Implementation of an ePortfolio Perspectives of speech pathology students Abigail Lewis and Katrina Strampel This paper has been peer reviewed. This paper is not for the Research theme.
Keywords ePortfolio, formative assessment, professional competency, students, summative assessment
In order to graduate, speech pathology students need to effectively apply taught theory to clients in their clinical practicum. Following graduation, students showcase their competency to employers in a challenging and competitive employment environment. Once employed, they engage in lifelong learning, demonstrating ongoing competency to practice. An ePortfolio is a collection of artefacts and reflections from clinical experiences that can be used as learning, assessment and showcasing tool. An ePortfolio was embedded across the new speech pathology course at Edith Cowan University. Student perceptions of the utility of the ePortfolio for learning and showcasing were investigated by questionnaire. Students were engaged with the ePortfolio, seeing it more as an organisational than learning tool. They were negative about the time required to complete an ePortfolio and did not see the link with their future career. With additional support and a more flexible and user-friendly software platform, an ePortfolio may be of use as a learning tool for students and for professional self-regulation.
Paper-based portfolios have been used as an assessment tool in higher education and to demonstrate learning for promotion or appraisal in the workplace for over twenty years (Klenowski, Askew, & Carnell, 2006). Since the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, the use of electronic portfolios (ePortfolios) has substantially increased in many universities across the world (Hallam & Creagh, 2010), and ePortfolios are used in disciplines such as teaching, nursing and medicine (Chou & Chen, 2008). The term ‘ePortfolio’ has many definitions in the literature depending on its context and purpose (Hallam & Creagh, 2010). The Australian ePortfolio Project (AeP) defines an ePortfolio as: “an electronically stored collection (or archive) of a student’s experiences, achievements and artefacts, together with their reflections on learning” (AeP, 2009, p. 2). The advantages of ePortfolios over traditional paper portfolios are ease of access, revision and updating, increased storage capacity, the inclusion of multimedia materials such as video and audio, use of hyperlinks; and the development of technological skills (Chou & Chen, 2008; Tochel et al., 2009). 1
A report documents how countries, such as Wales and the Netherlands, are using ePortfolios for all citizens (not just students) to support transitions, career development and lifelong learning, and recommends Australia follows suit (Leeson & Williams, 2009). Speech Pathology Australia (SPA) requires practising speech pathologists to continue learning and be certified in a commitment to self-regulation in line with other non-registered professions (SPA, 2014). An ePortfolio may be an effective tool for monitoring such a process (Gordon & Campbell, 2013), yet there is no research exploring this for speech pathologists (SPs). In Australia, universities offering speech pathology programs need to demonstrate to Speech Pathology Australia how their students meet the entry level requirement for the profession, using the Competency Based Occupational Standards for Speech Pathology (CBOS; SPA, 2011). As well as traditional oncampus teaching, universities ensure students have clinical practicums under the supervision of qualified practising speech pathologists. Students in speech pathology (SP) courses often report a disconnect between taught theory and applying that knowledge in clinical settings (Walden, 2010); therefore strengthening clinical practicum–theory links is important. An ePortfolio can be used as a learning tool to support students to make these links (Buckley et al., 2009). Universities need to evaluate the student’s learning in the clinical practicum. According to Yorke (2011), an appropriate and valid assessment would include an assessment of actual performance along with a record of performance and a reflection on learning in a portfolio format. The SP profession has a valid and reliable assessment of performance in COMPASS® (McAllister, Lincoln, Ferguson & McAllister, 2013) and the process of developing an ePortfolio for assessment would further demonstrate entry-level skills to university staff. For students, therefore, an ePortfolio is a tool for learning (process) and a product for the assessment of learning (Hallam & Creagh, 2010). While research is limited, there have been studies that show ePortfolios can be useful to support student learning; develop reflection, self-awareness and IT skills (Buckley et al., 2009); and foster increased responsibility for learning (Tochel et al., 2009). However, students may find an ePortfolio time-consuming and to ensure students’ engagement it must be aligned with course outcomes, linked to future careers, have a clear purpose and have clear guidelines (Buckley et al., 2009). Researchers have suggested that embedding ePortfolios across a whole course ensures the greatest benefits (Faulkner, Aziz, Waye, & Smith, 2013; Woodley & Sims, 2011). Furthermore, the ePortfolio platform needs to be user-friendly, flexible, transferable and have easy access (Gordon & Campbell, 2013) as well as be welldesigned and have good organisational support (Tochel et al., 2009). Student perspectives of ePortfolios have been reported in United States and the United Kingdom but research is limited and results are mixed (Buckley et al., 2009; Hallam & Creagh, 2010). Exploring student perspectives of an ePortfolio use across different cohorts is also relatively new (Chambers & Wickersan, 2007). As student participation is vital to the successful implementation of an ePortfolio, the investigation of student perspectives is required. Yet there is very little evidence of student perspectives of the ePortfolio in Australia (Hallam & Creagh, 2010) and no reports of SP students’ perspectives. Therefore, this project investigates students perceptions across a course of the validity of using an ePortfolio as a tool for learning and for showcasing their skills to future employers.
