Teaching in Higher Education

Vol. 17, No. 4, August 2012, 425
437

Establishing a portfolio assessment framework for pre-service teachers:

a multiple perspectives approach
Maria K. Denneya*, Jeanne M. Grierb and Merilyn Buchananb
a
School of Special Education, School Psychology, & Early Childhood Studies, University of
Florida-College of Education, P.O. Box 117050, Gainesville FL 32611-7050, USA; bSchool of
Education, California State University Channel Islands, One University Drive, Camarillo CA
93012, USA

(Received 13 March 2009; final version received 12 September 2011)

In the field of initial teacher training, portfolios are widely used to assess preservice teachers performance as well as the outcomes of university-based teacher
preparation programmes. However, little is known about the explicit design of
portfolio assessment mechanisms in teacher preparation programmes. Issues
related to the design and validation of portfolios for pre-service teacher
assessment are a critical area of inquiry for the field of initial teacher training.
In this study, perspectives were elicited from school trainee teachers and faculty
from a secondary teacher preparation programme to examine the relationships
identified among core competencies of a portfolio assessment framework and preservice candidate learning outcomes. Comparative findings are presented about
the relationships identified by the trainee teachers and faculty across the
secondary education programmes portfolio core competencies and trainee
learning outcomes. A discussion of the findings is presented with implications
and future directions highlighted.
Keywords: portfolio assessment; secondary teacher preparation; pre-service
teacher education; professional development

Over the past decade, a number of countries have developed and implemented
standards-based professional learning systems that focus on the ongoing process of
learning to teach. The standards apply to the professional practice of teachers from
teacher preparation, through induction years, the beginning teaching phase, to
ongoing, continued career development stages (Coolahan 2002; Harrison 2007). The
various sets of standards are described in detail, and have been adopted and
implemented by the agencies that monitor and assess teachers throughout their
career paths. As teachers work toward attaining the expected standards of
professional practice, they are called on to provide evidence of and reflect on the
deepening and expansion of their knowledge and skills as they become effective
teachers, and to determine areas for their growth and development. However, what
comprises the record of evidence that teachers accumulate, how that evidence is best
maintained and presented and what learning the teachers perceive they gain as they
work to meet each standard is left without guidance. This research presents
one framework for the collection of evidence of performance and investigated
*Corresponding author. Email: denney@coe.ufl.edu
ISSN 1356-2517 print/ISSN 1470-1294 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.640997
http://www.tandfonline.com

426 M.K. Denney et al.

what pre-service teachers and their university tutors perceived to be the learning that
took place as they met the California state standards for the teaching profession.
Professional standards for teachers in England, the USA, Canada and several
Australian states are based around the belief that quality teaching is critical to
improve students learning outcomes, with the standards focusing attention on
the processes, purposes and efforts employed by successful teachers. While the
descriptors and organisation of national and/or state standards differ, they share an
attempt to characterise what effective teachers know and are able to do in a way that
reflects the complexity of teachers knowledge and skills combined with a set of
professional dispositions or attributes. Beneath the variations in the descriptors,
there are common domains that include: (1) foundational knowledge and understanding of the processes of learning and teaching; (2) professional skills and
competencies as evidenced in teaching practice; and (3) professional dispositions and
values.
Standards for the teaching profession, such as those of other professional bodies
and organisations, provide a framework for a teachers career development and
clarify what appropriate professional progression looks like. To progress through the
career stages a teacher demonstrates that standards have been met. Standards also
establish a system for controlling and maintaining quality. Jasman and Barrera
(1998) suggest that professionalism is enhanced when certification for teaching is
contingent on meeting professional standards. It is proposed that the value of
professional standards is that teachers gain control in managing their professional
learning (Darling-Hammond 2001). Furthermore, it is asserted that standards might
assist teachers in developing their own professional growth plans and support
ongoing professional learning (Mayer et al. 2002). Ingvarson and Kleinhenz (2003)
identify another value of teacher standards that stems from self-assessment of
teaching performance, as well as feedback from others. The process for assessment
varies depending on both the career phase of the teacher and the standards
concerned.
Decisions about teachers competence related to the complexities of the work
frequently rest with more than one assessor and standards need to be written with
clarity and in a way that makes it possible for by several parties to use them
(Ingvarson and Kleinhenz 2003). Teacher preparation providers are held accountable
for assessing pre-service teachers levels of attainment of the professional teaching
performance standards, which in turn determines if institutions of higher education
(IHE) can recommend or confer qualified teacher status on the trainee teachers. While
assessment of academic learning is typically the responsibility of university course
tutors, assessment of instructional performance is shared with mentor teachers at the
placement school. Assessment against the standards is, therefore, a matter of skilled
professional judgement made at different times and in different situations, drawing on
evidence collected over time from a number of sources (Training and Development
Agency for Schools 2011). Because of the range of interpretations this gives rise to, it
is asserted that a common understanding of standards be developed across multiple
educational constituents, including school-based tutors, higher education tutors and
teacher trainees (Training and Development Agency for Schools 2011). Likewise, to
ensure clarity about what constitutes a passing standard a scoring system grounded in
benchmark examples, the development of effective evaluation methods for assessing
trainee teachers performances is recommended (Ingvarson 2002).

Teaching in Higher Education

427

Yet, despite cautionary notes and recommendations, the challenge for assessors
remains how to measure the standards, how to implement assessment procedures,
and what to consider as evidence that the standards have been met, and in a way that
is fair, valid and reliable across IHEs and school sites. To better ensure equitable
assessment, rules need to be specified for gathering evidence about practice
(Ingvarson 2002). Keeping records of evidence that demonstrate trainee teachers
are attaining and appropriately applying professional knowledge and skills, and
possess the professional attributes or dispositions that define effective teachers is
called for by the various authorities that wrote the standards. It is anticipated that
drawing trainees attention to how and if they are meeting the expected standards of
professional practice will create the opportunity for reflection on the knowledge and
skills they are developing as they become effective teachers, and help determine areas
for professional growth and development.
Portfolios are one mechanism to provide direct evidence of student work and
classroom activity by showing the outcomes of the learning environment planned by
the teacher. Portfolios have been developed and used as an assessment tool in initial
teacher training in recent decades and for multiple purposes and in multiple contexts
(Ledoux & McHenry 2006; Zeichner and Wray 2001). Showcase portfolios are useful
for beginning teachers in search of employment and during job interviews. Portfolios
can be summative
an accumulation of evidence that supports decisions regarding
the alignment of teacher candidate performance, teacher education programme goals
and initial teacher certification (Ledoux and McHenry 2006). Portfolios can also
serve as a formative measure that provides teacher candidates opportunities to select
materials and reflect on their learning to document their growth during the
programme (Zeichner and Wray 2001). Research on the use of portfolios in preservice teacher preparation programmes internationally reveals that portfolios are a
medium through which student teachers reflect on their professional development
(Groom and Maunonen-Eskelinen 2006; Loughran and Corrigan 1995). Common to
many of the portfolio models is the collection of trainees artifacts, their reflections
and criteria for assessing how these artifacts demonstrate learning outcomes in preservice teacher preparation programmes (Dysthe and Engelsen 2004).
In a US study of the preparation of teachers of students with behavioral
disorders, Bloom and Bacon (1995) found that portfolios assisted the students with
self-reflection and assessment of their development as a professional educator. The
authors found that the portfolios provided assistance to the student teachers in the
development of a wide range of skills to aid in decision-making, problem solving and
establishing a connection with the teaching profession. The portfolio process also
gave the student teachers more self-confidence in their abilities as future educators
through the responsibility imposed and control over their own work. The students
were energetic and enthusiastic about having the opportunity for choice in the
development of their portfolios, which led to addressing complex issues in teaching
instead of writing for faculty approval. Some disadvantages included students
apprehension with the evaluation process, as well as the labour intensiveness of
the assessment process for the faculty. The authors suggested that these issues might
be managed by the active involvement of participating students and faculty in the
portfolio process, as well as the articulation of clear expectations about the
assessment process and required products.

428 M.K. Denney et al.

In a study of the use of portfolios as a tool for promoting teaching, Klenowski
(2000) focused on the extent to which portfolios supported the development of
reflective practice and teaching skills among students and lecturers in secondary
education. It was found that the use of portfolios not only profoundly impacted the
pedagogic practice among the pre-service teachers, but also among the lecturers. It
was reported that initially the students did not understand the value of the portfolio;
they viewed it as a data filing system. Over time, the assessment procedures and
explanations became clearer; the students began to appreciate the reflective aspects
of the portfolio process. Portfolio exemplars were provided, as well as more specific
evaluation criteria. Lecturers also gained from embedding the portfolio process into
their courses. Changes in their teaching styles were noted through the integration of
reflective practice into their teaching and the connection to their own philosophy of
teaching.
Despite the increase in use of portfolios, there is limited evidence about the
validity of these instruments in initial teacher training (Burns and Haight 2005). As
with traditional paper and pencil measures, it is essential that portfolio assessment
instruments demonstrate similar psychometric standards, especially at a time of
increasing scrutiny and accountability of teacher preparation programmes. In their
discussion about the validation of performance-based assessments, Miller and Linn
(2000) asserted that the criteria for examining validity vary greatly in a high-stakes
educational environment. As the field of initial teacher training grapples with how
best to measure teacher candidate competence
whether through performance-based
assessment, traditional multiple choice measures, classroom observation or portfolios, it is argued that assessment methods need to accurately capture the teaching and
learning process.
As a basis for establishing initial validity of a portfolio framework, this study
focused on the multiple perspectives of secondary education teacher candidates and
faculty to examine how closely the portfolios core competencies were aligned with a
set of identified teacher candidate learning outcomes. The primary research
questions guiding this study were: (1) What relationships do trainee teachers and
university faculty members identify among the core competencies demonstrated
through the portfolio framework and candidates learning outcomes in the secondary
education programme? and (2) What are the perceived similarities and differences
among the teacher candidates and university faculty perceptions about the required
core competencies and the candidates learning outcomes in the portfolio framework?

Method
Research site and participants
This study took place at a public university in Southern California with a total fulltime equivalent enrolment of 3000 students. The universitys initial teacher training
programme constitutes one of the largest campus units with approximately 800
teacher candidates enrolled annually in eight different programmes. Twenty-three
teacher candidates and six programme faculty members gave their informed consent
to participate in the study. The recruitment criteria for this study allowed for the
participation of both first- and second-semester trainee teachers who were enrolled in

Teaching in Higher Education

429

the universitys secondary education programme. Fifty-two percent of the teacher

candidates were male and 48% were female. The chronological age of the total
sample ranged from 23 to 49 years, with a mean age of 33 (SD 9.5). One hundred
percent of the sample held a held a bachelor degree and 10% earned a master degree
before entering the secondary teacher preparation programme. As for the single
subject content areas pursued by the teacher candidates, English accounted for the
highest representation (47%), followed by science (29%) and mathematics (24%).
The university faculty represented the subject areas of English, science and
mathematics. The characteristics of the six participating faculty members were as
follows: a student teaching university tutor who did not teach courses in the teacher
training programme; three part time lecturers who taught one course a year; one
tenure-track faculty member who taught one course per semester, and one tenuretrack faculty member who taught three courses per semester and was the secondary
teacher education programme coordinator.

Procedure
The teacher candidates and programme faculty were recruited directly from the
universitys secondary education programme. Participants were provided with an oral
and written explanation about the research study. Of the total number of teacher
candidates who were invited to participate, 100% of these candidates agreed to be
included in the study. Of the seven programme faculty who were invited, six faculty
members consented to participate. Written human subject consents were obtained
from the participants. The candidates and faculty were asked to complete a written
matching task on one occasion. The matching task took the participants between 10
and 15 minutes to complete.

