NSSA Nola 2011_10-10-11_dm_ka


Published on

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

Published in: Education, Business, 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

No notes for slide
  • Diane
  • Sheryl
  • Kay
  • NSSA Nola 2011_10-10-11_dm_ka

    1. 1. Lamar University<br />College of Education<br />Educational LeadershipBeaumont, TX<br />Building Leadership Capacity: The Use of Electronic Portfolios and Web 2.0 Tools<br />Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.Diane Mason, Ph.D.Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.Cindy Cummings, M.Ed.Daryl Ann Borel, M.Ed.<br />
    2. 2. Cohort VI - 12 Universities - United States and Australia<br /> 3 year studies<br /> Various e-portfolios, including those embracing rich media and social software, which enact reflection and integration. <br /> Cohort VI investigating eportfolios in a systemic way for assessment and inquiring into their effectiveness.<br />
    3. 3. Research Question<br />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?<br /> <br />
    4. 4. Guiding Questions<br />Can you adequately assess an eportfolio if the artifacts and reflections are in isolation?<br />Are the candidates’ critical reflections focused on leadership development, the learning process, the assessment, and/or the artifact?<br />Do candidates understand the concept of artifacts and their relationship to eportfolios?<br />How do connectivism and socialization impact the way our candidates perceive relationships between artifacts and extended learning?<br />Are ETL candidates using Web 2.0 tools as part of their professional practice?<br />
    5. 5. Qualitative Questions – Interviews and Open-ended Survey Questions of 45 ETL Graduates <br />How many artifacts or exhibits are in your eportfolio?<br />How many classes or experiences are represented?<br />What kinds of relationships do you perceive among the artifacts in the electronic portfolio?<br />What difference do you think it makes, if any, to have two or more artifacts together?<br />What was or is the role of reflection in your eportfolio? <br />What Web 2.0 tools/cloud computing resources do you use on a daily basis within your school or district professional work?<br />
    6. 6. Analysis of Patterns and Themes <br />Perceptual trends regarding the eportfolio as a process or product.  <br />Connections representative of connectivism theory and socialization aspects. <br />Depth and breadth of critical reflection as it relates to program content, personal growth, and extended learning outside the professional field.<br />
    7. 7.  Findings<br />Some candidates viewed the eportfolio as a professional showcase and not just a process required by the master’s program.<br />Artifact perceptions seemed to indicate each eportfolio edition (reflection or product sample) represented an extension of personal and professional knowledge base. <br />Reflections, course projects, and personal vitaes considered as all separate artifacts primarily focused on the ETL coursework and professional contributions.<br />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.<br />
    8. 8.  Findings<br />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. <br />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. <br />ETL faculty envision building candidate leadership in eportfolio expertise to impact and transfer concepts to K-12 practice. <br />
    9. 9.  Findings<br />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. <br />ETL faculty concluded the candidates primarily view the eportfolio process in a linear fashion. <br />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.   <br />There was no evidence of this type of  in-depth reflection in the eportfolios we examined and discussed. <br />
    10. 10.  Findings<br />Appeared to be some evidence of transference of concepts and learnings to other settings <br />ETL faculty noted the focus was primarily on classroom teachings versus leadership. <br />No mention of leadership in the interviews. <br />ETL faculty felt this was a significant observation since the program framework is educational leadership. <br />This is evidence that the only connections being made are within a course. <br />Leadership is considered a primary component of the ISTE Technology Facilitator standards. <br />
    11. 11. Conclusions<br />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.<br />ETL team encourages candidates to reflect upon their learning and its relationship to teacher added value in K-12 instructional practice and student growth. <br />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. <br />
    12. 12. Conclusions<br />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. <br />Enabled the faculty to critically reflect upon the current progress and gave guidance for improvements in the program. <br />Helped to solidify the beliefs of the ETL faculty regarding eportfolio construction and critical reflection. <br />Cronbach’s Alpha indicated a need to revise some survey items.<br />
    13. 13. Research Procedures: Mixed Methods On-going Study<br />INCEPR – Cohort 6 focus on eportfolios in ETL Graduate Program<br />Formulated overarching research question and cohort guiding questions to determine program and eportfolio insight and perspective<br />Developed analysis themes and patterns<br />Developed pilot survey <br />Analyzed findings <br />
    14. 14. Research Procedures: Mixed Methods On-going Study<br />Conducted Conbach’s alpha<br />Revised survey<br />Field-tested the revised survey with 25 individuals representative of the final sample<br />Revised survey for clarity based upon data from field-test<br />Distributed survey to 150+ ETL graduates.<br />
    15. 15. Cronbach’s Alpha<br /><ul><li> 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.
    16. 16. Survey items were redesigned.</li></li></ul><li>
    17. 17.
    18. 18.
    19. 19. Graduate and Candidate Interview Findings<br />Evidence of transference of concepts and learnings to other settings<br />Focus is primarily on classroom teachings versus leadership.<br />Little mention of leadership when it is a primary component of the ISTE Technology Facilitator standards.<br />E-portfolios with reflections enabled faculty to critically reflect upon student progress and improvements.<br />Candidates primarily view portfolio in a linear fashion.<br />Candidates have differing interpretations of the term artifact.<br />
    20. 20. Contact Information<br />Kay Abernathy, Ed.D. - lkabernathy@lamar.edu<br />Diane Mason, Ph.D. - diane.mason@lamar.edu<br />Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D. – sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu<br />Cindy Cummings, M.Ed. - cdcummings@lamar.edu<br />Daryl Ann Borel, M.Ed. – daborel@lamar.edu<br />Xinyu Liu, Ph.D. - xinyu.liu@lamar.edu<br />
    21. 21. For More Information: Lamar UniversityBeaumont, TX<br />http://luonline.lamar.edu/<br />& http://stateu.com/lamar/<br />