Post on 06-Oct-2020
transcript
A Systems Approach to Front End Analysis: Incorporating the ePortfolio System Mahara into SUPA Clients High Schools.
Kevin Forgard
IDE 712: Analysis for Human Performance Technology Decisions
Submitted to Dr. Jing Let
May 2, 2010
Background
Syracuse University’s Project Advance (SUPA) English Language Arts Curriculum
(ELA) provides high school students with a college level learning opportunity while still
attending high school. The ELA curriculum focuses on developing rhetorical strategies and
practices of academic writing and is designed to help learners critically interpret texts from
multi-cultural contexts. In order to add a technological component to the ELA courses while
preparing learners for college admissions, SUPA administrators have decided to offer ePortfolios
as a resource for their ELA teachers.
Tasked with the job of implementing an ePortfolio system the SUPA Design Team, led
by Dr. Rob Pusch, was asked to choose an appropriate ePortfolio program and to interface with
SUPA information technology personnel to install and test the program on SUPA servers. The
team chose the open source ePortfolio program Mahara because it was considered the best fit in
price and features. Since Mahara is new technology for SUPA courses, during the installation of
process, Dr. Pusch worked with the SUAP ELA Associate director to choose appropriate
technological friendly teachers for a pilot study. Three teachers were set up with Mahara
accounts and given Mahara Quick Start Guides developed under Dr. Pusch’s and the ELA
Associate director’s direction to help them get started. The SUPA ELA administrator has also
been tasked to research pedagogy of ePortfolios, which she has shared with the pilot teachers.
The next step in the implementation process is to conduct a front end analysis (FEA) to
determine the best way to incorporate Mahara in the ELA courses.
Portfolios and ePortfolios as learning tools
Portfolios as a learning and assessment tool have been used to demonstrate student
process, showcase exemplary work, and act as an overall collection of praises, awards, or grades.
EPortfolios, on the other hand, possess these functions, but offer the additional component of
social networking, creating a valuable social learning environment (Yancy, 2009). The functions
of ePortfolios go beyond classroom based learning, which as Yancy states, “…operate in a larger
frame of reference, across courses and often across experiences” (p.2). So instead of being seen
as an isolated collection of static artifacts as regular portfolios can be, the electronic nature of
ePortfolios facilitates a dynamic connection between collected artifacts and a larger community
of learners within a social network. The social connection of ePortfolios used in learning as
theorized by Tosh, et al., (2007), within a “learning landscape framework”, are able to promote a
deep learning experience by providing students with the typical portfolio experience accentuated
with opportunities such as self-reflection, communication among a network of classmates or
teachers, and the ability to share with a larger global network. EPortfolios can be further defined
within their extended functional capabilities such as, “storage, information management,
connections, communication, and development” (Waltz, p. 196, 2007). As the research literature
is defining ePortfoilos within the complexity of defining learning, educational scholars are
beginning to acknowledge the value of ePortfoilios as a way to assess learners beyond single
grading instances (Tosh, et al., 2007).
In the spirit of ePortfolio research, Mahara is designed to be used as a social learning
tool. The software incorporates Web 2.0 social networking elements by allowing students to
create online portfolios housed within a learning management system network (LMS). As an
open source program, the notion of being socially based software has been a large part of Mahara
development, with support generated by open source community involvement. How the social
learning perspective fits into the SUPA system, and whether there is a need for such a system is
the implementation challenge the Design Team faces.
Systems approach
Following the basic Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model, ADDIE, where ‘A’, the
analysis phase determines need, this Front End Analysis (FEA) is using a systems approach for
this project to help define how the SUPA ePortfolio implementation lies within the context of a
system (Rossett, 1987). In short, a systems (also sometimes known as cybernetic systems) ISD
approach involves analyzing a context from an input, process, output, and feedback dynamic.
From the systems perspective, in the analysis phase, the instructional design-researcher becomes
aware of what has occurred to contribute to the input of the system, the process that occurs after
the input, and the effects of the process including how outcomes may or may not feedback into
the system. By determining if there is a discrepancy between the intended input and output,
instructional objectives are prescribed to help improve and align expectations with outcomes
(Romiszowski, 1995). A FEA uses current output data to feedback into the system to
purposefully improve the quality of future outcomes; in this case, a better defined set of
objectives and suggestions to meet those objectives. A systems based FEA provides a holistic
view of the learning context to influence change for better learning effectiveness, instead of only
change for other factors, such as improved learning efficiency (Davies, 1997). Through the
systems approach, a more effective intervention should improve the overall system by better
defining the problem and prescribing ways to solve the problem through a better understanding
of output.
Defining the Problem
One consideration within the systems perspective is how a learning intervention at times
pushes a solution onto a problem that has not been clearly defined (Romiszowski, 1995). The
SUPA Mahara implementation up to this point may be the case here, where the administrators’
zeal is a “solution looking for problem” (Romiszowski, p. 10, 1995). In defining the problem, it
is important to note how the term ‘need’ is used in this proposal and clarify that this proposed
FEA defines ‘need’ as a discrepancy and not ‘need’ as a desire. The main question to ask is
whether a need for Mahara exists within the SUPA system. A need, however, can be perceived
from multiple contexts. This next section clarifies the problem of Mahara implementation by
defining the context of potential performance problems.
As with any technological changes in education, a problem to consider is how to leverage
between the desire for the technological change with the need for the technological change.
Defining the problem means examining the context of the SUPA system as they may see the
need for a technology such as ePortfolios. SUPA operates under the leadership of Syracuse
University (SU), whose organizational vision of ‘Scholarship in Action’, drives the school’s
practices. SUPA leadership has interpreted this vision by identifying ePortfolios as a cutting edge
tool for students and teachers to use to become in essence, ‘scholars in action’. This means
understanding that SUPA is pushing the technology onto client partner high schools that operate
under their own governing principles and contexts which function well outside of the SU system.
This situation is unique in that SUPA acts as an arm of SU in multiple school systems spanning
across several states. Tension may occur in the relationships because the schools may or may not
perceive the need with the same set of priorities as SUPA does. The need for technology change
is also fueled by the fact that SUPA is operating within a competitive climate with other
concurrent enrollment programs such Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate who
may offer more flexibility in their programs than SUPA’s push for ePortfolios. Understanding
the need for ePortfolio in this situation reveals several potential performance gap areas that
define the problem. These needs gaps are related to realization, knowledge, and environment.
The next several paragraphs further define these potential discrepancies.
Realization gap
As client high school teachers who teach SUPA course are trained to know, a SUPA
course is an SU course. However, there is still a certain amount of autonomy in the curriculum.
When conducting this FEA, it is important to acknowledge the teachers’ realization gap in how
their school system may or may not provide incentives or motivations to use Mahara. In other
words, SUPA cannot simply say ‘use it’ and expect positive results. The challenge, therefore, is
to convince SUPA teaches to incorporate ePortfolios into their SUPA curriculum by showing
how Mahara is a tool that effectively helps students meet objectives for the courses. At first,
ePortfolios can be an optional component for ELA courses, but then become a requirement once
teachers have the proper incentive – a realization of the importance of ePortfolios – and how
Mahara meets this need. This situation, when seen from the systems perspective, helps define
how the ‘need’ should be perceived as both a top-down (SU vision) and bottom-up (teachers in
their local context) directive. Teachers must realize that a need exists for ePortfolios and that
Mahara is the tool to fill that discrepancy.
Knowledge gap
Aside from the realization gap is the challenge of helping both SUPA teachers and
students understand Mahara’s capabilities and functions. As with any software, using Mahara
requires a certain amount of knowledge to navigate the system and create what a user envisions.
