Portfolio as a tool for academic education and professional development: problems and challenges



Download 193.64 Kb.
Page11/11
Date22.04.2018
Size193.64 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

5.2. Comparison


In this section the outcomes of the empirical study have been compared with problems, described in the literature (section 4). Table 5.1 provides an overview of the problems that were subject of the empirical study, related to the conclusions of different authors.
Table 5.1: comparison problems Rubens & Oost (2005) with outcomes literature





Rubens & Oost (2005)

Woodward (1998)

Ander
son & Bachor (1998)

Wright et al. (1999)

Fournie & Van Niekerk (1999)

Klenov
ski (2000)

Zeichner & Wray (2001)

Van Tartwijk et al. (2004)

Driessen et al. (in press)

Di
Biase (2002)

Acker (2005)

Sub

stance


Status in program

+




+







+

+

+




+




Embedded in curriculum

+




+










+













Development and skills


































Facilitating skills development






















+










Value academic development































Profes

sional


Stimulating reflection






















+










Tutoring development







+

+










+










Change management







+




+




+













Rater reliability




+

+

+

+










+




Prac

tical


Criteria for assessment




+

+

+

+










+







Providing credits

+




+




+



















Value of adding assessed products

+































Technical aspects







+










+













Ownership and demands faculty

+

+










+












+: similarity found


Problems in bold have been investigated but not been recognised in the empirical study.
Some authors use different terms compared with the problems in the empirical study. Woodward, for example, has mentioned “continuity throughout the process” as a problem. This problem has a close relationship with the way a portfolio is embedded in the curriculum. Driessen et al. (in press) conclude that students do not have the opportunity to have a sufficient variety and quantity of interesting experiences as subjects of reflection. This obstacle is related to concerns the way skills development is facilitated.

Several authors have mentioned problems that were not covered in the empirical study. Some of them are very specific (e.g. cyber-plagiarism and free speech, DiBiase 2002; activities not clearly explained, Fournie & Van Niekerk 1999; potential employers not interested in portfolios, Wright et al. 1999). The match between the conclusions of the different authors according to problems in using portfolios and the problems described in section 3 differs very much, as table 5.2 illustrates:


Table 5.2: match number of problems literature and Rubens & Oost (2005)





Number of problems

Match with Rubens & Oost (%)

Woodward (1998)

5

100

Anderson & Bachor (1998)

5

60

Wright et al. (1999)

21

38

Fournie & Van Niekerk (1999)

9

33

Klenovski (2000)

4

100

Zeichner & Wray (2001)

5

40

Van Tartwijk et al. (2004)

4

100

Driessen et al. (in press)

4

100

DiBiase (2002)

6

33

Acker (2005)

3

33

To sum up, it can be concluded:



  1. The problems “status in program” and “criteria for assessment” match at least five other articles.

  2. It is obvious that several authors mention “rater reliability” as a serious issue, while the respondents in the empirical study did not perceive this as a problem.

  3. Different authors often mentioned the time-consuming impact and workload of working with a portfolio. In the empirical study this was only a small aspect of change management.

  4. Some other problems described in literature (like the lack of skills by students to compile a portfolio, Wright et.al 1999), were not mentioned at all by the respondents of the empirical study, although these respondents had the opportunity to do this. Possibly, it requires too much imagination to picture a new problem (cluster) after digesting fourteen clusters of problems .

  5. A final striking difference between the articles in the literature study and the results of the empirical study is the (absence of a) weighing-factor. Weighing the problems provides a new perspective on the results, as table 5.1 suggests. Several authors hardly mention substantial problems while other authors more or less focus on substantial and professional problems.

A more systematic large-scale research on problems in using (electronic) portfolios is needed. The used questionnaire “Inventory of Portfolio Problems” (IPP) can be adapted by using problems and constraints found by other authors. It is recommended to use a classification of grades of problems, since problems have different weights: not every problem has the same impact on the adoption of the (electronic) portfolio within an organisation. In fact, set in a wider context of university policy grading portfolio problems is a prerequisite.


Literature

Acker, S. (2005) Overcoming Obstacles to Authentic ePortfolio Assessment. Retrieved on July, 6, 2005 on: http://www.campus-technology.com/print.asp?ID=10788


Anderson, J.O. & Bachor, D.G. (1998) “A Canadian perspective on portfolio use in student assessment”, Assessment in education, Vol 5, No. 3, pp353-380
Barrett, H.C. (2005). Researching Electronic Portfolios and Learner Engagement. White paper, retrieved on July, 7, 2005 on http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/whitepaper.pdf.
DiBiase, D. (2002) Using e-Portfolios at Penn State to Enhance Student Learning. Status, Prospects, and Strategies, retrieved on July, 6, 2005 on https://www.e-education.psu.edu/portfolio/e-port_report.pdf
Driessen, E.W., Tartwijk, J. van, Overeem, K. Vermunt, J.D. & Vleuten, C.P.M. van der (in press) “Conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios”, Medical Education (accepted, not yet published)
Fourie, I & Niekerk, D. van (1999) “Using portfolio assessment in a module in research information skills”, Education for Information, Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp333-352
Klenovski, V. (2000) “Portfolios: promoting teaching”, Assessment in education, Vol 7, No. 2, pp215-236
Linn, R.L. & Gronlund, N.E. (2000) “Section 12: Portfolios”, Measurement and Assessment in Teaching, 8th Ed. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pecheone, R.L., Pigg, M.J., Chung, R.R. & Souviney, R.J. (2005) “Performance Assessment and Electronic Portfolios. Their Effect on Teacher Learning and Education”, Clearing House, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp164-176
Schaaf, M. van der, Stokking, K., Verloop, N. (2005) “Cognitive representations in raters' assessment of teacher portfolios”, Studies in educational evaluation, Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp27-55
Tartwijk, J. van, Driessen, E., & Rubens, W. (2004) “Functions of electronic portfolio's in higher education” P. Boezerooy & P. Gorissen (Eds.), Dutch e-learning in Europe, Utrecht: Surf Foundation, pp8-10
Wright, W.A. , Knight, P.T & Pomerleau, N. (1999) “Portfolio People: Teaching and Learning Dossiers and Innovation in Higher Education”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol 24, No. 2, pp89-103.
Woodward, H. (1998) “Reflective Journals and Portfolios: Learning Through Assessment”,

Assessment and evaluation in higher education, Vol 23, No. 4, pp415-424
Zeichner, K. & Wray, S. (2001) “The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: what we know and what we need to know”, Teaching and Teacher Education Vol 17, No. 5, pp613-621
Zubizarreta, J. (2005) The Learning Portfolio. Reflective Practice for Improving Student Learning, Anker Publishing Company, Bolton

About the authors

Wilfred Rubens works as e-learning consultant. He is member of the Special Interest Group NL Portfolio of the Dutch Surf Foundation. Heinze Oost is associate professor of education. His work focuses on academic skills, in particular the education of research skills.

Corresponding address
Utrecht University

IVLOS Institute for Education

P.O. Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht

Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CS Utrecht

The Netherlands

tel. +31 30 253 3914

fax +31 30 253 4262

E-mail: g.f.l.m.rubens@ivlos.uu.nl








Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11


The database is protected by copyright ©psyessay.org 2017
send message

    Main page
mental health
health sciences
gandhi university
Rajiv gandhi
Chapter introduction
multiple choice
research methods
south africa
language acquisition
Relationship between
qualitative research
literature review
Curriculum vitae
early childhood
relationship between
Masaryk university
nervous system
Course title
young people
Multiple choice
bangalore karnataka
state university
Original article
academic performance
essay plans
social psychology
psychology chapter
Front matter
United states
Research proposal
sciences bangalore
Mental health
compassion publications
workplace bullying
publications sorted
comparative study
chapter outline
mental illness
Course outline
decision making
sciences karnataka
working memory
Literature review
clinical psychology
college students
systematic review
problem solving
research proposal
human rights
Learning objectives
karnataka proforma