Putting the Teaching Portfolio in Context

The current education reform movement has focused increasing national attention on the teaching of undergraduates. Green (1990) identifies five factors that have fueled this renewed emphasis on teaching: (a) the aging academic workforce, sometimes referred to as the “graying of the professoriate”; (b) the “plateauing” phenomenon, arising from retrenchment and lack of mobility; (c) changing work values, which emphasize individual rights and de-emphasize bureaucracy; (d) increasingly heterogeneous student bodies, including minority, older, part-time, and underprepared students; and (e) accountability, which encompasses the entire assessment movement.

The latter two factors seem particularly important. Cross (1986), in Taking Teaching Seriously, emphasizes two vocal groups of students in the current “buyer’s market”: “First is the group of low-performing students who need good teaching if the access revolution is to have meaning. Second are the adults who are likely to demand good teaching if they are to give time and money to the tasks of learning” (p. 2). Such students, Ekroth (1990) notes, must also be taught vital skills: “Today’s professors are challenged to teach a student population increasingly diverse in age, levels of academic preparation, styles of learning, and cultural background. Professors are now expected not only to ‘cover the material,’ but also to help students to think critically, write skillfully, and speak competently” (p. 1). Meeting the challenge of these students requires, as Boyer (1987) suggests, a “renewed interest in general education, in the quality of teaching, and in the evaluation of the undergraduate experience” (p. 7).

Seldin (1990) describes the “demand for faculty accountability” as “a groundswell sweeping across the nation. It has enlisted taxpayers, institutional trustees, financial donors, parents, and students to press colleges and universities to examine the performance of each professor” (p. 3). Hutchings (1990), in Assessment and the Way We Work, emphasizes the need to view assessment in its richest sense as “an enactment of a set of beliefs about the kind of work that matters on our campuses.” Such work demands:

The scrutiny engendered by accountability is thus not necessarily negative. Philosophical explorations of what it means to be teachers and learners have led to far more emphasis on “cooperation,” “collaboration,” and “community.” The works of Astin (1985, 1987), Boyer (1987, 1990), and Palmer (1983, 1987) highlight dialogue, discussion, and learning communities.

Educators are realizing more and more that “good teachers must be active learners themselves and model for students an active mind at work on significant intellectual tasks” (Cross, 1988, p 7). Peterson (1990), in her Chair’s Address at the College Composition and Communication Convention, emphasized that new theories are opening up lines of inquiry into the nature of teaching and redefining the role of the teacher:

To encourage movement from thought to action, the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) has launched a new program entitled “The Teaching Initiative,” which is sponsoring projects: (a) to develop cases about college teaching and learning; (b) to improve the training of teaching assistants; and (c) to develop the use of “teaching portfolios” as vehicles for faculty to document and display the quality of their teaching through actual work samples and reflections on those samples.

For many reasons, the teaching portfolio promises to be a particularly viable means to strengthen undergraduate education: (a) it is cost-effective; (b) it is rooted in the context of discipline-related teaching; (c) it debunks the myth that effective teaching cannot be documented; (d) it gives faculty “ownership” of the portfolio process, building on intrinsic motivation; and (e) it capitalizes on the power of constructive consultation to generate meaningful change.

What is the Teaching Portfolio?

Several assumptions underlie the teaching portfolio. First, the teaching process must be viewed as fluid and dynamic, evolving over time. Second, because of the complex nature of the teaching process, evidence of effectiveness must be collected over time from multiple sources to give an accurate, in-depth overview. And, third, teachers themselves—with consultation—should direct the portfolio process, selectively recording teaching accomplishments and reflecting on the choices that result in exemplary teaching.

The portfolio itself, usually described as a 3-5 page document that summarizes teaching strengths, can be incorporated into the curriculum vitae. It is backed up by extensive support, often available in appendices, just as a CV emphasizing scholarly research will refer to, but not include, specific documentation. It is important to strike a balance between too much material and too little. Seldin (1990) describes the teaching portfolio as “a factual description of a professor’s major strengths and teaching achievements. It describes documents and materials which collectively suggest the scope and quality of a professor’s teaching performance. It is to teaching what lists of publications, grants, and honors are to research and scholarship” (p. 4). Waterman (1990) describes it as “a document that a faculty member creates to communicate teaching goals, to summarize accomplishments, and to convey the quality of teaching” (p. 1).

The Teaching Assessment Project at Stanford (Wolf, 1990) relies on teams that specify key teaching tasks on which to focus a portfolio’s content. The portfolios themselves contain both captioned artifacts and written commentaries. Thus, portfolios are both selective and reflective, with an emphasis on supported judgments. Building on this work, Edgerton (1991), in fact, endorses a concept of “The Portfolio as Display of Best Work,” distinguishing it from what he terms “The Portfolio as Teaching Resume.” In this type of portfolio, which focuses on the characteristics of exemplary teaching and the best way to document and display them, four critical tasks form the core: “Planning and preparing for the course; teaching the course; assessing what students learned in the course, and giving them feedback; and keeping up with the evolving professional discourse about their field and how to teach it” (p. 6). In this approach, portfolio entries consist of work samples tied to reflective explanations in order to “promote a view of teaching as a ‘situated act’” (p. 2).

Shore, Foster, Knapper, Nadeau, Neill, and Sim (1986), in a publication of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, The Teaching Dossier: A Guide to Its Preparation and Use, provide a detailed summary of items that can be included in a teaching portfolio, organized as: (a) products of good teaching; (b) material from oneself; and (c) information from others, including students and colleagues. (See Appendix A for a similar list of possible inclusions compiled by Waterman.) They also outline five useful steps for creating a portfolio: (a) clarify teaching responsibilities; (b) select criteria for effective teaching; (c) order the criteria; (d) compile back-up evidence; and (e) incorporate the dossier into curriculum vita.

The portfolio concept has a long history. It has been used for decades by artists, photographers, and architects to document creativity and expertise. Knapper (personal communication, July 23, 1990) also points out that the teaching dossier has been used in academic circles in Canada since the mid-1970’s. The Teaching Dossier: A Guide to Its Preparation and Use, initially written in 1980 and revised in 1986, has been widely distributed all over North America and beyond.

Teaching Portfolios are typically compiled for two reasons: (a) to facilitate personnel decisions, specifically promotion and tenure judgments (summative evaluation) or (b) to shape future teaching improvements by documenting and reflecting on past achievements (formative evaluation). The purpose of the portfolio will often dictate its contents. Portfolios intended for promotion and tenure decisions usually contain core materials, such as syllabi and student evaluations, to ensure valid comparisons. Those developed by faculty interested primarily in their own professional growth and development usually reflect more flexibility in their contents and approach.

Virtually everyone familiar with the teaching portfolio—or with instructional improvement in general—recognize that evaluation procedures can play a dual role if handled sensitively. Whitman and Weiss (1982), for instance, argue that “the conflict between faculty development and evaluation is not inherent … if it is accepted that both purposes share the long-range goal of improved instruction and student learning” (p. 10). Baker and Mezei (1988) state explicitly that “faculty assessment and faculty development programs should form an interdependent and continuous cycle, supported by a climate of encouragement and reward of initiatives toward professional growth and renewal” (pp. 101-102). Seldin and Annis (1991) emphasize that:

Five Reasons for the Viability of the Teaching Portfolio

The teaching portfolio promises to be a potent means to encourage a renewed emphasis on teaching and to promote the fair and objective evaluation and development of faculty.

1. First, the Teaching Portfolio can be cost effective. The belt-tightening on virtually all campuses makes costly innovations to improve undergraduate education unlikely. Mohrman (1991), Dean for Undergraduate Studies at the University of Maryland at College Park, recognizes, as most administrators do, that financial realities will have an impact on reform. “Budget woes will slow us down [at the University of Maryland at College Park]. We’re going to be looking at things that don’t cost a lot of money” (p. A37). Departmental implementation of teaching portfolios, particularly with an emphasis on collegial consultations, will definitely require investments in time and commitment that translate into dollars. As Lacey (1990) notes: “Collegiality is costly” (p. 99). But because teaching portfolios can be integrated into current evaluation processes without major disruptions (Seldin, 1990, p. 21), such investments can be accomplished by shifting priorities within a department. In uncertain economic times, when funding requests to state legislatures, to foundations, or to private and corporate donors may go unheeded, individual departments unable to initiate more costly teaching reforms such as extensive TA training or reduction of class sizes, can still initiate a portfolio process by rethinking and reallocating faculty time and commitment.

