Graphics Programs Reference
In-Depth Information
Review an e-Portfolio
be considered when describing and evaluating
FPL programs.
What is clear is that Web-based portfolio assess-
ment has the potential to create many perfor-
mances, such as monitoring the learning process,
self-inspecting the advantages and disadvantages
and improving development, and implicit re-
sponsibility of professionals, thereby facilitating
overall benefits in FPL. The electronic portfolio
has been increasingly used as an alternative profes-
sional assessment tool, an evidence-based practice
that delivers improved outcomes. Compared with
more traditional professional or learning assess-
ment of faculty members, the new mode of assess-
ment such as e-portfolio enhances the adoption
of deep approaches to learning. These approaches
require faculty members to relate, analyze, solve
and evaluate when creation of the e-portfolio is
part of their ongoing learning experiences.
Throughout this process, the e-portfolio is an
important tool with which to engage and motivate
staff learning to maintain high-quality practice.
However, when considering reasons for choosing
and adopting electronic portfolios as an approach
for FPL, some malleable factors should be taken
into consideration: “Personal factors, character-
istics of the innovation, and influences of the
individual's context will all shape the ultimate
(2)
Assessments to improve quality of faculty
members' teaching
. To offer a broader online
FPL program evaluation approach, blended
FPL programs may answer evaluation ques-
tions such as course design and implementa-
tion, changes in teaching beliefs and practice,
and impact on students. With regard to the
impact on students, Owston et al. (2008)
collected data from student perspectives,
speculating that the “Extent to which teach-
ers changed their practice is related to the
degree of impact on students” (Owston et
al., 2008, p. 209). Other authors also found
that “Student feedback can be a vital com-
ponent of a balanced evaluation process
utilizing instructor perceptions, student
performance (grades) and other criteria to
form a complete view of a blended learning
course” (Brew, 2008, p. 105). Finally, we
analysed students' perception of the class-
room climate to reveal directly the impact
of a blended FPL on participants and, indi-
rectly, their measurable quality (Villar &
Alegre, 2008).
Table 3. Means and standard deviations for quality scale items
Course I (N = 33)
Course II (N = 32)
Total (N = 65)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Relevance
1.60
1,36
1.21
1.15
1.31
0.95
Usefulness
1.71
0.90
1.71
0.90
1.48
1.04
Appropriateness
2.11
1.33
1.1
1.21
1.86
1.29
Adaptation
2.26
1.40
1.74
1.27
2.00
1.35
Tips
1.90
1.70
1.31
1.42
1.72
1.26
Structure
2.42
1.67
1.68
1.53
2.00
1.40
Pertinence
2.27
1.67
1.81
1.53
2.14
1.45
Reading
2.12
1.61
1.90
1.61
2.27
1.48
Impact
2.45
1.67
1.78
1.49
2.16
1.45
Time-Consumption
1.74
1.30
1.74
1.30
1.73
1.24
Search WWH ::
Custom Search