portfolios in a bachelor of education...

Introduction to Portfolio: Process versus Product

Within the Education Programme at the Higher Colleges of Technology the focus of portfolios is changing from discrete, assessed products to the integrated processes of compiling a portfolio. Consider Learning Outcome Three from a first-year course on learning technologies: “Use web-based tools to create resources for an ICT Portfolio” (Higher Colleges of Technology, 2013). An interesting distinction is that while the assessment strategy for the course demands a portfolio as product, the outcomes themselves direct students to create resources and dem-onstrate the processes required for the portfolio, but not to create the portfolio itself.

Consider Learning Outcome Four from the same first-year course; “Review and apply file management techniques to students’ own education coursework materials to reference ongoing learning, demonstrate developing competencies, showcase best practice and knowledge construction” (Higher Colleges of Technology, 2013). In this outcome, students are directed to pursue a range of processes, often considered portfolio activities. This may reflect the importance of the process over product. The product – the showcase portfolio – becomes a result of the learning activities.

In a study on the use of portfolios in secondary schools,

Dr. Helen Barrett (2007) distinguishes between portfolios used as assessments of learning and portfolios that sup-port assessment for learning. In the first case, the portfolio is something to be assessed - an object or an artefact in itself. The portfolio is usually developed at the end of a semester or course as a discrete, summative assessment.

In the second case, the portfolio is used to support assess-ment and guide students towards learning outcomes, act-ing not only as a repository or aggregator of artefacts, but as a developmental tool. These portfolios are used on an ongoing basis and provide a more formative role (p. 444).

This paper will investigate how web 2.0 tools and activities may best support the concept of a ‘portfolio approach to learning’ as a social process. In this paper, Web 2.0 tools are held to be those which allow people to communicate and interact with each other through electronic means. One of the benefits of these tools is that the interactions they support can be preserved, reviewed and shared for reflec-tive and formative purposes. A relational constructionist approach provides a theoretical underpinning to the research and interpretations, while the Community of In-quiry model as defined by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000), provides a structure for activities that is “shaped by purposeful, open, and disciplined critical discourse and reflection” (Garrison & Vaughn, 2008, p. 14).

Portfolios in a Bachelor of Education Programme

By Paul Leslie

Abstract

Much of a 21st century approach to education is based around the concept of social interaction (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000; Crook, 1994; Ash & Clayton, 2009; Thatchenkery & Chowdry, 2007; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2010). The concept of a ‘portfolio approach to learning’ may offer a series of processes which can facilitate the sharing of ideas in a post-industrial learning environment (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2010, p. 18). Relational Constructionism offers a theoretical underpinning to portfolio learning by highlighting how knowledge is constructed. The Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000) offers a clear framework within which learning processes may be facilitated.

Keywords: Apple iPad, Mobile-learning, eLearning, Cloud-Computing, apps, paperless classroom

25December 2014 Issue

Portfolio Approach to Learning and Relational ConstructionismA 21st century approach to learning encourages students to share their ideas openly and then build their own understanding of the world around them (Lowenthal & Thomas, 2010). To manage ‘21st century learning’, the concept of ‘portfolio learning’ may offer a framework in which to pursue educational activities. Portfolio learn-ing is viewed as a process rather than a product, and is a “… holistic approach to teaching and learning that encompasses the varied activities involved in providing an educational experience” (Leslie, 2012, p. 166). In support of this notion, Friere (1970) notes that artefacts and activities need to be viewed in their proper context, and not merely as “…contents…detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give them significance” (p. 52).

Social construction and relational being focuses on how our interactions with others create an understanding of ourselves. “We do not possess emotions independent of relationships, for example.” (Gergen, 2011, p. 281). We often view ourselves in terms of how we think others see us. Similarly, “In the social constructionist view, relationships are the primary source of good and bad, right and wrong.” (McNamee, 2004, p. 407). Relationships can often be one-sided, or dictated by one side from a position of power. By allowing some distance between participants through the asynchronous nature of many of the Web 2.0 tools, such imbalanced relationships can often be ameliorated, giving all participants a more rewarding experience.

A social constructionist approach invites the teacher-train-ees to view the contents, reflections and comments of not

only their own portfolios, but those of others, as relational and interactive products. Freire (1970) states that, “Human activity consists of action and reflection” (p. 106), where liberated educators and students share their thoughts and ideas and then reconsider all ideas as expressed by their community.

