First, you may want to discuss the benefits for students of using ePortfolio2.
1. Secure storage of artifacts with professional backup.
2. Ability to organize artifacts in files within the Artifacts Library.
3. Easily share drafts with peers, faculty member(s), teacher in the field.
4. Receive quick feedback on assignments.
5. Easily track progress for each type of product according to criteria in a rubric which is also linked to standards.
6. Construct multiple e-Portfolios for different purposes.
7. Learn to use a tool that will increasingly be required in K-12 schools.
Be sure to let students know that not all assignments will be submitted via Chalk and Wire. You will want to explain to them the way you will indicate in the syllabus which assignments are to be submitted using Chalk and Wire. For example, you may want to type an (eP) after those assignments that are to be submitted using Chalk and Wire.
Last, be sure that students know we’re in this together.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Tips for Faculty Using ePortfolio2
Though Chalk and Wire’s ePortfolio2 is pretty straight forward and easy to use, there is a learning curve and even a couple of small speed bumps for faculty new to the system. Here are some things I’ve learned from interacting with the faculty members who began to use ePortfolio2 in the Spring 2008 semester.
The ePortfolio2 allows faculty assessors to view the artifact to be assessed within the same screen as the relevant rubric, though one must choose whether to have this occur within one window or two, and whether the document and rubric should be placed one above the other, or side by side. The ePortfolio2 allows assessors to make these two important decisions before beginning assessments. The first involves students and the way in which the faculty member chooses to have artifacts posted to the portfolio pages. The students may post the pages as a Word document link or they may choose to cut and paste from their original document into a text box provided within the ePortfolio. This decision will have implications for ease of use and flexibility later in the assessment process.
Both of these factors are a matter of personal preference. Having artifacts posted as Word document links allows the faculty member to enter comments, highlights, etc. in the body of the document more easily, though it will mean the document will flip behind the browser window when one switches to enter a rating and comment in the rubric. One will need to just click on the tab for the document at the bottom of the screen to bring it forward again. Pasting the document into the text box has the advantage of keeping the artifact and rubric open within the same window during assessment, and, therefore, always in view together. However, we’ve found some problems with text formatting when pasted into the text box, leading to more work for students before they make their final submission.
The second key decision for faculty should involve some exploration and testing on the part of the faculty member. One needs to determine their own preference for having the program position the rubric to the left of the artifact or above the artifact. Just decide what works best for you.
A third factor to consider and to discuss with students relates to the file format one wishes for students to use. For example, many students are now using Office 2007, while University computers (and many of our personal computers) still use Office 2003. If a student saves their file in Word 2007 and posts it as a link on their ePortfolio page, the faculty member will not be able to open it to read. The best thing to do during this period of transition from one edition of Word to another is to ask students to save their files as Word 97-2003 files or as RTF files. We’ve also learned that some students don’t know what this means, so if one can demonstrate the process for them, it helps.
A fourth consideration in making the assessment process as smooth as possible involves the monitor one uses. Though browsers and word processing files allow one to resize documents on the screen, most find it easier to work with the document and rubric side by side if the screen is a wide screen format. In addition, the setting for screen resolution may need to be changed to allow for best results. This can be done from within Control Panel, Appearance.
Most faculty have reported that the first time they do online assessment, the process takes longer than it would have with hard copy documents. However, many also report that once they have some experience under their belts, the online process is actually faster.
Faculty also find themselves wrestling with the challenge of making their comments in the rubric specific enough that they will be as helpful to students as the previously handwritten comments made within the context of the hard copy paper. The good news is that students can now actually read our comments without deciphering our handwriting.
Don’t be afraid to explore and determine what works best for you. Share what you learn with others by commenting to this blog.
The ePortfolio2 allows faculty assessors to view the artifact to be assessed within the same screen as the relevant rubric, though one must choose whether to have this occur within one window or two, and whether the document and rubric should be placed one above the other, or side by side. The ePortfolio2 allows assessors to make these two important decisions before beginning assessments. The first involves students and the way in which the faculty member chooses to have artifacts posted to the portfolio pages. The students may post the pages as a Word document link or they may choose to cut and paste from their original document into a text box provided within the ePortfolio. This decision will have implications for ease of use and flexibility later in the assessment process.
Both of these factors are a matter of personal preference. Having artifacts posted as Word document links allows the faculty member to enter comments, highlights, etc. in the body of the document more easily, though it will mean the document will flip behind the browser window when one switches to enter a rating and comment in the rubric. One will need to just click on the tab for the document at the bottom of the screen to bring it forward again. Pasting the document into the text box has the advantage of keeping the artifact and rubric open within the same window during assessment, and, therefore, always in view together. However, we’ve found some problems with text formatting when pasted into the text box, leading to more work for students before they make their final submission.
The second key decision for faculty should involve some exploration and testing on the part of the faculty member. One needs to determine their own preference for having the program position the rubric to the left of the artifact or above the artifact. Just decide what works best for you.
A third factor to consider and to discuss with students relates to the file format one wishes for students to use. For example, many students are now using Office 2007, while University computers (and many of our personal computers) still use Office 2003. If a student saves their file in Word 2007 and posts it as a link on their ePortfolio page, the faculty member will not be able to open it to read. The best thing to do during this period of transition from one edition of Word to another is to ask students to save their files as Word 97-2003 files or as RTF files. We’ve also learned that some students don’t know what this means, so if one can demonstrate the process for them, it helps.
A fourth consideration in making the assessment process as smooth as possible involves the monitor one uses. Though browsers and word processing files allow one to resize documents on the screen, most find it easier to work with the document and rubric side by side if the screen is a wide screen format. In addition, the setting for screen resolution may need to be changed to allow for best results. This can be done from within Control Panel, Appearance.
Most faculty have reported that the first time they do online assessment, the process takes longer than it would have with hard copy documents. However, many also report that once they have some experience under their belts, the online process is actually faster.
Faculty also find themselves wrestling with the challenge of making their comments in the rubric specific enough that they will be as helpful to students as the previously handwritten comments made within the context of the hard copy paper. The good news is that students can now actually read our comments without deciphering our handwriting.
Don’t be afraid to explore and determine what works best for you. Share what you learn with others by commenting to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
