The Value of Teacher

Portfolios for Evaluation

and Professional Growth
Jacqueline R. Attinello, Douglas Lare, and Faith Waters

The demands placed on principals in the era of No Child Left Behind are
rapidly increasing. In light of these challenges, balancing diverse roles
and additional responsibilities can be arduous for even the finest school
leaders. The use of portfolio-based teacher appraisals has emerged as
an intriguing option to make the time required for teacher evaluation
more productive and the process more meaningful, comprehensive, and
accurate. This study examines the value of a district-wide, portfoliobased teacher evaluation system. Results indicate that teachers and
administrators perceive that teacher portfolios were more accurate and
comprehensive than the traditional snapshot observation and, despite
some disadvantages, suggest that portfolios show promise as a tool for
teacher evaluation and professional growth.
Keywords:

teacher evaluation; teacher portfolios; portfolio assessment; professional

growth

In many districts, the responsibility for teacher evaluation and professional

growth rests with the principal. However, with the increasing demands placed
on principals, the evaluation process is frequently perceived as an exercise that often
does little to improve practice or instruction (Harrington, 1998; Peterson, 2000) and
can become little more than a time-consuming charade (Stronge & Tucker, 2003,
p. 6). It yields little of value to either the teachers or the schools in which they work,
simultaneously feeling like a gotcha to the teachers while consuming a great deal
of administrator time (Danielson & McGreal, 2000, p. 7).
For the most part, the manner in which the performance of teachers is evaluated has
remained unchanged since the emergence of the role of the principal in the early 20th
century. Recent attention to educational reform in this county has not affected teacher
Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to: jattinello@pburg.k12.nj.us
NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 2, June 2006 132-152
DOI: 10.1177/0192636506288864
2006 by the National Association of Secondary School Principals
http://bul.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

132

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

evaluation (Peterson, 2000). Although the educational process has undergone myriad
changes, the process of evaluating teachers has not evolved (McLaughlin et al., 1998,
p. 14). The evaluation process is often a ritual that is required to meet district policy
and state law, thus resulting in a time-consuming formality of questionable value
(Firestone, 1999; Sawyer, 2001). Recent legislative mandates that call for increased
student achievement and a highly qualified teacher in every classroom ignore teacher
evaluation entirely. Darling-Hammond (1997) explained the paradox that currently
exists with respect to national reform measures and teacher evaluation:
On the one hand, policymakers recognize that teacher competence is a critical component of educational qualityand they press for policies aimed at
enhancing teacher knowledge and skill. On the other hand, states and districts mandate specific supervision and evaluation strategies that reinforce
nonprofessional conceptions of teaching and modes of assessment. (p. 7)

The current climate of educational reform has triggered a renewed interest in the
manner in which teacher performance is evaluated. School districts across the United
States have designed teacher evaluation systems that reflect the best of what is currently known with regard to assessing teacher competence (Danielson & McGreal,
2000). Some districts have modified or abandoned traditional means of teacher evaluation and implemented portfolio-based appraisal systems in order to provide opportunities for personal reflection, self-assessment, and goal setting. The use of portfolios has become an acceptable method for teacher evaluation across the nation (Wolf,
Lichtenstein, & Stevenson, 1997) with wide adoption in preservice teacher programs
(St. Maurice & Shaw, 2004).
Commonly, teacher evaluation is accomplished by an administrators annual,
one-time observation event to meet district or state requirements (Zepeda, 2002).
Often, the communication related to the performance evaluation is primarily a monologue lecture by the evaluatora form of top-down communication where the
teacher assumes a role of passivity (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). With this scenario, the teacher spends little time in reflective thought and discussion related to his
or her professional growth and improvement. In contrast, the teacher portfolio is one
type of evaluation that naturally encourages teacher reflection and deliberation, as
well as two-way communication between teacher and evaluator. The portfolio has
gained acceptance with educators as a means for a more authentic assessment of
teacher growth and an extension of their professional development (Zepeda, 2002).
The most common types of teacher evaluation are summative and formative.
Summative evaluations provide information on the basis of one or more formal observations and one years worth of informal assessments in order to summarize a teachers
performance. The summative evaluation, based on the judgments of the evaluator, is
placed in the teachers personnel file and serves organizational purposes. Decisions

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

133

such as tenure, merit pay, and teaching assignments are based on the summative evaluation. The second type of evaluation, the formative evaluation, provides feedback
and other information that encourages professional growth and development. The
importance of formative evaluation systems is being recognized in education
(McColskey & Engelson, 1997; Stronge & Tucker, 2003). Formative evaluations are
not meant to be judgmental in nature; rather, they are intended to encourage teachers
to reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses. Portfolio-based assessments address
both formative and summative issues (Tucker, Stronge, & Gareis, 2002).
The use of portfolios, a practice closely aligned with both constructivism and
authentic assessment, can empower teachers to take charge and have a more active
voice in their evaluation. Portfolios allow teachers to demonstrate and communicate
to administrators how they have met a set of standards and why they should be considered effective and competent (Bullock & Hawk, 2001). The portfolio process, as
an alternative to traditional evaluation methods, promotes self-assessment and
reflection, which can result in the investigation of effective practices and the
enhancement of student learning (Hunter, 1998).
Teachers with varying abilities and experiences have different needs when it
comes to supervision and professional development. Applying the one size fits all
clinical method of evaluation to every teacher, regardless of his or her experience or
talent, makes little sense and results in wasting precious teacher and supervisor
timetime that may be more effectively spent with inexperienced and marginal
teachers to help them grow and improve. If the true purpose for evaluation is to ultimately improve the quality of instruction, educators need to consider the merits of
alternative forms of evaluation, such as portfolios. Consequently, it is useful then to
explore teachers and administrators perceptions of the value of the teacher portfolio as an instrument for evaluation and professional growth. Furthermore, information related to teacher evaluation practices, as a means to improving instruction,
would be highly beneficial to those who develop both teacher and administrator
preparation programs.

