Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Lamar resconfdevelopmentimplementationuseeportfoliospk 12 schools-3-22-13

230 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Lamar resconfdevelopmentimplementationuseeportfoliospk 12 schools-3-22-13

  1. 1. The Development, Implementation, and Use of Eportfolios in PK-12 Schools Lamar University Research Conference College of Education Educational Leadership March 22, 2013Presenters:Diane Mason, Ph.D.Cindy Cummings, Ed.D.Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.
  2. 2. PurposeTo investigate master’s program contentrelated to construction of electronicportfolios in an online EducationalTechnology Leadership (ETL) master’sprogram and potential transference ofconcepts to PK-12 instruction.
  3. 3. I/NCEPR Background• The Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research (I/NCEPR) convenes research/practitioners to study the impact of eportfolios on student learning and educational outcomes.• Each year 10-12 institutions selected through an application process constitute a three-year cohort.
  4. 4. I/NCEPR Cohort VI Participants• 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
  5. 5. Introduction• An eportfolio 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 eportfolio construction and use, reflection on learning and transference, and the use of e-portfolios for formative assessment.
  6. 6. Research QuestionHow has the participationof an ETL master’scandidate in an eportfolioprocess contributed to theimplementation ofeportfolio practiceswith PK-12 students?
  7. 7. 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).
  8. 8. 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).
  9. 9. Eportfolios in PK-12Questions to consider for implementation ofelectronic portfolios in PK-12:• What is the meaning of eportfolios?• Why are we developing them?• How will they be used to show evidence of learning?
  10. 10. Eportfolios in PK-12Levels of Implementation (Barrett, 2011)• Level 1: eportfolio as storage.• Level 2: eportfolio as workspace or process.• Level 3: eportfolio as showcase or product.
  11. 11. Eportfolios in PK-12Other Implementation Considerations• Selection of Web 2.0 tool aligned with eportfolio purpose (Barrett, 2012, January).• Strategies for reflections that provide insight into student learning and growth (Barrett & Richer, 2012).• Assessment opportunities which offer formative and summative approaches to examine in-depth learning (Barrett, 1999).
  12. 12. Methodology Explanatory Sequential DesignQuantitative Data Qualitative Data Follow upCollection and Collection and Interpretation withAnalysis Analysis • 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).
  13. 13. Assumptions• Assumption 1: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students should use digital portfolios for assessment.• Assumption 2: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my school use traditional paper-based portfolios for assessment.
  14. 14. Assumptions• Assumption 3: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my district use traditional paper-based portfolios for assessment.• Assumption 4: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my school use digital portfolios as a form of assessment.
  15. 15. Assumptions• Assumption 5: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my district use digital portfolios as a form of assessment.
  16. 16. 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.
  17. 17. Participants• Distributed survey to 289 ETL graduates. – 16 invalid email addresses – 2 opted out (not PK -12 educators)• 271 possible respondents – 110 completed survey – 41 % response rate• Data reflects responses to the eportfolio survey items.
  18. 18. Delimitations and Limitations• Survey data collected only through SurveyMonkey™• University email addresses used• Participants employed in PK-12 settings• Limited 2-week timeframe to collect data• Voluntary and anonymous participation• Unfamiliarity with online surveys• Program completers• Potential researcher bias
  19. 19. Quantitative Results Table 1 Summary based upon Likert Scales for Assumptions 1, 4, and 5 Digital Portfolios for Assessment Believe School Use District Use Counts Percent Count Percent Count PercentStrongly Disagree 1 .9% 20 18.2% 19 17.3%Disagree 1 .9% 48 43.6% 37 33.6%Not Sure 12 10.9% 16 14.5% 25 22.7%Agree 58 62.7% 15 13.6% 23 20.9%Strongly Agree 38 34.5% 2 1.8% 3 2.7%N/A 0 0% 9 8.2% 3 2.7%
  20. 20. Quantitative ResultsTable 2Summary based upon Likert Scales for Assumptions 2 and 3 Paper-Based Portfolios for Assessment School Use District Use Counts Percent Counts PercentStrongly Disagree 5 4.5% 3 2.7%Disagree 12 10.9% 14 12.7%Not Sure 12 10.9% 14 12.7%Agree 57 51.8% 61 55.6%Strongly Agree 16 14.5% 16 14.5%N/A 8 7.4% 2 1.8%
  21. 21. Qualitative Sub-Research QuestionHow has the ETL Master’s graduates’ knowledge ofe-portfolio assessment supported theimplementation of digital portfolios with PK-12students?
  22. 22. Qualitative EPortfolio Analysis• Examination of 60 eportfolios 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
  23. 23. Web 2.0 Tools Evidence from Candidate EPortfolios• “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” (Eportfolio 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” (Eportfolio 2).
  24. 24. Reflection Evidence from Candidate EPortfolios• 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” (EPortfolio 3).• The graduates stated that reflection was often used by their PK-12 students to explain their learning through e- portfolio development.
  25. 25. Assessment Evidence from Candidate EPortfolios• 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” (EPortfolio 4).• “Electronic portfolios…will follow them from year to year. Students will be able to communicate beyond borders, and learn without limits” (EPortfolio 5).
  26. 26. Qualitative Feedback Analysis• Examined open-ended responses from 10 ETL graduate participants regarding early implementation of eportfolios.• Conducted synchronous and asynchronous feedback sessions to explore the sub-research question regarding early implementation.
  27. 27. Discussion• The study population supported the use of digital portfolios for formative assessment and reflection in PK-12 classrooms.• There was evidence of Barrett’s (2005) identified stages of implementation and barriers.• Candidate reflections revealed how their past experiences with Web 2.0 tools, reflections, and eportfolio artifacts were transferred in PK-12 classrooms as described by Bransford and Schwartz (1999).
  28. 28. 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.
  29. 29. ReferencesAvraamidou, 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.htmlBarrett, H. (2005). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/whitepaper.pdfBarrett, H. (2011). Balancing the two faces of e-portfolios. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/balance/balancingarticle2.pdfBarrett, 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
  30. 30. ReferencesBerryman, S. E. (1990). Skills, Schools, and Signals. New York, NY: Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University.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.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.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).U.S. Department of Education (2010). National Educational Technology Plan. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
  31. 31. Contact InformationDiane Mason, Ph.D. Cynthia Cummings, Ed.D.diane.mason@lamar.edu cdcummings@lamar.eduSheryl Abshire, Ph.D. Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu lkayabernathy@lamar.edu
  32. 32. Presentation in Slideshare:http://tinyurl.com/czxevq2

×