Teaching portfolios, community, and pre-service teachers’ professional development

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teaching portfolios, community, and pre-service teachers’ professional development Susan Wray Montclair State University, University Hall 3177, One Normal Avenue, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA Received 2 September 2005; received in revised form 27 September 2006; accepted 13 October 2006

Abstract This article describes the findings of a qualitative study examining the extent to which participation in a portfoliofocused teacher learning community impacts pre-service teachers’ understanding and development of a teaching portfolio. Additionally, the author was interested in understanding how, whether, and in what ways the group’s participants attribute their own professional development to the portfolio’s construction. Findings indicate that most students found the process of selecting artifacts, reflecting on coursework and fieldwork experiences while constructing their teaching portfolios contributed to their growth and development. Students also reported the dialogic and collaborative nature of the teacher learning community enhanced their growth and development as well as their overall understanding of the portfolio requirement. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teaching portfolios; Teacher learning communities; Pre-service teacher education

1. Introduction Teaching portfolios are gaining prominence in teacher education programs within the US. Numerous claims have been made regarding the educative benefits of constructing a teaching portfolio including increased reflection, illumination of theories and assumptions that guide instructional practices, and heightened collaborative dialogs about teaching are some examples represented in the literature. However, the quality and quantity of support provided to pre-service teachers during the development of their teaching portfolios is critical to the successful development of a teaching portfolio and the navigation of the portfolio process. This article Tel.: +1 973 655 6902; fax: +1 973 655 7043.

E-mail address: [email protected].

reports a qualitative study of nine elementary education students who participated in a year-long teacher learning community focused on offering support during the portfolio development process. The purpose of the study was to investigate the extent to which participation in a portfolio-focused teacher learning community impacts pre-service teachers’ understanding and development of a teaching portfolio. Additionally, the author was interested in understanding how, whether, and in what ways pre-service teachers attribute their own professional development to the portfolio’s construction. 2. Teaching portfolios A teaching portfolio is a collection of evidence in relation to learning that provides evidence of

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.10.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1140

S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

someone’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Bird, 1990) thus documenting the ‘‘evidence of the events of lives in classrooms’’ (Lyons, 1998b, pp. 117–118). Adapted from professions such as art, photography, fashion, advertising, and architecture, portfolios have historically been comprised of ‘‘best practice’’ samples of professional work (Bird, 1990). The teaching portfolio builds upon the conception of ‘‘best practice’’ and expands the boundaries of this concept when incorporated as a tool to capture the complexity of learning to teach. Influenced by the adoption of a performance-based mode of assessment by US teacher education institutions, teaching portfolios are increasingly being used to assess prospective teachers’ readiness to teach (Diez, 1998). Used at various decision points, teaching portfolios are often a component of a teacher preparation program’s admissions process, a requirement for admission to student teaching (Zeichner, 2000), and as a means of evaluating students’ knowledge and ability as part of a program’s exit requirement (Porter, Youngs, & Odden, 2000). They are used to stimulate greater reflection and analysis by teachers (Lyons, 1998c) as a component of pre-service teacher coursework (Lyons, 1998a; Winsor, 1994), and during fieldwork placements (Borko, Michalec, Timmons, & Siddle, 1997). Moreover, teaching portfolios are central to the process of gaining ‘‘master teacher’’ status via the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and they are often examined by states as part of the teacher re-licensing process (Zeichner & Wray, 2001). Numerous claims have been made regarding the educative benefits of constructing a teaching portfolio. Increased reflection upon teaching and subject matter content; expanded awareness of the theories and assumptions that guide instructional practices; increased self-confidence; and heightened collaborative dialogs about teaching are some examples of the benefits of portfolio development (Anderson & DeMeulle, 1998; Bartell, Kay, & Morin, 1998; Lyons, 1998a). Wolf (1994) cites three main areas that affect the impact of teaching portfolios on teacher learning and development: (1) the portfolio development process, (2) opportunities for mentoring and collaboration, and (3) the quality of feedback on the completed portfolio. The quality and quantity of support provided pre-service teachers during the development of their teaching portfolios is critical to the successful navigation of the portfolio process. Pre-service

teachers must be afforded time and opportunity to engage in the conceptual thinking and understanding around which the portfolio is situated in order to navigate the construction of a teaching portfolio and to make meaning of its purpose(s) and professional benefits (Grant & Huebner, 1998). Portfolios are complicated and time consuming to create. Without the ability to engage in a dialogic process intended to clarify the portfolio’s purpose, understanding could be limited to the institutional vision rather than promoting personal meaning making intended to impact the students’ development and learning. For this reason, it is important to investigate the various forms of guidance, support, and collegial and collaborative engagement pre-service students need to successfully navigate a teaching portfolio requirement thus foregrounding the importance of the process of portfolio production, a formative approach to teacher learning, rather than a summative approach that focuses on the end product. 3. Learning to teach Feiman-Nemser (1983), writing well over two decades ago, critiqued conventional methods and conditions involving teacher preparation and argued that, ‘‘ybecoming a learning teacher is not only a matter of individual disposition, it also depends on how teachers are prepared and the conditions under which they carry out their work’’ (p. 150). She outlined four phases of learning to teach through which a teacher travels in the quest for the necessary knowledge required to teach well: the pre-training phase, pre-service phase, induction phase, and the in-service phase. This quest is, or should be, a continual evolutionary process by which knowledge is not an attainable end goal, but rather the aim of the educator throughout the life of his/her profession. In short, Feiman-Nemser argues that learning about teaching does not, or should not, end with graduation and initial certification. However, those involved in the education of preservice teachers often see the process of learning to teach as a much more static, bounded, and compartmentalized enterprise that comprises a sequenced program of professional instruction with occasional professional development ‘‘tune ups’’ post-certification. Research-based suggestions for improving the learning to teach process encompass a wide array of methods, experiences, and strategies, including

