Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Honors E Portfolio Project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Honors E Portfolio Project

695
views

Published on

This is a follow up presentation on what the University Honors Program decided to do when it comes to selecting an e-portfolio platform and why.

This is a follow up presentation on what the University Honors Program decided to do when it comes to selecting an e-portfolio platform and why.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
695
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
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
  • Presented to Wayne Hall, Pam Person and Marlene Miner on June 20, 2008.
  • The overlap of the two represents where we are now in the present, the “sweet-spot.” The sweet-spot is asking us, “what is our e-portfolio philosophy?” and how do we make it just as engaging as the social networks?
  • Knowing the learner (self awareness)Understanding prior knowledgeSeeing growth over timePlanning for learningSetting goalsDevelop a plan to achieve these goalsUnderstanding how to learn (meta-learning)Awareness of learners to different approaches to learningDeep v. surface learning, role v. meaningful learningEvaluating learningSystematic analysis of learners’ performanceLearners construct meaning (reflect), monitor learning, evaluate progressAlign evidence to artifacts, outcomes, goals, standardsDeveloped by Barbara Stauble from Curtin University of Technology in AustraliaIf you overlay this model with Zubizaretta’s Learning Portfolio Model, it presents the opportunity to promote life-long learningThe question becomes: what devices promote this in an academic setting?
  • According to O’Reilly, Web 2.0 is more than just a buzzword. Many view Web 2.0 as more interactive, collaborative and conglomeration of tools.
  • Compared to the presentation made in December 2007, these outcomes are further defined for the student and program. These outcomes should address the e-portfolio as a product and as a process.What we realize here is that we are first seeking for a portfolio that allows for assessment, and not an assessment program to build portfolios. This becomes important as we evaluate and research the various software solutions.
  • username: amviragpassword: amvirag4538
  • The reason why LiveText was not an option for the University, in general, was because it didn’t offer an effective way to provide feedback on composition.
  • Concerns:University buy-inAssurance that their skin is in the game, not undercut the process we went throughThe students expect the best, we need to give them the best
  • NOTES FROM DISCUSSION FOLLOWING PRESENTATIONNo money for AY 09 for University-wide e-portfolio developmentE-portfolio is important for ICL, but no funding is available to purchase pilot subscriptionsNo subsidy availableCan raise question with Kristi to subsidize the pilotHow to proceed…need August for training and implementation$5000 was used to jumpstart CAS’s implementation for LiveTextWhat do we need to decide University-wide:Get composition to agree to the softwareThink to teach to link technologiesWayne will let us know in JulyCAS Subscription rate is $86 for 5 yearsDo the faculty have to pay for accounts?
  • Transcript

    • 1. University Honors Program June 20, 2008
    • 2.  e-Portfolio & Digital Identity Conference  The University Honors Program’s e-portfolio requirement  e-portfolio software selection
    • 3.  Evolution of the e-Portfolio  The emergence of the digital self  Web 2.0 & technological products
    • 4. Working Portfolio Presentation Portfolio Summative assessment Formative assessment Assessment of Learning Assessment for learning A standardized checklist A reflective story of deep of skills learning Portfolio as process Portfolio as product Past Present Future
    • 5.  Authenticity involves creativity and ownership of the medium  The story evolves from the four key pillars of lifelong learning  Knowing the learner  Planning for learning  Understanding how to learn  Evaluating learning
    • 6. WEB 1.0 WEB 2.0  DoubleClick  Google AdSense  Ofoto  Flickr  Akamai  BitTorrent  mp3.com  Napster  Britannica Online  Wikipedia  personal websites  Blogging  evite  upcoming.org and EVDB  domain name speculation  search engine optimization  page views  cost per click  screen scraping  web services  publishing  participation  content management systems  wikis  directories (taxonomy)  tagging (quot;folksonomyquot;)  stickiness  syndication
    • 7. Burning Questions:  What is the University Honors Program’s vision for the e-Portfolio Project?  What do we want in an e-portfolio?  What software to use?
    • 8. Establish a best practice system that engages students in establishing a life-long digital identity that is actively reflective of their curricular, developmental, and professional learning in the University Honors Program at the University of Cincinnati
    • 9.  Students develop a sense of identity in a digital format  Integrate curricular learning through student experiences  Establish learning map for professional and personal development and growth  Showcase and reflect on learning opportunities through one or more of the thematic areas of the University Honors Program (Community Engagement, Global Studies, Leadership, and Research/Creative Arts)  Establish a comprehensive system of assessment in creating an accurate portrait of the Honors student population and measure of programmatic progress
    • 10.  Focus groups and on-line survey of Honors students developing portfolios  E-portfolio survey  Software Solution at Lassell College  Live Demonstrations
    • 11.  Conducted focus group discussions with students who have built an e-portfolio in the Honors 101 course during fall 2007 and winter 2008 quarters  The students did not feel a personal connection to the work they were doing using Blackboard  Students expressed the need for a tool that allows them to creatively express themselves through the e-portfolio
    • 12.  64 respondents, representing 7 colleges  Findings consistent with the focus group  Beginning to see the importance of an e- portfolio as augmenting student learning
    • 13.  Further develop opportunities to bring about forced reflections to better translate the experience  Need to offer opportunities for feedback among instructor, peers  Further develop the connection between the Honors experience with the academic program through the e-portfolio  A change in e-portfolio software may spark higher reflection
    • 14.  Allow the owner to create multiple portfolios  Allow the ability to personalize/create pages, templates  Embed media and other sources  Offers the opportunity to search among portfolios based on key terms  Provides information on when a portfolio was last updated  Allow the owner to share the portfolio by offering a URL
    • 15.  Survey sent to college association listserves  Focused on ease of student and faculty use of the e-portfolio product  9 institutions responded, but lots of inquiries  Survey illustrated the growing trend to move towards the technology
    • 16.  Presented case study at an e-portfolio conference at Framingham State College in February 2008  E-Portfolio system intended to encourage reflection, shape to the student experience  Conducted a selection process similar to the 2005 UC e-portfolio committee  Helped narrow the list of potential vendors to three:  TaskStream’s Learning Achievement Tools (LAT)  FolioTek  Nuventive’siWebfolio
    • 17.  TaskStream’s Learning Achievement Tools (LAT)  FolioTek  Nuventive’s iWebfolio
    • 18.  Solid, robust structure  Students are able to view the rubric  Offers a single sign-on through Blackboard  Got the impression that showcase portfolios cannot be assessed and reported  Complex to navigate  Once submitted, the student cannot update a class portfolio
    • 19.  Immediate customer service  Presents information in a logical order  The form of assessment is a display of evidence  Too many mouse clicks, lists  Admin users are not free to make structural changes on-the-fly  Showcase portfolio development is a separate process
    • 20.  Offers more storage space  Allows users to create multiple portfolios  Offers multiple templates, libraries for various rubrics  Offers owner to share portfolios to external users via an Internet URL  Built in user feedback
    • 21.  LiveText  Currently used by the College of Applied Science  Able to embed media in the page  Structure not flexible enough for creativity  Challenging to share portfolio with external users  Web 2.0 Tools  Very loosely structured  Will bring about challenges for feedback and assessment in the long run
    • 22.  Use Nuventive’s iWebfolio product, beginning with the fall 2008 incoming class  Create templates for each of the thematic areas of the University Honors Program  Offer students using Blackboard the option to purchase an iWebfolio account
    • 23.  Thoughts?
    • 24. University Honors Program June 20, 2008