Walden's Portfolio Process

In my journey to understand the purpose of the required Walden portfolio I'm still left with a number of unanswered questions.  The main question being, what is the purpose of the portfolio in regards to NCATE standards and the accreditation process?  In our world (meaning those who are teachers and work with kids on a daily basis) standards are in place to make sure we are teaching kids the appropriate content.  However, that does NOT seem to be the case at the graduate or higher education level.  Our portfolio is simply additional papers we MUST write to show that WE DO or UNDERSTAND certain things, regardless of the fact that our courses have not touched on such topics (with the exception of one).  If we do not complete these papers, then we do not get our degree.  We are forced into publishing papers to make the University look good when in fact they are teaching us these skills or preparing us for the vary things we have to proclaim they are in fact doing.  This whole system seems very dishonest and is simply a money maker for the University as they can claim they are an accredited University.

I am looking into this further and I have contacted NCATE http://www.ncate.org/  to see if they can shed some light on this subject for me.  Here is the info I found interesting, stating that portfolios are NOT required:

Does NCATE require digital portfolios?

No. The NCATE standards do not require the use of digital portfolios; however, they do make effective use of technology in instruction a central requirement for teacher preparation programs for both faculty and teacher candidates. NCATE Standard 6 requires that the teacher preparation unit provides adequate campus and school facilities to support candidates in meeting standards. NCATE Standard 1 requires teacher candidates to demonstrate that they are able to “facilitate student learning of the subject matter…through the integration of technology.” (One way to demonstrate this could be through artifacts in candidates’ teaching portfolios.) NCATE Standard 5 requires faculty to demonstrate that they are able to integrate diversity and technology throughout their teaching. Regarding the school of education’s facilitation of professional development, Standard 5 also mandates that “the unit provides opportunities for faculty to develop new knowledge and skills” in areas including technology.

Also, according to NCATE Standard 2, institutions are expected to use technology to maintain their assessment systems, though how complex an undertaking this is varies with how many programs are in the unit. Some institutions are moving toward electronic portfolios in which candidates can demonstrate their mastery of proficiencies. Also, more institutions are making some or all of their exhibits for the Board of Examiners (BOE) visit itself available electronically. This facilitates the work of the BOE team when they can begin viewing exhibits before the visit actually starts, and devote more of their time on campus observing classes, interviews, etc.

(from http://www.ncate.org/standards/NCATEunitstandards/FAQAboutStandards/tabid/406/default.aspx#faq11)

Walden is also accredited by:
The Higher Learning Commission http://www.ncahlc.org/Information-for-the-Public/public-information.html

Check out the overview of standards. The only thing I could find was:
 2a. The institution realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends.

2b. The institution’s resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

2c. The institution’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement.

2d. All levels of planning align with the institution’s mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission.

For further information about accreditation in the North Central region, write or call the appropriate Commission office.

For institutions of higher education:

The Higher Learning Commission 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, Illinois 60602-2504 (800) 621-7440 or (312) 263-0456 Fax: (312) 263-7462; E-mail: info@hlcommission.org http://www.ncahlc.org

For further information about institutional and specialized accreditation (including names and addresses of accrediting bodies) write or call:

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) One Dupont Circle, Suite 510 Washington D.C. 20036-1136 (202) 955-6126

Fax: (202) 955-6129; E-mail: chea@chea.org http://www.chea.org

CHEA http://www.chea.org/

**I ask Walden students, do you feel the portfolio is an accurate demonstration of what you have learned through your Walden coursework or would the course assignments (papers, discussions, wikis, podcasts, prezis, VoiceThreads) provide a more accurate picture?

**Also...do you feel the directions for the ePortfolio, found at:  http://waldenu.edu/experience/resources/eportfolio gave you a clear idea of what would be expected of us?  NOTE:  The description continually says "Coursework" but this is not the case...everything we do is OUTSIDE of our courses for the portfolio.  

ePortfolio

• Share on emailEmail
• Print
• More Sharing ServicesShare

Track Your Progress and Achievements   

Collect and store all your course assignments and papers conveniently online with Walden’s ePortfolio. This electronic portfolio can help you organize coursework so you can track your progress within your program as well as share assignments easily with others.

With ePortfolio, you can:

• Submit your coursework to faculty members for assessment.
• Share your best work with classmates, colleagues, and supervisors.
• Create presentations to showcase your knowledge and skills for career advancement.
• Refer back to submissions so you can track your continuing professional development.

The ePortfolio service is available in select programs and is included in the cost of tuition.

To find out whether ePortfolio is included in your program, please contact an enrollment advisor at 1-866-492-5336 or request information.

Walden Claims Graduate Students Don't Have Different Learning Styles

After many emails I finally got an answer to my question regarding how Walden can go against everything they teach us in our classes.  Now, I got an answer, I didn't say I got a good answer.

Here was the response I received today (apparently as adults we no longer have learning preferences or needs-although research would prove this wrong in a heartbeat, and we no longer need to have meaningful authentic tasks-and we can be assessed on things the university has not addressed and that STILL qualifies them to be accredited)  I will admit, they attempted to answer this question to cover their behinds..but I ask you, how does this reply sit with you?  After all, I can see how she may agree with this, she has NEVER taught in the elementary or high school setting (and yet claims to understand what teachers are faced with on a day to day basis).  

Ms. Hart,

I encourage you to read (or re-read) the entire section on assessments in the M.S. in Education Candidate Handbook.  As mentioned in my initial email below, Dr. Thurmond, the Dean, and I have provided you with the answer to your question around assessments in the program.

Also, I really want to caution you against comparing the teaching and learning methodologies faculty utilize with our M.S. in Education candidates (adult learners in a graduate program) to how one would teach students in a P-12 system (children).    There are distinct differences in teaching and learning methodologies for children and adults, which is why you will find we have numerous programs that focus on teaching children and programs that focus on teaching  adults.   

So, in my final response to your question,  “...how Walden can justify its practices (the portfolio specifically) going against the very principles they teach us in class (differentiated assignments and assessments to meet the diverse needs of students)”.  My answer is this,  we are teaching adult candidates in a graduate program, and the learning and teaching theories for teaching children in a P-12 setting should not apply to teaching adults in a graduate program. 

Lastly, I have to disagree with you that social change was not addressed, or explained, in any of your courses.   It is covered throughout the program, from beginning to end.  I am confident that it is covered in EDUC 6610, the Walden Catalog and Student Handbook, the M.S. in Education Candidate Handbook, every syllabus in the program, and the WaldenU.edu website-- http://www.waldenu.edu/about/social-change 

----------------------------------------------------------

Thank you,
Kelley Costner, Ed.D.
Associate Dean, Undergraduate & Master's Programs

Walden University

The Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership

Walden's Portfolio Goes Against Every Principle They Have Taught Us

After getting replies from the Walden employees trying to answer some of my questions (while I feel they are totally avoiding answering others-specifically how they can go against the very principles they teach us in class by assessing us ALL the same way (papers) and only providing one form of assessment-they truly aren't meeting the needs of diverse learners like they expect us to do.) I have to question whether or not I'm the only one that feels Walden's Portfolio is meaningless busywork.  Although I have had numerous emails regarding this, and  a number of people respond to my initial post about this, it is safe to say that I am not alone in feeling this way.

This week one of my classmate's posted a question regarding what is due for the third transition point and another classmate responded. I must say, the response really sums up how the students feel about this portfolio process.  I have removed their names for privacy sake.

I would love to know how simply assessing us on standards that are not covered in our classes meets accreditation criteria.  Simply stating whether or not their students can meet the INTASC standards and NCATE standards does not in any way show that Walden is responsible for our learning......where is your pre-assessment Walden (you teach us this is best practice), where is your formative assessment along the way?  Where is your proof that you are responsible for our knowledge??

Walden-Do they value their own writing center??

As I was reading the numerous pages for this Field Experience 2 and the 13 page rubric that goes with it I found it interesting that the links Walden provides in the rubric are to the Purdue University writing center, not Walden's.  I agree, the Purdue Owl site is much more user friendly and helpful than Walden's but I was surprised to see a University so openly admitting that their writing resources are lacking when compared to others.

