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
Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20
Promoting the scholarship of teachingthrough reflective e‐portfolios inteacher educationLina Pelliccione a & Glenda Raison aa Curtin University of Technology , AustraliaPublished online: 19 Aug 2009.
To cite this article: Lina Pelliccione & Glenda Raison (2009) Promoting the scholarship ofteaching through reflective e‐portfolios in teacher education, Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogy, 35:3, 271-281
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470903092813
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & 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 & 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.
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 &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Education for TeachingVol. 35, No. 3, August 2009, 271–281
ISSN 0260-7476 print/ISSN 1360-0540 online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02607470903092813http://www.informaworld.com
Promoting the scholarship of teaching through reflective e-portfolios in teacher education
Lina Pelliccione* and Glenda Raison
Curtin University of Technology, Australia
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 & Francis353000000August [email protected]
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.
Keywords: e-portfolios; reflective tool; teacher education
Introduction
Since Boyer’s (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.
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.
Specifically, this study investigates whether or not a structured set of guidelinesenhances first year teacher education students’ ability to engage in a reflective learning
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
272 L. Pelliccione and G. Raison
cycle at a deep level. The reflective learning cycle model consists of five elements:select; describe; analyse; appraise; and transform (Brown and Irby 2001).
Theoretical framework
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 one’s life. (Biggs 2003,7)
The scholarship of teaching in higher education
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.
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.
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
Table 1. Model for the scholarship of teaching.
Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, and Prosser (2000, 162–163) Kreber summary (2002)Being informed about the literature and/or knowledge of
teaching and learning in a disciplineThe sources of information that
teachers draw uponFocusing on student learning and on teaching, rather than
mainly on teaching aloneThe focus of their reflection
Reflection on the literature, one’s own context and the relations between the two
Their conceptions of teaching and learning
Communication The nature and extent of their communication of insights
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Education for Teaching 273
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.
E-portfolios and reflection
A portfolio without reflection is just a multimedia presentation, or a fancy electronicresume, or a digital scrapbook (Barrett 2000).
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.
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-Barak’s (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.
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):
● How does this artefact demonstrate competence in a particular [outcome/attribute]?
● 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?
Kimball (2003, 22–5) 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.
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 Irby’s(2001) process guided the collection and analysis of the data from the reflectivecomments made by the first year student teachers in their e-portfolios.
Research approach
In the present study, an interpretative research approach was adopted. Interpretativeresearch focuses on a specific social setting or phenomena. As noted by Patton (1990)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
274 L. Pelliccione and G. Raison
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 (2005–2007) 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.
Research design
Early work with e-portfolios (2002–2004)
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 Faculty’s 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.
New programme implemented (2005–)
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 thefaculty’s 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 ofEducation’s core activities, and was revised in response to new conceptual approachesand recent research, policies and practices in education.
The 2005 and 2006 cohorts of first-year students were asked to write reflectionslinking their portfolio artefacts to relevant Department of Education GraduateOutcomes. Close examination of their reflective comments within their e-portfoliosrevealed that most students wrote descriptive comments indicating that a more struc-tured guideline to frame their reflections was required. The information provided theimpetus for the implementation of a guided reflection framework.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Education for Teaching 275
Table 2 is a copy of the framework introduced to the first-year students in 2007.This framework is a synthesis of guiding questions identified by Kilbane and Milman(2003), Kimball (2003) and Brown and Irby (2001). It was designed to help first-yearstudents formulate reflections of their selected artefacts for their e-portfolio.
Participants
A purposive sample of 15 students’ e-portfolios was selected from each of the firstyear cohorts (2005, 2006, 2007). The total number of students involved in this studywas 45. The criteria for selection were based on obtaining a range of e-portfolioswhereby the range was determined by their assessment grade allocated to their e-portfolio. The sample of students’ e-portfolio submissions contained five high scor-ing examples (80–100%), five medium scoring examples (65–79%) and five lowscoring examples (less than 64%). Table 3 provides an overview of the sample,including the total student enrolment for each year group.
