JCPSLP Vol 16 no 3 2014_FINAL_WEB

Technology Students’ ratings of their comfort and confidence with new technology are shown in Table 2. The mean score across all three cohorts indicated students were typically comfortable with technology and confident they could “work it out”. This implies an electronic platform would not be a barrier to participation and engagement in learning. However, in response to statements about the ePortfolio technology in particular, students’ responses were mixed. They did not think the ePortfolio was too technologically challenging, but most cohorts found the template design, structure and the platform were difficult to use and navigate (Table 3). In free text answers each cohort stated the technology was the most difficult part of utilising the ePortfolio: “sometimes a page would upload, others it wouldn’t, no way of personalising it, the more you add the messier it gets” (third year); “the formatting can be complex and sometimes it doesn’t work” (fourth year). Suggestions for improvements included: having an easier platform for the ePortfolio, faster uploading of evidence, easier ways of making links and a clearer ePortfolio structure. Support and training Third- and fourth-year students were neutral or positive about the support and training given to use the ePortfolio, as shown in Table 4. Second-year students did not find the support documents helpful and were unsure of the evidence to collect. Table 4: Students’ perspectives of support and training Student cohort 2nd 3rd 4th I understand how to use the ePortfolio 3.0 3.0 4.1 I am given adequate support from staff to use the ePortfolio 3.5 3.6 4.1 I know how to get help if I need it with the ePortfolio 3.5 3.9 4.1 The support documents in the ePortfolio and on BlackBoard are helpful 2.8 3.4 3.7 I understand what type of evidence to collect 2.5 3.5 3.6

support and training given and the educational value of the portfolio (see Appendix). Some items were adapted from other questionnaires (Gardner & Aleksejuniene, 2008; Hrisos, Illing, & Burford, 2008). Free text questions asked students to identify the most useful components of the ePortfolio, the most difficult components and suggestions for improvements in the future use of ePortfolios. Analysis For the Likert-scale statements, the average of students’ responses was calculated, with a score below 3 being a negative response, 3 a neutral response and above 3 a positive response. The mean scores for each cohort were then calculated and interpreted with reference to free text responses. The three statements where this scoring is reversed are shaded in the tables. Results Of the 53 students invited, 25 students participated (overall response rate 47%) in the study, with 6 second-year students (response rate 43%), 11 third-year students (response rate 36%) and 8 fourth-year students (response rate 53%) completing questionnaires.

Table 2. Comfort and confidence with new technology

Student cohort

2nd

3rd

4th

When I have to use new technology I am: Very comfortable

2

2

1

Comfortable

3

5

5

Neutral

0

4

1

Uncomfortable

0

0

1

Very uncomfortable

1

0

0

When I have to use new technology I feel: Very confident I can work it out

2

0

1

Confident I can work it out

3

7

4

Neutral

0

3

3

Unconfident I can work it out

1

1

0

Very unconfident I can work it out

0

0

0

The feedback given on my ePortfolio has been useful and I have learned from it

Table 3. Students’ perspectives of the technology of ePortfolio Student cohort 2nd 3rd 4th The ePortfolio needs too much technological skills for me to use it 2.0 2.3 2.0 The ePortfolio is easy to use 3.5 3.0 3.7 The template design is easy to navigate and has a logical structure 3.0 2.5 2.7 The ePortfolio platform is easy to use and understand 2.5 2.6 3.6 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The shaded statement is negative therefore scores are interpreted differently.

3.0 3.3

3.3

Average : 3.8 Note. 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). 3.1 3.5

Suggestions for improvements were having clearer expectations for each year, giving more training and giving a booklet of step by step instructions for users. Students also wanted more information about evidence: a lot of great information and tutorials have been provided for the students ... More specific information about what is acceptable as evidence for third year, fourth year and the specific level of depth/information required would be useful. (fourth year)

141

JCPSLP Volume 16, Number 3 2014

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au