Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Yavelberg upgrading e-portfolios using Web 2.0 tools
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

Yavelberg upgrading e-portfolios using Web 2.0 tools


Published on

A description of an ePortfolio platform upgraded by using a web 2.0 framework. Student perceptions are also described.

A description of an ePortfolio platform upgraded by using a web 2.0 framework. Student perceptions are also described.

Published in: Education, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Definition: Butler (2010) defines ePortfolios as “selective and structured collections of information gathered for specific purposes and showing evidencing one's accomplishments and growth which are stored digitally and managed by appropriate software developed by using appropriate multimedia and customarily within a web environment and retrieved from a website, or delivered by CD-ROM or by DVD.” (p. 112)
  • What is formative feedback? Discussion of the literature.
  • Summative v. Formative feedback
  • Model of E-Learning: Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed., pp. 33–60). Athabasca University. Retrieved from
  • Mahara – Open source Digication – Static has a commenting feature and user directory.Google – not the intended purpose, but a good work-around for those not looking to invest money into a portfolio. Can be social, but not linked to a broader social e-portfolio systemRcampus – Multiple portfolios and a blog or discussion thread. Comments not directly connected to artifacts. Contains grading rubrics for assessmentDesire2Learn – Good management system but integration with social networks such as facebook, twitter, google+, etc. downplays educational and true critical formative feedback from peers.LaGuardia Community College – Students are required to create and reflect in e-portfolios throughout their college term. Showcase gallery but no real social features. Static. Other colleges have similar portfolio features (University of Central Oklahoma “Pass-Port folios”, Oscar – buisness e-portfolio management with some discussion boards. Requires a sales rep to demonstrate the system.Maps – takes formative feedback to a new level with their “red pen tool” for direct editing on documents.Foliotekinc. – managed assessment portfolios. No direct social peer-to-peer interactionsFolio Spaces – clunky and powered by Mahara. Free to join and there is a group feature to share portfolios and – Showcase portfoliosPebblePad – Flash. Paid portfolio management. Confusing but social abilities.Others? – Most major LMS such as Blackboard do not have an integrated e-portfolio or social component.
  • The ePortfolio model creates a bubble where the creator is left to their own devices to reflect and grow. Online learning takes advantage of peer-to-peer and teacher-to-student communications to provide critical and formative feedback on content in process to encourage growth.
  • Positive…There were only a handful of students in the class that seemed dedicated to the assignments, so I often found myself weeding through a lot of sloppy, half assed posts, and by the time you got through it all you realized that the peoples work you were hoping to see hadn't posted anything yet. I would liked to have seen at least one comment from the instructor on every piece that I posted on the site.It's great as it is. I was very impressed with this website, and I wish more professors would put something like this site together for their students. It made turning in work, and communicating with other classmates so much easier.Beef up the chat aspect of it, and set times for students to get up on the site and discuss the assignments they are currently working on so students could trouble shoot with each other and give helpful suggestions. This was the first time I ever had an interactive social website involved in one of my classes. Thought it was awesome and aside from uploading files was pretty easy to use. Will learn from my mistakes in future classes, seems like these type of websites are here to stay. I spend a lot of time online, and for my course work to be online-based is an extreme convenience for me. It was efficient in giving and receiving feedback, and I’ve been meaning to start an online portfolio anyway.Negative:Being placed into a situation where I don't feel like I'm communicating with peers is not a productive environment in which for me to further my learning and growth. If there was a section where I could have just received questions from just you versus having to go to the site and search for your questions...a One on One forum, then I would have gladly entertained the idea of the website. And because it was online,that turned me off. I don't do much if any of my work online, and tend not to have the computer open when I'm studying. Researching for papers and typing papers is what I use my computer for. Even then, I'll print out my resources, rather than view them on my computer. I don't like online chat rooms because I'm often misunderstood and it does not communicate accurately what my intent is. Case and point (see blog)Ironic next response - (Because I use the computer often and since I use it for work and play, it works out.)I never got any feedback from classmates so I felt like I was talking to a wall. Also I kept forgetting to log in and check things.
  • Results positively skewed as the students who were engaged in the online environment completed the survey, those that never signed in or neglected the online environment didn’t participate in the survey (with the exception of a few)
  • Transcript