Community of Inquiry

Web 2.0 activities and the Community of Inquiry model provide a framework within which the various portfolio learning processes can be structured into a cohesive whole. Within this framework, the sharing of experiences and artefacts will be combined with rigorous, directed discussion in a variety of formats and using a variety of activities. As noted, much of a 21st century approach to education is based around the concept of social interac-tion (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000; Crook, 1994; Ash & Clayton, 2009; Thatchenkery & Chowdry, 2007; Scarda-malia & Bereiter, 2010).

The use of social media, including blogs and discussion boards facilitates the sharing of ideas and encourages cognitive dissonance in a community of inquiry. In a relational constructionist approach, the process of how we relate to others and of how we construct knowledge are central (McNamee & Hosking, 2012). In the context of portfolio learning, practices in the classroom, as well as virtually, are defined and determined not only by relation-ships to those around us, but also by the relationships and voices that exist between and beyond us.

Figure 1: Community of Inquiry (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000, p. 88)

Community of Inquiry

Communication Medium


Figure 1 highlights the importance of having a balance of the three presences; social, cognitive and teaching. A complaint of online discussions, the primary form of communication in an online community of inquiry, is that while discussion provides participants with time to think, these discussion are often far too social (Swan, 2010; Leslie, 2008; Leslie, 2012, Leslie, 2013). However, clear guid-ance on the community of inquiry model for students can greatly improve the quality of interactions by increasing the quality of the posts and the incisiveness of the ques-tions and comments to those posts (Leslie, 2013).

Sharing the portfolio process within a community of inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) moves it from a learner-centred approach to a social-centred approach, in line with a Vygotskian viewpoint that looks at the social aspects of learning first. A collaborative inquiry approach suggests that, “students … treat ideas as real things that can be improved by means of discourse” (Hui & van Aalst, 2009, Introduction, para. 1).

Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2010) comment that we are leaving an industrial age learning paradigm, in which the learning process focused around the student and ide-als of independence, learner-focus, autonomy, and other independence-oriented concepts. These types of process-es do not promote collaboration and sharing of ideals, but in fact enhance just the opposite through competition. Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2010) add that we are now entering a “post-industrial” (p. 18) age of blended educa-tion. This age will be marked by sharing and collaboration, by interdependence and by being able to be heard and by being encouraged to hear, share and comment with each other.

According to Cleveland-Innes and Garrison (2010), online learning and blended learning is the “integration of con-nectivity with asynchronicity” (p. 19) and this integration allows for unique forms of communication. While portfolio as product is not new, a greater focus on portfolio as pro-cess may provide an alternative approach that will allow us to make the most of our new e-learning environment. Miller (2010) asks how can we create a sense of communi-ty among our students, and states that, “web applications facilitate a degree of collaboration and active creation of knowledge that are not feasible in a typical classroom” (p. 41).

Context of the Study

With the Higher Colleges of Technology, all Education students are required to develop and maintain an ePort-folio. Hence, all students have developed a familiarity with the ePortfolio concept, although much of the students’

portfolio development is of Barrett’s (2007) first instance of portfolio development: purely for showcase and assess-ment purposes.

In gathering evidence for this paper, all 30 students from a fourth-year cohort of the Educational Technology Programme at HCT-Sharjah Women’s College (SWC) were invited to participate in a series of focus groups. From this cohort, three groups of five students agreed to participate in the focus groups, which were conducted and digitally recorded by the author. The focus groups were confined to the fourth-year cohort upon consideration that they have had the longest exposure to portfolios during their academic career.

Paper-based surveys were conducted with members of the first and third-year cohorts in order to provide insight into their general use of social media, apart from their use in portfolios and regular classwork.

Artefacts from all ePortfolios of each cohort were exam-ined, initially for assessment purposes and subsequently for this paper.

Portfolio Approach to Learning as Social Activity

“[D]ifferences in assumptions generate different forms of practice.” (McNamee & Hosking, 2012, p. 17). The as-sumption for online presence in social networking is that people do not act like ‘themselves’ and that they pretend to be someone different. This assumption often leads to negative opinions on the use of social media in educa-tional settings. To investigate this assumption, another survey question asked students if they act differently on social networking sites than they do in face to face situa-tions. While 18 of 24 students responded yes, all respond-ed, against common assumptions, that they feel free to be ‘themselves’. The implication is that when in face-to-face interactions, they are not being ‘themselves’.

