The purpose of this article is to examine the creation of a portfolio assessment model based on qualitative research principles. Four assumptions provide the scaffolding for working with portfolios in the classroom: designing authentic learning opportunities; interaction of assessment, curriculum, and instruction; multiple criteria derived from multiple sources; and systematic teacher preparation. In addition, we examine the qualitative research procedures which were embedded in the development of the Early Assessment for Exceptional Potential (EAEP) model and provide support for meeting the standards of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the research design (Guba & Lincoln, 1981).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AspE. (1992, July). Portfolio As Evaluation. Presentation at the Primary Teacher Institute, Kent State University, Kent, OH.
2.
DenzinN. K. (1978) Sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
FrasierM. (1987). The identification of gifted black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 155–180.
4.
FrasierM. (1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 234–245.
5.
FrasierM. (1992). Ethnic/Minority children: Reflections and directions. In Ohio Department of Education, Challenges in Gifted Education (pp. 41–48). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
6.
GoetzJ. P.LeCompteM.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
7.
GubaE.LincolnY. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
GubaE.LincolnY. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
HadawayN.Merek-SchroerM. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority student. Roeper Review, 15(2), 73–77.
10.
LundsteenS. (1991). Ethnographic perspective: From beginning to final product. In BuchananN.FeldhusenJ. (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education: A handbook of methods & applications (pp. 114–136). New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1988). Position statement on standardized testing of young children 3 through 8 years of age. Young Children, 43(3), 42–47.
12.
OjaS. N. (1980). Adult development is implicit on staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 1(7),56.
13.
OjaS. N. (1990). Adult development: Insights on staff development. In LiebermanA.MillerL. (Eds.), Staff Development for Education in the 90's (p. 37–61). New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation & research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
PaulsonF. L,.PaulsonP. R. (1990, August). How do portfolios measure up? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northwest Evaluation Association, Union, WA.
16.
PerroneV. (Ed.). (1991). Expanding Student Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
17.
Primary Program Foundation Document. (1991). Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia.
18.
RichertE. S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(4), 149–154.
19.
RichertE. S.AlvinoJ.McDonnelR. (1982). The national report on identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South.
20.
RohrerJ. (1992). Primary teacher conceptions of giftedness: Image, evidence and portfolio assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH.
21.
ShakleeB. (1992a). Identification of young gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 134–144.
22.
ShakleeB. (1992b). Early assessment for exceptional potential in young minority and/or economically disadvantaged students: 1992 report of preliminary findings. Presentation at the Jacob Javits 1992 Grantee Meeting, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
23.
ShakleeB. (1993). Preliminary findings of the Early Assessment for Exceptional Potential Project. Roeper Review, 16(2), 105–109.
24.
ShakleeB.HansfordS. (1992). Identification of underserved populations: Focus on preschool and primary children. In Challenges in Gifted Education (pp 35–40). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
25.
ShakleeB.RohrerJ. (1992). Early assessment of exceptional potential: Looking at young children. Illinois Council of the Gifted Journal, 15(2), 134–144.
26.
ShakleeB.BarbourN.AmbroseR. (1992). Preparing primary classroom teachers to conduct portfolio assessment. Presentation at the Annual Convention of the Association of Teacher Educators, Orlando, FL.
27.
ShakleeB.BarbourN.AmbroseR.RohrerJ.ViechnickiK.WhitmoreJ. (1993). Early assessment for exceptional potential in young minority and/or economically disadvantaged students. In CallahanC.TomlinsonC.PizzatP. (Eds.), Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices in the identification of gifted students (pp. 22–43). Charlottesville, VA: National Center for Research on Gifted and Talented, U. S. Department of Education.
28.
ShakleeB.WhitmoreJ.BartonL.BarbourN.AmbroseR.ViechnickiK. (1989). Early assessment for exceptional potential in young minority and/or economically disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
29.
ValenciaS. (1990, January). A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The whys, whats, and hows. The Reading Teacher, 43, 338–340.
30.
ViechnickiK.BarbourN.ShakleeB.RohrerJ.AmbroseR. (1993). The impact of portfolio assessment on teacher classroom activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 371–377.
31.
WhitmoreJ. R. (1982). Recognizing and developing hidden gifted-ness. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 274–283.
32.
WhitmoreJ. R. (1985). New challenges to common identification practices. In FreemanJ. (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children (pp. 93–113). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
33.
WhitmoreJ. R. (1988). Gifted children at risk for learning difficulties. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20, 10–14.
34.
ZessoulesR.GardnerH. (1991). Authentic assessment: Beyond the buzzword. In PerroneV. (Ed.), Expanding student assessment (pp. 47–71). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
