This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 09 November 2014, At: 10:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Preparing Preservice Teachers to ImplementPerformance Assessment and Technology throughElectronic PortfoliosAndrea Bartlett aa University of Hawai'i , Manoa , USAPublished online: 04 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Andrea Bartlett (2002) Preparing Preservice Teachers to Implement PerformanceAssessment and Technology through Electronic Portfolios, Action in Teacher Education, 24:1, 90-97, DOI:10.1080/01626620.2002.10463270

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2002.10463270

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 licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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

Preparing Preservice Teachers to Implement Performance Assessment and Technology through Electronic Portfolios

Andrea Bartlett University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Abstract

This qualitative study considers the use of electronic portfolios in teacher education and evaluates responses from 26 preservice teachers (PSTs). The PSTs used presentation sofrware and multimedia to recreate two instructional units they had taught to elementary school children. Following completion of each unit, PSTs responded to open-ended questions in which they evaluated the electronic portfolio assignment. The PSTs rated the assignment positively (7.51 on a 10-point scale). Evaluations disclosed several advantages, including opportunities to learn about educational technology and new ways to organize and present ideas. Some PSTS complained of time and equipment problems. Overall, the electronic portfolio assignment educated the preservice teachers in computer-based technology and provided faculty with a performance-based assessment of teaching development.

Introduction

Performance-based assessment has experienced a surge of interest in recent years. In contrast to traditional pencil- and-paper tests, this newer type of assessment is based on a collaborative, active learning model, with the goal of assuring success on "real world" tasks (Spady & Marshall, 1991). According to Mitchell and Crawford (1993, "Performance assessment is the measure of whether or not-and to what degree-students achieve the standards" (p. 78). Students are informed of performance standards, most often through rubrics, and they have opportunities to improve through self-reflection and faculty mentoring (Wigle & White, 1998).

This change in attitude towards assessment has led to the increased use of one form of performance assessment, in particular: portfolios. While professions such as art, architecture, and journalism have a long history of using portfolios, their use in education is a fairly recent phenomenon. Some classroom teachers have reported using portfolios to document students' work as early as the 1960s (Elbow & Belanoff, 1997). However, it was not until the mid-1980s that key articles about portfolios began appearing in the educational literature (e.g., Burnham, 1986; Camp, 1985; Elbow & Belanoff, 1986).

At about the same time, researchers at Stanford University's Teacher Assessment Project experimented with models of teaching portfolios with the goal of providing a broader, more contextualized view of teaching than is possible with standardized tests (Shulman, 1998). As defined by Shulman:

A teaching portfolio is the structured, documentary history of a set of coached or mentored acts of teaching, substantiated by samples of student portfolios, and fully realized only through reflective writing, deliberation, and conversation. I think all of those parts are necessary--but I may be wrong. (p. 37)

Now with the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, Shulman and his colleagues are taking assessment beyond the four traditional forms of validity--concurrent validity, predictive validity, content validity, and construct validity- -to require consequential validity, or positive impact on teaching development (Shulman, 1998). Some states are following this lead and requiring teaching portfolios for initial licensure.

Wolf (1 999) has delineated three types of teacher portfolios. Learning portfolios are "personalized collections of teachers' work that emphasize ownership and self-assessment . . . The main purpose of the learning portfolio is to provide teachers with an opportunity to explore, extend, showcase, and reflect on their own learning" (p. 12). Assessment portfolios are "selective collections of teachers' work and standardized assessments . . . .The primary purpose of this type of portfolio is to evaluate teacher performance for certification licensure, or professional advancement" (p. I 3). Employment portfolios are "customized and attractive collections of information given by teachers to prospective employers and are intended to establish a teacher's suitability for a specific professional position" (p. 14). While teacher education faculty tend to emphasize the learning and assessment potential of portfolios, students may be more interested in using their portfolios for gaining employment (Breault, 2000).