2
E-Portfolio implementation In 2010, an ePortfolio was embedded across the newly established four-year undergraduate SP course at Edith Cowan University as a learning tool and assessment task. The ePortfolio aimed to (a) engage students in collecting evidence of clinical competencies; (b) reflect upon their learning to strengthen the theory/clinical practicum links, (c) develop reflective practice; (d) evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses in order to set future clinical practicum goals; and (e) map their own hours across the range of practice. The SP course used My Expo as the ePortfolio platform as it was already in use by nursing and education courses within the university. A template with detailed assignment information and marking guides to cover all four years was developed in MyExpo that students downloaded once in the second semester of first year. The instructions were collated into a manual and a frequently asked questions document was available to students. The workload was designed to increase in complexity and volume as the student progressed through the course. Each semester the assessment was carefully explained to students and an opportunity to workshop the ePortfolio in a computer lab was available. The template for the students consisted of three parts: 1. Reflections on my learning – structured reflections about their learning on their practicum and about themselves as a speech pathologist. 2. My development of competency – uploaded evidence mapped against CBOS including a STAR-L (Situation, Task, Assessment, Results, Learning) reflective comment (AeP, 2009). 3. Record of clinical hours – records of hours, range of experience and learning contracts.
Method Participants In total, 53 students enrolled in years 2–4 of the speech pathology course at ECU were invited to participate in the study by announcements in lectures and being sent an e-mail link to an anonymous on-line questionnaire. Information about the project was given and e-mailed to students. Consent was given by completing the questionnaire. Repeat e-mails were sent out and the questionnaires were open for two months. Ethics approval was received from the University’s Research Ethics Office (No: 8307). The number of participants who responded in each cohort, their ages and number of years at university are shown in Table 1. The ePortfolio was used in the course for 18 months before the study commenced. Therefore, fourth and third year students had been using the ePortfolio for 18 months, and second year students for one year. (insert Table 1) Questionnaire This project used a mixed methods approach. Data was collected via a student questionnaire and additional qualitative data (not reported) was also collected through student focus groups. The questionnaire consisted of 4 forced choice questions, 30 statements and 3 free text questions (see Appendix). The forced
3
choice questions gathered demographic data and elicited comfort and confidence levels with technology. The statements were rated using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The statements related to topics such as engagement with the portfolio, using the technology, support and training given, the educational value of the portfolio (see Appendix). Some items were adapted from other questionnaires (Gardner & Aleksejuniene, 2008; Hrisos, Illing, & Burford, 2008). Free text questions asked students to identify the most useful components of the ePortfolio, the most difficult components and suggestions for improvements in the future use of ePortfolios. Analysis For the Likert-scale statements, the average of students’ responses was calculated, with a score below 3 being a negative response, 3 a neutral response and above 3 a positive response. The mean scores for each cohort were then calculated and interpreted with reference to free text responses. The three statements where this scoring is reversed are shaded in the tables.
