An Agenda for the Future: Student Portfolios in Social Work Education

This article was downloaded by: [UAA/APU Consortium Library]On: 16 October 2014, At: 11:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work Education: TheInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20

An Agenda for the Future: StudentPortfolios in Social Work EducationMary Swigonski , Kelly Ward , Robin S. Mama , Jan Rodgers & RayBelicosePublished online: 06 Nov 2006.

To cite this article: Mary Swigonski , Kelly Ward , Robin S. Mama , Jan Rodgers & Ray Belicose(2006) An Agenda for the Future: Student Portfolios in Social Work Education, Social WorkEducation: The International Journal, 25:8, 812-823, DOI: 10.1080/02615470600915860

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470600915860

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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02615470600915860

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470600915860

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

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

An Agenda for the Future: StudentPortfolios in Social Work EducationMary Swigonski, Kelly Ward, Robin S. Mama,Jan Rodgers & Ray Belicose

Portfolios have been used in a variety of academic settings for outcomes measures and to

present students’ best work. This article introduces the idea of electronic portfolios to be

used with social work majors both in the graduate and undergraduate curriculums. The

literature around portfolios, an explanation of our process and the points to consider

regarding pursuing an electronic portfolios process are addressed.

Keywords: Higher Education; Portfolios; Electronic Portfolios; Outcomes Measures

Introduction

Resources to effectively measure the attainment of educational outcomes and to

explicitly integrate outcomes assessment with instructional assessment are as prized

as the alchemist’s stone. Academic programs continue to develop resources to

support their work in this process (Gearhart & Herman, 1998; Nichols, 1995;

Pellegrino et al., 2001). Too often, traditional approaches to assessment document

what students are not learning more than what they are actually learning (Courts &

McInerney, 1993, p. 80). Student portfolios have begun to become acknowledged as a

resource to document and measure student success and learning attainment, an

orientation that is particularly consonant with social work’s commitment to

strengths-based work. In fact, departments of education (Jarvinen & Kohonen, 1995;

Pierson & Kumari, 2000), communication (Aitken, 1994), and nursing (Hull &

Redfern, 1996; Williams, 2001) have substantive bodies of literature explicating the

use of student portfolios. More recently social work educational programs have

begun to explore the potential of student portfolios (Cournoyer & Stanley, 2002).

This article discusses the collaborative process of one department of social work in

Correspondence to: Robin S. Mama, Department of Social Work, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West

Long Branch, NJ 07764, USA. Email: [email protected]

Social Work EducationVol. 25, No. 8, December 2006, pp. 812–823

ISSN 0261-5479 print/1470-1227 online # 2006 The Board of Social Work EducationDOI: 10.1080/02615470600915860

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

developing electronic student portfolios as a resource for program outcomes

assessment and the facilitation of student instruction, self-reflection, and assessment.

As one component of the social work department’s outcomes assessment activities,

the Outcomes Committee within the Department of Social Work at Monmouth

University has been developing an electronic student portfolio project with the

assistance of the Department of Instructional Technology. This project has been

guided by the parallel goals of facilitating student self-reflection as they analyze the

components of their learning process, and enabling an ongoing process of

programmatic outcomes assessment. Unlike the ‘paper’ or ‘binder’ student portfolios

that have been historically used, this project was implemented using ‘electronic’

student portfolios, building on CD-ROM capabilities.

This article begins with a review of the literature, which examines the use of

student portfolios as a tool to assess student competencies and program outcomes.

The article then describes the process employed by this department to support

student creation of electronic portfolios. In conclusion, the article then highlights the

potential use of electronic portfolios to explicate the linkage between student

assessment, program objectives, outcomes evaluation, and curricular revision.

Review of the Literature

The review of the literature is structured through three components: definitions,

purposes, and pragmatics. The introductory component, definitions, highlights key

themes that have emerged from a review of the literature related to the uses of

student portfolios. The second component, potentials, discusses the potential uses of

electronic student portfolios. The third component of this article, pragmatics,

facilitates the development of knowledge and skill in the implementation of these

potentials.

Definitions

Portfolios are a compendium of materials that document and demonstrate a person’s

accomplishments and career readiness (Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 29). They are

collections of work that are used to document, monitor, and evaluate performance

(Williams, 2001, p. 135). Portfolios embody an organized, purposeful, longitudinal

collection of student work that tells a story of the student’s efforts, progress, or

achievement in a given area. They may also assess the achievement of program

objectives (Waishwell et al., 1996, p. 5). Decisions about portfolio content include the

selection of student work, the criteria for judging merit, and evidence of student self-

reflection.

Most simply, portfolios represent a collection of student work done over time.

Portfolios can collect exemplars, best works, diverse works, or processes that

demonstrate how work evolved over time (Arter et al., 1995, p. 1). Portfolios provide

a vehicle for students to organize their work, to communicate with their instructor,

and to carefully monitor progress and document learning. Portfolios provide a

Social Work Education 813

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

foundation for resume preparation and career planning (Williams, 2001, p. 135).

They provide a portal through which student development can be observed, by

providing students with opportunities for reflective writing and deliberation.

Portfolios emphasize human judgment and ‘meaning making’ by identifying not

only where the student ends up, but how s/he got there (Jensen & Saylor, 1994,

p. 345).

Portfolios can be physical collections of print and audio visual materials, or they

can be electronic collections of student materials. Physical collections of print and

audio visual materials are readily collected and collated by students. These physical

materials are readily collected, but quickly become cumbersome to store, transport,

and present or display. In contrast to paper portfolios, electronic collections can be

stored on CD-ROMs, or in a web-based environment. Electronic portfolios,

particularly those stored in a web-environment, permit student control in assembly

and ease of re-organizing; provide an ability to integrate narrative captions among

the learning evidence; enable flexibility in maintaining portfolios in a space that can

be remotely accessed by themselves, faculty, peers, and potential employers; and

promote seamless access to student work (Pierson & Kumari, 2000, p. 1118).

Electronic portfolios enable students to thoughtfully integrate their collection of web-

based multimedia documents that include curricular standards, course assignments,

student artifacts in response to assignments, and reviewer feedback to the students’

work (Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 29). However, electronic portfolios require access to

computers and skill in the use of computer hardware and software.

Cooper & Love (2002) compared the efficacy of paper and online portfolios in

Western Australia. One of the benefits they note in the use of online (electronic)

portfolios, is greater facility in the process and management of student assessment

through the automation of repetitive tasks, and the ease of incorporating anti-

plagiarism software. They too caution that existing levels of technology and

technological skill need to be carefully assessed before adopting a commitment to

online/electronic projects. In essence, paper portfolios are initially easier to compile,

and electronic portfolios impose additional burdens associated with learning

technology-related skill sets. However, electronic portfolios bring the additional

benefits of facilitating reproduction, editing, transportation, and display of portfolios.

Purpose

Portfolios serve two general purposes: instruction—promoting student learning; and

assessment—keeping track of what students know and can do (Arter et al., 1995,

p. 2). Instructional benefits come from the students’ close examination of their work,

from comparison of changes and growth over time, and from their identification of

personal strengths and weaknesses through the application of criteria that define

quality, as well as from goal setting, and identifying best or favorite works.

Assessment benefits come from the collection of multiple samples of student work

over time. This collection provides a broader, more in-depth look at what students

know and can do; bases assessment on more authentic work; provides a supplement

814 M. Swigonski et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

to report cards and standardized tests; and provides a better way to communicate

student progress. The portfolio is the means to the end, not the end itself.

Encouraging personal reflection is a core purpose of portfolioing. Dewey (1933)

explains the purpose of personal reflection and learning: ‘The function of reflective

thought is … to transform a situation in which there is experienced obscurity, doubt,

conflict, disturbance of some sort, into a situation that is clear, coherent, settled,

harmonious’ (as cited in Donovan & Iovino, 1997, p. 1). Reflection after the fact, a

metacognitive stepping back from problem solving, is important in solidifying

problem-solving skills (Donovan & Iovino, 1997, p. 1). Metacognition engages

learners in a review of knowledge learned, linking it to previous knowledge and

evaluating the results (Donovan & Iovino, 1997, p. 4). As students engage in the

process of personal reflection, they develop their self-awareness, critical thinking, and

responsibility for learning.