Data collection and analysis
The basic negotiated e-portfolio framework adopted by the students usuallycontained: an introduction; navigation instructions; contact details; educational back-ground; interests; teaching philosophy; field experience; and 13 Department ofEducation Graduate Outcomes. The researchers selected the following fouroutcomes because although the students had only just begun their course the major-ity would be able to address them in some way. Graduates from the Department ofEducation:
Table 2. Artefact log sheet and reflection guide.
Outcome/attributeDate
Description of artefact/evidence
Where, why and how was it
created?
What did you learn as a result of
creating this artefact?
How does your evidence support
growth toward the outcome/attribute?
Table 3. Research sample.
Year High scoring(80–100%)
Medium scoring(65–79%)
Low scoring(< 64%)
2005 Total student enrolments 125 5 5 52006 Total student enrolments 155 5 5 52007 (Reflection guide) 5 5 5
Total student enrolments 140
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
276 L. Pelliccione and G. Raison
● Are self-motivated, critical and reflective in their approach to teaching andlearning.
● Understand the development and application of curriculum.● Demonstrate autonomy and initiative to research and solve problems.● Are able to work collaboratively in educational contexts.
Separate databases were formed for each year group. Each database included eachstudent’s reflective responses to the targeted outcomes. The following procedure wasadopted. First, student marks for each year-groups’ e-portfolios were listed separatelyand all identification was removed. The lists were given to a colleague who randomlyselected five high, medium and low scoring marks from each year group. Thecolleague assigned labels (A, B, C) to each data set (year group). Next, the identifiede-portfolios were given to a research assistant who extracted all comments thestudents had linked to the four targeted outcomes in their e-portfolios. These data weregiven to the researchers for analysis. The researchers conducted a content analysisusing the qualitative data analysis software program NVivo. Similar to Robbins(2004) study where the reflective statements of 10 pre-service student e-portfolioswere closely examined, Brown and Irby’s (2001) five-step framework (select,describe, analyse, appraise and transform) for developing reflective commentsprovided the basis of the analysis. Categories and patterns that emerged from the datawere identified and coded. After the initial analysis, the identification of the yeargroups was revealed to enable the researchers to synthesise the information, interpretthe results and draw conclusions.
Results and discussion
As a result of implementing an ‘Artefact log sheet – reflection guide’ there were threekey findings that emerged from the cross-case analysis of the data. First, the totalnumber of reflective comments related to the four chosen outcomes increased over thethree years. Second, in general there were more higher order responses. In this studyhigher order responses were categorised according to the Brown and Irby (2001)framework (analyse, appraise, transform) in 2007 than 2005 and 2006. Third, in addi-tion to the Brown and Irby (2001) framework two new categories of reflectivecomments emerged.
Table 4 provides an overview of the three cohorts who participated in this study.Interestingly, the number of reflective comments increased over the three yearsindicating that the reflective framework provided a useful structure for students tofollow.
Another factor that influenced the number of responses was students’ access toexemplary models in 2006 and 2007. In 2005 there were few exemplary models forthe students to examine, whereas in the following years this was not the case. With
Table 4. Overview.
Students’ e-portfolios Total number of reflective comments
2005 No reflection guide 15 1262006 No reflection guide 15 1662007 Reflection guide 15 183
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Education for Teaching 277
each year more creative and exceptional e-portfolios were produced with moreattention being paid to reflections.
The findings indicate the Brown and Irby’s (2001) framework also proved to be avaluable instrument for gauging the quality of reflective comments. Table 5 identifiesthe total number of reflective comments made by each of the cohorts for eachcategory.