Results Of the 53 students invited, 25 students participated (overall response rate 47%) in the study, with 6 second-year students (response rate 43%), 11 third year students (response rate 36%) and 8 fourth year students (response rate 53%) completing questionnaires. Technology Students’ ratings of their comfort and confidence with new technology are shown in Table 2. The mean score across all three cohorts indicated students were typically comfortable with technology and confident they could “work it out”. This implies an electronic platform would not be a barrier to participation and engagement in learning. However, in response to statements about the ePortfolio technology in particular, students’ responses were mixed. They did not think the ePortfolio was too technologically challenging, but most cohorts found the template design, structure and the platform were difficult to use and navigate (Table 3). (Insert Table 2) (Insert Table 3) In free text answers each cohort stated the technology was the most difficult part of utilising the ePortfolio: “sometimes a page would upload, others it wouldn’t, no way of personalising it, the more you add the messier it gets” (third year); “the formatting can be complex and sometimes it doesn’t work” (fourth year). Suggestions for improvements included: having an easier platform for the ePortfolio, faster uploading of evidence, easier ways of making links and a clearer ePortfolio structure. Support and training Third- and fourth-year students were neutral or positive about the support and training given to use the ePortfolio, as shown in Table 4. Second-year students did not find the support documents helpful and were unsure of the evidence to collect.
4
(Insert Table 4) Suggestions for improvements were having clearer expectations for each year, giving more training and giving a booklet of step by step instructions for users. Students also wanted more information about evidence: “a lot of great information and tutorials have been provided for the students ... More specific information about what is acceptable as evidence for third year, fourth year and the specific level of depth/ information required would be useful.” (fourth year)
Engagement Students answered questions eliciting their level of engagement (perceived value, learning achieved and time invested) with the ePortfolio and the results are shown in Table 5. Students were positive about the value and usefulness of the ePortfolio but fourth years felt the workload was excessive and not a worthwhile investment of time. There were several comments about the excessive time required to manage the technology of the software platform as well as the requirements of the task itself: “This system is too time consuming and requires far too much effort” (third year). (insert Table 5) Educational value Within the questionnaire, educational value statements explored how students perceived the ePortfolio as an enabler for developing skills and achieving learning objectives. Table 6 shows the students in the later years of the course did not see the educational value of the ePortfolio. Many students recognised the ePortfolio was useful as an organisational tool rather than a learning tool:“It is a great way to collate and organise your evidence” (third year). (insert Table 6) Reflection Statements relating to the Reflections section of the ePortfolio (Table 7) suggest that although SP students understood the concept of reflection they did not perceive that the ePortfolio contributed to the development of reflection. Some students thought reflections were one of the most useful things but others felt there were too many: “helping me learn how to reflect on my learning” (third year); “completing too many reflections to meet assessment criteria that I don’t get much out of” (third year). (insert Table 7) Development of skills Students’ perceptions of the use of an ePortfolio to accomplish specific tasks varied, with students being positive in second year, less positive in third year, then more positive in fourth year, as shown in Table 8. Students’ comments also varied: “Looking back at documents assists me to do better for subsequent tasks” (third year); “setting new goals each semester and then reflecting on those goals and then creating new goals has provided me with no benefit” (third year). (insert Table 8) 5
Future career Students did not see the value of the ePortfolio for their future career either as a showcasing tool or for lifelong learning (Table 9). Students commented that the ePortfolio needs to be “something constructive we can take with us when we graduate” (third year) which was not possible with the MyExpo platform. Other students wanted more information about using the ePortfolio in the future: “explain how we can use it once we are working and for job applications” (fourth year). (insert Table 9)
