redefining assessment of preservice teachers: standards‐based exit portfolios

This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]On: 02 October 2014, At: 23:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Redefining assessmentof preservice teachers:Standards‐based exitportfoliosDiana J. Quatroche a , Valerie Duarte b , GailHuffman‐Joley c & Sharron Watkins d

a Elementary Education , Indiana StateUniversity ,b School of Education , University of SouthCarolina , Spartenburgc School of Education , Indiana State University ,d Elementary and Early Childhood Education ,Indiana State University ,Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Diana J. Quatroche , Valerie Duarte , Gail Huffman‐Joley& Sharron Watkins (2002) Redefining assessment of preservice teachers:Standards‐based exit portfolios, The Teacher Educator, 37:4, 268-281, DOI:10.1080/08878730209555300

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730209555300

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08878730209555300

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730209555300

the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis 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, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Teacher Educator, vol. 37, no, 4, Spring 2002

REDEFINING ASSESSMENT OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS:

STANDARDS-BASED EXIT PORTFOLIOS

Diana J. QuatrocheElementary Education, Indiana State University

Valerie DuarteSchool of Education, University of South Carolina, Spartenburg

Gail Huffman-JoleySchool of Education, Indiana State University

Sharron WatkinsElementary and Early Childhood Education, Indiana State University

Abstract

This article discusses how changes in Indiana State licensure have affected anelementary education department at a mid-sized state university. The specificmajor points of the paper are (a) the change to performance-based standardsand assessment; (b) performance assessment using an exit portfolio; and (c)what has been learned. The goal is to bring our program in line with thenew Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium standardsand create a performance-based system including an exit portfolio that willstrengthen new teachers' abilities to teach. Faculty and student reactions tothe use of the exit portfolio and findings to date are discussed.

Since the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) adopted theInterstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium's(INTASC) core standards for teachers in 1994, Indiana has been anational leader in establishing systems for assessing the progress ofteacher candidates at the preservice level (Wise, 2000). The IPSB madethis change to improve teaching practice so that all children would beprovided with instruction that would help them to achieve higher levelsof learning. Moving from a traditional preparation system of state-prescribed courses and hours to one that was based on performance-standards and required accompanying performance-based assessmentshas challenged faculty in teacher education programs across the state.

Faculty in a department of elementary education at the mid-sizedstate university reported on in this article have struggled with issuesrelated to standards-based reform as they have worked to respond to thenew standards. These issues address how university faculty met thechallenge of changing their instructional practices, curriculum content,and assessment procedures so that the teacher education program would

268

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 37, no. 4, Spring 2002

be aligned with new state standards. In particular, the task of the teachereducation department was to restructure its practices to include a newprogram component—performance-based assessment. With thechallenge of restructuring the program to include performance-basedassessments came the additional responsibility of creating a processwhereby exiting teacher candidates (those graduating from the program)would be assessed through the presentation of a standards-basedportfolio.

This paper examines the process through which department facultyarrived at the adoption of a common set of goals, to be infused into thefive-semester professional program, that accommodated performance-based assessment. Included are the results of faculty and student surveyquestionnaires that examine what has been learned about theeffectiveness of this form of assessment. Perceptions about thedevelopment and growth of teacher candidates are also included.

Performance-Based Standards and Assessments for Teachers

Traditionally, public schools and the teachers who teach in themhave been seen as maintaining the status quo. In spite of major reformefforts promoted nationwide, historically, relatively few teachers and fewschools implemented and maintained reforms that positively influenceimproved teaching for higher achievement of all students. The continualimprovement of teaching was not recognized as a widely held goal forthe profession (Elmore, 1996). Instead, the highly successful teacher, onewho is willing to reflect on practice to improve teaching, has often beenseen as "intrinsically" motivated. Unfortunately, these personallymotivated teachers account for but a small portion of the teachingpopulation (Cuban, 1990). The teaching profession lacked widespreadagreement about what constituted exemplary teaching. There was noconsensus within the profession concerning what teachers should knowand be able to do.

