Formative Evaluation Plan In establishing best practices for teaching with technology, the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) reference individualized learning for students via the teacher performance standards on developing “technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress.” (NETS-T 2008). The development of a personalized learning environment is central to putting into practice the belief that learning is an individual and differentiated process for each of us. ePortfolios provide an external, evidentiary record of that internal process, allowing the learner to identify key developments in his/her understanding and to share that development with an authentic audience. As a formative tool, teachers can also leverage the portfolio to identify and redress any learner misconceptions that may have formed during the learning process. Because the emphasis is on personalization, depending on the age and experience of the student body, student choice should dictate the tool used in ePortfolio construction: Google Sites, Weebly, WordPress, WikiSpace. Encouraging students to find a tool that appeals to their learning preference may solicit a sense of personal ownership in their work and creates a challenge for students, as they investigate how to accomplish tasks in this digital environment. Because direct instruction on the use of that tool eliminates the possibility of discovery learning and problem-solving within an online platform, instruction will take a more constructivist approach. While students will be provided with the ill-structured task of creating a portfolio, they will be given assessment criteria to minimize the possibility of overwhelming learners. As part of the student construct, developing those discovery skills empowers them as they encounter new creation tools.
Theoretical Approach and Research Background In implementing an ePortfolio program at my current school, my approach is a blend of cognitive constructivism, situated cognition and social learning as the most recognizable theoretical elements. While grounding an instructional design in multiple theoretical bases may seem a complicated task, the nature of my implementation goals (observable outcomes) requires taking into consideration (and into practice) the epistemology, the instructional methods, and the assessments of constructivism, blended with situated and social learning to most elegantly achieve the intended learner outcomes. The hybrid approach in theory-grounding is certainly not new. In fact, combinations of differing theory and epistemologies common in my research within the practicing ePortfolio community. Batson, whose research connects situated learning theory to portfolio assessment shares his thoughts on blended theory: “The theories of transformational learning (Kegan) and situated learning (Lave) together suggest a new epistemology (an educational world view) not based on unchanging and disconnected knowledge but instead on the constantly changing, socially and culturallyembedded knowledge-building processes we live within today” (Batson 109-110). In finding some validation through other researcher’s multi-theory approach, I have outlined the ways in which the chosen theories are best implemented and assessed within this study. Certainly, the constructivist model of ill-structured challenges in which students define and drive their own learning Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
1
is well complemented through portfolio learning. According to the Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence-Based Learning (AAEEBL), portfolios are best suited for situations in which assumptions, theory, practice, and assessment are learning-centered. Learning-centered learning is characterized by a belief that learning is best addressed as an ill-structured, complex activity that benefits from being presented as a shared challenge in which all participants, including the instructor, have responsibility to learn. In learning-centered environments shared knowledge is imperative. Students not only are expected to help define the problem: They are accountable for developing their own answers, solutions, and questions. (Brown, Chen, & Jacobson 2012, 8) In respecting the value of the student construct and the importance of developing an awareness of one’s own construct, the portfolio provides students with unique insight into how they learn and the opportunity to evaluate different experiences within their learning. By inviting students into the meta-cognitive field, “ePortfolios and the pedagogies associated with ePortfolios can… underscore student agency, student responsibility for learning, and students’ opportunities to assume and celebrate that responsibility” (Brown, Chen, & Jacobson 2012, 1). Because Expeditionary Learning holds fieldwork and authentic experiences as central themes in its core practices, situated learning must be reflected in to the portfolio evidence. Using the ePortfolio as a kind of digital record of learning that happens anywhere, any time further reiterates the point that learning is in the doing. Learning that is situated in context might consist of fieldwork, experiences during an internship, laboratory experiences, experiences of working with a team of peers to develop a Web site about a current scientific controversy, and other active learning experiences. Today’s technologies free students to use a much greater variety of learning interactions than before we had digital technologies. With these technologies, student work is still “visible” to the teacher no matter where the student is physically. And through opening the world more fully to regular learning experiences, we are at the same time accepting that knowledge is not only told but is discovered, that knowledge is not finished as it has seemed to be, but is instead always unfinished, always in discovery, always being reinterpreted. (Batson 2011, p. 110) Lastly, social construct theory also lends itself nicely to portfolio-style learning opportunities. By requiring evidence of student collaboration within learning and providing opportunities to assess (and be assessed by) peers, integrating social learning into the portfolio development is seamless. Based on student surveys, “students… commented on gaining a sense of shared knowledge or experiences with their peers, the benefits of giving and receiving feedback, being helped by seeing others’ thought processes, the value of seeing different styles and formats, and finally having the encouragement of those around them to work on this project” (Turns et all 2012, p.11).
