Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.Diane Mason, Ph.D.Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.Cindy Cummings, Ed.DDaryl Ann Borel, M.Ed.Xinyu Liu, Ph.D.

Lamar UniversityCollege of Education

Educational LeadershipBeaumont, TX

Documenting Student Assessment:The Use of Electronic Portfolios and Web 2.0 Tools

• 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.

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

Research QuestionHow has the participation of an ETL master’s candidate in an eportfolio process contributed to the implementation of eportfolio practices with K-12 students?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Web 2.0

Electronic Portfolios

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.

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.

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

For More Information: Lamar University

Beaumont, TXhttp://lamar.edu/ & ttp://stateu.com/lamar/

Tiny URLhttp://tinyurl.com/7reh5r9