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

embedding the process of learning to teach within the context of teaching, learning, learners, and knowledge (Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996); envisioning teacher learning as a collective/collaborative endeavor (Ball & Cohen, 1999); emphasizing reflective practice (Zeichner, Melnick, & Gomez, 1996); focusing on collaborative social orientation (Zeichner & Gore, 1990); increasing novice/expert interactions (Howey & Zimpher, 1996); and, developing and implementing assessment methods that capture the complexity of teaching (Shulman, 1987). Moreover, Feiman-Nemser and Remillard (1996) remind us that different times and places are best suited for learning; past learning influences future learning; the constellation of knowledge, skills, and dispositions brought to a given learning opportunity affects what students learn from it; content of learning takes different forms and calls for different opportunities; and how teachers learn affects what they learn. As these multiple foci illustrate, learning to teach takes many forms, involves multiple influences, and requires different forms of engagement, experiences, and support. New attitudes toward the process of learning to teach attempt to expand the traditionally held conceptions of the preservice–in-service binary of teacher development by exploring and constructing the teacher development process around methods of collegiality, collaboration, and socialization. This orientation grounds the study reported here.

4. Teacher learning communities The concept of teacher learning communities is informed by Wenger and Lave’s work on communities of practice where their interest resided with existing professional communities and how membership, participation, and meaning are negotiated and reflected in action (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Focusing on how members move from peripheral to full membership as they learn to negotiate the group’s expectations and social norms, this approach to learning challenges the importance of rules and regulations and instead ‘‘focuses on the importance of practitioners’ contributions to the social order’’ (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003, p. 266). Such learning processes shift the focus of learning from the individual to the participatory where experience informs knowledge and reflection is the mechanism through which experience is understood.

1141

The concept of communities of practice has been applied to education as a result of dissatisfaction with traditional professional development practices in American teacher education institutions and K12 schools. Multiple terms, including teacher study group, teacher inquiry group, teacher learning communities, and communities of practice are being used to describe the concept of community as a means toward teacher professional development and educational reform. According to Van Maanen and Barley as cited in Little (1993), ‘‘community’’ comprises ‘‘a group of people who consider themselves to be engaged in the same sort of work; whose identity is drawn from the work; who share with one another a set of values, norms, and perspectives that apply to but extend beyond work-related matters’’ (p. 137). Applying concepts of community to education, Duckworth (1997) describes a teacher community as an opportunity to ‘‘invite passionate conversation on a multitude of ideas about learning, ideas that advance our understanding of what it means to try to teach children in American schools’’ (p. 9). Saavedra (1996) posits that a teacher study group is a group of teachers who meet regularly to discuss educational issues that evolve from each participant’s beliefs, experiences, practices, and interests. Thus teacher learning communities are generally seen as organized opportunities for a group of teacher learners to engage in the understanding, development, and reflection on the practice of teaching and learning. While teacher learning communities as sites for professional development among practicing teachers has been well documented in the literature (Duckworth, 1997; Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Saavedra, 1996; Westheimer, 1998), the research on communities of practice involving pre-service teachers is limited (Seifert & Mandzuk, 2006). However, a number of models have emerged that integrate the concept of communities of practice or teacher learning communities and the professional development of pre-service teachers. One model is student cohorts or tutorial groups (Sim, 2006) where students are grouped together, along with the same faculty mentor, at the beginning of the professional sequence and remain together for all coursework, seminars, and field placements until graduation (Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006; Seifert & Mandzuk, 2006; Sim, 2006). The benefits of this model include the enhancement of field experiences, strengthening of peer relationships, and heightened instructor awareness of

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1142

S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

student knowledge and abilities. ‘‘Cohorts create the structural opportunity to maximize and create a community minded culture that supports these central tenets of teacher learning’’ (Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006, p. 58). However, cohorts are not with out challenges. Research indicates that benefits are often more social and personal in nature where the ‘‘power of the relationship’’ is seen as salient (Seifert & Mandzuk, 2006; Sim, 2006). Social and psychological differences (e.g., age, gender, previous relationships) among cohort members influence the quantity and quality of collaboration resulting in mixed results of intellectual and social engagement. Another model closely linked to communities of practice and pre-service teachers’ professional development is the Professional Development School (PDS) model. The focus of the PDS model is on a university/school partnership approach to professional development for both pre-service and inservice teachers with a primary goal of promoting K-12 student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1994; The Holmes Group, 1990). Similar to the cohort model, the PDS model places pre-service teachers in the same seminar and with the same seminar instructor for all fieldwork. Additionally, the pre-service teachers are placed in the same school, albeit not necessarily the same classroom, for each practicum semester and work is approached through an inquiry lens that asks challenging questions about teaching and learning at school and university sites. This model encourages the development of professional relationships with school faculty and staff and supports the mentoring of pre-service teachers by those more experienced. While there are similarities between teacher learning communities comprised of practicing teachers and those comprised of pre-service teachers, differences aligned along age, experience, and autonomy do exist. In many instances practicing teachers have the freedom to volunteer or self select into a teacher learning community where pre-service teachers are assigned groups reflecting teacher education programmatic requirements. Practicing teachers are seen as professionals in their field with knowledge to share with the group where preservice teachers are traditionally assigned the role of knowledge translators. And practicing teachers are not formally graded on their membership and participation in such groups where assessment of the pre-service teacher’s work and participation in such groups is ever present. These differences can challenge the learning goals promoted by commu-