A Happy Marriage: ePortfolios at the Greene School As an Expeditionary Learning (EL) School, with an environmental focus, moving from our current, more traditional portfolio methods to a digital portfolio process allows us to honor our pursuit of 21st Century learning through the use of technology, while avoiding the environmental waste of printed materials with a more traditional portfolio. Because
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
2
our school highly values direct experiences that develop and integrate student strengths, the personalized portfolio serves as a record of situated learning and understanding and is considered a rite of passage in the EL experience. Because the culture of portfolio-learning already exists within the community, the intent of integrating ePortfolios is to address the challenges the Greene School currently faces with traditional, student-created portfolios by creating digital opportunities for students to craft high quality, media-rich, original work to share with a wider community (not just parents and teachers) and maintaining positive attitudes throughout the year-long portfolio process.
The Intended Observable Outcomes By transitioning the current portfolio process into a digital portfolio process, I expect an increase in student engagement and ownership of their portfolios, which should be reflected in the improved quality of the portfolio work, as compared with traditionally created portfolios. Introducing the technology element into the process will also allow for a much larger range of media and evidence to serve as reflection points within the portfolio, while the traditional model limits students to only those pieces that can be shared in print. In terms of observable outcomes, I believe that digitizing the portfolio process will ensure the achievement of the objectives below: 1. All students will create, edit, and publish (share) a digital portfolio as a way to exhibit, own, and explain their original work and progress (This intended outcome is further detailed through three learner objectives, below). I expect that in being able to leverage technology in the creation of their portfolios, students will be able to furnish more and different media as evidence of learning. As more evidence types are now available for use, I expect an increase in the collection of evidence, as compared to the more traditional model. Not only is it is more ‘fun’ and student-friendly to take a video than describe a situation in an activity log, it is also less likely for students to lose track of the many pieces of evidence when they are digitally collected in one easily accessible place. I also expect that because students will likely have collected more elements for their portfolio, they will have more evidence to draw upon, as they connect multi-disciplinary learning experiences and reflect on their development as a learner. I expect that rubric marks in the categories of connection and reflection to be much higher, once the portfolios take digital form. 2. Students will exhibit a positive attitude toward using technology that supports collaboration, lifelong learning, and productivity. (NETS-S 5B,5C) With the introduction of a new learning platform, the use of new and different digital tools, and the opportunity to create something new, different, and unique, I expect that student engagement will be high and attitudes will be favorable. Although there is a risk of the novelty effect wearing off in this case, the continual integration of new learning and the resulting challenge of portfolio redesign in the integration of new evidence should serve to keep student interest piqued as they encounter new challenges within the portfolio tool. To increase the likelihood of positive student attitudes throughout the process, students are encouraged to investigate and select the ePortfolio tool that best suits their needs and skills. I expect that by digitizing this process, student perception and opinions about the portfolio process will be more positive and more engaged than those of students creating more traditional products.
The Value of Qualitative Data in Informing Choices within Implementation The core of my observable data is qualitative, but substantive. Because one of my observable outcomes focuses on learner attitudes towards the digital (and non-digital) portfolio process, survey data is the most efficient way to measure student perception and opinion. My reliance on such qualitative data is not just from a practicality standpoint, but also based on the kinds of data that researchers culled in summatively conducted surveys. In the studies I examined, I found that student responses provided the most enlightening and reinforcing data in support of implementing a digital portfolio
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
3 Â
program. The collected student responses described encountering the kinds of academic and cognitive dilemmas I try to engineer within my classroom and instructional environment, such as “deciding what has worth,” connecting class activities and fieldwork with the larger human experience, and encountering profound shifts in thinking that open the door to “metacognitive awareness” (Turns et al 2012, p. 2,10). Students in the Virginia Tech study “found that the iterative process of developing ePortfolios, including reselecting artifacts and redesigning elements, helped to promote… learning of course material and self-discovery” (Jarrott & Gambrel 2011, p. 86). In further support of survey data collection, Turns et al found success through gathering data via short surveys throughout the process, conducting a more thorough questionnaire at the end of the project. Within the results, student responses indicated that the ePortfolio experience was “manageably effortful and unexpectedly valuable” (Turns et all 2012, p.7).
Known Limitations and Challenges from Other Implementations Limitations discovered in the implementation at Virginia Tech reiterated the importance of ensuring the connection between learning and portfolio creation. In reflecting on their work, students appreciated the value of storage provided by the product but “lacked a vision for how the ePortfolio could be useful for them in the future” (Jarrott & Gambrel 2011, p. 92). Additionally, some adjustments may need to be made in allowing for student skill acquisition in the use of the digital tool. “It takes effort to learn the technology itself—something that can interfere with the potential benefits of ePortfolio activities” (Turns, Sattler, Eliot, Kilgore, & Mobrand 2012, p. 2). In identifying these threats to success before implementation, implementation can include the deliberate underscoring or the fostering of discovery of connections for students and ensuring that students have sufficient time and guidance to explore and use the digital tools available.
Description of Technology, Lesson Content and Pedagogy Challenge: As a rite of passage at the end of Grade 10, students must build a personal learning portfolio to illustrate their growth as a learner. In the past, the portfolio has always been a physical collection of print media that has been created by the student during their learning journey. In pursuit of crafting higher quality work, made available to a wider, more authentic audience, with greater student buy-in, my goal is to implement a digital portfolio program.
Tools, Books, Resources, People Required:
Students are provided with a choice of online publication
tools, access to laptops, and access to the Internet. Instruction will be broad in its scope, revolving around troubleshooting and generalized skills to best support student construction of practice and understanding and to promote discovery learning and problem-solving. Because the essence of the portfolio is a collection of authentic learning experiences, support from fellow teachers to provide opportunities that lend themselves to reflection is vital. Time for students to explore, experiment, trouble-shoot, and build their portfolios is also a resource that is critical to success.
Levels of and Controls for Implementation:
Because each student is accountable for producing their
portfolio, the level of implementation will be by individuals, under a learner-centered program. The individuals participating in the study are the 14 students from my Crew. The information and data gathered from this group, as they Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
4
create digital portfolios, will be compared with that of the other two crews, who will be producing traditionally created portfolios. To ensure as much control as possible (to better validate the data), all portfolios are assessed by the Grade 10 faculty, as a group. The portfolio criteria, standards, and rubrics are identical for the digital and non-digital portfolios. All Grade 10 students take the same classes, from the same teachers, hopefully engaging in the same kinds of experiential learning opportunities. The constructivist-style instructional process looks as similar as possible, although instruction is subject to look different, depending on the teacher delivering the content. Lastly, the amount of time given to both groups is similar.
Practical Concerns for Implementation at The Greene School: As a matter of opinion, the value of the hard-copy portfolio has been a widely contested debate amongst the faculty at the Greene School. Questions about the audience’s experience (touching and turning pages in a portfolio) and the availability/reliability of a chosen tool are central in the discussions. Additionally, implementing a change with one group of the sophomore class may prove to be problematic, as students and parents learn that different approaches are taken within the same grade level, within the same school.
Digital Age Learning Experiences and Environment In Expeditionary Learning, students take part in a daily experience called Crew (Expeditionary Learning 2011, 27). Within the Crew experience, students participate and even plan activities in pursuit of the school’s environmental mission and goals for student college-readiness. As part of that experience, students create a learning portfolio in which they share a personal mission, academic progress towards proficiency in different disciplines, strong habits of work (HOWs) and personal reflections on learning and fieldwork (Expeditionary Learning 2011, 52-53). Because this studentcentered learning is already a cultural reality, the challenge is to transform the current learning objective and the resulting product into a digital process and outcome. Personalizing this process begins at the outset, as students will be given their choice of tools to display the necessary criteria for the portfolio requirements. Students will be given the opportunity to explore, discover, share and discuss digital alternative for benefits and risks, so students are better equipped to evaluate and select the option that best fits their current skill level and personal style. Although students will be required to justify or defend the digital portfolio choice prior to building the portfolio, imparting the choice to students increases the ownership of and investment in the portfolio as a personal representation of the student and their learning. Because students are given a wide range of options for digital tools, the instructional design will also need a more modern approach. The first several class-wide instructional experiences will focus on seeking resources and troubleshooting as a digital learner, within your tool of choice (where is the help menu, where are online tutorials available). Students using similar tools are encouraged to collaborate in trouble-shooting. Weekly check-ins and informal, formative checks for comfort and understanding will inform additional instructional topics. If students struggle to post videos, video-posting skills will be scaffolded into instructional opportunities to ensure all students achieve proficiency. For
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
5 Â
more specifically individual issues, students can also post ‘HELPs’ (Helping Every Learner to Proficiency) on the HELP board. HELPs are individual student requests for assistance, wherein the student has already attempted to problem-solve in three ways and would like to get assistance. Other students who are already proficient are encouraged to review the HELP board and assist where possible. Any unsolved HELPs are submitted to the instructor for assistance. To ensure progress through formative review, students will submit a self-reflection on the current portfolio every two weeks. Additionally, each student will provide informal, constructive feedback to one other student on the current portfolio by using the Wonder/Notice process. In this process, reviewing students list what they notice and what they wonder about in reviewing a peer’s portfolio. Prior to the Wonder/Notice activity, guidance and modeling are necessary to ensure positive and meaningful peer-to-peer feedback. As student portfolios are individually reflective creations, instructional implementation must take place within an independent learning environment. In attempting to sidestep common limitations for individual implementation (teacher intensive, minimally interactive, isolationist approach), devolution of expertise and authority to the learners is central to the digital portfolio process. By scaffolding target skills and topics via instruction, encouraging students to seek assistance from others (rather than the teacher), and requiring proof of collaborative creations, the implementation is planned in a way to avoid such pitfalls. Another potential challenge with individual implementation is student aptitude and attitudes. If students are not self-starting or motivated to create their portfolios, the resulting products will vary wildly and likely not support the drive to scale digital portfolios beyond the test group, to the school level. To counter the lack of motivation and engagement, student choice will remain a central element of portfolio creation, from the choice of tool, to the choice of postings and portfolio elements. While students will need to meet standard portfolio criteria, how they meet the criteria (or supply evidence of proficiency) will be entirely a personal choice.
Intended Learner Outcomes, Student Mastery Objectives and Evaluation Procedures: A Hybrid Approach Data Collection Methods and Evaluation Procedures Informative Data Gathered Before Implementation To refine the developed objectives to best fit the current student population, several informative data collections will be required, as learners return to school. While preliminary research has already been conducted to support the development of the objectives for this study (the collection of previously developed portfolios, along with rubric scores, qualitative assessments of student work, and staff surveys), it is necessary to identify the current knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of the student body to best refine and adjust the intended instructional strategies as necessary to meet instructional goals. •
Attitude/Perception Survey 1: This survey is administered to all 42 Grade 10 students to identify student attitudes towards and perceptions of the portfolio in its current incarnation and its requirements. Within the
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
6
survey, qualitative data aimed at student comfort, awareness, and reflection is of the utmost importance. Statements such as “If given the choice, I would like to create a digital portfolio” provide insight into student attitudes towards technology. •
Previous Years’ Portfolio Samples and Scoring: This information was collected and reviewed to identify patterns of limitations and areas of weakness that may be addressed by bringing the portfolios into the digital age. Identified weaknesses included the fact that all the material was printed (no video, audio, animation), and that the evidence for collaborative experiences was limited to pictures of working together and final product presentation. Additionally, while individual pieces clearly represented student identity, the product as a whole lacked personality.
•
Skills Self-Assessment: Within this self-assessment, students in Grade 10 are asked to rate their abilities when working with digital technologies. As with the attitude survey described above, such data allows for the adjustment and refinement of the instruction aimed towards skill building.
Formative Data Gathered During Implementation To best assess progress towards the achievement of the objectives described in this study, structured, formative checks are integral. While the specific use of each of these is detailed below, along with the applicable objective, this list serves to clarify the deliberate, formative collection of data. Because the ultimate goal for this study is to foster student ownership for learning, regular student self-assessments are central to achieving this objective. Equally valuable, the teacher review is essential to the design process, as it informs the instructional process that supports students in building portfolios that meet the criteria. Collating and making sense of the qualitative and quantitative data below, along with regular formative checks of student portfolios, allows the instructor to recognize deficiencies in understanding or practice and make adjustments to instruction as necessary, to ensure mastery of the objectives. •
Student Checklist (administered every two weeks): This checklist includes elements of self-assessment in pursuit of each of the objectives detailed below. The checklist centers on a self- assessed numerical score (based on the portfolio rubric), with a justification for the chosen score. The Checklist also allows for the collection of qualitative data, including information on student comfort levels and recent trouble-shooting experiences.
•
Peer Review: Wonder/Notice is an activity in which peers review each other’s work in a non-judgmental, constructive way. Students are expected to respond to another’s work by noting ‘Notices’, or elements that capture attention, surprise, or connect to the reviewer. ‘Wonders’ are questions and suggestions to help the author clarify areas that may confuse the audience. This activity is scheduled for once every two weeks, on a rotating schedule, so that each student will get to share insight on and benefit from the insights of each other’s portfolios.
•
Teacher Review, Assessment and Feedback: The integration, interpretation, and use of the information gathered during implementation prove crucial to making the necessary adjustments during instructional design implementation. The teacher must review the student checklists for any issues with understanding and task execution. Additionally, the teacher must monitor and pulse-check students’ attitudes and engagement on the project, finding ways to reinvigorate positive attitudes towards the portfolio process.
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
7
•
Self-Perception/Reflection Question: This question would be addressed while students prepare for StudentLed Conferences. Because the portfolio serves as the centerpiece of the conference, students must reflect on their current progress and generate a plan for the conference, based on the portfolio. During the preparation process, students will be asked to what degree they believe their portfolio reflects their individuality. The answer would be a scaled one, with the opportunity to explain their evaluation.
•
Student-Led Conferences: Three times per school year, students plan, lead, and reflect on conferences about their learning. Parents are the audience for this conference and the teachers are often playing a supportive role, only when needed. Parents will provide feedback to the students during the conferences that will inform adjustments and improvements to the portfolio. While not conducted by the teacher, this formative assessment still serves as a means to improve the product during the implementation of the instructional design. A student debrief of the conferences serves to capture the feedback and resulting changes made to the portfolio.
Summative Data Gathered After Implementation The summative data gathered after the implementation of the digital portfolio project may very well serve as the evidence in deciding to scale up the digital portfolios to the whole school level, or to abandon digital portfolios in favor of the tried and true paper portfolio. With that reality in mind, gathering meaningful data to assess the success of the initiative is vital. Below are intended summative assessments, aimed at assessing the success of singular objectives. More details are clarified within the description of the student mastery objectives. •
Qualitative Survey of the Wider Audience: Questions are intended to capture the perception of innovation within the digital portfolios, as compared to the non-digital portfolios. This wider audience would include parents, teachers, administrators, board members, and other students.
•
Quantitative comparisons between digital and non-digital portfolio performances, including rubric scores, numbers of students achieving proficiency, different media counts, collaborative evidence counts.
•
Attitude/Perception Survey 1I: In asking similar questions to the first survey on attitudes and perceptions, this survey is intended to show an improvement in the perception of portfolios and the use of digital tools to support portfolio work.
•
Creator Survey: As the author of a portfolio, what have you learned, what would you do differently, etc.
Objective 1: Given guidelines for portfolio criteria, the LWBAT develop innovative products using technology by creating an original portfolio as a means of personal expression. (NETS-S 1B) This objective focuses primarily on student creativity, identity, and self-expression. In grounding the objective in the theoretical framework of constructivism, necessary formative data would require constant and consistent student self-reflection on the degree to which the portfolio represents his/her authentic self. Because no absolute, external answer is possible for how representative a product is of its creator, qualitative responses based on student perception are the most reliable data to track the success of meeting the above-described objective. Lower scoring data would indicate that additional instructional experiences are necessary to model the personalization of students’ digital spaces. Because a personal statement is a required element of the portfolio, the instructor can start with the Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
8
written text to move students into creating visual and digital representations of their personal statements, if further scaffolding is made necessary through the collection of surveyed data. As necessary, individualized feedback from the instructor is shared with students, to support the development of unique portfolios. As described above, students and families also participate in three student-led conferences annually. During this time, the student presents the current progress made on their portfolio, sharing the justification for choices and defending the design and reflections on each piece. The data collected from this formative assessment would be qualitative and reflective, as students are asked to explain what changes they would make to their portfolios, along with a justification, as a result of the conferences. These recorded answers serve as data indicating progress toward student achievement of the objective. As a summative assessment of the achievement of this objective, conducting a qualitative survey of the wider audience aimed at the perception of innovation within the digital portfolios, as compared to the non-digital portfolios, would provide an external assessment of the objective. Questions may include: Do the digital portfolios serve as a more authentic representation of the students than the non-digital portfolios? Do you feel that your student’s portfolio represents him/her as a unique individual? Because the wider audience would include parents and teachers, who have developed relationships with the performing students, the opinions on the authenticity of student’s expression would be as valid as an external opinion can be.
Objective 2: The LWBAT demonstrate the ability to interact, collaborate, create and communicate with peers and wider audiences, through the use of a variety of media. (NETS-S 2A,B) To gather formative data necessary to determine adjustments to instruction, the Student Checklist (selfassessment based on the portfolio criteria and rubric) is an essential method of data collection. The student checklist furnishes quantitative data, in that students assess themselves on the proficiency scales for portfolio collaboration and variety of portfolio media. After modeling accurate self-assessment, the teacher can utilize the data collected to foster more opportunities for collaborative work (ensuring more opportunities to ‘capture’ evidence) or facilitate a class brainstorming session to collect a working list of possibilities for media variety. Because the Student Checklist also includes a reflection element, the instructor can identify students who may require additional support and provide student exemplars as an instructional strategy. The drawback of providing student exemplars is the ‘cloning effect’, where the integrity of uniqueness may be compromised. As personal expression and reflection is a vital aspect of the portfolio, the provision of student exemplars should be used only remedially and rarely. Summatively, collecting and comparing quantitative data between digital and non-digital portfolio performances would best test the overall success of the instructional design for Objective 2. The necessary data to compare include the number of students able to meet the minimum criteria for the portfolio, the number of students exceeding the criteria, and the median and mean scores, using the criteria rubric. Additional comparative quantitative data illustrating the use digital portfolios, as opposed to non-digital portfolios, includes the number of different types of media represented, the number of portfolio elements that were collaboratively discussed or created. Assessing the success of reaching a wider audience poses a serious challenge. Short of expanding the assignment requirements to include Google Analytics, few realistic and manageable ways exist to monitor the Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
9
audience reached through an online portfolio. As a matter of ease, students will be expected to maintain a website visitation clock and to report that as reported by students (required as part of the portfolio assignment). Students may also create a ‘guestbook’ feature to serve as a possible means of tracking the wider audience.
Objective 3: Given a choice of several website publishing tools, the LWBAT demonstrate the ability to evaluate, select and use digital tools based on appropriateness to specific tasks by publishing their portfolio using an appropriate online web page publication tool. (NETS-S 3C,6B) Prior to the construction of the ePortfolio, students will submit their choice for portfolio tools, with a defense for the appropriateness of the choice. The teacher can assess the appropriateness or coach student choice as necessary. As appropriateness of the chosen format is an assessed category, using the rubric to assess can provide quantitative data to support the achievement of this objective. Although summative assessments are, by definition, externally conducted, the most effective way to judge the selection of effective tools is to ask the creators themselves, after they have seen other student creations. The Creator Survey should include questions such as Which tools worked best? What tools didn’t work? Did this tool allow the student to meet all criteria or were there limiting factors?
Objective 4: The LWBAT exhibit a positive attitude toward using technology that supports collaboration, lifelong learning, and productivity through the creation of a quality portfolio. (NETS-S 5B,5C) As an element of the Student Checklist, student perception and attitudes are important to gauge on a regular basis. Aside from information pulse-checks within the classroom setting, the teacher tracks the change in student opinions and attitudes throughout the course of the year to establish or explain any patterns in attitude or changes in attitude. The review of this assessment should also take into consideration the student-led conferences. As an experienced educator, I find that students’ positive perception of an assignment decreased as deadlines associated with that assignment near. While some of that change can be associated with procrastination techniques and rushed work, it is important to note changes in attitudes and find ways to address issues as necessary. Again, as a true summative assessment, a student survey would not necessary stand the test of the traditional definition, but in the case of this study and its constructivist grounding, student opinions are the only way to assess the achievement of this objective. The final attitude survey should be administered prior to the students “final grade” distribution. Although self-assessments with teacher feedback have helped to inform an accurate selfperception of their work, it is important to avoid any grade-influenced prejudice on the final attitude survey. Within the survey students will scale their likelihood to use the skills they have learned through this process, as well as the connections this assignment has to other aspects of their learning or the wider world. Another question should center on whether after the experience, given the opportunity to create a traditional portfolio or a digital portfolio, which would they choose and why.
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
10
Works Cited Jarrott, S. & Gambrel, L. E. (2011). The Bottomless File Box: Electronic Portfolios for Learning and Evaluation Purposes. International Journal of ePortfolio, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 86-94. Batson, T. (2011). Situated Learning: A Theoretical Frame to Guide Transformational Change Using Electronic Portfolio Technology. International Journal of ePortfolio, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 107-114. Brown, G., Chen, H., & Jacobson, J. ePortfolios Changing the Learning Context: The AAEEBL Survey Report 2011. The AAEEBL Learner June 2012, Vol. 3 No. 3, 1-11. Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. International Society for Technology in Education. NETS·S © 2007. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx International Society for Technology in Education. NETS·T © 2007. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (2011). Expeditionary Learning Core Practices: A vision for improving schools. New York, NY. Turns, J., Sattler, B., Eliot, M., Kilgore, D. and Mobrand, K. (1998). Federal regulations of chemicals in the environment [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://siri.uvm.edu/ppt/40hrenv/index.html
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh August 19, 2012
11