Using
Electronic Portfolios: A Description and Analysis
for Implementation in SIGNET Classes at
Woodbridge
Middle School, Virginia
Laura
J. Dowling
Walden
University
12
May 2000
There
has been a growing interest in the use of portfolios in education in the past
several years. This paper describes the general portfolio system and its many
aspects. This system serves numerous purposes, and these purposes are
discussed. There are quite a few differences between paper-based and electronic
portfolios. These differences in electronic portfolios will be addressed, as
well. Thirdly, the electronic portfolio process is described in detail with
alternative methods for implementation. Finally, additional uses will be
discussed. The information gathered and discussed in this paper will be
utilized to determine the best approach for implementing an electronic
portfolio system in the SIGNET classes at Woodbridge Middle School, Virginia.
It will be revealed through this paper that the best system for the students to
use is one where the portfolios are housed on the existing network. All work
will be organized in folders and remain on the network for three years until
graduation. It will then be transferred to a CD-RW for the students to take
with them.
Using
Electronic Portfolios: A Description and Analysis
for
Implementation in SIGNET Classes at
Woodbridge
Middle School, Virginia
Portfolios are used in various professions to assemble
typical or exemplary samples of performance. Stock brokers talk about a
client’s portfolio; art students accumulate a portfolio for an art class or a
job interview; people in advertising, publishing, or sales bring portfolios to
business meetings. The general reason is to collect and display an assortment
of materials that has been gathered or produced (Farr, 1990; Olsen, 1991).
It is no wonder that portfolios have grown in popularity
over the past few years with teachers. Through these assemblages of student
endeavors, educators have introduced a way to effectively put into practice
some of the learning theory that has gained favor recently. Many of the goals
that teachers and parents have for their students and children can be met
through portfolio display, analysis, and evaluation.
The use of portfolios is a relatively new development in the
education world. Even as recently as 1990, using portfolios was not widespread
(Polin, 1991, p. 25). Electronic portfolios are an even more recent innovation.
This type of portfolio offers several advantages over the paper-based portfolio
as a way of documenting and displaying student work. With the growth of the
Internet and the ever-expanding storage capabilities of a personal computer,
the next several years may see the use of electronic portfolios become more
pervasive in the classrooms.
The
term portfolio has many different meanings. In the education realm, the meaning
of the portfolio is determined by its use. The portfolio is a collection of
student work stored in a folder (Farr, 1990). First, it is a purposeful and
systematic collection of student work (Arter, 1990, p. 27). These collections
can consist of different subjects or focus on one specific subject area. A
portfolio is also a record of learning that focuses on the student’s work and
his/her reflection on that work. Portfolios include many other things such as
teacher evaluations and student self-assessments (Lankes, 1995).
The stakeholders in a student’s portfolio are the people that
have an interest in the student and will see and use the portfolio as a basis
to make decisions about the student (Chappell & Schermerhorn, 1999). These people will include teachers, the
student, peers involved, administration, parents, potential universities or
colleges, and potential employers.
For anything that the teacher does in the classroom, there
should be a reason. There are many excellent reasons for implementing
portfolios. These reasons are very important, and they will be the main
considerations when deciding on the implementation of portfolio use in the
classroom. If these reasons are of no value to the teacher, then portfolio
implementation should not be undertaken.
Portfolio systems
can literally change the environment of the classroom. In 1993, a study was
performed in Vermont public schools regarding the effects of portfolio
practices on the educational environment. According to this study done by
Aschbacher (1993), teachers involved in assessing work done in a portfolio
system believed that this implementation positively influenced their
expectations of the students. Two-thirds of those responding to the study
reported an increase in the level of problem-solving and higher-level learning.
Almost two-thirds of the teachers reported a substantial change in the way they
thought about their own teaching. The portfolio programs had a decidedly
beneficial effect on the classrooms. Teachers had time to help individual
students deal with difficulties and to engage more students in group activities
than during prior years (Herman &
Winters, 1994).
Portfolios can
assist teachers in actively engaging students in learning content. Students
feel more of an ownership to their work because they see it accumulating in
their folders, and they actively participate in selection and evaluation of the
content (Marcocci, 1998).
