The use of teaching portfolios in teacher education programs is a widely accepted practice. This article describes how a traditional teacher work sample was transformed using the online platform, Google Docs. The use of online digital portfolios may help to satisfy both the need to evaluate teacher candidates’ performance in special education settings and encourage deeper reflection through the use of interactive digital technologies. Equally important, when constructing the Google Doc work sample, teacher candidates learn important instructional technologies by implementing them in authentic settings. The author suggests the implementation of digital portfolios may reinforce best practices in special education.
ChungM. K.DavidsonB. S.YehH. T. (2011). Obstacles pre-service teachers encountered after classroom observations on the write-up of reflections in a digital teaching portfolio. Focus on Colleges, Universities, & Schools, 6, 1–7.
7.
ClarkJ. E.EynonB. (2009, Winter). E-portfolios at 2.0—Surveying the field. AAC&U Peer Review, 11, 18–23.
8.
CorneliusK.NagroS. (2014). Evaluating the evidence base of performance feedback in preservice special education teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 133–146. doi:10.1177/0888406414521837
DelandshereG.ArensS. (2003). Examining the quality of the evidence in preservice teacher portfolios. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 57–73.
13.
DentonD.WicksD. (2013). Implementing electronic portfolios through social media platforms: Steps and student perceptions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17, 123–133.
14.
DerhamC.DiPernaJ. (2007). Digital professional portfolios of preservice teaching: An initial study of score reliability and validity. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 363–381.
15.
Devlin-SchererR.BurroughsG.DalyJ.McCartanW. (2007). The value of the teacher work sample for improving instruction and program. Action in Teacher Education, 29, 59–60.
16.
FrunzeanuM. (2014). Digital portfolios—Powerful tools for demonstrating teachers’ Professional development [Special issue]. Journal Plus Education, 117–124.
17.
GardinerW.RobinsonK. S. (2011). Peer field placements with preservice teachers: Negotiating the challenges of professional collaboration. The Professional Educator, 35, 1–11.
GrahamC. R.TrippT.WentworthN. (2009). Assessing and improving technology integration skills for preservice teachers using the teacher work sample. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 39–62.
20.
Hartnett-EdwardsK. (2013). The teacher work sample and 21st century learning. Curriculum and Teaching Dialog, 15, 147–160.
21.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
22.
HenryG.CampbellS.ThompsonC.PatriarcaL.LuterbachK.LysD.CovingtonV. (2013). The predictive validity of measures of teacher candidate programs and performance: Toward an evidence-based approach to teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 439–453. doi:10.1177/0022487113496431
23.
HicksT.RussoA.AutreyT.GardnerR.KabodianA.EdingtonC. (2007). Rethinking the purposes and processes for designing digital portfolios. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 450–458. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.6.3
24.
HixonE.SoH. (2009). Technology’s role in field experiences for pre-service teacher training. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 294–304.
25.
ImhofM.PicardC. (2009). Views on using portfolio in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 149–154. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.001
26.
ImpedovoM.RitellaG.LigorioM. (2013). Developing codebooks as a new tool to analyze students’ ePortfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio, 3, 161–176.
27.
KahnS. (2014). E-portfolios: A look at where we’ve been, where we are now, and where we’re (possibly) going. Peer Review, 16, 1–6.
28.
KennedyM. J.AlvesK. D.RodgersW. J. (2015). Innovations in the delivery of content knowledge in special education teacher preparation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 5, 73–81. doi:10.1177/1053451215579268
29.
KennedyM. M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher education. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 54–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
30.
KleinerB.ThomasN.LewisL. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure(NCES 2008-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
31.
LiuS. (2012). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice teachers during practice teaching. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 137–149.
32.
MilmanN. (2005). Web-based digital teaching portfolios: Fostering reflection and technology competence in pre-service teacher education students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 373–396.
33.
MilmanN. (2014). Developing a digital portfolio. Distance Learning, 11, 37–40.
34.
ParkerM.NdoyeA.RitzhauptA. (2012). Qualitative analysis of student perceptions of e-portfolios in a teacher education program. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28, 99–107.
35.
NagroS.deBettencourtL.RosenbergM.CarranD.WeissM. (2017). The effects of guided video analysis on teacher candidates’ reflective ability and instructional skills. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 7–25. doi:10.1177/0888406416680469
36.
PlaisirJ.HacheyA.TheilheimerR. (2011). Their portfolios, our role: Examining a community college teacher education digital portfolio program from the students’ perspective. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 159–175. doi:10.1080/10901027.2011.572231
RitzhauptA.NdoyeA.ParkerM. (2008). Validation of the electronic portfolio student perspective instrument (EPSPI): Conditions under a different integration initiative. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26, 111–119.
39.
RobinsonL.KelleyB. (2007). Developing reflective thought in preservice educators: Utilizing role-plays and digital video. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22, 31–43.
40.
SchalockH.MytonD. (1988). A new paradigm for teacher licensure: Oregon’s demand for Evidence of success in fostering learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 8–16.
41.
ScheelerM. C.RuhlK. L.McAfeeM. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 396–407.
42.
SeidelT.StürmerK.BlombergG.KobargM.SchwindtK. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others?Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 259–267. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.009
43.
SmithS.KennedyM. (2014). Technology and teacher education. In SindelarP. T.McCrayE. D.BrownellM. T.Lignugaris KraftB. (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 161–177). New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
StatuckiC. (2012, 5). There’s an app for that—Google apps for education. Techniques, 87, 8–9.
45.
StobaughR. R.TassellJ. L. (2011). Analyzing the degree of technology use occurring in pre-service teacher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 23, 143–157. doi:10.1007/s11092-011-9118-2
46.
WeberW.WurzbackL.SomersL. (1998). Improving the teaching and learning of mathematics: Performance-based assessment of beginning mathematics teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 430–437. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998tb17465.x
47.
WoodwardH.NanlohyP. (2004). Digital portfolios: Fact or fashion?Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 227–238. doi:10.1080/0260293042000188492
48.
ZhangJ.FallonM. A.RussoT. J. (2014). Impact of technology devices on college students’ comfort levels of using technology. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 10, 120–132.
