1. Promoting Faculty Buy-in: Developing Ownership of the Portfolio Process Jane Moore, Ed.D, FT National-Louis University Chicago, IL

2. We don’t have a choice…now what do we do about it? Committee created portfolio based on our departmental and programmatic outcomes Participation was less than enthusiastic but all recognized it was not a choice Began mapping courses to align to our outcomes

3. We don’t have a choice… now what do we do about it? Core courses were mapped Concentration courses were mapped but mapping not distributed or used with students. Core course alignment to portfolio was charted and available to students in all core courses.

4. Created by Bernadette Herman

5. Portfolio Schedule

6. Core Instructors Core instructors began to use LiveText as a course management tool Core adjunct instructors were in-serviced on use of LiveText as a course management tool Core instructors became very comfortable with LiveText and extended their use of it

7. Department Faculty In-serviced by program chair on use of LiveText for portfolios and portfolio review Small group and individual training provided “Dummy” portfolios used as practice Shadowing provided by experienced reviewers

8. Students LiveText training integrated into initial core course Core instructors offer individual tech support to students Portfolio “parties” held each quarter to support students in completing portfolios

9. Issues Faculty who did not use LiveText Faculty who did not do reviews by the deadline and felt that the portfolio was imposed on them Faculty did not feel a part of the portfolio process except that they were required to review portfolios

10. Issues Students completing core at the end of their program who because of hour requirements needed to complete the midway portfolio the quarter after their initial portfolio LiveText support not offered through University Help Desk Student comments on portfolio were included in the evaluated document Felt need for revisions

11. Responses Creating of a portfolio committee: One member of each concentration Meet regularly Develop suggestions to be discussed by the entire department Address issues that exist and those that occur Review the portfolio and portfolio process annually Coordinate requests for reviewers in the concentration

12. Responses What worked about the portfolio committee? Meeting held off-site Meeting included brunch All members were invited to contribute problems and solutions What didn’t work about the portfolio committee? Increased workload for those faculty members who participated

13. What the portfolio committee instituted: Anonymous portfolio/program evaluations Committee used Forms in Livetext for feedback. Link is included in the portfolio Portfolio language was simplified to accommodate students for whom English is a second language

14. Responses Committee examined current policies and processes and made recommendations: Due to the amount of time required to both create and review the final portfolio, the number of artifacts were changed from 3 total to 2 total for each outcome Committee recommended a credit workshop to assist students in completing portfolios Committee identified faculty who were capable of doing reviews

15. Responses Committee worked through the University councils to get the Help Desk to support LiveText Chair of the committee trained new faculty members in small groups or individually on reviewing portfolios

16. Responses Committee examined current policies and processes and made recommendations: Develop a glossary of terms to support students in creating their portfolios - each outcome expanded with suggestions for artifacts Committee reported on data from year in terms of numbers of portfolios and reviewers.

17. New Innovations We discussed the possibility of adjuncts reviewing portfolios Department hired a retired adjunct to do so We discussed the possibility of a course designed to support portfolio development Department has changed the format of current core courses to include portfolio development in the first core course making a separate course unnecessary

18. Result Faculty are supporting the portfolio, feeling buy-in to the portfolio process, and making program changes that support both student and faculty needs

19. Responses Committee’s final meeting noted its accomplishments: Revising the language of the portfolio Implementing anonymous comments on the portfolio process through LT Implementing the requirement that at least one artifact per outcome must be from the student ’ s concentration area

20. Responses Committee’s final meeting noted its accomplishments: Changing the requirements to one additional artifact for the final portfolio rather than two. (Effective July 1, 2007 for new portfolios) Creating a glossary for portfolio terms (in progress) Listening to each other and problem-solving together to address issues

21. Questions? Jane Moore Jmoore@nl.edu 847-947-5192