A Comparison of Electronic Portfolio Systems Used for Individual and Program Assessment

1. A Comparison of Electronic Portfolio Systems Used for Individual and Program Assessment David Wicks, Seattle Pacific University – dwicks@spu.edu Cris Guenter, California State University, Chico - cguenter@csuchico.edu Jane Moore, National-Louis University - jmoore@nl.edu

2. Background: Physical and theoretical qualities inherent to portfolios • Type – either working or showcase • Organization – chaotic or standards driven • Type of student artifacts – text or media based • Feedback/assessment – summative and formative • Nature –static or dynamic and evolving • Heuristic processes – simple to complex • Context – student or faculty provided • Delivery mode – paper, e-portfolio, web-portfolio • (Love, McKean & Gathercoal, 2004)

3. Scrapbook Curriculum vitae Curriculum Collaboration between student and faculty Authentic evidence as the authoritative evidence for assessment, evaluation, and reporting Mentoring leading to mastery Five Levels ofPortfolio Maturation • (Love, McKean & Gathercoal, 2004)

4. Three systems discussed

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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. • Portability of finished portfolio. Example from National-Louis

8. 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 of Artifact Example of Rubric Example from CSU Chico

9. 4. Ability of portfolio system to adequately security and maintenance of user data. • Follows best practices for backing up data. • Adequately protects against viruses and hacking. • Provides adequate "up-time" for institution’s needs. • Privacy of individual student work sharing only items student decides to share.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Wish list

13. Example of Student Artifact Return

14. Student Authoring Example Return

15. Faculty Assessment Example Return

16. Program Audit Tool Return

17. Example of Rubric Return