Presentation sharing results of study for improving student reflections in electronic portfolios. SLOAN-C ET4Online 2012 by Dr. David W. Denton

1. Improving Student Reflections in
Electronic Portfolio Environments
Evidence-based Learning, Writing
Instruction, Reflection
Dr. David Denton

2. Concept Map Overview

3. Study

4. Questions
What instructional practices improve students’
electronic portfolio entries?
Does metadata (tags and categories) predict
performance?

5. Writing

6. Writing
“writing ability is a source of construct-irrelevant
variance” (Mislevy et la., 2004)

7. bPortfolio

8. Evidence-Based Learning
• Artifacts
• Program Standards

9. Example

10. Method
• Context and Participants
– Convenience Sample
– 11 Undergraduates
• Mostly females

11. Method
• Repeated measures
– Three portfolio entries
First Entry Second Entry Third Entry
8 months 1 week
before before During
intervention intervention intervention

12. Method
• Measure:
– Writing Quality Rubric
• Adapted from AACU VALUE rubrics
• .82 inter-rater reliability

13. t-test
First Entry Second Entry Third Entry
8 months
1 week During
before before
intervention intervention
intervention
5

14. Method

15. Method
Number of Tag
Cloud Terms
Writing Quality Score

16. Results
• Statistically significant improvement
M = 0.55 M = 2.36 M = 5.82
t(10) = 4.99,
p < .001,
d = 3.16,
95% CI = 1.91 to 5.00

17. t-test
First Entry Second Entry Third Entry
8 months
1 week During
before before
intervention intervention
intervention
5

18. Results
• Statistically significant correlation
between
– Tag cloud terms –writing quality
– Total portfolio entries – writing quality

19. Discussion
• Intervention improved writing quality on third
entry
• Use of metadata to predict general writing
quality

20. 1 Intervention
• Explicit directions on content and format
– Prompt
– Instructions

21. 2 Intervention
• Communication of Assessment Criteria
– Rubric

22. 3 Intervention
• Evaluating evidence
– Questions

23. 4 Intervention
• Instructor and peer feedback
– Strengths and weaknesses
• Submitted to instructor
• Read aloud to peer

24. 5 Intervention
• Revising
– Initial submission
• Instructor feedback
• Peer feedback
– Final submission

25. References
Yao, Y., Aldrich, J., Foster, K., & Pecina, U. (2009). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of an electronic portfolio as a tool for
reflection and teacher certification. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 9, 25-43.
Yao, Y., Thomas, M., Nickens, N., Downing, J., Burkett, R. S., & Lamson, S. (2008). Validity evidence of an electronic portfolio
for preservice teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 10-24.
Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., Lukas, & J. F. (2004). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design. CSE Report 632. U.S.
Department of Education. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation
Ayan, D., & Seferoglu, G. (2011). Using electronic portfolios to promote reflective thinking in language teacher education.
Educational Studies, 37(5), 513-521.