Abstract

There is growing interest in portfolios within the context of higher education, especially related to the use and integration of student learning portfolios, teaching portfolios, and eportfolios. Although little scholarly discourse has focused on educational developer portfolios, these have the potential to promote reflection on practice, showcase accomplishments, make explicit our approaches to practice, demonstrate impact, and support workplace personnel decisions. Despite these benefits, our community has not uniformly adopted the educational developer portfolio. Drawing from scholarly literature and based on findings from research gathered through World Cafés, this study explores the possibilities and potential for the educational developer portfolio. Findings demonstrate that these portfolios can be an authentic tool to communicate and substantiate the depth, breadth, and richness of our work. However, there is a need for a cultural shift throughout our community to further integrate and normalize educational developer portfolios in our practice.

Keywords: portfolio, educational development, educational developer portfolio, educational developer portfolios, World Café

1. Introduction

There has been increased interest in the use and application of portfolios in higher education, especially with the introduction and expansion of eportfolios (Danowitz, 2012; Klenowski, Askew, & Carnell, 2006; Scott, 2010). Learning portfolios implemented in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education contexts are suggested to: promote critical reflection and critical thinking; enhance metacognition; encourage students to connect theory to practice and attach personal meaning to academic and professional experiences; inspire learners to take ownership and responsibility for their learning; help learners identify and articulate areas for future growth and development; and, foster creativity (Brown, 2001; Buryarski & Landis, 2014; Corcoran & Nicholson, 2004; O’Keefe & Donnelly, 2013; Scott, 2010). Further studies suggest that portfolios provide an authentic means to measure learning experiences and outcomes within the context of individual courses, educational programs, and even across institutions (Buyarski & Landis, 2014; Heinricher et al., 2002). Despite some of these benefits, portfolios are often perceived by instructors and learners as time consuming, cumbersome, and confusing, and studies recommend that their use and integration must be intentional and supported by appropriate training and resources (Corcoran & Nicholson, 2004; Klenowski et al., 2006; Scott, 2010).

Portfolios have also become an important tool to promote and evidence instructor growth and development. The teaching portfolio is now an established means for instructors to document and provide evidence of their teaching practice (Gravestock, 2011; Knapper & Wright, 2001; Seldin, Miller, & Seldin, 2010; Shore & Caron, 1986). As Zipp and Simpkins (2010) explain, a portfolio encourages “ongoing self assessment and development” that “enables [instructors] to share their perspectives on the significance of their work and present the varied documentation that supports their accomplishments” (p. 1). Portfolios support processes such as: job applications and hiring; tenure and promotion; performance reviews; professional reflection, learning, and development; and, teaching award programs (Chism, 2006; Danowitz, 2012; Gravestock, 2011; Knapper & Wright, 2001; Tigelaar, Dolmans, De Grave, Wolfhagen, & Van der Vleuten, 2006; Trevitt & Stocks, 2012; Wouters, Clement, Frenay, Buelens, & Gilis, 2014; Zipp & Simpkins, 2010).

Approximately 15 years ago, Wright and Miller (2000) and Stanley (2001) introduced the educational developer portfolio or faculty development portfolio. They realized that the portfolio offered a strong framework for educational developers to document and provide evidence of their approaches to supporting teaching and learning in postsecondary education. Wright and Miller advocated for new ways of documenting professional growth that capture the complexity and diversity of our roles as educational developers. They presented two models for the development of an educational developer portfolio. One of these was the adapted model, so called because it is an adaptation of the teaching portfolio. The adapted (educational developer) model, however, has a stronger emphasis on scholarship and reflection. Using this model, the author highlights and reflects upon how her daily practice is informed by theory and research. Wright and Millers’ second model was the alternative portfolio, which did not follow the structure of a traditional teaching portfolio and was instead organized according to the educational developer’s professional objectives. Like Miller and Wright, Stanley (2001) provided practical suggestions related to the content and purposes of the faculty development portfolio; she also discussed key requirements in the assessment of portfolios. Educational developer portfolios have a variety of purposes. They can be an authentic tool to promote self reflection and personal and professional learning, growth, and development (Stanley, 2001; Wright & Miller, 2000). They can also be used to provide evidence of the scope, impact, and effectiveness of one’s practice within the context of evaluations: related to job applications (e.g., in assessing one’s qualifications), hiring processes, and performance reviews, as well as tenure and promotion processes (Wright & Miller, 2000). Despite a tradition of promoting teaching portfolios, educational developer portfolios are not commonplace in our practice and have not been broadly adopted and embedded in our culture.

Little scholarly research has built on Stanley (2001) and Wright and Miller’s (2000) work to explore the potential use and impact of educational developer portfolios in practice. This article addresses this important gap in the scholarship of educational development by:

  • assessing the current and potential uses of educational developer portfolios;

  • identifying the core components of educational developer portfolios; and,

  • evaluating the issues, challenges, and opportunities associated with the design, use, and integration of educational developer portfolios.

Specifically, we addressed the following research questions:

  1. In what ways can the educational developer portfolio be used by members of the educational development community?

  2. What should be included in educational developer portfolios and why?

  3. What are the issues, challenges, and opportunities associated with the integration of educational developer portfolios?

2. Approach to Research and Data Gathering

We took a constructivist approach to our research, viewing knowledge as socially constructed and changing (Golafshani, 2003). The constructivist paradigm posits that individuals construct their own understanding of the world through experience and by reflecting on those experiences. From this perspective, knowledge often changes based on circumstances and based on the current specific, context dependent human interactions taking place or circumstances that have occurred in the past. The constructivist paradigm values multiple realities (Creswell, 2012).

We used the World Café (Brown & Isaacs, 2006; Dawson, Britnell, & Hitchcock, 2010) as part of our constructivist approach, to reflect our emphasis on inquiry and understanding rather than problem solving (Prewitt, 2011) and to facilitate dialogue among participants. The World Café is a process that engages participants in a set of small group conversations “with the intent of quickly transforming individual knowledge into something collective and more valuable” (Prewitt, 2011, p. 190).

The World Café method relies on a café like atmosphere created with round tables, tablecloths, music, and food. During the Café, participants move in brief cycles between tables where they respond to a set of broad, open ended, and predetermined questions with a focus on the specific goals of the Café. Each table has up to six participants and a table host who remains at the table through two to three consecutive rounds of conversation with various groups. The table host summarizes each group’s 10 to 15 minute conversation and helps capture and hold the participants’ collective and evolving stories (Prewitt, 2011). During a given cycle, participants build on a structured conversation and are encouraged to identify possibilities, share their insights, and challenge their assumptions. Since the World Café is focused on meaning making, the café ends with the whole group coming together. During this final stage, table hosts may share ideas from each table, and participants reflect as a group on the emerging themes or questions (Partridge, 2015). Participants are also invited to make last minute changes to what was recorded.

The World Café is premised on exploring questions that matter; encouraging all participants to contribute; connecting diverse people and ideas; listening for insights, patterns, and deeper questions; and making collective knowledge visible (Brown & Isaacs, 2006).

As recommended by the World Café approach, we posed open ended questions to solicit a broad range of diverse responses (Brown & Isaacs, 2006; Prewitt, 2011). We also drew upon an appreciative inquiry approach to generate our questions (Cockell & McArthur Blair, 2012). The questions guiding the café sessions were:

Question 1: The possibilities and potential of educational developer portfolios

  • What are the possibilities associated with educational developer portfolios?

  • What are the potential uses of an educational developer portfolio in your personal and professional practice?

  • Who are the potential users and audiences of educational developer portfolios?

Question 2: The ideal portfolio

  • What does your ideal educational developer portfolio look like?

  • What would you like to communicate to others in your portfolio?

  • How would your portfolio be adapted for different audiences and purposes?

Question 3: Supporting and integrating the use of educational developer portfolios

  • Imagine 10 years from now that educational developer portfolios are fully integrated into your practice. What factors have supported their integration, impact, and use?

2.1 Data Gathering and Analysis

Three different data gathering sessions took place from February to June, 2014; two followed the traditional World Café format, and one employed a modified approach within the context of a poster session (Table 1). The first and second sessions occurred at the annual conference of the Educational Developers Caucus (EDC) of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Calgary, Alberta; February 2014) and the Spring Workshop of the Educational Technology Users Group (ETUG) (Vancouver, British Columbia; June 2014), respectively. Each of these sessions had 17–23 participants in attendance. The third modified poster session was conducted at The International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) Conference in Stockholm, Sweden (June 2014) where approximately 10 participants provided active input. Typically, attendees at EDC and ICED are educational developers (i.e., academic and professional staff) who work within postsecondary environments to enhance teaching and learning. Educational developers apply a range of scholarly , leadership , and practice based approaches to strengthen teaching and learning in postsecondary education (Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010). ETUG attendees are normally instructional designers and educational technologists who may or may not self identify as educational developers; however, the conference is now attracting more instructors and individuals who affiliate themselves to the educational development community (k. fleming, personal communication, January 8, 2016). The range of participants in this study represent the evolving nature of those who engage in and support educational development across varying institutional and CTL contexts (Gibbs, 2013; Gosling, 2009; Grabove et al., 2012). All study participants were workshop or conference attendees who participated in the sessions voluntarily. Data collection processes were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Boards of Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of British Columbia.

Table 1. Overview of Participants and World Café Sessions
Session ContextWorld Café: Traditional or ModifiedWorld Café Participants (#)Conference Attendance (#)Session Participants Consisted Primarily of:
Educational Developers Caucus (EDC) ConferenceTraditional17132Educational developers working in Canada, including Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTL) managers, directors, and educational and curriculum development specialists
Spring Workshop of the Educational Technology Users Group (ETUG)Traditional23120Educational technologists, instructors, instructional designers, and educational developers working in British Columbia
International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) ConferenceModified (poster and handout)10~600Scholars and higher education professionals interested in educational development, representing multiple European countries and the United States

2.1.1 Traditional World Café sessions

During the World Café at the February EDC Conference and June ETUG Workshop, facilitators invited participants to join colleagues at one of three tables, each of which focused on a specific set of questions (i.e., the ideal educational developer portfolio, the possibilities and potentials of educational developer portfolios, or supporting the integration and use of educational developer portfolios). At each table, one volunteer facilitator acted as a table host, recording the themes of the discussion on flipchart paper. During the discussion, participants were rotated through café conversations, spending 15 minutes as a small group on each set of questions. Throughout their table discussions, facilitators actively encouraged groups to build upon each other’s ideas. At the end of three rotations, participants came together as a large group to comment on patterns and share collective discoveries. Each of these World Café sessions lasted approximately 90 minutes.

2.1.2 World Café poster session

The poster used for this session at the 2014 ICED Conference included a brief description of the research project and the questions that were used in the traditional World Cafés. Under each question, the poster contained blank café table spaces, where participants could add their responses to the questions. The poster session began with a brief overview of the research. Presenters then invited the international attendees from the diversity of European countries as well as the United States to write responses to the “table questions” on sticky notes and place these on the poster. At that time, each participant in the group received a copy of a two page brief with information about the project, the World Café approach, ethics approval information, and a summary of themes raised by participants at the preceding EDC World Café session. Attendees were able to contribute additional sticky notes at their leisure, in unscheduled times, for approximately four hours, permitting participants to continue building upon other’s responses and adding new ideas.

2.2 Analysis

Notes from the World Café flipcharts and poster were transferred into separate electronic documents. Data from these separate documents were then collated, and the project lead reviewed these data multiple times for themes and outliers (Creswell, 2007). This approach to data organization and analysis is consistent with Creswell’s qualitative data analysis spiral, which has been applied in recent educational development research (Kenny, Watson, & Watton, 2014). The initial data from the EDC session were coded and categorized based on table themes and the central research questions. A second researcher then aggregated data from all sessions and continued the content analysis; as part of this process, she engaged in verification, a strategy that involves checking the data systematically and in an ongoing manner, to contribute to the rigor of the analysis and research (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). In the second round of coding, the researcher read the collective data and, using the existing themes as a starting point, continued to identify words, phrases, and concepts within the data (Mayan, 2009). Verification continued as the coding of these data was then reviewed by a third researcher to ensure consistency in the observations, patterns, themes, and relationships identified.

3. Results

These results represent key themes from the aggregate data gathered from the three World Cafés. Results are organized according to the three main themes at the World Café, which were: (a) the possibilities and potential of educational developer portfolios, (b) the ideal portfolio, and (c) supporting and integrating the use of educational developer portfolios.

3.1 The Possibilities and Potential of the Educational Developer Portfolios

3.1.1 Communicate strengths, abilities, skills, and accomplishments

Throughout World Café discussions, participants described the educational developer portfolio as enabling owners to communicate: the depth and breadth of the work they do; the strengths, skills, and abilities they bring to their practice; and, the impact of their work. They said it allowed individuals to showcase their collaborations, highlight their creativity, and include concrete examples (successful or not) of their work. Through the portfolio, owners could express their philosophy, values, and vulnerability through critical reflections on both their strengths and areas for improvement.

3.1.2 Growth and change over time

Participants described the portfolio as not bound to a person’s current position; the portfolio can map the history of an educational developer’s relevant experience and describe the individual’s evolution over time. By engaging in the process of portfolio creation and development, owners reflect on their work, which may help them better recognize their growth and the value of their work. These reflective activities may also spark new ideas and help the owner identify areas for future professional growth.

3.1.3 Connect and store

The participants stated that the portfolio is a useful vehicle for displaying connections and relationships between different professional activities. For example, the educational development portfolio can link to a course blog and other tangible examples of the owner’s work. One can also highlight collaborations and show links to industry, specific areas of academia, and even parenting and other aspects of one’s life.

3.1.4 Define/articulate the field of educational development

They perceived that the portfolio could help define, to those outside or new to the field, what an educational developer does. The content could demonstrate the variety of educational development roles and the diversity of ways that the field supports teaching and learning. The portfolio may help make the educational development work relevant to a broader sector of people.

3.1.5 Center portfolio

Participants also spoke about the creation of portfolios for Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTL). Like the individual portfolio, they said that a CTL portfolio could communicate strengths, abilities, skills, and accomplishments of a collective group of individuals. It could document the history of workshops and programs, record information about funding and awards, and serve as a way to document successes and failure. The CTL portfolio could also signal partnerships with other institutions and the community.

In addition, potential funders might use a CTL portfolio to help justify monetary decisions. It might play a role in quality assurance processes or in benchmarking between centers. Collectively, center portfolios could be used to detect trends over time and to share what is happening in educational development in other parts of the world. The creation of a center portfolio was identified as a good team building activity to help individuals better understand the roles of others within the unit.

3.1.6 Other potential uses of a portfolio

Participants broadened and identified many additional roles for portfolios, including:

  • as part of a training program for new educational developers;

  • as a collection of evidence in a grant application process;

  • as a requirement for a job application process;

  • to support performance review processes;

  • to help design and write a job description;

  • to clarify the scope of the developer’s role. For example, to help explain what we do to others (e.g., peers, family, faculty members, relatives, and friends) and to build relationships and strengthen (or generate) collaborations with faculty members;

  • to communicate and offer possible evidence of quality or standards of service and performance; and,

  • as documentation of evidence of practice by professional bodies and postsecondary administrators (e.g., deans and department heads).

3.1.7 The ideal portfolio

Participants in the World Cafés agreed the ideal portfolio should be flexible but still have structure. Both online and paper portfolios were cited as appropriate. In either case, the owner should be able to modify the portfolio for a specific audience. Portfolio formats should be adaptable, enabling the author to create unique versions for specific audiences. The ideal portfolio would be regularly updated and could be used to generate reports. Participants indicated that it may be necessary to educate readers on how to read and make sense of this complex adaptable portfolio.

Participants also suggested that portfolios could provide an opportunity to reflect upon the larger values of the educational development community. For example, they suggested that portfolio content could map to the EDC of Canada’s values of open community, ethical practice, collaboration, and scholarly approach (Educational Developers Caucus of Canada, 2015). In terms of content, participants also recommended that portfolios could have visuals, personal narratives, reflections, feedback and testimonials, and other tangible evidence of one’s work. A portfolio could also include metaphors as these might help set the appropriate tone and represent a useful and authentic tool for writing about one’s trajectory. Some individuals pointed out that artifacts should be chosen carefully and be included on the basis that they are the best item to represent the work one is describing.

The ideal portfolio should create openness, spur conversations, and help identify an educational developer’s direction. Participants stated that it should also be a space to “deconstruct ideas and projects” and reflect on aspects of one’s practice that may not have consistently worked well. It was suggested that when the portfolio is being used primarily for reflection and as a tool for professional and self development, owners should have more freedom to be creative in their portfolio. However, regardless of the purpose, it was said that the portfolio needed to be an “individual expression of who you are” and that one’s “authentic self” needed to be represented.

