JSET ejournal
Teacher
Education
Associate Editor Column
Sean Smith
Special Education Teacher Preparation and the Electronic
Portfolio
Guest Columnists
Leah M. Herner and Silva Karayan
California Lutheran University
Gerry McKean and Douglas Love
Illinois State University
Introduction
Special Education teacher preparation is continually evolving
as teacher educators seek tools that aid in preparation of student
teachers and help in assessing their development. Creation of
paper portfolios is an established way for student teachers to
show their mastery of course work, but now new World Wide Web
(WWW) portfolio systems invite a rich variety of portfolio (i.e.,Webfolio)
applications throughout the education process that go far beyond
traditional uses of paper portfolios. This article describes
how Webfolios are used in California Lutheran University's education
specialist credential preparation. The techniques can be applied
to any teacher preparation program.
The first section is a discussion of the benefits of using Web-based
electronic portfolios in comparison to traditional paper portfolios
that sets the stage for an overview of the electronic Webfolio
system used at California Lutheran University's (CLU) School
of Education. Then the use of theWebfolio system in the school
for employment purposes, providing feedback to students, student
assessment, and course enhancement is described. After an overview
of CLU's special education program, the program's use of the
system and its benefits are described. The final section describes
implementation issues including user (student and teacher) skill
and training requirements, system acquisition, and hardware requirements.
From Paper to Web-Based Portfolios
Although the use of electronic portfolios, particularly Web-based,
for teacher preparation is recent, Webfolios build on the foundation
of traditional paper portfolios. This section provides a brief
summary of traditional paper portfolio content, use, and limitations
before giving an operational description of electronic portfolios
as implemented at California Lutheran University.
Portfolios at the post-secondary level generally include a resume,
philosophy of education, references, letters of recommendation,
reflections on educational theories, personal goals, examples
of lesson plans, and unit plans (Ryan, Cole & Mathies, 1997;
Wiedmer, 1998; Aschermann, 1999; Chappell & Schermerhorn,
1999). Portfolios also have been defined as a purposeful collection
of student work assembled to demonstrate progress and achievement
(Tuttle, 1997; Wilcox, 1997; Barrett, 1999; Bull, Montgomery,
Overton & Kimball, 1999; Herman & Morrell, 1999). Others
believe that portfolios offer the opportunity for multidimensional
assessment (Riggsby, 1995; Backer, 1997; Jacobsen & Mueller,
1998; Cole, Tomlin, Ryan & Sutton, 1999). They also may be
used to enhance course instruction (Purves, 1996; Watkins, 1996;
Mohnsen, 1997; Richards, 1998; Corbett-Perez & Dorman, 1999).
Major drawbacks to paper portfolios include the physical space
required to store them, the difficulty of providing access to
multiple readers, and delivering them to readers that are not
close to the storage location. The media itself is limiting.
Even though audio and videotapes can be included, the requirements
for viewing (i.e., set-up time and equipment) make them cumbersome.
The process of revision based on reviewer comments also is cumbersome.
Aschermann (1999) stated that CD-ROMs might be an effective way
to store portfolio information, but special hardware and software
is needed to create these portfolios and there is no central
storage place available for all the CDs. Dissemination and revision
also are inherent problems with CDs. Multiple copies may be disseminated
to readers, but subsequent revisions make the copies obsolete
and the dissemination process must be repeated.
Although physical storage, access, and revision benefits are
compelling reasons for adopting Webfolios, simply putting portfolios
on the Web as a scrapbook of student work samples is not enough
for educational institutions to realize the many benefits. To
allow the full realization of portfolio benefits, the Webfolio
system in the Special Education Teacher Preparation Program at
California Lutheran University organizes the entire portfolio
related data (e.g., student produced artifacts, instructor provided
assignments, artifact assessment scores, reviewer comments, programs
standards, and assignment taxonomies) in a database.
The benefits that stakeholders in an educational institution
realize from having portfolio related materials in a database
are the same benefits that the information systems discipline
has recognized for having any kind of data in a database. There
is much greater flexibility in presenting different users with
exactly the data they and the data are much easier to maintain.
The varied use of portfolios indicates their broad value in education,
but the varied purposes for building student portfolios also
exposes a limitation of portfolios in paper format. With paper
portfolios, CD-ROMs or portfolios on static Web pages, the content
and organization of the student's portfolio is fixed. The primary
purpose for which an educational institution chooses to adopt
portfolios will drive the content and organization of that content
in the paper portfolio and will likely limit the usefulness of
the portfolios for other purposes. For example, the content and
organization of portfolios intended as a device for multidimensional
assessment of students may limit the usefulness of the same portfolios
for assessing curriculum. A faculty committee composing student
guidelines for portfolios at a particular institution may not
even consider alternative uses for the data contained in the
portfolios when devising their content and format guidelines.
