Elbow, 1998; Belanoff & Dickson, 1991) and primary/secondary teaching in North America. The portfolio models common in both areas provide more‘first order’ material (pieces of writing, lesson plans, video clips, etc.) and/or more learningjournal material than the ‘distilled account’ model adopted at Griffith.
Examination of the relationship between purpose and product has been ongoing. Althoughthere are claims for successful integration of developmental and summative purposes in theNorth American teacher assessment literature (see, for example, Zeichner & Wray, 2001), thereis also considerable acknowledgement of a tension between the two – see, for example, Murray(1997, p. vi) and Erikson (1996) for versions of this. Burns (2000), in a brief piece that isstingingly critical, makes the following comment:
In 1993 Seldin marketed them [portfolios] chiefly as a device for fine-tuning teaching: ‘It isimportant to keep in mind that use of the portfolio for personnel decisions is only occasional. Itsprimary purpose is to improve teaching performance’. By 1997, however, the subtitle for his bookon portfolios read, ‘A Practical Guide to Improved Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions’.(Burns, 2000, p. 1 of 6 downloaded)
Burns goes on to argue that even Shulman and Hutchings, central figures in the Carnegie Foun-dation’s advocacy of portfolios, admit fundamental questions about rigour and credibility.Bunker and Leggett (2004) offer a four-conception taxonomy of portfolios (emergent, virtual,practitioner and mythical), only to indicate that the multipurpose conception (the mythical)threw up no examples in their 11-case study. They suggest that there is considerable confusiongenerally between formative and summative portfolios (p. 99). Two years later, their positionhad hardened:
Our overall conclusion is that the introduction of the teaching portfolio as envisioned by Seldincould impact negatively on the reliability of the organization as a whole. (p. 270)
All other (than the purely developmental practitioner portfolio) types of teaching portfolio, includ-ing the mythical portfolio, are likely to be preoccupied with demonstrating competence, with a focuson success. The teaching portfolio then becomes a document that insulates the writer from criticismand denies learning opportunities. (Leggett & Bunker, 2006, p. 276)
Tigelaar, Dolmans, Wolfhagen & van der Vleuten (2005), in their study of the assessment ofportfolios, suggest that an integration of developmental and summative is possible, but acknowl-edge its personal and institutional effortfulness. De Rijdt, Tiquet, Dochy, & Devolder (2006)found fewer than a quarter of academics producing portfolios, the multiplicity of functionsfuelling ambivalence.
In spite of this, there remains strong conceptual support for the portfolio as a developmentalmechanism. Klenowski, Askew & Carnell (2006) exemplify this support, calling for ‘a shift fromthe collection of evidence to a focus on the analysis and integration of learning’ (p. 276). Argu-ably, this runs somewhat counter to the also-prevailing aspiration that the portfolio can be madeto work both formatively and summatively. Clearly, however, the realising of this aspiration isfraught with difficulty.
Conceptualising portfolios
The purest conception of developmental portfolio is a fascinating idea. At its core, it involvesthe radical interplay of text and action – the re-making of action in prospect of its reporting and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
International Journal for Academic Development 119
the re-making of text or rationale as the meaning of action is more fully revealed. It gives textualform to the meeting between Schon’s (1983) reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Itworks both prospectively and retrospectively. Prospectively, it requires the teacher to ‘name’ hisor her ideal teaching behaviour and then to live up to that ideal. Retrospectively, it gives theteacher a basis for evaluation and reflection, a conscious way of thinking which may need to bere-negotiated in the light of its enacting. In such a conceptualisation, the document presented atany point in time would have some quite particular features. It would be an elaborated statementof teaching philosophy/critical rationale together with a distillation of the understanding andcompetence that has been achieved. To an extent that would possibly not be tolerable within asummative process, the text would be its own witness – the outcomes of evaluation would takean integral place within the further development the account depicted.
Within such a dynamic, the sheer textualising of intention and reflection – such as mightoccur in a teaching log or professional journal – is not enough. The understanding needs to beshown as tested and refined in further practice. This is Schon’s (1983) ‘professional knowledge’or Shulman’s ‘pedagogy of substance’ (Edgerton, Hutchings & Quinlan, 1993). This knowledge– in the case of teachers, the knowledge of how to conceptualise content in ‘learnable’ form – isoften tacit or highly embedded. For it to act as a platform for further development, for it to becommunicable and non-ephemeral, it needs to be brought to consciousness and distilled into aform of public text – in this case the portfolio text, from where it can impel a continuing cycleof learning which will be public and collegial. The development will be both the teacher’s ownand also that of his or her colleagues. This process comes very close, if via a slightly differentroute, to the idea of ‘the scholarship of teaching’ that was pioneered – post Boyer (1990) – byShulman and his colleagues and subsequently expanded in the work of people such as Healey(2003) and Kreber (2002).
By way of contrast to this, what might be the likely character of a summative portfolio of thesame model? Such a portfolio would be prepared by a staff member to provide evidence of teach-ing quality within a decision-making process – and would probably not be prepared otherwise.The interplay between text and action here is very different. The point of the text is to persuade.This would be accomplished initially by the textual representation of a particular philosophy ofteaching, but be supported by appropriate claims of achievement and evidence that wouldsubstantiate those claims. For many staff, forced to produce a portfolio, the predictable prag-matic dynamic takes over: the text reconstructs past action, representing it in a conscious,systematic way, selecting it for inclusion with an eye to the kinds of evidence that have beenaccumulated. The philosophy of teaching will often have been constructed for the text; althoughit may express values and ideals to which the writer sincerely gives assent, these may not haveexisted for the writer as conscious commitment when the teaching achievement which isreported actually occurred. The very content, then, of these ideal-type portfolios is different. Inthe developmental portfolio, the writer is dealing with content that is not quite known. The actof writing is not the act of teaching, but the writing is nonetheless further constructing theteacher’s knowledge base for teaching. In the summative portfolio, the writer is reporting out ofa knowledge base about teaching that has achieved a certain point of development and beenassociated with successful outcomes.
What mitigates the slight bleakness of this view in relation to summative portfolios is thelonger-term institutional context within which such portfolio construction will often occur. Port-folios will be prepared a first time but will then need to be revised for future applications. It iscertainly arguable that this sets up a longer-term interplay between text and action that is devel-opmental. In other words, the philosophy that was initially constructed ‘after the event’ becomesa more genuine part of everyday thinking about teaching; the understanding, panicked over inthe first instance, that if you want to make a certain kind of claim about your teaching you need
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
120 M. Buckridge
to have evidence, may form the basis for a newly strategic approach to teaching and evaluation.The argument would be that ultimately, years hence, portfolios would have a developmentaleffect, regardless of the purpose for which they were prepared.
We may yet be some way from being able to test this fully. It is complicated by the questionof what institutions want and what they think portfolios can contribute. Let me put this anotherway. There are two questions at issue with portfolios. The first is: What is it that a teaching portfoliocan ‘prove’ or attest to? The second is: Is this what an institution would wish to reward? It willbe evident from what has already been said that the developmental portfolio at its best – explicitas to teacher thinking, utterly concrete in the examples offered, and uncompromisingly evaluative– will attest to the quality of the author’s ‘teacherly’ capacity, and will do so with a strength ofwitness that cannot be gainsaid. What it won’t necessarily attest to in the same way, is the consci-entiousness or consistency with which that capacity is put into practice. On the other hand, thesummative portfolio, while often not giving the reader much sense of the teacher’s ‘teacherly’thinking, can, via its focus on evaluative evidence, prove consistency and ‘success’. But the teach-erly capacity remains opaque, the ‘black box’ unopened. Trigwell’s (2001) distinction betweenqualitative and quantitative dimensions in portfolios offers a related version of this proposition.
This issue is not unimportant in a context where the demand for research production isconstantly rising. A staff member, particularly an experienced one, may well know what wouldmake his or her teaching qualitatively better, but may rather choose to gear his or her teachingto ‘good enough’ scores on known indicators, and thereby maximise the time available forresearch. It is slightly anomalous, therefore, that one of the main words still used in relation toportfolios is ‘reflective’. It seems likely that institutions, and indeed the system at large, are moreinterested in quantifiable evaluation results than in what might be going on in the thinking of theteacher behind those results. And indeed this may carry ‘big picture’ logic with it.
Some examples
How does this play out in practice? At Griffith, the portfolio is a prose document of about 2000words which may make reference to a range of Appendices. These consist mainly of evaluationresults (student surveys, student comments, peer reviews, etc.), but can include first-order teach-ing material (subject outlines, tutor manuals, laboratory resource books, etc.). The guidelinessuggest that staff should present their philosophy of teaching initially before developing a seriesof claims to good practice. These claims should be couched in instances of work and accompa-nied by evidence of good outcomes.
