Authors: Serena Bufton (s.a.bufton@shu.ac.uk), Richard Pountney (r.p.pountney@shu.ac.uk)
JISC e-Learning Activity Area: e-portfolios
Higher Education Academy Subject Centre: sociology anthropology and politics
Case study tags: online learning, an effect on learning, an effect on student personal development, student satisfaction with e-learning, innovation in learning and teaching, an influence on educational research, staff satisfaction with e-learning,use of resources, tangible benefits of e-learning, sheffield hallam university, e-portfolios, sociology anthropology and politics
Background & Context
Why did you use this e-learning approach?
Evidence from an internal research project indicated a variable level of engagement of students with personal/academic development planning (PDP) in the first year of their study on a large, social science degree programme. Issues were also identified in relation to course identity, tutor-student relationships and meaningful, timely feedback on work. Although a few students in the research sample reported finding PDP a useful activity, the majority gave very negative feedback. Typical comments were: 'I didn't really find it that useful'; 'I couldn't see the relevance of it'; 'I haven't really learnt anything from it'. As tutors suspected, some students viewed PDP simply as an assessment task that could be completed just before the deadline:
'To be honest, that [PDP] was just kind of all made up...you just filled it in, you kind of pretended.'
In this context, e-portfolio was introduced as a vehicle for integrating first-year learning, enhancing group work and peer/tutor support of learning, providing regular feedback on progress and functioning as the focus for personal development planning at all three levels of the degree programme.
What was the context in which you used this e-learning approach?
The Applied Social Science Programme comprises a range of social science degree routes within a large, post-1992 university. Social Science Foundations (SSF) is a core skills and support module for many of these routes and promotes the integration of student learning at Level 4. Each year there are around 280 students and 10 tutors involved with this module.
Personal/academic planning (PDP) activities were introduced into this module in 2001/2. In Semester 2 students are required to analyse their progress in their Semester 1 modules, drawing on the feedback they have received, to devise an action plan for Semester 2, implement this and evaluate their progress again at the end of the academic year. This work is assessed (see paper-based PDP assignment). Tutors commissioned an independent evaluation of student PDPs from 2002/3 which confirmed the limited development of meta-cognitive and reflective capacities in this student cohort and the predominance of seemingly mundane concerns about time and personal organization (Bradley and Clegg, 2004). A decision was taken to commission a follow-up study of the 2002/3 cohort in its final year (2004/5), focusing specifically on the development of reflective processes and academic skills. Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted by an external researcher. This research drew attention, among other things, to feelings of alienation and dislocation amongst students (Clegg and Bufton, forthcoming).
In response to this research, module tutors explored new ways of engaging incoming students with the learning context. The introduction of e-portfolio followed a successful application in 2006 for membership of the U.S.-based Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research (NCEPR). Sheffield Hallam University is one of only two UK institutions to gain membership of Cohort III of this coalition and is committed to a three-year research project (2006-9) on e-portfolio learning. In our work with NCEPR we are researching the ways in which we can use e-portfolios to help students to reflect upon and improve their learning. Our research is informed by an integrated learning design (ILD) framework (Bannan-Ritland, 2003) which conceptualises educational research as an iterative process in which the evaluation and subsequent transformation of practice form a continuous feedback loop. There are four phases in this ILD framework: informed exploration; enactment; and evaluation (local and broad).
Whilst it was clear to us that e-portfolio had potential for supporting and integrating student learning by providing additional channels of communication and facilitating collaborative working and feedback, we anticipated challenges in identifying, acquiring and embedding an e-portfolio tool which was suitable for the pedagogical purposes envisaged and which engaged students.
What was the learning design?
The methodology adopted in this approach is the Integrated Learning Design Framework (Bannan-Ritland, 2003): we started by examining the propositions about teaching and learning that are integral to our work and then set out in a cycle of informed exploration and evaluation. As noted above, we wanted to foster a community of practice amongst students and tutors in a context of increasing student numbers and staff workloads and to encourage and support students to reflect upon, evaluate and plan their learning. Our adoption of an e-portfolio was one strategy to achieve these aims: we hoped that this tool would provide an additional route of communication and further opportunities for feedback and support.
Our primary assumption is that reflection plays a central role in student learning. Reflection may be an individual activity but also has an important social dimension: like learning in general, reflection is facilitated by an interactive and dialogic learning context. We therefore designed the learning and assessment processes in SSF in such a way as to capitalise on the functions of PebblePad, which allows for collaborative working practices (e.g. the design of group presentations), the sharing of work with peers and tutors for feedback purposes, and systematic collection and reflection on achievements. Of crucial importance for us was that, using PebblePad, students could substantiate their analysis of progress through the inclusion of hyperlinks to evidence - feedback comments, pieces of work etc. The design of this learning experience evolved over the course of the academic year as our familiarity with, and confidence in, the tool grew, and we plan to extend our use of it in the SSF module and beyond in the coming academic year. Throughout the development and implementation of the tool within SSF, we had technical support both from within the University and also from PebblePad. Initial use of PebblePad during 2006/7 has been solely for the work supporting, and assessment of, student PDPs (see attached webfolio assignment).
How did you implement and embed this e-learning approach?
Following the decision to use PebblePad, a training session was arranged for tutors and provided by PebblePad personnel. Students were initially introduced to the tool in a lecture, where there was a demonstration of the main features of the tool. Information sheets were also distributed. Students worked in small groups in IT labs with their tutors to set up and develop their PDP webfolios and subsequently had drop-in support at specified times. One tutor developed a webfolio for his retired racing greyhound ('Mrs Doyle') to demonstrate the functions of PebblePad.
Evaluation of the use of PebblePad is being gained through focus group meetings and interviews with students and tutors. In addition, the webfolios submitted by students for their assessment in SSF in Semester 2, 2006/7, are being analysed to evaluate the ways in which students have used the tool to aid reflection on, and planning of, their learning. This analysis is being undertaken using the paper-based assessments students submitted in 2005/6 as a comparator.
Some problems anticipated in relation to the implementation of this e-learning tool did arise. The lack of integration of the tool with the institution's VLE meant that the module tutor had to take full responsibility for all technical aspects of the implementation, with the guidance of the PebblePad technical support team. However, despite this drawback, the introduction of the e-portfolio tool went surprisingly smoothly: technical support was readily available from the commercial providers and, even with low levels of technical expertise, the module tutor was able to sort out most of the problems with little difficulty. In the future, the employment of e-learning technical support staff within the Faculty will take over some of the technical aspects of PebblePad functioning. Nevertheless, the feasibility in the medium- and long-term of using a commercial e-portfolio tool in an institution which has a strong commitment to the use of a common VLE across all courses is questionable.
Technology Used
What technologies and/or e-tools were available to you?
The institution is committed to the virtual learning environment (VLE), Blackboard, which has an e-portfolio application. However, the module team agreed that the Blackboard e-portfolio, in its current form, does not fully meet the requirements of the module or degree programme as it has limited functionality and is visually unattractive. We explored the use of open-source, web-based e-portfolio systems but had neither the technical expertise nor time to develop these. Instead, we decided to adopt the PebblePad e-portfolio package, developed and marketed by Wolverhampton University. This tool was chosen because of its pedagogical potential and technical sophistication:
- It is easy to use, visually attractive and inter-operable with other systems; students can take it with them into employment.
- It allows students to undertake group work - for example, to prepare group presentations.
- Work in progress can be shared with others and feedback gained.
- It is owned by the student, who can decide with whom aspects of it are shared.
- Assessment can be prepared and submitted via an assessment 'gateway'; feedback and marks are easily returned to students.
- Work, feedback and reflections can be collected together in one place.
- It encourages students to record thoughts, experiences, abilities and achievements; it supports students to produce action plans and CVs; it has a blog function.
- It allows the preparation of 'webfolios' with hypertext links to 'evidence' in a range of media (documents, film, audio files, web-based sources etc) and therefore has clear potential for PDP.
Tangible Benefits
What tangible benefits did this e-learning approach produce?
As the e-portfolio was only introduced to students in February 2007, it is rather too soon to assess its impact in terms of student learning, satisfaction and retention rates. However, early findings from the initial focus-group meetings are encouraging. The attractiveness and ease of use of the package appears to have motivated many students to engage with it: as one comments, 'It's interactive. I'm a visual learner; I prefer it to reading. I like to see things and build on it and see what I'm doing and things like that rather than just listing words on a page.' At the very least, the tool inspired the students to collect all their work and feedback in one place. For example, one student commented:
'I think it's helpful that you have all your assignments and feedback together so you can compare them and see where your strengths and weaknesses are and if they overlap. It's helped me in that way.'
The integrative function implicit in this statement, and others like it, reveal the potential of the tool in promoting an integrated learning environment in a number of ways. In addition to aiding students to reflect on their progress across the range of modules, some students commented on the ease with which they could collaborate on group work and receive feedback from tutors and peers on work in progress. Typical comments from students are:
'You can use PebblePad to interact better.'
'..more feedback as you can share with more people.'
'Makes it easier for tutors to view and comment on work.'
'It has spurred us on to do more group work. We share PebblePad and it has, since then, made us ask each other to look at work.'
Further integration will take place both horizontally, across the level of study, and vertically across the three years of the degree, as more tutors at each level incorporate the e-portfolio in their modules and as students build up a portfolio to monitor and reflect on their academic progress. Some students have already anticipated these benefits:
'I think it's good: it keeps building over the three years and you don't just stop after this - you keep going with it.'
'Students could be encouraged to put personal experience, societies they have been members of and jobs on it so that when they leave University they have a record they can use for their CV.'
There are benefits for tutors and the institution in the implementation and embedding of this e-learning tool. At an institutional level, the e-portfolio, when fully integrated with the University's VLE, will fulfil HEFCE's requirement that all students have a progress file. In addition, the collaborative work on e-portfolio with other HE institutions, both nationally and internationally through the NCEPR, is enhancing the reputation of the University. At the course level, the benefits of e-portfolio learning and assessment are already evident: electronic PDP submission and provision of feedback to students have reduced the costs of these processes; the provision of ongoing feedback to students has reduced the burden of end-loaded marking; staff buy-in to the tool is enhancing interaction with, and between, students; and, importantly, there is evidence that PDP is moving from a 'bolt-on' to an embedded aspect of course design.
Did implementation of this e-learning approach have any disadvantages or drawbacks?
Very few pedagogic disadvantages have yet been identified. The introduction of the tool was time-consuming, both for tutors and students, however, and some students commented on this. The lack of integration of PebblePad with the institution's VLE was seen as a disadvantage by some students, although others liked this separation. In hindsight, it is clear that sufficient time has to be found for students to become familiar with the tool and adequate at-elbow support is necessary. Tutors also need to be trained to use PebblePad and this must be built into course design. For the innovation to be successful, e-portfolio should be embedded on as many modules as possible at all levels of the degree course and this requires substantial work in terms of introduction of the tool, discussion of its pedagogic benefits, re-working of the learning and assessment experience and the on-going support of tutors.
At an institutional level, as noted above, there is an issue about the use of an electronic tool that is not integrated into the VLE and not centrally funded. Costs of the introduction of PebblePad so far have had to be met by putting together funding from a range of sources, notably two of the institutional CETLs (Centre for Excellence in the Promotion of Learner Autonomy and Centre for Excellence in Employability). Whilst the costs of the tool have been met for two entire cohorts of students on three degree programmes, and whilst these students will have the tool until they leave the University, the future of e-portfolio for students entering these degree programmes during 2008/9 has yet to be determined.
How did this e-learning approach accord with or differ from any relevant departmental and/or institutional strategies?
Support for e-learning is a priority within the University and Faculty strategic action plans and there is much work being undertaken in this area. Centrally, within the institution, e-learning developments are taken forward by the Learning and Teaching Institute, which offers support to faculties and tutors in the implementation of this technology. At the faculty level, there is an e-learning teaching fellow with a small technical team which supports developments in this field. However, much of the work on e-learning is centrally-driven and the scope for innovation at programme and course level is necessarily limited by the costs of adopting packages which are not centrally supported. Despite this, course teams in three of the four faculties have adopted PebblePad, on a trial basis at least, and there is growing interest in it across these faculties. This indicates the widespread interest of teaching teams in the use of e-portfolio and a will to be innovative in course design where pedagogic benefits are envisaged.
Nevertheless, there is considerable resistance amongst some tutors towards e-enabled learning and assessment processes and this resistance often has a sound grounding in concerns about health and safety, staff workloads, and pedagogic priorities. It takes time to unpick these concerns; the embedding of PebblePad at all levels of the degree programme is not therefore assured and has to be worked towards.
Lessons Learned
Summary and Reflection
As noted earlier, it is too early to assess the pedagogical benefits of the e-portfolio tool we have adopted, although early indications are that there are concrete, potentially quantifiable, benefits. Its introduction has been a sharp learning-curve for all concerned - in many ways, it may be seen as a case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. Whilst course teams are motivated by the pedagogic potential of new technology and, working 'at the chalk face', are acutely aware of the need to motivate students and enrich their learning experiences, the policies and practices of large, bureaucratic institutions are shaped by many other considerations. This disjunction can make pedagogic innovation hazardous. In addition, in a context of increasing staff workloads and pressure, the tendency to inertia is strong: if a pedagogic approach is new and untried, it is a risky and time-consuming business to experiment with it; in contrast, to continue to do what you know has worked reasonably satisfactorily in the past, despite its drawbacks, is the safe option. Successfully implementing and embedding a new way of doing things requires the winning of hearts and minds - and takes time. Lessons learnt are that more lead-in time is necessary for the introduction of e-learning technology, full discussion has to take place with others prior to its introduction, and adequate provision has to be made for training and support of both students and tutors.
Further Evidence
Typical student comments on the use of PebblePad e-portfolio:
'You can use PebblePad to interact better.'
'It has spurred us on to do more group work. We share PebblePad and it has, since then, made us ask each other to look at work.'