nity membership as they impact participation, collaboration, and ownership among the group members. In all versions of the communities of practice model, teacher learning is promoted as space for discussions of the embedded contexts in which teachers work is provided. However, it is important to understand that not all communities result in intellectual growth and professional transformation. (Grossman et al., 2001; Little, 1990). Little (1990) contends that, ‘‘closely bound groups are instruments for both promoting change and for conserving the present’’ (p. 509). In other words, a gathering of a group of teachers does not necessarily constitute a learning community nor does it mean that such a group can, or is willing to, engage in the often difficult work of critique and reflection on their practice resulting in instructional and institutional improvements. Furthermore, change is not easy. It is an on-going process with no clear-cut ends. It requires work, commitment, trust, time, and support. A well-focused and facilitated teacher learning community can help promote and attain desired change. 5. Theoretical framework This study employed social constructionism as a theoretical framework. A form of interpretivist inquiry situated within the larger notion of the constructivist framework, social constructionism assumes that learning and knowledge are understood through the ‘‘complex world of lived experiences’’ (Schwandt, 1994, p. 118). The meaning of these ‘‘lived experiences’’ are constructed by ‘‘social actorsyin particular places, at particular times’’ where meaning is fashioned out of ‘‘events and phenomena through prolonged, complex processes of social interaction involving history, language, and action’’ (Schwandt, p. 118). Within the larger terrain of constructivist theory, where individual actions and events form the nexus for meaningmaking, the focus of social constructionism is on the communal production of meaning and understanding as a result of shared language and social practices. Using social learning theory as a theoretical lens resonates well with my research on teacher learning communities and teaching portfolios as sites for professional development of pre-service teachers. The work of our teacher learning community revolved around developing an understanding of a teaching portfolio as shaped within multiple

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

contexts: fieldwork and student teaching semesters, university certification requirements, and future employment needs. Our social interaction required thoughtful consideration and negotiation of the individual histories and experiences that participants brought to the group. Moreover, the collective generation of meaning around the portfolio development process remained at the forefront of our work together. 6. Context of the study This study was conducted at a large US university located in a mid-western state that graduates teacher candidates from a 4-year undergraduate elementary education program. The elementary teacher education program’s focus is to prepare teachers along four main tenets: (1) development of knowledge and skills; (2) reflective practice; (3) ethical teaching; and (4) meeting the needs of all students. The elementary education program consists of a variety of content, foundations, and methods courses in reading, language arts, science, mathematics, social studies, and the arts, all of which were integrated with two semesters of fieldwork prior to the full-time student teaching semester. 6.1. The portfolio requirement The portfolio requirement, best described as an electronic learning portfolio, had four main purposes that drove its construction and evaluation: (1) demonstration of growth and development, (2) demonstration of proficiency in relation to a set of university-based teacher education standards, (3) demonstration of proficiency with using digital technology, and (4) use as an employment tool upon program completion. The portfolio requirement was integrated somewhat into the weekly fieldwork seminar, however the students received little support specific to its purpose, contents, and product. At the completion of their student teaching semester, the students presented their portfolios to university supervisors, student peers, and cooperating teachers by means of a formal oral presentation. The ‘‘digitizing’’ of the portfolio meant that students used a password-protected web space and template. The template contained five main sections, including: Autobiography, Teaching and Learning, Working for Diversity, Educational Philosophy, and Standards. The navigation of the aforementioned portfolio purposes and the digital template

1143

categories were at the heart of the discussions and activities for the teacher learning community upon which this study is based. 6.2. The group At the time this study began, the only elementary education students required to develop a teaching portfolio were those enrolled in the Professional Developmental School (PDS) program of the Elementary Teacher Education Program.1 As previously stated, the purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which participation in a portfolio-focused teacher learning community impacted pre-service teachers’ understanding and development of their teaching portfolio and how this experience contributed to the participants’ professional development. To this end, volunteers were solicited from the PDS cohort and nine students (six female, three male) volunteered to participate in the two-semester study. Seven of the participants were considered ‘‘traditional’’ teacher education students: they were in their early to midtwenties, attended college directly after high school, experienced a middle-class suburban upbringing, and came from successful academic experiences. Two of the participants, one male and one female, were considered ‘‘non-traditional’’ students: they were returning to a university education after having worked in a different profession and/or having earned a degree in a different field and were older than the other volunteers. It is important to note that I held no position of power or authority over the students who volunteered for this study. I was neither their seminar leader nor course instructor at the time that data generation and analysis was conducted and the meetings of our teacher learning community were held entirely outside of required coursework and field experiences. The group met bi-weekly for 13 meetings over the course of the last two professional semesters, which included the student teaching semester. Our meetings adopted protocols that addressed the need to build a sense of community and accommodate the participants’ needs: opening each meeting with a ‘‘zone of socialization’’ where food and general greetings were shared, scheduling meetings in a comfortable environment conducive to thoughtful 1 One year after the start of this study, all pre-service teachers were required to create a standards-based teaching portfolio as evidence of their knowledge, ability, and readiness to teach.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1144

S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

and supportive discussions, and regular check-in and review at the beginning and end of each meeting to clarify work to date and promote a sense of ownership of the group’s focus and direction. Each meeting was 2 h in length and the participants’ attendance was very strong through the first six meetings. However, as the completion of student teaching and the portfolio requirement drew near, attendance was more sporadic with some participants missing multiple meetings towards the end. 6.3. Data sources and analysis Data sources include transcripts of the audiotaped meetings of the teacher learning community, roughly 30 h in total; individual semi-structured interviews completed at the end of the student teaching semester, each 60–90 min in length; a preinventory questionnaire administered during the second meeting, which asked questions focused on the participants’ reasons for joining the group, their needs specific to the portfolio development process, and their knowledge of teaching portfolios in general; and a researcher’s log kept throughout the study where reflections on each meeting, rethinking and clarification of past events, and issues and topics for future meetings were recorded. Incorporating a multi-method approach, semistructured individual and group interview protocols were employed with questions focusing on the portfolio process, individual development of the teaching portfolios, the perceived impact the portfolio process had on the students’ growth and learning, and how the teacher learning community influenced this process. Data analysis followed a recursive process with the reading and rereading of data, which resulted in the discovery of recurring regularities revealing themes and the development of categories across multiple data sources. Multiple themes emerged specific to students’ growth and development as a result of creating a teaching portfolio and the influence of the teacher learning community on the portfolio development process. These themes were divided into two main categories: Connecting Theory and Practice and The Dialogic Process with subthemes represented within each. Merriam (1988) reminds us that data are always presented through a translator or interpreter and that research cannot represent reality, only some interpretation of reality. Representing the reality of

the social event of the teacher learning community is not possible nor is it my intention. However, by providing rich detail and context of the teacher learning community’s discussions, activities, and events, it is hoped that the reader can gain a clear picture of our work together. This form of validity can be called ‘‘the communicative validity’’ (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004) and emerges from the interaction between the reader and the research when arguments are found to be logical, coherent, and substantiated. Reliability can be understood as ‘‘trustworthiness’’, which is concerned with the ‘‘believability of a study’’ and whether the study is deemed worthy by the reader (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004). The following pages report the study’s findings by representing the voices of the individual group members and using thick description in an effort to allow the reader to see the context of the teacher learning community. Additionally, transcript data from the group meetings and interviews are included to support my interpretations. The lack of generalizability is often a criticism of qualitative research. Replicating the study in like situations with a similar student population is not possible. In case study research the case is specific, unique, and ‘‘bounded’’ where the ‘‘boundedness and the behavior patterns of the system are key factors in understanding the case’’ (Stake, 1994, p. 237). While specific factors of this study negate direct replication, certain aspects can be incorporated into other settings focused on supporting students through the portfolio development process. Naturalistic measures as part of qualitative research methodology help illuminate characteristics of this teacher learning community in such a way that allows for connections to be made across teacher education settings. It is hoped that the reader will draw from our experience while considering the portfolio development process within collaborative and process oriented frameworks. 7. The portfolio process and its impact on teacher learning: connecting theory and practice 7.1. Educational philosophies illuminated The ability to articulate connections between theory and practice is often cited as a primary benefit of the portfolio development process. By deciding what evidence to include, how the portfolio should be organized, and articulating what the

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

portfolio communicates about the author, the group participants engaged in a personal learning experience as they created their teaching portfolios. As the students reflected on the requirement of creating a teaching portfolio and the impact it had on their overall growth and development, many stated that the process helped clarify and solidify important personal instructional philosophies and strategies. Some spoke of an illuminated connection between theory and practice. For instance, Russell stated that while he was able to articulate his understanding of educational theory, he felt that the process of organizating portfolio artifacts helped illuminate the theories he incorporated into his teaching. I can typically articulate my theories and why I do what I do [in the classroom]. But organizing them more into a specific framework [gave me] an even clearer understanding of the different theories behind what I do, theories that I really hadn’t thought about before until I started dissecting them. I wasn’t cognizant that I was teaching from [a specific] theory. But after looking at [my portfolio], that thought process and how I [teach] is more evident. Selecting and reflecting on artifacts for inclusion encouraged students to see the scope of their learning often bringing into relief personal educational philosophies. Our group spent a good deal of time discussing what their portfolio would say about them as teachers and how to select artifacts to support this vision. Below Cindy speaks about how these discussions and the ensuing portfolio development work contributed to her reflecting on previously murky notions of teacher identity. There are times where I don’t think I necessarily thought about what I really wanted as a teacher. There are times when I think, ‘I’ve been taught this but is this really what I’m going to do in the classroom? Or is this what I want as a teacher?’ The portfolio helped me clarify. 7.2. Focused reflection The literature often cites the ability to reflect upon past experiences and events within a professional teaching program as one of the benefits of teaching portfolios. The portfolio process requires students to think about their knowledge, skills, and dispositions in thoughtful ways and how those

1145

characteristics can be framed within the context of a portfolio. A great deal of our work together focused on this aspect by incorporating the concept of an ‘‘entry slip’’. Entry slips provided a structure for justifying evidence selection and placement within the portfolio, reflecting upon the experience and learning the artifact represented, and linking the artifact to the teacher education standards. The contextualizing of portfolio artifact selections proved integral to meaningful portfolio development and representation of evidence. Students felt that the process of reflecting on their work overtime, as well as seeing their experiences in the final portfolio aided in their understanding of their abilities as beginning teachers. Comments such as ‘‘it was interesting for me to pick certain things to put in my portfolio and reflect on what I’ve learned’’ (Kathy) and ‘‘I had to really think about why I wanted to put something into my portfolio and what it showed about me as a new teacher’’ (Samantha) are representative of the benefit of reflection and portfolio development. Moreover, some felt that the portfolio development process helped them revisit their learning experiences in more specific and complex ways. For example, Cindy talked about how the pace and amount of work required in specific semesters was almost too much to absorb. As she reviewed coursework and practicum assignments for inclusion in her portfolio, she was able to relive instructional experiences and gain greater understanding of the knowledge she had gained during that semester. I think the portfolio helped a lot. The math, science, social studies semester you are overwhelmed with things that you have to do. You are basically just trying to do what needs to be done. And so I think doing the portfolio is one way to be able to just sit down and think about [your work], to rediscover what we learned. 7.3. Impact in the classroom Expanding on the theory and practice connection, developing the teaching portfolio had an impact on the students’ teaching practices while in their practicum and student teaching semesters. Some spoke about how the portfolio process directly influenced their work in the classroom, as Anne’s comments illustrate. ‘‘As I worked with my second language learners, I was thinking about my strategies and activities and how they would be included

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1146

S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

in my portfolio. I was thinking of what I was doing in the classroom in a different way.’’ Others spoke about the power of the portfolio process and how it influenced their preparation and implementation of instructional practice. During his exit interview, Don spoke about how the portfolio development process prompted a heightened sense of purpose and focus. When I was planning lessons and teaching, I was thinking, ‘how can I translate this into my portfolio?’ It was like, okay, ‘what am I doing here? Is there evidence of what I’m doing in this classroom right now that I can explain in terms of having legitimate pedagogical value?’ And so, in that respect, having the portfolio in mind made me think harder about whether or not what I was doing was worthwhile. It made me think about [my practice] from [the student’s] perspective. 7.4. Limited benefit While the potential benefits of using teaching portfolios in relation to teacher learning and development are many, the overall process is not without challenges. Increased time commitment, uncertainty regarding purpose and audience, and limited knowledge about the content and organizational strategies specific to portfolio development are some of the salient issues that must be addressed if growth and development teaching portfolios are to meet stated expectations for increased teacher learning and development. Not all participants in this study felt that the portfolio process offered new insight into their teaching or had a positive impact on their professional development. Samantha, the most verbal member of our teacher learning community, from both negative and positive perspectives, was consistently critical about the portfolio requirement and in the end found little benefit in the process. I feel like it took a huge amount away from my student teaching semester and I don’t feel like it made me a better teacher in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, I would have rather spent my time on something that would have made me a better teacher. While Samantha was the only group member to emphatically state that the portfolio process was of no benefit, Kathy, also claimed the portfolio

development process had little impact on her development as a teacher. She did, however, find value in the portfolio development process. ‘‘I didn’t come away with any epiphanies about my philosophy or how I feel about things. None of that stuff really changed. But I still think it was worthwhile for me to just think about it all and put it together.’’ These statements illustrate the complicated nature of teaching portfolios. While not all participants felt that they experienced professional growth as a result of creating a teaching portfolio, the majority of participants had something positive to say about their portfolio and the process. The fact that there can be conflicting opinions on the portfolio process where pre-service teachers find value in one or more phases of development yet do not feel that the process contributes positively to others speaks to the variety of learning styles represented within the group. Some preferred to speak about portfolio development and the attending issues from a more theoretical perspective. Others were more pragmatic in their approach to the requirement, preferring to actually work on their portfolio during each group meeting rather than engage in conversation around portfolio development. The benefits of the portfolio development process were distinctive to each group member revealing that everyone did not experience professional growth in the same form nor from the same experiences. Moreover, as Lyons (1998c) helps us understand, the developmental paths that beginning teachers take while engaged in meaningful dialog and experiences are uniquely individual. 8. Benefit of group participation on the portfolio process: the dialogic process I entered into this study with an overarching belief that pre-service teachers would need focused support if they were to successfully navigate the multiple issues embedded in the development of a teaching portfolio. Portfolios take time, are confusing to organize, and often lack a clear purpose resulting in student uncertainty and frustration. A portfolio-focused teacher learning community was the primary form of support offered to the preservice teacher participants and was universally seen as a positive influence on the development of their portfolios. The group offered a space in which issues around essential elements specific to a teaching portfolio could be addressed. My role as facilitator was to bring a framework of direction and focus to the group. Since the students

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

had volunteered to join the group in hopes of receiving support and guidance in developing their teaching portfolio they, at least in the beginning, were looking to me to organize and direct that process. Additionally, as a researcher, I had an interest in the focus, structure, and content of the meetings since the influence of our teacher learning community on the development of the participants’ teaching portfolios was part of my research focus. Prior to this study, I had researched the use of teaching portfolios by teacher education programs since the university was moving towards requiring their integration into all teacher certification programs. This previous work assisted with the development of topics around which to organize the group’s discussions and activities. The following topics were suggested at our first meeting: goals and personal benefits of developing a teaching portfolio; connecting educational philosophy statements with the portfolio’s content, structure and format; understanding the university’s teacher education standards; artifact selection and reflection; organizational strategies; using the e-portfolio template; and addressing the portfolio’s multiple purposes. Once the group began, participants also brought their own needs and support issues to our attention, resulting in the negotiation of future discussion topics and activities. The activities of the teacher learning community were varied and our format mainly consisted of large and small group discussion. Selected readings specific to portfolios and their development were distributed for discussion, the students’ work in progress was presented and reviewed, and three meetings were devoted to individual portfolio work time in the computer lab. One meeting a previous teacher education student, now teaching in her own classroom, was invited to show her portfolio and discuss the development process with the group. 8.1. Understanding purpose Participation in the teacher learning community helped shape the students’ understanding of the portfolio’s overall purpose from a narrow expectation of meeting employment goals to a partial embrace of the university’s goals. The following reflections on the portfolio’s purpose during our last meeting illustrate a shift in focus from employment to more complex and personally connected validation. Samantha stated ‘‘I am now seeing the portfolio as a reflection piece.’’ Anne stated, ‘‘I