Even more recent than teaching portfolios is the use of electronic portfolios to organize and store evidence of teaching development. Kovalchick, Milman and Elizabeth (1 998) compared technology (electronic) portfolios and traditional portfolios:

90

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:35

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

A technology portfolio is similar to a traditional portfolio, but it specifically addresses technology skills and issues. Also, the medium is different since it is organized using a combination of electronic media such as hypermedia programs, database, spreadsheet, and word processing software, as well as CD-ROMs and the World Wide Web. Technology portfolios can be print-based, saved in a computer disk, compiled on a CD-ROM or HomePage, or a combination of the above. (p. 4)

This paper describes my experiences implementing an electronic portfolio assignment with teacher education students who were preparing to be certified in elementary and special education. Tbenty-six students used multimedia to present two units they had taught to elementary school children. Following completion of each unit, students responded to open-ended questions in which they evaluated the electronic portfolio assignment and suggested changes.

Context and Motivation for the Study

The University of Hawaii's two-year teacher education program assigns undergraduates to cohorts of approximately 25 students. Students who are preparing to be elementary school teachers attend most classes in their assigned cohorts. The program relies heavily on field experience: Students spend up to two days a week in elementary classrooms during the three semesters prior to full-time student teaching. University faculty and classroom mentor teachers collaborate in planning and supervising all field experiences.

As a faculty member, I have found it difficult to assess students' performance in their field experience placements. My past practice has included a combination of faculty observations, student learning journals, and mentor teacher mid- semester and final assessments. Over a two-year period, students had combined selected materials from these assessments with lesson and unit plans to create notebook portfolios. However, this led to overflowing boxes that filled my office.

Electronic portfolios caught my interest because they provide a way for students to show clear evidence of their teaching development in a form that is easy to share, update, and store. Captioned still and video images are presented in computer formats, including CD-ROM, Zip disk or Internet. Still images may include documents, photographs, and reflections. Video images are brief clips (generally two minutes or less) of students teaching groups of children.

Creating electronic portfolios also increases students' comfort with technology. This is important since teacher education is the most direct, efficient, and cost-effective way to prepare teachers to use technology in their classrooms (Faison, 1996; Parker & Farrelly, 1994; Wellington, 1995).

A review of the literature uncovered only four research studies that addressed preservice teachers' responses to electronic portfolios. Creation of electronic portfolios has been found to be "positive and useful" (McKinney, 1998), "constructivist, demanding, and multifaceted" (Milman, 1999), and to have a positive impact on preservice teachers' self concepts (Ryan, Cole & Mathies, 1997). However, some preservice teachers who have created electronic portfolios fail to apply what they have learned to their own teaching, so teacher educators need to explain how electronic portfolios can be used in elementary and secondary classrooms (Meyer & Tusin, 1999).

This extant research supports the use of electronic portfolios. However, more information is needed if educators are to use this potent tool effectively.

Method

The undergraduate students participating in this study were in the first year of an elementary education program designed to prepare them for certification in both general and special education. The majority of the 26 students were of Asian American heritage and female (23 females and 3 males). Most students began the project with little or no familiarity with the technology that would be needed to create their portfolios.

In the first year of their teacher education program, students planned, taught and evaluated two literacy units, one each semester. Students also videotaped themselves while teaching their units, which were on such diverse topics as inventions, feelings, legends, holidays, cultures, rain forests, graphing and even cockroaches. After teaching, students submitted complete paper copies of their units and Zip disks with an abbreviated electronic form. The electronic form included: teaching standards, performance standards, instructional activities, a video clip of at least one lesson, photographs of students' work, evaluations of the students and lessons, and reflections.

Students attended two technology workshops, one on camera skills and the other on video editing, the first semester of the study. They spent an additional 7 hours of class time in the computer lab, where technology assistants provided whole group instruction and individual guidance. Once in the compuer lab, students used PowerPoint to outline their units. Then, they inserted video clips of their teaching--edited with Avid Cinema or iMovie--as well as scanned photographs and documents. Sounds and special effects provided the electronic portfolios with additional verve and individuality. The

91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:35

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

preservice teachers received 5 hours of technology instruction during the second semester. Lab and technology assistance continued to be available throughout the weeks students were working on their portfolios.