I do appreciate Walden providing us with the best links....I just found it interesting that they must promote another writing center, leaving one to believe they feel Walden's is inadequate.

Walden Providing False Information (Again)

As I was reviewing my course announcements I noticed that Walden has provided us with false information.  In my 8th course, 6713, I found an announcement that states assignments are weighted and that we only would have THREE applications/assignments in the course.  However, this has not been the case.  Curiosity got the best of me and I checked my previous class since we still have access to that, and it also has the same announcement!  Technically, I would think that if we would have argued this, we could have had a leg to stand on, and maybe only would have had to complete three assignments instead of 7+.  I contacted my current professor and immediately the announcement was removed from my current course (it was not posted by my current prof, it says it was posted by the course administrator).  I did copy this before it was deleted however.  Also, I have a screen shot of the same message posted in my previous course.

Come on Walden, get it together......

·       Posted by:Course Administrator 045

Posted to: EDUC-6713I-2,Intgr Tech Across Cntent Areas.2012 Fall Sem 09/04-12/23-PT4

·       Information on Grading

Posted on: Monday, July 16, 2012

Weighted Grading

Please note that this course contains weighted grading. Within the Syllabus, you will see that assignments are weighted differently depending on their type. The total points achieved for each assignment will be weighted based on the percentage values noted. The following table gives an example of the type of weighted grading that you might see throughout your program. In this example, you will notice that the total point value of the Discussion assignments is 32 points; however, the Discussions are worth 40% instead of 32% because weighted grading is being used. Your Syllabus will always provide the specific grading information for each course.

Example

Assignment Type	Points	Weighted Percentage	What This Means
Discussion 8 Discussions	4 points each x 8 = 32 points	5% each x 8 = 40%	Each of the 8 eight Discussions is worth 4 points and 5% of your total grade. Therefore, the maximum possible points for the Discussions are 32 points and they are weighted at 40% of your total grade.
Application Assignment 3 Application Assignments	4 points each x 3 = 12 points	20% each x 3 = 60%	Each of the 3 three Application Assignments is worth 4 points and 20% of your total grade. Therefore, the maximum possible points for the Assignments are 12 points and they are weighted at 60% of your total grade.
Total		100%

Posted by:Course Administrator 048

Posted to: EDUC-6713I-2,Intgr Tech Across Cntent Areas.2012 Fall Sem 09/04-12/23-PT4

Same Message in 6712

If I remember correctly, we were told this very same information in previous classes (I have all of my papers somewhere I just don't have time to look through them at this point)....interesting how they preach the importance of providing accurate information in their student requirements, yet do not do the same.  But, all Education majors attending Walden know that if there is one thing Walden has perfected it is going against the very principles and standards that they hold their students accountable.

EDUC 6713 Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas-Course Reflection

As my eighth Walden course, Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas (EDUC 6713), comes to a close, it is time to reflect over everything I have learned.  In the early weeks of the course, the main focus was on how to be a self-directed learner.  Our world is constantly changing and in order to meet our students’ needs, educators must continually seek out new strategies and ideas to ensure we are meeting our students’ needs and preparing them for their futures.  As Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer say, “learning to teach generally, and to teach with technology specifically, are lifelong journeys” (2009, p. 1). 

To help us stay focused on being a self-directed learner, our text introduced us to the GAME plan.  This plan involves setting goals, taking action, and monitoring and evaluating professional growth (Cennamo et al., 2009).  We established our own GAME plan based on the NETS standards for teachers identified by the International Society for Technology in Education.  The standards I chose to focus on were:

Standard Two-Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS-S (ISTE, 2012)

Standard Five- Teachers continually improve their professional practice, model lifelong learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources (ISTE, 2012)

Have I learned everything I need to in these two areas?  Absolutely not.  However, I have learned a great deal through this process.  I have learned that the timeline I set up was crucial to helping me stay on task.  As teachers, we all know how it is easy to push things aside as new challenges or situations with students evolve daily.  Our schedules are so hectic that if something is not penciled in and have time set-aside specifically for it, there is a good chance it will not happen.  The timeline helped me to force myself to work on these goals while juggling the great demands of teaching on top of my Walden graduate work. 

I have also learned that sometimes the web is more reliable than working with people in person.  Just as I mentioned before, our schedules are hectic and things come up.  I have found searching the web for resources to be more successful than contacting individuals regarding ideas for authentic tasks in my classroom.  The web is always available, I can access it in the middle of the night, or whenever works best for me.  It also allows me to save or store the data that I find, increasing the likelihood that I will remember these great ideas and will utilize them in my classroom.  I have also found that searching the web with a specific topic in mind is key to finding relevant lessons, and to help me use my time more efficiently.  Simply searching for “authentic tasks+5^th grade” provides too many results and sorting through them can easily become overwhelming.  I have found many great resources (check out my previous posts for a list of math lessons I found), now I just need to create a system to store and organize it all (this is still an area I’m working on).   

My two goals for my GAME plan go hand in hand.  Through professional development, as well as independent research, I am learning new ways to create authentic learning experiences in my classroom.  Then, I am sharing what I have learned through informal discussions with my colleagues and administration, sharing emails with tips of how to use a new piece of technology, and through presentations.  This process has introduced me to a wealth of resources, it has helped me to help my students make the connection between what we are learning in class and how it compares to real-life, and it has helped me rekindle my spark and excitement for teaching once again.

My GAME plan was set up to allow me to juggle my busy schedule right now, as it allowed me to work on developing these skills gradually.   I feel that it was successful and needs few to no adjustments.  My GAME plan was manageable, yet resulted in numerous ways for me to integrate technology into my lessons and to create authentic tasks for my students to develop their math skills.  This was such a beneficial experience that I would like to continue with the same plan in the future to continue to add to my teaching repertoire. 

 During the process, I sometimes lost sight of my goals for the GAME plan.  If it had not been for the timeline I created (and the course assignments) I would have forgotten about it and pushed it aside.  It is not that the goals were not important to me; it was simply due to the fact that I had more pressing concerns at the time.  This made me reflect on how our students must feel when they are given assignment after assignment, with little to no choice or personal interest.  Also, it made me realize that giving students choice does not ensure they will become engaged or find the material meaningful in any way.  I had a choice on which standards to focus on, yet I was not driven to pursue these goals simply because something else was taking precedence in my life. 

Although it is impossible to create learning experiences that cover the standards and engage ALL students ALL the time, I do feel that the GAME plan can be a beneficial tool in the classroom.  By teaching students how to set goals, create a plan, and monitor and evaluate their progress, we are teaching them the skills to be lifelong learners.  Once they have learned the steps necessary to acquire new knowledge they will apply this to the content in which they find most interesting and will seek out new knowledge throughout their life.  This day in age information is at our fingertips; there is no longer the mindset that everything needs to be memorized.  The GAME plan is a tool teachers can use to help students learn how to learn, a skill that will help them in every area of their life. 

Thanks to my Walden courses I have been making numerous adjustments to my instructional practice regarding technology integration.  With every week that has passed I have learned many new ways to integrate technology.  My classes all use Edmodo to organize assignments and to communicate with others outside of class, they have created wikis, Prezis, digital graphs, and more.  I have the reputation of being THE technology user in the elementary, and many turn to me for ideas or advice.  Technology is a great way to give students the power to take charge of their learning.  I have also found that simply giving students a new technology tool can grasp their interest in such a way that they become so engrossed in the task that they often forget that they are learning. 

This course has been one of my favorites.  I loved learning about project-based learning (PBL) and how to incorporate the many new technologies into my classroom.  By following the GAME plan, I have been able to focus directly on my goals and to strengthen my abilities to create authentic learning experiences for students while integrating the 21^st Century skills they will need to be successful in their technology-filled future. 

References

Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer.  (2009).  Technology integration for meaningful classroom use:  A standards-based approach.  (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.).  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

International Society for Technology in Education.  (2008).  National education standards for teachers (NETS-T).  Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers