Multimedia Portfolios for Preservice Teachers: From …web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/projects/ireport/articles/e-portfolio... · Multimedia Portfolios for Preservice Teachers: From

Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education (1999) 7(2), 97-113

Multimedia Portfolios for Preservice Teachers: FromTheory to Practice

DONNA READ AND RALPH CAFOLLACollege of Education, Florida Atlantic University

777 Glades Road, Box 3091Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991, USA

[email protected]

Over the last five years, educators have discovered the valid-ity of portfolios for evaluating students in elementary andsecondary settings. Another obvious trend in education isthe increased use of advanced technology, particularly mul-timedia technology. This paper reports the results of aproject undertaken to combine authentic assessment using aportfolio and multimedia technology by preservice teachers.In the first section, a brief overview of constructivist theoryis presented, followed by a discussion of the relationship be-tween constructivism and portfolio assessment. A review ofcurrent research on portfolio assessment and the use of tech-nology are also presented. The second section presents theresults of a project undertaken at Florida Atlantic Universi-ty to implement multimedia portfolios for preservice teach-ers. This section provides a description of the process thatpreservice teachers follow in developing a multimedia port-folio and describes the hardware and software used in thedevelopment of this project. Information about the state-of-the-art multimedia technology used to capture student workfor the portfolio is also provided. The paper concludes witha discussion of some of the challenges faced in developingthe portfolios and gives an update on the projects currentstatus and future directions.

98 Read and Cafolla

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This section provides an overview of the theoretical underpinning ofportfolio assessment. First, a discussion of the relationship between the the-oretical foundations of constructivist theory and portfolio assessment is pro-vided. This is followed by a discussion of the literature relating to educa-tional reform and portfolios. This part of the paper concludes with a discus-sion of the literature relating to portfolio assessment in general and the useof technology in portfolio development.

Constructivist Theory

The preservice teacher portfolios developed by this project were basedon a constructivist theory of learning, a paradigm that views the learner asactively involved in the construction of his or her own representations ofknowledge. According to this view, learning is the process of buildingknowledge structure by connecting what is known to new information,ideas, and concepts and integrating them to form new understandings. Theimplications of this theory for teaching are numerous. Table 1 highlightssome of the differences between constructivist theory and traditional para-digms of learning.

Table 1Traditional Learning versus Constructivism

Traditional Learning Theory Constructivism

Mastering “the facts” Constructing knowledgeData centered curriculum Learner centered curriculumProduct oriented Process orientedTeacher as expert Teacher as mentorWorking alone Working in a group

If preservice teacher portfolios are to accurately reflect the personaland professional growth of prospective teachers, it is imperative that theportfolios be based on valid pedagogy. Constructivism rooted in the suppo-sition that the learner is actively involved in the construction of his or herown representations of knowledge, is such a pedagogy. One of the key the-oretical propositions of constructivism, that learning is the process of build-ing knowledge by connecting what is known to new information, is particular-ly important. This proposition suggests that encouraging preservice students to

Multimedia Portfolios for Preservice Teachers 99

engage in self-reflection as they select the performance items for their portfoli-os is crucial if these portfolios are to reveal an accurate and complete portrait.

Research on Portfolio Development Educational Reform

A significant influence in the development of the multimedia portfoliois the literature regarding national and state educational reform, includingstandards for educators and technology (Northrup, 1996; Kahn, 1996; Ka-plan & Sedelfelt, 1996; NCATE, 1995; Moore, 1993). The National Coun-cil for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) guidelines for teachereducation programs include Standard II D, Indicator 39, which specifiesthat “...a candidates mastery of a program’s stated exit criteria or outcomesis assessed through the use of multiple sources of data such as a culminatingexperience, portfolios, interviews...” (NCATE, 1995). In this multimediaportfolio project, preservice teachers implement this standard by completingprojects and incorporating multimedia from a variety of courses as docu-mentation of their learning. The use of portfolios is also supported by addi-tional guidelines or standards recommended by other professional organiza-tions such as the Association of Colleges and Schools of Education in StateUniversities and Land Grant Colleges and Affiliated Private Universities(Lan, 1997), American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education(Fenstermacher, 1994; Edmundson, 1993), National Project on the Qualityof Teaching and Learning (Patterson, 1994), National Board for Profession-al Teaching Standards (McKay, 1994), the Carnegie Forum, Holmes Group,and the Center for Educational Renewal (Baker, 1994). A review of the litera-ture reveals the need for moving towards performance assessment and inter-professionalism among these groups for achieving national and state standards.

