Views on using portfolio in teacher education

Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Views on using portfolio in teacher education Margarete Imhof*, Christin Picard Johann Gutenberg University Institute of Psychology, Staudinger Weg 9, D-55099 Mainz Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 27 June 2006 Received in revised form 10 January 2008 Accepted 11 August 2008

The usage of portfolio methods to document professional development in teaching is increasing in Germany, but despite its proliferation, the issue of how the effects of portfolio methods can be determined has received little attention. This paper investigates the acceptance of portfolio by the pre-service teachers (N ¼ 144, 112 female) and the effects of portfolio on their professional attitudes and competences. In addition, N ¼ 15 teacher educators were interviewed on their assessment of the portfolio method. Results suggest that the efficiency of the portfolio method depends both on personal competences and on the framing within the training program. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Portfolio Teacher education Evaluation Teaching competences

1. Introduction 1.1. Competence orientation in teacher education and the role of portfolio As competence-oriented perspectives on teacher education are being developed, the need for adequate formats and methods of documentation and assessment of professional competences of pre-service teachers has been recognized as well (Baumgartner, 2005). Criticism of traditional forms of product-oriented evaluation and certification raised the issue of process-oriented documentation of the teaching competences. The goal is to support professional development of teachers and to emphasize the continuous learning process of a ‘‘reflective practitioner’’ (Schoen, 1983; see also: Altrichter & Posch, 2006). In this context, the professional teaching portfolio has received special attention as a flexible, concise, and authentic way of developing and evaluating individual teaching competences (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000). Looking at the variety of approaches and instruments, both paper-based and electronic (Barrett, 2005; Chetcuti et al., 2003; Ha¨fliger & Lauer, 2003; Woolfolk, 2004), one starts to wonder what exactly constitutes the smallest common denominator of portfolio methods (Imhof et al., 2006; Wolf & Dietz, 1998). Currently, the following four aspects seem to define the context for a portfolio: (1) Constructivist theories of self-regulated learning describe learning as a series of cycles from planning through evaluating

* Corresponding author. Johannes Gutenberg University, Institute of Psychology, Staudinger Weg 9, D-55099 Mainz, Germany. Tel.: þ49 6131 39 23105. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Imhof). 0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.001

progressing over time and across different learning environments (van den Boom, Paas, & van Merrie¨nboer, 2007; Zimmerman, 2001). A portfolio is considered an appropriate way of documenting the individual learning history (Foote, 2001). (2) Recognition of individualized learning in a self-reflexive and self-regulated mode: Learning is viewed as a function of an individual’s ability to reflect on his or her learning goals and strategies. Therefore, reflective writing is considered as a critical step which creates the content space in which the construction and transformation of knowledge is assumed to take place (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Eigler, 2005). (3) Competence and standard orientation in teacher education: Teachers are recognized on the one hand for their professionalism and, on the other hand, for their uniqueness. The introduction of competence and standard orientation in teacher education mirrors an attempt to account for both aspects of the teacher personality and competencies (Campbell, Cignetti, Melenyzer, Nettles, & Wyman, 2004; Zeichner & Wray, 2001). (4) Documentation and continuous reflection of the professional experience: Learning is a lifelong experience and very probably a teacher, like any other professional, will face the challenge of continuous changes, e.g., of the knowledge base and teaching technology (Baumgartner, 2005).

1.2. The role of professional portfolios in the learning process A portfolio is best described as a focused collection of diverse documents and artifacts that are apt to reflect a person’s learning process. Campbell et al. (2004, p. 3f) define the professional

150

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154

teaching portfolio as ‘‘an organized, goal-driven documentation of . professional growth and achieved competence in the complex act called teaching.’’ A portfolio can (and must) be adjusted to serve varying purposes (Wolf & Dietz, 1998; Zeichner & Wray, 2001). In general, various types of portfolio are distinguished for different types of content, degrees of selectivity, and functions (Forster & Masters, 1996; Ha¨cker & Lissmann, 2007; Wolf & Dietz, 1998). Although great expectations have been placed on the portfolio, research on the efficiency of the instrument has been few and far between. To this day, it is true that ‘‘we need to learn how to take advantage of their potential for promoting meaningful teacher growth and in giving us better insights into prospective teachers’ teaching as we assess it’’ (Zeichner & Wray, 2001, p. 620). One obvious problem is the definition of evaluation criteria: What exactly are the behaviors and perceptions which would be significantly affected by the portfolio process? Another question is at what point in time the effects, if they exist, would show and how long they would last. Another aspect of evaluation is concerned with the acceptance of the instrument itself from the point of view of both the pre-service teachers and their mentors. In a two-part study, the attitudes of both pre-service teachers and teacher educators toward portfolio were investigated and an attempt was made to identify the effects of portfolio on the competences and attitudes of the pre-service teachers. 1.3. Description of the portfolio used in the current study The study was conducted in Germany in the federal state of Hesse about one year and a half after the portfolio had been introduced in teacher training. To better understand the conditions in which the study was conducted, some remarks on the teacher education system seem appropriate. The pre-service teachers are graduates from a three to four-year university program which includes studies of the teaching subjects and basic courses in education, educational psychology and social sciences. For the subsequent practical training, the pre-service teachers are enrolled for another two years in a dual setting where they teach part-time and receive supervised teacher training, focusing on practical teaching methods. In this stage, the pre-service teachers work with a mentor to plan and evaluate their teaching and they also correspond with a supervisor who functions as their formal instructor and who comes into their classes to observe and assess the candidates’ work. At several points in this two-year program, the pre-service teacher presents a showcase lesson which is graded. The program is concluded with final tests, including oral and written exams, as well as an extended research paper and a comprehensive evaluation of their professional progress. The portfolio was introduced into the teacher training program with the aim to replace traditional reports and to enhance professional development, to encourage cooperative learning, and to structure and document the communication between pre-service teachers and both their mentors and supervisors. The portfolio was new both to the pre-service teachers and to their mentors and supervisors. The portfolio consisted of nine components which contained specific assignments. The general instruction was to carry out, to document, and to reflect upon the series of tasks (Meissner & Asbeck, 2003): (1) introductory workshop to familiarize the learners with the portfolio method; (2) a professional self-portrait; (3) general classroom observation; (4) shadowing of teachers; (5) problem-oriented observation of individual students; (6) planning, conducting, and reflecting teaching experience; (7) statement of an explicit working theory; (8) finding a learning partner; (9) and reflection and goal setting. The overall impression was that the portfolio documentation was open to individual preferences and had room for a variety of ways to present one’s reflections. The

portfolio was not formally graded, but both supervisors and mentors were expected to have access to the portfolio documentation. 2. Part 1 2.1. The perspective of the pre-service teachers The first part of the study focused on pre-service teachers who had used the portfolio to document professional progress in their teacher training. At the point of time of the data collection, the preservice teachers had advanced in the program to different levels and they had worked with the portfolio for different periods of time. This part of the study was designed to investigate two evaluation questions: (1) What can be said about the general assessment of the portfolio by the pre-service teachers? (2) How can the effects of the portfolio method on relevant competences and professional attitudes be described? In order to deal with the second evaluation question, a decision had to be made as to which aspects were to be assessed. Due to the lack of a tested model we turned to the constructivist theories of learning and decided to look at teacher self-efficacy, the perception of workload and stress, and at the proactive attitude, since we expected that portfolio should have a positive effect on these constructs. We now describe the rationale for the selection of these aspects. 2.1.1. Teacher self-efficacy According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy is defined as ‘‘people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances. It is concerned not with the skills one has but with judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses’’ (Bandura, 1986, p. 391).

RQ1 Do learners in a self-regulated environment which includes portfolio display a higher degree of self-efficacy (Anderson & DeMeulle, 1998; Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000)?