    • 1. UpgradingePortfoliosUsing 2.0 Concepts for FormativeDevelopmentJosh
    • 2. ePortfolios
    • 3. What do I mean by 2.0?
    • 4. Formative Feedback
    • 5. Formative Feedback
    • 6. OnlineLearning
    • 7. Overview / Critique of the ePortfolio fieldApps or SitesPebblePadOthers?
    • 8. Is there learning?
    • 9. Method• Design Based Research• Developed an LMS platform using Elgg incorporatingePortfolio features, social networking functions, andclassroom group sites• Developed for one instructors courses and used for over ayear as a pilot incorporating 20 different courses.• Survey delivered to students to gauge perception:• Mix of Likert scale and open ended responses
    • 10. Yavelfolio•
    • 11. Survey ResultsEase of UseI could notnavigate, findinformation okeep up withwhat wasgoing onI had an easytime keepingup andnavigating thesystemGroup Pages (onlineclassroom page)Theclassroompage wasconfusingI found theclassroompage to behelpful andeasy to use
    • 12. Survey ResultsI never usedthe profileand dontunderstandor care to usethe featuresI found theprofiles to beuseful andplan to use thefeatures in thefutureProfile PagesI neverloggedinto thesiteI logged infrequentlyLogin and Use
    • 13. Survey ResultsThelayout forthe sitewas ugly,clutteredandconfusingThe layoutfor the sitefeltfamiliar,pleasing,and easyto navigateLayoutI did not andwill not usea site such asthis tocommunicate withclassmatesand sharemy workI used the siteand wish touse the sitethroughoutmy school tocommunicatewith studentsand faculty toshare mywork andreflectionsCommunication and Networking
    • 14. Survey Results• 72% would continue to use this service or a similarone to maintain a profile and communicate withclassmates• 27.6% Currently use an online service to showcasetheir work: Blogger, Google+, Tumblr, Facebook andDeviant Art• 76% believed the online components to be helpful totheir learning or engagement in the course.
    • 15. Survey ResultsWhat issues didstudents have?• Technical• Confusing process at first• Layout led to troublesomenavigation• Need clearer courseexpectations• Respected instructorfeedback and wantedmore• Want mobile accessability• General Internetaccessibility issues orforgot to sign in afterleaving class.
    • 16. Survey ResultsWhat did students want to see added?• Clearer “wall” component (Open Gallery)• Instant Messaging• Online tutoring, office hours, or postedsynchronous study sessions• Video Tutorials (even though they were there)
    • 17. Survey ResultsDid the online component aid in learningor engagement?• Allowed for communication, sharing, andcritique• Repository for course information, assignments,and grades (organization)• Seeing other’s work was inspirational and helpedwith expectations.
    • 18. Survey Results
    • 19. Survey Limitations00.511.522.533.544.55Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4Series 1
    • 20. YavelfolioObservations and benefits:• Students interact across courses• Feedback is directly linked to artifacts allowing users torecall assessments• Privacy features allow for custom sharing• Separate from informal social networks (Facebook, etc.)allowing for more academic discourse• Classroom LMS and ePortfolios combined into onesystem rather than using multiple platforms
    • 21. YavelfolioChallenges:• Language• Engagement• Students don’t want to do it once they leave the physicalclassroom• Needs to expand with more faculty involvement to allowportfolios to evolve and networks to grow over time• Open Source Environment• SPAM• Getting users to engage in the platform with the understandingof the advantages of ePortfolios• ePortfolios need to be integrated into the broader curriculum withbroader formative and cumulating in a summative review process.
    • 22. Future Research andDevelopment• Extend use to be inclusive or more faculty, broader subjectareas and longitudinal tracking• Assess growth and depth of cognitive reflection• Incorporate rubrics and other assessment strategies• Interview the outliers or those who don’t participate in thesurvey• Multi-version editing• Clean development for better integration and customization oftools• Allowing both private formative portfolio and publicallysharable summative portfolios
    • 23. ContactJosh Yavelberg202-276-1780Josh.yavelberg@flyingcloudsolutions.comWorkshops
    • 24. Works CitedAckerman, D. (1989). Criteria for successful curriculum integration. Interdisciplinary Curriculum:Design and Implementation (pp. 25-38). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning(2nd ed., pp. 33–60). Athabasca University. Retrieved from, I. (2006). ePortfolio: constructing learning. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C(Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 168-179). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Barrett, H. (2006, June). Using Electronic Portfolios for Formative/Classroom-based Assessment.Belgrad, S., Burke, K., & Fogarty, R. (2008). The portfolio connection : student work linked tostandards (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.Buffington, M. (2008). What is web 2.0 and how can it further art education? ArtEducation, 61(3), 36-41.Butler, P. (2010). E-Portfolios, Pedagogy and Implementation in Higher Education:Considerations from the Literature. In N. Buzzetto-More (Ed.), The E-Portfolio Paradigm:Informing, Educating, Assessing, and Managing with E-Portfolios (pp. 109-139). SantaRosa, California: Informing Science Press.Cambridge, D. (2008). Audience, integrity, and the living document: eFolio Minnesota andlifelong and lifewide learning with ePortfolios. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1227-1246.Cambridge, D. (2009). Electronic portfolios 2.0 : emergent research on implementaton andimpact (1st ed.). Sterling VA: Stylus Pub.Cambridge, D. (2010). Eportfolios for lifelong learning and assessment (1st ed.). SanFrancisco CA: Jossey-Bass.Chen, H. (2009). Using portfolios to support lifelong and lifewide learning. In D. Cambridge, B.Cambridge, & K. Yancey (Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 29-39). Sterling, VA: Stylus.Clark, J. E., & Eynon, B. (2009). E-portfolios at 2.0, surveying the field. AAC&U PeerReview, 18-23.Davis-Soylu, H., Peppler, K., & Hickey, D. (2011). Assessment assemblage: advancing portfoliopractice through the assesment staging theory. Studies in Art Education, 53(3), 213-224.Dillon, S. & Brown, A. (2006). The art of ePortfolios: insights from the creative arts experience. InA. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-111).Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.DiMarco, J. (2006). Web portfolio design and applications. Hershey, PA : Idea Group Publ.Doig, B., Illsley, B., McLuckie, J., and Parsons, R. (2006). Using ePortfolios to enhance reflectivelearning and development. In A. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research onePortfolios (pp. 102-111). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., Van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in the digital age:technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport CT:Praeger.Fitzsimmons, D. (2008). Digital portfolios in visual arts classrooms. Art Education, 61(5), 47-53.Flanigan, E., & Amirian, S. (2006). ePortfolios: pathway from classroom to career. In A. Jafari &Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-111). Hershey, PA: IdeaGroup Publ.Goodfellow, R. & Lea, M. (2007). Challenging e-learning in the university. New York: OpenUniversity Press.
    • 25. Works Cited Continued.Greenberg, G. (2006). Can we talk? Electronic portfolios as collaborative learning spaces. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios(pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Hickerson, C. & Preston, M. (2006). Transition to ePortfolios: a case study of student attitudes. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research onePortfolios (pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Hills, H. (2003). Individual preferences in e-learning. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Co.Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.Katz, R., & EDUCAUSE (Association). (2008). The tower and the cloud: higher education in the age of cloud computing. [Boulder CO]: EDUCAUSE.Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., Pascoe, C. J., et al. (2008). Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findingsfrom the Digital Youth Project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.Latta, M. M., Buck, G., & Beckenhauer, A. (2007). Formitive assessment requires artistic vision. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(4), 1–23.Landow, G. (1997). Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.Nespor, J. (2006). Technology and the politics of instruction. Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Katz, R., & EDUCAUSE (Association). (2008). Thetower and the cloud: higher education in the age of cloud computing. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.Olofsson, A. D., Lindberg, J. O., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Blogs and the design of reflective peer-to-peer technology-enhanced learning and formative assessment.Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(3), 183–194. doi:10.1108/10650741111145715Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).Riedinger, B. (2006). Mining for meaning: Teaching students how to reflect. In A. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-111). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Rickards, W. H., & Guilbault, L. (2009). Studying student reflection in an elecronic portfolio environment. In D. Cambridge, B. Cambridge, & K. Yancey(Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 17-28). Sterling, VA: Stylus.Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Sherman, G. (2006). Instructional roles of electronic portfolios. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA:Idea Group Publ.Stevenson, H. (2006). Using ePortfolios to foster peer assessment, critical thinking, and collaboration. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research onePortfolios (pp. 112-124). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Stieger, S., & Burger, C. (2010). Let’s Go Formative: Continuous Student Ratings with Web 2.0 Application Twitter. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and SocialNetworking, 13(2), 163–167. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0128Tosh, D., Werdmuller, B., Chen, H., Penny Light, T., & Haywood, J. (2006). The learning landscape: a conceptual framework for ePortfolios. In A. Jafari &Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 24-32). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Yancey, K. B. (2009). Reflection and electronic portfolios. In D. Cambridge, B. Cambridge, & K. Yancey (Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 5-16).Sterling, VA: Stylus.Yang, Y.-F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1202-1210
    • 26. Image CreditsThe University of Edinburgh College of Scienceand Engineering. ePortfolio. Boston (2011). Web 2.0 Web DesignMost Used Techniques: (2011, December 7). The contextof assessment and feedback (research for theaction larning set report), H. (2011, March 11). Students vote toimprove- Formative assessment. Education withTechnology Harry G. Tuttle. Retrieved from: