Study of the Portfolios in the Practicum: Analysis of a PLE-Portfolio

Authors

  • Manuel Cebrián-de-la-Serna University of Malaga
  • Antonio Bartolomé-Pina University of Barcelona
  • Daniel Cebrián-Robles University of Malaga
  • Mayerly Ruiz-Torres Catholic University of Manizales

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.21.2.7479

Keywords:

Higher Education, Practicum, Tutoring, Portfolio Assessment, Rubric, Video Annotation

Abstract

The portfolios have proven effective in university education when they show certain prerequisites, for instance, the ratio. The specialized literature agrees to notice that even existing some conditions, it is not a generalized methodology at universities. In the new grades and knowledge areas is found the subject of external practices that would be able to show conditions for using the portfolios. Whereas, there are some questions in the educational area: What conditions exist for the use of the portfolios in the Practicum of the education grades in Spain? What level of utilization are evident? What problems of understanding, the students express about the documentation of evidences in portfolios? The research performs a mixed methodology: a first quantitative study with descriptive methodology, interview to 31 coordinators of Practicum of all grades in 10 (20%) Faculty of Education, along with a qualitative study and content analysis of 256 Practicum guides of all grades of 36 (72%) Faculties of Education of public universities in Spain. A second case study, perform a content analysis of 592 annotations of 212 students to show and evaluate the evidences in ePortfolios of the Practicum of the degree of Pedagogy. The results reveal that there are 11 students per tutor 2,88h medium for tutoring and assess ePortfolios. Being mail (between 37.77% and 46.66%) followed by the platforms most used technologies. The eRúbricas and video annotations help document the evidence, however, students still show difficulties in some competences.

Author Biographies

Manuel Cebrián-de-la-Serna, University of Malaga

The portfolios have proven effective in university education when they show certain prerequisites, for instance, the ratio. The specialized literature agrees to notice that even existing some conditions, it is not a generalized methodology at universities. In the new grades and knowledge areas is found the subject of external practices that would be able to show conditions for using the portfolios. Whereas, there are some questions in the educational area: What conditions exist for the use of the portfolios in the Practicum of the education grades in Spain? What level of utilization are evident? What problems of understanding, the students express about the documentation of evidences in portfolios? The research performs a mixed methodology: a first quantitative study with descriptive methodology, interview to 31 coordinators of Practicum of all grades in 10 (20%) Faculty of Education, along with a qualitative study and content analysis of 256 Practicum guides of all grades of 36 (72%) Faculties of Education of public universities in Spain. A second case study, perform a content analysis of 592 annotations of 212 students to show and evaluate the evidences in ePortfolios of the Practicum of the degree of Pedagogy. The results reveal that there are 11 students per tutor 2,88h medium for tutoring and assess ePortfolios. Being mail (between 37.77% and 46.66%) followed by the platforms most used technologies. The eRúbricas and video annotations help document the evidence, however, students still show difficulties in some competences

Antonio Bartolomé-Pina, University of Barcelona

[ORCID: 0000-0002-8096-8278 ] University of Barcelona (Spain). Accredited as full professor. Resident in Barcelona. Expertise in Media and learning technologies.

Daniel Cebrián-Robles, University of Malaga

[ORCID: 0000-0002-3768-1511 ] PhD in Engineering and Education. University of Malaga (Spain). Interim Substitute Teacher at the University of Malaga. Expertise in Science Didactics and developing webtools for Education. See background at: http://danielcebrian.com/

Mayerly Ruiz-Torres, Catholic University of Manizales

[ORCID: 0000-0002-2172-0395 ]. PhD from the University of Malaga. Professor at the Catholic University of Manizales (Colombia). Resident in Manizales (Colombia). Expertise in university teaching and learning.

References

Aguaded Gómez, J. I., Tirado Morueta, R., & Gómez Hernando, Á. (2011). Campus virtuales en universidades andaluzas: Tipologías de uso educativo, competencias docentes y apoyo institucional. Teoría de la Educación, 23(1), 159–179.

Bahous, R. (2008). The self-assessed portfolio: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 381–393. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701562866

Barberá, E., Gewerc Barujel, A., & Rodríguez Illera, J. L. (2009). Portafolios electrónicos y educación superior en España: Situación y tendencias. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 7(1), 1–13.

