ProfPort Webfolio System:
Implementation, Curriculum and
Assessment
A paper presented at The
2003 Educause Annual Conference: Balancing
Opportunities, Expectations, and Resources, in
Copyright Paul Gathercoal,
Douglas Love & Gerry McKean, 2003. This work is the intellectual property
of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for
non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement
appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by
permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires
written permission from the author.
|
Paul Gathercoal,
Ph.D. gatherco@clunet.edu |
Doug Love, Ph.D. |
Gerry McKean,
Ph.D. |
In
recent years, webfolios and ePortfolios have been highly vaunted as the next
great innovation in education (Kilbane & Milman, 2003; Educause: NLII,
2002; Gathercoal, Love, Bryde & McKean, 2002; Gathercoal, Love &
McKean, in press). Prominent in the
literature is optimistic rhetoric praising the benefits of the heuristic and
metacognitive processes native to generating growth and showcase portfolios;
most of the literature indicates that the process is so important and so
valuable to the student, that the process alone is reason enough to “dump”
traditional assessment practices in favor of portfolios, ePortfolios and/or
webfolios.
Gaining
widespread popularity in education, portfolio assessment has tremendous
advantages over traditional one-time, objective-based test assessment. Objective-based test assessment only focuses
on the product and limits the learner's ability to demonstrate the learning
process. It does not allow learners to focus on specific developmental issues
that are important to them, instead forcing them to focus on what the teacher
deems important. Traditional assessment
is a "moment in time glimpse" of a learner's ability to perform a
task or set of tasks. It does not account for any external forces that may be
affecting learners' ability to demonstrate their skills. … In addition,
portfolio assessment allows learners to demonstrate the knowledge they felt was
crucial to their learning experience. Through properly constructed and
thoroughly documented portfolios, learners can chronicle the moments of
discovery that they underwent during their learning journey. (Herman & Morrell, 1999, p.86-87)
The
process of developing a showcase or growth portfolio is of great value to both
the student and the educator. There are
few arguments in the literature that deny portfolio assessment has many
advantages over traditional assessments especially in their role as teaching
and learning tools and as ways of authentically validating student academic
achievements. Criticisms of portfolio
assessment tend to revolve around the more substantive issues of “reliability
and validity,” including whose work is it, and “time and effort.”
Koretz (1998) alludes to
problems with validity inherent in portfolio assessment,
Portfolio
assessment has attributes that make it particularly appealing to those who wish
to use assessment to encourage richer instruction - for example, the
'authentic' nature of some tasks, the reliance on large tasks, the lack of
standardization, and the close integration of assessment with instruction. But
some of these attributes may undermine the ability of the assessments to
provide performance data of comparable meaning across large numbers of schools.
One size may not fit all .…portfolio
scores are used to gauge students' proficiency as writers. The question of
validity in this case is simple in principle: to what degree does a given score
on a writing portfolio justify the intended inference about the student's
proficiency? An examination that offers good support for one inference may
provide weak support, or none at all, for a related
inference. (p.310, 312)
Until significant
inconsistencies between students’ portfolio-based responses to classroom learning
activities and the more objective measures used to test all students’ knowledge
of core concepts are resolved, e.g., the student who receives an “A” on his
written essay but scores in the lowest quartile on the Iowa Basic Skills Test,
critics will always have legitimate arguments that question the substantive
nature of portfolio assessment.
The literature also signals that
portfolio assessment is time and labor intensive to produce, monitor, support
and assess.
…educators
need to take a critical look at both the demands of portfolio assessment and
the nature of their own programs before plunging into this new method of
assessment. Portfolio assessment is far
from a panacea for the limitations of standardized testing, and may in fact
create problems of its own. An appropriate context for the development and use
of portfolios is essential, and this context may not be provided … (Hayes,
1997, p.173)
These
two criticisms of “reliability and validity” and “time and effort” are based on
the old paradigm of portfolio assessment.
However, the use of webfolio systems in education is a paradigm shift
that renders these criticisms invalid.
When the paradigm shifts to student-centered webfolio use the “time and
effort” criticism is conceded as part of the process of teaching and
learning. And the webfolio technology
dramatically increases the educator’s productivity when engaged in portfolio
assessment activities. The swing to webfolio system use is a paradigm shift to
student-centered teaching and learning.
For example, Gathercoal, Love, Bryde and McKean (2002) point out that
the criticism regarding “time and effort” is a substantive problem only when
instructor-centered approaches to teaching and learning are practiced.
The next several years will see it routine for students to
place their completed course assignments on the WWW for faculty to access. Most will not deny this; yet, implicit in
the acceptance of this new situation may be an incorrect vision that the
webfolio will be a traditional portfolio, simply digitized. With this incorrect
vision in place, faculty will dismiss the proposition of a webfolio as yet
another failed attempt at integrating technology into the “true” culture of
education. Unless there is a shift in
the educational unit’s culture, the unit’s educators run the risk of becoming a
leading force in the “neo-Luddite” movement Kurzweil predicts will grow in the
year 2009. (p.31)
When
institutions and educational units make the paradigm shift and the educational
community values and promotes authentic assessment, webfolios tend to
proliferate as they are used to assess and support teaching and learning
simultaneously; and the “time and effort” needed to produce, monitor, support
and assess student webfolios simply becomes a natural extension of the teaching
and learning process. It is merely
another part of the educational culture of the university or college and it is
not even considered a problem.
Criticisms
surrounding the “validity and reliability” of portfolio assessment are best
addressed by investigating the paradigm shift from traditional portfolio
assessment to webfolio assessment, evaluation and reporting at once. Today, standardized tests are driving
modern-day educational practices (Koretz, 1998). Webfolio systems provide a viable alternative
to these standards-based tests. When webfolio
systems are fully and properly implemented professional educators can do away
with standardized tests in favor of webfolio systems that enable
standards-based, authentic assessment, program and instructor evaluation and
reporting as the driving force behind educational practices.
Webfolio
systems facilitate authentic assessment practices complementary with portfolio
assessment; program and instructor evaluation complementary with evaluative
observations used to inform instruction in standards-based teaching and
learning settings; and authentic reporting of student academic achievement
complementary with the practice of sharing student showcase and growth
portfolios. The innate ability of webfolio systems to unite authentic
assessment linked to educational standards, evaluation of educational programs
and instructors, and the ability to report in “authentic ways” academic
achievement linked to educational standards to those who have a need to know,
irrevocably alters the traditional paradigm of portfolio assessment and denies
the old criticisms of “validity and reliability.” It is this substantive improvement,
recognizing and valuing the intrinsic links between portfolio assessment, program
and instructor evaluation and the reporting of academic achievement that
fortify the promise webfolio systems hold for being the next great innovation
in education.
Intrinsic Links
between Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting
Traditionally,
educators have differentiated between assessments, evaluation, and reporting,
rarely making any formal interconnection between the three. However, these three educational practices
are inseparable (Gathercoal, 1995).
Assessment
is generally viewed as an educator's professional judgment of a student’s
academic achievement in relation to the form and content of a course and its
intended outcomes. It is generally
accepted that educators are obliged to convey individual student assessments
that are accurate and truthful statements about academic achievement. In fact, educators have a professional,
ethical, and legal responsibility to convey accurately and truthfully their
knowledge about their students' academic achievement to those who have a need
to know (Gathercoal, 2001). However, accuracy and truth are often confounded by
intrinsic links between assessment, evaluation, and reporting.
Evaluation
is the process of determining the effectiveness of an educator, a course, unit
of work, or particular teaching strategy and it includes making value judgments
that are based on data derived from student assessments. Every good educator
makes decisions about future learning experiences based on students' academic
achievements and the significance of those achievements. For this reason we argue that evaluation and
assessment are partners in determining course content, structure, and
strategies for instruction as assessments are continually used to develop and
inform future curriculum implementation and teaching/learning strategies. Together, assessment and evaluation act as a
compass guiding the course toward its ultimate aim and the lesson toward its
objective. This intrinsic link can skew truth and accuracy in student
assessments since instructors--on some level of awareness--know that their
student assessments are influenced by common perceptions of the curriculum and
its implementation, i.e., assessments are a reflection of the instructor and
his or her instruction. So, when students
flunk courses, ever-present in the minds of educators is the question, "Is
it the student who failed the course or the course that failed the
student?" This chicken and egg
question tacitly affects student assessments.
The
reporting of student academic achievement is also intrinsically linked with
assessment and evaluation. Reporting
provides information about a student's academic achievement and it affects the
student's future educational and employment opportunities. Secondarily, reporting indirectly provides
feedback that is used to make decisions about (evaluate) the instructor and the
course of study. Students’ academic
achievement reports can affect future staffing, levels of student
participation, resource allocation, and perceived need for improving curriculum
and instruction. It is this secondary
function of reporting that can confound the truth and accuracy about students'
academic achievement.
In
order to divine the truth and report accurately about student academic
achievement, teachers necessarily divorce the report (the grade or the comment)
from curriculum and implementation (the teaching strategies used in class, the
course content, and the methodologies used for assessment and reporting). The
need for such a separation between the curriculum and its implementation and the
reporting of student academic achievement is tacitly understood. Our society
silently concurs that teachers operate on a number of assumptions regarding
assessment, evaluation, and reporting; teachers must assume that (a) the course
they are teaching is politically correct, (b) their teaching strategies are
educationally sound, (c) their intended outcomes are achievable by all students
in the class, and (d) the reported student assessments accurately depict the
student's academic achievement at the time. These assumptions are generally
shared throughout our society. (Gathercoal, 1995, p.59)
Rather
than considering assessment, evaluation and reporting in isolation from one
another, education may be better served by thinking of each practice as part of
a holistic process that provides meaningful information to those who have a
need to know about students’ academic achievements, the instruction and the
instructors, the course of study, and the educational environment in which the
learning occurred.
Professional
educators have a legal, ethical, and professional responsibility to communicate
accurate student assessments to a wider concerned audience. Given this responsibility, it is probably
wise to base assessment, evaluation, and reporting practices on sound educational
principles that reflect and dignify the student's academic achievement. Gathercoal (1995) articulated seven
principles of assessment that challenge many traditional assessment practices
and invite professional educators to think holistically about assessment,
evaluation, and reporting. He suggests
educators should:
1.
Focus on learning and
academic achievement. Use assessment practices that contribute to students'
learning…
2.
Provide for equal
opportunity. Ensure that student assessment practices are inclusive of class,
race, age, gender, sexual orientation, and disability…
3.
Make sure that
assessment practices and the values of the discipline are congruent.
Scholarship is important, and assessment, evaluation, and reporting should
reflect the value that schools, colleges, departments, and faculty place on
learning in every discipline…
4.
Recognize limitations.
All assessment, evaluation, and reporting practices will have limitations;
acknowledge them as they arise and, when appropriate, spell them out in your
course syllabus…
5.
Be supportive of
relationships. Highly competitive assessment practices tend to adversely affect
relationships…
6.
View the student as an
active participant in the assessment process.
Invite and value self-assessments and act on them as bases for
assessment, evaluation, and reporting…
7.
Report student
assessments in a consistent and meaningful way. The report should communicate
to a wider audience the student's academic achievement, be consistent with the
assessment practices employed, and be meaningful to all who need to know.
(p.60-61)
Webfolio systems are ripe to
help professional educators embrace and put into service a holistic approach to
assessment, evaluation and reporting that is sensitive to these seven
principles. With the innate ability to
generate for analysis and synthesis, student assessments, information about the
course of instruction and educational standards, webfolio systems allow
students and professional educators to report to an interested and concerned
community about academic achievement and teaching and learning, all within the
context of authentic assessment and standards-based evaluation practices. Such a system for assessment, evaluation and
reporting may well revolutionize the way we do education.
ProfPort Webfolio
System: Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting Example
The Faculty-Side of Assessment, Evaluation and
Reporting
The
ProfPort webfolio process begins with the faculty preparing course and unit
content for their students before they arrive for the semester. Faculty generally only need to prepare a
complete course or unit once as getting ready for an upcoming semester is
usually a simple matter of copying their course management material from the
last semester to the new semester.
Faculty simply take a few minutes to select materials to copy and then
have the system copy those materials and learning activities from a previous
semester to the new academic semester.
Once copied, faculty may add new and revise existing materials as
appropriate.
Figure 1. displays links (highlighted) in the ProfPort Webfolio
System that allow faculty to import syllabi from previous semesters, or from
other faculty’s course management materials, and copy selected learning
activities (competencies, assignments, standards, etc) from previous semesters,
or from other faculty’s course management materials.
Once
materials are copied, it is an uncomplicated transition to update the syllabus
and learning activities to meet the needs of the new students. In this way, the time faculty
spend preparing the ProfPort Webfolio System for students is never
wasted, especially if they will be teaching the same course each semester or if
there are several faculty teaching different sections of the same course. If there are several faculty teaching
different sections of the same course, they can meet and prepare a model course
that contains a common syllabus and common learning activities. Once complete,
the model course, including syllabus and learning activities, may be copied to
other faculties’ courses in the webfolio system. This is a great tool for ensuring equal
opportunity (assessment principle 2) between sections of the same course.
When developing a new course or revising syllabi and
learning activities in an existing course, faculty type or copy and paste their
syllabi information, along with learning activities into appropriate sections
of the ProfPort Webfolio System. The
ProfPort Webfolio System allows faculty to use a built-in web-based
“What-You-See-is-What-You-Get” (WYSIWYG) editor that is as simple to use as a
word processor.
Figure 2. shows the
“What-You-See-is-What-You-Get” (WYSIWYG) edit box that faculty use to create
original content, revise existing content, or copy and paste from a word
processing program or other multimedia sources right into the ProfPort Webfolio
System.
As illustrated in Figure 3, faculty also tie each learning activity to learning
categories, assignment types, curriculum standards, and program goals. In
addition, each assignment faculty place in the system includes a brief
description of the actual task along with sections providing additional
assignment detail, pointers to helpful Internet resources, and criterion
referenced measures for assessment (a rubric).
Figure 3. displays the caption and metadata
that faculty tie to the learning activity students will respond to as they work
towards a demonstration of mastery of the course content.
The Profport Webfolio system supports viewing assessment,
evaluation, and reporting as part of the holistic process previously described
and works within the framework of the seven assessment principles set forth by
Gathercoal (1995). For example, students
place work samples in response to learning activities in their webfolios. Context for the student’s work sample, the
learning activity and syllabus, is maintained by the webfolio system and linked
to the work sample. One or more
individuals or groups assess the work sample in conjunction with the learning
activity. Assessment takes the form of
feedback and comments stored in an on-line log, scores on individual rubrics,
and standardized scores on departmental rubrics.
Students view the assessment responses on-line and in
conjunction with their work sample and the leaning activity. A learning dialog is created when the student
responds to the assessment by improving their work sample. The improved work sample is again assessed
and new comments are added to the assessment log. This dialog may continue until the student
feels they have completed their work and makes no further changes to their work
sample or the faculty completes their assessment and “locks” the work sample
from further modifications. Assessment
principles 1, “Focus on learning and academic achievement…”, 3, “Make sure that
assessment practices and the values of the discipline are congruent…”, 6, “View
the student as an active participant in the assessment process…” , and 7,
“Report student assessments in a consistent and meaningful way...“ are
supported and exemplified by the webfolio assessment process described.
The
linkage inherent in assessment, evaluation, and reporting are further supported
by the Profport Webfolio System when learning activities and work sample
assessment results are reported in conjunction with the learning taxonomy,
educational standards, and program goals that are tied to the learning activity
and the student work samples as illustrated in Figure 3.
There
is a great deal of flexibility in defining the assessment rubric as educators
are simply provided with a blank WYSIWYG edit box for developing and
communicating their rubric for each learning activity and a blank likert scale
type assessment tool for summative scoring of student work at the program or
departmental level.
Figure 4. exhibits two rubrics generated in the blank WYSIWYG edit box
by faculty for two different assignments.
Figure 5. exhibits the likert scale type assessment tool for summative
scoring of student work at the departmental level.
The flexibility allowed for
educators to design, develop and communicate their own assessment rubrics or
criteria does much to complement assessment principle 1, “Focus on learning and
academic achievement. Use assessment practices that contribute to students'
learning.” It also helps educators to be
mindful of and sensitive to assessment principle 2, “Provide for equal
opportunity. Ensure that student assessment practices are inclusive of class,
race, age, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.” With “template” rubrics and assessment criteria,
faculty are sometimes limited to a few choices that
may not be appropriate for all students.
The lack of “embedded structure” actually provides faculty with more
professional autonomy that will work to the benefit of all students.
The
ProfPort Webfolio System maintains faculty and student content both as it
existed for previous semesters and as it exists for the new semester. This
assures that someone looking at a student’s work sample (artifact) several
years later also will be able to see the actual assignment as it existed when
the student created the artifact. As an
intended by-product of the assessment and evaluation process, faculty’s syllabi
and course work continuously improve with the updates and curricular
modifications over time.
The Student-Side of Assessment, Evaluation and
Reporting
The ProfPort Webfolio System allows
students to house and display both growth and showcase portfolios. A student's webfolio contains a myriad of
multimedia artifacts (work samples) produced over time. Consisting of formal course assignments,
student life activities, and career planning initiatives, a student’s webfolio
demonstrates mastery of program and course standards or competencies as he or
she builds an organized omnibus of multimedia artifacts on the World-Wide
Web. Each student’s webfolio illustrates how he or she is interweaving
formal course work, career planning, and student life activities and developing
his or her own unique educational experience.
They use
a built-in web-based “What-You-See-is-What-You-Get” (WYSIWYG) editor that is as
simple to use as a word processor. Students
determine what work samples are displayed in their own webfolio and what groups
may view which work samples in their webfolio. They can also add their
own captions and corresponding work samples for learning and out-side of class
activities that are not formally provided as part of a course to their
webfolio. The new captions are added
within the context of a course or program they have registered for in the
webfolio system. Program standards,
course competencies, and guidelines enhance the student’s work samples and all
are automatically organized as contextual reference points and viewable as
links attached to the student’s artifact or work sample.
Figure 6. exhibits a typical student webfolio as viewed in the
“display mode” on the student-side of the ProfPort Webfolio System (please note
the student’s name and picture have been altered). Also displayed are the links that allow
students to generate “New Caption,” “Modify Caption,” and “Delete
Caption.” The student’s work sample is
given context for assessment, evaluation, and reporting by the links to the learning
activity that generated the work sample (Activity/Assignment) and the course
syllabus.
As indicated above, students have a great deal of autonomy in
determining who will view what work samples in their webfolio. This autonomy in reporting speaks directly to
principles of assessment 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
The linked contextual information helps to inform others about the
limitations of assessment (principle 4), convey the value of the assigned work
(principle 3) and also helps to report in a meaningful way (principle 7) by
providing information about the course, via the syllabus, and the assignment description,
help, resources and assessment criteria specified by the faculty. The student’s ability to determine what items
will be viewed in the webfolio speaks loudly to principle 6, that students will
have some say in the assessment process.
Also, allowing students autonomy in determining who will view their
webfolio artifacts works well to address principle 5, as it is supportive of
relationships and does much to reduce competition among students. While student autonomy is one great advantage
of the ProfPort Webfolio System, it is nothing without the assistance, guidance
and mentoring of faculty and administrators who set up the system.
At the beginning of the semester, students add the new courses and
units of work prepared for them to their ProfPort webfolios by selecting from a
list of faculty-generated courses and units of work. When registered for the course, the student
can then see every assignment, activity, and project (learning activity) listed
in his or her webfolio’s
table of contents. That is, unless the
faculty person has decided to use the automatic scheduling feature to hide the
assignment from students until some later date (See Figure 3.,
“Competency will appear in Webfolio”).
In that case, the assignments will appear in the students’ webfolios throughout the semester
on the faculty’s predetermined dates that indicate when specific assignments should
appear. Either way, when an assignment
appears in the table of contents the description, models, resources and rubric
for assessment for each assignment are just a click away for every student in
the class.
Invariably
at least one student asks if they can see examples from past students’
work. Some students appear surprised at
the glee with which faculty grant these requests, as they simply call up past
students’ work from the ProfPort Webfolio System and orally comment on the
qualities of the work done by previous students. Although more subtle in approach, the
teacher’s goal is the same as that of the early twentieth century industrialist
who took a piece of chalk and scrawled the night shift’s production number on
the factory floor for the morning shift to see how productive they had been
that night. By sharing past students’
work with current students, faculty members convey and raise expectations as
students will be motivated to meet or beat the quality of the previous piece of
work.
What
happens to the webfolios of graduates?
