Get documents about "This paper will be the first to assess the extent to which
Shared by: Z7BS3Sc
-
Stats
- views:
- 0
- posted:
- 11/22/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 8
Document Sample
Facilitating Reflective Practice For Pre-Service Teachers Through
Electronic Portfolio Development
Jing Qi, Ed.D.
Joyce L. Morris, Ed.D.
Sandra A. Lathem, M.Ed.
University of Vermont
USA
jqi@uvm.edu
jmorris@uvm.edu
slathem@uvm.edu
Kirk Vandersall
Arroyo Research Services
USA
kirk@arroyoresearchservices.com
Abstract: The Electronic Portfolio Connection at the University of Vermont sponsored by PT3
initiatives has produced substantial increases in the technology proficiency of pre-service teachers;
however, the degree to which the process of electronic portfolio development improves students‟
reflective thinking remains to be further examined. This paper analyzed data collected through 100
students‟ surveys, scores of 44 electronic portfolios, and information captured through three focus
group discussions with pre-service teachers. Preliminary findings suggest that electronic portfolio
development should be an accumulative process, during which students should be encouraged and
instructed to collect and organize their digital artifacts early on in their programs. The study implies
that pre-service teachers‟ understanding of artifacts and reflection alignment plays an essential role
in the quality of reflective writing revealed in electronic portfolios.
Introduction
The concept of portfolio has been adopted to serve as a vehicle for collection, selection and reflection
in a variety of professions (e.g., artists, architects, journalists, etc.). In education, a portfolio is perceived as a
means to capture the complexities of learning and teaching (Doig, Illsley, McLuckie, & Parsons, 2006).
Reflective thinking entails analyzing, comparing, synthesizing, clarifying and choosing, which is manifested in
reflective writing. Reflective practice is considered to be the core of education (Cartwright, 1962). As electronic
portfolio use has risen in prominence, much of the evidence supports the notion that the development and use of
electronic portfolio fosters deep learning (Tosh, Light, Fleming, & Haywood, 2005) and capture reflective
thinking.
This paper will identify essential elements that contribute to the quality of electronic portfolios and
focuses on collection of artifacts and reflective practice (Lynch & Purnawarman, 2004; Wade & Abrami, 2005).
Specifically, this paper aims to identify ways to support students to create electronic portfolios that demonstrate
cohesive artifact selection and reflective writing by analyzing data from student portfolio scores, student survey
results and focus group interviews. To examine the quality of electronic portfolios that pre-service teachers
created, forty-four (44) final eportfolios (developed in Mozilla Composer with customized frameworks) were
selected and scored. A student survey was constructed to facilitate an inquiry of students‟ previous experience in
creating a portfolio. This paper reports a few of the results from a mixed method analysis of these variables.
The paper is organized as follows: A description of students‟ survey results is presented to underline
key elements related to students‟ overall perception towards electronic portfolio construction. The underlying
hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between pre-service teachers‟ technology proficiency and
their use of technology in assessment is then discussed, followed by a description of the data and the results. In-
depth analysis and interpretation of students‟ focus group interviews is performed to generate a deeper
understanding of the elements leading to reflective practice during the electronic portfolio development process.
Methodology
This study employed the survey data collected from 100 students from the College of Education and
Social Services at the University of Vermont (UVM). The survey was given to students prior to their licensure
portfolio development.
In addition, 44 electronic portfolios were collected through the year of 2002, 2005 and 2006 from the
students of elementary, middle and secondary level programs and physical education program at UVM. The
portfolios were then sent to an outside evaluator to be scored with a rubric developed by Arroyo Research
Services. The portfolio results were analyzed to examine quality of the electronic portfolios from five aspects:
Artifact selection (the degree of portfolio artifacts presented were central to the portfolio
themes, contained rich information about the themes, and exhibited a connection between
earlier and later work and experiences in the program)
Reflection (the depth and quality of the student‟s reflection in education theory and practice)
Collaboration (the breath of collaborative efforts)
Assessment (effectiveness of selection and use of assessment strategies and a variety of
assessment tools to assess students‟ performance)
Student‟s technology proficiency (the depth and breath of application of technology in
classroom activities)
Furthermore, this study employed the information collected through three students focus group
sessions that were facilitated in Spring of 2006 at UVM. The students who participated in focus group
discussions were pre-service teachers of elementary, middle and physical education programs. Participates were
in the process of constructing their licensure portfolios when the focus group sessions were conducted. Middle
level education and physical education programs had mandatory electronic licensure portfolios, whereas
electronic portfolio was accepted as an option together with paper portfolio in the elementary education program.
Survey Results
A statistical analysis of students‟ survey results was employed to examine students‟ previous
experiences and their perceptions towards an electronic portfolio. Data used in this analysis were collected
through a student survey (n=100) conducted by the PT3 Electronic Portfolio Connection team. The survey was
designed by Arroyo Research Services, the project external evaluator and the Electronic Portfolio Connection
team. All together, one hundred students responded to the survey with three sets of missing data.
Students‟ perceptions related to their experience with portfolio development were queried through
eleven questions, and the response was scaled from one to seven. One referred to „Strongly Disagree,‟ four
echoed „Neutral‟ and seven represented „Strongly Agree.‟ At the end of survey, students were asked to select an
option of either an eportfolio or a paper portfolio as the kind of licensure portfolio that they would submit or had
submitted.
Students‟ overall perspectives on portfolio development, in general, appear to be neutral to positive
(4.17 to 5.63) (see descriptive statistics in Table 1)
Table 1: Student Survey Responses Concerning Portfolio Development Process
N Min Max Mean Std. Dev
I was introduced to the idea of maintaining a portfolio very quickly,
97 1.00 7.00 5.2062 1.49261
once I declared an interest in becoming a teacher.
I have been collecting artifacts that demonstrate my learning from the
97 2.00 7.00 5.4227 1.31367
beginning of my pre-service teacher training.
I always collect artifacts from my courses or field assignments to
demonstrate my learning or progress towards teaching standards; this 96 2.00 7.00 5.4167 1.26213
has become a standard part of my training process.
As part of the process of creating and collecting artifacts, I spend
some time reflecting on what each artifact demonstrates about my 97 1.00 7.00 4.9897 1.16811
own learning.
As part of the process of creating and collecting artifacts, I spend
some time reflecting on what each artifact says about what a P-12 96 1.00 7.00 5.0104 1.20957
student could learn or has learned.
Every artifact I choose to save says something important about my
95 3.00 7.00 5.6316 1.03196
learning.
My professors or my field supervisor frequently provide feedback,
96 1.00 7.00 5.5625 1.32039
either on my artifacts or on my reflection about them.
Other pre-service teachers frequently comment on my artifacts or my
94 1.00 7.00 4.5957 1.45409
reflections about those artifacts.
I frequently share artifacts that I am considering for my portfolio - or
96 1.00 7.00 4.1667 1.57391
reflections about those artifacts - with other pre-service teachers.
I frequently comment on artifacts or reflections other pre-service
95 1.00 7.00 4.2105 1.50103
teachers artifacts are considering for their portfolio.
In my teacher-training program, students can submit their portfolio in
94 1.00 7.00 5.2553 1.51648
phases, get feedback from a professor, and revise it as needed.
Valid N (listwise) 89
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=disagree a little, 4=neither agree nor disagree, 5=agree a little, 6=agree, 7=strongly agree
Eleven questions related to students‟ experience with the development of their portfolios were
proposed in the survey. A correlation matrix was examined to identify potential groups of variables that
correlated with each other. The result indicated that four out of the eleven questions tended to infer students‟
perspectives on reflection upon each artifact selected and presented correlated with each other, five questions of
students‟ perceptions on peer feedback and immediate feedback from instructors/field supervisors during
portfolio development correlated with each other, and the other three questions related to artifacts collection
correlated with each other.
Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed using SPSS on 11 items for a
sample of 100 students. Table 2 shows that 65.2% of total variance in 11 variables could be explained by three
components and three factors that were extracted.
Table 2: Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Comp Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 4.350 39.544 39.544 4.350 39.544 39.544 2.617 23.792 23.792
2 1.677 15.242 54.786 1.677 15.242 54.786 2.301 20.921 44.713
3 1.146 10.417 65.203 1.146 10.417 65.203 2.254 20.490 65.203
4 .841 7.644 72.847
5 .764 6.944 79.791
6 .683 6.213 86.004
7 .549 4.994 90.998
8 .328 2.980 93.977
9 .317 2.886 96.863
10 .192 1.750 98.613
11 .153 1.387 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 3 shows a rotated component matrix and three factors loaded highly on the variables that were
identified through correlation matrix -- ranging from 0.617 to 0.869 (bold figures in Table 3). The first factor
loaded primarily on peer feedback, peer review and constructive comment from peers, the second factor was
manifested in student‟s reflective thinking of each artifacts and frequent comment provided by professors/field
supervisors concerning either the artifacts or reflection, and the third factor was related to artifacts collection.
Students who rated high on peer feedback (positive) tended to agree upon artifacts/reflection sharing.
Participants who agreed on the practice of artifacts collection and reflection revealed that they tended to receive
frequent feedback from their professors/field supervisors.
Table 3: Factor Loadings - Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2 3
I was introduced to the idea of maintaining a portfolio very quickly, once I declared an
.079 .112 .617
interest in becoming a teacher.
I have been collecting artifacts that demonstrate my learning from the beginning of my
.205 .071 .845
pre-service teacher training.
I always collect artifacts from my courses or field assignments to demonstrate my
learning or progress towards teaching standards; this has become a standard part of my .114 .187 .745
training process.
As part of the process of creating and collecting artifacts, I spend some time reflecting
.113 .633 .499
on what each artifact demonstrates about my own learning.
As part of the process of creating and collecting artifacts, I spend some time reflecting
-.087 .694 .433
on what each artifact says about what a P-12 student could learn or has learned.
Every artifact I choose to save says something important about my learning. .164 .618 .198
My professors or my field supervisor frequently provide feedback, either on my
.491 .634 -.120
artifacts or on my reflection about them.
Other pre-service teachers frequently comment on my artifacts or my reflections about
.813 .266 .187
those artifacts.
I frequently share artifacts that I am considering for my portfolio - or reflections about
.869 .112 .272
those artifacts - with other pre-service teachers.
I frequently comment on artifacts or reflections other pre-service teachers artifacts are
.867 .156 .069
considering for their portfolio.
In my teacher-training program, students can submit their portfolio in phases, get
.317 .689 .009
feedback from a professor, and revise it as needed.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Specifically, students who revealed extensive experience in peer feedback (Other pre-service teachers
frequently comment on my artifacts or my reflections about those artifacts -- 0.813) were likely to value the
practice of artifacts sharing (I frequently share artifacts that I am considering for my portfolio - or reflections
about those artifacts - with other pre-service teachers -- 0.869), and tended to provide feedback for the work of
other pre-service teachers (I frequently comment on artifacts or reflections other pre-service teachers artifacts
are considering for their portfolio -- 0.867). On the other hand, students‟ greater depth of experience in artifact
collection reflects their better positive practice of reflecting on essential artifacts they collected, and vice versa.
(I have been collecting artifacts that demonstrate my learning from the beginning of my pre-service teacher
training -- 0.845. I always collect artifacts from my courses or field assignments to demonstrate my learning or
progress towards teaching standards; this has become a standard part of my training process -- 0.745).
The analysis suggests that faculty members and field supervisors should encourage pre-service teachers
to collect artifacts early on in their programs; Reflection upon each teaching episode should be clearly indicated
in assessment rubric; And faculty members should provide direct feedback, meanwhile facilitate peer feedback.
Consequently, reflective thinking on each artifact will be practiced and enhanced. Peer feedback and instructors‟
immediate feedback are valued by students who have certain experience in receiving constructive feedback. Yet
in this study, we cannot infer that deeper reflection is caused by more detailed artifact collection; however, we
do know that students who demonstrate deeper reflection tend to collect more artifacts earlier.
Given that students responded to the survey prior to their completion of licensure portfolios, it is
worthwhile to evaluate the quality of students‟ final portfolios. Forty-four (n=44) electronic portfolios
developed by educational students of UVM with a generic tool (Mozilla Composer) were selected. Arroyo
Research Services developed a portfolio review protocol to score each portfolio that we collected. Five aspects
of a portfolio were reviewed and graded based on a rubric revealed in the protocol: artifact selection, reflection,
collaboration, assessment and technology proficiency.
Portfolio Scores
It is necessary to note that when our study was in process, it was mandatory for students in the middle
level education program to complete their licensure portfolio electronically with the tool of Mozilla Composer,
and elementary level education program students were given the option to either construct a paper portfolio or
an electronic portfolio using a customized framework. Physical education program also required its pre-service
teachers to develop their licensure portfolio electronically. Despite the struggles to embrace the electronic
portfolio process, more than fifty percent (50%) of elementary program students decided to develop an
electronic portfolio in the fall of 2005, and eighteen (18) out of thirty five students (35) completed an electronic
licensure portfolio in spring of 2006. Among 44 electronic portfolios that were scored, 24 were from elementary
level programs, eight were collected from students of middle level program, three were developed by physical
education pre-service teachers, and the rest were from secondary education program.
In this study, a rubric developed by Arroyo Research Service was adopted to mark each individual
portfolio. In general, five aspects of a portfolio were examined and scored respectively: Artifact selection,
reflection, collaboration, assessment, and technology proficiency. Each reviewed area was evaluated with four
scales from one (no evidence) to four (ample evidence) to reflect the quality of it.
Table 4: Portfolio Scores (n=44)
N Min Max Mean Std. Dev
Artifacts were central to the portfolio themes 44 2.00 4.00 3.5682 .66114
Artifacts demonstrated connections between earlier and later
work and experiences in the program 44 1.00 4.00 3.0000 1.01156
Artifacts contained rich information, providing evidence that
44 2.00 4.00 3.5682 .69542
this student understood what was being asked of them
Reflection arising from university education courses, including
44 1.00 4.00 3.1136 .92046
reflection on education theory and practice
Reflection on student teaching and related teaching experiences 44 1.00 4.00 3.0455 1.03327
Reflection on individual P-12 students and their response to the
portfolio creator as a teacher 44 1.00 4.00 3.0000 1.03430
Collaboration with fellow pre-service teachers 44 1.00 4.00 2.2727 1.38704
Collaboration and communication with in-service teachers 44 1.00 4.00 3.1364 .95457
Collaboration regarding instructional decision making (e.g.
how to handle a particular student learning needs) 44 1.00 4.00 2.7955 1.00185
Collaborative lesson planning 44 1.00 4.00 2.7500 1.05929
The pre-service teacher uses a variety of tools to assess
44 1.00 4.00 2.8864 1.01651
students they teach
The student demonstrates strong skill in selecting and using
44 1.00 4.00 2.8636 1.00211
assessment strategies
The pre-service teacher uses technology tools to analyze
44 1.00 3.00 1.1364 .46209
student assessment and achievement data
The pre-service teacher uses a variety of technology supported
44 1.00 4.00 1.9318 .99762
teaching strategies with students
The pre-service teacher makes research-based decisions about
selecting and using technology in his or her classroom 44 1.00 2.00 1.0455 .21071
Valid N (listwise) 44
1=No evidence, 2=Limited evidence, 3=Some evidence, but needs more, 4=Ample evidence
Table 5: Correlations
The pre-service
The pre-service The pre-service teacher teacher uses a
teacher uses makes research-based variety of
technology tools to decisions about technology
analyze student selecting and using supported teaching
Technology assessment and technology in his or her strategies with
Proficiency achievement data classroom students
Technology Proficiency 1 .213 .231 .655(**)
The pre-service teacher uses
technology tools to analyze
.213 1 -.065 .222
student assessment and
achievement data
The pre-service teacher makes
research-based decisions about
.231 -.065 1 .015
selecting and using technology in
his or her classroom
The pre-service teacher uses a
variety of technology supported .655(**) .222 .015 1
teaching strategies with students
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The descriptive analysis presented in Table 4 shows that pre-service teachers were able to demonstrate
evidence of competency in both artifacts collection and reflection to a reasonable degree. However, their use of
technology in classroom teaching and assessment lacks evidence. Portfolio scores reveal that students managed
fairly well to collect artifacts, select them, convert some into digital formats, and store the artifacts to preferred
entries. It is somewhat evident that artifacts are central to the portfolio theme (3.57), and artifacts contain rich
information, providing evidence that this student understood what was being asked of them (3.57). The
portfolios demonstrate some evidence of students‟ reflection; however, the evidence of reflection is not ample
compared to the breath of artifacts collected. Both breath and depth of students‟ reflective thinking needs to be
advanced; specifically, in the area of reflection arising from university education courses, including reflection
on education theory and practice (3.11), reflection on student teaching and related teaching experiences (3.05),
and reflection on individual P-12 students and their response to the portfolio creator as a teacher (3.00).
