After 21 years of national standards and state mandates, assessing teaching by portfolio has reached a stage of wide adoption in preservice programs. However, the use of teacher portfolios to recruit, select, retain, and provide professional development seems less widespread. This pilot study shows how full implementation of teacher portfolios might be approached and studied across settings and through teachers' career spans.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bascia, N., & Hargreaves, A. (2000). The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching leading, and the realities of reform.London: Routledge.
2.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century.New York: Author.
3.
Connelly, F., & Clandinin, D. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice.New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2003). Interstate newv teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ccsso.org/projects/InterstateNewTeacherAssessment_andSupportLConsortium/index.cfm
5.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Standard-setting in teaching: Changes in licensing, certification, and assessment. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 751-776).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
7.
Dietz, M. E. (2001). Designing the school leader's portfolio. Arlington Heights, IL: Sky Light.
8.
Edelfelt, R., & Raths, J. (1999, February). A brief history of standards in teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Chicago, IL.
9.
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16-49).Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
10.
Glanz, J. (1991). Bureaucracy and professionalism: The evolution of public school supervision.Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
11.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2003). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (6th ed).Reading, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
12.
Glickman, C., & Kanawati, D. (1998). Future directions for school supervision. In G. Firth & E. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 1248-1258). New York: Macmillan.
13.
Goldhaber, D., Perry, D., & Anthony, E. (2004). NBPTS certification: Who applies and what factors are associated with success?Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from www.crpe.org/workingpapers/pdf/NBPTSquality_brief.pdf
14.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.).Reading, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
15.
Herbst, J. (1989). And sadly teach: Teacher education and professionalization in American culture.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
16.
Lyons, N., & LaBoskey, V. K. (2002). Narrative inquiry in practice: Advancing the knowledge of teaching.New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Murphy, C., & Lick, D. (2001). Whole-faculty study groups: Creating student-based professional development (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
18.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching and America'sfuture. New York: Author. Retrieved from www.nctaforg/publications/whatmattersmost.html
19.
Noffke, S., & Zeichner, K. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298-330).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
20.
Popkewitz, T., Tabachnick, B., & Wehlage, G. (1982). The myth of educational reform: A study of school responses to a program of change.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
21.
Porter, A., Youngs, P., & Odden, A. (2001). Advances in teacher assessments and their uses. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 259-297).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
22.
St. Maurice, H. (2002). Self-study of supervisory practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(1), 61-75.
23.
Sarason, S. (1991). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Sarason, S. (2003). On the self-scrutiny. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(3), 299-301.
25.
Slick, S. (2000). EDUC 400 portfolio guide.Stevens Point, WI: School of Education, University of Wisconsin.
26.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz. J. (2000). Alternative approaches to supervision: Cases from the field. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 15(3), 212-235.
27.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/
29.
Warren, D. R. (1989). American teachers: Histories of a profession at work.New York: Macmillan.
30.
Wheeler, P., & Minichello, J. (2002). New research studies begin on National Board Certification®. Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Retrieved from www.nbpts.org/news/article2.cfm?id=97
31.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2003). Rules and standards for teacher education and licensing. Madison, WI: Author. Retrieved from www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsis/tel/newrules.html
32.
Zeichner, K. (1999, April). Research on the supervision of preservice and inservice teachers: What do we know, and where do we go from here? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
33.
Zepeda, S. (2003). The principal as instructional leader.Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
