1. Purdue Electronic Portfolio
P3T3: Purdue Program for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use Technology
School of Education
Purdue University

2. Portfolios

3. Portfolios
Are purposeful collections of student work that illustrate efforts, progress, and achievement.
Focus on growth and development over time.
Provide a richer picture of student performance than can be gained through more traditional, objective measures.
Barrett, H. (2001, August). Electronic portfolio development strategies. PT3 Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

4. Purdue Portfolios
Purposeful, chronological collections of selected student work that exhibit to the student and others the student’s progress, achievement and effort over time.
Grounded in the written standards as developed by the Indiana Professional Standards Board.
Tools for self-reflection of students’ learning, documentation of their professional growth, and preparation for performance-based licensure.
Report of the Portfolio Task Force. (2000, May).

5. Portfolio Processes Collection Selection Reflection Projection
Students gather materials to show knowledge, dispositions, and performance.
Selection
Students identify those artifacts that they believe address standards.
Reflection
Students think about their own evolving teaching practice.
Projection
Students consider what steps they need to take to improve.
Danielson and Abrutyn (as cited in Barrett, 2001)

6. Why Electronic?
Allows for artifacts in multiple media types (text, graphics, audio, video).
Supports hyperlinking to interconnect work and link to standards.
Portable, accessible, easily backed up, and avoids space demands of paper.
Creation helps students develop their own technology skills.

7. Purdue Electronic Portfolio

8. Purdue Electronic Portfolio
As one part of the P3T3 project, we are conceptualizing and building a dynamic digital multimedia portfolio, or e-portfolio, system that will allow our pre-service teachers to:
document knowledge and ability to teach,
reflect on their teaching growth and development, and
demonstrate proficiency with technology.

9. Purposes Assessment of students’ work On-going reflection on teaching
Artifacts are (mostly) key projects or assignments from courses.
Portfolios will be reviewed at 4 checkpoints or gates in the teacher education program.
On-going reflection on teaching
Assembling examples of work for seeking employment or subsequent state certification

10. Technology
A database to hold students’ portfolio artifacts has been constructed using Microsoft’s SQL Server, a large-scale database application.
The hardware consists of a powerful IBM server with about 2 terabytes of total disk storage.
A web front-end allows users to have convenient access via any web browser.

11. Usage
Pilot testing, with about 800 users, took place during the academic year.
Use of the system became required for students entering teacher education beginning Fall of 2002.
Build-up will continue over the next two years; when fully implemented about 2000 students will use the system.

12. Student Use Students upload, maintain, and classify digital files.
Students use files to construct portfolio artifacts, which are intended to demonstrate meeting of standards. Artifacts are usually course assignments.
Artifacts are used to construct portfolios, which are reviewed at gates as part of Purdue’s Unit Assessment System.

13. PEP Organization
Files
Artifacts
Portfolio

14. Standards
Students overtly identify relevant INTASC principles and Purdue themes related to artifacts.
Artifact and portfolio narratives are used to elaborate on connections to relevant state and national standards.

15. Instructor Role
Instructors, each semester, must create course entries in the PEP system. Courses must exist before student can link assignments to them.
Instructors assess and ultimately approve students’ artifacts as part of courses (or by mutual consent if a student produces an artifact outside of a course).

16. Gatekeeper Role
Gatekeepers are faculty members who review student portfolios at gates.
Gatekeeping occurs for a particular gate and major in a given semester.
Gatekeepers then assess students’ overall portfolios and judge whether they are acceptable or not.

17. Demonstration
Let’s see a demonstration of some of the basic functionality of this system.
Please note: while basic functions have been developed, features are continuing to be created and refined. The system is not yet as fully developed as we anticipate it will be in the end.
Student Side
Instructor Side

18. On-Going Work
Faculty committees are finalizing the rubrics and procedures to be employed as part of gate reviews.
Consideration is now being given to developing a more comprehensive set of linkages to relevant state and national standards.

19. Questions?

20. For more information
Visit us on the web: