Appraisal 1 (2)

132

The Value of TeacherPortfolios for Evaluationand Professional Growth

Jacqueline R. Attinello, Douglas Lare, and Faith Waters

The demands placed on principals in the era of No Child Left Behind arerapidly increasing. In light of these challenges, balancing diverse rolesand additional responsibilities can be arduous for even the finest schoolleaders. The use of portfolio-based teacher appraisals has emerged asan intriguing option to make the time required for teacher evaluationmore productive and the process more meaningful, comprehensive, andaccurate. This study examines the value of a district-wide, portfolio-based teacher evaluation system. Results indicate that teachers andadministrators perceive that teacher portfolios were more accurate andcomprehensive than the traditional snapshot observation and, despitesome disadvantages, suggest that portfolios show promise as a tool forteacher evaluation and professional growth.

Keywords: teacher evaluation; teacher portfolios; portfolio assessment; professionalgrowth

In many districts, the responsibility for teacher evaluation and professionalgrowth rests with the principal. However, with the increasing demands placed

on principals, the evaluation process is frequently perceived as an exercise that oftendoes little to improve practice or instruction (Harrington, 1998; Peterson, 2000) andcan become “little more than a time-consuming charade” (Stronge & Tucker, 2003,p. 6). “It yields little of value to either the teachers or the schools in which they work,simultaneously feeling like a ‘gotcha’ to the teachers while consuming a great dealof administrator time” (Danielson & McGreal, 2000, p. 7).

For the most part, the manner in which the performance of teachers is evaluated hasremained unchanged since the emergence of the role of the principal in the early 20thcentury. Recent attention to educational reform in this county has not affected teacher

Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to: [email protected]

NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 2, June 2006 132-152DOI: 10.1177/0192636506288864© 2006 by the National Association of Secondary School Principalshttp://bul.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://bul.sagepub.com/

evaluation (Peterson, 2000). “Although the educational process has undergone myriadchanges, the process of evaluating teachers has not evolved” (McLaughlin et al., 1998,p. 14). The evaluation process is often a ritual that is required to meet district policyand state law, thus resulting in a time-consuming formality of questionable value(Firestone, 1999; Sawyer, 2001). Recent legislative mandates that call for increasedstudent achievement and a highly qualified teacher in every classroom ignore teacherevaluation entirely. Darling-Hammond (1997) explained the paradox that currentlyexists with respect to national reform measures and teacher evaluation:

On the one hand, policymakers recognize that teacher competence is a crit-

ical component of educational quality—and they press for policies aimed at

enhancing teacher knowledge and skill. On the other hand, states and dis-

tricts mandate specific supervision and evaluation strategies that reinforce

nonprofessional conceptions of teaching and modes of assessment. (p. 7)

The current climate of educational reform has triggered a renewed interest in themanner in which teacher performance is evaluated. School districts across the UnitedStates have designed teacher evaluation systems that reflect the best of what is cur-rently known with regard to assessing teacher competence (Danielson & McGreal,2000). Some districts have modified or abandoned traditional means of teacher eval-uation and implemented portfolio-based appraisal systems in order to provide oppor-tunities for personal reflection, self-assessment, and goal setting. The use of portfo-lios has become an acceptable method for teacher evaluation across the nation (Wolf,Lichtenstein, & Stevenson, 1997) with wide adoption in preservice teacher programs(St. Maurice & Shaw, 2004).

Commonly, teacher evaluation is accomplished by an administrator’s annual,one-time observation “event” to meet district or state requirements (Zepeda, 2002).Often, the communication related to the performance evaluation is primarily a mono-logue lecture by the evaluator—a form of top-down communication where theteacher assumes a role of passivity (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). With this sce-nario, the teacher spends little time in reflective thought and discussion related to hisor her professional growth and improvement. In contrast, the teacher portfolio is onetype of evaluation that naturally encourages teacher reflection and deliberation, aswell as two-way communication between teacher and evaluator. The portfolio hasgained acceptance with educators as a means for a more authentic assessment ofteacher growth and an extension of their professional development (Zepeda, 2002).

The most common types of teacher evaluation are summative and formative.Summative evaluations provide information on the basis of one or more formal obser-vations and one year’s worth of informal assessments in order to summarize a teacher’sperformance. The summative evaluation, based on the judgments of the evaluator, isplaced in the teacher’s personnel file and serves organizational purposes. Decisions

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006 133 at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from


such as tenure, merit pay, and teaching assignments are based on the summative eval-uation. The second type of evaluation, the formative evaluation, provides feedbackand other information that encourages professional growth and development. Theimportance of formative evaluation systems is being recognized in education(McColskey & Engelson, 1997; Stronge & Tucker, 2003). Formative evaluations arenot meant to be judgmental in nature; rather, they are intended to encourage teachersto reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses. Portfolio-based assessments addressboth formative and summative issues (Tucker, Stronge, & Gareis, 2002).

The use of portfolios, a practice closely aligned with both constructivism andauthentic assessment, can empower teachers to take charge and have a more activevoice in their evaluation. Portfolios allow teachers to demonstrate and communicateto administrators how they have met a set of standards and why they should be con-sidered effective and competent (Bullock & Hawk, 2001). The portfolio process, asan alternative to traditional evaluation methods, promotes self-assessment andreflection, which can result in the investigation of effective practices and theenhancement of student learning (Hunter, 1998).

Teachers with varying abilities and experiences have different needs when itcomes to supervision and professional development. Applying the “one size fits all”clinical method of evaluation to every teacher, regardless of his or her experience ortalent, makes little sense and results in wasting precious teacher and supervisortime—time that may be more effectively spent with inexperienced and marginalteachers to help them grow and improve. If the true purpose for evaluation is to ulti-mately improve the quality of instruction, educators need to consider the merits ofalternative forms of evaluation, such as portfolios. Consequently, it is useful then toexplore teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the value of the teacher portfo-lio as an instrument for evaluation and professional growth. Furthermore, informa-tion related to teacher evaluation practices, as a means to improving instruction,would be highly beneficial to those who develop both teacher and administratorpreparation programs.

Authentic Teacher Assessment

As the nation turns to an emphasis on higher standards and accountability forschools, teachers, and students, some school districts are implementing alternativeteaching and learning strategies to promote student achievement. Closely aligned tothe constructivist view of learning, schools expect teachers to employ active learningstrategies while designing and implementing lessons that promote student inquiry,engagement, and reflection. Related to this, recent research efforts have demonstratednumerous benefits of using authentic, comprehensive, performance-based, nontradi-tional assessments that provide a clearer picture of student learning and allow fordemonstration of knowledge (Mueller, Waters, Smeaton, & Pinciotti, 2001).

134 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006 at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Therefore, teachers are being asked to devise alternative methods of assessments fortheir classrooms that include performance-based indicators of student growth.

With the movement toward constructivist learning strategies and authentic,performance-based assessment for students, it also makes sense to consider thesestrategies for teachers rather than the traditional, outdated means of evaluation.Traditional summative vehicles of teacher assessment are not aligned with eitherconstructivist theory or recent research on appropriate authentic means of assess-ment. Constructivism, a paradigm that views the learner as actively involved in theconstruction of his or her own knowledge, purports that learning is the process ofbuilding knowledge by connecting what is known to new ideas and concepts andintegrating them to form new understandings (Read & Cafolla, 1999). From the con-structivist perspective, learning is best advanced through an active process with pur-poseful interaction in real-life situations (Gabler & Schroeder, 2003).

Portfolio use in teacher evaluation is a relatively recent phenomenon (Lyons,1998); however, little research has been conducted on the use of portfolios in theevaluation of teachers. Perhaps the same principles that apply to the use of portfo-lios as a means for student assessment would also be useful and valuable in assess-ing teacher performance.

Research has shown the benefits of children working with other children incollective learning efforts and that when children collaborate, they share the processof constructing their ideas and develop a sense of shared goals and teamwork(Strommen, 1992). Together in the classroom, elements of collaboration in learningand a sense of shared purpose have been shown to produce significant gains instudent learning (Strommen, 1992). In their study of student teacher collaboration,Parsons and Stephenson (2005) reported that student teachers’ partnerships withpeers and colleagues had enabled them to gain a better understanding of their teach-ing. This knowledge leads to the question that in an authentic, constructivist, andcollaborative environment, would teachers more effectively learn about themselvesand their needs for professional growth if they were using portfolios? More impor-tantly, would the process produce improved teaching strategies in the classroom thatresult in student gains in achievement?

Current Use of Teacher Portfolios

A persuasive example of portfolio assessment is the National Board for ProfessionalTeaching Standards (NBPTS) certification process, which uses portfolios as part ofthe assessment of candidates for National Board certification. Founded in 1987, theNBPTS’s primary purpose has been to establish teaching standards and to providea process for national certification. The focal point of the certification process is aportfolio developed by the candidate and organized around his or her state’s compe-tencies. It provides the vehicle for assessing the teacher’s practice and the impacton student learning. To date, the NBPTS has certified almost 10,000 teachers in



20 different specialty areas. Not only do the Board-certified teachers develop a deeperknowledge of instruction, they also achieve professional recognition of their skills.

Similarly, as individual states strive for teacher quality, they, too, are recogniz-ing the value of portfolios and turning to the portfolio assessment process to deter-mine licensure eligibility with respect to teacher candidates. To enhance the qualityof its teachers, Connecticut’s program, Beginning Educator Support and TrainingProgram (BEST), uses the development of a teaching portfolio as a critical compo-nent of the certification process. Kentucky requires a portfolio for initial certifica-tion, and three other states, North Carolina, Arizona, and Indiana, are consideringthem for their new teacher evaluations. California’s Beginning Teacher Support andAssessment program (BTSA), implemented in 1998, includes classroom observa-tions, portfolios, and self-assessment. Preliminary responses of participants in theBTSA are positive (Fullan, 2001).

In the same vein at the local level in Colorado, the Douglas County OutstandingTeacher Program uses portfolios to document teacher practice and to identify andreward outstanding teachers (Tucker et al., 2002; Wolf, 1996). Douglas County usesportfolios because the school system believes portfolios can best capture the com-plexities and contexts of teaching as well as promote the professional developmentof teachers.

Likewise, Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) in California imple-mented a new approach to teacher evaluation replacing the previous one that wastime consuming and unproven with respect to its effectiveness. The assessmentsystem is grounded in the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, whichcreates the basis for analyzing teaching and its effect on learning. Supported by boththe administration and teachers, the evaluation system includes portfolios along withopportunities for inquiry and collaboration. PVUSD believes that empoweringteachers to be self-directed in their professional growth, encouraging them to inves-tigate relationships between teaching skills and student learning, and assessing theirgrowth in collaboration with others is valuable and necessary. PVUSD also believesthat increased student achievement will be the result of its efforts (Donaldson &Stobbe, 2000).

The professional portfolio process is being used in a number of other sitesacross the country: Imperial County, California, replaced formal evaluations withprofessional development portfolios for teachers who have had three or more out-standing evaluations; Contra Costa County, California, is sponsoring a network ofportfolio users for professional development. Schools using the professional devel-opment portfolio have found that it enhances and extends teachers’ professionalgrowth efforts (Dietz, 1995; Tucker et al., 2002; Zepeda, 2002).

Because of their practicality, portfolios can be used for a variety of purposesincluding teacher preparation, employment, licensure, advancement, and professionalgrowth. Probably the most important element related to the use of portfolios involves



the role that teachers play in determining their own evaluation and professionaldevelopment path and the manner in which portfolios raise the level of professional-ism (Tucker et al., 2002).

To begin the process of determining that perception of value, a descriptive studythat examined the use of portfolios was conducted in a school district located in thesoutheastern United States. Specifically, it explored teacher and administrator per-ceptions of the value of a portfolio-based appraisal system as an instrument for eval-uation and professional growth, the time required by the process, and the effect onteaching practices. Results of this study are beneficial for educational practice, asthey suggest important implications for not only teacher evaluation and professionalgrowth but also for both teacher and administrator preparation programs.

Context of the Study

The setting for this study was a rural/suburban school district in the southeast-ern region of the United States. At the time of the study, the district had a studentpopulation of more than 20,000 and a certified staff of 1,750 in 14 elementary/primary schools (K-5), 5 middle schools (6-8), 3 high schools (9-12), and an alter-native high school. The district used a portfolio-based appraisal system for teachersthat had been in place for 4 years. This system emerged when the district developedthe Professional Appraisal Cycle (PAC) whereby educators were expected to assumemore responsibility for their own evaluation. Therefore, the educators, along withadministrators and colleagues, self-assessed, identified goals, planned, documented,and then evaluated their success in providing quality instruction for their students.The new appraisal cycle, developed by administrators and teacher leaders, wasimplemented in 1999 based on district beliefs that (a) teachers are leaders, (b) teach-ers can develop high-quality work, and (c) teacher self-assessment and ongoing pro-fessional development are essential ingredients in the process.

Obviously there are limitations to this study. Results cannot be generalizedbeyond this single setting. However, the school district in which the study was con-ducted was a large one (23 schools) and had been using a portfolio-based appraisalsystem for 4 years. Therefore, as with any innovation, the results of this study mustbe considered, with care, by other school districts throughout the country.

Method

Participants

Teacher and administrator surveys developed by Tucker et al. (2002), titledTeacher Survey: Perceived Value of Teacher Portfolios and Administrator Survey:Perceived Value of Teacher Portfolios, were used to collect quantitative and qualita-tive data related to teachers’ and administrators’ perceived value of teacher portfo-lios. Surveys were sent to all 23 schools in the district. Teachers (n = 752) and



administrators (n = 46) responded to the survey at a return rate of 63.4% and 70.8%,respectively.

To gain additional insight and to explicate the survey responses, interviews andfocus groups were held at schools that were selected based on the number of individualswho expressed an interest in participating. Fourteen personal interviews with 10 teach-ers and 4 administrators and three focus groups involving 8 teachers and 8 administra-tors were conducted. It should be noted that this convenience sample of volunteers mayhave been inherently different from a random sample of participants.

Design

A multistage procedure was used for this descriptive study. First, the superin-tendent and board of education approved the project and provided archival docu-ments that included meeting minutes, implementation plans, district policies, andexamples of teacher portfolios related to the teacher appraisal project. Next, the prin-cipals of each school received outlines of the study and teacher and administratorinvitations to participate. Introductory cover letters, consent forms, and surveys weredistributed by the principals to all those individuals who indicated their willingnessto volunteer for participation in the study. In addition, one section of the survey con-sisted of open-ended questions where the individuals could indicate further percep-tions. Within a month of the date for survey completion, on-site focus groups andpersonal interviews were conducted.

Validity and Reliability

The survey instruments were designed by experts in the field of teacher evalua-tion and were based on the Personnel Evaluation Standards developed by the JointCommittee on Standards for Educational Evaluation and published in 1988(Stufflebeam, 1988). Through the expert judgment of Tucker et al. (2002), specificquestions were developed for both versions of the instrument in alignment with thefour categories of the Personnel Evaluation Standards identified by the JointCommittee: Propriety, Utility, Feasibility, and Accuracy. Each of the four categoriescorrespond to the four basic attributes of sound teacher evaluation (Stufflebeam,1988). Tucker et al. conducted the expert reviews for clarity and conceptual integrityof the surveys.

Internal consistency reliability, the extent to which the items in the instrument aresimilar to one another in content, was determined for the total sample as well as foreach of the administrator and the teacher versions of the instrument after the surveyswere returned. The data from the survey and statistical analysis yielded the internalconsistency reliability coefficients. The statistical procedure used to determine inter-nal consistency reliability was the coefficient alpha method, which produces a mea-sure of internal consistency ranging between 0 and 1.00. The measure of internal con-sistency reliability indicates whether the survey items within each of the four areas of



the instrument (Fairness, Usefulness, Feasibility, and Accuracy) consistently measurethe same knowledge area.

For the total sample (N = 798), the internal consistency reliability coefficientsfor total scale, fairness, usefulness, feasibility, and accuracy were .95, .89, .90, .82,and .90, respectively. The results for the teachers as a separate group (n = 752) were.95, .89, .90, .82, and .90. For the administrators as a separate group (n = 46), thecoefficients were .90, .84, .81, .57, and .77. Reliabilities fall in an acceptable rangewith the exception of feasibility for the administrators, which yielded a coefficientof .57. Further investigation failed to indicate that the lower coefficient was due to aparticular item or the small number of administrator respondents. It was discovered,however, that with the administrators, the two “time” items (“The time required byadministrators to review portfolios is reasonable” and “The time required by teach-ers to develop the portfolio is reasonable”) did not correlate well with the two otheritems (“The portfolio is a practical strategy for teachers to demonstrate their perfor-mance of professional standards” and “The portfolio offers additional substance fordiscussion at the evaluation review conferences”) within the Feasibility Scale, com-pared with the teachers, for whom all four items have similar correlations. This sug-gests that the Feasibility Scale has two components for administrators but not forteachers. Therefore, the use of the Feasibility Scale for administrators only, shouldbe approached with caution.

Data Analysis TechniquesDescriptive statistics for the dependent variables of the study, illustrated in Table 1,

were used to summarize the results of the questions on the survey that used a Likert-type scale. The key areas in collection of data revolved around the following questions:

• Do teachers and administrators perceive teacher portfolios as an accurate and com-

prehensive measure of teacher performance?

• Do teachers and administrators perceive portfolios as a useful tool for professional

growth?

• Do teachers and administrators perceive that the time portfolios require is reasonable?

• Do teachers and administrators perceive the use of portfolios as having an effect on

teaching practices?

Quantitative analysis of the data included the determination of average ratings foreach item for teachers and administrators and an analysis of the variability of each itemwith teachers and administrators. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) pro-cedure, an extension of ANOVA techniques, was used for the data analysis between andamong the teachers and administrators. The MANOVA allows for the simultaneousstudy of two or more related dependent variables while controlling for the correlationsamong them. The MANOVA, like the ANOVA, is sensitive to outliers and may produce



140 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

a Type I or Type II error while providing no indication as to which type of error is occur-ring in the analysis (French, Poulsen, & Yu, 2006).

Data from the district’s teacher portfolio implementation documentation, repliesto survey open-ended questions, focus group responses, and individual interview tran-scripts were collected. Emerging themes were identified, and items were categorizedand tallied according to those themes. Specific quotations and phrases from respon-dents were used to explain ratings that were particularly high or low in the quantita-tive analysis. This qualitative information added a richer dimension to the study.

Findings

Do teachers and administrators perceive teacher portfolios as an accurate and com-prehensive measure of teacher performance? Both teachers and administrators gen-erally believed portfolios were an accurate and more comprehensive reflection ofteacher performance. However, both also acknowledged that portfolios do not

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables

Teacher or Variable Administrator n M SD

Accurate reflection Administrator 43 2.91 .57

Teacher 635 2.77 .82

Comprehensive picture** Administrator 43 3.53 .59

Teacher 635 3.08 .82

Self-reflection* Administrator 43 3.58 .54

Teacher 635 3.29 .69

Strengths/weaknesses Administrator 43 3.09 .48

Teacher 635 3.05 .76

Professional development** Administrator 43 3.53 .55

Teacher 635 2.88 .91

Teacher time* Administrator 43 3.12 .45

Teacher 635 2.77 .83

Administrator time Administrator 43 2.98 .71

Teacher 635 2.93 .73

Change Administrator 43 2.98 .60

Teacher 635 2.83 .81

Good teaching* Administrator 43 3.16 .57

Teacher 635 2.85 .76

*p < .01 (ANOVA). **p < .001 (ANOVA).



NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006 141

necessarily reflect all aspects of teaching. For example, one teacher said, “It may bea little simplistic. I could put together a really nice portfolio and not be a very goodteacher. Conversely, a great teacher might not create a good portfolio.”

Although both groups believed that portfolios were accurate, analysis of the vari-ables related to accuracy failed to indicate a significant difference between teachers’andadministrators’ perceptions with respect to how they viewed the accuracy of portfolios.The perceptions of accuracy supported the findings of McCaffrey (2000), who studied100 kindergarten through eighth-grade teachers in Florida. Qualitative information frominterviews indicated that the concerns teachers and administrators have are related towhether a glitzy portfolio is an accurate reflection of what actually occurs in the class-room. Both groups noted that the portfolio presentation, whether it is impressive or not,may be an inaccurate representation of what really occurs in the classroom. This sup-ported the findings of Tucker et al. (2002), who also reported that portfolios might pre-sent an inaccurate picture of a teacher’s performance. Therefore, although the quantita-tive data indicated that both teachers and administrators reported portfolios as accurate,both groups expressed concerns about their level of accuracy.

