As discussed last week, Portfolium is the e-portfolio that we use. Here is another video on Portfolium. Portfoilum- Student Overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7lSMhPPbAk&feature=youtu.be E-port

As discussed last week, Portfolium is the e-portfolio that we use. Here is another video on Portfolium. Portfoilum- Student Overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7lSMhPPbAk&feature=youtu.be

E-portfolios are considered the authentic work-products of students and well-suited for self-assessment and peer-review (as a means of improving student learning). Why is this so, in your opinion? Why are e-portfolios more authentic representations of your work, for example, over a graded comprehensive exam or a thesis?

Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 250 words.

Lesson:

Lesson Topics

• Benefits
• Review and Findings
• Outcomes
• Responsibilities of the Peer Reviewer

Introduction

Last week we learned about creating an e-portfolio and pitch. This week we’re going to discuss the critiquing of a peer’s e-portfolio and pitch by providing constructive feedback with guidance from a rubric. You’ll notice that there is some overlap in the information presented in the two lessons; however, the focus in this lesson is on peer-assessment rather than self-assessment.

The lesson is separated into four sections designed to help you meet course Learning Objective #6: Critique a peer’s e-portfolio and pitch by providing feedback using the assigned rubric. The objective of this lesson, therefore, is to improve a peer’s e-portfolio and pitch through critical, but constructive, peer analysis.

Benefits

Early on in the academic process, the student learning aperture is set relatively narrowly; for example, on meeting forums (feedback) and assignment requirements (research, analysis, and synthesis of information); and not on his or her career objectives. Students are decidedly focused on outcomes such as grades and graduation and less on the process of learning. Student insight (and the resulting ability to apply such insight) into his or her own unique process of learning is ultimately more valuable (Acker, 2005). Over time, an inversion occurs whereby the student’s focus becomes more strategic and less tactical.

The e-portfolio development process helps channel this new-found focus on a final academic outcome (graduation) or what might come next – a new job, a career departure, preparation for post-graduate study, etc.

Review and Findings

Structured e-portfolio peer review is a productive means of both sharing and self-assessing one’s own academic record and providing constructive feedback on another student’s academic record. The University has developed an e-portfolio peer review rubric to guide peer evaluation and feedback and has incorporated both self-assessment and peer-assessment as part of the rubric requirements.

A crucial element of e-portfolio self-assessment and peer review is the standardization of the presentation such that artifact and metadata linked to an artifact enhance both the development and self-assessment of the e-portfolio by the student and the peer review of the e-portfolio by others.

The University of Wisconsin (2017) developed a list of review criteria and exemplary findings that organize the review process (i.e., what to look for) and set target findings, for use in self-assessment and peer feedback of e-portfolios.

E-Portfolio Review Rubric

Outcomes

Now that we understand more about the student benefits of developing e-portfolios as well as their value in the self-assessment and peer-review processes, how to review an e-portfolio, and what our target findings should be, let’s explore learning outcomes associated with the e-portfolio curriculum.

According to Kuh, Jankowski, Ikenberry & Kinzie (2014), as cited in Eynon & Gambino (2014), from 2009 through 2013, e-portfolio use by higher education in outcomes assessment grew by over 300%! The challenge, not just to this University but for all universities using outcome-based assessment e-portfolio programs, is how to use the program to increase success and persistence rates and to improve the student learning experience.

Eynon & Gambino (p.1) found identifiable threads in successful e-portfolio programs. Data collection was structured based on models and frameworks. Increased faculty engagement was prevalent. E-portfolios were considered more authentic work of students, and thus the assessed results were bought-into by students giving and receiving feedback.

Best Practices

Through their University of Illinois study, Eynon & Gambino found that successful programs engaged stakeholders in processes guided by the following three best practices.

· Inquiry

· Reflection

· Integration

A structured inquiry and assessment process, which focuses on student learning and improvement.

By facilitating inquiry, reflection, and integration, i.e., “closing the loop,” the e-portfolio program can implement changes that improve student learning.

Responsibilities of the Peer Reviewer

The work of self-assessing and peer-reviewing e-portfolios falls to you, the student, to make the assessment/review process constructive and value-added (for the beneficiary of your review). Sarah Brash, in her Arizona State University blog on e-portfolios, shared this insight she gained through the self-assessment and peer-review processes.

I learned to actually read my own work. If I treated my own words as the words of someone else, I found that I had more advice to give on how to edit. Also, I had a difficult time critiquing others works as well. I would merely just attempt to give them good advice. What I lacked was relevant feedback to my peers. Sure, it was good advice. But why was this advice good? Why was I advising my peers to this advice? Those are the questions that I now answer when critiquing. Learning how to keep my feedback relevant as well as adding new information was a hard concept for me to grasp. I would constantly go back to the teacher's original post to make sure I was answering all the questions accurately (Brash, 2017, para. 1).

One last teaching point on peer-reviewing a fellow student’s e-portfolio. Be constructive in content and tone. Budget your time to make the review relevant, accurate, and complete.

Conclusion

This week we learned about the benefits, review and findings, and outcomes associated with critiquing a peer's e-portfolio and pitch. Standardizing the peer review feedback is essential to the success of both the evaluation process and the student’s development. APUS has created and implemented a rubric to facilitate this evaluation and feedback process.

References

Acker, S. R. (2005, March 14). Overcoming Obstacles to Authentic ePortfolio Assessment. Retrieved from Campus Technology https://campustechnology.com/articles/2005/03/overcoming-obstacles-to-authentic-eportfolio-assessment.aspx

Brash, S. (2017, March 5). Sarah Brash's E-Portfolio. Retrieved from Arizona State University https://asu.digication.com/sarah_brashs_eportfolio/Critiquing

Eynon, B., & Gambino, L. (2014, April 16). Catalyst for Learning: ePortfolio-Based Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from University of Illinois https://illinois.edu/blog/view/915/111700

University of Wisconsin-Stout. (2017, March 5). EPortfolio (Digital Portfolio) Rubric. Retrieved from University of Wisconsin-Stout https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/eportfoliorubric.html