Many students,
especially in the middle school years, are prone to rush through their work and
turn in the first item they produce without giving their creation additional
consideration. After all, they feel that the world is passing them by as they
work on their assignments, and they do not want to miss out. Portfolios help in
directing students towards a slow and deliberate time of reflection and
self-evaluation. After a while, students realize that they need this time to
process their creations, to look critically, and to make changes, if needed
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 1999, p. 11). Often, they see the merit
in their work for the first time. They soon realize that the world is still
there, and they can jump back in at any time and catch up with their
friends.
Many
events happen in class that do not lend themselves to traditional assessment. A
group presentation is an example. Portfolios can assist in documenting these
projects and presentations for inclusion in the term grade.
One
type of portfolio to consider using is the working portfolio. This kind of
portfolio serves as a holding tank for work not yet completed. There is, however,
a reason for this collected work. The work placed in this collection may be
selected later for a more permanent display or assessment portfolio. Pieces
that are collected might relate to specific themes. These portfolios are also
used to diagnose students’ needs (Danielson & Abrutyn, p. 2). The working
portfolio exists mainly for the student and teacher. It has additional value
for parents attempting to determine the status of their child’s learning.
Another category of
portfolios is the showcase or display portfolio. These are usually the most
rewarding for the student. The main purpose for this kind of portfolio is to
demonstrate the highest level of student achievement. The student, perhaps with
teacher guidance, should choose the work submitted to the showcase portfolio.
The audience for a showcase portfolio involves many stakeholders. These include
teachers, administrators, peers, parents, college admissions, or potential
employers (Chappell & Schermerhorn, 1999). The audience for the showcase
portfolio, however, is much larger than even this. Conceivably, the audience
consists of not only the stakeholders, but also the entire world.
The
assessment portfolio is a cumulative group of work demonstrating that the
student has reached learning goals that have been established by the
curriculum. The assessment portfolio holds the material on which academic
decisions are made. These types of portfolios may span several subject areas(PDE, 1999, p. 6).The
assessment portfolio’s audience includes teachers, parents, school districts,
or even the state.
There
are several theories that support the use of portfolios in the classroom. These
theories vary in their style and structure. They do not all concur in their
educational attitudes, but each makes a strong case for portfolios use as a
working, showcase, or assessment instrument.
Goal
setting, motivation, and self-efficacy theories are all tied together in such a
way that they lend themselves to the idea of portfolio use. The portfolio is a
particularly good device to prompt goal setting because its very structure
creates an environment that is ordered around working and achieving daily short
term and long term goals (PDE, 1999, p. 11). Motivation can be difficult to
achieve in many students. By assisting students to set specific goals and
helping them see these through, the students will become motivated toward
continued progress. When students begin to see their work accumulate, they
begin to realize that they do have worth; they do have the ability to perform
in the classroom (Driscoll, 2000, p. 310). Portfolios make this so concrete,
and it comes so naturally that they are excellent ways to promote
self-efficacy.
Situated cognition
can be perceived as learning by participation. Learners are changed by their
participation and their actions. “Proponents of situated learning state that
learning has no value if it is taught in contexts that separate knowing from
doing” (Driscoll, 2000, p. 155).
McLellan
(1993) offers a model for assessment using situated learning. This model
includes diagnosis, summary statistics, and portfolios. With diagnosis, the
teacher must analyze the progress of the learner and assess the needs of the
learner in “real time” (Driscoll, 2000, p. 177). Secondly, the teacher needs to
keep a record of learning trends of each student over time. Collins (1990) also
believes that portfolios are particularly well suited for situated learning
because of their emphasis on the process and the final product.
Of
all the theories that support portfolios, constructivism embraces that concept
in most every way. Constructivism goals largely emphasize the process of
learning. Constructive teaching also promotes a more product-based outcome that
is in keeping with portfolio formats. According to Driscoll (2000, p. 382-383),
there are several components to this theory. Portfolio systems complement these
components.
One
part maintains that classrooms need to support multiple perspectives and the
use of multiple modes of representation. Students should be able to represent
their knowledge in numerous ways to express the learned content. Through peer
evaluation using portfolios, other students can see the same assignment in
other perspectives and in different representations. This helps to broaden
their knowledge base (Driscoll, 2000, p. 386-387).
Secondly,
teachers should provide for social negotiation as an integral part of learning.
Bruner (1986, p. 127) asserts, “Learning in most settings is a communal
activity, a sharing of culture.” Constructivists hold these beliefs that
collaboration is a crucial factor in the classroom (Driscoll, 2000, p. 385).