Authentic Teacher Assessment

As the nation turns to an emphasis on higher standards and accountability for
schools, teachers, and students, some school districts are implementing alternative
teaching and learning strategies to promote student achievement. Closely aligned to
the constructivist view of learning, schools expect teachers to employ active learning
strategies while designing and implementing lessons that promote student inquiry,
engagement, and reflection. Related to this, recent research efforts have demonstrated
numerous benefits of using authentic, comprehensive, performance-based, nontraditional assessments that provide a clearer picture of student learning and allow for
demonstration of knowledge (Mueller, Waters, Smeaton, & Pinciotti, 2001).

134

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Therefore, teachers are being asked to devise alternative methods of assessments for
their classrooms that include performance-based indicators of student growth.
With the movement toward constructivist learning strategies and authentic,
performance-based assessment for students, it also makes sense to consider these
strategies for teachers rather than the traditional, outdated means of evaluation.
Traditional summative vehicles of teacher assessment are not aligned with either
constructivist theory or recent research on appropriate authentic means of assessment. Constructivism, a paradigm that views the learner as actively involved in the
construction of his or her own knowledge, purports that learning is the process of
building knowledge by connecting what is known to new ideas and concepts and
integrating them to form new understandings (Read & Cafolla, 1999). From the constructivist perspective, learning is best advanced through an active process with purposeful interaction in real-life situations (Gabler & Schroeder, 2003).
Portfolio use in teacher evaluation is a relatively recent phenomenon (Lyons,
1998); however, little research has been conducted on the use of portfolios in the
evaluation of teachers. Perhaps the same principles that apply to the use of portfolios as a means for student assessment would also be useful and valuable in assessing teacher performance.
Research has shown the benefits of children working with other children in
collective learning efforts and that when children collaborate, they share the process
of constructing their ideas and develop a sense of shared goals and teamwork
(Strommen, 1992). Together in the classroom, elements of collaboration in learning
and a sense of shared purpose have been shown to produce significant gains in
student learning (Strommen, 1992). In their study of student teacher collaboration,
Parsons and Stephenson (2005) reported that student teachers partnerships with
peers and colleagues had enabled them to gain a better understanding of their teaching. This knowledge leads to the question that in an authentic, constructivist, and
collaborative environment, would teachers more effectively learn about themselves
and their needs for professional growth if they were using portfolios? More importantly, would the process produce improved teaching strategies in the classroom that
result in student gains in achievement?

Current Use of Teacher Portfolios

A persuasive example of portfolio assessment is the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification process, which uses portfolios as part of
the assessment of candidates for National Board certification. Founded in 1987, the
NBPTSs primary purpose has been to establish teaching standards and to provide
a process for national certification. The focal point of the certification process is a
portfolio developed by the candidate and organized around his or her states competencies. It provides the vehicle for assessing the teachers practice and the impact
on student learning. To date, the NBPTS has certified almost 10,000 teachers in
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

135

20 different specialty areas. Not only do the Board-certified teachers develop a deeper
knowledge of instruction, they also achieve professional recognition of their skills.
Similarly, as individual states strive for teacher quality, they, too, are recognizing the value of portfolios and turning to the portfolio assessment process to determine licensure eligibility with respect to teacher candidates. To enhance the quality
of its teachers, Connecticuts program, Beginning Educator Support and Training
Program (BEST), uses the development of a teaching portfolio as a critical component of the certification process. Kentucky requires a portfolio for initial certification, and three other states, North Carolina, Arizona, and Indiana, are considering
them for their new teacher evaluations. Californias Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment program (BTSA), implemented in 1998, includes classroom observations, portfolios, and self-assessment. Preliminary responses of participants in the
BTSA are positive (Fullan, 2001).
In the same vein at the local level in Colorado, the Douglas County Outstanding
Teacher Program uses portfolios to document teacher practice and to identify and
reward outstanding teachers (Tucker et al., 2002; Wolf, 1996). Douglas County uses
portfolios because the school system believes portfolios can best capture the complexities and contexts of teaching as well as promote the professional development
of teachers.
Likewise, Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) in California implemented a new approach to teacher evaluation replacing the previous one that was
time consuming and unproven with respect to its effectiveness. The assessment
system is grounded in the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, which
creates the basis for analyzing teaching and its effect on learning. Supported by both
the administration and teachers, the evaluation system includes portfolios along with
opportunities for inquiry and collaboration. PVUSD believes that empowering
teachers to be self-directed in their professional growth, encouraging them to investigate relationships between teaching skills and student learning, and assessing their
growth in collaboration with others is valuable and necessary. PVUSD also believes
that increased student achievement will be the result of its efforts (Donaldson &
Stobbe, 2000).
The professional portfolio process is being used in a number of other sites
across the country: Imperial County, California, replaced formal evaluations with
professional development portfolios for teachers who have had three or more outstanding evaluations; Contra Costa County, California, is sponsoring a network of
portfolio users for professional development. Schools using the professional development portfolio have found that it enhances and extends teachers professional
growth efforts (Dietz, 1995; Tucker et al., 2002; Zepeda, 2002).
Because of their practicality, portfolios can be used for a variety of purposes
including teacher preparation, employment, licensure, advancement, and professional
growth. Probably the most important element related to the use of portfolios involves

