The body of literature selected for the literature review of this action project represents an eclectic collection documenting the use and support of portfolios in the K-12 classroom. Included in this literature review are books, articles and Web sites. The literature here includes the theoretical underpinnings for using portfolios in the schools and the benefits to the students. Also included is background information on how portfolios have typically been used; what is currently being offered to develop electronic portfolios; and how one may go about building a basic electronic portfolio with current software.
This chapter will highlight what the literature has to say about the uses of different portfolios, whether paper, digitized or electronic. The literature examines different approaches towards the development of electronic portfolios and how portfolios can enhance student learning. Included is a theoretical foundation for using portfolios as supported by the multiple intelligences, the constructivist pedagogy, and neural cognitive sciences or what is more commonly known as brain research as these relate to the topic of electronic portfolios. Also included are important considerations that should be taken when using technology with education.
At first glance through a library database search, one may be led to believe that there are a great number of articles and volumes of information on electronic portfolios; however, my primary search has confirmed the contrary. There is a large volume of information about traditional paper portfolios; however, in comparison, there is a paucity of literature on K-12 electronic portfolios. Of the literature on traditional portfolios, much of the content and context revolves around the form of "literacy portfolios" or the writing process portfolio as it pertains to the K-12 levels.
Any portfolio development electronic or otherwise has to be based on a solid foundation of content. Therefore, the history and applications of traditional paper portfolio development is an important starting point for the process to begin. The emerging application of technologies with traditional portfolios is still in a relatively embryonic stage of development. The value of the electronic portfolios has to be based on the contents rather than the features of the visual demonstration.
Given the importance of content over "hype," whether of paper or electronic portfolios, the point of focus must be the student's education. The students' performance based on clearly predefined and articulated curriculum standards, the purpose of the collection, the audience or "stakeholders" for the selection and the reflection process for the student-creator are necessary elements for successful electronic/digital or traditional portfolio development according to the majority of literature on the subject.
Portfolio projects may out of necessity begin with paper portfolios to become digitized for the purposes of storage and saved for development of an electronic portfolio, or they may begin in a digital format as many educational documents are now created. Other measures or demonstrations of achievements that traditionally have not been included in portfolio development because of difficulty of logistics and storage issues of the past include: sound recordings, video of theatre, dance, other visual and performing arts, athletics, school debates, and science projects. The work samples of students in vocational and special education programs and other programs considered outside of mainstream can receive equal recognition for their educational endeavors. The limitless products from these endeavors do not fit neatly on a sheet of paper. However, these can fit adequately in a CD-ROM. With today's technology, storage has been reduced to a minimum.
Enhancement of the educational potential of learners should be the central focus and purpose for using technologies in education. Today's technologies are capable of giving full recognition of student achievements that can capture a "snapshot" of the multiple intelligences of our students that have been neglected or limited by the measures used to demonstrate or measure performance. However, using the new technologies for their own sake is not the intent or sole purpose for using these applications as they apply to electronic portfolios and a note of caution is emphasized about this issue throughout the literature.
Education is undergoing a shift in paradigm. Kuhn (1970, p.111) first explored the concept of paradigm shifts when he wrote: "…when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them." Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Poplin (1988, p. 389) in an article on Special Education quotes Heshusius who distinguishes the differences between paradigm and theory:
"The concept of paradigm…is far more encompassing than that of theory…while theory directly delineates the phenomena of interest, a paradigm does not, but rather presents a world view, a 'way of seeing' which is also a way of not seeing. It represents the beliefs by which we ultimately think and act."
We have all witnessed the dangers of wholesale, jumping-on-the-band-wagon, of educational fads that end up compromising the whole progressive educational enterprise only to create conditions that swing the pendulum even further "back to basics." At one time whole language became translated to mean, "using big books to teach reading." The invented spelling was reduced to "letting children make spelling mistakes. " And, a new math curriculum was described as "the use of manipulatives in the early grades." Progressive educational practice needs teachers to know, understand and articulate or be able to explain to themselves and others the rationale behind the methods used to teach and assess students. The same must apply in the case with technology as it is used in confluence with education.
Constructivism and the whole education movement with the more familiar whole language, along with whole science, whole art, etcetera will remain under scrutiny and vulnerable to fads unless educators are more grounded in theory and practice. Theory should be guiding practice and practice modifying theory continually. Contemporary meaning-based pedagogies require rethinking the instruction-curriculum-assessment triad (Engel 1994).
With the knowledge of our history of education and given the more recent educational reform efforts, we should proceed with judicious caution toward using portfolios, electronic or otherwise, as an instrument for assessment. That is, in doing so, it should be used in a responsible and mindful manner in order to move forward with a well-grounded foundation of the aforementioned instruction-curriculum-assessment triad of contemporary meaning-based pedagogies.
Deborah Meier (1995) educator and founder of Central Park East Elementary and Central Secondary Schools in New York City, says that kindergarten should provide the model for education throughout the grades. When cumulative portfolios are kept from kindergarten on, they help children retain both confidence in who they are and a sense of identity-requisites for becoming effective learners. The new instruments are the portfolios themselves. The new places are the products of active, creative, energetic, constructive and meaning-making minds of children. When reviewing portfolios with children, teachers are indeed using new instruments and looking in new places (Engel 1994).
Technology as an emerging educational tool presents a whole new host of challenges that will not go away if we ignore them. It behooves us all as educators to begin and continue educating our students and ourselves so that we can all become more responsible, informed users as consumers of technology.
"Today many students still attend model schools. Much of the day is spent passively listening to lectures. Many classes teach skills for jobs that either no longer exist or will not exist in their present form when students grow up."
This quote embodies one of the many key issues the authors, speakers, and presenters addressed at the "Reinventing Schools: The Technology Is Now" Symposium. The result of this symposium is the creation of a Web site by the same name (http://search.nap.edu/html/techgap/newmodel.html). The National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering sponsored this conference on May 10-12, 1993 and as a result comes this on-line publication. This Web site offers an important foundation for all educators in a town hall meeting that originally utilized satellite and other current technologies. The discussion of the issues is updated to the present time.
The Reinventing Schools Web site was designed by a team of writers, editors, designers, and artists. They have organized the information in a repository of articles, resources, and references for what may be considered a library for the evolution of technology in education. Included in this Web site is a brief but thorough explanation of the three models of education: (1) one-room school, (2) today's K-12 factory model and (3) a new model of education, one that couples classroom learning and resources with the teacher as a broker of knowledge made accessible by technology. Their main position is that education today must help prepare students for a new world with ever changing technology through a new model of education. More than ever educators need to educate themselves as well as their students to prevent their students from falling into the gulf of the digital divide (http://search.nap.edu/html/techgap/navigate.cgi).
Twenty years ago Howard Gardner spoke of the United States being well on its way to becoming a complete testing society. Theorists and educators agree that children learn, perform and move through different stages of learning. Students are expected to exhibit higher order thinking skills or thinking out of the box. Standardized tests require one size fits all thinking with everyone responding with short matching answers in the same manner. This "uniform schooling view" goes against the very tenets of education. This view of human cognition is what Gardner calls "IQ-style thinking" (Gardner 1993).
Today in the United States, we need not look far to see the headlines and turn to Capitol Hill where the pendulum has swung towards national educational testing. However, the unanswered questions remain. Whose test shall be given? Whose knowledge counts? How will this knowledge be measured? What form will these measurements take? The tests generally only measure reading and math or the linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. Besides testing the linguistic and mathematical strengths and weaknesses for accountability, the newly passed Education Bill or initiatives by President Bush called "No Child Left Behind" includes the enhancement of education through technology where no child should ever be left behind (http://www.ed.gov/Technology/).
The "uniform view of schooling" proponents believe that students should study the same subject matter. This includes a strong dose of the values of the dominant culture or subculture (Hirsch, 1987; Ravitch & Finn, 1987). What are the implications for the testing of students in our multicultural classrooms and the use of portfolios as new instruments of measurement? We have all seen the dismal statistics of how our students are failing in our schools. If it has been shown that various kinds of experts often fail on "formal" measures and yet exhibit precisely the same skills in the course of their ordinary work (Lave 1980; Rogoff, 1982; Scribner 1986) then it is not the person who has failed but rather the measurement instrument.
