The purpose of this article is to describe an initial attempt to introduce team portfolios into a volleyball activity class for preservice physical education teachers using the 'sport education' approach (Siedentop, 1994). Melograno's (1998) suggestion that the sport education model would provide an ideal setting to implement a group portfolio provided the catalyst for this attempt. This article will (1) briefly examine some of the literature supporting portfolios as an effective assessment system for teachers and teacher educators, (2) explain how team portfolios were used in the context of sport education, (3) share the reactions of the preservice teachers to this assessment tool, and (4) offer suggestions for including team portfolios in middle school and high school physical education classes.
Why Portfolios?
A variety of traditional assessment tools are available to help physical educators evaluate students' knowledge, understanding, values, and abilities in physical education (e.g., standardized exams, motor-skill tests, fitness tests). Yet some have criticized these tools as being too artificial, too isolated from real-life settings (Safrit & Wood, 1995). Subsequently, a number of alternative assessment techniques have emerged alongside current efforts to reform curriculum and instruction. Journals, rubrics, exhibitions, portfolios, and other tools that attempt to reflect learning outcomes in more authentic situations have all caught the attention of physical educators.
While traditional within photography, modeling, or architecture, the use of portfolios within education is relatively new. According to Melograno (1998), a portfolio is 'a purposeful, integrated collection of actual exhibits and work samples showing effort, progress, or achievement in one or more areas' (p. 14). Portfolios contain numerous artifacts and examples of students' work and represent their abilities, strengths, and areas of needed improvement (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000).
A growing literature describes various ways in which portfolios have been developed and used in physical education (Kirk, 1997; Melograno, 1998; Napper-Owen, 1997). Kirk argued that the portfolio system is effective because it fosters 'individualized learning,' documents student outcomes, 'promotes student responsibility and active learning,' 'provides feedback and continuing evaluation of student progress,' 'encourages student self-reflection,' and promotes the physical education program (pp. 29-30). Portfolios can be developed by individual students or by small groups. Through the use of portfolios, learning becomes more active as a greater proportion of the responsibility for learning is transferred to the students (Kirk). Students 'are able to showcase a collection of their best work' (to teachers, parents, and school administrators) and make decisions as to which products most accurately reflect their progress over time (Kirk, p. 30).
Sport Education and Team Portfolios
Siedentop designed the sport education model of teaching to develop 'competent, literate, and enthusiastic sportspersons' (1994, p.4). The model has enjoyed considerable success in schools (Grant, 1992; Hastie, 1998), as it helps students learn to play a specific sport well; appreciate its rules, rituals, and traditions; and become aware of its availability in the community. Sport education is characterized by six features: (1) activities are conducted in distinct seasons, (2) the composition of student teams is constant for a given season, (3) formal competition is mixed with teacher or student-led practice, (4) records and statistics are kept, (5) seasons conclude with a 'championship' event of some sort, and (6) festivity is emphasized through team colors, posters, or videotaping of games (Siedentop, 1994, 1998). These elements resemble the fundamental features of formalized sport and thus offer a complete sport experience. Participation occurs on a team basis, and all students take on non-player roles (e. g., captain, manager, statistician, umpire) that allow them to plan, implement, and evaluate their own and their team's sport experiences. Direct teaching by the physical educator, peer teaching, and cooperative work are all used in the model, and responsibility for planning and running seasons is progressively handed over to students, with the teacher eventually serving in a coaching role (Siedentop, 1998).
Within a sport education curriculum, team portfolios would allow students to demonstrate both individual and team strengths and weaknesses and would summarize their growth across each season. Specifically, portfolios could:
* tap into students' reflections about individual elements of sport education (e.g., being on a team, having a role, competing);
* allow students to make collective statements about their team philosophy and summarize their progress over time (e.g., performance, affiliation);
* help students report their competence as volleyball players;
* provide a setting for students to gather materials that help them critique the position of volleyball within the greater sport culture;
* enable students to locate teaching materials, drills, and other artifacts that they consider relevant to the development of their strategic and physical skills.
Introducing Team Portfolios
The volleyball class discussed in this article represented the preser vice teachers' first contact with sport education and portfolio development. On the first day of class, they were introduced to the sport education model and made aware of its characteristics and objectives. Portfolios were discussed also, using examples from other professions (e.g., modeling, architecture), and the class was given a list of possible artifacts to be included in their portfolios (e.g., team philosophy, uniform design, player profiles, pre- and post-season self-assessments of performance, peer assessments using checklists, attacking and defensive formations, statistics, photographs of play). So as not to stifle individual and group creativity, the preservice teachers were encouraged to consider additional materials that would reflect their progress and performance as individuals and as a team.
The Season
All of the objectives of sport education were reflected in the volleyball season, which was composed of 17 75-minute sessions. The preservice teachers were grouped into four teams. In addition to playing, team members fulfilled the following primary roles: captain, coach (assistant coach), manager/statistician, trainer, umpire, and equity officer. Each team member had an additional, non-team role such as sideline judge, back judge, timekeeper, sideline reporter, or commentator. One member of each team served as the 'portfolio manager.' Portfolio managers were responsible for:
* organizing individual duties and delegating individual responsibilities to team members in order to complete the portfolio within the assessment rubric guidelines;
* bringing the portfolio to class (or collecting it from the instructor) so that final artifacts could be included;
* maintaining the external appearance of the portfolio;
* talking to the instructor about any problems with the completion of the portfolio;
* submitting the final dossier when due.
During the course of the season, time was set aside at the end of five classes scattered evenly throughout the season for team members to meet and discuss progress on their portfolios. Each meeting lasted approximately 10 to 15 minutes, during which the portfolio managers determined progress to date and delegated responsibilities to teammates for gathering the needed items by an agreed time. Portfolio managers made efforts to ensure that all members were contributing both suggested items and additional items of choice. The instructor was available to answer any questions, monitor the progress of each team's portfolio, and meet for a few minutes with portfolio managers when class concluded.
Assessing the Team Portfolios
In keeping with authors who have previously discussed portfolio assessment formats (Kirk, 1997; Melograno, 1998), the instructor developed a rubric (Lund, 1999). Table 1 provides a sample of the criteria used to assess the team portfolios. This four-level rubric--with criteria ranging from best performance (level four) to worst (level one)--was given to each team on the first day of the course. By receiving it at the start of the course, the teams could use the rubric as a self-monitoring device for accountability. At the end of the course, the portfolios were submitted, and the instructor determined which level best fit each one. During this first effort, the whole portfolio was graded rather than individual artifacts, but it is also possible to grade the artifacts as well.
Reactions to the Team Portfolios
At the completion of the season, all of the preservice teachers were asked to set out their thoughts informally on the use of team portfolios in the volleyball class. The following is a summary of the merits and concerns that they listed.
Merits. Some of the preservice teachers saw the portfolio as an additional opportunity to work cooperatively and bond with their teammates. Others applauded the emphasis on collective responsibility and interdependency, which evolved as they worked on the assignment together. They liked the fact that their grades would be determined by the collective efforts of the group. Many of them saw portfolios as a partial reflection of the team identity that they were trying to promote on the court in order to strengthen their allegiance to each other.
A few of the preservice teachers viewed the portfolio as a summary of their team's broader understanding of the game of volleyball within the greater sport culture (e.g., knowledge of the game's history and development, variant sports such as beach volleyball, media attention, sponsorship). Others considered the portfolio to be a more authentic representation of their progress as individuals and as a team than isolated skill tests and notebooks, which they identified as characteristic of their previous activity classes.
Some of the preservice teachers applauded the opportunity to decide what might be included in the portfolios beyond the list of suggested artifacts, and they were able to make some collective decisions without the instructor's input. The inclusion of photographs and pictures enhanced individual and group creativity and played a significant part in elevating team pride in the portfolio. The self-monitoring of performance and progress was generally praised. The preservice teachers particularly enjoyed the self-assessments of skill and performance at the beginning and end of the season, which could be placed alongside the self-assessments of their peers.
Concerns. The preservice teachers identified some logistical concerns with the portfolios, indicating that they had too little time to complete the work. Some complained that the inclusion of a portfolio, in addition to the other requirements (final exam, paper, journal), was too much work for a one-credit class! A few of the preservice teachers were confused about their specific responsibilities in contributing to the completion of the portfolio, while a couple of the portfolio managers said that they found it difficult to confront team members who were doing less work than others or not contributing at all. Additionally, two portfolio managers wanted more guidance from the instructor on the organization and presentation of the portfolios.
Using Sport Education Port folios in Physical Education
Based on this first experience with sport education team portfolios, some suggestions on their use in middle school and high school physical education classes can be provided. Although the implementation experience at the college level may not entirely apply to the needs of high school and middle school classes, the following suggestions address basic administrative points. They therefore serve as an outline that teachers may, of course, adapt to suit their particular circumstances.
* Provide a clear description of team portfolios and concisely communicate both their intent and your expectations.
* Provide portfolio assessment guidelines on day one. Go through these guidelines with students and answer all questions so that the assessment policies and procedures are clearly understood.
* Include regular in-class time for students to meet and discuss their progress as a team. Be available to help each team.
* Collect portfolios at the end of each class, whether you choose to glance through them or not.
* Establish checkpoints to review each team's portfolio across a season (e.g., once per week) so as to preempt any last-minute rush to complete the work.
* Encourage portfolio managers (if you choose to use them) to develop specific tasks for individual team members depending on personal interests or talents (e.g., one student might take on the development of a skills test, another work on the logo, another browse the internet, and another write the team philosophy, chant, or rap).
* Arrange the portfolio into three sections that match the chief objectives of the sport education model (competence, literacy, and enthusiasm). This will allow you to explicitly assess a team's ability to demonstrate fulfillment of these individual objectives (as opposed to providing a general evaluation of the whole portfolio similar to that used for the preservice teachers in this article). Individual artifacts could then be selected by the teacher and/or students and subjected to evaluation using rubrics or other assessment techniques. For example, journal entries might be graded using a writing rubric (Kinchin, 2000), and video footage of skill attempts could be evaluated via teacher-developed performance standards. Students could also develop and evaluate their own team behavior profile or contract (O'Sullivan & Henninger, 2000).
* The selection of portfolio artifacts might also be summarized in table format to show the relation to the objectives of sport education (table 2). This presents a further strategy to reinforce the goals of the model.
* Look for cross-curricular opportunities for students to expand their collaborative work on the portfolios into areas such as information technology, music, and art.
* Ask that the final submission include a work summary listing which team members contributed to each element of the portfolio.
* Make the portfolios available to administrators and parents and use some as exemplars for future classes.
Conclusion
Team portfolios offer an imaginative and educational assessment tool for teachers and an exciting collective learning experience for students. While this initial effort at portfolio assessment in PETE might appear a little simplistic, such assignments can help students show specific tangible evidence of their competence, literacy, and enthusiasm while participating in physical activity. The merits identified by the preservice teachers demonstrate considerable alignment between their perceptions of and experiences with completing the team portfolios and the purposes and outcomes of sport education. Sport education's emphasis on team cohesion can be complemented by cooperative portfolio building. Students can organize their sport experiences, take control over the layout and content of their team portfolios, and decide on their own what kinds of learning they wish to demonstrate.
Gary D. Kinchin is Senior Lecturer in the School of Physical Education, Sport, and Leisure at De Montfort University, Bedford, England MK40 2BZ.
References
Grant, B. (1992). Integrating sport into the physical education curriculum in New Zealand secondary schools. Quest, 44(3), 304-316.
Hastie, P. A. (1998). Applied benefits of the sport education model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(4), 24-26.
Kinchin, G. D. (2000). Tackling social issues in physical education class: What about journal writing? Strategies, 13(5), 22-25.
Kirk, M. (1997). Using portfolios to enhance student learning and assessment. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(7), 29-33.
Lund, J. L. (1999). Creating rubrics for physical education. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
Melograno, V. J. (1998). Professional and student portfolios for physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Napper-Owen, G. (1997). Working with portfolios in the gymnasium. Strategies, 11(2), 17-21.
O'Sullivan, M., & Henninger, M. (2000). Assessing student responsibility and teamwork. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
Safrit, M. J., & Wood, T. M. (1995). Introduction to measurement in physical education and exercise science (3rd ed.). St Louis, MO: Mosby.
Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siedentop, D. (1998). What is sport education and how does it work? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(4), 18-20.
Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching shills in physical education (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Summary of Artifacts in Relation to the Objectives of Sport EducationArtifact Competence Literacy EnthusiasmSelf-Assessmentof Performance XRules Test XFair-Play Awards XPeer Skills Test XRole Evaluation XActivity Log/Diary X
Volleyball Team Portfolio Rubric
Level 4
* Typed title page includes team name, drawn logo, team shirt design, names of players, class title.
* Typed table of contents is neatly presented, easy to follow, and accurate.
* Typed team philosophy is detailed, creative, and personal.
* Player profiles are written by individual team members and include personal strength analyses and details of their improvements across the season.
* A minimum of four additional portfolio items are included that are not on the suggested list of artifacts.
* One journal entry and one diary entry for each team member is included with an attached explanation of their significance written by the individuals.
Level 3
* Title page: missing two required elements
* Table of contents: included, but has a few inaccuracies and is difficult to follow
* Team philosophy: included with general rather than specific information
* Player profiles: written by individuals, but lack specific information about their strengths, and analysis of performance across the season is limited
* Two additional portfolio items included
* A journal entry and diary entry from each team member is included, but no explanations are attached
Level 2
* Title page: missing four or five required elements
* Table of contents: hand-written, with many inaccuracies and inconsistencies
* Team philosophy: limited in detail, brief
* Player profiles: simply a list of individuals, with no strength analysis or evaluation of performance across the season
* No additional portfolio items included
* Few journal and diary entries included and not representative of the whole team; no explanations of these artifacts included
Level 1
* No portfolio submitted