2.1.2. Perception of subjective workload and stress When using portfolio methods, learners should ideally assume responsibility for their own progress and play an active part in setting goals for themselves and in shaping their personal learning process (Leopold & Leutner, 2006; Schmitz, 2001).

RQ2 Do learners perceive less pressure and more control over their workload when they use portfolio?

2.1.3. Proactive attitude The portfolio learning environment allows personal growth in a cooperative, learning-oriented community which reinforces the learners’ awareness of their strengths and problem-solving competences (Jones, 1994; Kremer-Hayon & Tillema, 1999; Tillema, 2001).

RQ3 Do learners develop the self-confidence that they can actively control their professional goals and the degree to which they would achieve them?

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154

151

2.2. Method

Table 1 Ratings for importance and usefulness of portfolio in the teacher education program

2.2.1. Sample A total of N ¼ 144 pre-service teachers (112 females) participated in the study, among them 118 had been assigned to work with portfolio on a regular basis, whereas 26 persons were in a traditional teacher training program without portfolio. This latter group was tentatively used as the control group for the portfolio effects. Out of this sample, 85 individuals indicated that they were in the beginning phase of their training, while 59 were about to graduate. The pre-service teachers in the sample were organized in groups of about ten who were associated with 15 supervisors and instructors. The participants were between 24 and 50 years old with an average of 28.5 years (SD ¼ 4.99). The mode of the distribution of age was at 25.

In the context of the teacher training program, the portfolio was.

2.2.2. Instruments To investigate evaluation question (1), a questionnaire was designed to measure the acceptance of the components of the portfolio and its structure, and to assess the ratings of the importance and usefulness, and to survey how the subjects actually worked with the portfolio. An open-ended question at the end offered room for expressing individual opinions. The responses to these questions were coded and summarized. Evaluation question (2) was approached by using previously published scales which were known to tap the professional competences and attitudes which had been specified in the research questions 1–3: The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale by Schwarzer and Schmitz (1999b), e.g., ‘‘I am convinced that I am able to successfully teach all relevant subject content to even the most difficult students.’’, the Perceived Workload Scale by Enzmann and Kleiber (1989), e.g., ‘‘I often feel overstrained.’’ and the Work Stress Scale by Jerusalem (1995), e.g., ‘‘I am doubtful that I can successfully complete the tasks at hand.’’, and, finally, the Proactive Attitude Scale by Schwarzer and Schmitz (1999a), e.g., ‘‘I feel in charge of making things happen.’’. The questionnaires had been constructed as Likert-type scales with either a four or a five-point format ranging from ‘‘I totally agree’’ to ‘‘I totally disagree’’. 2.2.3. Procedure The questionnaire was administered during regular meetings of the pre-service teachers. It took about 15 min to complete the questionnaires. Participants were instructed to carefully read the items and not to omit any items if possible. They were reassured that the data were anonymized and that feedback would be given on the group level only. 2.3. Results 2.3.1. Evaluation question (1): Assessment of the portfolio and its components Results are first presented for the acceptance and evaluation of the portfolio and its components. Then the data on professional attitudes and competences will be reported. The general evaluation of the portfolio is rather mixed (see Table 1). There are slightly more participants who think that the portfolio was not at all important or of little importance than there were participants who think it was important or rather important. However, a majority of pre-service teachers express the view that the portfolio was useful, while a relatively small proportion would contend that it was not at all useful. The assessment of importance and usefulness correlate at r ¼ .80 (p < .001). Some subjects see the potential use of the portfolio, but still find it not important for their progress. Most participants agreed on the statement that the portfolio in use was well structured, while only two found that the portfolio was not laid out clearly. As summarized in Table 2, the different

Important 7.3% Useful 17.4%

Total N

Rather important Not really important Not at all important 37.3% 45.5% 10.0% 110 Rather useful Not really useful Not at all useful 42.6% 33.9% 6.0% 115

components of the portfolio received rather positive attention, with the exception of the shadowing and, to a lesser extent, the class observation task. In the minds of the pre-service teachers, the single most important component of the portfolio was teaming up with a learning partner, followed by the documentation and reflection of the teaching experience and subsequent goal setting. 2.3.2. Evaluation question (2): The effect of portfolio on professional development Concerning the professional experience and attitudes, the following aspects were investigated: Teacher self-efficacy, perception of subjective workload and stress, and proactive attitude. The current investigation confirms the technical merits of the scales as the reliability coefficients could be replicated in a satisfactory way (see Table 3). The data on professional attitudes and perceptions of preservice teachers are listed in Table 4. The beginning group and the graduating group report similar levels of stress, proactive attitudes, teacher self-efficacy, and perception of professional load. There is a slight tendency for beginners toward a more intensive perception of professional load. Overall, however, the scales are by no means exhausted so that the means that were returned are very likely neither due to a ceiling nor to a floor effect. The research questions 1–3 were all tested using t-tests for independent group comparisons. Pre-service teachers at different stages in their career (beginning and graduating pre-service teachers) and pre-service teachers with and without portfolio writing were grouped and compared. To make it short, there were no significant differences whatsoever to be found for the measured aspects of professional development. The portfolio did not make a significant difference in any of the quantitative scales and variables. This result is in line with other research (McCrindle & Christensen, 1995; Wade & Yarbrough, 1996), but still requires an explanation. Further exploration of the data suggest that the portfolio as it was used with the pre-service teachers in the present study is rather tailored to individuals who are already strong in terms of self-efficacy, handling workload and stress, and proactive behavior. There are substantial correlations between the respective scales: Individuals who are high in teacher self-efficacy are also

Table 2 Evaluation of the portfolio and its components Component

Important Somewhat important

Not really important

Not at all important

N

Workshop Teacher selfportrait Classroom observation Shadowing Student observation Teaching Working theory Reflection and goal setting Learning partner

36.2% 34.5%

41.9% 37.9%

18.1% 19.8%

3.8% 7.8%

105 116

27.4%

37.6%

29.1%

6.0%

117

8.4% 25.0%

15.0% 39.7%

43.9% 25.0%

32.7% 10.3%

107 116

42.9% 26.5% 34.5%

35.7% 41.9% 40.5%

18.4% 26.5% 19.8%

2.0% 5.1% 5.2%

98 117 116

38.8%

21.6%

26.7%

12.9%

116

152

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154

a documentation of the professional development with all its ups and downs, it would very probably contain some failures or at least some not so brilliant work examples which some might prefer not to share with supervisors. This is why some participants pointed at the fact that the anticipation of assessment may have had an impact on the way in which the portfolio was compiled and that, as a result of this, the portfolio entries may not constitute an authentic reflection of a person’s struggle to progress. With regard to self-assessment, some participants found that the portfolio had failed to convince them of the extra benefit, because they felt that they would be reflecting on their work anyhow. The form of reflection mandated by the portfolio was not considered an obvious asset, because some participants said they preferred to take notes more informally, while others did not see the value of actually putting their thoughts in writing as opposed to keeping a kind of ‘mental’ log. Reviewing the form and the components of the portfolio, some participants made the point that the required documentation left room for individual strategies. Some participants expressed the fear that if the instructions were too restrictive (e.g., ‘write two pages .’), individual creativity would be curtailed along with the motivation to invest time and effort. Finally, it was brought forward that this particular type of portfolio was rather time-consuming and that using the portfolio for teacher training made sense only if other forms of documentation were waived. Participants expressed the fear that the portfolio and the pertaining reflection processes were devalued if there was an overload of required documentation. Repetitious documentation was also brought forward as a possible cause for the decrease of the motivation to reflect and the decline of quality of the work over time.

Table 3 Cronbach’s a coefficients returned for the scales to measure professional attitudes and competences Scale

Cronbach’s a

Item discrimination

N

Teacher self-efficacy Perception of workload Perception of stress Proactive attitude

.77 .84 .83 .64

.33–.55 .29–.67 .31–.64 .16–.55

134 139 143 131

high in proactive attitudes (r ¼ .42, p < .001) and more positive in the perception of stress (r ¼ .30, p < .001) and workload (r ¼ .39, p <. 001). In the same line, proactive attitude correlates strongly with lower perception of stress (r ¼ .57, p < .001) and a more contained perception of workload (r ¼ .76, p < .001). Considering this highly interrelated set of attitudes, the picture of a teacher personality emerges who is highly self-efficient and has found ways to deal with the professional demands rather effectively. This group seems to benefit most from the portfolio. Individuals with a strong proactive attitude tend to find the portfolio more important and more useful than individuals with a weak proactive attitude. Lower but still significant correlations exist between the perception of the professional load and the appreciation for the portfolio in a way that those who perceive less stress and a lower load find the portfolio more important and more useful. The question, of course, remains as to how these attitudes are related in terms of cause and effect or if a third umbrella variable (and if so, which one) has a beneficial effect on these aspects of professional development. 2.3.3. Open-ended questions concerning the portfolio In addition to this, the responses to the open-ended questions were coded and categorized in an attempt to shed light on the question why the portfolio was not learning effective though it had been well-received. The answers addressed six different issues, namely, the introductory workshop for the portfolio, the feedback, assessment and self-assessment, aspects of the content and form of the portfolio, and the investment of time. The comments emphasized the importance of a comprehensive introduction to the portfolio process. This included precise instructions and a well-communicated rationale for the portfolio. Pre-service teachers felt that if they were expected to generate a continuous professional portfolio, they wanted to have a clear idea of the formalities, the content, and the prospective learning benefit. In particular, it was of concern to the pre-service teachers to ensure that they were compensated for the time invested in the portfolio. Secondly, participants in our study complained about the lack of feedback from their mentors and supervisors. Some felt that the portfolio process ought to be driven by the communication with either their instructors or their peers. They expressed the view that if portfolio entries remained strictly private, the motivation to work on them would fade. It was also a concern of the participants that supervisors, and to a lesser degree the mentors, as external addressees of the portfolio were also assessing the teaching and learning performance of the pre-service teachers. If the portfolio was meant to be

2.4. Interpretation and discussion of results from Part 1 This part of the study was designed as an evaluation of a portfolio version used in pre-service teacher training in the German federal state of Hesse. The portfolio was part of a reformed practice in teacher training and, as such, new both to the teacher candidates and their supervisors and mentors. The results of the study constitute a first reflection on the acceptance of the portfolio, the perceived critical issues and the impact of the portfolio on professional attitudes. In response to evaluation question (1) addressing acceptance and general assessment, it can be summarized that the general impression is that the portfolio is rather well-received both by the trainees and their instructors. The study, and in particular the answers to the open-ended questions, also indicate that clarity of instruction, satisfaction with the pertaining communication and feedback processes, and the perceived learning benefits derived from the portfolio are critical issues. In terms of evaluation question (2) which looked at the specific effects of the portfolio, the present study failed to produce general evidence for a positive impact of the portfolio on professional attitudes and the perception of stress. It rather seems that individuals who enroll in teacher training with proactive attitudes and a belief in their self-efficacy, and who

Table 4 Means, standard deviations, and minima and maxima returned for scales measuring professional attitudes and competences of pre-service teachers in the beginning and the graduating group Beginning pre-service teachers

Teacher self-efficacy (range 9–36) Perception of workload (range 14–70) Perception of stress (range 8–36) Proactive attitude (range 8–36)

Graduating pre-service teachers

M

SD

Min

Max

M

SD

Min

Max

15.74 29.18 12.72 12.54

3.00 7.22 3.85 2.73

9 17 8 8

23 62 30 20

14.00 26.97 12.31 12.43

2.80 5.15 3.14 2.56

9 14 8 7

19 38 21 17

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154

dispose of strategies to handle professional challenges, are more susceptible to the potential of the portfolio than others who tend to feel more anxious about their developing professional role and the entailing tasks. This result recalls the findings reported by Wade and Yarbrough (1996) with a different, still less structured type of portfolio. They also suggest that open forms of reporting and reflecting seem to cater to more self-regulated types of learners. Further research will need to deal with the issue whether and how portfolio can support those learners who need more support in their development toward being self-regulated learners. 3. Part 2 The second part of the study surveyed the 15 supervisors who were in charge of the pre-service teachers and who instructed and assessed the portfolio. Since the supervisors are in charge of the education program and the entailing assignments, and, simultaneously, of the assessment of individual candidates, it is vital for the success of the portfolio method (or any other teaching method) that they support the format and communicate its value and significance. This is why we decided to extend the research to this group. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Sample The supervisors who worked with the pre-service teachers in our sample were administered a questionnaire that tapped into their opinions on the portfolio. They came from different types of school (primary, secondary) and different in subject background (maths, general education, language arts). 3.1.2. Instruments The supervisors were asked about their opinions in an open format. Their comments were subsumed under one of three perspectives, namely the general conditions under which they would consider using the portfolio, their ideas on the components and general concept of the portfolio, and finally their personal opinions about portfolio. 3.2. Results All but one of the supervisors agreed that there was potential in the portfolio and that they were willing to continue to work with this format. They also expressed some doubts, however, which addressed several aspects. So, for example, the issue was raised if the portfolio entries could be taken as ‘honest’ reflections of the pre-service teacher who knew as they were putting the portfolio together that it would be read by their supervisors. Supervisors also acknowledged the fact that portfolio work needed communication and feedback and, consequently, that their schedule needed to allow for this extra time. In addition, supervisors found it important to communicate with peers about the handling of the portfolio. They emphasized that taking responsibility for the portfolio process of the pre-service teachers was new to them and that they needed support for the conceptual change involved in this new method. In particular, they felt that it would be important to discuss the ramifications of the portfolio method in terms of assessment and grading. The supervisors would prefer to use the components of the portfolio as optional rather than as mandatory, because not all parts seemed to suit the learning needs of a particular group. This may have been why some supervisors chose to leave out selected components of the portfolio. They were also willing to allow more individual choice as how to organize the documentation of the professional experience. To add more flexibility to the portfolio, it was suggested by the supervisors to use an electronic platform for

153

the compilation of documents (ePortfolio). At the same time, according to the opinions expressed here, there should be more clarity right from the beginning concerning the function of the portfolio and as to which parts of the portfolio would be kept private and which would be shared with others. Supervisors consented on the idea that the more clearly the conditions were negotiated and communicated at the outset, the more productive the portfolio process would be in the end. Supervisors noted that, as a windfall product, the portfolio process and the peer-interaction driven by this process, resulted in what they viewed as a more elaborate style of reflecting on the professional development on the one hand and in a more productive and independent group process among the pre-service teachers, on the other hand. 4. General discussion and conclusions The two-part study shed some light on the conditions which should be observed when the portfolio method is introduced in teacher training programs. It is important to note that the needs and experience of both the trainees and the instructors must be taken into account as the general picture is considered. Of course, since the portfolio as an instrument for teaching and learning was new to all involved in the current study, the results may partly be due to the lack of experience. But still, some lessons for future portfolio projects can be learned from this study. In the course of the study, it became obvious that some preservice teachers benefited from the portfolio while others did not. This is why we suggest that the evaluation of the portfolio process ought to concentrate on the quality of the reflection captured in the individual texts (e.g., Ward & McCotter, 2004). Looking at the transfer effects, as was done in this study, might have been premature, because there is the quality and depth of reflection which might be the missing link to make a prediction about subsequent effects. To keep and administer a portfolio requires reflexive writing skills (Eigler, 2005; Lee, 2005), among which may be counted a general sensitivity for critical events, the ability to reflect on one’s own role in a conflict, the willingness to accept errors and mistakes as learning opportunities. It is important to note that the issue of identifying effects of portfolio on the professional development is separate from the issue of portfolio appraisal (as discussed, e.g., in Tillema & Smith, 2007). Moreover, the results of the current study suggest that preservice teachers who emphasize learning orientation as opposed to performance orientation and who have developed a more receptive attitude for portfolio, are more successful (or perceive themselves to be more successful) with the portfolio. As a consequence, when implementing portfolio, it seems advisable to help the learners develop those facilitating skills which are not only essential to portfolio but also to teaching in general. Based on the results of the study, we feel it is safe to assume that the success of the portfolio method is closely associated with the clarity of communication between trainees and instructors. We found a large variance in terms of satisfaction with the portfolio across learning groups and that much of the perceived usefulness depended on the credibility of the instruction. As it turned out in the evaluation, a lack of a clear understanding of the purpose and ownership of a portfolio constitutes a serious flaw in the process. When trainees and supervisors do not start the process with an agreed-upon set of rules for the portfolio, it is more than likely that cooperation will be hard to maintain. When, in addition, it should be the case that some supervisors and mentors insist on other forms of documentation parallel to the portfolio the level of frustration with the workload is bound to rise. What has become obvious in this study confirms the warnings that had been expressed elsewhere: ‘‘. if a portfolio is not fully

154

M. Imhof, C. Picard / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 149–154

integrated in the learning environment and does not become an integral part of this environment, it will remain in the form of a separate instrument that will be regarded by instructors and teachers as another extra feature that takes time and effort, such that the chance for success of a portfolio will be minimal’’ (Fisser & Wetterling, 2005, p. 146). As was evident from the responses to the open-ended questions, the introduction of the portfolio method was, in some cases, barely half-hearted. Obviously, it is important for the success of the portfolio process that mentors and supervisors set aside time for the pre-service teachers to compile the portfolio and time for themselves to study the portfolios and provide feedback on them. This is why we underline the importance of instructor feedback, because when instructors fail to give constructive feedback the trainees are likely to perceive the portfolio tasks as tedious and as an ineffective end in itself. This process would be detrimental to the motivation to keep a portfolio and to attitudes on reflective professional tasks. Another point to be made here is that the implementation of a portfolio needs first and foremost to secure the involvement of the instructors. They need to possess the expertise of how to instruct a portfolio, they need the time to actually support the portfolio process and to provide feedback, and, last but not least, they need to be convinced that the portfolio is a useful format for documenting the professional development of the pre-service teachers. If these conditions are not met, the effects of portfolio are very likely to be compromised from the outset (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000). References Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (2006). Lehrer und Lehrerinnen erforschen ihren Unterricht. [Action research in teaching]. Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn. Anderson, R. S., & DeMeulle, L. (1998). Portfolio use in twenty four teacher education programs. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25, 23–31. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barrett, H. (2005). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Available from: http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/whitepaper.pdf. Retrieved 27.06.06. Baumgartner, P. (2005). Competence-based education with weblogs and e-portfolios: a challenge for developing a new learning culture. Paper given at a conference on ePortfolios (Salzburg, April 27, 2005). Available from: http://www.peter. baumgartner.name/paper-de/competence-based-education-with-weblogs-and-eportfolios-a-challenge-for-developing-a-new-learning-culture. Retrieved 27.06.06. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Campbell, D. M., Cignetti, P. B., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H., & Wyman, R. M. (2004). How to develop a professional portfolio. A manual for teachers. New York: Pearson. Chetcuti, D., Apap, P., Bartolo, P., Borg, C., Cardona, A., Farrugia, M. T., et al. (2003). Professional development portfolio. Msida, Malta: University of Malta. Darling-Hammond, L., & Synder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523–545. Eigler, G. (2005). Epistemisches Schreiben ist schwierig – seine Erforschung noch mehr. [Epistemic writing is challenging – to investigate it even more so]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 33, 244–255. Enzmann, D., & Kleiber, D. (1989). Berufliche Belastung (BEL). [Burnout inventory]. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Available from: R. Schwarzer, & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und ¨ lermerkmalen (pp. 72–73) http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/schulen/skalen. Schu htm. Retrieved 26.06.06. Fisser, P., & Wetterling, J. (2005). The use of ICT in Dutch higher education: developing an e-learning structure. In U. Dittler, H. Kahler, M. Kindt, & C. Schwarz (Eds.), E-learning in Europe – Learning Europe (pp. 127–153). Mu¨nster: Waxmann.

Foote, C. J. (2001). Teaching portfolio 101: implementing the teaching portfolio in introductory courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28, 31–37. Forster, M., & Masters, G. (1996). Portfolios. Assessment resource kit (ARK). Camberwell: Allanby Press Printers Ltd. Ha¨cker, T., & Lissmann, U. (2007). Mo¨glichkeiten und Spannungsfelder der Portfolioarbeit – Perspektiven fu¨r Forschung und Praxis. [Chances and problems of ¨dagogik, 21, portfolios: Perspectives for research and practice]. Empirische Pa 209–239. Ha¨fliger, R., & Lauer, U. (2003). Pilotversuch portfolio. [Piloting portfolio]. Basel: Pa¨dagogisches Institut Basel-Stadt. Imhof, M., Borsch, F., Ha¨nssig, A., Korneck, F., Labonte´, U., Petras, A., et al. (2006). Einsatz von Portfolio in den Schulpraktischen Studien. Eine Handreichung. [Using portfolio for the documentation of student teaching courses. A manual]. In M. Imhof (Ed.), Portfolio und reflexives Schreiben in der Lehrerausbildung (pp. 121–143). To¨nning: Der Andere Verlag. Jerusalem, M. (1995). Herausforderungs-Bedrohungs-, und Verlusteinscha¨tzungen von Lehrern. [Teachers’ perceptions of challenge, threat, and loss]. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Available from: R. Schwarzer, & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und ¨ lermerkmalen (pp. 81–84) http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/schulen/skalen. Schu htm. Retrieved 26.06.06. Jones, J. E. (1994). Portfolio assessment as a strategy for self-direction in learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 64, 23–29. Kremer-Hayon, H. H., & Tillema, H. (1999). Self-regulated learning in the context of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 507–522. Lee, H.-J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 699–715. Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2006). Selbstregulation beim Lernen aus Sachtexten. [Self-regulated learning from texts]. In H. Mandl, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Handbuch Lernstrategien (pp. 162–171). Go¨ttingen: Hogrefe. McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167–187. Meissner, M., & Asbeck, C. (2003). Das Portfolio in der II. Phase der Lehrerausbildung. [The portfolio in the practical phase of teacher training]. Frankfurt/M.: Amt fu¨r Lehrerausbildung. Schmitz, G. (2001). Kann Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung Lehrer vor Burnout schu¨tzen? [Can perceived self-efficacy protect against burnout?]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 48, 49–67. Schoen, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Basic Books. Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. (1999a). Proaktive Einstellung (PRO). [Proactive coping]. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Available from: R. Schwarzer, & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), Skalen zur Erfassung von ¨ lermerkmalen (pp. 88–89) http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/ Lehrer- und Schu schulen/skalen.htm. Retrieved 26.06.06. Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. (1999b). Skala zur Lehrerselbstwirksamkeitserwartung (WIRKLEHR). [Teacher self-efficacy]. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Available from: R. Schwarzer, & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), ¨ lermerkmalen (pp. 61–64) http://www. Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schu fu-berlin.de/gesund/schulen/skalen.htm. Retrieved 26.06.06. Tillema, H. (2001). Portfolios as developmental assessment tools. International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 126–135. Tillema, H., & Smith, K. (2007). Portfolio appraisal: In search of criteria. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 442–456. Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & van Merrie¨nboer, J. J. G. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 532–548. Wade, R. C., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolio: A tool for reflective thinking in teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 63–79. Ward, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 243–257. Wolf, K., & Dietz, M. (1998). Teaching portfolios: purposes and possibilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25, 9–22. Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology. Boston: Pearson. 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, 613–621. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 1–37). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.