A standard correlation was performed through SPSS between technology proficiency and technology
use in assessment and teaching. A correction between pre-service teachers‟ technology proficiency and their use
of technology in classroom teaching is obtained (r*r=0.655, p<0.000). The result indicated that once pre-service
teachers became familiar with Mozilla Composer and gained confidence in computer skills, they reported that
the process of creating portfolios was relatively straightforward. Therefore, it is instructive to use electronic
portfolio help pre-service teachers conceptualize instructional technology and apply it to their classroom
teaching and/or assessment.
Student reflection in electronic portfolios is demonstrated by their reflective writing. To perform good
reflective writing, pre-service teachers need to understand what is expected of them and have to be engaged in
the process of reflective writing. Reflective writing and artifacts collection are two individual pieces that
reinforce one another, that is, sophisticated technology skills may facilitate the alignment of reflection and
artifact selection.
Focus Group Sessions
In order to better understand and describe pre-service teachers‟ reflective practice involved in
electronic portfolio development, student focus group interviews were conducted. This study examined and
analyzed information collected from three focus group sessions with students of elementary level education
(conducted in March of 2006), middle level education (facilitated in April of 2006) and physical education
(conducted in March of 2006). All three sessions were facilitated by Arroyo Research Services. Participants
were queried on their opinions regarding the licensure portfolio requirement and how this process was
supported in their classes by UVM College of Education and Social Services (CESS) instructors.
All three programs used the web publishing tool Mozilla Composer to construct their electronic
portfolios. This tool allowed students to revise and modify their writing and to be selective of artifacts in a more
flexible manner than is possible with paper portfolios. Also, an electronic portfolio framework (i.e., a template)
was developed for students in each pre-service teacher program to adopt. The electronic portfolio framework
provided a semi-structured format to guide pre-service teachers to organize their teaching practice by reference
to evidence.
Students from all three groups generally indicated that they were introduced to the general requirement
of the teaching licensure portfolio early in their training in CESS, either in their first or sophomore year. But
they also stated that some of the information from professors regarding the portfolio had been rather vague.
“Since freshman year they‟ve been telling us to save stuff,” one respondent said, adding, “I think more could
have been done during the past three and a half years.” Another student said, “… [professors] just say collect,
collect, collect.” This view was echoed by many student respondents who stated that they were generally
informed quite early about the portfolio licensure requirement, but specific indicators about how to go about
building the portfolio did not come until later in their education. “A portfolio course would have been good in
our sophomore year,” one student said.
The focus group sessions also indicated that while students found several ways in which the portfolio
building requirement was helpful, they were also quite dubious as to its relevance to their future teaching career
and sometimes saw the portfolio as an obstacle that had to be completed rather than something that authentically
represents who they are as teachers or that will help them in their careers.
One the positive side, students indicated that the portfolio requirement had forced them to learn time
management skills because it is a labor intensive process added to what they considered to be an already full
academic schedule. Students also said that the portfolios help them represent what they do and their work
concisely. “[The portfolios help me learn] how you can get your point across in a few words,” one student said.
Another student said the portfolio is, “Portable and equally accessible to people even outside of education. It‟s
pretty neat that it‟s evidence that you can take with you pretty easily.”
Students also said that the portfolio helped them with their organization skills. “It can give you
direction for what else you need to do in your classroom,” one student said. Another student said, “It‟s made me
think about what the things are that I can do, to name them, and organize them and learn to talk about them.”
Students indicated that the portfolio can be useful as a record of what they‟ve done and learned during their
training. “I guess the one thing about making a portfolio is it makes you think, oh, wow, I really learned
something in all of this.”
The finding is somewhat consistent with what the statistical analysis revealed. In terms of the use of
technology, students had both negative and positive opinions about it; however, they generally recognized that it
was to their advantage to become skilled with technology even if they found it difficult. Although students‟
attitude toward the portfolios was typically not positive, they did indicate that it was helpful that they received
assistance from professors in supporting their portfolio development. Students also mentioned that the technical
support provided by the college was helpful.
Overall, three factors result in good quality electronic portfolio emerge from the discussions. The
design of frameworks within the electronic portfolio can be vitally important to encourage and stimulate the
reflective process. Constructive feedback given by instructors and field supervisors‟ appear to be crucial
elements to facilitate the reflective process. In addition, immediate technical support is reported to be essential.
Discussion
In the survey, students perceive that peer feedback and immediate feedback from instructors or field
supervisors are important methods to facilitate portfolio development. In fact, evidence of collaborative practice
with fellow pre-service teachers presented in students‟ electronic portfolios is relatively low (2.27), and
evidence of collaboration and communication with in-service teachers is slightly higher, yet not ample (3.13).