1147

didn’t see the multiple purposes at the beginning. I saw the portfolio as something else I had to do, another thing that was being required of us.’’ Additionally, the portfolio requirement at the time of this study was in its initial stages of implementation resulting in the students receiving confusing and sometimes contradictory messages as to the portfolio’s purpose. During her exit interview, Kathy discussed how the group helped articulate a key purpose of the portfolio, that of representing reflection and growth overtime. I think that one of the things that was discussed during the first days, and it was something that I hadn’t realized before, is that the portfolio was supposed to reflect growth and development. And I had never heard that before. These statements illustrate the importance of understanding the purpose of the teaching portfolio requirement and how our group discussions assisted in the students’ ability to navigate often confusing and incomplete messages. 8.2. Focused conversations With understanding the overall purpose of the portfolio a primary topic of our work, the conversations resulted in the students’ ability to develop personal meaning specific to the portfolio that resulted in their ability to address individual as well as programmatic goals. As previously stated, many found that the group helped clarify their overall understanding of the portfolio’s purpose. It also helped them make informed decisions regarding artifact selection and placement, and assisted in the development of portfolios that represented their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Below, during our last meeting Cindy talks about the scope of our group conversations and how they were beneficial to her portfolio development process. Discussions on what is evidence, what the portfolio was going to look like, the structure, and how to include reflection, all of those things definitely [helped] my portfolio. I thought we had a lot of thought provoking discussions [on how to create a portfolio]. Somebody would bring up a point and it really made me think about whether or not that was what I wanted [to include in my portfolio] or whether that was right just for that person.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1148

S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

Others spoke about specific conversations and topics that assisted them in the process of portfolio development. For example, the process of thoughtful artifact selection and its transition to good evidence via the writing of entry slip reflection statements were at the heart of many discussions. It was important for the students to articulate the context of the artifact and to reflect upon their growth and development as a result of coursework and field placements. Samantha discussed the impact of these specific conversations during her exit interview. Talking about what makes good evidence was something that was very helpful to me in thinking about what I was going to include and what kind of a case I could make. Talking about writing justifications for your evidence was something that I wouldn’t have thought about at all. I was very conscious when I wrote captions for my pieces of evidence to be specific about what it was and what I thought it was showing. I don’t think I would have been as explicit about that without those discussions. 8.3. Collaboration as support Participation in the teacher learning community provided the students a location to engage in a collaborative portfolio development process. By coming together around a common purpose, they engaged in the public engagement of specific issues that helped them realize that they were not alone in their struggle. Moreover, the community offered an environment where a feeling of collegial support was embraced. By individually and collectively acknowledging challenges and uncertainty, members found support within the group that resulted in heightened learning and understanding of the portfolio overall. For example, during our final meeting, Kathy succinctly stated how the support of the group and conversations that we engaged in helped her make meaning of the portfolio. I think the whole emphasis is on the fact that the portfolio can be unique and that there are different ways that people can show their work. I wouldn’t have gotten that without your group. Somebody might have said it but it really wouldn’t have meant anything without the conversations.

Additionally, comments specific to camaraderie and collegiality speak to the benefit of the group’s longevity. Below Don discusses how engaging in sustained and focused discussions specific to the development of a teaching portfolio over two semesters aided in his understanding of the complexities of the teaching portfolio requirement. It was nice to be able to come up with ideas and bounce ideas off each other. An hour once a semester is not enough [time] to do a portfolio. This group was helpful because it was a continuum and [the focus] was a lot broader and deeper. One interesting finding as a result of the group meeting over an extended period of time was that our conversations and focus permeated the students’ relationships across settings. This resulted in the sharing of commonalities regarding challenges to the process of creating a teaching portfolio outside of the group’s boundaries, thus increasing a sense of camaraderie. Here Samantha talks about how the work of the group crossed boundaries. Because we had the group we were talking about it all the time [outside of the group]. We already knew where everybody was and it made it very easy to ask people for help or just to talk about it. Because we had the group, we all sort of had the same language. So I think that sense of, ‘we’re all in this together’ that we got from the group was really important. At various times our discussions transitioned from focusing on developing a teaching portfolio to general frustration. This teacher learning community coincided with perhaps the busiest, and to some, the most important semester of a professional sequence, student teaching. Stress over the increased responsibility in all aspects of classroom practice and the resulting workload often bled into our conversations. However, even though the portfolio was seen as an additional requirement by some, the group provided a safe space to share such frustrations thus providing comfort to the students. Below Russell articulates this feeling in his exit interview. I think what was very beneficial was having the group as a kind of emotional support group. It really helped me see the struggles that I was going through were the same basic struggles that other people in the group were going through.