Since collaboration is essential for a constructivist-based classroom,
portfolios assist in enhancing this environment. When teachers and students are
able to assist other students and discuss projects and products in an open
environment, problems can be solved so that everyone benefits(Evans, 1993). Collaboration provides a means of
scaffolding that supports students in managing and succeeding in learning
tasks.
One of the most important components of constructivist
learning is to encourage ownership in learning. Students need to be able to
manage their own learning experiences. Many opponents of constructivism argue
that this is a big weakness in the theory (Driscoll, 2000, p. 388-389). Many
students are not ready or able to take charge of their own learning.
Frequently, students must be assisted in this management, and the portfolio can
be a tremendous aid in moving them to make better judgments in the classroom.
Portfolios, along with teacher guidance, help students plan and organize their
work. Quite often, when students see the system working, they become better
learners because the work has more meaning for them. Reflection, a major part
in the implementation of portfolios, plays a large role in this move towards
independence.
Paper-based portfolios and electronic portfolios are very
similar in many ways. All of the previously discussed issues can be applied to
both. There are a number of striking differences that will drive the decision
for implementation of electronic portfolios. The use of technology for
portfolio implementation has received considerable attention lately in many
school systems (Barchfeld, 1997).
An
electronic portfolio gives the student much more flexibility because it can
cross-reference works without needing to make multiple copies for different
categories (Bergman, 1999). Preparing
different portfolios for different purposes such as graduation or employment
becomes a much easier process in an electronic environment (Barchfeld, 1997).
The versatility of electronic portfolios permits teachers
and students to choose from a wider range of options for inclusion (Bergman,
2000). Students can record voices to illustrate reading progress. Photos of
projects or video clips can be included (Barchfeld, 1997). Digital
presentations make an excellent addition to the portfolio.
Paper-based
portfolios require a great deal of room to store and numerous filing cabinets
in which to place them. The older the student becomes, the more he or she will
accumulate. This usually requires the student to weed out all but a few pieces
of work to transfer to the next year.
Electronic
portfolios, on the other hand, require only virtual room. Of course, the
storage capabilities must be housed somewhere, but computers require much less
room, and many times they are sitting nearly free of any data. A network server
may also be available for storage purposes (Bergman, 2000). A student may
choose to weed out the work from year to year, but, depending on the size of
the storage device, it is not always necessary.
Another
difference between these two types of portfolios is the fact that the
paper-based portfolios are limited to a much smaller audience. Who will
eventually see the works in a paper-based portfolio? It is usually just the
teacher, student, and parents. Other students rarely get to see and evaluate
their peers’ work because accessibility is confined to the classroom. Because
of lack of time, it is rare that administration gets to view these portfolios
on a regular basis.
Electronic
portfolios, in contrast, by their very nature, provide a natural outlet to the
outside world. The whole world might conceivably be the audience to students’
works (Chappell & Schermerhorn, 1999). The Internet provides an avenue with
which we can post most anything a student does. The only requirement is that it
must be in electronic form. Many schools do post selected works of their
students, but they do not do in true portfolio fashion with any kind of
systematic organization of the work.
Finally, electronic portfolios provide for an environment of
collaboration and revision (Bergman, 1999). A student folder might be easily
available for other teachers and students to critique, and the ease of revising
a piece makes every work a creation in progress for as long as the student
wishes. The fact that they will be so accessible to other teachers for
evaluation purposes makes the use of electronic portfolios extremely valuable.
The
implementation of any kind of portfolio system should be gradual, starting
slowly and working into the next step only when there is a degree of comfort at
each step. At a very minimum, a portfolio system should be phased in over a
year, with two or three years not uncommon (Shores & Grace, 1998, p. 12).
The first step in
starting the students in a portfolio system is collection. Students
understandably produce a large amount of work and not all of it needs to be in
the portfolio. Initially, students may want to store most of their work in the
portfolio so that, when the time comes for selection, there will be a variety
of work from which to choose. Table 1 presents examples of items for inclusion
in the portfolio. Table
1
Examples of material for inclusion in a
portfolio.
(Bergman, 1999)
The
next step in portfolio development is selection. While it is acceptable to
collect as much work as possible, decisions must be made by the teacher and
student as to which papers will make their way from the working portfolio and
into a more selective portfolio. Since this selective portfolio is separate
from the working portfolio, clear guidelines must be set for what kinds of
works will be chosen.
Initially,
a decision must be made about exactly which kind of portfolio will be used. A
display portfolio, for example, will contain the best pieces selected without
regards for standard learning objectives (Danielson & Abrutyn, 1997, p.
13). Assessment portfolios, on the other hand, require that pieces selected
match standards of learning. Most students will require direction when
beginning this process.
The timing of
selection is really a matter of preference. Normally, the selection process
will come at the end of something (Danielson & Abrutyn, 1997, p. 14). The
end of a unit, marking period, or year would be appropriate. Also appropriate
might be before an event such as a parent conference or any type of portfolio
publication or display.
The
third step in this process is reflection. This is the time when the portfolio
can make the classroom a truly unique and growing experience for students
(Danielson, & Abrutyn, 1997, p. 18). Students will evaluate their learning
for a better understanding of their progress. Students can think and write
about what they have learned or what they would do differently next time.
Reflection can also provide a “jumping off point” for future assignments
(Sullivan, 2000). A simple form can be used to guide this writing, especially
for the unskilled student. Students will need a good deal of instruction and
support before they become proficient in this process. Appendix A shows an
example of an appropriate reflection sheet for middle school students.
The final phase is
projection or publication. At this point, the students will want to share their
work, and there are many ways to accomplish this. Decisions on projection rely
heavily on the stakeholders involved, and any selection must be made with that
in mind.
One
of the most common ways to project the portfolio is at a parent-teacher
conference. If the student and teacher choose a selection of work showing
progress, it will greatly enhance the meeting’s discussion (Lankes, 1995).
Another possible method of parent projection might be to have the portfolios
available at an open house or parent’s night in school. A showcase portfolio is
in order here.
Another projection
opportunity could be to have student work displayed on a kiosk-style monitor in
the school office for visitors to watch while they wait for appointments.
Additionally, a class web page is a wonderful vehicle to project student work.
In recent years,
digital cameras have made their way into the classroom and into the daily
routines of the teachers and students. Their real value is in the fact that
there is not any film to develop. The results are instantaneous, and bad
pictures can be corrected on the spot. The digital product can be used in
numerous ways. One of these, of course, is in the electronic portfolio. These
devises make it extremely easy to capture and store happenings, special times,
projects, and presentations. The pictures are actual evidence of the student’s
work. Projects that are too big or bulky to keep can be successfully recorded
by photography.
Scanners
also make it easy to record works digitally. For flat works of art or documents
not done on a computer, they afford the student an excellent way to digitalize
their papers. Scanners also offer OCR (optical character recognition), which
will allow them to scan previously typed, but unsaved documents. This will
permit the student to have a fully editable document that can be altered, if
necessary, and saved into the portfolio.
Sometimes,
the written word might not be the right format for a project. Using the
existing sound card and a microphone, a student can read a poem into the
computer, for instance, and make it an audio experience. At times, audio files
can help the stakeholder to better understand the student.
Video
cameras provide yet another means to capture moments of achievement that might
otherwise be lost to time after the event is over. Video editing software
provides a way to edit the footage and save it into a digital format for
inclusion in the portfolio. Students excel in so many different areas. Not all
of these areas lend themselves to the written word or the drawn picture.
Verbally adept students will find much use for video and audio potential.
Several software programs will assist in the conversion of
materials into the digitalized form. Other programs can aid in graphic, audio,
and video creation and manipulation, and in HTML design. Many of the hardware
described earlier will come with related software to use. The following is a
list of examples of helpful programs:
1.
Front Page
2.
Coffee Cup
HTML Editor
3.
Gif
Construction Set
4.
Thumbs Plus
Graphic Organizer
5.
Paint Shop
Pro
6.
Adobe
Acrobat
7.
Real Audio
8.
Dazzle
Multimedia Video Editing
9.
Picture It
Photo Manipulation
Digital
Formats for Electronic Portfolios
There are several formats to consider when constructing and
organizing student work into a portfolio. Microsoft’s Power Point, Wagner
Publishing’s Hyperstudio, Claris’ FileMaker Pro, or other similar presentation
style programs offer unique features that lend themselves to aid in the
organization and formation of electronic portfolios (Lankes, 1995). A template
can be created that is used by all students with modifications made to suit
individual tastes. These portfolios made with the programs should include a
table of content, buttons that link to sections that are organized in some
fashion such as grade level or content area. All pages need to link back to
main sections (Lankes, 1995). At the end of a year, students can easily convert
the entire presentation for posting on the Internet.