The consequences of not being able to employ technology skills at a level commensurate with one‟s
peers are not obvious. Interestingly, to some extent, lack of technology skills seemed to be used as an excuse
for a few students who were frustrated with portfolio development. Technical skills are vitally important to
enable students to create portfolios. Electronic portfolio development should be an accumulative process, and
students need to start early to collect artifacts and synchronize their reflection.
This observation reminds us again that reflective writing revealed in an electronic portfolio is not
correlated with students‟ technology proficiency level. It appears to be important to create a framework that
encourages students to identify and clarify their own values, attitudes and ways of thinking, and to increase
students‟ awareness and understanding of thinking of their peers. Pre-service teachers‟ understanding of
artifacts and reflection alignment emphasized in licensure portfolios also plays an essential role in the quality of
an electronic portfolio.
The outcomes of providing portfolio development oriented instructions for students are enriched
artifacts collection and improved computer skills. This proficiency in turn advances students toward
independence in organizing artifacts and producing reflection on their teaching, dispositions which hold the
potential to support their continued good practice in integrating technology into their teaching and assessment.
Summary and Suggestions
The results suggest that immediate and sufficient technical support is crucial during electronic portfolio
development. Specific and direct feedback from instructors allows students to focus and synthesize their
thoughts, which in part, result in prominent reflective writing revealed in an electronic portfolio. Peer feedback
promoted through electronic portfolio contributed to reflective thinking on both ends (the provider and the
receiver). The result also indicates that the quality of an electronic portfolio is not directly associated with
students‟ proficiency of technology. Students with limited technology skills can produce fine electronic
portfolios with a good quality as well as students demonstrate proficient technology skills can do. The key
element is that students need to be charged with responsibility to master technology skills commensurate with
their level of performance.
Meanwhile, we think it is valuable to broaden pre-service teachers‟ experiences in technology-aided
projects and planning electronic portfolio development experiences in such a way that their reflective practice is
promoted and technology skills are enriched. Ample technical assistance facilitates students‟ electronic portfolio
development. Students become less frustrated with use of technology after explicit and systematic technical
instructions are provided. As students are able to align their work with standards, they see value and relevance
to their artifact collection. When students‟ reflection about their teaching and learning is promoted during the
portfolio development process, students become more appreciative about the process.
Technology support efforts are crucial components in the portfolio process. Interventions for pre-
service teachers who integrate technology into class/classroom projects need to be addressed. Strategies to be
considered include introducing a variety of good reflective practice with the assistance of technology,
identifying students in need of extra support, planning and implementing intervention workshops that engage
students in portfolio development related practice, and monitoring progress in their electronic portfolio
development.
It may also be worthwhile to examine connections between portfolio development experiences and the
quality of students‟ final portfolio. We administered a student survey to examine their experience in portfolio
development at the beginning of semesters, and the survey was distributed to the students who had not yet
started building their licensure portfolio. One lesson we learned from this study is that the responses given by
students who have little experience in creating a portfolio contain limited information concerning portfolio
development, whereas information collected through a survey from students who have completed licensure
portfolios could reveal substantial data regarding reflective writing. Future studies are advised to administer a
survey after students complete their licensure portfolios in addition to a survey administered early on in the pre-
service teacher program.
References
Cartwright, R. (1962). Promoting student thinking. Journal of Educational Sociology, 36(1), 33-41.
Doig, B., Illsley, B., McLuckie, J., & Parsons, R. (2006). Using ePortfolios to enhance reflective learning and
development. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolios (pp.158-167). Idea Group
Reference, Hershey, PA.
Kyza, A. E., Edelson, C. D., Reiser, J. B. (2002). The role of computer-based cognitive artifacts in scaffolding
reflective inquiry. Proceedings of International Conference of Learning Science, 237-244.
Lynch, L. L., & Purnawarman P.(2004), Electronic portfolio assessments in U.S. Educational and Instructional
Technology programs: Are they supporting teacher education? TechTrends, 48, 50-56.
Tosh, D., Light, T., Fleming, K., & Haywood, J. (2005). Engagement with electronic portfolios: Challenges
from the student perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. Retrieved December 1, 2006,
from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vo131.3/tosh.html.
Wade, A., & Abrami, C. P. (2005). An electronic portfolio to support learning. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.3/wade.html.
