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



Download 193.64 Kb.
Page7/11
Date22.04.2018
Size193.64 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

3. Results empirical study

Firstly the recognised problems are described briefly and presented in order of frequency. Secondly, the problems are weighted.


3.1. Problems in order of frequency


Respondents recognised – at least in part – an average of six out of fourteen clusters of problems presented to them, ranging from two problems to twelve. Half of the respondents recognised four to six problems.
Table 3.1: problems in order of frequency


Problem area

Total

Complete*

Partly**

  1. Criteria for assessment

7

6

1

  1. Stimulating reflection

7

5

2

  1. Tutoring development

7

3

4

  1. Providing credits

6

6

-

  1. Status in program

6

6

-

  1. Embedded in curriculum

6

4

2

  1. Change management

6

4

2

  1. Development and skills

6

2

4

  1. Facilitating skills development

5

4

1

  1. Value of adding assessed products

4

4

-

  1. Technical aspects

4

3

1

  1. Ownership and demands faculty

3

3

-

  1. Rater reliability

3

3

-

  1. Value academic development

2

0

2

* Complete = number of respondents which recognise a problem completely



** Partly = number of respondents which recognise a problem partly
The researchers defined a problem as a common problem if at least five respondents have recognised it partly.

3.1.1. Criteria for assessment


The first and most recognised problem is the lack of clear and transparent criteria for assessing portfolios. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
Tutors do not have transparent and clear criteria for assessing a portfolio. Not having a certain standard, they find it difficult to assess very different portfolios. Tutors want standardisation. This might contradict the principle of a student being the owner of his of her portfolio (and subsequently the autonomous constructor and designer of this portfolio – see ‘Ownership and demands faculty’’).
Seven respondents recognise this problem (about 60%), six completely and one partly. Three respondents do not recognise the problem (25%). Two respondents withhold a judgement.

3.1.2. Stimulating reflection


The second problem is stimulating reflection. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
In some programs the portfolio is (a. o.) a reflection tool. Tutors have difficulty in facilitating reflection. It is not a self-evident part of their image of teaching; as little as it is a self-evident part of their students’ image of learning. Students look at reflection as something difficult and complex and see no point in doing it.
Seven respondents recognise this problem (about 60%), five completely, two partly. Two respondents do not recognise the problem (about 15%). Three respondents withhold a judgement.

3.1.3. Tutoring development


The third problem has to do with tutoring academic development. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
The portfolio is used to provide insight in the development of students’ competences. At the same time there is not much tutoring available (or even absent). Furthermore, tutors are not enough equipped to guide students in a proper way.
Seven respondents recognise this problem (about 60%), three completely, four partly. Four respondents do not recognise the problem (about 35%). One respondent withholds a judgement.

3.1.4. Providing credits


The fourth problem concerns the provision of credits. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
Constructing and keeping a portfolio is compulsory. Students do not always receive credits for it, although credits are very important for bachelor students at a university. Constructing and keeping a portfolio, without getting credits for it, hinders the adoption of the portfolio.
Six respondents recognise this problem (50%). Three respondents do not recognise the problem (25%). The other three respondents withhold a judgement (25%).

3.1.5. Status in program


The fifth problem is related to the status of the portfolio in the program. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
Students and tutors do not have the impression that the portfolio is taken seriously as an instrument for education.
Six respondents recognise this problem (50%). Five respondents do not recognise the problem (about 40%). One respondent withholds a judgement.

3.1.6. Embedded in curriculum


The sixth problem concerns the way the portfolio is embedded in the curriculum of the program. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
In fact, the portfolio is no part of the curriculum. It is a foreign body within the curriculum.
Six respondents recognise this problem at least partly (50%). The other respondents do not recognise the problem (50%).

3.1.7. Change Management


Problem seven concerns change management that is needed to implement and use a portfolio. In the research this problem was defined as follows:

The educational management related to the implementation of the portfolio has been insufficient; for example, there are difficulties in developing, tutoring and assessing the portfolio (in terms of credits, tutoring time, double rating or assessment appeal). Furthermore, the quality of supervision by the tutor is not monitored adequately, no more than the quality of the portfolio construction and maintenance by the student.
Six respondents recognise this problem at least partly (50%). Four respondents do not recognise the problem (about 35%). Two respondents withhold a judgement (about 15%).

