NSSA Nola 2011_10-10-11_dm_ka
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

NSSA Nola 2011_10-10-11_dm_ka

on

  • 505 views

Draft of update to electronic portfolio research presentation. Will add analysis later today as well as edit too much text on slides.

Draft of update to electronic portfolio research presentation. Will add analysis later today as well as edit too much text on slides.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
505
Views on SlideShare
504
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

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
  • Sheryl
  • Kay

NSSA Nola 2011_10-10-11_dm_ka NSSA Nola 2011_10-10-11_dm_ka Presentation Transcript

  • Lamar University
    College of Education
    Educational LeadershipBeaumont, TX
    Building Leadership Capacity: The Use of Electronic Portfolios and Web 2.0 Tools
    Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.Diane Mason, Ph.D.Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.Cindy Cummings, M.Ed.Daryl Ann Borel, M.Ed.
  • Cohort VI - 12 Universities - United States and Australia
    3 year studies
    Various e-portfolios, including those embracing rich media and social software, which enact reflection and integration.
    Cohort VI investigating eportfolios in a systemic way for assessment and inquiring into their effectiveness.
  • Research Question
    How has the participation of an ETL master’s candidate in an eportfolio process contributed to the implementation of eportfolio practices with K-12 students?
     
  • Guiding Questions
    Can you adequately assess an eportfolio if the artifacts and reflections are in isolation?
    Are the candidates’ critical reflections focused on leadership development, the learning process, the assessment, and/or the artifact?
    Do candidates understand the concept of artifacts and their relationship to eportfolios?
    How do connectivism and socialization impact the way our candidates perceive relationships between artifacts and extended learning?
    Are ETL candidates using Web 2.0 tools as part of their professional practice?
  • Qualitative Questions – Interviews and Open-ended Survey Questions of 45 ETL Graduates
    How many artifacts or exhibits are in your eportfolio?
    How many classes or experiences are represented?
    What kinds of relationships do you perceive among the artifacts in the electronic portfolio?
    What difference do you think it makes, if any, to have two or more artifacts together?
    What was or is the role of reflection in your eportfolio?
    What Web 2.0 tools/cloud computing resources do you use on a daily basis within your school or district professional work?
  • Analysis of Patterns and Themes
    Perceptual trends regarding the eportfolio as a process or product.  
    Connections representative of connectivism theory and socialization aspects.
    Depth and breadth of critical reflection as it relates to program content, personal growth, and extended learning outside the professional field.
  •  Findings
    Some candidates viewed the eportfolio as a professional showcase and not just a process required by the master’s program.
    Artifact perceptions seemed to indicate each eportfolio edition (reflection or product sample) represented an extension of personal and professional knowledge base.
    Reflections, course projects, and personal vitaes considered as all separate artifacts primarily focused on the ETL coursework and professional contributions.
    Little evidence to suggest students perceived the eportfolio to be representative of personal learning and connections to other parts of their lives outside of the ETL program and professional expectations.
  •  Findings
    Apparent that the ETL faculty needs to mentor the ETL candidates as they define artifacts and critically reflect on the  value of eportfolios personal and professional use.
    ETL faculty questions whether artifacts are products, how separate assessment tools such as a rubric or scoring guide affect the artifact contributions and processes, and if critical reflection impacts the overall eportfolio perceptions.
    ETL faculty envision building candidate leadership in eportfolio expertise to impact and transfer concepts to K-12 practice.
  •  Findings
    Tendency for students to tell the story of the process of how the artifact was created rather than looking at the relationship among the artifacts and how that impacted learning.
    ETL faculty concluded the candidates primarily view the eportfolio process in a linear fashion.
    In order to link artifacts through commonalities, differences, and  inter-relationships, candidates should be given opportunities to analyze, reconsider, and question their beliefs, assumptions and experiences and how these elements impact their learning.   
    There was no evidence of this type of  in-depth reflection in the eportfolios we examined and discussed.
  •  Findings
    Appeared to be some evidence of transference of concepts and learnings to other settings
    ETL faculty noted the focus was primarily on classroom teachings versus leadership.
    No mention of leadership in the interviews.
    ETL faculty felt this was a significant observation since the program framework is educational leadership.
    This is evidence that the only connections being made are within a course.
    Leadership is considered a primary component of the ISTE Technology Facilitator standards.
  • Conclusions
    ETL faculty team is examining coursework content and eportfolio construction processes, procedures, and guidelines to more readily enable candidates to frequently examine artifacts and the relationships between them.
    ETL team encourages candidates to reflect upon their learning and its relationship to teacher added value in K-12 instructional practice and student growth.
    In order to link artifacts through commonalities, differences, and  inter-relationships, candidates should be given opportunities to analyze, reconsider, and question their beliefs, assumptions and experiences and how these elements impact their learning.
  • Conclusions
    The interviews and sample artifacts provided necessary examples for the ETL faculty to assess the current implementation of eportfolios as related to the ETL coursework.
    Enabled the faculty to critically reflect upon the current progress and gave guidance for improvements in the program.
    Helped to solidify the beliefs of the ETL faculty regarding eportfolio construction and critical reflection.
    Cronbach’s Alpha indicated a need to revise some survey items.
  • Research Procedures: Mixed Methods On-going Study
    INCEPR – Cohort 6 focus on eportfolios in ETL Graduate Program
    Formulated overarching research question and cohort guiding questions to determine program and eportfolio insight and perspective
    Developed analysis themes and patterns
    Developed pilot survey
    Analyzed findings
  • Research Procedures: Mixed Methods On-going Study
    Conducted Conbach’s alpha
    Revised survey
    Field-tested the revised survey with 25 individuals representative of the final sample
    Revised survey for clarity based upon data from field-test
    Distributed survey to 150+ ETL graduates.
  • Cronbach’s Alpha
    • The Cronbach's α (alpha) coefficient of reliability indicated a need to reword the electronic portfolio questions in the pilot survey for better internal consistency with the questions in the final survey.
    • Survey items were redesigned.
  • Graduate and Candidate Interview Findings
    Evidence of transference of concepts and learnings to other settings
    Focus is primarily on classroom teachings versus leadership.
    Little mention of leadership when it is a primary component of the ISTE Technology Facilitator standards.
    E-portfolios with reflections enabled faculty to critically reflect upon student progress and improvements.
    Candidates primarily view portfolio in a linear fashion.
    Candidates have differing interpretations of the term artifact.
  • Contact Information
    Kay Abernathy, Ed.D. - lkabernathy@lamar.edu
    Diane Mason, Ph.D. - diane.mason@lamar.edu
    Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D. – sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu
    Cindy Cummings, M.Ed. - cdcummings@lamar.edu
    Daryl Ann Borel, M.Ed. – daborel@lamar.edu
    Xinyu Liu, Ph.D. - xinyu.liu@lamar.edu
  • For More Information: Lamar UniversityBeaumont, TX
    http://luonline.lamar.edu/
    & http://stateu.com/lamar/