• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Development eportfolio blastoff_8-19-13_final
 

Development eportfolio blastoff_8-19-13_final

on

  • 139 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
139
Views on SlideShare
139
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Diane
  • Kay
  • kay
  • Kay
  • Sheryl
  • Sheryl
  • Sheryl
  • Sheryl
  • Sheryl
  • Diane
  • Diane
  • Diane
  • Diane
  • Cindy
  • Cindy
  • cindy
  • Cindy
  • Cindy
  • Cindy
  • Cindy
  • cindy
  • sheryl
  • sheryl
  • sheryl
  • sheryl
  • diane
  • diane
  • diane
  • cindy

Development eportfolio blastoff_8-19-13_final Development eportfolio blastoff_8-19-13_final Presentation Transcript

  • The Development, Implementation, and Use of E-portfolios Presenters: Diane Mason, Ph.D. Cindy Cummings, Ed.D. Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D. Kay Abernathy, Ed.D. Blastoff August 20, 2013
  • I/NCEPR Background • The Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research (I/NCEPR) convenes research/practitioners to study the impact of e- portfolios on student learning and educational outcomes. • Each year 10-12 institutions selected through an application process constitute a three-year cohort.
  • • Bowling Green State University • Curtin University of Technology (Australia) • Goshen College • Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis • Lamar University • Northeastern University • Portland State University • University of Georgia • University of Michigan • University of Mississippi • Virginia Military Institute • Westminster College I/NCEPR Cohort VI Participants
  • Purpose To investigate master’s program content related to construction of electronic portfolios in an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master’s program and potential transference of concepts to PK-12 classrooms.
  • Introduction • An e-portfolio is a technology-based storage of artifacts that demonstrates learning (Barrett, 2005). • The design is aligned with a constructivist approach (Paulson & Paulson, 1994). • Three areas of interest for this study included the application of Web 2.0 tools for e-portfolio construction and use, reflection on learning and transference, and the use of e-portfolios for formative assessment.
  • Research Questions • Quantitative – Has the participation of an ETL master’s candidate in an e-portfolio process contributed to the transference of e-portfolio practices with PK-12 students? – What identified support systems, barriers, and challenges did ETL graduates find to exist in their school regarding technology, policy and procedures, and implementation of e-portfolios?
  • Research Questions • Qualitative – How has the ETL Master’s graduates’ knowledge of e-portfolio assessment supported the implementation of digital portfolios with PK-12 students?
  • Literature Review • Transference is an individual’s ability to use past experiences and new knowledge, shaped by interaction, feedback, and reflections of understanding, to apply in new learning situations (Bransford & Swartz, 1999). • Transference aligns with the foundational approach of constructivism where learners demonstrate and apply knowledge learned from one context to another (Berryman, 1990).
  • Literature Review • Electronic portfolios have a strong support base in constructivism where learners interact with artifacts to construct meaning and show evidence of learning (Avraamidou & Zembal-Saul, 2003; Barrett & Wilkerson, 2004). • Historically, electronic portfolios have been used in higher education (Barrett, 2011). • The use of electronic portfolios in K-12 are referenced in the USDOE National Education Technology Plan as a learning and assessment tool (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
  • Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis Follow up with Interpretation Methodology Explanatory Sequential Design • Referred to as a two-phase model (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). • Involved collecting quantitative data followed by collecting qualitative information to better enlighten and explain the quantitative data results (Creswell, 2012).
  • Participants • Fall 2011 distributed survey about e-portfolio use to 289 ETL graduates – 16 invalid email addresses – 2 opted out (not PK -12 educators) • 271 possible respondents – 110 completed survey – 41 % response rate
  • Participants • Examination of 60 e-portfolios representative of graduates who completed the program during the same timeframe as the 271 survey respondents • Analysis revealed three themes – Web 2.0 Tools – Reflective Process – Assessment
  • Design of Instrument • Developed a pilot survey with a 5 point Likert Scale. – Tested internal consistency for Likert-style items using Cronbach’s Alpha. – Revised survey and conducted another pilot. – Solicited feedback from field experts. • Used SurveyMonkey™ to distribute and obtain anonymous survey responses to the Likert items and open-ended responses.
  • Quantitative Findings • Belief that portfolios were valuable regardless whether paper or electronic. • Transference limitations – Digital e-portfolio formats inconsistent in schools and districts. – Technology support for design and implementation of electronic portfolios in schools and classrooms. – Technology infrastructure, filtering, and policies.
  • Qualitative Findings • “The program has pushed me to explore new technologies, such as, Web 2.0 applications. Because of these experiences I directly applied my learning to my own classroom” (E- portfolio 1). • “With Web 2.0, the focus is not on software, but on practices such as sharing thoughts and information through self-publishing and harnessing the collective intelligence of all users to generate information and solve problems” (E-portfolio 2).
  • Qualitative Findings • “When I understand what they need and what tools we have to offer, I can plan effective strategies and activities that will facilitate deep, critical learning, leading my students to be successful citizens as they continue through life” (E- Portfolio 3). • The graduates stated that reflection was often used by their PK-12 students to explain their learning through e-portfolio development.
  • Qualitative Findings • “An e-portfolio would make it possible for students to interact outside of the classroom and assist each other towards a new form of peer tutoring” (E-Portfolio 4). • “Electronic portfolios…will follow them from year to year. Students will be able to communicate beyond borders and learn without limits” (E-Portfolio 5).
  • Recommendations for Future Study • Examine barriers that impede the transference of higher education program content to application in PK-12 settings. • Research how PK-12 classroom teachers use artifacts and reflections to provide formative feedback regarding student progress.
  • Participants • Spring 2013 distributed survey about barriers, challenges, and support to 437 ETL graduates – 23 invalid email addresses – 5 opted out (not PK -12 educators) • 409 possible respondents – 202 completed survey – 49 % response rate
  • Literature Review Barriers • Availability and access to computers (Barron, Kemker, Harmes, & Kalaydjian, 2003; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003) • Availability of curriculum materials (Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Butzin, 1992; NCES, 2000b) • Teachers beliefs (Ertmer, 2005; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001; Van Braak, 2001; Van Braak, Tondeur, & Valcke, 2000; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004; Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006)
