H807-6. CASE STUDY #4: Use of e-portfolios and blogging in teacher education

This is another case study from the University of Wolverhampton involving e-portfolios, this time with PGCE and Foundation Degree students. The author had previously experienced success with paper journals and wanted to see if the success was transferable to an online environment, which she sees as "inherently more dialogic and intuitive". She also expresses concern about the "accumulation of paper" in a traditional e-portfolio, which seems to be a simple but effective rationale for this innovation. PebblePad was once again used.

The interesting point of this case study was the degree of resistance on the part of some teaching staff. The dominance of the VLE within this particular institution created a perception of the e-portfolio as somewhat redundant. Some staff also appeared to be threatened by the ownership and control afforded to the learner through the use of an e-portfolio. On top of this, the researcher was made to bear the weight of the technology and all its attendant problems, with the result that she ended up feeling quite isolated within her institution.

Perhaps this demonstrates a point about innovation: resistance may need to be overcome by persistence. The innovator's belief in the technology, and particularly in the inseparability of the pedagogy and the technology, needs to be strong. Where resistance is an issue within an institution, we could reasonably conjecture that it will take a teacher with a certain kind of personality to lead the charge.

H807-5. Blogging as innovation

After reading about Rogers' innovation framework, I would like to explore how my recent blogging project fits into the various categories.

In the Autumn 2009 semester, I asked my 51 students to set up their own blogs. They were to post once a week for 14 weeks about our course. They could analyse our readings, comment on what was taking place in lessons, discuss our course themes more broadly, make connections between Freshman English and their other courses and so on. I deliberately kept the requirement quite vague in order not to stifle their creativity, but I was always ready to offer suggestions to anyone who was feeling stuck, and I modelled what was expected by keeping my own course blog. All my students' blogs were linked to mine, so I was able to provide almost instant feedback on nearly every post throughout the semester.

So here is a retrospective analysis of my rationale for introducing the project.

Relative advantage:
Blogging is advantageous because it allows us to extend our very limited classroom hours and keeps students engaged with the material. We meet our Freshman English students for just 3 50-minute class periods per week. Since all of their other courses (History, Turkish Literature, Social and Political Science, Natural Science and Maths) are lecture and exam-based, the students are used to being passive in the classroom and have little inkling of process learning. All students are given laptops and have wireless access on campus, and part of the university's mission statement is to promote technological innovation. It enables greater contact between student and instructor as well as frequent and personalised feedback, and encourages student responsibility. The amount of writing practice provided to students at this university is very limited indeed; blogging allows them to practise their writing skills, but in a more relaxed, less structured manner than in an essay. Although we have a lot of class discussions, these are inevitably dominated by the most fluent students; blogging gives every student a chance to participate, and at their own pace.

Compatibility:
This project fits in completely with my teaching values: constructivism, dialogic learning, formative assessment, the importance of affective factors, reflection, writing as thought...

Complexity:
In technological terms, complexity was very low; Blogger is probably the easiest blogging application. I wrote a detailed blogging guide and uploaded it to our VLE; I introduced the project during class time and helped students set up their blogs and understand how they worked; I also provided ongoing IT support via email, or when students dropped by my office.

The complexity lay in knowing how exactly to use a blog: the required register for blog posts; the awareness and understanding of audience; the degree of personalisation expected and/or allowed; how to move beyond mere summary of class material; how to add depth to posts with hyperlinks and so forth. And time management seems to have been the main hindrance for many students.

Trialability:
I must confess, I skipped this stage in the sense that I simply dove in and introduced blogging as an assessed course component. It probably would have been best to do it with just one section first, either as an extra credit option or using volunteers, and I did consider this, but in all honesty I could not see how I would be able to maintain enough motivation that way, given the students' insane class schedule, their grinding round of endless exams and their disgust for any type of 'homework'. So I 'forced' them. But I'm glad I did; preliminary analysis of the feedback I collected suggests that the project was more than a fair success. I suppose I could be viewed as somewhat of a renegade by both colleagues and students...frankly, I don't care: I believed in the project enough to take the risk of failure. (I recognise that I am in the fortunate position of having enough freedom to become a renegade in the first place...) I was very flexible with the marking criteria so as not to disadvantage students, and I combined the blog itself (10% of final mark) with an 'I-Blog paper' or deep reflection on the experience of blogging (10% of final mark); nearly all students achieved 100% on this paper since they needed only openly and honestly answer the questions set and achieve the minimum word count of 750 words.

Observability:
Now this is an interesting one. The students' blogs are all open to the public, but I wonder exactly what is perceived by outside readers. Certainly the students made enough statements about how much they were benefitting from keeping their blogs, but as with all educational technology, the 'benefits' greatly depend on what one understands by learning. I think the I-Blog papers provide much more obvious evidence of the advantages to students.

+ my 75-word summary:

The relative advantage of asking students to keep their own blogs is the extension of classroom hours it affords. It is entirely compatible with my constructivist teaching values. The technology is not complex at all and ongoing support can be provided by a single teacher. The project was trialled by balancing blogging and reflection and using flexible marking criteria, and any Internet user can observe the students' effort and enthusiasm in posting to their blogs.

H807-4. CASE STUDY #3: Use of e-portfolios to support nursing and midwifery

The University of Wolverhampton has introduced e-portfolios for their non-traditional undergraduate students in nursing and midwifery. The average age of these students is 30, and they tend to enter without traditional qualifications. An important rationale for the introduction of this technology was the desire to overcome the 'minority complex' such students often feel by creating a supportive community of practice. The other consideration was fulfilling the requirement, set by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, to provide evidence of Managed Off-Site Study Time. PebblePad was once again used.