Bridging this knowledge gap involves helping users conceptualize the Mahara system well
enough to create effective ePortfolios that can be used within the larger context of the social
networks. That is, as the theory of ePortfolio design promotes access to the ‘learning landscape
framework’, the simple need remains that users should know how to use the program. Simple
tasks such as creating a blog, managing a group forum, managing users, and incorporating Web
2.0 social media into an ePortfolio may be part of this knowledge gap. Teachers face the bigger
challenge that is related to the pedagogy of ePorfolios, which is another knowledge vain to
consider.
Environmental gap
Assuming for a moment that no performance gaps exist – students know how to use
Mahara, and teachers understand the value of ePortfolios. Another non-performance issue that
could potentially be part of the system’s program, and one this proposal is seeking to investigate,
relates to the client school’s technological environment. A School’s internet restriction policy
and/or out dated hardware can create a disincentive for even teachers with the best intentions to
use Mahara. Therefore, the environmental gap analysis should research SUPA client schools’
internet and computer usage policies, which may be preventing access to Mahara and the
components needed to create an ePortfolio. Websites such as YouTube.com, Flickr.com, and
other Web 2.0 social media tools are integral to a Mahara ePortfoilo. Related to the
environmental gap of Mahara use is a concern for student safety in an environment of open
internet access. By putting an ePortfolio in cyberspace, a person’s identity and personal
information is potentially accessible by anyone. This is why schools may justify a closed access
internet system. Despite any school policies in this matter, the environmental gap is something
that should be considered within a FEA not just within the context of safety with global access,
but safety within the local context as well. The environmental gap represents the need for
students, teachers, and parents to perceive that Mahara’s ePortfolio system is a ‘safe space’ for
expression, and primarily closed to viewers outside of the class (Hughes, 2009).
Justifying Mahara Use in SUPA Courses
Through the process of defining the problem of implementing Mahara within the context
of the gaps, part of the reasoning behind SUPA’s decision to push for ePortfolios in their ELA
courses begins to reveal the system that contributes to the choice. SUPA administrators have
decided to implement Mahara, but in order for the implementation to be successful, the problem
and justification for its solution should be discussed to help understand the purposes behind the
decision. This next section illustrates the main reasons why this particular performance problem
should be solved as a way to clarify the need and demonstrate the systemic factors involved with
incorporating ePortfolios into the SUPA ELA curriculum. These reasons include institutional
justification, the pedagogical justification, and the practical justification.
Institutional justification
As with most rational organizations, SUPA lies within the larger Syracuse University
system governed by SU leadership and mission. Within SUPA practice is a tradition of being one
of the top concurrent enrollment programs in the country with sole accreditation in the Northeast
by the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Programs (NACEP) (SUPA website, 2010).
In order to maintain this designation, SUPA must strategize to be a concurrent enrollment leader.
For SUPA administration, this means implementing ‘cutting edge’ research based and
experimental practices and technologies in its courses so that a SUPA classes reflects SU’s
research tradition while allowing for SUPA to maintain its market strength. This is the
institutional justification for change, which as mentioned earlier, is a matter for SUPA
administration to understand how a FEA works to help leverage a desire for the technology with
an understanding a need for the technology.
Pedagogical justification
Change here is not occurring in a vacuum, but is tied to a concurrent enrollment program
market. However, as a learning institution, SU and SUPA may justify a change for pedagogical
reasons. As the administration is intending, a purpose of adding ePortfoilos to the SUPA ELA
curriculum is simply to improve student learning; ePortfolios are useful as assessment tools, as a
way for students to develop the practice of self-reflection, and for students to publically
demonstrate their work (Mu, et al., 2010). Within the context of a SUPA English course, this
could mean student success not just in the course that uses ePortfoilos, but in their future post-
secondary studies. By implementing ePortfoilos as part of a SUPA course, the administration is
committing to disseminating a new pedagogy that helps bridge a theory such as social-
constructivism through ePortfolio into practice (McGee, et al., 2006). However, as lofty as the
idea may seem, high school teachers who use Mahara may need to be informed and trained on
how ePortfolios, specifically Mahara, fits into praxis.