Discussion The results of the current study are somewhat consistent with those of Gardner and Aleksejuniene (2008) who investigated the experiences of a small group of dental students who opted to complete an ePortfolio task. They discussed four dimensions of ePortfolios that will now be discussed in relation to the current study: (a) ePortfolio learning requires technical skills that are manageable; (b) an ePortfolio is timeconsuming, but overall a useful experience; (c) an ePortfolio is a valuable learning tool; and (d) an ePortfolio is beneficial for lifelong learning. ePortfolio learning requires technical skills that are manageable SP students reported being comfortable and confident with using new technology, but reported the technology was the most difficult part of using the ePortfolio. Similar findings were not observed by Gardner and Aleksejuniene’s (2008) students, who used a different platform and voluntarily chose the ePortfolio task. Adoption of any new technology takes time and learners may not see the value in it (Buckley et al., 2009). Using a more flexible, user-friendly software platform and a better ePortfolio template would alleviate some of these frustrations. Students suggested explicit, timely and detailed training and support along with appropriate feedback would also better support the use of the technology. An ePortfolio is time-consuming, but overall a useful experience Students in later years of the SP course were more engaged with the ePortfolio but increasingly negative about the workload required to develop and maintain it. This finding is consistent with other studies of students who have utilised ePortfolios, such as those completing communication and performance studies (Wagner & Lamoureux, 2006) and trainee doctors (Hrisos et al., 2008). The time required to complete the ePortfolio needs to be carefully and progressively increased across a course. Furthermore, researchers have found staff and students have different views about the purpose and importance of the ePortfolio (Hrisos et al., 2008; Wagner & Lamoureux, 2006) so the purpose needs to be made explicit and be relevant to the students’ current stage in the course. An ePortfolio is a valuable learning tool Students recognise the value of the ePortfolio primarily as an organisational tool, rather than see the educational value, particularly students in later years.. Jenson and Treuer (2014) state that students do not clearly understand the purpose of the ePortfolio as a learning tool, and this means “perceptions of the role and purpose of
6
the portfolio may affect the ability of students to engage fully in portfolio use to develop learning” (Tochel et al., 2009, p. 314). Students did engage with the ePortfolio and some found it useful for setting goals and analysing skill development, which is consistent with other research (Bollinger & Shepherd, 2010; Devlin-Scherer, Martinelli, & Sardone, 2006; Hrisos et al., 2008) and reflects the statement “users can be simultaneously sceptical about a portfolio’s intended purposes and appreciative of what it can deliver for them personally” (Tochel et al., 2009, p. 314). SP students in the current study were not generally positive about the ePortfolio’s value in developing reflection. Bollinger and Shepherd (2010) found students were positive if the students were taught reflective skills first. Other researchers report “the relatively low level of reflection and personal development planning of learners remains a challenge” in ePortfolio use (Faulkner et al., 2013, p. 884). An ePortfolio is beneficial for lifelong learning Fourth-year SP students did not recognise the value of an ePortfolio to promote future employment opportunities, implying the future value needs to be made more explicit to students. In other research, students and alumni have reported the value of ePortfolios to show to prospective employers and to document growth in their future career (Devlin-Scherer et al., 2006; Gardner & Aleksejuniene, 2008). Using a platform that is portable and can be used after graduation would help (Leeson & Williams, 2009). Students need to be taught the ePortofolio’s use in lifelong learning (Jenson & Treuer, 2014, p. 54) and “embedding formative feedback from staff, peers and professional mentors to encourage and support the development process can facilitate transforming learners into professionals” (Faulkner et al., 2013, p. 884). Limitations There are several limitations to the study. First, it is important to note that students could choose to complete the questionnaire so the sample may be biased by students with strong opinions. Second, respondent numbers were small and the response rate was less than 50%. Third, the teaching staff was learning the platform at the same time as teaching the students, thus impacting the effectiveness of the training particularly for the third and fourth years. Finally, the students’ difficulties with the software platform may have affected their other responses. Implications The following recommendations are made, based on the literature and on SP students’ rating of the statements and their free text answers: The software platform chosen is crucial. It needs to be (a) appropriate for the task requirements; (b) easy to use and navigate; (c) able to share with external people ty (such as employers); and (d) accessible when the student leaves the university. The learning tasks need to be meaningful with a clear purpose and expectations to ensure students see the ePortfolio as a learning tool. The complexity and workload of tasks needs to scaffolded through the course. Students may benefit from specific skills teaching (e.g., reflection). Students require training that is clear, concise, and ongoing to ensure the technology is not a barrier to learning.
7
The link between the student use of an ePortfolio and future goals as a speech pathologist needs to be made explicit often (e.g., with examples and reports from graduates). As a result of this study, a new software platform will be piloted with a more scaffolded implementation of the ePortfolio and a stronger link with future employment. Further research into the perceptions of speech pathologists using an ePortfolio for documenting evidence for Certified Practicing Speech Pathology status would also be useful.
Conclusion This study is the first to investigate speech pathology students’ perspectives of an ePortfolio embedded across a SP course. Students generally engaged with the ePortfolio and saw the value as an organisational tool, and to analyse skills and set goals, but found the technology difficult and the ePortfolio tasks unduly timeconsuming. They did not see the link with their future career as a speech pathologist, perhaps due to the limitations of the software platform chosen. Despite the limitations of the study, some useful strategies have been suggested to enable the ePortfolio’s value as a learning tool to be fully realised to increase the positive perceptions for future use of ePortfolios in SP courses. As a learning tool an ePortfolio may also be of use for documenting evidence of ongoing learning as required for professional self-regulation.
Acknowledgements This project was funded by an Edith Cowan University Teaching and Learning grant.
References Australian ePortfolio Project (2009). ePortfolio concepts for academic staff [pamphlet]. Retrieved from http://www.eportfoliopractice.qut.edu.au/docs/AeP_conceptguide_academic_staff.pdf Bollinger, D., & Shepherd, C. (2010). Student perceptions of ePortfolio integration in online courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 295–314. Buckley, S., Coleman, J., Davison, I. S., Khan, K., Zamora, J., Malick, S., Morley, D., Pollard, D., Ashcroft, T., Popovic, C., & Sayers, J., (2009). The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: A systematic review. Medical Teacher, 31, 282–298. Chambers, S., & Wickersham, L. (2007). The electronic portfolio journey: A year later. Education, 127(3), 351-360. Chou, P. & Chen, W. (2008). From portfolio to E-Portfolio: Past, present, and future. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 22–27). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Devlin-Scherer, R., Martinelli, J., & Sardone, N. (2006). Twisting the kaleidoscope: Making sense of eportfolios. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolios (pp. 398-409). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Faulkner, M. Aziz, S., Waye, V., & Smith, E. (2013). Exploring ways that ePortfolios can support the progressive development of graduate qualities and professional competencies. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 871–887. Gardner, K., & Aleksejuniene, J. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of student feedback on ePortfolio learning. Journal of Dental Education, 72(11), 1324–1332. Gordon, J. A., & Campbell, C. M. (2013) The role of ePortfolios in supporting continuing professional development in practice. Medical Teacher, 35(4), 287–94.
8
Hallam, G., & and Creagh, T. (2010). ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: A review of the Australian ePortfolio Project. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 179–193. Hrisos, S., Illing, J., & Burford, B. (2008). Portfolio learning for foundation doctors: Early feedback on its use in the clinical workplace. Medical education, 42(2), 214–223. Jenson, J. D. & Treuer, P. (2014). Defining the E-Portfolio: What it is and why it matters. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46:2, 50–57. Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and professional development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 267-286. Leeson, J. & Williams, A. (2009). e-Portfolios beyond education and training [report]. Dulwich SA: Education.au limited. McAllister, S., Lincoln, M., Ferguson, A. & McAllister, L. (2013). COMPASS®: Competency assessment in speech pathology assessment resource manual (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Author. Speech Pathology Association. (2011). Competency-based occupational standards for speech pathologists (CBOS), entry level. Melbourne: Author. Speech Pathology Association. (2014). Strategic plan 2014–2016. Melbourne: Author. Tochel, C., Haig, A., Hesketh, A., Cadzow, A., Beggs, K., Colthart, I., & Peacock H. (2009). The effectiveness of portfolios for post-graduate assessment and education: BEME Guide No 12. Medical Teacher, 31(4), 299–318. Wagner, M., & Lamoureux, E. (2006). Implementing an outcome-based assessment ePortfolio. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolios (pp. 539–550). Hershey. PA: IGI Global. Walden, P. (2010). Student perceptions of learning speech science concepts in a hybrid environment. PSHA, 41, 30–40. Woodley, C., & Sims, R. (2011). Eportfolios, professional development and employability: Some student perceptions. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(3), 164–174. Yorke, M. (2011). Work‐engaged learning: towards a paradigm shift in assessment. Quality in Higher Education, 17(1), 117–130.
