Building Leadership Capacity: The Use of Electronic Portfolios and

Web 2.0 ToolsKay Abernathy, Ed.D.Diane Mason, Ph.D.Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.Cindy Cummings, M.Ed.Daryl Ann Borel, M.Ed.

Lamar UniversityCollege of Education

Educational LeadershipBeaumont, TX

• Cohort VI - 12 Universities - United States and Australia

• 3 year studies• Various e-portfolios, including those embracing

rich media and social software, which enact reflection and integration.

• Cohort VI investigating eportfolios in a systemic way for assessment and inquiring into their effectiveness.

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 eportfolios?

• 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?

Qualitative Questions – Interviews and Open-ended Survey Questions of 45 ETL Graduates

• How many artifacts or exhibits are in your eportfolio?• How many classes or experiences are represented?• What kinds of relationships do you perceive among the

artifacts in the electronic portfolio?• What difference do you think it makes, if any, to have two

or more artifacts together?• What was or is the role of reflection in your eportfolio? • What Web 2.0 tools/cloud computing resources do you

use on a daily basis within your school or district professional work?

Analysis of Patterns and Themes • Perceptual trends regarding the eportfolio as a

process or product. • Connections representative of connectivism

theory and socialization aspects. • Depth and breadth of critical reflection as it

relates to program content, personal growth, and extended learning outside the professional field.

Findings• Some candidates viewed the eportfolio as a professional

showcase and not just a process required by the master’s program.

• Artifact perceptions seemed to indicate each eportfolio edition (reflection or product sample) represented an extension of personal and professional knowledge base.

• Reflections, course projects, and personal vitaes considered as all separate artifacts primarily focused on the ETL coursework and professional contributions.

• Little evidence to suggest students perceived the eportfolio to be representative of personal learning and connections to other parts of their lives outside of the ETL program and professional expectations.

Findings• Apparent that the ETL faculty needs to mentor the ETL

candidates as they define artifacts and critically reflect on the value of eportfolios 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.

Findings• Tendency for students to tell the story of the process of how

the artifact was created rather than looking at the relationship among the artifacts and how that impacted learning.

• ETL faculty concluded the candidates primarily view the eportfolio process in a linear fashion.

• 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.

• There was no evidence of this type of in-depth reflection in the eportfolios we examined and discussed.

Findings• Appeared to be some evidence of transference of

concepts and learnings to other settings • ETL faculty noted the focus was primarily on classroom

teachings versus leadership. • No mention of leadership in the interviews. • ETL faculty felt this was a significant observation since

the program framework is educational leadership. • This is evidence that the only connections being made

are within a course. • Leadership is considered a primary component of the

ISTE Technology Facilitator standards.

Conclusions• ETL faculty team is examining coursework content and

eportfolio construction processes, procedures, and guidelines to more readily enable candidates to frequently examine artifacts and the relationships between them.

• ETL team encourages candidates to reflect upon their learning and its 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.

Conclusions• The interviews and sample artifacts provided necessary

examples for the ETL faculty to assess the current implementation of eportfolios 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 eportfolio construction and critical reflection.

• Cronbach’s Alpha indicated a need to revise some survey items.

Research Procedures: Mixed Methods On-going Study

• INCEPR – Cohort 6 focus on eportfolios in ETL Graduate Program

• Formulated overarching research question and cohort guiding questions to determine program and eportfolio insight and perspective

• Developed analysis themes and patterns• Developed pilot survey • Analyzed findings

Research Procedures: 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• Distributed survey to 150+ ETL graduates.

Cronbach’s AlphaOnline Teaching Strategies Web 2.0 Tools Electronic Portfolio

# of items Cronbach’sα

# of items Cronbach’sα

# of items Cronbach’sα

7 0.848 5 0.908 6 0.590

• The Cronbach's α (alpha) coefficient of reliability indicated a need to reword the electronic portfolio questions in the pilot survey for better internal consistency with the questions in the final survey.• Survey items were redesigned.

Graduate and Candidate Interview Findings

• Evidence of transference of concepts and learnings to other settings

• Focus is primarily on classroom teachings versus leadership.

• Little mention of leadership when it is a primary component of the ISTE Technology Facilitator standards.

• E-portfolios with reflections enabled faculty to critically reflect upon student progress and improvements.

• Candidates primarily view portfolio in a linear fashion.• Candidates have differing interpretations of the term

artifact.

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, M.Ed. - 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://luonline.lamar.edu/

& http://stateu.com/lamar/