In Practice: Picturing the Portfolio Program
On page 74, the authors lay out seven features of a portfolio based assessment program which they call the seven C's. (Yes I think the pun was intended.)
- Development of teacher Community
- Shared Criteria and standards
- Responsiveness to the needs and goals of the Context (including all parties
to the assessment) and to all of its restrictions- Valuing of the process of reaching Consensus
- Care in all aspects and phases of the development, application maintenance
and validation of the assessment.- Emphasis on Conversation, talk over and about texts and processes in all of the above
As they go onto explain a little bit about each of the C's, using the development of portfolio based assessments at their own campuses as a backdrop, some important issues begin to emerge:
Some other claims they make:
- Developing a portfolio based system is a messy, long term project that requires approval from administrators to succeed. In their case, administrators had to be convinced through pilot data and a phase-in process over a number of years before the portfolio system was allowed to replace the timed impromptu essay they had been using for placement and exit. The authors also detail an almost utopian atmosphere of collaboration and acceptance of the new initiative. In their telling there is no faculty or student resistance. There is also no discussion of cost: faculty visit each other's classes, develop syllabi together and grade portfolios together in a seemingly amicable, cost free world. More believably, and yet understated, is their assertion that developing a portfolio based program had the additional benefit of acting as faculty development as instructors visited each other's classes, planned their semesters together, and evaluated writing together.
- As the authors go on to detail the use of portfolios for exit from the writing program at University of Michigan and Colorado University Denver, they present the dissonance between the timed impromptu assessment and what they were teaching in their "Writing Practicum" "a no credit remedial course to prepare students for Freshman Composition Timed impromptus allow no time for substantial revision, editing or proofreading, offer no opportunities for reflection, encourage quick, first time responses. Of course portfolio assessment corrects all of these problems and therefore makes the assessment better correspond to the courses. I found these sections rather obvious, and often laced with unsupported statements: on timed impromptu exams, "most (students) felt free to put in the minimum of effort on revisions because they knew they would not be tested on that skill" (77). I just don't think they do a good job interrogating their assumptions.
- In the end they conclude that while everyone agrees that portfolio assessment is more valid (another unproved assertion), the difficulty is in proving that they are as relaible. "Finally, we were able to demonstrate that practicum faculty could read and score the portfolios as reliably and almost as efficiently as the timed essays, using standard assessment methods (two readers, with a third reading in case of splits; a reading process resembling W. Smith's 1994 'expert rater' system, and so forth)" (77). But the authors offer no evidence of reliability or validity claims, other than this uninterrogated statement: "In 60 percent of cases the scores on the two kinds of tests placed students exactly the same; in the majority of the other cases, the portfolio score placed the student higher" (77). To which I wrote in the margin: "is this a good thing?"
On page 81, the authors detail the requirements made of the faculty:
- The exit portfolio had to be tied to the course. However, the portfolio system they describe asked the students to contribute one argumentative essay, one other three-to-five page essay "identifiable as academic in nature," and a timed piece from class, plus a reflection letter. What about the teacher who does not privilege the essay form?
- Portfolio based assessment raised the status of process-based teaching. (They do not elaborate on how, or why this is a good thing, or what was gained because of this.)
- "Faculty worked in groups of three readers or teachers (typically one veteran, one newcomer, and one with middling experience in the course); the groups met early in the term to exchange syllabi, assignments and materials; set up a schedule for group members to visit each others' classes; and decide what form or forms the in-class and reflective writings will take. About two weeks before the end of the practicum, the faculty as a whole met to standardize on several anchor portfolios. Then, as soon as the classes' portfolios were collected, the groups met and standardized on at least one portfolio from each teacher's practicum. Teachers than read and scored portfolios from their own classes; whereupon, they exchanged portfolios with the other members of the group and acted as second readers for those portfolios. In cases of disagreement, the two readers conferred, but if they were unable to agree on a placement, then the third member of the group acted as third reader" (81). I am just going to leave this quote for your critique. Let's see if you guys had the same response as I did.
- Next the authors go on to offer student responses to the portfolio-based classes. They provide a chart that shows that students scored the courses higher than other courses in the university in terms of "Was it an excellent course, was it an excellent teacher."
I leave you with these two thoughts. I am starting to think that the audience for this book is writing program administrators because the authors do not really show how individual instructors can use portfolios in their classrooms. All of their descriptions are tied to the larger university initiative of instituting a university wide portfolio system. I have also noticed here and elsewhere that the authors look at portfolios strictly in terms of assessment. It seems to me that part of the benefit of portfolios has nothing to do with assessment of written work, but has to do with an understanding of yourself as a writer, a reader, and a learner.