Correspondence: Abigail Lewis Clinical Coordinator/Lecturer in Speech Pathology School of Psychology and Social Science Edith Cowan University 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup WA 6027 phone: (08) 6304 5438 mobile: 0414 468 879 email:
[email protected] Abigail Lewis is clinical coordinator and lecturer for Edith Cowan University’s speech pathology course. Katrina Strampel is a learning designer at Edith Cowan University. She has researched and embedded ePortfolios into staff and student learning environments for several years.
9
Appendix. Questionnaire Forced choice questions 1. I am: 18–20 years old 20–25 years old 25–30 years old 30–40 years old 40 + years old 2. Including this year I have studied at University level for: 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 + years 3. When I have to use new technology I am: Very comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable 4. When I have to use new technology I feel: very confident I can work it out confident I can work it out neutral unconfident I can work it out very unconfident I can work it out 5-point Likert questions from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) Engagement with the portfolio
In general, the ePortfolio is of value and a useful experience The ePortfolio is a worthwhile investment of my time*^ I understand how to use the ePortfolio* I understand what type of evidence to collect* I understand how much evidence to collect* The ePortfolio involves excessive work*^
Technology
The ePortfolio needs too much technological skills to use^ The ePortfolio is easy to use^ The template design is easy to navigate and has a logical structure The ePortfolio platform (MyExpo) is easy to use and understand
Support and training
I am given adequate support from staff to use the ePortfolio I know how to get help if I need it with the ePortfolio The training I have been given to use the ePortfolio was helpful and easy to follow The support documents in the ePortfolio and on Blackboard are helpful The feedback given on my ePortfolio has been useful and I have learned from it - 10 -
The educational value of the portfolio
The ePortfolio helped me to focus on my training* The ePortfolio helped me achieve learning objectives*
My reflections
Reflection is a difficult concept to understand* Reflections on my practicum enables me to develop reflect deeply about my learning in the clinical practicum^ The ePortfolio allows me to exemplify increasing depth of reflectionº The reflections helped me identify my strengths and areas for improvement in the clinical practicum*
My evidence
The ePortfolio allows me to analyse the competencies I need to be a graduate entry level Speech Pathologist as detailed in CBOS and COMPASS®º The ePortfolio allows me to construct a repository for the ongoing selection of evidence towards gaining competencyº The ePortfolio allows me to evaluate the evidence I collectº The ePortfolio helps me generate specific short-term personal learning outcomes (goals) relating to the competenciesº
My records
My records enables me to see how I’m progressing towards covering all range indicators and units of competency The records allow me to record my clinical experiences so future placements/experiences can be planned to build on these and fill in any gaps
The future
I can see how the ePortfolio will be useful when I graduate as a speech pathologist^ I can see how I can use the ePortfolio to apply for jobs when I graduate I can see how I can use the ePortfolio in my working life as a speech pathologist^
Free text This has been the most useful thing about the ePortfolio. This has been the most difficult thing about the ePortfolio. Suggestions for improvement (in training, ePortfolio structure, platform) or any other comments. * adapted from Hrisos, Illing & Burford, 2008; ^ adapted from Gardner & Aleksejuniene, 2008; º ECU SP student learning outcomes for the ePortfolio
- 11 -
Tables Table 1. Number, age and years at university of students
Number of students My age is:
18–20 21–25 26–30 31–40 above 40
Student cohort 2nd 3rd 14 24
4th 15
1 3 1 0 1
2 4 0 2 0
3 3 2 1 2
Including this year I have studied at university for:
2 years 3 4 5 6+
3 2 0 0 1
0 7 2 1 1
0 0 8 0 0
Table 2. Comfort and confidence with new technology Student cohort 2nd