Another resource addressing national curriculum standards that servesto provide guidance for formulating portfolios is Best Practice: New Stan-dards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools (Zemelman,Daniels, & Hyde, 1993). This book highlights an emerging consensus abouthow students should be taught in content areas. The suggestions in thisbook are based on national curriculum reports from organizations such asthe National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Council of So-cial Studies, National Council of Teachers of English, Center for the Studyof Reading, International Reading Association, National Association for theAdvancement of Science, and the National Association for the Education ofYoung Children. All of these organizations provide a framework for teachingand learning in reading, writing, social studies, science, and mathematics.

100 Read and Cafolla

Transdisciplinary studies with 13 interlocking principles, which include amore student-centered curriculum, collaborative learning, authentic learn-ing, and more descriptive evaluation of student growth, including qualita-tive observations, are recommended. Research reported in this book servesas a reminder of the importance of viewing students in a more holistic man-ner and of incorporating cognitive and affective dimensions of the learningprocess. Therefore, information such as talents or special interests are alsopart of the Preservice Teacher Portfolio.

Many states have also developed or are developing their own stan-dards. For example, in this project Florida goals, standards, and benchmarkswere one source of guidance in the development of the portfolio format(Florida Department of Education Blueprint 2000, 1994). Other documentsused to verify implementation of state goals and standards in the portfolioincluded Florida’s Sunshine State Standards (1996), Generic Competenciesand Educator Accomplished Practices (1996), and the Electronic Curricu-lum Planning Tool (1997). Some research focuses on the implementation ofthese standards or goals in Florida universities and thus helps provide infor-mation about what needs to be highlighted or covered in the PreserviceTeacher Portfolio (Stedman, 1994; England, 1995). Other state standardsinvolving special interest groups such as Exceptional Student Educationalso play a role in the creation of portfolios. For example, in order to meetExceptional Student Education needs, a section on Individual EducationPlans (IEP’s) was added under the “Lesson Plan” portion of the portfolio. Inthis way, preservice teachers in special areas (Exceptional Education,ESOL, etc.) can be accommodated. Thus, preservice teachers majoring inmany areas of education are able to demonstrate their teaching expertise insimilar, yet unique ways fulfilling departmental and state goals.

Portfolio Assessment and Evaluation

In recent years, many educators have come to the conclusion that tradi-tional assessments do not provide an adequate means of evaluating preser-vice student progress. Formal and informal assessment measures such asstandardized and criterion-referenced tests fail to fully reflect the actuallearning that takes place during instruction. In response to this disparity,state legislators and educators at the university level have begun to use port-folios to make decisions about goals and standards for excellence in teach-ing, to evaluate the accomplishment of these standards, to revise curricu-lum, and to plan professional development as they mentor preservice teach-ers into the teaching profession (Adams, 1995; Asimov, 1998; Calfee,


1994; O’Malley, 1995; Pedras, 1994; Reisetter & Fager, 1995; Shackelford,1996; Slater, 1995; Tierney, 1993).

A preservice teacher portfolio is a developmental record; it seeks tocapture an individual’s capabilities over time. Portfolios reveal growth andperformance in areas such as planning, instruction, teaching strategies,classroom management, community service, self-reflection, cross-culturalexperiences, and professional activities under a variety of conditions. Be-cause they focus on process as well as product, portfolios can also be usedto diagnose strengths and weaknesses, monitor student progress, and pro-vide feedback on the effectiveness of instruction (Adams, 1995; Barry,1994; Morin, 1995; O’Malley, 1995).

While there is an enormous amount of literature on portfolios, the re-search on preservice teacher portfolios is relatively new (Rogers, 1995;Taylor, 1995; Smyser, 1994; McKinney, 1995; Bushman, 1995). A reviewof the literature indicates emerging areas of emphasis such as attitudes, self-evaluation by preservice teachers, alternative assessment and evaluationtechniques, the construction of portfolios, and implementing portfolios inmethods courses and across the teacher education curriculum.

Attitudes toward portfolios and self-reflection qualities are emphasizedby Barry (1994), and Morin (1995, 1996). Barry (1994) points out thatthere are specific activities that promote reflective teaching including: (a)teaching experiences, (b) journal writing, (c) peer observation, (d) receivingnotes/feedback from peer observations, (e) self-assessment, and (f) consul-tation with the university supervisor. In this study, students reported thatteaching experiences required the most thought and reflection. Morin(1995) recommends that the development of portfolios by preservice teach-ers encourage self-reflection since students must demonstrate their teachingeffectiveness and growth. Matanzo (1996) used a pre- and posttest design tomeasure the preservice teacher’s perception of growth in a reading/chil-dren’s literature class. She notes that a vast majority of her preservice stu-dents felt they gained increased self-confidence in their abilities and knowl-edge to work effectively with elementary students. These articles stress thatself-evaluation can be a powerful tool in helping preservice teachers gaininsight into their own achievement. As a result, preservice teachers are en-couraged to reflect on their teaching as part of the portfolio process.

Assessing preservice and beginning teachers by using traditional andalternative instruments tends to provide a more accurate picture of the com-petency of future teachers. Adams (1995) suggests the use of portfolio arti-facts in a variety of categories would also include a written rationale or jus-tification for each artifact in the portfolio. This is demonstrated as students


decide which artifacts to include in the portfolio. This kind of selection pro-cess requires students to sift through many work samples and choose onlythose that portray their best work. Reisetter and Fager (1995) explain how agoal based university program, which actively involves preservice teachersin a multifaceted approach to assessment such as portfolios, can be effec-tive. Taylor and Nolen (1995) center on the notion of validity as an impor-tant aspect of portfolios. To answer these questions, they compared preser-vice teachers using portfolios with students in more traditional measure-ment courses. The results of their research support the usefulness of portfo-lios. Faust (1995) explored the portfolio evaluation process of students byhaving teachers themselves develop portfolios of their own to evaluate theirteaching. This qualitative research project indicated that teachers used di-verse and sometimes conflicting purposes for evaluation. He discoveredthat in the process of developing portfolios, both learners and teachers dis-covered ways to come to a consensus about rubrics used. Standerford(1994) investigated employing formative and summative evaluation of ele-mentary students by preservice teachers who in turn engage in formativeevaluation of themselves. She concluded that her interactions with her pre-service teachers and their engaging in formative evaluation with elementarystudents helped them become reflective practitioners. Thus, if teachers de-velop their own portfolios first, constructing student portfolios appears easi-er to accomplish. In sum, these studies point out that both traditional and al-ternative assessment and evaluation are necessary because they allow for amultidimensional view of students.

Currently, articles that deal with implementing preservice teacher port-folios in methods courses appear to be the most plentiful. Anderson (1996),Dillon et al., (1996), Gambro (1995), McKinney and Ohlhausen (1995),Slater (1995), and Wickliff (1995) all touch on developing portfolios in lit-eracy, children’s literature, educational psychology, physics, and writingcourses. Hoag (1995) describes a project that involved preservice teachersin a methods course with training and experiences in authentic performancebased assessment in conjunction with an elementary school. Studentslearned about rubrics, diagnosis of oral reading, word recognition analysis,and how this performance could be evaluated as part of a student’s portfo-lio. Such items can also become part of the student work samples includedin a preservice teacher portfolio. This cross-educational collaboration modelshows how a university and elementary school benefit each other in the de-velopment of portfolios for preservice teachers and elementary students.McFadden (1994) discusses using portfolios across the curriculum to en-courage reflections. Portfolios are used in the liberal arts, applied science,


and teacher education programs at his university. McFadden points out avariety of models and specific items such as essays, teacher conferences,and need for reflection as part of a preservice teacher portfolio. All of theseauthors discuss how they successfully organized and integrated their courseobjectives using preservice teacher portfolios. They also point out that stu-dents assessed by portfolios feel less anxious about learning course content,which contributes to a more intrinsic motivation for learning. Instead ofranking students, the focus is on how students think and come to knowsomething. Student individuality is prized, and the portfolio demands morethorough information than a test score provides. The guidelines provided bythese authors suggest that portfolios can be used successfully with preser-vice teachers and that there are many ways to implement them.

