Promoting the scholarship of teaching through reflective e-portfolios in teacher education

  • Published on
    14-Feb-2017

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 05:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20</p><p>Promoting the scholarship of teachingthrough reflective eportfolios inteacher educationLina Pelliccione a &amp; Glenda Raison aa Curtin University of Technology , AustraliaPublished online: 19 Aug 2009.</p><p>To cite this article: Lina Pelliccione &amp; Glenda Raison (2009) Promoting the scholarship ofteaching through reflective eportfolios in teacher education, Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogy, 35:3, 271-281</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470903092813</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp;Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470903092813http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>Journal of Education for TeachingVol. 35, No. 3, August 2009, 271281</p><p>ISSN 0260-7476 print/ISSN 1360-0540 online 2009 Taylor &amp; FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02607470903092813http://www.informaworld.com</p><p>Promoting the scholarship of teaching through reflective e-portfolios in teacher education</p><p>Lina Pelliccione* and Glenda Raison</p><p>Curtin University of Technology, Australia</p><p>Taylor and FrancisCJET_A_409454.sgm(Received 25 June 2008; final version received 18 February 2009)10.1080/02607470903092813Journal of Education for Teaching0260-7476 (print)/1360-0540 (online)Original Article2009Taylor &amp; Francis353000000August 2009LinaPelliccionel.pelliccione@curtin.edu.au</p><p>This study focuses on the goal of enhancing student reflection and learning withthe key objective being to determine whether a structured reflective tool canenhance students ability to engage in a reflective cycle. A case study approachwas adopted involving three cohorts of first year teacher education students in anAustralian university over three years. The study found that the reflective toolassisted students to structure their reflections in a more cohesive manner, thatwithout such a guide the majority of the students comments were descriptive andtheir reflective comment tended to be at a superficial level.</p><p>Keywords: e-portfolios; reflective tool; teacher education</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Since Boyers (1990) publication of Scholarship reconsidered there has been renewedinterest in teaching as part of academic work. Boyer (1990, 16) identifies four dimen-sions of scholarly work: the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration;the scholarship of application or practice; and the scholarship of teaching. He arguesthat each dimension should be given equal merit, challenging traditional beliefs ofscholarship which focused on discovery and publishing. More recently, Priest andSturgess (2005) argue that reflection is at the heart of scholarly teaching practice.Hence, this research emanates from the authors personal and professional need toparticipate in the scholarship of teaching and ultimately to inspire university studentsto construct e-portfolios in which they reflect on their continuing personal andprofessional development in a teacher education course.</p><p>More recently, a great deal of research has been published to explain and justifyreasons for the adoption of portfolios and e-portfolios in a range of educational insti-tutions including schools and universities (Barrett 2000; Butler 2006; Cambridge2001; ePortConsortium 2003; Jafari and Kaufman 2006; Wetzel and Strudler, 2006).Definitions of paper-based and e-portfolios are similar in that both stress the impor-tance of a collection of work accompanied by a reflective commentary (Baume 2001;Forster and Masters 1996). Traditionally, portfolios have been used to validate forma-tive and summative evidence of achievement to external groups and to enhancestudent reflection and learning.</p><p>Specifically, this study investigates whether or not a structured set of guidelinesenhances first year teacher education students ability to engage in a reflective learning</p><p>*Corresponding author. Email: L.Pelliccione@curtin.edu.au</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>The</p><p> Aga</p><p> Kha</p><p>n U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 05:</p><p>55 1</p><p>1 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>272 L. Pelliccione and G. Raison</p><p>cycle at a deep level. The reflective learning cycle model consists of five elements:select; describe; analyse; appraise; and transform (Brown and Irby 2001).</p><p>Theoretical framework</p><p>Learning new techniques for teaching is like the fish that provides a meal for today;reflective practice is the net that provides the meal for the rest of ones life. (Biggs 2003,7)</p><p>The scholarship of teaching in higher education</p><p>The scholarship of teaching in higher education draws from a range of theories andmodels designed to articulate the essential elements of teaching. Of particular interestis the Trigwell et al. (2000) model which developed from research with 20 academicstaff in an Australian university. Kreber (2002) summarises and builds on the Trigwellet al. (2000) hierarchical model. For example, university lecturers at the higher levelwould use the literature on teaching in their discipline to investigate and reflect ontheir own teaching practice, and formally communicate the process and results to theirpeers. At the lower level of the model, their knowledge would be gained from simplyreading the literature.</p><p>As shown in Table 1, reflection is a key component of the scholarship of teaching.Priest and Sturgess (2005, 1) propose that, If reflection does not necessarily, in itself,constitute scholarship, scholarship cannot happen without reflection. Similarly,Stringer (2004) identifies that continuing academic reflection on conceptions of teach-ing and learning through examination of the students performances and perceptionsof their learning is a critical component of the cycle of improvement of teaching.Although universities have always valued quality teaching, recent government pres-sure in Australia and elsewhere for accountability in these matters has resulted in moreovert reform agendas including funding incentives for compliance (Pelliccione et al.2008). As a result, universities are encouraged to focus on quality teaching andstudents learning.</p><p>Universities are also exploring feedback mechanisms which focus more onstudents perception of the learning that occurs, rather than the actions of the teacher.This has led to an increased focus on ways to assess what is pedagogically importantand the exploration of methods that enable students to demonstrate their learning inauthentic contexts. In this regard, development of professional teaching portfolios not</p><p>Table 1. Model for the scholarship of teaching.</p><p>Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, and Prosser (2000, 162163) Kreber summary (2002)Being informed about the literature and/or knowledge of </p><p>teaching and learning in a disciplineThe sources of information that </p><p>teachers draw uponFocusing on student learning and on teaching, rather than </p><p>mainly on teaching aloneThe focus of their reflection</p><p>Reflection on the literature, ones own context and the relations between the two</p><p>Their conceptions of teaching and learning</p><p>Communication The nature and extent of their communication of insights</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>The</p><p> Aga</p><p> Kha</p><p>n U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 05:</p><p>55 1</p><p>1 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>Journal of Education for Teaching 273</p><p>only promotes academic reflection but directly engages teacher education students inthe scholarship of teaching. The production of e-portfolios has the potential to contrib-ute to the establishment of fair and valid assessments that promote student learningand provide data for evaluation in higher education.</p><p>E-portfolios and reflection</p><p>A portfolio without reflection is just a multimedia presentation, or a fancy electronicresume, or a digital scrapbook (Barrett 2000).</p><p>The development of professional teaching e-portfolios promotes academic reflec-tion and directly engages teacher education students in the scholarship of teaching.This study focuses on first year teacher education students reflections on theirlearning based on entries in their e-portfolios. The study aimed to identify whether ornot the introduction of a guided reflection tool enhanced student reflections withintheir e-portfolios.</p><p>There has been wide consensus in the literature that the greatest value in portfoliodevelopment is in reflection (DiBase 2002; Ma and Rada 2005; Rees 2005; Wetzeland Strudler 2006). Orland-Baraks (2005) study reveals that through a process ofreflection student teachers are able to identify and take responsibility for their ownlearning. Importantly, for the direction of the current study, Stone (1998) andWiseman (2004) strongly recommend that students be guided through the reflectionprocess and data from Robbins (2004) study with teacher education students suggestthat the reflective process can be taught.</p><p>There are many reflection models and guided reflection tools developed to assiststudents in the reflection process. Kilbane and Milman (2003, 63) provide the followingkey questions to guide formal reflection of artefacts (evidence): </p><p> How does this artefact demonstrate competence in a particular [outcome/attribute]?</p><p> Why did I include this artefact? Why is it important to me? What did I learn as a result of using/creating this artefact? How would I do things differently as a result of the artefact?</p><p>Kimball (2003, 225) also provides a valuable framework for reflecting upon arte-facts for portfolio development. The framework consists of: explaining the contexts ofartefacts; explaining the process by which artefacts were developed; and providing anhonest and convincing self-assessment.</p><p>Similarly, Brown and Irby (2001) describe a five-step process for structuring anddeveloping reflective comments: select the artefact; describe the contextual character-istics (who, what, where and when) of the artefact; analyse the choice of selection andhow it demonstrates the outcome/standard; appraise the artefact (appropriateness) andhow these relate to knowledge; and transform your existing practice by identifyinghow the artefact will influence future practice (32). In this study Brown and Irbys(2001) process guided the collection and analysis of the data from the reflectivecomments made by the first year student teachers in their e-portfolios.</p><p>Research approach</p><p>In the present study, an interpretative research approach was adopted. Interpretativeresearch focuses on a specific social setting or phenomena. As noted by Patton (1990)</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>The</p><p> Aga</p><p> Kha</p><p>n U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 05:</p><p>55 1</p><p>1 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>274 L. Pelliccione and G. Raison</p><p>and Denzin and Lincoln (1994), within the interpretive approach there are manymethods; however they all share the same philosophical assumption, which is thatreality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds (Merriam1998). In other words, qualitative researchers are concerned with how individualsmake sense of their world and their experiences. In the present study, this interpreta-tive approach uses a case study approach, involving three cohorts of first yearstudents enrolled in an Australian Bachelor of Education course (20052007) as thecase. For this study, the selection of an interpretive approach that provided a methodof describing and revealing the factors and relationship among factors in the dynamicsocial environment of a university appeared more appropriate than traditional andcontrolled quantitative approaches With an interpretive approach, the cautiousassumption is that the findings of this study are not only pertinent to these studentteacher groups but may also be applied to other student teachers who are required toconstruct e-portfolios.</p><p>Research design</p><p>Early work with e-portfolios (20022004)</p><p>The authors piloted and researched the use of e-portfolios in an elective unit (N=20)as a reflection and learning tool for students to map their progress and professionaldevelopment against the Education Facultys stated graduate outcomes. The pilotstudy informed the development of a new educational technology core unit that wouldsee all teacher education students construct their own e-portfolio with the aim tocontinue to reflect upon and chart their own academic and personal development overthe four years of their teacher education degree.</p><p>New programme implemented (2005)</p><p>The new Bachelor of Education programme was restructured to accommodateoutcomes based education and was approved by the university and industry partners.The new programme, which commenced in Semester 1, 2005, has e-portfolios embed-ded in one of the first semester, first year core units. The course is characterised bythe integrated use of technology in teaching and learning, and promotes a researchculture among educators who utilise reflective and evaluative practices both as work-ing processes and curriculum content. Student e-portfolios support the philosophicalrationale for outcomes education in that they encourage and allow students to reflectupon and make judgements about learning and professional development. From thefacultys point of view this provides a valid accountability process in that it allows thelecturers throughout the four year course to chart student development against thegraduate attribute/outcomes. The course represents a consolidation of the Faculty ofEducations core activities, and was revised in response to new conceptual approachesand recent research, policies and practices in education.</p><p>The 2005 and 2006 cohorts of first-year students were asked to write reflectionslinking their portfolio artef...</p></li></ul>