3rd
4th
2 5 4 0 0
1 5 1 1 0
0 7 3 1 0
1 4 3 0 0
When I have to use new technology I am:
Very comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable
2 3 0 0 1
When I have to use new technology I feel:
Very confident I can work it out Confident I can work it out Neutral Unconfident I can work it out Very unconfident I can work it out
2 3 0 1 0
Table 3. Students’ perspectives of the technology of ePortfolio 2nd 2.0
Student cohort 3rd 4th 2.3 2.0
The ePortfolio needs too much technological skills for me to use it The ePortfolio is easy to use 3.5 3.0 3.7 The template design is easy to navigate and has a logical 3.0 2.5 2.7 structure The ePortfolio platform is easy to use and understand 2.5 2.6 3.6 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The shaded statement is negative therefore scores are interpreted differently. Table 4: Students’ perspectives of support and training - 12 -
2nd 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.8
Student cohort rd 3 4th 3.0 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.7
I understand how to use the ePortfolio I am given adequate support from staff to use the ePortfolio I know how to get help if I need it with the ePortfolio The support documents in the ePortfolio and on BlackBoard are helpful I understand what type of evidence to collect 2.5 3.5 3.6 The feedback given on my ePortfolio has been useful and I have 3.0 3.3 3.3 learned from it Average : 3.1 3.5 3.8 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Table 5. Students’ level of engagement
Student cohort 2nd 3rd 4th In general the ePortfolio is of value and a useful experience 3.3 3.1 3.1 The ePortfolio is a worthwhile investment of my time 3.5 2.8 3.0 Average of positive statements: 3.4 3.0 3.1 The ePortfolio involves excessive work 2.8 3.5 4.3 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The shaded statement is negative therefore scores are interpreted differently. Table 6: Students’ perspectives of the educational value of the ePortfolio Student cohort nd rd 2 3 4th The ePortfolio helped me to focus on my training 3.3 2.5 2.9 The ePortfolio helped me to achieve learning objectives 3.7 2.8 2.7 Average: 3.5 2.7 2.8 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Table 7. Students’ perspectives of the My reflection part of the ePortfolio Student cohort nd 2 3rd 4th 2.0 2.7 2.4 3.7 3.2 4.0
Reflection is a difficult concept to understand Reflection on my practicum enables me to reflect deeply about my learning in clinic The ePortfolio allows me to exemplify increasing depth of reflection 3.7 3.1 3.1 The reflections helped me identify my strengths and areas for 3.7 3.4 3.1 improvement on prac (the clinical practicum) Average of positive statements: 3.7 3.2 3.4 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The shaded statement is negative therefore scores are interpreted differently. Table 8. Students’ perspectives regarding their development of skills - 13 -
My evidence of competency
The ePortfolio allows me to analyse the competencies I need to be a graduate entry level Speech Pathologist as detailed in CBOS and COMPASS® The ePortfolio allows me to construct a repository for the selection of evidence towards gaining competency The ePortfolio allows me to evaluate the evidence I collect The ePortfolio helps me generate specific short-term personal learning outcomes (goals) relating to the competencies Average:
Student cohort 2nd 3rd 4th 3.7 3.4 3.9
3.7
3.5
3.4
4.0 4.0
3.1 3.3
3.7 3.4
3.9
3.3
3.6
My records
Records enables me to see how I’m progressing towards 3.7 covering all range indicators and units of competency The records allow me to record my clinical experiences so future 4.0 placements/experiences can be planned to build on these and fill in any gaps Average: 3.9 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
3.6 3.9 3.7 3.7
3.7 3.8
Table 9. Students’ perspectives on the future use of the ePortfolio Student cohort nd rd 2 3 4th 4.0 3.1 2.0
I can see how the ePortfolio will be useful when I graduate as a speech pathologist I can see how I can use the ePortfolio to apply for jobs when I 3.3 2.7 2.4 graduate I can see how I can use the ePortfolio in my working life as a 4.3 3.0 2.3 speech pathologist Average: 3.9 2.9 2.2 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
- 14 -