The matching task

The teacher candidates and faculty members were introduced to a matrix of the
portfolios core competencies (i.e. learning environment; instructional process;
learning about students; and professionalism) and a set of candidate learning
outcomes (i.e. actively engage students in their learning) (see Table 1). It should be
noted faculty created the portfolio core competencies across the teacher preparation
programmes for the elementary and secondary education candidate portfolios.
The candidate learning outcomes were also identified by the initial teacher
training faculty across the universitys elementary and secondary education teacher
Table 1 Candidate learning outcomes.
Teach all subjects in their area of specialisation
Teach students with English as a first or second language
Relate to the diversity of languages and cultures among students and their families
Meet the diverse needs of all students including those with special needs
Be reflective and deliberative practitioners
Link content and pedagogy
Actively engage students in their learning
Integrate research, theory and best educational practice into their teaching

430 M.K. Denney et al.

preparation programmes. The participants were asked to individually match the four
portfolio core competencies with each associated candidate learning outcome. For
each portfolio core competency, a total of eight possible associated candidate
learning outcomes could be identified. Each response to the matching task was
scored with a binary scale from 1 (i.e. relation identified) to 2 (i.e. no relation
identified).

Results
This study was designed to examine the perspectives of teacher candidates and
faculty about the relationships among the portfolios core competencies and
associated candidate learning outcomes as a basis for establishing initial validity of
the secondary education credential programmes portfolio framework. It was of
particular interest to examine if the relationships noted among the portfolios core
competencies and candidate learning outcomes were similar or different between the
teacher candidates and programme faculty.

Perspectives of teacher candidates

Table 2 presents a frequency distribution of the teacher candidates and faculty
responses to the matching task of the relationships among the portfolios core
competencies and the candidate learning outcomes. The teacher candidates were
asked to individually match the four portfolio core competencies (i.e. learning
environment; instructional process; learning about students; and professionalism)
with a total of eight possible candidate learning outcomes for each of the related
portfolios core competencies.
Of the four portfolio core competencies, instructional process yielded the highest
percentages of affirmative relationships (e.g. range from 70% to 100%) identified for
the entire candidate learning outcomes. The portfolio core competency, learning
environment followed with the next highest percentages with a range from 74% to
96% for affirmative relationships identified for five of the eight candidate learning
outcomes. Of the four portfolio core competencies, learning about students yielded
the lowest associations with a range from 17% to 30% for four of the eight candidate
learning outcomes. The candidate learning outcome, teach all subjects in their area of
specialization, showed the lowest relation of 17% with the core competency learning
about students.

Perspectives of faculty
Table 2 presents a frequency distribution of the facultys responses to the matching
task. As found with the teacher candidates data, the core competency instructional
process yielded the highest percentages (e.g. range from 83% to 100%) for seven of
the eight candidate learning outcomes. The core competency, learning about students
showed the next highest percentages (e.g. range from 83% to 100%) of relationships
with four of the eight candidate learning outcomes. This finding was in direct
contrast to the teacher candidates data in which learning about students had the
lowest associations with the candidate learning outcomes. Finally, of the four core

Teaching in Higher Education

431

Table 2 Portfolio core competencies and candidate learning outcomes.

Trainee
teachers
(n 23)

Faculty
(n 6)

Yes
(%)

No
(%)

Yes
(%)

No
(%)

Teach all subjects in their area of specialisation

Teach students with English as a first or second language
Relate to the diversity of languages and cultures among
students and their families
Meet the diverse needs of all students including those with
special needs
Be reflective and deliberative practitioners
Link content and pedagogy
Actively engage students in their learning
Integrate research, theory and best educational practice into
their teaching
Instructional process

43
96
96

57
4
4

33
67
100

67
33
0

91

83

17

39
74
87
61

61
26
13
39

33
33
83
50

67
67
17
50

Teach all subjects in their area of specialisation

Teach students with English as a first or second language
Relate to the diversity of languages and cultures among
students and their families
Meet the diverse needs of all students including those with
special needs
Be reflective and deliberative practitioners
Link content and pedagogy
Actively engage students in their learning
Integrate research, theory and best educational practice into
their teaching
Learning about students