Courts & McInerney (1993, p. 101) have identified ways in which portfolios can be

used to support personal reflection, instruction, and assessment:

1. to provide students with an opportunity to reflect on their own performance;

2. to help students develop their consciousness of the constructive role that various

modes of writing play in their own psychological-intellectual development;

3. to encourage students to choose for themselves what is or is not important in their

performance;

4. to help students see connections across learning experiences and courses;

5. to provide a concrete basis for open, learner-centered discussions between students

and their teachers and advisors, to explore what is being learned;

6. to help students recognize that learning is a cumulative process;

7. to identify areas of strength and weakness in students’ performance, and to plan

ways to optimize strengths and eliminate weaknesses;

8. to provide students with a concrete, conscious sense of their accomplishments and

growth; and

9. to help advisors and students to identify gaps or problems in the students’

preparation.

Pragmatics

One of the first practical decisions that must be reached with regard to student

portfolios is the type of portfolio that students will be asked to develop. In general

terms, portfolios can be conceived of as nonselective or selective. Nonselective

portfolios collect all of the student’s work in a given course, chronologically dated, and

clearly labeled. Nonselective portfolios provide access to a complete perspective of the

student’s work and progress; students have the opportunity to look at and reflect on

everything they have been doing. These portfolios clearly demonstrate the kinds of

work the student has been doing, how well s/he is performing, and the extent of

improvement. Nonselective portfolios also provide a rich pool of materials to select


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

from for presentation to employers or graduate schools (Courts & McInerney, 1993,

p. 101). Selective portfolios include materials chosen from a more comprehensive

collection of student materials (such as nonselective portfolios). These may be

developmental portfolios which contain work samples that represent student growth

over time, or representational portfolios which contain examples of best work

without the inclusion of successive drafts (Hauser, 1993).

The decision about the type of portfolios that students will be asked to develop

hinges on faculty responses to a series of prior questions and considerations, such as

the following (Pierson & Kumari, 2000, p. 1118):

1. What information do we want students to know?

2. What skills should they be able to demonstrate?

3. What evidence will verify that the information and skills have been learned?

Portfolio content

Once some tentative conclusions have been reached with regard to those questions,

planning can begin with regard to the data to be collected and included within the

portfolio. Portfolios may include two types of data: instructionally focused product

data (the collection of student materials) and/or assessment-focused evaluation data

(student and instructor assessments of those materials and the progress, growth and

development they represent) (Jensen, 1994, p. 345). Jensen further categorized those

two types of data as artifacts, journal entries, course evaluations, and reflection

documents. Examples of artifacts include records of student activities, projects, and

papers that were evidence of student accomplishment. Examples of journal entries

include non-reflective descriptions of student activities throughout the course.

Examples of course evaluations include comments that students made in the

portfolios which assessed the value of the learning experiences that were part of the

course (Jensen, 1994, p. 345). The goal for inclusion of items within the portfolio is to

record student progress and describe students as individuals. Particular items that

have been included in various portfolio projects (Marlow, 2000; Waishwell et al.,

1996) include:

N introductory letter;

N writing samples or drawings;

N laboratory work;

N plans or analyses;

N videotapes and photographs of productions, presentations or performances;

N letters attesting to personal attributes or professional competencies;

N lists of books read;

N grade reports;

N artifacts from out of school activities;

N photographs of, or stories about, friends and family;

N reflective statements;

N goal statements;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

N self-assessment summaries of periodical articles as they relate to the course being taken;

N outlines of lecture notes taken in class;

N snapshots of teaching aids made to use in student teaching;

N cassette recordings of reports given in class;

N video tapes

(-)of committee work engaged in emphasizing cooperative learning within a

committee;

(-)of interviews (role play or with clients, with appropriate protection of

confidentiality);

N self-evaluation of personal progress;

N test results;

N term papers;

N self-monitoring, listing what has been learned well and what is left to learn;

N journal and diary entries to indicate accomplishments and feelings;

N electronic dialogues, links to references, and the interchanges of ideas in a chat room.

