Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Cpjwece2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Cpjwece2011

132
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
132
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Using e-portfolios to support student work placements ECE 2011 Chris Procter, Janice Whatley Salford Business School [email_address] , [email_address]
  • 2. Contents
    • Explanation of placements
    • PDP and ePortolios for placement students
    • Facilities provided
    • Results
    • Evaluation
    • Conclusions
  • 3. 2 degree routes BSc or BA BSc or BA with Professional Experience Year 1 Year 2 Final year Year 1 Year 2 Placement year Final year
  • 4. Location
    • Students on placement typically in the UK
    • Students traditionally visited twice per year by supervisor. Additional communication by phone, email etc
    • Assessment conducted includes written reports and log book, presentation, and supervisor’s evaluation
  • 5. E-Portfolios background
    • UK PDP initiative – arising from the 1997 National Committee of Inquiry in Higher Education (Gough 2006)
    • PDP officers appointed in Universities
    • Commercial products to facilitate PDP
  • 6. Affordance
    • Behavioural opportunities afforded by the tool: Laurillard (2002), Conole and Dyke (2004)
    • Three objectives of ePortfolios: process, showcase and assessment (Abrami and Barrett 2005 and Harper 2007)
    • Importance of reflective learning journey (Anderson 2009, Vaatstra and De Vries 2007)
    • Perceived affordance and user participation also relevant
  • 7. Objectives
    • Enhancing communication with staff at the university and in the work place
    • Assisting with assessment of the placement
    • Allowing the student to have a persistent record that they could continually improve with a view to enhancing their future employability
  • 8. iWebfolio: http://www.nuventive.com/products_iwebfolio .html
  • 9. Contents of ePortfolio
    • 3 components: uploading items of various formats; entering reflective statements; making presentations as printed documents or web pages
    • User uploads files to an online repository, then using a template the user can organise a selection of the documents into a portfolio collection. The final portfolio collection can be customised for particular purposes, such as for viewing by the student’s visiting tutor, the student’s workplace supervisor, or by potential future employers
    • A suggested template was created for the students on this proejct
  • 10. Templates
  • 11. iWebfolio screen shot
  • 12. Students involved
    • 43 students from Business and Management, Information Systems were given access to iWebfolio : 41 students used it
    • 12 supervisors were given access
  • 13. Gathering feedback: most agreed that it was easy to use
    • 22 students took part in subsequent focus groups, 6 in interviews
    • 5 staff participated in a focus group
    • “ It’s good because you can keep all your work in one place” and
    • “ It is handy to have all your stuff in one place”
    • “ It’s handy because it can be accessed online”
    • “ Compared to a hard copy logbook it saves paper and so is eco friendly”
    • “ It can look very good with links to work I’ve created”
  • 14. Personal preferences (some didn’t appreciate the capability of the tool)
    • “ I don’t like tracking my own progress”
    • “ I’m not motivated to use it after sitting in front of a PC all day”
    • “ Keeping logs is essential, but is iWebfolio needed or is it just as easy to keep it as personal folders?” and (similarly raised in the same focus group) “I would rather just use a folder”
    • “ I think hard copies are easier to read”
    • “ I find it bulky to use” and “It seems a bit over complicated” and “The navigation is a bit time consuming”
  • 15. Link to assessment
    • “ We still had to hand in a hard copy so what’s the point?”
    • “ Keeping logs is essential, but is iWebfolio needed or is it just as easy to keep it as personal folders?” and (similarly raised in the same focus group) “I would rather just use a folder”
    • “ It should be a requirement that students use the e-portfolio system, and that it should form a part of the assessment of the placement.” (staff member)
  • 16. Commitment of stakeholders
    • “ The idea is good but it needs more support from tutors – what’s the point of using it if it isn’t being looked at?”
    • “ You can see if someone has actually bothered to read it”
    • “ Is anyone looking at the work I put on iWebfolio?”
    • “ The experience was rather mixed. Some have used it well and some hardly at all. Part of the issue is the extent to which we set expectations – and the extent to which placement tutors follow up in terms of interacting/providing feedback via students’ iWebfolios. This itself depends on the extent to which placement tutors ‘buy’ into the idea themselves. I think this has been patchy at best” (staff member)
  • 17. Integration with module
    • “ I think the money may be better spent elsewhere” and (similarly raised in the same focus group)
    • “ Perhaps improving lecture materials would be a more beneficial use of the time and money”
  • 18. Integration with other software
    • The e-portfolio did not fit with the tools and processes used in any of the students’ workplaces, for example staff appraisal
    • The tool did not fit with the VLE with which the students are familiar
    • The tool did not fit with social media software with which the students are familiar
  • 19. Conclusions Successful implementation required:
    • Integration into information systems in daily use by the student at university. Possibly also capable of integration with any system used in the workplace. Capable of integrating with widely used social media?
    • Intended affordance of the system to be clearly signposted to the users
    • Tool to be a formal part of the assessment of the placement
    • Used to monitor and guide students as an essential part of the tutor role rather than an optional extra
  • 20. References
    • Abrami, P., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology
    • Anderson D, Gardner G, Ramsbotham J, Tones M. (2008 ) E-portfolios: developing nurse practitioner competence and capability Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing
    • Conole, G. and Dyke, M. (2004), What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J
    • Gough, D. et. al. (2006) ‘ systematic map and synthesis review of the effectiveness of personal development planning for improving student learning’
    • Harper, W. E., McCowan, C. R., Hauville, K. L., Moody, K. E. & Chorazyczewski, D. M. (2007) Voluntary or compulsory: Using a variety of approaches and models to implement the Student e-Portfolio across 40,000 students at QUT. e-Portfolio Australia
    • Laurillard, D. (2002), Rethinking University Teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd edition)Routledge – 2007
    • Vaatstra, R. and De Vries, R. (2007), The effect of the learning environment on competencies and training for the workplace according to graduates, Higher Education