Converting
documents to HTML is an option to consider when the portfolio will be web-
based. Many programs now have the “Save as HTML” function built into their
system and do a fair job of conversion.
A student that wishes to convert an entire portfolio to HTML would be
wise, however, to obtain a good HTML editor and proceed to learn how to code.
Because many high schools, colleges, and universities are requiring students to
submit and update electronic portfolios, it makes sense to start the students
out in a K-12 setting becoming accustomed to the essentials of electronic
storage and management. A teacher can also supply a template for the students
to use until they become more proficient at HTML coding. HTML is the most
universal format to use for an electronic portfolio because it provides access
to a much wider audience (Bergman, 1999).
The
network at a school must not be overlooked as a means of placing and organizing
students’ work. Students can create a folder with their name, add additional
folders, as needed, move folders around, rename folders, and make shortcut
links, or copies of the work that fits into more than one category. No reformatting
is necessary for a network portfolio. The portfolio is readily available to the
student and the teachers from any location in the school.
As
discussed earlier, the network is an excellent way to store and organize
electronic portfolios. Since network servers generally have large capacity hard
drives, the work can remain on the server for as long as the child is in the
school.
At
times, though, it might become necessary to remove the students’ work to
another storage media. Since there is a limit to even the largest server’s hard
drive, files might not be able to reside on the server indefinitely. This
transfer can happen at the end of each school quarter, year, or upon graduation
from the school. It is advisable for back-up purposes, as well. The CD-RW
drives can take large amounts of data and save them to single discs. A CD disc
can store 650 MB of information or the equivalent of 300,000 pages of typed
text (Lankes, 1995). These discs can be stored in the room and updated
periodically for back-ups. Upon graduation, they can be given to the students
as a monumental record of accomplishments during their days in the school.
The
Internet has an unlimited amount of storage capacity. Each student could have
an account, be able to post work to their site, and update it regularly. This
would require setting up accounts and training the students in HTML. One of the
biggest benefits of this system is that the audiences for Internet portfolios
are unlimited. The students get a sense of being published and tend to be more
careful and critical of their final work (Marcocci, 1998). Since the training
and management are time-consuming, a well thought out plan must be crafted, or
this kind of portfolio will be more of a burden than a help in the classroom.
One
possible compromise between the network portfolio and the Internet portfolio
would be to take selected works at the end of the year to include in a class
portfolio for the Internet.
Much has been said and written on the value of portfolio use
as a way of assessment. Many of the educational theories support this, as well.
The use of the portfolio as an assessment tool has much merit, and while it is
not required for a sound portfolio program, it is certainly an outstanding way
for students to receive purposeful and meaningful feedback from a number of
sources.
Bergman (1999)
asserts, “Assessment strategies need to build on the experiences and abilities
of the learners. Assessment is on-going and is in the hands of the learner.”
The type of assessment that works best with portfolio use is the kind that
recognizes “individual strengths, abilities, experiences, and intelligences.”
One
of the best techniques for assessing work in a portfolio is with the use of
rubrics. “Rubrics are scoring criteria that can make assessment more
meaningful, clarify expectations, and yield better feedback” (Barchfeld,
1997). Several different types of
rubrics can be used to fit individual projects, but they will generally fit
into a teacher or student evaluation category. Rubrics will assist the
evaluator in making judgments about projects based on a predetermined set of
criteria. See Appendix B for an example of a rubric for portfolio assessment.
There are many uses for the portfolio. Several of them
extend beyond the classroom and demand a reconfiguring or an entirely new
portfolio depending on the purpose. The materials for these portfolios can
readily be taken from the existing one thus saving time and energy.
Quite
a few universities are beginning to look beyond the traditional forms of
student assessment such as grades and SAT scores. Increasingly, they are
requesting that students applying for admission submit a portfolio of works.
The students that have been saving work all through the middle and high school
years will have an enormous source from which to choose. When the students
enter these institutions, they are given web space and some introductory
classes in HTML. From then on, they are expected to update their portfolios
regularly (Herman & Morrell, 1999).
Often,
it is very helpful to be able to track the student’s progress over time. The
portfolio, when organized chronologically, can be very useful in assisting teachers,
administration, and parents in this regards.
