Use and Benefits of E-Portfolios in Higher Education: Results From a Longitudinal Study
Author(s):
Conference:
ECER 2017
Format:
Paper

Session Information

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-24
13:30-15:00
Room:
K5.09
Chair:
Jaakko Kauko

Contribution

Learning at university requires several study competences. Especially in comparison to school learning, where teachers guide students a lot, students have more choices at university (Bembenutty, 2011). Moreover, there are a lot of possibilities about how, that is, with which learning strategies to study the course contents. Hence, students are required to self-regulate their learning process (Boekaerts, 1999; Zimmerman, 1990).

A tool that might help students to reflect on these processes and thereby monitor and evaluate their learning behavior seems to be presented by portfolios (Gläser-Zikuda, Fendler, Noack, & Ziegelbauer, 2011; Paulson, Paulson, & Meyer, 1991; Wade & Yarbrough, 1996). During the portfolio construction process, students are supposed to plan, document, and reflect on their individual learning activities. While, in teacher education, there is a lot of research on teaching portfolios (e.g., De Rijdt, Tiquet, Dochy, & Devolder, 2006; Wolf & Dietz, 1998; Zeichner & Wray, 2001), we focus on learning portfolios in this study with aspects of a process/developmental and reflective portfolio (cf., Alexiou & Paraskeva, 2010; Tillema & Smith, 2000, for definitions of the several portfolio types).

In the last decade, electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) found their way into tertiary education and have been increasingly used in higher education (Wakimoto & Lewis, 2014). E-portfolios are seen as a tool for constructing and managing students’ own knowledge and thereby enhancing self-regulated learning skills (Alexiou & Paraskeva, 2010). Advantages of e-portfolios are, for example, that information can electronically be more easily organized and that information can be shared through forums (Oakley, Pegrum, & Johnston, 2013).

Several studies investigated higher education students’ perceptions of e-portfolios. For example, Wakimoto & Lewis (2014) found that students evaluated the construction of their e-portfolios as useful and helpful in reflecting on their competencies. However, besides that e-portfolios might be a helpful tool for students to reflect and monitor their learning, e-portfolios themselves can be seen as time-consuming and additional work-load, as a study with open-ended questions by Imhof and Picard (2009) suggests. This seems a critical issue because then students might not value the use of the portfolio (Wade & Yarbrough, 1996). Moreover, besides the need for self-regulated skills, e-portfolios require information and communication technology (ICT) literacy (Wuetherick & Dickinson, 2015). Finally, especially for computer mediated learning environments, Hodges (2005) considers self-regulated learning strategies as necessary because of the unfamiliar learning situation and other and social factors.

Hence, e-portfolios might either require or support self-regulated learning strategies. The question is whether this leads to a synergetic effect or if the use of e-portfolios rather leads to an overload that hinders successful learning. Therefore, to plan and implement specific trainings for the use of e-portfolios, educators need to know how students actually use the different components of an e-portfolio. In our study, we use the e-portfolio as a tool to reflect students’ learning behavior over the time of one term. With this approach we hope to be able to get insight into the actual use and derive implications for the future implementation, that is, which components of the portfolio need further prompting or training.

First, we want to examine, how—untrained—students use an e-portfolio during a term. That is, how often do they use the features of the e-portfolio, how much time do they spend with the e-portfolio and which strategies do they implement during the term. To investigate whether the use of the e-portfolio is beneficial for the students, we test whether students who use the e-portfolio outperform students without e-portfolio use and examine which aspects of the e-portfolio use influence exam performance.

Method

Sample The study participants were 1469 regular undergraduate education students taking part in one of two mandatory lectures about educational psychology. 1060 of the students (80.2% female) voluntarily participated in the e-portfolio during the respective lecture (9 weeks in total); the other 409 students participated in the lecture, only, and served as a control group. Design and Material To investigate the untrained use of an e-portfolio, we implemented a weekly e-portfolio in an ecologically valid setting at university, supplemented via a weekly questionnaire. The e-portfolio was designed using the web application Mahara (https://mahara.org/) and consisted of three parts. 1) A Journal: Students can write a journal entry about how they studied during the last week. 2) A to-do-list: Students can set goals and mark whether they reached their goals. 3) A discussion forum: Students can ask questions and discuss topics with their fellow students. Students were technically introduced into these features of the e-portfolio. However, there was no specific training about how to effectively use an e-portfolio or what are the benefits of it. Measurements In the additional questionnaire, we asked about the time they spent this week with the e-portfolio (weekly e-portfolio time in hours), how many journal entries they made in the e-portfolio in the respective week, how many goals they set, and how they used the discussion forum (not at all, passive, or active). Finally, we were interested in how students dealt with the e-portfolio from the perspective of self-regulated learning. Hence, we asked students whether they have documented cognitive, metacognitive, and resource-based learning strategies in their journal entry during the respective week. The implemented items were single items, assessed in each of the nine weeks. The weekly items asking for the same information were each aggregated to a scale with good reliability scores (.71 ≤ α. ≤ .90). At the end of the term, students participated in the respective exam. In addition, the performance score of the exam of a previous in educational psychology lecture completed our data set for a subsample of students.

Expected Outcomes

Overall, despite the voluntarily use of the e-portfolio, students who decided to use it, used it regularly (8 out of 9 weeks). In average, students spent one and a half hour per week for the e-portfolio, wrote one journal entry per week, set nearly two goals and used the discussion forum mostly passive. While the use of the e-portfolio itself decreased during the term, all other variables (portfolio hours, journal entries, set goals, use of discussion forum) increased in the last third of the term. The learning behavior documented in the e-portfolio—indicated by the use of learning strategies—shows that students seemed to use all three types of learning strategies with a favor for cognitive strategies. For all three types of learning strategies, the use decreased after the first week and increased again in the last third of the term. Although students were not trained in the portfolio condition, their participation had a positive effect on the exam performance of the respective lecture—also under control of prior performance scores as covariate in an ANCOVA. Finally, we investigated which factors of the e-portfolio use influence exam performance via regression analyses for the students with e-portfolio data. Besides the time variables (weeks in which the e-portfolio was used and weekly time for the e-portfolio), only the use of cognitive learning strategies over the period of nine weeks had a significant effect on exam performance. Our results will guide future (implementation) studies. For example, it seems necessary to encourage students to use the forum more actively. Amongst many factors that might influence learning and learning outcomes, it is remarkable that the (non-prompted and non-trained) use of an e-portfolio enhanced exam performance in our study with undergraduate education students.

References

Alexiou, A., & Paraskeva, F. (2010). Enhancing self-regulated learning skills through the implementation of an e-portfolio tool. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3048-3054. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.463 Bembenutty, H. (2011). Introduction: Self-regulation of learning in postsecondary education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 3–8. doi: doi:10.1002/tl.439 Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445–457. De Rijdt, C., Tiquet, E., Dochy, F., & Devolder, M. (2006). Teaching portfolios in higher education and their effects: An explorative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1084-1093. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.002 Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fendler, J., Noack, J., & Ziegelbauer, S. (2011). Fostering self-regulated learning with portfolios in schools and higher education. Orbis Scholae, 5(2), 67–78. Hodges, C. B. (2005). Self-regulation in Web-based courses: A review and the need for research. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6, 375–383. Imhof, M., & Picard, C. (2009). Views on using portfolio in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 149-154. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.001 Oakley, G., Pegrum, M., & Johnston, S. (2013). Introducing e-portfolios to pre-service teachers as tools for reflection and growth: lessons learnt. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 36-50. doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2013.854860 Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What Makes a Portfolio a Portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60–63. Tillema, H. H., & Smith, K. (2000). Learning from portfolios: Differential use of feedback in portfolio construction. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 193–210. Wade, R. C., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolios: A tool for reflective thinking in teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 63-79. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(95)00022-C Wakimoto, D. K., & Lewis, R. E. (2014). Graduate student perceptions of eportfolios: Uses for reflection, development, and assessment. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 53-58. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.01.002 Wolf, K., & Dietz, M. (1998). Teaching portfolios: Purposes and possibilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 9–22. Wuetherick, B., & Dickinson, J. (2015). Why ePortfolios? Student perceptions of ePortfolio use in continuing education learning environments. International Journal of ePortfolio, 5, 39-53. 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, 17, 613–621. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.

Author Information

Marion Händel (presenting / submitting)
Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg
Educational Psychology
Nuremberg
Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.