Developing Portfolios for Learning and Assessment

Processes and Principles

Val Klenowski

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781136790515
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The portfolio is a collection of work recording an individual's achievements over an extended period of time. They can be used at all stages of education and professional development and in a variety of ways, to show mastery of subject knowledge, for example, or to help the students develop reflective practice, assess their own

1	Using Portfolios for a Range of Purposes

Assessment Purposes

Different kinds of portfolios result from, and are appropriate for, different educational contexts and purposes. A portfolio that serves the assessment needs of a classroom teacher, for example, may not be the most appropriate form of portfolio for use in a state assessment program. There is no one ‘portfolio’; there are many portfolios.

(Forster and Masters, 1996: 1)

Portfolios can be used for learning, assessment, appraisal and promotional purposes, and the contexts for portfolio use continue to develop and expand. In teacher education, for example, portfolios are being used increasingly for assessing the achievement not only of pre-service teachers but also serving teachers. Lecturers in higher education and serving teachers are expected to present portfolios for promotion and appraisal. This chapter will explore how portfolios are used for a range of assessment purposes in a variety of contexts including primary, secondary and vocational settings.

Assessment fulfils a range of aims. Black (1998) distinguishes between formative, summative and accountability purposes, while Torrance and Pryor (1998) expand on each of these functions to include the promotion of learning through the use of helpful feedback, certification and selection and the accountability of schools through the publication and comparison of results.

The fundamental issues in assessment design are, firstly, ‘fit for purpose’ and, secondly, the need for the mode of assessment to impact positively on teaching and learning (Gipps, 1994). When using portfolios for assessment purposes both these principles of design apply. The essential consideration in the assessment design of the portfolio is the evidence selected for inclusion. As Forster and Masters (1996: 2) indicate, all portfolios are ‘sources of evidence for judgements of...achievement in a range of contexts, from classroom monitoring of student performance to high-stakes summative assessment. All... contain “pieces of evidence”. The more relevant the evidence, the more useful it is for inferring a student’s level of achievement in a learning area.’

A portfolio of work can fulfil the full range of various assessment purposes: accountability, summative assessment, certification, selection, promotion, appraisal and formative assessment in support of teaching and learning processes. Each particular purpose requires varying processes for the collection and selection of evidence. These processes include critical self-evaluation, reflection, meta-cognition and substantive conversation. Descriptions of the various purposes are now offered while the processes integral to the creation of a valid portfolio of work are discussed in the following chapter.

Portfolio use for Summative Purposes

For summative or certification purposes, the portfolio is usually considered along with other evidence. In situations requiring high-stakes decisions the portfolio is embedded within a more comprehensive learning and assessment system. For example, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the implementation of a portfolio system of assessment for the General National Vocational Qualifications (GNVQs), government officials and ministers insisted that the system had to be credible for selection purposes. As Wolf (1998: 422) points out, in the ‘United Kingdom credibility effectively means external examinations’. The GNVQ assessment system has consequently undergone continuous change since it was introduced but does still require the student to produce a portfolio of work. Recent changes have shifted the emphasis to tests and external assessments, reducing the benefits of using the portfolio for learning and assessment purposes. This will be discussed more fully in chapter 4.

The use of portfolios in the Scottish education system is discussed next in relation to summative purposes, and is an example of high-stakes assessment embedded within a more comprehensive learning and assessment system. The Scottish system is described in proportionately more detail than the other sections in this chapter because the use of portfolios for summative purposes also relates to the purposes of selection and certification. Different examples and contexts have been used to illustrate these latter purposes and to demonstrate the range of contexts in which portfolios have been employed. However, to emphasise the detailed level of specification needed when using portfolios for assessment purposes that are considered high stakes, a full description of the Scottish system is offered first. Such systems need to be comprehensive and the many technical and resource considerations necessary are described.

Assessment for summative purposes is designed to provide quality information about a student’s performance without impacting negatively on good teaching and learning practice. For administrative reasons such assessment is usually time-efficient, manageable and inexpensive. An adequate level of reliability is needed for comparability purposes. A consistent approach and consistent grading must be implemented to ensure equity and fairness. Moreover, consistency of standards ensures quality in the overall assessment process and outcomes (Gipps, 1994). Using portfolios for summative purposes requires the specification of standards and contents by education authorities for formal assessment and monitoring.

In the Scottish education system students are expected to produce portfolios (called folios¹) of work in certain subjects. It is in the subject areas of English, art and design, drama, and the creative aspects of technological and computing studies that the folio of work is relevant. Within the Scottish system 98 per cent of secondary students, aged fourteen to sixteen years, study at Standard Grade (equivalent to the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) in England and Wales). This involves two years of study (Years 10 and 11) at Credit Level (assessing grades two and one), General Level (assessing grades four and three) or Foundation Level (assessing grades six and five), generally in seven or eight subject areas. Assessment of these subjects typically requires one-third of the course to be internally assessed. The overall forms of assessment used include examinations, performance-based projects, investigations and folios.

Higher Grade in Scotland is broadly equivalent to the first year of A Level study in England and Wales. Students are sixteen to seventeen years old. Forty-one per cent of the age group gains an award in at least one Higher Grade subject in Year 12. Typically students choose up to five subjects. In Year 13 a minority of those staying on (12 per cent of the age group) pursue their studies at Certificate of Sixth Year Studies (CSYS), equivalent to Upper Sixth. Few would take more than two subjects at this level. The Scottish sixth year is also used to broaden the students’ curriculum at Higher Grade.

First, the extent to which standards and folio contents are specified by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) (which incorporates the former Scottish Examination Board) for formal assessment and monitoring purposes will be illustrated. This will be done by reference to the summary of arrangements for the subject of English at Standard Grade level (Scottish Examination Board, 1996). The course consists of four modes: reading, writing, listening and talking. The interdependent nature of these modes is recognised, and for the purpose of certification the listening mode is subsumed under talking. This results in the three assessable elements of reading, writing and talking. The latter element is internally assessed and does not have implications for the folio. Reading and writing are externally assessed and require the development of a folio of coursework and separate written examinations.

The instructions given to teachers regarding the folio of coursework in the subject of English at Standard Grade are as follows.

For each candidate, a folio of work containing five pieces of extended writing... will require to be submitted to the Board... for assessment. The pieces in the folio should comprise the candidate’s best work and should be selected by the candidate in consultation with the teacher from work undertaken throughout the course. Two grades will be awarded for the folio, one for Reading and one for Writing.

(Scottish Examination Board, 1996: 1)

The Board provides full details of the course and assessment arrangements, including statements of the grade-related criteria, specimen question papers and guidance for candidates and teachers on the production and submission of the folio.

The current Higher Grade course in the subject English follows on and extends the activities pursued at Standard Grade. The study of language through literature pervades the course, and the assessment system allows freedom of choice of the literary texts that will best encourage development and enrichment. The examination consists of: a personal studies folio, worth sixty-five marks; and two papers: Paper I (two hours, five minutes), worth seventy-five marks, and Paper II (one hour, thirty-five minutes), worth fifty-five marks. The personal studies folio is submitted to the SQA for assessment and contains two pieces of coursework in reading and writing undertaken during the year of presentation. These include a review of personal reading (RPR) and either a piece of imaginative writing or a piece of discursive writing. The review of personal reading is an extended piece of writing (1,000 to 1,500 words in length) based on a detailed independent study of a single literary text, or set of short texts, or a comparison of two or more texts, which has (have) not been taught. Excessive length is penalised. Reviews which exceed 1,800 words in length incur a penalty of up to 25 per cent of the available marks. The text(s) are selected by the candidate in consultation with the teacher and are the subject of personal study by the candidate. The review itself is also the work of the candidate. Candidates cannot use the text(s) central to the review of personal reading in answering any other part of the examination, other than in the situation which might arise where an unseen passage set in Paper II, Part 1, Section A (Practical Criticism) coincides with the candidate’s choice.

The candidate, in consultation with the teacher, chooses the topics for imaginative and discursive writing. In the case of the imaginative writing, the written piece takes one of the following forms; its length should be appropriate to the form chosen:

• an essay reflecting on personal experience;
• a piece of prose fiction (short story; episode from novel);
• a poem or set of thematically linked poems;
• a dramatic script (e.g. scene, monologue, sketch).

Candidates opting for the discursive writing are required to produce an extended piece of continuous prose of approximately 600 to 800 words in length. Excessive length is penalised. Discursive writing pieces that exceed 960 words in length incur a penalty of up to 25 per cent of the available marks.

Candidates are informed that in generating items for inclusion in the personal studies folio, they should be advised of the dangers arising from plagiarism and/or collusion with others and of the significance of the candidate declaration that accompanies the submission.

The Scottish Examination Board (predecessor today to SQA) has produced guidance for candidates studying English at Higher Grade relating to the personal studies folio. To further illustrate the degree of specification given by the Scottish Examination Board for the folio of work, reference is made to the various documents provided. These include:

• the summary of arrangements for Higher Grade English (Scottish Examination Board, 1996);
• the Higher Grade English Personal Studies Folio Guidance for Candidates (Scottish Examination Board, 1994a);
• the Higher Grade English Personal Studies Folio Guidance for Teachers (Scottish Examination Board, 1994b); and
• the Guidance for Teachers on Assessment Part 1, The Personal Studies Folio (Scottish Examination Board, 1991).

This latter document deals with the assessment of the personal studies folio: the review of personal reading, imaginative writing and discursive writing.

These documents inform both teachers and students about the contents and the fact that the folio is worth a third of the marks in Higher Grade English. Students are told that they are expected to complete two pieces of written work: a review of personal reading based on texts they have chosen and a piece of imaginative or discursive writing. The length of each piece is given, the penalty incurred if the length is exceeded in all instances is outlined, as are the possible marks that could be attained for each piece. Students are also informed about how to choose what to write, and how to organise their writing, in the review of personal reading. They are made aware of what the examiners will be looking for in grading their reviews. Similar information is given regarding the imaginative and discursive writing. Candidates are urged to present their written work in a legible manner, to indicate the sources or secondary material they have consulted and to state the number of words used in the review of personal reading and in the discursive writing. Candidates must sign a statement to indicate that the work is their own and their teacher must also sign a statement to this effect. The document concludes: ‘If your teacher cannot sign the statement, the Folio is not submitted to the Board’ (Scottish Examinations Board, 1994a: 2). Authenticity in this respect is an important component of reliability.

Teachers of Higher Grade English are also given guidance about the personal studies folio. At the outset it is stated that the personal studies folio ‘has provided candidates with the opportunity to produce extended, well-organised pieces of writing’ (Scottish Examination Board, 1994b: 1). The document offers clarification on the length of the RPR and discursive writing, the subject matter and the production of the work to be included in the personal studies folio. An exemplar of good practice is given:

• Teachers are expected to brief all candidates on the nature of the task (which includes the issuing of Guidance for Candidates), and to offer practical sugges tions as to how best they might choose their subject areas.
• Deadlines for submission of work should be established.
• Teachers are informed that they should encourage candidates to consult with them on a regular basis in order to establish how the task is developing and offer guidance that will allow each candidate to develop his or her thinking on the chosen topic. It is suggested that the teacher should, for example, ask questions, and candidates should be encouraged to seek reasons for their responses to the text(s).
• Teachers are also encouraged to look closely at a first draft, but are informed that they should make it clear that they are not there principally to correct errors, to supply ideas or to take responsibility for production.
• Teachers are also expected to ensure, as fully as they can, that the work...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Using portfolios for a range of purposes
• 2. Key processes in portfolio development
• 3. Key concepts in portfolio assessment
• 4. Problems and pitfalls
• 5. A case study
• 6. Possibilities and principles
• 7. Portfolios and changes in assessment
• Notes
• References
• Index