Two of history's most well known examples of brilliant minds, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison were terrible at taking tests and therefore terrible at schoolwork in general. In Einstein's case, he was later enrolled in a Swiss Pestalozzi-like school that may be described in modern terms as a constructivist-like school. There he was finally both happy and successful as he encountered methods that appealed to his visual learning style-maps, tools sophisticated equipment, and objects of all sorts. As educators we may wonder how many budding Einsteins may experience failure in schools today because the prevailing teaching methods do not meet their needs (Noddings p.19-20).
Education reformers believe that "taking tests merely shows that a student is good at taking tests." Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences clearly argues how test-taking skills exists in the linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. Hypothetically, this is to say in using a mathematical analogy, only a fraction of an individual's intellectual potential is being tested (http://edwebproject.org/edref.mi.th.html and http://edwebproject.org/edref.mi.ed3.html).
Used appropriately with multiple measures, portfolios can serve as an authentic form of assessment that can show the kinds of understandings and competencies all students are capable of achieving and learning at their appropriate developmental level. Some of these multiple measures may take the form of or resemble traditional apprenticeship measures rather than formal testing. Individualized portfolios as a communication system can lend themselves toward being more sensitive to the developmental levels of the student. The portfolios, as Stiggins refers to as a communication system rather than an assessment tool, can address cultural differences and learning styles. The diverse cognitive abilities and existence of multiple intelligences that students possess can be "captured" in the form of a "snapshot" and reside within electronic portfolios. These abilities, gifts, talents or potentials would otherwise remain indistinguishable with our current one-size-fits all uniform education perspective.
Supplementary works that present different perspectives
of Gardner's theory discussed by his contemporaries is made available
in the Web site listed below. Included is Thomas Armstrong's
Web site containing a list of educators and researchers who are
applying the multiple intelligences theory in the classroom. The
URL listed below gives more information about the Multiple Intelligences
and contains a bibliography entitled the "MI Bookshelf"
(http://www.newhorizons.org/bibmishelf.html). For a list of volumes of rubrics
according to subject strands, the following site is provided (http://www.odyssey.on.ca/~elaine.coxon/rubrics.htm). For those interested in learning
about other schools' assessment and evaluation checklists the
following Web site contains some models that can be viewed
(http://www.odyssey.on.ca/~elaine.coxon/Reporting/assessment2.htm).
Information about different ways of assessing various types of
learners can found at the following site (http://www.richland.cc.il.us/staff/sblahnik/misites.html).
Russian Psychologist Lev Vygotsky pioneered research in the learning sciences and made a strong argument for the need of students to demonstrate their knowledge by creating explanations and interpreting their work to others. From the Vygotskian perspective teachers can serve as mediators who coach and encourage students to formulate their own level of understanding. Each student has a base level of knowledge, but practicing what he or she already knows well can build on that foundation. The social interaction between the student, the teacher and other students fosters engaged learning that promotes a more meaningful, deeper understanding of knowledge.
Lev Vygotsky's work has implications for three different areas of classroom instruction: classroom context, apprenticeship learning, and teacher modeling/questioning/discussion. One of the recommendations is that teachers need to establish the level at which the students are functioning, for example, to accept their language, background experiences, and cultures (Hymes 1972). Children need to work in cooperative groups and foster the idea that all children can contribute and learn something from one another.
Apprenticeship learning allows students to study with adults or more capable peers, which is the essence of the zone theory. As you will recall from chapter one, the zone of proximal development (ZPD) is defined as the distance between the actual developmental level for learning determined by independent problem solving and the potential development under adult guidance or in collaboration with capable peers. Teaching students in meaningful contexts facilitated by cooperative learning groups, apprenticeships and the like helps lower the affective filter while making connections between reading, writing and across disciplines. This integrated approach in turn allows for meaningful learning. The affective filter can keep students from learning because of the walls of resistance to learning that can be produced for a number of variables. Learning obstacles can be minimized when students are engaged contributors of their own learning process. Learning opportunities, when taken to this level, provide the "at-risk students" with the means and ways to participate in more meaningful, engaging learning activities. These outcomes can then lend themselves to more authentic assessment, higher learning value and can give a truer picture of what the student is capable of, demonstrated through his or her own portfolio development.