There
are occasions when traditional grading is not sufficient to truly convey the
accomplishments of the student. Even if a teacher still uses conventional
grading practices, these portfolio assessments add extension and elaboration to
the grade.
The
portfolio system is a magnificent way of allowing students to see others work
and comment on it. Many times these sessions can aid students in seeing
first-rate examples of other students’ work and model their own work from it.
Students are often good assistants when it comes to supporting their peers in
fine-tuning papers.
It
can be very beneficial for teachers to be able to see the work students are
producing in a variety of classrooms. If the work is located on the network,
the process is an easy one. The teacher has access from anywhere in the
building. The comments from other teachers can greatly enhance the student
portfolio (Evans, 1993).
Just as with
universities, many potential employers request to see work related to the
position in question. Students who have portfolios that contain documented
works and comments from teachers will have a substantial advantage when the
time comes to apply for jobs (Chappell & Schermerhorn, 1999).
Summary
and Conclusion
Education is becoming an increasingly more active and
personal experience. Technology is assisting in changing the way teachers teach
and students learn (Herman & Morrell, 1999). Electronic portfolios are an
excellent way to foster this learner-centered environment. They are also an
exceptional way to store and organize student work. There is more flexibility
with these kinds of portfolios than with the traditional paper-based
portfolios. Numerous computer hardware devices and software programs can assist
in making the portfolio as versatile and useful as possible.
The
implementation of computer-based portfolio systems is an exciting educational
innovation. This offers the students an authentic way to demonstrate their
accomplishments and allows the students to take responsibility for their own
work (Lankes, 1995). This, in turn, will motivate them to accomplish more in
the future. A computer-based portfolio system offers many advantages to the
assessment and accomplishment of students and will most undoubtedly grow in
prominence as an educational tool for the information age.
After careful consideration, the SIGNET students at
Woodbridge Middle School will begin to implement electronic portfolios
beginning in the school year 2000-2001. These students consist of three grade
levels--sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. They remain in the class for three
hours a week for all three years. They will organize their existing work into
electronic portfolios that will reside on the network. The type of portfolio that
the student will construct is a working portfolio in which all work will be
placed.
The SIGNET students
will have their own network log-in and password for security purposes. They
will each have separate folders for organization. Any new work will be saved to
the network in their folders for the teachers, parents, and, occasionally,
peers to assess.
Since
the students work on independent projects, reflection will take place at the
time the student reaches the end of a center. These reflections will originally
consist of filling out forms with pre-defined questions. These forms will be
electronic documents that will be placed in the appropriate folder along with
the completed center work.
At the end of each marking period, all work will be copied
to a CD-RW, but the original work will remain on the network for three years,
or until graduation, when it will all be transferred to a CD and given to the
student to use later. The work will stay on the network because students need
to access previous work completed as they progress through novice, apprentice
and master levels of proficiency.
Barchfeld (1997) advises teachers starting any new program
that involves technology to “Think big--start small.” The fully implemented
plan will not be set into place at the beginning of the school year. Initially,
there will be no selection process, and all work will be kept until, through
experience, it can be determined which is the best method for selection and
projection. Much of the student work will be converted to HTML and placed on
the class web site. This site can be viewed at the following address:
http://www.pwcs.edu/pwc/schools/woodbridge_ms/signet/indexsignet.htm After one year,
the system will be evaluated and modifications will be made.
References
Arter, J. (1990). Using portfolios in instruction and
assessment: State of the art summary. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Aschbacher, P.R. (1993). Issues for innovative assessment
for classroom practice: Barriers and facilitators. (Tech. Rep. No. 359).
Los Angeles: University of California, CRESST; Center for Study of Evaluation.
Barchfeld, P. (1997). A guide to portfolios.
[On-line]. Available: http://www.pasd.com/PSSA/writing/portguid/portguid.htm
[2000, March 12].
Bergman, T. (2000). Digital learner portfolios.
[On-line]. Available:
http://www.mehs.educ.state.ak.us/portfolios/portfolio.html [2000, March 12].
Bergman, T. (1999). Feasible electronic portfolios:
Global networking for the self-directed learner in the digital age.
[On-line]. Available:
http://www.mehs.educ.state.ak.us/portfolios/why_digital_portfolios.html [2000,
March 16].
Bruner, J.S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chappell, D.S., & Schermerhorn, J.R. (1999). Using
electronic student portfolios in management education: A stakeholder
perspective. Journal of Management Education, 23(6), p. 651-172.
