Date of Award
1-1-1986
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Doctor of Education
Department
Center for the Advancement of Education
Advisor
George M. Barton
Committee Member
Ronald A. Newell
Committee Member
Ross E. Moreton
Keywords
admissions requirements, adult students, analytic judgment, assessment criteria, assessment instruments, evaluation methods, formative portfolio, higher education, holistic judgment, independent learning, instrument reliability, instrument validity, leadership style, mentorship, nova university, portfolio assessment, portfolio criteria, portfolio evaluation, portfolio implementation, professional accomplishments, professional experience, professional organizations, program admissions, research experience, student evaluation, work experience
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to explore the flexibility of the portfolio requirement for applicants to Nova University programs for higher education. In justification of the investigation, it should be mentioned that the mean age of Nova University progress for higher education students is 22.8 years, and that professional stature is a prerequisite for acceptance. Accordingly, it is recognized that because of both age and position, Nova University programs for higher education students have enjoyed many experiences that could potentially contribute to their achievement in the programs.
If those experiences are to be used as a basis for counseling and mentorship by Nova University programs for higher education personnel, then there must be more complete documentation than traditional documents such as official college transcripts, course catalogs, civility, and letters of recommendation provided in recognition of the limitations to counseling and mentorship. A formative portfolio. Instruments addressing the following criteria was developed: resume of work experience, formal and informal learning experiences, involvement in professional organizations, professional accomplishments, independent learning leadership style, research experience, miscellaneous activities, strengths and weakness, statement of goals, and portfolio appearance. Central issues associated with portfolio instrument development included the identification of criteria relating to the many parameters of Nova University programs for higher education, reflection on the ability to document experimental and with the framework of a portfolio, the identification of potential relationships between portfolio criteria and achievements, and the functional concerns related to portfolio implementation and evaluation.
The formative portfolio instrument was distributed to first- and second-year Nova university programs for higher education students who were enrolled during the fall 1985 term with a return rate of 21.4%. Portfolios were returned by 51 students. Five portfolios were randomly selected for the estimation of instrument reliability and validity.
Reliability was estimated by determining frequency of acceptable integrations between ratings, with .80 regarded as the minimum acceptable level of reliability. Six portfolio criteria exhibited acceptable reliability because of work experience, formal and informal learning experiences, involvement in professional organizations, professional applications, statement of goals, and portfolio artifacts. The five portfolio criteria established acceptable reliability: independent learning, leadership style, research experience, and salient activities and strengths, and weaknesses. After requalification, independent learning and research experience again exhibited unacceptable reliability; however, additional portfolio criteria, analytic judgment, did exhibit acceptable reliability. It was not possible or ethical to predict the validity of the portfolio instrument due to limitations associated with this investigation.
As a result of this investigation, it was concluded that the formula used would have many planned and unintended benefits and that the formula addressed the following criteria should be met to ensure future applicants to Nova University programs for higher education, resume, a work experience, formal and informal learning experiences, involvement in professional organizations, professional accomplishments, independent learning, research experience, statement of goals, portfolio contents, and holistic judgment of the utility of portfolio use was also balanced by cautions that must be incorporated into the use of a potentially sensitive document such as a portfolio.
Several recommendations also resulted from this investigation specifically it was recommended that the practicum process of Nova University programs for higher education should provide appropriate moral considerations associated with the formulas portfolios.
It was also recommended that portfolios should be enlisted by a committee of the following personnel: the pre-shade cluster, coordinator, a member of the Central Staff, a core seminar national lecturer, the Specialization seminar national lecturer, and a invited portfolio specialist. Additional recommendations related to security, specifications of evaluations, results, and future estimations of reliability and validity of the portfolio instrument. Finally, it was recommended that portfolio use should not be needed as a limiting factor. That is to say, the strengths and turnover university programs for higher education should not be dependent upon portfolio criteria and rating.