Advertisement

Presenting Complex Teacher Evaluation Data: Advantages of Dossier Organization Techniques Over Portfolios

  • Kenneth D. Peterson
  • Dannelle Stevens
  • Carol Mack
Article

Abstract

The development of extensive and authentic teacher evaluation raises questions about how best to organize and present the increased amount and variety of assessment materials. Portfolios have been suggested for teacher evaluation because they are well suited to capture the complexities of teaching. However, portfolios 1) are difficult to judge, 2) are difficult to archive, 3) lack key information, 4) miss excellent teachers with simple materials, 5) rarely plan for audiences, 6) distort when required, and 7) bring conflicts of interest. Teacher dossiers are compressed collections of objective data which are easier to judge, demonstrably reliable, and cost-effective.

teacher portfolio performance evaluation documentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bird, T. (1990). The Schoolteacher's Portfolio: An Essay on Possibilities. In J. Millman and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary Teachers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 241-256.Google Scholar
  2. Brauchle, P., Mclarty, J., & Parker, J. (1989). A Portfolio Approach to Using Student Performance Data to Measure Teacher Effectiveness. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 3, 17-30.Google Scholar
  3. Johnson, S.M. (1990). Teachers at Work: Achieving Success in our Schools. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Loup, K., Garland, J., Ellett, C., & Rugutt, J. (1996). Ten Years Later: Findings From a Replication of a Study of Teacher Evaluation Practices in our 100 Largest School Districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 203-226.Google Scholar
  6. McCarthey, S.J., & Peterson, K.D. (1987). Peer Review of Materials in Public School Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 285-293.Google Scholar
  7. Perrone, V. (Ed.) (1991). Expanding Student Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  8. Peterson, K. (1984). Methodological Problems in Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17(4), 62-70.Google Scholar
  9. Peterson, K., & Kauchak, D. (1982). Teacher Evaluation: Perspectives, Practices and Promises. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 233 996. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.Google Scholar
  10. Peterson, K., Kauchak, D. Mitchell, A. McCarthey, S., & Stevens, D. (1986). Utah Teacher Evaluation Project: The Park City Career Ladder Design. ED 265 143. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.Google Scholar
  11. Peterson, K.D. (1988). Reliability of Panel Judgments for Promotion in a School Teacher Career Ladder System. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(4), 95-99.Google Scholar
  12. Peterson, K.D. (1989a). Costs of School Teacher Evaluation in a Career Ladder System. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(2), 30-36.Google Scholar
  13. Peterson, K.D. (1989b). Parent Surveys for School Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2, 309-319.Google Scholar
  14. Peterson, K.D. (1990). DOSSIER: A Computer Expert System Simulation of Professional Judgments on Schoolteacher Promotion. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 134-139.Google Scholar
  15. Peterson, K.D. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  16. Peterson, K., Kauchak, D. Mitchell, A. McCarthey, S., & Stevens, D. (1986). Utah Teacher Evaluation Project: The Park City Career Ladder Design. ED 265 143. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.Google Scholar
  17. Peterson, K., Wilson, J., Ulmer, D., Franklin, N., Mitchell, T., & Winget, L. (1984). Teacher Career Ladders in Utah: Perspectives on Early Development. ED 246 051. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.Google Scholar
  18. Peterson, K., & Kauchak, D. (1982). Teacher Evaluation: Perspectives, Practices and Promises. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 233 996. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.Google Scholar
  19. Peterson, K., & Kauchak, D. (1983). Progress in Development of Lines of Evidence for Teacher Evaluation. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 228 228. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.Google Scholar
  20. Peterson, K., & Mitchell, A. (1985). Teacher Controlled Evaluation in a Career Ladder Program. Educational Leadership, 43(3), 44-49.Google Scholar
  21. Ponzio, R., Peterson, K., Miller, J., & Kinney, M. (1994). A Program Portfolio/Panel Review Evaluation of 4-H Sponsored Community-Based Social Action Projects for At-Risk Youth. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 28(1), 55-65.Google Scholar
  22. Popham, W.J. (1988). Judgment-Based Teacher Evaluation. In S. Stanley, & W. Popham (Eds.), Teacher Evaluation: Six Prescriptions for Success Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, pp. 56-77.Google Scholar
  23. Sanders, W.L., & Horn, S.P. (1995). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVASS): Mixed Model Methodology in Educational Assessment. In A.J. Shinkfield, & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.) Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective Practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 337-350.Google Scholar
  24. Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), AERA Monograph Review on Curriculum Evaluation: No. 1. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 39-83.Google Scholar
  25. Scriven, M. (1973a). Handbook for Model Training Program in Qualitative Educational Evaluation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  26. Scriven, M. (1973b). The Evaluation of Educational Goals, Instructional Procedures and Outcomes. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 079 394. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  27. Scriven, M. (1988). Duty-Based Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(4), 319-334.Google Scholar
  28. Seldin, P. (1997). The Teaching Portfolio: A Practical Guide to Improved Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions, (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  29. Sergiovanni, T. (1977). Reforming Teacher Evaluation: Naturalistic Alternatives. Educational Leadership, 34, 602-607.Google Scholar
  30. Wheeler, P.H. (1994). Before you use Portfolios in Teacher Evaluation... Consider these Issues. AASPA Report, 1(4), 8-9.Google Scholar
  31. Wolf, K. (1991). The Schoolteacher's Portfolio: Issues in Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 129-136.Google Scholar
  32. Wolf, K. (1996). Developing an Effective Teacher Portfolio. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 34-37.Google Scholar
  33. Wolf, K., Hagerty, P., & Whinery, B. (1995). Teaching Portfolios and Portfolio Conversations for Teachers and Teacher Educators. Action in Teacher Education, 17, 30-39.Google Scholar
  34. Wolf, K., Lichtenstein, G., Bartlett, E., & Hartman, D. (1996). Professional Development and Teaching Portfolios: The Douglas County Outstanding Teacher Program. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 279-286.Google Scholar
  35. Wolf, K., Lichtenstein, G., & Stevenson, C. (1997). Portfolios in Teacher Evaluation. In J.H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice, pp. 193-214. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth D. Peterson
    • 1
  • Dannelle Stevens
    • 1
  • Carol Mack
    • 1
  1. 1.Portland State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations