Portfolios and assessment

These notes are part of a series for the book. This article looks at how the students in 2 schools use digital portfolio work to support collaborative learning. The authors divide the portfolio work into 3 phases, and propose this as a model for evaluating portfolio processes: two phases that include formative assessment, and a final phase that includes summative assessment.

Dysthe, O. and Engelsen, K. (2004) ‘Portfolios and Assessment in Teacher Education in Norway: A Theory-based Discussion of Different Models in Two Sites’, in Murphy, P. and Hall, K. (eds) (2008) Learning and Practice: Agency and Identities, London, SAGE Publications Ltd.

Outline

Introduction and contextualization
A model of analysis for portfolio processes
Learning phases 1 – 3
Portfolios in the light of sociocultural theories of knowledge and learning
1. Portfolios as mediated artifacts
2. Learning as situated, social, and distributed
3. Learning as participation in communities of practice
Variations of portfolio models in 2 Norwegian teacher education institutions
1. Teacher education at Vestfold University College
2. Teacher education at Stord/Haugesund University College
Summary and discussion
1. Some general findings
2. How do the sites use the learning potential in each of the phases?
3. The potential of communication and digitalization
A theory-based discussion of 3 critical aspects of portfolio work
1. Negotiated, authentic assignments — a key to tapping the learning potential of portfolios?
2. Reflection and self-assessment as vital elements of professional identity building
3. Student participation in summative assessment — an underrated learning potential?
Concluding remarks

Notes

The students in these schools created “learning and assessment” portfolios:

Collection of work
Student selects the contents
Shows self-reflection
Process can be summed up as “collection, reflection, and selection”

In some ways, the findings in this paper and those by Roth and Lee are similar.

See also: Roth, W.M., and Lee, S. (2004) ‘Science Education as/for Participation in the Community’

Definition of terms

The authors look at portfolios using Wenger’s terms:

Situated cognition: Learning is a process of acquiring the characteristics of a community of practice (COP).
Participation: This is acting and connecting — “doing, talking, thinking, feeling, and belonging”. This doesn’t have to be collaborative — it also can be competitive or conflictual.
Reification: Process that gives form to the participation, and the products that come from that process. The product implies the process.

Portfolios

Portfolios can be a form of assessment, but this paper focuses on portfolios as tools or artifacts that mediate learning — creating the portfolio is learning.

The portfolio process is “social” in both senses of the word:

The historical and cultural context of the learner
Relating and interacting

We can learn about how knowledge is co-constructed by looking at digital portfolios, because we can see how they progress. But are we seeing co-production of knowledge, or just a collection of individuals’ knowledge? It depends on how much collaboration and coordination there is between learners.

How should we give individual assessments with collective work?

The framework

The authors propose this model as a portfolio framework which can be used to analyze the success of portfolios and to show the learning potential at different phases of portfolio development:

A model of analysis for portfolio processes in the project (Dysthe and Engelsen, p. 126)

	Phase 1	Phase 2	Phase 3
Description	- Assessment is formative; teacher and peer feedback is important. - Collaborative learning - If portfolios are a reification, then it's important for the teacher to ask, "What kind of practice should students document in their portfolio?" - Assignments must be designed carefully and should be authentic (that is, relate to real life). Assignments should also be negotiated with the students.	- Assessment is formative. - Selection involves self-assessment which is important -- but also the students have been given (or helped create) the criteria for good work. - Reflection and self-assessment are important from a sociocultural perspective because they are part of shaping identity. - Grading the reflection activities is controversial -- what's important is sharing with a peer or teacher, not grading.	- Assessment is summative. - One key concert with assessments is how to do them fairly. An oral presentation of portfolio work shifts the focus from summative to formative, and shifts the control to the learners as equal members of the community of practice (COP).
Proposed actions	Activities resulting in written, oral, visual, and/or practical objects that are collected into a working portfolio	Students select documentation from the collection in the working portfolio to include in the presentation portfolio.
Questions to ask when evaluating a portfolio program	Organization: How are learning processes organized? Are they mainly lecture-based, case-based, project- or problem-based? What combinations? Information and communication technology (ICT): Is ICT used primarily for individual writing and for organization of the portfolio process, or also for feedback, discussion, and collaboration? Writing and feedback practices: What are the recommended writing strategies? Who gives feedback and how is it organized? (peer/teacher, written/oral, individual/group, digital/paper-based) Meta processes: To what extent are reflections as well as discussion and negotiation of criteria integrated in the work with theoretical and practical aspects of the subject area?	Self-assessment: Are students involved in self-assessment as part of selecting what goes into the presentation portfolio, and do they use criteria and reflection in doing so? Criteria: Have students been given explicit criteria for what counts as good quality work? Have these been developed in cooperation with the students or negotiated with them? Reflection: Are students asked to write reflective texts for their presentation portfolio?	Object and format of assessment: What is being assessed? The portfolio itself? Portfolio-based oral performance or written essays? Combination of portfolio and traditional exam? Student involvement: Is the student directly involved? What degree of control does the student have over the object of assessment? Criteria: Are the criteria implicit or explicit? Do the criteria include process or just product? Assessor: Are peer and self-assessment used for summative purposes? Reflection: Is there any space for setting new learning goals on the basis of assessment results?
Example actions or activities	- Individual and group work - Problem-oriented or case-based learning - Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) - Process writing - Cross-curricular or cross-institutional activities - Peer and teacher feedback - Reflection	- Selecting items from working portfolio to include in presentation portfolio - Understanding and developing criteria for judging quality - Reflection text	- Presenting portfolio, followed by answering questions and participating in discussions - Reflecting on new learning goals
Notes from study	None.	In the study, work in this phase was not done as thoroughly at the the two schools. Possible reasons: Maybe the framework (collect-reflect-select) is not good; or maybe this is because the classes were too short to yield a broad selection of artifacts from which to choose. Either way, the selection process is important because it focuses the learner on the criteria for quality.	In both schools, this phase turned out to be a hybrid -- exams still dominated the assessment, even though students spent so much time on their portfolios. One aspect students liked was an assessment in which they presented selected portfolio work for 10-15 minutes and then this was followed by questions and discussion (this is an oral, portfolio-based exam).