3.1.8 Supporting and integrating the use of educational developer portfolios

Participants felt several conditions would facilitate effective integration of the portfolio into the educational developer’s practice. The portfolio would meet a need and have a clear purpose; it would need to be part of one’s regular workflow, part of job applications and performance reviews; and would clearly speak to educational development competencies and skill but also continue to be a tool for self reflection and development. However, control and ownership must continue to reside with the owner. Participants felt that in order to support the portfolio’s implementation into practice, it would have value for the organization.

3.1.9 Use of technology

Participants repeatedly cited technology as an important factor supporting the adoption and integration of portfolios. They reflected on the time and effort required to collect, store, manage, and curate artifacts. Unable to predict how future technology would support implementation, some participants struggled to imagine how the portfolio might be used in their future practice. They mentioned practical challenges, such as having the necessary skills and resources to build and maintain a portfolio. They described the need for the provision of training through professional development events, such as an “Educational Developers Institute,” or through other formats, such as workshops and conferences, to support the skillset required to create and maintain the portfolio. They wondered in what type of file formats they might be stored to preserve continued access and the ability to update, as well as wondering how portfolios would be supported more broadly across the community in an ongoing way and over time and how archiving over time might happen.

3.1.10 Practical concerns

Participants felt that if portfolios were used to collaborate meaningfully with others, this would help their adoption. Some mentioned the use of standard templates and tools that make it easy to share their work and referred to an interactive component that would help them create dialogue and engage with colleagues across the community.

The CTL portfolio was thought to be an important way of supporting the use and integration of portfolios. Creating a CTL portfolio would enable individuals to make stronger connections to one another and to the academic community. The portfolio itself could provide public evidence of scholarship and might, potentially, drive strategic directions. A CTL portfolio with a matrix of the strengths, skills, and abilities of those within the center would allow the center to better communicate the value of the work being performed across CTLs.

4. Discussion

Similar to Dawson et al. (2010), we found that the World Café format provided an opportunity for participants to collaboratively engage in a rich dialogue related to the potential use, format, presentation, and integration of educational developer portfolios in practice. This approach allowed individuals to participate in evolving rounds of dialogue (Brown & Isaacs, 2006; Prewitt, 2011) and discover new meanings and possibilities related to broadly posed questions about educational developer portfolios. Even through the World Café poster format, participants were able to provide input and discover new insights by building upon each other’s ideas.

The outcomes of the World Café discussions support three main themes: (a) there is value and potential to further implementing educational developer portfolios across multiple levels (e.g., individual and center) and for multiple uses (e.g., professional development, performance management, and job applications); (b) the ideal portfolio should be structured to allow an authentic representation of each individual author and should provide for flexibility in terms of potential audience and intended use; and (c) for the educational developers portfolio to provide value across the community, its development and use must be supported more broadly. Stated more directly, there must be a cultural shift in our community’s approach to supporting the use and integration of educational developer portfolios into the fabric of our "everyday" processes, practices, and approaches. The sections below present a discussion of these themes situated within the broader context of scholarly literature related to educational development and postsecondary education and provide suggestions for promoting a cultural shift related to the use and integration of educational developer portfolios.

4.1 Theme 1: The Value and Use of Educational Developer Portfolios

Similar to the recommendations provided by Wright and Miller (2000) and Stanley (2001), participants in the World Café discussions clearly recognized the potential value and use of educational developer portfolios. These authors and the café participants acknowledged the range of potential uses of portfolios within the context of professional growth and development, job searches and hiring, performance management, and tenure and promotion processes. Participants placed clear emphasis on the importance and value of the portfolio as a formative tool to support ongoing critical reflection and to support career growth, mentorship, and professional development. The ability of portfolios to facilitate critical reflection and professional learning is highlighted as one of the foremost benefits of their use (Brown, 2001; Danowitz, 2012; Henderson, Turpen, Dancy, & Chapman, 2014; Scott, 2010; Seldin et al., 2010; Tigelaar et al., 2006; Trevitt & Stocks, 2012; Wright, Knight, & Pomerleau, 1999; Wright & Miller, 2000). Wright and Miller state, “The strength of the portfolio model is its unparalleled ability to document the ‘reflective practitioner’ aspects of one’s professional life” (p. 25). The café participants also discussed how the educational developer portfolio provided an opportunity for the field of educational development to “walk the talk” given our commitment to supporting the use of portfolios in other contexts, particularly teaching portfolios (see, e.g., Corcoran & Nicholson, 2004; Klenowski et al., 2006; Knapper & Wright, 2001; Scott, 2010; Tigelaar et al., 2006; Trevitt & Stocks, 2012; Trevitt, Stocks, & Quinlan, 2012; Wright et al., 1999).

The potential role of the portfolio at the center level was highlighted throughout the discussion. Participants discussed the portfolio in terms of providing evidence of educational development activities and approaches with and across CTLs. They spoke of the potential use of portfolios from a quality assurance perspective, as a means of “benchmarking” between centers, and as a formative tool to inspire collaboration between individuals who work at a CTL. They conversed about the center portfolio as a means of providing public evidence of the scholarly contributions of the educational development community, as well as documenting and inspiring strategic change within and across centers.

