Eportfolio scaffolding study
Download
1 / 24

ePortfolio - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 355 Views
  • Updated On :

ePortfolio Scaffolding Study. Sandra A. Lathem, Joyce L. Morris, Jing Qi The University of Vermont Kirk Vandersall Arroyo Research Services SITE 2007 San Antonio, Texas March 27, 2007. Electronic Portfolio Connection. PT3 grant awarded 2003 University of Vermont

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'ePortfolio' - Sophia


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Eportfolio scaffolding study l.jpg

ePortfolio Scaffolding Study

Sandra A. Lathem, Joyce L. Morris, Jing Qi

The University of Vermont

Kirk Vandersall

Arroyo Research Services

SITE 2007

San Antonio, Texas

March 27, 2007


Electronic portfolio connection l.jpg
Electronic Portfolio Connection

  • PT3 grant awarded 2003

  • University of Vermont

    • Lyndon, Johnson & Castleton State

    • Champlain College

    • IBM Reinventing Education

    • Apple Computer

    • Vermont Dept of Education

    • Arroyo ResearchServices

    • www.uvm.edu/pt3


Uvm scaffolding study l.jpg
UVM Scaffolding Study

  • Conducted spring semester 2006

  • Examines three programs

    • Elementary education

    • Middle level education

    • Physical education

  • Relationship between instructional scaffolding and …

    • portfolio development

    • technology proficiency

    • artifact and reflection quality


  • Research question 1 l.jpg
    Research Question 1

    What is the evidence that instructional scaffolding in portfolio development and technology skills occurs at the micro (faculty member/student) and macro (department /program) level?


    Research question 2 l.jpg
    Research Question 2

    What is the relationship between the instructional scaffolding that pre-service teachers receive and the quality of artifacts and reflections found in the licensure portfolio?


    Research question 3 l.jpg
    Research Question 3

    • What are UVM student attitudes about the licensure portfolio process in their programs?


    Research question 4 l.jpg
    Research Question 4

    Will the quality in artifact development and reflection differ between paper and electronic portfolios?


    Licensure in vermont l.jpg
    Licensure in Vermont

    • Governed by Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators (VSBPE)

    • VSBPE oversees accreditation process through ROPA (Results Oriented Program Approval)


    Five standards for teachers a vision for schooling l.jpg
    Five Standards for Teachers: A Vision for Schooling

    • Learning

      • (Expertise in Endorsement Area)

    • Professional Knowledge

      • (Methodology and Pedagogy)

    • Colleagueship

    • Advocacy

    • Accountability


    Ropa scoring rubric l.jpg
    ROPA Scoring Rubric

    • Common statewide assessment for all teacher education programs

    • Six entries

      • Teaching Episodes (two episodes)

      • Understanding Student Learning

      • Accommodating Students Identified

      • Teaching Over Time

      • Colleagueship and Advocacy

      • Self-reflection and Vision


    Scaffolding l.jpg
    Scaffolding

    • Intentional planning of curricula to organize tasks and activities to build understanding

    • Two levels --

      • Micro (teacher/student)

      • Macro (program or organization)

    • Consistent with contemporary theory (Bransford) on How People Learn

      • Prior knowledge

      • Metacognition


    Pt3 professional development l.jpg
    PT3 Professional Development

    • Portfolio support to faculty and students

    • Creation of html templates structured to meet ROPA standards


    Methodology l.jpg
    Methodology

    • Exploratory

    • Mixed Methods

      • Student Surveys (n=100)

      • Faculty Interviews (n=10)

      • Faculty & Student Observations (n=3)

      • Student Focus Groups (n=3; students= 38)

      • Course Syllabi (n=34)

      • Licensure Portfolio Review (n=35)


    Slide14 l.jpg

    Findings-Question 1What is the evidence that instructional scaffolding in portfolio development and technology skills occurs at the micro (faculty member/student) and macro (department/program) levels?

    • Micro Level

      • Many experiences in artifact development

      • Assignments geared toward licensure portfolio artifacts

      • Reliance on student teaching for artifact development

      • Technology integration less evident

    • Macro Level

      • Middle level program most intentional in portfolio construction for undergraduates

        • Courses identified for portfolio artifact development

        • Three undergraduate portfolios developed

      • Elementary education program intentional artifact development in specific courses

      • Artifact development driven by the ROPA scoring rubric


    Slide15 l.jpg

    Findings- Question 2What is the relationship between the instructional scaffolding that pre-service teachers receive and the quality and reflections found in the licensure portfolio?

    • 35 licensure portfolios scored by Arroyo Research Services

      • Elementary program

        • 12 paper

        • 15 electronic (using template)

      • Middle level

        • 8 electronic (using template)

      • Physical education

        • Not scored - unable to collect

    • Small sample size is a limitation to findings.


    Question 2 continued l.jpg
    Question 2 - Continued

    • Arroyo Research Scoring Rubric (not ROPA)

      • Artifact Selection

      • Reflection

      • Collaboration

      • Assessment

      • Technology

    • Scale

      • 1 = no evidence

      • 2 = limited or negative evidence

      • 3 = some evidence (but needs development)

      • 4 = ample evidence


    Findings 2 continued l.jpg
    Findings 2 - continued

    • Weak scores in reflection, collaboration, assessment.

    • Statistically significant differences found between elementary & middle level programs in several areas. Further research needed.

    • Evidence of technology-supported teaching strategies was very low (mean 1.3143, std. .6761)


    Slide18 l.jpg

    Findings - Question 3What are UVM student attitudes about the licensure portfolio process in their programs? Do they feel adequately prepared by their course experiences?

    • Student surveys

      • 100 students (79 female, 19 male, 2 missing)

      • Overall, a 50-50 split in agreement about purpose of portfolio process -- concerning introduction to portfolios process, its value as a tool to demonstrate student learning, usefulness of collaboration, reflection, & feedback.

    • Focus Group Sessions

      • Portfolios extremely stressful exercise

      • Like “taking a test”

      • Lack of technology skills very stressful for some students, especially middle level graduate students



    Slide20 l.jpg
    Findings - Question 4Will the quality in artifact development and reflection differ between paper and electronic portfolios?

    • Licensure portfolios (35 scored)

      • 27 elementary education

        • 12 = paper

        • 15 = electronic using html template

      • 8 middle level

        • 8 = electronic using html template

    • Results

      • Paper portfolios receiving scores of 3 or 4 predominate in every scored criterion, even evidence concerning technology supported teaching strategies.

      • Statistically significant difference found.

      • Small sample size is a major limitation for these findings


    Conclusion 1 l.jpg
    Conclusion - 1

    • Scaffolding at both macro & micro levels is occurring.

    • Middle level - most developmental approach at undergraduate level; but post baccalaureate students don’t benefit from this approach.

    • ROPA scoring rubric drives artifact development

    • Students are ambivalent about the process; many view it as a “test” rather than a portrayal of professional growth. Portfolio construction is a stressful process.


    Conclusion 2 l.jpg
    Conclusion - 2

    • Reflection is weak - lack of time to develop reflections, given heavy reliance on student teaching experience.

    • Technology proficiencies needed to produce electronic portfolios using html editors may be hindering quality & integrity of portfolios.

    • Quality of paper portfolios reviewed were overall higher than those produced with a template and html editor.

    • Continued research is needed.


    Www uvm edu pt3 l.jpg
    www.uvm.edu/pt3

    This paper, student survey, ROPA rubric, portfolio scoring rubric, and The Five Standards documents are available on our web site

    Click Research

    Click Papers and Presentations


    Questions l.jpg
    Questions?

    For additional information, please contact the authors -

    Joyce Morris, Sandy Lathem, Jing Qi

    University of Vermont

    802-656-4140

    http://www.uvm.edu/pt3

    Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

    Kirk Vandersall, Arroyo Research Services

    Email: [email protected]

    http://www.arroyoresearchservices.com

    213-291-1556


    ad