In 2005 and 2006, approximately 50% of the total comments were categorised aslower order reflections. However, in 2007 the lower order comments decreased by10%. Conversely, in 2007 the total of higher order reflections increased. Interestingly,although there were no changes in implementation between 2005 and 2006 the qualityof the responses declined. With regard to this finding, a further examination of the2005 results revealed students in that year entered university with a higher thanaverage Tertiary Entrance Ranking (TER) (2005 – 84.8 ; 2006 – 82.5; and 2007 – 82).This anomaly requires further investigation to see whether or not more capablestudents require less direction about reflective responses than other students enteringuniversity.
In 2005 and 2006 the majority of the reflective comments made by the participantsdescribed their artefacts. This was followed by comments that analysed their choiceand how it demonstrated their progress toward the outcome. The majority of thereflective comments in 2007 were equally shared among ‘description’ and ‘analysis’.The obvious difference between the students who were introduced to the reflectiontool and those who were not (2005–2006) is the high number of reflective commentsthat simply described the artefact. Close examination of the reflections written by the2007 students indicates that reflections were more structured. There was a betterbalance of comments. For instance, the students streamlined their reflections byusually providing a description of the artefact followed by what they had learntthrough completing the artefact and finally how this demonstrated that they wereworking toward achieving the outcome. This is demonstrated in the following studentexample:
[Select] In the unit reflective practice we have completed two assignments thatcover aspects of this outcome.
[Describe] Firstly we had to write a journal that reflects on what we have learnt.[Analyse] The purpose of this assignment was to track how we have developed over
the semester, to reflect on how we deal with different situations and howwe can improve or do things differently and any changes in our way ofthinking.
Table 5. Reflection comments using Brown and Irby’s (2001) framework.
Lower order reflections
Higher order reflections
Student cohortSelect
%Describe
%Total Analyse
%Appraise
%Transform
% Total
2005 11.1 42.9 53.0 29.4 7.1 2.4 38.92006 7.8 41.6 49.4 26.5 7.2 0.6 34.32007 10.9 29.5 40.4 29.5 10.9 2.7 43.1Introduction of reflection tool
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
278 L. Pelliccione and G. Raison
[Analyse] The outcome is achieved as the journal helps to reflect on our ownprogress and learning and also reflects how we are developing as a teacher.
[Appraise] We need to critique our actions and be self-motivated to continue to learn.[Select] The second assignment was an essay about what it means to be an
effective teacher.[Describe] In the essay we needed to explore what we considered the most important
aspects of teaching. Once identifying the key aspects we had to show howthey linked together to create the most effective teaching strategies.
[Appraise] The assignment involved critical thinking in deciding the most effectiveways of teaching and working out how to use these methods mosteffectively. (Rachel: Outcome 2, 2007)
It was interesting to see from Table 5 that some of the first-year students madereflective comments that identified how the artefact would influence their future prac-tice (transform) considering their limited exposure to the field and the course:
I hope that my increased understanding of curriculum will give me the ability to correctlyapply and teach curriculum in the future. (Pat: Outcome 6, 2005)
Delegating and effective leadership are probably some of the things that I think I need towork at. (Sylvana: Outcome 11, 2006)
Not surprisingly, there has not been a marked change in the reflective commentsfor 2007 in the ‘Transform’ category as close examination of the reflection toolintroduced in 2007 reveals that the tool does not encourage the students to take thisimportant next step. The tool encourages the students to ‘describe’, ‘analyse’ and onlyalludes to ‘appraise’ through the question ‘What did you learn as a result from creatingthis artefact?’ Therefore, a more appropriate framework may be required if thestudents are to complete the reflection cycle.
The third, and possibly the most salient finding, was the two additional catego-ries that emerged in the data analysis. These were not present in the reflectiveframework (Brown and Irby 2001) or the ‘Artefact log sheet – reflective guide’.Data indicate that students made reflective comments that referred to, expanded andinterpreted the specific Department of Education Graduate Outcome they had linkedto their chosen artefacts. This category was labelled ‘Outcome’. The second newcategory reflected some form of external validation of the student’s artefact. In thiscategory, a scanned assessment sheet with comments from a lecturer or peer evalua-tor was embedded within the reflection to validate the reflection. This category waslabelled ‘Validation’.
The reflective comments which fell into the ‘Outcome’ category were usuallywritten at the beginning of the reflection for each Department of Education GraduateOutcome. The following is an example of the reflective comment associated with the‘Outcome’ category: ‘It is vital in effective teaching to consciously plan actions withconsideration to all students, and then reflect on that process. The cycle is to plan,implement and assess, reflect and improve’ (Rose: Outcome 2, 2006).
The reflective comments classified as ‘Validation’ appeared to strengthen thestudent’s argument for having achieved the outcome and affirmed their competence.The following would be an example: ‘We received a high distinction for this activitywhich I feel shows that working collaboratively in the field of education is within mycapabilities’ (Natalie: Outcome 11, 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Education for Teaching 279
Figure 1 represents the total number of comments for each category: ‘Outcome’,‘Select’, ‘Describe’, ‘Analyse’, ‘Appraise’, ‘Validate’ and ‘Transform’.Figure 1. Reflective comments.Overall, the early success with e-portfolios has had an impact on students in thefirst year of their teacher education course. The findings revealed that the use of thecurrent framework (Brown and Irby 2001) did influence the structure of students’reflective comments and encouraged them to use more higher order reflective skills.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was twofold. First, this case study was intended to assessand encourage the use of more in-depth and reflective thinking about learning bystudents in the first year of their teacher education course. Second, the study wasconducted to enable the researchers to reflect on their own practice through the closeexamination of student e-portfolios and to communicate these results, thus participatingin the scholarship of teaching.
Findings from this case study indicate that there is value in the use of a frameworkto guide first-year education students as they reflect on their learning through thedevelopment of e-portfolios. The authors strongly support the view that the greatestvalue of e-portfolio development is in self-reflection. Previous literature indicates thatthe students need to be guided through the process of reflection and that this skill canbe taught. This study attempted to examine whether the introduction of a reflectivetool assisted students to structure their written reflections more effectively. The studyrevealed a number of important implications for future practice.
Figure 1. Reflective comments.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
280 L. Pelliccione and G. Raison
In particular, the reflective tool introduced to the 2007 students assisted them instructuring their reflections in a more cohesive manner. The study revealed that with-out such a guide the majority of the comments were descriptive and indicated lessthought about the actual learning involved in the task. It is important to remember thatthis particular guide was designed for first-year students who were in their very firstsemester of their course and hence did not have any formal teaching experience in theclassroom and had a limited number of artefacts and experiences to draw upon.Perhaps the level of questioning in the reflection guide is developmentally appropriatefor first-year semester one students and should remain the same.
It would be more appropriate to modify the reflection guide for Stage 2 of the e-portfolio development process. Students participate in Stage 2 in their second year ofthe course. The reflection guide for this group needs to promote a deeper level ofreflection and encourage students to complete the reflection cycle by identifying howtheir teaching practice will change. The above framework (Table 6) will be trialled forStage 2 of the e-portfolio process.
Our personal reflections through participating in the scholarship of teaching haslead us to believe that the essential aim of e-portfolios is to enhance student reflectionon their individual journey through the teacher education course as well as to providea solid foundation from which they can continue to reflect and build upon as profes-sionals in the workplace. In addition, e-portfolios enable students to synthesise theirlearning by making links to theory and practice across all of their units of study. Wewill, therefore, continue to link the e-portfolios to other units in the course. Promotingthe scholarship of teaching whereby reflection is at the heart of this process has thepotential to equip our students for lifelong learning and to help us develop ourunderstandings about the complexity of the scholarship of teaching in our capacity asteachers in a university setting.
ReferencesBarrett, H. 2000. Electronic portfolios = multimedia development + portfolio development the
electronic portfolio development process. www.electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/EPDevProcess.html§age3.
Barrett, H. 2005. The reflect initiative. Researching electronic portfolios: Learning, engage-ment, collaboration, through technology. http://electronicportfolios.org.
Baume, D. 2001. A briefing on assessment of portfolios, in LTSN Generic Centre AssessmentSeries. No. 6. York: LTSN.
Table 6. Artefact log sheet and reflection guide (Stage 2).
Outcome/attribute
Date
Description of artefact/evidenceWhere, why and
how was it created?
What did you learn as a result of creating this
artefact?
How does your evidence support
growth toward the outcome/attribute?
How would you do things
differently as a result of this
artefact? (How will it change
your practice?)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Education for Teaching 281
Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Berkshire:Open University Press.
Boyer, E. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: TheCarnegies Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brown, G., and B. Irby. 2001. The principal portfolio. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Butler, P. 2006. A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios. Creative
Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 2.5. http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2006/12/13/a-review-of-the-literature-on-portfolios-and-electronic-portfolios/
Cambridge, B.L. 2001. Electronic portfolios. Emerging practices in student, faculty and insti-tutional learning. Sterling: AAHE.
Denzin, N., and Y. Lincoln. 1994. Handbook of qualitative research. California: Sage.DiBase, D. 2002. Using e-portfolios at Penn State to enhance student learning. http://www/e-
education.psu.edu/portfolios/e-port_report.doc.ePortConsortium. 2003. Electronic portfolio white paper. ePortConsortium. http://eportcon-
sortium.org.Forster, M., and G. Masters. 1996. Portfolios. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational
Research.Fullan, M. 2001. The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Jafari, A., and C. Kaufman. 2006. Handbook of research on e-portfolios. Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Reference.Kilbane, C.R., and N. Milman. 2003. The digital teaching portfolio handbook. USA: Pearson
Education.Kimball, M.A. 2002. The Web portfolio guide. New York: Longman.Kreber, C. 2002. Controversy and consensus on the scholarship of teaching. Studies in Higher
Education 27, no 2: 151–67.Ma, X., and R. Rada. 2005. Building a web-based accountability system in a teacher
education program. Interactive Learning Environments 13, nos 1–2: 93–119.Merriam, S. 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.Orland-Barak, L. 2005. Portfolios as evidence of reflective practice: What remains ‘untold’.
Educational Research 47, no. 1: 25–44.Patton, M. 1990. Qualitative evaluation methods. California: Sage.Pelliccione, L., K. Dixon, and G. Giddings. 2008. The use of ePortfolios for multipurpose
assessment. Paper presented at the Society for International Technology Education(SITE), Las Vegas, Nevada.
Priest, A., and P. Sturgess. 2005. But is it scholarship? Group reflection as a scholarlyactivity. Studies in Learning, Evaluation Innovation and Development 2, no. 1: 1–9.
Rees, C. 2005. The use (and abuse) of the term ‘portfolio’. Medical Education 39, no. 4: 436–46.Robbins, H. 2004. Reflection and the electronic teaching portfolio: The nature and quality of
pre-service teachers’ reflective writing. In Technology and teacher education annual,ed. C. Crawford, N. Davis, J. Price, and D. Willis, 222–227. Norfolk, VA: Associationfor the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Stone, B. 1998. Problems, pitfalls and benefits of portfolios. Teacher Education Quarterly 25,no. 1: 105–14.
Stringer, E.T. 2004. Action research in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Trigwell, K., E. Martin, J. Benjamin, and M. Prosser. 2000. Scholarship of teaching: A model.
Higher Education Research and Development 19, no. 2: 155–68.Wetzel, K., and N. Strudler. 2006. Costs and benefits of electronic portfolios in teacher
education: Student voices. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 22, no. 3: 69–78.Wiseman, K. 2004. Mandated standards-based electronic portfolio assessment for measuring
pre-service teacher quality. Paper presented at the annual conference of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
05:
55 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Recommended