Although there is little research to support the benefits, use, and integration of portfolios at the center level, Cannon (2001) does suggest that within the context of higher education, portfolios can be used to support planning and evaluation at departmental and institutional levels. Additional authors speak to the importance of engaging in activities that support the assessment and communication of the breadth and depth of our impact across CTLs (Gibbs, 2013; Grabove et al., 2012; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010). This is especially important given the institutional resource and funding allocation pressures CTLs often face. Grabove et al. (2012) acknowledge the importance of engaging in assessment as part of a scholarly practice for educational developers and recommend that CTLs focus on “the assessments that matter most whether in terms of program development and enhancement, or in terms of program justification” (p. 11). Furthermore, Reese and Levy (2009) point to the potential use of eportfolios in institutional and departmental reviews. In contrast to annual reports, eportfolios can provide a living document that is flexible and responsive to the evolving nature of our approaches, activities, and impact (Educational Development Unit, 2015). These results provide interesting fodder for further research related to the potential use of CTL portfolios, especially within the context of strategic planning and assessment.

As a specialized and interdisciplinary occupation in higher education, the field of educational development continues to evolve (Gibbs, 2013; Grant et al., 2009; Little, 2014; McDonald & Stockley, 2008; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006; Timmermans, 2014). Due to the diversity, breadth, and richness of educational development, providing evidence of the scope, quality, and effectiveness of our work is challenging (Hoessler, Godden, & Hoessler, 2015; Hum, Amundsen, & Emmioglu, 2015; Kreber, Brook, & Policy, 2001; Saroyan & Trigwell, 2015). The World Café conversations spurred dialogue about the challenge of: (a) explaining what we do to others; and, (b) providing evidence of the diversity and impact of our work. Participants engaged in discussion related to the need to establish a strong professional identity for educational development as a whole and noted that educational developer portfolios could be used to help further define and account for the impact of the profession. Recognizing the inherent breadth and richness of educational development, Wright and Miller (2000) also contended that educational developers create portfolios as a collective way of defining the field. Stanley (2001) further noted that portfolios could serve to heighten administrators’ awareness of the roles of, and diversity among, educational development professionals.

In summary, participants emphasized the value of educational developer portfolios as a tool for our development as critically reflective practitioners (Brookfield, 1995). They also acknowledged that portfolios could be further integrated within the context of evaluative processes, such as hiring and performance review (see, e.g., Danowitz, 2012). Furthermore, they suggested that this would strengthen the evolving identity of the field of educational development. These results indicate that educational developer portfolios not only provide evidence of the scope and impact of the contributions made by individual educational developers and CTLs, but can also contribute to the evolving discourse related to the identity of the profession as a whole.

4.2 Theme 2: The Structure and Content of the Ideal Educational Developer Portfolio

Envisioning the structure and content of the ideal portfolio elicited conversations that echo earlier recommendations by others related to the content typically provided within an educational developer portfolio (Stanley, 2001; Wright & Miller, 2000). Participants again discussed the formative benefits of portfolios in providing an opportunity for authors to reflect upon, communicate, and provide evidence of their key educational development beliefs and approaches. Trevitt and Stocks (2012) support the benefit of creating a portfolio as part of a process of ongoing professional learning. The participants’ conversations related to the structure and content of educational developer portfolios best aligned with the “alternative portfolio” approach recommended by Wright and Miller (2000), where the portfolio is framed by change related objectives or claims to practice, which are supported by a narrative that explains the underlying beliefs that inform this objective and concrete evidence of actions and strategies that demonstrate and align with these claims. Gravestock (2011) further emphasizes the importance of incorporating multiple forms of evidence from multiple perspectives to form a complete picture of one’s contributions. Trevitt et al. (2012) present key elements of what a teaching portfolio should include, which also align with the outcomes of participants’ discussions. Adapting their recommendations within the context of educational development portfolios and the results of this research, we suggest that portfolios contain:

  1. representations and evidence of educational development practice, including sufficient breadth to highlight multiple aspects and perspectives (e.g., from self, peers, participants/learners) of the impact and effectiveness of such practice given the author’s experience, roles, and responsibilities;

  2. engagement with key ideas in educational development and scholarly literature related to educational development;

  3. a critically reflective narrative and personal commentary that situates and provides further context to the author’s beliefs and practices, especially within the context of a clearly articulated educational development philosophy statement; and,

  4. clear alignment between elements one to three presented above.

Beyond the content and structure of a portfolio, participants focused on the need for portfolios to provide an “authentic” representation of the author. Trevitt and Stocks (2012) refer to authenticity as a process when portfolio authors are “being true to themselves and representing their real thoughts, approaches and day to day [educational development] practices” (p. 248). Trevitt et al. (2012) further describe this as a narrative process of “writing the self” where authors “probe their thinking, feelings, values and decision making in a process of self critique” (p. 165). Here, authors offer a genuine perspective and account of their beliefs, approaches, practices, and learning by attaching personal meaning to experience in ways that create a vivid portrait for the reader (Brown, 2001; Corcoran & Nicholson, 2004; Trevitt & Stocks, 2012). When an educational developer portfolio is authentically communicated, the author’s voice is evident and consistent throughout the portfolio, and narrative summaries are included to ground their beliefs, strategies, and the evidence presented in their personal context and experience. The results of this research project support scholarly discourse that acknowledges both the importance and challenge of engaging in and communicating through an authentic process of critical self reflection via a portfolio (Scott, 2010; Trevitt & Stocks, 2012; Trevitt et al., 2012).

