Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Portfolio and Self-Study
An Epistemology of Practice
Kevin O’Connor, Gladys Sterenberg, and Norman Vaughan
ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Background Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Theory and Practice Tensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Epistemology of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Theory-and-Practice Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Reflection on Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Experiential and Place-Based Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Transformative Pedagogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Portfolios in Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Mount Royal University Bachelor of Education Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
AbstractSelf-study researchers have explored the challenges and benefits of usingportfolios in their teaching practice. A focus on linking theory and practice hasemerged as a generative possibility when using portfolios with students.However, few S-STEP investigations consider how portfolios as a programmaticpedagogy can help teacher educators refine their teaching practices to supportteacher candidates’ connections between theory and practice. We claim thatthis extension of earlier research on the use of portfolios can contribute to anepistemology of practice. Presented is a theoretical framework that responds tothe call of Lyons and Freidus (The reflective portfolio in self-study: Inquiring into
K. O’Connor (*) · G. Sterenberg · N. VaughanDepartment of Education,Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canadae-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019J. Kitchen (ed.), 2nd International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and TeacherEducation, Springer International Handbooks of Education,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_38-1
1
and representing a knowledge of practice. In: Loughran JJ, Hamilton ML,LaBoskey VK, Russell T (eds) International handbook of self-study of teachingand teacher education practices. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1073–1107, 2004) for thedevelopment of an epistemology of practice as we interrogate how programmatice-portfolios can provide the structure for reflection on, and integration of, trans-formative pedagogies. As an example of our own learning, we offer a descriptionof our self-study investigation into the impact of programmatic portfolios onteacher candidates’ experiences of linking theory and practice. We conclude withan enhanced call for S-STEP research into practicum.
KeywordsSelf-study · Teacher education · Portfolio · Theory and practice · Integration
Introduction
The use of portfolios as a method of documenting learning is a widely acceptedand long-standing practice within S-STEP (Lyons and Freidus 2004). Much of theprevailing literature is focused on how portfolios can be used as a teaching practiceto facilitate reflective inquiry and formative assessments of learning (Lyons et al.2013).
Self-study researchers have explored the challenges and benefits of usingportfolios in their teaching practice (Bullock and Christou 2009; Dillon 2017;Fuentealba and Russell 2016). A focus on linking theory and practice has emergedas a generative possibility when using portfolios with students. However, few S-STEP investigations consider how portfolios as a programmatic pedagogy can helpteacher educators refine their teaching practices to support teacher candidates’connections between theory and practice. We claim that this extension of earlierresearch on the use of portfolios can contribute to an epistemology of practice(Raelin 2007).
In this chapter, we present a theoretical framework that responds to the call ofLyons and Freidus (2004) for the development of an epistemology of practice as weinterrogate how programmatic e-portfolios can provide the structure for reflectionon, and integration of, transformative pedagogies. As an example of our ownlearning, we offer a description of our self-study investigation into the impact ofprogrammatic portfolios on teacher candidates’ experiences of linking theory andpractice. We conclude with an enhanced call for S-STEP research into practicum.
Background Context
Throughout the development of self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP),researchers within the community have recognized the value of portfolios asreflective tools. In the inaugural S-STEP Conference at Herstmonceux Castle,
2 K. O’Connor et al.
researchers used their own professional portfolios to learn more about instructionaldevelopment (Wilcox 1996), the portfolios of their teacher candidates to provideinsight into experiences and successes (Johnson and Allen 1996; Haley-Oliphant1996), course portfolios to document personal educational theories (Gipe 1996),and programmatic assessment portfolios to study the implementation impact onfaculty, teacher candidates, and program development (Johnson et al. 1996). Indeed,in the first edition of the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching andTeacher Education Practices (Loughran et al. 2004), Lyons and Freidus (2004)claimed that reflective portfolio inquiry through self-study could legitimate thepractitioner as researcher. Through an analysis of three cases, they concludedthat the reflective portfolio process scaffolded self-study, privileged practitionerinvestigations, and contributed to the validity of self-study. They called for a newepistemology of practice and argued that portfolio inquiry could contribute to thevalidation of practitioner knowledge of teacher educators.
Since 1994, self-study has become established as a valid methodology for teachereducators (Garbett and Ovens 2016), and the use of portfolios has become morewidespread within S-STEP as a way of collecting data through student reflections.Self-study researchers have used portfolios as data to assess the impact of a problem-based intervention (Aubusson et al. 2010), to interrogate how students reflect oncritical situations (Geursen et al. 2010), to assist students in making their learningvisible (Hamlin and Weisner Bryant 2007), to document shifts in professionaland personal identities (Kim and Greene 2011), and to support studentdevelopment of respect and empathy (Kitchen 2005). Much of the literature isfocused on how portfolios can be used as a teaching practice to facilitate reflectiveinquiry and formative assessments of learning (Lyons et al. 2013).
Consistent with research that links the use of portfolios to becoming reflectivepractitioners, teacher educators have also incorporated portfolios as course assign-ments. In her self-study, Kosnik (2005) challenged the use of standardized testswithin teacher education by proposing the implementation of a teaching portfoliowith embedded assessments and studied the impact of national policies on her workas a teacher educator. Olafson et al. (2007) and Donnelly (2006) studied the use ofportfolios as assignments within their teaching practice. In the current era in theUnited States of America, Kelly (2018) has engaged in a self-study on how she hasencouraged critical reflection on a state-mandated use of standardized portfolioassessments. What was introduced as a teaching practice to support formativestudent reflection has been extended to include high-stakes assessments.
More recently, portfolios have been used as sources of data that contribute totrustworthiness, rigor, criticality, and credibility. Some self-study researchers haveused their pre-tenure and promotion portfolios as data to study their learning inacademia as they document their shifting identities and challenges in negotiatinginstitutional requirements (Butler 2016; East et al. 2010; Garbett 2013; Loughran2010). Other researchers have created teaching portfolios to help them documentand analyze their experiences in transitioning from teacher to teacher educator(Hamilton 2018), their teaching interventions and impacts on student learning (Hilland MacDonald 2016), and their creation of representations of teaching stories
Portfolio and Self-Study 3
through interactions with critical friends (Bass et al. 2002). Samaras (2011a, b)writes extensively about the use of a Critical Friends Portfolio as a S-STEP methodfor collecting data to be shared with critical friends. She suggests that this methodhelps researchers document and provide evidence of the transparency and validationof the data collection and analysis of insights emerging within the subjective stanceof the researcher and the objective stance of critical friends. Clearly, the use ofportfolios as a method of documenting learning is an accepted practice within S-STEP.
Self-study researchers have explored the challenges and benefits of usingportfolios in their teaching practice. A focus on linking theory and practice hasemerged as a generative possibility when using portfolios with students. Bullock andChristou (2009) challenge the use of philosophy of education statements included inportfolios as they attempt to disrupt the perceived dichotomy of theory and practice.Dillon (2017) examines his successful and unsuccessful attempts to link practice andtheory through the use of a professional teaching portfolio. Fuentealba and Russell(2016) identify the problem that portfolios are often a collection of materials thatdo not include any detailed analysis, thus not meeting the purpose for integratingtheory and practice.