Collins, A. (1990). Reformulating testing to measure
learning and thinking. In Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., &
Shafto, M.G. (Eds.) Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge
acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Danielson, C., & Abrutyn, L. (1997). An introduction
to using portfolios in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Driscoll, M.P. (2000).
Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Evans, S.C. (1993, February). When teachers look at student
work. Educational Leadership, 50(5), 2.
Farr, R. (1990). Setting directions for language arts
portfolios. Educational Leadership, 48(3), 103.
Herman, J.L., & Winters, L. (1994, October). Portfolio
research: A slim collection. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 7.
Herman, L.P., & Morrell, M. (1999, June). Educational
progressions: Electronic portfolios in a virtual classroom. THE Journal, 26(11).
[On-line]. EBSCOHost: Academic Search FullTEXT
Elite/AN:1969098. [2000, March 9].
Kent, R. (1997). Room 109: The promise of a portfolio
classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Lankes, A.M.D. (1995). Electronic portfolios: A new idea
in assessment. [On-line]. ERIC Digest EDO-IR-95-9 Clearinghouse on
Information and Technology, Syracuse University, NY Available:
http://ericir.syr.edu/ithome/digests/portfolio.html [16 March 2000].
Marcocci, A. (1998). Portfolios. [On-line].
Available: http://www.pde.psu.edu/BBPages_Reference/40001/400011441.html
http://www.pde.psu.edu/BBPages_Reference/40001/400011443.html
http://www.pde.psu.edu/BBPages_Reference/40001/400011446.html
http://www.pde.psu.edu/BBPages_Reference/40001/400011458.html [2000, March 27].
McLellan, H. (1993). Situated learning in focus:
Introduction to special issue. Educational Technology, 33, 5-9.
Olsen, M.W. (1991). Portfolios: Educational tools. Reading
Psychology, 12(1), 73-80.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (1999). Guide to
portfolios. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ed.psu.edu/ci/papers/portfolio/portfolio-guide.html [2000, April 2].
Polin, L. (1991). Portfolio assessment. The Writing
Notebook, 8(3), 25-27.
Schools of California On-Line Resources for Education.
(1999). Rubrics. [On-line].
Available: http://www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/score/actbank/trubrics.htm [2000,
May 4].
Shores, E.F., & Grace, C. (1998). The portfolio book. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House, Inc.
Sullivan, K.K. (2000, April). Thinking about a child’s need
for reflection. From Now On, 9(8). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.fno.org/apr2000/reflection.html [2000, April 25].
Appendix
A
The
following is a sample reflection sheet to be turned in with each piece of work
added to the portfolio.
Name: Date:
Center: Title
of Activity:
This piece of work belongs in my
portfolio because:
Describe
what you have learned about the subject covered:
Describe how you might like to extend
your knowledge beyond what you currently know:
Appendix B
The
following is an example of a rubric designed for teacher evaluation of a report
for an electronic portfolio.
|
|
Beginning
1
|
Developing
2
|
Accomplished
3
|
Exemplary
4
|
Score
|
|
Topic
|
Totally unrelated
|
Remotely related
|
Somewhat relevant
|
Directly relevant
|
|
|
Organization
|
Not organized, events make no sense
|
Some organization, events jump around,
start and end are unclear
|
Organized, events are somewhat jumpy
|
Good organization, events are logically
ordered, sharp sense of beginning and end
|
|
|
Quality
of Information
|
Unable to find specific details
|
Details are somewhat sketchy
|
Some details are non-supporting to the
subject
|
Supporting details specific to subject
|
|
|
Grammar
& Spelling
|
Very frequent grammar and/or spelling
errors
|
More than two errors
|
Only one or two errors
|
All grammar and spelling are correct
|
|
|
Interest
Level
|
Needs descriptive words
|
Vocabulary is constant, details lack
"color"
|
Vocabulary is varied, supporting
details need work
|
Vocabulary varied, supporting details
vivid
|
|
|
Formatting
|
+ 6 formatting mistakes
|
4-6 formatting mistakes
|
2-3 formatting mistakes
|
No formatting mistakes
|
|
|
Timeliness
|
Report handed in more than one week
late
|
Up to one week late
|
Up to two days late
|
Report handed in on time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
(Schools
of California On-Line Resources for Education, 1999)