91
78
70

9
22
30

100
100
83

0
0
17

87

13

100

91
100
96
96

9
0
4
4

67
100
100
100

33
0
0
0

Teach all subjects in their area of specialisation

Teach students with English as a first or second language
Relate to the diversity of languages and cultures among
students and their families
Meet the diverse needs of all students including those with
special needs
Be reflective and deliberative practitioners
Link content and pedagogy
Actively engage students in their learning
Integrate research, theory and best educational practice into
their teaching
Professionalism

17
100
100

83
0
0

33
83
100

67
17
0

96

100

26
30
87
30

74
70
13
70

67
33
83
67

33
67
17
33

Teach all subjects in their area of specialisation

Teach students with English as a first or second language
Relate to the diversity of languages and cultures among
students and their families

83
48
57

17
52
43

83
17
33

17
83
67

Learning environment

432 M.K. Denney et al.

Table 2 (Continued )
Trainee
teachers
(n 23)

Meet the diverse needs of all students including those with

special needs
Be reflective and deliberative practitioners
Link content and pedagogy
Actively engage students in their learning
Integrate research, theory and best educational practice into
their teaching

Faculty
(n 6)

Yes
(%)

No
(%)

Yes
(%)

No
(%)

83

17

17

83

96
74
48
100

4
26
52
0

100
33
17
83

0
67
83
17

competencies, professionalism revealed the lowest relationships with five of the eight
candidate learning outcomes.

Similarities and differences among teacher candidates and faculty

It was of particular interest to consider if the relationships noted among the
portfolios core competencies and candidate learning outcomes were similar or
different between the teacher candidates and faculty. A cut-off percentage range was
used to calculate low (e.g. 0
39%), moderate (e.g. 40
69%) and high (e.g. 70
100%)
agreements within each of the four core competencies and candidate learning
outcomes across the teacher candidate and faculty data (Table 2). The highest
agreement across the teacher candidates and faculty was found for the candidate
learning outcomes within the core competencies, instructional process and learning
about students. The most disagreements across the teacher candidates and faculty
were noted for the candidate learning outcomes within the core competencies,
professionalism and learning environment.

Discussion
As a basis for establishing a portfolio assessment framework, the multiple
perspectives of secondary education teacher candidates and faculty were elicited
order to examine how closely the portfolios core competencies aligned with a set of
candidate learning outcomes. Similarities and differences between the teacher
candidates and the facultys perspectives about the relationships among the core
competencies and candidate learning outcomes were of specific interest in this study.
Some interesting findings emerged.

Perspectives of teacher candidates

The teacher candidates, as a group, were very decided in their responses to the
matching task, in fact, very few (6 out of 32 items) were identified as moderate. As
the ones who have experienced the programme and participated in coursework, their