After just a few assignments, students see the potential value of the
webfolios they are producing and want to know how long they will be kept after
they graduate. Those graduating
understand that their webfolios are powerful marketing tools when they look for
their first job. They particularly relish
the capability to individually set access to each section of their webfolio so
that their instructors can view the complete portfolio, but a recruiter,
mentor, or parent may only see a subset of work samples that the student wants
them to view. So how long will they be
kept? The webfolio vision is that they
should be kept forever.
Cyberspace is cheap and it’s getting cheaper. Have you filled up your hard drive?
Assessment, Evaluation
and Reporting
All assessment comments and
scores are maintained for each student on each artifact over time. Both quantitative and qualitative assessments are available. Since standards are associated with learning
activities and with student work samples, the assessments attached to the
student work samples can be used to provide a wealth of information regarding
program and instructor evaluation. This
simple act involving a few mouse clicks combined with the assessment scores
faculty assign to each student’s response to the learning activity can be used
to address critical assessment and evaluation questions, like:
ü
Overall, have program
goals and standards been met or improved?
ü
Are there holes in the
fabric of the curriculum?
ü
Have specific program
goals and standards been met?
ü
What is the
inter-rater reliability for scoring assignments by different faculty?
ü
Are individual
students meeting goals and standards?
ü
Is the curriculum
designed for success?
The
ProfPort Webfolio System allows a system administrator to export selected
information that is needed to answer these and other critical assessment and
evaluation questions. This information
can then be imported into SPSS, SAS, EXCEL, and other analysis and graphical
presentation packages.
Figure 7. presents some of the over 5,000 records of metadata that
were exported from the ProfPort Webfolio System and imported into EXCEL.
Graphs
can be generated to indicate the percent of student work assessed below,
meeting, and exceeding faculty expectations for multiple years. Charts can be produced that show how mastery
of a standard is being developed throughout the curriculum. The visual impact immediately conveys whether
there is proper scope and sequence within the curriculum to meet state and
institutional standards and whether the curriculum is helping students to
achieve those standards.
Figure 8. shows a graphic representation of metadata collected in and
exported from the ProfPort Webfolio System and imported
into EXCEL and presented in PowerPoint slides.
Conclusion
This
article has argued how it is possible that the ProfPort Webfolio System and
other webfolio systems like it can challenge the mystique and authority of
standardized tests as the guiding force behind education today. As Gathercoal, Love, Bryde and McKean (2002)
mooted in their article, On implementing web-base electronic portfolios,
“A well-designed curriculum embedded in a webfolio system, conveying academic
standards, appropriate resources and providing vehicles for faculty mentoring,
enables student’s development and upkeep of developmental, growth and showcase
portfolios at once. A web-based
electronic portfolio system acknowledges and appreciates the intrinsic links
between student assessment, faculty and program evaluation and the meaningful
reporting of assessments and evaluations to interested third parties.” In the
capable hands of professional educators who have the best interests of their
students at heart, webfolio systems may permanently transform assessment,
evaluation and reporting to comprise authentic assessment, evaluation and
reporting.
References
Educause: National Learning
Infrastructure Initiative. (2002). Electronic Portfolios
(NLII 2002-2003 Key Theme). http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/eportfolios.asp
Gathercoal, F. (2001) Judicious Discipline
(5th Ed.).
Gathercoal, P. (1995). Principles of assessment. The
Clearing House, 69(1), 59-61.
Gathercoal, P.,
Love, D., Bryde, B. & McKean, G. (2002). On implementing web-base electronic
portfolios. Educause Quarterly.
25(2) 29-37.
Gathercoal, P., Love, D., &
McKean, G. (in press). Portfolios to webfolios and beyond: Levels of
maturation. Educause Quarterly
Hayes, E. (1997). Portfolio
assessment in adult basic education: A
pilot study. Adult Basic Education. 7(3)
165-173.
Herman, L. P.
& Morrell M. (1999). Educational
progressions: Electronic portfolios in a
virtual classroom. T.H.E. Jounal. 26(11) 86-89.
Kilbane, C. R.
& Milman N. B. (2003). The digital
teaching portfolio handbook: A how-to guide for educators. Allyn
& Bacon.
Koretz, D. (1998). Large-scale
portfolio assessments in the
Simon, M. &
Forgette-Giroux, R. (2000). Impact of a content selection framework on portfolio assessment at
the classroom level. Assessment in Education.
7(1) 83-101.