Portfolio development can provide a framework for a metacognitive learning environment to exercise the different ways that students can express their higher order thinking skills. Students can demonstrate to others their knowledge, their reflections of their collection process right down to their explanations and their interpretations of their work throughout the entire process. One of the purposes for portfolio conferencing (when students and teachers meet to discuss the process, progress and content of a developing portfolio) is to give the teacher and the student an opportunity to do modeling, questioning, discussion format that is built into the constructivist approach (Paulson & Paulson, 1994). The teacher models the vocabulary development and comprehension expectancies. The student, for example, may receive prompts, cues, and other support from a teacher. As the student becomes familiar with the vocabulary and learning expectancies the cues diminish. These strategies and skills transfer into different areas of the curriculum to help students construct their own knowledge.
Scaffolding is an important strategy for guiding students from reflection through the self-evaluation process. Metacognition is a desirable and predictable outcome of successful portfolio development program. Grace (1992) outlines what should be included in a child's portfolio and the role the child should take in the development of his or her portfolio (http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content3/portfolio.young.pre.3.html).
For a general discussion and further readings on portfolios and assessment the following Eric document supports the preceding information about how portfolios when properly used can become a tool for authentic assessment (http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed388890.html).
Much of the growing body of literature readily found on portfolios is geared with the student teacher in mind. Many universities and colleges are making portfolios part of the student's learning plan as projects and educational benchmarks are documented. Electronic portfolios are becoming more prevalent in undergraduate and in graduate programs.
There are a number of books that are excellent resources and some that can be used for the dual purpose of teacher and K-12 student portfolio development. Those included here are: (1) Digital Professional Portfolios for Change by Elizabeth Hartnell-Young and Maureen Morriss (1999), (2) Leading the Professional Portfolio Process for Change by Kenneth Wolf (1999), (3) Designing and Using Portfolios by Beverly D. Shaklee, Nancy E. Barbour, Richard Ambrose and Susan J. Hansford (1997), (4) An Introduction to Using Portfolios in the Classroom by Charlotte Danielson and Leslye Abrutyn (1997), and (5) How to develop a professional portfolio by Dorothy M. Campbell, Cignetti, Bondi, Melenyzer, Nettles & Wyman, Jr. (1999). Also see (2000). These books give teachers the background for (a) the philosophy for the support in developing their own teacher or professional portfolio; (b) the logic in helping their students develop their own student portfolios; (c) how to go about planning and carrying through the portfolio process; and (d) how to use technologies that can be used by either new or advanced users.
A number of brief articles cover the earlier literature, philosophy, applications in classrooms, and all of the information necessary to do a thorough initial investigation of portfolios. There are a number of ways to organize the study of this information so that it does not become an overwhelming task. Depending on access one can read the actual documents in bound periodical archives in a college library or electronically via computer with access to a college library. Public libraries can also be very helpful, I found our community librarians eager to help locate materials. Some articles I found very worthwhile are those by Ediger (2000); Fogarty, Ed. (1996); Glazer, Rooman & Luberto (1994); Herbert (1998); Herman & Morrell (1999); McKenna, Avery, & Schuchart, (2000); Melograno, (1994), and Dennie P.Wolf (1989). These articles cover everything from the history, pedagogy, portfolio reasoning, helping children monitor their own learning to technology strategies for enhancing learning.
As educators we understand the importance of modeling for our students. What better way is there for us to model for our students and keep abreast of the many developments in our own professional growth as educators than teaching portfolios? Teacher portfolios are fast becoming an important element of the teacher's resume. Professional portfolios and are being used for tenure and promotion (Seldin, 1997). They are becoming an expected record and a hallmark of a student teacher's development as a professional. There are a number of excellent volumes that cover the teaching standards, organization, and guidelines for assembling your teaching portfolio (Campbell, et al., 1999, 2000; Glatthorn, 1996; Martin, 1999; McKenna, Avery & Schuchardt, 1998; McLaughlin, et al., 1996, 1997). The professional or teaching portfolio is not the focus of this project. The content and context of portfolios, whether for students or educators, may change but the essence is still the same. Foremost it is an ongoing personal story of the portfolio creator's growth through his or her educational journey. As with our students, a teacher's education does not end with their formal training, it is a life-long process. For a thorough comprehensive review of teaching or professional portfolios there is an excellent coverage of this in Dr. Barrett's Web site: (http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/howto/tutorials.html).
Considered an international authority in electronic portfolios, Dr. Barrett (1994-2001) has developed a vast collection of documents on Teacher Portfolios in her Web site. These documents include the different types of portfolios, stages of portfolio development and more. Developed by Dr. Barrett, her Web site includes tutorials in PDF format. Some of the tutorials include titles such as "E-Portfolio Development Model", and an "Overview of how to create electronic portfolios" in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and publishing in Adobe Acrobat. This technical information is valuable in publishing electronic portfolios from K-12 to professional portfolios. Since teacher portfolios are covered in a major portion of the literature, references, resources and sites are included in this section (Barrett, 2000, 2001; Burke, 1996, 1997; Campbell, et al., 1999; Wolf, 1991, 1999).
As educators we know the importance of modeling for our students. It is highly recommended that teachers develop their own portfolios along side their students, if they have not already started one, when embarking on portfolio development in the classroom (Cushman, 1999; Sweet, 1993). Most of the information in this project is applicable for teacher portfolio development as well as for student portfolios.
The following electronic portfolios show excellent examples of a variety of ways to develop or exhibit student work (http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-Projects/MCTP/Technology/School_WWW_Pages/DigitalVillage/Thumbnails.html).
In viewing these projects one has to remember that they may call their electronic portfolios by different names such as "showcase," or "Webfolios," or simply "portfolios." The contents include samples of specific individual projects, cooperative group projects, class projects, and what are referred to as Web quest projects. Such projects can vary from recreating folktales to data collection posting contributions towards scientific studies to find real world solutions, as well as social studies projects. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1461/Quest.html).
The popular design for these interactive group projects is known as "quests." Quests are designed strategies that tap into students' natural curiosity and reasoning skills. Adding the element of the Internet we then have WebQuests. The Internet has made quests a fun and educational way of action learning. These can be tailored to meet the goals of any age group, or level of education. A favored search engine for general educational questions including WebQuests is Ask Jeeves.com found at the following URL: (http://www.ask.com/main/askjeeves.asp?ask=webQuests&ori=0&x=33&y=16).
It is believed that a significant proportion of students who are actively engaged in meaningful reasoning on complex, open-ended questions succeed in these cooperative outcomes based projects. Group cooperation is a highly desirable ingredient for the development of inquiry skills that are in demand by today's educational standards (http://www.trendsreport.net/education/classroom.html).
It is important to become familiar with the history of traditional literacy portfolios, as these may be a good starting point for portfolio development in the classroom. Also the tried and tested methods may in the long run save teachers time. The review of traditional portfolios should be grounded in the earlier literature as well as the current literature. The aforementioned portfolio literature can help fill in the gaps to enhance the K-12 portfolio development process. The major concepts can be customized or spiraled according to the different grade levels and students' capabilities, as educators are masters of adaptation.
An inherent part of the student teacher's portfolio also requires that the work of their K-12 students be included. What better way to have teaching documentation and artifacts than in a compact CD-ROM with preselected material in an electronic portfolio as opposed to carrying several thick three-ring binders as portfolios with buckets of videos, cassettes and more? As a busy administrator, which would you rather go through?
Two works that address educators in the classroom that can serve the dual purpose of teacher and student portfolio development are: Capturing the Wisdom of Practice and Why Am I Doing This? Purposeful Teaching through Portfolio Assessment by Giselle O. Martin-Kniep (1999). These are excellent books for studying portfolio development. Written in 1998 these books give a history and the rationale for developing portfolios. They are produced by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (http://www.ascd.org/).
Designing and Using Portfolios by Shaklee, et al. (1997) is supportive of the K-6 level portfolio development. The key concepts are found in sidebars. These authors, similar to others, talk about the process of change. Unlike the other authors, they speak of change at the micro levels and at the macro levels-from portfolio design, using portfolios for enhancing instruction, and implementation of portfolios. A small, lightweight paperback that is ideal for active classroom teachers on the go is the well written, concise publication by Charlotte Danielson and Leslye Abrutyn (1997) entitled: An Introduction to Using Portfolios in the Classroom. This little book contains an excellent overview to begin using portfolios step by step without getting overwhelmed with the process. A brand new arrival that offers a practical as well as imaginative approach for using portfolios at the elementary level is the book entitled: The Power of Portfolios by Elizabeth A. Herbert (2001).
There are schools in parts of the United States and abroad that are using electronic portfolios to demonstrate outcomes, or competency based fulfillment of high school graduation requirements. The Mt. Edgecumbe High School in Anchorage has excellent examples chronicling the years of students' electronic portfolios from freshman through senior year (http://www.mehs.educ.state.ak.us/portfolios/portfolio.html).
School districts, like those listed below by Hillarie Davis and David Niguidula, are creating digital portfolios as a communication and assessment tool with examples of templates. A school portfolio exhibited in the following Web site can publish the school's report card. One can also find the school's goals, and strategies for reaching those goals. The following Web site shows examples of school portfolios (http://www.ideasconsulting.com/dp/index.html).
The electronic portfolio can then serve the students in a variety of other ways such as: admissions into colleges, universities, vocational training programs, and more. In addition, the electronic portfolios can serve students for scholarships, or to display examples of abilities for skills specific jobs, career entry, as well as employment.
An elementary school in Hong Kong is using electronic portfolios to show work in progress. One example shows how a third and fourth grade school teacher is using a consistent format of a specially designed template structured to present his students' work in progress. Electronic portfolios can demonstrate a "snapshot" of the school's curriculum in place. The examples of these students provide a purpose specific teacher-designed system with templates to record and demonstrate students' schoolwork entitled, "Students' Electronic Portfolio." These portfolios are placed in one section of a larger electronic bulletin board for use by students (http://dragonnet.hkis.edu.hk/up/Clusters/Grade34A/Lambert/default.asp).
Elementary schools are creating Web pages where teachers cooperatively record their students' works up through the grades in electronic portfolios. Teachers at the elementary level have found a number of innovative ways to display student achievements through social studies projects, science, language arts and math. One of those sites included is Mrs. Silverman's site. She specializes in teaching technology and works with teachers and students in this cooperative effort (http://kids-learn.org/).
This second site from Mrs. Silverman's Webfolios includes what other schools in her district in New York are doing with technology. They are showcasing their students' works revolving around New York State standards and successfully integrating technology into the curriculum (http://www.comsewogue.k12.ny.us/showcase2000/).
Another good example of schools leading the way of electronic portfolios is demonstrated with Ms. Hos-McGrane's class in Amsterdam, Holland. They have chosen the theme of social studies to showcase their students' work. Some schools have technology coordinators who work with classroom teachers and are also Webmasters as in this school's example; Ms. Swanson is that person (http://www.xs4all.nl/~swanson/origins/intro.html).
Most of the electronic portfolios examples found in this action project do not state specifically how they were evaluated. In most cases, one can contact the school and ask specific questions in this regard. Those teachers contacted shared that they use school competencies or requirements for grade level projects such as 4th grade state history. An example of this application can be seen posted in Mr. Leahy's Web site of class projects to demonstrate the state history of Oregon. Mr. Leahy's fourth grade classroom exhibits good examples of grade-level subjects in his site (http://www.beavton.k12.or.us/Greenway/leahy/leahy.htm). There are states that are using portfolios, as assessment tools on a voluntary basis, including Vermont (http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as7vt.htm).
Rubrics can be designed for specific projects as well as for the grade level, district, state, and national standards. There are Web sites devoted to rubrics that can be viewed for examples. The following Canadian site has rubrics galore that support the multiple intelligences. Many visual and performing arts rubrics are listed. (http://www.odyssey.on.ca/~elaine.coxon/rubrics.htm)
One of the essential questions for portfolio development, electronic or not, is which work samples should be included? As with the text-based portfolios the electronic portfolios should include samples that best illustrate student success against identified content and performance standards (Moersch & Fisher 1995) with shared student and teacher responsibility in the selection process (Engel 1994, Keefe 1995, Reckase 1995).
Moerch and Fisher (1995) recommend that the collection process start with a working or classroom file and culminate with a final electronic portfolio. The portfolio can be stored in a classroom cabinet with all work dated and accessible to the student. The student labels and selects "can do" projects with reflection pages, table of contents, and showcase samples. With help from the teacher, the students select their best work samples ready for scanning or attach them directly into the electronic portfolio. A logical solution that minimizes storage is placing the work directly into the computer whenever possible and making frequent dated back-up files of everything. A discussion of the hardware and software requirements or technical considerations will be addressed in the next chapter, on Methodology.
Naturally, at the very young elementary school level, handwritten samples may be not only desirable, but also necessary to show authentic student work in progress and best work samples (Burke, 1994; Collins, 1998; Sostak 1998). In this manner the selected work can be scanned for placement into the student's electronic portfolio. This is more labor intensive and requires classroom helpers, volunteers, older students, and parents to help with this workload. A little quality time invested in helpers training volunteers can go a long way in reducing demand on the teacher's attention in the long run. The final product of their own child's electronic portfolio in preparation for their child's academic career is often started by some of the most enthusiastic parents of all, those of kindergarteners.
The goal of electronic portfolios when properly applied can help schools develop a richer picture of what students are capable of doing. David Niguidula (1993), the developer of the concept of the Digital Portfolio says, that "a school that is willing to change will find the possibilities in the new tool; a school that is reluctant to change will find the burdens." Schools by nature are conservative in making sweeping changes. It will take pioneering-spirited educators and school leaders to take the leading role of guiding education into the 21st century.
As a representation of a learning history, electronic portfolios go beyond just pencil and paper work to include graphics, video, and sound. Products on paper constitute only a small portion of what a student produces in a school year. The multiple media capabilities comparative to paper products are seemingly endless and only limited by the media tools one chooses or has access to use.
Electronic portfolios can be subject specific and focus on literacy, writing, science, math, the arts, or any other subject in the curriculum. Portfolios can also be more inclusive or contain samples of work from across curricular areas. The latter portfolio has also been referred to as an "everything portfolio" (Duffy, Jones, and Thomas (1999), or the developmental portfolio (Dietz 1991). Since the purpose is to use the portfolios for evaluation of progress, the term developmental is used to indicate an on-going process. The evaluation for this type of portfolio is summative in nature. There are four levels of portfolios: developmental portfolio; product portfolio; showcase portfolio; and objective portfolio as discussed in the literature by Duffy, et al., (1999).
The second level is known as the "product portfolio." The student submits work samples, and the teacher and student conference to see how the products meet the standards or quality. For example, in a vocational education class a student has very specific skills that must be met like drafting, or technical drawing to scale, like a floor plan. This portfolio is similar to a behavior or learning competency checklist. The task or competency that leads to mastery of the topic is delineated. The teacher gives summative feedback on the best work or best sample from the standards of the curriculum and why it was chosen. This helps the student to develop the evaluation skills for the following two levels of portfolios according to Duffy, Jones and Thomas (1999); also see Wiedmer (1998).
The showcase or the exemplary portfolio (D'Aoust 1992) provides the student with a teacher-generated outline of required topics, like the product portfolio. However, in this level of portfolio the student evaluates the elements and provides a rationale for the particular selection. The student is reminded to consider the audience and the purpose (Dietz 1991) and not just to select products with high marks. During the evaluation process, the teacher and student conference to discuss how well reasoned the choices were, for the selection rationale should reflect the criteria for the assignment. The teacher gives summative as well as formative feedback about the selection process.
The last level from Duffy, et al. is the "objective portfolio." The teacher generates a checklist of objectives or statements about quality performance for the student, such as: a student will show a composition of comparison and contrast. The student can select a piece that she/he feels best represents this objective, for example, from an essay. The teacher provides qualitative feedback on the objective mastered. If the student does not meet the objective than formative feedback is given that allows the student to gain a better understanding of the objective.
For the sake of simplicity the model of the four portfolio levels were selected to describe the process of teaching students self-evaluation. There are many other models that are very similar depending upon the purpose of the portfolio. In this manner of scaffolding portfolio development, students are enabled to become critical thinkers and evaluators of their own work. Students cannot be expected to move through becoming proficient evaluators of their portfolios without scaffold instruction and guided practice. Scaffolding seems to be an effective learning strategy for portfolio planning and training across the curriculum (Porter & Cleland, 1995).
Portfolios are not meant to include just anything or everything that a student produces. Necessary for the delivery process is a clearly defined set of criteria that students understand in order to expedite the artifacts selection. Therefore, teachers and students should be able to identify the dimensions of learning including artifact and rationale. As mentioned earlier, the guiding literature can include the national, state, and district standards, or other broad based assessment tools for competencies may be used.
The evidence of student achievements may be chosen
from products, processes, or perceptions (U.S. Dept. of Ed. CRESST,
2001). Students' products are their actual work. These may include
essays, reports, lists of books students have read, a list of
problems solved, 3-D models or other work samples. Students'
processes may be collected and can include students' goals for
learning, outlines, drafts, or strategies for project proposals.
Students' perceptions of their learning can include beliefs, attitudes,
motivations, self-evaluations or assessments of their learning.
The emphasis for the selection of electronic portfolio contents
need not be the exemplary when creating a student portfolio. Rather
a range of work samples and abilities that are representative
of the student and the learning task would give a more accurate
picture of a student's progress (Playoff, 1991). Even unfinished
products might be included in the portfolio to show examples of
student's work in all various stages of completion or works in
progress. Reflection of the pieces is most valuable and an important
part of the process (Paris & Ayres, 1994). Visit the Electronic
Portfolio action projects for examples of student works in various
stages of development selected for this Web site:
(http://webfolios.home.netcom.com/Who%27s%20_done_this/Who%27s%20Done%20This%20Before.html).
An excellent resource for a step-by step, hands-on approach to developing electronic portfolios is the book entitled: Creating a Digital Portfolio by Cynthia Baron (1996). This book includes a CD-ROM and provides interesting examples of different kinds of electronic portfolios using a variety of publishing tools, including HTML, Director and Acrobat. Although this book is designed with the graphic arts professional in mind, it has a wealth of information for the creator of any digital portfolio. The book entitled: Digital Professional Portfolios for Change by Elizabeth Hartnell-Young, and Maureen Morriss (1999) is also an excellent resource that can be used as a guide for putting portfolios on the Web. This book along with the "do it yourself" style of Creating a Digital Portfolio are complementary in that both have visual descriptors of monitor frames, and photographs that helps the user follow the complete step by step process.
WHAT IS THE PREFERRED SOFTWARE?
There are two ways software can be used for application in design of electronic portfolios. One form is the "classroom designed," also referred to "made from scratch." These include the application of software such as Microsoft Office including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, for Windows or MacIntosh. Similarly, Claris Works or Apple Works provide applications for Apple or MacIntosh machines. Adobe Acrobat can be used either for platform, Mac or PC, and flexible enough to be linked with standards, rubrics, objectives, etcetera.
The second form is a commercial electronic portfolio software. While the convenience of using a predesigned format may supply ease of initial formatting of a program, the content may not necessarily lend itself in linking artifacts to standards that demonstrate achievement (http://webfolios.home.netcom.com/Software_Available/Software%20Available.html).
It seems reasonable to assume that in order to connect student work in a variety of multimedia formats, a highly flexible record keeping system that can track demonstrations of competency would be most desirable. A third alternative is to have an electronic portfolio program designed specifically to meet a school's state, district, grade levels, special programs or individual requirements.
Electronic portfolios are still in an early phase of development. There are "pros and cons" to using portfolios as assessment tools. If the digital or electronic portfolio is used as a self-reflection or self-evaluation, then it can be an excellent tool. Practicing classroom educators and users of these applied technologies are in the best position to say how these are working in their school environment. More educators sharing information will make the difference as to how the implementation of electronic portfolios take shape in our K-12 classrooms.
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, there
is a relatively small, ever growing body of literature on the
subject of electronic portfolios. The area of electronic portfolios
is fertile ground for educational research. Research will undoubtedly
progress as the demand for electronic portfolios becomes more
widespread in education. The tide is rising in favor of capturing
the wisdom of our students in multiple ways. A student's grades
are not always the best criterion of his or her ability. Electronic
portfolios can give a truer picture and become the vehicle that
supports the multiple ways of learning, knowing and showing students'
abilities and potentials. We have the literature to study and
the technology at our disposal to make the paradigm shift necessary
to move with our students into the 21st century.
 |
 |
 |
 |