One respondent wrote, “In real life, I don’t like to argue with someone about my opinion but in social sites, I say my opinion.” Another wrote, “Online, people are more open to what they say. We can ask anything without having to be shy.” These responses strengthen the earlier argument that the distance social media provides enables greater freedom of expression. In support, Swan (2010) states that “online learning provides opportunities for criti-cal discourse without the obligation to necessarily con-form, which sometimes happens in a face-to-face context (p. 151).” Perhaps social media including discussion boards will allow students and teachers a more focused and thus greater voice in their own affairs, without the influence of


power structures interfering with a person’s desire to say what she really thinks.

A survey question asked first-year students, “What per-centage of time do you spend interacting through social networking sites versus face-to-face interactions?” Twelve of the fifteen respondents said 50% or more with at least two stating more than 80%. “[Students] can create arenas for the precious experiences of motivated argument and reflection” (Crook, 1994, p. 116).

Perhaps social media, and the distance it provides, em-powers students to have a greater say in their educational relationships. A telling statement indicates that students were willing to use their social media platforms to present alternate explanations and ideas, different from their col-leagues: “I can notice that my classmates are becoming more independent from us and are becoming different.”

Overwhelmingly, the focus group discussions and responses centred on the social aspects of the portfolio process. Throughout the focus groups, students repeat-edly referred to social media as positive tools for their portfolios, making comments such as, “”When I saw your tweets on your site, I thought, ‘yeah, I want that’”, or, “It would be great to have a time when we can all go online at the same time.” Considering that these students met each other every day in the classroom, the enthusiasm displayed for online communications speaks to the desire for some socially levelling distance between classmates.

Portfolio Approach to Learning in a Com-munity of InquiryThe fourth-year students also commented extensively on their use of discussion boards and other forms of social media. One stated, “We want more communication in our tools. Discussion boards are good because you can see more people’s comments more easily.”

When students are given guidelines on how to pose ques-tions to their classmates, they are in effect given permis-sion to question their classmates – an act they might otherwise be reticent to do. These improved questions greatly enhance the teaching presence (Leslie, 2013). This has two significant results. One is that substantive feedback is very motivating. “They are looking at our work and doing their work according to your own work and this is very motivating to do more work.” The other is that knowledge is more readily constructed. “We got valuable feedback from the comments that others left on our site and posts.”

As with social and cognitive presence which must come from all participants, one teacher cannot hope to provide sufficient teaching presence and hence instructional

guidance for all participants. In a portfolio process, the responses and guidance which comprise a teaching pres-ence need to come from all participants as much as from the teacher. Similarly, in any classroom the students are as much an integral part of a classroom or a course as the faculty or the resources (Haughey, 2010, Leslie, 2013).

In a third-year discussion board task, a student pursued her classmates’ challenges to her initial post. She posited a certain response, and subsequently pursued the topic throughout the rest of the discussion board activity over a span of approximately one week. This was an intriguing display of her process of discovery, and the development of her and her classmates’ ideas on that particular topic (Leslie, 2013).

Students were also given guidance on how to improve the quality of their reflective posts, thus not only making them more rewarding to write, but also making them more enjoyable for others to read. One form of guidance employed with the fourth-year Education cohort was to provide a range of examples for reflective comments and map these examples to Bloom’s Taxonomy (See Appendix A). Students were able to review their own writing more thoroughly and avoid giving a simple recitation of facts and events. Deeper analysis of their experiences also pro-vided greater opportunities for feedback from colleagues.

Portfolio Approach to Learning and the Curation of Artefacts“We really benefit from viewing our colleagues portfolios and see how they are displaying their work and what they are displaying and this will give me great ideas about how to display my own work.” Similarly, another student noted, “If I could see my old ideas, I can expand on them and make myself better. I can see other students’ work as well and expand on their ideas.” Consequently, the processes involved in the collection and curation of these products takes on greater significance. The value or importance of these products is determined in relation to the processes that they are supporting, the people involved (humanis-tic), the time and place (longitudinal), the location (situ-ational) and the local culture.

In discussing the value of a personal portfolio site or tool, one student stated that, “I shared a lot of my work and my calendar so that my friends knew what I was doing and when”, while another commented that maintaining her journal, “will help other people see the same problems that I had and how they can avoid the problems.” These comments outline how the portfolio approach allows stu-dents to readily view each other’s work and benefit from that constructed knowledge.


A fourth-year student discussed how she can, “go to the site and see if anyone else is online that might answer my question”. This underlines not only the benefits of a portfolio collection, but for an aggregator site to act a hub for various groups or sections of students, allowing participants to find each other’s work. Such a site would become even more important for professional teachers who are often isolated in their classroom and who may not have many opportunities to engage face-to-face with their colleagues.

Similarly, “If it is an ePortfolio, everything can be shared easily and even students and parents can see parts of the work and materials.” This statement highlights how the portfolio process invites parents and the wider education-al community into the conversation about their children’s education.

Conclusion

From a constructionist point of view, learning will be greatly enhanced if students, or life-long learners, can reflect on their work as they progress. Learning is also greatly enhanced if learners can share pieces of their work with colleagues, get their feedback and experience ‘cognitive dissonance’ that often comes from academic debate. Both a relational constructionist approach and the community of inquiry model support the development of student voices based on experiences and not on expec-tations from others. A fourth-year student, commenting on her internship experience noted that, “I think teach-ers need to develop their ideas and they can do this by seeing other people’s work and share their ideas through their journals.”

Portfolio as Learning Resource System (LRS)

Figure 2 describes the portfolio approach to learning, in which the portfolio is viewed as a concept rather than an object. The portfolio approach incorporates a learning resource system as an aggregator or portfolio tool. The process starts when a learner (teacher or student) makes a professional decision to collect and curate their materi-als, ideas and artefacts. The learner selects their preferred libraries (e.g. Youtube, Google Drive, WordPress, Linkedin) based on their personal interests and on institutional re-

quirements. Much of the participants’ efforts will be spent amongst the library tools.

A discerning and critical curation of portfolio artefacts al-lows the learner or professional to simultaneously present different collections, change the composition of the spe-cific collections to match expectations, and highlight their own development over time. Clear guidance on what is expected in the form of demonstrations of competencies

Figure 2: The Portfolio Approach to Learning


can come from stakeholders such as teachers or employ-ers (See Appendix B). In much the same way as a pop-art rendering of an image shows different views of the same person, the learner can show different glimpses of their persona to different audiences. These audiences can be different teachers, different employers or ministries of education.

Implications of the Study: Portfolio Ap-proach to Learning

Further feedback through the focus groups highlights a variety of features and processes that need to be ad-dressed in any successful portfolio approach to learn-ing. This feedback has been organized by process and mapped to the Community of Inquiry model.

COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY PRESENCE

TOOL OR PROCESS COMMENTS

Social presence

Sharing Personal Information • Can overlap with other presences depending on use. Most commonly used tools between students

•Personalmediaaccounts

o Twitter

o LinkedIn

o Instagram

o Google +

Editable profile • Shows personality

Email • Only used by prior consent

Cognitive presence

Content and Artefact sharing •Can be drawn from media accounts, personal work

•Stored externally to the portfolio tool

• weblinks

• References

• embedded media

o videos

o Pictures

o slideshows

cloud storage • Mostly personal, but documents and folders can be shared•file management

Ideas and cognitive dissonance

•journals / blogs

•discussion boards / forums

•chat

longitudinal / continuous usage

Teaching presence

Assessed tasks • For professionals, these can be dem-onstrations of competencies speci-fied by stakeholders

•directed posts

•deadlines

schedule / calendar

Advertising new content •Very important to ensure audience participation•notifications

•Messaging tool

consistency in interface •Needs to be easy to access

•Clear menus

visitor tracking

Table 1 Portfolio Learning through the Community of Inquiry


Table 1 highlights the complexities students and profes-sionals face in their daily educational life. From this table perhaps emerges a better understanding of the concept of portfolio learning as a tool and process to help both students and professional teachers manage the many tasks that they face every day. The Community of Inquiry model serves as mapping tool to allow practitioners place their activities into a context in which they can better ap-preciate the significance of various tasks.

A final comment from a fourth-year student sums up the portfolio learning concept, “Now that I am graduating I am now realizing the importance of the portfolio. I am now wondering where I can keep all my work so that I can find and see it later.”

Privacy

Lowenthal and Thomas (2010) discuss the notion of open assessment, noting that, “Even as numerous studies and commonsense experience point to social interaction in online courses as a key success factor, we find far too many faculty eliminating opportunities for conversation by asking students to turn in work privately” (The Problem with the Digital Dropbox and misconstrued Conceptions of Student Privacy). They add that, “public performance of student work … provides remarkable learning oppor-tunities for students receiving feedback from their peers, outside experts, and the instructor” (Conclusion).

In terms of a portfolio approach to learning, encourag-ing life-long learners to share their work more openly can provide the support and encouragement needed to strive towards a better understanding of their work.

Limitations of the Study

The use of portfolios in Education is not new, and so many of the participants, especially in the third and fourth-year cohorts possessed a preconceived notion of portfolios as a product, and as something to be completed along with other projects. Although there is a need for portfolio as showcase product, this view of portfolios is seen to be counter to the best practices involved in a portfolio ap-proach to learning.

To combat these preconceived notions, some aspects of this paper including some discussions of social media are based on data gathered outside of portfolio-based activi-ties. While it may be argued that these activities are right-fully part of a portfolio approach, some of the participants may not have been considering some of their responses in terms of a portfolio approach.

Further Studies

Given the need for some consistency to facilitate assess-ment and measurement, the portfolio tool should be provided by the institution. At the HCT-Sharjah Colleges, Mahara (Mahara, 2013), an open source software will be trialed as an aggregator and portfolio interface tool.

Figure 3: Welcome Page for the SWC Education Program Portfolio Learning Site


Figure 3 shows the initial interface of the Mahara site. This software was chosen based on a fourth-year internship research project. This portfolio tool enables the learner to share various curations of their work with a variety of audi-ences for a wide range of assessment and accreditation requirements.

A complaint of, and about, professionals is that they often have no way of “accounting for the artful competence” (Schon, 1983, p. 19) that they display in their daily work. A Portfolio Approach encourages professionals to simulta-neously showcase their work and simply share it. Similarly, there is now a greater demand to show what is being taught and what is being learned (Kanuka & Brooks, 2010).

References

Ash, S., & Clayton, P. (2009). Generating, Deepening, and Documenting Learning: The Power of Critical Reflection in Applied Learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1, 25-48.

Barrett, H. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT Initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436-449. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.6.2

Barrett, H. C. (2008). The Reflect Initiative. National Educa-tional Computing Conference. Retrieved September 16, 2012, from http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/Final-Report0708.pdf

Cleveland-Innes, M. F., & Garrison, D. R. (2010). (eds) An Introduction to Distance Education. New York: Routledge.

Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the Collaborative Experi-ence of Learning. London: Routledge.

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Opppresed. London: Penguin Books.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Con-ferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved September 1, 2012, from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sites/community-ofinquiry.com/files/Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf

Gergen, K. (2007). Relativism, Religion, and Rela-tional Being. Common Knowledge, 13(2/3), 362-378. doi:10.1215/0961754x-2007-011

Gergen, K. (2009). Relational Being. New York: Oxford University Press

Gergen, K. J. (2011). Relation Being: A Brief Introduction. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 24(4), 280-282. Re-trieved August 29, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2011.593453

Gergen, K. J., Schrader, S. M., & Gergen, M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructing Worlds Together. Boston: Pearson Education.

Haughey, M. (2010). Teaching and Learning in Distance Education Before the Digital Age. In Cleveland-Innes, M. F., & Garrison, D. R. (2010). (eds) An Introduction to Distance Education. New York: Routledge.

Higher Colleges of Technology. (2013, August 29). EDU 1302. Retrieved from Higher Colleges of Technology - Curricunet: http://www.curricunet.com/HCT/reports/record_outline.cfm?courses_id=7353

Hui, N., & van Aalst, J. (2009). Participation in Knowledge-Building Discourse: An Analysis of Online Discussions in Mainstream and Honours Social Studies Courses. Cana-dian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(1). Retrieved September 16, 2012, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/515/245

Kanuka, H. & Brooks, C. (2010). Distnace Education in a Post-Fordist Time: Negotiating Difference. In Cleveland-Innes, M. F., & Garrison, D. R. (2010). (eds) An Introduction to Distance Education. New York: Routledge.

Leslie, P. (2008, October). Post-Secondary Students’ Pur-poses for Blogging. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Retrieved February 8, 2012, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/560/1099

Leslie, P. (2012, September). Portfolio Approach to Learn-ing: Application with Educational Technology Students. In Dowling, S. (ed.), Opening up Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 153-162). Abu Dhabi: HCT Press. Retrieved from http://shct.hct.ac.ae/events/edtechpd2013/articles2012/index.asp

Leslie, P. (2013). Communities of Inquiry and Assess-ment: Graded Discussions. In Dowling, S. (ed), Redefining Learning(Vol. 2, pp. 153-164). Abu Dhabi: HCT Press.

Lowenthal, P. R., & Thomas, D. (2010, September 22). Death to the Digital Dropbox: Rethinking Student Privacy and Public Performance. Educause Quarterly. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/death-digital-dropbox-rethinking-student-privacy-and-public-performance

McNamee, S. (2004). Imagine Chicago: a methodology for cultivating community social construction in practice. Journal Of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(5), 406-409. doi:10.1002/casp.799


McNamee, S., & Hosking, D. M. (2012). Research and Social Change. New York: Routledge.

Miller, G. (2010) Organization and Technology of Distance Education. In Cleveland-Innes, M. F., & Garrison, D. R. (2010). (eds) An Introduction to Distance Education. New York: Routledge.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010, Fall). A Brief History of Knowledge Building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved September 19, 2012, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/574/276

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. London: Ashgate.

Swan, K. (2010). Teaching and Learning in Post-Industrial Distance Education. In Cleveland-Innes, M. F., & Garrison, D. R. (2010). (eds) An Introduction to Distance Education. New York: Routledge.

Thatchenkery, T., & Chowdry, D. (2007). Appreciative In-quiry and KNowledge Management: A scial construction-ist perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.


Appendix A:

Writing a reflectionWhen creating your reflections, think about the following table.

Table 1: Bloom›s Taxonomy and Reflective Practice

BLOOM’S CLASSIFICATION EXAMPLES OF LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS

REFLECTIVE ACTIVITIES

Knowledge Identify, define, order Recount your experiences

Comprehension Explain describe, restate Highlight main points or exemplary experiences

Application Apply, solve, choose Relate the causes of your experiences to examples from learning theories

Analysis Analyze, compare, contrast Discuss why you think students / peo-ple reacted the way they did to your lessons or activities

Synthesis Synthesize, develop, propose Suggest possible courses of action to improve or at least vary the activities

Evaluation Evaluate, assess, judge, critique Give honest opinions of how you are doing.


Appendix B:

Curating artefactsPlease use the following table to help you determine what artefacts will best help you demonstrate the five HCT Teach-ing competencies.

Table 2: Curated Artefacts

HCT TEACHING COMPETENCY ARTEFACT

Professionalism and Understanding Certificates of Workshop attendance

Anecdotes from colleagues

Images of professional treatment of guests

Curated collection of work clearly related to competencies

Planning for learning Lesson plans

Photos of arranged / organized classrooms

Anecdotes from fixing equipment and noting issues to be resolved

Implementing and Managing Learning Videos from the classroom

Images from the classroom

Observations from colleagues, MST, MCT

Feedback from surveys

Assessment and Evaluation Products from student activities

Test scores and graphs

Anecdotes from students on what they learned

Reflection Journal entries

Daily reflective entries

Curated collection of work

Paul Leslie is an educator with over twenty years of experience in high schools, colleges and universities around the world. His teaching loads have included European History, Canadian Geography, French Immersion Studies, ESL, Computer Studies and Faculty Training. Since returning to the UAE in 2009, after a two-year absence to work as a curriculum consultant in Nova Scotia, Canada, he has been a faculty member at the Higher Colleges of Technology in the Education Program. He has taught in both the English Language Teaching Program at Ras al Khaimah and in the Educational Technology Program at Sharjah.

He is currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program in Social Sciences at the University of Tilburg in the Netherlands. He also holds a B.A., B.Ed., and M.Ed. from Canada and an M.A. from the UK. He has published several articles on blogging, discussion boards and portfolios.

Paul LeslieFaculty of EducationHigher Colleges of Technology SWC


portfolios in a bachelor of education...

Documents