136

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

the role that teachers play in determining their own evaluation and professional
development path and the manner in which portfolios raise the level of professionalism (Tucker et al., 2002).
To begin the process of determining that perception of value, a descriptive study
that examined the use of portfolios was conducted in a school district located in the
southeastern United States. Specifically, it explored teacher and administrator perceptions of the value of a portfolio-based appraisal system as an instrument for evaluation and professional growth, the time required by the process, and the effect on
teaching practices. Results of this study are beneficial for educational practice, as
they suggest important implications for not only teacher evaluation and professional
growth but also for both teacher and administrator preparation programs.

Context of the Study

The setting for this study was a rural/suburban school district in the southeastern region of the United States. At the time of the study, the district had a student
population of more than 20,000 and a certified staff of 1,750 in 14 elementary/
primary schools (K-5), 5 middle schools (6-8), 3 high schools (9-12), and an alternative high school. The district used a portfolio-based appraisal system for teachers
that had been in place for 4 years. This system emerged when the district developed
the Professional Appraisal Cycle (PAC) whereby educators were expected to assume
more responsibility for their own evaluation. Therefore, the educators, along with
administrators and colleagues, self-assessed, identified goals, planned, documented,
and then evaluated their success in providing quality instruction for their students.
The new appraisal cycle, developed by administrators and teacher leaders, was
implemented in 1999 based on district beliefs that (a) teachers are leaders, (b) teachers can develop high-quality work, and (c) teacher self-assessment and ongoing professional development are essential ingredients in the process.
Obviously there are limitations to this study. Results cannot be generalized
beyond this single setting. However, the school district in which the study was conducted was a large one (23 schools) and had been using a portfolio-based appraisal
system for 4 years. Therefore, as with any innovation, the results of this study must
be considered, with care, by other school districts throughout the country.

Method

Participants
Teacher and administrator surveys developed by Tucker et al. (2002), titled
Teacher Survey: Perceived Value of Teacher Portfolios and Administrator Survey:
Perceived Value of Teacher Portfolios, were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data related to teachers and administrators perceived value of teacher portfolios. Surveys were sent to all 23 schools in the district. Teachers (n = 752) and
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

137

administrators (n = 46) responded to the survey at a return rate of 63.4% and 70.8%,
respectively.
To gain additional insight and to explicate the survey responses, interviews and
focus groups were held at schools that were selected based on the number of individuals
who expressed an interest in participating. Fourteen personal interviews with 10 teachers and 4 administrators and three focus groups involving 8 teachers and 8 administrators were conducted. It should be noted that this convenience sample of volunteers may
have been inherently different from a random sample of participants.

Design
A multistage procedure was used for this descriptive study. First, the superintendent and board of education approved the project and provided archival documents that included meeting minutes, implementation plans, district policies, and
examples of teacher portfolios related to the teacher appraisal project. Next, the principals of each school received outlines of the study and teacher and administrator
invitations to participate. Introductory cover letters, consent forms, and surveys were
distributed by the principals to all those individuals who indicated their willingness
to volunteer for participation in the study. In addition, one section of the survey consisted of open-ended questions where the individuals could indicate further perceptions. Within a month of the date for survey completion, on-site focus groups and
personal interviews were conducted.

Validity and Reliability

The survey instruments were designed by experts in the field of teacher evaluation and were based on the Personnel Evaluation Standards developed by the Joint
Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation and published in 1988
(Stufflebeam, 1988). Through the expert judgment of Tucker et al. (2002), specific
questions were developed for both versions of the instrument in alignment with the
four categories of the Personnel Evaluation Standards identified by the Joint
Committee: Propriety, Utility, Feasibility, and Accuracy. Each of the four categories
correspond to the four basic attributes of sound teacher evaluation (Stufflebeam,
1988). Tucker et al. conducted the expert reviews for clarity and conceptual integrity
of the surveys.
Internal consistency reliability, the extent to which the items in the instrument are
similar to one another in content, was determined for the total sample as well as for
each of the administrator and the teacher versions of the instrument after the surveys
were returned. The data from the survey and statistical analysis yielded the internal
consistency reliability coefficients. The statistical procedure used to determine internal consistency reliability was the coefficient alpha method, which produces a measure of internal consistency ranging between 0 and 1.00. The measure of internal consistency reliability indicates whether the survey items within each of the four areas of
138

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

the instrument (Fairness, Usefulness, Feasibility, and Accuracy) consistently measure

the same knowledge area.
For the total sample (N = 798), the internal consistency reliability coefficients
for total scale, fairness, usefulness, feasibility, and accuracy were .95, .89, .90, .82,
and .90, respectively. The results for the teachers as a separate group (n = 752) were
.95, .89, .90, .82, and .90. For the administrators as a separate group (n = 46), the
coefficients were .90, .84, .81, .57, and .77. Reliabilities fall in an acceptable range
with the exception of feasibility for the administrators, which yielded a coefficient
of .57. Further investigation failed to indicate that the lower coefficient was due to a
particular item or the small number of administrator respondents. It was discovered,
however, that with the administrators, the two time items (The time required by
administrators to review portfolios is reasonable and The time required by teachers to develop the portfolio is reasonable) did not correlate well with the two other
items (The portfolio is a practical strategy for teachers to demonstrate their performance of professional standards and The portfolio offers additional substance for
discussion at the evaluation review conferences) within the Feasibility Scale, compared with the teachers, for whom all four items have similar correlations. This suggests that the Feasibility Scale has two components for administrators but not for
teachers. Therefore, the use of the Feasibility Scale for administrators only, should
be approached with caution.

Data Analysis Techniques

Descriptive statistics for the dependent variables of the study, illustrated in Table 1,
were used to summarize the results of the questions on the survey that used a Likerttype scale. The key areas in collection of data revolved around the following questions:
Do teachers and administrators perceive teacher portfolios as an accurate and comprehensive measure of teacher performance?
Do teachers and administrators perceive portfolios as a useful tool for professional
growth?
Do teachers and administrators perceive that the time portfolios require is reasonable?
Do teachers and administrators perceive the use of portfolios as having an effect on
teaching practices?

Quantitative analysis of the data included the determination of average ratings for
each item for teachers and administrators and an analysis of the variability of each item
with teachers and administrators. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedure, an extension of ANOVA techniques, was used for the data analysis between and
among the teachers and administrators. The MANOVA allows for the simultaneous
study of two or more related dependent variables while controlling for the correlations
among them. The MANOVA, like the ANOVA, is sensitive to outliers and may produce
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

139

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables

Variable

Teacher or
Administrator

SD

Accurate reflection

Administrator

43

2.91

.57

635

2.77

.82

43

3.53

.59

635

3.08

.82

43

3.58

.54

635

3.29

.69

43

3.09

.48

635

3.05

.76

43

3.53

.55

635

2.88

.91

43

3.12

.45

635

2.77

.83

43

2.98

.71

635

2.93

.73

43

2.98

.60

635

2.83

.81

43

3.16

.57

635

2.85

.76

Teacher
Comprehensive picture**

Administrator
Teacher

Self-reflection*

Administrator

Strengths/weaknesses

Administrator

Teacher

Teacher
Professional development**

Administrator
Teacher

Teacher time*

Administrator
Teacher

Administrator time

Administrator
Teacher

Change

Administrator
Teacher

Good teaching*

Administrator
Teacher

*p < .01 (ANOVA). **p < .001 (ANOVA).

a Type I or Type II error while providing no indication as to which type of error is occurring in the analysis (French, Poulsen, & Yu, 2006).
Data from the districts teacher portfolio implementation documentation, replies
to survey open-ended questions, focus group responses, and individual interview transcripts were collected. Emerging themes were identified, and items were categorized
and tallied according to those themes. Specific quotations and phrases from respondents were used to explain ratings that were particularly high or low in the quantitative analysis. This qualitative information added a richer dimension to the study.

Findings
Do teachers and administrators perceive teacher portfolios as an accurate and comprehensive measure of teacher performance? Both teachers and administrators generally believed portfolios were an accurate and more comprehensive reflection of
teacher performance. However, both also acknowledged that portfolios do not

140

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Table 2.

Summary Table of Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Position and

Comprehensive Picture

Position

SD

Teacher

635

3.08

.82

43

3.53

.59

Administrator

Table 3.

Summary Table of Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Position and

Comprehensive Picture

Source of Variation
Between subjects

SS

df

MS

13.02

.000***

8.50

8.50

Error

441.07

676

.65

Total

6,985.00

678

***p < .001.

necessarily reflect all aspects of teaching. For example, one teacher said, It may be
a little simplistic. I could put together a really nice portfolio and not be a very good
teacher. Conversely, a great teacher might not create a good portfolio.
Although both groups believed that portfolios were accurate, analysis of the variables related to accuracy failed to indicate a significant difference between teachers and
administrators perceptions with respect to how they viewed the accuracy of portfolios.
The perceptions of accuracy supported the findings of McCaffrey (2000), who studied
100 kindergarten through eighth-grade teachers in Florida. Qualitative information from
interviews indicated that the concerns teachers and administrators have are related to
whether a glitzy portfolio is an accurate reflection of what actually occurs in the classroom. Both groups noted that the portfolio presentation, whether it is impressive or not,
may be an inaccurate representation of what really occurs in the classroom. This supported the findings of Tucker et al. (2002), who also reported that portfolios might present an inaccurate picture of a teachers performance. Therefore, although the quantitative data indicated that both teachers and administrators reported portfolios as accurate,
both groups expressed concerns about their level of accuracy.
Both teachers and administrators perceived that teacher portfolios provided a
richer and more comprehensive picture of teacher performance than a stand-alone
observation. As one administrator said, Portfolios take you through the year, since
they are continuous. They reflect and show examples of how theyve [teachers]
changed, and that shows how theyve grown. It should be noted that administrators

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

141

Table 4.

Summary Table of Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Position and

Self-Reflection

Position

SD

Teacher

635

3.29

.69

43

3.58

.54

Administrator

Table 5.

Summary Table of Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Position and

Self-Reflection

Source of Variation
Between subjects

SS

df

MS

7.35

.007**

3.43

3.430

Error

315.15

676

0.466

Total

7,739.00

678

**p < .01.

were significantly more supportive than teachers in their perception of portfolios as

a comprehensive measure of teacher performance (see Tables 2 and 3).
Do teachers and administrators perceive portfolios as a useful tool for professional
growth? Both teachers and administrators perceived portfolios as encouraging teachers self-reflection of their work. However, again, administrators felt significantly
more supportive than teachers that portfolios encouraged teacher self-reflection.
Furthermore, both teachers and administrators believed that the portfolio process
helped teachers identify strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis of variables related to portfolios as a tool for professional growth indicated that both teachers and administrators believed that portfolios encouraged
teacher self-reflection and that administrators were significantly more positive than
teachers in their perceptions, as illustrated in Tables 4 and 5. The results with regard
to teacher reflection supported the findings of Freeman (1998), Harrington (1998),
Oropallo (1994), Tucker, Stronge, Gareis, and Beers (2003), and Xu (2002), who
noted the value of teacher self-reflection as a part of the portfolio process. The
dynamic nature of portfolio development makes it conducive to being used as a form
for reflection and self-assessment (Zepeda, 2002).
Both teachers and administrators believed the portfolio process helped teachers
identify their strengths and weaknesses and that the process itself promoted professional development. Administrators were significantly more positive than teachers in
their perceptions related to the effect portfolios had on teacher professional growth

142

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Table 6.

Summary Table of Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Position and

Professional Development

Position

SD

Teacher

635

2.88

.91

43

3.53

.55

Administrator

Table 7.

Summary Table of Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Position and

Professional Development

Source of Variation
Between subjects

SS

df

MS

22.09

.000***

17.42

17.42

Error

533.12

676

.79

Total

6,327.00

678

***p < .001.

(see Tables 6 and 7). These findings supported the research study of Sutherland
(1998), whose teacher participants noted the value of portfolios; Koegler (2000),
whose teacher participants indicated that portfolio development assisted them in identifying their strengths and weaknesses; and Xu (2002), who reported the portfolio
project in his case study emerged as a powerful vehicle to faster professional learning for teachers at different developmental stages (p. 27).
Do teachers and administrators perceive that the time portfolios require is reasonable? Statistical analysis indicated that both teachers and administrators perceived
that the time required by teachers to develop portfolios was reasonable. Once again,
administrators were significantly more positive than teachers in their perceptions
with respect to the reasonableness of the time required by teachers to develop portfolios, as illustrated in Tables 8 and 9. Many teachers noted that the work involved
in preparing a portfolio was far greater than that required for an observation. One
teacher said, Time [is a disadvantage]we barely have time to teach these days.
I dont know anyone who has time to put a portfolio together in a way that has meaning for the teacher. However, the following perception of another teacher was more
typical: I think they are more work, but more realistic about what we doa more
realistic evaluation of our work in general.
Analysis of the variables related to teacher and administrator time requirements in
the portfolio process indicated that although teachers and administrators agreed that
the time required for teachers to develop portfolios was reasonable, administrators
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

143

Table 8.

Summary Table of Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Position and

Teacher Time

Position

SD

Teacher

635

2.77

.83

43

3.12

.45

Administrator

Table 9.

Summary Table of Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Position and

Teacher Time

Source of Variation
Between subjects
Error

SS
4.87
433.389

Total

5,728.00

df

MS

4.87

7.43

.007**

676

.66

678

**p < .01.

agreed more strongly that the teacher time was reasonable. With respect to administrator time, both teachers and administrators agreed that the time required by administrators for portfolio review was reasonable. There were no significant differences
between administrators and teachers in their perceptions with regard to administrator
time. The issue of time demands found in the results of this study supported the literature on teacher portfolios. Harrington (1998), in his pilot study of six teachers, also
found that alternative methods of teacher evaluation are time consuming. Similarly,
Tucker et al. (2002) in their pre- and poststudy of 14 schools, noted their concern
about the time demands presented by the portfolio process. The time required for the
teachers to develop portfolios, as well as the time required by administrators to review
portfolios, was the concern voiced most often in this study.
Do teachers and administrators perceive the use of portfolios as having an effect on
teaching practices? Both administrators and teachers agreed that the portfolio
process encouraged changes in teaching practices, with administrators being more
positive about the impact. The key ingredient to success seems to have been the
opportunity to reflect on ones practice with a colleague. Administrators noted that
many teachers review their portfolios with an eye to changing what is taking place
in the classroom. One teacher stated,
Yes, it does [promote good teaching practices]. With me, the best thing I
can do is look and reflect on what Ive done. The portfolio helps me keep
the information together to better evaluate it. Ive been fortunate to have

144

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Table 10.

Summary Table of Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Position and

Good Teaching

Position

SD

Teacher

635

2.85

.76

43

3.16

.57

Administrator

Table 11.

Summary Table of Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Position and

Good Teaching

Source of Variation
Between subjects
Error
Total

SS
3.97
381.347
5,965.00

df

MS

3.97

7.04

.008**

676

.56

678

**p < .01.

administrators who thought it was a worthy tool as I do, tooa positive

tool for me to use.

Analysis of the variables related to teacher and administrator perceptions of

the effect the portfolio process has on teaching practices indicates that although
teachers and administrators agreed that the portfolio process encouraged change,
there was no significant difference between the groups. In addition, both groups
agreed that the process promoted good teaching practices. However, administrators
felt significantly more supportive in their perceptions (see Tables 10 and 11). These
findings supported the literature on the effect of portfolios on teaching practices. In
a case study, Freeman (1998) found that the portfolio increased reflection, selfassessment, and changes in instructional practice. Similarly, Harrington (1998), in a
pilot study of six teachers, reported that the teachers self-reflection resulted in
improved instruction.

Administrator and Teacher Perceptions of the

Advantages and Disadvantages of Portfolios
Qualitative information gleaned from interviews, focus groups, and the analysis of
the open-ended survey questions yielded several perceived advantages relative to the
use of portfolios as part of a teacher appraisal process that generally supported the quantitative findings from the survey. Perhaps the most significant perceived advantage was

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

145

the reflection piece of the portfolio. The institutionalized opportunity to reflect on ones
own practice, and the fact that this was acknowledged and encouraged, seemed to have
a significant impact on a number of teachers. Furthermore, administrators noted that the
opportunity to reflect often led to more teacher collaboration and sharing.
Teachers also valued the opportunity to showcase their achievements to administrators who demonstrated they cared about what was taking place in the classroom.
This enhanced communication between teachers and administrators was also cited
frequently as a positive outcome of the entire portfolio process. Moreover, teachers
indicated that the portfolio process was a richer, more in-depth picture of their performance than the typical snapshot observation. Therefore, teachers felt that evaluation was not only fairer; they also sensed empowerment and control over their professional development as their work was shared with their administrators.
However, the portfolio process was not without perceived disadvantages. Many
teachers and administrators noted that the time required for the process was a distinct
disadvantage. Some teachers mentioned that the time would be better spent planning
lessons and doing other activities more directly related to classroom instruction. The
portfolio became one more thing that they had to do in their busy schedules. What
often made this situation worse was that some administrators did not take the time to
adequately review the portfolios the teachers had developed. This perception was
reinforced by some administrators who indicated that the process for completing
valuable reviews of the portfolios was time consuming and of questionable value.
Finally, a few teachers questioned the accuracy of the portfolio with respect to
teaching effectiveness. Several noted that ineffective teachers may be compilers of
great portfolios and that instead of focusing on reflection and changing behaviors in
the classroom, teachers might be perceived as doing tremendous jobs simply because
their portfolio was glitzy, yet full of fluff. On the other hand, administrators
reported that they were able to sense when a portfolio was not an accurate representation of what was taking place in the classroom.

Discussion
With the current national trend toward standards, accountability, and authentic
assessment, portfolios have emerged as a promising tool to support teacher professional growth and as a measure of teacher performance. Previous studies involving
teacher portfolios are relatively limited and primarily qualitative in nature. Few
researchers have used a quantitative or mixed method to investigate the merits of
teacher portfolios with a large sample population. This study, which examined teachers and administrators perceptions of the value of portfolio-based teacher appraisals
for evaluation and professional growth, explored the perceptions of 752 teachers and
46 administrators from 19 schools across all grade levels in one school district, in both
a quantitative and qualitative manner. School districts planning the implementation

146

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

of portfolios for teacher evaluation and professional growth may want to consider
some of the lessons learned from the results of this study.

Practical Recommendations
The evidence suggests that use of performance-based portfolios by teachers may
be a viable option as one element in the effort to improve schools. The analysis of
the quantitative and qualitative information gathered for this study yielded recommendations for using portfolios as part of an evaluation-and-professional-growth
system. These recommendations are offered for consideration by schools interested
in implementing teacher portfolios:
Develop clear and consistent guidelines for portfolio development and criteria for
evaluation. Frequent concerns of teachers and administrators who participated in the
interviews and focus groups were related to the ambiguity of portfolio requirements
and the inconsistency with which the process was applied among administrators and
schools. Well articulated standards of teaching and clear design guidelines will elevate
the portfolio from the great paper chase to a professional exercise in self-analysis and
renewal (Tucker et al., 2002, p. 97). If used as a summative evaluation tool, clear criteria, valid and reliable rubrics, and extensive training for evaluators are necessary
(Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Clear and consistent guidelines would serve to improve
the portfolio process in general and elevate its value in the eyes of the participants.
Provide adequate and ongoing training for teachers and administrators. In their comments, administrators, especially newly appointed ones, noted the importance of
training in the successful implementation of portfolios. Teachers and administrators
admitted that the portfolio process was not implemented consistently throughout the
schools in the district. Based on the qualitative data, it is recommended that particular attention be paid to training new teachers and administrators during the portfolio
process to ensure a common understanding of all the components and to build
consistent teacher and administrator expectations across the school system.
Ensure that administrators buy into the process and that sufficient time is devoted in
their schedules for portfolio review and comprehensive feedback. Experts in educational change and school reform recognize the importance of leaders, especially principals, in promoting change. The likelihood of change is strongly influenced by the
principal (Fullan, 2001). In the interviews and focus groups, teachers frequently
expressed a desire for the administrator to spend sufficient time reviewing the components of the portfolio so that the time spent developing it was worthwhile. Zepeda
(2002) noted that those who supervise must commit their time and resources to this
process; otherwise, teachers likely will develop little motivation to expend the effort
in the process involved in portfolio supervision (p. 101). Teachers are more likely to
buy into the portfolio process and all it encompasses if they work in a school where
the administrator demonstrates through action that the portfolio process has merit.

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

147

Teachers easily recognize whether or not their administrators believe in and are
committed to any initiative, including a process such as the portfolio.
Use the portfolio process as part of a multidimensional data-gathering system that
includes multiple classroom visitations and regular administrative feedback and support. Although teachers and administrators supported the comprehensive nature of portfolios for providing a richer, in-depth picture of teacher performance, there were common concerns regarding the accuracy of evaluations based solely on teacher-prepared
portfolios. Several teachers noted that some administrators were not in the classroom as
often, or not at all, since portfolios were implemented, so the administrators did not
have adequate opportunities to assess actual teaching and student interaction. Teachers
commonly reported on the surveys and in interviews and focus groups that it was important for administrators to see them in the classroom as part of the formative and summative evaluation process. Both groups were concerned that the portfolio could be a
dog and pony show that may not accurately represent what is happening in the classroom. Inaccuracies can result from an emphasis on quantity rather than quality, presentation of the artifacts rather than substance, and possible misrepresentations (Tucker
et al., 2002). Multiple data sources increase the accuracy and comprehensiveness as
well as the reliability of the evaluation, because there is a greater sampling of evidence
of teacher performance from various perspectives (Tucker et al., 2002). Concerns with
regard to accuracy could be alleviated by regular administrator observations that provide additional data specifically related to classroom instruction and teacher/student
interaction, as they serve to support the evidence presented in the portfolio.

Conclusions
As national and state school reform initiatives support high standards and accountability for students, teachers, and school districts, all stakeholders are being encouraged to take risks and to try new strategies and methods to support school improvement. Teachers are expected to employ constructivist theories and develop authentic
assessments for students, whereas students are encouraged to be reflective, selfdirected learners. With these changes, teachers should be expected and encouraged to
engage in similar activities to regularly reflect on their teaching practices, to identify
their strengths and weaknesses, and to determine areas of needed improvement
improvement that will have a direct impact and significant influence on student learning. Any school improvement initiative must have teacher quality as a primary focus
(Darling-Hammond, 1997; Stronge & Tucker, 2003; Tucker et al., 2003).
The results of this study indicated that portfolios show promise as a tool for teacher
evaluation and professional growth. Teachers and administrators in the study, although
expressing concerns, believed portfolios were more accurate and comprehensive than
one-shot observations. Furthermore, qualitative responses indicated that teachers, especially, believed that multiple evaluation methods were a more accurate measure of their
performance. The portfolio, along with regular administrative observations, completes

148

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

the portrait of a teacher demonstrating his or her pedagogy. This multidimensional

assessment method can empower teachers to take charge of their own professional
development as they reflect on their classroom practices, engage in rich formative conversations with administrators, and determine and implement necessary changes and
improvements to their practice. Naturally, these changes and improvements will then be
evident to the administrators who regularly visit classrooms to witness them firsthand.
In using portfolios as part of a professional growth and appraisal process, the
importance of the principal in supporting and sustaining the process cannot be
underestimated. Administrators need to set aside adequate time in their schedules to
review the contents of the portfolios with the teachers and engage in in-depth conversations about teaching and learning. The building administrators belief and support in the entire portfolio process is essential for its success.
Perhaps the most overwhelming concern related to the teacher portfolio and the
elements of the portfolio process was time. Time for teacher reflection, time for collegial conversations, time for portfolio development, and time for administrators to
adequately review and discuss the contents of the portfolio with their teachers all
emerged as recurrent critical issues. Although some teachers and administrators
noted the additional time was worth it, time remained the most common concern;
one that could potentially have a negative impact on the successful implementation
and long-term success of the portfolio process in any school district. Innovative ways
must be invented to carve out time in the day for teachers to reflect and to collaborate and for teachers and administrators to engage in rich conversations related to the
portfolio evidence and its relationship to student learning.
Finally, although the results of the quantitative data of the study indicated that the
portfolio process encouraged change and promoted good teaching, survey comments
of teachers and administrators failed to identify the effect on teaching practices as one
of the primary advantages of the portfolio process. Because improved instruction and
subsequent increased student learning and achievement are the ultimate goals of any
educational reform effort, these findings need to be explored further.
The results of this study demonstrated that the portfolio process has value as an
accurate and comprehensive measure of teacher performance; that the process is useful
in promoting professional growth; that the time required, although a serious concern, is
reasonable for teachers and administrators; and that the process is useful with regard to
its effect on teaching practices. Portfolios expand the lens on the work of teachers for
the purposes of accountability and offer a possible avenue for meaningful professional
developmentthe two touchstones of teacher evaluation (Tucker et al., 2003, p. 594).
This and other studies support portfolios as a more comprehensive measure of teacher
performance and a reflective tool for professional improvement and change in practice.
As with the adoption of any initiative from another school district, modifications may
have to occur in order to meet the needs of that particular context. Future investigations
specifically related to the elements within the portfolio process, such as the principals
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

149

role, teacher reflection, teacher/administrator relationships, and effect of the portfolio

process on student achievement, can provide additional guidance.
The portfolio process proved to be valuable as a measure of teacher competence
and a catalyst for professional growth in the eyes of the teachers and administrators
who participated in this study. As school districts examine their teacher evaluation
practices and consider alternative assessment measures, teacher portfolios are a logical and viable option. If implemented and supported as part of a multidimensional
appraisal system, portfolios have the potential to promote a professional culture of
reflective and self-directed educators with a clear sense of purpose and to provide a
vehicle for administrators to gain a more accurate and comprehensive portrait of
teacher performance.

References
Bullock, A. A., & Hawk, P. (2001). Developing a teaching portfolio. Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools
that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dietz, M. (1995). Using portfolios as a framework for professional development.
Journal of Staff Development, 16(2), 40-43.
Donaldson, C., & Stobbe, C. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A self-directed, inquirybased approach. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 29(3), 30-32.
Firestone, A. (1999). The assessment of teaching competence: Rethinking the
observation and evaluation of classroom teachers. Jamesburg, NJ: New Jersey
Principals and Supervisors Association and Foundation for Educational
Administration and Arthur Firestone.
Freeman, J. J. (1998). The teaching portfolio as a vehicle for professional growth
(UMI No. 9923833). Durham: University of New Hampshire.
French, A., Poulsen, J., & Yu, A. (2006). Multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA). Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~efc/
classes/biol710/manova/manovanew.html
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gabler, I. C., & Schroeder, M. (2003). Constructivist methods for the secondary
classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Harrington, K. K. (1998). How a professional performance appraisal plan for
teachers was developed and implemented in a suburban school district (UMI
No. 9919288). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Hunter, A. (1998). The power, production, and promise of portfolios for novice
and seasoned teachers. In M. McLaughlin, M. Vogt, J. Anderson, J. DuMez,

150

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

M. G. Peter, & A. Hunter (Eds.), Professional portfolio models: Applications

in education (pp. 157-201). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gorden.
Koegler, S. M. (2000). Self-reflective assessment through teacher portfolios: The
experiences of first-year teachers (UMI No. 9955726). New York: New York
University.
Lyons, N. (Ed.). (1998). With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism. New York: Teachers College Press.
McCaffrey, D. L. (2000). Teacher attitudes toward supervision and evaluation in
the developmental research schools of the state of Florida (UMI No. 9957889).
Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.
McColskey, W., & Engelson, P. (1997). Designing teacher evaluation systems that
support professional growth. Tallahassee, FL: Southeastern Regional Vision for
Education (SERVE). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED408287)
McLaughlin, M., Vogt, M. E., Anderson, J. A., DuMez, J., Peter, M. G., & Hunter,
A. (1998). Professional portfolio models: Applications in education.
Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Mueller, S., Waters, F., Smeaton, P., & Pinciotti, P. (2001, Spring). Making
informed choices: A model for comprehensive classroom assessment.
Academic Exchange, pp. 31-37.
Oropallo, K.A. (1994). Opening doors: Portfolios and pedagogy (UMI No.
9502823). Tallahassee: Florida State University.
Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student
teachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching,
11(1), 95-116.
Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Read, D., & Cafolla, R. (1999). Multimedia portfolios for preservice teachers: From
theory to practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 97-113.
Sawyer, L. (2001). Revamping a teacher evaluation system. Educational
Leadership, 58(5), 44-47.
St. Maurice, H., & Shaw, P. (2004). Teacher portfolios come of age: A preliminary study. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 15-25.
Strommen, E. F. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom
learning. Education & Urban Society, 24(4), 466-477.
Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Stufflebeam, D. L, (1988). The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to assess
systems for evaluating educators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Sutherland, S. D. (1998). A systematic examination of portfolio assessment to
promote teacher professional growth (UMI No. MQ38768). Ottawa, Canada:
University of Ottawa.
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

151

Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., & Gareis, C. R. (2002). Handbook on teacher portfolios for evaluation and professional development. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.
Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., Gareis, C. R., & Beers, C. S. (2003). The efficacy of
portfolios for teacher evaluation and professional development: Do they make
a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 572-602.
Wolf, K. P. (1996). Developing an effective teaching portfolio. Educational
Leadership, 53(6), 34-37.
Wolf, K., Lichtenstein, G., & Stevenson, C. (1997). Portfolios in teacher evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED409378)
Xu, J. (2002, Winter). Using teaching portfolios to promote on going, in-school
professional development. ERS Spectrum, pp. 21-28.
Zepeda, S. J. (2002). Linking portfolio development to clinical supervision:
A case study. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(25), 83-102.

152

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 9, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006