Portfolios have been prepared within three different institutional processes – confirmation oftenure, promotion at all levels, and participation in the award course, the Graduate Certificate inHigher Education (GCHE). All new staff on continuing appointments have been encompassedby the first of these processes, the majority of staff by the second, and a minority only, by thethird. Each process has a distinctive ‘mood’ attaching to it. Confirmation is serious but largelyunproblematic; promotion is fraught, with over half the applicants missing out in any one round;the GCHE is supportive and developmental (grading is pass/fail, re-submission permitted).
This study involved examining a small number of teaching portfolios prepared by staffmembers for these different processes. The intention was to ascertain whether there were, evenacross this small sample, any evident differences. The collected material comprises three portfo-lios presented within promotion applications, three for confirmation of tenure, and four withinthe GCHE.
The portfolios were read and considered holistically. A brief characterisation of each wasthen developed (see Appendix 1), using dimensions of description where distinct developmentaland summative representations could be discerned:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
International Journal for Academic Development 121
● nature of ‘the voice’, e.g., continuing inquiry or concluded narrative;● claims made, e.g., understanding or achievement;● discipline specificity;● teacher’s ‘interiority’; the extent to which ‘the black box’ of teacher thinking is opened;● focus on student experience;● concreteness of instances;● reflectiveness about evaluation;● conceptual depth of philosophy of teaching;● alignment of philosophy and practice.
In the event, there was less purity of type than anticipated. Table 1 broadly summarises eachportfolio’s tendency (developmental or summative) in relation to each dimension, noting wherethe tendency is mixed.
Discussion
The question posed at the outset was whether or not portfolios can help an institution to improveits teaching. Going back to that question prompts the following observations:
Positively
● The concept of teaching that is in play extends well beyond classroom performance; thekey dimensions of teaching are well understood, as well as the need for them to be aligned.
● The note of conscientiousness, even involvement beyond the call of duty, is stronglysounded. But then perhaps it would be.
● Claims to innovation and/or leadership seem to be usual; such contribution may have beenpartly strategic in prospect of the portfolio.
Less positively
● The conception of teaching most commonly used is more teacher-centred than student-centred.
Table 1. Summative and developmental representations in portfolios.
DimensionA(P)
B(P)
C(P)
D(CT)
E(CT)
F(CT)
G(GC)
H(GC)
I(GC)
J(GC)
‘Voice’ S S D S/D D S D D S DClaims S S D S D S D/S D S/D DDiscipline specificity D D D S/D S/D S/D D D/S S DInteriority S/D S D S D S D/S D S DStudent focus S/D S D D/S D D S/D D S DConcreteness S/D S D/S S D S D D S DReflectiveness re-evaluation S S D S D S S D S/D DDepth of philosophy D S/D D S D/S D/S S D D DAlignment of philo and prac S S D S D/S S S/D D D/S D
Notes: P, promotion; CT, confirmation of tenure; GC, graduate certificate; D, developmental; S, summative; mixedportfolios are characterized as either S/D or D/S.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
122 M. Buckridge
● Reflectiveness can mean little more than the use of past tense – the values or ideals againstwhich the reflection might be occurring have simply not been made explicit.
● Although the common mode is that of claim–instance–evidence, the instance is oftendepicted only in a generic way. Somewhat surprisingly, the note of discipline specificityis not strongly sounded at the level of instantiation. This resonates with the findings fromthe Bullard and McLean’s (2000) eight-case study of Geography portfolios, where five ofthe eight ‘…were far more general and their observations could have been applied to arange of subjects’ (p.49).
● The philosophy of teaching section has tended to standardise around the institution’sexplicit values, as expressed in generic or ‘educational’ terms.
● ‘Developmental’ as a dynamic seems to cut across the categories of purpose for which theportfolio is prepared. Even within the GCHE, where participants are required to embarkon a developmental initiative, the account of its progress and its evaluation can be genericand external.
It is arguable that both positives and negatives are conditioned by how good teaching in highereducation is conceptualised. The inquiry mode of the student-experience-of-learning research ofthe late ’70s and ’80s (e.g., Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 1997) was succeeded by perspectiveswhich took the focus back to teaching and its key aspects (e.g., Biggs, 2003). This representationis prominent in the institutional guidelines, and arguably underpins the way staff evaluate andwrite about their teaching. The effect may well be that this more analytical, conscious approachto teaching will become the norm, a not inconsiderable advance in a system where many staffare untrained and where teaching has often lacked clear goals, let alone the alignment of thesegoals with methods and assessment requirements. There is reason to hope that as staff representtheir teaching in this way, their practice will follow suit. In addition, they will increasinglyengage (at least rhetorically) with the institution’s strategic goals.
However, it may also be the case that there is a limit to the advancement generated by thisrepresentation of good teaching when it is coupled with a summative purpose. It tends to beteacher-centred rather than student-centred; narrative rather than inquiring. There are gapsbetween claim and evidence. Although alignment and innovation may be claimed, studentsurvey results, analysed weakly if at all, constitute the evidence. Impetus for further developmentis weak.
What does this mean for an institution that is using, or contemplating using, the mechanismof teaching portfolios with the dual intentions of judging good teaching and of improving thequality of teaching institution-wide; that is, for both summative and developmental purposes?
First, there is some potential for both intentions to be met. In relation to the summative (qual-ity assurance) purpose, the window of opportunity may be quite short-lived. Writers learn thegame; committees play the game; over time, the mechanism loses authenticity. In relation to thedevelopmental (quality improvement) purpose, there is clear potential for a more analytical,more sophisticated, conception of teaching to become part of the institutional discourse.Although it is certainly arguable that this will, on a mass scale, produce some improvement inteaching, it is also arguable that improvement brought about through this means may be prob-lematically self-limiting.
Second, therefore, is that such a strategy would need to be the subject of close scrutiny andfurther development. It will inevitably lose vitality as staff members learn the genre. Yet it willuse up considerable time and energy (more, for those staff members who have to finesse poorpractice into a high-claim account), and it will not make much difference to decisions. Supervi-sor views and survey results will still have the high ground. On this consideration, an institutionmight be better served by acknowledging a separation between decision-making and academic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
International Journal for Academic Development 123
development, and ensuring that the summative processes were frankly served with summativeforms of evidence that would not include a discursive portfolio.
This would leave the perennial question of how to support and encourage development.Without doubt, the portfolio, separated from all pressure to make claims and defend, can be anexcellent mechanism for this. There are ways of thinking about good teaching that can beinvoked that both generate energy and also hugely extend the horizon for improvement. Theseinclude: a focus on the student experience of learning, a focus on the discipline and on makingexplicit its ways of knowing, a focus on a genuinely two-way interaction between research andteaching. These are clearly productive grounds for inquiry for individual teachers. When inaddition this inquiry is distilled into more public text and offered as part of a collegial dialogue,there is the nucleus for a genuine scholarship of teaching within the institution, a considerablymore sophisticated institutional conception of teaching and real improvement.
Conclusion
This may be a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. Developmental portfolios of a kind that can effectsignificant institutional improvement are unlikely to find a majority place within institutionalpractice until there is already some commitment to a scholarship of teaching. The institutionalculture must have a use for, and a place for, a public discussion of teaching that is oriented, in ascholarly way, towards extending our understanding of this quite mysterious endeavour.Although extrinsic, summative processes would be partly constitutive of this culture, they willnever be sufficient to establish it. Worse, unless they are clearly secondary to a genuinelyintrinsic culture of teaching improvement, they may, in time, subvert it.
There is probably not a lot of room to move. This account has focused on an attempt at oneinstitution to use teaching portfolios to fulfil both developmental and summative purposes. Theaccount suggests that although there has been some success with the initiative, this success mayhave come at a longer-term cost. There are indications within this small sample of portfolios thatthe attempt to use the one mechanism for both processes is running precisely the risk outlinedabove of de-basing the currency and displacing the deeper transformative possibilities.
Notes on contributorMargaret Buckridge is a lecturer in academic staff development at Griffith University.
ReferencesBelanoff, P., & Dickson, M. (Eds.). (1991). Portfolios: Process and product. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/
Cook Publishers.Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham, UK:
Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Bullard, J.E., & McLean, M. (2000). Jumping through hoops?: Philosophy and practice expressed in
geographers’ teaching portfolios. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(1), 37–52.Bunker, A., & Leggett, M. (2004). Being wise about teaching portfolios: Exploring the barriers to their
development and maintenance. In F. Sheehy & B. Stauble (Eds.), Research and development inhigher education, 27. Transforming knowledge into wisdom: holistic approaches to teaching andlearning (pp. 92–101). Canberra, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development Society ofAustralasia.
Burns, C.W. (2000). Teaching portfolios: Another perspective. Academe, 86(1), 44–47. Retrieved October9, 2007, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=48251191&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientld=13713&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
124 M. Buckridge
De Rijdt, C., Tiquet, E., Dochy, F., & Devolder, M. (2006). Teaching portfolios in higher education andtheir effects: An explorative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1084–1093.
Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K. (1993). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the scholarship inteaching. Washington, DC: The American Association for Higher Education (AAHE).
Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Healey, M. (2003). Promoting lifelong professional development in geography education: Internationalperspectives on developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education in the twenty-first century.The Professional Geographer, 55(1), 1–17.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and professionaldevelopment in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 267–286.
Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of teaching. InnovativeHigher Education, 27(1), 5–20.
Leggett, M., & Bunker, A. (2006). Teaching portfolios and university culture. Journal of Further andHigher Education, 30(3), 269–282.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (1997). The experience of learning: Implications for teachingand studying in higher education (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Murray, J.P. (1997). Successful faculty development and evaluation: The complete teaching portfolio.ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8, 1995. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on HigherEducation, George Washington University. ED 405 760
Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action Aldershot, UK: Arena.Tigelaar, D., Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., & van der Vleuten, C. (2005). Quality issues in judging
portfolios: Implications for organizing teaching portfolio assessment procedures. Studies in HigherEducation, 30(5), 595–610.
Trigwell, K. (2001). Judging university teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1),67–73.
Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: what we knowand what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613–621.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
International Journal for Academic Development 125
Appendix 1. Sample Portfolios
Portfolios prepared as part of promotion application
A. (Literary Studies, male; promotion to Assoc. Prof.)
Four broad sections: General Statement, Expertise in the Discipline, Contribution to Teaching Practice, andLeadership in Teaching. Opening statement is highly discipline-specific. Claims are then developed underthis rubric via a discussion of generic practices and/or case studies. Extent of connection back to the open-ing statement is variable: although some instances are strongly re-embedded in the previous discussion, inother cases the practice is described and evaluated in a more generic way. Further claims in relation to:curriculum innovation, openness to new methods, a concern for genuinely student-oriented administrativearrangements. Beyond the opening statement, however, the ‘voice’ is more achievement than development.The text is not itself generating or forcing change in the direction of future practice.
B. (Chemistry, male, promotion to Assoc. Prof.)Two main sections – a comparatively brief general philosophy statement and a second section entitledEvidence of Excellence in Teaching, broken into Subject expertise, design, conduct, assessment, researchsupervision, evaluation and leadership. Within each claim, considerable reference to specific instances;also a generous amount of evaluative evidence (mostly student survey results). An ambience of achievedand evaluated competence. Although the teaching is seen from the ‘outside’, there is reason to infer an‘inside’, with reference to a ‘reflective diary’ and an undeveloped theme of story-telling to connect teachingwith research. The philosophy statement is carefully couched in terms of generic educational and institu-tional values (problem-solving, critical thinking, etc.). Again, no sense of the writing producing change,either at the level of the philosophical rationale or at the level of specific teaching interactions.
C. (Literary Studies, female, promotion to Prof.)Portfolio prepared originally within the GCHE. Broad experience; claims range from micro-level interactionsto system-level concerns about flexible learning. Both the discipline and literature on teaching in higher educa-tion as frames of reference; flexible learning the testing ground. Nice specificity in the discussion of boththe cognitive and emotional issues involved in teaching literary studies using new technology. Also givenaccess to the writer’s thinking as she seeks to transpose this thinking into the leadership role. Surprisingly,few outright claims of concluded achievement; rather, discussion of initiatives and the ways in which theyare being evaluated and understood. ‘Voice’ considerably more muted than is often the case at this level.Invokes fundamental principles which are causing a re-think of much that she is involved in – that methodis secondary to intention; that what the student does is more important for learning than what the teacherdoes. Persuasive representation of a practice in transition to something that will be yet more deeply grounded.
Portfolios prepared within the confirmation of tenure process
D. (Environmental Chemistry, male)Organised around three main sections, Introduction (which encompasses the philosophy), Novel TeachingPractices (three instances of innovation) and Case Studies. Introduction offers brief foray into the motiva-tions and anxieties of the students, but this viewpoint not sustained. Major claims relate to particulargeneric teaching methods. Persuasive as to the writer’s conscientiousness, administrative effectiveness andfocus on learning outcomes, which are identified in discipline-specific terms but not explained. Reader isleft outside – evidence of connection between methods and results not analysed. Strong note of disciplineadvocacy, particularly as to protecting territory.