Practical justification
As SUPA acts and justifies the need for Mahara within institutional and pedagogical
reasoning, there is also a practical justification to consider. Mahara would be used in SUPA
client high schools by teachers and students who are somewhat distant from the pedagogical and
institutional logic behind Mahara implementations. These users will need targeted technical
support and should be heard by SUPA. Therefore, implementing Mahara requires focusing on
the commitment to user feedback within a technological support mechanism. Teachers and
students cannot be expected to just ‘figure out’ the system, but will need a focused training and
support system in place to help them overcome any technical issues. Mahara is a complex
program that requires teachers to set up courses, provide examples, manage students, give
feedback, and manage the Mahara Institution (local school’s network). In another words, when
analyzing the need within the performance problem there should be a consideration for practical
training and support.
Methodology
This FEA is seeking to determine the need for the Mahara ePortfolio system through
analysis of potential causes to performance problems within the systematic framework of SUPA
and its implementation plan. The plan will seek to answer how to best implement Mahara in
SUPA client schools by asking how to effectively inform the design and development of training
materials and how to best inform the design of an ePortfolio communication plan. In essence, the
FEA plan seeks to define need within the SUPA context as a need for training, information
support, or both training and information support.
In order to gather the appropriate information, the FEA will utilize a well used method of
needs assessment and task analysis documented in books authored by Rossett (1987) and
Diamond (2007). A FEA process traditionally involves first conducting a needs assessment to
determine if there is a need for training and then do a task analysis, which functions to inventory,
select, decompose, sequence, and/or classify tasks (Jonassen, et al., 1999). Rossett (1987), within
the broader term of Training Needs Assessment (TNA), defines need assessment as “the
systematic effort that we make to gather opinions and ideas from a variety of sources on
performance problems or new systems and technologies” (p. 62). Rossett further posits that a
performance problem is expressed as a gap or discrepancy between a desired outcome and an
actual outcome usually caused by lack of knowledge or skill, lack of incentives, lack of
motivation, or through some sort of environmental constraint. Task analysis, as a method to
examining activities within a performance, involves identifying observable behaviors and
cognitive process a person does to complete a particular task (inventory), choosing the
appropriate task from the inventory (selecting), breaking down the tasks into smaller pieces
(deconstructing), putting the deconstructed pieces into a new order (sequencing), and classifying
the type of learning the task involves within a taxonomy, such as Gagne’s task classification, to
determine the outcome of learning the task (classifying) (Jonassen, et al., 1999; Gagne, et al.
2005).
Within the framework presented above, the FEA process this design plan presents,
describes the main tasks of how needs analysis helps develop the optimal (Rossett) and the ideal
(Diamond) performance through the collection of particular data, which can be used to inform
the task analysis of the Mahara system within the appropriate context, and ultimately lead to a
purposeful set of training and information goals. Rossett’s (1987) training needs assessment
approach involves five dimensions or purposes of TNA. These are: optimal – the model level of
knowledge (skills or attitude) to complete a task; actual – what a person is really doing; feelings
– a person’s opinions about the task under analysis; causes – what might be contributing to the
discrepancy between actual to optimal performance; and solutions – how the discrepancy can be
bridged. The Diamond instructional design model FEA approach uses the central concept of ‘the
ideal’ within the process used to develop curriculum by thoroughly examining the context of the
project being designed. Beyond determining the ‘need’, the FEA approach of the Diamond
model involves initial data collection steps such as, surveying the student and teacher
characteristics, identifying the social needs of the project, identifying the education priorities of
the school, indentifying a knowledge base from review of relevant literature on the discipline’s
pedagogy, and reviewing research on similar program implementations.
A hybrid of the two approaches is useful for the SUPA Mahara FEA because as much as
the Rossett TNA methodology is geared for a general training context, Diamond’s approach, is
specifically used in a higher education context where need is defined within school curriculum.
