This document summarizes research being conducted by Lamar University's College of Education on the use of electronic portfolios and Web 2.0 tools for student assessment. The research is being done as part of a 3-year study with 12 universities in the US and Australia. Preliminary findings from a survey of Lamar ETL graduates found that most use Web 2.0 tools for instruction and professional learning, and believe e-portfolios should be used for student assessment, though currently paper portfolios are more common. Further investigation is needed to understand barriers to adopting e-portfolios.

1. Lamar University
College of Education
Educational Leadership
Beaumont, TX
Documenting Student Assessment:
The Use of Electronic Portfolios and
Web 2.0 Tools
Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.
Diane Mason, Ph.D.
Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.
Cindy Cummings, Ed.D
Daryl Ann Borel, M.Ed.
Xinyu Liu, Ph.D.

2. • Cohort VI - 12 Universities -
United States and Australia - 3
year study
• E-portfolios - embracing rich
media & social software, which
enact reflection and
integration.
• Cohort VI investigating
e-portfolios in systemic way for
assessment & effectiveness.

3. Research Procedures: Mixed Methods
On-going Study
• INCEPR – Cohort 6 focus
e-portfolios in ETL Graduate
Program
• Research question, cohort
guiding questions determine
programs and eportfolio insight
and perspective
• Analysis themes and patterns
• Pilot survey, analyzed findings,
revised & developed second
survey

4. 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?

5. 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 e-portfolios?
• 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?

6. Survey and Program Findings
• Eportfolio as professional showcase vs. master’s
program requirement.
• Artifacts indicate each e-portfolios are extension of
personal and professional knowledge base.
• Reflections, course projects, and personal vitaes are
separate artifacts focused on ETL coursework and
professional contributions.
• Little evidence to indicate eportfolio is
representative of personal learning and connections
outside of the ETL program and professional
expectations.

7. Survey and Program Findings
• ETL faculty should mentor candidates as they define
artifacts and critically reflect on the value of
e-portfolios 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.

8. Interviews & Opened Ended Survey Questions Findings
• Appeared to transfer concepts and learnings
to other settings
• Focus on classroom teachings versus
leadership.
• No leadership mentions in interviews.
• Significant observation since program
framework is educational leadership.
• Only connections being made are within
courses.
• Leadership is primary component of ISTE
Technology Facilitator standards.
• Differing interpretations of the term artifact.
• View portfolio in a linear fashion

9. Survey and Program Conclusions
• ETL faculty examining coursework content and eportfolio
construction processes, procedures, and guidelines
• Readily enable candidates to frequently examine artifacts
and the relationships between them.
• Candidates encouraged to reflect upon learning and
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.

10. Survey and Program Conclusions
• The interviews and sample artifacts provided
necessary examples for the ETL faculty to assess the
current implementation of e-portfolios 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 e-portfolio
construction and critical reflection.
• Cronbach’s Alpha indicated a need
to revise some survey items.

11. 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

12. Revised Survey
• Distributed survey to 289 ETL graduates.
• 16 not valid email addresses
• 2 opt outs – not PK -12 educators
• Possible respondents - 271
• 105 completed survey – 39 % response rate
• Revised topics – Online teaching strategies, Web
2.0 tools, E-portfolios, Leadership
• 19 questions – today – focus Web 2.0 &
E-portfolios data

13. Web 2.0

14. Electronic Portfolios

15. Preliminary Findings Web 2.0
• The majority of Lamar ETL
Graduates use Web 2.0 tools
with Pk-12 students.
• The majority of Lamar ETL
Graduates use Web 2.0 tools
for personal learning.
• The majority of Lamar ETL
Graduates support colleagues
in the use of Web 2.0 tools.

16. Preliminary Findings E-portfolios
• The majority of Lamar ETL
Graduates believe that Pk-
12 students should use
e-portfolios for assessment.
• The majority of Lamar ETL
Graduates report an
extensive use of paper
portfolios rather than e-
portfolios
• Further investigation is
needed regarding this
finding.

17. 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, Ed.D. - cdcummings@lamar.edu
• Daryl Ann Borel, M.Ed. – daborel@lamar.edu
• Xinyu Liu, Ph.D. - xinyu.liu@lamar.edu

18. For More Information:
Lamar University
Beaumont, TX
http://lamar.edu/ & ttp://stateu.com/lamar/
Tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/7reh5r9