144
JCPSLP
Volume 16, Number 3 2014
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by an Edith Cowan University
Teaching and Learning grant.
References
Australian ePortfolio Project (2009).
ePortfolio concepts for
academic staff
[pamphlet]. Retrieved from http://www.
eportfoliopractice.qut.edu.au/docs/AeP_conceptguide_
academic_staff.pdf
Bollinger, D., & Shepherd, C. (2010). Student perceptions
of ePortfolio integration in online courses.
Distance
Education
,
31
(3), 295–314.
Buckley, S., Coleman, J., Davison, I. S., Khan, K.,
Zamora, J., Malick, S., Morley, D., Pollard, D., Ashcroft, T.,
Popovic, C., & Sayers, J., (2009). The educational effects of
portfolios on undergraduate student learning: A systematic
review.
Medical Teacher
,
31
, 282–298.
Chambers, S., & Wickersham, L. (2007). The electronic
portfolio journey: A year later.
Education
,
127
(3), 351-360.
Chou, P. & Chen, W. (2008). From portfolio to E-Portfolio:
Past, present, and future. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference
(pp. 22–27).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Devlin-Scherer, R., Martinelli, J., & Sardone, N. (2006).
Twisting the kaleidoscope: Making sense of eportfolios. In
A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on
ePortfolios
(pp. 398-409). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Faulkner, M. Aziz, S., Waye, V., & Smith, E. (2013).
Exploring ways that ePortfolios can support the progressive
development of graduate qualities and professional
competencies.
Higher Education Research and
Development
,
32
(6), 871–887.
Gardner, K., & Aleksejuniene, J. (2008). Quantitative
and qualitative analysis of student feedback on ePortfolio
learning.
Journal of Dental Education
,
72
(11), 1324–1332.
Gordon, J. A., & Campbell, C. M. (2013) The role
of ePortfolios in supporting continuing professional
development in practice.
Medical Teacher
,
35
(4), 287–94.
Hallam, G., & and Creagh, T. (2010). ePortfolio use by
university students in Australia: A review of the Australian
ePortfolio Project.
Higher Education Research and
Development
,
29
(2), 179–193.
Hrisos, S., Illing, J., & Burford, B. (2008). Portfolio
learning for foundation doctors: Early feedback on its use in
the clinical workplace.
Medical education
,
42
(2), 214–223.
Jenson, J. D. & Treuer, P. (2014). Defining the E-Portfolio:
What it is and why it matters.
Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning
, 46:2, 50–57.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios
for learning, assessment and professional development
in higher education.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education
,
31
(3), 267-286.
Leeson, J. & Williams, A. (2009).
e-Portfolios beyond
education and training
[report]. Dulwich, Australia:
Education.au Limited.
McAllister, S., Lincoln, M., Ferguson, A. & McAllister,
L. (2013).
COMPASS®: Competency assessment in
speech pathology assessment resource manual
(2nd ed.).
Melbourne: Speech Pathology Australia.
Limitations
There are several limitations to the study. First, it is
important to note that students could choose to complete
the questionnaire so the sample may be biased by students
with strong opinions. Second, respondent numbers were
small and the response rate was less than 50%. Third, the
teaching staff was learning the platform at the same time as
teaching the students, thus impacting the effectiveness of
the training particularly for the third and fourth years. Finally,
the students’ difficulties with the software platform may
have affected their other responses.
Implications
The following recommendations are made, based on the
literature and on SP students’ rating of the statements and
their free text answers:
•
The software platform chosen is crucial. It needs to be
(a) appropriate for the task requirements; (b) easy to
use and navigate; (c) able to share with external people
(such as employers); and (d) accessible when the
student leaves the university.
•
The learning tasks need to be meaningful with a clear
purpose and expectations to ensure students see the
ePortfolio as a learning tool.
•
The complexity and workload of tasks needs to
scaffolded through the course.
•
Students may benefit from specific skills teaching (e.g.,
reflection).
•
Students require training that is clear, concise, and
ongoing to ensure the technology is not a barrier to
learning.
•
The link between the student use of an ePortfolio and
future goals as a speech pathologist needs to be made
explicit often (e.g., with examples and reports from
graduates).
As a result of this study, a new software platform will
be piloted with a more scaffolded implementation of the
ePortfolio and a stronger link with future employment.
Further research into the perceptions of speech
pathologists using an ePortfolio for documenting evidence
for Certified Practicing Speech Pathology status would also
be useful.
Conclusion
This study is the first to investigate speech pathology
students’ perspectives of an ePortfolio embedded across a
SP course. Students generally engaged with the ePortfolio
and saw the value as an organisational tool, and to analyse
skills and set goals, but found the technology difficult and
the ePortfolio tasks unduly time-consuming. They did not
see the link with their future career as a speech pathologist,
perhaps due to the limitations of the software platform
chosen. Despite the limitations of the study, some useful
strategies have been suggested to enable the ePortfolio’s
value as a learning tool to be fully realised to increase the
positive perceptions for future use of ePortfolios in SP
courses. As a learning tool an ePortfolio may also be of use
for documenting evidence of ongoing learning as required
for professional self-regulation.