By using both approaches – Rossett’s TNA framework provides the language to best determine
the need as a gap in knowledge, motivation, or environment and Diamond’s approach helps the
FEA focus on the ideal – this proposal is better able to focus attention from a broader education
perspective. The flowchart below (Figure 1) illustrates the process of the FEA methodology.
The paragraphs below discuss in further detail the FEA process.
Figure 1
Since SUPA has already chosen to implement Mahara, the next step in the FEA involves
determining both the ideal and optimal performance. This determination is fueled by the central
question: does the need for training exist, or is the need met through a non-training solution?
Within the process, the plan involves data collection by surveying learners (teachers & students),
surveying SUPA key administration, identifying the social need within literature, identifying
education priorities and computer infrastructures of client schools through surveys, identifying
literature knowledge base to define ePortfolios, and reviewing previous ePortfolio
implementations through review of case studies. This process is designed with a feedback system
that runs through iterations to create a more thorough analysis. Part of the feedback loop involves
conducting a subject matter analysis. Since an ePortfolio subject matter expert is not accessible,
the iterative feedback process will determine primarily through a literature review and data
collection how to best analyze the program’s tasks while determining need. In other words, just
asking teachers if they want ePortfolios without knowing the tasks would create a
misunderstanding of ‘need’. The two strands of data and subject matter analysis work together to
help answer the central research questions and create a clearer understanding of performance
discrepancies.
To do a subject matter analysis, the FEA process creates a set of analysis criteria by
determining an optimal performance of Mahara. This process involves first doing a learning
hierarchy analysis that inventories the various functions of the program from the perspectives of
students, teachers, and the school. This learning inventory will also involve selecting and
sequencing the information as it uses and influences the analysis criteria. As circular as the
process seems, the intension is to determine optimal performance while defining what optimal
performance means. The larger challenge lies in analyzing the type of learning involved with
creating and teaching ePortfolios within the context of the program Mahara. For the purposes of
this initial report, a simple solution would be to classify Mahara processes as a group of
procedural learning tasks akin to using any web based software. As Jonassen et al (1999)
describe in conducting task analysis or in this case, task classification, as making a “critical link
between task analysis and training” the process can connect the tasks, assessments, and methods
instructional development step uses to help learners learn the tasks (p. 25). A simple procedural
breakdown of Mahara’s ePortfolio creation and system management will reveal optimal
performances on completing certain tasks, which can be analyzed within Gagne’s taxonomy of
intellectual skills, verbal information, and problem solving to a certain extent, but the deeper
taxonomic task classification may reveal learners’ internal strategies that relate need within
motivation and self-directed cognitive strategies (Gagne, et al., 2005).
To summarize, the process of determining the ideal and optimal performance is iterative,
designed with a positive feedback loop that influences the entire FEA process. Each piece
informs the other through data gathered within each of the steps. For instance, in establishing an
ePortfolio knowledge base by identifying and analyzing key literature, information is used to
develop a set of analysis criteria that both informs the creation of other research instruments such
as surveys, as well as helping a way to conduct the task analysis of Mahara. This method brings
together the optimal performance of ePortfolios within the ideal context of how Mahara as an
ePortfolio system can be used in SUPA ELA courses. Additionally, the FEA will help determine
if there truly is a need for ePortfolios in the SUPA ELA courses, if Mahara is indeed the best
system to meet this need, and then how the FEA process can create instructional goals and
objectives that feeds into instructional development.
The data collection process will entail analyzing the learner’s knowledge and skills (k,s)
and motivation levels (m). Additionally, the process involves examining the high schools within
the SUPA system by examining factors that may or may not contribute to creating incentives (i),
including how the environment (e) plays a role within the systems. Further analysis will reveal
how a larger social need can help contribute the all the variable (k, s, m, i, e) as well as articulate
the analysis criteria of how ePortfolios are used in secondary and higher education contexts to
function as part of the feedback iterations described above. In order to determine the potential
discrepancies within the variables, several processes will be used, such as interviews, focus
groups, and surveys of SUPA teachers, students, and key staff. Of note relating to potential
environmental discrepancies, a special survey will be developed for client schools’ educational
technology infrastructure to determine if the appropriate computing environment is available for
the students and teachers to use Mahara. Other data to be collected include review of student
written test scores on standardized tests. Informing the design of the surveys and interview
questions will be the development of a ePortfolio knowledge base that identifies key terms
within research based findings and how previous ePortfoilo implementations faced and overcame
challenges. This literature review piece is expected to be the main feedback component of the
process. Each research component is designed to contribute to the overall context informing the
ideal, optimal, actual, feelings, causes, and solutions with the goal of answering the central
questions of this FEA. The table below (Table 1) summarizes each step in the process describing
what it seeks to find and which piece of the FEA context the information will inform.
Table 1
Process Seeks to find Informs Interview and survey teachers and students
• Prerequisite knowledge (k,s) • Teacher’s use of technology in the
Ideal, optimal, actual
classroom (k, s) • Student competencies and attitudes
towards ePortfolios (k, s, i) • Teacher and student expectations (i, m) • Students’ long range learning goals (m)
Literature review of ePortfolios
• Establish an ePortfolio knowledge base on usage and pedagogies (k, s, m)
• Identifies the social need for ePortfolios (k,s, m)
Ideal
Literature review of other ePortfolio implementations
• Case studies on how schools faced changes (m, k, s)
Ideal
Review extant data • Student’s writing ability and test scores (m)
Actual
Survey SUPA client school’s IT infrastructure
• Determine where and how Mahara would work in schools (e)
• Determine if schools have open web access (e)
Actual
Tasks analysis • Inventory Mahara processes (k) Optimal, ideal
Solutions
Upon initial research in developing an ePortolio knowledge base, the literature has
revealed a set of “functional criteria for an ePortfolio system” that will be used to inform the
development of a survey and the creation of interview questions (Mu et al., Developing the
EPortfolio Selection Crtiera, 2010). These functional criteria (tiered access, matrices of student
outcomes, evaluation, areas for student retention, aggregate reporting, aesthetics and usability,
and other considerations), in mimicking the Mu et al. needs assessment study, are used as a basis
in defining Mahara’s capabilities within the context of this report’s central question of
determining the need for ePortfoilos in SUPA courses. This study, along with information
collected in another article (Yancey, 2009) and from books edited by leading ePortfolio
researchers (Cambridge, et al., 2009; Jafani & Kaufman, 2006), a coherent and relevant
knowledge base is beginning to emerge that will inform the design of collection instruments of
SUPA schools and provide in the design of training or information materials. Within the context
of the FEA research design, such literature provides information on optimal and ideal traits of
ePortfolios. Further analysis can cross reference whether or not Mahara meets the research based
traits. The matrix below (Table 2) demonstrates how the process has begun to unfold up to this
point.
Table 2
Optimal traits of ePortfolios Detail Mahara Capabilities
Survey Results From Mu et al. (2010)
Yancey (2009) ePortfolio research knowledge base
Elaboration of the trait How Mahara meets trait
EPortfolio as a way for students to develop ‘noncognitive traits’ (NCT)
NCT – behaviors, attitudes, ability to work with others. Research shows that students who develop these traits are more likely to stay in school (Yancey, 2009, p. 2)
ePortfilios can be exported and used after the SUPA course ends
Tiered access Internal vs. external access to content
The system is capable of allowing schools to create internal secure access and allows students to share their ePortfolios to external views via a unique URL
Matrices of student learning outcomes based on course and/or instructional needs
Creating the ‘translation effect’ Writes on how ePortfolios should be able to promote learning throughout various contexts (not just one class, but used in a holistic coursework) Multi-‐contextual – connect from one class to other classes to outside of school
Develop list of broad skills that ePortfolio learning can help bring together
Mahara is a networked program allowing student users to create many portfolios within a single user account
Optimal traits of ePortfolios Detail Mahara Capabilities
“students demonstrate that they can make connections among those things that they have learned” (p. 4) Use of a ‘skills matrix’
Evaluation component Student reflection component System has an aggregate reporting capability
Measuring the students’ ability to reflect through an ePortfolio. Developing students’ ability to reflect should be a part of an ePortfolio system.
Rubrics and feedback mechanism
Mahara feedback system works from teacher to student and student to student. It is private and can be used to evidence progress.
Usability and aesthetics
GUI and ease of use Low learning curve
System is intuitive with a familiar social networking component. EPortfolios are made using a drag and drop method.
Ability to integrate with schools computer system
System is housed on SUPA servers, but schools need to have open web access to use the programs full functions
Conclusion
As proponents of ePortfolios claim, the use of ePortfolios in a class promotes a deep and
lifelong learning experience for students who use them and new pedagogical choices for
educators who teach with them (Chen, 2009; Lane, 2009). Such claims suggest that there is
indeed a need for ePortfoilo use in most any course. However, can these bits of research be
translated as a need for Mahara for SUPA’s ELA courses? Such claims are the ideal that help
define the need. However, their perspectives contribute to the promotion of ePortfolios in
education, which can be used to aid in the implementation of an ePortflio system, by helping an
organization consider how the push for the new technology may be fueled by a misunderstanding
of the meaning of ‘need’. SUPA administration reads such research and may interpret need as a
want. Therefore, through a comprehensive FEA, it is important to determine if SUPA
administrators are pushing Mahara from need as desire and to consider whether there is a need
for the technology among its client schools. This comprehensive FEA plan is designed to clarify
the need by determining if such a need for ePortfoilos exist, and assuming so, how this need can
feed into the subsequent training or information design for SUPA’s Mahara implementation.
This will be accomplished by considering the implementation within the context of the system
SUPA operates in, which focuses research on people within the system: SUPA teachers, SUPA
administrators, students, and the literature landscape of current ePortfolio definition and use.
Through this process, the report will answer the questions: Is there a need for ePortfolios in the
SUPA system, and if so, does the need for ePortfolios training exist, or can this need met through
a non-training solution?
References
Cambridge, D., Cambridge, B., & Yancey, K. (2009). Electronic Portfolios 2.0:
Emergent Research on Implementation and Impact. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Davis, I. (1996). Paradigms and conceptual ISD Systems. In Dills, C.R., & Romiszowski,
A. J. (Eds.) Instructional Development Paradigms. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Diamond, R. (2008). Designing and Assessing Course and Curricula: A Practical Guide.
(3rd Edition). : San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gagne, R.M., Wager, W.W., Golas, K.C., & Keller, J.M. (2005). Principles of
Instructional Design (5th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Jafari, A., & Kaufman, C. (2006). Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Hersey, PA:
Idea Group Reference.
Jonassen, D.H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W.H. (1999). Task Analysis Methods for
Instructional Design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mu, E., Wormer, S., Roizey, R. Barkon, B., and Vehec, M. (2010). Conceptualizing the
functional requirements for a next-generation ePortfolio system. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(1).
Retrieved March 26, 2010 from
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/Conc
eptualizingtheFunctionalRe/199390
Romiszowski, A.J. (1995). Designing Instructional Systems: Decision Making in Course
Planning and Curriculum Design. New York, NY: Nichols Publishing.
Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Tosh, D., Werdmuller, B., Chen, H.L., Light, T.P., & Haywood, J. (2007). The learning
landscape: A conceptual framework for ePortfolios. In Jafari, A. & Kaufman, C. (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 24-32).Hersey, PA: Idea Group Reference.
Yancey, K.B. (2009). Electronic portfolios a decade into the Twenty-first Century: What
we know, what we need to know. Peer Review, 11(1), 28-32.