With positive support and leadership from the chair, faculty can focus on procedures, policies, and timetables to implement the portfolio process. Faculty must “buy into” the portfolio process and commit the time and effort needed to work on their own teaching and to serve as consultants to their colleagues. In institutions with campus-wide faculty development or instructional improvement centers, departmental faculty consultation time can be reduced by taking advantage of the many valuable services these centers provide, usually gratis. Such services might include one-on-one consultation, classroom visits, videotaping, course and curriculum design assistance, and help with the introduction of technological innovations into the classroom.

To develop a viable teaching portfolio program, the ultimate investments must be made, of course, by the individual faculty members assembling the teaching portfolios. Seldin and Annis (1990) emphasize, however, that preparing a teaching portfolio takes less time than most faculty assume. Concentrated effort spread out over parts of only a few days can result in a viable, self-tailored document which can then be further shaped over time as teaching improvements occur. As a matter of practicality, teaching portfolios, if they are to be embraced by faculty, must be manageable and cost effective.

2. The departmental focus results in a second reason for the teaching portfolio’s viability. It becomes an effective tool for instructional improvement precisely because it is grounded squarely in discipline-related pedagogy—what Shulman (1987, 1989) calls “pedagogical content knowledge.” Edgerton (1989) purports that “teaching is highly context specific, and its true richness can be fully appreciated only by looking at how we teach a particular subject to a particular set of students” (p 15). He suggests that we need a more contextual conception of pedagogy—a rationale for basing the study and practice of teaching on “what is being taught to whom” (Edgerton, 1990, p. xv). Teaching goals, too, are shaped in large part by the different fields of study. Cross (1990) found, after extended experience administering the Teaching Goals Inventory, that:

Emphasis and reflection on teaching from a departmental, discipline-specific basis should thus be a powerful force for change. In fact, as Lucus (1990) suggests, “Academic chairs are the key agents for enhancing the quality of undergraduate education and … chairs can be most effective when they are supported by academic administrators who are working toward the same goals and who agree on appropriate strategies for improving teaching.” Teaching, she urges, must become “a valued activity in the department” (p. 65).

3. The teaching portfolio’s third potential impact lies in its ability to counter the superficiality or absence of teaching documentation. “Creative teaching, especially at the undergraduate level,” notes the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1990), “is difficult to identify, infrequently rewarded, and rarely publicized” (p. 35). Unlike documentation of scholarly activities, teaching assessments—if made at all—often rely only on “student evaluations and ‘coffeeroom conversation’ ” (Watkins, 1990, p. A15). “In the worst case scenario,” Weimer (1990) observes, “hearsay spread among teachers, overheard comments from students, and discrete questions to advisees form the eclectic basis from which conclusions are drawn” (p. 112).

Seldin (1990) points out, however, that many researchers and writers agree that “teaching can be assessed as rigorously as research and publication and has been for years in many institutions” (p. 6). The teaching portfolio, with its rich content emphasizing the products of good teaching, with its reflective commentary and course materials, and with its information and observations from others, can provide solid evidence about the quality of teaching effectiveness.

4. A fourth advantage of a teaching portfolio lies in the faculty member’s involvement in both documentation and reflection. Because faculty have “ownership” of the portfolio process, they are more likely to act positively as a result of their own reflections. Blackburn and Pitney (1988) conclude after a substantive review of major theories that despite the “voluminous” literature, “there is no universally effective way of motivating individuals” (p. 7). McKeachie (1979) postulates, however, that faculty are intrinsically motivated individuals, an assumption shared by Cross (1990): “The research suggests that college faculty members are more likely than people who have chosen other careers to respond to intrinsic motivators” (p 17). Such motivators might include the intellectual challenge of preparing a synthesizing lecture or the satisfaction of seeing students in cooperative small groups “discovering” knowledge and gaining insights from one another. Cross emphasizes:

5. The final advantage of using teaching portfolios lies in the value of the consultation process itself. Seldin (Watkins, 1990) notes: “Good portfolios are collegial efforts. Few people can work alone and do a portfolio. You need help from some ‘other’—it might be a department chairman or a faculty member or a teaching improvement specialist—to structure the portfolio and to decide what goes in it” (p. A15). Edgerton (1991) also considers this an important finding: “Portfolios can and probably should be designed in collaboration with a colleague” (p. 9).

The value of one-on-one consultation for improving teaching effectiveness has been well documented in the literature (Brinko, 1990; Erickson & Erickson, 1979; Katz & Henry, 1988; Menges & Brinko, 1986; Mortensen, 1982; Stevens & Aleamoni, 1985; Wilson, 1986). As Erickson and Erickson (1979) note: “Instructors who go through the teaching consultation procedure make qualitative changes in their teaching skill performance which are evident to students in subsequent courses…. The results also indicate that the improvements in their teaching skill performance are relatively longlived” (p. 682).

