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.