In contrast, portfolio content that is stored in an electronic
database may be presented to the reader in a variety of formats
depending on purpose. Users (readers) of electronic portfolios
can view the database of student created artifacts, institution
delineated standards, instructor provided curricular materials,
and mentor comments in alternative ways. To borrow terminology
from the information systems discipline, the user can have a
view of the data that fits the user's particular need. Thus,
the instructor of a course may see electronic artifacts created
by a student as the course progresses and use them to help form
the student's development. In contrast, a committee reviewing
a student's mastery of standards as the student nears graduation
may wish to see only summative artifacts created by the student.
A potential employer will see only the artifacts that the student
wants that category of user to see.
Those responsible for accreditation reporting can easily show
specific course assignments and student artifacts produced in
response to the assignments that address standards. For a particular
standard, a single query can organize the assignments and/or
artifacts along with course identifiers or other user-defined
taxonomies (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill & Krathwohi, 1956).
As a result, sequencing of assignments and curriculum content
to develop the student's mastery of the standard can be evaluated.
CLU's uses for the Web-based Electronic Portfolio
The Magnetic Connections Grant at California Lutheran has
funded the adoption and implementation of the Professor Portfolio
(Profport) Webfolio system. The database of the Webfolio system
holds (a) the curricular standards for CLU's School of Education,
(b) curricular materials including course activities and assignments,
(c) student artifacts produced in response to the activities
and assignments, and (d) logs containing comments that supervisors
and faculty have made to students regarding each of the artifacts
in the student's portfolio. The Web server has the capacity to
store rooms or potentially even buildings of equivalent paper
portfolios and provides access to multiple users in remote
locations at the same time.
A sample Webfolio page is shown in Figure1.
The left frame contains the student's name, e-mail address, and
the student's Webfolio table of contents. The content listed
under each course number is primarily determined by the
instructor. Each semester, students add their new courses to
their Webfolios to have the assignments associated with those
courses added to their Webfolio table of contents. Each assignment
or activity is constructed so that completion by the student
results in an artifact that can be placed in the Webfolio. A
student also can add to the list of instructor-provided captions
under a course or can add an entire non-course category such
as Student Life or Career Planning with associated captions.
A significant design consideration was the capability to tie
artifacts to assignments or activities, which are, in turn, tied
to program standards. The standards may be national, state, or
institutionally mandated. Also in Figure1,
the large frame on the right displays the artifact produced by
the student as a result of completing an assignment and is intended
to allow the reader to judge the successful completion of the
assignment or activity and perhaps mastery of an associated standard.
Comments that the instructor, supervisor, or other mentors have
made about the displayed artifact are shown in the comment log
inset in the figure. The course syllabus and assignment are available
by clicking the course number or the assignment descriptor at
the top center of the screen.
Access to an artifact (e.g., multimedia document) created by
a student in response to an instructor-provided activity or assignment
is immediately available to instructor or supervisor reviewers.
Changes made to the artifact based on reviewer comments are immediately
reflected in the database and to appropriate readers.
The current and expected uses for CLU's electronic portfolio
are four-fold: (a) employment tool, (b) feedback, (c) assessment,
and (d) course enhancement. Although the system's use as an employment
tool was not the driving force for implementing Webfolios, the
employment application is important and easy to understand. Prospective
employers can be given the Web address that links them to a student's
Webfolio which they can preview before or after interviewing
and share later with other members of their employment committee
who were not present during the interview. The viewers get a
richer presentation of the student's experiences and strengths
than a short interview can provide. As another example of employment
related uses of Webfolios, faculty at Illinois State University,
faculty created an Interview module that students can add to
their portfolio in the same way they add courses and then address
thirteen commonly asked interview questions with text and video
responses.
The system gives the student control over which sections are
accessible to potential employers and when the employer logs
in they will see only those sections in the table of contents.
For example, students typically will not show work in progress
for a course they are currently taking.
Instructors, supervisors, and mentors can view and provide feedback
to the student about the student's work at any time. The comments
are logged and dated to show an evaluation history for each assignment.
A student can take a paper or project from rough draft to final
stage and have a record of comments that show improvement until
the instructor deems the artifact demonstrates the student's
mastery of an assignment and underlying standard.
The comment log, itself, may prove to be useful in improving
the curriculum. An examination of all the comments made for all
students completing a particular assignment may reveal a pattern
indicating that there is an underlying weakness in student preparation
that must be addressed elsewhere in the curriculum or that the
assignment and supporting materials (e.g., help, resources, and
assessment) need to be improved.
The use of the system for student assessment is similar to its
feedback use. Students respond to assignments with their artifacts
(work samples). The instructor can assign a grade in the student
comment section and can, at any time, refer back to the portfolio
for information without paper changing hands. There is less danger
of misplaced assignments or grade sheets. The grade and/or rubric
can be posted in the electronic portfolio for students to review
at their convenience. Students also may view other students'
Webfolios for examples of exemplary projects if the student author
grants student access to his/her work. For each artifact in a
student's Webfolio, the student has the option to make it accessible
to instructors, recruiters, other students, or everyone on the
Web. Viewers of a student's Webfolio do not have the capability
to change anything in the Webfolio they are viewing and only
instructors and mentors see the comment logs.
Finally, the course enhancement application of the Webfolio system
has several dimensions. For each activity or assignment the instructor
can provide his or her own assignment detail, help, and list
of Web resources that help the student master the standard that
the activity addresses (see Figure
2, Figure 3, and Figure
4). Help and Resources are presented to the student by the
Webfolio system along with the instructor's statement of the
Assignment and Assessment criteria.
Because the instructor can provide feedback online, any hour
of the day, students do not have to wait for a weekly class meeting
to turn in assignments and wait another week for feedback. The
instructor can enter comments as soon as the assignment is assessed
and the student may be given the opportunity to rework a paper
before the following class meeting. The face-to-face class meeting
time can be used more constructively to deal with course subject
matter, not returning papers.
The system opens the opportunity for greater student involvement.
For example, an instructor can require assignments to be completed
in the system one or two hours prior to the next class meeting
and then the instructor can make a quick final pass through the
artifacts. While going through the students' work prior to the
start of class, the instructor can identify exemplary work to
be presented in class. In this way the instructor can have several
students present exemplary work during the class period that,
in the past, would have been used to collect the papers.
The Use of the Webfolio in Special Education
Students entering the School of Education at CLU are trained
in the use of the Webfolio during their first courses. A grant
provided funding for extensive training of faculty and supervisors
in the School of Education. These people are expected to help
students and newer faculty adjust to the system. Anyone with
basic computer skills can add assignments and content to the
Webfolio after a short training session. The students are also
supported with technical help via email, phone, and an on-site
lab assistant who is available at different locations 3 times
a week. Students can also see examples of exemplary artifacts
by visiting an example Webfolio (http://portfolio.clunet.edu/view.asp?id=edstar)
which displays simulated student data with exemplary work samples
from a variety of students.
The Webfolio is primarily used as an authentic assessment tool
to evaluate the students' knowledge of the subject matter and
their mastery of the content and application of state mandated
standards. It provides a framework within which the students
proceed through the program. Students provide examples of how
they have met each standard through class work and daily teaching.
Teacher candidates can communicate with their instructors, field
supervisors, and site support personnel, as well as with their
peers.
The Webfolio replaces the traditional comprehensive exams required
of students at the completion of their credential coursework.
This practice represents the summative evaluation use of a Webfolio.
Students have a chance to look at their coursework and field
experience as a whole, as an integrated body of knowledge and
experience that will contribute to their success (Figure 4).
The process of defending the Webfolio provides evidence of the
candidate's overall preparation and readiness to teach.
The Webfolio provides the teacher candidates with a virtual environment
that enables them to get coordinated support from different sources.
Thus the instructor, the field supervisor, and the site support
personnel will be made aware of a question or issue, and they
will all provide the teacher candidate with information/suggestions
that are coordinated and cohesive.
The Webfolio, in general, is not used as an employment tool,
because most Special Education students are already employed.
However, it may be used as a re-employment tool when applying
for a different school position.
Special Education instructors may use other education systems
such as Tapped In with the Profport Webfolio system. Tapped In
is a virtual building that students may visit for real time discussions
about course topics. They have the opportunity to meet in the
instructor's office, and with minimal instruction, converse about
any subject. The instructor can record the conversation and post
the transcript on the Webfolio for students to refer to. A student
who was ill can read over what was said in class and hopefully
have a better understanding than copying notes would provide.
Benefits of the Webfolio
The CLU Special Education Program uses the Webfolio to integrate
the students' entire courses of study. We have adopted a holistic
assessment process for teacher candidates both during the program
and at the conclusion. Our assessment process is systematic,
uses multiple measures and multiple sources, and is tied directly
to the program coursework and field experiences.
We recognize the complexity and highly variable nature of our
candidates' teaching responsibilities, and to this end multiple
methods are used to assess their performance authentically. Thus,
we utilize the Webfolio extensively in our program as an authentic
assessment tool. Both course assignments and artifacts from non-university
activities contribute to the Webfolio. Micro-teaching samples,
written course examinations, work samples, live classroom observations,
and case studies are only a few examples.
Teacher candidates are assessed throughout the credential program
through letter grades, credit grades, and by the successful completion
of the their Webfolio. Teacher candidates are assessed by university
instructors, university supervisors, on site supervisors, and
master teachers.
The Webfolio has become the tool that pulls coursework, field
experience, and professional growth activities together. The
Special Education Department has developed this 21st century
tool to be used for purposes of communication, feedback, course
enhancement, coordinated support, reemployment, and assessment.
This technology helps maintain the "big picture" for
each student as they progress through the credential program
and develop as teachers.
About Profport, theWebfolio System Used at CLU
An early Web-based portfolio system was developed by Douglas
Love at Illinois State University in 1995. Experience with this
system led to the development of the Profport (Professor Portfolio)
Webfolio System which was co-developed with Gerry McKean (http://www.folioworld.com/info)
and is used by CLU.
As might be expected, Profport encompasses a richer set of features
than the earlier versions. Many of the improvements were dependent
upon advances in the Web. For example, a user of the 1995 system
needed to know how to write basic HTML tags if he or she wanted
images, links, or anything beyond text in his or her portfolio.
In contrast, the document editor in the new system allows the
user to create multimedia documents containing images and hyperlinks
in the same way they create what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG)
documents using a word processor. The user now has no need to
learn HTML.
The Webfolio system at California Lutheran University runs on
a Windows 2000 server, which also contains the system's database,
and has it's own dedicated backup. As an alternative to a campus
server, the system can be hosted off campus by the system developers.
However faculty at CLU specifically requested that the Profport
system be on their campus network and within the university's
firewall. A significant part of the vision of the Profport system
is that all of the data (student produced artifacts, faculty
created assignments, comment logs, and standards) will be maintained
as long as needed for continuous improvement, assessment, alumni
relationship enhancement, and student lifelong learning support.
Pricing models for Profport can be tailored to institution's
needs. Some institutions prefer a lump sum license fee while
others prefer each student to pay a license fee. For institutions
choosing a student license, the a one-time fee allows the student
to build and edit a portfolio for the next six years. The vendor
provides the hardware and software that is placed on the institution's
network. There are no fees for faculty accounts they are
placing materials in the system for the student's to access and
are providing comments to the students about their work. The
actual vendor hardware installed depends on the number of users.
Up to one-thousand student accounts can be handled by a Windows
2000 server with a one gigahertz processor, 512 megabytes of
memory, and a 60 gigabyte hard drive.
The Profport system is scalable and has a complete set of maintenance
functions that a campus administrator can use to tailor the system
to the specific institution. These include automated registration
of users; setting user status (student, faculty, mentor); adding
departments; adding course titles; setting the nomenclature used
by each department (e.g. are assignments called assignments;
activities; engagements; or something else?); and
adding master lists of department standards, goals, and rubrics.
Enhancements to the system are provided remotely by the system
developers. Because the developers also do training workshops
on-site, training visits sometimes have been used for maintenance
activities.
Individual faculty members can indicate the proper standards
and taxonomy classification for each of their assignments or
this can be carried out by a system administrator or by another
group charged with the task. The system transparently ties the
selected standards and taxonomies to specific assignments and
student produced artifacts by links in the database.
The various parts of syllabi (e.g., instructor contact information,
course objectives, description, projects, schedule) also are
placed in the database. Having the pieces of the syllabi
stored in the database permits special views needed for a variety
of purposes. For example, a report of course objectives by course
title and section number can easily be generated. One might use
such a report to look for consistency in course objectives for
courses having multiple sections taught by different instructors.
System training is provided by face-to-face workshops as well
as a course within the system. Students learn the basics
of the system in a ninety-minute face-to-face workshop closely
followed by actual assignments that require them to use the system.
It is expected that participants have used a Web browser before
attending.
Students are told upon entry into the program that they will
have to utilize a computer for all classes throughout their course
of studies. A factor that is important and more difficult to
achieve is involvement by a critical mass of faculty. With regards
to faculty, the successes at California Lutheran University have
been as much attributable to faculty willingness to participate
as a member of a community with a portfolio culture as a faculty
commitment to technology.
At CLU, the faculty members were paid to attend training. The
skill set required of faculty users includes the basic skills
required of students (e.g. using a browser, entering text, copying
and pasting, and creating a hyperlink). Teachers also need an
understanding of the overall system so they can see how the content
they provide will be used by students and used for program assessment.
Two types of faculty training sessions (Basic and Advanced) were
offered a couple of times each week throughout the first several
semesters. Teachers also were offered one on one consulting time,
if needed.
During the basic workshop, faculty participants are given the
basic skill set training that students are given, shown how students
enter an artifact, how faculty enter comments about the artifact
in the comment log, and how the student accesses the faculty
comments. They also are shown how to enter their course materials
into the system. Advanced topics included greater use of multimedia
objects and how to use the system in the classroom. Gathercoal,
Love, Bryde, and McKean (2002) discuss implementation at CLU
in detail and identify critical factors necessary for successful
implementation of an electronic portfolio system.
References
Aschermann, J. (1999). Electronic portfolios: Why? What? How?
Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology
& Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio,
TX.
Backer, P. (1997). The use of portfolios in professional education:
A multimedia model of instructional methodology. San Jose,
CA: San Jose State University, Division of Technology.
Barrett, H. (1999). Electronic teaching portfolios. Paper
presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohi,
O. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification
of educational goals. Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New
York: Longman.
Bull, K., Montgomery, D., Overton, R., & Kimball, S. (1999).
Developing collaborative electronic portfolios for preservice
teachers in computer mediated learning. Paper presented at
19th Annual Rural Special Education for the New Millennium Conference,
Albuquerque, NM.
Chappell, D. & Schermerhorn Jr., J. (1999). Using electronic
student portfolios in management education: A stakeholder perspective.
Journal of Management Education, 23, 651-662.
Cole, D., Tomlin, J., Ryan, C. & Sutton, S. (1999). Linking
technology and best practices: PRAXIS based electronic portfolios.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, D.C.
Corbett-Perez, S. & Dorman, S. (1999). Electronic portfolios
enhance health instruction. The Journal of School Health,
69, 247-249.
Gathercoal, P., Love, D., Bryde, B., and McKean, G. (2002) On
Implementing Web-Based Electronic Portfolios. EDUCAUSE Quarterly,
25, 29-37.
Herman, L. & Morrell, M. (1999). Educational progressions:
Electronic portfolios in a virtual classroom. T.H.E. Journal,
26, 86-89.
Jacobsen, D. & Mueller, J. (1998). Creating a collaborative
electronic community of education scholars. Paper presented
at the Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference,
Kapiolani Community College.
Mohnsen, B. (1997). Authentic assessment in physical education.
Learning and Leading With Technology, April, 30-33.
Purves, A. (1996). Electronic portfolios. Computers and Composition,
13, 135-146.
Richards, R. (1998). Infusing technology and literacy into the
undergraduate teacher education curriculum through the use of
electronic portfolios. T.H.E. Journal, 25, 46-50.
Riggsby, D. (1995). Electronic portfolio: Assessment, resume,
or marketing tool? Paper presented at the Association of
Small Computer Users in Education Summer Conference, North Myrtle
Beach, SC.
Ryan, C., Cole, D., & Mathies, B. (1997). Teacher education
field experiences: Impact on self-esteem of professional year
program interns via electronic portfolios. Paper presented
at the Eastern Educational Research Association's 20th Annual
Meeting, Hilton Head, SC.
Tuttle, H. (1997). The multimedia report: Electronic portfolios
tell a personal story. Multimedia Schools, 4, 32-37.
Watkins, S. (1983). World wide Web authoring in the portfolio
assessed, (inter)networked composition course. Computers and
Composition, 13, 219-230.
Wiedmer, T. (1998). Portfolios: A means for documenting professional
development. The Journal of Staff, Program & Organization
Development, 16, 21-37.
Wilcox, B. (1997). Intelligent portfolios for professional
development. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, School
of Education.
If you have ideas or would like to submit illustrations of ways your teacher preparation program integrates technology, please feel free to contact Sean Smith at seanj@ukans.edu.