Evaluating Teaching Through Portfolios
Perspectives on who evaluates teaching through portfolios and how
Under Ongoing Review!
By What Criteria? Standards of Evaluation
Preliminary Note: One does not evaluate a portfolio, one evaluates teaching through a portfolio.
While the aim of portfolios is to promote better teaching and document more effectively teaching achievement, evaluating portfolios can be as much a challenge as assembling them. Adminstrators, in particular, can potentially be frustrated by sheer bulk, poor organization, and lack of clear evaluation guidelines or standards (Lang and Bain, 1996). Research on effective portfolios suggests, for example, that standardized sets of content and contextual information (within an institution) may promote the process. Still, the very notion of a portfolio is linked to the value of evaluating individuals independently and to recognizing all aspects of teaching, not just student evaluations or other quantitative assessments. In particular (as this website emphasizes), evaluators must acknowledge the role of academic freedom in teaching. Thus, each teacher's statement of philosophy is a unique and indispensable benchmark for assessing his or her teaching.
The teacher's own statement of teaching philosophy should be the central standard and starting point for any evaluation. Beyond this, conventional standards of scholarship apply. There should be consistency -- that is, teaching practice should reflect teaching philosophy. And there should be robustness of evidence. Expectations should be further shaped by the teacher's stage of professional/portfolio development.
A prospective evaluation form commensurate with this website is premised on the principle that, regardless of individual educational goals or teaching style, every teacher should show evidence of:
- professional reflection,
- teaching practice and methodology that reflect teaching philosophy,
- feedback from students,
- feedback from peers,
- other more objective sources of effectiveness, and
- professional development.
How the teacher meets these expectations, and with what particular balance, will be shaped by the teacher's own commitments.
The form implicitly acknowledges that evaluation of teaching involves some professional judgment, but that such judgment should be explicit and guided by commonly accepted and broadly defined standards (a form of "limited subjectivity"). The prospective ratings for each of the six dimensions of teaching above are at a general scale, assuming that teaching is not a finely tuned competitive enterprise. Hence, the major categories are: "satisfactory" (assuming relatively "good" performance) and "strong" (for those whose work deserves recognition or reward). In addition, there is a ranking of "exceptional," for perhaps the top 5-10% whose work is "noteworthy," "remarkable" or otherwise deeply impressive as potential mentor teachers. Finally, there is a ranking for "substandard," to signal where work is below the minimal expectations. Prospectively, the six dimensions would be weighted equally in an overall ranking, on a numerical scale of 1 to 4.
For other perspectives, see:
- some general guidelines for reviewing scholarship of any kind (Charles Glassick, The Carnegie Foundation).
- discussion of the challenge at Univ. of Wisconsin -- with some caveats on the temptation to rely heavily on quantitative data, for example.
- Griffith University, Australia has eight criteria, with detailed statements on each.
- Expertise in the discipline
- Design and planning of teaching and subjects
- Conduct or process of teaching
- Assessment of students
- Learning outcomes
- The monitoring, evaluation and improvement of teaching and subjects
- Leadership in teaching
- Scholarship in teaching
- According to AVCC (Australia), there are specific properties of teachers that enhance student learning, enthusiasm for learning and skills in life-long learning, categorized under:
- Student Learning
- Teaching and Assessment
- Subject Management
- University of Nebraska, Lincoln, School of Music rates each teacher on a scale of 1 to 5 on the following four criteria (each is accompanied by suggested portfolio materials and more detailed questions for the reviewer to consider; comments expected on each):
- How knowledgeable is this faculty member in subjects taught?
- What is the quality of materials used in teaching?
- What kinds of tasks were set by the teacher for the students?
- Did the teacher succeed in getting students to set tasks for themselves? How did the students perform?
- University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Dept. of Agricultural Education assigns points according to the following rubric:
- student evaluation and written faculty responses (40)
- annual and long-term objectives for teaching (5)
- self-evaluation report (5)
- creative/scholarly activities in teaching and learning (20)
- professional development in teaching and learning (10)
- course outlines, objectives and evaluation policies (10)
- peer review and classroom observation (10)
One touchstone for an evaluation procedure may be whether it captures a judgment on such questions as:
- Would you find it valuable to take a course from or work with this teacher?
- Would you recommend this teacher to a friend or your own child?
- Is this teacher someone you respect and feel proud to have as a colleague or peer in teaching?
Who evaluates portfolios?
First, we may well consider that portfolios will be reviewed at several levels. There might be an initial committee of peers within one's own department whose primary function is formative. Here, the review might be fairly deep and thorough. The Department of Biological Sciences has a Committee on Teaching Effectiveness that reviews portfolios and returns to the individual faculty member (conifdentailly) an assessment of the three greatest teaching strengths and three challenges for future growth, as evidenced in the portfolio. The committee has four members. Following conventions in the review of grant propoals, one is a "primary reviewer" who examines the portfolio in depth; a secondary reviewer also examines it (though in less detail); all members discuss the consensus evaluation.
One can also imagine a departmental committee that uses portfolio review as a way to evaluate course balance, integrate courses, plan departmental growth, etc.
Centra (1994) describes a community college where one peer is chosen by the faculty member being evaluated, another is chosen by the dean. This might provide one form of checks and balances about potential bias.
In all cases, it may be appropriate to ask reviewers to learn about portfolios and ways to evaluate them.
See Also...
Bibliography
Charles E. Glassick, Mary Taylor Huber and Gene I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
----proposes categories of assessment across four forms of scholarship (discovering, integrating and applying knowledge, and teaching)
Larry A. Braskamp and John C. Ory. 1994. Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
----See esp. chapter 17 on teaching portfolios (in comparison with records and course portfolios as alternative forms of documenting work). See also chaps. 8-10 on appropriate uses of assessment evidence and its role in enhancing individuals and institutions.
Peter Seldin. 1993. "Evaluating Teaching Portfolios for Personnel Decisions." Chap. 5 in The Teaching Portfolio, Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
-----includes a sampling of forms used at various universitites
O'Neil. Carol and Alan Wright. 1997. Recording Teaching Accomplishment: A Dalhousie Guide to the Teaching Dossier, 5th ed. Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University Office of Instructional Development and Technology.
-----Chap. 4 profiles evaluation and includes sample evaluation forms from Dalhousie (School of Education) and Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln (School of Music and Dept. of Agriculutral Education).
James M. Lang and Kenneth R. Bain. 1996. "Recasting the Teaching Portfolio." The Teaching Professor (Dec.).