  • Literature Review Barriers • Demographic characteristics of teachers (Bebell, Russell, & O'Dwyer, 2004; Van Braak, 2001) • Teachers’ technological and content knowledge (Pierson, 2001) • Technical, administrative, and peer support (Becker & Ravitz, 1999; NCES, 2000; Ringstaff & Kelly, 2002; Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004; Van Melle, Cimellaro, & Shulha, 2003).
  • Literature Review Challenges • A lack of well-defined guidelines and a clear structure (Smith & Tillema, 2003) and a lack of examples of past portfolios (Darling, 2001), can lead to administrator, teacher, and student confusion and anxiety about the scope, nature and value of the task (Darling, 2001). • Approaches to feedback can sometimes be inappropriate (Smith & Tillema, 2003) • Can be difficult to authenticate the evidence in a portfolio – is it really the work of the student in question (Abrami & Barrett, 2005).
  • Literature Review Challenges • Challis (2005) raises a number of issues that needs to be addressed by an institution – how to manage the volume of data – who will have access to the electronic portfolios, the security and privacy of students’ work – copyright and intellectual property concerns
  • Literature Review Supports • Identify and provide different tools available to implement electronic portfolios for both teachers and students • Provide professional development in electronic portfolio development knowledge and skills, using either face-to-face or online strategies, to be able to: – Capture and store evidence in a variety of multimedia formats and Web 2.0/mobile tools – Reflect on Learning - “reflection = the heart and soul of a portfolio” – Give and receive feedback as part of formative assessment for learning – Plan and set goals as a lifelong learning strategy – Collaborate using Web 2.0 tools – Present showcase portfolio to an audience – Evaluate portfolios used for summative assessment of learning (Barrett, 2011)
  • Findings • Ample support systems are in place in PK-12 to encourage implementation of e-portfolios. • Spring 2013 findings revealed there were challenges, but no significant barriers were identified for implementation. • Identified challenges could be addressed to assure successful implementation of e-portfolios.
  • E-portfolio Implementation Questions to consider: • Who is the audience? • Why are we developing them? • How will they be used to show evidence of learning? • How do you provide students a choice and voice in selection of artifacts?
  • E-portfolio Implementation Levels of Implementation (Barrett, 2011) What is the purpose? • Level 1: e-portfolio as storage. • Level 2: e-portfolio as workspace or process. • Level 3: e-portfolio as showcase or product.
  • E-portfolio Implementation • Selection of Web 2.0 tool aligned with e-portfolio purpose (Barrett, 2012, January). • Strategies for reflections that provide insight into student learning and growth (Barrett & Richer, 2012) may require the development of guiding questions. • Assessment opportunities which offer formative and summative approaches to examine in-depth learning (Barrett, 1999).
  • References Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), 1-15. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Exploring the Influence of Web-Based Portfolio Development on Learning to Teach Elementary Science. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3), 415-42. Barrett, H. (1999). Electronic Portfolios, School Reform and Standards, University of Alaska Anchorage. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/PBS2.html Barrett, H. (2005). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/whitepaper.pdf Barrett, H. (2011). Balancing the two faces of e-portfolios. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/balance/balancingarticle2.pdf Barrett, H. (2011, April ). Eportfolios for learning. Retrieved from http://blog.helenbarrett.org/2011/04/worldwide-e-portfolio-in-k-12- community.html Barrett, H. (2012, January). Google Apps FETC2012. Presentation at Florida Education Technology Conference, Orlando. Barrett, H. & Richer, J. (2012). Reflection for learning. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/reflection4learning/ Barrett, H. & Wilkerson, J. (2004). Conflicting paradigms in electronic portfolio approaches. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/systems/paradigms.html
  • References Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the National Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 489- 507.Berryman, S. E. (1990). Skills, Schools, and Signals. New York, NY: Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University. Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O'Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers' technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45-63. Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and internet use on teachers' pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356-384. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 24 (pp. 61-100).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Butzin, S. M. (1992). Integrating technology into the classroom: Lessons from the project CHILD experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 330-333. Challis, D. (2005). Towards the mature ePortfolio: Some implications for higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3).
  • References Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Darling, L.F. (2001). Portfolio as practice. The narratives of emerging teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1) , 107-121. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25- 39 Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers' context beliefs about technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93-107. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15-27. Paulson, F. & Paulson, P. (1994, April). Assessing Portfolios Using the Constructivist Paradigm. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA). Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.
  • References Ringstaff, C., & Kelly, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco, CA: WestEd RTEC. U.S. Department of Education (2010). National Educational Technology Plan. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487-512. Smith, K,. & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625-648. Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L., & Shulha, L. (2003). A dynamic framework to guide the implementation and evaluation of educational technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 8(3), 267-285. Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271. Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157. Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2000). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 407-422. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173-207.
  • Contact Information Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D. sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu Diane Mason, Ph.D. diane.mason@lamar.edu Cynthia Cummings, Ed.D. cdcummings@lamar.edu Kay Abernathy, Ed.D. lkayabernathy@lamar.edu Presentation Location: http://tinyurl.com/n6mcpc4