Summary of Published Guidelines for E-Portfolio Decision Making

from Buzzetto-More & Alade, 2008

AUTHORS GUIDELINES
Cooper (1999) Requisite considerations at the institutional level that should be modelled when creating a student portfolio assessment project.

• Identification of skill areas

• Design of measurable outcomes

• Identification of learning strategies

• Identification of performance indicators

• Collection of evidence

• Assessment

Lorenzo & Ittleson (2005b) Guiding questions that need to be considered by any institution considering electronic portfolio adoption.

• Should an e-portfolio be an official record of a student’s work?

• How long should an e-portfolio remain at an institution after the student graduates?

• Who owns the e-portfolio?

• How should an institution promote and support the use of electronic portfolios?

• How are electronic portfolios evaluated in a manner that is both valid and reliable?

• How can institutions encourage reflection in the design and use of electronic portfolios?

Zeichner & Wray (2001) Guiding questions.

• What is the purpose of the portfolio: learning, assessment, or professional purpose?

• Who controls authorship and how much and how many guidelines should exist?

• How and what should the portfolios be organized around?

• What kinds of artifacts are acceptable as pieces of evidence?

• How much input and guidance should come from educators?

• How should the portfolio be assessed?

• What should happen to the portfolio after it is finished?

Jafari (2004) Considerations that should guide the electronic portfolio adoption and creation process

• The system’s future users,

• Potential benefits,

• Technological features,

• Usability, and Versatility.

Butler (2006) Common issues related to portfolio implementation and maintenance whose consideration must be a part of the decision implementation and sustaining processes

• Lack of guidelines

• Overabundance of guidelines causing restriction

• Lack of examples from previous portfolios

• Lack of guidance

• Lack of support

• Interoperability

• Technical problems,

• Maintenance

• Lack of technology skills of students and staff,

• Lack of time

• Poor buy in,

• Accessibility

• Lack of security

• Student inexperience with authoring reflections,

• Unclear assessment strategies

• Lack of or too much feedback.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

One response

  1. Pingback: Welcome! « leefolio

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s