Research investigating the impact of using portfolios in S-STEP and usingportfolios as sources of data in S-STEP suggests that portfolios as a teaching practiceis ubiquitous. However, few S-STEP investigations consider how portfolios as aprogrammatic pedagogy can help teacher educators refine their teaching practices tosupport teacher candidates’ connections between theory and practice. We claim thatthis extension of earlier research on the use of portfolios can contribute to anepistemology of practice.
In this chapter, we present a theoretical framework that responds to the call ofLyons and Freidus (2004) for the development of an epistemology of practice as weinterrogate how programmatic e-portfolios can provide the structure for reflectionon, and integration of, transformative pedagogies. As an example of our ownlearning, we offer a description of our self-study investigation into the impact ofprogrammatic portfolios on teacher candidates’ experiences of linking theory andpractice. We conclude with an enhanced call for S-STEP research into practicum.
Theoretical Framework
Within the field of teacher education, it is widely accepted that the development ofteacher candidates’ professional practice is of critical importance yet, as teachereducators, we struggle in our understanding of practice and we are limited in how tosupport its development and specifically its relationship to teacher candidates’learning through teacher education programs. It is through these gaps of understand-ing how teacher candidates’ develop during practicum experiences that suggestwe have more work to do so that education coursework (theory) has more influenceon their actual execution (practice) as classroom teachers. We begin with addressingthe traditional problematic of teacher candidates tending to be socialized into the
4 K. O’Connor et al.
status quo of school practice or to simply reproduce their own school experiences(Munby and Russell 1994).
In this chapter, we will attempt to demonstrate how portfolios can assist teachercandidates and their faculty in supporting a more unified approach to theoryand practice. This integration (theory-practice) will support increased learningopportunities based on better theory informed by better practice. We make the casethat having the teacher candidates systematically chart their development throughportfolios can lead to a continuous learning loop that then informs innovative andemerging practice (Raelin 2007).
Theory and Practice Tensions
Teacher education programs tend to be ineffective (Segall 2002). That is, teachercandidates tend not to use the research-based guidelines offered to them in theircourses when they subsequently engage in their practicum placements (Clift andBrady 2005). Instead, they tend either to be socialized into typical practices of schoolor to teach as they were taught themselves, due to the powerful influence of their“apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie 1975) as students in school. The evidence islong-standing (Zeichner and Tabatchnik 1981) and widespread (Clift and Brady2005; Wideen et al. 1998). The only exceptions to this general trend appear to beprograms that can provide a high degree of congruence between the content ofcourse work and the models provided by mentor teachers in their practice (Beck andKosnik 2001; Darling-Hammond 2006). We believe one approach that can have asignificant impact merging the theoretical perspectives of the university with thepractical experiences in the schools is through the longitudinal development of theprofessional portfolio.
Reforms to teacher education have called for extensive practical experiencefor teacher candidates, and many of these calls have advocated for strongschool-university partnerships as a means for providing these. Clinical schools(The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy 1986), professional develop-ment schools (Holmes Group 1986), and partner schools (Goodlad 1988) areproposed ways of increasing reciprocal collaboration in order to connect theoryand practice (Teitel 1998, p. 85). Yet despite these long-standing calls for moreextensive and enhanced practical experiences for teacher candidates, recent pro-posals reiterate the same need. Korthagen et al.’s (2006) development of fundamen-tal principles for reforming teacher education programs begins by highlighting thesignificance of experience in a program. Darling-Hammond’s (2006) conclusionsabout the nature of effective teacher education programs include as a major compo-nent “extensive and intensely supervised clinical work integrated with course workusing pedagogies that link theory and practice” (p. 300).
As teacher educators, we feel very fortunate to be active practitioners in a fieldthat has shown a recent interest and special focus on the examination of effectiveteacher education programs. Research conducted by both Darling-Hammond (2006)and Beck and Kosnik et al. (2006) have yielded considerable insight into the “how”
Portfolio and Self-Study 5
of better preparing teacher candidates for the changing field of education. These twostudies identify some strikingly common themes: an essential need for partnershipsbetween participating communities of practice that support social constructivism; alearning environment that is supportive and representative of all the complex areas ofeducation and is achieved through experiential-, inquiry-, and place-based initiativesthat support teacher candidates to take risks and develop a critical and responsivepedagogy; and the need for a deliberate and extensive integration of both curriculumand pedagogy as it relates to the areas of theory and practice in teacher educationprograms. Since our 4-year teacher education program is in the midst of implemen-tation, we are uniquely positioned to do this research. We are developingour program intentionally around this theoretical framework. Specifically, we areexamining how to enact transformative pedagogies, such as professional portfolios,focused on theory-and-practice integration by attending to relationships and criticalpedagogy and are investigating the impact of such pedagogies with teacher educa-tors, teacher candidates, and beginning teachers.
Epistemology of Practice
In this chapter, we investigate how one transformative pedagogy (Mezirow andAssociates 1991, 1995, 1997, 2000) – the professional teaching portfolio – can beenacted by both the teacher candidate and teacher educator within an epistemologyof practice (Raelin 2007) based on reflection (Dewey 1938) that supports a realisticapproach to teacher education (Korthagen 2001). The primary questions we attemptto address as teacher educators are: What unique features of the professionalportfolio contribute or dissuade an integrated theory-and-practice experience forteacher candidates and teacher educators? This question will be addressed throughtwo sub-questions: (1) What are our barriers and strategic approaches to mergingtheory and practice through the development of a professional portfolio? (2) In whatways can we support the use of professional portfolios to inform realistic experiencesfor our teacher candidates?
As teacher educators involved in a new 4-year Bachelor of Education program,we are interested in the possibilities of an alternative approach to teacher educationbased on principles of relational, place-based teacher education that preparesteacher candidates for the complex and ever-changing educational environment.This chapter draws on programmatic research over the past 5 years and investigatesrealistic experiences of teacher candidates in field experiences, practicum experi-ences, and beginning teacher experiences.
We have taught within traditional “theory-to-practice” (Carlson 1999) teachereducation programs at other institutions and, like most other educators (Wideen et al.1998), face the challenge – and frustration – of trying to have an impact on the laterteaching practice of our teacher candidates (Dillon and O’Connor 2010) or to fosterwhat Argyris and Schön (1974) call double-loop learning, vis-à-vis the powerfulimpact that practicum experiences have on teacher candidates and beginningteachers. We believe that one of the reasons for this lack of integration of theory
6 K. O’Connor et al.
and practice is that theoretical/campus-based courses and school-based teachercandidate teaching tend to be completely divided into different time periods, differ-ent staff, and different places (Dillon and O’Connor 2010) and “as a consequence,our students quite appropriately divide their professional education into twounrelated parts as they are expected effectively to change discourses and crossculturally determined borders in order to learn” (Rosean and Florio-Ruane 2008,p. 712). Such conclusions have prompted us to investigate alternate approaches toteacher education that foster and unpack realistic experiences (Korthagen 2001)among teacher candidates in order to help them move beyond these typical limita-tions in their development as teachers.
Korthagen (2001) proposes a realistic approach to teacher education that startsnot with theory but rather with practical problems faced by teacher candidates. Thisapproach is based on experiential learning and the promotion of reflection on teachercandidates’ teaching experiences through a constructivist learning process where“the student develops his or her knowledge in a process of reflection on practicalsituations, which creates a concern and a personal need for learning” (p. 15). The roleof the teacher educator is not to impart theory as guidance to teacher candidates, butrather to foster phronesis using teacher candidates’ practical experience as the base.Phronesis refers to a kind of practical wisdom that is concerned with the importantspecifics of particular situations as a way not only of understanding them well but ofdeciding how to respond to them well. The intent of a realistic approach to teachereducation is to transform experience into knowledge (Kolb 1984) that reflects thesocial, political, and cultural reality of the educational context (Kincheloe 2003). Webelieve this is best addressed by investigating the complexities of theory-practiceinterrelationships.
Theory-and-Practice Integration
The primary focus of our research investigates the unique features of a realisticapproach that contribute or dissuade an integrated theory-and-practice experience forteacher candidates. The common use of the terms “theory” and “practice” in teachereducation contributes to the notion that they are mutually exclusive. However, webelieve that they are inseparable. All teacher candidates have developed some kindof theory about all aspects of their experience, and all practice is driven by thosetheoretical guidelines. The distinction between theory and practice in teacher edu-cation seems to highlight a disconnection between the abstract guidelines offered forteaching in teacher education courses and teacher candidates’ experience of theinsufficiency of these guidelines when encountering the complexity of the class-room. What we seek to investigate are the relationships of theory-to-practice,practice-to-theory, and theory-and-practice.
Schön’s (1987) reflective practice theoretical stance of knowing-in-action informshis proposal that the practicum should be at the heart of teacher education programs(Dillon et al. 2013). Knowing-in-action refers to teacher candidates’ intuitivewisdom that allows them to adjust their practice to the unfolding complexities of
Portfolio and Self-Study 7
the classroom environment. Reflection (in this case, through a professional portfolio)becomes an integral part of a realistic experience of teacher education as teachercandidates begin to articulate their practical knowledge. Schön suggests that areflective practicum depends on the quality of interaction between mentor teachers,teacher educators, and teacher candidates and among teacher candidates. This isenhanced by extensive opportunities for dialogue and reflection, while teachercandidates are engaged in extensive practicum experiences. When addressing theneed for theory-and-practice integration, experiential opportunities becomesignificant.
Reflection on Experience
A key principle in the theory-practice integration process is experiential learning, anopportunity and support for teacher candidates to reflect upon, or learn from, theirimmersion in experience. In our teacher education program, the development of aprofessional teaching portfolio serves as a teaching and integrating device for eachterm’s experience and learning. It is designed to help teacher candidates’ reflect ontheir experience in school and, as such, its development both shapes and reflects thedevelopment of teacher candidates’ professional teaching competencies. For thisreason, teacher candidates are strongly encouraged to address the Alberta Ministry ofEducation’s competencies of knowledge, skills, and attributes (KSAs) (AlbertaEducation 1997) in developing their portfolio. Several means of support areavailable during the 4-year program for teacher candidates’ portfolio development.One is background and orientation information available early to teacher candidatesby means of weekly tasks and background readings that allow teacher candidates towork independently and that can lead eventually toward a completed portfolio. Thisstructure is one provided by instructors in the teacher candidate’s first year of theprogram in order to help teacher candidates get started on a large, complex, andusually brand-new task. Teacher candidates are welcome to “lean” on this structureas long as necessary or helpful, but they are encouraged to break away from it andcreate their own vision and organization for their portfolio as soon as they are able(usually during the second half of the 1st year). Access to this information can alsoprovide support to mentoring teachers in their mentorship role. The other kind ofsupport for teacher candidates is ongoing discussion and exchange during theprogram designed to help them build their knowledge together through dialogue.One central component of this support is a weekly in-school seminar with teachercandidates 1-day per week held on a regional basis in a participating school, thusbringing together teacher candidates’ groups from several schools. The seminarsessions are designed to support teacher candidates’ development of professionalcompetencies and professional portfolios. The seminars focus on a particular topic/issue based on developmental issues which they are encountering during the term.The approach to each topic is built around a problem-posing pedagogy designed tofoster socio-constructivist and self-reflective learning in the group and to carry overto individual teacher candidates’ ongoing work on their portfolios. Teacher
8 K. O’Connor et al.
candidates are encouraged to bring to the seminar key examples from their classroomwork and major questions with which they are struggling. Following the seminar,teacher candidates write a comprehensive, yet brief, articulation of what they havelearned about that topic as well as possible artifacts to collect from their workto complement their written statement, which they submit for feedback to theirsupervisor/instructor and mentor teacher. In addition, the faculty practicum coordi-nator sends group e-mail messages to mentor teachers and supervisors to support keypoints and questions that may arise in the seminars and to suggest key points to focuson in daily follow-up work. These last steps are means of sharing the teachereducator’s traditional role with mentor teachers and adjunct supervisors. Teachercandidates follow up by conducting regular self-assessments of key aspects of theirdevelopment (thus sharing in the traditional evaluation role of cooperating teachersand supervisors as they share their self-assessments with those mentors). In sum,teacher candidates receive continual feedback on their teaching developmentand their portfolio development from mentor teachers and faculty supervisors duringthe program, in other words, an integrated team approach to teacher candidatedevelopment and assessment.
Experiential and Place-Based Education
Experiential education is the process of learning by doing that begins with the learnerengaging in direct experience followed by reflection (Dewey 1915; Tyler 1949).In our context, it places major importance on the knowledge of teacher candidatesderived from a good deal of experiential learning (Dewey 1938). By immersingthemselves in direct experience, teacher candidates make discoveries and experi-ment with knowledge themselves instead of exclusively hearing or reading about theexperiences of others (Kolb and Lewis 1986). Teacher candidates also reflect on theirexperiences through in-school seminars and portfolios, with the goal of developingnew skills, new attitudes, and new theories or ways of thinking. They test andrefine that knowledge in socio-constructivist interaction with each other and withmentor teachers and teacher educators who accompany them in their learning (Kraftand Sakofs 1988). This process of experiential learning is a continuousprocess alternating between action in experience and opportunities to reflect uponthat experience to make sense of it and then returning to action to further test outand modify emerging hypotheses, followed by further reflection upon the newexperience, and so on. Dewey (1915) sees learning as a dialectic process betweenexperience on the one hand and concepts, observations, and action on the other.
Place-based education is an approach to teaching that is grounded in the contextof community (Raffan 1995; Theobald and Curtiss 2000). It emerges from theparticular attributes of a place. The content is specific to the geography, ecology,sociology, politics, and other dynamics of that place (Woodhouse and Knapp 2000).It provides a purpose to the knowledge and reasoning taught in schools, it offersa contextual framework for much of the curriculum by giving meaning to thestudies, and it engages teacher candidates in the conditions of their own realities.
Portfolio and Self-Study 9
In the context of our program, place-based education integrates teacher candidates’professional community (practice) and targeted course work (theory). Through thisintegrated process, supported by the professional portfolio, teacher candidates makeconnections to their schooling.
Interconnected with experiential learning, critical pedagogy also supports arealistic approach to teacher education as it seeks to provide teacher candidateswith opportunities to transform experience into knowledge that in turn informs theirpractice as they engage in double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon 1974; Ashby1952; Mezirow 1991, 1995, 1997). However, the literature on critical pedagogysuggests that the learning of new complex practice involves a good deal ofunlearning and relearning and takes a good deal of time and support (Gruenewald2003; McLaren 2003). Another dimension of our program includes the implemen-tation of transformative pedagogies based on critical pedagogy (Kincheloe andSteinberg 1998).
Transformative Pedagogies
Munby and Russell (1994) coin the phrase authority of experience because of their“concern that students never master learning from experience during preserviceprograms in a way that gives them direct access to the nature of the authority ofexperience” (p. 92). They present a challenge to teacher educators:
The basic tension in teacher education derives for us from preservice students wanting tomove from being under authority to being in authority, without appreciating the potentialthat the authority of experience can give to their learning to teach. The challenge for teachereducation is to help new teachers recognize and identify the place and function of theauthority of experience. (p. 94)
In response to this challenge (Korthagen 2001; Schön 1983, 1987, 1995), thischapter focuses on the use of portfolios in complement with other transformativepedagogies (e.g., extended integrated practicum, in-school seminars, and semesterintegrated courses) implemented in our department’s new teacher education programthat is based on the authority of experience. Specifically, we describe preliminaryS-STEP research results based on our and our teacher candidates’ experiences ofportfolios in the context of these transformative pedagogies involving integration,inquiry, and community.
Portfolios in Teacher Education
It is our claim that portfolios can add to the body of research that effectivelyinforms professional programs, such as the field of teacher education. Research isa fundamental component to improving the teacher education field: (1) pedagogywill develop if the faculty engage in research (research-based teaching), (2) research
10 K. O’Connor et al.
can improve the quality of learning for teacher candidates (research-based learning),(3) professional practice is improved by teachers who are cognisant of their workbeing informed by research-based knowledge (research-based practice), and (4) thefield of teacher education has a responsibility to inform and advance the knowledgebasis through research (research-based knowledge production) (Heggen et al. 2010).A portfolio usually refers to a collection of evidence that is gathered together to showa person’s learning journey over time and to demonstrate their abilities (Butler2006). Portfolios can be specific to a particular discipline or very broadly encompassa person’s lifelong learning. Many different kinds of evidence can be used in aportfolio: samples of writing, both finished and unfinished; photographs; videos;research projects; observations and evaluations from mentor teachers; and reflectivethinking about all of these. These reflections on the pieces of evidence, the reasonsthey were chosen, and what the portfolio creator learned from them are the keyaspects to a portfolio (Abrami and Barrett 2005; Klenowski et al. 2006; Loughranand Corrigan 1995; Smith and Tillema 2003; Wade and Yarbrough 1996). Thosecompiling portfolios are active participants in their own learning (Wade et al. 2005).Kimball (2005) goes further, arguing that “neither collection nor selection [of piecesto be incorporated into a portfolio] are worthwhile learning tasks without abasis in reflection. Reflection undergirds the entire pedagogy of portfolios” (p.451). Two other key elements to portfolios are that they measure learning anddevelopment over time (Barrett 2000; Challis 2005) and that it is the process ofconstructing a portfolio, rather than the end product, that is where the learning takesplace (Smith and Tillema 2003).
Electronic portfolios, or e-portfolios, have been emerging in education since thebirth of the personal computer, making the first appearance on desktop computers,moving to publishing in optical media (CD and DVD discs), and eventually on theInternet in a variety of formats (Barrett 2011). E-portfolios can be developed formany different purposes: for learning, for professional development, for assessment,or for job applications and promotions. They can also be created for differentaudiences: for teachers, for mentors, for employers, or for the individual creator.Zeichner and Wray (2001) suggest that there are three different types of portfolios.These are a “learning portfolio,” which documents a teacher candidate’slearning over time; a “credential portfolio,” which is used for registration or certi-fication purposes; and a “showcase portfolio,” which teacher candidates can usewhen applying for employment positions. While a learning or a credential portfoliocontains examples of “less than perfect” work as well as the finishedproduct, a showcase portfolio serves only to display a teacher candidate’s bestpieces of work. Similarly, Abrami and Barrett (2005) identify three differenttypes of portfolio, though the purposes of each are slightly different from thosedescribed by Zeichner and Wray. For Abrami and Barrett, the portfolio types are a“process portfolio,” or a collection of work showing a learning journey; a “showcaseportfolio,” which is used to show achievements either at study or in the workplace;and an “assessment portfolio” prepared specifically for assessment or evaluativepurposes.
Portfolio and Self-Study 11
If used to their full potential, portfolios have a number of benefits for teachercandidates. Portfolios help to focus teacher candidate thinking (Wade and Yarbrough1996), provide a means to translate theory into practice (Hauge 2006), and, mostimportantly, document a learner’s progress over time (Abrami and Barrett 2005;Challis 2005; Smith and Tillema 2003). They can enhance teacher candidates’communication and organizational skills, are a way of identifying and recognizingprior learning, and lead to new learning outcomes (Brown 2002). Through theprocess of portfolio construction, teacher candidates can gain a broader sense ofwhat they are learning (Young 2002). They can see their learning unfolding (Darling2001), acquire an awareness of their accomplishments, and come to understandhow their learning takes place (Brown 2002).
A variety of challenges arise with the use of portfolios as an approach toassessment, some of which are mitigated by the shift to an electronic environmentand some of which have been compounded. A lack of well-defined guidelines and aclear structure (Smith and Tillema 2003) and a lack of examples of past portfolios(Darling 2001) can lead to student confusion and anxiety about the scope, nature,and value of the task (Darling 2001; Wade and Yarbrough 1996). Finding a balancebetween student-driven construction that can lead to superficial reflections andlimited evidence and overprescribed guidelines that can lead to teacher candidateslacking ownership and therefore resenting their portfolios is difficult (Zeichner andWray 2001). Teacher candidates need guidance and support throughout the portfolioprocess (Smith and Tillema 2003), which involves time on the part of facultymembers and mentor teachers (Wade and Yarbrough 1996). Darling (2001) indicatesthat teacher candidates often have limited academic experience with writing reflec-tive pieces. The ways in which such feedback is given, and how that (sometimescritical) feedback becomes acceptable to teacher candidates, are also problematic(Smith and Tillema 2003). There is an inherent conflict between the goals ofteacher candidates and the goals of their teachers in constructing portfolios. Teachercandidates “are understandably most concerned about the uses of their portfolios asaids in gaining employment while. . .educators are most concerned about usingportfolios to promote professional development and to make assessments” (Zeichnerand Wray 2001, p. 618). Concerns have also been expressed over the difficultyof assessing portfolios. Smith and Tillema (2003) see a lack of match betweenassessment criteria and the goals of an academic program or what competenciesteacher candidates are expected to develop. They also see a tension between themeasurement of standards and capturing development and reflection. The danger isthat learning and reflection will get lost in the drive to measure competency.
The literature on the types of e-portfolios and the benefits and challenges of usinge-portfolios has informed our own S-STEP investigation. Much of this literaturefocuses on specific course implementations and the teacher candidates’ professionallearning through reflection. However, research is emerging that links the use of e-portfolios across multiple courses within a program in order to foster theoryand practice links. Drawing on Russell and Martin’s (2016) statement that there is“no connective tissues holding things together within or across the different phasesof learning to teach” (p. 1049), Hopper et al. (2016) argue that e-portfolios provide a
12 K. O’Connor et al.
vehicle to better integrate theory and practice. They conclude that through the useof e-portfolios, teacher candidates changed their perspectives on teaching as theyshifted toward a stronger professional identity, teacher candidates showed a commoncommitment to a professional learning community, and teacher candidates were ableto integrate school and university learning experiences.
Like Hopper et al. (2016), we were concerned about how our teacher candidateswere experiencing tensions between theory and practice. We wondered how creatinga programmatic e-portfolios might help us bridge this divide in a way that wouldhelp transform the typical limitations of the development of teacher candidates’teaching practice. This chapter is informed by our experiences in implementing andrefining our B. Ed. program. The S-STEP example that follows presents findingsbased on teacher educators’ and teacher candidates’ experiences of one of ourtransformative pedagogies: portfolios.
Mount Royal University Bachelor of Education Program
This example is extracted from a longitudinal programmatic qualitative study thatinvestigates the impact of transformative pedagogies on teacher educators, mentorteachers, and teacher candidates. Central to the research is the exploration of howtransformative pedagogies provide sustained realistic experiences throughout thevaried phases of learning to teach that include campus courses, field studies,practicum, and integrated school-based courses. In this self-study, we addressedtwo questions: (1) What are our barriers and strategic approaches to merging theoryand practice through the development of a professional portfolio? (2) In what wayscan we support the use of professional portfolios to inform realistic experiences forour teacher candidates?
The context of our self-study was Mount Royal University, a 4-year undergrad-uate institution located in Calgary, Alberta, Canada (http://www.mtroyal.ca/).In the fall of 2011, the University launched a new Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)program, a 4-year direct entry B.Ed. degree, with an emphasis on connecting theorywith practice through the programmatic incorporation of the following transforma-tive pedagogies:
• Professional learning plan (e-portfolios): Teacher candidates begin an electronicprofessional learning plan in the first year of the program and add artifactsand reflections in each year of the program. This program level portfolio providesan integrated platform for student learning throughout the degree and invitesmetacognition regarding professional growth. Teacher candidates reflect upontheir progress toward the five major program competencies:– Professional responsibilities– Planning for learning– Facilitating learning
Portfolio and Self-Study 13
– Classroom environment– Assessment
• Cohort placements and in-school seminars: Teacher candidates in practicum(and where possible in field experience) are placed in cohorts of four to six teachercandidates at each school. The cohort placements support the programmaticfeature of in-school seminars. This structure has several benefits:– Teacher candidates build a learning community and support network in their
school.– Teacher candidates capture immediate correlations between the theory and its
application to their own practice and experience.– Teachers better understand the unique features of the university program and
the evaluation process.– Teachers become engaged partners in the postsecondary education of the
teacher candidates.– Faculty are better able to visit every week to engage in weekly seminar
discussions and build relationships with school personnel.• Cross-curricular course integration: Teacher candidates are required to
demonstrate the integration of outcomes from multiple subjects in theirplanning. Specific semesters are designed to focus on such integration (e.g.,Language Arts/Music/Assessment in year 2, STEAM semester in year 3, SocialStudies/Aboriginal Education in year 4).
• Community partnerships: Teacher candidates plan and support learning atvarious sites including Ann and Sandy Cross Conservation Area, Tim HortonChildren’s Ranch, Telus Spark, and Calgary Reads.
• Extended, integrated practicum and school partnerships: Courses are taughtin schools for teacher candidates in the final practicum semester. This follows aProfessional Development School model. Cohorts from four to six schoolsgather together at one school each week.
• Faculty practicum supervision in schools: All full-time faculty members super-vise practicum in schools. This practice has been forefront from the inceptionof the degree. Full-time faculty are ideally positioned to build partnerships withschools, to intervene in challenging situations, and to bring awareness of theprogram vision and structure. Most contract faculty who are practicum supervi-sors are also instructors in courses so they have a strong understanding of theprogram and teacher candidates’ course experiences. Schools repeatedly praisethe regular presence and responsiveness of faculty members.
• Peer mentorship: Teacher candidates are encouraged to provide peer mentorshipto each other during practicum and field experiences. Teacher candidates in year 2are peer mentors for teacher candidates in year 1.
• Inquiry: Teacher candidates in their final practicum engage in a capstone inquiryin their school (EDUC 4201). This is either a curriculum inquiry with theirpracticum classes or an inquiry into some aspect of professional practice.
• Reflective journals: Teacher candidates write journal reflections in coursesthroughout each year of the program and include these in their professionallearning plans.
14 K. O’Connor et al.
• Indigenous ways of knowing: Place-based experiential learning opportunitiestake place with our Indigenous partners such as the Tsuu T’ina, Stoney Nakoda,and Siksika Nations.
These transformative pedagogies seek to avoid the traditional separation andgap between theory and practice by not disintegrating them in the first place. Theycreate a hybrid structure and organization that integrates “course work” and “studentteaching,” by blending and overlapping traditionally separate roles of “instructor,”“supervisor,” and “mentor teacher” and by integrating all work in the programtoward supporting teacher candidates’ development of professional teachingcompetencies through both immersion in experience and reflection on thatexperience, particularly through the development of a professional teaching portfolioas an integrating device.
E-portfolios are used in our teacher education program as a “spine” or “back-bone” to support and integrate the other transformative pedagogies throughout theentire 4 years of the B. Ed. program. We have observed that local school boards havealso developed an e-portfolio process in order to foster and encourage deeper modesof learning (Habanero 2015). They refer to these e-portfolios as online learningplans that allow students to take ownership of the documentation and goal settingfor their own growth and development throughout their kindergarten to grade 12educational journeys. We use the term professional learning plan for our e-portfolioprocess, which focuses on helping teacher candidates to document and articulateprofessional growth and development related to our B.Ed. program competencies:planning, facilitation, assessment, environment, and professional responsibilities.This e-portfolio is the space for teacher candidates to develop and communicateself-understanding and create learning goals and strategies that will allow them to bemost successful in their future teaching practice (Johnsen 2012).
The teacher candidates use digital applications such asGoogle Sites to create theirprofessional learning plans, which consist of the key components described in Table1.
The methods we used to address the research questions were consistent with ourfocus on studying our professional practice (Bullough and Pinnegar 2001; Hamilton1998; Kitchen and Russell 2012; Kosnik et al. 2006; Loughran 2004; Loughran andRussell 2002; Pinnegar 1998; Tidwell et al. 2009). Adhering to principles of self-study design (Dinkelman 2003; LaBoskey 2004), our research was self-initiated,focused on inquiry into our practice, collaborative, aimed at improvement of ourpractice, and centered on multiple and primarily qualitative means of inquiry. Ourself-study was focused on improvement on both the personal and professional levels(Samaras and Freese 2009) and required honesty and vulnerability as we reframedour roles as course instructors, practicum supervisors, and program designers.
LaBoskey (2004) and Fletcher et al. (2016) claim that multiple perspectives fromcolleagues, students, or texts provide more comprehensive answers to S-STEPresearch questions related to the enactment of pedagogical practices. Data sourcesfor examining our professional practice include transcripts of 10 individualinterviews with teacher candidates for each of the 4 years of the study and 53 teacher
Portfolio and Self-Study 15
candidate portfolios examined over the same period of time (2013–2017). Datasources for investigating our personal experiences were meeting notes of ourbimonthly collaborative research conversations, emails that were exchanged duringthis time, and individual reflections about our experiences. Multiple data sourcesprovided trustworthiness. Data was first coded individually across these sitesaccording to emerging themes that related to our research questions (Strauss1987). We then reviewed our analysis, collaboratively adjusted the codes, andwrote findings together.
Results indicate that teacher candidates used the programmatic portfolio to reviewtheir professional growth as demonstrated by this comment: “I love the idea ofthe portfolio because it helps us keep track of all of the stuff we are learning and howwe are changing, which sometimes it just gets lost. You have a lot going on in thesefour years” (GA2, March 26, 2014). Our results are consistent with researchconducted by other faculty members within our department who reported thatteacher candidates identified the e-portfolio as an overarching practice that organizeslearning artifacts to facilitate reflection, that documents professional growth overtime, that includes journaling in each education course, and that demonstrates theinteractions with peer mentors through collaboration (Vaughan et al. 2017). Indeed,enacting programmatic e-portfolios impacted the learning of department membersnot involved in the self-study and prompted more widespread adoption of thetransformative pedagogy:
The surprising prevalence of reflective comments related to “interconnections” has led thefaculty to a new focus for our portfolio research–the emergence of professional identity.Rather than simply analyzing how the teacher candidates are self-assessing, we are nowanalyzing portfolios with an aim to discern how professional identity emerges throughout thedegree program. (Nickel 2013, p. 77)
While it was evident that many faculty members were able to integrate e-portfolios in order to encourage teacher candidate growth, some themes emergingin the data suggested that this differed throughout the various learning experiences
Table 1 Key components of the professional learning plan
Page Description
Home Introduction and overview to personal teaching goals and aspirations
Resume Documenting personal experience related to the K to 6 teaching profession
Teachingevaluations
Evaluations by mentor teachers from K to 6 school placement and practicumexperiences
Teachingphilosophy
Ongoing development of a personal teaching philosophy
Journal Link to course and practicum journals in Google Docs
Coursereflections
A brief summary of the courses that teacher candidates have taken at MRU.These include a link to the MRU course description and key “learning take-aways” from each course
Teachingcompetency
Planning, facilitation, assessment, environment, professional roles, andresponsibilities with related artifacts, reflections, goals, and strategies
16 K. O’Connor et al.
and teacher candidates expressed some frustration when the artifacts were seen asexternal to their learning process:
We did a lot of on our portfolio last semester and this semester we were doing a little bit, but Ifeel that little bit we are adding in I don’t get to explain it, so even having just an in-class, justa five-minute quick, ‘This is where I put it in my portfolio’ – because my portfolio now lookscrazy because I added so much last semester, so many certificates, so many differentartifacts. I only have to add a few things this semester and I am like, ‘You won’t even findthem, I will have to write a page description on where to get to them because I have to sortthrough my portfolio! But having that opportunity to explain yourself, I like that betterbecause you can often just do an excerpt from an artifact, right? You can say, ‘Oh, this is aparagraph that really spoke to me,’ but then you write that in there. It is hard to write aboutyour emotions, or why, or your passion, or why you put that in. (GC13, March 26, 2015)
For some profs it was like, “Okay, we are all doing it,” and sometimes we went monthswithout talking about them, so it was kind of hard to . . . I felt like I was always doing catch-up with them, that it wasn’t . . . it was more an, “Okay, I got to tick the boxes,” versuswanting to spend time to really develop it. (GC6, April 25, 2017)
Our own learning as teacher educators was evident in the ways that we respondedto comments from teacher candidates. One of us incorporated the explicit use of e-portfolios in the on-campus course as teacher candidates were provided opportuni-ties to set goals based on the course outcomes and reflect on their professionallearning in relation to these goals. Thus, one teacher educator was able to see thevalue in shifting from a “scrapbooking approach” to a reflective goal-settingapproach. Each of us also noted that we were prompting teacher candidates to attendto previous reflective writing in order to recursively link theory and practice acrosstheir experiences within the program.
Conclusion
Transformative pedagogies (Cranton 2006; Mezirow 1991, 1995, 1997; Mezirowand Associates 2000) are those initiatives that contribute to double-loop learningwhere teacher candidates integrate emerging theories of education with theirdeveloping practical wisdom. We have made the claim that the portfolio is a keytransformative pedagogy of our B. Ed. program’s attempt to address the theory-practice divide. However, one significant barrier that our S-STEP research reveals isthe need for our faculty to better embed portfolios/PLPs as a sustainable transfor-mative pedagogy that supports the integration of theory and practice throughout theentire 4-year program, the touchstone that grounds our development as educators,instead of a sporadic teaching and learning strategy that is often seen as a “scrap-book” of related experiences. This leads to our second research question in how “we,as teacher educators, best support the use of professional portfolios for our teachercandidates.” Our S-STEP research findings have informed the development of atransformative programmatic portfolio/PLP framework that we intend to implementgoing forward. It includes the following four areas of implementation:
Portfolio and Self-Study 17
• Designated e-portfolio course/in-service for each semester of the 4-year B. Ed.program.
• A focus on goal-setting versus scrapbooking approach.• Faculty provide more opportunities for peer mentorship support.• Introduce strategic initiatives that allow for mentor teacher involvement.
Finally, we conclude this chapter with an enhanced call for S-STEP research intopracticum. These S-STEP findings provide insight into how college and universityteacher preparation programs can support transformative theory-and-practice linksthrough the use of portfolios. This is significant in an era where we need a synthesisof theory and practice if we are to prepare thoughtful practitioners of education.What is being called for is an epistemology of practice that “appreciates the wisdomof learning in the midst of action itself” (Raelin 2007, p. 513). It is our claim that S-STEP practicum research into portfolios provided us with a more dynamic process offacilitating learning. Research infused with learning, teacher educators, and teachercandidates need not revert back to formulaic theories and far-removed practicalprocesses but instead through collaboration have the potential to create new frame-works to uncover, understand, and respond to emerging problems and ways ofknowing.