Teaching in Higher Education

433

ratings of the relationships between the portfolios core competencies and the
candidate learning outcomes were a definite yes or no.
Several of the candidate learning outcome results were surprising across the core
competencies from the teacher candidates perspectives. The candidate learning
outcome of being a reflective and deliberate practitioner was only deemed strongly
relational (91% and 96%) for the core competencies of instructional process and
professionalism. It is interesting that the teacher candidates did not perceive that
reflection would benefit them in constructing their learning environment or learning
about students. However, this finding makes sense within the context of the
secondary education programmes curriculum. The teacher candidates were very
often asked to reflect on their lesson planning and instructional activities. This act is
called a professional responsibility and teacher candidates were not often required to
reflect on other aspects of the teaching process outside of planning.
The candidate learning outcome of integrating research and theory into teaching
follows a very similar pattern as being reflective. The candidates were exposed to the
theory about instructional processes and learning, and this is framed as a
professional activity. However, it was quite surprising that the core competency,
learning about students received a low rating of 30% when so much emphasis was
placed on learning theory in more than one course throughout the secondary
education programme.
The grouping of candidate learning outcomes that addressed teaching students
with English as a first or second language, relating to diversity of languages and
cultures, and meeting the needs of all students including those with special needs
were all hallmarks of the secondary teacher training programme. The students rated
these areas very similarly as high across three core competencies: learning
environment; instructional process; and learning about students. However, these
three core competencies were not so similar for the core competency of professionalism. It is interesting that teaching students with English as a first or second
language and relating to the diversity of languages was rated as moderate (48% and
57%, respectively) while meeting the diverse needs of students including those with
special needs rated high with 83%. Although, all of these outcomes are considered
the professional responsibility of teachers, one possible explanation for this
discrepancy is that the teacher candidates completing the matching task were all
enrolled in a course entitled Access to Learning: Special Needs Learners. The course
focused on the legal and curricular needs of students with special needs and was
taught by a special education policy specialist.
Finally, it was especially concerning that the teacher candidates did not perceive
the candidate learning outcomes in relationship to the core competency of
professionalism to be more related. Only half of the candidate learning outcomes
generated a strong relationship rating. The core competency of professionalism was
for two semesters the focus for the secondary education programme faculty to
strengthen their assignments within the curriculum. However, these low relationships
raise questions if these efforts were successful.
Overall, it was gratifying that the teacher candidates had such strong opinions
about the relationships between the candidate learning outcomes and the core
competencies of the programmes portfolio framework. Their ratings were discriminatory and assisted in the initial design and validation efforts of the secondary
education programmes portfolios framework.

434 M.K. Denney et al.

Perspectives of faculty
It is difficult to yield reliable faculty findings from only six participating faculty
members. However, with only seven faculty total in the programme, we can state that
our sample was close to a complete population. Regardless of sample size, the faculty
responses on the matching tasks revealed some interesting information.
It was quite surprising that the faculty rated the candidate learning outcome of
being a reflective practitioner as low or moderate in three of the four core portfolio
competencies. Only the core competency, professionalism was rated high with a 100%
agreement. This finding was likely consistent with the overall programme philosophy
that the practice of reflection was important as a professional activity. However, with
the lack of consistent application across the portfolios core competencies, this
finding was disconcerting -especially for the core competency of instructional process
that was emphasised throughout the programmes course- and fieldwork.
In addition, faculty rated the candidate learning outcome of integrating research
and theory into teaching with the following ratings: high in the core competencies of
instructional process (100%) and professionalism (83%); moderate for the core
competencies of learning environment (50%) and learning about students (67%).
These findings suggest that the integration of research and theory into teaching was
highly related to the instructional process. However, the research and theory of
teaching was recognised to a much lesser degree in relationship to the core
competencies of establishing a learning environment and learning about students.
Another interesting finding from the facultys perspective about the relationships
between the core competencies and the candidates learning outcomes was in the area
of professionalism. The faculty rated only three of the eight candidate learning
outcomes as highly related. Of greater concern were the low ratings for three of the
candidate learning outcomes (e.g. English as a first or second language, meeting the
diverse needs of all students and actively engaging students in their learning).
Overall, these findings imply a combination of factors about the secondary
education programme faculty. The different roles of the six participating faculty and
their level of involvement in the programme might have contributed to the variation
in faculty responses. The familiarity of individual faculty with the programme was
limited to only those aspects of the programme in which they directly participated.
However, by including the multiple faculty perspectives in this study, we hoped that
individual faculty members would take a broader perspective-one outside of their
own familiarity and involvement. These findings suggest that the programme faculty
were not as familiar with the secondary education programme as anticipated due to
their varying levels of participation and involvement.

Similarities and differences among teacher candidates and faculty

In the comparison of candidate learning outcomes as rated either high, moderate, or
low for each of the portfolios core competencies, there is much overlap and
agreement between the ratings of teacher candidates and programme faculty. These
strong agreements
both positive and negative
inform our attempt to align the
portfolio core competencies with candidate learning outcomes for the purposes of
further refining and validating the programmes portfolio assessment framework.

