Author: Serena Bufton, s.a.bufton@shu.ac.uk

Author: Richard Pountney, r.p.pountney@shu.ac.uk

JISC e-Learning Activity Area: e-Portfolios

Higher Education Academy Subject Centre: Sociology, Anthropology and Politics

This case study illustrates...an effect on learning, an effect on student personal development, student satisfaction with e-learning, innovation in learning and teaching, an influence on educational research, staff satisfaction with e-learning, use of resources

Tangible Benefits

What tangible benefits did this e-learning approach produce?

As the e-portfolio was only introduced to students in February 2007, it is rather too soon to assess its impact in terms of student learning, satisfaction and retention rates. However, early findings from the initial focus-group meetings are encouraging. The attractiveness and ease of use of the package appears to have motivated many students to engage with it: as one comments, 'It's interactive. I'm a visual learner; I prefer it to reading. I like to see things and build on it and see what I'm doing and things like that rather than just listing words on a page.' At the very least, the tool inspired the students to collect all their work and feedback in one place. For example, one student commented:

'I think it's helpful that you have all your assignments and feedback together so you can compare them and see where your strengths and weaknesses are and if they overlap. It's helped me in that way.'

The integrative function implicit in this statement, and others like it, reveal the potential of the tool in promoting an integrated learning environment in a number of ways. In addition to aiding students to reflect on their progress across the range of modules, some students commented on the ease with which they could collaborate on group work and receive feedback from tutors and peers on work in progress. Typical comments from students are:

'You can use PebblePad to interact better.'

'..more feedback as you can share with more people.'

'Makes it easier for tutors to view and comment on work.'

'It has spurred us on to do more group work. We share PebblePad and it has, since then, made us ask each other to look at work.'

Further integration will take place both horizontally, across the level of study, and vertically across the three years of the degree, as more tutors at each level incorporate the e-portfolio in their modules and as students build up a portfolio to monitor and reflect on their academic progress. Some students have already anticipated these benefits:

'I think it's good: it keeps building over the three years and you don't just stop after this - you keep going with it.'

'Students could be encouraged to put personal experience, societies they have been members of and jobs on it so that when they leave University they have a record they can use for their CV.'

There are benefits for tutors and the institution in the implementation and embedding of this e-learning tool. At an institutional level, the e-portfolio, when fully integrated with the University's VLE, will fulfil HEFCE's requirement that all students have a progress file. In addition, the collaborative work on e-portfolio with other HE institutions, both nationally and internationally through the NCEPR, is enhancing the reputation of the University. At the course level, the benefits of e-portfolio learning and assessment are already evident: electronic PDP submission and provision of feedback to students have reduced the costs of these processes; the provision of ongoing feedback to students has reduced the burden of end-loaded marking; staff buy-in to the tool is enhancing interaction with, and between, students; and, importantly, there is evidence that PDP is moving from a 'bolt-on' to an embedded aspect of course design.

Did implementation of this e-learning approach have any disadvantages or drawbacks?

Very few pedagogic disadvantages have yet been identified. The introduction of the tool was time-consuming, both for tutors and students, however, and some students commented on this. The lack of integration of PebblePad with the institution's VLE was seen as a disadvantage by some students, although others liked this separation. In hindsight, it is clear that sufficient time has to be found for students to become familiar with the tool and adequate at-elbow support is necessary. Tutors also need to be trained to use PebblePad and this must be built into course design. For the innovation to be successful, e-portfolio should be embedded on as many modules as possible at all levels of the degree course and this requires substantial work in terms of introduction of the tool, discussion of its pedagogic benefits, re-working of the learning and assessment experience and the on-going support of tutors.

At an institutional level, as noted above, there is an issue about the use of an electronic tool that is not integrated into the VLE and not centrally funded. Costs of the introduction of PebblePad so far have had to be met by putting together funding from a range of sources, notably two of the institutional CETLs (Centre for Excellence in the Promotion of Learner Autonomy and Centre for Excellence in Employability). Whilst the costs of the tool have been met for two entire cohorts of students on three degree programmes, and whilst these students will have the tool until they leave the University, the future of e-portfolio for students entering these degree programmes during 2008/9 has yet to be determined.

How did this e-learning approach accord with or differ from any relevant departmental and/or institutional strategies?

Support for e-learning is a priority within the University and Faculty strategic action plans and there is much work being undertaken in this area. Centrally, within the institution, e-learning developments are taken forward by the Learning and Teaching Institute, which offers support to faculties and tutors in the implementation of this technology. At the faculty level, there is an e-learning teaching fellow with a small technical team which supports developments in this field. However, much of the work on e-learning is centrally-driven and the scope for innovation at programme and course level is necessarily limited by the costs of adopting packages which are not centrally supported. Despite this, course teams in three of the four faculties have adopted PebblePad, on a trial basis at least, and there is growing interest in it across these faculties. This indicates the widespread interest of teaching teams in the use of e-portfolio and a will to be innovative in course design where pedagogic benefits are envisaged.

Nevertheless, there is considerable resistance amongst some tutors towards e-enabled learning and assessment processes and this resistance often has a sound grounding in concerns about health and safety, staff workloads, and pedagogic priorities. It takes time to unpick these concerns; the embedding of PebblePad at all levels of the degree programme is not therefore assured and has to be worked towards.