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

8.4. Residual frustration The development of a teaching portfolio poses numerous challenges including increased time commitment, confusion regarding purpose and assessment criteria, format constraints, and lack of clarity regarding required content. Even with the relatively positive statements made by the students regarding the portfolio overall, a general sense of residual resentment and resistance to the programmatic requirement of a teaching portfolio remained. It is important to remember that the students in the teacher learning community were the only elementary education students required to create a teaching portfolio at the time of the study and the group participants remained resentful of the added requirement. For example, Samantha had a hard time understanding the primary audience for her portfolio—instructor, advisor, or university. ‘‘It was very paralyzing for me to try to figure out. I just scrapped everything that everybody had said and wrote it for myself. In the end, I just thought, I’m doing it the way I want to.’’ Additionally, a few group members felt that the portfolio’s multiple purposes imposed undue restraint on the contents and structure and organization of the final product. Russell’s comment during our final group meeting reflects the students’ emotion about the portfolio requirement and their need for ownership over the portfolio product. The minute you start saying this is what a portfolio is supposed to look like, you take away all the validity of it. Because I think portfolios should be representative of you and how you want yourself portrayed. And the minute you start saying, ‘OK, this is what it has to look like,’ that takes that element away. I think that if the university starts mandating what it’s supposed to look like, then the usefulness and the purpose and the sort of personal understanding of who you are is going to get lost. Our discussion topics and the group’s engagement with the development of their teaching portfolios ebbed and flowed with the schedule and focus of each meeting. Early on the participation patterns revealed a sense of veiled community. Everyone was relatively engaged in doing the work of the community as long as it was dialogic in format. However, once the group expanded into the computer lab, resistance to doing the actual work of developing a teaching portfolio began to emerge

1149

and remained a theme throughout our time together. Eventually, it became clear that overall frustration and the lack of personal progress on the portfolios hindered the group’s work overall. The overall frustration with the portfolio came to a head during our eighth meeting where we continued to discuss how to represent personal growth and development while aligning artifacts with the teacher education standards. The group began venting pent-up frustrations about the portfolio requirement and the conversation that ensued can only be categorized as an all out meltdown. ‘‘Why are we doing this?’’ ‘‘What is expected?’’ ‘‘The purpose is confusing and contradictory.’’ These issues, which the group had previously discussed in some form, came flooding out and there was no stopping it. I was not surprised by these outbursts since I had sensed the building of the group’s frustration. Thus I hoped that the voicing of their frustration would refocus our energies on completing the task at hand. Interestingly, some members indicated that this event did help clear the air, allowing the group to refocus its energies. For example, Cindy commented on the benefit of the group’s outburst during her exit interview. Before, all of our attitudes were in different areas. Some of us kind of thought that the portfolio was beneficial. I think some of us were just completely against the idea and they were only in the group because they had to do this portfolio. And I think that one meeting helped us all to finally, in some ways, put those differences aside and realize, ‘OK, we all have to do this. So let’s just do it.’ So I think that was our way of putting all of our differences aside and coming to one goal. However, I did not see nor does the data reveal the shift in the group that Cindy spoke about. Many group members remained resistant to the portfolio requirement to the very end. Except for Russell and Anne, the group members made little to no progress on their portfolios until April when presentations were scheduled. Even at that late stage, Don and Kathy did not show their portfolios due to limited progress made. This hindered the group’s discussions on work in progress specific to the portfolio’s content, format, reflections, and standards alignment. The articulation of decisions specific to the process of portfolio development aides the author

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1150

S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

in making further meaning of the portfolio process and product. Additionally, by engaging in such discussions within a group format participants can benefit from listening to others describe how they made decisions about their portfolio and by reviewing other’s portfolios in progress. This in turn can inform everyone’s work. Our group did not have the opportunity to engage in this form of discussion or review. Moreover, absences continued to increase with some members missing two to three meetings toward the end. With that said, perhaps the shift that Cindy alluded to was more internal and the benefits seen were more personal regarding the work of the group. Perhaps she felt more engaged in the portfolio development process or felt less frustration with the requirement overall. If this is the case, her perspective in and of itself is worthwhile and should be valued. However, the shift in the group’s focus she spoke of was less than obvious. 9. Conclusion The overall purpose of the portfolio drove all of our discussions and activities. Understanding the concept of a teaching portfolio, its intended purpose(s) and audience(s), the process of evidence selection, reflection, and organizational strategies were the major themes woven throughout our work together. These conversations resulted in the students’ ability to attach personal meaning to the portfolio requirement thus allowing for the group to address individual as well as programmatic needs. Participation in the teacher learning community allowed the group members to engage in a collaborative portfolio development process. By coming together around a common purpose, the participants engaged in a public sharing of their understandings of the portfolio process in general. The voicing of concerns, sharing of strategies, and clarifying questions specific to portfolio development aided in the feeling of camaraderie among the group members. The public engagement of issues of specific interest to the group participants helped everyone realize that they were not alone in their struggles. By individually and collectively acknowledging challenges and uncertainty, the members found support within the group structure which led to a belief that they were not alone in the process and could rely on each other for support. Navigating an uncertain and fluid process, we made meaningful progress with understanding the