Teaching in Higher Education

435

In the core competency learning environment, there was agreement of ratings on

four candidate learning outcomes. The faculty and candidates rated three of the
outcomes (i.e. diversity of languages, meeting the diverse needs of all students and
actively engaging students) as high. However, although not in agreement, the
candidate learning outcome of teaching students with English as a first or second
language was very close to having a high rating by both teacher candidates and
faculty members in the programme. In this area, it was almost more telling of what
the two groups labelled as low and not being related to creating and maintaining an
environment for learning. Subject matter knowledge and being reflective were not
rated as important to this core competency. This is quite an interesting finding in that
secondary students and faculty are typically very concerned with the recognition of
their subject matter expertise. The core competency of instructional process was
clearly an area with many similarities of perspective. The candidates rated all eight
learning outcomes as highly related to the instructional process and all faculty
ratings could be considered high if the 67% for being reflective was adjusted due to
the low number of faculty responses. It was very clear from these data that the
instructional process was highly aligned with the entire candidate learning outcomes.
For the core competency of learning about students, the ratings of the teacher
candidates and faculty were similar for all but two of the learning outcomes and
these have been previously discussed. The candidates and faculty rated four of the
candidate learning outcomes as being highly related to learning about students. It is
interesting to note that all four of the learning outcomes identified as high each have
the word student in the phrase.
The core competency of professionalism has been discussed previously for both
candidates and faculty. However, each of the findings informs each other in a quid
pro quo manner. Meaning, if the faculty members do not recognise these candidate
learning outcomes as professional then why should the teacher candidates? Likewise,
it is encouraging that the teacher candidates identified the connections between their
candidate learning outcomes and the core competency of professionalism. They must
have synthesised these relationships themselves even though these were not explicit in
the programme. This will be an area of definite exploration for the future.
Limitations and conclusions
There were a couple of limitations with this study and more research is needed to
extend the generalisation of the findings. The study was conducted at one teacher
preparation programme. The replication of this study with other teacher preparation
programmes internationally might potentially yield different results. The second
limitation was the small sample size of faculty participants in this study. The increase
in the faculty sample size would have been beneficial to match the larger sample of
teacher candidates in the study.
Through a matching task that was completed by secondary education teacher
candidates and faculty, an initial alignment and framework for portfolio validity was
established. Although it was never expected that each portfolio core competency
addressed every candidate learning outcome, it was expected that every candidate
learning outcome would find a home within at least one core competency. This
indeed was found to be true. However, for the faculty who designed the secondary
education programme and the portfolio structure, it was initially intended that the

436 M.K. Denney et al.

constructs of reflective and deliberate best practice, and the integration of research
and theory were at least highly related to all four of the portfolios core competencies.
However, these connections were not found. Further investigations are needed to
explore these discrepancies both from the perspectives of teacher candidates and
programme faculty within the secondary education programme studied. The
portfolio is a powerful data point in our initial teacher training assessment system.
However, it is not the only factor used when considering recommending teacher
candidates for credentials. It might be prudent for teacher preparation programmes
to consider other assessment methods such as qualitative interviews in addition to
portfolios in order to capture the self-reflections of teacher candidates about their
learning. It is suggested that teacher preparation programmes rely on multiple valid
measures to ensure that candidates are not only prepared, but also qualified to teach
children and youth.
Among the implications for teacher preparation programmes when considering
the use of and implementation of portfolios is the need to be explicit with
programme faculty and students in a few areas. First, it would be important for
all programme faculty to meet regularly about the implementation of portfolios in
order for these faculty to become familiar with all aspects of the programme
curricula beyond the possible one course they might teach within the programme.
Second, it would be beneficial for the intended learning outcomes of the programme
to be made explicit to the students across all courses. It would also be valuable if
teacher preparation programmes would place a greater emphasis on the connections
across reflection, theory, and research. As was found in this study, graduates of
secondary teacher preparation programmes need not only demonstrate specific
competencies, but also be aware of how these are linked to reflective teaching
practices. In the field of initial teacher training, the use of portfolios is widely used to
assess pre-service teacher candidates performance as well as, the outcomes of
university-based teacher preparation programmes. The lessons learned from the
confounding findings of this study demonstrate the importance of establishing
validation processes such as a shared understanding (i.e. across faculty and teacher
candidates) about the purpose a portfolio assessment framework and pre-service
candidate learning outcomes when considering this tool as a method of assessment in
the field of initial teacher training. In an era of increasing accountability for teacher
preparation programmes to show how student learning outcomes are linked to
teacher candidate performance, it will be important for programmes to make
informed decisions about how the assessment methods selected accurately reflect the
teaching and learning process
whether through portfolios, classroom observations
and other methods.
References
Bloom, L.A., and E.H. Bacon. 1995. Professional portfolios: An alternative perspective on the
preparation of teachers of students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders 20, no. 4:
290
300.
Burns, M.K., and S.L. Haight. 2005. Psychometric properties and instructional utility of
assessing special education teacher candidate knowledge with portfolios. Initial Teacher
Training and Special Education 28, no. 3/4: 185
94.
Coolahan, J. 2002. Teacher education and the teaching career in an era of lifelong learning.
OECD Education Working Papers 2, OECD Publishing, 1
39.

Teaching in Higher Education

437

Darling-Hammond, L. 2001. Standard setting in teaching: Changes in licensing, certification,

and assessment. In Handbook of research on teaching, ed. V. Richardson, 751
76.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Dysthe, O., and K.S. Engelsen. 2004. Portfolios and assessment in teacher education in
Norway: A theory-based discussion of different models in two sites. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 29, no. 2: 239
58.
Groom, B., and I. Maunonen-Eskelinen. 2006. The use of portfolios to develop reflective
practice in teacher training: A comparative and collaborative approach between two teacher
training providers in the UK and Finland. Teaching in Higher Education 11, no. 3: 291
300.
Harrison, J. 2007. The assessment of ITT standard one, professional values and practice:
Measuring performance or what? Journal of Education for Teaching 33, no. 3: 323
40.
Ingvarson, L. 2002. Strengthening the profession? A comparison of recent reforms in the UK
and the USA. Teaching Standards and Teacher Evaluation. Australia: Australian Council for
Educational Research, Issue 2, 1
16.
Ingvarson, L., and E. Kleinhenz. 2003. A review of standards of practice for beginning
teaching. Teaching Standards and Teacher Evaluation. Australia: Australian Council for
Educational Research, Issue 4, 1
19.
Jasman, A., and S. Barrera. 1998. Final report: Teacher career structure: Level 3 classroom
teachers: Development and implementation of selection processes, professional competency
standards. Perth, Australia: Nexus Strategic Solutions.
Klenowski, V. 2000. Portfolios: Promoting teaching. Assessment in Education 7, no. 2: 215
36.
Ledoux, M.W., and N. McHenry. 2006. Electronic portfolio adoption for teacher education
candidates. Early Childhood Education Journal 34, no. 2: 103
16.
Loughran, J., and D. Corrigan. 1995. Teaching portfolios: A strategy for developing learning
and teaching in preservice education. Teaching & Initial Teacher Training 11, no. 6: 565
77.
Mayer, D., J. Mitchell, D. Macdonald, R. Land, and A. Luke. 2002. Evaluation report of the
education Queensland professional standards for teachers pilot 2002. Brisbane, Australia:
University of Queensland.
Miller, M.D., and R.L. Linn. 2000. Validation of performance-based assessments. Applied
Psychological Measurement 24, no. 4: 367
78.
Training and Development Agency for Schools. 2011. Professional standards for teachers for
qualified teacher status. London: Training and Development Agency for Schools. http://
www.tda.gov.uk/training-provider/itt/qts-standards-itt-requirements/qts-introduction.aspx
(accessed June 1, 2011).
Zeichner, K., and S. Wray. 2001. The teaching portfolio in U.S. teacher education programs:
What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, no. 5:
613
21.

Copyright of Teaching in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.