ePortfolio Framework Study.

Uploaded on:
Category: Product / Service
Basic statewide evaluation for all instructor training projects ... Basic instruction program purposeful curio improvement in particular courses ...
Slide 1

ePortfolio Scaffolding Study Sandra A. Lathem, Joyce L. Morris, Jing Qi The University of Vermont Kirk Vandersall Arroyo Research Services SITE 2007 San Antonio, Texas March 27, 2007

Slide 2

Electronic Portfolio Connection PT3 gift recompensed 2003 University of Vermont Lyndon, Johnson & Castleton State Champlain College IBM Reinventing Education Apple Computer Vermont Dept of Education Arroyo Research Services www.uvm.edu/pt3

Slide 3

UVM Scaffolding Study Conducted spring semester 2006 Examines three projects Elementary training Middle level training Physical training Relationship between instructional framework and … portfolio improvement innovation capability antiquity and reflection quality

Slide 4

Research Question 1 What is the confirmation that instructional platform in portfolio advancement and innovation abilities happens at the smaller scale (employee/understudy) and full scale (division/program) level?

Slide 5

Research Question 2 What is the relationship between the instructional platform that pre-administration instructors get and the nature of ancient rarities and reflections found in the licensure portfolio?

Slide 6

Research Question 3 What are UVM understudy states of mind about the licensure portfolio process in their projects?

Slide 7

Research Question 4 Will the quality in antique improvement and reflection contrast amongst paper and electronic portfolios?

Slide 8

Licensure in Vermont Governed by Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators (VSBPE) VSBPE regulates accreditation process through ROPA (Results Oriented Program Approval)

Slide 9

Five Standards for Teachers: A Vision for Schooling Learning (Expertise in Endorsement Area) Professional Knowledge (Methodology and Pedagogy) Colleagueship Advocacy Accountability

Slide 10

ROPA Scoring Rubric Common statewide appraisal for all instructor training programs Six sections Teaching Episodes (two scenes) Understanding Student Learning Accommodating Students Identified Teaching Over Time Colleagueship and Advocacy Self-reflection and Vision

Slide 11

Scaffolding Intentional arranging of educational module to compose errands and exercises to fabricate understanding Two levels - Micro (instructor/understudy) Macro (project or association) Consistent with contemporary hypothesis (Bransford) on How People Learn Prior information Metacognition

Slide 12

PT3 Professional Development Portfolio backing to workforce and understudies Creation of html layouts organized to meet ROPA measures

Slide 13

Methodology Exploratory Mixed Methods Student Surveys (n=100) Faculty Interviews (n=10) Faculty & Student Observations (n=3) Student Focus Groups (n=3; students= 38) Course Syllabi (n=34) Licensure Portfolio Review (n=35)

Slide 14

Findings-Question 1 What is the proof that instructional framework in portfolio improvement and innovation abilities happens at the smaller scale (employee/understudy) and large scale (division/program) levels? Smaller scale Level Many encounters in antique advancement Assignments intended for licensure portfolio curios Reliance on understudy educating for ancient rarity improvement Technology coordination less obvious Macro Level Middle level program most purposeful in portfolio development for students Courses distinguished for portfolio relic advancement Three undergrad portfolios created Elementary training program deliberate relic advancement in particular courses Artifact advancement driven by the ROPA scoring rubric

Slide 15

Findings-Question 2 What is the relationship between the instructional framework that pre-administration educators get and the quality and reflections found in the licensure portfolio? 35 licensure portfolios scored by Arroyo Research Services Elementary project 12 paper 15 electronic (utilizing layout) Middle level 8 electronic (utilizing format) Physical training Not scored - not able to gather Small specimen size is a confinement to discoveries.

Slide 16

Question 2 - Continued Arroyo Research Scoring Rubric (not ROPA) Artifact Selection Reflection Collaboration Assessment Technology Scale 1 = no confirmation 2 = constrained or negative proof 3 = some proof (however needs advancement) 4 = abundant proof

Slide 17

Findings 2 - proceeded with Weak scores in reflection, cooperation, appraisal. Factually noteworthy contrasts found between rudimentary & center level projects in a few regions. Further research required. Confirmation of innovation upheld showing procedures was low (mean 1.3143, sexually transmitted disease. .6761)

Slide 18

Findings - Question 3 What are UVM understudy states of mind about the licensure portfolio process in their projects? Do they feel sufficiently arranged by their course encounters? Understudy overviews 100 understudies (79 female, 19 male, 2 missing) Overall, a 50-50 split in assention about reason for portfolio process - concerning prologue to portfolios handle, its worth as an instrument to exhibit understudy learning, handiness of coordinated effort, reflection, & criticism. Center Group Sessions Portfolios greatly upsetting activity Like "taking a test" Lack of innovation aptitudes exceptionally unpleasant for a few understudies, particularly center level graduate understudies

Slide 19

Middle Level Focus Group

Slide 20

Findings - Question 4 Will the quality in ancient rarity improvement and reflection contrast amongst paper and electronic portfolios? Licensure portfolios (35 scored) 27 basic training 12 = paper 15 = electronic utilizing html format 8 center level 8 = electronic utilizing html layout Results Paper portfolios getting scores of 3 or 4 prevail in each scored measure, even confirmation concerning innovation upheld educating systems. Measurably huge distinction found. Little example size is a noteworthy restriction for these discoveries

Slide 21

Conclusion - 1 Scaffolding at both large scale & small scale levels is happening. Center level - most formative methodology at undergrad level; however post baccalaureate understudies don\'t profit by this methodology. ROPA scoring rubric drives antique improvement Students are conflicted about the procedure; numerous perspective it as a "test" as opposed to a depiction of expert development. Portfolio development is a distressing procedure.

Slide 22

Conclusion - 2 Reflection is frail - absence of time to create reflections, given substantial dependence on understudy instructing knowledge. Innovation proficiencies expected to create electronic portfolios utilizing html editors might obstruct quality & uprightness of portfolios. Nature of paper portfolios inspected were general higher than those created with a layout and html supervisor. Proceeded with examination is required.

Slide 23

www.uvm.edu/pt3 This paper, understudy review, ROPA rubric, portfolio scoring rubric, and The Five Standards reports are accessible on our site Click Research Click Papers and Presentations

Slide 24

Questions? For extra data, please contact the creators - Joyce Morris, Sandy Lathem, Jing Qi University of Vermont 802-656-4140 http://www.uvm.edu/pt3 Email: jmorris@uvm.edu , slathem@uvm.edu , jqi@uvm.edu Kirk Vandersall, Arroyo Research Services Email: kirk@arroyoresearchservices.com http://www.arroyoresearchservices.com 213-291-1556

View more...