10
Portfolio Concern Survey Results
Teacher Education Averages
C&F Averages
HPERD Averages
9
9.00
8.57
8.45
8
8.18
8.00
7.86
7.71
7.55
7.43
7
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
6.14
6.00
7.50
6.82
6.73
6
8.40
8.29
8.14
6.82
6.71
6.57
6.14
5
5.18
4.91
5.71
5.64
5.09
8.53
7.73
5.33
5.14
4.91
5.00
4.89
8.15
4.67
7.47
4.56
6.33
6.07
5.86
5.07
3
3.45
6.13
6.10
5.83
5.71
8.27
7.85
4.67
8.38
7.93
7.15
6.14
6.00
5.57
5.40
5.27
7.00
6.92
6.57
6.67
6.33
5.64
4
7.30
7.00
5.50
5.40
5.21
2
1
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Questions
Level of Concern Survey Questions
Concerns about the meaningfulness of the portfolio
The current portfolio is not meaningful to students. Students do not understand the rationale and underlying structure of the portfolio. This leads
1 to poor quality reflections, poor artifact choices, and frustration with artifact assessments
2
3
Student autonomy for selecting artifacts needs to be preserved.
Comments
Concerns about timing and sequence
Instructors not evaluating on time or not evaluating at all, leaving students with locked artifacts that
10 no one can access except the instructor.
Timing of when artifacts are due/assessed (artifacts due near the end of the semester cannot be
11 assessed in time to include in a checkpoint portfolio.
Students who receive an incomplete for a class due to not submitting portfolio artifacts have no
12 way of submitting these artifacts after the class is over to satisfy the incomplete.
13
Comments
Concerns about technical aspects of the portfolio
4 Submission issues: A variety of issues related to student difficulties in submitting artifacts and checkpoint portfolios.
5
Instructor assessment issues: Instructors feel that assessment is cumbersome and still has some technical glitches that do not work properly.
Accessibility of information: Advisors, assessors, and remediation board would like easy access to see more (previous assessments, other
6 assessments, artifact grading).
Usefulness: Students cannot create more than one portfolio at CSU. This causes difficulties for students who did an undergraduate and a graduate
7 degree here
Need to highlight the “employment” portfolio more
8
9 Comments
Concerns about training and instruction
Technical training (students and instructors). Submitting artifacts and checkpoint portfolios,
14 assessing artifacts and checkpoints,
Content training (students and instructors). Outcomes, rubrics, assessing artifacts with rubrics,
15 matching artifacts to outcomes, selection of appropriate artifacts, reflection sheets.
16
Training materials are not prominent and communicated uniformly to faculty and students.
Instructors not adhering to established required artifacts for their course.
17
18 Comments
Concerns about benchmark checkpoints
19
Expectations for checkpoint assessors unclear
Checkpoint 3 & 4 assessors have too much responsibility (making up for
20 instructors who do not assess)
Concerns about measurement and grading
25
26
Rubrics are not specific or applicable to artifacts
Rubrics require that you assess things that may not be related to the artifact
Some assessors override previous artifact and checkpoint assessments. This
22 is extremely confusing for students.
Reliance on narrative, qualitative rubrics makes quantification and utility of
27 data difficult
Portfolio data is not useful for SPA reports (most SPAs are not using portfolio
28 data, or SPAs are critical of the portfolio data)
Once student receives proficient they think they are done with the outcome
23
24 Comments
Grading is inconsistent across assessors
29
30 Holistic rubrics are too wordy/difficult to use
21
Checkpoint 2 not useful/robust/underutilized
31
Comments
Other general portfolio concerns
Transfer students do not have assessed required artifacts from prior courses
32
33 Comments
29
30
32