Portfolio assessment
Part 1 of a series on different forms of assessment
Professor Don McAlpine NZAGC patron
Reprinted with permission from McAlpine, D. (2000) Assessment and the Gifted.
Tall Poppies, 25 (1).
The chances are that if you talk to someone about assessment in relation to giftedness it will not be long before they discuss intelligence testing and the I.Q. It is perhaps not surprising that this should be the case, since the early concept of giftedness was based on mental measurement and the I.Q. What is surprising, however, is that it is still so common.
For several years now, research has focused on multiple abilities and on cognitive and metacognitive processes (Cardner, 1993; Sternberg & Zhang, 1995).
Likewise, the concept of giftedness has broadened to include a wide range of abilities including the creative, social, visual and performing arts, etc. Assessments related to these wider dimensions have also been developed, although seldom with the degree of reliability associated with tests of "intelligence" or scholastic abilities.
Historically, a high proportion of assessment associated with giftedness has been to do with categorisation, selection, or identification. But what kind of assessments do teachers use everyday with gifted children in their classes?
Assessment in the classroom
While some teachers may still use an "intelligence" test as part of a battery of tests with other evaluation procedures for identifying students with special abilities, they are unlikely to use them to assist with student learning or to illuminate the curriculum.
Intelligence tests belong to a group of tests referred to as norm-referenced (test scores report an individual's relative standing in a known group). Apart from the Test of Scholastic Abilities (TOSCA), (Reid, Jackson, Gilmore and Croft, 1981) and the Progressive Achievement Test (PAT) series (Reid et al (1991), New Zealand teachers are not likely to use many norm-referenced tests as part of their assessment. The trend is toward criterion-referenced tests (measures of performance are reported in terms of clearly defined domains of learning). Achievement-based assessment and standards-based assessment are criterion-referenced. Assessments based on unit standards (NZQA) are also criterion-referenced. Most teacher-made tests can loosely be described as criterion-referenced.
Norm-referenced tests allow students with special abilities to excel, to be "tops". However, criterion referenced assessments do not offer such opportunities. Assessment tasks related to this form of assessment often have low "ceilings" (little challenge) and progress in small step-by-step increments and sequences. In a recent study, gifted students reported that assessments based on unit standards in school trials in maths and geography (secondary schools) lacked challenge and were "boring" (Coutts & McAlpine, 1996). A wide range of assessment procedures is available to teachers today. Some of these procedures are relevant and promising for students with special abilities and many teachers in New Zealand are utilising them well with this and other groups of students. I have selected three forms of assessments, which are particularly relevant for students with special abilities, for brief discussion over three issues of Tall Poppies. These are:
- portfolio assessment
- authentic assessment
- self assessment.
Portfolio assessment
What is the history of portfolio assessment?
Portfolios reflect a move away from normative, test score, quantitative methods of addressing student performance to more standards-based, authentic, qualitative methods.
Portfolio assessment also reflects a move away from the teacher at the centre controlling assessment, to the student at the centre self-determining assessment. In truth, it is more of a partnership between student and teacher, where conferencing on what should be included in a portfolio, what assessment criteria should be used, and what future goals should be pursued are discussed by both student and teacher.
Portfolio assessment offers more autonomy and student choice in learning and assessing, for example, in choice of content, and choice of ways of presenting material.
What are some of the characteristics of portfolio assessment?
Portfolios:
- accentuate the positive, and generally include samples of "best performance"
- show systematic evidence of student achievement
- reflect a sample of student work over time
- include a rich variety of style and content, and
- encourage higher levels of reflective practice and self assessment.
What are some of the different kinds of portfolios?
There are three common types of assessment portfolios. The first, and most commonly found in New Zealand schools, is the student portfolio, or working portfolio. Its main emphasis is on best performance, but it may be used to illustrate improved performance over time with a wide range of standards of work. Teacher and student act as partners in learning and assessment with a strong emphasis on critical analysis, self-reflection, and self- assessment (Forster & Masters, 1996).
The second kind of portfolio is called the "standards-based portfolio". With this form of portfolio, selection of content is more controlled by the teacher and the curriculum. All students in a class may do work on a particular set of specific curriculum objectives. Assessment is based on grade-related criteria as in some criterion-referenced assessment. Claims of greater reliability and validity are made for this kind of portfolio. While it has been the main form of portfolio assessment in some parts of the United States (for example, Vermont), it has not proved popular in New Zealand.
The third kind of portfolio is called a "show portfolio" and is typically found at the secondary and tertiary levels of education. Assessment is more likely to be summative rather than formative, and it may be performed by independent outside assessors. If such portfolios are used for course entry and selection, they generally reflect "high stakes" assessment.
What are some of the advantages of portfolio assessment?
Portfolio assessment:
- is a positive statement of achievement
- is highly motivating for the student and tends to emphasise intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation
- allows a high degree of student autonomy and choice
- encourages the development of higher levels of self assessment and decision making
- forces the student to constantly evaluate learning, for example, to select content, to choose appropriate methods of representing the content, to assess performance, and to take the next step in choosing appropriate objectives
- emphasises the close link between learning and assessment
- reflects holistic learning and assessment, and
- develops a fairly comprehensive picture of a student's best performance over a sustained period of time.
While there are also some enduring problems with portfolio assessment, e.g. staff training and development, criteria connected with selecting, discarding, and storing work, time involved in teacher conferencing, reliability and validity of measures and problems related to ownership/privacy of portfolio content, they are not insurmountable.
In conclusion, there are many characteristics of gifted students which are nurtured through portfolio assessment. Some of these include intrinsic motivation, goal directedness, and persistence and preference for independent learning (Moltzen, 1996).
Portfolios also offer students with special abilities the opportunity to excel and to offer "best performances" in areas of personal interest. Portfolio assessment encourages higher-level reflective practices and self-assessment. It also offers opportunities for sustained in-depth for study over relatively long periods of time. For those with high creative abilities, portfolios allow opportunities for imaginative and creative productions.
There are also similarities between processes and products related to portfolios and enrichment, and research opportunities associated with Type III activities (Renzulli and Reis, 1985).
In many ways, portfolios are the harbingers of real-life productions.
References
Cardner, H. (1993)Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. USA: Basic Books.
Coutts, C., and McAlpine, D. (1996) Monitoring the Qualification. Framework trials in schools: Evaluation of the external moderations system. Palmerston North: Educational Research and Development Centre, Massey University.
Forster, M., and Masters, G. (1996) Portfolios: Assessment resource kit. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Moltzen, R. (1996) Characteristics of gifted children. In, McAlpine, D. and Moltzen, R (Eds), Gifted and Talented: New Zealand Perspectives. Palmerston North ERDC Press, Massey University.
Reid, N.A., et al (1991) Progressive Achievement Tests. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Reid, N.A., Jackson, P., Gilmore, A., and Croft, C. (1981) Test of scholastic abilities (TOSCA). Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Renzulli, J.S., and Reis, S.M. (1985) The school wide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Centre, C.T: Creative Learning Press.
Sternberg, R.J., and Zhang, L.(1995) What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39 (2) 88-94.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to acknowledge some helpful comments from Neil Reid in reading this script.