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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peterson, K.D., Stevens, D. & Mack, C. Presenting Complex Teacher Evaluation Data: Advantages of Dossier Organization Techniques Over Portfolios. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 15, 121–133 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012443829862

Download citation

  • teacher portfolio
  • performance evaluation
  • documentation