During the 1990s, performance-based standards for teachers weredeveloped by outstanding teachers and other leading educators. TheNational Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) led theway in this revolutionary reform of the teaching profession by creatinghigh, rigorous standards for accomplished teachers in nearly all fields ofteacher certification. For each certification field, standards with detaileddescriptions of what accomplished teachers should know and be able todo were identified, debated, and agreed upon. With tough, nationallyrecognized standards, linked to professional recognition and financialincentives, teaching becomes a profession more comparable to otherssuch as medicine, law, and engineering. Instead of viewing outstanding

269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


teaching as an individualistic trait, the attainment of broadly recognizedteaching standards that are linked to student performance holds promisefor the improvement of learning for all children.

Recent research indicates that teachers who successfully meetNational Board performance standards through challenging performanceassessments outperform other teachers who are not certified. A majorstudy that examined 13 aspeas of teaching practice provided researchevidence that "the day-to-day performance of nationally certifiedteachers is superior to that of colleagues without the credential" (Blair,2000, p. 1). Among the areas of teaching expertise examined was"teachers' effects on student academic achievement" (Blair, 2000, p. 25).The dimensions that were examined were "based on the body of researchthat has been reported over two decades on measures of effectiveteaching [and] include attributes such as: having an extensive knowledgeof subject matter; the ability to adapt and improvise instruction;formulating lessons that are challenging and engaging; and promotingacademic achievement by emphasizing both personal accomplishmentand intellectual engagement." ("Teachers With National BoardCertification," 2000, p. 1). The research provides evidence that studentsof teachers with National Board Certification (NBC) are more likely tolearn more and do better academically than students whose teachers havenot attained the credential. Thus, high performance standardsaccompanied by performance assessments for teachers seem to link theskills of teachers who achieve the standards with higher performance oftheir students ("Board Certified Teachers," 2000).

At the heart of the NBPTS assessment process is the use of theportfolio for evaluating teacher performance. The revised NBPTSportfolio requires that teachers prepare four entries that focus onclassroom-based study and reflection. The portfolio entries includevideotapes of teacher-student interaction, student work samples, and theteachers' written analyses and commentaries. Teachers who haveparticipated in the assessment process "found that preparing for NBCprovided a strong professional development experience" (Rotberg,Futrell, & Lieberman, 1998, p. 463). Teachers reported that the processwas a "meaningful self-evaluation," and a "dramatic and transformingexperience" (Rotberg et al., 1998, p. 463). Another teacher commentedthat the process "was more focused than a master's program and morevaluable because it was what I was really doing in the classroom"(Rotberg et al., 1998, p. 463). With the portfolio as a major part of theassessment process, judging from teachers' comments about theprofessional growth that resulted from compiling their portfolios, it isreasonable to infer that the use of portfolios for assessment serves toimprove teaching.

270

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


Shortly after the NBPTS standard-setting development foraccomplished teachers was underway, the INTASC drafted corestandards for beginning teachers. Sponsored by the Council of ChiefState School Officers, the INTASC standards for new teachers werewritten intentionally to align closely with NBPTS standards forpracticing teachers. More than 40 states have adopted the INTASC corestandards, again providing performance standards that are widely knownand recognized for the teaching profession. And like the NBPTS model,portfolios were selected by many states and university faculties as ameans of assessment.

The Impact of Reform on Teacher Preparation Programs

Beginning teacher candidates have traditionally been evaluatedthrough the courses they have completed at accredited institutions ofhigher education. The assumption has been that if teacher candidateshad successfully completed the prescribed courses and student teachingthen they had acquired the knowledge and skills that would ensure theirlicensure as teachers.

However, this situation has changed. There is now strong interest inpreparing preservice teachers who are able to meet high standards and tolink the theory of the university classroom with the practice of thepublic school classroom (Holmes, 1986, 1990).

