Running Head: PROGRESS REPORT

!1

Assignment 3A: PDQP Progress Report

Sarah Shoemaker
National University
December 11, 2016
TED 690
Professor Clifton Johnson

Running Head: PROGRESS REPORT

!2
Abstract

This paper presents a detailed progress report providing an update of my Professional

Development Quest Portfolio (PDQP) implementation. The progress report includes explanation
of goal achievements as well as frustrations in the process of populating the domains of the
PDQP. It also includes questions and concerns that remain regarding the portions of the PDQP
that have been developed and those that have yet to be developed. Finally, this progress outlines
next steps for developing and completing the current incarnation of the PDQP toward completion
of TED 690 and achievement of future professional goals.

Running Head: PROGRESS REPORT

!3
Introduction

As partial completion of the requirements of TED 690 thus far, I have populated four of
the six domains of my PDQP, which has been designed to align with the California Teaching
Performance Expectations (TPEs) (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013). Through this
course I have come to realize that my use and purpose for a PDQP is different than many of my
classmates because I am currently employed as a full-time, in-service teacher. As such, my
PDQP is a showcase portfolio that will be used for job advancement such as obtaining
leadership roles, making lateral moves, and sharing achievement with colleagues, administration,
and other community members (Constantino & De Lorenzo, 2009, p. 4). This has not made the
development of my PDQP easier per se. Through this process I have had my share of both goal
achievements and frustrations. I also have some questions and concerns about my current and
future PDQP progress that will hopefully be addressed and solved through the last week of this
course and my identified next steps of my portfolio development.
Goal Achievements and Frustrations
In order to continue progress in developing my PDQP, it is necessary to stop and evaluate
its effectiveness so far, including goal achievements and frustrations that have come up in the
process (Constantino & De Lorenzo, 2009). Two goals that I had for this process were to
increase my depth of knowledge in teacher competencies and standards, and to present a visually
appealing product in terms of design and format. Aligning my PDQP with the TPEs laid out by
the Commission on Teacher Credentialing has led to greater overall understanding of the TPEs
and their Domains, especially what it looks like to be competent in each of the Domains (2013).
Additionally, the professional development that has occurred as a result of the required literature

Running Head: PROGRESS REPORT

!4

reviews for each Domain has been a benefit. I achieved my goal for the look of my portfolio with
a clean design and consistent format (Constantino & De Lorenzo, 2009). I have used color
sparingly but effectively through the use of personal photos of my teaching experience. This has
been confirmed by comments from my TED 690 classmates in presentations and discussion
board postings (Personal communication, December 8, 2016).
In addition to having achieved the two specific goals above, I am grateful for having
some years of teaching experience from which to pull artifacts for the Domains. This has made
the process smoother that it might be for a pre-service teacher.
That said, I have had a few frustrations in developing my PDQP. First, I have had some
minor issues with formatting my website using Weeblys design platform. Although it is fairly
intuitive, the functions of the free account option are sometimes limited and I am forced to come
up with alternate versions of the design I see in my minds eye. Second, I have been mildly
frustrated in tracking down tangible artifacts as evidence of competencies and experience. For
example, my second artifact for Domain D is evidence of dance placement auditions for use in
learning about students and planning instruction. I wanted to include a flyer that was used to
advertise the auditions, but I could not find a copy. I asked my colleague for the original file, but
was unable to get in in time for this weeks submission. Third, and most notably, I have had met
some challenge in selecting artifacts that cover the broad scope of some of the TPEs. This third
frustration leads to my questions and concerns.
Questions and Concerns
My first, and main, question is: Is it necessary to address every competency in the TPEs
through the artifacts included in my PDQP? I know that the key is to carefully select the best and

Running Head: PROGRESS REPORT

!5

highest-quality artifacts for each Domain, but this can pose a problem for meticulous
perfectionists (such as myself) who have high standards for their own performance. In this regard
I think specifically of Domain C, which can seem convoluted since it encompasses four of the 13
TPEs. When the idea is to limit artifacts to three to five per Domain, selection of just the right
ones can be difficult and stressful. Administrators, future employers, and other parties surely do
not want to sift through a page crowded with artifacts addressing every single competency listed.
Feedback from others on this topic would help.
Other concerns that I have stem from a similar desire to be thorough, and extension
beyond the scope of the course. Each artifact included in the PDQP should have an introduction,
an explanation, and a reflection, but my concern is to include enough information while keeping
the design aesthetic of the webpage (Constantino & De Lorenzo, 2009). I am worried that I have
too much text crowding some of the pages, and yet not enough explanation or reflection. Another
concern is for maintenance and further implementation of my PDQP after TED 690 has
concluded. I have the desire to continue with the professional growth and reflection process
through the use of my PDQP, but I hope that I find the time, support, and resources necessary to
do so.
Next Steps
My next steps in the development of my PDQP should set me up for success for the
conclusion of this course and beyond. In addition to populating Domains B and E with
appropriate artifacts, I would like to go back and add at least one more artifact for Domain A. I
feel I need more evidence of my pedagogical knowledge in both PE and dance (Constantino &
De Lorenzo, 2009). This might include evidence of my passing scores on the CSET in PE and

Running Head: PROGRESS REPORT

!6

my choreography reel. I would also like to add an artifact that provides evidence of my
leadership positions to Domain F, for professional development. As for the overall formatting of
my PDQP, next steps include Hyperlinking my TPE explanation page to the individual Domain
pages and adding a page for my resum and philosophy of education, which I do not believe is
fully evident yet through the rest of my PDQP (Constantino & De Lorenzo, 2009).
Conclusion
Clearly, I still have some work to do in completing my PDQP. The TPEs, though
multifaceted, have made the process easier as a way of organizing my eportfolio. As a current inservice teacher my overall goal for my PDQP beyond the scope of this class is to present a more
polished product, or showcase portfolio, that highlights my accomplishments and my potential
to achieve my future professional goals (Constantino & De Lorenzo, 2009, p. 4). My identified
next steps for the development of my PDQP will help me meet that overall goal.

Running Head: PROGRESS REPORT

!7
References

Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2013). California teaching performance expectations

[PDF]. Retrieved from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/adopted-TPES-2013.pdf
Constantino, P. M. & De Lorenzo, M. N. (2009). Developing a professional teaching portfolio: a
guide for success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.