Barrero González, N. (2001). El enfoque metacognitivo en la educación. RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v7n2/RELIEVEv7n2_0.htm

Barrett, H. (n.d.). K-12 ePortfolios with GoogleApps. Retrieved August 4, 2015, from https://goo.gl/sQ8GSB

Barrett, H., & Wilkerson, J. (n.d.). Conflicting Paradigms in Electronic Portfolio Approaches. Choosing an Electronic Portfolio Strategy that Matches your Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/Vtdsp1

Bartolomé, A., Martínez-Figueira, E., & Tellado-González, F. (2014). La evaluación del aprendizaje en red mediante blogs y rúbricas: ¿complementos o suplementos? REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 12(1), 159–176.

Blanco-López, Á., España-Ramos, E., González-García, F. J., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2015). Key aspects of scientific competence for citizenship: A Delphi study of the expert community in Spain. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 164–198. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21188

Boud, D. (2009). Assessment 2020. Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/JCTcfR

Buendía Eisman, L., Colás Bravo, P., & Hernández Pina, F. (1998). Métodos de investigación en psicopedagogía. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

Cabero-Almenara, J. (2014). Formación del profesorado universitario en TIC: Aplicación del método Delphi para la selección de los contenidos formativos. Educación XX1: Revista de La Facultad de Educación, 17(1), 111–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.17.1.10707

Cabero-Almenara, J., & Osuna, J. B. (2013). La utilización del juicio de expertos para la evaluación de TIC: el Coeficiente de competencia experta. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 65(2), 25–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.13042/brp.2013.65202

Cabero-Almenara, J., Osuna, J. B., Tena, R. R., Román-Graván, P., Ballestero, C., Cejudo, M. del C. L., & Morales-Lozano, J. A. (2009). La aplicación de la técnica delphi, para la construcción de un instrumento de análisis categorial de investigaciones e-learning. Edutec: Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (28).

Cano, E. (2012). Aprobar o aprender (Barcelona, Vol. 4). Transmedia XXI. Retrieved from http://aprobaroaprender.weebly.com/

Cebrián de la Serna, M. (2011). Supervisión con e-portafolios y su impacto en las reflexiones de los estudiantes en el Practicum. Estudio de caso. Revista Educación. nº 352, pp. 183-208. http://goo.gl/ULCCas.

Cebrián Robles, D., Cebrián de la Serna, M. & Monedero Moya, J.J. (2015). Study of Video Annotations In External Practices Of University Learning. Conference: ECER 2015, At Budapest. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1992.4967

Faulkner, M., Aziz, S. M., Waye, V., & Smith, E. (2013). Exploring ways that ePortfolios can support the progressive development of graduate qualities and professional competencies. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 871–887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.806437

Gallego-Arrufat, M.-J., & Raposo-Rivas, M. (2014). Compromiso del estudiante y percepción del proceso evaluador basado en rúbricas. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 12(1), 197–215.

Rodríguez Gómez, G., Saiz Ibarra, M. S., & García-Jiménez, E. (2013). Autoevaluación, evaluación entre iguales y coevaluación: conceptualización y práctica en las universidades españolas. Revista de Investigación En Educación, 2(11), 198–210.

Guder, C. (2013). The ePortfolio: A Tool for Professional Development, Engagement, and Lifelong Learning. Public Services Quarterly, 9(3), 238–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2013.815528

Hansen, C. C. (2006). Technology as an Electronic Mentor: Scaffolding Preservice Teachers in Writing Effective Literacy Lesson Plans. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(2), 129–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901020600675091

Hartnell-young, E., Harrison, C., Crook, C., Pemberton, R., Joyes, G., Fisher, T., & Davies, L. (2007). The impact of e-portfolios on learning. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/C0YRzp

Heinrich, E., Bhattacharya, M., & Rayudu, R. (2007). Preparation for lifelong learning using ePortfolios. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 653–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790701520602

Hilzensauer, W. at all. (2007). The E-Portfolio Method with Open Source Tools. Presented at the 2nd Thematic Conference “Lifelong Learning – ePortfolio and Open Content, Katowice. Retrieved from http://www.ecomedia-europe.net/attachments/article/78/Bischof.pdf

Jafari, A., & Kaufman, C. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Research on ePortfolios: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/Hl9p50 http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-890-1

Jenson, J. D. (2011). Promoting self-regulation and critical reflection through writing students’ use of electronic portfolio. International Journal of ePortfolio, 1(1), 49–60.

Klenowski, V. (2004). Desarrollo del portafolios para el aprendizaje y la evaluación: procesos y principios (Vol. 98). Narcea Ediciones.

Martínez-Figueira, E., Tellado-González, F., & Raposo-Rivas, M. (2013). La rúbrica como instrumento para la autoevaluación: un estudio piloto. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 11(2), 373–390.

Martínez, V. G., Zúñiga, S. P. A., Sala, A. G., & Meléndez, A. M. (2012). El uso del método Delphi como estrategia para la valoración de indicadores de calidad en programas educativos a distancia. Calidad En La Educación Superior, 3(1), 200–222.

McConnell, K. D. (2013). Rubrics as catalysts for collaboration: a modest proposal. European Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 74–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2013.778043

Miller, M. J., & Carney, J. (2009). Lost in Translation: Using Video Annotation Software to Examine How a Clinical Supervisor Interprets and Applies a State-Mandated Teacher Assessment Instrument. The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 217–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730903180200

Monedero Moya, Cebrián Robles & Cebrián de la Serna, (2015). Documentando el eportafolios federado con evidencias multimedia, anotaciones de video y erúbricas. XIII Symposium Internacional sobre el Practicum y las Prácticas Externas. 29Jun-1Jul 2015. Poio. Pontevedra. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1096.6249

Mu, X. (2010). Towards effective video annotation: An approach to automatically link notes with video content. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1752–1763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.021

Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Development Aspects of Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 87–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_7

Paris, S., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In Jones, B. & Idol, L. (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (Edición: Revised.). Elmhurst, Ill. : Hillsdale, N.J: Routledge.

Peacock, S., Gordon, L., Murray, S., Morss, K., & Dunlop, G. (2010). Tutor response to implementing an ePortfolio to support learning and personal development in further and higher education institutions in Scotland. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 827–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00986.x

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video Annotation Tools Technologies to Scaffold, Structure, and Transform Teacher Reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328486

Steffens, K. (2008). Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for self-regulated learning: a framework for research. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(3), 221–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390802383827

Tejada Fernández, J. (2005). El trabajo por competencias en el prácticum: cómo organizarlo y cómo evaluarlo. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 7(2). Retrieved from http://goo.gl/7nFpv7

Tejada Fernández, J., & Bueno, C. R. (2013). Significación del practicum en la adquisición de competencias profesionales que permiten la transferencia de conocimiento a ámbitos propios de la acción docente. Profesorado: Revista de Curriculum y Formación Del Profesorado, 17(3), 91–110.

Tejada Fernández, J., Serrano Angulo, J., Ruiz Bueno, C., & Cebrián Robles, D. (2015). El proceso de construcción y validación de los instrumentos de recogida de información sobre el practicum y su evaluación a través de herramientas tecnológicas. In M. Raposo-Rivas, P.C. Muñoz Carril, Zabalza Cerdeiriña, M.E. Martínez Figueira, A. Pérez Abellas (eds.), Documentar y evaluar las experiencias de los estudiantes en las prácticas. , pp.261-272. Poio, Pontevedra: Andavira Editora. Retrieved from http://redaberta.usc.es/poio

Yang, M., Tai, M., & Lim, C. P. (2015). The role of e-portfolios in supporting productive learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, n/a–n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12316

Zabalza Berraza, M. A. (2013). El practicum y las prácticas en empresas en la formación universitaria. Madrid: Narcea Ediciones.

Zapata-Ros, M. (2014). Experiencias y tendencias en affordances de campus virtuales universitarios. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 13(42).

Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: what we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(5), 613–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00017-8

Downloads

Published

2015-11-19

Issue

Vol. 21 No. 2 (2015)

Section

Special Section

License

The authors grant non-exclusive rights of exploitation of works published to RELIEVE and consent to be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Use 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC 4.0), which allows third parties to use the published material whenever the authorship of the work and the source of publication is mentioned, and it is used for non-commercial purposes. 

    The authors can reach other additional and independent contractual agreements, for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, by including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), as long as it is clearly stated that the Original source of publication is this magazine.  

    Authors are encouraged to disseminate their work after it has been published, through the internet (for example, in institutional archives online or on its website) which can generate interesting exchanges and increase work appointments. 

   The fact of sending your paper to RELIEVE implies that you accept these conditions.