The final portfolio component is a summative epilogue written by each student to

bring closure to the college experience. This document addresses questions specifically

posed by the faculty that are intended to guide students to synthesize understanding of

theory and practice (Pierson & Kumari, 2000, p. 1120). The real contents of a portfolio

are the students’ thoughts and reasons for selecting a particular entry. That process

reflects the interests and metacognitive maturity of the student and the inspiration and

influence offered by the teachers (Herbert, 1998, p. 2).

Student reflection

In addition to identifying elements for inclusion within the portfolio, student

reflection on any given item is a unique characteristic of the portfolio process.

Traditional types of assessment do not allow for students to reflect on their work,

what they did wrong, or what they could improve in the future. The process of

purposeful reflection on one’s work allows the student to use that knowledge to

improve future work, especially in areas where similar skills to those demonstrated in

the portfolio will be applied (Conderman, 2003). Donovan & Iovino (1997) suggest

several questions that they have found to be helpful in directing student reflection.

N How has your work changed? What evidence do you have of such change?

N What did you learn?

N How have you used your new knowledge in the classroom and outside of it?

N Do the changes in your work affect how you see yourself (as a person, as a social worker)?

N Why did you select this sample from your portfolio for reflection?

N If you were to continue working on this selection, what would you add, delete, or

change and why?

N What would you like to research further because of what you learned from this piece?

The portfolio is the only instrument that concurrently improves instructionthrough the process of reflective writing and self-scrutiny and evaluates


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

performance within a framework of narration and evidence. (Conderman, 2003,para. 6)

An Example of the Processes for the Creation of Electronic Portfolios

The social work department in our university began our electronic portfolio project

in 1999, with senior undergraduate social work majors. The department worked

extensively with the Department of Instructional Technology to delineate the format

to be used (CD ROM vs. web-based portfolios), the type of information that could be

stored, storage issues (i.e. using video clips and audio), and how to develop a

template so that the portfolios had a common face. Using the field seminar classes as

anchors, students began to amass their ‘best works’, which could include any or all of

the following: resume, field evaluations, scholarly papers, power point presentations,

projects undertaken in the field, reflective statements, and video clips from their

practice role plays (individual and group). Document files were all converted to pdf

format, and analog videos were converted to digital. The field classes were utilized to

gather, work on, and complete the final products. Time was initially scheduled during

part of the field seminar class to introduce the students to the portfolio process, and

to convert their document files. After this, time was scheduled outside of class for

students to work with faculty and a graduate assistant from software engineering on

completion of the portfolios.

As students prepared their best works, faculty developed the schedules for completion

of the CD-ROMs (two CDs were created—one for the department and one for the

student to use as a professional portfolio). Faculty also developed the means to assess the

portfolios once they were completed. Course syllabi were the key ingredients in

developing the assessment procedure. Each syllabus lists program objectives as well as

course objectives. Students were directed to select artifacts that demonstrated their

achievement of each objective in the syllabus. Rubrics are being developed to allow us to

evaluate items within the portfolio in conjunction with these objectives. These rubrics

will also enable students to explain why they chose a specific artifact and how the student

determined to what extent the artifact met that course objective.

The Role of Faculty in Portfolio Assessment

A critical success factor for electronic portfolios is the development of a culture where

faculty understand their central role in the portfolio process as resource providers,

mentors, conveyors of standards, and definers of quality. The major obstacle to

successful implementation of portfolios is faculty participation (Gathercoal et al.,

2002, p. 30). If faculty do not agree that portfolios are important and worthy means

of assessment, students will hear mixed messages on the uses and values of portfolios,

and student efforts to complete the portfolio as intended will diminish.

Faculty must consider many issues before embarking on a portfolio assessment

process. First, there must be some consideration given as to how the portfolio will


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

align itself with content and standards (Walther-Thomas & Brownell, 2001) and

identify intended educational (student) outcomes (Nichols, 1995, p. 46). For social

work in the United States, this means CSWE accreditation standards, as well as

particular program, course and individual student goals and objectives. Students

must have opportunities for self-reflection on their work, and these opportunities

must be built into the teaching process in more than one class (Walther-Thomas &

Brownell, 2001). Faculty may have to readjust their syllabi, their current assignments,

and use of class time to incorporate not only the creation of the portfolio but also the

opportunities to self-reflect. Faculty also need time to plan for portfolio assessment

and build this into their academic work schedules (Walther-Thomas & Brownell,

2001). While this seems obvious, electronic portfolios demand that faculty learn how

to use the software that produces the portfolio, whether these are on CD-ROM or on

the Web. Faculty must also learn how to get the student’s work onto either of these

media and further learn how to ‘burn’ the CD if using this technology. While faculty

received a great deal of support from our Instructional Technology Department,

ultimately department faculty were responsible for ensuring that students’ CDs were

finished. Faculty must absolutely be aware of this added responsibility.

Portfolios serve an important array of purposes. However, there are also some

cautions and costs to the adoption and implementation of portfolios. Their use

requires a well grounded understanding of the processes and purposes of portfolios

(Cooper & Love, 2002). This requires an additional layer of knowledge and skill

development beyond discipline-specific knowledge, values and skills and beyond those

of instructional pedagogy. Particularly for new faculty members this additional

expectation can impose a weighty burden. The effective use of portfolios calls for

programmatic adoption, beyond the mere use within isolated particular courses. This

requires large-scale faculty and staff acceptance and support of these processes and

practices. It requires the creation of a culture that values the use of portfolios. This is

a time-consuming process, and one that must be persistently reinforced and

reaffirmed. The use of portfolios substantively contributes to the depth of student

learning, but it also requires ongoing substantive commitments of faculty and staff time

and energy.

Nichols (1995, p. 44) suggests a number of strategies that faculty can incorporate in

their efforts to encourage a sincere effort by students, including the following:

1. imbed the means of assessment in classes using it once for grading purposes and a

second time by the overall departmental faculty for assessment;

2. have faculty members acting as student advisors directly express the extent to which

assessment, and the student’s role in it, is taken seriously by the department;

3. indicate that the assessment results will be among the first items reviewed when

providing references to graduate school and for jobs;

4. appeal to the student’s sense of interest in the discipline and the welfare of students

who will follow them.

Successful implementation requires regular meetings to provide all faculty

members with the concepts and skills for successful implementation. Meetings


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

should be held during regular teaching hours and faculty should be compensated

(Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 34). A well-designed portfolio project embedded in a well-

designed curriculum—one that conveys academic standards, contains appropriate

resources, and provides vehicles for faculty mentoring—enables students’ develop-

ment, growth, and showcase of portfolios at once. An electronic portfolio system

acknowledges intrinsic links between student assessment, faculty, and program

evaluation and the meaningful reporting of assessment and evaluations to interested

third parties (Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 36).

Evaluative Considerations

Within the larger context of institutional growth and development, the portfolio

project is still in the developmental stage in our department. There is work to be

done, there are refinements to be made. We are still basking in the light of the

Hawthorne effect—the enthusiasm of faculty developing this new endeavor goes a

long way to carry us all over difficulties and obstacles. We are still at the point of

formative reflection rather than summative evaluative analysis. However, there are

lessons that we have learned from this process. Our students are more consciously

reflexive about their growth and learning. They express a greater sense of ownership

not only of their learning, but also of the focus and direction of their learning. The

students are quite pleased with the final CD-ROM portfolio that they produce, and

take great pride in including it in their job application materials. They are frequently

less enthusiastic about the process of developing the portfolio. The technological

skills required for the production process remain a point of frustration for students

(and some faculty as well). Faculty appreciate the outcomes of this project for both

student learning and program assessment, and yet continue to find the time that the

project requires burdensome. This is a project in progress, one that requires ongoing

focus and refinements in its implementation.

The use of electronic portfolios to assess levels of achievement of program goals

and external standards requires the development of rubrics linking artifacts contained

within the portfolio to assessment measures and those assessment measures to the

objectives which embody those standards and goals. Computer database software and

qualitative research software hold great promise for automating this process. Our

department is currently engaged in the implementation of this next step in the

process.

Points to Remember

Before undertaking any type of portfolio project, several points need to be

considered. One recommendation is to begin small: start with a portfolio in one

class, making sure the requirement is one that students will understand and can

fulfill. In conjunction with this, faculty members who are willing and able to take this

on have to be identified. It is helpful to develop workshops that help faculty

understand the nature of the process and the ways in which they might constructively


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

use portfolios. Setting up group meetings to explain the nature of portfolios, their

reasons for being, the hoped for results in terms of student gains and assessment,

would be beneficial. Then, there should be a meeting with students to explain and

discuss portfolios, to give them an opportunity to understand what portfolios are,

why they exist, and exactly what is expected of each student. Traditional assessments

show what students are not learning, but we are not so clear about what they are

actually learning (Courts & McInerney, 1993, pp. 84–85).

Culture is also a crucial variable to consider in planning and implementing student

portfolios. Some cultures will be more conducive to the use of technology than

others. Some cultures will be more conducive to the highlighting of personal

accomplishments than others. Some cultures will value self-reflection and its public

expression more than others. Each of these areas of diversity is a crucial variable that

will find divergent expression internationally. That diversity should be thoughtfully

monitored and addressed by faculty members adopting portfolios as an element of

their pedagogy.

In addition to culture, student needs and abilities are important considerations in

the process of deciding whether and to what extent to adopt and incorporate the use

of portfolios. For students with challenges in vision, hearing or mobility, electronic

portfolios hold the potential of providing a means of remediating some of those

challenges. The incorporation of computer technologies may ‘even the playing field’

by compensating for limitations and by enhancing student abilities. But for students

with technology-related fears or inhibitions, imposing computer-based requirements

adds an additional obstacle to overcome in their academic development. When

electronic portfolios require the use of campus-based technologies, those students

with limited access to campus-based computer laboratories must find the time and

means to access those resources.

The portfolio process must be revisited continually. There will be a need to hold

follow-up meetings to share difficulties, iron out problems, and make adjustments.

This will help to ensure that portfolios are seen as important components of the

educational process and not just busy work.

A major point to remember is not to implement portfolios from the top down. Try

to involve as many faculty and students as possible. Plan and develop the portfolio

requirement in concert with other requirements within the department and

institution.

Conclusions

Portfolios are a valuable component in the process of student assessment. Not only

do portfolios allow students to demonstrate their competency and professional

growth, but they also allow faculty to explicate the linkage between student

assessment, program objectives, outcomes evaluation, and curricular revision.

‘Portfolios represent a more genuine and authentic form of assessment because they

measure learning outcomes directly through demonstration and performance’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

(Baltimore & Hickson, 1996, para. 1). Our student portfolios have evolved over time;

currently both our BSW and MSW students create a CD-ROM portfolio.

Portfolios highlight interrelations among instructional theory, research, and

practice, both intended and serendipitous, as evidenced in the products of learning

and the ability of each student to articulate these ideas (Pierson & Kumari, 2000,

p. 1119). Creativity and individuality are goals of self-reflection. These are balanced

with the need for a convergence of perspectives so that portfolios can be used for

summative purposes as well as individual student reflection. A significant aspect of

portfolios is the fact that students have a voice in the selection of their artifacts, which

gives them greater impetus to participate in this assessment format (Walther-Thomas

& Brownell, 2001).

The benefits to students of participating in this type of assessment are numerous.

Self-reflection allows students to be creative in their academic efforts and provides

opportunities to retain information that has been learned. Because students must be

responsible to complete their portfolio, there is an increased emphasis on student

accountability (Marlow, 2000). Students who create a portfolio electronically have an

added skill that they can take with them in their careers.

References

Aitken, J. (1994, August) ‘Assessment in specific programs: employment, program and coursestudent portfolios in communication studies’, paper presented at the Speech CommunicationSummer Conference, Alexandria, VA, ERIC Digest (ED373376).

Arter, J., Spandel, V. & Culham, R. (1995) Portfolios for Assessment and Instruction (ED388890),ERIC Digest, Greensboro, NC.

Baltimore, M. L. & Hickson, J. (1996) ‘Portfolio assessment: a model for counselor education’,Counselor Education & Supervision, vol. 36, no. 2. Available at: EBSCOhost, accessed 19January 2004.

Conderman, G. (2003) ‘Using portfolios in undergraduate special education teacher educationprograms’, Preventing School Failure, vol. 47, no. 3. Available at: EBSCOHost, accessed 19January 2004.

Cooper, T. & Love, T. (2002) ‘Online portfolios: issues of assessment & pedagogy’ [Electronicversion], in Crossing Borders: New Frontiers of Educational Research, ed. P. Jeffery, AARE Inc.(Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc.), Coldstream, Victoria, WestAustralia. Available at: http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/coo01346.htm, accessed 2 December2004.

Cournoyer, B. R. & Stanley, M. J. (2002) The Social Work Portfolio, Planning, Assessing, andDocumenting Lifelong Learning in a Dynamic Profession, Wadsworth Publishing, PacificGrove, CA.

Courts, P. L. & McInerney, K. H. (1993) Assessment in Higher Education: Politics, Pedagogy, andPortfolios, Greenwood Publishing, Westport, CT.

Donovan, B. & Iovino, R. M. (1997, October) ‘A multiple intelligences approach to expanding andcelebrating teacher portfolios and student portfolios’, Annual Meeting of the NortheasternEducation Research Association.

Gathercoal, P., Love, D., Bryde, B. & McKean, G. (2002) ‘On implementing web-based electronicportfolios’, Educause Quarterly, vol. 25, pp. 29–37.

Gearhart, M. & Herman, J. L. (1998) ‘Portfolio assessment: whose work is it? Issues in the use ofclassroom assignments for accountability’, Educational Assessment, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 41–55.

Hauser, J. (1993, April) ‘College student portfolios: a representational format for ‘‘best portfolio’’dimensions’, paper presented at the International Reading Association’s Panel of Speakers, SanAntonio, TX.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

Herbert, E. (1998) ‘Lessons learned about student portfolios’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 79, no. 8,pp. 583–585.

Hull, C. & Redfern, L. (1996) Profiles and Portfolios: A Guide for Nurses and Midwives, Macmillan,London.

Jarvinen, A. & Kohonen, V. (1995) ‘Promoting professional development in higher educationthrough portfolio assessment’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 1,pp. 25–36.

Jensen, G. M. & Saylor, C. (1994) ‘Portfolios and professional development in the healthprofessions’, Evaluation and the Health Professions, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 344–358.

Marlow, E. (2000) Using Portfolios in Higher Education, unpublished manuscript.Nichols, J. O. (1995) The Departmental Guide and Record Book for Student Outcomes Assessment and

Institutional Effectiveness, 2nd edn, Agathon Press, New York.Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N. & Glaser, R. (eds) (2001) Knowing What Students Know: The

Science and Design of Educational Assessment, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Pierson, M. E. & Kumari, S. (2000, February) ‘Web based student portfolios in a graduate

instructional technology program’, paper presented at the Society for Information Technologyand Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, CA.

Waishwell, L., Morrow, M. J., Micke, M. M. & Keyser, B. B. (1996) ‘Utilization of the studentportfolio to link professional preparation to the responsibilities and competencies of theentry level health educator’, Journal of Health Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 4–9.

Walther-Thomas, C. & Brownell, M. T. (2001) ‘Bonnie Jones: using student portfolios effectively’,Intervention in School & Clinic, vol. 36, no. 4. Available at: EBSCOhost, accessed 19 January2004.

Williams, J. (2001) ‘The clinical notebook: using student portfolios to enhance clinical teachinglearning’, Journal of Nursing Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 135–137.

Accepted December 2004


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:54

16

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

An Agenda for the Future: Student Portfolios in Social Work Education