Sloan c et4_o_2012_study for improving student reflections electronic portfolios david denton

253 views

Published on

Presentation sharing results of study for improving student reflections in electronic portfolios.
SLOAN-C ET4Online 2012
by Dr. David W. Denton

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
253
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sloan c et4_o_2012_study for improving student reflections electronic portfolios david denton

  1. 1. Improving Student Reflections inElectronic Portfolio Environments Evidence-based Learning, Writing Instruction, Reflection Dr. David Denton
  2. 2. Concept Map Overview
  3. 3. Study
  4. 4. QuestionsWhat instructional practices improve students’electronic portfolio entries? Does metadata (tags and categories) predict performance?
  5. 5. Writing
  6. 6. Writing“writing ability is a source of construct-irrelevantvariance” (Mislevy et la., 2004)
  7. 7. bPortfolio
  8. 8. Evidence-Based Learning• Artifacts• Program Standards
  9. 9. Example
  10. 10. Method• Context and Participants – Convenience Sample – 11 Undergraduates • Mostly females
  11. 11. Method• Repeated measures – Three portfolio entries First Entry Second Entry Third Entry 8 months 1 week before before During intervention intervention intervention
  12. 12. Method• Measure: – Writing Quality Rubric • Adapted from AACU VALUE rubrics • .82 inter-rater reliability
  13. 13. t-test First Entry Second Entry Third Entry 8 months 1 week During before beforeintervention intervention intervention 5
  14. 14. Method
  15. 15. MethodNumber of TagCloud Terms Writing Quality Score
  16. 16. Results• Statistically significant improvement M = 0.55 M = 2.36 M = 5.82 t(10) = 4.99, p < .001, d = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.91 to 5.00
  17. 17. t-test First Entry Second Entry Third Entry 8 months 1 week During before beforeintervention intervention intervention 5
  18. 18. Results• Statistically significant correlation between – Tag cloud terms –writing quality – Total portfolio entries – writing quality
  19. 19. Discussion• Intervention improved writing quality on third entry• Use of metadata to predict general writing quality
  20. 20. 1 Intervention• Explicit directions on content and format – Prompt – Instructions
  21. 21. 2 Intervention• Communication of Assessment Criteria – Rubric
  22. 22. 3 Intervention• Evaluating evidence – Questions
  23. 23. 4 Intervention• Instructor and peer feedback – Strengths and weaknesses • Submitted to instructor • Read aloud to peer
  24. 24. 5 Intervention• Revising – Initial submission • Instructor feedback • Peer feedback – Final submission
  25. 25. ReferencesYao, Y., Aldrich, J., Foster, K., & Pecina, U. (2009). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of an electronic portfolio as a tool for reflection and teacher certification. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 9, 25-43.Yao, Y., Thomas, M., Nickens, N., Downing, J., Burkett, R. S., & Lamson, S. (2008). Validity evidence of an electronic portfolio for preservice teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 10-24.Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., Lukas, & J. F. (2004). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design. CSE Report 632. U.S. Department of Education. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on EvaluationAyan, D., & Seferoglu, G. (2011). Using electronic portfolios to promote reflective thinking in language teacher education. Educational Studies, 37(5), 513-521.

×