Another area of emphasis in the literature is constructing preserviceteacher portfolios by incorporating professional teaching standards. Guil-laume (1995), Rogers (1995), Shakelford (1995), and Tracz (1995) all rec-ommend that incorporating national, state, and college goals fosters the de-velopment and improves the evaluation of portfolios. Shakelford focuses onfaculty portfolios and the importance of shadowing in mentor preparation.Pedras (1994) presents the portfolio design used at his university, and notesthat they include a teaching resume, educational philosophy, lesson plans,and many other items. By noting standards to address in the construction ofportfolios, Guillaume, Rogers, and Tracz explain how careful constructionof portfolios by paying attention to quantitative and qualitative data servesto guide future directions of portfolios at their institutions.

Technology and Portfolio Assessment

The literature reveals limited information about the use of technologyto support alternative assessment, including portfolios. Employing technol-ogy, however, offers tremendous possibilities for preservice teacher portfo-lios. Campbell (1992) notes how CD-ROM’s can be used in portfolios, aswell as the importance of parents, staff, and students working together inthe development of portfolios. Palmer (1995) suggests the use of integratingdisciplines and creating video portfolios of student work. It is clear thatthere is a need to use technology if we are to move ahead in education, andthat developing preservice teacher portfolios is an authentic performanceactivity for assisting students in attaining meaningful goals.

Most of the research literature on preservice teacher portfolios is pri-marily descriptive, although some experimental studies have been complet-ed. At this time, the primary research areas of interest include the changing


attitudes and self-evaluation of preservice teachers, the construction of port-folios, implementing portfolios in methods courses, and the validity of per-formance assessment. There is little information about college-wide man-agement of portfolios and the use of technology in the development of pre-service teacher portfolios. Both of these areas must be addressed if we areto move forward to make portfolios effective and efficient in teacher educa-tion. A thorough review of the literature reveals only one study that reportson attempts to utilize multimedia technology in developing portfolios. Inthis study, Hale and Kieffer (1995) concluded that there was a need formore work with multimedia technology and portfolio development. In thenext section, a brief overview of multimedia technology is presented.

IMPLEMENTING THE MULTIMEDIA PORTFOLIO

Rather than taking a traditional linear, book-like approach to portfoliocreation, this project opted to use emerging multimedia technology as themedia. Preservice teachers completing this project would have their entiremultimedia portfolio on a read/write compact disk, commonly called a CD-ROM. Because every school in Florida has, by law, at least one multimediacomputer, a prospective teacher will be able to bring the CD-ROM to a jobinterview with reasonable assurance that the school would have the equip-ment needed to view the portfolio. As multimedia computers become com-monplace in schools nationally, preservice teachers should be able topresent their portfolios easily.

The multimedia portfolios were designed to use various types of mediaincluding computer graphics, photographs, scanned documents, recordedsound, and digital video. The portfolios also integrate the concept of hyper-media, which allows certain text or graphics to act as hot links or buttons.Using the mouse to select highlighted text or an icon can link you to otherparts of the portfolio. This means that the portfolio would not necessarily bepresented in the exact same order every time it was used. The interest of theuser, in this case a prospective employer, determines the order.

The goal of utilizing multimedia presented several challenges. Each ofthe types of multimedia described above can be stored on a computer inmany different file formats. This makes it difficult to ensure that the multi-media will work on a variety of computer platforms. While it is known thatmost schools have multimedia computers, there is no way of knowing whattype of computer it is. Therefore, it became necessary to find a way to cre-ate multimedia hypertext portfolios that could be read by the largest numberof computers.


Fortunately, this problem is quite similar to the one faced by the de-signers of the World Wide Web (WWW). Faced with the task of allowingmany different types of computers to share multimedia elements, the Webdesigners developed the WWW based on a language called the HyperTextMarkup Language (HTML). This allows one to describe the appearance andfunction of what is referred to as a Web page. It then uses special softwarecalled a browser to create, or render, the page.

Therefore, this project was designed to create the multimedia portfoliousing the WWW standards. This decision had several implications for theproject. First, since it is created in the language of the Web, it can be placedon the Web without modification. In fact, several of our students have indi-cated that they will make provisions with their Internet service providers totake advantage of this feature. It is expected that all of the multimedia port-folios will be placed on the Web in the near future.

Developing the Portfolio

Preservice teachers are provided with a blank template of the multime-dia portfolio (see Figure 1: The Multimedia Portfolio Template) which theycopy to their Zip disk. When viewed by a Web browser, the portfolio is di-vided into three sections.

Figure 1. The multimedia portfolio template


The top section includes the logo of the institution developing the port-folio. This image also serves as a hyperlink to return to the main page.Since this top section never changes, you can navigate to the main pagewith a single click from anywhere in the portfolio. The lower left portion ofthe screen contains the main menu. As you navigate through the portfolio,the appropriate submenu replaces this menu. The rest of the screen is themain portion of the portfolio, which will contain the information about thepreservice teacher. It is this portion of the portfolio that the preserviceteacher modifies to create his or her own portfolio.

To modify the portfolio, the student participates in five seminars. Thefirst seminar introduces the preservice teacher to the creation of the multi-media portfolio. Students are instructed in working with HTML files, gath-ering student samples, obtaining graphics (photographs, illustrations, certif-icates, etc.), locating demonstration teaching videos, and developing soundrecordings. At the second seminar, students use the multimedia portfolioprogram and import their text files and artifacts collected. In this way, anynew information can be added as the portfolio develops. Seminars three,four, and five are devoted to importing the video and audio components ofthe preservice teacher multimedia portfolio, adding new text, and recordingthe final version onto a CD-ROM.

As each text and multimedia element is developed, it is added to theportfolio. To accommodate this, preservice teachers are provided with spe-cific filenames that they must use when transferring the files to their Zipdisk. Thus the new files, created by the preservice teacher and containingtheir information, replaces the blank place holder in the template. Figure 2:Multimedia Portfolio with Picture Replaced shows the result of this process.

Figure 2. Multimedia Portfolio with Picture Replaced


Our experience has shown that the process of developing preservicemultimedia portfolios can be long and tedious, especially if there are nu-merous students who have not collected teaching artifacts for a period ofyears in an organized fashion. A portfolio notebook has always been re-quired at the end of student teaching; however, the entries focused primarilyon the student teaching experience. New students involved in orientationprograms, selected courses, and meetings with advisors, are being exposedto the portfolio in a more aggressive manner. The goal over the next twoyears is to refine this process so that all students will be able to highlighttheir achievements in a more consistent, thorough, yet creative way.

Future improvements include adding an additional seminar to help stu-dents place their multimedia portfolio on the Internet. Since the preservicemultimedia portfolio was originally designed to accomplish this, our stu-dents are beginning to move in this direction as they use technology tosearch for employment. To further describe the process of creating the mul-timedia portfolio, the next section describes the computer hardware used inthe creation of the portfolios.

Hardware and Software

Two identical workstations, dubbed the Creation Stations, were pur-chased for use in this project. The first component in each system was a suf-ficiently powerful multimedia personal computer. Two identical Pentium133’s equipped with stereo sound, a CD-ROM player, and digital videocapture cards were purchased. The video capture card is needed to convertanalog video from either a video camera, television, or VCR to compressedvideo for storage on the computer. A microphone was also purchased to al-low the preservice teachers to record their own voices for inclusion in theportfolio.

Because of the large size of multimedia computer files, Iomega 100 ZipDrives® were purchased. Each participant is expected to purchase theirown Zip disk to hold his or her files. This disk is used as working storage asthe project develops and as a final testing and storage area for the final ver-sion to be transferred to the CD-ROM. Two read/write CD-ROM playerswere purchased to create the final product.

Other equipment included digital still cameras for photographs, digitalvideo cameras for live video, videocassette recorders to digitize videos tak-en with regular video cameras, and color scanners for documents. Most ofthe software used in this project came with the various media devices pur-chased. The digital still camera, scanner, and video capture cards all came


supplied with appropriate software. The student HTML documents werecreated with Microsoft Word with Internet Assistant (Microsoft, 1996). In-ternet assistant is available for free from Microsoft. Participants createdtheir pages in Word and saved them in HTML format. Most modern wordprocessors including WordPerfect and ClarisWorks allows this.

As the project progressed, it became obvious that software was neededto manipulate the graphic images and convert them to formats recognizedby Web software. This was accomplished with the computer shareware pro-gram LView Pro (MMedia, 1996). This program was used to rotate, size,and convert file formats. Also, since many different preservice teacherswould be using the Creation Stations, McAfee Virus Scan (McAfee, 1996)was installed on both computers.

CONCLUSION

The research on preservice teacher portfolios suggests that they can en-courage students to engage in self-evaluation and become more responsiblefor their learning. For the most part, faculty, staff, and administrators seemto support this new method of authentic performance, assessment and eval-uation. It appears that the greatest problem facing universities is how tomanage portfolios college-wide. Developing and implementing multimediapreservice teacher portfolios is an enormous responsibility and task. It re-quires the cooperation of students, faculty, staff and administrators. Finan-cial support for equipment and technical support to maintain equipment isessential if the project is to succeed. The team in charge of the project mustcontinually revise procedures, be aware of problems, seek solutions to prob-lems, and keep students, staff, and faculty motivated as they move into thefuture. As preservice teachers pass through their courses, they must be con-tinually reminded by faculty to seek artifacts that are meaningful represen-tations of their capabilities as growing adults and future teachers.

Preservice teacher multimedia portfolios represent a breakthrough ineducation and technology. We have an obligation as professional educatorsto help our preservice students learn how to utilize technology by formingaccurate, meaningful, holistic, yet creative portraits of themselves reflectedin the portfolios they develop. As a result, preservice teachers will possessthe knowledge they need to empower future students they will teach as theyembark on a lifelong journey into the 21st century.


References

Adams, A. (1995, November). A portfolio assessment procedure for preser-vice teachers for admission to the professional year: the project so far.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South EducationalResearch Association, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED387458)

Anderson, N. (1996). Developing and assessing emergent literacy throughchildren’s literature. In M. Collins & B. Moss (Eds.) Literacy Assess-ment for Today’s Schools (pp.227-234). Pittsburg, KS: College Read-ing Association.

Asimov, I. (1988). Schools in the political spotlight. San Francisco Chroni-cle, January 8, 1988, p. A15.

Baker, E. (1994). Restructuring preservice teacher education governance:Beyond collaborative efforts. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED3771)

Barrett, H. (1994). Technology supported assessment portfolios. Comput-ing Teacher. 21(6), 9-12.

Barry, N. (1994). Promoting reflective practices among undergraduate ed-ucation majors in an elementary music methods course. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association,Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 388641)

Bloom, B. (1957). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: McKay.Bloom, B., Hastings, & J., Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook on formative and

summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Brittain, M., & Brittain, C. (1996). Assessment of reading attitudes: validi-

ty issues. In M. Collins & B. Moss (Eds.) Literacy Assessment for To-day’s Schools (pp.51-56). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.

Bruner, J. (1983). In search of mind . New York: Harper & Row.Bushman, L., & Schnitker, B. Teacher Attitudes on Portfolio Assessment,

Implementation, and Practicality (1995). (ERIC Reproduction ServiceNo. 392805)

Campbell, J. (1992). Laser disk portfolios: total child assessment. Educa-tional Leadership 49(6), 69-70.

Calfee, R., & Perfumo, P. (1993). Student portfolios: opportunities for arevolution in assessment. Journal of Reading, 36(4), 532-537.

Diez, M. (1994, October). The portfolio: Sonnet, mirror and map. Paperpresented at the National Conference on Linking Liberal Arts andTeacher Education., San Diego, CA.

Dillion, D., Dixey, B, Hall, V., Nierstheimer, S, & Younts, T. (1996). Au-thentic assessment in a university preservice literacy course. In M.Collins & B. Moss (Eds.) Literacy Assessment for Today’s Schools(pp.95-109). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.

