Electronic Portfolios in a Teacher Education Program

Abstract

While much of the research literature focuses on the traditional paper and pencil format of teaching portfolios, the increased integration of electronic technology into teacher preparation curricula has propelled the use of electronic portfolios for a range of evaluative purposes. Electronic portfolios, or e-portfolios as they are commonly labeled, are similar in many respects to paper and pencil format portfolios in terms of content and alignment with a pre-designated purpose, and the artifacts included in the portfolio usually represent a variety of experiences over time. However, characteristics specific to e-portfolios are many and important to address when considering their effective implementation. This article discusses the benefits and challenges specific to implementing electronic portfolios within a teacher education program. Suggestions for navigating key aspects of planning, implementation, and assessment are also included. Electronic Portfolios Teaching portfolios have become commonplace in many teacher preparation programs as a means to measure teacher candidates' readiness to teach. Borrowed from other professions such as art, photography, fashion, advertising, and architecture, portfolios historically have comprised 'best practice' samples of professional work organized into various storage vessels including folders, containers, and attaché cases (Bird, 1990). The teaching portfolio, while building upon such previous uses, expands the boundaries of the best practice focus when incorporated as a tool with which to capture the complexity of learning to teach. While much of the research literature focuses on the more traditional paper and pencil format of teaching portfolios, the increased integration of technology into the teacher preparation curriculum has influenced the rise of the electronic portfolio format (Barrett, 1998). Electronic portfolios, or e-portfolios as they are commonly labeled, are similar in many respects to paper and pencil format portfolios in that the contents are similar (e.g. lesson plans, student work samples, assessment tools), they are aligned with a purpose (e.g. growth and development, standards driven, certification), and the artifacts included in the portfolio represent a variety of experiences over time (e.g. fieldwork, coursework, workshops). However, characteristics specific to e-portfolios are many and are important to address when considering their implementation with pre-service teachers. This article discusses the benefits and challenges specific to implementing electronic portfolios within a teacher education program. Suggestions for navigating key aspects of planning, implementation, and assessment are also included. Research to date documents a variety of outcomes attributed to using portfolios in pre-service teacher preparation programs. Portfolios can promote reflective practice and thereby become reflective in nature (Lyons, 1998), facilitate self-directed inquiry (Grant & Huebner, 1998), document student learning, growth, and development over time (Barton...

Three Key Conditions to Revitialise an ePortfolio Program in Response to Increasing Regulation of Teacher Education

“…Students cannot think that their ePortfolio efforts represent extra work compared to their colleagues in the same program, or that it is necessary for some initial teacher education programs and not others. Such suspicions are likely to have been a key factor in student disengagement with ePortfolio within this particular ITE provider the first time round (Light, Chen, & Ittelson, 2012;Oakley, Pegrum, & Johnston, 2014;Ring & Ramirez, 2012;Wetzel & Strudler, 2006;Wray, 2007). There is here a direct link back to the issue of pedagogy.…”

“…Even if teacher-educators engage with ePedagogy through professional learning and attempt to design units around standards-focused ePortfolio requirements, such efforts are unlikely to be effective if they see the technology as something beyond their own experience and done to students, and fail to explore the various demands, functions, capabilities, and potential of the tool (Bryant & Chittum, 2013). Teacher-educators should not and cannot expect their students to take ownership of ePortfolios to evidence professional teaching standards when they themselves have not utilized it to both share and expose their professional competence to the same scrutiny, and cannot model the same teacher behaviours (Carson, McClam, Frank, & Hannum, 2014;Meyer & Latham, 2008;Oakley, Pegrum, & Johnston, 2014;Wetzel & Strudler, 2006;Wray, 2007). Without such exploration, teacher-educators can be neither competent nor confident to engage in discussions with students about valid forms of evidence, effective portrayal of standards, or how best to utilize the technology (Light, Chen, & Ittelson, 2012;Meyer & Latham, 2008;Rientes, Brouwer, & Lygo-Baker, 2013).…”

“…A unified and internalized common purpose is essential, because teacher-educator recalcitrance has implications more significant and sinister than failure of an ePortfolio initiative, both for students who are expected to demonstrate competency in authentic ways (Herrington, Reeves & Oliver, 2010), and for the program that could forfeit accreditation and damage the reputation of the institution (Ring & Ramirez, 2012;Wetzel & Strudler, 2006;Wray, 2007). If students are to accept ePortfolios as the best vehicle for comprehensively demonstrating their competence and maximize their employability, and if programs are to remain viable, then all teachers must engage with the ePortfolio.…”

“…Unified purpose demands that ePortfolios be fully embedded in the structure and delivery of every unit in every program. Every educator must at any time and all times be able to clearly communicate to learners why they are using ePortfolios, how the use of ePortfolios will assist them in developing their own identities, and how that documentation can help them to make connections between the learning that happens in different contexts (Light, Chen, & Ittelson, 2012, p. 17;Johnsen, 2012;Wray, 2007).…”

E‐portfolios in teacher education 2002–2009: the social construction of discourse, design and dissemination

“…Developments involving the implementation of portfolios or e-portfolios are described in the international literature, and there are several examples of initiatives at the national level that demand or encourage teacher education institutions to use portfolios to ensure quality standards and/or support student teachers in lifelong learning (Butler, 2006;Dysthe & Engelsen, 2008;McAllister, Hallam & Harper, 2008;Strudler & Wetzel, 2005;Wray, 2007) The implementation of e-portfolios in teacher education is described as a complex process that involves, for example, technical, pedagogical and ideological issues, and generates questions related to assessment, ownership and purpose. Barrett & Carney (2005) pointed out that since portfolios can have such different purposes and characteristics there is a need to define what kind of portfolio should be used before the implementation process is initiated.…”