This project met with some difficulties in terms of student access to IT facilities, but student enthusiasm compensated in part. There was also some resistance on the part of faculty; some faculty did not wish to provide detailed written feedback.

H807-3. CASE STUDY #2: Use of e-portfolios to develop a reflective approach in medicine

Newcastle University has also introduced e-portfolios for medical students who are required to keep reflective log books. I find their rationale far more convincing than Sheffield Hallam's on these points:

-the paper-based A4 version was complex and difficult to carry around
-the students are dispersed geographically for much of their studies

One thing tripped me up though: "The [paper-based] log books were mandatory but not formally graded for assessment" - how does that work? Did students actually keep them? What stake would they have in them? Why should they care? This was not explained.

I also thought that the manner of introducing e-portfolios probably contributed in no small part to their eventual success:
-they were embedded in the existing VLE
-they were initially introduced on a trial basis: students could choose the paper-based or the e-version
-their effectiveness was qualitatively evaluated
-following successful evaluations, e-portfolios are now mandatory - and assessed

However, this part made me laugh: in the trial phase, 1/3 chose the paper-based version, 1/3 chose the e-version...and 1/3 chose neither - the authors found this shocking! But how could this possibly come as a surprise?! This relates back to my point above about the portfolios not being assessed; the students simply did not see the value of doing them. I think this type of thing only appeals at the outset to a certain type of learner; other students can require quite a lot of steady convincing of their worth.

The 'innovation' here seems to lie in the response to student needs and their particular study circumstances. However, no mention was made of how the technology was introduced to these (presumably very busy) students, nor how it was supported.

H807-2. CASE STUDY #1: Use of e-portfolios in the social sciences

This case study reports on a decision taken by Sheffield Hallam University to move from a traditional paper-based portfolio to an e-portfolio for the purposes of personal/academic development planning (PDP) in social science classes. The change was made following much negative student feedback on the former: students were unable to see the value of this reflective tool, and they typically completed it just before the deadline in order to fulfil the assessment, thereby negating any potential it may have had to contribute to the learning process.

However, I'm a bit uneasy about this case study as it's written. The rationale for introducing yet another portfolio is not explained. Why should an e-portfolio be any different? The methodology they claim to be following, the Integrated Learning Design Framework (ILDF), does not seem to differ significantly to what they were following for the paper-based version. They show examples of both the paper and the e-based assignments; I'm afraid I do not see an essential pedagogical difference between them, nor why it is presumed that e-portfolios will be so much more attractive to students, why they will not simply leave them as well until the last minute. Is the 'innovation' here merely the ability to provide hyperlinks to pieces of work, etc. within the e-portfolio? This can also be done on paper! Perhaps I'm just confused...?

I also don't quite understand the authors' complaint about "the predominance of seemingly mundane concerns about time and personal organisation" - why mundane? These are legitimate concerns on the part of students, I think. In my teaching experience, students' greatest weakness - and the greatest obstacle to their learning - is a lack of time management skills. Particularly if students are not used to a process-based approach, they can be easily overwhelmed by an ongoing series of small tasks. This may be ironic, but nevertheless, it is the perception.

I must say, on another note, that PebblePad looks mighty cool...a much slicker look than Wikispaces, which is what I'm currently using for my (work in progress) professional e-portfolio.

H807-1. Initial thoughts on innovation

Technological innovation is certainly a relative concept; local context must always be taken into consideration. Availability and accessibility of technology vary widely, as do student needs and their willingness to try something new, as well as the overall climate of the educational organisation (to mention only a few of the contributing factors). My general impression at the moment is that 'true' innovation comes about as a result of the initiative of individual educators, or perhaps small groups - that is, it is essentially a bottom-up process. I think this is also in accord with the democratic nature of technology, particularly Web 2.0 social networking tools.

Some points from the readings worth noting:

1) Lück and Laurence (accessed 12 February 2010): Innovative teaching: sharing expertise through videoconferencing

This paper reports on the selective use of videoconferencing on a university tourism course to enable interaction between students and guest lecturers from around the world.

The success of the 'innovation' seems to be due to the following:
-videoconferencing took place once per semester, making it a 'special event' and a memorable occasion, and thereby creating expectation and motivation on the part of the students
-it was carefully integrated into the syllabus
-it supplemented face-to-face contact
-it was carefully planned and supported by IT experts
-careful attention was paid to student feedback, and improvements were made accordingly
-this use of technology represented a significant reduction in travel expenses for guest lecturers, and mitigated the loss of productivity that results when lecturers temporarily leave their posts

Random vocabulary item
packet loss: occurs when the picture freezes but the sound remains stable

2) Rich and Holtham (2005): New technology in learning: a decade's experience in a business school

There were a few quotes that resonated with me here:

-"The new approaches remained the preserve of a small group of faculty" (p. 677)
This seems to hint at the bottom-up approach I mentioned earlier, and reflects my own experience of using technology in the classroom; most teachers are unwilling to get involved, whether because of the workload or lack of confidence in their own skills.

-"They [the technological efforts] were not universally appreciated by students" (p. 677)
I just love the understatement here; I would have put it much differently. Just mention technology in the classroom and some students practically retch in front of you - even 19-year-olds, who are often presumed to be so tech-savvy.

-"there may be benefits with persevering with innovative approaches even in the face of initial resistance from students" (p. 679)
Yes, yes and yes. Just imagine if I had given up on blogging after my first two attempts; I never would have had the rich experience of last semester. I firmly believe that students have to at least try something, make a sincere effort, before they decide they 'hate' it.