One clear area of emphasis for the café participants was the need for the portfolio’s structure and content to provide flexibility in terms of the potential audience and intended use. They discussed having a portfolio of artifacts that could be curated and presented for specific uses and audiences. Like Trevitt et al. (2012), they spoke of the evolving nature of a portfolio as a continuous work in progress that could help capture one’s practice over time. Stanley (2001) also highlights the individualized nature of portfolios, stating that although there may be some standardized components, such as a philosophy statement and evidence of practice, the content and appearance of portfolios will vary greatly depending on the individual and its intended purpose. Indeed, many authors (e.g., Henderson et al., 2014; Klenowski et al., 2006; Tigelaar et al., 2006) highlight the portfolio’s fluid structure as one of its strengths, in that this inherent flexibility allows it to authentically reflect each author’s thinking and wisdom of practice (Weimer, 2001) in ways that are contextually appropriate for a variety of audiences and uses. In summary, the results of this research project clearly align with past scholarly discourse related to the content and structure of educational developer portfolios (Stanley, 2001; Wright & Miller, 2000) and teaching portfolios (e.g., Knapper & Wright, 2001; Seldin et al., 2010; Trevitt & Stocks, 2012; Trevitt et al., 2012), which could serve as a valuable frame of reference for the development of resources to further support their integration and use.

4.3 Theme 3: Supporting Educational Developer Portfolios throughout the Educational Development Community

Although participants clearly recognized the potential value of educational developer portfolios, they expressed uncertainty about how portfolios could be further supported throughout the educational development community. They spoke of the need for educational developer portfolios to become more widely used and integrated across the community as a meaningful part of our everyday processes and practices—at the individual, organizational, or community level. Their own experiences demonstrated limited support for the use of educational developer portfolios. They argued that their use would require a clear purpose for the portfolio and, their integration in practice would need to become part of the culture of the educational development community.

Roxå, Mårtensson, and Alveteg (2011) refer to culture as the shared norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions that guide our practice. Participants felt there was great potential for portfolios to become woven throughout the fabric of our educational development culture and practices. They felt we could further demonstrate the value of portfolios by normalizing their use within the context of personnel decisions (e.g., as a required component in job applications and performance reviews) and as a tool to promote ongoing reflection, self assessment, and professional learning. They said it was important that educational developers, supervisors, managers, directors, and the broader educational development community recognize the value of their application in practice. They also emphasized that the educational developers would require time and resources to actively integrate and use portfolios in practice. They reiterated the potential of the portfolio approach to be incorporated in planning, development, evaluation, and decision making processes at the center level. It was time, they said, for the educational development community to embrace a practice long supported in other contexts.

Although limited research supports a culture of use and integration of portfolios in higher education, Wouters et al.’s (2014, p. 31) research indicates that the systematic incorporation of portfolios into evaluation processes can support the development of a “shared language” related to the inherent complexities of teaching and learning in higher education. They also found that portfolios could make the evaluation of complex processes, such as teaching—and we would argue, educational development—more systematic and transparent.

Zipp and Simpkins (2010) found that the process of evaluating portfolios could prove challenging due to the inherent variability of content and presentation of portfolios and the evaluation processes required for use in personnel decisions (e.g., hiring, performance review, tenure and promotion, and merit). They advocated for the development of objective criteria to facilitate their assessment within these contexts. Likewise, Gravestock (2011), Knapper and Wright (2001) and Seldin et al. (2010) urge that those who evaluate portfolios be provided with clear criteria, guidelines, and appropriate training to ensure that personnel decision making processes are reliable and equitable. Study findings and the literature reviewed reinforce the importance of developing clear processes, policies, and practices for the evaluation of portfolios in personnel decisions to support effective use and integration.

Participants acknowledged the time and effort required to gather artifacts, create, and maintain an educational developer portfolio. To further support their integration and use, the participants suggested that practical training (e.g., workshops and professional development institutes) and resources (e.g., templates and handbooks) would facilitate their development. Corcoran and Nicholson (2004) also suggest that appropriate guidance and support be provided to those creating portfolios. Furthermore, Scott (2010) emphasizes that the integration of portfolios must be both meaningful and intentional. While there are numerous how to guides, books, articles, and an established body of research on teaching portfolios (e.g., Fong et al., 2014; Hoekstra & Crocker, 2015; Knapper & Wright, 2001; Klenowski et al., 2006; Seldin et al., 2010; Sjögren, Ragnemalm, Tingström, Uhlin, & Dahlgren, 2012; Trevitt et al., 2012; Trevitt & Stocks, 2012; Wright et al., 1999; Wouters et al., 2014; Zipp & Simpkins, 2010), little such foundation exists for educational developer portfolios. McDonald et al. (2016) recently published a guide dedicated to supporting those creating and using educational developer portfolios. This research project clearly identifies a need for further training, development, resources, and research related to the use and integration of educational developer portfolios.

Although café participants highlighted the merits of both print and digital (i.e., eportfolios) portfolios, discussions acknowledged that eportfolios could facilitate their integration and use by providing a platform to more easily store, curate, and present artifacts. However, the café participants spoke tentatively regarding the use of eportfolios, raising concerns about: (a) the ability to create, maintain, and share portfolios; (b) evolving file formats; (c) software availability; and, (d) ease of use. Research on the use of eportfolios within the context of postsecondary professional learning environments is growing, with a predominate focus on student learning portfolios and teaching portfolios. Recent studies highlight the importance of providing access to an intuitive and flexible eportfolio tool and ensuring that appropriate training and professional development opportunities are in place to facilitate their use (Fong et al., 2014; Hoekstra & Crocker, 2015; Sjögren et al., 2012). We recognize that this research project only begins the process of creating a culture to actively support educational development portfolios; further research is required to identify factors supporting their use and integration throughout our community.

5. Conclusion

As the field of educational development continues to mature and evolve, the importance of evidencing the scope, quality, and impact of our practices has never been more important. The educational developer portfolio provides an authentic means to articulate, to reflect upon, and demonstrate evidence of an educational developer’s beliefs, approaches, practices, development, and impact. This research project makes an important contribution to the field and strengthens the argument for integrating the use of educational developer portfolios in our practice.

