1. UpgradingePortfoliosUsing 2.0 Concepts for FormativeDevelopmentJosh YavelbergJosh.Yavelberg@flyingcloudsolutions.com

2. ePortfolios 3. What do I mean by 2.0? 4. Formative Feedback 5. Formative Feedback 6. OnlineLearning 7. Overview / Critique of the ePortfolio fieldApps or SitesPebblePadOthers? 8. Is there learning? 9. Method Design Based Research Developed an LMS platform using Elgg incorporatingePortfolio features, social networking functions, andclassroom group sites Developed for one instructors courses and used for over ayear as a pilot incorporating 20 different courses. Survey delivered to students to gauge perception: Mix of Likert scale and open ended responses 10. Yavelfolio http://youtu.be/8eda8l0qDaA 11. Survey ResultsEase of UseI could notnavigate, findinformation okeep up withwhat wasgoing onI had an easytime keepingup andnavigating thesystemGroup Pages (onlineclassroom page)Theclassroompage wasconfusingI found theclassroompage to behelpful andeasy to use 12. Survey ResultsI never usedthe profileand dontunderstandor care to usethe featuresI found theprofiles to beuseful andplan to use thefeatures in thefutureProfile PagesI neverloggedinto thesiteI logged infrequentlyLogin and Use 13. Survey ResultsThelayout forthe sitewas ugly,clutteredandconfusingThe layoutfor the sitefeltfamiliar,pleasing,and easyto navigateLayoutI did not andwill not usea site such asthis tocommunicate withclassmatesand sharemy workI used the siteand wish touse the sitethroughoutmy school tocommunicatewith studentsand faculty toshare mywork andreflectionsCommunication and Networking 14. Survey Results 72% would continue to use this service or a similarone to maintain a profile and communicate withclassmates 27.6% Currently use an online service to showcasetheir work: Blogger, Google+, Tumblr, Facebook andDeviant Art 76% believed the online components to be helpful totheir learning or engagement in the course. 15. Survey ResultsWhat issues didstudents have? Technical Confusing process at first Layout led to troublesomenavigation Need clearer courseexpectations Respected instructorfeedback and wantedmore Want mobile accessability General Internetaccessibility issues orforgot to sign in afterleaving class. 16. Survey ResultsWhat did students want to see added? Clearer wall component (Open Gallery) Instant Messaging Online tutoring, office hours, or postedsynchronous study sessions Video Tutorials (even though they were there) 17. Survey ResultsDid the online component aid in learningor engagement? Allowed for communication, sharing, andcritique Repository for course information, assignments,and grades (organization) Seeing others work was inspirational and helpedwith expectations. 18. Survey Results 19. Survey Limitations00.511.522.533.544.55Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4Series 1 20. YavelfolioObservations and benefits: Students interact across courses Feedback is directly linked to artifacts allowing users torecall assessments Privacy features allow for custom sharing Separate from informal social networks (Facebook, etc.)allowing for more academic discourse Classroom LMS and ePortfolios combined into onesystem rather than using multiple platforms 21. YavelfolioChallenges: Language Engagement Students dont want to do it once they leave the physicalclassroom Needs to expand with more faculty involvement to allowportfolios to evolve and networks to grow over time Open Source Environment SPAM Getting users to engage in the platform with the understandingof the advantages of ePortfolios ePortfolios need to be integrated into the broader curriculum withbroader formative and cumulating in a summative review process. 22. Future Research andDevelopment Extend use to be inclusive or more faculty, broader subjectareas and longitudinal tracking Assess growth and depth of cognitive reflection Incorporate rubrics and other assessment strategies Interview the outliers or those who dont participate in thesurvey Multi-version editing Clean development for better integration and customization oftools Allowing both private formative portfolio and publicallysharable summative portfolios 23. ContactJosh Yavelberg202-276-1780Josh.yavelberg@flyingcloudsolutions.comWorkshops Archive:www.flyingcloudsolutions.com 24. Works CitedAckerman, D. (1989). Criteria for successful curriculum integration. Interdisciplinary Curriculum:Design and Implementation (pp. 25-38). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning(2nd ed., pp. 3360). Athabasca University. Retrieved fromhttp://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.htmlBarcoul-Burlinson, I. (2006). ePortfolio: constructing learning. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C(Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 168-179). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Barrett, H. (2006, June). Using Electronic Portfolios for Formative/Classroom-based Assessment.Belgrad, S., Burke, K., & Fogarty, R. (2008). The portfolio connection: student work linked tostandards (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.Buffington, M. (2008). What is web 2.0 and how can it further art education? ArtEducation, 61(3), 36-41.Butler, P. (2010). E-Portfolios, Pedagogy and Implementation in Higher Education:Considerations from the Literature. In N. Buzzetto-More (Ed.), The E-Portfolio Paradigm:Informing, Educating, Assessing, and Managing with E-Portfolios (pp. 109-139). SantaRosa, California: Informing Science Press.Cambridge, D. (2008). Audience, integrity, and the living document: eFolio Minnesota andlifelong and lifewide learning with ePortfolios. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1227-1246.Cambridge, D. (2009). Electronic portfolios 2.0: emergent research on implementaton andimpact (1st ed.). Sterling VA: Stylus Pub.Cambridge, D. (2010). Eportfolios for lifelong learning and assessment (1st ed.). SanFrancisco CA: Jossey-Bass.Chen, H. (2009). Using portfolios to support lifelong and lifewide learning. In D. Cambridge, B.Cambridge, & K. Yancey (Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 29-39). Sterling, VA: Stylus.Clark, J. E., & Eynon, B. (2009). E-portfolios at 2.0, surveying the field. AAC&U PeerReview, 18-23.Davis-Soylu, H., Peppler, K., & Hickey, D. (2011). Assessment assemblage: advancing portfoliopractice through the assesment staging theory. Studies in Art Education, 53(3), 213-224.Dillon, S. & Brown, A. (2006). The art of ePortfolios: insights from the creative arts experience. InA. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-111).Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.DiMarco, J. (2006). Web portfolio design and applications. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Doig, B., Illsley, B., McLuckie, J., and Parsons, R. (2006). Using ePortfolios to enhance reflectivelearning and development. In A. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research onePortfolios (pp. 102-111). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., Van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in the digital age:technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport CT:Praeger.Fitzsimmons, D. (2008). Digital portfolios in visual arts classrooms. Art Education, 61(5), 47-53.Flanigan, E., & Amirian, S. (2006). ePortfolios: pathway from classroom to career. In A. Jafari &Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-111). Hershey, PA: IdeaGroup Publ.Goodfellow, R. & Lea, M. (2007). Challenging e-learning in the university. New York: OpenUniversity Press. 25. Works Cited Continued.Greenberg, G. (2006). Can we talk? Electronic portfolios as collaborative learning spaces. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios(pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Hickerson, C. & Preston, M. (2006). Transition to ePortfolios: a case study of student attitudes. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research onePortfolios (pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Hills, H. (2003). Individual preferences in e-learning. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Co.Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.Katz, R., & EDUCAUSE (Association). (2008). The tower and the cloud: higher education in the age of cloud computing. [Boulder CO]: EDUCAUSE.Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., Pascoe, C. J., et al. (2008). Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findingsfrom the Digital Youth Project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.Latta, M. M., Buck, G., & Beckenhauer, A. (2007). Formitive assessment requires artistic vision. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(4), 123.Landow, G. (1997). Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.Nespor, J. (2006). Technology and the politics of instruction. Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Katz, R., & EDUCAUSE (Association). (2008). Thetower and the cloud: higher education in the age of cloud computing. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.Olofsson, A. D., Lindberg, J. O., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Blogs and the design of reflective peer-to-peer technology-enhanced learning and formative assessment.Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(3), 183194. doi:10.1108/10650741111145715Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).Riedinger, B. (2006). Mining for meaning: Teaching students how to reflect. In A. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-111). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Rickards, W. H., & Guilbault, L. (2009). Studying student reflection in an elecronic portfolio environment. In D. Cambridge, B. Cambridge, & K. Yancey(Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 17-28). Sterling, VA: Stylus.Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Sherman, G. (2006). Instructional roles of electronic portfolios. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA:Idea Group Publ.Stevenson, H. (2006). Using ePortfolios to foster peer assessment, critical thinking, and collaboration. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research onePortfolios (pp. 112-124). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Stieger, S., & Burger, C. (2010). Lets Go Formative: Continuous Student Ratings with Web 2.0 Application Twitter. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and SocialNetworking, 13(2), 163167. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0128Tosh, D., Werdmuller, B., Chen, H., Penny Light, T., & Haywood, J. (2006). The learning landscape: a conceptual framework for ePortfolios. In A. Jafari &Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 24-32). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Yancey, K. B. (2009). Reflection and electronic portfolios. In D. Cambridge, B. Cambridge, & K. Yancey (Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 5-16).Sterling, VA: Stylus.Yang, Y.-F. (2010). Students reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1202-1210 26. Image CreditsThe University of Edinburgh College of Scienceand Engineering. ePortfolio.http://www.scieng.ed.ac.uk/LTStrategy/images/what_is_portfolio.gifWebsite Boston (2011). Web 2.0 Web DesignMost Used Techniques:http://blog.websiteboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Web-2.0-Style-Web-Design.jpgFabriziopgcap (2011, December 7). The contextof assessment and feedback (research for theaction larning set report)http://fabriziopgcap.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/stop-feedback.jpgTuttle, H. (2011, March 11). Students vote toimprove- Formative assessment. Education withTechnology Harry G. Tuttle. Retrieved from:http://eduwithtechn.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/students-vote-to-improve-formative-assessment/