Both teachers and administrators perceived that teacher portfolios provided aricher and more comprehensive picture of teacher performance than a stand-aloneobservation. As one administrator said, “Portfolios take you through the year, sincethey are continuous. They reflect and show examples of how they’ve [teachers]changed, and that shows how they’ve grown.” It should be noted that administrators

Table 2. Summary Table of Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Position and

Comprehensive Picture

Position N M SD

Teacher 635 3.08 .82

Administrator 43 3.53 .59

Table 3. Summary Table of Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Position and

Comprehensive Picture

Source of Variation SS df MS F p

Between subjects 8.50 1 8.50 13.02 .000***

Error 441.07 676 .65

Total 6,985.00 678

***p < .001.




were significantly more supportive than teachers in their perception of portfolios asa comprehensive measure of teacher performance (see Tables 2 and 3).

Do teachers and administrators perceive portfolios as a useful tool for professionalgrowth? Both teachers and administrators perceived portfolios as encouraging teach-ers’ self-reflection of their work. However, again, administrators felt significantlymore supportive than teachers that portfolios encouraged teacher self-reflection.Furthermore, both teachers and administrators believed that the portfolio processhelped teachers identify strengths and weaknesses.

Analysis of variables related to portfolios as a tool for professional growth indi-cated that both teachers and administrators believed that portfolios encouragedteacher self-reflection and that administrators were significantly more positive thanteachers in their perceptions, as illustrated in Tables 4 and 5. The results with regardto teacher reflection supported the findings of Freeman (1998), Harrington (1998),Oropallo (1994), Tucker, Stronge, Gareis, and Beers (2003), and Xu (2002), whonoted the value of teacher self-reflection as a part of the portfolio process. Thedynamic nature of portfolio development makes it conducive to being used as a formfor reflection and self-assessment (Zepeda, 2002).

Both teachers and administrators believed the portfolio process helped teachersidentify their strengths and weaknesses and that the process itself promoted profes-sional development. Administrators were significantly more positive than teachers intheir perceptions related to the effect portfolios had on teacher professional growth


Self-Reflection

Position n M SD

Teacher 635 3.29 .69



Self-Reflection


Between subjects 3.43 1 3.430 7.35 .007**

Error 315.15 676 0.466

Total 7,739.00 678

**p < .01.




(see Tables 6 and 7). These findings supported the research study of Sutherland(1998), whose teacher participants noted the value of portfolios; Koegler (2000),whose teacher participants indicated that portfolio development assisted them in iden-tifying their strengths and weaknesses; and Xu (2002), who reported the portfolioproject in his case study emerged as a “powerful vehicle to faster professional learn-ing for teachers at different developmental stages” (p. 27).

Do teachers and administrators perceive that the time portfolios require is reason-able? Statistical analysis indicated that both teachers and administrators perceivedthat the time required by teachers to develop portfolios was reasonable. Once again,administrators were significantly more positive than teachers in their perceptionswith respect to the reasonableness of the time required by teachers to develop port-folios, as illustrated in Tables 8 and 9. Many teachers noted that the work involvedin preparing a portfolio was far greater than that required for an observation. Oneteacher said, “Time [is a disadvantage]—we barely have time to teach these days.I don’t know anyone who has time to put a portfolio together in a way that has mean-ing for the teacher.” However, the following perception of another teacher was moretypical: “I think they are more work, but more realistic about what we do—a morerealistic evaluation of our work in general.”

Analysis of the variables related to teacher and administrator time requirements inthe portfolio process indicated that although teachers and administrators agreed thatthe time required for teachers to develop portfolios was reasonable, administrators


Professional Development

Position n M SD

Teacher 635 2.88 .91



Professional Development


Between subjects 17.42 1 17.42 22.09 .000***

Error 533.12 676 .79

Total 6,327.00 678

***p < .001.




agreed more strongly that the teacher time was reasonable. With respect to adminis-trator time, both teachers and administrators agreed that the time required by adminis-trators for portfolio review was reasonable. There were no significant differencesbetween administrators and teachers in their perceptions with regard to administratortime. The issue of time demands found in the results of this study supported the liter-ature on teacher portfolios. Harrington (1998), in his pilot study of six teachers, alsofound that alternative methods of teacher evaluation are time consuming. Similarly,Tucker et al. (2002) in their pre- and poststudy of 14 schools, noted their concernabout the time demands presented by the portfolio process. The time required for theteachers to develop portfolios, as well as the time required by administrators to reviewportfolios, was the concern voiced most often in this study.

Do teachers and administrators perceive the use of portfolios as having an effect onteaching practices? Both administrators and teachers agreed that the portfolioprocess encouraged changes in teaching practices, with administrators being morepositive about the impact. The key ingredient to success seems to have been theopportunity to reflect on one’s practice with a colleague. Administrators noted thatmany teachers review their portfolios with an eye to changing what is taking placein the classroom. One teacher stated,

Yes, it does [promote good teaching practices]. With me, the best thing I

can do is look and reflect on what I’ve done. The portfolio helps me keep

the information together to better evaluate it. I’ve been fortunate to have


Teacher Time

Position n M SD

Teacher 635 2.77 .83



Teacher Time



Error 433.389 676 .66

Total 5,728.00 678

**p < .01.




administrators who thought it was a worthy tool as I do, too—a positive

tool for me to use.

Analysis of the variables related to teacher and administrator perceptions ofthe effect the portfolio process has on teaching practices indicates that althoughteachers and administrators agreed that the portfolio process encouraged change,there was no significant difference between the groups. In addition, both groupsagreed that the process promoted good teaching practices. However, administratorsfelt significantly more supportive in their perceptions (see Tables 10 and 11). Thesefindings supported the literature on the effect of portfolios on teaching practices. Ina case study, Freeman (1998) found that the portfolio increased reflection, self-assessment, and changes in instructional practice. Similarly, Harrington (1998), in apilot study of six teachers, reported that the teachers’ self-reflection resulted inimproved instruction.

Administrator and Teacher Perceptions of theAdvantages and Disadvantages of Portfolios

Qualitative information gleaned from interviews, focus groups, and the analysis ofthe open-ended survey questions yielded several perceived advantages relative to theuse of portfolios as part of a teacher appraisal process that generally supported the quan-titative findings from the survey. Perhaps the most significant perceived advantage was


Good Teaching

Position n M SD

Teacher 635 2.85 .76



Good Teaching



Error 381.347 676 .56

Total 5,965.00 678

**p < .01.




the reflection piece of the portfolio. The institutionalized opportunity to reflect on one’sown practice, and the fact that this was acknowledged and encouraged, seemed to havea significant impact on a number of teachers. Furthermore, administrators noted that theopportunity to reflect often led to more teacher collaboration and sharing.

Teachers also valued the opportunity to showcase their achievements to admin-istrators who demonstrated they cared about what was taking place in the classroom.This enhanced communication between teachers and administrators was also citedfrequently as a positive outcome of the entire portfolio process. Moreover, teachersindicated that the portfolio process was a richer, more in-depth picture of their per-formance than the typical “snapshot” observation. Therefore, teachers felt that eval-uation was not only fairer; they also sensed empowerment and control over their pro-fessional development as their work was shared with their administrators.

However, the portfolio process was not without perceived disadvantages. Manyteachers and administrators noted that the time required for the process was a distinctdisadvantage. Some teachers mentioned that the time would be better spent planninglessons and doing other activities more directly related to classroom instruction. Theportfolio became “one more thing” that they had to do in their busy schedules. Whatoften made this situation worse was that some administrators did not take the time toadequately review the portfolios the teachers had developed. This perception wasreinforced by some administrators who indicated that the process for completingvaluable reviews of the portfolios was time consuming and of questionable value.

Finally, a few teachers questioned the accuracy of the portfolio with respect toteaching effectiveness. Several noted that ineffective teachers may be compilers ofgreat portfolios and that instead of focusing on reflection and changing behaviors inthe classroom, teachers might be perceived as doing tremendous jobs simply becausetheir portfolio was “glitzy, yet full of fluff.” On the other hand, administratorsreported that they were able to sense when a portfolio was not an accurate represen-tation of what was taking place in the classroom.

Discussion

With the current national trend toward standards, accountability, and authenticassessment, portfolios have emerged as a promising tool to support teacher profes-sional growth and as a measure of teacher performance. Previous studies involvingteacher portfolios are relatively limited and primarily qualitative in nature. Fewresearchers have used a quantitative or mixed method to investigate the merits ofteacher portfolios with a large sample population. This study, which examined teach-ers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the value of portfolio-based teacher appraisalsfor evaluation and professional growth, explored the perceptions of 752 teachers and46 administrators from 19 schools across all grade levels in one school district, in botha quantitative and qualitative manner. School districts planning the implementation



of portfolios for teacher evaluation and professional growth may want to considersome of the lessons learned from the results of this study.

Practical RecommendationsThe evidence suggests that use of performance-based portfolios by teachers may

be a viable option as one element in the effort to improve schools. The analysis ofthe quantitative and qualitative information gathered for this study yielded recom-mendations for using portfolios as part of an evaluation-and-professional-growthsystem. These recommendations are offered for consideration by schools interestedin implementing teacher portfolios:

• Develop clear and consistent guidelines for portfolio development and criteria for

evaluation. Frequent concerns of teachers and administrators who participated in the

interviews and focus groups were related to the ambiguity of portfolio requirements

and the inconsistency with which the process was applied among administrators and

schools. “Well articulated standards of teaching and clear design guidelines will elevate

the portfolio from the ‘great paper chase’ to a professional exercise in self-analysis and

renewal” (Tucker et al., 2002, p. 97). If used as a summative evaluation tool, clear cri-

teria, valid and reliable rubrics, and extensive training for evaluators are necessary

(Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Clear and consistent guidelines would serve to improve

the portfolio process in general and elevate its value in the eyes of the participants.

• Provide adequate and ongoing training for teachers and administrators. In their com-

ments, administrators, especially newly appointed ones, noted the importance of

training in the successful implementation of portfolios. Teachers and administrators

admitted that the portfolio process was not implemented consistently throughout the

schools in the district. Based on the qualitative data, it is recommended that particu-

lar attention be paid to training new teachers and administrators during the portfolio

process to ensure a common understanding of all the components and to build

consistent teacher and administrator expectations across the school system.

• Ensure that administrators buy into the process and that sufficient time is devoted in

their schedules for portfolio review and comprehensive feedback. Experts in educa-

tional change and school reform recognize the importance of leaders, especially prin-

cipals, in promoting change. The likelihood of change is strongly influenced by the

principal (Fullan, 2001). In the interviews and focus groups, teachers frequently

expressed a desire for the administrator to spend sufficient time reviewing the com-

ponents of the portfolio so that the time spent developing it was worthwhile. Zepeda

(2002) noted that those who supervise “must commit their time and resources to this

process; otherwise, teachers likely will develop little motivation to expend the effort

in the process involved in portfolio supervision” (p. 101). Teachers are more likely to

buy into the portfolio process and all it encompasses if they work in a school where

the administrator demonstrates through action that the portfolio process has merit.



Teachers easily recognize whether or not their administrators believe in and are

committed to any initiative, including a process such as the portfolio.

• Use the portfolio process as part of a multidimensional data-gathering system that

includes multiple classroom visitations and regular administrative feedback and sup-

port. Although teachers and administrators supported the comprehensive nature of port-

folios for providing a richer, in-depth picture of teacher performance, there were com-

mon concerns regarding the accuracy of evaluations based solely on teacher-prepared

portfolios. Several teachers noted that some administrators were not in the classroom as

often, or not at all, since portfolios were implemented, so the administrators did not

have adequate opportunities to assess actual teaching and student interaction. Teachers

commonly reported on the surveys and in interviews and focus groups that it was impor-

tant for administrators to see them in the classroom as part of the formative and sum-

mative evaluation process. Both groups were concerned that the portfolio could be a

“dog and pony” show that may not accurately represent what is happening in the class-

room. Inaccuracies can result from an emphasis on quantity rather than quality, presen-

tation of the artifacts rather than substance, and possible misrepresentations (Tucker

et al., 2002). Multiple data sources increase the accuracy and comprehensiveness as

well as the reliability of the evaluation, because there is a greater sampling of evidence

of teacher performance from various perspectives (Tucker et al., 2002). Concerns with

regard to accuracy could be alleviated by regular administrator observations that pro-

vide additional data specifically related to classroom instruction and teacher/student

interaction, as they serve to support the evidence presented in the portfolio.

Conclusions

As national and state school reform initiatives support high standards and account-ability for students, teachers, and school districts, all stakeholders are being encour-aged to take risks and to try new strategies and methods to support school improve-ment. Teachers are expected to employ constructivist theories and develop authenticassessments for students, whereas students are encouraged to be reflective, self-directed learners. With these changes, teachers should be expected and encouraged toengage in similar activities to regularly reflect on their teaching practices, to identifytheir strengths and weaknesses, and to determine areas of needed improvement—improvement that will have a direct impact and significant influence on student learn-ing. Any school improvement initiative must have teacher quality as a primary focus(Darling-Hammond, 1997; Stronge & Tucker, 2003; Tucker et al., 2003).

The results of this study indicated that portfolios show promise as a tool for teacherevaluation and professional growth. Teachers and administrators in the study, althoughexpressing concerns, believed portfolios were more accurate and comprehensive thanone-shot observations. Furthermore, qualitative responses indicated that teachers, espe-cially, believed that multiple evaluation methods were a more accurate measure of theirperformance. The portfolio, along with regular administrative observations, completes



the portrait of a teacher demonstrating his or her pedagogy. This multidimensionalassessment method can empower teachers to take charge of their own professionaldevelopment as they reflect on their classroom practices, engage in rich formative con-versations with administrators, and determine and implement necessary changes andimprovements to their practice. Naturally, these changes and improvements will then beevident to the administrators who regularly visit classrooms to witness them firsthand.

In using portfolios as part of a professional growth and appraisal process, theimportance of the principal in supporting and sustaining the process cannot beunderestimated. Administrators need to set aside adequate time in their schedules toreview the contents of the portfolios with the teachers and engage in in-depth con-versations about teaching and learning. The building administrator’s belief and sup-port in the entire portfolio process is essential for its success.

Perhaps the most overwhelming concern related to the teacher portfolio and theelements of the portfolio process was time. Time for teacher reflection, time for col-legial conversations, time for portfolio development, and time for administrators toadequately review and discuss the contents of the portfolio with their teachers allemerged as recurrent critical issues. Although some teachers and administratorsnoted the additional time was worth it, time remained the most common concern;one that could potentially have a negative impact on the successful implementationand long-term success of the portfolio process in any school district. Innovative waysmust be invented to carve out time in the day for teachers to reflect and to collabo-rate and for teachers and administrators to engage in rich conversations related to theportfolio evidence and its relationship to student learning.

Finally, although the results of the quantitative data of the study indicated that theportfolio process encouraged change and promoted good teaching, survey commentsof teachers and administrators failed to identify the effect on teaching practices as oneof the primary advantages of the portfolio process. Because improved instruction andsubsequent increased student learning and achievement are the ultimate goals of anyeducational reform effort, these findings need to be explored further.

The results of this study demonstrated that the portfolio process has value as anaccurate and comprehensive measure of teacher performance; that the process is usefulin promoting professional growth; that the time required, although a serious concern, isreasonable for teachers and administrators; and that the process is useful with regard toits effect on teaching practices. “Portfolios expand the lens on the work of teachers forthe purposes of accountability and offer a possible avenue for meaningful professionaldevelopment—the two touchstones of teacher evaluation” (Tucker et al., 2003, p. 594).This and other studies support portfolios as a more comprehensive measure of teacherperformance and a reflective tool for professional improvement and change in practice.As with the adoption of any initiative from another school district, modifications mayhave to occur in order to meet the needs of that particular context. Future investigationsspecifically related to the elements within the portfolio process, such as the principal’s



role, teacher reflection, teacher/administrator relationships, and effect of the portfolioprocess on student achievement, can provide additional guidance.

The portfolio process proved to be valuable as a measure of teacher competenceand a catalyst for professional growth in the eyes of the teachers and administratorswho participated in this study. As school districts examine their teacher evaluationpractices and consider alternative assessment measures, teacher portfolios are a log-ical and viable option. If implemented and supported as part of a multidimensionalappraisal system, portfolios have the potential to promote a professional culture ofreflective and self-directed educators with a clear sense of purpose and to provide avehicle for administrators to gain a more accurate and comprehensive portrait ofteacher performance.

References

Bullock, A. A., & Hawk, P. (2001). Developing a teaching portfolio. Columbus,OH: Merrill.

Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance profes-sional practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schoolsthat work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dietz, M. (1995). Using portfolios as a framework for professional development.Journal of Staff Development, 16(2), 40-43.

Donaldson, C., & Stobbe, C. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A self-directed, inquiry-based approach. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 29(3), 30-32.

Firestone, A. (1999). The assessment of teaching competence: Rethinking theobservation and evaluation of classroom teachers. Jamesburg, NJ: New JerseyPrincipals and Supervisors Association and Foundation for EducationalAdministration and Arthur Firestone.

Freeman, J. J. (1998). The teaching portfolio as a vehicle for professional growth(UMI No. 9923833). Durham: University of New Hampshire.

French, A., Poulsen, J., & Yu, A. (2006). Multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA). Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~efc/classes/biol710/manova/manovanew.html

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York:Teachers College Press.

Gabler, I. C., & Schroeder, M. (2003). Constructivist methods for the secondaryclassroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Harrington, K. K. (1998). How a professional performance appraisal plan forteachers was developed and implemented in a suburban school district (UMINo. 9919288). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Hunter, A. (1998). The power, production, and promise of portfolios for noviceand seasoned teachers. In M. McLaughlin, M. Vogt, J. Anderson, J. DuMez,



M. G. Peter, & A. Hunter (Eds.), Professional portfolio models: Applicationsin education (pp. 157-201). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gorden.

Koegler, S. M. (2000). Self-reflective assessment through teacher portfolios: Theexperiences of first-year teachers (UMI No. 9955726). New York: New YorkUniversity.

Lyons, N. (Ed.). (1998). With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher pro-fessionalism. New York: Teachers College Press.

McCaffrey, D. L. (2000). Teacher attitudes toward supervision and evaluation inthe developmental research schools of the state of Florida (UMI No. 9957889).Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

McColskey, W., & Engelson, P. (1997). Designing teacher evaluation systems thatsupport professional growth. Tallahassee, FL: Southeastern Regional Vision forEducation (SERVE). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED408287)

McLaughlin, M., Vogt, M. E., Anderson, J. A., DuMez, J., Peter, M. G., & Hunter,A. (1998). Professional portfolio models: Applications in education.Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Mueller, S., Waters, F., Smeaton, P., & Pinciotti, P. (2001, Spring). Makinginformed choices: A model for comprehensive classroom assessment.Academic Exchange, pp. 31-37.

Oropallo, K.A. (1994). Opening doors: Portfolios and pedagogy (UMI No.9502823). Tallahassee: Florida State University.

Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in studentteachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching,11(1), 95-116.

Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new direc-tions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Read, D., & Cafolla, R. (1999). Multimedia portfolios for preservice teachers: Fromtheory to practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 97-113.

Sawyer, L. (2001). Revamping a teacher evaluation system. EducationalLeadership, 58(5), 44-47.

St. Maurice, H., & Shaw, P. (2004). Teacher portfolios come of age: A prelimi-nary study. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 15-25.

Strommen, E. F. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroomlearning. Education & Urban Society, 24(4), 466-477.

Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Teacher evaluation: Assessing and improv-ing performance. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Stufflebeam, D. L, (1988). The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to assesssystems for evaluating educators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Sutherland, S. D. (1998). A systematic examination of portfolio assessment topromote teacher professional growth (UMI No. MQ38768). Ottawa, Canada:University of Ottawa.



Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., & Gareis, C. R. (2002). Handbook on teacher port-folios for evaluation and professional development. Larchmont, NY: Eye onEducation.

Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., Gareis, C. R., & Beers, C. S. (2003). The efficacy ofportfolios for teacher evaluation and professional development: Do they makea difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 572-602.

Wolf, K. P. (1996). Developing an effective teaching portfolio. EducationalLeadership, 53(6), 34-37.

Wolf, K., Lichtenstein, G., & Stevenson, C. (1997). Portfolios in teacher evalua-tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED409378)

Xu, J. (2002, Winter). Using teaching portfolios to promote on going, in-schoolprofessional development. ERS Spectrum, pp. 21-28.

Zepeda, S. J. (2002). Linking portfolio development to clinical supervision:A case study. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(25), 83-102.



Appraisal 1 (2)

Documents

Transcript of Appraisal 1 (2)