Although the data collected were gathered from a relatively small proportion of the educational development community, the rich qualitative data gathering and analysis produced findings that aligned with scholarly discourse regarding the use of portfolios to support professional learning and development in postsecondary education, and confirmed their value for our profession. We see much potential for further research related to the use and integration of educational developer portfolios as identified in the above discussion.

In recent years, we have seen a growth in the number of people entering the field of educational development and increasing opportunities for greater mobility and career growth across the globe (McDonald & Stockley, 2008). Educational developers are increasingly being called upon to communicate and document the scope, quality, and impact of their practice for current and future employers, colleagues, and campus partners. This project has demonstrated strong support for the role of educational developer portfolios as an authentic tool to communicate and substantiate the depth, breadth, and richness of our practice.

We argue that there is value and potential in promoting a cultural shift throughout our community to further integrate and normalize educational developer portfolios in our practice. Based on the findings of this project and past scholarly research (see e.g., Corcoran & Nicholson, 2004; Knapper & Wright, 2001; Seldin et al., 2010; Scott, 2010; Wouters et al., 2014) related to the use of portfolios in higher education, this cultural shift may be supported specifically by:

  • developing a shared and common language around the use of educational developer portfolios and the key components there within (e.g., educational development philosophy statements).

  • using portfolios to document and critically reflect on educational development beliefs, approaches, and activities and sharing information and reflections with colleagues for the purpose of mentoring, learning, and professional growth.

  • using portfolios to support, prepare for, and supplement individual performance reviews and personnel decisions (e.g., to document approaches to practice and evidence strengths, accomplishments, areas for improvement, and future goals).

  • creating center portfolios to document and share on the impact and influence of a CTL’s work.

  • articulating and presenting center strategic planning in an online portfolio format and sharing with stakeholders to identify and articulate strategic priorities, activities, and impact (see, e.g., Educational Development Unit, 2015).

  • featuring (or linking to) individuals’ statements of educational development philosophy and portfolios on CTL websites as a way to educate the public about the field of educational development.

  • requiring and intentionally incorporating educational developer portfolios as part of a job application and hiring processes.

  • collaboratively creating example rubrics for assessing and evaluating educational developer portfolios, especially within the context of personnel decisions (e.g., McDonald et al., 2016).

  • using portfolios to collaborate on, and document, cross institutional partnerships.

  • linking portfolio content (e.g., activities, plans, reflections, and artifacts) to educational development competencies (e.g., Dawson et al., 2010; McDonald et al., 2016).

  • using portfolios to share artifacts and resources that can serve the wider educational development community to establish a strong professional identity and communicate the breadth and depth of our impact on postsecondary education.

  • providing training and resources (e.g., workshops, handbooks, online resources, templates, and eportfolio platforms) to support individuals on portfolio creation (e.g., McDonald et al., 2016).

  • providing training (e.g., workshops, handbooks, online resources, and example rubrics) to individuals on how to assess and evaluate portfolios.

We acknowledge that it will take time for our community to fully embrace a culture of educational developer portfolios and that not all recommendations will be appropriate to each individual, CTL, or institutional context. However, these strategies provide tangible actions and examples for the educational development community to actively demonstrate and normalize the value, integration, and use of portfolios throughout our practice.

References

  • Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2006). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers.
  • Brown, J. O. (2001). The portfolio: A reflective bridge connecting the learner, higher education, and the workplace. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 49(2), 2–13.
  • Buyarski, C. A., & Landis, C. M. (2014). Using an eportfolio to assess the outcomes of a first year seminar: Student narrative and authentic assessment. International Journal of ePortfolio, 4(1), 49–60.
  • Cannon, R. (2001). Broadening the context for teaching evaluation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 88, 87–97.
  • Chism, N. V. N. (2006). Teaching awards: What do they award? The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 589–617.
  • Cockell, J., & McArthur Blair, J. (2012). Appreciative inquiry in higher education: A transformative force. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Corcoran, J., & Nicholson, C. (2004). Learning portfolios—Evidence of learning: An examination of students’ perspectives. Nursing in Critical Care, 9(5), 230–237.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Danowitz, E. S. (2012). On the right track: Using ePortfolios as tenure files. International Journal of ePortfolio, 2(1), 113–124.
  • Dawson, D., Britnell, J., & Hitchcock, A. (2010). Developing competency models of faculty developers. To Improve the Academy, 28, 3–24.
  • Educational Developers Caucus of Canada (2015). Educational developers caucus values. Retrieved from http://www.stlhe.ca/constituencies/educational developers caucus/edc values/
  • Educational Development Unit (2015). Educational development unit ePortfolio. Retrieved from http://eduportfolio.ucalgaryblogs.ca
  • Fong, R. W. T., Lee, J. C. K., Chang, C. Y., Zhang, Z., Ngai, A. C. Y., & Lim, C. P. (2014). Digital teaching portfolio in higher education: Examining colleagues’ perceptions to inform implementation strategies. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 60–68.
  • Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 4–14.
  • Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–606 .Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss4/6
  • Gosling, D. (2009). Educational development in the UK: A complex and contradictory reality. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 5–18.
  • Grabove, V., Kustra, E., Lopes, V., Potter, M. K., Wiggers, R., & Woodhouse, R. (2012). Teaching and learning centers: Their evolving role within Ontario colleges and universities. Toronto, Canada: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
  • Grant, B., Lee, A., Clegg, S., Manathunga, C., Barrow, M., Kandlbinder, P., … Hicks, M. (2009). Why history? Why now? Multiple accounts of the emergence of academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 83–86.
  • Gravestock, P.S. (2011) Does teaching matter? The role of teaching evaluation in tenure policies at selected Canadian universities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/31764/6/Gravestock_Pamela_S_201111_PhD_thesis.pdf
  • Heinricher, A. C., Miller, J. E., Schachterle, L., Kildahl, N. K., Bluemel, V., & Crawford, V. (2002). Undergraduate learning portfolios for institutional assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(2), 249–253.
  • Henderson, C., Turpen, C., Dancy, M., & Chapman, T. (2014). Assessment of teaching effectiveness: Lack of alignment between instructors, institutions, and research recommendations. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 10(1), 010106 1–01016 20.
  • Hoekstra, A., & Crocker, J. R. (2015). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an ePortfolio approach to support faculty development in vocational education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 61–73.
  • Hoessler, C., Godden, L., & Hoessler, B. (2015). Widening our evaluative lenses of formal, facilitated, and spontaneous academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(3), 224–237.
  • Hum, G., Amundsen, C., & Emmioglu, E. (2015). Evaluating a teaching development grants program: Our framework, process, initial findings, and reflections. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 29–38.
  • Kenny, N., Watson, G. P., & Watton, C. (2014). Exploring the context of Canadian graduate student teaching certificates in university teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(3), 1–19.
  • Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and professional development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 267–286.
  • Knapper, C., & Wright, W. A. (2001). Using portfolios to document good teaching: Premises, purposes, practices. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2001(88), 19–29.
  • Kreber, C., Brook, P., & Policy, E. (2001). Impact evaluation of educational development programmes. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(2), 96–108.
  • Little, D. (2014). Reflections on the state of the scholarship of educational development. To Improve the Academy, 33(1), 1–13.
  • Mayan, M. J. (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
  • McDonald, J., & Stockley, D. (2008). Pathways to the profession of educational development: An international perspective. International Journal for Academic Development, 13(3), 213–218.
  • McDonald, J., Kenny, N., Kustra, E., Dawson, D., Iqbal, I., Borin, P., & Chan, J. (2016). The educational developer’s portfolio. Educational Development Guide Series No. 1. Ottawa, Canada: Educational Developers Caucus.
  • Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22.
  • O’Keeffe, M., & Donnelly, R. (2013). Exploration of eportfolios for adding value and deepening student learning in contemporary higher education. International Journal of ePortfolio, 1, 1–11.
  • Partridge, M. (2015). Evaluation Café a review of literature concerning world cafe methodology used as an evaluative tool in education. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 2(2).Retrieved from http://journals.staffs.ac.uk/index.php/ipihe/article/viewFile/76/154.
  • Prewitt, V. (2011). Working in the café: Lessons in group dialogue. The Learning Organization, 18(3), 189–202.
  • Reese, M., & Levy, R. (2009). Assessing the future: E portfolio trends, uses, and options in higher education. Research Bulletin, 4, 1–12.
  • Roxå, T., Mårtensson, K., & Alveteg, M. (2011). Understanding and influencing teaching and learning cultures at university: A network approach. Higher Education, 62(1), 99–111.
  • Saroyan, A., & Trigwell, K. (2015). Higher education teachers’ professional learning: Process and outcome. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 92–101.
  • Scott, S. G. (2010). Enhancing reflection skills through learning portfolios: An empirical test. Journal of Management Education, 34(3), 430–457.
  • Seldin, P., Miller, J. E., & Seldin, C. A. (2010). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Shore, B., & Caron, L. (1986). The CAUT guide to the teaching dossier: Its preparation and use. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of University Teachers.
  • Sjögren, E., Ragnemalm, E. L., Tingström, P., Uhlin, L., & Dahlgren, M. A. (2012). Academics’ reflections on the use of eportfolio documentation of pedagogical skills—A pilot study. The Quality of Higher Education, 9, 98–119.
  • Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.
  • Stanley, C. A. (2001). The faculty development portfolio: A framework for documenting the professional development of faculty developers. Innovative Higher Education, 26(1), 23–36.
  • Taylor, K. L., & Rege Colet, N. (2010). Making the shift from faculty development to educational development: A conceptual framework grounded in practice. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model (pp. 139–167). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  • Tigelaar, D. E., Dolmans, D. H., Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Vleuten, C. P. (2006). Portfolio as a tool to stimulate teachers’ reflections. Medical Teacher, 28(3), 277–282.
  • Timmermans, J. A. (2014). Identifying threshold concepts in the careers of educational developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 305–317.
  • Trevitt, C., & Stocks, C. (2012). Signifying authenticity in academic practice: A framework for better understanding and harnessing portfolio assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 245–257.
  • Trevitt, C., Stocks, C., & Quinlan, K. M. (2012). Advancing assessment practice in continuing professional learning: Toward a richer understanding of teaching portfolios for learning and assessment. International Journal for Academic Development, 17(2), 163–175.
  • Weimer, M. (2001). Learning more from the wisdom of practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86, 45–56.
  • Wouters, P., Clement, M., Frenay, M., Buelens, H., & Gilis, A. (2014). Avoiding compliance and resistance through collaboration? A Belgian teaching portfolio case. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(1), 26–36.
  • Wright, W. A., & Miller, J. E. (2000). The educational developer’s portfolio. International Journal for Academic Development, 5(1), 20–29.
  • Wright, W. A., Knight, P. T., & Pomerleau, N. (1999). Portfolio people: Teaching and learning dossiers and innovation in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 24(2), 89–103.
  • Zipp, G. P., & Simpkins, S. (2010). The role of the academic portfolio in documenting faculty development. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 7(10).