E. (Botany, female)Unconventional format – takes time to hit its stride. In Teaching principles and philosophy, begins toestablish both ‘close in’ teacher thinking and self-reflection – by no means securely established, reverts togeneric terms with discussion of affective and contextual issues. Major section, Innovation in teaching,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
126 M. Buckridge
ranges across generic, administrative and disciplinary initiatives; made concrete by two means: substantivestudent comment and concrete description of classroom work around specific learning problems. Extra-curricular involvements show both passionate advocacy for the discipline and the connection betweenteaching and research. A highly student-oriented consciousness, but may need more of a vocabulary. Feels‘developmental’ because of the questing relationship to both the discipline and the student experience.
F. (Management, female)External, conventionally analytical, organised around key dimensions of teaching practice; competence andconscientiousness well established via reference to methods, broader educational outcomes and evaluationand improvement. Couple of points where interiority of focus would have helped: brief discussion of thestudents and their prior experience with the discipline; and discussion of a group-based, workplace activity.Persuasive as to caring and innovative teacher, but evidence is distant and procedural, rather thanilluminative. Portfolio is quite evidently geared to making a case. No move to represent reflectiveness ordevelopmental trajectory.
Portfolios prepared within the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education
G. (Economics, male)Well-constructed, careful account, grounded in current literature in economics teaching and higher educa-tion literature. Starts energetically with defence of economics, but focused rather on the discipline than onstudents’ encounter with it. Invokes core ideas from the Graduate Certificate program – understanding,engagement, connection to real world, etc; both teaching and innovations represented in these terms. None-theless holds us at arm’s length – reflectiveness picks up on the tension between teaching and research(better rewards from research); glimpses of hotspots (e.g. students misconceptions) but no unpacking. Ulti-mately, competence, care and even development within this paradigm of teaching – discipline-focused,teacher-centred, pedagogically active – but the account itself is not impelling the writer towards change.
H. (Management, male)Long account. Writer works at graduate level (MBA program with a high proportion of fee-paying foreignstudents). Meditates on issues arising in his teaching such as: broader educational ideals, standards, culturaldifferences, academia/industry relationships, etc. Focus for these concerns is assessment. The ‘voice’ of theaccount is noteworthy – low frequency of ‘I’ statements; often they signal unsureness. Writer indicates thathis personal journal chronicles a loss of confidence in dealing with a plagiarism case. This is developmentas struggle. For all his substantial experience and competence, the writer is negotiating new conditions,which put long-held values under pressure. Interesting portfolio, elegant and thoughtful. Writer seemsalmost beleaguered: in his context, initiatives ultimately give way to guilty pragmatism. Undoubtedly aportfolio in developmental mode, but not yet confidently on track. Student-centredness is still a problem-atical issue rather than the beacon that it might be.
I. (Accounting, male)GCHE portfolio, but very summative account. Grounded in both discipline and higher education literature;critique of ‘blame the student’ syndrome in Accounting. Organised around case studies (a subject, aprogram, supervision, and leadership, the first two being more substantial); demonstrates well-organisedcompetence. Assiduous about aligning his goals, activities and assessment – persuasive discussion, but notconcrete. Strong theme of ensuring connection to real situations and developing capacities for employment,with evidence to indicate that this teaching has been well received, including peer review from the programco-ordinator. Strong portfolio of its type, but essential character is summative and external – about whatthe teacher does.
J (Ecology, male)Unconventional. Text traces development to this point (as an academic rather than solely as teacher). Nomere chronology – rather a story of research and teaching, field work and community work, feeding one
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
International Journal for Academic Development 127
another, teaching a particular case of the relationship to the community. Story of re-negotiating theserelationships in unfamiliar cultural situations where the research/teaching relationship may have muchriding on it. This is a reflective and driven account. Although current development reads in some waysconventionally (curriculum initiatives, closer links between field work and theory, peer assessment), otherglimpses as well – a field work exercise which lacks focus, a group discussion initiative where a studentoffers the writer useful insight about the (not wholly successful) process. Writer comes in very close to hisstudents’ experience of learning. Use of present tense suggests ongoing process – confidence grounded inthe discipline, but also radical openness and a genuine responsiveness to students.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
19:
16 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
