Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 129–141 | Cite as

Faculty/Staff Perceptions of a Standards-Based Exit Portfolio System for Graduate Students

Article

ABSTRACT

New standards for certification were recently developed for speech–language pathology graduate training programs by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. The new standards are outcomes-based rather than process-based. Using a collective case study approach, this article highlights the perceptions of faculty and staff regarding use of a standards-based exit portfolio system for students in a Speech–Language Pathology graduate program at a medium-sized, public university after two semesters of use.

KEYWORDS

performance-based portfolio assessment grading rubrics knowledge and skills assessment 

References

  1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Guidelines for developing formative assessment plans for implementation of new standards for the certificate of clinical competence. Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://www.asha.org/ credentilaing/accredidation/CAA_Formative_Assess.htm.Google Scholar
  2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). Background information and standards and implementation for the certificate of clinical competence in speech-language pathology. Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://www.asha. org/members/deskref-journals/deskref/.Google Scholar
  3. Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batson, T. (2002). The electronic portfolio boom: What's it all about? Syllabus, 6(5), 2–4.Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Conderman, G. (2003). Using portfolios in undergraduate special education teacher education programs. Preventing School Failure, 47, 106–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, S. H., Kase, R., Middelton, L., & Monsen, R. B. (2003). Portfolio evaluation for professional competence: Credentialing in genetics for nurses. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  9. Metheny, W. P., Espey, E. L., Bienstock, J., Cox, S. M., Erickson, S. S., Goepfert, A. R., et al. (2005). To the point: Medical education reviews evaluation in context: Assessing learners, teachers, and training programs. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 192, 34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Prus, J., & Johnson, R. (1996). A critical review of student assessment options. Rock Hill, SC: Winthrop University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Quatroche, D. J., Duarte, V., Huffman-Joley, G., & Watkins, S. (2002). Redefining assessment of preservice teachers: Standards-based exit portfolios. Teacher Educator, 37, 268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Wolf, K. (1996) Developing and effective teaching portfolio. Educational Leadership, 46, 34–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Illinois State UniversityIllinoisUSA

Personalised recommendations