Work-life relevance is a crucial dimension closely tied to quality in higher education and refers to “(...) preparing students to apply their competencies in the workplace and society, both as these arenas are today and as they may develop in the future” (Meld. St.16, (2020-2021), p. 13). This can be achieved through interaction between students and their future working environments. Some of the learning approaches that can be applied to ensure such interaction involve connecting academic knowledge to real-world problems, as well as increasing the use of student-active learning methods (Meld. St.16, (2020-2021)).

This research is in the field of teacher education. There is a growing body of research on the so-called “theory-practice gap” in teacher education (Torjussen, 2021), as well as various strategies to reduce this gap, for example, by grounding teacher education coursework in practice (Jenset et al., 2018). This research is aimed at specifically investigating how the format of a portfolio exam can contribute to reducing theory-practice gap and promoting the overall work-life relevance of teacher education.

Portfolio assessment can be defined as a “purposeful collection of student work that exhibits the student’s efforts, progress, and achievements in one or more areas. The collection must include student participation in selecting contents, the criteria for selection, the criteria for judging merit, and evidence of student self-reflection” (Paulson et al., 1991, p. 60). Research literature on portfolio assessment predominantly highlights its positive potential for student learning (Wittek, 2009), as it enables students to reflect and apply knowledge in independent ways (Martinsen & Skarstein, 2011; Wittek, 2008). In addition to the perspectives on portfolio assessment, this project also draws on research in the field of collaborative learning as it is viewed as an important component providing relevant training for teachers’ future work life.

This project is conducted in the context of the subject of Pedagogy taught in the second year of teacher education studies at a university in Norway. The portfolio exam consists of three components, two of which are in pedagogy and one in religion, ethics, and philosophy of life. The first part of the portfolio is a group assignment and is based on real-world issues from the field of practice. These issues, or “problem statements”, are developed by recruited in-service primary school teachers. Each student seminar group (consisting of approx. 35 students) is assigned an in-service teacher who presents their problem statement during teaching hours on campus. Each seminar group is further divided into smaller groups of approx. 4-5 students. Students work in these small groups throughout the semester, and their task is to comprehensively discuss the given problem statement in light of course syllabus and other relevant research, and come up with concrete academic recommendations that can be employed to address the problem. In the second portfolio component, which is an individual task, students are required to use course syllabus to discuss a current topic related to the teaching profession. Topics may be drawn from relevant ongoing debates or opinion pieces. The third portfolio component is also an individual assignment, and it is also focused on illustrating the connection between theory and practice. Here, students are asked to use their experiences from their practical training to discuss academic perspectives from the religion and ethics syllabus, such as diversity, radicalization, and cultural heritage.

Research questions guiding this study are: What experiences do teacher education students and in-service teachers have with portfolio assessment as a framework for work-life relevance and collaboration between campus and the field of practice? What aspects of portfolio assessment do they highlight as the most important, and what aspects do they consider challenging?

The project is aimed at systematically gathering feedback from both students who have completed the portfolio assessment in the course and the in-service teachers responsible for the problem statements provided to the students. This is an action research project (Avison, 1999), and the gathered feedback forms the basis for improving the existing portfolio assignments and discovering new ways to co-create knowledge among teacher education students, the field of practice, and teacher educators on campus. Systematic data collection was initiated in the Spring semester of 2024. A total of five in-service teachers and five student representatives were interviewed. In the Autumn semester 2024, two more in-service teachers and one student representative were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and followed an interview guide developed by the research team (one interview guide for students and one for teachers). Inductive content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) was employed to analyse the data. Findings from the first two rounds of interviews indicated that various factors may have an impact on the success of portfolio assessment as an evaluation method. These factors include the topic chosen by teacher educators for the discussion text in the second part of the portfolio, the design of the problem statement in the first part of the portfolio, as well as the student group size and composition. Based on the results of data collection, adjustments in the portfolio assessment have been made and are currently being implemented in the Spring semester of 2025, after which a new round of data collection will be undertaken. Collecting data over multiple rounds allows the research team to analyse and gain a deeper understanding of potential inhibiting and success factors for portfolio assessment as an evaluation method. While in-depth interviews are employed as the main data collection method, other data collection methods may be relevant at later stages of the project. These methods include (1) systematic observations of group presentations of the first portfolio assignment (academic recommendations for schools), (2) questionnaire administrated to all students after submitting the final portfolio assignment in the course, and (3) analysis of the final grades of the portfolio assessment. It is also important to point out that portfolio assessment is an expensive evaluation method. In addition, it may be challenging to establish long-term collaboration with schools around such portfolio assessment. These practical issues are also considered in this action research project.

The interviewed students emphasize that the portfolio assignments facilitate deeper reflection compared to other examination formats by requiring them to discuss academic recommendations, analyze a text, and reflect on situations they encountered during their practical placements. Students also highlight the value of working with course syllabus over the entire semester guided by their instructors. They appreciate that the coursework is directly linked to the portfolio assignments and that they receive written feedback on their submissions. This exam format allows students to demonstrate a wider range of their abilities compared to the more usual high stakes examination. However, it can also cause some stress, as the assignments “stretch” over the whole semester. In addition, some students find written tasks more challenging than oral ones. The real-world basis of the assignments provides learning that feels highly relevant to their future profession. Working in groups for the first part of the portfolio was also perceived as positive, even though it was challenging at times. Students believe group work prepares them for future collaboration in a professional community. However, some students felt that what was relevant to them was not necessarily perceived as relevant by the in-service teachers, and some of the feedback they got from the in-service teachers did not always feel affirming. This is in line with the in-service teachers’ perspectives, which varied from a very positive “developing problem statements and receiving academic recommendations could benefit even more staff at our school” to a more critical “our school needs to get more in return from this collaboration”. Thus, there may be a need for a clearer framework for this collaboration, specifying the purpose of and expectations from all parties. Moreover, the in-service teachers highlight a need for closer/more interaction with the students throughout the semester, as well as better-defined presentation formats.

Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., & Nielsen, P. A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94-97. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115. Jenset, I. S., Klette, K., & Hammerness, K. (2018). Grounding teacher education in practice around the world: An examination of teacher education coursework in teacher education programs in Finland, Norway, and the United States. Journal of teacher education, 69(2), 184-197. Martinsen, K. D. & Skarstein, S. (2011). Mapper – Et pålitelig vurderingsgrunnlag? Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 95(1), 43-53, https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2987-2011-01-05 Meld. St. 16 (2020-2021). Utdanning for omstilling. Økt arbeidslivsrelevans i høyere utdanning. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/96e28f2c72f64844843597e104dc23bc/no/pdfs/stm202020210016000dddpdfs.pdf Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio. Educational leadership, 48(5), 60-63. Wittek, L. (2009). Pedagogiske redskaper og studenters læring. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 92(6), 443-455, https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2987-2008-06-04