portfolio’s overall purpose, which resulted in the revisiting of topics, beliefs, and frustrations. An air of frustration filtered throughout these conversations. At some point in most if not all of our sessions the group engaged in complaining about specific components of the portfolio development process or the requirement in general. Sharing confusion regarding the portfolio’s purpose and challenges of managing the increased time commitment within an already work intensive student teaching semester were some of the salient issues the group continued to focus on throughout our time together. While I became a bit concerned with the tone and prevalence of some of the negative dialog, voicing concerns and frustrations around the development of a teaching portfolio is part of the process of both portfolio development and participating in a teacher learning community. The development of a growth and development portfolio is complicated and time consuming. They are not easily understood nor are they quickly created, especially when they are a relatively new component within a teacher education program. Without the focused collaborative support intended to help pre-service teachers clarify their understanding of a teaching portfolio as a process and product, meaning making can be limited to institutional vision rather than promoting personal understanding and professional development. Through our discussions, which were at times frustrating and heated, the group members eventually brought their own understandings of the portfolio to the development process thus making personal connections to the portfolio requirement. Participation in a portfolio-focused teacher learning community holds promise in light of the benefits often attributed to teaching portfolios via collaboration. By constructing the development of a teaching portfolio as an educative process, issues around learning to teach can be raised and discussed in meaningful, personal, and professional ways thus contributing to the professional development of the pre-service teacher participants. As Freidus (1998) states, ‘‘learning takes place from the dialogical process’’ (p. 62) and our teacher learning community provided a location for students to work collaboratively as they completed the requirement of their portfolio resulting in increased understanding about themselves, their professional thinking, and their ability as beginning teachers. With discussions revolving around sharing, reflecting upon, and refining their beliefs and

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

assumptions about teaching and learning, the members of this teacher learning community engaged in a collaborative professional development activity. Discussions and activities engaged in by this teacher learning community helped the participants integrate their professional teaching experiences into their teaching portfolios, thus interrogating and articulating their own personal stories about teaching and learning. It is hoped that by sharing the experience of our teacher learning community and the stories of the pre-service teachers engaged in the portfolio development process—those that highlight moments of growth and professional benefit as well as those that remained challenges until the end—that others who are implementing portfolios within teacher education programs can glean some insight into their own efforts.

References Anderson, R. S., & DeMeulle, L. (1998). Portfolio use in twentyfour teacher education programs. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 23–31. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammon, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bartell, C., Kay, C., & Morin, J. (1998). Portfolio conversation: A mentored journey. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 29–139. Bird, T. (1990). The schoolteacher’s portfolio: An essay of possibilities. In J. Millman, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (2nd ed., pp. 241–256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Borko, H., Michalec, P., Timmons, M., & Siddle, J. (1997). Student teaching portfolios: A tool for promoting reflective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 345–357. Buysse, V., Sparkman, K., & Wesley, P. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263–277. Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press. Diez, M. (1998). The role of standards and assessment: A dialogue. In M. Diez (Ed.), Changing the practice of teacher education: Standards and assessment as a lever for change. Washington, DC: AACTE. Dinsmore, J., & Wenger, K. (2006). Relationships in preservice teacher preparation: From cohorts to communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 57–74. Duckworth, E. (1997). Teacher to teacher: Learning from each other. New York: Teachers College Press. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150–170). New York: Longman.

1151

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspective on learning to teach. In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook (pp. 63–91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freidus, H. (1998). Mentoring portfolio development. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 51–68). New York: Teachers College Press. Grant, G., & Huebner, T. (1998). The portfolio question: A power synthesis of the personal and professional. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 33–43. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1011. The Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author. Howey, K., & Zimpher, N. (1996). Patterns in prospective teachers: Guides for designing pre-service programs. In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook (pp. 465–505). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research: From design to implementation. England: Open University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536. Little, J. (1993). Professional communities in comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J. Little, & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press. Lyons, N. (1998a). Portfolio possibilities: Validating a new teacher professionalism. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 11–22). New York: Teachers College Press. Lyons, N. (1998b). Constructing narratives for understanding: Using portfolio interviews to scaffold teacher reflection. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 103–119). New York: Teachers College Press. Lyons, N. (1998c). Portfolios and their consequences: Developing as a reflective practitioner. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 247–262). New York: Teachers College Press. Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Porter, A., Youngs, P., & Odden, A. (2000). Advances in teacher assessments and their uses. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 259–297). Washington, DC: AERA. Saavedra, E. (1996). Teacher study groups: Contexts for transformative learning and action. Theory into Practice, 35(4), 271–277. Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seifert, K., & Mandzuk, D. (2006). Student cohorts in teacher education: Support groups or intellectual communities? Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1296–1320.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 1152

S. Wray / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1139–1152

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–24. Sim, C. (2006). Preparing for professional experiences—Incorporating pre-service teachers as ‘communities of practice’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 77–83. Stake, R. (1994). Case studies. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Westheimer, J. (1998). Among school teachers: Community, autonomy, and ideology in teachers’ work. New York: Teachers College Press. Winsor, R. C. (1994). Learning about portfolio assessment: Student teachers as language learners, users, and teachers. Journal of Reading Education, 19(3), 12–18. Wolf, K. (1994). Teaching portfolios: Capturing the complexity of teaching. In L. Ingvarson, & R. Chadbourne (Eds.),

Valuating teachers work: New directions in teacher appraisal. Victoria: The Australian Council for Educational Research. Zeichner, K. (2000). Ability-based teacher education: Elementary teacher education at Alverno College. In L. DarlingHammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation in the undergraduate years. Washington, DC: AACTE. Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan. Zeichner, K., Melnick, S., & Gomez, M. (1996). Currents of reform in pre-service teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 613–621.