1 / 18

ePortfolios Revisited

ePortfolios Revisited.

Télécharger la présentation

ePortfolios Revisited

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. ePortfolios Revisited Several years ago three members of the Teacher Education editorial board presented at the MIC regarding the development of ePortfolios at our three institutions. Now three years later, we'll revisit ePortfolios and how they've evolved at California State Chico, Seattle Pacific, and National-Louis Universities for both faculty members and students. Additionally, we'll look at the maturation of the portfolio process over time, portfolio tools, portfolio rubrics, faculty and student buy-in, and assessment through the portfolio tool. The presentation will help audience members in any stage of developing ePortfolios to see possibilities and pitfalls in the process. Cris Guenter, California State University, Chico cguenter@csuchico.edu Jane Moore, National-Louis University jmoore@nl.edu David Wicks, Seattle Pacific University dwicks@spu.edu

  2. How are you using ePortfolios?

  3. Five Levels ofPortfolio Maturation • (Love, McKean & Gathercoal, 2004)

  4. What do your portfolios look like? • (Love, McKean & Gathercoal, 2004)

  5. Three systems discussed

  6. Evaluating portfolio systems • Ability to function as a program audit tool • Authoring flexibility for students • Ability to be used by faculty as an assessment tool. • Security and maintenance of user data • Cost effectiveness • Accessibility for students/faculty with disabilities.

  7. 1. Ability to function as a program audit tool • Ability to customize system to align with institutional distinctives. • Incorporation of assessment rubrics allowing instructors to provide consistent feedback to students. • Ability to aggregate and disaggregate assessment data. • Inclusion of a robust reporting tool to assist with data-driven decision making. Example from SPU

  8. 2. Ability to be used as an authoring tool by students • Ability to use institutionally created templates • Access to and amount of virtual drive space for storage of various artifact file types. • Ability to link artifacts to multiple competencies. • Ability to edit artifact information after uploading. • Capacity to create multiple portfolios with one account. • Ease of submitting work for assessment. • Ease of reviewing work that has been assessed to help clarify which competencies still need to be addressed. • Ease of sharing and un-sharing parts or all of portfolio • Portability of finished portfolio. Example from National-Louis

  9. 3. Ability to be used by faculty as an assessment tool. • Provides mechanism to notify faculty when a submission is ready for assessment. • Ability to use scoring rubric while viewing artifact(s) and reflection (on screen at same time). • Ability to add comments for each rubric criterion. • Provides a mechanism to automatically notify students when assessment completed. • Provides a view/report that allows faculty to quickly assess whether student has demonstrated competency on all standards. Example from CSU Chico Example of Artifact Example of Rubric

  10. 4. Ability of portfolio system to adequately provide security and maintenance of user data. • Follows best practices for backing up data. • Adequately protects against viruses and hacking. • Provides near-100% up-time. • Privacy of individual student work, sharing only items student decides to share.

  11. 5. Evaluation of portfolio system in relationship to cost effectiveness. • Minimal impact on system resources. • Costs can be tracked and charged to individual users during early adoption phase.

  12. 6. System’s ability to address accessibility needs of students/faculty with disabilities. • Incorporation of Section 508 standards. • Ability to accommodate multiple languages in single system.

  13. Changes

  14. Example of Student Artifact Return

  15. Student Authoring Example Return

  16. Faculty Assessment Example Return

  17. Program Audit Tool Return

  18. Example of Rubric Return

More Related