Two groups of education majors—23 undergraduates and 14 educational technology graduate students—provided perspectives about their electronic portfolios. Two investigators independently directed them, evaluating the process from students' perspectives, including holistic evaluations by departmental faculty. Survey data were framed within Kirkpatrick's Levels of Evaluation with worth expressed on four levels as attitudes, learning, planned job usage, and potential organization impact. Despite different technological capabilities and limited similarities in implementing the process, both groups primarily viewed electronic portfolios as worthwhile overall, being largely positive on three levels. Systemizing the process is suggested. Technological ability, overall, was not a major factor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartlettA. (2002). Preparing preservice teachers to implement performance assessment and technology through electronic portfolios. Action in Teacher Education, 24(1), 90–97
2.
BarrettH. (2002, March). Researching the process and outcomes of electronic portfolio development in a teacher education program. Paper presented at the Society for Technology and Teacher Education, Nashville, TN
3.
CampbellD. M.CignettiP. B.MelenyzerB. J.NettlesD. H.WymanJr. (2001). How to develop a professional portfolio: A manual for teachers(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
4.
CarneyJ. M.JoelleJ. K. (2002, February). Translating theory into practice The dilemmas of teacher portfolios. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX
5.
CattagniA.WestatE. F. (2001). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2000: Statistics in brief (NCES 2001-071). Retrieved February 13, 2004, from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001071.pdf
6.
ChristensenR.KnezekG. (2001). Instruments for assessing the impact of technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 18(2/3), 5–25
7.
EllsworthJ. Z. (2002). Using student portfolios to increase reflective practice among elementary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 342–355
8.
FaisonC. (1996). Modeling instructional technology in teacher preparation: Why we can't wait. Educational Technology, 36(5), 57–59
9.
GottesmanB.VillaC. (2001, June). Portfolio assessment: A collaboration model to tightly couple student outcomes with learning experiences in the graduate program. Paper presentation at the Annual Assessment Conference of the American Association for Higher Education, Denver, CO
10.
Ideas Consulting, Inc. (2002). ISTE assessment & technology forum: Gallery walk projects 2002. International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved February 13, 2004, at http://216.25.8.18/portfolioessentials/2002/index.html
11.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000–2002). National educational technology standards for teachers. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html
12.
JonassenD. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill
13.
KirkpatrickD. (1960, 1959). [Excerpts from Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Model of Evaluation]. The Journal for the American Society for Training Directors. (From Techniques for evaluating training programs, Training & Development [Electronic Version], (1996). Retrieved February 13, 2003, from http://www.astd.org/astd/Resources/eval_roi_community/techniques.htm
14.
KovalchickA.MilmanN. B.ElizabethM. (1998, March). Instructional strategies for integrating technology: Electronic journals and technology portfolios as facilitators for self-efficacy and reflection in preservice teachers. Paper presented at the international meeting for the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International, Washington, DC. (ERIC Reproduction Service: ED 421115)
15.
LyonsN. (1998). Portfolios and their consequences: Developing as a reflective practitioner. In LyonsN. (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 247–264). New York: Teachers College
McLaughlinM.VogtM. E. (1996). Portfolios in teacher education. Newark, DE: International Reading Association
18.
MeyerD. K.TusinL. F. (1999). Preservice teachers' perceptions of portfolios: Process versus product. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2), 131–139
19.
MiletL. (2002, November). Electronic portfolios for teachers. Paper presented at the international meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX
20.
MilmanN. B. (1999, February-March). Web-based electronic teaching portfolios for preservice teachers. Paper presentation at the international meeting of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 432273)
21.
ParkI.HannafinM. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research & Development, 41(3), 21–37
22.
ParkerA.FarrellyD. (1994). Forced to succeed: Introducing the concept of interactive media to preservice teachers. International Journal of Instructional Media, 12(4), 295–299
23.
RyanC. W.ColeD. J.MathiesB. K. (1997, February). Teacher education field experiences: Impact on self-esteem of professional year program interns via electronic portfolios. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head, SC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 40529)
24.
SandersM. E. (2000). Web-based portfolios for technology education: A personal case study. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 11–18
25.
SherryA. (2001). Professional electronic portfolios and AECT advanced program standards. In CrawfordM.SimonsonM. (Eds.), Twenty-fourth Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 364–371). North Miami Beach, FL: Nova Southeastern University
26.
ShulmanL. (1998). Teacher portfolios: A theoretical activity. In LyonsN. (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 23–38). New York: Teachers College
27.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research & Improvement. (2000). Teachers' tools for the twenty-first century. (NCES 2000-102). Washington, DC: Author
28.
WellingtonJ. J. (1995). The role of technology in teacher education: A case study of hypertext in a PGCE course. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 21, 37–50
29.
WrightV. H.StallworthB. J. (2002). Challenges of electronic portfolios: Student perceptions and experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 49–61
