(searched for: Electronic Portfolios in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature)
Published: 1 September 2014
2014 Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) pp 1-7; doi:10.1109/ithet.2014.7155699
Conference: 2014 Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), 2014-9-11 - 2014-9-13, York, United Kingdom
Technical programmes frequently focus exclusively on the associated technical domain knowledge and skills with perhaps some generic skills development coincidentally and perhaps accidentally included. If Higher Education (HE), as the main provider of competent graduates, is to enable employers to be able to respond to the key global challenges of the next decade, is a pure focus on technicalities sufficient? It is contended that the answer is no, graduates need to have competence in aspects of management they will face in the early stages of employment. This attitude is firmly adopted in the department of Electronics at the University of York where management is integrated into almost all in its undergraduate and some of its postgraduate programme portfolio. The paper starts with a discussion of the justification for management teaching as a legitimate subject in the Electrical and Information Education field. This is followed by a literature review that considers the skills and behaviours managers need, appropriate pedagogies to develop these and assessment methods suitable to warrant them. A case study is then described of the Electronic Engineering programmes at the University of York including, a dedicated taught Masters in Engineering Management. In the taught MSc in Engineering Management there is a consistent approach to the assessment of generic skills, a strong emphasis on curiosity-based learning and a structured individual learning log for every student. Statistics on student numbers and feedback on the programme from different student groups and the programme's external examiner are given. The overall quality assurance measures taken for the programme are also briefly discussed. The paper proposes a generic programme modular structure that provides space for technical content but also for management content and shows how managerial behaviours can be developed as an integral part of the programme. It also describes the approach taken to assessment and discusses the issues these bring, in particular scalability.
Published: 1 January 2014
by IGI Global
Advances in Business Information Systems and Analytics pp 224-243; doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5970-4.ch011
One of the important technologies which deliver more effective and efficient services to students, lecturers, administrators and universities is Electronic Portfolio. It's defined as a student collection of learning progress, accomplishments and reflections. Nowadays most of the universities have joined to use e-Portfolio, due to the advantages provided for their organizational success. Despite of their large investment in e-Portfolio, its utilization is not continued. A major challenge is “how to increase the continuous use of e-Portfolio.” Most of the literature has ignored the role of motivation in its continuance usage. Regarding these issues, the main goal of this chapter is to highlight the importance of motivation in e-portfolio context to sustain its utilization. By reviewing the literature, the self-determination theory (SDT) integrating with IS-Continuance model is proposed as the best solution for overcoming the current problems. Autonomy, competence and relatedness are supposed to have a significant influence on continuous use of e-Portfolio system.
Published: 24 May 2011
by IGI Global
Handbook of Research on Assessment Technologies, Methods, and Applications in Higher Education pp 47-64; doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-667-9.ch003
The purpose of this chapter is to review literature over the past ten years regarding technology tools that are being used in higher education to assess student learning. Three commonly used technology tools are examined: electronic portfolios, course management systems, and audience response systems. More specifically, each tool was studied in order to determine how it improved student learning and development, what issues might impede student learning and development, and what future directions we could explore in order to maximize the potential of the learning tool. Broad themes were then identified from the review, and three suggestions were made to teachers and researchers: (1) expand current research in this area, (2) get to know student background and characteristics before incorporating assessment technology tools, and (3) reconsider pedagogy and practice when integrating technology used for assessment.
Medical Teacher, Volume 31, pp 282-298; doi:10.1080/01421590902889897
Introduction: In recent years, the use of portfolios as learning and assessment tools has become more widespread across the range of health professions. Whilst a growing body of literature has accompanied these trends, there is no clear collated summary of the evidence for the educational effects of the use of portfolios in undergraduate education. This systematic review is the result of our work to provide such a summary. Methods: We developed a protocol based on the recommendations of the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaboration. Citations retrieved by electronic searches of 10 databases were assessed against pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers and full texts of potentially relevant articles were obtained. Studies were identified for inclusion in the review by examination of full text articles by two independent reviewers. At all stages, discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data relating to characteristics of the student population, intervention, outcome measures, study design and outcomes were collected using a piloted data extraction form. Each study was assessed against 11 quality indicators designed to provide information about how well it was designed and conducted; and against the Kirkpatrick hierarchy as modified for educational settings. Comparisons between different groups were carried out using the Kruskal–Wallis test (non-parametric ANOVA) or the Mann–Whitney U test as appropriate. Results: Electronic searches yielded 2,348 citations. A further 23 citations were obtained by hand searching of reference lists. Five hundred and fifty four full articles were retrieved and assessed against our inclusion criteria. Of the 69 studies included in our review, 18 were from medicine, 32 from nursing and 19 from other allied health professions, including dentistry, physiotherapy and radiography. In all professional groups, portfolios were used mainly in the clinical setting, completion was mostly compulsory, reflection required and assessment (either formative, summative or a combination of both) the norm. Three studies used electronic portfolios. Whilst many studies used a combination of data collection methods, over half of all included studies used questionnaires, a third used focus group interviews and another third used direct assessment of portfolios. Most studies assessed student or tutor perceptions of the effect of the use of portfolios on their learning. Five studies used a comparative design, one of which was a randomized controlled trial. Studies were most likely to meet the quality indicators relating to appropriateness of study subjects, clarity of research question and completeness of data. However, in many studies, methods were not reported in sufficient detail to allow a judgement to be made. Nineteen of the 69 included studies (27%) met seven or more quality indicators. Across all professions, such ‘higher quality’ studies were more likely to have been published recently. The median ‘quality score’ (number of indicators met) rose from two for studies published in 2000 or earlier to seven for studies published in 2005 or later. Significant differences were observed between the quality scores for studies published in or before 2000 and those published between 2001 and 2004 (p = 0.027), those published in or before 2000 and those published in 2005 or later (p = 0.002) and between all studies (p = 0.004). Similar trends were seen in all professional groups. Fifty nine (85%) of the included studies were assessed at level 1 of the modified Kirkpatrick hierarchy (i.e. ‘participation’ effects, including ‘post hoc’ evaluations of student perceptions of the effects of keeping a portfolio on their learning). Nine (13%) of the studies reported direct measurement of changes in student skills or attitudes and one study reported a change in student behaviour. The main effects of portfolio use identified by the included studies were: Improvement in student knowledge and understanding (28 studies, six at Kirkpatrick level 2 or above), greater self-awareness and encouragement of reflection (44 studies, seven at Kirkpatrick level 2 or above) and the ability to learn independently (10 studies, one at Kirkpatrick level 2). The findings of higher quality studies also identified benefits in these areas. They reported improved student knowledge and understanding, particularly the ability to integrate theory with practice, although a correlation with improved scores in other assessments was not always apparent. Greater self-awareness and engagement in reflection were also noted, although some studies questioned the quality of the reflection undertaken. Higher quality studies also suggest that use of portfolios improves feedback to students and gives tutors a greater awareness of students’ needs, may help students to cope with uncertain or emotionally demanding situations and prepares students for postgraduate settings in which reflective practice is required. Time commitment required to collate a portfolio was the major drawback identified. In two of the studies, this was found to detract from other clinical learning. Conclusions: At present, the strength and extent of the evidence base for the educational effects of portfolios in the undergraduate setting is limited. However, there is evidence of an improving trend in the quality of reported studies. ‘Higher quality’ papers identify improvements in knowledge and understanding, increased self-awareness and engagement in reflection and improved student–tutor relationships as the main benefits of portfolio use. However, they also suggest that whilst portfolios encourage students to engage in reflection, the quality of those reflections cannot be assumed and that the time commitment required for portfolio completion may detract from other learning or deter students from engaging with the process unless...