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

  • Published on
    12-Mar-2017

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Transcript

<ul><li><p>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</p><p>Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20</p><p>Preparing Preservice Teachers to ImplementPerformance Assessment and Technology throughElectronic PortfoliosAndrea Bartlett aa University of Hawai'i , Manoa , USAPublished online: 04 Jan 2012.</p><p>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</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2002.10463270</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; 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 &amp; 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.</p><p>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 &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01626620.2002.10463270http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2002.10463270http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>Preparing Preservice Teachers to Implement Performance Assessment and Technology through Electronic Portfolios </p><p>Andrea Bartlett University of Hawai'i at Manoa </p><p>Abstract </p><p>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. </p><p>Introduction </p><p>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 &amp; 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 &amp; White, 1998). </p><p>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 &amp; 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 &amp; Belanoff, 1986). </p><p>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: </p><p>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) </p><p>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. </p><p>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). </p><p>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: </p><p>90 </p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f N</p><p>orth</p><p> Tex</p><p>as] </p><p>at 1</p><p>0:35</p><p> 09 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>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) </p><p>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. </p><p>Context and Motivation for the Study </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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 &amp; Farrelly, 1994; Wellington, 1995). </p><p>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 &amp; 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 &amp; Tusin, 1999). </p><p>This extant research supports the use of electronic portfolios. However, more information is needed if educators are to use this potent tool effectively. </p><p>Method </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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 </p><p>91 </p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f N</p><p>orth</p><p> Tex</p><p>as] </p><p>at 1</p><p>0:35</p><p> 09 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>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. </p><p>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 &amp; 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. </p><p>Findings </p><p>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." </p><p>Table 1. Percentage of Responses to: What Did You Learn from the Electronic Portfolio Assignment? </p><p>Category Semester Semester Total 1 2 </p><p>To use hardware and/or software 53.85 62.86 58.1 1 </p><p>To organize and present ideas 25.64 28.57 27.03 </p><p>Applications of technology for teaching 10.26 0 5.41 </p><p>Self-evaluation 5.13 5.71 5.41 </p><p>Take advantage of technology 5.13 0 2.70 </p><p>Miscellaneous 0 2.86 1.35 </p><p>Total 100 1...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >