Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.2.75-79

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Using Portfolios to Improve Teaching Quality: The
Case of a Small Business School
Ian Stewart
To cite this article: Ian Stewart (2004) Using Portfolios to Improve Teaching Quality: The Case
of a Small Business School, Journal of Education for Business, 80:2, 75-79, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.80.2.75-79
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.2.75-79

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 12 January 2016, At: 22:25

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:25 12 January 2016

Using Portfolios to Improve
Teaching Quality: The Case of
a Small Business School
IAN STEWART
California State Polytechnic University–Pomona
Pomona, California

I

n April 2000, the School of Business
and Economics at Seattle Pacific

University gained accreditation by the
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB). Although the process took several years, it
was the “hinge” that allowed faculty
members to embrace new issues and
support the changes involved in achieving accreditation (Curry, 1992, p. 23).
My purpose in this article is to examine
one activity that the faculty members
undertook to improve teaching quality:
the development of course and teaching
portfolios. I draw on Barbara Curry’s
model of organizational change. Organizational theorists generally recognize
three stages in the process of organizational change (Curry, p. 12): (a) mobilization, in which the system is prepared
for change; (b) implementation, through
which change is introduced in the system; and (c) institutionalization, through
which the system is stabilized in its
changed state. The structure of this article follows these stages. It should be
noted that it is often difficult to determine where one phase stops and another
begins because the stages are interwoven
at any point in the life of an innovation

(Berman, in Curry). My hope is that our
experience may be of interest to other
schools that wish to make changes in the
way that they develop their faculty
members.

ABSTRACT. In this study, the author
applies B. K. Curry’s (1992) model of
organizational institutionalization to a
case study involving efforts to implement course and teaching portfolios in
a small business school. This article is
based on the personal observations of
those involved and the published literature on the subject. Both teaching and
course portfolios became part of the
routinized behavior and culture of the
school. The author argues that course
portfolios, because of their focus on
student learning, can greatly enhance
the development of teachers, assist in
creating a culture of evidence around

learning outcomes, and foster the
scholarship of teaching and learning.

Mobilization
In the mid-1990s, several of my colleagues expressed dissatisfaction with
student ratings as the only source of
information about teaching. After considerable discussion during 1995–1996,
the faculty members agreed that three
exercises from the American Association for Higher Education’s (AAHE)
Peer Review of Teaching Project From
Idea to Prototype (Hutchings, 1995),
designed to reveal the “pedagogical
thinking” behind teaching activities,
may provide richer evidence about the
substance of teaching.
The Peer Review Project emphasizes
teaching as serious intellectual work.
Each exercise reflects the three broad
time phases in which instruction takes

place: pre-interaction, interaction, and
postinteraction. The first exercise calls
for selecting a syllabus and writing a
reflective memorandum explaining the
choices and rationale that underlie the
syllabus. Before the adoption of this
exercise, my colleagues and I developed
guidelines for the syllabus (Grunert,
1997). In the second exercise, the
instructor attempts to capture the particulars of classroom practice by offering
three alternatives: inviting a colleague
to visit a class and make detailed notes,
arranging for a class to be videotaped,
or writing a case on a classroom
episode. A reflective memorandum
accompanies whichever mode is chosen. Finally, in the third exercise the
instructor places the focus on student
learning by suggesting the selection of
an assignment/student-work sample and
writing a reflective memorandum

explaining what the samples reveal
about students’ learning (see http://
www.aahe.org/teaching/Peer_Review.ht
m for a full description of the exercises).
One of the reasons the exercises
appealed to us at this school was that the
same student rating form was currently
used across all disciplines, as though
teaching accounting and teaching organizational behavior were the same. Furthermore, we appreciated the opportunity to become active agents rather than
passive objects in the process of generatNovember/December 2004

75

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:25 12 January 2016

ing and compiling evidence of teaching
effectiveness (Hutchings, 1996, p. 50).
We decided that the exercises would
be completed collaboratively. Two professors were to team up, one commenting on the other, and then they would
reverse their roles (Keig & Waggoner,

1994; Seldin, 1997). The partnerships
formed included tenured and nontenured, as well as senior and junior,
faculty members. Their purpose in this
approach was to encourage a “community of practice” in the school (Brookfield, 1995, p. 253; Hutchings, 1998, p.
16). Heller concluded that
[u]sing teachers in a peer supervision role
is linked to their personal growth, their
sense of collegiality, and to improved
instructional practices—all of which contribute to higher morale, greater job satisfaction, improved school climate, and
ultimately higher student achievement.
(quoted in Keig & Waggoner, p. 128)

Second, we decided that the peer partners should be from the same field of
study. This decision was based on Keig
and Waggoner’s recommendation that
the “vast majority of critical teaching
incidents are interdependently content
and context-bound, requiring analysis
from and the assistance of colleagues
with considerable expertise in the field

of study” (p. 52). Faculty members
wanted to delve into the “more substantive” aspects of teaching, areas that
Shulman (1987) called pedagogical content knowledge and that require the ability to blend “content and pedagogy into
an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized,
represented, and adapted to the diverse
interests and abilities of learners, and
presented for instruction” (p. 8). We felt
that these were precisely those teaching
aspects on which within-discipline faculty members would be uniquely qualified to observe and comment.
Third, we concluded that the documentation of the exercises would be
confidential to the partners and kept
separate from summative evaluation.
The dean of school was to be notified
only that the partners had each completed the exercises. We felt that the
partners would be more candid with
each other with this framework because
the intent was “to provide data, diagnostic and descriptive feedback, with which
76

Journal of Education for Business

to improve instruction” (Keig & Waggoner, p. 13).
In summary, mobilization occurs as
the system is prepared for change. Faculty members’ readiness to embrace the
AAHE Peer Review exercises grew out
of dissatisfaction with student ratings as
the only source of information about
teaching. This situation created a climate in which they were open to determining the need for change through discussion. The AAHE exercises were seen
as a way of uncovering the more substantive aspects of teaching, those that
only faculty members can judge and on
which only they can assist others. These
aspects included reflecting on the
design issues embodied in a syllabus,
seeing how well a design was enacted in
a class visit or videotape, and looking at
the products of student learning to
assess outcomes. The exercises required
faculty members to work in pairs over
an extended period, in relationships that
were both reciprocal and confidential.

In a survey that I conducted in April
2004, 8 out of 11 faculty members who
participated in these exercises agreed
that having a peer collaborate with them
had been a stimulus to professional conversations and critique.
Implementation
Challenges
Implementation occurs when change
is introduced into the system. In this case,
the implementation of the innovation was
not without some challenges. The first
was that because there are only 19 fulltime faculty members in the School of
Business and Economics, with some
departments consisting of only one, two,
or three faculty members, some faculty
members had to team up with colleagues
from other disciplines. In discussing this
with the faculty members involved, we
attempted to look for common interests.
For example, the business ethics professor had worked as an information systems consultant, so he teamed up with the

information systems specialist.
A second difficulty concerned the
timetable for implementation. When the
AAHE exercises were proposed initially
in the 1995–1996 academic year, we
thought that faculty members would do

one exercise each quarter. At this rate,
all faculty members would have completed the exercises by the end of the
1996–1997 academic year. This estimate proved to be far too optimistic.
The exercises are labor intensive,
requiring dialogue and deliberation, and
many faculty members already were
carrying additional burdens associated
with other aspects of the accreditation
process. Ultimately, faculty members
agreed to do one exercise per academic
year. At this rate, 3 years later, 15 out of
19 faculty members had completed all
three exercises. The remaining 4 faculty
members completed their exercises just
before the accreditation team’s visit in
April 2000.
A third and more fundamental issue
concerned the situation in which a colleague would be called on later to evaluate a peer partner for promotion,
tenure, or award decisions. Although it
would have been ideal to have kept the
formative and evaluative processes
entirely separate, as most scholars recommend (Keig & Waggoner), given the
amount of faculty members, some
inevitably would be required to participate in both processes. After airing out
these issues, faculty members concluded
that ultimately they would have to rely
on the integrity and “good faith” of their
colleagues (Keig & Waggoner, p. 138).
As Brookfield explained, “For critical
reflection to happen, there has to be a
trustful atmosphere in which people
know that public disclosure of private
errors will not lead to their suffering
negative consequences” (1995, p. 250).
Course Portfolio
Following the completion of the exercises in the 1998–1999 school year, and
in preparation for the accreditation
team’s visit in April 2000, the faculty
members agreed to package the documentation for the three exercises into
what was then emerging as a course
portfolio (Hutchings, 1998). The course
portfolio is modeled on the three-part
structure (design, implementation, and
results) of the exercises in the Peer
Review Project. In addition, for the
visit, faculty members wrote a reflective
narrative on the relationships among all
three of the exercises. As Hutchings

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:25 12 January 2016

stated, the course portfolio represents
the “intellectual integrity of teaching.
By capturing and analyzing the relationship or congruence among design,
implementation, and results, it gets at
that ‘more holistic, coherent, integrated
aspect of teaching’”(1998, p. 16). These
are the aspects of teaching in which, as
Shulman pointed out (Hutchings, 1996,
p. 51), we often fail.
In 1997–1998, the school finally
identified “the scholarship of teaching”
(Hutchings & Shulman, 1999, p. 13) as
one of its priority goals (representing
35%–40% of all faculty scholarship).
We realized that the emerging model of
the course portfolio was structured in a
way that treats teaching as a kind of
“scholarly project.” William Cerbin
(1996), the inventor of the course portfolio, described this approach in the following manner:
Being a social scientist, I began to think
of each course . . . as a kind of laboratory—not as a truly controlled experiment, of course, but as a setting in which
you start out with goals for student learning, then you adopt teaching practices
that you think will accomplish these, and
along the way you can watch and see if
your practices are helping to accomplish
your goals, collecting evidence about
effects and impact. . . . [t]he course portfolio is really like a scholarly manuscript
. . . a draft, of ongoing inquiry. (p. 53)

Thus, the course portfolio was seen as
a vehicle not only for promoting teaching
improvement but also for encouraging an
attitude of inquiry into teaching that aims
to make the work public so that colleagues can review, critique, and build
upon the portfolio in their own work
(Hutchings & Shulman, 1999).
Moreover, because the “center of
gravity” of the course portfolio “is evidence that the teacher gathers about students’ learning and development”
(through the use of classroom assessment techniques, examination of student work, etc.) (Hutchings, 1998, p.
14), we hoped that this would provide
the accreditation team with some systematic “data points” that they could use
to assess student achievement in our
courses. As Bernstein (1998, p. 83)
reported, “This case is often best made
by a longitudinal account, showing how
learners’ understanding changed over
the unfolding of the course and showing

those forms of identified good teaching
practice that were included during that
time.” A survey that I conducted in April
2004 revealed that 9 out of 11 faculty
members felt that the course portfolio
had been useful in demonstrating student achievement for assessment and
accreditation purposes.
Teaching Portfolio
In 1997, the Tenure and Promotion
Committee instituted a Teacher of the
Year award for faculty members in the
School of Business and Economics. The
award was based on a teaching portfolio. Unlike the course portfolio, which
focuses on the unfolding of a single
course from conception to results, the
teaching portfolio (Edgerton, Hutchings, & Quinlan, 1991) focuses on the
teacher. Hutchings described the teaching portfolio as representing “a broad
sampling of the faculty member’s pedagogical work—in a variety of different
courses, over a number of years” (1996,
pp. 50–51). Because the content and
organization of portfolios can differ
from professor to professor, the composition of the portfolio and the weightings to be given to the various elements
in it were mandated by the Tenure and
Promotion Committee and standardized
that same year. Teaching responsibilities (list of courses taught, advising
duties) were weighted 5%; statement of
teaching philosophy and goals, 20%;
instructional material, 35%; student
evaluations of teaching, 35%; and
teaching honors and activities, 5%.
Another change implemented in 1998
was the requirement of a teaching portfolio as part of the annual review of
nontenured faculty members. This
review is designed to help faculty members reflect on their teaching with the
aim of improving and strengthening
their cases for tenure. Drawing on
Chism (1997–1998), Grasha (1996),
Goodyear and Allchin (1998), Murray
(1995), and Seldin (1997), we published
guidance on how to go about compiling
such a portfolio in the Faculty Handbook. In the following year, 1999, we
mandated a teaching portfolio as part of
the developmental post-tenure review
process occurring every 5 years.
In summary, faculty members legit-

imized course portfolios when it became
clear that they provided a way of creating
an ongoing, reflective process to improve
teaching. This was what the AACSB was
calling for in its standards (1991, IN.2).
Moreover, with the course portfolio’s
emphasis on the connection between
teacher practice and student performance, this method was an excellent way
to assess “institutional effectiveness and
student achievement,” another aspect of
instructional responsibilities that the
AACSB wanted monitored (1991, IN.2).
Furthermore, in its focus on a purposeful
experimentation and investigation of student learning, the course portfolio represented teaching as a familiar kind of
scholarly project, one that is essential to
advancing the scholarship of teaching,
consistent with the school’s priority on
teaching vis-à-vis scholarship and service (AACSB, 1991, M.5). The implementation of the course portfolio also
proved to be a catalyst for the acceptance
of what Miller (1998, p. v) described as
its “fraternal twin,” the teaching portfolio. The teaching portfolio became standardized procedure, playing a part in
bringing reward to teaching and in the
review process for tenured and nontenured faculty members. In my April
2004 survey, all 11 faculty members
responding agreed that the teaching portfolio had enabled them to document their
teaching effectiveness for annual review,
tenure, post-tenure review, and the
Teacher of the Year Award.
Institutionalization
Institutionalization occurs when the
system is stabilized in its changed state.
Curry (1992) indicated that the institutionalization of change occurs gradually
and incrementally at three different levels: the structural, the procedural, and
the cultural level.
Structural Level
At a structural level, the change must
be
reflected in multiple concrete ways
throughout the organization. It is when
the structures surrounding a change also
change to support it that . . . a change is
“institutionalized” that is . . . part of legitimate and ongoing practice, infused with

November/December 2004

77

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:25 12 January 2016

value and supported by other aspects of
the system. (Kanter, quoted in Curry,
1992, p. 9)

Specific policy changes required
teaching portfolios (a) for the Teacher
of the Year Award (1997), (b) as part of
an annual review of nontenured faculty
members (1998), and (c) as part of a
quintennial post-tenure review (1999).
Hence, by the 1999–2000 school year,
teaching portfolios had become “part of
a routinized behavior of the institutional
system” (Berman & McLaughlin, in
Curry, 1992, pp. 10–11) in the School of
Business and Economics. “In the longrun specific changes in structure and
practices . . . may have more impact
than any other approach to faculty
development” (Nelson, 1981, p. 52).
Procedural Level
The second condition for institutionalization requires that the policies and
behaviors associated with the change
become standard operating procedures.
These procedures for compiling course
and teaching portfolios are now set out
in the Faculty Handbook.
By the time that the accreditation
team visited campus in April 2000, (a)
all 19 faculty members had completed a
course portfolio (16 faculty members
worked in pairs, and 3 formed a triad);
(b) all nominees for the Teacher of the
Year Award for the previous 3 years had
completed a teaching portfolio; (c) all 4
nontenured faculty members had compiled a teaching portfolio in each of the
last 2 years as part of their annual
review; and (e) 3 tenured faculty members had compiled a teaching portfolio
as part of a post-tenure review.
Although one may argue that teaching portfolios had become part of the
standard operating procedures of the
school, once the school was accredited
there was no longer an incentive to prepare a course portfolio. In the
2001–2002 school year, however, my
colleagues and I thought it worthwhile
to try to reconnect the course portfolio
to other aspects of the organization. Two
reasons proved important in the rethinking of the role of the course portfolio.
First, although the teaching portfolio
provides a vehicle for developing a gen78

Journal of Education for Business

eral case on teaching quality, the course
portfolio connects the learning objectives to the learning activities that are
likely to result in those outcomes. This
connection invites the instructor to reexamine continually his or her success
in achieving the learning goals (Hutchings, 1996; Miller, 1998). The course
portfolio provides evidence, as Bernstein indicated, of the effectiveness of
the “transactional relationship” (1998,
p. 77) between the teacher and the
learner by showing “where the course
experience contributed to student
growth” (1998, p. 82). By requiring the
faculty member to make an argument,
complete with supporting evidence,
about his or her efforts to help and
encourage student learning in a particular course, we hoped that the school
would be able to “explicitly identify the
goals and demonstrate achievement”
required by the new AACSB standards
(2003, Stds 16, 18, &19).
Second, because the course portfolio
focuses on a particular “experiment,” to
use Cerbin’s term, it more closely resembles the products of scholarship than
does the teaching portfolio (Miller,
1998). By requiring the course portfolio,
we hoped to foster the scholarship of
teaching and learning as an institutional
priority. To realize these goals, we
amended the post-tenure review policy to
mandate the preparation of a course portfolio instead of the teaching portfolio.
One could argue that this reform has not
really “carried the day.” In my April 2004
survey, only 3 out of 11 faculty members
felt that preparing course portfolios had
enabled them to track changes in student
understanding across multiple sections
of the course in a way that enabled them
to contribute to a scholarship of teaching
and learning. In this connection, it is perhaps worth pointing out that even Hutchings and Shulman (1999), although arguing that all faculty members should teach
in a scholarly manner, suggested that not
all of them will engage in serious investigation of teaching and learning in their
particular fields.
Institutional Level
The third condition for institutionalization requires teaching improvement
to be incorporated into the culture of the

organizational community (Curry,
1992). In this case, the innovation’s
norms and values were entirely compatible with those of the host organization’s culture. Seattle Pacific University
is primarily a teaching university. The
mission statement of the School of
Business and Economics affirms that
“we are a learning community which
prizes educational excellence and effective teaching.”
In addition to compatibility of the
norms, values, and goals of the innovation with those of the host organization,
the profitability of the innovation also is
a factor in its institutionalization (Curry,
1992). Portfolios were a profitable innovation because individual faculty members saw that preparing a portfolio was
a vehicle for them to demonstrate teaching improvement. In the survey of April
2004, 9 out of 11 faculty members
reported that preparing a teaching portfolio had improved their instructional
practice. Portfolios were also of value in
institutional decision making in the context of teaching awards, promotion,
tenure, and post-tenure review. But portfolios were also generally profitable to
the school as a whole with regard to
AACSB accreditation. Indeed, this is a
major reason why the faculty members
legitimized portfolios.
In summary, portfolios received organizational structural support for the benefits that they conferred in the following
areas: demonstrating continuous teaching improvement, recognizing teaching,
reviewing tenured and nontenured faculty members, and advancing teaching
practice through scholarship. Although
the teaching portfolio became part of
the standard operating procedures of the
school, the course portfolio has been
woven only recently into the life of the
school. The norms of portfolios were
compatible with those of the teaching
mission of the institution and the
school. The faculty members saw the
exercises as profitable to them personally in terms of their own instructional
development, and they saw the exercises as profitable to the school as a whole
with regard to demonstrating what the
AACSB required—namely, that they
were engaged in “activities that improve
course content and teaching quality”
(1991, 2003).

Conclusion

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The faculty members saw the course
portfolio as a

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:25 12 January 2016

step toward richer, more authentic, “situated” portrayals of what teachers know
and can do, a significant advance on prevailing practice, which depends almost
exclusively on student ratings. . . The
aim of portfolios is not . . . to replace
student voices but to supplement, complement, round out the picture. (Hutchings, 1998, p. 18)

By working on his or her course portfolio with the help of a trusted disciplinary colleague, each faculty member
was able to uncover what Shulman
referred to as “the pedagogy of substance” (quoted in Keig & Waggoner,
1994, p. 106) and at the same time contribute to colleagues’ practices.
Faculty members’ experience with
the AAHE exercises soon became the
catalyst for generating and compiling
teaching portfolios that illustrated general teaching effectiveness. After it
received organizational support, the
teaching portfolio was institutionalized, became part of standardized procedure, and was valued by the school’s
faculty members in the context of
teaching recognition (1997) and review
of nontenured (1998) and tenured
(1999) faculty members. However,
because of the special status of the
course portfolios, institutionalization
was not achieved until 2002, when the
post-tenure review policy was amended to require a course portfolio instead
of a teaching portfolio.
NOTE
1. Huber (2004) described the challenges faced
by four faculty members as they sought to integrate the scholarship of teaching and learning into
their academic careers.

I would like to acknowledge the contributions
made to this research by the Center for Teaching
at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst,
where I spent my sabbatical leave in 2000–2001,
and by my former colleagues in the School of
Business and Economics at Seattle Pacific University. I also want to thank the reviewers of this
journal for their helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB). (1991). Achieving quality
and continuous improvement through selfevaluation and peer review. St. Louis, MO:
Author.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB). (2003). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation.
St. Louis, MO: Author.
Bernstein, D. (1998). Putting the focus on student
learning. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course
portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student
learning (pp. 77–83). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically
reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cerbin, W. (1996). Inventing a new genre: The
course portfolio at the University of Wisconsin–
La Crosse. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), Making teaching community property: A menu for peer collaboration and peer review (pp. 52–56). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher
Education.
Chism, N. V. N. (1997–1998). Developing a philosophy of teaching statement. Essays on
Teaching Excellence, 9, 3.
Curry, B. K. (1992). Instituting enduring innovations: Achieving continuity of change in higher
education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report No. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human
Development.
Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K.
(1991). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the
scholarship of teaching. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Goodyear, G. E., & Allchin, D. (1998). Statements
of teaching philosophy. In M. Kaplan & D.
Lieberman (Eds.), To improve the academy (17,
103–122). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press
and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
Grasha, A. E. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by under-

standing teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh: Alliance Publishers.
Grunert, J. (1997). The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach. Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing.
Huber, M. T. (2004). Balancing acts: The scholarship of teaching and learning in academic
careers. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1995). From idea to prototype: The peer review of teaching (a project
workbook). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1996). Making teaching
community property: A menu for peer collaboration and peer review. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Hutchings, P. (1998). Defining features and significant functions of the course portfolio. In P.
Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How
faculty can examine their teaching to advance
practice and improve student learning (pp.
13–18). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999, September/October). The scholarship of teaching: New
elaborations, new developments. Change,
31(5), 11–15.
Keig, L., & Waggoner, M. D. (1994). Collaborative peer review: The role of faculty in improving college teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: George
Washington University, School of Education
and Human Development.
Miller, M. A. (1998). Preface. In P. Hutchings
(Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can
examine their teaching to advance practice and
improve student learning. Washington DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Murray, J. P. (1995). Successful faculty development and evaluation: The complete teaching
portfolio. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report No. 8. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Nelson, W. C. (1981). Renewal of the teacher
scholar. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:
Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community
property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 25(6), 6–7.

November/December 2004

79