William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 18 | Comments: 0 | Views: 181
of 9
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research Fall 2007

CALL Application: Electronic Portfolio in the Second Language Classroom Cheng-Chieh, Lai
PhD Student in Educational Leadership The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education Prairie View A & M University Prairie View, Texas

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Professor and Faculty Mentor PhD Program in Educational Leadership The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education Prairie View A & M University Member of the Texas A&M University System Distinguished Alumnus (2004) Central Washington University College of Education and Professional Studies Visiting Lecturer (2005) Oxford Round Table University of Oxford, Oxford, England
ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the electronic portfolio in current second language teaching and learning. With the development of computer technology and the Internet, the electronic portfolio has become popular instruments in the second language instructions. An electronic portfolio is a personal document, an information tool, and a companion to second language learning. Through the use of electronic portfolios, the responsibility of learning is transferred to students. Students are no longer passively waiting for the teacher to give them directions and information. They become actively searching for needed information and learning experience, constructing their meaning, and determining what they need. For improving second language instructions, both teachers and learners should learn how to integrate electronic portfolios into their teaching and learning. __________________________________________________________________________

Introduction With the high development of computer technology and the Internet, the use of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs has now become a new tendency in the second language learning pedagogy. Educators recognize that utilizing CALL programs can be convenient to create both independent and collaborative learning environments and provide students with language experiences as they move through the various stages of second language acquisition (Kung, 2002; Rost, 2002; Taylor & Gitsaki, 2003). Electronic portfolios, one application of CALL programs, are often used as an instrument to record, present, and assess second language teachers’ teaching performances and students’ learning progresses and achievements. According to Lamb (2002), an electronic portfolio is a personal document, an information tool, and a companion to the second language learning. It enables all language proficiency and intercultural experience to be presented in a comprehensible, complete and internationally comparable way. It is also a sampling of the breadth and depth of a person’s work conveying the range of abilities, attitudes, experiences, and achievements. As we know, traditional portfolios have been paper products and artifacts, but with the development of computer technology and Internet, electronic portfolios have become increasingly popular instruments in the linguistic teaching and learning environment today. Therefore, how to integrate electronic portfolios into teaching and learning processes has become a significant issue in today’s second language classroom.

Purpose of the Article The purpose of this article will discuss what the electronic is, what advantages and disadvantages it has, and what influences it may bring to the second language instructions in order to second language teachers and learners can understand it and may use it to improve their second language teaching and learning.

What is the Electronic Portfolio? Heinich, Moldenda, Russell, and Smaldino (2002) describe a portfolio as a collection of student work that illustrates growth over a period of time. Portfolios often include such artifacts as student-produced illustrated books, video, and audiovisual presentations. In a research paper by Salzman, Denner, and Harris (2002), they report that almost 90 percent of American schools, colleges, and departments of education already used portfolios to evaluate students, staffs, and teachers now. Portfolios have become a common approach for documenting and assessing knowledge in a wide variety of fields, especially in education. According to Heinich et al. (2002), a portfolio may contain the following components: Written documents such as poems, stories, lesson plans, or research papers; Media presentations, such as slide sets or photo essays; Audio recordings of debates, panel discussions, or oral presentations; Video recordings of student's athletic, musical, or dancing skills;

Computer multimedia projects incorporating print, data, graphics, and moving images. However, with the rapid development of the Internet, educators began to note the benefits and importance of electronic portfolios (Ahn, 2004). Barrett (2000a) explains that an electronic portfolio is a cohesive, effective, and well-designed collection of electronic document. People often use it to demonstrate their skills and professional developments. It is also a creative means of organizing, summarizing, and sharing our ideas, beliefs and philosophies about second language teaching. On the other hand, focused on second language learning processes, it can be seen as a type of learning record that takes down actual evidences of second language learners’ achievements. Educators (Yancey, 2001; Greenberg, 2004) further indicate that electronic portfolios have many advantages than traditional, paper-based, portfolios. Traditional portfolios, such as files, binders holding papers, cassettes, and pictures, would take up lots of space. With electronic portfolios, information can be easily stored in a computer hard driver, floppy disc, CD, DVD or other electronic formats. It would take up very little physical space and would be accessed with minimal effort. In addition, electronic portfolios not only take up little physical space, but can hold a great deal of information. For example, pictures, art work, and writing articles can be all scanned in and saved; reading texts could be recorded; and even schools’ administrative documents could be managed in an effective way. Under these situations, electronic portfolios have replaced traditional portfolios gradually. According to Barrett (2000b), an electronic portfolio is not a haphazard collection of artifacts but rather a reflective tool that can demonstrate and record our personal growth over time. There are three main types of electronic portfolio: developmental, reflective and representational. A developmental electronic portfolio is a record of things that the owner has done over a period of time, and may be directly tied to learner outcomes or rubrics. A reflective electronic portfolio includes personal reflection on the content and what it means for the owner's development. A representational electronic portfolio shows the owner's achievements in relation to particular work or developmental goals and is, therefore, selective. The three main types may be mixed to achieve different learning, personal or work-related outcomes with the electronic portfolio owner usually being the person who determines access levels (Center of the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning, 2004). Compared with traditional portfolios, electronic portfolios allow students to gather not only traditional print documents or artifacts, but also a combination of presentations, videos, audios, and multimedia work. With the popularity of Internet and e-learning environment, more and more students publish their electronic portfolios in the Web. Garthwait and Verrill (2003) describe that electronic portfolios “are flexible, motivating, and extremely useful teacher tools that can address a range of needs from student assessment and professional development to creating connections between teachers, students, and parents” (Hewett, 2005, p. 27). The electronic portfolio creates a personal collection of thoughts and work that enhances the use and knowledge of technology, improves instructional practices and showcases the candidates for potential employers, students and students’ parents (Barootchi & Keshavarz, 2002).

The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Electronic Portfolio In today’s information society, the electronic portfolios have become an effective tool that deliveries information and pulls coursework, field experience, and professional growth activities together. According to LeLoup and Ponterio (2003), the first major advantage of electronic portfolios for academic classrooms is that student performance may be recorded in audio and video formats in a medium that is much easier to store, view, copy, and distribute than the traditional media- audio and video tape. The content of the electronic portfolios will be more appealing and attractive to audiences and easier to be extended due to the electronic characteristic. Students get more motivated by wide audiences due to the more accessible of electronic portfolios. Second, the responsibility of learning is transferred the students through the use of electronic portfolios. It allows them to get involved and engaged in the learning process and therefore keeps the focus on the learner-centered environment (Wickersham & Chambers, 2006). A paradigm shift in the past decade has changed the focus in education from a teacher-centered instructional environment to a student-centered one. Students are no longer passively waiting for the teacher to give them directions and information. They become actively searching for needed information and learning experience, constructing their meaning, determining what they need, and finding their ways to get solution in the learnercentered learning environment (Heinich et al., 2002). The use of electronic portfolios enables students to become more aware of themselves as active learners and to take ownership in the processes and outcomes of their own learning. Geer (2001) points out that the construction of electronic portfolios often leads to a positive learning experience and even great student achievement. Third, electronic portfolios enable individual to be evaluated on various different levels. For instance, electronic portfolios highlight all of an individual’s skill sets. As we know, although academics are extremely important for students, students’ individually working experience and extra curricular activities should be also highlighted in order to provide opportunities to students for understanding different dimensions. In a word, electronic portfolios can empower students to connect their formal education, work experience, and extra curricular activities. Students’ creation and reflection are not limited to one portfolio. They can create different portfolios to represent different aspects of their life experience to fit the needs of different audiences. Fourth, electronic portfolios can aid teachers to follow the progresses of their students which allow them to evaluate their own performance. Through electronic portfolios, teachers not only are easy to monitor students’ learning progresses, but also provide two-way feedback and interaction between teacher and students. Danielson and Abrutyn (1997) further describe that: Many people discover that one of the most important and long-lasting outcomes of producing a portfolio are the self-esteem that comes from recording and reflecting on achievements and career success. Experienced teachers and administrators are finding that the benefits of developing a portfolio include the opportunity for professional renewal through mapping new goals and planning for future growth. (pp. 9-10)

Fifth, electronic portfolios also serve to enhance both teachers’ and students’ computer and technology skills. The teacher and student would gain experience by creating, selecting, organizing, editing, and evaluating the electronic portfolios. In the same time, students would feel a sense of accomplishment and empowerment by displaying, sharing, and presenting their electronic portfolios to teachers, classmates, and parents. However, although there are many advantages of electronic portfolios, the application of electronic portfolios into the academic learning still has its limitations and disadvantages. One major disadvantage of using electronic portfolios is that students tend to emphasize form over substance. With a various functions or special effects provided by computer software, students often spend lots of time experiment with different layouts of the electronic portfolios instead of the content. The experience of putting together electronic contents for a simple learning activity could be quite time-consuming or even challenging for students. In addition, the hardware and software for creating electronic portfolios will increase educational costs and harm the equity of education. Computer hardware, software, and the Internet are three requisites for implementing electronic portfolios. But, when computers become a new basic requirement for student to purchase, low budget schools and lowincome students usually can not afford those expensive equipments. The fee of the Internet connection and expensive software also becomes the big obligations for schools and parents. It will cause unfair educational conditions for those poor schools and students. Moreover, creating electronic portfolios require certain technology knowledge. Students feel discourage and frustrated when they do not have the necessary technical skills to make the electronic portfolios work well. According to MacKinnon’s (1999) survey, the impact of this electronic environment on students’ attitudes reveals that students continue to require significant introduction to the technology in order to overcome the associated anxiety. The hardships encountered in implementing the electronic portfolio are worthwhile for students. Teachers also believe that the electronic portfolio contributed to the development of highly marketable educational technology skills among participating students and teachers, and how to update those new technology skills has become a heavy burden to students and teachers (Jacobsen & Mueller, 1998). Finally, the developing process of electronic portfolios often includes all of the complexities of the traditional portfolio process, such as collection, selection, reflection, and projection. Added to these are the additional complexities associated with designing, developing, and managing electronic information. However, students might use particular features of software regardless of their abilities to the task at hand. Without the focus of content itself and choose appropriate tool, bad design is still bad design whether the portfolio is done with technology or not.

Electronic Portfolio in Second Language Teaching and Learning Portfolios have been used as an assessment tool for learning reflection and interaction in the traditional second language classroom for a long period. As the rapid development of technology and Internet, more and more educators believe that electronic portfolios can offer more opportunities for multidimensional assessment and may be used to enhance and support the second language instructions (Little & Perclová, 2001; Barret,

2005c). In the study of Wade, Abrami, and Sclater (2005), they point out that there are several influences and benefits of using electronic portfolios in the field of second language education. Firstly, language learners are provided with opportunities to display good work to others by electronic portfolios. As we know, both interaction and communication are essential activities for second language acquisition. Through the performances of electronic portfolios, second language students can improve their target language skills and strengthen their self-esteem and self-concepts, such as presenting and writing. Students can share what they have learned by displaying the content of electronic portfolios with their classmates and teacher, which provide them the chance to get immediately feedback from others. The feedback and communication may come from email, messenger, or cell-phone without time and location limitations. These kinds of interaction and communication are helpful for developing students’ language learning. Secondly, electronic portfolios serve as an efficient vehicle for learning critical selfanalysis and self-assessment (Alhammar, 2006). While working on their electronic portfolios, students can learn how to control their own progress, set goals for their future studies, realize their own strengths and weaknesses in learning, and further identify the most efficient and suitable learning methods and contexts. Contrary to the traditional methods used in the second language learning, the use of electronic portfolios offers students practical opportunities to show and record the process of how they master their second language learning. Thirdly, the use of electronic portfolios is good for students organizing and sharing their learning materials and resources. For example, second language students can combine their multimedia materials, such as graphical images of artifacts and video of cultural ceremonies, to stimulate discussions and express their ideas in visually meaningful formats. They can share their work over the Web with their peers and friends at convenient times and locations. The experience of publishing and sharing context through electronic portfolios will bring positive feedback to students. As the result, it will motive them to take more time and efforts in their second language learning. Finally, electronic portfolios can help student across the gaps of cultures in their target language learning. Cultural issues play an important role in linguistics. Only understanding the target language culture, students just can apply the target language with good flexibility and gain the comprehension. Geer (2001) indicate that electronic portfolios for language learners is rounded off by a wide range of websites where users can find topical articles, language tests, exercises and audio elements on the individual magazine sites. When coupled with good instructional methods, the construction of web pages can often leads to a positive learning experience and even great student achievement. On the other hand, electronic portfolios are good for second language teaching. According to Mues & Sorcinelli (2000), a teaching portfolio is a coherent set of material that represents your teaching practice as related to student learning. Teaching practice in its broadest sense should be extended to include all activities that enrich and empower student learning. In a word, a teaching electronic portfolio varies considerably depending on teacher’s specific purpose, audience, institutional context, and individual needs. It presents a teacher’s teaching philosophy, teaching methods, and teaching strategies. Electronic portfolios for second language teachers can be as a developmental process for reflecting on and improving their teaching. Hutchings (1998) state that electronic portfolios can provide different sources of evidence of teaching performance; make teachers’

teaching more visible through their demonstration of a variety of teaching-related activities; and give teachers an opportunity to review about their own teaching strategies. Furthermore, electronic portfolios also offer opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively. Teachers can work with other colleagues or mentors in developing electronic portfolios, and, thus, can exchange their teaching approaches or views and strengthen their teaching skills and contents. As second language teachers, we have often relied primarily on student evaluations for feedback about our teaching. Mues & Sorcinelli (2000) indicate that although students’ reviews contribute important information about teaching performance, they often reflect offthe-cuff feelings expressed in just a few moments at the end of a semester. In this situation, a student’s evaluation to a teacher often is emotional, recalling, and uncaused. If teachers can create their teaching electronic portfolio, it will be a useful basis for student evaluating and reorganizing teachers’ teaching methods and contents.

Concluding Remarks In conclusion, the use of instructional technology to enhance teaching and learning is a current trend in the second language classroom today. Although the creating and maintaining of electronic portfolios are time-consuming endeavors, the rewards are well worth the efforts of teacher and students. By using the electronic portfolios, students are more attractive to the class materials and highly motivated in the learning process. Electronic portfolios in second language learning and teaching is continuous, formative, and diagnostic because it offers an elaborated system that can reflect the diversity and variation of second language skills in different situations and purposes (Chen, 2000). It also provides teachers evidences of their students’ learning processes and help students regularly examine their learning strategies. However, technology is just a tool or medium for instruction. It may enhance the teaching and learning processes, but still has its limitations. For example, no single assessment can provide complete evidence for each individual’s second language development. Using electronic portfolios to assess students’ second language learning processes and achievements is not good enough. In addition, an electronic portfolio can not operate by itself and cause the good learning results. Teachers still need to play the role of guider to help students focus on the plan, implementation, and evaluation of electronic portfolios.

References Ahn, J. (2004). Electronic portfolios: Blending technology, accountability & assessment. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://thejournal.com/articles/16706 Alhammar, A. (2006) Investigating electronic portfolio in pre-service teacher education in the gulf region. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://doc.utwente.nl/fid/4847 Barootchi, N. & Keshavarz, M. H. (2002). Assessment of achievement through portfolios and teacher-made tests. Educational Research, 44(3), 279–288. Barrett, H.C. (2000a). Create your own electronic portfolio. Learning & Leading with Technology, 27(7), 14-21.

Barrett, H.C. (2000b) Electronic portfolios = multimedia development + portfolio development: The electronic portfolio development process. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/EPDevProcess.html Barret, H. C. (2005c). White paper: Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/whitepaper.pdf Center of the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL) (2004). Teaching and learning portfolios: Thoughtfully presenting yourself for a successful faculty career. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from
http://www.delta.wisc.edu/workshops/Workshop%20docs/PortfGuidebook_9-2-04.doc

Chen, L. M. (2000). Portfolios in second and foreign language classroom assessment. English Teaching and Learning, 25(2), 28-47. Danielson, C. & Abrutyn, L. (1997) An introduction to using portfolios in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Garthwait, A. & Verrill, J. (2003). Electronic portfolios: Documenting student progress. Science & Children, 40(8), 22-27. Geer, G. C. (2001). Students constructing web pages: Does it affect educational outcomes? Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 61(7-A), 2534. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. & Smaldino, S. (2002). Instructional media and technologies for learning (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Incorporated. Hewett, S. (2005). Electronic portfolios: Improving instructional practices. Tech Trends, 48(5), 26-30. Hutchings, P. (1998). A course portfolio for a creative writing course. In P. Hutchings, (Ed.). The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice and student learning. (pp.85-90), Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Jacobsen, D. & Mueller, J. (1998). Creating a collaborative electronic community of education scholars. Paper presented at the Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference, Kapiolani Community College. Kung, S. C. (2002). A framework for successful key-pal programs in language learning, CALL-EJ Online, 3 (2). Retrieved August 4, 2007, from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6-2/SCKung.htm Lamb, A. (2002). Electronic portfolios: Students, teachers, and life long learners. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic82.htm LeLoup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (2003). Integrating technology in the foreign language classroom. Retrieved September 29, 2006, from http://www.cortland.edu/flteach/mm-course/digital-portfolios.html Little, D. & Perclová R. (2001). The European language portfolio: A guide for teachers and teacher trainers. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://culture2.coe.int/portfolio MacKinnon, G. (1999). Electronic portfolios in pre-service science education. Research Report presented at Acadia University (Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada) (ED437029). Mues, F. & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2000). Preparing a teaching portfolio. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from http://www.umass.edu/cft/publications/teachingportfolio.pdf

Rost, M. (2002). New technologies in language education: Opportunities for professional growth. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from http://www.longman.com/ae/multimedia/pdf/MikeRost_PDF.pdf Salzman, A., Denner, R., & Harris, B. (2002). Teacher education outcomes measures: Special study survey. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Talyor, R. P. & Gitsaki, C. (2003). Teaching WELL in a computerless classroom. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 16(4), 275-294. Wade, A., Abrami, P. C., & Sclater, J. (2005). An electronic portfolio to support learning. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), 33-50. Retrieved August 4, 2007, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.3/wade.html Wickersham, L., E., & Chambers, S., (2006). Eportfolios: using technology to enhance and assess student learning. Education, 126(4), 738-746. Yancey, K. B. (2001). Introduction: Digitized student portfolios. In B. Cambridge, S. Kahn, D. P. Tompkins, and K. B. Yancey (Eds.). Electronic portfolios: Emerging practices in student, faculty, and institutional learning (pp. 15-30). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Formatted by Dr. Mary Alice Kritsonis, National Research and Manuscript Preparation Editor, National FORUM Journals, Houston, Texas. www.nationalforum.com

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close