References
Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronicportfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31, 3. Retrieved from: https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26487.
Alberta Education. (1997). Teaching quality standard applicable to the provision of basic educationin Alberta. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/policy/standards/teachqual.aspx.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ashby, W. (1952). Design for a brain. New York: Wiley.Aubusson, P., Griffin, J., & Steele, F. (2010). A design-based self-study of the development
of student reflection in teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 6(2), 201–216.Barrett, H. (2000). Electronic teaching portfolios: Multimedia skills + portfolio development =
powerful professional development. Retrieved from http://www.electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/site2000.html
Barrett, H. (2011). Balancing the two faces of eportfolios. Retrieved from: http://electronicportfolios.org/balance/balancingarticle2.pdf.
Bass, L., Anderson-Patton, V., & Allender, J. (2002). Self-study as a way of teaching and learning:A research collaborative re-analysis of self-study teaching portfolios. In J. J. Loughran & T.Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices through self-study (pp. 56–69). London:RoutledgeFalmer.
Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2001). Reflection-in-action: In defence of thoughtful thinking. CurriculumInquiry, 31(2), 217–227.
Brown, J. O. (2002). Know thyself: The impact of portfolio development on adult learning.Adult Education Quarterly, 52(3), 228–245.
18 K. O’Connor et al.
Bullock, S. M., & Christou, T. (2009). Exploring the radical middle between theory and practice:A collaborative self-study of beginning teacher educators. Studying Teacher Education, 5(1),75–88.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms ofself-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21.
Butler, P. (2006). A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios. Ako Aotearoa.Retrieved from: http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-996/n2620-eportfolio-research-report.pdf.
Butler, B. (2016). Navigating the pre-tenure review process: Experiences of a self-study researcher.In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry(pp. 119–126). Herstmonceux: S-STEP.
Carlson, H. (1999). From practice to theory: A social constructive approach to teacher education.Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(2), 203–218.
Carnegie forum on education and the economy, task force on teaching as a profession. (1986).A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of NewYork.
Challis, D. (2005). Towards the mature e-portfolio: Some implications for higher education.Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31, 3. Retrieved online from: https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26488/19670.
Clift, R., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M.Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERApanel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Washington, DC/Mahwah: AmericanEducation Research Association/Lawrence Earlbaum.
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning (2nd ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling, L. F. (2001). Portfolio as practice: The narratives of emerging teachers. Teaching andTeacher Education, 17(1), 107–121.
Darling-Hammond, D. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society: The child and curriculum. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. London: Collier-MacMillan.Dillon, D. (2017). Straddling teacher candidates’ two worlds to link practice and theory: A self-
study of successful and unsuccessful efforts. Studying Teacher Education, 13(2), 145–164.https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2017.1342352.
Dillon, D., & O’Connor, K. (2010). What should be the role of field experiences in teachereducation programs? In T. Falkenberg & H. Smits (Eds.), Field experiences in the contextof reform of Canadian teacher education programs (pp. 117–146). Winnipeg: Faculty ofEducation of The University of Manitoba. Available online: http://www.umanitoba.ca/education/TEResearch/Book/2009/(Volume 1).pdf.
Dillon, D., Bullock, S., O’Connor, K., Russell, T., Martin, A., & Thomas, L. (2013). Place-basedteacher development: Placing practicum learning at the heart of pre-service teacher Education.In L. Thomas (Ed.), Becoming teacher: Sites for teacher development (pp. 94–120). CanadianAssociation for Teacher Education/Association canadienne pour la formation à’enseignement.Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwVGDOGBDzJdR1R2VGZvakZjUDQ/edit.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promotingreflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6–18.
Donnelly, R. (2006). Integrating learning technologies with experiential learning in a postgraduateteacher education course. Studying Teacher Education, 2(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960600557512.
East, K., Fitzgerald, L. M., & Manke, M. P. (2010). Identifying implications of tensions in a seriesof collaborative self-study groups. Studying Teacher Education, 6, 281–290.
Fletcher, T., Nί Chróinίn, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2016). Multiple layers of interactivity in self-studyof practice research: An empirically-based exploration of methodological issues. In D. Garbett
Portfolio and Self-Study 19
& A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (Self-study ofteacher education practices, pp. 19–25). Auckland: University of Auckland.
Fuentealba, R., & Russell, T. (2016). Critical friends using self-study methods to challengepracticum assumptions and practices. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study asmethodology for professional inquiry (Self-study of teacher education practices, pp. 227–234).Auckland: University of Auckland.
Garbett, D. (2013). Promotion by teaching distinction: Developing resilience and cache for a trackless traveled. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.808045.
Garbett, D., & Ovens, A. (Eds.). (2016). Enacting self-study as methodology for professionalinquiry (Self-study of teacher education practices). Auckland: University of Auckland.
Geursen, J., de Heer, A., Korthagen, F. A. J., Lunenberg, M., & Zwart, R. (2010). The importanceof being aware: Developing professional identities in educators and researchers. StudyingTeacher Education, 6(3), 291–302.
Gipe, J. P. (1996). Self-study through use of the course portfolio. In J. Richards & T. Russell (Eds.),Empowering our future in teacher education: Proceedings of the first international conferenceon self-study of teacher education practices. Kingston: Queen’s University.
Goodlad, J. (1988). School-university partnerships: Rationale and concepts. In K. Sirotnik & J.Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnerships in action: Concepts, cases, and concerns (pp.3–31). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gruenewald, D. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. EducationalResearcher, 32(4), 3–12.
Habanero. (2015). Iris: My learning plan. Retrieved from http://habaneroconsulting.com/member-portals/calgary-board-of-education
Haley-Oliphant, A. (1996). Can portfolios be predictors of future teaching success?: A self-study ofteacher education practices through the analysis of summative student portfolios. In J. Richards& T. Russell (Eds.), Empowering our future in teacher education: Proceedings of the firstinternational conference on self-study of teacher education practices. Kingston: Queen’sUniversity.
Hamilton, M. L. (Ed.). (1998). Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teachereducation. London: Falmer Press.
Hamilton, M. (2018). Bridging the gap from teacher to teacher educator: The role of ateaching portfolio. Studying Teacher Education, 14(1), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2017.1414041.
Hamlin, K., & Weisner Bryant, J. (2007). Teaching & Learning, 22(1), 47–61.Hauge, T. E. (2006). Portfolios and ICT as means of professional learning in teacher education.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(1), 23–36.Heggen, K., Karseth, B., & Kyvik, S. (2010). The relevance of research for the improvement of
education and professional practice. In S. Kyvik & B. Lepori (Eds.), The researchMission of higher Education institutions outside the university sector. Higher Educationdynamics (Vol. 31). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hill, C. M., & MacDonald, M. (2016). Implementation and impact of experiential learning in agraduate level teacher education program: An example from a Canadian university. GlobalEducation Review, 3(4), 54–69.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing.Hopper, T., Sanford, K., & Fu, H. (2016). Finding the connective tissue in teacher education:
Creating new spaces for professional learning to teach. McGill Journal of Education, 51(3),1013–1035.
Johnsen, H. L. (2012). Making learning visible with eportfolios: Coupling the right pedagogy withthe right technology. International Journal of E-portfolio, 2(2), 139–148. Retrieved from http://www.theijep.com/articleView.cfm?id=84.
Johnson, J., & Allen, J. (1996). Widening the lens: Windows into multicultural perspectives. In J.Richards & T. Russell (Eds.), Empowering our future in teacher education: Proceedings of the
20 K. O’Connor et al.
first international conference on self-study of teacher education practices. Kingston: Queen’sUniversity.
Johnson, J., Kaplan, J., & Marsh, S. M. (1996). Professional teaching portfolio: A catalyst forrethinking education. In J. Richards & T. Russell (Eds.), Empowering our future in teachereducation: Proceedings of the first international conference on self-study of teacher educationpractices. Kingston: Queen’s University.
Kelly, L. B. (2018). Compliance and resistance: Showing future teachers how to navigatecurriculum. Studying Teacher Education, 14(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2018.1428794.
Kim, Y. M., & Greene, w. L. (2011). Aligning professional and personal identities: Applying corereflection in teacher education practice. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2), 109–119.
Kimball, M. (2005). Database e-portfolio systems: A critical appraisal. Computers andComposition, 22(4), 434–458.
Kincheloe, J. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. NewYork: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (1998). Unauthorized methods: Strategies for critical teaching. NewYork: Routledge.
Kitchen, J. (2005). Conveying respect and empathy: Becoming a relational teacher educator.Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 195–207.
Kitchen, J., & Russell, T. (2012). Canadian perspectives on the self-study of teacher educationpractices. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Teacher Education.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and professionaldevelopment in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3),267–286.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D., & Lewis, L. (1986). Facilitating experiential learning: Observations and reflections. In L.
Lewis (Ed.), Experiential and simulation techniques for teaching adults (pp. 99–107). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education.Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teachereducation programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020–1041.
Kosnik, C. (2005). No teacher educator left behind: The impact of US policies and trends on mywork as a researcher and teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 209–223.
Kosnik, C., Freese, A., Samaras, A., & Beck, C. (Eds.). (2006). Making a difference in teachereducation through self-study: Studies of personal, professional, and program renewal.Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers.
Kraft, D., & Sakofs, M. (1988). The theory of experiential education. Boulder: Association ofExperiential Education.
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J.J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook ofself-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Loughran, J. J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education
practices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Loughran, J. (2010). Seeking knowledge for teaching: Moving beyond stories. Studying TeacherEducation, 6(3), 221–226.
Loughran, J., & Corrigan, D. (1995). Teaching portfolios: A strategy for developing learning andteaching in preservice education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(6), 565–577.
Loughran, J. J., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2002). Improving teacher education practices through self-study. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Portfolio and Self-Study 21
Loughran, J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). Internationalhandbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lyons, N., & Freidus, H. (2004). The reflective portfolio in self-study: Inquiring into andrepresenting a knowledge of practice. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, &T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher educationpractices (pp. 1073–1107). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lyons, N., Halton, C., & Freidus, H. (2013). Reflective inquiry as transformative self-study forprofessional education and learning. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.808057.
McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the social foundationsof education (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. R. Welton (Ed.), In defense of
the lifeworld (pp. 39–70). Albany: State University of New York Press.Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.Mezirow, J. & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a
physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 86–95.Nickel, J. (2013). Self-assessment of professional growth through reflective portfolios. Phronesis,
2(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.7202/1015640ar.Olafson, L., Giorgis, C., Quinn, L. F., & Falba, C. (2007). A self-study of professional development
through program revision. Studying Teacher Education, 3(2), 155–172.Pinnegar, S. (1998). Introduction to methodology. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing the
education of teachers: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer.Raelin, J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 6(4), 495–519.Raffan, J. (1995). Experiential education and teacher education. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 18(3), 117–119.Rosean, C., & Florio-Ruane, S. (2008). The metaphors by which we teach: Experience, metaphor
and culture in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Marcus, D. J. McIntyre, & K.E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changingcontexts (pp. 706–731). New York: Routledge.
Russell, T., & Martin, A. (2016). Exploring the complex concept of quality in teacher education.In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher Education (pp.143–180). Singapore: Springer.
Samaras, A. P. (2011a). Self-study methods: Why and how. In A. P. Samaras (Ed.), Self-studyteacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry (pp. 87–110).Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Samaras, A. P. (2011b). Collect data. In A. P. Samaras (Ed.), Self-study teacher research: Improvingyour practice through collaborative inquiry (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2009). Looking back and looking forward: An historical overviewof the self-study school. In C. A. Lassonde, S. Galman, & C. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-Study ResearchMethodologies for Teacher Educators (pp. 3–19). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching andlearning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–34.Segall, A. (2002). Disturbing practice: Reading teacher education as text. New York: Peter Lang.Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625–648.
22 K. O’Connor et al.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Teitel, L. (1998). Separations, divorces, and open marriages in professional development schoolpartnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 85–96.
Theobald, P., & Curtiss, J. (2000). Communities as curricula. Forum for Applied Research andPublic Policy, 15(1), 106–111.
Tidwell, D., Heston, M., & Fitzgerald, L. (2009). Methods for self-study of practice. Dordrecht:Springer.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
Vaughan, N. D., Cool, R., MacIsaac, K., & Stogre, T. (2017). ePortfolios as over-arching highimpact practices for degree programs. The AAEEBL ePortfolio Review, 1(3), 36–45. Availableonline at: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.aaeebl.org/resource/resmgr/aepr_/AePR_v1n3.pdf.
Wade, R. C., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolios: A tool for reflective thinking in teachereducation? Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 63–79.
Wade, A., Abrami, P. C., & Sclater, J. (2005). An electronic portfolio to support learning. CanadianJournal of Learning and Technology, 31, 3. Retrieved from: https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26489/19671.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning toteach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of EducationalResearch, 68(2), 130–178.
Wilcox, S. (1996). Understanding the experience of instructional development. In J. Richards & T.Russell (Eds.), Empowering our future in teacher education: Proceedings of the first interna-tional conference on self-study of teacher education practices. Kingston: Queen’s University.
Woodhouse, J. L., & Knapp, C. E. (2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction: Outdoor andenvironmental education approaches. Charleston: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education andSmall Schools.
Young, J. R. (2002). ‘E-portfolios’ could give students a new sense of their accomplishments.The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(26), A31–A32.
Zeichner, K., & Tabatchnik, B. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education “washed out”by school experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7–11.
Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs:What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(5), 613–621.
Portfolio and Self-Study 23
