strongly agree<\/em>. Six of these items also asked students to list additional information related to that category. Three additional items asked students to rate the electronic portfolio assignment on a 10-point scale, and the final item asked whether students thought the electronic portfolio assignment had been worth the time spent.<\/p>\nFindings<\/p>\n
For reporting purposes, the researchers collaboratively organized items into two major categories: (a) electronic portfolios, in general, and (b) this electronic portfolio assignment, in particular. Items pertaining to electronic portfolios, in general, were further categorized according to Kirkpatrick\u2019s (1996) four levels of evaluation: (a) reaction (attitudes), (b) learning, (c) transfer (application), and (d) results (impact on the organization). We selected this model because it goes beyond participants\u2019 satisfaction with a learning experience to examine projected application and change in the workplace. Items were categorized according to the present electronic portfolio assignment as \u201ctechnology\/resources,\u201d \u201cprocess,\u201d \u201cfeedback\/grading, \u201d and \u201ccompleted portfolios.\u201d<\/p>\n
More than half of the students agreed with each of the six statements related to attitudes (see Table 1). Twenty students agreed that electronic portfolios can be used to showcase teaching and learning. Slightly fewer students agreed that \u201celectronic portfolios provide a means of self-evaluation\u201d and \u201celectronic portfolios can be used for job interviews.\u201d Students were less likely to agree that electronic portfolios are more powerful and convenient than traditional portfolios or that they would like to put their portfolios on the Web.<\/p>\n
Table 1<\/strong>
\nReaction (Attitudes) of Preservice Teachers to the Electronic Portfolio Process (N = 23)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Item<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\n\n Agree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nNeutral \nNo.(%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nDisagree \nNo.(%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nMean<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nSD<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nShowcase teaching<\/td>\n | 20 (86.96)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 4.13<\/td>\n | .99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nShowcase learning<\/td>\n | 20 (90.91)<\/td>\n | 2 (9.09)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.55)<\/td>\n | 4.13a<\/sup><\/td>\n.90<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nSelf-evaluation<\/td>\n | 18 (78.26)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.87<\/td>\n | .85<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nCan be used during teaching interviews<\/td>\n | 17 (73.92)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3.84<\/td>\n | 1.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPowerful\/convenient<\/td>\n | 12 (52.17)<\/td>\n | 9 (39.13)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 3.61<\/td>\n | 1.01<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLike to put on Web<\/td>\n | 12 (52.17)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 3.22<\/td>\n | 1.35<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Note<\/em>. Scale ranged from 1 – strongly disagree<\/em> to 5 – strongly agree<\/em>. \na<\/sup>N<\/em> = 22<\/p>\n\n In the learning category, all but one student agreed that they learned about technology from the electronic portfolio assignment (see Table 2). These same students reported learning most about new equipment, and they listed digital video cameras, digital still cameras, Macintosh computers, and scanners under this item. Twenty-one students agreed that they learned new software, specifically I-movie, Avid Cinema, PowerPoint, QuickTime, and Adobe Acrobat. The remaining seven learning items also had high levels of agreement, making this component notable for its high means and low standard deviations. In other words, responses were more positive and more tightly clustered than in other sections of the study.<\/p>\n \n Table 2<\/strong> \nPreservice Teachers’ Perceptions About Their Learning Related to the Electronic Portfolio Process (N = 23)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nItem<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\n\n Agree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nNeutral \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nDisagree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nMean<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nSD<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nLearned technology<\/td>\n | 22 (95.66)<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.57<\/td>\n | .43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLearned new equipment<\/td>\n | 22 (95.66)<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.35<\/td>\n | .50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLearned new software<\/td>\n | 21 (91.30)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.13<\/td>\n | .47<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nCan apply what I learned to my learning<\/td>\n | 19 (82.60)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.09<\/td>\n | .41<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nImproved use of familiar software<\/td>\n | 19 (82.60)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.04<\/td>\n | .91<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLearned to organize and present ideas<\/td>\n | 19 (82.60)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.04<\/td>\n | .91<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nImproved use of familiar equipment<\/td>\n | 18 (78.26)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.96<\/td>\n | .64<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLearned to apply technology in learning<\/td>\n | 19 (82.60)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.96<\/td>\n | .86<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLearned to evaluate my teaching<\/td>\n | 19 (82.60)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.91<\/td>\n | .83<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLearned to evaluate my learning<\/td>\n | 18 (78.26)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.83<\/td>\n | .82<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Note<\/em>. Scale ranged from 1 – strongly disagree<\/em> to 5 – strongly agree<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the all-important area of transfer, all but one student agreed that they can apply what they learned while creating electronic portfolios to their teaching (see Table 3). Twenty students anticipated using their portfolios to reflect on future teaching development. Slightly fewer students agreed that they had learned to apply technology in their teaching and that they plan to use their portfolios in job searches. More than half agreed that they are \u201cmore likely to use technology in their future employment\u201d after creating portfolios. Twelve thought they would show their portfolios to their students, and 3 planned to have their students produce portfolios. On the other hand, only 4 responded that they did not plan to use their portfolios in the future.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Table 3<\/strong> \nPreservice Teachers’ Perceptions About Anticipated Applications (Transfer) of the Electronic Portfolio Process (N = 23)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nItem<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\n\n Agree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nNeutral \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nDisagree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nMean<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nSD<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nCan apply learning to teaching<\/td>\n | 22 (95.65)<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.04<\/td>\n | .75<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to use for reflecting on teaching\/professional development<\/td>\n | 20 (86.96)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.00<\/td>\n | .83<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLearned to apply technology in teaching<\/td>\n | 17 (73.92)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3.87<\/td>\n | 1.02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to use my portfolio in job searches<\/td>\n | 18 (78.26)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 3.83<\/td>\n | .92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nMore likely to use technology in future employment<\/td>\n | 14 (60.87)<\/td>\n | 8 (34.78)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.70<\/td>\n | .91<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nLearned ways to apply technology to education<\/td>\n | 12 (52.17)<\/td>\n | 9 (39.13)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 3.61<\/td>\n | .91<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to show portfolio to present\/future students<\/td>\n | 12 (52.12)<\/td>\n | 9 (39.13)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 3.52<\/td>\n | .93<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to use portfolio to apply for graduate school<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 14 (60.87)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 3.22<\/td>\n | .78<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to have my students produce portfolios<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 16 (69.57)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 2.96<\/td>\n | .75<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to put portfolio on the Web<\/td>\n | 8 (34.78)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 8 (34.78)<\/td>\n | 2.87<\/td>\n | 1.35<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nDo not plan to use portfolio in the future<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 16 (69.57)<\/td>\n | 2.30<\/td>\n | 1.20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Note.<\/em> Scale ranged from 1 – strongly disagree<\/em> to 5 – strongly agree<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Impact on future school setting had the lowest level of agreement of the four categories related to electronic portfolios in general (see Table 4). Fourteen students agreed that they planned to show their portfolios to other teachers and that other teachers would want to create portfolios after seeing theirs. This group of students was much less likely to agree that they would advocate for electronic portfolios for accreditation, student assessment or teacher assessment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Table 4<\/strong> \nPreservice Teachers’ Perceptions About Anticipated Impact (Results) of the Electronic Portfolio Process (N = 23)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nItem<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\n\n Agree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nNeutral \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nDisagree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nMean<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nSD<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nPlan to show my electronic portfolio to other teachers<\/td>\n | 14 (60.87)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 3.65<\/td>\n | .96<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPredict professional peers will want to produce portfolios when they see mine<\/td>\n | 14 (60.87)<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3.48<\/td>\n | .88<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to advocate portfolios by educators\/employees as part of accreditation\/quality process at school\/work site<\/td>\n | 5 (21.74)<\/td>\n | 12 (52.17)<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 3.13<\/td>\n | .80<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to prepare others in the portfolio production process<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 12 (52.17)<\/td>\n | 5 (21.74)<\/td>\n | 3.04<\/td>\n | .86<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to advocate for electronic portfolios as part of the assessment process for students<\/td>\n | 4 (18.18)<\/td>\n | 14 (63.64)<\/td>\n | 4 (18.18)<\/td>\n | 2.95a<\/sup><\/td>\n.71<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nPlan to advocate for portfolios as part of assessment process for employees at school\/work site<\/td>\n | 5 (21.74)<\/td>\n | 12 (52.17)<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 2.91<\/td>\n | .76<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Note<\/em>. Scale ranged from 1 – strongly disagree<\/em> to 5 – strongly agree<\/em>. \na<\/sup>N<\/em> = 22<\/p>\n <\/p>\n When evaluating the electronic portfolio assignment, students were most likely to agree they had adequate access to technical support, followed by adequate access to equipment, needed equipment, and needed software (see Table 5). Students\u2019 responses also show some difficulties related to both equipment and software. When asked to list areas of difficulty, 4 students specifically mentioned problems using Macintosh computers, 3 had problems with I-movie; and 2 students had difficulties with PowerPoint. More than half the students agreed that their lack of knowledge of technology was a problem. In fact, 1 student wrote an unsolicited comment: \u201cI knew nothing about technology before this project.\u201d Only 2 students judged the assignment to be too expensive.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Table 5<\/strong> \nPreservice Teachers’ Perceptions About Technology\/Resources During the Electronic Portfolio Process (N<\/em> = 23)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\nItem<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\n\n Agree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nNeutral \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nDisagree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nMean<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nSD<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAdequate access to technology support<\/td>\n | 19 (82.61)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 4.17<\/td>\n | 1.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nAdequate access to equipment<\/td>\n | 17 (73.91)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 3.74<\/td>\n | .90<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nAdequate access to needed equipment<\/td>\n | 17 (73.91)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3.74<\/td>\n | .99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nDifficulties related to equipment<\/td>\n | 14 (60.57)<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3.57<\/td>\n | .82<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nDifficulties related to software<\/td>\n | 14 (60.57)<\/td>\n | 5 (21.74)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 3.57<\/td>\n | .92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nAdequate access to needed software<\/td>\n | 14 (60.57)<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3.48<\/td>\n | .88<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nMy lack of knowledge of technology a problem<\/td>\n | 12 (52.17)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 3.26<\/td>\n | .94<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nAssignment was too expensive<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 17 (73.91)<\/td>\n | 2.17<\/td>\n | .82<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Note<\/em>. Scale ranged from 1 – strongly disagree<\/em> to 5 – strongly agree<\/em>.<\/p>\nWhen evaluating the process of creating their portfolios, 19 of the students agreed they felt time constraints (see Table 6). On the positive side, 20 students felt they had done adequate reflection on their development as both a teacher and a learner. More than half of the students agreed they were able to be creative, reflective, inquiring, dynamic, collaborative, and inclusive during this assignment. Fewer students believed sufficient class time had been allotted (10), the guidelines had been clearly stated (9), and that they had adequate opportunity to view peers\u2019 portfolios (7), or sufficient time to work on their portfolios (7).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Table 6<\/strong> \nPreservice Teachers’ Perceptions About the Process of Creating Electronic Portfolios (N = 23)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nItem<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\n\n Agree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nNeutral \nNo.(%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nDisagree \nNo.(%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nMean<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nSD<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFelt time constraints<\/td>\n | 19 (82.60)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 1(4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.30<\/td>\n | 1.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nAble to be creative<\/td>\n | 20 (86.96)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.17<\/td>\n | .92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nDid adequate reflection on development as teacher<\/td>\n | 20 (86.96)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 4.09<\/td>\n | .72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nDid adequate reflection on development as learner<\/td>\n | 20 (86.96)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 4.00<\/td>\n | .93<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWas reflective<\/td>\n | 20 (86.96)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.96<\/td>\n | .81<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWas inquiring<\/td>\n | 19 (82.60)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.83<\/td>\n | .76<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWas dynamic<\/td>\n | 16 (69.57)<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 1 (4.35)<\/td>\n | 3.74<\/td>\n | .85<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWas collaborative<\/td>\n | 14 (60.87)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 2 (8.70)<\/td>\n | 3.57<\/td>\n | .88<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nWas Inclusive<\/td>\n | 13 (56.52)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 3.39<\/td>\n | .82<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nGuidelines clearly stated<\/td>\n | 9 (39.13)<\/td>\n | 8 (34.78)<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 3.22<\/td>\n | .93<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nChallenging to select content<\/td>\n | 11 (47.83)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 3.22<\/td>\n | 1.06<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nSufficient class time allotted<\/td>\n | 10 (43.48)<\/td>\n | 4 (17.39)<\/td>\n | 9 (39.13)<\/td>\n | 3.17<\/td>\n | 1.20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nSufficient opportunity to view peers’ portfolios<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 9 (39.13)<\/td>\n | 2.91<\/td>\n | .97<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nSufficient time to work on<\/td>\n | 7 (30.43)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 13 (56.52)<\/td>\n | 2.61<\/td>\n | 1.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Note<\/em>. Scale ranged from 1 – strongly disagree<\/em> to 5 – strongly agree<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n More than half the students agreed that they had needed more direct guidance while creating their portfolios (see Table 7). Fewer students agreed that they received sufficient feedback from peers (10) or faculty (9). Eight students agreed that the electronic portfolios should be optional, and the same number believed it should be graded instead of credit\/no credit.<\/p>\n \n Table 7<\/strong> \nPreservice Teachers’ Perceptions About Feedback\/Grading Related to the Electronic Portfolio Process (N = 23)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nItem<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\n\n Agree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nNeutral \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nDisagree \nNo. (%) <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nMean<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n\nSD<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nI needed more direct guidance<\/td>\n | 12 (54.55)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.64)<\/td>\n | 7 (31.82)<\/td>\n | 3.41a<\/sup><\/td>\n1.11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nIt should be optional<\/td>\n | 8 (36.36)<\/td>\n | 8 (36.36)<\/td>\n | 6 (27.27)<\/td>\n | 3.18a<\/sup><\/td>\n1.07<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nI received sufficient feedback from peers<\/td>\n | 10 (43.48)<\/td>\n | 5 (21.74)<\/td>\n | 8 (34.78)<\/td>\n | 3.13<\/td>\n | 1.08<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nI received sufficient feedback from faculty<\/td>\n | 9 (39.13)<\/td>\n | 6 (26.09)<\/td>\n | 8 (34.78)<\/td>\n | 3.00<\/td>\n | .93<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nIt should be graded<\/td>\n | 8 (34.78)<\/td>\n | 3 (13.04)<\/td>\n | 12 (52.17)<\/td>\n | 2.70<\/td>\n | 1.30<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Note<\/em>. Scale ranged from 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |