Northern Illinois University – NCEPR Portland Meeting – February 3-4, 2006--Preliminary findings

What TIs (First-year teaching assistants) reported learning from the electronic portfolio process:

Technology issues:

· Web design magnifies students’ and teachers’ need for models and templates (See Susan Kahn’s advice on templates in “Linking Learning, Improvement, and Accountability: An Introduction to Electronic Institutional Portfolios” in Barbara Cambridge, ed, Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning [AAHE, 2001] p. 152-3)

· Empathy with students’ technological struggles intensifies their desire to teach well

· Composing an e-portfolio simultaneously with students enables the TIs to improve their technological teaching strategies (See Helen Barrett’s similar observation in Daniel P. Tompkins’ “Ambassadors with Portfolios: Electronic Portfolios and the Improvement of Teaching” in Cambridge, p. 98)

· Writing for the Web and using multimedia must be included in the definition of “composition”—students and TIs alike will be at a disadvantage if they don’t do it (See Kathleen Blake Yancey on multiple genres as part of composition in “ Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key” [CCC 56.2 (Dec. 2004)] p. 308)

· Teaching levels of discourse becomes easier in an electronic environment—e.g., students can easily compare chatroom talk with the language of various, professionally designed websites

· Writing in electronic environments magnifies the need of the writer to experiment and play (See Gail Matthews-DeNatale’s “Teach us How to Play: the Role of Play in Technology Education” in Harrison, et. al, The Online Writing Classroom [Hampton, 2000] chapter 4.

· A curriculum must carefully balance multiple, complex activities with the quantity of work expected, especially if learning technology is involved

· Reflection is a problem-solving activity, especially if it engages both TIs and students in dialogue about uses of technology

Rhetorical issues:

· Web design heightens students’ awareness of form (and the possibility of experimentation), readers’ expectations, and the rhetorical impact of visual design

· Making reflective writing public—e.g., posting it on a website—can cause students (and TIs) to tailor what they have to say about their learning to what they expect assessors want to hear (particularly if the “valued learning” is expressed to them as programmatic standards and outcomes). See “Judging Degrees of Schmooze” in Nedra Reynolds and Rich Rice, Portfolio Teaching: A Guide for Instructors, Second ed. (Bedford St. Martins, 2006)

Assessment issues:

· The e-portfolio approach to assessment—including reflection, self-evaluation and self-analysis of one’s writing/ teaching—more accurately defines learning and points the way to further learning

· Teachers and students alike crave frequent feedback—oral and written—while doing reflective writing and constructing e-portfolios

· Reflective writing urges a teacher or a student to be accountable for putting into use what she says she has learned

Pedagogical issues:

· The TIs and students both need a clear, well-developed rationale (or theory) for doing reflective writing and constructing e-portfolios, so they won’t keep questioning why they are doing such things—and resisting in unproductive, rather than productive ways (note that attitudes of both TIs and FYComp students changed for the better after the TIs had read some of Kathleen Yancey’s Reflection in the Writing Classroom [Utah State, 1998])

· Reflective writing in more frequent, smaller doses in ENGL 500 helped the TIs grasp its value, especially in an interactive electronic environment (e.g., WebBoard); the same should apply for students

· TIs and students alike need time to work on designing e-portfolios in a learning environment that’s supportive

· Students’ reflective writing on classroom activities helps teachers recognize where they must adjust a syllabus (or curricular expectations) to the students’ developmental level (See the difference between the delivered and experienced curriculum in Yancey 1998 p. 128)

· Learning has a significant element of kairos—the right reflective activity or feedback at the right time makes all the difference

Attitude issues:

· A teacher’s attitude toward curriculum requirements directly influences the students’ volition to fulfill those requirements

· The TIs reflect and learn exponentially more about technology in situations where they must deal with students’ frustration and confusion

Implications for eportfolio related faculty development (to be applied in the NIU First-Year Composition Program, but these are also general suggestions for eportfolio implementation at any school)

· Introduce faculty to simple, functional models of e-portfolios that clearly demonstrate Web-sensible features and good reflective writing

· Provide faculty with a straightforward rationale of how students benefit from creating e-portfolios, so faculty can explain it to students

· Give inexperienced faculty opportunities to meet with those who have taught e-portfolios and know how to balance e-portfolio learning with covering course content

· Conduct workshops where faculty have sufficient preparation time to learn how to construct webpages, work with available software, and create links

· Give faculty ready access to templates with basic features that can be customized easily

· Make a simple teaching manual or online tutorials available—with step-by-step handouts for students—as back-up reference for web design

· Provide resources that clearly illustrate the theory and pedagogical practices of reflection

· Plan for e-portfolios to count for a substantial part of a course grade (maybe 25%), but avoid turning them into high-stakes, make or break projects

· Help faculty design short, frequent exercises in reflective writing that can add up to, or feed into, a more comprehensive “capstone” reflection (See Yancey 1998 on “reflection in presentation”)

· Give faculty the opportunity to do reflective writing in an online setting, linking it to examples of their professional accomplishments

Northern Illinois University – NCEPR Portland Meeting – February 3-4, 2006--Preliminary findings (supplemental)

Results of NIU survey of TI (first-year English Teaching Assistant) attitudes on implementing E-Portfolios

22 students, all of the 2004-5 TI Cohort, were given both quantitative and qualitative questionnaires

We had 17 forms (77%) returned out of the 22 distributed

The TIs’ most negative perceptions resided in the areas of students’ attitudes toward the portfolios and the reflective writing assignments, while the TIs’ overall self-assessment of their competence and confidence in implementing the e-portfolios also came in low. On the other hand, the majority of TIs tended to feel that e-portfolios had something of a positive—or at least not hurtful—effect on the students’ attitudes toward their performance and self-perceptions as writers. They felt about the same toward themselves as creators of e-portfolios. For attempting such a major programmatic transition, in fact, the TIs’ responses were possibly as good as we could have hoped. (See Figure 2)

Most revealing, however, were qualitative questionnaires in which we asked the TIs to elaborate on: (1) the reflective process they taught, (2) the technological challenges of implementing the e-portfolios, (3) what the TIs felt they learned—both from teaching their students, and designing their own e-portfolios, and (4) what could be improved in the programmatic support that ENGL 500 coordinators tried to provide. (3) & (4) provide the basis for our discussion at the Portland meeting of the NCEPR.

Fig. 2: Attitude Survey on Implementation of ENGL 103 E-Portfolios

Students’ performance on e-portfolios 75% adequate/ somewhat good

Students’ attitudes toward e-portfolios 63% disliked/ strongly disliked

Students’ attitudes toward reflection 63% disliked

E-portfolios’ impact on student attitudes

toward performance 88% no impact/ positive

E-portfolios’ impact on students’ attitudes

toward writing 75% no impact/ positive

Assess your performance implementing

e-portfolios 63% adequate/ somewhat good

Assess your competence in implementing

e-portfolios 50% positive/strongly positive

Assess your confidence in implementing

e-portfolios 56% positive/ strongly positive

Assess your performance in creating your

teaching portfolio 69% somewhat good/ good

Assess your attitude toward creating your

teaching portfolio 75% positive/ strongly positive