The Development, Implementation, and Use of E-portfolios

Presenters:Diane Mason, Ph.D.Cindy Cummings, Ed.D.Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.

BlastoffAugust 20, 2013

I/NCEPR Background• The Inter/National Coalition for Electronic

Portfolio Research (I/NCEPR) convenes research/practitioners to study the impact of e-portfolios on student learning and educational outcomes.

• Each year 10-12 institutions selected through an application process constitute a three-year cohort.

• 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

I/NCEPR Cohort VI Participants

PurposeTo investigate master’s program content related to construction of electronic portfolios in an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master’s program and potential transference of concepts to PK-12 classrooms.

Introduction• An e-portfolio 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 e-portfolio construction and use, reflection on learning and transference, and the use of e-portfolios for formative assessment.

Research Questions• Quantitative– Has the participation of an ETL master’s

candidate in an e-portfolio process contributed to the transference of e-portfolio practices with PK-12 students?

– What identified support systems, barriers, and challenges did ETL graduates find to exist in their school regarding technology, policy and procedures, and implementation of e-portfolios?

Research Questions• Qualitative– How has the ETL Master’s graduates’

knowledge of e-portfolio assessment supported the implementation of digital portfolios with PK-12 students?

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).

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).

Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Follow up with Interpretation

MethodologyExplanatory Sequential Design

• 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).

Participants• Fall 2011 distributed survey about e-portfolio

use to 289 ETL graduates– 16 invalid email addresses– 2 opted out (not PK -12 educators)

• 271 possible respondents – 110 completed survey – 41 % response rate

Participants• Examination of 60 e-portfolios 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

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.

Quantitative Findings• Belief that portfolios were valuable regardless whether

paper or electronic.• Transference limitations – Digital e-portfolio formats inconsistent in schools and

districts.– Technology support for design and

implementation of electronic portfolios in schools and classrooms.

– Technology infrastructure, filtering, and policies.

Qualitative Findings• “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” (E-portfolio 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” (E-portfolio 2).

Qualitative Findings• “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” (E-Portfolio 3).

• The graduates stated that reflection was often used by their PK-12 students to explain their learning through e-portfolio development.

Qualitative Findings• “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” (E-Portfolio 4).

• “Electronic portfolios…will follow them from year to year. Students will be able to communicate beyond borders and learn without limits” (E-Portfolio 5).

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.

Participants• Spring 2013 distributed survey about barriers,

challenges, and support to 437 ETL graduates– 23 invalid email addresses– 5 opted out (not PK -12 educators)

• 409 possible respondents – 202 completed survey – 49 % response rate

Literature ReviewBarriers• Availability and access to computers (Barron, Kemker,

Harmes, & Kalaydjian, 2003; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003)

• Availability of curriculum materials (Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Butzin, 1992; NCES, 2000b)

• Teachers beliefs (Ertmer, 2005; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001; Van Braak, 2001; Van Braak, Tondeur, & Valcke, 2000; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004; Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006)

Literature ReviewBarriers• Demographic characteristics of teachers (Bebell,

Russell, & O'Dwyer, 2004; Van Braak, 2001)• Teachers’ technological and content knowledge

(Pierson, 2001)• Technical, administrative, and peer support

(Becker & Ravitz, 1999; NCES, 2000; Ringstaff & Kelly, 2002; Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004; Van Melle, Cimellaro, & Shulha, 2003).

Literature ReviewChallenges• A lack of well-defined guidelines and a clear structure (Smith &

Tillema, 2003) and a lack of examples of past portfolios (Darling, 2001), can lead to administrator, teacher, and student confusion and anxiety about the scope, nature and value of the task (Darling, 2001).

• Approaches to feedback can sometimes be inappropriate (Smith & Tillema, 2003)

• Can be difficult to authenticate the evidence in a portfolio – is it really the work of the student in question (Abrami & Barrett, 2005).

Literature ReviewChallenges• Challis (2005) raises a number of issues that needs to be

addressed by an institution– how to manage the volume of data– who will have access to the electronic

portfolios, the security and privacy of students’ work

– copyright and intellectual property concerns

Literature ReviewSupports• Identify and provide different tools available to implement electronic portfolios for

both teachers and students• Provide professional development in electronic portfolio development knowledge and

skills, using either face-to-face or online strategies, to be able to:– Capture and store evidence in a variety of multimedia formats and Web 2.0/mobile tools– Reflect on Learning - “reflection = the heart and soul

of a portfolio” – Give and receive feedback as part of formative assessment

for learning– Plan and set goals as a lifelong learning strategy– Collaborate using Web 2.0 tools – Present showcase portfolio to an audience– Evaluate portfolios used for summative assessment

of learning

(Barrett, 2011)

Findings• Ample support systems are in place in PK-12 to

encourage implementation of e-portfolios. • Spring 2013 findings revealed there were challenges,

but no significant barriers were identified for implementation.

• Identified challenges could be addressed to assure successful implementation of e-portfolios.

E-portfolio Implementation Questions to consider:

• Who is the audience?• Why are we developing them?• How will they be used to show evidence of

learning?• How do you provide students a choice and

voice in selection of artifacts?

E-portfolio ImplementationLevels of Implementation (Barrett, 2011)

What is the purpose?• Level 1: e-portfolio as storage.• Level 2: e-portfolio as workspace

or process.• Level 3: e-portfolio as showcase

or product.

E-portfolio Implementation • Selection of Web 2.0 tool aligned with

e-portfolio purpose (Barrett, 2012, January).• Strategies for reflections that provide insight into

student learning and growth (Barrett & Richer, 2012) may require the development of guiding questions.

• Assessment opportunities which offer formative and summative approaches to examine in-depth learning (Barrett, 1999).

ReferencesAbrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), 1-15. Avraamidou, 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.html

Barrett, H. (2005). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/whitepaper.pdf

Barrett, H. (2011). Balancing the two faces of e-portfolios. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/balance/balancingarticle2.pdf

Barrett, H. (2011, April ). Eportfolios for learning. Retrieved from http://blog.helenbarrett.org/2011/04/worldwide-e-portfolio-in-k-12-community.html

Barrett, 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

ReferencesBarron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study

on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the NationalTechnology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 489-507.Berryman, S. E. (1990). Skills, Schools, and Signals. New York, NY: Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O'Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers' technology uses: Whymultiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology inEducation, 37(1), 45-63.

Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and internet use on teachers'pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356-384.

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.

Butzin, S. M. (1992). Integrating technology into the classroom: Lessons from the projectCHILD experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 330-333.

Challis, D. (2005). Towards the mature ePortfolio: Some implications for higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3).

ReferencesCreswell, 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.Darling, L.F. (2001). Portfolio as practice. The narratives of emerging teachers. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 17(1) , 107-121.Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for

technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39

Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers' context beliefs about technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93-107.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15-27.

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).

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.

ReferencesRingstaff, C., & Kelly, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology

investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco, CA: WestEd RTEC.U.S. Department of Education (2010). National Educational Technology Plan.Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010

Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technicalexpectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487-512.

Smith, K,. & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625-648.

Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L., & Shulha, L. (2003). A dynamic framework to guide theimplementation and evaluation of educational technologies. Education andInformation Technologies, 8(3), 267-285.

Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroomtechnology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271.

Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157.

Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2000). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 407-422.

Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies:Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,14(1), 173-207.

Contact Information

Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu

Diane Mason, Ph.D.diane.mason@lamar.edu

Cynthia Cummings, Ed.D.cdcummings@lamar.edu

Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.lkayabernathy@lamar.edu

Presentation Location: http://tinyurl.com/n6mcpc4