3.1.8. Development and skills


The eighth problem has to do with the reduction of academic development to academic skills. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
Academic development is reduced to academic skills with a strong emphasis on communication skills (writing and speaking). There is not much attention for development aims. The focus is on teaching aims, especially teaching aims that point at general professional competences.
Six respondents recognise this problem at least partly (50%). The other respondents do not recognise the problem (50%).

3.1.9. Facilitating skills development


The ninth problem concerns the way skills development is facilitated. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
Well-developed skills curricula are lacking. While detailed skills lists have been used (like the famous Osiris*-table, which was unrightfully regarded as standard for finishing levels), students are in want of facilities to practice skills. Furthermore, passing a module implies the acquisition of knowledge and skills, assessed separately or otherwise, at the risk of not having developed the skills sufficiently. Besides, since the assessment is registered in Osiris*, the portfolio does not have added value.
* Osiris is the study registration system of Utrecht University.
Five respondents recognise this problem at least partly (about 40%). Six respondents do not recognise the problem (50%). One respondent judges the problem as not applicable for her program (medical internships).

3.1.10. Value of adding assessed products


The tenth problem is the value of adding products, which are already assessed to the portfolio. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
It has been made obligatory to insert certain already assessed student products in the portfolio (e.g. reports). There is no added value in doing this.
Four respondents recognise this problem (about 35%). The other eight respondents do not recognise the problem (about 65%).

3.1.11. Technical aspects


The eleventh problem concerns technical aspects of the electronic portfolio. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
Though strongly improved in the mean time, the electronic portfolio still does not work faultless (accessibility portal, authorization of students to publish their portfolio).
Four respondents recognise this problem (about 35%). Five respondents do not recognise the problem (about 40%). The other three respondents withhold a judgement (25%).

3.1.12. Ownership and demands faculty


The twelfth problem is the relationship between ownership and the demands, formulated by the faculty. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
On the one hand the portfolio has been passed into the ownership of the student, on the other hand the faculty makes strict demands upon the structure and content of the portfolio. Both principles are at daggers drawn.
Three respondents recognise this problem (25%). The other nine respondents do not recognise the problem (75%).

3.1.13. Rater reliability


The thirteen’s problem is the reliability of the portfolio assessment. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
Only one assessor assesses the portfolio. With that the reliability of portfolio assessment incur risks.
Three respondents recognise this problem (25%). Seven respondents do not recognise the problem (about 60%). The other two respondents withhold a judgement (about 15%).

3.1.14. Value academic development


The fourteenth and therefore least recognised problem is the value and need of academic development. In the research this problem was defined as follows:
In daily practice of higher education the value and need of explicit attention for academic development is often not acknowledged sufficiently (by tutors and students). Furthermore, tutors do experience the increased freedom to choose as quality loss (less compulsory content-related modules). This indirectly effects the portfolio negatively.
Two respondents recognise this problem (about 15%). Eight respondents do not recognise the problem (about 65%). The other two respondents withhold a judgement (about 15%).

3.2. Extent and gravity


Section 3.1 provides an overview of the problems in order of frequency (table 3.1). This overview makes clear that most of the respondents recognise the lack of clear and transparent criteria for assessing portfolios as a problem. The value and need of explicit attention for academic development is least recognised as a problem.
Nevertheless, for a thorough understanding of the results, problems’ frequency is not sufficient. The above-mentioned problems do not have the same impact on portfolio acceptance. Therefore it is suggested to grade the problems. In distinguishing problems, the researchers graded them as follows:
Grade 1: Problems of substance

Grade 2: Professional problems

Grade 3: Practical problems
A problem of substance is a grade one problem because it affects the elected educational concept itself, i.e. it implicitly or explicitly involves a debate about academic education and portfolio use. A professional problem is classified in another, lower grade than one of substance because not the underlying idea is at issue but rather the competences (and their application) of students, teachers and educational managers. A practical problem is one that can be regarded as being of the lowest grade, not because the solution to it is simple but because it is one that involves tools or the organisation. Seen thus, the problems appear in a different perspective.
Table 3.2 provides an overview of the problems in order of their weight. Within every group the order is determined by frequency.
Table 3.2: problems in order of weight


Description problem

Total

Completely*



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