Current Issues in Education > Volume 6, 2003 > Number 1

Citation Information

Williams, S. C., Davis, M. L., Metcalf, D., & Covington, V. M. (2003, January 31). The evolution of a process portfolio as an assessment system in a teacher education program. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 6(1). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number1/

The Evolution of a Process Portfolio as an Assessment System in a Teacher Education Program

Sarah C. Williams
East Carolina University

Mary Lynne Davis
East Carolina University

Debbie Metcalf
East Carolina University

Vivian Martin Covington
East Carolina University

Abstract

Recent initiatives in teacher education reform are emphasizing performance-based assessment of candidate outcomes. Portfolio assessment has often been proposed as one method to address this challenge. Portfolios provide a way to compile authentic assessments of candidate knowledge and skills. This paper presents a multifaceted approach to assessment that gathers formative and summative evaluations in the development of a "process portfolio". It reports on a special education program where candidates collect evidence that documents their progress from the beginning of their program. These candidates then convert this portfolio into a "showcase portfolio" in the final semester of their senior year. The process faculty engaged in to develop this portfolio model, from identifying desired outcomes to establishing an organizational model, is described. Additionally, the implications for other teacher education programs and suggestions for implementation are provided.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Review of the Literature
• Portfolio Development Process
• East Carolina University and Teacher Education Guidelines
• Development of the ECU Special Education Portfolio Model
• Step 1: Identifying Program Outcomes
• Step 2: Defining the Framework
• Step 3: Developing Assignments
• Step 4: Creating Documentation and Evaluation Tools
• Step 5: Establishing an Organizational Model
• The ECU Special Education Portfolio in Action
• Conclusion and Discussion
• References

Introduction

Recent initiatives in teacher education reform are emphasizing performance-based assessment of candidate outcomes (ACE, 1999; NCTAF, 1996; NCATE, 1995). While many teacher education programs are transitioning to this mode of assessment, the identification and documentation of those outcomes can be problematic. Portfolio assessment has often been proposed as one method to address this challenge, and many different definitions and types of portfolios have been proposed and explored. Portfolios provide a way to compile authentic assessments of candidate knowledge and skills. Many other authors have shared a basic portfolio structure for compiling evidence. However, the underlying process teacher education faculty members employ to develop and implement a model for program wide candidate assessment has not been emphasized. This paper presents a five-step process for developing a portfolio model that was utilized in the Program of Special Education at East Carolina University. This process is applicable to any teacher education program, and suggestions for implementation of each step are highlighted. Additionally, the implications of this model for the assessment of student performance relative to program outcomes as well as professional accreditation standards are emphasized.

Review of the Literature

Portfolios are a "collection of a person's work or evidence of some artistic, academic, or scholarly activity". (Adams, 1995, p. 568). When used in K-12 classrooms, Mokhari and Yellin (1996) indicate that portfolios can be used as a cumulative record of progress for advisement, assessment, and placement. In the past decade, portfolios have become a popular assessment tool in teacher preparation programs (Fredrick, McMahon, & Shaw, 2000; Krause, 1996; Mokhtari & Yellin, 1996; Kenney, Hammitte, Rakestraw, & LaMontagne, 2000; Otis-Wilborn & Winn, 2000). Mokharti and Yellin (1996) found that the majority of their elementary education candidates reported that the use of portfolio assessment promoted more collaborative learning (86%), increased student reflection (71%), and aided in the establishment of a psychologically secure environment in the classroom (63%). During a study in Hong Kong, Klenowski (2000) observed the following trends in the reports of preservice teachers who developed a portfolio: a) an impact on the development of presentation, questioning, and teaching skills; b) increases in self-evaluation skills; and c) improvements in independent learning. In addition to the benefits for candidates, Klenowski reported that portfolio assessment might also benefit course instructors. The use of portfolio assessment not only influenced the pedagogical skills of preservice teachers in his study, but the pedagogical and reflective skills of the instructors in the program were also improved. Dollase (1996) noted that the use of portfolios can also enable future teachers to improve skills such as organization and self-monitoring, but, they must be used effectively.

A portfolio is one tool that can be used to "house" a variety of authentic assessments. Candidates can demonstrate their knowledge and skills as effective teachers through the use of actual products that they developed in classroom settings (e.g. lesson plans, instructional units, student work samples, Individualized Education Programs, classroom management plans, etc). These products are evaluated in addition to traditional classroom assessments (e.g. multiple choice or essay tests, standardized assessments, etc.). The use of the portfolio and traditional assessment provides a balance for the program's overall assessment process. The existence of potential portfolio artifacts is not unique to special education; any degree program could identify evidence that would document their students' achievement of their program competencies.

Naturally, the efficacy of a portfolio as an assessment tool depends heavily on the model developed by the teacher education program and its implementation with prospective teachers. The use of a portfolio (or any other tool) simply for the sake of doing so, without questioning its purpose and value in the teacher education program would offer little to candidates, faculty, or future employers.

Researchers have posed some questions to be asked by faculty considering the use of portfolios in a teacher education program. These questions include:

• What are the most appropriate contents for a portfolio (Klenowski, 2000)?
• How should teacher educators assess the portfolio contents (Klenowski, 2000)?
• Is there a unified approach to grading among faculty members (Klenowski, 2000)?
• How should teacher educators use the assessment information (Adams, 1995)?
• Will teacher education candidates understand the portfolio process as early as possible in their program and compile the portfolio throughout the program (Krause, 1996; Otis-Wilborn & Winn, 2000)?
• Does the portfolio process fit with the values of the teacher education program and the community (Otis-Wilborn & Winn, 2000)?
• How will validity and reliability be evaluated (Otis-Wilborn & Winn, 2000)?

Additionally, Kieffer and Faust (1993) describe three processes that are critical for candidate portfolio development: collection, selection, and reflection. These authors advocate that if selection and reflection are not an integral part of the process, the portfolio becomes a mere storage facility.

The organization and content of the portfolio will be driven strongly by the stated purpose of the tool. Bullock and Hawk (2001) define three types of portfolios: a) product portfolio (project oriented and short-term), b) showcase portfolio (contains best work in one or more areas) and c) process portfolio (used for ongoing assessment). Krause (1996) believes that the process portfolio is most useful for assessment in teacher education programs because it facilitates the prospective teacher's use of the portfolio to inform learning over time. He asserts that teacher education candidates who use this sort of portfolio are able to become active participants in their learning and be reflective about their teaching. Otis-Wilburn and Winn (2000) also emphasize the need to use multiple sources of data to demonstrate candidate performance. Krause and other researchers (Otis-Wilburn & Winn, 2000; Dollase, 1996) agree that in order for this reflective process to occur, teacher education candidates must understand the portfolio process as early as possible in their training.

Portfolios have been shown to be an effective method for compiling evidence to satisfy a variety of candidate and program needs. They are currently being used in numerous formats in teacher education programs. Many authors emphasize the need to carefully consider the evidence gathered in a portfolio in relation to desired candidate competencies. They caution against letting the portfolio become merely a disconnected collection of candidate artifacts. There is a need for a comprehensive model for portfolio development that encompasses all aspects of a candidate's competency development across a teacher education program.

Portfolio Development Process

The State of North Carolina began requiring portfolios as part of their performance-based licensure process for all Initially Licensed Teachers (ILTs) in 1999. This initiative by the state, as well as the move in teacher education toward performance-based assessment, led East Carolina University (ECU) to refine the portfolio process used by its teacher education candidates. Consequently, all teacher education programs at ECU adopted a portfolio as a means of candidate evaluation. Specific elements to be included in each portfolio, that would be common to all teacher education portfolios, were defined. Each program then had the flexibility to expand portfolio requirements for candidates in their individual programs. The Special Education Program tailored these portfolio requirements to their program. Sometimes this required adding additional evidence to the portfolio for special education candidates, and other times it required extending existing assignments and rubrics to reflect the needs of K-12 students in special education. In addition, the Special Education Program chose to document the alignment of program content and experiences with competencies and standards established specifically for teachers of learners with special needs. At the same time, other teacher education programs were tailoring the teacher education portfolio to meet the specific needs of their disciplines. The remainder of this paper describes the steps special education faculty followed to develop a portfolio model, linking them with implications or suggestions for other teacher education programs.

East Carolina University and Teacher Education Guidelines

East Carolina University offers 16 undergraduate teacher education programs that lead to licensure. The Office of Teacher Education, which governs these programs, incorporates portfolio assessment into the evaluation of candidate performance at the end of the senior year. A core of basic evidence is required for all teacher education candidate portfolios regardless of department or program. These requirements were implemented to ensure consistency across programs, and to guarantee that prospective teachers will have an experience, which parallels the Performance-Based Licensure (PBL) process, required of all beginning teachers in North Carolina. With the Office of Teacher Education minimum requirements in mind, faculty in the Special Education Program decided to examine the model candidates were using to develop their final portfolio. The goal was to establish a plan for student portfolio development that could serve a two-fold purpose. Initially, as candidates progressed through the Special Education Program, the portfolio would be a process portfolio (Bullock & Hawk, 2001) that depicted the progress a candidate was making. Later, the candidate would transform the process portfolio into a showcase portfolio (Bullock & Hawk, 2001) to be used for the final evaluation and also as an interviewing tool at the completion of the program. As a result, the portfolio would be a useful assessment tool for the faculty, but would also function as a job-interviewing document to showcase candidate achievements.

Development of the ECU Special Education Portfolio Model

During the 1999-2000 school year, the authors, a task force comprised of faculty in the Special Education Program and the Office of Clinical Experiences, began to work through the steps described below. The intent was to develop a portfolio model that would integrate teacher education and special education priorities. The task force approach, which is ongoing, is beneficial because it enables a small group to complete the exploratory work and then come to the entire faculty with a document that can be critiqued and refined. We found that having something in writing that gives us a starting point for discussion, and to which the faculty can respond, is much more efficient than large group brainstorming.

Step 1: Identifying Program Outcomes

The task force focused on identifying outcomes that not only addressed ECU teacher education requirements, but also integrated many professional standards. We wanted the special education candidates' portfolios to contain evidence of competency with: INTASC standards (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 1992), The Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Common Core Competencies (Council for Exceptional Children, 2001), North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Competencies for Special Education (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1993), and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards' Core Propositions (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2001). Due to considerable overlap across these standards, the four sets were merged and condensed into a set of twelve departmental competencies. These competencies served as the foundation for all later work on the portfolio model. Table 1 contains the twelve competencies and their alignment with each set of national and state standards. Candidates have some freedom to choose evidence to place in their portfolios, but all evidence should be linked back to these competencies.

Table 1: ECU Special Education Competency Matrix

Teacher education programs seeking to develop a candidate evaluation system would first need to identify all the professional organizations and accrediting agencies with which they want to align themselves and then access the competencies or standards developed by these organizations. Identification of the commonalities between these sets of standards will allow the program to generate a more specific list of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for their program. Once this framework is established, faculty can then identify competencies for their candidates in addition to the ones put forth by professional organizations. This process constitutes a proactive approach to balancing compliance with the ideals of accrediting agencies and professional organizations at the state and national level, and with the ideals of program renewal at the departmental level.

Step 2: Defining the Framework

In addition to developing a model that addressed multiple sets of standards, we sought to develop a process that would continue throughout the duration of the program, allowing instructors to view/assess student growth over time. This framework for the model would ensure that candidates were aware of major program goals and expectations early in their course of study. They would be informed about how and by whom the portfolio would be evaluated. The students would also know the specific courses in which they would complete assignments that could be submitted as portfolio evidence. By exposing candidates to the model early, and building the portfolio throughout the program, we could eliminate the perception that the portfolio was "just another project" for the senior year.

The "process" for this step will vary depending upon the structure of the individual teacher education program as well as the length of the program (e.g. two-year, four-year, five-year programs). Individual programs will need to identify the point at which candidates enter the major, as well as a pivotal course where they are introduced to the program requirements and the course sequence. Additionally, it will be important to ensure that there is a developmental sequence of courses within the program. This sequence will then become the framework that supports the assignment of performance-based products to specific courses.