Earley, P. (1994). Goals 2000: educate america act: implications for teach-er educators. ( ERIC Reproduction Service No.ED367661)


Edmundson, P. (1993) Renewal agendas and accreditation requirements: Con-trasts and correspondence. Journal of Teacher Education 44(3), 170-75.

England, D. (1995). Teacher education program reviews at University ofNorth Florida, Florida state university, Florida Atlantic University,university of south florida march 1994-april 1995. (ERIC Reproduc-tion Document No. ED3949)

Faust, M., & Kieffer, R. (1995). Portfolio process: teachers exploring assessmentalternatives. final report. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. 392805)

Fenstermacher, G. (1994). Controlling quality and creating community:separate purposes for separate organizations. Journal of Teacher Edu-cation, 45(5), 329-36.

Florida Department of Education (1994). Blueprint 2000. Florida Commis-sion on Education Reform and Accountability. Tallahassee, FL, pp.3, 28.

Florida Department of Education (1994). Florida generic competencies.Florida Commission on Education Reform and Accountability.Tallahassee, FL.

Florida Department of Education (1996). Educator accomplished practic-es. Florida Commission on Education Reform and Accountability.Tallahassee, FL.

Florida Department of Education (1996). Sunshine state standards. FloridaCommission on Education Reform and Accountability. Tallahassee,FL.

Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Gambro, J. (1995, April). Alternative assessment in educational psycholo-gy: A case analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.(ERIC Reproduction Service No. 389731)

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind; how children think and howschools should teach. New York: Basic Books

Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Bird. L. (1991). The whole language cata-logue. New York: Macmillan.

Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Hood, J. (1989). The whole language eval-uation book. New York: Macmillan.

Graves, D., & Sunstein, B. (1992). Portfolio portraits. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Guillaume, A., Yopp, A., & Hallie, K. (1995). Professional portfolios forstudent teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly 22(1), 93-101.

Hale, M., & Kieffer, R. (1995, April). Helping teachers use multimediaportfolios for professional development. Paper presented at the Annu-al Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco, CA. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. 385523)

Hoag, C. (1995). A university preservice and elementary school portfolioproject: reporting the collaboration, procedures and reflections.(ERIC Reproduction Service No. 384606)


Kahn, J. (1996). NCATE Standards for Educational Technology: One Col-lege Meets the Challenge. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED3938)

Kaplan, L., & Sedelfelt, R. (Eds.), (1996). Teachers for the New Millenni-um: Aligning Teacher Development, National Goals, and High Stan-dards for All Students. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED401268)

Matanzo, J. (1996). Pre and post course literacy self-assessment: its posi-tive impact on preservice teachers. In M. Collins & B. Moss (Eds.) Lit-eracy Assessment for Today’s Schools (pp.95-109). Pittsburg, KS: Col-lege Reading Association.

McAfee Software (1996). McAfee Virus Scan Software. [On-line]. Avail-able: http://www.mcafee.com.

McFadden, J. (1994, October). Casting portfolios across the curriculum toencourage reflection. Paper presented at the National Conference onLinking Liberal Arts and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.

McKinney, M., & Ohlhausen, M. (1995). Evaluating the use of self-assess-ment portfolios in a literacy methods class. Reading Research and In-struction, 35(1), 19-36.

Microsoft Corporation (1996). Internet Assistant Software. [On-line].Available: http://www.microsoft.com.

Moore, K. (1993, Fall). NCATE accreditation: visions of excellence. Jour-nal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1)28-34.

NCATE (1995). Standards, procedures, and policies for the accreditationof professional education units. (ERIC Reproduction ServiceNo.ED3855)

MMedia Research Group (1996). LView Pro Software. [On-line]. Avail-able: http://www.lview.com.

Morin, J. (1995, July). Portfolios: an effective tool used by prospectiveteachers to encourage self-evaluation and improvement. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Meeting of the National Evaluation Institute,Kalamazoo, MI. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. 391806)

Northrup, P. (1996, May-June). Establishing instructional technologybenchmarks for teacher preparation programs. Journal of TeacherEducation, 47(3)213-22.

O’Malley, J. (1995). Portfolio assessment—a new face. (ERIC Reproduc-tion Document No. 382594)

Patterson, C. (1994) Portraits of Teaching: using work-based. (ERIC Re-production Service No. ED3751)

Palmer, K. (1995). Interactive learning comes of age. Momentum, 26(4),40-42.

Pedras, M. (1994, July). Portfolio development and assessment in a teacherpreparation program. Paper presented at the International Confer-ence on Assessing Quality in Higher Education, Hong Kong, Japan.(ERIC Reproduction Document 382571)

Reisetter, M., & Fager, J. (1995, July). Assessing the effectiveness of thebeginning teacher from a constructivist perspective. Paper presented


at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-tion, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. 387498)

Rogers, G. (1995). The student-teaching portfolio. Music Educators Jour-nal, 82(2), 29-31,68.

Routman, R. (1994) Invitations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Ryan, J., & Kuhs, T. (1993). Assessment of preservice teachers and the use

of portfolios. Theory into Practice, 32, 75-81.Sausage Software Company (1996). Hot Dog Professional Software, [On-

line]. Available: http://www.sausage.com.Slater, T. (1995, April). A qualitative and quantitative comparison of the

impact of portfolio assessment procedures versus traditional assess-ment in a college physics course. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-ing of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, SanFrancisco, CA. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. 391835)

Shackelford, R. (1994, November). Using teaching portfolios to improveand assess teaching. Paper presented at the Center for EducationalDevelopment and Assessment Conference on Evaluating Faculty Per-formance, San Juan, PR. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. 382147)

Smyser, S. (1994, October). Encouraging reflection through portfolios. Pa-per presented at the National Conference on Linking Liberal Arts andTeacher Education, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Reproduction DocumentNo. 390817)

Stahle, D., & Mitchell, J. (1993). Portfolio assessment in college methodscourses: practicing what we preach. Journal of Reading, 36, 538-542.

Standerford, N. (1996). Rethinking the role and practice of assessment inteacher education: learning to assess authentically on multiple levels.In M. Collins & B. Moss (Eds.) Literacy Assessment for Today’sSchools (pp.161-183). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.

Stedman, D. (1994). Teacher education program review in the state univer-sity system of Florida, part II. (ERIC Reproduction Service No.ED3949)

Taylor, C., & Nolan, S. (1995, April) A question of validity: a model forteacher training in assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-ing of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Fran-cisco, CA. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. 387497)

Taylor, H., & Wiebe. (1994, Spring). National standards for computer/technology teacher preparation: a catalyst for change in american ed-ucation. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 10(3)21-23.

Thomas, L. (1994, Summer). The development of accreditation standardsin computing/technology education. Journal of Computing in TeacherEducation, 18(4)19-28.

Thomas, L. (1994, Fall). NCATE releases new unit accreditation guide-lines: standards for technology are included, Journal of Computing inTeacher Education, 11(1)5-7.


Tierney, R., Carter, M., & Desai, L. (1991). Portfolio assessment in thereading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Gordon.

Tracz, S. (1995, April). Improvement in teaching skills: perspectives fromnational board for professional teaching standards field test networkcandidates. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco CA. (ERIC Repro-duction Document No. 390827)

Wagner, C., Brock, D., & Agnew, A. (1994). Developing literacy portfoliosin teacher education courses. Journal of Reading, 37, 668-674.

Weaver, C. (1991). Understanding whole language from principles to prac-tice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wickliff, G. (1995). Hypertext in a professional writing course. TechnicalCommunication Quarterly, 4(1), 47-61.

Wiggins, G. (1992). A true test; towards more authentic and equitable as-sessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (9), 703-13.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: authenticity, context, and validity. PhiDelta Kappan, 75 (3), 200-214.

Wise, A. (1995). The new professional teacher project. Quality Teaching. 4(2), 2-3.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1993). Best practice: new stan-dards for teaching and learning in America’s schools. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Zubizarreta, J. (1994). Teaching portfolios and the beginning teacher. PhiDelta Kappan, 73(2), 129-136.

Documents

Multimedia Portfolios for Preservice Teachers: From …web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/projects/ireport/articles/e-portfolio... · Multimedia Portfolios for Preservice Teachers: From