Student Portfolios and Authentic Learning Outcomes Assessment

A. Rae Clementz
Ron Pitt
Faculty Development Center
Bryant College
November 17, 2002
Introduction
There are two parallel initiatives at Bryant College currently under development. The first is that of a student
professional portfolio a mechanism by which students can demonstrate their skills and achievements
along a number of dimensions to potential employers and other external and internal constituencies such as
advisors, colleagues, parents, scholarship committees, and graduate schools. The second is a form of
authentic performance assessment a mechanism by which Bryant College can determine the degree to
which the undergraduate program is meeting its mission and instructional objectives by examining the
overall performance of its students. One common tool for conducting this kind of authentic performance
assessment and that was strongly suggested in some of the Learning Outcomes Assessment Subcommittee
reports in Spring 2002 is a portfolio. This commonality of terms has led to a series of legitimate questions
about the purposes, forms, and functions of a somewhat nebulous Bryant Portfolio.
The objectives of this paper are to:

Clarify the differences and areas of commonality between these two initiatives
Propose a structure and process by which these two initiatives may be pursued while
maintaining a degree of separation as well as connectedness

Process, Form, and Function of the Assessment Portfolio

Although the professional portfolio and portfolio assessment share a word in their names, they represent
different physical objects and are surrounded by different purposes, contexts, and procedures. Based on
the assessment subcommittee reports, the assessment portfolio needs to have certain characteristics.
1. The skills and qualities associated with the undergraduate mission cut across numerous areas of the
curriculum and are not discipline-specific. Rather than design or implement new assessment
instruments, the assessment process should build upon existing coursework that is designated to be
rich in particular learning outcomes (course-embedded assessment).
2. The complete group of stakeholders in a portfolio assessment must be identified, and their interests and
concerns must be accommodated in a manner that ensures confidence in the results. In particular,
student assessment must not, in any way, become bound up with or confused with faculty or course
assessment.
3. The mechanisms by which the assessment portfolios are constructed must be established in a manner
that all the stakeholders are comfortable with the types of evidence, the confidentiality of the evidence,
and the control over that evidence.
4. There must be either a complete or a representative sampling of the portfolios of the student
population, in order for the full range of student learning outcomes to be apparent.

5. A clear set of acceptable types of artifacts or evidence of learning outcomes must be established, so
that evaluating the artifacts does not become a case of comparing apples to oranges to bananas.
6. Associated with the range of acceptable evidence, quality benchmarks must be identified that
determine the quality of student performance.
7. A process must be created by which the level of quality of the evidence can be assessed with
objectivity, validity, and repeatability. This may require the involvement of an external, disinterested
third party.
8. Finally, a systematic review of the process must be developed and implemented, to ensure that the
process meets all needs.
How Students View a Portfolio
While the characteristics described above may serve the needs of a portfolio assessment at Bryant College,
they do not necessarily meet the needs and objectives of the students. In general, the student concept of a
portfolio tends to be that of a professional portfolio, i.e. a tool in gaining employment (Young, 2002). In an
informal set of brief, voluntary interviews of students conducted over the lunch hours in the Rotunda during
October 2002 by Rae Clementz, Bryant students were asked In what ways do you think a portfolio would
be useful? All of the thirty-three students interviewed responded with some variation of to help me get a
job, with one student also indicating that it might be helpful for getting into graduate school. When asked,
What purpose should a portfolio serve?, again all students interviewed indicated that it should demonstrate
their skills or achievements. Interestingly, roughly 30% of the respondents qualified their comments with of
interest to the company Im interviewing with. This suggested that rather than an abstract and generic set
of learning outcomes, students wanted a portfolio that demonstrated specific, job related skills. What was
also implied, although never directly stated, was that students wanted a portfolio that was adaptable, so that
different skills could be emphasized depending on the interests and focus of a potential employer.
The student portfolio can be further separated from an assessment portfolio in the types of evidence
collected and the ways they are presented. An assessment portfolio is likely to contain whole projects or
assignments and may even include associated interim deliverables. When asked what types of items
should go into a portfolio, the majority of the students interviewed said samples of my best work. Several
people even stated nothing from my freshman or sophomore classes. This difference was further reflected
in their answers to the question What characteristics would a portfolio have? Twenty-nine of the thirtythree students indicated that the portfolio should look very professional. Somewhat surprisingly, when
asked what format or delivery method would be most appropriate for a portfolio, the majority of students said
it should be paper-based, although definitely electronically generated. When asked to explain why a paperbased format was best, the explanations revolved around not having access to computers during an
interview, a lack of interest and/or lack of time on the part of the interviewer, and a desire to be consistent
with perceived corporate practices. The format suggested by the students surveyed was consistent with the
format corporate recruiters find most valuable streamlined, and with specific pieces of evidence of a skill,
trait, or ability.
Finally, there is the question of whether a portfolio should be an optional activity or a program requirement
which would require a major restructuring of the curriculum at Bryant College. Both methods are being used
at different schools with varying degrees of success. A member of the Educational Technology
Development Group at the University of Washington was quoted as saying, If a student is putting a portfolio
together just to satisfy some graduation requirement, he or she might feel resentful about the process, and
the end result will probably not be very useful (Young, 2002). This sentiment was echoed at Bryant where
slightly over half of the students interviewed indicated that they would create a portfolio, even if it were

optional, and in some cases, especially if it were optional. One student commented that, making a portfolio
is a way to differentiate myself from my peers. Im willing to go above and beyond whats required, and that
makes me better. However, almost half the students said they would not create a portfolio unless required
to do so. One of the students who was for making the portfolio a requirement explained, Id probably hate it
while I was doing it, but when it was done, Id be glad I had done it, and it would probably help me a lot.
Portfolios at Bryant College
It is clear that, between a professional portfolio and an assessment portfolio, there are different needs with
different objectives and constituencies that lead to different ends. However, it may be possible to leverage
these two processes and objects to assist each other. The following table summarizes the differences and
commonalities between implementing a professional portfolio and an authentic performance assessment.
Professional Portfolio

Performance Assessment
Primary Objective

Demonstrate skills desired by potential employers

Assess student learning and performance along skills

and qualities identified in undergraduate mission
statement

Potential Stakeholders

Students
Faculty
Career Services
Student Affairs
Employers

Potential Employers
Graduate Schools
Scholarship Programs
Faculty Advisors
Parents, Friends, Associates

Represents students best work

Streamlined
Adaptable to different audiences
Professional in content as well as appearance
Accessible to outsiders

Students
Faculty
OPIR
Reaccredidation committees
Learning-Outcomes Assessment Committee
Joint Committee on Advising and First-Year Programs

Potential Audiences

Faculty
Department Chairs
President and Vice Presidents
Curriculum Committee
Learning-Outcomes Assessment Committee
OPIR
Professional and Faculty Advisors
Trustees
Accreditation Bodies

Functional Differences
Represents actual student performance over time, for
better or for worse
Structured and assessed around the core objectives
Built upon existing classroom activities
Representative of all student work
Accessible only to designated parties for assessment
purposes

Proposed Next Steps and Timeline

By December 15, 2002
Establish one committee of the major stakeholders, with two sub-committees, to define and answer the
questions regarding the structure and process of these two initiatives
By February 1, 2003
Begin a series of community forums on assessment and portfolios as a way to inform all stakeholders
and initiate these projects
By March 15, 2003
Develop a set of goals, objectives, and activities for each initiative in the coming semester and year
By April 15, 2003
Establish an action plan for the implementation of these two initiatives
Begin a series of community forums on the development of assessment criteria (rubrics)
By June 15, 2003
Establish a pilot assessment rubric and identify a review body.
Begin a pilot test of the portfolio plan in a single, voluntary summer session course.
By September 1, 2003
Begin implementation of the portfolio initiatives
Throughout
Document these activities, and establish a procedure for assessing the progress of these two projects
and recommending changes to the committees
Governance of these two initiatives needs to maintain a degree of separation between them while building
on the existence of each other. The attached chart is an attempt to identify the levels of reporting in the
creation and functioning of the two committees.
References
Young, J. (2002, March 8). E-portfolios could give students a new sense of their accomplishments.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(26), p. A31
Friedman Ben-David, M. (1999) AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: Part 3 Assessment in
outcome-based education. Medical Teacher, 21(1), pp. 23-25

Graphical representation of the inheritance structure in the creation

and reporting of the two portfolio projects
Administrative Units
Presidents Office

Student Affairs
Division

Academic Affairs
Division

Information
Systems Division

Faculty
Administration

Governing Committees

Joint Committee on
Advising and FirstYear Programs

Learning Outcomes
Assessment Committee

Contract Committees

Operational Units
Student Senate
Career Services

ACE

IT

Undergraduate
Programs

OPIR
Faculty
Development
Center

Portfolio Committees
Professional
Portfolio
Committee

Performance
Assessment
Portfolio
Committee

Reaccreditation
Committees