Step 3: Developing Assignments

In order to generate specific portfolio assignments that would be embedded in the program, we progressed through a series of three distinct steps.

a) First, we generated a list of evidence designed to demonstrate proficiency with each competency. This evidence was selected by considering products produced in a typical special education setting that required the knowledge and skills stated in each competency.

b) We then reviewed all of the program's course syllabi to determine which pieces of evidence were already required as existing course assignments. We wanted to make certain that students in all specialty areas were being exposed to similar knowledge and skills competencies.

c) Finally, we developed some new assignments (and recommendations for appropriate courses) to produce pieces of evidence that were not currently required or consistently present in specialty area courses. An assignment sheet was then developed that compiled the results of these efforts and linked the minimum required pieces of evidence to the courses in which they would be assigned (Table 2). Candidates chose the work samples to put into the portfolio, but at least one successful example of each assignment listed in Table 2 must be included by graduation.

Following these three steps in this sequence is critical for other programs when developing their own models. Programs must first identify the performance-based evidence they ideally want to see from their candidates, rather than just considering existing assignments. This step makes the difference between truly revising and renewing a program, and merely rearranging what is already there.

Table 2: ECU Special Education Portfolio Assignment List and Course Alignment

Step 4: Creating Documentation and Evaluation Tools

A cover sheet was developed that would be attached to each piece of evidence in the portfolio (Table 3). This coversheet provides an opportunity for the candidate to show the relationship between each piece of evidence and specific departmental competencies, as well as document instructor evaluations of that evidence. The use of the cover sheet enables candidates to monitor whether they have included sufficient evidence to clearly address each of the program's competencies.

Table 3: ECU Special Education Portfolio Evidence Cover Sheet

Each piece of evidence candidates submit for their portfolio must be evaluated by a course instructor. The faculty worked together to develop a system for evaluating evidence that would be consistent across raters. This system rates each piece of evidence as: a) "P" - Portfolio Ready, b) "E" - Emerging, or c) "R" - Needs Revision (See Table 4). We agreed that it would be critical for every instructor to use the same guidelines when assigning a score of "P" for a piece of evidence. A set of indicators that signifies the evidence is "Portfolio Ready" was developed for each assignment. Instructors sign a portfolio assignment sheet when they evaluate a piece of evidence, and students are required to have at least one of each assignment evaluated as "Portfolio Ready" by the conclusion of their senior year. This evaluation system is shared with all university supervisors and clinical teachers working with our candidates. Table 5 depicts the required indicators for a sample assignment required in the portfolio.

Table 4: Evidence Evaluation Levels

Table 5: Sample Evaluation Indicators for "Portfolio Ready"

In developing a portfolio model, other programs will need to determine a system for documenting and monitoring student performance. The success of the portfolio model will hinge on the way in which products are evaluated and the feedback candidates receive along the way. The evaluation criteria can be designed to reflect the faculty's priorities or philosophies on grading and what constitutes a "professional product". The criteria will then need to be communicated to the candidates early in their programs, reinforced in their courses, and applied consistently by all faculty members. Priorities can vary across programs; therefore, what is contained in the final evaluation system is not as critical as the commitment all program faculty make to use and reinforce it consistently. Building such a commitment will stimulate faculty conversations that focus attention back on the goals of the program.

Step 5: Establishing an Organizational Model

Once we determined the content of the portfolio, we needed a method to help the candidates organize the evidence they would be compiling. The faculty chose a flexible organizational tool in order to allow for: a) compiling candidate work as they progressed, b) easily transforming this work to a "showcase" portfolio for final evaluation, and c) allowing for modifications in response to future program changes. This organizational system would need to be versatile enough to respond easily to potential changes to the components of the portfolio over time. Therefore, we divided candidate portfolios into four broad categories: a) Professional Introduction, b) Evidence of Knowledge and Skills Essential for Effective Teaching, c) Commitment to Professional Development, and d) Noteworthy Achievements. Table 6 contains a list of examples of work samples that often would be filed under each section of the portfolio.

Table 6: Sample Products Contained in Each Portfolio Section

We think that this organizational decision should be the last one made in the establishment of a portfolio model. Good assessment begins with identifying target outcomes. Avoiding the temptation to talk about what the portfolio will "look like" or how it will be divided before the content is established, allows the decisions about desired outcomes to drive the structure of the model.

The ECU Special Education Portfolio in Action

The portfolio development process typically begins in the candidate's Early Experience course (SPED 2123), which is taken in the second or third semester of their undergraduate program. At this point, most candidates have only taken an introductory (survey) course in special education. In SPED 2123, the candidates are given an overview of the 12 special education competencies and how they were derived. They are taught the importance of the standards put forth by organizations such as INTASC and CEC and their relationship to the special education competencies. The candidates are then given opportunities to explore and discuss sample evidence that may go into a portfolio to support the 12 program competencies. By the completion of this course, candidates have developed a portfolio with four sections that contains three pieces of evidence: a) an early philosophy of education, b) an instructional plan and reflection of an early teaching experience in SPED 2123, and c) an autobiography. In SPED 2123 the candidates also learn how and when the portfolio will be evaluated, and are encouraged to continue developing the portfolio with evidence from each of their future courses.

Although the early experience course is the beginning of the portfolio process for special education majors, submission of additional evidence continues throughout the program. Assignments that may produce evidence for the portfolio are required in the majority of the special education program courses. All special education instructors are familiar with the requirements and evaluation criteria for these pieces of evidence. A timeline for portfolio development has been established with following checkpoints:

• Candidates are expected to bring their portfolio to each advising session.
• Candidates must bring their portfolio to an interview, which is the final checkpoint before formal admission to the teacher education program.
• During the first semester of the yearlong internship (Senior I), candidates generate many documents in their practica, which can be added to the portfolio. The Senior I methods instructor provides strong support for candidates to evaluate this evidence and "refine" the contents of the portfolio.
• The university supervisor and the clinical teacher review and evaluate the portfolio at the completion of the second semester (Senior II) of the yearlong internship.
• A representative of the Office of Teacher Education verifies the contents of the portfolio at the completion of the senior year.

Conclusion and Discussion

The need exists in teacher education programs for both assessment and accountability (Frye, 1999). Evaluation systems such as the one described here may help teacher education programs accomplish both goals. Candidates are held responsible for documenting effective teaching skills, with the evidence they submit in a portfolio. Additionally, they can assess their progress toward developing expected levels of performance in these skills, because the portfolio model extends throughout the teacher education program. This process also creates an assessment system that can address program accountability and renewal issues. These products and future student feedback will enable faculty to continually assess and refine the quality of the program. Furthermore, they yield evidence for teacher training programs that are increasingly being held accountable for documenting alignment with standards and the impact of candidates on P-12 student achievement.

While the portfolio itself can be used to house valuable, authentic assessment information for teacher education candidates, it is the collaboration among faculty during the development and implementation of the model that enhances the effectiveness of the system. Figure 1 summarizes the process undertaken by the special Education Program at ECU, as a series of generic stages and tasks that would be applicable to a wide variety of programs. We hope this will be a useful tool for others who are beginning the process of establishing similar evaluation models.

Figure 1: Evolution of a Process Portfolio

As stated earlier, the communication among faculty members that occurred during the development of the portfolio system was one of the most critical aspects of this process. Although the special education faculty already maintained open lines of communication and often worked collaboratively, the development of this evaluation model was a vehicle for even more focused discussion about what constitutes an effective teacher education program, and what constitutes effective teaching. We have been able to document the effectiveness of our candidates teaching skills through the rubrics developed collaboratively by the faculty. We have monitored their progress in developing these skills through the assignment sheets. Finally, the overall portfolio process provides a program assessment system that aligns with both NCATE and NC Department of Public Instruction program approval standards.

We still have many steps to take as we continue to develop and refine this assessment model. For example, we are currently improving the detail in our rubrics to contain more specific indicators that will enhance the consistency among faculty ratings. Additionally, North Carolina is undergoing licensure changes that necessitated a review of the alignment of the portfolio assignments with the state's assessment system. This review of the rubrics and the portfolio assignments has provided the opportunity for new faculty members to provide input to the system and explore their role in the overall teacher education program. As is evidenced in these examples, the evolution and refinement of this process portfolio contributes to the ongoing renewal of our teacher education program.

Authors

Sarah Williams is an Assistant Professor in the Special Education Program at East Carolina University. Her interests are in the areas of instruction of adolescents with learning disabilities, assistive technology and writing for students with learning disabilities, and portfolio assessment in public schools and teacher education programs. Sarah may be reached at Department of Curriculum/Instruction, School of Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, (252) 328-1101, williamssar@mail.ecu.edu.

Mary Lynne Davis is an Assistant Professor in the Special Education Program at East Carolina University where she also serves as the Assessment Coordinator for the School of Education. Her interests are in the areas of assessment, teacher preparation and critical thinking. Mary may be reached at Department of Curriculum/Instruction, School of Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, (252) 328-1129, davismar@mail.ecu.edu.

Debbie Metcalf shares a position as a teacher-in-residence at East Carolina University and as an exceptional children's teacher in Pitt County Schools. She holds a MAEd in Special Education from San Diego State University and is a National Board Certified Teacher. Debbie may be reached at Department of Curriculum/ Instruction, School of Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, (252) 328-1127, metcalfd@mail.ecu.edu.

Vivian Martin Covington currently serves as the Director of Clinical Partnerships in the School of Education at East Carolina University. In this role she coordinates all practicum and internship placements for undergraduate teacher education students. In addition, she chairs the Latham Clinical Schools Network, which is a university-school collaborative between ECU and 16 public school systems in eastern North Carolina. Dr. Covington is a former high school science teacher and a trained assessor for the state of North Carolina's initially licensed teacher product assessment program. Her research interests are science education, culturally responsive teaching and new trends in teacher education. Vivian may be reached at School of Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, (252) 328-6176, covingtonv@mail.ecu.edu.

References

Adams, T.L. (1995). A paradigm for portfolio assessment in teacher education. Education, 115(4), 568-570.

American Council on Education (1999). To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. Washington, DC.

Bullock, A.A., & Hawk, P.P. (2001). Developing a Teaching Portfolio: A Guide for Preservice and Practicing Teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2001, September 28). CEC International Standards for Entry into Professional Practice. Retrieved September 28, 2001, from http://www.cec.sped.org

Dollase, R.H. (1996). The Vermont experiment in state-mandated portfolio program approval. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(2), 85-100.

Fredrick, L., McMahon, R., & Shaw, E.L. (2000). Preservice teacher portfolios as autobiographies. Chula Vista, 120(4), 634-638.

Frye, R. (1999). Assessment, accountability, and student learning outcomes, from Washington University (Dialogue. No. 2). Bellingham, WA: Western Washington University.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (1992). Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Kenney, S.L., Hammitte, D.J., Rakestraw, J., & LaMontagne, M.J. (2000). Special education and the P-16 initiative: Addressing CEC Competencies through portfolio development and assessment. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 93-108.

Kieffer, R. D. & Faust, M. A. (1993). Portfolio process and teacher change: Elementary secondary, and university teachers reflect upon their initial experiences with portfolio assessment. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC.

Klenowski, V. (2000). Portfolios: Promoting teaching. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policies, and Practice, July, 215-229.

Krause, S. (1996). Portfolios in teacher education: Effects of instruction on preservice teachers' early comprehension of the portfolio process. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(2), 130-139.

Mokhtari, D., & Yellin, D. (1996). Portfolio assessment in teacher education: Impact on preservice teachers' knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 245-248.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (September 28, 2001). Five Core Propositions. Retrieved September 28, 2001, from http://www.nbpts.org/

National Commission of Teaching America's Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York, NY.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (1995). Standards, procedures, and policies for the accreditation of professional education units. Washington, DC.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1993). Guidelines and Competencies for Approved Teacher Education Programs. Raleigh, NC: Division of Teacher Education Services.

Otis-Wilborn, A. & Winn, J. (2000). The process and impact of standards-based teacher education reform. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 78-92.