What did they try?

The Department of Education at UMBC worked with "cohorts" of teacher candidates completing their internship to develop a system and process by which these teacher candidates could demonstrate their competencies in professional standards, including the Maryland Teacher Technology Standards, through an electronic portfolio. The project was embedded in the development of an original and customized electronic system for showcasing evidence, as well as the development of policies, protocols, and procedures related to the electronic portfolio for future implementation.

What worked and why?

• The customized electronic system for the electronic portfolio, the Education Accountability System, is very successful. The system can host a teacher candidates portfolio for multiple years and can package information a number of ways, e.g. on CD's.
• A series of workshops and seminars that participants attended helped them with their initial struggle with the concepts and practices of data-driven instruction and how to choose artifacts for the portfolio that moved beyond lesson plans and that best provided evidence of their skill. Ultimately, participants developed exemplary portfolios.
• The protocol used to review or score the electronic portfolio included participation of multiple stakeholders, such as principals and the mentor teachers in schools. The process required consensus scoring using a common scoring tool.

What didn't work and why?

• Initially the requirement to do an e-portfolio was given to teacher candidates in the 2^nd phase of their internship, when they were in schools as full-time teachers. This was difficult for them to manage since they were often overwhelmed with the duties of their internship and had limited time to devote to ePortfolio development.
• Because the customized system was new and under development, there were technical and training issues, which sometimes distracted participants from focusing on the standards or content of their portfolios.
• Because the system is customized, the IT division of the university will not let this system be integrated with other systems in the university. It also makes it programmer-dependent, which became an issue when the central programmer left and no new programming could take place. Commercial products might be a better alternative.
• Participant attrition in the cohort as well as staff role changes make continuity difficult at times.

What will they do next?

• Start with the fourth cohort of interns but include them from only ONE program area rather than leave participation open to all programs.
• Begin the process in phase 1 of the internship and move the focus away from the format of the ePortfolio to the standards themselves and what skills participants will need to demonstrate. The portfolio then makes sense in that context.
• Continue the participants' presentations or showcasing of their ePortfolios where new students are invited. These new students can then begin thinking about portfolios early.
• Continue a developmental approach to artifacts and the requirement that each portfolio must have at least a two week lesson plan with pre and post student data, student work, changes to instruction and reflections.
• Request extension of grant activities until Summer 2006.