Change is likely to occur as a result of consultation when the suggested teaching modifications are specific. Wilson (1986) cautions that “the more behavioral, specific, or concrete a suggestion is, the more likely it is that it will affect students’ perceptions of his or her teaching” (p. 206). Carroll and Goldberg (1985) also emphasize “the critical importance of explicit goal setting and focused feedback for changing instructors’ teaching behavior” (p. 451).

Peer classroom observations, because they reflect a “situated act” involving students, faculty member(s), specific content, and learning activities in a classroom environment, are one of the most effective ways to engender dialogues about teaching. Such visitations should be considered by any faculty member contemplating a teaching portfolio that will concretely document classroom interactions and effectiveness. Those expressing reservations about the process and validity of classroom observations (Bergman, 1980; Centra, 1976, 1979; Doyle, 1983; French-Lazovik, 1981; and Weimer, Kerns, & Parrett, 1988) tend to emphasize the pitfalls of poorly conceived or conducted observations used for summative evaluations. Successful programs such as the Peer Visit Program at the University of Maryland University College (Millis, 1989), emphasize collegiality and the expectation of positive change. Trained, experienced faculty, who are noted for their teaching ability and interpersonal skills, conduct the 80-125 peer visits that occur each semester. Through a Teaching Action Plan (See Appendix B), the visitors help faculty members, often adjuncts new to the institution, but rarely new to teaching, identify specific ways to improve their teaching.

The likelihood of positive change increases when (a) mutual trust and respect exists between the two parties in consultation; and (b) the feedback on teaching is concrete and specific. Trust can develop if the consultation occurs in a context of the “colleague as helper” (Weimer, 1990). Wilkerson (1988) notes:

Weimer (1990) recommends several ways to ensure that classroom visits encourage the collegiality needed for viable growth and change. Observations should be reciprocal, she suggests, making them a shared responsibility. Furthermore, the faculty members do not necessarily have to be in the same discipline. When the pairs are from different departments, there is less anxiety, more confidentiality, and a greater emphasis on viewing instruction from a student perspective (p. 119). Observations should not be a one-time, hit-or-miss proposition. To be effective and fair, they must be ongoing occurrences (p. 122).

Faculty themselves feel positive about instructional consultation with colleagues, as reported by Centra (1976), Blackburn, Pellino, Boberg, & O’Connell, (1980); Boice & Turner (1989), and Millis (1989). Menges (1987) notes:

This mentoring process has benefits for both the person visited and the visitor, as noted by Holmes (1988). Edgerton (1988) characterizes such exchanges as “collegial dialogue” and suggests that “we must move to a culture in which peer review of teaching is as common as peer review of research …. culture in which professors ask their colleagues for comment on the syllabus of a course as routinely as they ask for comment on the prospectus of a book” (p. 8).

The Teaching Portfolio and the New Scholarship

Many educators, including Boyer (1987), have deplored the imbalance between research and teaching. Few have been more vocal than Eble (1990):

Schaefer (1990) has similarly charged that the “publication of scholarly drivel” is “an obsession that has diminished the classroom experience and has cheated generations of unsuspecting students” (p. xii).

Cheney (1990), chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, notes that this emphasis on research has affected the public schools as well:

Recently there has been a strong movement toward an enlarged view of scholarship, which Rice (1990) finds “congruent with the rich diversity that is the hallmark of American higher education; one that is more appropriate, more authentic, and more adaptive for both our institutions and the day-to-day working lives of our faculty” (p. 1).

The recent publication of the Carnegie Foundation’s special report, authored by Boyer (1990), Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, promises to help create a redefinition of what it means to be a scholar. Yanikoski, Associate Vice-President for Academic Affairs at DePaul University, comments: “The Carnegie sponsorship can lend an air of acceptability to the public discussion of this issue in a way that one institution or one academic leader would find awkward” (Leatherman, 1990, p. Al6).

Boyer calls for four general views of scholarship—discovery, integration, application, and teaching. The scholarship of teaching emphasizes content knowledge, pedagogical procedures to “build bridges between the teacher’s understanding and the students’ learning” and to “create a common ground of intellectual commitment, and a communal approach that involves the teacher as a learner as well, one who can transfer and extend knowledge” (pp. 23-24).

Boyer reminds us, however, that ideas alone are not sufficient and that teaching must be vigorously assessed, using universally recognized and respected criteria. Evidence should come at the very least from peers, from students, and from self-assessment. The activities and documentation Boyer describes echo exactly the “selection” and “reflection”—evidence supported by explanatory, exploratory statements—advocated for a teaching portfolio. In fact, he states directly: “When it comes to pulling all the evidence together, we are impressed by the portfolio idea—a procedure that encourages faculty to document their work in a variety of ways” (p. 40).

Conclusion

The teaching portfolio is an idea whose time has come. Many institutions, such as the University of Missouri and the University of Maryland College Park, have endorsed its use, and the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development has initiated a clearing house and network on teaching portfolios. Portfolios can help teachers and administrators shift priorities to better serve students, the community, and the nation. As Botstein (1990) reminds us: “The ‘bottom line’ is never bureaucratic or fiscal. It is what is learned, created, and discovered by faculty and students” (p. 40). The teaching portfolio ensures that we capture the essence of these experiences.

References

• Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Astin, A. W. (1987). Competition or cooperation? Teaching teamwork as a basic skill. Change,19(5), 12-19.
• Baker, G., & Mezei (1988). Empowering faculty through institutional involvement. The Journal of Staff, Program & Organization Development,6(3), 99-105.
• Bergman, J. (1980). Peer evaluation of university faculty. College Student Journat14(3), 1-21.
• Blackburn, R. T., Pellino, G. R., Boberg, A., & O’Connell, C. (1980). Are instructional improvement programs off target? Current Issues in Higher Education, 1, 32-48.
• Blackburn, R. T., & Pitney, J. A. (1988). Performance appraisal for faculty: Implications for higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research To Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
• Boice, R., & Turner, J. L. (1989). The FIPSE-CSULB mentoring project for new faculty. In S. Kahn, R. Boice, L. Border, L. Hilsen, A. Roberts, & M. D. Sorcinelli (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Student, Faculty,&: Institutional Development, 8, 117-137.
• Botstein, L. (1990). The college presidency: 1970-1990. Change,22(2), 34-40.
• Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper and Row.
• Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
• Brinko, K. T. (1990). Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education,61(1), 65-83.
• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1990, November/December). Sizing up colleges and universities. Change,22(6), 35-38.
• Carroll, J. G., & Goldberg, S. R. (1985). The teaching consultant: A pragmatic approach to faculty and instructional development. In Issues in higher education, proceedings of academic chairpersons: Leadership and management, 17, (pp. 447-456). Manhattan, KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Evaluation, Kansas State University.
• Centra, J. A. (1976). Faculty development practices in U.S. colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.
• Centra, J. A. (1979). Determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Cheney, L. V. (1990). Tyrannical Machines: A report on educational practices gone wrong and our best hopes for setting them right. Washington, D. C.: National Endowment for the Humanities.
• Cross, K. P. (1986, March). Taking teaching seriously. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education, Washington, D. C.
• Cross, K. P. (1988, June). In search of zippers. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.
• Cross, K. P. (1990). Teaching to improve learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,1, 9-22.
• Doyle, K. (1983). Evaluating teaching. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
• Eble, K. (1990, Winter). The degradation of undergraduate education. In F. Jussawalla (Ed.), Excellent teaching in a changing academy. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, No. 14 (pp. 11-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Edgerton, R. (1989, June). Report from the president. AAHE Bulletin, 14-17.
• Edgerton, R. (1990). Foreword. In P. Seldin & Associates (Eds.), How administrators can improve teaching: Moving from talk to action in higher education (pp. xi-xvi). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Edgerton, R. (1991, March). The teaching portfolio as a display of best work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education, Washington, D. C.
• Ekroth, L. (1990). Why professors don’t change. In L. Ekroth (Ed.), Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy (Winter-Spring). Stillwater, OK: Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
• Erickson, G. R., & Erickson, B. L. (1979). Improving college teaching: An evaluation of a teaching consultation procedure. Journal of Higher Education, 50, 670-683.
• French-Lazovik, G. (1981). Peer Review. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Green, M. F. (1990). Why good teaching needs active leadership. In P. Seldin & Associates (Eds.), How administrators can improve teaching: Moving from talk to action in higher education (pp. 45-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Holmes, S. K. (1988). New faculty mentoring: Benefits to the mentor. The Journal of Staff, Program, & Organizational Development, 6 (1), 17-20.
• Hutchings, P. (1990, June). Assessment and the way we work. Closing plenary address. Fifth AAHE Conference on Assessment. Reprint.
• Katz, J., & Henry, M. (1988). Turning professors into teachers: A new approach to faculty development and student learning. New York: ACE/Macmillan.
• Lacey, P. A. (1990, Winter). Encouraging and evaluating scholarship for the college teacher. In F. Jussawalla (Ed), Excellent teaching in a changing academy (pp. 99-100). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 44. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Leatherman, C. (1990). Definition of faculty scholarship must be expanded to include teaching, Carnegie Foundation says. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 37 (14), Al, A16-17.
• Lucus, A. F. (1990). The department chair as change agent. In P. Seldin & Associates (Eds.), How administrators can improve teaching: Moving from talk to action in higher education (pp 63-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• McKeachie, W. J. (1979). Perspectives from psychology: Financial incentives are ineffective for faculty. In D. R. Lewis and W. E. Becker, Jr., (Eds.), Academic rewards in higher education (pp. 3-20). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
• Menges, R. J., & Brinko, K. T. (1986). Effects of student evaluation feedback: A meta-analysis of higher education research. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, (ED 270 408).
• Menges, R. J. (1987). Colleagues as catalysts for change in teaching. In J. Kurfiss (Ed.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Student, Faculty, & Institutional Development, 6, 83-93.
• Millis, B. J. (1989). Colleagues helping colleagues: A peer observation program model. The Journal of Staff, Program, and Organizational Development,7(1), 15-21.
• Mortensen, L. (1982). Faculty perceptions of the long-term impact of individual consulting on improvement of instruction in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
• Palmer, P. J. (1983). To know as we are known. New York: Harper & Row.
• Palmer, P. J. (1987). Community, conflict, and ways of knowing: Ways to deepen our educational agenda. Change,19(5), 20-25.
• Peterson, J. E. (1990). Valuing teaching: Assumptions, problems, and possibilities. College Composition and Communication,42(1), 25-35.
• Rice, R. E. (1990). Rethinking what it means to be a scholar. In L. Ekroth (Ed), Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy (Winter/Spring). Stillwater, OK: Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
• Schaefer, W. D. (1990). Education without compromise: From chaos to coherence in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Seldin, P. (in press). The teaching portfolio. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
• Seldin, P. & Annis, L. (1990, November). The teaching portfolio: An important new role for faculty development. Presentation at the annual conference of the Professional and Organizational Network in Higher Education, Tahoe City, CA.
• Seldin, P., & Annis, L. (1991). Using the teaching portfolio for the improvement and evaluation of college teaching. Manuscript accepted for publication in the proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Improving University Teaching, 2-5 July, Glasgow, Scotland.
• Shore, B. M., Foster, S. F., Knapper, C. K., Nadeau, G. G. Neill, N, & Sim, V. W. (1986). The teaching dossier: A guide to its preparation and use. Canadian Association of University Teachers.
• Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,57(1), 1-22.
• Shulman, L. (1989, June). Toward a pedagogy of substance. AAHE Bulletin, 8-13.
• Stevens, J. J., & Aleamoni, L. M. (1985). The use of evaluative feedback for instructional improvement: A longitudinal perspective. Instructional Science, 13, 285-304.
• Waterman, M. A. (1990). Developing teaching dossiers: General guidelines. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh.
• Watkins, B. T. (1990, May 16). New techniques tested to evaluate college teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Al5.
• Weimer, M., Kerns, M., & Parrett, J. (1988). Instructional observations: Caveats, concerns, and ways to compensate. Studies in Higher Education,13(3), 299-307.
• Weimer, M. (1990). Improving college teaching: Strategies for developing instructional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Whitman, N., & Weiss, E. (1982). Faculty evaluations: The use of explicit criteria for promotion, retention, and tenure. (AAHE-ERIC/ Higher Education Research Report No. 2) Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
• Wilkerson, L. (1988). Classroom observation: The observer as collaborator, In E. C. Wadsworth (Ed.), A handbook for new practitioners (pp. 95-98). Stillwater, OK: The Professional & Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
• Wilson, R. C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. Journal of Higher Education,57(2), 196-209.
• Wolf, K. (in press). The schoolteacher’s portfolio: Practical issues in design, implementation, and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan.

Appendix A