By adopting these widely recognized standards, approximately 34states now present a more congruent approach to teacher licensure. Thenew licensing standards created by INTASC and the standards foroutstanding teaching recognized by NBPTS have been incorporated intothe evaluation of teacher education programs by the National Councilfor Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE; Darling-Hammond,1998; Wise, 2000). Thus, the entire teacher career continuum, withNCATE accrediting teacher preparation institutions, INTASCaccrediting beginning teachers, and NBPTS accrediting accomplishedteachers, is now strongly influenced by and assessed on interrelated setsof performance-based standards.

Adopting Common Goals

The development of national standards has had an impact at thestate level. In 1994, the IPSB moved to a performance-based system forthe licensure of classroom teachers. The performance-based system isbased on the INTASC ten core standards and subject matter anddevelopmental standards written in Indiana. The work with performancestandards meant that university teacher education programs needed tobe aligned with national and state standards and require performance-

271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


based assessment. The change presented a new challenge for the teachereducation program examined in this article because it was a significantmove away from the traditional completion of prescribed courses forlicensure. By adopting INTASC standards as a basis for performanceassessment, department faculty made the commitment to acceptnational standards of excellence.

In the process of aligning national and state standards with theteacher education program, faculty at the university identified threegoals: (a) rethinking the structure and content of courses and programs,given the new standards; (b) using performance assessment throughoutthe program; and (c) creating a method of assessment that includesportfolios for students exiting the program.

Rethinking Structure and ContentTo meet the first goal, rethinking the structure and content of

courses in light of the new standards, a process for faculty developmentensued with numerous meetings and discussions concerning howdepartment programs would be revised to meet the INTASC standards.Faculty attended conferences, participated in a series of workshops, andengaged in discussions with speakers from other universities that hadsuccessfully implemented performance-based assessment programs. Inaddition, many faculty members attended facilitator and assessmenttraining presented by NBPTS and IPSB. This process required thecommitment of each faculty member to the notion that performance-based assessment was a viable concept for adoption.

Performance-Based Assessment Throughout the ProgramThe second goal of implementing performance-based assessment

throughout the program was operational by the fall semester of 1998.Faculty in each of the four major "blocks" (which constitute theprofessional preparation program for elementary education majors priorto student teaching) reported that a performance-based assessmentcomponent that was linked to the INTASC standards had been added toeach "block." This assessment component might include any number ofexperiences that provide evidence the students met the INTASCstandards. In the initial professional courses, students chose artifacts andwrote reflections to demonstrate their progress toward meeting several ofthe INTASC standards. In many cases, during the last week of thesemester, individual or group conferences were held with candidates todiscuss the artifacts that the students chose and how those artifactsrepresented meeting the standards.

As students progressed through the professional sequence, they wererequired to provide more varied artifacts and demonstrate a deeper

272

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


understanding of an increasing number of the INTASC standards. Forexample, a student at the senior level (Block IV) would be expected toshow deeper insights into student learning and analysis of teaching, inpart through written case studies that include student work samples,than a student at the sophomore level (Block II). Senior level candidatesmight also be required to write about the knowledge, disposition, andperformance required to meet the standards and to relate each to the"block" content, whereas sophomore level candidates might just examinea standard holistically. Scoring rubrics for student performance weredeveloped and used by the faculty members teaching in the "blocks."

Exit PortfoliosThe last challenge became the creation of a performance-based

assessment component that would serve the teacher candidates exitingthe program. Faculty members had previously decided on the use ofportfolios (called exit portfolios in this paper), which teacher candidateswould create over the professional sequence of five semesters. The exitportfolio was meant to document a students competence in meeting theINTASC standards. These portfolios required evidence of learning andeffective practice through a process of analyzing and reflecting onexperiences represented by artifacts that would serve as supportingevidence of the attainment of each INTASC standard (Lyons, 1998).Representative artifacts might be selected from implemented lessonplans, sample children's work, videotaped lessons, journals, papers andprojects written for courses, case studies, solo teaching experiences, orcertificates received from having participated in community experiences.Rationale statements addressing why the artifacts were chosen and howthe artifacts supported meeting the INTASC standards were included.

The 1998 fall semester was the first time that professional portfolioswere required at the conclusion of student teaching for all elementaryeducation majors. Each student presented his or her portfolio to a three-person faculty team along with a videotape of the candidate teaching alesson. A portion of the videotape was viewed by the team. Each studentinteracted with the faculty teams for approximately 25 minutes.Following the presentation, the faculty team discussed and evaluated theportfolio and the presentation, using a four-level rubric. The rubricfocused on criteria regarding the connection (rationale and reflection) ofthe artifacts to each of the INTASC standards. Approximately one weekbefore the student interviews, faculty teams had an opportunity to readand score the portfolio. Candidates received grades concerning theportfolio and the presentation. In cases where student scores were notpassing, arrangements were made for the student to meet with the

273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


evaluation team to receive information regarding resubmission of theportfolio.

Faculty Reflections on the Use of Portfolios

The "exit" portfolio and its presentation by the student to a three-member team gave faculty members the first comprehensive look atstudents' abilities as they were leaving the program. Previously, only thestudent teacher supervisors viewed and evaluated the students as theycompleted the program. Faculty had known and assessed students inindividual professional courses that were components of the elementaryeducation program, but after the student left the course, there was nosystematic interaction of "block" faculty with exiting students to notestudent growth or overall program effectiveness. With the advent of the"exit" portfolio and its presentation by the Student, all faculty membershad the opportunity to evaluate the knowledge, dispositions, andperformance of our graduating students, as demonstrated through theportfolio. After two semesters, in response to a departmental survey,faculty reflected upon the use of the student teaching portfolio. Twofaculty members developed the survey and distributed it to all 14 facultymembers in the department. The survey included the followingquestions:

1. Compare how the department evaluated exiting students five years ago to thecurrent practice of an exit portfolio.

2. Are you better able to see how students have grown as professionals? In whatways?

3- What are we learning about our students?

4. What are we learning about our program?

5. What are the advantages to using portfolios for assessment?

6. What concerns do you have about portfolio assessment for your course or"block"?

7. What concerns do you have about student teacher portfolios?

Results of the thirteen completed surveys showed that faculty sawportfolios as a more performance-based approach to student evaluationthan traditional methods used earlier. Faculty indicated that in the pastthere was less reflection on the part of students concerning what wasbeing learned. Now faculty perceived that students seemed to value andidentify their learning as a result of producing a portfolio. Portfoliosprovided a culmination to the professional block of classes, and students

274

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


were more reflective about their teaching. One faculty member wrote,using a metaphor comparing the development of students to thedevelopment of a butterfly, ".. . the students moved from one form andemerged into bright engaging professionals, as they articulated anddefended their professional practice with the faculty teams." In otherwords, faculty were beginning to observe "a developmental growthpattern" for students, while they were in the preservice program.Another faculty member wrote, "I think we are seeing a more profoundunderstanding of the underlying principles and pedagogy connected toeffective teaching."

In responding to what was learned about the preparation program,most faculty saw areas of strength but noted some areas forimprovement. That students needed to improve their writing skillsbecame apparent through the process, as students were being asked toplace more focus on writing and expressive skills when preparing anddefending their portfolios.

The portfolios prompted increased reflection and self-assessment bythe students, along with less reliance on quizzes and tests. Faculty tendedto perceive positively the advantages to using portfolios as a form ofassessment. One respondent noted, "students have to reflect and assesstheir own growth and actually begin to see the connections of theirlearning. It puts responsibility on their shoulders. The portfoliosprovided an opportunity to see what students have learned and haveused; we also learned where they have misconceptions about content."Faculty noted that the portfolios gave them a more complete picture ofstudent performance by seeing and analyzing what they can do as well ashow they can articulate what they are doing. Finally, faculty also believedthat these experiences prepare teacher candidates to meet successfully thestates requirement that beginning teachers complete portfolios in order

to obtain licensure.

Follow-Up Faculty Survey

One semester later, with the same process of exit portfolios in placefor three semesters, faculty were again asked to respond to the same setof questions about the use of portfolios organized around the INTASCstandards and used as a performance evaluation of preservice teachers.The survey was again presented by the same two faculty members todepartmental faculty members. The same number of faculty (13)responded to the second survey as responded to the first survey. Facultyseemed to be better able to stand back and evaluate the effectiveness ofthe portfolios in assessing students' knowledge, dispositions andperformance.

275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


Faculty believed there were many advantages in using portfolios framedaround standards. One faculty member noted that meaningful learningoccurred for students; another noted that portfolios are a logical andappropriate way to demonstrate growth and learning. The portfolio

allows students to frame their learning around relevant standard areas. Theculmination becomes a professional growth experience rather than a final test. Theprocess of putting the portfolio together encourages thought, reflection, andanalysis of what the past years of study and practice have really taught them.

The evaluation process seemed to enable faculty and students to see thestudents' growth and learning from a broader perspective than had beenavailable in the past. One summed up her observations in this way,

The student teachers have come to a real understanding of how all their blockexperiences have contributed to their "wholeness" as teacher candidates. The bestof the student teachers see the experience as a way of showing excellence inteaching.

Another respondent noted,The (exit) portfolios are a wonderful tool to culminate and reflect upon growthand learning during the program for three reasons: (a) They provide an avenue tothink, reflect, and analyze upon years of growth and learning; (b) their use ensuresthat our students are ready to handle licensure in Indiana; and (c) they provide awonderful way to practice presenting themselves professionally, which will onlyenhance their presentation and interviewing skills.

Other faculty saw the use of portfolios or components of portfoliosthroughout the program as being a "consistent evaluation basis." Facultyalso observed that they have changed how they approach the use ofportfolios. They have begun to suggest artifacts from courses that couldgo into the "exit" portfolio, rather than have requirements at each"block" discrete and separate from the exit portfolio.

Faculty were also asked to respond to two additional questions onthe follow-up survey. In response to the question, Does the process (i.e.,students presenting to three-person faculty teams) enable the student todevelop enhanced performance as a prospective teacher? respondentsanswered affirmatively. One noted, "The process certainly prepares themto defend what they know and have done, as evidenced by carefullyprepared artifacts." Another said, "Yes, it connects university learning toteacher preparedness and performance." Still another commented, "Yes,because it is developmental and shows their growth in teachingaccording to state standards. A variety of methods of communication areincorporated (e.g., writing, speaking, video). I think we are beginning tohelp them think more critically" about practice.

As a final follow-up question faculty were asked, Do you think we asa faculty know more about our students' performance as developingprofessionals through the use of portfolios and this process than we were able

276

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


to know about them in the system we used (withoutportfolios) five years ago?Why or why not? Again the answers were overwhelmingly positive. Onereplied, "Absolutely, because this process is more insightful and includesvariation in discourse (writing, speaking, video)." Another said,

There is no doubt that we have more, much more knowledge about our students'performance. Why? Because we are encouraging thought, reflection, andperformance. I'm not sure this was being done before. It was just completion oftasks and attendance.

Still another commented, "Yes! From reading the analysis/reflectiveportions of portfolios, faculty can see immediately whether there isunderstanding and depth in learning, and get a sense of breadth ofexperience."

An important emerging theme from both of these surveys was thatthe student teaching or "exit" portfolio should reflect the entire teacherpreparation experience or growth over the long term, not just thestudent teaching experience. Additionally, by analyzing the responsesother qualities of the use of exit portfolios emerge. They include facultyuse of a common language to evaluate students, the involvement of allfaculty in the assessment of students as they exit the program, and a wayfor faculty to evaluate the program in relation to national standards.

Student Reactions

The quality and depth of student exit portfolios have evolved asfaculty members and students have engaged in the performanceassessment process. Student teacher seminars offer additionalopportunities for students to practice writing analysis/reflections, hearguest speakers, and see examples that serve as models for outstandingperformance and portfolios. Sixty-four students from one particularsemester completed a survey developed by the Director of FieldPlacement asking them to rank the following areas of portfoliopreparation in level of difficulty: writing descriptions of artifacts; writingthe analysis/reflection; selecting appropriate artifacts; and organizing theportfolio.

More than half of the students ranked writing the analysis/reflectionas the most difficult and the most time-consuming task. Althoughseveral respondents recognized the importance of reflection, they feltthat it was very difficult. Several student responses indicated that it was"hard to analyze without describing" and "it was hard to explain inwritten form."

Selecting appropriate artifacts to include in the portfolio was a taskthat ranked average in difficulty. Students indicated that they had manyartifacts from which to choose, but trying to choose the most important

277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


artifacts sometimes was challenging. Several student commentshighlighted this dilemma. One student observed, "Making sure theartifacts highlighted my abilities and accomplishments did take seriousthought." Another student wrote, "I had to choose the most important,which was hard because they were all important to me."

Another task that had a mixed reaction from the respondents wasthe writing of the descriptions. Students with strong writing skillsseemed positive. For example, one student wrote, "I was able to quicklyrecall the purpose and objectives of my artifact, and describing what Ihad done in the past was simple." However, students with weak writingskills were not so positive. Some comments from students were that itwas a very time consuming task, it was difficult, and that puttingthoughts on paper was hard work.

Organizing the portfolio was the one task that seemed to givestudents the least amount of difficulty. Over 64% of the studentsreported that the physical organization of the portfolio was easy. Many ofthe respondents enjoyed this task, indicating that it was easy becausethey had good organizational skills and they were given good directions.

In general many of the students saw the value of the portfolioprocess in affording them the opportunity to reflect on their entireteacher preparation experience. Students indicated that they were proudof the accomplishment of compiling the portfolio, they were pleasedwith their ability to speak before a panel of faculty about their rationalesfor each of the INTASC standards, and they felt that the wholeexperience gave them the confidence to handle job interviews. Onestudent said, "It helped me develop an understanding of how myteaching reflects the many different teaching standards."

Stepping Back, Evaluating, and Revising Exit Portfolio Process

Although department faculty believed the exit portfolio process wasan improvement for them and for students over the more traditionalmethods, faculty still sought to strengthen the performance assessmentcomponent. Department faculty recognized that they needed tounderstand more fully alternative ways of assessing performance. In aneffort to further refine the evolving work, during spring 2000, anationally recognized consultant worked with faculty on thedepartment's performance assessment. He raised questions about theplacement of "high stakes" portfolio assessment at the end of theelementary education program, suggesting that assessment should have amore developmental approach that grows out of each segment of theprogram. Other questions focused on the real purpose of the portfoliosand whether the rubric faculty had been using sufficiently matched the

278

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


standards to be useful in evaluating the portfolios. Thus, he helpedfaculty to examine the validity of the process and to improve it.

Through this investigation, faculty found that changes were needed.A major conclusion was to make the creation of the portfolio an ongoingprocess that occurred during the entire professional sequence—over afive-semester period. To meet this goal, assessment points were identifiedthroughout the program. As pieces of the "block" performances aredeveloped and assessed, they are to be added to the final portfolio. Thismeant that the portfolio would be developed in a more integrated anddevelopmental way during the whole professional sequence. Additionally,faculty also sought to have students address the INTASC standards moredeeply. For example, in beginning segments of the program, studentswould concentrate on INTASC standard number six, which involvesplanning. This expertise is needed for success in later courses whe/estudents would be expected to be able to carry out this activityindependently. Also, this meant that by the time students had finishedstudent teaching, they had an opportunity to look at each of thestandards in more depth. Another outcome of the investigation was todesign the exit portfolio around tasks given to students throughout theprofessional sequence, which will bring greater integration of thestandards. This method for organizing the portfolio also more closelyresembled the requirements for beginning teachers' IPSB and NBPTSportfolios.

Faculty also determined that improved communication betweenstudents, cooperating teachers, and university faculty was needed. Allparties must communicate more effectively. University faculty, preserviceteachers, and public school personnel must all be made aware of therequirements for the assessment of the INTASC standards. All of theseparties must help in preparing preservice teachers for the assessmentprocess. However, not all classroom teachers were fully aware of theimportance of national and state standards and the competencies neededto meet these standards. Thus, methods for providing information andtraining need to be incorporated.

Additionally, faculty needed to address the fact that the newperformance assessment process was very intensive and takes increasedtime for university faculty and students. Students spend great amounts oftime collecting artifacts and developing rationales that show they havemet specific standards. Time required for faculty to read the portfolios,interview the students, and evaluate performance is greater than thatrequired in more traditional evaluation.

The newly revised portfolio requires that during student teaching,students will be developing the culminating parts to the portfolio thatwould be presented to faculty teams. This component was designed to

279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


approximate the tasks to be required of the INTASC beginning teacherassessment in Indiana, which graduates will encounter during the nextphase of their careers. This culminating piece takes a closer look atinstructional practices of the preservice teacher and focuses on twostudents that the candidate chooses to study in greater depth. Lessonplans will explore the linkage of artifacts, including children's worksamples, to instructional practices and analyses of student outcomes.Reflection for improvement of teaching practices is an expected part ofthis culminating component.

The rationale supporting this design change had a dual purpose.First, teaching occurs in a situational context. If preservice teachers arerequired to consider the context of their teaching as they prepare forassessment, their writing examines reflective practices in diversecommunities and gives them opportunities to focus on aspects ofassessment that might be specific to those contexts. Second, this changewill support providing experience with assessment that is more closelyaligned to the induction portfolio that will be required for new teachersin Indiana.

Conclusions

The experience of faculty with the use of exit portfolios asperformance assessment of exiting teacher candidates has brought severalresults. The addition of the performance standards and performanceassessment with the exit portfolio has provided:

1. A common language and a common set of goals and expectations for faculty,students, and school personnel engaged in the teacher preparation program.

2. A method that enables all faculty to be involved in the performance assessmentof students at the completion of the program, rather than only evaluating thestudents while in a course or block as a component of the program.

3. A way to think about and witness the developmental growth and nature of thepreservice students as they move through the program.

4. A new way to interact with and assess students as they articulate and defend theirpositions, framed against a set of national standards.

5. A vehicle for reflection and evaluation of the elements of the preparationprogram and how the parts fit together, as manifested in the performance ofstudents.

Finally, what about Elmore's (1996) proposal that the use ofexternal, normative structures, in this case the INTASC Standards, mightbe a vehicle so that much higher percentages of teachers will view highquality, engaging teaching as the norm? These early findings causefaculty to be cautiously optimistic. Having the standards in place and

280

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4


taking them seriously provides everyone—faculty, cooperating teachers,and students—with clear expectations about the goals of the program,from student entrance into the program through their exit from theprogram. The benefits discussed include four major results notpreviously realized, all of which help departmental faculty better evaluateand strengthen the preparation of preservice teachers.

Although still in the early stages of this process, progress is beingmade toward implementing a worthwhile, more effective process thatwill require adjustments over time. Faculty in this department agree thatportfolios show great promise as a way to bring the quality of teacherpreparation to a higher level.

References

Blair, J. (2000, October 25). Certification found valid for teachers. EducationWeek, XX(8), 1, 24, 25.

Board certified teachers teach better. (2000, October 19). Education Daily, pp.1, 5.

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again and again. Educational Researcher,19(1), 3-13.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998, September,). How can we ensure a caring,competent, qualified teacher for every child? Paper presented at the AFT/NEAConference on Teacher Quality, Washington, DC.

Elmore, R., (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. HarvardEducational Review, 66(1), 1-26.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional

development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.Lyons, N. (1998). Portfolio possibilities: Validating a new teacher

professionalism. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand. New York:Teachers College Press.

Rotberg, I., Futrell, M., & Lieberman, J. (1998). National board certification.Phi Delta Kappan, 79(6), 462-466.

Teachers with national board certification outperform others in 11 of 13 areas,significantly enhance student achievement, study finds. (2000, October18). National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (Press Release), pp.1-3.

Wise, A. E. (2000). Performance-based accreditation: Reform in action. QualityTeaching: Newsletter of the National Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation, 9(2), 5.

281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:25

02

Oct

ober

201

4

redefining assessment of preservice teachers: standards‐based exit portfolios

Documents