After completing each of the two segments of their electronic portfolios, students wrote responses to a six-question survey. Open-ended questions called for students to evaluate the electronic portfolio assignment and make recommendations for improvement. Responses were coded using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987). That is, entries were read and reread for possible categories. Once categories emerged, entries were reread and recoded as necessary. Responses that addressed more than one category were parsed at the point where the topic changed. For that reason, there were more responses than there were students for some questions.

Findings

Not surprisingly, students reported most often about learning to use technology (see Table 1). In fact, more than half of the comments were in this category. Students discussed learning how to use different equipment and software programs: "I learned a lot about using a Mac, using a digital video camera, and a scanner. We learned new types of programs like iMovie which edits videos." More importantly, students found using technology helped to organize and present ideas: "The electronic portfolio assignment has taught me how to effectively communicate the things I have learned and experienced while teaching, in a precise point by point presentation." Learning how to apply technology to their teaching was mentioned in the first semester, but not the second. An example of this category follows: "I could take what I learned and have my students use the same type of media to create their own presentations in the future." Four students reported learning the value of electronic portfolios for self-evaluation over the two semesters. One of these students wrote: "It [the electronic portfolio assignment] showed me an alternative way to showcase our units and evaluate our performance."

Table 1. Percentage of Responses to: What Did You Learn from the Electronic Portfolio Assignment?

Category Semester Semester Total 1 2

To use hardware and/or software 53.85 62.86 58.1 1

To organize and present ideas 25.64 28.57 27.03

Applications of technology for teaching 10.26 0 5.41

Self-evaluation 5.13 5.71 5.41

Take advantage of technology 5.13 0 2.70

Miscellaneous 0 2.86 1.35

Total 100 100 100

Note. Totals may not always equal 100 percent due to rounding.

When asked about the advantages of creating electronic portfolios, the largest number of students identified learning about technology (see Table 2). One student wrote: "It's great knowing how to use current technology. We not only look good, but we have the knowledge of the technology to use over and over again." Another student responded:

One advantage would definitely be that we are gaining more knowledge in the area of technology. Computers are becoming more and more important in the public schools across our country, and anything we can learn about them will only benefit us and our future students.

92

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:35

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 2. Percentage of Responses to: What Do You See as the Advantages of Creating Electronic Portfolios?

Category Semester Semester Total 1 2

Learn about technology

More powerful and convenient than traditional portfolios

Showcase teaching

Self-evaluation

Interviews

Application to teaching

Total

42.42 42.86 42.62

33.33 39.29 36.07

15.15 0 8.20

6.06 10.7 1 8.20

0 7.14 3.28

3.03 0 1.64

100 100 100

Thirty-six percent of students wrote that electronic portfolios are more convenient and effective than traditional portfolios. Students appreciated that, as one student stated, "our learning is compacted onto one disk." Other students saw electronic portfolios as "simple," "easy to carry around," and "easier than working on paper." Another student summarized the effectiveness of electronic portfolios: "The portfolio is also very interesting to watch because it includes color, sound effects, pictures, and video segments compared to if we had to write a paper about our teaching experiences." Fewer students commented on the value of electronic portfolios for showcasing teaching, self-evaluation, future interviews and classroom teaching.

As for disadvantages, the highest percentage of comments concerned equipment problems (see Table 3). This comment is representative: "A disadvantage to the electronic portfolio is that all the equipment (video camera, computer with the movie making capabilities) isn't available to everyone." Other students were concerned about whether they and potential readers, particularly principals, would be able to access their files. Students also complained that the assignment was time consuming as in this response: "We missed out on precious class time. Since our class only meets once a week we obtained so much information. But having four weeks of working on the portfolio we missed much time on instruction." A few students felt the assignment was limited in that only two units were in the portfolio, and those units had to be condensed to fit onto Zip disks.

Table 3. Percentage of Responses to: What Do You See as the Disadvantages of Creating Electronic Portfolios?

Difficulties related to equipment 54.84 56.00 55.36

Time constraints 22.58 20.00 21.43

Limited subjects 6.45 16.00 10.71

Limited space 9.68 4.00 7.14

Some students may not be prepared 3.23 4.00 3.57

Expensive 3.23 0 1.79

Total 100 100 100

93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:35

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Students also wrote recommendations for improvement. The responses supported earlier statements that time and lack of equipment were seen as problems (see Table 4). Students suggested adding more subjects to the portfolio, providing clearer guidelines for the assignment, and sharing portfolios. One student thought electronic portfolios should be an optional assignment, and another suggested electronic portfolios not be graded.

Table 4. Percentage of Responses to: How Could the Electronic Portfolio Assignment Have Been More Effective than It Was?

Category Semester Semester Total 1 2

More time 11.11 41.67 28.57

More equipment 29.63 19.44 23.81

Add other subjects 25.93 19.44 22.22

Guidelines more clearly stated 22.22 8.33 14.75

Share electronic portfolios 7.41 2.73 4.76

Have electronic portfolios optional 0 2.73 1.59

Don't grade 2.73 1.59

None 3.70 2.73 3.17

Total 100 100 100

When asked how they planned to use their electronic portfolios in the future, the largest number of students said they would use it when applying for teaching positions (see Table 5). One student explained: "After this class is over, I would like to keep adding to this electronic portfolio. I would add units from my other education classes and hopefully use the portfolio after our program to assist me in finding a job." Thirty-four percent of students believed they would use their portfolio as tools for reflection. For example, a student wrote:

Both during and after this teaching program, I plan to use the electronic portfolio as part of personal reflection. I can see how far I have come as a teacher as well as look for things I need to work on.

Other students planned to share their electronic portfolios with future students, other teachers, and graduate school faculty, as in the following comment: "I think electronic portfolios could also be used for research projects in upper elementary. I think kids would really enjoy putting their own electronic portfolios together."

When asked to rate the electronic portfolio assignment on a scale of 1-10, the mean was slightly higher after the first semester than after the second semester--7.56 vs. 7.46 (see Table 6). Reasons for the lowest ratings had to do with constraints described in earlier questions (e.g., time, equipment). The student giving the lowest rating, a 4, wondered about "the practicality of the assignment." This student also wondered "whether more hands-on, in-class strategies might have been more useful." The number of 10s increased from 1 on the first administration of the survey to 4 on the second administration. Students giving the electronic portfolio the highest score seemed to agree the assignment "was hands on and challenging but the experience was worth it."

Practical and Technical Considerations

Twenty-six undergraduate teacher education students completed the first two segments of their electronic portfolios during the first year of their program. To accomplish this feat, students videotaped themselves teaching, edited the video,

94

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:35

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 5. Percentage of Responses to: How Do You Plan to Use Your Electronic Portfolio in the Future? Please Include both During and After Your Teacher Education Program.

Category Semester Semester Total 1 2

Job search

Reflectiodteaching development

Share with students

Unsure

Share with other teachers

Applying for graduate school

No response

Total

40.91

36.36

9.09

6.82

6.82

0

0

100

37.14

3 1.43

11.43

8.57

0

5.71

5.7 1

100

39.24

34.18

10.13

7.59

3.80

2.53

2.53

100

Table 6. Percentage of Responses to: On a Scale of 1 - 10, with 10 Being the Highest Score, I Would Give the Electronic Portfolio this Score as Compared to Other Assignments I Have Had in My Teacher Education Program.

Semester 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

1: N=25, 0 12.00 8.00 24.00 28.00 24.00 4.00 100 X = m

2: N=26 3.85 11.54 11.54 19.23 30.77 7.69 15.38 100 x = m Total: N=51 1.96 11.76 9.80 21.57 29.41 15.69 9.80 100

outlined their lessons and evaluations in Powerpoint, and imported video clips, stills and sound. Most students began the project with little knowledge of how to use digital video cameras, Macintosh computers, Powerpoint, or video editing programs; so instruction was provided in all these areas by our College's Department of Educational Technology.

The time devoted to this project was extensive. During the year, seven weekly classes--or 22% of total instructional time--were devoted to creating the portfolios, and students spent many hours beyond class time to complete their projects. Time was an issue that came up often in students' evaluations of the electronic portfolio assignment. Many students commented that the project was time consuming, and they wished they had had more time to spend on it.

Time would be an issue for any student trying to create an electronic portfolio, but it was particularly true in this case. Our students were taking 21 credits per semester, and there was a strike of the entire public school system during the second semester of the study. University classes were canceled for two weeks because of a strike in the spring semester, and students were unable to participate in classrooms for almost three weeks while elementary schools were closed. With that in mind, it is encouraging that only seven students in the first semester and five in the second semester (the semester of the strike) gave time as a disadvantage of creating electronic portfolios.

Many students also complained about limited access to equipment. One issue was a platform discrepancy. Almost all students had PCs, while the project was done on Macintosh computers. That meant the work had to be done at the College instead of at home, which students would have preferred. For the same reason, students were concerned their files might not be accessible to others, particularly principals.

95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:35

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Video equipment was available for check out through the Technology Learning Center. However, students had to wait their turns during class time. It was such a large class that waiting to use the scanners and other equipment was inevitable, and some students commented on this situation. A university instructional improvement grant provided three mini-digital video cameras, with peripherals, making this equipment, at least, more readily available. Peripherals included microphones of two types, zoom microphones that fit on the video camcorder and lavalier transmitters that clip on clothing, for better sound quality. Although videotaping and editing added to the demands of the electronic portfolio assignment, the payoff was great as well. Video clips--even when as short as 15-30 seconds--showed the preservice teachers in action, something traditional portfolios could never duplicate.

A few students expressed the opinion that the portfolio was limited by subject and space. However, students will be adding to their electronic portfolios next year. The fact that space was limited on the 100 megabyte Zip disks we used for the project might be considered an advantage by some. Students had to think critically about how to present their most important ideas in a compact format.

While there were some disadvantages, students appreciated learning about technology and saw many advantages of electronic portfolios over traditional portfolios. As a faculty member, I found it much more convenient to view and store electronic portfolios than notebook portfolios. At the end of each semester, I copied all the students' portfolios onto a CD for later retrieval and analysis. So, now I have two CDs rather than the bulky notebooks and boxes I used to have.

Although most students reported learning about technology in the process of creating their electronic portfolios, it was disappointing that few students noted they would use technology in the classroom. A few students expressed doubts that technology would be available in the schools in which they would teach. However, this situation is changing in many schools, and technology is likely to be an essential part of teaching in the near future.

Conclusion

Most preservice teachers in this study rated their two electronic portfolio assignments positively, and they also provided well-reasoned recommendations for improvement. Based on these recommendations, I plan to place greater emphasis on how technology can be used in students' future teaching. Since a few students thought the guidelines and expectations should be more clearly stated, I will also revisit my course syllabus and rubrics, trying to provide overall guidelines without being so prescriptive that creativity is compromised. Another useful suggestion from the study was to allow students to share their portfolios with peers. While sharing happened informally when students were working on their portfolios, in the future I will devote class time to more formal sharing. This practice will allow students to consider other ways of presenting their units while they learn from their peers' teaching experiences.

Overall, I believe the first two semesters of this project have been successful. Students are learning about the performance assessment and technology they will need in their future teaching. Instead of adding a separate course in educational technology to an already challenging schedule, this content has been integrated into students' existing methods courses.

I look forward to continuing this project next year when students will add a multidisciplinary unit during student teaching. To complete their electronic portfolios, students will add resumes, other self-selected evidence of teaching competence, and self-evaluations based on State teacher standards. As Barrett (2001) has warned:

I propose that a portfolio without standards is just a multimedia presentation or a fancy electronic resume or a digital scrapbook. Without standards as the organizing basis for a portfolio, the collection becomes just that . . . a collection, haphazard and without structure; the purpose is lost in the noise, glitz and hype. (p.2)

Future research should address whether the experience of creating an electronic portfolio contributes to the development of reflection and overall teaching excellence and, if so, how this improvement occurs. Research is also needed on ways to make implementation of electronic portfolios more feasible for busy faculty members (e.g., methods instructors team with technology instructors). More evidence that electronic portfolios are worth the time spent creating them, combined with proven ways to lighten the load of using technology, would greatly encourage use of electronic portfolios in teacher education.

Andrea Bartlett teaches courses in literacy education at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. She is also co-coordinator of an elementary education cohort preparing for certification in general and special education.

The author would like to thank the Department of Educational Technology's LEI Aloha Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Grant staff for their assistance with this project.

96

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:35

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References

Barrett, H. (2001). Electronic teaching portfolios. Retrieved May 18,2001, from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/site99.html.

Breault, R. (2000). Metacognition in portfolios in pre-service teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Burnham, C. (1986). Portfolio evaluation: Room to breathe and grow. In C.W. Bridges (Ed.), Training the new teachers of college composition (pp. 125-138). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Camp, R. (1985). The writing folder in post-secondary assessment. In P.J.A. Evans (Ed.), Directions and misdirections in English education (pp. 91-99). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council of Teachers of English.

Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1986). SUNY: Portfolio-based evaluation program. In P. Elbow & P. Belanoff (Eds.), New methods in college writing programs: Theory into practice (pp. 3-16). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1997). Reflections on an explosion: Portfolios in the '90s and beyond. In K.B. Yancy & I. Weiser (Eds.), Situating portfolios: Four perspectives (pp. 21-23). Logan, UT Utah State University Press. Faison, C. (1996). Modeling instructional technology in teacher preparation: Why we can't wait. Educational Technology,

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Kovalchick, A., Milman, N.B., & Elizabeth, M. (1998). Instructional strategies for integrating technology: Electronic journals and technology portfolios as facilitators for self-eficacy and reflection in preservice teachers. (ERIC Reproduction Service: ED421 115).

Teacher Education Quarterly, 25, 85-103.

Teacher Education, 50(2), 131-139.

Service ED432273).

standards. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources.

International Journal of Instructional Media, 21 (4). 295-299.

year program interns via electronic portfolios. (ERIC Reproduction Service: ED405329).

new teacher professionalism (pp. 23-38). New York: Teachers College.

36(5), 57-59.

McKinney, M. (1 998). Preservice teachers' electronic portfolios: Integrating technology, self-assessment, and reflection.

Meyer, D.K., & Tusin, L.F. (1999). Preservice teachers' perceptions of portfolios: Process versus product. Journal of

Milman, N.B. (1 999). Web-based electronic teaching portfolios for preservice teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Mitchell, R., & Crawford, M. (1995). Learning in overdrive: Designing curriculum, instruction and assessment from

Parker, A., & Farrelly, D. (1994). Forced to succeed: Introducing the concept of interactive media to preservice teachers.

Ryan, C.W., Cole. D.J., & Mathies, B.K. (1997). Teacher education field experiences: Impact on self-esteem of professional

Shulman, L. (1998). Teacher portfolios: A theoretical activity. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the

Spady, W., & Marshall, K. (1991). Beyond traditional outcomes-based education. Educational Leadership, 49, 67-72. Strauss, A.L. (1 987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wellington, J.J. (1995). The role of technology in teacher education: A case study of hypertext in a PGCE course. Journal

Wigle, S.E., & White, G.T. (1998). Conceptual frameworks, portfolio assessment and faculty mentoring: Bridges to

Wolf, K. (1999). Leading the professional portfolio process for change. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional

of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 21, 37-50.

standards-based teacher education programs. Action in Teacher Education, 20(3), 39-49.

Development.

97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:35

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14